Commentary Prepared by Dr. Julia Lenaghan, Ashmolean Museum

C 004
Nude Male Torso in a 5th c. Style. Boston

Marble
Statuette
58 cm

From Rome.
United States, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 22.593

Preservation:
The head, the arms, and the legs from the knees down are missing. The statue is broken in two pieces at the navel and there is a chip from a pick below the right shoulder blade. The arms, perhaps broken already in antiquity, were refastened to the body by dowels and clamps. At the left hip is a remnant of a strut which presumably extended to the left hand. On the right upper thigh is a break surface where previously there had been a support, presumably for the right hand.

Description:
The statue portrays a young male from the shoulders to the knees. The weight rests on the right leg; the right hip projects slightly and the left leg is slightly advanced. The shoulders are broad and thrown back. The waist is tapered. From the placement of the struts, we can determine that the right arm would have rested along the side of the body and the left, which would have been bent, also rested along the side of the body. The torso is rendered in a naturalistic manner.

Discussion:
The statue is considered a fine Roman copy of an original datable to the fifth century BCE. This assessment is based primarily on two facts (cf.Richter). First, the struts, which extend from the body to the arms, are particularly Roman. Second, the navel is rendered as a simple depression rather than as a knob inside a depression which is characteristic of fifth century originals. The date actually assigned to the statue depends on a comparison to the "Kritios Boy". Because the anatomy of this statue is more developed, it has been given a slightly later date.

Bibliography:
G.M.A. Richter, Kouroi: Archaic Greek Youths (London 1970) pp.148, 150-151 no.196 figs.582-584
C. Vermeule and M. Comstock, Sculpture in Stone: The Greek, Roman, and Etruscan Collections of the Museum of Fine Arts Boston (Boston 1976) p.19 no.29
J. Hurwit, "The Kritios Boy: Discovery, Reconstruction, and Date" (AJA 93 1989) pp.77-78 considers the statue to be a Roman copy of an early fifth century bronze