Commentary Prepared by Dr. Julia Lenaghan, Ashmolean Museum

C 042
Westmacott Ephebe. London

Marble
Statue
1.48 m

Bought in 1857. The provenance is unknown.
United Kingdom, London, British Museum, 1754
Antonine copy of a late fifth century original

Preservation:
The upper part of the palm tree support is restored. The left hand and the right knee are also possibly restorations. A piece on the inside of the left ankle of the figure has broken. The statue has been broken and repaired at both the ankles and the knees.

Description:
The statue depicts a naked youth who stands with his weight on his left leg. Alongside the left leg was a palm tree support. The right leg trails behind the left leg and the foot, the heel of which is raised, points to the right. The left hip is higher than the right hip and projects outward. The left arm rests by the side of the body; a strut attached to the left gluteus, supported the wrist. The right arm is raised and the right shoulder, in contrast to the right hip, is higher than the left shoulder. The head is turned to the right and inclined; it looks toward the right foot. The body is lean and has articulated details. The illiac furrow, the rib cage (at the sides), the alba linea, and the lateral muscles on the back are crisply modelled. The head has a flat cranium and an oval face face. The brow is low, rectangular, and broad. ; the cheeks are full and taper inward to the “U-shaped” chin. The eyes, under horizontal eyebrows, are small, narrow, and shaded by a heavy upper lid. The lips are small and the lower lip projects further than the upper lip. The hair is rendered in tiers of short locks that originate at the crown of the head in a “starfish” pattern. Within each lock two or three grooves delineate individual strands. The hair crosses the brow in a horizontal path that peaks slightly at the center. At the center of the brow is a small part; beyond the locks that separate to form the part on both sides are locks that turn inwards toward the central part. The ears are uncovered. At the back of the head at the height of the upper edge of the ear, there is an indentation between the end of one of the tier of locks and the beginning of another.

Discussion:
The statue is a copy of a type known as the “Westmacott Ephebe”; the name derives from the first owner of the British Museum statue. Including the British Museum statue, there are a total of four statues, thirteen torsos, and twenty heads preserved in the type. Both the head and the body strongly resemble works of Polykleitos. The head recalls all the head of the “Doryphoros”, the “Hermes”, and the “Herakles”; the body compares well the “Diadoumenos” and the “Sosikles Amazon”. Yet, the looser rhythm of the body and the left leg as weight leg combined with the right turn of the head diverge from the “Canon” of Polykleitos. Thus, the “Westmacott” Ephebe type is either classified as a late work of Polykleitos (von Steuben who acknowledges the difficulty) or as a work of the first generation of the “Polykleitan” school (Linfert). The similarity of the statue to the “Pouring Satyr” of Praxiteles has been noted both by Landwehr and Linfert; without the right shoulder, it is difficult to judge whether a torso copies the “Westmacott Ephebe” type or the “Pouring Satyr” type. This attests the influence of Polykleitos on Praxiteles. The subject and action of the “Westmacott Ephebe” type has provoked great scholarly attention. An old theory which connected the statue to a base for a boy victor named Kynsikos at Olympia has long been dismissed. Although the spacing for the feet on the plinth is feasible, the date of the inscription, before 450 BCE, makes it unlikely. The type has been variously interpreted as putting a crown or fillet on his head; holding a strigil; or holding a scale or knucklebones. The latter two possibilities are prompted mainly by Pliny (NH 34.55) who writes in his discussion of the works Polykleitos about the statues of two youths, one cleaning himself and the other playing with knucklebones. To complicate the discussion, the “Dresden Youth” type has been introduced as a pendant figure. Berger would interpret the “Dresden Youth” as the statue cleaning itself and the “Westmacott Ephebe” as the knucklebone-player described by Pliny. He does, however, add that originally the statues might have represented respectively Hermes and Kairos who held a scale since such a genre scene would have been impossible in the fifth century. Landwehr has recently suggested that a group of plaster cast fragments found at Baiae formed a statue of the “Westmacott Ephebe”; they are appropriate in scale, proportion, and subject. Among these is a right hand which held a small object between the index finger and the thumb; the other fingers are curled against the palm. She believes the hand gives greatest support to the general idea of Berger’s restoration; that is, an object dangled from the hand and the youth looked at it. Most recently, Linfert, without mention of the Baiae cast, has argued for the crown or fillet reconstruction. He points out that a head replica in the Soane collection has a metal crown, that some replicas have pronounced parting locks at the back of the head above the nape, and that the indentation where the cranium and neck meet is pronounced. Although this join is articulated on other statues of Polykleitos, the lowered and turned position of the head of the “Westmacott Ephebe” should lessen the indentation rather than heighten it. The London statue has been judged by Zanker to be one of the best copies for the evaluation of the structure of the body of the original. In its details it corresponds well with an equally reliable torso in Berlin. If, however, Landwehr is correct and the Baiae cast fragments do come from the “Westmacott Ephebe” statue, then the copies which show a slimmer less muscular body are closest to the original. For the reconstruction of the head the London statue has been judged to be among the most useful copies; it compares well with a late Hadrianic copy in St. Petersburg. Zanker does, however, point out the lower face of the London copy is narrower and has a smaller mouth than a copy in the Terme collection which may be closer to the original. Because of the handling of the face and body, Zanker dates the statue to the early Antonine period which has been accepted by other scholars.

Bibliography:
A.H. Smith, A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum III (London 1904) pp.106-108 no.1754
W. Helbig (H. von Steuben), Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertumer in Rom II (4th edition) (Tübingen 1966) nos.1786 and 1895 no.1786 notes difficulty with Polykleitan attribution of "Westmacott Ephebe", no.1895 considers it late work of Polykleitos
P. Zanker, Klassizistische Statuen (Mainz 1974) pp.19-21 pls.21.1,3; 22.1,4; 23.1; 24.1; 25.3; 26.7-8 considers London copy early Antonine and close to original
L. Beschi, "Gli 'Astragalizontes' di un Policleto" (Prospettiva 15 1978) pp.4-8 discussion of Pliny NH 34.55-56 and representations of games with knucklebones
E. Berger, "Zum Plinius (NH 34.55) Uberlieferten 'Nudus talo incessens' des Polyklet" (AntK 21 1978) pp.55-62 associates Westmacott type and Dresden type with passage in Pliny that describes youths playing at knucklebones.
C. Landwehr, Die antiken Gypsabgüsse aus Baiae (Berlin 1985) pp.94-100 nos.54-58 pls.56-57 attributes cast fragments, importantly a right hand, to Westmacott Ephebe, considers it impossible that held a crown or fillet, suggests that originally depicted a Greek genre figure which became a hero with political connotations in the Roman period
A. Linfert, "Die Schule des Polyklet" in Polyklet: Der Bildhauer der griechischen Klassik (Mainz am Rhein 1990) pp.245-247, 585-587 no.103 considers type of "Westmacott Ephebe" to be the work of first generation of school of Polykleitos
A. Linfert, "Aus Anlass neuer Repliken des Westmacottschen Epheben und des Dresdener Knaben" in Polyklet-Forschungen (Berlin 1993) pp.147-155, 156 no.2 complete replica list, asserts that statue wore crown or fillet, considers it to be work of school of Polykleitos.
B. S. Ridgway, "Paene ad Exemplum: Polykleitos' Other Works" in Polykleitos, the Doryphoros, and Tradition (Wisconsin 1995) pp.193-194 summarizes research, rejects identification with Pliny's knucklebone player