Commentary Prepared by Dr. Julia Lenaghan, Ashmolean Museum

C 044
Naked Youth in the so-called "Narcissus" or "Hyacinthus" Type. Louvre

Marble
Statue
1.07 m

The statue is from the Nile Delta area in Egypt and was found near the ancient settlement of Xois.
France, Paris, Louvre, Ma 457

Preservation:
The statue has been reassembled from numerous pieces. When originally found, it consisted of two major pieces; one included the head, the body, and the left leg and the other the feet and the base. Fragments of the limbs have been reattached. The pieces, even the pillar, are, however, all ancient. The penis is missing.

Description:
The statue depicts a naked boy who rests leaning on short pillar to his left. Some of the weight of the statue is on the right leg. The bent left leg trails behind and the left foot is angled toward the left. A strut connects the outside of the left thigh with the pillar. The upper body leans toward the left and the remainder of the body of weight of the statue is supported by the left arm which rests on the pillar in a completely vertical position. Because the upper body leans toward the left and the upper arm is vertical, the space between the inclined body and the vertical arm and pillar increases near the feet. The left hand sits flat on the top of the pillar with the heel of the hand facing the viewer. The height of the pillar which arrives at the upper thigh of the boy forces the arm slightly upward from its normal resting position. The left shoulder is, therefore, raised. The right arm is lowered and bent at the elbow. The upper arm extends downwards, backwards, and slightly away from the body. The forearm extends downwards and towards the body. The right hand rests at the back of the hip with the heel of the hand again facing forward and the fingers lying over the upper portion of the butthock. The body itself is smooth, does not feature developed muscles, and lacks pubic hair. The head turns toward the left and virtually lies on the raised left shoulder. The face has a long oval face, which is broadest between the cheek bones. The brow has a convex form and the eyes are deeply set. The lips are fine and without a bow shape; the lower lip projects further than the upper lip. The hair is rendered in wavy locks which have curly ends. It originates at the top of the head in a “starfish” pattern and then falls in tiers. The locks part at the center of the brow and they cover the tops of the ears. Both on the brow and in the ears unruly ends of locks turn in different directions.

Discussion:
The statue in the Louvre from Egypt is a copy of a type of which there are approximately forty other copies preserved (at last count Landwehr says over forty). The type was, thus, undeniably popular in the Roman Empire. The original, which has undisputed similarities in posture and hair to works made by Polykleitos, is generally considered to have been a creation of the “school of Polykleitos” near the end of the fifth century. Only Ridgway (p.191) has voiced any recent objection to this. She wonders whether the type was not a later variation rather than an earlier prototype. In the Roman period, the statue type, which leans on the pillar of a palestra, is used for grave statues; on three occasions has associations to Venus (it holds out an apple); appears on gems with Venus or Artemis; on one occasion features wings in the hair (Karlsruhe), and on another occasion holds the ends of a fillet. The subject of the original is, therefore, not at all clear. The most long-standing identification of the statue type is Narcissos. But Furtwangler had suggested Adonis and Arnold has proposed Hyacinthos, the beloved of Apollo who was accidentally killed by a discos. This identification explains not only the use of the type as a grave statue but also the idea of young athlete in a palestra. Arnold, moreover, notes that the hometown and sanctuary of Hyacinthos were near Argos from where Polykleitos and perhaps his school came. Other scholars believe that the original was simply a grave statue (M.Collignon and A. Mahler) and yet others that it was an honorific statue of an athlete (Schuchhardt and Vermeule). Recently Vierniesel Schlorb, citing the fillet held in the hand of a copy of the type now in New York and using Arnold’s argument that athletes did not necessarily have to have attributes, considers the original statue to have represented a tired young athlete. The various interpretations of the type she believes to be Roman adaptations. The date of manufacture of the Louvre copy is contested. Linfert compares it to the Westmacott Epebe in London, which he sees as similar, and consequently, dates the statue to the mid second century. Arnold considers it to be Claudian.

Bibliography:
E. Michon, "Adolescent au Repose" (MonPiot 1 1894) pp.115-116 pl.17 gives details of original location and preservation which are repeated by other scholars
D. Arnold, Die Polykletnachfolge (Berlin (JdI Erg 25) 1969) pp.252-253 no.1 pl.4, also pp.252-259 and 92-93 cites Louvre statue first in replica list and dates it to Claudian period, gives replica list with 37 replicas, proposes Hyacinthos as identity of original
P. Zanker, Klassizistische Statuen (Mainz 1974) p.26 brief summary of the "Narcissos" type which he believes dates to the late fifth century
B. Vierneisel-Schlörb, Katalog der Skulpturen Band II: Klassische Skulpturen des 5 und 4 Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Munich 1979) pp.199-200 discussion of the type and subject of the original
C. Landwehr, Die antiken Gypsabgüsse aus Baiae (Berlin 1985) pp.100-101 no.A uses the Louvre statue as an example of the type with which she connects cast fragments from Baiae
(A. Linfert), Polyklet: Der Bildhauer der griechischen Klassik (Mainz am Rhein 1990) pp.599-600 no.123 dates the Louvre statue to the second century AD
A. Linfert, "Die Schule des Polyklet" in Polyklet: Der Bildhauer der griechischen Klassik (Mainz am Rhein 1990) p.248 considers the type to be the most important work of the school of Polykleitos
B. S. Ridgway, "Paene ad Exemplum: Polykleitos' Other Works" in Polykleitos, the Doryphoros, and Tradition (Wisconsin 1995) p.191 expresses doubt as to whether the prototype of the type dates to the fifth century