Commentary Prepared by Dr. Julia Lenaghan, Ashmolean Museum

C 054
Farnese Diadoumenos. London

Marble
Statue
1.48 m

Probably from Italy. The statue was formerly part of the Farnese collection
United Kingdom, London, British Museum, 501

Preservation:
The nose and part the fillet have been restored. The previously restored left arm has been removed. The penis is missing. The right leg has been worked over in the modern period.

Description:
The statue depicts a naked youth who is binding a fillet around his head. He stands with his weight on his right leg which is straight and tense. Along the outside of the right leg and attached near the the top of the thigh, is a palm tree trunk support. The left leg is bent and turns outward; the entire left foot rests on the ground. The left hip is slightly lower than the right hip. The right upper arm extends downward and away from the body. The right forearm is raised and moves back toward the body. The right hand holds the fillet above the right shoulder. The left upper arm extended away from the body. The left hand would have held the other end of the fillet. The head looks to the left. The body is small, slim, and without hard musculature. The legs and arms have little muscle definition. The illiac furrow and the abdominal area are the only articulated areas of the body. Despite the generally ephebic appearance of the body, the pubic hair is heavy and curly. The face is small. Its upper limit is defined the brow by the broad fillet which crosses the brow horizontally. The brow projects increasingly until it ends at the eyebrows. The eyebrows slope downward from the nose. The eyes below are wide and the lower lids reach the lowest point in their arc near the outer corner of the eye. The mouth is laterally small but has full perfectly “bow-shaped” lips. The wavy hair originates at the crown and has no part. It is full of volume and, thus, springs out below and above the broad fillet which is wrapped tightly against the head. The fillet features two decorative engraved lines, one near the top border and the other near the bottom border. It is knotted at the back of the head. The hair covers the tops of the ears and reaches well down the cheek in front of the ears. The locks of hair are not carefully distinguished but blend into a voluminous mass.

Discussion:
In 1940 Poulsen recognized that this small statue was not strictly related to the “Diadoumenos” of Polykleitos. He noted the changes in the pose and the greater realism as signs of a Neo-Attic work. Zanker confirms this opinion. He believes that the statue is a conscious re-working of Polykleitos’ “Diadoumenos”. Particularly changed or improved details include: The free leg points further outward and comes forward; the stance is more relaxed; the right upper arm stays closer to the body; and the head is tilted upward. In addition, the statue is smaller and generally younger-looking. The definition of the body is softer than that of Polykleitos’ “Diadoumenos”. The face has a child-like mouth and wide eyes which give it a sentimental aspect. At 1.48 m the statue is the canonical height for a statue of an ephebe. Uncharacteristic for a statue of a youth, however, is the full pubic hair. Even though there are no replicas of the type which would immediately suggest that this statue was based on a specific model, Zanker concludes that the statue is a copy. He believes that it is a copy of a classicizing work, probably created in the first century BC. He arrives at this conclusion because of the high quality of the Farnese statue, two torsos (Kassel and one formerly in the Landsdowne House in London) which similarly show younger versions of the “Diadoumenos”, and two statuettes which also show a younger form with pubic hair. He mentions also a small torso in Berlin which again repeats the younger look. In contrast, Linfert considers the statue to be a sculptor’s “invention” developed from Polykleitos’ Diadoumenos. He uses the numerous but always different variations of the head of Polykleitos’ Diadoumenos as proof that the type was often used as the basis for new creations. Zanker dates the Farnese statue to the Antonine period. He compares the fluffy unsubstantial hair to the treatment of the hair in portraits of Antoninus Pius. This date is accepted by Linfert.

Bibliography:
P. Zanker, Klassizistische Statuen (Mainz 1974) pp.13-14 no.11 pls.8.2-3; 9.1-4; 10.1-2; 12.1; 13.3; 14.2-4; 15.3 Antonine work which copies a classicizing original of the first century BC
D. Kreikenbom, Bildwerke nach Polyklet (Berlin 1990) pp.113-114 and 189 no. V 6 early Antonine work which is an "invention" based on Polykleitos' Diadoumenos