Commentary Prepared by Dr. Julia Lenaghan, Ashmolean Museum

C 037
Copy of Polykleitos’ Diadoumenos from Vaison. London

Copy of Polykleitos’ Diadoumenos from Vaison Marble Statue 1.85 m without plinth Originally from Vaison-la-Romaine. Found in a basin southeast of the theater London, British Museum 500 The statue is one of the two completely preserved Roman copies of a famous fifth century bronze statue (ca. 440-420 BC) made by the sculptor Polykleitos. The statue, depicting an athlete binding a ribbon around his head, is known as the Diadoumenos which is Greek for ribbon-binder. The face and right arm of this particular Roman copy do not reproduce the original model exactly. This can be seen by comparing the statue to the other complete copy, now in the Athens National Museum, and to two heads of the type, now in Dresden and Kassel, all of which are on display in the Cast Gallery.

Marble
Statue
1.85 m without plinth

From Vaison la Romaine. Where exactly the statue was found is debated. It was certainly not in the Theater and was likely to have been found in a basin southeast of the Theater.
United Kingdom, London, British Museum, 500

Preservation:
There are breaks in the stomach, the arms, and in the throat. There are many repairs. In regard to the head, the brow, the left eye, and right ear are badly battered. The lips are worn and the chin has chips.

Description:
The statue depicts a naked youth who is in the act of 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 above the knee, is a tree trunk support. The left leg is withdrawn and bent. Only the toes of the left foot touch the ground; the rest of the foot rests on a marble wedge. The left hip is lower than the right hip but the left shoulder is higher than the right shoulder. The right upper arm extends downward and away from the body. The right forearm is raised and moves back toward the body. The left upper arm extends slightly downwards and to the left of the body. The left forearm folds over the upper arm and reaches upward towards the head. The head tilts downwards and to the left. The body is muscular and lean. The linea alba curves in a smooth arc from the head (to the right of center) to the navel (to the right of center). The illiac furrow (line from the hip to the groin), the rib cage, the abdominals, and the area around the throat and shoulders (the clavicle, trapezius, and deltoids) are clearly articulated. The face has long oval shape with tight slim cheeks and narrow lower face. The brow is traversed horizontally by the broad fillet which encircles the head. The eyes are small and shadowed by a broad upper eyelid. The lower eyelid is particularly slack and has drooping form. The mouth is small. The upper lip has barely any volume and the lower lip is full and bulges forward. The wavy hair, which leaves the ears uncovered, is short and clings to the head. The locks, which originate at the crown, are defined by engraved lines and there is no indication of individual strands. Encircling the head running above the ears and across the brow is a broad flat fillet which is wrapped tightly around the head.

Discussion:
The statue is the one of the two most complete copies (the other is from Vaison, now in London) of a much copied bronze original of the late fifth century. The original is almost without doubt a statue made by Polykleitos and known as the “Diadumenos” (see above cat.no.C 36). Although it is one of the two most complete copies of the “Diadumenos”, the Vaison statue does not feature prominently in discussions of Polykleitos’ “Diadumenos” for two reasons. First, the damaged head of the statue is interpreted not as a copy of the “Diadumenos” but as reworked (Vierneisel-Schlorb and Kreikenbom “uberarbeitet”) or a deliberate variation (“Umbildung” Zanker) of the original model. The hair lacks the volume, particularly under the fillet, of the original; nor does it copy the pattern of the locks. The face is also longer and narrower with eyes that are differently formulated, a smaller mouth, and a shorter mouth. Second, the arms are positioned slightly differently than the arms of the copies which are deemed to resemble the original most. The left upper arm is lower than the left arm of the statue from Delos and the forearm does not fold quite as tightly back over the upper arm. The right upper moves less to the right and the right forearm is more vertical than the respective parts of the right arm of other copies of the “Diadumenos”. Lauter thought the statue dated to the late Republican period because he noted that the alleged place of discovery featured second style wall painting, that the eyes resembled those of Republican portraits, and that the body, lacking the swollen fleshiness of imperial copies, was similar to the Naples statue of the “Doryphoros” from Pompeii (cat.no. C 32) which he considered to be late Hellenistic. Zanker dated the statue to the late Tiberian or Claudian period because of the handling of the hair and the eyes. Kreikenbom placed the statue in the late Claudian or Neronian period because he believed the shape of the head and face to be similar to portraits of that era.

Bibliography:
H. Lauter, Zur Chronologie romischer Kopien nach Originalen des V. Jhr. (Bonn 1968) pp.57, 62-63 not found in the theater but in so-called "Portico of Pompeii" decorated with 2nd style painting, sees similarities to late republican portraits and Naples “Doryphoros” from Pompeii
T. Lorenz, Polyklet (Wiesbaden 1972)
P. Zanker, Klassizistische Statuen (Mainz 1974) pp.11-13 and 16 no.14 the body is a good replica, the head is a remodelling of original datable to the late Tiberian or Claudian
B. Vierneisel-Schlörb, Katalog der Skulpturen Band II: Klassische Skulpturen des 5 und 4 Jahrhunderts v. Chr. (Munich 1979) p.189 footnote 1 full bibliography, considers the statue hard and schematic and in part re-worked
M. Fuchs, Untersuchungen zur Austtatung romischer Theater in Italien und den Westprovinzen des Imperium Romanum (Mainz am Rhein 1987) p.187 footnote 654 note about findspot which is not the theater
D. Kreikenbom, Bildwerke nach Polyklet (Berlin 1990) p.113 and 189 no.V.5 stylistic evaluation, dates to the late Claudian or Neronian period