Sadurska, Anna

Propylaeum-DOK

Polykleitos in Poland
(Tafel 47-48)
Anna Sadurska
Mit Professor Wolfgang Schindler verband mich 
eine offenherzige Freundschaft. Wir verstanden 
sehr gut die uns in den Jahren 1970 bis 1990 
bedrangenden Schwierigkeiten, und wir halfen 
uns gegenseitig nach Moglichkeit. Wir haben 
einen regelmaBigen Austausch von Studenten- 
gruppen und von Professoren zwischen unseren 
Instituten organisiert, hatten also viele Gele- 
genheiten, uns in Warschau und in Berlin zu tref- 
fen. Unsere letzte Begegnung fand jedoch im Lie- 
bieghaus - Museum Alter Plastik in Frank­
furt/Main statt.
Peter Bol hatte dort eine Ausstellung »Poly- 
klet - der Bildhauer der Griechischen Klassik« 
veranstaltet. Wir beide waren dazu eingeladen 
worden, ebenso wie zum Symposion liber Poly- 
klet. Das war in der zweiten Januarhalfte 1991. 
Mein Vortrag ist somit eine Erinnerung an unsere 
Freundschaft geworden, und deswegen publiziere 
ich ihn hier als bescheidene Gabe fur meinen ver- 
storbenen Kollegen.
Habent suafata monumenta - it is the motto of my 
article. I ought to justify it, because it seems to be 
rather unfamiliar to the subject. We all however, 
the historians of Antiquity in the large meaning of 
the word, are conscious that sometimes the histo­
ry of one piece is more interesting than the object 
itself. It is the case, alas, of the polycletic sculp­
tures in my country.
For many reasons which I will try to explain 
later the Argive artist was never popular in Po­
land, neither in the world of Fine Arts, nor among 
the classical archaeologists. The first reason is 
easy to understand. The main masterpieces show­
ing the achievements of Polykleitos such as the 
Doryphoros statue of Pompeii and the Diadume- 
nos were recognized in the sixties of the 19th cen­
tury1. It was a period very hard to the Polish peo­
ple, just before and immediately after the unsuc­
cessful Insurrection of 1863, with all the conse­
quences of the defeat, such as closed universities, 
confiscated collections and the best people forced 
to emigrate.
The second reason is more complicated, and I 
shall show it by the way of the example. I mean an 
essay published in 1929 by our great master Kazi-
R. M. Schneider, Polyklet: Forschungsbericht und An- 
tikenrezeption, in: Polyklet. Der Bildhauer der griechi­
schen Klassik, Exhibition Cat. Frankfurt/Main (1990) 
480 notes 125-129 and 140f.
mierz Michalowski2. It was an article in Polish, 
entitled: »Pheidias and Polykleitos. An Attempt 
of Characteristics Michalowski, at the time deep­
ly influenced by Freudism, tried to use this theory 
for a psychological analysis of both artists. His 
aim was to explain on this basis the contrast be­
tween two very different careers. The Polish 
archaeologist presented at first Pheidias, showing 
him as a rich and glorious Athenian gentleman, 
proud of his achievements and fond of earthly 
pleasures. Michalowski underlined also his quali­
ties as a great manager of public works and his 
ability to create the statues of goddesses which 
were not free of sensuality. Polykleitos was pre­
sented as a modest inhabitant of the provincial 
Doric city, with rather limited gains, not inter­
ested in changing his way of life. His creativity 
was equally limited, confined as it was to one type 
of statues. His attempts to create female images 
were unsuccessful with only one exception - the 
Amazon. This case is of course understandable 
because the militant virgin ex definitione should 
be deprived of the female character.
As I see now, after so many years, Micha­
lowski considered Pheidias as an »alter ego«. He 
judged the Argive sculptor to be a rather provin­
cial artist, who deserves a high esteem for his 
theoretical and practical achievements but does 
not attract any warm feelings. Such an image, 
based partly on ancient sources, could not excite 
either sympathy to, nor special interest in the 
creator of the Kanon.
On the other side, one of the greatest Greek 
artists, loved or not, could not remain unknown in 
particular among the sculptors and painters, the 
young artists and fellows of the Art Academies 
trained on the classical models.
Now we reach the main subject of my article, 
namely the material remainders of Polykleitos’ 
activity still existing in Poland and their history.
It begins in the second half of the 18th century 
when our last king Stanislaus Augustus founded 
the first Polish Academy of Fine Arts and im­
ported from Italy a lot of plaster casts of the most 
famous ancient pieces3 *. He was helped by the
2 K. Michalowski, Fidiasz i Polyklet. Proba charaktery- 
styki czlowieka, in: Sprawozdania Towarzystwa Nauko- 
wego Warszawskiego [=Pheidias and Polykleitos. An
Attempt of Characteristic, in: Reports of the Warsaw 
Scientific Society] 22, 1929, 75-98.
' M. Korotaj - T. Mikocki, Odlewy gipsowe rzezb staro- 
zytnych w Starej Pomarariczarni w Warszawskich La-
Originalveröffentlichung in: Detlef Rössler, Veit Stürmer, (Hg.), Modus in Rebus. Gedenkschrift für Wolfgang Schindler, Berlin 1995, S. 160-162
POLYKLEITOS IN POLAND 161
Pope Clement XIV who offered about three hun­
dred such models. This way the Amazon Mattei 
arrived to Warsaw in 1774. This cast is now ex­
posed in the gallery of the ancient royal palace 
called the Baths (tazienki).
Stanislaus Augustus founded not only the 
Academy of Fine Arts and one of the best Eu­
ropean collections of casts but also a studio to 
produce the forms and the mouldings on the spot. 
A bust of the same Amazon Mattei which was 
located in the same royal gallery was probably 
made there.
All other casts of Polykleitos’ masterpieces 
were bought in the second half of the 19th cen­
tury, partly by the Scientific Society of Warsaw, 
and in our century by the Museum of Fine Arts. 
All the casts were bought in Dresden. This way 
our collection was enriched by the following 
pieces: an Amazon of the type Sciarra, after the 
statue now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 
found at Rome in 1771, at first in Lansdowne 
House; Diadumenos Farnese, after the Ana- 
dumenos in the British Museum, made when the 
statue still possessed its modern addition - the left 
arm; and Doryphoros (which is now in two 
pieces). Its dimensions suggest that the cast corre­
sponded not to the original model, but rather to a 
reconstruction made probably in Dresden, on the 
basis of the Pourtales Torso and the Pompeian 
statue4.
When speaking of the casts it is difficult to 
omit the collection of the bronzes made for the 
city of Stettin at the beginning of our century 
under the direction of Adolf Furtwangler, and 
since 1948 in the National Museum of Warsaw. 
To this collection belong 5 copies presenting re­
constructions of Polykleitos’ sculptures: the Dory­
phoros, its herm, the Amazon of the type >Sosi- 
kles< after the piece in the Museo Capitolino, 
Salone 33, the head of the Amazon of Naples and 
the Ephebos Westmacott, so called Kyniskos.
The last one and the Doryphoros are recon­
structions. The Ephebos was made after the statue 
in the British Museum with the right hand re­
stored. His head is that of Hermitage, found in 
Rome, brought in the 18th century into the collec­
tion Lyde Brown, bought in England by Cath­
erine II. The Doryphoros is formed after the Pour- 
tales Torso, the Pompeian statue and the herm of 
Apollonios5.
zienkach [=The Plaster Casts of the Ancient Sculptures 
in the Old Greenhouse at the Warsaw Lazienki Park] 
(1989)9-16.
4 Ibidem 2If. no. 27 fig. 27 (the Amazon Mattei); no. 28 
fig. 28 (the bust); no. 29 (the Amazon Sciarra); no. 30 
fig. 30 [=Diadumenos Farnese]; 19 nos. 13-14 figs. 13- 
14 (Doryphoros). Cf. for the last three pieces: G. Rud- 
loff-Hille. Katalog der Gipsabgiisse. Dresden (1953) 69 
no. 103; 71 no. 105 (called Anadumenos); 69 no. 101.
5 Schneider op. cit. 484f. notes 230-249 fig. 267. Inv. nos. 
at the National Museum of Warsaw: Doryphoros MN 
138452, Amazon Sosikles type MN 138450, Ephebos
Before I discuss the ancient pieces I ought to 
present the literature of the subject. An article by 
Olga Hirsch, Three Roman Copies of Polycleitos’ 
Works in Poland, published in 1966, opens the 
list6. Maria Bernhard in 1970 in her handbook of 
Greek Art and Kazimierz Michatowski in his two 
guides on the Gallery of Ancient Art in Warsaw 
(published in 1949 and 1955) mentioned some 
pieces7. The collection of Fritz von Fahrenheid at 
Beynuhnen was published by Bernhard Schweit­
zer in 19298 and that of Guthmann and Zim- 
mermann at Mittelschreiberhau (Szklarska Po- 
rqba) was described by K. Gebauer in the series 
XV A of Einzelaufnahmen9 10 11. Some pieces are men­
tioned in the catalogue of Liebieghaus Exposition 
of 1991, and one critical remark of D. Kreiken- 
bom concerns two pieces treated by Olga 
Hirsch1". Last but not least, I should mention 
Tomasz Mikocki who is preparing the 3rd vol­
ume of CSIR Pologne which concerns the Roman 
copies. I am very grateful to him for making 
available to me his unpublished manuscript and 
other materials.
My critical opinion on the quality of our sculp­
tures does not refer to the Amazon’s head (pi. 47) 
which was exposed in 1991 at Liebieghaus. To 
the text of the exposition catalogue I would add a 
piece of information which seems to be impor­
tant, found by Schweitzer in the Fahrenheid’s 
documents, namely about the supposed prove­
nience of the head »aus den Kaiserpalasten« in 
Rome".
All the other pieces are fragments which be­
longed to the Roman copies of male statues. Since 
their chronology is not certain I will list them here 
according to the dates of particular collections. 
The oldest one was formed in the second half of 
the 18th century by Princess Helen Radziwill. Its 
history is complicated. The princess has never
Westmacott MN 138451, Amazon’s head MN 138474, 
Doryphoros herm of Apollonios MN 138475. For the 
Kyniskos problem cf. A. Linfert in: Polyklet (note 1) 
585.
6 O. Hirsch, Three Roman Copies of Polycleitos’ Works in 
Poland, in: Melanges offerts a Kazimierz Michatowski 
(1966) 451-456.
7 M. L. Bernhard, Sztuka Grecka V wieku [=Greek Art of 
the 5th century] (1970) 248; K. Michatowski, Zbiory 
Sztuki Starozytnej, Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie, 
Przewodnik [=The Collection of Ancient Art, National 
Museum of Warsaw. Guide] (1949) 64. 81; Sztuka Staro- 
zytna, Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie [=Ancient Art, 
National Museum of Warsaw] (1955) 43-48. 120. 182 
fig. 25.
8 B. Schweitzer, Antiken in ostpreuBischem Privatbesitz, 
Schriften der Konigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Gei- 
steswiss. K1.6, H.4, 1929, 157-161 (5-9) no. 1 (the Ama­
zon’s head, now MN 198713).
9 K. Gebauer, EA Ser. XV A (1934) nos. 3908 and 3907 
(resp. MN 199612 and 199613).
10 D. Kreikenbom, Bildwerke nach Polyklet (1990) 80 note 
296 (the torsos MN 199612 and DMNKCz 1971).
11 Schweitzer op. cit. 157 (5).
162 Anna Sadurska
been in Italy. Although she was quite rich, she 
could not buy any ancient objects because her 
husband was not fond of the classical art anyway. 
Fortunately enough, Helen was a friend of the 
empress Catherine II and of her two successors. 
One of them presented the princess with a lot of 
sculptures probably of the collection Lyde Brown 
and certainly of Roman provenience. Among 
many unpublished pieces of the Radziwill collec­
tion Tomasz Mikocki found the pasticcio com­
posed of the Venus head and of the viril torso 
which, as he believes, belonged to the statue of 
Narkissos or of the »Ephesischer Schaber« type 
(pi. 48,1). If his judgement is right the torso repre­
sents a Roman copy of the Greek original made at 
the time of the first generation after the Argive 
master12. We appreciate this collection because it 
remained on the spot more than 200 years - some­
thing exceptional in our country. Nevertheless, 
we are aware that its value is not very high. The 
collection of another Polish amateur, count Artur 
Potocki, bought in Italy in 1830, was much richer. 
Some 90 sculptures forming this lot were destined 
to be placed in a greenhouse of the castle Krze- 
szowice, near Cracow. Artur Potocki himself or 
his agent chose many pieces restored, or rather the 
pasticcios which suited well enough to form the 
symmetrical groups so beloved in that period. 
One of these pieces, a Hermes statue, was com­
posed of an ancient torso and many later ele­
ments. This torso was published by Olga Hirsch 
as a roman copy of Doryphoros, but according to 
Tomasz Mikocki the copyist rather imitated the 
Diskophoros type13.
In the same collection, among the inedita, Mi­
kocki found a torso (pi. 48,2) probably based on a 
Greek model similar to Diskophoros or to the so 
called Omphalos Apollo14.
In the collection of the German doctors Guth- 
mann and Zimmermann placed at their house in 
the village Mittelschreiberhau (Szklarska Por^ba) 
were two torsos (since 1946 in the National Muse­
um of Warsaw), both published by K. Gebauer. 
One of them (pi. 48,3) he judged to be a copy of 
Polykleitos’ work »Typus Munchener Statue aus 
schwarzem Marmor« (Glyptothek, Inv. 458). 
Georg Lippold however, in his handbook of Greek
12 T. Mikocki, Najstarsze kolekcje starozytnosci w Polsce 
[=The Oldest Polish Collections of Antiquities] (1990) 
49-66. 134 no. 8 (pasticcio Nb 238 MNW).
13 Ibidem 98-100. 153 no. 1 (»Hermes« DMNKCz 1971).
14 Ibidem no. 1 (torso DMNKCz 1822).
15 Gebauer op. cit. no. 3908 (torso DMNKCz 1822); Lip­
pold, Plastik 170 note 12; Th. Lorenz, Polyklet (1972) 4
note 22; cf. Hirsch op. cit. 45If. fig. 1.
sculpture, defined the model of the same piece as 
the »Knabe mit Salbflaschchen« dated between 
470 et 460. According to Thuri Lorenz, the origi­
nal, Omphalos Apollo type, was performed slight­
ly later, in the middle of the 5th century15. The 
second torso according to Mikocki is similar to 
the Dresdner Knabe, this one being probably an 
imitation of the Diskophoros16.
Finally I would mention two marble statuettes 
of naked youths which show some affinities with 
Polykleitos’ works and their imitations. They are 
neither Greek nor Roman but Italian, probably 
made in the end of 18th century. Their function 
and character are different.
The first one is a copy on a reduced scale, or­
dered around 1790 by Stanislaus Augustus, who 
used to collect the imitations of famous ancient 
masterpieces. Our statuette is a copy of the so 
called Oratore Romano, respective Germanico, 
Mercurio etc., signed by Kleomenes son of 
Kleomenes. This statue since 17th century was in 
France. Its numerous modern copies and imita­
tions were, however, made on the base of a plaster 
cast exhibited in the French Academy of Rome. 
The Kleomenes statue is similar to Hermes Riche­
lieu and to other sculptures created in Polykleitos’ 
milieu. For this reason I do not omit its Polish 
copy in my article17.
The second statuette was bought in Italy as an 
ancient piece. Its Polish possessor was the count­
ess Anna Potocka Wqsowicz, called usually >la 
belle Annette<. She was twice in Italy where, in 
1827, she bought a lot of pieces, ancient and 
modern, to decorate her castle in Jablonna, near 
Warsaw. The statuette (pi. 48,4) is a reduced copy 
of the so called Antinous Capitolinus recently dis­
cussed by Klaus Fittschen18.
It is time now to conclude my discussion. I pre­
sented 4 plaster casts from an ancient Polish 
collection and 5 bronzes from Stettin, 2 Italian 
imitations and 6 Roman sculptures. These pieces 
were kept in different houses and palaces, be­
longing to Polish, German and Russian people, to 
one king and one empress, to counts, princes and 
rich bourgeois. Returning to my motto, habent 
sua fata monumenta, I suppose it was right.
16 Gebauer op. cit. no. 3907.
17 A. Sadurska (ed.), Z dziejow milosnictwa antyku w Pol­
sce [=Sur les amateurs de 1’Antiquite en Pologne], Studia 
Antiqua (1991) 144 no. 43. 252 fig. 29 (ML 446). Cf. F. 
Haskell - N. Penny, L’antico nella storia del gusto (1984) 
315-318.
18 Mikocki op. cit. 94-97. 149 no. 2 fig. 68; K. Fittschen, 
Zwei klassizistische Statuen und ihre Rezeption in der 
Neuzeit, RM 98, 1991, 341 note 23k. 344 (italian stat­
uette »Antinous Capitolinus« type, MN 147453).
Sources of Illustrations: pi. 47; 48,3: Warsaw,
National Museum neg. 61058. 61059. 62173; pi. 48,1: photo
P. Ciepielewski; pi. 48,2: neg. PAN Varia 4037
Sadurska Tafel 47
. 2.
 A
m
az
on
’s
 he
ad
. W
ar
sa
w
, N
at
io
na
l M
us
eu
m
 in
v.
 19
87
13
Tafel 48 Sadurska
1.
 V
en
us
 he
ad
 on
 a 
vi
ril
 to
rs
o o
f 
2.
 To
rs
o o
f D
isk
op
ho
ro
s t
yp
e. 
Cr
ac
ow
, 
3.
 T
or
so
 of
 O
m
ph
al
os
 A
po
llo
 ty
pe
. 
4.
 Ita
lia
n s
ta
tu
et
te
, im
ita
tio
n o
f t
he
N
ar
ki
ss
os
 ty
pe
. N
ie
bo
ro
w
 C
as
tle
 in
v.
 23
8 National M
us
eu
m
, C
za
rto
ry
sk
i C
ol
le
ct
io
n Warsaw, N
at
io
na
l M
us
eu
m
 in
v.
 19
96
12
 
„A
nt
in
ou
s C
ap
ito
lin
us
“. W
ar
sa
w
, N
at
io
-
in
v.
 D
M
N
K
Cz
 182
2 
na
l M
us
eu
m
 in
v.
 14
74
53


Polykleitos in Poland

http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/2612/1/Sadurska_Polykleitos_in_Poland_1995.pdf

Polykleitos in Poland

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Propylaeum-DOK