David Vs Polykleitos

Anticipated similarities exist between the Roman copy of Doryphorus and Donatello’s David, for the former replicates a product of Classical Greece while the latter is reminiscent of this artistic epoch (The Renaissance was a “re-birth” of this classical form). However, David’s structural presence is atypical regarding Classical Antiquity; therefore, major degrees of difference emerge in terms of characterization and narrative. Doryphorus is a conventional example of reconciling idealism and naturalism. Polykleitos creates a prototypical male physique, yet this ideal athletic figure lacks individualism. Conversely, Donatello overtly characterizes David through his effeminate if not androgynous form. This expressive portrayal inspires several

viewpoints from which to understand David as a man with a specific identity; his depiction allows for various narrative interpretations, ranging from biblical allusion and mythology to autobiography. From the stance and posture of each sculpture to the use of nudity, Polykleitos’s Doryphorus and Donatello’s David present similarities accountable for in a historical context; however, an understanding of material and narrative explain the obvious differences in structural design.
As for stance and posture, both figures stand in contrapposto with the left leg bent and the head positioned over the engaged right leg. This stance is naturalistic and designed to represent the observed human form. Donatello and Polykleitos also portray their figures unclad. Ancient Greece had a positive association with nudity wrought by the frequent athletic competitions between males. During these competitions, “athletes…competed in the nude, and the Greeks considered them embodiments of all that was best in humanity. It was …natural for the Greeks to associate the male nude form with triumph [and] glory…” (Sorabella). What could be more apropos in regards to David’s physical triumph over Goliath and the obvious athleticism of a spear bearer? The nude forms also contain a precise similarity common to Ancient Greek standards and Italy’s reinvention of said standards. Both sculptures “…depict rather small penises…” as a purposeful signaling of superior character, for “… the penis on statues in the past was deliberately reduced in size to make the owners appear more virtuous” (Antony 11). Though common of Classical Greece, Donatello may have included this standard for its adherence to his androgynous theme.
While both artists align their sculptures with common nuances of naturalism and present certain orthodox standards concerning nudity, Polykleitos creates an idealistic rendering and adheres to unachievable standards of male perfection.

Beautiful? Yes. But does is inspire inquisition or curiosity? Not so much. Polykleitos’s focus on proportion was mathematical in its exactness and thus Doryphorus appears manikin–like with the sharp separations between his appendages (obvious in the exaggerated indentation between the upper thighs, groin and waste region). This artificial rectangular presence leaves Doryphorus appearing rigid and fixed in space. Some say Polykleitos designed his work with a “charm beyond [the] truth” by exceeding the limits of possible physical form (Linfert). However, by placing a high degree of artificiality within his work, it lacks the narrative that comes forth when presenting an alternate to the ideal. Donatello combines naturalism with his mental representation of David’s persona and inspires inquisition into the sculpture’s narrative and Donatello’s own intentions. Donatello utterly embodies narrative art through his less rigid, more youthful and effeminate rendering of

David.
Donatello’s David, unlike Polykleitos’s Doryphorus completely strays from the male ideal. From a jutted out hip and an exaggerated bent knee to the limp wrist on the waist, David carries a pre-pubescent persona if not a feminine one (Schneider). Furthermore, unlike the hair on Polykleitos in which artificiality reigns through the “layers of…S-shaped curls” hugging the scalp, David has long locks flowing down his shoulders and upper back. However, before considering Donatello’s implications in portraying a historically brave and heroic man in such an androgynous manner, one must acknowledge the material limitations present when dealing with marble as compared to bronze.
A pillar holding the engaged leg supports Doryphorus while a small bracket connects his left upper thigh and wrist.

Because marble is fragile and quite susceptible to damage, these are in place to keep the statue standing. However, aside from needing structural support, marble does not allow for certain freedoms that bronze permits. If a finger was individually pointed or wrapped around a sword as seen with David, it would not endure. This is not to say that every stylistic difference is due to the material limitations; however, it does play a role in the degree of separation that is feasible between appendages (as seen by the closeness of the arms to the torso on Polykleitos). Moreover, marble could not sustain luscious and wavy hair, providing a physical justification for the closeness of Doryphorus’s hair to his scalp (as compared to David). However, other than material capability, why would Donatello choose such a stark contrast to the male ideal when portraying a heroic figure? This contrast has been referenced yet the vital explanations for difference come to fruition through an analysis of narrative. What story is Donatello

telling?
Donatello portrays David as a pre-pubescent figure standing with a rather boyish nonchalance as his foot rests on Goliath’s decapitated head. Though much debate subsists around Donatello’s effeminate portrayal of David, two theories provide the most foundational evidence; one upholds a degree of biblical relevance while the other relies on accounts of Donatello’s personal life (Williams). Some propose that David’s youthful presence insinuates physical inability and the presence of divine intervention; his “muscles have barely developed enough to hold the large sword…his victory over his foe is all the more improbable.” Without God’s help, David would have failed so the “victory was God’s rather than man’s” (McHam and Avery). However, Donatello was a known homosexual and, some believe, “the way in which the statue’s effeminacy is openly and defiantly exhibited indicates that Donatello consciously desired to display David, and indirectly himself, as a homosexual”(Schneider 215). It could be said that Donatello designed David to be a homoerotic figure. In addition to David’s androgynous form, he bares great resemblance to the Greek God Hermes. What greater evidence for this parallel than the feather in his hat and the sandal on his foot? Since David was only a man, this may represent his mental superiority to Goliath; Hermes is widely recognized for his “cunning and shrewdness,” which would be vital attributes in defeating such an admirable adversary (Leadbetter). Donatello creates a desire for interpretation; his work inspires inquisition and produces various narrative possibilities. He brings humanity to an inanimate creation; people look at David and search for a story because it is clear that there is at least one. This purposeful defiance of the norm creates interpretative possibilities absent in Polykleitos’s Doryphorus.
Polykleitos and Donatello differ greatly in how they approach their sculptures and their subsequent portrayal of the male form. While Polykleitos focuses on the ideal and applies a system of mathematical proportions to his sculptures, Donatello takes on the character of his piece and designs his sculpture with that said persona in mind. Two different approaches that seem to grow from naturalism yet veer away in antithetical directions. The formal qualities of classical antiquity shine through both sculptures as made evident by the contrapposto stance and the orthodox nudity; however, what makes them similar provides a basis from which differences in structural design, the communicated message, and narrative can manifest.