听Panofsky讲“比例”之一（古埃及、希腊篇）节选自《Meaning in the Visual Arts》

译者按：
说到“比例”，国内经典的建筑学教育就会把学生引导到柯布的模数，文艺复兴时期阿尔伯蒂《论建筑》，至多拓展到维特鲁威时期对柱式的分析，似乎我们对于比例的认识到此为止。实际上基于人体本身的比例理论从古埃及就已开始运用到建筑、绘画、雕塑等艺术的形体塑造中去，了解其源头对于我们正确而全面地理解“比例”这一概念是非常有意义的。另一方面，尽管各个时期的艺术实践都运用到了“比例”，但我们必须明确“比例”具有一个不断发展的过程，每个时期“比例”的原则是如此的不同，以至于如果轻易地相信文艺复兴、哪怕是古罗马时期的比例原则能一成不变地运用到先前时期，我们对于艺术表现的理解将会产生难以置信的谬误。由潘诺夫斯基引领着我们，一个上溯至五千年前“比例”理论的鸿篇巨制缓缓展开。
Panofsky E., Meaning in the Visual Arts, Doubleday Anchor Books, Garden City, N. Y., 1955
Chapter II The History of the Theory of Human Proportions as a Reflection of the History of Styles
基于风格史反思的人体比例理论历史
Studies on the problem of proportions are generally received with scepticism or, at most, with little interest. Neither attitude is surprising. The mistrust is based upon the fact that the investigation of proportions all too frequently succumbs to the temptation of reading out of the objects just what it has put into them; the indifference is explained by the modern, subjective viewpoint that a work of art is something utterly irrational. A modern spectator, still under the influence of this Romantic interpretation of art, finds it uninteresting, if not distressing, when the historian tells him that a rational system of proportions, or even a definite geometrical scheme, underlies this or that representation.
对于比例问题的研究一般充满了怀疑，更有甚者，毫无兴趣，这些都不足为奇。这种不信任都是基于一个事实，对比例的研究过分依赖于从客体中读出其内在含义的倾向；至于漠不关心的态度则可以从“艺术作品是丑陋的、非理性的”这种现代的主观看法中得到解释。一个深受这种浪漫方式诠释艺术的影响下的现代观众，如果听到历史学者说这种或那种表达是基于一种比例的理性系统亦或确定的几何主题时，即便不很沮丧，也不会觉得有趣。
Nevertheless, it is not unrewarding for the art historian (provided that he limit himself to positive data and be willing to work with meager rather than dubious material) to examine the history of canons of proportions. Not only is it important to know whether particular artists or periods of art did or did not tend to adhere to a system of proportions, but the how of their mode of treatment is of real significance. For it would be a mistake to assume that theories of proportions per se are constantly one and the same. There is a fundamental difference between the method of the Egyptians and the method of Polyclitus, between the procedure of Leonardo and the procedure of the Middle Ages – a difference so great and, above all, of such a character, that it reflects the basic differences between the art of Egypt and that of classical antiquity, between the art of Leonardo and that of the Middle Ages. If, in considering the various systems of proportions known to us, we try to understand their meaning rather than their appearance, if we concentrate not so much on the solution arrived at as on the formulation of the problem posed, they will reveal themselves as expressions of the same “artistic intention” (Kunstwollen) that was realized in the buildings, sculptures and paintings of a given period or a given artist. The history of the theory of proportions is the reflection of the history of style; furthermore, since we may understand each other unequivocally when dealing with mathematical formulations, it may even be looked upon as a reflection which often surpasses its original in clarity. One might assert that the theory of proportions expresses the frequently perplexing concept of the Kunstwollen in clearer or, at least, more definable fashion than art itself.
然而，艺术史学家研究比例经典的历史并非没有意义（如果他把自己限定于正面信息并且愿意投身于微薄但不暧昧的材料中）。特定的艺术家或艺术时期是否采用了一种比例系统，他们的处理模式具有怎样的实际意义，这两件事情都非常重要，因为假定比例理论本身一直不变是错误的。埃及人和波利克里托斯采用的方法是根本不同的，莱昂纳多的方法与中世纪也不同，这种差异如此巨大，它反映了埃及艺术与古典艺术、莱昂纳多与中世纪之间的基本分歧。如果在考虑多种所知的比例系统时我们试图理解它们的意义而非表象，如果我们不像专注于问题的形成那样过分地关心问题的解决，它们便会体现为同种艺术意图的表达，从而出现在某个特定时期或艺术家的建筑、雕塑和绘画作品中。比例理论历史是风格史的反映，并且，自从我们在处理数学方程时相互充分地理解，它便会转变为一种超越其原型、更为清晰的反映。可以说，比例理论将时常困惑的艺术意图做出了比艺术本身更为清晰、或者至少更明确的表达。
I By a theory of proportions, if we are to begin with a definition, we mean a system of establishing the mathematical relations between the various members of a living creature, in particular of human beings, in so far as these beings are thought of as subjects of an artistic representation. From this definition we can foresee on what varied paths the studies of proportions could travel. The mathematical relations could be expressed by the division of a whole as well as by the multiplication of a unit; the effort to determine them could be guided by a desire for beauty as well as by an interest in the “norm,” or, finally, by a need for establishing a convention; and, above all, the proportions could be investigated with reference to the object of the representation as well as with reference to the representation of the object. There is a great difference between the question: “What is the normal relationship between the length of the upper arm and the length of the entire body in a person standing quietly before me?” and the question: “How shall I scale the length of what corresponds to the upper arm, in relation to the length of what corresponds to the entire body, on my canvas or block of marble?” The first is a question of “objective” proportions – a question whose answer precedes the artistic activity. The second is a question of “technical” proportions – a question whose answer lies in the artistic process itself; and it is a question that can be posed and resolved only where the theory of proportions coincides with (or is even subservient to) a theory of construction.
I 说到一个比例理论的定义，这意味着建立一个基于不同生物之间、尤其是人类的数学关系，只要它们被认定为艺术表现的主题。从这个定义出发，我们能预见比例研究将如何多样性地进行。数学关系可以表达为对整体的分割，也可以是个体的相乘；要确定它们需要一种对美的追求，同时还有对标准的兴趣，或者一种对建立传统的需求；关键的是，比例研究可以同时参照表现的物体，还有物体的表现。一个问题“在一个安静地站在我面前的人中，上肢的长度与整个身体的长度之间通常存在什么样的关系？”，与另一个问题“我如何在画布或大理石上度量一个与反映全身的长度相关的、反映上肢的长度？”，这两个问题是根本不同的。第一个问题基于“客观”的比例，回答体现在艺术创作的行为中，而第二个则是关于“技术性”的比例，回答存在于艺术创作过程本身，并且这个问题只能当比例理论与建造理论相碰撞（甚至屈从于它）时才能得以解决。
 There were, therefore, three fundamentally different possibilities of pursuing a “theory of human measurements.” This theory could aim either that the establishment of the “objective” proportions, without troubling itself about their relation to the “technical”; or at the establishment of the “technical” proportions, without troubling itself about their relation to the “”objective”; or, finally, it could consider itself exempt from either choice, viz., where “technical” and “objective” proportions coincide with each other.
于是对“人体测量理论”基本上就有了三种可能性：这个理论可以在不考虑“技术性”比例而建立“客观性”比例，也可以不考虑“客观性”比例而建立“技术性”比例，或者最后，在“技术性”与“客观性”两种比例共存的情况下同时考虑这两种选择。
This last-mentioned possibility was realized, in pure form, only once: in Egyptian art.
 这最后一种可能性以纯形式的方式只存在过一次：埃及艺术。
There are three conditions which hinder the coincidence of “technical” and “objective” dimensions, and Egyptian art – so far as special circumstances did not create ephemeral exceptions – fundamentally nullified, or, better, yet, completely ignored, all three. First, the fact that within an organic body each movement changes the dimensions of the moving limb as well as those of the other parts; second, the fact that the artist, in accordance with normal conditions of vision, sees the subject in a certain foreshortening; third, the fact that a potential beholder likewise sees the finished work in a foreshortening which, if considerable (e.g., with sculptures placed above eye level), must be compensated for by a deliberate departure from the objectively correct proportions.
有三种条件阻碍了“技术性”与“客观性”尺度的融合，埃及艺术——至今还没有特殊而短暂的例外——对于上述三者均视而不见，完全忽略。首先，在一个有机的身体中，每一个运动都会改变运动的胳膊以及其他部分的尺寸；第二，在通常的视觉条件下，艺术家总是以某种“短缩”效应观察主题的【关于“短缩法”，可以参见阿尔伯蒂之《On Painting》中Book One以及贡布里希之《Story of Art》中关于古希腊短缩法如何运用在陶艺绘画中的章节】；第三，一个潜在的旁观者以一种“短缩”方式观看完成品，如果效应剧烈的话（比如被置于高出视平线的雕塑），“短缩”势必被一种对实际比例进行的刻意修正所补偿。
Not one of these conditions obtains in Egytian art. The “optical refinements” which correct the visual impression of the beholder (the temperaturae upon which, according to Vitruvius, the “eurhythmic” effect of the work depends) are rejected as a matter of principle. The movements of the figures are not organic but mechanical, i.e., they consist of purely local changes in the positions of specific members, changes affecting neither the form nor the dimensions of the rest of the body. And even foreshortening (as well as modelling, which accomplishes by light and shade what foreshortening achieves by design) was deliberately rejected at this phase. Both painting and relief – and for this reason neither is stylistically different from the other in Egyptian art – renounced that apparent extension of the plane into depth which is required by optical naturalism; and sculpture refrained from that apparent flattening of the three-dimensional volumes which is required by Hildebrand’s principle of Reliefhaftigkeit. In sculpture, as in painting and relief, the subject is thus represented in an aspect which, strictly speaking, is no aspectus (“view”) at all, but a geometrical plan. All the parts of the human figure are so arrayed that they present themselves either in a completely frontal projection or else in pure profile. This applies to sculpture in the round as well as to the two-dimensional arts, with the one difference that sculpture in the round, operating with many-surfaced blocks, can convey to us all the projections in their entirety but separated from each other; whereas the two-dimensional arts convey them incompletely, but in one image: they portray head and limbs in pure profile while chest and arms are rendered in pure front view.
在埃及艺术中不存在这些条件中的任何一种。纠正旁观者视觉效果的“视觉修正法”（维特鲁威所说作品需依赖的优美效果）被剔除出理论体系。图案的运动很机械而不有机，比如它们反映了特定部分的位置具有的独立的改变，丝毫不影响身体其他部分的形状和尺寸。甚至“短缩”（还有由设计中“短缩”效应产生的光与影所带来的“塑形”）在这个阶段都被刻意回避。绘画与浮雕——因此风格区别于埃及其他艺术——拒绝由视觉的现实主义所带来的平面延伸出的深度，雕塑则避免了希尔德布兰德的立体原则所提倡了三维体积的平面化处理。雕塑、绘画和浮雕中主题严格地说除了几何布局之外根本不存在“看”，人体所有的部分不是以一种完全正投影的方式就是以纯轮廓线描的方式被排列出来表达，这也用到了独立雕塑【From Wikipedia: Free-standing sculpture, sculpture that is surrounded on all sides, except the base, by space. It is also known as sculpture "in the round", and is meant to be viewed from any angle】以及二维艺术中而仅有一个区别，在多面体上操作的独立雕塑能通过彼此分离的整体传达给我们所有的投影，而二维艺术传达得不彻底，但在一幅图案中，它们用纯轮廓来表达头和肢体，用正投影来表达胸和手臂。
In completed sculptural works (where all the forms are rounded off) this geometrical quality, reminiscent of an architect’s plan, is not so evident as in paintings and reliefs; but we can recognize from many unfinished pieces that even in sculpture the final form is always determined by an underlying geometrical plan originally sketched on the surfaces of the block. It is evident that the artist drew four separate designs on the vertical surfaces of the block (supplementing them on occasion by a fifth, viz., by the ground plan entered on the upper, horizontal surface); that he then evolved the figure by working away the surplus mass of stone so that the form was bounded by a system of planes meeting at right angles and connected by slopes; and that, finally, he removed the sharply defined edges resulting from the process. In addition to such unfinished pieces, there is a sculptor’s working drawing, a papyrus formerly in the Berlin Museum, that illustrates the mason-like method of these sculptors even more clearly: as if he were constructing a house, the sculptor drew up plans for his sphinx in frontal elevation, ground plan and profile elevation (only a minute portion of this last is preserved) so that even today the figure could be executed according to plan.
在完成的雕塑作品（所有形状均被环绕）中，这种影射建筑师设计的几何特征并不像绘画和浮雕那样明显，但我们能从很多未完成的片段中认识到，即便是雕塑，最终形式也一直被原来草拟在石块表面、潜在的几何布局所支配。很明显，艺术家在石块的竖直面上画了四种独立的设计（有时在与地平层合并的顶层表面会有第五种），之后他不断去掉多余的石头来修饰形体，从而形体会与直角相接、斜面相连的平面体系相切合，最后，他去除了在过程中形成的精细的边边角角。除了这些未竟的片段，柏林博物馆馆藏有一件草纸的雕刻师工作图，它更为清晰地描绘了这些雕刻师有石匠般的方法：好似要建一个屋子，雕刻师为他的斯芬克斯绘制了正立面、地坪面以及外形轮廓图（仅有小部分留存下来），以至于如今这个形体也能根据这些图纸加以研究。
                
                
Under these circumstances the Egyptian theory of proportions could, as a matter of course, dispense with the decision whether it aimed at establishing the “objective” or the “technical” dimensions, whether it purported to be anthropometry or theory of construction: it was, necessarily, both at the same time. For to determine the “objective” proportions of a subject, i.e., to reduce its height, width and depth to measurable magnitudes, means nothing else but ascertaining its dimensions in frontal elevation, side elevation and ground plan. And since an Egyptian representation was limited to these three plans (except that the sculptor juxtaposed while the master of a two-dimensional art fused them), the “technical” proportive dimensions of the natural object, as contained in the front elevation, the side elevation and the ground plan, could not but coincide with the relative dimensions of the artefact: if the Egyptian artist assumed the total length of a human figure to be divided into 18 or 22 units and, in addition, knew that the length of the foot amounted to 3 or 3 ½ such units, and the length of the calf to 5, he also knew what magnitudes he had to mark off on his painting ground or on the surfaces of his block.
这样，埃及的比例理论就理所当然地摒弃了一种抉择，是否要建立“客观性”或“技术性”的尺寸，还有是否 意味着人体测量学或者建造理论：两者必须结合起来。决定主体的“客观性”比例，比如减少高度、宽度和深度直到可以测量的程度，意义只在于确定它在立面、侧面以及平面的尺寸。因为埃及式的表现方式仅限于这三种图（除却雕塑师将之并置，而二维艺术家将之融合），自然物体“技术性”的成比例的尺寸（在意义只在于确定它在立面、侧面、平面图中）肯定会与工艺品的相对尺寸相吻合：如果埃及艺术家假定一个人体的全长被18或22等分，并且脚的长度相当于3或3 ½个单位，腿肚子有5个单位，他应该还知道会采用怎样的等级标记在画板或者石块表面。
From many examples preserved to us we know that the Egyptians effected this subdivision of the stone or wall surface by means of a finely meshed network of equal squares; this they employed not only for the representation of human beings but also for that of the animals which play so prominent a role in their art. The purpose of this network will be best understood if we compare it with the deceptively similar system of squares used by the modern artist to transfer his composition from a smaller to a larger surface (mise au carreau). While this procedure presupposes a preparatory drawing – in itself bound to no quadrature – on which horizontal and vertical lines are subsequently superimposed in arbitrarily selected places, the network used by the Egyptian artist precedes the design and predetermines the final product. With its more significant lines permanently fixed on specific points of the human body, the Egyptian network immediately indicates to the painter or sculptor how to organize his figure: he will know from the outset that he must place the ankle on the first horizontal line, the knee on the sixth, the shoulders on the sixteenth, and so on.
根据很多保留下来的实例，我们了解到埃及人利用了一种精细等距的方格网来在石头或墙面进行划分；他们不仅将此运用到人体表现上，而且还应用到他们艺术中同样杰出的动物表现上。这种网格的目的要最容易被理解，我们则需要把它与现代艺术家在由小变大的表面构成转化时所运用的看起来很相似的方格系统进行比较。这种过程预先假设了一个与正交毫无关系的图案，其中水平线与垂直线便被并置在随意选择的平面上；而埃及艺术家使用的网格引导了设计并最终决定了成果，意义重大的线被永久定在人体的特定点上，这种网格明确地告诉画家或雕塑家如何组织他的图案：从一开始他就明白，在第一条水平线布置脚踝，第六条上布置膝盖，肩则在第十六条上，依此类推。
In short, the Egyptian network does not have a transferential significance, but a constructional one, and its usefulness extended from the establishment of dimensions to the definition of movement. Since such actions as striding forth or striking out were expressed only in stereotyped alterations of position, and not in changing anatomical displacements, even movement could be adequately determined by purely quantitative data. It was, for instance, agreed that in a figure considered to be in a lunging position the length of pace (measured from the tip of one foot to the tip of the other) should amount to 10 ½ units, while this distance in a figure quietly standing was set at 4 ½ or 5 ½ units. Without too much exaggeration one could maintain that, when an Egyptian artist familiar with this system of proportions was set the task of representing a standing, sitting or striding figure, the result was a foregone conclusion once the figure’s absolute size was determined.
简单来说，埃及人的网格并不具有一种能转化的而是一种可建造性的意义，它的作用从尺度的建立拓展到对运动的定义领域。基于这种类似迈步或者进攻的动作只有通过对位置变动的刻板式的表达，而没有解剖式的移位，以至于运动通过纯量化的数据就能得以充分确定。比如公认的，在一个冲刺姿势的形体中步伐的距离（从一只脚的顶端到另一只的顶端）应该是10 ½ 单位，而这个距离对于一个静止站立的形体来说则变为4 ½ 或者5 ½ 单位。一个人无需过分夸张就能得知当一个熟知这种比例体系的埃及艺术家被赋予了任务去表现站立、坐下或迈步的形体时，形体的绝对尺寸一旦确定下来，余下的就已是老生常谈了。
This Egyptian method of employing a theory of proportions clearly reflects their Kunstwollen, directed not toward the variable, but toward the constant, not toward the symbolization of the vital present, but toward the realization of a timeless eternity. The human figure created by a Periclean artist was supposed to be invested with a life that was only apparent, but – in the Aristotelian sense – “actual”; it is only an image but one which mirrors the organic function of the human being. The human figure created by an Egyptian was supposed to be invested with a life that was real, but – in the Aristotelian sense – only “potential”; it reproduces the form, but not the function, of the human being in a more durable replica. In fact, we know that the Egyptian tomb statue was not intended to simulate a life of its own but to serve as the material substratum of another life, the life of the spirit “Ka.” To the Greeks the plastic effigy commemorates a human being that lived; to the Egyptians it is a body that waits to be re-enlivened. For the Greeks, the work of art exists in a sphere of aesthetic ideality; for the Egyptians, in a sphere of magical reality. For the former, the goal of the artist is imitation; for the latter, reconstruction.
这种运用比例理论的埃及方式明确反映了他们的艺术意图，它所指向的并不是变量而是持续性，不是象征关键的现在，而是实现永恒。伯里克利时代的艺术家创造人体时意欲注入生命，肤浅却又——用亚里士多德的话说——实在【Quoted from Wikipedia: how then is man a unity? However, according to Aristotle, the potential being (matter) and the actual one (form) are one and the same thing】;它只是个图像，却能映射出人体的有机功能，埃及人创造的人体应该具有真正的生命，却——用亚里士多德的话说——仅仅是“潜在”的；它为一个人类更为持久的复制品再生了形式而非功能。事实上，我们知道埃及陵墓中的雕像并非要起死回生而是为另一次生命——神灵“Ka”的生命——做铺垫。对于希腊人来说塑性小雕像可以哟过来纪念活着的人，对于埃及人来说它则是一个有待复生的躯体；希腊人认为艺术品存在于一个美学理想的范畴中，而埃及人则认为是在魔幻般的现实中；对于前者，艺术家的目标是模仿，而对于后者则是重建。
Let us turn once more to that preparatory drawing for a sculpture of a sphinx. No fewer than three different networks are used, and had to be used, since this particular sphinx, holding the small figure of a goddess between his paws, is composed of three heterogeneous parts, each of which requires its own system of construction: the body of a lion, whose proportioning adheres to the canon suitable for this breed of animal; the human head, which is subdivided according to the scheme of the so-called Royal Heads (in Cairo alone more than forty models are preserved); and the small goddess, which is based upon the customary canon of twenty-two squares prescribed for the whole human figure. Thus the creature to be represented is a pure “reconstruction,” assembled from three components each of which is conceived and proportioned exactly as though it were standing alone. Even where he had to combine three heterogeneous elements into one image, the Egyptian artist did not find it necessary to modify the rigidity of the three special systems of proportion in favour of an organic unity which, in Greek art, asserts itself even in a Chimaera.
让我们再次回到那个为斯芬克斯预先设定的图案上。不少于三种网格不得不加以应用，因为这个双爪间有女神小雕像的特殊斯芬克斯由三个不同类别的部分组成，而每个部分都需要自己的建造体系：狮身，比例符合这种动物的经典；依据所谓的皇家头像方案而进行细分的人面（超过四十个头像被保管于开罗）；还有那个小女神像，符合人体全身分为22个方格的常规经典。就这样，所表现的这个东西是一个完全的重建，将从构想和比例上都貌似绝对独立的三个部分组合起来。即便是需要将三个异质元素组合为一个图案时，埃及艺术家也并不觉得有必要修改三套比例特殊的体系以适应一个有机的整体，而这一点对于希腊艺术来说即便是在嵌合体中也是需要强调的。
We can foresee from the foregoing paragraphs that the classical art of the Greeks had to free itself completely from the Egyptian system of proportions. The principles of archaic Greek art were still similar to those of the Egyptians; the advance of the classical style beyond the archaic consisted in its accepting as positive artistic values precisely those factors which the Egyptians had neglected or denied. Classical Greek art took into account the shifting of the dimensions as a result of organic movement; the foreshortening resulting from the process of vision; and the necessity of correcting, in certain instances, the optical impression of the beholder by “eurhythmic” adjustments. Hence, the Greeks could not start out with a system of proportions which, in stipulating the “objective” dimensions, also irrevocably set down the “technical” ones. They could admit a theory of proportions only in so far as it allowed the artist the freedom to vary the “objective” dimensions from case to case by a free rearrangement – in short, only in so far as it was limited to the role of anthropometry.
通过上述内容我们能预料到希腊古典艺术必须摆脱埃及的比例系统，希腊古代的艺术原则仍然与埃及相似；从古代艺术发展而来的古典风格接受了恰恰被埃及人忽视或否定了的积极的艺术价值，希腊古典艺术知道要考虑根据有机的运动来调整尺度，根据视觉来“短缩”，以及必要的修正，或者说，用优美的调整使旁观者获得视觉印象。如此，希腊人不可能得到一种比例体系，它既有“客观性”尺度又有不可或缺的“技术性”尺度，只有当它解放了艺术家并使他能根据情况通过随意安排来改变“客观性”尺度之时才能出现——简单地说，仍在人体测量学范畴之内。
We are, therefore, much less exactly informed of the Greek theory of proportions, as developed and applied in classical times, than of the Egyptian system. Once the “technical” and “objective” dimensions have ceased to be identical, the system or systems can no longer be directly perceived in the works of art; we can glean, on the other hand, some information from literary sources, frequently linked to the name of Polyclitus – the father, or at least the formulator, of classical Greek anthropometry.
于是我们对希腊古典时期产生和应用的比例理论相对埃及体系来说知之甚少，一旦无法辨识“技术性”和“客观性”尺度，这套或众多体系在艺术品中将不能被体会到；另外我们能从文学作品中搜集出一些关于波利克里托斯——古典希腊人体测绘学之父，至少是其规范者——的信息。
We read, for example, in Galen’s Placita Hippocratis et Platonis: “…Chrysippus…holds that beauty does not consist in the elements but in the harmonious proportion of the parts, the proportion of one finger to the other, of all the fingers to the rest of the hand, of the rest of the hand to the wrist, of these to the forearm, of the forearm to the whole arm, in fine, of all parts to all others, as it is written in the canon of Polyclitus.”
比如，从盖伦的《希波克拉底和柏拉图的教义》中我们读到：“克吕西波认为美并不存在于各个元素中，它存在于各部分间和谐的比例中，这种比例就是波利克里托斯的典籍所说的，一个手指相对于其他手指、所有手指相对于手的其他部分、手相对于腕、所有这些相对于前臂、前臂相对于整个手臂、以及部分相对于所有其他部分来说的比例。”
In the first place, this passage confirms what had been suspected from the outset: that the Polyclitan “canon” possessed a purely anthropometric character, i.e., that its purpose was not to facilitate the compositional treatment of stone blocks or wall surfaces, but exclusively to ascertain the “objective” proportions of the normal human being; in no way did it pre-determine the “technical” measurements. The artist who observed this canon was not required to refrain from rendering anatomical and mimetic variations, or from employing foreshortenings, or even, when necessary, from adjusting the dimensions of his figure to the subjective visual experience of the beholder (as when the sculptor lengthens the upper portions of a figure placed high or thickens the averted side of a face turned to three-quarter profile). In the second place, Galen’s testimony characterizes the principle of the Polyclitan theory of proportions as what may be called “organic.”
这段话首先确认了自从一开始便被怀疑的论断：波利克里托斯的“典籍”具有一个完全人体测量学的特征，比如它并不想促成石块或墙面的组合方式，而是要确认一个正常人具有的“客观性”尺度，而不是“技术性”尺度。照此来看，艺术家无需受到各种限制，如描绘解剖和模仿的变化，亦或应用“短缩法”，或者有必要的话针对第三者主观视觉的体验而修正形体的尺度（当雕塑师将高悬的形体的上部适当拉长，或者将背过去的脸转变为四分之三的轮廓时）。另外，盖伦的主张表明了波利克里托斯对于比例的理论可以被认为很 “有机”。
As we know, the Egyptian artist-theoretician first constructed a network of equal squares and then inserted into this network the outlines of his figure – unconcerned as to whether each line of the network coincided with one of the organically significant junctures of the body. We can observe, e.g., that within the “later canon” the horizontals, 2,3,7,8,9,15 run through completely insignificant points. The Greek artist-theoretician proceeded in the opposite way. He did not start with a mechanically constructed network in which he subsequently accommodated the figure; he started, instead, with the human figure, organically differentiated into torso, limbs and parts of limbs, and subsequently tried to ascertain how these parts related to each other and to the whole. When, according to Galen, Polyclitus described the proper proportion of finger to finger, finger to hand, hand to forearm, forearm to arm and, finally, each single limb to the entire body, this means that the classical Greek theory of proportions had abandoned the idea of constructing the body on the basis of an absolute module, as though from small, equal building blocks: it sought to establish relations between the members, anatomically differentiated and distinct from each other, and the entire body. Thus it is not a principle of mechanical identity, but a principle of organic differentiation that forms the basis of the Polyclitan canon; it would have been utterly impossible to incorporate its stipulations into a network of squares. For an idea of the character of the lost theory of the Greeks, we must turn, not to the Egyptian system of proportions, but to the system according to which the figures in the First Book of Albrecht Dürer’s treatise on human proportions are measured.
众所周知，埃及艺术理论家首先创建了等距方形的网格并把它应用到形体轮廓中去——没有考虑网格的每条线是否与形体中某个有机的重要关节相吻合。后来的理论中我们发现水平线（第2.、3、7、8、9、15条线）贯穿了所有重要的点。希腊艺术理论家恰恰相反，他并没有从一个机械的网格入手来安放形体，而是从人体开始，区分躯干、四肢及其部分，而后试图找出这些局部之间、局部与整体之间有着怎样的关联。当波利克里托斯按照盖伦所言描述手指间、手指与手、手语前臂、前臂与整个手臂以及最终每个肢体与全身之间正确的比例时，这表明了古典希腊比例理论已经放弃了由一个好似基于等大的小砖块开始的绝对模型而创造出的身体：它着眼于由解剖意义区分出来的部分与整体间的关系。所以它不是一个机械式的理论，而是一个关于有机区分的理论，它是波利克里托斯理论的基础，其规范很难与方格网联系起来。如果要寻找失落的希腊理论特征的话，我们不能依赖埃及比例体系，而是在阿尔布雷希•丢勒所写的关于人体比例法则的第一书中所能找到的另一个体系。
                
                
The dimensions of these figures are all expressed in common fractions of the total length, and the common fraction is indeed the only legitimate mathematical symbol for the “relations of commensurable quantities.” The passage transmitted by Galen shows that Polyclitus, too, consistently expressed the measure of a smaller part as the common fraction of a larger – and, finally, the total – quantity, and that he did not think of expressing the dimensions as multiples of a constant modulus. It is precisely this method – directly relating the dimensions to each other and expressing them through each other, instead of separately reducing them to one, neutral unit (x = y/4, not x=1 y=4) – which achieves that immediately evident “Vergleichlichkeit Eins gegen dem Andern” (Dürer) which is characteristic of the classical theory. It is no accident when Vitruvius, the only ancient writer who handed down to us some actual, numerical data regarding human proportions (data evidently deriving from Greek sources), formulates them exclusively as common fractions of the body length, and it has been established that in Polyclitus’ own Doryphoros the dimensions of the more important parts of the body are expressible as such fractions.
这些形体的尺寸可以用全长的通分数来表示，而这个通分数确实是数学代号唯一合理的数学符号，用来体现“可量化的数量之间的关系”。盖伦所转的章节表明波利克里托斯也坚持把较小的部分当做较大甚至整个数量的通分数，他也不认为尺寸仅是某个恒定模数的倍数。这种将各尺寸直接联系起来并相互阐释的方法，没有将它们简化到一个中性的单位（比方说Y是X的四倍，而绝非简单的说X是1，Y是4），这也与丢勒所说的“Vergleichlichkeit Eins gegen dem Andern”这个古典理论的特点极其吻合，所以当维特鲁威，作为唯一一位传承给我们些许很明显来自于希腊的关于人体比例的实实在在的算术信息的古代作家，专门把它们当做人体长度的通分数来处理时，这并不稀奇，而波利克里托斯所做的《持矛者》中那些人体中相对重要的部分的尺寸都能用这样的分数来表示。
The anthropometric and organic character of the classical theory of proportions is intrinsically connected with a third characteristic, its pronouncedly normative and aesthetic ambition. Where the Egyptian system aims only at reducing the conventional to a fixed formula, the Polyclitan canon claims to capture beauty. Galen expressly calls it a definition of that “wherein beauty consists”. Vitruvius introduces his little list of measurements as “the dimensions of the homo bene figuratus.” And the only statement that can be traced back with certainty to Polyclitus himself reads as follows: “…the beautiful comes about, little by little, through many numbers.” Thus the Polyclitan canon was intended to realize a “law” of aesthetics, and it is thoroughly characteristic of classical thought that it could imagine such a “law” only in the form of relations expressible in terms of fractions. With the sole exception of Plotinus and his followers, classical aesthetics identified the principle of beauty with the consonance of the parts with each other and the whole.
古典比例理论的人体测量学和有机性的特点还与第三个特征有着内在联系，即原则与美学上的雄心。埃及体系意在将传统简化为固定的公式，而波利克里托斯则号称要去抓住美。盖伦称之为“美的成分”。维特鲁威把他简短的测量目录称为“美男子的身体尺寸”。被认为是波利克里托斯自己亲口说的一句话是这样的：“美是从众多数字中逐渐产生的。”所以波利克里托斯的典籍意欲实现一种美学法则，彻底体现了古典思想，以至于它只能存在于依照分数来表达的关系中。除了普罗提诺及其追随者以外，古典美学认为个体间以及个体与整体间的和谐才是美的原则。
Classical Greece, then, opposed to the inflexible, mechanical, static, and conventional craftsman’s code of the Egyptians…an elastic, dynamic, and aesthetically relevant system of relations. And this contrast was demonstrably known to antiquity itself. Diodorus of Sicily tells, in the ninety-eighth chapter of his First Book, the following story: In ancient times (that is to say, the sixth century B.C.) two sculptors, Telekles and Theodoros, made a cult statue in two separate parts; while the former prepared his portion on Samos, the latter made his in Ephesus; and on being brought together, each half matched the other perfectly. This method of working, so the story goes on, was not customary among the Greeks but among the Egyptians. For with them “the proportions of the statue were not determined, as with the Greeks, according to visual experience”…, but as soon as the stones were quarried, split and prepared, the dimensions were “immediately” established, from the largest part down to the smallest. In Egypt, Diodorus tells us, the entire structure of the body was subdivided into 21 ¼ equal parts; therefore, once the size of the figure to be produced had been decided upon, the artists could divide the work even if operating in different places and nevertheless achieve an accurate joining of the parts.
古典希腊反对僵化、机械、静止、埃及传统工匠的法则，而（倾向于）富有弹性、动态并美学上相对的关联体系，这种反差在艺术品中体现得很明显。西西里的狄奥多罗斯在他第一书的98章中讲了如下的故事：“古时候（就是公元前6世纪），有两个雕塑师，提勒克里斯和塞奥多罗斯，把一个神像分成了两部分，一部分用在萨默斯，另一部分用在以弗所；而当两部分被放在一起时，他们便完美地结合在一起。”故事中的这种工作方法在希腊并不常见，而多在埃及，对于他们来说在视觉体验上雕像的比例没有确定，这与希腊人一样；但是一旦石头被采集、切割并预备好以后，它的尺度便瞬间从头到脚地被建立起来。在埃及，狄奥多罗斯告诉我们，身体的全部结构被细分为21 ¼ 个相等的单位，所以只要雕像的大小被确定下来，艺术家即便在不同的地方动工也能最终使各部分完美无瑕地结合起来。
Whether the anecdotal content of this entertaining story is true or not, it displays a fine feeling for the difference, not only between Egyptian and classical Greek art, but also between the Egyptian and the classical Greek theories of proportions. Diodorus’ tale is of importance, not so much in that it confirms the existence of an Egyptian canon as in that it accentuates its unique significance for the production of a work of art. Even the most highly developed canon would not have enabled two artists to do what is reported of Telekles and Theodoros as soon as the “technical” proportions of the work of art had begun to differ from the “objective” data laid down in the canon. Two Greek sculptors of the fifth, let alone the fourth, century, with even the most exact agreement upon both the system of proportions to be followed and the total size of the figure to be carved, could not have worked one portion independently from the other: even when strictly adhering to a stipulated canon of measurement, they would have been free with regard to the formal configuration. The contrast which Diodorus wants to bring out can, therefore, hardly mean, as has been supposed, that the Greeks, as opposed to the Egyptians, had no canon at all but proportioned their figures “by sight” – apart from the fact that Diodorus, at least through tradition, must have had knowledge of Polyclitus’ efforts. What he means to convey is that for the Egyptians the canon of proportions was, of itself, sufficient to predetermine the final result (and, for this reason, could be applied “on the spot” as soon as the stones were prepared); whereas from the Greek point of view something completely different was required in addition to the canon: visual observation. He wants to make the point that the Egyptian sculptor, like a stonemason, needed nothing more than the dimensions to manufacture his work, and, depending completely upon them, could reproduce – or, more exactly, produce – the figures in any place and in any number of parts; whereas, in contrast to this, the Greek artist could not immediately apply the canon to his block, but must, from case to case, consult with … a “visual precept” that takes into account the organic flexibility of the body to be represented, the diversity of the foreshortenings that present themselves to the artist’s eye, and, possibly, even the particular circumstances under which the finished work may be seen. All this, needless to say, subjects the canonical system of measurement to countless alternations when it is put into practice.
不管这个野史是否真实，至少它表现了埃及艺术与古典希腊艺术、以及他们各自比例理论间的细微差别。狄奥多罗斯的故事很重要，并不是在于它证实了埃及有这么一个对于艺术创作有促进意义的法规，即便是最高端的法规，只要艺术品的“技术性”比例已经与法规中的“客观性”数据区分开来，它便不能让两个艺术家按照提勒克里斯和塞奥多罗斯那样去做。不要说4世纪，就是两个5世纪希腊雕塑师，即便对所采用的比例体系以及要造的形体大小有着最精细的共识，也无法脱离其他而去完成一个局部：即便严格按照测量的规定去做，对于形式组合来说他们也仍然是自由的。所以狄奥多罗斯说的这个对比就像之前提到的一样并不能说明希腊人不同于埃及人那样有法规，从而只能用“看”的方式去衡量比例——除却狄奥多罗斯的说法，至少从传统上希腊人了解波利克里托斯的努力。他想表达的则是埃及人的比例理论本身足以规划出最终结果（因此，它能够在石头准备妥当时应用到那些点上）；而在希腊人看来规则之外还需要某种不同的东西：视觉观察。狄奥多罗斯认为埃及雕塑师就像石匠一般，只需要并完全依赖于那些尺寸便能在任何地方开始工作、复制——更准确地说是生产——任意数量的雕塑部件；相反，希腊艺术家无法马上在他的石块上运用这样的规则，而必须一个挨一个地进行，通过“视觉感知”的方法，考虑要表达身体有机的灵活性，在他们眼中“短缩法”的多样性，还有，很可能，完成作品将会在怎样的特殊环境中被观赏。所有这些，不用说，使测量的经典体系在付诸实践时不得不有无数的变动。
The contrast which Diodorus’ story is intended to make clear, and which it does make clear with remarkable vividness, is thus a contrast between “reconstruction” and “imitation”, between an art completely governed by a mechanical and mathematical code and one within which, despite conformity to rule, there is still room for the irrational of artistic freedom.
狄奥多罗斯故事中的对比想要澄清也确实相当生动地澄清了，“重建”与“模仿”、完全为机械的数学规定所左右的艺术与尽管存在原则但仍有艺术自由的非理性的艺术之间，还是有区别的。
（Finale !!!）