Reviewed by: Sculptors and Physicians in Fifth-Century Greece: A Preliminary Study Shigehisa Kuriyama Guy P. R. Métraux. Sculptors and Physicians in Fifth-Century Greece: A Preliminary Study. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1995. xvi + 154 pp. Ill. $Can. 39.95. Why do sculptures of human figures in classical Greece look the way they do? How we answer this question depends importantly upon our view of their appearance. If the sculptures are seen as just mirroring, directly, the actual appearance of the body, then the question concerns the sources and context of naturalism. But if we recognize them as stylized representations, and observe that certain details are deliberately highlighted by classical artists—are exaggerated, even, to the point of anatomical inaccuracy—then the problem becomes one about a culturally distinct conception of the body: about decisions to depict the body in certain ways rather than others. Sculptors and Physicians argues persuasively for the latter perspective. With a shrewd eye, Métraux points out numerous features of classical sculptures that require explanation: the inflation of the lower abdomen, for instance, emphasized by the unanatomical design of the iliac-inguinal line; the twist of the body in contrapposto; the heavy-lidded, drowsy appearance of the eyes; the prominence of the veins. Considered separately, these details might be attributed to vague whim—but taken together, they bespeak definite intent. Métraux’s thesis is that Greek sculptors sought, on the one hand, to represent the forces animating the body—to show, that is, the operation of what would eventually be known as the soul; and, on the other hand, to depict what is uniquely human about the human body. Thus his analysis of somatic animation [End Page 700] relates seemingly disparate features such as the open mouth, the accentuated lower abdomen, and the prominent veins to physiological theories of vital breath; and his explanation of the design of the eyelids and eyelashes (to cite just one example) appeals to Aristotle’s remarks on lower eyelashes and the ability to squint as peculiarly human traits. Is Métraux right? His central claim, about the relevance of medical ideas for interpreting classical sculptures, surely is. As for his interpretations of particular details, some are less compelling than others, but none is implausible, and many are astute. It should be noted, though, that the book addresses only half of the story of “sculptors and physicians,” concentrating exclusively on the one-way diffusion of medical ideas into art. One hopes that others will take up the challenge of exploring the converse: how sculptural representations of the body—and, more generally, the cultural beliefs and practices in ancient Greece that imbued such representations with value and meaning—influenced the medical apprehension of the body. Shigehisa Kuriyama International Research Center for Japanese Studies Kyoto, Japan Copyright © 1996 The Johns Hopkins University Press