(03-10-2016, 10:45 AM)Sam G wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(01-10-2016, 09:25 PM)Koen Gh. wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The young man on top of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is 5.4 heads tall, which is a full head more than the median. He is the least "compact" figure I measured. It is interesting that the pen lines appear to betray some uncertainty or correcting around his rump.
I wonder if this "nymph" may have been distorted (relative to the VMS norm) for some reason relating to the way the text and illustrations are interlocked. Perhaps the illustrator realized he was going to need to leave enough room for five lines of text beneath the arms so he made the body a bit bigger than usual. This consideration wouldn't have affected the other nymphs you measured, since they aren't surrounded by blocks of text.
My hypothesis is something very similar. I believe (as do many others) that this page was intended to be viewed next to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. , and a connection between this man and the nymph top left on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. needed to be expressed. That may be why he was made a bit taller. It's a shame that the edge of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is obscured, because I believe this would be more obvious otherwise..
About bodies being scaled down: that sounds plausible, and it also ties in to what Searcher said about a purpose for large heads - that they convey more individuality.
However, I think Diane is right to read it as a cultural indicator rather than rescaling for necessity. There are other strange things about the nymphs, like bendy arms, bumpy heads and wide thighs. Furthermore, there is the consistency of these aspects, and the four-part division, which to me seem to argue against simple downscaling of the body compared to the head.
That is, unless the downscaling was done with a lot of care. If the figures were uniform (i.e. classical?) to begin with and they were resized according to some rules, it is conceivable.
It basically boils down to two options for me:
a) The proportions are meaningful and/or somehow "constructed". That is why they are unusually consistent. Consistency through construct.
b) This was just the way someone along the line of copying was used to drawing the human figure. Consistency through custom.