This is the real characteristic difference between the Roman and the Greek profile: in the Greek profile, the root of the nose is attached further in front of the metopico-subnasal line, and this is due to the special form of the Greek forehead, which, instead of being slightly flattened at the glabella, as in the equally beautiful Roman forehead, is rounded to such a degree that the transverse section of the forehead follows a circular line. Hence, it results that the metopic region of the forehead is more prominent and the nose straight, and hence also the line of the forehead is a perceptible continuation of that of the nose (compare the Antinoous). This unique and essential difference between the Greek and the Roman profile has not hitherto been pointed out, so far as I am aware; it is indicated by just one of the facial lines, the one which forms an angle of 75° with the line of orientation. I had an opportunity to observe these differences in my study of the women of Latium, which I pursued side by side with a study of the statues in the museums of Rome, under the guidance of distinguished art specialists; nevertheless, they had none of them ever defined by mathematical lines the sole difference between the two classic types.
The habit of tracing these imaginary lines renders us far more keen in recognising any and every degree of prognathism, even the least perceptible, and any other imperfection of the profile, than the most complicated system of goniometry would make us. For instance, examine the profile of Pauline Borghese; it is certainly not prognathous, since the vertical line reveals a most impeccable orthognathism. But let us trace the nasal line: it meets the vertical line before reaching the metopic point; in order to meet it at this point, the nose would have had to be narrower from front to back; in that case the profile of Pauline Borghese would have been a perfect Roman profile; but the imperial stigma of the Napoleonic house deprived the beautiful princess of the privilege of perfect classic beauty.
In my studies of the women of Latium, in addition to the Greek and Roman forms of profile which are very frequent (the former distinguished by the morphological peculiarity of having no definite naso-frontal angle nor metopic flattening of the forehead) I found a third profile, less frequent yet quite characteristic, among the representatives of the Mediterranean (Eurafrican) race. It is worthy of note (Figs. 107, 108).
First of all, the forehead has a slight transverse depression along its middle line, and the mandible is slightly elongated; but if we draw our imaginary vertical line from the extreme forward point of the brow, we find that none of the forms of prognathism is involved, and that the auriculo-subnasal line is horizontal. This is the type that has been described by Sergi as Egyptian; and the young woman, shown in profile, really does suggest a reincarnation of the proud beauty of the daughters of Pharaoh; the somewhat fleshy lips and the form of the eyes, not almond-like, but very wide and horizontal, complete the characteristics of the type immortalised in Egyptian art.
In the normal profile two forms can be distinguished which are associated with the two general forms of leptoprosopic and chameprosopic face, and hence also with the dolichocephalic and brachycephalic forms of cranium. In the one case, the features are more elongated and seem to be more depressed laterally, with the result that the profile is more refined, the visage narrower, along the longitudinal line; in this case the profile is proopic (as, for example, in the aforesaid Egyptian profile and in the elongated ovoidal English face, Fig. 90); aristocratic faces of the finer type are proopic. On the other hand, broad faces are anteriorly flattened to such an extent that the flatness shows even in the profile: platyopic profile.
Fig. 105.—The Discobolus by Miron (Rome, Vatican Museum).
Fig. 106.—Head of statue known as the Capitoline Antinoous (Rome, Capitoline Museum).
