616 CLASSICAL ART 



the Agias and the apoxyomenus as harmonious productions of a 

 single artist, and as in fact confirming each other's claims to Lysip- 

 pean authorship, another view is that the apoxyomenus shows such 

 fundamental differences from the Agias and from other undisputedly 

 fourth-century works that it must not only be denied to Lysippus, 

 but be assigned to a post-Lysippean date. The argument is summed 

 up in these sentences: "The feet are in the case of the apoxyomenus 

 a feature which can scarcely be reconciled with a fourth-century 

 origin. If we compare them with the foot of the Hermes of Praxiteles 

 we shall find not merely a difference of school, but a difference so 

 deep that it must show a different date. And can another work of 

 the fourth century be found which shows the mastery of anatomy, 

 and the precision in the rendering of detail, which we find in the 

 apoxyomenus?" 1 



But, after all, why should we regard the Agias of Delphi as Lysip- 

 pean? The Thessalian tetrarch resident in Pharsalus decides to set 

 up in his own city bronze statues representing earlier members of 

 his family and himself, and for this series he engages the talent 

 of the foremost sculptor in bronze of the day, and perhaps that of 

 others. At the same time or later he decides to set up at Delphi 

 marble statues representing the same persons. That he should 

 use the same metrical epigrams for the two series is natural and 

 appropriate. But is there any reason why the two sets of figures 

 should look exactly alike? None, that I can sec. The earlier members 

 of the series, including the Agias, must probably be imaginary 

 portraits, and I cannot suppose that any Greek would compare two 

 sets of imaginary portraits in places separated by a journey of several 

 days to sec whether they agreed, or that he would be in the least 

 surprised or disconcerted if he should happen to notice discrepancies. 

 If it were a common practice of the time to make exact copies of 

 statues, then, indeed, it would be the most economical and might 

 be the most natural thing to have the bronze statues copied in 

 marble. But in spite of what Pliny says about the invention by 

 Lysistratus, brother of Lysippus, of the art of making casts from 

 statues, there is no good reason to think that exact copying was 

 common in Lysippus's day; indeed, some would go so far as to say 

 that it was not practiced at all. Therefore, I think that Daochus 

 would give the commission for the Delphian series, not to Lysippus 

 and his associates, but to a sculptor or sculptors who habitually 

 worked in marble, not hampering them with restrictions as to the 

 relationship of their work to the other series. Whether they would 

 be likely or not to be dominated by the influence of Lysippus, it is 

 impossible to say n priori; perhaps not. as his work seems to have 

 been exclusively in bronze. At all events, it is clearly unsafe to 

 1 P. Gardner, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1903, p. 130. 



