VOTIVE CHARACTER OF VICTOR DEDICATIONS. 39 
statue of the wrestler Milo is reyected by Dittenberger. The oldest 
prose inscription which makes a votive offering out of a victor statue 
at Olympia is that of Thaliarchos, who won his second victory in boxing 
some time between 40 and 30 B.C. Then follow certain prose inscrip- 
tions of imperial times.” Dittenberger concludes that for four hundred 
years there is no case of such a dedication.’ From the evidence of the 
inscriptions from statue bases, therefore, it is clear that the distinction 
made by Pausanias between honor and victor statues did not hold 
good in his day, since the words dvd0nua and avéOyxe were then 
used on_victor “monuments at Olympia, as the inscriptions-of the 
imperial age just cited show, but that it did hold good for centuries 
before the Roman period. Pausanias must have based his statement, 
therefore, not on observation, but on the words of some earlier writer.‘ 
Furtwaengler’s reasoning has been followed pretty generally by arche- 
ologists.” While some, however, leave the question in doubt,® others 
are opposed to the idea that these statues were not votive. Thus R. 
Schoell believes that the victor monuments were as truly dvaéjuara 
as the olive crowns.’ Reisch, who has discussed the question at 
length,® believes, in opposition to the earlier view of Furtwaengler, 
that everything within the Altis must always ipso facto have been 
regarded as dedications to the god. ‘This would explain the frequent 
omission of the name of the god, which would be superfluous, the victor 
being content with inscribing his own name and the contest in which 
he was victorious. Even the name of the contest does not always 
appear.® Reisch explains the omission of the formula davéOnxe in 
earlier inscriptions on the ground of epigrammatic brevity.’° 
The truth must lie somewhere between the extremes represented by 
the views of Furtwaengler and Reisch. Some athlete statues may have 
been votive, while others were not. Thus Rouse argues! that origi- 
1S0 Dittenberger, Inschr. v. Ol., p. 241, and no. 213; J. G. B., 72; Foerster, following the 
earlier dating of Dittenberger (4. Z., XX XV, 1877, p. 42, nos. 49-50), dates the two victories 
later, in Ols. (?) 200, 203 (=21 and 33 A. D.); nos. 614 and 619. 
2Inschr. v. Ol., 225, 228, 229-30, 231, 232. 30p. cit., pp. 240-1. 
4Furtwaengler, /. c., p. 30; Reisch, p. 37; Rouse, p. 167; Frazer, III, p.624. Against the view 
that victor statues were first called votive in Roman days, see Purgold, 4. Z., XX XIX, 1881, p. 89, 
on no..390 (= inscription of Glaukon= Jnschr. v. Ol., 178; however, he was a victor in chariot-racing). 
5E. g., by Scherer, p.5; Kuhnert, Jahrb. fuer cl. Phil., Supplbd., XIV, 1885, p. 257, n. 7; Flasch, 
in Baum., II, p. 1096; cf. Dittenberger-Purgold, Inschr. v. Ol., p. 240; Frazer, III, pp. 623-4. 
8. g., Ziemann, de Anathematis Graecis, 1885, p. 54. 
"Hermes, XIII, 1878, p. 437, n. 2. 
8Pp. 35 f.; followed by M. K. Welsh, B. S. 4., XI, 1904-5, pp. 33-4. 
9F. g., Pythokles, who won the pentathlon in Ol. 82 (=452 B.C.), does not mention his contest 
on the base (Inschr. v. Ol., 162-3), nor does Pausanias give it (VI, 7.10); we learn it only from 
the Oxy. Pap.: see Robert O. S., p. 185; Hyde, 70; Foerster, 295. 
100n p. 36, n. 1, he points out that at Athens the usual dedication formula was omitted; e¢. g., 
in the inscription of the Isthmian victor Diophanes, C. J. 4., I, 3, 1301, and in that of a Pan- 
athenaic victor, ibid., 1302. The presence of the word in an Athenian inscription referring to 
the Olympic victor Kallias rests on an uncertain restoration: ibid., I, 419; he won OL. 77 (=472 
B.C.): P., VI, 6.1; Hyde, 50; Foerster, 208. Pp, 167 f. 
