ASSIMILATION OF OLYMPIC VICTOR STATUES. ie 
of the end of the fifth century B.C. However, as we shall see, this head 
does not appear to belong to the statue.’ Among the works of Alka- 
menes Pliny mentions a bronze pentathlete,! called the Enkrinomenos, 
and this work has been identified with the statue under discussion.’ 
Such an assumption is tenable only if the statue fits Pliny’s epithet. 
This epithet appears to mean “undergoing a test,’ and should refer 
not to the statue, for we know nothing of any principle of selecting 
statues, but to the athlete represented, the éyxp.ots referring to the 
selection of athletes before the contest.? Pliny’s statue, then, presum- 
ably, represented a pentathlete, not in action as the Vatican statue 
does, but standing at rest before his judges. An all-round athlete 
like a pentathlete would especially fit such an ordeal, and his statue, 
albeit lighter and more graceful, would be an ideal one like the Dory- 
phoros of Polykleitos.4. We know how Alkamenes treated Hermes from 
the bearded herma of that god found in Pergamon in 1903 and inscribed 
with hisname.® Its massive features, broad forehead, and wide-opened 
eyes bear no analogy to the head on the Vatican statue, nor to the one 
with which Helbig would replace it. ‘The ascription of the staute to 
Naukydes is better founded. As the head of the statue is Attic and 
not Argive, it is difficult to connect the work with a Peloponnesian 
artist. However, the present head of the statue can not be shown to 
belong to it, and no other replica has a head which can be proved to 
belong to the body. A fragmentary replica of the statue, of good work- 
manship, was found in Rome in 1910, and nearby a head, which must 
belong to the torso. This head fits the Vatican statue better than the 
head now on it, and certainly comes from the Polykleitan circle— 
both head and body showing elements of Polykleitan style. This new 
head represents the transition from Polykleitan art to that of the next 
century, 7. ¢., to the head-types of Skopas, Praxiteles, and other Attic 
177, N., XXXIV, 72; S. Q., 826. It was the only bronze work which the sculptor is known to 
have made, all his other works being in marble. 
2Kekulé (/. c.), Furtwaengler (J. c.), and others make the identification. 
8Long ago Turnebus (Advers., 1580, p. 486) explained the word in the sense of @yKprots a0AnTar, 
as used by Lucian, pro Imag., 11; cf., Cicero’s probatio, in his de Of., 1, 144. Most modern com- 
mentators, however, refer the word to the statue, translating it “classical” or “chosen”’: thus Urlichs, 
Chrest. Pl., 1857, p. 325; O. Jahn, Ueber die Kunsturteile des Plinius (Ber. saechs. Ges. d. Wiss., 
1850), p. 125; H. L. von Urlichs, Blaetter f. d. bayr. Gymnasialsch., 1894, pp. 609 f., translates it 
*klassisch”’ or “‘mustergueltig,” 7. ¢., serving asa patternorstandard. But the term was too well 
known as an athletic one for it ever to have been applied to a statue. ‘The present participle, 
instead of the usual aorist (é€yxpufets), shows that Alkamenes’ statue represented an athlete in the 
act of undergoing selection. The old emendation into €yxptouevos has been recently defended by 
Klein, Praxiteles, p. 50, who identifies Pliny’s statue with the Glyptothek Ozl-pourer (PI. 11); it 
is discredited by the occurrence of the epithet Encrinomenos as a Roman proper name, C., J. L., 
V, 1, 4429, which shows how familiar it was. See Jex-Blake, on the passage of Pliny. 
4Cf. Gardner, Hbk., p. 345; Helbig, /. c. 
5It seems to be a Hadrianic copy of an original which stood on the Athenian Akropolis. 
6Now in the Antiquarium, Rome: Helbig, Fuehrer, I, no. 1030; noted in B. Com. Rom., 
XXXVIII, 1910, p. 249, and fully discussed, ibid.. XX XIX, 1911, pp. 97 f. (L. Mariani), and 
Pls. VI, VII (three views), and VIII (head, two views). 
