ASSIMILATION OF OLYMPIC VICTOR STATUES. Sl 
size and represents a nude youth standing with languid grace, the 
weight of his body resting upon the left leg, while the right is slightly 
bent and the right arm is extended horizontally, the hand holding a 
round object now lost and variously interpreted. In short, the pose 
strongly resembles that of the Vatican Apoxyomenos (Pl. 29). Opin- 
ions as to the age and authorship of this statue have been very diverse, 
ranging from the fifth century B.C. down to Hellenistic times and 
ascribing it to many masters and schools. Kabbadias, who published 
it, in conjunction with the other objects, directly after their discovery,' 
thought it would prove to “‘rankas high among statues of bronze as does 
the Hermes of Praxiteles among those of marble,” and characterized 
it as ‘‘the most beautiful bronze statue that we possess.”” Waldstein 
praised it in no less exaggerated terms, and classed it along with the 
Charioteer from Delphi (Fig. 66) as among the first Greek bronzes, 
if not among the finest specimens of Greek sculpture.? He followed 
Kabbadias in assigning it to the fourth century B. C. and in interpreting 
it as Hermes. He at first ascribed it to Praxiteles or his school, but 
later he thought it more Skopaic.* Th. Reinach placed it in the early 
fourth century B.C., but regarded it as the work of a sculptor influenced 
by Polykleitos, naming the youthful Praxiteles or Euphranor.t He 
explained the pose as that of a man amusing a dog or a child with some 
round object. A Greek scholar, A. S. Arvanitopoulos, assigned the 
work to the fifth century B.C. and to the Attic school, referring it 
possibly to Alkamenes.® However, as soon as the statue was properly 
cleansed and pieced together, its early dating was seen to be untenable, 
and its Hellenistic character became evident. E. A. Gardner found 
little resemblance in the head to that of the Praxitelean Hermes, 
but more in the treatment of hair and eyes to that of the Lansdowne 

1]. H. S., XXI, 1901, pp. 205 f; he also briefly described all the bronzes found in 4. 4., 1901, 
pp. 17-19, (4 figs.), in Rev. des Et. gr., XIV, 1901, pp. 122-6 (5 figs.), and in C. R. Acad. Inser., 
1901, pp. 58-63 (3 figs.) and 158-9 (3 Pls.). All the bronzes were published after cleansing in 
Arch. Eph., 1902, pp. 145 f., with Pls. 7-17 and figs. 1-18 in the text; see also Stais, Les trou- 
vailles dans la mer de Cythére, 1905; the last publication of all the pieces is by Svoronos, Textbd., 
I, pp. 1-86; Tafelbd., I, Pls. I-XX. 
2In his popular discussion of the bronzes in Monthly Review, June, 1901, pp. 110-127 (with 
5 Pls., and 5 figs.). Similar praise is that of W. Klein, II, p. 403; he calls it die wundervollste 
aller uns erhaltenen Bronzestatuen des Altertums. 
3London Illustrated News, June 6, 1903 (with double-page plate). 
4Gaz. d. B.-A., XXV, Pér. III, 1901, pp. 295-301 (with 3 figures). 
5In a monograph entitled ‘O ’’EgnBos trav’ AvrixvOnpwr (pp. 1-42, and 6 figs.), Athens, 1903. 
®It was restored by the French sculptor André, who covered it with putty to conceal the join- 
tures and the rivets which were used in welding the fragments together. He also colored it 
to resemble bronze. The method used in the restoration is certainly open to objection, but not 
to the extent asserted by certain scholars, ¢. g., by von Mach, who asserts that no Greek statue 
has received such unworthy treatment, and that the restoration makes it possible to refer the 
statue to almost any age or admixture of influences: Greek Sculpture, Its Spirit and Principles, 
p. 326. Much of the beauty of the statue, to be sure, is gone, but the style is not obscured. It 
has been restored too full, which gives it a sensuous appearance. For the statue, before resto- 
ration, see Svoronos, Textbd., p. 18, fig. 2; Stais, Marbres et Bronzes, fig. on p. 304. 
