THE APOLLO TYPE. 107 
a quoit with the feet close together and with the left hand grasping a 
pomegranate, the fingers of the right hand being extended straight out, 
and a fillet encircling the brows.! Philostratos has Apollonios explain 
the attributes of the statue on the ground that the people of Kroton 
represented their famous victor in the guise of a priest of Hera. This 
would explain the priestly fillet and the pomegranate sacred to the god- 
dess, while the diskos, on which the statue rested, would be the shield 
on which Hera’s priest stood when praying. Scherer, however, rightly 
pointed out that the statue in the Altis was of Milo the victor and not 
the priest. He therefore explained the diskos? merely as a round 
basis on which the statue, of the archaic “Apollo” type with its feet 
close together, stood, and the tainia as a victor band. He followed 
Philostratos in believing that the gesture of the right hand was one of 
adoration.® He looked upon the object in the left hand not as a 
pomegranate at all, but as an alabastron, a toilet article adapted to 
avictor. He, re ore believed that the 4 pollo of the elder Kanachos 
of Sikyon,* the so-called Philesian Apollo,’ represented nude and holding 
a tiny fawn in the right hand and a bow in the left, would give a good 
idea of the pose of Milo’s statue.* Hitzig and Bluemner believe this 
explanation of Scherer probable, although they rightly disagree with him 
in his exchanging the pomegranate for an alabastron, since Pausanias 
expressly mentions a pomegranate in the hand of another victor statue 
at Olympia.’ Pliny speaks of a male figure by Pythagoras, mala fer- 
entem nudum,® and Lucian says apples were prizes at Delphi, and we 
know that Milo was also a Pythian victor. —The same commentators be- 
lieve that Pausanias’ story of Milo bursting a cord drawn round his brow 
by swelling his veins arose from the victor band on the statue, and the 
story of the strength of his fingers from the position of the fingers on it. 
We have seen in the “ Apollo”’ statues a considerable variety of physi- 
caltypes. Inthe sixth century B.C. the artist was feeling his way and 
was hampered by local school tendencies. At first he knew only how 
1Frazer, IV, p. 44, believes that this description may be imaginary, concocted from stories of 
Milo’s feats of strength; but Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 2, p. 601, cite Guttman, de olympionicis apud 
Philostratum, p. 7, Matz, de Philostr. in describ. imag. Fide, p. 33, and Gurlitt, Ueber Pausanias, 
1890, p. 413, as believing that it was based on the appearance of the statue. Scherer, pp. 23 f., 
thought that Philostratos followed Pausanias in interpreting the attributes of the statue, and 
that the latter got his idea of the strength of the victor from the statue or from a cicerone. 
Pliny, H. N., VII, 19, says of Milo: Malum tenenti nemo digitum corrigebat. Aelian mentions 
Milo’s feat with the pomegranate in Var. Hist., II, 24 and de Nat. anim., VI, 55. 
'2Cf. Philostr., 7. c., Il. 27, 28: wat 76 whrw Ree TH dpxaig &yahnaromouta tpockelaOw. 
30>. cit., p. 31. 
forte, V Lu, 46.3. PPliny,f77 Vi, AXALV S75: 
6For ne type, see the Payne Knight bronze statuette in the British Museum: B. M. Bronz., 
no. 209 and Pl. I; Frazer, IV, p. 430, fig. 45; the same type appears on Milesian coins. Cf. 
Brunn, I, 77. Frazer is against Scherer’s contention. 
II, 2, pp. 601-2. See P., VI, 9.1 (statue of Theognetos). 
7eN., XXXIV, 59. 
Ba vachar., 9; cf. A. G., 1X, 357. 
