110 VICTOR STATUES REPRESENTED AT REST. 
the reputed teacher of Myron and Polykleitos, who lived from the third 
quarter of the sixth century into the second quarter of the fifth cen- 
tury B.C. While his connection with Myron and Polykleitos is scarcely 
to be doubted,! his supposed connection with Pheidias has made the 
chronology of the life of this sculptor one of the difficult problems of the 
ancient history of art. A scholion on Aristophanes’ Ranae, 504, dates 
the statue known as the Herakles Alexikakos in the Attic deme Melite 
by Hagelaidas after the pestilence in Athens of 431-430 B.C., and makes 
the Argive sculptor (Gelados= Hagelaidas) the teacher of Pheidias. 
As his statue of the Olympic victor Anochos commemorated a victory 
won in Ol. 65 (=520 B.C.), this late date is manifestly impossible.” 
Furthermore, a better tradition says that Hegias was the teacher of the 
Attic master. Furtwaengler’s attempt to show that these two diver- 
gent traditions were really in accord, by the asumption that Hegias 
was the pupil of Hagelaidas and that his art came from the latter— 
thus explaining certain similarities in the work of Hagelaidas and Phei- 
dias,—does not solve the problem.* As the scholion is based on a good 
tradition,® the best solution of the difficulty is that of Kalkmann® and 
others, that the dlexikakos was the work of a younger Hagelaidas, the 
grandson of the famous master, by the intermediate Argeidas. For 
a lower limit to the activity of Hagelaidas there seems to be no good 
reason for distrusting the evidence that he made a bronze Zeus for the 
Messenians to be set up at Naupaktos, whither they moved in 455 B. C.’ 
This makes quite possible a period of collaboration of four or five years 
at least between Polykleitos and Hagelaidas. 
1For Myron, see Pliny, H. N., XXXIV, 57. Furtwaengler, Mp., p. 196, Mw., 379-80, thinks 
that the connection is not literally true, even if considerations of chronology are not against it, 
and derives the story of Hagelaidas teaching Myron from the similarity between the work of 
thetwo. For Polykleitos, see Pliny, H. N., XX XIV, 55. The tradition that Hagelaidas was the 
master of Polykleitos has been unreasonably assailed by many scholars: ¢. g., by Robert, Arch. 
Maerchen, 1886, p.97; Mahler, Polyklet u. s. Sch., 1912, pp. 6 f.; Klein, I, p. 340; cf. II, p. 143; 
cf. Springer-Michaelis, I, p. 210. Furtwaengler, Mp., p. 196, Mw., p. 380, believes it impos- 
sible because of chronological difficulties, and assumes a sculptor of an intermediate generation 
as the teacher of Polykleitos; he, followed by Mahler, /. c., and Klein, I, 340, names Argeidas 
(mentioned in J. G. B., no. 30) as this intermediate artist. However, he admits that the 
statement is true in a general sense, since Polykleitos developed his canon from that of 
Hagelaidas: cf. sostes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr., p. 149; Pfuhl, however, p. 2192, has shown 
that the relationship is perfectly possible. 2To be mentioned infra, p. 111 and note 2. 
3Dio Chrysost., de Hom. et Socr., 1; here Mueller amends the MSS. reading HITOY to 
HTIOY; E. A. Gardner, Class. Rev., 1894, p. 70, wrongly reads ‘Hye\ddov. 
4Mp., pp. 53 and 196; Mw., pp. 80-81, and 380. 
’Wilamowitz has shown that it comes from Apollonios, son of Chairis, who lived circa 100 
B. C., and that it goes back probably to the Chronica of Apollodoros of Athens, who lived in 
the middle of the second century B. C.: Aus Kydathen (Kiessling and Wilamowitz, Philolog. 
Untersuchungen, I, 1880), pp. 154f. Kalkmann, in his Quellen der Kunstgesch. d. Plinius, 
p. 41, believes that the date which is given by Pliny (XXXIV, 49) for the foruit of Hagelaidas, 
Ol. 87 (=423-429 B. C.), comes from the same Apollodoros. 
Op. cit., pp. 41 and 65 f.; Pfuhl, p. 2194. Brunn, /. c., Overbeck, I, p. 140, and Robert, /. c., 
had assumed an earlier plague at the beginning of the fifth century B. C.; but the real occasion 
for the dedication cf the Herakles remains obscure. SPORE saioeee 
