THE AFFILIATED SCHOOLS OF ARGOS AND SIKYON. 113 
statue in groups combined with a female figure of related style,! or 
with another male figure,? we may see a copy of a bronze original 
of the Argive school before Polykleitos. The standing motive and the 
body forms are the same in both the Mantuan 4 pollo and the Stephanos 
figure, although the former is more developed and the head type is 
different in both; this shows that the two, while displaying the same 
basic ideal, were not works of the same master.* As the statue by 
Stephanos has a fillet around the hair, it may well represent an ideal 
athlete, who in the original held an aryballos or similar palastra 
attribute in the raised left hand. It is interesting to compare the copies 
of this group with those of another representing mother and son, the 
work of Menelaos, the pupil of Stephanos, which, though transferred’ 
from Greek to Roman taste in respect of drapery and forms, is merely 
a variation of the same theme without any heroic traits.* 
The influence of Hagelaidas can be easily traced in other schools 
of art, especially in the Attic School and in the sculptures of the temple 
of Zeus at Olympia, whether these latter be Peloponnesian in origin 
or not. It will be convenient in this connection to discuss briefly the 
style of these important sculptures, which we have already mentioned 
several times. The statement of Pausanias,® that the sculptors of the 
East and West Gables were Paionios of Mende in Thrace and Alka- 
menes respectively—the latter being known as the pupil of Pheidias°— 
was not doubted until the discovery of the Olympia sculptures.’ 
Then doubts arose both on chronological and stylistic grounds, and 
now only a few archzologists would maintain that either artist had 
1The best example isin Naples, the group being known, and probably correctly, since Winckel- 
mann’s day, as Orestes and Elektra: B. B.,no. 306; Kekule, Gruppe d. Menelaos, Pl. II, 1; Bulle, 
141 (height 1.44 meters); Collignon, II, pp. 662, fig. 347; Gardner, Hbk., p. 557, fig. 151; Clarac, 
V, 836, 2093; Reinach, Rép., I, 506.4. A sketch of the Naples Orestes and the Ligouri6 
bronze, showing their great resemblance, is given by Furtwaengler, J0stes Berl. Winckelmanns- 
progr. p. 137. A replica of the female figure is cited by Michaelis as in Marbury Hall, Eng- 
land: p. 503, no. 6; cf. Conze, Beitraege zur Gesch. d. gr. Pl, p. 25, n. 3. 
2F. g., the so-called group of Orestes and Pylades in the Louvre: von Mach, 323; Col- 
lignon, II, p. 663, fig. 348; Reinach, Rép., I, 161, 2 (= Mercury and Vulcan). 
3Kalkmann, J3stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr., 1893, pp. 77 f., thought that the Stephanos 
figure went back to an original by Pythagoras, the rival of Myron, which Furtwaengler, Mp., 
p. 49, rightly characterizes as ‘‘wide of the mark’’; Pfuhl, p. 2197, Bulle, and others regard its 
ascription to the school of Hagelaidas as probable, evenif not capable of proof. Furtwaengler, 
50stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr., p. 152, believes it was vermutlich ein Werk des Meisters (1. ¢., 
Hagelaidas) selbst; on pp. 146-7 he pronounces the life-size marble torso of a statue of a nude 
man found in a wall over the ruins of the Palaistra at Olympia (Treu, 4. Z., XX XVIII, 1880, 
p. 45)—because of its resemblance in pose to that of the Ligourié statuette—a Roman school 
copy of an original bronze victor statue going back to Hagelaidas. 
4. g., the marble group formerly in the Boncompagni-Ludovisi collection, now in the 
Museo delle Terme, Rome: Helbig, Fuehrer, II, 1314; Guide, 887; B. B., no. 309; von Mach, 
322; Baum., II, p. 1193, fig. 1393; Springer-Michaelis, p. 454, fig. 834; Kekule, Die Gruppe 
d. Menelaos, Pl. 1; Schreiber, Bildw. d. Villa Ludovisi, p. 89, no. 69; Collignon, II, p. 665, 
fig. 349; F. W., 1560; Reinach, Rép., I, 506, 6. 
5V, 10.8. SP liye Ns OA LV, (2, and A V1, 16) 
7See Brunn, pp. 236-7 and 244-5. 
