114 VICTOR STATUES REPRESENTED AT REST. 
anything to do with these groups. ‘The style of the two gables (as 
well as that of the metopes) 1s so similar that many have assigned them 
to one and the same artist.1. They have been referred to many schools 
from Ionia to Sicily, even including a local Elean one. ‘Thus Brunn 
assigned them to a North Greek-Thracian school; Flasch? and (more 
recently) Joubin® to the Attic; Kekulé* and Friedrchs-Wolters® to a 
West Greek (Sicilian) one, because of their similarity to the metopes of 
temple E at Selinos; Furtwaengler® to an Ionic one (Parian masters). 
Most scholars, however, including K. Lange,’ Treu,® Studniczka,° 
Collignon,!® and Overbeck,!! have referred them to Peloponnesian 
sculptors.” 
To return to the art of Hagelaidas: if we assume that the Ligourio 
bronze comes from the school of that Argive master certain conclusions 
must be drawn. ‘The figure is archaic, but does not have the archaic 
smile. In Athens at the end of the archaic period there was a reaction 
against this: smile, and doubtless the Athenian artists were strongly 
influenced by Argive models. ‘Thus an archaic bronze head of a youth, 
found on the Akropolis and dating from about 480 B.C., shows a serious 
mouth, a strong chin, heavy upper eyelids, and finely worked hair, 
characteristics which we found in the Ligouri6 statuette. These 
traits show that the statuette and the head were the forerunners of the 
Apollo of the West Gable at Olympia. So finished a bronze as this 
one from the Akropolis, at the beginning of the fifth century B. C., has 
inclined Richardson to look upon it as ‘‘not improbably a work of 
1Loeschke (Dorpaterprogr., 1887, p. 7, on the basis of an early suggestion of Furtwaengler 
in 4. M., III, 1878, p. 194) and J. Six (J. H. S., X, 1889, pp. 109 f.), assumed two sculptors 
of the name of Alkamenes, ascribing the gable statues and that of Hera at Phaleron (mentioned 
by P., I, 1.5) to the elder one. Furtwaengler later retracted the theory of two artists and 
assumed but one (M>., p. 90, n. 3; Mw., p. 122 and n. 6). Koepp has shown that the Hera is 
of no use in dating, since the story of Pausanias that the temple of Hera was destroyed by the 
Persians is an invention (/d., V, 1890, p. 277). The idea of an elder Alkamenes based on the 
inscription on a herm recently found in Pergamon (4. 4., 1904, fig. on p. 76) has also 
been refuted by Winter (4. M., X XIX, 1904, pp. 208-211, and Pls. XVIJI-X XI), who has 
shown that the inscription and statue do not go so far back. 
*See Baum., pp. 1104 KK. 3P, 243. 
tAS Ligtdsl, 1 So3ap pe lel 5No. 135. 
®Arch. Stud. H. Brunn dargebr., pp. 67 f. 
7A. M., VII, 1882, pp. 206 f. He also found the style of the two pediments unlike. 
84. Z., XXXIX, 1881, p. 78, n. (=Argive-Sikyonian); cf. Bildw. v. Ol., Textbd., pp. 44-95; 
Tafelbd., Pls» IX—XVII (East Gable), XXII-XXXI (West Gable). 
9A. M., XII, 1887, pp. 374-5 (=Argive-Sikyonian); cf. R. M., II, 1887, pp. 53 f., where he 
excepts the four corner figures of the West Gable as Attic, because they are of Pentelic marble, 
and not Parian, like the others. 
107, pp. 460-1. 
at] p-0o50i (= lean): 
?For a discussion of the whole question of the artists, see Hitz.-Bluemn., II, 1, pp. 329 f.; 
Frazer, III, pp. 512 f. Fora restoration of the two groups, see Treu, Jb., III, 1888, Pls. 5, 6 
(West), and zbid., IV, 1889, Pls. 8, 9 (East); whence Gardner, Hbk., p. 246, figs, 57 and 56 
respectively; see also Bildw. v. Ol., Tafelbd., Pls. XVIII-XXI; Textbd., pp. 114-137; Overbeck, 
I, Pl. opp. p. 309; ete. 
