GENERAL MOTIVES OF STATUES AT REST. 137 
(Pl. 12),! a copy of an original of the end of the fifth century B. C., 
wrongly restored as holding in both hands a vase at which the athlete 
is looking down, was interpreted by Bloch as an ephebe pouring 
oil from a lekythos held in the right hand into an aryballos held 
in the left. ‘This action for an athlete has been characterized by 
Furtwaengler as “‘unparallelled, unclassical and, above all, absurd.”’ 
Through recent discoveries we now know that it represents an apoxy- 
omenos, and that it should be restored with the left forearm close to 
the thigh, and with the right crossing the abdomen diagonally in the 
direction of the left hand. ‘This attitude so closely corresponds with 
that of a figure on a gem as to make it probable that both gem and 
statue are copies of the same original. The figure on the gem? holds 
a strigil in both hands and is generally explained as scraping the dirt 
from the left thigh; the right hand holds the handle and the left the 
blade. A hydria, palm-branch, and crown are pictured to the right— 
showing that the figure represents an athlete, just as the statue has the 
swollen ears of one. ‘The attention of the athlete in both monuments 
is concentrated on the operation involved—a concentration reminding 
us of Myron’s Diskobolos. While, however, in the latter work the 
concentration is momentary, it is less transient in the Florence statue 
and also in the Munich Oi/-pourer. This pose is too conscious in the 
Florentine statue to be the work of Myron. Arndt names no artist, 
but as the similarity between the head of the statue and that of the 
Oil-pourer is so marked, and as every one now regards the latter as 
Attic—even if not by Alkamenes—he thinks that the two must be 
by the same Attic sculptor, although the Uffizi statue is somewhat 
later than the Munich one. The original of the Florence statue 
was famous, if we may judge by the existing number of replicas with 
variations.* 
Among statues showing the same motive and pose, we may note the 
bronze statue of an athlete over life-size—pieced together from 234 

1Amelung, Fuehrer, no. 25; Duetschke, III, 72 (1.93 meters high); B. B., 523-4 (text by 
Arndt); Bulle, p. 116, fig. 21; cf. Helbig, Guide, I, pp. 26 f., on nos. 42 and 44 (statuettes); Benn- 
dorf, Jh. oest. arch. Inst., 1898, Beiblatt, pp. 66 f.; Klein, Praxiteles, pp. 51 f.; Furtw., Mp., 
pp. 261-2; Mw., pp. 469-71; Bloch, R. M., VII, 1892, pp. 81 f., and fig. on p. 83 and PI. III 
(head, two views). The right underarm and hand and the left underarm and part of the hand, 
the vase, and the basis, are all modern restorations. 
2Die antiken Gemmen, Pl. XLIV, no. 17, and text, II, p. 212; Mp., p. 261, fig. 108; Mz., p. 
470, fig. 78; Hartwig, in Berl. Phil. Wochenschr., XVII, Jan. 2, 1897, p. 31, corrects the mis- 
take of Furtwaengler and Amelung that the athlete on the gem is cleansing the thigh and 
not the strigil itself. 
3Arndt dates it about 400 B.C.; Furtwaengler ascribes it and the Dresden torso of the 
Oil-pourer, already discussed, to an Attic master of the end of the fifth or beginning of the 
fourth century B. C. 
4Listed by Furtw., Mp., p. 262, n. 1; Mw., p. 470, n. 5. Especially the reduced mediocre 
copy in the Braccio Nuovo of the Vatican: Helbig, Guide, no. 45; Clarac, 861, 2183; R. M., 
VITS 1892, pp. 92 f., and fig. 
