GENERAL MOTIVES OF STATUES AT REST. 141 
an athlete, he was certainly pouring a libation before victory; if a 
warrior, he was doing the same thing before going on a campaign. 
In the latter case the left hand should be restored with a spear. 
We must also place here the life-size original Greek bronze in Flor- 
ence, discovered at Pesaro, near Ancona,in 1530, and known from the 
early eighteenth century as the Jdolino (Pl. 14),! for its motive con- 
nects it with the series just discussed. ‘This is, perhaps, our finest 
bronze statue from antiquity, as it represents the highest ideal of boy 
beauty, just as the Doryphoros does of manly beauty. The chief 
characteristics—the positions of the feet, head, and arms, though essen- 
tially those of the statues discussed, offer certain differences. Thus 
the left leg is placed more to one side and turned further outwards 
than in the statue of Xenokles and kindred works; the left hand hangs 
down at an angle to the leg differently from the others. In other 
words, by comparing it with the Paris statuette, we see a slightly differ- 
ent rhythm from that found in Polykleitan works. The Jdolino has 
been looked upon as Myronic by Kekulé,? Studniczka,’? and hesitat- 
ingly Klein,* while Mahler regarded it as Pheidian.’ Furtwaengler, 
however, by a careful analysis, has shown its Polykleitan character- 
istics—especially the shape of the head and the features, and the 
treatment of the hair, which reminds us of the Naples copy of the 
Doryphoros. Owing to differences, however, he did not assign it to 
the master himself, but suggested that it was the work of his pupil 
Patrokles.* Bulle found the head Polykleitan, but the body Attic, 
and assigned the figure to an unknown Attic sculptor working in 
the Polykleitan circle. In this controversy on its style, a statue 
found in 1916 in the excavations of the Baths at Kyrene should be of 
use, for it is the most faithful of all the Roman copies known of the 
bronze original and clearly shows a Polykleitan character influenced by 
Attic art.7’/ By acomparison of this marble copy with the Florentine 
1In the Museo Archeologico: Amelung, Fuehrer, no. 268 (and bibliography); B. B., 274-77; 
Bulle, 52-53 and 204-5 (head); von Mach, 123 (front and back views); Collignon, I, pp. 479 f. 
and figs. 247 (statue), 248 (head); Reinach, Rép., II, 2, 588, 2; Furtw., Mp., p. 285, fig. 122 
(head); Mw., p. 499, fig. 89; Robinson, Cat. Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Suppl., no. 113; 
Springer-Michaelis, p. 272, fig. 488. It is 1.48 meters high (Bulle). 
2Ueber die Bronzestatue des sog. Idolino (49stes Berl. Winckelmanns progr., 1889), p. 10. He 
classed it stylistically with the Oil-pourer of Munich and the Standing Diskobolos of the Vati- 
can, which Brunn had called Myronic. He later, however, rencunced his Myronic theory 
and merely called it Attic, because of its resemblance to figures on the Parthenon frieze: Beilage 
zu den amtlichen Berichten aus den k. Kunstsamml., XVIII, no. 5, Juli, 1897, p. 73 (quoted by 
Richardson, p. 161, n. 8). 
3Festschr. f. Benndorf, p. 175: here he assigns it not to Myron himself, but to his son. 
4TI, p. 30; he also admits its Polykleitan features. 
5Polyklet u. s. Sch., pp. 70 f., 1902; he assigns it to an artist of the master’s circle. 
6M>., p. 286; Mw., p. 500. 
7Cronaca, pp. 29-30, fig. 2 (=Supplemento di Bolletino d’ Arte, Roma, XII, Fasic. V-VII]) 
1918 (Lucia Mariani). Cf. review in 4. J. 4., XXIII, 1919, p. 319 and fig. 2; and also Mariani, 
Rend. della Reale Accad. dei Lincei, XXVI, 1918, pp. 125-138, and fig. in text. 
