PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES OF VICTOR STATUES. 151 
Pausanias as standing in the Altis.!. However, the assumption? is 
far-fetched and must be rejected, because Pausanias mentions the two 
statues in two different parts of his periegesis of the Altis.2? Of the 
mats we know only the artist’s name. It was probably merely a votive 
gift, and the name of the person so honored was unknown to Pausa- 
nias. Of the statue of the victor Pantarkes we know only the name, 
and neither the artist nor the motive of the statue. It seems clear, 
therefore, that we have to do with three distinct monuments: the boy 
with the fillet, the throne figure by Pheidias, and the victor by an 
unknown sculptor.® 
The small marble statue in the British Museum known as the Dia- 
doumenos Farnese® (Pl. 17), which is now almost universally regarded 
as an Attic work,’ has been assumed by many archeologists to be a 
copy of Pheidias’ statue.* Since Pausanias tells us that a statue by 
Pheidias stood in Olympia, representing an unknown boy binding a 
fillet around his head, and since the style of the Farnese statue shows 
great similarity in head and body forms and general bearing to certain 
figures on the Parthenon frieze,® and its motive agrees with that of the 
Olympia statue, it seems reasonable to see in this little work a copy of 
the statue in the Altis by the great master. Furtwaengler and Bulle 
have shown that the motive of this work was initiated by Pheidias and 
not by Polykleitos, since the latter’s great statue was several years 
younger than the work of Pheidias at Olympia. That Pheidias was 
pleased with the motive is disclosed by the fact that he repeated it on 
the throne of Zeus. 
1VJ, 10.6. Pantarkes won the boys’ wrestling match in Ol. 86 (= 436 B. C.): Hyde, 98; Foer- 
ster, 254. 
2Amongst others it has been assumed by Loeschke, Der Tod des Pheidias (in Histor. Unter- 
such. zum Schaefer- Jubilaeum, Bonn, 1882), p. 36; Schoell, Sitzb. Muen. Akad., 1888, I, p. 37 (Der 
Prozess des Pheidias). Foerster, p. 19, n. 1, is against the identification. The zats dvadobmevos is 
omitted in my victor lists (de olympionitcarum Statuis). 
3The wais dvadotpevos is mentioned between victors nos. 38 and 39, 7. ¢., in the Zone of the 
Eretrian Bull, while Pantarkes (98) is mentioned among the statues in the Zone of the Chariots: see 
infra, Ch. VIII, pp. 343 and 345, and Plans A and B. 4Cf. Gurlitt, Veber Pausanias, pp. 378 f. 
5Cf. Doerpfeld, Baudenkmaeler v. Ol., p. 21 and n. 1; Furtw., Mp., pp. 39-40; Frazer, 1. c. 
6B. M. Sculpt., I, no. 501; Marbles and Bronzes, P\. V1; B. B., 271; Bulle, 49; von Mach, 117; 
Springer-Michaelis, p. 259, fig. 461; F. W., 509; Annali, L, 1878, Pl. A and pp. 20 f. (two views) 
(Michaelis); Clarac, V, 858C, 2189 A; M. W., I, Pl. 31, fig. 136; Reinach, Rép., 1, 524,2. The 
palm-trunk shows that the Roman artist intended to represent a victor in his copy. It is 
4 ft. 10.25 in. high (Smith); 1.48 meters (Bulle). 
7Brunn, following older writers such as Winckelmann, had pronounced it Polykleitan: 4nnali, 
LI, 1879, pp. 218 f.; cf. Murray, I, pp. 313 f. and Pl. IX. Kekulé called it Myronian: 49stes 
Berl. Winckelmanns progr., 1889, p. 12; Gardner, Sculpt., p. 128, finds it unrelated to Polykleitos 
and defends its Attic origin. Everything about it—except the mode of tying the fillet—differs 
from the copies of Polykleitos’ statue, and especially the pose. Against Brunn’s view, see 
Michaelis, Annali, LV, 1883, pp. 154 f. 
8So Bulle, Arndt (text to B. B., 271), Furtwaengler (M?., pp. 244-5; Mw., pp. 444-5), Zimmer- 
man (in Knackfuss-Zimmermann, Kunstgesch. des Altertums und des Mittelalters, 1, p. 152), and 
many others. 
°Cf. especially the resemblance of the statue to the youth on the West frieze: Michaelis, Der 
Parthenon, Pl. V, no. 9. 
