PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES OF VICTOR STATUES. 159 
can be made for the Barracco copy. Furthermore, many other monu- 
ments, which show a similar attitude, and which must be regarded as 
very free imitations of the original, seem to show that the boy was 
represented as placing a wreath on his head.! 
Whether the original of the series was an actual victor statue at 
Olympia or not is an interesting question. It has been repeatedly 
suggested that it was the very statue of the boy boxer Kyniskos there, 
mentioned by Pausanias, the base of which has been recovered.? The 
external evidence for the identity consists altogether in the similarity 
in the position of the feet on this base and in the series of copies, which 
argues a similar pose. ‘The base shows that the left leg bore the weight 
of the statue; it was slightly advanced and rested on the sole, while the 
right leg was set back and rested on the ball only. Thus the statue of 
Kyniskos was represented in the characteristic Polykleitan schema 
of rest, except that the position of the legs is reversed from that of the 
Doryphoros, Diadoumenos, Amazon, and other works of the master. 
We might add that this same reversal appears on two other bases 
found at Olympia, which held victor statues by the elder Polykleitos? 
and one by the younger.‘ Moreover, the leg position of the canon 
does not occur in the works of the master’s pupils Naukydes and Dai- 
dalos, and only in one work of Kleon.? ‘This shows that teacher and 
pupils also used another motive, 7. ¢., the old canon of Hagelaidas, 
besides the one associated with the Doryphoros. ‘The similarity in the 
position of the feet on the Olympia base and in the series of statues 
discussed has led some scholars, ¢. g., Petersen and Collignon, to accept 
the proposed identity. ‘This similarity in foot position, the probability 
that the statue on the basis was life-size, like those of the Westmacott 
series, and the palm-tree support in the British Museum replica, all 
pointing to a victor statue, make the identity well within the range of 
possibility, but by no means certain. It is necessary only to rehearse 
the objections to this view. In the first place the length of the foot 
on the Olympia basis can not be accurately measured for purposes of 
comparison. In the next place Polykleitos, as we have just seen, 
made other statues of victors at Olympia with almost the identical 
foot position of that of Kyniskos. Furthermore, it seems very unlikely 
that so celebrated an original as that of these many replicas could have 
been standing in the Altis so late as the time of Pausanias.° It is 
1For list, see Furtw., Mp., p.254,n.2. Fora restoration of the original statue, see idid., p. 250, 
fig. 102; Mw., p. 453, fig. 72. 2VI, 4.11; Inschr. v. Ol., 149; I. G. B., 50. 
3Those of the Elean pentathlete Pythokles: Inschr. v. Ol., 162-3; J. G. B., 91; and the Epidaurian 
boxer Aristion: Inschr. v. Ol., 165 (renewed); J. G. B.,92. The feet of the Aristion were both flat 
upon the ground. 
4That of the boy wrestler Xenokles of Mainalos: Inschr. v. Ol., 164; I. G. B., 90. 
5In one of the Olympia Zanes: I. G. B., 95. 
6On the Kyniskos basis there are no traces, as on that of Pythokles, to show that the original 
had been removed from the Altis and replaced by a copy long before Pausanias visited Olympia. 
