160 VICTOR STATUES REPRESENTED AT REST. 
difficult, also, to understand why an imitative Attic sculptor of the 
fourth century B. C., should make a copy of an Arkadian boy victor 
statue for Eleusis. And lastly we must not forget that up to the 
present time not a single Roman copy has been conclusively identified 
with that of a victor statue at Olympia. If the date of the victory of 
Kyniskos were definitely fixed, the question of identity would be better 
substantiated. By a process of exclusion, to be sure, Robert reached 
the date Ol. 80 (=460 B.C.),! but other dates are possible. Under 
these circumstances there seems to be little more than the possibility 
that we have recovered an actual victor statue at Olympia in these 
copies.” 
THE PALM-BRANCH. 
The palm-branch, either woven into a wreath or held in the hand, was 
a victor attribute. Pausanias says that a crown of palm leaves was 
common to many contests, and that the victor everywhere in Greece 
carried a palm-branch in his right hand.* He refers the custom to 
mythical times, tracing it back to the contest held by Theseus on Delos 
in honor of Apollo. Pliny mentions a painting by the Sikyonian Eu- 
pompos, which represented a victor certamine gymnico palmam tenens.° 
While Milchhoefer® believed that the motive of an athlete setting a 
crown on-his head with his right hand and holding a palm in his left, 
which is repeated frequently and with variation in many works of 
art, went back to this painting of Eupompos, Furtwaengler’ goes fur- 
ther in assuming that the painter derived the motive from the statue 
of Polykleitos represented by the Westmacott Athlete and kindred 
works just discussed. ‘The pupils of the great sculptor appear to have 
transferred his school from Argos to Sikyon, and were, therefore, asso- 
ciated with Eupompos. ‘This attribute of the palm, permanent in 
bronze statues, has been broken off for the most part in marble ones. 
We see it in an unfinished statue of a young athlete in the National 
Museum, Athens, who. holds the palm-branch in his hand. Here it 
has survived, since the statue was only blocked out.’ It is prominent 
10. S., p. 186, on the basis of the Oxy. Pap.; followed by Hyde, 45. Foerster’s date, Ol. (?) 86 
(=436B.C.), follows the earlier dating of Polykleitos by Robert, Arch. Maerchen, 1886, p. 107, 1. ¢., 
before the discovery of the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus; see Foerster, 255. Robert later dated the birth 
of the sculptor about Ol. 75.4 (=477 B. C.). Thus, even if the Kyniskos were his earliest statue, 
it must have been erected some time after the victory. Furtwaengler dates the original of the 
Westmacott Athlete about 440 B. C.: Mp., p. 252. 
*Bulle, Furtwaengler, E. A. Gardner, and others find the assumption of identity not completely 
convincing. Thus Furtwaengler looks upon the identification as “‘no far-fetched theory,” but 
says: “Unfortunately, however, absolute certainty can scarcely be attained” (Mp., pp. 249-50). 
SVITT, 48.2; cf. Vitruv., de Arch., IX, 1 (p. 212). 
‘Homer mentions the palm: . g., Od., VI, 163; the various kinds of palm are given by Theophr., 
Hist. Plant., 11, 6.6 and 8.4. Its fronds (ord0at, cf. Hdt., VII, 69) were formed into victory 
crowns: Plut., Quaest. conviv., VIII, 4, p. 723. 
°H. NN. XXXV, 75, SArch. Stud. H. Brunn dargebracht, 1893, pp. 62 f. 
™Mp., p. 256and n. 1; Mw., p. 462 and n. 2. 8Cf. Waldstein, J. H. S., I, 1880, p. 187, n. 1. 
