178 VICTOR STATUES REPRESENTED IN MOTION. 
air, the legs in profile and the head and upper body turned to the front, 
just as in the figure of Archermos.' Such figures completely disprove 
the contention of Sikes that the Greek idea of a winged Nike did not 
antedate the fifth century B.C.? ‘he early date of statues represented 
in a lunging attitude, like the 7'yrannicides, is also shown by the story 
that Herakles destroyed his own statue by Daidalos in the agora of Elis, © 
because in the night he mistook it for an enemy lunging at him. The 
scheme of combatants fighting with lances seems to have been native 
to Rhodian art at the end of the seventh century B.C., for we see it 
first on a painted terra-cotta plate in the British Museum, which 
represents Hektor and Menelaos fighting for the body of Euphorbos.’ 
This pose was taken over into other arts, as we see it in the bronze 
statuette of a warrior found in Dodona in 1880, now in the Antiquarium 
in Berlin, which dates from the end of the sixth century B. C., or the begin- 
ning of the fifth. All these examples are sufficient to show that repre- 
senting the human figure in motion was an ancient motive in Greek art. 
PYTHAGORAS AND MYRON. 
Besides Kritios, two other sculptors of the transitional period— 
Pythagoras and Myron—gave a great impetus to the type of statue 
in motion inthe first half of the fifth century B.C. Before proceeding 
further we shall briefly consider their artistic activity. 
The attempt to ascribe something tangible to Pythagoras of Rhegion 
has often been made.® Practically all we really know about him is 
that he was.celebrated for his statues of athletes. Pausanias mentions 
seven statues at Olympia of victors who won in many different events, 
in running (including the hoplite-race), wrestling, boxing, and the 
chariot-race; and Pliny, in giving a list of his works, praises the statue 
of a pancratiast at Delphi.6 Thus Pausanias records the statues of 
1Bulle, pp. 157-8, fig. 33; de Ridder, no. 808. Itis0.123 meterhigh (Bulle). Cf. similar bronzes 
ibid., nos. 799-814, and also a flymg harpy on a sixth-century B. C. Ionic vase in the University 
Museum in Wuerzburg: Bulle, pp. 159-160, fig. 34; Furtw.-Reichhold, Griech. Vasenmalerei, I, 
pp. 209 f. and Pl. 41; cf. also the very similar pose on the small bronze statuette in the British 
Museum of a winged Nike represented in violent motion: von Mach, 33; the marble torso of 
another in Athens: id., text, opp. p. 26, fig. 2; and the bronze winged Gorgon from Olympia 
(0.12 meter high): Bronz. v. Ol., Pl. VIII, no. 78, text, p. 25 (and for the type, cf. Roscher, Lew., 
art. Gorgonen in der Kunst, I, 2, p. 1710, Il. 67 f.). 
*Nike of Archermos, 1891. 
3Salzmann, Nécropole de Camiros, Pl. LIII; Bulle, pp. 161-2, fig. 35; cf. Brunn, Griech. Kunst- 
geschichte, I, p..142. Its diameter is 0.385 meter (Bulle). 
4See R. Kekulé and H. Winnefeld, Bronzen aus Dodona in den koenigl. Museen zu Berlin, Pl. II 
and pp. 13 f.; 4. Z., XL, 1882, Pl. I and pp. 23-27 (Engelmann); Rayet, I, Pl. 17 (S. Reinach); 
Bulle, 83 (right). As the figure is only 0.143 meter tall, it seems to have decorated the rim of a 
bronze bowl. It may be later than the Tuebingen bronze (Fig. 42) and is certainly of a different 
school. ‘The presence of a breastplate proves that it is meant for a warrior and not for a hoplito- 
drome. 
‘For a full discussion of this sculptor, see Lechat, Pythagoras de Rhegion, 1905; cf. S. Q., 
§§ 489-507. 
6H. N., XXXIV, 59. 
