PYTHAGORAS AND MYRON. 179 
the Sicilian wrestler Leontiskos, who won two victories in Ols. 81 
and 82 (= 456 and 452 B. C.);! of the boy boxer Protolaos of Mantinea, 
who won in Ol. (?) 74 (=484 B. C.);? of the boxer Euthymos of Lokroi, 
who won three times in Ols. 74, 76, 77 (= 484, 476, 472 B. C.);? of Dro- 
meus of Stymphalos, who won the long foot-race (60\cxos) twice in 
Ols. (?) 80 and 81 (=460 and 456 B.C.);* of Astylos of Kroton, who won 
the stade-race, the double foot-race (6tavdos) three times, and the hoplite- 
race twice in Olls. 73, 74, 75, 76 (=488-476 B. C.);> of the hoplite victor 
Mnaseas of Kyrene, victor in Ol. 81 (=456 B.C.);° and of the latter’s 
son Kratisthenes, who won the chariot-race in Ol. (?) 83 (=448 B.C.).” 
Some of these statues at Olympia must have been represented at rest, 
while others appear to have been represented in motion. Thus the 
statue of Mnaseas—though it is possible that it was represented in 
motion like that of Epicharinos by Kritios already mentioned—was 
probably represented at rest, since Pausanias described it simply as 
that of an é6mXirns avnp.2 When we inquire into the style of Pythagoras 
we do not find much that is definite to guide us. Besides the bare list 
of his works, we have little except the statement of ort Laertios 
that he was the first to aim at rhythm and symmetry.? Nevertheless 
many attempts have been made to identify his athlete statues with 
existing copies. Waldstein’s interpretation of the Choiseul-Gouffier 
statue in the British Museum (PI. 7A), and of the so-called 4pollo-on- 
the-Omphalos in Athens (Pl. 7B), as copies of an original athlete statue, 
is, as we have shown in the second chapter, well-founded, since the 
muscular build and the coiffure of these statues betoken the athlete. 
But his further attempt to show that the original was by Pythagoras, 
and his identifying it with the statue of the boxer Euthymos at 
Olympia, is not so reasonable.!° 
The attempt to ascribe the head of a pancratiast from Perinthos in 
Dresden(Fig. 33)” to Pythagoras is not convincing, though Furtwaengler 
has included it in his provisional Pythagorean group,” as he does the 

IVI, 4.3; Oxy. Pap.; Hyde, 38; Foerster, 202, 203. 
“VI, 6.1; Hyde, 48; Foerster, 200. VI, tye ; Oxy. Pap.; Hyde, 56; Foerster, 185, 195, 207. 
4VI, 7.10; Hyde, 69; Foerster, 183, 189. 
5VI, 13.1; Oxy. Pap.; Pliny, H. N., XXXIV, 59; Hyde, 110; Foerster, 176-7; 181-2; 187-8; 
Inschr. v. Ol., 145. 
6VI, 13.7; Oxy. Pap.; Hyde, 117; Foerster, 184. 7VI, 18.1; Hyde, 185; Foerster, 193a. 
8Reisch, p. 43, n. 4, wrongly assumed this to be one of the oldest statues of Pythagoras, since 
the same sculptor made the statue of the son Kratisthenes; but the son’s victory was probably 
only two Olympiads later than that of the father, as we have seen. 
*VIII, 47; S. Q., 507. Diogenes repeats the tradition that there were two sculptors of the 
name, one from Rhegion, the other from Samos; also Pliny, H. N., XX XIV, 59-60. 
107. H. S., 11, 1881, pp. 332 f.; cf. his Essays on the Art SERRAUION 1885, p. 323. Therecovered 
base of Bithemoy statue has no footmarks: Inschr. v. Ol., 144. Waldstein is followed in his 
ascription of the statues to Euthymos by Urlichs, Arch. Anaieee 1885, p. 9. 
1B. B., no. 542 (two views); Furtw. M>., p. 171, fig. 70; 4. M., XVI, 1891, pp. 313 f. and Pls. IV, 
and V fo views), (P. Hermann). 
2M>., pp. 171-2; Mw., pp. 345-6. 
