219, VICTOR STATUES REPRESENTED IN MOTION. 
letters when this second statue was set up, the older letters being re- 
tained, perhaps, to conceal the theft. ‘The original statue was removed 
by the first century B. C., or perhaps under Nero;! the new one was also 
inscribed as the work of Polykleitos. A base of the Hadrianic or 
Antonine age has been found in Rome, inscribed with the names Poly- 
kleitos and Pythokles.? Since the footmarks do not agree with those 
of either one of the Olympia statues, Petersen believes that the exist- 
ing footmarks are due to an older use of the base and that they have 
nothing to do with the statue of Pythokles. Perhaps the statue on the 
Roman base was the original one by Polykleitos removed from Olymi- 
pia to Rome, though it is possible that it was only a copy, the original 
being elsewhere in Rome. While the later statue at Olympia had the 
feet squarely on the ground, the original one stood on the right foot, 
the left being drawn back and turned out, touching the ground only 
with the ball. Hence the left knee must have turned outwards, a 
natural position, if the head of the statue was turned slightly to the left. 
In other words, this is the usual Polykleitan scheme. Furtwaengler 
has made a strong though hardly convincing attempt to identify this 
original statue with a copy surviving in two replicas at Rome and 
Munich, which, as he believes, fit the conditions of the statue of 
Pythokles.* ‘These copies represent a nude youth standing with the 
weight of the body on the right leg, the left drawn back and out- 
wards. ‘The head is turned to the left, the right arm is held close to 
the side (the hand, perhaps, once holding a fillet), and the left forearm 
is outstretched from the elbow and holds an aryballos in the hand. 
The two works are manifestly Polykleitan in style—the body, head, 
and hair treatment resembling that of the Doryphoros. He assumed 
that the feet corresponded in scale with the footmarks on the Olympia 
base. 
Helbig, in the first edition of his Fuehrer, recognized the kinship be- 
tween the Vatican statuette and the Doryphoros of Polykleitos, and was 
prone to accept Furtwaengler’s identification; but later on, in the third 
edition, he ascribed the statuette only to the Polykleitan circle and 
denied that its foot position corresponded with that of the Pythokles 
base. Amelung also, while accepting its Polykleitan character, has 
shown that the feet of the statuette are closer together than those on 
the Olympia base and are placed at a slightly different angle. As for 
the Munich statue, both Helbig and Amelung have ruled it out of the 

1Furtwaengler believed in the first century B. C.; Dittenberger and Purgold, in the first 
century A. D.: cf. Inschr. v. OL., p. 284. 
*Gatti, B. Com. Rom., XIX, 1891, pp. 280 f., Pl. X, 1; cf. Petersen, R. M., VI, 1891, pp. 304 f. 
§Statuette in the Braccio Nuovo of the Vatican: Helbig, Fuchrer, I, 32; Guide, 43; Amelung, Vat., 
I, no. 101 on p. 116, and Pls. XVI, XVII; Furtw., M>., p. 264, fig. 111; Mw., p. 474, fig. 81; Reinach, 
Rép., II, 2, 549, 2; Clarac, 861, 2184; a black marble statue found at Porto d’ Anzio in 1758, now 
in the Glyptothek: Furtwaengler-Wolters, Beschr. d. Glypt.,? no. 458; Clarac, 858, 2175; it is 1.54 
meters high. 
