226 VICTOR STATUES REPRESENTED IN MOTION. 
intheopposite direction. Inthecarefully worked bronze original, which, 
however, must have had an insignificant intellectual aspect, the appar- 
ently simple problem—hitherto vainly attempted in Greek art—of rep- 
resenting aman standing almost motionless, but full of life, was for the 
first time solved. It is a long way from che motionless figures known 
s “Apollos,’’ with their arms glued to the sides and their legs close 
together, to this vigorous athlete. As we have already indicated, 
Greek art developed the first step beyond the “Apollos” by further 
advancing one leg of a statue and, it may be, extending one forearm 
horizontally. The next step was to place one foot slightly sidewise 
and thus relieve it of the weight of the body—the well-known scheme 
of the “free” and “rest” leg. At first the relaxation was slight, the 
“free” leg not being intended to move forward, nor the parts of the body 
to be much shifted. Polykletios’ innovation consisted in having the 
legs so placed, ore behind the other, that the figure, while apparently 
resting on one,’ seemed to be Aan On the ground of the 
familiar passage in Pliny cited, it has been generally assumed that Poly- 
kleitos introduced the walking motive into sculpture. However, this 
motive was probably the invention of the earlier Argive school, bor- 
rowed by Polykleitos for his canon, as seen in the statue of the so-called 
Munich King (Zeus?t), of the Glyptothek, which Furtwaengler has 
shown to be a work of about 460 B. C.? . 
Does the Doryphoros represent apentathlete victor? SinceQuintilian 
says that it appears ready for war or for the exercises of the palestra,’ 
Helbig and others have classed it as a warrior, perhaps one of the Achil- 
leae mentioned by Pliny* as set up in the Greek gymnasia. Furt- 
waengler stressed the incorrectness of calling an athlete a Dory phoros*— 
a name originally given to an attendant bearing a lance (6dpv), and 
so inapplicable to the statue of Polykleitos, which represented not a 
server, but an athlete carrying an akontion (witness the Berlin gem 
already mentioned)—but later® concluded that an athlete statue with 
the akontion might have been vaguely described in late art jargon as a 
spear-bearer. Consequently he found probable the interpretation of the 
various doryphoroi mentioned by Pliny’ as victor statues, and thought 
that the original of the Doryphoros of Polykleitos might very well 
1The uno crure insistere of Pliny, H. N., XXXIV, 56. Here Pliny quotes Varro to the effect 
that Polykleitos’ statues were almcst exactly after the same type (paene ad unum exemplum). 
*See Mp., pp. 212 f. and figs. 90 and 91 (head, two views); Mw., pp. 403 f., and Pls. XXIV, 
XXV. For the statue, see also Furtw.-Wolters, Beschr. d. Glypt.2, no. 295 (=god or athlete); 
Kekule, Jb., III, 1888, p. 37 and Pl. 1 (=Polykleitan and Zeus); B. B., 122. 
8De instit. Orat., V, 12.21. 
4 Ne A ALY G LS: 5A. M., III, 1878, p. 292, n. 2. 6M>., pp. 163 and 228; Mw., p. 420. 
7E. g.,that of Ktesilaos (= Kresilas; see below) in H. N., XXXIV, 76; of Polykleitos, ibid., 55, and 
of Aristodemos, 1bid., 86. 
