PANCRATIASTS. 255 
club against a rock,' may represent the type of these professional strong 
men, who called themselves the successors of Herakles. But such 
a suggestion 1s as unfounded as the one already examined, which iden- 
ties the original of the Seated Boxer of the Museo delle Terme (PI. 
16 and Fig. 27) with Kleitomachos of Thebes, the redoubtable oppo- 
nent of Kapros, since the dates in both cases are against such identi- 
fications. ‘The Farnese statue and other replicas of the same original? 
obviously revert to a Lysippan original, though they are considerably 
metamorphosed by the taste of a later age. Such big swollen muscles 
at first sight appear to be alien to the sculptor of the graceful Agias, 
but that the Naples copy by Glykon—who, from the inscription on the 
base, must be referred to the first century B. C.3—really represents the 
work of Lysippos seems well established by the fact that a smaller copy, 
though still over life-size, of poorer workmanship, in the Pitti Gallery 
in Florence, is inscribed as Avoimmov épyov.! This type of weary hero 
appears in the Telephos group on the small Pergamene frieze, but is 
even earlier, since the latter seems to have been borrowed from a statue 
which is reproduced on a coin of Alexander, which was struck at least as 
early as 300 B.C.> The type of Herakles wearied by his superhuman 
labors was inaugurated still earlier by Lysippos, who was fond of repre- 
senting the hero in many poses, seated and standing, resting and labor- 
ing. We might mention his colossal bronze statue of Herakles, which 
was set up in Jarentum and then carried to Rome and placed on the 
Capitol by Q. Fabius Maximus, when Tarentum was captured in 209 
B.C., and was later transferred to the Hippodrome at Constanti- 
nople, where it remained until the sack of that city by the Franks in 
1202.6 It is hazardous, therefore, to reject the evidence, and it will be 
best to see in the original a genuine Lysippan work, as do Bulle, Over- 
beck, von Mach, Schnaase,’ and others, and so to make Glykon respon- 
sible only for the exaggerations of his own copy. ‘Thus we have to face 
the fact of divergent styles in the great bronze founder of the fourth 
1Bulle, no. 72; B. B., 285; von Mach, 236; Collignon, II, p. 427, fig. 222; Overbeck, II, p. 448, 
Nez), WW, 1205; M. W., 1, Pl. XX XVIII, 152; Reinach, Rép.; I, 465, 1, 2, 3; Clarac, V, 789, 
1978; Gardiner, p. 147, fig.21; etc. It is 3.17 meters high (Bulle). 
2An excellent one is in the Uffizi: Amelung, Fuehrer, 40; Reinach, Rép., I, 474, 1; a colossal 
replica was found in the sea off Antikythera: Arch. Eph., 1902, Suppl., Pl. B, 7; one in the Pitti 
Gallery will be mentioned immediately. 87> G, Bin 345. 
4Duetschke, II, no. 36; Amelung, Fuehrer, p. 134; B. B., 284; M. W., XX XVITI, 151; Reinach, 
Rép., II, 1, 210,5. For the inscription, see J. G. B., 506; it has been needlessly attacked as a for- 
gery—an ancient one by Winckelmann, Mon. Inediti, pp. LX XVI f., and a modern one by Maffei, 
Ars critica, III, 1, p. 76 (both quoted by Duetschke), and more recently by Stephani, Der aus- 
ruhende Herakles, pp. 164 f. The inscription is at least as old as the sixteenth century, as it is 
mentioned by Flaminius Vacca (see Duetschke). 
5Numism. Chron., Sér. 3, III, 1883, Pl. I, 5, p. 9. 
6Mentioned by Strabo, VI, 3.1 (=C. 278), and described by the late writer Niketas, Chron. de 
signis Constant., 5 (who wrongly calls Lysippos Lysimachos). 
1Gesch. d. bild. Kuenste, II?, pp. 245 f. » 
