278 MONUMENTS OF HIPPODROME AND MUSICAL VICTORS. 
is from the statue of Kyrene represented as a charioteer.! Ingenious 
as the theory is, there are chronological difhculties in the way of 
accepting it unreservedly. Thus Amphion’s pupil Pison worked on 
the Spartan memorial of Aigospotamoi at Delphi in 404 B.C.?. Fur- 
thermore, the ending tAas may equally well refer to Anaxilas, the tyrant 
of Rhegion, as the original dedicator,’ in which case it seems reason- 
able to assume that the group might have been the work of Pythag- 
oras, the great sculptor of Rhegion.4— A Greek scholar believes that 
the original dedicator was Gelo, and that his name was erased and 
replaced by that of his brother Polyzalos; he consequently dates the 
group shortly after Gelo’s death in 478 B.C.> He refers it to Glaukias 
of Aegina, while Joubin® classes the Charioteer as an Attic work. 
However, the whole subject of Greek sculpture in the years just 
after the Persian war period is too complicated to name definitely the 
artist of this simple and severe work. Its deficiencies are as appar- 
ent as its virtues. ‘Thus the parallel folds of the chiton show little of 
the form beneath; the feet are too flatly placed on the ground, and 
the contour of the head and face is not altogether graceful.’ What- 
ever the original purpose of the group was, it may well have been 
used by Polyzalos to honor the Pythian victory of his brother Hiero.*® 
From it, then, we can get, perhaps, an idea of the magnificence of 
Hiero’s monument by Onatas and Kalamis at Olympia. 
DEDICATIONS OF VICTORS IN THE HORSE-RACE AT 
OLYMPIA AND ELSEWHERE. 
The hippic victor at Olympia frequently dedicated merely the model 
of his victorious horse without the jockey, just as the early chariot 
1Lechat, Rev. Arch., XI, 1908, pp. 126 f., Furtw., Sitzb. Muen. Akad., 1907, II, pp. 157 f., 
Studniczka, J/b., XXII, 1907, pp. 133 f., and others, support Washburn’s view. 
2P., X, 9.7-8; cf. VI, 3.5, where Amphion is called the pupil of Ptolichos, the pupil of Kritios. 
§So von Duhn, 4. M., XXXI, 1906, pp. 421 f.; a conclusion also reached independently by 
E. A. Gardner, Sculpt., p. 51. 
4So0 von Duhn, Gardner, and Mahler; the latter in Jh. oest. arch. Inst., III, 1900, pp. 142 f. 
Furtwaengler, /.c., found von Duhn’s view that the Charioteer is an original work of Pythagoras 
untenable. He also combated his interpretation of roAvfados as a proper name, preferring 
the suggestion of Washburn that it might be an adjective. However, in a former article (Sitzb. 
Muen. Akad., 1897, pp. 129 f.) he had emphasized the similarity between the statue and a bronze 
statuette in London (B. M. Bronzes, 515 and Pl. XVI; Sitzb., 1. c., Pl. V, two views) which he 
believed was almost certainly a product of Magna Grecia. He found the style of the Charioteer 
Tonic-Attic without Peloponnesian afhliations, and referred it to Amphion or to some unknown 
artist of the circle of Kritios and Nesiotes. For a similar view, see Homolle, Mon. Piot, IV, 
1897, p. 207. Pottier (ap. Homolle, /. c.) assigned it to Kalamis. Cf. also Lechat, Pythagoras de 
Rhegion, 1905, p. 100. 
5A. D. Keramopoullos, 4. M., XXXIV, 1909, pp. 33 f. Homolle, of. cit., pp. 176 f., and 
O. Schroeder, 4. 4., 1902, pp. 12 f., had also referred it to Gelo’s dedication. 
SPL5 2: 7See G. F. Hill, Z. c. 
’Besides the Olympic victories already recorded, Hiero also won the chariot-race at Delphi in 
Pythiad 29 (=470 B. C.), and the horse-race there twice in Pythiads 26 and 27 (=482 and 478 
B. C.); he also won a chariot-race probably at the Theban Jolaia in (?) 475 B. C.; Pindar cele- 
brates the four victories in Pyth., I-III; Bergk, P. J. G.,5I, pp. 175 f. 
