290 TWO MARBLE HEADS FROM VICTOR STATUES. 
physicians Herophilos and Erasistratos, a date after the close of the 
activity of Lysippos. We see no trace of this influence in the Agzas. 
Moreover, the face of the latter discloses the intense expression, which 1s 
elsewhere seen only in works supposed to be by, or influenced by, Skopas, 
which recalls what Plutarch! said of Lysippos’ portraits of Alexander, 
that they reproduced his masculine and leonine air (avTov 76 appevwzrov 
Kat NeovT@des); for a comparison of this face with that of the Apoxy- 
omenos, which exhibits the lifelessness and lack of expression so char- 
acteristic of many early Hellenistic works, makes it still more evident 
that we must be on our guard against assuming that both works are 
representative of the same sculptor. ‘The essential differences in 
physical type and artistic execution between the two statues have 
been well summarized by K. T. Frost in a letter published by Prof. 
Percy Gardner in the latter’s treatment of the same subject.? After a 
careful analysis of these differences, Frost closes by saying: “It is diffi- 
cult to believe that the two statues represent works by the same artist; 
itis not only the type of man, but the way in which that type is ex- 
pressed which forms the contrast.’ He compares the 4 poxyomenos with 
the Borghese Warrior (Fig. 43) as true products of the Hellenistic age. 
When we consider these differences between the two statues, we see 
that our judgment of Lysippan art must depend on how we interpret 
them. We may either flatly reject the Apoxyomenos and put the 
A gias in its place as representing the norm of Lysippan art, or keep the 
A poxyomenos and reject the Agias as evidence; or lastly we may keep 
both as characteristic works of two different periods in the artistic 
career of Lysippos, explaining the differences as the result of influence 
or of the lapse of years. A recent writer, to be sure, has cut the Gor- 
dian knot by rejecting both statues, and placing the Apoxyomenos of 
the Ufhzi—which we have treated at length in a preceding chapter 
(PI. 12)—as the key to our knowledge of the art of Lysippos.* But 
such a solution of the problem raises even more difficulties. Long 
beforethe Agias came to light some critics, indeed, had doubted whether 
the dApoxyomenos really represented the work of Lysippos, as its 
Hellenistic character seemed evident. Thus, in 1877, Ulrich Koehler,‘ 
following a still earlier judgment,° had come to the conclusion that the 
Vatican statue was only a free reproduction of Lysippos’ masterpiece 
and attributed its Hellenistic characteristics to the Roman copyist; 
but even yet the school which long recognized the 4poxyomenos as the 
1De Alex. Magn. fort. aut virt., Orat. II, 2 (p. 335, b, c); S. Q., no. 1479. 
2]. H.S., XXIII, p. 130, n. 28; it is also quoted by Gardner, Sculpt., pp. 220-1. ‘ 
See Ada Maviglia, L’attivita artistica di Lisippo ricostruita su nuova base, 1914. For the Uffizi 
statue, see supra, pp. 136-137. 
‘In his discussion of the Athenian torso, which he believed was another copy of the original 
of the Vatican statue: 4. M., II, 1877, pp. 57-8, Pl. IV; Reinach, Rép., II, 2, 819, 1. This torso 
had the left leg free, while the Vatican one had the right one free; it is also dry and hard in its 
technique. ‘That of Emil Braun, in Annali, L, 1850, p. 249. 
