THE AGIAS AND APOXYOMENOS COMPARED. 291 
norm of Lysippos has its supporters,! though many archeologists 
have now supplanted the Apoxyomenos by the Agias.2 Others, not 
willing to renounce the 4poxyomenos as evidence, accept both it and 
the dgias as characteristic works of the master, appealing to the length 
of his career to explain the differences, and suggesting that in his youth 
Lysippos was under the influence of Skopas, but later in life attained 
independence, and followed a more anatomical rendering for his athlete 
statues.? However, despite the fact that other artists must have in- 
fluenced Lysippos,‘ the 4gias can not be shown to be a youthful work 
of his, nor can the special influence of Skopas be shown to have been 
that of master on pupil, but rather of one great master on another and 
equally great contemporary. The difficulty about penetrating the ob- 
scurity surrounding Lysippos comes largely from the fact that he bor- 
rowed traits from several of his predecessors and contemporaries. ‘The 
influence of Polykleitos, Skopas, and Praxiteles, and especially of the 
last two, as Homolle emphasized in his study of the Daochos group,°® 
can be certainly traced in the Agias. Fraulein Bieber, in a recent 
article,® while denying that Lysippos had anything to do with the 
Delphian group, tries to prove that one figure in it shows the influence 
of Praxiteles, another that of Polykleitos, and a third that of Skopas. 
She believes that the sculptor of the 4gias had seen the original bronze 
statue, the work of Lysippos, which stood in Pharsalos. However, we 
may leave any such conclusion to one side, and judge between the 
Agias and the Apoxyomenos solely on the merits of the two statues. 
The differences between them appear to us too great to be reconciled 
on any such principles as those just rehearsed, for their style and tech- 

1F. g., Loewy, R. M., XVI,'1901, p. 392. Furtwaengler, Sitzd. Muen. Akad., 1904, II, p. 379, 
n. 1, says that the Agias “dem Lysipp gaenzlich ferne steht,” and assigns it to an Athenian artist. 
2E specially the Gardner brothers: P. Gardner, J. H. S., XXIII, 1903, pp. 130-131 (where he 
identifies the Apoxyomenos with the Perixyomenos of Daippos, the son or pupil of Lysippos, a 
work mentioned by Pliny, H. N., XXXIV, 87); ibid., XXV, 1905, pp. 234 f., especially p. 236 (on 
pp. 255 f. he dates the Apoxyomenos just after 300 B. C., though ultimately deriving it from the 
school of Lysippos); id., Class. Rev., 1913, p. 56; E. A. Gardner, Sculpt., p. 222; Hbk., p. 443. T.L. 
Shear, 4. J. 4., XX, 1916, p. 292, makes the Agias the centre of his treatment of Lysippos. Still 
others who think that the two statues can not be by the same sculptor are cited by Wolters, 
Sitzb. Muen. Akad., 1913, III, no. 4, p. 44, n. 3. See also F. Paulson, Delphi, 1920, pp. 288-289. 
3F. g., Collignon, Lysippe, p. 31; Amelung, R. M., XX, 1905, pp. 144 f.; id., Vat., I, p. 87 
(where he says that the Agias offers the closest analogies in style to the Apoxyomenos); Michaelis, 
Die archaeol. Entdeckungen des roten Jahrh., 1906, p. 276; A Century of Archeological Discoveries 
(transl. of preceding, by Bettina Kahnweiler, 1908), p. 323; id., Springer-Michaelis, p. 335; for 
others, cf. Wolters, /. c., n. 2. 
4Pliny, H. N., XXXIV, 61 (=S. Q. no. 1444), quotes Douris as saying that Lysippos was the 
pupil of no artist. He tells how the painter Eupompos advised the sculptor as a boy naturam 
ipsam imitandam, esse non artificem. Suchajudgment, of course, can not be literally true, as 
every artist is to a large extent a child of his age and circumstances. Cf. Jex-Blake, pp. xlviui f., 
for the anecdotal character of Pliny’s statement. That the statement comes, perhaps, from 
Eupompos is the view of Kalkmann, Quellen der Kunstgeschichte des Plinius, 1898, p. 165. 
5B.C.H., XXI, 1897, p. 598; id., XXIII, 1899, p. 471; cf. T. L. Shear, 4. J. A:, l.c. On the rela- 
tion of Skopas to Lysippos, see P. Gardner, J. H. S., XXIII, 1903, pp. 126f., and E. A. Gardner, 
Sculpt., p. 198. The influence of Skopas is especially observable in Lysippos’ treatment of fore- 
head and eyes and in the consequent intensity of expression. 
6Jb., XXV, 1910, pp. 172-3. 
