THE DATES OF PHILANDRIDAS AND LYSIPPOS. 301 
of the second Olympic victory of Cheilon of Patrai, whose statue was 
by Lysippos, can not be later than 320 B.C.1 Pausanias quotes the 
inscription on the base of the statue to the effect that Cheilon died in 
battle and was buried for his valor’s sake by the Achzan people. He 
infers the date of his death by reference to the date of Lysippos as 
either 338 B.C. (Chzroneia) or 322 B.C. (Lamia). In another passage, 
VII, 6.5, he says that the Olympic guide told him that Cheilon was 
the only Achzan who fought at Lamia. Gardner justly remarks 
that either of these dates, the two occasions in the lifetime of Lysip- 
pos when the Achzans took part in an important war, fall within the 
dates of the artist’s activity.2, The dates of the two hoplite victories 
of Kallikrates of Magnesia, on the Meander, whose statue was also 
the work of Lysippos, must be left indeterminate.2 Gardner also shows 
that the wish not to separate Lysippos from the 4poxyomenos has been 
the real reason which has influenced so many archeologists to extend 
his activity to the end of the fourth century,! and to explain away 
the evidence for an earlier date offered by the statue of ‘Troilos, who 
won his second victory in 368 B.C. If we once for all give up the 
Apoxyomenos, the difficulty of an early dating disappears, as does also 
the theory that Skopas could have strongly influenced the youthful 
Lysippos as a master would influence a pupil, and it becomes clear 
that this influence must have been mutual, that of one great contem- 
porary upon another. Although Lysippos worked longer, as is attested 
by his work for Alexander and his generals, he could have been but 
little if any younger than either Skopas or Praxiteles, from both of 
whom he learned. We have already quoted Homolle® as saying that 
an analysis of the style of the 4gias discloses the mixed influences of 
Praxiteles and Skopas, as well as the independent work of Lysippos, 
in the pose, proportions, and whole type of the figure. 
Lysippos was a great reformer in art, breaking away from Argive 
and Polykleitan traditions, even though he called the Doryphoros as 
well as Nature his master, and though the influence of Polykleitos is 
visible in the body of the 4gias, just as that of Skopas in the treatment 
of its forehead, eyes, and mouth, and in the intensity of its expression. 
Evidently he was strongly affected by the work of his great predeces- 
1P., VI, 4, 6-7; Hyde, 41; Foerster, 384 and 392, who, on the basis of J. G. B., p. 75, to no. 93b, 
dates the victories Ols. (?) 112 and 113 (=332 and 328 B. C.). 
f. Cig p. 246. : 
3P., VI, 17, 3; Hyde, 175; Foerster, 390 and 397 (= Ols. ? 113 and 114,=328 and 324 B.C. on 
the basis of J. G. B., p. 75). 
4F. g., Furtwaengler, who gives 350-390 B.C. as the period of his artistic activity: Mw., p. 523, 
ThE 
5B. C. H., XXI, 1897, p. 598 (and copied in XXIII, 1899, p. 422). The Agias is but slightly 
later than the Hermes, if we accept Furtwaengler’s dating for the latter, about 343 B. C.: Mp., 
pp. 307-308; Mw., pp. 529-531. Brunn had regarded the Hermes as a youthful work of Prax- 
iteles: Deutsche Rundschau, VIII, 1882, pp. 188 f. Purgold, Aufsaetze E. Curtius gewidmet, 
pp. 233 f., and S. Reinach, Gaz. Arch., 1887, p. 282, n. 9, had assigned it to the year 363 B.C. 
