LYSIPPOS AS A WORKER IN MARBLE, AND STATUE “‘DOUBLES. 303 
did who were famed as bronze-workers,! is, as one writer has lately 
expressed it, a kindisches Vorurtheil.2. Vhat marble work was done 
in his studio, if not by his hand, is well attested by the reliefs from 
the base of the victor statue of Polydamas mentioned above, which 
have been generally referred to Lysippos’ pupils. These are too 
damaged to be used as exact evidence of his style, but the legs of Poly- 
damas himself, in the central relief, so far as their contour can be made 
out, are thin and sinewy, as we should expect in Lysippan work, and this 
relief doubtless would have been regarded as the work of the master 
himself, if it had not been taken for granted that he worked only in 
bronze. But for the same assumption some critics would have seen 
an original from the hand of Lysippos in the statue of Agias at least, 
if not in the others of the Delphian group.‘ It will be interesting to 
rehearse some of the arguments by which the statue of Agias has been 
adjudged a copy.° 
It has been generally assumed that the original group of statues at 
Pharsalos was of bronze (though we have no proof that it may not have 
been of marble), while the one at Delphi was copied almost, if not quite, 
simultaneously in marble’—so faithfully, indeed, that even the proper 
marble support to the figure of Agias was omitted. While Homolle 
notes the absence of this support as evidence of the marble statue being 
an exact copy of the original bronze, Gardner argues that this proves a free 
imitation, where the support was not needed.’ ‘The inexact modeling 
of the hair, since hair can not be rendered so perfectly in-marble as in 
bronze, has been adduced as a sign that the marble statue was a copy of 
the bronze original. ‘This in itself is a weak argument, since the slight 
and sketchy treatment of the hair of the Hermes of Praxiteles—which is, 
for the most part, merely blocked out*—might with just as good reason 
be used as evidence that that statue is only a copy, especially as we know 
that Praxiteles also worked in bronze.® ‘The omission of the artist’s 
1Thus the Sikyonian Kanachos worked in marble, bronze, gold and ivory, and cedar-wood: 
Paitiyedt V4 AX XIV, 50 and 75; XXXVI, 41; P., I; 10.5; [X, 10.2; ete. 
2F. Spiro, Woch. f. kl. Philologie, XXI, 1904, col. 792 (in his review of my de olymp. Stat. a 
Paus. commem.). 
8See Bildw. v. Ol., Tafelbd., Pl. LV, 1-3; Textbd, pp. 209 f. 
4This is substantially Preuner’s view: oP. cit., pp. 39-40 and 46-47; the later view of P. Wol- 
ters that the Delphi group was older than the statue at Pharsalos has already been mentioned 
supra, p. 292; see Sitzb. Muen. Akad., 1913, III, no. 4, pp. 44-45. 
‘In 4. J. A., XI, 1907, pp. 414-16, I argued that the statue of Agias was an original and not a 
copy; in the present work this view is somewhat modified. 
6So Homolle, B. C. H., XXIII, 1899, pp. 445 and 459; S. Reinach, C. R. Acad. Inscr., 1900, pp. 
8 f.; H. Lechat, Rev. des Etudes anciennes, I, 1900, pp. 195 f.; Gardner, Hbk., p. 441; P. Gardner, 
ees X11), p. 127; cf. Preuner, op. cit., p. 38; etc. Homolie, /.-¢., p. 471, says that if the 
Agias is a copy, “‘c’est celui d’une copie authentique immédiate, contemporaine du modeéle.” The 
view that the Delphi group was not original is well expressed by P. Wolters, J. c., p. 50, who says 
that ‘“niemand die delphischen Statuen fuer Originale des Lysippos erklaeren wird.” 
7Hbk., p. 441, n. 2; only two small marble props, reaching to the calves, support the ankles. 
8This treatment gives the impression of texture and profusion; see Furtwaengler, M/p., p. 309. 
°Pliny, H. N., XXXIV, 69-71 (list of bronze works). 
