328 MATERIALS OF OLYMPIC VICTOR MONUMENTS. 
cared for in the house of the temple guards. This statue, like all. 
other examples of the series, represents a nude youth standing in a stiff, 
constrained attitude. It is badly mutilated and its surface is rough 
from weathering. Besides having lost its head, arms, and the lower 
part of the legs, it has been broken into two parts across the abdo- 
men. ‘The ends of curls on either side of the neck, extending a few | 
inches over the breast, show that the head looked straight forward, 
thus following the usual law of “frontality,’”! which precluded any 
turning of the body; for a median line drawn down through the 
middle of the breastbone, the navel, and the aidota would divide the 
statue into two equal halves. The body shows the quadrangular form 
of the earlier examples, the sculptor having worked in flat planes 
at right angles to one another, with the corners merely rounded 
off. ‘The remains of arms broken off just below the shoulders show 
that they must have hung close to the sides. The shoulders are 
broad and square, and display none of the sloping lines characteristic 
of other examples, as, ¢. g., the one from Tenea. From the breast down 
the body is slender, the hips being very narrow. ‘The legs show the 
usual flatness and the left one is slightly advanced, as is uniformly the 
case in every one of the series. ‘They are somewhat more separated 
than in many other examples. ‘The aidota form a rude pyramidal mass, 
not being differentiated as they are, e. g., in the statues from Naxos and 
Orchomenos? (Fig. 10). Some attempt at modeling is visible in the 
muscles of the breast and lower abdomen. In general, it may be said 
that the similarity in attitude of this statue to Egyptian works im- 
presses us, as it does in all the examples of early Greek sculpture. As 
the subject of Oriental, especially Egyptian, influence on early Greek 
art has given rise to very diverse views, we shall make a short digres- 
sion at this point to discuss this interesting question. 
EGYPTIAN INFLUENCE ON EARLY GREEK SCULPTURE. 
This question has been under discussion in all its bearings ever since 
Brunn, in 1853, tried to demonstrate the originality of the Daidalian 
Eoava,* but, eee enough, archzologists are not yet agreed as to 
its proper settlement. While some emphasize the spontaneous origin 
of Greek art, others quite as strongly advocate that the early Greek 

See Lange,.op. cit., pp. XI f., who states the formula, which we have already given supra, Ch. 
IV, p. 175, cf. Loewy, Die Naturwiedergabe in der aelteren griech. Kunst, 1900, pp. 25, 27; id., 
Lysipp und seine Stellung in der griech. Kunst, pp. 17-18. On the pose, cf. S. Reinach, Manuel 
de Philologie classique (ed. 2), 1907, II, p. 91 n. 2. 
*Deonna, op. cit., p. 85, says that the size of the aidota is an indication of archaism, as the earlier 
artists exaggerated them in order to show the sex better. Figs. 7 (example from the Kerameikos) 
and 72 (example from Delphi), on pp. 132 and 179 respectively of his work, resemble our statue 
in this feature. 
SI, pp. 21 f.; of. Rhein. Mus., N. F., X, 1856, pp. 153 f. 
