Olympic Victor Monuments and Greek Athletic Art

by Walter Woodburn Hyde

THE DATES OF PHILANDRIDAS AND LYSIPPOS.

The date of the victory of Philandridas is not recorded, but it probably must lie within the years of the activity of Lysippos, who made the statue.[2095] On the principle which has been sufficiently demonstrated in my monograph de olympionicarum Statuis, that statues of nearly contemporaneous victors were grouped together in the Altis, as well as those of the same family and state, or those who had been victorious in the same contest, I have already in that work[2096] proposed Ol. 102 or Ol. 103 ( = 372 or 368 B. C.) as the probable date of his victory, as his statue stands among those of victors, none of whom could have won later than Ol. 104 ( = 364 B. C.). The first six named by Pausanias are Eleans and the dates of their victories fall between Ols. 94 and 104 ( = 404 and 364 B. C.); the sixth, Troilos, is known to have won his two victories in Ols. 102 and 103.[2097] None of the next seven Spartans—among whose statues that of Philandridas was placed—can be dated later than Ol. 97 ( = 392 B. C.), while most of them belong to the close of the fifth century B. C. Sostratos of Sikyon won in the same contest in which Philandridas did in Ol. 104 ( = 364 B. C.);[2098] and doubtless his two other known victories should be assigned to the two succeeding Olympiads. To bring Philandridas down as far as Ol. 107 ( = 352 B. C.) is unwarranted, since no statue of so late a date stood in this vicinity. On the other hand, to place his victory earlier than Ol. 102, is also out of the question, owing to the inexpediency of dating Lysippos so early. Doubtless, therefore, his statue by Lysippos was placed in the Spartan group about the same time that the image of Troilos, by the same sculptor, was placed among the Eleans. This is an independent argument, then, for so early a date for Lysippos.[2099]

Percy Gardner, in the discussion of the date of this artist,[2100] has shown how slight is the evidence for any date later than 320 B. C. The date of the second Olympic victory of Cheilon of Patrai, whose statue was by Lysippos, can not be later than 320 B. C.[2101] 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 Achæan people. He infers the date of his death by reference to the date of Lysippos as either 338 B. C. (Chæroneia) or 322 B. C. (Lamia). In another passage, VII, 6.5, he says that the Olympic guide told him that Cheilon was the only Achæan who fought at Lamia. Gardner justly remarks that either of these dates, the two occasions in the lifetime of Lysippos when the Achæans took part in an important war, fall within the dates of the artist’s activity.[2102] 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.[2103] Gardner also shows that the wish not to separate Lysippos from the Apoxyomenos has been the real reason which has influenced so many archæologists to extend his activity to the end of the fourth century,[2104] 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 contemporary 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[2105] as saying that an analysis of the style of the Agias 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 Agias, 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 predecessors and contemporaries, but developed at the same time new and independent tendencies. Thus the Philandridas must have been—just as the lost statue of Troilos—an early work of the master, whereas the Agias was the work of his mature genius. The difference between the two can thus be explained by the lapse of time between them, and by the influences that surrounded the youthful artist; but the similarities between them are, at the same time, striking, and there is little resemblance in either to the Apoxyomenos. This is another link in the chain of evidence that the latter work could not have been produced by the same artist; for artists do not radically change their style after many years of work, and Lysippos must have been at least fifty years old when he created the Agias.

The identification of this marble head with that of the victor statue of the Akarnanian pancratiast by Lysippos raises two questions which we shall briefly examine: whether the statues in the Altis were ever made of marble, and whether Lysippos ever worked in that material. The first of these questions will be left for the following chapter; the second will be discussed in the present connection.