[676] Stuart Jones, Cat. Mus. Capitol., p. 288, no. 21 and Pl. 71; Helbig, Fuehrer, I, no. 858; Guide, 509; B. B., 387; Furtw., Mp., p. 303 and n. 7; Mw., p. 525 and n. 1; Clarac, II, 859, 2170; Reinach, Rép., I, 525, 1; Lange, Motiv des aufgestuetzten Fusses, 1879, pp. 13 f. Helbig speaks of a replica in Paris, but confounds it with the type of the so-called Sandal-binder of the Louvre (Fig. 8). The Capitoline statue is 1.845 meters in height (Stuart Jones).
[677] The motive of the “aufgestuetztes Bein” is more likely Lysippan than Skopaic, as Furtwaengler wrongly assumed.
[678] Svoronos, Textbd., I, pp. 18 f. (with bibliography of all the objects down to 1903, on p. 15, n. 1.); Tafelbd., I, Pls. I and II (front and back); Staïs, Marbres et Bronzes, pp. 302–304 and fig.; Bulle, 61; von Mach, 290; J. H. S., XXIII, 1903, Pls. VIII (head), IX (body, three views); H. B. Walters, Art of the Greeks, Pl. XVI; Gardner, Sculpt., Pl. LXXVIII; for bibliographical notice and discussion, see A. J. A., V, 1901, p. 465, and VII, 1903, pp. 464–5; Springer-Michaelis, p. 297, fig. 531; the best account of the statue in English is by Dr. A. S. Cooley, in Record of the Past, II, 1903, pp. 207–13 (with two illustrations). It is 1.94 meters in height, i. e., slightly over life-size (Svoronos).
[679] J. H. S., XXI, 1901, pp. 205 f; he also briefly described all the bronzes found in A. A., 1901, pp. 17–19, (4 figs.), in Rev. des Ét. gr., XIV, 1901, pp. 122–6 (5 figs.), and in C. R. Acad. Inscr., 1901, pp. 58–63 (3 figs.) and 158–9 (3 Pls.). All the bronzes were published after cleansing in Arch. Eph., 1902, pp. 145 f., with Pls. 7–17 and figs. 1–18 in the text; see also Staïs, Les trouvailles dans la mer de Cythère, 1905; the last publication of all the pieces is by Svoronos, Textbd., I, pp. 1–86; Tafelbd., I, Pls. I-XX.
[680] In his popular discussion of the bronzes in Monthly Review, June, 1901, pp. 110–127 (with 5 Pls., and 5 figs.). Similar praise is that of W. Klein, II, p. 403; he calls it die wundervollste aller uns erhaltenen Bronzestatuen des Altertums.
[681] London Illustrated News, June 6, 1903 (with double-page plate).
[682] Gaz. d. B.-A., XXV, Pér. III, 1901, pp. 295–301 (with 3 figures).
[683] In a monograph entitled Ὁ Ἔφηβος τῶν Ἀντικυθήρων (pp. 1–42, and 6 figs.), Athens, 1903.
[684] It was restored by the French sculptor André, who covered it with putty to conceal the jointures and the rivets which were used in welding the fragments together. He also colored it to resemble bronze. The method used in the restoration is certainly open to objection, but not to the extent asserted by certain scholars, e. g., by von Mach, who asserts that no Greek statue has received such unworthy treatment, and that the restoration makes it possible to refer the statue to almost any age or admixture of influences: Greek Sculpture, Its Spirit and Principles, p. 326. Much of the beauty of the statue, to be sure, is gone, but the style is not obscured. It has been restored too full, which gives it a sensuous appearance. For the statue, before restoration, see Svoronos, Textbd., p. 18, fig. 2; Staïs, Marbres et Bronzes, fig. on p. 304.
[685] J. H. S., XXIII, 1903, pp. 152 f.; cf. Sculpt., pp. 244 f.; Hbk., pp. 532 f. In Chap. VI of the present work we shall follow the view which ascribes the Herakles to Lysippos: infra, pp. 298, 311. The Praxitelean and Lysippan influences in the bronze under discussion are noted by Richardson, p. 276.