[1893] P., VI, 2.8; he was represented on horseback.
[1894] P., III, 8.1; cf. VI, 1.6.
[1895] Inschr. v. Ol., 160; Loewy, I. G. B., 99; see A. G., XIII, 16.
[1896] A. Z., XXXVII, 1879, p. 151.
[1897] Noted in A. J. A., XV, 1911, p. 60.
[1898] H. N., XXXIV, 86: et adornantes se feminas. For the five larger bronze figures, see Inv., 5604–5, 5619–21; for the smaller sixth figure, usually known as the Praying Child, see Inv., 5603. All six are pictured in E. R. Barker’s Buried Herculaneum, 1908, Figs. 18–19.
[1899] P., VI, 12.1; cf. VIII, 42.9–10; Oxy. Pap.; Hyde, 105; Foerster, 199, 209, and 215. Pindar celebrates the victory of 476 B. C. in his first Olympian ode.
[1900] P., V, 27.2. See supra, pp. 28, 62, and 163.
[1901] P., VI, 14.12.
[1902] H. N., XXXIV, 71. On the basis of this and other references, Reisch built up a theory that there was also a fourth-century B. C. Kalamis, the contemporary of the younger Praxiteles: Jh. oest. arch. Inst., IX, 1906, pp. 199 f. He was followed by Amelung (R. M., XXI, 1906, pp. 285 and 287) and Studniczka (Abh. d. k. saechs. Gesellsch. d. Wiss., philolog.-histor. Klasse, XXV, no. IV, 1907, pp. 5 f.). Furtwaengler has shown the weakness of such an argument and has rightly referred the monument mentioned by Pliny to the great Kalamis and his younger contemporary, the elder Praxiteles: Sitzb. Muen. Akad., 1907, pp. 160 f.