[2212] See Treu, Bildw. v. Ol., p. 216. To-day marble is far commoner than bronze for artistic work; the reverse was true in antiquity. Many varieties of bronze—a combination of copper and tin in varying proportions—were named from places where it was manufactured: e. g., Corinthian, Delian (the favorite with Myron), Aeginetan (the favorite with Polykleitos), etc.
[2213] Cf. Furtwaengler, Bronz. v. Ol., pp. 21–2; 50stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr., p. 147; Reisch, p. 39. Good examples are the Tuebingen bronze hoplitodrome discussed in Ch. IV, pp. 206 f. (Fig. 42) and the παῖς κέλης from Dodona (Carapanos, Dodone et ses Ruines, Pl. XIII. 1). For diskoboloi, see E. von Sacken, Die ant. Bronzen des k. k. Muenz- und Antiken-Cabinetes in Wien, 1871, Pls, XXXV, 1, XXXVII, 4.
[2214] VIII, 40.1: Φιγαλεῦσι δὲ ἀνδριάς ἐστιν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀγορᾶς Ἀρ<ρα> χίωνος τοῦ παγκρατιαστοῦ, τά τε ἄλλα ἀρχαῖος καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα ἐπὶ τῷ σχήματι· οὐ διεστᾶσι μὲν πολὺ οἱ πόδες, καθεῖνται δὲ παρὰ πλευρὰν αἱ χεῖρες ἄχρι τῶν γλουτῶν. πεποίηται μὲν δὴ ἡ εἰκὼν λίθου, λέγουσι δὲ καὶ ἐπίγραμμα ἐπ’ αὐτὴν γραφῆναι. καὶ τοῦτο μὲν ἠφάνιστο ὑπὸ τοῦ χρόνου, κ.τ.λ.
On the various spellings of the name, Arrhachion, Arrhachon, Arrhichion, etc., see critical note in Rutgers, p. 19, and Foerster, no. 103.
[2215] Both Africanus (see Rutgers, l. c.), and Pausanias (l. c.) date the third victory. Pausanias and Philostratos, 21, place the other two victories in the Ols. just preceding. Cf. Rutgers, p. 20, n. 1, and Foerster, nos. 98, 101, 103. The story how Arrhachion expired at the moment of victory, throttled by his adversary, whose toe he succeeded in putting out of joint, is told by Africanus, Pausanias (VIII, 40.2), and Philostratos (Imag., II, 6 = p. 411); Pausanias also mentions that the body was crowned.
[2216] Frazer, IV, pp. 391–2; III, pp. 40–1. The statue has otherwise not been published. In all probability it is the same one listed by Waldemar Deonna, in his Les Apollons archaïques, Geneva, 1909, p. 187, no. 79. This was seen at Phigalia in 1891 by M. Chamonard and notices of it are to be found in the following works: B. C. H., XV, 1891, pp. 440 and 448; Chroniques d’Orient, II, p. 36; R. Ét. gr., 1892, p. 127; Mueller, Nacktheit und Entbloessung in d. altoriental. und aelteren griech. Kunst, Diss. inaug., 1906, p. 100; Rouse, p. 307.
Pausanias’ description of Arrhachion’s statue is discussed by the following: Scherer, pp. 16 and 23; Iwan v. Mueller, Handbuch, VI, p. 530: Dumont, Mélanges d’ Arch., p. 53; Lange, Darstellung des Menschen in der aelteren griech. Kunst, 1899; Brunn, Griech. Kunstgesch., II, p. 73; Overbeck, Griech. Kunstmythol., III, Apollon, p. 12, no. 9; Klein, p. 146; Reisch, p. 40; Collignon, I, p. 117, n. 1, and B. C. H., V, 1881, p. 321; cf. Deonna, op. cit., p. 13, n. 4.
[2217] 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.
[2218] Deonna, op. cit., p. 85, says that the size of the αἰδοῖα 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.
[2219] I, pp. 21 f.; cf. Rhein. Mus., N. F., X, 1856, pp. 153 f.