Note 867 — Chapter III · VICTOR STATUES REPRESENTED AT REST.

For Myron, see Pliny, H. N., XXXIV, 57. Furtwaengler, Mp., p. 196, Mw., 379–80, thinks that the connection is not literally true, even if considerations of chronology are not against it, and derives the story of Hagelaïdas teaching Myron from the similarity between the work of the two. For Polykleitos, see Pliny, H. N., XXXIV, 55. The tradition that Hagelaïdas was the master of Polykleitos has been unreasonably assailed by many scholars: e. g., by Robert, Arch. Maerchen, 1886, p. 97; Mahler, Polyklet u. s. Sch., 3912, pp. 6 f.; Klein, I, p. 340; cf. II, p. 143; cf. Springer-Michaelis, I, p. 210. Furtwaengler, Mp., p. 196, Mw., p. 380, believes it impossible because of chronological difficulties, and assumes a sculptor of an intermediate generation as the teacher of Polykleitos; he, followed by Mahler, l. c., and Klein, I, 340, names Argeiadas (mentioned in I. G. B., no. 30) as this intermediate artist. However, he admits that the statement is true in a general sense, since Polykleitos developed his canon from that of Hagelaïdas: cf. 50stes Berl. Winckelmannsprogr., p. 149; Pfuhl, however, p. 2192, has shown that the relationship is perfectly possible.