When we consider these differences between the two statues, we see that our judgment of Lysippan art must depend on how we interpret them. We may either flatly reject the _Apoxyomenos_ and put the _Agias_ in its place as representing the norm of Lysippan art, or keep the _Apoxyomenos_ and reject the _Agias_ as evidence; or lastly we may keep both as characteristic works of two different periods in the artistic career of Lysippos, explaining the differences as the result of influence or of the lapse of years. A recent writer, to be sure, has cut the Gordian knot by rejecting both statues, and placing the _Apoxyomenos_ of the Uffizi—which we have treated at length in a preceding chapter (Pl. 12)—as the key to our knowledge of the art of Lysippos.[2042] But such a solution of the problem raises even more difficulties. Long before the _Agias_ came to light some critics, indeed, had doubted whether the _Apoxyomenos_ really represented the work of Lysippos, as its Hellenistic character seemed evident. Thus, in 1877, Ulrich Koehler,[2043] following a still earlier judgment,[2044] had come to the conclusion that the Vatican statue was only a free reproduction of Lysippos’ masterpiece and attributed its Hellenistic characteristics to the Roman copyist; but even yet the school which long recognized the _Apoxyomenos_ as the norm of Lysippos has its supporters,[2045] though many archæologists have now supplanted the _Apoxyomenos_ by the _Agias_.[2046] Others, not willing to renounce the _Apoxyomenos_ as evidence, accept both it and the _Agias_ as characteristic works of the master, appealing to the length of his career to explain the differences, and suggesting that in his youth Lysippos was under the influence of Skopas, but later in life attained independence, and followed a more anatomical rendering for his athlete statues.[2047] However, despite the fact that other artists must have influenced Lysippos,[2048] the _Agias_ can not be shown to be a youthful work of his, nor can the special influence of Skopas be shown to have been that of master on pupil, but rather of one great master on another and equally great contemporary. The difficulty about penetrating the obscurity surrounding Lysippos comes largely from the fact that he borrowed traits from several of his predecessors and contemporaries. The influence of Polykleitos, Skopas, and Praxiteles, and especially of the last two, as Homolle emphasized in his study of the Daochos group,[2049] can be certainly traced in the _Agias_. Fräulein Bieber, in a recent article,[2050] while denying that Lysippos had anything to do with the Delphian group, tries to prove that one figure in it shows the influence of Praxiteles, another that of Polykleitos, and a third that of Skopas. She believes that the sculptor of the _Agias_ had seen the original bronze statue, the work of Lysippos, which stood in Pharsalos. However, we may leave any such conclusion to one side, and judge between the _Agias_ and the