_Apoxyomenos_ solely on the merits of the two statues. The differences between them appear to us too great to be reconciled on any such principles as those just rehearsed, for their style and technique seem to represent two distinct periods of art. If one is to be rejected, the connection of the _Agias_ with Lysippos certainly rests on better evidence than does the _Apoxyomenos_. By separating them completely, it is possible both to assign to Lysippos the early date which other evidence points to, and to remove the _Apoxyomenos_ entirely from the fourth century B. C., thus explaining its later modeling, comparatively expressionless features, body-build (which shows the use of three planes, instead of two), and other Hellenistic details. We should, then, see in its original a work not by Lysippos at all, but by some pupil or later member of his school, a work retaining merely traces of the style of the master. In thus eliminating the _Apoxyomenos_ we are justified in following Homolle’s lead in assigning the statue of Agias to Lysippos, in spite of arguments which have been adduced against attributing it to Lysippos and in spite of recent criticism of the inscriptions of the Delphian bases, by which Wolters tries to prove that the inscription on the base of the statue of Agias, and consequently the _Agias_ itself, antedate the inscription and dedication at Pharsalos.[2051] We may, therefore, until further discoveries prove the contrary, consider it as the centre of our treatment of that sculptor. Whether the _Apoxyomenos_ is to be explained as emanating from the immediate environment of Lysippos, or is to be regarded as a work illustrating the last phase of his development, or the innovation of another master—in any case it seems to us clearly to belong to an age essentially different from that which conceived the _Agias_.[2052]