and TI'MOCLES (Τιμαρχίδης, Τιμοκλῆς), of Athens, the sons of Polycles, have already been spoken of under POLYCLES, p. 459a., where their statues of Asclepius and Athena are mentioned, and their date is discussed ; for it is, of course, dependent on the date assigned to Polycles. In addition to the remarks in that article, it should be observed that, in the passage of Pliny referred to (H. N. 36.5. s. 4.10), not only are Polycles and the sons of Timarchides mentioned as the makers of statues in the portico of Octavia, but also Timarchides himself, as the maker of a statue of Apollo, holding the cithara, in his temple, which formed a part of those buildings. Moreover, it is most probable that the passage, correctly read, contains some further information about " the sons of Timarchides," who are nameless in the ordinary text, as established by Harduin. The old text had " Item Polycles et Dionysius, Timarchdis filii," &c. ; and, although the fist four words are not contained in the MSS. used by Harduin, who therefore rejected them, they are found, with a slight variation, in the Bamberg MS., which gives " Idem polycles et dionysius timarcidis, fiji," i. e. filius. The last word is confirmed by the Munich MS., which has " machidis filius." Hence it would appear to be probable that the true reading is " Idem Polycles (who had been mentioned in the preceding sentence) et Dionysius, Timarchidis filius," or, as Jan proposes to read it, " Iidem Polycles et Dionysius (for the latter also is mentioned in the preceding sentence), Timarchidis filii." (Sillig's edition of Pliny and Jan's Supplement.)
Slight as is the difference between the two readings, they have a very different effect on the succession of this family of artists. According to the former, we have only to add to the genealogy the name of Dionysius, thus :--
But then we have the somewhat improbable result of a grandfather and grandson working together on the same statue. If, on the other hand, we adopt the reading of Jan, and combine it with the statement of Pausanias, that Timocles and Timarchides were the sons of Polycles, and if we still identify this Polycles with the Polycles of Pliny, the result is the absurdity that " the same Polycles " was both the son and the father of Timarchides. Either, therefore, we must place another Timarchides at the beginning of the genealogy, thus--
or, we must reject the word idem or iidem (restoring, perhaps, item in its place), and thus obtain another Polycles, the brother of Dionysius : or, lastly, the identification of the Polycles of Pausanias and Pliny may be given up, and it may be supposed that we have two different and somewhat distinct portions of this artistic family, namely, the artists mentioned by Pausanias, and those mentioned by Pliny. In this position the question must be left for the solution of other scholars, and for the instruction of students in the difficulties of criticism. It must, however, be remembered that the text cannot be regarded as fixed by the authority of the Bamberg MS.
[P.S]