Pausanias's Description of Greece, Vol. 4 (Frazer)

Astycrate, daughter of Astycrates. Polycles, son of Polycles, and Mnastimus, son of Aristonidas, made (the statue).

See Inscriptiones Graecae Insularum (Greek Inscriptions of the Islands) I, No. 855; compare Loewy, Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer (Inscriptions of Greek Sculptors), No. 197. If this restoration is correct, we have a sculptor Polycles whose father's name was also Polycles; however, the restoration of even the first two letters of the father’s name remains very uncertain.

8. In Rome, a marble base was found with the following inscription:

Poenus, a Macedonian. Polycles made (the statue).

The inscription appears to be a later copy rather than the original. See Loewy, Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer, No. 486.

Excluding the Lindian and Roman inscriptions, which provide little certainty, the evidence points to a family of sculptors living in the second century B.C. bearing the names Polycles, Timocles, and Timarchides. Two of these names—Polycles and Timarchides—were clearly borne by two different members of the family. Scholars have proposed many family trees; the one by Mr. W. Gurlitt, though drawn up before the Athenian and Elatean inscriptions were discovered, remains the best and is confirmed by them:

[Diagram: A genealogical chart showing the lineage of the sculptor family, starting with Polycles I, branching into Timocles and Timarchides I, and further into Polycles II, Dionysius of Athens, and Timarchides II.]

Professor C. Robert proposed a tree that agrees on names and relationships but differs on dates, assigning Polycles I and his sons to the third century B.C. instead of the second. His reason is that in a work by the Stoic philosopher Chrysippus (d. 207 B.C.), mentioned by Eusebius (Praeparatio Evangelica [Preparation for the Gospel], vi. 8. 17 sq.), a boxer named Hegesarchus is mentioned. Prof. Robert identifies this Hegesarchus with the boxer Agesarchus whose statue was made by the sons of Polycles (Paus. vi. 12. 8 sq.). This would imply that the sons of Polycles lived no later than the second half of the third century B.C. However, there are serious objections to this: (1) It conflicts with Pliny’s dates for the sculptors of that name. (2) It contradicts Pliny, who places Timocles in 156 B.C. (3) If Dionysius was active between 130 and 90 B.C., as the Delian inscription suggests, it is unlikely his father Timarchides I was working in the third century B.C.