There is only one extant work which is undeniable by the hand of Praxiteles and that is the Hermes with Dionysius. As it was found in the same spot which Pausanias, in the literature described seeing it. There was little controversy. All other works which appear to be his are hotly debated. Why is this so in the case of Praxiteles and not in the case of other sculptors?

Praxiteles was an innovative sculptor at the beginning of the Hellenistic age. His work was greatly admired in his time and his style became the mode of the day. Not only was the work admired by the young sculptors of the period, his great success, socially and financially was an incentive as well.

One of the hallmarks of his style is the smooth polished surfaces with all the chisel marks carefully removed with a file and, alas it is from these marks which most pieces are authenticated. The mark of the chisel and the tell tale fingerprint of the tools used is one of the main methods of identifying the sculptor. These are the handwriting of the sculptor and in Praxiteles, they are assiduously removed from the work. This makes positive identification impossible. Consequently, identifications remain subjective and therefore subject to endless debate as each art expert vies with the next to display how critical is his thinking.

I had seen this work when it was first discovered and must say the restoration is remarkable. At the time it appeared to be a pile of old scrap metal lying on a table. Once again the Italians have done a brilliant job of restoration and preservation. Heroic methods are now being employed to discover other pieces from the spot.

The reason some believe that the work was part of a larger group is that in the Hellenistic period these larger than life works often composed gigantic public displays of wealth and prestige. They were particularly favored in Rome. The location of the find indicates that this object was on its way to Rome. This would lead one to speculate that the work is somewhat later than Praxiteles, but in his style and part of a gargantuan group. This is not necessarily true, but the evidence indicates that it may be.