No More Learning

by the enemy, and remained inactive; on which I. His Life. It is remarkable, in the case of
account after his return to Syracuse he was con- many of the ancient artists, how great a contrast
demned and driven into exile. (Diod. xi. 83. ) exists between what we know of their fame, and even
3. A Phocian, brother of Onomarchus, whom he sometimes what we see of their works, and what
succeeded as general of the Phocians in the Sacred we can learn respecting the events of their lives.
War. He had already held important commands Thus, with respect to Pheidins, we possess but few
under his brother, by whom he had been sent with details of his personal history, and even these are
an army of 7000 men to support Lycophron of beset with doubts and difficulties. What is known
Pherae against Philip of Macedon. On that occa- with absolute certainty may be summed up in a
sion he was unsuccessful, being defeated by Philip few words. He executed most of his greatest
and driven out of Thessaly ; but on the death of works at Athens, during the administration of Pe-
Onomarchus, in B. C. 352, he appears to have suc- ricles : he made for the Eleians the ivory and gold
ceeded without opposition to the chief command. statue of Zeus, the most renowned work of Greek
He immediately set to work to restore the affairs statuary : he worked for other Greek cities; and
of the Phocians. By an unsparing use of the vast he died just before the commencement of the Pelo-
treasures at his disposal, and by doubling the pay ponnesian War, in B. C. 432. The importance of
of his mercenaries, he quickly re-assembled a nu-the subject demands, however, a careful examina-
merous army, in addition to which auxiliaries were tion of the difficulties which surround it. The first
furnished him by the Achaeans, Lacedaemonians, of these difficulties relates to the cardinal point of
and Athenians, and the fugitive tyrants of Pherae, the time when the artist flourished, and the ap-
Lycophron and Peitholaus, also joined him with a proximate date of his birth.
body of mercenaries. The success of his military First of all, the date of Pliny must be disposed of.
operations was, however, far from corresponding It is well known how little reliance can be placed
to these great preparations. He invaded Boeotia; on the dates under which Pliny groups the names
but was defeated in three successive actions, appa- of several artists. Not only do such lists of names
rently none of them very decisive, as we next embrace naturally artists whose ages differed by
find him turning his arms against the Epicnemidian several years, but it is important to observe the
Locrians, and hostilities were carried on with alter- principle on which the dates are generally chosen
nations of success but no striking result. Mean- by Pliny, namely, with reference to some important
while Phayllus himself was attacked with a lin- epoch of Greek history. Thus the 84th Olympiad
gering disorder of a consumptive kind, to which he (B. C. 444–440), at which he places Pheidias, is
fell a victim after a long and painful illness, B. C. evidently chosen because the first year of that
351. (Diod. xvi. 35— 38, 61; Paus. x. 2. 86; Olympiad was the date at which Pericles began to
Harpocr. t. Þáüados. ) In this natural disease his have the sole administration of Athens* (Clinton,
enemies saw as plainly as in the violent deaths of Fast. Hell. s. a. 444). The date of Pliny deter-
his predecessors the retributive justice of the of- mines, therefore, nothing as to the age of Pheidias
fended deities.
at this time, nor as to the period over which his
It appears certain that Phayllus had made use artistic life extended. Nevertheless, it seems to us
of the sacred treasures with a far more lavish that this coincidence of the period, during which the
hand than either of his brothers, and he is artist executed his greatest works, with the adminis-
accused of bestowing the consecrated ornaments tration of Pericles, furnishes the best clue to the so-
upon his wife and niistresses. (Diod. xvi. 61; lution of the difficulty. It forbids us to carry up the
Theopomp. ap. Athen. xiii. p. 605; Ephor. ibid. artist's birth so high as to make him a very old man
vi. p. 232. ) The chief command in his hands ap- at this period of his life : not because old age would
pears to have already assumed the character of a necessarily have diminished his powers; though
monarchy (Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 661), and began even on this point those who quote the examples of
even to be regarded as hereditary, so that he left Pindar, Sophocles, and other great writers, do not,
it at his death to his nephew Phalaecus, though perhaps, make sufficient allowance for the difference
yet a minor. [PHALAECUS. ] [E. H. B. ] between the physical force required for the pro-
PHECIA'NUS. [IPHICIANUS. )
duction of such a work as the Oedipus at Colonus
PHEGEUS (brryeús). 1. A brother of Pho- and the execution, or even the superintendence, of
roneus, and king of Psophis in Arcadia. The town such works as the sculptures of the Parthenon, and
of Phegeia, which had before been called Eryman- the colossal statues of Athena and Zeus:--but the
thus, was believed to have derived its name from him. real force of the argument is this ; if Pheidias had
Subsequently, however, it was changed again into been already highly distinguished as an artist
Psophis (Steph. Byz. s. v. Dryera ; Paus, viii. 24.
$ 1). He is said to have been the father of Alphe- The vagueness of Pliny's dates is further
siboea or Arsinoe, Pronous, and Agenor, or of shown by his appending the words * circiter CCC.
Temenus and Axion (Paus. vi. 17. & 4, viii
. 24. 8 nostrae Urbis anno," which give a date ten years
4, ix. 41. & 2; Apollod. iii. 7. & 6); and to have higher, B. c. 454. This, however, cannot be very
purified Alemaeon after he had killed his mother, far from the date at which Pheidias begun to work.


## p. 244 (#260) ############################################

244
PHLEIDIAS.
PHEIDIAS
1 ]
nearly half a century earlier, it is incredible, first, I of Pantarces (on this point see below). The utmost
that the notices of his earlier productions should that can be granted to such arguments is the esta-
be so scanty as they are, and next, that his fame blishment of a bare possibility, which cannot avail
should be so thoroughly identified as it is with the for the decision of so important a question, espe-
works which he executed at this period. Such an cially against the arguments on the other side,
occasion as the restoration of the sacred monuments which we now proceed to notice.
of Athens would, we may be sure, produce the The question of the age of Pheidias is inseparably
artist whose geninis guided the whole work, as we connected with one still more important, the whole
know that it did produco a new development of history of the artistic decoration of Athens during
art itself ; and it is hardly conceivable that the the middle of the fifth century B. C. , and the
master spirit of this new era was a man of nearly consequent creation of the Athenian school of per-
seventy years old, whose early studies and works fect sculpture ; and both matters are intimaiely
must have been of that stiff archaic style, from associated with the political history of the period.
which even Calamis, who (on this hypothesis) was We feel it necessary, therefore, to discuss the
inuch his junior, had not entirely emancipated him- subject somewhat fully, especially as all the recent
self. This principle, we think, will be found to English writers with whose works we are acquainted
furnish the best guide through the conflicting tes- have been content to assume the conclusions of
timonies and opinions respecting the age of Pheidias. Müller, Sillig, and others, without explaining the
Several writers, the best exposition of whose grounds on which they rest ; while eren the reasons
views is given by Thiersch (Ueber die Epochen der urged by those authorities themselves seem to
bildenden Kunst unter den Griechen, p. 113, &c. ), admit of some correction as well as confirmation.
place Pheidias almost at the beginning of the fifth The chief point at issue is this:-Did the great
century B. C. , making him already a young artist Athenian school of sculpture, of which Pheidias
of some distinction at the time of the battle of was the head, take its rise at the commencement of
Marathon, B. C. 490 ; and that on the following the Persian wars, or after the settlement of Greece
grounds. Pausanias tells us (i. 28. § 2) that the subsequent to those wars? To those who under-
colossal bronze statue of Athena Promachus, in the stand the influence of war upon the arts of peace,
Acropolis of Athens, was made by Pheidias, out of or who are intimately acquainted with that period
the tithe of the spoil taken from the Medes who dis- of Grecian history, the mode of stating the question
embarked at Marathon ; and he elsewhere mentions almost suggests its solution. But it is necessary to
other statues which Pheidias made out of the same descend to details. We must first glance at the
spoils, namely, the group of statues which the political history of the period, to see what oppor-
Athenians dedicated at Delphi (x. 10. $ 1), and tunities were furnished for the cultivation of art,
the acrolith of Athena, in her temple at Plataeae and then compare the probabilities thus suggested
(ix. 4. § 1). It may be observed in passing, with with the known history of the art of statuary and
respect to the two latter works, that if they had sculpture.
exhibited that striking difference of style, as com- In the period immediately following the battle
pared with the great works of Pheidias at Athens, of Marathon, in B. C. 490, we may be sure that the
which must have marked them had they been made attention of the Athenians was divided between
some half century earlier than these great works, the effects of the recent struggle and the prepara-
Pausanias would either not have believed them tion for its repetition ; and there could have been but
to be the works of Pheidias, or he would have little leisure and but small resources for the cultiva-
made some observation upon their archaic style, tion of art. Though the argument of Muller, that the
and have informed us how early Pheidias began to spoils of Marathon must have been but small, is
work. The qnestion, however, chiefly turns upon pretty successfully answered by Thiersch, the proba-
the first of the above works, the statue of Athena bility that the tithe of those spoils, which was dedi.
Promachus, which is admitted on all hands to have cated to the gods, awaited its proper destination till
been one of the most important productions of the more settled times, is not so easily disposed of: indeed
art of Pheidias. The argument of Thiersch is, we learn from Thucydides (ii. 13) that a portion of
that, in the absence of any statement to the con- these spoils (oxila Mydowa) were reckoned among
trary, we must assume that the commission was the treasures of Athens so late as the beginning of
given to the artist immediately after the victory the Peloponnesian war. During the occupation of
which the statue was intended to commemorate. | Athens by the Persians, such a work as the colossal
Now it is evident, at first sight, to what an extra- statue of Athena Promachus would, of course, hare
ordinary conclusion this assumption drives us. been destroyed in the burring of the Acropolis,
Pheidias must already have been of some reputation had it been already set up : which it surely would
to be entrusted with such a work. We cannot have been, in the space of ten years, if, as Thiersch
suppose him to have been, at the least, under supposes, it had been put in hand immediately after
twenty-five years of age. This would place his the battle of Marathon. To assume, on the other
birth in B. c. 515. Therefore, at the time when hand, as Thiersch does, that Pheidias, in the fiight
he finished his great statue of Athena in the Par to Salamis, succeeded in carrying with him his un-
thenon (B. C. 438), he must have been 77 ; and finished statue, with his moulds and implements,
after reaching such an age he goes to Elis, and un- and so went on with his work, seems to us a mani-
dertakes the colossal statue of Zeus, upon com fest absurdity. We are thus brought to the end
pleting which (B c. 433, probably), he had reached of the Persian invasion, when the Athenians found
the 8-2nd year of his age ! Results like these are their city in ruins, but obtained, at least in part, the
not to be explained away by the ingenious argu- means of restoring it in the spoils which were
ments by which Thiersch maintains that there is divided after the battle of Plataeae (R. C. 479).
nothing incredible in supposing Pheidias, at the age of that part of the spoil which fell to the share of
of eighty, to have retained vigour enough to be the Athens, a tithe would naturally be set apart for
sculptor of the Olympian Zeus, and even the lover / sucred uses, and would be added to the uthe of


## p. 245 (#261) ############################################


PHEIDIAS.
245
PHIEIDIAS.
the spoils of Marathon. Nor is it by any means of the period : we refer to the transference of the
improbable that this united sacred treasure may bones of Theseus to Athens, in the year B. C. 468,
have been distinguished as the spoils of Marathon, an event which must be taken as marking the date
in commemoration of that one of the great victories of the commencement of the temple of Theseus, one
over the Persians which had been achieved by the of the great works of art of the period under dis-
Athenians alone. There is, indeed, a passiige in cussion. In this case there was a special reason
Demosthenes (Parapresb. & 272, ed. Bekk. , p. 428) for the period chosen to undertake the work ;
in which this is all but directly stated, for he says though the commencement of the general restora-
that the statue was made out of the wealth given tion of the sacred monuments would probably be
by the Greeks to the Athenians, and dedicated by the postponed till the completion of the defences of
city as an apotelov of the war against the barba- the city, which may be fixed at 1. C. 457-456,
rians. This can only refer to the division of the when the long walls were completed. Hence, as-
spoil at the close of the second Persian War, while suming (what must be granted to Thiersch) that
his statement that the Athenians dedicated the Pheidias ought to be placed as early as the circum-
statue as an đplotelov, clearly implies that the stances of the case permit, it would seem probable
Athenians were accustomed, through national pride, that he flourished from about the end of the 79th
to speak of these spoils as if they had been gained Olympiad to the end of the 86th, B. C. 460-432.
in that battle, the glory of which was peculiarly This supposition agrees exactly with all that we
their own, namely Marathon. This observation know of the history of art at that period. It is
would apply also to the Plataeans' share of the quite clear that the transition from the archaic
spoil; and it seems to furnish a satisfactory reason style of the earlier artists to the ideal style of
for our hearing so much of the votive offerings de- Pheidias did not take place earlier than the
close
dicated by the Athenians out of the spoils of Ma- of the first quarter of the fifth century B. C. There
rathon, and so little of any similar application of are chronological difficulties in this part of the
the undoubtedly greater wealth which fell to their argument, but there is enough of what is certain.
share after the repulse of Xerxes. But in this Perhaps the most important testimony is that of
case, as in the former, we must of necessity suppose Cicero (Brut. 18), who speaks of the statues of
a considerable delay. The first objects which en- Canachus as “ rigidiora quam ut imitentur verita-
grossed the attention of the Athenians were the tem,” and those of Calamis as “dura quidem, sed
restoration of their dwellings and fortifications, the tamen molliora quum Canachi,” in contrast with
firm establishment of their political power, and the the almost perfect works of Myron, and the per-
transference to themselves of the supremacy over fect ones of Polycleitus. Quintilian (xii. 10) re-
the allied Greeks. In short, the administrations peats the criticism with a slight variation, “Du-
of Aristeides and Themistocles, and the early part riora et Tuscanicis proxima Callon atque Egesias,
of Cimon's, were fully engaged with sterner neces- jam minus rigida Calamis, molliora adhuc supra dictis
sities than even the restoration of the sacred edifices Myron fecit. ” Here we have the names of Cana-
and statues. At length even the appearance of chus, Callon, and Hegesias, representing the tho-
danger from Persia entirely ceased ; the Spartans roughly archaic school, and of Calamis as still
were fully occupied at home; the Athenians archaic, though less decidedly so, and then there is
had converted their nominal supremacy into the at once a transition to Myron and Polycleitus, the
real empire of the Aegean ; and the common younger contemporaries of Pheidias. If we inquire
treasury was transferred from Delos to Athens more particularly into the dates of these artists, we
(B. C. 465); at home Cimon was in the height of find that Canachus and Callon flourished probably
his power and popularity, and Pericles was just between B. c. 520 and 480. Hegesias, or Hegias,
coming forward into public life ; while the most is made by Pausanias a contemporary of Onatas,
essential defences of the city were already com- and of Ageladas (of whom we shall presently have
pleted. The period had undoubtedly come for to speak), and is expressly mentioned by Lucian,
the restoration of the sacred edifices and for the in connection with two other artists, Critios and
commencement of that brilliant era of art, which is Nesiotes, as tỉis malaias épgaolas, while Pliny, in
inseparably connected with the name of Pheidias, his loose way, makes him, and Alcamenes, and
and which found a still more complete opportunity Critios and Nesiotes, all rivals of Pheidias in 01.
for its development when, after the conclusion of 84, B. C. 444 [HEGIAS). Of the artists, whose
the wars which occupied so much of the attention names are thus added to those first mentioned, we
of Cimon and of Pericles during the following know that Critios and Nesiotes executed works
twenty years, the thirty years' truce was concluded about B. c. 477 [Critios]; and Onatas, who was
with the Lacedaemonians, and the power of Pericles contemporary with Polygnotus, was reckoned as a
was finally established by the ostracism of Thucy- Daedalian artist, and clearly belonged to the
dides (B. C. 445, 444); while the treasury of archaic school, wrought, with Calamis, in B. C.
467,
Athens was continually augmented by the contri- and probably flourished as late as B. C. 460. Ca-
butions levied from the revolted allies. There is, lamis, though contemporary with Onatas, seems to
indeed, no dispute as to the fact that the period have been younger, and his name (as the above
from B. C. 444 to the breaking out of the Pelopon- citations show) marks the introduction of a less
nesian War, B. c. 431, was that during which the rigid style of art (Calamis"). Thus we have a
most important works of art were executed, under
the administration of Pericles and under the super- It is, however, far from certain that the statue
intendence of Pheidias. The question really in of Apollo Alexicacos by Calamis, at Athens, fur-
dispute regards only the commencement of the nishes a sufficient ground for bringing down bis
period.
date to the great plague at Athens, in B. C. 430,
An important event of Cimon's administration 429. Pausanias merely assigns this as a traditional
affords a strong confirmation
to the general con- reason for the surname of the god, whereas we
clusion suggested by the above view of the history know it to have been an epithet very anciently
R 3


## p. 246 (#262) ############################################

2. 16
PHEIDIAS.
PIEIDIAS.
series of artists of the archaic school, extending! mined ; the 6th has been noticed already; and the
quite down to the middle of the fifth century, B. C. ; 7th may be disposed of as another example of the
and therefore the conclusion seems unavoidnble loose way in which Pliny groups artists together.
that the establishment of the new school, of which The conclusion will then be that Ageladas flourished
Pheidias was the head, cannot be referred to a during the first half and down to the middle of the
period much earlier,
fifth century BC. The limits of this article do
But a more positive argument for our artist's not allow us to pursue this important part of the
date is supplied by this list of names. Besides subject further. For a fuller discussion of it the
Agendas, whom most of the authorities mention reader is referred to Müller, de Phidiae Vita, pp.
as the teacher of Pheidias, Dio Chrysostom (Or. iv. 11, &c. Müller maintains the probability of
p. 558) gives another name, which is printed in Ageladas having visited Athens, both from his
the editions 'Italou, but appears in the MSS. as having been the teacher of Pheidias and Myron,
innor, out of which prior may be made by a and from the possession by the Attic payus of
very slight alteration ; and, if this conjecture be Melite of his statue of Heracles (Schol. ad Arig-
admitted, we have, as a teacher of Pheidias, He- toph. Ran, 504). He suggests also, that the time
gias or Hegesins, who, as we have seen, was cons of this visit may have taken place after the alliance
temporary with Onatas. Without any conjecture, between Athens and Argos, about B. c. 461; but
however, we know that Ageladas of Argos, the this is purely conjectural.
principal master of Pheidias, was contemporary The above arguments respecting the date of
with Onatns, and also that he was the teacher of Pheidias might be confirmed by the particular facts
Myron and Polycleitus. It is true that a new set that are recorded of him ; but these facts will be
of difficulties here arises respecting the date of best stated in their proper places in the account of
Ageladas himself; and these difficulties have led his life. As the general result of the inquiry, it is
Thiersch to adopt the conjecture that two artists clearly impossible to fix the precise date of the
of the same name have been confounded together. birth of the artist; but the evidence preponderates,
This easy device experience shows to be always we think, in favour of the supposition that Pheidias
suspicious ; and in this case it seems peculiarly began to work as a statuary about OL 79, B. C.
arbitrary, when the statement is that Ageladas, 464 ; and, supposing him to hare been about
one of the most famous statuaries of Greece, was twenty-five years old at this period, bis birth
the teacher of three others of the most celebrated would fall about 489 or 490, that is to say, about
artists, Pheidias, Myron, and Polycleitus, to sepa- the time of the battle of Marathon. We now re-
rate this Ageladas into two persons, making one turn to what is known of his life.
the teacher of Pheidias, the other of Myron and It is not improbable that Pheidias belonged to a
Po! ycleitus. Certainly, if two artists of the name family of artists ; for his brother or nephew Pa-
must be imagined, it would be better to make naenus was a celebrated painter; and he himself is
Pheidins, with Myron and Polycleitus, the disciple related to have occupied himself with painting,
of the younger.
before he turned his attention to statuary. (Plin.
The principal data for the time for Ageladas are H. N. xxx«. 8. 8. 31. ) He was at first instructed
these :- 1. He executed one statue of the group in statuary bs native artists (of whom Hegias
of three Muses, of which Canachus and Aristocles alone is mentioned, or supposed to be mentioned,
made the other two; 2. he made statues of Olympic under the altered form of his name, Hippias, see
victors, who conquered in the 65th and 66th Olym- abore), and afterwards by Ageladas. The occasion
piads, B. c. 520,516, and of another whose victory for the development of his talents was furnished
was about the same period ; 3. he was contempo- (as has been already argued at length) by the
rary with Hegias and Onatas, who flourished about works undertaken, chiefly at Athens, after the
B. C. 467 ; 4. he made a statue of Zeus for the Persian wars. Of these works, the group of statues
Messenians of Naupactus, which must have been dedicated at Delphi out of the tithe of the spoils
after B. c. 455; 5. he was the teacher of Pheidias, would no doubt be among the first ; and it has
Myron, and Polycleitus, who fiourished in the therefore been assumed that this was the first
middle of the fifth century, B. C. ; 6. he made a great work of Pheidias : it will be described pre-
statue of Heracles Alexicacos, at Melite, which sently. The statue of Athena Promachus would
was supposed to have been set up during the great probably also, for the same reason of discharging
plague of B. C. 430—429 ; and 7. he is placed by a religious duty, be among the first works under-
Pliny, with Polycleitus, Phradmon, and Myron, taken for the ornament of the city, and we shall
at 01. 87, B. C. 432. Now of these data, the 3rd, probably not be far wrong in assigning the execu-
4th, and 5th can alone be relied on, and they are tion of it to about the year B. C. 160. This work,
not irreconcileable with the 1st, for Ageladas from all we know of it, must have established his
may, as a young man, have worked with Canachus reputation ; but it was surpassed by the splendid
and Aristocles, and yet have flourished down to productions of his own hand, and of others work-
the middle of the fifth century: the 2nd is entirely ing under his direction, during the administration
inconclusive, for the statues of Olympic victors of Pericles. That statesman not only chose Phei-
were often made long after their victories were dias to execute the principal statues which were to
be set up, but gave him the orersight of all the
applied to various divinities, and analogy would works of art which were to be erected. Plutarch,
lead us to suppose its origin to be mythical rather from whom we learn this fact, enumerates the fol-
than historical. The matter is the more important, lowing classes of artists and artificers, who all
inasmuch as Ageladas also (on whose date the worked under the direction of Pheidias : 76KTOVES,
present question very much turns) is placed by πλάσται, χαλκοτύποι, λιθουργοί, βαφείς, χρυσού
some as late as this same plague on the strength of μαλακτήρες και ελέφαντος, ζωγράφοι, ποικιλται,
his statue of Heracles Alexicacos. (Comp. Müller, Topeutai. (Plut. Peric. 12. ) Of these works the
de Phidiae Vita, pp. 13, 14. )
chief were the Propylaea of the Acropolis, and,


## p. 247 (#263) ############################################


PHIEIDIAS.
247
PHEIDIAS.
ahore all, that most perfect work of human art, Graec. p. 400, ed. Müller. ) It must be remem-
the temple of Athena on the Acropolis, called bered that this is the statement of Philochorus, as
the Parthenon or the Hecatompedon, on which, as quoted by two different scholiasts ; but still the
the central point of the Athenian polity and reli- general agreement shows that the passage is toler-
gion, the highest efforts of the best of artists were ably genuine. Of the corrections of Palmerius,
employed. There can be no doubt that the sculp- one is obviously right, namely the name of Pythio-
tured ornaments of this temple, the remains of dorus for Scylhodorus; for the latter archon is not
which forin the glory of our national museum, were mentioned elsewhere. Pythodorus was archon in
executed under the immediate superintendence of OL 87. 1, B. C. 432, and seven years before him
Pheidias ; but the colossal statue of the divinity, was the archonship of Theodorus, Ol. 85. 3, B. c.
which was enclosed within that magnificent shrine, 438. In the latter year, therefore, the statue was
was the work of the artist's own hand, and was dedicated ; and this date is confirmed by Diodorus
for ages esteemed the greatest production of Greek (xii. 31), and by Eusebius, who places the making
statuary, with the exception of the similar, but of the statue in the 2d year of the 85th Olympiad. "
even more splendid statue of Zeus, which Pheidias This is, therefore, the surest chronological fact in
afterwards executed in his temple at Olympia. the whole life of Pheidias. t
The materials chosen for this statue were ivory and The other parts, however, of the account of
gold; that is to say, the statue was formed of plates Philochorus, are involved in much difficulty. On
of ivory laid upon a core of wood or stone, for the the very face of the statement, the story of Pheidias
flesh parts, and the drapery and other ornaments having been first banished by the Athenians, and
were of solid gold. It is said that the choice of these afterwards put to death by the Eleinns, on a charge
materials resulted from the determination of the precisely similar in both cases, may be almost cer-
Athenians to lavish the resources of wealth, as well tainly pronounced a confused repetition of the same
as of art, on the chief statue of their tutelary deity ; event. Next, the idea that Pheidias went to Elis
for when Pheidias laid before the ecclesia his design as an exile, is perfectly inadmissible. This will be
for the statue, and proposed to make it either of clearly seen, if we examine what is known of the
ivory and gold, or of white marble, intimating visit of Pheidias to the Eleians.
however his own preference for the latter, the There can be little doubt that the account of Phi-
people at once resolved that those materials which lochorus is true so far as this, that the statue at
were the most costly should be employed. (Val. Olympia was made by Pheidias after his great
Max, i. 1. $ 7. ) The statue was dedicated in the works at Athens. Heyne, indeed, maintains the
3d year of the 85th Olympiad, B. c. 438, in the contrary, but the fallacy of his arguments will pre-
archonship of Theodorus. The statue itself will sently appear. It is not at all probable that the
be described presently, with the other works of Athenians, in their eagerness to honour their god-
Pheidias ; but there are certain stories respecting dess by the originality as well as by the magnificence
it, which require notice here, as bearing upon the of her statue, should have been content with an
life and death of the artist, and as connected with imitation of a work so unsurpassable as the statue
the date of his other great work, the colossal statue of Zeus at Olympia-; but it is probable that the
of Zeus at Olympia.
Eleians, as the keepers of the sanctuary of the
The scholiast on Aristophanes (Pax, 605) has supreme divinity, should have desired to eclipse the
preserved the following story from the Atthis of statue of Athena : and the fact, that of these two
Philochorus, who flourished about B. c. 300, and statues the preference was always given to that of
whose authority is considerable, inasmuch as he Zeus, is no small proof that it was the last executed.
was a priest and soothsayer, and was therefore Very probably, too, in this fact we may find one of
well acquainted with the legends and history of the chief causes of the resentment of the Athenians
his country, especially those bearing upon religious against Pheidias, a resentment which is not likely
matters. “ Under the year of the archonship of
Pythodorus (or, according to the correction of It is not, however, absolutely necessary to
Palmerius, Theodorus), Philochorus says that the adopt the other correction of Palmerius, eodpov
golden statue of Athena was set up in the great for Ilvlodópov, since Philochorus may naturally
temple, having forty-four talents' weight of gold, have placed the whole account of the trial
, fight,
under the superintendence of Pericles, and the and death of Pheidias under the year of his death;
workmanship of Pheidias. And Pheidias, appear or the scholiasts, in quoting the account of his
ing to have misappropriated the ivory for the scales death, given by Philochorus under the year of
(of the dragons) was condemned. And, having Pythodorus, may have mixed up with it the be-
gone as an exile to Elis, he is said to have made ginning of the story, which Philochorus had put in
the statue of Zeus at Olympia ; but having finished its proper place, under the year of Theodorus. The
this, he was put to death by the Eleians in the correction, however, makes the whole matter clearer,
archonship of Scythodorus (or, according to the and the words drò toútov rather favour it.
correction of Palmerius, Pythodorus), who is the + It is remarked by Müller, with equal inge-
seventh from this one (i. e. Theodorus), &c. '” And nuity and probability, that the dedication of the
then, further down, ** Pheidias, as Philochorus statue may be supposed to have taken place at the
says in the archonship of Pythodorus (or Theo-Great Panathenaea, which were celebrated in the
dorus, as above), having made the statue of Athena third year of every Olympiad, towards the end of
pilfered the gold from the dragons of the chrysele- the first month of the Attic year, Hecatombaeon,
pbantine Athena, for which he was found guilty that is, about the middle of July.
and sentenced to banishment; but having come to # The form in which Seneca puts this part of
Elis, and having made among the Eleians the the story, namely, that the Eleians borrowed Phei-
statue of the Olympian Zeus, and having been dias of the Athenians, in order to his making the
found guilty by them of peculation, he was put to Olympian Jupiter, is a mere fiction, supported by
death. " (Schol. in Arist. ed. Dindorf ; Fragm. Histor. no other writer. (Senec. Rhet. ii. 8. )


## p. 248 (#264) ############################################

248
PHEIDIAS.
PILEIDIAS
to have been felt, much less manifested, at the exile, banished for peculation ? All that is told us
moment when he had finished the works which of his visit combines to show that he went attended
placed Athens at the very summit of all that was by his principal disciples, transferring in fact his
beautiful and maguificent in Grecian art. It is school of art for a time from Athens, where his
necessary to bear in mind these arguments from the chief work was ended, to Elis and Olympia, which
probabilities of the case, on account of the meagre- he was now invited to adorn. Among the artists
ness of the positive facts that are recorded. There who accompanied him were Colores, who worked
is, however, one fact, which seems to fix, with to. with him upon the statue of Zeus, as already upon
lerable certainty, the time when Pheidias was en- that of Athena, and who executed other important
gaged on the statue at Olympia. Pausanias informs works for the Eleians ; PANAENUS, his relative,
us (v. 11. & 2) that, on one of the flat pieces which who executed the chief pictorial embellishments of
extended between the legs of the throne of the the statue and temple ; ALCAMENES, his most dis-
statue, among other figures representing the athletic tinguished disciple, who made the statues in the
contests, was one of a youth binding his head with hinder pediment of the temple ; not to mention
a fillet (the symbol of victory), who was said to re- Paeonius of Mende, and CLEOETAS, whose con-
semble Pantarces, an Eleian boy, who was beloved nection with Pheidias, though not certain, is ex-
by Pheidias ; and that Pantarces was victor in tremely probable. It is worthy of notice that,
the boys' wrestling, in Ol. 86, B. C. 436. If there nearly at the time when the artists of the school of
be any truth in this account, it follows, first, that Pheidias were thus employed in a body at Olympia,
the statue could not have been completed before those of the Athenian archaic school - such as
this date, and also that, in all probability, Pheidias Praxias, the disciple of Calamis, and Androsthenes,
was engaged upon it at the very time of the victory the disciple of Eucadmus, were similarly engaged
of Pantarces. That the relief was not added at a on the iemple at Delphi (see Müller, de Phid. lit.
later period, is certain, for there is not the least p. 28, n. y. ). The honour in which Pheidias lived
reason for supposing that any one worked upon the among the Eleians is also shown by their assigning
statue after Pheidias, nor would any subsequent to him a stndio in the neighbourhood of the Allis
artist have the motive which Pheidias had to re- (Paus. v. 15. $ 1), and by their permitting him to
present Pantarces at all. A more plausible ob inscribe his name npon the footstool of the god, an
jection is founded on the uncertainty of the tradition, honour which had been denied to him at Athenst
which Pausanias only records in the vague terms (Paus. v. 10. § 2 ; Cic. Tusc. Quaest. i. 15). The
doukévai tò eldos néyovo. . But it must be remem- inscription was as follows:-
bered that the story was derived from a class of
persons who were not only specially appointed to
Φειδίας Χαρμίδου υιος Αθηναίος μ' επόηση.
the charge of the statue, but were the rery de Without raising a question whether he would thus
scendants of Pheidias, and who had, therefore. solemnly have inscribed his name as an Athenian
every motive to preserve every tradition respecting
him. The very utmost that can be granted is, if he had been an exile, we may point to clearer
that the resemblance may have been a fancy, but proofs of his good feeling towards his native city
that the tradition of the love of Pheidias for Pan- in some of the figures with which he adorned his
tarces was true ; and this would be sufficient to great work, such as that of Theseus (Paus. r. 10.
fix, pretty nearly, the time of the residence of the $ 2), and of Salamis holding the aplustre, in a
artist among the Eleians. If we are to believe group with personified Greece, probably crowning
Clemens of Alexandria, and other late writers, her (Paus. v. 11.