Εμφανίζονται 100 (επί συνόλου 678) τίτλοι με αναζήτηση: Βιογραφίες στην ευρύτερη περιοχή: "ΑΤΤΙΚΗ Περιφέρεια ΕΛΛΑΔΑ" .
ΤΡΟΙΖΗΝΑ (Χωριό) ΕΛΛΑΔΑ
1796 - 1865
(Τροιζήνα 1796 Αθήνα 1865)
Αγωνιστής του 1821 και πρωθυπουργός της Ελλάδας
(1849 - 54). Τον Ιούλιο του 1821 πήρε μέρος στις ναυτικές επιχειρήσεις στη Σάμο
και στη ναυμαχία των Σπετσών.
Tο 1825 ακολούθησε τον Κανάρη στο λιμάνι της Αλεξάνδρειας
στην απόπειρα πυρπόλησης του αιγυπτιακού στόλου και βοήθησε στον Αγώνα της Κρήτης.
Το 1826 ο Καποδίστριας του ανέθεσε την αρχηγία της ναυτικής μοίρας και το 1829
συνετέλεσε στην παράδοση των Τούρκων της Βόνιτσας.
Το 1836 έγινε υπουργός των Ναυτικών, θέση στην οποία παρέμεινε ως το 1843. Το
1849 διαδέχτηκε τον Κανάρη στην πρωθυπουργία.
Το κείμενο παρατίθεται τον Μάιο 2003 από την ακόλουθη ιστοσελίδα της Βουλής των Ελλήνων
ΑΘΗΝΑΙ (Αρχαία πόλη) ΕΛΛΑΔΑ
Callicrates. An architect, who, in conjunction with Ictinus, built the Parthenon at Athens, and who undertook also to complete the Long Walls termed skele. He appears to have flourished about B.C. 440.
Callicrates of Athens (fl. 5th century BC), Architect
Work
Cited by Pausanias and Plutarch. His major works are:
- The Parthenon: The famous temple on the Acropolis in Athens. Built in 447 - 438 BC in collaboration with Ictinus.
- The Temple of Athena Nike: Acropolis of Athens, 427-424 BC. This temple was offered to the city by Hipponicus, and was one of the first Ionic order temples built in continental Greece. Amphistylar, with 4 columns. The frieze and the marble parapet around the elevated base were added after the temple had been completed and inaugurated and the statue of Athena set in its place (around 420 BC). Callicrates also designed the altar.
- Repair and reinforcement of the walls of the Acropolis: The lower part is built of large blocks of stone and the upper of brick. The average thickness of these walls is 3.60 metres.
- The Temple of Artemis: Athens. 449 BC. On the eastern bank of the Ilisos, near the spring of Callirrhoe. Ionic order, with 4 columns on two sides. Base 14.60 x 7.8 metres. Sketched in 1762 by Stuart and Revett. Destroyed by the Turks in 1778. Fragments of the frieze are preserved in the "Museum of Pergamum" in Berlin.
- TheTemple of Apollo (of the Athenians): Delos 425-417 BC. Doric order, amphistylar, with 6 columns on each side.
- The Long Walls: 449-446 BC. The Long Walls were built to protect the road between Athens and Piraeus. They ran in parallel, 1 stade (160 metres) apart, for 6000 metres between the two cities, with the road between them. Thucydides described the fortifications, and the distances have been confirmed by I. Travlos. Pericles ordered the construction of the south wall; the north wall had been built during the time of Themistocles. Between the two was a temple to Theseus. The walls remained intact for 54 years; they were destroyed in 404 BC, when the Spartans occupied Athens, and rebuilt by Conon (393 BC), who strengthened them with towers and other fortifications. Sections of the walls remained standing until the 19th century. They were described by travellers Wheeler and Stuart in 1676, who recorded that the walls were built of large square blocks of stone on a solid rock foundation, the whole (foundations and superstructure) being 4 metres thick. The walls began at the city gate of Piraeus, and followed a line more or less corresponding to the present-day Piraeus Road. They rose to a height of 20 metres, and were punctuated at frequent intervals by towers. Three octagonal towers in the south wall were still standing at that time, the easternmost 10 metres tall and 5 metres wide, the other two somewhat smaller (8 x 5).
This text is based on the Greek book "Ancient Greek Scientists", Athens, 1995 and is cited Sep 2005 from The Technology Museum of Thessaloniki URL below.
Metagenes, An Athenian architect in the time of Pericles, was engaged with Coroebus and Ictinus and Xenocles in the erection of the great temple at Eleusis. (Plut. Peric. 13.)
Mnesicles, one of the great Athenian artists of the age of Pericles, was the architect of the Propylaea of the Acropolis, the building of which occupied five years, B. C. 437-433. It is said that, during the progress of the work, he fell from the summit of the building, and was supposed to be mortally injured, but was cured by an herb which Athena showed to Pericles in a dream. (Philoch. Frag.; Plut. Peric. 13.) Pliny relates the same story of a slave (verna) of Pericles, and mentions a celebrated statue of tile same slave by Stipax, which, from its attitude, was called Splanchnoptes. (Plin. H. N. xxii. 17.s. 20, xxxiv. 8. s. 19.21.)
Philon. A very eminent architect at Athens in the time of the immediate successors
of Alexander. He built for Demetrius Phalereus, about B. C. 318, the portico of
twelve Doric columns to the great temple at Eleusis. He also constructed for the
Athenians, under the administration of Lycurgus, an armoury (armamentarium) in
the Peiraeeus, containing arms for 1000 ships (Plin. H. N. vii. 37. s. 38). This
work, which excited the greatest admiration (Cic. de Orat. i. 14; Strab. ix.;
Val. Max. viii. 12. ext. 2), was destroyed in the taking of Athens by Sulla (Plut.
Sulla, 14). He wrote works on the architecture of temples, and on the naval basin
which he constructed in the Peiraeeus (Vitruv. vii. Praef. 12).
ΑΚΡΟΠΟΛΗ (Αρχαία ακρόπολη) ΑΘΗΝΑ
Ictinus (Iktinos). One of the most famous architects of Greece; he flourished
in the second half of the fifth century B.C., and was a contemporary of Pericles
and Phidias. His most famous works were the Parthenon on the Acropolis at Athens,
and the temple of Apollo at Bassae, near Phigalia in Arcadia. Of both these edifices
important remains are in existence. Most of the columns of the temple at Bassae
are still standing. In the judgment of the ancients, it was the most beautiful
temple in the Peloponnesus, after the temple of Athene at Tegea, which was the
work of Scopas (Pausan. viii. 41. 8).
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited June 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
ΜΕΓΑΡΑ (Αρχαία πόλη) ΕΛΛΑΔΑ
560 - 500
Αρχιτέκτονας, γιός του Ναυστρόφου, γνωστός από το περίφημο υδραυλικό έργου του "Ευπαλίνειο όρυγμα" της Σάμου (530 π.Χ.). Το Ευπαλίνειο όρυγμα ήταν υδραγωγείο, που θαυμάσθηκε και περιγράφτηκε από τον Ηρόδοτο, και έγινε με σκοπό τη μεταφορά νερού από κάποια πηγή προς την πρωτεύουσα της Σάμου. Γι' αυτό το σκοπό ο Ευπαλίνος αναγκάσθηκε να τρυπήσει το όρος Κάστρο. Η σήραγγα που κατασκευάσθηκε έχει μήκος 7 στάδια (1000 μ.) και είναι εσωτερικά κτισμένη με μικρές πολυγωνικές πέτρες ώστε να μην πέφτουν τα τοιχώματα. Οι σημερινοί επιστήμονες θαυμάζουν τον Ευπαλίνο για τις γνώσεις του στην υδραυλική επιστήμη.
Ευπαλίνος: ο αρχιτέκτονας μιας θαυμαστής κατασκευής. Το 1884
ο αρχαιολόγος Ε. Σταματιάδης δημοσιεύει το άρθρο του,"Περί του εν Σάμω ορύγματος
του Ευπαλίνου" με αφορμή τα ευρήματα των ανασκαφών, που πραγματοποιήθηκαν στα
μέσα του 19ου αιώνα κοντά στο χωριό Αγιάδες της Σάμου. Αυτές οι ανασκαφές είχαν
φέρει στο φως ένα υδραγωγείο του 6ου π.Χ. αιώνα. Σύμφωνα με το δημοσίευμα του
Ε. Σταματιάδη η κατασκευή αυτή αποδίδεται στον Ευπαλίνο τον Μεγαρέα με βάση ένα
χωρίο του Ηροδότου. Ο Ηρόδοτος κάνει μια επαινετική αναφορά στον Ευπαλίνο ως αρχιτέκτονα
του υδραγωγείου της Σάμου και ειδικότερα αναφέρει ότι ο Ευπαλίνος καταγόταν από
τα Μέγαρα κι ότι ήταν γιος του Ναυστρόφου. Κατά τη διάρκεια της διακυβέρνησης
της Σάμου από τον τύραννο Πολυκράτη, από το 538 έως το 522 π.Χ. ο Μεγαρέας αρχιτέκτονας
κλήθηκε εκεί να κατασκευάσει ένα ιδιαίτερα δύσκολο κι απαιτητικό έργο. Το γεγονός
ότι ο Πολυκράτης επέλεξε τον Ευπαλίνο για να κατασκευάσει το υδραγωγείο αποδεικνύει
ότι αυτός ήταν από τους πιο ικανούς αρχιτέκτονες της εποχής του και ότι η φήμη
του ξεπερνούσε κατά πολύ τα όρια της Αττικής.
Μόλις το 1959 ο W. Kastenbein έκανε την πρώτη τοπογραφική μέτρηση,
η οποία αποκάλυψε το κεντρικό μέρος του υδραγωγείου, μια σήραγγα μήκους 1036 μέτρων.
Το 1971 άρχισαν οι συστηματικές ανασκαφές και η διαδικασία αποχωμάτωσης της σήραγγας,
που πραγματοποιήθηκαν από το Γερμανικό Αρχαιολογικό Ινστιτούτο της Αθήνας υπό
τη διεύθυνση του Ulf Jantzen. Σύμφωνα με τα πορίσματα αυτής της έρευνας, το υδραγωγείο
αρχίζει βόρεια του βουνού Αμπελος, όπου βρίσκονται τα τείχη της αρχαίας Σάμου.
Τα νερά της πηγής, η οποία υπολογίζεται ότι παρείχε 400 κυβικά μέτρα την ημέρα,
συγκεντρώνονταν και διοχετεύονταν σε ένα κρηναίο οικοδόμημα. Έπειτα, από την κρήνη
αυτή το νερό έρεε σε ένα κανάλι μήκους 900 μέτρων μέχρι τη βόρεια πλαγιά του βουνού
Αμπελος. Περίπου τα 710 μέτρα αυτής της διαδρομής σκάφτηκαν από την επιφάνεια
και σκεπάστηκαν με πλάκες, ενώ τα υπόλοιπα 190 μέτρα διασχίζουν υπογείως και σε
σχεδόν ευθεία γραμμή έναν λοφίσκο στους πρόποδες της Αμπέλου. Η πραγματική όμως
πρόκληση για τον οξύ νου του Ευπαλίνου ήταν το βουνό Αμπελος ύψους 273 μέτρων.
Με άριστη εφαρμογή των μηχανικών και των μαθηματικών του γνώσεων, ο Μεγαρέας αρχιτέκτονας
κατάφερε να τρυπήσει το βουνό κατασκευάζοντας μια κανονική σήραγγα. Αυτή η κατασκευή
είχε διατομή 1,75Χ1,75 μέτρα και κλίση σε ελάχιστα σημεία. Στο νότιο τμήμα της
σήραγγας μεγάλα τμήματα ανοίγουν υπογείως για να εξοικονομηθούν δυνάμεις. Έτσι,
κάποια τμήματα της σήραγγας περνούν το ένα πάνω από το άλλο δημιουργώντας ένα
δίκτυο. Από το νότιο στόμιο της σήραγγας το υδραγωγείο συνεχίζει για 500 μέτρα
προς το κέντρο της πόλης.
Πραγματικά, η κατασκευή αυτή είναι άξια θαυμασμού καθώς πρέπει να
αναλογιστούμε ότι πραγματοποιήθηκε με τα πιο απλά εργαλεία της εποχής. Μάλιστα,
το ενδιαφέρον επικεντρώνεται στη διαδικασία διάνοιξης της σήραγγας, καθώς το σκληρό
πέτρωμα του βουνού προσέθετε δυσκολίες στο έργο του Ευπαλίνου. Ωστόσο, ο Ευπαλίνος
ολοκλήρωσε τη σήραγγα σκάβοντας το βουνό ταυτόχρονα κι από τις δύο πλευρές. Η
Η. Kienast (1977) αναφέρει ότι ο Ευπαλίνος εφάρμοσε με επιδεξιότητα τις ποιο απλές
μεθόδους της γεωδαισίας κι έτσι κατόρθωσε να ενώσει τους δύο υπόγειους διαδρόμους.
Τις εκτενείς μελέτες και μετρήσεις του ικανού αυτού αρχιτέκτονα μαρτυρούν τα πολλαπλά
σημάδια με κόκκινο χρώμα που βρέθηκαν πάνω στο βράχο. Φαίνεται ότι ο Ευπαλίνος
είχε σημαδέψει στη ράχη του βουνού την κατεύθυνση της σήραγγας κι ότι έπειτα την
προέβαλε στο εσωτερικό του βουνού.
Οι συνθήκες, οι κατασκευαστικές γνώσεις και οι τεχνικές του 6ου π.Χ.
αιώνα καθιστούν το έργο του Ευπαλίνου αξιέπαινο. Το υδραγωγείο αυτό του Μεγαρέα
αρχιτέκτονα χρησιμοποιήθηκε συνολικά για 1000 περίπου χρόνια και καταστράφηκε
κατά την εισβολή των Αράβων το 666 μ.Χ.
Στις μέρες μας συχνά γίνονται αναγγελίες κι εκτελούνται νέα έργα δημόσιας
χρήσης κι ωφέλειας. Θα ήταν πράγματι ευχής έργον οι αρμόδιοι φορείς να διδαχθούν
από τις ικανότητες του Ευπαλίνου και να μιμηθούν το κατασκευαστικό του επίτευγμα,
ώστε τα έργα που κατασκευάζουν να έχουν την ίδια αντοχή, λειτουργικότητα και διαχρονικότητα
με αυτό που αρχαίου προγόνου μας.
Κείμενο: Ελευθερία Σαμούρη, Ιστορικός-Αρχαιολόγος
Το κείμενο παρατίθεται τον Σεπτέμβριο 2005 από την ακόλουθη ιστοσελίδα του Δήμου Μεγαρέων
ΑΘΗΝΑΙ (Αρχαία πόλη) ΕΛΛΑΔΑ
Phileas. A Greek geographer of Athens, whose time cannot be determined with certaillty,
but who probably belonged to the older period of Athenian literature. He is not
only quoted by Dicaearchus (33); but that a still higher antiquity must be assigned
to him, would appear from the position in which his name occurs in Avienus (Or.
Mar. 42), who places him between Hellanicus and Scylax, and also front the words
of Macrobius (Sat. v. 20), who calls him a vetus scriptor with reference to Ephorus.
Phileas was the author of a Periplus, which is quoted several times by Stephanus
Byzantinus and other later writers, and which appears to have comprehended most
of the coasts known at the time at which he lived. It was divided into two parts,
one on Asia, and the other on Europe. From the fragments of it which have been
preserved, we learn that it treated of the following countries among others: of
the Thracian Bosporus (Suidas, s. v. bosporos ; Schol. ad Soph. Aj. 870); of the
Arganthonian promontory in the Propontis (Etymol. M. s. v. arganthon); of Assos,
Gargara, and Antandros (Macrob. l. c.); of Antheia, a Milesian colony on the Propontis
(Steph. Byz. s. v.); of Andria, a Macedonian town (Steph. Byz. s. v.) ; of Thermopylae
(Harpocrat. Phot. s. v.); of the Thesprotian Ambracia (Steph. Byz. s. v). Even
the coast of Italy was included in the work (Steph. Byz. s. v. Abudoi).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Amphicrates, a Greek sculptor, probably of Athens, since he was the maker of a statue which the Athenians erected in honour of a courtezan, who having learnt from Ilarmodius and Aristogeiton their conspiracy against Hippias and Hipparchus, was tortured to death by the tyrants, without disclosing the secret. Her name was Leana (a lioness) : and the Athenians, unwilling openly to honour a courtezan, had the statue made in the form of a lioness ; and, to point out the act which it was meant to commemorate, the animal's tongue was omitted. We know nothing of the sculptor's age, unless we may infer from the narrative that the statue was made soon after the expulsion of the Peisistratidae. (B. C. 510.) In the passage of Pliny, which is our sole authority (xxxiv. 19.12), there is a manifest corruption of the text, and the reading Amphicratis is only a conjecture, though a most probable one, by Sillig. (Catalogus Artificum, s. v.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Antenor, the son of Euphranor, an Athenian sculptor, made the first bronze statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, which the Athenians set up in the Cerameicus (B. C. 509). These statues were carried off to Susa by Xerxes, and their place was supplied by others made either by Callias or by Praxiteles. After the conquest of Persia, Alexander the Great sent the statues back to Athens, where they were again set up in the Cerameicus. (Paus. i. 8.5; Arrian. Anab. iii. 16, vii. 19; Plin. xxxiv. 9; ib. 19.10). The return of the statues is ascribed by Pausanias (l. c.) to one of the Antiochi, by Valerius Maximus (ii. 10, ext.1) to Seleucus; but the account of Arrian, that they were returned by Alexander, is to be preferred.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Apollonius. An Athenian sculptor, the son of Nestor, was the maker of the celebrated
torso of Hercules in the Belvedere, and on which is inscribed APOLLONIOS NESTOROS
ATHENAIOS EPOIEI. From the formation of the letters of the inscription, the age
of the sculptor may be fixed at about the birth of Christ. The work itself is
one of the most splendid remains of Grecian art. There is at Rome a statue of
Aesculapius by the same artist.
Bryaxis (Bruaxis), an Athenian statuary in stone and metal, cast a bronze statue
of Seleucus, king of Syria (Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19), and, together with Scopas,
Timotheus, and Leochares, adorned the Mausoleum with bas-reliefs (Plin. H. N.
xxxvi. 5. s. 4). He must have lived accordingly B. C. 372--312. Besides the two
works above mentioned, Bryaxis executed five colossal statues at Rhodes (Plin.
H. N. xxxiv. 7. s. 18), an Asclepios (H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19), a Liber, father
of Cnidus (H. N. xxxvi. 5), and a statue of Pasiphae (Tatian. ad Graec. 54). If
we believe Clemens Alexandrinus (Protr. p. 30, c.), Bryaxis attained so high a
degree of perfection, that two statues of his were ascribed by some to Phidias.
Bryaxis of Athens
After Fraser's work on the Sarapis cult (Fraser 1972, 246-76) it now seems quite
clear that two sculptors named Bryaxis were active between 370 and 270; this is
supported by Clement
of Alexandria (Protrepticus 4.43), which distinguishes an Athenian Bryaxis
-- presumably the sculptor of Vitruvius
7. Praef. 12-13 & Pliny,
N.H. 36.30-1, active ca. 353-351 -- from the maker of the Sarapis, installed
in the Alexandrian Serapeion around 286-278. This later Bryaxis was probably the
one responsible for the Apollo at Daphne around 300-281 (Libanios
60.8-12; Philostorgios,
Historia Ecclesiastica), and perhaps the portrait of Seleukos mentioned along
with an Asklepios by Pliny, N.H. 34.73. Not to separate the two in this way entails
that the Bryaxis born ca. 390 (for the Mausoleum was begun in the 360s) would
be almost a centenarian when hired by the Seleukids and Ptolemies. This leaves
precious little for Bryaxis I. For not only is it not clear which of the other
attested works (five colossal bronze divinities in Rhodes, a Zeus, Apollo and
lions at Patara in Lykia, a marble Dionysos at Knidos (Pliny
N.H. 36.20-22), an Asklepios at Megara, and a Pasiphae later in Rome) belong
to which sculptor, but the finds from the North side of the Mausoleum are too
heterogeneous to provide a firm base for attributions. Only a tripod-base from
Athens with three horsemen in relief, signed by Bryaxis in a mid fourth-century
script, can be securely attributed to him; its powerfully-built horses have (predictably)
been seized upon by those anxious to discover him in he extant slabs of the Amazon
frieze: most favored is B.M. 1019. Finally, a base from Rome, now lost, bore the
words "the work of Bryaxis" in Latin, clearly a renewal.
This extract is from: Andrew Stewart, One Hundred Greek Sculptors: Their Careers and Extant Works. Cited July 2005 from Perseus Project URL below, which contains extracts from the ancient literature, bibliography & interesting hyperlinks.
Bryaxis (II)
This Bryaxis is almost certainly to be distinguished from the man who worked on
the Mausoleum ca. 360.
His authorship of the Apollo at Daphni, made between 300 and 281 is only mentioned by the Byzantine chronicler Kedrenos (Compendium Historiarium 306B ed. Paris); for a detailed description, however, one must turn to two other late writers, mourning its destruction by fire in A.D. 362:
Libanios 60.8-12: Did the fire begin at the top, and spread to the
rest -- his head, his face, his phiale, his kithara, his foot-length tunic? Citizens,
I direct my soul to the form of the god, and my mind sets his likeness before
my eyes, his face so gentle, his stone neck so soft, his girdle across his chest
that holds his tunic in place, so that some of it is drawn taut, other parts allowed
to billow out. Did not the whole composition soothe the spirit to rest? For he
seemed like one singing a melody, and one could hear him strumming, so they say,
at noon-tide. Ah, blessed ears that did so! For his song was in praise of our
country. And I see him as if pouring a libation from his golden bowl . . . and
as the fire spreads it destroys first the Apollo, almost touching as he does the
roof, then the other statues, the Muses fair, the portraits of the Founders, the
sparkling stones, the graceful columns.
Philostorgios, Historia Ecclesiastica: The image of Apollo was constructed
as follows: the body was made of wood of the vine, and fitted together with such
astonishing skill as to seem like a single, indivisible piece; it was draped in
a golden tunic that allowed the nude and ungilded parts of the body to shine forth
with inexpressible beauty. It stood with a kithara in one hand, in the attitude
of one leading the Muses. Its hair and crown of laurel, intertwined, were of gold
and shone with a grace that flashed like lightning into one's eyes. Two enormous
aquamarine (hyakinthos) stones filled the cavities of its eyes, alluding to Hyakinthos,
the boy of Amyklai; and the beauty and size of these stones completed the statue's
prodigious embellishment.
To this Ammianus (22.73.1) adds that the image was the size of the Zeus at Olympia.
For a coin-picture see Stewart 1990, fig. 629, and for other possible replicas,
Linfert 1983, though the colossal marble in Rome claimed by Herrmann 1973 as a
replica has now been shown by M. Fuchs 1982 to belong to a first-century Muses
group in mixed classical and Pergamene style, from Pompey's theater-complex. To
link Bryaxis' Seleukos (N.H. 34.73), the "Founder" of Libanios 60.8-12, and the
Herculaneum bust (Naples, Museo Nazionale 5590; Stewart 1990, fig. 630) is perhaps
equally unwarranted, for Lysippos and one Aristodemos both made portraits of him
too (IG 14.206; N.H. 34.86), but no less tempting for all that.
As for the Sarapis, Bryaxis' authorship was noted by a respected first- century historian from Tarsos, Athenodoros (FGH 746 F 3):
Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus 4.43: Athenodoros son of Sandon
. . . says that Sesostris the Egyptian king, having conquered most of the nations
of Greece, brought back with him to Egypt a number of skilled craftsmen. He ordered
that a lavish statue of his own ancestor, Osiris, should be made, and the artist
Bryaxis did so -- not the Athenian, but another of the same name -- using a mixture
of variegated materials in its construction. He had filings of gold, silver, bronze,
iron, lead, and even tin; and not a single Egyptian stone was lacking, including
sapphire, hematite, emerald, and topaz also. He ground them all up, mixed them
together, and colored them dark blue, so that the statue is almost black, and
mingling this with the pigment left over from the funeral rites of Osiris and
Apis, he made Sarapis; the god's very name implies this connexion with the funeral
rites, and construction from material for burial, since Osirapis is a compound
from Osiris and Apis.
This problematic account has been perceptively analyzed by Hornbostel 1973, 36-58.
He remarks that since the name Bryaxis is rare and the sculptor was not ranked
among the great masters, the attribution is unlikely to be fabricated, for in
such cases antiquity invariably selected a virtuoso like Pheidias or Praxiteles.
Yet the ascription to Sesostris (Dyn. XII: 1971-1840 B.C.), invented by a tradition-hungry
priesthood, either entailed postulating an earlier namesake for the sculptor or
quietly consigning him to oblivion (as, e.g. Plutarch, Moralia 361-2; Tacitus,
Histories 4.83-4). Thus the sculptor must either be the 'Athenian' Bryaxis after
all, presumably the artist of Vitruvius
7. Praef. 12-13 & Pliny,
N.H. 36.30-1, or his son or grandson. Hornbostel opts for the former, updating
the Sarapis and overlooking the chronology of the Apollo (for Seleukos, the "founder"
of Libanios 60.8-12, acquired Syria only in 301, and founded Antioch
shortly after). Consequently, I prefer to ascribe the statue to a second Bryaxis,
following e.g. Bieber 1961b, 83-84.
As for the description of Bryaxis' method, this clearly conflates
the chryselephantine technique with the finishing touches of color. Other sources
(e.g. Rufinus, Hist. Eccl. 11.23) speak of a wooden core, and the use of gold
and precious stones parallels Philostorgios,
Historia Ecclesiastica. For the numerous replicas see Hornbostel 1973, 59-102;
cf. Stewart 1990, figs. 632-34: statuette of the Sarapis (Museo Ostiense 1125),
head of the Sarapis (Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum GR 15.1850); others give him
the Zeus from Otricoli on general stylistic grounds.
This extract is from: Andrew Stewart, One Hundred Greek Sculptors: Their Careers and Extant Works. Cited July 2005 from Perseus Project URL below, which contains extracts from the ancient literature, bibliography & interesting hyperlinks.
Calamis (Kalamis). A Greek artist, who flourished at Athens about B.C. 470. He worked in marble and metal, as well as gold and ivory, and was master of sculpture in all its branches, from the chiselling of small silver vessels to the execution of colossal statues in bronze. His Apollo, at Apollonia in Pontus, was 120 feet high. This statue was carried away to Rome by Lucullus and set up on the Capitol. We hear of statues of the gods and heroic women from his hand, as well as of men on horseback and four-horsed chariots. His horses are said to have been unsurpassed. His female figures, if we may believe the ancient critics, were characterized by antique harshness and severity, but relieved by a touch of grace and delicacy.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Oct 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Calamis (Kalamis), a statuary and embosser, whose birth-place and age are not mentioned by any of the ancient authors. It is certain, however, that he was a contemporary of Phidias, for he executed a statue of Apollo Alexicacos, who was believed to have stopped the plague at Athens (Paus. i. 3.3). Besides he worked at a chariot, which Dinomenes, the son of Hiero, caused to be made by Onatas in memory of his father's victory at Olympia (Paus. vi. 12.1, viii. 42.4). This chariot was consecrated by Dinomenes after Hiero's death (B, C. 467), and the plague at Athens ceased B. C. 429. The 38 years between these two dates may therefore safely be taken as the time in which Calamis flourished. Calamis was one of the most diligent artists of all antiquity. He wrought statues in bronze, stone, gold, and ivory, and was, moreover, a celebrated embosser (Plin. H. N. xxxiii. 12. s. 15, xxxvi. 4. s. 3). Besides the Apollo Alexicacos, which was of metal, there existed a marble statue of Apollo in the Servilian gardens in Rome (Plin. H. N. xxxvi. 4, 5), and a third bronze statue of Apollo, 30 cubits high, which Lucullus carried to Rome from the Illyrian town Apollonia (Strab. vii.). A beardless Asclepios in gold and ivory, a Nike, a Zeus Ammon (consecrated by Pindar at Thebes), a Dionysos, an Aphrodite, an Alcmene, and a Sosandra, are mentioned as works of Calamis. Besides the statues of gods and mortals he also represented animals, especially horses, for which he was very celebrated (Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19). Cicero gives the following opinion of the style of Calamis, which was probably borrowed from the Greek authors : " Quis enim eorum, qui haec minora animadvertunt, non intelligit, Canachi signa rigidiora esse, quam ut imitentur veritatem? Calamidis dura illa quidem, sed tamen molliora quam Canachi, nondum Myronis satis ad veritatem adducta." (Brut. 18; comp. Quintil xii. 10.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Kephisodotos I. of Athens
The names Kephisodotos and Praxiteles apparently alternated in this family (cf.
Pliny,
N.H. 35.49-52), suggesting that Kephisodotos I was indeed the father of the
great Praxiteles. Pliny,
N.H. 35.49-52 gives his floruit as 372-369; this coincides with the most likely
date for his most famous work, the Eirene (Munich GL 219; 5, below). According
to Plutarch, Phokion 19, his sister became the first wife of this Athenian statesman
(b. 402), which already bespeaks a certain standing for the family in Athenian
society. His recorded works are:
1. Hermes and the young Dionysos, in bronze
2. Athena (and Zeus?) at Piraeus, in bronze
3. Altar of Zeus Soter, in the same location
4. Muses on Mt. Helikon, with others by Strongylion, later taken to Constantinople
5. Eirene holding the infant Ploutos, in the Athenian Agora (T 92)
6. "Gesturing orator", in bronze
7. A dedication to Athena Pronaia at Delphi
Some recognize (1) in a Renaissance drawing and an (eclectic) statue in Madrid,
while Waywell 1971 connects (2) -- where the MSS of N.H. 34.74 actually read "Cephisodorus"
-- with the Piraeus Athena (Piraeus Museum; Stewart 1990, fig. 511), even though
the latter was buried out of sight long before Pausanias' visit (1.1.3); Palagia
1980 prefers an attribution to Euphranor. In fact only the Eirene (Munich 219;
Stewart 1990, figs. 485-87) can be identified with certainty, thanks to Pausanias'
note concerning a similar work in Thebes:
Pausanias
9.16.1-2: [At Thebes] is a sanctuary of Tyche [Fortune], who carries
the child Ploutos [Wealth]. According to the Thebans, the hands and face of the
image were made by Xenophon of Athens, and the rest by Kallistonikos, a native.
It was a clever idea of theirs, to place Ploutos in the arms of Tyche, and so
to suggest that she is his mother or nurse. Equally clever was the conception
of Kephisodotos, for he made the image of Eirene [Peace] for the Athenians with
Ploutos in her arms.
Pausanias
1.8.2: [In the Athenian Agora], after the statues of the Eponymous
heroes come images of the gods, Amphiaraos, and Eirene carrying the child Ploutos.
The Baiae finds include fragments of a cast of the Ploutos. Other attributions (e.g. Hill 1974) seem somewhat optimistic given the evidence at hand, though one can conjecture that Kephisodotos was a less radical figure than Demetrios, making cult statues in the Attic tradition yet cautiously experimenting with new subjects and modes of rendering.
Kephisodotos II. and Timarchos, sons of Praxiteles
As indicated above, these two were active around 345-290. Yet their mature work
must have fallen during the Lykourgan administration of 336-324, when they also
paid heavy naval liturgies (IG 22 nos. 1628, lines 57, 68, 74, 11; 1629, line
674; 1633, line 100; cf. J.K. Davies 1971 no. 8334; Stewart 1979, 106; Lauter
1980). So Pliny's floruit of 296-293 (Pliny,
N.H. 35.49-52) must originally have been calculated either by simple association
with their Peloponnesian counterparts, the pupils of Lysippos (for Lysippos' own
floruit in 328-325 naturally determined theirs, a generation later), or from the
death of Menander (no. 12, below) around 293/2. The latter is less likely, since
only Pausanias mentions the statue Paus.
1.21.1 but without naming its authors, who remained anonymous till the inscribed
base was found in 1862.
Kephisodotos was clearly the principal; his known works, including
those where Timarchos assisted, are as follows:
Divinities
1. Aphrodite of marble, later in Rome (Pliny
N.H. 36.24, cf. Pliny,
N.H.36.33-4)
2. Artemis of marble, ditto (Pliny
N.H. 36.24)
3. Asklepios of marble, ditto (Pliny
N.H. 36.24)
4. Enyo, in the temple of Ares at Athens (with Timarchos)
5. Leto of marble, later in Rome (Pliny
N.H. 36.24, cf. Pliny,
N.H. 36.32)
6. Zeus Soter (enthroned), flanked by Megalopolis and Artemis Soteria, in Pentelic
marble, at Megalopolis. In collaboration with Xenophon of Athens
Architectural sculpture
7. Embellishment of an Altar of Asklepios, probably at Kos (with Timarchos: Herondas,
Mimiambos 4)
8. The Altar of Athena at Thebes (with Timarchos)
Portraits
9. The poetess Anyte of Tegea in bronze, later in Rome (with Euthykrates of Sikyon?
Tatian,
Contra Graecos 33)
10. Dion and Diokleia, dedicated by their father Aristogeitos at Megara (with
Timarchos)
11. Lykourgos and his sons in wood, at Athens(?) (with Timarchos)
12. Menander, in the Theater of Dionysos at Athens (with Timarchos)
13. The poetess Myro of Byzantium in bronze, later in Rome (Tatian,
Contra Graecos 33)
14. Philylla, dedicated by her mother Philia to Demeter and Kore, in the Agora
15. A priestess of Athena in bronze, on the Akropolis (with Timarchos)
16. Statues of philosophers in bronze
Uncertain subject-matter
17. A dedication to Asklepios on the Akropolis
18. Dedication of Aischronides in bronze, on the Akropolis
19. Dedication of Kekropia to Demeter and Kore, Eleusis
20. Another dedication to Demeter and Kore, Eleusis
21. Another dedication [to Demeter and Kore], Eleusis
22. A statue at Chersonesos (in the Crimea)
23. A dedication of a priest to Apollo, Troezen
24. A 'symplegma' (erotic group) in marble, at Pergamon (Pliny
N.H. 36.24)
Almost half of these (10, 12, 14, 15, 17-23) are known only from their inscribed bases; in addition, a single signature of Timarchos was found at Rome in 1874.
Clearly, the brothers not only inherited their clientele from their father, but continued to work in his favorite genres and techniques: marble for divinities, bronze for portraits (on the continuing Eleusinian connection here see esp. Harward 1982a). As for the works themselves, Pliny provides a brief introduction:
Pliny N.H. 36.24: The son of Praxiteles, Cephisodotus, inherited
also his skill. His group of People Grappling (symplegma ) at Pergamon is much
praised, being notable for the way in which the fingers seem really to sink into
living flesh rather than marble. At Rome his works are a Leto in the Palatine
temple, a Venus in the collection of Asinius Pollio, and the Asclepius and Diana
in the shrine of Juno within the Porticus Octaviae.
The stress on realism with regard to (24) echoes the concerns of e.g. Quintilian
12.7-9 (see commentary to Pliny,
N.H. 35.153). This apart, Pliny obviously had no critical tradition to draw
on, only a bare list of Kephisodotos' works in Rome. Of these, (1) was not the
only Praxitelean piece in Pollio's collection (cf. Pliny,
N.H.36.33-4), while (5) is reproduced, with Timotheos' Artemis and Skopas'
Apollo, on a relief commemorating Augustus' dedication of the Palatine cult group:
cf. T 90. The cult complex for (6) dates these to after ca. 350. Whereas we have
no original fragments of these, or even copies in the round, the finds from (7)
do seem persuasively post-Praxitelean (Classical Quarterly cf. Stewart 1990, figs.
604-05). An early Hellenistic poet describes a visit to what appears to be this
complex (contra , somewhat speciously, I.A. Cunningham in Classical Quarterly
N.S. 16 [1966]: 115-17):
Herondas, Mimiambos 4:
KYNNO
Hail, Lord Paieon, ruler of Trikka, who dwells in sweet Kos and Epidauros too; hail Koronis too, who bore you, and Apollo, and Hygieia whom you touch with your right hand, and those whose honored altars are here too; hail to Panake, Epio, Ieso, and those who sacked house and walls of Leomedon, doctors of savage diseases, Podaleirios and Machaon, and all the gods and goddesses who inhabit your shrine, father Paieon. Come gracefully to accept this cock . . . .
KOKKALE
O Kynno dear, what fair statues! What craftsman, pray, made this stone, and who set it up?
KYNNO
The sons of Praxiteles: don't you see the letters on the base? And Euthies son of Prexon set it up.
KOKKALE
May Paieon be gracious with them and to Euthies for their fair works. [They then turn to admire other dedications before entering the temple with their offering].
No doubt most of the personages addressed by Kynno were figured on the altar.
The Olympia Hermes (Pausanias
5.17.3-4) is probably also a post-Praxitelean original, as is a splendid female
head from Chios (Boston 10.70; Stewart 1990, figs. 606-08). Typically, Pliny confines
his survey of Kephisodotean works at Rome to divinities; yet a second-century
Christian apologist reveals that portraits of his were also there, and Coarelli
1971-72 has shown that he is almost certainly speaking of a display in Pompey's
theater complex, dedicated in 55:
Tatian, Contra Graecos 33: Lysippos cast the bronze of Praxilla (who
said nothing useful in her poetry), Menestratos the Learchis, Silanion the hetaira
Sappho, Naukydes the Erinna from Lesbos, Boiskos the Myrtis, Kephisodotos the
Myro of Byzantion, Gomphos the Praxigoris, and Amphistratos the Kleito. But what
should I say about Anyte, Telesilla, and Mystis? The first is by Euthykrates and
Kephisodotos, the second by Nikeratos, the third by Aristodotos. Euthykrates made
for you the Mnesarchis of Ephesos, Silanion the Korinna, Euthykrates the Argive
Thalarchis, [. . . lacuna . . .], Praxiteles and Herodotos the hetaira Phryne,
and Euthykrates cast the Panteuchis made pregnant by a seducer. I set all this
forth not having learned it from another, but [as a result of my trip to Rome
where I saw the statues seized from you Greeks].
Unfortunately, nothing of this dazzling array survives, and no copies have so far come to light; indeed, among (9)-(24) only the Menander (12) is presently identified: inscribed bust of Meander (Malibu 72.AB.108), head of Meander (Dumbarton Oaks 46.2; see Stewart 1990, figs. 610, 613).
Like their father, the brothers inspired no Hellenistic critic to
consider their work in depth; even the epigrammatists apparently ignored them.
In this respect, Greek sculpture's long twilight truly begins with them.
This extract is from: Andrew Stewart, One Hundred Greek Sculptors: Their Careers and Extant Works. Cited July 2005 from Perseus Project URL below, which contains extracts from the ancient literature, bibliography & interesting hyperlinks.
Cephisodotus. A celebrated Athenian sculptor, whose sister was the first wife
of Phocion (Plut. Phoc. 19). He is assigned by Pliny (xxxiv. 8. s. 19.1) to the
102nd Olympiad (B. C. 372), an epoch chosen probably by his authorities because
the general peace recommended by tile Persian king was then adopted by all the
Greek states except Thebes, which began to aspire to the first station in Greece.
Cephisodotus belonged to that younger school of Attic artists, who had abandoned
the stern and majestic beauty of Phidias and adopted a more animated and graceful
style. It is difficult to distinguish him from a younger Cephisodotus, whom Sillig,
without the slightest reason, considers to have been more celebrated. But some
works are expressly ascribed to the elder, others are probably his, and all prove
him to have been a worthy contemporary of Praxiteles. Most of his works which
are known to us were occasioned by public events, or at least dedicated in temples.
This was the case with a group which, in company with Xenophon of Athens, he executed
in Pentelian marble for the temple of Zeus Soter at Megalopolis, consisting of
a sitting statue of Zeus Soter, with Artemis Soteira on one side and the town
of Megalopolis on the other (Paus. viii. 30.5). Now, as it is evident that the
inhabitants of that town would erect a temple to the preserver of their new-built
city immediately after its foundation, Cephisodotus most likely finished his work
not long after B. C. 371. It seems that at the same time, after the congress of
Sparta, B. C. 371, he executed for the Athenians a statue of Peace, holding Plutus
the god of riches in her arms (Paus. i. 8.2, ix. 16.2). We ascribe this work to
the elder Cephisodotus, although a statue of Enyo is mentioned as a work of Praxiteles'
sons, because after 01. 120? we know of no peace which the Athenians might boast
of, and because in the latter passage Pausanias speaks of the plan of Cephisodotus
as equally good with the work of his contemporary and companion Xenophon, which
in the younger Cephisodotus would have been only an imitation. The most numerous
group of his workmanship were the nine Muses on mount Helicon, and three of another
group there, completed by Strongylion and Olympiosthenes (Paus. ix. 30. § 1.)
They were probably the works of the elder artist, because Strongylion seems to
have been a contemporary of Praxiteles, not of his sons.
Pliny mentions two other statues of Cephisodotus (xxxiv. 8. s. 19.27),
one a Mercury nursing the infant Bacchus, that is to say, holding him in his arms
in order to entrust him to the care of the Nymphs, a subject also known by Praxiteles'
statue (Paus. ix. 39.3), and by some bassorelievos, and an unknown orator lifting
his hand, which attitude of Hermes Logeos was adopted by his successors, for instance
in the celebrated statue of Cleomenes in the Louvre, and in a colossus at Vienna.It
is probable that the admirable statue of Athena and the altar of Zeus Soter in
the Peiraeeus (Plin. xxxiv. 8. s. 19.14) - perhaps the same which Demosthenes
decorated after his return from exile, B. C. 323 (Plut. Dem. c. 27, Vit. X Orat.)-
were likewise his works, because they must have been erected soon after the restoration
of the Peiraeeus by Conon, B. C. 393.
Cephisodotus. The younger Cephisodotus, likewise of Athens, a son of the great
Praxiteles, is mentioned by Pliny (xxxiv. 8.19) with five other sculptors in bronze
under the 120th Olympiad (B. C. 300), probably because the battle of Ipsus, B.
C. 301, gave to the chronographers a convenient pause to enumerate the artists
of distinction then alive; it is, therefore, not to be wondered at if we find
Cephisodotus engaged before and probably after that time. Heir to the art of his
father (Plin. xxxvi. 4.6), and therefore always a sculptor in bronze and marble,
never, as Sillig states, a painter, he was at first employed, together with his
brother Timarchus, at Athens and Thebes in some works of importance. First, they
executed wooden statues of the orator and statesman Lycurgus (who died B. C. 323),
and of his three sons, Abron, Lycurgus, and Lycophron, which were probably ordered
by the family of the Butadae, and dedicated in the temple of Erechtheus on the
Acropolis, as well as the pictures on tile walls placed there by Abron (Paus.
i. 26.6; Plut. Vit X Orat.). Sillig confounds by a strange mistake the picture
of Ismenias with the statues of Praxiteles' sons (pinax and eikones xulinai).
The marble basement of one of these statues has been discovered lately on the
Acropolis, together with another pedestal dedicated by Cephisodotus and Timarchus
to their uncle Theoxenides. It is very likely that the artists performed their
task so well, that the people, when they ordered a bronze statue to be erected
to their benefactor, B. C. 307 (Psephism. ap. Plut. l. c.; Paus. i. 8.2), committed
it to them. The vicinity at least of the temple of Mars, where the sons of Praxiteles
had wrought a statue of Enyo (Paus. l. c.5), supports this supposition. Another
work which they executed in common was the altar of the Cadmean Dionysus at Thebes
(Paus. ix. 12.3: Bomon is the genuine reading, not the vulgate kadmon), probably
erected soon after the restoration of Thebes by Cassander, B. C. 315, in which
the Athenians heartily concurred. This is the last work in which both artists
are named.
The latter part of the life of Cephisodotus is quite unknown. Whether
he remained at Athens or left the town after B. C. 303 in its disasters, for the
brilliant courts of the successors of Alexander, or whether, for instance, as
might be inferred from Pliny (xxxvi. 4.6), he was employed at Pergamus, cannot
be decided. It would seem, on account of Myros's portrait, that he had been at
Alexandria at any rate. Of his statues of divinities four--Latona, Diana, Aesculapius,
and Venus, were admired at Rome in various buildings (Plin. l. c). Cephisodotus
was also distinguished in portrait-sculpture, especially of philosophers (Plin.
xxxiv. 8. s. 19.27), under which general terms Pliny comprises perhaps all literary
people. According to the common opinion of antiquarians, he portrayed likewise
courtezans, for which they quote Tatian, and think probably of the well-known
similar works of Praxiteles. But Tatian in that chapter does not speak of courtezans,
but of poets and poetesses, whose endeavors were f no use to mankind; it is only
in c. 53 that lie speaks of dissipated men and women, and in c. 55 of all these
idle people together. In fact the two ladies whom Cephisodotus is there stated
to have represented, are very well known to us as poetesses, --Myro or Moero of
Byzantium, mother of the tragic poet Homer (who flourished B. C. 284; see Suidas,
s. v. Homeros), and Anyte.
All the works of Cephisodotus are lost. One only, but one of the noblest,
the Symplegma, praised by Pliny (xxxvi. 4.6) and visible at his time at Pergamus,
is considered by many antiquarians as still in existence in an imitation only,
but a very good one, the celebrated group of two wrestling youths at Florence
(Gall. di Firenze). Winckelmann seems to have changed his mind about its meaning,
for in one place lie refers it to the group of Niobe with which it was found,
and in another (ix. 3.19) he takes it to be a work either of Cephisodotus or of
Heliodorus; and to the former artist it is ascribed by Maffei. Now this opinion
is certainly more probable than the strange idea of Hirt, that we see in the Florentine
work an imitation of the wrestlers of Daedalus(Plin. xxxiv. 8. s. 19.15), which
were no group at all, but two isolated athletes. But still it is very far from
being true. There is no doubt that the Florentine statues do not belong to the
Niobids, although Wagner, in his able article respecting these master-works, has
tried to revive that old error of Winckelmann, and Krause admits it as possible.
But they have nothing to do with the work of Cephisodotus, because Pliny's words
point to a very different representation. He speaks of " digitis verius corpori,
quam marmori impressis", and in the group of Florence there is no impression
of fingers at all. This reason is advanced also by Zannoni, who, although he denies
that Cephisodotus invented the group, persists in considering it as a combat between
two athletes. The " alterum in terris symplegma nobile" (Plin. xxxvi.
4.10) by Heliodorus shewed " Pana et Olympum luctantes." Now as there were but
two famous symplegmata, one of which was certainly of an amorous description,
that of Cephisodotus could not be a different one, but represented an amorous
strife of two individuals. To this kind there belongs a group which is shewn by
its frequent repetitions to have been one of the most celebrated of ancient art,
namely, the beautiful though indecent contest of an old Satyr and a Hermaphrodite,
of which two fine copies are in the Dresden museum, the print and description
of which is contained in Bottiger's Adchaologie und Kunst. This seems to be the
work of our artist, where the position of the hands in particular agrees perfectly
with Pliny's description.
Cleomenes, a sculptor mentioned only by Pliny (xxxvi. 4.10) as the author of a
group of the Thespiades, or Muses, which was placed by Asinius Pollio in his buildings
at Rome, perhaps the library on the Palatine hill. This artist, who does not appear
to have enjoyed great celebrity with the ancients, is particularly interesting
to us, because one of the most exquisite statues, the Venus de Medici, bears his
name in the following inscription on the pedestal:
KLEOMENES AEOLLODOROU ATHENAIOS EEOESEN.
This inscription, which has been undeservedly considered as a modern imposition, especially by Florentine critics, who would fain have claimed a greater master for their admired statue, indicates both the father and the native town of Cleomenes; and the letter O gives likewise an external proof of what we should have guessed from the character of the work itself, that he was subsequent to B. C. 403. But we may arrive still nearer at his age. Mummius brought the above-mentioned group of the Muses from Thespiae to Rome; and Cleomenes must therefore have lived previously to B. C. 146, the date of the destruction of Corinth. The beautiful statue of Venus is evidently an imitation of the Cnidian statue of Praxiteles; and Muller's opinion is very probable, that Cleomenes tried to revive at Athens the style of this great artist. Our artist would, according to this supposition, have lived between B. C. 363 (the age of Praxiteles) and B. C. 146.
Now, there is another Cleomenes, the author of a much admired but
rather lifeless statue in the Louvre, which commonly bears the name of Germanicus,
though without the slightest foundation. It represents a Roman orator, with the
right hand lifted, and, as the attribute of a turtle at the foot shews, in the
habit of Mercury. There the artist calls himself:
KLEOMENES KLEOMENOUS ATHENAIOSE POIESEN.
He was therefore distinct from the son of Apollodorus, but probably his son; for the name of Cleomenes is so very rare at Athens, that we can hardly suppose another Cleomenes to have been his father; and nothing was more common with ancient artists than that the son followed the father's profession. But it is quite improbable that an Athenian sculptor should have made the statue of a Roman in the form of a god before the wars against Macedonia had brought the Roman armies into Greece. The younger Cleomenes must therefore have exercised his art subsequently to B. C. 200, probably subsequently to the battle of Cynoscephalae. We may therefore place the father about B. C. 220.
Another work is also inscribed with the name of Cleomenes, namely,
a basso-relievo at Florence, of very good workmanship, with the story of Alceste,
bearing the inscription KLEOMENES EPOIEI. But we are not able to decide whether
it is to be referred to the father, or to the son, or to a third and more recent
artist, whose name is published by Raoul-Rochette.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Cresilas (Kresilas), an Athenian sculptor, a contemporary of Phidias and Polycletus
Pliny (H. N. xxxiv.19), in narrating a competition of five most distinguished
artists, and among them Phidias and Polycletus, as to who should make the best
Amazon for the temple at Ephesus, mentions Cresilas as the one who obtained the
third prize. But as this is an uncommon name, it has been changed by modern editors
into Ctesilas or Ctesilaus; and in the same chapter (§ 15) an artist, "Desilaus,"
whose wounded Amazon was a celebrated statue, has also had his name changed into
Ctesilaus, and consequently the beautiful statues of a wounded Amazon in the Capitol
and the Louvre are considered as an imitation of the work at Ephesus. Now this
is quite as unfounded a supposition as the one already rejected by Winckelmann,
by which the dying gladiator of the Capitol was considered to represent another
celebrated statue of Ctesilaus, who wrought "vulneratum deficientem, in quo possit
intelligi, quantum restet animae"; and it is the more improbable, because
Pliny enumerates the sculptors in an alphabetic order, and begins the letter D
by Desilaus. But there are no good reasons for the insertion of the name of Ctesilaus.
At some of the late excavations at Athens, there was discovered in the wall of
a cistern, before the western frontside of the Parthenon, the following inscription,
which is doubtless the identical basement of the expiring warrior:
EERMOLUKOS DIEITREPHOUS APARCHEN.
KRESILAS EPOESEN.
By this we learn, that the rival of Phidias was called Cresilas, as two manuscripts
of Pliny exhibit, and that the statue praised by Pliny is the same as that which
Pausanias (i. 23.2) describes at great length. It was an excellent work of bronze,
placed in the eastern portico within the Propylaea, and dedicated by Hermolycus
to the memory of his father, Diitrephes, who fell pierced with arrows, B. C. 413,
at the head of a body of Thracians, near Mycalessos in Boeotia (Thuc. vii. 29,
30). Besides these two celebrated works, Cresilas executed a statue of Pericles
the Olympian, from which, perhaps, the bust in the Vatican is a copy.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited June 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Critias, a very celebrated Athenian artist, whose workmanship belongs to the more
ancient school, the description of which by Lucian (Rhetor. Praecept. c. 9) bears
an exact resemblance to the statues of Aegina. For this reason, and because the
common reading of Pliny (H. N. xxxiv. 19, in.), " Critias Nestocles," is manifestly
corrupt, and the correction of H. Junius, " Nesiotes," is borne out by the Bamberg
manuscript, Critias was considered by Mullerto have been a citizen of Aegina.
But as Pausanias (vi. 3.2) calls him Attikos, Thiersch (Epoch. p. 129) assigns
his origin to one of the little islands near the coast of Attica, and Muller to
the island of Lemnos, where the Athenians established a cleruchia. All these theories
were overthrown by two inscriptions found near the Acropolis, one of which belongs
to a statue of Epicharinus, who had won a prize running in arms, mentioned by
Pausanias (i. 23.11), and should probably be restored thus:
Epicharinos anetheken...
Kritios kai Nesiotes epoiesaten.
From this we learn, first, that the artist's name was Critios, not Critias; then that Nesiotes in Pliny's text is a proper name. This Nesiotes was probably so far the assistant of the greater master, that he superintended the execution in bronze of the models of Critios. The most celebrated of their works were, the statues of Hannodius and Aristogeiton on the Acropolis. These were erected B. C. 477. (Marm. Oxon. Epoch. lv.) Critias was, therefore, probably older than Phidias, but lived as late as B. C. 444, to see the greatness of his rival. (Plin. l. c.)
(Lucian, Philosoph. 18; Paus. i. 8.3)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Nesiotes, a sculptor, appears to have been an assistant of the celebrated Athenian artist Critias, and not a surname of the latter, as some modern writers have conjectured.
Perseus Project - Andrew Stewart, One Hundred Greek Sculptors
Deinomenes, a statuary, whose statues of Io, the daughter of Inachus, and Callisto,
the daughter of Lycaon, stood in the Acropolis at Athens in the time of Pausanias
(Paus. i. 25.1). Pliny (xxxiv. 8. s. 19) mentions him among the artists who flourished
in the 95th Olympiad, B. C. 400, and adds, that he made statues of Protesilaus
and Pythodemus the wrestler. Tatian mentions a statue by him of Besantis, queen
of the Paeonians (Orat. ad Graec. 53, ). His name appears on a base, the statue
belonging to which is lost. (Bockh, Corp. Inscrip. i. No. 470.)
Endoeus (Endoios). An Athenian sculptor who flourished about the year B.C. 560, though tradition made him the student of Daedalus and to have fled with him from Crete. A statue of Athene by him was removed by Augustus Caesar from Tegea to Rome.
Endoeus (Endoios), an Athenian statuary, is called a disciple of Daedalus, whom he is said to have accompanied when he fled to Crete. This statement must be taken to express, not the time at which he lived, but the style of art which he practised. It is probable that he lived at the same period as Dipoenus and Scyllis, who are in the same way called disciples of Daedalus, namely, in the time of Peisistratus and his sons, about B. C. 560. His works were : 1. In the acropolis at Athens a sitting statue of Athena, in olive-wood, with an inscription to the effect that Callias dedicated it, and Endoeus made it. Hence his age is inferred, for the first Callias who is mentioned in history is the opponent of Peisistratus. (Herod. vi. 121.) 2. In the temple of Athena Polias at Erythrae in Ionia, a colossal wooden statue of the goddess, sitting on a throne, holding a distaff in each hand, and having a sun-dial (polos) on the head. 3. In connexion with this statue, there stood in the hypaethrum, before the visit of Pausanias to the temple, statues of the Graces and Hours, in white marble, also by Endoeus. 4. A statue of Athena Alea, in her temple at Tegea, made entirely of ivory, which was transported to Rome by Augustus, and set up in the entrance of his forum. (Paus. i. 26.5; vii. 5.4:viii.46.2)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited June 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Endoios of Athens
Endoios' father remains unknown, though Pausanias describes his alleged origins:
Pausanias 1.26.4: Endoios was an Athenian by birth and a pupil of
Daidalos, who even followed Daidalos to Crete when he was exiled for the death
of Kalos; he made the seated image of Athena, with an inscription saying that
Kallias dedicated it, but Endoios made it. There is also the building called the
Erechtheion ...
Yet since the anecdote is clearly a fabrication, the ethnic may be too.
As for Kallias' Athena, the dedicator should be Peisistratos' opponent Kallias
son of Hipponikos, who lived around 570-520, unless (since the piece evidently
survived the sack of 480) Pausanias was looking at a rededication by Kallias II,
his grandson and a leading politician of the 460s: M. Robertson 1975, 107. The
Athena (Athens, Acropolis 625), found on the slope below the Erechtheion is commonly
identified with this statue because of its very weathered state; contra, Bundgaard
1974, 16: "The conclusion seems unwarranted. Kore 671, found built into the North
citadel wall, was heavily weathered on the right side which...was turned inside
the wall. In this case the weathering had obviously taken place before the wall
was built. On the other hand, if the figure comes from the [destruction debris]
in the corner, which seems likely, it may very well have lain exposed in the breach
for a long time before tumbling down."
The Athena being problematic, more recent studies have preferred to
start with Raubitschek's restoration of the signature on the potter relief, Athens,
Acropolis 1332, as En[doios epoies]en (Raubitschek 1949, no. 70; cf. Stewart 1990,
fig. 161), and Jeffery's independent observation that the stylistically-related
Ballplayer base Athens, NM 3476 (Stewart 1990, figs. 138-40) was possibly one
of a trio including a base originally bearing a painted scene and signed "and
Endoios made this too" (Jeffery 1962, 127); yet if so, the third base, carved
with hoplites and hockey-players, is by a different hand -- an apprentice? Also
a school-piece, if one accepts the Athena, is the little kore Athens, Acropolis
602, stylistically dependent upon it and thus often connected to the second of
Endoios' Akropolis signatures, on a column co-signed by (his pupil?) Philergos
(not "Philermos", as Raubitschek 1949, no. 7: cf. AM 84 [1969]: pl. 6).
These pieces, with the addition of the Rayet head (with possible body-fragments,
AM 84 [1969]: pls. 29-37), a little bronze jumper from the Akropolis, and the
Athena from the Gigantomachy pediment, are now generally accepted as constituting
the core of Endoios' oeuvre and immediate following (Stewart 1990, figs. 136-37,
205-06; cf. e.g. Deyhle 1969, 12-27; M. Robertson 1975, 106-8; Boardman 1978a,
82-83). They date between ca. 530 and 500.
The seated Athena is the only link -- and a weak one -- between this
group and the texts, which naturally concentrate upon the all-important genre
of cult images, listing the following statues:
Artemis at Ephesos; wood (type disputed)
"Old" Athena; olivewood
Seated Athena: same as that of Kallias?
Colossal Athena Polias at Erythrai (Ionia); wood
Graces and Seasons, in the forecourt of the temple
at Erythrai; white stone
Athena Alea at Tegea, taken to Rome by Augustus;
ivory
Of these, (6) may be echoed in Tegean small bronzes: BCH 99 (1975): 348-9, figs.
16-19; Rolley 1983/1986, 120 fig. 95; Stewart 1990, fig. 182. (1)-(3) are all
listed by the same source:
Athenagoras, Embassy for the Christians 17.3: Endoios, a pupil of
Daidalos, made the Artemis in Ephesos, the ancient olivewood statue of Athena
... and the seated Athena.
Pausanias 8.45 (selections): The ancient image of Alea Athena was
carried off by the Roman emperor Augustus, together with the tusks of the Kalydonian
boar, after he defeated Antony and his allies, among whom were all the Arcadians
except the Mantineans . . . . It is in the Forum of Augustus, right in the entrance,
. . . made throughout of ivory, the work of Endoios.
On Mucianus' authority, Pliny also attributes the Ephesian Artemis (1) to Endoios
(N.H. 16.213-15): cf. Stewart 1990, fig. 174. Perhaps the most widely-copied and
influential cult-image of antiquity, its material and original form are equally
uncertain, though its many "breasts" may be an ancient Anatolian feature. The
Ephesian temple was begun by 547/6 and still remained incomplete ca. 500: see
Romano 1980, 236-49 for a useful resume. As for (2) and (3), since Athenagoras
(writing in A.D. 177) was an Athenian he is surely referring to statues familiar
to him and his readers, namely, the olivewood Athena Polias of the Akropolis and
Kallias' dedication. The former's history has been brilliantly pieced together
by Kroll 1982, who identifies coin-pictures and shows that Endoios, like Smilis
was apparently responsible for "humanizing" the original plank-idol with face,
arms, and feet.
If one accepts the attributions, Endoios emerges as a strong and innovative
personality. He seems to bestride the ripe and late archaic, drawing strength
from the mature Attic style of the later sixth century but vigorously pursuing
new directions, and heavily influencing the early fifth century.
This extract is from: Andrew Stewart, One Hundred Greek Sculptors: Their Careers and Extant Works. Cited June 2005 from Perseus Project URL below, which contains extracts from the ancient literature, bibliography & interesting hyperlinks.
Eucleides of Athens, a sculptor, made the statues of Pentelic marble, in the temples of Demeter, Aphrodite, and Dionysus, and Eileithuia at Bura in Achaia (Paus. vii. 25.5). This town, as seen by Pausanias, had been rebuilt after its destruction by an earthquake, in B. C. 373/2 (Paus. l. c., comp. 2). The artist probably flourished, therefore, soon after this date.
Glycon (Glukon). An Athenian sculptor, known to us by his magnificent colossal
marble statue of Heracles, which is commonly called the "Farnese Hercules." It
was found in the baths of Caracalla, and, after adorning the Farnese palace for
some time, it was removed, with the other works of art belonging to that palace,
to the royal museum at Naples: it represents the hero resting on his club, after
one of his labours. The swollen muscles admirably express repose after severe
exertion. The right hand, which holds the golden apples, is modern: the legs also
were restored by Gulielmo della Porta, but the original legs were discovered and
replaced in 1787. The name of the artist is carved on the rock, which forms the
main support of the statue; as follows:
GAUKON ATHENAIOX EPOIEI
Though no ancient writer mentions Glycon, there can be no doubt that he lived
in the period between Lysippus and the early Roman emperors. The form of the Omega,
in his name, which was not used in inscriptions till shortly before the Christian
era, fixes his age more definitely, for there is no reason to doubt the genuineness
of the inscription. The silence of Pliny suggests a doubt whether Glycon did not
live even later than the reign of Titus.
At all events, it seems clear that the original type of the "Hercules
Farnese " was the Heracles of Lysippus, of which there are several other imitations,
but none equal to the Farnese. One of the most remarkable is the Hercules of the
Pitti palace, inscribed AUSIPPOU ERGON, but this inscription is without doubt
a forgery, though probably an ancient one.
The only other remaining work of Glycon is a base in the Biscari museum
at Catania, inscribed:
GAUKON ATHENA IOS EPOIEI
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Hegesias (Egesias) and Hegias (Egias), two Greek statuaries, whom many scholars
identify with one another, and about whom, at all events, there are great difficulties.
It is therefore the best course to look at the statements respecting both of them
together. Pausanias (viii. 42.4) mentions Hegias of Athens as the contemporary
of Onatas and of Ageladas the Argive.
Lucian (Rhet. Praec. 9) mentions Hegesias, in connection with Critios
and Nesiotes, as belonging to the ancient school of art (tes pa laias ergasias),
the productions of which were constrained, stiff, harsh, and rigid, though accurate
in the outlines (apesphigmena kai neurode kai sklera kai akribos apotetamena tais
grammais). It seems necessary here to correct the mistake of the commentators,
who suppose that Lucian is speaking of the rhetorician Hegesias. Not only is the
kind of oratory which Lucian is describing not at all like that of Hegesias, but
also the word ergaasias, and the mention of Critios and Nesiotes (for the true
reading is amphi Krition kai Nesioten), sufficiently prove that this is one of
the many passages in which Lucian uses the fine arts to illustrate his immediate
subject, though, in this case, the transition from the subject to the illustration
is not very clearly marked. A similar illustration is employed by Quintilian (xii.
10.7), who says of Hegesias and Callon, that their works were harsh, and resembled
the Etruscan style : he adds, " jam minus rigida Calamis."
The testimony of Pliny is very important. After placing Phidias at
Ol. 84, he adds, " quo eodem tempore aemuli ejus fuere Alcamenes, Critias (i.
e. Critios), Nestocles (i. e. Nesiotes), Hegias " (xxxiv. 8. s. 19). Again (ibid.16,
17) : " Hegiae Minerva Pyrrhusque rex laudatur: et Celetizontes pueri, et Castor
et Pollux ante aedem Jovis Tonantis, Hegesiae. In Pario colonia Hercules Isidori.
Eleuthereus Lycius Myronis discipulus fuit". So stands the passage in Harduinus,
and most of the modern editions. There is, even at first sight, something suspicious
in the position of the names Hegesiae and Isidori at the end of the two sentences,
while all the other names, both before and after, are put at the beginning of
their sentences, as it is natural they should be, in an alphabetical list of artists;
and there is also something suspicious in the way in which the word Eleuthereus
(which is explained of Eleutherae) is inserted. This last word is an emendation
of Casaubon's. Most of the MSS. give Buthyreus, buthyres, or butires ; the Pintian
and Bamberg give bythytes. We have therefore no hesitation in accepting Sillig's
reading, " Hegiae, &c., pueri, et, &c. Tonantis: Hagesiae " (the MSS. vary greatly
in the spelling of this name) " in Pario colonia Hercules : Isidori buthytes"
(the last word meaning a person sacrificing an ox).
From the above testimonies, it follows that Hegias and Hegesias were
both artists of great celebrity, and that they flourished at about the same time,
namely, at the period immediately preceding that of Phidias. For Hegias was a
contemporary of Onatas and Ageladas, and also of Alcamenes, Critios, Nesiotes,
and Phidias; and Hegesias of Critios, Nesiotes, Callon, and Calamis. The interval
between the earliest and the latest of these artists is not too great to allow
those who lived in the meantime to have been contemporary, in part, with those
at both extremes, especially when it is observed how Pliny swells his lists of
rivals of the chief artists, by mentioning those who were contemporary with them
for ever so short a time. The age thus assigned to both these artists agrees with
the remarks of Lucian on the style of Hegesias ; for those remarks do not describe
a rude and imperfect style, but the very perfection of the old conventional style,
of which the only remaining fault was a certain stiffness, which Phidias was the
first to break through.
Hegias is expressly called an Athenian: the country of Hegesias is
not stated, but the above notices of him are quite consistent with the supposition
that he also was an Athenian.
There remains the question, whether Hegesias and Hegias were the same
or different persons, and also whether Agasias of Ephesus is to be identified
with them. Etymologically, there can be little doubt that Agesias, Hegesias, and
Hegias, are the same name, Agesias being the Doric and common form, and Hegesias
and Hegias respectively the fill and abbreviated Ionic and Attic form. Sillig
contends that Agasias is also a Doric form of the same name; but, as Muller has
pointed out, the Doric forms of names derived (like Hegesias) from egeomai, begin
with age, not aga (Agesandros, Agesarchos, Agesidamos, Agesilaos, &c.: Agesias
itself is found as a Doric name, Pind. Ol. ix. and elsewhere); and it is probable
that Agasias is a genuine Ionic name, derived from agamai, like Agasithea, Agasikles,
Agasisthenes. For these and other reasons, it seems that the identity of Hegesias
with Agasias cannot be made out, while that of Hegesias with Hegias is highly
probable. It is true that Pliny mentions them as different persons, but nothing
is more likely than that Pliny should have put together the statements of two
different Greek authors, of whom the one wrote the artist's full name, Hegesias,
while the other used the abbreviated form, Egias. Pliny is certainly wrong when,
in enumerating the works of Hegias, he says, " Minerva Pyrrhusque rex laudatur."
What is meant seems to have been a group, in which (not the king, but) the hero
Pyrrhus was represented as supported by Pallas. The statues of Castor and Pollux,
by Hegesias, are supposed by Winckelmann to be the same as those which now stand
on the stairs leading to the capitol; but this is very doubtful.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited June 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Leochares, (Leochares). A Greek sculptor, of Athens, who (about B.C. 350) was engaged with Scopas in the adornment of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus. One of his most famous works was the bronze group of Ganymede and the Eagle, a work remarkable for its ingenious composition, which boldly ventures to the verge of what is allowed by the laws of sculpture, and also for its charming treatment of the youthful form as it soars into the air. It is apparently imitated in a well-known marble group in the Vatican, half life-size.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Leochares. An Athenian statuary and sculptor, was one of the great artists of
the later Athenian school, at the head of which were Scopas and Praxiteles. He
is placed by Pliny (H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19) with Polycles I., Cephisodotus I.,
and Hypatodorus, at the 102d Olympiad (B. C. 372). We have several other indications
of his time. From the end of the 106th Olympiad (B. C. 352) and onwards he was
employed upon the tomb of Mausolus (Plin. xxxvi. 5. s. 4.9; Vitruv. vii. Praef.
13); and he was one of the artists employed by Philip to celebrate his victory
at Chaeroneia, B. C. 338. The statement, that he made a statue of Autolycus, who
conquered in the boys' pancration at the Panathenaea and whose victory was the
occasion of the Symposion of Xenophon (Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19.17), seems
at first sight to be inconsistent with the other dates; but the obvious explanation
is, that the statue was not a dedicatory one in honour of the victory, but a subject
chosen by the artist on account of the beauty of Autolycus, and of the same class
as his Ganymede, in connection with which it is mentioned by Pliny; and that,
therefore, it may have been made long after the victory of Autolycus. In one of
the Pseudo-Platonic epistles (13), Leochares is mentioned as a young and excellent
artist.
The masterpiece of Leochares seems to have been his statue of the
rape of Ganymede, in which, according to the description of Pliny (l. c.), the
eagle appeared to be sensible of what he was carrying, and to whom he was bearing
the treasure, taking care not to hurt the boy through his dress with his talons
(Comp. Tatian, Orat. ad Graec. 56). The original work was pretty certainly in
bronze; but it was frequently copied both in marble and on gems. Of the extant
copies in marble, the best is one, half the size of life, in the Museo Pio-Clementino.
Another, in the library of S. Mark at Venice, is larger and perhaps better executed,
but in a much worse state of preservation. Another, in alto-relievo, among the
ruins of Thessalonica. These copies, though evidently very imperfect, give some
idea of the mingled dignity and grace, and refined sensuality, which were the
characteristics of the later Athenian school. Winckelmann mentions a marble base
found in the Villa Medici at Rome, and now in the gallery at Florence, which bears
the inscription GANUMEDEX LEOCHAPOUX ATHENAIOU. Though, as Winckelmann shows,
this base is almost certainly of a much later date than the original statue, it
is useful as proving the fact, that Leochares was an Athenian. His name also appears
on an inscription recently discovered at Athens.
Of his other mythological works, Pausanias mentions Zeus and a personification
of the Athenian people (Zeus kai Lemos) in the long portico at the Peiraeus, and
another Zeus in the acropolis of Athens (i. 24.4), as well as an Apollo in the
Cerameicus, opposite to that of Calamis. Pliny (xxxiv. 8. s. 19.17) speaks of
his Jupiter tonans in the Capitol as "ante cuncta laudabilem," and of his Apollo
with a diadem; and Vitruvius (ii. 8.11) refers to his colossal statue of Mars,
in the acropolis of Halicarnassus, which some ascribed to Timotheus, and which
was an akrolithos.
Of his portrait-statues, the most celebrated were those of Philip,
Alexander, Amyntas, Olympias, and Eurydice, which were made of ivory and gold,
and were placed in the Philippeion, a circular building in the Altis at Olympia,
erected by Philip of Macedon in celebration of his victory at Chaeroneia (Paus.
v. 20. 5, 9-10). A bronze statue of Isocrates, by Leochares, was dedicated by
Timotheus, the son of Conon, at Eleusis (Pseud.-Plut. Vit. X. Orat.; Phot. Bibl.,
Cod. 260). His statue of Autolycus has been already mentioned.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Leochares of Athens
Also an Athenian, Leochares is the best documented of this entire group except
for Skopas. Even though Pliny includes him not within his informative 'Xenokratic'
chapters but -like Bryaxis and Demetrios- in a dry alphabetical catalogue of uncertain
origin (Pliny
N.H. 34.79), others remark upon his work, and no fewer than 10 signed
bases survive. His attested output is as follows:
Divinities:
Zeus Brontaios in bronze, later in Rome (Pliny
N.H. 34.79)
Zeus Polieus on the Akropolis
Zeus and Demos in Piraeus
Apollo outside the temple of Apollo Patroos in the Agora (Pausanias
1.3.4 )
Apollo with a diadem, in bronze (Pliny
N.H. 34.79)
The eagle of Zeus abducting Ganymede, in bronze (Pliny
N.H. 34.79)
Portraits:
Alexander and family in the Philippeion at Olympia, in chryselephantine (Pausanias
5.17.3-4 , Pausanias
1.3.4 )
Alexander and Krateros hunting lions in the royal Persian park at Sidon, at Delphi,
in bronze (with Lysippos; Fouilles
de Delphes 3.4.2 no. 137; Pliny,
N.H. 34.61-5 )
The pankratiast Autolykos in bronze, in the Prytaneion at Athens (Pliny
N.H. 34.79)
Isokrates, dedicated at Eleusis by the Athenian general Timotheos
Lysippe, Pandaites, Myron, Pasikles, Timostrate, and Aristomache in b
ronze, dedicated on the Akropolis by Pandaites and Pasikles of Potamos (with Sthennis)
The priest Charmides, later in Rome
Uncertain subjects:
Dedication by a son of Amphilochos to Asklepios, in the Athenian Asklepieion
Dedication by Archeneos and 9 others, in the Agora
Dedication by a priest (?) in the Agora
Dedication by Hippiskos son of Aischylos, on the Akropolis
Dedication by a man from Oion, on the Akropolis
Dedication on the Akropolis
Dedication by Thrasylochos son of Kephisodoros, at Oropos
Architectural sculpture:
West side of the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos (Vitruvius
7. Praef. 12-13; Pliny,
N.H. 36.30-1)
Disputed and problematic works :
Two Apollos, allegedly bought by Plato for Dionysios II of Syracuse (Plato,
Epistle 13, 361A)
Ares at Halikarnassos, an akrolith (given by some to Timotheos)
The slave 'Lango' in bronze, probably by Lykiskos
Though with the partial exception of (20) none of these works survives in the
original, several of them can be dated and furnish unusually full information
as to Leochares' career. The first date is given by Pliny (Pliny,
N.H. 35.49-52 ), who places his floruit very early, in 372-369; some
try to connect this with (1), arguing on circumstantial grounds that it was perhaps
made for Megalopolis, founded after the Spartan defeat at Leuktra in 371. A remark
in a letter purportedly sent by Plato to Dionysios II of Syracuse in 365/4 also
stresses his youth, in connection with (21):
Plato,
Epistle 13, 361A: About the things you wrote asking me to send you,
I bought the Apollo and Leptines is bringing it; it is by a fine young artist
named Leochares. There was another work there by him that I thought very elegant,
so I bought it to give to your wife.
Yet philosophers dispute this letter's authenticity, and indeed the transaction
is hardly conceivable before the Hellenistic period. More securely, (10) must
predate Timotheos' exile in 356/5, while (20) belongs around 368-350. The mention
of Asklepios' priest Teisias puts (13) in 338/7, overlapping (7), begun just after
the battle of Chaironeia in 338 and still unfinished at Philip's murder in 336
(Pausanias
1.3.4 ); (11) can hardly pre-date ca. 330, for Pandaites was born ca.
351 (cf. J.K. Davies 1971 no. 643); and finally, though the hunt commemorated
by (8) occurred either in 333 or when Alexander was campaigning in central Asia
in 331-327, its inscription (Fouilles
de Delphes 3.4.2 no. 137) records that Krateros died before its dedication.
Since he was killed in 320, and Plutarch, Alexander 40 records that Lysippos made
some of the figures, it is arguable that Leochares also died at around this time,
and Lysippos was hired to complete the work.
When one scans his oeuvre, Leochares emerges as something of a complementary figure
to Praxiteles, albeit at a rather lesser level of achievement. For while selecting
the same genres (divinities and portraits) as Praxiteles, he now concentrated
upon male gods, specialized in bronze, and worked mainly in Attica. There are
hints of a distinctive political strategy too, for while from ca. 340 Praxiteles'
sons were busy sustaining Athens' navy and working for the patriot Lykourgos and
his circle (Pliny
N.H. 36.24; Herondas,
Mimiambos 4; Tatian,
Contra Graecos 33) he cultivated the Macedonians and their partisans
(7, 8, perhaps 13) -- sympathies perhaps prefigured in the commission for the
panhellenist and eventually pro-Macedonian Isokrates (12).
If only his sculpture had survived in like measure to the testimonia.
Nothing significant was found in situ on the West side of the Mausoleum (Waywell
1978, 11-12), and repeated attempts at speculative attribution have never gained
universal support, even though Pliny's account seems unusually full (caution:
no. 22 and Dionysios
of Halikarnassos, Demosthenes 50):
Pliny
N.H. 34.79: Leochares made an eagle which is aware of just what it
is abducting in Ganymede and for whom it is carrying him, and therefore refrains
from injuring the boy with its claws, even through his clothing; [he also made]
the pancratiast victor Autolycus, in whose honor Xenophon wrote his Symposium
, a Jove the Thunderer now on the Capitol, praised above all others, a diademed
Apollo, Lyciscus, Lango, a boy with the crafty cringing look of a household slave.
The description of the Ganymede (6), probably based on a Hellenistic epigram (cf. Anth. Pal. 12.221: Hadrianic) has led many to see this in a heavily restored Vatican statuette, The Zeus (1) is pictured on Roman coins (most recently, Zanker 1988, 108, fig. 89a), and has been recognized in a series of fine Roman bronze statuettes (most recently, Kozloff-Mitten 1988, no. 30, correcting the attribution to Lysippos favored in Stewart 1990, 190-91, fig. 568). Unfortunately the Autolykos (often gratuitously given to Lykios son of Myron: but see Gallet de Santerre 1983, 257) and the diademed Apollo (cf. Paus. 1.8.4) seem lost forever.
Of the others, (4) -- cf. Pausanias
1.3.4 -- is regularly identified with the Belvedere Apollo (Vatican
1015; Stewart 1990, fig. 573). Two points are at issue here: the status of the
Belvedere copy, and the attribution itself. As to the first, a statuette in Arezzo
certifies the motif (Bocci Pacini, P., and Nocentini Sbolci, S., Museo Nazionale
di Arezzo. Catalogo di Sculture Romane [Rome 1983]: no. 17: contra, Deubner 1979,
225 n. 6), while plaster fragments from Baiae (Landwehr 1985, 104-111 nos. 64-76)
establish its classical pedigree. Concerning the attribution, Hedrick 1984 conclusively
identifies Leochares' statue (Pausanias
1.3.4 ) as an Apollo Pythios, which helps to support the traditional
view, since the Baiae casts prove that the type was indeed prepubescent, and the
epithet derives from his boyhood battle against the Pythoness at Delphi, when
"the lord Apollo, the far-shooter / shot a strong arrow at her / and she lay there,
torn with terrible pain" (Homeric Hymn to Pythian Apollo 356-59). Though the Versailles
Artemis type is often attributed to the same hand, Pfrommer 1984 has shown that
her sandals are late Hellenistic, and argues strongly for a date ca. 100.
As to the portraits, (7) is described by Pausanias:
Paus.
5.20.9:: [The Philippeion at Olympia] was built by Philip after the
fall of Greece at Chaironeia [338]. Here are displayed statues of Philip and Alexander,
and with them is Philip's father Amyntas. These works too are by Leochares, and
are of ivory and gold, like the portraits of Olympias and Eurydike.
Cf. Pausanias
5.17.3-4; though hard evidence is lacking, the so-called 'Alkibiades'/Philip
and Akropolis-Erbach Alexander (Athens, Acropolis 1331; Stewart 1990, fig. 560;
Stewart 1993, figs. 4-5) are often considered replicas of this group, though opinion
is divided upon whether the Akropolis head is fourth century (but recut), late
Hellenistic, or even Roman. I incline to a fourth-century date. (8) is apparently
reflected in a relief from Elis, now in Paris, while the Isokrates preserved in
a single poor copy in the Villa Albani could equally reproduce (10) or the statue
set up after his death in 338 (Paus. 1.18.8; Plut. Mor. 839B; cf. Richter 1965,
208-10). Finally, of the numerous attempts to resurrect Leochares from the debris
of the Mausoleum (20), perhaps the most attractive is still Ashmole's (Ashmole
1951a), who establishes a relatively tight association between B.M. slabs London
1013, London 1014, London 1015, London 1037 (now stripped of its lower part: Cook
1976, 53-4), the Akropolis Alexander (Athens, Acropolis 1331), and the Demeter
of Knidos, London 1300 (Stewart 1990, figs. 529-31, 560, 572). None of these seems
incompatible with the Belvedere Apollo, discussed above.
If all this is not fantasy, then it reveals a sculptor who is compositionally daring yet in other respects costively conservative: an unorthodox but strangely appealing address that first surprises then reassures the spectator. Whether attributable to Leochares or not, the combination can hardly have failed to be a winner.
This extract is from: Andrew Stewart, One Hundred Greek Sculptors: Their Careers and Extant Works. Cited July 2005 from Perseus Project URL below, which contains extracts from the ancient literature, bibliography & interesting hyperlinks.
Phidias, (Pheidias). The greatest sculptor and statuary of Greece.
Of his personal history we possess but few details. He was a native of Athens,
was the son of Charmides, and was born about the time of the battle of Marathon,
B.C. 490. He began to work as a statuary about 464, and one of his first great
works was the statue of Athene Promachos, which may be assigned to about 460.
This work must have established his reputation; but it was surpassed by the splendid
productions of his own hand, and of others working under his direction, during
the administration of Pericles. That statesman not only chose Phidias to execute
the principal statues which were to be set up, but gave him the oversight of all
the works of art which were to be erected.
Of these works the chief were the Propylaea of the Acropolis,
and, above all, the temple of Athene on the Acropolis, called the Parthenon, on
which, as the central point of the Athenian polity and religion, the highest efforts
of the best of artists were employed. There can be no doubt that the sculptured
ornaments of this temple, the remains of which form one of the glories of the
British Museum, were executed under the immediate superintendence of Phidias;
but the colossal statue of the divinity made of ivory and gold, which was enclosed
within that magnificent shrine, was the work of the artist's own hand. The statue
was dedicated in 438. Having finished his great work at Athens, he went to Elis
and Olympia, which he was now invited to adorn. He was there engaged for about
four or five years from 437 to 434 or 433, during which time he finished his statue
of the Olympian Zeus, the greatest of all his works.
On his return to Athens he fell a victim to the jealousy against
his great patron, Pericles, which was then at its height. The party opposed to
Pericles, thinking him too powerful to be overthrown by a direct attack, aimed
at him in the persons of his most cherished friends--Phidias, Anaxagoras, and
Aspasia. Phidias was first accused of peculation; but this charge was at once
refuted, as, by the advice of Pericles, the gold had been affixed to the statue
of Athene in such a manner that it could be removed and the weight of it examined.
The accusers then charged Phidias with impiety, in having introduced into the
battle of the Amazons, on the shield of the goddess, his own likeness and that
of Pericles. On this latter charge Phidias was thrown into prison, where he died
from disease, in 432.
Of the numerous works executed by Phidias for the Athenians
the most celebrated was the statue of Athene in the Parthenon, to which reference
has already been made. This statue was of that kind of work which the Greeks called
"chryselephantine"-- that is, the statue was formed of plates of ivory
laid upon a core of wood or stone for the flesh parts, while the drapery and other
ornaments were of solid gold. The statue stood in the foremost and larger chamber
of the temple (prodromos). It represented the goddess standing, clothed with a
tunic reaching to the ankles, with her spear in her left hand and an image of
Victory four cubits high in her right: she was girded with the aegis, and had
a helmet on her head, and her shield rested on the ground by her side. The height
of the statue was twenty-six cubits, or nearly forty feet, including the base.
The eyes were of a kind of marble, nearly resembling ivory, perhaps painted to
imitate the iris and pupil; there is no sufficient authority for the statement,
which is frequently made, that they were of precious stones. The weight of the
gold upon the statue, which, as above stated, was removable at pleasure, is said
by Thucydides to have been forty talents, or about $470,000.
Still more celebrated than his statue of Athene was the colossal
ivory and gold statue of Zeus, which Phidias made for the great temple of this
god, in the Altis or sacred grove at Olympia. This statue was regarded as the
masterpiece not only of Phidias, but of the whole range of Grecian art, and was
looked upon not so much as a statue, but rather as if it were the actual manifestation
of the present deity. It was placed in the prodromos, or front chamber, of the
temple directly facing the entrance. It was only visible, however, on great festivals;
at other times it was concealed by a magnificent curtain. The god was represented
as seated on a throne of cedarwood, adorned with gold, ivory, ebony, stones, and
colours, crowned with a wreath of olive, holding in his right hand an ivory and
gold statue of Victory, and in his left hand supporting a sceptre, which was ornamented
with all sorts of metals, and surmounted by an eagle. The throne was brilliant
both with gold and stones and with ebony and ivory, and was ornamented with figures
both painted and sculptured. The statue almost reached to the roof, which was
about sixty feet in height. The idea which Phidias essayed to embody in this,
his greatest work, was that of the supreme deity of the Hellenic nation no longer
engaged in conflicts with the Titans and the Giants, but having laid aside his
thunderbolt, and enthroned as a conqueror, in perfect majesty and repose, ruling
with a nod the subject world. It is related that when Phidias was asked what model
he meant to follow in making his statue, he replied that of Homer. This passage
has been imitated by Milton, whose paraphrase gives no small aid to the comprehension
of the idea (Paradise Lost, iii. 135-137):
"Thus while God spake, ambrosial fragrance fill'd
All heaven, and in the blessed spirits elect
Sense of new joy ineffable diffused."
The statue was removed by the emperor Theodosius I. to Constantinople,
where it was destroyed by a fire in A.D. 475. In 1888 a red vase was exhumed at
Tanagra, bearing a signature which archaeologists believe to be that of Phidias.
The distinguishing character of the art of Phidias was ideal sublimity, especially
in the representation of divinities and of subjects connected with their worship.
While on the one hand he freed himself from the stiff and unnatural forms which,
by a sort of religious precedent, had fettered his predecessors of the archaic
or hieratic school, he never, on the other hand, descended to the exact imitation
of any human model, however beautiful; he never represented that distorted action,
or expressed that vehement passion, which lie beyond the limits of repose; nor
did he ever approach to that almost meretricious grace, by which some of his greatest
followers, if they did not corrupt the art themselves, gave the occasion for its
corruption in the hands of their less gifted and spiritual imitators.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Pheidias, or in Latin, Phidias. Of Athens, the son of Charmides, was the
greatest sculptor and statuary of Greece, and probably of the whole world.
I. His Life.
It is remarkable, in the case of many of the ancient artists, how great a contrast
exists between what we know of their fame, and even sometimes what we see of their
works, and what we can learn respecting the events of their lives. Thus, with
respect to Pheidias, we possess but few details of his personal history, and even
these are beset with doubts and difficulties. What is known with absolute certainty
may be summed up in a few words. He executed most of his greatest works at Athens,
during the administration of Pericles : he made for the Eleians the ivory and
gold statue of Zeus, the most renowned work of Greek statuary : he worked for
other Greek cities; and he died just before the commencement of the Peloponnesian
War, in B. C. 432. The importance of the subject demands, however, a careful examination
of the difficulties which surround it. The first of these difficulties relates
to the cardinal point of the time when the artist flourished, and the approximate
date of his birth.
First of all, the date of Pliny must be disposed of. It is well known
how little reliance can be placed on the dates under which Pliny groups the names
of several artists. Not only do such lists of names embrace naturally artists
whose ages differed by several years, but it is important to observe the principle
on which the dates are generally chosen by Pliny, namely, with reference to some
important epoch of Greek history. Thus the 84th Olympiad (B. C. 444--440), at
which he places Pheidias, is evidently chosen because the first year of that Olympiad
was the date at which Pericles began to have the sole administration of Athens.
The date of Pliny determines, therefore, nothing as to the age of Pheidias at
this time, nor as to the period over which his artistic life extended. Nevertheless,
it seems to us that this coincidence of the period, during which the artist executed
his greatest works, with the administration of Pericles, furnishes the best clue
to the solution of the difficulty. It forbids us to carry up the artist's birth
so high as to make him a very old man at this period of his life : not because
old age would necessarily have diminished his powers, though even on this point
those who quote the examples of Pindar, Sophocles, and other great writers, do
not, perhaps, make sufficient allowance for the difference between the physical
force required for the production of such a work as the Oedipus at Colonus and
the execution, or even the superintendence, of such works as the sculptures of
the Parthenon, and the colossal statues of Athena and Zeus: but the real force
of the argument is this; if Pheidias had been already highly distinguished as
an artist nearly half a century earlier, it is incredible, first, that the notices
of his earlier productions should be so scanty as they are, and next, that his
fame should be so thoroughly identified as it is with the works which he executed
at this period. Such an occasion as the restoration of the sacred monuments of
Athens would, we may be sure, produce the artist whose genius guided the whole
work, as we know that it did produce a new development of art itself; and it is
hardly conceivable that the master spirit of this new era was a man of nearly
seventy years old, whose early studies and works must have been of that stiff
archaic style, from which even Calamis, who (on this hypothesis) was much his
junior, had not entirely emancipated himself. This principle, we think, will be
found to furnish the best guide through the conflicting testimonies and opinions
respecting the age of Pheidias.
Several writers, the best exposition of whose views is given by Thiersch
(Ueber die Epochen der bildenden Kunst unter den Grieclxeu, p. 113, &c.), place
Pheidias almost at the beginning of the fifth century B. C., making him already
a young artist of some distinction at the time of the battle of Marathon, B. C.
490; and that on the following grounds. Pausanias tells us (i. 28.2) that the
colossal bronze statue of Athena Promachus, in the Acropolis of Athens, was made
by Pheidias, out of the tithe of the spoil taken from the Medes who disembarked
at Marathon; and he elsewhere mentions other statues which Pheidias made out of
the same spoils, namely, the group of statues which the Athenians dedicated at
Delphi (x. 10.1), and the acrolith of Athena, in her temple at Plataeae (ix. 4.1).
It may be observed in passing, with respect to the two latter works, that if they
had exhibited that striking difference of style, as compared with the great works
of Pheidias at Athens, which must have marked them had they been made some half
century earlier than these great works, Pausanias would either not have believed
them to be the works of Pheidias, or he would have made some observation upon
their archaic style, and have informed us how early Pheidias began to work. The
question, however, chiefly turns upon the first of the above works, the statue
of Athena Promachus, which is admitted on all hands to have been one of the most
important productions of the art of Pheidias. The argument of Thiersch is, that,
in the absence of any statement to the contrary, we must assume that the commission
was given to the artist immediately after the victory which the statue was intended
to commemorate. Now it is evident, at first sight, to what an extraordinary conclusion
this assumption drives us. Pheidias must already have been of some reputation
to be entrusted with such a work. We cannot suppose him to have been, at the least,
under twenty-five years of age. This would place his birth in B.C. 515. Therefore,
at the time when he finished his great statue of Athena in the Parthenon (B. C.
438), he must have been 77; and after reaching such an age he goes to Elis, and
undertakes the colossal statue of Zeus, upon completing which (B. C. 433, probably),
he had reached the 82nd year of his age ! Results like these are not to be explained
away by the ingenious arguments by which Thiersch maintains that there is nothing
incredible in supposing Pheidias. at the age of eighty, to have retained vigour
enough to be the sculptor of the Olympian Zeus, and even the lover of Pantarces
(on this point see below). The utmost that call be granted to such arguments is
the establishment of a bare possibility, which cannot avail for the decision of
so important a question, especially against the arguments on the other side, which
we now proceed to notice.
The question of the age of Pheidias is inseparably connected with
one still more important, the whole history of the artistic decoration of Athens
during the middle of the fifth century B. C., and the consequent creation of the
Athenian school of perfect sculpture; and both matters are intimately associated
with the political history of the period. We feel it necessary, therefore, to
discuss the subject somewhat fully, especially as all the recent English writers
with whose works we are acquainted have been content to assume the conclusions
of Miller, Sillig, and others, without explaining the grounds on which they rest;
while even the reasons urged by those authorities themselves seem to admit of
some correction as well as confirmation
The chief point at issue is this : Did the great Athenian school of
sculpture, of which Pheidias was the head, take its rise at the commencement of
the Persian wars, or after the settlement of Greece subsequent to those wars?
To those who understand the influence of war upon the arts of peace, or who are
intimately acquainted with that period of Grecian history, the mode of stating
the question almost suggests its solution. But it is necessary to descend to details.
We must first glance at the political history of the period, to see what opportunities
were furnished for the cultivation of art, and then compare the probabilities
thus suggested with the known history of the art of statuary and sculpture.
In the period immediately following the battle of Marathon, in B.
C. 490, we may be sure that the attention of the Athenians was divided between
the effects of the recent struggle and the preparation for its repetition; and
there could have been but little leisure and but small resources for the cultivation
of art. Though the argument of Miuller, that the spoils of Marathon must have
been but small, is pretty successfully answered by Thiersch, the probability that
the tithe of those spoils, which was dedicated to the gods, awaited its proper
destination till more settled times, is not so easily disposed of: indeed we learn
from Thucydides (ii. 13) that a portion of these spoils (skula Medika) were reckoned
among the treasures of Athens so late as the beginning of the Peloponnesian war.
During the occupation of Athens by the Persians, such a work as the colossal statue
of Athena Promachus would, of course, have been destroyed in the burning of the
Acropolis, had it been already set up; which it surely would have been, in the
space of ten years, if, as Thiersch supposes, it had been put in hand immediately
after the battle of Marathon. To assume, on the other hand, as Thiersch does,
that Pheidias, in the flight to Salamis, succeeded in carrying with him his unfinished
statue, with his moulds and implements, and so went on with his work, seems to
us a manifest absurdity. We are thus brought to the end of the Persian invasion,
when the Athenians found their city in ruins, but obtained, at least in part,
the means of restoring it in the spoils which were divided after the battle of
Plataeae (B. C. 479). Of that part of the spoil which fell to the share of Athens,
a tithe would naturally be set apart for sacred uses, and would be added to the
tithe of the spoils of Marathon. Nor is it by any means improbable that this united
sacred treasure may have been distinguished as the spoils of Marathon, in commemoration
of that one of the great victories over the Persians which had been achieved by
the Athenians alone. There is, indeed, a passage in Demosthenes (Parapresb. 272)
in which this is all but directly stated, for he says that the statue was made
out of the wealth given by the Greeks to the Athenians, and dedicated by the city
as an aristeion of the war against the barbarians. This can only refer to the
division of the spoil at the close of the second Persian War, while his statement
that the Athenians dedicated the state as an aristeion, clearly implies that the
Athenians were accustomed, through national pride, to speak of these spoils as
if they had been gained in that battle, the glory of which was peculiarly their
own, namely Marathon. This observation would apply also to the Plataeans' share
of the spoil; and it seems to furnish a satisfactory reason for our hearing so
much of the votive offerings dedicated by the Athenians out of the spoils of Marathon,
and so little of any similar application of the undoubtedly greater wealth which
fell to their share after the repulse of Xerxes. But in this case, as in the former,
we must of necessity suppose a considerable delay. The first objects which engrossed
the attention of the Athenians were the restoration of their dwellings and fortifications,
the firm establishment of their political power, and the transference to themselves
of the supremacy over the allied Greeks. In short, the administrations of Aristeides
and Themistocles, and the early part of Cimon's, were fully engaged with sterner
necessities than even the restoration of the sacred edifices and statues. At length
even the appearance of danger from Persia entirely ceased; the Spartans were fully
occupied at home; the Athenians had converted their nominal supremacy into the
real empire of the Aegean; and the common treasury was transferred from Delos
to Athens (B. C. 465); at home Cimon was in the height of his power and popularity,
and Pericles was just coming forward into public life; while the most essential
defences of the city were already completed. The period had undoubtedly come for
the restoration of the sacred edifices and for the commencement of that brilliant
era of art, which is inseparably connected with the name of Pheidias, and which
found a still more complete opportunity for its development when, after the conclusion
of the wars which occupied so much of the attention of Cimon and of Pericles during
the following twenty years, the thirty years' truce was concluded with the Lacedaemonians,
and the power of Pericles was finally established bv the ostracism of Thucydides
(B. C. 445, 444); while the treasury of Athens was continually augmented by the
contributions levied from the revolted allies. There is, indeed, no dispute as
to the fact that the period from B. C. 444 to the breaking out of the Peloponnesian
War, B. C. 431. was that during which the most important works of art were executed,
under the administration of Pericles and under the superintendence of Pheidias.
The question really in dispute regards only the commencenlent of the
period.
An important event of Cimon's administration affords a strong confirmation to
the general conclusion suggested by the above view of thie history of the period
: we refer to the transference of the bones of Theseus to Athens, in the year
B. C. 468, an event which must be taken as marking the date of the commencement
of the temple of Theseus, one of the great works of art of the period under discussion.
In this case there was a special reason for the period chosen to undertake the
work ; though the commencement of the general restoration of the sacred monuments
would probably be postponed till the completion of the defences of the city, which
may be fixed at B. c. 457-456, when 4he long walls were completed. Hence, assuming
(what must he granted to Thiersch) that Pheidias ought to be placed as early as
the circumstances of the case permit. it would seem probable that he flourished
from about the end of the 79th Olympiad to the end of the 86th, B. C.. 460-432.
This supposition agrees exactly with all that we know of the history
of art at that period. It is quite clear that the transition from the archaic
style of the earlier artists to the ideal style of Pheidias did not take place
earlier than the close of the first quarter of the fifth century B. C. There are
chronological difficulties in this part of the argument, but there is enough of
what is certain. Perhaps the most important testimony is that of Cicero (Brut.
18), who speaks of the statues of Canachus as "rigidiora quam ut imitentur veritatem,"
and those of Calamis as "dura quidern, sed tamen oolliora quam Canachi," in contrast
with the almost perfect works of Myron, and the perfect ones of Polycleitus. Quintilian
(xii. 10) repeats the criticism with a slight variation, "Duriora et Ttsscanicis
proxima Callon atque Egesias, jam minus rigida Calanmis, molliora adhuc supra
dictis Myron fecit." Here we have the names of Canachus, Callon, and Hieesits,
representing the thoroughly archaic school, and of Calamis as still archaic, though
less decidedly so, and then there is at once a transition to Myron and Polvcleitus,
the younger contemporaries of Pheidias. If we inquire more particularly into the
dates of these artists, we find that Canachus anid Callon flourished probably
between B. C. 520 and 480. Hegesias, or Hegias, is made by Pausanias a contemporary
of Onatas, and of Ageladas (of whom we shall presently have to speak), and is
expressly mentioned by Lucian, in connection with two other artists, Critios and
Nesiotes, as tes palaias ergasias, while Pliny, in his loose way, makes him, and
Alcamenes, and Critics and Nesiotes, all rivals of Pheidias in Ol. 84, B. C. 444
[Hegesias].
Of the artists, whose names are thus added to those first mentioned, we know that
Critios and Nesiotes executed works about B. C. 477; and Onatas, who was contemporary
with Polygnotus, was reckoned as a Daedaliani artist, and clearly belonged to
the archaic school, wrought, with Calamis, in B. C. 467, and probably flourished
as late as late as B. C. 460. Calamis, though contemporary with Onatas, seems
to have been younger, and his name (as the above citations show) marks the introduction
of a less rigid style of art [Calamis].
Thus we have a series of artists of the archaic school, extending quite down to
the middle of the fifth century, B. C.; and therefore the conclusion seems unavoidable
that the establishment of the new school, of which Pheidias was the head, cannot
be referred to a period much earlier.
But a more positive argument for our artist's date is supplied by
this list of names. Besides Ageladas, whom most of the authorities mention as
the teacher of Pheidias, Dio Chrysostom (Or. lv.) gives another name, which is
printed in the editions Hippiou, but appears in the MSS. as IPPOG, out of which
EGIOG may be made by a very slight alteration; and, if this conjecture be admitted,
we have, as a teacher of Pheidias, Hegias or Hegesias, who, as we have seen, was
contemlporary with Onatas. Without any conjecture, however, we know that Ageladas
of Argos, the principal master of Pheidias, was contemporary with Onatas, and
also that he was the teacher of Myron and Polycleitus. It is true that a new set
of difficulties here arises respecting the date of Ageladas himself; and these
difficulties have led Thiersch to adopt the conjecture that two artists of the
same name have been confounded together. This easy device experience shows to
be always suspicious; and in this case it seems peculiarly arbitrary, when the
statement is that Ageladas, one of the most famous statuaries of Greece, was the
teacher of three others of the most celebrated artists, Pheidias, Myron, and Polycleitus,
to separate this Ageladas into two persons, making one the teacher of Pheidias,
the other of Myron and Po!ycleitus. Certainly, if two artists of the name must
be imagined, it would be better to make Pheidias, with Myron and Polycleitus,
the disciple of the younyer.
The principal data for the time for Ageladas are these:
1. He executed one statue of the group of three Muses, of which Canachus and Aristocles
made the other two;
2. he made statues of Olympic victors, who conquered in the 65th and 66th Olympiads,
B. C. 520, 516, and of another whose victory was about the same period;
3. he was contemporary with Hegias and Onatas, who flourished about B. C. 467;
4. he made a statue of Zeus for the Messenians of Naupactus, which must have been
after B. C. 455;
5. He was the teacher of Pheidias, Myron, and Polycleitus, who flourished in the
middle of the fifth century, B. C.;
6. he made a statue of Heracles Alexicacos, at Melite, which was supposed to have
been set up during the great plague of B. C. 430-429; and
7. he is placed by Pliny, with Polycleitus, Phradmon, and Myron, at 432.
Now of these data, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th can alone be relied on, and
they are not irreconcileable with the Ist, for Ageladas may, as a young man, have
worked with Canachus and Aristocles, and yet have flourished down to the middle
of the fifth century : the 2nd is entirely inconclusive, for the statues of Olympic
victors were often made long after their victories were gained; the 6th has been
noticed already; and the 7th may be disposed of as another example of the loose
way in which Pliny groups artists together. The conclusion will then be that Ageladas
flourished during the first half and down to the middle of the fifth century B.
C. The limits of this article do not allow us to pursue this important part of
the subject further. For a fuller discussion of it the reader is referred to Muller,
de Phidiae Vita. Miller maintains the probability of Ageladas having visited Athens,
both from his having been the teacher of Pheidias and Myron, and from the possession
by the Attic pagus of Melite of his statue of Heracles (Schol. ad Aristoph. Ran.
504). He suggests also, that the time of this visit may have taken place after
the alliance between Athens and Argos, about B. C. 461; but this is purely conjectural.
The above arguments respecting the date of Pheidias might be confirmed
by the particular facts that are recorded of him; but these facts will be best
stated in their proper places in the account of his life. As the general result
of the inquiry, it is clearly impossible to fix the precise date of the birth
of the artist; but the evidence preponderates, we think, in favour of the supposition
that Pheidias began to work as a statuary about Ol. 79, B. C. 464; and, supposing
him to have been about twenty-five years old at this period, his birth would fall
about 489 or 490, that is to say, about the time of the battle of Marathon. We
now return to what is known of his life.
It is not improbable that Pheidias belonged to a family of artists;
for his brother or nephew Panaenus was a celebrated painter; and he himself is
related to have occupied himself with painting, before he turned his attention
to statuary. (Plm. H. N. xxxv. 8. s. 34.) He was at first instructed in statuary
by native artists (of whom Hegias alone is mentioned, or supposed to be mentioned,
under the altered form of his name, Hippias, see above), and afterwards by Ageladas.
The occaision for the development of his talents was furnished (as has been already
argued at length) by the works undertaken, chiefly at Athens, after the Persian
wars. Of these works, the group of statues dedicated at Delphi out of the tithe
of the spoils would no doubt be among the first; and it has therefore been assumed
that this was the first great work of Pheidias : it will be described presently.
The statue of Athena Promachus would probably also, for the sane reason of discharging
a religious duty, be among the first works undertaken for the ornament of the
city, and we shall probably not be far wrong in assigning the execution of it
to about the year B. C. 460. This work, from all we know of it, must have established
his reputation; but it was surpassed by the splendid productions of his own hand,
and of others working under his direction, during the administration of Pericles.
That statesman not only chose Pheidias to execute the principal statues which
were to be set up, but gave him the oversight of all the works of art which were
to be erected. Plutarch, from whom we learn this fact, enumerates the following
classes of artists and artificers, who all worked under the direction of Pheidias
: tektones, malakteres kai elephantos, zographoi, poikiltai, toreutai. (Plut.
Peric. 12.) Of these works the chief were the Propylaea of the Acropolis, and,
above all, that most perfect work of human art, the rememthe temple of Athena
on the Acropolis, called the Parthenon or the Hecatompedon, on which, as the central
point of the Athenian polity and religion, the highest efforts of the best of
artists were employed. There can be no doubt that the sculptured ornaments of
this temple, the remains of which form the glory of our national museum, were
executed under the immediate superintendence of Pheidias; but the colossal statue
of the divinity, which was enclosed within that magnificent shrine, was the work
of the artist's own hand, and was for ages esteemed the greatest production of
Greek statuary, with the exception of the similar, but even more splendid statue
of Zeus, which Pheidias afterwards executed in his temple at Olympia. The materials
chosen for this statue were ivory and gold; that is to say, the statue was formed
of plates of ivory laid upon a core of wood or stone, for the flesh parts, and
the drapery and other ornaments were of solid gold. It is said that the choice
of these materials resulted from the determination of the Athenians to lavish
the resources of wealth, as well as of art, on the chief statue of their tutelary
deity ; for when Pheidias laid before the ecclesia his design for the statue,
and proposed to make it either of ivory and gold, or of white marble, intimating
however his own preference for the latter, the were the most costly should be
employed. (Val. Max. i. 1.7.) The statue was dedicated in the 3d year of the 85th
Olympiad, B. C. 438, in the be described presently, with the other works of Pheidias;
but there are certain stories respecting it, which require notice here, as bearing
upon the life and death of the artist, and as connected with the date of his other
great work, the colossal statue of Zeus at Olympia.
The scholiast on Aristophanes (Pax, 605) has preserved the following
story from the Atthis of Philochorus, who flourished about B. C. 300, and whose
authority is considerable, inasmuch as he was a priest and soothsayer, and was
therefore well acquainted with the legends and history of his country, especially
those bearing upon religious matters. "Under the year of the archonship of Pythodorus
(or, according to the correction of Palmerius, Theodorus), Philochorus says that
`the golden statue of Athena was set up in the great temple, having forty-four
talents' weight of gold, under the superintendence of Pericles, and the workmanship
of Pheidias. And Pheidias, appearing to have misappropriated the ivory for the
scales (of the dragons) was condemned. And, having gone as an exile to Elis, he
is said to have made the statue of Zeus at Olympia; but having finished this,
he was put to death by the Eleians in the archonship of Scythodorus (or, according
to the correction of Palmerius, Pythodorus), who is the then, further down, "Pheidias,
as Philochorus says in the archonship of Pythodorus (or Theodorus, as above),
having made the statue of Athena, pilfered the gold from the dragons of the chryselepliantine
Athena, for which he was found guilty and sentenced to banishment; but having
come to Elis, and having made among the Eleians the statue of the Olympian Zeus,
and having been found guilty by them of peculation, he was put to death." It must
be remembered that this is the statement of Philochorus, as quoted by two different
scholiasts; but still the general ageement shows that the passage is tolerably
genuine. Of the corrections of Palmerius, one is obviously right, namely the name
of Pythodorus for Scythodorus; for the latter archon is not mentioned elsewhere.
Pythodorus was archon in Ol. 87. 1, B. C. 432, and seven years before him was
the archonship of Theodorus, Ol. 85. 3, B. C. 438. In the latter year, therefore,
the statue was dedicated; and this date is confirmed by Diodorus (xii. 31), and
by Eusebius, who places the making of the statue in the 2d year of the 85th Olympiad.
3 This is, therefore, the surest chronological fact in the whole life of Pheidias.
The other parts, however, of the account of Philochorus, are involved
in much difficulty. On the very face of the statement, the story of Pheidias having
been first banished by the Athenians, and afterwards put to death by the Eleians,
on a charge precisely similar in both cases, may be almost certainly pronounced
a confused repetition of the same event. Next, the idea that Pheidias went to
Elis as an exile, is perfectly inadmissible. This will be clearly seen, if we
examine what is known of the visit of Pheidias to the Eleians.
There can be little doubt that the account of Phipeople is true so
far as this, that the statue at Olympia was made by Pheidias after his great works
at Athens. Heyne, indeed, maintains the contrary, but the fallacy of his arguments
will prearchonship appear. It is not at all probable that the Athenians, in their
eagerness to honour their goddess by the originality as well as by the magnificence
of her statue, should have been content with an imitation of a work so unsurpassable
as the statue of Zeus at Olympia; but it is probable that the Eleians, as the
keepers of the sanctuary of the supreme divinity, should have desired to eclipse
the statue of Athena: and the fact, that of these two statues the preference was
always given to that of Zeus, is no small proof that it was the last executed.
Very probably, too, in this fact we may find one of the chief causes of the resentment
of the Athenians against Pheidias, a resentment which is not likely to have been
felt, much less manifested, at the moment when he had finished the works which
placed Athens at the very summit of all that was beautiful and magnificent in
Grecian art. It is necessary to bear in mind these arguments from the probabilities
of the case, on account of the meagreness of the positive facts that are recorded.
There is, however, one fact, which seems to fix, with tolerable certainty, the
time when Pheidias was engaged on the statue at Olympia. Pausanias informs us
(v. 11. 2) that, on one of the flat pieces which extended between the legs of
the throne of the statue, among other figures representing the athletic contests,
was one of a youth binding his head with a fillet (the symbol of victory), who
was said to resemble Pantarces, an Eleian boy, who was beloved by Pheidias; and
that Paltarces was victor in the boys' wrestling, in B. C. 436. If there he any
truth in this account, it follows, first, that the statue could not have been
completed before this date, and also that, in all probability; Pheidias was engaged
upon it at the very time of the victory of Pantarces. That the relief was not
added at a later period, is certain, for there is not the least reason for supposing
that any one worked upon the statue after Pheidias, nor would any subsequent artist
have the motive which Pheidias had to represent Pantarces at all. A more plausible
objection is founded on the uncertainty of the tradition, which Pausanias only
records in the vague terms eoikenai to eidos legousi. But it must be remembered
that the story was derived from a class of persons who were not only specially
appointed to the charge of the statue, but were the very descendants of Pheidias,
and who had, therefore, every motive to preserve every tradition respecting him.
The very utmost that can be granted is, that the resemblance may have been a fancy,
but that the tradition of the love of Pheidias for Pantarces was true; and this
would be sufficient to fix, pretty nearly, the time of the residence of the artist
among the Eleians. If we are to believe Clemens of Alexandria, and other late
writers, Pheidias also inscribed the name of Pantarces on the finger of the statue
(Cohort. p. 16; Arnob. adv. Gent. vi. 13).
Besides urging the objections just referred to against the story of
Pantarces, Heyne endeavours to establish an earlier date for the statue from that
of the temple; which was built out of the spoils taken in the war between the
Eleians and Pisacans. The date of this war was B. C. 580; but it is impossible
to argue from the time when spoils were gained to the time when they were applied
to their sacred uses: and the argument, if pressed at all, would obviously prove
too much, and throw back the completion of the temple long before the time of
Pheidias. On the whole, therefore, we may conclude that Pheidias was at work among
the Eleians about B. C. 436, or two years later than the dedication of his Athena
of the Parthenon.
Now, was he there at the invitation of the Eleians, who desired that
their sanctuary of the supreme deity, the centre of the religious and social union
of Greece, should be adorned by a work of art, surpassing, if possible, the statue
which had just spread the fame of Athens and of Pheidias over Greece; or was he
there as a dishonoured exile, banished for peculation? All that is told us of
his visit combines to show that he went attended by his principal disciples, transferring
in fact his school of art for a time from Athens, where his chief work was ended,
to Elis and Olympia, which he was now invited to adorn. Among the artists who
accompanied him were Colotes,
who worked with him upon the statue of Zeus, as already upon that of Athena, and
who executed other important works for the Eleians; Panaemus, his relative, who
executed the chief pictorial embellishments of the statue and temple; Alcamenes,
his most distinguished disciple, who made the statues in the hinder pediment of
the temple; not to mention Paeonius of Mende, and Cleoetas, whose connection with
Pheidias, though not certain, is extremely probable. It is worthy of notice that,
nearly at the time when the artists of the school of Pheidias were thus employed
in a body at Olympia, those of the Athenian archaic school -such as Praxias, the
disciple of Calamis, and Androsthenes, the disciple of Eucadmus, were similarly
engaged on the temple at Delphi . The honour in which Pheidias lived among the
Eleians is also shown by their assigning to him a studio in the neighbourhood
of the Altis (Paus. v. 15.1), and by their permitting him to inscribe his name
upon the footstool of the god, an honour which had been denied to him at Athens
(Paus. v. 10. 2; Cic. Tusc. Quaest. i. 15). The inscription was as follows :
Pheidias Charmidou huius Athenaios m' epoesen.
Without raising a question whether he would thus solemnly have inscribed his name
as an Athenian if he had been an exile, we may point to clearer proofs of his
good feeling towards his native city in some of the figures with which he adorned
his great work, such as that of Theseus (Paus. v. 10.2), and of Salamiis holding
the aplustre, in a group with personified Greece, probably crowning her (Paus.
v. 11.2). These subjects are also important ill another light. They seem to show
that the work was executed at a time when the Eleians were on a good understanding
with Athens, that is, before the breaking out of the Peloponnesian War. From the
above considerations, making allowance also for the tilln which so great a work
would necessarily occupy, it may be inferred, with great probability, that Plieidias
was engaged on the statue of Zeus and his other works among the Eleians, for about
the four or five years from B. C. 437 to 434 or 433. It would seem that he then
returned to Athens, and there fell a victim to the jealousy against his great
patron, Pericles, which was then at its height. That he was the object of some
fierce attack by the party opposed to Pericles, the general consent of the chief
ancient authorities forbids us to doubt; and a careful attention to the internal
politics of Athens will, perhaps, guide us through the conflicting statements
which we have to deal with, to a tolerably safe conclusion.
The most important testimony on the subject, and one which is in fact
enough to settle the question, is that of Aristophanes (Pax, 605), where, speaking
of the commencement of the war, says:
Prota men gar erxeW etes Pheidias praxas kakos:
eita Periklees Phobetheis me metaschoi tes tuches,
tas phuseis humon dedoikos kai ton autodax tropon,
prin pathein ti deinon, autos exephlexe ten polin,
embalon spinthera mikron megarikou psephismatos,
kaxephusesen tosouton polemon, k.t.l.
From this passage we learn, not only that Pheidias suffered some extreme calamity at the hands of the Athenians, but that the attack upon him was of such a nature as to make Pericles tremble for his own safety, and to hurry the city into war by the passing of the decree against Megara, which decree was made not later than the beginning of B. C. 432.
I t is clear that Pericles was at that period extremely unpopular with
a large party in Athens, who, thinking him too powerful to be overthrown by a
direct attack, aimed at him in the persons of his most cherished friends, Pheidias,
Alaxagoras, and Aspasia. This explanation is precisely that given by Plutarch
(Peric. 31), who furnishes us with particulars of the accusation against Pheidias.
At the instigation of the enemies of Pericles, a certain Menon, who had been employed
under Pheidias, laid an information against him for peculation, a charge which
was at once refuted, as, by the advice of Pericles, the gold had been affixed
to the statue in such a manner that it could he removed and the weight of it examined
(comp. Thuc. ii. 13). The accusers then charged Pheidias with impiety, in having
introduced into the battle of the Amazons, on the shield of the goddess, his own
likeness and that of Pericles, the former as a bald old man 8 , hurling a stone
with both his hands, and the latter as a very handsome warrior, fighting with
an Amazon, his face being partially concealed by the hand which held his uplifted
spear, so that the likeness was only visible on a side view. On this latter charge
Pheidias was thrown into prison, where he died from disease, or, as the less scrupulous
partizans of Pericles maintained, from poison. The people voted to his accuser
Menon, on the proposal of Glycon, exemption from taxes, and charged the generals
to watch over his safety. Plutarch then proceeds (c. 32) to narrate, as parts
of the same train of events, and as occurring about the same time, the attacks
upon Aspasia and Aniaxagoras, and concludes by distinctly affirming that the attack
on Pheidias inspired Pericles with a fear, which induced him to blow into a flame
the smouldering sparks of the coming war (Hos de dia Pheidiou proseptaise toi
demoi, Phobetheis to dikasterion, mellonta ton polemon kai hupotuphomenon exekausen,
elpizon diaskedasein ta enklemata, kai tapeiWosein ton Phthonon). To complete
the evidence, Philochorus, though he (or the scholiasts who quote him) has made
a confusion of the facts, may be relied on for the date, which he doubtless took
from official records, namely the archonship of Pythodorus, or B. C. 432. The
death of Pheidias happened about the time of the completion of the last of those
great works which he superintended, namely, the Propylaea, which had been commenced
about the time when he went to Elis, B. C. 437.
It will be useful to give a synopsis of the events of the life of
Pheidias, according to their actual or probable dates.
B. C. Ol.
490 72. 3 Battle of Marathon.
488 73. 1 Pheidias born about this time.
468 77. 4 Cimon commences the temple of Theseus.
464 79. 1 Pheidias studies under Ageladas, probably about this time, having previously been instructed by Hegias. Aet. 25.
460 80. 1 Pheidias begins to flourish about this time. Aet. 29.
457 80. 3 The general restoration of the temples destroyed by the Persians commenced about this time.
444 84. 1 Sole administration of Pericles.--Pheidias overseer of all the public works. Act. 44.
438 85. 3 The Parthenon, with the chryselephantine statue of Athena, finished and dedicated. Aet. 50.
437 85. 4 Pheidias goes to Elis.--The Propylaea commenced.
436 86. 1 Pantarces Olympic victor.
433 86. 4 The statue of Zeus at Olympia completed.
432 87. 1 Accusation and death of Pheidias.
The disciples of Pheidias were Agoracritus,
Alcamenes,
and Colotes
(see the articles)
II. His Works.
The subjects of the art of Pheidias were for the most part sacred, and the following
list will show how favourite a subject with him was the tutelary goddess of Athens.
In describing them, it is of great importance to observe, not only the connection
of their subjects, but, as far as possible, their chronological order. The classification
according to materials, which is adopted by Sillig, besides being arbitrary, is
rather a hindrance than a help to the historical study of the works of Pheidias.
1. The Athena at Pellene in Achaia, of ivory and gold, must be placed among his
earliest works, if we accept the tradition preserved by Pausanias, that Pheidias
made it before he made the statues of Athena in the Acropolis at Athens, and at
Plataeae. (Paus. vii. 27.1). If this be true. we have an important indication
of the early period at which he devoted his attention to chryselephtntine statuary.
This is one of several instances in which we know that Pheidias worked for other
states besides his native city and Elis, but unfortunately we have no safe grounds
to determine the dates of such visits.
2. It cannot be doubted that those statues which were made, or believed to have
been made, ou(t of the spoils of the Persian wars, were among his earliest works,
and perhaps the very first of his great works (at least as to the time when it
was undertaken, for it would necessarily take long to complete), was the group
of statues in bronze, which the Athenians dedicated at Delphi, as a votive offering,
out of the tithe of their share of the Persian spoils. The statues were thirteen
in number, namely, Athena, Apollo, Miltiades, Erechtheus, Cecrops, Paldion, Celeus,
Antiochus, Aegeus, Acamas, Codrus, Theseus, Phyleus. (Paus. x. 30.1.)
3. The colossal bronze statue of Athena Promachus, in the Acropolis, was also
said to have been made out of the spoils of Marathon; but it is important to remember
the sense in which this must probably be understood, as explained above. Bottiger
supposes that it was placed in the temple of Athena Polias; but there can be no
doubt that it stood in the open air, between the Propylaea and the Parthenon,
as it is represented on the coin mentioned below. It was between fifty and sixty
feet high. with the pedestal; and the point of the spear and the crest of the
helmet were visible as far off as Sunium to ships approaching Athens (Strab. vi.;
Paus. i. 28.2; comp. Herod. v. 77). It was still standing as late as A. D. 395,
when it was seen by Alaric (Zosiius, v. 6). It represented the goddess holding
up both her spear and shield, in the attitude of a combatant (Ibid). The entire
completion of the ornamental work upon this statue was long delayed, if we are
to believe the statement, that the shield was engraved by Mys, after the design
of Parrhasius (See Parrhasius:
the matter is very doubtful, but, considering the vast number of great works of
art on which Pheidias and his fellow-artists were engaged, the delay in the completion
of the statue is not altogether improbable). This statue is exhibited in a rude
representation of the Acropolis, on an old Athenian coin which is engraved in
Muller's Denkmaler, vol. i. pl. xx. fig. 104.
4. Those fiithful allies of the Athenians, the Plataeans, in dedicating the tithe
of their share of the Persian spoils, availed themselves of the skill of Pheidias,
who made for them a statue of Athena Areia, of a size not much less than the statue
in the Acropolis. The colossus at Plataeae was an acrolith, the body being of
wood gilt, and the face, hands, and feet, of Pentelic marble (Paus. ix. 4.1).
The language of Pausanias, here and elsewhere, and the nature of the case, make
it nearly certain that this statue was made about the same time as that in the
Acropolis.
5. Besides the Athena Promachus, the Acropolis contained a bronze statue of Athena,
of such surpassing beauty, that it was esteemed by many not only as the finest
work of Pheidias, but as the standard ideal representation of the goddess (See
Paus. i. 28.2; Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19.1; and especially Lucian, Imag. 4,
6. vol. ii. pp. 462, 464, who remarks upon the outline of the face, the softness
of the cheeks, and the symmetry of the nose). It is possible that this was Pheidias's
own model of the Athena of the Parthenon, executed in a more manageable material,
and on a scale which permitted it to be better seen at one view, and therefore
more beautiful. The statue was called Lemnia, from having been dedicated by the
people of Lemnos.
6. Another statue of Athena is mentioned by Pliny (l. c.) as having been dedicated
at Rome, near the temple of Fortune, by Paulus Aellilius, but whether this also
stood originally in the Acropolis is unknown.
7. Still more uncertainty attaches to the statue which Pliny calls Cliduchus (the
key-bearer), and which he mentions in such a way as to imply, probably but not
certainly, that it also was a statue of Athena. The key in the hand of this statue
was probably the symbol of initiation into the mysteries.
8. We now come to the greatest of Pheidias's works at Athens, the ivory and gold
statue of Atlena in the Parthenon, and the other sculptures which adorned that
temple. It is true, indeed, that none of the ancient writers ascribe expressly
to Pheidias the execution of any of these sculptures, except the statue of the
goddess herself ; but neither do they mention any other artists as having executed
them : so that from their silence, combined with the statement of Plutarch, that
all the great works of art of the time of Pericles were entrusted to the care
of Pheidias, and, above all, from the marks which the sculptures themselves bear
of having been designed by one mind, and that a master mind, it may be inferred
with certainty, that all the sculptures of the Parthenon are to be ascribed to
Pheidias, as their designer and superintendent, though the actual execution of
them must of necessity have been entrusted to artists working under his direction.
These sculptures consisted of the colossal statue of the goddess herself; and
the ornaments of the sanctuary in which she was enshrined, namely, the sculptures
in the two pediments, the high-reliefs in the metopes of the frieze, and the continuous
bash-reliefs which surrounded the cella, forming a sort of frieze beneath the
ceiling of the peristyle.
The great statue of the goddess was of that kind of work which the
Greeks called chryselephantine, and which Pheidias is said to have invented. Up
to his time colossal statues, when not of bronze, were acroliths, that is, only
the face, hands, and feet, were of marble, the body being of wood, which was concealed
by real drapery. An example of such a statue by Pheidias himself has been mentioned
just above. Pheidias, then, substituted for marble the costlier and more beautiful
material, ivory, in those parts of the statue which were unclothed, and, instead
of real drapery, he made the robes and other ornaments of solid gold. The mechanical
process by which the plates of ivory were laid on to the wooden core of the statue
is described, together with the other details of the art of chryselephantine statuary,
in the elaborate work of Quatremere de Quincy, Le Jupiter Olympien, and more briefly
in an excellent chapter of the work entitled the Menageries, vol. ii. c. 13. In
the Athena of the Parthenon the object of Pheidias was to embody the ideal of
the virgin-goddess, armed, but victorious, as in his Athena Promachus he had represented
the warrior-goddess, in the very attitude of battle. The statue stood in the foremost
and larger chamber of the temple (prodonmus). It represented the goddess standing,
clothed with a tunic reaching to the ankles, with her spear in her left hand and
an image of Victory four cubits high in her right : she was girded with the aegis,
and had a helmet on her head, and her shield rested on the ground by her side.
The height of the statue was twenty-six cubits, or nearly forty feet, including
the base. From the manner in which Plato speaks of the statue, it seems clear
that the gold predominated over the ivory, the latter being used for the face,
hands, and feet, and the former for the drapery and ornaments. There is no doubt
that the robe was of gold, beaten out with the hammer (sphurelatos). Its thickness
was not above a line; and, as already stated, all the gold upon the statue was
so affixed to it as to be removable at pleasure (See Thuc. ii. 13, and the commentators).
The eyes, according to Plato, were of a kind of marble, nearly resembling ivory,
perhaps painted to imitate the iris and pupil; there is no sufficient authority
for the statement which is frequently made, that they were of precious stones.
It is doubtful whether the core of the statue was of wood or of stone. The various
portions of the statue were most elaborately ornamented. A sphinx formed the crest
of her helmet, and on either side of it were gryphons, all, no doubt, of gold.
The aegis was fringed with golden serpents, and in its centre was a golden head
of Medusa, which, however, was stolen by Philorgus (Isocr. adv. Callim. 22), and
was replaced with one of ivory, which Pausanias saw. The lower end of the spear
was supported by a dragon, supposed by Pausanias to represent Erichthonius, and
the juncture between the shaft and head was formed of a sphinx in bronze. Even
the edges of the sandals, which were four dactyli high, were seen, on close inspection,
to be engraved with the battle of the Lapithae and Centaurs. The shield was ornamented
on both sides with embossed work, representing, on the inner side, the battle
of the giants against the gods, and on the outer, the battle of the Amazons against
the Athenians. All these subjects were native Athenian legends. The base, which
of itself is said to have been the work of several months, represented, in relief,
the birth of Pandora, and her receiving gifts from the gods : it contained figures
of twenty divinities. The weight of the gold upon the statue, which, as above
stated, was removable at pleasure, is said by Thucydides to have been 40 talents
(ii. 13), by Philochorus 44, and by other writers 50: probably the statement of
Philochorus is exact, the others being round numbers. Great attention was paid
to the preservation of the statue: and it was frequently sprinkled with water,
to preserve it from being injured by the dryness of the atmosphere (Paus. v. 11.5).
The base was repaired by Aristocles the younger, about B. C. 397 (Bockh, Corp.
Inscr. vol. i. p. 237: Bockh suggests that, as Aristcles was the son of Cleoetas,
who appears to have been an assistant of Pheidias in his great works, this artist's
family may have been the guardians of the statue, as the descendants of Pheidias
himself were of the Zeus at Olympia). The statue was finally robbed of its gold
by Lachares, in the time of Demetrius Poliorcetes, about B. C. 296 (Paus i. 25,7).
Pausanias, however, speaks of the statue as if the gold were still upon it; possibly
the plundered gold may have been replaced by gilding. We possess numerous statues
of Athena, most of which are no doubt imitated from that in the Parthenon, and
from the two other statues in the Acropolis. Bottiger has endeavoured to distinguish
the existing copies of these three great works (Andeutungen, pp. 90--92). That
which is believed to be the nearest copy of the Athena of the Parthenon is a marble
statue in the collection of Mr. Hope, which is engraved in the Specimens of Ancient
Sculpture, vol. ii. pl. 9, and in Muller's Denkmaler, vol.ii. pl. xix. fig. 202.
A less perfect, but precisely similar copy, stood in the Villa Albani. Copies
also appear on the reverses of coins of the Antiochi, engraved in this work. These
copies agree in every respect, except in the position of the left hand, and of
the spear and shield. In Mr. Hope's statue the left hand is raised as high as
the head, and holds the spear as a sceptre, the shield being altogether wanting:
on the medals, the left hand rests upon the shield, which stands upon the ground,
leaning against the left leg of the statue, while the spear leans slightly backwards,
supported by the left arm. An attempt has been made at a restoration of the statue
by Quatremere de Quincy in his Jupiter Olympien, and a more successful one by
Mr. Lucas in his model of the Parthenon. The statue is described at length by
Pausanias (i. 24), by Maximus Tyrius (Dissert. xiv.), and by Pliny (H. N. xxxiv.
8. s. 19.1, xxxvi. 5. s. 4.4).
The other sculptures of the Parthenon belong less properly to our
subject, since it is impossible to say which of them were executed by the hand
of Pheidias, though it cannot be doubted that they were all made under his superintendence.
It is, moreover, almost superfluous to describe them at any length, inasmuch as
a large portion of them form, under the name of the "Elgin Marbles,"
the choicest treasure of our national Museum, where their study is now greatly
facilitated by the admirable model of the Parthenon by Mr. Lucas. There are also
ample descriptions of them, easily accessible; for example, the work entitled
The Elgin and Phigaleian Marbles. It is, therefore, sufficient to state briefly
the following particulars. The outside of the wall of the cella was surrounded
by a frieze, representing the Panathenaic procession in very low relief, a form
admirably adapted to a position where the light was imperfect, and chiefly reflected,
and where the angle of view was necessarily large. The metopes, or spaces between
the triglyphs of the frieze of the peristyle, were filled with sculptures in very
high relief, ninety-two in number, fourteen on each front, and thirty-two on each
side; the subjects were taken from the legendary history of Athens. Those on the
south side, of which we possess fifteen in the British Museum, represent the battle
between the Athenians and Centaurs at the marriage feast of Peirithous. Some of
them are strikingly archaic in their style; thus confirming our previous argument,
that the archaic style continued quite down to the time of Pheidias, who may be
supposed, on the evidence of these sculptures, to have employed some of the best
of the artists of that school, to assist himself and his disciples. Others of
the metopes display that pure and perfect art, which Pheidias himself introduced,
and which has never been surpassed. The architrave of the temple was adorned with
golden shields beneath the metopes, which were carried off, with the gold of the
statue of the goddess, by Lachares. (Paus. l. c.) Between the shields were inscriptions.
The tympana of the pediments of the temple were filled with most magnificent groups
of sculpture, that in the front, or eastern face, representing the birth of Athena,
and that in the western face the contest of Athena with Poseidon for the land
of Attica (Pans. i. 24.5). The mode in which the legend is represented, and the
identification of the figures, in each of these groups, has long been a very difficult
problem.
9. A bronze statue of Apollo Parnopius in the Acropolis (Paus. i. 24.8).
10. An Aphrodite Urania of Parian marble in her temple near the Cerameicus (Paus.
ibid..)
11. A statue of the Mother of the Gods, sitting on a throne supported by lions,
and holding a cymbal in her hand, in the Metroum, near the Cerameicus. The material
is not stated (Paus. i. 3.4; Arrian. Peripl. Pont. Eux.).
12. The golden throne of the bronze statue of Athena Hygieia, in the Acropolis,
is enumerated by Sillig as among the works of Pheidias; but we rather think that
the words tes theou refer to the great statue in the Parthenon, and not to the
apparent antecedent in the preceding sentence, which is, in fact, part of a digression.
Of the statues which Pheidias made for other Greek states, by far the first place
must be assigned to:
13. The colossal ivory and gold statue of Zeus in his great temple in the Altis or sacred grove at Olympia. The fullest description of the statue is that given by Pausanias (v. 11).
The statue was placed in the prodomus or front chamber of the temple,
directly facing the entrance, and with its back against the wall which separated
the prodomus from the opisthodomus, so that it at once showed itself in all its
grandeur to a spectator entering the temple. It was only visible, however, on
great festivals, at other times it was concealed by a magnificent curtain; the
one used in the time of Pausanias had been presented by king Antiochus (Paus.
v. 12.4). The god was represented as seated on a throne of cedar wood, adorned
with gold, ivory, ebony, stones, and colours, crowned with a wreath of olive,
holding in his right hand an ivory and gold statue of Victory, with a fillet in
her hand and a crown upon her head, and in his left hand supporting a sceptre,
which was ornamented with all sorts of metals, and surmounted by an eagle. The
robe, which covered the lower part of the figure, and the sandals of the god were
golden, the former, as we learn from Strabo, of beaten gold (sphurelatos), and
on the robe were represented (whether by painting or chasing Pausanias does not
say, but the former is by far the more probable) various animals and flowers,
especially lilies. The throne was brilliant both with gold and stones, and with
ebony and ivory, and was ornamented with figures both painted and sculptured.
There were four Victories in the attitude of dancing, against each leg of the
throne, and two others at the foot of each leg. Each of the front legs was surmounted
by a group representing a Theban youth seized by a Sphinx, and beneath each of
these groups (that is, on the face of the bar which joined the top of the front
legs to the back) Apollo and Artemis were represented shooting at the children
of Niobe. The legs of the throne were united by four straight bars (kanones) sculptured
with reliefs, the front one representing various athletic contests, and the other
two (for the back one was not visible) the battle between the Amazons and the
comrades of Hercules, among whom Theseus was represented. There were also pillars
between the legs as additional supports. The throne was surrounded by barriers
or walls (erumata tropon toichon pepoiemena), which prevented all access to it.
Of these the one in front was simply painted dark blue, the others were adorned
with pictures by Panaenus. The summit of the back of the throne, above the god's
head, was surmounted on the one side by the three Graces, on the other by the
three Hours, who were introduced here as being the daughters of Zeus, and the
keepers of heaven. The footstool of the god was supported by four golden lions,
and chased or painted with the battle of Theseus against the Amazons. The sides
of the base, which supported the throne and the whole statue, and which must not
be confounded with the walls already mentioned, were ornamented with sculptures
in gold, representing Helios mounting his chariot; Zeus and Hera; Charis by the
side of Zeus; next to her Hermes; then Hestia; then Eros receiving Aphrodite as
she rises from the sea, and Peitho crowning her. Here also were Apollo with Artemis,
and Athena and Heracles, and at the extremity of the base Amphitrite and Poseidon,
and Selene riding on a horse or a mule. Such is Pausanias's description of the
figure, which will be found to be admirably illustrated in all its details by
the drawing, in which M. Quatremere de Quincy has attempted its restoration...
The dimensions of the statue Pausanias professes his inability to state; but we
learn from Strabo that it almost reached to the roof, which was about sixty feet
in height. We have no such statement, as we have in the case of the Athena, of
the weight of the gold upon the statue, but some idea of the greatness of its
quantity may be formed from the statement of Lucian, that each lock of the hair
weighed six minae (Jup. Trag. 25). The completion of the statue is said by Pausanias
to have been followed by a sign of the favour of Zeus. who, in answer to the prayer
of Pheidias, struck the pavement in front of the statue with lightning, on a spot
which was marked by a bronze urn. This pavement was of black marble (no doubt
to set off the brilliancy of the ivory and gold and colours), surrounded by a
raised edge of Parian marble, which served to retain the oil that was poured over
the statue, to preserve the ivory from the injurious effects of the moisture exhaled
from the marshy ground of the Altis, just as, on the contrary, water was used
to protect the ivory of the Athena from the excessive dryness of the air of the
Acropolis; while, in the case of another of Pheidias's chryselephantine statues,
the Aesculapius at Epidaurus, neither oil nor water was used, the proper degree
of moisture being preserved by a well, over which the statue stood. The office
of cleaning and preserving the statue was assigned to the descendants of Pheidias,
who were called, from this office, Phaedryntae, and who, whenever they were about
to perform their work, sacrificed to the goddess Athena Ergane (Paus. v. 14.5).
As another honour to the memory of Pheidias, the building outside of the Altis,
in which he made the parts of the statue, was preserved, and known by the name
of Pheidias's workshop (ergasterion Pheidiou). His name, also, as already stated,
was inscribed at the feet of the statue (Paus. v. 10.2).
The idea which Pheidias essayed to embody in this, his greatest work,
was that of the supreme deity of the Hellenic nation, no longer engaged in conflicts
with the Titans and the Giants, but having laid aside his thunderbolt, and enthroned
as a conqueror, in perfect majesty and repose, ruling with a nod the subject world,
and more especially presiding, at the centre of Hellenic union, over those games
which were the expression of that religious and political union, and giving his
blessing to those victories which were the highest honour that a Greek could gain.
It is related by Strabo (viii.), that when Pheidias was asked by Panaenus what
model he meant to follow in making his statue, he replied, that of Homer, as expressed
in the following verses (Il. i. 528-530).
E, kai kuaneeisin ep' ophrusi neuse Kronion:
Ambrosiai d' ara chaitai eperrhosanto anaktos,
Kratos ap' athanatoio: megan d' elelixen Olumpon.
The imitation of which by Milton gives no small aid to the comprehension of the
idea (Paradise Lost, iii. 135-137) :
"Thus while God spake, ambrosial fragrance fill'd
All heaven, and in the blessed spirits elect
Sense of new joy ineffable diffused."
Expression was given to this idea, not only by the whole proportions and configuration of the statue, but more especially by the shape and position of the head. The height and expansive arch of the forehead, the masses of hair gently falling forward, the largeness of the facial angle, which exceeded 90 degrees, the shape of the eyebrows, the perfect calmness and commanding majesty of the large and full-opened eyes, the expressive repose of all the features, and the slight forward inclination of the head, are the chief elements that go to make up that representation which, from the time of Pheidias downwards, has been regarded as the perfect ideal of supreme majesty and entire complacency of "the father of gods and men" impersonated in a human form.
It is needless to cite all the passages which show that this statue
was regarded as the masterpiece, not only of Pheidias, but of the whole range
of Grecian art; and was looked upon not so much as a statue, but rather as if
it were the actual manifestation of the present deity. Such, according to Lucian
(Imag. 14), was its effect on the beholders; such Livy (xlv. 28; comp. Polyb.
xxx. 15) declares to have been the emotion it excited in Aemilius Paulus; while,
according to Arrian (Diss. Epictet. i. 6), it was considered a calamity to die
without having seen it. Pliny speaks of it as a work "quem nemo aemulatur." (H.
N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19.1; comp. Quintil. xii. 10.9). There is also a celebrated epigram
of Philip of Thessalonica, in the Greek Anthology, to the effect that either the
god must have descended from heaven to earth to display his likeness, or that
Pheidias must have ascended to heaven, to behold the god:
E theos elth' epi gen ex ouranou, eikona deixon,
Pheidia, e su g' ebes ton theon opsomenos.
Respecting the later history of the statue... It was removed by the emperor Theodosius
I. to Constantinople, where it was destroyed by a fire in A. D. 475.
Respecting the existing works of art in which the Jupiter of Pheidias
is supposed to be imitated, see Bottiger, Andeutungen, pp. 104--106. The nearest
imitations are probably those on the old Eleian coins, with the inscription Phaleion
(See Muller Denkmaler, vol. i. pl. xx. fig. 103). Of existing statues and busts,
the nearest likenesses are supposed to be the Jupiter Verospi, the colossal bust
found at Otricoli, and preserved in the Museo Pio-Clementino, and another in the
Florentine Gallery.
14. At Elis there was also a chryselephantine statue of Athena,, which was said
to be the work of Pheidias. It had a cock upon the helmet (Paus. vi. 26.2).
15. At Elis also, he made a chryselephantine statue of Aphrodite Urania, resting
one foot upon a tortoise (Paus. vi. 25.2; comp. Plut. Praecept. Conjug., Isid.
et Osir.)
16. Of the statues which Pheidias made for other Greek states, one of the most
famous appears to have been his chryselephantine statue of Aesculapius at Epidaurus
(Paus. v. 11.5).
17. At the entrance of the Ismenium, near Thebes, there stood two marble statues
of Athena and Hermes, surnamed Pronaoi ; the latter was the work of Pheidias;
the former was ascribed to Scopas (Pans. ix. 10.2).
18. In the Olympieium at Megara was an unfinished chryselephantine statue of Zeus,
the head only being of ivory and gold, and the rest of the statue of mud and gypsum.
It was undertaken by Theocosmus, assisted by Pheidias, and was interrupted by
the breaking out of the Peloponnesian War (Paus. i. 40.3). Two interesting points
are involved in this statement, if correct : the one, a confirmation respecting
the age of Pheidias, who is seen still actively employed up to the very close
of his life; the other, an indication of the materials which he employed, in this
case, as the core of a chryselephantine statue.
19. Pliny (H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19), tells a story, which is rather suspicious,
respecting a contest between various celebrated statuaries who, though of different
ages, were all living together. The subject for the competition was an Amazon:
the artists themselves were the judges, and the prize was awarded to that statue
which each artist placed second to his own. The statue thus honoured was by Polycleitus;
the second was by Pheidias; the third by Ctesilaus; the fourth by Cydon; and the
fifth by Phradmon. If such a competition took place at all, it must have been
toward the close of the life of Pheidias. The Amazon of Pheidias is highly praised
by Lucian. The Amazon of the Vatican, preparing to leap forward, is supposed to
be a copy of it.
20, 21, 22. Pliny (l. c.) mentions three bronze statues by Pheidias, which were
at Rome in his time, but the original position of which is not known, and the
subjects of which are not stated : "item duo sign, quae Catulus in eadem
aede (sc. Fortunae) posuit palliata, et alterum colosicon nudum."
23. The same writer mentions a marble Venus, of surpassing beauty, by Pheidias,
in the portico of Octavia at Rome. He also states that Pheidias put the finishing
hand to the celebrated Venus of his disciple Alcamenes (H. N. xxxvi. 5. s. 4.3).
24. The well-known colossal statue of one of the Dioscuri, with a horse, on the
Monte Cavallo at Rome, standing on a base, which is evidently much more recent
than the statue, and which bears the inscription OPUS FIDIAE, is supposed, from
the character of the workmanship, to be rightly ascribed to Pheidias; but antiquarians
are by no means unanimous on this point. Possibly it may be the alterum colossicon
nudum of which Pliny speaks.
Among the statues falsely ascribed to Pheidias, were the Nemesis of
Agoracritus, and the Time or Opportunity of Lysippus (Anson. Ep. 12). At Patara
in Lycia there were statues of Zeus and Apollo, respecting which it was doubted
whether they were the works of Pheidias or of Bryaxis (Clem. Alex. Protrep.; comp.
Tzetz. Chil. viii. 33).
This list of the works of Pheidias clearly proves the absurdity of
the statement which was put forth by the depreciators of the Elgin marbles, that
he never worked in marble. Pliny also expressly states the fact : "scalpsit et
marmnora." (H. N. xxxvi. 5. s. 4.4)
Pheidias, like most of the other great artists of Greece, was as much
distinguished for accuracy in the minutest details, as for the majesty of his
colossal figures; and, like Lysippus, he amused himself and gave proofs of his
skill, by making images of minute objects, such as cicadas, bees, and flies (Julian,
Epist. viii.). This statement, however, properly refers to his works in the department
of toreutike, or caelatura, that is, chasing, engraving, and embossing in metals;
of which art we are informed by Pliny that he was the first great master (H. N.
xxxiv. 8. s. 19. 1; comp. Diet. of Antiq. art. Caelatura).
Great parts of the gold on his chryselephantine statues we know to have been chased
or embossed, though it is necessary to avoid confounding these ornaments with
the polychromic decorations which were also lavished upon the statues. The shields
of the statues of Zeus and Athena were covered with plates of gold, the reliefs
in which belong to the department of caelatura, as does the hair of his Athena,
and also the sceptre of his Zeus, which was of all sorts of metals. The shield
of his Athena Promachus furnishes another example of the art, though the chasing
on it was executed not by himself, but by Mys. Chased silver vessels, ascribed
to him (whether rightly or not, may well be doubted), were in use in Rome in the
time of Martial, who describes the perfectly natural representation of the fish
upon such a vessel, by saying "adde aquam, natabunt" (iii. 35; comp. Niceph. Greg.
Hist. viii.).
It has been stated already that Pheidias was said to have been a painter before he became a statuary. Pliny states that the temple of the Olympian Zeus at Athens was painted by him (H. N. xxxv. 8. s. 34).
III. The Art of Pheidias.
After the remarks, which have been made incidentally in the two preceding sections
of this article, it is unnecessary to say much more upon the characteristics of
the art of Pheidias. In one word, its distinguishing character was ideal beauty,
and that of the sublimest order, especially in the representation of divinities,
and of subjects connected with their worship. While on the one hand he set himself
free from the stiff and unnatural forms which, by a sort of religious precedent,
had fettered his predecessors of the archaic or hieratic school, he never, on
the other hand, descended to the exact imitation of any human model, however beautiful;
he never represented that distorted action, or expressed that vehement passion,
which lie beyond the limits of repose ; nor did he ever approach to that almost
meretricious grace, by which some of his greatest followers, if they did not corrupt
the art themselves, gave the occasion for its corruption in the hands of their
less gifted and spiritual imitators. The analogy between the works of Pheidias
and Polycleitus, as compared with those of their successors, on the one hand,
and the productions of Aeschylus and Sophocles as compared with those of Euripides,
on the other, is too striking not to have been often noticed; and the difference
is doubtless to be traced to the same causes in both instances, causes which were
at work in the social life of Greece, and which left their impression upon art,
as well as upon literature, though the process of corruption, as is natural, went
on more rapidly in the latter than in the former. In both cases, the first step
in the process might be, and has often been, mistaken for a step in advance. There
is a refinement in that sort of grace and beauty, which appeals especially to
sense and passion, a fuller expression of those emotions with which ordinary human
nature sympathises. But this sort of perfection is the ripeness which indicates
that decay is about to commence. The mind is pleased, but not elevated: the work
is one to be admired but not to be imitated. Thus, while the works of Callimachus,
Praxiteles, and Scopas, have sometimes been preferred by the general taste to
those of Pheidias, the true artist and the aesthetic critic have always regarded
the latter as the best specimens of ideal sculpture, and the best examples for
the student which the whole world affords. On the latter point especially the
judgment of modern artists, and of scholars who have made art their study, respecting
the Elgin marbles, is singularly unanimous. It is superfluous to quote those testimonies,
which will be found in the works already referred to, and in the other standard
writings upon ancient art, and which may be summed up in the declaration of Welcker,
that "the British Museum possesses in the works of Pheidias a treasure with which
nothing can be compared in the whole range of ancient art" (Class. Mus. vol. ii.
p. 368); but it is of importance to refer to Cicero's recognition of the ideal
character of the works of Pheidias (Orat. 2): "Itaque et Phidiae simulacris, quibus
nihil in illo genere perfectius videmus, et his picturis, quas nominavi, cogitare
tamen possumus pulchriora. Nec vero ille artifex, quum faceret Jovis formam, aut
Minervae, contemplabatur aliquem, e quo similitudinem duceret; sed ipsius in mente
insidebat species pulchritudinis eximia quaedam, quam intuens in eaque defixus,
ad illius similitudinem artem et manum dirigebat." It was the universal judgment
of antiquity that no improvement could be made on his models of divinities. (Quintil.
xii. 10. § 3.) It is sometimes mentioned, as a proof of Pheidias's perfect knowledge
of his art, that in his colossal statues he purposely altered the right proportions,
making the upper parts unnaturally large, in order to compensate for their diminution
in perspective. This notion, however, which is derived from a passage in Plato
(Sophist. p. 235, f.; comp. Tzetz. Chil. xi. 381), does not seem to be sufficiently
well founded; all that we know of the ancient colossal statues leads rather to
the idea that the parts were all in due proportion, and that the breadth and boldness
of the masses secured the proper impression on the eye of the spectator. As a
proof of Pheidias's knowledge of the anatomical department of his art, it is affirmed
by Lucian that from the claw of a lion he calculated the size of the whole animal.
(Hermotim. 54, vol. i. 795.)
The chief modern authorities on the subject, in addition to the histories
of art by Winckelmann, Meyer, Muller, Hirt, Kugler, &c., are the following :--Muller,
de Phidiae Vita et Operibus Commentationes tres, Gotting. 1827; David, in the
Biographie Universelle ; Volkel, Ueber den prossen Tempel und die Statue des Jupiter
zu Olympia, Leipz. 1794; Siebenkees, Ueber den Tempel und die Bildsaule des Jupiter
zu Olympia, Nurnb. 1795; Quatremere de Quincy, Jupiter Olympien, &c.; Schorn,
Ueber die Studien der Griechischen Kunstler ; Preller, in Ersch and Gruber's Encyklopadie.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Pheidias Son of Charmides of Athens [Section in Andrew Stewart, One Hundred Greek Sculptors: Their Careers and Extant Works]
Perseus Project - Andrew Stewart, One Hundred Greek Sculptors
Praxiteles, one of the most distinguished artists of ancient Greece, was both
a statuary in bronze and a sculptor in marble; but his most celebrated works were
in the latter nmaterial (Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19.10, xxxvi. 5. s. 4.5). It
is remarkable how little is known of his personal history. Neither his country,
nor the name of his father or of his instructor, nor the date of his birth or
of his death, is mentioned by any ancient author. As to his country, sundry conjectures
have been founded on detached passages of some of the later ancient authors, but
none of them are sustained by sufficient evidence even to deserve discussion:
all that is known with certainty is, that Praxiteles, if not a native, was a citizen
of Athens, and that his career as an artist was intimately connected with that
city. This fact is not only indicated by the constant association of his name
with the later Attic school of sculpture, and by Pliny's reference to his numerous
works in the Cerameicus at Athens, but there is an inscription still extant, in
which he is expressly called an Athenian.
With respect to his date, he is mentioned by Pliny (H. N. xxxiv. 8.
s. 19) as contemporary with Euphranor at the 104th Olympiad, B. C. 364. Pausanias
(viii. 9.1) places him in the third generation after Alcamenes, the disciple of
Pheidias ; which agrees very well with the date of Pliny, since Alcamenes flourished
between Ol. 83 and 94, B. C. 448-404. Vitruvius (vii. Praef.13) states that he
was one of the artists who adorned the Mausoleum of Artemisia; and, if so, he
must have lived at least as late as Ol. 107, B. C. 350. If we were to accept as
genuine the will of Theophrastus, in which he requests Praxiteles to finish a
statue of Nicomachus (Diog. Laert. v. 14), we must extend the time of Praxiteles
to about the year B. C. 287, in which Theophrastus died; but it is not safe to
rest much upon such documents, occurring in the work of Diogenes. nor is it likely
that Praxiteles lived so late. It is most probable that the date assigned by Pliny
is about that of the beginning of the artistic career of Praxiteles.
The position occupied by Praxiteles in the his tory of ancient art
can be defined without much difficulty. He stands, with Scopas, at the head of
the later Attic school, so called in contradistinction to the earlier Attic school
of Pheidias. Without attempting those sublime impersonations of divine majesty,
in which Pheidias had been so inimitably successful, Praxiteles was unsurpassed
in the exhibition of the softer beauties of the human form, especially in the
female figure. Without aiming at ideal majesty, he attained to a perfect ideal
gracefulness; and, in this respect, he occupies a position in his own art very
similar to that of Apelles in painting. In that species of the art to which he
devoted himself, he was as perfect a master as Pheidias was in his department,
though the species itself was immeasurably inferior. In fact, the character of
each of these artists was a perfect exponent of the character of their respective
times. The heroic spirit and the religious earnestness of the period preceding
the Peloponnesian War gave birth to the productions of the one; the prevailing
love of pleasure and sensual indulgences found its appropriate gratification in
the other. The contrast was marked in their subjects as well as in their style.
The chryselephantine statue of Zeus at Olympia realised, as nearly as art can
realise, the illusion of the actual presence of the supreme divinity; and the
spectator who desired to see its prototype could find it in no human form, but
only in the sublimest conception of the same deity which the kindred art of poetry
had formed: but the Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles, though an ideal representation,
expressed the ideal only of sensual charms and the emotions connected with them,
and was avowedly modelled from a courtezan. Thus also the subjects of Praxiteles
in general were those divinities whose attributes were connected with sensual
gratification, or whose forms were distinguished by soft and youthful beauty,--Aphrodite
and Eros, Apollo and Dionysus. His works were chiefly imitated from the most beautiful
living models he could find; but he scarcely ever executed any statues professedly
as portraits. Quintilian (xii. 10) praises him and Lysippus for the
natural character of their works.
His works are too numerous to be all mentioned here individually. The most important
of them will be described according to the department of mythology from which
their subjects were taken.
1. Statues of Aphrodite. By far the most celebrated work of the master, and that
in which he doubtless put forth all his power, was the marble statue of Aphrodite,
which was distinguished from other statues of the goddess by the name of the Cnidians,
who purchased it. The well-known story, related by Pliny (H. N. xxxvi. 5. s. 4.5),
is that the artist made two statues of Aphrodite, of which the one was draped,
the other not. In his own opinion, they were of equal value, for he offered them
for sale together at the same price. The people of Cos, who had always possessed
a character for severe virtue, purchased the draped statue, "severutr id ac peudicum
arbitrates ;" the other was bought by the Cnidians, and its fame almost entirely
eclipsed the merits of the rival work. It was always esteemed the most perfectly
beautiful of the statues of the goddess. According to Pliny, it surpassed all
other works, not only of Praxiteles, but in the whole world; and many made the
voyage to Cnidus expressly to behold it. So highly did the Cnidians themselves
esteem their treasure, that when King Nicomedes offered them, as the price of
it, to pay off the whole of their heavy public debt, they preferred to endure
any suffering rather than part with the work which gave their city its chief renown.
It was afterwards carried, with the Samian Hera and the Lindian Athena, to Constantinople,
where it perished by fire, with innumerable other works of art, in the reign of
Justinian. (Zonar. xiv. 2.)
The temple in which it stood at Cnidus was so constructed, that the
beauties of the statue could be seen equally well from every point of view.
Of the numerous descriptions and praises of the statue, which abound
in the ancient authors, the one which gives us the best notion of it is that of
Lucian (Amor. 13, 14). The material was the purest and most brilliant Parian marble;
the form was in every respect perfect; the position of the left hand was the same
as in the Venus de Medici ; the right hand held some drapery which fell over a
vase standing by her; the face wore supposed by the ancients to indicate the appearance
of the goddess when Paris adjudged to her the prize of beauty :
Oute se Praxiteles technasato, houth' ho sidaros,
All' houtos estes, hos pote krinomene,
an opinion, which, however well it may have accorded with the grace and beauty
of the work, cannot be regarded as the true expression of the intention of the
artist, for the drapery and vase by the side of the figure indicate that she has
either just left or is about to enter the bath. The representation of the goddess
as standing before Paris is rather to be seen in the Venus de Medici and in the
copy, by Menophantus, of the Aphrodite in the Troad. This statue appears to have
been the first instance in which any artist had ventured to represent the goddess
entirely divested of drapery. The artist modelled it from a favourite courtezan
named Phryne (Ath. xiii.), of whom also he made more than one portrait statue
(Paus. ix. 27.4. s. 5, x. 14.5. s. 7; Aelian. V. H. ix. 32 ; Tatian. Orat. ad
Graec. 53). This statue was, therefore, a new ideal of the goddess; which was
frequently imitated by succeeding artists. It is, however, very doubtful which,
or whether any, of the existing statues of Venus, are copies of the Cnidian Aphrodite.
Its type is preserved on coins of Cnidos, struck in hosour of Plautilla, and on
gems: the marble statues, which are probably copies of it, are the following:
one in the garden of the Vatican; another in the Museo Pio-Clementino, which,
however, is supposed by Bottiger to be a copy of the Coan, on account of the drapery
which covers part of the figure, which Visconti, and most of the subsequent writers,
take to be a mere addition made by the artist in copying the Cnidian statue ;
another, which was formerly in the Braschi palace, and is now in the Glyptothek
at Munich ; there are also some busts after it. It has been the subreign of Justject
of much discussion among the writers on art, whether or not the Venus de Medici
is an imitation of the Cnidian Aphrodite. The truth appears to be that Cleomenes,
in making the Venus de Medici, had the Venus of Praxiteles in his mind, and imitated
it in some degree; but the difference in the treatment of the subject is sufficient
to prevent the one being considered a copy of the other. Types between the two
are seen in the Aphrodite of Menophantus and in the Capitoline Venus; of which
the latter, while preserving the drapery and vessel of the Cnidian statue, has
almost exactly the attitude and expression of the Venus de Medici.
The supposed copies of the Coan Venus are even more doubtful than
those of the Cnidian. Indeed, with the exception of that in the Museo Pio-Clementino,
already mentioned, there is none which can with any probability be regarded as
a copy of it. A fine conjectural restoration of it is given in plate xxiii. to
Flaxman's Lectures on Sculpture.
Besides the Coan and the Cnidian, Praxiteles made other statues of
Aphrodite, namely: one in bronze which, Pliny tells us, was considered equal to
the Cnidian, and which perished at Rome in the fire in the reign of Claudius (Plin.
H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19.10); another, of Pentelic marble, at Thespiae (Paus. ix.
27.3); another at Alexandria on Mt. Latmus (Steph. Byz. s. v.).
2. Eros, and other divinities connected with Aphrodite. Praxiteles made two marble
statues of Eros, of the highest celebrity, the one of which was dedicated at Thespiae,
the other at Parium on the Propontis. Like all the early Greek artists, Praxiteles
represented Eros, not as a child, but as in the flower of youth. The statute at
Thespiae, which was of Pentelic marble, with the wings gilt (Julian. Or. ii.),
was dedicated by Phryne (Lucian, Am. 14, 17; Paus. ix. 27.3), and an interesting
story is told of the manner in which she became possessed of it. Praxiteles, in
his fondness for Phryne, had promised to give her whichever of his works she might
choose, but he was unwilling to tell her which of them, in his own opinion, was
the best. To discover this, she sent a slave to tell Praxiteles that a fire had
broken out in his house, and that most of his works had already perished. On hearing
this message, the artist rushed out, exclaiming that all his toil was lost, if
the fire had touched his Satyr or his Eros. Upon this Phryne confessed the stratagem,
and chose the Eros (Paus. i. 20. 2). When Mummius plundered Thespiae, like other
Greek cities, of the works of art, he spared this statue, and it was still at
Thespiae in the time of Cicero, who says that visits were made to that city expressly
to see it (In Verr. iv. 2). It was removed to Rome by Caligula, restored to Thespiae
by Claudius, and carried back by Nero to Rome, where it stood in Pliny's time
in the schools of Octavia, and it finally perished in the conflagration of that
building in the reign of Titus (Paus. ix. 27.3 ; Plin. H. N. xxxvi. 5. s. 4.5;
Dion Cass. lxvi. 24). Its place at Thespiae was supplied by a marble copy by Menodorus.
There was in the same place a bronze statue of Eros, made by Lysippus, in emulation
of the work of Praxiteles.
The other statue of Eros, at Parium on the Propontis, is said by Pliny
to have equalled the Cnidian Venus. Nothing is known of its history, unless it
be (which is extremely probable) the same as that of which the Sicilian, Heius,
was robbed by Verres (Cic. in Verr). Callistratus ascribes two bronze statues
of Eros to Praxiteles; but the truth of this statement is doubtful, and the author
may perhaps have confounded the bronze statue at Thespiae by Lysippus with the
marble one by Praxiteles (Callist. Ecphr. 3, 11). A copy of one of these statues
is seen in a beautiful torso found at Centocelle, on the road from Rome to Palestrina,
of which there is a more perfect specimen at Naples; there is also a very similar
figure among the Elgin Marbles in the British Museum. To this class of the artist's
works belong also the statues of Peitho and Paregoros, in the temple of Aphrodite
Praxis at Megara (Paus. i. 43.6).
3. Subjects from the Mythology of Dionysus. The artist's ideal of Dionysus was
embodied in a bronze statue, which stood at Elis (PaUs. vi. 26.1), and which is
described by Callistratus (Ecphr. 8). It represented the god as a charming youth,
clad with ivy, girt with a Faun's skin, carrying the lyre and the thyrsus. He
also treated the subject in a famous bronze group, in which Dionysus was represented
as attended by Intoxication and a Satyr (Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19.10: Liberum
Patrem et Ebrietatem nobilewmque una Satyrum, quem Gracci Periboeton nominant).
According to these words of Pliny, the celebrated statue of a satyr, which Praxiteles,
as above related, ranked among his best works, was the figure in this group. This
may, however, be one of Pliny's numerous mistakes, for it seems, from Pausanias's
account of this satyr, that it stood alone in the street of the tripods at Athens
(Paus. i. 20.1; Ath. xiii). It is generally supposed that we have copies of this
celebrated work in several marble statues representing a satyr resting against
the trunk of a tree, the best specimen of which is that in the Uapitoline Museum.
Groups of Maenades, Thyiades, and dancing Caryatides are mentioned
by Pliny among the marble works of Praxiteles; and also some Sileni in the collection
of Asinius Pollio (Plin. H. N. xxxvi. 5. s. 4.5). Among other works of this class,
for which the reader is referred to Muller and Sillig, the only one requiring
special mention is the marble group of Hermes carrying the infant Dionysus, of
which copies are supposed to exist in a bas-relief and a vase-painting (Paus.
v. 17. I).
4. Subjects from the Mythology of Apollo. This class contained one of the most
celebrated statues of Praxiteles, namely the bronze figure of Apollo the Lizard-slayer
(Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19.10; puberem Apollinem subrepenti Lacertae cominus
insidiantem, quem Sauroctonon vocant ; comp. Martial, Ep. xiv. 172). Numerous
copies of it exist; some in marble, one in bronze, and several on gems.
There still remain numerous works of Praxiteles, a full enumeration
of which will be found in Sillig. It was an undecided question among the ancients,
whether the celebrated group of Niobe was the work of Praxiteles or of Scopas.
One point in the technical processes of Praxiteles deserves particular
notice. It is recorded by Pliny that Praxiteles, on being asked which of his own
works in marble he thought the best, replied, those in which Nicias had had a
hand, "tantum," adds Pliny, "circumlitioni ejus tribucbat" (Plin. H. N. xxxv.
11. s. 40.28). In all probability, this circumlitio consisted in covering the
marble with a tinted encaustic varnish, by which we can easily conceive how nearly
it was made to resemble flesh (See Dict. of Ant. art. Pictura).
It was probably from a confused recollection of this statement in his Greek authorities
that Pliny had shortly before (l. c. 11. s. 39), mentioned Praxiteles as an improver
of encaustic painting.
Praxiteles had two sons, who were also distinguished sculptors, Timarchus and
Cephisodotus II. (Pseudo-Plut. Vit. X. Orat.; Paus. i. 8.5, ix. 12.5).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Praxiteles of Athens (Article of: Andrew Stewart, One Hundred
Greek Sculptors)
Praxiteles' career is documented by over a hundred references in the
literary sources, ranging in date from Hellenistic through Byzantine, and eight
inscribed bases with his signature (some of them later renewals). Since the names
Praxiteles and Kephisodotos alternated in this family after ca. 350, it is likely
that he was the son of the Kephisodotos (Pausanias
9.16.1-2). The family's history has been succinctly charted by J.K. Davies
1971 (no. 8334): (Pliny,
N.H. 35.49-52) gives him a floruit of 364-361, but a base (IG 22 no. 4390)
signed by his son Kephisodotos (II) permits a rather more precise chronology,
since it mentions Asklepios' priest for 344/3.
Now Kephisodotos II floruit in 296-293 (Pliny,
N.H. 35.49-52), so this must have been a very early work of his, suggesting
that he was born around 365, and his father (for the Athenian males rarely married
before the age of 25) by ca. 390 at the latest. Praxiteles may have died shortly
before 326, since by then Kephisodotos (II) was paying heavy naval liturgies (IG
22 nos. 1628, lines 57, 68, 74, 11; 1629, line 674; 1633, line 100), perhaps as
heir to the family fortune -- evidently little diminished by his father's spectacular
liaison with the courtesan Phryne (Athenaeus
13.590; Pausanias
1.20.1). Praxiteles' Mantinea group (no. 19, below), done "in the third generation
after Alkamenes" (Pausanias
8.9.1: cf. Pausanias
1.24.3; JdI
82: 40; Valerius
Maximus 8.11; Pausanias
1.14.6) for the latter's dates, ca. 440-400) must therefore have been a late
work. The case of his various statues for Phryne's home town, Thespiae (almost
desolate between 374/3 and 338) is more complicated, and will be addressed below.
Finally, to return to his floruit with Euphranor in 364-361 (Pliny,
N.H. 35.49-52), this may derive from the date either of his most famous work,
the Knidia (compare Pheidias and Polykleitos here), or of Euphranor's, the Battle
of Mantinea (fought in 362).
Including Praxiteles' grandson (but not his later descendants, for
whom see J.K. Davies 1971, 288-90 and Stewart 1979, 157-76), the family's chronology
thus becomes:
Praxiteles: born ca. 400/390, active ca. 380/70-ca. 330/25
Kephisodotos (II): born ca. 365, active ca. 345-290
Timarchos: born ca. 360, active ca. 340-290
Praxiteles (II): active ca. 290-280
Praxiteles' known works are almost equally distributed between bronzes and marbles
despite his admirers' clear preference for the latter (Pliny, N.H. 34.69; Pliny
N.H. 36.20-22); just as clearly, too, he was both an agalmatopoios and an
accomplished andriantopoios , a maker of gods and men, despite the Hellenistic
practice of listing him only among the former (Laterculi
Alexandrini 7.3-9):
Divinities
Aphrodite and her circle
Aphrodite Euploia in Parian marble, at Knidos (Pliny
N.H. 36.20-22; Anth.
Pal. 16.167; Anth.
Pal. 16.168; Lucian,
Amores 13-14; Lucian,
Imagines 4 and 6; Athenaeus
13.590; Kedrenos,
Historiarum Compendium 322)
Aphrodite at Kos (Pliny
N.H. 36.20-22)
Aphrodite (and Phryne) in marble, at Thespiae (Pausanias
9.27.3)
Aphrodite in the shrine of Adonis at Alexandria in Caria
Aphrodite in bronze, later at Rome but destroyed by fire ca. A.D. 45
Peitho and Paregoros, grouped with the Eros, Himeros, and Pothos of Skopas around the ancient image of Aphrodite Praxis, in her temple at Megara
Eros in Pentelic marble, at Thespiae, later in Rome but destroyed by fire in A.D.
80 (Pausanias
9.27.3; Pausanias
1.20.1)
Eros in marble at Parion (by the Sea of Marmora)
Eros in bronze
Dionysos and his circle
Dionysos, Methe (Drunkenness) and a 'famed' satyr in bronze, later in Rome
Dionysos at Elis
Dionysos of bronze
Hermes and the infant Dionysos in marble, in the Heraion at Olympia (problematic)
(Pausanias
5.17.3-4)
Maenads, Thyiads, Karyatids and Silenoi in marble, later in Rome
Thespiadai in bronze, destroyed with (5)
Satyr in bronze, in the Street of the Tripods at Athens (Pausanias
1.20.1)
Satyr of Parian marble, in the temple of Dionysos at Megara
Others
Apollo, Leto and Artemis, in the temple of Apollo at Megara
Apollo, Leto, and Artemis, on a base with the Muses and Marsyas piping, in the
Letoion at Mantinea (Pausanias
8.9.1)
Apollo in marble, later in Asinius Pollio's collection at Rome (Pliny,
N.H.36.33-4)
Apollo Sauroktonos of bronze
Artemis Brauronia, on the Akropolis
Colossal Artemis, in her temple at Antikyra in Phokis
Demeter, Persephone, and Iakchos, in the temple of Demeter at Athens
Demeter, Persephone ("Flora"/Kore?) and Triptolemos in marble, later in Rome
Eubouleus, later in Rome
Hera enthroned between Athena and Hebe, in her temple at Mantinea
Colossal Hera Teleia and Rhea of Pentelic marble, in the temple of Hera at Plataia
Leto, in her temple at Argos
Pan, Danae, and the Nymphs, of Pentelic marble
Persephone raped by Hades, in bronze
Poseidon in marble, later with (20)
Trophonoios, in his temple at Lebadeia
The Twelve Gods, in the temple of Artemis Soteira at Megara
Personifications
Agathosdaimon and Agathe Tyche of marble, later in Rome
Tyche, in her temple at Megara
Victor-statues, portraits, and funerary sculpture
Archippe in bronze, dedicated by her mother Archippe in the Athenian Agora
A basket-bearer ('canephora') in bronze, later in Rome
A charioteer in bronze, completing a chariot group by (the younger) Kalamis
A courtesan laughing (Phryne?) in bronze
A diadoumenos in bronze, on the Akropolis
Phryne in marble, grouped with (3) at Thespiae (Pausanias
9.27.3)
Phryne, later in Rome (Tatian,
Contra Graecos 33)
Phryne in gold, on a column at Delphi
A soldier and his horse, on a tomb in the Kerameikos
Thrasymachos, dedicated by Archaias and Wanaxareta at Leuktra
Tomb monuments in marble, in the Kerameikos
A woman spinning ('catagusa') in bronze
A woman crowning herself ('stephanusa') in bronze
A woman mourning, in bronze
A woman putting on an armlet ('pseliumene') in bronze
Architectural sculpture in marble
Statues in the altar-court of Artemis at Ephesos
Labors of Herakles, in the pediments of the Herakleion at Thebes
Uncertain subject-matter
A statue at Olbia on the Black Sea (signature only preserved)
A statue on Delos (ditto)
Two statues in bronze, later at Pergamon (ditto -- a renewal)
A bronze statue later in Rome (ditto -- a renewal)
Dedication of Kleokrateia and another to Demeter and Kore, in the Agora
'Opora' in bronze
Disputed and Misattributed Works
Aphrodite and Eros in marble, now in the Louvre (Roman: signature forged)
Dioskouros on Monte Cavallo, Rome (Roman: the other signed 'Pheidias')
Eros/Alkibiades in marble, later in Rome (also given to Skopas)
Eros in the collection of Heius at Messana in Sicily, duplicate of (7), appropriated by Verres in 71 (a copy?)
Bust of the poet Ibykos from Crest (France) (Roman: signature forged)
'Janus' in marble, taken by Augustus from Alexandria to Rome (also given to Skopas)
Leto in emerald, at Myra (fanciful)
South side of the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos (Vitruvius
7. Praef. 12-13: also given to Timotheos)
Niobids in marble, later in Rome (also given to Skopas)
Tyrannicides in bronze, in the Agora (actually by Antenor)
The length of this list -far greater than one man could produce in
a lifetime- suggests either the activities of a sizable workshop and/or following,
or a phenomenon equivalent to that of the proudly-displayed Raphael in every self-respecting
Italian church, or both. The two definite survivors are the Hermes (no. 13) and
the Mantinea base (Apollo, Skythian, and Marsayas: Athens, NM 215); three Muses
(Athens, NM 216); three Muses (Athens, NM 217; no. 19), and modern scholarship
has added four others, the "Eubouleus" (Athens, NM 181), the Marathon Boy (Athens,
NM Br. 15118), the Aberdeen head (London 1600), and the Leconfield Aphrodite (Stewart
1990, figs. 492-97, 499-500).
Of these, (13) and (19) were seen by Pausanias:
Pausanias
5.17.3-4 :
...at a later time other statues were dedicated in the Heraion: a marble Hermes
carrying the baby Dionysos, the work of Praxiteles, and a bronze Aphrodite made
by Kleon of Sikyon. The master of this Kleon, called Antiphanes, was a pupil of
Periklytos, who was taught by Polykleitos of Argos. A nude, gilded child is seated
before the Aphrodite; Boethos of Kalchedon was its toreutes [metal-smith]. Also
brought there were statues from the so-called Philippeion, of gold and ivory,
Eurydike the wife of Philip [lacuna] . .
Pausanias
8.9.1:
The Mantineans have a two-part temple, divided right across the middle by a wall.
In one section of the temple is an image of Asklepios, the work of Alkamenes,
while the other is a sanctuary of Leto and her children; Praxiteles made the images
in the third generation after Alkamenes. On their base are carved the Muses and
Marsyas playing the flutes.
Yet even so, the Hermes is probably Hellenistic (see most recently, Pfrommer 1984, 176; Morrow 1985, 83-84; Stewart 1990, 177), while the base is clearly a workshop product, like the Marathon Boy (Athens, NM Br. 15118). The Leconfield and Aberdeen heads look authentically Praxitelean and late fourth-century, so could be by either the master himself or by his sons. As for the "Eubouleus", though a Roman inscription certifies Praxiteles' authorship of this minor Eleusinian underworld deity, and the bust was found with a dedication to Eubouleus in the Ploutonion there, the large number of copies (eight, including two on the Akropolis, of all places) is disturbing. Perhaps he merely reproduced his Triptolemos or Iakchos/Dionysos (24, 25), both of whom could easily prompt such a rendering, and generate the copies we have. The piece is evidently cut down from a complete statue: the tooling around the shoulders, the high polish on the face, and the deep drilling in the hair are all secondary, perhaps repairs after the Kostovokian sack of A.D. 170. It is surely not an Alexander: see Furtwangler 1895/1964, 330-33; Lippold 1950, 241; Bieber 1964, 26; Vierneisel-Schlorb 1979, 375-78; and Stewart 1993, Chapter 4.2 for a range of opinions.
The meager fragments so far recovered from (52) appear early Hellenistic,
and none seems particularly Praxitelean: see OJh 50 (1972-75): Beiblatt 462-67
and Grabungen 50 fig. 44. Finally, the head from Chios attributed by Marshall
1909 (Boston 10.70; cf. Stewart 1990, fig. 606) is now also universally accepted
as post-Praxitelean, while the recent suggestion that limb-fragments found near
the Knidian Aphrodite sanctuary, and a head, B.M. 1314, found in the Demeter sanctuary
-- a mile away! -- are all from (1) (Love 1972, 75-76, 401 n.1) are contradicted
by T 128, locating her among the works burnt in the Lauseion at Constantinople
in A.D. 476: see further, Haynes 1972, 731-37.
Pliny places Praxiteles next after Pheidias and his star pupils in his catalogue of the great marble-workers, with the words:
Pliny
N.H. 36.20-22:
(20) I have mentioned the date of Praxiteles among those sculptors who worked
in bronze (Pliny,
N.H. 35.49-52); yet in his fame as a marble-worker he surpassed even himself.
There are works by him at Athens in the Ceramicus, but first and foremost not
only of this, but indeed in the whole world, is the Venus that many have sailed
to Cnidus to see. He made two statues and put them up for sale together: one was
draped and for that reason was preferred by the people of Cos, who had an option
on the sale, even though it was the same price as the other, for they judged this
to be the sober and proper thing to do. The Cnidians bought the rejected one,
whose fame became immensely greater.
(21) Later King Nicomedes [of Bithynia, reigned 90-74] wanted to buy it, promising that he would pay off the city's entire foreign debt, which was enormous. The Cnidians, however, preferred to suffer anything but this, and not without reason, for with this statue, Praxiteles had made Cnidus famous. The shrine she stands in is completely open, so that one can view the image of the goddess from all sides, an arrangement (so it is believed) that she herself favored. The statue is equally admirable from every angle. There is a story that a man was once overcome with love for it, hid inside during the night, and embraced it, leaving a stain to mark his lust.
(22) In Cnidus there are other marbles by famous artists, a Father Liber [Dionysos]
by Bryaxis, another and a Minerva too by Scopas, but there is no greater witness
to the quality of Praxiteles' Venus that among all these it alone receives attention.
There follows a brief list of Praxitelean works at Rome. The erotic anecdotes
are typical of Greco-Roman writing on Praxiteles: since unlike the classical bronze
workers the marble sculptors inspired no substantial critical tradition, such
erotica, often worked up into verse by Hellenistic and later poets, constitute
our major source for the reception of his work in antiquity. The classic case
is of course the Knidia:
Anth. Pal. 16.167:
You'll say, when you look on Kypris in rocky Knidos,
That she, of stone herself, may set a stone on fire;
But when you see the sweet Desire in Thespiae, you'll say
He'll not just fire up stone, but coldest adamant.
Such were the gods Praxiteles made, each in a different land,
Lest all be burnt up by a double fire.
Anth. Pal. 16.168:
Paris saw me naked, and Anchises, and Adonis too.
I know of only three -- so how did Praxiteles contrive it?
Ps.-Lucian, Amores 13-14:
When we had taken sufficient delight in the garden plants, we entered the temple.
The goddess is placed in the middle -- she's a most beautiful statue of Parian
marble -- smiling just a little haughty smile. Since she is swathed in no clothes
all her naked beauty is revealed, except that she unobtrusively uses one hand
to hide her modesty. So great was the power of the craftsman's art that the hard
unyielding marble has done justice to every limb. . . . The temple has a door
on both sides for those who wish to see the goddess directly from behind so that
no part of her be left unadmired. It's easy, therefore, for people to enter by
this other door and survey the beauty of her back.
Deciding, then, to see all of the goddess we went round to the rear. And as the door was opened by the woman responsible for keeping the keys, immediate amazement at her beauty seized us. The Athenian who had been an impassive observer shortly before . . . suddenly shouted, "Herakles! What a well-shaped back, what generous flanks, what an armful to embrace! How delicately moulded the flesh of her behind, neither too thin and close to the bone, nor yet revealing too great an expanse of fat! And as for those precious parts sealed in on either side by the hips, how inexpressibly sweetly they smile! How perfect the shape of the thighs and shins as they stretch down to the ankle!" [The story of the stain follows].
see Lucian,
Imagines 4 and 6
Athenaeus 13.590:
At the festival of the Eleusinia and at the festival of Poseidon, Phryne took
off her cloak in full view of all the Greeks, let down her hair, and stepped into
the sea; and it was with her as a model that Apelles painted his Aphrodite Anadyomene
[Rising from the Sea]. And Praxiteles the sculptor fell in love with her and modeled
his Knidian Aphrodite on her . . . . [More about their love-affair follows, ending
with the dedication of the gold statue, no. 44 above].
At first sight the temple described in Ps.-Lucian,
Amores 13-14 (written ca. A.D. 300) seems incompatible with that of
Pliny
N.H. 36.20-22; clearly either the Doric rotunda found by Love (Love
1972; Stewart 1990, fig. 502) had been remodeled to limit access to the statue
or she had been moved elsewhere. The rotunda itself seems third-century, though
could be a reconstruction, since fragments of an earlier building were also recovered
at the site. For the copies, many of which seem to be taken from a mid or late
Hellenistic recension (Pfrommer 1985), see Stewart 1990, figs. 503-07: from Italy
(Vatican 812); from Syria (Malibu 72.AA.93); from Tralleis (Louvre 3518).
Of the other types recognizable in copy, the early Arles Aphrodite
(Louvre 439; Stewart 1990, fig. 501; condemned as neo-classical by Ridgway 1976)
resembles one shown with a statuette of a woman on Thespian coins, so could copy
(3); the checkered career of the Thespian Eros (7), on the other hand, suggests
that we should probably not expect monumental replicas:
Pausanias
9.27.3:
Later on Lysippos made a bronze Eros for Thespiae, and even before him Praxiteles
made one of Pentelic marble. The story of Phryne and the trick she played on Praxiteles,
I have already related elsewhere. The first to remove the image of Eros, it is
said, was Gaius [Caligula] the Roman emperor; Claudius sent it back to Thespiae
but Nero carried it off a second time to Rome. There a fire finally destroyed
it... The statue of Eros at Thespiae which exists now was made by the Athenian
Menodoros, who copied the work of Praxiteles. Here too and by Praxiteles also
are an Aphrodite and a portrait of Phryne, both of marble.
And for the trick:
Pausanias
1.20.1:
[The Street of the Tripods at Athens] also contains some really remarkable works
of art. For there is a Satyr, of which Praxiteles is said to have been very proud.
And once Phryne asked him for the most beautiful of all his works, and he agreed,
lover-like, to give it to her, but refused to say which he thought was the most
beautiful. So a slave of Phryne rushed in with the news that fire had broken out
in Praxiteles' studio, and that most of his works were lost, though not all. Praxiteles
immediately ran out through the doors and said that all his labor was wasted if
indeed the flames had caught his Satyr and Eros. But Phryne told him to stay and
cheer up, for he had suffered nothing grievous, but by a ruse she had trapped
him into confessing which of all his works was the most beautiful. So Phryne chose
the Eros.
No. 8 also only appears on coins, though Hermary 1986 has now reconnected the (sadly, headless) Palatine Eros type with (7). With the Pouring Satyr (Dresden type: Stewart 1990, fig. 408) and the Dresden Artemis (REF: cf. 10, 16-19, 22, 23 -- but which?) it too looks early, ca. 380-370 (cf. Arnold 1969, 161 and 210 for the chronology). On the other hand, the Leaning Satyr (Rome, Museo Capitolino 739; Stewart 1990, fig. 510) and two youthful Dionysos types at present known only from herms are clearly later, one approaching the Olympia Hermes (Ashmole 1922a, 242-4; cf. Stewart 1977a, 139).
The Apollo Sauroktonos (21; Louvre 441; Stewart 1990, fig. 509) is
securely identified from Pliny N.H. 34.70 and Martial 14.172. The Gabii Artemis
(Louvre MA 441; Stewart 1990, fig. 508) may copy the Brauronia (22); Treheux 1964
shows how this statue cannot date to 346/5, as often stated, but must belong between
345/4 and 336/5. Finally, the Apollo Lykeios described in Lucian, Anacharsis 7
-- but without naming the author -- and recognized both on Athenian coins and
on numerous replicas in the round, is regularly attributed to him . Other suggestions,
coin-pictures of lost works, and supposed versions on reliefs and other media,
are more problematic, and cannot be addressed here.
Because Praxiteles wrote no book on his art and inspired no proper
critical tradition about it, sources for his style are pitifully few in number.
While Quintilian (Quintilian
12.7-9) only contrasts his tact in naturalistic representation with Demetrios
(cf. Lucian,
Philopseudes 18), others are sometimes a little more explicit:
Diodoros 26.1:
Neither poet nor historian, nor indeed any craftsman of literature can in all
respects satisfy all his readers. For ... not even Pheidias, admired above all
for the fabrication of ivory statues, nor Praxiteles, who masterfully embodied
the emotions of the soul in works of stone, nor Apelles nor Parrhasios ... attained
such success in their work that they could display a product of their skill that
was totally above censure.
Pliny, N.H. 35.133:
Praxiteles used to say about Nicias, when questioned as to which one of his marbles
he preferred above all: those to which Nicias has set his hand -- so much value
did he put upon his ability to articulate with color. It is not quite clear whether
this artist or a namesake is the one people assign to the 112th Olympiad [332-329].
Pliny, N.H. 35.122:
It is not agreed who was the inventor of painting in wax and doing pictures in
encaustic. Some think Aristides discovered it and Praxiteles later perfected it,
but there were encaustic paintings that were considerably older, such as those
of Polygnotos.
Praxiteles is also regularly cited by writers on phantasia (Philostratos,
Life of Apollonios of Tyana 6.19) and in the various disputes concerning the
status of the artist, and by the Augustan period his popularity was prompting
quite an industry in forgeries:
Phaedrus, Fabulae 5, prologue:
Then there are those who in our own age
Find better prices for their new-made works
By signing marbles with "Praxiteles,"
Silverware with "Mys," and paintings, "Zeuxis."
This extract is from: Andrew Stewart, One Hundred Greek Sculptors: Their Careers and Extant Works. Cited July 2005 from Perseus Project URL below, which contains extracts from the ancient literature, bibliography & interesting hyperlinks.
Salpion, an Athenian sculptor, of unknown date, whose name is inscribed upon a large vase of Parian marble, beautifully sculptured with figures in high relief, representing Hermes giving the infant Dionysus to the Nymphs to educate. This vase was found at Cormia, on the Gulf of Gaeta, and was applied to use as a font in the cathedral of Gaeta, but was afterwards removed to the Neapolitan Museum, where it now is.
Silanion, a distinguished Greek statuary in bronze, is mentioned by Pliny among
the contemporaries of Lysippus at B. C. 324 (H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19). He probably
belonged, however, not to the school of Lysippus, but to the later Attic school;
for we learn from Pausanias (vi. 4.3) that he was an Athenian. The passage of
Pliny, as commonly understood, represents Silanion as a wonderful instance of
a selftaught artist; but perhaps the words " in hoc mirabile, quod nullo doctore
nobilis flit," may be referred to Lysippus, rather than to Silanion. So, also,
in the next clause, " ipse discipulum. habuit Zeuxiadem," there is a doubt left,
whether Zeuxiades was the disciple of Silanion or of Lysippus. It should here
be observed that the word Zeuxiadem, which is the reading of all the best MSS.,
is corrupted, in the inferior MSS, and the common editions, into Zeuxin et Iadem.
The statues of Silanion belong to two classes, ideal and actual portraits;
the former again including heroes and men. Of these the most celebrated was his
dying Jocasta, in which a deadly paleness was given to the face by the mixture
of silver with the bronze; a remarkable example of the technical refinement, and
of the principle of actual imitation which characterised the art of this period.
We cannot conceive of Pheidias or Polycleitus descending to such an artifice (Plut.
de Aud. Poet. 3, Quaest. Conv. v. 1; comp. de Pyth. Or. 2). He also made a fine
statue of Achilles (Plin. l. c.21), and one of Theseus (Plut. Thes. 4). Tatian
ascribes to him statues of the lyric poetesses Sappho and Corinna (Tatian. ad
Graec. 52; where by Sappho ten hetairan Tatian undoubtedly means the poetess and
not, as some fancy, another person, a courtezan of Eresos, of whose existence
there is no proof). His statue of Sappho stood in the prytancium at Syracuse in
the time of Verres, who carried it off; and Cicero alludes to it in terms of the
highest praise (Verr. iv. 57). Silanion also made a statue of Plato, which Mithridates,
the son of Rhodobatus, set up in the Academy (Diog. Laert. iii. 2).
Among the actual portraits of Silanion, the most celebrated appears
to have been that of the statuary Apollodorus, who was so habitually dissatisfied
with his own works, that he frequently broke them in pieces. The vexation of the
disappointed artist was so vividly expressed in Silanion's statue, that Pliny
says "nec hominem ex aere fecit, sed iracundiam" (§ 21). Pliny also mentions his
statue of a superintendent of the palaestra exercising the athletes. He made also
three statues of Olympic victors; namely Satyrus of Elis, and Telestes and Demaratus
of Messene (Paus. vi. 4.3, 14.1, 3).
Probably this Silanion was the same as the one whom Vitruvius (vii.
praef.14) mentions among those who wrote praecepta symmetriarum ; for, although
that phrase no doubt refers especially to the proportions of the architectural
orders, yet it must also be understood as including the wider subject of proportion
in art generally, as is evident both from the mention of Euphranor in the list,
and also from the manner in which Vitruvius discusses the subject of architectural
proportions in connection with the laws of proportion derived from the human figure
(i. 2, iii. 1).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Silanion of Athens
Pliny (Pliny,
N.H. 35.49-52) places the allegedly self-taught Silanion in the years 328-325,
but mentions only three pieces in his alphabetical catalogue of lesser masters
(Pliny,
N.H. 34.81-2); fortunately, others show more interest, increasing his known
works (all probably bronzes) to eleven, plus three signed bases:
Achilles (Pliny,
N.H. 34.81-2)
Theseus, in Athens
Jokasta dying
Sappho in Syracuse, taken to Rome by Verres (Tatian,
Contra Graecos 33)
Korinna, later in Rome (Tatian,
Contra Graecos 33)
Plato, dedicated to the Muses in the Academy by the Persian Mithradates (Diogenes
Laertius 3.25) Apollodoros the sculptor (Pliny,
N.H. 34.81-2)
The boxer Satyros of Elis, at Olympia
The boy-boxer Telestas of Messene, at Olympia
The boy-boxer Damaretos of Messene, at Olympia
A trainer of athletes (Pliny,
N.H. 34.81-2)
A bronze later taken to Pergamon (signature only preserved)
A statue at Ephesos (ditto)
A statue at Miletos (ditto)
Silanion was thus exclusively an andriantopoios, and one of the few Athenians
to challenge the Argive-Sikyonian school on its own territory (8)-(10). Indeed,
and perhaps not entirely by coincidence, he was also apparently the first portraitist
to follow Polykleitos and Euphranor (Pliny,
N.H. 34.55-6; Pliny
N.H. 35.128-9) and to write on symmetria (Vitruvius 7, Praef. 12); unfortunately,
Pliny ignored his book entirely. Yet his virtuosity inspired some far-fetched
anecdotes about his work, including the (surely fictitious) assertion that silver
was mixed in with the bronze to catch the pallor on the face of (3) (Plutarch,
Moralia 674A), and:
Pliny, N.H. 34.81-2:
Silanion cast a portrait of Apollodoros, himself a sculptor, but among all artists
the most meticulous in his art and a harsh critic of his own work, frequently
smashing his finished statues, since his zeal for his art always left him unsatisfied;
consequently they nicknamed him "the Madman". This quality Silanion expressed
in his portrait, and so represented in bronze not a man, but anger personified.
He also made a famous Achilles, and a trainer of athletes.
None of these has been identified in copy, and his other works have fared almost
as badly: Lattimore's identification of (1) with the Ludovisi 'Ares' is purely
hypothetical (S. Lattimore1979), Brommer 1982 rejects the Ince 'Theseus' for (2),
the Getty 'Sappho' head (cf. no. 4) is a fake, and the miserable little Korinna
from Compiegne (cf. no. 5) has no exact correlates at full size. Only the Plato
(6) and the 'Satyros' (8; Athens, NM Br. 6439) begin to be convincing as attributions
(Stewart 1990, figs. 513-14). The former is noted (but not described) by Diogenes
Laertius:
Diogenes Laertius 3.25:
In the first book of the Memorabilia of Favorinus it is stated that Mithradates
the Persian set up a statue of Plato in the Academy and inscribed on it: "Mithradates
the Persian, son of Orontobates, dedicated to the Muses this portrait of Plato,
made by Silanion."
The Satyros is given similar treatment by Pausanias (6.4.5), and Moretti 1957 no. 462 has established probable dates of 332 and 328 for his victories; the dates of (9) and (10) are unknown.
This extract is from: Andrew Stewart, One Hundred Greek Sculptors: Their Careers and Extant Works. Cited July 2005 from Perseus Project URL below, which contains extracts from the ancient literature, bibliography & interesting hyperlinks.
Strongulion. A distinguished Greek statuary who flourished during the last thirty
or forty years of the fifth century B.C. and was famous for his statues of horses
and oxen.
ΑΙΓΙΝΑ (Αρχαία πόλη) ΑΤΤΙΚΗ
A Greek artist, the chief representative of the Aeginetan school
of sculpture in bronze, about B.C. 460. Besides statues of the gods, such as an
Apollo at Pergamon, admired for its size and execution, we hear of groups of his,
rich in figures, drawn either from the heroic epoch--as, for example, the ten
Greek heroes casting lots as to who should undertake the battle with Hector--or
from contemporary history, such as the votive offering of the Tarentines, containing
equestrian and pedestrian combatants, and consecrated at Delphi for their victory
over the barbarian Peucetians. He also executed a group representing Hiero of
Syracuse with the chariot in which he had been victorious at Olympia. His most
remarkable work was the bronze figure of the black Demeter, in a cavern thirty
stadia from Phigalea, in the southeast corner of Elis.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Onatas son of Mikon, of Aegina
Despite the fame of "Aeginetan bronze" (Pliny, N.H. 34.10), ancient
critics virtually ignored Aeginetan sculpture as such; only Pausanias was interested
in it, so that apart from a single Hellenistic epigram (Anth. Pal. 9.238) he is
our sole witness to the achievements of the foremost Aeginetan sculptor, Onatas.
Pausanias
8.42.1-8 The second mountain, Mt. Elaios, is about 30 stades from Phigaleia,
and has a cave sacred to Demeter surnamed Black ... [Pausanias then tells the
story of Poseidon's rape of Demeter and Persephone's abduction by Hades] ... As
a result, the Phigalians say, they accounted the cave sacred to Demeter, and set
up a wooden image in it. The image was made in the following fashion: it was seated
on a rock, and was like a woman in all respects save the head. She had the head
and hair of a horse, and serpents and other beasts grew out of her head. Her chiton
reached right to her feet, and she held a dolphin in one hand, a dove in the other.
Why they made the xoanon like this should be clear to any intelligent man who
is versed in tradition. They say they named her Black because the goddess wore
black clothing. However, they cannot remember who made this xoanon or how it caught
fire; but when it was destroyed the Phigalians gave no new image to the goddess
and largely neglected her festivals and sacrifices, until finally barrenness fell
upon the land ... [They then consulted Delphi, and were told that good times would
return only if they restored her former honors to her] ... So when they heard
the oracle that was brought back, they held Demeter in even higher honor than
before, and particularly they persuaded Onatas son of Mikon of Aegina to make
them an image of Demeter at any price he asked. The Pergamenes have a bronze Apollo
of his, which they marvel at both for its size and its art. This man, then, discovering
a picture or copy of the ancient xoanon --but guided for the most part (as it
is said) by a vision he saw in his dreams -- made a bronze image for the Phigalians
about a generation after the Persian invasion of Greece [480]. My evidence for
the date is as follows: when Xerxes invaded Europe, Gelon son of Deinomenes was
tyrant of Syracuse and the rest of Sicily. When Gelon died [478] the rule passed
on to Hieron, his brother. But when Hieron died [467/66] before he could dedicate
to Olympian Zeus the offerings which he had vowed for his victories in the horse-races,
his son Deinomenes set them up on behalf of his father. These too are the works
of Onatas, and there are inscriptions at Olympia, of which the one over the offering
reads:
For his victories in your holy games, Olympian Zeus,
Once in the chariot-and-four, twice with the race-horse,
Hieron bestowed these gifts on you; but his son dedicated them,
Deinomenes, in memory of his Syracusan sire.
The other inscription is:
Onatas, son of Mikon, fashioned m Who has his home on Aegina's isle.
Onatas was contemporary with Hegias of Athens and Hageladas of Argos.
It was mainly to see this Demeter that I came to Phigaleia.
... But the image made by Onatas no longer existed in my time, and most of the
Phigalians were not aware that it had ever existed at all. The oldest of the inhabitants
I met said that three generations before his time some rocks had fallen on it
from the cave roof, crushing it and destroying it utterly. Indeed, I could still
see clearly the place in the roof where the rocks had broken away.
Pausanias' dating roughly coincides with the archaeological evidence:
a signed base from the Akropolis may belong to the Persian debris and predate
480, and his Achaean monument in Olympia lies below the temple fill and so should
be earlier than ca. 460. Unfortunately, however, landscaping done after the temple's
completion ca. 457 cannot be ruled out entirely.
Onatas worked exclusively in bronze:
- Chariot of Hieron I of Syracuse at Olympia (Paus. 8.42.8)
- Group of 9 heroes and Nestor, drawing lots to determine who should fight Hektor,
dedicated by the Achaeans at Olympia (Paus. 5,25.8)
- Hermes with a ram (kriophoros), dedicated by the Pheneans at Olympia
- Colossal Herakles dedicated by the Thasians at Olympia (Paus. 5.25.12)
- Dedication of Kephalos of Byzantion at Olympia
- Cavalry and infantry standing by Taras and Phalanthos bestriding the slain native
king Opis, dedicated by the Tarentines at Delphi
- Dedication of Timarchos on the Akropolis
- Apollo, later at Pergamon (Paus. 8.42.7)
A mutilated signature from Pergamon, Pergamon 8.1, no. 48, may come
from the base of no. 9. Parts of the base of no. 3 also survive, and fit Pausanias'
description:
Pausanias
5.25.8 There are also offerings dedicated by the whole Achaean race in
common: they represent those who, when Hektor challenged any Greek to meet him
in single combat, dared to await the outcome of the lot. They stand near the great
temple armed with spears and shields. Right opposite, Nestor stands on another
base, casting the lot of each into the helmet. Those who are drawing lots to meet
Hektor are now only eight in number -- for the ninth, the statue of Odysseus,
was carried off to Rome, they say, by Nero -- and of the eight remaining only
Agamemnon's has his name inscribed below: the inscription runs, moreover, from
right to left. The figure with the cock emblazoned on his shield is Idomeneus
the descendant of Minos: they say that Idomeneus was descended from Helios the
father of Pasiphae, and that the cock is sacred to Helios and announces when he
is about to rise. An inscription is written on the pedestal:
These images were dedicated to Zeus by the Achaeans,
Descendants of Pelops, the godlike Tantalid.
This is written on the pedestal, but the sculptor's signature is written on Idomeneus's shield:
This is one of the many works of clever Onatas, Whom Mikon begat in Aegina.
In this epigram Onatas calls himself sophos, "clever", in the tradition
of Phaidimos and other archaic sculptors (cf. Stewart 1990, 68); yet this self-assertiveness
did not prevent him from collaborating with others on at least three of the monuments
listed above: with Kalamis on no. 2 (Paus. 6.12.1; cf. T 2-3), Kalliteles on no.
4, and Kalynthos(?) on no. 7. Our only information concerning his style comes
once again from Pausanias:
Pausanias
5.25.12 The Thasians ... dedicated a Herakles at Olympia, the base as
well as the image being of bronze. The image is ten cubits [15 feet] high, and
has a club in his right hand and a bow in his left... On this dedication by the
Thasians at Olympia is an elegiac couplet:
Onatas, son of Mikon, fashioned me
He who has his home on Aegina.
This Onatas, though his sculptural style is Aeginetan, I shall place second to
none of the pupils of Daidalos and the Attic school.
Yet this essentially unhelpful remark has not inhibited attributions,
which fall into five more-or-less mutually exclusive groups, as follows: (a) the
Artemision Zeus (Athens, NM Br. 15161), "Omphalos" Apollo (Athens, NM 45; Munich
GL 265), Aegina sphinx, "Aspasia"/Europa, and Corinth/Mocenigo goddess (London
209) (cf. Stewart 1990, figs. 285-88); (b) an Athena head from Aegina in the Louvre
and the Delphi charioteer (Delphi 3520; cf. Stewart 1990, figs. 301-02); (c) Aegina
East Pediment 2 (cf. Stewart 1990, fig. 245-53) and a bronze head from the Akropolis
(Athens, NM 6446, cf. Stewart 1990, fig. 249); (d) a Herakles in Cherchel, a small
bronze Hermes kriophoros in Paris, a bearded head on the Akropolis, and three
warriors in Mariemont and Rome -- all copies; and (e) the Riace bronzes (Stewart
1990, figs. 292-96). Others give (a) to Kalamis, (c) to Kalon, and (e) to Pheidias,
which suggests that though some connection with Aegina is apparent in each case,
to choose between them is hopelessly arbitrary.
This extract is from: Andrew Stewart, One Hundred Greek Sculptors: Their Careers and Extant Works. Cited June 2004 from Perseus Project URL below, which contains extracts from the ancient literature, bibliography & interesting hyperlinks.
ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΑΙ (Αρχαία πόλη) ΕΡΥΘΡΕΣ
One of the most celebrated Greek artists of Eleutherae, in Attica,
an older contemporary of Phidias and Polyclitus, and, like them, a pupil of Ageladas.
His works, chiefly in bronze, were numerous and very varied in subject--gods,
heroes, and especially athletes and representations of animals, which were admired
by the ancients for their life-like truth to nature. Most famous among these were
his statue of the Argive runner Ladas; of Marsyas, of which a marble copy is now
in the Lateran at Rome; his "Discobolus," or quoit-thrower, which we
are enabled to appreciate in several copies in marble, the best being that in
the Palazzo Massimi and one in bronze in the Palazzo Lancelotti in Rome; and his
"Cow on the Market-place at Athens," which received the very highest
praise among the ancients, was celebrated in thirty-six extant epigrams in the
Greek anthology, all quoted in Overbeck's Schriftquellen. 550-588, and may be
regarded as his masterpiece. He was also the first to represent what is really
a genre portrait in his "Drunken Old Woman"; but this is now attributed
to another artist, one Socrates.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Dec 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Myron of Eleutherai
Eleutherai was just inside Attica on the Boeotian border, which is
why Pausanias (6.8.4, etc.) calls him an Athenian. Once again the only synoptic
account of his oeuvre is Pliny's:
Myron was born at Eleutherae and was a pupil of Hageladas. He was particularly
famous for his statue of a heifer, celebrated in well-known epigrams -- for most
people owe their reputations more to someone else's talent than their own. He
also made a dog, a discobolus, a Perseus and the sea-monsters (?), a satyr marveling
at the flutes and a Minerva, pentathletes at Delphi, pancratiasts, and a Hercules
now in the shrine dedicated by Pompey the Great at the Circus Maximus. Erinna
also mentions in her poems that he made a cicada and a locust. He also made an
Apollo which Antony the triumvir took from the Ephesians, but the deified Augustus
restored it again after being warned in a dream. He seems to have been the first
to extend the representation of natural truth, being more rhythmical in his art
than Polykleitos and more careful over proportion (symmetria); yet though he was
very attentive to the bodies of his figures he does not seem to have expressed
the feelings of the mind, and also did not treat the hair and the pubes any more
correctly than did the rude art of old.(Pliny, N.H. 34.57-8)
Pliny places him third in the "Xenokratic" sequence of bronze-workers,
between Polykleitos (Pliny,
N.H. 34.55-6) and Pythagoras (Pliny,
N.H. 34.59), and consequently the late Hellenistic source (Pliny,
N.H. 35.49-52) gave him a floruit of 420-417; for an explanation as to why,
see the commentary (Pliny,
N.H. 34.59), above. Contradicted by (a) his supposed apprenticeship to Hageladas
(Pausanias
10.10.6); (b) the "histories" of Cicero
and Quintilian; (c) his Aeginetan commission (no. 1), presumably pre-dating
the Athenian conquest of 457/6; and (d) the activities of his son Lykios in the
440s and 430s (Jeffery 1980b), this erroneous chronology also suggests that his
allegedly greater attentiveness to symmetria than -- of all people! -- Polykleitos
(Pliny,
N.H. 34.57-8) could simply be a rationalization introduced by Xenokrates or
Varro (Pliny,
N.H. 34.55-6) to save this evolutionary scheme, rigidly formalistic as it
apparently was.
The full list of his works, all bronzes except possibly no. 1 (a xoanon , Paus.
2.30.2) is as follows:
Divinities and mythological groups
- Hekate (single-bodied) in Aegina
- Colossal Zeus, Athena, and Herakles in the Heraion at Samos; removed by Mark
Antony; the Athena and Herakles returned by Augustus
- Apollo at Ephesos, removed by Antony but returned by Augustus (Pliny,
N.H. 34.57-8)
- Apollo at Akragas, stolen by Verres in 73-70
- Dionysos at Orchomenos, later re-dedicated on Mt. Helikon by Sulla
- Nike killing a bull
- Athena and Marsyas
Heroes
- Erechtheus at Athens
- Herakles at Messana, stolen by Verres
- Herakles, later in Rome (Pliny,
N.H. 34.57-8)
- Perseus, on the Akropolis
Victor statues
- The runner Ladas, perhaps at Argos (Anthologia
Palatina 16.54)
- A diskobolos (Pliny,
N.H. 34.57-8) & (Lucian,
Philopseudes 18)
- The horse breeder Lykinos of Sparta, at Olympia (twice)
- The pankratiast Timanthes of Kleonai, at Olympia
- The boy-boxer Philippos of Pellana, at Olympia
- The hoplite-runner Chionis of Sparta, at Olympia
- Pentathletes and pankratiasts, at Delphi (Pliny,
N.H. 34.57-8)
Animals
- A dog (Pliny,
N.H. 34.57-8)
- A cow, on the Akropolis (Pliny,
N.H. 34.57-8), later taken to Rome
- Four oxen, later in Rome
Varia
- A sea-monster
- Embossed vessels in silver
The Diskobolos (no. 13; Rome, Terme
126371; Stewart 1990, fig. 300) is the only work identified beyond doubt in
the copies, owing to a rare detailed description of one allegedly displayed with
the Tyrannicides, Polykleitos's Diadoumenos, and Demetrios' Pellichos (Stewart
1990, figs. 227-31; 383-85; Lucian, Philopseudes 18, with commentary) in a house
in Athens:
"When you came in the hall," he said, "didn't you notice a totally gorgeous statue
up there, by Demetrios the portraitist?" "Surely you don't mean the discus-thrower,"
said I, "the one bent over into the throwing-position, with his head turned back
to the hand that holds the discus, and the opposite knee slightly flexed, like
one who will spring up again after the throw?" "Not that one, he said, that's
one of Myron's works, that Diskobolos you speak of..." (Lucian, Philopseudes 18)
On the Athena and Marsyas, often identified as a group after Paus.
1.24.1, see Stewart 1990, 147, figs. 290-91, and the copy Louvre 2208; as for
the others, optimists have recognized nos. 2, 8, 10, and 11 in Roman copies (though
the Perseus is just as regularly given to Pythagoras), while Mingazzini 1972-3
and others attribute nos. 12 and 16 to namesakes of the Hellenistic period (contra
e.g. Moretti 1957, nos. 260, 319, 529, 535). These individuals are shadowy figures
at best: one, the Myron "of Thebes" whose signatures graced a dedication at Pergamon
(along with Praxiteles' and Xenokrates': Pergamon, 8.1, nos. 135-140) and another
found in Rome may well be a Hellenistic fiction perpetuated by locals charged
with furnishing new bases for war-booty, for Eleutherai was disputed between Athens
and Boeotia. Certainly, the epigrams describing the Ladas are by no means incompatible
with early classical experimentation:
Just as you were in life, Ladas, flying before wind-footed Thymos, touching the
ground with the tips of your toes, So did Myron cast you in bronze, on all of
your body Stamping your expectation of an Olympian crown.(Anthologia Palatina
16.54)
On the other hand, Pliny's attribution of a marble "Drunken old Woman"
at Smyrna (N.H. 36.32) has been universally rejected, not least because its most
unclassical theme recurs in a copy of a work of advanced Hellenistic date, in
Rome (Munich 437; Bieber 1961b, 81; Laubscher 1982, 118-21; Stewart 1990, figs.
753-54). To connect this with the Myron of Athens who worked on Delos ca. 140
(Marcade 1957, 57) is tempting but purely arbitrary.
Many have pondered over Myron's signal contribution to Greek sculpture; yet one
must remember that in antiquity, though his statues of men were justly renowned
(Laterculi
Alexandrini 7.3-9), his most famous work was not the Diskobolos but his cow
(no. 20), whose realism inspired countless epigrams (Overbeck 1868/1959, nos.
550-591, etc.), mostly vacuous in the extreme. His son Lykios carried on his work,
also gaining major commissions at Olympia and Athens.
(Select bibliography: in the URL below)
This extract is from: Andrew Stewart, One Hundred Greek Sculptors: Their Careers and Extant Works. Cited August 2004 from Perseus Project URL below, which contains extracts from the ancient literature, bibliography & interesting hyperlinks.
The strength and malleability of bronze allowed innovative sculptors like the Athenian Myron and Polyclitus of Argos to push the development of the free-standing statue to its physical limits. Myron, for example, sculpted a discus thrower crouched at the top of his backswing, a pose far from the relaxed and serene symmetry of early archaic statuary. The figure not only assumes an asymmetrical pose but also seems to burst with the tension of the athlete's effort. Polyclitus' renowned statue of a walking man carrying a spear is posed to give a different impression from every angle of viewing. The feeling of motion it conveys is palpable. The same is true of the famous statue by an unknown sculptor of a female (perhaps the goddess of love Aphrodite) adjusting her diaphanous robe with one upraised arm. The message these statues conveyed to their ancient audience was one of energy, motion, and asymmetry in delicate balance. Archaic statues impressed a viewer with their appearance of stability; not even a hard shove looked likely to budge them. Free-standing statues of the classical period, by contrast, showed greater range in a variety of poses and impressions. The spirited movement of some of these statues suggests the energy of the times but also the possibility of change and instability.
Myron was a Greek sculptor of the middle of the 5th century BC. He
was born at Eleutherae on the borders of Boeotia
and Attica.
He worked almost exclusively in bronze: and though he made some statues
of gods and heroes, his fame rested principally upon his representations of athletes,
in which he made a revolution, by introducing greater boldness of pose and a more
perfect rhythm. His most famous works according to Pliny were a cow, Ladas the
runner, who fell dead at the moment of victory, and a discus thrower. We are fortunate
in possessing several copies of the discobolus, of which the best is in the Massimi
palace at Rome. The athlete
is represented at the moment when he has swung back the discus with the full stretch
of his arm, and is about to hurl it with the full weight of his body.
The ancient critics say of Myron that, while he succeeded admirably
in giving life and motion to his figures, he did not succeed in rendering the
emotions of the mind. This agrees with the extant evidence, in a certain degree,
though not perfectly. The bodies of his men are of far greater excellence than
the heads. The face of the Marsyas is almost a mask; but from the attitude we
gain a vivid impression of the passions which sway him. The face of the discus-thrower
is calm and unruffled; but all the muscles of his body are concentrated in an
effort.
A recently discovered papyrus from Egypt
informs us that Myron made statues of the athlete Timanthes, victorious at Olympia
in 456 BC, and of Lycinus, victorious in 448 and 444. This helps us to fix his
date. He was a somewhat older contemporary of Pheidias and Polyclitus.
This extract is cited July 2003 from the Malaspina Great Books URL below, which contains image.
Myron (Muron), one of the most celebrated of the Greek statuaries, and also a
sculptor and engraver, was born at Eleutherae, in Boeotia, about B. C. 480. (Plin.
H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19.3) Pausanias calls him an Athenian, because Eleutherae had
been admitted to the Athenian franchise. He was the disciple of Ageladas, the
fellow-disciple of Polycleitus, and a younger contemporary of Phi dias. Pliny
gives for the time when he flourished the 87th Olympiad, or B. C. 431, the time
of the beginning of the Peloponnesian war. (H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19.)
The chief characteristic of Myron seems to have been his power of
expressing a great variety of forms. Not content with the human figure in its
most difficult and momentary attitudes, he directed his art towards various other
animals, and he seems to have been the first great artist who did so. To this
characteristic Pliny no doubt refers, when he says, Primus hic nmultiplicasse
veritatem videtur, numerosior quam Polycletus (l. c.3). To this love of variety
he seems in some degree to have sacrificed accuracy of proportion and intellectual
expression. (Plin. l. c.; comp. Cic. Brut. 18.) Neither did he pay much attention
to minute details, distinct from the general effect, such as the hair, in which
he seems to have followed, almost closely, the ancient conventional forms.
Quinctilian (xii. 10) speaks of his works as softer than those of
Callon, Hegesias, and Calamis. The author of the Rhetorica ad Herennium (iv. 6)
speaks of his heads as especially admirable.
Myron's great works were nearly all in bronze, of which he used the
variety called Delian, while Polycleitus preferred the Aeginetan. (Plin. H. N.
xxxiv. 2. s. 5; Dict. of Antiq. s. v. ues.)
The most celebrated of his statues were his Discobolus and his Cow.
The encomiums lavished by various ancient writers on the latter work might surprise
us if we did not remember how much more admiration is excited in a certain stage
of taste by the accurate imitation of an object out of the usual range of high
art, than by the most beautiful ideal representation of men or gods; and there
can be no doubt that it was almost a perfect work of its kind. Still the novelty
of the subject was undoubtedly its great charm, which caused it to be placed at
the head of Myron's works, and celebrated in many popular verses. Pliny says of
it: " Myronem bucula maxime nobilitavit, celebratis versibus laudata." The Greek
Anthology contains no less than thirty-six epigrams upon it, which, with other
passages in its praise, are collected by Sontag in the Unterhaltungen fur Freunde
der alten Literatur, pp. 100-119. Perhaps the best, at least the most expressive
of the kind of admiration it excited, is the following epigram, which is one out
of several epigrams on Myron's Cow by Ausonius (Epig. 58.):--
"Bucula sum, caelo gentoris facta Myronis Aerea;
nec factam me puto, sed genitam.
Sic me taurus init: sic proxinma bucula mugit :
Sic vitulus sitiens ubera nostra petit.
Miraris, quod fallo gregem? Greis ipse magister
Inter pascentes me numerare solet.'
These epigrams give us some of the details of the figure. The cow was represented
as lowing and the statue was placed on a marble base, in the centre of the largest
open place in Athens, where it still stood in the time of Cicero (Cic. in Verr.
iv. 60). In the time of Pausanias it was no longer there; it must have been removed
to Rome, where it was still to be seen in the temple of Peace, in the time of
Procopius (Bell. Goth. iv. 21).
A work of higher art, and far more interesting to us, was his Discobolus,
of which there are several marble copies in existence. It is true that we cannot
prove by testimony that any of these alleged copies were really taken from Myron's
work, or from imitations of it; but the resemblance between them, the fame of
the original, and the well-known frequency of the practice of making such marble
copies of celebrated bronzes, all concur to put the question beyond reasonable
doubt. Of these copies we have the good fortune to possess one, in the Townley
Gallery of the British Museum, which was found in the grounds of Hadrian's Tiburtine
Villa, in 1791: another, found on the Esquiline in 1782, is in the Villa Massimi
at Rome: a third, found in Hadrian's Villa, in 1793, is in the Vatican Museum;
a fourth, restored as a gladiator, is in the Capitoline Museum. To these may,
in all probability, be added (5) a torso, restored as one of the sons of Niobe,
in the gallery at Florence; (6) the torso of an Endymion in the same gallery;
(7) a figure restored as a Diomed, and (8) a bronze in the gallery at Munich (Muller,
in the Amalthea, vol. iii. p. 243). The original statue is mentioned by Quinctilian
and Lucian. The former dilates upon the novelty and difficulty of its attitude,
and the triumph of the artist in representing such an attitude, even though the
work may not be in all respects accurate (ii. 13). Lucian gives a much more exact
description: -Mon ton diskeuonta, en d ego, pheis, ton epikeknphota kata to chema
tes apheseos, apestrammenon eis to diskophoron, erema oklazonta doi heteroi, eoikota
xunastesomenoi meta tes boles ; ouk ekeinon, n d hos, epei kai Muronos ergon en
kai touto estin, ho diskthbolos dn legeis. We have given the passage at length
in order to make manifest the absurdity of supposing that the figure was not in
the action of throwing the quoit, but merely stretching back the hand to receive
the quoit from some imaginary attendant who held it (ton diskophoron). The real
meaning is that the head was turned round backwards towards the hand which held
the quoit. The two most perfect copies, the Townley and the Massimi, agree with
Lucian's description, except that the former has the head in quite a different
position, bending down forwards. Barry preferred this position; but the attitude
described by Lucian, and seen in the Massimi statue, gives a better balance to
the figure. There is, also, great reason to doubt whether the head of the Townley
statue really belongs to it. On the whole, the Massimi copy is the best of all,
and probably the most faithful to the original.
Of Myron's other works Pliny (xxxiv. 8. s. 19.3) enumerates the following
: a dog; Perseus, which Pausanias saw in the Acropolis at Athens (i. 23.8); sea-monsters
(pristas, see Bottiger, inf. cit.); a satyr admiring a double flute and Minerva,
probably a group descriptive of the story of Marsyas; Delphic pentathletes; pancratiasts;
a Hercules, which, in Pliny's time, was in the temple of Pompey, by the Circus
Maximus; and an Apollo, which was taken away from the Ephesians by M. Antonius,
and restored to them by Augustus, in obedience to an admonition in a dream. The
words in the passage of Pliny, fecisse et cicadae monumentum ac locustae carminibus
suis Erinna siynifieat, are a gross blunder, which Pliny made by mistaking the
name of the poetess Myro in an epigram by Anyte (or Erinna, Anth. Pal. vii. 190)
for that of the sculptor Myron.
In addition to Pliny's account, the following works of Myron are mentioned
by other writers: Colossal statues of Zeus, Hera, and Heracles, at Samos, the
three statues on one base. They were removed by M. Antonius, but restored by Augustus,
except the Zeus, which he placed on the Capitol and built a shrine for it (Strab.
xiv.). A Dionysius in Helicon, dedicated by Sulla (Paus. ix. 30.1). A Hercules,
which Verres took from Heius the Mamertine (Cic. Verr. iv. 3). A bronze Apollo,
with the name of the artist worked into the thigh, in minute silver letters, dedicated
in the shrine of Aesculapius at Agrigentum by P. Scipio, and taken away by Verres
(Cic. Verr. iv. 43). A wooden statue of Hecate, in Aegina. (Paus. ii. 20.2). Several
statues of athletes (See Sillig, s. v.). Lastly, a striking indication how far
Myron's love of variety led him beyond the true limits of art, a drunken old woman,
in marble, at Smyrna, which of course, according to Pliny, was inprimis inclyta
(Plin. H. N. xxxvi. 5. s. 4). His Cow was not his only celebrated work of the
kind: there were four oxen, which Augustus dedicated in the portico of the temple
of Apollo on the Palatine, B. C. 28 (Propert. ii. 23. 7); and a calf carrying
Victory, derided by Tatian.
He was also an engraver in metals: a celebrated patera of his is mentioned
by Martial (vi. 92).
Nothing is known of Myron's life except that, according to Petronius (88), he
died in great poverty. He had a son, Lyclus, who was a distinguished artist.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
ΣΑΛΑΜΙΣ (Αρχαία πόλη) ΑΤΤΙΚΗ
Solon was the son of Execestides and his family was of Salamis in Attica
Solon. A celebrated Athenian legislator, born about B.C. 638.
His father Execestides was a descendant of Codrus, and his mother was a cousin
of the mother of Pisistratus. Execestides had seriously crippled his resources
by a too prodigal expenditure; and Solon consequently found it either necessary
or convenient in his youth to betake himself to the life of a foreign trader.
It is likely enough that while necessity compelled him to seek a livelihood in
some mode or other, his active and inquiring spirit led him to select that pursuit
which would furnish the amplest means for its gratification. Solon early distinguished
himself by his poetical abilities. His first effusions were in a somewhat light
and amatory strain, which afterwards gave way to the more dignified and earnest
purpose of inculcating profound reflections or sage advice. So widely indeed did
his reputation spread that he was ranked as one of the famous Seven Sages, and
his name appears in all the lists of the seven. The occasion which first brought
Solon prominently forward as an actor on the political stage was the contest between
Athens and Megara respecting the possession of Salamis. The ill success of the
attempts of the Athenians to make themselves masters of the island had led to
the enactment of a law forbidding the writing or saying anything to urge the Athenians
to renew the attempt. Soon after these events (about 595) Solon took a leading
part in promoting hostilities on behalf of Delphi against Cirrha, and was the
mover of the decree of the Amphictyons by which war was declared. It does not
appear, however, what active part he took in the war. According to a common story,
which, however, rests only on the authority of a late writer, Solon hastened the
surrender of the town by causing the waters of the Plistus to be poisoned. It
was about the time of the outbreak of this war that, in consequence of the distracted
condition of Attica, which was rent by civil commotions, Solon was called upon
by all parties to mediate between them, and alleviate the miseries that prevailed.
He was chosen archon in 594, and under that legal title was invested with unlimited
power for adopting such measures as the exigencies of the State demanded.
In fulfilment of the task intrusted to him, Solon addressed
himself to the relief of the existing distress. This he effected with the greatest
discretion and success by his celebrated "disburdening ordinance" (seisachtheia),
a measure consisting of various distinct provisions, calculated to relieve the
debtors with as little infringement as possible on the claims of the wealthy creditors.
He also changed the standard of the monetary system from the Phidonian to the
Euboic, which was the one generally in use in the great centres of commerce, Chalcis
and Eretria, so that Athenian trade might be simplified in its exchanges. A limit
was also set to the rate of interest and to the accumulation of land. The success
of the Seisachtheia procured for Solon such confidence and popularity that he
was further charged with the task of entirely remodelling the constitution. As
a preliminary step, he repealed all the laws of Draco (q.v.), except those relating
to bloodshed. The principal features of the Solonian Constitution may be briefly
summarized for the benefit of the reader. The State as he left it was a timocracy
(timokratia), that is to say, a form of oligarchy (oligarchia) in which the possession
of a certain amount of property is requisite for admission to the ruling class.
Solon established a sort of timocratic scale, so that those who did not belong
to the nobility received the rights of citizens in a proportion determined partly
by their property and their corresponding services to the State. For this purpose
he divided the population into four classes, founded on the possession of land.
(1) Pentacosiomedimni (Pentakosiomedimnoi), who had at least 500 medimni (750
bushels) of corn or metretae of wine or oil as yearly income. (2) Hippeis (Hippeis,
Hippes), or knights, with at least 300 medimni. (3) Zeugitae (Zeugitai) (possessors
of a yoke of oxen), with at least 150 medimni. (4) Thetes (Thetes) (workers for
wages), with less than 150 medimni of yearly income. Solon's legislation only
granted to the first three of these four classes a vote in the election of responsible
officers, and only to the first class the power of election to the highest offices;
as, for instance, that of archon. The fourth class was excluded from all official
positions, but possessed the right of voting in the general public assemblies
which chose officials and passed laws. They had also the right of taking part
in the trials by jury which Solon had instituted. The first three classes were
bound to serve as hoplites; the cavalry was raised out of the first two, while
the fourth class was only employed as light-armed troops or on the fleet, and
apparently for pay. The others served without pay. The first three classes alone
were subject to direct taxation. The holders of office in the State were also
unpaid. Solon established as the chief consultative body the Council of the Four
Hundred (see Boule), in which only the first three classes took part, and as chief
administrative body the Areopagus, which was to be filled up by those who had
been archons. A Council of 401 members is said to have been part of Draco's constitution
(about B.C. 621), the members being selected by lot from the whole body of citizens.
Solon reduced the Council to 400, one hundred from each of the four tribes; and
extended in some particulars the powers already possessed by the Areopagus. Besides
this, he promulgated a code of laws embracing the whole of public and private
life, the salutary effects of which lasted long after the end of his constitution.
He also rectified the calendar, and regulated the system of weights and measures.
He forbade the exportation of Attic products, except olive oil. Among his other
regulations were those giving to child less persons the power of disposing of
their property by will, punishing idleness, inflicting atimia on those citizens
who in the time of any sedition remained neutral, and giving great rewards to
the victors in the Olympian and Isthmian Games.
The laws of Solon were inscribed on wooden cylinders (axones)
and triangular tablets (kurbeis), and set up in the Acropolis, and later in the
Prytaneum. Solon himself spoke of them as being not the best laws conceivable,
but the best that the Athenians could be induced to accept. His Constitution was,
in fact, a compromise between democracy proper and oligarchy, and it gives to
Solon a title to rank with the great constructive statesmen of all time.
The great lawgiver's later history must be regarded as more
legendary than authentic. After completing his task of legislation he left Athens
for ten years, after exacting from the people a promise that they would leave
his laws unaltered for that space of time. After visiting Egypt, he is said to
have gone to Cyprus, where he was received by the king of the little town of Aepea.
Solon persuaded the king, Philocyprus, to remove from the old site and build a
new town on the plain. The new settlement was called Soli, in honour of the illustrious
visitor. He is further said to have visited Lydia; and his interview with Croesus
was one of the most celebrated stories in antiquity. "Who is the happiest
man you have ever seen?" asked the magnificent king, fishing for a compliment.
"I can speak of no one as happy until I have seen how his life has ended,"
replied the philosopher, thus giving deep offence to the monarch. During
the absence of Solon the old dissensions were renewed, and shortly after his arrival
at Athens the supreme power was seized by Pisistratus. The tyrant, after his usurpation,
is said to have paid considerable court to Solon, and on various occasions to
have solicited his advice, which Solon did not withhold. Solon probably died about
558, two years after the overthrow of the Constitution, at the age of eighty.
There was a story current in antiquity that, by his own directions, his ashes
were collected and scattered round the island of Salamis. Of the poems of Solon
several fragments remain. They do not indicate any great degree of imaginative
power, but their style is vigorous and simple; and those that were called forth
by special emergencies appear to have been marked by no small degree of energy.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Solon, the celebrated Athenian legislator.
For our knowledge of the personal history of this distinguished man we are dependent
chiefly on the unsatisfactory compilations of Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius.
The former manifestly had valuable and authentic sources of information, which
makes it the more to be regretted that his account is not fuller and more distinct.
According to the almost unanimous testimonies of the ancient authorities
Solon was the son of Execestides, a man of but moderate wealth and political influence,
though he belonged to one of the highest families in Athens, being a descendant
of Codrus. The mother of Solon was a cousin of the mother of Peisistratus. The
date of the birth of Solon is not accurately known, but it was probably about
B. C. 638. Execestides had seriously crippled his resources by a too prodigal
expenditure, which some writers were well pleased to set down to the credit of
his generosity. Solon consequently found it either necessary or convenient in
his youth to betake himself to the life of a foreign trader. It is likely enough
that while necessity compelled him to seek a livelihood in some mode or other,
his active and inquiring spirit, which he retained throughout his life (gerasko
d aiei polla didaskomenos, Solonis Fragm. 20), led him to select that pursuit
which would furnish the amplest means for its gratification. The desire of amassing
wealth at any rate does not seem to have been his leading motive. The extant fragments
of his poetry contain various dignified sentiments on the subject of riches, though
a sufficient appreciation of their advantages is also perceptible. Solon early
distinguished himself by his poetical abilities. His early effusions were in a
somewhat light and amatory strain, which afterwards gave way to the more dignified
and earnest purpose of inculcating profound reflections or sage advice. So widely
indeed did his reputation spread, that he was ranked as one of the famous seven
sages, and his name appears in all the lists of the seven. It was doubtless the
union of social and political wisdom which marked him in common with the other
members of this assemblage and not his poetical abilities, or any philosophical
researches, that procured him this honour.
The occasion which first brought Solon prominently forward as an actor
on the political stage, was the contest between Athens and Megara respecting the
possession of Salamis. The ill success of the attempts of the Athenians to make
themselves masters of the island, had led to the enactment of a law forbidding
the writing or saying anything to urge the Athenians to renew the contest. Solon,
indignant at this dishonourable renunciation of their claims, and seeing that
many of the younger and more impetuous citizens were only deterred by the law
from proposing a fresh attempt for the recovery of the island, hit upon the device
of feigning to be mad, and causing a report of his condition to be spread over
the city, whereupon he rushed into the agora, mounted the herald's stone, and
there recited a short elegiac poem of 100 lines, which he had composed, calling
upon the Athenians to retrieve their disgrace and reconquer the lovely island.
To judge by the three short fragments that remain, the poem seems to have been
a spirited composition. At any rate either by itself, or, as the account runs,
backed by the eloquent exhortation of Peisistratus (who however, must have been
extremely young at the time), it produced the desired effect. The pusillanimous
law was rescinded, war was declared, and Solon himself appointed to conduct it.
The expedition which he made was a successful one, though the accounts of its
details varied. Certain propitiatory rites seem to have been performed, by the
direction of the Delphic oracle, to the guardian heroes of the island. A body
of volunteers was landed on the island, and the capture of a Megarian ship enabled
the Athenians to take the town of Salamis by stratagem, the ship, filled with
Athenian troops, being admitted without suspicion. The Megarians were driven out
of the island, but a tedious war ensued, which was finally settled by the arbitration
of Sparta. Both parties appealed, in support of their claim, to the evidence of
certain local customs and to the authority of Homer (Arist. Rhet. i. 16), and
it was currently believed in antiquity that Solon had surreptitiously inserted
the line (Il. ii. 558) which speaks of Ajax as ranging his ships with the Athenians.
Some other legendary claims, and the authority of the Delphic oracle, which spoke
of Salamis as an Ionian island, were also brought forward. The decision was in
favour of the Athenians. Solon himself, probably, was one of those who received
grants of land in Salamis, and this may account for his being termed a Salaminian
(Diog. Laert. i. 45.) The authority of Herodotus (i. 59, comp. Plut. Sol. 8) seems
decisive as to the fact that Solon was aided in the field as well as in the agora
by his kinsman Peisistratus. The latter, however, must have lived to a great age,
if he died in B. C. 527, and yet served in the field about B. C. 596, or even
earlier.
Soon after these events (about B. C. 595) Solon took a leading part
in promoting hostilities on behalf of Delphi against Cirrha, and was the mover
of the decree of the Amphictyons by which war was declared. It does not appear
however what active part he took in the war. We would willingly disbelieve the
story (which has no better authority than Pausanias, x. 37.7. Polyaenus, Strateg.
vi. 13, makes Eurylochus the author of the stratagem), that Solon hastened the
surrender of the town by causing the waters of the Pleistus to be poisoned.
It was about the time of the outbreak of this war when Solon's attention
was turned more forcibly than ever to the distracted state of his own country.
He had already interfered to put a stop to the dissension between the Alcmaeonidae
and the partisans of Cylon, and had persuaded the former to abide by the result
of a judicial decision. It was very likely also at his recommendation, and certainly
with his sanction, that, when the people were suffering from the effects of pestilential
disorders and superstitions excitement, and the ordinary religious rites brought
no relief, the celebrated Epimenides was sent for from Crete. But the sources
of the civil dissensions by which the country was torn required a more thorough
remedy. Geographical as well as political distinctions had separated the inhabitants
of Attica into three parties, the Pedieis, or wealthy aristocratical inhabitants
of the plain, the Diacrii, or poor inhabitants of the highlands of Attica, and
the Parali, or mercantile inhabitants of the coast. These last, in point both
of social condition and of political sentiment, held a position intermediate between
the other two. It is difficult to say how far we are to trust Plutarch, when he
says that the Pedieis and Diacrii differed in being respectively of oligarchical
and democratical tendencies. The difficulties arising from these party disputes
had in the time of Solon become greatly aggravated by the miserable condition
of the poorer population of Attica - the Thetes. The great bulk of these had become
sunk in poverty, and reduced to the necessity of borrowing money at exorbitant
interest from the wealthy on the security of their estates, persons, or families;
and by the rigorous enforcement of the law of debtor and creditor many had been
reduced to the condition of slavery, or tilled the lands of the wealthy as dependent
tenants. Of the rapacious conduct of the richer portion of the community we have
evidence in the fragments of the poems of Solon himself. Matters had come to such
a crisis that the lower class were in a state of mutiny, and it had become impossible
to enforce the observance of the laws. Solon was well known as a man of wisdom,
firmness, and integrity; and his reputation and influence had already been enhanced
by the visit of Epimenides. He was now called upon by all parties to mediate between
[p. 859] them, and alleviate the miseries that prevailed. He was chosen Archon
(B. C. 594), and under that legal title was invested with unlimited power for
adopting such measures as the exigencies of the state demanded. There were not
wanting among the friends of Solon those who urged him to take advantage of the
opportunity thus afforded him, and make himself tyrant of Athens. Plutarch has
preserved some passages of the poems of Solon, referring to the feelings of surprise
or contempt with which his refusal was met by those who had suggested the attempt.
Indeed there can be no doubt that it would have been successful had it been made.
That Solon should have had firmness enough to resist such a temptation, argues
the possession on his part of a singular degree of virtue and self-restraint.
In fulfilment of the task entrusted to him, Solon addressed himself
to the relief of the existing distress. This he effected with the greatest discretion
and success by his celebrated disburdening ordinance (seisachtheia), a measure
consisting of various distinct provisions, calculated to lighten the pressure
of those pecuniary obligations by which the Thetes and small proprietors had been
reduced to utter helplessness and misery, with as little infringement as possible
on the claims of the wealthy creditors. The details of this measure are, however,
involved in considerable uncertainty. Plutarch speaks of it as a total abolition
of debts. This is in itself in the highest degree unlikely; and, as is acutely
remarked by Mr. Grote, would have rendered a debasement of the coinage unnecessary
and useless. On the other hand it was certainly more than a reduction of the rate
of interest, accompanied by a depreciation of the currency (which was the view
of Androtion ap. Plut. l. c.). The extant fragments of the poems of Solon imply
that a much larger amount of relief was afforded than we can conceive likely to
be produced by a measure of that kind, even if the reduction of interest was made
retrospective, which is in fact only another way of saying that certain debts,
or portions of debts, were wiped off. We gather from Solon himself , that he cancelled
all contracts by which the land, person, or family of a debtor had been pledged
as security, so that the mortgage-pillars were removed, slave-debtors released,
and those who had been sold into foreign countries restored. But it does not seem
necessary to suppose that in every such case the debt was cancelled, as well as
the bond, though such may have been the case with regard to some of the most distressed
class. At the same time Solon abolished the law which gave the creditor power
to enslave an insolvent debtor, or allowed the debtor to pledge or sell his son,
daughter, or unmarried sister, excepting only the case in which either of the
latter was convicted of unchastity. Most writers seem to admit, without any question,
the statement that Solon lowered the rate of interest. This, however, rests only
on the authority (or conjecture) of Androtion, and as his account is based upon
an erroneous view of the whole matter, it may fairly be questioned whether any
portion of his statement is to be received, if the essential features of his view
of the whole measure be rejected. On the whole we are disposed to deny that Solon
did any thing to restrict the rate of interest. We know that Solon's measures
introduced a lasting settlement of the law of debtor and creditor at Athens, and
so far from there being any evidence that the rate of interest was ever limited,
we find that the rate of interest was declared free by a law which was ascribed
to Solon himself. To have introduced a restriction as a temporary measure of relief
would have been merely a roundabout mode of wholly or partially cancelling debts,
and would have required it to be retrospective, and not prospective. But for this
last view of the case there is no authority whatever.
With respect to the depreciation of the coinage, we have the distinct
statement that Solon made the mina to contain 100 drachmae instead of 73; that
is to say, 73 of the old drachmae produced 100 of the new coinage, in which obligations
were to be discharged; so that the debtor saved rather more than a fourth in every
payment. Respecting the story about the abuse made by three of the friends of
Solon of their knowledge of his designs see Callias. The probity of Solon himself
was vindicated, as he was a considerable loser by his own measure, having as much
as five talents out at interest, which he set the example of giving up.
Though some of those who lost most through the operation of the Seisachtheia were
incensed at it, as was natural, its benefits were so great and general that all
classes united ere long in a common festival of thanksgiving, which was also termed
Seisachtheia. Wachsmuth asserts very confidently that one effect of the Seisachtheia
was to transform the serfs, or villein tenants, into landed proprietors. Of this
there is no proof. Another measure of relief introduced by Solon was the restoration
of all who had been condemned to atimia to their full privileges as citizens,
except those who had been condemned by the Ephetae, the Areiopagus, or the Phylo-basileis,
for murder, homicide, or treason.
It seems that in the first instance nothing more was contemplated
in the investment of Solon with dictatorial power than the relief of the existing
distress. But the success of his Seisachtheia procured for him such confidence
and popularity that he was further charged with the task of entirely remodelling
the constitution. As a preliminary step to his further proceedings he repealed
all the laws of Draco except those relating to bloodshed. With our imperfect knowledge
of the earlier political constitution of the people of Attica it is impossible
to estimate with any certainty the magnitude of the change which Solon effected.
Till it can be settled whether the division into four tribes was restricted to
the Eupatridae, or included the Geomori and Demiurgi, it is impossible to ascertain
in what position the ruling class stood to the unenfranchised demus, and consequently
how far the latter was affected by the legislation of Solon. The opinion of Niebuhr,
which is supported by Mr. Maiden, was, that the division into phylae, phrariae,
and genea, was restricted to the Eupatridae. All analogy confirms this view, which
certainly is not opposed by more numerous or authentic testimonies on the part
of ancient writers than are the universally acknowledged views of Niebuhr with
respect to the Roman curie and tribes. If it be the correct one, the demus in
Attica must have been destitute of any recognized political organization, and
must have profited by the legislation of Solon in very much the same way as the
plebs at Rome did by that of Servius Tullius.
The distinguishing feature of the constitution of Solon was the introduction
of the timocratic principle. The title of citizens to the honours and offices
of the state was regulated (at least in part) not by their nobility of birth,
but by their wealth. All the citizens were distributed into four classes. (If
the tribes included only the Eupatridae, it will be a mistake to speak of these
classes as divisions of the citizens of the tribes; they must have been divisions
in which the Eupatrid tribes and the demus were blended, just as the patricians
and plebeians were in the classes and centuries of Servius Tullius.) The first
class consisted of those who had an annual income of at least 500 medimni of dry
or liquid produce (equivalent to 500 drachmae, a medimnus being reckoned at a
drachma, Plut. Sol. 23), and were called Pentacosiomedimni. The second class consisted
of those whose incomes ranged between 300 and 500 medimni or drachmae, and were
called Hippeis (Hippeis or Hippes), from their being able to keep a horse, and
bound to perform military service as cavalry. The third class consisted of those
whose incomes varied between 200 and 300 medimni or drachmae, and were termed
Zengitae (Zengitai). The fourth class included all whose property fell short of
200 medimni or drachmae. Plutarch (Sol. 18) says that this class bore the name
of Thetes. Grote questions whether that statement is strictly accurate. There
is no doubt, however, that the census of the fourth class was called the Thetic
census (Thetikon telos). The first three classes were liable to direct taxation,
in the form of a graduated income tax. The taxable capital of a member of the
first class was estimated at twelve times his yearly income, whatever that was.
The taxable capital of a member of the second class was estimated at ten times
his yearly income; and that of one of the third class at five times his yearly
income. Thus upon any occasion on which it became necessary to levy a direct tax,
it was assessed at a certain per centage on the taxable capital of each. It is
not correct, however, to say that the taxable property of one of the pentacosiomedimni
was estimated at 6000 drachmae. It was at least that, but it might be more. In
like manner, the taxable capital of one of the Hippeis might range from 3000 to
5000 drachmae, and so on. A direct tax, however, was an extraordinary, and not
an annual payment. The fourth class were exempt from direct taxes, but of course
they, as well as the rest, were liable to indirect taxes.
To Solon was ascribed the institution of the boule, or deliberative
assembly of Four Hundred. Probably he did no more than modify the constitution
of an earlier assembly of the same kind, Plutarch (Sol. 19) says that the four
hundred members of the Boule were elected (epilexamenos perhaps implies an election
by the popular assembly), one hundred from each of the four tribes. It is worth
noting that this is the only direct statement that we have about the Boule of
Solon's time. It must be settled whether the the Boule is an arche, and if it
is, whether it is one of the archai spoken of by Plutarch, and Aristotle (Pol.
ii. 9.2), before it can be affirmed that a member of any of the first three classes
might belong to it, but not one of the fourth, or that it was elected by the popular
assembly. Plutarch does not say that the members of the Boule were appointed only
for a year, or that they must be above thirty years of age. In fact we know nothing
about the Boule, but that its members were taken in equal proportions from the
four genealogical tribes, and that the popular assembly could only entertain propositions
submitted to it by the Boule. Here again we feel greatly the want of more certain
knowledge regarding those genealogical tribes, with the internal organisation
of which Solon does not seem to have interfered. We are strongly inclined to the
opinion that even Mr. Grote represents the Boule of Solon's constitution as a
far less aristocratical assembly than it really was, and that in point of fact
it was an exclusively Eupatrid body, closely analogous to the Roman senate under
the constitution of Servius Tullius. The most authentic and valuable statement
that we have respecting the general nature of Solon's constitutional changes is
that of Solon himself, from which it is clear that nothing can be more erroneous
than to speak of Solon's institutions as being of a democratical character. To
the demus he gave nothing more than a defensive power, sufficient to protect them
from any tyrannous abuse on the part of the noble and wealthy classes, with whose
prerogatives, in other respects, he did not interfere (Demoi men gar edoka toson
kratos hoson eparkein, times out aphelon out eporexamenos: hoi d eichon dunamin
kai chremasin esan agetoi, kai tois ephrasamen meden aeikes echein). According
to the view commonly taken of the four tribes, there seems no reason why a large
proportion of the Boule might not have been members of the demus, for it is not
credible that the Attic demus was entirely included in the lowest class, and if
(according to the common view) the Boule was elected by the ecclesia, where the
fourth class would be the most numerous, it seems that the result must almost
necessarily have been, that the Boule should be little more than the exponent
of the feelings and will of the demus. In the most moderate view of the case the
constitution and working of such an assembly must have been a large infraction
of the previous power and prerogatives of the Eupatrids, and seems equally inconsistent
with the passage of Solon quoted above, and with the statement of Plutarch that
the Boule was designed as a check upon the demus. Both these statements, and all
that we learn of the Innovations of Cleisthenes, become far more intelligible
on the hypothesis that the four Ionian tribes were Eupatrid tribes, and the Boule
of Solon an Eupatrid body, whose action, however, was so far controlled by the
demus, that its measures required the ratification of the popular assembly to
make them valid. Mr.Grote expresses an opinion that before the time of Solon there
was but one aristocratical council, the same which was afterwards distinguished
from the Council of Four Hundred as the Upper Council, or the Council of Areiopagus.
But his remark that the distinctive title of the latter, "Senate of Areiopagus,"
would not be bestowed until the formation by Solon of the second senate or council,
seems at variance with the quotation from one of the laws of Solon himself, by
which Plutarch shows that the council of Areiopagus was not instituted by Solon.
We incline more to the opinion of Dr. Thirlwall, that the Boule of Solon was only
a modification of a previously existing institution.
There was no doubt a public assembly of some kind before the time
of Solon, though probably possessed of but little more power than those which
we find described in the Homeric poems. Solon undoubtedly greatly enlarged its
functions. He gave it the right of electing the archons and other magistrates,
and, what was even more important, made the archons and magistrates accountable
directly to it when their year of office was expired. He also gave it what was
equivalent to a veto upon any proposed measure of the Boule, though it could not
itself originate any measure. Nor does it seem at all likely that, as constituted
by Solon, it even had the power of modifying any measure submitted to it. Every
member of all the four classes might vote in the popular assembly (see Dict. of
Antiq. art. Ecclesia),
and all votes seem to have had the same weight, which forms an important point
of difference between the Ecclesia of Athens and the Comitia Centuriata of Servius
Tullius.
Plutarch remarks that it was an error to attribute to Solon the establishment
of the council of the Areiopagus (see Dict. of Antiq. art. Areiopagus).
He does not seem even to have made any change in its constitution, though he enlarged
its powers, and entrusted it with the general supervision of the institutions
and laws of the state, and the religion and morals of the citizens.
Athenians in the age of unmitigated democracy were extremely fond
of speaking of all their institutions either as originated by Solon, or as the
natural expansion and application of his principles. Some even carried them back
to Theseus. The orators of course were not slow to fill in with this popular prejudice,
and various palpable anachronisms in their statements show how little reliance
can be placed on any accounts of the institutions of Solon that come from such
a source. For instance, the oath of the Heliastic dicasts, which is quoted by
Demosthenes and ascribed to Solon, mentions the Cleisthenean senate of Five hundred.
Several other curious examples of similar anachronisms are collected by Mr. Grote
who has some excellent remarks on the practice of connecting the name of Solon
with the whole political and judicial state of Athens, as it existed between the
age of Pericles and that of Demosthenes; many of the institutions thus referred
to the great legislator, being among the last refinements and elaborations of
the democratical mind of Athens. We entirely coincide in his opinion that the
whole arrangement of the Heliastic courts and the transference to them of the
old judicial powers of the archons bespeaks a state of things utterly inconsistent
with the known relations of the age of Solon. " It would be a marvel, such as
nothing short of strong direct evidence would justify us in believing, that in
an age when even partial democracy was yet untried, Solon should conceive the
idea of such institutions: it would be a marvel still greater, that the half-emancipated
Thetes and small proprietors for whom he legislated -- yet trembling under the
rod of the Eupatrid archons, and utterly inexperienced in collective business
-- should have been found suddenly competent to fulfil these ascendent functions,
such as the citizens of conquering Athens in the days of Pericles -- full of the
sentiment of force, and actively identifying themselves with the dignity of their
community -- became gradually competent, and not more than competent, to exercise
with effect." The term Heliaea he thinks was in the time of Solon no more than
the name of the popular assembly, which is in fact the original meaning of the
word. The number of 6000, which was that of the whole body of dicasts in after
times, had reference to the Cleisthenean division into 10 tribes. It is to be
observed, that Plutarch, who after all is our best authority, says nothing of
any such dicastic organisation as that of the later Heliaea. Mr. Grote even questions
the statement of Plutarch, that Solon allowed an appeal to the ecclesia from the
sentence of an archon, considering that Plutarch has been misled by the recollection
of the Roman provocatio.
The idea of the periodical revision of his laws by the Nomothetae
being a part of Solon's plan is even in contradiction to. the statements of our
authorities. The institution of the Nomothetae was one of the most ultra-democratical
that can well be imagined. It was a jury appointed by lot out of a body of dicasts
who were appointed by lot, with power to rescind any law with which any one could
find sufficient fault to induce an assembly of the people to entertain the idea
of subjecting it to revision. It is to be observed too that Demosthenes and Aeschines
mention, in connection with this procedure, as one of the regulations appointed
by Solon to be observed by the proposer of a new or amended law, that he should
post up his proposed law before the Eponymi, that is, the statues of the ten heroes
from whom the ten tribes of Cleisthenes derived their names.
Besides the arrangement of the general political relations of the
people Solon was the author of a great variety of special laws, which do not seem
to have been arranged in any systematic manner. Those relating to debtors and
creditors have been already referred to. Several had for their object the encouragement
of trade and manufactures. Foreign settlers were not to be naturalized as citizens
unless they carried on some industrious pursuit. If a father did not teach his
son some trade or profession, the son was not liable to maintain his father in
his old age. The council of Areiopagus had a general power to punish idleness.
Solon forbade the exportation of all produce of the Attic soil except olive oil.
The impulse which he gave to the various branches of industry carried on in towns
had eventually an important bearing upon the development of the democratic spirit
in Athens. Solon was the first who gave to those who died childless the power
of disposing of their property by will. He enacted several laws relating to marriage,
especially with regard to heiresses. Other regulations were intended to place
restraints upon the female sex with regard to their appearance in public, and
especially to repress frantic and excessive manifestations of grief at funerals.
An adulterer taken in the act might be killed on the spot, but the violation of
a free woman was only punishable by a fine of one hundred drachmae, the seduction
of a free woman by a fine of twenty drachmae. Other laws will be found in Plutarch
respecting the speaking evil either of the dead or of the living, respecting the
use of wells, the planting of trees in conterminous properties, the destruction
of noxious animals, &c. The rewards which he appointed to be given to victors
at the Olympic and Isthmian games are for that age unusually large (500 drachmae
to the former and 100 to the latter). The law relating to theft, that the thief
should restore twice the value of the thing stolen, seems to have been due to
Solon. (see Dict. of Ant. art. klopes
dike). He also either established or regulated the public dinners at the Prytaneium.
One of the most curious of his regulations was that which denounced atimia against
any citizen, who, on the outbreak of a sedition, remained neutral. On the design
of this enactment to shorten as much as possible any suspension of legal authority,
and its connection with the ostracism, the reader will find some ingenious and
able remarks in Grote. The laws of Solon were inscribed on wooden rollers axones)
and triangular tablets (kurbeis), in the boustrophedon fashion, and were set up
at first in the Acropolis, afterwards in the Prytaneium.
The Athenians were also indebted to Solon for some rectification of
the calendar. Diogenes Laertius (i. 59) says that "he made the Athenians regulate
their days according to the moon," that is to say, he introduced some division
of time agreeing more accurately with the course of the moon. Plutarch gives the
following very confused account of the matter: "Since Solon observed the irregularity
of the moon, and saw that its motion does not coincide completely either with
the setting or with the rising of the sun, but that it often on the same day both
overtakes and passes the sun, he erdained that this day should be called hene
kai nea, considering that the portion of it which preceded the conjunction belonged
to the month that was ending, the rest to that which was beginning. The succeeding
day he called noumenia." According to the scholiast on Aristophanes Solon introduced
the practice of reckoning the days from the twentieth onwards in the reverse order.
Ideler gathers from the notices that we have on the subject, that Solon was the
first who introduced among the Greeks months of 29 and 30 days alternately. He
also thinks that this was accompanied by the introduction of the Trieteris or
two-year cycle.
We have more than one statement to the effect that Solon exacted from
the government and people of Athens a solemn oath, that they would observe his
laws without alteration for a certain space -- 10 years according to Herodotus,
-- 100 years according to other accounts. According to a story told by Plutarch,
Solon was himself aware that he had been compelled to leave many imperfections
in his system and code. He is said to have spoken of his laws as being not the
best, but the best which the Athenians would have received. After he had completed
his task. being, we are told, greatly annoyed and troubled by those who came to
him with all kinds of complaints, suggestions or criticisms about his laws, in
order that he might not himself have to propose any change, he absented himself
from Athens for ten years, after he had obtained the oath above referred to. He
first visited Egypt, and conversed with two learned Egyptian priests -- Psenophis
of Heliopolis, and Sonchis of Sais. The stories which they told him about the
submerged island of Atlantis, and the war carried on against it by Athens 9000
years before his time, induced him to make it the subject of an epic poem, which,
however, he did not complete, and of which nothing now remains. From Egypt he
proceeded to Cyprus, and was received with great distinction by Philocyprus, king
of the little town of Aepeia. Solon persuaded the king to remove from the old
site, which was on an inconvenient and precipitous elevation, and build a new
town on the plain. He himself assisted in laying out the plan. The new settlement
was called Soli, in honour of the illustrious visitor. A fragment of an elegiac
poem addressed by Solon to Philocyprus is preserved by Plutarch. We learn from
Herodotus that in this poem Solon bestowed the greatest praise upon Philocyprus.
The statement of the blundering Diogenes Laertius that Solon founded Soli in Cilicia,
and died in Cyprus, may be rejected without hesitation.
It is impossible not to regret that the stern laws of chronology compel
us to set down as a fiction the beautiful story so beautifully told by Herodotus
(i. 29--45, 86; comp. Plut. Sol. 27, 28) of the interview between Solon and Croesus,
and the illustration furnished in the history of the latter of the truth of the
maxim of the Athenian sage, that worldly prosperity is precarious, and that no
man's life can be pronounced happy till he has reached its close without a reverse
of fortune (see Croesus).
For though it may be made out that it is just within the limits of possibility
that Solon and Croesus may have met a few years before B. C. 560, that could not
have been an interview consistent with any of the circumstances mentioned by Herodotus,
and without which the story of the interview would be entirely devoid of any interest
that could make it worth while attempting to establish its possibility. The whole
pith and force of the story would vanish if any interview of an earlier date be
substituted for that which the episode in Herodotus requires, namely one taking
place when Croesus was king, at the height of his power, when he had a son old
enough to be married and command armies, and immediately preceding the turn of
his fortunes, not more than seven or eight years before the capture of Sardis.
" In my judgment," observes Mr. Grote, "this is an illustrative tale, in which
certain real characters --Solon and Croesus, -- and certain real facts -- the
great power and succeeding ruin of the former by the victorious arm of Cyrus,
together with certain facts altogether fictitious, such as the two sons of Croesus,
the Phrygian Adrastus and his history, the hunting of the mischievous wild boar
on Mount Olympus, the ultimate preservation of Croesus, &c. are put together so
as to convey an impressive moral lesson."
During the absence of Solon the old oligarchical dissensions were
renewed, the Pedieis being headed by Lycurgus, the Parali by Megacles, the Diacrii
by Peisistratus. These dissensions were approaching a crisis when Solon returned
to Athens, and had proceeded to such a length that he found himself unable, to
repress them. For an account of the successful machinations of Peisistratus, and
the unsuccessful endeavours of Solon to counteract them, the reader is referred
to the article Peisistratus.
The tyrant, after his usurpation, is said to have paid considerable court to Solon,
and on various occasions to have solicited his advice, which Solon did not withhold.
We do not know certainly how long Solon survived the overthrow of the constitution.
According to Phanias of Lesbos (Plut. Sol. 32), he died in less than two years
after. There seems nothing to hinder us from accepting the statement that he had
reached the age of eighty. There was a story current in antiquity that, by his
own directions, his ashes were collected and scattered round the island of Salamis.
Plutarch discards this story as absurd. He himself remarks, however, that Aristotle,
as well as other authors of credit, repeated it. Diogenes Laertius quotes some
lines of Cratinus in which it is alluded to. The singularity of it is rather an
argument in its favour.
Of the poems of Solon several fragments remain. They do not indicate
any great degree of imaginative power, but the style of them seems to have been
vigorous and simple. Those that were called forth by special emergencies appear
to have been marked by no small degree of energy. Solon is said to have attempted
a metrical version of his laws, and a couple of lines are quoted as the commencement
of this composition; but nothing more of it remains. Here and there, even in the
fragments that remain, sentiments are expressed of a somewhat more jovial kind
than the rest. These are probably relics of youthful effusions. Some traced them,
as well as Solon's some-what luxurious style of living, to the bad habits which
he had contracted while following the profession of a trader. The fragments of
Solon are usually incorporated in the collections of the Greek gnomic poets, as,
for example, in those of Sylburg, Brunck, and Boissonade. They are also inserted
in Bergk's Poetae Lyrici Graeci. There is also a separate edition by Bach (Lugd.
Bat. 1825). The select correspondence of Solon with Periander, Peisistratus, Epimenides,
and Croesus, with which Diogenes Laertius has favoured us, is of course spurious.
Respecting the connection of Solon with the arrangement of the Homeric
poems, see the article Homerus.
The story told by Plutarch respecting Solon and Thespis cannot be
true, since dramatic entertainments were not introduced into Athens till 20 years
(B. C. 535) after Solon's death. It is related that Solon asked Thespis, after
witnessing one of his pieces, if he was not ashamed of telling such untruths before
so large an audience. Thespis replied, that as it was done for amusement only,
there was no harm in saying and doing such things. Which answer incensed Solon
so much that he struck the ground vehemently with his staff, and said that if
such amusement as that were to be praised and honoured, men would soon begin to
regard covenants as nothing more than a joke.
An inscription on a statue set up in honour of Solon spoke of him as born in Salamis
(Diog. Laert. i. 62). This can hardly have been the case, as Salamis was not incorporated
with Attica when he was born. The statue was set up a long time after Solon's
death, and probably by the Salaminians themselves.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
ΑΘΗΝΑΙ (Αρχαία πόλη) ΕΛΛΑΔΑ
Lamia, a celebrated Athenian courtezan, daughter of Cleanor. She commenced her
career as a flute-player on the stage, in which profession she attained considerable
celebrity, but afterwards abandoned it for that of a hetaera. We know not by what
accident she found herself on board of the fleet of Ptolemy at the great sea-fight
off Salamis (B. C. 306), but it was on that occasion that she fell into the hands
of the young Demetrius, over whom she quickly obtained the most unbounded influence.
Though then already past her prime, she so completely captivated the young prince,
that her sway continued unbroken for many years, notwithstanding the numerous
rivals with whom she had to contend. It was apparently not so much to her beauty
as to her wit and talents that she owed her power: the latter were celebrated
by the comic writers as well as the historians of the period, and many anecdotes
concerning her have been transmitted to us by Plutarch and Athenaeus. Like most
persons of her class, she was noted for her profusion, and the magnificence of
the banquets which she gave to Demetrius was celebrated even in those times of
wanton extravagance. In one instance, however, she is recorded to have made a
better use of the treasures which were lavished upon her by her lover with almost
incredible profusion, and built a splendid portico for the citizens of Sicyon,
probably at the period when their city was in great measure rebuilt by Demetrius.
Among the various flatteries invented by the Athenians to please Demetrius was
that of consecrating a temple in honour of Lamia, under the title of Aphrodite,
and their example was followed by the Thebans (Plut. Demetr. 16, 19, 24, 25, 27;
Athen. iii., iv., vi., xiii., xiv.; Aelian. V. H. xii. 17, xiii. 9). According
to Athenaeus, she had a daughter by Demetrius, who received the name of Phila.
Diogenes Laertius (v. 76) mentions that Demetrius Phalereus also cohabited with
a woman named Lamia, whom he calls an Athenian of noble birth. If this story be
not altogether a mistake, which seems not improbable, the Lamia meant must be
distinct from the subject of the present article.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Leaena, (Leaina). The mistress of Aristogiton or of Harmodius. On the murder of Hipparchus she was tortured, but refused to betray her friends, and, according to one account, bit off her own tongue to make any revelation impossible. She died of her sufferings, and in her memory the Athenians erected on the Acropolis a bronze lioness (leaina) without a tongue.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Εταίρα του Αριστογείτονα. Τη βασάνισε μέχρι θανάτου ο Ιππίας για να μάθει απ' αυτή ποιοι ήταν οι συνωμότες που κρύβονταν πίσω απ' τη δολοφονία του Ιππαρχου. Επειδή εκείνη δε λύγισε μπροστά στην απειλή του θανάτου και δεν ομολόγησε, οι Αθηναίοι έστησαν προς τιμήν της χάλκινο άγαλμα λέαινας στην Ακρόπολη (Παυσ. 1,23,2).
Thais, a celebrated Athenian hetaera, who accompanied Alexander the Great on his
expedition into Asia, or at least was present on various occasions during that
period. Her name is best known from the story of her having stimulated the conqueror
during a great festival at Persepolis, to set fire to the palace of the Persian
kings: but this anecdote, immortalized as it has been by Dryden's famous ode,
appears to rest on the sole authority of Cleitarchus, one of the least trustworthy
of the historians of Alexander, and is in all probability a mere fable (Cleitarchus,
ap. Athen. xiii.; Diod. xvii. 72; Plut. Alex. 38; Curt. v. 7.3-7).
After the death of Alexander, Thais attached herself to Ptolemy Lagi,
by whom she became the mother of two sons, Leontiscus and Lagus, and of a daughter,
Eirene. The statement of Athenaeus that she was actually married to the Egyptian
king may be doubted, but he seems to have been warmly attached to her, and brought
up their common children in almost princely style (Athen. xiii.). Many anecdotes
are recorded of her wit and readiness in repartee, for which she seems to have
been as distinguished as for her beauty.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Theodota (Theodote), an Athenian courtezan, and one of the most celebrated persons
of that class in Greece, is introduced as a speaker in one of the dialogues is
Xenophon's Memorabilia (iii. 1 ), where some information is given respecting her
(Comp. Ath. v). She at last attached herself to Alcibiades, and, after his murder,
she performed his funeral rites (Ath. xiii).
Agatharchus (Agatharchos), a Athenian artist, said by Vitruvius (Praef. ad lib.
vii.) to have invented scene-painting, and to have painted a scene for a tragedy
which Aeschylus exhibited. As this appears to contradict Aristotle's assertion
(Poet. 4.16), that scene-painting was introduced by Sophocles, some scholars understand
Vitruvius to mean merely, that Agatharchus constructed a stage (Compare Hor. Ep
ad. Pis. 279: et modicis instraxit pulpita tignis). But the context shews clearly
that perspective painting must be meant, for Vitruvius goes on to say, that Democritus
and Anaxagoras, carrying out the principles laid down in the treatise of Agatharchus,
wrote on the same subject, shewing how, in drawing, the lines ought to be made
to correspond, according to a natural proportion, to the figure which would be
traced out on an imaginary intervening plane by a pencil of rays proceeding from
the eye, as a fixed point of sight, to the several points of the object viewed.
It was probably not till towards the end of Aeschylus's career that
scene-painting was introduced, and not till the time of Sophocles that it was
generally made use of; which may account for what Aristotle says.
There was another Greek painter of the name of Agatharchus, who was
a native of the island of Samos.... Some scholars (as Bentley, Bottiger, and Meyer)
have supposed him to be the same as the contemporary of Aeschylus, who, however,
must have preceded him by a good half century.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Alexander, an Athenian painter, one of whose productions is extant, painted on
a marble tablet which bears his name. (Winckelmann, vol. ii. p. 47, v. p. 120,
ed. Eiselein.) There was a son of king Perseus of this name, who was a skilful
toreutes. (Plut. Aemil. Paul. 37). There was also a M. Lollius Alexander, an engraver,
whose name occurs in an inscription in Doni, p. 319, No. 14.
Antidotus, an encaustic painter, the disciple of Euphranor, and teacher of Nicias the Athenian. His works were few, but carefully executed, and his colouring was somewhat harsh (severior). He flourished about B. C. 336. (Plin. xxxv. 40. 27, 28.)
Apollodorus (Apollodoros). A Greek painter of Athens, about B.C. 420, the first who graduated light and shade in his pictures, whence he received the name of Sciagraphus (shadowpainter). This invention entitled him to be regarded as the founder of a new style, which aimed at producing illusion by pictorial means, and which was carried on further by his younger contemporary Zeuxis (Pliny , Pliny H. N.xxxv. 60).
With Apollodorus of Athens a new epoch is commenced, of such importance that Pliny
says of him that he was the first to give the appearance of reality to his pictures
(exprimere species), and to bring the brush into just repute. The great discovery
here alluded to is the invention of aerial perspective, the treatment of different
planes, the right management of chiaroscuro and the fusion of colours (Plut. de
gloria Ath. 2, exeuron phthoran kai apochrosin skias), so that he earned the title
of skiagraphos, and Pliny can say that before him no easel picture (tabula) had
existed fit to charm the eyes of the spectator. Doubtless the school of Polygnotus
had paved the way for this change: such a detail as that in the Vision of Hades
by Polygnotus, representing the river of Acheron with fish and pebbly bed seen
through the water his practice of placing his figures on different, levels; and
the figures on upper levels half hidden by a line of hill,--these seem to bespeak
a step immediately preceding that of true perspective; and it was Apollodorus
who took this step. The scarcity of actual records of his works prevents our knowing
whether his great fame (ho kleinos an' Hellada pasan, says Nicomachus the painter-historian)
is due to their individual excellence as much as to the value of his new discovery.
Two of his works are recorded; a priest in prayer, and an Ajax struck by lightning,
at Pergamon. This last picture has been quoted as an example of the pictorial
treatment of Apollodorus; as if it had shown Ajax in his ship, with startling
effects of light and shade. Furtwangler, however, is probably right in suggesting
that it was not Ajax, but the picture itself, that had suffered disaster; the
same thing had happened to a painting of Parrhasius: Pliny records (xxxv. § 69)
that a painting of this artist at Rhodes had been thrice struck by lightning and
not consumed (miraculo). Possibly the Ajax picture also contained the picture
of Odysseus, of which the Scholiast to Il. x. 265 says that this artist was the
first to represent him wearing a seaman's cap, pilos (protos egrapse pilon Odussei).
His date is specially given by Pliny (xxxv. § 60) as the 93rd Olympiad (B.C. 408-405);
but if we may judge from his relations with Zeuxis, it must go back considerably
before that time. It is from this age that the establishment of easel-painting
may be supposed to date; for although paintings on slabs of marble and terra-cotta
were naturally in vogue from early times, it is only now that they begin to occupy
the front place, hitherto held by the monumental paintings of Polygnotus; and
this is the meaning of Pliny's statement, neque ante eum tabula ullius, &c.; apart
from which, Pliny's sources of information seem to deal with easel pictures alone,
and to practically ignore the great epoch of monumental painting.
During the period which now terminates, Athens takes the lead in painting,
under Polygnotus and Apollodorus, as she had done under Pheidias in sculpture.
Though the artists who brought this about were not all Athenians by birth, Athens
was the chief seat of their industry; and even afterwards, when by the Peloponnesian
wars Athens had lost her supremacy, she still continued an important centre, although
the art of painting now branches off into other directions, and is no longer so
centralised. It has been customary to consider the sequence of the new schools
as (1) Ionian, (2) Sicyonian, and (3) Theban-Attic. But since Athens continues
to have an important share, it is better to accept two main branches only, viz.
(1) the Helladic, of which Athens is the centre, as opposed to (2) the Asiatic.
This extract is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited July 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Apollodorus. A painter, a native of Athens, flourished about 40, B. C. With him
commences a new period in the history of the art. He gave a dramatic effect to
the essential forms of Polygnotus, without actually departing from them as models,
by adding to them a representation of persons and objects as they really exist,
not, however, individually, but in classes: "primus species exprimere instituit"
(Plin. xxxv. 36.1). This feature in the works of Apollodorus is thus explained
by Fuseli (Lect. i.): " The acuteness of his taste led him to discover that, as
all men were connected by one general form, so they were separated, each by some
predominant power, which fixed character and bound them to a class: that in proportion
as this specific power partook of individual peculiarities, the farther it was
removed from a share in that harmonious system which constitutes nature and consists
in a due balance of all its parts. Thence he drew his line of imitation, and personified
the central form of the class to which his object belonged, and to which the rest
of its qualities administered, without being absorbed: agility was not suffered
to destroy firmness, solidity, or weight; nor strength and weight agility; elegance
did not degenerate to effeminancy, or grandeur swell to hugeness." Fuseli justly
adds that these principles of style seem to have been exemplified in his two works
of which Pliny has given us the titles, a worshipping priest, and Ajax struck
by lightning, the former being the image of piety, the latter of impiety and blasphemy.
A third picture by Apollodorus is mentioned by the Scholiast on the Plutus of
Aristophanes (v. 385) Apollodorus made a great advance in colouring.
He invented chiaroscuro (phthoran kai apochrosin skias, Plut. de Gloria Athen.
2). Earlier painters, Dionysius for example (Plut. Timol. 36), had attained to
the quality which the Greeks called tonos, that is, a proper gradation of light
and shade, but Apollodorus was the tirst who heightened this effect by the gradation
of tints, and thus obtained what modern painters call tone. Hence he was called
skiagraphos (Hesychius, s. v.). Pliny says that his pictures were the first that
rivetted the eyes, and that he was the first who conferred due honour upon the
pencil, plainly because the cestrum was an inadequate instrument for the production
of those effects of light and shade which Apollodorus produced by the use of the
pencil. In this state he delivered the art to Zeuxis, upon whom he is said to
have written verses, complaining that lie had robbed him of his art. Plutarch
says, that Apollodorus inscribed upon his works the verse which Pliny attributes
to Zeuxis:
Momesetai tis mallon e mimesetai.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Asclepiodorus. An Athenian painter, a contemporary of Apelles, who considered him to excel himself in the symmetry and correctness of his drawing (Plin. H. N. xxxv. 10. s. 36.21). Plutarch (de Gloria Athen. 2) ranks him with Euphranor and Nicias.
Cratinus, a painter at Athens, whose works in the Pompeion, the hall containing all things used in processions, are mentioned by Pliny (H. N. xxxv. 40.33, 43).
Hippeus, a painter, whose picture at Athens of the marriage of Peirithous is mentioned by Polemon. (Athen.xi.)
Metrodorus of Athens, a painter and philosopher, of such distinction, that when Aemilius Paullus, after his victory over Perseus (B. C. 168), requested the Athenians to send him their most approved philosopher, to educate his children, and their best painter, to represent his triumph, they selected Metrodorus as the most competent man for both offices; and Paullus concurred in their opinion. (Plin. H. N. xxxv. 11. s. 40.30.)
Ζωγράφος και γλύπτης. Εργο του ήταν η ζωγραφική αναπαράσταση των Αργοναυτών στο Ιερό των Διοσκούρων στην Αθήνα (Κεραμεικός) (Παυσ. 1,18,1).
Micon was himself a sculptor. He is the only great painter of whom we have as yet a direct monumental record; and, curiously enough, this record is concerned, not with a picture, but with a statue. At Olympia a square base was found (Lowy, Inschr. Gr. Bildh. No. 41) which had supported a bronze statue; the inscription showed that this statue had recorded the victory in the pancration of Callias, son of Didymion, an Athenian; and added Mikon epoiesen Athenaios. This very statue is described by Pausanias (vi. 6, 1), who gives further in another passage (v. 9, 3) the date of Callias' victory as the 77th Olympiad (B.C. 472-469); the statue must have been set up soon after this date. Another inscribed base (Lowy, No. 42), found at Athens, records a statue made by Micon, son of Phanomachus, thus correcting the form of the name (Phanochus) given in the Scholiast to Aristoph. Lysist. 679. These statues of Athletes remind us of Pliny's statement that Micon was specially esteemed for this class of work ( Micon athletis spectatur ).
Of Micon's birth and life we know otherwise very little. In spite of the evidence afforded by the Olympia base, he has usually been considered as of un-Attic origin, on account of the Ionic character of his writing. But the evidence of his work all points to his being an Athenian; the subjects both of his sculpture and of his painting are Attic, and it is here that his activity was chiefly displayed. Six of his works are known to us, viz. (1) Battle of Amazons, and (2) Battle of Marathon, both in the Stoa Poikile; (3) an Argonautic scene, possibly the funeral games of Pelias, in the Anakeion; (4) Battle of Amazons, (5) Battle of Centaurs, and (6) The Recognition of Theseus, all in the Theseion. In describing this last, Pausanias goes on to relate the end of Theseus; and this has generally been considered as the description of a seventh picture: Klein, however, shows good reason for the opinion that this is merely an excursus of the garrulous topographer, and must not be included among Micon's paintings. The close connexion existing between the great artists of this period, and the probable similarity of their style, is shown in the fact that the Marathon ascribed to Micon. (No. 2) was probably painted by Panaenus, and that some of the works in the Theseion are in one author attributed to Polygnotus.
This extract is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited July 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Micon (Mikon), of Athens, the son of Phanochus, was a very distinguished painter
and statuary, contemporary with Polygnotus, about B. C. 460. He is mentioned,
with Polygnotus, as the first who used for a colour the light Attic ochre (sil),
and the black made from burnt vine twigs (Plin. H. N. xxxiii. 13. 56, xxxv. 6.
25). Varro mentions him as one of those ancient painters, by departing from whose
conventional forms, the later artists, such as Apelles and Protogenes, attained
to their great excellence. The following pictures by him are mentioned:
(1.) In the Poccile, at Athens, where, Pliny informs us (xxxv. 9. 35), Polygnotus
painted gratuitously, but Micon for pay, he painted the battle of Theseus and
the Athenians with the Amazons (Schol. ad Aristoph. Lysist. 879; Paus. i. 15.2).
(2.) According to some writers, Micon had a hand in the great picture of the battle
of Marathon, in the Poecile [comp. Panaenus
and Polygnotus],
and was fined thirty minae for having made the barbarians larger than the Greeks
(Sopater, in Ald. Rhet. Graec; Harpocr. s. v.). The celebrated figure, in that
picture, of a dog which had followed its master to the battle, was attributed
by some to Micon, by others to Polygnotus (Aelian, N. A. vii. 38).
(3.) He painted three of the walls of the temple of Theseus. On the one wall was
the battle of the Athenians and the Amazons: on another the fight between the
Centaurs and the Lapithae, where Theseus had already killed a centaur (no doubt
in the centre of the composition), while between the other combatants the conflict
was still equal: the story represented on the third side, Pausanias was unable
to make out (Paus. i. 17.2). Micon seems to have been assisted by Polygnotus in
these works.
(4.) The temple of the Dioscuri was adorned with paintings by Polygnotus and Micon:
the former painted the rape of the daughters of Leucippus; the latter, the departure
(or, as Bittiger supposes, the return) of Jason and the Argonauts (Paus. i. 18.1).
Micon was particularly skilful in painting horses (Aelian, N. A. iv.
50); for instance, in his picture of the Argonauts, the part on which he bestowed
the greatest care was Acastus and his horses. The accurate knowledge, however,
of Simon, who was both an artist and a writer on horsemanship, detected an error
in Micon's horses; he had painted lashes on the lower eye-lids (Pollux, ii. 71):
another version of the story attributes the error to Apelles. (Aelian, l. c.)
There is a tale that in one of his pictures Micon painted a certain
Butes crushed beneath a rock, so that only his head was visible, and hence arose
the proverb, applied to things quickly accomplished, Bouten Mikon edraphen, or
Thatton e Boutes (Zenob. Proverb. i. 11, Append. e Vatie. i. 12). He was a statuary
as well as a painter, and lie made the statue of the Olympic victor Callias, who
conquered in the pancratium in the 77th Olympiad. (Paus. vi. 6.1; comp. v. 9.3).
The date exactly agrees with the time of Micon, and Pausanias expressly says,
Mikon epoieoen ho zodraphns. Bottiger, in the course of a valuable section on
Micon, ascribes this statue to Micon of Syracuse (No. 3), to whom consequently
he assigns the wrong date.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Diores, a painter, who is mentioned by Varro with Micon, the contemporary of Polygnotus, in such a manner as to imply that he lived at the same time. The text of the passage, however, is so corrupt, that the name is not made out with certainty. (Varro, L. L. ix. 12)
Nicias (Nikias).
1. An Athenian painter, a son of Nicomedes, and a pupil of Euphranor's pupil Antidotus. He lived during the latter half of the fourth century B.C., and was a younger contemporary of Praxiteles. The latter, when asked which of his works in marble he specially approved, was in the habit of answering, "Those that have been touched by the hand of Nicias"--such importance did he attribute to that artist's method of tinting, or "touching up with colour," circumlitio (Pliny , Pliny H. N.xxxv. 133). He painted mainly in encaustic, and was especially distinguished by his skill in making the figures on his pictures appear to stand out of the work by means of a proper treatment of light and shade. He was celebrated for his painting of female figures and other subjects which were favourable to the full expression of dramatic emotions, such as the rescue of Andromeda and the questioning of the dead by Odysseus in the lower world. This latter picture he presented to the city of his birth, after Ptolemy I. had offered sixty talents (about $60,000) for it (Pliny , Pliny H. N.xxxv. 130-133). He insisted on the importance of an artist's choosing noble themes, such as cavalry engagements and battles at sea, instead of frittering away his skill on birds and flowers (Demet. De Elocutione, 76).
2. The younger, an Athenian painter, son of Nicomedes, and pupil of Euphranor. He began to practise his art about B.C. 320. Nicias is said to have been the first artist who used burnt ochre in his paintings (Pliny , Pliny H. N.xxxv. 6Pliny H. N., 20).
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited July 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Nicias, a celebrated Athenian painter, was the son of Nicomedes,and the disciple
of Antidotus (Plin. xxxv. 11. s. 40.28). On this ground Silligargues that since
Antidotus was the pupil of Euphranor, who flourished about the 104th Olympiad,
Nicias must have flourished about B. C. 310. And this agrees with the story of
Plutarch about the unwillingness of Nicias to sell one of his pictures to Ptolemy,
king of Egypt, if we suppose Ptolemy I. to be meant (Non poss. suav. viv. sec.
Epicureos, 11). On the other hand, Pliny tells us that Nicias assisted Praxiteles
in statuis circumlinendis, that is, covering marble statues with a sort of encaustic
varnish, by which a beautifully smooth and tinted surface was given to them (see
Dict. of Antiq. PAINTING,
§ viii.). Now Praxiteles flourished in the 104th Olympiad, B. C. 364-360. We must
therefore either suppose that Nicias thus painted the statues of Praxiteles a
considerable time after they were made, which is not very probable in itself,
and is opposed to Pliny's statement; or else that Pliny has confounded two different
artists, indeed he himself suggests that there may have been two artists of the
name. But, plausible as this argument is, it is not conclusive, for the division
of a master and pupil by seven or eight Olympiads is an arbitrary assumption.
A pupil may be, and often is, nearly the same age as his teacher, and sometimes
even older. Again, Pliny's dates are very loosely given; we can never tell with
certainty whether they are meant to mark the early or the middle or the latter
part of an artist's career. In the case of Praxiteles, we know that he executed
great works considerably later than the date assigned by Pliny. Supposing then
that Nicias, as a young man. assisted Praxiteles when in the height of his fame
(and it is not likely that Nicias would have been so employed after he had obtained
an independent reputation), and that his refusal to sell his picture to Ptolemy
occurred when he was old, and had gained both reputation and wealth enough, there
remains no positive anachronism in supposing only one artist of this name.
Nicias was the most celebrated disciple of Euphranor. He was extremely
skilful in painting female figures, careful in his management of light and shade,
and in making his figures stand out of the picture (Plin. l. c.). The following
works of his are enumerated by Pliny (l. c.) : they seem to have been all painted
in encaustic. A painting of Nemea, sitting on a lion, holding a palm in her hand,
with an old man standing by with a staff, over whose head was a picture of a biga.
This last point is not very intelligible; Lessing has endeavoured to clear it
up (Laocoon): Nicias placed on this picture the inscription, Nikias enekanden:
the picture was carried from Asia to Rome by Silanus, and Augustns had it fastened
into the wall of the curia which he dedicated in the comitium (Plin. H. N. xxxv.
4. s. 10). Father Liber in the temple of Concord. A Hyacinthus, painted as a beautiful
youth, to signify the love of Apollo for him (comp. Paus. iii. 19.4); Augustus
was so delighted with the picture that he carried it to Rome after the taking
of Alexandria, and Tiberius dedicated it in the temple of Augustus. A Diana, probably
at Ephesus, as Pliny mentions in immediate connection with it the sepulchre of
Megabyzus, the priest of Diana, at Ephesus, as painted by Nicias. Lastly, what
appears to have been his master-piece, a representation of the infernal regions
as described by Homer (Nekuia, Necromantia Homeri); this was the picture which
Nicias refused to sell to Ptolemy, athough the price offered for it was sixty
talents (Plutarch, loc. sup. cit.): Pliny tells the same story of Attalus, which
is a manifest anachronism. Plutarch also tells that Nicias was so absorbed in
the work during its progress, that he used often to have to ask his servants whether
he had dined. From the above pictures, Pliny distinguishes the following as grandes
picturas: Calypso, Io, Andromeda, an admirable Alexander (Paris), and a sitting
Calypso, in the porticoes of Pompey. Some pictures of animals were attributed
to him: he was particularly happy in painting doges.
Pausanias (vii. 22.4) gives a full description of his paintings in
a tomb outside Tritaea in Achaea.
There is an interesting passage in Demetrius Phalereus (Eloc. 76),
giving the opinion of Nicias respecting the art of painting, in which he insists
on the importance of choosing subjects of some magnitude, and not throwing away
skill and labour on minute objects, such as birds and flowers. The proper subjects
for a painter, he says, are battles both on land and on sea; in which the various
attitudes and expressions of horses and of men afford rich materials for the painter:
the subject of the action was, he thought, as important a part of painting as
the story or plot was of poetry.
Nicias was the first painter who used burnt ochre, the discovery of
which was owing to an accident (Plin. H. N. xxxv. 6.20). He had a disciple, Omphalion,
who was formerly his slave and favourite (Paus. iv. 31.9). He himself was buried
at Athens, by the road leading to the academy (Paus. i. 29.15).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
With Nicias of Athens we are brought fully into the Alexandrine age. Plutarch narrates a story of his having refused to sell one of his pictures (the Nekyia) at sixty talents to king Ptolemy; on the other hand, we hear of him as a contemporary of Praxiteles: so that his sphere of activity must have lain between about B.C. 340-300. From a statement in Demetr. Phaler. (de Elocut. 76) we gather that he tried to bring about a reaction in style against the follies of contemporary artists, who frittered away their art in painting birds and flower pieces; and laid down the principle of the importance of choosing a fine subject, such as a battle-piece. Following this principle himself, we find him occupied with more than one subject of the Polygnotan school: the Nemea, probably a personification of the Nemean games, whom he represented bearing a palm and seated on a lion; and a Vision of Hades (Pliny, xxxv. § 132, necyomantea Homeri), the picture which he refused to Ptolemy and presented to Athens. It is interesting in connexion with this last to note that an ancient treatment of this subject has come down to us in the famous Odyssey landscapes excavated on the Esquiline in 1848-50 (Woermann, Antiken Odysseelandschaften): these six pictures are almost exact illustrations of the Homeric text (Od. x. 80 to xi. 600), and though decorative in idea are examples of complete landscape painting, showing due observance of aerial perspective. Their execution dates, as the masonry of the walls on which they were found shows, from the last years of the Republic; but from their style the designs may probably be referred to the Hellenistic period. Among the grandis tabulas of Nicias, Pliny mentions an Io, a subject of which several replicas exist at Pompeii; it is probable that the largest and finest of these, found on the Palatine, reproduces the general form of the composition of Nicias (see Woltmann, p. 56). Besides his large pictures, principally of heroines ( diligentissime mulieres pinxit ), he seems to have worked in encaustic the Nemea was a specimen of this technique, on which the artist inscribed the statement that he had burned it in (inussisse); and to this style we may perhaps refer his pictures of animals and dogs, as well as the chiaroscuro and quality of relief for which he is praised. Connected also with his encaustic work was doubtless the circumlitio of the statues of Praxiteles which has already been dealt with on p. 395; and the painted scene on the sepulchral monument at Triteia which Pausanias describes (vii. 22, 6).
This extract is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited July 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Αδελφός του Φειδία. Είχε ζωγραφίσει τις επιφάνειες ανάμεσα στα πόδια του θρόνου του αγάλματος του Δία στην Ολυμπία (Παυσ. 5,11,5).
Panaenus, if, as is nearly certain, he was the brother of Pheidias, probably in that case began his training under their father Charmides, who must have been also a painter. His personality is overshadowed somewhat by the superior claims of his greater brother; but the fact of his being chosen to paint the Battle of Marathon, and to decorate the throne rails and walls of the great temple of Olympian Zeus, show the high esteem in which his art was held. From the description which Pausanias gives (v. 11, 5) of his Olympian paintings, it is evident that his method corresponded to that of his contemporaries already described. With him we hear for the first time of those contests of painters which seem to have attracted the great masters in subsequent times to exhibit competitive works usually at the great games or religious festivals. Panaenus is recorded by Pliny (xxxv.58) as having been defeated in such a competition at the Pythia by Timagoras of Chalkis, an Ionic master who is otherwise unknown. Probably Pliny had derived this story from a copy that he may have seen of a metrical inscription of Timagoras, and this would explain the Timagorae vetusto carmine in the passage of Pliny.
This extract is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited July 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Panaenus (Panainos), a distinguished Athenian painter, who flourished, according
to Pliny, in the 83rd Olympiad, B. C. 448 (H. N. xxxv. 8. s. 4). He was the nephew
of Pheidias (adelphidous, Strab. viii.; adelphos, Paus. v. 11.2 ;frater, i. e.
frater patruelis, Plin. l.e. and xxxvi. 23. s. 55), whom he assisted in decorating
the temple of Zeus, at Olympia; and it is said to have been in answer to a question
of his that Pheidias made his celebrated declaration that Homer's description
of the nod of Zeus (Il. i. 528) gave him the idea of his statue of the god. With
regard to the works of Panaenus in the temple at Olympia, Strabo tells us that
he assisted Pheidias in the execution of his statue of Zeus, by ornamenting it
with colours, and especially the drapery ; and that many admirable paintings of
his were shown around the temple (peri to hieron), by which, as Bottiger has pointed
out, we must understand the paintings on the sides of the elevated base of the
statue, which are described by Pausanias (v. 11). This author tells us that the
sides of the front of this base were simply painted dark blue, but that the other
sides were adorned with paintings of Panaenus, which represented the following
subjects : -Atlas sustaining heaven and earth, with Heracles standing by, ready
to relieve him of the burden; Theseus and Peirithous; Hellas and Salamis, the
latter holding in her hand the ornamented prow of a ship; the contest of Heracles
with the Nemean lion; Ajax insulting Cassandra; Hiippodameia, the daughter of
Oenomaus, with her mother; Prometheus, still bound, with Hercules about to release
him; Penthesileia expiring, and Hercules sustaining her; and two of the Hesperides,
carrying the apples, which were entrusted to them to guard.
Another great work by Panaenus was his painting of the battle of Marathon,
in the Poecile at Athens (Paus. l. c.); respecting which Pliny says that the use
of colours had advanced so far, and the art had been brought to such perfection,
that Panaenus was said to have introduced portraits of the generals (iconicos
duces), namely, Miltiades, Callimachus, and Cynaegeirus, on the side of the Athenians,
and Datis and Artaphernes, on that of the barbarians (H. N. xxxv. 8. s. 34). Pausanias
gives a fuller description of this picture, but without mentioning the artist's
name (i. 15). He says that the last of the paintings in the Poecile represented
those who fought at Marathon: "the Athenians, assisted by the Plataeans, join
battle with the barbarians; and in this part (of the picture) both parties maintain
an equality in the conflict; but, further on in the battle, the barbarians are
fleeing, and pushing one another into the marsh: but last in the painting are
the Phoenicians' ships, and the Greeks slaying the barbarians as they rush on
board of them. There also is painted the hero Marathon, from whom the plain is
named, and Theseus, like one ascending out of the earth, and Athena and Heracles."
He then mentions the polemarch Callimachus, Miltiades, and the hero Echetlus,
as the most conspicuous persons in the battle.
Bottiger infers from this description, compared with Himerius (Orat.
x.), that the picture was in four compartments, representing separate periods
of the battle: in the first, nearest the land, appear Marathon and Theseus, Heracles
and Athena; in the next the battle is joined, Miltiades is conspicuous as the
leader of the Athenians, and neither party has yet the advantage; in the third
we have the rout of the Persians, with the polemarch Callimachus still fighting,
but perhaps receiving his deathblow (polemounti mallon eoikos e tethneoti, Himer.;
comp. Herod. vi. 14); and here, too, Bottiger places the hero Echetlus, slaying
the flying enemies with his ploughshare : in the fourth the final contest at the
ships; and here was undoubtedly the portrait of Cynaegeirus, laying hold of the
prow of a ship (Herod. vi. 114). But it seems to us much better to view the whole
as one picture, in which the three successive stages of the battle are represented
by their positions, and not by any actual division, the necessary transition from
one part to the other being left to the imagination of the spectator, as is not
uncommon in modern battle pieces. Indeed Bottiger himself seems to have had this
idea in his mind; and we can hardly understand how the writer, who sees so clearly
that the scene of battle is marked by the land at one end, and the sea at the
other, and who assigns so accurately to each of the three leaders their proper
places in the picture, should at the same time think of cutting up the work into
four tableaur, and imagine that "the same figures (i. e. of the chieftains) were
probably exhibited in other divisions of the picture." Bottiger's notion of placing
Marathon and Theseus, lleracles and Athena, in a separate tablteau, seems to us
also quite arbitrary. Pausanias says entautha kai,, that is, in the picture. These
deities and heroes no doubt occupied, like the [p. 108] chieftains, their proper
places in the picture, although we cannot easily assign those places: this Bottiger
himself has seen in the case of Echetlus; and the apparition of Theseus rising
out of the earth would no doubt be connected with the opening of the battle.
Another question arises, how the individual chieftains were identified.
The expression of Pliny, iconicos duces, can hardly be accepted in the sense of
actual likenesses of the chieftains; for, to say nothing of the difficulty of
taking likenesses of the Persian chieftains, the time at which Panaenus lived
excludes the supposition that he could have taken original portraits of Miltiades
and the other leaders, nor have we any reason to believe that the art of portrait
painting was so far advanced in their time, as that Panaenus could have had portraits
of them to copy from. The true meaning seems to be that this was one of the earliest
pictures in which an artist rejected the ancient plan (which we still see on vases,
mirrors, &c.) of affixing to his figures the names of the persons they were intended
to represent, and yet succeeded in indicating who they were by some other method,
such as by an exact imitation of their arms and dresses (which may very probably
have been preserved), or by the representation of their positions and their well-known
exploits. This explanation is confirmed by the passages already cited respecting
Callimachus and Cynaegeirus, and still more strikingly by a passage of Aeschines
(e. Ctes.), who tells us that Miltiades requested the people that his name might
be inscribed on this picture, but they refused his request, and, instead of inserting
his name, only granted him the privilege of being painted standing first and exhorting
the soldiers (Comp. Nepos, Milt. 6). We learn from an allusion in Persius (iii.
53) that the Medes were represented in their proper costume. Some writers ascribe
parts of this picture to Micon and Polygnotus, but it was most probably the work
of Panaenus alone.
Pliny, moreover, states that Panaenus painted the roof of the temple
of Athena at Elis with a mixture of milk and saffron, and also that he painted
the shield of the statue of the goddess, made by Colotes, in the same temple (Plin.
ll. cc.)
During the time of Panaenus, contests for prizes in painting were
established at Corinth and Delphi. That is, in the Isthmian and Pythian games,
and Panaenus himself was the first who engaged in one of these contests, his antagonist
being Timagoras of Chalcis, who defeated Panaenus at the Pyvthian games, and celebrated
his victory in a poem (Plin. H. N. xxxv. 9. s. 35.)
Panaenus has been called the Cimabue of ancient painting (Bottiger),
but tie title is very inappropriate, as he had already been preceded by Polygnotus,
Micon, and Dionysius of Colophon, who, though his contemporaries, were considerably
older than him.
His name is variously spelt in the MSS. Panaios, Panainos, and Pantainos,
and Panainos is the true reading.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited July 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Phasis, a painter, who is only known by an epigram of Cornelius Longinus, in which he is praised for having painted the great Athenian general Cynegeirus, not, as he was usually represented, with one hand cut off (see Herod. vi. 114), but with both his hands still unmutilated; it being but fair, according to the conceit of the epigrammatist, that the hero should not be deprived of those hands which had won him immortal fame! We have no indication of the painter's age; he was perhaps contemporary with the poet.
Pleistaenetus (Pleistainetos), an Athenian painter, the brother of Pheidias, is mentioned by Plutarch (De Glor. Athen. ii.) among the most celebrated painters, such as Apollodorus, Euphranor, Nicias, and Asclepiodorus, who painted victories, battles, and heroes; but there is no other mention of him.
Εκτός από ζωγράφος ήταν και γλύπτης και έργο του ήταν το άγαλμα του Πατρώου Απόλλωνα σε Ναό του Κεραμεικού (Παυσ. 1,3,4).
Euphranor (Euphranor). A distinguished statuary and painter.
He was a native of Corinth, but practised his art at Athens about B.C. 336. Of
one of his works, a beautiful sitting Paris, we have probably a copy in the Museo
Pio-Clementino. His best paintings were preserved in a porch in the Ceramicus.
Eumarus of Athens was the first who distinguished male from female, and who dared to imitate every sort of figure. On the vases with black figures we can trace the epoch at which a white colour is gradually introduced to indicate the flesh of female figures. It is not necessary that this should be precisely the change initiated by Eumarus, but it must evidently have been something analogous to this.3 The two facts we are told of Eumarus thus lead us naturally to think of the early Athenian vases with black figures. While the Corinthian and Chalcidian painters probably went on using their creamy white background, the Athenians used for background the natural brilliant red of their clay, and laid the white in their design on a surface of black paint. The white on these vases is a feature sufficiently striking to have attracted Pliny's informant; and the wealth of mythological material lavished on the Francois vase by CLITIAS and ERGOTIMUS, and their boldness in attempting difficult motives, may well have justified his expression figuras omnis. Like these two artists, Eumarus was also an Athenian; and in the recent excavations on the Acropolis an inscription has been found which seems to mention his name, and fixes his date, if this identification be correct, at the Solonic period in which Athenian art is beginning to take a foremost place. The vases and pinakes show us the influence of Corinthian painting on Athens at this period.
This extract is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited July 2004 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
ΒΙΛΙΑ (Κωμόπολη) ΑΤΤΙΚΗ
13/4/1926 - 3/9/1983
Το πραγματικό της όνομα είναι Έλλη Λούκου και γεννήθηκε στο χωριό
του πατέρα της, στα Βίλια Αττικής, στις 13 Απριλίου 1926. Τα καλοκαίρια της παιδικής
της ηλικίας τα περνούσε στα Βίλια κάνοντας τις διακοπές της. Η Έλλη αγαπούσε πολύ
τα Βίλια. Μιλούσε με πόλη αγάπη γι' αυτά και χαρακτηριστικά σε μια από τις συνεντεύξεις
της αναφέρει: "Ολο τον χρόνο ζούσαμε για την ημέρα που θα πάμε στα Βίλια.
Τριγυρνούσαμε εκεί από το πρωί ως το βράδυ στ' αμπέλια, με τον πατέρα μας"
(Κώστας Λούκος).Η μητέρα μου ερχόταν αργά προς το τέλος του καλοκαιριού και γυρνούσαμε
στην Αθήνα ίσως και μετά το άνοιγμα των σχολείων.
Το πολυσυζητημένο πρόσωπο μιας ολόκληρης εποχής, γυναίκα με μεγάλη
ακτινοβολία και συναρπαστική ηθοποιός. Η Έλλη Λαμπέτη - το Λαμπετάκι, όπως την
πρωτοαποκάλεσε ο δάσκαλός της στη Δραματική Σχολή, Σπύρος Μελάς - είχε μια μαγευτική
παρουσία. Ο Παύλος Μάτεσις έχει γράψει, χαρακτηριστικά, για εκείνη: «Αν ήμουν,
θρήσκος, θα έλεγα πως, όποιος δεν έχει γοητευθεί από τη Λαμπέτη, θα πάει στην
Κόλαση».
Η Έλλη φοίτησε στη Δραματική Σχολή του Θεάτρου Κοτοπούλη και πραγματοποίησε
πολύ σύντομα την πρώτη επίσημη θεατρική της εμφάνιση στο έργο "Η Χάννελε
πάει στον Παράδεισο" του Χάουπτμαν, το 1942.
Τέσσερα χρόνια αργότερα καθιερώθηκε σαν ηθοποιός εξαιρετικής εσωτερικότητας,
με τον "Γυάλινο Κόσμο" στο Θέατρο Τέχνης του Καρόλου Κουν. Ενώ η πιο
λαμπρή περίοδος της ζωής της ήταν όταν συνεργάστηκε με τον Δημήτρη Χορν (1955-60)
σε έργα όπως: "Ο βροχοποιός", "Νυφικό Κρεβάτι", "Το παιχνίδι
της Μοναξιάς", κ.α. Η τελευταία θεατρική της εμφάνιση ήταν το 1981, στο έργο
"Σάρα- Τα παιδιά ενός κατώτερου θεού", όπου έπαιξε θαυμαστά τον ρόλο
της κωφάλαλης Σάρας. Ο "θρύλος" της πάντα συναρπάζει. Μπορεί να δει
κανείς, δείγματα της μεγάλης τέχνης της απαθανατισμένα στο σελουλόιντ ("Κάλπικη
Λίρα", "Το κορίτσι με τα μαύρα", "Κυριακάτικο ξύπνημα",
κ.ά.) όπου μας κάνει άλλοτε να γελάμε κι άλλοτε να συγκινούμαστε, γιατί είχε αυτό
το πολύτιμο χάρισμα να είναι το ίδιο καλή τόσο στην κωμωδία όσο και στο δράμα.
Η ζωή και η τέχνη της έχει αποτελέσει θέμα για δύο βιβλία, έχουν κυκλοφορήσει
δίσκοι με αποσπάσματα από τις παραστάσεις της, αποτέλεσε κι εξακολουθεί να αποτελεί
θέμα για άρθρα και συζητήσεις. Αλλά, όπως κάθε σπουδαία προσωπικότητα, έτσι και
η Έλλη Λαμπέτη απλώνεται πέρα και πάνω από λέξεις και ήχους που προσπαθούν να
περικλείσουν ένα κομμάτι της λάμψης της. Το πρόωρο και τραγικό τέλος της -στις
3 Σεπτεμβρίου 1983- στέρησε την ελληνική σκηνή και οθόνη από τη φωτεινή παρουσία
της.
Σήμερα ο Δήμος Βιλίων τιμά την Έλλη Λαμπέτη με σειρά εκδηλώσεων κάθε καλοκαίρι
που φέρουν το όνομα της (Λαμπέτεια) καθώς επίσης με δρόμο και πλατεία ως ελάχιστη
τιμή προς αυτήν.
Το κείμενο παρατίθεται τον Μάιο 2005 από την ακόλουθη ιστοσελίδα, με φωτογραφίες, του Δήμου Βιλίων
Agnodice (Agnodike), the name of the earliest midwife mentioned among the Greeks. She was a native of Athens, where it was forbidden by law for a woman or a slave to study medicine. According, however, to Hyginus (Fab. 274), on whose autlliority alone thle whole story rests, it would appear that Agnodice disguised herself in man's clothes, and so contrived to attend the lectures, of a physician named Hierophilus,--devoting herself chiefly to the study of midwifery and the diseases of women. Afterwards, when she began practice, being very successful in these branches of the profession, she excited the jealousy of several of the other practitioners, by whom she was summoned before the Areiopagus, and accused of corrupting the morals of her patients. Upon her refuting this charge by making known her sex, she was immediately accused of having violated the existing law, which second danger she escaped by the wives of the chief persons in Athens, whom she had attended, coming forward in her behalf, and succeeding at last in getting the obnoxious law abolished. No date whatever is attached to this story, but several persons have, by calling the tutor of Agnodice by the name of Herophilus instead of Hierophilus, placed it in the third or fourth century before Christ. But this emendation, though at first sight very easy and plausible, does not appear altogether free from objections. For, in the first place, if the story is to be believed at all upon the authority of Hyginus, it would seem to belong rather to the fifth or sixth century before Christ than the third or fourth; secondly, we have no reason for thinking that Agnodice was ever at Alexandria, or Herophilus at Athens; and thirdly, it seems hardly probable that Hyginus would have called so celebrated a physician " a certctin leropliilus." (Herophilus quidam.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited June 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Callias (Kallias) & Hipponicus (Hipponikos). A noble Athenian family, celebrated for their wealth. They enjoyed the hereditary dignity of torch-bearer at the Eleusinian Mysteries, and claimed descent from Triptolemus. The first member of this family of any note was the Callias who fought at the battle of Marathon, B.C. 490, and was afterwards ambassador from Athens to Artaxerxes, and, according to some accounts, negotiated a peace with Persia, B.C. 449, on terms most humiliating to the latter. On his return to Athens he was accused of having taken bribes, and was condemned to a fine of fifty talents. His son, Hipponicus, was killed at the battle of Delium in B.C. 424. It was his divorced wife, and not his widow, whom Pericles married. His daughter Hipparete was married to Alcibiades. Callias, son of this Hipponicus by the lady who married Pericles, dissipated all his ancestral wealth on sophists, flatterers, and women. The scene of Xenophon's Banquet, and also that of Plato's Protagoras, is laid at his house.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Aristeides. Son of Lysimachus, the Athenian statesman and general, makes his first
certain appearance in history as archon eponymus of the year 489 B. C. (Mar. Par.
50). From Herodotus we hear of him as the best and justest of his countrymen;
as ostracised and at enmity with Themistocles; of his generosity and bravery at
Salamis, in some detail (viii. 79, 82, and 95); and the fact, that he commanded
the Athenians in the campaign of Plataea (ix. 28). Thucydides names him once as
co-ambassador to Sparta with Themistocles, once in the words ton ep Aristeidou
phoron (i. 91, v. 18). In the Gorgias of Plato, he is the example of the virtue,
so rare among statesmen, of justice, and is said " to have become singularly famous
for it, not only at home, but through the whole of Greece". In Demosthenes he
is styled the assessor of the phoros (c. Aristocr.), and in Aeschines he has the
title of "the Just" (c. Tim. p. 4. 1. 23, c. Ctes. pp. 79. 1. 38, 90. ll. 18,20).
Added to this, and by it tobe corrected, wehave, comprehending the sketch by Cornelius
Nepos, Plutarch's detailed biography, derived from various sources, good and bad.
His family, we are told, was ancient and noble (Callias the torch-bearer
was his cousin); he was the political disciple of Cleisthenes (Plut. 2, An. Seni,
p. 790), and partly on that account, partly from personal character, opposed from
the first to Themistocles. They fought together, Aristeides as the commander of
his tribe, in the Athenian centre at Marathon; and when Miltiades hurried from
the field to protect the city, he was left in charge of the spoil. Next year,
489, perhaps in consequence, he was archon. In 483 or 482 (according to Nepos,
three years earlier) he suffered ostracism, whether from the enmities, merely,
which he had incurred by his scrupulous honesty and rigid opposition to corruption,
or in connexion, further, with the triumph of the maritime and democratic policy
of his rival. He wrote, it is said, his own name on the sherd, at the request
of an ignorant countryman, who knew him not, but took it ill that any citizen
should be called just beyond his neighbours. The sentence seems to have still
been in force in 480 (Herod. viii. 79; Dem. c. Aristog. ii.), when he made his
way from Aegina with news of the Persian movements for Themistocles at Salamis,
and called on him to be reconciled. In the battle itself he did good service by
dislodging the enemy, with a band raised and armed by himself, from the islet
of Psyttaleia. In 479 he was strategus, the chief, it would seem, but not the
sole (Plut. Arist. 11, but comp. 16 and 20, and Herod. ix.), and to him no doubt
belongs much of the glory due to the conduct of the Athenians, in war and policy,
during this, the most perilous year of the contest. Their replies to the proffers
of Persia and the fears of Sparta Plutarch ascribes to him expressly, and seems
to speak of an extant psephisma Aristeidou embracing them (c. 16). So, too, their
treatment of the claims of Tegea, and the arrangements of Pausanias with regard
to their post in battle. He gives him further the suppression of a Persian plot
among the aristocratical Athenians, and the settlement of a quarrel for the aristeia
by conceding them to Plataea (comp. however on this second point Herod. ix. 71);
finally, with better reason, the consecration of Plataea and establishment of
the Eleutheria, or Feast of Freedom. On the return to Athens, Aristeides seems
to have acted in cheerful concert with Themistocles, as directing the restoration
of the city (Heracl. Pont. 1); as his colleague in the embassy to Sparta, that
secured for it its walls; as proposing, in accordance with his policy, perhaps
also in consequence of changes in property produced by the war, the measure which
threw open the archonship and areiopagus to all citizens alike. In 477, as joint-commander
of the Athenian contingent under Pausanias, by his own conduct and that of his
colleague and disciple, Cimon, he had the glory of obtaining for Athens the command
of the maritime confederacy: and to him was by general consent entrusted the task
of drawing up its laws and fixing its assessments. This first phoros of 460 talents,
paid into a common treasury at Delos, bore his name, and was regarded by the allies
in after times, as marking their Saturnian age. It is, unless the change in the
constitution followed it, his last recorded act. He lived, Theophrastus related,
to see the treasury removed to Athens, and declared it (for the bearing of the
words see Thirlwall's Greece, iii. p. 47) a measure unjust and expedient. During
most of this period he was, we may suppose, as Cimon's coadjutor at home, the
chief political leader of Athens. He died, according to some, in Pontus, more
probably, however, at home, certainly after 471, the year of the ostracism of
Themistocles, and very likely, as Nepos states, in 468.
A tomb was shewn in Plutarch's time at Phalerum, as erected to him
at the public expense. That he did not leave enough behind him to pay for his
funeral, is perhaps a piece of rhetoric. We may believe, however, that his daughters
were portioned by the state, as it appears certain (Plut. 27; comp. Dem. c. Lept.
491. 25), that his son Lysimachus received lands and money by a decree of Alcibiades;
and that assistance was given to his grand-daughter, and even to remote descendants,
in the time of Demetrius Phalereus. He must, so far as we know, have been in 489,
as archon eponymus, among the pentacosiomedimni : the wars may have destroyed
his property; we can hardly question the story from Aeschines, the disciple of
Socrates, that when his poverty was made a reproach in a court of justice to Callias,
his cousin, he bore witness that he had received and declined offers of his assistance;
that he died poor is certain. This of itself would prove him possessed of an honesty
rare in those times; and in the higher points of integrity, though Theophrastus
said, and it may be true, that he at times sacrificed it to his country's interest,
no case whatever can be adduced in proof, and he certainly displays a sense, very
unusual, of the duties of nation to nation.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited June 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
The Ostracism of Aristides
The threat ostracism was meant to combat could also come from a man's
great personal prominence, if he became so prominent that he could appear to overshadow
all others on the political scene and thus threaten the egalitarian principles
of Athenian democracy, in which no one man was supposed to dominate the making
of policy. This point is illustrated by a famous anecdote concerning Aristides,
who set the dues for the Delian League. This Aristides had the nickname "The
Just" because he was reputed to be so fair-minded. On the balloting day for
an ostracism, an illiterate man from the countryside handed Aristides a potsherd,
asking him to scratch on it the name of the man's choice for ostracism. 'Certainly',
said Aristides; 'Which name shall I write'? 'Aristides', replied the countryman.
'Very well', remarked Aristides as he proceeded to inscribe his own name. 'But
tell me, why do you want to ostracize Aristides? What has he done to you?' 'Oh,
nothing; I don't even know him', sputtered the man. 'I'm just sick and tired of
hearing everybody refer to him as "The Just".'
ΓΕΦΥΡΑΙΟΙ (Αρχαίος δήμος) ΑΤΤΙΚΗ
Harmodius, (Harmodios). An Athenian who, together with Aristogiton
(Aristogeiton), became the cause of the overthrow of the Pisistratidae. The names
of Harmodius and Aristogiton were immortalized by the gratitude of the Athenians.
Aristogiton was a citizen of the middle class; Harmodius a youth distinguished
by the comeliness of his person. They were both perhaps remotely allied to one
another by blood, and were united by ties of the closest intimacy. The youth had
received an outrage from Hipparchus, which roused both the resentment and the
fears of his friend, lest Hipparchus should abuse his power to repeat the insult.
But Hipparchus, whose pride had been wounded by the conduct of Harmodius, contented
himself with an affront aimed at the honour of his family. By his orders, the
sister of Harmodius was invited to take part in a procession, as bearer of one
of the sacred vessels. When, however, she presented herself in her festal dress,
she was publicly rejected, and dismissed as unworthy of the honour. This insult
stung Harmodius to the quick, and kindled the indignation of Aristogiton. They
resolved to engage in the desperate enterprise of overthrowing the ruling dynasty.
They communicated their plan to a few friends, who promised their assistance;
but they hoped that, as soon as the first blow should be struck, they would be
joined by numbers, who would joyfully seize the opportunity of recovering their
freedom. The conspirators fixed on the festival of the Panathenaea as the most
convenient season for effecting their purpose. This festival was celebrated with
a procession, in which the citizens marched armed with spears and shields, and
was the only occasion on which, in time of peace, they could assemble under arms
without exciting suspicion. It was agreed that Harmodius and Aristogiton should
give the signal by stabbing Hippias, while their friends kept off his guards,
and that they should trust to the general disposition in favour of liberty for
the further success of their undertaking. When the day came, the conspirators
armed themselves with daggers, which they concealed in the myrtle-boughs that
were carried on this occasion. But while Hippias, surrounded by his guards, was
in the Ceramicus, directing the order of the procession, one of the conspirators
was observed to go up to him, for he was easy of access to all, and to enter into
familiar conversation with him. The two friends, on seeing this, concluded that
they were betrayed, and that they had no hope left but of revenge. They instantly
rushed into the city, and, meeting Hipparchus, killed him before his guards could
come up to his assistance. These, however, arrived in time to avenge his death
on Harmodius. Aristogiton escaped for the moment through the crowd, but was afterwards
taken. When the news was brought to Hippias, instead of proceeding to the scene
of his brother's murder, he advanced with a composed countenance towards the armed
procession, which was yet ignorant of the event, and, as if he had some grave
discourse to address to them, desired them to lay aside their weapons, and meet
him at an appointed place. He then ordered his guards to seize the arms, and to
search every one for those which he might have concealed upon his person. All
who were found with daggers were arrested, together with those whom, on any other
grounds, he suspected of disaffection. Aristogiton was put to death, according
to some authors, after torture had been applied to wring from him the names of
his accomplices. It is said that he avenged himself by accusing the truest friends
of Hippias. The mistress of Aristogiton, one Leaena, whose only crime was to have
been the object of his affection, underwent the like treatment. She was afterwards
celebrated for the constancy with which she endured the most cruel torments. These
events took place in B.C. 514.
After the expulsion of Hippias the tyrannicides received almost
heroic honours. Statues were erected to them at the public expense, and their
names never ceased to be repeated with affectionate admiration in the popular
songs of Athens, which assigned them a place in the Islands of the Blessed, by
the side of Achilles and Tydides; and when an orator wished to suggest the idea
of the highest merit and of the noblest services to the cause of liberty, he never
failed to remind his hearers of Harmodius and Aristogiton. No slave was ever called
by their names. Plutarch has preserved a reply of Antipho, the orator, to Dionysius
the elder, of Syracuse. The latter had asked the question, which was the finest
kind of bronze? "That," replied Antipho, "of which the statues
of Harmodius and Aristogiton were made." He lost his life in consequence.
Their statues, made by Antenor and set up in the Agora, were carried away by Xerxes
when he took Athens in B.C. 480, but were restored by Alexander the Great.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Harmodius and Aristogeiton (Armodios, Aristonxiton), Athenians, of the blood of
the Gephyraei, were the murderers of Hipparchus, brother of the tyrant Hippias,
in B. C. 514. The following is the account we have received from the best authorities
of the circumstances which induced the crime. Aristogeiton, a citizen of the middle
class, was strongly attached to the young and beautiful Harnmodius, who returned
his affection with equal warmth. Hipparchus endeavored to withdraw the youth's
love to himself, and, failing in this, resolved to avenge the slight by putting
upon him a public insult. Accordingly, he took care that the sister of Harmodius
should be summoned to bear one of the sacred baskets in some religious procession,
and when she presented herself for the purpose, he caused her to be dismissed
and declared unworthy of the honour. Aristogeiton had been before exasperated
by the advances which Hipparchus had made to Harmodius, and this fresh insult
determined the two friends to slay both Hipparchus and his brother Hippias as
well. Of the motive for the conspiracy a different account is given by the author
of the dialogue named " Hipparchus," which is found among the works of Plato.
According to this writer, Aristogeiton had educated Harmodius, and was as proud
of him as he was fond, while he looked with jealousy on Hipparchus, who was ambitious,
it seems, of the same distinction as an attracter of the love and confidence of
the young. A youth, who was beloved by Harmodius, and had been accustomed to look
up to him and Aristogeiton as patterns of wisdom, became acquainted with Hipparchus,
and transferred to him his affection and admiration; and this circumstance excited
the anger of the two friends, and urged them to the murder. They communicated
their plot to a few only, in order to lessen the chance of discovery, but they
hoped that many would join them in the hour of action. The occasion they selected
for their enterprise was the festival of the great Panathenaea and the day of
the solemn procession of armed citizens from the outer Cerameicus to the temple
of Athena Polias,--the only day, in fact, on which they could appear in arms without
exciting suspicion. When the appointed time arrived, the two chief conspirators
observed one of their accomplices in conversation with Hippias, who was standing
in the Cerameicus and arranging the order of the procession. Believing, therefore,
that they were betrayed, and wishing to wreak their vengeance before they were
apprehended, they rushed back into the city with their daggers hid in the myrtle-boughs
which they were to have borne in the procession, and slew Hipparchus near the
Leocorium. Harmodius was immediately cut down by the guards. Aristogeiton at first
escaped, but was afterwards taken, and, according to the testimony of Polyaenus,
Justin, and Seneca, which is confirmed by the language of Thucydides, was put
to the torture. He named as his accomplices the principal friends of Hippias,
who were executed accordingly, and being then asked if he had any more names of
conspirators to give, he answered that there was no one besides, whose death he
desired, except the tyrant. According to another account, he pretended, while
under the torture, that he had some communication to make to Hippias, and when
the latter approached him, he seized one of his ears with his teeth, and bit it
off (Herod. v. 55, 56, vi. 109, 123; Thuc. i. 20, vi. 54--57; Psetdo-Plat. Hipparch.;
Plat. Symp.; Arist. Polit. v. 10, Rhet. ii. 24.5; Schol. ad Arist. Ach. 942; Aelian,
V. H. xi. 8; Perizon. ad loe.; Polyaen. i. 22; Justin. ii. 9; Seneca, de Ira,
ii. 23; Diog. Laert. ix. 26).
Four years after this Hippias was expelled, and thenceforth the policy
and spirit of party combined with popular feeling to attach to Harmodius and Aristogeiton
among the Athenians of all succeeding generations the character of patriots, deliverers,
and martyrs,--names often abused indeed, but seldom more grossly than in the present
case. Their deed of murderous vengeance formed a favourite subject of drinking-songs,
of which the most famous and popular is preserved in full by Athenaeus. To be
born of their blood was esteemed among the highest of honours, and their descendants
enjoyed an immunity from public burdens, of which even the law of Leptines (B.
C. 355) did not propose to deprive them (Aesch. c. Timarch.132, 140; Athen. xv.;
Aristoph. Ach. 942, 1058, Lysistr. 632, Vesp. 1225, Eq. 783; Aristot. Rhet. ii.
23.8; Suid. s. vv. Agoraso En murtou kladho, Paroinor, Phoreso; Dem. c. Let.).
Their tombs are mentioned by Pausanias (i. 29) as situated on thie road from the
city to the Academy. Their statues, made of bronze by Antenor, were set up in
the Agora in the inner Cerameicus, near the temple of Ares, in B. C. 509, the
year after the expulsion of Hippias and this, according to Aristotle and Pliny,
was the first instance of such an honour publicly conferred at Athens, Conon being
the next, as Demosthenes tells us, who had a bronze statue raised to him. When
Xerxes took the city, he carried these statues away, and new ones, the work of
Critias, were erected in B. C. 477. Tile original statues were afterwards sent
back to the Athenians from Susa, according to Pausanias by Antiochus, according
to Valerius Maximus by Seleucus, but, as we may believe, on the testimony of Arrian
and Pliny, by Alexander the Great. We learn, finally, from Diodorus, that when
the Athenians were anxious to pay the highest honours in their power to Antigonus
and Demetrius Poliorcetes, in B. C. 307, they placed their statues near those
of Harmodius and Aristogeiton (Paus. i. 8; Aristot. Rhet. i. 9.38; Dem. c. Lept.;
Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 4, 8; Val. Max. ii. 10. Ext. 1; Arr. Anab. iii. 16, vii. 19;
Diod. xx. 46).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited June 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
ΚΥΔΑΝΤΙΔΑΙ (Αρχαίος δήμος) ΜΑΡΚΟΠΟΥΛΟ ΜΕΣΟΓΑΙΑΣ
Nicias (ca. 470-413 B.C.) An Athenian politician prominent during the first half
of the Peloponnesian War (431-404). Nicias is best known for arranging a halt
to that war in 421 ("Peace of Nicias') and for presiding over an Athenian
military disaster in Sicily in which he lost his life.
Family
Little is known of Nicias' father, Niceratus. A wealthy man, Nicias
was one of the biggest known slaveholders in late fifth century Athens. The family's
money came from interests in silver mines (Plut. Nic. 4 ). Nicias continued the
family investment and was said to have employed 1,000 men in the mines (Xen. Ways
4.14 ).
Biography
Since Niceratus is unknown in Athenian politics, Nicias may have had
to proceed as a newcomer. Nicias probably sought the patronage of Pericles. Plutarch
implies that he was Pericles' political heir (Plut. Nic. 2 ). Thucydides makes
no mention of Nicias' early political significance. There Nicias appears for the
first time in 427 leading an Athenian expedition to the island of Minoa just off
Megara (Thuc. 3.51 ). In the years thereafter Nicias held important (but not momentous
) military commands (Thuc. 3.91; Thuc. 4.42 ).
It was also in 425 that a confrontation occurred in the assembly which
provides insight into Nicias' character (Thuc 4.26-41 ). As general that year
Nicias was held responsible by the demagogue Cleon for the stalemate at Sphacteria.
Cleon demanded in the assembly that Nicias act decisively to capture the Spartans
on the island. Cleon pointed to Nicias and claimed that "if only the generals
were real men" the Spartans could be easily brought back to Athens and boasted
that if he himself were in command the matter would be quickly resolved (Thuc.
4.27 ). Nicias replied by turning his command over to Cleon. Ancient and modern
observers have judged Nicias harshly for bowing to the reckless Cleon (Plut. Nic.
9 ).
In 424 Nicias achieved his greatest military success. A force under
his command occupied Cythera, a large island off the southern Peloponnesus. Thucydides
says that the occupation of Cythera brought Spartan morale to a low level (Thuc.
4.55 ). From 423 to 421 Nicias was closely involved in peace negotiations with
Sparta. In March 423 an armistice was arranged and in 421 a fifty-year alliance
was concluded (Thuc. 4.119, Thuc. 5.17-24 ). Nicias was present at these conferences,
taking the oath of peace on each occasion. As the most important Athenian at the
time, the peace came to be named after Nicias. The contemporary Thucydides does
not refer to the accord as the "Peace of Nicias" but Andocides does
use such terminology (Andoc. 3.8 ).
At this point in the Peloponnesian War, Nicias is usually considered to be the
spokesman for conservative elements which constituted a "peace party"
at Athens. Plutarch implies that Nicias forged an alliance with the wealthy and
older citizens as well as with rural landlords and peasants. These men had the
most to gain from an end to hostilities (Plut. Nic. 9 ). Nicias himself also had
reason to hope for peace. Thucydides states (Thuc. 5.16 ): "Nicias wished
to rest upon his laurels, to find an immediate release from toil and trouble both
for himself and for his fellow citizens."
By 420 the peace between Sparta and Athens had collapsed. In that
year Nicias made a last attempt to repair the rupture. He traveled to Sparta to
seek, among other things, Spartan help in the return of Amphipolis. In the balance
lay not only war or peace but also Nicias' own strategy. The embassy failed and
hostilities soon resumed. Thucydides reports that Nicias was attacked upon his
return to Athens for the failure of his peace (Thuc. 5.46 ).
The opposition to Nicias and his supporters came from new demagogues,
most notably the young and talented Alcibiades. The two men were thorough contrasts.
In 418 Nicias was approximately 52 years old while Alcibiades was perhaps 32.
More than the different values and temperaments of two generations divided the
men. Nicias had appeared on the political scene from a relatively unknown family;
Alcibiades was a descendant of the famed Cleisthenes and nephew to Pericles. Nicias
was a conservative in politics and war; Alcibiades was brilliant and daring. Finally,
Nicias was superstitious and pious (Thuc. 7.50; Plut. Nic. 3.4 ); while Alcibiades
became infamous for sacrilege.
By 417 a crisis of leadership had developed. Alcibiades and Nicias
were elected generals but advocated imcompatible military policies. The solution
proposed by Hyperbolus was the old Athenian practice of ostracism. It was assumed
the process would eliminate either Nicias or Alcibiades and leave the state with
a single leader and policy. The wily Alcibiades, however, thwarted Hyperbolus
and allied himself with Nicias. The result was that Hyperbolus' name appeared
on a majority of the ostraka and the demagogue was promptly ostracized (Plut.
Nic. 11; Plut. Alc. 13 ).
The alliance between Alcibiades and Nicias was only temporary. A debate
in the assembly over the proposed Sicilian expedition revealed the differing policies
and characters of the two men (Thuc. 6.8-26 ). The Athenians voted to send 60
ships to Sicily under Alcibiades, Nicias and Lamachus. Nicias was utterly opposed
to the project. When the assembly met to consider the logistics of the expedition
Nicias leveled a bitter attack on Alcibiades and Athenian adventurism and asked
the Athenians to reconsider, calling on support from older men. Nicias emphasized
the strength of the Sicilian cities and reminded the Athenians that they were
risking a two-front war (Thuc. 6.10,20-22 ). (It is interesting to note that many
of the concerns Nicias voiced in the debate--for example his fears over the Syracusan
cavalry and Athenian supply lines--turned out to be well-founded. ) In a last
attempt to dissuade the Athenians Nicias recommended that only a very large force
could succeed in the project (Thuc. 6.19 ). This strategy was indeed a blunder.
Not only did the Athenians quickly approve Nicias' request, they also gave the
generals powers to call on whatever forces they saw fit. Instead of giving the
Athenians cause to pause in their plans, Nicias actually increased the risks of
the Sicilian expedition. Perhaps most surprising of all is Nicias' decision to
take part in an expedition he opposed.
The drama of the Athenian expedition to Sicily (415-413 B.C ) is vividly
treated by Thucydides in books six and seven. Modern historians have often assigned
Nicias a large part of the blame for the Athenian defeat in Sicily. Thucydides
does not explicitly do so, but does record numerous strategic blunders committed
by the general. Two in particular loom large. The first allowed reinforcements
to reach Syracuse when Nicias neglected to complete his northern wall around Syracuse
(Thuc. 7.1,6 ). Later, when the Athenian position had deteriorated and speedy
withdrawal was critical, the superstitious general delayed a breakout for an entire
month because of a lunar eclipse (Thuc. 7.50. The eclipse can be pinpointed to
August 27, 413 B.C.) In the intervening period the Syracusans sealed the harbor
to trap Nicias and the Athenians. When attempts to breakout finally came it was
too late. In Nicias' defence it should be noted that the general suffered from
a kidney illness in Sicily and had personally written to Athens asking to be relieved
(Thuc. 7.8-15; Plut. Nic. 17-18 ). On the eighth day of the Athenian retreat from
Syracuse Nicias surrendered to Gylippus in hopes of saving his men and was soon
executed (Thuc. 7.85 ).
Ancient and Modern Views of Nicias.
Nicias stands as one of the most important personalities in Thucydides'
History. Although many of his actions in the History are blameworthy, the final
judgement of Thucydides on Nicias is surprising: "he was killed, a man who,
of all the Hellenes in my time, least deserved to come to so miserable an end,
since the whole of his life had been devoted to the study and practice of virtue
arete." This statement has led to much modern debate about Thucydides' view
of Nicias. Several of Aristophanes' comedies also contain contemporary references
to Nicias: see, for example, Aristoph. Birds 593-595. Contemporary Athenians may
not have been as charitable as Thucydides in their view of Nicias after the Sicilian
debacle. The second century A.D. travel writer Pausanias records having seen a
stele commemorating the Athenian generals who had died in Sicily. Nicias' name
had been left off the list. Pausanias' reason for the omission was that Nicias
had been "unmanly in war" (Paus. 1.29.11-12 ).
Vincent Burns, ed.
This text is cited August 2004 from
Perseus Project URL bellow, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Λάβετε το καθημερινό newsletter με τα πιο σημαντικά νέα της τουριστικής βιομηχανίας.
Εγγραφείτε τώρα!
