Εμφανίζονται 100 (επί συνόλου 486) τίτλοι με αναζήτηση: Βιογραφίες στην ευρύτερη περιοχή: "ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ Δήμος ΕΛΛΑΔΑ" .
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
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.
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
Γιατρός μαία, που την κατηγόρησαν, επειδή το επάγγελμα ήταν ανδρικό προνόμιο, και την δίκασαν. Ο Αρειος Πάγος την αθώωσε και σε λίγο καταργήθηκε ο νόμος που απαγόρευε στις γυναίκες να ασκούν ιατρική.
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".'
ΣΚΑΜΒΩΝΙΔΑΙ (Αρχαίος δήμος) ΑΘΗΝΑΙΩΝ
Alcibiades, Alkibiades. The son of Clinias and Dinomache, born at Athens
about B.C. 450, and on the death of his father, in 447, brought up by his relation
Pericles. He possessed a beautiful person, transcendent abilities, and great wealth.
His youth was disgraced by his amours and debaucheries, and Socrates, who saw
his vast capabilities, attempted to win him to the paths of virtue, but in vain.
Their intimacy, however, was strengthened by mutual services. At the battle of
Potidaea (432) his life was saved by Socrates, and at that of Delium (424) he
saved the life of Socrates. After the death of Cleon (422) he became one of the
leading politicians, and the head of the war party in opposition to Nicias. In
415 he was appointed, along with Nicias and Lamachus, as commander of the expedition
to Sicily. While the preparations for the expedition were going on, there occurred
a mysterious mutilation of the busts of the Hermae, which the popular fears connected
with an attempt to overthrow the Athenian constitution. Alcibiades was charged
with being the ringleader in this attempt. He demanded an investigation before
he set sail, but this his enemies would not grant; but he had not been long in
Sicily before he was recalled to stand his Bust of Alcibiades. trial. On his return
homeward he managed to escape at Thurii, and thence proceeded to Sparta, where
he acted as the avowed enemy of his country. The machinations of his enemy, Agis
II., induced him to abandon the Spartans and take refuge with Tissaphernes (412),
whose favour he soon gained. Through his influence Tissaphernes deserted the Spartans
and professed his willingness to assist the Athenians, who accordingly recalled
Alcibiades from banishment in 411. He did not immediately return to Athens, but
remained abroad for the next four years, during which the Athenians under his
command gained the victories of Cynossema, Abydos, and Cyzicus, and got possession
of Chalcedon and Byzantium. In 407 he returned to Athens, where he was received
with great enthusiasm, and was appointed commanderin-chief of all the land and
sea forces. But the defeat at Notium, occasioned during his absence by the imprudence
of his lieutenant, Antiochus, furnished his enemies with a handle against him,
and he was superseded in his command (406). He now went into voluntary exile to
his fortified domain at Bisanthe, in the Thracian Chersonesus. After the fall
of Athens (404) he took refuge with Pharnabazus. He was about to proceed to the
court of Artaxerxes, when one night his house was surrounded by a band of armed
men and set on fire. He rushed out, sword in hand, but fell, pierced with arrows
(404). The assassins were probably either employed by the Spartans or by the brothers
of a lady whom Alcibiades had seduced. He left a son by his wife Hipparete named
Alcibiades, who never distinguished himself.
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
Alciviades (Alkibiades), the son of Cleinias, was born at Athens about B. C. 450,
or a little earlier. His father fell at Coroneia B. C. 447, leaving Alcibiades
and a younger son (Plat. Protag.). The last campaign of the war with Potidaea
was in B. C. 429. Now as Alcibiades served in this war, and the young Athenians
were not sent out on foreign military service before they had attained their 20th
year, he could not have been born later than B. C. 449, If he served in the first
campaign (B. C. 432), he must have been at least five years old at the time of
his father's death. Nepos (Alcib. 10) says he was about forty years old at the
time of his death (B. C. 404), and his mistake has been copied by Mitford.
Alcibiades was connected by birth with the noblest families of Athens.
Through his father he traced his descent from Eurysaces, the son of Ajax (Plat.
Alcib. I), and through him from Aeacus and Zeus. His mother, Deinomache, was the
daughter of Megacles, the head of the house of the Alcmaeonids.(1)
Thus on both sides he had hereditary claims on the attachment of the people; for
His paternal grandfather, Alcibiades, took a prominent part in the expulsion of
the Peisistratids (Isocrat. De Big. 10), and his mother was descended from Cleisthenes,
the friend of the commonalty. His father Cleinias did good service in the Persian
war. He fitted out and manned a trireme at his own expense, and greatly distinguished
himself in the battle of Artemisitum (Herod. viii. 17). One of his ancestors of
the name of Cleinias earned a less enviable notoriety by taking fraudulent advantage
of the Seisachtheia of Solon. The name Alcibiades was of Laconian origin (Thuc.
viii. 6), and was derived from the Spartan family to which the ephor Endius belonged,
with which that of Alcibiades had been anciently connected by the ties of hospitality.
The first who bore the name was the grandtlather of the great Alcibiades.
On the death of his father (B. C. 447), Alcibiades was left to the
guardianship of his relations Pericles and Ariphron.(2) Zopyrus,
the Thracian, is mentioned as one of his instructors (Plat. Alc. i.). From his
very boyhood he exhibited signs of that inflexible determination which marked
him throughout life.
He was at every period of his life remarkable for the extraordinary
beauty of his person, of which he seems to have been exceedingly vain. Even when
on military service he carried a shield inlaid with gold and ivory, and bearing
the device of Zeus hurling the thunderbolt. When he grew up, he earned a disgraceful
notoriety by his amours and debaucheries. At the age of 18 he entered upon the
possession of his fortune, which had doubtless been carefully husbanded during
his long minority by his guardians. Connected as he was with the most influential
families in the city, the inheritor of one of the largest fortunes in Athens (to
which he afterwards received a large accession through his marriage with Hipparete,
the daughter of Hipponicus (3), gifted with a mind of singular
versatility and energy, possessed of great powers of eloquence, and urged on by
an ambition which no obstacle could daunt, and which was not over scrupulous as
to the means by which its ends were to be gained, -in a city like Athens, amongst
a people like the Athenians, (of the leading features of whose character he may
not unaptly be regarded as an impersonation,) and in times like those of the Peloponnesian
war, Alcibiades found a field singularly well adapted for the exercise and display
of his brilliant powers. Accustomed, however, from his boyhood to the flattery
of admiring companions and needy parasites, he early imbibed that inordinate vanity
and love of distinction, which marked his whole career; and he was thus led to
place the most perfect confidence in his own powers long before he had obtained
strength of mind sufficient to withstand the seductive influence of the temptations
which surrounded him. Socrates saw his vast capabilities, and attempted to win
him to the paths of virtue. Their intimacy was strengthened by mutual services.
In one of the engagements before Potidaea, Alcibiades was dangerously wounded,
but was rescued by Socrates. At the battle of Delium (B. C. 424), Alcibiades,
who was mounted, had an opportunity of protecting Socrates from the pursuers (Plat.
Conviv.; Isocr. De Big. 12). The lessons of the philosopher were not altogether
without influence upon his pupil, but the evil tendencies of his character had
taken too deep root to render a thorough reformation possible, and he listened
more readily to those who advised him to secure by the readiest means the gratification
of his desires.
Alcibiades was excessively fond of notoriety and display. At the Olympic
games (probably in Ol. 89, B. C. 424) lie contended with seven chariots in the
same race, and gained the first, second, and fourth prizes. His liberality in
discharging the office of trierarch, and in providing for the public amusements,
rendered him very popular with tire multitude, who were ever ready to excuse,
on the score of youthful impetuosity and thoughtlessness, his most violent and
extravagant acts, into which he was probably as often led by his love of notoriety
as by any other motive. Accounts of various instances of this kind, as his forcible
detention of Agatharchus, his violence to his wife Hipparete, his assault upon
Taureas, and the audacious manner in which he saved Hegemon from a lawsuit, by
openly obliterating the record, are given by Plutarch, Andocides, and Athenaeus
(ix. p. 407). Even the more prudent citizens thought it safer to connive at his
delinquencies, than to exasperate him by punishment. As Aeschylus is made to say
by Aristophanes (Frogs, 1427), " A lion's whelp ought not to be reared in a city;
but if a person rears one, he must let him have his way."
Of the early political life of Alcibiades we hear but little. While
Cleon was alive he probably appeared but seldom in the assembly. From allusions
which were contained in the Daitaleis of Aristophanes (acted B. C. 427) it appears
that he had already spoken there (For the story connected with his first appearance
in the assembly, see Plutarch, Alcib. 10). At some period or other before B. C.
420, he had carried a decree for increasing the tribute paid by the subject allies
of Athens, and by his management it was raised to double the amount fixed by Aristeides.
After the death of Cleon there was no rival able at all to cope with Alcibiades
except Nicias. To the political views of the latter, who was anxious for peace
and repose and averse to all plans of foreign conquests, Alcibiades was completely
opposed, and his jealousy of the influence and high character of his rival, led
him to entertain a very cordial dislike towards him. On one occasion only do we
find them united in purpose and feeling, and that was when Hyperbolus threatened
one of them with banishment. On this they united their influence, and Hyperbolus
himself was ostracised. The date of this occurrence is uncertain.
Alcibiades had been desirous of renewing those ties of hospitality
by which his family had been connected with Sparta, but which had been broken
off by his grandfather. With this view he vied with Nicias in his good offices
towards the Spartan prisoners taken in Sphacteria; but in the negotiations which
ended in the peace of 421, the Spartans preferred employing the intervention of
Nicias and Laches. Incensed at this slight, Alcibiades threw all his influence
into the opposite scale, and in B. C. 420, after tricking the Spartan ambassadors
who had come for the purpose of thwarting his plans, brought about an alliance
with Argos, Elis, and Mantineia. In 419 he was chosen Strategos, and at the head
of a small Athenian force marched into Peloponnesus, and in various ways furthered
the interests of the new confederacy. During the next three years he took a prominent
part in the complicated negotiations and military operation which were carried
on. Whether or not he was the instigator of the unjust expedition against the
Melians is not clear; but he was at any rate the author of the decree for their
barbarous punishment, and himself purchased a Melian woman, by whom he had a son.
In B. C. 415 Alcibiades appears as the foremost among the advocates
of the Sicilian expedition (Thuc. vi.), which his ambition led him to believe
would be a step towards the conquest of Italy, Carthage, and the Peloponnesus
(Thuc. vi. 90). While the preparations for the expedition were going on, there
occurred the mysterious mutilation of the Hermases-busts A man named Pythonicus
charged Alcibiades with having divulged and profaned the Elensinian mysteries;
and another man, Audrocles, endeavoiured to connect this and sismilair offeinces
with the mutilation of the Hermae. In spite of his demands for an investigation,
Alcibiades was sent out with Nicias and Lamachus in command of the fleet, but
was recalled before he could carry out the plan of operations which at his suggestion
had been adopted, namely, to endeavour to will over the Greek towns in Sicily,
except Syracuse and Selinus, and excite the native Sicels to revolt, and then
attack Syracuse. He was allowed to accompany the Salaminia in his own galley,
but managed to escape at Thurii, from which place he crossed over to Cyllene,
and thence proceeded to Sparta at the invitation of the Spartan government. He
now appeared as the avowed enemy of his country; disclosed to the Spartans the
plans of the Athenians, and recommended them to send Gylipus to Syracute, and
to fortify Decelcia (Thuc. vi. 88, vii. 13, 27, 28). Before he left Sicily he
had managed to defeat a plan which had been laid for the acquisition of Messana.
At Athens sentence of death was passed upon him, his property confiscated, and
a curse pronounced upon him by the ministers of religion. At Sparta he rendered
himself popular by the facility with which he adopted the Spartan manners. Through
his instrumentality many of the Asiatic allies of Athens were induced to revolt,
and an alliance was brought about with Tissaphernes (Thuc. viii. 6); but the machinations
of his enemy Agis (Agis II) induced him to abandon the Spartans and take refuge
with Tissaphernes (B. C. 412), whose favour he soon gained by his unrivalled talents
for social intercourse. The estrangement of Tissaphernes from his Spartan allies
ensued. Alcibiades, the enemy of Sparta, wished to return to Athens. He accordingly
entered into correspondence with the most influential persons in the Athenian
fleet at Samos, offering to bring over Tissaphernes to an alliance with Athens,
but making it a condition, that oligarchy should be established there. This coinciding
with the wishes of those with whom he was negotiating, those political movements
were set on foot by Peisander, which ended (B. C. 411) in the establishmennt of
the Four Hundred. The oligarchs, however, finding he could not perform his promises
with respect to Tissaphernes, and conscious that lie had at heart no real liking
for an oligarchy, would not recall him. But the soldiers in the armament at Samos,
headed by Thrasybulus and Thrasyllus. declared their resolution to restore democracy,
and passed a vote, by which Alcibiades was pardoned and recalled, and appointed
one of their generals. He conferred an important benefit on his country, by restraining
the soldiers from returning at once to Athens and so commencing a civil war; and
in the course of the sale year the oligarchy was overthrown without their assistance.
Alcibiades and the other exiles were recalled, but for the next four years lie
remained abroad, and under his command the Athenians gained the victories of Cynossema,
Abydos (4). and Cyzicus, and got possession of Chalcedon and
Byzantium. In B. C. 407, he returned to Athens, where he was received with great
enthusiasm. The records of the proceedings against him were sunk in the sea, his
property was restored, the priests were ordered to recant their curses, and he
was appointed commander-in-chief of all the land and sea forces (Diod. xiii. 69;
Plut. Alc. 33; Xen. Hell. i. 4.13--20). He signalised his return by conducting
the mystic procession to Eleusis, which had been interrupted since the occupation
of Deceleia. But his unsuccessful expedition against Andros and the defeat at
Notium, occasioned during his absence by the imprudence of his lieutenant, Antiochus,
who brought on an engagement against his orders, furnished his enemies with a
handle against him, and he was superseded in his command. (B. C. 406.)
Thinking that Athens would scarcely be a safe place for him, Alcibiades
went into voluntary exile to his fortified domain at Bisanthe in the Thracian
Chersonesus. He collected a band of mercenaries, and made war on the neighbouring
Thracian tribes, by which means he considerably enriched himself, and afforded
protection to the neighbouring Greek cities. Before the fatal battle of Aegos-Potami
(B. C. 405), he gave an ineffectual warning to the Athenian generals. After the
establishment of the tyranny of the Thirty (B. C. 404), he was condemned to banishment.
Upon this he took refuge with Pharnabazus, and was about to proceed to the court
of Artaxerxes, when one night his house was surrounded by a band of armed men,
and set on fire. He rushed out sword in hand, but fell, pierced with arrows. (B.
C. 404.) According to Diodorus and Ephorus (Diod. xiv. 11) the assassins were
emissaries of Pharnabazus, who had been led to this step either by his own jealousy
of Alcibiades, or by the instigation of the Spartans. It is more probable that
they were either employed by the Spartans, or (according to one account in Plutarch)
by the brothers of a lady whom Alcibiades had seduced. His corpe was taken up
and buried by his mistress Timandra. Athenacus (xiii. p. 574) mentions a monument
erected to his memory at Melissa, the place of his leath, and a statue of him
erected thereon by the emperor Hadrian, who also instituted certain yearly sacrifices
in his honour. He left a son by his wife Hipparete, named Alcibiades, who never
distinguished himself. It was for him that Isocrates wrote the speech Peri tou
Zeugous. Two of Lysias's speeches (xiv. and xv.) are directed against him. The
fortune which he left behind him turned out to be smaller than his patrimony (Plut.
Alcib. and Nicias; Thucyd. lib. v.--viii.; Xenophon, Hellen. lib. i. ii.; Andoc.
in Alcib. and de Myster.; Isocr. De Bigis; Nepos, Alcib.; Diod. xii. 78--84, xiii.
2--5, 37--41, 45, 46, 49--51, 64--73; Athen. i, iv, v, ix, xi, xii, xiii)
Commentary:
1. Demosthenes (Mid. p. 561) says, that the mother of Alcibiades was the daughter
of Hippoincus and that his father was connected with the Alcmaeonidae. The latter
statement may possibly be true. But it is difficult to explain the former, unless
we suppose Demosthenes to have confounded the great Alcibiades with his son.
2. Agariste, the mother of Pericles and Ariphon, was the daughter of Hippocrates,
whose brother Cleisthenes was the grandfather of Deinomache (Herod. vi. 131; Isocr.
De Big. 10).
3. He received a portion of 10 talents with his wife, which was to be doubled
on the birth of a son. His marriage took place before the battle of Delium (B.
C. 424), in which Hipponicus was slain (Andoc. Alcib.).
4. Shortly after the victory at Abydos, Alcibiades paid a visit to Tissaphernes,
who had arrived in the neighlbourhood of the Hellespont, but was arrested by him
and sent to Sardis. After a month's imnprisolment, however, he succeeded in making
his escape. (Xen. Hellen. i. 1.9)
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
Alcibiades. After the death of Pericles, the Athenians abandoned his strategy and embarked upon Cleon's less passive policy, attacking Sparta at home. After ten years of war, the Spartans were forced to admit that they were unable to defeat Athens. After 421, Athens started an increasingly aggressive policy. In 420, a nephew of Pericles, Alcibiades (c.450-404/403), convinced the Athenians that they had to join a new anti-Spartan alliance, and five years later, he commanded an armada to conquer Sicily. However, Alcibiades was recalled because it was believed that he was involved in a religious scandal (415). He understood that his life was in danger, and went into exile in Sparta, where he convinced the authorities to start the war against Athens anew. The moment was well-chosen, because in 413 the Athenians had supported Amorges, a rebel in the Persian empire. Almost immediately, the Persians sided with Sparta. This was to be Athens' undoing. It could overcome the loss of the Sicilian expedition force, but could not fight against Sparta and Persia at the same time. Ironically, Alcibiades was able to return to Athens after he had made a false promise to forge an alliance between Persia and Athens, but he had to leave his home town when it became clear that he could not keep his word. Alcibiades went into exile again, this time staying at the court of the Persian satrap Pharnabazus. Athens was forced to surrender in 404; Alcibiades was killed almost immediately after. A few years later, the Athenians avenged themselves upon his teacher, the philosopher Socrates, who was forced to drink poison ivy.
This text is cited July 2003 from the Livius Ancient History Website URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks.
ΑΘΗΝΑΙ (Αρχαία πόλη) ΕΛΛΑΔΑ
Atthis (Atthidographi): A chronicle of Attic history in which
especial attention was paid to occurrences of political and religious significance.
After the last half of the fourth century A.D., chronicles of this kind were composed
by a number of writers (Atthidographi), among whom Androtion and Philochorus deserve
special mention. These writings were much quoted by the grammarians.
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
Androtion. A Greek historian, an Athenian, and a pupil of Isocrates, who was accused of making an illegal proposal, and went into banishment at Megara. We still have the speech composed by Demosthenes for one of the accusers. At Megara he wrote a history of Attica (see Atthis) in at least twelve books, one of the best of that class of writings; but only fragments of it have survived.
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
180 - 120
Apollodorus. A Greek grammarian and historian of Athens, about B.C. 140,
a pupil of Aristarchus and the Stoic Panaetius. He was a most prolific writer
on grammar, mythology, geography, and history. Some of his works were written
in iambic senarii--e. g. a geography, and the Chronica, a condensed enumeration
of the most important data in history and literature from the fall of Troy, which
he places in B.C. 1183, down to his own time--undoubtedly the most important of
ancient works on the subject. Besides fragments, we have under his name a book
entitled Bibliotheca, a great storehouse of mythological material from the oldest
theogonies down to Theseus, and, with all its faults of arrangement and treatment,
a valuable aid to our knowledge of Greek mythology. Yet there are grounds for
doubting whether it is from his hand at all, or whether it is even an extract
from his great work, On the Gods, in twenty-four books.
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
Apollodorus. A Greek grammarian of Athens, was a son of Asclepiades, and a pupil
of the grammarian Aristarchus, of Panaetius, and Diogenes the Babylonian. He flourished
about the year B. C. 140, a few years after the fall of Corinth. Further particulars
are not mentioned about him. We know that one of his historical works (the chronika)
came down to the year B. C. 143, and that it was dedicated to Attalus II., surnamed
Philadelphus, who died in B. C. 138; but how long Apollodorus lived after the
year B. C. 143 is unknown. Apollodorus wrote a great number of works, and on a
variety of subjects, which were much used in antiquity, but all of them have perished
with the exception of one, and even this one has not come down to us complete.
This work bears the title Bibliopheke; it consists of three books, and is by far
the best among the extant works of the kind. It contains a well-arranged account
of the numerous mythuses of the mythology and the heroic age of Greece. The materials
are derived from the poets, especially the eyelic poets, the logograph(ers, and
the historians. It begins with the origin of the gods, and goes down to the time
of Theseus, when the work suddenly breaks off. The part which is wanting at the
end contained the stories of the families of Pelops and Atreus, and probably the
whole of the Trojan cycle also. The first portion of the work (i. 1-7) contains
the ancient theogonie and cosmogonie mythuses, which are followed by the Hellenic
mythuses, and the latter are arranged according to the different tribes of the
Greek nation (Phot. Cod. 186). The ancients valued this work very highly, as it
formed a running mythological conmmentary to the (Greek poets; to us it is of
still greater value, as most of the works from which Apollodorus derived his information,
as well as several other works which were akin to that of Apollodorus, are now
lost. Apollodorus relates his mythical stories in a plain and unadorned style,
and gives only that which he found in his sources, without interpolating or perverting
the genuine forms of the legends by attempts to explain their meaning. This extreme
simplicity of the Bibliotheca, more like a mere catalogue of events, than a history,
has led some modern critics to consider the work in its present form either as
an abridgement of some greater work of Apollodorus, or as made up out of several
of his works. But this opinion is a mere hypothesis without any evidence...
Among the other works ascribed to Apollodorus which are
lost, but of which a considerable number of fragments are still extant, which
are contained in Heyne's edition of the Bibliotheca and in C. and Th. Muller's
Fragm. Hist. Graec., the following must be noticed here:
1. Peri ton Aphenesin hetairon, i. e. on the Athenian Courtezans (Athen. xiii.,
xiv.)
2. Antigraphe pros ten Aristokleous epistnlen (Athen. xiv.)
3. Tes periodos, komikoi metroi, that is, a Universal Geography in iambie verses,
such as was afterwards written by Scymnus of Chios and by Dionysins (Strabo, xiv.;
Steph. Byz. passim)
4. Peri Eticharmou, either a commentary or a dissertation on the plays of the
comic poet Epicharmus, which consisted of ten books (Pophyr. Vit. Plotin,. 4)
5. Etumologiai, or Etymologies, a work which is frequently referred to, though
not always under this title, but sometimes apparently under that of the head of
a particular article. (Heyne, p. 1144 &c.; Muller, p. 462, &c.)
6. Peri Deon, in twenty-four books. This work contain the mythology of the Greeks,
as far as the gods themseives were concerned; the Bibliotheca, giving an account
of the heroic ages, formed a kind of continuation to it.
7. Peri neon katalogou or peri neon, was an historical and geographical explanation
of the catalogue in the second book of the Iliad. It consisted of twelve books,
and is frequently cited by Strabo and other ancient writers.
8. Perpi Sophronos, that is, a commentary on the Mimes of Sophron, of which the
third book is quoted by Athenaeus (vii. p. 281), and the fourth by the Schol.
on Aristoph.
9. Chronika or chronike suntaxis, was a chronicle in iambic verses, comprising
the history of 1040 years, from the destruction of Troy (1184) down to his own
time, B. C. 143. This work, which was again a sort of continuation of the Bibliotheca,
thus completed the history from the origin of the gods and the world down to his
own time. Of how many books it consisted is not quite certain. In Stephanus of
Byzantium the fourth book is mentioned, but if Syncellus (Chronogr.) refers to
this work, it must have consisted of at least eight books. The loss of this work
is one of the severest that we have to lament in the historical literature of
antiquity.
Πληροφορίες Σύνταξης
Τα ηλεκτρονικά κείμενα των έργων του Απολλόδωρου παρατίθενται στην Ελλάδα (αρχαία χώρα) στην κατηγορία Αρχαία Ελληνική Γραμματεία.
Callippus (Kallippos), of Athens, was a disciple of Plato, and thus became acquainted with Dion of Syracuse, who was likewise among the pupils of Plato. When Dion afterwards returned to Syracuse, Callippus accompanied him, and was ever after treated by him with distinction and confidence. Notwithstanding this, Callippus formed at last a conspiracy against the life of Dion. The plot was discovered by Dion's sister; but Callippus pacified them by swearing, that he had no evil intentions towards Dion. But in spite of this oath, he assassinated Dion during a festival of Persephone, the very divinity by whom he had sworn, B. C. 353. Callippus now usurped the government of Syracuse, but maintained himself only for thirteen months. The first attempt of Dion's friends to cause an insurrection of the people against the usurper was unsuccessful; but, a short time after, Hipparenus, a brother of the younger Dionysius, landed with a fleet at Syracuse, and Callippus, who was defeated in the ensuing battle, took to flight. He now wandered about in Sicily from town to town, at the head of a band of licentious mercenaries, but could not maintain himself anywhere. At last he and Leptines, with their mercenaries, crossed over into Italy, and laid siege to Rhegium, which was occupied by a garrison of Dionysius the Younger. The garrison was expelled, and the citizens of Rhegium were restored to autonomy, and Callippus himself remained at Rhegium. He treated his mercenaries badly, and being unable to satisfy their demands, he was murdered by his own friends, Leptines and Polyperchon, with the same sword, it is said, with which he had assassinated Dion. (Plut. Dion. 28-58, de Sera Num. Vind.; Diod. xvi. 31, 36, 45; Athen. xi.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Phylarchus (Phularchos), a Greek historical writer, was a contemporary of Aratus.
The name is sometimes written Philarchs, but there is no reason to adopt the supposition
of Wyttenbach (ad Plut. de Is. et Osir. p. 211), that there were two different
writers, one named Phylarchus and the other Philarchus. His birthplace is doubtful.
We learn from Suidas (s. v.) that three different cities are mentioned as his
native place, Athens, Naucratis in Egypt, or Sicyon; but as Athenaeus calls him
(ii.) an Athenian or Naucratian, we may leave the claims of Sicyon out of the
question. We may therefore conclude that he was born either at Athens or Naucratis;
and it is probable that the latter was his native town, and that he afterwards
removed to Athens, where he spent the greater part of his life. Respecting the
date of Phylarchus there is less uncertainty. We learn from Polybius (ii. 56)
that Phylarchus was a contemporary of Aratus, and gave an account of same events
as the latter did in his history. Aratus died B. C. 213, and his work ended at
B. C. 220; we may therefore place Phylarchus at about B. C. 215.
The credit of Phylarchus as an historian is vehemently attacked by
Polybius (ii. 56, &c.), who charges him with falsifying history through his partiality
to Cleomenes, and his hatred against Aratus and the Achaeans. The accusation is
probably not unfounded, but it might be retorted with equal justice upon Polybius,
who has fallen into the opposite error of exaggerating the merits of Aratus and
his party, and depreciating Cleomenes, whom he has certainly both misrepresented
and misunderstood. The accusation of Polybius is repeated by Plutarch (Arat. 38),
but it comes with rather a bad grace from the latter writer, since there can be
little doubt, as Lucht has shown, that his lives of Agis and Cleomenes are taken
almost entirely from Phylarchus, to whom he is likewise indebted for the latter
part of his life of Pyrrhus. The vivid and graphic style of Phylarchus, of which
we shall say a few words below, was well suited to Plutarch's purpose. It has
likewise been remarked by Heeren (Comment. Societ. Gotting.), that Trogus Pompeius
took from Phylarchus larchus that portion of his work which treated of the same
times as were contained in the history of Phylarchus. That Plutarch and Trogus
borrowed almost the very words of Phylarchus, appears from a comparison of Justin,
xxviii. 4, with Plutarch, Uleom. 29.
The style of Phylarchus is also strongly censured by Polybius, who
blames him for writing history for the purpose of effect, and for seeking to harrow
up the feelings of his readers by the narrative of deeds of violence and horror.
This charge is to some extent supported by the fragments of his work which have
come down to us; but whether he deserves all the reprehension which Polybius has
bestowed upon him may well be questioned, since the unpoetical character of this
great historian's mind would not enable him to feel much sympathy with a writer
like Phylarchus, who seems to have possessed no small share of imagination and
fancy. It would appear that the style of Phylarchus was too ambitious ; it was
oratorical, and perhaps declamatory; but at the same time it was lively and attractive,
and brought the events of the history vividly before the reader's mind. He was,
however, very negligent ligent in the arrangement of his words, as Dionysius sius
has remarked (Dionys. De Compos. Verb. c. 4).
The following six works are attributed to Phylarchus by Suidas:
1. Historiai, in 28 books, of which we have already spoken, and which were by
far the most important of his writings. This work is thus described by Suidas:
"The expedition of Pyrrlus the Epeirot against Peloponnesus in 28 books; and it
comes down to Ptolemaeus who was called Euergetes, and to the end of Berenice,
and as far as Cleomenes the Lacedaemonian, against whom Antigonus made war." When
Suidas entitles it "the expedition of Pyrrhus, &c." he merely describes the first
event in the work. The expedition of Pyrrhus into Peloponnesus was in B. C. 272;
the death of Cleomenes in B. C. 220: the work therefore embraced a period of fifty-two
years. From some of the fragments of the work which have been preserved (e. g.
Athen. viii., xii.), it has been conjectured by some modern writers that Phylarchus
commenced at an earlier period, perhaps as early as the death of Alexander the
Great; but since digressions on earlier events might easily have been introduced
by Phylarchus, we are not warranted in rejecting the express testimony of Suidas.
As far as we can judge from the fragments, the work gave the history not only
of Greece and Macedonia, but likewise of Aegypt, Cyrene, and the other states
of the time; and in narrating the history of Greece, Phylarchus paid particular
attention to that of Cleomenes and the Lacedaemonians.
2. Ta kata ton Antiochon kai ton Pergamenon Eumene, was probably a portion of
the preceding work, since the war between Eumenes I. and Antiochus Soter was hardly
of sufficient importance to give rise to a separate history, and that between
Eumenes II. and Antiochus the Great was subsequent to the time of Phylarchus.
3, 4. Epitome muthike peri tes tou Dios epiphaneias, was one work, although cited
by Suidas as two : the general title was Epitome muthike, and that of the first
part Peri tes tou Dios epiphaneias.
5. Peri eurematon, on which subject Ephorus and Philochorus also wrote.
6. Perembaseon biblia th', which is corrupt, since the word parembasis is unknown.
7. Hagrapha, not mentioned by Suidas, and only by the Scholiast on Aelius Aristeides
(p. 103, ed. Frommel), was probably a work on the more abstruse points of mythology,
of which no written account had ever been given.
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
Alcimenes Alkmenes), an Athenian comic poet, apparently a contemporary of Aeschylus. One of his pieces is supposed to have been the Kolumbosai (the Female Swimmers). His works were greatly admired by Tynnichus, a younger contemporary of Aeschylus.
There was a tragic writer of the same name, a native of Megara, mentioned by Suidas. (Suid. s. v. Alkimenes and Alkman.)
Alexander of Athens, a comic poet, the son of Aristion, whose name occurs in an
inscription given in Bockh, who refers it to the 145th Olympiad (B. C. 200). There
seems also to have been a poet of the same name who was a writer of the middle
comedy, quoted by the Schol. on Homer (Il. ix. 216), and Aristoph. (Ran. 864),
and Athen. (iv.).
Ameipsias, a comic poet of Athens, contemporary with Aristophanes, whom he twice conquered in the dramatic contests, gaining the second prize with his Konnos when Aristophanes was third with the " Clouds" (423 B. C.), and the first with his Komastai, when Aristophanes gained the second with the " Birds." (414 B. C.; Arrgum. in Aristoph. Nub. et. Av.) The [p. 142] Konnos appears to have had the same subject and aim as the " Clouds." It is at least certain that Socrates appeared in the play, and that the Chorus consisted of Phrontistai. (Diog. Laert. ii. 28 ; Athen. v. p. 218.) Aristophanes alludes to Ameipsias in the " Frogs" (v. 12--14), and we are told in the anonymous life of Aristophanes, that when Aristophanes first exhibited his plays, in the names of other poets, Ameipsias applied to him the proverb tetradi gegonos, which means " a person who labours for others," in allusion to Heracles, who was born on the fourth of the month.
Ameipsias wrote many comedies, out of which there remain only a few fragments of the following : --Apokottabizontes, Katesthion (doubtful), Konnos, Moichoi, Sappho, Sphendone, and of some the names of which are unknown. Most of his plays were of the old comedy, but some, in all probability, were of the middle. (Meineke, Frag. Com. i. p. 199, ii. p. 701.)
Amphis, an Athenian comic poet, of the middle comedy, contemporary with the philosopher Plato. A reference to Phryne, the Thespian, in one of his plays (Athen. xiii.), proves that he was alive in B. C. 332. We have the titles of twenty-six of his plays, and a few fragments of them. (Suidas, s. v.; Pollux, i. 233; Diog. Laert. iii. 27)
Anaxilas or Anaxilaus (Anaxilas, Anaxilaos), an Athenian comic poet of the middle
comedy, contemporary with Plato and Demosthenes, the former of whom he attacked
in one of his plays (Diog. Laert. iii. 28). We have a few fragments and the titles
of nineteen of his comedies, eight of which are on mythological subjects (Pollux,
ii. 29, 34; x. 190; Athen.)
Anaxippus (Anaxippos), an Athenian comic poet of the new comedy, was contemporary with Antigonus and Demetrius Poliorcetes, and flourished about B. C. 303. (Suidas, s. v.) We have the titles of four of his plays, and perhaps of one more.
Antidotus (Antidotos), an Athenian comic poet, of whom we know nothing, except that he was of the middle comedy, which is evident from the fact that a certain play, the Homoia, is ascribed both to him and to Alexis. (Athen. xiv.) We have the titles of two other plays of his, and it is thought that his name ought to be restored in Athenaeus (i.) and Pollux (vi. 99).
Λάβετε το καθημερινό newsletter με τα πιο σημαντικά νέα της τουριστικής βιομηχανίας.
Εγγραφείτε τώρα!
