Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/1072

Rh 1060 THEODORUS. Rhoecns, and Theodoras. (Comp. xxxiv. 8. 8. 19. § 22, where the common reading places the laby- rinth at Samos ; but this is easily corrected by a change in the punctuation, proposed by Mliller in his Aei/i/icfica, p. 99, and adopted by Sillig, in his edition of Pliny ; namely, TJieodorus, qui lahyrin- thum fecit, Sami ipse ex acre fudit: it is, however, just as likely that the mistake is Pliny's own, or, that it was made by a copyist ; see below). Another architectural work, ascribed to Theodoras, was the old Scias at Sparta, as we learn from the same passage in which Pausanias mentions him as the inventor of casting in iron (iii, 12. § 8. s. 10). He is also connected with the erection of the cele- brated temple of Artemis at Epliesus by an in- teresting tradition, recorded by Diogenes Laiirtius (ii. 103), that Theodoras advised the laying down of charcoal-cinders beneath the foundation of the temple, as a remedy against the dampness of the eite : here he is called a Saraian, and the son of Rhoecns. Lastlv, the names of Theodorus and Telecles are connected with the history of the ancient wooden statues in a very curious manner. Diodorus (i. 98), in relating the various claims set up by the Egyp- tians to be considered the instructors of the Greeks in philosophy, science, and art, tells us that they asserted that the most celebrated of the ancient statuaries, Telecles and Theodorus, the sons of Rhoecus, lived a long time in Egypt ; and that they told the following story respecting the wooden statue {loavov) of the Pythian Apollo, which those artists made for the Samians. Of this statue, Te- lecles made the one half in Samos, while the other half was made by his brother Theodorus at Ephe- sus; and, when the two parts were placed toge- ther, they agreed as exactly as if the whole body had been made by one person ; a result which the Egyptians ascribed to the fact, that their rules of art had been learnt by Telecles and Theodorus. With this tradition we may connect one preserved by Pliny, that Theodorus of Samos was the in- ventor of certain tools used in working wood, namely, the norma, libella^ lomus^ and clavis. ( Plin. H. N. vii. 56. s. 57. ) Now, in considering the conclusions which are to be drawn from all this evidence, it is as well first to exclude the assertion of Thiersch, that there were two artists of the name of Telecles, which rests on no other ground than the necessity of lengthening out the genealogy in order to suit the too early date which he has assumed for Rhoecus. He makes Rhoecus, with his sons Te- lecles and Theodorus, flourish at the beginning of the Olympiads, and then, nearly two centuries later, he comes to another Telecles, with his son Theodorus, the artist who lived in the time of Polycrates. The real questions to be determined are these, Were Theodorus, the son of Rhoecus, and Theo- dorus, the son of Telecles, different persons, or the same ? If the former, was the one Tlieodorus, namely, the son of Rhoecus, the same as Theodorus, the brother of Telecles, and was this Telecles the same as the father of the other Theodorus ? If these questions be answered in the affirmative, little difficulty remains in adopting the genealogy of Miiller, as given under Rhoecus. If the first of these questions can be satisfactorily answered, the others are easily disposed of. Aitd here, in the first place, the above testimonies can THEODORUS. hardly be explained on any other supposition than that there existed distinct traditions respecting two different Samian artists of the name of Theodorus, the one the son of Rhoecus and the brother of Telecles, and the other the son of Telecles, For the former, we have the passages in Diogenes and Diodorus ; for the latter, one passage of Herodotus and two of Pausanias ; and besides these, there is one passage of Herodotus, one of Plato, one of Pausanias, one of Vitruvius, and four of Pliny, in which Theodorus is mentioned, without his father's name, but, in nearly every instance, as a Samian, and as closely connected with Rlioecus. Of course, the well-known facts, of the alternate succession of names, and the hereditary transmission of art, in Grecian families, must not be left out of the consi- deration. On the other hand, if we suppose only one Theodorus, we must assume that Diogenes has made one decided mistake, and Diodorus two, namely, in making Telecles and Theodorus sons of Rhoecus ; or else we must have recourse to the still more arbitrary and improbable supposition, that this one and only Theodorus was tlie son of Telecles, and the grandson of Rhoecus. The con- clusion adopted by Mr. Grote {Hidory of Greece, vol. iv. p. 1 32), that there was only one Theodorus, namely, the son of Rhoecus, is the least probable of all, as it compels us to reject the positive state- ments, which make him the son of Telecles, and therefore, " the positive evidence does not enable us to verify" his theory, as he remarks of the genealogies of Miiller and Thiersch. A positive argument for distinguishing the two Theodori has been derived from a comparison of the passage in which Pau- sanias speaks of the bronze statue of Night, ascribed to Rhoecus, as being of the rudest workmanship (x. 38. § 3. 8. 6), with that in which Herodotus describes the crater made by Theodorus as a work of no common order (i. 51). Surely, it is argued, there could not be so great a difference in the] works of the father and the son, and much less can] it be accounted for, if we suppose Rhoecus and] Theodorus to have been strictly contemporarj'.l There is perhaps some force in this argument, but] it can hardly be considered decisive. It may also be observed that, in none of thej passages, in which the architectural works of Theo-I dorus are referred to, is he called the son of j Telecles, while, on the other hand, the names of] Rhoecus and Theodorus are closely associated in these works ; facts which suggest the hypothesisj that, while the elder Theodorus followed chieflyl the architectural branch of his father's profession,! the younger devoted himself to the development' of the art of working in metal. Miiller has at*, tempted also to draw a positive conclusion respecting the dates of these artists from the buildings or which they are said to have been engaged. The Heraeum at Samos is referred to by Herodotus it such a way as to imply, not only that it was one of the most ancient of the great temples then ex-i isting, but also that it had been, at least in partj erected before the 37th Olympiad ; and hence Miiller places Rhoecus about 01. 35, which agrees very well with the time at which his supposed! grandson Theodorus flourished, namely, in the] reigns of Croesus and Polycrates. This also agreetj with the story told by Diogenes of the connection of the first Theodorus, the son of Rhoecus, with the laying of the foundation of the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, which was probably commenced abou '