Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 3.djvu/260

Rh 248 PHEIDIAS. to have been felt, tnuch less manifested, at the moment when he had finished the works which placed Athens at the very snramit 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 meagre- nes3 of the positive facts that are recorded. There is, however, one fact, which seems to fix, with to- lerable certainty, the time Avhen Pheidias was en- gaged on the statue at Olympia. Pausanias informs lis (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 re- semble Pantarces, an Eleian boy, who was beloved by Pheidias ; and that Pantarces was victor in the boys' wrestling, in 01. 86, b. c. 436.* If there be 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 Avould any subsequent artist have the motive which Pheidias had to re- present Pantarces at all. A more plausible ob- jection is founded on the uncertainty of the tradition, Avhich Pausanias only records in the vague terms ^oiKivai TO e75o.? Aeyovai. But it must be remem- bered 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 de- scendants 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 Pan- tarces 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 tho 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 Pisaeans. The date of this war was 01. 50, 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 the question of the age of Pheidias is obvious. PHEIDIAS. 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 ; Panaenus, his relative, who executed the chief pictorial embellishments of the statue and temple ; Alcamenes, his most dis- tinguished disciple, who made the statues in the hinder pediment of the temple ; not to mention Paeonius of Mende, and Cleoetas, whose con- nection with Pheidias, though not certain, is ex- tremely 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 (see Miiller, de, Pliid. Vit. p. 28, n. y.). The honour in which Pheidias lived among the Eleians is also shovvn by their assigning to him a studio in the neighbourhood of the Altis (Pans. 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 Athensf (Paus. V. 10. § 2 ; Cic. Tusc. Quaest. i. 15). The inscription was as follows : — 4>ei5tas Xapixidov vius ^A6r}va7os fi iTrorjcTii'. 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 (Pans. v. 10. § 2), and of Salamis holding the aplustre, in a group with personified Greece, probably crowning her (Pans. v. 11. § 2). These subjects are also important in 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 Pelopon- nesian War. From the above considerations, making allowance also for the time which so great a work would ne- cessarily occupy, it may be inferred, with great probability, that Pheidias 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 partj'^ 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), + He had, however been honoured by the in- scription of his name on a column as the maker of the throne of the goddess. (Plut. Per. 13.)
 * The important bearing of this tradition on