A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

1326 ZEUXIS. ZEUXIS.
and, on the other hand, the date of 01. 79 is not Now, from the general character of the allusions
only opposed to Pliny's view (for which indeed it in the comic poets, we may safely infer that the
makes no difference whether the imagined error picture alluded to was only recently painted; and
was 28 years or 68, since both would be abso- therefore we are quite prepared to accept the exlutely wrong), but it is so utterly inconsistent press statement of the Scholiast, that the picture
with all we learn from other quarters of the age of referred to was one painted by Zeuxis, and dediZeuxis, that we cannot believe it to have been cated in the temple of Aphrodite at Athens, repreassigned by any of the Greek writers whom Pliny senting Eros in the fairest youthful beauty, anti
followed, and therefore we cannot believe that he as crowned with roses (comp. Suid. s. v.'AEdehad any occasion to refer to it. This date of 01. 79 sucov). The date of the Acharnians was a. c. 425;
would, in fact, make Zeuxis a contemporary of and this agrees wonderfully well with the passage in
Polygnotus. The important result which remains the Protagoras, where it is clearly implied that the
to us is the positive testimony of some of the Greek painter had already achieved a very high reputawriters on art, that Zeuxis flourished in 01. 89, tion. It is hardly necessary to remark, that there
B. c. 424. is no difficulty in explaining the word V'reoorI as
Pliny's reason for rejecting this statement, and referring to a period three or four years back,
for fixing on the 95th Olympiad as the commence- especially when we are dealing with a chronoment of the career of Zeuxis, is, we suspect, to be logical allusion in Plato. It is true that each porfound in his notion of the relation of Zeuxis to tion of the incidental evidence now adduced has a
Apollodorus, whom he places at 01. 93. Pliny certain degree of indefiniteness; but some of the
evidently believed Zeuxis to have been largely soundest results of critical inquiries are based upon
indebted to Apollodorus; and thus far, as we shall the cumulative force and mutual confirmation of a
presently see, he was doubtless in the right. But body of incidental evidence, no one portion ot
if he drew from this relation the inference that which, by itself, would justify the conclusion.
Zeuxis must have begun to flourish some eight or The above arguments applyto the beginning of the
twelve years, or even at all, after the time at which career of Zeuxis: they are abundantly confirmed by
Apollodorus was at the height of his reputation, evidence referring to a later period, namely, from
he adopted a conclusion which by no means neces- what we are told of his connection with Archelaiis,
sarily follows. We are nowhere expressly told that king of Macedonia, whose reign began in B. c. 413,
Zeuxis was a pupil of Apollodorus; but this does and ended in B. c. 399, the very year in which, acnot matter. In schools of art the disciple is often cording to Pliny, Zeuxis began to flourish. But for
very little younger, sometimes even older, than his this king he executed an important and extensive
master; and this is especially the case where an work, which would not have been entrusted to any
artist, who has already made some progress in his but an artist of established reputation, the decorastudies or even in the practice of his art, enters the tion of the royal palace at Pella with paintings,
school of a master who is celebrated in some one for which Zeuxis received four hundred minae
point of the art, for the sake of acquiring the know- (Aelian, V. H. xiv. 17). Aelian relates this fact
ledge of that point. Numerous examples might be in connection with a remark of Sbcrates upon it,
cited from the history both of ancient and mo- which is worth repeating, both for its own sake,
dern art of this sort of relation between contempo- and as showing that the work must have been
rary artists, and also of the errors made by adopt- executed some time before B. c. 399 (when So.
ing some fixed average period as that by which it crates himself was put to death), and yet after
may be assumed that the disciple was later than the fame of Zeuxis had been spread far and wide
his master. For these reasons we draw a con- -" ArchelaUs," said the philosopher, "had spent
clusion in favour of the date we have assigned to 400 minae on his house, hiring Zeuxis of Heracleia
Zeuxis, even from the manner in which Pliny to paint it, but nothing on himself (that is, on his
denies its correctness. own improvement). Wherefore men travelled from
This date is abundantly confirmed by other a distance, eager to see the house, but none visited
evidence. Quintilian (xii. 10) tells us that he Macedonia for the sake of Archelaiis himself."
lived about the time of the Peloponnesian War. We are also told by Pliny, that Zeuxis, after acThe allusions to him, which are put into the mouth quiring a great fortune by the exercise of his art,
of Socrates by Xenophon and Plato, even after adopted the custom of giving away his pictures,
mnaking all allowance for the anachronisms which because no adequate price could be set upon them;
the latter is often content to commit for the sake and one of the paintings so given away was a
of dramatic effect, point to the date above fixed, picture of Pan, which he presented to Archelaiis:
and place him, at all events, earlier than the date another proof that he had reached the summit of
assigned by Pliny (Plat. Gorg. p. 453, c. d.; Xen. his reputation before that king's death in B. c. 399.
Ailem. i. 4. ~ 6, Oecon. x. 1; and probably also Another indication of his date is found in the
Syeipos. iv. 63, and Plat. Protag. p. 318, b. c.; story related by Plutarch (Per-. 13),.which represee ZEuxIPPus). Besides the general indications sents him as partly contemporary with Agatharcus,
of his date, furnished by these passages, the one who painted scenes for Aeschylus or Sophocles
last quoted (if Zeuxippus there be Zeuxis) gives [AGATHARCUS].
a specific date perfectly in accordance with the one On these grounds we may say, with almost absoassumed, for the second visit of Protagoras to lute certainty, that Zeuxis flourished chiefly during
Athens, on occasion of which the dialogue is sup- the last quarter of the fifth century, B. C.; and, as
posed to be held, took place in B. c. 422. Similar it has been shown to be probable that he was
incidental evidence may be derived from Aris- already exercising his art at Athens with great
tophanes, who, in the Acharnians (991, 992), success at the beginning of that period, we may
having mentioned Eros, adds: — assume that he was then not less than thirty years
(6airsp 5'pys-ypcsdea0sr, 7e'Xe ATo-rs'c aYev'PO' old (and this falls within the meaning of vedvlcUos
p 6?eypagos, EX, aVo LV. in the Protagoras); and therefore that he weu