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

244 PHEIDIAS. PHEIDIAS.
nearly half a century earlier, it is incredible, first, of Pantarces (on this point see below). The utmost
that the notices of his earlier productions should that can be granted to such arguments is the estabe so scanty as they are, and next, that his fame blishment of a bare possibility, which cannot avail
should be so thoroughly identified as it is with the for the decision of so important a question, espeworks which he executed at this period. Such an cially against the arguments on the other side,
occasion as the restoration of the sacred monuments which we now proceed to notice.
of Athens would, we may be sure, produce the The question of the age of Pheidias is inseparably
artist whose genius guided the whole work, as we connected with one still more important, the whole
know that it did produce a new development of history of the artistic decoration of Athens during
art itself; and it is hardly conceivable that the the middle of the fifth century B. c., and the
master spirit of this new era was a man of nearly consequent creation of the Athenian school of perseventy years old, whose early studies and works fect sculpture; and both matters are intimately
must have been of that stiff archaic style, from associated with the political history of the period.
which even Calamis, who (on this hypothesis) was We feel it necessary, therefore, to discuss the
much his junior, had not entirely emancipated him- subject somewhat fully, especially as all the recent
self. This principle, we think, will be found to English writers with whose works we are acquainted
furnish the best guide through the conflicting tes- have been content to assume the conclusions of
timonies and opinions respecting the age of Pheidias. Miiller, Sillig, and others, without explaining the
Several writers, the best exposition of whose grounds on which they rest; while even the reasons
views is given by Thiersch (Ueberdie Epochen desr urged by those authorities themselves seem to
bildenden Kunst unter den Griecalen, p. 113, &c.), admit of some correction as well as confirmation.
place Pheidias almost at the beginning of the fifth The chief point at issue is this: —Did the great
century B. C., making him already a young artist Athenian school of sculpture, of which Pheidias
of some distinction at the time of the battle of was the head, take its rise at the commencement of
Marathon, B. C. 490; and that on the following the Persian wars, or after the settlement of Greece
grounds. Pausanias tells us (i. 28. ~ 2) that the subsequent to those wars? To those who undercolossal bronze statue of Athena Promachus, in the stand the influence of war upon the arts of peace,
Acropolis of Athens, was made by Pheidias, out of or who are intimately acquainted with that period
the tithe of the spoil taken fr'om the llfedes who dis- of Grecian history, the mnode of stating the question
enmbarked ot Maratlhon; and he elsewhere mentions almost suggests its solution. But it is necessary to
other statues which Pheidias made out of the same descend to details. We must first glance at the
spoils, namely, the group of statues which the political history of the period, to see what opporAthenians dedicated at Delphi (x. 10. ~ 1), and tunities were furnished for the cultivation of art,
the acrolith of Athena, in her temple at Plataeae and then compare the probabilities thus suggested
(ix. 4. ~ 1). It may be observed in passing, with with the known history of the art of statuary and
respect to the two latter works, that if they had sculpture.
exhibited that striking difference of style, as com- In the period immediately following the battle
pared with the great works of Pheidias at Athens, of Marathon, in B. c. 490, we may be sure that the
which snust have marked them had they been made attention of the Athenians was divided between
some half century earlier than these great works, the effects of the recent struggle and the preparaPausanias would either not have believed them tion for its repetition; and there could have been but
to be the works of Pheidias, or he would have little leisure and but snall resources for the cultivamade some observation upon their archaic style, tion of art. Though the argument of Miiller, that the
and have informed us how early Pheidias began to spoils of Marathon must have been but small, is
work. The question, however, chiefly turns upon pretty successfully answered by Thiersch, the probathe first of the above works, the statue of Athena bility that the tithe of those spoils, which was dediPromachus, which is admitted on all hands to have cated to the gods, awaited its proper destination till
been one of the most important productions of the more settled times, is not so easily disposed of: indeed
art of Pheidias. The argument of Thiersch is, we learn from Thlucydides (ii. 1 3) that a portion of
that, in the absence of any statement to the con- these spoils (aesKra M3tlKuc) were reckoned among
trary, we must assume that the commission was the treasures of Athens so late as the beginning of
given to the artist immediately after the victory the Peloponnesian war. During the occupation of
which the statue was intended to commemorate. Athens by the Persians, such a work as the colossal
Now it is evident, at first sight, to what an extra- statue of Athena Promachus awould, of course, have
ordinary. conclusion this assumption drives us. been destroyed in the burning of the Acropolis,
Pheidias must already have been of some reputation had it been already set lp; which it sfrely would
to be entrusted with such a work. We cannot have been, in the space of ten years, if, as Thiersch
suppose him to have been, at the least, under supposes, it had been put in hand immediately after
twenty-five years of age. This would place his the battle of Marathon. To assume, on the other
birth in B.C. 515. Therefore, at the time when hand, as Thiersch does, that Pheidias, in the flight
he finished his great statue of Athena in the Par- to Salamis, succeeded in carrying with him his unthenon (B. C. 438), he must have been 77; and finished statue, with his moulds and implements,
after reaching such an age he goes to Elis, and un- and so went on with his work, seeIns to us a manidertakes the colossal statue of Zeus, upon corn- fest absurdity. We are thus brought to the end
pleting which (B. c. 433, probably), he had reached of the Persian invasion, when the Athenians found
the 82nd year of his'age! Results like these are their city in ruins, but obtained, at least in part, the
not to be explained away by the ingenious argu- means of restoring it in the spoils which were
ments by which Thiersch maintains that there is divided after the battle of Plataeae (n. c. 479).
nothing incredible in supposing Pheidias, at the age Of that part of the spoil which fell to the share of
of eighty, to have retained vigour enough to be the Athens, a tithe would naturally be set apart for
sculptor of the Olympian Zeus, and even the lover sacred uses, ned would be added to the tithe of