246 PHEIDIAS. scries 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 (O/-. Iv. p. 558) gives another name, which is printed in the editions 'Ittttiou, but appears in the MSS. as innOY, out of which HFIOT may be made by a very slight alteration ; and, if this conjecture be adniitted, we have, as a teacher of Pheidias, He- gias or Hegesias, who, as we have seen, was con- temporary 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 sttituaries of Greece, was the teacher of three others of the most celebrated artists, Pheidias, Myron, and Polycleitus, to sepa- rate this Ageladas into two persons, making one the teacher of Pheidias, the other of Myron and Polycleitus. 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 younger. 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 Olym- piads, B. c. 520, 516, and of another whose victory was about the same period ; 3. he was contempo- rary 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 01. 87, B. c. 432. Now of these data, the 3rd, 4th, and 5th can alone be relied on, and they are not irreconcileable with the 1st, 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 applied to various divinities, and analogy would lead us to suppose its origin to be mythical rather than historical. The matter is the more important, inasmuch as Ageladas also (on whose date the present question very much turns) is placed by some as late as this same plague on the strength of liis statue of Heracles Alexicacos. (Comp. Miiller, lie Fhidiae Vita, pp. 13, 14.) PHEIDIAS. gained ; the 6th has been noticed already ; and the 7 th may be disposed of as another example of the loose way in Avhich 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 Miiller, de Phidiae Vita, pp. 11, &c. Miiller maintains the probability of Ageladas having visited Athens, both from his having been the teacher of Pheidias and Myron, and from th^ possession by the Attic payus of Melite of his statue of Heracles {Schol. ad Aris- toph. Ban. 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 oi 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 01. 79, B.c. 464 ; and, supposing him to have been about twenty-five j^ears 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 re- turn to what is known of his life. It is not improbable that Pheidias belonged to a family of artists ; for his brother or nephew Pa- naenus was a celebrated painter ; and he himself is related to have occupied himself with painting, before he turned his attention to statuary. (Plin. 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 occasion for the development of his talents was furnished (as has been already argued at length) by the Avorks 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 pre- sently. The statue of Athena Proniachus would probably also, for the same reason of discharging a religious duty, be among the first works under- taken for the ornament of the city, and we shall probably not be far wrong in assigning the execu- tion 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 work- ing under his direction, during the administration of Pericles. That statesman not only chose Phei- dias 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 fol- m lowing classes of artists and artificers, who all ^ worked under the direction of Pheidias : re/fToi/cy, TrAacTTat, xo^A./fOTWTrot, XiQovpryo, fia(pf7s, XP^°^^ fxaKaKTTJpfs koI 4€(paj/Tos, ^coypdcpoi, TroiKtAral, j ropevTai. (Plut. Peric. 12.) Of these works the ■ chief were the Propylaea of the Acropolis, and, »
