ページの画像
PDF

supposed difficulty of reconciling them with the more trustworthy statements of Irenaeus, who, in his boyhood, had known, perhaps lived with Polycarp (Iren. Epistola ad Florinum. apud Euseb. H. E. v. 20), and of other writers. According to Irenaeus (Epist. ad Victoren Papam, apud Euseb. H. E. v. 24), Polycarp had intercourse with “John and others of the Apostles:” or still more expressly (Adv. Haeres. iii. 3, et apud Euseb. H. E. iv. 14), he was instructed (perhaps converted, watomrev0els) by the Apostles, and conversed familiarly with many who had seen Christ ; was by the Apostles appointed (karaortabels) bishop of the church at Smyrna; and always taught what he had learned from the Apostles. Tertullian (De Praescriptionibus Haerelic, c. 32), and Jerome (De Viris Illustribus, c. 17), distinctly mention John as the Apostle by whom Polycarp was ordained. But we question if the expressions of Irenaeus, when critically examined and stripped of the rhetorical exaggeration with which his natural reverence for Polycarp has invested them, will prove more than that Polycarp had enjoyed opportunities of hearing some of the Apostles ; and was, with their sanction, appointed bishop of the church at Smyrna. That John was one of the Apostles referred to by Irenaeus, there is not the slightest reason to doubt ; and we are disposed, with Tillemont, to regard Philip, whom Polycrates of Ephesus (apud Euseb. H. E. v. 24) states to have ended his days in the Phrygian Hierapolis, as another of those with whom Polycarp had intercourse. We believe that intercourse with these apostles, and perhaps with some other old disciples who had seen Jesus Christ, is sufficient to bear out the statements of Irenaeus, and is not inconsistent with the general truth of the ancient narrative given by Bollandus. His statement of the ordination of Polycarp by the Apostles, may perhaps be reduced to the fact that John, of whom alone Tertullian (l.c.) makes mention, was among “ the bishops of the neighbouring churches,” who came, according to the narrative, to the consecration of Polycarp. This circumstance enables us to fix that consecration in or before A. D. 104, the latest date assigned to the death of the venerable Apostle, and which is not inconsistent with the narrative. It must be borne in mind, too, that the whole subject of the ordination of these early bishops is perplexed by ecclesiastical writers utterly neglecting the circumstance, that in some of the larger churches there was in the Apostolic age a plurality of bishops (comp. Philippians, i. 1), not to speak of the grave and much disputed question of the identity of bishops and presbyters. The Apostolic ordination mentioned by Irenaeus and Tertullian may, therefore, have taken place during the lifetime of Bucolus, and have been antecedent to the precedency which, on his death, Polycarp obtained. We are the more disposed to admit the early origin and the truth of the leading statements embodied in the narration, as the natural tendency of a forger of a later age would have been to exaggerate the opportunities of Apostolic intercourse, and the sanctions of Apostolic authority, which Polycarp certainly possessed. Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna at the time when Ignatius of Antioch passed through that city on his way to suffer death at Rome, some time between A. D. 107 and 116. [IGNATIt's, No. 1.] Ignatius seems to have enjoyed much this intercourse with Polycarp, whom he had known, appa

rently, in former days, when they were both hearers of the apostle John. (Martyr. Ignatii, c. 3.) The sentiment of esteem was reciprocated by Polycarp, who collected several of the epistles of Ignatius, and sent them to the church at Philippi, accompanied by an epistle of his own. (Polyc. Epistol. ad Philipp. c. 13.) Polycarp himself visited Rome while Anicetus was bishop of that city, whose episcopate extended, according to Tillemont's calculation, from A. D. 157 to 168. Irenaeus has recorded (Epistol. ad Pictor. apud Euseb. H. E. v. 14) the difference of opinion of these two holy men on the time of observing Easter, and the steadfastness of Polycarp in adhering to the custom of the Asiatic churches, derived, as they affirmed, from the Apostles; as well as their mutual kindness and forbearance, notwithstanding this difference. Indeed, the character of Polycarp appears to have attracted general regard: Irenaeus retained for him a feeling of deepest reverence (Epistola ad Florin. apud Euseb. H. E. v. 21); Jerome speaks of him (De Viris Illustr. c. 17) as “totius Asiae princeps,” the most eminent man in all proconsular Asia. An anecdote given elsewhere [MARclos] shows that even reputed heretics, notwithstanding his decided opposition to them, desired to possess his esteem ; and it is not improbable that the reverence excited by his character conduced to his success in restoring them to the communion of the church. It has been conjectured that he was the angel of the church of Smyrna to whom Jesus Christ directed the letter in the Apocalypse (ii. 8–11); and also that he was the bishop to whom the apostle John, according to a beautiful anecdote recorded by Clement of Alexandria (Liber “Quis Dives salvetur !” c. 42), committed the care of a young man, who, forsaking his patron, became a chief of a band of robbers, and was re-converted by the apostle: but these are mere conjectures, and of little probability. The martyrdom of Polycarp occurred, according to Eusebius (H. E. iv. 15), in the persecution under the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus ; and is recorded in a letter of the Church at Smyrna to the Churches of Philomelium and other places, which is still extant, and of which Eusebius (ibid.) has given the chief part. The persecution began : one Germanicus, an ancient man, was thrown to the wild beasts, and several others, including some who were brought from Philadelphia, were put to death at Smyrna. Polycarp had at first intended to remain in the city and brave the danger of martyrdom ; but the intreaties of his flock led him to withdraw to a retreat in the adjacent country, where he passed his time in prayer. Here, three days before his apprehension, he had a remarkable dream, which his anticipation of his fate led him to interpret as an intimation that he should be burnt alive, a foreboding but too exactly verified by the event. Messengers having been sent to apprehend him, he withdrew to another hiding place; but his place of retreat was discovered by the confession of a child, who had been forced by torture to make known where he was. Polycarp might still have escaped by leaving the place on the approach of those sent to apprehend him ; but he refused, saying, “The will of God be done.” His venerable figure and calm and courteous deportment commanded the respect of his captors ; and a prayer offered by him affected some of them with remorse for their share in his apprehension. The officer into whose custody he was delivered, with the usual laxity of paganism, would have persuaded him, apparently through pity, to offer divine honours and sacrifice to the emperor; but his steady refusal changed their pity into anger, and they violently threw him down from the carriage in which they were conveying him. On entering the amphitheatre where the proconsul, Stratius Quadratus, was, a voice which the excited feelings of the old man and his companions led them to regard as from heaven, exclaimed, “Be strong, O Polycarp! and quit you like a man.” The proconsul was, like others, moved by his appearance, and exhorted him to consider his advanced age, and comply with the requirements of government: “Swear by the fortune of Caesar, recant, and cry “Away with the godless (rods d6&ovs).” Looking first round upon the heathen multitude, and then up to heaven, the old man sighed and said, “Away with the godless.” The proconsul again urged him, “Swear by Caesar's fortune, and I will release thee. Revile Christ.” “Eighty and six years have I served him,” was the reply, “and he never did me wrong: how then can I revile my King and my Saviour P” Threats of being thrown to wild beasts, and of being committed to the flames, failed to move him ; and his bold avowal that he was a Christian provoked the wrath of the assembled multitude. “This man,” they shouted, “is the teacher of impiety, the father of the Christians, the man that does away with our gods (à têv juerépwy 9éwv kaflatpérms); who teaches many not to sacrifice to nor to worship the gods.” They demanded that he should be thrown to wild beasts, and when the Asiarch, Philip of Tralles, who presided over the games which were going on, evaded the demand, on the plea that the combats with wild beasts were ended, they demanded that he should be burned alive. The demand was complied with ; and the populace, in their rage, soon collected from the baths and workshops logs and faggots for the

-

ile. The old man ungirded himself, laid aside #. garments, and took his place in the midst of the fuel; and when they would have secured him with nails to the stake, said, “Let me remain as I am ; for he that has enabled me to brave the fire will so strengthen me that, without your fastening me with nails, I shall, unmoved, endure its fierceness.” After he had offered a short but beautiful prayer, the fire was kindled, but a high wind drove the flames on one side, so that he was roasted rather than burned ; and the executioner was ordered to despatch him with a sword. On his striking him with it so great a quantity of blood flowed from the wound as to quench the flames, which were, however, resuscitated, in order to consume his lifeless body. His ashes were collected by the pious care of the Christians of his flock, and deposited in a suitable place of interment. The day and year of Polycarp's martyrdom are involved in considerable doubt. Samuel Petit places it in A. D. 175 ; Usher, Pagi, and Bollandus, in A. D. 169; Eusebius (Chronicon) places it earlier, in the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius, who acceded to the throne, 7th March, A. D. 161 ; Scaliger, Le Moyne, and Cave, place it in A. D. 167; Tillemont in 166; the Chronicon Paschale in the consulship of Aelianus and Pastor, A. D. 163; and Pearson, who differs widely from all other critics, in A. D. 147, in the reign of Titus Antoninus Pius. Pearson brings various reasons in support of his opinion,

which reasons are examined by Tillemont in one of his careful and elaborate notes. Polycarp is reverenced as a saint both by the Greek and Romish Churches; by the former on the 23d of February, by the latter on the 26th of January, or (at Paris) on the 27th of April. The Greeks of Smyrna, on his festival, used formerly to visit devoutly what is shown as his tomb, near the ruins of an ancient church or chapel, on a hill side to the S. E. of the city. Mr. Arundel (Discoveries in Asia Minor, vol. ii. p. 397) is disposed to think that the tradition as to his place of interment is correct. The chief authorities for the history of Polycarp have been cited. The account of Eusebius (H. E. iv. 14, 15, and v. 20) is chiefly taken from Irenaeus (ll.cc.), and from the letter of the Church at Smyrna, giving an account of his martyrdom, which will be noticed below. Halloix (Illustr. Eccles. Orientalis Scriptorum Vitae), Cave (Apostolici, or the Lives, &c., of the Primitive Fathers), and Tillemont (Mémoires, vol. ii.), have collected the chief notices of the ancients, and embodied them in their narrative. See also Ceillier, Auteurs Sacrés, vol. i. p. 672, &c. The English reader may consult (beside Cave's work just mentioned) Lardner (Credibility, &c. part ii. ch. 6,7), Neander (Church Hist, trans. by Rose, vol. i. p. 106, &c.), Milman (Hist. of Christianity, bk. ii. ch. 7), and other ecclesiastical historians. We have remaining only one short piece of this father: his IIpós plaimirnorious tria roxii, Ad Philippenses Epistola. That he wrote such an epistle, and that it was extant in their time, is attested by Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres. iii. 3, and Epistol. ad Florinum, apud Euseb. H. E. iv. 14, and v. 20), Eusebius (H. E. iii. 36, iv. 14), Jerome (De Viris Illustr. c. 17), and later writers whom it is needless to enumerate; and, notwithstanding the objections of the Magdeburg Centuriators (Cent. ii. c. 10); of Daillé (De Scriptis Ignatianis, c. 32), who however only denied the genuineness of a part; of Matthieu de la Roche : and, at a later period, of Semler, our present copies have been received by the great majority of critics as substantially genuine. Some have suspected the text to be interpolated; and the suspicion is perhaps somewhat strengthened by the evidence afforded by the Syriac version of the Epistles of Ignatius, lately published by Mr. Cureton [IGNATIUs, No. 1], of the extensive interpolation of those contemporary and kindred productions. The Epistola ad Philippenses is extant in the Greek original, and in an ancient Latin version; the latter of which contains, toward the conclusion, several chapters, of which only some fragments preserved by Eusebius are found in the Greek. The letter partakes of the simplicity which characterizes the writings of the apostolic fathers, being hortatory rather than argumentative ; and is valuable for the numerous passages from the New Testament, especially from the first Epistle of Peter and the Epistles of Paul, which are incorporated in it, and for the testimony which it consequently affords to the early existence and wide circulation of the Sacred Writings. It was first published in black letter in the Latin version, by Jac. Faber Stapulensis, with the works of the pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita and of Ignatius [Dionysius; IGNATIUs, No. 1], fol. Paris, 1498, under the title of Theologia Virificans; and was reprinted at Strasbourg, A.D. 1502; at Paris, 1515; at Basel, 1520; at Cologne, 1536; at Ingolstadt, with the Clementina [CleMENs, Rom ANUs), 4to. 1546 ; at Cologne, with the Latin version of the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius, 1557; and with the Clementina and the Latin version of the Epistolae of Ignatius, fol. A. D. 1569. It appeared also in the following collections: the Micropresbyticon, Basel, 1550; the Orthodorographa of Heroldus, Basel, 1555; in the Orthodorographa of Grynaeus, Basel, 1569; in the Mella Patrum of Francis Rous, 8vo. London, 1650; and in the various editions of the Bibliotheca Patrum, from its first publication by De la Bigne, A. D. 1575. The Greek text was first published by Halloix, subjoined to the life of Polycarp, in his Illustrium Ecclesiae Orientalis Scriptorum Vitae et Documenta, vol. i. fol. Douai, 1633; and was again published by Usher, with the Epistolae of Ignatius, 4to. Oxford, 1644, not in the Appendia. Ignatana (which came out in 1647) as incorrectly stated by Fabricius; by Maderus, 4to. Helmstadt, 1653; and in the Patres Apostolici of Cotelerius, 2 vols. fol. Paris, 1672; and Amsterdam, 1724; of Ittigius, 8vo. Leipzig, 1699 ; of Frey, Basel, 1742, and of Russel, 2 vols. 8vo. 1746. It is contained also in the editions of Ignatius, by Aldrich, 8vo. Oxon. 1708, and Smith, 4to. Oxon. 1709. It is contained also in the Varia Sacra of Le Moyne, vol. i. 4to. Leyden, 1685; and in the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland, vol. i. fol. Venice, 1765. Of more recent editions may be mentioned those of Hornemann, Scripta Genuina Graeca Patrum Apostolicorum, 4to. Copenhagen, 1828; Routh, Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Opuscula Praecipua quaedam, vol. i. 8vo. Oxford, 1832; Jacobson, Patrum Apostolicorum quae supersunt, vol. ii. 8vo. Oxford, 1838 ; and Hafele, Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, 8vo. Tubingen, 1839. There are English versions of this Epistle by Wake and Clementson [IGNATIUs, No. 1], and one in Cave's Apostolici, or Lires of the Primitive Fathers. That Polycarp wrote other Epistolae is attested by Irenaeus (Epistol. ad Florin.): one IIpós'A0mvalous, Ad Athenienses, is quoted by St. Maximus in his Prologus ad Libros Dionysii Areopagitae [MAxiMUs CoNFEssor), and by Joannes Maxentius [MAxENTIUs, JoANNEs], but is supposed to be spurious; at any rate it is now lost: another, IIpós Atovisatov Tów 'Apeowa-ystmv, Ad Dionysium Areopagitam, mentioned by Suidas (s. v. IIoMükapros), is supposed to be spurious also. The life of Polycarp, ascribed to Pionius, states that he wrote various Tractatus, Homiliae, and Epistolae, and especially a book De Obitu S. Joannis; of which, according to Halloix (l.c.), some extracts from a MS. said to be extant in an abbey in Northern Italy, had been given in a Concio de S. Joanne Evangelista by Franciscus Humblot; but even Halloix evidently doubted their genuineness. Some fragments ascribed to Polycarp, cited, in a Latin version, in a Catena in Quatuor Evangelistas by Victor of Capua, were published by Franciscus Feuardentius subjoined to Lib. iii. c. 3, of his Annotationes ad Irenaeum, and were subsequently reprinted by Halloix (l.c.), Usher(Appendir Ignatiana, p. 31, &c.), Maderus (l.c.), Cotelerius (l.c.), Ittigius (l.c.), and Galland (l.c.), under the title of Fragmenta Quinque e Responsionum Capitulis S. Polycarpo adscriptis; but their genuineness is very doubtful. (Cave. Hist. Litt. ad ann. 108, vol. i. p. 44, &c. fol. Oxon. 1740 ; Ittigius, De Biblioth. Patrun, passim; Fabric. Bihl. Graec. vol. vii.

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

Credibility, pt. ii. b. i. c. 6, &c.; Gallandius, Bibliotheca Patrum, proleg. ad vol. i. c. ix.; Jacobson, l. c. proleg. pp. l. &c. lxx.) The Tis Xuvpuatov čkkAmasas wepl uapruptov toū dysov IIoxvkapirov riorrox) y'kukAtkós is almost entirely incorporated in the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius (iv. 15); it is also extant in its original form, in which it was first published by Archbishop Usher. in his Appendia. Ignatiana, 4to. London, 1647; and was reprinted in the Acta Martyrum Sincera et Selecta of Ruinart, 4to. Paris, 1689, and in the Patres Apostolici of Cotelerius, vol. ii. fol. Paris, 1672, Antwerp (or rather Amsterdam), 1698, and Amsterdam, 1724 ; it was also reprinted by Maderus, in his edition of the Epistola Polycarpi, already mentioned ; by Ittigius, in his Bihiotheca Patrum Apostolicorum, 8vo. Leipzig, 1699 ; by Smith, in his edition of the Epistolae of Ignatius (reprinted at Basel, by Frey, 8vo. 1742); by Russel, in his Patres Apostolici, vol. ii. 8vo. London, 1746 ; by Gallandius, in his Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. i. fol. Venice, 1765; and by Jacobson, in his Patrum Apostolicorum quae supersunt, vol. ii. 8vo. Oxford, 1838. There is an ancient Latin version, which is given with the Greek text by Usher; and there are modern Latin versions given by other editors of the Greek text, or in the Acta Sanctorum Januarii (ad d. xxvi.) vol. ii. p. 702, &c. There are English versions by Archbishop Wake, 8vo. London, 1693 (often reprinted); and lately revised by Chevallier, 8vo. Cambridge, 1833; and by Dalrymple, in his Remains of Christian Antiquity, 8vo. Edinburgh, 1776. (Cave, l.c. p. 65; Fabric. l.c. p. 51 ; Lardner, l.c. c. 7; Ceillier, l.c. p. 695; Ittigius, Galland, and Jacobson, ll. cc.) [J. C. M. POLYCASTE (IIoxvkáarm). 1. A daughter of Nestor and Anaxibia (Hom. Od. iii. 464; Apollod. i. 9. § 9), became by Telemachus the mother of Perseptolis. (Eustath. ad Hom. l.c.) 2. A daughter of Lygaeus, was married to Icarius, by whom she became the mother of Penelope. (Strab. x. p. 461.) [L. S.] POLY'CHARES (IIoxvXápms), a Messenian, and the conqueror in the 4th Olympiad (B. c. 764), is celebrated as the immediate cause of the first Messenian war, B. c. 743. Having been wronged by the Lacedaemonian Euaephnus, he took revenge by aggressions upon other Lacedaemonians ; and as the Messenians would not deliver him up to the Spartans, war was eventually declared by the latter against Messenia. (Paus. iv. 4. § 5, &c.) POLYCHARMUS (IIoMáxapuos), wrote a work upon Lycia (Auxiará), which is referred to by Athenaeus (viii. p. 333, d.), and Stephanus Byzantinus (s. v.v. 'IAápus, Xotpa, beAAds). It is doubtful whether he is the same as the Polycharmus of Naucratis, who wrote a work on Aphrodite (IIepi 'Asppoğirms), from which Athenaeus makes an extract (pp. 675, f –676, c.). POLY CHARMUS (IIoxáxapuos), a sculptor, two of whose works stood in Pliny's time in the portico of Octavia at Rome (Plin. H. N. xxxvi. 5. s. 4. § 10). One of these works was Venus washing herself; but what the other was is doubtful, on account of the corrupt state of the passage in Pliny. As it stands in the common editions, it is, Venerem larantem sese, Daedalum stan'em Polycharmus, which is the reading of the inferior MSS., and seems to be only a conjectural emendation of the unintelligible readings of the older MSS. The Codex Reg. II. gives lavantem sese de dalsa stantem, and the Bamberg MS., lavantem se sed aedalsas stantem. Sillig conjectures lavantem se, sed et aliam stantem, and L. Jahn, lavantem se, ad aedem aliam stanten. (Sillig, Cat. Artif. p. 359, and edition of Pliny, l.c.; Jahn, Kunstblatt, 1833, No. 37; and collation of the Bamberg MS. appended to Sillig's edition of Pliny, vol. v. p. 443.) There are several beautiful statues of Venus, stooping on one knee, in the attitude of washing herself, which are supposed to be copies of the work of Polycharmus. The finest is in the Watican, and the next best in the Museum at Paris. (Mus. Pio-Clem. vol. i. pl. 10; Clarac, pl. 345, No. 698; Müller, Archäol. d. Kunst, $ 377, n. 5; Denkmäler d. Alten Kunst, vol. ii. pl. xxvi. fig. 279. [P. S.] POLYCLEITUS (IIoMákAeros), historical. 1. An officer appointed by Ptolemy to command the fleet sent under Menelaus to Cyprus in B. c. 315. From thence Polycleitus was detached with a fleet of fifty ships to support the partisans of Ptolemy and Cassander in the Peloponnese, but, finding on his arrival there that there was no longer occasion for his services, he returned with his fleet to Cilicia. Here he received intelligence that a fleet under Theodotus, and a land force under Perilaus, were advancing to the support of Antigonus, and hastened to intercept them. Both one and the other were surprised and totally defeated ; the two commanders and the whole fleet fell into the hands of Polycleitus, who returned with them to Egypt, where he was received with the utmost distinction by Ptolemy. (Diod. xix. 62,64.) 2. One of the officers left by Epicydes in the command of the garrison of Syracuse when he himself quitted the city. [Epicydes.] They were all put to death in a sedition of the citizens shortly afterwards. (Liv. xxv. 28.) POLYCLEITUS (IIoatskAeros), literary. 1. Of Larissa, a Greek historian, and one of the nume

rous writers of the history of Alexander the Great.

Athenaeus quotes from the eighth book of his histories (xii. p. 539, a.); and there are several other quotations from him in Strabo (xi. p. 509, d., xv. pp. 728, a. d., 735, a., xvi. 742, a.), and other writers (Plut. Aler. 46; Aelian. N. A. xvi. 41). There are some other passages in which the name of Polycleitus is erroneously put for that of Polycritus of Mende (Diod. xiii. 83 ; Ath. v. p. 206, e.: Plin. H. N. xxxi. 2. s. 4.) He may, perhaps, have been the same person as Polycleitus of Larissa, the father of Olympias, mother of Antigonus Doson. Most of the extracts from his histories refer to the geography of the countries which Alexander invaded. They are collected, with a notice of the author, by C. Müller, in his Scriptores Rerum Alexandri Magni, (pp. 129–133), in Didot's Scriptorum Graecorum Billiotheca, Paris, 1846. (See also Vossius, de Hist. Graec. p. 489, ed. Westermann; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii. p. 49.) 2. An epigrammatic poet, who is mentioned by Meleager (Prooem. 40), as one of those included in his Garland. None of his epigrams are extant. (Jacobs, Anth. Graec. vol. xiii. p. 941). [P. S.] POLYCLEITUS (IIoxwoxeires), a physician of Messina in Sicily, to whom some of the epistles of Phalaris are addressed, and who, therefore (if he

be a real personage), may be supposed to have lived

in the sixth century B. c. Having cured the tyrant of a dangerous disease, he received from him some valuable presents, and also succeeded in persuading him to pardon a conspirator against his life (Phalar. Epist. 106, 109). [W. A. G.] POLYCLEITUS (IIoMák\eiros, in Latin writers, Polycletus and Polyclitus), artists. Some difficulty has arisen from the mention of two statuaries of this name, whom Pausanias expressly distinguishes from one another, who seem both to have lived about the same period, and who are both said to have been of Argos. (Paus. vi. 6. § 1.) Moreover, Pliny speaks of the great Polycleitus as a Sicyonian, though several other writers, as well as Pausanias, call him an Argive. (H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19. § 2.) The question which thus arises, as to the number of artists of this name, is very fully discussed by Thiersch, but with more ingenuity than sound judgment. (Epochen, pp. 150, 203, &c.) He distinguishes three statuaries of the name (besides a fourth, of Thasos); namely, first, Polycleitus of Sicyon, the pupil of Ageladas, an artist of the beginning of the period of the perfection of art, and whose works partook much of the old conventional style; secondly, Polycleitus the elder, of Argos, maker of the celebrated statue in the Heraeum at Argos; and, thirdly, Polycleitus, the younger, of Argos, the pupil of Naucydes. But the common opinion of other writers is both simpler and sounder, namely that, on account of the close connection between the schools of Argos and Sicyon, the elder Polycleitus might easily have been assigned to both, and, if a more precise explanation be required, that he was a native of Sicyon, and was made a citizen of Argos, to which Sicyon was then subject, probably as an honour well earned by his statue in the Heraeum. We know the same thing to have happened with other

artists; and we think that Thiersch himself could [E. H. B.]

hardly have failed to accept this explanation, but for his perverse theory respecting the early date of Pheidias [PHEIDIAs], which imposed upon him the necessity of placing that artist's chief contemporaries also higher than their true dates. The questions which arise, respecting the assignment of particular works to either of the two Polycleiti of Argos, will be considered in their proper places. 1. Polycleitus, the elder, of Argos, probably by citizenship, and of Sicyon, probably by birth, was one of the most celebrated statuaries of the ancient world; and was also a sculptor, an architect, and an artist in toreutic. He was the pupil of the great Argive statuary Ageladas, under whom he had Pheidias and Myron for his fellow-disciples. He was somewhat younger than Pheidias, and about the same age as Myron. He is placed by Pliny at the 87th Olympiad, B. c. 431, with Ageladas, Callon, Phradmon, Gorgias, Lacon, Myron, Pythagoras, Scopas, and Parelius (H.N. xxxiv. 8. § 19). An important indication of his date is derived from his great statue in the Heraeum near Argos ; for the old temple of Hera was burnt in Ol. 89. 2. B. c. 423 (Thuc. iv. 133; Clinton, F. H. s. a.); and, including the time required to rebuild the temple of the goddess, the statue by Polycleitus in the new temple could scarcely have been finished in less than ten years; which brings his life down to about B. c. 413. Comparing this conclusion with the date given by Pliny, and with the fact that he was a pupil of Ageladas. Polyclei. tus may be safely said to have flourished from about Ol. 82 to 92, or B. c. 452—412. A further confirmation of this date is furnished by Plato's mention of the sons of Polycleitus, as being of about the same age as the sons of Pericles. (Protag. p. 328. c.) Of his personal history we know nothing further. As an artist, he stood at the head of the schools of Argos and Sicyon, and approached more nearly than any other to an equality with the great head of the Athenian school, whom he was even judged to have surpassed on one occasion, in the celebrated competition of the Amazons. (See below, and PHEIDIAs. The essential difference between these artists was that Pheidias was unsurpassed, may perfect, in making the images of the gods, Polycleitus in those of men. The one embodied in his Athena and Olympian Zeus, for all subsequent ages, the ideal standard of divine majesty; the other expressed, in his Doryphorus, the ideal perfection of human beauty. It is not, however, surprising that, in the estimation of many, the beauty of Polycleitus should even have been preferred to the more unapproachable majesty of Pheidias, in an age when art, having reached its climax, was on the point of beginning to degenerate. Nay, even Polycleitus himself was, by some, placed below Myron in some respects (Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19. § 3); and his forms were thought by the artists of the age of Alexander susceptible of greater grace. If, therefore, we find, in writers of a still later period, expressions which appear to refer to the works of Polycleitus as retaining something of the stiffness of an early period of art, we must not at once conclude that such passages, even if they are rightly interpreted, refer to some earlier artist of the same name. Among the statements of Pliny respecting Polycleitus is the following (II. N. xxxiv. 8. s. 19. § 2): —“Proprium ejus est, ut uno crure insisterent signa, ercogitasse; quadrata tamen ea esse tradit Varro et paene ad unum eremplum.” (The word quadrata, which Sillig formerly suspected, is confirmed by the authority of the Bamberg MS.) This passage has exercised the critical skill of most of the writers on art. Thiersch regards it as obviously characterising the style of one of the early improvers of the art; and he therefore supposes that the artist of whom Varro made this statement was the oldest artist of the name, Polycleitus of Sicyon, whom, according to him, Pliny has confounded with the more celebrated Polycleitus of Argos. But the language of Varro, properly understood, neither requires nor sustains any such hypothesis. The mere mechanical difficulty in statuary, of making a standing figure rest its weight on one leg, may have been, and probably had been, overcome before the time of Polycleitus; but it was, as we understand Varro, a distinguishing feature of his works, that he did this without in any way interfering with those proportions and that repose, which constituted the perfection of his art. It was not, of course, for an artist like Pheidias to poise his divinities upon one leg : but Polycleitus, the inventor of the perfect canon of the human form, would naturally devote careful study to an attitude, which adds so much to the life-like expression of a figure, while, on the other hand, he refrained from any tampering with his own established proportions, and avoided the dan. sers into which the free use of this attitude might lead an artist too eager for variety. Some writers

[graphic]

think that Varro intended to censure Polycleitus on the ground that he adhered so strictly to his own canon as to introduce too much uniformity into his works: but the passage (to say nothing of its only referring to those statues of Polycleitus which rested on one leg) does not appear to be in the tone of censure", and if it were, we should rather suspect the soundness of Varro's judgment, than of Polycleitus's practice on such a point. In fact, this appears to be the very point in which Myron was inferior to Polycleitus; that the former, in his eagerness for variety, transgressed, in his choice of subjects, in his proportions, and in his attitudes, those high principles of art to which Polycleitus always adhered. The word quadrata, in the above passage, demands further explanation. It is clearly meant to describe a certain proportion of the human figure,

and may be roughly explained as expressing a

robust middle stature, in opposition to a tall and slender stature. The meaning is clearly shown by Pliny’s description (l.c. § 6) of the style of proportion practised by Lysippus, who, he says, made the heads smaller than the ancients made them, the bodies more slender and less fleshy, and thus the whole statue apparently taller “ quadratas veterum staturas permutando." Vitruvius gives a canon of proportion, according to which the length of the outstretched arms is equal to the height of the statue, so that the whole figure may be enclosed in a square; but it does not seem that there is any precise reference to this canon in the term quadrata, as used by Pliny. (Böttiger, Andeutungen, p. 120 ; Schorn, Studien, p. 300.) The praises which the ancients heap upon Polycleitus are numerous and of the highest order. According to Pliny (l.c.), he was considered to have brought the art of statuary to perfection ; and the same judgment is passed upon his works by Cicero, who expressly gives him the preference over Myron (Brut. 18 ; comp. de Orat. iii. 7, Acad. ii. 47, De Fin. ii. 34, Tusc. i. 2, Parador. v. 2). Dionysius of Halicarnassus praises him, in conjunction with Pheidias, for those qualities which he expresses by the phrase kata 70 geuvov kal ues) g\texvov kal dowaatików. (De Isocr. p. 95, Sylburg.) Quintilian (xii. 10) tells us that his works were distinguished by accurate execution (diligentia) and beauty (decor) above those of all others; but that he was thought to be deficient in grandeur (pondus). But even this fault is mentioned with the qualification “ne nihil detrahatur;" and the critic proceeds to explain that it applies to his preference for human subjects over divine, and, among the former, for youthful figures, and that the deficiency is ascribed to him chiefly in comparison with Pheidias and Alcamenes: —“Nam ut humanae formae decorem addiderit supra verum, ita non explevisse deorum auctoritatem videtur. Quin aetatem quoque graviorem dicitur refugisse, nihil ausus ultra leves genas. At quae Polycleto defuerunt, Phidiae atgue Alcameni dantur.” The breasts of his statues were especially admired. (Rhet. ad IIeremon. iv. 6.) Several other passages might be added

[ocr errors]
« 前へ次へ »