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