<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:H.hegesias_4</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:H.hegesias_4</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:base="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><body xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><div type="textpart" subtype="alphabetic_letter" n="H"><div type="textpart" subtype="entry" xml:id="hegesias-bio-4" n="hegesias_4"><head><persName xml:lang="la"><surname full="yes">Hege'sias</surname></persName></head><p>(<persName xml:lang="grc"><surname full="yes">Ἡγησίας</surname></persName>) and HE'GIAS <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἡγιας</foreign>), two Greek statuaries, whom many scholars identify with
      one another, and about whom, at all events, there are great difficulties.</p><p>It is therefore the best course to look at the statements respecting both of them
      together.</p><p>Pausanias (<bibl n="Paus. 8.42.4">8.42.4</bibl>, or § 10, ed. Bekker) mentions Hegias
      of Athens as the contemporary of Onatas and of Ageladas the Argive.</p><p>Lucian (<hi rend="ital">Rhet. Praec.</hi> 9, vol. iii. p 9) mentions Hegesias, in connection
      with Critios and Nesiotes, as belonging to the ancient school of art (<foreign xml:lang="grc">τῆς πα λαιᾶς ἐργασίας</foreign>), the productions of which were
      constrained, stiff, harsh, and rigid, though accurate in the outlines (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀπεσφιγμένα καὶ νευρώδη καὶ σκληρὰ καὶ ἀκριβῶς ἀποτεταμένα ταῖς
       γραμμαῖς</foreign>). It seems necessary here to correct the mistake of the commentators, who
      suppose that Lucian is speaking of the rhetorician Hegesias. Not only is the kind of oratory
      which Lucian is describing not at all like that of Hegesias, but also the word <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐργαασίας</foreign>, and the mention of Critios and Nesiotes (for the true
      reading is <foreign xml:lang="grc">αμφὶ Κρίτιον καὶ Νησιώτην</foreign> ; comp. <hi rend="smallcaps">CRITIAS</hi>, p. 893b.), sufficiently prove that this is one of the many
      passages in which Lucian uses the fine arts to illustrate his immediate subject, though, in
      this case, the transition from the subject to the illustration is not very clearly marked. A
      similar illustration is employed by Quintilian (12.10.7), who says of Hegesias and Callon,
      that their works were harsh, and resembled the Etruscan style : he adds, " jam minus rigida
      Calamis."</p><p>The testimony of Pliny is very important. After placing Phidias at Ol. 84, or about <hi rend="smallcaps">A. U. C.</hi> 300, he adds, " quo eodem tempore aemuli ejus fuere Alcamenes,
      Critias (i. e. Critios), Nestocles (i. e. Nesiotes), Hegias " (34.8. s. 19). Again (<hi rend="ital">ibid.</hi> §§ 16, 17) :--" Hegiae Minerva Pyrrhusque rex laudatur : et
      Celetizontes pueri, et Castor et Pollux ante aedem Jovis Tonantis, Hegesiae. In Pario colonia
      Hercules Isidori. Eleuthereus Lycius Myronis discipulus fuit. " So stands the passage in
      Harduinus, and most of the modern editions. There is, even at first sight, something
      suspicious in the position of the names <hi rend="ital">Hegesiae</hi> and <hi rend="ital">Isidori</hi> at the end of the two sentences, while all the other names, both before and
      after, are put at the beginning of their sentences, as it is natural they should be, in an
      alphabetical list of artists; and there is also something suspicious in the way in which the
      word <hi rend="ital">Eleuthereus</hi> (which is explained <hi rend="ital">of Eleutherae</hi>)
      is inserted. This last word is an emendation of Casaubon's. Most of the MSS. give <hi rend="ital">Buthyreus, buthyres,</hi> or <hi rend="ital">butires ;</hi> the Pintian and
      Bamberg give <hi rend="ital">bythytes.</hi> We have therefore no hesitation in accepting
      Sillig's reading, " Hegiae, &amp;c., pueri, et, &amp;c. Tonantis : Hagesiae " (the MSS. vary
      greatly in the spelling of this name) " in Pario colonia Hercules : Isidori buthytes" (the
      last word meaning a person sacrificing an ox).</p><p>From the above testimonies, it follows that Hegias and Hegesias were both artists of great
      celebrity, and that they flourished at about the same time, namely, at the period immediately
      preceding that of Phidias. For Hegias was a contemporary of Onatas and Ageladas, and also of
      Alcamenes, Critios, Nesiotes, and Phidias; and Hegesias of Critios, Nesiotes, Callon, and
      Calamis. The interval between the earliest and the latest of these artists is not too great to
      allow those who lived in <pb n="369"/> the meantime to have been contemporary, in part, with
      those at both extremes, especially when it is observed how Pliny swells his lists of rivals of
      the chief artists, by mentioning those who were contemporary with them for ever so short a
      time. The age thus assigned to both these artists agrees with the remarks of Lucian on the
      style of Hegesias ; for those remarks do not describe a rude and imperfect style, but the very
      perfection of the old conventional style, of which the only remaining fault was a certain
      stiffness, which Phidias was the first to break through.</p><p>Hegias is expressly called an Athenian : the country of Hegesias is not stated, but the
      above notices of him are quite consistent with the supposition that he also was an
      Athenian.</p><p>There remains the question, whether Hegesias and Hegias were the same or different persons,
      and also whether Agasias of Ephesus is to be identified with them. Etymologically, there can
      be little doubt that <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἀγησίας, Ἡγησίας</foreign>, and <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἡγίας</foreign>, are the same name, <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἀγησίας</foreign> being the Doric and common form, and <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἡγησίας</foreign> and <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἡγίας</foreign> respectively the fill
      and abbreviated Ionic and Attic form. Sillig contends that <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἀγασίας</foreign> is also a Doric form of the same name; but, as Müller has pointed
      out, the Doric forms of names derived (like <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἡγησίας</foreign>)
      from <foreign xml:lang="grc">ήγέομαι</foreign>, begin with <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀγη</foreign>, not <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀγα</foreign> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἀγήσανδρος</foreign>, <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἀγήσαρχος</foreign>, <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἀγησίδαμος</foreign>, <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἀγησίλαος</foreign>,
      &amp;c.: <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἀγησίας</foreign> itself is found as a Doric name, Pind.
       <hi rend="ital">Ol.</hi> ix. and elsewhere); and it is probable that <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἀγασίας</foreign> is a genuine Ionic name, derived from <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἄγαμαι</foreign>, like <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἀγασιθέα</foreign>,
       <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἀγασικλῆς, Ἀγασισθένης</foreign>. For these and other
      reasons, it seems that the identity of Hegesias with Agasias cannot be made out, while that of
      Hegesias with Hegias is highly probable. It is true that Pliny mentions them as different
      persons, but nothing is more likely than that Pliny should have put together the statements of
      two different Greek authors, of whom the one wrote the artist's full name, <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἡγησίας</foreign>, while the other used the abbreviated form, <foreign xml:lang="grc">Ἠγίας</foreign>. Pliny is certainly wrong when, in enumerating the works
      of Hegias, he says, " Minerva Pyrrhusque <hi rend="ital">rex</hi> laudatur." What is meant
      seems to have been a group, in which (not the king, but) the hero Pyrrhus was represented as
      supported by Pallas. The statues of Castor and Pollux, by Hegesias, are supposed by
      Winckelmann to be the same as those which now stand on the stairs leading to the capitol; but
      this is very doubtful.</p><div><head>Further Information</head><p>Winckelmann, <hi rend="ital">Geschichte d. Kunst,</hi> bk. 9.9.31, and <hi rend="ital">Vorläufige Abhandlung,</hi> § 100; Sillig, <hi rend="ital">Catal. Artif. s.
        v.</hi>; Thiersch, <hi rend="ital">Epochen,</hi> p. 128; Müller,<hi rend="ital">Aeginetica,</hi> p.102.</p></div><byline>[<ref target="author.P.S">P.S</ref>]</byline></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>