Κλεπτει παραγοισα μυθοις.
Πινδαρ. Νεμ. Ζ.
[69] M. F. Quintilianus, l. xii. 10.—Concipiendis visionibus (quas ΦΑΝΤΑΣΙΑΣ vocant) Theon Samius—est præstantissimus.
At quomodo fiet ut afficiamur? neque enim sunt motus in nostra potestate. Tentabo etiam de hoc dicere. Quas Φαντασιας græci vocant, nos sanè visiones appellamus; per quas imagines rerum absentium ita repræsentantur animo, ut eas cernere oculis ac præsentes habere videamur: has quisquis bene conceperit, is erit in affectibus potentissimus. Hunc quidam dicunt ἐυφαντασιωτον, qui sibi res, voces, actus, secundum verum optume finget: quod quidem nobis volentibus facile continget.
Nam ut inter otia animorum et spes inanes, et velut somnia quædam vigilantium, ita nos hæ de quibus loquimur, imagines persequuntur, ut peregrinari, navigare, præliari, populos alloqui, divitiarum quas non habemus, usum videamur disponere; nec cogitare, sed facere: hoc animi vitium ad utilitatem non transferemus? ut hominem occisum querar, non omnia quæ in re præsenti accidisse credibile est, in oculis habebo? non percussor ille subitus erumpet? non expavescet circumventus? exclamabit, vel rogabit, vel fugiet? non ferientem, non concidentem videbo? non animo sanguis, et pallor et gemitus, extremus denique expirantis hiatus insidebit?
Idem, l. vi. c. 11.
Theon numbered with the ‘Proceres’ by Quintilian, by Pliny with less discrimination is placed among the ‘Primis Proximos;’ and in some passage of Plutarch, unaccountably censured for impropriety of subject, ατοπια, in representing the madness of Orestes.
[70] Αιλιανου ποικ. ιστορ. l. ii. c. 44. Θεωνος του Ζωγραφου πολλα μεν και ἀλλα ὁμολογει την χειρουργιαν ἀγαθην οὐσαν, ἀ ταρ οὐν και τοδε το γραμμα.——Και ἐιπες ἀν ἀυτον ἐνθουσιᾶν, ὡσπερ εξ Ἀρεος μανεντα.——Και σφαττειν βλεπων, και ἀπειλῶν δι ὁλου του σχηματος, ὁτι μηδενος φεισεται.
[71] The name of Agasias, the scholar or son of Dositheos, the Ephesian, occurs not in ancient record; and whether he be the Egesias of Quintilian and Pliny, or these the same, cannot be ascertained; though the style of sculpture, and the form of the letters in the inscription are not much at variance with the character which the former gives to the age and style of Calon and Egesias; ‘Signa—duriora et Tuscanicis proxima.’ The impropriety of calling this figure a gladiator has been shewn by Winkelmann, and on his remark, that it probably exhibits the attitude of a soldier, who signalized himself in some moment of danger, Lessing has founded a conjecture, that it is the figure of Chabrias, from the following passage of Corn. Nepos: ‘Elucet maxime inventum ejus in proelio, quod apud Thebas fecit, cum Boetiis subsidio venisset. Namque in eo victoriæ fidente summo duce Agesilao, fugatis jam ab eo conductitiis catervis, reliquam phalangem loco vetuit cedere; obnixoque genu scuto, projectâque hastâ, impetum excipere hostium docuit. Id novum Agesilaus intuens, progredi non est ausus, suosque jam incurrentes tubâ revocavit. Hoc usque eo in Græcia famâ celebratum est, ut illo statu Chabrias sibi statuam fieri voluerit, quæ publicè ei ab Atheniensibus in foro constituta est. Ex quo factum est, ut postea athletæ, cæterique artifices his statibus in statuis ponendis uterentur, in quibus victoriam essent adepti?’
On this passage, simple and unperplexed, if we except the words, ‘cæterique ‘artifices,’ where something is evidently dropped or changed, there can, I trust, be but one opinion—that the manœuvre of Chabrias was defensive, and consisted in giving the phalanx a stationary, and at the same time—impenetrable posture, to check the progress of the enemy; a repulse, not a victory was obtained; the Thebans were content to maintain their ground, and not a word is said by the historian, of a pursuit, when Agesilaus, startled at the contrivance, called off his troops: but the warriour of Agasias rushes forward in an assailing attitude, whilst with his head and shield turned upwards he seems to guard himself from some attack above him. Lessing, aware of this, to make the passage square with his conjecture, is reduced to a change of punctuation, and accordingly transposes the decisive comma after ‘scuto,’ to ‘genu,’ and reads ‘obnixo genu,’ scuto projectâque hastâ,—docuit.’ This alone might warrant us to dismiss his conjecture as less solid than daring and acute.