« السابقةمتابعة »
state, was about twelve thousand talents; for the gold on the statue of Minerva in the Parthenon, which, according to Philochorus, weighed as much as forty-four talents' (the authority of Diodorus, who states it at fifty, is scarcely worth mentioning) was equivalent to five hundred talents of silver. Demosthenes, therefore, seems to have been moderate in saying that the Athenians brought to the Acropolis, during the forty-five years of their ascendancy in Greece, more than ten thousand talents'.
The tribute which produced the treasure of 9700 talents in coined money was a commutation for service in prosecuting the war against Persia, and was first levied upon the allied cities by Aristeides in the year 477 B. C, and hence was called 6 Itt 'ApiardSov <j>6pog. It was deposited in the temple of Apollo at Delus, from whence we are to suppose that it was drawn out as the exigencies of the war required. The yearly amount was 460 talents, augmented to 600 by Pericles, who, on the pretext that it would be safer from the Barbarians at Athens, removed it to the Acropolis, which thenceforth became the treasury of the Confederacy. During the Peloponnesian war the tribute was raised to 900, 1200, and even 1300 talents*. Neither the year in which the annual payment was augmented to 600, nor that in which the residue at Delus was removed to Athens, can be exactly ascertained; but we may presume that they were nearly simultaneous: and, as the latter measure appears to have been already in contemplation while Aristeides was living 4, that they occurred not long after his death in B. C. 468, about the time of the first accession of Pericles to power, who seems always to have had the credit or disgrace of this bold attack upon the liberty and property of the allied cities. Isocrates, who employs the round number of 10,000 talents in reference to the maximum of the confederate treasure ', remarks in another place, that the sum collected by Pericles was 8000 talents, xwP'ff TMv Upiov *; that is to say, over and above the money which had been transported from Delus, and which was therefore about 2000 talents. It is scarcely necessary to advert to the negligent Diodorus, who says that the treasure brought from Delus amounted to 8000 talents, and who represents Pericles as stating that 460 was the annual <j>6po^ at the commencement of the Peloponnesian war'.
1 Ap. Schol. Aristoph. Pac. 604.
* wivTf piv Kai TtffoapaKovra trrj Twv 'ewtjvwv fiptav Iic6vtuv vXtita $' tj fivpia TaXavra «'c rifv 'AicporoXiv ivt'iyayov. Olynth. 3, p. 35, Reiskc. xipi rvvrdi. p. 174.
'Andocid. c. Alcib. p. 116, Reiskc. ./Escliin. dc f. leg. p. 337. Plutarch. Arbstid. 24. 25. Pcricl. 12. 17
4 Thcophrabt. ap. Plutarch. Arist. 25.
The Delian treasure, as well as that which was added to it at Athens, having been formed from the annual savings of the tribute, after defraying all the expenses which the Athenians charged to the national defence under their riytfiovia, we might expect to find the average yearly expenditure nearly equal in the two periods, the fleet having generally amounted during the whole time to about 250 triremes. And, in fact, the difference appears not to have been very great, for if 2000, or, correcting this number from Thucydides with reference to the coined money only, 1900 talents, was the saving upon a revenue of 460 talents in ten years, and 8000, or with a similar correction 7800, was the saving on a revenue of 600 talents in twenty-two years (taking the year 445 for that on which the saving ceased and the abstraction began), the average yearly expenditure in the former period was 270 talents, and in the latter 246, the difference being perhaps attributable to the resources derived from the profitable campaigns of Oimon. It is satisfactory to observe that this approach to equality in the average yearly expenditure accords with the foregoing suggestion, as to the date of the removal of the Delian treasure, and of the augmentation of the tribute, as well as with the supposition that the treasure was at its maximum prior to the year 444, when Pericles attained unopposed power, and began to lavish this treasure without reserve on the embellishment of Athens.
1 Dc pace, p. 173, Stcph. 2 P. Ki4. 3 Diodor. 12, 38. 40.
ON THE COST OF THE WORKS OF PERICLES.
Of the five buildings on which is founded the fame of Pericles and his advisers in affaire of art, no more than three were finished when the Peloponnesian war suspended the progress of all such works. Of the two unfinished, namely, the Erechtheium and the Mystic temple of Eleusis, considerable progress had probably been made in the former, when the war broke out. The Eleusinian temple, having been of great importance to the Athenian religion, may have been restored to a serviceable state before the administration of Pericles, but that it proceeded slowly while the great buildings of the Acropolis were in progress, and still remained incomplete at the beginning of the war, is evinced by its liaving had three successive architects, besides Tctinus, as well as by the fact that its exterior portico was not built until about 150 years afterwards, when Philo, a fifth architect, was employed for that purpose1. The Odeium was the earliest of the five buildings in date. The comic poet Cratinus, in reference to the peculiar formation of the cranium of Pericles, and at the same time to his power, calls him a squill-pated Jupiter, with his Odeium on his head, that Odeium having been noted for its pointed roof.
1 Strabo, p. 395. Vitruv. 1 in pra-f. Plutarch. Pcricl. 13. ''O a\ivoKipa\of Ziif olf irpoaipxfrat
UipirXijjc, TifSiwv iiri roS Kpaviov
"Ex<»v, iiruSr) Tovarpanov irapol\iTai.
Cratin. ap. Plutarch. Pericl. 13.
Oatinus, in the same passage, alludes to the ostracism of Thucydides, son of Melesias, which had raised Pericles to undivided power; whence it appears that the Odeium was already finished in the year B. c. 444, when Thucydides was banished. As we learn, moreover, from Plutarch, that the party of Thucydides accused Pericles of expending the treasure of the confederates upon his buildings, it appears that he had already begun to draw upon it when he was erecting the Odeium.
The Parthenon was the next in order; it was completed in the year 438-7, and in the following year the Propylaea was begun, which was finished in five years; that is to say, in the year preceding the commencement of the Peloponnesian war'. It is not so easy to determine when the Parthenon was begun, as when it was finished. In all probability the plan was formed soon after the retreat of the Persians, when the great protectress of the Athenians having been left without a temple, a licarojuTrtSoe vabg may have been voted, and even its foundations laid, although its execution may have been suspended, until the energy of Pericles, with an abundant treasury at command, allowed full scope to the genius of Phidias. The harmony and adaptation of all the parts to each other sufficiently show the work to have been almost entirely executed under the influence of one and the same comprehensive mind. The construction and completion of the Parthenon, therefore, is to be attributed almost entirely to the eight years occurring between 446 and 437 B. C. 2
We have no direct testimony as to the cost of any of the great works of Pericles, except the Propykea; the expense of which is stated by Heliodorus, the author of a work on
1 Philochorus ap. Schol. Aristoph. Pac. 604. Philochorus, Heliodorus ap. Harpocrat., Suid. in IlpoirvXaia ravra. Palmer. Exercit. p. Ti6. Coreini Fasti Attici, III. p. 217- Sillig. Catal. Artif. in Phidias. Mueller de Phidioe vita, et operibus, p. 36, not. 1.
* Plutarch alludes to the rapidity with which the works of Phidias were executed. Pericl. 13.