CHAPTER V.THE COLOSSUS OF RHODES.M“Menreceive with indifference from one another, and without examination, the traditions of past events, even of events connected with the history of their own country. Thus, for the most part, in their indolence to search out the truth, they accept at once all the fables and exaggerations forced upon their notice.”It is thus that Thucydides expresses himself; and though his observation is two thousand years old, it has lost nothing of its point or truth.A striking example of its applicability is afforded by the striking illustration now before us;—a representation of the Colossus of Rhodes, according to the generally received idea that this celebrated statue of Apollo was planted at the entrance to the harbour of Rhodes, where it served as a pharos; and that it was of such surpassing magnitude that ships under full sail could pass between its gigantic limbs.But there is no evidence that the Colossus ever served as a pharos; at least, no ancient author asserts that such wasits employment. The first writer who converted it into a beacon-light was Urbain Chevreau, an industrious but not particularly able compiler of the seventeenth century; but he neglects to say from what source he obtained his information.In the second place, the attitude traditionally ascribed to the Rhodian Colossus—an attitude neither graceful nor dignified—is also a pure conceit of comparatively modern times. It is, however, more ancient than the former, since it dates from the sixteenth century, when Blaise de Vigenère, the translator of Philostratus, transformed the masterpiece of Chares, the pupil of Lysippus, into a fantastic impossibility. Where he, too, obtained his information, no one can ascertain; for on this important point he preserved the prudent silence of Chevreau.In an interesting paper, published by the FrenchAcadémie des Inscriptions, the Comte de Caylus proves—1st, That the Rhodian Apollo was not constructed at the mouth of the harbour; and 2nd, That no ships ever passed between its legs. He did not satisfy everybody, however, and reference was made to the pages of the geographer Strabo. It was found that he made no mention of the remarkable circumstance narrated by Vigenère. He cites a fragment of an epigram in iambic metre, in which the name of the sculptor, Chares of Lindos, is mentioned, and the dimensions of his work—namely, seventy cubits—are given. Strabo adds that the Colossus, in his time, lay prostrate on the ground—overthrown by an earthquake, and with shattered knees; and that the Rhodians had not restored it to its position because forbidden by an oracle.IMAGINARY RESTORATION OF THE COLOSSUS OF RHODES.Turning to Pliny, we find that he confirms all the statements of Strabo, and fixes the date of the fall of the statue at fifty-six years after its erection. Though overthrown, he says, it is still a marvel. Few men can embrace its thumb; its fingers are larger than those of statues. Its disfigured limbs appear so many vast caverns; and in the interior the enormous stones are seen with which they had been weighted. It cost, says Pliny, 300 talents; being exactly the sum of money which the Rhodians plundered from the war-ships abandoned before their city by Demetrius, when he raised the siege, after protracting it for many months.Philo of Byzantium, a mechanician who lived about the end of the third centuryB.C., and to whom is attributed a brief treatise on the “Seven Wonders of the World,” describes at some length the Rhodian Colossus, but makes no allusion to its supposed straddling attitude, or to its employment as a pharos. The same silence is preserved by another historian of the Seven Wonders, Lucius Ampellius. But as he possessed, like Chevreau and Vigenère, an inventive faculty, this author says: “At Rhodes is the colossal statue of the Sun, placed on a marble column, with a chariot drawn by four horses.”Putting aside the embellishments of tradition, let us inquire what this monument really was:—The brazen statue of Helios, popularly called the Colossus, was seventy cubits in height; its gigantic size may be inferred from the fact that few could compass one of its thumbs with their arms.[12]Fifty-six years after its erection it was overthrown by an earthquake (circaB.C.224), and as already related, the Rhodians would not attempt its restoration, though Ptolemæus offered them a contribution of 3000 talents, because prohibited by an oracle. And yet later authorities describe it as standing erect; and the Emperor Commodus, among his other extravagances, ordered his bust to be set upon its summit.In 672 Rhodes was captured by the Saracens, and their leader, one of the lieutenants of Othman, sold the brass of which the famous statue was composed, to a Jewish merchant of Edessa, for a sum, it is said, of £36,000. The bargain must have been very profitable, if it be true that the materials thus acquired loaded a thousand camels.A few words may be added in reference to the sculptor of the Colossus. According to Pliny, he was a pupil of Lysippus, a native of Lindos, and named Chares. Such, too, is the evidence of Strabo and the anonymous author of the Greek epigram. But in the writings of the Pyrrhonist, Sextus Empiricus, we find the honour of the achievement ascribed to one Laches. According to Sextus, Chares, discovering that he was cheated of half the sum of money promised for the completion of the statue, killed himself in despair; and Laches, succeeding him, perfected the glorious work. The authority of Pliny and Strabo, however, seems to us preferable to that of Sextus: the Colossus was truly the work of Chares, alone and unaided, and to him belongs the glory of having, as Philo of Byzantium says,“Made a god like to a god, and endowed the world with a second sun.”
M
“Menreceive with indifference from one another, and without examination, the traditions of past events, even of events connected with the history of their own country. Thus, for the most part, in their indolence to search out the truth, they accept at once all the fables and exaggerations forced upon their notice.”
It is thus that Thucydides expresses himself; and though his observation is two thousand years old, it has lost nothing of its point or truth.
A striking example of its applicability is afforded by the striking illustration now before us;—a representation of the Colossus of Rhodes, according to the generally received idea that this celebrated statue of Apollo was planted at the entrance to the harbour of Rhodes, where it served as a pharos; and that it was of such surpassing magnitude that ships under full sail could pass between its gigantic limbs.
But there is no evidence that the Colossus ever served as a pharos; at least, no ancient author asserts that such wasits employment. The first writer who converted it into a beacon-light was Urbain Chevreau, an industrious but not particularly able compiler of the seventeenth century; but he neglects to say from what source he obtained his information.
In the second place, the attitude traditionally ascribed to the Rhodian Colossus—an attitude neither graceful nor dignified—is also a pure conceit of comparatively modern times. It is, however, more ancient than the former, since it dates from the sixteenth century, when Blaise de Vigenère, the translator of Philostratus, transformed the masterpiece of Chares, the pupil of Lysippus, into a fantastic impossibility. Where he, too, obtained his information, no one can ascertain; for on this important point he preserved the prudent silence of Chevreau.
In an interesting paper, published by the FrenchAcadémie des Inscriptions, the Comte de Caylus proves—1st, That the Rhodian Apollo was not constructed at the mouth of the harbour; and 2nd, That no ships ever passed between its legs. He did not satisfy everybody, however, and reference was made to the pages of the geographer Strabo. It was found that he made no mention of the remarkable circumstance narrated by Vigenère. He cites a fragment of an epigram in iambic metre, in which the name of the sculptor, Chares of Lindos, is mentioned, and the dimensions of his work—namely, seventy cubits—are given. Strabo adds that the Colossus, in his time, lay prostrate on the ground—overthrown by an earthquake, and with shattered knees; and that the Rhodians had not restored it to its position because forbidden by an oracle.
IMAGINARY RESTORATION OF THE COLOSSUS OF RHODES.
IMAGINARY RESTORATION OF THE COLOSSUS OF RHODES.
Turning to Pliny, we find that he confirms all the statements of Strabo, and fixes the date of the fall of the statue at fifty-six years after its erection. Though overthrown, he says, it is still a marvel. Few men can embrace its thumb; its fingers are larger than those of statues. Its disfigured limbs appear so many vast caverns; and in the interior the enormous stones are seen with which they had been weighted. It cost, says Pliny, 300 talents; being exactly the sum of money which the Rhodians plundered from the war-ships abandoned before their city by Demetrius, when he raised the siege, after protracting it for many months.
Philo of Byzantium, a mechanician who lived about the end of the third centuryB.C., and to whom is attributed a brief treatise on the “Seven Wonders of the World,” describes at some length the Rhodian Colossus, but makes no allusion to its supposed straddling attitude, or to its employment as a pharos. The same silence is preserved by another historian of the Seven Wonders, Lucius Ampellius. But as he possessed, like Chevreau and Vigenère, an inventive faculty, this author says: “At Rhodes is the colossal statue of the Sun, placed on a marble column, with a chariot drawn by four horses.”
Putting aside the embellishments of tradition, let us inquire what this monument really was:—
The brazen statue of Helios, popularly called the Colossus, was seventy cubits in height; its gigantic size may be inferred from the fact that few could compass one of its thumbs with their arms.[12]Fifty-six years after its erection it was overthrown by an earthquake (circaB.C.224), and as already related, the Rhodians would not attempt its restoration, though Ptolemæus offered them a contribution of 3000 talents, because prohibited by an oracle. And yet later authorities describe it as standing erect; and the Emperor Commodus, among his other extravagances, ordered his bust to be set upon its summit.
In 672 Rhodes was captured by the Saracens, and their leader, one of the lieutenants of Othman, sold the brass of which the famous statue was composed, to a Jewish merchant of Edessa, for a sum, it is said, of £36,000. The bargain must have been very profitable, if it be true that the materials thus acquired loaded a thousand camels.
A few words may be added in reference to the sculptor of the Colossus. According to Pliny, he was a pupil of Lysippus, a native of Lindos, and named Chares. Such, too, is the evidence of Strabo and the anonymous author of the Greek epigram. But in the writings of the Pyrrhonist, Sextus Empiricus, we find the honour of the achievement ascribed to one Laches. According to Sextus, Chares, discovering that he was cheated of half the sum of money promised for the completion of the statue, killed himself in despair; and Laches, succeeding him, perfected the glorious work. The authority of Pliny and Strabo, however, seems to us preferable to that of Sextus: the Colossus was truly the work of Chares, alone and unaided, and to him belongs the glory of having, as Philo of Byzantium says,“Made a god like to a god, and endowed the world with a second sun.”