1. Parrhasius and His Age

According to Pliny, Parrhasius of Ephesus,¹ son and student of the painter Euenor,² was contemporary with Zeuxes (464-397 BC).³ Due to his conversation with Socrates in Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates,⁴ Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (Quintilian) considers that he lived in the same period as Zeuxes, in the years of the Peloponnesian War.⁵ Pausanias reports that Parrhasius made the designs of the relief representations adorning the shield of the bronze statue of Athena Promachos –a work made by the sculptor Mys.⁶ This is also confirmed by an epigram found on a skyphos reported by Athenaeus.⁷ Some inscribed fragments from the pedestal of Athena Promachos’ statue indicate that the statue was probably sculpted in the mid-5^th c. BC. It has been suggested that Pausanias wrongly reported Parrhasius instead of Panainos.⁸ No doubt that Parrhasius may have made the designs of the shield of the bronze statue at an early age, as he was very young when he started his apprenticeship by his father, a famous painter of Phidias’ time. This is in accordance with the date Pliny provides for Parrhasius, the 95^th Olympic Games.⁹

2. Technique

As for the painter’s technique, Pliny reports that Parrhasius was the first to follow a system of proportions in order to depict the details of facial expressions, the elegance of the hair and the grace of the mouth.¹⁰ According to Pliny, who was based on writings of Antigonus and Xenocrates, Parrhasius was insurmountable in rendering outlines, a quality recognized by all other creators.¹¹ Quite the opposite, he lacked in rendering the insides (in mediis corporibus). Parrhasius became famous due to his efforts to render the roundness and volume of objects as well as their correlation as well as their surroundings through their outlines. Unlike his contemporary Zeuxes and earlier Apollodorus, who experimented with the colours resulting from the contrast between light and shade in an attempt to render the three dimensions of the figures, Parrhasius remained faithful to the ideal of the clear line. Certain lekythoi of the late 5^th c. BC (410-400 BC) White-Ground Group (Group R) are connected with Parrhasius’ technique.¹² The grave and sullen style of the figures, achieved through the expressive rendering of the eyes and the mouth, and the neatly arranged hair support Pliny’s testimony about the painter’s technique.¹³

3. Works

Only the titles of his works have survived.¹⁴ One of them, “Philoctetes on Lemnos”, is reported on an epigram by Glaucus, who only describes the agony and distress of the hero, without providing any further information about the figure.¹⁵ It has been suggested that the influence of the specific piece is obvious on a silver skyphos of Augustus’ years, today in Denmark, signed by Cheirisophus.¹⁶

Parrhasius also painted the Demos of Athens.¹⁷ Although at first it was believed that the work comprised more than one painting, it must have included only one.¹⁸ From early on, the painting was connected with the conversation between Socrates and Parrhasius in Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates, where the two men talk about the possibility of depicting the “soul of ethos”.¹⁹ Already from 424 BC, Aristophanes in his Hippeis (the Knights) had presented to the Athenians the personification of their Demos. According to scholars, the description of the Demos is reminiscent of theatrical masks, whose one half laughed while the other half was frightened.²⁰ Immediately after the Demos, Pliny reports Theseus, whom Euphranor compared with his own Theseus, stating that the first fed on roses while the second on beef.²¹ This painting was taken to the Capitol by Sulla, but it was burned during the 68 BC fire. Parrhasius was the first to depict the Demos, which was possibly accompanied by Theseus.²²

Plato’s distaste for the silhouette technique, the new style of that period, is widely known. According to some opinions, the designing ability of Parrhasius, who represented the very opposite of this new technique, partly echoed Plato’s philosophical views. The conversation between Socrates and Parrhasius, as handed down by Xenophon in his Memoirs, possibly reflects a kind of relation the painter might have had with the Socratic philosophy, where Plato was based.²³ Although quite fascinating, the supposition remains a sheer assumption.²⁴