The Journal of Hellenic studies

9 A re, eee,
POOR PR, a

~~ μων
‘ ee =
ΟΣ

wee

yaa
Fee oa hate
f τ᾿

ΣΙ “ ΄ z aes 2 -
BEEBE pec apraie: eat
“ ’ OS a
~
Δι
ΧΩ

ΡΟ ΜῊ

“72.225
Lees g

ve ial
a
2 ‘sy
δὰ |
κων ων;
" |
A ᾿ nt
ἂν

THE SOCIEFY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES

THE JOURNAL

HELLENIC STUDIES

VOLUME VI

1885

KRAUS REPRINT
Nendeln/Liechtenstein
1971

Reprinted by permission of
THE SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES

KRAUS REPRINT
A Dwision of
KRAUS-THOMSON ORGANIZATION LIMITED
Nendeln/Liechtenstein
1971
Printed in Germany

CONTENTS.

oe RO ECs ae τὰ τ ee ee ee
Diet of ‘OMicora. and Momence 0. koto gs te ae, sie eee

Transactions of the Society—1885. . 2... 1. ee ee eee

. A Statuette representing a Boy and a Goose (Pl. 4.).—E. A. GARDNER

2. Sepulchral Relief from Attica, at Winton Castle (PI. B.).—G. BALDWIN
CO ee ee εν δ ον, ee ee ae
3. Odysseus and the Sirens—Dionysiac Boat-Races—A Cylix by Niko-
sthenes (Pl. XLIX.).—Jange E. HARRISON... . . . 222
4, Ancient Marbles in Great Britain. Supplement II. (Pls. LVI., LVII.,
AACA ETOH AMELIS’ 5c 4 se sw ΠΥ, ete ee ewe ee
5. Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias; Megarica, Corinthiaca (Pls.
L.—LY.).—F. Imnoor-BrumeEr and P. GARDNER. .......
6. The Pergamene Frieze (continucd).—L. R. AUNTS ia ecg tons is πο κὸ αἱ ἐς
7. Inscriptions copied by Cockerell in Greece, IL—E. A. GARDNER .
8. The Aeschylean Treatment of Myth and Legend.—LrEwis CAMPBELL .
9. Notes on (1) The Trilogy, (2) Certain Formal Artifices of Aeschylus. —
ΕΒ ΒΕ eB alten a re koh ws Τὸ εὐ ne eh An teed de
10. Early Paintings of Asia Minor.—CrcinSmitn ..........
11, Amphora Handles from Antiparos.—PERCY GARDNER .......
12. On the Gold and Silver Mines of Siphnos.—J. Turoporr Bent. . .
13. A Torso of Hadrian in the British Museum.—Wanwick WrotH
14. The Discovery of Naukratis.—W. M. Fuinpen< Petrie .
15 The Tomb of Porsenna (P]. LX.).—JAMES FERGVSSON. . . 1...
10, Telos and Karpathos.—J. THEODORE BENT ... ~~... + eee ‘
17. A Terra-Cotta Diadumenos (Pl. LXI.).—A. 5. Murnay. ... 2...

16

19

yi

CONTENTS.

. Inscriptions from Cos, &.—E. A. GARDNFR ........2...
. Judith and Holofernes:—E. ls, Hicks: = 2 22 22 i. 1... ee
. Archaic Gorgons in the British Museum (Pls. LIX. and D.).—J. Six.

21. Sarapis standing on a Xanthian Marble in the British Museum (Pls.

LVL. κα 5’ ιΞΞΑ: ΜΙΆ teers ote eer fy ce See

. The Homeric Land-System.—W. RmcEeway ...........
. Inscriptions copied by Cockerell in Greece, II1.—E. A. GARDNER

. On the Syrinx in the Ancient Chariot.—A. W. VERRALL. .....
. Vases from Rhodes with Incised Inscriptions.—Crcin SMITH . . . -
. Statue of an Emperor in the British Museum.—C, T. Newron

. Remarks on Aeschylus Agam. 1172, in emendation of Mr. Bury’s

reading.-<-F,jA. PALEY) «ftas’ }-solaiW te .ooltA utes Polfedi-iedoke

CLASSIFIED TABLE OF CONTENTS.

I.—EXCAVATION AND TRAVEL.

J. THEODORE Brnt.—On the Gold and Silver Minesof Siphnos. ... . ‘T95

᾿ Ἐ Telosand Carpathos. . 1.» we se ee ene 233
W, M. Ε΄. Perrize.—The Discovery of Naukratis ... 1. . . ee ees 208

II,—ART AND MANUFACTURE.

G, BALDWIN Brown.—A Sepulchral Relief from Attica. «css + 0 wus 16
Ι,, R. FaARNELL.—The Pergamene Frieze (continued)... . . ss eae 102
JAMES Frrcusson.—The Tomb of Porsenna ...... +++ + ees 207
E. A. GARDNER.—A Statuette representing a Boy anda Goose ..... 1
P, GARDNER.—Amphora Handles from Antiparos... 1... .. 1... 192
JANE Harrison.—ACylix by Nikosthenes. . . . . 1. 6 ee ee ees 19
Ξ. EE aaa loae \ Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias, J... . . 50
A. MicHagLiIs.—Ancient Marbles in Great Britain. Suppl. Il... ... 30)

” 5 Sarapis standing on a Xanthian Marble. ....... 287
ASS. MurRaAy.—A Terra-Cotta Diadumenos .. 1.» - «ὄν. «Ὁ. 243
Cc, T. Newron.—Statue of an Emperor in the British Museum... . . 378
Jan Six.—Archaic Gorgons inthe British Museum ....-:..... 275
Crecrt SmiruH.—Early Paintings of Asia Minor, . . . 2... s+. ess 180

Ἂν. W. Wroru.—A Torso of Hadrian in the British Museum. ..... 199

viii CLASSIFIED TABLE OF CONTENTS.

1I1.—PHILOLOGY AND INSCRIPTIONS.

Ε΄ A. GARKDNER.—Inscriptions copied by Cockerell in Greece. . .

3} 3)

Cecit SMiTH.—Vases from Rhodes with Incised Inscriptions . ..

IV.—HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES.

E. L, Hicks.—Judith and ἘΟΙΟΙΒΡΗΒΗΙ sacs ρον ΡΠ certs) ee
W. Ripcrway.—-The Homeric Land System ..........-.

A. W. Verratit.—On the Syrinx in the Ancient Chariot. ... .

V.—LITERATURE.

J. B. Bury.—Notes on (1) The Trilogy, (2) Certain Formal Artifices of
BOBO YOR. Seo ah arcade Set ee ge oP ae te rare rie

Lewis CAMPBELL,—The Aeschylean Treatment of Myth and Legend

F. A. PAtEY.—Remarks on Aeschylus Agaim.1172.......

Inscriptions from Cos, Bes ois ein) sue»

PAGE

143, 340

οὐ ΗΒ

πὴ.

"ιν | OL

319

+), cee

.- 167

LIST OF PLATES.

PLATL
XLIX. A Cylix by Nikosthenes representing a Dionysiac Boat-Race. Autotype
from a drawing by A. Houssclin.

111: _ Photographs by Brunner and Co., Winterthur, from casts of coins of
{1 II. Megaris and Coriuthia.

ἘΝ Figures from a Corinthian puteal. Autotype print.

LVI, A Xanthian Marble in the British Museum. Autotype print.
Obverse.—Sarapis standing, and Tyche,
Reverse,x— Prophylactic design of figures in a cave,

LIX. <A Pinax from Camirus, in the British Museum. Subject: a Gorgon.
Autotype print.

LX. Restoration of the Tomb of Porsenna. Drawn by James Fergusson.

LXI, <A Terra-Cotta Figure of a Diadumenos, belonging to Mr. W. R. Paton
Autotype print,

LIST OF WOOD-CUTS, &c.

” ” ee) ee ee ἰδ ew) ee ee eee

Attic Sepulchra] Relief (F]. 5.) AR
Cylix by Nikosthenes . τσ 1.5; rt oe

Bullifrom: Athens(PIi Ciara! τὸ ie,

Two Pans (Castle Howard). ... . sta eta e ieee eo

Corinthian Puteal, Procession of Deities .....

Lion-headed Monster, Pergamene Frieze... 1... .

᾿ς sy 2

Apollo-group τ ΝΣ ἀν ΔεΣΩ͂Σ alsa) κὰν ον .:
Gigantomachy, Vase from Tanagra. . . . .
Tio Satyra,Asintic Vase as © «as 9, ots

δ. oa τὰ ew

ἈΠΟ Muon OCHOCHOCm +5 ον cy corsa) pune

Satyr from Asiatic Sarcophagus

Tomb.of Armns ateaAwbanory ss. 1 oe)

Tomb of Alyattes at Sardis
ML Der Peas sy so seeks
Lama Temple at Pekin .

Sepulchral Monume nts at Telos

Plan of Tomb at Karpathos ..... -

Plan of Modern House, Karpathos .

The Vaison Diadumenos. ... .

1151 OF WOOD-CUTS, ἄς Xl

PAGE

Gorgon on Alabastos from Camiros 2... 6 6 ee ee ee ee 58]
Gorgons τ πο es, est ee ee see BP ee ke δ 285
Gorgons on Handle of Vessel (PID.). ee ee ee Ὑωὺ πδῦ
ΠΟΥ ἐδ bronzes british Miseuim: 46. 6) a ke es pa
Sarapis in bronze ; Statuette, Florence . . 2... 1 ee ee ees 207
τ + a ΠΑ ΕΣ νὰ coe te Tene kee Σ eaa'st oar ses 299
πα ΩΣ ion Coin (1125) ais aah We ee ke a 208
Silver Statuctte of Sarapis ; British Museum... . 1... ee eee 304
Marble Statue of Sarapis (Maffei). . . ᾿ς 6 sw et te νὸν es 805
Macedonian Chariot with Archaic Wheel. . «νον οὔ. te ew ὃς 368

Vases from Rhodes with Incised Inscriptions . 2 6 6 ee 6 ee νιν BOATS

ΕΣ

io

. SS eo

ἂχ" ΜΝ Cea |
ae oT) i
ae! wold ΤΣ ΤΩΣ

Liat oP wien Oty, “by, Ἦ

a Pe ἃ
ΠΟ ᾿ aan sii μένων ia
ley Seetun’) ὦ Sap υὑὲ δ iM bise

ῥι ΠΝ 4 Ys ° ᾿ ΓΑ Σ j J νὰ is

᾿ς ΝΣ stadia lite te

a

δὼ ‘ast eth 1 ΕἾ i ᾿
coo. ~ tualivirwal κα ile
Osu ite oe . ἱ ; ;
Wel συ ἐφ δ) ᾿ : ὩΣ νυ
᾿ et: Hee Beregw

Ἐκ εὐϑυμῖν νοσοῦν. τον ον ων

2

ΑΨ | med, νέην διλαδα. .

ae «5, J) att > νον Pian

et .
a Ἔ" wo ὦ Beer os
F
ap % ws ome.
> - 4 ἂ Π
mat. Ααοδῦ “gy ag ὃ
προ να, μὰ ὦ
—
“ ~~ νν.
-
4 A ἃ.

Pee al ϑὲμν».. Toepet*G δ ew

RULES

OF THE

SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF
HELLENIC STUDIES.

1. THE objects of this Society shall be as
follows :—

I. To advance the study of Greek language,
literature, and art, and to illustrate the history of
the Greek race in the ancient, Byzantine, and Neo-
Hellenic periods, by the publication of memoirs and
unedited documents or monuments in a Journal to be
issued periodically.

II. To collect drawings, facsimiles, transcripts,
plans, and photographs of Greek inscriptions, MSS.,
works of art, ancient sites and remains, and with
this view to invite travellers to communicate to the
Society notes or sketches of archzological and
topographical interest.

III. To organise means by which members of the
Society may have increased facilities for visiting
ancient sites and pursuing archeological researches
in countries which, at any time, have been the sites
of Hellenic civilization.

2. The Society shall consist of a President, Vice-
Presidents, a Council, a Treasurer, one or more

Secretaries, and Ordinary Members. All officers of
Ὁ

ΧΙΝν

the Society shall be chosen from among its Members,
and shall be er officio members of the Council.

3. The President shall preside at all General,
Ordinary, or Special Meetings of the Society, and
of the Council or of any Committee at which he is
present. In case of the absence of the President,
one of the Vice-Presidents shall preside in his
stead, and in the absence of the Vice-Presidents
the Treasurer. In the absence of the Treasurer,
the Council or Committee shall appoint one of their
Members to preside.

4. The funds and other property of the Society
shall be administered and applied by the Council in
such manner as they shal! consider most conducive to
the objects of the Society: in the Council shall also
be vested the control of all publications issued by
the Society, and the general management of all its
affairs and concerns. ‘The number of the Council
shall not exceed fifty.

5. The Treasurer shall receive, on account of the
Society, all subscriptions, donations, or other moneys
accruing to the funds thereof, and shall make all
payments ordered by the Council.

6. No money shall be drawn out of the hands of the
Treasurer or dealt with otherwise than by an order
of Council, and a cheque signed by two members
of Council and countersigned by a Secretary.

7. The Council shall meet as often as they may
deem necessary for the despatch of business.

8. Due notice of every such Meeting shall be sent
to each Member of the Council, by a summons
signed by the Secretary.

Χν

9. Three Members of the Council, provided not
more than one of the three present be a permanent
officer of the Society, shall be a quorum.

10. All questions before the Council shall be
determined by a majority of votes. The Chairman
to have a casting vote.

11. The Council shall prepare an Annual Report,
to be submitted to the Annual Meeting of the
Society.

12. The Secretary shall give notice in writing to
each Member of the Council of the ordinary days of
meeting of the Council, and shall have authority to
summon a Special and Extraordinary Meeting of the
Council on a requisition signed by at least four
Members of the Council.

13. Two Auditors, not being Members of the
Council, shall be elected by the Society in each
year.

14. A General Meeting of the Society shall be held
in London in June of each year, when the Reports of
the Council and of the Auditors shall be read, the
Council, Officers, and Auditors for the ensuing year
elected, and any other business recommended by
the Council discussed and determined. Meetings
of the Society for the reading of papers may
be held at such times as the Council may fix, due
notice being given to Members.

15. The President, Vice-Presidents, Treasurer,
Secretaries, and Council shall be elected by the

Members of the Society at the Annual Meeting.
ae

χνὶ

16. The President and Vice-Presidents shall be
appointed for one year, after which they shall be
eligible for re-election at the Annual Meeting.

17. One-third of the Council shall retire every year,
but the Members so retiring shall be eligible for
re-election at the Annual Meeting.

18. The Treasurer and Secretaries shall hold their
offices during the pleasure of the Council.

19. The elections of the Officers, Council, and
Auditors, at the Annual Meeting, shall be by
a majority of the votes of those present. The
Chairman of the Meeting shall have a casting vote.
The mode in which the vote shall be taken shall
be determined by the President and Council.

20. Every Member of the -Society shall be sum-
moned to the Annual Meeting by notice issued at
least one month before it is held.

21. All motions made at the Annual Meeting shall
be in writing and shall be signed by the mover and
seconder. No motion shall be submitted, unless
notice of it has been given to the Secretary at least
three weeks before the Annual Meeting.

22. Upon any vacancy in the Presidency, occurring
between the Annual Elections, one of the Vice-
Presidents shall be elected by the Council to officiate
as President until the next Annual Meeting.

23. All vacancies among the other Officers of the
Society occurring between the same dates shall in
like manner be provisionally filled up by the Council
until the next Annual Meeting.

XVii

24. The names of all candidates wishing to become
Members of the Society shall be submitted to a
Mceting of the Council, and at their next Meeting
the Council shall proceed to the election of candi-
dates so proposed : no such election to be valid unless
the candidate receives the votes of the majority of
those present.

25. The Annual Subscription of Members shall be
one guinea, payable and due on the Ist of January
each year; this annual subscription may be com-
pounded for by a payment of 415 15s., entitling
compounders to be Members of the Society for
life, without further payment.

26. The payment of the Annual Subscription, or
of the Life Composition, entitles each Member to
receive a copy of the ordinary publications of the
Society.

27. When any Member of the Society shall be six
months in arrear of his Annual Subscription, the
Secretary or Treasurer shall remind him of the
arrears due, and in case of non-payment thereof
within six months after date of such notice, such
defaulting Member shall cease to be a Member of
the Society, unless the Council make an order to
the contrary.

28. Members intending to leave the Society must
send a formal notice of resignation to the Secretary
on or before January 1 ; otherwise they will be held
liable for the subscription for the current year.

29. If at any time there may appear cause for the
expulsion of a Member of the Society, a Special
Meeting of the Council shall be held to consider the
case, and if at such Meeting at least two-thirds of

XVlil

the Members present shall concur ina resolution for
the expulsion of such Member of the Society, the
President shall submit the same for confirmation at a
General Meeting of the Society specially summoned
for this purpose, and if the decision of the Council
be confirmed by a majority at the General Meeting,
notice shall be given to that effect to the Member in
question, who shall thereupon cease to be a Member
of the Society.

30. The Council shall have power to nominate
British or Foreign Honorary Members. The number
of British Honorary Members shall not exceed
ten.

31. Ladies shall be eligible as Ordinary Members
of the Society, and when elected shall be entitled
to the same privileges as other Ordinary Members.

32. No change shall be made in the Rules of the
Society unless at least a fortnight before the Annual
Meeting specific notice be given to every Member of
the Society of the changes proposed.

RULES FOR THE USE OF THE LIBRARY.

I, THAT the Library be administered by the
Library Committee, which shall be composed of
not less than four members, two of whom. shall
form a quorum.

II. That the custody and arrangement of the
Library be in the hands of the Librarian, subject
to the control of the Committee, and in accordance
with Regulations drawn up by the said Committce
and approved by the Council.

III. That all books, periodicals, plans, photographs,
&c., be received by the Librarian or Secretary and
reported to the Council at their next Meeting,

IV. That every book or periodical sent to the
Society be at once stamped with the Society’s
name.

V. That all the Society’s books be entered in a
Catalogue to be kept by the Librarian, and that in
this Catalogue such books, &c. as are not to be lent
out be specified.

VI. That the Library be accessible to Members
on all week days from three to six P.M., when either
the Librarian, or in his absence some responsible
person, shall be in attendance.

VIJ. That the Society’s books (with exceptions
hereinafter to be specified) be lent to Members under
the following conditions :—

(1) That the number of volumes lent at any
one time to each Member shall not
exceed three.

(2) That the time during which such book or
books may be kept shall not exceed one
month,

(3) That no books be sent beyond the limits of
the United Kingdom.

ΧΧ

VIII. That the manner in which books are lent
shall be as follows :—

(1) That all requests for the loan of books be
addressed to the Librarian.

(2) That ‘the Librarian shall record all such
requests, and lend out the books in the
order of application.

(3) That in each case the name of the book and
of the borrower be inscribed, with the
date, in a special register to be kept by
the Librarian.

(4) Should a book not be returned within the
period specified, the Librarian shall re-
claim it.

(5) All expenses of carriage to and fro shall be
borne by the borrower.

IX. That no book falling under the following
categories be lent out under any circumstances :—

(1) Unbound books.
(2) Detached plates, plans, photographs, and the
like.

(3) Books considered too valuable for trans-
mission.

X. That in the case of a book being kept beyond
the stated time the borrower be liable to a fine of
one shilling for each additional week, and if a book
is lost the borrower be bound to replace it.

Lhe Library Committee.

PROF. PERCY GARDNER.

MR. WALTER LEAF.

Mr. GEORGE MACMILLAN (Hon. Sec.).
MR. ERNEST MYERS.

REV. ΝΥ. G. RUTHERFORD, LL.D.
Mr. E. MAUNDE THOMPSON,

REV. W. WAYTE (fon. Librarian).

Assistant Librarian, M1SS GALES, to whom, at

22, Albemarle Street, applications for books may
be addressed,

THE

SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OP HELLENIC STUDIES,

President,
THE RIGHT REV. J. Β. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., BISHOP OF DURHAM.

Vice-Presidents,

‘THE LORD JUSTICE BOWEN.

VERY REV. R. W. CHURCH,
D.C.L., Dean of St. Paul's.

PROF. SIDNEY COLVIN.

THE RIGHT HON. SIR CHARLES
W. DILKE, Barrt., M.P.

MR. W. D. GEDDES, Principal of
Aberdeen University.

MR. J. Κ΄ INGRAM, LL.D.

PROF. R. C JEBB, LL.D.

THE EARL OF MORLEY.

PROF. C. T. NEWTON, C.B.

REV. PROF. A. H. SAYCE, LL.D.

MR. E. MAUNDE THOMPSON.

REV. W. H. THOMPSON, D.D.,
Master of Trinity College, Cam-
bridge.

REV. H. F. TOZER.

PROFAR. Yi TYRRELL.

Council.

MR. J. THEODORE BENT.

PROF. S. H. BUTCHER.

MR. INGRAM BYWATER.

REV. PROF. LEWIS CAMPBELL.
REV. W. W. CAPES.

MR. CHARLES I. ELTON, Q.C.
MR. E. A. FREEMAN, D.C.L.
PROF. PERCY GARDNER, Lirt.D.
MR. JAMES GOW; Lirr.D.

REV. Ε. L. HICKS.

REV. H. A. HOLDEN, LL.D.
REV. PROF. HORT, D.D.

MR. HENRY JACKSON, Lirrt.D.
MR. ANDREW LANG.

MR. WALTER LEAF.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, Bart.,M.P.
MR. GEORGE A. MACMILLAN.

MR. D. B. MONRO, Provost of
Oriel College, Oxford.

MR. ERNEST MYERS.

MR. H. F. PELHAM.

MR. WALTER PERRY.

PROF. F. POLLOCK.

MR. P. RALLI.

PROE. W. M. RAMSAY.

REV. E. 5. ROBERWS.

REV. W. G. RUTHERFORD, LL.D.

MR. J. E. SANDYS.

MR. J. R. THURSFIELD.

MR E. B. TYLOR, D.C.L., F.R.S.

MR. CHARLES WALDSTEIN.

REV. W. WAYTE.

REV. J E. C. WELLDON.

Treasurer.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, Bart., M.P.

Hon. Secretary.
MR. GEORGE A, MACMILLAN,

Assistant Secretary.
MR. W. RISELEY.

Editorial Committee.

MR, INGRAM BYWATER.
PROF. PERCY GARDNER.

REV. PROF. HORT.
PROF. R. C. JEBB.

Auditors for 1885-86.

MR. DOUGLAS W. FRESHFIELD.

| MR. J. B- MARTIN,

Bankers.
MESSRS. ROBARTS, LUBBOCK, & CU., LOMBARD STREET.

SESSION 188s—18S6.

Meetings will be held at 22, Albemarle Strect, at 5 P.M.
on the following days, the Council meeting at 4.30 on each
OLCaASEON .----

1885.
Thursday, October 22.

1886.
Thursday, March 11.
Thursday, May 6.
Thursday, June 24, (Annual.)

ΧΧΙΗῚΕ

HONORARY MEMBERS.

His Majesty the King of the Hellenes,

Mr. Alfred Biliotti, 7.B.17. Consul at Trebizond.

Prof. H. Brunn, Aonigliche Museen, Munich.

Prof. D. Comparetti, /stztuto di Studii Superiori, Florence.

M. Alexander Contostavlos, Athens.

Geheimrath Prof. Ernst Curtius, A/atthai Kirchstrasse 4, Berlin.

Mr. George Dennis, H.B2.42, Consul at Smyrna.

M. P. Foucart, Director of the French School, Athens.

Monsieur J. Gennadius, 57, Pall Mall, SN.

Prof. W. Helbig, Casa Tarpeia, Monte Caprino, Rome.

Prof. A. Kirchhoff, University, Berlin,

Dr. H. Kohler, Director of the German School, Athens.

Prof. 5. A. Kumanudes, University, Athens.

Mr. Charles Merlin, 1.2.47. Consul at the Pireus.

Prof. A. Michaelis, Vuzversity, Strassburg.

Monsieur B. E. C. Miller, AZembre de Institut, 25, Rue de
L’Université, Paris.

Monsieur A. R. Rangabé, Ministere Hellénique, Berlin.

Prof. L. Stephani, Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

His Excellency M. W. H. Waddington, AZembre de (Institut,
French Embassy, Albert Gate, S.W.

M. le Baron J. de Witte, 27. de ?Inst., Rue Fortin 5, Paris.

Mr. Thomas Wood, 4.8.47. Consul at Patras,

LIST OF MEMBERS.

* Original Members. + Life Members,

The other Members have been elected by the Council since the
Inaugural Meeting.

Abbott, Evelyn, Balliol College, Oxford.
Abbott, Rev. E. A., D.D., 32, Abdey Road, N.W.
*Abercromby, Hon. John, 21, Chapel Street, Belgrave
Square, SW.
tAbrahall, Rev. J. H., Combe Vicarage, Woodstock.
Abram, Edward, 1, Afiddle Temple Lane, E.C.
*Acland, Sir H. W., K.C.B., M.D., F.R.S., Broad Street, Orford
Adam, James, Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

XXIV

Ainger, A. C., Eton College, Windsor.
Anderson, J. R., Latrbeck, Keswick.
*Antrobus, Rev. Frederick, 7#e Oratory, S.W.
Archer-Hind, R. D., 7rinity College, Cambridge.
Argyropoulos, Georges A.
*Armstrong, E., Qucen’s College, Oxford.
Armstrong, Prof. G. F., Queen’s College, Cork.
Arnold, Prof. E. V., University College, Bangor.
Atkinson, Rev. E., D.D., Afaster of Clare College, Cambridge.
Baddeley, W. St. Clair, 5, Albert Hall Mansions, S.W.
Baker, Rev. William, D.D., Merchant Taylors’ School, E.C.
*Balfour, G. W., M.P., 4, Carlton Gardens, S.W.
*Balfour, Right Hon. A. J., M.P., 4, Carlton Gardens, S.W.
Ball, Sidney, St. John’s College, Oxford.
Barlow, Miss Anne, Greenthorne, Edgworth, Bolton.
Barlow, Mrs., ic, Montague Street, Russell Square, W.C.
Barnewall, Sir Reginald A., Bart., 4, Green Street, Grosvenor
Square, W,
Bath, The Marquis of, Lougleat, Warminster.
Bayfield, Rev. M. A., Zhe College, Malvern.
Bell, Rev. G. C., The Lodge, Marlborough College.
Bell, Rev. William, Zhe College, Dover.
Benachi, L. A., 26, Lzznet Lane, Sefton Park, Liverpool.
f Benn, Alfred W., 16, Lung’ Arno della Zecca Vecchia, Florence.
Benson, Arthur C., E¢on College, Windsor.
Bent, J. Theodore (Council), 43, Great Cumberland Place, W.
Bent, Mrs. Theodore, 43, Great Cumberland Place, W.
Bigg, Rev. Charles, D.D., 28, Norham Road, Oxford.
tBikelas, Demetrius, 4, Rue de Babylone, Paris.
Blackstone, F. E., British Museum, W.C,
Blomfield, A. W., 6, Montagu Place, Montagu Square, W,
Blore, Rev. Dr., King’s School, Canterbury,
Boase, Rev. Ὁ, W., Exeter College, Oxford.
Bodingten, Prof. N., Principal of the Yorkshire College, Leeds.
Bond, Edward, C.B., British Museum, W.C.
Bond, Edward, Elm Bank, Hampstead, N.W.
Bosanquet, B., 131, Ebury Street, SW.
Bosanquet, Rev. F. C. T., Enfield Cottage, Sandown, Isle
of Wight.
Bousfield, William, 33, Stanhope Gardens, S.W.
Bowen, Lord Justice (V.P.) 1, Cornwall Gardens, SW.
Boyd, Rev. Henry, D.D., Principal of Hertford College, Oxford.
Bradley, Prof. A. C., University College, Liverpool.
Bradley, Very Rev. G. G.,D.D., The Deanery, Westininster,S.W.
Bramley, Rev. H. R., Alagdalen College, Oxford.
Bramston, Rev. J. T., Culvers Close, Winchester.
Broadbent, H., Eton College, Windsor.
*Brodie, Ε. H., H.ALLS., St. John’s House, Worcester,

XXV

Brooke, Rev. Stopford A., 1, Manchester Square, W.

Brown, Colville, 716 Paddocks, Swaffham, Norfolk.

Brown, Prof. G. Baldwin, The University, Edinburgh.

Browning, Robert, 19, Warwick Crescent, Harrow Road, II".
*Browning, Oscar, Azig’s College, Cambridge.

*Brunton, T. Lauder, M.D., F.R.S., 50, Welbech Strest, ΚΓ’,
*Bryce, James, D.C.L., M.P., 35, Bryanston Square, ΚΓ.
Bull, A. E. C., St. Fames’ Vicarage, Wigan.
Burkitt, F. C., Zréntty College, Cambridge.
*Burn, Rev. Robert, Zvtuity College, Cambridge.

Bury, J. B., Zrznity College, Dublin,

Butcher, Prof. 5. H. (Council), Zhe University, Edinburen.
*Butler, The Very Rev. H. M., D.D., Zhe Deanery, Gloucester.

Butler, Arthur J., Wood End, Weybridge.

Butler, Rev. Canon George, W7nchester.

Buxton, F. W., 42, Grosvenor Gardens, SW.

Bywater, Ingram (Council), 93, Ozs/ow Sguare, SM.
+Bywater, Mrs., 93, Ovslow Square, S.W.

Calvert, Rev. Thomas, 15, A/bany Villas, Hove, Brighton.
+Calvocorrssi, L. M., Crosby House, 95, Bishopsgate, E.C.
*Campbell, Rev. Prof. Lewis (Council), St, Andrew's, N.P.

Campion, Rev. W. J. H., Aed/e College, Oxford.

Cannon, Miss F. A., 82, Mortimer Street, Cavendish Square,

ΤΣ
Canterbury, The Most Rev. His Grace the Lord Archbishop
of, Lambeth Palace, S.E.
Capes, Rev. W. W. (Council), Hertford College, Oxford.
Cardpanos, Constantin, Deputé, Athens.
*Carlisle, A. D., Hatleybury College, Hertfordshire.
Carr, Rev. A., Wellington College, Wokingham.

Cates, Arthur, 12, York Terrace, Regent’s Park.

Cave, Lawrence T., 13, Lowndes Square, S.W.

Chambers, C. Gore, 716 Grammar School, Bedford.

Chambers, F. C., Rodmi/, Shortlands, Kent.

Chambers, C. E., 7rinity College, Cambridge.

Channing, F. A., M.P., 3, Brunswick Sguare, Brighton,

Chavasse, A. S., University College, Oxford.
+Chawner, G., A7vnug’s College, Cambridge.
+Chawner, W., Z7manuel College, Cambridge.
+Chester, The Right Rev. the Bishop of, Chester.

Chettle, H., Stationers’ School, Bolt Court, E.C.

*Christie, R. C., Glenwood, Virginia Water, Starnes.

Christian, Rev. G., Redgate, Uppingham.

*Church, Very Rev. R. W., D.C.L. (V.P.), The Deanery, St.
PGS Es Cs
Clark, P. E., 2, Culverden Park, Tunbridge Wells.
Clarke, Henry, 14, Ladbroke Grove, W.
Clarke, Hyde, 32, S¢. George’s Square, SW".

ΧΧΥῚ

Clarke, Rev. R. L., Queen’s College, Oxford.
Clay, C. F., Zrinity College, Cambridge. —
Clinton, E. Fynes, Grammar School, Wimborne, Dorset.
Cobbold, Felix T., M.P., Holywells, Ipswich.

*Cobham, C. Delaval, 7.3.47. Commisstoner, Larnaca, Cyprus.
Colby, Rev. Dr., Litton Cheney, Dorsetshire.
Cole, A. C., 64, Portland Place, W.

*Colvin, Prof. Sidney (V.P.), British Museum, W.C.
Comyn, John S., M.D., 32, Dawson Place, Bayswater, W.
*Constantinides, Prof. M., 6, Leamzngton Villas, Acton, W.

+Contostavlos Otho, Abonnés Case, 642, Marseilles.
Conway, W. M., Savile Club, 107, Piccadilly, W.
Conybeare, C. A. V., M.P., 40, Chancery Lane, W.C.
Coolidge, Rev. W. A. B., Magdalen College, Oxford.
Corgialegno, M., 21, Pembridge Gardens, W.
Corrie, E. K., το, Old Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C,
Courtney, W. L., Mew College, Oxford.
Courtenay, Miss, 34, Brompton Square, S.W.
Cowper, Earl, K.G., Paushanger, Hertford.
Craik, George Lillie, 29, Bedford Street, Covent Garden, W.C
Creighton, Rev. Prof. M., Langdale Lodge, The Avenue, Cam-

bridge.

Crossley, Prof. Hastings, Queen’s College, Belfast.
Cruikshank, Rev. J. A., Harrow, NV.W.
Cust, H. J. C., 7 γέμεέν College, Cambridge.
Cust, Lionel, 13, Eccleston Square, S.W.
Dakyns, H. G., Clifton College, Bristol.
Dale, A. W. W., Trinity Hall, Cambridge.
Davidson, H. O. D., Harrow, N.W.
Davies, Rev. Gerald S., Charterhouse, Godalming,
Davies, Rev. J. Ll., 5, Blandford Square, N.W.
Dawes, Rev. J. S., D.D., Surbiton, S.W.
Deibel, Dr., care of Messrs Asher, Beriin.
D’Eichthal, Gustave, 152, Boulevard Haussmann, Parts.
Delyanni, Th. P., Athens.

*Dickson, T. G., Atheus.

*Dilke, The Right Hon. Sir Charles W., Bart., M.P. (V.P.),

76, Sloane St., S.W.

Dill, S., Grammar School, Manchester.
Dillon, Edward, 13, Upper Phillimore Gardens, W.
Dimsdale, M. S., Aénug’s College, Cambridge.
Dix, C. M., Oratory School, Edgbaston, Birmingham.
Donaldson, Rev. 8, A., Eton College, Windsor.
Donaldson, Prof. James, LL.D., Zhe University, Aberdeen,
Donkin, E. H., The School, Sherborne, Dorset.
Drake, Mrs., Devon House, Forest Hill, S.E.
Drisler, Prof. Henry, Columbia College, New York, U.S A.
Duchataux, M. V., 12, Aue de ’Echauderte, ἃ Reims.

ΧΧΥῚΪ

Duhn, Prof. von, University, Heidelberg.
Duke, Roger, Post-aster General, Malta.
*+ Durham, Rt. Rev. the Bishop of (President), Auckland Castle,

Rishop Auckland.

Easton, Edward, 11, Delahay Street, S.W.

Edmonds, Mrs., Carisbrook, Blackheath, S.E.

Edwards, Miss Amelia B., The Larches, Westbury-on-Trym,
Bristol.

Edwards, G. M., Szdney Sussex College, Cambridge.

Ellis, Robinson, 77zxzty College, Oxford.

Elton, Charles, Q.C. (Council), 10, Cranley Place, Onslow
Square, SW.

Ely, Talfourd, University College, Gower Street, W.C.

Escott, T. H. S., 38, Brompton Crescent, S.W.

tEscott, Rev. W. W. S., Atug Henry's School, Coventry.

Eumorfopoulo, A., 1, Kensington Park Gardens, W,

Evans, A. J., 32, Broad Street, Oxford.

Evans, John, D.C.L., F.R.S., Mash Mills, Hemel Hempstead.
Eve, H. W., 37, Gordon Square, W.C,

Everard, C. H., Eton College, Windsor.

Farnell, L. R., Aveter College, Oxford.

Farrer, Rev. Canon A. S., Durham.

Farside, W., Thorpe Hall, Fylingdale, Yorks.

Faulkner, C. J., University College, Oxford.

*Fearon, Rev. W. A., D.D., The College, Winchester.
Feetham, T. O., 23, Arundel Gardens, Notting Hill, W,
Fenning, W. D., Hadcleybury College, Hertford,

Flather, J. H., Cavendish College, Cambridge.
Flower, Wickham, Swan House, Chelsea, S.W.

+Forbes, W. H., Baliiol College, Oxford.

Ford, Sir Francis Clare, K.C.M.G., A.B. ALindster,
Madrid.
Foster, Prof. Michael, M.D., Sec. R.S., Shelford, Cambridge.

*Fowler, Rev. Professor, President of Corpus Christi College,

Oxford.

*Fowler, Sir Robert, Bart., M.P., 50, Cornhill, E.C.
Fowler, W. W., Lincoln College, Oxford.

Fox, Ernest Long, 18, Dean’s Yard, Westminster, S.1W.

tFranks, A. W., F.R.S., British Museum, W.C.

Frazer, J. G., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Freeman, C. E., 1, Dean’s Yard, Westminster, SW.
*Freeman, Edward A., D.C.L. (Council), Somerleaze, Wells,
Somerset.

*Freshfield, Douglas W., 1, Azr//e Gardens, Campden Hill, WW’.

tFreshfield, Edwin, 5, Bank Butldings, E.C.

*Fry, F. J., 104, Pembroke Road, Clifton.

Furneaux, Rev. W. M., Achton Hall, Burton-on-Trent.
Fyffe, C. A., 64, Lexham Gardens, South Kensington,

XXVIil

tGardner, E. A., 13, Oak Hill, Hampstead, NW.
*+Gardner, Prof. Percy, Litt.D. (Council), Br7tish Afusenm,
IWC,
Gardner, Miss Alice, South Hall, Newnham, Cambridge.
Geddes, W. 1). (V.P.), Principal of the University, Aberdeen.
Gilliat, Rev. E., Harrow, N.W.
Glazebrook, M. G., Harrow, Λ΄ ΤΙ.
Godwin, E. W., 3, Fall Mall East, W.
Goodhart, H. C., 77tuity College, Cambridge.
Goodrick, Rev. A. T. S., St. Fohn’s College, Oxford.
Goodwin, Prof. A., University College, Gower Street, W.C.
Goodwin, Prof. W. W., Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass.
U.S.A.
t+Gordon, R. G., Avng’s School, Canterbury,
Gore, Rev. C., Pusey House, 61, St. Giles, Oxford.
Gould, Theodore W., 8, Orrisdale Terrace, Cheltenham.
Gow, James, Litt.D. (Council), High School, Nottingham.
Gray, Rev. H. B., Bradfield College, Berks.
Greenwell, Rey. Canon, F.R.S., Durham.
Greenwood, J. G., Principal of Owens College, Manchester.
Gregory, Right Hon. Sir William H., K.C.M.G., Coole Park,
Co. Galway, and 3, St. George's Place, S.W.
Gregory, Rev. T. H., Padbury Vicarage, Buckingham.
Griffith, G., Harrow, N.W.
Grundy, cae W., Zhe College, Malvern.
Guild, J. Wyllie, pe Terrace, Glasgow.
Guillemard, W. G., Harrow, Δ᾽. ΤΥ.
Gurney, John, Sprowston Hall, Norwich.
Gwatkin, Rev. T., 74, Regent Street, Cambridge.
Hager, Herman, Ph. D., Owens College, Manchester,
Hall, Rev. F. H., Oréed College, Oxford.
Hall, Rev. F. J., WVymoudley House, Stevenage, Herts.
Hall, W. H.. δὲν AZile Bottom, Cambs.
Hallam, G. H., Byron House, Harrow, N.W.
Hamerton, P. G., Pré Charmoy, Autun, Sadne-et-Loire,
France.
Hancock, Mrs. Charles, 125, Queens’ Gate, S. W.
ΚΗ τ Charles, 5, Upper Berkeley Street, Portman Sq., IW.
t Harrison, Miss J. E., 45 (D), Colville Gardens, W.
Harrison, Mrs. Robert, 73, Cromwell Road, S.W.
Hartshorne, Β. F., 41, Edm Park Gardens, Chelsea, S.W
Haslam, S., The School, Uppingham.
Hatch, Rev. E., Vice-Principal, St. Mary’s Hall, Oxford.
Haussoullier, M., 44, Rue Barennes, Bordeaux.
t Haverfield, F. J., New College, Oxford.
Hawes, Miss E. P., 89, Orford Terrace, W.
Hay, C. A., 127, Harley Street, W.
tHaynes, Miss Lucy, 7, Thornton Hill, Wimbledon, SW,

ΧΧΙΧ

Hazzopulo, S., Pella Vista, Manchester.
Heard, Rev. W. A., 2, Lit(le Dean’s Vard, Westminster, SW.
tHeathcote, W. E., 114, bury Street, SAV,
Heberden, C. L., Brasenose College, Oxford.
Hervey, H., 12, Lowndes Street, WW,
Heydemann, Dr. Heinrich, 72#e University, Halle.
Hicks, John Power, Clifton Lodge, Blomfield Road, Matda
Hill, vi?.
Hicks,Rev. E.L.(Counceil), “evny Compton Rectory, Leamington.
Hirschfeld, Prof. Gustave, Ph.D. Aouigsberg, Germany.
Hodgson, F. C., Lducation Department, Whitehall.
Holden, Rev. Henry, D.D., South Luffenham Rect... Stamford.
Holden, Rev. H.A., LL.D. (Council), 20, Redcliffe Square, 5. VW.
Holiday, Henry, Oak Tree House, Branch Hill, Hampstead,
NW.
Hollway-Calthrop, H. C., Stawhoe Hall, King's Lynn,
Holmes, E. G. ἂν, H.M.LS., Highworth, Ashford, Kent.
Homolle, M., Nancy, France.
Hope, Rt. Hon. A. J. Beresford, M.P., 1, Connaught Place, W.
Hopkins, Prof. Gerard M., S.J., University College, Dublin.
Hornby, Rev. J. J., D.D., Provost of Eton College, Winidsor.
Horner, H. B., The College, Marlborough.
Hort, Rev. Prof., D.D. (Council), S¢. Peter's Terrace, Cambridge.
Howorth, Henry H., Derby House, Eccles, Manchester.
Hiigel, Baron Friedrich von, 4, Holford Road, Hampstead, NW.
Hughes, Rev. W. Hawker, /esws College, Oxford.
Hunt, William, Pex 1 ἐμ α, Yeowdl.
Inge, W. R., E7on College, I tudsor.
Ingram, J. K., LL.D. (V.P.), Zaduity College, Dublin,
tlonides, Alex. A., 1, Holland Park, IV.
Ionides, Luke A., 17, Upper Phillimore Gardens, Nensington, W,
Jackson, Henry, Litt.D. (Council), 7yzudty College, Cambridge.
Jackson, Rev. Blomfield, Avng's College School, Strand,
Jackson, Rev. W. W., ἔχον College, Oxford.
Jackson, T. G., 11, Nottingham Place, Marylebone, WW"
*James, Rev. H.A., Nossal/, Fleetwood,
James, Rev. 5. R., Eton College, Windsor.
James, Montague, Avzy’s College, Cambridge.
Jassonidy, O. J., Nzcosta, Cyprus.
Jeans, Rey. G. E., Hatkeybury College, Hertford.
*Jebb, Prof. R. C., LL.D., Litt.D. (V.P.), Undversity, Glasgow.
Jenkinson, F. J. H., Zrinzty College, Cambridge.
Jenner, Charles, Easter Duddingston Lodge, Portobello, Mid-
Lothian. ‘
Jenner, Louis Leopold C. A., Zrznity College, Oxford.
Jenner, Miss Lucy A., 63, Brook Street, W.
Jevons, F. B., Hatfield Hall, Durham.
Jex-Blake, Miss, Girton College, Cambridye.

XXX

Johnson, Thomas M., Osceola, Mo., U.S.A.

Johnstone, P. D., Osdorne House, Bolton Gardens South,
SW.

Jones, E. Burne, A.R.A., The Grange, North-end Road, Fulham.

Joynt, J. W., Zrinity College, Dublin.

Keep, R. P., Ph.D., Easthampton, Mass., U.S.A.

Keltie. J. S., 52, Cromwell Avenue, Highgate, N.

Ker, W. P., 203, Newport Read, Cardiff:

King, Rev. J. R., St. Peter’s Vicarage, Oxford.

Kitchin, The Very Rev. G. W., D.D., The Deanery, Winchester.

Lacaita, Sir James, K.C.M.G..27, Duke Street, St. James’, S.W.

Lamb, J. G., 17, Wellesley Road, Great Varmouth.

Lambros, Spiridion, Athens.

Lane-Poole, Mrs. Stanley, 6, Park Villas East, Richmond,
SW,

*Lang, R. Hamilton, O/toman Bank, 26, Throgmorton St., E.C,
Lang, Andrew (Council), 1, Afarloes Road, Kensington, W.
Layard, Sir Henry, K.C.B., Athenaum Club, SW.

Leaf, Herbert, Pazns Hid/, Cobham, Surrey.

f Leaf, Walter (Council), Old Change, E.C.

Leeper, Alexander, [arden of Trinity College, Melbourne,
Australia,

Leigh, W. Austen, A7zxzg’s College, Cambridge

Leighton, Sir Frederick, Bart., P.R.A., Hfolland Park Road, W.

Le Strange, Captain, R.N., 46, Charles Strect, Berkeley Sq. W.

+ Lewis, Prof, T. Hayter, 12, Aeusiéngton Gardens Square, W.

*t Lewis, Rev. 5. S., Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

*Leycester, Rafe, 6, Cheyne Walk, S.W., or Toft, Cheshire.

* Liddell, Very Rev. H. G., Ὁ... Dean of Christchurch, Oxford.
Liddon, Rev. Canon, Christchurch, Oxford.

Lindley, Miss Julia, 10, Avdbrook Terrace, Shooters Hill
Road, S.E.

Lindley, William, 10, Kzdbrook Ter., Shooters Hill Και, S.E.

Litchfield, R. B., 31, Aensington Square, W.

Livingstone, Rev. R. G., Pembroke College, Oxford.

Lloyd-Roberts, H., 1, Pump Court, Temple.

TLock, Rev. W., Kedle College. Oxford.

Lowell, J. Russell, 68, Beacon Street, Boston, U.S.A.

*Lubbock, Sir John, Bart., M.P. (Treasurer), High Elms,

Hayes, Kent.
Ludlow, T. W., Cottage Lawn, Yonkers, New York.
Lushington, E. L., Park House, Maidstone, Kent.
Luxmoore, H. E., Eton College, Windsor.
Lyttelton, Hon. and Rev. E., Eton College, Windsor.
Lytton, Earl of, Knebworth, Stevenage, Herts.
*Macan, R. W., University College, Oxford.
Mackail, J. W., 2, Iandeville Place, W.
Macmillan, Alexander, 29, Redford Street, Covent Garden, W.C,

ΧΧΧῚ

*Macmillan, George A. (Hon. Sec.), 29, Bedford St., Covent

Garden, W.C.

Macmillan, Mrs. George A., 19, Earls’ Terrace, Kensington, W.

Macmillan, M. C., 29, Bedford Street, Covent Garden.

Macnaghten, Ἐπ Q.C., M.P., 3, Mew Sguare, Lincoln's
Inn, W.C.

Magrath, Rev. J. R., Provost of Queen's College, Oxford.

Maguire, Prof., Trinity College, Dublin.

* Mahaffy, Rev. Prof. J. P., Tréuity College, Dublin.

Maine, Sir Henry K.C.S.1., 27, Cornwall Gardens, S.W., and
Trinity Hall Lodge, Cambridge.
Mann, J.S., Zrzuity College, Oxford.
+ Marindin, G. E., Eton College, Windsor.
Margoliouth, 1). S., New College, Oxford.
Marshall, R., Broomfield, Duppas Hill, Croydon.
Marshall, T., Highfield, Chapel Allerton, Leeds.

*+ Martin, John B., 17, Hyde Park Gate, S.W.

t Martyn, Edward, 77/lyra Castle, Ardrahan, County Galway.
Mason, Η. Ὁ. F., Hadleybury College, Hertford.
Mavrogordato, Emanuel A., 56, MVestbourne Terrace, ΤΙ),
Mavrogordato, Pandeli, South Sea House, Threadneedle St.,E.C,
McEwen, Rev. Alex. Robertson, J/offat, N.B.

McGregor, Sir Charles R., Bart., 3, Queen’s Gate, S.W.
McPherson, Miss Florence, The Lodge, Blundell Sands, Liverpool.
Meeking, Miss, Aichings Park, Slough.
Melas, Michele, Parwassos Society, Athens.
*Middlemore, 5. G. C., 78, Oakley Street, Chelsea, S.W.
*Middleton, J. H., 4, Storey’s Gate, S.W.
Miller, Alex., Q.C., LL.D., Clonard, Stanmore.
Miller, Thomas, 8, Ge¢smar Chaussée, Gottingen, Germany.
Mills, Rev. W. H., Grammar School, Louth.
Milner, Alfred, 8, York Street, St. James’ Sguare, S.W.
Minchin, James Innes, 8, Westbourne Park, W.

+ Misto, John P., Swzyrana.

*Monk, C. J., 5, Buckingham Gate, S.W.

Monkswell, Right Hon. Lord, 7, Chelsea Embankment, S.W.

*Monro, D. B. (Council), Provost of Oriel College, Oxford.
Montzopulos, Athanasius, Parnassos Soctety, Athens.

*Moraitis, Prof. D., Mellenic College, 84, Kensington Gardens

Square, W.
Morgenthan, J. C., 10, Georgen Strasse, Leipzig.

*Morison, James Cotter, Clairvausx, Fitzjohn’s Avenue, Hamz-

stead.
Morice, Rev. F. D., Zhe School, Rugby.

*Morley, Earl of (V.P.), 31, Princes’ Gardens, S.W.
Morris, J. Ε., he Grammar School, Bedford.

Morris, Lewis, Penbryn House, Carmarthen, S. Wales.
Morshead, Ε. Ὁ. A., The College, Winchester.

ΧΧΧΗ

Moss, Rev. H. W., The School, Shrewsbury.

Moule, C. W., Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

Moulton, Rev. W. F., D.D., Zhe Leys, Cambridge.

Mudie, Ὁ. Ἐς, Zhe Limes, Muswell Hill, NW.

Murray, G. 5. D., 6, Campden Hill Road, W.
*t+Myers, Ernest (Council), 43, “ῥέοι Street, Hyde Park

Square, ΤΣ,

Myriantheus, The Arehimandrite H., 104, Zuverness Ter., W.
Nance, Rev. J. T., δύ Johi’s College, Oxford.

Negrepontis, Menelas, Parzassos Soctety, Athens.

Neil, R. A., Pembroke College, Cambridge.

Nettleship, R. L., Badéiol College, Oxford.

Newman, W. L., Pittui/le Lawn, Cheltenhan.

*Newton, Prof. C. T., ΕΒ. (V.P.), 2, IZomtague Place, W.C.
Nicholson, Sir Charles, The Grange, Totteridge, Herts.
Nicolson, Rev. W., The Bible Seciety’s Depot, St. Petersburg.
Northampton, Marquess of, 145, Piccadilly, VW.

Ogle, Rev. H. C., Afagdalen College School, Oxford.

Ogle, J. W., M.D., 30, Cavendish Square, W.

Page, Hollis B., Zhe Oxford, Hartington Avenue, Boston,
CSA:

Page, T. E., Charterhouse, Godalming.

Paley, Prof. F. A, LL.D., Apthorp, Boscombe, Bournemouth,

Palmer, Ven. Archdeacon, Christchurch, Oxford.

Park, Rev. Mungo T., Grammar School, Oundle.

Parker, R. J., 27, Brunswick Gardens, Kensington, W.

Parissis, ἃ, Parnassos Soctety, Athens.

Parry, R. St. J., Stoke House, Slough.

Parsons, Daniel, Stuart's Lodge, Malvern Wells.

Pears, Edward, 2, Aue de la Bangue, Constantinople.

Peile, John, Litt.D., Christ's College, Cambridge.

Pelham, H. F. (Council), 20, Bradmore Koad, Oxford.

Pember, Ε, H., Q.C., Vicars Hill, near Lymington, Hants.

t Percival, F. W., 36, Bryanston Street, W.

Percival, Rev. J., D.D., President of Trinity College, Oxford.

Perkins, Charles C., 2, Walnut Street, Boston, Mass., U.S.A-

Perry, Harold Arthur, 13, Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C.

Perry, Ottley C., Bolton-le-Moors.

*Perry, Walter C. (Council), 7a, Wanchester Square, W.

Phelps, Rev. Lancelot Ridley, Orzel College, Oxford.
Platt, 1. A., 7 γέ τν College, Cambridge.
Pollock, Sir Frederick, Bart., 59, J/enutagu Square, W.
Pollock, Frederick (Council), 48, Great Cumberland Place, W.
Poole, Reginald Stuart, Dr ἐσ Museum, W.C.
Porter, Rev. J. L., D.D., Presédent of Queen’ s College, Belfast.
Porter, Miss Sarah, Farmington, Connecticut, U.S.A.
ft Postgate, Prof. J. P., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Poynter, Edward J., R.A., 28, Albert Gate, S.W.

XXX

*Price, Prof. Bonamy, Norham Gardens, Oxford.
Prickard, A. O., New College, Orford.
Prideaux, Miss Sarah, Goldsmiths Hall, E.C.
Prothero, G. W., Avng’s College, Cambridee.,
T Pryor, Francis R., Lancaster Mansion, Savoy, W.C.
Psychari, A., Hotel Bellevue, Dresden.
Pullan, R. P., 9, JWelbury Read, Kensington, W.
Radcliffe, W. W., Fonthill Rectory, Tisbury, Salisbury.
*Ralli, Pandeli (Council), 17, Belgrave Square, SW.
TRalli, Mrs. Stephen A., Cleveland fHlouse, Thornton Road,
Chipham Park, SW.
TRalli, Theodore, Parkfield, Qucen’s Road, Clapham Park, SW.
7 Ramsay, Prot. W. M. (Council), Exeter Collese, Oxford.
Rawlins, Εν H., Aton College, Windsor.
Rawnsley, W. F., Parkhill, Lyndhurst, Hants.
Raynor, Rev. P. E., The College, Marlborough.
Kead, General Meredith, care of Messrs. Munro & Co.,
32, sVassau Street, New Vorh, OTSA
Reeve, Henry, C. B.,62; Rutlind Gate, ΠΣ,
Reid, J. S., Litt.D., Cazus College, Cambridge.
fKeinach, Salomon, 31, Ave de Berlin, Parts.
Rendall, Rev. F., 20, Ladbroke Square, Notting Hill, 117
Rendall. Prof. G. H., Princtpal of University College
Liverpool.
Renieri, M. Mario, A¢hens.
Rich, Anthony, Heene, Worthing, Sussex.
Richardson, Β. W., M.D., F.R.S., 25, Manchester Square, WW.
*Richardson, H., The College, Marlborough
Richards, H., Wadham College, Oxford.
Richmond, W. B., Bevor Lodge, West End, Hammersmith.
Ridgeway, Prof. W., Queen’s Collegv, Cork.
Rivington, Septimus, 3, Waterloo Place, S.W.
Roberts, Rev. E. 5. (Council), Cazus C. ollege, Cambridge.
Robertson, E. Stanley, 43, Waterloo Road, Dublin,
Robertson, Rev. Archibald, flatfield Hall, Durham.
Robinson, Edward.
Robinson, G. G., Charterhouse, Godalming.
Robinson, Τὶ P. G., Ashfield, Spring Grove, Ledford.
Rogers, 5. L., Grammar School, Bedford.
Rolleston, T. W. H., Farrview, Delgany, Co. Wicklow.
tRosebery, The Right Hon. the Earl of, Lansdowne House,
Berkeley Square, W,
Rotton, J. F., 3, Zhe Boltons, S.W.
Roundell, C. S., 16, Curzon Strect, W.
Rous, Licut.-Colonel, 14, AZotcomd Street, S.W.
Rutherford, Rev. W. Gunion, LL.D. (Council), 19, Dean's
Yard, Westminster, S.W.
Rylands, W. H., 11, Hart Street, Bloomsbury, W.C.

’

XXXIV

tRyle, Rev. H. E., King’s College, Cambiidge.
*Samuelson, Sir B., Bart., M.P., 56, Princes Gate, S. Kensington.
Sandys, Frederick, 28, J/aud Grove, Fulham, S.W.
tSandys, J. E. (Council), St. John’s College, Cambridge.
Saumarez, Hon. James St. V., Bury St. Edmunds.
*fSayce, Rev. Prof. A. H., LL.D. (V.P.), Queen’s Coll, Oxford.
+Scaramanga, A. P., 12, Hyde Park Place, Hyde Park, W.
*Schliemann, Dr. H., Athens.
Schulhof, J. Maurice, St. Paul's School, West Kensington,
S.W.
*Schuyler, Eugene, cave of Mr. B. F. Stevens, 4, Trafalgar
Sguare, W.C.
t Scott, the Very Rev. Robert, D.D., The Deanery, Rochester.
Seaman, Owen, Zower House, Putney Heath, S.W.
*Sellar, A. C., M.P., 75, Cromwell Road, S.W.
Sellar, Prof. W. Y., 15, Buckingham Terrace, Edinburgh.
Sellers, Miss Eugenie, 61, Cromwell Road, S. W.
Selwyn, Rev. E. J., Pluckley Rectory, Ashford, Kent
+Sendall, Walter J., 15, Southwell Gardens, South Kensington.
Seymour, Prof. Thomas D., Yale College, Newhaven, U.S.A.
Shadwell, C. L., Oriel College, Oxford.
Sharkey, J. A., Chvist’s College, Cambridge.
Shuckburgh, E. S., Fair View, The Avenue, Cambridge.
Sidgwick, Arthur, Cerpus Christi College, Oxford.
Sidgwick, Henry, 7rinity College, Cambridge.
Sime, Donald, H.M.1.S., Bonar Bridge, Sutherland.
Simpkinson, H. W., Education Office, Whitehall, S.W.
Simpson, H. B., 45, Gloucester Terrace, Hyde Park, W.
Sinclair, Lieut. H. M., R.E., Government House, Cyprus.
*Skinner, J. E. H., 3, Dr. Johnson’s Buildings, Temple, E.C.
*Skrine, H. D., Claverton Manor, Bath.
*Skrine, Rev. J. H., Uppingham, Rutland.
Skuludes, Stephanos, Syva, Greece.
Smith, Arthur H., 7rinity College, Cambridge.
Smith, Cecil, British Museum, W.C.
Smith, Ernest H., 30, College Road, Clifton.
tSmith, Prof. Goldwin, Zhe Grange, Toronto, Canada.
Smith, R. J., 2, Tanfield Court, Temple, E.C.
Smith, William, LL.D. 94, Westbourne Terrace, W.
TSnow, T. C., St. Fohn’s College, Oxford.
tSomerset, Arthur, Frimley Priory, Farnborough, Hants,
Sonnenschein, Prof., 7, Nozl Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham.
tSouthwell, The Right Rev. the Bishop of, Thurgarion Priory,
Southwell. ;
*Spartali, Michael, 25, O/d Broad Street, E.C.
Spooner, Rev. ὟΝ. A., New College, Oxford.
Spratt, Vice-Admiral, C.B., Tunbridge Wells.
Spring-Rice, S. E., 1134, Queen's Gate, S.W.

XXXV

Stanton, Charles H., 65, Redcliffe Gardens, S.W.
Statham, H. Heathcote, 42a, Queen Anne’s Gate, S.W.
Stephenson, Rev. H. M., SZ. Peter’s School, York.
St. Hilaire, Marquis de Queux de, 3, Ruve Soufflot, Paris.
*Stillman, W. J., 3, Challoner Street, Baron’s Court, W.
Stillwell, James, 1, Victoria Park, Dover.
Stogdon, J., Harrow, NIV.
Stone, Rev. E. D., Stonehouse, St. Peter's, Isle of Thanet.
Strachan-Davidson, J]. L., Balliol College, Oxford.
Strachan, Prof. John, Owens College, Manchester.
Street, A. R., St. Chad’s, Denstone, Uttoxeter.
*+Stuart, Hon. W., C.B., A.B, Minister, The Hague.
Stuart, Mrs. J., 4, Palace Gate Mansions, S.W.
*Sturgis, Julian R., 17, Carlton House Terrace, W.
Surr, Watson, 28, 7hreadneedle Street, E.C.
Swanwick, Miss Anna, 23, Cumberland Terrace, N.W.
*Symonds, J. A., Davos Platz, Grisons, Switzerland.
Talbot, Rev. E.S. Warden of Keble College, Oxford.
Tancock, Rev. C. C., Charterhouse, Godalming.
Tarver, J. C., High School, Gateshead-on-Tyne.
Tatton, R. G., Balliol College, Oxford.
Theologos, Pantaleon, Director of the Credit Bank, Athens.
Thomas, Charles G., 12, Grafton Street, WW’.
Thomas, Rev. T. Ll., Jesus Colleye, Oxford.
*Thompson, Ε. M. (V.P.), British Museum, W.C,
Thompson, E. S., Christ's College, Cambridge.
Thompson, F. E., Cotton House, The College, Marlborough.
*+ Thompson, Rev. W. H.,D.D.(V.P.), Masterof Trinity College,
Cambridge.
Thorley, G. E., Warden of Wadham College, Oxford.
Thring, Rev. E., Uppinghan.
Thursfield, J. R. (Council), 11, Montague Place, W.C.
Tilley, Arthur, A7z7g’s College, Cambridge.
Todhunter, John, Orchardcroft, Bedford Park, W.
*+Tozer, Rev. H. F. (V.P.), 18, Norham Gardens, Oxford.
*Trevelyan, Sir Charles, Bart., K.C.B., 8, Grosvenor Cres., S.W.
*+Trotter, Rev. Coutts, Z77zuity College, Cambridge.
}Truell, H. P., F.R.C.S., Cloumannon, Ashford, Co. Wicklow.
Tuck, Rev. A. J., Zhe School, Uppingham.
*t+Tuckett, F. F., Frenchay, near Bristol.
*Tuckerman, Hon. C. K., 18, Avenue Kléber, Paris.
Tudeer, Dr. Emil, Helsingfors, Sweden.
Turnbull, Mrs. Peverill, Wyaston Grove, Ashbourne.
Tylden, H. J., 38, Harewood Square, N.W.
Tylor, E. B., D.C.L., F.R.S. (Council), Zhe AZuseum House,
Oxford.
Tyrrell, Prof. R. Y. (V.P.), Zrintty College, Dublin.
*Tyrwhitt, Rev. R. St. J., Ketilby, Oxford.

XXXV1

Upcott, E. A., Wellington College, Wokingham.
Upcott, L. E, The College, Marlborough.
Urquhart, Miss Margaret, 5, St. Colme Strect, Edinburgh.
*Valetta, J. N., 27, Hatherley Grove, Bayswater, W.
tValieri, Octavius, 2, Mexsington Park Gardens, IV.
Vanderbyl, Mrs. Philip, Merthzvood, near Winchester.
Vardy, Rev. A. R., Atng Edwards School, Birmingham.
Vaughan, the Very Rev. C. J., Dean of Llandaff, Zhe Temple,
EC;
tT Vaughan, E. L., £ton College, Windsor.
Venning, Miss Rosamond, care of R. 5. Poole, Esq., Bretish
Museum, W.C.
Verrall, A. W., Zrinity College, Cambridge.
Vince, C. A., Repton, Burton-on-Trent.
*Vincent, Edgar, Cairo, Egypt.
;Wagner, Henry, 13, //alf Moon Street, W.
+Waldstein, Charles, Ph.D. (Council), A7zg’s College, Cambridge.
Walford, Edward, 2, /Zyde Park Mansions, N.W.
*Ward, Prof. A. W., Litt.D., The Owens College, Manchester.
Ward, W. W, Cliffe Court, Frenuchay, Bristol.
Ward, T. H., 61, Russell Square, W.C.
Walker, Rev. F. A., D.D., Dun Mallard, Shootup Hill, Bron-
desbury, NW.
Warr, Prof. G. C., Queen’s College, Harley Street, W.
-Warre, Rev. Edmond, D.D., Eton College, Windsor.
Warren, T. H., Prestdent of Magdalen College, Oxford.
Washbourn, Rev. J. R., Cathedral School, Gloucester.
Waterhouse, Mrs. Edwin, 13, Hyde Park Street, W.
Watson, A. G., Hariow, N.W.
*Way, Rev. J. P., Avug’s School, Warwick.
Wayte, Rev. W. (Council), 6, Onslow Sguare, S.W.
ft Welldon, Rev. J. E. C. (Council), The School, Harrow, N.W.
Wells, J., Wadham College, Oxford.
Wheeler, Prof. J. H., University of Virginia, Albemarle Co.,
Virginia.
+ White, A. Cromwell, 3, Harcourt Buildings, Temple.
White, Jobn Forbes, 107, Aing Street, Aberdeen.
White, Prof. J. W., Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
White, W. H., 9, Conduit Street, W.
Whitehead, R. R., Borden Wood, Milland, Liphook, Hants.
Whitehouse, F. Cope, 10, Cleveland Row, St. Fames’, S.W.
Wickham, Rev. E. C., Wellington College, Wokingham.
Wicksteed, Francis W. S., M.D., Chester House, Weston-
super-Mare.
*Wilde, Oscar, 7zle Strect, Chelsea, S.W.
Wilkins, Prof. A. S., LL.D., Litt.D., Zhe Owens College,
Manchester.
Willert, P. Ἐς, Eacter College, Oxford.

XXAVII

*#Winwood, Rev. H. H., 11, Cavendish Crescent, Bath.
Wood, G., Pembroke College, Oxford.
*Wood, J. T., 24, Albion Street, Hyde Park, ΤΣ.
Wood, Rev. W.S., Uford Rectory, Stamford.
Woods, Rev. H. G., Zrinity College, Oxford.
Woodward, Rev. W. H., 13, St Domingo Grove, Everton,
Liverpool,
Woolner, Thomas, R.A., 29, Welbeck Street, W.
Wren, Walter, 2, Pow7s Sguare, IV.
Wright, R. S., 1, Paper Bucldings, Temple, E.C.
tWright, W. Aldis, 7rinzty College, Cambridge.
Wroth, Warwick W., British Afuseum, W.C.
+Wyndham, Rev. Francis M., S¢. Charles’ College, St. Charles
Sguare, 177.
Yates, Rev. 5. A. Thompson, 396, Commercial Road, E.
York, The Most Rey. His Grace the Lord Archbishop of,
Lishopihorpe, York.
*Young, Rev. E. M., The School, Sherborne.
Yule, Miss Amy, cave of Messrs. Grindlay ἃ Co., 55, Pardia-
ment Street, S.W.

The Society for the Promotion of Greck Literature in
Athens.'

* This Society has agreed to contribute £5 5s. annually to the
funds of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies,

XXXVIILL

LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS TO THE JOURNAL.
OF HELLENIG-STUDIES:

The University College Library, Aéerystuyth.

The Amherst College Library, dveherst, AJass.

The Andover Theological Seminary, <ldover, MWass., U.S_A.

The National University, Aéhevs.

The Johns-Hopkins Library, Baltimore.

The Peabody Institute, De/timore, U.S.A.

The Royal Museum Library, Ler/ex.

The Royal Library, Berlin.

The Boston Athenaeum Library, Boston, U.S.A.

The Public Library, Boston, U.S.A.

The University Library, Bves/az.

The Buffalo Young Men’s Library, Buffalo, U.S.A.

The Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.

The Library of King’s College, Cambridge.

The Fitzwilliam Archaeological Museum, Cambridge.

The University Library, Christiania, Sweden.

The Public Library, Crneinnatz, U.S.A.

The University, Dzyox.

The Wing’s Inns Library, Duden.

‘The National Library of Ireland, Dued/zn.

The Royal Irish Academy, Dublin.

The Durham Cathedral Library, Durham.

The University Library, Er/angen.

The University Library, Fvretburg.

‘The University Library, Glasgow.

‘The University Library, Go¢tZngeun.

The Philological Society of the University of Gessew.

The Royal University Library, Greifswald.

The Dartmouth College Library, Hanover, U.S.A.

The Library, Zhe School, Harrow, NW.

The Cornell University Library, /thaca, N.Y.

The Royal and University Library, Adxigstbere.

The Public Library, Leec?s.

The Free Library, Lzverfool.

The Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Byetish
A/Tuseum, ΤΡ Ὁ,

ΝΧΧΙΝ

The Library of University College, London.

The Athenaeum Club, Pad? J/al/, London, SAV.

The Burlington Fine Arts Club, Savz/e Row, London, W.
The London Library, St. James's Square, London, SW.
The Reform Club, Pal? JWal/, London, SAV.

The Library of King’s College School, Strand, IV.C.

The Sion College Library, Lomdon Wall, EC.

The Chetham’s Library, “πω Bank, Manchester.

The Kénigliche Paulinische Bibliotheck, Munster, 1. 117,
The Royal Library, AZanich.

The Library of Yale College, Newhaven.

The Astor Library, New Vors.

The Columbia College, New lors,

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Wew York,

The Library of the College of the City of New York, New Υο)
The Cyprus Museum, Acosta, Cypress,

The Library of Worcester College, O./ford,

The Library of Christchurch, O.v/ord.

The Library of New College, Oaforid.

The Library of Queen’s College, Oxford.

The Library of University College, Ofori.

The Union Society, Ozford.

The University, Prague.

The Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanucle, Rowe.

The Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, U.S.A.
The School Reading Room, Rugby.

The St. Louis Mercantile Library, 54, Louis, U.S.A,

The Imperial University and National Library, Strassduag,
The Free Library, Syduey, New South Wales.

The University Library, Zovonto.

The Public Library, I/éuterthur.

The Free Library, Worcester, Miss, USA,

LIST OF JOURNALS, &c, RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE
FOR THE JOURNAL OF HELLENIC STUDIES,

The Transactions of the American School, Athens.

The Parnassos Philological Journal, «//Aens,

The Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (published by the
French School at d/Aevs).

The Publications of the Archaeological Society, dens.

The Mittheilungen of the German Institute at Adhens.

The Journal of the Historical and Lthnological Society of
Greece, ffi.

xl

Bursian’s Jahresbericht fiir classische Alterthumswissenschaft.

The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.

The Archaologische Zeitung, Berlin.

The Revue Archéologique, Paris (per M. Georges Perrot, 45,
rue a Uln).

The Numismatic Chronicle.

The Publications of the Evangelical School, Swzyrza.

The Annuaire de I Association pour |)Encouragement des
Etudes Grecques en France, Paris. ὦ

The Publications of the German Imperial Archaeological
Institute, Rovze.

The Journal of the American Archaeological Institute, Boszoz,
U.S.A.

The Publications of the Imperial Archaeological Commission,
St. Petersburg.

The Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society, and
the journal of Philology.

The Proceedings of the Hellenic Philological Syllogos, Co-
stantinople,

The American Journal of Archzology (Dr. A. L. Frothingham),
29, Cathedral Street, Baltimore, U.S.A.

xl

THE SESSION OF 1884-5.

The First General Meeting was held at 22, Albemarle
Street on Zhursday, October 23, 1884, PROFESSOR Ὁ, T.
NEWTON, C.B., Vice-President, in the Chair.

The REV. EDMOND WaARRE, D.D., Head Master of Eton,
read a paper on the ‘Raft of Odysseus’ ( Jourual, Vol. V.,
p. 209). The writer explained that the paper was based
entirely on personal researches and observation of actual ship
building. A model of the raft, as he conceived it, had been
made under his direction in the Eton School of Mechanics
and was now presented to the Society. Dr. Warre’s main
contention was that Homer’s account of the making of the
raft was strictly accurate, and that an actual raft, capable of
making the voyage in question, could be constructed after
Homer’s description.

The CHAIRMAN pointed out that in the British Museum
were two actual portions of ancient vessels; (1) a bronze
figure-head from Actium, and (2) a long cross-beam from
the floor of an Italian galley, found at the bottom of Lake
Nemi.

PROFESSOR JEBB said that this passage in the Odyssey
had for the first time been made clear to him by Dr. Warre’s
paper. It also explained a passage in the Hecuba of
Euripides (1. 113), τὰς ποντοπόρους σχεδίας, where the word
σχεδία was used as a synonym for ναῦς. This would be

7

ΧΕΙ

hardly appropriate if the σχεδία were merely a flat raft, but
if, as Dr. Warre suggested, the σχεδία had a second platform
its resemblance in the distance to a ship would be close
enough to justify the metaphor.

After further remarks from Professor Campbell and Mr. Gow,
Mr. E, A. GARDNER read a paper on‘ Ornaments and Armour
from Kertch in the New Museum at Oxford’ ( Journal,
Vol. V. p. 62), describing the objects in detail and indicating

their importance as specimens of undoubted Hellenic metal-
work,

The CHAIRMAN, referring to one of the bronze ornaments
in the form of a camel’s head, said that the camel was asso-
ciated with objects of very early Greck art in a little bronze
found at Kameiros, where a man with an Assyrian cut of
beard was riding ona kneeling camel. This was of Phoenician
origin, but the ornaments found with it were of archaic Greek
character. The ornaments described in the paper were just
like others found not only at Kertch but even in Capua,
in Athens, in the islands, and at Kyme in Aeolis.

PROFESSOR P. GARDNER pointed out that a special feature
in the Russian finds was the full and accurate manner in
which they were described. A further advance of Russia
towards the south might be matter for regret politically, but
would be a gain to archaeology. In this respect despotic
Russia had set a good example to free England.

The Second General Meeting was held at 22, Albemarle
Street on Thursday, March 12, 1885, at 5 P.M. PROFESSOR
C. T. NEWTON, C.B., Vice-President, in the Chair.

PROFESSOR W. M. RAMSAY read the first part of a paper
‘On the Archaic Pottery of the Coast of Northern Ionia and
Southern Aeolis,” The main thesis of this part of the paper

xii

was to claim for the potters of the Acolian Cyme four vases
which have been published at different times: .J/onum, dell,
Instit., ix. 4 and ix. 5 (2); Journal Hell, Stud, 11. p. 305 ; and
Bull. Corresp. Hell., 1884, plate vii. A vase of the Barre
collection was mentioned as showing close analogy to the
third of these vases, but the woodcut in the sale catalogue,
p. 8, was insufficient to permit a judgment. The paper treated
at length the character of the ornamentation in these vases,
showing that at first the potters of Cyme in the general type
imitated Phoenician or Cypro-Phoenician ware, but in various
details they had recourse to nature or to the native art of
Anatolia. In the two later vases, those of the J/oxum., the
art had a well-established definite character of its own. The
paper compared at some length the ornament on the most
primitive of these vases (a continuous series of very narrow
horizontal bands of bright strongly-contrasted colours sur-
rounding the entire lower part of the vase) with a species of
inlaid bronze-work frequently alluded to in the J//ad,
(especially xi. 20-27), and argued that this kind of bronze-
work was Cypro-Phoenician imported to the coast of Acolis,
and that it was imitated by the maker of the vase in question.
A vase found at Temir Gora, near Kertch, the ancient
Panticapaion, wrongly mentioned by M. Rayet as having
been found at Phanagoria, was correctly assigned by Rayct
to Ionian potters, but belongs probably to a South lJonian
pottery.

The CHAIRMAN said that the subject was one of much
interest. There were some vases not noted by Mr. Ramsay
of which the provenance was quite certain, as εἰσ, some late
examples from Budrum and Ephesus. It was most important
~ to collect fragments wherever found, Further remains were
wanted from Phocaea, because we know at what date the
city was deserted,

Mr. H. HowoRTH said it was rash to assume that a vase
found in a Milesian colony was of Ionian fabric. It was im-
portant to consider where a particular clay was found to make

xliv

the manufacture of a given vase possible. Some clays were
only fit for rough ware. For example, the Samian ware
imported into Britain could not be imitated here for lack of
clay. The ports on the Black Sea were frequented from all

parts of the Greek world at a very early date, on account of
the gold trade.

PROFESSOR GARDNER said he thought that the history
of commerce would be illustrated by the find-spots of

pottery, the fabric and material throwing light upon trade
routes.

Mr. ERNEST GARDNER'S paper on ‘A Silver Statuette

in the British Museum’ was postponed to the following
meeting.

The Third General Meeting was held at 22, Albemarle
Street on Thursday, May 7, 1885, at 5 P.M. PROFESSOR Ὁ. 1.
NEWTON, C.B., Vice-President, in the Chair.

Mr. ERNEST GARDNER read a paper on ‘A Silver Statuette
in the British Museum, representing a Boy and a Goose.’
( Journal, Vol. V1, p. 1.)

This was found near Alexandria, together with coins which
fix the date of its burial at about 240 BC. After referring to
fifty extant works representing a similar subject, the writer
proceeded to assign them to six principal types. The relation
and origin of these types is a matter of considerable obscurity,
and hence a trustworthy date is a great help to the discussion.
Jahn and others had previously assumed a connexion between
some statues representing a boy and a goose and a recorded
work of Boethos. The characteristics of that work might
also be preserved to some extent by the British Museum
statuette, which, though not a direct copy, might be assigned
to the school or influence of the same artist. If so, as a work
in silver, it would be likely to teach us something of his
manner of treating a material in which he is known to have
excelled. The subject of this and other kindred works is one

χὶν

well suited to the tendency of the early Hellenistic age, when
the craving for an artificial simplicity was met by the pastoral
in poetry, and representations from child-life in art. The
large number of examples still extant might be explained not
only by the extreme popularity of the subject, but also by
the ease with which it could be adapted to purposes of
fountain decoration, and the majority of the copies we now
possess were produced to meet the demand of the decorators
of Roman houses and villas. The British Museum statuette
is, from its material and period, a safer guide as to style.

MISs J. HARRISON read a paper on a hitherto unpublished
vase now in the Campana collection of the Louvre, a black-
figured cylix of the potter Nicosthenes. In connexion with
this vase the writer tried to show (1) that the art-form which
the myth of Odysseus and the Sirens assumes on Greek vases
has arisen from the juxtaposition, at first accidental, of two or
more racing galleys and the Assyrian bird-woman types
already current in vase decoration; (2) that the design
appearing on the vase of Nicosthenes and some thirteen other
Greek vases, namely, a succession of galleys apparently
racing, is connected with nautical coitests in honour of
Dionysus.

The Annual Meeting was held at 22, Albemarle Street
on Thursday, June 25, 1885, at 5 P.M., PROFESSOR C, T.
NEWTON, C.B., Vice-President, in the Chair. The following
Report was read by the HON. SEc. on behalf of the
Council :—

THE Journal of Hellenic Studzres still represents the main work of the
Society, and the fifth volume, published in 1884, was in no way inferior to
its predecessors either in interest or variety. The paper contributed by
Mr. Theodore Bent upon the valuable researches he has made for several
years past among the Cyclades, is a good example of the work which may
be done by private enterprise when directed by zeal and knowledge. It
is satisfactory to know that Mr. Bent’s visit to the islands of the Aegean
this spring has yielded no less interesting results, which it is hoped that
he will communicate to the Society. The paper on ‘Sepulchral Customs
in-Ancient Phrygia,’ by Mr. W. M. Ramsay, whose appointment to the

xlvi

new Chair ot Archaeology at Oxford may here be recorded, represents a
further outcome of the valuable researches in Asia Minor which he
intends to resume in the spring of next year. Mention may also be made
of Professor Gardner’s memoir on ‘ Sepulchral Monuments,’ in connexion
with a relief found at Tarentum; Mr. Cecil Smith’s paper on ‘ Four
Archaic Vases from Khodes, with accompanying illustrations; and
Professor Colvin’s account of the Attic monument, which he was so
fortunate as to find in the hands of M. des Tombes at the Hague. This
monument, which is an undoubted example of Athenian sepulchral art
of the best period, is published for the first time on plate xxxix.

As the Society is directly represented on the Committee appointed for
the establishment of a british School of Archaeology at Athens, it is not
out of place to state here what has been done since last year in furtherance
of that object. A sum exceeding £4,0co having been raised by sub-
scription, it was decided by the Committee and Subscribers to begin
building a heuse upon the site granted by the Greek Government. This
work is now in hand, and may be expected to be ready about a year
hence. Meanwhile, every effort is being made to provide adequate en-
dowment for the Director and for the working expenses of the School.
The University of Oxford has already granted an annual sum of £100
for three years, and in answer to an appeal made to this Society the
Council has decided to make a like grant, provided that an income of at
least £300 a year is assured to the School from other sources, The
successful fulfilment of this scheme is a matter with which members will
feel that the Society is closely concerned.

The reproduction ia facsimile of the Laurentian Codex of Sophocles
has now been most successfully accomplished, and the copies have just
been issued to subscribers. Special mention should be made of the
valuab!e Introduction contributed to the work by Mr. E. Maunde Thompson
and Professor R. C. Jebb. The success of this undertaking and the
support it has received are very encouraging.

In January last an appeal was made to the Society on the part of the
I-gypt Exploration Fund for a grant in aid of the explorations being con-
ducted by Mr. Flinders Petrie on the supposed site of Naucratis. The
Council met the appeal at once by a grant of £50, and it is satisfactory to
record that many interesting discoveries have since been made which
confirm the identification of the site and establish the importance of
Naucratis as an emporium and centre of Hellenic trade from very early
times. An account of these discoveries by Mr. Flinders Petrie himself
will appear in the forthcoming number of the Jowsnal.

The financial position of the Society is fully set forth on the accom-
panying Balance Sheet. From this it appears that the receipts of the
year, including the subscriptions of members and of Libraries, and the
sale of back numbers of the Fournal, amount to £802 8s. 1d. The ex-
penditure which covers the cost of the whole of vol. v. of the fourna/, and
the greater part of the cost of vol. iv. part 2, and which includes the
Naucratis grant, and an advance of £95 75. 9d. towards photographing
the Sophocles MS., amounts to £824 75. 2d, leaving a balance at the
bank of £879 25. 114. In this balance are included life subscriptions to
the amount of £220 105., which have been invested since June 1, the total
sum now invested in Consols being £714. The advance for photographing
the Sophocles MS.. however, will now be repaid ; and there are, moreover,
arrears of subscriptions amounting to about £140.

Since the last annual meeting forty-five new members have been elected
and tifteen Libraries have been added to the list of subscribers. Against

ΧΙΝῚΙ

this very satisfactory increase must be set the loss of eighteen members
by death or resignation, so that the net increase of members and
subscribers is forty-two; the present total of members being 595 and «εἴ
subscribers sixty-four.

This Report shows the Society to be in a thoroughly healthy condition,
steadily increasing in numbers, and efficiently doing, according to its means,
the work it was created to do. It remains for the Council to urge all
members to do their utmost to maintain this vigorous condition of the
body corporate by recommending the claims of the Society to the support
of their friends, and so keeping up a steady supply of fresh candidates
for admission. Already the Society may congratulate itself upon having
achieved remarkable results in the six years of its existence, especially
in stimulating interest in classical archaeology throughout the country.
But the more support it can obtain, the larger the funds at its disposal, the
more valuable will be the work it can do in the promotion of Hellenic

studies.

The adoption of the Report was moved by PROFESSOR
BALDWIN BROWN, seconded by Mr. R. S. POOLE, and
carried unanimously.

The CHAIRMAN, in the course of the usual address, re-
ferred to the excavation at Naucratis as having yielded
results of great value. The find of fragments of pottery of
the sixth century B.C., had been exceptionally rich. The
objects brought by Mr. Bent from Carpathos were of great
interest, especially one rude figure, which might be regarded
as the earliest specimen of an idol of any size from the
Greek islands. It appeared that the principal object of
worship in those early times had been Aphrodite, or some
analogous deity. Possibly these were the idols of the
primitive Carian race. Referring to Mr. Wood’s work at
Ephesus, Mr. Newton said he wished that more active interest
were taken in it, so as to ensure the raising of sufficient funds
to carry it to a conclusion.

The following motion was put from the chair on the part
of the Council, and confirmed by the meeting, ‘ That Rule 25
be amended by raising the life subscription from 10/. Ios. to
Tse iss.’

A ballot being taken for the election of officers, the former
President and Vice-Presidents were re-elected, and Mr. (Ὁ.
Elton, Professor W. M. Ramsay, and Mr. J. T. Bent were
chosen to fill vacancies on the Council.

xlvili

Mr. R. S. POOLE made a short statement of the results of
the work done at Naucratis, and expressed the hope that
when they were published means might be found of placing
them at the disposal of members of the Hellenic Society as
well as of subscribers to the fund. The CHAIRMAN regretted
that Mr. F. Petrie, who had conducted this exploration, could
not be present to speak for himself. The personal privations
and discomfort involved in such work made it all the more
worthy of commendation. After further testimony to Mr.
Petrie’s untiring zeal and remarkable powers of observation
had been borne by Mr. C. Whitehouse,

Mr. THEODORE BENT gave an account of his recent visit
to the island of Carpathos. He said that the inhabitants
were a wild race of shepherds, whose customs and folk-lore
offered many interesting parallels to those of classical times.
The dialect, too, of which he gave many examples, was well
worthy of study, and a complete glossary of the words in
common use would be invaluable, as they differed considerably
from those used elsewhere in Greece, and presented many
analogies to ancient usage. In conclusion, Mr. Bent de-
scribed some of the rock-cut tombs which he had opened in
the islands, and from one of the most ancient of which had
come the rude figure mentioned by the Chairman. Some of
these tombs consisted of several chambers chiselled out in
the rock, either separate or communicating with each other.
Others were natural holes in the cliff in almost inaccessible
places overhanging the sea. In the latter class of tombs the
pottery found was of the best period. On the whole, Mr.
Bent considered that as a field for the study of modern Greek
manners and customs Carpathos was almost unique, while
some points in the ceremonies connected with worship,
marriages, births, deaths, &c., must have formed part of the
routine of daily life for two thousand years.

The CHAIRMAN bore testimony to the value of Mr. Bent’s
researches, and Mr. C. D. COBHAM, Commissioner at Larnaca,
mentioned some parallels in the dialect of Cyprus to the
Carpathiote usage described by Mr. Bent.

xlix

A vote of thanks to the Auditors, moved by PROFESSOR
JEBB, and seconded by MR. TALFOURD ELY, was carried
unanimously.

A similar vote to the Chairman, proposed by Mr. ΕἸ ΤΟΝ,
and seconded by Mr. EDWARD BOND, C.B., terminated the
proceedings,

[See Balance Sheet on the next page.]

“» 4m OV iwit "19011090 ΠῚ DU
satin ον ΠΓΙΟΙ δ NHO 3991109 21 puy pu

*aatsnpour ‘Seer “fiidy 01 ‘tggr ‘Arencel | ΞΞΞ-----

Ὁ *SIOYONOA OY} YIM I Ῥϑαθατιοῦ pue june 511 Pourmuexe aavy aA,

woy Aivjeg jo qunosox uo Aivjasioag quuisissy ΟἹ pied oz¥ sepnyou ἘΠῚ ee es satel ec eae ese Soe eae το yw ‘souryyg ΟἹ, “1€ Av
" [55 Ὁ 5 Sy PE F sepnpouy » L ¢ ae
“23
1 ΟΣ tol'1$ I or €o0l‘1¥
a x Ὡς > | i τ τ τ JOLIG UL paypaid 5591 Ὡς ee
8 Ir S 093 Yoog 5504 sod sv ‘ siayuvg 10 ‘ooureg “*

Zire "2% *qunoooy jvuanof jo aouryjey “ἡ

ο

ze Fires orate, νιν ΟὟ on. a te yueg «οὐ ‘UOISSTUUIOD « “of ae
O οἵδε © ν. Cee oe gts «ee us 2: we CTD * ΒΙΠΟΟῚΙ Jo Udy « “ὃς Avy
by OxeL sr ss ΣΝ ‘samy Qunosoy Bunuug ‘saupung “ “25. “αι.
8 ἔτ οἱ * * ΤῬΡΘΘῚ Ὅ9(1 01 ‘satipung pur ‘adejsog ‘Asquonwig *§ +z 3
ὃ Ὁ τε

‘puny uonvsojdxgy uvndAdsy ογ Ἰαυα ‘6 “fz curf | o ὁ 88:62 ——

Sogn o zr . σε Sve ἐν αὐτὰ eae Lea) ὦ * saueaqryts
br I OL Sw, . . . . . so) acne 2. TC . . a ae ¥Yseg APT “ ‘le a oO ΘΙ ορ S48 4) 48 » ss @.\e Oise gis «a . Si9quis Jy
oO Or?! Ried πε Ronis: 0) 6 cy celeste OC KG 8k ἃ * smOOY Jo quay ςς πόροι
5 δὲ δ ee ee ee ee OM pres) ΤΟΣ)" ὉΝ ΠΟ ΘΈΙΞΟΙΣ Se Ex Ke ‘Avy 07 snotaaad ‘*sjoq youg pur ‘sieaisy “'
6 £ $6 *** + * puny sapoydog urnuainey Aq ajqudud Oo ΦΧ gE "** ὉΠ τς *suonduasqns Aaeaqry ἐς
-ar ,,‘sapoydog uvnuainey,, Jo yunosoy uo βοῇ “6 “Ἢ ΟΞ ΟΣΕΧΥ BPs) ρου λυ Se τον ΟΠ ΒΗ τς Ὁ7Ὶ ae
Ὁ ete 7 oe ss 9S ὙΟ JB 7501 uo souvansuy ὁ o € 66S ** ++ + + + + *suondizosqng siequiay “ 1 Av
9 ΟΣ Ε πα eee ee {οι} ποῦν surpura® Ὁ 190 *Sggr
c. imese * * $ggr ‘aunf ΟἹ ‘saiipung puv ‘odvjsog ‘Asrouonvys “+61 Ane 1 “Qearr > go. ae S[OSUOA NO Spuaprarcy τὲ
0 © OL a Wan re ia ae OS at τον Ue AN Ag, Guu ceunii o 2 τοῦ τ ss 8 * quauiayeyg 158] 194 se ‘aourjeg of, “of Arya
λον 2 Ῥϑρι "12. Shae se "2. "δὲ Ὁ Ἔ88ι
“LNAWALVLS HSVO
11 Zr 2toF 11 Zr zto¥
/ 9 OLz "2 * 4 = ΠΣ ὉΛΙΙΒΒΘΝ toy “ysanqsxoFy " or ὁ
of ὃ Ee Siaquiay 0} adeueD ΡῈ Suryoeg Aipung *
/ 9 Ε τξ “γαποοον ‘Auedwoy Buryoiy oryduasoday Κ΄ Ὁ 1Ὁ)}Υ
/ 8 81
Ἵ z€ Sze ΠΤ τ * slaquiayy ΟἹ adewuBD pue Surnprg δ
9 @ OS "eHIsyeg “Δ ἼΟΛ Suynuug ‘suog χα ΔῈ] ‘* ἐσ ἡ
/ 5881
/ 9 Ὁ. gz “sss * * gunoooy ‘Auedwog adAjoiny ** τς =“
/ Oi oe eux Te ge ae SS Sere a ΟΣ ΟΡ τ 68 5981
i 6 g δὰ "+ * + qunosoy sadeg “og Ὁ ucsmypiq ** ‘of “"
y Ὁ ἘΣ ΤΙΣ “ὉΠ she 9 Ὁ Sarai 30). ΠΟΘ ΘΙ, εἰ
/ bo ye τ oo ees 5918} 10} ‘utpaving ** “ὦ ΒΑ
if ΟἿ πῶς Sao Ue ais) coe as! Maat asa ΝῊ Any) ΠΟΤ, ὅς 9 DO
/ 11 zx Sr ses ss * yunosoy ‘Auvdwoy sdAjoiny * «zx “'
/ ο £ 161 ——
jf or 6 12% * saaquiayy 01 ‘op jo adeiueg pure Sunoeg “ἢ
Omer ls Per ΚΡ Reh! fee QUOD W USES) Otten ec. ze Zr 6gt τ" eyed ΔΙ JOA SuNuug ‘suog Ὁ Ὁ] Ὁ ‘sg pnp
11S gS * + * begr fof oun 03 ‘Eggr ‘1 Ajnf ‘jeuinof jo safes Aq Zr curl 9 ΟΣ 81 ss 8 ' qunosoy sadeg “05 23 UOsUIyDKT ΟἹ, Ὃ σα {
BS uF “bggt SOO SESS “bgga

‘LNNODOV «STIGALS OINITTIH JO IVNUNOl AHL,,

δρῦν "If AVI ONIGNG τῆλ GML WOM Laaus ΝΥ ἢ

THE CAMBRIDGE BRANCH

fii, SOGIE TY, FOR THE PROMOTION. OF
PELLENIC CS TUDES,

SESSION of 1884.*

Thursday, May 8, 1884.

The Terminal Meeting was held in the Archaeological
Library at 4.15 P.M.

MR. VERRALL read a paper ‘On the use of the κώδων on
Armour and Trappings.’ He pointed out that it is almost
always attributed to barbarian warriors, or to such Greeks
as approach barbarians in their insolence.

Mr. F. C. CHAMBERS called attention to a bronze head in
the Naples Museum, which showed a remarkable similarity
of type to the Hermes of Praxiteles; the differences were
such as would naturally proceed from the contrast of marble
and bronze technique.

Dr. WALDSTEIN pointed out that a female head in Madrid
was of the style of the Attic school of the fifth century, and

* Accidentally omitted from the previous volume of the Journal.

lu

at the same time showed great resemblance in profile to the
Hesperid nymph of the Olympian metope.

He also remarked that the upper part of a statue which has
found its way from Delos to the Louvre, and is commonly
called the river god Inapos, is really a portrait of Alexander
the Great. It shows a more direct similarity to his known
portraits than other ‘ Alexandroid’ heads of post-Lysippean
art.

Each communication was followed by a discussion.

November 24, 1884.

The Annuai Meeting was held in the Archacological
Library on Monday, November 24, at 4 P.M. The Public
Orator (MR. J. E. SANDYS) in the Chair.

The MASTER OF TRINITY COLLEGE was re-elected Chair-
man, PROFESSOR SIDNEY COLVIN, Vice-Chairman, and
Mr. OSCAR BROWNING, Secretary. Messrs. J. E. SANDYS,
A. W. VERRALL, and DR. WALDSTEIN were re-elected, and
Mr. A. H. SMITH, B.A., elected, members of the Committee.

Mr. A. H. SMITH read a paper upon ‘ Sicilian Sculpture.’
The paper, which was illustrated with photographs of the
chief remains of sculpture in Sicily, endeavoured to analyse
the characteristics of these sculptures regarded as the works
of an independent local school. The sculptors of the school
were supposed to be chiefly influenced (1) by the sculpture in
such Phoenician settlements as Motya and Panormus, (2) by
the nature of the materials of which they could avail them-
selves (as tufa), (3) by the social conditions of Sicily. The
paper concluded with an account of various Greco-Roman
and other late works, at present in the museums of Sicily.

lil

The Terminal Meeting was held in the Archacological
Library on Wednesday, April 29th, 1885, at 4.30 P.M. In
the absence of the Vice-Chairman the Secretary in the
Chair.

Dr. WALDSTEIN read remarks by PROFESSOR COLVIN on
a marble statuette, ‘The Apollo of Miletus.’ The present
mutilated and restored marble statuette possesses a twofold
interest, on account, first, of its subject and style, and next, of
the hand to whom its restoration is due, with the addition,
for Cambridge students, of the further interest which attaches
to it as having formerly belonged to our benefactor, Mr.
Disney. It was sold last summer in London, with other
effects from the house of Mr. Disney in Essex. It bears on
the plinth a label in his handwriting, with the words, ‘ The
Apollo of Miletus restored by Flaxman.’

The statuette is in Greek marble, and wants the head, both
legs from a little below the knee, and a portion of both arms,
The missing parts have been restored by a modern hand in
Italian marble, in a style which entirely confirms Mr. Disney’s
record ascribing the work to Flaxman. The remainder is of
good antique workmanship, the torso and preserved parts of
the arms being especially careful and spirited in treatment.
The prototype which the artist had in his mind, as shown by
the general scheme and attitude, as well as by the handling
of certain details, was some work of the earlier half of the
fifth century, B.C. the date of the statuette itself being
obviously very considerably later. Flaxman saw in it a copy
of the celebrated Apollo of Miletus by Kanachos, and has
restored it in the main accordingly, without, however,
attempting to introduce the deer which that statue held in
the right hand. The remaining antique portions of the
statuette are in fact not sufficient to enable it to be referred
with certainty to any known original. But enough is left to
make it clear that the original must have belonged to the
same general family of early Greek statues of male divinities
(or athletes?) of which so many examples have been
preserved. And among extant works our statuette has in

liv

pose and general conception no nearer parallels than the
small bronze figure in the British Muscum, undoubtedly
derived from the Apollo of Miletus,! and another larger and
more important bronze of genuine archaic workmanship in the
Louvre.’

2 Overbeck, fig. 14. * Overbeck, fig. 39.

i Ps

mk

«
a
Σ
rs
a)
rs
Ε]
«

P

i

A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND
GOOSE.

THE silver statuette which is described in the present paper,
and which is represented in the accompanying Plate (A.),
acquires a peculiar interest both from.its subject and from the
circumstances of its discovery. In the first aspect it belongs to
an exceedingly numerous class; a boy struggling or playing
with a goose seems to have been a very favourite subject with
Greek artists of certain periods; the popularity of such repre-
sentations and the frequency with which they were reproduced
are testified by at least fifty extant examples in various galleries
and museums throughout Europe. But though belonging to so
numerous a family, our specimen differs considerably, both in
character and in composition, from all its other members; not
more, however, than many of these differ among themselves.
Then again, this statuette was discovered together with a
hoard of coins, and thus we are able to fix at least a posterior
limit of date for the invention not only of the type we find in
this figure, but also of all others which show an affinity to it so
close as to compel us not to assign them to any very distant
period. It is clear, therefore, that we have here an additional
clew of no small importance, which may help in the solution of
a problem that has already given rise to much controversy
among archaeologists.

The interest attracted by this class of figures in recent years
may be dated from the paper in which two of them were

H.S.— VOL. VI. B

2 A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND GOOSE.

published from drawings, with a description by Jaln,! a paper
of great importance to our subject. In it was made the first
attempt to bring together the material which is now before us;
and it contained also a conjecture which has since met with
almost universal acceptance. This was the identification of the
boy who struggles with a goose as big as himself as a copy of a
work of Boethos, described by Pliny. We shall be better na
position to consider this conjecture and the grounds upon which
it rests after we have reviewed all our available material; here
it is enough to note its first appearance. Next in date comes
the contribution of M. Stephani,’ who in commenting on certain
terra-cottas in the Ermitage takes occasion, with characteristic
thoroughness, to quote a far longer list of examples. Then
again, Dr. Furtwiingler, in his paper entitled Der Dornauszieher
und der Knabe mit der Ganz, endeavours to refute the sugges-
tion of Overbeck, connecting the bronze boy of the Capitol who
is occupied in drawing a thorn from his foot with another work
of Boethos; and in order to do so gives a sketch of the whole
history of ‘Genre’ representations in Greek art. Such of his
arguments as are pertinent to our present subject will also
have to be subsequently considered, as well as the suggestion
of Overbeck which gave rise to them. But after briefly
mentioning these chief authorities, it will be best first to
enumerate and classify the now numerous examples of statues
to which the common description ‘a boy with a goose’ will
apply : after we have the facts thus clearly arranged before us,
we shall be better able to see both how well the views held by
previous writers are justified, and what new light may be
thrown upon the subject by this the most recent addition to
the list.

This list, as has been previously stated, amounts now to some
fifty specimens ; and these may be assigned, for greater conve-
nience and clearness in enumeration, to some six leading types.
By such a proceeding it is not assumed that all the examples
of any type may be traced to a common original; in some cases
they certainly can be so traced, in others they as certainly cannot.
But this classification will help us both to see which types were
the most popular, and also perhaps to observe the connection,

' Sitzungsber. d. K. Sachs. Ges. d. ? Compte Rendu, 1868, p. 55.
Wiss. 1848, pp. 47, sqq.

A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND GOOSE. 3

if any, which existed between them. As to what subjects are
included in the list, one statement must be added—the word
‘goose’ in our heading must be interpreted widely; indeed,
perhaps ‘aquatic bird’ would have been more correct; for it is
sometimes magnified into a swan, sometimes diminished to a
duck; one or two even more doubtful instances have been
admitted. But too great strictness on such a matter is precluded
by uncertainty not only in restorations but also in the works
themselves; the bird, treated as an accessory, is sometimes but
carelessly executed, and has its characteristics but slightly
indicated ; its relative size, in particular, being liable to endless
variations.

After thus much introduction, we may now proceed to the
enumeration and classification of our material.

Type I. represents a boy standing, and pressing to his side or
breast a goose with his left hand; his right arm varies in position.
It is either bent, the right hand feeding or caressing the goose
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5),! or raised (10), or hangs down by the right side
(6, 7, 8, 9). The boy is either nude, or draped only by a small
chlamys. To this type belong the following :—

1. In the Theseion, Athens: described by Jahn, Sitzwngster. der
Κ΄. Sdichs. Ges. der Wiss, 1848, p. 49.

Boy nude; holds finger of right hand to beak of goose,
which he presses to his breast with left: heads of boy and
goose gone.

2, Formerly in possession of Herr von Lagrené, described by
Jahn, wid. p. 50.
Older boy; holds goose to side, and bends over it, right
arm lost, but probably asin 1. Ὁ
3. In British Museum ; Clarac, 876, 2228, C.
Presses bird to breast with left, feeds it with right hand.
4. Nani Museum, 226 in published description.

In chlamys: probably like 8, but head and right arm
gone.

5, At Leyden, bronze. Miiller-Wieseler Denkmdler, 1,291.

Nude, holds duck in left hand, strokes its beak with right.

1 Jahn would so restore also 6. which seemed most convenient as a
3 No attempt has been made to means of identification. For further
render the references complete. Only references see Stephani, J.c.
that one has been given in each case

Bz

4 A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND GOOSE,

In the four that follow, the right arm falls by side.
6. Vatican. Clarac, 878, 2231.
Boy in chlamys, holds small long necked bird to breast.
7. Vatican. Clarac, 878, 2233.

Larger bird, restored as eagle, rests on left arm; right arm
lowered rests on pillar.

8. Vatican. Pistolesi, Vat. descr. vi. 38.

Bird pressed to side with left hand.

9. Naples. Clarac, 877, B., 2228, Ὁ.

Boy nude, both arms down, in right grapes, in left goose, or
duck.

10. Naples. Clarac, 875, 2228, B., bronze.

Goose or swan pressed to side by left hand, right raised. Boy
nude, winged.

Similar to these are also, probably, the next two :}
11, Rome (uncertain), Adam, Rec. de Sculpture. Pl. 20.
12. Bronze. Caylus, Rec. de l Antiquité, 111, 48.
Under this type, though slightly different, may best be men-
tioned also the following :—
14, Vatican. Pistolesi, Vat. descr. vi. 38.

A boy, standing, holds with both hands, gently, a bird in
front of him.

15. Rome, Coll. Giust. Clarac, 878, 2228. A.

A boy, with left foot raised on a low pillar, and a curious
cap on his head, holds up goose in both hands in front
of him.

16. 17. Clarac, 876, 2236, A., 878, 2299,

These two are obviously identical in design: in 16,a boy
fully draped holds a small bird in each hand; in 17, the
hands are otherwise restored. Furtwangler quotes these,
but the birds are too small to belong to our present class
at all.

18. R. Rochette, Choix de Peint., p. 185, vign. 8.

Described by Jahn; a terra-cotta group representing a boy
and a girl playing with a goose.

16, 17, and 18 of course have no real connection with type I,
nor, indeed, with our subject at all; they are merely
* I have not been able to refer to mentioned by Stephani, and which they

these works, but quote 11 and 12here, probably resemble.
because of those among which they are

A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND GOOSE. i)

inserted here, as the most convenient place, because they
have been quoted by previous writers,

Type II. The boy stands, and the goose is beside him,
either on the ground or on a low pillar; the relations between
the two are still friendly ; the goose (or other bird) larger in
proportion.

19. Ince Blundell collection. Clarac, 875, 2232, B.
The bird stands on the ground, by the side of the boy, and
comes up to his shoulder.
20. Stockholm. Clarac, 877, B., 2932 χα,
The bird, more like a swan than a goose, stands on a stump
beside the boy, and holds a snake in its beak.
21. Terra-cotta, Ermitage. Compte Rendu, 1868, Pl. I., 4.
Goose stands beside boy, who feeds it with his left hand
and lays right on its neck.
22. Rome, Coll. Giust. Clarac, 878, 2232, A.
Boy stands, turning to bird on his left, on low pillar, and
holds it gently with both hands.

Type III. The boy is seated beside the goose on the ground
and caresses it with his hand.
23, Ermitage, terra-cotta. Compte Rendu, 1863, Pl. i. 5.
Boy caresses goose with left hand.
24, Naples. Clarac, 874, D., 2230, B.
The bird looks up, the boy holds it gently with both
hands.

Type IV. appears to have been the most popular of all in
ancient times, at least if we can judge from the number of
reproductions still extant. A quite young boy, almost a baby,
is seated upon the ground ; he is half supported on his left arm,
which also presses down a bird, generally more like a duck than
a goose. The child’s face is turned upwards and away from it,
and together with his raised right arm seems to indicate an
appeal for help to an imaginary bystander, perhaps even to the
spectator himself. The frequent repetitions of this subject may
be due partly to the fact that it lent itself conveniently to
fountain decoration, a pipe being inserted into the upturned
beak of the bird; this explanation will not, however, apply to
the small terra-cottas.

6 A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND GOOSE.

25. Vatican. Clarac, 877, 2229.

26. Florence. Clarac, 877, A., 2230, A.

27. Florence. Clarac, 877, 2230.

These three all correspond exactly to the above description :
probably similar are the following:

28. Vatican. Gerhard. Beschr. Roms. 11. 2. p. 252, 19.

‘Knabe auf dem Boden sitzend, mit einer Ente.’ Apparently
not identical with 25.

29. In possession of Cavaceppi, quoted by Zannoni, Gall. di Fir.
all, Ser. IV. 2, p. 75, as similar to 26 and 27.

30. In possession of the Marchese Giugni, on same authurity.

31. In the Pal. Farnese di Caprarola, quoted by Visconti, Mus.
Pio. Clem. III. 46, as similar to 25.

32. In possession of Cardinal Cesi, according to Aldroandi,
stat. 137, as quoted by Jahn. ‘Un putto che prema un
ansere per fargli jettar acqua dal collo, tutto intero.’
The description seems to suit this type better than type
V,to which Jahn would assign this example. It is of
course possible that between 29 and 32 the same example
may be twice mentioned.

Next in order come two which are distinctly derived from
this type, but modified by slight changes.

33. In the Pourtaleés collection; Pl. xxviii. of Panofka’s de-
scription.

A vase, in the shape of a seated boy; his left hand rests on
the ground, his right passes in front of his body across
to his left, and there presses down a goose. He looks up
and smiles,

34. Ermitage: terra-cotta. Ant. du Bosp. Cim. 72, 3.

Boy seated, right hand on goose, left raised. This is merely
type IV. reversed.

35, 36. Ermitage: terra-cotta. These two are described as
similar to the last by Stephani, Compte Rendu, 1863,
p. 55, n. 2.

37. Described in Arch. Zeit. 1848, p. 801, No. 155.

Regarded by Stephani, ibid. as probably similar.

38. In University Library, Athens. Annali d. Inst. xxxi.
Tav. A.

Boy standing, leans against pillar, on which he presses down
a duck or goose with his left hand. This may appear

A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND GOOSE. 7

from the description to belong rather to type I. or IL,
but the position of the bird and left arm of boy are so
exactly similar to the same in this type IV., that the
figure seems rather a modification of the latter, perhaps
for a fountain with jet set higher.

Type V.is perhaps now the best known of all, especially in
consequence of the plausible conjecture above referred to, con-
necting it with Boethos. It represents a boy striving with his
whole weight against a goose as big as himself, whose neck he
grasps in his arms. Of this numerous examples exist, though
not so many as of type IV.

39. Rome. Capitol. Clarac, 874, C. 2227. A.

40. Vatican. Clarac, 875, 2227.

41. Paris. Clarac, 293, 694.

42. Munich. Clarac, 875, 2232.

These are obviously all marble copies of a common original.
To them may be added four terra-cottas.

43. Ermitage. Ant. du Bosp, Cim. Pl. Ixxiii. 1.

44, a,b,c. Three more similar, also in the Ermitage, quoted by
Stephani in the Compte Rendu, l.c.

45. A small bronze in the British Museum, from the Payne
Knight collection. Described as ‘Cupid with swan’;
obviously a copy of this type.

46. A small bronze, of very rude work, in the British Museum,
described as ‘Cupid with eagle. The boy has wings;
their addition in this case tends to weaken any argument
drawn from their presence in others.

47. Naples. Clarac, 876, 2223.

Boy, with his knee on the back of a goose, struggles with
it from behind. The subject here is the same, but the
composition and treatment entirely different, and certainly
not so happy.

48. Ermitage: terra-cotta. Described by Stephani, Compte
Rendu, 1863, p. 55.

Goose pursues boy, pecking at his left hand. Here again
of course there is no connection of type with the pre-
ceding examples. It is inserted here merely as again
showing active hostility between the two playmates.

Type VI. will include our last three examples; though these

8 A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND GOOSE

three seem quite independent of one another: but in all of

them we find a boy seated on the ground, struggling with a

goose.

49. Naples. Aunt. di Ercolano, viii. L> Lucerne ed i Candelabri
ad Ercolano, Pl. 19.

Bronze lamp. Winged Eros seated, goose stands by him,
with chain of lamp round its foot. The boy holds with
both arms the goose, which cries and struggles to get
away.

No, 51

50. Ermitage: terra-cotta. Compte Rendu, 1863, Pl. i. 6.
Boy sits on the ground: on one side a dog, on the other

a goose, attack him to get some of the grapes he
holds.

51. British Museum: silver Unpublished.

A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND GOOSE. 9

Found near Alexandria, together with coins! which prove
it to have been buried in the early years of Ptolemy 1Π|.,
ὦ.ο., about 240 B.c.

Height 38 inches, breadth across shoulders 13 inch,
Complete, but lower part of back crushed and contorted.
The boy holds the goose which lies on its back by the
legs with left hand, by the bottom of its neck with right
hand. He turns his head to his right, away from the
bird, which vigorously grasps his left ear in its beak,
The boy has some drapery, a chlamys, round his waist ;
his hair is gathered on the top of his head into a plait
which runs right over to the back. His position is not
so awkward as may appear from the photograph ; but it
was necessary to take him thus, as he was fixed to the
stand. It must be remembered, moreover, that his
lower portigns have suffered considerable contortion from
pressure.

52. A small and very rude bronze in the British Museum,
similar, but not identical in design with 51. It is
described as ‘Cupid with eagle.” The boy has wings
added, as in 40.

Here ends the list of our material; it remains to consider
what are the chief questions of interest to which the facts
before us have given rise. Firstly, there is the meaning and
character of the representation; then the period and school, if
not the particular artist, to which our various types may be
assigned; and in close connection with this comes the relation

1 For the accompanying classification of the coins I am indebted to my brother,
Professor Percy Gardner :—

Details of Mr. Harris’s coins found with the Statuette of a Boy and Goose,

in the year A.D. 1844.

Egypt. Phoenicia, Asta Minor.
pe ae A/ R AF RR
ΡΟ ΠΡ LOM ULE ie Ἢ 1 2
Pinlomyels(orulls τον (acres 1 3
Li ΟΝ ΠῚ ecm epee eee ee 53 1 3
Ptol. I. and II. with Queens. 1
p10 Ip rae ia ear at: 24 1
Peolemylll, 6% oye. ey: 1 8 1

The find is believed to have taken place at Alexandria, and the number of
Phoenician coins contained in it is not evidence to the contrary, as the coins
struck in Phoenicia circulated in Egypt. The whole seems to have been buried
in the early years of Ptolemy III., about 8,0, 240.

10 A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND GOOSE.

of these types not only to one another, but also to certain
other works which have been thought to show affinity to them,
especially the boy who extracts a thorn from his foot, of
whom we possess two curiously different classes of represen-
tations.

The first of these questions admits of a simple enough answer.
Clearly we have here before us a mere genre representation ; the
description ‘boy playing or struggling with a goose’ is perfectly
adequate, and in no case need we look for any meaning beyond
this. Somewhat similar statues, such as that seen by Pausanias?
in the grove of Trophonius at Lebadea, may have had a mytho-
logical significance, but no such need be assumed in the
examples we are now considering. The character of the repre-
sentation may not in itself preclude this supposition, for of course
in Hellenistic times even distinctly mythological subjects
received a genre-like treatment. But where no religious meaning
is obvious, and other explanations are easy to find, it seems
quite superfluous to go beyond common life for the origin of our
subject. If Eros, in a few cases,’ takes the place of the boy, it
is surely as the mere representative of boyish mischief, and not
in any divine capacity.

To genre then this subject most unquestionably belongs,
and to genre in the more strict and distinctive sense of the
word. For we may accept the distinction drawn by Furt-
wiingler, even if we refuse to follow him entirely in the appli-
cation which he makes of it, and the conclusions he draws
therefrom. A genre representation he observes, may be such in
virtue of the execution of the work, as was the case with the
statues of Lykios and other artists of the Myronic school; or
in virtue of the subject. The boys with geese may be con-
sidered as examples of the latter class; and to see this fully it
is necessary to make an assumption formerly probable, and now
placed beyond all doubt; the assumption that at least some
examples of this class are to be assigned to the beginning of the
Hellenistic period. The characteristic tendencies of this period
which now concern us have been so clearly described by previous

Δ ix. 39, 3. This is a girl with a cluded from our present enumeration,
goose. Some examples of such figures which refers only to boys.
occur, often hard to distinguish from 2 Nos. 10, 46, 49, 52.
Leda. But all. such have been ex-

A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND GOOSE. 11

writers that here a mere hint will suffice. The people, cooped
up in large towns and surrounded by the artificiality of city life,
felt a craving for nature and simplicity ; and this craving was
met in two ways; in poetry by the striving of the pastoral afte
a fictitious rustic simplicity ; in sculpture, by those representa-
tions of child-life, of which we are now considering the most
numerous and perhaps the most interesting series. The pastoral
may afterwards have influenced painting and even sculpture, but
we can scarcely trace an independent impulse of the latter in
this direction, and so these children remain as our sculptural
record of the tendency of the times in art, That children should
most often be represented with their favourite playmates is but
natural; the goose, however, who here occupies this favoured
position, has unfortunately been surrounded with associations
so different in modern times, that it is very hard for us properly
to appreciate these groups. First of all it is necessary for us
to get rid of all our prejudices against the bird, and its unfor-
tunate reputation for both stupidity and braggart cowardice. In
ancient times it was not so regarded; the goose was con-
sidered valiant, and also, from its domesticated habits, the very
model for a good house-wife. Geese were constant inmates of
the house, and were the much-loved companions of their mis-
tress and her children, from the time of Penelope downwards.
Fully to realise this one should read M. Stephani’s article; he
devotes more than a hundred pages to an elaborate discussion
of the importance both mythological and social of the goose and
other kindred birds. But perhaps an analogy will help the
historical imagination better than facts, however conclusive in
their array. Without venturing to decide the vexed question
whether the domestic cat was known in Greece or not, one
may at least safely assert that it did not there occupy the
same position which it now holds among us. But that posi-
tion was, in almost every way, exactly filled by the goose,
whether as a model of domestic content, or as the friend and
playmate of children. Now in modern art the cat, and especially
the kitten, is constantly represented in conjunction with
children; and if we can only bring ourselves to look upon
these ancient geese in the same light, we shall have gone
far to surmount the difficulty of appreciation which here
meets us.

12 A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND GOOSE,

If we proceed next to consider the period and school to which
our various types may be assigned, we have before us a some-
what complicated question. It has already been stated, by
anticipation, that the subject best suits the beginning of the
Hellenistic age. The treatment of the child, carried out with
complete truth to nature, points also in most cases to that
time. But of course distinctions must be made between the
different types; and first those must be selected which admit
of some external evidence being adduced to help our decision ;
in the scantiness of this evidence, it will become clear how
much we are helped by the new clew that we have gained.
But for it, we should be almost entirely dependent upon Jahn’s
conjecture ; which we must consider, and at the same time
another subject which has been brought into connection with
it—the boy extracting a thorn from his foot. This subject
survives ἴῃ two types, one severely stylised and archaistic
(or archaic), of which we may take as a representative the
bronze boy of the Capitol) the other realistic, best seen in
the recently discovered Castellani example, now in the British
Museum? To take first the most important and most probable
conjecture, Jahn, learning from Pliny 3 that Boethos made a boy
throttling a goose, suggested that in the statues of our Type V.
we have copies immediately derived from the work so described.
This suggestion was so probable and brilliant that it at once
met with universal acceptation, and has since been regarded as
an established fact on which to found less certain theories.
And indeed, although the description of Pliny would apply
almost as well to the quite as numerous figures of our type IV.,
for instance, and although no facts can be adduced in its favour
beside the coincidence of subject already referred to, Jahn’s
identification will probably still continue to hold its ground.
In any case, it is very likely that we have extant examples
traceable to this work of Boethos, and that to him may be
assigned the origination of the subject which afterwards proved
so popular. But so successful a conjecture was followed by

1 Three others, marble copies, in the Rothschild, at Paris. Gaz. Arch. 1882,
Villa Borghese, at Florence, and at 9--Ἰ].
Berlin. Overbeck, Gesch. d. Gr. Plastik 3 xxxiv. 84. ‘‘ Boethi...infans (ex
Il. p. 144. aere ?) anserem strangulat.” For emend.
2 Another, in possession of Baron see Overbeck, S. Q. 1597.

A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND GOOSE. 138

another; Overbeck proposed to identify the bronze boy of the
Capitol with the nude seated boy by Boethos, which Pausanias
saw in the Heraion at Olympia. Such an identity is of course
not impossible, but utterly lacks proof, especially as no affinity
of style can be affirmed between the bronze and other supposed
works of Boethos. But on the other hand we should be going
too far if we refused, with Furtwiingler, to assign this boy to
the same period, at least in the original design. His attempt
to prove a connection with the school of Myron has not met
with acceptance ;? and Kekulé’s suspicion that the bronze is
an eclectic and Pasitelean rendering of an earlier work ὃ. is con-
firmed by the subsequent discovery of the Castellani boy, which
may represent more faithfully that original. Here our apparent
digression leads us back again to our subject. For the Cas-
tellani figure, allowing for difference of size and material, shows
an affinity both in type and in treatment with the silver
statuette (No. 51), to which we are endeavouring to give its
true place in the series.

What, then, is the relation of this statuette (No. 51), to the
better known and more conspicuous of the types whose probable
connection with Boethos we have just noticed? Perhaps we
may here gain some help from literary notices. Almost all we
know of that artist, beyond the facts already cited, is that
he was especially famous as a worker in metal. Indeed Pliny,*
even when mentioning his boy with the goose, remarks that
silver was the material wherein he excelled; δ᾽ silver
hydria by his hand was among the plunder of Verres. What
then is more likely than that the one of his works which
best suited the taste of his time, and therefore attained greatest
popularity, may have given rise to numerous imitations either
by himself, his pupils, or others working under his influence,

we depend on copies. The same objec-
tion will apply to Brizio’s connection

1 The conjecture of Wieseler, ἐπίκυρ-
τον for ἐπίχρυσον is by no means con-

vincing. Even if it be accepted, Over-
beck’sargument is but slightly strength-
ened.

2 The type of face, for instance, is
anything but Attic. F. anticipates
this objectiou by replying that we have
no original Myronic head. Yet surely
we recognise the type, as distinctly as
that of Polykleitos, for which also

with Kalamis.

3.1 learn that M. Kekulé has now
given up this view, and holds that the
statue is really archaic. Some archae-
ologists, however, still regard it as
archaistic.

4 Z.c. ‘*Boethi quanquam argento
melioris.”

14 A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND GOOSE.

executed in that material of which he was an acknowledged
master? Such an imitation we may now have before us; no
exact or slavish copy of the original work, but a variation upon
its subject, adapted to the size and material in which it is
executed. And it is an imitation which cannot be removed
by more than one generation from the artist himself, and
which may very well proceed from his own period and
influence.

Since then in this one case we may attain comparative
certainty, or at least conjecture is restricted within narrow limits,
let us utilise the advantage we thus possess to take a general
view of the results hitherto gained. Firstly, then, the original
conception of this group representing a boy struggling with a
goose seems attributable to Bocthos; his probable date, at the
very beginning of the Hellenistic period, favours such a suppo-
sition. The type hit the popular taste, and in consequence we
have numerous reproductions of it, whether direct copies, as
our type V. or possibly IV., or mere imitations reproducing the
same subject with endless varieties of character and composition
(types IIT. 1V. VI.).1 Probably the origination of some of these
varieties 1s not far removed from the time or influence of
Boethos himself. In later times the demand for copies repro-
ducing al] these varietics became considerable, and such were
made in great numbers; they seem to have been especially
popular as a decoration to fountains, the water-pipe being in
some cases introduced through the beak of the goose. A similar
use seems to have been made of certain other figures of boys;
for instance, in the case of the Castellani boy, the rock on
which he sits is pierced with holes for water; this type, how-
ever, though probably belonging in its origin to the same period,
cannot without further evidence be confidently assigned to the
influence of the same artist. The adaptation of the subject to
a fountain is obvious; a boy after a journey sits down to wash
his feet, and draw a thorn from them at the fountain. And an
aquatic bird also appropriately finds its place beside the water.
To this fact is partly due the large number of the reproductions
of a boy with an aquatic bird, which we still possess: but the

' Types I. and II. are too distinct to _ result of the same influence may perhaps
be immediately derived, but in them ἃ be seen,

A STATUETTE REPRESENTING A BOY AND GOOSE. 15

majority of these were doubtless produced in Roman times to
meet the demand of the numerous builders of artistically deco-
rated houses and villas. It is therefore very fortunate that we
are now able to add to their number one which is in time far
less remote from the original conception of Boethos, and is also
from its material likely to preserve more faithfully the peculiar
characteristics of his style.

ERNEST A. GARDNER.

16 SEPULCHRAL RELIEF FROM ATTICA,

SEPULCHRAL RELIEF FROM ATTICA, AT WINTON
CASTLE, HADDINGTONSHIRE.

THE Attic sepulchral relief reproduced on Plate B, is the
principal object in an interesting collection of antiques formed
by the late Baroness Ruthven of Winton Castle, Haddington-
shire, and assigned by her to the Museum of the Society of Anti-
quaries of Scotland. The bulk of the collection, consisting of
vases, mostly of a smallsize and of the black figured kind, but
including several good Attic lekuthoi, is now deposited in the
Museum, but the most notable objects remain still at Winton
Castle. These comprise a fine hydria 13} inches high, with a
red-figured design (Paris, Helen and other figures with Erotes,
etc.) very delicately drawn in the best style, and two sepulchral
reliefs, of which one is small and of poor workmanship, and the
other, now for the first time published, an interesting and
charming work,

It is a stele of Pentelic marble rounded at the top, 61} inches
in height 174 wide at base, and about an inch less above under
the architrave. On the face, upon an unmoulded plinth between
pilasters which bear upon simple capitals a shallow architrave
and cornice, stands in profile to the left the figure of a girl 41}
inches high, whose name, API=TOMAXH, appears inscribed
on the architrave. Above the cornice is an anthemion ornament
in relief of the usual design. The weight of the figure is on
the right foot, the left knee being bent, and the right hand holds
a small draped figure in a sitting posture—apparently a terra-
cotta idol. The dress is a thin chiton, over which is an ample
himation enveloping the figure and covering the left arm and
hand. The head is slightly bent to look at the small figure, and
the hair, bound with a fillet, falls down over the back of the

AT WINTON CASTLE, HADDINGTONSHIRE. 17

neck. The style and workmanship suit the fourth century B.c.,
with which date agrees the simple elegance of the forms of the
anthemion ornament.

The characteristics of the Attic sepulchral relief are well re-
presented here. There is undeniable style in the work, and much
refinement and grace of expression in the figure, but at the same
time there is in parts a curious neglect in the workmanship.
The type of the head and the winning sweetness of the girlish
features are fully representative of the best qualities of this in-
teresting phase of Greek sculpture. The rendering of the folds
of the himation is without elaboration and the forms are sharply-
angled and square, but the work is that ofa bold carver who knew
his business well. In remarkable contrast is the neglect of the
left hand under the robe, which the sculptor has not been at any
pains to indicate, so that the effect is that of an arm cut off at
the wrist. The hair is roughly worked, the feet somewhat
clumsy. The hand holding the figure is, on the contrary, nicely
felt. The relief is in the highest part about two inches from the
ground; the back of the stede roughly chiselled.

The chief facts about the discovery of the relief, as far as
they can now he ascertained, are as follows. Shortly before the
breaking out of the Greek Revolution in 1821, Lord and Lady
Ruthven spent a year in Athens, and acquired the use of some
land containing ancient burial places near Cape Zoster, a few
miles from the city. Here the relief of Aristomache was dis-
covered a few feet below the surface of the ground, and with the
rest of the proceeds of the excavations it was sent home to
Scotland to be placed in the hall at Winton Castle. The wooden
case, with the corners filled in with packing of Attic moss, still
incloses the relief which was consigned to it in the Peiraeus
more than sixty years ago, and the red earth in which the marble
was embedded still adheres to the surface. The freshness of
aspect thus retained by the work is one of its titles to interest,
and in connection with this it is to be observed that though the
surface is innocent of the washing and scouring which the marbles
in so many collections have undergone, no traces of polychromy
are to be observed on it. Not less fresh and redolent of Greece
was to the last the memory of its accomplished owner. Lady
Ruthven, whose years numbered nearly a hundred, remembered
well the days of her ‘grand tour’ and her stay in Athens. She

BCS VO, Vil. ς

18 SEPULCHRAL RELIEF FROM ATTICA.

knew Ali Pasha who interested himself in her search for antiques,
and was acquainted with Byron’s ‘ Maid of Athens’ though the
ooet himself she did not meet. An excellent artist in water
colours in the bold and masculine style of ‘ Grecian’ Williams,
Lady Ruthven executed some valuable drawings of the ancient
buildings of Athens in their then condition, and she still loved
to talk about the beautiful scenes of Greece whither—with the
enthusiasm of youth still unquenched—she would fain again
have turned her feet. It gave her the liveliest satisfaction that

the “Tellenic Society desired to publish the charming relief which
had been one of the delights of her life.

G. BaLpwin Brown.

A CYLIX BY NIKOSTHENES. 19

ODYSSEUS AND THE SIRENS-—DIONYSIAC ROAT-
RACES—A CYLIX BY NIKOSTHENES.

PratE X LIX:

Four years ago, in dealing with the Myths of the Odyssey, 1
raised afresh the time-honoured difficulty of the art-form of the
Sirens: Why are the sweet singers of Homer pictured as hybrid
monsters—birds with the faces of women? Much that I then
said about the Sirens may, I hope, still hold good; but the final
solution or part solution of the difficulty which I arrived at, I
now believe to be mistaken, and, with more complete material at
hand, I hope in the present paper to offer a new, and possibly a
more satisfactory,-solution. I fell then into the not uncommon
error of projecting into the mind of the Greek vase-painter a
great deal of allegorizing tendency and somewhat mystical moral
purpose which was really conspicuous by its absence ; ny fami-
liarity with the literary forms and the literary growth of mytho-
logy was much wider than my acquaintance with the manner
and the influence of artistic tradition. The power of tradition in
an art and still more in a handicraft is not easily overestimated.
The thought and expression of the handicraftsman is governed
by the art forms that lie ready to his hand, just as the thought
of a writer is moulded and fashioned by the language he em-
ploys. Each must use current phraseology, only elevating or
debasing it a little according to his proper faculty. The more
one becomes familiar with Greek vase-painting the more weight
does one allow to this principle of typography—the more does
one recognize the simplicity of the factors which, combined and
recombined in almost mechanical fashion, make up the
multiplicity of vase-compositions.

In determining the origin of a vase type we naturally look

1 Myths of the Odyssey in Art and Literature. By J. E. Harrison (Rivingtons).
(" .

20 A CYLIX BY NIKOSTHENES.

for a black-figured instance. In the case of Odysseus and the
Sirens, I had long been aware of the existence of such an in-
stance. Brunn, in his list of signed vases, gives, under the head
of Nikosthenes, ‘42, aus Vulci, einst bei Durand (n. 418), dann
bei Beugnot (n. 57), zuletzt bei W. Hope. (Odysseus und die
Sirenen).’ A description follows, correct, except in one particular,
which I shall note later. Acting on this notice, I at once asked
permission to visit the Hope collection at Deepdene, but my
letter remained unanswered ; nor did more influential pleading
meet with better success. I felt sure that a vase by Niko-
sthenes would at least give the clue to the primitive type of
the myth, but Brunn’s description left the representation too
obscure to serve as foundation for a theory, and, much dis-
appointed, I gave up the question, Three years later, when
investigating a quite different matter, I accidentally learnt that
the Nikosthenes vase was not in the Hope collection at all, but
had gone, owing to the sale of part of the collection, to the
Louvre. The vases of the Louvre I had, in the meantime, so
far as facilities could be obtained, carefully examined ; but the
cylix I so earnestly desired to see had escaped me. I tell the
story of my search only to point two morals: First, the imper-
ative need of a printed and publicly accessible record of all
sales of private collections; second, the need of a printed catalogue
of all public collections. The difficulty of collecting the mere
materials for the study of vases is sufficient without these extra
and most baffling hindrances.

What I have to say about the vase is best said under two
divisions,

First, the connection of the design with the type of Odysseus
and the Sirens.

Second, the connection of the design with other similar designs
which I believe in all probability relate to nautical races in
honour of Dionysos,

First as to the connection of the design with the type of
Odysseus and the Sirens.

The cylix from which the design is taken is of the ordinary
shape seen in the cut. This drawing, from a photograph, and
those in Plate XLIX. I owe to the kind superintendence of
M. Héron de Villefosse. The scenes on the obverse and reverse
are very similar. On the obverse appear two ships, the one

A CYLIX BY NIKOSTHENES. 21

slightly in advance of the other; the prow of each is decorated
with a boar’s head, the stern shaped into a swan’s neck and head.
~ On each of the ships there stands, to the fore, apparently on the
outlook, a draped male figure ; behind,in the stern, is seated the
steersman with his two oars.

The outlook man of the foremost ship is distinguished
from the others (probably with no special intent) by his
long hair, formally arranged in a long stiff coil, after the familiar,
archaic fashion of ‘the Diskophoros. On the reverse the same
design is repeated, but in the case of each ship the draped figure
on the outlook is omitted, and each ship is further adorned by
a large eye painted on the forepart—in the front ship in black,
in the hinder one in white. All four ships have their white
sails fully set, and to the stern of each of them is horizontally
attached a landing ladder: just such a ladder as we see in
actual use in representations of scenes from the myth of the
Argonauts. To our modern minds these ladders seem attached
in a fashion most inconvenient for sailing. The four ships are
interesting specimens of ancient war galleys; but, if they present
any special features, I must leave the discussion of such to those
who nave a knowledge of shipbuilding, ancient and modern.

I pass to the remaining decoration. Under each of the handles
of the cylix is a dolphin, placed there for the double purpose of
filling decoratively the vacant space and of indicating the sea.
On a spiral line coming out of the handle a Siren perches, with
head turned in the direction of the ship, the body towards the
handle. Brunn says, in his catalogue of the Nikosthenes vases,
that ‘gegen den Henkel je eine Sirene auf einem Felsen, die

22 A CYLIX BY NIKOSTHENES.

nach den Schiffen zuriickblickt;’ but manifestly no rock is
indicated, nor do I think that the Siren is intended to be looking
towards the ship. Sirens used decoratively make a better pattern
with the head turned around in this way, and accordingly we find
this attitude becomes the typical one. Sirens used in precisely
the same fashion, and perched on a spiral, may be found not
infrequently in vases of the mature black-figured and very early
red-figured style. In Gerhard’s Auserlesene Vasenbilder, xxviii.,
we haye a Siren of precisely this pattern perched on a spiral
not, aS in our cylix, as an ornament on a handle, but full im the
centre of the design, and yet with no connection with the
subject. Again, on a yase in the Hermitage (Myths of the
Odyssey, pl. 44), we have another Siren perched on a spiral, at
the foot of a palm tree. I formerly thought that this Siren—at
whom the Apollo and Hermes of the rest of the design seem to
look fixedly—formed an integral part of the design. I now
believe her to be purely decorative.

It may rightly be asked on what grounds I have headed this
paper, ‘Odysseus and the Sirens. Obviously the characteristic
figure in this myth, Odysseus bound to the mast, is wanting.
No less certain to my mind is it that the Sirens are mere
decorative adjuncts. The picture, then, resolves itself into four
galleys, possibly engaged in a race, and has no mythological
ineaning whatever. Such is my opinion; but, for all that, the
design has, I believe, a very high mythological importance. We
eatch in it the type of Odysseus and the ‘sirens just at the very
inoment of formation, Let us turn for a moment to a red
figured rendering of the same scene, the only one that, so far as
I am aware, exists: I mean the well-known amphora of the
British Museum (Myths of the Odyssey, pl. 37). Here the
dead type is vitalized, translated from a mere gene scene into
a design with a mythological meaning.

The Sirens, two before (i.c., one to each handle), are three
according to current, though not Homeric, tradition. By the
very slightest addition of line the spiral ornament has become an
actual rock, The steersman is there and the oarsmen (whom
Nikosthenes leaves out), but, instead of the man on the outlook,
we have Odysseus bound to the mast; instead of the full sails,
they are partially reefed, for at the passing of the Sirens there
fell a dead, noon-day calm. In the cylix of Nikosthenes the only

A CYLIX BY NIKOSTHENES. 23

sign of intended connection between the ship and the Sirens is
the fact that the men on the outlook seem to gaze her way, and
that the Sirens are perched only on that side of the handle
towards which the ships are steering. But, on the other hand,
on the reverse the outlook men are not depicted, and I fear
tlie position of the Sirens is determined merely by considerations
of space.

Why I think the vase to be of great importance is that it
seems to me that in this design we have a clear instance of what
has taken place somewhat less obviously and strikingly in count-
less other cases. Forms accidentally and merely decoratively
juxtaposed suggest the art-form for the expression of a myth.
The art-form (which must always be carefully distinguished from
the literary form and the origin of the myth) of the Myth of
Odysseus and the Sirens, I believe to have been suggested by
the merely accidental juxtaposition of two racing galleys and the
Assyrian bird-women already long current in decorative art.

The cylix before us issigned. NIKOSOENES EMOIE is inscribed
just above the white sail on the obverse to the right hand. A
signed vase has its own importance with reference to the style
of the potter. But as the manner of Nikosthenes is familiar to
all I need not stop to consider it. Dr. Klein in his Griechische
Vasen mit Meistersignaturen, has collected seventy instances of his
signature. Our cylix stands as No. 60 in his list, and the further
authorities on his style are cited op, cit. p. 34, The principal
characteristic of the work of Nikosthenes is, however, somewhat
important to the matter in hand, He stood on the boundary-
line between the black and red figured masters, but in spirit he
belonged to the past. He was above all things a mechanical
decorator, caring little for mythological meaning, much for a
certain mannerism of effect. Casting our eye over the list of
his works we find a few mythological subjects, but these treated
in a very abstracted, schematic, non-original fashion: such
designs have the emptiness and lifelessness pod an often repeated
sthiame which tends to lose its meaning and lapse into a mere
pattern. What Nikosthenes best loves are such figures as
dancing Satyrs and Menads, sphinxes, panthers, Sirens, Hippa-
lektryons. Black-figured types are getting exhausted, and
Nikosthenes is not the man to revitalize them’; he decorated a
vase or two in accordance with the new red-figured technique,

24 A CYLIX BY NIKOSTHENES.

but he never felt the impulse of the new Attic inspiration.
Perhaps nowhere is the contrast between the new and old
manner better seen than by the juxtaposition of the mechanical
cylix before us and the amphora with the red-figured Odysseus
and the Sirens already cited.

I turn to the second point: the connection of the design in
the cylix of Nikosthenes with other similar designs, which,
I believe, in all probability relate to nautical races in honour of
Dionysos.

About the end of the black-figured period it is not uncommon
to find a certain class of vases decorated with a design consisting
of four or five ships following each other in regular succession.
I have collected the following instances, to which no doubt
many more might be added :—

a. Lebes. Munich, Cut. 781. G., A. V., ccliv.

ὃ, Kelebe. G., A. V. eclxxxv., vi.

c. Deinos, Millingen, Vas. Coghill, 52.

d. Deinos. Politi, Deserizione d’una Deinos.

e. Kelebe. Hermitage, Cat. 10.

jf. Lebes. Hermitage, Cat. 86.

g. Deinos. Bull. 1873, p. 125.

These seven vases, it will be noted, are all of such shapes
that they allow of decoration on the lip of the vase. When the
vase was full of liquid, the ships painted on the vertical part of
the lip would appear to be actually floating, and it is possible
the artist may have been influenced by what seems a somewhat
trivial conceit. Be this as it may the ships, four or five in
number, are in all seven cases used as decoration for the lip.

It is of great importance to note what the remaining decoration
of each vase is.

The Munich lebes (a) has the horizontal rim of its lip
decorated with a frieze obviously agonistic, chariot-race,
combat of armed warriors, judges seated on okladiai.

The Kelebe, once in the Feoli collection (Ὁ), has on the
obverse, in red figures, a palaestric scene, bearded men in con-
versation with boys; this extends to the reverse. The horizontal
rim has in black figures a complicated Dionysiac scene—Dionysos,
seated on the capital of a short pillar, holds a rhyton in the
right hand, a vine-branch in the left. To him advances Hermes
with herald’s staff. Hermes is followed by a bearded Satyr,

A CYLIX BY NIKOSTHENES. 2h

who leads a boy on horseback into the presence of Dionysos.
After the boy—presumably a successful competitor in the
horse-race—comes a representation of a Bacchic festival, Satyrs
and Maenads with krotala, cithars, rhytons—the scene character-
ised by vine-branches, panthers, a snake, and wine vessels of
various shapes, one a kelebe of the very shape of the vase it
helps to decorate. We can, I think, scarcely escape the inference
that Dionysos is here a prize-giver at games in his own honour,
and that the galleys which are decorated in the inner vertical side
of the rim are racing galleys contending at the same festival.

The deinos of the Coghill collection (c) is of the same type as
the two preceding; on the horizontal surface of the lip is a
continuous frieze, composed of five pairs of combatants, four
boys on horseback, four figures seated on okladiai, and sundry
judges and ephebi; as usual the ships occupy the vertical
surface of the lip.

The Politi deinos (d) repeats the same pattern—i.c. horizontal
frieze of warriors arming, stepping into chariots, pairs of com-
batants ; vertical frieze of five galleys.

The Hermitage kelebe (6), obverse Dionysos, viz. crowned and
holding in the left hand a rhyton. Opposite him a female
figure, possibly Ariadne; between them a vine-branch. Behind
each a succession of Satyrs and Maenads. Under each handle
Satyr and Maenad. Reverse, same scene, with slight alterations.

fertical side of lip, four galleys.

The Hermitage lebes (/) has no decoration except the five
galleys on the vertical side of the lip.

The remaining deinos (9) has a garland of ivy around the
neck, and on the horizontal side of the rim combats of hoplites
and of chariots with charioteers.

The regular scheme of decoration for this class of vases stands
as follows :—

Horizontal side of lip, agonistic types.

Vertical side of lip, galleys.

Where the shape (kelebe) admits of further decoration the
design is either (1) agonistic or (2) Dionysiac.

In the case of one vase (Ὁ) the agonistic type is plainly
referred to Dionysos, in the case of another (6) the galleys appear
in conjunction with designs which are exclusively Dionysiac.

I am well aware that this evidence alone is too slender to

20 A CYLIX BY NIKOSTHENES.

support a theory of galley races iu honour of Dionysos. Literary
testimony can, however, be added.

Jn a former number of the Hellenie Journal (vol. u. p. 90
and p. 315) Prof. Gardner has brought together the evidence as
to boat-races in general among the Greeks, and incidentaily of
races that scem to have been run in honour of Dionysos. In
the Corcyra types of eoins, which Prof. Gardner thinks refer to
galley races, the head of Dionysos oceurs twice on the obverse
(vol. 11. p. 95), and one racing galley has, we note, the significant
name of Κῶμος. Most important tor our purpose is the passage
of Pausanias (cited by Prof. Gardner, n. 315, and im connection
with vase-paintings by Gerhard, G., 4. V., cehv. p. 24, n. 13) in
which he speaks of the festival im honour of Dionysos Malanaigis
(Paus. 1, 35, 1) in which there were contests in music, in
swimming and with boats (kal πλοίων τιθέασιν ἀθλα). In
Dumont’s L’E£phélie Attigue, Inser, vin. 54, we have noted a
part of the service rendered by the Attic Ephebi to Dionysos
ἐποιήσαντο δὲ Kal ἅμιλλαν τοῖς πλοίοις. We ean readily con-
ceive that the Greeks, if they had boat-races at all, would have
races of war-galleys. All the agonistie training of the Greeks
was tinged with a certain fine, patriotic, utilitarianism; the
friendly contest of racing war-galleys might be a fitting pre-
paration to the more serious ἅμιλλα with an enemy's fleet.
The God Dionysos does not himself disdain to go to sea. On
a beautiful eylix in the Munich collection (No. 339) we have
Dionysos of colossal size reclining in a galley shaped exactly
like our Nikosthenes galleys; from the mast mse up vine-
branches laden with huge bunches of grapes, and all around the
ship dolphins are playing. On the outside of the cylix, on
either side of the handles, are combats of hoplites; on the
obverse and reverse are two eyes. According to Pausanias
(ix. 20, 4) Dionysos contended with and overcame a ‘Triton who
disturbed his worshippers. Very frequently on vases of about
the date of Exekias we have designs in which Dionysos or his
symbols appear in connection with the sea; eg. G., A. V., vii.
we have a cylix in which a white-haired man holding a trident
rides a hippocamp, on either side a huge eye surrounded by
vine-branches and bunches of grapes. Similarly an amphora,
G., A. V., vill., on the obverse Dionysos with cantharos in his
right hand seated on an okladias, in front of him a bearded

A CYLIX BY NIKOSTHENES. 27

man (a competitor in a musical contest?) playing on a lyre,
between them a vine; reverse, a triton holding an ivy wreat! ,
about him dolphins.

I would therefore suggest :—

Ist. That it is possible, and even probable, that where the
type of four or five war-galleys, in connection with other agonistic
schemes appears, we have in the galleys a representation of a
galley race.

2nd. That wherever Dionysiac attributes appear in con-
junction with these galleys, the race was presumably run in
honour of Dionysos.

3nd. That, considering the immense popularity of Dionysiac
subjects about the time of the black-figured vases, just before
the time of the red-figured Attic cylix masters, even where
there are no Dionysiac symbols, it is probable the intention
is Dionysiac.

4th. That the large eyes which so frequently appear about
this date are Dionysiac, in the simple sense that they stand
symbolically for galleys which ran races in honour of Dionysos.

5th. That with the general deciine of Dionysiac subjects,
and probably, to some extent, because of the unmanageable
shape of the ships, their representations of galley-races went
out of fashion in the period of the red-figured Attic cylix
masters.

6th. That possibly the vases we have enumierated above,
being all of the nature of mixing vessels, 1.0., deinos, lebes, or
kelebe, were of the sort used as prizes in these Dionysiac
festivals, or in some other way specially connected with the
ceremonies.

7th. That the Nikosthenes vase represents a Dionysiac
galley-race, but in just such a way as we should expect trom
a potter whose manner was mechanical. There is a technical
advance in the representation of the race, inasmuch as the galleys
are almost side by side, but the representation is taken from
the rim of a mixing vessel, which it suits fairly well, and put
on to the obverse and reverse of a cylix, which it suits very
badly.- The Sirens present are possibly borrowed from some
definitely Dionysiac representation (on the connection of
Dionysos and the Sirens see Myths af the Odyssey, p. 161) ;
but such a meaning was scarcely present to the mind of the

28 A CYLIX BY NIKOSTHENES.

mechanical Nikosthenes, who used the Siren merely as a piece
of decoration.

Finally, resuming our first point: the representation of a
boat-race in honour of Dionysos, the meaning of which was
only half present to the vase-painter, together with the figure
of the Oriental bird-woman decoratively used, supphed the type
which was ultimately to represent artistically the myth of
Odysseus and the Sirens.

JANE E. HAnrrIson.

Since writing the above, I have examined the vase collections
of Northern and Central Italy and the collections of the Louvre,
with a view to finding further instances of theconnection between
Dionysos and nautical races—with the following results. I
letter the additions, so as to follow consecutively the previous
list. Ξ
h. Lebes. Louvre, Campana coll.: white label 224, blue-edged
label 1064—horizontal lip, ivy pattern ; vertical rim, five ships
with steersmen only.

ἡ. Lebes. Louvre, of very large size—horizontal lip, a
frieze of chariot races, armed combats, seated judges, Herakles
and Nemean lion, Theseus and Minotaur ; vertical rim, six ships
in full sail, steersmen and oarsmen, white sails.

7. Patera. Louvre, black ware with boss in centre ; round the
boss frieze of ships racing. The fore parts only shown.

k. Cylix. Corneto (Bruschi coll.) black-figured—below each
handle a ship, between each handle two Dionysiac eyes, and
between each of these warriors. Vine branch decorations

1, Amphora. Corneto (Bruschi coll.) fine black-figured—obverse
Dionysos seated in large ship; in left hand cantharos, in back-
ground vine and grapes, in outlook place Satyr. Inrear of ship
Maenad with lyre and Satyr with cup ; below handles dolphins ;
reverse similar but differing in details:

γι. Neck of amphora—(noted Klein, Meistersignaturen, Ex-
ekias 5), now in collection of Augusto Castellani, Rome, vertical
rim for ships in waves, horizontal rim, inscription

E+sEKIASMEMOIESERMAINETOMM KAOK KN+APOPO!

None of these six last vases are, so far as I am aware, published
—h, simply repeats the normal scheme we have noted with no

A CYLIX ΒΥ NIKOSTHENES. 29

definite Dionysiac evidence—7. adds agonistic though not cer-
tainly Dionysiac evidence—j. belongs to the late embossed ware,
and I only cite it because together with it were a number of
other similar cups with chariot races, &c. so that it seems to make
for the fact that the ships are an Agonistic type. ἢ. is distinctly
Dionysiac, as is shown by the eyes and vine branches—the
warriors between the eyes probably represent an armed combat
—l, belongs to the same type as the beautiful Munich cylix
cited above (Munich No. 339). There ‘is nothing in either case
to indicate the subject of racing, but the vases are of course of
great value as showing the connection of Dionysos and seafaring
matters—m. I believe to be the neck of a deinos —it is
valuable, as it enables us to take the type as belonging to the
time of Exekias.

I would add to these two instances nearer hand which escaped
my notice before.

nm. A small black-figured cylix, British Museum, exterior
decorated by four ships alternately war galleys and merchant
ships. ‘This is probably a mere decorative caprice of the vase-
painters, as the two sorts of ships would scarcely be entered for
the same race.

o. Cup in the form of the prow ofa war galley, British Museum.
“Round the lip of the cup are Sirens’ heads, below which is
Seilenos reclining in an arbour and playing on the flute. At
the back of the prow is a Victory.” Mr. Newton conjectures
(Guide-book p. 17) that this cup may helong to the class
called trieres.

50 ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

SUPPLEMENT II.
(Continued from Vol. V. p. 143-161.)

Prates LVI.—LVI.

HAMILTON PALACE.
(Ancient Marbles, p. 300, 301.)

IT is well-known that the antiquities of this Palace were sold
by auction in 1882. In the sale catalogue, however, published
by Messrs. Christie, Manson & Woods, no mention is made of
nos. 1, 7,8, 9 of my catalogue. All these being marble statues,
T have little doubt that they have remained at the Palace,
which is said to be still to-day richly furnished also with busts
and other smaller antiquities. A few notes extracted from
the sale catalogue will serve to supplement the notices given
in my book. The kindness of my friend Mr. Scharf enables
me to add the names of the buyers, and the prices as given
in the priced catalogue. The woodcuts of the illustrated cata-
logue, which I have not seen, are said to be very poorly done;
tracings of them lie before me.

No. 190 (no. 6 of my catalogue). Bust of Vespasian, οἵ
black basalt, with (modern 2) drapery of oriental alabaster.
Woodeut. This bust, which was sold at the Strawberry Hill
sale for £220 10s., fetched £336; T. Agnew & Son.

No. 191 (no. 4). Bust of Augustus, of antique Egyptian
porphyry, with gilt ornaments. The woodcut shows the emperor
crowned with a wreath, and clad in a breastplate (decorated with
two pegasi flanking a central ornament), and an aegis below it,
a mantle covering shoulders and part of the breast. I dare not
say from the woodcut whether the head is antique ; the bust is

ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN. 31

certainly modern. It was sold to E. Joseph for the enormous
sum of £1,732 10s.

No. 192 (no. 5). Bust of Tiberius, of the same materials.
Judging from the woodcut, Waagen seems justified in recognising
Vespasian. The head is crowned like that of Augustus, to
which it forms in every respect the counterpiece, and with which
it shares the doubts about authenticity. Bought by S. Wert-
heimer for £525.

No. 469. Bronze bust of Zeus Serapis, on black marble stand,
9 inches (0.23 m.) high. The head only is antique, the rest
restored by the Hon. Mrs. Damer, 1787. From the Barberini
collection it passed, through the hands of Sir William Hamilton,
into the possession of the Duchess of Portland, at whose sale it
was bought by Horace Walpole (comp. Ancient Marbles, p. 69, and
note 172). At the Hamilton sale it was sold to A. Castellani,
for £106 1s. (Portland sale £173 5s., Strawberry Hill sale £78
15s.); I do not find it, however, in Froehner’s catalogue of the
Castellani sale (1883).

No. 470. Small antique bronze bust of Alexander the Creat,
on marble mount, 45 inches (0°11 τη.) high. From Strawberry
Hill (? not in the sale catalogue). Bought by W. Boore, £21.

No. 472. Equestrian male figure, on pedestal, 44 inches (0.11 m.)
high. Bought by A. Castellani, £71 8s. In the Paris sale cata-
logue of the Castellani collection there is the following
description, probably of the same figure: ‘No. 440. Jeune
cavalier galopant vers la gauche. Buste et bras nus; la main
droite levée tenait un javelot, et la téte se retowrne vers l'ennemi
qwil sagit de frapper. Applique. Haut., 10 cent. Larg.,
16 cent.’

No. 885 (no. 2). Colossal marble bust of Venus. From the
Braschi Palace. A band encircles the hair. ‘The tip of the nose
is modern, and so is the lower lip. The eyeballs are not marked.
The breasts are set into a bedding of modern marble. Very
like the Cnidian Venus. Compare also the Holkham
head, no. 37. [G. Scuarr.] Bought by J. and W. Vokins,
£120 1s.

No. 886 (no. 3). Bust of the ‘dying Alexander, erroneously
styled ‘bust of Niobe’ in the catalogue. Woodcut. It is,
according to Mr. Scharf, a modern copy of the Florentine bust.
Bought by G. Sinclair, £409 10s.

32 ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

No. 889. Antique marble group of two Cupids. No details
known. Bought by Mrs. Williams.

No. 1005. Bust of Homer, in basalt, on bronze mount. ‘Bearded
and crowned with laurels. ΟΜΗΡΟΣ infront below.’ [G.ScHARF.]
Antique ? Bought by T. Agnew & Son, £99 15s.

No. 1423. A pair of Roman mosaics, with birds, a mouse, and
serpent.

No. 1426. Small antique Roman bust of a boy. Bought by
J. and W. Vokins, £157 10s.

No. 1427. Antique double terminal bust (of Dionysos 2), with
ivy wreath in the hair. Bought by Duncan, £66 3s.

No. 1447. Bust of Niobe. Bought by J. R. Lorent, £84.

No. 1448. Bust of a Roman Empress. Bought by H. Samuel,
£13 13s.

HILLINGDON Court (Middlesex).
(Ancient Marbles, p. 301.)

In this seat of Sir C. Mitts, M.P., near Uxbridge, the
Attic bull, once the property of Cockerell, is still in his old
place under a yew-tree, the branches of which have not been
able to protect the poor creature from the injuries of the damp
English climate. The annexed Plate C. is copied from a
photograph kindly taken by Mr. 8. Gardner, with Sir C.
Mills’s permission. From a letter of Professor P. Gardner
I copy the following:remarks. ‘The bull is rather carelessly
finished and the details only superficially rendered. The head
is the best part and the legs the worst. I have no doubt that
he was set up on a base so as to be looked at rather from
below; as the back is quite rough, it is clear that that was not
intended to be looked at. He reminds me of the animals of the
Dipylon cemetery [Salinas, Afonwmenti sepolcrali scopertt in
Atene, 1863. Curtius and Kaupert, Atlas von Athen, pl. iv], and
I should suppose that he must be of the same period, in spite
of his somewhat archaic air. The marble is very hard and
white; as the bull is covered with moss, it is not easy to
examine its texture, but tradition says it is Pentelic. Mr.
Constantine has been good enough to take for me the following
measurements: length from top of head to root of tail 5 feet
8 inches (1°70 m.); height to top of head 8 feet 3 inches
(0°98 m.); length of head 18 inches (0°45 m.). He would thus
represent a very small animal, if intended to be of life-size.’

ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN. 33

CasTLE Howarp (Yorkshire),
(Ancient Marbles, p. 325—332.)

Of all the larger collections of ancient marbles in England,
that of the Earls of Carlisle at Castle Howard was the only one
which, when I collected the materials of my book, I had not
had an opportunity of examining myself. With the kind per-
mission of Mr. G. HowarpD, M.P., who is now residing in that
vast palace, I have been able to fill up that gap, and to give a
somewhat exacter account of the greater part of the marbles,
which are scattered over the hall (nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 16), the
long corridors, and some saloons of the house. Nevertheless, my
catalogue is far from being complete, the number of antique
sculptures being very large, and my time being limited; I feel
sure, however, that no piece of any importance has been over-
looked. I shall mention all those marbles which I have in-
spected myself.—Besides the fourth Earl of Carlisle (d. 1758),
who began collecting in Italy, his successor the fifth Ear]
(d. 1825), followed the same line and added several specimens
to the collection.

1. Female statwe. The antique head, which has been added,
is pretty ; it is crowned not with laurel but with ears of corn.
H. 1°38.

2. Female statue (only accessible with the aid of ladders),
The antique portrait head is certainly the original head, It
was broken, but the lines of the fracture prove that the two
parts belong together; and so does the Parian marble which is
of exactly the same quality in the head and the body. Several
smaller restorations and patches are of no importance. The
style is calculated for mere decoration. H. 1°78.

8, Fortuna. The head and the body are of different marble.
The antique head, which shows a pretty countenance and is very
well executed, including those portions of the hair which have
not been retouched, is of Greek marble. The expression of the
features is rather ideal, though not expressly characteristic for
Venus, as Waagen supposed. Unfortunately, the head is much
broken and patched, the nose, the lips, the chin, the stephané
being modern. The neck is inserted. The body, the execution
of which is rather coarse but sufficient for the purpose of
decorative effect, is made of Italian marble, and in excellent

H.S.— VOL. VI. D

94 ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

preservation ; only half the left fore arm with the cup, and the
fingers of the right hand are new. The cornucopia contains an
apple, ears of corn, a bunch of grapes, a pomegranate, a pine-
apple, and flowers. The back of the statue is but little worked,
the chair only sketched. H. 1°59, with the pedestal, 1°73.

4. Athene. She rests not on the left but on the right leg.
The folds of the cloak before the stomach and the thighs are
executed in an exceedingly simple, flat way; similar is the
treatment of the chiton. Cavaceppi’s engraving (Raccolta, 1.
pl. 18), repeated by Clarac (111. 471, 900), is so exactly like the
statue, even in a number of small and insignificant details, that
I have little doubt that it refers to this copy; Brotherton’s
drawing taken from the original at Castle Howard itself (Clarac,
ili. 462 B, 888 c), is less exact. Not only the right arm but
also the shoulder, from the beginning of the cloak, is new.

5. Hygieia. Of remarkably perfect preservation; even both
the hands, though broken, are undoubtedly antique and her
own, and so are the cup and the serpent (except the head and
the neck from the goddess’s hand), The right hand seems to
have been broken in ancient times; a hole within the palm and
another opposite to it, in the body of the statue, may have
served to fasten it. Another hole opposite the serpent’s head
will have served a similar purpose. The execution of the
drapery is flat in general, but sharper in those folds which are
more prominent. The fingers are not rounded but rather
square. The statue itself is of Parian, the portrait head (nose
new) of Italian marble. H. 1°64.

6. Boy (Eros). No traces of wings. The curly head is cer-
tainly antique; it was broken, but there is every probability
that it is really the original head. Nose new. The pose of the
boy is scarcely strained enough for the action presumed by the
restorer; it would rather suit a boy collecting fruits from a tree
(see Richmond, no. 3). The work is very pleasant and of good
execution. Greek marble. H. 0°68, up to the left hand, 0°74.

7. Eros. The torso is executed with tolerable softness but
without great delicacy of feeling; moreover it is much rubbed
down, and patched in several places. The torso as well as the
head are of Greek marble, but the quality is different. The
pretty boy’s head, with clusters of hair, has also suffered from
smoothing. H. 1°25,

ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN. 35

8. Dionysos (placed like no, 2). Notwithstanding the many
pieces of which the statue has been recomposed, its preservation
on the whole is very good; new: the panther’s head, a few
unimportant patches, the whole mask of the countenance all
around to the hair, the head itself being antique and originally
its own. In the hair which falls down over the neck there
are remains of red colour. There is little doubt but that the
nebris, which is worked in exceedingly flat relief, without
sharply-defined edges, was also painted. It exhibits 2 rough
surface, and so do the hair, the kantharos, the bunch of grapes,
the sandals, the panther, and the tree; all the naked varts of
the body being smooth and polished. The marble is Greek, of
large grain, much like the Thasian. H. 1°58. The pedestal,
also with rough surface, has rounded corners, and shows a very
simple flat moulding, with a profile similar to that given in
Arch. Zeitung, 1876, pl. 2. no. xii.

9. Boy riding on a goat. The garland is composed of flowers,
not ivy; the stick in his right hand is a small pedum. The
goat is heavy, its flocky fleece well characterised though super-
ficially executed; the boy is better. Half of his lett foot is
antique, the end of the goat’s beard new,

10. Sleeping Seilenos. Undoubtedly modern.

11. River god (over the main entrance, accessible by a
narrow staircase). The main portion of the body, including
part of the pedestal, made of a greyish stone (marble ?), seems
to be antique. The workmanship is not refined but does not
want feeling for form. New: head, both the arms and shoulders,
great part of the legs from below the knees. Η. 071. Actual
length of plinth 1:20.

12. Serapis. The middle head of the Kerberos (muzzle new)
looks like a lion’s, the two side heads like dogs’ heads.
Waagen’s description (p. 329) refers not to this statue but to

12a. Small bust of Serapis, placed near no. 4; of very
transparent Greek marble; new: the modius of rosso antico,
the bust of coloured marble.

13. Youthful Roman in the toga. Much rubbed down.
Head inserted ; new: nose, mouth, chin, portions of drapery,
scrinium and inferior part of the legs, from the middle of the
calves downwards.

14. Augustus. The head, without any restoration, is very

D 2

36 ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN,

much repolished; it has never been separated from the body.
Drapery crowded at the left shoulder, poor in other places. On
the whole the antiquity of the statue is very open to suspicion.
The many fractures and restorations (right arm, left fore-arm
with the globe, greater part of the legs) bear witness of the
statue having remained a long time in the open air, or in some
other exposed place. H. 1°73.

15. Statuette of a nude youth. Certainly modern.

16. ‘Marcus Aurelius, The completely preserved head, to
judge from the treatment of the hair, appears to be modern;
and so are the pedestal, the trunk, the right leg from the knee,
etc. The body is of soft work, H. 1°63.

17. Statwette of Athene. Modern, of about the seventeenth
century.

YAW
AX
κὰκ νὰ \

18. Zwo Pans. This is no group bat a relief, and a very
pretty one, the authenticity of which I see no reason to doubt.
It belongs to a series of delicately-carved miniature reliefs, the

ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN. 37

best known specimen of which may be the Lateran relief of
an actor and a muse (Benndorf-Schoene, no. 245, comp. London.
Lansdowne House, no. 72), and is executed in a beautiful
yellowish Greek marble of fine grain, The relief is tolerably
high; the head of the elder Pan was in great part detached
from the ground. The field of the relief is not even, but on
different levels. The sculpture is full of fresh life, by no means
dry. An engraving by H. Moses, privately made and never
published, some copies of which I owe to the kindness of
Mr. Howard, is here repeated, with some corrections of little
consequence. It dispenses me from giving a detailed descrip-
tion. Far the greater portion is antique and intact, including
the frame which shows a simple moulding. The line of restora-
tion crosses the right leg, the tail, the skin, the head (the
upper part of which is modern), the left wrist (band and thyrsos
new) of the elder, and the horns of the younger Pan, at the left
cheek of whom there isa patch. H. 0.25. L. 0°28.

19, 20, Two groups of a lion tearing a bull, The two groups
were evidently to serve as counter-parts, being composed in
opposite directions, and of nearly the same size (H. 0°67, and
0°69; L. 1:21, and 1:15). Preservation excellent; restorations
of little consequence. The bulls are fallen on all four legs, the
necks bent back; the lions have jumped from behind, and are
biting the bulls’ necks. Italian marble.

20a. Small goat, capering. Decorative work. The horns,
being let in, and made of real horn, are no doubt a modern
addition. H., including the pedestal, 0°43. L. 0°44,

BUSTS.

21. Bust of Minerva. Modern. Head and helmet of black
marble, bust of orientul alabaster.

22. Mask of bearded Bacchus. Much patched, and very coarse,
if at all antique. H.1:05. Length of face 0°46.

23. Bust of Bacchus, See Catalogue.

24. Head with Phrygian cap. Turn of the head and ex-
pression somewhat sentimental, reminding us slightly of the
portraits of Alexander the Great. Workmanship not bad, but
rather poor. New, also bust and top of cap. Parian marble.
Length of face 0°22.

98 ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

25. Head of Io. One would think of a Juno, of insignificant
expression, but for the two little horns which are certainly
antique.

26. Hieratic head of Athene. The style is similar to that of
the famous Artemis at Naples (Miiller-Wieseler, 1. 10, 38) ;
the helmet seems best to suit Athene. The wreath of flowers:
forms the ornament of a kind of stephané, below which the
forehead is covered by a mass of stiff hair, an arrangement very
much like that of the ‘Zeus Talleyrand’ (Arch. Zeit. 1843, pl. 1.
1874, pl. 9). The ears are covered by a flat, curved garland,
as it were, of hair, similar to the arrangement on certain
Athenian tetradrachms (Miiller-Wieseler, 1. 16, 70). Longer
tresses fall down behind the neck. The low, round helmet was
decorated with an animal at the top, and a crest, remains of
both of which are preserved. Traces of red colour are visible
also in the eyes.

27. Youthful head. This unusually beautiful head, which
shows no marks of special Heraklean character, is far the finest
specimen of the whole collection. It belongs to the Lysippic
type and may be best compared with such heads as that of the
Meleagros at Berlin or in the Vatican, to which corresponds also
the turn of the head. All the peculiarities of fine Lysippic
heads may be traced, though a little tempered, executed not
with that feeling of individuality which we should find in a
Greek original, but still with a fine rendering of the whole
character. The head is of a beautiful Greek marble of large
grain, perhaps Parian, the bust of Thasian marble. Length of
face 0°18.

28. Head of Seilenos. The pointed ears confute Waagen’'s
opinion that it might be the portrait of a poet. Very noble
type, without any vulgar feature. Beard pretty long. New:
top of nose. Thasian marble.

29. Dallaway’s ‘Dioskuros’ seems to mean no. 27; at least I
have found no head of Dioskuros in the collection.

My time did not allow me to go carefully through the very
large number of Roman portrait busts, which occupy the walls of
the long corridors; consequently I have nothing to add to nos.
30—44. A cursory inspection, however, seemed to prove that
there are no busts among them of peculiar interest or artistic
value.

ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN. 30
RELIEFS,

45. Nike. See Catalogue.

46. Bacchante and youth. Right fore-arm and hand of the
Maenad, except the index and the middle finger, are new.

47. Sepulchral relief. The attendant stands to the left of
the youth, the tree is to his right. High relief (0°06). Roman
work. H. 0.46. L. 0°43.

48. Child's sarcophagus. ΑἸ] the figures of the whole sar-
cophagus are moving right, our description follows the oppo-
site direction. Front side: A tree at the right extremity
of it indicates that the whole procession begins with the girl
preceding Dionysos; before her feet is a panther. Dionysos
turns his head towards the attendant boy who supports him.
Left end: The basket (head of snake quite clear) is near the
god’s attendant; the Satyr boy moves towards it; behind (not
before) him is the girl with tympanon in the upraised left
hand; her right arm is grasped by Pan, who is followed by
the Centaur; the closing girl, who looks much like a Maenad,
is half concealed by the Centaur. Right end: After the lack
with the boys treading grapes, comes the boy with flute, partly
concealed by the female Centaur; the boy with lyre follows;
after him a basket on the ground, with a serpent; then tho
Satyr boy with pedum and nebris; finally the tree, which
separates this group from that on the front. H. 0:29
Tie 0191:

49. Ploughman. The oxen move left. The kind of relief is
a little like that of no. 18, but much coarser. The old piece is
h, 0°18, 1. 0°43.

50. Cippus of P. Aelius Taurus. See Addenda, p. xxiv.

51. Double cinerarium. The inscription runs thus :—

Ammon’s Ram’s Ammon's
Bead M:VIGELLIVS | skull. VIGELLIAE head:
LOGYVS : ET ANTHVSAE
05 8 ; %,
=| VIGELLIA’ & | VIXIT: ANN. xxxxv| =
Eien wl VOVNDA), ded Go. Ε. [Ἔ
τ΄ | Se
FECERYNT * SIBI * ET
garland garland

Within the garlands, birds and locusts; beneath the ram’s skull,
bird and snake.

40 ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

5la. Triple cinerarium. The fields to the left and to the
right are empty, in the middle field the inscription :—

VIGELLIAE
M:L.
ERATONIS

Ornaments of no importance.
52. Round cinerarium. See Addenda, p. xxiv.
53. Round pedestal. H.1:02, Diameter 0°75.

BRONZES.

59. Venus, with diadem. Same type as Stanmore, no. 1.
Arch. Zeitung, 1870, pl. 38.
60. Fury. Undoubtedly modern.

MOSAICS.

64. Young Pan, sitting. The wine-skin lies on the ground,
Pan holds its mouth in his right hand. The large cup is
yellow. Two masks on the ground, the one of a bearded man
with ruffled hair, the other of a bald-headed Seilenos; a third
grey-bearded mask lies on the krater. Between this and Pan,
in the middle of the picture, an altar with fruits lying on it.
L. 0°55. H. 0°55. |

65. Aphrodite. L. 0535, Η. 0°535.

PAINTED VASE.

66. Krater of Python. See Addenda p. xxiv., and Engelmann
Annali dell’ Inst. 1872, p. 7. In the Documenti inediti per
servire alla storia dei Musei d'Italia, iv. p. 124 &c., is reproduced
a catalogue, made in 1796, of the new museum of the manu-
factory of porcelain at Naples; among the vases dug up by
order of the royal government at S, Agata de’ Goti and deposited
in that museum are, besides others, the famous vase of Kadmos
slaying the dragon, by Assteas (No. 53), and our vase (p. 138
No. 119), with the additional remark “ὁ stato ripulito, e ritoccato,
As far as [ could observe, this remark may refer to the upper
parts of the two rain-pouring Nymphs; the legs, the head, and
perhaps some further details of Antenor; some parts of the
head of Aos. Generally the colours are less glaring than they

ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN. 41

appear in the engraving. The sceptre of Zeus, with its curious
prominences, is painted white at both extremities, as far 1s
they stand out from the body. The back is of very superficis'!
execution. H. 0°57. Diam. 0°53.—Sant’ Agata de’ Goti, though
situated in Campania, is known for the later style of its vases
very similar to those of Lucanian origin. Of Python this is the
only known specimen; of the five vases of Assteas three were
found at Paestum, the above-named at 8. Agata (not at Bari in
Apulia), the fifth which was originally in the possession of the
Bishop of Nola, may also have come from the neighbouring
place of S. Agata. Comp. Klein, Griech. Vasen mit Merster-
signaturen, Ὁ. 84. ὁ

INcE BLUNDELL HALL.
(Ancient Marbles, p, 333-415.)

In the Athenaeum of 1883, Nos. 2917—2919, pp. 375, 408,
439, an account is given of the ancient marbles of that large
collection, the author of which offers suggestive remarks and
criticisms on a great number of the most conspicuous specimens,
of most of which he quotes the numbers of my catalogue! It
would be impossible to give here an extract of all what is new
in those observations; the only specimen of some interest over-
looked by me seems to be ‘a Greek male left thigh, possessing
exquisitely carved work about the knee, which has, with the

finest style, the pulpiness and energy of life’ (p. 376; in the
Pantheon).

1 The same critic, in a very kind
review of my book, in the Athenaewm,
1883, No. 2895, p. 512, objects to my hay-
ing ‘ overlooked Foucquet’ in my Intro-
duction. I am notaware of any ancient
sculpture of Foucquet’s collection hav-
ing come into English hands. I had
therefore no reason to speak about that
collection in an account which deals
with ‘the influx of ancient sculptures

into Great Britain’ only, not with ‘ the
development of the taste for antiaue
sculptures on this side of the Alps.’
The further reproach that ‘due honour
is not given to Haydon,’ will easily be
refuted by a reference to pp. 140, 145,
148, to which I may add what I have
stated in an article quoted p. 138, note
354.

42 ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN.
LONDON.
H. ATKINSON, Esq.
(Ancient Murbles, p. 431.)

Owing to the goodness of Richard Fisher, Esq., I have had
access to the Athenian marbles mentioned in my Catalogue.
According to a notice by Mr. Fisher they were collected
by WILLIAM ATKINSON, an architect of reputation and an
intimate friend of the Athenian Lord Elgin, part of whose
marbles were first deposited in the grounds of Mr. Atkinson’s
house at St. John’s Wood. It may have been on this occasion
that Lord Elgin presented his friend with some of his acqui-
sitions. On that gentleman’s death, his son, HENRY ATKINSON,
took the marbles in question to 61, Upper Gloucester Place,
Dorset Square, where they were sold by auction in March last,
Mr. Atkinson having died intestate. Of the ten pieces which
the collection is said to contain, I have been shown the following
seven by the housekeeper, who knew of no more specimens.
Although there are no fragments from the Parthenon among
these relics, still their Athenian origin secures them a certain
interest.

1. Aitic sepulchral stelé, of simple shape. The top, of semi-
circular form, is quite plain. A simple moulding separates it
from the main field, on which is represented a girl, standing to
the right, the hair encircled by a ribbon, draped in chiton and
cloak, and holding on the left hand a little bird which she
caresses with her right hand. Pretty low relief; from the end
of the fifth or the beginning of the fourth century. The slab is
broken below. H. 0°39 (slab 0°25, top 0°14). 1.. 0520. Purchased
at the sale by Mr. Woolner, the sculptor.

2. Upper part of an Attic sepulchral stele, including the top
decorated with a fine anthemion in relief and ending in three
rounded akroteria, a simple cornice, and the uppermost plain
part of the slab itself. H. 0°48. L. 035. Now in Brit.
Mus.

3. Attic sepulchral lekythos of Hippokrates and Eukoliné.
Half the neck and foot wanting. Hippokrates, an elderly,
bearded man, with portrait-like countenance, is sitting to the

ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN, 43

left, turned to the right, back, left arm and legs enveloped in
his cloak, raising his left arm as though he were holding +
sceptre, and holding hands with an unveiled female (Eukoline

draped in chiton and cloak, who stands opposite him in a quiet
pose. Above the heads the inscriptions :—

EYKOAINHEYPOAEMO
IPPOKPATHE ΓΛΑΥΚΙΞ

AYKEO

head

head

The word ['Aavxis, incised less deeply, is evidently an addition,
though not much later than the rest. The © instead of OY
indicates the first quarter of the fourth century. Relief low,
not very careful and rather defaced. H. 0°52. Diam. about
0:30. Purchased at the sale by Mr. Trist.

4, Upper part of a large Attic sepulchral amphora, inclading
part of the high and slender neck, and of the large handle
decorated with beautiful flowers and scrollwork in low relief
Ἡ U28. ὟΝ 028.

5. Fragment of an Attic relief, of a very smgular kind. The
lower right corner only preserved. Remains of a draped figure
in very high relief, with the right arm lying in the lap, sitting
on a simple stool with tapering legs and cross beams between
them ; under the stool in lower relief a lying bull, very pretty.
The stool rests on a kind of square pedestal, the right extremity
of which only is remaining. On this are represented in very low
relief three figures, all turned to the left, and all bent a little
forward ; to the left slight traces of a fourth figure. The three
remaining figures are a naked youth, bearing a box on his left
hand, and stretching out his right hand which seems to hold a
cup; behind him a bearded man, enveloped in his cloak, and sup-
porting on a staff his body which is much bent forward; finally
a bearded man, draped in his cloak, with lowered right arm.
I am not aware of any similar kind of sculpture. If the
fragment be part of a sepulchral relief, I should be at a loss
to mention an analogous specimen. Can it be part of a copy
of a seated statue of some divinity, including its pedestal
decorated with reliefs? H. 0°32. L. 0:18.

6. Front of a small Corinthian capital of pilaster. At the
lower edge part of an ovolo, which gives the whole sculpture the

44 ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

character of a composita-capital. H.0:29. L.0:25. Now in
Brit. Mus.

7. Base of a column. Round the whole the σπεῖρα Arti-
κουργής, the tori decorated with crnamental patterns; at the
top another trochilus of smaller size, an astragalus, and a small
torus. The plinth at the foot was only meant to be inserted
somewhere, as is shown by its roughly worked surface. H. 0°21.
Diam. about 0°55. Now in Brit. Mus.

The British Museum acquired, besides the three marbles
already mentioned, architectural fragments.

STOURHEAD House (Wiltshire).
(Ancient Marbles, p. 661.)

According to the newspapers, the picture gallery and the
library of Sir Henry Hoare have been sold by auction, in June
and August, 1883. What may have become of the statue, or
statues, mentioned in my book ?

SUNDORNE CASTLE (Shropshire).

This place, the possession of the Rev. J. DrypDEN PicorTrT
CoRBETT, is situated not far from Shrewsbury. Professor Colvin
has directed my attention to a passage in Murray’s Handbook
for Shropshire, Cheshire and Lancashire, 1870, p. 60: ‘In the
drawing room is a statue of Venus, brought from Rome, for
which Nollekens is said to have offered a thousand pounds.’

WesT Park (Hants).

I owe to a kind communication of F. Haverfield, Esq., of
New College, Oxford, the notice of a marble bust preserved at
West Park, a country house near Fordingbridge, not far from -
Salisbury, in the possession of Eyre CooTE, Esq. Two
photographs, unfortunately executed on a very small scale,
serve to illustrate Mr. Haverfield’s description. The bust is
covered by a plain breastplate, the midst of which is occupied
by a Medusa’s head. The neck is rather long. The youthful

ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN. 45

head bears a small lion’s skin cap instead of a helmet. Mr.
Haverfield had already alluded to the bust in the Journal of
Philology, xii. p. 296, as being ‘perhaps the head of a Roman
emperor. Now he is rather inclined to take it for a female
head, and, instancing the famous statue of the lion-helmeted
Athené in the Villa Albani, he supposes it to represent the same
goddess in similar attire. However, the shape and the material
of the breastplate, which is evidently meant to be of metal, as
well as the leathern stripes covering the shoulders, would be
scarcely consistent with a representation of Athené; at least I
know no example of the kind. It would rather lead us to think,
in accordance with Mr. Haverfield’s former impression, that
the bust represents a youthful warrior; although I am obliged
to confess that neither the lion’s skin admits οἵ an easy ex-
planation, nor seems the countenance to bear a resemblance to
any one of the Roman emperors who might have been re-
presented under the shape of a young Hercules. Perhaps a
closer examination of the original would lead to a more
satisfactory explanation. The nose and the neck are slightly
touched up. The bust is supposed to have been brought from
Alexandria, together with a Latin inscription (Journ. of Philol.
1. cit. Ephem. Epigr. v. p. 3 no. 10, p. 259), at the beginning of
this century by Major-General Sir Eyre Coote, K.C.B

Mr. Haverfield further observes that in the second edition of
Thomas Walsh’s Journal of the late Campaign in Egypt (the
first edition appeared in 1803) there is an appendix containing a
list of ancient remains brought home by the English troops in
1801-2, and among them ‘two statues supposed to be of Severus
and Marcus Aurelius, in white marble. Neither of these statues
is at present in West Park.

At the end of this article which deals with ancient monu-
ments hitherto hidden or not sufficiently known, I beg leave to
draw once more (comp. Anc. Marbles, p. 161, note 432) the
attention of the readers of this Journal to one of the most
curious antique marbles which were ever brought to England,
long since utterly lost sight οἵ:

40 ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN

THE CORINTHIAN PUTEAL.

The history of this sculpture is strange enough. About the
beginning of this century it was in the possession of a certain
Notara at Corinth, a descendant of a noble and ancient Greek
family. He had got the marble, being ‘a cylindrical piece of
marble, pierced in the centre, a foot and a half in height, and
sculptured with ten human figures in very low relief,” from a
Turk in whose house it had served as the mouth of a well.
‘From the friction occasioned by those who drew water from
it, the figures were much injured, and most of the heads
destroyed. Notara placed the marble in his garden and
adapted it to the same use, but ‘the completeness of the stone
at the bottom, and the incompleteness at the top, induced Mr.
Notara to place the former side upwards, and thus to reverse
the figures. As the European travellers at that epoch used
to stay in Notara’s house, the pwuteal could not but awake
their lively interest. Among those visitors to Corinth were
Edward Dodwell, in December 1805, and Martin Leake, a few
months later, in April 1806 (Dodwell Classical Tour, τι. p. 200-
202. Leake, Travels in the Morea, 1. p. 264-268). Notwith-
standing the reversed position of the marble, Dodwell had a
drawing of it made by his Italian companion Pomardi, which
he published first in his Alewni bassirilievi della Grecia (Rome ~
1812), and afterwards in his Classical Tour; and Leake
was among the first who suggested the right explanation
(marriage of Herakles and Hebe). A cast also was made and
brought to Athens. There Baron Stackelberg, in 1811, made a
new drawing of it, which was reproduced in Gerhard’s Antike
Bildwerlze, pl. 14-16 (comp. Gerhard’s Hyperbor.-rém. Studien, τι.
p. 303). Both drawings have often been repeated. The interest
shown by the foreign dilettanti had meanwhile induced the
owner to transfer the original to Zante, a favourite place for art-
dealing at that epoch, and there, I suppose, it was bought by
Frederick North, afterwards Lord Guilford, in whose possession
it was already in 1819, when Dodwell published his Journal.
The further fate of the marble can be traced mainly on the
basis of authentic information gathered with great care, and
kindly communicated to me by Professor Newton. The sculp-
ture was brought to London ¢nd there placed in the garden of

ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN. 47

Lord Guilford’s house, 24, St. James’s Place, in which the owner
never lived but which was only used as a ‘storehouse for
books and odd things.’ After Lord Guilford’s death, in 1827,
the puteal was sold with the house to Mr. Thomas Went-
worth Beaumont who, according to the recollection of Baroness
North, a niece of Lord Guilford, declined to part with the
marble when either a member of the North family or some
lover of art wished to buy it. When I visited London for the
first time, in 1861, and together with my friend the late
Professor Friederichs made several attempts to rediscover the
lost marble, which meanwhile had found its fixed place in all the
treatises on the history of Greek art, nobody could tell us where
to go in search of it. Nevertheless, it seems certain that at
that time it was still in its old place, and that it disappeared
only a few years later when, after the death of Mr. Beaumont,
the widow sold the house, with the puteal, to the present owner,
Mr. Jardine, who pulled the house down and rebuilt it. From
that time every trace of the marble is lost, and only some poor
blackened fragments of a cast bequeathed to the British Museum
by the late Earl of Aberdeen remain to give an exact idea of
the style of the relief.

The Editors of this Journal have thought it advisable to have
a woodcut made from Gerhard’s plates, with indications to show
of what parts casts now exist, those not remaining being drawn
in dotted lines; also to have those parts of these fragments
which could be recomposed so as to form complete figures,
reproduced on Plates LVI., LVII. They represent Peitho
and Hermes, Herakles and Alkmene, according to the com-
mon interpretation. The photographs, notwithstanding the
fragmentary character of the figures, will serve to show
that, on the whole, Pomardi’s drawings are materially more
trustworthy than those by Stackelberg, but that neither of them
is satisfactory as to style. In the figure of Hermes, for instance
(which is evidently bearded, not beardless as in Stackelberg’s
drawing), the contrast between the somewhat slight body, with
the characteristic flatness of the abdomen, and the very robust
thighs is not well rendered in the engravings. The graceful
figure of Peitho is treated on the cast in a much simpler way ;
the body is broader and less rounded in its outlines as well as in
its modelling ; that part of the drapery which falls down from

48 ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN.

the left arm, shows a more severe and rectilinear arrangement
and a flatter treatment ; in that part which is grasped with the
right hand, the lines of the fold are much harder, the individual
folds are far more separated by flat valleys as it were, and they
are detached from the leg much nearer to its back outline so as
to leave this more distinctly visible ; such a separation between
body and drapery being a general feature of archaic sculpture.
The character of real archaism is still more traceable in the
figure of Alkmene, the hard archaic treatment of whose drapery
is scarcely to be recognised in the engravings. It strongly
recalls some figures of the Thasian relief of Apollo Nymphegetes
in the Louvre, the style of which can now be better studied
since, on the request of Prof. Colvin, casts have been made. An
entirely new feature of the relief is the gentle bending of
Alkmene’s head, instead of the stiff upright position assigned to
it in the former drawings. On the whole, the photographs
strongly corroborate the views of those scholars who would like
to ascribe the marble not to some later period of imitated
archaism, but to an earlier epoch in which true archaic feeling
began to be blended partly with a certain dawn of freedom (so
especially in the figure of Peitho), partly with a slight exagge-
ration, of traditional habits (so in the figure of Hermes). This
conviction cannot but strengthen our wish that the lost original
itself might be rediscovered and allow a fuller and final
examination.

The question is, Where can this original lie hid? If, as
one might suppose, the original was removed with the rest
of the demolished house by the contractors who undertook
to rebuild it, who knows in what marble mason’s yard, or
in what cellar the puteal may now be cast away? It is well
known that the Strangford marbles, now in the British
Museum, were discovered by Prof. Newton in a cellar; and
so was Lord Stratford de Redcliffe’s statue of Hercules which
has since entered Mr. Cook’s collection, at Richmond. On
the other hand, another capital piece of Lord Guilford’s
collection, a very fine Attic sepulchral relief, has reappeared in
the northernmost part of England, in Lord Lonsdale’s collection
at Lowther Castle (Anc. Marbles, p. 492, no. 37), but nobody can
tell in what way it came there; the late Lord Lonsdale formed
his collection mainly by individual acquisitions at sales and

ΝᾺ
«Ὁ

NA

ANCIENT MARBLES IN GREAT BRITAIN. 49

on similar occasions. These examples may shew that it is no
ways a hopeless endeavour to track such lost treasures, and that
sometimes a happy chance may help those to discover them who
remember in time what has been lost and what is to be
recovered. In the present case, the subjoined sketch will serve
to help the memory. It is well worth the common efforts of all
the English, and especially the London readers of this Journal,
to search after such a capital monument as the Corinthian puteal.
Who will succeed in finding it out? ‘O μανυτὰς γέρας ἑξεῖ.

Ap. MICHAELIs.
STRASSBURG.

H.S.— VOL. VI. E

50 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANTAS,

NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

ΙΝ
Book I. 39-44.—MEGARICA.
Book II.—CorintTuHiAca.

THE following paper is the first of a series of two or three which
will bring into contact the extant coins of Greece and the text
of Pausanias, thus furnishing to many passages of the traveller’s
writings a running numismatic commentary.

The main object we have set before us is to collect and set
forth the numismatic reproductions of works of art mentioned
by Pausanias ; but we have not excluded any numismatic types
which at all illustrate the cults and the legends mentioned by
him as existing in the various cities of Peloponnesus.

The importance of the work cannot be doubted when we con-
sider that in the case of many of the statues mentioned by
Pausanias the only copies known are those upon coins ; we may
therefore hope to reconstruct from numismatic evidence, at least
the general schemes of many great works of art wholly lost, and
thus furnish very important material for recovering the history
of Greek art; especially the history of the succession of types
of the chief deities of Greece, which is a subject of great and
increasing interest to archaeologists.

Generally speaking, the coins on which we can place the most
reliance as sources of information as to the monuments are those
of Hadrian and the Antonines. These coins are also the best
in point of execution; and we may add that they are contem-
porary with the travels of Pausanias.

NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANTAS. δὶ

To discern whether the types of Greek coins of the Imperial
class, with which chiefly we shall have to do, are inerely con-
ventional representations of deities, or whether on the other
hand they are copies of statues, is not an easy task. But a few
rules may be laid down which may be safely used in judging
of this matter.

There is reason to suppose that the figure of a deity
on a coin is a copy of a cultus-statue in the following
cases :—

(1) When it is represented within a temple or shrine. This
is the surest of all indications of an intention to copy ; and few
or no instances will be found in which on coins a merely
conventional figure of a deity is placed ina temple. Of course
we cannot trust the small and careless representations on coins
for accuracy in such details as the number of pillars in a temple,
or the design of the pediment; and even in representing the
cultus-statue, a die-sinker might take strange liberties. But
it seems that in every case he meant to copy so far as his
ability and memory served.

(2) When the figure stands on a pedestal, the intention
is obviously to represent a statue. By parity of reasoning,
when the figure on the coins leans on a pillar, or otherwise
is of a design fitted for the round but not for reliefs, it is
probably inspired by a statue.

(3) The presence of an altar on a coin is also an indication,
although a less trustworthy indication, of the intention to
portray a cultus-statue.

(4) So is also any indication of locality, such as a river-god
or acropolis-rock. But of course such proofs as these must not
be seriously relied on.

(5) When an identical type recurs unchanged on the coins
of a series of emperors stretching over a long period, then
there arises a presumption that such uniformity is caused by
the existence of a sculptural original, constantly under the
eyes of successive die-sinkers, They may in some cases
have copied the coins one of another, but this is less likely.

(6) Sometimes the language used by Pausanias enables us
to determine the connexion of a statue and a coin-type. For
instance, he may describe the statue in detail and the description
may apply to the coin-type; or he may state the age and thie

4

52 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

author of the statue, and these may completely suit the figure
of the coin.

(7) In some cases, especially where archaic types are con-
cerned, the figure on the coin may bear sufficient internal
evidence of being copied from a statue, and we may in some
cases be able to identify that statue from information other-
wise gained.

The only previous writer who must be acknowledged as our
predecessor is Panofka, who published in 1853-5, Archeclogical
Commentaries on certain portions of Pausanias, more especially
II. 24, which describes the citadel of Argos. Of course the
material at our disposal is far more abundant than that which
he could command.

A word must be said as to the share taken in this paper by
the two compilers. They began the task independently; for
the present article it was found advisable to use the numis-
matic lists of the Swiss colleague, which were more complete,
as a basis: he has also furnished the casts used for illus-
tration in the case of all coins not in England or Paris. The
English colleague has added some material and put the article
into final form, and is responsible for the comments added after

the lists of coins.!

The text used is that of Schubring (Teubner 1881).

Ἐς, ImHoor-BLUMER.
ῬΕΒΟΥ GARDNER.

1 Abbreviations.

Auu. &c., Β 1. 11. &c., and so on to
M are references to the accompanying
plates.

Mion. Mionnet.

M.S. Mionnet, Swpplement.

B. M. British Museum.

Arch. Ζ. Archiologische Zeitung.

Imh. Imhoof-Blumer’s Collection.

AE copper.

R silver.

Obv. Obverse.

Rey. Reverse.

Sup. Supplement.

Sancl. Museo Sanclementi.

Auton. Autonomous,

R. and F, Messrs. Rollin et Feuardent,

P.O. Count Prokesch-Osten.

Mus. Nap. Museum of Naples.

Avig. Arigoni Catalogue.

St. Flor. Museum des Stiftes St,
Florian.

Mil. Ree. Millingen Reewetl de Mon-
nics, &e,

Mil. 4. G. C. Millingen, Ancient Greck
Coins.

Overbeck K. 27. Kunstmythologic.

Berl. Bl. Berliner Blatter fiir Miinz-
Siegel-w. Wappenkunde.

Ann. d. Inst. Annali delV Inst. arch.
di Roma.

MEGARA, 53

MErEGARA.

1.—Paus. 1. $0, 2. Τῆς δὲ κρήνης od πόρρω ταύτης ἀρχαῖόν
ἐστιν ἱερόν... . καὶ ἄγαλιμά τε κεῖται χαλκοῦν ᾿Αρτέ-
μιδος ἐπίκλησιν Σωτείρας ἐννν τὴν δὲ Ἄρτεμιν αὐτὴν
Στρογγυλίων ἐποίησε. Cf. 44, 2, statue of Artemis in
temple of Apollo.

ARTEMIS running to the right in short chiton; holds torch
in each hand.

-E Auton. Obv. Apollo-head. Neumann. pl. vit. 4. Mion. 11. 141, 319.

Auton. (bv. Head of Eucleides. b.M. Mion, 11. 141, 318. (A 1.).

Ant. Pius. Leake, p. 74. M. Aurel. M.S. 11. 588, 377.
Commodus and Sept. Severus. Bb. MM.

This type of Artemis recurs on coins of Pagae in exactly
similar form. It is, as we shall show in treating of that
city (tnfra) undoubtedly a copy of the work of Strongylion.

The head of Eucleides of Megara is very peculiar. The
philosopher, though bearded, wears the veil and the earring of
a woman. It has been suggested by Visconti that this is
obviously in allusion to the tale told about Eucleides, that he
came disguised as a woman, and veiled, from Megara, to attend
the lectures of Plato, at a time when access to Athens was
forbidden to the Megarians under pain of death. See Aulus
Gellius, Noct, Att. vi. 10. :

2.—Paus. 1. 41, 8. Οὐ πόρρω δὲ τοῦ Ὕλλου μνήματος... ..
ναὸς .... Ἀπόλλωνός ἐστι καὶ Ἀρτέμιδος"... ᾿Αλκά-
θουν τὸν Πέλοπος .... τὸ ἱερὸν ποιῆσαι τοῦτο ᾿Λγρο-
τέραν [Αρτεμιν καὶ ᾿Απόλλωνα ᾿Αγραῖον ἐπονομάσαντα.
Artemis Agrotera in long chiton running to the right, holds
bow in left hand, and with right draws an arrow from

her quiver.

Caracalla, B.M. (ἃ 11.) Revue Belge, 1860, pl. 11. 6.
Sept. Severus. B.M.

See also Apollo.
3.—Paus. 1. 40, 4. “Es τὸ τοῦ Διὸς τέμενος ἐσελθοῦσι καλού-
" - / ᾽ ‘ ” a \
μενον Ολυμπιεῖον ναός ἐστι θέας akios .... τῷ δὲ
ἀγάλματι τοῦ Διὸς πρόσωπον ἐλέφαντος καὶ χρυσοῦ, τὰ
δὲ λοιπὰ πηλοῦ τέ ἐστι καὶ γύψου" ποιῆσαι δὲ αὐτὸ
Θεόκοσμον λέγουσιν ἐπιχώριον, συνεργάσασθαι δέ οἱ
Φειδίαν.

ZEUS seated on throne, holds Victory.

# Ant. Pius. Arch. Ζ. 1848, p. 148, 16.
NM. Aurel. B. M. (A 11) M.S. 111. 588, 375.

hd NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

Zeus seated, holds eagle.
-E Sept. Sey.

The figure on the coins is the usual conventional representa-
tion of a seated Zeus by Pheidias, such as that found on the
coins of Elis, of Alexander the Great, &e. It is curious that the
Zeus on the coins bears sometimes a Victory and sometimes an
eagle. The statues doubtless held a Victory, and it was the
natural instinct of Greek art in the good period, in engraving
so small a thing as a coin die, to substitute for the Victory a
simpler device of the same meaning, such as an eagle, the bird
of victory. Accordingly on Alexander’s own coins, the Olympian
Zeus invariably carries an eagle; on the coins of his successors,
a figure of Victory is sometimes substituted.

4.—Cf. Paus. 1. 43,6. Καὶ ἐν τῷ vad τῷ πλησίον Movaas
καὶ χαλκοῦν Δία ἐποίησε Λύσιππος. Cf. 40, 6, Διὸς
Κονίου ναὸς οὐκ ἔχων ὄροφον.

Zeus striding to the right, naked, holds thunderbolt and eagle.
In some eases he seems to stand on a basis, and so to

represent a statue.
«E Caracalla. M.S. ταὶ, 590, 384.
L. Verus. Imh. (A tv.)

5.—Paus. 1. 40,6. "Es τὴν ἀκρόπολιν averOotot... . ἔστι
μὲν Διονύσου ναὸς Νυκτελίου. Cf. 43, 5, ὠκοδόμησε
δὴ καὶ τῷ Διοιύσῳ τὸ ἱερὸν Πυλύειδος, καὶ ξόανον
ἀνέθηκεν ἀποκεκρυμμένον ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν πλὴν τοῦ προσώπου.
.... τοῦτον μὲν δὴ Πατρῷον καλοῦσιν" ἕτερον δὲ
Διόνυσον Δασύλλιον ἐπονομάζοντες κ.τ.λ.

Dionxysvs standing, clad in short chiton, holds in right hand
kantharos, left rests on thyrsos.

E Sept. Sev. Imh. Mion.s11. 142, 331 (A v.)

6.—Paus. 1. 40, 6. Τοῦ δὲ ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ τὸ ἄγαλμα Βρύαξις
καὶ αὐτὸ καὶ τὴν Ὕγίειαν ἐποίησεν.

ASKLEPIOS and HyGIEIA, side by side, in usual attitudes.

E Sept. Sev. B. M. (A v1.)

Asklepios standing.

-E Commodus, Imh. (A vit.)
Curnealla,

Hygieia standing, feeds serpent.
-E M. Aurel.
Caracalla ΔΙ, Κα, 111. 590, 386. Leake, Sup. 134.

These figures are of quite conventional type; and as they do
not appear in ἃ temple there is no strong reason to suppose that

MEGARA. 55

they repeat the statues of Bryaxis. But at the same time
there 1s nothing at all improbable in such a view. Mr. Wroth,
who has made a most careful study of the artistic representa-
tions of Asklepios and Hygieia, states his opinion (Journ. Hell.
Stud. v. p. 90) that the customary late schemes of the pair
came into existence about the time of Scopas, and were possibly
due to that artist. But the only figure of Asklepios by Scopas,
of the details of which we know anything, was beardless (Over-
beck, G. P. τι. 11): so that perhaps the claims of Bryaxis to the
origination of the usual type are preferable to his, in the
existing state of knowledge.
7.—Paus, 1. 44, 2. "Ἔστι δὲ ἐν τῷ γυμνασίῳ τῷ ἀρχαίῳ πλησίον
πυλῶν καλουμένων Νυμφάδων λίθος παρεχόμενος πὺυ-
ραμίδος σχῆμα οὐ μεγάλης" τοῦτον ᾿Απόλλωνα ὀνομά-
ζουσι ἹΚαρινόν.

OBELISK between two dolphins.
A aut. B. M. (A vin.) Glr. MEP Prow.

Tor the Greek custom of representing deities in columnar
form, Daremberg and Saglio s.v. Bactylia, Gardner, Types, ἄς,
p. 77, &. Apollo is thus represented on coins of Ambracia,
and commonly in front of Greek houses, as Apollo ᾿Αγυεεύς.

8.—Paus. I. 42, 5. Tod δὲ ᾿Απόλλωνος πλίνθου μὲν ἣν

ὁ ἀρχαῖος vads' ὕστερον δὲ βασιλεὺς ὠκοδόμησεν
Αδριανὸς λίθου λευκοῦ" ὁ μὲν δὴ {{ύὑθιος καλούμενος καὶ
ὁ Δεκατηφόρος τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις μάλιστα ἐοίκασι Eoavois,
ὃν δὲ ᾿Αρχηγέτην ἐπονομάζουσιν Αἰγινητικοῖς ἔργοις
ἐστὶν ὅμοιος. Cf. 44, 2. ᾿Απόλλωνος ἱερόν ἐστιν ἐν
δεξιᾷ ἹΠροστατηρίου.... ᾿Δπόλλων δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ κεῖται
θέας ἄξιος καὶ "Αοτεμις καὶ Λητώ, καὶ ἄλλα ἀγάλματά
ἐστι ἹΠραξιτέλους ποιήσαντος, Λητὼ καὶ οἱ παῖδες.
42,2. Τότε δὲ αὐτῷ τειχίξοντι, ὥς φασιν οἱ Μεγαρεῖς,
συνεργάζξεταί τε ᾿Απόλλων καὶ τὴν κιθάραν κατέθηκεν
ἐπὶ τὸν λίθον' ἢν δὲ τύχῃ βαλών τις ψηφῖδι, κατὰ
ταὐτὰ οὗτός τε ἤχησε καὶ κιθάρα κρουσθεῖσα.

Cf. also Apollo Agraeus, above.

Head of Apotto, Rev. Lyre, tripod, dulphin or quiver.
RE Auton, B. M.

Apollo standing, holds plectron and lyre.
Ai Ant. Pius. Mion. 11. 142, 330 (holds branch instead of plectron),
Carac. Μ. S. 111. 590, 385.
Geta. B. M. Beside Apollo omphalos surmounted by eagles, or altar on
which ravens. (A 1X.)

!
26 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

APOLLO ARTEMIS and LETO.
ZZ Sept. Severus. Athens Mus. 3218. (A x )

We have here a most important type, which should be a copy
more or less free of the statues of Praxiteles. It merits a
detailed description. To the left is Leto clad in long chiton;
in her raised right hand she holds a iong sceptre, her left hand
hangs by her side. In the midst stands Apollo in citharoedic
dress, holding in his right hand a plectrum, and in his
left a lyre. To the right stands Artemis clad in long chiton
with diplois, holding in her left hand a plectrum, and with her
right drawing an arrow from the quiver at her back. None of
these schemes are in conflict with the style of Praxiteles.

9.—Paus. 1. 42, 4, ῳὠκοδέμηται δὲ ἐπὶ TH κορυφῇ τῆς ἀκρο-
πόλεως ναὸς ᾿Αθηνᾶς, ἄγαλμα δέ ἐστιν ἐπίχρυσον πλὴν
χειρῶν καὶ ἄκρων ποδῶν' ταῦτα δὲ καὶ τὸ πρόσωπόν
ἐστιν ἐλέφαντος. καὶ ἕτερον ἐνταῦθα ἱερὸν ᾿Αθηνᾶς
πεποίηται καλουμένης Νίκης, καὶ ἄλλο Αἰαντίδος.

ATHENE erect, spear in raised right hand, shield on left arm.

AL. Verus. Rev. Belge, 1860, Pl. 11, 5.
S. Severus. R. and Ε,
Geta, ΒΒ. Me (Axi) Imh;:

It would seem that this rather archaic and stiff type is most

appropriate to Athene Aiantis.
10.—Paus. 1. 40,6. ᾿Ενταῦθα καὶ τῆς Δήμητρος τὸ καλούμενον

Méyapov. Cf 42, 6, ἔστι δὲ καὶ Δήμητρος ἱερὸν
Θεσμοφόρου.

DEMETER standing veiled clad in chiton with diplois, holds in
either hand a torch ; before her, large torch fixed in the
ground.

42M, Aurel. Imh. (A xu.) Verus Commodus. M.S. 111. 876-9.
Sept. Severus. Geta. (A xii.) Β, M.

11.—Paus. 1. 43, ὁ, Πλησίον δὲ τοῦ τῆς ᾿Αφροδίτης ναοῦ
Τύχης ἐστὶν ἱερόν' ἹΙραξιτέλους καὶ αὕτη τέχνη.
TYCHE wearing mural crown, holds patera and cornucopiae.

Commodus. M. S. 111. 589, 380.
Sept. Severus. B. ΔΙ. Altar before her.
Domna. Mion. 11. 143, 332.
Geta. B. M. (A xiv.) Tyche facing, altar beside her.

The mural crown, which is clear on some specimens, may be
a mere later addition, but it is by no means unlikely that the
scheme of the coin, though quite ordinary, may be copied from
the statue of Praxiteles. It is said that Bupalus is the earliest
sculptor who made a statue of Tyche; but Praxiteles and

MEGARA: PAGAE. 57

Damophon of Messene set the fashion, so greatly followed in
later times, of setting up cultus-statues of the goddess. ἴῃ
all probability the normal type, as represented on our coii,
was the invention of one of them. The altar beside Tyche on
the coin is an indication of locality which tells in favour of the
view that we have to do with a copy of a statue.
12.— OTHER TYPES at Megara:

Herakles resting,

i Carac. P. Ὁ, Abh. 1845, pl. 11. 32.

Sept. Sever. Sanel. 11. xxv. 221.

Nemesis (?), right hand on her mouth, leaning on pillar
(possibly Paregoros, statue by Praxiteles. Paus. 1. 43, 6).

2 Geta. M.S. 111. 590, 389.

Terminal figure, with long hair, between pillars of a temple;
before it, a railing.

Geta. Imh. (A xv.)

13.—Paus. 1. 40, 3. Statues of twelve gods.
3. Temple of Isis.

42,7. Heroon of Ino.

43,5. Satyr of Praxiteles.

43,6. Temple and statue of Aphrodite Praxis;
in it, Peitho and Paregoros by
Praxiteles; Eros, Himeros, and Pothos,
by Scopas.

PAGAE.
1.—Paus. 1. 44, 4. "Ev δὲ ταῖς Παγαῖς θέας ὑπελείπετο ἄξιον
᾿Αρτέμιδος Σωτείρας ἐπίκλησιν χαλκοῦν ἄγαλμα, με-
γέθει τῷ παρὰ Μεγαρεῦσιν ἴσον καὶ σχῆμα οὐδὲν
διαφόρως ἔχον.
ARTEMIS running, clad in short chiton, holds torch in each
hand.

fi M. Aurel. Sanclementi 11. ΧΧΊΙ. 175.
Commod. Mion. 11. 143, 335. M.S. 111. 592, 396.

Similar figure on basis, altar before her.

4M. Aurel. Arig. 1. 81, 67.
Commod. Mus. Font. 1. pl. v. 8. Jmh. (AL)
S. Severus. M. S. 1. 593, 400 (Vienna). Leake, Suppl. 137.

Similar figure in temple: tree on either side.
i Commod. M. S. 11. 592, 397. Munich. (AI)
This figure of Artemis was (cf. Paus. I. 40, 2) a replica of
that made by Strongylion, the contemporary of Pheidias, for the
people of Megara. The coins of Megara and Pagae present us

58 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANTAS.

with figures of Artemis exactly alike. At Pagae this figure
appears ina temple and ona basis. There can therefore be no
doubt that it reproduces Strongylion’s statue. This has been
already stated by Streber, and accepted in Muller-Wieseler,
Denkmacler, u. 174 ἢ. Pausanias gives (l.c.) an account of the
tale which led to the erection of the statue, in which Artemis
seems to be embodied as the goddess of night, and is assimi-
lated to the Thessalian Hecate, who also is represented on coins
of Pherae of the fourth and third centuries as bearing two
torches.

2.—OTHER TYPES at Pagae.

Dionysus seated, holds kantharos and sceptre; panther before

him,

ΔῈ Sept. Sev. Turin. Panther at his feet. (A UI.)

Cybele seated, holds patera and sceptre; lion beside her.

a Sept. sev. BMS τ Αι αν.)

[sis in temple.

Bust of Tyche.

Gate with three doors, and figures over them.

ALS. Sev. Vienna. (A v.) Athens. (A-v1.)

Herakles on basis in building of two stories, surmounted by

statues.
JES. Sev. Vienna. (A VII.)
AEGOSTHENA.

1. Paus. 1, 44, 5. Ἔν Αἰγοσθένοις δὲ Μελάμποδος τοῦ
᾿Αμυθάονός ἐστιν ἱερόν, καὶ ἀνὴρ οὐ μέγας ἐπειργασμένος
ἐν στήλη.

Round BUILDING, whence rises a tree, entwined by a serpent.

J Geta. Athens. Ann. dell’ Inst. 1866, 336.

Child suckled by she-goat. (MELAMPUS ?)

Zi Sept. Sev. B. M. (A1.)

The tree entwined by a serpent is a regular symbol of the
grave, and this is sufficient proof that the building represented
on the coin of Geta must be a well-known tomb; but as to
details we have no information.

I am not aware that there is any record of the existence of a
tradition that Melampus was suckled by a she-goat: but nothing
is more likely. Such stories were told of highly-gifted men, and
it is fairly certain that the type of the coin must refer to a
noted native of Aegosthena, and so to Melampus, who was its
only remarkable man.

AEGOSTHENA: CORINTH. ov

2.—OTHER TYPES at Aegosthena.
Artemis as luuntress.
Ai Sept. Sev. dna. ας Lnst, 1866, 336.

CORINTH.

In criticising the types which we meet on the coins of
Corinth we must always bear in mind the words of Pansanias:
(11. 2, 6.) Λόγου δὲ ἄξια ἐν τῇ πόλει τὰ μὲν λειπόμενα ἔτι
τῶν ἀρχαίων ἐστίν, τὰ δὲ πολλὰ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀκμῆς
ἐποιήθη τῆς ὕστερον.

It will seem unlikely that a sack, like that of Corinth in B.c
146, would spare any works of art existing in the city. Yet it
appears, alike from the general statement of Pausanias just
quoted, and from the remarks which he makes as to various
temples and statues, that there were in Roman Corinth a great
number of works of early Greek art. Of these some may have
been brought into Roman Corinth from neighbouring towns ;
but others are in character so local that we can scarcely doubt
that they belonged to the early city, whatever theory we may
form as to the manner of their survival.

The Roman colonists, entering on a wealth of Greek art and
legend, adopted both with enthusiasm, and were very proud of
both. There is no other Greek city whereof the coins give us so
extensive information on the subject of temples and statues,
legends and cults. The imperial series of Corinth furnishes a
very full archeological commentary on the text of Pausanias:
indeed the correspondences between the two are so many and so
close, that it seems rather the rule than the exception for coin-
types to be copies of works of art, more especially works of
early Greek art.

1.—Paus. 1.1, 3. Προϊοῦσι δὲ ἡ πίτυς ἄχρι ye ἐμοῦ πεφύκει
παρὰ τὸν αἰγιαλόν, καὶ Μελικέρτου βωμὸς ἣν. ἐς
τοῦτον τὸν τόπον ἐκκομισθῆναι τὸν παῖδα ὑπὸ δελφῖνος
λέγουσι... . .. ἔστι δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ ᾿Ισθμοῦ τῆς ἀρχῆς.

MELICERTES reclining on dolphin, under pine. Cf. Stephani,

Compte Rindu, 1864, 209.

.E Hadrian. B. M. Imh.
ΔΙ. Aurelius. Imh. (Br)
Commodus, Β. Δ. In field, wreath. (B 11.)
J. Domna. Imh. In field, two pines, wreath, and palm. (B III.)
J. Domna. M.S. 1v. 119, 816. Three trees.

60 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

Melicertes on dolphin on altar, under pine (Isthmus sometimes
present gq. v.).
4 M. Aurel. Mus. Benkowitz. B.M. Isthmus standing by, holds rudder.
(B tv.)
M. Aurel. B. M. Athlete by, holds palm. (B v.)
Domna. M.S. 1v. 119, 817. Table, Triton, &c. in field.
ΔΙ. Aurelius. Copenhagen. Poseidon standing by. (B VI.)
Melicertes lying on dolphin under pine: the whole on table.
# Ant. Pius. Mion. τι. 181, 244. (B vit.)
Melicertes lying on dolphin, draped,
Z£ Auton. Mus. Hunter. Imh.
Auton. bv. Pegasus. tev. Melicertes on dolphin, head raised. Munich.

(B vitt.)
Ly Vers: ΒΝ oc.

Lond A a Δ 9} , ,
Paus. 1,7. Τῷ ναῷ δὲ ὄντι μέγεθος οὐ μείζονι ἐφεστήκασι
-“ Ψ' - ,
Τρίτωνες χαλκοῖ. καὶ ἀγάλματά ἐστιν ἐν τῷ προνάῳ,
δύο μὲν Ποσειδῶνος, τρίτον δὲ ᾿Αμφιτρίτης, καὶ Θάλασσα,
\ er rn \ \ ” - 5 > e ΄ » ,
καὶ αὕτη χαλκῆ. τὰ δὲ ἔνδον ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἀνέθηκεν
ΠΕ fe ’ A “ 7 ΗΠ , ἢ Ἢ
ρώδης A@nvaios, ἵππους τέσσαρας ἐπιχρύσους πλὴν
cr ς “ € \ , t / ’ ΠῚ ΄ \
τῶν ὁπλῶν: ὁπλαὶ δέ σφισίν εἰσιν ἐλέφαντος. καὶ
΄ a \
Τρίτωνες δύο mapa τοὺς ἵππους εἰσὶ χρυσοῖ, τὰ μετ᾽
γῶν ᾽ ΄ \ e 4 A \ oe , ΄, \
ἰξὺν ἐλέφαντος καὶ οὗτοι τῷ δὲ ἅρματι ᾿Αμφιτρίτη Kat
- ’ / \ A ] ΄ ’ > \
Ποσειδῶν ἐφεστήκασι, καὶ παῖς ὀρθὸς ἐστιν ἐπὶ δελ-
φῖνος ὁ ἸΠαλαίμων: ἐλέφαντος δὲ καὶ χρυσοῦ καὶ οὗτοι
πεποίηνται.

Palaemon standing on dolphin, draped.

JE M. Aurel. Mz. S. tv. 98, 666.
Ant. Pius. Mion. τι. 181, 245. Imh. (B Ix.) ¥
S. Severus. Mus. Arig. rv. pl. vir. 35. Isthmus seated by. Turin. (B x.)

Paus. 1. 2, 1. Τοῦ περιβόλου δέ ἐστιν évtus ]αλαίμονος ev
ἀριστερᾷ ναός, ἀγάλματα δὲ ἐν αὐτῷ Ποσειδῶν καὶ
Λευκοθέα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ ἸΠαλαίμων.

Round temple of Palaemon: within, sometimes Palaemon lying

on dolphin,

ἘΜ. Aurel. B. M. Ox approaching for sacrifice. (B x1.)
kL. Verus. B. M. Treesaround. Imh. (B xr)
Geta. B. M. Ox approaching.
Caracalla. Μ. S. rv. 122, 837. In front priest and ox. B. M. (B xull.)

Paus. It. 8,4. Μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἄγαλμα τοῦ “Eppod ἸΤοσειδῶν καὶ
Λευκοθέα καὶ ἐπὶ δελφῖνός ἐστιν ὁ ἸΠαλαίμων.
Palaemon (or Melicertes g. v.) lying on dolphin.

Palaemon sitting on dolphin.

4 Auton. M.S. rv. 50, 338. Imh. P. holds thyrsus.
M. Aurel, B. M.
L Verus. Mion. 11. 185, 280. (B xiv.) Florence. (B Xv.)
S. Severus. M.S. rv. 115, 784. P. holds wreath, Isthmus seated near.

CORINTH. 61
Commodus. Imh. Group on altar. (B Xvi.)
Carac. Parma. Dolphin bridled. (B xvi.)

It is evident from Pausanias’ statements, confronted with the
coins, that the one among the many stories as to the history of
Ino and Melicertes or Palaemon which was accepted at Corinth
was that which represented that Ino and Melicertes leaped into
the sea at Megara, and Palaemon was borne by a dolphin to the
part of the Isthmus where was the-sanctuary of Poseidon; that
he there died and was buried, and after death was worshipped
as a hero, and honoured by funeral games.

It is not easy to reconcile this tale, and the peculiar artistic
representation of Melicertes as a young boy which prevailed at
Corinth, with the view of those who suppose Melicertes to be a
form of the Tyrian god Melkarth. But this matters little to
the present purpose, for it is certain that the Corinthians knew
nothing of the proposed identification.

On coins there are three schemes of Palaemon and the
dolphin: sometimes he is sitting on it, sometimes standing,
sometimes lying; the standing figure certainly belongs to the
group of gold and ivory set up by Herodes Atticus in the temple
of Poseidon; the lying figure is connected with the pine-tree
and the altar under it, as well as with the round temple of
Palaemon ; the seated figure may perhaps be copied from the
statue mentioned by Pausanias lower down (11. 3, 4). But of
course such distinctions are too nice to be strongly insisted on.

Figures of Ino and Melicertes, as of Poseidon and other types
of Corinthian coins are to be found on the splendid cameo of
Vienna (Overbeck, Kunstmyth. 111., Gemmentafel 11. 8), which
presents us with an abridged picture of the region.

2.—Paus. 11. 1, 9. ᾿Ανάκειται Ταλήνης ἄγαλμα καὶ Θαλάσ-
σης, καὶ ἵππος εἰκασμένος κήτει τὰ μετὰ τὸ στέρνον,
Ἴνω τε καὶ Βελλεροφόντης καὶ ὁ ἵππος 6 Πήγασος.
(For Ino, οὗ 1. 44, 7 and 8.)

Tyo with her veil: beside her, hippocamp.

4 Ant. Pius. Imh. Choiz, pl. 11. 50. Vienna. (B xvuit.)
L. Verus. Berlin.
Ino holding Melicertes in her arms.
ΦῈ Μ. Aurel. Imh. (B χιχ.)
Domitian. Berlin. (B xx.)
Domitian. M. 11. 177, 218. Isthmus seated on rock, g.v. B. M. (B xx1.)
Sept. Severus. B. M. Isthmus seated on rock. ἢ. (B ΧΧΙΙ.)

Sept. Severus. M. 11. 187, 292. Ino on a rock; before her, dolphin.
Vienna. (B xx111.)

03 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

Caracalla. JImh. Jfonn. Gr. p. 160.
Ant. Pius. Mus. Nap. 7441. Ino and Melicertes: Sea deity holding out
his arms to receive the child. (B xxtry.)

The presence of the hippocamp suggests that the type first
described, which represents Ino without her child, may represent
one of the anathemata of the temple of Poseidon, there set up
in Roman times.

The second type, which appears full-face, represents Ino as
holding her child on her left arm, and grasping with her right
hand the end of her veil. In the third type she is in rapid
motion towards the sea, which is represented on one coin by a
marine deity, on others by a dolphin. Sometimes, however, the
locality is changed, and in the place of the sea appears a seated
figure of Isthmus. As this figure of Ino persists unchanged
from the time of Domitian to that of Septimius Severus, it
would seem to be based on some work of art.

3.—Cf. 2, 4. Κρώνειον. ἐνταῦθα Βελλεροφόντου τέ ἐστι
τέμενος καὶ, κ-τ.λ.

BELLEROPHON leading Pegasus: holds spear,

JE Sep. Sev. Imh. (C xxv.)

Bellerophon taming Pegasus: holds shield.

A; Nero, ΒΜ, αν (@-xxv1)

Hadvian, Paris, (Ὁ xxvit.)
Caracalla, B. M.

Bellerophon seizing Pegasus near spring Peirene.

J Auton. B. M. (€ xxyu.)

Bellerophon watering Pegasus: near by, Acropolis.

J Sept. Severus. B. M. (C xxrx.)

Pegasus drinking.

Di Aut. « inh, (Cx)

4.—Cf. Paus. 1.3, 5. Kpfvat.... θέας δὲ μάλιστα ἀξία ἡ παρὰ
τὸ ἄγαλμα τὸ τῆς ᾿Αρτέμιδος, καὶ ὁ Βελλεροφόντης
ἔπεστι, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ οἱ δι’ ὁπλῆς ἵππου ῥεῖ τοῦ Πηγάσου.

Bellerophon slaying Chimaera; beside him seated Artemis
who holds bow.

JE Caracalla. A. Ζ. 1843, pl. ix. 13. B.M. (C xxxu1.)

Bellerophon slaying Chimaera, on Corinthian column,

2 Geta. Mion. 11. 189, 304.

Bellerophon slaying Chimaera, mounted on Pegasus.

AX Auton. B. M. (ὦ xxx.)
Ji Hadrian. Β, M.
L. Verus. - B; M., &c.
[A list of Monuments on which the myth of Bellerophon is depicted, by Engel- _
mann, in Ann. d. Inst. 1874, p. 1, pls. A—F.]

CORINTH. 63

The presence of Artemis, and the use in some cases of a
column to support the group of Bellerophon and the Chimaera,
alike indicate that it is copied from the sculptured group of
the fountain. The water would flow from one of the forefeet of
Pegasus.

5.—Paus. τι. 1, 6. Λέγουσι δὲ καὶ of Κορίνθιοι Ποσειδῶνα
ἐλθεῖν «Πλίῳ περὶ τῆς γῆς ἐς ἀμφισβήτησιν.
Coin with head of HELIos on one side, Poseidon on the other.

A Aut. Roman period. B. Δ. Imh.
Cf. Poseidon, below.

6.—Paus. 11. 1,5 and 6. Καθήκει δὲ ὁ τῶν Κορινθίων ἰσθμὸς
τῇ μὲν ἐς τὴν ἐπὶ ΚΚεγχρέαις, τῇ δὲ ἐς τὴν ἐπὶ Λεχαίῳ

θάλασσαν.
IsTHMUS personified as a young male figure, standing, holding
rudders.

# Auton. Roman. B. Μ΄ ((@ xxx.) Imh. (C xxxiv.)
Domitian. B. Δ, (C xxxv.)
δ Aurel. «οι Ve xp. 7a:
Sept. Sev. St. Florian. (Ὁ xxxvi1.)

Isthmus seated, holds rudder.

Hadrian. Imh. Isthmus seated in temple, right hand rests on head, left on
rudder. (C( XXXVII.)

Sept. Severus. B. M. Similar, no temple. (C XxxvVIII.)

Hadrian. Isthmus seated on rock, holds inverted rudder ; legend IstHMvs.
W. Froehner. (C xxxrx.)

S. Severus. Imh. Isthmus seated left, holds rudder and palm ; before him
Ino and Melicertes, ¢ v.

Domitian. M. τι. 177, 218. Isthmus seated on rock, at his feet sea and
dolphin ; opposite Ino with Melicertes in her arms. (Millin. GJ. ex.
400, B xxi.)

See also above, (B 1v.) and (8 x.)

The coin which represents Isthmus as seated within a temple
(C XXXVIL.) repeats a Corinthian cultus-statue. No doubt Isthmus
was personified as a local hero; and tradition must, as the coins
show, have connected him with the history of Ino and Melicertes.
In his temple he was represented as a young and naked man,
seated on a rock, resting his right hand ov his head, and
supporting himself on his rudder, in an attitude of complete
repose. His face is turned backwards, implying probably that
Isthmus faced both the eastern and the western sea. Compare
a very similar figure of _Haemus.on the coins of Nicopolis.

If the standing figure of the coins represents a work of art,
it might well be a bronze statue erected in the neighbourhood
of the Isthmian temple; such a statue is not mentioned by
Pausanias. The two rudders in the hands clearly refer to

64 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANIAS.

the two harbours which existed, one on each side of the
isthmus.
7.—The two harbours, LECHAEUM and CENCHREAE.
(1) As nymphs turned opposite ways, each holding a rudder.
# Hadrian. B. M. Inscribed £ ΕΠ iGEN GH, (στ
(2) As reclining male figures.

Z Sept. Sev. Mill. Sylloge, pl. 11. 80. Acropolis; at the foot, on either
side, male figure reclining, one holds rudder, one anchor. See below,
(G οχχχιν.)

8.—Paus. 11. 2,2. ‘O δὲ ᾿σθμικὸς ἀγών, κ.τ.λ.
ATHLETES: Two naked wrestlers or boxers.

#i Aut. Roman. Imh. Wrestlers. (€ xtt.)
Aut. Roman. Imh. Boxers. (C€ xt.)
Aut. Imh. Boxer striking one who has fallen, (( ΧΙ.)

Runners.

ZE Auton. Rev. Num. 1851, p. 402. Armed runner.
Auton. Imh. Unarmed runner, holds palm. (€ x tiv.)
Domitian. Imh. Unarmed runner, holds palm. (C€ Xtv.)
Commod. M.S. tv. 111, 755. Armed runner.

Other Athletes.

#L Auton. Imh. Athlete standing, holds palm.
M. Aurel. B. M. Athlete standing, holds palm, beside Melicertes and
pine. See above, (B v.)

Conical building ; perhaps a spring-house ; possibly an obelisk
within a stadium.

# Domitian. Arig. 1. 67, 43. Berlin. (( xtv1.)
Hadrian. Revue Belge, 1860, pl. u.7. Imh. (C Xivi.)

On the Berlin coin the representation varies. There is a
door in the midst, flanked by standing figures, and surmounted
by a horseman.

BUILDING, from the midst of which rises a column surmounted
by a naked male figure, holding sceptre: and over each

side an equestrian statue.

ZL M. Aurel. M. τι. 184, 264. Leake, Eur. Gr. p. 41.
L. Verus. W. Froehner. (( ΧΙ, 11.)
S. Severus, Mion. Iv. 117, 806 (where the equestrian statues are wrongly
described as racing horses. )
Caracalla. Mion. ry. 124, 849.

This building may be meant for a stadium or a hippodrome ;
the latter is not mentioned by Pausanias.

ISTHMIA in wreath.

Nero. Imh. Anton. Pius and L. Verus. B. M. ἄς.

9—Paus. 1.1, 7. “Ed@ovte δὲ ἐς τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ ἱερὸν. . .
πιτύων δένδρα ἐστὶ πεφυτευμένα ἐπὶ στοίχου, τὰ πολλὰ
ἐς εὐθὺ αὐτῶν ἀνήκοντα. τῷ ναῶ δὲ ὄντι μέγεθος οὐ
μείζονι ἐφεστήκασι Τρίτωνες χαλκοῖ.

CORINTH. 65

Tetrastyle temple of Posgmpon surrounded by Tritons; tree

beside it.
#, L. Verus. M.S. rv. 108, 701.
Geta. Imh. Choix, pl. u. 51. (Ὁ xuix.) Vienna. (DL)
Aut. &c. Tetrastyle temple. (See E xcv.)

The details of architecture are among the matters as to
which the representations of coins are least trustworthy. But
in this particular case there is an obvious intention to represent
the temple of Poseidon as faithfully as space would allow. The
tree in front of the temple and the Tritons over the angles of
the pediment are certainly taken from the Poseidium. We may
therefore venture to accept the numismatic testimony that the
little temple of Poseidon was not peripteral but either prostyle
or amphiprostyle ; and we may even regard it as probable that
the temple was tetrastyle.
10.—Kai ἀγάλματά ἐστιν ἐν τῷ προνάῳ δύο μὲν ἸΠοσειδῶνος,

κατὰ. Cf. 2, 3, ἐν Λεχαίῳ Ἰ]οσειδῶνος ἱερόν, καὶ ἄγαλμα
χαλκοῦν. 3, 8, κρήνη καὶ II. ἐπ’ ἀντῇ χαλκοῦς.

Head of Poseidon, trident over shoulder.

Auton. B. M. Imh.

Hadrian. Imh. (DLL)
M. Aurel. Imh, &c. Overbeck, KX. 21., Munzt. v. 14.

Poseidon, naked, seated on rock, holds trident.
JE Auton. Imh. B. M. (Ὁ 111.)
Poseidon standing, holds dolphin and trident, one foot on rock.

JE Domitian. B.M. Imh. (ἢ 1111.}
M. Aurel. Turin. Behind Poseidon, tree.
Sept. Severus. Imh. Behind Poseidon, tree.

Poseidon standing, left foot on dolphin, in right hand trident.

# Domitian. Berlin.
ZL Domna. Aplustre in place of trident.

Poseidon seated, holds dolphin and trident.

# Trajan. B.M. (Ὁ iv.)
Hadrian. δέ. Flor. pl. 11. 16.
Commodus. [inh. B. M. Pallas standing before him. (ἢ tv.)
Verus. Imh. Victorious athlete before him. (D Lv.)

Poseidon standing, holds patera and trident, before altar of
Melicertes g. ¥.

JEM. Aurel. Copenhagen. Near by, tree.

Poseidon standing in chariot drawn by two Tritons.

Z Domitian. Overb. K. M. ul. pl. vi. 21. Imh, (D rv.)
Nero. B.M. (Ὁ 1.111.) Octavia. B. M.

Poseidon standing in chariot drawn by hippocamps.
# Nero. Β. Μ. Domitian. Imh. (D 11x.)
These figures in chariots may be confronted with Pausanias’
description, 1. 1, 7 above quoted, of the gréup of Poseidon and
H.S8.—VOL. VI. "

66 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

Amphitrite in a chariot drawn by four horses. The coins
cannot, however, embody a reminiscence of the group, as the
date of Herodes is later than that at which they were struck.
Of the various figures of Poseidon thus far mentioned the
only one which can be regarded as, a copy of a statue is that
which figures Poseidon as seated (D Ltv.-V1.), holding dolphin and
trideat. This type has the air of the cultus-statue of a temple ;
but we cannot be sure of the particular temple, for on one coin
the seated Poseidon is confronted with an athlete which seems
to point to the Isthmus, in another with Pallas, which seems
to indicate the market-place. (See below.)
11.—Paus. τι. 2,3. "Ev δὲ Keyypéais ᾿Αφροδίτης τέ ἐστι ναὸς
καὶ ἄγαλμα λίθου, μετὰ δὲ αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῷ ἐρύματι τῷ διὰ
τῆς θαλάσσης Ἰ]οσειδῶνος χαλκοῦν: κατὰ δὲ τὸ
ἕτερον πέρας τοῦ λιμένος ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ καὶ Ἴσιδος ἱερά.
Views of harbour of CENCHREAE, flanked on either side by
temple, and containing standing colossus of Poseidon
and three ships.
# Ant. Pius. Imh. Millingen, 2éc. pl. 11.19. Vienna. (D Lx.)

POSEIDON standing naked, holds dolphin and trident.

# Auton. B. M. Obv. Head of Helios. (D 1x1.)
Commodus. B. M. At feet of Poseidon, second dolphin. (D x11.)
Plautilla. Vienna. Opposite Poseidon armed Aphrodite. (D LXxII1.)

1515 Pharia, holds sail. Cf. τι. 4, 6, Isis Pelagia and Aegyptia.
Z Plotina. Mion. 11. 179, 226.
7 Verus: Τὴ. (1) xvs)

Head of APHRODITE: below, galley inscribed CENCREEAE.
ZE Nero. B.M. (ἢ .1xv.)

The coin of Millingen (D Lx.) is important, as it enables us to
identify positively the type of Poseidon represented in the
bronze statue of the mole. Poseidon stood erect and naked
with a dolphin in one hand and a trident in the other, a figure
well adapted for execution in bronze and for a statue of great
size. The date of its erection must have been subsequent to
the colony of Cesar; had it belonged to the old city Mummius
would scarcely have spared such a mass of metal. In case of
the B. M. coin (D. Lx), the second dolphin at the feet of the
god may be held to stand for the water of the harbour which
flowed at his feet.

The head of Aphrodite on the last coin cited must stand
for an abbreviated representation of the temple dedicated
to her.

CORINTH. 67

12.—Paus. 11. 2, 3. Τὴν δὲ ἐς Keyypéas ἰόντων ἐξ ᾿Ισθμοῦ
ναὸς ᾿Αρτέμιδος καὶ ξόανον ἀρχαῖον. Cf. 8, 5, μετ᾽ αὐτὸν
(Poseidon) Ἄρτεμις θηρεύουσα ἕστηκε (m the baths of
Eurycles),

ARTEMIS as huntress: holds torch and bow.
# Hadrian. Imh.

Hadrian. Arig. 1. 95, 41. Dog and stag beside her.

L. Verus. M. τι. 185, 271. B.M. Dog and stag beside her. (D txv1.)
S. Severus. . M. S. rv. 113, 770. B. M. Dog and stag beside her.
Commod. Imh. As before.

Hadrian. M.S. 1v. 82, 549. Pillar and stag beside her.

Ant. Pius. B. M. Dog running beside her. (D Lxvu.)

Artemis hunting, in temple, holds torch and bow.

Sept. Severus. δέ, Flor. 111. 1. Dog and stag beside her.
Plautilla. On either side of temple, tree. R. and F. (Ὁ ixvmt.)

Statue of Artemis, her right hand on her hip, in her left a bow ;
opposite, Poseidon (?); before each a cippus, that of

Poseidon surmounted by a dolphin.
#, Commodus. Imh. (ἢ Lx1x.)

The hunting Artemis in J LXVIII. must be a copy of a
statue in her temple; not the archaic xoanon, but a later
figure such as the Greeks from the fifth century onwards
commonly set up in the cella in place of the early statues, still
retaining the latter in the background.

The figure in D LXIx. would seem to be a copy of the
statue which stood in the baths of Eurycles near a statue of
Poseidon, and in the neighbourhood of his temple. On the coin
the figure of Poseidon is nearly obliterated: it is not indeed
certain that Poseidon is the deity represented : the figure seems
to wear a long chiton.
13.—Paus. 11. 2, 4. Πρὸ δὲ τῆς πόλεως κυπαρίσσων ἐστὶν

ἄλσος ὀνομαζόμενον Κράνειον. ἐνταῦθα Βελλεροφόντου
τέ ἐστι τέμενος καὶ ᾿Αφροδίτης ναὸς Medavidos. Cf. 2,8,
ἄγαλμα ᾿Αφροδίτης, “Ἑρμογένους Κυθηρίου ποιήσαντος.

APHRODITE standing ; holds sceptre and apple.
Δ Auton. (Obv. Head of Lais?) Munich.

Sabina. Imh.

Ant. Pius. Mion. 11, 181, 242.

M. Aurel. Vienna. (ἢ Lxx.)

Caracalla. Imh.

L. Verus. B. M.

Aphrodite naked, her right hand raised to her hair.
£Carac. St. Florian. (D Lxx1.)
Aphrodite in a biga drawn by Tritons.
# Nero. Munich. Holds mirror.
Agrippina, Jun. Turin, (D ΤΥ Χιι.

68 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

Compare the figure of Poseidon in ἃ similarbiga mentioned above.
In regard to Hermogenes, Brunn remarks (Gr. Kiinstler,

I. p. 522) that he must be assigned to the period of Greek

autonomy and not to the Roman age. The coins offer us no

safe data for further conclusions. __

14.—Paus. 11. 2,4. Καὶ τάφος Aaidos, ᾧ δὴ λέαι 4 ἐπίθημά

ἐστι κριὸν ἔχουσα ἐν τοῖς προτέροις ποσίν.
The monument of Lais; a lioness standing over a prostrate

ram, on Doric column.
# Auton. Obv. Head of Lais or Aphrodite. B.M. Imh. (ΕἸ Lxxiu.)
Copenhagen. (BE LXxIv.)
Brera. (Bf LXXxv.)
St. Florian. (BE Lxxvi.)
Sept. Severus. Vienna.
Geta. Imh.

This identification of the tomb of Lais the Elder has long
been accepted, and is so certain as to be beyond dispute. On a
B. M. specimen not here figured Leake read on the capital of the
column the letters EY. . . which he supposes to be an artist's
name (Leake, Supp. Europe, p. 121). I am inclined to think
that the appearance of letters is fallacious, and due merely to
the oxidation of the coin. But if we accept Leake’s reading it
is likely that the word beginning Eu is not an artist’s name,
for artists did not put their names in so couspicuous a position
on monuments, but some heroic name by which Lais may
have been, so to speak, canonised after her death. The name
EY®POSYNA would suit the space very well, and there is
certainly at the end an appearence of the letters. ..NA, as
well as of EY ... at the beginning.

The head on the obverse of the coin may be intended either
for Aphrodite or for Lais herself.
15.—Paus. 1. 2, 6. Ἔστιν οὖν ἐπὶ τῆς ayopas .

"Apteuls τε ἐπίκλησιν ᾿Εφεσία, καὶ κιτλ.

ARTEMIS ΕἸΡΗΈΒΙΑ : archaic simulacrum.
A.M. Aurel. M.S. Iv. 92, 626.
Sep. Severus. M.S. 1v. 112, 769. Beside her, Aphrodite holding shield.

16.—Paus. 1. 2, 6. Καὶ Διονύσου ξόανα ἐπίχρυσα πλὴν τῶν
προσώπων᾽ τὰ δὲ πρόσωπα ἀλοιφῇ σφίσιν ἐρυθρᾷ
κεκόσμηται: Λύσιον δέ, τὸν δὲ Βάκχειον ὀνομάζουσι.
τὰ δὲ λεγόμενα ἐς τὰ ξόανα καὶ ἐγὼ γράφω.

Bearded Dionysus standing to right, fully clad, holds kantharos

and thyrsos; at his feet, panther,
JE IIadr. Fox. (Bi uxxvit.)

CORINTH. Go

Young Dionysus, clad in short chiton, holds bunch of grapes
and thyrsos ; at his feet, panther.

#E Ant. Pius. B. M. (§ ixxviil.)

Young Dionysus wearing himation about his loins and leaning
on pillar: holds kantharos and thyrsos; at his feet, panther.

Trajan. Copenhagen. (KE LXxxIx.)

Young Dionysus clad in short chiton; holds kantharos and
thyrsos.

# Aut. Obv. Head of Kronos, Copenhagen. (Kj Lxxx.)

Young Dionysus seated on throne, holds thyrsos erect.

# Ant. Pius. B. M. (KE υχχχι.)
Vienna. γι his feet, panther. (ΕἸ LxxxI1.)

17.—Paus. τι. 2,8. "Ἔστι δὲ καὶ Τύχης ναός. ἄγαλμα ὀρθὸν
ie λίθου.

TYCHE standing, holding patera and cornucopiae, in hexastyle
temple ; before her, altar.

& Ant. Pius. St. Florian, pl. τι. 19.

Tyche, holds patera, rudder, το,

# Auton. M.S. tv. 53, 358. Holds rudder and patera over altar.
Hadrian. M.S. τν. 83, 555. Holds rudder and curnucopiae. ,
M. Aurel. Mion. 11. 183, 257. Holds patera and rudder.
Commodus. M. S. Iv. 111, 756, &c.

Plautilla. B. M. Holds patera and cornucopiae. (ΕἸ LXxxItI.)
Plautilla. B. M. Seated, holds patera and cornucopiae.
Sept. Sev. Imh. Seated. (ΕἸ LXxxiv.)

Head of Tyche, turreted.
# Hadrian. Imh. (ΕἸ Lxxxy.)
Agathos Daemon: male figure holding cornucopiae.
GEN. COL. COR. Octavia. B. M. See below, (@ cx.i11.)
The coin first described, that of the St. Florian Collection, is

unfortunately ill-preserved, and Dr. Kenner expresses doubts as
to the deity whom it is intended to represent. Arneth has
described it as Abundantia holding cornucopiae and patera ;
and this is the impression conveyed by the engraving in Kenner’s
book. If so, the figure must certainly be a copy of the statue
of Tyche in her temple. In consequence of the condition of
the coin we cannot be sure as to the attributes given to Tyche;
they may even be rudder and patera or cornucopiae, as in the
succeeding specimens.

18.—Paus. Il. 2,8. Ἑρμοῦ τέ ἐστιν ἀγάλματα χαλκοῦ μὲν καὶ

ὀρθὰ ἀμφότερα, τῷ δὲ ἑτέρῳ καὶ ναὸς πεποίηται.
HERMES naked, standing.

i Hadrian. Six. Right hand on head of ram, in left caduceus. (Εἰ Lxxxv1.)
Anton. Pius. B. M. Left arm rests on tree, caduceus in right. Innh,
(B LXXXVII.)

το NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANTAS,.

M. Aurel. Rev. Belge, 1865, pl. xvil. 9. ΑΒ last but one. se
Sept. Severus. M.S. ty. 113, 777. Holds purse and caduceus: ram.
Caracalla. M.S, ιν. 122, 834. Holds purse, caduceus, and chlamys: ram.

Hermes, clad in chlamys, carrying the child Dionysus on his
left arm.
# Trajan. Mion. 11. 179, 281. (ΕΣ LXXXvul.)

The coin of Antoninus (Εἰ LXXXVIL.) seems to represent a statue,
since the scheme of a figure resting on the trunk of a tree as a
support is more appropriate to sculpture than to die-sinking.

This figure is remarkable in being entirely nude.

The type of the first coin, (ΕἸ LXXXv1.), is closely like the
seated Hermes, of which we shall speak below ; indeed, so like
that both would seem to be work of one artist or one school,
probably of Imperial times.
19.—Paus. 11, 2, 8. Ta δὲ (ἀγάλματα) τοῦ Διός, καὶ ταῦτα

ὄντα ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ, τὸ μὲν ἐπίκλησιν οὐκ εἶχε, τὸν δὲ
αὐτῶν Χθόνιον καὶ τὸν τρίτον καλοῦσιν ὍὝΨιστον. Cf.
4, ὅ, ὑπὲρ δὲ τὸ θέατρόν ἐστιν ἱερὸν Διὸς Καπετω-
λίου, &e.

Zevs standing naked: holds thunderbolt and eagle.
Domitian.

Anton. Pius. Jmh. (B LXxx1x.)

Cf. 1,, Verus. Mion. 11. 184, 266.

Zeus running, naked, holds thunderbolt and eagle.
Auton, B. M. (E xc.)
20.—Paus.11.3,1. “Ev μέσῳ δὲ τῆς ἀγορᾶς ἐστὶν ᾿Αθηνᾶ χαλκῆ.
PALLAS standing, holds thunderbolt in right, shield in left.
#£ Auton. Obv. Head of Poseidon. Imh. B.M. (ΕἸ xc.)
Pallas holding Victory and spear; shield and owl beside her.

# Hadrian. M. S. rv. 81, 543. Imh. (B xcir.)
Ant. Pius. M.S. Iv, 86, 579/81. Arigoni, &c. Klagenfurt. (Ej ΧΟΙΙ.)
Sept. Sev. M. 11. 187, 291. Altar betore her.
Plautilla. B. Δ. Imh. Altar before her.
Sept. Sev. Μ, ὃ. tv. 112, 767. Owl before her.
Commod. Imh. Pallas holding patera and spear, face to face with seated
Poseidon. See above. (ἢ Ly.)

Head of Pallas, helmeted.
#. Ant. Pius. M. 8. rv. 86, 578. Copenh.

The altar placed before the figure of Pallas, who holds
Victory and spear, seems to show that this figure is a copy of a
statue,

This same figure in slightly varied form (patera for Victory)
is placed on the coin of Commodus in near proximity to Poseidon,
which may indicate for the original a locality near the Isthmus,
rather than in the agora,

CORINTH. 71

21.—Paus. τ᾿. 3, 1. Ὑπὲρ δὲ τὴν ἀγοράν ἐστιν ’'OxtaBias
ναὸς ἀδελφῆς ᾿Αυγούστου.
TEMPLE, facing, inscribed on the frieze CAESAR, AVGVSTVS or
GENT. IVLI.
4 Augustus. Imh. Livia. B. M. Tiberius. B. Δ. (Ε xciv.)
The same temple (7) not inscribed, in profile.
4 Auton. Imh. (ΕἸ xcv.)
Livia or Octavia seated, holds sceptre and patera.
#£ Tiberius. B. Δ. (Εἰ xcvi.) Agrippa, Jun. B. M.
Head of Roma, turreted.
Zi Aut. ev. Temple, &c. B. ΜΙ. &c.

It would seem probable from comparison of the coins that the
temple described by Pausanias as that of Octavia was really of
the Gens Julia. The seated lady holding sceptre and patera
may be copied from the statue in this temple. In details it
exactly resembles the figure on the coins of Tiberius commonly
called Livia, but more probably really standing for a personifica-
tion of the Gens Julia, Such a personification would naturally
take the features of one of the imperial ladies, Livia or Julia or
Octavia. 1} in the Corinthian temple the cultus-statue repre-
sented the Gens Julia in the likeness of Octavia, then it would
be very natural for any visitor to suppose that the temple was
dedicated to Octavia.
22.—Paus. 3, 2. “Ex δὲ τῆς ἀγορᾶς ἐξιόντων τὴν ἐπὶ Λεχαίου

προπύλαιά ἐστι, καὶ ET αὐτῶν ἅρματα ἐπίχρυσα, τὸ
μὲν Φάεθοντα Ἡλίου παῖδα, τὸ δὲ “Ἥλιον αὐτὸν
φέρον.
PROPYLAEA, surmounted by quadrigas, &c.
Augustus. Mion. τι. 172, 185.
Domitian, Munich. (F xevu.)
Hadrian. Mion. 11. 179, 280. (FP ΧΟΥ 1.)
Ant. Pius. Imh. (F xcrx.)
Commodus. Imh. (F'c.)
M. Aurel. M.S. 1v. 106, 682. Surmounted by biga.
Helios in quadriga.
#, Nero. M. τι, 176, 209,
Domitian. B. M. (F αἱ.)
L. Verus. Vienna. (F cu.)
Caracalla. ΒΒ. M.
Helios in long chiton, radiate, holds whip.
fi Verus. M. 11. 184, 269. Vaillant.
23.—Paus. 11. 3,2. Ἔν δεξιᾷ ἐστὶν Ἡρακλῆς χαλκοῦς. Cf.
4, 5, ξόανον γυμνὸν Ἡρακλέους: Δαιδάλου δὲ αὐτό
φασιν εἶναι τέχνην,

72 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANTAS.

HERAKLES standing.

ZE M. Aurel. Mion. 11. 182, 252,253. M.S. rv. 96, 653.
Sept. Severus. Mion. 11. 157, 288.
Caracalla. B.M. In attitude of Glycon’s statue. (F crit.)

Herakles naked, to left; club and skin in left; right hand
raised; to his left, Aphrodite Urania with shield, and
Poseidon.

4, Commodus. Vienna. (F cry.)

As two of the deities in this group, Poseidon and Aphrodite;
are copied from statues, there is a presumption that the third
is so also. The figure of Herakles is not very distinct, but
it is unclad but for a lion’s skin.
24,.—Paus. 11. 3, 2. Μετὰ δὲ αὐτὸν ἔσοδός ἐστι τῆς Πειρήνης

ἐς τὸ ὕδωρ.

PEIRENE, personified as a seated nymph, rests left hand on rock,
holds in right, pitcher.

# Plautilla. Viena. (F cv.)

Sept. Severus. B.M. Imh. Behind her, snake erect.

Sept. Severus. Beside rock, dolphin.

Sept. Severus. B. M. Before her, fountain in form of Scylla. (F ΟΥ̓.)

Plautilla. Vienna. Behind her, snake erect. (F evi.)

Caracalla. Berlin. Bebind her, snake erect.

L. Verus. Mill. Ree. τ᾿. 21. Vienna. Before her, Pegasus drinking from
founiain ; in background, Acrocorinthus. (F CVIII.)

Sept. Severus. B. M. Before her, Pegasus drinking from fountain; in
background, Acrocorinthus.

As the figure of Peirene is repeated without variation during
several reigns, it is likely that it is copied from a statue which
adorned the spring.
25.—Paus. 1.3, 2. “Ete γε δὴ καὶ ᾿Απόλλωνος ἀγαλμα πρὸς

τῇ Πειρήνῃ καὶ περίβολός ἐστιν.

APOLLO, naked, on basis, right elbow rests on term; below,
a basin.

Z#, Commod. M.S. τν. 106, 721. Berlin. (F crx.)

In this case there can be little doubt that we have the copy of
a statue.

26.—Paus. 11. 3, 4. Αὖθις δ᾽ ἰοῦσιν ἐπὶ Λεχαίου τὴν εὐθεῖαν
χαλκοῦς καθήμενός ἐστιν Ἑρμῆς, παρέστηκε δέ οἱ κριός.

HERMES SEATED on ἃ rock, caduceus in left, right hand on head °
of ram beside him.

M. Aurel. M.S. 1v. 94, 6389. B. M. (F cx.)
L. Verus. Mion. 11. 186, 281.
Caracalla. Gréau, 1481.
Sev. Alexander. Mev. Belge, 1865, xv. 10.
Hermes as above, seated in distyle temple.

# Ant. Pius. Mion. rm. 181, 246, Imh. (F ΟΧΙ.)

CORINTH. 13

Hermes with caduceus, seated in round temple, on which

dolphins : on either side of temple a tree,
Domna. Gréau, 1479.

In the coins first described we have an unmistakable copy uf
the statue of Hermes. The details of the coin correspond
altogether to the description of Pausanias: and the represen-
tation of the temple in which the figure sits completes the
proof.
27.—Paus. τι. 3, 5. Κρῆναι δὲ πολλαὶ μέν ava τὴν πόλιν
πεποίηνται Tagav.... . θέας δὲ μάλιστα ἀξία ἡ παρὰ
τὸ ἄγαλμα τὸ τῆς ᾿Αρτέμιδος, καὶ ὁ Βελλεροφόντης
ἔπεστι.

ARTEMIS SEATED on a rock, holds bow; before her Belle-
rophon on Pegasus slaying Chimaera. Cf. above, under

Bellerophon.
JE Caracalla. 4, Ζ. 1843, p!. ΙΧ. 13. B. M.

Statues of Artemis seated are quite or almost unknown. It
would therefore seem most reasonable to suppose that the
figure of Artemis on the coin is intended merely to mark the
locality. She is seated not on a throne but on a hill, just as we
should expect in a deity inserted to indicate locality.

28.—FOUNTAINS. ©
#E Anton. Pius. M.S. τν. 88, 596. (Fontana, τι. 2.)

L. Verus. M. 1. 185, 272. Fountain surmounted by Scylla. Imh.
(F οχιι.)

Commodus. Turin. Fountain surmounted by Scylla. (F cxriL)

Sept. Severus. B. M. Fountain surmounted by Scylla. See above, under
Peirene.

Domna. M.S. rv. 119, 813. Scylla between fountains.

Commodus. Imh. Basis on which dolphin, his tail supported by rudder.
(F cxIv.)

L. Verus. M. τι. 185,276. Seated lion (fountain ortomb). B. M. (F οχν.)

The coins furnish us with the designs of at least four of the
fountains of Corinth: (1) that surmounted by Bellerophon and
Pegasus (see above); (2) that surmounted by Scylla; (3) that
surmounted by dolphin and rudder; (4) that surmounted by
a lion. We may perhaps add to the list the fountain Peirene, if
it was surmounted by a figure of the nymph of that name.
Probably all these fountains were mere decorative works of
Roman times.
29.—Paus. τι. 4,1. Tod μνήματος δέ ἐστιν οὐ πόρρω Χαλινί-

τιδος ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἱερόν...... τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμά οἱ τοῦτο ξόανόν
ἐστι, πρόσωπον δὲ καὶ χεῖρες καὶ ἄκροι πόδες εἰσὶ
λευκοῦ λίθου.

74 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS,

ATHENE CHALINITIS holding in right hand bridle, in left hand,
spear and shield.
4E Hadrian. Imh. (F cxvt1.)
Probably a copy of the temple-statue, Acrolithic statues do
not seem to have been peculiar to any age.
30.—Paus. τι. 4,5. Πρὸς τούτῳ τῷ γυμνασίῳ (the ancient)
ναοὶ θεῶν εἰσίν, ὁ μὲν Διὸς ὁ δὲ ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ. τὰ δὲ ἀγάλ-
ματα, ᾿Ασκληπιὸς μὲν καὶ Ὕγίέίεια λευκοῦ λίθου, κ.τ.λ.
ASKLEPIOS and HyGIEIA (together or separate).
ΖΦ L. Verus. B. M. Imh. Together. (F cxvu.)
Sabina. M. 11. 180, 237. Asklepios.
Commodus. M.S. iv. 106, 724. Theup. B. M. Asklepios,
L. Verus. M.S. rv. 102, 693. Hygieia.
Gordian. M. 11. 189, 308.
Asklepios (?) in a temple.
fi Nero. M.S. tv. 73, 487.
Temple, with steps ; below these, serpent.
ΞΖ M. Aurel. M.S. iv. 101, 686. Arig. 11.7, 72. Athens. (F cxvutt.)

It cannot be considered certain that this temple in antis
beneath which is a snake is that of Asklepios. It may be
a heroon: indeed from its small size and the curious way in
which it is erected on a basis, this seems likely. The figure in
the temple on the coin of Nero does not seem to be Asklepios
at all, but an emperor; on similar coins of the B. M.a figure

clad in a toga is clearly depicted.
31.—Paus. 11. 4,6. “Es δὴ τὸν ᾿Ακροκόρινθον τοῦτον aviodaiv
ἐστιν Ἴσιδος τεμένη.
1515 holding sistrum and vase.
# Hadrian. Arig. 1. 95, 39. Turin. (F cxrx.)
32.—Paus. 11. 4, 7. Ὑπὲρ τοῦτο Μητρὸς θεῶν ναῦς ἐστι.
CYBELE seated, lion beside her.
Anton. Pius. Μ. 5. rv. 85, 576.

M. Aurel. Imh. (F cxx.)
Domna. Imh.

33.—Paus. U1. 5, 1. Ἀνελθοῦσι δὲ ἐς τὸν Ἀκροκόρινθον ναός

ἐστιν Ἀφροδίτης, ἀγάλματα δὲ αὐτή τε ὡπλισμένη καὶ
“Ἥλιος καὶ Ἔρως ἔχων τόξον.

APHRODITE, naked to waist, holds shield, sometimes with Eros.

# Auton. Obv. Head of Aphredite. B. M. Eros behind her. (( οχχι.)
Hadrian. M. u. 179, 232. Without Eros.
M. Aurel, Imh. Without Eros.
M. Aurel. M.S. rv. 94, 635. Arig. Eros beside her.
L. Verus. M. τι. 185, 273. Imh. Eros beside her. (G@ cxXII.)
Commodus. B. M. Imh. Eros beside her. (@ CXXIII.)
Commodus. M. 5. Iv. 107, 725. Two Erotes by her.
Plautilla. B. M. Two Erotes by her. (@ CxxIv.)

CORINTH,

-1

ῷι

Aphrodite on ACROCORINTHUS, without temple.
Plautilla. B. M. Laynes. (@ cxxv.)
Aphrodite in temple on Acrocorinthus.

4 Anton. Pius. M.S. Iv. 87, 588. Arig. Tetrastyle temple.
Hadrian, Parma. Tetrastyle temple.
L. Verus. B. M. (G@cxxvi.) 8S. Severus. B. M. Tetrastyle temple.
ΔΙ. Aurel. M. 11. 182, 255. Distyle temple.
Δ. Aurel. M.S. iv. 94, 634—636. Distyle temple, with Eros.
S. Severus. M.S. tv. 118, 778. Arig. Distyle temple.

Acropolis rock ; Pegasus flying above it.
Claudius. M. 11. 175, 202. (@ cxxvit.)
Temple on Acrocorinthus,

#E Claudius. M. ur. 172,187. Imh. (G@ cxxvul1.)

Hadrian. M. 11. 179, 229. Β. Μ. (G@ ΟΧΧΙΧ.)

M. Aurel. M. S. rv. 101, 687. B. M. At foot, buildings and trees.
(G cxxx.) Arolsen. (@ CXXXI.)

L. Verus. M.S. rv. 104,710. Mill. Rec. 11. 20. At foot, tree; Pegasus
flying. Naples. (ἃ CXXXII.)

Commodus. M. 8S. ty. 102, 765. Imh. At foot, tree; Pegasus flying.
(4 οχχχαι.)

Aphrodite on Acrocorinthus, between two harbours (cf. above).
ZS. Severus. B. M. Vienna. (G@ cxxxIv.)
Aphrodite Urania and Poseidon. See Poseidon.

A.M. Aurel. M.S. tv. 94, 637.
Plautilla. Vienna.

Aphrodite and Herakles.

i M. Aurel. M.S. Iv. 94, 638. Arig.
Commodus. M. S. Iv. 109, 739. Arig. Eros between them. St. Flor. 1. 18.

Aphrodite, Poseidon, and Herakles (see above).
# Commodus. M. S. Iv. 107, 728. Theup. Vienna.

This important series of coins furnishes complete proof, as
Imhoof has pointed out more than once (see Monn. Grec. p. 158),
of the type of the statue of Aphrodite which stood on the
Corinthian acropolis. The figure of armed Aphrodite which
existed there under the Empire was no archaic figure of
an armed goddess, such as the Syrian Astarte, but an un-
mistakable Greek Aphrodite, using the shield of Ares as a
mirror. This is a motive natural to Roman rather than to
Greek art, and we may be almost sure that the statue does not
date from an earlier period than that of Julius Cesar. Indeed
to his time it would be peculiarly appropriate, considering his
descent and pretensions.

Imhoof has also observed that Lenormant’s idea that the
helmeted head on the early autonomous coins of Corinth is that
of the armed Aphrodite must be given up, seeing that
Pausanias is the only writer who speaks of a statue of armed

τὸ NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

Aphrodite at Corinth, and it is certain that the figure seen
by him was not helmeted: there is, therefore, no evidence of the
existence at Corinth of a helmeted Aphrodite.

The type of Aphrodite herself is fixed and _ scarcely
varies ; no doubt it reproduces the exact scheme of the statue.
But the figure or figures of Eros which appear beside her
seem to be mere attributes, as they hold wreaths and not
bows.

The temple of Aphrodite is represented sometimes as tetrastyle
sometimes as hexastyle, sometimes as prostyle and sometimes as
peripteral: all of which proves that in matters of architectural
detail coins are not trustworthy. ᾿
34.—OTHER TYPES at Corinth.

Kronos standing, holds sickle.

Ant. Pius Paris) 1 Guexxevy)

Head of Kronos, sickle over shoulder.

Auton. Copenhagen.

Hephaestus, naked to waist, tongs in left hand.

M. Aur. Imh. (G@ cxxxvVt.)

Ares to right, holding spear and trophy.

M. Aur. Copenhagen. (@ cxxxvil.)

Triptolemus on winged car drawn by serpents.

Auton. M. 11. 169, 162. (( cxxxvul.)

Male figure seated (Populus), clad in himation, inscribed POPVL.
COL . COR.

Verus. Paris. (@ cCXXxIx.) ;

Military female figure (Achaia?) seated on rock, holds spear and
sword ; in front, ears of corn.

Geta. Imh. (G CXL.)

Victory flying to left.

M. Aurel. Récanier. (( cCxLt.)

Victory facing.

Augustus. Imh. (G cxtit.)

Male figure, Genius, holds patera and cornucopiae, inscribed
GEN . COL . COR.

Auton. B. M. (G@ cxtiir.)

Palm tree within inclosure.

Ant. Pius. Munich. Imh. L. Verus. B. M. (( cxtiv.)

The following in Mionnet seem to be some of the above types
wrongly described ; Eros in quadriga; Pan holding pedum; Pharos
and ship ; Head of Indian Dionysus; Cadmus attacking serpent,
(see under Argos—Opheltes.)

CORINTH: SICYON. 77

Some of the types proper to Corinth are repeated on the
coins of other cities. For instance, the seated Hermes, and
the Aphrodite of the Acropolis, are repeated on the coins of
Patrae. In the same way the Corinthian coins repeat the
Argive type of Opheltes.

SICYON.
1.—Paus. 11. 7, ὃ. Αὐτοὶ δὲ Σικυώνιοι τὰ πολλὰ ἐοικότι
τρόπῳ θάπτουσι. τὸ μὲν σῶμα γῇ κρύπτουοι, λίθου δὲ
ἐποικοδομήσαντες κρηπῖδα κίονας ἐφιστᾶσι, καὶ ἐπ᾽
αὐτοῖς ἐπίθημα ποιοῦσι κατὰ τοὺς ἀετοὺς μάλιστα τοὺς
ἐν τοῖς ναοῖς.
TOMB (ναΐδιον) on basis, between two terminal figures and two

cypresses.

#E S. Severus. Mion. 8. rv. 169, 1123.
Caracalla. Imh.
Plautilla. Allier, pl. v1.15. B.M. (H1.)
Caracalla (without and with cypresses). Imh. (H 1.)

The design of the coin illustrates very well the words of
Pausanias. Below, we see a basis or pedestal, apparently round ;
on it, four pillars erected, supporting an aétoma, In the midst
there seems to be a statue. It does not appear, either from
Pausanias’ words, or from the coin, that the vaidvov on the
pedestal had walls: rather it would seem that the roof rested
on pillars only. The terminal figures on the coin may represent
smaller tombs, or they may define the bounds of atemenos. The
cypress was sacred to Hades: see Lajard, Culte du Cypres,
p. 231.

2—Paus. 11. 7,5. “Ev δὲ τῇ viv ἀκροπόλει Τύχης ἱερόν ἐστιν
Ἀκραίας, μετὰ δὲ αὐτὸ Διοσκούρων. ξόανα δὲ οὗτοι τε
καὶ τὸ ἄγαλμα τῆς Τύχης ἐστί.

TYcHE AxRAIA, standing, with patera and cornucopiae,

ὅτ J. Domna. M.S. rv. 170, 1127.
Plautilla. Β. Μ. (H 11.)
Geta. M.S. 1v. 173, 1146. Imh. (With altar.)

3.—Paus. u. 7, 5. Μετὰ δὲ τὸ θέατρον Διονύσου ναός ἐστι"
χρυσοῦ μὲν καὶ ἐλέφαντος ὁ θεός, παρὰ δὲ αὐτὸν Βάκχαι
λίθου λευ «οὔ.

Dionysus standing, holds kantharos and thyrsus, panther at

his feet.

# Domitian. M. S. 1v. 169, 1122.
S. Severus. (H Iv.)
Domna. B. M. (Hv.)
Caracalla, M.S, rv. 170, 1183. Wiezay.

78 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANTAS.

Baccua or Maenad in attitude of ecstasy, holds knife.

J. Domna B.M. (H vi.) Imh. (H vi.)

4.—Paus. 11. 7, 8. Οἱ δὲ παῖδας ἑπτὰ καὶ ἴσας παρθένους
ἐπὶ τὸν Σύθαν ποταμὸν ἀποστέλλουσιν ἱκετεύοντας
(yearly ceremony).

SUPPLIANT BOY (7) with raised hands, holding stemma.

.E Autonomous. B. δῖ. M® Alexander the Great. B. M.
J. Domna. Turin. (H viii.)
Plautilla. B. M. (H 1x.)

This figure, the attribution of which is doubtful, has greatly
perplexed numismatists. It has been called hitherto a bird.
catcher, or, as by Miiller (Alex. le Gr. p. 219), Apollo in dancing
attitude, holding up taenia. In numismatics the type is
peculiar to Sicyon: and as it recurs without variation from
the time of Alexander the Great to that of Plautilla, it must.
almost certainly repeat a Sicyonian work of art.
5.—Paus. τι. 7, 9. To ArodAAwow...... τὸν δὲ ἐπ᾽ ἐμοῦ
ναὸν καὶ τὸ ἄγαλμα ΤΠυθοκλῆς ἀνέθηκεν (cf. 9, 7, ruined
temple of Apollo Lycius: 10, 2, adytum of Apollo
Carneius).

APOLLO in citharoedic dress, holding lyre.

Domna. Leake, Supp/. 145.
Plautilla. ΜΙ, 11. 200, 381.
Caracalla. M.S. Iv. 171, 1135, Theup. and Sestini.

It seems not improbable that the Pythocles here mentioned,
who is evidently regarded by Pausanias as a well-known man,
is the same as the Pythocles mentioned by Pliny (NV. H. xxxIv.
51) as a famous artist of the period after Ol. 156. This clue
would be of value if we could be sure that the coin reproduced
a statue of Pythocles: but this cannot be proved.

6.—Paus. 11.9, 6. Τῆς δὲ ἀγορᾶς ἐστὶν ἐν τῷ ὑπαίθρῳ Ζεὺς
χαλκοῦς, τέχνη Λυσίππου. Cf. ἔστι δὲ Ζεὺς Μειλίχιος
. σὺν τέχνῃ πεποιημένα οὐδεμιᾷ.
ZEUS standing, undraped; holds thunderbolt and sceptre.
* Caracalla. B. M. (H x.)
Zeus seated, holding patera and sceptre.
#E Geta. M.S. 1v. 172, 1148... Vaillant.

The standing figure of Zeus would certainly well suit the
school of Lysippus: it belongs to group 11 of Overbeck’s
arrangement (Kunstmyth., τι. p.151). Zeus is entirely undraped,
and of a scheme which especially befits bronze. If the Sicyonian
statue of Zeus Meilichius was a copy of that of Argos, it must

SICYON. 79

have been seated, like the second type here cited. See below
under Argos.
7.—Paus. 11. 10,1. "Ev δὲ τῷ γυμνασίῳ τῆς ἀγορᾶς ὄντι οὐ
μακρὰν Ἡρακλῆς ἀνάκειται λίθου, Σκόπα ποίημα. ἜἜστι
δὲ καὶ ἑτέρωθι ἱερὸν Ηρακλέους.
HERAKLES standing, holds apples (?) and club ; lion’s skin over
left arm.
# Geta. B.M. (H x1.)
The figure of Herakles on the coin is unfortunately indistinct :
but the deity seems to be unbearded; and of somewhat slight build.

8.—Paus. 11.10, 2. Ἔς δὲ τὸ Ἀσκληπιεῖον éotovor......
τῇ μὲν Ilavos καθήμενον ἄγαλμά ἐστι (cf. 11, 1, βωμὸς
Πανὸς).

PAN walking, holds goblet, and goat by the horns.

® Plautilla. Imh. (H x11.)

9—Paus. 1.10, 2. To Ackdrnmieiov...... écerOovar δὲ
ὁ θεός ἐστιν οὐκ ἔχων γένεια, χρυσοῦ Kal ἐλέφαντος,
Καλάμιδος δὲ ἔργον" ἔχει δὲ καὶ σκῆπτρον, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς
ἑτέρας χειρὸς πίτυος καρπὸν τῆς ἡμέρου. Cf. 11, 6, δίαναθ ᾿
of Hygieia (archaic).

ASKLEPIOS standing, with usual attributes.

#£ Caracalla. Μ. S. tv. 170, 1181. (Vaill.)
Domna. (H xull.)

Hygieia standing.
ff Geta. M. 11. 201, 382. B.M. (H xv.)
10.—Paus. 11. 10, 4. Μετὰ τοῦτο ἤδη τὸ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ἐστὶν

ἱερόν τὸ μὲν δὴ ἄγαλμα καθήμενον Κάναχος
ον eye μὲν δὴ ἄγαλμα καθήμενον Κάναχ

΄ \ a
Σικυώνιος ἐποίησεν... .. πεποίηνται δὲ ἔκ τε χρυσοῦ

καὶ ἐλέφαντος, φέρουσα ἐπὶ τῇ κεφαλῇ πόλον τῶν χειρῶν
δε ἔχει τῇ μὲν μήκωνα τῇ δὲ ἑτέρᾳ μῆλον.
APHRODITE standing, in attitude of Venus de’ Medici.

#£ §. Severus. Bologna. Beside her Eros on basis, holding torch. (H xv.)
Domna. Arch. Ζ. 1869. pl. xxi. 7. Imh. Beside her dolphin. (H XVI.)

Dove.
AM Auton. Β. Μ΄.
11.—Paus. 1.10, 7. Ἔν δεξιᾷ Depaias ἱερὸν Ἀρτέμιδος" κομι-
σθῆναι δὲ τὸ ξόανον λέγουσιν ἐκ Φερῶν. Cf. 9, 6, Artemis
Patroa; 7, 6, Artemis Limnaea; 10, 2, τῇ δὲ ἴΑρτεμις
ἕστηκεν.
ARTEMIS, clad in long chiton and mantle, with torches in her
raised hands.
4E Geta, Dresden. (H xvit.) Imh. (H xvuit.)

80 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANIAS.

Similar figure, in temple.
ἈΠ Caracalla. Paris. (H χιχ.)

There can be little doubt that we have in this figure a copy
of the statue which stood in the temple of Artemis Pheraea.
We are told that it was brought from Pherae. The coins of
Pherae, from the fourth century onwards, present us with a
female figure holding two torches or one torch, which may be
meant for Artemis, but more probably represents Hecate, a
deity greatly worshipped in the south of Thessaly. But the
distinction is not important, as the torch-bearing Artemis and
Hecate are closely allied.
12.—Paus. 11. 11, 2. Καταβαίνουσι δὲ ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πεδίον ἱερόν

ἐστιν ἐνταῦθα Δήμητρος. ἱδρῦσαι δέ φασιν αὐτὸ
ΤΓλημναῖον.
DEMETER seated on throne, wears polos, holds ears of corn in
each hand.
4E Sep. Severus. Imh. (ἢ xx.)
The throned figure of the coins has much of the air of the
cultus statue of a temple.
13.—Paus. 11.11,1. Nads ἐστιν ᾿Αθηνᾶς (cf. 12, 1, Temple of
Athene at Titane).
PALLAS standing ; holds lance and buckler.
f& Caracalla. Μ. S. 1v. 170, 1180. Vaill.
14.— OTHER TYPES :
Serapis and Cerberus.
Eros with torch.
Nike.
PHLIUS.
1—Paus. τι. 12, 4. "Acwmds .... ἐξεῦρε tod ποταμοῦ τὲ
ὕδωρ.
Butting BULL (type of river or of Dionysus, see below).
At Auton. B.M. (Ε 1.)
2.—Paus. 11. 13, 3. Τὴν δὲ θεὸν ἧς ἐστὶ τὸ ἱερὸν of μὲν
ἀρχαιότατοι Φλιασίων Τ᾽ανυμήδαν, οἱ δὲ ὕστερον “Ηβην
ὀνομάζουσιν.
Head of ΗΕΒΕ (2), hair rolled.
AM Auton. B.M. (Ε 1}

This attribution is not certain, but highly probable. The
character of Hebe’s head is not unlike that of Hera, but younger
and less dignified. She wears no ornaments, but her hair is
simply rolled at the back.

PHLIUS: CLEONAE. $1

3.—Paus. τι. 13,5. "ἔστι yap cal’ Apréuidos ἐνταῦθα χαλκοῦν
ἄγαλμα, ὃ ἐφαίνετο ἀρχαῖον εἶναί μοι.

ARTEMIS hunting, with dog.

# Geta. Rev. Belge, 1860, pl. 11. 9.

4.—Paus. 11. 18, 5. Καωτιόντων δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἀκροπόλεώς ἐστιν
᾿Ασκληπιοῦ ναὸς ἐν δεξιᾷ, καὶ ἄγαλμα οὐκ ἔχον πω γένεια.

ASKLEPIOS standing, bearded, with attributes.

ES. Severus. M.S. τν. 159, 1044. Jowrn. of Hell. Stud. iv. 50.
Caracalla. M. 11. 198, 368.

5.—Paus. 11. 13,7. Διονύσου σφίσιν ἱερόν ἐστιν ἀρχαῖον.

Bull butting (Dionysus?). Ivy: grapes.

# Auton. Β. Δ.

Head of Dionysos. ev., Bull butting and thyrsos.

Auton. Imh.

6.—OTHER TYPE. Tyche sacrificing at altar: holds patera and
cornucopiae.

# Plautilla. B. M. Sept. Sev. Geta.

CLEONAE,
1—Paus. 1. 15, 1. Ἐνταῦθά ἐστιν ἱερὸν ᾿Αθηνᾶς, τὸ δὲ
ἄγαλμα Σκύλλιδος τέχνη καὶ Διποίνου.
ATHENE standing, holds lance and shield (archaic).
# Geta. M. 11. 237,58. B.M. (H1.) Cf. Caved. Syic. 105.

The Athene of the coin seems an interesting record of the
archaic statue of Dipoenus and Scyllis, whom Pliny gives to the
50th Olympiad, and who were among the first to produce
national Greek types of various divinities. The present coin-
type represents a tigure of Athene retaining the pose of the still
older Palladia, but far more refined in detail. The helmet is
larger, the aegis on the breast worked out; folds appear in the
chiton, and the feet are articulate.

_ 2.—OTHER TYPES :
Eagle on altar. (See Argos.)
Asklepios seated with dog (cf. Epidaurus).
Isis, holds sistrum and vase,
Plautilla. Β. M.
Isis Pharia.
Carac. St. Flor. pl. 111, 19.
Tyche, holds patera and cornucopiae, at altar.
Plautilla. B.M. (Hi)
Artemis accompanied by hound.

Horse ridden by human head.
Domna. Β. M.

ἘΠ Ξ- VOL,’ Vir. G

32 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS,

NEMEA. (Coins of Argos.)
1—Paus. I. 15, 2. Ἐν τούτοις τοῖς ὄρεσι TO σπήλαιον ἔτι
δείκνυται τοῦ λέοντος.

HERAKLES strangling the Nemean lion.

#i Trajan. M.S. tv. 240, 27.
Sept. Severus. M. τι. 235, 48.
Domna. Leake, p. 20. (1 1.)

2,—Paus. u. 15, 2. Tov ᾿Ὀφέλτην ἐνταῦθα ὑπὸ τῆς τροφοῦ
τεθέντα ἐς τὴν πόαν διαφθαρῆναι λέγουσιν ὑπό τοῦ
SpdxovTos ...... ἐνταῦθα ἔστι μὲν ᾿Οφέλτου τάφος.
OPHELTES, the serpent, and Hypsipyle.

# Hadrian. <Arch. Z. 1869, pl. xxi. 12. Hypsipyle, and serpent twined

around Opheltes:

Anton. Pius. Imh. Ophelies in coils of serpent. (I 11.)

L. Verus. JZ.c. No. 138. Nurse, a hero, and Opheltes lying dead; also
serpent,

S. Severus. M. Foutena, I. pl. 11.18. Hero fighting snake, Opheltes on
the ground. B. Turin. (J 111.)

J. Domna. B. M. Hypsipyle fiying, snake twined around Opheltes. (I Iv.)

Plautilla. 4. Ζ. 1869, No. 11. Serpent coiled over dead Opheltes, Imh.

γ.)

Domna. Munich. Naked male figure, facing; at his feet Opheltes, to

right, snake. (I VI.)
Also 4 of CortntH. Domitian. Mill. An. αἰ, C. pl. iv. 14. Hero fighting

serpent, who holds Opheltes in mouth. Imh, (I vm.)

S. Severus. Mill. dn. G. C. pl. tv. 16. Similar. Imh. (JI yt.)

Caracalla, Fox. Hero fighting snake, beneath whom Ophceltes, Hypsipyle
fleeing. (J 1x.)

The variety in the types representing the fate of Opheltes
is remarkable, and seems to prove that at Argos the subject was
a favourite one with artists. For illustrations of the subject
from vases, &c., see Overbeck’s Heroische Bildwerke. Some of
the above-described coins are published by Dr. Friedlander in
the Archdol. Zeitung for 18 69,

3.—Paus. τι. 15, 3. Kai δὴ καὶ δρόμου προτιθέασιν ἀγῶνα
ἀνδράσιν ὡπλισμένοις Νεμείων πανηγύρει τῶν
χειμερινῶν.

Symbols of NEMEAN GAMES (also Heraea, cf. Paus. 11. 24, 3).

# Anton. Pius. M. τι. 234, 44. Imh. NEMEIA HPAIA,. Table,
peacock, and eagle.

Anton. Pius. Leake, Suppl. 114. N€M€IA in parsley crown.
M. Aurelius. Verus. Commodus. S. Severus. Domna. 4s last.
Domna. Table, on which eagle, wreath, and owl.

4,—Paus, Il, 15, 3. Ὄρος ᾿Απέσας ἐστὶν ὑπὲρ τὴν Νεμέαν,
ἔνθα ἸΤερσέα πρῶτον Διὶ θῦσαι λέγουσιν ᾿Απεσαντίῳ.
Symbol of Zeus on Mount ΑΡΕΒΑ5. (Coins of CLEONAE.)

2 8. Severus. Hill, on which a cippus or altar, surmounted by an eagle.
Mus. Sanclem. N. 8. τι. pl. xxv. No. 219.

ARGOS. 83
Domna. Mus. Arig. 1. Jmpp. vill. 18. Similar.
Geta. Mus. Arig. 1. Jmpp. 1x. 187. Similar.
Herakles clad in lion’s skin, resting at the foot of Mount Apesas,
on the summit of which is an eagle. (Coin of ARGos.)
Sept. Sev. Berlin. (I x.)

HERAEUM near Argos. (Argive coins.)

5.—Paus. 11. 17,3. Ἔν δὲ τῷ προνάῳ τῇ μὲν Χάριτες ἀγάλ-
ματά ἐστιν ἀρχαῖα.

The three CHARITES, naked, embracing one another (conven-
tional group).

Sept. Severus. Imh. (1 x1.)

6.—Paus. τ. 17, 4. To δὲ ἄγαλμα τῆς “Hpas ἐπὶ θρόνου
κάθηται μεγέθει μέγα, χρυσοῦ μὲν καὶ ἐλέφαντος,
Πολυκλείτου δὲ ἔργον' ἔπεστι δὲ οἱ στέφανος Χάριτας
ἔχων καὶ Ὥρας ἐπειργασμένας, καὶ τῶν χειρῶν τῇ μὲν
καρπὸν φέρει ῥοιᾶς, τῇ δὲ σκῆπτρον... .. κόκκυγα δὲ
ἐπὶ τῷ σκήπτρῳ καθῆσθαί φασι, K.T.r.

HERA SITTING, holds pomegranate and sceptre, turreted.

# Anton. Pius, B. M. Mion. S. rv. 242, 43. (I x11.)
L. Verus. Β. M. Also Sept. Severus and Caracalla.
Domna, Overbeck, K. M. Hera, pl. 11. 3. Imh. (I xu.)

Head of Hera, wearing stephanos adorned with flowers,
AR # Autonomous. B. M. Imh. ([ xv.)
Paus, 0. 17,5. <Aeyetrar δὲ παρεστηκέναι τῇ Ἥρᾳ τέχνη
Ναυκύδους ἄγαλμα Ἥβης.
Hera and HEBE, peacock between them (cf. below).
# Anton. Pius. Overbeck, Hera, pl. 1.1. Imh. (I xv.)

The coins reproduce faithfully the details of the statue of
Polycleitus, even, in some instances, to the cuckoo on her sceptre
(I xu). They are fully discussed in Overbeck’s Kunstmythologie
(1. p. 43). It is elsewhere suggested (Gardner, Coins of Elis,
p. 19) that the flowers with which the stephanos of Hera is
adorned on [ ΧΙΥ. are an abridged symbol of the Horae and
Charites whose figures were introduced in the same place by
Polycleitus.

The statue of Naucydes is also repeated on the coin, a

standing figure with one hand advanced, clad in long chiton,

7.—Paus. 11. 17, 6. Χρυσοῦ δὲ καὶ λίθων Nawrrovtwv’ Abpiavos
βασιλεὺς ταὼν ἀνέθηκεν.

PEACOCK (see above).

# Hadrian. B.M. Peaceck facing, tail spread. (I xv.)
Gordian 111. Salonina, B. M. Imh. Peacock to right.

Q
bo

84 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS,

The peacock on Hadrian’s coin is probably a copy of his
anathema: that on the later coin may be a merely conventional
representation.

ARGOS. .
8.—Paus. 0.18, 1, Ἔκ Μυκηνῶν. δὲ ἐς "Ἄργος ἐρ; ομένοις ἐν
ἀριστερᾷ ἹΤερσέως παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν ἐστιν ἡρῷο:
PERSEUS standing, holding Gorgoneion in right, «arpa and

chlamys in left.

Hadrian. Imh. (I xvii.)
L. Verus. B.M. (1 xvi.) Also Mion. 8. Iv. 246, 66.
Sept. Severus. B.M. Also Mion. S, Iv. 249, 86.
Valerianus. M.S. Iv. 255, 124.

Perseus facing, holds in right harpa, in left Gorgoneion, above
shield, which rests on cippus.

S. Severus. Imh. (1 xrx.)
S. Severus. Imh. Choiz, pl. τι. 67. To right, Pallas turning away. (I xx.)

Head of Perseus, winged ; in front, harpa.
Ant. Pius. Venice. ([ xx1.)

The type of Perseus (I xvi. Xv), which is repeated with-
out variation from the time of Hadrian to that of Severus,
should be copied from a statue.

9.—Paus. 19, 3. ᾿Αργείοις δ᾽ τῶν ἐν τῇ πόλει TO ἐπιφανέ-
στατόν ἐστιν ᾿Απόλλωνος ἱερὸν Λυκίου" τὸ μὲν οὖν
ἄγαλμα τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν ᾿Αττάλου ποίημα ἣν ᾿Αθηναίου
(οἵ. Brunn, Gr. Kiinstler, 1, p. 558; Attalus’ date is
unknown),

APOLLO, naked, left arm resting on pillar, in right, twig
(Lycius ?)

7E Verus. M.S. tv. 245, 63.

Cf. Paus. 1.19, 8. Ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐστὶν ᾿Απόλλων ’Aquteds.

24, 1. Naos ᾿Απόλλωνος. ... TO δὲ ἄγαλμα TO νῦν
χαλκοῦν ἐστὶν ὀρθὸν, Δειραδιώτης ᾿Απόλλων καλού-
μενος.

Apollo advancing, naked, drawing arrow from quiver.
fi M. Aurel. M. τι. 235, 45.

Apollo in Citharoedic costume.

i Verus. B.M. Holds lyre and patera. (1 xxu1.)
S. Severus, M.S. rv. 247, 76. Holds lyre and plectrum.
Caracalla. Imh. Holds lyre and plectrum. (1 xxi )
Plautilla. Sest. Mus. Hed. p. 137, 40. Holds lyre and plectrum.
J. Domna. M.S. Iv. 251, 102. Holds lyre and patera.
Plautilla. Imh. Holds lyre and patera. (1 xxtv.)

Head of Apollo: Wolf: tripod.
# Auton. B. M.

ARGOS. 85

10.—Paus. 11. 19, 4-7. BoOpos, πεποιημένα ἐν τύπῳ ταύρου
μάχην ἔχων Kai λύκου. σὺν δὲ αὐτοῖς παρθένον ἀφιεῖσαν
πέτραν ἐπὶ τὸν ταῦρον.

Battle of bull and wolf.

# Auton. Imh. Béotien u. Argos, p. δῦ, No. 17.

11.—Paus. τι. 20,1. "Αγαλμά ἐστι καθήμενον Διὸς Μειλιχίου,
λίθου λευκοῦ, ἸΠΤολυκλείτου δὲ ἔργον.

Cf. 19, 7. Διὸς ξόανον. 19, 8. Βωμὸς Ὑετίου Διός. 20, 0.
Διὸς ἱερὸν Ὡωτῆρος. 21, 2. Δεὶς Φυξίου βωμός. 22, 2.
ΓΑγαλμα ἀρχαῖον Διός. 24, 8. Ἔπ᾽ ἄκρᾳ δὲ ἐστι τῇ
Λαρίσῃ Διὸς ἐπίκλησιν Λαρισαίου ναός... .. το δε
πα τ EvXov, ΚΙΤ ΔΙ 1... ἐνταῦθα ἀναθήματα κεῖται
καὶ ἄλλα καὶ Ζεὺς ξόανον, δύο μὲν ἣ πεφύκαμεν ἔχον
ὀφθαλμούς, τρίτον δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ μετώπου.

ZEUS seated, holds patera and sceptre.

# Anton. Pius. M.S, Iv. 242, 42.
M. Aurelius, M.S. rv. 244, 55,
L. Verus. (K xxv.)

Zeus seated, holds eagle or Victory.

Sept. Severus. Holds eagle.
Plautilla. Holds victory. Mion. 11. 235,50. (K xxv1.)

Zeus striding, naked, holds eagle and thunderbolt.
Plautilla. M. S. τν, 253, 112. Sestini.
Head of Zeus. Ἂ

i Hadrian. M.S. tv. 240, 28. Imh. (K xxvu.)
L. Verus. M.S. rv. 245, 58.

Paus. 11. 20,3. Τούτων δ᾽ ἀπαντικρὺ Nepelou Διός ἐστιν
ἱερὸν, ἄγαλμα ὀρθὸν χαλκοῦν, τέχνη Λυσίππου.
Zeus, naked, standing, sceptre in right hand: eagle at his feet.

/E Hadrian, B. M.
M. Aurelius. Imh. (K XxvIti.)
Sept. Severus. B. M. Χο.
J. Domna. M.S. rv. 251, 99. Plautilla. M.S. rv. 253, 118.

The number of statues of Zeus at Argos is so large that it is
not possible to be sure whether we have copies of any of them
on coins. It is possible that the type first described (K xxv.)
may reproduce the figure of the Zeus Meilichius; and the type
of the head of Zeus is decidedly fine and early ; we may suspect
it to be a reminiscence of the head of Polycleitus’ statue. With
more confidence we may suppose that the standing Zeus of the
coins (K XXVIII.) is a copy of Lysippus’ statue ; for in this case
the coin-type persists practically unchanged through several
reigns.

86 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

But in all these cases the evidence of copying is internal
rather than external; we therefore prefer to leave the matter
for future discussion.
12.—Paus. 1. 20, 3. Πέραν δὲ τοῦ Νεμείου Διὸς Τύχης ἐστὶν

ἐκ παλαιοτάτου ναός, εἰ δὴ, &C.
TYCHE standing, holds cornucopiae.

Auton. Third century, B.c. B. M. Holds patera and cornucopiae. (K ΧΧΙΧ.)
M. Aurelius. Imh. Holds patera and cornucopiae.
L. Verus. M.S. rv. 246, 65. Holds patera and cornucopiae.
S. Severus. ΔΙ. τι. 285, 47. Holds patera and cornucopiae. At her feet

altar.

Domna. Imh. Geta. M. τι. 236, 51. Holds patera and cornucopiae.
Domna. Rev. Belge, 1860, pl. τι. 12. Holds rudder and cornucopiae.
Caracalla. Imh. Turreted, holding sceptre and cornucopiae. (K Xxx.)

Head of Tyche, turreted.

Ant. Pius. M. 1. 234, 41. (K XxXx1.)
M. Aurelius. M.S. rv. 244, 57.

13.—Paus. τι. 19, 6. Ta δὲ ξόανα ᾿Αφροδίτης καὶ “Eppod, τὸ
μὲν ᾿Επειοῦ λέγουσιν ἔργον εἶναι, «.7.A. Cf. 19, 7. Καὶ
“Ἑρμῆς ἐς λύρας ποίησιν χελώνην ἠρκώς.

HERMES standing, right arm resting on trunk of tree, in left
caduceus and chlamys.

Sept. Severus. Imh. (K xxxul.) Florence. (K xxxul1.)

Apparently a copy of a statue.

14.—Paus. τι. 20, 3. Πλησίον δέ εἰσιν ἐπειργασμένοι
λίθῳ Κλέοβις καὶ Βίτων, αὐτοί τε ἕλκοντες τὴν
ἅμαξαν καὶ én αὐτῇ ἄγοντες τὴν μητέρα ἐς τὸ
“Hpaiov.

CLEobIs and Biron drawing their mother in a chariot.

# Domna. Copenhagen. (K xxxiv.)
Plautilla. Arch. Z. 1869, pl. 23, 9.

Dr. Friedlinder has already (Archdol. Zeit. 1869, p. 98)
brought this numismatic type into connexion with the words of
Pausanias. But various treatments of the group may, of course,
have been familiar to the die-sinker, and there is nothing to
prove that he copied the relief seen by the Traveller.
15.—Paus. 1. 21, 1. Ἔστι δὲ ναὸς ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ. Cf. 23, 4

below.
ASKLEPIOS standing, with usual attributes.
Sept. Severus. Imh. (K xxxv.)
16.—Paus. τι. 21, 9. Τὸ δὲ ἱερὸν τῆς Λητοῦς ἔστι μὲν ov
μακρὰν τοῦ τροπαίου, τέχνη δὲ τὸ ἄγαλμα ἸΠ]ραξιτέλους"
τὴν δὲ εἰκόνα παρὰ τῇ θεῷ τῆς παρθένου ΧΝλῶριν
ὀνομάζουσι.

ARGOS. 87

Leto, right hand raised to shoulder, the left extended over

small figure of CHLORIS.

4EM. Aurelius. Imh. (K xxxv1.)
Sept. Severus. Imh. Choiv, pl. 11. 68. (K Xxxvit.)
J. Domna. B. M. (K xxxviil.) Millingen, Syl/. pl. 111. 32.
Caracalla. Rev. Belge, 1860, pl. 111. 1.

The same group in a temple.
# Anton. Pius. M.S. 1v. 243, 48. Wiczay, xvir. 379.

This is a clear instance of the copying on coins of a statue,
and very instructive. One coin figured (K xxxvit.) differently
represents the action of Leto’s right hand, which clearly, on the
later coins, seems raised to a quiver on her shoulder. On this
coin also the head of Leto is turned to the left, on the other
coins to the right. But it is easy to see that these slight varia-
tions only arise from the fact that in the case of the first coin the
artist made an attempt to represent the statue from the front,
while in the case of the later coins it is depicted in profile. Com-
bining our representations we can form a fairly complete notion
of the statue of Praxiteles. Leto stood clad in along chiton with
diplois, holding some object (a torch?) in her left hand, and
raising her right to her shoulder. The small figure of Chloris
was close to her elbow, clad like the goddess herself.
17,—Paus. 11. 22,1, ᾿Αντικρὺ δὲ τοῦ μνήματος τῶν γυναικῶν

Δημητρὸς ἐστιν ἱερὸν ἐπίκλησιν Πελασγίδος. Cf. 18; 8
Δήμητρος Μυσίας ἱερόν. 21, 4. Κεῖται τοῦ ΤἸΠύρρου τὰ
ὀστᾶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τῆς Δήμητρος.

DEMETER standing.

# Hadrian. M.S. Iv. 241, 84, Wiczay, pl. xvu. 878. Holds sceptre and
ears of corn,
Hadrian. M. S. rv. 241, 83. Holds sceptre and poppy head.
Ant. Pius. M.S. rv. 248, 49. Paris. Holds in both hands ears of corn
and poppy heads.
L. Verus. M.S. 1v. 245, 64. Vaillant. Holds in both hands ears of corn
and poppy heads.
8. Severus. M.S. 1v. 247, 77. Mus. Font. Holds in both hands ears οἱ
corn and poppy heads.
J. Domna. M.S. tv. 251, 104 .Turin. Holds in both hands ears of corn
and poppy heads. (K XXXIX. )
Plautilla. MP s 8. Iv. obs. 114. Holds in both hands ears of corn and
poppy heads.
M. Aurelius. Imh. Holds in both hands ears of corn and poppy heads.
18.—Paus, 11. 22, 5. Mera δὲ ταῦτα Διοσκούρων ναός.

The Dioscurti on horseback.
# 8. Severus. sane S. tv. 248, 85. Wiczay, pl. xvir. 382.
19.—Paus. 11. 22,6. Πλησίον δὲ τῶν ᾿Ανώκτων Εἰληθυίας ἐστὶν
ἱερὸν ἀνάθημα ᾿ Ὡλένης. (cf. 18, 8. Ἱερόν ἐστιν Εἰλειθυίας).

89 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

EILEITHUIA, holding in each.hand a torch, one raised, one lowered.

.E Commodus. M. S. tv. 246, 71. (Ang. ὙΠ 31, 210.)
M. Aurelius. Berlin. Two such figures, each with quiver at back, an altar
between them. (K Xt.)

The reason for supposing this type to represent Eileithuia
lies in the fact that there is a type almost identical at Aegium
in Achaia, which reproduces a statue of Eileithuia accurately
described by Pausanias (VIL. 23, 5), ταῖς χερσὶ τῇ μὲν ἐς εὐθὺ
ἐκτέταται, τῇ δὲ ἀνέχει δᾷδα. The quiver might seem more
appropriate to Artemis; but she could scarcely be, like
Eileithuia, duplicated.
20.——Paus. 11. 22, 7. Πέραν ἐστὶν ‘Exatns ναὸς, Σκόπα δὲ τὸ

ἄγαλμα ἔργον τοῦτο μὲν λίθου, τὰ 6 ἀπαντικρὺ χαλκᾶ

“Ἑκάτης καὶ ταῦτα ἀγάλματα, τὸ μὲν Πολύκλειτος ἐποίησε,

τὸ δὲ ἀδελφὸς Πολυκλείτου Ναυκύδης Μόθωνος.
HECATE triformis.

# Hadrian. Leake, Eur. Gr. p. 20.
Sabina. M.S. rv. 242, 41. (Mus. Font. pl. 11.17.) Munich. (K x11.)

21.—Paus. 1. 22, 9. Ἔν δὲ τῷ γυμνασίῳ τῷ Κυλαράβου
Καπανεία ἐστὶν ᾿Αθηνᾶ.- Cf. 21, 8. ᾿Αθηνᾶς δὲ ἱδρύ-
σασθαι Σάλπιγγος ἱερὸν φασιν Ἡγέλεων.

ATHENE standing, holding patera, shield, and spear.

.E Hadrian. M. S. tv. 240, 27.

Athene with Perseus. See Perseus.

22,—Paus. 11. 24, 3. Ἐπ ἄκρᾳ δὲ ἐστι τῇ Aapicn ......
καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶς δὲ ναός ἐστι θέας ἄξιος. Cf. 24, 2, Τοῦ
Δειραδιώτου δὲ ᾿Απόλλωνος ἔχεται μὲν ἱερὸν Ἀθηνᾶς
᾿Οξυδερκοῦς καλουμένης Διομήδους ἀνάθημα. 23, ὅ.
Λέγουσι... .. ἄγαλμα κεῖσθαι παρὰ σφίσιν ᾿Αθηνᾶς
τὸ ἐκκομισθὲν ἐξ ᾽Ιλίου.

Archaic PALLADIUM.

MR # Auton. Fourth century. B. M.
28, Verus. M.S. tv. 245, 60. Arig. rv. 50, 9.

Palladium in temple on the Larissa.
© Antoninus Pius. Imh. B. M. (K xt.)
Sept. Severus. B. M.
Domna. M.S. Iv. 251,100. Arig.
DIOMEDES advancing, holds sword and Palladium.

AX Auton. Fourth century. B. M. Imh. (K xuiz.)
Auton. Fourth century. B. M. At his feet swan.
ZE Anton. Pius. Imh. (K xiiv.) M.S. Iv. 244, 52) 58.

Diomedes, sword in hand, standing before statue of Pallas, on
which he lays hands.
¥, Sept. Severus. Mus. Font. 1. p. 66, 21.

ARGOS, 50

Diomedes seated on altar, his leg bent under him, holds sword

and Palladium.
© Hadrian. B.M. (K xtv.)

[t would seem from the not very clear language of Pausanii.,,
that there was a temple of Athene Oxyderkes on the slope of
the Acropolis-hill, and another of Athene on the summit. In
one of these temples would be probably the statue supposed to
have been brought by Diomedes from Ilium. A priori one
would naturally suppose this statue to have been in the temple
first mentioned, said to have been dedicated by Diomedes. But
the coins appear to prove that this was not the case; but that
the Ilan Palladium was set up in the temple on the summit of
the hill. For the archaic image of Pallas, which on some coins
(K xwul.) Diomedes carries, is identical in details with the
image represented on other coins (K XLII.) as occupying the
temple on the Acropolis. In form it is an ordinary archaic
Palladium, representing the goddess as stiff and erect, holding
a spear in her raised right hand, and a shield on her left arm.
Below, the figure passes into a mere column.

23.—Paus. 11. 23, 1. Ναός ἐστιν ἐν δεξιᾷ Διονύσου" τὸ δὲ
ἄγαλμα εἶναι λέγουσιν ἐξ Εὐβοίας (ancient). Cf. 23, 7.
Διονύσου ναὸς Κρησίου, and 24, 7.

Dionysus standing ; holds kantharos and thyrsos.
' #f Hadrian. M. 11. 234, 40. (K xiv1.)
Hadrian. M.S. tv. 241, 35. With panther.
Commodus. M. S. Iv. 246, 68.
Caracalla. M.S. Iv. 252, 107.

This representation of Dionysus is of a very unusual type.
The god appears to be beardless, though this is not certain. He
is enveloped in the folds of an ample himation, and holds an
upright thyrsos in his left hand.
24.—Paus. I. 23, 4. To δ᾽ ἐπιφανέστατον ᾿Αργείοις τῶν

᾿Ασκληπιείων ἄγαλμα ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔχει καθήμενον ᾿Ασκλη-
mov λίθου λευκοῦ, καὶ παρ᾽ αὐτὸν ἕστηκεν ὙὝγίεια'
κάθηνται δὲ καὶ οἱ ποιήσαντες τὰ ἀγάλματα, Zevodiros
καὶ Στράτων.

ASKLEPIOS seated on throne; in front of him, snake.
4E Sept. Severus. B.M. (K χυγσιι.)

Domna. M. S. Iv. 251, 108. Wiczay, xvui. 387.

Valerian. M.S. rv. 255, 125.

HYGIEIA standing, her right hand extended over an altar, around

which twines a snake; in her left, patera. Cf. Tyche above.
Geta. Imh. M.S, rv. 253,116. (K xuvu.)

90 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

Xenophilus and Strato lived probably late in the third
century B.c., if we may judge from a tablet bearing their names
published by Ross, Jnser. Ined. 1. No. 58, in which we find the
forms A and o. There seems every probability that the coms
reproduce their types of the Asklepios and Hygieia. Both are
very unusual. The Asklepios is apparently a copy of the statue
of Thrasymedes at Epidaurus, and is of thoroughly Pheidian
type. The Hygieia is an interesting and remarkable type, differ-
ing, I think, from all known statues of the goddess. She is
clad in a long chiton, and wears an overdress, of which the end
hangs over her left arm.
25.—Paus. Il. 23, 7. Κατάγεων οἰκοδόμημα, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ δὲ ἣν

ὁ χαλκοῦς θάλαμος, ὃν ᾿Ακρίσιός ποτε ἐπὶ φρουρᾷ τῆς
θυγατρὸς ἐποίησε.

DANAE receiving the golden shower, seated on throne.

# Hadrian. B. Μ. (L Xtix.)

Although this is probably the only appearance of Danae on
coins, the attribution is fairly certain. Danae’s face is turned
upwards ; her bosom is bare, her extended hands grasp the ends
of her garment. Parallel representations on vases and in wall
paintings may be found in Overbeck, Kwnstmyth., τι. p. 406.
26.—Paus. tl. 24,1. ᾿Ανιόντων δὲ ἐς τὴν Ἀκρόπολιν ἔστι μὲν

τῆς ᾿Ακραίας “Ἥρας τὸ ἱερόν.

Head of Juno Lanuvina in goat-skin (7).

# Sept. Severus. Mus. Font. 11. pl. v. 14. '

27.—Paus. 11. 24, 2. To στάδιον, ἐν ᾧ τὸν ἀγῶνα τῷ Newel
Au καὶ τὰ “Hpaia ἄγουσιν.

Wreath of HERAEA. See also Nemea.

& Sept. Severus. Leake, Add. 157. Arch. Z..1843, p. 151. (HPAIA, palm.)
Sept. Severus. Kenner, St. Florian, pl. 111.6. (HPAIA, shield.)
Domna. M.S. rv. 252,106. HPEA.

Geta. M.S. rv. 254,117. Arigoni (?)
28.—Paus. Il. 24,2. Τῶν Αὐγύπτου παίδων... μνῆμα. χωρὶς
μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ τῶν σωμάτων ἐνταῦθα αἱ κεφαλαί.

A DAUGHTER of DANAuvs, holding in each hand a head.

# Ant. Pius. M.S. rv. 2438, 46.

This description is scarcely to be relied on; the figure may be

a Maenad, or Demeter, holding ears of corn in each hand.

29.—Paus. 11. 25, 1. Kara μὲν δὴ τοῦτο ᾿Αφροδίτης κεῖται
ξόανον, πρὸς δὲ ἡλίου δυσμὰς “Apews. εἶναι δὲ τὰ
ἀγάλματα ἸΤολυνείκους λέγουσιν ἀναθήματα.

ARGOS: EPIDAURUS. 91

ARES standing to right helmeted; holds in left hand,
branch (?).
# Hadrian. Leake, Eur. p. 20.
Antinous. M.S. rv. 242, 40. (Gotha.)
S. Severus. (L τ.)

APHRODITE standing to left, in long drapery; with right hand
drawing forward her veil; before her, dolphin.

# Ant. Pius. Verus. Imh. (L111)

The dolphin may refer to the river Charadrus which flowed
close to the temple. The figure of Aphrodite is stiff and
archaic, and closely draped.

30.—OTHER TYPES at Argos:

1515 standing, holds sistrum and vessel.

, Hadrian. Munich.
Mamaea. Imh.

Isis seated, suckling Horus (?)
#E Hadrian. B. M. (1, 111.)
Female figure with wheel on hand (Nemesis 2).

/E Sep. Severus. M. S. rv. 248, 79/80.
Caracalla. Wicz. xvii. 386.

Female figure holding wheel on basis.

ΚΣ Sep. Severus. Imh. (1, 1111.) M. Font. 11. 15.

Shrine; Herakles in it.

ΝΖ 8. Severus. Imh. M.S. rv. 249, 91.

Female figure seated to left, on rock ; male figure approaching
her with hand raised. (Phaedra and Hippolytus ?)

# Hadrian. St. Florian. (J tiv.)

Poet (Homer 2) seated, a scroll in his hand.
fi M. Aurel. M.S. 1v. 244, 55.
Verus. M. 11. 235,46. Imh. (L Lv.)

Draped male figure holding by the throats two serpents.
ff Hadrian. B. M. Imh. (L 1,01.)

Terminal figure, male.

i Hadrian. Imh. Cf. Verus. B M.
Temple key: Symbol B.

AR MA Auton. Β. Μ. Imh. &c.

Head of Faustina the Elder, wearing Phrygian cap.
iM. Aur. Imh.

Head of Julia Domna, wearing Phrygian cap.
fi 8. Sev. Turin.
EPIDAURUS.
1—Paus. 11. 26. ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ δὲ ἱερὰν μάλιστα εἶναι τὴν γῆν
ἐπὶ λόγῳ συμβέβηκε τοιῷδε... (Coronis) .... ἐκτίθησι
TOV παιδα.... ἐκκειμένῳ δὲ ἐδίδου μὲν οἱ γάλα μία τῶν

92 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

περὶ TO ὄρος ποιμαινομένων αἰγῶν, ἐφύλασσε δὲ ὁ κύων
ὁ τοῦ αἰπολίου φρουρός ..... ᾿Αρεσθάναν εὑρόντα ἐπι- .
θυμῆσαι τὸν παῖδα ἀνελέσθαι καὶ, K.T.r.

SHEPHERD finding ASKLEPIOS suckled by a goat, among trees.

Ant. Pius. Imh. (L1.) Panofka, Asklepios, dc. pl. 1. 2.
Caracalla. Panofka, 7.6. 1.1. Vienna. Miller, D. Mf. τι. 759

Head of Asklepios.

AR # Auton. B. M. (EL, 1.) Imh.

2.—Paus. 1. 27, 2. Tov ὃὲ Ασκληπίου ro a&yaApa....
πεποίηται ἐλέφαντος καὶ χρυσοῦ" μηνύει δὲ ἐπίγραμμα
τὸν εἰργασμένον εἶναι Θρασυμήδην ᾿Δριγνώτου Ἰ]άριον"
κάθηται δὲ ἐπὶ θρόνου βακτηρίαν κρατῶν, τὴν δὲ ἑτέραν
τῶν χειρῶν ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς ἔχει τοῦ δράκοντος, καὶ οἱ καὶ
κύων παρακατακείμενος πεποίηται.

ASKLEPIOS SEATED, with dog and snake.

AM Auton. Fourth century. Berlin. Bl. 1866, pl. xxx. 3, ὅς. B. M.
Munich. (L 111.) Imh. ἃς
# Auton. Athens, 4431, B. (Dog behind seat.)
Hadrian. Berlin. Bl. 1870, p. 15, 9. (Dog behind seat. )
Ant. Pius. B. M. Imh. Leake, p. 51. (No dog.)
M. Aurel. Athens, No. 4481, ὁ. Dog behind. (4 Iv.)

Asklepios as above, in temple.
# Ant. Pius. B. M. (Lv.) Jus. Fontana, τ. iii. 2. No dog.
Dog reclining.
4 Auton. B. M. Imh.
Paus. 11. 27, 6. Ἔστι μὲν ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ λουτρόν.
Cupping-vases and thymiaterion.
4 Auton. B.M. Imh.
Cupping-vase on coins of Achaean league.

These coins, which have been repeatedly published, and are
discussed in the histories of ancient sculpture, are generally
allowed to repeat the statue by Thrasymedes. They agree with
the words of Pausanias, even to the attitude of the dog, παρα-
κατακείμενος. They thus furnish a strong argument that in
other cases also we may expect to find on coins fairly exact
copies of works of sculpture. For the connexion of the dog
with the Epidaurian worship, see Rev. Arch. 1884, τ᾿. pp. 78,
129, 217.

3.—Paus. I. 27,6. “Avtwvivos...... ἐποίησε δὲ καὶ ‘Tyiela
ναὸν καὶ ᾿Ασκληπιῷ καὶ ᾿Απόλλωνι ἐπίκλησιν Αἰὐγυ-
πτίοις., Cf. 27, 5. τντὸς δὲ rob ἄλσους «- -- τ ἐστιν

... ἄγαλμα ἪἬπιόνης. 29, 1. Tépevos δή ἐστιν
ἐγ καὶ ἀγάλματα ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸς καὶ ᾿Ηπιόνη"

EPIDAURUS: AEGINA. 93

γυναῖκα δὲ εἶναι τὴν ᾿Ηπιόνην ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ φασί, ταῦτά
ἐστιν ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ λίθου ἸΠαρίου.

Standing figure of Asklepios.

ZE J. Maesa. Mion. 11. 239, 72. Mus. Farnese.

HYGIEIA standing in round temple.

i Ant. Pius. M. 8. Iv. 265, 155. M. Fontana, p. 67, 2 and 8. Munich.
(L VI.)

Hygieia or EPIONE standing, feeds serpent from patera, clad
in long drapery.
# Auton. Fourth century. Ἢ. Hunter, xxvi1.12. B. M. (L vu.) Imh. &e.
Ant. Pius. Mion. τι. 289, 71. Holds sceptre and patera.

It is unfortunate that the coin which represents Hygieia in
her temple is so indistinct that the details cannot be with
certainty recovered. Her right hand appears to be extended,
aud to hold a patera; and a serpent is visible to left.

The figure which I have termed Hygieia or Epione occurs on
early coins. Epione is the more likely attribution, as that deity
was from early times acknowledged at Epidaurus as the wife of
Asklepios, whereas Hygieia does not seem to have been there
recognised publicly until the times of the Antonines.

4,—Paus. 11. 27, 7. Ὄρος ὀνομαζόμενον Kuvopriov, Maredtov
δὲ ᾿Απόλλωνος ἱερὸν ἐν αὐτῷ. τοῦτο μὲν δὴ TAY ἀρχαίων.
APOoLLo Citharoedus,

# Auton. Copenhagen.
Head of Apollo, laur.

MR Δὲ Auton. B. M. &e.

5,—Paus. 11. 28, 1. Δράκοντες δὲ οἱ λοιποὶ καὶ ἕτερον γένος ἐς
τὸ ξανθότερον ῥέπον τῆς χρόας ἱεροὶ μὲν τοῦ ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ
νομίζονται.

SERPENT.

# Auton. B. M. Imh. MM. Hunter, xxxvi. 13.
Sev. Alexander. M.S. tv. 261, 157. D’Ennery.

6.—OTHER TYPES:
Poseidon naked, standing to left; holds in right, dolphin; in
left-trident.
4H Caracalla. Β, M. (L vu.)
The figure is identical with that of the standing Poseidon on
the coins of Corinth, which we have shown to be a copy of’ the
colossus which stood in the harbour at Cenchreae.

AEGINA.
1.—Paus. τι. 29, 6. Πλησίον δὲ τοῦ λιμένος ἐν ᾧ μάλιστα
ὁρμίξονται ναός ἐστιν ᾿Αφροδίτης.

94 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANITAS.

Semi-circular PORT, within it, ship; above, hexastyle temple
or colonnade, in the midst of it a door, up to which
steps lead.

ΑΔ J. Domna. Sestini, JZ Fontana, p. 49, 4. Imh. (L1.)

APHRODITE draped, holds branch and apple (Venus Victrix).

Z Plautilla. Sestini, I. Fontana, p. 50, No. 7.

Tortoise.

MR A Auton. B. M. &e.

There still exist at Aegina remains of two harbours (Leake,
Morea, τι. 436), both of which are inclosed by two moles, and
either of which would correspond to the representation on the
coin. Pausanias mentions both, one as the general harbour,
near which was the temple of Aphrodite, the other as the secret
harbour, near which was a large theatre. On the coin the
building in the background looks less like a temple than a
theatre, market, or whartf.

2—Paus. 1. 29, 6. Ἔν ἐπιφανεστάτῳ δὲ τῆς πόλεως TO
Αἰάκειον καλούμενον.

AEACUS seated as judge of the dead.

A Imperial of wneertain city.
Friedlander, Arch. Z. 1871, p. 79.

3.—Paus. 1. 30, 1. ᾿Απόλλωνι μὲν δὴ ξόανον γυμνόν ἐστι
τέχνης τῆς ἐπιχωρίου.

Archaic nude figure of APOLLO right, holds bow and branch.

JE Auton. B. M. (L II.)

In this case the coins furnish us with a copy of an early’
work of Aeginetan art. It is distinctive that the legs are
represented one in advance of the other: and the anatomy
seems to be clearly marked.

4.—Paus. I. 30, 2. Θεῶν δὲ Αἰγινῆται τιμῶσιν “Ἑκάτην
fA MATT nhac: Edavov δὲ ἔργον Μύρωνος, ὁμοίως ν
πρόσωπόν τε καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν σῶμα.

HECATE with three bodies.

JE Sept. Severus. Arch. Ζ. 1848, pl. 1x. 6. Imh. (L 011.)
Plautilla. S¢. Florian, pl. u.7. B. M.

5.—Paus, It. 30, 3. Πρὸς τὸ ὄρος τοῦ IlaveAAnviov Διὸς ἐοῦσίν
ἐστιν ᾿Αφαίας ἱερόν.
APHAIA (Britomartis) standing by Zeus; holds arrow and torch.

«Ἐ Caracalla. Sestini, Wus. Fontana, pl. τι. 7
This engraving and the description of Sestini are not to be
trusted implicitly, especially as Aphaia is represented with a

turreted crown, and carries an arrow in a very unusual way.

AEGINA: TROEZEN. 95

6.—Paus. τι. 30, 4. To δὲ Πανελλήνιον, ὅτε μὴ τοῦ Διὸς τὸ
ἱερὸν ἄλλο τὸ ὄρος ἀξιόλογον εἶχεν οὐδέν. τοῦτο δὲ τὸ
ἱερὸν λέγουσιν Αἰακὸν ποιῆσαι τῷ Διί.
ΖΕυ5 standing by Aphaia, holds thunderbolt and sceptre.
Z Caracalla. 1.0.
Zeus striding, holding eagle and thunderbolt.
# Sept. Severus. M.S. 111 600, 52.
Domna. B. M. (L Iv.)
Caracalla. Mion. 11. 148, 38.

7.—OTHER TYPES at Aegina :

Hermes carrying ram, facing.

Sept. Sev. Athens. (L Vv.)

Hermes carrying ram to right.

Plautilla, Vienna. (J, vi.)

Small temple, tetrastyle, prostyle.

Sept. Sev. Munich. (1, vii.)

Demeter.

Pallas. (The temple of Athene is mentioned by Herodotus,
but not by Pausanias.)

Nike.

Two female figures standing.

M. S. 111. 601, 56.

Nemesis (2) with cornucopiae.

Poseidon standing.

Bearded terminal figure.

Plautilla, B.M. (L vm.)

Prow of ship.

B. M.

The type of Hermes carrying a ram (1, V. VI.) must almost cer-
tainly be a copy of some work of Aeginetan art, such as the statue
of the same subject by Onatas, preserved at Olympia: the
Olympian statue, however, wore a chlamys and a chiton, .
whereas the figure on the coins is altogether naked, like that
on the coins of Tanagra, which represents the Hermes Crio-
phorus of Calamis. The stretching of arms and legs on the coin
VI. is quite characteristic of Aeginetan art.

TROEZEN,

1.—Paus. 11. 30,6. ᾿Αθηνᾶν τε σέβουσι ἸΤολιάδα καὶ SOeviada
» ,, \ ’ , 4 A / | /
ὀνομάζοντες τὴν αὐτήν, καὶ ἸΙ]οσειδῶνα Βασιλέα ἐπί-
Krnow καὶ δὴ καὶ νόμισμα αὐτοῖς τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐπίσημα
ἔχει τρίαιναν καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶς πρόσωπον.

96 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON ΡΑΌΒΑΝΙΑΒ,

Coin, οὖν. head of ATHENE bound with taenia only ; rev. trident.

AR Auton. B. M. &. (M1. τι}
ZE with helmeted head of Pallas. B. M.

The identification of the head on the figured coins as Athene
may be disputed, and is doubted by Imhoof. But Pausanias in
his statement as to the coins of Troezen must be repeating
matter of common notoriety; and he must refer to the coins
of the autonomous series, before one side was occupied by the
head of an emperor. The head on the silver, M 1. IL, is so bold
and strong that it has been taken for that of Apollo; but in
some cases it wears an earring, which seems conclusive as to its
feminine character. And, if it be feminine, it is more likely,
even apart from Pausanias’ express statement, to belong to
Athene, rather than any other goddess. The absence of the
helmet is not unusual in case of early representations of Athene.

2,—Cf. 32, 5. Ἔν δὲ τῇ ἀκροπόλει THs YOeviados καλου-
μένης ναός ἐστιν ᾿Αθηνᾶς. αὐτὸ δὲ εἰργάσατο τῆς θεοῦ
τὸ ξόανον Κάλλων Αἰγινήτης.

CITADEL surmounted by temple (tetrastyle).

4 Commodus. Arigonilv. 51, 3. Turin. (Ν U1)
Sept. Severus. B.M. On either side olive and cypress. (M Iv.)
Domna. M.S. Iv. 271, 208. On either side olive and cypress.

The olive is spoken of by Pausanias, 31, 10; laurel, 31, 8;

myrtle, 32, 3: all sacred trees with histories.
Athene (archaic) resembling a Palladium.
# Commodus. B. M. (M V.)

This figure of Pallas may be described in the very words
already used in describing that at Cleonae, which we supposed
to be copied from the work of Dipoenus and Scyllis. This is
evidence, so far as it goes, that Callon adhered to the same
general scheme as the Cretan artists; although, of course, we
must not press the argument, as the die-sinkers may have
intended merely to portray the general type of an archaic
Athene, as in A XL.

3.—Paus. I. 31,1. Ἔν τῇ ἀγορᾷ Τροιζηνίων ναὸς καὶ ἀγάλ-

ματα ᾿Αρτέμιδός ἐστι Σωτείρας. Cf. 80, 7. Οὗτος
(Saron) τῇ Σαρωνίδι τὸ ἱερὸν ᾿Αρτεμίδι ὠκοδόμησεν.
31, 4. Πλησίον δὲ τοῦ θεάτρου Λυκείας ναὸν ᾿Αρτέμιδος
ἐποίησεν “Ἱππόλυτος.

ARTEMIS as ἃ huntress.

Sept. Severus. ἢ. Holds torch and bow, dog by her pursuing stag.
(M νι.) :

TROEZEN, 97

Sept. Severus. M. 8. rv. 268, 200. Holds torch, dog by her, pursuing stag.
Sept. Severus. M.S. ry. 201. Draws arrow from quiver.
Caracalla. Arig. I. 115, 185. Holds arrow and bow, dog pursuing stag.

4.—Paus. τι. 31, 6. To μὲν ἱερὸν τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος τοῦ Θεαρίου
κατασκευάσαι μὲν ἸΠιτθέα ἔφασαν. Cf. 32, 2. ᾿Εντὸς
τοῦ περιβόλου ναός ἐστιν ᾿Απόλλωνος ᾿Επιβατηρίου,
Διομήδους ἀνάθημα.

APOLLO holding an arrow and leaning on a tripod, around which
is twined a serpent.

/E Sept. Severus. M.S. Iv. 268, 199.

5.—Paus. 0. 31, 6. Tod δὲ “Ἕρμωνος τούτου καὶ τὰ τῶν
Διοσκούρων ξόανά ἐστι.

Archaic figures of the Dioscuri facing, altar between them.

fi Commodus. Imh. (M νι.)

This coin-type is valuable as furnishing evidence—probably
the only extant evidence—of the style and date of the artist
Hermon of Troezen, The Dioscuri stand naked, with long hair,
both arms extended before them, not unlike, in attitude, to the
Apollo of Canachus, but more primitive. Their proportions
seem to be decidedly slight.

6.—Paus. ul. 31, 10. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ Διὸς ἱερὸν ἐπίκλησιν
Σωτῆρος.

ZEUS standing, holds eagle and sceptre.

££ Sept. Severus. M.S. rv. 268, 198. Vaillant.

7.—Paus. τι. 32, 1. Ἱππολύτῳ δὲ τῷ Θησέως τέμενός τε
ἐπιφανέστατον ἀνεῖται, καὶ vacs ἐν ἀυτῷ καὶ ἄγαλμά
ἐστιν ἀρχαῖον.

HIPPOLYTUS as a hunter, on foot, holding spear, and leaning on
tree ; dog beside him.

# Commodus. Fox, Uned. Coins, 1x. 100; Leake, Hur. Gr. add. 165. (M vit.)

Hippolytus leading a horse, accompanied by a dog.

fi Commodus. M. 8. rv. 268,195. Arigoni, 11. 82, 228,

Hippolytus with spear and sword before Phaedra (or her nurse),
who approaches him in attitude of supplication.

£ Sept. Severus. M.S. rv. 269, 204. Milling. 1831, pl. rv. 22 (who regards
the pair as Theseus and Aethra).

8.—Paus. 11. 32,3. Καὶ ναὸς ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ ᾿Αφροδίτης Kara-
oxotrias. Of. 32, 6. Naov..... ‘Agpoditns Axpailas.
32, 7. ᾿Αφροδίτης ἐστὶν ἱερὸν Νυμφίας.

APHRODITE standing, holds apple in left hand, and lifts her

veil with right.
#{ Commodus. Imh. (M 1x.)
Domna. M.S. rv. 270, 209. Theup.

Po OL, » Wills H

98 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANITAS.

This type, the idea of which is taken from statues of Roman
times, perhaps that of Arcesilaus, seems to represent Aphrodite
Nymphia.

9. —Paus. U. 32, 4. Tod δὲ ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ τὸ ἄγαλμα ἐποίησε
μὲν Τιμόθεος. Τροιζήνιοι δὲ οὐκ ᾿Δσκληπιὸν ἀλλὰ εἰκόνα
“Ἱππολύτου φασὶν εἶναι.

ASKLEPIOS standing at altar, snake-entwined staff in left hand.

Ai Commodus. M.S. τὺ, 268,196. Arie. um: 18, 227.

The figure of Asklepios seems, so far as can be judged from
the unsatisfactory engraving, to be of the ordinary conventional
type; and, therefore, to offer no explanation of Pausanias’
curious statement.
10.—Paus. τι. 32, 4. Kai οἰκίαν ἰδὼν οἶδα ᾿Ἱππολύτου: πρὸ

δὲ αὐτῆς ἐστὶν Ηράκλειος καλουμένη κρήνη.

Fountain, ἃ pillar with tion sitting thereon, water flowing into
basin from between his feet.

4i Commodus. M. Athens, 4475.6. (M x.)

11.—Paus. 1. 382, 7. Πέτρα Θησέως ὀνυμαζομένη, μεταβαλοῦσα
καὶ αὐτὴ τὸ ὄνομα ἀνελομένου Θησέως ὑπ᾽ αὐτῇ κρηπῖδας
τὰς Avyéws καὶ ξίφος. Ct. 31,1. Onoeds..... ἡνίκα
᾿Αστερίωνα τὸν Mivw κατα ωνισάμενος ἀνέστρεψεν.

THESEvS, naked, lifting the rock.

JE Commodus. B. Δ. (M x1)

Sept. Severus. ΝΜ, 5, 1v, 269, 205. Wiczay, xxx1. 698,
Geta, 8. MT.
Philippus, Jun. B. M.

The identity of this tvpe through several reigns may indicate
for it an origin in sculpture,
Theseus slaying the Minotaur.
#, Commodus. M. 11. 242, 87. Turin.
12.— OTHER ‘TYPES :
Tyche at altar: holds patera and cornucopiae.
#4 Commodus. Β. ΔΙ. (M x11.)

METHANA.

1.—Paus. 11, 34,1. Tod δὲ πολίσματος τριάκοντά που στάδια
ἀπέχει λουτρὰ θερμά. φασὶ δὲ ᾿Αντιγόνου τοῦ Δημητρίου
Μακεδόνων βασιλεύοντος, τότε πρῶτον τὸ ὕδωρ φανῆναι.
Head of HEPHAESTUS in pileus.
# Auton. Third century. B. M. Inmh.
The connexion of Hephaestus with volcanic phenomena such
as that recorded in the text is well known,

METHANA: HERMIONE. 99

OTHER TYPES:

Artemis to left, hunting.

Geta. B.M. (M 1.)

Artemis about to discharge an arrow.

Sept. Sev. Β. Μ. (ΚΝ π)

Poseidon.

Pallas standing, holds Victory and sceptre ; at her feet, altar.

M. Aurel. Imh. (M 111.)

Zeus.

Tyche.

Aphrodite, facing, naked to waist, holds tresses with both

hands.
Caracalla. Paris. (M iv.)
N.B.—It is curious that Isis was worshipped at Methana,

and appears on coins of Mothone ; Artemis was worshipped at
Mothone, and appears commonly on coins of Methana.

HERMIONE.

1—Paus. 11. 34,10. “Eorte δέ σφισι καὶ viv ἔτι ἱερὰ αὐτόθι,
Ποσειδῶνος μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀκτῆς τῇ ἀρχῇ, προελθοῦσι δὲ,
«TA. Cf. 35, 1. Καὶ Ποσειδῶν χαλκοῦς τὸν ἕτερον
πόδα ἔχων ἐπὶ δελφῖνος.

POSEIDON standing, holds trident, his foot on a dolphin.

#iJ. Domna. M.S. Iv. 262, 159, 160. (IL Fontana, 69, 2, 8.)

2,.—Paus. 11. 94,11. ᾿Αφροδίτης ναός ἐστιν ἐπίκλησιν Tloytias
καὶ Λιμενίας τῆς αὐτῆς, ἄγαλμα δὲ λευκοῦ λίθου, με-
γέθει τε μέγα καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ τέχνῃ θέας ἄξιον. καὶ ναὸς
ἑτερός ἐστιν ᾿Αφροδίτης.

APHRODITE standing, with Eros.

Z Caracalla. Δ]. S. 1v. 268, 162. J/. Fontana, 68, 1.

3.—Paus. 11. 35, 1. Πλησίον δὲ αὐτοῦ Διονύσου ναὸς Me-
λαναίγιδος.

Dionysus standing, holds kantharos and sceptre.

& Plautilla. B. M. Dionysus naked.
Geta. B. M. Dionysus draped. (M 1.)

4.—Paus. τι. 35, 3. To δὲ ἱερὸν τῆς Τύχης νεώτατον μὲν
λέγουσιν “Ἑρμιονεῖς τῶν παρὰ σφίσιν εἶναι, λίθου δὲ
Ilupiov κολοσσὸς ἕστηκεν.

TYCHE standing, holds rudder and cornucopiae.

# Plautillaa Β. Μ. (Mu.) Imh. M. δ ᾽ν, 268, 167.

Tyche standing, holding patera and cornucopiae, at an altar.

# Plautilla. M.S. rv. 264, 168. (Arigoni.)
H 2

100 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANIAS.

Tyche (?) seated, crowned by male figure, who holds lance.

ΖΞ Caracalla. Μ. S. tv. 262, 161. Copenhagen.
Plautilla, M.S. rv. 263, 165. Sest. Molt. med. gr. x11. 18.

5.—Paus. τι. 35, 4. To δὲ λόγου μάλιστα ἄξιον ἱερὸν
Δήμητρος ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἹΙΪρωνός. Cf. also 35, 6, 8, 11.

Head of DEMETER crowned with corn.

AR # Auton. B. M.

Also ears of corn, and torch.

6.—Paus. τι. 35, 6. Τοῖς δὲ τὴν πομπὴν πέμπουσιν ἕπονται
τελείαν ἐξ ἀγέλης βοῦν ἄγοντες διειλημμένην δεσμοῖς τε
καὶ ὑβρίξουσαν ἔτι ὑπὸ ἀγριότητος, κιτιλ. (Description
of the Chthonia.)

Cow led by attendant with a rope.

# Plautillaa Β. Μ. (M 111.)

OTHER TYPES:

Hermes standing.

LJ: Domna. Mion. 11. 299, 74.

Zeus Nikephoros ?

ZE Plautilla. M.S. Iv. 268, 163.

Cybele.

Plautilla.

ASINE.
1.—Paus. 11. 86, 5. Πυθαέως re ᾿Απόλλωνος ὑπέλιπον TO
ἱερόν, καὶ viv ἐτὶ δῆλόν ἐστι.
APpoLLO PyTHAEUS clad in himation, a laurel twig in his right
hand, leaning on pillar.

E Sept. Severus. Munich. (M 1.)
Plautilla. Mion. 11. 224, 75.

2.—OTHER TYPES:

Asklepios.

Snake.

Hermes (?),

Draped female figure ?

Fortuna, holds rudder and cornucopiae.
#i Imh. (Μ 11.)

LernaA and NAvpLis, Coins of Argos.
1,—Paus. 11. 37,2. ᾿Αφροδίτης ἄγαλμα ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ λίθου.
Cf. 1. 19,6; 19y'7 3 20 ΘΈθ 9.8: 254098:
APHRODITE standing, holds in right hand a fold of her garment;
before her, a dolphin.

Ai Anton. Pius. Imh.
L. Verus. Imh. (L 11.) (Above cited under Argos.)

LERNA: NAUPLIA. 101

2.—Paus. 11. 37,4. Τῆς δὲ ᾿Αμυμώνης πέφυκεν eri τῇ πηγῃ
πλάτανος" ὑπὸ ταύτῃ τὴν ὕδραν τραφῆναι τῇ πλατάνῳ
φασίν, κιτ.λ.

HERAKLES slaying the Lernaean hydra.
# Hadrian. Imh. (M1)

3.—Paus. τι. 38, 3, Οἰκιστὴς δὲ ἐγένετο αὐτῆς (of Nauplia)
Ναύπλιος Ποσειδῶνος λεγόμενος καὶ ᾿Αμυμώνης εἶναι
\ a e Ν , , ἜΒῪ > na '
. kal Ἰ]Τοσειδῶνος ἱερὸν καὶ λιμένες εἰσὶν ἐν Ναυπλίᾳ.
Cf. above, also 37, 1.
AMYMONE pursued by Poseidon,
A Anton. Pius. Imh. (M 11.) Choiz, pl. 11. 6. Overbeck, Poscidon, v1. 22.

103 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.
(Concluded from Vol. iv. p. 135.)

In the reconstruction of the Pergamene frieze from the
fragments which have come to the Berlin Museum much
progress has been recently made, and it is now possible to
follow-—in respect of some of the slabs—a tolerably clear order
to which certain mechanical or external signs in the stones
themselves would appear to point. And this is a clue more
helpful than that which the affinity of style or the natural
relations of the figures can afford. It is partly on such grounds
as these that the slab on which Dionysos appears has been
assigned to the south-east corner of the staircase, and it has
been conjectured! that near to this, perhaps immediately on
its right, was one on which was seen the form of a winged god
whose left arm holds a shield, and whose right arm, wielding a
sword, is swung over his head against a fallen antagonist. .

The giant has sunk on his knee, and is raising in supplication
or defence his left arm that dimly appears through the shaggy
fell that envelopes it. A right hand grasping a stone, the
fragments of a knee just lifted from the ground, are placed
beneath, and probably belong to him. The drapery of the god
is arranged for dramatic effect, as the exomis leaves the right
side bare, so that the action gains force and clearness of expres-
sion. ‘The composition can make no claim to originality, its
forms are highly sculpturesque, and had long been a tradition
of sculpture: a metope on the east front of the Parthenon
(Michaelis, No. xiii.), on which a scene from the gigantomachy
is represented, is the earliest source to which we can directly
trace this motive. The grouping of the two figures is clear and
simple; in a single detail, in the rendering of the sword-hilt

1 A more recent discovery makes this improbable.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 103

of the god, we can illustrate the leaning of the Pergamene
school to the picturesque. However we are to name the god,
his features are remarkable, for his wild hair, deep eye-sockets,
and swollen forehead are the traits that properly belong to his
antagonists, being here presented somewhat more faintly, but
giving an impression very different from that of the impassive
reserve of the Olympians.

It is plain that we see here a god of the wilder elements, a
god of the winds with wings lightly and beautifully wrought at
his shoulders, who, though in some ways akin to the forces of
the giant-world,! was by a necessity of the myth regarded as
warring against the evil powers of his own domain. The fea-
tures the wings and the warlike action speak decisively of
Boreas who is seen also, according to the most probable inter-
pretation, on the crater of Nikosthenes in the British Museum
with wings attached to his side, combating with the gods against
the giants. Once more the Pergamene sculptor is using
inherited forms: for the type of Boreas had appeared on vases
that belong or go back to the fifth century,? had appeared on
the bronze-relief brought from Rhodes, showing the capture of
Oreithyia, a work of the Alexandrine period, but probably
earlier than the altar-frieze; and the type survives -in a later
age, for instance, on a Roman sarcophagus,® where two youths
are seen at the corners personifying the winds. In stating the
relation between the figure of Boreas and the other personages
of the scene, we can find in mythology no certain clue to guide
us, for he has no necessary and well-marked affinities with other
deities: and as early probably as the sixth century he enjoyed
an independent cult in various localities; in Arcadia, a Jand
where the particular legend of the gigantomachy, together with
a certain simple nature-worship had taken root, we hear of the
sacred precincts and cult of Boreas near Megalopolis.* Now a

1 Such affinity may explain the re- 54, Tas ὀφρῦς ἀνατείνας, τιτανῶδες

presentation of Boreas on the chest of
Cypselus as serpent-footed, for the ser-
pent is the symbol of the powers of the
nether world. Compare with this the
vase from Palermo (Arch. Zeit. 1872,
taf. 45), where a winged youth with
sword in hand, following a maiden,
appears to be Boreas ; ride Lucian, Tim.

βλέπων, αὐτοβορέας.

3 Jahn, Vasensammlung, No. 376;
Gerhard, Aueverlesene Vasenbilder, iii.
152,

3 Annali dell’ Instituto, 1854, pl.
8,9.

4 Paus. 8, 36, 6.

104 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

common store of myth brings Pergamon into contact with
Arcadia. But it would be hazardous thus to decide whence
originated the religious idea, if there was any, by which the
Pergamene sculptor was moved who gave to Boreas this inde-
pendent place in the representation. At his right we see the
mutilated form of a goddess rushing towards the right on a giant
whose back is shown us—whose neck seems bent forward, and
arm uplifted to shield his head or in sign of submission. As
the goddess presents no characteristic mark, she must remain
unknown; we might suggest that she is Thyia, though the
proof that Thyia is a wind-goddess! is by no means
complete.

There is far less doubt attaching to the character of the
groups that are placed in the Museum in juxtaposition to the last.
On each side of a corner we see deities combating with giants, of
whom some are apparently powers of the water. The action, so
far as it is preserved in this part of the monument, is broken up
into four groups, one more manifold than another, but each
with a certain completeness in itself. The fragments are suffi-
cient to disclose the scene on the left of the corner. A goddess
is brandishing a torch against a naked giant who is winged, but
otherwise of human figure, and who is threatening her with his
right arm. Beneath him is a fallen comrade, who in expression is
one of the most remarkable in the whole brotherhood, for in the
face which is sinking downward over his arm to the earth, there
is some trace of the beauty of the more youthful type, and the
features resemble those of him who has fallen before Athene
—but the beauty is distorted and the countenance disfigured
with the rage and hatred that is expressed very powerfully in
the corners of the mouth, and in the swollen forehead and
eyebrow. The serpent-nature is not yet dead in him; as
one coil is threatening an enemy on the left.

In the person of the giant who stands above him, slightly

1 Vide Paus. x. vi. 4; Herod. 7, 8 Claudian’s description (Gigantom.
178; Preller, Gricch. Myth. 2, 150. 89) may have been borrowed from such
* Trendelenburg compares the head ἃ scene.
of the Ludovisi Medusa; the structure of Ille viro toto moriens, serpentibus
the heads, the cast of features is to some imis
extent the same, but the expression of Vivit adhue stridore ferex et parte
the Ludovisi work is of an altogether rebelli

different sentiment. Victorem jost fata petit.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 105

retreating, but threatening his approaching enemy with a weapon
(probably a stone) in his right hand, there are hints that spea!
of his nature ; at the outer edge of his wings appears a prickly
growth, and something of the same on his ears : two small horns
rise above his forehead, and by these marks the sculptor has
personified the force of water or the sea-storms. It has already
been mentioned that such personifications can be illustrated by
Tzetzes’ list of names, and on many other monuments besides ἢ
the Pergamene, the giants’ forms or parts of their forms disclose
the same thought; on a vase from Volci, now in the British
Museum, the work of a time when the distinction between
Typhon and the giants was disappearing, a fishy growth is seen
on his snake-limbs.

Whoever the goddess may be who is confronting him,
the idea of the group is plainly the contest of natural forces:
for the goddess herself is brandishing a torch, the natural weapon
of Hekate and her company, and is therefore one of the powers
of the nether world, who play a proper part in the myth as the
beneficent deities of fertility. But is she one of the chief figures
in this circle of divinities, or a subordinate minister only? Her
form and her position in the frieze can partly decide. Her
finely-shaped limbs are ample, and in her movement, as she
sways the torch in her right hand, there is confident power but
no violence. And in the expression of her face there is a
striking reserve ‘and purity; her forehead is encircled with a
stephane, and the hair falls from a knot luxuriantly upon her
shoulders. The bracelet on her right wrist is one among many
marks of the elaborate elegance of the work—an elegance which
appears also in the soft rendering of the silken drapery. Her
main garment is a single chiton that falls to her feet,its flowing
lines are broken and its weight supported by a mantle that
passes over her shoulders, and is bound round beneath her
breasts for a girdle. The quality of the stuff is very distinctly
shown in the delicate lines that appear within the main folds
which the movement produces in the drapery. The treatment
is dramatic, in accordance with the older tradition derived from

1M. ἃ. 1. v. 12, the figure of a theatre of Catania. The later ideal of
snake-footed giant, with fins about his _‘Triton recalls many features of the Per-
waist. Overbeck, Kunst-Mythologie, gamene giants
p. 395. Compare alsoa relief from the

100 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

the style of the fifth century, and at the same time naturalistic,
in accordance with the style of the later Greek art. Throughout
all parts of the frieze, we see in the rendering of the drapery
these two principles combined. Nor is there anything very
distinctive in its arrangement upon the person of the goddess
in Group 4; it is rather the richness and detail that 15 remark-
able. Now the character of the face, the ornaments around the
head and wrists, the torch which she carries, the rich drapery ὦ
—all these are proper to Demeter or Proserpine, between
whom the works of later art find difticulty in distinguishing.
Either the mother or daughter may be represented by the figure
which we are considering: * for if they were brought into the
action at all, they must have been in the neighbourhood of
Hekate and Artemis, to whom they are closely related in
earlier, and still more in later mythology. Now the figure of
Hekate is the centre of eleven frieze-slabs which decorate this
corner. Of the goddesses in her company one is unmistakably
Artemis, and there are but two others that come into question
—the one that we are considering (4), and her neighbour (}),3
both placed on the left of the corner, in immediate vicinity to
Hekate who is on the right. That these are not lesser goddesses
subordinate to Hekate, the elaborateness of the work, the large
treatment of their forms, their position on the frieze, would seem
to testify. Might they be regarded as certain symbolical *
figures proper to the lower world? But not only are all the
ordinary marks of such beings wanting here, but it would also
he surprising if the less necessary and less dramatic personages
were presented, and the great goddesses were absent from this
company. j

By elimination we are brought to conclude that no other
of the Olympians belong to this place but Demeter and
Proserpine.

1 This would seem to be an essential
mark both of the mother and daughter,
except on some sarcophagi showing the
rape of Proserpine, when her body is
half uncovered. Vide Claudian’s poeti-
cal embellishments of Proserpine’s
dress. —Rapt. Pros. 41—54.

2 Trendelenburg would see in these
two figures the Genetyllides, but we
know very little of their characteristics,

nor are his arguments very satisfactory.

3 The letters are those attached to
the figures in the Besereibung der per-
gamenischen Bildwerke.

4 Apollodorus (i. 6) mentions the
Moerae among the combatants, and they
may have been seen on our frieze ; but
the goddess (A) who is armed with the
torch, or (B) who is followed by the
hound, cannot at least be one of them.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 107

According to an opinion expressed by Stark,’ the presence
of Demeter in the combat is unknown, and because of her close
connection with Gaea would be unsuitable. But this theory,
however natural it may seem, is disproved almost conclusively
by the instance of the Louvre amphora and its group of
deities, among whom the goddess wielding a torch and seeptre,
and crowned with vine-leaves, and wearing a stephane like
figure A, can scarcely be other than Demeter? No doubt the
identity of Demeter with the earth is an ancient conception, by
which the myths that attach to her can be explained; and this
conception is clearly expressed in Enripides,® and carried still
further by a late writer,t who mentioned Ceres as the mother
of the giants and as prompting them to rebellion. But as the
mother of Persephone, as a goddess of the nether world, as
Demeter Thesmophoros, whose cult was so closely fostered by
the mysteries, she has become detached from Gaea, as Apollo
has become detached from Helios, in spite of the common
underlying idea.

The character of Gaea is mainly physical, and she belongs
to an older cycle of theology; the personality of Demeter
is more vivid, the part she plays in the drama of mythology
more distinct, and so close are her relations in legend and in
cult with the rest of Olympians, that her participation in the
action of the frieze is not surprising. The same objections that
Stark urges might be urged against Hera, yet in some accounts
and in some representations of the battle Hera appears. In
fact, in face of the magnitude of the work and the multitude of
the figures required, the Pergamene sculptors could not afford
to forego any part of their material, and they might bring
many personages into the scene, with whom the ordinary myth
did not deal.

If the suggestion that figure A is Demeter be correct,
one may explain the absence of the veil as due to the necessities
of the action, and that she confronts a giant of the sea may
remind us of the tradition in Pausanias° that connects Demeter

1 Gigantomachie auf antiken reliefs. τὰ πρῶτ᾽ ἐν ἀνθρώποισι, Δημήτηρ θεὰ,
5 This is M. Ravaisson’s explanation. γῆ δ᾽ ἐστί.

Monuments grees, 187. 4 Myth. Vatic. i. fab. 2. The whole
3 Bacch. 275 :— account is confused mythology.

5 Paus. 8, 25, 42.

108 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

with Poseidon. It may further be asked, in what character is
the goddess doing battle with the giants? For at this stage in
the development of the myth some moral or physical idea was
probably present to the minds of the artists who treated it. As
Thesmophoros, she might be maintaining the law and order of
the Olympian régime, but her companionship with Hekate, the
torch which she bears as her weapon and emblem, show her
rather as one of the goddesses of the lower world, whose realm is
endangered by the uprising of the giant powers of the sea.
What special tradition of artistic forms the sculptor was here
following is not easy to decide. The accepted ideal of Demeter
is probably the creation of Praxiteles; but one cannot discover
in the work before us any marks of Praxitelean style: the face
in some of its forms is peculiar: its contour is full and large,
the throat is comparatively short, and the lips are hardly so
protruding as we see them in the heads of many other of the
goddesses.

On the next slab (B)1, a goddess who resembles in her ample
drapery the former goddess is hurrying forward to give the
death-stroke to a giant who has sunk helplessly before her. She
appears to be clutching him by the hair, and to be wresting his
whole body backwards in order to plunge her weapon into his
breast. This would seem to be a sword, as the fragment of a
female hand holding a sword-hilt seems to fit aptly to this
place. Her foot is bearing down upon his thigh, and the action
of the foot and the hand is a very common arrangement in
earlier and later works,? especially in representations of this
subject. If there is reason for naming the goddess in figure A,
Demeter, then the goddess who comes between her and Hekate
can be none other than Persephone, whose relations with Hekate
are so intimate. The mere appropriateness of arrangement
could not tell us which of the two on slabs A and B is the
daughter: but, assuming that the two goddesses were brought
into this part of the frieze, I think that slab B, more probably
than slab A contains the figure of Proserpine. For though
little difference can be discerned in the size and fulness of the
limbs, yet in the second figure there is less sedateness in the

1 This is proved to be a corner slab * It is seen on the peplos of the

by the marks of the mechanical con- Dresden Pallas; the instances from
nection between B and C. coins are fairly numerous.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 109

drapery, and more violence in the action than in the first; the
mantle in large folds streams behind her, and her right shoulder
and part of her right side and chest are left bare, this freer and
looser system of drapery being often used to distinguish the
daughter from the mother. Again she is assisted by the hound
who is fastening upon the serpent limb of the giant: the hound
is the animal sacred to Hekate, and thus more appropriate to
Persephone, who may, so to speak, be regarded as her double,
than to Demeter. Lastly, if, as seems almost certain, she is here
armed with the sword, we can illustrate this once more from the
vase of the Louvre, where the figure for whom the rich dress
and vine-crown and vicinity to Demeter recommend the name
of Persephone is wielding a sword against an enemy whom she
is clutching by the hair and attacking so as to recall the
action of the Pergamene goddess. If this then is Persephone,
she is combating a giant who belongs to the same element as
the enemy of Demeter. His lower limbs are best preserved,
and on the serpent-limb which the hound is attacking, is seen
a scaly growth which speaks of his origin from the sea. His
upper parts are in a very fragmentary condition, but have been
skilfully reconstructed. And it can now be seen that his right
arm is stretched forward so as to bring his right hand a little
above his head, perhaps to show submission or to check the
sword, while his left arm is stretched behind him, and endeavour-
ing to thrust away the hound.! The fragment of the head that is
preserved with the hair and ear proves that his countenance was
turned away from her. Between Group A and Group # there is
a striking break in the continuity of the composition, as the
goddesses turn their backs on each other and pass in opposite
directions to the fight. Does such arrangement touch on the
old tradition of single combats? This explanation would clash
with the purpose of the whole frieze, in which by more or less
subtle devices the single combat is joined with the whole. The
intention is rather to connect in a striking and visible way the
groups on each side of the corner, which are plainly connected
in idea.2, Somewhere in this company must have appeared the

1 The ingenuity of this arrangement, gamenischen Altars, p. 65.
which thus presents the greater part of * The same principle of composition
his back en face, is noted by Tren- [5 seen on the Parthenon frieze.
delenburg, Die Gigantomachie des per-

110 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

figure of Asterie, the mother of Hekate, whose presence is
attested by an inscription. But no surviving fragment gives us
any clue, nor could we say precisely what the attributes are by
which we could know Asterie, whose name proclaims her to be
one of the powers of light, but who rarely, if ever, has been the
theme of art.

There 1s no group in the whole frieze which for mythologic
interest and workmanship deserves more attention than Group
C. The triple-shaped Hekate is here in dangerous conflict with
one of the most striking of the giants. Her back is tumed to
the spectator, but her outside head as well as her middle head
is seen in profile : of the farthest head only the back part is seen
as though her third form were intended to be facing some other
combatant. Each of her three right hands has its special weapon
—the one holding a torch—the others a spear and a sword ; of
her left arms only two are seen, upon one is her shield, in the
hand of the other is the hilt of the sheath. Facing her, and
raising a rock over his head? against her, is a bearded giant
whose serpent-thigh is seized by her hound, while the head of
the reptile is clutching fiercely at the shield-rim. The dexterity
is remarkable with which all the various elements are gathered
into a concentrated whole—and the skill shown in the composi-
tion is equalled by the skill in the details: the serpent’s head
is a masterpiece for the expression of animal rage, shown chiefly
in the prominent eye, which gives to this and to many of the
reptile heads on the frieze the distinctness of a separate type.
Perhaps there‘is no group on the frieze which contains an idea
so difficult to render as that which is the leading idea here; for
the problem of showing on a frieze relief a three-bodied shape in
clear outlines, and in free dramatic movement is almost hopeless.
The figure of the triple Geryon? caused the same perplexity to
the earlier vase-painters, who represented him at first as of
three distinct forms, failing to give to them any unity more
than a merely external one; the bodies act and are posed
independently each of the other. In the more advanced art,
we find him triple-formed only so far as the waist. But in such
combinations the task of the painter was simpler than that of

1 The lower arms are lost, but there probably belonging to him.

are fragments of hands grasping a large 2 Vide Duc de Luynes, Deser. de
stone, placed aboye his head, and very Vases peintes, pl. 8.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 111

the sculptor; and the sculptor himself was freer when the
goddess was to be wrought for temple-worship, or as a motion-
less object. In the triple image of Hekate by Aleamenes, who
probably arranged the three forms back to back,’ there was
nothing strikingly incongruous.

But if one tries to conceive such an image in energetic
movement and action, the incongruity becomes ludicrous.
Yet after the time of Alcamenes, this type remained pre-
dominant for Hekate, and was treated without difficulty,
for the forms were generally given in repose. On the Vatican
sarcophagus, which in inany details is a copy of the Pergamene
work, the goddess is of single shape, but the sculptor of the
altar-frieze, in his love of variety or of accepted tradition, has
failed to express his conception clearly. Are we to understand
that there are here three whole bodies, the one shown allusively
behind the other, or that the triplicity is partial only,? three
trunks with three pairs of arms being united at the waist ?
This latter treatment is possible enough, and certain epithets,
and at least one work of art, would seem to suggest and
illustrate it.

More difficult and more important than the question of form
is the question of the religious idea here embodied. It is not
mere chance or the necessity of filling a large surface with a
multitude of figures that has brought Hekate into the frieze.
She is on occasions a goddess of battle, and in the description
of the combat by Apollodorus she is mentioned—perhaps with
design—in the same context as Dionysos. There is no proof
that a special cult of Hekate existed in Pergamon,’ but coins
and inscriptions prove her divinity to have been in high repute
in Phrygia, Galatia, and Pamphylia: and she could hardly have
been absent here from the company of the gods. In what aspect

1 Paus. 2, 30, 2: τρία ἐποίησε προσεχό-
μενα ἀλλήλοις. These words might
indeed describe three shapes, arranged
as in Geryon front-wise ; but the com-
mon later tradition, and the significance
of such figures at the three cross-roads,
bears out the other interpretation.

2 Overbeck, Geschichte d. gricch.
Plast. ii. p. 236, adopts this view with-
out question ; but he is wrong in con-

sidering this as an unique instance of
such a rendering. Vide Gerhard, An-
tike Bildwerke, ecevii. 34 and 36.

3 In Arcadia, connected so closely
with Pergamon in religion and legend,
the worship of Despoina was supreme
(Paus. 8, 37, 6); Koppen, Die dreige-
stallete Hekate identifies Despoina with
Hekate (page 6).

112 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

then is she shown us on the frieze? Whatever character or
power she possessed besides, her character as a deity of the
nether world was naturally prominent at this time, and is
expressed here though without undue emphasis, and without
the terrifying traits with which conventional literary tradition
had invested the figure! Her head has many features in
common with the heads of the other goddesses, and the outlines
of the face remind us of the goddess in group 4; but the fore-
head protruding in the centre, the forward fall of the hair, the
earnest and fixed expression, and the solemnity given by the
shadows into which the profiles are cast—these are marks
peculiar and appropriate to the chthonian goddess,

According to Welcker, in the later tradition, she is nothing
more: the superstition, the ghostly legend, the magic rites that
had become attached to her name, had obscured the earlier
Hesiodic conception, of a Hekate all powerful on earth, sea, and
in the sky, and beneficent to men in the various relations of
life (Welcker, Gricchische Gotterlehre, τ. 567). But it is a question
whether this idea, which was current at least as early as the
early part of the sixth century, has disappeared so completely as
Welcker supposes. Though her cult was perhaps at no age so
extended or so supreme as in the passage of the Theogony it
is represented to be, yet there are hints in the later tradition
that Hekate continued to be, or came again to be something
more than a goddess of the lower world. The hound and the
torch which are her constant attributes belong to the moon-
goddess: the former is the ἄγαλμα of “Ἑκάτη Pwadopos—and
the torch is the ‘spear of the wayfaring Hekate ’—7ro? δι᾿
᾿Ολύμπου πωλοῦσα φέρει. In fact, both the literary tradition
from Sophocles onward, as well as the art of the Alexandrine
and later ages, is prone to combine the person of Hekate with
Artemis, Selene, and Persephone.

This is seen in the fragment of the Ῥιζοτόμοι, in Jon (1049),
where the chorus appeal to the Eivod/a θυγάτηρ Δήμητρος, who
appears identical here with Hekate and Selene; and the

1 Generally speaking such traits are 2 Sophocles, Ῥιζοτόμοι, fr. 490 ed.
found more in literature than in art; Nauck. In the Pergamene frieze, the
on a vase from Ruvo (Bullet. Napol. hound by her side is not at all the
1853, tay. 6), serpents are seen on her λυσσῶπις σκυλάκη (Orph. Argon. 975)
forchead, of the infernal goddess.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 113

scholiast on Theocritus, 2, 12, describes Hekate as triple-formed,
with golden sandals and white mantle, a poppyin her hands and
kindled torches, and a calathos (the emblem of fruitfulness), on
her head. Occasionally also the names of Artemis and Hekate
are indifferently used,! and although little can be based on the
authority of Scholia or Orphic hymns that reveal the intention
of artificial unification, yet the testimony of the classical age,
as we have seen, serves to show that there is no such gulf as
Welcker supposes between the Hesiodic and the later idea of
the goddess; her significance in literature, and the prevalence
of her worship in Aegina, Sicily, Phrygia and Galatia, may be
due to the influence of the mysteries, and to her close connection
with Persephone. The titles in the inscription found on the
basis of the Capitoline statue designate a being essentially the
same as the Titan-born Hekate of the Theogony; and by a
Gallic tribe of Galatia prayers were offered to her, as all-
powerful, ὑπὲρ ἑαυτῶν καὶ τῶν καρπῶν. In another respect too
the later tradition harmonises with the Hesiodie account, in
which Hekate is said to hold power on sea as on land. In the
passage from the Jon above referred to, the Nereids are given
her as companions, and the scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius,
4, 826, speaks of her and Phorbas as the mother of Scylla.*
Now the action in the Pergamene frieze is a curious illustration
of this obscure affinity of Hekate with the element of the sea:
the head of the giant whom she is attacking has been mistaken
—it has already been remarked—for the head of Poseidon; and
the forms of the face, and the expression, are such as to leave
no doubt that the sculptor wished to represent a giant of the
water, while he was able to omit the more special and conven-
tional marks, because beings of this element were unmistakably
presented on the neighbouring slabs.

Throughout the whole frieze one may notice that the serpent-
footed giants, whose forms symbolise their origin from some one
of the elements, are generally armed with natural weapons only,
the stone or the trunk, and not with the spear or sword. If we
may assume that it is design® and not caprice which has led

1 Καὶ viv”Apreuis καλεῖται καὶ Φυλακὴ Paus. 8, 37, 6.

καὶ Aadovxos καὶ Φωσφόρος καὶ χθονία. 3 In another part of the frieze ἃ sea
Schol. Theocr. 2. 12. deity is designedly opposed to a giant of

3 ΤῊ. Despoina of Arcadia is the thesea; another instance, which may ap-
daughter of Poseidon and Demeter.— _ pear capricious, will be noticed later on.

H.S.—VOL. VI. I

114 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

the sculptor to confront Hekate with this distinct group of
antagonists, and to combine her with Artemis, Boreas, Demeter,
and Persephone, we might say that some part of the Hesiodic
idea, which perhaps had never been entirely lost, reappears in
this Pergamene work.. And surely the triple shape can only be
explained in reference to this idea of a goddess whose divinity
is of many elements. It may perhaps be believed that this
shape which Alcamenes made the canonical type for art, was
due merely to her position at the cross-roads, and the exigencies
of such a situation; but it is certain that she had guarded
the cross-roads long before such a shape had been assigned her,
and it is incredible that Alcamenes, a pupil and master of
the most ideal school, should have been influenced by such
considerations in creating the type of a divinity. Another view
has been adopted by Welcker on the authority of Cornutus and
Cleomedes, that the triplicity symbolises the three phases of the
moon—but such authority is not very trustworthy in questions
of mythological symbolism ; and the well-known bronze statuette
of the Capitoline Museum has some attributes that do not
belong at all to a moon-goddess. If we look at the other
instances, where a single divinity appears with a multiplicity
of, or duality of, parts, it is surely the right explanation which
refers these to a double or manifold nature belonging to more
than one sphere: this is certainly the explanation és the double-
headed Zeus, of the Zeus τριόφθαλμος, and probably of the
double-headed Boreas.

So also in the Orphic hymn quoted by Eusebius,’ the
three forms of Hekate are regarded as signs of her power
over three elements: τριστοίχου φύσεως συνθήματα τρισσὰ
φέρουσα. And in this instance the theory of the Orphic
systematizer may accord with a genuine belief of the fifth
century, B.C. It is possible of course that the tradition in the
Theogony, lingering perhaps in obscure allusions, had faded, as
Welcker and Bergk? suppose, from the general popular belief:
but it may well have revived under the influence of the mys-
teries, to which Stark ascribes the later prominence of the
goddess, and which disclose a tendency to widen the sphere and
nature of the beings of the Dionysiac circle. But the impulse
seen in literature to unify the various figures in the religious

1 Pracp. Ev. 4, 28. * Gr, Litteratur geschichte. i. ». 984.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 115

belief, though it reacted on art, was checked by the artistic
craving for a variety of types; and figures which are regarded
as kindred or even identical remain distinct in sculpture. So
that we find a triple-shaped Hekate by the side of Artemis and
Persephone—and the tautology is natural.

It is difficult to say how far the Pergamene work reproduced
the style of earlier representations or influenced the later. For
until the discovery of our frieze, the form of the triple-shaped
Hekate existed only in statuettes, coins, and reliefs. It may at
least be said with certainty, that the Pergamene sculptor has
borrowed nothing from Alcamenes but the main conception
which the latter had made traditional; for neither the disposition
of the drapery, nor the youth of the forms, nor the rendering of the
flesh, recalls the style of the Pheidian age! And the motives of
the figure are probably original, inasmuch as for the first time
the goddess was presented in violent movement. We see her
on the Vatican relief energetically engaged in the same scene
brandishing two torches against a giant; but though the Per-
gamene frieze has supplied many motives to the carver of the
relief, the two works do not agree in the figure of Hekate; on
the smaller monument, not only is she of single shape and
veiled, but the forms are fuller, and the whole effect is less
fantastic and more solemn. Under the Roman empire the cult
of Hekate grew in importance; we are not able to ascribe to
the Pergamene figure any direct influence upon later religious
belief, but what is discerned in Graeco-Roman art is seen in
this part of the frieze, a loss of the purer and clearer forms of
sculpture.

The next scene on the right (slab D), is the combat of Artemis,
connected skilfully with the former, as the skirts of Hekate’s
dress are seized from behind by a serpent belonging to a giant
who has already fallen before Artemis. The goddess, whose
body is now almost restored by a skilful combination of the
small fragments, is standing bow in hand above the dying and
the dead ; the bow is missing, but from the tension in the crooked
fingers of the right hand, we see that the string was at full
stretch. She is confronting a naked giant of perfect human
shape, who is armed in Homeric fashion with helmet, shield,

1 One might conjecture that the work of Scopas (Paus. 2, 22, 7) has influenced
the Pergamene sculptor.
ΤᾺ

116 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

and the spear which he levels against her. Perhaps in no other
group of the frieze are the forms so sculpturesque, or of such high
interest as these ; for the shape and movement of the giant are
conspicuous for symmetry, lithe strength, and freedom ; and in
the body of Artemis a rare delicacy and suppleness appear.

It has been said that the action appears to be for the moment
arrested, as though both were pausing in admiration of each
other. If this motive, which the remarkable beauty of the giant
may have suggested, were really intended here, the sculptor
would have had in his mind the tradition of the enamoured
Orion, who is, as it is thought, represented here facing the
goddess. It is true that romantic episodes are frequently found
in the later literary and artistic representations of the giganto-
machy, and such a treatment of the subject might be expected in
Alexandrine art. The cylix of Aristophanes shows us a young
giant sinking down unarmed and unresisting before Artemis, and
there is a pathetic, perhaps an amorous, expression in his face.
On the Louvre amphora we see a child Eros seated on the horses
of Ares and drawing a tiny bow. Such motives would appeal
to later Roman art and literature; in the Greek fragment
attributed to Claudian, the only weapons which Aphrodite brings
to the contest are her smiles and other charms; and the spirit
of the scene described by Themistius is the same, in which a
giant is represented sinking before the first glance of Love.
But in this respect the Pergamene work is superior to the pre-
valent taste: for the action is serious throughout. I have failed
to discover any trace of the suggested sentiment, or any hint
of arrested movement in the goddess or in the young warrior,
who seems on the alert for the contest, and in the middle of
his stride.

The fixed regard which each casts on the other serves
only to heighten the impression of the momentous contest,
and is a special mark of faces rendered in the Lysippean style
The whole form of Orion—to accept this name for convenience!
—recalls the style of Lysippus in the slimness of the proportions,
in the naturalistic treatment of the flesh, the tension of the
muscles, and especially in the comparatively small head and the

1 There is no real reason for so tomachy, nor have the legends con-

calling him; the name of Orion is not cerning him anything to do with this
found in any account of the gigan- tradition.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 117

clearly-marked cheek-bones. His limbs show a certain fineness
of athletic training, and the only marks which he possesses of
the type to which he belongs are the thick wavy hair, the rather
deep eye-sockets, and the rather mobile features. Artemis
appears in the character of a huntress, wearing a short woollen
chiton which leaves the left shoulder bare, and is bound around
her waist by a scarf that is drawn across the breast. On the
vase of Ruvo her equipment is almost the same ; on the cylix
of Aristophanes and on the Louvre amphora, she is armed with
the torch, the proper weapon of the Artemis Phosphorus, though
at the same time she carries the bow on her shoulders, and her
guise is on the whole that of the huntress. The result is that
on both these latter works, her person is somewhat overloaded
with attributes; on the Pergamene frieze her character is simply
marked—and as she is opposed to an antagonist armed in the
ordinary fashion of the hoplite, she also bears a weapon of
real war.

Her features are fresh and delicate, and do not conform so
nearly to the Pergamene type, as those of the other goddesses :
they have not the ordinary fulness, nor does the forehead pro-
trude much in the middle above the eyes. The whole contour
rather approaches the oval; the lines about the mouth remind
us slightly of the treatment of Praxiteles. The hair is drawn
back so as fully to reveal the face, and is bound up ina high
knot behind ; two small locks fall upon the forehead crescent-
wise. Her presence on the frieze requires no comment or
explanation, for before and after this date she is commonly found
in representations of this myth, and we can see directly a close
connection between this Pergamene figure and the Artemis on
the Mattei relief, though in the later work her form has less
movement, and her feet are more firmly set to bear the strain
of the aetion, The three vases to which I have already referred,
on which she is found, are considerably earlier than the altar ;
but in the literature or art of the fifth or sixth century, Artemis
is rarely? or never assigned any share in the action, nor at any
time is her presence prominent. But in kindred myths, such

1 Claudian (Rapt. Proserp. 234) speak- 3 Trendelenburg gives the name of
ing of the ‘geminus cinctus’ of Diana, Artemis to the figure called Hera by
may refer to some such arrangement. Heydemann on the vase from Alta-

mura,

118 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

as the slaying of Tityos, and the death of the Aloades, and in
one tradition of the Titanomachy, if we can accept the statement
of Hyginus, fab. 150, she plays a leading part. Touching the
question as to the school which created this type of Artemis
little can be said. There is of course nothing original in the
main design of the Pergamene figure; the action and pose of
the goddess here is seen also in some representations of the
death of the Niobids and of Tityos, and is so natural and obvious
that it must have frequently occurred where she was shown in
combat with an enemy. It is repeated with much resemblance
even of details in the small bronze in Naples, though there the
arrow has left the string, and the action is nearly over. But
there is no representation of the Gigantomachy which serves to
illustrate the Pergamene Artemis: and it would be idle to try
to find the prototype in a supposed group at Delphi of Athene,
Apollo, and Artemis. It will be sufficient to say here that if
the Artemis of Versailles is rightly regarded as a copy of the
Delphic statue, then the Delphic statue was no model for the
eyes of the Pergamene sculptor; for the Artemis of our frieze
resembles the Louvre work only in the dress and in such
characteristics of form and expression as belong to the nature
of the goddess; they differ in the movement, in the aim of the
representation, and in the workmanship. The influence of
Lysippus is not to be supposed as present here, for he is not
known to have done anything for the creation of the type of
Artemis, it was Praxiteles who fixed the younger ideal of Leto,
and the children of Leto. And even before his generation,
Strongylion, the pupil of Myron, had carved a statue which
represented the goddess—perhaps for the first time in sculpture
—moving rapidly forward with hostile purpose.

On slab D of the frieze between the figures of Artemis and
the opposing giant, which give the limits of the scene, there is
much interesting detail. With the rght foot of the goddess
upon his breast lies a fallen giant of human form, raising his
left arm to his head in the manner of the dying Niobid at
Munich ; his hand wrought with exquisite softness and truth
appears just beneath her foot, and the loosening fingers tell
patheticaily of the last moments of consciousness. And again
by the feet of ‘Orion, and half-covered by his shield, is a

1 Muller, D. d. a. K. 2, 158.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 119

conquered giant, older than the other and serpent-footed, who
may have been mortally wounded by the arrows of Artemis, and
whose neck is being mangled by the teeth of her hound. He
has fallen sideways upon his left arm soas to front the spectator,
while his right hand is raised over his head, and is convulsively
tearing out the eye of the animal which torments him. There
is more here than an interesting episode: for this is the giant
whose serpent-head is attacking Hekate on the left, and we are
able better to feel the connection between the different parts of
the frieze.

A concentration of interest on the central figures, the
careful preservation of the continuity of the action, repletion of
details along the basement and in the background, are marks
of Pergamene relief style, and clearly illustrated on these
slabs.

On the right of Artemis is another goddess whose weapon
is the torch, and who therefore belongs to the family of deities
that are grouped at one of the corners of the frieze. She is
striding against an antagonist of whom no intelligible fragments
remain, and as the form of the goddess herself is not perfectly
preserved, it is hard to gain a clear conception of the manner of
the contest. Her-torch is aimed low, and it is probable that
her enemy has sunk down before her. We might believe that
she is none other than Leto, who—as I have mentioned—was
present on the frieze, and who would be appropriately placed
here; but fragments, of which a drawing has been sent to
Berlin, have been found recently αὖ Pergamon, showing a figure
of a goddess who is said to be Leto and who is armed with
a spear.

The upper torso of a very slim goddess equipped with the
bow, and girt round the waist with a scarf, may be supposed to
belong to a nymph in the following of Artemis.

There can be little doubt that the figure of Apollo appeared
in the vicinity of this scene. But it has been suggested that
immediately on the right of Artemis and her kindred goddesses
another group found its place, composed of three combatants—
a winged goddess, and a young god who is wrestling with a lion-

1 Another principle is seen in the smaller reliefs discovered at Pergamon, which
will be described later.

120 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

headed giant (Fig. 1). The only reason for believing that the
two latter are to be placed near Apollo is the similarity
of workmanship which suggests that the two groups are the
work of the same hand. And on the back of the giant the
doubtful fragments of a wing are seen which certainly does not
spring from his shoulders, but which might naturally belong to

the goddess, whose head and upper body has been skilfully
constructed out of eighteen pieces, and who would then be
standing close behind him, and leaning forward to deliver a blow
with a sword or spear. It is difficult to decide the personality
of this winged figure. The face is large and oval—and the
head shows faint traces of a diadem, but is too mutilated to
atford a clue. It would be easy to name her Nike; we have
already seen a winged Nike in attendance on Athene, and the
broken torso of a female charioteer is probably part of another,
whose charge was the chariot of Zeus. It is certainly not
uncommon to find many Nikae in the same scene; but there
is no precedent for the representation of one in active combat

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 121

by the side of Apollo. The winged goddess may of course be
Tris, and her presence in this place would be explicable enoug
if the god who is grasping the head of the giant in his arms
and whose naked form and skilful movements speak of the
training of the palaestra, were Hermes: Iris, Hermes, and
Apollo would be a natural combination. But there are
other allegorical beings besides Nike that were brought into
the frieze.

Among the names of the gods which have been found in-
scribed on fragments of the Cornice that of Themis occurs ; and
though we cannot recognise her in any of the fragments, there
is no doubt that she was taking an active part in the combat.
Now the presence in vehement action of a figure that has come
in later belief, according to Welcker, merely to be an imper-
sonation of an abstract moral idea is strange enough. Isolated
examples may be quoted, but as a rule, figures such as ᾿Δρετή,
Δίκη, Πίστις, are not used for dramatic purposes. A very
remarkable exception may be quoted: on a fragment of a vase
belonging probably to the fourth century, a figure appears, which
according to the inscription is Ilaée/a, wielding a thyrsos in
one of the battles of Dionysos, not improbably the Gigantomachy
itself. But this sort of allegorical drama which recalls the con-
test of Dike and Adikia on the chest of Cypselus is alien to the
spirit of Greek sculpture, and it has yet to be shown that it is
admitted in the Pergamene frieze. In fact the presence of
Themis was appropriate in such a scene, because she was both
in earlier and later belief a real agent, as personal as the
Erinyes, and no mere moral abstraction such as Dike or Paideia.
There seems no ground for separating so rigidly as Welcker’
would an earlier Themis, a Titan goddess of prophetic power
identical with Ge and Demeter, of whom Aeschylus and Pindar
knew, and the goddess of the moral order—the Themis of the
later system. The progress in the conception seems rather to
be this, that the moral idea which was combined with the
physical in the Ge-Themis, becomes detached from the physical.
Yet the later Themis remains real and personal, as the Titan-
Themis from whom she is developed. She is mentioned among
such goddesses as Dione, Rhea, and Amphitrite at the birtb of

1 Overbeck, Kunst-Mythologie, i. p. * Welcker, Griech. Gétterlehre, i. p.
371. 326.

123 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

Apollo :! and if it were true that she is present there as the
primeval Titan-goddess, as Welcker, without any expressed
reason, supposes, then, as the poet names her ‘Lyva/a* the tracker
of crime, the older and later conceptions meet. In short, an
examination of the legends and cults in various parts of Greece
suggests that the more recent character of Themis was influenced
by the recollection of the earlier myths.

Her appearance on the Pergamene frieze among the deities
shows of course that her personality is entirely independent of
that of Ge, else the inappropriateness would be glaring; but it
corroborates the conclusion that she is a real existence, available
for dramatic representation.* Unfortunately there is nothing
to determine her exact place in the frieze, and there are no
intrinsic reasons that can decide. Prima facie, she would be
looked for near the group of Zeus, but in tradition and cult she
is as closely related to Apollo. And if she were really placed
near Apollo on the frieze, a new suggestion might be offered in
explanation of the fragmentary winged figure, referred to already
as a possible Iris. We have seen and shall see how the Per-
gamene sculptors have been prone to surround a prominent
deity with a group of kindred or subordinate beings, and we
might thus suppose that the daughters of Themis, the Hours,
were in her company. Then if the place of the winged goddess
and the place of Themis have been rightly indicated as near
Apollo, the former might be interpreted to be Eunomia,° for the
representation of one of the Hours as winged can be illustrated by
one instance, and by the parallel of the winged figures that
personify the divisions of the year. But much doubt attaches
to all these hypotheses ; we are certain of the presence of Themis
—it is not unlikely that she was in the neighbourhood of Apollo,
and it is perhaps probable that the mutilated winged figure was

1 Hymn to Apollo, line 94.

2 This word has more properly an
ethical than a geographical reference ;
but wide Strabo, 435.

% Such combinations as Ge-Themis
and Athene-Themis, found in inscrip-
tions from the Athenian theatre, do not
prove that Θέμις is a mere abstract
epithet. Compare such composite
figures as Zeus-Poseidon, Zeus-Diony-
Sos.

* Somewhat analogous is the part
which the Moirae play in the action.
Apollod. i. 6.

5 Pausanias, 9, 22, 1, and 10, 5, 6.

ὁ The letters EY have been preserved
on a fragment giving the name of a
deity; one of three suggestions will
probably be accepted, viz. that the
name is Eurynome, or Euterpe (for the
Muses probably appeared on the frieze),
or Eunomia.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 123

close behind the lion-headed giant, and that these three were
also near to Apollo, placed in fact immediately on his left
However we are to name them, the figures of the god ana
the giant (given on Plate N in Conze’s bericht) are of interest.
At first sight one might be tempted to name the former
Heracles, so exactly does this contest resemble his contest with
the Nemean lion as represented on many vases and reliefs. But
this is impossible, as there are signs of Heracles elsewhere, and
the action here is quite unfitted to the part usually assigned
him in the Gigantomachy.*” The young god whose head and
most of whose legs are missing, seems to have taken a firm
stand, while his arms are clasped round the neck of his enemy.
The latter is of monstrous and fantastic shape; though the
lower part of his body is missing there are faint indications of
serpent-legs, and his head and arms very closely resemble the
head and forepaws of a lion. As Conze has remarked, the
Milesian legend of the giant Leon,’ said-to have been conquered
by Heracles, may have given the hint for such a representation
which recalls some of the grotesque figures of Oriental art. The
combination, however it may violate the spirit of Greek sculp-
ture, is full of skill and subtlety. Though the expression in the
features is purely animal, some traces of the human features yet
remain. The nose and the eye are distorted certainly, but
recognisably human, and the wild mane is so arranged that a
lock falls over the forehead resembling human hair. Again, the
nails with which he is lacerating the left arm of the god belong
neither to a human hand nor to a lion’s paw, but to a limb
which resembles partly one, partly the other. We have the
testimony of Pausanias*® to the excellence of certain represen-
tations of animals which he saw wrought in iron at Pergamon.
But this fusion of the human and animal natures is rare, and
is the one quality of the work which is original. I know of no
instance of such a combination, except a small bronze at Vienna*

1 Traces of a long lock of hair appear
on his back between the shoulders; a
long-haired god will scarcely be Hermes,
and certainly not Heracles. The Orien-
tal character of the other figure in the
group suggests that it belongs to the
company of Cybele, and that the young
god is akin to her.

2 Are we to give this name to the
curious lion-headed and winged figure
found on a Cyzicene stater, of which a
cast is in the British Museum ?

3 Paus. x. 18, 5: θαύματος οὐκ ἐλα-
χίστου καὶ ἐν Περγάμῳ A€ovtds τε καὶ
ὑὺς ἀγρίου κεφαλαί.

4 Annali dell. Inst. xiii. p. 170, 260,

13: THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

of later origin, showing the lion-headed Mithras—whose head
seems closely to resemble that of the Pergamene giant in its
admixture of human expression. We see in the group of
Hekate the same skill in rendering animal forms, but this
supplies us with no additional argument for placing group N in
proximity to Apollo. There is a detail in the arrangement of
these bodies which illustrates the special character of Pergamene
work, the profusion of effect; the right hand or paw of the
monster is burying its nails in the left arm of the god near his
shoulder: the other paw, if as would be natural in such an
attitude it had been lacerating the corresponding limb, would
have been hidden from our sight by the body of the god. But
in order to show as much of the action as was possible, the
sculptor has brought the left arm of the giant obliquely across
the body of his antagonist, and it is clutching with its claws his
left thigh which is nearest to the spectator. Such an arrange-
ment does not at first glance appear strained, but on reflection
it strikes one as neither obvious nor natural; and the aim at
fuller display of the figure is much more skilfully attained by
the composition of the group on the coin of Heraclea: (Gardner,
Types of Givck Coins, v. 32.) But the execution is masterly ;
the marble becomes sensitive flesh yielding to the pressure,
as it seemed to Pliny in a work exhibited at Pergamon by
Cephissodotus, a pupil of Praxiteles.?

For beauty ot sculpture and for importance in the history
of sculpture, the slabs on which the form and combat of
Apollo are represented stand very high (Fig. 2); and the
best traditions of the great schools are followed here. The
archer-god, whose quiver is made fast by a band that passes
round his shoulders and waist, stands above a fallen giant
of human limbs who lies before his feet. On the right is
another giant whose torso and fragments of the lower body are
preserved, and who stands so that his back is facing the

1 Pergami symplegma nobile digitis
corpori verius quam marmori impressis.
Pliny, 36, 24.

It is interesting to compare the Per-
gamene group with the bronze of He-
racles and the lion; Furtwangler,
Sabouro ff, ix. exlviii. The type of the
action is the same, but the head of

Heracles is bent much further forward,
and his body has more of the ‘ dis-
tortum et elaboratum,’ but the bronze
shows a glaring defect in the position
of the left arm of Heracles,.which is
avoided on the corresponding figure of
the frieze.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 125

spectator, and though the right arm is lost, the muscles of the
right side and shoulder suggest that he is lifting the heavy
weight of a rock against his enemy. By his left side are the
fragments of a wild beast’s fell, which his left arm was holding
out in the usual fashion. He and Apollo are the chief figures

2.

Fic.

of a scene which is far less profusely crowded than is usual
in the frieze; for the space between the two combatants is
comparati’ely wide, and would admit a minor episode such as
the combat of an eagle and serpent. But enough is preserved
to show us that the upper part of the frieze was not thus filled,

120 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

and could have displayed nothing but the fell of the giant and
the bow of Apollo. The middle and lower parts of the field
were relieved by the himation that falls from the latter’s out-
stretched arm, and covers the background like a curtain.) In
fact there are fewer picturesque elements in this group than
in most others, and a very high effect is achieved within the
proper style of sculpture.

As the figure of the so-called Orion is distinct among the
giants, Apollo is distinct among the gods, and nowhere else in
the frieze can be found proportions so ideal, or such fineness of
execution, or such lightness and studied balance in the attitude.
The whole form is instinct with life and with the assured con-
sciousness of victory, and the impression of slim and elastic
strength is given in accord with the Lysippean method, by the
soft and fluent treatment of the muscles, which are never massed
together, but pass from the one course over into the other with
facile gradations.

The best traditions of an older style have guided the sculptor
in choosing the action which the forms were to express. This
has been misinterpreted by Dr. Furtwingler,”? who considers that
Apollo is marching to the left. On the contrary, there is a
momentary pause, as the muscular tension in the legs shows
that they are firmly planted on the ground ; otherwise the quiet
downward sweep of the drapery, possible and effective when
the movement is for the moment arrested, as we see in one of
the Lapith combats of the Parthenon’s metopes, and on the
metope of the Theseum, would be altogether inappropriate.
Apollo is not at this moment discharging the arrow; if so, the
shot would have been ineffective, for his enemy is erect and as
yet unconquered; but we see the instant preceding the dis-
charge when the right arm is being lightly lifted towards the
quiver which appears behind his neck. A small fragment of
the biceps of this arm has been recently fitted on, and as it is
not perceptibly rounded, the movement can only be just
beginning, and the fingers are not yet closing on the arrow as
in the representation on the vase of the British Museum which

1 On the frieze of the Theseum we against him recalls the figure of the
see this motive effectively employed for giant that confronts Apollo.
the figure of the so-called Theseus, and 2 Arch. Zeit. 1882, 3, p. 251, note.
the Pallantid that hurls the stone

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 127

shows Apollo rescuing Leto from Tityos. But the intention is
still the same; the chief action is not given, but the eager pre-
paration, and by this happy choice of motive the scene gains in
dramatic fulness, and the highest effect of sculpture is secured,
the effect of collectedness. The sculptor then has followed the
older generation in his adherence to this principle ; has he also
borrowed from some earlier work the details of the action, and
the special rendering of the forms ?

There is certainly no known representation of the Giganto-
machy in which we can find the original, or any hint of the
original of the Pergamene figure. His form scarcely occurs in
the earliest vase-paintings that deal with the myth; and on the
vases of the* second period his weapon is not the bow, but the
sword, though he sometimes bears the quiver on his shoulders
as an emblem. Even on the amphora of the Louvre, which
belongs to the third period, and which shows an excessive pro-
fusion of detail, he fights with the torch, though he holds the
bow in his left hand. In fact, neither these nor any existing
works present us with the original of which we are in quest.
That the Pergamene Apollo is itself a derived work we may
assume, first because of its affinity with contemporary or nearly
contemporary works, and again because there is no known type
of a purely Hellenic deity which can be ascribed to the creative-
ness of the second century. Its connection with the Belvedere
and Stroganoff Apollos has been much noticed,? and by
Furtwangler perhaps exaggerated.

The points of agreement between the Belvedere and Pergamene
works are such as these: the outstretched left arm, which is less
rigid in the former, the garment which hangs down from it, the
quiver-belt around the chest, and the slight leftward inclination
of the body. But the motion of the right arm is very different,
the legs of the Apollo on the frieze are far more firmly placed,
and the poise of the head—of which a faint print remains on
the back of the frieze—seems much simpler and more direct,
showing, or rather suggesting, none of the elegant curvature

1 Published by Lenormant, Elite Ξ £.g. on the vase from Altamura,
Ceram., vol. 2, pl. lv. Very similaris published by Heydemann.
the action of Apollo on the relief from 3 Vide Overbeck, Geschichte d. griech.
Termessus (of late date, Arch. Zeit. Plastik. 2, p. 237; Conze, Die Ergebnisse

1881, p. 158). d. Ausgrabungen... 1880, p. 61; Furt-
wangler, Arch. Zeit. 1882, p. 251.

128 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

which is essential to the main effect of the Belvedere Apollo.
And the difference in the treatment of the flesh is too obvious
to need much comment: the surface of the body is made warm,
fresh, and articulate by the Pergamene sculptor: while the chief
fault of the Vatican work is the uninteresting inarticulate
surface. Wecannot compare them in respect of the countenance
and expression, because only a small fragment of the Pergamene
head has been preserved: but a certain number of heads of
deities belonging to the frieze and to separate works have been
discovered at Pergamon, sufficient to establish a certain distinct
type which will afterwards be described, and to which the
Belvedere head, with its mobile Alexandrine cast of features, its
sudden depression from the cheeks to the centre, does not at all
closely conform. It is probable that the head of the Pergamene
Apollo reproduced the main features which Kekule? has illus-
trated from a series of coins that may go back to the beginning
of the fifth century ; but its expression may yet have remained
native and distinct.

But if we suppose that the Pergamene and Vatican statues
with the kindred Stroganoff bronze are free replicas of some
common original, no one has been successful in discovering
where or when or under what circumstances this was created.
A suggestion made by Preller has been laboriously worked up
by Overbeck ? into the theory that the Belvedere Apollo (regarded
as closely related to the Pergamene), the Artemis of Versailles,
the Capitoline Athene, are copies of a group of the three deities
dedicated at Delphi by the Aetolians after the great repulse of
the Gauls from the temple, that Apollo was represented as the
shaker of the aegis, and that the group itself was no original
conception, but derived from a supposed group produced in the
fifth century, and commemorating at Delphi the similar repulse
of the Persians. But this argument is a valueless accumulation
of hypotheses ; we do not know that the figures seen by Pau-
sanias at Delphi formed a group engaged in a common action at
all: indeed his words suggest a number of single ὃ and separate
statues : still less do we know the significance or motive of these

1 Kekule, Apollo-képfe, Arch. Zeit. 3 Paus. x. 15, 2: στρατηγοὶ δὲ of
1878, p. 7; vide silver coin from Epi- Αἰτωλοὶ καὶ Αρτέμιδος, τὸ δὲ AOnvas,
dauros, Arch. Zcit. 1869, taf. 23, 8. δύο τε ᾿Απόλλωνος ἀγάλματα ἔστιν

5. Gesch. d. griech. Plast. 2, 820---ϑ28, Αἰτωλῶν.

EE υ ὐδῆἶνΝ

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 129

figures—and we are not certain that the Belvedere Apollo is
shaking the aegis, and the supposed original group of the fifth
century is a pure figment. It is a theory at least as plausible
that the representation at Delphi of Apollo and Artemis dis-
charging their arrows at Tityos, the violator of Latona, and
himself an earth-born giant, suggested or reproduced the type
of the Apollo Gigantophonos ; and certain points of resemblance
have been noticed between the figure on the fifth-century vase,
published by Lenormant, and the Pergamene Apollo. If indeed
there had been a group of statues at Delphi clearly presenting
the deities in the act of warding off the Gauls, it is probable
that this would have supplied some motives for the Pergamene
frieze, for the event commemorated was very similar in both
cases, and we have seen that the giants were the mythic counter-
part of the Gauls. Positive evidence is wanting; but there is
this negative evidence against the supposed derivation of certain
Pergamene figures from the work at Delphi. The Athene on
the frieze could have borne no likeness to the Athene which
Pausanias saw in the temple, as the pose and action would be
quite unsuitable for a single statue, or for a statue in such a
group as Overbeck conceives.

Leaving the question of origins, we may ask whether the
fragments of the Pergamene Apollo serve to clear up the diffi-
culties concerning the Belvedere and Stroganoff works, with
which we may admit its affinity. The main questions touching
the Belvedere, its correct restoration and its dramatic meaning,
will still remain undecided. The discovery at Pergamon does
not even increase the probability that Apollo Belvedere is
combating the giants or the Gauls; for replicas of the same
original might be used for the purposes of very different
representations.

But the question whether the thing held in his hand is an
aegis or a bow is now on a slightly altered footing. As long as
the Stroganoff bronze was the only work which could supply a
parallel, and no doubt existed that the fragment in its left
hand was part of an aegis, it seemed natural to describe Apollo
Belvedere as Alyioyos. But if we allow that the Stroganoff
Apollo holds the aegis, yet the value of the illustration is lost ; for
it is met by the counter-illustration from Pergamon of an Apollo
admitted to be of kindred work and conception who holds out

HS.—VOL. VI. K

130 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

the bow. Of course no other argument would avail at all, if
the attribute of the bow were unsuitable to the Belvedere statue,
if, as has been said, its pose did not conform to the action of the
archer. But this is surely not the case: the actual discharge of
the arrow, or the fitting of the arrow to the string, could not be
the motive of the figure, but the movement of the limbs, the pose
of both arms, the eyes fixed upon the distance, might suggest
that the arrow has just been sent, and that the muscles are just
relaxing from the tension of the effort, and that, though the
change has begun, the limbs still preserve something of the
forms into which the action of the instant preceding had set
them. If he is holding the aegis the outstretched fingers of
the left hand, the quiver beii round his chest, the direction of
the eyes, have much !ess appropriateness and meaning.

At present the ta:« of rearrangement deals rather with proba-
bilities than proofs. I+ is probable that Apollo was not far from
the chief Ciympians; and it isa reasonable conjecture that in the
centre of cone ot the fronts were seen the groups of Athene
and Zeus already described. As these deities are the leaders
in the action, a conspicuous place must have been assigned to
them, and this couid not have been the centres of the small
facades on-each side of the staircase. For a fragment which
has fortunately been discovered proves clearly that the two scenes
are continuous, and that the figure of Athene was seen on the
right of Zeus, separated by only a small interval from him. The
fragment is part of the slab which completes the group of Athene
on the left, on which we can discern the mutilated upper parts
of the giant’s body who lies below Typhon. Above is preserved a
emall portion of Athene’s serpent anda fragment of Typhon’s
wing, and on the extreme left of the recently found s!ab appear
semains ~ aserpent’s body which exactly fit the broken surfaces
of tho serp>>t limb which belongs to the giant who confronts
Zeus.

Near the centre of this front came in all probability the four-
horsed chariot which a winged Nike was driving over a heap of
the slain; and the figure of Hera, who though never a personage
conspicuous in the action was almost indispensable for the Per-
gamene artists, must have been placed in this part of the frieze.

She is found on the amphora of Caere, clothed in a long
chiton, and grasping her enemy by the shoulder while she strikes

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 131

with her sword. She is found on the cylix of Aristophanes,
which in conception and style comes near to the Pergamene
work, and her form has there the softness and elegance of the
later type. The stephane rises above her forehead, her veil falls
down behind her head, but this time her weapon is the spear
which she levels at the fallen Rhoetus whose uplifted arm she
clutches. This type may have become fixed for the armed and
combating Hera,! but it does not enable us to discover the
goddess in any of the Pergamene figures; for the action of
grasping the arm or shoulder of the enemy is too natural and
common to serve as aclue.? It is probable that the Hera of
our frieze did not differ essentially from the goddess represented
on the cylix.

Near to the group of the more prominent Olympian deities
we should expect to find Ares. He cannot be identified in any
of the combatants, but a fragment which has been found with
his name upon it proves his. presence on the frieze, and shows
also that he was placed on the left of one of the corners. As
he had appeared very frequently both in earlier and later
representations of this action, the Pergamene sculptor was
under no necessity of creating any new type for the sake of
his theme.

But Ares himself seems to have been one of a group of re-
lated deities ; for among the inscriptions are found the names of
Enyo and Aphrodite. Both goddesses must have been seen
near Ares; but the only artistic record of Enyv® that has been
preserved does not help us to discover her with certainty in any
of the existing figures. Neither in Homer nor in other source of
religious legend does she possess any independent existence or
cult, nor is she employed by poetry or art as a dramatic agent.
But it is not surprising that her figure should have been used by
the sculptors of the frieze whose task demanded a multitude of

1 On the fifth-century vase, published
by Heydemann, Hera, according to his
explanation, is seen fighting with the
spindle. The same figure is explained
by Trendelenburg as Artemis with the
plectron.

beck, Gesch. d. griech. Plast. vol. ii.
p. 102, fig. ὃ.

3 She is found in coins of Bruttii
hurrying forward in long chiton, with
helmet on head, and holding shield in
both hands. The conjecture that the

* One might conjecture that the
figure from the Gigantomachy of the
frieze of Priene, whose left arm seizes
her antagonist’s head, is JIera (Over-

sons of Praxiteles who carved a statue
of Enyo fixed for sculpture the type of
the goddess has some plausibility.

K ig

132 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE,

deities, and whose age was not offended if beings who had little
hold on the popular mythology were brought into action.

The place of Aphrodite on the frieze is easy to fix, though
theze are not many works to which we can appeal for direct
illustration. She could not have been far from Ares; as she
is placed by his side in the only other representation of the
Gigantomachy in which she occurs, namely, in the painting
on the Louvre amphora, where she is guiding the chariot of
the god.

Tt hus been thought by many that the goddess under F
(according to the enumeration in the Beschreibung der
pergamenischen Bildwerke) can be recognised as Aphrodite.
But the only reason for this belief is the beauty of the light
and half-transparent drapery; and that this figure is proved by
the marks of the joining of the stones to be the corner slab on
left of the north-east corner is a fatal objection, because the stone
on which the name Aphrodite is inscribed is no corner-stone. It
is a misfortune that the Aphrodite of the Pergamene frieze has
been lost, for it would have been interesting to have compared
her form with the Melian statue, and to have seen if the
Pergamene school had done anything for the creation of the
type of the Venus Victrix.

It is noteworthy that the participation of Aphrodite in the
action dates from the Alexandrine era. It was as unsuitable!
to the spirit of earlier tradition, as it was suitable to the Alex-
andrine treatment of tradition, and later poetry, as well as later
art, gave as has been seen, an erotic colour to certain passages of
the myth. But considering the epic dignity preserved in nearly
all the representations on this frieze, we should expect to find
the action of Aphrodite free of any erotic sentiments, and the
type of the armed Aphrodite had long been known to temple-
worship (ὁ... Paus. 3, 15, 10).

There is still another goddess who must have been placed
near this group, for the evidence of inscriptions again supplies
the gaps on the monument and proves the presence of Dione.
The Pergamene sculptor would hardly have placed her in the
vicinity of Zeus, for it is only the Dodonean cult that maintains

1 The myth of the destruction of the early local legend, is possibly non-

giants at Phanagoria (Strabo, 495) Hellenic,
through the guile of Aphrodite, if au

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE, 133

her close relation with him. Whatever may have been the
original conception of her as Titan-goddess akin to Ge, she is of
importance in later times merely as the mother of Aphrodite. 1
Once more we are left to conjecture to discover the form under
which she appeared on the frieze ; she cannot be the thinly-robed
and youthful goddess on slab /’, for we must expect more august
drapery and more matronly forms. Scarcely known in sculpture,
she is clearly defined in the numismatic record alone. It is
possible that the ample and austerely clad figure in the Parthenon
west pediment on whose lap Aphrodite is sitting is Dione, re-
presented by Pheidias’s school, if we may trust Carrey’s drawing,
as without the veil which she always wears on the coins of Epirus
and Thessaly.” On these she appears sometimes by the side of
Zeus, sometimes alone, always veiled and wearing at times the
polos and the crown of laurel or oak-leaves. Her face has
something of the features and expression of Ceres, to whom
her personality is rather akin. As these coins belong to the be-
ginning of the second or end of the third century, it is probable
that the Dione at Pergamon was net materially different from
the type of these.

The row of figures immediately on the right of the north-east
corner are preserved, if it is certain that here was seen the
goddess on slab # whose chiton is transparent enough to reveal
the beauty of her limbs, and who is treading with her left foot
on the face of a fallen giant. On her left arm is a shield, and
near it are traces which seem to indicate the butt-end of a spear
which she will then be holding in her left hand as a weapon in
reserve. Her head, and most of her right arm and the lower
part of her right leg are gone, but enough remains of the
whole figure to show the nature of the action. Her enemy,
who is youthful, and as he bears a shield is probably of human
form throughout, has fallen hopelessly before her, in such a
way as to suggest that a few instants previously he was fleeing
before her and that she had dragged him back by the hair,
She is now bending forward, and her whole force is directed

1 Theocritus, 17, 86. Hyginus, ed. lished by Welcker, Alte Denkindiler, 3,
Schmidt, p. 12. p. 136, does not serve as an analogy.

2 8. M, Cat. Greek Coins, Epirus, pl. Dione is there in the cortége of Bacchus,
17. 5, 12; pl. 18, 1. The vase pub- and wears a vine-crown.

134 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

downwards, as though she were about to give him the coup de
grace with the sword, which though not seen we may believe to
be her weapon, because cf the sword-belt round her breast and
the sheath that hangs at her side.

We may perhaps regard her as a goddess subordinate to
Aphrodite, if the latter actually appeared on the left of the
corner. The head of the young giant whom she has overthrown
is wrought with sharp lines and smooth surfaces, and the ex-
pression is concentrated in the middle of the face about the
mouth and in the lines of the forehead where the pain is
shown.

As for the pose of the figures, it seems to be an invention
either of the Pergamene school itself or of the later Alexandrine
era, and testifies to the effort of the sculptor to win a strong
effect of pathos; it is not employed elsewhere in the frieze.

Pathos is also the intention of another trait in the same
scene. Beneath the first giant is seen another, who is lying
with his head resting on his arms and his face buried in the
earth, so that nothing more of him is visible than the back part
of his head, his arms and _ slioulders, and the matted hair
streaming downwards. The attitude betokens the shame of
defeat, the quiet of death amidst the tumult, and is found in
another place of the frieze where the winged horses of Zeus are
represented, and beneath the chariot an armed giant is lying
prone.

But the motive—a prostrate combatant with the head sunk
and the hair falling over—was a tradition of frieze-sculpture
both early and late, and seems proper to a wild type; thus we see
it in a representation of a dead Centaur on the Phigaleian frieze
and of another on a Roman sarcophagus.}

Few parts of the frieze are more intentionally pathetic than
these picturesque details which show the ruin and confusion of
the battle-field ; and it is with these that the lower part of the
ground is chiefly filled. We have here a principle of frieze-
composition which had never been so conspicuous before; for
while the tendency of the larger relief-works belonging to the
fifth and fourth century, where a multitude of figures is given,
is to concentrate the interest rather on the centre of the slab, the

} Mon. inediti dell, Inst, 1854, pl. xix.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 135

base of the Pergamene frieze is filled up with so rich a store
of accessory themes that it appears as a decorated architectural
support of the upper parts. This principle 15. still further
earried ont in the Roman sarcophagus relicts,

On the next connected slab (@) a goddess is again in combat,
but here the victory is by no means certain. A youthful winged
giant with serpent’s feet is dangerously threatening her with ἡ
stone which he appears to be raising in his right-hand, though
only fragments of his arms remain ; and by the manner in which
he faces his antagonist we are reminded οἱ the giant confronting
Hekate. The goddess is turning partially in the opposite direction,
and at first sight her movement recalls the movement of At! ene,
but is due to an altogether different reason, for she is not a -ely
drawing her body back for the blow, but we see something of
fear displayed in the retreating motion of the left limbs. Her
right hand is lost, but from signs that remain it 1s judged that
she must have been holding a weapon across her breast, ready
for defence or for a stroke. Neither her position on the frieze
nor her form teil us anything of her personality ; but at most
the suggestion may be made that it is a subordinate goddess
whose action has not the boldness or promise of victory which
suits the action of the deities. The wild nature and animal
characteristics of her opponent are combined with a youthful
beauty of countenance, of which the features belong on the
whole to the first type, but yet produce a new effect on account
of the short flattened chin, the sharply-marked cheek-bones, and
bow-shaped curve of the lips. The expression is of determination
rather than-rage.

At the top of the frieze on the left is a combat between his
serpent-limb and an eagle, the arrangement being the same
almost by necessity as a similar combat in the group of Zeus.
We may take this example to show that a mere correspondence in
motive is no sufficient criterion for asserting correspondence in
position.

The composition of the next group (17) shows nothing original.
A giant of human form has fallen before his foe, and while sup-
porting himself on his left knee is raising his right arm against
the god who has thrown him down. The main outlines of the
action have become almost stereotyped in reliefs of battle-scenes,
and may be seen at least three times in the Pergamene altar,

136 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

The god who is here in combat is apparently youthful and long-
haired and almost naked, wearing nothing but a chlamys that
flutters behind him. On his left arm is a round shield and in his
right hand probably a spear, which he draws back for a thrust.
The question how to name him will be discussed in connection
with the next scene.

The composition of group J has more originality. A giant
has raised a young god oft the ground, and has encircled his
chest with both arms, at the same time fastening his teeth into
his left arm, while the serpent-limbs are entangling his lower
parts, and the serpent’s head towering on high threatens him from
above. The god is making a furious effort to free himself, his left
foot is pressed hard upon the serpent’s thigh, but his other foot can
find no hold on the slippery coils, and he has no weapon free for
offence except the right arm that is levelling a blow at the
giant’s head with a weapon which is shown by the pose of the
mutilated hand to be a spear. What is most striking in the
whole is the skill with which the different parts of the two com-
batants are welded together, the involution of the human and
animal limbs. The gigantic hands that meet and are interlaced
under the breast of the god look like the seal of a heavy chain,
and the giant’s head, which belongs to the most ferocious type
of these, is so placed as to coincide compactly with the small
shield and left arm of the god that appears over it.

The group of Heracles and Antaeus in Milton house, which
recalls and yet essentially differs from this group, has been already
mentioned; and no one would see Heracles in the god on this
slab. He has been regarded as one of the Cabiri, only because
no other but a subordinate deity could be represented as so
hard pressed. But as other subordinate deities might be men-
tioned the weakness of such reasoning is plain, and the theory
is confronted by the probability that the Cabiri, if present on
the frieze, were in the vicinity of Cybele, and that her place
was on the right of one of the corners, and was therefore re-
moved from the position of group J.

We come somewhat nearer to the interpretation of the
fisures when we see that the god who is entangled by the
serpent-limbs and he who is striking down the giant on the
left are of kindred nature. Both are naked, both carry the
shield and probably the spear. Such accoutrements and the

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 137

long hair! of the one that is still visible behind his neck suggest
the belief that these are the Dioscuri. And it is not surprisin:
that the contest of one of the Dioscuri should be more doubtful
and desperate than the contest of the Olympians.

It is true that there is no literary record of their presence in
the Gigantomachy, but the Louvre amphora, with its rich
illustration of the myth, supplies monumental testimony ; the
two riders who there appear fighting with spears can be none
other than the Twin Brethren ; and they appear there as deities,
just as on the Pergamene frieze, if these Pergamene figures
are they, they are given as deities.

A new and remarkable illustration, or partial illustration of
the myth is given by the vessel found at Tanagra (see next page)
and published in the Hphemeris Archaiologike ;* its painting,
according to M. Tsounta, who describes it, has no mythological
meaning at all. But when we compare the action and move-
ment of the figures with those of the combatants on the
Louvre amphora and the crater of Ruvo, there can be little
doubt that here also is a Gigantomachy; that the mounted youth?
on the left wearing the Thessalian hat and the long chlamys, and
striking downwards at his enemy with his spear, is one of the
Dioscuri, and that the other is the warrior on the right who
fights on foot, armed with the shield and spear, wearing a
cone-shaped hat, and a flowing chlamys around his arm. The
deity between them is almost certainly Ares. The character
of their antagonists is attested by the wild beasts’ skins which
some of them carry* Now the likeness is striking between
that one of the Dioscuri who is seen here on the night and the
Pergamene god under H; the weapons being the same and the
flowing chlamys being common to both. If I have rightly
interpreted the Tanagrean work, it supports the conjecture that
the figures now in question of the Pergamene frieze are the
Dioscuri, and as the painters of the Louvre amphora and the
Tanagrean vessel place them near to Ares, so if we admit the

1 Cf. the representation of the twin- amphora is most striking and almost
brethren on the sarcophagus of the conclusive.

Lateran Die antike Bildwerke des later. 4 They cannot be barbarian warriors,
Museums, Benndorf ἃ. Schéne, 250. for they carry Hellenic arms, and the
4 Year 1883, p. 196. figures of some of the giants on the

3 The resemblance of this figure to Ruvo vase strangely recall these.
one of the Dioscuri on the Louvre

138 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE, 139

conjecture, it is probable, according to the arrangement mentioned
above, that the sculptors of the frieze brought the three deities
together,

Now if the great group of the deities that personify the
lights of heaven, Selene, Eos and Helios, is to be placed as has
been suggested near to the north-east corner, they will be con-
tiguous to the deitiesin Hand J. Ifthese latter are the Dioscuri
we can give reasons why they should be in this vicinity. There
seems little doubt, as Welcker has pointed out, that the character
of the Dioscuri was originally not heroic but divine; and
although Homer knows of them only as mortal yet their worship
at Sparta goes back to the aniconic aye; in the myths and
beliefs that attach to them they appear as half disguised celestial
powers of the light. The greater number of vase-paintings
present them indeed simply as heroes; but neither in art nor
in literature does their divine nature entirely pass from view,
and it emerges clearly again, perhaps through the growing
strength of hero-worship, in the fourth century and survives
the fall of Greece. , On several of the latter vases they appear
associated with beings of light and darkness; and the theory
that if the Dioscuri were on the Pergamene frieze they were
near the group of Helios and his kindred, could be well illustrated
by the inscription found on a block from Ancyra, probably the
base of two statues of the twins in which the Dioscuri are ad-
dressed as οἱ σύνναοι θεοί of Ζεὺς “Ἥλιος Σάραπις. The theory
can only be put forward as a perhaps plausible hypothesis; but
at present much of thearrangement and most of theinterpretation
is nothing more than hypothetical.

The right side of the frieze shows us the fragments of a figure
armed with a club and clothed with a lion’s fell, striding forward
towards the last-mentioned giant, and looking back as upon
some enemy against whom he 15 raising his club, It has been
but is probably no longer maintained that this is Heracles; the
action does not suit such an interpretation, since the fragments
seem to speak of a combatant who is defending himself while
still retreating.

We may say with certainty that this is a giant, whose costume
is arranged so as to remind us of Heracles, just as on a vase
published by Millin ? the fallen giant has a wild beast’s fell drawn

1 Corp. Ins. Graee, 4042. 2 Galerie Mythologique, 2, exx.

110 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

over his head in something of the same way as it appears on
the head of the Pergamene giant in question. Against what
god or goddess is he advancing? Different answers might no
doubt be given: a combination that is suitable enough and has
been suggested by Signor Freres is that which would place him
opposite to the spear-bearing god who is set up in the rotunda
of the Museum. But this conjecture is all the more uncertain,
as it is not proved that the combatant who bears the spear is a
god; his massive flesh and his violent stride suggest that he
may be a giant, and it seems certain that however we are
to name him, he was advancing before the mule of Selene,
since a fragment of a hoof? is seen on the right close to his
right arm; and it is stated that evidence of the same fact is
given by a fragment not long discovered of the head of the
mule with the guiding hand of Selene nearit.? Other fragments
belonging, or probably belonging, to the group of Helios have
been found, the most important being a serpent’s head which
was fastening upon his right arm that held the torch. But
nothing has as yet been discovered to prove the place of the
group, which we might more naturally assign to the east than
to the north side, as tradition speaks of the battle beginning at
sunrise.

Note.—Since the above was written, a discovery has been
made at Berlin which is of the utmost importance in the
reconstruction of the frieze-work of the altar, but which at
present has led to little more than a destruction of a former theory
hitherto undisputed. It was officially stated that the group of
Hekate occupied the south-east corner, and at the corresponding
corner of the south-west Cybele and her nymphs with a crowd
of maritime divinities were to be placed in such an order that
Cybele appeared at the extreme left of the south side, and
Triton and Nereus a little removed from her on the right.
Certain gaps in the sequence of the slabs and the lack of any
mythological propriety were made of little account in this
arrangement of the figures. At the same time it was given out

11 had wrongly conjectured thatthis rying a torch, of which the traces
belonged to the horse of Eos. appear on her breast, and who will

2 There is a fragment, of very fine belong to the company of Helios or
workmanship, of a goddess who is car- Hekate.

THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE. 141

that the staircase leading up to the interior of the great altar
was on the south side; and it was supposed that the breadth of
the steps was about a third of the whole front. Now a small
fragment has been found which belongs to the sea-centaur or
Triton (fig. Y in the Beschreibung der pergamenischen Bild-
werke) and which proves conclusively that Triton as well as
Cybele was placed on the right of a corner. But the slabs from
Triton onwards towards the right form an uninterrupted series
of reliefs which covered both the left wing of the side broken
by the staircase, and the left wall of the staircase itself on
which the length of the frieze figures diminishes as the steps
rise. Now as Cybele is not among those figures, and she like
Triton is on the right of a corner, it follows that, wherever else on
the frieze she is to be placed, she is far removed from the neigh-
bourhood of the sea-divinities. But more than this follows from
the new discovery : we already knew the figure that stood at the
right corner of the left wing of this broken front, the figure of
Amphitrite (slab 77), and as the figure of Triton is now found
to be at the left corner of this same wing we have now an exact
measurement of the length of this wing, and as the girth of the
square altar has already been almost exactly fixed, we can esti-
mate now the breadth of the staircase, which is considerably
broader than was believed. The wing on its right must have
been of the same length as the left; and as regards the figures
upon it one thing is almost certain—that the figure at the ex-
treme left of this right wing was Bacchus; but are we able to
place in his vicinity, as the theory before maintained would
place, the numerous goddesses in the following of Hekate? It
is a question of measurement which to be precise must be made
on the spot. Buta very rough calculation of the slabs will
show that when we have made room for the antagonist of
Dionysos, we shall have exceeded the limited space of this
wing if we join to this group the goddesses in A and B. The
deities therefore of the- lower world have no connection with
Dionysos on the frieze. But the question with whom he is to
be grouped is nevertheless not quite an open question, for until
it can be shown that the Pergamene sculptors in grouping the
deities abandoned the long-established principle of mythological
or religious affinity, and as long as the various sets of slabs
where the sequence is certain display this principle clearly, we

142 THE PERGAMENE FRIEZE.

are obliged to follow it in snggesting a restoration, and we may
even hold it to be a securer criterion than is the place where
the fragments were actually found. Now we can fall back on
the only alternative suggestion that he should be placed with
Cybele, in such a way that while he is at the left extremity of
this wing the latter, who we know to be on a corner-slab, shall
be round the adjoining corner.

.
=~

Cybele,

: U, 2
Tionysos Nymphs
with of
Satyrs. Cybele.

This is indeed impossible, if the cortege of nymphs on the
left of Cybele is as long as it appears to be on the sequence
of slabs (7 to U 3) assumed by the official Beschreibung (1883,
page 18). But this sequence admits of no proof and is not
now defended.

If the figures under 7 and U7) are brought round the corner
and set on the right of Cybele (for they seem to belong to her
following), then there is room on the wing for Dionysos and his
missing opponent and the goddess with the lion and the fallen
giant (U, and U,). We know that her figure was placed at the
left of a corner, and according to the present arrangement she
is at the right extremity of this right wing; and now if we
allow for a slab on which her antagonist was placed, this
sequence of figures will fill a length of frieze-work almost the
same as the given length of the left wing, and certainly not
exceeding it. Dionysos will be assisted in the combat by the
lions of the great goddess, the cognate character of the two
deities will be marked as it is marked on a terra-cotta relief}
on which the forms of Maenads are placed round the throne
of Cybele, and this part of the frieze will show the influence
and some of the forms of oriental Greek worship.

Li, A. ARNE DES

1 Furtwiingler, Sabeurofl Coll, vy. exxxvii.

INSCRIPTIONS COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE. 143

INSCRIPTIONS COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE.

I HAVE been requested to examine a MS. collection, bound
in two volumes, and entitled A/S. Laseriptions collected in Greece
by (Οὐ. R. Cockerell, 1810-14." A fuller description of the con-
tents is added on the title page, apparently by the hand of the
collector himself—‘UZnseriptions collected in various parts of Greece
by C. R. Cockerell, from the year 1810-14; they were copied
From the original manuscripts in this forir by Signor Amati, in
Rome, ὧν 1815, and examined by Mr. Akerilad, who made all
the notes and corrections in ved ink. Mr. Walpole has made
copies of those marked “Cd.,” and has noted those already in
print. It is evident, therefore, that we have here documents
of considerable importance, especially as all trace of the original
manuscripts referred to has been lost. Signor Amati, the tran-
scriber, seems to have done his work with great care and
accuracy, even the forms of letters being, in most cases, faithfully
preserved. A comparison with other independent transcriptions
from the same originals will soon show that we may rely on his
copying ; where mistakes occur, they are almost always such
as would arise from indistinctness on the stone itself. This
statement is of importance, for other transcribers, whether

1 [On the occasion of one of his to Mr. Newton the collection here

lectures at University College, Mr.
Newton asked his auditors to let him
see any MS. collections of inscriptions
lying in private possession of which
they might be aware, such collections
having been comimonly made by English
travellers in past times, and often
merely laid aside. As a result of this
Yeyuest, Mrs, Frederic’s Cockerell sent

described of inscriptions copied by her
father-in law, Mr. C. R. Cockerell.
The laborious and somewhat unat-
tractive task of investigating whether
these inscriptions were unpublished, or
whether they amended existing texts,
was undertaken, on behalf of the editors
of this journal, by Mr. Εν, A. Gardner.
Ed.)

144 INSCRIPTIONS COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE.

independent or immediately deriving their material from this
book, often show a carelessness which can easily be corrected
by a reference to it, and which has, in many cases, affected
the copies preserved in the Corpus itself.

The book contains 240 inscriptions in all, of which some fifty,
probably, are as yet unpublished. This computation may have
to be modificd, but is confirmed by a more careful search for
the earlier ones. The rest afford considerable material for
correction of the copies preserved in the Corpus and elsewhere,
but are hardly, in most cases, worth separate publication.?
They enable us, also, to check the accuracy of copies derived
immediately from this book, especially those of Walpole ;
and such a check is by no means superfluous. For instance, in
C.1.G. 391, derived from Walpole, common forms are given
throughout; in this book we find ἌΝ Δ ΝΖ = again, in
C.I.G. 464, the distinctive forms A, €, A, C, ὦ, are completely
lost. One more instance under this head may suffice. In CLG.
1598, Walpole represents Cockerell as giving BOIOTONTA...
OAAN; he really has BOIOTONTA... JOAAAN, thus
being nearer to the true reading Βοιωτοὶ τὸν τρίποδα ἀνέθεικαν ;
here, in QN, Walpole has given as resting on good authority a
false and misleading emendation, which is written in red ink
above the line in Cockerell’s book. It is therefore clear that a
careful collation is advisable in the case of all inscriptions in
the Corpus derived from this source.

Another question arises which cannot be fully answered until
-more of our material has been published. Many English
travellers of the beginning of the present century seem to have
examined this book of Cockerell’s; Akerblad, Walpole, and
Leake, have all left traces of their revision in it; and some of
these drew from it the inscriptions which they published. How
far others may have done the same is not yet clear; but in
C.I.G. 1707, for instance, a transcription quoted in the Corpus
as made directly by Hughes from the stone, shows too many
correspondences, even in mistakes, with Cockerell’s version for
us to believe the two versions are independent. In l. 6, for
instance, Hughes gives ANEIAHMTON for ANE®ANTON : now
Cockerell has ANELANTON, differing only from the true reading

1 A collation with published copies has been made in the case of all not here
reproduced.

INSCRIPTIONS COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE, 145

by the omission of part of the d: but over the line is written
the very emended form given by Hughes in his copy. This
fact, which is not isolated, tends to throw serious doubts on the
independent value of such copies. Perhaps it will be worth
while later to return to this question; for the present, this
indication will suffice.

Specimens follow of such inscriptions as are new, and, there-
fore, worthy of reproduction ; some are included which materially
increase already published inscriptions. These specimens com-
prise all that were found upon the mainland of Greece, and are
taken from the first sixty examples in Cockerell’s book. A
complete list of these follows. An asterisk is placed against
those reproduced below.

1 = 0.1.4. 336 23 = Le Bas and Wad.! 40 = Le Bas and Wad,

Da eee! 878 11:19 | II. 806

ΞΡ. (24 = (6.1.6. 2139) | 41 = 1.4. 1620
*4 Unpublished 1 ΘΔ ἘΞ ue Bas andaWada| 42 ΞΞ «1608
*5 = C.1.G. 300 11. 453 | 48= ,, 1689

6 =i lity 464 *26 Unpublished 46 =] Atle ἢ

7= ” 177 | *27 ” | +402 = 5 112}
*§ Unpublished FO8e— FOL TG 1.89 | 46= ,, 1694

9 = C.1.G. 880 ΒΞ me allie, RAY ae ce Le
*10 Unpublished 3s0="";, +1668 48=" ,, 1707
y= CN. 4.917 Sli Fee, OS 40} ἘΞ τ 64
ele πνεθδ8 82 ΞΡ νυ eeloge EO ἢ 2207
Tons m5 8660 33 Rang. Ant. Hell.1315. *51 Unpublished
14 = Kumanudes, 3251 84 = C.1.G. 1574 #52 He

15 = ΟἿ Ὁ. 958 85 = Le Bas and Wad. | *53 3

GT = ies} 808 II. 603 | 64 = 6.1.4. 1501
ve ott 810 86 = Le Bas and Wad., 55= ,,σ 1504
*18 Unpublished 11. 601 |.56= ,, 1187
19 = C.1.G. 438 | 87 = C.1,G. 1628 Dip = ἐν 50
*20 Unpublished ΑΞ αὐ τ 1695 Ibs ΞΞῚ δι ἘΠ 1864
21 = 6.7.6. 386 B= ann 596 fe Soe ee 1188
2= ,, 9391 | 1 60 = ,, 1185

Before proceeding to the inscriptions themselves, I need
only add that a few marks, both in pencil and red ink, are

1 Inscriptions not to be found in the
new or old Corpus,in Le Bas and
Waddington, in Kumanudes’ Sepul-
chral Inscriptions, in Rangabé’s An-
tiquités Helléniques, &c., are here treated
as unpublished. I have also referred

ΠῚ 5.-- Ol, ΥἹ,

to periodicals, where I had any clew
to guide me; but a complete and
systematic search through all these
would have been laborious and almost
impracticable.

146 INSCRIPTIONS COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE,

found in the book as well as Amati’s copies: but these are
seldom, if ever, more than obvious restorations, and do not seem
to have any authority from the original manuscripts, or other
sources, Signor Amati has sometimes recorded in Italian both
the place of finding and other details; these have been, in every
case, reproduced below. Inconsistencies in his copies, especially
when two forms of a letter occur in the same inscription, have
also been as far as possible preserved.

4, ZASIMHKAAAINIKOYMIAHSIA
ΦΩΚΙΩΝΟΣΟΤΡΥΝΕΩΣΕΎΝΗ

Ζωσίμη Καλλινίκον Μιλησία
Φωκίωνος ᾿Οτρυνέως [γ]υνή

The name Ζωσίμη seems to have been common among
Milesians ; οὗ, 6.1.6, 711, 712, 714. For the question whether
Miletus ranked as a deme of Athens, and the Milesians as
Athenian citizens, cf. Boeckh, iid. 692. A discussion of more
recent opinions upon the subject is given by Mr. Hicks (Brit,
Mus. Inscriptions, I. p. 150). It seems that Milesians, though
very numerous at Athens, had no peculiar rights of citizenship ;
even the form of the inscription, with the local name in the
fem. nom. instead of the mase. gen., to agree with the father’s
name, would be unusual for an Attic deme. Intermarriages
such as that here recorded have been adduced as evidence for
the Athenian citizenship of Milesians, but the balance of
authority seems to be on the other side.

5. This is identical with C.Z.G’, 300, but preserves so much

more of the original that it seems worth while to add a new
transcription.

In tre corone :—

ADE d= oh ae \YMIS
A
ΠΟ, Σ TQAAIANOS
AX. NEYZ AXAPNOYG
Δ,

INSCRIPTIONS COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE 147

ΟΞΕΝΟΣ ! BAKXIOS AIO
DAAQNIOS } ΟΛΥΜΠΙΟΣ. SIH: ΟΣ
ΙΠΑΤΡΟΣ ! ΔΗΜΌΣΙΟΝ κυρ KAZIAIZ
AQNIAE : AONYZIOZ. AIOKAHE

ΥΞΙΙΣ i ΞΟ ΞΡΙῺΣ X: AOMAN.
ΟΣ Ad gd ae ANOAAQNOS
AQNOZ ᾧ{ ΦΙΛΑ OF ΞΓΙΚΤΑΣ
MENOS : SEPAMNIC.. ANOAAQNIOS

= ELAS AMAPANTOS

AAS : NAPAMONOS ΛΥΚΟΣ

2N | AMOAAONIAHE HAIOANPOS

ΣΙΟΣ ΓΆΞΙΟΣ ἩΡΑΚΑΣ ΝΙΚΩ͂Ν

ΓΌΓΓ. ἔπΞΙΚΟΚΡΑΤΟΥ.

Nel giardino della κύρα Kovrpixod.
(Ste; altered in pencil to κυρὰ Kor—.)

The dotted line indicates the amount extant in the C.1.@.
copy. It will be observed that in one case ἃ, in to A is given,
probably by mistake.

If the inscriptions in the three wreaths belong to the text
below them, they may help to explain these mere catalogues,
of which several occur in the Corpus, In the second wreath
we have A...... s Ilo[...]s “Ayapveds; in the third, ——s
Πωλλίανος ᾿Αχαρν[ε]ύ[95]. In the new columns are clear
the names
Dir
Anp
The rest are too fragmentary for probable restoration. ‘Turning
next to the part preserved also in the Corpus, we find, in the left
column 1. 1, the conjecture Βάκχιος confirmed; in 1. 5 the -ος con-
firms again Boeckh’semendation. In]. 9 we find ‘leds for ᾿Ἰσίας.
In 1. 7 Cockerell’s transcript suggests Φιλάδελφος ; this is con-
firmed by ᾿Αδελφός in 1. 6 of C..G., if one may assume a confusion
of the two lines.

In the right column we find, 1. 6, the form ᾿Απολλώνιος, and
in 10, Λύκος quite clear, thus confirming Boeckh’s emendation
in both cases.

᾿ ] ὄξενος, ᾿Απ͵]ολλώνιος, Σωσ]ίπατρος, ᾿Απολ]͵]λώνι[οἹς.

ee

148 INSCRIPTIONS COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE,

8. IZEMOBOYAOS : ATOAAOAQPOY
KAAIOMENIOS
Θε]σμόβουλος [᾿Απ]ολλοδώρου
Κλαζομένιος.

The form of ζ, I, indicates an earlier period ; αἶβο, probably,
fm, which has often, in other cases, been mistaken for [ by the
transcriber.

10. TOBOYAH
ΞΣΣΠΊΚΗ
᾿Αρισ]τοβούλη
Θε]σ() σπική

If the second word be rightly restored, we have here a
peculiar form of the adjective. For the £5, on the accuracy of
which, however, too much stress must not be laid, οἵ. Boeckh
on C.U.G. 25. Such doubling is found both in Attic and
Boeotian inscriptions.

18. |EPOKAHS
NOPIOS
“Ἱεροκλῆς
Πόριος.

Poros is a deme of the tribe Akamantis.

Above this is written ‘Vaso, by the original copyist. This
probably means that the inscription was on one of the marble
lekythi often found on tombs in Attika.

This, and all that precede it, seem to come from Athens.

20. Apparently from Eleusis; those before and after it
certainly are so; and geographical order is usually preserved.

IOYAIANAOI:NAN
ZEBAZTHNA:S ENTIMIOY
ZEOYHPOYEYZEBOYS
NEPTINAKOZSSEBASTOY
APABIKOYAAS ABHNIKOY
FYNAIKAMHTEPAKAZTPQN

ΗΠΟΛΙΣ

Ἰουλίαν Δόμναν
Σεβαστὴν Ale.] Σεπτιμίου

INSCRIPTIONS COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE. 149

Σεουήρου Ἐὐσεβοῦς

Περτίνακος Σεβαστοῦ

᾿Αραβικοῦ ᾿Αδ[ι]αβηνικοῦ

γυναῖκα Μητέρα Κάστρων
ἡ πόλις.

This string of titles of Septimius Severus is found pretty
frequently repeated. Julia Domna’s last title is found both in
this merely transliterated form, and also in the translated one,
Μήτηρ στρατοπέδων.

26. ‘In Platea, written over 25, but probably applies to this
also, which is transcribed immediately underneath. ) and A,
Ad and 4, occur with strange inconsistency in the copy.

TICNAATAIANCYAHCENTIE’YAECENOP MON . ANANTWN
CKENTIANHNTT.WFEYCDINO3ZEINONI.. PIANO XPICTON
OYNEKENENIIAPAAICWLY . AOANATOICA . XEKAHPON
AYTHKAINOCEICO! . ONAEAI‘ITOTAGON

ECAOLMP ..P. TONYCOAWPOLCOHIA ONTOAIC

Τίς Πλάταιαν σύλησεν, τίς ὠλεσεν ὅρμον ἁπάντων
Σκεπτιάνην Π[ρ]ώ[τ]ευς φιλόξεινον [καὶ] φιλόχριστον

Ὁ“ ᾿ / > / / rt
οὕνεκεν ἐν Παραδίσω συν] ἀθανάτοις λ[ χε κλῆρον
αὐτῇ καὶ πόσει σοὶ [τ]όνδ᾽ ἐϊδέμε]το τάφον.

Δι]ονυσόδωρος φιλόπτολις

‘Who robbed Platea, who destroyed that refuge of all Skep-
tiane, daughter of Protes, friend to strangers and to Christ?
Since she hath won a portion with the immortals in Paradise,
for herself, and thee, husband, she built this tomb.’

If the restoration ἐδέμξτο in 1. 4 is right, it is scarcely harsher
than Πλάταϊαν, φιλὄξεινον, We might read ἐπονεῖτο, or some
such word, but this would depart further from our copy. The
pentameter following three hexameters is hardly unusual.
Other obvious irregularities of scansion hardly call for remark
in such an inscription.

27. Perhaps still Platea; at any rate Boeotia, as the next is
‘in Tebe,’

150 INSCRIPTIONS COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE.

ΓΑΜΦΙΛΟΥ
AC)
IKIANOCZWITYPOY
ANKOMENEIC
AYKOC)
OC

cr

lELAITIWN
APKOYNTOCAEHNAL WNOOETC
POAEICOYEDHBEYCANMETAQI®
10. MOP - FMAMAENOIKPATEIN
OY... TOIAOKPATHCKAIOC.

Not much seems intelligible beyond the words, 1. 8, δὲ ἣν
ἀγωνοθέτ᾽ nis; 1. 9, ἐφήβευσαν ; 1. 4, ᾿Αλ]αλκομενεῖς, and the
proper names; 1. 1, Π]Παμφίλου; 1. 3, Ζωπύρου; 1. 5, Λύκος ;
1,9, (2) ᾿Αφ])ροδεισ[ί)ου ; 1. 11, Φιλοκράτης.

In 1. 7, one is reminded of the formula “ τινὸς ἀγαθοῦ ἀεὶ
aitiwy[yevouevwy;’ but this has not otherwise the appearance
of a complimentary inscription.

98: CLG. 1632;

Cockerell gives a line, wanting to the sense which is absent in
the C.L.G.; 1.1,| inserted after second A; 1.3, the | supplied after
the first T in (΄. 1 0. 15 given by Cockerell ; between 1. 4, and 1. 5.

AHMOYAPISTATI

Thus we read the whole

...dAALos Dav
στεῖνος δόγμα

τι βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ
δήμου ἄριστα πῖο
λειτευσάμε

νον.

The fourth line seems to have been dropped from the letter
A apparently beginning both it and 1. 5.

51. This and also 52, are immediately beneath an inscription
found ‘in Messene,’

INSCRIPTIONS COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE, 151

ΥΣΙΝΙΚΟΣ
ΚΙΠΠΙΔΑ

Να]υσίνικος
Γλαν | κιππίδα.
"AX
52. See 51.
ΣΩΣΙΚΡΑΤΗΣ
APIZTOKAHS
Σωσικράτης
᾿Αριστοκλῆς

σι
- ὦ

NIKOAA
ac
ΣΩΣΙΚΙ
ΑΡΙΣΤΟΜΕ
ἢ, NYPIAAMTIO
ΕἸΦΙΛΙΝΟΣΞΈΕ

ἸΣΙΚΡΑΤΗΣ ΣΩΣΙΠΑΤΡΟΣ
τ a
ΑΒΗΤΟΣ
10. ΧΙΜΕΝΗΣ
ΙΣΩΝΔΑΜΙΝΟΣ
ΩΝ
KAAAIZ'I,A
IZSOAAMOSOIA
1; Kk
PATOKAHE
MENIQN KAAA
ΣΙΛΑΣ.
Clearly a mere catalogue of names.
Νικόδαϊ μος.
Σωσικ[ράτης.
᾿Αριστομέϊνης.
Πυρίλαμποϊς.
Φιλῖνος.

ὦ μὰ

mor

KAOY
AAMAPI
ΩΣΙΚΙΑΣ
IKAYQ
AY

152 INSCRIPTIONS COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE.

7. Κτ]Ίησικράτης, Σωσέπατρος.

10. ᾿Αλκ]ιμένης.
ΠΙ Aapivos
_13. Kanrdais,
14. ᾿Ἰσόδαμος. -
.10. ᾿ἙΕρατοκλῆς.

1.18. Κρη]σίλας.

This, probably, also belongs to Messene, as it follows im-
mediately on 51 and 52, 54 was found ‘in Sparta,’

— πο

ERNEST A. GARDNER.

AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND LEGEND, 153

THE AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND
LEGEND.

A. SKETCH IN OUTLINE.

It is the part of sound criticism to beware of rashly assuming
tendencies of any kind in dramatic poetry. The imaginative
act of realising situation and character requires no end beyond
itself. The faculty is satisfied with its own mere exercise ;
which may be as widely varied as the fables on which it works,
or as human experience itself. If in single dramatists we find
certain limitations, or an apparent preference for a particular
class of subjects, we must not rush to hasty conclusions, but
should distinguish as far as possible between accidental and
essential differences, the former depending on the subject-matter
which either chance or popularity threw in the artist’s way, as
jealousy for example in the Spanish drama, the latter resulting
from the colour of his own thoughts, and his individual attitude
(as an artist) towards the universe and towards mankind.

The power of Aeschylus as a mere dramatist is so great, that
the neglect of such precautions is, if possible, more than usually
disastrous to the study of him; while on the other hand, they
are more than ever necessary in his case, because certain im-
portant tendencies, both of the man and of the age, are so
apparent in him. In attempting, therefore, to characterise some
of these underlying motives, it is necessary to warn the reader at
the outset against expecting anything like a complete description
or survey. Such motives are very far from accounting for that
complex phenomenon, the Aeschylean drama. At most they
do but constitute one of several factors that have worked to-
gether with the supreme dramatic instinct in the creation of it.
Nor shall we be tempted by any theory into the error of sup-
posing that the same motives are to be traced everywhere.

150. AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND LEGEND,

Variety is the chief note of the highest invention, and though
few chords remain to us of the Aeschylean lyre, they are sug-
gestive of a widely ranging plectrum.—Readers of the Zume-
nides or of the Prometheus, however, cannot help surmising an
intention of the poet standing behind his creation. And.
although such a mode of regarding these two masterpieces has
often been pressed too far, and has sometimes landed the student
in barren enough fancies, yet it is an aspect of them which
cannot be ignored, and when reasonably investigated may throw
some light even on the poet’s other dramas.

Some obvious facts about Aeschylus may be further
premised.

That the victory at Marathon in which his youth took part,
and that of Salamis, which he has celebrated, had a deep and
inspiring influence upon his genius, is abundantly clear. Nor
is it less manifest, that the idea which these triumphs repre-
sented for him was the glory of Hellas, and of Athens as the
eye of Hellas.

Another fact relating to his mental history is sufficiently
attested by the line of Aristophanes (fan. 886), Δήμητερ, ἡ
θρέψασα τὴν ἐμὴν φρένα.

The Marathonian soldier, the Hellenic and Athenian patriot,
the Eleusinian devotee—here are three notes of Aeschylean
inspiration which in general terms we may confidently
affirm, and from which we may hope for guidance in looking
deeper.

Nor is there any doubt about the soldierly and patriotic notes ;
—above all, in the play which Aristophanes justly describes as
‘full of the spirit of Ares,’! the “Ἑπτὰ ἐπὶ Θήβας. The character
and situation of Eteocles in that drama, moving onward to his
fore-destined doom, yet heroically caring for the good of his
country; the successive pictures of the seven warriors and
the chiefs opposed to them, the splendid eulogy on Amphi-
araus—all this is calculated, as hardly anything could be, to
make ‘honour's thought reign solely in the breast of every
man. It is where the patriot and the devotee are
mingled, that the difficulty of understanding Aeschylus
begins.

1 Spaua..."Apéws ueordv.—Ar. Ran. 1022.

AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND LEGEND, 155

1. Let us turn, then, to the Zumenides, where the combined
presence of these two motives is most evident. The religious
and political significance of the drama has already been amply
drawn out by K. O. Miller. Without resuming his obser-
vations, it will be enough to state simply the leading thought
which is suggested by the drama itself, or rather by the
Orestean trilogy (which it concludes) when taken as a
whole.

All great poetry idealises something, and imagination, especially
the tragic imagination, ever delights in contrast. Now in most
periods the contrasted ideal has been imagined as remote either
in time or place, or both, and the poet has been either visionary
or reactionary (according as he placed his good either in the
future or the past), or, thirdly, pessimistic, as in the poetry of
regret or of despair. Hesiod sings of a lost golden age, and in this
he represents the most pervading sentiment of ancient culture.
Dante, on the other hand, had fixed his gaze on ‘one far off
divine event, towards which the whole Creation moves. But
there have been two moments, and perhaps only two, when the
highest imagination found its ideal in the actual present, as seen
in the light of wonder, joy, and love; the opening of the fifth
century B.C. in Hellas, and the earlier years of Elizabeth in
England. In this respect there is an aftmity between poets
otherwise so different as Aeschylus and Spenser. And for other
expressions of this feeling in the England of that day, it is
enough to allude in passing to the Prologue of The
Misfertunes of Arthur, especially the lines (Gorlois’ ghost
is speaking) :—

‘For you there rests
A happier age, a thousand years to come ;
An age for peace, religion, wealth, and ease,
When all the world shall wonder at your bliss,
That, that is yours ;’

and to Shakespeare’s description of ‘this most balmy time’ in
his one hundred and seventh sonnet :— -

‘The mortal moon hath her eclipse endured,
And the sad augurs mock their own presage ;
Incertainties now crown themselves assured,
And peace proclaims olives of endless age.’

1855 AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND LEGEND.

But that which to the Elizabethans was a romantic sentiment,
had for Aeschylus all the depth and force of a religion, and of
a religion resting on eternal principles of righteousness and
truth. His fervour is even of a nobler kind than that which
the Pericles of Thucydides seeks to inculcate. (See especially
the words τὴν τῆς πόλεως δύναμιν ἔργῳ θεωμένους Kal ἐραστὰς
γιγνομένους αὐτῆς. καὶ ὅταν ὑμῖν μεγάλη δόξη εἶναι, ἐνθυμου-
μένους, κιτιλ. Thue. 11, 435.) For the essential glory of Athens
symbolises for him the secret of all happiness for Hellas, and
for mankind.

Where then, it may be asked, is the opportunity for contrast,
if the present is your ideal? It lies in holding up to view the
confusions of a remote or of a former world: a world not yet
reduced to order, in which righteousness is only inchoate and
often overborne by wrong, in which wisdom is oppressed
and not triumphant, in which mercy and reverence are still
debatable; or again a realm in which the many are enslaved,
and the latent energies of a great people have not been
developed by freedom. Hence the scenes of Aeschylus are
laid in remote ages and remote lands, or even in ἃ pre-
Olympian heaven.

And that which most fascinates his imagination in dwelling
on mythology and legend is the contrast between past evil
and present good. What gave to Hellas the assurance of
strength, of blessedness, of the continuance of national well-being
and of individual life? The glory of free and law-abiding Athens.
What gave to Athens her true glory? The principles of reason-
ableness, equity and mercy, which lay at the foundation of her
special institutions, and were associated with the worship of
Zeus, Athena, and Apollo.

Now it is on this contrast between the glorious present and
the legendary horrors of a remote past, that much of the
interest of the great trilogy is made to turn. But Aeschylus is
not contented with the imagined antithesis: the poet, who is
also a religious ἐξηγητής, points further to a positive relation
between the contrasted terms. For in his philosophy, as in
that of Heraclitus, order comes out of disorder, peace is fathered
by war, and equity is preluded by the ‘ wild justice’ of revenge.
And of course this primeval moral chaos, in which elemental
passions clash and rave, gives to the tragic muse her proper

AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND LEGEND. 157

opportunity, the same of which Shakspeare availed himself in
Lear and in Macbeth.

I trust I may not be understood as ignoring or extenuating
the magnificent dramatic power which constitutes the eternal
charm of the Oresteia, if I trace in it the inspiration of this
ground idea. It is because Aeschylus is himself and not
another, because he is poet, prophet, citizen and soldier in one,
that I maintain as partially applicable to him, a method which
has often proved fatal to dramatic criticism.

The accumulated horrors of the house of Pelops, from the
mpwtapyos ἄτη of Atreus or of Thyestes onwards, have their
culmination and coping-stone in the matricide of Orestes.
Hitherto the law of retribution has prevailed—the τρυγέρων
μῦθος, δράσαντι παθεῖν. All has been ‘action and reaction.’
And over this law the ᾿ρινύες have presided. So Clytemnestra
and Aegisthus justified the murder of Agamemnon. So Orestes
and Electra justify that of Clytemnestra. And in the vista of
human memory there is a long train of similar acts, each
accompanied by a similar plea: the sin of Paris visited on
Troy, the sin of Atreus horribly avenged by Thyestes, the sin
of Pelops against Myrtilus atoned by all that followed. But
now it begins to be revealed that the Erinyes themselves
may be convicted of transgressing the bound. A vision of
equity, of regulated and reasoned justice, at length appears, and
is embodied in Athenian institutions by the act of Athena.
The Erinyes are transformed to the Eumenides, and remain
for blessing not for cursing, as guardians of Athenian weal.
All acts both private and public, so long as they are done in
truth and equity, are henceforth under the protection of the
Gentle Powers.

I do not pause here upon the question whether or not the
Eumenides was written at a time when the privileges of the Areo-
pagus were threatened. For it appears to me that in any case the
poet’s eye was fixed on a far simpler and far nobler theme, viz.
on equity as the corner-stone of civilisation, and therefore as the
secret of Athenian glory, and the security of all in Hellenic life
that made it worth living. Thus it is not only the contrast
between past and present, about which the poet’s imagination
plays, but the illustration, and in some sense the explanation of
the present by the imagined past on which his speculative

158 AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND LEGEND.

genius broods. Nor is the present when so illustrated, the
present merely, but exemplifies the true condition of all nations
through all time.

In the Persae also there is an illustrative contrast, not now
between past and present, but between East and West. The
Persae is no doubt a pean of victory, but it is also more. For
the highest Greek genius of that age could not look upon events
with mere selfish personal reference, although the self were co-
extensive with all Hellas, nor without a comprehensive glance
over all time and all existence. With the same disinterested
objectivity which is so striking in Herodotus, but with more
of sympathetic insight, Aeschylus enters within the heart of the
great empire: so realising the pride of Atossa, incredulous of
defeat, the devotion of the elders to their Emperor, the holy
reverence of the faithful for Darius ‘of blessed memory,’ the
personal dependence of the whole state upon Xerxes.

But while thus feasting the Athenian imagination with the
moving panorama of a world so alien from the Hellenic mind,
he is all the while pointing to the lesson which Herodotus also
draws from the triumph of Athens: ἡ ἰσηγορίη ὥς ἐστι χρῆμα
σπουδαῖον. The magnificent image of paternal despotism was
sure to endear to his Athenian audience those free institutions
and that respect for ‘ King Law,’ under which they had con-
quered the Mede and saved Hellas—while it also enlarged their
thoughts through the genial and sympathetic contemplation of
an alien and a hostile world.

Hitherto, although in the Zumenides we have dwelt on mys-
teries, and in the Persae a visitant from Hades comes upon the
scene, the subjects of the plays considered have belonged to
the human sphere. But in the Promethews we are carried
altogether away from man: except that it is for befriending
the whole human race that the suffering god is bound with that
chain.

And excepting Io, who is the ancestress of Heracles, and is
no longer altogether human, the persons in the Prometheus are
all of the celestial mould. This circumstance of itself makes it
excusable to look for a ‘tendency’ behind the action. Abstrac-

IeHdt. v078:

AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND LEGEND. 159

tions such as Strength and Force are not brought upon the stage
except to read some lesson. And after what has been said,
it will be easily understood that Aeschylus is not merely
the dramatist here, but also the prophet. The lesson may now
be read in the light of the preceding observations.

There is again a contrast between that consummate reign of
right and wisdom in which Aeschylus believes as the actual
source of all existing good, and a far distant past, which is
figured as a time of spiritual chaos,-in which not only the
elemental passions of humanity, but the very elements of deity,
were not yet harmonised, but conflicting and opposed. Rumours
of change and succession, even in that supreme region, seemed
to come down in the cosmogonies and theogonies of early
mythology, embodied, for example, in the works of Hesiod and
Pherecydes ; and the story of Prometheus was felt to convey
the echoes of a time, when Zeus himself was not a beneficent

1 See a letter from the present writer
to the editor of the Academy, printed
July 14, 1877. The following sentences,
in which the gist of the Prometheus is
paraphrased, may be quoted here :—

‘There was a time when the power
of Zeus, which, as all know, is now
established in righteousness, was not
yet finally secure. In accordance with
the presage of Themis, Goddess of
Eternal Kight, the son of Cronos had
been victorious over the Anarchs of the
former time, not by brute violence, but
by the help of forethought, which the
Titans had despised. But, having won
the heavenly throne, he was liable to
the disease which all experience shows
to be incident to an irresponsible ruler,
and began to exercise his power without
regard to the Wisdom by whose aid he
had gained it, or the dictates of Primeval
Right ; and towards mortals in par-
ticular (as ancient legends show us),
he manifested an excessive harshness.
But to these courses the irrepressible
spirit of Wisdom was opposed, and
succeeded in obtaining gifts for men
and rescuing them from the destruction
which the new Sovereign of Olympus

had designed for them.

‘So long as this opposition and
divorce between power, or authority,
and wisdom was continued, the sove-
reignty of Zeus was imperilled. For
blind force breeds blind force, and is
destined to sink beneath the violence
to which itself gives birth. So the
Fates were heard to whisper.

‘On the other hand, had the con-
trariety remained, Wisdom must have
been held in lasting bonds. For Thought
unseconded by Energy is ineffectual.

‘ But Wisdom knew the secret word
which solitary Power had failed to ap-
prehend, and Necessity at last made
Power submit to learn the Truth from
Wisdom. Thus Zeus was saved from
fatal error (Cf. Hwm. 640—651).

‘Then the long feud was reconciled,
and an indissoluble league concluded
between Wisdom and Power, and they
went forth conquering and to conquer.
Thenceforth the reign of Zeus became
identical with that growth of Justice
which is destined ultimately to subdue
all moral discords throughout the
Universe.’-—The Academy of April 14,
1877.

160 AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND LEGEND.

but a malignant ruler. It was indeed the outcome of an age
when men’s conception of the Highest was a creature of their
fear. We know from the story of Mycerinus,! and from the words
attributed to Solon ὃ (τὸ θεῖον---πᾶν φθονερὸν καὶ ταραχῶδες),
that such conceptions had been powerful in former ages, and
had been revived and accentuated afresh by Ionian pessimism.
The myth of Prometheus, in particular, presented a special
aspect of this mode of thought, expressing the superstitious
dread with which a rude conservatism regards the inventor, as
one who by sheer force of mind transcends the limits appointed
to the human lot, and makes the divine powers of nature
subservient to human need ; who is ready in his arrogance to
give a charge to the lightnings, and expect them to say to him,
‘Here we are.’ Possibly, but this point I leave to professed
mythologists, the special form of the myth may have been
occasioned by the horror of some fire-worshipper at seeing his
god put to menial use. In any case the myth belonged to a
mode of thinking which the Athenian imagination had out-
grown.® Now the mind has various modes of dealing with such
survivals of an outworn creed. Abstract philosophy would have
said, ‘the story is not true. A new lawgiver: might have ex-
claimed, ‘Ye shall no longer use this proverb in your land,’
But that is not the method of Aeschylus, the imaginative seer.
He says, in effect, ‘This happened under an earlier dispensation.
But it involved an opposition which could not last. For power
rejecting wisdom must come to nought, and wisdom rebelling
against power is fettered and manacled. Omnipotence, to be
eternal, must be at one with wisdom and beneficence, in a
word must be just. And because power, alone and unaccom-
panied, is brittle and transient, wisdom and beneficence are
co-eternal with almighty power.’

We should inquire too curiously if we thought it necessary
to trace this motive (supposing it assumed) in every feature of
the extant play, or if we supposed that it must have been
explicitly set forth even in the Prometheus Unbound. Indeed,
it may never have been consciously formulated by the poet
himself. But it may be maintained nevertheless to have been
immanent in the part-dramatic, part-mythological creation,

Πα ny 129} ΕΣ 3 See for example, Soph. Ant. 5982,
2 Jb. i. 32. IT. πολλὰ τὰ δεινὰ, K.T.A.

AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND LEGEND. 161

through which the sublime thought of Aeschylus was com-
municated to the child-like imagination of his contemporaries
from a height that was very far above them. We do trace
a consciousness of the truth that Zeus himself could not rule
for ever without conforming to the eternal Jaw, which is one
with the decree of fate;+ and at the height of the conflict
between the untamable spirit of the Titan and his oppressor,
we are made to know that a reconcilement is to be, that the
words of Prometheus,?

els ἀρθμὸν ἐμοὶ καὶ φιλότητα
σπεύδων σπεύδοντι ποθ᾽ ἥξει,

are not an empty vaunt.

The absolute fearlessness with which the poet, when the
conception has once been formed, throws himself into a situation
so abhorrent to the religious associations of the Hellenes, is not
only characteristic of Aeschylus, but also marks an interesting
aspect of Greek religion generally? The same people who
went mad about the ‘mutilation of the Herma could revel in
such free handling of mythology as that of the comic poets.

This is strange until we reflect that while religious custom
lay upon them with a weight as deep as life, and was inseparably
associated with their national well-being, the changing clouds
of mythology lay lightly on their minds, and were, in their very
nature, to some extent, the sport of fancy and imagination.

(Themis, in the Prometheus, line 209, is identical with Gaia ;
in the Lumenides, line 3, she is her daughter, who at Delphi,
took her mother’s seat, &c.)

Nor would the faith in the everlasting reign of Zeus in
righteousness be shaken by the imagination of a time when he
ruled harshly, being young in power. Rather it was the child-
like certitude of the popular faith, that made it possible for the
poet thus to inculcate a higher truth. It would be extremely
interesting, but the fragments of the Lycurgean trilogy do not
supply materials for the purpose, to inquire whether Aeschylus
had conceived of a change in the spirit of Dionysus analogous to
that here attributed to Zeus. It may be imagined, for example,
that the magnificent fragment of the Hdonians, (55 Dind.),

1 Prom. V. 516. 3 See Mr. E. Myers in Hellenica,

_ 2 1b. 191, 192. p. 21, ff.
H.S.— VOL. VI. M

162 AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND LEGEND.

descriptive of a super-human revelry in which were heard the
ταυρόφθογγοι ποθὲν ἐξ ἀφανοῦς φοβεροὶ μῖμοι, may have been
vart of a representation ef an earlier and cruder phase of the
life of Bacchus, to be succeeded by a σώφρων βακχεία, a sub-
dued and temperate enthusiasm.

II. To pass on now from mythology to legend.

History, no less than mythology, was to some extent the
sport of imagination. At least the tradition of events which
through lapse of ages had reached up into the fabulous, as Thu-
cydides says, offered much plastic material to the poet’s hand.
Versions of the same event as different as those of the Arthurian
romance in T. Hughes’! tragedy, Sir T. Mallory’s prose, and
Tennyson’s Jdylls, co-existed and afforded opportunity for choice
—and also gave an excuse for invention, for if two or three
ways were permissible, another yet might be equally near the
truth. In the sphere of history, as elsewhere, invention was
not yet separated from discovery.

From the fragmentariness of our knowledge it is impossible
to say with perfect confidenec in particular instances, ‘the
poet invented this or that.’ Leaving the question doubtful
between invention and selection, we must be contented with
ascertaining the poet’s own version of his fable, and divining, if
we can, his motive for preferring it to others.

An obvious example of the frce imaginative handling of
historical tradition is presented in the Swpplices. We learn
from that play, in which, as the first of a trilogy, it is unsafe to
speculate on the existence of a main underlying motive, that
there was a time when the whole region, from the northern
parts of Thessaly and Epirus to Cape Tzenarus, was under one
king, who had his throne at Argos, and was eponymus and ruler
of the Pelasgi, the Hellenes being as yet unheard of. And there
it fell to his hard lot to decide between protecting the suppliant
Danaides, to the imminent danger of his own people, and deliver-
ing them, at the risk of some great pollution, into the hands of
their cousins, the fifty sous of Aegyptus. All this, no doubt,
led up to the tragedy of Hypermnestra. But in the fable itself
so far, there are two points especially worthy of notice.

1 The Misfortunes of Arthur (in Hazlitt’s Dodsley, vol. iv.).

AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND LEGEND. 163

1. Can this notion of a Pan-Pelasgic kingdom (alluded to
later in the Prometheus) be much older than Aeschylus? Must
it not at least be regarded as the creation of a time, when, in
consequence of the united efforts against the Mede, Pan-
Hellenism had made way in advanced minds? In adopting it
Aeschylus in so far follows the tendency which I have traced
in him elsewhere, as by going back to pre-Hellenic times he
can, without offence, imagine an age when respect for the
suppliant was an open question only to be decided after long
debate.

2. Thus, in a period imagined as far back, the plain of Argos
is the seat of sovereign rule for what was afterwards called Hellas.
We have now further to observe that the ceutre of this ‘ nurse
of royal kings,’ as conceived by the poet, was in the earliest ages
the city of Argos itself, and not Mycenae. This is an assumption
which we know to have been false in fact, but which for some
reason seems to have been consistently held by Aeschylus, It
would also appear that the city was imagined by him as un-
fortified.

The presumable date of the Supplices, as one of the earliest
plays, in so far corroborates the doubt which has lately been
thrown on the connexion which some had suggested between
the suppression of the name of Mycenae in the dramas of
Aeschylus, and its alleged actual suppression by the Argives in
454 B.c. The fact remains that of this time-honoured city,
so prominently mentioned in the Jliad, and in the plays of
Sophocles, a city whose ancient supremacy was known to

hucydides, no trace remains on the Aeschylean page.

In repeating this assertion we do not rely on the often
fallacious argument from silence. The occasions for mentioning
Mycenae in the Oresteia, if the city were supposed to exist, es-
pecially if it were the seat of government, are too frequent and
too obvious to admit of any other explanation, The Herald in
returning salutes Argos and his country’s gods—whose temples
ure manifestly there—and not Μυκήνας τὰς πολυχρύσους, tu
which the Paedogogus points in the Electra, This is only one
of many similar proofs. The late Bishop of Lincoln was, su
far as I know, the first to call attention to this blotting out of
Mycenae, and it has been adverted to by subsequent writers.
It has been less observed, however, that in the pre-listoric

M 2

1.2 AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND LEGEND.

imaginings of Aeschylus, Sparta ts equally non-existent with
Mycenae.

That the legend of Menelaus and Helen should have under-
gone such an important modification may be a surprising fact,
but so it is.

Menelaus is the dear (joint) sovereign of fhis τ \rgive) land
τῆσδέ γῆς φίλον κράτος Not from Sparta but from
Argos do Paris and Helen steal away.? It is m tis
house—the palace of the Pelopidae, that Helen’s remem-
bered beauty flits amongst other phantoms less beautiful but
not more sad. For a fuller statement of this point I may
refer to an article (‘ Notes on the Agamemnon’) which I con-
tributed to an early number of the American Journal of
Philology.

The fact, if admitted, affords a very strong illustration, both
of the unfixed condition of Greek heroic legend, and of the
boldness with which Aeschylus took advantage of it. I wonder
that it should have escaped the notice of Mr. F. A. Paley—for
it must count for much amongst the indications on which he
relies that ‘our J/iad and Odyssey’ had not yet the position of a
‘Greek bible,’ which Plato seems to assign to them. That in
the imaginative flights in which the poet thinks to get behind
the Dorian conquest into the pre-Dorian and even the pre-
Hellenic world, he should have used this liberty of prophesying,
need not surprise us greatly. At all events to have observed
the fact, is, I think, of some moment, in connexion with the
task of interpreting him.

Two other points in the trilogy are often misconceived : the
position of Aegisthus, and the instrument of Agamemnon’s
murder. That Aegisthus is not installed in the palace at the
opening, is, I think, clearly shown by 1. 1608 of the Agamemnon,
καὶ τοῦδε τἀνδρὸς ἡψάμην θυραῖος wv. I imagine him to have
returned from exile during the absence of the king, and to have
lived obscurely in the borders of Argolis, while Clytemnestra in
the great solitary palace was studiously nursing her revenge.
The two hatreds coalesce into an adulterous union—but this is
not avowed until 1. 1436 of the Agamemnon. And the reproach
of the Chorus in 1]. 1625, γύναι, σὺ τοῦς ἥκοντας ἐκ μάχης νέον,
κιτ.λ., is the first outbreak of public indignation on this score.®

1 Ay. 619. 2 Ag. 402, 427. 3 See also Choeph. 132, ἢ"

AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND LEGEND, 165

Lastly, it has been the common view, derived from the Electra
of Sophocles, that Clytemnestra kills Agamemnon with an axe.
But how can this be reconciled with Choeph. 1011 ὡς ἔβαψεν
Αὐγίσθου Fides? Acgisthus, in the Aeschylean fable, took no
part in the actual murder. But it appears, from this crucial
passage, that it was done with his sword. And the incident
which is thus suggested, viz. that the dastardly assassin should
have purporely left his sword with Clytemnestra at their last
secret meeting, is a lurid touch which is admirably in keeping,
while it accounts for the abnormal circumstance that the princess,
who affects to be too dainty to know aught of such matters
(any more than of the craft of the smith), is found to be, after
all, possessed of a lethal weapon.

The limited scope of this article forbids my touching on many
tempting themes—the attitude of Aeschylus towards women
(that aspect of the Livigweillwhe that was revealed to him) ;
his estimate of domestic life; his manner of combining strength
and tenderness; his power of reconciling individuality of
treatment with pervading dignity and sonorousness; his strong
conviction of the latent forces of democracy, and of the power-
lessness of government to crush lastingly the popular will. ~All
such points, however, are secondary to that which it has been
my chief object to bring into prominence in the present paper,
the faith of Aeschylus in the ideal which his own age had
realized. Something kindred to this was at the core of all
Hellenic art of the greatest period; but nowhere does it assume
such depth of religious and ethical conviction, as in the Father
of Tragedy. And, by imaginative contrast it accounts for much
of what is gloomiest in him as well as for some things that are
obscure. For as Keats has sung,

‘In the very temple of Delight
Veiled Melancholy has her sovran shrine,
Though seen of none save him whose strenuous tongue
Can burst Joy’s grape against his palate fine:
His soul shall taste the sadness of her might,
And be among her cloudy trophies hung.’

Aud th» joy of Aeschylus is a prophet’s rejoicing in the triumph

166 AESCHYLEAN TREATMENT OF MYTH AND LEGEND,

of good. One remark of a somewhat practical nature may be
offered in conclusion. When Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides,
are found to differ in respect of the details of a fable,it by no means
follows that the earliest version is that adopted by the earliest
poet. Each had his own manner of innovating, and his own
special motives. While Aeschylus seems, occasionally at least,
to have profoundly modified the whole spirit and intention of a
myth or legend, and Eumpides would often adopt the more
fantastic in preference to tlie accredited version, the novel
features either invented cr preferred by Sophocles, had im-
mediate reference to the harmonious structure of the drama,
and to the most effective realisation of the leading human
motive.

Lewis CAMPBELL.

ON AESCHYLEAN TRILOGY. 1G7

NOTES.ON, (I), THE TRILOGY AND (I), CERTAIN
FORMAL ARTIFICES OF ALSCHYLUS.

I.—ON AESCHYLEAN TRILOGY,

1. THE interesting J’rolegomena su Aeschylus’ Tragédicn of
R. Westphal (1869), which contains the germ of the idea
worked out in Mezger’s recent edition of Pindar, suggested to
me to inquire why Aeschylus and the other pre-Sophoklean
tragedians wrote tetralugies,—for this is the form in which
Westphal’s book suggests the question. But it becomes soon
apparent that the real problem is why it was the habit to write
a trilogy + a satyric drama; and this question contains two
distinct parts: (1) why tragedy took the form of a trilogy—
not ἃ dilogy, tetralogy, or single drama; (2) why a satyric drama
was also performed. Of these questions the latter has been
discussed and adequately answered in every treatise on Greek
drama,

Westphal was seriously misled through not keeping the
satyric drama separate from the three plays that preceded it.
These formed a connected whole and were really equivalent to
one consecutive drama of three acts, from which the satyric
piece was quite distinct, albeit its subject usually had some
external connexion with them. He connected the tetralogical
form with tlie fact first noticed by him that every Aeschylean
play contains four χορικώ, so that Aeschylus, he supposes, used
a quadruple division as his artistic te@uds, in the sume way as
the Terpandric xomos was based on a seven-fold division. But
why was the number 4 chosen? Was it a mere accident ?
Did Aeschylus or whoever introduced it toss up to determine
the number of his te@uos? Or was he a mystic who believed

168 ON AESCHYLEAN TRILOGY.

in the hidden virtues of the Pythagorean tetpaxtus? Westphal
makes no attempt to assign a motive for such a fundamental
phase of Greek dramatic art.

2. Avoiding the false and superficial comparison which misled
Westphal, we propose the question: Why was the first artistic
phase of tragedy trilogical ? By ‘artistic’ we would distinguish
it from its undeveloped stage in the hands of Thespis, {e.
Thus proposed, the question is not hard to answer. The motive
for a triple division was the canon that lies at the foundation of
all Greek art, which is stated for poetry in Aristotle’s Poctic (7).
A work of art must be a whole: ὅλον δ᾽ ἐστὶ τὸ ἔχον ἀρχὴν
Kal μέσον καὶ τελευτήν. Aristotle states this of ἡ σύστασις
τῶν πραγμάτων; but as the artistic form and the Inhalt
mutually determine each other, what applies to one applies
to both. Thus a drama, conforming to this canon of art,
would fall into three acts, just as a plastic group should have
a centre and two symmetric sides or wings (cf. pediments of
temples). It is curious that Aristotle ignores trilogy in dis-
cussing tragedy, although this canon is so well illustrated by it.
This principle also underlies the Terpandrie xomos, in which the
number 7 is accidental. It really consists of three main parts,
ἀρχά, ὀμφαλός and σφραγίς ; the other four (προοίμιον, κατα-
tpoma, Kc.) were only parasitical accessories, any of which could
be omitted (as we find frequently in the odes of Pindar).
Similarly of the five parts of the Pythian nomos of Sakadas,
three were especially prominent, πεῖρα, ἰαμβικόν and κατα-
xopevors ; and Aristoxenos mentions a somos of three parts,
ὠρχή, μέσον and ἔκβασις. The system of strophe, antistrophe
and epode (whose invention is attributed to Stesichoros) depends
on the same principle,

3. Westplial observed that each of Aeschylus’s seven plays
contains four χορικά. But four yopixd imply three epeisodia,
and this is what he should have insisted on. Each drama of
the trilogy, as well as the whole trilogy, obeyed the canon of art
and consisted of three acts. The poet could vary the importance
of the prologos and cxzodos: in the Agamemnon the exodos is
perhaps the most prominent part of the play.

The canon itself has its foundation in the nature of space and
time, but it would be ἀπροσδιόνυσον to discuss this here.

4, From all we know ef Aeschylus's conte wiporaries there is

ON AESCHYLEAN TRILOGY. 16)

every reason to suppose that it was Aeschylus himself who first
composed artistic trilogies. But the question arises whether ἢ
was the custom in earlier times to contend with three (or four
plays whose subjects might or might not be connected. If it
was, the supposed innovation οἵ Sopbokles (contending with
unconnected dramas) would have been only a reversion to the
original pre-Aeschylean habit (compare however the important
article of Mr. W. Lloyd in last number of this Journal). We
have little evidence to trace the development of drama from
Thespis to Aeschylus. The excellence of Aeschylus’ three elder
contemporaries, Phrunichos, Choirilos and Pratinas, lay either in
satyric drama or in lyrical composition rather than in drama
proper. Phrunichos was noted for his πάθος, but chiefly for
his sweet lyrics (μέλη); Choirilos was more famous for his
satyric dramas than his tragedies; Pratinas, whose high poetic
power is proved by his extant hyporcheme, is recorded to have
separated tragedy from satyric drama; he exhibited fifty plays
and of these no less than thirty-two were satyric.

Proceeding upon this slender evidence, and remembering that
at the festival of Dionusos there must have been a certain order
of the day, that fixed times must have been allotted to the
procession, to the tragic and comic representations and all the
ceremonials connected with the feast, we may suppose that
each competitor had a certain time given him, and that it was
left to his own choice how he should use it—with how many
and with what sort of plays. Poets whose forte was tragic style
would naturally fill a relatively large proportion of the time
with serious representations taken from epic poems; those who,
like Pratinas and Choirilos, excelled in the satyric style might
exhibit chiefly plays of that kind. Then the genius of Aeschylus
appeared and prescribed a law to drama by making it serve an
idea. He occupied about three quarters of the allotted time
with an artistic drama of three long acts, and thereby made the
satyric drama less prominent. He had to adapt the length of
his plays to a limited time, just as a sculptor had to suit the
size and number of his pedimental figures to the dimensions of
the pediment. A new idea like this would necessarily have
legislative effect, for when he gained a prize by his new method,

1 Cf. Mahaffy, Hist. Gk. Lit. vol. i. p. 231, cf seq.

1τὸ ON AESCHYLEAN TRILOGY.

his competitors would see that (to use his own expression) they
must slay him with arrows feathered from his own plumage.

5. It is true that we have no direct evidence that a definite
time was prescribed for the dramatic performances. But there
must have been an order of the day at the Dionusia involving
fixed hours for its severul parts, and I do not see how we can
avoid supposing that the time for comic and trayie represen-
tations must have been limited either by statute or custom. It
is not necessary to suppose that the time was measured accu-
rately πρὸς κλεψύδραν (and Aristotle, Poct. 7, seems rather to

make against such a supposition), ouly that there was at least a
conventional broad limit, which a dramatist could not exceed
with impunity, and that each of the three competitors had the
same amount of time. Now, although we have no direct proofs
of this, which is ὦ priort natural and cannot be disproved, there
are certain indications which are worth mentioning. The
average length of Sophokles’ seven extant dramas is 1477
lines; the average length of fourteen plays of Euripides (I omit
purposely the /phigeneia in Aul. because it has extensive inter-
polations which make it impossible to determine exactly its
original length, the Herakleidai because there is probably a
lacuna of some extent in it, the Awhklops as a satyric drama, and
the Alkesiis as a quasi-satyric drama) is 1463. This is a
remarkable coincidence in numbers, and I think we may
roughly conclude that the average length of a trilogy of
Sophokles or Euripides was about 1470 x 3; the satyric drama
would be larger or shorter according to the variation from this
average. When we turn to Aeschylus the length of his plays
seems at first sight to point to an opposite conclusion. The
actual average of the number of lines in his seven extant plays
is 116U; but it is probably an accident that the four unconnected
plays are all short, and, judging from the Oresteia, it is probable
that in the trilogies to which they belonged the other dramas,
one or both, were longer. The average length of the three
plays of the Orestcia is 1265 and, even if we suppose it to have
been unusually long, we may conclude the average length of the
Aeschylean trilogies to have been 1200 odd x 3. This does not
contradict but confirms our hypothesis, for the plays of Aeschylus
had a larger proportion of music than those of his two successors,
and consequently a play of his would take on an average a

ON AESCHYLEAN TRILOGY. 11]

longer time to perform than a play of the same length of either
of the latter: the Ayamemmnon, e.g., would take much longer to
perform than the Ovestes. If we really have a trilogy cf
Sophokles in the Z'rachiniat, Aias and Philohtetes (as Mar. Lloya
has suggested), it is interesting to compare it in this respect
with the Oresteia. The supposed Sophoklean trilogy is 372 lines
longer than the Aeschylean, but there is as much music in the
Agamemnon and Lumenides alone as there is in the three plays
of Sophokles tegether. It is true that the length of the Oreste
may be above the average length of Aeschylcan trilogies, and
the length of this triplet of Sophokles probably below his
average, but this will not invalidate the general indication that
as the musical clement became less the average length of the trilogy
became greater—an indication in favour of the thesis that the
time of a trayie representation had approximate, if not accurate,
limits, whether statutory or conventional.

This question of the development of the drama at Athens 15
very fascinating, but the evidences are so scant that it 15. vain
to attempt to fill in details, and one must be content with such
general indications.

6. We may now approach the Oresteia of Aeschylus and see how
he adapts his trichotomy to the <hree moments of a deep moral
doctrine which is the Grundgedanke of this trilogy. The law of
justice is ἔρξαντα παθεῖν (Agam. 1564, cf. 585, Choeph. 3138) ;
but there is an object in πάθος, namely μάθος, as is twice
insisted on in the first choral ode of the Agamemnon, |. 176:
τὸν πάθει μάθος θέντα κυρίως ἔχειν, and 250 Δίκα δὲ τοῖς μὲν
παθοῦσιν μαθεῖν ἐπιρρέπει τὸ μέλλον ; οἵ, Lumen. ὅ30 : ξυμφέρει
σωφρονεῖν ὑπὸ στένει. Aeschylus is sounding the law of life,
ἔρξαντα παθεῖν, retribution, but he explains it in two directions,
so that it really contains three moments, to which the three
dramas correspond : (1) A πάθος or ata implies a crime (Epypa) ;
(2) conversely, he who has done must svficer, ἔργμα implies
πάθος; (3) the object of suffering is experience, to teach, The Aga-
memnon contains the ἔργμα, tle Choephoroi contains the πάθος,
the Humenides the μάθος. But the ἔργμα οἵ Klutaimnestra and
Aegisthus is also the πάθος of Agameninon, and all through the
play a past épypa, the sacrifice of Iphigeneia, is kept before us.
In the Choephoroi the second aspect of the lesson is brought
home tous. But the πάθος of the guilty pair is also an épypa

Viz CERTAIN FORMAL ARTIFICES OF AESCHYLUS.

of Orestes, which must be followed by another wa@os. In the
Eumenides we have the third aspect, πάθος may result in
μάθος : and so Aeschylus justifies the ways of Zeus with man.
Agamemnon failed to learn, Klutaimnestra failed to learn, but
Orestes learned (Lwin. 270, ἐγὼ διδαχθεὶς ἐν κακοῖς ἐπίσταμαι
πολλοὺς καθαρμοὺς, κ.τ.λ.), and the troubles of the house
ceased. The Ayainennon and the Choephoroi balance one
another, the Lumenides is the resultant. There is a δέσες in
the first play which receives a λύσις in the second, but this
very λύσις is a new déous, which receives a final λύσις in
the third, At the beginning of the Agumeinon there glimmers
a φῶς αἰνολαμπές, at the end all is darkness; it is still dark at
the beginning of the Choephoroi, but at the end πάρα τὸ φῶς
ἐδεῖν ; in the Huwmenides the children of Night are overcome by
the God of Day. We may add that in the Agamemnon Tev0o
is the ππροβουλόπαις ἄφερτος ἄτας, instigating to a deed; in
the Chocphorot she is δολία and assists the πάθος: in the
Euicenides she helps to soothe the Erinnues.

The Prometheus trilogy enforced the same doctrine in a
different form. As Firebearer, Bound and Unbound, Prometheus
represents successively ἔργμα, πάθος and μάθος. On the other
trilogies we shall forbear speculating, as there is so much
uncertainty in regard to the plots of the lost plays, and shall
proceed to point out some other characteristics of the form of
Aeschylean tragedy.

I].—CERTAIN FORMAL ARTIFICES OF AESCHYLUS.

7. The scenes in Pronvetheus Bound respond to one another
very accurately. In the prologue and exodos Prometheus is in the
presence of his tormentors. In the first epeisodion the conver-
sation with Okeanos answers to and contrasts with the scene
with Io in the third. In the second epeisodion, which is
as it were the omphalos of the piece, Prometheus is alone on the
stage. The contrast between Okeanos and Io seems to be that
while the God can give no assistance to the chained hero, a
mortal is destined to deliver him by her future progeny. But
the introduction of Io has another, deeper meaning, which
commentators haye not seen because they have not sufficiently

CERTAIN FORMAL ARTIFICES OF AESCHYLUS. 173

attended to Aeschylus’s own indications in his choral odes. The
great doctrine of this play is that abnormal (i.e. contrary to the
ἁρμονία Διός) intercourse of mortals and immortals is a sub-
version of the order of the Universe and must result in pain.
Prometheus is the example of an immortal lowering himself to
an undue concern for mortals; Io is the converse example of a
mortal raised above a mortal’s rank to approach a God. The
choral ode 1. 529 sq. insists on the folly and evil consequences
of the former error; then follows the scene with Io; after
which the final choral ode of the play (1. 887 sq.) insists with
equal stress on the misfortune of a mortal marrying an immortal.
That Aeschylus meant these two odes to be taken in close

connexion will be plain from the following comparisons :—

Τ 526 (str..a).
μηδάμ’ ὁ πάντα νέμων
Geir’ ἐμᾷ γνώμᾳ κράτος ἀντί-
παλον Ζεὺς...
aS , ,
μηδ᾽ ἀλίτοιμι λόφοις.

1. 535 (ant. a).
ἀλλά μοι τόδ᾽ ἐμμένοι καὶ
μήποτ᾽ ἐκτακείη.
1 ἀδύ τι θαρσαλέαις
Ν Ν , ’ » /
TOV μακρὸν τείνειν βίον ἐλπίσι,
φαναῖς

θυμὸν ἀλδαίνουσαν ἐν εὐφρο- |

σύναις.

L540 (ant. a).
φρίσσω δέ σε δερκομένα
μυρίοις μόχθοις διακναιόμενον.

1 This parallelism supports Mr. Ver-
rall’s suggestion that the words ἁδύ τι

1. 894 (ant. a).
μήποτε μήποτέ μ᾽, ὦ
/ an , Ν
πότνιαι Μοῖραι, λεχέων Διὸς
> 4 ” /
εὐνάτειραν ἴδοισθε πέλουσαν'"
\ / / \ fal
μηδὲ πλαθείην γαμέτᾳ τινὶ τῶν
ἐξ οὐρανοῦ.

1. 886 (str. a).
ἢ σοφὸς ἢ σοφὸς ὃς
πρῶτος ἐν γνώμᾳ τόδ᾽ ἐβάστασε
\ , /
καὶ yA@ooa διεμυθολόγησεν,
ὡς τὸ κηδεῦσαι καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸι'
ἀριστεύει μακρῷ
καὶ μήτε κ.τ.λ.

1. 898 (ant. a).
ταρβῶ yap ἀστεργάνορα παρ-
θενίαν
> lal ᾽ “Ὁ “
εἰσορῶσ᾽ Ἰοῦς μέγα δαπτο-
μέναν
δυσπλάνοις “Ἥρας ἀλατείαις
πόνων.

κιτιλ. are a ‘slightly disguised ver-
sion’ of an elegiac couplet.

114 CERTAIN FORMAL ARTIFICES OF AESCHYLUS.

1. 546. 14.902,
’ » 3 [4 \ ,
οὐδ᾽ ἐδέρχθης μηδὲ κρεισσόνων
ὀλιγοδρανίαν ἄκικυν, : θεῶν ἄφυκτον ὄμμα προσ-
ἰσόνειρον ᾧ τὸ φωτῶν δράκοι με...
>] Ν , > / Ν ;. ᾽ ΄ ~
ἀλαὸν γένος ἐμπεποδισμένον'" Διὸς γὰρ οὐχ ὁρῶ
οὔποτε θνατῶν μῆτιν ὅπα φύγοιμ᾽ ἄν.
τὰν Διὸς ἁρμονίαν παρεξίασι
βουλαί. |
“οι ὅθ: | 1901
τὸ διαμφίδιον δέ μοι μέλος...
“ \ ΄ , ° , ‘ x 7 \ ΄ ‘ J /
OTE τὰν ὁμοπάτριον ἕδνοις ἐμοὶ δ᾽ ὅτι μὲν ὁμαλὸς ὁ γώμος

ἄγαγες ἩἫἩσιόναν πιθὼν δά- οὐ δέδια.
μαρτα κοινόλεκτρον.

Finally the χάρις ἄχαρις (1. 545) of τὸ σέβειν θνατοὺς ἄγαν
corresponds to the ἀπολέμιστος πόλεμος ἄπορα πόριμος (1. 906)
in which Jo was involved with Here.

8. Having seen from this instance the closeness with which
Aeschylus attended to formal details and the mode in which he
utilized correspondences of phraseology to indicate his deeper
meaning, we may proceed to consider some passages in the
Agamemnon on which this observation will, we think, throw
new light. Ξ

It will be noticed how closely the ἐπάργεμα θέσφατα of
Kassandra (1. 1072-1176) correspond not only in the metre,
strophe to antistrophe, but also in parallelism of sense. This
consideration will enable us to establish that the right reading
in the much-troubled line 1172 is that which involves the very
slightest change from the MSS.:

1156 ἰὼ γάμοι γάμοι Ilapidos ὀλέθριοι φίλων. str. ἢ
ἰὼ Σκαμάνδρου πάτριον ποτόν.

τότε μὲν ἀμφὶ σὰς ἀϊόνας τάλαιν᾽ ἠνυτόμαν τροφαῖς

νῦν δ᾽ ἀμφὶ Κωκυτόν τε κἀχερουσίους
1101 ὄχθους ἔοικα θεσπιῳδήσειν τάχα.

1107 ἰὼ πόνοι πόνοι πόλεος ὀλομένας τὸ πᾶν. ant. ἢ
ἰὼ πρόπυργοι θυσίαι πατρὸς
πολυκανεῖς βοτῶν ποιονόμων᾽ ἄκος δ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐπήρκεσαν
τὸ μὴ πόλιν μὲν ὥσπερ οὖν ἔχει παθεῖν.

1172 ἐγὼ δὲ θερμὸν οὖς τάχ᾽ ἐν πέδῳ βαλῶ.
(θερμὸν ods, Canter for MSS. θερμόνους).

CERTAIN FORMAL ARTIFICES OF AESCHYLUS, 175

L. 1156 contains the cause of the effect described in 1167:
notice γώμοι, πόνοι! Ilepidos, πόλεος ; ὀλέθριοι, ὀλομένας.
In 1157 πάτριον, 1108 πατρός.

In str. ἡ Kassandra contrasts the past with the present
prospect ; she used to dwell by the banks of the river Skamander,
but she will soon prophesy by the banks of the Acheron and the
Kokutos. In ant. 7 also she contrasts the past with the present
prospect. She used to assist at the sacrifices of cattle offered
by her father, but they availed not; now she will soon—what is
the contrast? She tells us herself afterwards when she has
ceased to speak in riddles; 1. 1275 sq.:

Kal νῦν ὁ μώντις μάντιν ἐκπράξας ἐμὲ
ἀπήγαγ᾽ ἐς τοιάσδε θανασίμους τύχας.
βωμοῦ πατρῴου δ᾽ ἀντ᾽ ἐπίξηνον μένει,
θερμῷ κοπεῖσαν φοινίῳ προσφάγματι.

A block waits her instead of her father’s altar. θερμῷ here
seems to me to prove θερμὸν right in 1172. At first sight I
was tempted to read ἕήνῳ for wédo,—the simple form of
ἐπιξήνῳ, but not found except im Suidas. But there is no
necessity. οὖς is an allusion to,the μαντιεκή : ‘ my ear that used
to listen to the utterances of the victims.’ tay’ corresponds to
τάχα in 1161.

9. In the Agamemnon there is an implied parallel throughout
between the destruction that had come upon Troy and the
destruction about to come upon the house of Agamemnon.
This parallel is drawn with special clearness in the second
chorus 1. 403-455, and the poet indicates throughout the
responsions of thought by responsions of phrase. The grief of
Menelaos ior Helen is contrasted with the grief of the Greeks
for the warriors slain at Troy:

Compare 408 πολλὰ δ᾽ ἔστενον
τότ᾽ ἐννέποντες δόμων προφῆται"
with 445 στένουσι δ᾽ εὖ λέγοντες ἄνδρα κ.τ.λ.

Of Helen there is only left an image of fancy or vain dream-
visions; of the slain warriors there only return urns of ashes:

1τθ CERTAIN FORMAL ARTIFICES OF AESCHYLUS.

Compare 414 πόθῳ δ᾽ ὑπεοποντίας
φάσμα δόξει δόμων ἀνάσσειν
and 420 overpopav Toe δὲ πενθήμονες

πάρεισιν δόκαι φέρουσαι χάριν ματαίαν
with 434 ἀντὶ δὲ φωτῶν
τεύχη καὶ σποδὸς εἰς ἑκάστου δόμως ἀφικνεῖται
and 441 οὐ φίλοισι πέμπει βραχὺ
ψῆγμα δυσδάκρυτον ἀντήνορος σποδοῦ γεμί-
ζων λέβητας εὐθέτους.

(With πενθήμονες in 420 compare πένθεια τλησικάρδιος in
430). Aeschylus emphasises his intended parallel by twice
repeating the same idea. Helen went away to Ilion, BeBaxev
ῥίμφα dia πυλᾶν, and only a passing dream of her came to
Menelaos παραλλάξασα διὰ χερῶν βέβακεν ὄψις. And so
the Greeks sent away their soldiers to Ilion, ods μὲν γάρ τις
ἔπεμψεν οἶδεν ; but Ares sent back only dust, φίλοισι πέμπει
βραχὺ ψῆγμα.

To (1. 415 sq.)

εὐμόρφων δὲ κολοσσῶν

ἔχθεται χάρις ἀνδρί:

"» , ids 9: > ,ὔ » “ Bed: /
ὀμμάτων δ᾽ ἐν ἀχηνίαις ἔρρει πᾶσ᾽ Ἀφροδίτα.

corresponds (I. 452 sq.)

οἱ δ᾽ αὐτοῦ περὶ τεῖχος
θήκας ᾿Ιλιάδος γᾶς

»᾿ / 3 \ ΒΝ μ᾿
εὔμορφοι κατέχουσιν" ἐχθρὰ δ᾽ ἔχοντας ἔκρυψεν.

εὔμορφοι κολοσσοί are statues of Helen. So far from being
a comfort to Menelaos in her absence, they are hateful to him
—for they have no eyes to see. To these correspond the comely
bodies of the fallen heroes; they are no comfort to the mourners
because they are far off in the land of Ilium, covered by a
hateful soil. It must be specially noticed that these lines
correspond strictly in metre although they are not strophic and
antistrophie (the first three belonging to str. 8, the second three
to str. y). ἔχοντας is almost certainly corrupt in 1. 455; only a
strained meaning can be elicited from it. Read ;

ἐχθρὰ δ᾽ ἔρροντας ἔκρυψεν,

CERTAIN FORMAL ARTIFICES OF AESCHYLUS. 177

‘as they perished’ (imperf. part.). This will correspond to
ἔρρει πᾶσ᾽ ᾿Αφροδίτα.
The προφῆται δόμων οἱ Menelaos mourn thus after Helen’s
flight (1. 410) :
ὼ ἰὼ δῶμα Kal πρόμοι,
ὦ λέχος καὶ στίβοι φιλάνορες.
πάρεστι TLYAS ατιμος αλοιδορος
ἀδιστος αφεμενων ἰδεῖν.

ce. ce

In dealing with these corrupt words the commentators gener-
ally start with referring mapecte to Menelaos; he is however
expressly referred to a few lines below (ἔχθεται χάρις ἀνδρί) in
a manner which gives the impression that he was not mentioned
so directly before. We propose to read with less change than
any of the readings hitherto put forward }—

πάρεστι σιγὰς ἀτίμους ἀλοιδόρους
ἅδιστ᾽ ἀφειμένων ἰδεῖν.

This only involves the assumption that 8 = ov in cursive
MSS. was corrupted to o in ἀτίμους and ἀλοιδόρους. ἅδιστ᾽
was changed by a person without understanding to ἅδιστος to
agree with ἄτιμος ἀχοίδορος. The passage may be paraphrased,
πάρεστιν ἰδεῖν ἀτίμους καὶ ἀλοιδόρως σιγῶντας τοὺς ἅδιστα
ἀφειμένους (middle; = Menelaos). σιυγὰς ἀτίμους would be an
instance of ‘interchange of attributive forms.’

Corresponding to this lament, the universal grief of Greece
(in 1. 445 sq.) is thus described :

στένουσι & εὖ λέγοντες ἄνδρα τὸν μὲν ὡς
μάχης ἴδρις τὸν δ᾽ ἐν φοναῖς καλῶς πεσόντ᾽
ἀλλοτρίας διαὶ γυναικός. τάδε σῖγά τις Bai Cer

σῖγά τις Batter corresponds plainly to σιγὰς ἀλοιδόρους ;
both expressions mean that there is no open grumbling. Bafw
and Bavfw were often equivalent to λοιδορέω, cf. Hesychius,
ἔβαξας" ἐλοιδόρησας (and see Mr. Verrall’s interesting note on
Medea, 1374). It may be noted that λέχος καὶ στίβοι φιλάνορες,
the ‘ harvest-fields’ of Aphrodite, correspond to μάχης and ἐν
φοναῖς, the sphere of Ares. The theme of the first part is
connected with the goddess (mentioned in 1. 419), as the theme

1 In the antistrophe, read with Dindorf, τὸ πᾶν δ᾽ ag’ Ἑλλανίδος yas συνορ-
μένοις.

15: ΘΙ, VI. Ν

178 CERTAIN FORMAL ARTIFICES OF AESCHYLUS.

of the second part is connected with the god (mentioned in
1. 437).

:0. It may be useful to exhibit the results of our investigation
of this ode by giving a brief summary of its contents, arranged
in such a way as te show its peculiar structure, which produces
the effect of a tide retreating and advancing.

a. The gods do not fail to punish injustice, and it 1s unjust to
tamper with χάρις ἀθίκτων.
b, Paris was guilty of injustice in carrying off Helen,
ὁ. who went to Ilion, bringin
(and Paris),
εἰ. and leaving to the bereaved in Sparta lamen-
tation and silent complaint—regret for the love
and beauty that had departed :
6. for only a phantom of her was left in the
palace, and her beautiful images became
hateful to her husband, for they had no
light in their eyes, and, without that, Aphro-
dite could give no charm; she could send
f. naught but empty dreams,—phan-
toms that came, and departed as Helen
herself had departed.
g. Such were the private woes in
the palace at Lacedaemon.
η΄. But there are now universal
woes throughout all Hellas:
J. for only the ashes of the warriors
who were sent to Ilion are sent back
therefrom :

o
Θ

ce, Ares could send naught but the ashes of

some; other beautiful bodies are at Ilion,
buried in a Jand that is hateful to Greece.
ε΄. To Greece they have left lamentation,—regret
for the brave that live bravely fallen,—and
silent complaint
ε΄. to issue in woes for tlie sons of Atreus who brought
them to Ilion,
δ΄. and were thereby guilty of the slaughter of many
(πολυκτονοι),
α΄. ἃ crime which the gods do not fail to punish,

: destruction upon it -

a Δ...-.....ὕ

CERTAIN FORMAL ARTIFICES OF AESCHYLUS. 179

_ 11. It will appear no doubt surprising, and many will be
a priovt indisposed to believe that Aeschylus could have
elaborated his odes on such a subtle plan as this principle of
antiphony, if we may so call it. On the other hand (as Mr.
Mahaffy has suggested to me), it will render intelligible Aristo-
phanes’ criticism on him for being over artificial (cf. Mahaffy,
Hist. Gk. Itt., i. p. 274), and this seems a conclusive answer to
all a priori objections. To examine his other choral odes in
the light of this principle, non est hujus otii, The examples 1
have given are, I think, sufficient to show that he worked (at least
sometimes) with an artistic elaboration and minuteness of detail
that has never been suspected,—a minuteness which, if practised
by a modern poet, would be scouted as oversubtlety, and con-
sidered, to use the phrase that Aristophanes applies to the
musical ‘zigzags and dodges’ of Agathon, μύρμηκος atparrol.
We may also learn that no study can be too microscopic to
bring the ideas of Aeschylus to light.

JOHN Bb. Bory.

180 EARLY PAINTINGS OF ASIA MINOR.

EARLY PAINTINGS OF ASIA MINOR.

In the history of Greek vase-painting the comparative rarity
of early examples of undoubtedly Asiatic provenance is a problem
that has always remained a vexed question. It is difficult to
account for the fact that, whereas from the islands studding the
coast of Asia Minor a rich harvest has been gathered, yet the
examples hitherto recovered from the mainland itself may be
counted on the fingers—at least, with the exception of a few
found in the Troad. Since, therefore, anything should be
valuable which adds to our information, or throws light upon
the existence of an Asiatic school of black-figured vase-painting,
I propose to introduce in as few words as possible the vase
before us (Figs. 1, 2) as a possible product of Asiatic soil, and
as a commentary upon the examples we already possess.

It is an amphora of an unusual form, rather more rounded in
proportion than the customary shape, reminding us perhaps in
this of the rounded outline of the so-called Oriental oinochoe ;
unfortunately, only about half of the many fragments into
which it was broken were found in Mr. Biliotti’s excavations in
Rhodes, so that the painted panels on each side are sadly
dilapidated ; still, enough remains to show us the intention of
the painter, and, what is more important, perhaps, the technical
conditions under which he worked. The natural colour of the
clay is a fine deep red, upon which the figures are laid in black,
which, from inequalities of baking and painting, merges in the
thinnest parts into a bright vermilion. The details are in
most cases incised, but in some cases indicated by white and
purple, over and above the sparse use of these colours as
accessories. On the side best preserved have been represented
two satyrs with shaggy hair, full beard, and horse’s tail and
hoofs, who seem to be dancing one on either side of a large

EARLY PAINTINGS OF ASIA MINOR. 181

amphora, a handle of which is grasped by each. On the other,
and probably the more important, side, (Fig. 2) we have only the
remains of a large wing, which may have belonged to a Gorgon,

on either side of whom has stood a bird, only partially preserved,
and two rosettes above the scene.

Fic. 2.
Height 93 inches.

The scenes which the artist has chosen have, then, as far as
we can judge in their imperfect condition, no connection with

182

EARLY PAINTINGS OF ASIA MINOR.

any definite stury or myth, but are purely decorative ; and for
this reason, as well as from certain crudities of treatment and
technique, 1 should assign it to an early stage of the black-
ficured period. It was found, as I have said, in Rhodes, but
there is at present no similar Rhodian fabric with which it can
be properly classed; it belongs rather, I think, to a class of
paintings of which the examples hitherto forthcoming hail from
Asia Minor. Considering how few these are, it would be rash
at present to state anything definite as to this fabric; I will
only endeavour to draw attention to the proofs of relationship
with the remainder of the class.

We have, first of all, the vase bought by Mr. Ramsay at
Smyrna, and published by him in this Journal, vol. ii. p. 305.

This vase, however, though it certainly has little in common
with any known Greek type, belongs equally little to the black-
figured style with which we are dealing ; the only instance with
which it can be compared is a vase published in the Barre
Cutalogue,) No. 79, and which seems identical in every respect
of style with it; this latter is from Cyprus, and it may be that
both are originally from: some part of Asia Minor further south,
if not from Cyprus itself. Next we have the Myrina vase,
published by Rayet in the Bulletin de Corr. Hell., vol. viii.
pp. 509-14, pl. vii., which is a typical instance of the class I allude
to; and finally, the numerous fragments of painted sarcophagi,
published by Dennis in this Journal, vol. iv. pp. 1-22. Before
the publication of Dennis’s instances no similar painted sarco-
phagus had been known, except the one from Rhodes, now in
the British Museum; and at first sight both these and the
Myrina vase seem to class themselves most naturally with the
fabric of which Rhodes has given us such abundance; but on
closer inspection, for which I have lately had the advantages of

1 T cannot at all agree with M. Rayet
in the extremely early date which he
assigns to Mr. Ramsay’s vase ; the wood-
eut of it given loc. cit. very fairly re-

meuts, Indeed, when we compare it
with the Barre vase, the style seems
to represent, not so much genuine
archaism, as that florid ignorance of

presents what is at best a very crude
production ; it is true, the head painted
on it resembles a type found on Phrygian
monuments, but that is no reason why
it should necessarily date from the
earliest of this long series of monu-

which we have samples in some late
ware in the British Museum from South
Italy, and where we find a similar

reminiscence of an earlier art very much
debased,

FARLY PAINTINGS OF ASTA MINOR. 183

handling some of the principal fragments quoted by Dennis, it
is apparent that there are certain decided points of difference ;
the Rhodian sarcophagus, for example, though it follows in the
main the same traditions in the disposition and even the choice
of subjects, and though the ¢echnique and treatment are similar,
yet shows decided evidence of being a later imitation of some
early styie, like that of the Dennis fragment, copied by an artist
who could have drawn more skilfully if he had been working
independently of any model; the animals are freer, the orna-
ments much more florid, and the warriors’ heads are almost
grotesque in the evident desire of the artist to adapt an early
original to his own environments. As the vases collected by
Dennis are from the neighbourhood of Clazomenae, and as no
other site has produced painted sareophagi, it would seem as if
this spot was a centre of production of this fabric, As a
sarcophagus of terra-cotta would have been too unwieldy to
be suitable for export, Γ would suggest that the Rhodian instance
may perhaps have been a local production on the lines of the
fabric of Clazomenae, or some such external model; while, for
the same reason the Clazomenae fragments are valuable, as
evidence of the fabrics probably of that locality. And there is
one point in the relative treatment of the two styles of sarcophiagi
which seems to bear upon this possibility ; that in (so far as 1 can
make out) all the instances from Clazomenae, the inner markings,
i.e. the features of the faces, the hair, the muscles, ete., are
marked in white paint on the black ground of the body ; so far as
I know this peculiarity is confined to the instances from Asia
Minor. The method of rendering these markings to which we
are most accustomed in black-figured vases is, of course, the
incised lines which became universal among black-tigured vases ;
but this invention had not always existed, and in Rhodian vases
in particular we have the opportunity of studying its develop-
ment. The successive steps would seem to have been something
in this order; first we have the rudimentary figure in plain
silhouette, with no inner markings at all; this is followed by an
attempt to indicate the eye and other of the more prominent
characteristics by leaving thin lines in the silhouette unpainted ;
then we have the entire face left in outline, as well as perhaps
the hoofs of animals, etc. ; and from this point we branch off in
two directions, on the one hand of figures left entirely in outline,

184 EARLY PAINTINGS OF ASIA MINOR.

on the other the whole figure is blacked in, and the necessary
details afterwards scratched out in fine lines. Now among the
vases found at Rhodes we have a great number of oinochoat,
which seem to belong precisely to this stage of development,
and which illustrate a time when the last two stages of develop-
ment must have existed temporarily side by side. Of exactly
the same form and general system of decoration, they divide
themselves naturally into two distinct styles. These oinochoai
are ornamented with horizontal bands of animals in a field
thickly semé with flowers and other patterns; but whereas one
series have the inner markings indicated by the unpainted line,
and most of the patterns in the field are such as belonged to
the geometric style, in the other the inner markings are incised,
the figures are more conventional and more higlily coloured with
purple, and the more crowded patterns in the field consist almost
universally of the round rosette. Now it is obvious that this
general style must have been borrowed more or less directly
from an Oriental source, for which reason, indeed, the name
‘Oriental’ has been specially applied to it; and since the
peculiar characteristics of the second class are such as we should
most naturally attribute to an Oriental origin, we may be allowed
to suppose that this second class represents more distinctly the
eastern productions from which the remainder of these oinochoat
borrowed their system of decoration. To the eastern artists,
accustomed to work similar friezes in metal, the use of incised
lines would be no new thing. The graving tool of the metal-
worker accustomed to incising details on metal, and accustomed
to similar methods of decoration as we see in the Patras
euirass, (Bulletin de Corr, Hell, vol. vii., pl. i.-iii.) would obviously
have suggested a similar expedient for the painter of vases
Hence, then, it seems probable that the usage of incised lines
must have existed among the Asiatic fabrics before it was
employed in Rhodes; and we may expect to find this fact
verified in the case of the sarcophagi. The Rhodian sarco-
phagus is decorated still in what we may, for convenience,
call the Dorian style, 1.6. with the faces left in outline, and
markings on the body indicated by unpainted lines; on the
other hand, in the earliest of the Clazomenae fragments we
have some of the figures still in rude silhouette, others on
the same fragment with the details indicated by thin lines of

EARLY PAINTINGS OF ASIA MINOR. 185

white paint laid on the silhouette, exactly on the same method
as incised lines would be used, which, in fact, at first sight they
closely resemble. And the reason for this is not far to seek
on a vase of soft clay which has undergone one slight baking it
is a comparatively easy matter to trace with a point a fine line;
but these sarcophagi are made of pounded brick, which is baked
hard before ever the groundwork of paint is laid on, and it
would at this stage be extremely difficult to incise lines as fine
as the decoration would require; accustomed, however, more to
incised lines than to the ‘Dorian’ practice, the artist avails
himself of the white paint already in use for the background, and
finds in it an easy and sufficient substitute. As more black-
figured vases are discovered from Asia Minor we shall see
whether or no this simple substitute for the troublesome practice
of incising commended itself to the artists of the black-figured
style, and how far it became, as one would expect, universally
substituted among them. So far as I know it has only been
found at present in use upon one black-figured vase, as yet
unpublished, but of which Mr. Ramsay showed me a tracing;
as the evidence is strongly in favour of that vase having been
found near Smyrna, it offers valuable testimony in favour of my
contention. At present the evidence is too slight to found any
definite case upon it; but what I would suggest is this: that
the use of incised lines came originally from Asia Minor, and
that where white inner markings are found in their place the
presumption is in favour of an Asiatic origin.

Mr. Murray in the Rev. Arch., N.S., vol. xliv. p. 344, has
already called attention to this distinction of brush and graver
in the two styles of Rhodian oinochoai, but he finds it strange
that whereas, on the one hand, the mechanical conditions of
the engraved style show more advanced work, the drawing is of
a feebler style of art; and that vases of the Dorian style should
be found in the same tombs with glass rosettes, such as must
have prompted the decoration of the field peculiar to the
‘Oriental’ style ; from which he concludes that the Oriental style
is later than the Doric. But the difficulty disappears if we can
prove that the two styles represent two distinct fabrics. In the
large collection of Rhodian pottery now in the British Museum
we can trace the ‘ Dorian’ style from an early time down to the
point where it is influenced by the Oriental vases; and there

186 EARLY PAINTINGS OF ASIA MINOR.

seems no doubt that already when this takes place the Oriental
style is in a condition of full development, and certainly not a
newly-founded art. We have special facilities for judging this
in the case of an oinochod (Fig. 3) at present in the British

Fic. 3.
Height 13 inches.

Museum, which shows us a combination of the two styles, and
which must from its appearance belong to a time when neither
style was far advanced. It is of the ordinary shape, and at first

EARLY PAINTINGS OF ASIA MINOR. 187

sight presents much the same appearance as the rest of the
class with which we are dealing ; but if we examine it closely
we shall find that it is distinguished by several peculiar
characteristics. It is decorated on the body with two bands
of animals, of which the upper band exhibits the Oriental, the
lower the Dorian, technique throughout, that is to say, while
the upper band has the inner markings incised, and large
masses of purple employed upon the silhouette, in the lower
band less purple and no incised lines are used; the inner
markings are left unpainted. Below these friezes are thin
horizontal bands of black, upon which purple and white
lines are painted alternately, a peculiarity which seems to belong
exclusively to this series of the class; the clay is not of the
ordinary light colour, with a thin yellowish engobe forming the
ground tint, but is of a warm reddish colour, upon which a wash
of white seems to have been laid with a brush, And there is
one more point which in connection with these seems more than
accidental, that in the field of the Dorian frieze, instead of the
customary geometric patterns, the rosette is almost exclusively
used, and the animal principally represented is the stereotyped
goat looking backwards, of whom only the limbs nearest the
spectator are shown.

From these points I -think we may gather that the vases of
this style were not made in Rhodes, but rather by an artist
whose Oriental tendencies had been brought under the in-
fluence of the Dorian style. On one instance we have an
elaborate anthemion ornament similar to that upon the amphora
which is the subject of this paper, and which reminds us of the
florid patterns used upon the sarcophagi from Clazomenae ; and,
on the whole, I think the evidence is strongly in favour of
referring this series also to an Asiatic origin. If the Dorian
vases of Rhodes show traces of the influence of Asia Minor,
we may naturally expect a corresponding reaction upon the
Asiatic style; in any case, if my conclusion is correct, this series
is interesting as showing the sort of medium through which
Asiatic vase-painting influenced the Rhodian painters ; and we
probably shall be able to judge best of the period of this class
according as they exhibit in a greater or Jess degree this
combination of the two styles.

I mentioned just now the use of white paint in this series

188 EARLY PAINTINGS OF ASIA MINOR.

with the purple upon the black bands round the body; this is
most important, because although, as I have shown, white paint
is used at an early period in the sarcophagi and vases of Asia
Minor, it does not seem to have been employed at all by the
Rhodian artists of the Dorian or Oriental styles;1 nor does it
appear among any of the Melos vases given in Conze’s Melische
Thongefdsse. Like the practice of incising lines, it came into
general use later on for the vases of the black-figured style, and
if we can show that before the black-figured period it was not
employed except in the class of vases from Asia Minor, this will
be an additional test for the identification of this class. Unfor-
tunately, from its natural tendency to decay and rub off, it has,
no doubt, in many instances almost disappeared where it was
originally used, especially in the case of very early vases where
the artists had apparently not yet learned the art of fixing this
colour permanently; in the black-figured vases it lasts fairly
well, and is never applied except upon a substratum of black
glaze ; but just as in the case of the hydria from the Polledrara
tomb, the polychrome colours, once as bright as an Egyptian
fresco, have so faded as to leave merely a trace of the original
design, a sort of dull mark on the glaze, so there is a class of
brownish-black ware which bears all the marks of being very
archaic, and of which we have two or three instances from
Rhodes, in which patterns have stood probably in red and
white, but now have left only a dulness in the glaze and an
occasional patch of colour. Now considering that previously to
the introduction of the Oriental style the colours in use for
Greek pottery were exclusively those of the clay and black, and
that the idea of other colours seems to have come from the East
with their tapestries and richly-coloured vases, we may, I think,
fairly conclude that early vases of this polychrome fabric would
have been, in all probability, Asiatic.”

It is interesting, therefore, to observe that in the large amphora
grasped by the satyrs of Fig. 1, the ornament has been applied,

1 Except one instance, upon a Ca-
mirus pinax.
2 Unless indeed the Polledrara vases

ostrich eggs found with them would
render this probable, besides the
Egyptian character of the scene repre-

and the remainder of this class can be
traced to some such Egyptian site as
Naukratis: the porcelain objects and

sented on the hydria : see Micali, Mon.
pl. iv.

EARLY PAINTINGS OF ASIA MINOR. 189

not as we should have expected, with incised lines, but in the
less enduring pigments of two colours, one of which, as the faint
traces show, is white. The inexperience of the artist in the
use of his materials is further shown in the uneven character of
the black glaze, which, in the earlier sarcophagi, is burnt in
some parts to a bright vermilion colour; and in the case of the
wreath worn by the satyr where white paint has been laid upon
the natural surface of the clay, in later art this colour being
always laid upon a medium. The decoration on the shoulder of
the amphora in Fig. 1 consists of an arrangement of volutes
which occur, so far as I know, only upon the early amphorae and
oinochoae of what I would call the Asia Minor style. On the
other hand, the delicate incised work employed to indicate the
hair in the satyr’s beard reminds us of the Oriental metal-work,’
while the rosettes above each design, with their petals alter-
nately purple and black, are a direct reminiscence of the Oriental
style of decoration. In one of the sarcophagi from Clazomenae
a scene occurs in which several cocks are introduced without
any apparent relation to the other figures; and two birds
appear in the reverse design of our amphora ; it may be that in
both cases the artists were working upon the lines of an Oriental
frieze of birds, of which the Xanthian frieze is an instance, and
inserted the human figures as a more important element, and
left some of the original figures of animals in a subordinate
character; just as we saw in the case of the Sphinxes and
Sirens upon the archaic kylix (Hell. Journal, vol. v. pls. xl.-xli.).
The decorative character of both scenes, where no definite myth
is represented, but where the figures are arranged with a view to
symmetry, would suit the character of our vase as an early
specimen of an Orientalizing style; it is a tendency which marks
the decoration of amphorae, where the vertical handles would
naturally interrupt the continuity of a frieze decoration ; and
hence we find our amphora already spaced off in panels. It is
curious to note how the artist of the Myrina vase, much earlier
than ours, instinctively felt this necessity, and has attempted
to give the character of a metope-group to his scene by raising
an arm vertically on either side of the human head? which he

1 Cf. for example the bronze cuirass to all intents the same as those upon

from Patras already quoted. the sarcophagi; it is perhaps worth
2 The head on the Myrina vase is to noting that the same pricciple of deco-

100 EARLY PAINTINGS OF ASIA MINOR.

portrays. The sarcophagi give us both systems. Where only a
narrow space is available we have either human heads or single
human figures; and where, as at the top and bottom, a long
narrow band offers itself, the artist falls back upon the traditional
frieze of animals.

The satyr in our amphora appears at first a remarkable type ;
he seems to be the progenitor of the ‘langbirtigen, zopftragenden
Gesellen mit Thierohren, Thierhuf und Pferdeschwanz die auf
der Leidener- vase (Rouwlez, Taf. 5) nach den Manaden greifen,

fi ivy (2 i
My

τε
κι"
\f ah \ Ν
|

\
\

\

auf den nordgriechischen Miinzen sie fortschleppen’ (Klein,
Euphr., p. 84). And it is remarkable that our satyr is an
almost exact counterpart of one upon a sarcophagus. Dennis
(Joc. cit. p. 20) describes him as having “ the crest and mane of a
horse with a very brute-like nose of a yellow hue, though the
rest of his body is black save a large patch of red between the
eye and ear,” but he has been misled by the imperfect condition

ration is frequent in early Greco- jewellery in Bulletin de Corr. Hell,
Oriental gold work. Cf. the Lydian vol. iii. p. 129, pll. iv. v.

EARLY PAINTINGS OF ASIA MINOR. 191

of the fragment to which he refers!; on examining it with a lens
and beside the evidence of our amphora, there is no doubt that a
satyr identical with ours (see Fig. 4) is there represented. The
curious upward curve of the eye, the finely-marked hair, the
squat nose, even the muscles of the limbs and the peculiar
marking of the knee joints are the same in both cases. Such
a resemblance could hardly be merely accidental, and this is
one of the strongest proofs of the close connection of our
amphora with the fabric which the sarcophagi of Clazomenae
represent.

To sum up, then, I have intended in this paper to draw’
attention to certain points of similarity between the painted
sarcophagi, the Myrina vase, the vases of red clay with painted
white ground, and our amphora; I have endeavoured to trace
in them such ‘tendencies as we should expect to find in the
early Greek art of Asia Minor; in this way we may evolve
some sort of formula by which the vases of such a fabric may
be tested. The study is necessarily very fragmentary, perhaps
wholly premature, in the absence of more evidence; but it may
do something towards preparing the way for a more scientific
investigation when the materials for it shall be forthcoming.

CECIL SMITH.

1The ‘yellow’ and ‘red’ here ments, but to accidents of baking ; the
mentioned, and the ‘polychrome treat- only colours used on the sarcophagi
ment’ (see Annali dell. Inst. 1883, p. being, as usual, black, purple and
178) are also not due to different pig- white.

192 AMPHORA-HANDLES FROM ANTIPAROS.

AMPHORA-HANDLES FROM ANTIPAROS.

Mr. BENT has brought from Antiparos, and the British
Museum has: acquired, several of those stamped handles of
diotae which have been the subject of numerous papers by
various savants, and of a special work by Δ. Dumont (nserip-
tions Céramiqucs).

To record the find-spots of the several classes of these
handles is a matter of some importance, because they furnish
us with archeological evidence in a matter of great complexity,
where archeological evidence is rare and desirable—in the
matter of ancient Greek commerce, its marts and its course.
The stamped handles which bear the names of Rhodian magis-
trates and potters are, as is well known, found in all parts of
the Levant from Kertsch to Egypt and Sicily ; those which
derive from Cnidus are also found in many places; Thasian
handles are found chiefly on the shores of the Euxine sea, but
at Athens and elsewhere also. Why Rhodes, Cnidus, and
Thasos should in Hellenistic times have almost monopolized
the trade in wine, or why these states should have monopolized
the custom of using stamps for handles of wine-jars, we do not
know. But the latter statement at all events must be true:
there are but very few other known sources of stamped handles.
In the lengthy work of M. Dumont there are published, besides
handles of the three great series, only the following :

Two of Paros inscribed MAPIQN and [fOIGAMN respec-
tively.

One of Colophon inscribed KOAO®QNION.

ATOAAQNIOY.

One of Naxos inscribed NA=IO.

And one of Ikos (?) inscribed |KIOv.

AMPHORA-HANDLES FROM ANTIPAROS. 193

And in the very extensive series of these objects preserved
in the British Museum numbering not less than 2,000 specimens,
there is no certain instance of the occurrence of any locality
besides the three well-known ones.

It is therefore a noteworthy fact that among the stamped
handles found at Antiparos by Mr. Bent, which are but seven
in number, there is not one specimen which certainly comes
originally either from Rhodes, Cnidus or Thasos; while some
certainly belong to other ancient cities. Here is a list :

1. AETYNOMOY

MIKPIOoYTOY Bunch of
PYOOKPITOY grapes.
®IAHMQN

Here Philemon seems to be the potter’s name; Micrius, son
of Pythocritus, the Astynomus of his city at the time when the
diota was made. There are Cnidian handles which bear the
name of an astynomus (Dumont, p. 23), but in the absence of
the ethnic KNIAIQN we cannot, be sure whether the present
handle comes originally from that city.

2. YQiPAn

3. AMOP

No. 2 bears the ethnic of Paros; No. 3 seems to bear that
of Amorgos, which lies not far from Paros. It is easy to under-
stand what purpose was served by placing on the handle of an
amphora the name of a potter, a merchant, or a magistrate
(the last to fix the date); but not easy to see what object would
be served by inserting only the ethnic.

ΡΣ Ἐπ Crescent.
ATA? |OoINOY
5. ΕΠΙΠῪ OPA
XAPMOKPATEYS
ee N Grapes.
PSUTTON. tcive. κόσμον: Head of lion (or dog ?).

Unfortunately the inscription of all three of these handles is
incomplete; otherwise it would doubtless have enabled us to
attribute them. The fabric appears to me to be unlike those
of Thasos, Cnidus or Rhodes.

H.S.—VOL. VI. 9

194 AMPHORA-HANDLES FROM ANTIPAROS.

7.

This cruciform monogram seems to belong decidedly to Byz-
antine times; and to indicate that even ata late period the
custom of stamping amphora-handles had not disappeared.

The occurrence, from one source, of so many exceptional
amphora-handles may well encourage travellers among the
Greek islands to pay more attention to this somewhat despised
class of antiquities; and raises a hope that if their provenience
be in all cases recorded, such record may be of real service
towards recovering the history of Greek commerce.

Percy GARDNER.

ON THE GOLD AND SILVER MINES OF SIPHNOS. 195

ON THE GOLD AND SILVER MINES OF SIPHNOS.

WHEN on a visit to this island last winter, I felt much
curiosity about the almost legendary gold and silver mines of
Siphnos, which in former ages made the inhabitants so rich,
and which enabled them to build their ‘Prytaneum and white-
browed Agora.’ The story of these mines we owe to Herodotus,
and as the veracity of the statements of this historian, so far as
Orientalism is concerned, is being sorely impugned just now,
it will be satisfactory to find that on Hellenic subjects he does
not entirely draw cn his imagination. He tells us that the
Siphniotes were the richest of all the islanders, owing to the
gold and silver mines which existed there, but that they were
mean in their donations to the oracle at Delphi, and hence the
Pythian oracle prophesied ill for them. ‘When in Siphnos
there shall be a white Prytaneum, and a white-browed Agora,
then will they have need of a shrewd man to protect them from
the wooden troop and red herald” When the Samian fugitives
came and sacked their town, the Siphniotes recognized too
late the purport of this warning, for the Samiotes came in
boats painted with red paint, doubtless with the miltos or red
paint, mines of which still exist in the neighbouring island of
Keos.

There is another version of this story, and one which bears
obviously on the mines, and which we read in Pausanias. The
Siphniotes sent as an annual tribute to the shrine of Delphi
a golden egg; but, being an astute race, they doubtless thought
their gold might be better employed at home, so they sent
a gilded egg, whereat Apollo was so enraged that he submerged
their mines, This is one of the stories attached to the frequent
motions of the earth’s crust and consequent encroachments of

0 2

16 ΟΝ THE GOLD AND SILVER MINES OF SIPHNOS.

the sea, which in former ages took place in the Aegean sea.
We have the story of Delos being raised out of the waves for
the birth of Apollo, we are told how Apollo himself raised up
Anaphe out of the sea as a refuge for the Argonauts, and in
our own times we have seen an island rise up from the sea
at the volcanic Santorin. This Siphniote legend is a parallel
case. :
τς Many ancient writers speak of these gold and silver mines
besides Herodotus, Pausanias, Strabo, Pliny, and others; and on
making inquiries in the island I was told of two spots where it
was commonly supposed ancient mining operations had taken
place. The first of these to which we went is called ‘the hole
of the Holy Saviour,’ from a little church close to, or ‘refuges’
(καταφύγια), aname common to all caves or grottos where in
disturbed times a retreat could be found in case of the descent
of pirates on the coast. It is a long ride from the cluster of
villages where the modern life of Siphnos exists, not far from
the ruins of the ancient town, to this point. The entrance to
the hole is near the sea, to the north-east of the island; itisa
very small entrance indeed, but leads to a perfect labyrinth
inside, so that any one who wishes, I was told by my guide,
could wander for many hours without finding the end, and that
the danger of being lost was very great without a guide. This
I fully realized during my short stayin the cave. Evidently the
precious metal must have been in veins, which these multi-
tudinous passages followed up; along the sides there were
quantities of niches, where the workmen evidently put their
lamps.

The appearance of this mine inside is as if sparkling with
silver, and the stones we broke off from the side had the weight
and colour of lead; there were stalactites here and there, as
if water had percolated through, but no appearance of soil
whatsoever. Numerous tools have been found inside, pointed
and cone-shaped axes, and the marks of these instruments
are visible on the walls.

The exterior however is the most interesting, for on the cliff,
close to the sea-shore, exist certain hollows, called by the people
Καμίνια furnaces, and in these it would appear that the smelting
of the precious metal took place by the admixture of other
metallic substances, such as iron and volcanic stones, which

ΟΝ THE GOLD AND SILVER MINES OF SIPHNOS. 197

contributed to the quicker liquefaction. All round these hollows
are quantities of scoriae, which the ancient smelters have used
and cast on one side, especially on the hill side, near a small
church dedicated to St. Silvester, and from which the spot is
called by the natives λείψανα, or ‘the remains.’

It was fortunately a very calm day, and by going in a boat
and taking with us a ‘sea telescope, as they call it in these
parts, being a tin can with a glass bottom, which, when put
into the water below the ripple, makes it easy to distinguish
objects at the bottom of the sea in shallow water, we were
able to see traces of scoriae and hollows similar to those we had
just seen, far below the surface of the water. This proves
beyond a doubt that either the land must have subsided, or the
sea encroached, since the time when the furnaces were used,
and corroborates the substance of the legend as told by Pausanias.
It is probable that below the present sea-level would be found
the entrance into the mine, which was being worked at the
time of the inundation, and that the mine which we had
entered had been previously exhausted.

The second mine which we visited lay on the slopes of Mount
Prophet Elias, to the north-west of the island, at a spot called
‘the fissures’ or Κάψαλον, a word used for ‘fuel,’ and probably
referring to the quantity of burnt stones which lie in all
directions. The entrance to this mine has only been lately
discovered, being hidden by the thickness of the brushwood all
around; owing to the burning of some of it a short time ago
the entrance so long concealed from view was disclosed. On
entering, the same features are disclosed as in the other mine,
the appearance of the sides is silvery, and winding passages lead
in all directions, and on chipping bits off there is a curious
metallic ring. Insidé have.been found pieces of broken jars
and lamps, which were doubtless in use at the time of the
working of the mine. There are traces of sulphur here on the
sides of the walls.

It is a curious fact that during the rainy season the far-famed
‘potters of Siphnos come to the spot and pick up in the stream
bits of vitrified lead, which they use for mixing with their clay
to prevent its expanding; undoubtedly this comes from the sinelt-
ing which once went on here, and this suggests another subject.
Pliny telis us how celebrated were the potters of Siphnos, and

18 ON THE GOLD AND SILVER MINES OF SIPHNOS.

that clay was found three stadia from the sea, which made an
exceedingly prized pottery, becoming black and hard when
exposed to the fire and rubbed with oil. This clay is not found
to-day, but nevertheless the potters of Siphnos are celebrated
throughout Greece. Jn the spring time they start on their
travels far and wide, and settle in towns and villages for days
and weeks, until the place is supplied with large and well-made
earthenware, amphorae, and cooking utensils.

On the adjacent island of Seriphos there are numerous traces

of ancient mining operations. Above the town, cut on a rock
very difficult of access, is an inscription in large badly-formed
letters, as follows :—
TIENTE ATT EMOY TIENTE ATTO SOY OHEAYPON OPYTE,
What can this mean—‘Five from me, five from you, dig upa
treasure’? Does it refer to the mines of Seriphos? Not far
from the spot we saw a magnet mine, where the earth sticks to
the point of a knife; probably this inscription refers to
co-operation with a view to working this treasure.

J. THEODORE BENT.
18, GreEAT CUMBERLAND PLacr.

A TORSO OF HADRIAN IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 199

A TORSO OF HADRIAN IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

In the Gazette archéologique for 1880 (pp. 52-55; pl. 6)
M. Al. Sorlin-Dorigny published, with a photograph, an inter-
esting statue of a Roman Emperor found at Hierapytna in
Crete and preserved in the Constantinople Museum (cf. Cata-
logue dw musée timpérial de Constantinople, 8vo, 1871, no. 128).
This statue was originally thought to be one of Metellus Creticus
or of Caracalla, but—though the likeness is not very close—
there can be little doubt that M. Sorlin-Dorigny is right in
assigning it to the Emperor Hadrian. The Emperor is repre-
sented standing, facing, with his left foot trampling on a
captive. He wears a cuirass, and a paludamentum which is
flung behind over his back, so as to form ‘une espéce de fond
sur lequel la statue se détache en haut relief.’ The cuirass, says
M. Sorlin-Dorigny, ‘est une des plus belles que nous connaissions
et en méme temps l’une des plus intdéressantes. Le motif sort
du banal usité pour ces sortes de représentations qui se com-
posent le plus souvent de griffons affrontés ou de prisonniers
agenouillés au pied d’un trophée. Ici la scéne est plus romaine
...c est la représentation de la louve légendaire, des jumeaux, et
du couronnement de Pallas, la grande protectrice de Rome, par
deux Victoires ailées...La déesse est de face, debout et dans
lattitude de la lutte ; elle porte le casque et la tunique talaire
recouverte de l’égide; de la droite levée elle brandit une lance
et dans sa gauche elle tient un bouclier; ἃ ses pieds sont des
deux animaux symboliques, la chouette et le serpent.’ ‘Les
lambrequins de la cuirasse sont ornés de sept médaillons,
Celui du milieu représente la téte de face de Jupiter-Ammon.’

Among the sculptures in the British Museum which were
discovered at Cyrene by Smith and Porcher about twenty years
ago is the torso of a Roman Emperor hitherto unidentified.
This torso was found in or near the building called by the

200 A TORSO OF HADRIAN IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

excavators an ‘Augusteum’ (Smith and Porcher, History of
Discoveries at Cyrene, London, 1864, page 104; cf. p. 76, where
the same building is called the palace of a Roman Governor),
and on account of the remarkably good style of its workman-
ship it has been thought to be a product of the Augustan Age
(cf. British Museum Guide to the Graeco-Roman Sculptures, 1874,
Part I. p. 16, no. 46.) What, however, I would now suggest,
is that this torso is of a statue of Hadrian, which when complete
constituted a substantial replica of the Hierapytna statue
referred to above.

The other objects found in the building where our torso
was discovered belong, so far as they can be dated with
certainty, to a later time than the age of Augustus. And
though the head, arms, and legs of the statue exist no
longer, the cuirass displays a rich ornamentation which is
almost identical with that on the Cretan statue of Hadrian
—we find the same armed female figure, the two Victories
and the wolf and twins resting on a floral basis. From this
basis there springs up a spiral ornament on each side of the
armed figure, which takes the place of the serpent and owl
which appear on the Hierapytna statue. The latter attributes
would seem to indicate, as M. Sorlin-Dorigny has already re-
marked, that the divinity represented is Pallas rather than
Roma, The lower part of the cuirass of the British Museum
torso is adorned with medallions which correspond (slight
variations excepted) with those on the Cretan statue. The torso
is now in such a poor state of preservation—it had lain in fact
exposed to the weather for at least forty years before the visit
of Smith and Porcher—that it is difficult to form a satisfactory
opinion as to its original merits. The cuirass, however, evi-
dently furnished an elegant specimen of decorative work and
the Medusa heads (among the medallions) are decidedly fine.
The floral basis is pierced with eight holes as if for the attach-
ment of some metallic object. The paludamentum is arranged
in the same way as on the Cretan statue, and there are
indications that the Emperor’s left hand clutched his jerkin at
the side, and that his left leg was slightly raised. This leg
doubtless rested on a prostrate captive, as is the case in the
other statue.

It was suggested by M. Sorlin-Dorigny that the Hierapytna

A TORSO OF HADRIAN IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 201

statue was made to commemorate some particular victory of
Hadrian’s; and as Crete, at that period, formed part of th
Province of Cyrenaica, he supposed that the event referred t:
might be Hadrian’s suppression of the revolt of the Mauri or of
the rising of African Jews. It is unlikely that the statue com-
memorates any special victory, but it is interesting—now that
our Cyrene torso is identified—to find both halves of the Province
of Cyrenaica producing nearly identical statues of the Emperor.
The connection of Crete with Cyrene was probably at all periods
tolerably close. In the fourth century B.c., especially, there
must have been constant commercial intercourse between the
two, for we find the inhabitants of Crete actually using
numerous coins of Cyrene as flans upon which to restrike
Cretan types and inscriptions (cf. Wroth, Cretan Coins, p. 6
and p. 35 = Numismatic Chron. 1884, p. 6, p. 35). This inter-
course would still be kept up when the two countries became
one province, and it is not unlikely that one and the same
artist sometimes supplied both Crete and Cyrene with identical
works of art,—compare 6... the marble statuette of Aphrodite
from Crete, (Spratt, Travels in Crete, vol.i. p. 72), with a copy of
it from Cyrene which exists in the British Museum.

The head of our Cyrene statue of Hadrian I suppose to have
been identical with that on the Hierapytna statue. And it is
interesting to note that the Hierapytna head closely resembles
a head which still exists on another statue from Cyrene in the
British Museum—the statue of a male figure in civil costume
who is in all probability the Emperor Hadrian (cf. British
Museum Guide to the Graeco-Roman Sculptures, 1874, Part I.
no. 23 ; Smith and Porcher, Hist. Disc. pl. 63).

WARWICK WROTH.

202 THE DISCOVERY OF NAUKRATIS.

THE DISCOVERY OF NAUKRATIS.

[The Honorary Secretaries of the Egypt Exploration have
handed us for publication the following summary, drawn up by
Mr. Petrie, of the results of his year’s excavation at Nebireh.
It may serve as an acknowledgment by the Committee of the
Fund of the aid already received from the Society of Hellenic
Studies ; and as an invitation to further co-operation in the
future.—ED. |

THE season which is now drawing to a close has been one of
great interest in the work here, though of an interest which
would scarcely be expected, since not Egyptian but Greek
antiquities claim our attention.

We have here a city founded in the seventh century B.C., or
earlier, and inhabited almost entirely by Greeks from its first
settlement. Among its public buildings were a temple of
Apollo with temenos, dating from the earliest period ; a temple
of Aphrodite, also existing from archaic times; a temple of
Athene ; a temple of Zeus; a palaistra; and a great enclosure
containing two remarkable blocks of buildings.

Before going further we may point out that no city histori-
cally known can accord with the remains found here—the
temples, the abundance of archaic pottery, the archaic coins, and
the number of Greek inscriptions—excepting Naukratis; and
it is here that a decree of the city of Naukratis is found. It is
true that Naukratis has been hitherto fruitlessly sought near
Desuk, on the strength of a passage of Herodotus; but there
exists a far more definite authority, the Peutingerian table,
which gives the positions and distances of towns; on that
Naucrati is written on a road leading to the Libyan desert,
running to the west of the river, and the distance given falls

THE DISCOVERY OF NAUKRATIS. 203

within two or three miles of this place. If any student, however,
should refuse to accept this site as Naukratis, it would then be
a still more interesting place to him, as it would be a paralle!
site to Naukratis, an important town, settled by the Greeks in
their archaic age, flourishing down to Byzantine times, and yet
unknown in history.

The site is about half a mile long. In the north end of the
town stood the temenos and temple of Apollo; here we found
fragments of nearly a hundred bowls of an early period, incised
with dedicatory inscriptions to Apollo. Of the first temple a few
fragments of limestone columns, encircled with an early form of
the ‘honeysuckle’ pattern have been found; on these the pattern
has hardly developed out of the lotus, from which it can be
traced in every stage on the archaic pottery. The first temple
was destroyed, very probably during the Persian invasions, and
was succeeded by a temple of white marble, of which some frag-
ments of capitals and mouldings remain, richly painted in red
and blue. South of the temenos lay the agora apparently, or
possibly the palaistra, a large area without ruins, and bounded
by thick walls on the three other sides. South of this the town
extended for a considerable distance ; close small streets, seven
or eight feet wide, running through the mass of crude brick
buildings, and now traceable by the shells and bones thrown out
from the houses, and the streaks of stone dust used for filling up
the puddles.

The potters’ quarter was on the east of the agora, shewn by
the kilns and the heaps of burnt earth. In the body of the town,
south of the potters, was the quarter of the iron-smelters; here
hematite ore, iron slag, and quantities of chisels and tools have
been found of about the sixth century, B.c. On the western side
of the town was the scarab factory, containing hundreds of moulds,
where glazed pottery scarabs were made for export—very probably
the source of many of the scarabs found in early Greek graves. That
these could not be for sale to Egyptians is proved by the inscrip-
tions being all more or less blundered; and their age is shewn by
the names of Psamtik I. and 11. being found, but none of the far
more celebrated Aahmes (Amasis), who granted such privileges
to Naukratis; this is much as if coins of Aurelian and Carinus
occurred in a find, but not one of Constantine, and we cannot
attribute this factory to a later date than 590 B.c. The town is,

204 THE DISCOVERY OF NAUKRATIS.

however, older than this, as there is a burnt stratum underlying
all the southern half of the town, at two to three feet below the
scarab level; probably this shews the burning of a first settle-
ment of wattle and daub shanties of the Greek traders, in the
Assyrian or Ethiopian conquests. 16 temple of Aphrodite was
in the south-western part of the town, as a piece of a dedicated
bowl of ‘ Pheenician-Greek’ ware was found there.

The area of the town has been dug out by the natives for
nitrous earth until only the bottoms of the oldest houses remain
in the greater part of it; and heaped around these mouldering
walls are banks of broken pottery, including a great variety of
archaic types. The so-called Phcoenician-Greek is found in every
variety, and passing by imperceptible stages into the ordinary
Greek pottery ; the egg-shell pottery painted white with orange
patterns is also largely found ; the geometrical patterns in red
and brown are very common; and many other varieties occur
which require to be compared with collections from other sites.
Besides the early pottery two important classes of objects are
found in the town—the weights, and the stamped amphora
handles. No town in Egypt would be likely to be so rich in
weights as Naukratis,a great centre of foreign trade; and no
mound in Egypt has actually furnished a quarter of the number
of weights that I have obtained here in only a few months.
Over four hundred have been collected in this short time—a
greater number than those from Egypt in all existing collections
taken together. The stamped handles are also a class which
will need careful study and classifying ; over a thousand have
been collected.

Beyond the town on the south is a great enclosure, 600 feet
square, the wall fifty feet thick, and over thirty feet high. About
half of the western side of this enclosure was formed by a mass
of building; but it is probable that this was inserted at a later
date, and that the enclosure is older. The building was founded
by Ptolemy IL, as under each corner of its foundations I dis-
covered the founder's deposits of model tools and materials,
together with his name—a unique group of objects of great
interest in all ways. At the entrance to this building, which led
into the whole enclosure, was a pylon, where two broken rams
in white marble have been discovered, and a dedicatory inserip-
tion to the Theban Zeus, shewing that probably a temple of

THE DISCOVERY OF NAUKRATIS. 205

Zeus was included in this building. Within this enclosure the
greater part of the ground was open and unused, but there
existed a line of small buildings along the north side of it, and
two great blocks of crude brick building in the southern part ;
one of these consisting of passages opening into chambers has
been almost entirely destroyed; of the other, consisting of deep
isolated chambers, enough remains to shew its form, about
200 feet square. These chambers have no openings or connec-
tions for twelve feet from the ground; at that level there are
doorways from a central passage and its branches; and the whole
mass is thirty feet high. It was far more originally, as the
chambers are filled with ruins of the walls. From various details,
which we need not discuss here, this building and the great
enclosure seem to belong to the early age of the town; later on
Ptolemy IT. inserted the large stone building in the gap in the
ereat wall, perhaps where it had been ruined, and strengthened
the great block of chambers by thickening the walls, and raised
the floors of the chambers with stone chips: later still, in the
first century, the chambers were much filled with rubbish, and
the place was inhabited at the high level of the doorways only ;
and at last a Coptic church seems to have existed on the top,
which gave place to an Arab cemetery. What the object of this
building can have been is still doubtful, even after clearing out
all the chambers. It may have been for store rooms ; but looking
to the great strength of the wall of the enclosure, I incline to sup-
pose that that was a great temenos—probably of the Pan-Hellenic
altar—within which was a treasury and storehouses ; and these
were so arranged that, in case of war, the temenos would be the
camp, and tlic treasury the fort, of the Greek garrison.

Of the temple of Athene, and the palaistra, the sites are not
yet fixed ; the one is known from an inscription to a priest of
Athene, who was keeper of the records, and the other from the
inscription by four Greeks dedicating it to Apollo.

As I have said, a large part of the town has been carried off
down to the foundations; the edges of it still remain, and further
information will doubtless be forthcoming as they are gradually
cleared away. What has been lost in the last fifty years is
grievous; in the temenos of Apollo two inscribed marble stelz
were found a few years ago and broken up; and while I was here
some—p2rhaps the only—remains of the columns and capitals

900 THE DISCOVERY OF NAUKRATIS.

of the temple were found, and smashed in a couple of hours,
some even before I could photograph them, All the lesser
antiquities are destroyed if not saleable, and if of value are
bought by travelling dealers, and retailed without any history
in Cairo. No clue to the cemetery has yet been found, so we
may hope that that rich field will be properly examined when
discovered.

Among various antiquities which I have obtained, I may note
also a large collection of incised names or monograms of owners on
the bottoms of drinking cups; a series shewing every stage of
the development of the crater handles with a head of Bacchus ;
a number of archaic statuettes in alabaster ; two finds of archaic
Greek tetradrachms; some fine late Egyptian bronzes; some
good jewellery work of the first century, A.D.; and a large variety
of terra-cotta figures and heads,

W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE.

NEBIREH, TELL EL BARUD
May 11, 1885.

THE TOMB OF PORSENNA.

(Pu. LX]

THERE are few truths that are more forcibly impressed on
the attention of any one engaged in restoring the lost
monuments of antiquity than the painful one—that no form
of written words is sufficient to convey a distinct idea of a
bwilding which has been destroyed. No adequate reproduction
of its form can be made unless the words are accompanied
by a diagram or drawing of some sort, or when these cannot
be obtained, unless some sufficient remains of the building
still exist to make its restoration possible, or if neither of these
be attainable, unless it proves to be part of a known series—
in other words, unless some edifices exist, either before or
after it in date, so similar in form and purpose as to enable us
from a study of their peculiarities to appreeiate the meaning
of the terms applied to the one we are attempting to restore.

The Temples of the Jews are a conspicuous illustration of
this truth. Though so minutely described in the Bible or by
Josephus, nothing can be more discrepant than the notions
entertained by restorers of their forms and dimensions, and
it is only very recently that we have begun to perceive that
they form a part of a series (though it must be confessed not of
familiar or well understood types), and that we begin to realize
their forms with anything like distinctness. The Mausoleum
at Halicarnassus, and the Temple of Diana at Ephesus, were

H.S.—VOL. VI. P

208 THE TOMB OF PORSENNA.

important buildings of which we knew nothing till very
recently, except from written descriptions; and nothing could
be more various than the restorations that were proposed to
reconcile their features with the verbal texts. Thanks to the
excavations conducted by Messrs. Newton and Wood, we now
know what the real appearances of these celebrated buildings
were with sufficient exactness for all practical purposes But
the tomb which Porsenna erected for himself ‘ sub urbe Clusio’
has not been so fortunate. Even at the time when Pliny
wrote no remains existed;? and there is no hope therefore of
assistance from that source; and the building both in its form
and extent seemed, till lately, to be so extraordinary and so
utterly exceptional, that little hope remained of bringing it
into any sequence by which its peculiarities could be explained,
and a reasonable restoration be attempted.

Under these circumstances, having nothing but the ‘litera
scripta’ to guide them, it is not to be wondered at that the
restorations proposed were of the most varying descriptions.
An amusing instance of this occurs in the first volume of the
Plates of the Roman Institute? where Quatremére de Quincy
proposed one of the most singular, which seems to accord with
no fact stated in the text; and the Duc de Luynes another on the
same plate, which certainly reproduces all the dimensions and
statements of Pliny with sufficient exactness, but results in a
building so abnormally ugly and strange that it may safely be
rejected. It may appear strange that two such distinguished
antiquaries should read the same text so differently, while
they are attempting to restore the same building; but the
result is not uncommon, though seldom carried to so ludicrous
an extreme. One of the best among so many attempted
restorations is one proposed by Professor Beber of Munich. It
is singularly ingenious,‘ and if we are allowed to neglect all

1 The Mausoleum of Halicarnassus,
restored by Jas. Fergusson; Murray,
1862. The Temple of Diana at Ephesos,
by the same, extracted from the Trans-
actions of the Royal Institute of British
Architects ; Triibner, London, 1838.
The Temples of the Jews at Jeru-

salem, by Jas. Fergusson ; Murray,
1878.

2 De Aegyptio et Cretico Labyrinthis
satis dictum est—Lemnius similis illis.
Extantque adhuc reliquie ejus, cum
Cretici Italicique nulla vestigia extent.
—Plinii Hist. Nat. lib. xxxvi. c. 138.

3 Instituto de Corrispondenza Arche-
ologica, vol. i. pl. xiii.

4 Beber, Geschichte der Baukunst im
Alterthum, p. 366, fig. 211.

THE TOMB OF PORSENNA. 209

reference to the purposes for which it was intended, and ignore
all mention of the petasus, which was the most distinguishing
feature in the design, it might be taken as fairly interpreting
the text of Pliny, but as it stands it is quite inadmissible.
In 1849, I proposed one which had at least the merit of con-
forming with every word of Pliny’s description, and was a
tomb. It was therefore a possible reproduction, but I hesi-
tated to advocate it as a probable one. The building seemed to
me so exceptional, that I then despaired of making a restoration
that would bring it into conformity with any series of known
buildings, and admit of its taking its place in any established
sequence. Since then, however, more experience in the art
of restoring and greater familiarity with the architectural forms
of all countries induces me to fancy that I am now able to
bring Porsenna’s monument within the confines of a series of
five-steled tombs; while proposing a restoration which will
accord with every indication of Varro’s description, without
doing violence to any expression used by him or by Pliny.”

The first thing that strikes any one on scanning the measure-
ments quoted by Varro is, that they are all parts of a regular
system; and that consequently if you accept one you must
almost necessarily accept all. If on the contrary you reject
any one, you throw the whole into a confusion that seems
inexplicable. In this instance, the modulus seems to have

1 True Principles of Beauty in Art,
p. 458, figs. 79, 80.

* Namque et Italicum dici convenit,
quem fecit sibi Porsena rex Hetrurie
sepulchri causa, simul ut, externorum
regum vanitas quoque ab Italis supera-
retur. Sed cum excedat omnia fabu-
lositas utemur ipsius M. Varronis in
expositione ejus verbis. Sepultus est,
inquit, sub urbe Clusio: in quo loco
monumentum reliquit lapide quadrato:
singula latera pedum lata tricenum,
alta quinquagenum: inque basi qua-
drata intus Labyrinthum inextricabi-
lem: quo si quis improperet sine glo-
mere lini, exitum invenire nequeat.
Supra id quadratum pyramides stant
quinque, σ ὙΠῸ} in angulis in medio

una, in imo late pedum septuagenum
quinum, alte centum quinquagenum:
ita fastigiate ut in summo orbis #neus
et petasus unus omnibus sit impositus,
ex quo pendeant excepta catenis tin-
tinnabula, que vento agitata longe
sonitus referant ut Dodone olim factum.
Supra quem orbem quatuor pyramides
insuper singule extant alte pedum
centenum. Supra quas uno solo quin-
que pyramides quarum altitudinem
Varronem puduit adjicere. Fabule
Hetrusce tralunt eandem fuisse, quam
totius operis: adeo vesana dementia
quaesisse gloriam impendio nulli pro-
futura. Preterea fatigasse regni vires,
ut tamen laus major artificis esset.—
Lib. xxxvi. ὃ. 13.

p 2

210 THE TOMB OF PORSENNA.

been 100 cubits: every part is either that, or some aliquot
part of that measurement. The square base was 200 cubits
(300 feet); its height was one third of it or fifty feet, the
angular ‘pyramids’ were 100 cubits in height, and half that,
75 feet, in breadth. The upper pyramids were two-thirds. of
that height—100 feet—and the central pyramid, as we shall
presently see, was equal to these two, or 250 feet, or with the
basement of fifty feet, was 200 cubits in height, which was equal
to its width. The whole results in a building 200 cubits in
width by 300 cubits in height.

All this looks so consistent that we can hardly refuse to
accept it as a description of a real building. Besides this, the
last paragraph of Varro’s or Pliny’s description seems to nega-
tive the supposition that it was merely a fantasy elaborated
from the brain of some imaginative author. Etruscan tradi-
tions would not have attached themselves to Porsenna’s tomb
as a wonderful and exceptional building unless it had really
existed and been of an extraordinary character; and though
Pliny himself does not seem to have understood the meaning
of the ‘fabula’—it does not appear to me doubtful that it was
meant to express a relation between the parts of the building
in conformity to this system.

But, be all this as it may, the main fact appears to be that
whether it was only imagined or actually constructed, the whole
so hangs together that it must either be accepted or rejected in
its entirety—no tampering with any part of the design is
admissible ; and be the result what it may, every feature of the
building must be represented in any attempted restoration.
So far as I can judge, as represented in the annexed diagram
(Pl. LX.), the result is a building by no means unpleasing in
design—to my mind at least—nor, except in its dimensions,
exceptional among the tombs of the ancient world.

In the ground-plan I have divided the basement into three
divisions, two of seventy-five feet each and one in the centre
of 150 feet. There is of course no authority for this, but I
cannot conceive any architect,—even among the Etruscans
who were not famous for their esthetic treatment of their
designs—when dealing with so strongly accentuated a super-
structure, neglecting to carry its lines down to the ground. By
doing so the building not only gains in height to the whole

THE TOMB OF PORSENNA. 211

extent of the basement, but the whole acquires a significance
which would be wanting in a plain surface, which has no
apparent connection with the upper storey.

The four angle pyramids I have represented as square,
though the only direct authority for this is that Varro uses
the expression ‘late’ as applied to them. Had they been
circular, he would have said seventy-five feet in diameter, or used
some such expression; but besides this the exigencies of tlie
design seem to require it. Rising from a square basis they
would seem more appropriate ; though this, as in the example
of the tomb of Aruns, does not seem always to have been felt.
Either form is equally consonant with the style. In the
celebrated tomb called the Cucamella? there is one square, and
one round stele, rising above the earthen mound, but so unsym-
metrically, that even if there had been three more it would be
impossible to form, it into a regular five-steled tomb; and at
Castel d’Asso there are several rock-cut sepulchres, which were
originally crowned by square structural pyramids of some sort.”
Generally they are restored with triangular pyramids of about
the height of their breadth, like the so-called tomb of Zacharia
at Jerusalem, but there is nothing to show that they were not
surmounted by steles, twice or three times their width in height,
nor is there any evidence, in fact, how they were finished.
Possibly it may have been by a petasus-form like that of the
so-called tomb of Absalom at the same place. It seems to me
more probable that they were terminated with square steles like
many we find in Asia Minor, as at Tlos, or the Harpy tomb
at Xanthus.®

The object for which these steles were erected in this instance
seems to have been to support the brazen or rather bronze ring,
which formed the base of the petasus, and for this purpose a
square form seems to have been more appropriate as more solid,
and contrasting pleasingly with the circular form of the central
building. Above the 150 feet, this reasoning does not apply,
and it may have been either square or circular; I have adopted

1 Mon. Ined. vol. i. pl. xli, aun, Minor and Lycia. Two Vols. Murray,

1832. 1839-41. The plates in these works are
2 Mon. Ined. vol. i. pl. 1x. ann. not numbered, so it is impossible to
1833. refer to them.

3 Sir ΟἹ Fellows, Travels in Asia

212 THE TOMB OF PORSENNA.

the latter form for the 100 feet that we are told existed above
the ‘orbs,’ as more appropriate, and terminating these angular
pyramids in a more pleasing manner than could have been
done, had the square form been carried to a point.

The crux of the whole design is, however, the treatment of the
central of the five pyramids. There is nothing ix Varro’s de-
scription which would lead to the inference that it ¢'fered from
the four angular ones; but on the other hand there is nothing to
contradict the assumption that it did so essentially ; and all the
exigencies of the design seem to point to this having been the
case. Nothing could have been more unmeaning than a square
pyramid in the centre. In Etruria, at least, it could have had
no tomb-like significance or appropriateness, and it seems to me
almost impossible to make it fit with the ‘orbis aeneus, and
the petasus which were the principal features of the whole design.
There is also at least one prominent authority for this in the
so-called tomb of Aruns, which is the only five-steled tomb at
present known to exist in Italy which may be assumed to be a
copy of this one, or at least be classed with it as belonging to the
same order. In it the central pyramid is appropriately twice

Toms oF ARUNS AT ALBANO.

the diameter of the angle ones (see woodcut). It is true,
the comparison cannot be implicitly relied upon, for from the
architectural mouldings and general character of the design,
it is evident that the so-called Aruns tomb is of a late Roman

THE TOMB OF PORSENNA. 213

character—it may be the tomb of Pompey to whom it is fre-
quently ascribed —and it would not be safe to rely on its features
as exactly reproducing those of a building erected five centuries
earlier; but it is valuable as far as it goes. Besides this,
strangely enough, though its general form and features have
been before the public for nearly half a century, it has not yet
been propery explored or represented? ; though so near Rome it
has never been dug into; and we do not yet know where or in
what form the sepulchral chamber was. Doubtless it was in
or under the central stele ; but it is strange that this should still
be left doubtful. There are in the neighbourhood of Rome
numerous circular towers rising from square basements, all of
which contain a sepulchral chamber in their centre, which is
evidentiy the cause of their erection. One of the best known
of these is that of Ceecilia Metella on the Via Appia, but even
a more characteristic one is that of the Gens Plautia, near
Tivoli? with a sepulchral chaniber nearly fifty feet in diameter.
The series culminates in the tomb of Hadrian, which was the
finest and largest of the class to which the tomb of Porsenna
belongs, that was attempted in the ancient world.

In attempting to restore the building described by Varro, we
must never for one instant lose sight of the fact, that it was
essentially a tomb, though it is the nevlect of this that has
rendered all the restorations I have hith: rto seen such failures
as they are. Bearing it in mind, however, with the other cir-
cumstances above alluded to, I have not hesitated to follow the
design of the tomb of Aruns, and make the central stele twice
the width of the angle ones, or 100 cubits in diameter. And to
preserve anything like the same proportion, to carry it im one
flight to the whole height of the two stories of the angle ones,
or to 250 feet. This gives room for a sepulchral chamber of
any desired dimensions, and if it is thought expedient, in two
stories, like the Indian tombs. I have drawn it as a circular
chamber with a pointed vault of 100 feet. By most people this
may be thought excessive, but when we see a vault of a similar
character erected at least five centuries earlier at Mycene, in
the tomb or treasury of Atreus, I do not think it preposterous

1 Instituto de Corrispondenza Archac- 2 Annali dell’ Inst., ix. p. 50, 57.
ologica, vol. ii. pl. xxxix.; Dennis, 3 Canina, Arch. Ant. vol. 111, pl.
Etruria, voi. '. page 455, note. uexVil.

21: THE TOMB OF PORSENNA.

that under the most favourable conditions of a stone structure
like this, they may have doubled its extent. To me it always
has remained a problem how the Romans, as early as the time
of Agrippa, attempted so vast a dome as that of the Pantheon,
136 feet in diameter—and so tar as is yet known it was a first
attempt—unless some very extensive vault existed before then,
and nowhere would it have been more likely than in the tomb
of Porsenna.

The upper part of the tower must have been constructed
hollow, as shown in the dotted lines of the diagram, but whether
it was used as ritual chamber to the tomb or not is by no
means clear. I think it probably was; but there is so little
evidence available on the subject that it is hardly worth
while arguing the question here.

For the restoration of the exterior perhaps the most valuable
indication is in the last paragraph of Pliny; thongh whether it
was contained in Varro’s description, or is a remark of Pliny’s, is
by no means certain. It seems clear, however, that Etruscan
traditions would not have attached themselves to a building,
and indicated, however enigmatically, its extraordinary height,
unless such a building had actually existed and been remarkable
for its elevation. Nor does it seem difticult to translate it so as
to make it accord with the rest of the design. It only seems
necessary that whoever wrote that the height of the third
storey was the same, ‘quam totius operis,’ meant to express
that it was of the same dimensions as all the other parts of the
design, that is, 100 cubits. Architecturally, no other dimen-
sion seems tolerable; but this one, so used, makes up a har-
monious, even if not a beautiful, whole. To assume that the
height of the third storey was equal to all the three, or even to
the two lower ones, appears to me absurd, and not borne out by
any words in the text. Indeed, if you make the five steles that
rose from the wno solo of less elevation, it throws the whole
out of proportion; and it is necessary, if the whole is to be in
keeping, that the elevation of the third storey should not be

1 On second thoughts, if I were double its dimensions is another ques-
drawing the tomh again I would make tion. In the present state of our know-
the sepulchral chamber 75 feet instead ledge, however, any inferences on this
of 100 in diameter. My impression is, point must he so vague, that it is hardly

that it was certainly larger than the worth while altering the drawing to
so-valled treasury of Atreus, butwhether express them,

THE TOMB OF PORSENNA., 215

less. Whether its form was exactly as I have designed it, may
be open to question; but as far as I can judge, it looks like a
part of the same design. The central stele I have made square
and 150 feet in height, and the four outer ones circular and
identical with those of the second storey. For all these there
is abundance of room on the ‘solum’ formed by the roof
of the sepulchral chamber in the centre, and they make up the
total height of the monument to 300 cubits (450 feet), which,
from the system on which it was designed, we might expect the
architect was aiming at. Considering that this is thirty-four
feet less than the height of the Great Pyramid, and that it
probably was less than one-tenth of its bulk, these dimensions
do not seem improbable for the vesana dementia of the greatest
of Etruscan kings. It is not impossible that in the erection of
his tomb Porsenna was proposing to himself to rival those of
Egypt. The existence of a labyrinth in its base, which Pliny
compares and couples with that of Egypt, renders this almost
probable, but if so, it only serves to prove him a pigmy in
comparison to the giant builders of the Egyptian Pyramids.

It is idle to attempt to offer even a plausible suggestion as to
the form of the labyrinth which occupied the basement of
Porsenna’s tomb. It would be in vain until some one of these
ancient buildings, from which we might obtain some analogous
forms, has been identified with certainty, or until some
traditions or descriptions shall throw further light on one of
the most mysterious puzzles of antiquity. Concealment of the
position of the sepulchral chamber does not seem to have been
one of the leading motives in Etruscan burials. Protection was
sought to be obtained by heaping vast mounds of earth over
it, and protecting the foot of the slope of these mounds by
massive walls which could not be penetrated without a consider-
able amount of labour. No secret attempt to penetrate these
defences was possible. To reach the tomb the labour of a
number of men employed for a considerable time was necessary,
and in a manner which would not be thought of among a
people who had any respect for the graves of their ancestors, or
any religious feelings regarding the sanctity of the tomb ; and so
far as is known this was one of the leading ideas in the religion
of this people. Under these circumstances the idea that
Porsenna erected the labyrinth for the sake of misleading

210 THE TOMB OF PORSENNA.

people, and puzzling those who were seeking to desecrate his
tomb, seems hardly worth consideration. If he wanted to
protect it he would have done much better to have built the
basement up solid. With a hundred feet of solid masonry all
round he might have felt perfectly sure this would not be
attempted. By letting people into the basement at all he
certainly ran some risk of some one finding the tomb, in
spite of the most ingenious attempts to bewilder them.

What Pliny tells us of the four labyrinths he describes—in-
cluding Porsennys—is that they were constructed of hewn
stone and covered with vaults. He does not seem to perceive
much difference either in form or purpose between the Egyptian
and the Italian labyrinths, though to us the one seems more like
a federal palace and the other as if devoted wholly to sepulchral
purposes. But the accounts of both that have come down to us
are so indistinct, that no clear idea about them can be enunci-
ated, especially as no remains of either are now known to exist.”

The probability seems to be that the basement of Porsenna’s
tomb was occupied by subordinate sepulchres like the Regulini ἡ
Galeassi tomb ;* or with chambers dedicated to sepulchral rites
in some form we hardly understand. These may have been
connected by dark vaulted passages in a manner which would
be sufficiently puzzling to any one who ventured into them after
their desecration and desertion, when their purpose or meaning
was forgotten (which would have been the case long before
Pliny’s time), and so have given rise to the tradition of people
not being able to tind their way out without the assistance of
a guiding tape. We know, however, so little about the matter
that all these speculations are tolerably idle, and hardly worth
discussing on the present occasion. All we really know—or
seem to know—is that the basement certainly contained the
sepulchral chamber, probably in the centre, but whether of 100
or 75 feet in diameter is another question. The rest of the
basement, 300 feet square, was occupied by vaulted apart-
ments, but whether sepulchres or chambers devoted to sepul-
chral rites or ceremonies is not so clear.

1 Omnes lapide polito fornicibus texti. uncertain whether even the site, much

—Ch. xxxvi. p. 13. less the form of the Egyptian labyrinth
* In spite of the plates (1 Abt. 46, has been discovered.
47 and 48) contained inthe first part of 3 Canina, Etruria Antica, pl. 1.

Lepsius’ great work, it is still very li, Ii

THE TOMB OF PORSENNA. 217

One of the many advantages of the mode of restoration now
proposed, is that the petasus! no longer presents the insupe:
able difficulties which most restorers have found in realising it:
forms. It was in metal, of course, but it is not quite clear
whether it was formed with metal plates, rivetted together so as
to form a weather-proof roof, or was composed merely of a
series of chains used to support the ‘ orbis aeneus,’ but so frequent
and so close together as architecturally to give the appearance
of a nearly continuous roof. Whichever was the mode of con-
struction adopted, the term petasus could hardly be applied
to any straight-lined feature, either conical or horizontal, nor to
any dome-like form of convexity. In that case ‘pileus,’ or
some sort of hat without a brim, would have been a more ap-
propriate analogue. The petasus must consequently have taken
somewhat of the form of a hollow curve, as shown in the
diagram (Plate LX.).

The distance between the central stele at the point to which
the petasus was attached and the brazen or bronze circle which
formed its outward limit is almost exactly 100 feet in a hori-
zontal direction; and the curve which joins these two points
forms the quadrant of a circle, as near as may be, of about 130
feet. Without any contemporary example to guide us, it is
impossible to say what was the exact fourm of the bells that were
hung from it, or how they were suspended; but the intimation
of a similar arrangement at Dodona, and the knowledge that it
prevails in India and China to the present day, is one of the
most satisfactory allusions in Varro’s description. In India, as
sculptured on the pillars of temples, these suspended bells are
always represented as inverted cups with tongues or clappers,
like modern bells, and that is the form they also take in China.
But it is hardly likely that that was the shape of those at
Clusium or Dodona. Most probably they were metal discs
suspended by chains, which, striking against one another when
‘agitated by the wind, would make a sound heard a long
way off.2 It supplies a meaning and a use for the petasus,

1 πέτασος, a broad-brimmed felt: hat, | formed with a hollow curve like those
such as Mercury is usually represented 80 generally adopted by the Chinese.
as wearing, and frequently found de- * Dises of various forms are I believe
picted on Greek painted vases, and used for this purpose in Burmah, but

elsewhere. In this paper it is used JI have no certain information on the
throughout to mean a circular roof, subject.

218 THE TOMB OF PORSENNA.

which without it would be wanting. But the knowledge that
these bells were suspended trom it, ‘ ut Dodonz olim factum fuit,’
gives to Porsenna’s tomb an ethnographic, as well as an artistic,
value, which it 1s almost impossible to over-rate, and, when
properly estimated, may lead to the most important results.

Hitherto, all restorers of Porsenna’s tomb have considered the
petasus as described by Varro, as quite exceptional, and as a
feature belongiay to that tomb, and to that only. This it seems,
however, can only arise from our ignorance of the early forms of
tomb building; otherwise it seems impossible to account for
the almost universal prevalence of the umbrellas which surmount
all, or nearly all, the stupas or dagopas in the East. An
umbrella surmounting a tomb or tumulus of any sort, is a
singularly anomalous architectural feature, and one for which it
seems almost impossible to suggest even the reminiscence of
any utilitarian use. It is, besides, the most unconstructive
form that can possibly be imagined, and consequently nearly all
have perished at the present day. Either they were in wood,
and have perished from decay or been blown down; or they were
in metal, and have consequently been stolen and appropriated
to other purposes. So much, indeed, is this the case, that we
should hardly know of their existence in India were it not for
the rock-cut examples in the caves, and the representations of
them in sculptured bas-reliefs, and in contemporary paintings.
But these are quite sufficient to prove that no dagopa was con-
sidered complete without being surmounted by at least one
umbrella. More freyuently they were adorned by three or nine,
or any number, up even to hundreds, when in the seventh or
eighth century Buddhism ceased to be an architectural form.
It is true we can hardly feel sure how far the small stone models
which are so prevalent everywhere in India represent real
buildings, and in China the examples are so modern that they
are hardly recognisable, though in India we have bas-reliets
showing umbrellas used for this purpose at a date long anterior
to the Christian era and till long afterwards.

None of the constructors of these Eastern petasi, or umbrellas,
except, perhaps, in the case of that of Alyattes, seem to have
adopted the eminently constructive expedient of the architect
of Porsenna’s tomb, By resting the ‘orbis’ that formed its lower
extremity on four angular steles or pyramids he secured a

THE TOMB OF PORSENNA. 219

stability that might have preserved it to the present time,
had not the building which it adorned perished so entirely,
It would be unreasonable to suppose this was the only case
in which the expedient was used; but it is the only ancient
one of which we have at present any certain knowledge. ?

The slope or batter of the walls of the tomb as shown in the
diagram (Plate LX.), is between six and seven degrees, which
is, as nearly as can be ascertained, that adopted by the Etruscans
generally in their tombs, but these are seldom drawn with such
accuracy that the angles can be measured with certainty. It
is, however, near enough for present purposes; and any slight
alteration would make no difference in the reasoning on which
the restoration is founded.

There is, of course, no direct authority for the Sphinxes
which I have introduced in the upper part of the monument
as figured in the Plate, but there is no sculptured ornament
that seems more common in Etruscan design; and as appears
from Mr. Dennis's work,” none that could be more appropriate
for a building erected at Chiusi.

When all these elements are put together, as is done in the
diagram (Plate LX.), the result is a design which certainly
is not impossible, and to me does not even seem at all improb-
able. To many it must appear unusual and consequently
strange, but it certainly is not without a certain weird beauty ;
and might be made even more so were more study and thought
bestowed upon it. But this is hardly worth while at the
present stage of the inquiry. The principles on which the re-
construction is based must first be established, and it then will
be easy to copy details and gather suggestions which will make

it more worthy to occupy its Ole among the great tombs
of the ancient world.

SEPULCHRAL MOUND oF ALYATTES.

There are not two tombs which, at first sight, seem more
unlike one another than that of Porsenna, which we have just

1 For a description of these Tees or Cave Temples of India, published con-
chattahs surmounting Indian dagopas jointly with Dr. Burgess by the Govern-
I need only refer tomy works on Indian _ment in 1880.
architecture, passim, especially to the 2 Etruria, vol. ii. page 352.

920 THE TOMB OF PORSENNA.

been deseribing, and that of Alyattes at Saras, as described by
Herodotus. Yet, when carefully examined and studied by an
expert, 1t would be difficult to find two monuments which are
more like one another in all essential respects, and which
throw more light on each other's peculiarities. Unfortu-
nately, the passage in Herodotus,! on which we principally rely
for a description of the tomb as it existed in a perfect state, is
shorter and less detailed than that in which Varro describes the
tomb of Porsenna; but fortunately, in this instance, enough
now remains to enable us to form a very perfect idea of what
the monument actually was, and these confirm the measurements
and details of the historian to a very remarkable extent.

The great and essential difference between the two monu-
ments was not in the design, which was remarkably similar in
both, but in the material with which they were constructed ;
that at Clusium was of hewn stone, lapide quadrato, that at
Sardis a heap of earth, χῶμα γῆς, which makes all the dif-
ference. The one resulted in one of the tallest buildings of
antiquity, 450 feet in height; the other in one of the broadest,
or a mound 1,700 feet in diameter, according to Spiegelthal,?
the one as remarkable for its vertical as the other for its
horizontal dimensions. ‘This difference of material is also the
cause of the different relative durability of the two monuments,
the hewn stone of the one making it a most desirable quarry
for the inhabitants of Clusium, while there was no temptation
for the citizens of Sardis to remove the worthless earth of
which the other was composed. The consequence is that the
one has been utilised to such an extent that even its site cannot
now be ascertained; and the other is at this day so entire
that its measurements can be ascertained with very tolerable
exactitude.

The dimension quoted by Herodotus is the extent of the base
of the tumulus, which he says was six stadia and two plethra
in circumference, and thirteen plethra in diameter. Taking
the stadium at 606 feet and the plethrum at 100, this would
result in 3,836, or a diameter of a little more than 1,200 feet,
while Herr Spiegelthal makes it 355 metres, or about 1,175,

1 Book i. chap. xciil. details here quoted are taken from this
* Olfers, Lydische Kéniqgraber bet work, which is the only detailed ac-
Sardis, pl. ili. p. 545. Nearly all the count yet published on the subject.

THE TOMB OF PORSENNA. 221

which is quite sufi.ciently near to justify our having every con-
fidence in the information obtained by Herodotus, for he does
not seem ever to have seen the monument himself, but to
have trusted entirely to hearsay,

Toms oF ALYATTES AT SARDIS, BY SPIEGELTHAL.

The measurement of Spiegelthal was taken at the basis of
the earthen mound, where it rises from the top of the stone
terrace supporting it. As that is sixty feet in height, and has
a considerable slope, it would have been considerably more if
measured at its base; but where he got the measurement of
1,700 feet diameter which he draws on his plate iii. is not quite
apparent. His sections do not bear it out; but all the plates in
his work are on too small a scale, and not sufficiently detailed to
be quite depended upon. It is sufficient for our present
purposes to know that the base of the earthen mound is now
so nearly what Herodotus stated it to be, and that it is
bounded bya circle within which the base of the Great Pyramid
could have stood. It was thus a large monument, as far as
horizontal dimensions were concerned, though very inferior as
to height, the altitude of the mound being only 142, and the
whole height from the level of the plain being only 228 feet, or
less than one half that of the Pyramid, while the material was
so immeasurably inferior in quality, as scarcely to admit of any
comparison between the two buildings.

From a very early age the tumulus of Alyattes has been
burrowed into in every direction by robbers in search of the
treasures it was reported to contain, especially the golden
bricks with which the sepulchral chamber was fabled to be
constructed. In these explorations they did discover a sepulchral
chamber, but whether it is that of Alyattes is doubtful. The
dimensions are small, only eleven feet by eight, and seven feet

233 THE TOMB OF PORSENNA.

in height; and, though constructed with very perfect masonry,
it seems a very small kernel for so large a nut. Nor is it situated
in the centre of the mound, or even nearly so, but quite un-
symmetrically about 100 metres from the central point, accord-
ing to Herr Spiegelthal’s plan on plate iii.; and altogether it
looks so unlike what we should expect in such a tomb, that it is
safer to assume that the real chamber is not known to modern
explorers. If it were known with certainty it would be interest-
ing, not only for its own sake, but for the light it would throw
on the form and position of that in the tomb of Porsenna, and
other tombs of the five-steled class, regarding which our
knowledge is now lamentably deficient.

The principal argument—as far as I understand it—for this
being Alyattes’ grave—is, that on the roof of the tomb a layer
of ashes some inches thick was found, which was assumed to be
the remains of the funeral pyre; and which, consequently, must
have been there before the mound was erected over the chamber
—which, of course, they must have been. But this would be
equally applicable to a secondary interment, such as are fre-
quently found in Etruscan tombs, and might very well have
been the case here. It is situated at nearly one-half the dis-
tance between the real sepulchre and the outer edge of the
mound—assuming the real tomb to have been in the centre,
and the whole diameter of the mound to be 514 metres, as
Herr Spiegelthal states it to have been. In that case an exca-
vation must have been made in the mound and a chamber con-
structed—probably at the level of the rock—and the body for
this secondary interment burnt on its roof before the ashes
were placed inside, and the mound ‘made good’ over the
sepulchral chamber.

Even, however, if it were found, the sepulchral chamber
would not be of such interest for us at present as the external
termination upwards. This, according to Herodotus, consisted
of five steles or termini (οὖροι) on which were placed inscrip-
tions recording the mode in which the tumulus was erected.
These have perished; but on the summit of the mound there
still exists a platform of masonry about eighty-five feet square,
in the centre of which there is now lying the terminal capital
of a pillar. It is of a globular form, and nearly ten feet in
diameter, and most probably was the central one, as another

THE TOMB OF PORSENNA. 223

resting also on a square} base, is found in the neighbourhood of
the tumulus, very similar to it but veryamuch smaller—only one-
fourth its size*—which therefore probably crowned one of the
angle ones. As a square of eighty-five feet has a diagonal of
120, this would enable the architect to place these at about
the same distance from one another as the five steles on the
100 feet ‘solum’ of Porsenna’s tomb, and, except that we
cannot feel certain whether they were square or circular, they
may have been very similar. Nothing remains of the pillars
or steles which these globular finials surmounted; they may
have been built up of small stones, or even of brick, like the
platform on which they stand, and stuccoed, and the inscrip-
tions painted or moulded on them; but as nothing remains of
them, and we have no synonym on which we can depend, it
is idle to speculate regarding their forms.

It is very doubtful whether we shall ever learn much more
about the original form of the tomb of Alyattes than we now
know. The degradation of twenty-four centuries has obliter-
ated its most prominent external features, and the ravages of
the seekers for treasure have nearly completed the internal
destruction of the monument. Enough, however, still remains
to enable us to assert that a century before the erection of the
tomb of Porsenna, theré existed in Lydia—from which country
the Etruscans are said to have migrated—a royal sepulchre, in
many respects similar to and nearly as remarkable as that
famous tomb. Both possessed the peculiarity that the principal
feature of their exterior consisted of a group of five steles,
though possibly differing in form, and it may be in use.
But it is still a question whether the tomb of Alyattes was not
surmounted by a petasus resting on these five steles, like that
of Porsenna. My own impression is that this was certainly the
case; but in the absence of any direct testimony, either for or
against, the analogies seem so remote that it is not at present
worth while to insist upon them. When the subject is more
fully investigated it may be otherwise, but at present it is so
unfamiliar that it seems only necessary to point out that such.
may have been the case, leaving it to future inquirers to deter-

1 From Spiegelthal’s drawings, it is | Dennis—from memory —thinks they
not clear whether the bases of these are square.
capitals were square or circular ; Mr. 2 Olfers, page 546, pl. iii. fig. 2.
H.S.—VOL. VI, Q

224 THE TOMB OF PORSENNA.

mine as to its probability. Yet the universality of petasi, or
umbrellas, surmounting dagopas, or simulated tombs, in the
East, renders its existence here more than probable.

It is unfortunate, however, that neither Herodotus nor Varro
saw the tombs they were describing; had they done so, they
might have mentioned many particulars which we are now
unable to supply from the total disappearance of the one, and
the ruined state of the other, of these famous sepulchres.

FIvE-STELED TOMBS AT PETRA.

At Petra, in Arabia Petrzea, there exists a very beautiful and
remarkable group of rock-cut tombs, but so singular and unlike
anything that is known to exist elsewhere, that no one—so far
as I know—has yet attempted to trace the origin of their
peculiarities to any known edifices, or to explain what the form
must have been of the structural buildings or tombs from
which they were copied. To me it does not seem doubtful that
their originals were five-steled tombs, the lineal descendants of
those of Alyattes and Porsenna, though so modified during the
six and seven centuries that elapsed between their execution,
as scarcely to be recognisable. The form and nature of the
rock in which the Petra tombs are excavated is another cause
which has obliterated resemblances which might otherwise be
easily traceable.

The finest and apparently the earliest of these tombs is one
known as the Khasné, the beauty of which has struck every
traveller to Petra, and which has been drawn over and over again
by Laborde, Roberts, and other eminent artists, and now fortu-
nately is represented in numerous photographs which enable us
to correct and verify the mere pictorial representations. Its
architectural design is so clegant, and the details throughout so
exquisite that it must Belong to an early age, before Roman
force had superseded Grecian elegance. The Hellenic feeling
is 50 apparent in every part that it must have been designed
by Greek architects, and can hardly be dated later than the
age of Augustus.

The most modern is one generally known as the Corinthian
tomb, whose architecture is so contorted and vulgarised that it

THE TOMB OF PORSENNA. 225

may almost be called Byzantine. Practically it is of the same
design as the Khasné, but at least a couple of centuries must
have elapsed before the elegance of the one had been degraded
into the vulgarity of the other. Between these in age there is
a third known as the ‘Convent,’ or ‘ El Deir, represented in the

EL DEIR, PRIRA. (Frain uf Photograph.)

annexed woodcut. It is essentially of the same design as the
other two, but differing in detail as in age. There may be other
tombs in the valley, similar to the three just mentioned, but
owing to the savage nature of the inhabitants of the Wady
Mousa, no one has yet been able to reside there long enough to

220 THE TOMB OF PORSENNA.

make a thorough and leisurely survey of the place. Laborde’s?
is probably best and most complete; but it is far from ex-
hausting the subject, and leaves an unpleasing impression that
many buildings may exist which are unnoticed in it. What
would be as interesting as the discovery of similar tombs would
be the existence of others, so varied as to enable us to trace the
forms from which these three arose, or what the style afterwards
became. They certainly did not spring perfect, like Minerva
from Jupiter’s brain. They must have had prototypes, but we
search in vain, among all the drawings of Petra that are now
available, for any trace of such a sequence. No one, however,
seems to have visited the place to whom it occurred to look
for them, though any educated architect must be aware that
such a sequence did, even if it does not now exist, and most
probably would be found by any one capable of conducting such
inquiries.

The first objection that must occur to every one that
examines such a representation of a tomb as that in the last
woodcut is, that there are only three, not five steles, one circular in
the centre, flanked by a square one on either side. It must not,
however, be forgotten that we have not before us a complete
tomb either structural or rock-cut, but merely a relief of a
tomb modified to suit its situation on the rock. Unfortunately
the nature of the cliffs that surround Petra does not seem to
admit of a tomb being entirely isolated, like the Kailas at
Ellora, and we have no remains of any structural example
sufficiently complete to enable us, from its remains, to guess at
its original form. Had it been erected in a cemetery or outside
the city walls, the square of the base, containing the tomb, must
have been completed, and such a lopsided arrangement as is
shown in the rock-cut examples would have been impossible.
It must in some fashion have resembled the nearly contem-
porary tomb of Aruns, (query Pompey) at Albano (woodcut
above), and so modified the Khasné would become a reasonable
beautiful sepulchral building; but without that modification it
is unconstructive and unintelligible,

All the artists who have drawn these tombs represent the
central circular stele as surmounted by adome-like termination,

1 Journey through Arabia Petrea to Laborde. Translated, and published
Mount Sinai and Petra. By Léonde — by Murray, 1836.

THE TOMB OF PORSENNA. 227

because they have no idea of any other mode of roofing a
circular building. But it is not so. The photographs prove that
the form of the roof was decidedly a petasus, or hollow curve,
as is distinctly shown in the last woodcut. There is the
slightest possible excuse for this in the Khasné, for owing to
the Greek feeling that pervades that tomb, there is a faint ogee
curve in its roof. Its upper part, however, is a hollow curve, the
middle straight-lined, and just at its base it seems faintly to
become perpendicular. In the El Deir it is wholly a hollow
curve ; and at its base—above the Corinthian entablature—there
is a strongly-marked member, that may be a reminiscence of
an ‘orbis aeneus,’ or something at least that had no synonym
in Greek architecture.

The most striking peculiarity of the square steles which flank
or surround the circular one is the dent pediments surmounting
two of their faces, As carved in the rock they look like parts
of the broken pediments employed in bad Roman or renaissance
work, but they are not so; they are not broken but bent, a form
which occurs nowhere else that I know of except in these
tombs, and must consequently have some peculiar local meaning.
What this was seems tolerably evident when we try to restore
the rock-cut examples to the form of the structural buildings
from which they must have been copied. Unless the tombs had
a back and a front of different designs, which is most improbable,
the pedimental angle must have been turned inwards toward the
circular centre. It could not have been outwards, or the rock
sculpture would have shown it, but if inwards the building
would present on all sides a series of architectural lines sloping
downwards from the centre towards the outer edge of the roof.
The architectural forms of the Romans would not admit of any
petasus or any thing like it being applied to such a monument.
But in the lapse of ages the forms of Porsenna’s tomb may have
become so altered, and the primitive meaning so obliterated
and forgotten, that nothing would remain of the petasus but
such a reminiscence as this.

The tomb of Alyattes was erected between the sixth and

1 The so-called tomb of Absalom at sidered exceptional and strange, but
Jerusalem is surmounted by a strongly may now, if the views above stated are
marked Petasus, or hollow curved ter- correct, take its place among recognized
mination, which has hitherto been con- —_ architectural forms.

228 THE TOMB OF PORSENNA.

seventh centuries before Christ, and that of Porsenna at least
five centuries before the earliest of these Petra tombs, and as
they are placed 1,000 miles apart and belong to different religions,
and, it may be, to different races, it can hardly be considered a
source of wonder that such differences are found to exist
between them. Similar transformations occur in all parts of
the world. It requires for instance both study and knowledge
to recognise all the parts of the Ruman pagan basilica in the
medizval gothic cathedral—but they are all there, and can
easily be recognised by any one who will take the trouble to
trace them back to their origin. When architecture is a true
and living art, its forms change slowly but always gradually,
and it is very rarely that you cannot trace reminiscences of the
parent style among the productions of even the most remote
and apparently dissimilar progeny. In this instance it does not
seem to me doubtful that these rock-cut tombs belong to the
class of five-stele tombs to which these and those of Alyattes,
Porsenna, and Aruns belong, and that though vast gaps exist
in the line of argument required to prove this, it will easily be
done when once attention is fairly turned to the subject.

EASTERN TOMBS.

Since the disappearance of Etruria from the map of Italy, it
is in vain to look for any original or important tombs in any
part of Europe. The Etruscans were the only civilized race of
Tomb builders that have yet appeared in the West. Their
kindred, the Pelasgi, it is true, indulged in the same kind of
display to some exteut, but we know so little of their tombs—
usually called treasuries, that little can be predicated of them
with certainty. The other tomb-building races of Europe never
rose above the level of mound building, or of erecting rude stone
monuments of the most primitive kind. It is true, neverthe-
less, that the Etruscans, by their absorption into that ‘ colluvies
gentium’ composing the Roman people, did so leaven the mass
that we find the latter adopting to a considerable extent forms
of sepulchral magnificence almost equal to those of their prede-
cessors. The tombs of Augustus and Hadrian are splendid
examples of this, and the Appian Way is lined with tombs
of the most varied forms, and often of considerable size and

THE TOMB OF PORSENNA. 229

magnificence, but generally of the most varied and capricious
forms, and based on no indigenous suggestion from which any
systematic development can be traced. Generally they affect a
circular form, like those of the Etruscans, but except that of
Augustus, none of any size seems to have attempted to imitate
the earthen conical form.

Since the fall of the Roman Empire no tomb-building races
have occupied or become powerful in any part of Europe. The
Teutonic and Sclavonic races never affected that class of magni-
ficence; and though the Celts surpass these races in their
respect for the dead, and indulge in considerable funereal dis-
plays, their reverence never took the form of the erection of
permanent tombs. It is therefore only in Asia that we can
look for the successors of Porsenna’s tomb, if they are now to
be found anywhere. That they do exist does not seem to
me doubtful, but if the distance of time and locality is taken
into account, it is hardly surprising that their successors are
not at once to be detected, and even when recognised it is
with difficulty that their descent is realised even by those whom
long study has rendered exceptionally familiar with the subject.

It does not, for instance, appear to me doubtful that the
celebrated Taje Mehal at Agra? is a five-steled tomb, the lineal
descendant of the tomb at Clusium. ‘The four angle minarets,
each 138 feet in height, have become singularly attenuated in
comparison with those adopted in Etruria, though by a curious
coincidence they are placed nearly exactly the same distance
apart (300 feet), and adorn the angles of a platform containing
the tomb, but raised only eighteen feet instead of fifty feet.
The central stele has become exaggerated to a greater exteut
than the angular ones are diminished, and is surmounted by a
dome instead of a petasus. It still retains, however, in the oc-
tagonal form of its plan, a reminiscence of the circular form so
usually adopted in European tombs, and does contain in its
centre a ceremonial or ritual tomb over the real one which is
on the level of the soil. In Akbar’s tomb? the distance in height
between the real and ritual tombs is eighty-five feet, though
how far the practice obtained in any but the most magnificent
imperial tombs has not yet been investigated.

' History of Architecture, by Jas. ¥F., 2.2. cit. page 584, W.C.’s 333, 994,
vol. iii., page 597, W.C. 337, 9.

230 THE TOMB OF PORSENNA.

The building represented in the annexed woodcut is a more

direct copy of the class of tombs to which that of Porsenna
belonged than even the Taje Mehal; but from the long interval

a ἄτι
J
fe

ΕΝ

ΒΗΓΌΡΗΙΒΤ LAMA TemPLe AT ΡΕΚΙΝ, (From a Photograph.)

of time that elapsed between their erection and the distance
of their localities, the differences, in appearances, are such that
the resemblance is not at first obvious,

THE TOMB OF PORSENNA. 231

It is generally described as the ‘Thibetan monument in the
Lama temple at Pekin, erected probably in the last century by
Thibetan Buddhists for the purposes of their worship. It consists
of a central circular stele of white marble of considerable height,
adorned with architectural forms as capricious and unusual as
those of Porsenna’s, as is almost certain to be the case where no
utilitarian purpose interferes to guide and steady the hand of
the architect. In this instance it is not surmounted by a
petasus, though the form is very usual in Chinese temples,
but the finial really consists of nine petasi or circular dises, and
an upper one so adorned with the caprices of Chinese architec-
ture as to be hardly recognisable. The four angular steles are
octagonal in form and have no apparent use, except as architec-
tural ornaments or reminiscences of earlier forms.!

In this instance the central tower probably is only a simu-
lated tomb. Long before its erection the Buddhists had ceased
to use the tumulus as a burying-place for the bodies of their
illustrious dead, but had appropriated its forms to enshrine the
relics of the saints or patriarchs of their church, as also to com-
memorate spots sanctified by the founder of the religion and
his successors. Whether the present dagopa is supposed to
contain a relic or is merely a memorial tope no one seems to have
had the curiosity to inquire, nor is it important that it should
be known, as we know of no architectural form by which their
destination can be distinguished externally.

A more regrettable omission is that it is not hung with bells,
which are so usual an accompaniment to the petasi of Chinese
pagodas, whose tinkling at this day takes us back with almost
certainty through 3,000 years, when this same class of music
relieved the monotony of the architecture, and charmed the ears
of the worshipper ‘at Dodona’; thus connecting the East with
the West, and the present with the long-forgotten past, with a
vividness and reality which can hardly be attained by any other
means.

It would necessitate a much larger space than is at all com-

1 As the photograph is taken exactly of the gateway. I have other photo-
on the centre line of the group, and = graphs taken at an angle which show
there is no atmospheric perspective in it as placed on an extensive platform
photography, the engraver has under- in the centre of the four angular
stood the central tower as forming part towers.

232 THE TOMB OF PORSENNA.

patible with essays of this sort to explain the peculiarities of
these eastern tombs, and to attempt to trace their derivation
trom the mounds and structural edifices of the West. It would
also require an amount of illustration to render their forms
intelligible to those unfamiliar with the subject, which cannot
be afforded im this place. All therefore that is attempted here
is to indicate the path that others may follow, who may wish
to investigate the subject more fully. It is enough at present
to show that the design of the tomb of Porsenna was not so
exceptional or strange as it is usually assumed to have been,
and that it may turn out—if the materials should exist to prove
it—to have belonged to a class of tombs which were usual in
tlhe ancient world, and the reminiscence of whose form is not
entirely lost even at the present day.

JAMES FERGUSSON,

THE ISLANDS OF TELOS AND KARPATHOS. 233

THE ISLANDS OF TELOS AND KARPATHOS.

HAVING visited these two outlying islands of the Sporadic
group last winter, and having spent in them over two months,
I propose to put together a few notes on the antiquities to be
found in each. They are islands which are very difficult of
access and rarely visited by foreigners, and are consequently
peculiarly retentive of customs and myths which bear the stamp
of extreme antiquity. Both these islands appear to have had
a much more considerable population in ancient times than they
have now, though much behind their neighbours on Rhodes
and Kos in the arts and civilisation. |

The principal feature of the small island of Telos is a pre-
cipitous mountain which rises directly behind the chief of the
two modern villages of the island, on the summit of which is
a fortress covering a triangular plateau about three quarters of
a mile in circumference; the foundation of the walls of this
fortress are Hellenic, on which during the Middle Ages more
modern walls have been constructed. In the centre of this
fortress there stands an Hellenic temple now converted into a
church, and almost buried on two sides by the délris of Hellenic
masonry covered with brushwood. From the gateway which
enters the walls on the south side, a broad approach with steps
flanked on either side by huge blocks of stone leads straight to
the temple ; the form of the proaulion is easily distinguished,
and the north wall of the temple is almost intact and built
of neatly fitting stones without mortar of a coarse bluish
marble.

From a stone on the outer edge of the proaulion [ took an

234 THE ISLANDS OF TELOS AND KARPATHOS.

impression of an inscription which I afterwards found to be
published in the Bulletin de Corr. Hell. iv. p. 43.

Also I took rubbings of some other inscriptions on the walls
of the pronaos, doubtless ψηφίσματα which were too much
obliterated to be of any value. The entrance to the ced/a, which
is now used as a modern church, is also preserved, and is thirty-
five inches across ; the cella itself is covered with plaster in most
places, which was fortunately sufficiently destroyed to enable
me to see that the walls are Hellenic; it is five yards thirteen
inches in length, by three yards thirty-four inches wide.

The triangular plateau is covered with the ruins of Byzantine
houses, but at the northern apex there still stands an old
Hellenic tower of the nature usually found in the islands.
From the wall which runs along the northern side of the
fortress, another Hellenic wall seems to have started off at
right angles, which apparently divided the plateau across the
centre, and which seems to have run in the direction of the
temple, but is now lost in the débris of the houses. On this
side the Byzantine fortifications run much below the Hellenic
wall, and in what is left of this latter, the existence of a small
postern gate is easily distinguishable.

On the fertile plain below the fortress there are many traces
of antiquity with marble bases of columns, some of which have
as yet escaped the lime-kilns, marking the sites of several small
temples; these have been converted into churches during the
Byzantine occupation, but have since fallen into ruins. In
one of these I found the following altar-shaped tomb inscribed
KAAAIPOA (?) XAIPE, and this memorial tablet :

ZATYPION
AAEZANAPHIZ
-~YNAAEKOPYMBOY

THE ISLANDS OF TELOS AND KARPATHOS. 235

The Hellenic graves of Telos are curious and uniform, and
constructed doubtless as the nature of the ground suggested.
In two cemeteries where I excavated, I found that deep clefts
in the rock had been chosen for the graves, and at about ten
feet below the soil which filled these clefts, we came upon holes
chiselled in the rock in rows along the clefts. Each grave con-
tained pottery of a rude description pointing to a backward state
of art, numberless coarse plates were found in each, from which
traces of the feast laid out for the dead were not altogether
obliterated, fish bones, remnants of eggs and figs being still
preserved in some of them.

KARPATHOS.

On this island there are traces still existing of many towns;
the first we examined is identified by inscriptions as Poseidonia ;
old inhabitants still call it by the contraction of this name Posin,
but some years ago a name signifying ‘drink’ appeared objec-
tionable to the sober-minded inhabitants, and they re-christened
it, Pegadia or ‘ wells.’ Here there are evidences of pre-historic
inhabitants, the graves of whom I was unfortunately unable to
open owing to the presence of the Turkish authorities, but I
was able to obtain a large stone figure of a female idol, similar
to the smaller ones I found at Antiparos, and which were en-
graved in Vol. V. of this Journal, p. 50, Arkassa on the west
of the island is likewise identified by inscriptions, as is also

236 THE ISLANDS OF TELOS AND KARPATHOS.

Brykountios, or as it is now called Bourgounta, on the north,
but a fourth town mentioned by Strabo as Nisyros cannot be
found ; 105 site, of course, must have been one of the three other
spots on Karpathos where ruins exist, but where inscriptions
have not as yet come to light.

Most of these towns have been roughly dealt with during the
Byzantine period, when extensive towns and large churches
were built out of the material at hand, Brykountios was
apparently the most considerable town during both the earlier
and later occupations, and as it was situated at the extreme
north of Karpathos, about two hours distant from the Elympos,
and several days’ journey from the Konak, we were able to
pitch our tent there and excavate unmolested.

The town stood on a high tongue of land jutting into the sea ;
it had a good harbour before the ancient mole, traces of which
are easily seen still, was destroyed ; the temples and houses have
been so mutilated to build the Byzantine town, that it is next
to impossible to form any conception of their extent. This
town is close to the excellent harbour of Tristoma, and in
ancient days must have been a great commercial centre.

The rocks and cliffs around Brykountios are perfectly honey-
combed with chiselled tombs of greatly diversified character ; on
first seeing them I judged of course that they had all been rifled
long since by Byzantines and Romans, but on closer examination
we found many of them undisturbed, and as to some of them
which overhung the sea and were difficult of approach we were
the first to roll away the stone from the mouth of the sepulchre.
Our finds in these tombs were perhaps not equivalent to our
first expectations, the pottery for the most part was but roughly
adorned, proving that Karpathos was in its best days, as now, an
out of the way spot which had made but little advance in the
arts, and the chief interest connected with the pottery I brought
back is, that it is the first to come from Karpathos and from
these rock-cut tombs. But the tombs themselves were extremely
interesting, and the great variety of periods of pottery found in
close juxtaposition would suggest that the graves had been used
again and again, just as the graves of the Karpathiotes now who
only allow their relatives to remain a year in the tomb, after
which they exhume the bones, tie them up in an embroidered
pillow, and throw them into a charnel house.

oor

THE ISLANDS OF TELOS AND KARPATHOS,. 237

On approaching the promontory there stands an isolated round
rock about thirty feet in height; this is entered by a chiselled
passage with tombs on either side, and tombs above these on
another level all of which are now empty, and would appear
originally to have been closed by an iron or thin marble slab,
for round each of the holes is a groove into which a slab has
been introduced: close around this rock are numerous shallow
tombs cut in the rock, some of which we found unopened, but
they contained nothing but one or two coins which crumbled in
our hands when we touched them, doubtless the obolos for
Charon.

Proceeding along the cliff we found tombs of every possible
description, single chambers, double chambers, tombs one over
the other, tombs with steps above them cut in the rock, as if
for ornamentation, but the most frequent and those which we
found the least disturbed were those constructed like this
plan:

Nes
Sgiag poms
aoe ho
\ ὑπ
᾿ ' ae

ISTCHAMSBER 37° CHAMBER

\ en 2 ay, ἡ
ewes 2)
oicdleas ΞΞ

You enter by a sloping εἰγοηνοθ with walls on either side
chiselled in the rocks, in which were generally two or three
tombs much ruder than those inside, and invariably containing
ware of a much more recent period, Cyrenaic ware similar to
what we have from Cyprus, and objects of pottery of rough
material.

After clearing the circular entrance to the tomb from rubbish
you enter a good sized chamber. About ten feet square and
six in height with stone benches round, all formed by chiselling
the rock; the graves are to the right and left and are after a

233 THE ISLANDS OF TELOS AND KARPATHOS.

uniform pattern consisting of a chamber cut deep into the rock
with a terrace or bench left all round, and the corpse and pottery
deposited into a sort of well which was sunk slightly below the
level of the floor. These tombs were closed with very large
stones and covered with a thick cement, in many cases the outer
chamber had likewise been entirely covered with cement, and
sometimes we saw traces of patterns and writing of a late date
in Byzantine characters. Only one very faint inscription appeared
to be of a good period, and curiously enough it was to the
memory of a man whose name occurs in an inscription built into
one of the later churches, the name was Aidoios which I cannot
find in any glossary of ancient Greek names. In another grave
we found a marble memorial tablet in letters of a good period
to the memory of one Menekrates, and in this grave we found
a larger collection of pottery than anywhere else, no less than
twenty plates, ten lamps, several lamp feeders, and endless
specimens of smaller articles. In one grave we found a pithos
full of calcined bones, and in the middle of the bones a prettily
executed mastos of black pottery.

To return to the plan, the second chamber is entered by a
low door, and in the divisional wall three feet thick are two
windows, one over and the other beside the door. There has
been a door between the two chambers, the hinge holes of which
are still visible. This second chamber is considerably larger
than the first, but is constructed on the same plan. The third
chamber, which does not seem to have had a door or windows,
contained tombs of a later date and was finished off in a much
ruder fashion being very much lower, and as will be seen from
the plan the tombs around it were never completed ; there was
a curious long tomb between the second and third chambers
with two corpses in it, so that when emptied we could crawl
through from one chamber to the other. This idea of connecting
two tombs seems to have been of later date, for most of those
outside were thus connected.

On the spot on which our tent was pitched there was a quad-
rangle for tombs, two sides of which had been beautifully
chiselled out of the rock and furnished with two rows of tombs,
all of which, however, had been opened; it was curious on a
vacant space to see the chiselled plan of a tomb which had been
designed but never executed.

THE ISLANDS OF TELOS AND KARPATHOS, 239

Another class of tomb we accidentally hit upon consisted of
natural holes in the cliff m almost inaccessible places over-
hanging the sea; the entrances had been closed with cement
and stones, and some of them contained as many as four corpses ;
the pottery in these tombs was of the best period, big pithoi
with the maker’s mark on, and well glazed things, which as a
rule had been rare in the chiselled tombs.

On the small island of Saria, which is separated from the
north of Karpathos by a narrow strait, we found similar rock-
cut tombs, none of which, however, had more than one chamber
with a tomb on either side, and a narrow trench between. All
these tombs had been rifled, but amongst the débris in them
we saw more beautiful bits of pottery than any we had found
in the unrifled tombs. On Saria there exists an old watch-
tower with a curious water conduit chiselled in the rock leading
to it; this tower was apparently built to protect the only fertile
portion of the island. It was Ross's idea that the Nisyros of
Strabo was on Saria, but beyond the slight similarity of name
there do not seem to be any other grounds for this conjecture.

KARPATHIOTE DIALECY,

As a field for the study of modern Greek manners and
customs, with a view to comparing them with antiquity, I
consider Karpathos almost unique; at their ceremonies con-
nected with religious worship, deaths, marriages, and births,
medical cures, exorcisms, incantations, and so forth, we came
across things, by entering into the routine of daily life, which
can have changed little during many centuries.

Before going to Karpathos last winter a passage in Ludwig
Ross's Lnselreisen (which book contains the only reliable in-
formation we have on this remote island) excited my curiosity.
It ran as follows: ‘The village of Olympos, or Elymbos, has
about 250 houses, the dialect of the Elympites must be in the
highest degree Hellenic, their ballads and songs so poetical
that they often move the listeners to tears. I have heard such
wonderful tiings related of them, that it was with great gricf
that I was not able to visit this place.’

HV Oli. Vil. K

210 THE ISLANDS OF TELOS AND KARPATHOS.

Added to this, former experience in the Cyclades had taught
me that the existence of an almost classical Greek-speaking
population in the remote islands was quite possible, so it was
with keen interest that we took up our residence for a few weeks
there. Glossaries of words in use in out-of-the-way corners of
Greece have appeared, but none, as yet, from Elympos, so I will
here say a few words about the dialect, hoping thereby to
induce others more competent than myself to collect a glossary
of these words and expressions, and to confer a boon on
philology and Hellenic studies alike.

For the most part the inhabitants of this village are a wild,
uncultured race of shepherds, and their customs of great value
to the student of folk lore- and comparative mythology, and it
was in the pastoral life of the place that we found most to
interest us; about an hour from Elympos is a hamlet, or rather
a collection of small homesteads, where the shepherds from the
mountains pass the three winter months with their flocks and
their families. Each homestead is constructed on the same
principle as on the accompanying plan.

AOTAXXOTORUS
SLEEPING PLACE FOR | wHepe GRAIN IS DEPOSITED
SHEPHERDS PRIOR TOTHRESHING ἃ

(koipyretor) hes PLOT FOR GRAZING
CALLED
OTAVAOS FOR MULE THR DR } bs
Κονολεια
; Lakkov
upd ͵
βοδοτοπος FOR HOLE THROUGH WHICH FODDER

CATTLE IS PUT INJO MANGER
CALLED ἀλεφαᾶντι

GATE CALLED Lave 05

The hamlet is called Stavlalonia, from the fact that each
house has its σταῦλος and its ἀλῶνι, and in connection with
this homestead there are several curious words. In the first
place you enter a θύρα, not a πόρτα, the usual word in Greek
putois for a door. Then there is the ἀλεφάντι, a hole in the
wall through which fodder is introduced into the manger, the
Κονολεῖα, a grass plot where the mule is tethered, and the

THE ISLANDS OF TELOS AND KARPATHOs. 241

Λάκκοι, or holes in the ground where the grain is buried when
threshed ; this, { fancy, is the same custom which they practised
in antiquity when the holes were called σιροὶ.

These shepherds call their mules κτήματα, or possessions,
and do not understand the use of any such word as ζῶα or
μουλάρια, common elsewhere in Greece; this use of the word
κτήματα is, I take it, of distinctly classical origin. Their goats
they called y/Ava, or thousands, a word suggestive of patriarchal
life and flocks which could not be counted for number; and in
their distinctive words for goats they have many curious words,
for example πολιομούρια is used for goats with grey faces and
ears, retaining the classical use of the word πολιὸς, which in
the vulgar is always ψαρὸς.

Kopvoyr is used to express a goat which is black behind and
white in front. Is this word the same as the word Κόρνοψ,
used by Strabo, instead of πάρνοψ', to signify a locust? Again,
they use words to distinguish goats, which must have crept in
through a Latin-Byzantine agency ; for example, μαξιλλάτος,
for a goat with reddish cheeks, the word wafiuAdadpia being now
only used in the modern language for a pillow. ῥουσσόμερτος,
too, expresses the same class of goat—the word ῥούσσιος being
unknown in modern Greek, but common amongst Byzantine
authors, who adopted the Latin word russews for red,

They use the expression dm’ εἰκασμοῦ ὁμιλῶ, instead of the
usual μὲ συμπερασμὸν, to express ‘I speak from conjecture.’
I don’t think the form of the word εἰκασμὸς occurs in modern
Greek ; εἰκασία does, but I never heard it used in this idiomatic
way which we find in Strabo and later Byzantine writers. For
an apron they use the New Testament word λέντιον, instead of
the vulgar ποδιὰ or ᾿μπροσθελλὰ, and the narrow alleys of
Elympos are called ῥύμαι. Now this again is a New Testament
word, being used in the Acts for the street which is called
‘straight, and suggests a comparison with the celebrated oracle
ἔσται μὲν Ρώμη ῥύμη καὶ Δῆλος ἄδηλος.

A young man they speak of as ἄωρος, ‘unripe, reminding us
of Herodotus, ἄωρος θανεῖν, and Plutarch, ἄωρος πρὸς γάμον.

Κανάχια is a word in use for caresses, kisses, which strikes
one as a possible survival of the classical words, xavayn,
κανάσσω, to make a sharp noise; though this meaning was

originally confined to the sound of water, there is no apparent
R 2

‘

242 THE ISLANDS OF TELOS AND KARPATHOS.

reason why, after the lapse of ages, it should not be applied to
the noise produced by the lips.

There is a place near Elympos where labourers are accustomed
to meet together morning and evening, so that they may go to
and from their work in company. The spot is situated at the
summit of a beetling cliff, and they -call it ἀποθόκτρια, which
appears as if it was connected with the classical word azo-
θρώσκω, which was used to express the abrupt rising of a cliff.
Na μεθάρομεν, ‘let us change places,’ appears as if connected
with the classical word μεθώρμοσις. Words like νικαδὸ for
πρωΐ, early in the morning, and others of curious, and in many
cases inexplicable, origin are to be found at Elympos.

But the most curious thing of all in connection with the
Elympitan dialect is the existence of a gamma which is
introduced under circumstances which are at once suggestive
of the digamma and its existence in real life. This gamma is
especially remarkable in a dialect which drops the ordinary
gamma on every possible occasion, for they say ἤτρωα for
ἔτρωγον, I ate, and ἤλεα for ἔλεγον, I said, ἔω for ἐγὼ, and
endless other instances,

Before the word υἱὸς, a son, they place a hard gamma, which
Τ have not only heard, but seen written in marriage settlements.
A mother calls to her son Γυιέμου. Then this gammais inserted
after the diphthong ed: for example, they say πιστεύγομεν
and δουλεύγομεν, instead of πιστεύομεν and δουλεύομεν. This
gamma, I understand likewise, is found in the Cypriote dialect,
though not in quite so pronounced a degree; wherever it occurs
this intrusive gamma is always hard and perfectly distinct from
the modern use of the gamma, and reminding one of the change
which has made the Latin vastare become guastare in Italian,
and gdtcr in French.

THEODORE BENT.

A TERRA-COTTA DIADUMENOS,

A TERRA-COTTA DIADUMENOS.
[Pro LX}

THE position of Polykleitos in the history of Greek sculpture
is peculiarly tantalizing. We seem to know a good deal about
his work. We know his statue of a Doryphoros from the marble
copy of it in Naples, and we know his Diadumenos from two
marble copies in the British Museum. Yet with these and
other sources of knowledge, it happens that when we desire to
get closer to his real style and to define it there occurs a void.
So to speak, a bridge is wanting at the end of an otherwise
agreeable journey, and we welcome the best help that comes to
hand. There is, I think, some such help to be obtained from
the terra-cotta statuette recently acquired in Smyrna by Mr.
W. R. Paton.

But first it may be of use to recall the reasons why the marble
statues just mentioned must fail to convey a perfectly true
notion of originals which we are justified in assuming were of
bronze. In each of these statues the artist has been compelled
by the nature of the material to introduce a massive support in
the shape of a tree stem. That is at once a new element in the
design, and, as a distinguished French sculptor! has rightly
observed, this new element called for a modification of the entire

figure.

1M. Eugéne Guillaume, in Rayet’s
Monuments de VArt Antique, pt. 3,
pl. 1 (Doryphorus). The Vaison Dia-
dumenus is given by Rayet in pt. 4,
pl. 1, and the De Janze bronze statuette
in the Bibliotheque at Paris, in pt. 4,
pl. 2. Cf. Michaelis in the Anna/i

This would have been true of a marble copy made even

dell’ Inst. Arch, 1878, p. 5. He gives
the de Janze bronze in pl. #, the
Farnese Diadumenus in pl. 4, the
Vaison Diadumenus in tle Aonwmenti
di? Inst. Arch. x. pl. 4%, and the
Doryphorus, ἐν ω, pl. 50.

244 A TERRA-COTTA DIADUMENOS.

in the time of Polykleitos himself. But none of the marble
copies of his works that we possess go nearly so far back. They
are separated from him by centuries, during which some striking
innovations were made. In particular a new canon of propor-
tions for the human figure had been introduced by Lysippos,
and this canon, which affected Polykleitos more than any other

Tue VAIsoN DIADUMENOs.

sculptor, had become the standard for subsequent art. The
copyist of later days was thus in danger of incorporating the
system of proportions in which he had been trained with the
actual proportions of Polykleitos whom he was set to imitate.
We see this clearly in the marble statue of a Diadumenos from
Vaison, in the British Museum. The proportion of torso to

A TERRA-COTTA DIADUMENOS. 245

thigh is there the proportion introduced by Lysippos, while the
shape of the head, the great breadth of the shoulders, and
perhaps some other features are no less distinetly retained from
Polykleitos. In such circumstances no two copyists could be
expected to work alike, and accordingly in another marble
statue of a Diadumenos, which the British Museum was fortu-
nate in obtaining from the Farnese collection, we find much less
of Lysippos. The length of the torso and the thigh is more
equalized, and we seem to be getting back nearer to the actual
proportions of the original in this respect; since it can hardly
be doubted that in the canon of Polykleitos a long and massive
torso was as conspicuous a feature as was the long thigh in the
eanon of Lysippos.

But these two statues, though they retain much from the
bronze original, are yet far from adequate to convey an exact
notion of its proportions and style. We must still look for a
copy executed under more favourable conditions. In some
measure we have that in Mr. Paton’s terra-cotta. The
diminished scale would no doubt lead to error in some parts.
But there are, here at least, no exigencics of material to call for
modifications, In such details as the hollowing out of the pupils
of the eyes, in the gilding of the diadem of which traces only
now remain, and in the peculiar form of the nipple on the
right breast, the artist has obviously followed a bronze original.
It must have been from this motive also, I think, that he has
worked over the whole surface with a fine ivory tool, so as to
break, by an infinite series of scarcely perceptible touches, the
light which falls on the figure, and which otherwise would have
a glossy effect on the clay. One of the charms of fine Greek
bronzes is the subtle preparation of all surfaces for the effects

of light. I need not say that this is also one of the charms of

nature. We may conclude then that the sculptor of the terra-
cotta was inspired by a work in bronze—not precisely inspired
to imitate the actual surface of a bronze, but to produce by
means of his own an effect which he had observed in a fine ©
bronze.

A few measurements will show that he was quite independent
of Lysippos in the matter of proportions, and for this purpose
1 have compared the terra-cotta with the Vaison Diadumenos,
adding also certain measurements of the Farnese statue to

246 A TERRA-COTTA DIADUMENOS.

confirm what has been said as to its being the nearer of the
two to the original of Polykleitos :

|
Ϊ

i !
TERRA-COTTA. VAISON. FARNESE. |
|
| |
‘row ἘΝ t LOW =i S ΞΕ be
Crown of head to below | 118"=-295 m. | 54" =1-373 m. ifs:
kuee-cap ~ oer eee

Collar bones to top of pubes 43519 M21 =5580 τὰς} 6428 hme |

]

τὴς ich asmarke FETAL Ce εὖ i
Length of thigh asmarked | ἘΦ =m, 995 ΞΞ 08 τὰς 1 16, ΞΘ τ ἢν

Tdiasram οἱ sr) t oe)

Elhow toelbow .... 73. ='200m. | 37” ='940 m. | -- ᾿

|

In comparing the measurements of so small a figure as the
terra-cotta with a statue rather over life-size, there is so much
liability to error, that I would have hesitated but for the marked
manner in which the terra-cotta inverts the proportions of
Lysippos, and preserves those of Polykleitos. No error that I
can have made will alter that fact, which indeed is apparent
at the first glance.

In the Vaison statue the massiveness of the shoulders and
arms is a noticeable feature; in the terra-cotta it is even
striking, so much so that it may be open to doubt whether
there is not here some exaggeration, The neck is robust and
very finely fashioned, forming a pleasant contrast to the too
short neck of the Vaison figure. The head is practically of the
same shape as in both the marble statues, and we may take it
to represent the original so far. But the terra-cotta has this
advantage that the nose is intact It is the same long and finely
formed nose which we see in the head of Hera from Agrigentum,}
now generally accepted as one of the best, if not the best repre-
sentation we possess of a female head by Polykleitos. The upper
lip is rendered with much the same effect as in the Hera.
Throughout the figure the modelling of bones and muscle is
carried out with great refinement as well as with force. But
the artist is not responsible for a small part under the ribs on
the right side. That with some other parts which interfere
less with the artistic effect is the work of the restorer.

* Published by Helbig in Woa. dell’ Inst. Areh. ix. pl. 1.

A TERRA-COTTA DIADUMENOS, 247

Τὴ conclusion, I feel bound to approach the difficult question
of the date of this terra-cotta, It is no doubt possible that it
may have been made after the time of Lysippos by an artist
who had the original before him, er perhaps rather some good
copy, and who rigidly excluded from his view all his own special
training, in such matters as proportion at least. But there is
asmall bronze in the Bibliotheque at Paris, representing this
same subject, which again shows how difficult it was for an
artist living after the time of Lysippos to get away from his
influence. And thus, while unwilling to call such an escape
impossible, I would still prefer to think that the terra-cotta has
been executed previous to this over-mastering influence. But
how far previous? Between Polykleitos and Lysippos more
than a century elapsed, during which period we may assume
that the statues of athletes by the earlier of these two masters
continued to attract the admiration of artists. If we must
choose between the beginning and the end of this period, I
would choose the end; for this reason, that the terra-cotta seems
to me to have a decided mark of the intervening influence of
Praxiteles. The manner in which the thighs are modelled
recalls nothing so much as the Hermes of Olympia, In Callis-
tratus,) we have a description of a statue of a Diadumenos
by Praxiteles, and if everything that Callistratus said was
intelligible and true, we might suppose that Praxiteles also
was among those who made a special study of the type of
athlete by Polykleitos. So much at least seems certain, that
the maker of the terra-cotta has engrafted on his model Dia-
dumenos some of the manner of Praxiteles. For this among
other reasons, we may perhaps be justified in assigning it to
the short period between Praxiteles and Lysippos.

To judge from the appearance of the clay, the figure must
have been made in Asia Minor, and if in the neighbourhood of
Smyrna, where I understand Mr, Paton acquired it, there would
be no difficulty then in accounting for an acquaintance with the
work of Polykleitos, since Ephesus possessed one of his most
famous statues, the Amazon.

1 Stat. 1].

9
ζΏ

. MURRAY.

248 INSCRIPTIONS FROM COS, Etc.

INSCRIPTIONS FROM COS, &c.

Last June I received from Mr, Newton a set of squeezes
from inscriptions which had been sent him by Mr. Petrides, in
order that if unpublished they might appear in the Journal of
Hellenic Studies. As to their provenance, Mr. Petrides has
kindly supplied me with the following information. They were
sent to him from the island of Symi, and as far as he can
understand they must have been found either on the island of
Cos or on the mainland of Asia Minor, opposite to these islands.
From the inscriptions themselves it will appear that this view
is in part at least correct; for the inscriptions numbered 6, 8,
9 and 10 are certainly from Cos. 1, 3, and perhaps 4, however,
seem to belong to Rhodes: the rest bear no internal indication
such as to enable us to assign their origin to any particular
place. It is clear then, that the evidence as to provenance is
not definite enough to override any internal evidence that may
be inconsistent with it; but we are probably justified in assuming
that the inscriptions come from the islands in the south-east
portion of the Aegaean, or the neighbouring coast of Asia Minor.
[ am indebted to Mr. Newton for valuable help, especially
in conjecturing the purport and locality of the Rhodian
inscriptions.

As far as I can tell, the inscriptions seem to be all unpublished,
except No. 9 ; they are not, at any rate, to be found in any of the
periodicals published at Athens, though these contain many
that are somewhat similar, and obviously come from the same

neighbourhood. If they are already known, I can hardly hope,

working only from squeezes, to be able to add anything to pre-
vious copies ; but the risk of superfluity must always in such
cases be incurred. It is at any rate less serious than that of
the suppression of new and interesting matter.

'
4
1

INSCRIPTIONS FROM COS, Ete. 249

1. Part of a subscription list of names with numbers in
columns; remains of a second column are visible-on the left.
The order is roughly alphabetical. The large number 12,000,
opposite 1. 24, which also begins further back, seems to be a
total. Several names are new and interesting. Both from its
form and Doric dialect this seems to be Rhodian. Cf. Newton.
B. M. Inser. ΤΡ eeexliii. eeexliv. (13 in. x 11 in.; height of
letters, } in.)

A

ΦΡΑΓΟΡΑ AA
TIMAPXOYYPEPAYTO
aN VINOMY MM OASP OY

v IOS AOY AAA
PE ADI Nt ne eu eh
K So) Ee Aaa AS CU ca IAA A ee

TIMOOEOZOEY*ANTOY A
TIMAPXOZAZTYKPATIAA A
10 TEAE . APXOZKAEYETPATOY
TIMAZIPOAIZTIMAZIFOAIOS
TOYTIMAZIPFOAIOS A
A TIMAPATAAS TIM. 3 OATOS A
A TIMAPETOZANAZ=IKPATEYS A
15 THAEMAXOZANAEZIKPATEYE A
A TIMAZIPFOAIZTIMOMAXOY Δ
Δ ΤΙ ΘΕ ol ΜΠ ΛιΘ:
ΣᾺ TOY . ENOKAEY= SA
TIMAZAPXOZEY®PANOPOE A
AAA 20 TIMOTEAHE.... ANOPOS AA
EMORPL TOS ae Τ᾿ AN ork Oe

W

Bay sea HO] Sl @ bP Pa mere iad
TULMASIOE © Boa seh tenes AO) sing
MXX TIMAZIPOAIZIEPOKAE . = A

23 TIMOOE Lig ΕΑ 7
TIMAPXOStEP Ὁ
®IANOKPATHZIEPOKAE AAA
ΦΙΛΟΚΡΑΤΗΣΙΕΡΟΦΑΝΕΥΣ A

250 INSCRIPTIONS FROM COS, Erc.

OIAQNAAZNIKO . OY. OY A

30 XAPMOKAHZEPATO....= AA
Ξ XAIPEIOSTEPAISTIOZ A
TIMAPX OZ EYOPANOPOZ A
A TIMAXIAAZEY®PANOPOZ A

TIMOZTPATOZKAEIZIMBPOTOY AA

Si]

᾿ Τιμάρχου ὑπὲρ αὐτο[ῦ
καὶ τῶ]ν υἱῶν ᾿Ολυμποδώρου

ωὠτ[ά]δου AAA

Qe

----τ-Ξ---ς-ςς-ςς-- eS
Τιμόθεος Θευφάντου Δ
Tiwapyos ᾿Αστυκρατίδα Δ
10. Τελέ[σ]αρχος Κλευστράτου [Δ-
Τιμασίπολις Τιμασιπόλιος
τοῦ Τιμασιπόλιος Δ
Τιμαρχίδας Τιμ[ασιπ͵]όλιος Δ
Τιμάρετος ᾿Αναξικράτευς Δ
15. Τηλέμαχος ᾿Αναξικράτευς Δ
Τιμασίπολις Τιμομάχου Δ
Τιμό[θ]ε[ο]ς Τιμασιπόλιος
τοῦ [Μ]ενοκλεῦς Δ
Τιμάσαρχος Εὐφράνορος Δ
20. Τιμοτέλης [Evdp|avopos ΔΔ
Τιμόκριτος [Εὐφρ]άν[ ρ]ος [Δ-
Τιμασίθεος [- Δ-
Τιμασίθεος [—— Δ-
Τιμασίπολις ἹἹεροκ[λεθ]ς Δ
. Τιμόθεζος ‘Teplod|a[veus Δ
Τύίμαρχος ‘Tep[ Δ-
Φιλοκράτης ‘lepoxre|ds AA] A
Φιλοκράτης ‘lepopavevs A
Φιλώνδας Νικο[β]ούλ]ου Δ
30. Χαρμοκλῆς ᾿Ἐρατο[κλεῦ]ς ΔΔ
Χαίρειος Τεραίστιος A
Tipapyos Evppavopos A
Τιμαχίδας Evppavopos A
Τιμόστρατος Κλεισιμβρότου ΔΔ

bo
Or

INSCRIPTIONS FROM COS, Ere. 251

2. A decree of honour and presents to some prince. (11 in, x
16 in.; height of letters, } in.)

KAIZSTHEAIENTQ
ANATPAYAIAEAYT
TOIPOAITAIKAIPPOZEN
ΤΑΙΑΝΑΓΕΓΡΑΜΜΕΝΟΙΕΙΣΙΝΑΠΟ

5 AAIAEAYTQIKAIZENIAMEAITOSA

POPIZKOYZSAYOTOAEANAAQMATOEe
TAYTAAONTONOITAMIAIEAEZOAIAE
KAIPPESBEYTASTPEIZOITINESTOTE YF
DISEMAAPOAQSOYESINKAIPAPAKAAOY

10 SINAYTONTHNEYNOIANTPAPEXESOAI
THIPOAEIPPESBEYTAPATPOKAHSANTIL
NOYENEAPXOSKTHEIKAEOYEISMHNIAS
MENANAPOY

Καὶ στῆσαι ἐν τῷ [ἱερῷ TO...... 2
ἐ 4
> / \ > \ “ ΄
ἀναγράψαι δὲ αὐτ[ὸν ὥσπερ οἱ λοι
ποὶ πολῖται καὶ πρόξενοι καὶ εὐεργέ
ται ἀναγεγραμμένοι εἶσιν. ἀπο[στεῖ-
» Ν > lal x / y b
5. λαι δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ξένια, μέλιτος ἀΐμφ- (2)
, ΄ Ν ἂν 5 / Nees)
φορίσκους δύο. τὸ δὲ ἀνάλωμα τὸ ἐΐς
nr f e / « / \
ταῦτα δόντων οἱ ταμίαι. ἑλέσθαι δὲ
καὶ πρεσβευτὰς τρεῖς οἵτινες τό τε ψή-
φισμα ἀποδώσουσιν καὶ παρακαλοῦ-
10. σιν αὐτὸν τὴν εὐνοίαν παρέχεσθαι
an / \ - ᾽
τῇ πόλει. πρεσβευταὶ}, Πατροκλῆς
,ὔ / ’ /
vous, Νέαρχος Κτησικλέους, ᾿Ισμηνίας
Μενάνδρου.

The symbolical present of two pots of honey is very inter-
esting, and I have not come across any quite similar form,
May it be connected with the sacredness of the bee, as associated
with Artemis at Ephesus and elsewhere? Unfortunately there
is no clew to the locality.

3. (a) The deities here suggest Cos, but such decrees as this are
often Rhodian; it is clearly a law regulating the sale of priest-

252 INSCRIPTIONS FROM COS, Ere.

hoods and the privileges of the buyers. As there is no means
of ascertaining the original length of the lines, 1t seems useless
to try and restoresthe whole. (ΤΟΙ in. x 8 in.; height of letters,
Ὁ In.)

AAAIOY ; : - : :
\NTTPOZSTATAI Pam. σα]ν προστάται...
ΙΚΙΑΞΕΝΟΦΩΝΙ͂ΤΑΡ... Ν]ικέα, Ξενοφῶν Παρ-. ..
ὨὩΝΟΣΔΙΟΦΑΝΤΟ ~~... wvos, Διόφαντος... ..
ΤΟΙΑΙΡΗΜΕΝΟΙΣΥΝ .. τοὶ αἰἱρημένοι σὺν...
ΥΑΣΚΛΑΤΤΙΟΥΚΑΙ το |b ᾿Ασκλαπίου καὶ [ τᾶς “Ὑγιείας
ΤΑΣΘΕΥΔΏΡΟΥΝ .... ἸΘευδώροῦ ΟΣ
ΑΡΙΣΤΕΥΣΑΡΙΣΤΕ .. ᾿Αριστεὺς ᾿Αριστέως...

AITTPAZEITAZIEPQ ... τ] πράσει tas ἱερω] σύνα-"

σι

LU. KATHTUYONADEPETALH ΕΥ̓ ΖΞ τα ἱερεῖα...
TOIAETTQAHTAIA τοὶ δὲ πωλῆται.......
ATHOYRAITAZ YI - ᾿Ασκλ]απίου καὶ Tas ‘Yy[ vedas.
EPOZYNANE SD Qs. 7s,% ἱ Ἰερωσύναν ἔστω"

QNAEKATE* Ae A τ]ῶν δὲ κατεσ .. .΄.

(Ὁ) Forms and size of characters same as in (a), but style of
cutting somewhat different; not so much so as to make con-
nexion impossible, if otherwise probable. (105 in. x 7 in.;
height of letters, Σ in.)

AIATPA®AIKATAc ... διαγραφαὶ Kata...
ΕΓΤΙΚΟΣΜΗΣΙΟΣΟ τ ἐπὶ KOopNoLOS....
ΝΟΣΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΦΩΣΤ ... -νος ᾿Ακολούθω ot-...

ΟΥ̓ΕΤΤΙΦΑΝΕΙΑΙΚΑΙ ... ov ἐπιφάνειαι καὶ...

5 BEIAIETIAEKAITAI ... πρεσβείαι τι dé kai Tal. . .
ZONTER ATM Ole) cs.” Lease? ἕξων τε καὶ τιμῶν...
ΚΤΩΝΑΤΤΟΛΟΓΙΞ 1... ἐκ τῶν ἀπολογίξ-...
OSTENEZOAIAY ... πρ͵]ος γενέσθαι δ᾽...
ΜΥΡΙΑΝΟΙΚΕΙΣ ... μυρίαν οἰκεῖσίθαι. ..

10 ΚΑΘΟΤΙΔΕΗΣΞ ... Kabore 669...
OAITQNAEATTO ..« Oat tov 8 amo...
KAAO=HTQIA ... ὥς] κα δόξῃ τῷ δίάμῳ....

ὨΕΦΆΞΕΓΤΗΙΝ

ἘΞ ΕἾΝΕ:

INSCRIPTIONS FROM COS, Ere. 253

Here again the lmes may be any length, and it seems im-
possible to discover either the proportion of this fragment to
the whole, or its probable position.

4. Two fragments of a subscription list, which may or may
not belong to the same inscription. The lines do not correspond.
Probably Rhodian, like 1. (74 in. x 10 in.; height of letters,
+ in.)

Ὺ uoX N. FE
-FAIAPO KAIYTTEP
bo use ΣΙΚΛΗΣΣΙΜΑΜ

N'SKOSKALIYTE
AM Az SIMOYKAIYITEPT
ΟΣ ΑΡΙΣΤΟΒΟΥΛΟΥΙ
γ 7 ὯΝ ZANOIAAHEY
| ΤΟΣ KAIYTTEPTQNTTAIA
| ANAPOYFPIME
’ CNTOSKAIYIEr
EITOSAPETQ

» e \
καὶ ὑπὲρ
ες σικλῆς Lupa
\
-νίσκος καὶ ὑπὲρ

ur

. τσίμου Kal ὑπὲρ τ[ῶν παίδων
᾿Αριστοβούλου
ες σανθίδα
Ν ἢ \ nr /
Kal ὑπὲρ TOV Tald[ wv
-ἀνδρου [δὶ
ie \ « \
10. ντος καὶ ὑπερ
evtos ᾿Άρετω...

The heading suggests at first sight Θεὸς τ]ύχ[η]ν, but the two
fragments cannot be read consecutively as they now stand.

5. (5 in. x 10 in.; height of letters, 3 in.)

EYKAEIAZSTAS Εὐκλείας tas
NIKOKAEYESIY Νικοκλεῦς γυ-
NAIKOZNIKAN ναικὸς Nixav-
OQEYEMATPOS θευς ματρίς.

254 INSCRIPTIONS FROM COS, Etc.

6. Cf. CLG. 6843. This is identical with another inscrip-
tion, now at Oxford, but the lines are ditferently divided. Cf.
also 10, where the case is the same. Certainly from Cos;
see 10. (7+ in. x 5 in.; height of letters, } in.)

ΘΕΟΙΣΠΑΤΡΩ Θεοῖς πατρώ-

ΟΙΞΥΠΈΡΥ οἱς ὑπὲρ ὑ-
ΓΕΙΑΣΜΑΡ γείας Map| «
OYAIAIOY ov Αἰλίου
ZABEINIANOY Σαβεινιανοῦ,
YIOYTIOAE υἱοῦ πόλε-
ὩΣΣΞΙΚΑ ΠΤΕΡΟΥ͂ ὡς καὶ γερου-
ΣΙ ΑΙ ΞΕΥΎΕΡ σίας, εὐερ-
ΓΕΤΑΤΑΣ γέτα τᾶς
ΠΑΤΡΙΔΟΣ πατρίδος.

The θεοὶ πατρῶοι of Cos are Asklapios and Hygieia; cf. M.
O. Rayet, Inscriptions de Cos; in the Annuaire de l Association
des Etudes Grecques, 1875, pp. 272, sqq. where parallels will also
be found for the titles used in this inscription, and also nos,
8 and 10. For these titles, see also 8. Reimach, Hpigraphie
Greeque, p. 511.

7. (3 in. x 9 in.; height of letters, τῆς in.)
OAYM 93 ΑΣ ὈὈλυμπι]ὰς

ANIKOMHAEYS a Νικομήδευς

KAIKAEYMAXOY καὶ Κλευμάχου.

8. Cf. 6,10. From Cos. (63 in. x 7} in.; height of letters,
+ 1n.)

ΘΕΟΣ Θεοῖς
\TPQOISTEPI πα |tpwets Tepe
AZNIKIATOYA, τ |as Νικία τοῦ δ a
SOYYIOYOIAOTTA pov υἱοῦ φιλοπά-

5 TPIAOZHPQOS τριδος ἡρῶος
ΕὙΥΕΡΓΕΤΑΔΕ εὐεργέτα δὲ
ΤΑΣΤΤΟΛΙΟΣ τᾶς πόλιος

ΣΩΤΗΡΙΑ͂Σ σωτηρίας.

INSCRIPTIONS FROM OOS, Etec. 255

9. This has been already quoted by M. Rayet, /.c. p. 323, as
published by M. Foucart, Assoc. rel. chee les Grecs, p. 232
no. d4,

10. Cf. C.L.G. 6844, which is not, however, quite identical.
Here, as in the case of 6, we have another inscription in honour
of the same person, similar to that already published in the
Corpus. (18 in. x 9 in.; height of letters, ? in.)

ΙΩΙΟΙΣ Θεοῖς πατρῴοις
ΙΕΡ. A. ΓΑΙΟ um Ἰὲρ [lal s] Γαίου
TEP . NIOV Σ |rep| τι Ἰνέου,
KAEITOVVIOV Ἥρα ἰκλείτου υἱοῦ,
ΝΟΦΩΝΤΟΣΦ Ee |vodpavros, φ[ιλο-
KAIZAPOZOIA xaicapos, pir o-
KAAVAIOVOIAO κλαυδίου, φιλο-
5ΑΣΤΟνΔ ὰ Μ σεβ Ἰάστου, δάμ ov
ΟΥΦΙΛΟΠΑΤΡΙ vil οὗ, φιλοπάτρι Sos,
ΕΝΣΕΒΟΝΣΕ εὐσεβοῦς, € |vep

ETATASTIAT γ]έτα τᾶς πατρί
OS rene lhl A 8 jos, [σωτηρία s.

Cf. also Bull. Con. Hell. V., 1881, pp. 468, sgg. M. Dubois
there collects the references to this physician of the Emperor
Claudius on inscriptions: Cf. Tac. Ann. xii. 61.

11. A statement of boundaries. (13 in. x 6% in.; height of
letters, § in.)

ETErP τὸ δὲ] ἵτερο-
AQHNAIAO v | ᾿Αθηναΐδο-
ΤΑΣΕΤΤΙΤΥ 9] tas ἐπιτυ-
ΧΑΝΟΝΤΟΣ ry |yavovtos (ste)

AAE=ANAPI 5 ᾿Αλεξανδρί-
ΔΟΞΑΣΚΥΡΙ δος ἃς κύρι-
ΟΣΟΥΙΟΣΔΙΟ os ὁ υἱὸς Διο
ΝΥΣΙΟΣΕΥΦ νύσιος Eud-

ἘΠ: -Ψ01.. YL. 5

255 INSCRIPTIONS FROM COS, Erc.

POZSYNOYK ροσύνου K-
ΟΛΟΦΩΝΙΟ 10 ολοφώνιο s.
TTAATOSTTOA πλάτος, πόδ-
ἌΔΡΣ, τ πο μν πκζ, as ΚΕΙ͂, τὸ [ὃ-
EMAKOE=M t μᾶκος, αἱ e-
XPITAZXA χρὶ Tas χα-
ΡΑΔΡΑᾺΣ 15 pc Spas.

In 1. 4. there seems to be simply a false concord; or should
we translate ‘daughter of the next of kin to Alexandris, which
makes very bad Greek, but avoids the grammatical mistake ?
For this meaning of ἐπιτυγχάνειν cf. ἐπιβάλλειν in the well-
known Gortyna inscription.

12. Only partly legible; the letters given below are often
uncertain. (9 in. x 13 in.; height of letters, } in.)
| ΕΛΝΟ
ΜΕΝΟΝΥΎΥΤΤΟΙΩΙ
ΑΤΤΛΗΣΙΩΣΙΟΙΕΙ͂Τ
INOEQNOIKON . ETABEBHKENEI
ὃ BEBHKENMETAMONXPONQIXAP
. YTOYXAAKHNMENEIKONAE®OII
TOM . KAATTEIZ.LATAAMAAIEN
TEIAEOYMEAIKOYSATQNAZAYTQ
BNIQIFYM.... 1OITQNNEQNEN
10 AZTEOMOPON.... ZZEQNETTAY
ON. Q2.O0ON... AIONKAOIEPQ

...MEVOY ὑπὸ
/ » cjeed\
παρ]απλησίως ἴοι ἐπὶ
τὸν τῶν θεῶν οἶκον [μ]εταβέβηχκεν εἰ...
5. βέβηκεν μετ᾽ ἀμῶν χρόνῳ yap...
᾿ n lel \ » / »
αἸὐτοῦ χαλκῆν μὲν εἰκόνα ἔφιϊππον
ἄγαλμα
\ \ » lal > a
δὲ θυμελικοὺς ἀγῶνας αὐτῷ
YULVLKOUS...TOV νέων ἐν
10. ui Sy ee alee
καθιερῶσαι.

os

INSCRIPTIONS FROM COS, Ere. 257

Apparently a decree of honours to some one, hardly a private
individual ; to. judge from their character they are-such as were
sometimes given to the successors of Alexander.

13. (123 in. x 14 in.; height of letters, } in.)

PAZSSQNKAIE
STOYAHNTTOIEITAI /
AITONAHMONEYNOIKIZOH:
QNTIOAITQNKAIKATAMEINASE
ONTISENINATTPOMETPHOHEITOSA
ONHTATOYBASIAEQSAYTQIFPAMMAT
EMOYASOENQSAIAKEIMENOYKAIKO
ΤΟΥΣΤΤΕΡΙΕΣΧΗΚΟΤΑΣΑΥΤΟΝΕΝΤΩΙ
ΑΝΤΟΣΤΙΟΡΙΣΑΙΤΟΕΦΟΔΙΟΝΤΟΝ
cAAOMENOISTTPOSTONBASI
TTPESBEYONTTPOSAYTON
EZ=ATTOSTEIAANTE
TAZATTOXPHSAI
ANTTPOEXPHE
EIAEKAIEN
AHMOYOTT
XHEAY

ἐπειδὴ ὁ δεῖνα τὴν πόλιν TOV
a / > Lal ὃ -
. εὖ π]ράσσων καὶ εὐεργετῶν διατελεῖ
. καὶ] σπούδην ποιεῖται afer... . ..
. at τὸν δῆμον συνοικισθῆϊναι .... .
.. . τ]ῶν πολιτῶν Kal KaTapeivas. ... .
> / 7 / rf
5... . ἐφρ]όντισεν ἵνα προμετρήθῃ σῖτος.
. τοῦ βασιλέως αὐτῷ γράμματ[α. ..
. ἐμοῦ ἀσθενῶς διακειμένου καὶ κο ..
\ a
. TOUS περιεσχηκότας αὐτὸν EV τῷ. ..
Ν
. . . QVTOS πορίσαι τὸ ἐφόδιον τὸ. .....
A \
τοῖς ἀποστ]ελλομένοις πρὸς τὸν βασι[λέα.
τ \
. . οὗ ἐπρέσβευον πρὸς αὐτὸν. ... . . -
> U
Pha Si ELATOTTELAAVTE|S ono 2m oo ns
sed 5 teats ἢ TAS, AMO PHT. basic - ...

Ad

258

An honorary decree setting forth the services of some indivi-
dual in superintending the corn supply, providing ambassadors’

INSCRIPTIONS FROM COS, Etc.

δ Wie oe av mpos ypno[w.......
>] \ Se |3:
Jae OSs Sash TEM εὐ Oe imal em 1. Πὰς ΠΥ Oa

expenses, ὅσα,

14. Peculiarly confusing and difficult to read.

are visible ; but owing to curious wear in cross lines, very few
consecutive letters can anywhere be made out with certainty.
The whole could only be guessed at, so that remains might fit
in, Some even of letters given below may be wrong. (10 in, x

12} in.; height of letters, { in.)

σι

10

ΕΚΙ

AAEZANAPON ..,0..... AAO
TONTTEPIOAONEIKOYMONA’'PXES
TOY ESTOA ΤΟΝΝ...
ΤΟΝΤΟΑΥΤΟΕΙ NE@NO...
TEOINONOEZEONKAIA...

: ey ag » APMED S22. ΝΠ tot ante
SANTOZTOYOE ..... AYO ss AME
EY ® \5)¢c MNIOY bs. HME SRN

NAH. O.HZAKTOTTAPAX PHM
ΙΑ Υ Η
ΙΟΣΕ
᾿Αλέξανδρον ..... ΐ

τὸν περιοδονείκου 1...
5. τὸν τὸ αὐτὸ ἔτος...
τε οἶνον Θ[ ]σ[ι7ον καὶ.
χρήἸ]σαντος τοῦ θε[οὔ] .. αὐτο...
Εὐφ[ροσ]ύνου......
10. ... ποιπαραχ ρη ΟΣ ΟΝΣ

INSCRIPTIONS FROM COS, Ere. 259

An honorary decree in honour of some athlete, who had
gained the whole ‘ period’ of victories,

15. An elegiac epigram. (8 in. x 24 in.; height of letters, }
in. in epigraim, 1 in. in names below.)

EI MHTPOSTHNAEOOAS (FIO
YIEZTAPISTEIACYETHEANAOHNAIAOS
HTTATPOSEZAPAOOYBAASTOYSALPONAISIOOCANTOS
ΓΝΗΣΙΟΝΕΥΛΟΓΙΑΣΑΜΦΕΦΘΕΤΟΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΝ

AYMAN AIOKAHS

ΘΟΑΣ ΛΕΩΝΙΔΑΣ

ΑΝΑΞΑΓΟΡΑΣΑΝΔΡΟΤΕΛΗΣ

εἰκόνα μητρὸς τήνδε Θόας tole θ᾽ ἅμ᾽ ἀδελφοί
υἷες ᾿Αριστείδου στῆσαν ᾿Αθηναΐδος.

ἣ, πατρὸς ἐξ ἀγαθοῦ βλαστοῦσα γοναῖσι Θόαντος
γνήσιον εὐλογίας ἀμφέθετο στέφανον.

Δυμάν Διοκλῆς
Θόας Λεωνίδας
᾿Αναξαγόρας ᾿Ανδροτέλης

With these inscriptions were also sent two sketches of
gladiatorial reliefs Beneath the first is written Ἐὐρέθη εἰς
τὴν Κῶ Πόλιν τοῦ ᾿Ιποκράτους (sic). It represents two gladia-
tors; one of them stands upon a basis on which is inscribed:

ΑΠΈΛΥΘΗ
ἜΞῷ
AOYAOY

He is clad in a close-fitting jerkin, and in his left hand holds a
trident and rudis (?); his right is raised and apparently holds
a round object; between his feet is an object which may be a
net, as he seems to be a retiarius. To the right of his head,
which has long hair, is the name KPITO.* The other man,

1 T assume’ that they are reliefs, mosaics.
but what they are is not expressly Second half of some name like
stated; they may very likely be [Anpd]xpitos.

260 INSCRIPTIONS FROM COS, Etc.

armed with sword, shield, and helmet, charges up a slope
towards the first, from the right. Over his head is inscribed
MAPISKCS.

The second relief, recorded to have been found in the same
place as the first, represents one man, armed with sword, shield,
and helmet. The name APOSINOS is written half on each
side of his head.

E. A. GARDNER.

JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES. 261

JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES.

AMoNG the books of the Apocrypha two portions stand out
in strong relief as bearing the marks of genius. One is the
Book of Wisdom, with its sustained moral fervour and luxuriant
yet devout fancy; the other, the noble tragedy of the Book of
Judith, The latter work has the further interest of presenting
a curious literary problem. Is ‘Judith’ in any sense history,
or even based on history, or is it mere romance? Certainly
the writer takes great liberties with facts. Time and _ place
have to yield to the requirements of the narrative. Famous
names are mingled together in extraordinary combinations.
Nebuchadnezzar reigns over the Assyrians at Nineveh ; and he
reigns soon after the Jewish return from Captivity, An
Arphaxad rules at Ecbatane as king of the Medes. An
unknown high priest Joachim is supreme at Jerusalem. The
book opens moreover with a catalogue of nations brought under
this Nebuchadnezzar’s sway; and the list teems with contra-
dictions of history and even of probability.

I.

Learned opinion since the time of Grotius’ has been almost
unanimous in pronouncing the book to be an historical romance,
of the time of the Maccabees or later, wherein the writer sets
forth in parable the hopes and fears of his nation, and stirs up
his countrymen to heroic resistance to the oppressor. Opinion
has been more divided concerning the precise date of its compo-
sition. Dr. Westcott would assign it to the reign of Antiochus

1 Prolegomena in lib. Judith ; simi- Uncanonical and Apoeryplal Scrip
larly Mr, Churton, in his recent (ures.

203 JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES.

Epiphanes.* Volkmar saw in it an allusion to Trajan’s Parthian
wars.? Ewald’s masterly acquaintance with later Jewish history
led him to fix upon one particular crisis as suggesting the com-
position of the book. That moment came when Demetrius II.
surnamed Nicator (king B.c. 146-188, and 128-125), after
first invading and conquering Parthia, had then himself been
taken prisoner, and finally after ten years’ captivity, had re-
established himself upon the Syrian throne. In vain did the
Parthian king endeavour to crush him. His hopes grew with
his successes. He meditated the invasion of Egypt. He was
bent upon recovering for Syria all that he and his predecessors
had lost. To the medley of cities and populations which made
up the Syrian Empire this reappearance of Demetrius must
have brought the extremes of hope and fear. It unsettled
everything for years to come. What if his wild schemes of
conquest should be successful, and carry change and revolution
far and wide? To the Jews and their Elders under John the
high priest, it must have been a time of great alarm They
had almost forgotten the horrors of the reign of Epiphanes ;
they had recovered from their resistance to Demetrius Soter.
The fierce heroism which had preserved them in those awful
days had left a reaction behind it. Their energies had become
relaxed ; and years of unbroken peace left them unprepared for
the danger that seemed now to threaten. The book of Judith
(so Ewald suggests) concentrates the fears and dangers of this
crisis into the form of an historical romance. The narrative is
prophetic, symbolical; an allegory of the Jewish people, and of
the possibilities of Jewish patriotism, if in the hour of uttermost
calamity it were true to the national faith, true to the Mosaic
covenant. To Israel, if penitent and believing, God’s promise
still was stedfast, that ‘one should chase a thousand, and two
put ten thousand to flight,’ °

The names employed in the story do but slightly veil the
personality of the principal figures. Nebuchadnezzar, the proud
and mighty tyrant, whose throne (in defiance of all historical
facts) is placed at Nineveh after the Jewish Return,—who plans

1 Dictionary of the Bible, 5.0. 3 Geschichte des Volkes Israel, iv.
Judith. p- 618, foll.
2 See Winer’s Aealwirterbuch, 8.0. 4 Ewald, Geschichte, iv. p. 451.

Deuteronomy xxxii. 30,

JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES. 263

ambitious schemes of conquest, and is enraged when the vassal
peoples refuse the help he demands for his war against ‘ Arplax-
ad, king of the Medes,—who determines therefore not only to
destroy Arphaxad, but to reduce to submission all the countries
round about,—he is Demetrius Nicator, as he appeared to the
excited imagination of a Hebrew patriot. By the Biblical term
‘Medes’ the writer signified the Parthians; while the similar
sounding name Arphaxad is borrowed from Genesis! to indicate
the dynasty of the Arsacidea. The name of Joachim with his
friends at Jerusalem scarcely veils the person of John Maccabeus
and the national council, Slight as the writer’s regard may be
for historical facts, the whole book is true to the spirit of the
time. The entire career of Demetrius, his early victories over
Parthia, his long exile, his final recovery of the throne, are all
gathered up into one point, and he figures as an ambitious,
overbearing tyrant. The danger of the Jewish people in the
presence of his power, and the need of primitive piety and even
more than primitive courage to ward it off, are thrown into
dramatic form in the expedition of Holofernes, the invasion of
Palestine, the heroic design and victorious deliverance of Judith.
And Judith herself is, what her name implies, ‘ the daughter of
Judah, the people of Israel, the spouse of Jehovah. A widow
she is, but beautiful to look upon, and as pious as she is fair;
like Jerusalem, bereaved of her ancient glories, yet still not lost
to hope. Another Deborah, she will arise ‘a mother in Israel,’
to encourage the people of God; like Jael, she will slay the
enemy of God in the tent; another Miriam, she breaks forth
into singing at the discomfiture of the hosts of the aliens.
Such, in brief, is the combination suggested by Ewald.
Perhaps the great German scholar goes too far in attempting
so minutely to fix the date of the book. It may be urged that
Demetrius II, was not so terrible to the Jews as this view of
the case implies. His restored reign lasted four years at most ;
and all the time he was harassed by conspiracies and rebellions.
We do not hear of his taking any action against the Jews. We
might think the sending out of Holofernes bears more resem-
blance to the expedition of Nicanor under Demetrius Soter,’
which was so gloriously defeated by Judas Maccabeus. The

dr 19. 2 1 Maccabees vii.

264 JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES.

recollection of that victory must, one would think, have been
fresh in the memory of the writer of Judith. One name at all
events there is in the book which is not Jewish, and was
unlikely to be known to Jewish ears; but which connects the
authorship with the recollections of the reign of Demetrius L.,—
this is the name of the second figure of the tragedy, Holofernes.
The name is found nowhere outside the dynasty of Cappadocia.
And the most famous prince of the name was a well-known
friend of Demetrius I., the features of whose character, so far as
we know them, agree with the portraiture of Holofernes.

This coincidence has not escaped the attention of Ewald;' the
first readers of the book of Judith (he argues) would inevitably be
struck by the name Holofernes, and would think of the friend
of Demetrius Soter, and thereby would have a clue to the
syinbolical meaning of the whole story.

Before I had come across Ewald’s remarks, or indeed had read
any criticism of the book of Judith, I had been led to a similar
conviction concerning its origin; but I reached the same goal
with Ewald by a very different route, It is to my own
starting point that I ask leave now to transport the
reader,

Il,

Upon a certain spring morning, about Easter 1765, three
travellers might have been seen toiling along the slopes of
Mount Mycalé in Asia Minor, under the guidance of a Greek
peasant at whose house they had slept the night before in the
Turkish village of Kelebesh. After an hour's climb they reach
the citadel of the ancient Ionian city of Priené. One of the
party is Richard Chandler, a young Oxford scholar in his twenty-
seventh year, who has been sent into Greece by the Society of
Dilettanti on a mission of archzological discovery. His com-
panions are Revett, the architect—well-known afterwards as the
collaborateur of ‘Athenian’ Stuart in editing the Antiquities
of Athcns,—and M. Pars, a young artist. Chandler’s book of
travels gives a charming narrative of his tour, and from it
we may take his account of this morning’s trip.”

1 Ibid. p. 621, note. and Greece, edited by N. Revett, Esq. ,
2 Chandler’s Travels in Asia Minor vol. i. pp. 199, foll.

JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES. 265

‘Our guide led us first through the village up to the acropolis
or citadel ; the ascent lasting an hour, the track bad, by breaks
in the mountain and small cascades. We then arrived on a
summit of Mycale, large, distinct, and rough, with stunted trees
and deserted cottages, encircled, except toward the plain, by an
ancient wall. This had been repaired, and made tenable in a
later age by additional outworks. A steep, high, naked rock
rises behind; and the area terminates before in a most abrupt
and formidable precipice, from which we looked down with
wonder on the diminutive objects beneath us. The massive
heap of a temple below appeared to the naked eye but as
chippings of marble.” That heap was the ruined temple of
Athené Polias at Priené.

This building is one of the few Greek temples of which the
precise date is fixed by written testimony. One of the marble
blocks which formed the entrance is inscribed with the following
words in large, handsome characters: ‘ Alexander dedicated this
temple to Athené Polias.’! We are left in no doubt as to who
is meant by ‘ Alexander.’ Apart from other indications which
are decisive, there is a story quoted by Strabo from an earlier
historian, that when Alexander the Great visited Ephesus after
his first victory over the Persians at the river Granicus, he
found the Ephesians rebuilding their famous temple, which the
insane ambition of Herostratus had burned down on the night
of Alexander’s birth. It was now nearly complete when
Alexander offered to defray the entire cost of it upon con-
dition that he might inscribe his name upon it as the dedicator.
The Ephesians adroitly veiled their refusal under the flattering
plea that ‘it was not proper for a god to dedicate temples to
the gods.’? The Prienians, more obsequious or perhaps less
wealthy, must have accepted a similar offor from the conqueror,
whose dedication was the first inscription engraved upon the
newly erected walls. This interesting marble may be seen any
day in the Mausoleum Room in the British Museum.

1 Bockh’s Corpus Inscriptionwm Grae-
cavum, No, 2904: Βασιλεὺς ᾿Αλέξανδρος
ἀνέθηκε τὸν ναὸν ᾿Αθηναίῃ Πολιάδι. Com-
pare Droysen, Hellenismus, i. 1, p.
202.

2 Strabo, xiv. p. 640: ᾿Αλέξανδρον
δὴ τοῖς Ἐφεσίοις ὑποσχέσθαι τὰ γεγονότα

καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα ἀναλώματα, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ τε
τὴν ἐπιγραφὴν αὐτὸν ἔχειν, τοὺς δὲ μὴ
ἐθελῆσαι. .. ἐπαινεῖ τε (ὁ ᾿Αρτεμίδω-
pos) τὸν εἰπόντα τῶν ᾿Εφεσίων πρὺς τὸν
βασιλέα, ὡς οὐ πρέποι θεῷ θεοῖς ἀναθή-
ματα παρασκευάζειν.

206 JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES.

Chandler proceeds to describe his descent by a winding path
down the precipice to the city: ‘The steps cut in the rock
were narrow, the path frequently not wider than the body, and
so steep as scarcely to allow a footing. The sun shone full
upon us, and was reverberated by the rugged side of the
mountain to which we leaned, avoiding as much as possible the
frightful view of the abyss beneath us, and shrinking from
the brink. The long-continued descent made the whole frame
quiver. It would seem that Chandler was an indifferent
mountaineer; and indeed his biographer bluntly describes him
as ‘round, and considerably below the standard’ in height.
But he was a splendid scholar, whose services to Greek learning
have not yet been sufficiently recognised? Arrived at the
temple-site below, the three travellers proceeded to examine
the ruins; these lay around in picturesque confusion, bare of
any covering of earth, just as they had fallen centuries before,
perhaps shaken down by an earthquake. Chandler made
memoranda, and copied inscriptions; Revett measured and took
notes of the architectural remains ; Pars, the artist, made sketches
of the scene. The results of their labour may be found in
Part i. of the Antiquities ef Ionia, published in 1769, giving
views of the locality, descriptions and plates of the architecture,
and copies of several inscriptions. When we remember that
these ruins contained the tolerably complete remains of a
temple which, though small, was one of the finest specimens
of Ionic architecture in existence, it is almost incredible that
over a century was allowed to pass before any attempt was
made to explore the ruins, and to recover and preserve from
among them the most important relics of art which there lay
hid.

In the winter of 1868 the same Society, which had sent out
Chandler and Revett, at length commissioned Mr. Pullan to go
out and explore the ruins. Excavation there needed none.
The moving of the huge blocks of marble, the packing and
transporting of fragments of statuary, architecture and inscrip-
tions, this was all that was required; and it was done with due

1 Biography by Archdeacon Churton, tions previously edited by Chandler,
prefixed to the Travels. and I have seldom found his copy to

2 It has often fallen to my task to require any alteration, whether in the
verify the readings of Greek inscrip- way of addition or correction.

JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES. 267

skill and care. The marbles were shipped to England, and
now form part of the treasures of the British Museum. The
chief results of Mr. Pullan’s researches are given in Part iy. uf
the Antiquities of Ionia.

I have been assured by Mr. C. T. Newton, who visited Prien
in 1869 and 1870, as a member of the Society of Dilettanti,
that when the site had been cleared by Mr. Pullan, the ruin
was still very beautiful. The more interesting indeed of the
sculptured marbles had been removed, and nearly all the in-
scribed blocks. But their removal had relieved the site of
much that merely encumbered it. The platform was now clear ;
and the marble pavement of the temple, in good preservation,
was free of rubbish. The lower portions of the walls and of
many columns were standing in their original position, and
made it easy for the beholder to reconstruct in fancy the ancient
proportions of the building. On the floor of the pavement
there still remained the lower courses of the pedestal, upon
which had stood the image of Athena herself, a statue of
which the traveller Pausanias (in the second century A.D.)
records his admiration: ‘You would be charmed with the
temple of Athene at Priene in particular, on account of her
statue.’ In front of the pedestal a semicircular groove in the
pavement on either side marked the position of the barrier, or
screen, with its metallic gates, which forbad the approach of
intruding steps. All this, and more, was still there, as Mr.
Pullan’s photographs and plans testify to those who had not
the good fortune to see the ruin in 1870.?

It is sad to think that the intelligent interest shown in
a ruin by Western archaeologists has usually the effect of
hastening its utter destruction. No sooner had the English
explorers bidden farewell to Priené, than the stonemasons of
the nearest Greek village established themselves among the
ruins, and began to work up into doorsteps, or tombstones,
those beautiful marble blocks which had been shaped and
dressed by the Greek workmen of Alexander’s age. The
temple ruins became now a convenient quarry. In particular

1 Pausanias, vil. 5, ὃ 3: ἡσθείης δ᾽ 2 See the interesting account of
ἂν καὶ τῷ ἐν ᾿Ερυθραῖς Ἡρακλείῳ καὶ Prien? and the beautiful views given
Αθηνᾶς τῷ ἐν Πριήνῃ ναῷ, τούτῳ μὲν by Rayet et Thomas, Milet et le Golfe

τοῦ ἀγάλματος ἕνεκα, Ἡρακλείῳ δὲ Latmigue, Paris, 1877-1880.
κιτιλ.

208 JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES.

the large blocks which composed the ancient pedestal of the
goddess were one by one dislodged from their place; and
within a few months only four of them remained in their
ancient position in the centre of the pedestal.

Ona Saturday in April 1870, Mr. A. O. Clarke, an Englishman
residing in the neighbourhood, paid a visit to the ruins. They
were not new to him, as twelve months before he had been there
and had carefully examined the work then progressing under
the guidance of Mr. Newton and Mr. Pullan. At this second
visit he was accompanied by his wife and niece; and upon
entering within the temple ruins, he noticed at once the work
of destruction which had begun upon the pedestal. While he
stood amid its upturned blocks, his eye was caught by a coin
lying at his feet. He at once picked it up, and cleansed it;
and found it to be of silver, and inscribed with the name of
Orophernes. ‘The idea then struck him that the coin had been
turned up from under the marbles of the pedestal; and he
conceived the wish to remove and examine the four blocks
which still remained in situ. Two masons at work among the
ruins were soon employed at the task; their crowbars soon
removed the first stone of the four, and under it was found
a silver coin similar to the one already picked up. A second
stone was dislodged, with a similar result. The removal of the
other two blocks brought no more coins to light; but under
them were found portions of a golden chaplet of olive leaves,
and other objects of value. A search among the rubbish for
more coins was attended with no further success, although two
or three Greeks from Kelebesh, who had come to Priené to see
Mr. Clarke, joined in the task; while some Yuruks from the
hill side, attracted by the good luck of the Franks whom they
saw examining the ruins, all joined in the general search. At
length Mr. Clarke and his party went away, with the three
coins and other objects.”

1M. Rayet says (ibid. vol. ii. p. 2)
that as late as 1874 he proposed
to the authorities of the Louvre to
secure for the French nation various
architectural fragments of great beauty
even then remaining amid the ruins.
His suggestion received no attention,
and most of the marbles he spoke of

are now destroyed.

2 These details we learn from the
letter of Mr. Clarke himself to Gen.
Fox, published by Mr. C. T. Newton in
his paper ‘On an inedited Tetradrachm
of Orophernes II.,’ in the Nwmismatic
Chronicle, New Series, xi. p. 19.

JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES. 269

This happened on the Saturday. The next day being Sunday,
all the inhabitants of Kelebesh, men, women, and children,
sallied forth to Priené, bent on the discovery of treasure. So
sure were they that it was to be found, that two Jews followed
them, armed with a free supply of ready cash to purchase any
bargains that might be turned up. The ruined temple was
thus handed over to a rapacious mob, Pickaxe, lever, crowbar
were brought to work, to upturn, to dislodge, to thrust aside
whatever might be thought to conceal treasures. The search,
so insanely attempted, had no other result than to spoil the
beauty of the ruins; nothing whatever was found. On the
Monday following, however, the Greek masons who had assisted
Mr, Clarke, in looking over the rubbish near the pedestal, found
a further fragment of a gold chaplet, and two more coins like
the cthers, making five in all. <A sixth was subsequently
purchased by Mr. Newton at Priené, but was unfortunately
lost.

One of these coins, which were in excellent preservation, is
now in the British Museum, and is photographed in Mr. Head’s
Coins of the Ancients, Plate 51, No. 23. It is a silver tetra-
drachm (the equivalent of a four-franc piece), and is described
in numismatic terms as follows :—

Obverse—Male head to right, beardless, and bound with
a fillet.

Reverse—BAZTIAEQE OPOMPEPNOY NIKHoPoy (King
Orophernes the victorious). The legend surrounds a figure of
Victory moving to left, and clad in a tunic that reaches her
feet; she holds in her right hand a wreath, in her left a palm
branch. In front of her is an owl standing on an altar, perhaps
in allusion to the goddess Athené.

Who is this Orophernes ?

It is beyond question that the prince who struck these coins
is Orophernes II., King of Cappadocia. He was brought into
singular relations with the city of Priené, and his adventures
made a deep impression upon the political world of his day.
The historian Polybius appears to have related them with much
detail. He was a contemporary of Orophernes, and was living
at Rome when the disputes about the Cappadocian succession
‘were being discussed in the senate, and he was fully acquainted
with the intrigues that were going on respecting it among the

270 JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES.

leading Roman politicians. Unhappily a great part of his
narrative is extant only in extracts and fragments. But I think
it evident that all the statements about Orophernes in Diodorus
Siculus and others, came straight from Polybius, and may
therefore be fully believed.

We are told that Antiochis, the wife of Ariarathes IV., King
of Cappadocia, disappointed at having no heir, imposed upon
her husband two pretended sons, of whom this Orophernes was
one. Some years later, however, she gave birth to a legitimate
heir, who afterwards succeeded his father as Ariarathes V.
Upon the birth of her child, Antiochis confessed to her husband
the true facts of the case, and arranged to exclude the two
other princes from the succession. One of them upon a con-
venient pretext was despatched to Rome, and seems never to
have been heard of afterwards. The other, Orophernes, was
sent into Ionia, where he was brought up amid surroundings of
ease and luxury, which seemed likely to stifle any aspirations
to the Cappadocian throne. Ariarathes V. accordingly suc-
ceeded his father B.c, 162. But at once Orophernes came forth
from retirement as a pretender to the throne; his claim being
supported by the Syrian monarch Demetrius Soter, who had
a personal grudge against Ariarathes for refusing his sister in
marriage.” It is also said that Demetrius accepted large gifts
and larger promises from his protégé. The result was that
Ariarathes was driven from his kingdom, and Orophernes
enthroned in his place, B.c. 158.3 Ariarathes, who is described
as an excellent and cultivated prince, hastened to Rome to lay
his grievances before the senate; and he was followed thither
by envoys from Demetrius Soter, and also from Orophernes.
The latter sent valuable presents to Rome, and endeavoured to
secure interest in every possible way. Polybius was at Rome
at the time, and the account he gives of these transactions is
not creditable to Roman diplomacy. The case of Ariarathes
was a good one; but he stood alone, and perhaps had not, when
coming to Rome, ‘put money in his purse.’ The envoys of
Demetrius lied without scruple. Orophernes made interest by
his gifts. The result was such as might be expected—an

1 Athen. x. 440, expressly citing 2 Justin, xxxv. 1; Appian, Syr. 47.
Polybius as his authority ; Diod. Sic. 3 Diod, Sic. xxxi. 43,
xxxi, 28. 4 Polyb, xxxii. 20,

JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES. 271

unworkable compromise. Ariarathes was restored.) but not
to an undivided rule. Orophernes was to have a share in
the kingdom, the territory of Cappadocia being perhaps divided
between them.? This happened B.c.157. The unnatural scheme
did not last long. From the first there began to be disputes
between the two kings, ending in the final expulsion of
Orophernes amid the execration of his subjects, whom he had
alienated by avaricious extortion to gratify his own indulgence,
and to reward his patrons.

Certainly Polybius, who knew the facts, described the cha-
racter of Orophernes in no pleasing terms. Brought up in
Tonia, an exile and a pretender, he early developed the vices
of an adventurer. In public life he was unscrupulous; as a
ruler, selfish and extortionate; in private, a hard drinker. His
portrait on the coins is finely modelled, and does not conflict
with this view of his character. It is the portrait of a hand-
some, clever, and capable man, young in years, but not in
experience of the world. His chin is unbearded, but his
forehead is lined with care. The fine profile bespeaks a
resolute will and energetic purpose. The nostril is delicately
moulded, and, like the mouth, suggests a nature sensitive to
pleasure though refined in taste ; but the lower lip has a sensual
expression, and there is a certain restlessness and impatience
marked upon the whole face, which suits well with his
chequered career.

I reserve to the last the curious episode in the life of
Orophernes, which connects him with Priené. Upon gaining
the crown in 158 B.c., in the true spirit of a pretender, he
deposited 400 talents (about £100,000) with the Prienians, as
something to fall back upon if fortune forsook him.” This sum
they deposited doubtless in their temple of Athené; for the
temples of antiquity were often so employed, as the safest
banks of deposit. His selection of Priené for this purpose
may have had something to do with his Ionian experiences.
Priené was quite a small and unimportant place;° but it had

1 Livy, Epit. 47; Polyb. iii. 5. 4 Head, Coins of the Ancients, plate
* Appian, Syr. 47; Polyb. xxxiii. 51, fig. 23.

12: μετέλαβε τῆς ἀρχῆς. 5 Polyb. ΣΧΧΙΪ, 12; Diod. Sic.
ΒΟ. XXX. 15. ὦ; Athen. xX, XXXL. 4,

440 6; Aelian, Var. Hist. ii. 41; Diod. 6 Aeschines, De Falsa Leg. p. 286.

Sic. xxxi. 43.
Hs.—VOL. VI. T

272 JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES.

contrived to maintain a creditable position for independence
among all the vicissitudes of these troubled times.1 Perhaps
it was considered at this period to be attached to the Syrian
monarchy ; possibly Orophernes had lived there in his exile.
At all events, by becoming guardians of this treasure, the
Prienians drew upon themselves the attention of all Greece.
For Ariarathes V. no sooner regained possession of his kingdom
than he demanded the money for himself. Orophernes, he
contended, had placed it there in his capacity as king; and
therefore the money should be restored to the royal exchequer.
The contemporary world argued the question pro and con, as
a point of casuistry. The Prienians declined to restore the
deposit to any one, except to Orophernes, while he lived.
Polybius frankly says, they did quite right. Upon their refusal,
Ariarathes invaded the Prienian territory, with the assistance of
the King of Pergamon, pillaging and slaying all they could find.
up to the very walls of Priené. Despairing of deliverance,
yet firm in their refusal, the Prienians appealed to Rhodes, and
then to the Roman senate.? Of the subsequent details of the
controversy we are not fully informed. We should know more,
if an inscription now in the British Museum,’ which was
engraved upon the walls of the Prienian temple, were still
complete. In its fragmentary state we can but decipher the
names of ‘Orophernes,’ ‘ King Attalus and King Ariarathes ;’
we read of certain treasures deposited ‘by Orophernes in the
temple of Athené,’ of ‘the siege of the city, ‘the carrying off
of cattle and slaves, and of an appeal to ‘the senate.’ Polybius
merely affirms that the Prienians held fast to their deposit, and
finally surrendered it to Orophernes himself.

We need not pursue further his adventures. We are told
that when it suited him he afterwards joined in the coalition
which crushed Demetrius, thus ‘ biting the hand. that had fed
him.’ His end is unrecorded. It is clear that the coins found
by Mr. Clarke must have been struck by Orophernes when first
he became King of Cappadocia, B.c, 158. It is observed that

1. Reference may be made toan article 3 Tt will appear as No. eccexxiv. of
on this subject in the Journal of Hel- the Greek Inscriptions in the British
lenie Studies, iv. p. 237. Musewm, of which Part 3 is now in the

* Polyb. xxxiii. 12; Diod. Sic. xxxi. press.

43.

JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES. ' 273

they bear no resemblance to the other coinage of the Cappa-
docian dynasty, but correspond to the style and the standard of
the Ionian coinage of the period It is suggested that, having
been educated in Ionia, he preferred the more refined style of
Tonian art,and may have employed the mint of Priené to strike
these very coins: this would account for the owl on the
reverse. The shortness of his reign partly accounts for the
circumstance that no other of his coins have ever yet been
found. What few pieces he did circulate, would of course be
suppressed by Ariarathes, upon his recovering the sole autho-
rity. It is not necessary to suppose that the six coins dis-
covered under the stones of the pedestal, were part of the
deposit of 400 talents. It is a far more probable conjecture
that Orophernes, after receiving back his deposit, dedicated the
pedestal and the statue upon it to Athené Polias, by way of
recompense to the Prienians for the losses they had sustained
in guarding the treasure. Accordingly, in erecting the pedestal,
he had certain of his coins placed between the marble courses.”

In editing the inscriptions brought by Mr. Pullan from
Priené, it fell to my task to study closely the history of
Orophernes; and it was impossible not to ask myself, ‘ Has
this adventurous prince anything to do with the Holofernes
of Judith?’ The closer I scanned the situation of contemporary
politics, and realised the attitude of the Jews towards the
movements going on in Syria, the clearer it seemed that the
Cappadocian prince whom Demetrius Soter had made his tool,
might easily have been known by name to the Jews as the
friend of their great enemy; and the conviction thus became
irresistible that the author of Judith could hardly have learned
the alien name Holofernes through any other channel than
this, and therefore that the date of the book cannot be earlier,
and is probably not much later, than B.c. 150.

Thus we arrive at much the same result as Ewald, though by
a very different path. The latest results of Greek archaeology
curiously illustrate, and so far confirm, the views of the great
literary critic. There may be many who will be glad to be

1 See the remarks of Mr. Newton, in Museum; see Mr. Newton’s remarks

the Memoir above cited. in the Numismatic Chronicle just cited ;
2 Fragments of the colossal statue also in Part iv. of Antiquities of Ionia,

are now preserved in the British — p, 25.
, >)

274

JUDITH AND HOLOFERNES.

introduced to the historical personality, and even to the actual
features of the contemporary prince, whose name and fame
lent themselves to the service of the author of the book of

Judith.

1 The name is properly Orophernes
(‘Opopépyns), being so written on the
coins and in the inscription from Prieneé,
as well as in Polybius, Aelian, and
Athenaeus. Diodorus Siculus appears
to fluctuate between ᾿Οροφέρνης and

᾿Ολοφέρνης. Probably the Aramaic
originalcof Judith spelt the name with
1 for r. The aspirate may be regarded
as a mere corruption, arising from a
recollection of compounds in dAo-,

ΜΕ ΚΕ.

SOME ARCHAIC GORGONS. 27!

ut

SOME ARCHAIC GORGONS IN THE BRITISH
MUSEUM.

[Pus. LIX. anp D.]

AmoncsT the numerous Gorgon heads, dispersed through
the different rooms of the British Museum, and unknown to
me when I wrote my essay on the history of this type,! there
are several which deserve to be published and thus made
known more generally to archaeologists than they could be by
exhibition even in a Museum so justly celebrated and so well
arranged. It is not the object, however, of this paper to give
a supplement to the cumbrous catalogue I have published, as
the interest in many an instance would be but small, and to
most readers of this Jowrnal none whatever; but I will try to
give so much of the results of my researches as may exhibit
the value of those monuments to which I wish to draw attention
as these in some cases fill up a gap, and in others raise points
of interest and even sometimes seem to confirm some of my
suggestions.

Generally speaking the evidence drawn from the classic
authors as to the types of Gorgon they were in the habit of
seeing is confirmed by the monuments, but on the whole these
are more fitted to explain the authors than the authors to
explain them. For instance, the scheme of the Gorgon head
on a small gis woven in the swaddling clothes of the infant
Ion, as described by Euripides,’ would hardly be as clear to us

1 J. Six, Speeimen literarium in- 2 Jon, v. 1421 :—
augurale de Gorgone. Amstelodami, Γοργὼν μὲν ἐν μέσοισιν ἠτρίοις πέπλων"
1885. v. 1423 :—

κεκρασπέδωταί τ᾽ ὄφεσιν αἰγίδος τρόπον

276 SOME ARCHAIC GORGONS

as it is, but that we find the device coming into use about
the same time on a small gold coin of Syracuse,! and perhaps
on the shield of the Parthenos herself, where it seems to
have taken in 399-8, B.c. the place of the golden gorgoneion
stolen some years before ,

Of course we must be careful to explain Pindar and Aeschy-
lus from the monuments which date from their age, and not,
as Levezow, ¢.g.,in his otherwise valuable paper on this subject 3
has done, compare with a passage such as that of Pindar in the
Xth Pythian ode, v. 16, a type which only arose at least a
hundred years later. Nevertheless, we may sometimes gain
valuable knowledge from a comparison between author and
monuments, It has been shown for instance by Prof, Loeschcke
that the pseudo-Hesiodic description of the shield of Heracles
corresponds to the art of the end of the seventh century; and
if in regard to the myth of Perseus und the Gorgon the cylir
published in this Journal* by Mr. Cecil Smith is in some
respects the best illustration of the pseudo-Hesiodic text, though
it can hardly be assigned to so early a date, this may be owing
to our lack of material rather than to any other cause, as we
have sufficient points of comparison in other respects in a
work of earlier date.’

But the most interesting statements for the history of our
subject may be derived from pseudo-Hesiod and Homer, who
both seem to point to Cyprus as the place whence the Greeks
learned the Gorgon. I cannot here repeat the argument at
length, but it will perhaps suffice to observe that the first
mention Homer makes of this monster is in describing the
shield of Agamemnon,’ evidently a piece of Cyprian work-
manship, and that in the lengthy description of the Shield
of Heracles,’ as in later mythographies, the bag destined to
hold the head of Medusa is called by a foreign word, cibisis,
which, as Hesychius informs us, was Cyprian. Nor is this
supposition in contradiction with Hesiod, whose genealogy points
to the south of Asia Minor, and whose mention of the birth of

* Num. Chron, N.S, xiv. pl. iii. 10. 5 A black-figured /ebes in the Louvre.
- De Gorgone, p. 62, iv. 3b. Catalogue Campana, ii. 25; de Gor
5. Levezow, Ueber die Entwickelung gone, ii. 1 ¢.

des Gorgonen-Ideals, Alhand, ἡ. Ber- β 7) RI 90.

liner Acad. 1832. g Wig 216—236;

41884. ply xliii.

IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. Pe

Pegasus and Chrysaor' finds its oldest illustration on a Cyprian
sarcophagus.”

The monuments at least do not gainsay these statements, as
the earlier fictile works of Greece, the Mycenzan pottery and
the Dipylon vases, and even the geometrical vases bear no
Gorgon, and the oldest representations which have come to
my knowledge, though not found in Cyprus—whence I know
none older than the middle of the sixth century—came from
the islands on the way from Cyprus to the Peloponnesus and
from the Peloponnesus itself, from Rhodes (?),? Melos* and
Sparta.®

And this might have been expected, since the Cyprians, being,
as we know from their dialect, Arcadians, the intercourse with
the Peloponnesus must have been in early times more frequent
than with other regions; nor can we wonder at finding that
among Greek towns an Arcadian town alone, Tegea, preserved
a myth connected with the story of Perseus and Medusa, though
independent of the regular and rather sober myth.

That in Cyprus also a version differing from the received
one was known is shown by the sarcophagus already mentioned
—though we cannot ascertain its details. We may safely assume
that wherever the flood of material is most copious we are
nearest to the source, and it is for this reason that I am happy
to introduce to archaeologists, in plate LIX. another specimen of
high antiquity found in Rhodes which presents an entirely new
form of the myth, though the head of the Gorgon does not
ditfer widely from known types. My attention was kindly
directed to it by Prof. Loeschcke. As the present paper owes
its origin to the wish of having this interesting type published,
we shall have to consider it somewhat more closely than others,
and if we do not, as I fear, succeed entirely in explaining its
meaning, we can at least ascertain its place in the series of
earliest types.

We will not therefore treat of the Melian and Spartan
Gorgons already mentioned as they both represent, as a glance
at engravings of them will show better than words, different

1 Theog. v. 281. 4 Conze, Melische Thonacfasse pl. iii.
* Revue Archéologique, 1875, pl. ii. 5 Milchhoefer, Arch. Zeitung, 1881,
Cesnola-Stern, Cypern, pl. xviii. pl. xvii. 1.

3 De Gorgone, 111. 1 a, p. 8.

278 SOME ARCHAIC GORGONS

types which though very interesting in themselves, are not so
widely spread as the one we have to deal with. The standard
example of this class is a Jarge bronze, which I saw two years
ago in the store-house of the Louvre. It is the foot, it appears,
of a tripod in the shape of a Gorgon kneeling on both knees
and supporting on the crown which decks her head a lion’s
paw. She wears a long and close-fitting garment which helps
not a little to impart an air of high antiquity to the figure.
She has no wings. The head is as broad as it is high owing
to the large jaws which inclose the widely opened mouth,
armed with many teeth, which do not however as yet protrude.
The tongue, which is hardly ever wanting, seems to be worn
away. The nose is short and the top divided in three nearly
equal circular parts. The large and widely opened eyes were
set with precious stones or filled with paint. The forehead is
surrounded by short curls, but the rest of the hair falls down
in long tresses. On those curls rests the crown. This large
bronze was found in the Archipelago, or perhaps in Rhodes.

On our plate we find most in accordance with this description
the shape of the head, the inorganic ornamental shape of the
nose and the crown which decks the head, here however under-
neath the lair, which does not fall down in tresses but in loose
locks, as on the coins of Populonia, and already surrounds the
head as a sort of beard or mane. The tongue is thrust out but
small. ΤῸ ἃ row of small teeth are added at each side a single
boar’s tusk. The chin is ornamented in the same way as the
nose. The ears are very large. This Gorgon belongs to the
small class which wear a long chiton, and moreover has four
curved wings, a combination somewhat better known to later
times but always rare. Her garment, open at the left side,
leaves bare the left leg, which, by the by, has a right foot, and
falling down in front over a broad girdle, seems to be nothing
else but a Doric chiton. The Gorgon holds with each hand by
the neck a swan, the feet of which rest on her Jeg or dress.
This scheme fills up the whole of the plate, leaving only here
and there room for small ornaments which even cover the bare
arms and leg of the Gorgon and the wings of the swans. These,
and still more the design of the border, are the last remnants
of the wickerwork patterns which had so large a share in the
ornamentation of the older Rhodian plates and dishes, and

IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 279

suggested those rays issuing from the centre and filling up half
the circular field, which give so peculiar a character to Rhodian
ware. There is another indication, as Mr. Cecil Smith observed
to me, confirming the view that this plate is one of the latest
of its type, namely, the use of engraved lines and outlines in
the figures of the swans and in the folds of the chiton and the
ornaments of the girdle, which though very rude seem to be
the first attempts towards those beautiful engravings which we
admire in the black figured vases of the best Attic style, The
painting is of a bright reddish colour and the material the usual
yellow earthenware formed by the potter’s wheel, as may be
detected on examining the plate. In the ridge running around
the bottom of the plate are, as usual, two holes which appear
to have been made before baking. I should not however like
to conclude thence that these plates were made solely to adorn
a tomb, as the ancient Rhodians may as well have used their
plates and dishes for the adornment of their abodes as other
peoples in more recent times, and as we know the Greeks to
have done with their drinking cups.

But coming back to our theme we still have to find out the
meaning of this Gorgonic figure holding in each hand a swan,
and as there is no myth of the Gorgon which mentions anything
of the kind, we have either to seek another name for this
goddess, or to accept a not altogether impossible interpretation.
I have in a similar case, the Gorgonic figure holding two lions
by the throat on a fragment of a bronze chariot found at
Perugia, tried the first method, venturing, not however without
many doubts, to explain it as Kyjp,’ but though I still hold that
other daemons besides the Gorgon must have had the same
aspect, and that some barbaric peoples may have venerated more
deities of the kind than the Greeks adopted from them, I
do not see that this could help us much in explaining the
present type.

On the contrary all the ancient poets and mythographers
tell us that the Gorgons dwelt near the ocean, whether on a
mythical island or on the shore, either on this side, or across in
the land of utter darkness. And just as I think it is now
generally assumed that the deer and the beasts of prey in the
hands of the so-called Persian Artemis have hardly any other

1 De Gorgone, p. 82.

280) SOME ARCHAIC GORGONS

meaning save to symbolize her dwelling in the mountains, so it
seems this Gorgon is localised by the swans as living on the
banks of the ocean. Jt would hardly be worth while to cite
any authority for so well-known a fact,as that these banks were
thought of as frequented by swans, were it not that the following
lines from the Shield of Heracles (v. 314)

ἀμφὶ δ᾽ ἴτυν ῥέεν Oxeavos πλήθοντι ἐοικώς *

lal \ -" , ANS t , ‘
πᾶν δὲ συνεῖχε σάκος πολυδαίδαλον : οἱ δὲ KAT αὐτὸν
κύκνοι ἀερσιπόται μεγάλ᾽ ἤπυον, οἵ ρά τε πολλοὶ

a > ΩΝ, ef \ a / > /
νῆχον ἐπ᾽ ἄκρον ὕδωρ, πὰρ δ᾽ ἰχθύες ἐκλονέοντο.

explained at the same time as emblematic of the ocean those
long rows of swans or other aquatic birds on many ancient vases
and thus taught us how this combination of ideas might be
familiar to the artist’s mind.

It is curious that this Gorgon in so uncommon a scheme
finds its nearest analogy as to her type of head in the not less
rare male Gorgonic figure found at Orvieto,’ which still remains
unexplained, but has a pronounced Asiatic character,

Another example of this same type of head is presented by
a small aryballos in the first vase-room (case 58) of the British
Museum, made in the shape of a Gorgon’s head and neck:
this type, though not of so great antiquity as I had supposed
before seeing it, is nevertheless interesting from its close
similarity to another example now at Vienna.2 The Viennese
specimen was found at Kilo near Budrun, that of the British
Museum at Vulci in Italy; facts worthy of note considering the
rarity and early date of these vases.

On the whole this type of Gorgon has been most widely
spread on archaic vases, Corinthian, Cyrenaic (?) and Attic, with
black figures, which as a rule present the same type with slight
variation, which gradually deteriorates till it hardly bears any
resemblance whatever to a human head.

I will not repeat here the history of this whole class, but I
must point out a few Corinthian specimens new to me. In my
previous work when pointing out the foreign origin of the
Gorgon and its absence from earlier Greek art, I added to the

᾿ Archdologisehe Zeitung, 1877, taf. ° De Gorgone, t. i. iii, 1 Db.
χὰ ἃ.

ih

iy

‘iy

Der ‘ih

‘NN i

fi

qn

mi

wl

IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

. ».-β il
" will

zi ἢ

παρ Z Γι τὰ
® gi 04 4 Γ᾿ he

val i

HALF SCALE.

ALABASTOS FROM CAMIROS:

281

283 SOME ARCHAIC GORGONS

above-mentioned vases the Corinthian pottery of so-called
Asiatic type. Now, however, the British Museum yields some
interesting examples of this class. The first vase-room
(case B) contains two large dishes, Nos. 15 and 16, bearing in
the middle a large Gorgoneion of the usual Corinthian type?
surrounded by wild beasts and sphinxes, or sirens, intermixed
with flowers. The ornamentation of the outside is the same
in both, but in No. 16 already mixed up with human figures.
The same room has in case 57 an alabastos found at Camiros
of the same style, decorated on a field of flowers with a
swan and in front of it a flying Gorgon, who, though the
peculiar shape of her head may be due to the shape of the vase,
and all attempts to bring it to a certain class may therefore be
useless, still remains of real interest owing to its look of high
antiquity resulting from the very antique mode of painting
and decorating. It is figured on the preceding page.

It is not perhaps unnecessary to be very cautious in our
judgments, as we may see from another example. A small
vase in the shape of a foot (second vase-room, case 2), has on a
square handle a Gorgon head nearly identical with that of a large
crater? in the Louvre which looks ancient enough. Yet this
foot, though I cannot fix exactly its date, is of too good work-
manship and finish to be as early as the Corinthian vases are
generally thought to be. But might not some Corinthian vases
of careless workmanship, just as the last Attic vases with black
figures,® come down a long way into the fifth century? There
really seems to be some ground for supposing that the progress
in art of the workmen in other regions of Greece did not move
abreast with that at Athens.

Before dismissing the vases we ought to mention the
Oenochoe of Amasis,* in the second vase-room, case 22, with
representation of the death of Medusa. As Prof. Loeschcke 5
has assigned it its place in the history of Perseus-types, we have
here only to treat of the Gorgon, who constitutes a link between
the older type with a short chiton only, in its latest example
girded by two large snakes, and the subsequent type clothed

1 De Gorgone, iii. 3 Ὁ. 3 I am not speaking now of the
2 De Gorgone, p. 9, t. i. iii. 2b; Caf. Panathenaic Amphorae.
Campana, iv. 84. : 4 Klein, Meistersignaturen, 4.

5. Archdologische Zeitung, 1881, p. 31.

IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 283

with an animal’s hide, and whose type of head is midway
between that usual on the vases and that other type not less
widely spread on Asiatic and Cyprian coins and Sicilian terra-
eottas, which is best represented by the Medusa of the Selinus
metope. That we should find just here a closer resemblance
to that most widely spread family in a representation of the
same subject, Perseus killing Medusa, might be fortuitous, as
another Gorgoneion from the hand of Amasis, lately pub-
lished,! shows exactly the same type, and at least one of those
we have from Exekias* seems to be very like, but it remains
nevertheless curious that, as Prof. Loeschcke has observed, both
monuments seem to point to a common origin of their subject
by the beardlessness of Perseus, by no means common in those
early times. Amasis has adorned both Gorgon heads with large
snakes, known already from a large lebes* with black figures in
the Louvre, the Francois vase‘ and others, and which from very
early times, though never exclusively, surround this head in the
art of Greece proper and the Asiatic colonies, but are nearly
unknown in Sicily. It is difficult to settle this point in re-
spect to the Etruscan Gorgon as long as the Greek or Italian
origin remains doubtful in the case of so many objects found in
Italy.

It is this same consideration which induces me to linger for
a few moments over a pair of bronze greaves found at Ruvo,
bequeathed together with a cuirass and triple-crested helmet
to the British Museum by Sir William Temple (second bronze-
room, case 2). These greaves are decorated at the knee with an
embossed running Gorgon, holding with both hands a snake,
clad in a short chiton and winged shoes indicated by engraved
lines. The head and hair, excepting the crown, and the beard
are of the same type as those on a piece of bronze horse
armour® and a pair of greaves® brought also from Southern
Italy by Maler, and with his collection acquired by the Carlsruhe
Museum. The likeness is enhanced by the use of ivory for the
tongue and teeth, the fact that in both the eyes were originally

1 Archdologische Zeitung, 1884, taf. 4 Mon. dell’ Inst. iv. t. 54—58.
li. B. 5 Die Grossherz. Badische A lterthiimer
2 Mon. dell’ Inst. ii. 1858, t. xxii. Sammlung zu Karlsruhe, iii. taf. 18 ;

8. De Gorgone, p. 8, t. i. iii. 1c; de Gorgone, p. 21, t. 11. iii. 6 ἃ,

Cat. Campana, ii. 25. δ De Gorgone, p. 21, t. ii. ili. 6 6.

284 SOME ARCHAIC GORGONS

set with gems or filled in with paint, by the same combination
of embossed work with engraved lines, and the erect entwined
snakes along the sides of the greaves. As many of these pecu-
liarities together with a general likeness are found also on some
armour from the Crimea,! with a Gorgoneion at the elbow, no
doubt remains but that the source whence these arms originate
was situated somewhere in Greece proper; and as the Gorgoneia,
specially the larger ones, show a great likeness to the coins of
the latter half of the sixth century attributed either to Athens
or to Eretria, it seems probable that this armour dates from the
same time and the same region, where if we seek for a renowned
factory of armour we shall find Chalcis in the highest repute,
end Kuboea in the most favourable condition to spread its
wares to east and west. Whether the greave copied by Weiss?
from Rochstuhl, Musée de raves et anciennes armes, is of the same
fabric I am not able to decide. It looks somewhat later. The
greaves worn by Menelaus on a vase of Hieron, painted by
Macron,’ seem to be of the same type though later.

It would be hardly less interesting to know whence comes
the handle of a large flat and circular or oval object from the
Payne-Knight collection. (Pl. D.) Ifitis, as I suppose, Etruscan,
we must of course despair of explaining its meaning. Yet it seems
worth describing. The real handle, on each side of which is a

o

Triton, bears in relief two Gorgons bending forward in conse-
quence of the shape of the handle, and sustaining each other
by the elbow with outstretched hand. The knees are slightly
bent, and the wings folded, which gives a very peculiar look to
this strange composition. The heads are, of course, seen de face,
but not upright. They belong to the same type as those already
mentioned, but are much later. The figures are clad in a short
folded garment, and wear shoes with large wings. The space
between the heads is decorated by a rosette. I dare not even
guess what the meaning of all this may be, and should not
like to follow those who find a family connection between Iris
and Medusa, and might perhaps explain this as a symbolic
picture of the rainbow resting on the waters. It will be best
to accept it for the moment as merely decorative.

Etruria, I suppose, afforded another curious object, a carne-

1 Antiquités du Bospore Cimmérien, * Kostiimkunde, ii. fig. 280.
pl. xxviii. 7. 3 (lazelle Archéoloyique, 1880, t. 7, 8.

IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 285

lian, cut more or less in the shape of a scarab, completely
covered by four outstretched wings, on which is a Gorgon head
and neck of good work (No. 1),! which finds its nearest analogues
in real Etruscan examples, and may be best dated by comparison
of a terra-cotta acroterion from Mont’ Alcino, now at Leyden,”
which is evidently older, and a golden fragment of a four-winged
head,* or an engraving on a mirror * both of later Etruscan art.
But the shape of the mouth comes nearest to that on a small
silver coin from Asia Minor, which on one side has a Gorgon
head surrounded by four wings also, though not disposed in
the same way, and on the reverse a four-winged Harpy to right
in an incuse square, which coin may, I think, be attributed to
Cilicia, perhaps to Mallus.®

ErruscaANn GEMS IN THE BririsH Museum.

The stone therefore would seem to point to a closer
connection than I dared accept before, between the four-
winged Asiatic Gorgon and the later Etruscan head with
beautiful features;7 on it the wings are disposed much in
the same way as those of the Seraphim of Christian art. The
second gem engraved, also from the British Museum, occupies a
place in the same line of descent.

It is a real pity that we know no older representations of
the Seraph than those of Christian times, as there would be
many points of comparison between Gorgon and Seraph in

1 The woodeut is not altogether li. 5

successful, and represents the general 4 Gerhard, Etruskische Spiegel, cxxi.
scheme of the gem better than details, 5 Von Prokesch-Osten, Jnedita, 1854,
such as chin and mouth. Ἐς νοῆι

* Janssen, Terracotten te Leyden, ii. 6 De Gorgone, p. 31, adn. 1.
7; de Gorgone, tab. 11. iii. 8 a. 7 Gerhard, truskische Spiegel,

3 Micali, Storia d. ant. Pop. tay. ccvexxvii.

286 SOME ARCHAIC GORGONS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

name, in symbols and in apotropaic use, even perhaps in origin ;
but however interesting this question might be, the time seems
not yet come to treat it with competence and with sufficient
detail.

I need hardly repeat that I do not pretend to exhaust here
the material supplied by the British Museum, but I must
remind the reader that, as the title of this paper shows, I
abstain purposely from mentioning any of the later Gorgoneia
on terra-cuotta, vases, or gems, in which classes of remains the
Museum has still many an object well worthy of being
published.

J. SIX.

September, 1885.

Pi;

SARAPIS STANDING ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE, 287

~\

SARAPIS STANDING
ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE In tue BRITISH MUSEUM.

[Pus. LVIII. anv E.]

AmonG the Xanthian monuments brought over from Lycia
under the direction of Sir Charles Fellows, in 1844, there is a
square block of white marble, the only printed notice of which
to my knowledge is to be found in the old ‘Synopsis of the
contents of the British Museum, Lycian Saloon, no. 173:
‘Monument found in a Roman bath; on one side are Plutus
and Tyche standing, full face ; on the other is a Persian shooting
arrows in a cave, in which are an ox, a stork, a dog, a boar, a
lizard, grasshopper, and fox.’ (Comp. Vaux, Handbook, p. 162.)
As to the locality, my friend George Scharf, Fellows’ companion
in that journey, informs’ me from his diary that the monument
was disinterred on the Roman acropolis, in January 1844, The
building, situated at the foot of a polygonal wall, the chief
ornament of which was a mosaic pavement including a standing
ficure of Leda with the swan beside her, was ‘a house, palace,
or bath.’ I am of opinion that the contents of the reliefs are
not particularly favourable to the supposition of a bath.

The marble which is now placed in the new Lycian Room,
no. 103, merits a greater interest than it seems to have met
with hitherto. Plate LVIII. shows the two faces; the back
view is on a slightly smaller scale than the front. Broken at
the foot, the remainder has a height of 0°74 m. at the front, and
of 0°81 at the back; width of each face 0°79. The sides as well
as the top being but roughly cut, it is evident that the block
was originally let into a wall or some other architectural con-
struction. The style of the relief on the front has some similarity

ἘΠῚ}: ΞΘ ΌΤΙ. υ

288 SARAPIS STANDING

with that of numerous sepulchral monuments originating from
the islands of the Arclipelago and the neighbouring shores of
Asia Minor. Notwithstanding the very flat pediment, the
monument is scarcely anterior to the Roman epoch. No
remains are left of that peculiar Lycian style which we know
from the reliefs of Gidlbaschi, the Nereid monument, the tombs
of Merehi and Paiava, ὅθ. As im the Greek language the
dialects gradually had given way to the «ov, thus also in
sculpture at the beginning of the Roman epoch a kind of κοινὴ
was established, and the former differences between the provinces
of the Hellenized world abolished.

FRONT OF THE MARBLE.

The front exhibits two divinities, full face, enshrined. The
low bases on which the figures rest (of the base of the male
figure only a small part near the left foot is preserved) prove
that they are copies of statues; in the female figure are even
retained the clumsy marble supports which, in the original
statue, joined both hands with the body. Hence we may infer
that the artist mtended to render exactly his originals. These
must have been some statues which enjoyed peculiar venera-
tion; probably they stood in Xanthos or somewhere in the
vicinity.

The explanation of the niale figure as Plutos cannot be right.
The god of wealth is represented by Greek art either as a child,
mostly on the arm of a nurse (Kirene by Kephisodotos, Tyche
by Xenophon), or as a youth}, always characterized by the cor-
nucopiae ; his appearance as a bearded man in full drapery,
with a modius on the head, would be completely unheard of.
There can be little doubt as to Sarapis being meant, although
there is but little evidence of the worship of the Egyptian
divinities in Lycia?; a similar incongruity however between
artistic and written evidence is not rare. Besides, we are more
accustomed to statues of Sarapis enthroned, though representa-
tions of the god standing are not infrequent, particularly on

1 See Gerhard, ahadem. Abhandl. ii. named Isidoros occurs in an inscription,
p. 224. Strube, S/udien wher den also from Sidyma, in Benndorf, Reisen
Bilderkreis von Elcusis, p. 53. in Lykien wand Karien, p. 73, no. 61,

2 Ὅς I. Gr. 4262 (Sidyma). A man 32.

ἑ
;
|
!
|

ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 289

coins. It will be worth while to examine more closely these
representations, after having cast a glance on the images of
Sarapis in general 1,

Original statue of the deus Alexandrinus—It is beyond my
competence to decide the old controversy, whether Sarapis was
worshipped in Egypt as early as in pre-Ptolemaic times, or
whether he was introduced from abroad, perhaps from Babylon 2,
under the dominion of the first Lagidae. According to the
epicritical disquisition of Lumbroso *, Sarapis seems only to be
the Greek name which came into use in early Ptolemaic times
of the old Egyptian god Apis, the representative of infernal
Osiris, whose identification with the Hades or Pluto of the
Greeks * was to bring into harmony, according to the pulitical
tendencies of the Ptolemies, the religious beliefs of the ancient
and the new inhabitants of Egypt. It is unnecessary to
dwell on the extent to which this Egyptian-Hellenic deus
Alexandvinus, united instead of Osiris with Isis, conquered nearly
the whole Greek world, and afterwards a large part of the Roman
empire. The only question we have to deal with, is the artistic
representation of Sarapis as identified with Pluto. On this
point there seem to exist two accounts totally different. The
Stoic Athenodoros from Tarsos, one of the teachers of Octavi-
anus, traced back the image of Sarapis to Sesostris, or Rhamses
the Great, who had it made by an artist named Bryaxis out of
a sevenfold mixture of various metals and of precious stones ;
the whole was painted over with dark colour. Kroker® appears
to me tobe right in observing that these details refer to a statue

1 Comp. Overbeck, griech. Kuwnst-
mythologic, ii. p. 305. Lafaye, hist.
du culte des divinités d’ Alexandric hors
de VEyypte, p. 16 ; 248 ; 265.—I beg to
express my gratitude for several hints
and communications, particularly on
numismatic points, to my friends,
Professor Gardner and Dr. Imnhoof-
Blumer of Winterthur. To Prof.
Gardner I am particularly indebted for
the composition of pl. E.

* Zoega, nwimmit Acgyptii, p. 398.
Plew, de Sarapide, Koenigsberg, 1868.
The testimony of Ptolemaeus Soter
himself in Arrian, vii. 26, 2, proves
only that Sarapis, or a divinity identi-

fied with him by Ptolemaeus, was
worshipped in Babylon.

3 Ricerche alessandrine, in the
Memovrie della R. Accad, di
2. ser, vol: xxvii. p. 189.

4 The oldest witness fur this identili-
cation is Herakleides Pontikos (Plu-
tarch, de Js. ct Osi, 27), a contem-
porary of Alexander the Great and
Ptolemaeus Soter.

* Clemens Alexandr. protr. 4, 48
p. 43 ed. Potter. Comp. the passage
in Rufinus, hist, ecel. ii. 23, relative to
the same statue.

6 Gricchische gleichnamige Kiinstler,
Leipz. 1883, p. 20.

a
Torino,

U 2

290 SARAPIS STANDING

not of Greek but of Egyptian art; and indeed the story main-
tains that Sesostris meant to have his forefather Osiris repre-
sented. I am therefore inclined to believe that the assertion
of Athenodoros, far from deserving to be rejected as absolutely
fabulous, deals with the old Egyptian statue of Osiris as lord
of the infernal region, which had its proper place in the ancient
sanctuary of Apis in the Rhakotis. Only the name of the
artist, Bryaxis, betrays Greek authorship; Athenodoros, however,
was prudent enough to point out expressly that this Bryaxis
was not the Athenian artist but a mere name-sake of him
(οὐχ ὁ ᾿Αθηναῖος, ἄλλος δέ τις ὁμώνυμος ἐκείνῳ τῷ Βρυάξιδι).
Completely different is another report which concerns the
origin of the Greek image of Sarapis in the Rhakotis. This
was said by nearly unanimous tradition to have come from
Sinope}, the difference of opinion referring only to two details.
Some authors claim the honour of having introduced the foreign
statue for Ptolemzeus Soter?, others for his successor Philadelphos®,
Of greater importance is the difference that Plutarch and
Clemens regard the statue as representing originally Plute,
whereas Tacitus assigns to it even in its former home at Sinope
the name and character of Sarapis*. Certainly the former
opinion is more trustworthy. The whole account of the bring-
ing over of the statue from Sinope labours, to be sure, under
certain difficulties ; especially the dearth said to have happened
at Sinope is rather remarkable in a chief city of the Pontos so
fertile in grain®. Hence Lumbroso’s opinion that the Sinope of
the tradition is nothing but a Greek misinterpretation, either
intentional or by mistake, of scn-hapi ‘seat of Apis’®, is very
alluring ; the argument loses however much of its force when
we consider that the question is not as to the origin of the god
himself and his worship, but only about that of his Greek image.

1 The expression Σινωπίτης Ζεύς in laid stress upon by Lumbroso.

Dionys. perieg. 255, is due to the later 5 Comp. Kroker, 1.1,
identification of Sarapis with Zeus. δ Brugsch, geograph. Laschi. i. p. 240,

* Plut. de Js, 28. Tacitus, hist. iv. has interpreted in this way the Σινώπιον
63; 64. dpos near Memphis meutioned by
3 Clem. Alex. prot. p. 42. Accord- Eustathios, ad Dionys. 255. Tlew
ing to Isidoros the statue came from seems to be hypereritical in taking
Seleukeia, apparently in the reign of (ν. 20) that name to be a mere fiction
Ptolemaeus III. Kuergetes, see Clemens of Eustathios, intended to connect
and Tacitus, 1.1. the Sinopian tradition with that of
4 This discrepancy has been justly Memphis.

ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

291

This may, of course, have been made in Alexandria by some
Greek artist, but I see no decisive reason why it should not
have been introduced from abroad. But at any rate it appears
to me inconsistent with sound historical method to mix up
the completely different traditions of Athenodoros with that
relative to Sinope so as to attribute the Greek statue to Bryaxis
who is named only in the former tradition, and to identify tlis
artist, notwithstanding the express warning of Athenodoros,
with the Athenian companion of Skopas!. There is also another
reason to doubt this supposition. The earliest certain repre-
sentation of Sarapis is on coins of the times of Ptolemeus VI.
Philometor, about B.c. 1702; the next instances are on rude
copper coins of Sicily belonging to the Roman epoch ὃ; other-
wise Sarapis scarcely occurs on coins anterior to the beginning
of the Christian era. On these coins the god bears no modius,
but at the top of his laurel wreath appears the small head-
ornament of Osiris ; hair and beard are rich and curly ; the fore-
head projects strongly above the eyes. The head has throughout
the character of those heads of Zeus which nowadays generally
are attributed to the school or artistic influence of Lysippos.
Now, the same character strongly marks the many heads
of Sarapis to be met on statues, busts, coins, engraved stones.
We may therefore conjecture with probability that this head
goes back to a famous image in the main place of the worship
of Sarapis, and that this was precisely the great statue brought
according to the legend to Alexandria by Ptolemy. If this
conclusion be right, the artistic character of the image would
not well suit the companion of Skopas, but point to a some-
what later epoch. For this reason I should not object to the
view of those authorities who assign the introduction of the

1 Brunn, Geseh. d. gricch. Kiinstler, 1,
p. 384, followed by Overbeck, Murray,
Mis. Mitchell, Lafaye, and many
others, contradicted by Klein, achacol. -
epigr, Mittheil. wus Ocesterveich, 1881,
p. 96, note 30, and Kroker, 7.7. p. 20.

2 Brit. Mus. Catal., Ptolenvies, p. 79,
pl. 18, 8. Feuardent, Coll. Giov.
Demetrio, Nuin., Ey. ane. i. pl. 5, 257.
Zeitschr. 7. Numism. iii. pl. 9, 15.
Imhoof-Blumer, Portrdthinfe auf ant.
Miinzen hellen, Volker, pl. 8, 12.—Brit.

Mus. Cat., Seleucid Kings, p. 38, pl. 12,
11. Feuardent, pl. 11, 274.

3 Head, Coinage of Syracuse, p. 75,
pl. 14, 5. Brit. Mus. Cat., Sicily, p.
227, 701, &c. Combe, Mus. Hunter.,
pl. 16, 2; 3; 6. Comp. Brit. Mus.,
Sicily, p. 51, 59; 62; p. 54, 87-90
(Catana) ; p. 98, 8(Menaenum). For
more instances see Wieseler, ber einige
geschn. Steine, ii. 1 (Abh. der Gittinger
Ges, vol. xxxi.), p. 27.

SARAPIS STANDING

292

celebrated statue not to Ptolemzeus Soter but to one of his
successors.

Attributes of Sarapis ; Kerberos——Tacitus mentions but gene-
rally the attributes (insignia) of the statue, from which one
might infer the identity of Sarapis and the infernal king (is
pater). Plutarch more especially names Kerberos and the ser-
pent. A still more detailed account is given by Macrobius!; he
speaks of the calathus on the god’s head ”, and distinguishes the
three heads of Kerberos entwined by a serpent and sitting to
the right of the god. The head in the middle was that of a
great lion, that to the right was the head of a tame fawning
dog, to the left that of a rapacious wolf. (The symbolical inter-
pretation referring them to present future and past may be set
aside.) We are told nowhere distinctly whether the statue
represented the god sitting or standing. However, even apart
from a coin of Hadrian supposed by Zoega to represent the
introduction on ship-board of the Sinopian statue 3, there can be
scarcely a doubt that the chief statue represented the god
enthroned, On the numerous coins exhibiting Sarapis standing,
Kerberos is rather rare*; on the contrary those with Sarapis
enthroned exhibit Kerberos, if not without exception, still
usually associated with the god, and moreover the many marble
statues still extant of Sarapis sitting as a rule place the infernal
dog at his right.

We may even go farther. Notwithstanding the contrary
assertion of Overbeck , the difference of the three heads as
related by Macrobius is still traceable as a peculiarity of the
figure of Kerberos. The Rey. 8.8. Lewis in Cambridge possesses
a statuette of Sarapis, of white marble, formerly in the Demetrio

> Saturn, τὸ 20, 13% 13. 3 Nummi <Acg. p. 188, no. 309,

2 We should not be justified if from
the want of this attribute in the
above-named coins we inferred that it
had no place also in the Alexandrian
statue. The Ptolemies had sufficient
reasons to adorn on their coins the
head of the successor of Osiris with the
well-known attribute of that national
god, instead of covering it with the
foreign-looking head ornament of his
Greek substitute.

note.

4 Sarapis, holding in 1. staff, extends
r. over Cerberus: Zoega, p. 106, 63 ;
146, 380; 381. Pl. 8, 6 (Hadrian) ;
similarly p. 269, 51 (Severus Alex.).
Similar type, except that Sarapis holds
in r. a patera: Brit. Mus. Cuat.,
Thrace, p. 46, 84 (Nicopolis, Caraealla) ;
Mionnet, Suppl. iv. p. 287, 86 (Pheneos,
Plautilla). Comp. the gems in Berlin,
Tolken, lerzeichniss. no. 69; τῇ,

> Kinstinythologic, ii. p. 806,

ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 293

collection, the description of which by the owner himself I have
the greater pleasure in here communicating as I had omitted
the monument in my Ancient Marbles in Great Britain, ‘At
the right hand of the god, Cerberus, wolf, lion, and dog ; the wolf-
head looks sorrowfully downwards, the lion-head looks straight
forward under the control of the master’s hand, pressing his
head; the dog-head at his knee looks up lovingly for orders.’
It is worth mentioning that this statuette comes from Alex-
andria. But generally in statues and_ statuettes the middle
head is of a broader, not seldom of a lion-like type—especially

Curnbervs IN Bronze: Brir, Mes.

so in the statue at Castle Howard1,—whereas the two other
heads are almost always more pointed, more like a greyhound’s
head. Besides, the head nearest to the god is usually uplifted,
or at least directed towards the master*; much rarer is the
direction downwards of the outmost head*. <A similar difference
of direction is visible on coins of Alexandria‘, on terra-cotta
lamps°, in some small bronze statuettes of Kerberos which,
although separated from the god, still by themselves give sutt-
cient proof that they belong to the same type®. In one of them

1 Michaelis, Ane. Marbles in Gr. Br. οἱ IV. pl. 28 (in aedibus Vallarum).
p. 327, no. 12. Journ. Hell. Stud. 3 Lansdowne House, no. 97. Clarac,
1885, p. 85. Also in the Lansdowne — iv. 758, 1851 A.—Brit. Museum, (7.-
statue (Ane. 11. p. 470, no. 97. Clarac, Loin. Sculpt. no. 127. Ane. Marbles,
iv. 758, 1851 A) the middle head, the x, 43, 2. Clarac, iii, 396 Ὁ, 669 A.
snout of which is modern, is much +e Zoccabanl 86s 7 al 6.
broader. 5 S. Bartoli (Beger), antiche lucerne,

* See the instances given in Clarac, ii. pl. 6; 8,

iv. pl. 757. Cavalieri Ant. stat. Ul. 11]. 6 Towe to Dr. Puchstein of Berlin

291 SARAPIS STANDING

(a) the lion’s head looking forward stretches out its tongue ; the
dog’s head projecting from the right shoulder is looking down,
the ears erected; the wolf's head, distinguished by a row of
villous hair beneath the neck, with ears laid back, looks up. A
second specimen (ἢ), very similar, wreathed with snakes in com-
plete harmony with Macrobius, is figured in the text in its actual
size. Two other copies (ὁ 7) show the right head looking out-
wards horizoutally (dog’s head, ears erected), the left one looking
up a little (wolf-like, ears reclining).

Notwithstanding these varieties of detail, it is clear that the
original of all these statuettes exhibited differences in the three
heads similar to those described by Macrobius, and that it is due
only to the carelessness with which most of the marble statuettes
of Sarapis are executed, that in these the said differences have
been either totally or partially lost. This is the more probable
as in the very rare statue of Hades in the Borghese Villa’, the
middle head is lion-like, and the outer head which is alone
visible (the head to the left beimg hidden in the drapery) is
that of a greyhound looking up with ears laid back. This statue,
the only large one of Hades we possess, is of high importance
on account of the relation indicated in the literary tradition of
the type of Hades or Pluto with that of Sarapis enthroned. The
general composition is identical, only the heads are different,
that of Hades showing morose features and a realistic conception
similar to that of the Chiaramonti bust of Poseidon? and charac-
teristic of the Hellenistic epoch, whereas the head of Sarapis,
in accordance with the high position of the god in the belief ot
later generations, bears rather the character of a gloomy Zeus,
a character however sometimes found in Hades himself in his
more ideal representations,

and Prof. Gardner detailed notices as (2) British Museum, Bronze Room.
to the following examples :— I have little doubt that similar figures
(a) Berlin, Antiquarium. H.0.042m. — exist in many cabinets.
Friederichs, Berl. ant. Bildw. ii. no. 1 Nibby, Jon. seclti di Villa Borgh.
2304. §. Bartoli, ἀπέ, lw. ii. pl. 7 pl. 89. Braun, Vorsehule dev Kunst-
(veversed and too distinct in the forms). mythologic, pl. 22. Miiller-Wieseler,
tubbed. Denkindler, ii. 67, 853.
(4) British Museum, Bronze Room. 2 Mus. Chiaramonti, i. pl. 24, Pi-
See woodcut, p. 293, original size. stolesi, Taticano, iv. pl. 57. Braun,

(c) Berlin, Antiquarium. H. 0.054 = Vorsehule, pl. 16. Miiller-Wieseler, ii.
m. Friederichs, ii. No. 2303. Of hetter 6, 67. Overbeck, Atlas zur Kunst-
work, math, pl. 11. 11; 72.

ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 295

Sarapis standing, first type: seeptre and altar.—The represen-
tation of Sarapis enthroned on Alexandrian coins first appears
in the thirteenth year of Nero (A.D. 67—68)1; it is a question
whether any of the extant sculptural copies, the fine bronze
statuette from Paramythia in the British Museum excepted 5, be
more ancient. Not much later occur the first types of a standing
Sarapis. I have no detailed knowledge of a coin of Vespasian
or Titus (A.D. τὸ ζ)8, but its type seems similar to that which
first arises under Domitian, comes into vogue under Trajan, and
has not yet quite disappeared under Hadrian. Sarapis stands
in a temple, extending his right hand over an altar, and holding
a long staff or sceptre in the left (Pl. Εἰ. 1)+ The temple or
edicula seems to indicate a certain statue copied on the coin ἢ,
It is but a slight variation if, instead of the altar, the infernal
dog has his place under the hand of his master (Pl. E. 2) δ, on
the other hand, it is a development of the general idea if the
god in his extended right holds a patera’. This last representa-
tion is not limited to Alexandria, but returns a little later on
coins of several cities®, as well as, slightly modified, on engraved
stones”. After all, this type is very similar to that of Sarapis
enthroned, but that the god has risen from his seat. The altar
occasionally occurs also near the throne, and so does the patera
in the hand, of the sitting god. We may therefore regard this
type as derived from the sitting type, and compare the relation

1 Zocga, p. 27, 61.

2 Spee. of ant. seulpt. 1.
Clarac, iii. 598, 670,

3 Zoega, p. 49, 25.

* Zoega, p. 51, 125. 62, 7b; 73, 90;
78, 133; 88, 144; 107, 78. Comp.
p. 134, 335; 336. The same type on
coins of Perinthos under Caracalla,
Brit, Mus. Cat., Thrace, p. 152, 38.

5 Zoega, p. 78, supposes the Sara-
peion to be meant, which no doubt
contained more statues of the god than
the one chief statue. Comp. Ammianus
“Mare. xxii. 12 Serapewne...spirantibus
signorum figirentis...evornatuin.

6 Zoega, p. 106, 63; 146, 380; 381,
pl. 8, 06. Overbeck, Aunstinyth. ii.
Miin-t, 4, 29 (Hadrian).

τ Zoega, yp. 189, 226 (Auton. Pius):

pl. 63.

the ‘Aiéreus cite pedes’ is no doubt the
Kerberos. On a coin of Hadrian
(Zoega, p. 113, 154) the attributes of
the patera and a fawn (instead of the
seeptre) ave combined.

® With Kerberos in Pheneos (Plau-
tilla, Miounet, swpp?. iv. p. 287, 86),
in Nikopolis (Caracalla and Geta, Br.
Mus. Cat, Thrace, p. 46, 84) ; without
him in Hermokapelia in Mysia (Miounet,
descr. iv. p. 44, 232). Without the
patera in Marcianopolis (Macrinus, By.
Mus. Cat., Thiace, p. 32, 31).

9 Tolken, Jers. gesehn. Steine τὴ
Berlin, p. 20, no. 67, with the addition
of attributes of Zeus, eagle and thunder-
bolt ; no. 70 in Roman warriov’s dress,
with Kerberes near him.

296 SARAPIS STANDING

between representations of Zeus or Asklepios enthroned with
those of the same gods standing.

Sarapis standing, second type: right hand raised and seeptre.—
A second type, a very favourite one, particularly in later times,
leaves the sceptre or long staff in the left, but shows the right arm
raised so as to signify either benediction or a//ocutio, The first
instance of "Hivos Σώραπις thus represented occurs on an
Alexandrian coin of the thirteenth year of Domitian (A.D, 93-94)!,
in which however the god is clad in the mantle only, a dress
rarer but noways unheard of *. In the usual full dress the same
god appears on coins of Hadrian, either alone (Pl. E. 4)%, or within
a temple, opposite the Emperor who extends his right hand
over an altar inscribed AAPIANON (Pl. E. 3)*. In the last
mentioned coin, which belongs to the seventeenth year of the
reign of Hadrian (A.D, 132-133), the action of Sarapis finds its
easiest explanation as a gesture of blessing; one might suppose
the coin to be connected with the revolt in Judea®, In Alex-
andria itself this type of Sarapis, after having ceased for some
time, reappears only under Severus Alexander and some later
emperors", but during the third century it is spread over large
parts of the empire, especially under Caracalla (in the years
A.D, 212-216)‘, and under Gordianus‘’, finally under the last

1 Zoega, p..58, 1:7. Eckhel, D..V.. Vienna 1881, p. 65.; 72, makes, the

iv. p. 31, thinks the raised right to be
characteristic for the combination of
Ἥλιος Sdpams,

* Zoega, p. 45, δῦ (Vespasian); p.
232, 27, pl. 14, 7. Overbeck, Kwrst-
mith. ii. Miinet. 4, 30 (Verus). One
may compare the terra-cotta lamp,
Catal. Durand, no. 1777. In the
British Museum there is, according to
a notice by Prof. Gardner, a small
Zeus-like bronze figure, possibly of
Sarapis, standing, clad in a himation
only, which passes over his left shoulder
and leaves most of the body bare; on
his head is a circular modius bound
with laurel; in the right hand which
hangs down he holds a short staff (part
of thunderbolt 7).

3 Zoega, p. 125, 236 ; 135, 337.

* hoega, p. 134, 335 ; 336. pl. 7, 14.

Dir, Reisca drs Neiscrs Hadrian,

emperor leave Alexandria in the autumn
of 131, and the revolt begin at the end
of that, or the beginning of the next
year. The type of the coin would
have a more pregnant signification if
we could refer it to a visit to Alexandria
of the emperor in 132-3.

§ Zoega, p. 269, 51 (Severus Alex-
ander Z πέμπτου ; the same type with
the date Z ἑβδόμου is in the Imhoof
collection) ; p. 296, 5 (Trebonianns) ;
325, 2 (Domitius Domitianns),

7 Cohen, méd. impér. iii, p. 165;
166 ;169;175;180. Br. I. Cat., Thrace,
pe 1725.11 3.12\\(Serdike) } p.f1205 27
(Hadrianopolis).

8 Brit. Mus. Cat., Thrace, p. 52; 63;
120; 133. Mionnet, seppi. ii. p. 324.
The same type returns under Macrinus,
Elagabalus, Maximinus, Traianus
Decius and Hostilianus, Postumus.

ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 901

zealous restorer of the worship of Sarapis, Julianus!. The type
is especially a favourite in Thrace—as an instance we figure a
coin of Hadrianopolis struck under Gordian IIT. (Pl. E. 5),—but
it extends also over Asia Minor (Ticion in Bithynia, Mvtilene,
Perga, Olba), as far as Damaskos and the Samarian Kaisareia.

BronzE STATUETTE: FLORENCE,

It is also traceable on engraved gems?. The finest instance,
however, is afforded by a good Roman bronze statuette, 0°29 m.
high, of the Florentine Museum 5, which at the same time proves
that this type was not invented for the coins but goes back to
a sculptural original. The statuette is of excellent preservation * ;
1 Cohen, vi. p. 374, 121. 68 (Tolken).
5. Impronte del? Instituto, v. 65 3 R. Gal. di Firenze, scrie iv. vol. i.

(Bullett, 1839, p. 105), with the in- pl, 20. Clarac, iii. 899, 673.
scription εἷς Ζεὺς Spams. Berlin, no. 4 Director Milani of Florence lias

298 SARAPIS STANDING

both arms were broken but are certainly antique, and the move-
ment of the right hand with opened palm and outstretched
fingers serves again to confirm the signification of the action as
that of blessing. The fingers of the left hand are so disposed
as to be able to grasp a sceptre. Although there is no great
invention in the figure—imore especially the arrangement of the
well-disposed himation is rather common—not unlike that of
the youthful Asklepios from Kyrene at Edinburgh !,—still the
walking movement gives a lively effect, which is strengthened
by the shght turn of the head in the direction of the raised
right arm. A modius ornamented with clive branches towers
on. the crown, from which the full hair hangs down, framing the
countenance; the expression of the features is dignified but
gloomy. Very similar in movement, dress, and expression is
the appearance of the god in a votive relief of marble in the
Museum of Turin?, unfortunately unpublished; his position on
a peculiar base, within an wdicula, proves that we may here too
assume a sculptural model. The only variation is that the left
hand, hanging down, does not hold the sceptre, as in the coins,
but a small box. We may compare the ‘basket suspended by
a cord’ which Sarapis bears in his right hand on a coin of
Perinthos, struck under Caracalla 5, as also the pail held by the
god on a Pompeian painting*. No doubt, these vessels must
have had their fixed signification in the worship of Sarapis; the
situla in the hand of the priestesses of Isis is well-known ὃ.
Sarapis standing, third type: left arm raised, right hanging
dvwi.—This type, which is not to be found on coins, recurs in

had the kindness toexamine the bronze i/wlicn, iv. p. 66, no. 102. Height
closely. The arms are not modern, 0°79 m.,

as Overbeck says (Kunstinyth. ii, p. 3 Brit. Mus. Cat., Thrace, p. 1538, 39.
314), but only broken and replaced, 4 Helbig, Wandgemaelde, no. 80.
the style as well as the quality of the See below, p. 306.

bronze and its patina proving its ° Rare varieties show Sarapis holding

antique origin, The left foot too is in his hand either ears of corn (Cohen,
broken a little above the sandal. Two méd. impér. 15, p. 183, 381-383
joints of the ring-finger of the right ([Caracalla]), or a fillet (bronze statuette
hand are broken and missing. The at Stanmore Hill, Ane. Marbles in Gr.
eyes are of silver, the pupils ex-’ Brit. p. 660, no. 4), or a wreath (gems

cavated. in Paris [Chabouillet, cab. des méd. no.
1 Journ. Hell, Stud. 1884, p. 157, 2096] and Vienna [Sacken and Kenner,
no. 1. <Archaeologia Scot. iv. pl. 16. Samim, des Miinz- wu. Ant.-Cab. p. 434,

* Diitschke, ant. Dildwerke in Ober- 285).

ΟΝ A XANTHIAN MARBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 299

BRONZE STATUETTE : DRESDEN.

900 SARAPIS STANDING

some bronze statuettes, far the best of which 15 the larger one
in Dresden (κα). Sarapis, in his usual dress, and with the modius
on the head, raises the left arm so as to leave no doubt about its
having originally grasped a sceptre; im ὁ a small vestige of it
has even been preserved. The arrangement of the himation
corresponds with that movement of the arm. The mght arm
hangs down but, at least in @ ὦ, does not cling to the body, and,
the beautiful head being turned the same way, seems to have
held some attribute. In the better preserved though very poor
copies cdc, however, the right arm hangs close to the body,
without any attribute in the hand. Ine the god is placed on
a globe, a position by which he is characterised as the supreme
lord of the world.

Nurapis standing, fourth type: seeptre in right hand, left hang-
ing down.—A short mention suffices for a group of late coins of
Alexandria in which Sarapis holds the sceptre in the right
instead of the left hand, the left arm being enveloped in the
cloak (Pl. E. 6 of Tranquillina) 5.

Surapis standing, with cornucopiae—A fifth type of Sarapis
standing, much rarer but also much more characteristic, is
that with a cornucopiae. On the coms of Alexandria, clear
instances of a cornucopiae in connection with Sarapis are found

1 [ am indebted to Director Treu of statuette.

Dresden for the following details on
the Dresden and for the
photograph reproduced on p. 299 :—

(a) Dresden. Hettner, Lildw. der
kgl. Antikens., 4 ed., p. 50, no. 127.
Good bronze, purporting to come from
Alexandria; bought in Rome, 1877,
from Martinetti. Eyes, lips, sandals
of silver; further remains of silver
may be hidden under the thick oxy-
dation. H. 0.39 without the base,
0.465 including it. The base is old.
The figure was broken at the feet, and
so was the modius (ornamented with
upright branches); both have been

statuettes

replaced. (See cut.)
(Ὁ) Dresden. Smaller bronze, ἢ.
0.063. Bought 1885 from Dr. Dressel.

The greater part of the arms and the
feet is missing. The proportions are
much more slender than in the larger

(c) Berlin, Antiquarium. Friederichs,
Berlins ant. Bildw. ii. no. 1868, H.
0.07.

(d) Berlin, Antiquarium. Friederichs,
no. 1869; apparently from the same
mould. H. 0.63.

(6) Arolsen. Gaedechens, Antiken zw
Arolsen, p. 38, no. 290. Friederichs-
Wolters, Bausteine, p. 694, no. 1769.
H. 0.065.

* The latter circumstance is expressly
mentioned in the description of the
coins, Zoega, p. 264, 6 (Annia) ; 269,
50 (Sev. Alex.) ; 278, 15 (Maximinus) ;
287, 8, pl. 17, 13 (Tranquillina). No-
thing is said of this detail in the coins
of Gordianus IIJ. no, 50; 59, Philippus,
no. 15; 25a, Otacilia, no. 36; 9d,
Traianus Decius, no. 1, Volusianus,
no. 4, Valerianus, no. 11, and in a
gem at Paris (Chabouillet, no. 2026).

ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 301

only on those coins where the head of the god is surrounded by
the cornucopiae at the same time as with other attributes. Thus
Sarapis appears, in almost identical representation, on coins of
Hadrian}, of Antoninus Pius (PI. E. 8)*, and of Philippus Arabs®,
a true Serapis Pantheus, as he is styled in a Spanish inscription ‘.
On a coin of M. Aurelius the figure of the deity is accompanied
by a serpent-entwined staff (Pl. E. 7). Modius, ram’s horns,
and rays indicate the combination of “Ἥλιος Σάραπις and Ζεὺς
”Aupov; the trident entwined by a dolphin points to Poseidon ;
the cornucopiae in this group of attributes is referred by Zoega®
to the Nile. This conjecture, not unreasonable in itself, is less
likely, inasmuch as the cornucopiae occurs not only on such
pantheistic representations of Sarapis®. It is at least highly
probable that the ‘vir barbatus stans cum modio in capite, s.
cornucopiae, who offers his hand to a female, wearing modius
and holding cornucopiae, with an altar between them, on an
Alexandrian coin of Trajan’, is none but Sarapis, in a group not
unlike that of the Xanthian marble. In this instance, an
identification of Sarapis with Nile would be much more
unlikely; while it is entirely out of the question in the
representations of the god with the cornucopiae on imperial
coins of the neighbouring Thracian cities of Odessos and
Dionysopolis. The series of the former town begins with
Septimius Severus*, and goes on under Caracalla (Pl. θυ ον
Elagabalus (Pl. E. 10), Severus Alexander, and Gordianus ITI. » ;
the same type occurs on the coins of Dionysopolis under Severus
Alexander (Pl. EK. 11)". In all these coins the bearded god,
clad in chiton and himation, with the modius on his head,
stands, his weight resting on the left leg, the right gently bent ;
he turns half round to a hghted altar into the flames of which

1 Imhoof, Monnaies Greeques, pl. J, γ. 161, no. 4, pl. 8, 8.

15, p. 458, 13.

2 Zoega, p. 169, 56 ; 173, 97, pl. 10,
17. The coin, p. 197, 291, varies a
little.

3 Zoega, p. 289, 36 (without the
Ammon’s horns).

4 O00. Bat. δ;

5 P. 174, note.

6 A similar coin is that of Ptolemais
of the time of Septimius Severus, in de
Sauley, Nuwmism. de la Terre-Sainte,

7 Zoega, p. 83, 143 (Museo Tiepoli).
8 Mionnet, suppl. ii. p. 353, 903 ;
904.

9 Brit. Mus. Cat., Thrace, p. 138,

13; 14.

10 Ibid. p. 189, 15-18. Mionnet,
descr. i. p. 896, 228. Suppl. ii.
p- 357, 924; 925 (in the Imhoof
collection).

1 Brit, Mus. Cat., Thrace, p. 24, 1.

302 SARAPIS STANDING

he is pouring from a patera, whereas in the left arm he holds a
large cornucopiae filled with fruits.

In the Catalogue of the British Museum the interpretation
of this god of Odessos as Sarapis is qualified as doubtful. The
reason is to be found no doubt in the ancient autonomous
tetradrachms of Odessos (Pl. E. 12), which show in a beautiful
type a very similar god, but without the modius and the altar ;
in the field @QEOY MEFAAOY KYPSA‘*. Hardouin’s inter-
pretation of the last word as κύρ(ιος) Σά(ραπις), which might
be supported by the occasional qualification of Sarapis as κύριος
and as θεὸς μέγας or deus magnus, and which even gained the
applause of Eckhel?, has lost every probability since L. Miilier
pointed.out the same word as the beginning of a magistrate’s
name on coins of the very town of Odessos, with the types of
Alexander the Great’. Nevertheless, Sarapis may be here
meant; nor would the wanting modius be an insuperable
obstacle, as precisely in the earliest, and eventually in some
later representations, that god wears no modius*. Chronological
reasons too are not contrary to the interpretation. According
to Dr. Imhoof’s judgment, the coin is not earlier than the end
of the third century, perhaps rather later; Prof. Gardner would
even assign it to the second quarter of the second century.
There is no reason to doubt that at that epoch the worship
of Sarapis might have found its way to the Thracian shores ;
and if so, the coin would be highly interesting as one of the
oldest extant representations of that god in full length, stand-
ing, but without modius and sceptre, and, instead of the latter,
bearing the cornucopiae. However, I cannot help thinking
that this interpretation, though not impossible, is by no means,
certain. I shall not lay great stress on the style of the
figure copied on the coin, which reminds me of statues like
the Vatican ‘Sardanapallos’ and similar creations of the fourth

1 Mionnet, descr. i. p. 395, 221.

Musewmn Pembrok. 11.

(Anon. Peripl. Ponti Lux. 12).

Planches, 69, 5.
pl. 34.

2 Doctr, num. 11, p. 87. Overbeck,
Kunstinyth. ii. p. 109,

3 Nuwmism. d’ Alexandie le Grand,
p. 172; 174 (indicated to me by Prof.
Gardner). One may compare the name
of the Bithynian town of Κυρσαιτά

4 See p. 291, notes 2and 3, and comp.
Wieseler, tiber geschn. Steine, li. 1 (Abh.
ἃ. Gétt. Gcs, vol. xxxi.), p. 27, &c. The
head on the obverse of this coin
(Mionnet, pl. 69, 5. Overbeck, Kwnst-
myth. ii. Miinzt. 1, 19) has no attribute
which would point to Sarapis.

ε
ΑΛΟΝ

ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE 1N THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 303

century, that is to say of an epoch in which a Greek Sarapis
was not yet in existence. Of greater importance is the fact
that on other autonomous coins of Odessos! apparently the
same god with a cornucopiae is riding on horseback, a thing
utterly unheard of in the case of Sarapis. This seems to point
rather to some θεὸς ἐπιχώριος in Hellenized form, whose quali-
fication of θεὸς μέγας may remind us of the title of the ‘ great
gods’ of Samothrake.

However this question may be settled, and even if the older
coins of Odessos represent a local divinity, still the name of
Sarapis seems noways excluded in the case of the imperial coins
of Odessos, which are later by three or four centuries. The
widely spread worship of the Alexandrine god precisely in the
cities on the coast of Moesia and Thrace during the later
imperial epoch, is abundantly shewn by the evidence of coins,
Surely it is much less likely that beside this mighty conqueror
of the world an old local god of similar features should have
been preserved, than that the elder θεὸς μέγας should have
given way to the new θεὸς μέγας or μέγιστος, and be absorbed
as it were by the stronger nature of his successor. Now, has
the Sarapis of the later coins inherited his cornucopiae from
his predecessor? This would scarcely be the right inter-
pretation; it is quite possible to prove that Sarapis is fully
entitled by himself to bear that symbol.

Among the treasures of the Payne-Knight collection in the
British Museum there is a silver statuette of Sarapis standing,
0:04 m. high, the only original mention of which is to be
found in the letterpress to plate 63 of the Specimens of Antient
Sculpture, vol. i. This mention is so short and indistinct that
the statuette was universally thought to represent the god
sitting, as does the bronze statuette engraved in that plate.
It is the merit of Prof. Gardner to have drawn attention to this
little jewel, and to have discovered from Payne-Knight’s Cata-
logue that it a!so belongs to that famous find which took place

1 Eckhel, D. λ΄. ii. p. 87. Mionnet,
suppl. ii, p. 350, 889; 890. The cor-
nucopiae occurs also alone on autono-
mous coins of Odessos (Mionnet, no.
895); it is less significant to find
the same symbol held by a river-god
(Panysos? Mionnet, no. 893 ; 894), the

ἢ 5:5: ΟἹ, Vil.

cornucopiae being a common attribute
of this class of divinities. Prof. Gardner
however is inclined to find a material
connection between this reclining figure
and the standing god of the other
coins.

304 SARAPIS STANDING

at Paramythia about the year 17921. It seems to be the only
object of silver among a large number of bronzes; traces of
gilding are still observable. We see Sarapis standing im a
dignified position of repose. Long hair and long beard enhance
this effect. A long and ample chiton with short sleeves falls
down to the feet, and a large himation fastened on the left
shoulder and going slantwise across the breast envelops the
body in a double layer. The modius covers the head, the
extended right hand holds a patera, in the left arm rests a
large cornucopiae richly filled with fruits. No doubt this
charming little statuette is no Roman work but, like all the rest

SILVER STATUETTE: Brir. Mus.

of that celebrated find, belongs to the Hellenistic period, and is
valuable also in this respect,—that it seems to be one of the
oldest, certain representations extant of Sarapis, older than any
of the statues of the sitting god preserved to us, with the only
exception of the bronze statuette found together with it.
Already Payne-Knight in his manuscript notes drew atten-
tion to another monument which indeed offers the greatest
resemblance to the statuette, a sardonyx of the Orleans
Collection, now at St. Petersburg, of which several replicas
are known’, Formerly it was referred to Juppiter Exsuper-

1 Comp. Michaelis, Anc. Marbles in —Niccolo: Millin, Pierres grav. pl. 3.
Gr. Brit. p. 118; 119; 120, and the Miiller-Wieseler, Denkm. 2ed., ii. 2, 28
references given in note 313. (not in the third edition).—Vetro :

* Sardonyx: Petersburg, A 4, 6,19. Cades, /mpronte gemm. el. i. A. 73.—
Causeus de la Chausse, Gemme ant. pl. Comp. Wieseler, 1.1. Stephani, Compte-
126. Inghirami, Jon, cfr. vi. pl. Κα, 1. Rendu, 1878, p. 150 ; 1877, p. 100.

ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE ΙΝ THE BRITISH MUSEUM, 305

antissimus, more recently it has been considered as Dionysos,
Dionysos-Hades, or some pantheistic divinity. The long and
full drapery, including the slanting arrangement of the himation,
as well as the attributes are so completely in accordance with
the statuette from Paramythia, that the signification of the
figure as a Sarapis, which I had conjectured before knowing
the statuette, now may pass as firmly established. The style
has a smack of archaism, of which something appears also in
the statuette, for instance in the style of hair-dressing at the
neck, The chief novelty of the gem consists in the butterfly
hovering over the patera. ‘Taking the insect as the image of

ΜΙ ΔΙ SYATUE: FROM MAPFEL,

the soul, the representation is as easily explained with regard to

. . ᾿ 5 . \ \

Sarapis as in any of the former interpretations, ἐπεὶ καὶ μετὰ

τὴν ἀναγκαίαν τοῦ βίου τελευτὴν ἔτι οὗτος ἄρχων ἀνθρώποις
x 2

306 SARAPIS STANDING

μένει..-.σωτὴρ αὐτὸς Kal ψυχοπομπός, ἄγων εἰς φῶς Kal πάλιν
δεχόμενος, πανταχῆ πάντας περιέχων '.

Another instance of Sarapis with the cornucopiae is afforded
by a marble statue, now lost sight of, which is known only by
an engraving in Maffei’s Musewm Veronense®. The movement
is similar to that in the Florentine bronze and in the later coins
of Odessos. The god stands on the left leg, the right gently
bent; the head, covered with the modius, turns a little to its
right, in harmony with the right arm stretched forward: no
doubt the lost hand once held a patera. The left arm is bent
at a right angle; the engraving shews distinctly the remains
of the cornucopiae. The drapery is nearly the same as in the
Florence bronze; also the shortness of the chiton corresponds
with it, in opposition to the more dignified χιτὼν ποδήρης of
the coins, the silver statuette, &e.

Sarapis seems also to be distinguishable on two wall-paintings
of Pompei’. The one (no. 80, casa delle Ammazoni), now
destroyed, represented Harpokrates placed between Isis and
‘a bearded male figure, with gold-coloured lotos above the
forehead, with a pail in his right and a cornucopiae in the left
hand.’ Nothing is said about the dress. The ‘lotos’, instead of
the modius, is known from the old Ptolemaic coins (see p. 291) ;
the pail reminds us of the bex and the basket held by the god in
some later coins (see p. 298): these objects consequently are at
least not inconsistent with the supposition of Sarapis. On the
other picture (no. 79, house of Julia Felix), now in the museum
at Naples, Isis enthroned is surrounded by Anubis and ‘a
much-injured figure, the sex of which cannot be distinctly made
out, clad in long light-coloured tunica and dark upper-garment,
resting the left hand on a staff, and holding in the right a
cornucopiae from which projects a long branch’. Also one of
the lateral walls of this little sanctuary contained ‘a male
figure, clad in a mantle, with a cornucopiae in both hands’:
Probably these figures were meant to represent the same divinity
which, in such a company, could scarcely be any one but
Sarapis.

1 Aristides, or. in Sar. p. 54 ed. 3 Helbig, Wandgemaelde, p. 26, no.
Jebb. 79; 80, both from private houses ;
* Pag. 75, 5. The letterpress con- comp. Lafaye, p. 326, no. 216 ; 217.

tains not a word about the statue.

ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 307

Finally we return to the god on the Xanthian relief with
which we began. The lung chiton has, an exceptional detail,
no sleeves; the arrangement of the himation is simpler and
poorer than on the other monuments ; the rather stiff position
wants that lively movement which is observable in the statues
and on the coins. As, however, the left leg evidently was a
little bent, the impression of stiffness may to a certain degree
be due to the awkwardness of the Lycian copier. A very small
modius of unusual shape rests on the god’s head, the hair hangs
deeply down on to the nape of the neck. The extended right
hand retains a battered fragment of the patera it once held.
In the left arm rests the huge cornucopiae, the upper half of
which is striated like the cornucopiae on the coins of certain
Ptolemies, particularly of Arsinoe Philadelphos’. Here, too, a
bunch of grapes hangs down, and other fruits fill up the horn;
but quite singular is the addition of two bull’s horns. Evidently
they contain an allusion to Apis, whose essence and name had
been incorporated by Sar-apis. I do not find any other monu-
mental analogy, except the doubtful one of a coin struck in
the Hypselite nome in the eleventh year of Hadrian (PI. E. 13),
on which a deity, with a lotos on his head (Sarapis? Osiris 7),
holding a staff in the left, bears an Apis on his right hand®.
The more interesting’is our marble, especially as what has been
said at the beginning leaves no doubt that we have not to deal
with the arbitrary device of a Lycian statuary mason, but that
our relief is the exact copy of a statue.

Origin of Sarapis’ cornucopiae.—The horns of Apis in the
cornucopiae, and the butterfly of the Petersburg sardonyx point
to the region in which we have to search the explanation of the
cornucopiae as a symbol of Sarapis. Among the gods of the
Greek religion, two are nearest to him in external appearance,
the ᾿Αγαθὸς Δαέίμων and Pluto, the genuine Attic euphemistic
substitute for sullen Hades, a friendly god to whose images
ἔπεστιν οὐδὲν φοβερόνβδ. They are so similar to one another
that in many instances it is difficult to make out which of the
two is meant. An Agathos Daimon, with his name appended,
occurs on an Athenian votive relief*, with long hair, bearded,

1 Brit. Mus. Cat., Ptolemies, pl. 8. porary coins of Diospolis, 7). p. 125, 231.
2 Zoega, p. 124, 225 Ὑψηλι(τῶν). 3 Paus. i. 28, 6.
A similar Osiris occurs on the contem- 4 Schoene, gricch. Relicfs, pl. 26.

308 SARAPIS STANDING

¢lad in a long chiton and a himation, holding in both hands a
large cornucopiae. He appears again with cornucopiae and
patera on a votive relief from Megara, now at Berlin'. Qn the
other hand, Pluto is represented on Attic vases as bearing a
cornucopiae 2, occasionally also a sceptre*; other Attic or neo-
Attic works give him the same attributes but limit his drapery
to the himation alone +. Doubtful is the decision as to some
other monuments, a vase from Nola which shows the god white-
‘haired and fully draped, with sceptre and cornucopiae, in
company with the Eleusinian divinities 5, an Attic relief in the
British Museum δ, and a statue apparently very similar in
Cataio ; in both of them the god, fully draped, bears in the
left arm a large cornucopiae, the right, which hangs down, being
broken. The similar appearance of the two gods is not due to
chance, as Agathodaemon, the Bonus Hventus of the Romans,
masters the riches of the earth and its abundant produce in
nearly the same way as the Attic Πλούτων, φερέσβιος, πλουτο-
δότης, Εὐβουλεύς, the companion of Demeter, and partaker of the
Eleusinian worship ®. Now, asking from which of the two the
standing Sarapis may have borrowed his external characteristics,
and especially his cornucopiae, it appears more natural to
suppose that, as Sarapis enthroned is but a variation of Hades,
so Sarapis standing stands in similar relation to Pluto, with
whom he is also substantially connected. This supposition is
supported by those Alexandrian coins of Sarapis pantheus of
which we spoke on Ὁ. 3501, By the side of the symbols of Zeus
and Poseidon, the cornucopiae no doubt represents the third
son of Kronos, In a similar way on an archaistic relief ὃ, the

109. A youthful representation of the Duhn, no. 8494. Zoega, Bassir. i. 1.
same god appears on a Cyrenean relief Miiller-Wieseler, Denkin. ii. 7, 76), and
at Edinburgh (Anc. Marbles, p. 298, no. in the Lateran Museum (no. 460,
3. Journ. Hell. Stud. 1884, p. 157). Benndorf and Schoene, pl. 14, comp,

1 Berlin, no. 679. Wieseler, 4th. Matz-Duhn, iii. p. 16): sceptre and
der Gétt. Gcs. vol. xx. Furtwangler, cormucopiae.

Samml. Sabouroff, pl. 27. 5 Mon. Incd. d. Inst. i. 4. Miiller-
2 Mon. Ined. d. Inst. vi. 58. Wieseler, Denkin. ii, 9, 110, with
3 Naples, no. 3091 (Heydemann). Wieseler’s remarks.

Forster, Raub der Persephone, pl. 2. ὁ Am. Marbles Brit. Mus. xi. 47,

Overbeck, Atlas z. Kunstmyth. pl. 18, ‘Plutus and Fortune.’

all 7 Diitschke, ant, Bildw. in Ober-
4 Vase in the Brit. Museum, no. 811. = tta/ien, v. no. 102.

Mon. Ined. dell’ Inst. vy. 49: cornu- 8 Foucart, Bull. Hellén. 1883, p. 387.

copiae. Reliefs in Pal, Albani (Matz- 9 Bull. ὦ, Tust. 1861, p. 86.

ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 309

triple Zeus is endowed with thunderbolt trident and cornucopiae.
The latter symbol has the same meaning with Sarapis as with
the Attic Pluto, and is just as characteristic for the donor of
blessing represented in these standing figures, as Kerberos is
for the enthroned master of the shadows.

To sum up: the Hellenistic epoch produced two artistic types
of the Graeco-Egyptian Sarapis. The enthroned god, derived
from the Greek Hades, and accompanied by the hell-hound, was
the truer representative of the old Egyptian Osiris-Apis, and by
his dignified appearance was best tit to become the standard
image of the new master of the world. Beside him, the
Attic substitute for Hades, Pluto, became the prototype of
Sarapis standing, a milder god whose cornucopiae promised all
kinds of bliss and happiness to his adorers. The seated Sarapis,
fixed in his external features by the statue of the chief Alex-
andrian temple, has remained almost unaltered through all
antiquity. The standing god in his first artistic incarnation did
not meet with the same favour but had in later times to under-
go various changes. One of these, our first type, was little else
but an attempt to transform the sitting god into a standing
position, Another variation, our second type, replaced the
cornucopiae of the original standing type by the action of
blessing. The third type, finally, gave more prominence to
the sceptre as to the most characteristic symbol of power and
dominion and, occasionally, strengthened this idea by placing
the god on a globe. On the whole, Sarapis standing has shown
a greater vitality and faculty of development than the enthroned
god, and the various forms under which he appears are a proof
that in Roman times this more agile and versatile type better
answered the need of his believers to represent their god as at
ence a benevolent and an omnipotent lord of the universe.

Tyche-—Sarapis is accompanied on our relief by a goddess
of similar appearance, in which it is easy to recognise Tyche
by the mural crown, the large cornucopiae, and the rudder.
To be sure, one would rather expect to find Sarapis united with
Isis, but all those peculiarities in dress and attributes which
are characteristic for that goddess are here wanting. It is well
known, however, that Isis and Tyche stand in close relation to
one another, and that Isis-Tyche is one of the frequent figures
of the late theocrasy. Quite recently excavations on the Esquiline

310 SARAPIS STANDING

have brought to light a lararium, the main figure of which is a
statue of Fortune with the head-ornament of Isis; among the
other sculptural decorations of the small sanctuary are a marble
statuette of Sarapis enthroned, and a bust, life-size, of the same
god!, Precisely that close relation between the two goddesses
may explain the fact that Tyche has taken the place of Isis.
Indeed Sarapis and Tyche are occasionally found combined on
imperial coins of Alexandria. Such a coin of Trajan has
already been dealt with on p. 301. Coins of Antoninus Pius
show Sarapis sitting on a ship, between the standing figures of
Demeter and Tyche (Pl. E. 14)2, The same two goddesses
(Tyche, at least, is distinctly characterised by the rudder and
the cornucopiae) surround the enthroned god on coins of
M. Aurelius, Faustina, his wife, and Aclius Verus', the standing
god on coins of Commodus*, It is less certain whether the
female characterised only by a cornucopiae who is about to
crown Sarapis, on coins of Verus’, means Tyche, as that symbol
is associated with too many goddesses to allow a positive decision,
At any rate, the union of the Graeco-Egyptian Sarapis and the
common-Greek Tyche is highly characteristic for a later
epoch in which precisely these two divinities occupied an
exceptionally high place in the religious belief of departing
paganism,

The most striking feature of the Tyche of our relief is the
very simple drapery. The Attic chiton without sleeves falls
down to the feet ungirdled, covered in its upper portion by a
short upper garment equally ungirdled (ἀπόπτυγμα) ὁ, Usually
Tyche appears in full dress, in girt chiton and mantle, more
matron-like in her whole character. The dress as above de-
scribed is rather that of Artemis and other virgins. However
some similar instances can be adduced. I do not quote a bronze
statuette of Naples in a similar attire, as the want of all at-
tributes and the original presence of wings suggest rather Nike
than Tyche’. A certain Tyche is afforded by a marble statue at

1 Bull. comun. di Rona, 1885, pl.
2, 3; for more instances see C, L,
Visconti, wid. p. 29.

= Zoega, p. 163, 3; 4,

5 Zoega, p. 218, 67; 226, 41; 230,
15.
4 Zocga, p. 244, 80.

5 Zoega, p. 232, 27, pl. 14, 7.

8 Boehlau, guacstiones de re vestiaria
Graccorum, Weimar 1884, p. 17; 55.

? Antich. di Ercal. vi. 24. Museo
Borbon, iii, 26. Miiller- Wieseler,
Deukuu ii. 73, 926, with Wiescler’s
letterpress.

ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 311

Madrid}, with rudder and cornucopiae, in chiton ungirded but
for a belt going slantwise over the breast crossing the upper-
garment. This arrangement is especially customary in statues
of Artemis; nay, some scholars incline to refer all similar
statues to this goddess and consider other attributions as a result
of false restorations®. Wrongly; a statue of this kind in the
British Museum 8 clearly proves, by a head wreathed with ivy,
and the panther at her feet, that the figure belongs to the
Bacchic cycle, and in the Madrid statue there remains enough
of the original attributes to establish the signification as Tyche.
One might consequently raise the question whether some of
the other replicas* would be more correctly restored as Tyche,
but it would lead us too far out of our way to follow this line.
I shall rather direct attention to an Athenian tetradrachm with
the names of the magistrates Eumelos and Kalliphon (Pl. E. 15),
on which a goddess in similar attire (except the crossing belt)
appears with a cornucopiae in her left, and a patera in her right
hand. Evidently the coin reproduces a well-known statue.
The excellence of the above mentioned statuary type made
Brunn think of Praxitelean art®, Perhaps the coin may re-
present the ᾿Αγαθὴ Τύχη of that artist’. Still closer is the
relation to the coin and to our relief in two statues at Stockholm$
and at Dresden®. Both shew the same simple dress, buth have
the arms hanging down so as to be able to receive the same
attributes, both exhibit the same vertical row of folds hanging
down between the legs, a favourite arrangement in works of the
later Hellenistic and of Roman art, for instance on many

1 Huebner, ant. Bildw. in Madrid,
no. 33, Clarac, iii. 410 H, 837 H.

2 See Liitzow, Miinchner Aatiken,
p. 15.

3 Graeco-Roman Sculpt. no. 198.
“πὸ. Marbiecs, x. 28. Clarac, iv. 696 B,
1621 A. Ellis, Townley Gallery, i. p.
215. Vaux, Handbook, p. 210.

4 Clarac, iii, 452, 826 (Torlonia); 468,
883 (Chiaramonti) ; 471, 899 (Vesco-
vali). The signification as an Artemis
seems fully established by a hole
destined for the quiver in the excellent
Braschi statue at Munich, no. 113.
Liitzow, Minha. dit. pl. 7. Clarac,
iv. 449, 790.

> Beulé, monn. d’Athenes, p. 295.
To be sure, the specimen of the British
Museum, reproduced on our plate, shews
the chiton girt, deviating in this detail
from Beulé’s engraving.

8 Glyptothek, no. 113.

7 Plin, xxxvi. 23. On the relief in
Schoene, gricch. Reliefs, pl. 26, 109,
Agathe Tyche is a veiled female of
matronly appearance.

8 Clarac, iii. 420 B, 719 B. Heyde-
mann, ah, Zeit, 1865, p. 152%, no.
13. Wieseler, Philoloyus, xxvii. p.
221.

* No. 221 (Hettner).
438 C, 757 A,

Clarac, ili,

312 SARAPIS STANDING

sepulchral reliefs from Rheneia, and on Archelaos’ so-called
Apotheosis of Homer. At any rate the Tyche of our relief is
interesting as attording a certain instance of this goddess in
youthful form at a time when the powerful governess of human
fate was usually represented in matronly dignity.

Back OF THE MARBLE.

Description.—In_ strict contrast to the architectural shrine
surrounding the two divinities, the back of the marble, of
rather rough execution, is entirely occupied by rocks which
extend to the very margin of the block. Unfortunately the
lower part is disfigured by a considerable gap. The whole
relief offers the image of a cave, so as to remind one at the
first glance of the well-known Mithraic reliefs. From the
left there approaches through a kind of entrance a bearded
archer in oriental costume, raising his arrow. Immediately
before him we observe the remains of a great dog rapidly
descending. Above the bowman appears on the edge of the pro-
jecting rock a jackal rather than a fox ; above the cave there is a
locust and a great lizard ; at the right upper angle an indistinct
object which I once took to be a snail without a shell, but which,
as Prof. Gardner maintains, is rather a cicada, like those which
appear on coins of Athens. On the right side the rocky edge
of the cave occupies the whole margin. ΤῸ the left of it, within
the cave, again appear animals, at the top in a special recess
a bear (not a boar) rushing forth, one half of him being visible ;
beneath a stork, on a rock, under which a fragment of a bird
apparently aquatic is preserved; at the bottom the hind
quarters of a bull rushing forward with the tail twisted and
raised,

No word is required to prove that there cannot here be
question of a common chase. Few of these animals would
be a suitable mark for the archer’s arrows. On the contrary
the attention of the man and the animals is equally directed
towards the centre, and there can scarcely exist any doubt
that their combined attack is aimed at a huge high object in
the midst of the relief, the upper end of which, close to
the ceiling of the cave, is still recognizable, whereas the
lower portion is lost in the great gap. The direction of the

ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, 313

dog, and still more the attack of the bull, prove that that
object once reached down to the bottom of the cave. We
may conjecture that beneath the archer, opposite the bull,
another adversary originally had a place. It is decidedly
remarkable that, in opposition to the good preservation of
the figures around, the attacked object itself is entirely
destroyed. Except a small part at the top where the relief
is preserved, we can only trace the outline; the main part
of the object, which was probably represented in as high
a relief as the depth of the cave allowed, has totally dis-
appeared, The examination of the original marble serves to
strengthen the impression caused by the photograph that
the object has been destroyed intentionally. This ἰδοὺ
cannot be without importance in exploring its meaning.
Prophylactic destination —Every reader, 1 suppose, will
at once remember a class of reliefs, as the most prominent
example of which I may cite a small marble slab at Woburn
Abbey, rightly explained by J. Millingen, and afterwards
made the starting point of a suggestive inquiry on the super-
stition of the evil eye by Otto Jahn’. The centre of that
relief is occupied by a large eye; the brow forms as it were
a rocky hill, and a stony ground is indicated also elsewhere.
From all directions the evil eye is attacked, at the bottom by
a lion, a serpent, a scorpion, a crane or stork, a raven; on the
brow a sitting man, with Phrygian cap, by an unmistakeable
gesture expresses his contempt for the evil eye, which a gladiator
is attacking from the right with a trident. The upper left
angle is wanting, but it may be supplied by the aid of a small,
round lamina of gold found at Mayence in 1862, and acquired
by Count M. de Robiano in Brussels*. The menagerie here
consists of a caterpillar, a swan, a tortoise, a crane or stork, a
cicada (2), a dog or similar animal, a lizard, a snake ; the man at
the top sits with extended arms, and wears no Phrygian cap ;

1 Michaelis, Ane. Marbles, p. 7381,
no, 99. Woburn Abbey Marbles, pi.
14, Millingen in Archacologia, xix.
p. 70. O. Jahn in Berichte d. Sachs.
Ges. 1855, p. 28-110.

* The owner, passing from Mayence
to Brussels, showed it to Jahn in Bonn,
where | had an opportunity of examin-

ing and slightly sketching it ; comp.
arch, Zeitung, 1874, p. 69. The very
thin lamina has a diameter of 003 m.,
and is provided with a short chain,
evidently on account of its serving as
an «potropaion, The representation is
encircled with a row of beads,

311 SARAPIS STANDING

opposite the retiarzus with his trident a second gladiator (secutor?)
is at work, armed with a large square shield and a sword. Other
instances of the evil eye surrounded and attacked by various
animals, with which sometimes is joined a phallus, may be found
on Jahn’s third plate’. The meaning of these compositions is
clear. The hostile power of the malocchio is to be broken by
the united attack of the animals, or of the men and the animals,
to which a prophylactic force is assigned. The same idea is but
slightly varied when such animals (scorpion, snail, frog), together
with a phallus encircle the opening of a terracotta lamp, in
order to protect it from any evil influence and to assure harmless
burning to the flame.

In this direction we must search for the meaning of our relief
too. The archer in oriental dress, on our marble of Asiatic
origin, may appropriately be compared with the man with the
Phrygian cap, and particularly with the gladiators, of the Italian
monuments. Among the animals, the ἄορ ὁ, the cicada®, the
lizard ®, the locust’, the stork or crane’, the other bird 9, are
sufficiently known by other representations as creatures to
which a prophylactic power was ascribed. As to the jackal,
the bear, the bull, I have no adequate examples to cite; the
bull’s head however is frequently used as apotropaion’®. On
the whole, the accordance is great enough to permit us to take
the prophylactic meaning of the secondary figures of our relief
for granted.

Fascinum.—Who, then, is the enemy at whom the attack is
aimed ? Certainly not the evil eye. Unless I am quite mistaken
the outlines and the preserved top lead us to recognise nothing
else but a phallus or fascinwm as represented. First of all, this
would best explain the thoronghuess with which the scandalous
object, and this alone,-has been destroyed. We may call to
mind the similar scalpellata with which the filthy demon Tychon

1 Pp. J. Meier, de gladiatura Romana,
Bonn 1881, p. 19.

* Comp. p. 96.

3 Jahn, pl. 4, 1 (Berlin). A nearly
identical lamp is in the British
Museum.

4 Jahn, p. 98.

* Jahn, p. 36. , Stephani, CLR. 1865,
p. 84; 1869, p. 130; 1880, p. 98.

6 Jahn, p. 99; 106. Dilthey Archaeol.-
epigr. Mitth. aus Oesterreich, 1878, p. 53.

7 Jahn, p. 36.

8 Woburn Abbey relief. Stephani,
C.R. 1865, p. 107. See below.

* Many birds on similar monuments,
comp. Jahn, p. 96.

0 Jahn, p. 58.

ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 315

on a relief of Aquileia has been taught decency by its pious
owner’. Moreover, fuscina of similar dimensions occur even in
the round. They commonly sit on lion’s or hare’s legs, and are
provided with an animal’s tail, the whole figure giving the im-
pression of an animal sitting upright. The most famous instance
is the marble phallus of the Florentine Museum which measures
not less than 1.36 m., and is decorated with a collar of
various prophylactical symbols or περιάμματα“, A similar one of
marble, but of more modest dimensions (0.36 m.), embellished by
a bearded human head of dignified expression, is preserved in the
Museum at Tarragona®. A third example of simpler appearance
is among the Dal Pozzo drawings in the Royal Library at
Windsor Castle *. The proportions of the extant remains on the
Xanthian relief are such as to allow a restoration according to
these models; the feet and the lower portions of the sitting
monster would have been at the bottom of the cave, on the
level of the bull and its lost counterpart.

The phallus, as is well known, was considered by the ancients
as one of the most effective expedients against every influence
of envy, the evil eye and similar magical spells. Therefore it
was so much used to protect walls and buildings of every de-
scription ; our relief too seems to have belonged to some edifice.
The peculiar feature of our instance consists in the circumstance
that here the fascinwm is attacked by such animals as share with
it prophylactic qualities, whereas otherwise they are used to
attack noxious objects like the evil eye. This objection however
is not sufficient to disprove the supposition that a fascinwm is
really in question. There are a few instances which can ap-
propriately be compared. Among the phallic reliefs of the
amphitheatre at Nimes there is one on which a strangely shaped
phallus is pecked at by birds®; and a bronze of the Cabinet des

1 Miiller-Wieseler, Denkm. ii. 73, 3 Not in the catalogue of Huebner,

936 ; comp. Bertoli, antich. di Aquileia,
p. 33.—I must not omit to state that
some London friends, examining the
marble, entertained some doubts about
the justice of my supposition. The
reader may judge himself from the
photograph, and from what I have to
observe on the matter.
? Bull. dell’ Inst. 1848, p. 58.

who sent a drawing to O. Jahn.

4 Comp. Michaelis, Anc. Marbles in
Gr. Brit. p. 719, vol. xiii. (Disegni di
varie antichita, Nettuno), fol. 142, no.
608. For more instances see Jahn, p.
74, note 181 ; p. 78.

5 Maucomble, hist. abr. de la ville de
Nimes (or Guide des voy. ἃ Nimes), ii.
pl. 7, 20.

316 SARAPIS STANDING

Antiques at Paris shews a stork biting vigorously at a phallus},
a representation which may be compared with the stork on our
marble attacking the adversary with his beak widely opened.
The action of attacking being expressed in the archer as well as
in the animals with too great preciseness for us to take them
barely as strengthening the prophylactic power of the main
symbol, nothing is left to us but to suppose that in these com-
binations the fascjnwm itself was considered as being a dangerous
evil-menacing adversary. For the phallus attacked and, as it
were, brought into check by its prophylactic adversaries cannot
be essentially different from the evil eye surrounded and
menaced by foes of the same kind. The reason of this double
employment of the phallic symbol is obvious. No prophylactic
symbol can exercise its power of averting evil without defeating,
or at least paralysing, every evil-menacing adversary. Thus the
Medusa’s head, as is well known, possesses the power of petrify-
ing whatever it looks at; precisely on this account there is
scarcely a more effective and more favourite raeans of protecting
objects from envy and all other noxious influences than by affix-
ing to them the Dopye/nv κεφαλὴν δεινοῖο πελώρου. Likewise
the malocchio not only brings harm, but the image of the eye
has also the power of paralysing the pernicious effects of the
βάσκανοι or jettatori. The same will be the case with the
phallus. - This, too, cannot be prophylactic without itself
bringing evil to its adversaries, and therefore it is that it
can become the object of the combined attack of other
prophylactic animals. Indeed, the word fascinuwm mostly
signifies, like βασκάνιον, προβασκάνιον, the means of preventing
any kind of spell and enchantment, but βασκαίνειν, fascinare,
signifies to bewitch, and fascinum itself means also spell and
bewitchment. There may have been a double range of ideas
in the mind of those who employed such symbols: to whomso-
ever is envious or malevolent towards me, I shall oppose the
evil eye or the phallus, and against whomsoever is menacing
me with those symbols, I shall direct a host of demoniac powers,
in order to paralyse his hostile attack. Among the monuments
preserved to us there are many which illustrate the double
employment of the evil eye; phallic symbols are usually
employed in the former sense. It is not the least interesting

1 Bachofen, Mutterrecht, pl. 9, 3.

ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 317

feature of our relief to afford a new document of the other
rather rare method of employing that symbol.—

Connection between front and back.—Finally the combination
of this superstitious representation with the divinities figured
on the front requires an explanation. On a travertine slab let
into the wall over a baker’s oven at Pompeii, a phallus is
painted in the midst of the inscription hie habitat Felicitas?.
Thus in our relief, to the powerful masters of the world and of
human fortune, who procure for mankind with their cornucopiae
plenty of bliss and riches, a representation is added which is
intended to protect this good luck from pernicious influences.
Nullo fascino felicitas publica mordeatur, says Symmachus in a
letter to Ausonius*. The same idea which is here as it were
divided into two parts appears undivided in a strange figure on
a rare silver coin of Tarentum®*, a small, paunchy, phallic, Pan-
like daemon, crouching and holding in his hands patera and
cornucopiae. But there is also another point. of view from
which the relation between front and back may be Jooked
at. Superstitious imaginations followed a natural tendency
towards various kinds of foreign worship, and among these
alien θεοὶ ἀλεξίκακοι not the last place is due to Sarapis*.
This god directed the sick people to Vespasian, when in Alex-
andria, that he might render sight to the blind, and restore
the use of his legs to the lame®. Sarapis appears, now in
full length, now as a bust, on those feet of marble or bronze
which refer to happy return from wandering ®; Sarapis recurs
on those votive hands of bronze, the figurative ornaments of
which are so closely connected with the superstitious ideas
above discussed’. Νικᾷ ὁ Σάραπις τὸν φθόνον is the inscription

1 0’. I. Lat. iv. 1454. Gell and phallus is not used in a prophylactic

Gandy, Pomp.iana, pl. 38. Cab, secret
de Naples, pl. 9,2. Arditi, ἐϊ fascino,
Naples 1825.

2 Epist. i. 13.

3 Berlin, see Jahn, pl. 4, 13; p. 90.

4 Jahn, p. 46; 101.—I omit inten-
tionally to mention the phallophories
frequent as well in ancient Egyptian
reliefs, as in the gorgeous processions
at the court of the Ptolemies (Athen.
v. 33, p. 201 E). As far as I can
understand, in all these instances, the

sense, but as a symbol of generation
and fertility.

5 Tac. hist. iv. 83. Suet. Vespas. 7.

6 Jahn, p. 103. The costume seems
to have originated in Egypt ; comp. the
Alexandrian coin of Commodus, Zoega,
je Ba

7 Jahn, p.101. Berlin: Montfaucon,
Ant, expl. ii. pl. 137, 1. Jahn, pl. 4,
2.—Rome, Mus. Kircher.: Bonanni,
Mus. Kircher. cl it. 25, p. 83. Mont-
faucon, ii. pl. 137, 3—On the foreign,

318 SARAPIS STANDING ON A XANTHIAN MARBLE,

of an engraved onyx, the obverse of which shews the image of
that god. What could be more natural than to combine on the
same marble Sarapis and the βασκάνιον of the phallus sur-
rounded by its enemies? The whole idea of the composition
might be summed up in the words of an inscription ? :

els Ζεὺς Σέραπις" βάσκανος λακησέτω.

Ap. MICHAELIS.
STRASSBURG.

perhaps Egyptian, origin of these 1 Gori, inser. Etr. i. p. lxiv.

votive hands comp. Dilthey archacol.- 2 Fabretti, dser. ant. p. 468, no,
cpigr. Mitth. aus Oesterreich, 1878, 104. Ὁ J. Gi. 8515.

)- 459,

es

THE JIOMERIC LAND SYSTEM. 319

THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM.

THE object of the following pages, the substance of which
was read before the Cambridge Branch of the Hellenic Society
in 1883, is to examine into the true nature of the land-system
of the Greeks of the Homeric age by means of the evidence
contained in the poems themselves.

On ὦ priori grounds we might have expected, or at least
should not be surprised, to find in the Jliad and Odyssey
some traces of that primitive system known as the ‘Open-
Field’ or ‘Common-Field’ system of agriculture, which the
researches of recent years have proved to have once prevailed
over a great part of the earth, and of which many survivals
still exist.

Such an assumption with regard to the Greeks derives
further support from the words of Aristotle (Pol. i. ay where he
describes the evolution of the πόλις from the οἰκέα through
the medium of the κώμη, and by the terms ὁμοσέπυοι and
ὁμόκαποι (= ὁμόκηποι) quoted from Charondas and Epimenides
respectively, seems to indicate the existence in Hellas at
some time or other of what are now known as House Commu-
nities. From another passage (Pol. ii. 4,1263a, 4), it is almost
certain that nowhere amongst the Hellenes of his own day did
he find any such forms of community: for when he makes
mention of such customs of cultivation in common, he ascribes
them to ἔνια τῶν ἐθνῶν and twés τῶν βαρβάρων. If such

. village or house communities were known to Charondas and
_Epimenides, there is an ὦ fortiori probability of the prevalence

of such in εἰ earlier times.
Let us now proceed with the positive evidence of the poems.
H.S.—VOL. VI. ¥

920 THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM

That such things as common fields existed, seems proved by a
noteworthy passage in the L/iad—

ἀλλ᾽ ὥστ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ οὔροισι δύ᾽ avépe δηριάασθον

μέτρ᾽ ἐν χερσοὶν ἔχοντες, ἐπιξύνῳ ἐν ἀρούρῃ,

OT ὀλίγῳ ἐνὶ χώρῳ ἐρίζητον περὶ ἴσης,

ὡς ἄρα τοὺς διέεργον ἐπάλξιες, K.TA. (xu, 421--94.)
The words ἐπιξύνῳ ἐν ἀρούρῃ would of themselves offer some
proof of the institution of common fields, even if no further
evidence could be adduced. Before proceeding any further,
the word οὔροισι opens up a question of considerable import-
ance. On turning to Ebeling’s Lexicon, under the word οὖρον
we find references to three well-known passages :

(1) 1. x. 351; segg.—
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε δή ῥ᾽ ἀπέην ὅσσον τ᾽ ἐπὶ οὖρα πέλονται
ἡμιόνων.---αἱ γάρ τε βοῶν προφερέστεραί εἰσιν
ἑλκέμεναι νειοῖο βαθείης πηκτὸν ἄροτρον---
τὼ μὲν ἐπεδραμέτην, K.T.D.

(2) Od. viii. 124—25—

ὅσσον T ἐν νειῷ οὖρον πέλει ἡμιονοῖεν,
, ec , \ “ ᾽ ε 3. 95. 2
τόσσον ὑπεκπροθέων λαοὺς ἵκεθ᾽, οἱ δ᾽ ἐλίποντο.
(3) 11. xxi. 451--98--
“ \ , 5 , 4
ὅσσα δὲ δίσκου οὖρα κατωμαδίοιο πέλονται,
ὅντ᾽ αἰζηὸς ἀφῆκεν ἀνὴρ, πειρώμενος ἥβης,
τόσσον ἐπεδραμέτην.
(With the last passage quoted we may compare Jliad xxiil.
523—
᾽ \ Ν μη ν᾽. / ,,
ἀτὰρ τὰ πρῶτα καὶ ἐς δίσκουρα λέλειπτο.)
Now in Iliad xxi. 403, seqg. we read how Athene in her
combat with Ares—

by / , ¢/- \ ,
ἀναχασσαμένη λίθον εἵλετο χειρὶ παχείῃ
κείμενον ἐν πεδίῳ μέλανα, τρηχύν τε μέγαν τε
΄ ΄ 5
Tov ῥ᾽ ἄνδρες πρότεροι θέσαν ἔμμεναι οὖρον ἀρούρης.

The Lexicographers take this οὖρον ἀρούρης, and linking it
with οὔροισι in the passage from which we started, thrust them
under the head of οὖρος = Ionic form of ὅρος, a boundary, of
which, however, no other instances are given from Homer.

THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM. 321

Yet why need we sever these two words from the neuter οὖρον
and place them in a separate category? Why may not the
neuter form οὖρον have been used in the poems, corresponding
to the masculine οὖρος found in Herodotus, ὅρος in Attic, and
ὄρος (With avtopos, μέσσορος) found in the Heraclean inscrip-
tions? Similar parallel forms are to be seen in the case of
στάδια and στάδιοι, the latter of which implies a singular mas-
culine, στάδιος, which are used inditterently by Herodotus. It
is also worth noticing that Apollonius Rhodius (ii. 795) uses
οὗρα simply in the general sense of boundaries—dpp’ ἐβάλοντο---
οὗρα Babuppeiovtos ὑφ᾽ elapevais ‘Triovo—just as in later Greek
ὅροι is used in an extended sense, as well as in the special
sense of landmaris.

This much, at all events, is certain, that οὖρα ἡμιόνων, odpov
ἀρούρης, and the οὔροισι ἐπιξύνῳ ἐν ἀρούρῃ, all relate to arable
land. Here, then, comes the question, What are the οὖρα
ἡμιόνων, Which from J/. x. 351, evidently are greater than the
οὖρα of oxen? In reference to this passage, Liddell and Scott
say,‘ whence the common explanation (derived from Aristarchus),
viz. that the distance meant is that by which mules would
distance oxen in ploughing a given space in the same time.’
This explanation is got from the Scholia ad locwm, which run as
follows— :

᾿Αρίσταρχος οὕτως ἐξηγήσατο. ὅσον, φησίν, ἐξ ἑνὸς καὶ
ὁμοῦ ὑπὸ τίνος ἀφεθέντος καὶ ἀπολυθέντος ξεύγους ἡμιόνων καὶ
ζεύγους ἄλλου βοῶν φθάσωσι καὶ προλάβωσι τὰς βοῦς αἱ
ἡμίονοι (ταχύτεραι ydp εἰσι τῶν βοῶν), τοσοῦτον, φησίν,
ἐάσαντες διάστημα παρελθεῖν τὸν Δόλωνα μεταστραφέντες
ἐδίωξαν.

That this, when properly understood, contains the true mean-
ing, I hope to prove. We can hardly allow that οὖρα can refer
to a portion of a single furrow, although Scholl, AV ad locwm say :
ἡλίκον ὅρμημα γίγνεται τῶν ἡμιόνων τεμνόντων αὔλακα. οὗρα
τὰ ὅρια καὶ πέρατα τῆς αὔλακος, ἣν τὸ ὀρικὸν ζεῦγος τέμνει"
ὅσον ἀροτριῶσα ἡμίονος ὑπὸ μίαν ὁρμὴν ὑπογράφειν δύναται,
ὃ ἔστι πλέθρον.

Next it is manifest from Od. viii. 124, that the οὖρον ἡμιονοῖιν
is an absolute, and not a relative measure, inasmuch as there is
no mention of oxen in that passage. In reference to this point

we ought to remark that the Scholia last cited tend in the same
y 2

322 THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM.

x
direction, since in their several attempts at explanation no
reference is made to oxen. Now can the οὖρα be the πέρατα
αὔλακος, the headlands? Wardly so. For we have a distine-
tive term, τέλσον ἀρούρης (il. xviii. 544), for those limits of
the field at which lie the extremities of the furrows. Now as
we have seen that οὖρον ἀρούρης (Il. cc.) must refer to certain
boundaries, and as these boundaries cannot be the headlands
or ends of the field, they must of necessity be the sides,

A simple explanation of odpa will now suggest itself. We
have here an ancient unit of land-measure, a day’s ploughing
of a yoke of oxen or a yoke of mules. We must bear in mind
that the length of the furrow, that is, the length of the field,
was fixed by local custom in primitive communities. A good
example is our own word furlong, which varies in length in
England and Ireland (Seebohm, The English Village Community,
p. 4).

The length of the furrow or furrow-long probably depended
on the distance which cattle could drag, and a man could steer,
the plough without an ‘easy,’ and this in turn of course would
depend on the nature of the soil. Mules, therefore, albeit more
swift than oxen, would not plough a patch of land of greater
length in one day than oxen; but inasmuch as the furrow-length
was a standard fixed for oxen, as being the animals most com-
monly used for the plough, they would plough a patch of
greater breadth. In other words, starting in the moruing from
one side (οὖρον A) of the patch, the mules against they ploughed
their last furrow (οὖρον B) before unyoking in the evening (Bov-
λυτός, With which cf. rod ζεύγους ἀπολυθέντος of Aristarchus
supra), would be further removed by many furrow-breadths
fion the side from which they had started, than a pair of oxen
would be in case they had started from the same boundary at
the same time, the swiftness of the mules having enabled them
to cover more ground than the plodding oxen. The distance
between the first and last furrows of a day’s ploughing was
termed οὖρα, just as the same word, as we have seen above,
was applied to the distance traversed by the δίσκος from the
hand of the thrower to the spot where it alighted. The odpa,
then, in the Homeric fields, formed of stones, as we learn from

Jl. xxi. 405, served the same purpose as the ba/ks of green turf —

in our English common fields (an example of which may still

THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM, 323

be seen at Hildersham, near Cambridge). Such landmarks of
stones are still used in Palestine, just as in ancient days, when
the precept was given: ‘Remove not the old landmark; and
enter not into the fields of the fatherless’ (Prov. xxiii. 10). No
doubt boundary stones could be moved little by little without
immediately. exciting notice, in this respect being inferior to the
continuous ridge of turf left permanently unploughed. The
only way to detect fraud being to remeasure the patches, donbt-
less it is such a dispute as this, and such a resort to the measuring
rod, which is pictured for us in the simile— .

“ ἣν δ ’ v (4 i Wee: Ὁ ΄
ὥστ᾽ ἀμφ᾽ οὔροισι δύ᾽ ἀνέρε δηριάασθον

μέτρ᾽ ἐν χερσὶν ἔχοντες, ἐπιξύν ἐν ἀρούρῃ,

ἜΝΙ. ae / 8. (Ὁ, , ’ / ~ SS

OT ὀλίγῳ ἐνὶ χώρῳ ἐρίζητον περὶ ἴσης,

Δ bd \ / > ΄ e , id \ » ,

ὡς apa τοὺς διέεργον ἐπάλξιες: of δ᾽ ὑπὲρ αὐτέων
, » / > \ / ,

δήουν ἀλλήλων ἀμφὶ στήθεσσι βοείας, K.T.X.

The ἐπάλξιες, across which the warriors fight, are likened unto
the οὖρα, on each side of which the wrangling neighbours
stand. This passage likewise puts beyond doubt the fact that
the term οὖρα (or οὖροι) was applied not simply to the bound-
aries of one large field, but to the marks which separated the
several patches, probably all of equal size [cf. ἐρίζητον περὶ
ions] into which the ἐπίξυνος ἄρουρα was divided. Such an
explanation of οὖρον enables us to see clearly the meaning of
the famous lines uttered by Andromache in her lament over her
fatherless boy—

αἰεί τοι τούτῳ γε πόνος καὶ κὴδε' ὀπίσσω
ἔσσοντ᾽" ἄλλοι yup οἱ ἀπουρίσσουσιν1 ἀρούρας.
Zi, xxii, 488-89,

Next comes the question, Do we find any definite surface
measure in the poems? The answer to this is found by examin-
ing the two compound adjectives, πεντηκοντόγυος and τετρώγυος,
the former found in J/iad 1x. 579 (τέμενος πεντηκοντόγνον), thie
latter in Odyssey vii. 113 (ὄρχατος τετράγυος) and (as a noun,
τετράγυον) in Odyssey xvill. 374.

All scholars are familiar with Elmsley’s remark that γύαι in

1 There is also the var. /ect. ἀπουρή- Eustathius (1282, 15), Sch. B., who
govow. I follow the explanation of connect it with ὅρος and ἀφορίζω,

324 THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM.

the Attic writers is always masculine, and therefore must come
from a form γύης. Under yins the Lexicons give two distinct
words: (1) γύης = plough-stock, and (2) γύης = a measure of
land. That the primitive Greek plough consisted of the γύης
and nothing more, we learn from Hesiod’s description (Works,
433) of the ἄροτρον avtoyvor, in which the ἔλυμα and ἑἱστοβοεὺς
are all of one piece with the γύης, standing thus in contrast to
the πηκτὸν ἄροτρον, formed of three separate pieces of wood.
Such an implement (the most primitive of all forms, being
simply a forked bough), according to Sir Charles Fellowes
(Travels, etc., p. 52, where he gives an engraving of one), is
still used in Asia Minor.1

With respect to the τέμενος πεντηκοντόγυον, we learn from
Schol. AD, E.M., 842, 23, that it was πεντήκοντα πλέθρων, οἱ
δὲ πεντήκοντα ζευγῶν. Another Scholium says, γύης μέτρον
γῆς μικρῷ τῶν δέκα ὀργυιῶν ἔλασσον. ἢ ζυγόν, ἢ πλέθρον, ἢ
ἕκατον ποδῶν. παρ᾽ ἑτέροις δὲ ἑξήκοντα πηχῶν. Hesychius
explains πεντηκοντόγυον by πεντηκοντοπέλεθρον. Is it over-
bold to assume that γύης μέτρον γῆς is identical with yins =a
plough? In that case we have a primitive land measure of a
common type, viz., as much ground as one plough can till in
one day (cf. Caruca and Carucata). The term ζυγόν, Lat. iugum,
iugerum, is only another way of expressing the same measure,
z.¢c. a8 inuch ground as a pair of oxen can plough in one day.
It was only natural that as γύης ceased gradually to represent
the whole plough, and finally denoted only a limited portion
of the improved implement, other terms should be employed
for denoting the land unit. If this view is correct, the reason
why γύαι is always masculine is obvious, According to the
Scholia the γύης is variously set down as a little less than 10
fathoms (= 60 feet), or as a πλέθρον (= 100 feet), or as 60
cubits (= 90 feet). This diversity need not surprise us, when
we recollect how greatly the Hide and Virgate varied in extent

even in the same counties in England.

1 Mr. Bent, in his most interesting
book, The Cyclades, p. 97, gives the fol-
lowing account of a plough which he saw
in the island of Anaphi: ‘‘ A plough in
these parts is an exceedingly primitive
article, somewhat similar to those which
Ifomer would have seen if he had uot

So likewise the Roman

been blind. The chief ingredient in a
plough is a tree with a trunk and two
branches: one branch serves as a tail,
and the other has a bit of iron fixed to
it, and penetrates the ground; the
trunk is the pole.”

THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM. 325

actus varied. The nature of the soil rendered such a variation
inevitable, and likewise the kind of animals employed for
draught. The mule-yins would be greater in area than
the οχ- γύης. :

How in the next place are we to explain the measurements
of 100, 90, and 60 feet given by the Scholiasts? It is scarcely
possible that they refer to syuare measure. Square measures
are not found in primitive communities, Our own acre and
rood afford an excellent illustration of the methods by which
people who as yet have not made ereat advances in knowledge
apportion out their land. The rood (= rod) was a portion of
ground of a furrow’s length, and in breadth a rod. Four such
furrow-long strips made an acre, but by no means a square acre,
The length of the field being a fixed measure, they sinyp!y
spoke of so many 7vds or breadths of δὲ feet (cf. Seebohm, op.
cit. p. 885). Furthermore, a patch of ground in area 60 feet x
60 feet would surely be too small a portion to represent a day’s
work even among the most lazy of peoples. Again, in spite of
the dogmatic statements of the Lexicons, it is most improbable
that the πέλεθρον of Homer was a square measure, not merely
for the reason which I have just stated, but also from the fact
that it is not until Plato that we find it used as a square
measure (= 10,000 feet). Readers of Herodotus and Xenophon
remember how they invariably find the πλέθρον as a measure
of the breadth of rivers, etc.

It undoubtedly required the development of some skill in
arithmetic to bring square measures into vogue. Finally the
evidence of the poems is against our taking πέλεθρον as a
square measure,

We find the word in two well-known passages: (1) in 7], xxi.
407, Ares, when overthrown by Athene, ἑπτὰ ἐπέσχε πέλεθρα
πεσών; and (2) in Od. xi. 577, we read that Tityos ἐπ᾽ ἐννέα
κεῖτο πέλεθρα. In neither case does πέλεθρον refer to agri-
culture. This fact, taken together with the undoubted use of
γύης as the agricultural unit, makes it evident that πέλεθρον
is not used for an area or surface measure in Homer. Likewise,
from its being used to describe the prostrate position of fallen
giants, we should naturally regard it as a measure of length
and not of area. In JI. xi. 353-54, we have a passage which
has a very important bearing on this question. Diomedes has

320 THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM.

hurled his spear at Hector, and has smitten him on the helm ;
the spear glances off—

“Extop δ᾽ ox’ ἀπέλεθρον ἀνέδραμε, μίκτο δ᾽ ὁμίλῳ.

At the best, it is not very Homeric to say ‘he quickly started
back an immeasurable distance, or to say ‘immeasurably
swiftly.’ Accordingly I conjectured ὦκα πέλεθρον, ‘he sprang
back the distance of πέλεθρον. Afterwards I found that there
is MS. authority (L) for such a division of the words. If this
reading could be established, it would prove beyond doubt my
view that Homer uses πέλεθρον as a measure of length only.
How then did the πλέθρον come to be identified with the yins
and ζυγόν: Was it because, given a furrow of fixed length,
the average day’s ploughing would be a lrcadth (πλέ-θρον, cf.
πλατύς, etc.) of 100 feet? The πλέθρον would thus be the
distance from οὖρον to οὖρον, just as the English acre was
measured from balk to balk. Similarly then, the length of the
field being a fixed unit, the οὖρα of mules and the οὖρα of oxen
came to be recognised as measures of area (cf. the terms Bovata
and Oxgang). As further examples of a day’s work being
taken as a unit of land measure, Mr. Seebohm (op. cit, 124)
gives the Gallic journel, Low Latin diurnalis or jurnalis, and
German Morgen, all employed to denote the patches in the
common fields.

Let us now proceed by the negative method, and see what
evidence can be obtained from that source.

Naturally one of the first questions to suggest itself in this
connection is the law of succession to property. Let us see
what light, if any, it throws on this matter. In J/, y. 153,
seqg. we are told of one Phainops who

τείρετο γήραϊ λυγρῷ,

ev ’ > , ᾽ Μ. > ‘ / Jy
υἱὸν δ᾽ ov τέκετ᾽ ἄλλον ἐπὶ κτεάτεσσι λιπέσθαι.
ἔνθ᾽ ὅγε τοὺς ἐνάριζε, φίλον δ᾽ ἐξαίνυτο θυμὸν
ἀμφοτέρω, πατέρι δὲ γόον καὶ κήδεα λυγρὰ
λεῖπ᾽, ἐπεὶ οὐ ζώοντε μάχης ἐκ νοστήσαντε
δέξατο χηρωσταὶ δὲ διὰ κτῆσιν δατέοντο.

The κτεάτεσσι of |. 154 is represented in 1. 158 by the collective

noun κτῆσις. Asa preliminary we must examine the usage of
κτῆσις, κτήματα, κτέρας, and their cognates in the poems. It

OS ————

THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM. 327

the result of this examination is to show that by these terms
chattel property, and that only, is meant, and that property in
lund is never included under them, it will have added a strong
point to the argument. For if in the case of Phainops it is
only chattel property which the χηρωσταὶ divide, and there is
no mention whatever made of /and either explicitly or implicitly,
we are justified in drawing the inference that Phainops, rich
though he was, had no severalty in land.

The meaning of κτήματα cannot be mistaken in JZ, iii. 70,
72; vil. 350, 363; xiii. 626. In all these cases they are the
valuables carried off along with Helen by Paris. Neither can
we have any doubt of its sense in J/. ix. 382 (ὅθι πλεῖστα
δόμοις ἐν κτήματα κεῖται), nor in Od. iv. 127, where the same
formula appears, referring in each case to Egyptian Thebes.
We get a clzar view of κτῆσις from Jl. xiv, 489-91 ;—

ὁ δ᾽ οὔτασεν ᾿Ιλιονῆα,
υἱὸν Φόρβαντος πολυμήλου, τόν pa μάλιστα
€ / , ’ U ‘ n vv
Ἑρμείας Τρώων ἐφίλει καὶ κτῆσιν ὄπασσεν.

Here the epithet πολύμηλος elucidates it for us.
κτῆμα plainly refers to a chattel in the only place where it is
found in the singular, Od. xv. 19—

, (ln be A , > /
μή νύ τι, σεῦ ἀέκητι, δόμων ἐκ κτμα φέρηται.

The cognate κτέρας, in the only two places where it occurs (JI.
x. 216; xxiv. 235), refers in the one case to an dis, in the other
to a δέπας. Again the verb κτάομαι is never used of the ac-
quisition of dand, either in the Zliad or Odyssey, though used of
slaves, Od. xiv. 3, 460; of a wife, Od. xxiv. 193; of an οἶκος,
Od. xx. 265. The same may be said of κτεατίζω, with the
exception of one passage (0d. xxiv. 207), to which I must
return hereafter.

To complete the list we may add the compounds πολυκτήμων
(il. v. 615) and ἀκτήμων (Zl. ix. 121, 268). The result of an
examination must be to show that the heirs of Pnainops divided
personal or chattel property merely, but came in for no in-
heritance in land, and furthermore that the idea of property in
land is foreign certainly to the Iliad, if not to the Odyssey.

Having now dealt with the evidence drawn from succession
to property, Ict us next consider in what did the wealth of an

338 THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM.

Homeric Greek consist. An obvious method of gaining a
correct view on this point is to enumerate all the epithets
employed to denote a man as wealthy. We find the word
πολυκτήμων already disposed of, πολύμηλος, Ll. xvi. 417, xx.
220; πολύρρην, Jl. ix. 154; πολύαρνι (metaplastic dative),
Il. ii. 106 ; πολυπάμων, Il. iv. +33, where the kind of preperty
meant is made clear by the context—

Τρῶες δ᾽, ὥστ᾽ dies πολυπάμονος ἀνδρὸς ἐν αὐλῇ

μυρίαι ἑστήκασιν ἀμελγόμεναι γάλα λευκὸν,

ἀξηχὲς μεμακυῖαι, ἀκούουσαι ὅπα ἀρνῶν.

Such words as πολυχρύσος, πολύχαλκος (Il. x. 315) speak for
themselves, ἀφνειὸς is explained for us by such phrases as
ἀφνειὸς χρυσοῦ καὶ ἐσθῆτος, Od. i. 165.

There still remain two important epithets, πολυλήϊος and
πολύκληρος, both of which call for some more extended
remarks.

Turning first to πολυληϊος, we shall quickly find that the
meaning of this word and its twin, ἀλήϊος, in the Homeric
poems has been strangely overlooked. The ordinary authorities
take πολυλήϊος (Ll. v. 613, vate πολυκτήμων πολυλήϊος) to
mean ‘rich in cornfields,’ thus deriving it from λήϊον, although
the latter is never used in Homer in the sense of field, but
always means the corn growing on the field, the corn on shank (ef.
Zi. xi. 560), and the self-same distinction between ἄρουρα and
λήϊον is made in the new Ionic of Herodotus (v. 92), in the
well-known story of Thrasybulus. It would seem, then, that
if πολυλήϊος is connected with λήϊον, it must mean not rich in
land, but rich in standing corn, As this term could only be
applied to a man for the brief period preceding the harvest,
it would be singular to find it employed as an_ epitheton
constans.

Let us now turn to ἀλήϊος. In Jl. ix. 264 segg., Odysseus,
when, on behalf of Agamemnon, he offers requital-gifts to
Achilles, says—

ἕπτ᾽ ἀπύρους τρίποδας, δέκα δὲ χρυσοῖο τάλαντα
αἴθωνας δὲ λέβητας ἐείκοσι, δώδεκα δ᾽ ἵππους
πηγοὺς ἀθλοφόρους, οἱ ἀέθλια ποσσὶν ἄροντο.
οὔ κεν ἀλήϊος εἴη ἀνὴρ ᾧ τόσσα γένοιτο,

οὐδέ κεν ἀκτήμων ἐριτίμοιο χρυσοῖο.

THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM. 329

What force has ἀλήϊος in this passage if we connect it with
λήϊον, whether in the sense of lachluad or luckervop? That,
however, the writer of the poem did not employ ἀλήϊος in
either of these senses, but rather connected it with Anis, λεία,
is set forth clearly in the repiy of Achiiles, ll. 406 segg.—

” ‘ , \ wv 7
ληϊστοὶ μὲν yap Te Boes καὶ ἴφια μῆλα,
[2 ’
κτητοὶ δὲ τρίποδές τε καὶ ἵππων ξανθὰ κάρηνα"
‘ , val » . \
ἀνδρὸς δὲ ψυχὴ πάλιν ἐλθεῖν οὔτε λεϊστὴ, K.T.N.

Who can doubt that the ληϊστοὶ and κτητοὶ of the refusal
correspond respectively to the ἀλήϊος and ἀκτήμων of the offer ?
More light is thrown on the matter by line 280, where the
envoys add that Achilles is to have the choicest score of Trojan
women, ὅτε Kev δατεώμεθα Anis’ ᾿Αχαιοί.

Again φιλολήϊος (ἢ. Hermes, 335) is universally taken as
derived from λεία, since it is used in direct reference to the
word Anis. five lines above, and both words refer to the oxen of
Apollo.

To crewn all, one Scholiast at least derives ἀλήϊος ἀπὸ τοῦ
μὴ ἔχειν λείαν. From the Hesiodic poems we may add two
noteworthy passages: (1) Theogony, 444—

ἐσθλὴ (sc. Hekate) δ᾽ ἐν σταθμοῖσι σὺν “Ἑρμῇ rid? ἀέξειν:
βουκολίας T ἀγέλας τε καὶ αἰπόλια πλατέ᾽ αἰγῶν

ποίμνας T εἰροπόκων ὀΐων, θυμῷ γ᾽ ἐθέλουσα,

ἐξ ὀλίγων βριάει, καὶ ἐκ πολλῶν μείονα θῆκεν,

Here the meaning of Anis is made plain by the enumeration
which follows. (2) Works and Days, 702—

9 \ / Ν bd \ ay 3) 25}.
οὐ μὲν yap τι γυναικὸς ἀνὴρ ληΐζετ᾽ ἄμεινον
τῆς ἀγαθῆς, τῆς δ᾽ αὖτε κακῆς οὐ ῥίγιον ἄλλο.

There is no notion of unlawful seizure expressed by ληΐξετας
here, as I think no one is likely to claim this isolated expression
asan example of the ‘Form of Capture’ as set forth in Mr.
McLennan’s famous work.

From the passages to which I have referred, and from others
which might be quoted, it becomes fairly obvious that Anis
(λεία is not found in Homer) denoted all kinds of live chattels,
such as slaves and cattle, thus standing in contrast to κτήματα,
inanimate articles of property.

339 THE HOMERIC LAND-SYSTEM.

As a result of this examination, it is now evident that there
is not one of the epithets from the Z/iad which denotes wealth
in /and. On turning to the Odyssey, however, we are confronted
~ with two adjectives, πολύκληρος and ἄκληρος. We are now
obliged to consider the history of the word κλῆρος, which plays
so important a part in the terminology of property in Attic
law. It primarily means the lot itself, e.g. the symbols (prob-
ably pieces of stone) cast into the helmet of Agamemnon by
the Achaean chieftains, Jd. vil. 175.

Secondly, it came to denote the object assigned by the lot,
especially a portion of land, Finally, in Attic law it came to
mean the whole of an inheritance comprising both the οὐσία
ἀφανὴς and οὐσία φανερά, as is evidenced by the terms «Anpo-
νομεῖν, κληρονόμος, and ἐπίκληρος. We are certainly justified
in assuming that lands were in early times allocated by lot,
whatever the tenure under which they were held may have
been. For the oft-quoted passage where the settlement of the
Phaiakians in Scherie, under their chieftain Nausithoos, is
described (Od. vi. 9, 10—

‘ rf 7. /
ἀμφὶ δὲ τεῖχος ἔλασσε πόλει, καὶ ἐδείματο οἴκους,
καὶ νηοὺς ποίησε θεῶν, καὶ ἐδάσσατ᾽ ἀρούρας),

does not at all imply that the chief allocated the lands. He
directs all the important details of the founding of the settle-
ment, and amongst these not the least would have been the
selecting of those portions of the newly acquired territory suit-
able for tillage, and marking it out into equal portions, which
in all probability were distributed by lot amongst the settlers,
whether they were to be held absolutely or in common, For
as regards the actual nature of the tenure, we are left in ignor-
ance by this passage. We have, however, in historical times,
a fair example of the allocation of newly acquired lands in the
case of the Athenian κληροῦχοι. The lands were divided in
equal portions, probably each κλῆρος, consisting partly of arable
land and partly of wood land, as we learn from the very im-
portant Attic inscription discovered in 1884, which Koehler,
with great. probability, regards as a decree relating to the
occupation of Salamis by κληροῦχοι on the subjugation of the
island, between 575 and 559 B.c. (Koehler, Mittheil. ix. (1884),
Ρ. 117 seqq.). The lots are proved to have been equal by the

THE HOMERIC LAND ΒΚΒΥΒΤΈΕ,,, 33 |

fact that the absentee tax to be paid by non-resident «pod
vot, who preferred to live at Athens, seems to have been a
fixed sum.

Doubtless the Athenians would follow the time-honoure«
method of allotting lands invariably adopted in the planting of
colonies.

The supposition that the κλῆρος (portion of land) indicated
originally an allotment held in a common field, is rendered
probable by the practice of other primitive peoples. Without
doubt such a method is the simplest means of avoiding strife
and heart-burnings, and such is still the practice in the common-
field system in Palestine, as we learn from an interesting extract
from the records of the Palestine Exploration Fund, quoted
by Mr. Seebohm, op. cit. p. 315.

In two passages in Homer the word κλῆρος indubitably
means a portion of land. In Jl. xv, 495, Hector guarantees
that the οἶκος and κλῆρος of each slain warrior shall be secured
for his wife and children. But here κλῆρος need mean nothing
more than that the right to a portion in the common fields
shall be preserved, and that care shall be taken to protect the
widow and orphans against those who would seek to remove the
landmarks, the misfortune dreaded by Andromache, as we have
seen already. This view is not only supported by the evidence
drawn from the epithets in the Jiiad, but is rendered highly
probable by a circumstance, which, I think, has not been pre-
viously noted. The Trojans seem to be in the stage of social
development known as the House-community. This appears
from the description of Priam’s house in 71. vi. 243 seqg.—

αὐτὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ
πεντήκοντ᾽ ἔνεσαν θάλαμοι ἕεστοῖο λίθοιο,
πλησίοι ἀλλήλων δεδμημένοι" ἔνθα δὲ παῖδες
κοιμῶντο ἹΤριάμοιο παρὰ μνηστῇς ἀλόχοισιν.
κουράων δ᾽ ἑτέρωθεν ἐναντίοι ἔνδοθεν αὐλῆς
δώδεκ᾽ ἔσαν τέγεοι θάλαμοι ἕεστοῖο λίθοιο,.
πλησίοι ἀλλήλων δεδμημένοι: ἔνθα δὲ γαμβροὶ
κοιμῶντο Ἰ]ριάμοιο “ταρ᾽ αἰδοίῃς ἀλόχοισιν.

From this we see that Priam’s sons and daughters, even when

married, dwelt under his roof. The term ἐφέστιεοι applied (ZI.
11, 125) to the native Trojans, as contrasted with their ἐπέκουροι,

332 THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM.

tends in the same direction, especially if we call to mind the
significant use of the correlative term ἀνέστιος (ἀφρήτωρ,
ἀθέμιστος, ἀνέστιος) in Il. ix. 63—4.

But when we come to Odyssey xiv. 63-65, the case is very
different. Here we find κλῆρος classed along with οἶκος and γύνη
as the usual benefactions which an ἄναξ εὔθυμος bestows on a
slave who has served him faithfully. Unfortunately the use
of the word ἄναξ admits two interpretations for this passage.
In either case the κλῆρος mentioned cannot be taken out of
the common land.

If we take ἄναξ = king, chieftain, then the king must have
settled his freedman on part of the royal domain (which, by
this time, has become hereditary), and the slave, like the me-
diaeval villein, would probably pay a portion of the produce to
his master as a sort of rent. For, as we shall see hereafter,
the king had no power over the common land. On the other’
hand, if ἄναξ simply means mvster (cf. Il. xxiv. 734, Od.i. 397),
we are at once brought face to face with an epoch when severalty
in landed property is being established. The latter view seems
to me the most probable, especially in the light of what follows.
The use of the adjective πολύκληρος (Od. xiv. 211) indicates
most clearly an age when property in land is recognised as an
important item of wealth, and when many κλῆροι had come
to be accumulated in the hands of one individual, and when
consequently landed property was held perpetually in severalty.
Such, too, may be the explanation of the adjective ἄκληρος in
the famous utterance of Achilles, Od. xi. 489—90—

βουλοίμην x’ ἐπάρουρος ἐὼν θητευέμεν ἄλλῳ
> ‘ τ > / - \ / \ ”
ἀνδρὶ παρ᾽ ἀκλήρῳ, ὦ μὴ βίοτος πολὺς εἴη, κ.τ.λ.

As πολύκληρος may be a general descriptive epithet of a
wealthy man, so ἄκληρος may be that of a poor man. It
certainly savours of a bull, if we take the epithet strictly and
say that a man works as a farm-labourer (ێzrapoupos) for a man
who has no land (κλῆρος). There is, however, an explanation
which entirely escapes from this difficulty. May not ἄκληρος
denote such a class of ‘outsiders’ as are found attached to
certain villages in Central and Southern India, who unmis-
takably ‘form no part of the natural and organic aggregate to

THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM. 333

which the bulk of the villages belong’ (Maine, Village Com-
munities, p. 127) 4
Again, we find settled on the unappropriated land of every

Irish tribe a class of persons called by various names, Seu-
cleithes, Bothachs, and Fuidhirs. The Bordarii and Cotarii of
Domesday are supposed to have occupied a somewhat similar
position. In all these cases it has been suspected that the
servile orders had an origin different from that of the dormant
race (cf. Maine, Lar/y Institutions, pp. 172 seqq.). Perhaps the
Irish Fuidhirs, or ‘broken men,’ are the nearest analogy which
we can find for a class of which we find distinct traces in
Homer. The Fuidhirs were ‘strangers or fugitives from other
territories, men, in fact, who had broken the original tribal
bond which gave them a place in the tribal community, and
who had to obtain another as best they might in a new tribe
and a new place. Such is the man described in Jl. ix.
63—

ἀφρήτωρ, ἀθέμιστος, ἀνέστιός ἐστιν ἐκεῖνος

ὃς πολέμου ἔραται ἐπιδημίοο κρυόεντος.

And again in 1]. ix. 648—
ς / Din id. / ΄
@OEL τιν ἀτίμητον μετανάστην,

we get a terse description of the unhappy lot of such ἃ ‘ broken
man, where, as has been happily suggested,’ ἀτίμητον means
that his life has no τέμη, is worth no Hric or Bloodgelt.

Such persons would be settled on the waste lands of the
community, such lands as are described in ἡ. Venus, 123-—24—

\ ee Se ” a ᾽ ,
πολλὰ © ἔπ᾽ ἤγαγεν ἔργα καταθνητῶν ἀνθρώπων,
\ Deeg , Ny oF A \ a
πολλὴν δ᾽ AKANPOV TE καὶ AKTLTOY, ἣν διὰ θῆρες
ὠμοφάγοι φοιτῶσι, κ.τ.λ.

The term ἄκληροι would fitly describe such ‘outsiders,’ and
Achilles might well regard service for such a master as tanta-
mount to the lowest drudgery.

It will be convenient in this place to return to Od. xxiv. 207,
where we find the verb κτεατίζειν used in connection with
ἀγρός. Although high authorities have regarded this ἀγρὸς
as a τέμενος bestowed by the community on the aged Laertes

1 By Dr. Henry Jackson. For τίμη = ποινὴ, cf. 71], i. 159,

334 THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM.

in requital for his services, ἐπεὶ μάλα πόλλ᾽ ἐμόγησεν, perhaps,
since the term τέμενος is not applied to it, it is better to view
the farm as his own acquisition, won from the waste by his own
exertions.

Taking this in connection with a passage in JI. xxiii.,
832-—385—

” ε \ ΄ Ν ’ U / ’ \
εἴ ol καὶ μάλα πολλὸν ἀπόπροθι πίονες ἀγροὶ
ἕξει μιν καὶ πέντε περιπλομένους ἐνιαυτοὺς
, ΄ /
χρεώμενος" οὐ μὲν γάρ οἱ ἀτεμβόμενός γε σιδήρου
\ ΔΊΟΥ 3. \ WRIT 9 / ᾽ \ /
ποιμὴν οὐδ᾽ ἀροτὴρ Elia’ ἐς πόλιν, ἀλλὰ παρέξει,

we get a glimpse of one of the ways by which permanent
property in land may have arisen. A chieftain who had capital,
ze. oxen and slaves, more than sufficient to cultivate the τέμενος,
might take possession of a piece of waste land remote from the
town and from the divided lands of the community. His slaves
would till it for him, and protect it against marauders. It
would become his undisputed property, and at his death would
naturally pass to his heirs, whilst the royal τέμενος would revert
to the community to be bestowed on the next chieftain.

From the foregoing remarks there seem to be considerable
grounds fer stating that in the Odyssey we see evidences of a
state of society later in time and more advanced in institutions
than that portrayed in the liad. It would be futile to attempt
any computation of the period of time which divides the two
epochs. In support of this view, we may quote Od. xiv. 208—
11, where Odysseus, pretending to be the bastard son of a
certain Kretan, relates that when his father died—

τοὶ ζωὴν ἐδάσαντο
παῖδες ὑπέρθυμοι, καὶ ἐπὶ κλήρους ἐβάλοντο"
αὐτὰρ ἐμοὶ μάλα παῦρα δόσαν καὶ οἰκί᾽ ἔνειμαν,
ἠγαγόμην δὲ γυναῖκα πολυκλήρων ἀνθρώπων.

This, to all intents, is the practice prevailing at Athens in
historic times. The legitimate sons divided the property by
lot, whilst the bastard received a sum of money, τὰ νοθεῖα, (cf.
Arist. Aves, 1656,) which was limited to 1,000 drachmas by a
law of Solon. Were it not for the occurrence of πολύκληρος,
the words ζωὴν ἐδάσαντο might be simply taken as equivalent
to διὰ κτῆσιν δατέοντο, as ζωὴ seems never to include land,

THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM. 335

and thus there would be no necessity for regarding the passage
as indicating a late epoch.

There still remains to be noticed an important feature of the
Homeric community, and one which is of considerable value in
aiding us to form some notion of the mode in which private
property in land gradually supplanted the older system. As
among other primitive peoples, we find a portion of land set
apart for the chief, so the τέμενος βασιλήϊον is a regular feature
of the Homeric poems. In the tale of Bellerophon (1, vi. 191
—95), we read how the king of Lykia—

δῶκε δέ of τιμῆς βασιληΐδος ἥμισυ πάσης

\ / € 4 / / » »,
καὶ μήν οἱ Λύκιοι τέμενος τάμον ἔξοχον ἄλλων
καλὸν φυταλιῆς καὶ ἀρούρης.

Here it is most noteworthy that whilst the king has the full
disposal of his own τιμὴ, he has no power over the land, but it
is the Lykians themselves who give the hero his τέμενος. This
affords an interesting parallel to the case of the Hindu chief-
tains (cf. Elphinstone, History of India, Bk. ii. ¢. 2).

Again, from the story of Meleagros (JJ. ix. 574—80), we learn
that in order to appease his wrath, the elders send the priests
to him— ᾿

ὑποσχόμενοι μέγα δῶρον'
ὁππόθι πιότατον πεδίον Καλυδῶνος ἐραννῆς,
ἔνθα μιν ἤνωγον τέμενος περικαλλὲς ἑλέσθαι
πεντηκοντόγυον, τὸ μὲν ἥμισυ οἰνοπέδοιο,

Ὁ“

ἥμισυ δὲ ψιλὴν ἄροσιν πεδίοιο ταμέσθαι.

In this case, likewise, it is not the king but the elders who
make the grant, for King Oeneus is represented in the succeed-
ing lines as merely adding his entreaties to those of his
people. :

Once more do we learn the reason why such domains were
allotted from the words of Sarpedon—

Γλαῦκε, τίη δὴ νῶϊ τετιμήμεσθα μάλιστα

ἕδρῃ τε κρέασίν τ᾽ ἠδὲ πλείοις δεπάεσσιν

> / / \ \ ἃ » /

ἐν Λυκίῃ, πάντες δὲ θεοὺς ὡς εἰσορόωσιν ;

καὶ τέμενος νεμόμεσθα μέγα Ἐάνθοιο παρ᾽ ὄχθας

καλὸν φυταλιῆς καὶ ἀρούρης πυροφόροιο ;

Tl. xii, 8310—14.

H.S.— VOL. VI. Z

990 ‘THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM.

These τεμένη were cultivated for the chief by his slaves or
hired labourers (ἔρεθοι), nay, the chief himself disdained not to
guide the plough, as we know from the words (Od. xviii, 374)
in which Odysseus vaunts his skill as a ploughman. (So, too,
the Hindu king Janaka, in the Ramayana, i. 66, speaks of him-
self as ploughing his own land.) It is doubtless the harvesting
of such a domain, and not a picture of an ordinary cornfield,
which occupies one of the compartments of the shield (17. xviii.
550—60).

It is explicitly termed a τέμενος, and the chieftain himself
(and of this there can be doubt, for he is called βασιλεύς,, not
ἄναξ), in the midst of his ἔριθοι---

«

an / 3 99) fol
σκῆπτρον ἔχων ἑστήκει ἐπ᾽ ὄγμου γηθόσυνος κῆρ.

The τέμενος is described in |. 550 as either βασιλήϊον or βαθυ-
λήϊον, according as we adopt one or other of the alternative
readings. βασιλήϊον deserves strong support from the considera-
tion (1) that the word τέμενος itself is sufficient to show that
the land belongs to a chief, and (2) that it is unlikely that the
entire τέμενος would be under corn, which is necessarily implied
if we adopt the reading βαθυλήϊον. I know not how far we
may be justified in believing that the harvest scene, on what
we have strong grounds for regarding as the chiefs domain, is
directly contrasted with the scene which immediately precedes,
it, the Ploughing of the Fallow. For in the latter I believe we
have depicted the tilling of the great common field, ἐν δ᾽ ἐτίθει
νειὸν μαλακὴν, πίειραν ἄρουραν, εὐρεῖαν, τρίπολον. Itis plainly
not the land of the chief, for in that case it should have been
included under the term τέμενος. Its extent prevents us from
regarding it as the field of an ordinary individual, for it is εὐρεῖα,
and πολλοὶ ἀροτῆρες ἐν αὐτῇ, ζεύγεα δινεύοντες ἐλάστρεον ἔνθα
καὶ ἔνθα. I have little doubt but that the hitherto received
notion regarding property in land in Homeric times has sprung
from a misunderstanding of the harvest scene. People have
taken for granted that the βασιλεὺς there mentioned is simply
the stout farmer of modern times superintending his labourers.

1 The words ἔχων σκῆπτρον likewise clusive that it is always a symbol of
put the matter beyond all doubt, as an office, whether kingly or judicial, and
investigation of all the passages in is never used ‘simply for a staff or
Which σκῆπτρον occurs makes it con- walking-stick.

THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM. 337

In the shield the poet’s aim is to give a series of pictures of
the various sides of human existence (except those which are
sad and mournful). Accordingly we see all sorts and conditions
of men severally represented in their appropriate surroundings ;
the βασιλεὺς stands in his τέμενος, the Gerontes are sitting ἐπὶ
ξεστοῖσι λίθοις ἱερῷ ἐνὶ κύκλῳ, and the λαοὶ εἰν ἀγορῇ ἔσαν
ἀθρόοι. The feature which really differentiated the chief from
the Gerontes, was the possession of the Temenos, and accordingly
the poet selects a scene on that royal domain as the fitting
setting for his picture of the king. The ploughing of the
fallow gains a new significance when we remember that every-
where under the system of common-field cultivation there
were rigid rules regulating tillage. All the joint cultivators
had to commence ploughing on the same day. Plough Monday,
still commemorated as a village festival, is the record of the
day on which our forefathers began the ploughing of the
common field. Is it going too far, then, to suppose that those
‘many ploughers’ of the Homeric lines are joint cultivators,
each tilling his own allotment in the one great field ?

It is obvious that as soon as the office of chieftain became
hereditary, the Temenos would become the private property of
the reigning family.- Such is the case with Odysseus, The
office of Headman has become fixed in his family from there
having been a succession of vigorous chiefs, but that the royal
appanages were far from secure for his son Telemachos, is made
plain by the words of his mother—

σὸν δ᾽ οὔπω τις ἔχει καλὸν γέρας, ἀλλὰ ἕκηλος
Τηλέμαχος τέμενος νέμεται, K.T.Dr,
Od. xi. 184--85.

From this we may infer that the Temenos went with the chief-
tainship. It is interesting to observe that just as in mediaeval
times all improvements in agriculture arose on the lord’s domain,
since it was both for his private interest to make his land as
remunerative as possible, and he was not bound down by the
same strict rules for tillage, so in Homeric Hellas likewise, it
is in the Temenos that we find what traces there are of superior
cultivation. Already the harvest scene has given us a picture
of a goodly crop, at the sight of which the chief's ‘heart is
a

338 THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM.

rejoiced, whilst in the Odyssey poor dog Argos, old and
outcast, lay

ἐν πολλῇ κόπρῳ, ἥ οἱ προπάροιθε θυράων,

id / rn ef / 3 Μ 3 ὦ ”
ἡμιόνων τε βοῶν τε, ἅλις κέχυτ᾽, ὄφρ᾽ ἂν ἄγοιεν
δμῶες ᾿Οδυσσῆος τέμενος μέγα “οπρίσσοντες.

Od. xvii. 297-99.

No doubt self-interest soon taught the chiefs to manure and
vill their lands carefully. Al other traces of superior husbandry
which we find, refer to κῆποι and adwal, which would either
form parts of the Temenos, or in the case of private individuals
would be held in severalty, a certain portion going with each
house and inclosed by a fence, whilst on the other hand the
ἄρουρα is always uninclosed. Whilst ἕρκος ἀλωῆς is a regular
feature of the poems, nowhere do we meet with an ἕρκος
apovpns. We find aclose parallel to this in the English ‘closes’
(Low Latin, ‘clausum’), a fenced-off portion of ground going
with each homestead, and so called in contrast to the fenceless
open fields,

That the system of tillage was that known as ‘two shift,’
there can be but little doubt. Whenever ploughing is men-
tioned, we almost invariably find that the operation is taking
place in a νειὸς or fallow. This renders it probable that each
year half the arable land was tilled, and half lay fallow, covered
with a scurf of weeds.

Before concluding, it is worth while to inquire what is the
nature of the land system indicated in the Hesiodic poems.
The data are but scanty, yet I think they are sufficient to show
us that we have in the Works and Days a record of an epoch
later than the Odyssey, and far later than the Jliad. Land is
held in severalty, and descends to the children, who divide it
between them, just as at Athens in the age of the Orators.
So we may gather from the words—

ἤδη μὲν yap κλῆρον ἐδασσάμεθ᾽, ἄλλα TE πολλὰ
ἁρπάζων ἐφόρεις μέγα κυδαίνων βασιλῆας.
Works, 36-387.
That farms were freely bought and sold, as at Athens, is clear

1 That such was the practice in the time of Pindar is clear from Nein. vi. 10.

THE HOMERIC LAND SYSTEM. 339

from the Works (336-41), where there is an exhortation to
honour the gods with sacrifices—

“ / ΓΑ : / \ \ Μ):
ὥς κέ τοι ἵλαον κραδίην καὶ θυμὸν ἔχωσιν,
ὄφρ᾽ ἄλλων ὠνῇ κλῆρον, μὴ τὸν τεὸν ἄλλος.

Finally, the whole tone of the poem gives us a clear impres-
sion that the system of which he treats is one of separate and
hereditary ownership. Incidentally this has an important
bearing on the chronology of the Homeric poems. I have
already stated some reasons for supposing that the Odyssey
represents a later age than the Jliad. Now although the use of
the term πολύκληρος in the Odyssey is an indication that the
accumulation of κλῆροι had already commenced, possibly by
inheritance, a considerable time must have elapsed before the
Hesiodic stage of an open market for land was reached, a stage
to all intents the same as that which we find in Attica in the
age of Pericles. In thus comparing Homer and Hesiod, we of
course are assuming that all parts of Greece developed at the
same rate. In any case, even supposing that the rate of pro-
gress was uneven, Boeotia, in relation to other parts of Hellas,
is more likely to have been in a backward than in a forward
state, in which case we should allow for a longer interval between
the Odyssey and the Works and Days.

We have now passed in review whatever evidence can be
drawn from the poems for ascertaining the nature of the land-
system in Homeric times, both positive evidence from certain
agricultural terms, and negative based on an examination of
certain epithets, the law of succession, the use of the term
κλῆρος, the institution of the Temenos, getting what help we
could from the comparative method. How far this paper has
succeeded in its object, is for others to judge.

WILLIAM RIDGEWAY.

340 INSCRIPTIONS

INSCRIPTIONS COPIED. BY COCKERELL IN
GREECE.—II.

In the earlier number of the present volume (p. 143 sgq.) I
gave some account of a MS. collection of inscriptions made by
C. R. Cockerell in 1810-1814, and also gave copies of all those
from the mainland of Greece, which appeared to be hitherto
unpublished. The present paper will cover the rest of that
collection, which is mostly derived from Asia Minor.

I add a complete list of the remaining contents of Cockerell’s
volumes. Those unpublished are reproduced below; in the
case of all those previously edited, a collation with the published
copy has been made and kept, and I should be very glad to

show these collations to any one interested in the matter.

1 Ἢ aS ΘΙ

C. 504= C.1.4. 2370 | 66 = In Spon (also Rh, Mus. 1833,
Osi =), 0. 41 | 22)

*C, 52 Unpublished *67 Unpublished

C. 53 = C.LG. 2304 68 = 6.1.6. 3924 b
C. 54 Be PBS | *69 Unpublished

C@. 55 35) 9394 | *70 Unpublished

C. 56 = Le Bas and Wad. V. 127 *71 Unpublished

C.

C.

C

C.

57 = C.1,G. 2107 | 72 = C.I.G. 3909
58 » ee TOLOG *73 Unpublished
. 59 = Le Bas & Wad. V. 1560, 1563 | 74 ἃ = O,1.G. 3925
60 = 0.1.6. 3092 ) ὃ = part of C.1.G. 3915
61 », 98061 C= CFG) 911
62 5, 9094 *75 Unpublished
Ooo 48|190 *76 Unpublished
64 Bua 77 = Le Bas and Wad. V. 630
65 ξΞξα ιη ϑῦ44 78 = 6.1.6. 3453

1 ΤῊ my last paper I numbered all
the inscriptions consecutively; it has
since appeared more convenient to follow
Cockerell’ssystem of numbering, though

inconsistent. When the two systems
overlap, 1 have added a C, to avoid
confusion in references.

COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE.—II. 341

19 = C.1.G4. 3473
4 αΞΞ,,. vse70

Ι͂

ὦ = Le Bas and Wad. Y. 631

Ὁ Ξ CLG roel y
*$1 Unpublished

82a = CLI.G. 3508

Gy ohh

38434

§3 = » 3016
84 See between 79 and 80
85. Ξ΄ Gel. 63565) =)9285

86a= ,, 3563
* 0 Unpublished
*87 Unpublished

88 = Le Bas and Wad. V. 1662 |

89 In With. d. d. Inst. τὰς Athen,

VI. p. 138.
*90 Unpublished
91 = C.I.G. 2947
92= ,, 2949
*93 Unpublished
*94 Unpublished
*95 Unpublished
96 = 0.1.6. 2259
*97 α Unpublished
* δ) Unpublished
132. = Ο 116 89
*98 Unpublished
99 = C.I.G. 2879
*100 Unpublished

101 = 6.2.4.

*102 = Le Bas and Wad. V.
108 ᾿,

104) = C.I.G. 2870

*105 Unpublished
106 = (1.0. 4283
LOR G7 555) 4281

b Unpublished
108 = C.1.G. 4280

109= ,, 4292
110= ,, 4293
Wit) £4905

*112 Unpublished
*113 Unpublished
114 = 6.71.6. 4284
ΡΞ, 4285
116) = hy. 4200
UW Fe=\ M,, omaAdd.
TPES τ 1/4289
*119 Unpublished
*120 Unpublished
*121 Unpublished

4300 q.

222

*122 Unpublished
123 = C.L.G. 4287
*124 Unpublished
"125 a Unpublished
’ " Unpublished
*126 Unpublished
*127 Unpublished
128 = Le Bas and Wad. V. 138134
129 = C.1.G. Add. 4303 ἢ 5.
130= ,, +4288
ile = Δα A800
132 See between 97 and 98
*133 Unpublished
134 = O.1G. 4304
*135 a Unpublished
ων » Unpublished
136 Unpublished
187 a = O.1.G. 4311
% " Unpublished
*138 Unpublished
*139 Unpublished
140 herd
ταὶ = Ο1.6. 4305
bie Se Fh ARTO

VOL. Ii.

142 = ΟΣ ὦ. 4828
143 = " 4824
144 = pt. of ,, 4332
= C.I.G. 4836
Ὁ ΞΞΙΟ ἡ (94540
Dis) as 2990

ΟΞ Pagal
1 », 4360
Ἰδέ τ ἡ 544.

δ ΞΡ Lath. Goss

149
\ i 59)) ODO

150a@= 4, 4853
ΡΞ αἴ. bP

εν yy 4358

fee 4356
1625 nA 4346
δ =" ess 4357

bind, dell 4059)
by a 4361
105 ΞΞ ἢ; 4351
ΠΟΘ ΟΞ » 4848
157 = 149

158 = pt. of ,, 4355

INSCRIPTIONS

159 ὦ = 6.1.6. 8884 1766 = ΟΣ 9224

b= shen Baas *177 a Unpublished
c= 123) i348 ΠΣ ὑ Unpublished
160) = 5c 4301 178 = C.I.G, 4430
16la= 08 *179 a Unpublished
b= ,, ΗΟ b= CAG. 8937
109. αἰ ΞΞ τ , B44 Ἰϑθ ξξ. Bere 9208
P= ΜΕ Ά305 Ὰ ὑ Unpublished
cook, 301 181 af= (CLG, 9237
105. = », 4409 ᾿ ὁ Unpublished
1644 -τ- ,, 4408 182a = (. 1.4. 9164
δέξο. 4406 OS. 155 e922:
c= ,, 4407 c= ,, 9178
165)— 590 4422 188@= ,, 9165 Add, 4432 1
166 = "Ὁ 95 δυξβον, ἐπ 9167
Gy / (ONS were ESAT) 184 a = τέ Αἀα 3492 δ
(VR ee ote (Mere NGS
168 = » 4418 ἂξ ΒΊΗΙ
165 -- "Δ 2] 1860 = Geto
10 ΞΞ » #424 b=’, moae
l7la 186 = jy eine
of Rhink aee 187 = ,, 8619
ΔῚΣ Κ “411 *188 α Unpublished
178}. tlh b= CLG. 4485
172 = » 40822 189 ὦ Unpublished
7a =o) 20 b= O.1G. 4436
b ΞΞβ ον» 1 9208 190 Ὁ =) 9 55, ese?
LiGid). =. We 4429. 9218 b= eee
ΟΙΞΞ 55 511

Before we proceed to the text of those inscriptions which
either are entirely new or contain so much new matter that
they are worth reproducing separately, a few words must be
added about the much larger number which are identical with
copies already made public. These will fall at once into three
classes, each of which will need separate attention. To the first
of these classes we may assign those examples which are known
to be the source from which tlie published copies are derived ;
to the second belong those which offer a new and independent
transcription, by which the published one can be verified or
corrected ; the third contains such as, though no ostensible con-

1 Jn the above list the word ‘un-
published’ must not be pressed. But
I have taken reasonable precautions
against mistakes on this point by a
eareful search in Boeckh’s Corpus, Le
Bas and Waddington, and such period-

icals as the ᾿Αθηναῖον, Bulletin de Cov-
vespondence Hellénique, Mittheilungen
des deutschen Instituts zw Athen, Ke.
The numbers marked with an asterisk
are reproduced below.

COPIED ΒΥ COCKERELL IN GREECE.—II. 343

nection can be traced between them and the published tran-
scriptions, yet bear too close a relation to those transcriptions to
be regarded as independent, since they show coincidences even
in mistakes, too frequent to be the result of mere chance.

In the first class it has been found by no means superfluous
to verify all inscriptions in Boeckh’s Corpus, of which the copies
have been supplied by Walpole from Cockerell’s book. Walpole
often did his copying in a very careless manner, and often
introduced into supposed facsimiles conjectural emendations
which have helped to confirm error or to hide the truth. Some
of his copies, on the other hand, are extremely accurate. It
seems necessary to make the above remarks in order to vindicate
the accuracy of Cockerell, which is far greater than any one
would be led to suppose, who judged of it only from the
published copies that are professedly derived from him, One
or tivo illustrations will show this. Wherever Aperlae is men-
tioned Cockerell gives the true form, Walpole invariably alters
the A to A, and it is owing to this alteration that the com-
pletely indefensible form Aperrhae has long held its ground,
Such changes as W to Q, = to Γ are slight, but they obliterate
certain indications of date. Another and more important
alteration occurs in 145, CLL.G. 4336, where Cockerell gives in
1, 8, AKAAIZEQ, thus showing the city is Akalissos, not
Limyra, as now conjecturally restored. Enough, however, has
been said on this point; I need only add that I have made
a note of all Walpole’s alterations in my collation.

The second class will enable ‘us to increase or improve the
independent copies preserved in the Corpus; some of the more
important cases are the following: in 50, 6.1.6. 2370, Cockerell
confirms Broéndsted’s AEIBIAN in 1. 2, which is therefore
probably correct ; in 72, C.J. 3909, he gives the two additional
lines

EIAEQZYMEING
APXHIEITHS,

which may, however, not belong to this inscription;! in 92,
ΟΠ. 2949, 1.12, he has TAIANEIQN, which makes it seem

1 [These two additional lines are αἱ Hierapolis (C. 7.4. 3906). APXH-
inscribed on a passage of the theatre [ETH® is the true reading.—£V/.]

31. INSCRIPTIONS

that the real reading is Tpavave/wy, the name of the games
referred to!; in 104, C.L.@. 2870, he adds to the right of the
Greek the following Latin version :—

I-ETIS-VAILI-
DVSINSIIIVIICONSVMMA -dus ins(t)i(t)ui(t) consumma-
VITIIDICAVIT-PER-QIVII vit (et) dicavit per Q. In(1)i-
VMBAIBVM-PROCOSVIEM um Ba(l)bum proconsu(ljem

CVRAM AGENTE PASSIRIORO curam agente Pass(e)rio Ro-
MVIOIIGATO AVG-PRO-PR mu(l)o (le)gato Aug. pro.pr.

These instances will suffice to show what may thus be gained
from Cockerell, and include the most important examples.
But a few words must now be given to the third class. Of the
last seventy-seven inscriptions preserved by Cockerell, seventy
are in the Corpus, and fifty of these from Beaufort’s copies.
Now among these fifty there are no less than twenty-eight
which show coincidences of mistake, such readings as MHMIA
for MHTEPA, which necessitate the assumption that the copies
are not really independent; while there are only three which
seem to show signs of independence, and these uncertain. One
of these deserves quoting, though singularly enough it also
contains the very mistake already quoted, 156, CLG. 4343.
Here Cockerell preserves marks of erasure which show that the
inscription referred to Geta, who is not, however, described as
τὸν ἱερὸν Κα[ζί)σζαρα, which we should rather restore (μητέρα)
7(@)v tep(@)v κάσίτρων, a well-known title of Julia Domna.
What is the exact relation between Cockerell’s copies and those
of Beaufort must perhaps be left an open question ; for though
Beaufort has the advantage in point of time, Cockerell occasion-
ally seems to preserve details lost in the other transcription.

The unpublished inscriptions preserved by Cockerell now
follow in the order in which they are found in his book.
In the interpretation of them I am indebted for many
valuable suggestions to the Rev. E. L. Hicks and to Prof.
W. M. Ramsay.

1 [The reading of Pococke inthe last janeia, which were certainly penteterie.
two lines περιόδῳ κβ΄, which Franz dis- They were founded in honour or in
credits in C./.G., is confirmed by memory of Trajan, and the twenty-
Cockerell’scopy. It denotesthetwenty- second celebration was about 195-220
second periodic celebration of the Tra- A.D.—E.]

=—_—*

COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE.—II. 345

C. 52.—Delos;

DIAQNAIOAQPOYAXAIOS
THNOYI'ATErAHPAIAAOEOIS

ΠΕ. APNASSHYZHNO:E..

Φίλων Διοδώρου ᾿Αχαιὸς
τὴν θυ(γ)ατέ(ρ)α ᾿Ηραΐδα θεοῖς
@v](A)ns ᾿Αλ[ζικ]αρνασσί(ε)ὺς (ἐπ)ο[{}ε[{
For the name Φύλης, cf. Hirschfeld, Zitwli Statuariorum, &c.,
No. 70 a, d, c, 84.

67.—Hierapolis.

NEY AAOY
TOYEK EYONEAYTO
AIT EAZTOTTON

ὁ δεῖνα ᾿Ασκληπι]άδου
: ἑαυτ[ ᾧ

ἀγοράσας τόπον
J

69.—Under same heading as 67, also 70, 71, 73, 75.
o

TOMNHMEIONEYTYXOYETOY
ATIOAAQNIOY AATEINEIQS

Τὸ μνημεῖον Εὐτύχους τοῦ
᾿Απολλωνίυ — ζ

70.
ΤΑΥ̓ΓΗΓΤΗΣΠΙΓΡΑΦΗΣΑΝΙΗΙ, APONAMETEQHEISTAAPXEIA
Ταύ[τ]ης τῆς [ἐπιγραφῆς av[tiyplahov ἀπετέθη εἰς τὰ ἀρχεῖα;

cf. 6.1.6. 3924a, 39238, 3922 ; 3916, 3919, all also from Hiera-
polis.

346 INSCRIPTIONS

ge

EY FENIOCOEAAXICTOCAPXIAIAKKEDECTSTOYATIOY
KENAO SOY AMOCTOAOYKOEOAOFOY OIAINNOY

ft ὮΝ Ir) \ \
7 “ \\ | Ξ΄ as \}

Εὐγένιος ὁ ἐλάχιστος ἀρχιδιάκ(ονος) K(at) ἐφεστ(ὼς) τοῦ ἁγίου
κ(αὶ) ἐνδόξου ἀποστόλου κ(αὶ) θεολόγου Φιλίππου

Apparently Eugenios was the ἐφεστὼς of a church dedicated
to St. Philip the Apostle.

73.
ENITOYATIOY+TSKAIOEOOS+

APXIEM!ISKOHMQNKMPIAPXO
FENNAIOY

*Eml τοῦ ἁγίου τε καὶ θεοσ(εβοῦς)

ἀρχιεπισκ(όπ)ου ἡμῶν καὶ πατριάρχου
Γενναίου

ὙΠ
ΤΟΝΒΩΜΟΝΚΑΙΤΗΝΚΑΤΑΥΤΟΥΣΟΡΟΜ
τὸν βωμὸν καὶ τὴν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ σορόν [κατεσκεύασεν ὁ δεῖνα]
κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ is curious; we generally find the σορὸς is ἐπίκει-

/ ~ n fal lol a
μένη, cf. CLG. 3915, τῇ ἐπικειμένῃ κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ (sc. βωμοῦ) σορῷ,
it seems to mean ‘against,’ ‘over against,’ it.

76.

Sardes.

...08 ἄν τι τῶν ἐνθώδε
ΜΕΝΦΝΕΞΦΒΑΛΗ κει |wevov ἔξω Burn,
ΗΝΙΟΚΤΥΜΩΛΕΙ
ΦΝΑΛΛΩΝΤΠΑΝ

τ]ῶν ἄλλων πάν των
7) Y XOITOMETATIAN

Ν δ
μετὰ πᾶν

COPIED ΒΥ COCKERELL IN GREECE,—II, 347

ὃ @2NMHTEOIEMMA των μήτε θρεμμαώ τ
=MHTEOMMATON w |(v) μήτε ὀμμάτων
%, EIQAHTENOITO ἐ(ξγώληί s | γένοιτο

7 Ν , Ἑ
~ TON TOV [πάντα χρονον

Apparently an invocation of a curse on whoever shall cast
vut the remains here deposited, cf. CLG’, 2826.

81.—Thyatira.

»" = 7" « ΖΟῸΝ ee Zav
AAKIMOS. AAIKIMOY "Ἄλκιμος ᾿Αλκίμου
ΚΑΤΕΣΚΕΥΑΣΕΝΤΟΜΝΗ κατεσκεύασεν τὸ μνη-

MEIONEAYTSKAIANOI μεῖον ἑαυτῷ καὶ ᾿Απφί-
STHEYNBIQ Ὁ, ῳ τῇ συνβίῳ.

Απφιον is not uncommon as a female name.

866.—Sameh. (near Pergamus).

AHE?
TTS2T 2
S2ANE
ει ὦ
...09(S)
Te τῷ
—w avé-
[θηκεν]
87.—Bakir.
DIAETAIPOS Φι(λ)έταιρος
KAIEATII Saw καὶ ᾿Ελπὶς
ΕΛΠΙΔΗΦΟΡΩ ᾿Ελπιδηφόρῳ
ΤΩΤΕΚΝΩΜΝΕΙ τῷ τέκνῳ μνεί-
ΑΣΧΑΡΙΝ as χάριν.

The gap after "EXz/s seems merely to mark the place where
the stone-cutter made a slip and then effaced it.

3-48

INSCRIPTIONS

90.—Menimen.

ΤΩΝ
ΟΣΑΝΙΟΣΓΑΙΟΥΥΙΟΞΦΑΡΙΑ
ΛΟΝΓΟΣΕΑΥΤΟΚΑΠΟΙΣΓΟΝΕΥ͂ΣΙ
ΚΛΙΤΗΓΛΥΚΤΑΤΗΙΓΎΝΑΙΚΙ
ΑΛΟΥΚΙΟΥΘΥΓΑΤΡΙΤΡΥΦ
ΤΟΥΓΟΙΟΜ...

Lav

Γάϊος “Av[v]cos Γαίου vies Φα(β)έᾳ

Aoyyos €aut(@) Kai τ)οῖς γονεῦσι

K(a)l TH γχυκυτάτῃ γυναικὶ

} ἘΠῚ :

αἰνῃ vel simile quid

"A. Λουκίου θυγατρὶ Tpud | 7”? 1
oven

TO ὑ(π)όγ(ε)ιο(ν) [κατεσκεύασεν

93.—Magnesia.

™ T. Μ[αραθώνιον
ANN ’Avr| ιβαλιανόν
TONA τὸν Al αμπρότατον ἀνθύπα-
TONYN τον ὑπ ατικῶν υἱὸν
AOTIET λογιστ[ὴν τῆς πόλεως]
= QTHP σωτῆρα καὶ εὐεργέτην καὶ
ΚΤΙΞΤΕ κτιστὴ ν τῆς κοινῆς
ΠΑΤΡῚ πατρί δος
THEAAMMP τῆς λαμπρὶ οτάτης μητρο-
ΠΟΛΕΩΣΤΗΣ πόλεως τῆς [᾿Ασίας καὶ νε-
ΩΚΟΡΟΥΤΩ͂Ν wxtpov τῶν Σεβαστῶν καὶ
ΙΕΡΑΣΤΟΥΔΙΟΣ : ἱερᾶς τοῦ Διὸς [Καπετωλίου κα-
ΤΑΤΑΔΟΓΜΑΤΑ τὰ τὰ δόγματα | τῆς ἱερωτάτης
ΣΥΝΚΛΗΤΟΎΥΙ συνκλήτου [ καὶ φιλοσεβάστου
ΛΙΑΝΩ͂Ι Lap |Siaval v πόλεως
OINYZTA οἱ (μ)ύσταϊ «

TONEYE τὸν evel ργέτην.

COPIED BY COCKERELL IN_GREECE,—II. 349

This and the following inscription must belong to Sardis.

Lines 1 and 2 must have been in large letters; the title
λογιστὴν τῆς πόλεως, if correctly restored, must have been
merely honorary, just as Emperors sometimes held city magis-
tracies. Hannibalianus was Consul in A.D. 292.

94,—Magnesia.

YTIATIKONTII-
MAPAOQNIOY
ANVIBAAIANOY
ΑΝΘΥΠΑΤΕΎΓΩ.
KA. ΚΑΠΙΤΩΛΕΙ.
ΓΥΝΑΙΚΑ. τ φΦΛι
MHTPODAN
OIKPATICTOINI
KAEITOL
ENIMEAHCAMEN
TOY ANAPIANTC
ENITPONOY

[τοῦ ἐξ]
Ὑπα(τι)κῶν Τί [ tov
Μαραθωνίου
᾿Αννιβαλιανοῦ
> 4
avOuTratev| ovtas
KX. Καπιτωλεῖ vay
γυναῖκα 1. Pre
Μητροφανΐ ous
οἱ κράτιστοι Π[ολύ
KNELTOS [καὶ ὁ δεῖνα
> /
ἐπιμελησαμέν ov

“- Ε] /
TOU ἀνδριάντοϊ s

> / - »
ἐπιτρόπου] τοῦ δεῖνος.

95.—Ephesus.

TOL, A SSATASL
ANIMIZANOAAONI
AOPI'IZAAAQOTIE
AYTOYKAIMAYPINE
PANOYOIOAOPOY AM
MIANOYKAIMAY PRE
PATIOYDIAOMHTPOS
AMMIANOY TQNAAEA
DONAYTO

[ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐπιμεληθέν-]
τω [ν] Al dona ]ίας

"Al wp ψμ(αν)ῆς ᾿Απολλ(ω)νέ-
δο(ς τῆ) ἀ(δ)} εἰλφ(7)-

αὐτοῦ καὶ Μ. Αὐρ. Νε-
ρα(τί)γου Θιοδ(ώ)ρου ᾿Αμ-
μιανοῦ καὶ Μ. Αὐρ. Νε-
ρατίου Φιλόμητρος

᾿Αμμιανοῦ τῶν ἀδελ-

φ(ῶὴν αὐτο ὕ.

900 INSCRIPTIONS

97a,— Samos.
ΝΙΚΗΑΙΣΧΡΙ - Νέκη Atoypi-
ΩΝΟΣ @Vos
-PYNHAEAYAOY γυνὴ δὲ Αὔλου
ATANIOYHPQIN ᾿Ατανίου ἡρωΐν-

ΧΡΗΣΤΗΧΑΙΡΕ η] χρηστὴ χαῖρε.

For name Atanius, cf. Mommsen 7.10. iv. 2480, Dio Cass. lix. 8.

ΟΥ̓.

ΩΡΟΣΑΜ Θεόδωρος ᾿Αμί Bp |
ΟΣΙΟΣ ὀσιος

98.—Geronta (Branchidae).

ATAQHYTYX ᾿Αγαθῇ τύχ[ η

ΗΒΟΥΛΗΚΑΙ ἡ βουλὴ καὶ | 6
ΔΗΜΟΣΕΤΕΜ δῆμος ete ἐ]μί η-
ΣΕΝΜΑΡΚΟΝ σεν Μάρκον [Αἴ-
ΑΙΟΝΑΥΡΗΛΙ Lov Αὐρήλιον

AOMNONTON Δόμνον τὸν | é-
PHTONKAIAM φη(β)ον καὶ apl φι-
ΘΑΛΗΝΙΚΗΣΑ θαλῆ, νυκήσα ν

ΤΑΠΑΙΔΩΝΠ τα παίδων πἰ ἀ

AHNTAMETA Anv τὰ μεγά λα

ΔΙΔΥΎΜΕΙΑΕΝ Διδυμεῖα ἐν τῷ
ΙΕΡΩ ἱερῷ.

Cf. Ο1.6. 2888, which is quite similar in form.

COPIED ΒΥ COCKERELL IN GREECE.—II. 351

100.—Geronta (Branchidae).

In Ν / “
Kae στεφανηφορου τοῦ
δεῖνος, ταμιεύοντος-...]

HOYe<.. ὙΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΙΟΥ͂ ...ov[s τοῦ ᾿Απολλω

ΝΙΟΥΤΟΥΞΤΑΙΔΩΚΟΣ νίου τοῦ (Φ)αίδω(ν)ος
ΔΡΕΥΟΝΤΩ͂Ν παρε Ϊδρευόντων....

ὙΤΟΥΚΡΑΤΙΝΟΥΎΘΕΟΤΙΜΙ ...ὕτου Κρατίνου Θεοτιμί δου

ΔΕΑΝΕΤΕΘΗΤΩΙΑΠΟΛ (va δε ἀνετέθη τῷ ᾿Απώλ[ Rove

NHOAKHNATOY ZAAAE φιάλη ὁλκὴν a(y)ovca (A AF)

The repetition of the NIOY in lines 1 and 2 is probably
merely a slip of the copyist.

102 = L. and W. V. 222, under Geronta. Cockerell preserves
much that is not in M. Le Bas’ copy, which was moreover
made in haste.

HOP TROIKA ΙΣΤ» 4".
AIA7E.. OENTOZTOY
KAITOISETIATHD. A...

οὖς NOIATENHTAION..N.

5 SIAGIZSTAMHTAIPONFOS...
ΝΕΙΣΤΗΝΟΦΙΛΟΥ͂ΣΑΝ'.. ΛΛΚ.
POYSIANKAIIEPOYPFIANEZYNT ..

ον LE@AIKACQEEOIZETAITQIZQIAIATO
KITAHONOSXIONOYMHCENAYNOMEL . .
10 IHKENAI ΕΔΟΞΕΤΟΙ. EYMEAIOIS
MQMHEMISTATQNEY . ΚΕΧΩΡΙΣΘΑ
ENINIKQENINIKOYTOYHIAIE . vQNO
ΤΗΣΑΙΣΤΗΛΗΝΠΙΟΣΤΩΙΙΕΡΩΙΤΟΣΔ.
ΣΤΕΥΣΩΤΗΡΟΣΧΛΡΙΝΤΟΥΑΝΛΓΡΑΡΕ
15 ΣΘΑΙΤΑΟΝΟΜΑΤΑΤΩΝΥΠΟΜΕΝΩΝΤΩΝ
ἘΠῚ. VOL. Vii. AA

302 ‘ INSCRIPTIONS

OHFQNMAPAAIAENTQHE . QITQIENAI
AY MOIEKAOOMIH..SaROEPA. 1. Q=X

20 ΕΠΙΤΡΟΙ
YTIAPAI. NOW AL
ΤΟΥΠΡΟΦΗΓΟΥΥΙΟΣΠΟΣΙΔΩ
ΝΙΟΣ
ἐπεὶ; ὠδλοιναα Ὑ{Ι

ΠΕ ae Του τοῦ καὶ στ[εφανη-
φόρου, δια(κ)ε[χευ]θέντος τοῖς... ....
- καὶ τοῖς στ PATH οἷς νην
. . ὅπως πρόνοια γένηται ὃν ἂν ὁ
5 θεὸ]ς (κ)αθιστάνῃ (κ)αιρὸν [πρ]οσ[ήκον-
τα] εἰς τὴν ὀφείλουσαν [᾿Απόϊχλλ[ζωνι Διδυ-
pet] θυσίαν καὶ ἱερουργίαν συντ[ελ-
ε]ΐσθαι καθὼς ἐθίζεται τῷ [θε]ῷ, διὰ τὸ
ἐ]κ πλέονος χρόνου μηδένα ὕπομε[μ
10 εν]ηκέναι: ἔδοξε τοῖς] συ(ν)έδ(ρ)οις
γ]νώμῃ ἐπιστατῶν συ[γ]κεχωρ(ῆ)σθαζι
᾿Επινίκῳ ᾿Επινίκου τοῦ ᾿Η(φα)ιστί)ωνο[ς
στῆσαι στήλην πρὸς τῷ ἱερῷ το[Ὁ] Afe-
ὸ]ς τοῦ Σωτῆρος, χάριν Tod ἀναγράφε-
1ὅ σθαι τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν ὑπομενόντων [π-
(ολιτ)ὴῶν παρὰ Δί(α) ἐν τῷ ἱε[ρ]ῷ τῷ ἐν Δι-
δύμοις καθότι ἡ [ἀπ]ογράφη .....

20 ésitpo[mor..... 25 3ah,
τοῦ προφή(τ)ου υἱὸς ΠΠοσιδώ-

VlOS

In the cursive transcription, I have of course followéd

M. Waddington’s interpretation, except where Cockerell’s copy
enabled me to add to it.

COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE.—II. 353

105.—Geronta. An honorary decree.

ΣΟΙΚΙΑΣΓΕΝΟΜΕΝΟΣ
LAABQNTHMMPOOHTE!
ον HEMATPIAOSAQPEANY
TOYA. ΜΠΡΩΣΚΑΙΦΙΛΟΔΟ
5 | NOMHSAIKAINOIHEAIE
INI. MOYESEITOYKAIEAAIOY
TON... ΟἹ INEMITHAEIQNEN
AX1.. SIKAIPOLZSAIATETAYTA
ΑΠΟΔΕΙ. OEIEQIAONATPISKAIEY
10 ... ΤΗΣΤΗΣΠΟΛΕΩΣΓΕΝΟΣ
ΔΕΚΑΠΡΟΣΤΑΤΗΣΤΩ͂Ν
ΟΙΣΥΝΑΥΞΗΣΑΣΤΑΣΙΩ͂Ν...
IN... OTOAOYENOIHEASAE...
ΓΥΜΝΑΣΙΑΡΧΙΑΣΤΩΝΠΑΤΕΡΩ͂Ν
15. - INFAIOYAIOYNO!.
NOYAI. YANTIOXOY

. τῆς αὐτῆς οἰκίας γενόμενος
\ \ /
mapal\aBSav τὴμ προφητεί-
αν τ]ῆς πατρίδος δωρεὰν ὑπὲρ
τοῦ λαμπρῶς καὶ φιλοδό[ξως
5 ἀγορα]νομῆσαι καὶ ποιῆσαι ε-
᾽ \ / AT Ae /
ὐ]ωνι[σ]μοὺς σείτου καὶ ἐλαίου
\ a lal ’ / εἰ
καὶ τῶν [λ]οι[π]ῶν ἐπιτηδείων ἐν
δυ]σχί(ε) ρέ]σι καιροῖς, διά τε ταῦτα
ἀποδει[χ]θεὶς φιλόπατρις καὶ εὐ-
εργέ]της τῆς πόλεως, γενό[μ
evos| δὲ καὶ προστάτης τῶν.

1

Θ-»

. καὶὶ συναυξήσας τὰς (τ)ῶν ...
, / \ \
. ov [πρ]οσόδους ποιήσας δὲ [καὶ
γυμνασιαρχίας τῶν πατέρων...

The last name is ᾿Αντιόχου; is the one in the line above
Γαίου Αἰλίου, two letters of the apparent repetition ΑἸ ΔΙ being
dropped by the copyist, or ᾿Ιουλίου ?

AA 2

354 INSCRIPTIONS

1076.—Patara.

ae iN ca ΕΤΟΙΟΣ
AYKIQNTOKOINON

... Λυκίων τὸ κοινόν

112.—Patara.

ΜΕΤΤΙΟΜΟΛΕΞΓΟ
ΛΥΚΙΩΝΤΟΘΙΙ ON

ΕΟΝΟΥΣΣΟΛΗΜΟΣ

This may be one or two inscriptions :—
(a) Merri[w~] Μοδέστ[ῳ]
Λυκίων τὸ [κοιν]όν -

(Ὁ) τοῦ Λυκίων] ἔθνους ὁ δῆμος

Cf. 108, 6.1.6, 4280.

113.—Patara.

= YNEAHMOEMHNODIAOYKATEZSKEY
AZENTOMNHMEIONMAMIQ . MENEKI..
TOYTHIIEPEIA . ΔΉΜΗΤΡΟΣ. THI

EAYTOYOPEY AEH.

Συνέ[γ]δημος Μηνοφίλου κατεσσκεύ-
Ν al / /
acev τὸ μνημεῖον Μαμίῳ Mevex[pa-
του τῇ ἱερείᾳ Δημητρὸς τῇ γίλυκυτάτῃ
ἑαυτοῦ θρεψάσῃ

COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE.—II. 355

If the genitive ἑαυτοῦ is right, ἡ θρέψασα is regarded as a
noun. For the name Συνέγδημος, cf. CLG. 4322. The
‘barbarian’ names in the inscriptions which follow are merely
transcribed, without attempt at emendation.

119.—Under heading Patara; but clearly from Aperlae.

Cf. 116, 117, 118, CLG, 4290, Add. 43009, 4289.

TOMNHMEIONKATASKEYAETO
EPMIAIZHHK AIZAPMHAONISAY EAN
APOY ANEPAENIZOPENTOIZAY THE
ZY NAAAATHKAIMOY EAPOYTIKAINE

5 KHTIKQIZOZYN . QIEIENKHAEYOH
NAIKA . AEONHKAIAZKAHNIAAIOY
ΓΑΤΡΙΑΥΤΟΥΕΤΕΡΟΣΔΕΟΥΔΕΕΙΣ
ΕΝΤΑΙΗΣΕ. ΤΑΙΗΟΙΣΑΝΑΥΤΗΣΥΝ
ΧΩΡΗΣΗΕΑΝΔΕΤΙΣΕΤΕΡΟΣΕΝΚΗ

10 AEY=. ΙΕΝΑΟΦΙΛΕΣΙΤΗΑΠΕΡ
AENQNNOAIXO.

TO μνημεῖον κατ(ε)σκεύαστο
ἙἝἙρπιδασῆ ἡ καὶ Σαρπηδονὶς Λυσάν-
δρου ᾿Απερλε[ζτ]ις θρεπτοῖς αὐτῆς
Συναλλάγῃ καὶ Μουσαροῦτι καὶ Νέ-
κητι κ(α)ὶ ο[ἷ]ς συν[χ]ωρεῖ ἐνκηδευθῆ-
vat κα[ὶ] Λεόνῃ καὶ ᾿Ασκληπιάδι θυ-
γατρὶ αὐτοῦ' ἕτερος δὲ οὐδὲ εἷς
ἐντα(φ)ήσεται ἢ οἷς ἂν αὐτὴ συν-
χωρήσῃ" ἐὰν δέ τις ἕτερος ἐνκη-
10 δεύσ[ῃ] τινά, ὀφιλέσ[ε]ν τῇ ᾿Απερ-
λειτῶν πόλι % φ'

σοι

The following remark is written beside this in pencil, by
Leake’s hand : ‘Mr. Akerblad constantly corrects ANEPAEITHE
to ANEPAEITHS, but several ancient authors call it Aperlae,

356 INSCRIPTIONS

and these inscriptions prove that to be the real name.

W. M. L’

120.—As 119, still under Patara; the same heading goes on
till 131, but these all come from farther east on the same
coast.

OTADOSIAALPOYTOYKAIZEY
HPOY TOYKPATEPOY AMEPAEITOY
ΚΑΤΑΣΚΕΥΑΣΘΕΙΣΥΠΟΑΥΤΟΥΑΥΎΤΩ
ΤΕΚΑΙΓΥΝΑΙΚΙΑΥΤΟΥΝΑΝΙΕΡΗΑΓΟ
5 ΦΟΥΑΠΕΡΛΕΙΤΙΔΙΚΑΙΤΕΚΝΟΙΣΑΥ͂
ΤΟΝΚΑΙΕΓΓΟΝΟΙΣΚΑΙΟΙΣΑΝΑΥ͂ΤΟΙ
ΣΥΝΧΩΡΗΣΩΣΙΝΚΑΙΤΟΥΎΠΟΣΟ
ΝΟΥΔΕΩΣΑΝΒΟΥΛ.. ΩΣΙΝΕΞΟΥ͂
ΣΙΝΤΗΝΕΖΟΥΣΙΑΝΑ. QAEOYAE
ΝΙΕΖΕΣΤΑΙΕΝΘΑΥ ΑΙ ΦΕΙΛΕΣΕΙ
TQANEPAEITQNAHMQ| XB’

ὋὉ τάφος ᾿Ιδάγρου τοῦ καὶ Xev-
/ a / ’ /
ἤρου τοῦ Kparépou ᾿Απερλείτου,
κατασκευασθεὶς ὑπὸ αὐτοῦ αὐτῷ
> “ / (τ /
τε Kal γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ Navn ‘Ep(u)ayo-
s (p)ov ᾿Απερλείτιδι καὶ τέκνοις av-
7(@)v καὶ ἐγγόνοις καὶ ols ἂν αὐτοὶ
συνχωρήσωσιν. καὶ τοῦ ὑποσο-
ρίου δὲ ὡς ἂν βουλ[ηθ]ῶσιν ἕξου-
σιν τὴν ἐξουσίαν. ἀΐλλ]ῳ δὲ οὐδέ-
10 νι ἔξεσται ἐνθάψαι, [ἢ ὀϊφειλέσει
a? cal / /
τῷ ᾿Απερλειτῶν δήμῳ ¥ B φ

COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE.—II. 357

121.—See 120.

TOMHYEIONKATECKEY ACENAYP . OEQTEIMOCAANEPAENL
EAYTOKAIPYNAIKIMOYAYPAPCALCEIKAIYIQAIITPIEKAIDY NAIK!
AY TOY AIOKIAIANIKAITEKNOICAY TQNENHAE ¥ OHONKAIAEAY
TOY
HTEAAEAQHNOY APEALICK AIOAAEAPOLMOYKAAAICTPATOLCKAI!
ΓΎΝΑΙ
ΚΑΙΟΣΞΚΟΕΜΟΥ jPMAMIACENAETQYNOLCOPK WTAOPENTAPIA
ENOYPEKAIHCETNAIKEMOYKAITOY YIOYIMWNOY AENIAEH=EL
K AIETEPQTHAC YNX OPH-AIEKHAEOHNAIOY TEEN TOMNM:10
YTEENTQYNMOCOPIKQHK © TONAIOOKONMOMOYAYP * XAPITQNA
NA.
ANTEKEAAMEPAEITHCK AIP YNHAY TOY KAIIAIONAONONMOY
AAAO AEOY AENIEZONENOAYENEINENST OEg ENFPADOLEMITPEY 2
OEIAELL .. . CNEIMOYTQANEPAEITQNAHMOXXEIA . A.

ὁ μνημεῖον κατεσκεύασεν Avp. Θεότειμος (τετράκις) ᾿Απερλ(εώτης

αὐτῷ καὶ γυναικί μου Αὐρ. ᾿Αρσάσει καὶ υἱῷ Δημητρίῳ) καὶ γυναικὶ

ὑτοῦ Διοκιδιάνῃ καὶ τέκνοις αὐτῶν. ἐνκηδευθήσονίτ)αι δὲ αὐτοῦ

τε ἀδε(λ)φή (μ)ου "Αρ(σ)ασις καὶ ὁ ἀδελφός μου Καλλίστρατος καὶ γυναι-

αἴο[ς] νε(π)ὴός μου [Ἔ Π]ρμαπίας. ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑποσορ[ιἸκῷ τὰ θρεπτάρια

(μ)οῦ (τ)ε καὶ (τ)ῆς (γυ)ναϊῖκός μου καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἡμῶν. Οὐδενὶ δὲ ἔξ(ε)σ-

(τ)αι ἑτέρῳ τῇ(δ)} ε] συνχωρῆσαι ἐνκηδε[υ]θῆναι οὔτε ἐν τ(ῷ) μνημεί(ῳ)

ὕτε ἐν τῷ ὑποσορικῷ τὸν λιθοκόπο[ν)] μου Avp. Χαρίτωνα
᾿Απερλείτης καὶ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ μου.

ἄλλί(ῳ) δὲ οὐδενὶ ἐξὸν ἐνθάψ ε[ ἦν, εἰ μ(ὴ) ἐγ(ὼ) ζ(ῶν) ἐνγράφως ἐπιτρέψω,

ὀφειλέσ[ει] [προστ]είμου τῷ ᾿Απερλειτῶν δήμῳ K χείλ(ια)

122.

TOMHVZIONKATEZKEYAZEN
AYP.AIONY SIO[AHMAEIFL
AMEPAE HEEAYTQKAIFYNAI
KIAYTOYETEDANKAITEKNOIC
K AIEN-ONOISKAINENOEPS

903 INSCRIPTIONS

AY PLO FHPIXQKAIDIAS

AY TOYNEPIFENIAOY A@feyy
AZIOAOLG2TATGONAYCANAPOY
KAIAIODANTOY AAAGALOY
AENIEZESTAIENOAYA

ry \ -“" Ἢ
To μνημεῖον κατεσκεύασεν

Αὐρ. Διονύσιος Δημα[ρ]έ(τ)ης

᾿Απερλε[ἐτ]ης ἑαυτῷ καὶ γυναι-

\ ᾽ fal "Ὁ ΄ \ /
κὶ αὐτοῦ δ, τεφάνῃ καὶ τέκνοις

καὶ ἐν(γ)όνοις καὶ πενθερῷ
4
Αὐρ. Σωτηρίχῳ καὶ φίλῳ

αὐτοῦ ἸΤεριγένει δούλου τῶν
’ , ,
ἀξιολογωτάτων Λυσάνδρου

καὶ Διοφάντου.
δενὶ ἔξεσται ἐνθάψαϊι

124.—See 120.

AYPHAIOSIAL‘NHPOAIN
NOYMYPEYZEAYTWKAI

ἄλλῳ O(é) ov-

From Myra, apparently.

FYNAIKIOAMHKAITEKNOIC

KAIOZWZIMOS
ZWTIKHEYBOY
AOZEYTYXHE
DIAOTEN..
MOAHS

Αὐρήλιος -ἰπ-

Ν ¢ “
mov Mupevs eaut@

\
Kab

\ / \
γυναικὶ Θάμῃ καὶ Téxvors.

-καιος (Z)a(o)tpwos
Ζωτικὴ Εὔβου-
λος Εὐτύχη»ς
φιλογένης

Μόλης.

For the name Δϊόλης, ef. 133, and (΄.7.(. 43217, Add

. 4325h.

COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE,—II. 359

1250.

EMPAQHXWPICTOY ἐπσράθη χωρὶς τοῦ
IYNOCWPIOY ὑποσορίου.

126.—See 130, Apparently from Cyane.

TONTADONATELKEYAETO
ENAADPOAITOSMOY .. ΣΑΙΟῪ
EAYTOKAIHMHPIAY TOY
AIKATAOK ATL YNAIKIAY TOYKAITEKNOIS

5 AYTONAIEN ONOIZKAIOIZANSFOZONEYN
XOPHEO_yENAETOYNOSOPIOKHAEY
OQHEONTAIOIOPE! . ΤΟΙ. ΜΟΝΗΟΙΣΑΝΜΙΣ
ZONTEEE YNXOPHEOMENAAAOAEOY
ΔΕΝΙΕΣΕΣ KAIENMHAEYZAITINAOYTE

10 ENTOMMMIOIYTOENTOYNOZONO
HODCAAHEEITK YANITON EPOYEIAX "ἃ
ONOEAENZAZAHNYETAITOHMIZEY
CYNXOPG)AEKAITHOPENTEAIO.

Tov τάφον κατεσκευάσατο
᾿Επαφρόδιτος Μουσαίου
ἑαυτῷ καὶ τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ
Αἰκατάθῃ καὶ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τέκνοις
αὐτῶν καὶ ἐνγόνοις καὶ οἷς ἂν ἐγὼ ζῶν συν-
χωρήσω' ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑποσορίῳ Kn(d)ev-
θήσονται οἱ θρε(π)τοὶ ἡμῶν ἢ οἷς ἂν ἡμῖς
ζῶντες συνχωρήσομεν' ἄλλῳ δὲ οὐ-
δενὶ ἔ(ξ)εσίτ)αι ἐνκηδεῦσαί τινα οὔτε
10 ἐν τῷ μνημίῳ [oldrle] ἐν τῷ ὁποσο(ρί)ῳ,
ἢ ὀφειλ(ἔ)σει τῇ ΚΚαυανειτῶν γερουσίᾳ Ἄ a,
ὧν ὁ ἐλέν(ξγας λήνψεται τὸ ἥμισυ.
συνχωρῶ δὲ καὶ τῇ θρεπτί(ῇ) [Δ]ιο[νυσίᾳ ?

σι

Evidently an W was used which Cockerell failed to distin-
guish, excepi in one case, from 0 ; perhaps @ or W.

900 INSCRIPTIONS

127.
CY X WPEKEAE Σὺ χῶρε Kere| υθεὶς
ενκΚηφευθηῆο λα ἐνκηδευθῆναι
ΚΑΙΓΛΎΠΤΩ καὶ Γλύπτω (ἢ)
KAIOPENHAY καὶ Operr| τὰ] αὐ-
MHCNPOC (τ) ῆς προσ-
Δέξει. δέξει.

133.—‘ Finica.’ The same heading lasts till 141.

ZTEAAIOZTOYTONAMOA Σίλλιος τοῦ Γοναμόα (Ποναμόα ἢ).

135.

a. WMI A ARIAS
ANOAEL ἀπολέσϊΪ θαι
ECTEIO
ONTEIMOK ΜΗ
NEAYTWN ἑαυτῶν.

b. AHTATONKAIEPMITPHN

τὸν δεῖνα Φιϊλήτα τὸν καὶ Ἰὰρπίγρην

190,

ΜΗΘΕΝΤΑΥΝΟΈΟΥ
AHMOY

KAITOYCAAAOYC

KATATHN#IACHKHN

Tov δεῖνα
τιμηθέντα ὑ(π)ὸ τοῦ
δήμου
καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους,
κατὰ τὴν [δ]ια(θ)γήκην.

COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE.—II. 361

1870.
ΦΑΣΗΛΕΙ Φασηλεί[ την νεικήσαντα ἐνδ-
ΟΞΖΩΖΠΙ ὄξω s | ΠῚ ύθια ΐ
ΓΩ͂ΝΟΣ a |ywvos.

138.—See 133. The inscription seems in fact to have come
from Olympus.

NOOETOYNIOZTC
AOTSTATOY MAY PY
NOAHTOZAHMHTPIOYT.
MOAHTOZITKONQNOS
. OAHMITHNOS

᾿Αγω]νοθετοῦν(τ)ος το[ῦ
ἀξιο]λογωτάτου Μ. Αὐρ.
(Μ)όλητος Δημητρίου
Μόλης γ΄ Κόνωνος
Ὀλ[υ]μπηνός.

139.

TONTY MONKAELCKEYAZENAMITPIOL
OKAIDIAOKYPICANDIACOAYMHNOLCEAY TH

KEP YNAIKIEYAOLIAKAITEKNOICKAIEN ONOIC

EICON= EPOCOYKHAEY OHCE EFEK EICEP

WAHW,% dIZ3NOEAEN ZACAHN YE EPO
CYNXSPOYNTOCHOYIPAKAOSNIKEPYNEKIAY TOYNAYLOYNI

Tov τύμβον κατεσκεύασεν Δημήτριος
ὁ καὶ Φιλοκύρις ᾿Απφίας ᾿Ολυμπίη)νὸς ἑαυτ[ᾧ
κὲ γυναικὶ EvAoyla καὶ τέκνοις καὶ ἐνγόνοις

’ ἃ Ὁ > / A. /
els Ov ἕτερος ov κηδευθήσετε, ἢ ἐκτείσε(ι)

A - ε
τῷ δήμῳ Kf’, ὧν ὁ ἐλένξας λήνψετε το Ὑ.

lal \ > a

συνχωροῦντός (μὴ)ου ᾿Ηρακλόωνι κὲ yuvexi αὐτοῦ ἸΤαύσουνι

362 INSCRIPTIONS

177.—Seleucia.

a. τ ΤΟΠΟ Tomo s
AECANIACA
CIOEZOY
b. MNHM. O2& Μνημί 2 |o[ v |
OYKONIATOY T low Κοπιάτου
QAPIEAMENO ᾿Αρισαμένο[υ
ACTACICAO av |actaots
APIE.

179a.—Seleucia.

-Π ϑηκηθὼμ Θήκη Θωμ[ἃ
WTPIZEWNTOC [ζ]ῶντος

1802.

J” WN

1 Τεωργίου ᾿Ανδρέου ᾿Ιωάννου.

These interpretations are suggested in pencil, in Cockerell’s
book, and seem to fit.

181b.—Corycus.

RP Cg. aie
TPAIANONAAI
NONCEBACTC
ΠΠΛΙΛΕΠΙΚ
ΠΙΟΝΤΟΝΑΓΑ
ΚΥΡΙΟΝΕΚ

COPIED BY COCKERELL IN GREECE,—II. 36:

[Αὐτοκράτορα Καίσαρα

Θεοῦ Τραιάνου ἸΤαρθικοῦ υἱὸν
Θεοῦ Νέρ]ουα vial νὸν
Τραιανὸν ᾿Αδρια-

νὸν Σεβαστόν.. ..

.. . Δία ἐπίκλησιν ᾿Ολύμ-
πίον τὸν ἁ(π)ά[ντων

κύριον ...

188a.—Corycus.

AY TOKPATOPA
RSD ΝΜ

189a. Corycus.

E. A. GARDNER.

361

ON THE SYRINX (σῦριγξ)

ON THE SYRINX (σῦριγξ) IN THE ANCIENT

CHARIOT.

THe Attic Tragedians—for the use seems to have extant
examples there only—several times apply the word σῦριγξ
to the wheel of a chariot or some part of it. The passages

are these :—

Aesch. Supp. 181:
σύριγγες ov σιγῶσιν ἀξονήλατοι.
Id. Sept. 205:
σύριγγες ἔκλαγξαν ἑλίτροχοι.
Soph. Electra, 720:
κεῖνος δ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αὐτὴν ἐσχάτην στήλην ἔχων
ἔχριμπτ᾽ ἀεὶ σύρυγγα, δεξιόν τ᾽ ἀνεὶς
σειραῖον ἵππον εἶργε τὸν προσκείμενον.
Eur. Hipp. 1234:
ξύμφυρτα δ᾽ ἣν ἅπαντα, σύριγγές T ἄνω
τροχῶν ἐπήδων ἀξόνων T ἐνήλατα.
Id. Iph. A..227 -
ols παρεπάλλετο᾽
Πηλείδας σὺν ὅπλοισι παρ᾽ ἄντυγα Kal
σύριγγας ἁρματείους.

The current explanation of the word in this application is
given by Liddell and Scott thus: ‘ σῦριγξ, IL, anything like a
pipe; 1. a spear-case = δορατοθήκη, Il. 19, 387. 2. the box or
hole in the nave of a wheel, with references selected from the

above.

This view appears to have been suggested by the fact that
in two of the passages in which the σῦρυγξ is mentioned, the
axle is also mentioned. In the Supplices the σύριγγες are said
to be ‘axle-driven’ ; in the Hippolytus the cvpuyyes of the broken

IN. THE ANCIENT CHARIOT. 300

wheel ‘leap ae anid 50 do the ‘pins of the axles a UC the
pegs ot wood OV 1}: tial in the axle-tree by which the wheels
are kept fron coming ott, It is obvious, however, that no
decisive evidence can be obtained trom these descriptions, which
are consistent with many different interpretations of the term;
and on consideration it. 1s impossible to be satisfied with that
Which has been preferred. The first and readiest objection has
been felt by the lexicographers, who have innocently endeavoured
to turn it by an ambiguity. ‘The box, or hele in the nave of a
wheel.’ Which? “Was the σῦριγξ according to this view a
separate piece fitted ΠῚ the Ue ot the wheel, and surrounding
the axle, or was it merely the perforation of the axle? If the
former, 15 there any reason to suppose that archaic wheelwrights
used any such complication? If the latter, why should such
a perforation have any name, as distinct from the thing per-
forated, the nave itself, and what could direct the choice of a
name to the highly inappropriate word σῦριγξ The Pan’s-pipe,
σῦριγξ or σύριγγες ---ἴον the word is both singular and plural—
is properly a set of reeds, proportioned to give the notes of a
scale, and bound together for convenience of playing,—the rudi-
ments in fact of an. organ. And even if we start from the
single reed as the object for comparison, nothing could be less
like a reed than the hole in a wheel-nave, or the lining, if there
was such a lining, which protected it, a hole or circle which must
be nearly as broad as it is deep.

If we turn from the literal use of the word to the other bor-
rowed applications, we find that they are what we should expect,
and not at all like the supposed use in the case of the chariot.
The σῦριγξ is generally a long and narrow pipe, and is most
frequently applied to such pipes or passages as are found in sets
(see the Lex. s.v.). The hollow of the spine, for example, is
ovpuyé, the trunk of the elephant is σῦριγξ, the nostrils are
σύριγγες : a single plume of a wing is σῦριγξ, the galleries made
in mining operations or for burial purposes are σύριγγες, Kc.
And it will be noticed that in some of these instances the
resemblance to the original σῦριγξ, the musical instrument, goes
beyond the mere presence of a pipe or pipes, and appears also
in the variation of length. The σύριγγες of a wing, for example,
decrease in length somewhat as those of Pan do; the mine of

360 ON THE SYRINX (σύριγξ)

the besieger is carried in a series of rectangular turns, the
forward piece long, the passage from the far end of one gallery
to the near end of the next short, so that the plan of the whole,
if all the galleries were supposed complete, would closely
resemble that of the Pan’s-pipe. So, when Achilles, in the Ziad,
snatches his spear from the σῦριγξ (19, 387),

,ὔ a “
ἐκ δ᾽ ἄρα σύριγγος πατρώιον ἐσπάσατ᾽ ἔγχος,

it is strictly not a ‘spear-case’ that the poet has in view, but
a spear-stand, something like that in which a modern Peleides
keeps his guns or his billiard-cues,a frame with a series of holes
and a box beneath. When filled with a set of spears, which
would naturally vary in length, such a δορατοθήκη would have
an obvious resemblance to the σῦριγξ proper. Somewhat
similar is the πεντεσύριγγον ξύλον or stock's, with its five holes
for the neck, hands, and feet.

Smith’s Dictionary of Antiqguitics apparently says nothing of
the chariot-syrinx; and if any better or other explanation than
that of Liddell and Scott has been proposed elsewhere, the
suggestion has had no effect on the commentators of the trage-
dians, who repeat the ‘nave-hole’ theory, when they do not
vary it by reading the word simply zave. Thus Dindorf, in the
Lexicon Aeschyleum translates it by modiolus. But the modiolus
was not σῦριγξ but yvon: and although in the passage from
Sophocles’ Zlectra, the phrase used for the final catastrophe
(ἔθραυσεν ἄντυγος μέσας xvoas) is consistent, if we compare
ἔχριμπτ᾽ ἀεὶ σύριγγα, with the supposition that the χνόη and
the σῦριγξ were the same, we must presume, till the contrary
is proved, that a difference of name indicates a difference of
thing, And indeed, in the much more explicit and particular
description of Euripides,

4 / 3 Μ lal 7 , 3 Ul el. /
σύρυγγές T ἄνω τροχῶν ἐπήδων ἀξόνων τ᾽ ἐνήλατα,

the common explanation itself ἄνω πηδᾷ---ἰθ exploded and seen
to be untenable al‘ogether. The ‘pins’ could and certainly
would ‘leap up, woen the wheel received a severe shock ; but
surely the very last thing to make a visibie spring would be

the ‘box,’ ticht!v fixed in the middle of the nave.

IN THE ANCIENT CHARIOT. 367

In truth, the extant examples of σῦριγξ in reference to the
chariot, though they may tell us what it was not, are too few,
and not precise enough, to tell us of themselves what it was,
We want a larger collection of literature, or in default of this
the testimony of those who had such a collection, and could
reach the stores of Alexandrine and Byzantine tradition, But
the curious thing is, that we actually lave such testimony,
though, as far as I can discover, no notice has been taken of it;
indeed, I doubt whether any one has been at the pains to
translate the brief but perfectly clear passage in which it
occurs. It is found in the scholia to the Medicean MS, of
Aeschylus, at the second of the above-cited places, Sept, 205,
It is perhaps needless to remind the reader that the Medicean
scholia are to be sharply distinguished from the ignorant and,
for the most part worthless, notes in the other MSS, of Aeschylus.
They form in the main a very good commentary, their chief
defect being the obscurity, to which the ancient editor, with
nothing but his margin to write on, was often reduced by
mere lack of adequate space, The particular note in question
is one of the additions to the scholia by the hand known
as m’, a very learned and sensible hand, if one may judge
from the average quality of the additions, The note is as
follows: σύριγγες τὰ ξύλα τὰ μέσον τοῦ περιφεροῦς ξύλου
τοῦ τροχοῦ διαπεραιούμενα. τὸ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν ἐστι μέγα, τὸ
δὲ ἕτερον μικρότερον, λόγον τῶν αὐλῶν τῶν συρίγγων ἐπέχοντα.
‘The σύριγγες were the pieces of wood which crossed from side
to side of the wooden circumference of the wheel; named so
because, one being large and the next smaller [and so on], they
have a proportion resembling that of the pipes in the instrument
so called.’

Note that μέσον (not τὸ μέσον, the centre, which would make
nonsense of the whole) is used in the late Greek fashion almost
as a preposition, equivalent to the classical dua, between or across,
In ἐπέχοντα the preposition has perhaps a sense correlative to
that which it has in ἐπιφέρειν. When a quality is transferred
from one thing to another, which resembles it, the quality
ἐπιφέρεται, the recipient thing ἐπέχει. Or perhaps λόγον is
merely an adverbial accusative, ‘extending over it in such a
way as to resemble.’ The question does not affect the sense.

H.S.—VOL. VI. a

808 ON THE SYRINX (σῦριγξ)

It is clear that the author of this interesting and undoubtedly
ancient explanation, supposed the wheel, to which the term
σύριγγες applied, to be a very different thing from the spoke-
wheel which we know. The wheel which he describes was not
made with spokes (κνῆμαι) at all, but with staves or cross-pieces,
going right across the circle inclosed by the circumference, and
fixed probably not into the circumference, like spokes, but on it.
There would necessarily be two sets of such cross-pieces, to
prevent the collapse of the wheel in all positions, one set across
each surface (if I may so say) of the wheel. In each set the
longest stave (τὸ μέγα) would be the diametrical stave, which
passed over the axle. Those parallel to it, being placed at
equal intervals, would of course diminish in a regular pro-
gression; so that, as the writer says, each set of staves would

MACEDONIAN CHARIOT, WITH ARCHAIC WHEEL (FROM A COIN).

.

have a proportion resembling that of the reeds in a Pan’s-pipe,
and indeed would look when fixed very much like a double
Pan’s-pipe in which the reeds diminish in both directions from a
centre one. The whole structure, therefore, the wheel so made,
was appropriately called σύριγγες, or sometimes loosely, as we
see from Sophocles, σῦριγξ. Such a wheel, though mechanically
a very poor contrivance compared with the spoke-wheel, is far
easier for a clumsy workman to make, and is in fact a sort of
first departure from the still more primitive solid wheel. In
Greek vases and coins, we actually see representations of such
wheels, so far, at least, as that the wheels have sometimes
staves, not spokes. Mr. Leaf tells me that they have regularly
two cross-pieces on one side and one on the other; and a

IN THE ANCIENT CHARIOT. 369

similar arrangement is shown in the coin which Professor
Gardner has chosen as an illustration. Perhaps, as the work-
manship improved, this number was found sufficient. It seems,
however, that it would be much too weak for violent use, and it
may be merely one of the eclectic devices so common in the
ancient draughtsmen, a few staves being given as representative
of more, for the sake of the better effect to the eye of the
fewer lines.

For myself, I find this explanation perfectly satisfactory, and
see no reason to doubt that it descends to us from those who
had not only the evidence of abundant Attic tragedy, but
probably also those lost epics, especially the Theban, which of
course the tragedians followed in their archaic descriptions,
That the Attic poets themselves correctly understood the word
could not necessarily be inferred. If the ancient bards termed
the wheel σύριγγες, from whatever cause, the word would easily
continue in poetical use, even when the wheel pictured by the
writer had no σύριγγες at all. But it is to be remembered
that an epic bard does not commonly err in defect of detail ;
and the ὦ priori probability that the antiquarian Euripides
knew just what a σῦριγξ was, and meant his reader to know, is
certainly not diminished by the sole passage which is precise
enough to atford evidence. Nothing could better fit his descrip-
tion of Hippolytus’ breaking wheel than the meaning of σύριγγες
offered by the scholiast. -

σύριγγές T ἄνω
ov ἐπήδων ἀξόνων T ἐνήλατα
τροχῶν ἐπή ή :

The weak point of the stave-wheel is just this, that in an
unusual wrench the ill-adjusted weight would force the staves
from the periphery to which they were fixed. They would then
‘leap up’ in all directions exactly as Euripides says. The
spoke-wheel, on the other hand, is so strong that, as every one
knows, it does not as a rule break to pieces at all in an upset,
but by the breaking of the axle or otherwise comes off entire.
The ‘leaping’ of the ‘staves’ is a genuine archaic touch, and
Euripides knew well what he meant. Elsewhere stave-wheel, or
wheel simply, will be our best translation. If it is asked why

BB 2

370 ON THE SYRINX (σῦριγξ) IN THE ANCIENT CHARIOT.

Aeschylus twice attributes to the σύριγγες the sound of the
wheel, the answer 15 that in this, as so often, his fancy has been
cuided by the associations of the word. The passage in the
Seven against Thebes is full of such suggestions, and indeed the
whole point of it is to liken the roll of the chariots to that of a
terrible music.

A. W. VERRALL,

VASES FROM RHODES WITH INCISED INSCRIPTIONS. 87]

VASES FROM RHODES WITH INCISED
INSCRIPTIONS.

I HAVE already had occasion (Jowrnal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. V.
p. 220) to speak of a collection of antiquities discovered by Mr.
Biliotti in his excavations in Rhodes. These objects it will be
remembered were transmitted to England with a diary of the
excavations in which were noted the contents of each tomb as it
was found; and a running number was pencilled upon every object
as a reference to the tomb which had contained it. Unfortunately,
these numbers have in many cases been lost, owing to the wear
and tear of packing, breakage and cleaning; and even in other
cases where these are preserved, it has been difficult sometimes
to identify the object in its cleaned state with Mr. Biliotti’s
description on the spot: so that the most that can be done is
to deduce general inferences only. I propose in the next volume
of this Jowrnal to publish the more interesting portions of the
Diary, with references, wherever it has been possible to identify
the objects, to Messrs. Sotheby’s Sale Catalogue, in compiling
which I have classed all the objects according to their style and
have given a description of the more important. The results
are I think likely to prove valuable for the study of Rhodian
vase-fabrics.

The present paper deals merely with a small class of vases
from this collection, which have a special interest from the
inscriptions which they bear, and which form an important
addition to the vases hitherto known with graffiti, 1.6. inscrip-
tions incised with a sharp point. The most usual place to find
these grafiti is upon the under-surface of the foot, but in some

372 VASES FROM RHODES

cases, especially in the earlier periods, they occur on the more
visible portions of the vase. .

The numbers quoted refer to the lots in the sale catalogue.

Lot 60.—Amphoriskos, so-called Fikellura type, drab with
brown ornaments; on neck rosettes, body covered with a net-
work of dotted lines: on the shoulder is incised in rough
characters Ι͂Κγ |: it will be remembered that a precisely similar
amphora in the British Museum bearing the graffito NIKO
is described by Mr. Murray in the Revwe Arch. new series,
vol. xliv. p. 348.

Lot 218.—Two aski with red figures on black glaze of the
finest period ; (1) Eros flying and Nike flying with two phiale ;
(2) Two mules. On the base of each of these aski, which were
found in the same tomb, is the letter A,

Lot 219.—An askos similar tv preceding, but rather heavier
in form, and duller glaze, though the drawing is very fine; on
it is a Satyr advancing to attack a Menad: on the base the
letter A.

Lot 240,—A kylix of the commonest type with black figures,
white accessories, details incised. On it. a bearded figure with
chelys; on ext., each side, a quadriga with Meenads riding on
mules; around the lower surface of the base runs the
inscription :

Φιλτῶς ἠμὶ Tas Karas a κύλιχς ἁ ποικίλα.

I do not recall any instance which exactly represents the
scansion of this pair of verses ; it just misses by one syllable
the ordinary trochaic trimeter catalectic, and would appear to be
a combination of two trochaic dimeters catalectic, a form which
is used singly occasionally in tragic choruses, e.g. Aja, 1. 174.
Roughly turned into English it would run somewhat like
this:
‘Philto’s fairest of the fair :
Philto’s painted cup am 1.

It is curious that the beautiful Philto or her admirer should
have taken so much pains to identify as her property a cup
which is intrinsically of so little value. But it is only what we
find in plenty of other instances, es for example the lekythos

WITH INCISED INSCRIPTIONS. 373

of Tataie now in the British Museum,! which would be a very
insignificant object without its inscription. May it not be that
painted fictile ware was seldom or never in antiquity applied
to daily use, but was reserved, as dditions de lwaxe of the shapes

HH Ϊ ἀμ" κ
ἢ “i
Ε

he
h SUL

wii

of metal or common crockery, for presents, or for temple or
funeral service? In that case the meanest painted vase would
for the ancients have had its own peculiar interest.

In the style of painting this kylix corresponds with the rough

1 Purchased at a sale in London this exception, that the first letter of
year ; the inscription runs Ταταίης ἐμὶ θυφλὸς is not, as he gives it, Φ, but
λήφυθος: ὃς δ᾽ ἄν με κλέψῃ, BupAds
ἔσται. Rohl’s transcript (Jiser, Ant.
no. 526) seems accurate with this

certainly complete, thus ΕΘ,

374 VASES FROM RHODES

black-figured vases of which so many have come from Rhodes,
and which often have a distinguishing mark, such as a dolphin
or ivy-leaf under each handle; in our case it is an ivy-leaf; I
lave already suggested that these marks may be the ‘trade-
marks’ of individuai artists or workshops, as a comparison of
the similarity of style among the different instances of vases
bearing the same mark would seem to suggest. Tle strongly
Doric character of the inscription, especially in the form yl,
and in the genitive termination of Φιλτῶς (see Ahrens,
De Dil. Dor, p. 258) are only what we should expect in
Rhodes, so that I think we may safely attribute the origin
of both vase and inscription to that island.

Lot 241,—A kylix of early form (height 3} in., diameter 5? in.)
with an external band of anthemion ornament set vertically,
back with purple and incised lines. On the under-surface of
the foot is lightly incised ᾿Ἰδαμενῆος ny.

‘The forms of the letters, eg. the sloping & and the A, appear
certainly earlier than those of the Philto cup; this vase was not
found in Rhodes itself but in the adjoining island of Ixia; con-
sidering the peculiarity of the epic genitive, and the interchange
of a for o in ᾿Ιδαμενεύς, which Ahrens (loc. cit. p. 119) says is
very rare except in Crete, it would be tempting to connect it
with that island and the specially Cretan hero Idomeneus; but
there seems hardly evidence enough for this: Idomeneus is
already known as the name of a Rhodian (Diod. Sic. 12, 57),

WITH INCISED INSCRIPTIONS. 375

aud we are accustomed in Rhodes to meet with strange
anomalies of dialect, especially on the vases which come thence
(see Kirchhoff, Stvdicn, third edition, p. +3).

Lot 242. An aryballos with elaborate cruciform anthemion
pattern black and purple with incised lines on drab: beneath
the base is the usual device of w wheel with curved spokes :
round the mouth and on the shoulder are rays. The
inscription runs round the vertical edge of the lip.

᾿Αστυοψίδα (or ᾿Αστυοχίδα) ἡμί.

ΑἰτΤν ΟΨΙΔΆΗ ASN |

The special point of interest of this vase lies in the fact that
we know exactly its provenance, the pencil reference to the Diary
having fortunately in this case survived, It was found on the
south side of Camirus, in a tomb which contained also a broken
hvdria decorated with two red figures; this hydria can only
he lot 235, which is distinctly late in style. Such a juxta-
position as that of an apparently early aryballos with a late
red-figured vase is of the greatest interest, as, even if we do
not necessarily attribute all objects found together to precisely
the same period of manufacture, it must in any case tend to
modify our ideas of the exclusively archaic character of these
aryballi. And there is nothing in the form of the inscription
which need prevent a comparatively late attribution. It is
true that the name ᾿Αστύοχος is known, whereas the name

376 VASES FROM RHODES

᾿Αστυοψίδας is not known, and is of course impossible as
a patronymic; but on the other hand I doubt if the Doro-
chalcidian form of Ψ = y would occur among letters so late
as these; if as I suppose it represents a y, we have this
point of comparison with the Philto cup; whereas in the Philto
cup we have the +& used instead of the non-phoenician letter
=, and where, if the necessity had arisen, we should no doubt
have had TT€ for Y, in this case the later form is used.

Tn lots 243 and 244 we have a curious instance of three vases
all bearing in different forms the same name, ATH, and which
seem to have all belonged to the same lady; the two last at any
rate, as the Diary shows, were found together in one tomb.

Lot 245.—An oinochoe, fine black glaze, encircled with a thin
purple line halfway up the body, beneath the base is incised
DIAH.

Lot 246.—A phialé with two handles, fine black glaze, on
base an inscription of which I can make nothing, thus

"ΕΓ,

Lot 250.—A similar case to the vases of ἀσὸ; here are an
askos and two small stands, all of black ware, and all bearing
the same inscription, API; perhaps as they were all found in
separate tombs this may be the commencement of the maker's
name.

Lot 399 includes asmall ‘ salt-cellar’ of black ware, apparently
late, which bears the same graffito as that on the shoulder of
lot 60: as however they were from different tombs, and the
periods seem widely distinct, this is probably an accidental
coincidence.

Lot. 695.—A black glaze kotyle of a good period, ht, 2 in,
diam. 44 in., with red base, on which is incised in good, deep
characters :
ΓΟΡΓΟΜΑΤΡΟΣΙ Lopyoparpos.}

1 It has been suggested to me that I prefer to consider Topyduarpos as a
this may equally be read as Topy proper name, formed on the analogy of
μάτρωσι, but as that would be avery such names as ’Avtinatpos, Σώπατρος.
unusual form of dedication to meet The final | would be in: that case
with among this class of inscriptions, nothing more than a /apsus calant.

WITH INCISED INSCRIPTIONS. 377

Lot 700 includes one cup with graffito ἌΡΧΕ.

Lot 743.—A large stand of finest black glaze ; under the foot,
which is red, is incised in semicircular form POAIOEKARTHAE,
Ῥόδιος Κλετήας. It seems doubtful whether “Ῥόδιος in this
order can refer to the citizenship of Kleteas, or whether it is
simply another man’s name as passim in inscriptions. Κλετήας
is interesting because, if our vase engraver has spelt it right,
we must alter the form Κλητέας, Bockh’s interpretation of this
name in a Tegean inscription C.J. 1512.

I need scarcely say that in all the above cases the inscriptions
are beyond a doubt genuine, as they were without exception
invisible until the earth and deposit from the tomb were cleaned
away. Lots 218, 219, 240, 241, 242 were all purchased for the
British Museum.

CECIL SMITH.

378 STATUE OF AN EMPEROR

STATUE OF AN EMPEROR IN THE BRITISH
MUSEUM.

In the last number of the Journal of Hellenic Studies
(VI. No. 1) Mr. Wroth tries to prove that the torso of a
Roman Emperor from Cyrene in the Graeco-Roman Gallery at
the British Museum originally belonged to a statue of Hadrian.
This torso is described in my Guide to the Giacco-Roman
Sculptures, 1877, Pt. 1. p. 21, No. 46, as the ‘Torso of a Roman
Emperor’; it was found at Cyrene in a building which Messrs.
Smith and Porcher in their History of Discoveries, p. 76, con-
jecture to have been the palace of a Roman governor, but which
in the ‘ List of Sculptures, which forms one of the Appendices
of the same work, p. 104, may, it is suggested, have been an
Augusteum, inasmuch as two busts and one head of emperors of
the Antonine period were found in the same building,

Mr. Wroth supposes that the torso in question is that of
Hadrian, because ‘when complete it constituted a substantial
replica’ of a statue found at Hierapytna in Crete, which is
published in the Gazette Archéologique for 1880 (pp. 52-55, Pl. 6),
and is now in the Imperial Museum at Constantinople. But
how far can the Cyrene torso be considered a replica of the
Cretan statue, of which latter I have before me a photograph ?
I cannot agree with M. Sorlin-Dorigny, who, in publishing this
figure in the Gazette Archéologique, states that it is worthy to
rank among the finest Iconic statues of the Roman Empire. I
consider it a clumsy work of a provincial artist, just such as
might have been expected in an island like Crete, which, as far
as I know, has yielded only very mediocre specimens of
sculpture. On the other hand, in the torso from Cyrene, in
spite of the defaced condition of the front of the cuirass, we

IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 379

may discern great refinement of treatment in the ornaments.
This is particularly shown in the elephants’ heads on either
flank. It 15 from the excellence of the sculpture in these details
that I was led to assign this torso’to the Augustan age rather
than to that of the Antonines. I am still of that opinion, though
1 note that Mr. Wolters in his G@ipsabgiisse Antihker Bildwerke,
p- 668, No. 1655, agrees with Mr. Wroth in considering this a
torso of Hadrian on account of its resemblance to the Cretan
statue. Mr. Wroth bases his attribution mainly on the fact
that on both these figures the cuirass is decorated with the
same group in relief, which in the Guide to the Graeco-Roman
Gallery already cited I have described as Rome standing
between two Victories crowning her, with her feet resting on
the wolf suckling the twins. A comparison of other representa-
tions of the same subject on imperial cuirasses leads me to the
conclusion that the central figure is not Rome but the
Palladium. Now before it can be assumed that the occurrence
of this subject both on the Museum torso and the Cretan statue
proves that the torso is necessarily that of Hadrian, it must be
shown that he alone among Roman emperors has his cuirass
ornamented with this composition.

When Mr. Wroth wrote his article he could hardly have been
aware of the number of examples of cuirasses similarly orna-
mented on Roman imperial statues. In Clarac, Jlusdée de
Sculpture, v., I find the following: Pl. 919. No. 2326 (Turin) ;
Pl. 942; No. 2412 (Naples); Pl. 963, No. 2479 (Vatican) ;
Pl’ 973, No. 2505 (Naples). To this list may be added the
statue of Augustus, formerly in the Pourtales Collection, and
now in the Museum at Berlin (see Hiibner, Winchelmanns-
Jest-program, Berlin, 1868), the torso found in the German ex-
cavations at Olympia (Die Ausgrabungen zu Olympia, ii. Pl. 29),
aud the fragment of a cuirass found at Athens, Hiibner, op. cit.
p. 12, pl. 2. Now to establish Mr. Wroth’s attribution of the
Cyrene torso, it would be necessary for him to prove (1) that αὐ
the statues and torsos in the above list represent the emperor
Hadrian rather than any other emperor; (2) that the Cretan
statue represents Hadrian rather than some later emperor.

1 It would appear from the note referred to above has been proved to

to p. 13 of the Ausgrabungen iv., be that of Hadrian by the discovery
that the torso found at Olympia οἵ the head of that emperor.

330 STATUE OF AN EMPEROR IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

Dethier, the late keeper of the museum at Constantinople,
thought that this figure represented Caracalla trampling on a
Persian ; and, notwithstanding the great authority of Longpérier,
as cited by Sorlin-Dorigny, I should be disposed to place this
statue rather in the third than in the second century A.D. I
should not have expected a medallion in the centre of the
wreath in a statue of Hadrian, and the action of trampling on
a fallen foe is a motive which, so far as can be gathered from
the evidence of coins, is more characteristic of the third and
fourth centuries A.D. than of the age of Hadrian. I would in
conclusion observe that the slightly-bent left knee of the
Museum torso is no proof that the leg trampled on a prostrate
foe; I should rather infer from the angle formed that the left
foot stood on the same level as the right foot. Again, nothing
whatever can be inferred from the correspondence in the
direction of the folds of the paludamentum, which Mr. Wroth
adduces as a corroboration of his general argument. Lastly,
Mr. Wroth is not justified in stating that the marble statue of
Aphrodite from Crete engraved in Spratt’s Travels in Crete,
1. p. 72, 15 identical with the Cyrene torso representing this same
subject. The type is one of which there are many replicas in
marble, in bronze, on gems, pastes, and coins (see Bernouilli,
Aphrodite, pp. 330-35) ; but these replicas are never, so far as I
know, exact copies one of another, but ‘tarieties of the same
theme,
C. T. NEWTON.

REMARKS ON AESCH. AG AJ, 1172. 381]

REMARKS ON AESCH. ΑΘΑ1Γ 1172, IN EMENDATION
OF MR. BURY’S READING (p. 175).

ΙΝ the last number of the Jowrnal of Hellenic Studies (p. 175)
Mr. John B, Bury advocates the emended reading of the corrupt
verse 1172 of the Againcininon,

ἐγὼ δὲ θερμὸν ods τάχ᾽ ἐν πέδῳ βαλῶ.

He does not exactly explain this (in my opinion it is inexplic-
able), but he says θερμῷ in 1278 seems to prove tliat θερμὸν is
right in 1172. But θερμῷ refers to shedding the warm life-
blood, while θερμὸν ods, if I understand Mr. Bury aright, means
un inspired or prophetic ear—‘an ear that used to listen to the
utterances of the victims.’ Between the literal and the figurative
senses there is no resemblance at all.

Nevertheless, Mr. Bury is right in the comparison, provided
an emendation be admitted, which appears to me to be at once
necessary to grammar and logic, and to account most satisfactorily
for the reading of the MS. ἐγὼ δὲ θερμόνους, Ke.

In v. 1136 and 1146, seqg., Cassandra laments her own fate ;
in 1156 she traces it to the marriage of Helen and Paris; in
1167 she bewails the fall of her city and her father. She passes
from topic to topic, and does not revert to herself. What she
ought here to say is this—

‘Alas for the utter destruction of my city ; alas for the vainly-
offered sacrifices of my poor father! They did not prevent the
city from falling, nor himself from shedding his life-blood on
the ground.’

I propose to read, with especial regard to μὲν and δὲ, ---

ἄκος δ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐπήρκεσαν
τὸ μὴ πόλιν μὲν ὥσπερ οὖν ἔχει παθεῖν,
αὐτὸν δὲ θερμοὺς σταγόνας ἐν πέδῳ βαλεῖν.
Τὸ is to be observed that blood falling on the plain, so as to
be absorbed by Mother Earth, was thought to bring retribution

982 REMARKS ON AESCH. AGAJW. 1172.

as its fruit. So Choeph. 47, τί yap λύτρον πεσόντος αἵματος
πέδῳ ; id. 400, νόμος μὲν φονίας σταγόνας yupévas ἐς πέδον
ἄλλο προσαιτεῖν αἷμα, and Lumen, 478, ἰὸς ἐκ φρονημάτων
πέδῳ πεσὼν.

The reading θερμὸν ods, Ke. gives this sense, if sense it can be
called ; but Cassandra must have been very mad indeed to talk
in such an illogical strain— τ

‘My father’s sacrifices availed nought in preventing the city,
on its part (μὲν), from falling, aud I shall soon throw my inspired
ear on the ground,’

The corruption arose in this way, I believe, There were
variant readings, θερμοὺς σταγόνας ἐν πέδῳ, and θερμὸν σταγόνα
πρὸς πέδῳ, OY πρὸς πέδον. The singular (σταγὼν) had occurred
just before, ν, 1122, The superscribed termination of the

ov
adjective, θερμοὺς, resulted in θερμόνους. This, from a com-
parison of ζωπυρουμένας φρενὸς in 1034, and οἷον τὸ πῦρ in
1256, was assumed to be a compound in the nominative. Thus
ἐγὼ was introduced, to the rejection of αὐτὸν, and βαλεῖν was
altered to βαλῶ, while σταγόνας was clipped down to Taya,

Thus it appears that an emendation which at first’ sight seems
rather violent, and a mere guess, is really based on very sound
reasoning. For my own part, I think the poet could not well
have written anything else. The death of Priam at the family
altar was an incident of the Z’roica as followed by the Tragics.
In Hee, 21, Euripides closely associates the two events—

ἐπεὶ δὲ Τροία 0” Exropos τ᾽ ἀπόλλυται
ψυχὴ, πατρῴα θ᾽ ἑστία κατεσκάφη,
αὐτὸς δὲ βωμῷ πρὸς θεοδμήτῳ πίτνει, ἄο.

And what is really very interesting, he commences the verse
with αὐτὸς δὲ, an exact counterpart of αὐτὸν δὲ in my proposed
correction.

This correction had occurred to me independently ; but Dr.
Donaldson had before said (New Cratylus, § 309), ‘We entertain
no doubt that the line (Agam. 1172) exhibits merely a confusion
of the true reading, ἐγὼ δὲ θερμὰς σταγόνας ἐν πέδῳ βαλῶ.

F. A, PALEY.

Ὁ Ὁ ΜΕΜΑΝΙΒΟΣ ΝΥΝ oaneas.

we ite tral, Hos δλῳομῆ, δῆς, aE ante την
wiip; 60. φρο, νῶχον ᾿μὲνμβονίαι me
ὄχλῳ apeotere’y ἀἴμας oa 3, By 7
wredys πεφὼν, : .

Tho-scnling Cepddece vee thie nonen/ Tf sem
called | boOCassmndca ἡχκῦ Bare Loon at wnt
in cork an Uszital soins κοῦ

“My fatiece’s macliices atagigl gong! in
δο fee priss (utes, fan li ae etal? saan ἡνων
δὰ» δύ Vee prim,”

dhe ουυτιρείος cree ὧν thle way, ἢ (δεῖ ϊδὸν
Patient real ns, Jiu ὐφγόνα δ» ohm, end [
ym) ben, OF rete τέδον. Thos an pe ay yay).
wet. ghee, Ὁ SABR ΤῊ siupececcibed, teenie

~

δι

Ὅσον. δυρποῦν, δωρειὰ in δωνμόνωνε, Tha,
Tal tet, of Pwr μέν ες Φῥῳ ὑς m 1034, αὐὐἱ ov ti
1756, wag παντοῦ tg bes tunipenmd iv the poat ὶ
ἐγὼ wae τα γγεϊτιρεν, to the pepection af acroe, κυ ΘΝ
aitared to Pade, Wile σεαγοιῶν Wee Hppes dows

Thee tt Wp ears ml ἂμ ene lticn which af frat
mther vinient, aad © ume pies. ia really lasted rol, .
vensooing, Par fay ova pact 1 think. the τοῖς coe
‘are wrtlen an γέμειν πᾳ Ἰὼ δρυιν of Priam '
ων te @ jreklent of tho Tyco wt followed by
Le wa 2 Foetpiles clew) αι ρα the too event

(ot δ) Troe OF βι νορὸς τ᾿ ἀφόλλισταΣ
ψυχὴν swipe δ᾽ Ὡστών γονεσεᾷη,

Jivse δὲ βω» ρὸν δεοδμήνν. πύτγει, δὲν

isd what ip Εν wey gntereatsay, be coin
eth αὐνὸς δ), a2 olact svanterpart οἱ αὐτὸν δὲ ὧι

wiroctign.

“κα πῶ το mo independentigs ὍΘΕΝ
Picea μία δὰ μὲ wi larson gig. κει τς ὦ ὦ ᾿ Φοίον
na doobt that the'line Ctpae, ΤΥ ὅγὲ Pest
the ce tig ὑγῶ ἐν Sepa σταγόρδέ τς

penny ἐς“ ΒΑ
Ja γι ᾿ Fah tee

LIBRARY AN 2 3 1979

rr
Ba 3125 00098 3391

ely
Kosa

Ξ
Υ 2 Pe ox
voses ee aes

αν τ
oneal

ΩΣ a
wren nn we te Oman

IL,
re χος