The Journal of Hellenic studies

ty eR κυ ἢν rte nes

onde

ΞΞΞΖΩΩΞ

“.
2522

Mee can as

7 Seen ape

Lo é Ἔν: : : ὙΠ 2 ΣΕ: a0 aes
2g Z 2

ΤΌΣ
2 Lets
τ
Z

ey

wee

ΩΣ:

ΩΣ
5
2:2;
ΖΞ; πρὸς τ στ Ὁ

f ) \

Ca θυ
i ; ᾿ ; : ,
i ; 5

Ἂν

Fol

RECENT DISCOVERIES OF TARENTINE
TERRA-COTTAS.

[Puates LXIIT., LXIV.]

THERE are few sites in the Hellenic World that in recent
years have been so prolific of discoveries as that of Tarentum.
The scheme so earnestly taken up by the Italian Government
for converting the half-forgotten nest of fishermen and olive
proprietors into a great Mediterranean arsenal, bids fair to
restore Taranto to some measure at least of the importance
which her unique position secured to her in ancient days. The
medizval citys hut up within the limits of its peninsular site,
the Akropolis of the ancient Tarentum, blocking the passage
from the inner to the outer sea, is again enlarging its borders,
and a new quarter—the Borgo Nuovo—is rising on the mainland
to the east where lay the Agora of the great Doric city. The
inner sea—the Mar Piccolo—the Limén of Tarentum, at present
laid out in gardens for the ‘sea-fruit’ which supplies the Naples
market, is already being deepened in its south-eastern bay to
form a secure and unassailable harbour, and the leviathans
of the new Italian navy will henceforth anchor in the same
historic port whence Hannibal transferred the Tarentine galleys
adry to the outer sea.

The actual ‘mouth’ of the Mar Piccolo opening between the
north-western point of the Akropolis Peninsula and the western
terra-firma, the entrance which the Roman masters of the Citadel

H.S.—VOL. VIL B

2 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

effectually blocked, has been long rendered impassable for larger
craft by gradual silting, and accordingly, to obtain access to the
inner harbour, it has been found necessary to cut a new channel
from the inner to the outer sea. This channel now in course
of excavation follows the line of the old Akropolis fosse and
the later Canalone of the Castello, and thus traverses the neck
of the peninsula between the old and new quarters of Taranto,
or in other words between the Akropolis and Agora of the
Greek City.

These various excavations and new foundations, carried out
many of them in the heart of the commercial quarter of the
ancient Tarentum, have naturally borne a rich harvest of
archzeological discovery. The importance of the finds which
the new works were daily bringing to light was such, indeed, as
to induce the Italian Government to place them under the
inspection of a competent antiquary, and the charge of observing
and reporting on each fresh discovery was entrusted to Signor
Luigi Viola, whose Hellenic studies and intimate acquaint-
ance with the ancient sites of Great Greece as well as of its
mother country made him pre-eminently fitted for the post. The
researches of Signor Viola, carried on under these favourable
conditions, have already thrown an entirely new light on the
topography of ancient Tarentum, and one of the first and most
important contributions made by him to our knowledge was
the re-discovery of a Doric Temple within the limits of the an-
cient Akropolis, the remains of which, lost in the structure of
later houses, had almost entirely escaped attention since they
were first inaccurately alluded to by Carducci in his note to
Aquino Le delizie Tarentine (p. 393). The actual remains—
parts of two columns and of the stylobate—are to be seen in the
courtyard of the Oratorio of the Congrega della Trinita, on the
Via di Mezzo which forms the major axis of the mediaeval city,
and not far from the eastern end of the Akropolis. The capitals
are of severe and heavy archaic style, and the measurement! of
the columns as well as the general aspect of the whole corre-

sponds almost exactly to that of the temple of Ortygia and the

1 The measurements as given by upper 1°55 m.; height 8-47 metres from
Signor Viola ( Memorie della r, Accad- level of stylobate to top of abacus.
emia dei Lincei, ix. 493) are as follows: The number of the flutes however is
lower diameter of columns 1°90 m.; 24 in place of 16 at Ortygia.

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 3

earliest of the Selinuntine temples, and may be referred to the
first half of the sixth century B.c. The great Doric colony of
Magna Greecia has thus its worthy monument of Doric style, and
we may well accept Signor Viola’s opinion that this massive
pile rising on the most prominent site of the Akropolis and
commanding afar both the inner and the open sea, was in fact
the shrine of Poseidén, the father of Taras the Eponymic founder
of the city and the natural patron of its maritime greatness.

Not far from this, at the point where the Via di Mezzo is
crossed at right angles by the Vico della Pace, the construction
of a new water conduit brought to light some interesting frag-
ments of sculpture ' belonging to another temple, apparently of
the Corinthian order. The fragments formed part of a frieze
representing a combat in which Tarentine warriors play a part,
and belong to the age of Praxiteles and Scopas.”

The discoveries with which, however, we are at present
specially concerned, relate to that part of the ancient Tarentum,—
the town proper,—which occupied such an ample space on the
tongue of land that stretches between the inner and the outer
sea, and of which the peninsular, or what we may now already
call the insular site of the Akropolis and the medieval city,
forms the taper end. Although much remains to be discovered
with regard to the topography of this great urban region, and
although the ruin of its streets and public buildings has been
of the most thoroughgoing kind, the researches of Signor Viola,
many of which I have been able to verify by personal observa-
tion, have done much to establish certain fixed points for our
guidance. The position of the Agora is shown by Strabo’s de-
scription to have been just outside the Akropolis and at the

this opinion. The free flowing style of
hair and round unornamented shield

1 See Memorie della r. Accademia,
&c., ix. Τὰν. iv.

* Viola (op. cit.) has expressed
the opinion that a combat between
Tarentines and a barbarian foe is here
represented. The well-known Taren-
tine Anathema at Delphi may be
thought to favour this view. For my
own part however I am unable to detect
in the long flowing hair and round
shield of a youthful warrior, the bar-
barian characteristics on which Sig.
Viola and after him Prof. Helbig base

appear as frequent characteristics of the
youthful warriors on the Tarentine
didrachms of fourth-century date :
the lance which he brandishes and
the horse beside him are decidedly
Tarentine traits. In the best period of
Tarentine numismatie art the armed
Ephebi are generally represented bare-
headed, armed with lances and round
shields, and with locks streaming in the
wind,
B 2

RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

JLY9
ν
ormnouve
Ἢ
Ἀπ oO
s JO ILIS 370 RYO χΣ
δὰ 5. ἶ
ς ὩΣ τ
N < SS Ἂς
ὃ SOLOA XJ JO Lisoaga Sa Ἐπ
“ANOHdaSyad 40 ἤν δὲ Ἐν
AUYUVNLINVS FOO 5
"τις [31d WAL Od OG
wu INOZZId * SANT OMS WALNS AL
NN » QNV won so : SINSISNY JH
Shs, σϑξε- 7. τς ANVALONYS ees SPW) )\ 30
NM S>. of VA SSS == ee + < Sjsilodouov
Sea Toys 30 We fil
ro) aff
7022/4 a
Tyy \ \

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 5

western extremity therefore of the outer city; occupying much
of the space now covered by the Borgo Nuovo. Here too was
the cross-road leading from the inner to the outer sea, along
which Hannibal transported the Tarentine galleys from the
blockaded inner port. Of this cross-road across the isthmus no
vestige now remains, but from the site of the Agora there leads
an old line of road bisecting with sufficient exactness the tongue
of land on which the ancient city stood, and which Signor Viola
with great probability has identified with the main street of
Tarentum, the Broad Street mentioned by Polybios and Livy,
leading down from the Agora and upper part of the town into
the Deep Way or Batheia, and thence to the Témenid gate
where Hannibal effected his entry. Accepting this view, the
point where this road crosses the outer line of the city wall
marks the site of the Témenid gate, and the identification of a
neighbouring eminence beyond, known as the Erta di Cicalone,
with the sepulchral mound of Hyakinthos, or the Hyakinthian
Apollo, whence Hannibal made the fire-signal to the conspirators
within the walls, entirely squares with this conclusion. Another
ancient road starting from the site of the Agora and traversing
the eastern city wall to the south of the other, not far from the
outer sea, is shown by Signor Viola’s researches to correspond to
that followed on the way to the Agora by Philémenos and bis
band after effecting their entry simultaneously with the others
by the small gate or ῥινοπύλη described as near the Témenid.
It is this street, apparently, that is later on alluded to as
Soteira.

The line of the walls themselves where they traverse the
space between the Ionian and the inner sea can be made out
in places both by the actual remains of Hellenic masonry and
by the traces of a fosse, now known as the Canalone. The
walls are built of large blocks in form of parallelopipeds,
1:07 metre long, 0°48 metre high and 0°72 metre broad, without
mortar, and in Signor Viola’s opinion date from the last half
of the fifth century B.c., the period of Tarentum’s greatest
bloom. After leaving the outer sea they pursue an easterly
direction till about half way they make a sudden bend towards
the north. On the side of the Mar Piccolo they can be traced
in two places under the water, and an old road which here
descends towards a cove of the ancient inner port probably

6 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

indicates the position of the harbour gate through which the
Roman Governor, cut off from his natural line of retreat by
Hannibal’s stolen march to the Agora, escaped to the quay, and
was thus enabled to make his way to the Akropolis by boat.
On the side of the outer sea no traces of the old wall are now
visible, nor is anything now to be seen of the cross-wall athwart
the neck of the isthmus by which the Carthaginian chief sought
to protect the town from the attacks of the Romans in the
Akropolis. The total area within the walls, as given on the plan
prepared by the engineer G°. Tascone, is no less than 5,287,694
square metres, to which must be added another 419,040 square
metres for the Akropolis.

Of the public buildings and monuments that existed within
the limits of the outer city in the days of Tarentine greatness
we have as yet very imperfect data, though, as will be seen,
minor monuments have been discovered which give us a wel-
come clue to the whereabouts of three at least of the Tarentine
sanctuaries. The Mousaion in which the Roman Governor
banqueted ‘ not wisely but too well, the fine Gymnasium with
its colossal bronze Zeus, the work of Lysippos, the temple of
Vesta with its celebrated statue of a Satyr, have yet to be dis-
covered, but on the other hand the remains of a Greek building
have come to light, which from the traditional name of the spot
Peripato, Signor Viola has with singular felicity identified with
one of the περιπάτους or public lounges—Livy translates the
term ‘ porticus’—which according to Polybios were closed by
Pyrrhos along with the γυμνάσια as too favourite a resort of
the luxurious Tarentine youth. The same explorer has also
convinced himself that the Roman Amphitheatre, remains of
which exist on the neck of the isthmus between the two seas,
occupied in fact the site of the older Tarentine theatre, the
scene of the historic but not unprovoked insult to the Roman
ambassador,

Of coins the site of this wealthy city is naturally prolific, and
I need only mention here the recent discovery of a hoard of
nearly 2,000 Tarentine silver-pieces which had been deposited
about the time of the Roman Conquest. Of the manufactures
of ‘ Lacedeemonian Tarentum,’ a most interesting relic may still
be observed in enormous accumulations of crushed purple shells
which occur along the shores of the Mar Piccolo, As has been

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 7

well pointed out by Lenormant,! these include the two varieties
of the purple shell employed by the ancients—both the Murex
brandaris which strews the site of the dyeworks of Gythion on
the Laconian coast, and the Murex trunculus which marks the
scenes of T'yrian industry. Carducci? indeed, in his account of
Tarentine antiquities describes the actual remains of a stone
basin and pipe belonging to ancient dyeworks still tinged with
the purple deposit. These are no longer to be seen ; but amongst
some smaller trinkets recently obtained from the Tarentine site
I noticed a gold ring deeply engraved with a purple shell and
of Hellenic fabric, which may well have been the property of
one of the overseers of this remunerative industry.

But the most important revelations as to the public and
private cult, the arts and every-day life of the ancient Tarentines,
have been supplied by the discovery of vast deposits of various
terra-cotta objects, ranging in style from the most archaic forms
to those of the highest artistic development and onwards again
to the period of decadence. Amongst the finds of this class
three are of special interest as indicating the proximity of local
sanctuaries. The first of these deposits was discovered hard by
the remains of the Roman Therme at a spot known as Castel
Saraceno, overlooking the outer sea, It consisted of more or
less perfect figurines amongst which Apollo holding a lyre
formed the principal type, though Muses and other female
representations were also found. The statuettes were of the
best period, and at present form part of the Tarentine series in
the Museo Nazionale at Naples. It is obvious that this find
belongs to the same class as the ex-votos found between the
temples of Poseidén and Démétér and Kora at Psestum, those
of the temple of Démétér at Tegea, those of the temple of Jovia
Damusa at Capua, of Persephoné at Halikarnassos, and of the
Chthonic deities at Knidos, and their accumulation marks in
the present case the proximity of a shrine of Apollo. The
character of the objects found in the two other still more ex-
tensive deposits of the same class, connected respectively with
sanctuaries of Kora and the Chthonic Dionysos, will be best
judged by the specimens that 1 am able to lay before this
Society.

1 La Grande Gréce, T. I. p. 107.
2 Cited by Viola, Wemorie det Lincct, 1881, p. 519.

8 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

As the result of repeated visits to Taranto, I have been able
to collect a large number of terra-cottas of various kinds selected
from many thousands of others, the whole of which I have
now deposited in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford. I cannot
here pretend to do more than give a summary account of the
principal illustrative types.

The Tarentine terra-cottas may be conveniently divided into
the following classes :

1. Those having relation to local sanctuaries, including reliefs,
figurines, and masks.

2. Those from the tombs, including figurines and other objects
found in the sepulchral cists and chambers, and portions of
sepulchral slabs, friezes and autefixes which adorned the outside
of the monuments.

3. Objects of miscellaneous use including tessere, impressions
of gems and signets, the so-called weights, or perforated disks,
and moulds including some apparently intended to stamp holy
cakes.

I.—TERRA-COTTA OBJECTS CONNECTED WITH LOCAL
SANCTUARIES.

Amongst these in point of numbers a first place is claimed
by a series of specimens belonging to a vast deposit of terra-
cotta figures and reliefs found about five years since in the
Fondo Giovinazzo, near the Villa di S. Lucia, on a slight
eminence which overlooks the inner sea. Of this deposit no
less than 20,000 specimens were collected by Signor Viola and
sent to Naples, where they are at present in one of the vaults
of the Museo Nazionale. A large number, however, have found
their way into private hands, many of which have come ‘to light
since the first discovery, and from the number that have come
under my own inspection, as well as from reports of the
numerous consignments which have reached various foreign
museums, dealers and collectors, it will be safe to estimate at
at least 30,000 the number of pieces already extracted from
this site. All the pieces found are more or less fragmentary.

In style these terra-cottas present every transition of type
from the archaic and transitional periods to the first half

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS, 9

of the third century B.c. In the subjects, however, there is a
general uniformity. The principal persons represented are
three in number. Firstly, a recumbent male figure generally
crowned with a band or fillet which is adorned with
roses, lotos-flower, or palmetto, alone or in combination, and
which is often twisted into a turban-like form that gives
the whole a singularly Oriental appearance. This recum-
bent figure is naked to the loins and lies upon a couch
resting his elbow on the cushion and facing the spectator ;
in one hand he holds either a handleless cup or a kantharos.
At the foot of the couch, also facing the spectator, is seated a
female form dressed in a chitén, and with a veil dependent from
the back of her richly-developed hair: in her arms she holds
a male infant who reaches out towards the recumbent figure,
and sometimes lays hold of the extended kantharos, The
recumbent figure in his turn sometimes grasps the child’s arm.
There are infinite variations of this arrangement. Sometimes
the child is absent ; sometimes the recumbent figure holds out
the wine-cup to the seated female, and her head again is often
covered with a stephanos as well as the veil. At times, too, the
male and female figures are seen seated side by side. There
are besides various accessory representations to which reference
will be subsequently made, and some exceptional cases where
the recumbent figure holds a lyre.

The main type however is constant enough, and it will be
noticed at once that its scheme answers with sufficient exactness
to the well-known ‘funeral feast’ as it appears on Greek and
Greco-Roman sepulchral slabs.1

A terra-cotta example of this design from the face of a
Tarentine tomb will be described in the course of this com-
munication, and for a sepulchral slab also of Tarentine pro-
venance containing a very interesting version of the same
representation, I need only refer to the important paper of
Professor Gardner, published in the Journal of this Society,” in
which the whole subject of these sepulchral banquets receives
exhaustive discussion. There can, as Professor Gardner has

1 See P. Pervanoglu, Das Familien- 102, seqq. Cf. Milchhéfer’s remarks,
mahl auf altgriechischen Grabsteinen, Mitth. d. deutschen Arch. Inst. in
Leipzig, 1872. Athen, iv. (1879).

2 Hellenic Journal, Vol. VY. 1884, p.

10 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

shown, be no longer any reasonable doubt that these reliefs
do in fact present to us an embodiment of the heroized dead
receiving the offerings and affectionate devotion of their
bereaved kinsfolk and friends. It is in fact a sufficiently literal
adaptation by Hellenic cult of a well-known scene of Egyptian
sepulchral iconography, though the Jater scheme of the couch
and recumbent figure betrays the influence of Assyrian fashions
and recalls the feast of Assurbanipal as depicted for us in the
Kujundyjik relief.

Great, however, as the resemblance is between these terra-
cotta objects and the familiar sepulchral subject, there are, as
I hope to show, strong reasons for believing that in the present
instance we have to deal with the same design as transferred
from the cult of the dead person to that of Chthonic divinities,
and modified to suit its new religious application, The scene
before us represents, in fact, the mystic union of Persephoné-Kora
and the Chthonic Dionysos, and the infant is no other than
Jacchos, the child of Kora, the annual pledge of the New Birth
from the sleep of Winter and the sleep of Death. These ex-
votos, for such we may regard them, fit in thus with a Chthenic
cult widely spread throughout Southern Italy, and that im Greek
colonies of most heterogeneous origin, a cult which at Tarentum
as elsewhere had its roots no doubt in the pre-existing belief of
the older inhabitants of the country which had been adopted
and adapted by the later Hellenic colonists. The survival of
earlier cults is indeed nowhere more marked than at Tarentum
itself, where over and above the appropriation of the indigenous
horse-god of the Messapians and Iapygians we find the cult of
the eponymic founder of the pra-Hellenic city almost entirely
displacing that of the Lacedaemonian Phalanthos to whom the
Greek settlement owed its origin. Sometimes the adaptation of
the earlier worship to a Hellenic guise attributes it toa different
personality, but at bottom the worship is the same. At Kroton
we see the cult of the indigenous Earth-goddess identified with
that of the Argive Héra Antheia, but, as Lenormant has pointed
out, the name of the ‘Lakinian Héra’ presents a suggestive
analogy with dakis a Pelasgian word for earth. In the same
way the male deity with which this Chthonic worship is asso-
ciated may take the form of Poseidén as well as of Dionysos.
The coinage of Magna Greecia is itself a speaking witness to the

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 11

extension of the cult in one form or another throughout Southern
Italy, and when we remember how largely the native population,
as found there by the first Greek settlers themselves, represented
an earlier wave of emigration from ‘Greece before the Greeks,’
it becomes evident that the Hellenes both in the old country
and in their western plantations may have derived the
characteristic features of this form of Chthonic worship from
the same ancient race. Eleusis when she introduced her
mysteries to Athens had not forgotten her ‘ Thracian”
parentage.

The special cult of Persephoné-Gaia at Tarentum is illustrated
by another highly important deposit of terra-cottas to which I
shall presently refer, undoubtedly belonging to a sanctuary of
that goddess. Here it is sufficient to remark that the seated
female figure at the foot of the couch is in all respects similar to
the types of the goddess as they appear amongst the relics of this
other repository. The identification of the Kourotrophos and her
babe with Kora and Iacchos may therefore be looked upon as
ascertained, but the male recumbent figure presents the
difficulty, that it appears alternately with and without a beard.
Dr. Wolters, indeed, who has described some terra-cottas belonging
to the present deposit that had found their way into the Bonn
Museum, considers the appearance of the youthful as well as
the maturer versions of the figure on the couch to be sufficient
proof that the whole scene belongs to the usual series of
sepulchral designs already referred to, representing the funeral
feast. But the objections to this theory are obvious. On the
tombs we find a variety of figures and attendants, at times
indeed a wife and child, but as often a parent or whole groups
of mourning partakers in this primitive communion feast. Here
the main type is rigorously fixed, and except for the alternate
representations of beardless youth and bearded manhood there
is no individualization of features. Such difference as there
seems to be in the various heads is due to the changing style
of the different periods in which they were moulded. The
identification again of the seated figure with the mystic Kora
goes far to prove that the recumbent figure belongs to the same
category, divine rather than merely heroic. It seems to me, if
I may venture on a suggestion, that we have here to deal with
the same Chthonic Dionysos, indeed, but under different aspects.

12 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

In the one case he is the youthful Koros, the natural counter-
part of Kora, just as her Roman equivalent Libera finds her
mate in the beardless Liber. In the other case he is seen in
his graver aspect as Dionysos-Hadés or Dionysos-Piuto, the
ruler of the Shades.

That this is in fact the true explanation receives a remarkable
confirmation from some of the votive figures found by Professor
Newton in the Temenos of Démétér and Persephoné at Budrum
(Halicarnassos).1 Amongst the terra-cotta ea vctos there dis-
covered, not only do we see both types of Dionysos, the bearded
and the beardless, associated as here with figures of the two
Chthonic goddesses, but the Halicarnassian types agree to a
surprising extent, even to the crown of roses and the turban-
like head-gear, with representations from the present deposit.
I may here content myself with Professor Newton’s description
of three of these:

No. 16. Youthful Dionysos, the lower half of the body
clothed in a peplos,; the hair long and crowned with a wreath
of flowers.

No. 17. Bearded Dionysos, the lower half of the body clothed
in a peplos which falls over the left arm, in the left hand a
phialé.

No. 18. Bearded head, probably of Dionysos, from the back
of the head a veil or linen head-dress falls over the shoulders.

Associated with these were votive figures of the Kourophoros.

That it is Dionysos and no other with whom we have to
deal—

“Βάκχος ἐνὶ ζωοῖσιν, ἐνὶ φθιμένοις Αἰδωνεύς,

appears from several other circumstances. Sometimes an archaic
head of Silénus is seen above the shoulder of the recumbent
figure, and a later representation of Silénos will be seen amongst
the associated objects that I am able to exhibit. An amphora,?
again, is visible at times beneath the couch in addition to the
extended wine-cup or kantharos. On another fragment that 1
am able to describe, the head of the seated Kora is seen
encanopied with a vine-spray. That in other cases a round

1 History of discoveries at Halicar- pl. xlvi. fig. 6.
nassus, Cnidus and Branchidae, by Ξ Cf. Helbig, Bullettino di Corr.
C. T. Newton, Vol. ii. pt. i. p. 829,and _Archeologica, 1881, p. 198.

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 13

shield is shown behind the male figure which in a fragment in
the Bonn Museum! is seen on his uplifted left arm, seems
to connect itself with the heroic aspect of the present cult of
which other evidence is forthcoming.

Besides this main group of three figures having an obvious
reference to the mysteries of a Chthonic cult, there occur in the
same deposit other associated objects such as the figures of
Silénos already referred to, which must be regarded as having
a religious connexion with the preceding. It is to be remarked,
however, that with the exception of the archaic Silénos mask,
these extraneous subjects do not occur, so far as I have been
able to observe, amongst the earlier class of terra-cottas found
in this deposit—those namely of archaic and transitional style.
The style to which these associated objects belong is exclusively
that of the best period of art or that of the early decline, while
the figures of Kera and Dionysos on the contrary are seen in
every stage of artistic development from the earliest to the
latest. We have here, therefore, to deal with a devotional usage
of later date engrafted on an earlier cult.

This later group centres round certain hippic and equestrian
figures. Horses’ heads, sometimes with the hand of a rider,
appear executed in the very finest style of art. Of a somewhat
later fourth century date are figures of youthful warriors either
on horseback or standing or seated by their steeds, of which
full representations now occur. The youthful riders are nude
except sometimes fer a chlamys about their shoulders, and a
crested helmet or a peaked pileus on their heads, and they hold
on their left arm a round shield, Both the horses and riders
present a striking resemblance to many of the mounted ephébi
on the fourth century didrachms of Tarentum. They occur as
a rule in single figures, but on a fragment amongst the series
exhibited there are represented a youth on horseback and part
of the over-lapping anterior part of another horse, doubtless
with a twin rider, and the resemblance of the design to that on
the Tarentine staters with the legend AIOZKOPOI is such that
it is impossible not to recognize in the present case also a
representation of Castor and Pollux, the equestrian patrons of
‘Lacedemonian Tarentum. The inference that the single

1 Archiologische Zeitung, 1882, T. xiv. f. 4.

14 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

figures also represent one or other of the Dioskuri must there-
fore be considered strong. Above the mounted figure or in
close relation to it, there appears at times a head of Pallas, fuil-
face, and wearing a crested Corinthian helmet.

The fine horse’s head which is so prominent an object amongst
the remains of this deposit belonging to the best period suggests
some interesting reflections. Just as the main group on these
terra-cottas, though associated with a cult of Chthonic deities,
is based on a known sepulchral type, in its origin referring
purely and simply to the cult of the departed τς spirit, so
here we see a symbol which though in its later application we
find it associated with the cult of ihe Dioskuri is, in its origin
at least, equally sepulchral in its significance. The horse’s head,
or protomé, as is well known, is introduced, generally in a
sunken square, into the field of a great number of Greek sepul-
chral slabs representing the funeral feast. An interesting and
peculiarly pertinent example of the appearance of an entire
horse on a funeral monument will be found in a Spartan relief
representing an archaic bearded figure of the heroized departed
enthroned and holding in the right hand a pomegranate, and in
the left a kantharos. A dog leaps up at his feet and in the
field above is seen a horse facing to the το]. Furtwaengler
in his commentary on this stone? has shown that the horse in
this and other similar reliefs, on many of which we see the
deceased person himself mounted on horseback or leading the
horse,® is to be generally regarded as a symbol of the heroized
estate of the departed. We may go back a step further indeed
and say that just as the fruit and wine-cup image forth the
offerings and libations to the dead as still provided by a more
civilized age, so the representations of the animals characteristic
of the hunter or the rider point not obscurely to the once wide-
spread practice of sacrificing his most useful animals to the ghost
of their departed master to uid him in his pilgrimage to the
Nether World.

It has been objected, indeed, that the idea of the Riding Dead,
so universal amongst primitive peoples, and of which we find
such grim expression on Etruscan monuments, was alien to pure

1 Mitth. d. deutsch n arch. Inst. in 3 For examples of this class οἵ,
Athen, vii. (1882) Pl. vii. Pervanoglu, Das Familienmahl, &e.
2 Op. cit. p. 160 seqq. passim .

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 15

Hellenic ideas. But such a view seems very doubtful. The
belief in the infernal river found in such widely remote parts
of the world is not by any means inconsistent with the employ-
ment of horses by the departed whether on the way to the fatal
brink or in the Elysian fields beyond. The various monuments
on Hellenic soil in which the heroized departed is seen accom-
panied by his faithful charger are themselves a speaking evidence
to the contrary, and were it even admitted that the idea was
in its origin non-Hellenic, it was too wide-spread not to have
been taken over with one or other of the barbarian elements
which Hellenism incorporated and assimilated. So far at least
as these terra-cottas are concerned, the cult with which we have
to deal is admittedly of non-Hellenic origin. Whence come the
Dioskuri? By what broad line of demarcation is the cult of
the rose-crowned Dionysos with which we have to deal to be
separated from that of the Thracian Sabazios? And as to the
Chthonic deities Persephoné and her mother, the Greeks them-
selves referred to them as the ‘ Pelasgian goddesses.’

The early monuments of this class show us that here again
on the terra-cotta reliefs of this deposit we have to deal with
a design which is at bottom purely sepulchral. But here as in
the former case the originally sepulchral function has received
anew application. In the later representations of the horse on
these terra-cottas, we find it closely associated with the cult of
the Dioskuri, the national heroes of the original Parthenian
colonists of Tarentum, standing here as the divine representatives
of the heroized departed in general.!| The attachment of this
sepulchral idea to Chthonic worship in various forms is traceable
indeed inmany ancient myths. In its hippic aspect it reappears
in the horse-headed Démétér Melaina of Phigalia, and is repeated
in the horse Arion of the sky-blue mane, born by Démétér
Erinnys to Poseidén, who, besides his hippic attributes, stood in
a special relation to Tarentum as the father of its eponymic
founder. The cult of the Hippic deities was, as we know from

1 Furtwaengler, who had not these
Tarentine terra-cottas before him to

Begriff aus dem Allgemeinen des Heros
mit dem Pferde abgeleitet scheint.”

confirm his views, observes (op. cit. p.
166), ‘‘ Der Zusammenhang der Rosse
des Erddunkels und der des Lichtes
zeigen deutlich die Dioskuren deren

He adds, ‘‘ nicht zu vergessen sind die
Rosse, Reiter, und Gespanne aus Thon
in alterthiimlichen Gribern als Gaben
an den Heros.”

16 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

an inscription as well as its coinage, specially connected with
this city, and this cult must surely have stood in close relation to
that of Hades in his Homeric character of Κλυτόπωλος.
Reviewing then the general character of the present deposit
we see that the terra-cotta representations here found must
be rather regarded as primarily concerned with the cult of
Chthonic deities and national heroes than with that of departed
human spirits. The starting-point of these representations,
whether of the recumbent form on the couch and the Kouro-
trophos at its foot, or of the horse and horseman, may indeed be
regarded as purely sepulchral. But there is here a certain
severity and fixity of type which one misses on the tombs. To
take the instance of the Spartan monuments on which the
funeral feast is so well represented, we find, instead of the veil
and stephanos, the eriental fillet or the crown of roses and
palmettoes, no head-gear other than that of every-day life.
The seated figure holding the cup is male or female indifferently,
according to the sex of the departed. In place of the mystic
infant reaching towards the recumbent figure, and the matronly
full-facing form of the Kourotrophos, we find, on one stone at
least, a very mortal maiden, with one hand filling her lord’s
wine-cup, and with the other displaying her charms. In the
Tarentine relief already referred to we see the recumbent
bearded figure on the couch accompanied by a youth, not im-
probably his son, on whose shoulder he affectionately lays his
hand, while another youth holds by the bridle his noble
Tarentine steed. In the terra-cotta slab from another Tarentine
tomb which I am able to exhibit, a naked boy holds ready the
cenochoé to replenish the kantharos of his heroized master.) A
different spirit it will be seen pervades these purely sepulchral
representations, and they are of more varied design, as suited
to the sex and the condition of the deceased. The serpent,
whose monstrous coils are seen beside the female figure on

1 The cup in the hands of the
heroized departed or offered to them
by their attendants is in fact a sculp-
tural improvement on the earlier and
simpler sepulchral practice of placing
vessels on the grave. This practice
still survives throughout large parts of
Eastern Europe, and of its former

existence at Tarentum itself there is
evidence in an epitaph of the local poet
Leonidas (c. Ixxxvii) on the bibulous
Maronis whose ghost mourns not for
the loss of children or husband, but
that the cup over her grave—‘‘ ἧς ὑπὲρ
τάφου γνωστὴ πρόκειται πᾶσιν ᾿Αττικὴ
κύλιξ---Θ "οι ἃ be empty.

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 17

some of the fragments from this deposit, is of very superior
dimensions to those ancestral snakes of primitive household
enlt,—whose breed is not yet extinct in once Hellenic lands,—
that -we find on the sepulchral reliefs. Its truly infernal
dimensions at once carry away the imagination to the halls
of Dis.

In connexion with these Chthonic surroundings, the form of
the head-dress which crowns the recumbent figure of Dionysos-
Pluto, and is also occasionally seen on the head of the Kouro-
trophos at the foot of the couch, is of considerable significance.
The broad fillet or turban, with its central palmetto rising like
the decoration of a gable, and its side roses, suggests at once a
structural parallel ; and some of these fragments have actually
been taken for this reason to be part of the antefixes of tombs.
This they certainly were not, but the suggestion contains an
important element of truth. A comparison of the gable-like
crowns of some of these Chthonic figures, and the pointed
summits of some early Greek sepulchral stélae, shows that both
in their ornaments and their characteristic form, so unlike
ordinary wreaths, they are in fact derived from the akroteria of
the tombs. The central palmetto, with the roses on either side
of it, and sometimes below as well, is in fact a conventional
adornment of a whole class of Greek stélae, some of early date.
The religious significance of such a frontal adornment as trans-
ferred from the monument which represented the individual
dead to the Earth-god who represented the departed in their
collective aspect will be readily intelligible. It forms, in fact,
another illustration of a process—to which these Tarentine
ex votos as a whole bear such ample witness—the appropriation
namely by gods of mythopoeic growth of religious forms and
rites which were once the peculiwm of departed human spirits.
And if, as I venture to believe can be ultimately shown—though
the discussion of such a subject lies far beyond the limits of
our present theme—the tombstone was itself regarded as the
actual embodiment of the dead person, and received its offerings
and libations as his visible presence long before men thought of
graving it with his image, it may happen that the sepulchral
apices of these Chthonic deities take us back to a stage of
religious development long anterior to that so well illustrated
by the figures themselves. The monumental feature attached

Hs: --οῦ Vvuls Cc

18 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

in the present case to the effigy of the Chthonic god supplies,
in fact, a link of connexion with a rude primaeval worship of
the stélé, as ‘possessed’ and tenanted by the spirit of the
departed, a form of sepulchral religion, illustrations of which
may still be found in modern India.

As connected with the doctrine of the mysteries and the
personified idea of the perpetually-recurring death of Nature,
preparatory to that re-birth of which the child Iacchos in the
lap of Mother-Earth is here the type, two specimens in the
present selection are specially suggestive. These are two frag-
ments, (fig. 1) representing the upper part of the form of
the Chthonice Dionysos with the sepulchral apes on his head, and
in other respects conforming to the usual type, but with closed
and sunken eyes as if wrapped in the sleep of death.

The figures upon the terra-cotta reliefs of this deposit must be
regarded then as representing the Chthonic Dionysos, associated
with Persephoné, as identified with Mother-Earth, and the mystic
child, and certain Hippic deities with which their cult was
associated! But the analogy of the whole scheme of the design
to that of purely sepulchral reliefs is so intimate and unmis-
takable that it is impossible to exclude a reference to the cult
of departed human spirits. As ex votos such tablets might be

1 The adaptation of this sepulchral the same design to the cult of Asklép-
design to the cult of the Chthonic ios and Hygieia which is well brought
Dionysos and the Kourotrophos finds out by Prof. Gardner Joc. cit. p. 115,
a perfect parallel in the adaptation of seqq.

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 19

offered by bereaved friends on behalf of their heroized relatives
to the divinities who presided over the ODEO] KATAXOONIOI
in general, rather than to the individual departed spirit. And
in order better to harmonize the practice with dividual needs
we see the Chthonic divinity represented alternately in his
ycuthful and in his maturer aspect, as the ez voto was for the
young or old.

With regard to the character of the deposit, it was at first
urged by Signor Viola that the fact that all the objects found
were broken militated against the idea that it was a collection
of ex votos belonging to a temple, and pointed rather to the
conclusion that this was a refuse-heap from some manufactory
of terra-cottas. Signor Viola has, however, I believe, found
reason to modify this opinion, and at present holds that the
deposit is one of votive offerings, indicating the former presence
of a sanctuary of the Chthonic Dionysos at this spot. The
long period of time, at least a couple of centuries, covered by
these ex votos, as well as their general uniformity of character,
certainly points to their connexion with a fixed religious centre,
and the usage, attested by several inscriptions, of clearing out
accumulations of ea votes from temples,! and heaping them in
repositories, may account for the present find. The fact that
the objects are all more or less fractured does not seem to me
to weigh against this explanation, for, setting aside the fact that
such were precisely those most likely to be cleared out of the
temple they encumbered, it is to be remembered that here we
have to deal with a cult of the departed, and that, with votive
objects designed in usum mortuorum, it may have been an
essential condition that they should be broken.

Among the objects in the present selection from this deposit,
I may signalize the following :—

TERRA-COTTAS FROM THE SANCTUARY OF THE CHTHONIC
Dionysos, PERSEPHONE-GAIA, AND JACCHOS.

1. Upper part of recumbent figure of Dionysos-Pluto holding
a shallow cup in his right hand. The head is bearded in

1 Cf. Helbig, Bull. di Corr. Arch. und Sicil. Vasenb. I. p. 14, 15, and

1881, 196, who cites Rangabé Ant. compare C. 1. G. 1. n. 1570.
Hell. 11. n. 777. Benndorf, Griech.
c 2

20 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

archaic style, and crowned with a wreath of globularly-repre-
sented flowers, from the centre of which rises what is apparently
a lotos-bud. Above the wreath is a kind of narrow turban.
Height 7°6 in,

2. The same with short beard in a transitional style. A fillet
round the brow. Wreath indistinct, but palmetto rising in
centre. The locks of hair fall about the shoulders. Two
examples; on one of these traces of red paint on a white
ground covering the whole of the face, hair, and body, Height
371 in,

3. Head and part of the bust of the same recumbent divinity
in a style closely resembling the last. Round the brows is a
fillet, the front of which is of network adorned with three roses,
and the ends of which hang down over the shoulders, Above
the central rose is a lotos-bud. The eyes are closed and sunken,
and the whole face is a realistic impersonation of the sleep of
death. Two examples. Height 9.4 in. (fig. 1).

4. Head of Dionysos-Pluto of the best period. Turban-like
fillet, with dependent bands, which is adorned in the front and
at the two sides with three roses. Two examples of different
sizes.

5. The same, but with part of the naked bust, and a palmetto
rising from central rose. Four examples.

6. The same crowned with a broad fillet without the flowers.
The head only. Height 46 in.

7. Same head, but covered with a twisted turban. Height
3 in,

8. Same head, but beard curving in under the chin. From
the centre of the turban rises a tall palmetto. Height 4°3 in.

9. Naked upper part of recumbent figure of youthful
Dionysos, his head crowned with fillet and turban, the long
bands of which hang down over the shoulders. From the
centre of the turban rises an open rose with five petals. Of
good period. Height 7.4 in.

10. Archaic bust of the same. The hair, cheeks, and lips
coloured red. The top of the head is covered with a broad
band ; the hair falls in separate curls over his shoulders. He
is represented reclining on his left shoulder, and holding a cup
in his left hand. Three examples.

11. Head of the same, of good period, with a long narrow

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 21

face. The hair, which is freely and elaborately treated, is con-
fined by a band, above which is a narrow, open-work turban.
In the centre of this was apparently a palmetto ornament and a
rose on either side. Traces of red paint on a white ground.
Height 53 in.

12. Head of the same, of period of the decadence. Broad
fillet and narrow turban, in the centre of which a large five-
petalled rose, with lotos-bud behind. Conspicuous traces of red
paint cover the whole. Height 3°5 in.

13. Upper part of two full-facing figures, side by side.
That to the left is the bearded Dionysos-Pluto, naked as
far as the loins, with fillet, turban, and central rose with a
palmetto rising above it. The figure to the right is that of
Persephoné-Gaia in a chitén, and with a veil over the back of
her head. Height 6°8 in.

14. Part of a couch, with the lower part of the figure of
Dionysos-Pluto resting his left elbow on a pillow, and holding
in his left hand a cup. His right arm rests on his right leg,
which is slightly drawn up. The lower part of the body is
draped. Height 7-1 in.

15. Headless full-facing figure of Persephoné-Gaia, robed in
diplois; seated in a somewhat stiff attitude, with her hands on
her knees, at the foot of the couch. Height 7:3 in.

16. Upper part of seated figure of Persephoné-Gaia; full-
facing, with a veil at the back of her head. Her right hand
holds the end of her veil as in the act of drawing it back; and
immediately above the right arm of the goddess appears the
hand of Dionysos extending a kantharos towards her lips.
Good period. Height 5°5 in.

17. Head and part of the bust of Persephoné. The hair
luxuriantly expanding beneath the veil, and with considerable
development of breasts. Good period. Height 54 in.

18. Two heads of the same character as last. Fine style
of art.

19. Upper part of seated figure of Persephoné-Gaia of the
same character, but holding aloft on her left arm the infant
Tacchos. Good period. Height 5:4 in.

20. Upper part of seated figure of Persephoné-Gaia, clad in
diplois, holding in her lap the infant Iacchos, who crawls to the
right, and reaches out his upper arm, apparently to lay hold

22 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

of the kantharos of Dionysos-Pluto. Later style. Height
δ: in.

21. Head of Persephoné-Gaia crowned with fillet, resembling
those on heads of Dionysos, with three five-petalled roses and a
palmetto rising above that in the centre. The ends of the
fillet hang down over the shoulders. Height 3°4 in.

22. Head, apparently of Persephoné-Gaia, in a low petasos-like
stephanos, and her hair falling about her neck. Above is a
vine-spray forming a canopy over her head. Height 41 in.

23. Archaic head of Persephoné-Gaia, with waved hair and
low stephanos, from the sides of which a veil coloured red falls
about her shoulders. Height 3:1 in.

24. Archaic head of the same, with stephanos and traces of
veil. Height 2°7 in.

25. Lower part of figure of Persephoné, with huge serpent
coiling at her side. Height 5°3 in.

26. Grotesque figure, much resembling the Egyptian Bes.
Height 3°5 in.

27. Upper part of figure of Silénos, the head surrounded
with a fillet with dependent bands. Height 3:1 in.
28. Horse’s head, in the finest style of art. Two examples,

Height 38 in.

29. The same, of somewhat later period, with hand of the
rider on neck. Two examples. Height 3°5 in.

30. Ditto, but without hand. Height 43 in.

31. Warrior, naked except for chlamys which falls behind
him; seated three-quarters facing, resting left arm on large
round shield, and with the right ho!ding the bridle of his horse
which stands behind him, raising its off fore-leg. Height
8-2 in. |

32. Naked warrior, in peaked, crested helmet, seated sideways,
facing the spectator on a galloping horse. In his left hand he
holds a round shield like that of No. 31.

This relief, which is perfect except the horse’s head, has two
holes, as if for affixing it to a wall. On the other hand, how-
ever, it is provided with a prop behind, so as to stand upright
on a flat surface. Height 7°5 in.

33. Lower part of naked warrior on prancing horse, over-
lapped by fore-part of another similar horse. Probably a
representation of the Dioskuri, much resembling the device on

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS, 23

some Tarentine coins. (Cf. Carelli, Nwmmorum veterwm Italiae
d:scriptio: Didrachms, Tab. exi. No. 19, T. cxu. No. 6, Staters,
T. cii. Nos. 11 and 12, the last with the legend AIOSKOPOL.)
Tarentine coins with this type range in date from the middle
of the fourth to the first quarter of the third century, B.c.
Height 5:0 in.

34. Youthful figure, naked except for chlamys, which falls
behind, standing in front of horse, on the neck of which he lays
his right hand, while with his left he holds a round shield.
Height 5 in.

35, Fragment representing naked youth on horseback ; turned
towards the spectator, with one knee bent under him on the
horse’s back, and the other leg free, and with his right hand on
the horse’s bridle. The attitude is reproduced on a whole
series of Tarentine didrachms of fourth-century date, exhibiting
a youthful horseman, apparently in the act of dismounting, as
if equally prepared for pedestrian and equestrian combat. In
the fragment of the Tarentine frieze found in the Vico della
Pace (see p. 3) a youthful warrior with the same round shield
is seen contending on foot beside his horse. Height 3:7 in.

36. Head of Pallas in crested Corinthian helmet. Two
examples. Height 4:8 in.

37. Head of Pallas in crested helmet, with side-pieces re-
sembling wings. Two variant examples both of later style than

No. 36. Height 8.8 in.

VoTIVE TERRA-COTTAS FROM THE SANCTUARY OF
PERSEPHONE.

On the elevated plateau called Pizzone, that rises in the S.E.
angle of the ancient city, and part of which is occupied by the
tombs, another great deposit of terra-cottas has been brought to
light, and in this case the further discovery by Signor Viola of a
fragment of a dedicatory inscription’ in archaic letters shows
that we have here again to deal with an ancient sanctuary.
The figures themselves occur on the very surface of the ground,
which is scattered with fragments of terra-cottas and small

1 RMOIR ee vr, Accad, dei Lincei, xi. 1883, p.
——RZANRORKR. Memorie ;

24 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

vases.) Not far from this spot various niches are to be seen
hewn out of the rock, in all probability like those at Daphné,
which they much resemble, consecrated to one or more of the
gods. The terra-cottas themselves show a different type from
those found in the preceding depository, and many of them,
unlike the others, are in an unbroken condition. The prevailing
types here are female heads or masks of different styles and
periods—some of life size, and of exquisite workmanship—and
standing female figures, some of which hold in their left arm a
pig, while others of the same character hold the cross-torch
and pomegranate. Amongst the other objects discovered
are yarious animals, including a whole series of votive pigs.
On the whole, there can be no doubt that the principal
divinities represented, and with whose mysteries the pig is
naturally associated, are either Démétér or Persephoné or both
of these goddesses, and Signor Viola, who has had the advantage
of studying a very large series from this deposit, has arrived at
the conclusion that the divinity to whom these votive figures
were dedicated is, in fact, Persephoné.?

The general character of many of the later figures presents
striking points of analogy with those discovered by Professor
Newton in the sanctuary of Persephoné at Halikarnassos, and
those of Persephoné from the Knidian Temenos of the Chthonic
deities. Iam able, however, to exhibit a series recently found
together in an archaic stratum of this deposit which have an
altogether unique interest, as presenting forms almost purely
Egyptian in character. This remarkable find was of very
limited extent, but I have succeeded in securing some of
the finest and most characteristic specimens discovered. With
them, indicating no less clearly than their forms the influences
under which they were moulded, were found a few scarabzei,
one of which I am also able to exhibit. It is of a pale blue
composition, and represents what may be looked on as a

1 Τὸ is thus described by Viola
(loc. cit.) : ‘‘ tutta la superficie ὃ sparsa
di frammenti di terrecotte figurate e di
piccoli vasettini, che io credo simbolici,
ed inoltre basta dare un colpo di zappa
perché vengano fuori moltissimi fram-
menti di statuette e di vasi di creta.”

? Asa local reference to the cult of
the Chthonic Persephoné, may be cited
the poem of the Tarentine poet Leon-
idas in which the shepherd prays his
fellows mpbs Γῆς that offerings may be
brought to his tomb ‘‘ x@ovins εἵνεκα
Φερσεφόνης. (c. xeviii.)

26 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

degeneration of a lion—though its tail is turned into an orna-
mental twist separate from the body—leaping down on an ibex,
which looks back towards it. The device is enclosed in a border
of the simple segmented kind. This scarab, in its material,
form, and design, shows a striking resemblance to some of those
found at Naukratis, though, as somewhat similar scarabs have
been found in Sardinia and elsewhere, it would be rash to con-
clude from this evidence alone that it was imported from the
town of potters. The associated terra-cottas, however, seem to
have been moulded under such direct Egyptian influence, that
it is difficult not to believe that many of them were imported
direct from Egypt to Tarentum ; and the blending of Greek and
Egyptian religious types which they exhibit encourages a hope
that the present excavations at Naukratis may settle in the
most conclusive way the question of their provenance.

The general character of this archaic deposit will, however,
be best gathered from the following description of the specimens
that I was able to obtain from it :—

SANCTUARY OF PERSEPHONE-GAIA.
TERRA-COTTAS FROM ARCHAIC STRATUM.

1. Female figure, which, in its general aspect, and especially
the square cutting and flat face of the lower part, is an almost
exact reproduction of the répondant of Egyptian tombs. The
wig-like hair falls in straight curls on either side of the face,
concealing the ears. The hands are laid symmetrically on the
front of the hips on either side. Height 7 in. (fig. 2).

2. Head and part of bust of a similar, but somewhat less
stiffly-executed, figure. The hair, which falls in separate locks
about the shoulders, is somewhat less wig-like, and allows the ears
to be seen. On the head is poised a circular stephanos, adorned
with three flat disks. The manner in which this head-dress is
worn, as well as the appearance of the central disk, recalls at once
the appearance of the crown of Isis on some Egyptian figures.
Height 2°6 in. (fig. 5).

3. Lower part of a bust of a figure resembling the last. The
breasts are clearly indicated. The bust terminates in a short
spike, which fitted into a hollow conical base, some specimens of
which have been found. Height 47 in.

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 27

4. Bust of similar character to Nos. 2 and 3, the stephanos,
however, without disks, and covering the head in a manner
frequent in archaic Greek figures. Height 4:7 in.

5. Female figure standing on low square base. The body is
rude and of square Egyptian cut. The arms, however, are not
symmetrically arranged, the left elbow protruding. The hair
is bound up over the ears, and crowned with a low stephanos, or
perhaps a stephané. Height 5 2 in.

6. Female figure much resembling last. On the head, how-
ever, was a petasos with a knob in the middle, and traces of red
colour on a white ground. It is now detached from the figure.
Height 5-4 in.

7. Beardless male figure standing on small flat base; the
head covered with a high-peaked cap, much resembling some
worn by Horus (Harpachrat) on Egyptian monuments. His
hair falls in two thick locks on his shoulders. The right
arm is laid against the side, but the left elbow projects as
in No. 5. The whole is in a very rude style. Height 5:1 in.
(fig. 4).

8. Beardless male figure standing on flat square base, much
more elaborately executed than No. 6. The head is covered
behind by a broad’ band, which falls down behind the shoulders.
The hair, which is more carefully treated, falls down in
symmetrical curls, two on either side, over the shoulders and
breasts. The eyes are minutely defined, and the knee-caps
marked out in a peculiar lozenge-like manner. The arms are
laid symmetrically on either side. The legs are disproportion-
ately short; the pectoral development abnormal. Height
5:7 in. (fig. 3).

9. Beardless male figure, more vaguely rendered than No. 7.
The arms are at the side, but the left arm and the left leg are
slightly advanced. The head is smaller, and the details of the
hair, &c., are not clear. Height 5:5 in.

10. Bearded male figure, the body consisting simply of a
rounded mass, tapering somewhat towards the feet. The left
arm laid at the side, the right bent upwards across the breast.
On either side of the head are seen two protuberances,
evidently representing horns. The figure may therefore be an
archaic image of the horned Dionysos Sabazios, whose head
appears on the Tarentine antefixes. Height 8-9 in.

28 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

VoTIVE TERRA-COTTAS FROM SANCTUARY OF PERSEPHONE.

From other parts of the same deposit but not forming part
of the same individual find to which the scarabs and quasi-
Egyptian figures belong, occur a great variety of archaic female
representations which lead us on from the earliest relics to the
fully developed effigies of the Chthonic goddess.

1. Archaic female head, the hair—which is rendered almost
invisible by the limestone incrustations—falling symmetrically
about the shoulders and confined above by low stephanos over
which again is apparently a veil. Relief. Height 7 in.

2. Archaic female head of somewhat later style. The hair is
bound up behind and over the front is a high stephané or
stephanos. Relief. Height 54 in.

3. Smaller head of the same character. The hair, cheeks
and lips have been coloured red. The eyebrows, iris and
eyelashes are marked out with black. ‘There are traces of
ornaments painted in a dark colour on the stephanos.
Height 3°7 in, Ὶ

4. Similar head. A dark band runs round the centre of the
stephanos, and immediately below it a band of red ; the hair is
coloured black, the lips and cheeks red, and a red band runs
round the neck. The rest of the face and neck was coloured
white. Height 2°8 in.

5. Archaic female bust the hair of which falls in sym-
metrical curls about the shoulders. The bosom is apparently
covered with a chitdn above which the peplos is drawn
transversally. (Solid mass, not hollow behind.) Height 4:2 in.

6. Upper part of archaic figure the head of which much
resembles last; the upper part of the head however is draped
by a band or hood of a greenish blue colour. A peplos with a
red border falls in graceful folds about the body and under the
neck is seen the upper edge of a chitén coloured bluish green.
The hair is coloured red. The left arm of the figure hangs
down at the side, the right hand is raised to the breast and holds
ared bud. This figure presents a curious resemblance to one
of those recently discovered in the Akropolis at Athens.
Height 7 in.

7. Upper part of Archaic female figure, the hair arranged as

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 29

before, seated on a canopied throne which covers her head and
shoulders. She wears a long chiton with circular brooches or
other ornaments on either shoulder, and her arms are arranged
symmetrically on her knees. Height 6°3 in.

8. Seated female figure in archaic style on a square-topped
throne. Her head is crowned with a high stephanos or kalathos
and her hair falls in straight locks.on either shoulder. The
arms are laid symmetrically on either side of the figure.
Height 9°6 in.

9. Female figure of fourth-century style represented naked in
a seated attitude ; the throne however which was separate from
the figure and possibly of different material, is not preserved.
On the head is a high stephanos with palmetto ornaments in
relief resembling that of Héra Antheia and Héra Lakinia on
coins of Argos and Krotén. On either shoulder is a large
rosette ornament resembling the rosettes on early gold-work.
Height 5°3 in.

10. Standing figure of goddess in archaic style clad in close-
fitting talaric chiton and a diplois reaching to the knees, and
with long mantle over the arms and shoulders. She raises her
right hand in front of her and holds in her left a pomegranate.
The figure has lost its head and stands on a base rounded in front.
Relief, Height 9°3 in.

11, Standing figure of Persephoné in talaric chitén and with
peplos falling over her arms and shoulders. Her hair expands
luxuriantly from her brows and falls behind her neck in flowing
tresses. On her head is a high stephanos or kalathos without
ornament; on her left arm she holds a long kalathos of remark-
able shape filled with pomegranates and perhaps a cornspike.
In her right hand she holds the cross-torch the X-like ends of
which appear above her shoulder. Relief. Height 11:5 in.

12, Head of similar figure, the face and hair painted bright
red, the stephanos bluish green,

13, Full-facing head and part of bust of Persephoné in her
matronly aspect as identified with Gaia, The face is of noble
expression, and the hair which flows away from the brow and
temple in luxuriant curls, although in the rich Magna-Graecian
style, is not, as in some later examples, of over-elaborate detail.
Across the upper part of the forehead is a narrow band probably
a part of the sphendoné, and above the hair is a fragment of the

30 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

stephanos. This is to my knowledge the most beautiful head
that has as yet been found in the sanctuary. From its sim-
plicity of style it may be safely attributed to the early part of
the fourth century B.c. The arrangement of the hair indeed is
strikingly similar to the head attributed to Héra and said to
have come from the West pediment of the Parthenon, described
and illustrated in the Awnstblatt (1824, No. 64). Height
11-6 an.) (@ XIE)

14. Lower part of smaller head of Persephone in the same
fine style. Height 8.4 in.

15. Head of Persephoné full-face, crowned with stephanos as
No. 10 but in a somewhat later style, the expression softer and
the hair of more elaborate development. The coiffure in the
present example varies from the other in showing a knotted
fillet immediately under the front of the stephanos. Relief.
Height 7 in. .

16. Head of Versephoné somewhat resembling the last
but the hair in flowing tresses rather than ringlets. Height
6°2 in.

17. Head of Persephoné with hair in a style transitional
between Nos. 12 and 13. In her ears are amphora-shaped
earrings. Height 8 in.

18. Smaller head of same in a flowing style of hair wearing
an inconspicuous stephané, and globular earrings. Height
3°3 in.

19. Female head with flowing hair and large earrings within
an over-arching hood perhaps a part of peplos. Solid. Height
2°8 in.

20. Veiled head slightly turned to left, wearing looped earrings.
Suggestive of the head of Philistis, Queen of Hiero IL, on
Syracusan coins, where she is represented under the aspect of
Persephoné,

21. Female head wearing a broad band above the forehead,
probably part of the sphendoné. Over this on either side the
hair combed back from the temples in a row of parallel tresses.

22. Standing headless figure of Persephoné closely draped in
long mantle or peplos above talaric chitén. The general arrange-
ment of dress and attitude of the figure closely recalls the statue
of Persephoné, with a modius on her head and holding a pome-
granate flower, found by Professor Newton in the sanctuary of

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 31

Démétér, Persephoné and Pluto Epimachos at Knidos (Newton,
Halicarnassus, &e., Pl. LVI. and p. 877). It is almost identical
with the terra-cotta figures of the goddess found in the same
sanctuary. (Op.cit. Pl. LIX.) Professor Newton adds with regard
to the statue that the type is that to which Gerhard has given the
name Aphrodité Persephoné. (Gerhard, Venere e Proserpina,
Fiesole 1826.) Height 48 in.

23. Upper part of figure of Persephoné wearing kalathos, from
above which a peplos or perhaps a veil falls down her back. She
wears globular earrings and her hair falls in long tresses about
her neck. Height 9 in.

TERRA-COTTA OBJECTS FROM ONE OR OTHER OF THE TARENTINE
SANCTUARIES.

1. Head of a young male figure with traces of beard: the
upper part of the head is smooth and unfinished presenting the
appearance of having been originally covered with a crown or
helmet in a separate piece.

2. Youthful male head with long flowing locks above which
are traces of a broad fillet. The face has a faun-like expression
but the character of the hair points rather to Apollo.

3. Head of Aphrodité wearing stephané and globular
earrings.

TERRA-COTTAS FROM THE TARENTINE TOMBS.

We know from Polybios that it was the custom amongst the
Tarentines—unlike the generality of the Greeks in later times,
but in this respect following the precedent of their Spartan
mother-city—to bury their dead within the walls, and thus to
comply with the warning of an oracle that bade them ‘dwell
with the majority. ! As a matter of fact sepulchres of Greek
and Graeco-Roman date have been found in various parts of the
ancient city, but they are found in the greatest abundance in
the eastern region which Polybios tells us was full of them, and
in particular they cover the eminence of Pizzone which answers
to that part of the ancient burial ground to which the Tarentine

Ὁ Polyb. Lib. viii. ὁ. 80. Φασὶ yae καὶ λώϊον ἔσεσθαί σφισι ποιουμένοις τὴν

3»

χρῆσαιτὸν θεὸν τοῖς Ταραντίνοις» “ἄμεινον οἴκησιν μετὰ τῶν πλειόνων.

32 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

conspirators ascended to watch for Hannibal’s signal from the
Hyacinthian mound.! In this region, especially on the property
of Signor Diego Colucci, who courteously invited me to parti-
cipate in some of his excavations, many of the most interesting
tombs containing rich spoil in the way of vases and terra-cottas
have been opened of recent years. The largest are underground
chambers approached by descending flights of steps and
containing funeral couches of stone on which the remains
rested. A plan of one of these called ‘Tesoro’ is given by
Signor Viola in the Memorie dei Lincei ;? another may be seen
on the Fondo Colucci. Both of these contained two funeral
couches, and at the foot of the steps before the entrance were
shallow wells apparently for drainage. There are other hypogea
of simpler form, but the great bulk of the graves are simple
cists about three feet below the surface and covered with slabs
of the native Carparo stone. The graves that I saw opened
were of this simpler form and contained nothing but unimportant
vases. From the tombs on his property alone, however, Signor
Colucci has collected a considerable museum containing vases
and terra-cottas of the greatest beauty, many of which are de-
scribed in the Memorie referred to. Amongst the vases occurs
a very remarkable and ornate variety, in form resembling Nolan
amphoras without handles, adorned with floreated lids and raised
friezes running round their sides representing a variety of
figures principally amorini, engaged in a lyric contest. A
fragment of this style of ceramic work will be described amongst
the terra-cottas. Besides imported Athenian vases there are
many in that later and florid style generally known as Apulian,
but to which the name of Tarentine could probably be given
with greater fitness. I am able to exhibit a Lekythos of this
Tarentine work characterized by simplicity of design and purity
of outline, though the subject, the androgynous Eros, is
thoroughly South Italian. :

The sepulchral terra-cottas that I was able to obtain belong,
as already stated, to two classes, those namely that are found

* Polyb. Joc. cit. The Tarentine and cf. Helbig Joc. c7t. Specimens of
leaders Niko and Tragiskos took their the same kind of vase but of a less
stand at the tomb of Pythionikos. elaborate style may be seen amongst

2 Vol. ix. (1881) T. III. those from Bolsena in the British

3 See Memorie, &e. op. cit. Ρ. 536; Museum,

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 33

within the tombs and those that formed a part of their exterior
ornament. To this latter class belong the antefixes some of
which have been described in a-previous communication to this
Society from the pen of Mr. J, R. Anderson, and four repre-
senting heads of Medusa, a beardless Pan, a youthful head of
Héraklés, and a horned head of Dionysos Sabazios have been
reproduced in Plate XXXII.

To these I may add the following :

1. Head of Io, with rich flowing locks, pointed earrings and
necklace, but with bovine ears and the cow’s horns sprouting
from her forehead. Height 9:5 in.

2. Male head in Petasos with flowing locks above the fore-
head and on either side of the face. Perhaps Hermés, but if so,
a remarkable type. Height 7-2 in.

3. Head of Medusa of somewhat softened archaic aspect. <A
single snake writhes down beneath the ear on either side.
Height 7.9 inches.

.« SEPULCHRAL FRIEZES AND SLABS.

1. Part of terra-cotta frieze of a tomb with relief repre-
senting two winged youthful figures, one of either sex, flying or
rather floating through the air above the sea-waves, indicated
in the usual conventional manner. The female figure to the
left is clad in a long transparent chitén which reveals all the
contours of her body. She looks towards the spectator, raising
her robe with her right hand and laying her left on the thigh
of her male companion. The male genius is nude and rests his
right arm on the neck and shoulders of the other. His head is
turned to the spectator’s right, his long hair floating behind
him, and he raises his left arm as if to greet another figure, one
hand alone of which is visible on the extreme right of the tablet.
The whole design is extremely graceful. A fragment of a cornice
is visible which ran along the top of the tablet. Height 92 in.
Breadth 6°3 in. (Pl. LXIII.)

2. Part of another similar sepulchral frieze with a cornice

running along the top border, containing a representation of a
female figure clad in talaric chitén and peplos seated at the
head of a couch. The head and legs of the figure are seen in

18 Sie 0) OE D

34 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

profile, and she raises her left hand to lay hold of the peplos
which covers her head, though whether in the act of veiling or
unveiling is not clear. To the right of the couch is seen the
hand of another figure holding forth a small winged genius who
extends a fillet towards the seated female. Height 7°5 in.
Greatest breadth 9 in.

3. Part of sepulchral frieze the frame of which consists of two
fluted Ionic columns resting on two steps and supporting an
entablature above. Under the arch thus formed is seen a head
and bust in high relief, apparently of Persephoné with her hair
arranged as in some of the votive terra-cottas of fourth century
date from the Temenos of Persephoné, wearing long pointed
earrings and with a veil descending from the back of her head,
and a chitén covering her well-developed bosom. On either
side of her are two naked amorini, that to the right holding a
wreath. Height 92in. Breadth 8:8 in.

4. Terra-cotta fragment of sepulchral slab or Anathéma repre-
senting a heroized deceased person naked and recumbent on the
funeral couch, at the foot of which stands a boy wnochoos, also
nude, holding wnochoé and wine-cup. -

TERRA-COTTA OBJECTS FROM INTERIOR OF TOMBS.

1. Fragment of vase in the style of those described as in the
possession of Signor Colucci. On the surface of the vase are
laid in high relief terra-cotta groups representing small winged
genil or Cupids engaged in a contest. The figures show traces
of gilding on a white ground.

2. Small model of a boat. The prow terminates in two beaks
and above it is seen the end of a small στόλος, the rest of which
has been broken off. The stern curves back into an elegant
ἄφλαστρον, the extremity of which forks into two parts the
upper of which is wanting. At prow and stern respectively,
in the outer sides of the boat, are fixed two pairs of projecting
tholes or σκαλμοί to which the oars and πηδάλια were attached
by leathern thongs, as still in the Levant. The keel is well
marked and on the sides of the vessel are two coloured bands. .
The upper of these which follows the edge from the topmost
beak of the prow to the curving end of the stern is painted a

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 35

bright red. The other band, a little below the first and twice
as broad, is of a dark brown with transversal stripes of red
alternating apparently with white and blue. The tholes are
painted red, and on the lower part of the stern on either side
appears a large eye, the iris and outline of which are of a reddish
brown. The rest of the boat seems to have been painted white
and white paint underlies the other colours. A larger but
coarser model of a vessel was found by Signor Bihotti in a
Rhodian tomb, and there is evidence that in this, as in so many
other respects, Egyptian example had not been lost on the
Pheenicians. (Pl. LXIII.)

I am not aware of any other instances of similar discoveries
in purely Greek tombs, and in such an exceptional deposit
should prefer to discover an after-thought of artistic sentiment,
and to trace a delicate allusion to the sea-faring life of the
departed rather than an actual representation of the infernal
ferry-boat. Regarded in this light, the model of this small
vessel has for us a special interest as a living record of that side
of the Tarentine maritime industry which was connected with
the land-locked inner sea. The epigrams—so full of local
touches—of the Tareutine poet Leonidas contain more than
one allusion to the small craft in which the native fishermen,
in ancient times as now, plied the waters of the Mar Piccolo,
the chief enemy with which they had to contend being the
sudden Northern gales, such as those which only four years
since wrought such havoc amongst the fishing-boats. The
small skiff before us with its four σκαλμοί, all told, for oars
and rudders, may recall Leonidas’ epitaph on the old fisherman
Théris!;

“οὐχὶ πολυσκάλμου πλώτορα ναυτιλίης,

whose tomb we are told was reared not by children or by wife
but by the guild of fishermen (ὐχθυβόλων θίασος) to which he
belonged. In another epigram the native poet makes one of
the small Tarentine craft speak in its own name.” “ They call
me ‘the little one’” (τὴν μικρήν), she says, “ and I do not deny
it. My huil is small, but Fortune decides, and not dimensions.”
The concluding couplet, indeed, might well have been taken as

1 Leonid Tarentini Carmina, xci. 2 Op. cit. ὁ. xlviil.
?
D2

36 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

the motto of the toy-craft before us: sole survivor of all the
Tarentine fleets !

“ἔστω πηδαλίοις ἑτέρῃ πλέον: ἄλλο γὰρ ἄλλῃ
θάρσος" ἐγὼ δ᾽ εἴην δαίμοσι σωζομένη.᾽

Length 10°5 in. Breadth in middle 2: in. Height in middle
2°4 in.

To this, as also a marine subject from a Tarentine tomb, I
may add the following, at present in the Museo Colucci:

A dolphin, of a pink colour on a white ground, represented
as if in the act of leaping over the waves (two examples).

3. Standing figure of Aphrodité of a fine period and beauti-
fully executed, the upper part of the body slightly turned and
bending to her right, her right leg being at the same time
drawn up. The head and both arms as also the left foot are
wanting, but the attitude is that of Apbrodité bending down to
fit on her sandal. This figure closely resembles a type of
Aphrodité of which more than one example occurs amongst the
terra-cottas found on Anatolian sites (cf. Froehner, Terres cwites
(Τ᾽ Asie Mineure, p. 22, and pl.7). The same design 15 found on a
bronze coin of Aphrodisias in Caria and there can be little
doubt that as Froehner has pointed out, its origin is to be
sought in the Aphrodité monoknémos of Apelles referred: to
by Petronius. There are in the British Museum two bronze
figurines of Venus representing a variation of the present design
in which the weight of the body is thrown on the left leg, and
the right leg is bent across it to bring the sandal within reach
of the hand. Height 7.4 in. (Pl. LXIV.)

4. Female figure, perhaps of Aphrodité, represented in a
sitting attitude, naked, and with her head surmounted by a
curious peaked coiffure. Her arms are symmetrically arranged
against her side, her hands resting on her lap. Her legs are
equally symmetrical in their position. The body is hollow,
and the throne on which she was originally seated and which
was made in a separate piece is now wanting. Height 5:1 in.

5. Eros as a child, his right hand raised and his face, the
mirthful features of which are exquisitely rendered, turned
to the left and looking up as if engaged in a game of ball. A
small cloak or ehlaniys, originally of a vermilion colour, hangs

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 37

over his left shoulder and his whole form is instinct with airy
motion. In the same grave was found a companion figure, 5 ()),
almost identical, but with the chlamys over the right shoulder.
Both figures are little masterpieces of the koroplastic art, and
may vie with the most beautiful of those from Tanagra.
Height 4in. (Pl. LXIV.)

6. Pothos as a winged child-like genius leaning on an inverted
torch which he thus extinguishes. His head is crowned with
a wreath of flowers, and a chlamys fastened by a circular fibula
to his left shoulder hangs down over the torch. Traces of blue
colour are visible on the wings and mantle. Height 3:2 in.

7. Eros or winged Bacchic genius of singularly plump pro-
portions, his head crowned with ivy leaves and berries above
which is a kind of Phrygian cap. He is naked except for a
sash round his loins tied in a kind of bow in front. This
figurine is remarkable for the extraordinary preservation of the
original colouring. The wings are of dark blue, rose and azure.
The body is coloured pink, the sash crimson and dark blue, the
cap crimson. The obese type of the figure corresponds to a
mode in Tarentine art which invades the coinage about the date
of Alexander the Molossian’s expedition (333 B.c.), and is trace-
able on it till shortly before that of Pyrrhos (B.c. 280), when it
gives way to a reaction in favour of more attenuated propor-
tions. During the prevalence of this mode we see Taras on his
dolphin represented under the same ‘fat boy’ aspect as the
present figurine. Height 71 in.

8. Naked child-like genius crowned with wreath of vine-
leaves, resting his weight on his left leg and right arm which
leans on a cippus. His left arm is partly concealed by the
cLlamys which hangs down his back. Traces of red colour are
visible on the body and cloak. Height 3°6 in.

9. A little negro slave-boy coiled up fast asleep under an
amphora against which he huddles as if for shelter from the
Lora. ‘The characteristic features of the race are admirably
rendered, including the woolly hair, protuberant forehead
thick lips and indescribable nigger grin. The back-bone, ribs
and muscles of the half-starved little form are indicated with
anatomic precision, and even the dolichocephalic skull and
disproportionately long arms of the Negroid type are faithfully
reproduced. This surprising accuracy of detail, however, is not

38 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

won at the expense of the general effect of the figure, which for
life-like realism and true pathos is probably without a rival
amongst Greek terra-cottas. A similar motive occurs in an
askos of black glazed ware in the British Museum. A figure
of a negro in an almost identical attitude, carved in a soft
black stone spotted with green, and said to have been found
at Alexandria, was recently sold in Paris. In this case, how-
ever, the nigger child is represented crying bitterly, with wide-
open mouth and contorted face—the very counterpart to the
humorous repose of the Tarentine figure. Height 2°5 in.
(Pl XW.)

10. Girl’s head with a singularly sweet expression, her hair
bound up ina high cone. (PI. LXIV.)

11. Girl’s head with hair evenly combed back to the back of
the head.

12. Female head, crowned. with a fillet, bowed wearily to
the left.

13. Female head in Phrygian cap; her hair, apparently in
small curls, confined in a net and standing out on either side of
the face. The hair has been coloured brownish red, the face
pink on a white ground.

14. Head of a girl with a knotted band confining her hair in
front and a round plait behind. The hair has been coloured
brownish red.

15. Female head crowned with ivy leaves and berries in the
style of terra-cottas associated with late ‘ Apulian’ vases in the
tombs at Canosa. The hair is coloured brownish red; the
leaves green.

16. Standing female figure robed in peplos closely wound
round her and covering her arms, beneath which is a talaric
chiton. Her head is wreathed with vine leaves and her hair
coiled in a conical shape, her right arm is folded across her
bosom under the peplos, and in her left hand she holds a round
disk which may represent a tympanum. ‘The figure strikingly
resembles a familiar type from Tanagra. Height 7:9 in.

17. Upper part of standing figure of a girl, her head turned
slightly to the left, wearing a chit6n and peplos which falls over
her left shoulder and passes under her right arm which is left
bare. .Height 48 inches.

18. Upper part of standing figure of a girl: her head which

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 39

is crowned with a kind of wreath turned to the left: she is wear-
ing earrings and her hair falls about her neck in long tresses.
She wears a loose chit6n confined under the breast. Height
46 in.

19. Upper part of standing figure of a girl, her whole form
closely wrapped round by a peplos which also veils her head.
Her right arm is drawn up towards her neck under the mantle.
This design closely resembles many from Tanagra, &c. Height
441 in.

In addition to these there occurs a whole series of figurines of
somewhat rougher execution, some from the tombs and some
from other localities, amongst which animals and comic or
grotesque subjects are of frequent occurrence. It is possible
that some of these burlesque subjects may connect themselves
with the Tarentine φλύακες, or farces based on tragic subjects
introduced by the native comic poet Rhynthén. Of this some-
what miscellaneous class of objects I am able to describe the
following specimens, and it is worthy of remark that several
allied subjects occur in pairs or groups, as Nos. 5, 6, 7, the two
varieties of No. 9, and Nos. 10 and 11.

1. Small grotesque figure like an owl with the head of an
ape. Height 3:3 in.

. Female pygmy drawing up a bucket. Height 3:2 in.

3, Youthful male head with slightly a paoened nose and a
oH humorous expression. Height 2'8 in.

4. Grotesque head with the hair bound up in a top-knot.
Height 1°9 in.

5. Burlesque mask of a Satyr with a modius on his head
Height 2°9 in.

6. Disproportionately fat boy squatted and resting on his
left arm, while a puppy with a curly tail looks up at him on his
right side. Height 3:2 in.

"7, Figure of tiie same character and ἘΠΕ but without the
dog. Haight 91 in.

8. Male infant reclining apparently asleep on the back of a
large dog with a curly and bushy tail. Height 4 in.

9. Two naked boys wrestling, two varieties. Height 3°5 in.

10. Standing figure of a girl with her peplos wrapped round
her, carrying on her left sibaldar a male child and in her left
hand atympanum. Height 5:1 in.

40 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

11. What appears to be the sequel to No. 10. A large serpent
has coiled round the female figure who stands in a Laocoon-like
attitude, apparently trying to tear away the serpent’s head
which has fastened on her own. To the left the male infant is
seen above the tympanum. Height 3°8 in.

12. Pard seated to right and looking towards the spectator.
Height 41 in.

13. Pard couchant to right, the head however erect and facing
the spectator. Height 2°3 in.

TERRA-COTTA OBJECTS OF MISCELLANEOUS PROVENANCE.
IMPRESSIONS OF Gems, Xe.

1. Youthful figure of Dionysos, a wreath round his head and
his mantle falling about his knees, but otherwise nude, standing
full-face, holding in his left hand a thyrsos and his right elbow
resting on a aclania. In his right hand he holds a bunch of
grapes at which a pard Ἐπ Ὁ looks up. Height of the
impression 1 in. Breadth ‘8 in.

2. Similar figure with uncertain surroundings. Height of
impression 11 in. Breadth ‘8 in.

3. Niké standing to right and resting her left foot on an
indeterminate object. In one hand she holds out a fillet or
lemniskos and in the other a palm-branch. Height of impression
‘Qin. Breadth 7 in.

4. Helmeted female figure in the same attitude writing on
shield. Height of impression ‘7 in. Breadth *5 in,

5. Female figure draped from the waist downwards standing
left and with her left elbow leaning on a column. Her right
arm hangs listlessly at her side. Height of impression ‘8 in.
Breadth °3 in.

6. Wingless Eros naked in the attitude of an archer who
has just shot anarrow. In the field are the letters A ? to left and

to right of figure. Circular impression, diam. ‘6 in.

7. Eros winged and naked walking right and playing on lyre.
Height of impression 55 in. Breadth *35 in.

8. Head of Hermes in petasos toright. Height of impression
‘5 in. Breadth “4 in.

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 41

9. Naked warrior seen from behind thrusting with spear and
holding long pointed shield. Height of impression ‘6 in.
Breadth °3 in.

10. Oval piece of terra-cotta stamped on both sides after the
manner of acoin. On one side is the head of a bacchante
with wreath of vineleaves, on the other the upper part of a
facing figure of Victory winged and holding across her a trophy.
Height ‘95 in. Breadth “ὃ in.

11. Triangular piece stamped on one side with a small oval
gem representing Eros to right holding an indeterminate object,
and on the other side in large letters in relief (ΝΑ) TAP in mono-
gram evidently standing for the name of the city. Two
examples. Height 1 in.

12. Small disk perhaps a tessera of admission for the theatre.
On one side is a bench in relief stamped [, on the other NK in
an incised monogram. Diameter 1 in.

TERRA-COTTA OBJECTS OF MISCELLANEOUS PROVENANCE.
PERFORATED DISKS.

A great variety of flat disks, ranging in diameter from about
1} to 3} inches, perforated at top with two small holes and with
legends or devices stamped on the field are discovered on the
Tarentine site. This class of objects is well known and seems
to be common to the whole Hellenic world from Sicily to Asia
Minor. Some of a dumpy form were obtained by Dr. Schliemann
on the site of Troy. As to the object however for which these
perforated disks were made no theory that has yet been put
forward will account for all the phenomena with which we are
confronted, Professor Gardner indeed on the strength of the
legend KFHMIQAEAION standing for FHMIQBOAION has ad-
vocated the view that the disks with this inscription or its
abbreviated form were used “to weigh out half an obol’s worth
of some commodity.” But this could hardly have been the
object of the bulk of these disks or otherwise we should expect
to see the price more generally marked, and would surely find
disks of greater weight. We should also expecta greater analogy
with the known varieties of Greek metal weights which are
usually square in form.

Without attempting on the present occasion to solve the

Ο
42 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

enigma I may call attention to a few of the considerations which
have to be dealt with before arriving at a definite conclusion.

1. Some Knidian examples in the British Museum have only
one perforation. Two holes are therefore not essential to the
utility of the disks.

2. Amongst thousands of these disks discovered at Taranto, I
am assured by Signor Viola that none show such traces of friction
about the holes as would warrant the view that they were
suspended. There is moreover a type of which I am able to
exhibit several varieties with a flattened base like an antefix
and therefore capable of standing upright.

3. That some legends, e.g. TAKTO probably for TAKTON or
TAKTOS, seem to have reference to an amount of some article
prescribed by the State.’ TPiTQ again for TPITQS might also
lead us to connect these disks with public distributions.

4, The character of the symbols and devices is generally
religious in its associations and in some cases specially connected
with the state patrons of Tarentum, e.g. the dolphin of Poseidoén,
leaping over the waves as on the Tarentine coins but without
Taras, the figures of Héraklés and of an armed horseman, per-
haps one of the Dioskuri, amongst the impressions of signets.

5. There are however varieties which require a different ex-
planation, 6.5. those representing on one side the busts of two
lovers embracing and on the other an infant holding up a puppy
by the tail; and that containing a representation of a human
eye, which seems to partake of the nature of an amulet.

TARENTINE PERFORATED DISKS.

Besides those reading KFHMIQ, &c. described by Prof. Gardner,
I am able to enumerate the following varieties from this site :—

1. TAKTO across the centre of the field in raised letters
contained in impressed oblong. Diameter 3 in.

2. £YM in smaller impressed oblong. Diameter 2°6 in.

3. TPITQ in small letters in impressed oval. Diameter
2°9 in.

4. ΠΡΟ in impressed quadrangle. Diameter 2°6 in.

5. NI in large impressed letters. Diameter 2°7 in.

1 Cf. the τακτὸς σῖτος to bedoledout troops blockaded in Sphaktéria, Thue.
during the truce to the Lacedemonian iv. 16,

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 43

6. Ω in impressed semicircle. Diameter 2°7 in.

7. Svastika or filfot in centre of the field. Diameter 2°7 in.

8. Impression of engraved gem representing Héraklés stand-
ing facing ; his left arm resting on club, his right holding bow
and lion’s skin, a quiver behind his left shoulder. Diameter
2°6 in.

9. Impression of gem set in ring representing Héraklés
to right raising his club to strike the Hydra which coils up
to the left from between his legs. The edges of this disk
rounded. Diameter 2°0 in.

10. Impression of somewhat oblong gem with warrior on
horseback thrusting forward with lance and galloping, &c.
Diameter 2°7 in.

11. Impression of oval gem showing youthful male figure,
nude, leaning on cippus and holding out an indeterminate object.
Diameter 2.7 in.

12. Impression of oval gem set in ring. Female figure,
perhaps Venus, her robe falling about her waist, her left arm
resting apparently on a shield. Diameter 2°8 in.

13. Lobster in high relief.1 Diameter 3:1 in.

14. Nymph, or perhaps Aphrodité, naked to her waist seated
sideways on a swan—a design much resembling that on some of
the coins of Kamarina—in high relief. Diameter 2°8 in.

15. Small disk with human eye in relief. Diameter 18 in.

16. Olive-spray of conventional character in impressed circle.
Diameter 3°4 in.

17. Rosette ornament impressed. Diameter 9.9 in.

18. Palmetto in relief. This specimen is flat at the bottom
and of antefix-like shape. Height 2°5 in.

19. Dolphin leaping over sea waves conventionally indicated
below as on Tarentine coins. Of antefix-like shape. Height
2°3 in.

20. Busts of two youthful figures of either sex embracing.
On some examples the female figure wears a kind of stephané.
On the other side a male child in an attitude like that of the
infant Héraklés strangling the serpents. In this case however
the figure holds up a small animal apparently a puppy by the
tail. Of antefix-like shape. Height 2:8 in,

Presented to the Ashmolean Museum by Mr. Greville J. Chester.

44 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

21. Infant Eros, winged, holding in one hand what is ap-
parently a ball, and in the other a dove by the wings. Of
antefix-like shape. Height 2°5 in.

TERRA-COTTA OBJECTS OF MISCELLANEOUS OR UNCERTAIN
PROVENANCE.
MovuLps FoR FIGURINES AND VOTIVE RELIEFS.

1. Mould for upper part of two female figures side by side.
Each has on her head a high stephanos or kalathos from which
the peplos falls. Probably Démétér and Persephoné are here
represented. Height 4:2 in.

2. Mould for female head. Height 2 in.

3. Mould representing Eros or a winged genius bending over
an amphora. A figurine of this type occurs amongst those from
Cyrénaica. Height 4 in.

MouLDS FOR SACRED CAKES.

1. Large disk-like mould having in the centre a Gorgon’s
head within a circular border of palmetto leaves and floral
ornaments. On the left side of the disk is part of a projecting
handle. Diameter 8:2 in.

2. Smaller circular disk (Fig. 6), 5 in. in diameter, with project-
ing handle perforated as for suspension. The field of the disk is
divided into four compartments by four attributes of deities—
the thunderbolt of Zeus, the trident of Poseidén, the cross-torch
of Persephoné, and the club of Héraklés. In the first of these
are a lyre, the symbol of Apollo, a caduceus for Hermés, and
an amphora for one of the Dioskuri, a second amphora repre-
senting the other divine champion appears opposite to it in the
fourth compartment. In the second compartment appear a hand
with open palm, a dove, an object perhaps representing a lover's
knot, a curious symbol consisting of a cross-piece supported by
two legs and terminating in a horn-like curve at either end—in
its general form it resembles an ancient fire-dog, such as that
found amongst the treasure of Palestrina, but the transverse bar
is shorter and thicker. In the angle at the centre of this
segment is apparently a large grain of corn.

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 45

In the third compartment are seen a slightly curved object
terminating in a pointed piece which I take to be a somewhat
elongated representation of a plough-share, a tunny fish, a corn-
spike, and a bunch of grapes. In the fourth division there
follow a second amphora, a phallic representation, and
apparently, the head of a nymph, considerably blurred.

Round the edge of the disk and representing the circle of the
wheel, the four spokes of which are indicated by the four

symbols of Zeus, Poseidén, Persephoné and Héraklés, occurs the
following series of figures:

a. One large and three smaller distaffs wound round with
wool, like. those which may be seen in the hands respectively
of the personified Démos and the Eponymic hero of ‘Tarentum
on coins of that city.

b. Three flat disks partially superimposed: the same device
being repeated two places on. From the occurrence of a similar

46 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

device on a small circular disk found on this site associated
with an anvil, tongs, and two globular pieces which probably
represent lumps of metal, it seems probable that these flat
circular disks represent coins. A fragment was broken off from
the small relief referred to which probably contained a figure of
a hammer.

6. An oval boss from which radiate nine tapering projections.
The whole presents the appearance of some animal organism
such as a large spider or a star-fish, From the occurrence
of the rayed solar disk on the Naples mould and from the
parallel supplied by the crescent moon in the next compart-
ment it is nevertheless probable that the device must be
regarded as the stellar symbol of the Sun. Its elongated
form is however remarkable, and the occurrence of a Tarantula
amongst Tarentine charms would supply a fertile theme for
speculation.

d, A pruning hook.

e. An oblong figure pitted in recular lines with square cavities.
At one corner is a globular object, either forming a part of the
oblong figure or in contiguity with it.

J. A crescent.

g. A ladder.

h, Apparently a cicala.

i. Blacksmiths’ tongs.

k. A raised disk with a cross in relief across its field,
perhaps a consecrated cake.

3. Part of a similar mould in form of a flat disk, covered with
various symbols. In the centre of the disk is a smaller disk
with a cross impressed on it like the four spokes of a wheel.
Immediately above and below this are a phallic symbol and a
lyre. To the right are successively a caduceus, Héraklés’ club,
a trident and a thunderbolt; to the left a second thunderbolt,
the cross-torch of Persephoné, the top of a crescent, or perhaps
a bow, and a ladder. Above this again is another row with a
bird, apparently a dove, in the centre, and, one of each on either
side, two amphorae and two sheep. Above this row appear three
distaffs wound round with wool, and a crescent. Diameter of
disk, approximately 6 in.

Two disks belonging to the same class as No. 3, though
differing somewhat in their details have been described by

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 47

Otto Jahn! and Minervini.* The first was from a sketch of an
original in the possession of Sir W. Temple at Naples, the other
is described as having passed from the Mongelli collection to the
Museo Borbonico. It is thus evident that both were obtained
from Southern Italy, and the resemblance which they bear to
these from the site of Tarentum is so strong that in default of
other indications we may refer them to the same city. Jahn
regarded them as amulets in one form or another. Minervini
supposed them to have been suspended as ex votos in the
temples.*

The Gorgon’s head on the larger of the three Tarentine disks
described has certainly apotropeic associations, and recalls the
frequent appearance of Medusa’s heads of various styles and
periods amongst the antefixes of the Tarentine tombs. The
devices on the smaller disks are of a more complex character.
Some have certainly the character of amulets, though many of
the most typical forms, as for example the jica and the eye, are
conspicuous by their absence. On the other hand, the promi-
nence of symbols of the greater gods points to a less degraded
form of superstition. The open hand, which occurs on No. 5
as well as on the example given by Jahn, connects itself rather
with prayer in general than with the mere aversion of the evil
eye with which the closed hand and protruding thumb is asso-
ciated ; in other words it is a talisman for procuring good
influences rather than an amulet proper for turning away bad.
Two raised hands with open palms are often found on Greek
and Roman tombstones to enforce a special prayer to a god
recorded in the inscription, and in the same: connexion it
may be useful to notice various Christian adaptations of this
symbolic gesture, including the representations of a single open
hand on the walls of medizval churches and on the slabs of
medizval tonibs.® In the present case the raised hand with

1 Uber den Aberglauben des bésen
Blicks bei den Alten. Berichte der k.
sdichsischen Gesellschaft der Wissen-
schaften zw Leipzig. Vil. 1855 (p.
52, seqg. and Taf. V. p. 3).

2 Bullettino Archeologico Napolitano,
N.S., Anno V. (1857), p. 169.

3. In Daremberg et Saglio, Diction-
παΐγο des Antiquités, Art. AMVLETYM,

a representation of the Neapolitan
example first published by Minervini
is given and the suggestion made.

4 Cf. Jahn, op. cit. p. 53.

51 have. myself observed several
instances of the open hand in such
positions in the Byzantine parts of
Europe.

48 RECENT DISCOVERIES OF

the crescent moon above may suggest to us the homely prayers
of a ‘rustic Phydilé” The ladder which occurs on all four
examples of these disks is difficult to explain.t It occurs on
Lucanian and Apulian vases associated with love and funeral
scenes, and may be taken perhaps as a symbol of spiritual
accessibility. In a low stage of sepulchral cult, as in parts of
Russia at the present day, a miniature ladder is placed in the
grave for the use of the departed spirit.

In the general character of the symbols upon these moulds
it seems possible to detect a special applicability to the prevail-
ing cults and local circumstances of Tarentum. Thus in No. 5
in the four principal symbols that form a cross on the face of
the disk, we see the attribute of Zeus associated in a special way
with those of Poseidén, Persephoné and Héraklés, the special
patrons along with the Dioskuri, whose symbols are also conspi-
cuous, of the Tarentine Commonwealth. The character of some
of the symbols, as the cross-torch and ladder, seems specifically
South Italian. Many of the other devices again contain a
distinct allusion to some of the chief local products and
industries. Not to speak of those connected with metal-
working such as the blacksmith’s tongs, and with agriculture
such as the bearded corn-spike that reminds us of the
neighbouring Metapontine harvests, and the bunch of grapes
suggestive of the sunny slopes of Aulon, we may see in the
repeated representations of the distaffs wound round with wool
precisely as it appears in the hands of the Eponymic Taras, and
the sheep on No. 6, a direct reference to the long-haired flocks
of the Galzesus, and the rich woollen fabric for which Tarentum
was celebrated.

With regard to the purpose to which these moulds were
applied, the mere fact that they are moulds and not reliefs
sufficiently shows that they served some practical purpose.
The handles with which they are provided are for their use
as moulds, and not, as Minervini has suggested, for votive
suspension. On the other hand, the fact that no reliefs have
been discovered answering to these or similar moulds, leads to
the conclusion that they were used to impress some perishable
substance. It seems to me to be highly probable that they

Terra-cotta hands occur amongst ancient sanctuaries, 6.9. from Reate.
the votive offerings found on the site of

TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS. 49

served for stamping cakes in use on various religious occasions
either for public or private cult.

The fourfold division and wheel-like arrangement of No. 2,
and the smaller cross-marked disk or wheel occupying the centre
of No. 3 seems further to convey a valuable indication that it
was to this purpose that these moulds were applied. It is indeed
a characteristic in a whole class of religious cakes that they are
impressed with a wheel or cross, and in other cases divided into
segments! as if to facilitate distribution, Without on this
occasion going into the origin of this symbolical division
which seems rather to connect itself with the worship of
the ancestral fire than with any solar cult, it may be sufficient
here to recall the fact that this feature appears as a whole class
of cakes made use of at certain seasons by various members of
the Aryan family, and which in their original form seem to
have had a special connection with the propitiation of the
spirits of the hearth. In a modified form indeed they are still
familiar to us as ‘hot-cross buns. Considering the domestic
application of many of the symbols on the smaller disks it seems
probable that they were made use of in these cases for homely
rites analogous to those to which for example the Slavonic
‘wheel cakes’ are still dedicated.? Nor will the comparison
with existing primitive usages be thought far-fetched when it
is remembered that the flat round cakes known as κόλλυβα to
the Greeks are still in use throughout the South-Eastern Penin-
sula under various corruptions of the name for funeral wakes
and the primitive communion feasts of the dead which still
survive in those regions.? In the modern Greek form κόλυβα
these cakes are distributed to the faithful by the Orthodox

1 The loaves found at Pompeii were
of flat segmented form as are still the

of many of the symbols on these
Tarentine disks.

modern Turkish.

* The Christmas festivities on which
‘wheel cakes’ of this ceremonial kind
are especially used, are connected with
a variety of symbolical acts and
offerings all having for their object the
assurance of good crops, increase of
cattle, domestic prosperity and es-
pecially the birth of male children
during the ensuing year. An analogous
object would account for the character

ΕΠ τς - ΟΣ ASA e

3 Cf. the old Slavonie Kolivo, also
Serbian Koljivo, Rouman
Colivad. In the Slavonic Wakes however
the Kolivo is rather cooked corn in a
flat dish than acake proper. Of the
modern and mediaeval Greek form
Dueange remarks ‘«éAuBov, κόλυβα,
frumentum coctum; in Ecclesia
Graecanica Colybi benedici et distribui
solerent primo Sabbato jejuniorum.’
For various primitive forms of the
E

Koljuvo,

50 DISCOVERIES OF TARENTINE TERRA-COTTAS.

priests on the first Saturdays of the Greek Lent and other fasts.
The crosses and other emblems on the consecrated cakes of the
Orthodox Church present an unmistakeable analogy, though
under an adapted and Christian guise, to the moulds before us.

‘wheel-cake’ (Pogaé or Kolac) and
other flat segmented cakes (éesnice)
with a central socket made use of in the
Illyrian Peninsula for purposes con-
nected with domestic cult I may refer to
my articles ‘Christmas and Ancestor-
Worship in the Black Mountain,’
Maemillan’s Magazine, Jan., Feb., and

ARTHUR J. EVANS.

March, 1881. Amongst the Russian
Lapps I have seen moulds for flat cheeses
of a similar character with a central
cross or wheel and various surrounding
ornaments. It is possible that some of
the present moulds may have been used
for cheeses, as well as cakes.

ANTIQUITIES FROM THE ISLAND OF LIPARA. 51

ANTIQUITIES FROM THE ISLAND OF LIPARA.
[PuatTe LXII.]

THE two painted vases reproduced on Pl. LXII. are part of a
collection of antiquities found in some twenty tombs which were
excavated in 1879 in the island of Lipara, not far from the
present town of that name.t The precise locality is known as
the Contrada Diana and is the property of Signor Scolarici.
A road leading to it is called the Via Diana, and this name
seems to have originated in the ruins of three small shrines
which popular opinion has attributed to that goddess. The
presence of these shrines in close proximity to the tombs has
led to the conviction that this particular spot was the ancient
cemetery of Lipara.

The history of Lipara is briefly this. Known originally as
the island Meligounis, but having no population, probably owing
to its volcanic nature, it was first taken possession of by settlers
from the adjoining coast of Italy, then under the legendary rule
of Auson, and named after him Ausonia. The descendants of
Auson continued to govern the newly-acquired island until
about 580 B.c., when a colony of Rhodians and Knidians made
its appearance. These colonists had started from their homes
for Sicily, and had there with much disaster to themselves taken
part in the war raging between the towns of Selinus and Egesta.
Those of them who survived this war set sail round the north

1 These antiquities are the property of that city. I have to thank his
of Mr. James Stevenson, of Glasgow, kindness and liberality for the drawings
and are at present lent by him for here reproduced, and for memoranda of
exhibition in the Corporation Galleries the excavations.

E 2

52 ANTIQUITIES FROM THE ISLAND OF LIPARA.

coast of Sicily and landed at Lipara, where they were received
with welcome by the remnants of the original settlers, who were
finding themselves unable to cope with the Tyrrhene pirates,
then oppressing them grievously. Such is the version of
Diodorus! Pausanias,? however, gives a slightly different
account, quoting from a Sicilian historian Antiochos, according
to whom the colonists from Knidos—he does not include the
Rhodians—settled first on the Sicilian promontory Pachynos,
but after a time were driven thence by the Elymi and the
Phoenicians. Thereupon they sailed for the Liparae Islands,
and either found them deserted, or expelled such inhabitants as
there were. They founded the town of Lipara, and cultivated
the adjacent islands of Hiera, Strongyle and Didymae by
crossing to them in boats as occasion required.

This new population was evidently skilled in the management
of ships, as indeed would be expected if there were Rhodians
among them ; for the Rhodians throughout their history were
renowned at sea, Once in possession of a fleet: they would be
in a position to retaiiate on the Tyrrhene pirates. Pausanias ®
records a remarkable instance of their success in this respect.
Having been ordered by the oracle of Delphi to attack the
Tyrrhenian fleet, but in so doing to employ the smallest number
possible of ships, they set out with only five triremes, The
Tyrrhenians seeing this and thinking it beneath their dignity
to put a greater number of ships in battle contented themselves
also with five triremes. These the Liparaeans captured; but
immediately the Tyrrhenians sent out another five. Again the
Liparaeans captured them, and this process was repeated till
the Tyrrhenians had lost four squadrons, each of five ships. In
commemoration of this extraordinary victory, and in acknow-
ledgment of the advice of the oracle, the Liparaeans sent to
Delphi a group of twenty statues, one for each ship taken from
the enemy. ‘The date of this engagement is not given; but we
may not be far wrong if we assume it to have been in the early
part of the fifth century B.c., previous to the battle off Cumae,

1 Diodorus Sic. v. 9; ef. Cecil Torr, the fact stated also by Diodorus that
Rhodes in Ancient Times, p. 34. the leader of the Colony was a Knidian,
2 x, 11, 3, Pausanias is here speaking may have led him to omit the Rhodian
of the Knidian monuments at Delphi, element init. Cf. Thueyd. vi. 2.
and this circumstance, together with Ber, 0, Ay

ANTIQUITIES FROM THE ISLAND OF LIPARA. 53

in which Hiero of Syracuse seems to have crushed the naval
power of the Tyrrhenians in 474 ΒΟ.

From this time, it is not likely that the Liparaeans maintained
a fleet solely for defence. They would see how lucrative a trade
was that of piracy, and may have been long engaged in it
previous to 371 B.c., in which year they made an unsatisfactory
prize. The Romans had just concluded successfully their long
siege of Veii, and had determined on sending a memorial of it
to Delphi, in the shape of a golden krater. The messengers
bearing this gift were intercepted by pirates, and carried off to
Lipara. Meantime the strategos of the island, Timasitheos, had
heard of what had happened. He was able to rescue the
messengers, and to send them on to Delphi with their golden
vase. For this act Rome rewarded him with honours, and long
after, when she had annexed the island, allowed his descendants
immunity from taxes! Possibly the trade of piracy was but a
small part of the occupation of the ships of Lipara. These
islands afforded convenient shelter for the Carthaginian fleets,”
and it is not improbable that the Liparaean ships may have
joined them willingly or unwillingly. When Rome took pos-
session of Lipara she sent there a colony under the government
of duumviri. The name of one of these duumviri, MAPKOC
AVCQNEVGC, is preserved on a bronze coin of the island, with
the usual device of a youthful head of Vulcan and of about the
time of Augustus.*

Except in the year 1864 I have not been able to trace any
excavations in this island.* On that occasion the results were
much the same as those with which we are now concerned,
including bronze objects of the nature of armillae, strigils and
fibulae, terracottas, lamps and fictile vases, among which one
was remarkable for its subject—an old fish-dealer in the act of
cutting up a fish on a table with the view of selling part of it to
another old man who holds out a coin for it. Such a scene, if
it were not that the fish-dealer was a favourite character on the
Comic stage of the days of Aristophanes, might serve to illustrate
a fragment which has been preserved from a lost drama of

1 Diodorus Sic. xiv. 98 ; Livy v.28. 110; Bullet. dell’ Inst, Arch. 1862, p-
* Polybius i. 25, 4; Livy xxi. 49. 111 and ibid. 1868, p. 39.
* Annali dell’ Inst, Arch. 1857, p. 4 Bullet, dell’ Inst. Arch. 1864, p. 54.

δ: ANTIQUITIES FROM THE ISLAND OF LIPARA.

Archippos, entitled Ichthys.1 In any case it compares very well
with one of the vases on our plate (LXII, also Fig. 1),
with its incident also from the Comic stage. In general
there is no class of vases more difficult to explain than those
with comic representations. It may be that many of our
difficulties would have been removed had the comic poets
whom we now know only from mere fragments survived with
the good fortune which has attended Aristophanes. Yet
when we remember that there is perhaps no incident in any
one of his plays that can be positively identified on a
painted vase, we may doubt whether the vase-painters went

to these sources for their subjects, and whether they did not
rather find them, so to speak, at the street-corners. On
our vase we have a lady standing between two old men.
Her beauty and dignity are conspicuous. The old men are
astonished, and there appears to be nothing to account for their
astonishment except her beauty and dignity. The scene might
be a parody of Helena and the old men of Troy who admired
her so much as not to wonder at the long war in such a cause.
Or we might identify the group with some scene in the lost
comedy of Alexis, entitled Helena and her Suitors, of which there

1 A fish-dealer named Hermaeos is See Fragmenta Poet. Comic. p. 271
described as: ὃς Bla δέρων pivas γαλεούς (Didot).
τε πωλεῖ καὶ τοὺς AdBpakas ἐντερεύων.

ANTIQUITIES FROM THE ISLAND OF LIPARA. 55

remain only a few words at the point where she speaks of her
suitors with disdain. The reverse of this vase has the usual
figures of Ephebi. The other vase reproduced on the same plate
(also Fig. 2) is curious from its having only the design of a head
drawn in profile and on a large scale. It is the head probably
of a Satyr, and is not inappropriately inscribed AKPATO€,
in letters which belong to the early part of the fourth century
B.c. The head is drawn in outline, like the figures on Athenian
lekythi, or in Etruscan wall-paintings, the space enclosed within
the outline not being filled in with colour, but left in the same
condition as the general field of the vase. On the reverse there

is no design. To judge from the ivy borders and the shape of
this vase we may class it among the black ware with a fine
bright glaze on which patterns and designs are painted generally
in white and purple, and on which we occasionally meet, as
here, with figures executed in a manner more adapted to fresco
painting than to ceramic art.

The greater part of Mr. Stevenson’s antiquities belong to the
fourth and third centuries B.c. Some of them may even be
later. There were found, for instance, three inscriptions incised
on the black stone of the district and in very late Greek
characters ; each consists only of a name: (1) POAYZEENOY,

56 ANTIQUITIES FROM THE ISLAND OF LIPARA.

(2) ATHEIBOYAA, (3) AIKALYAIO€. On the other band
there is a red figure lekythos of the Sicilian type which is older
than the fourth century, while again among the terracottas is
a seated female figure holding a dove, which might have been
brought from Rhodes in the early days of the colony, since it
can hardly be later than the sixth century. It is all but
identical with figures from Rhodes or from Sicily, which possibly
in early times drew many of its articles of luxury from Rhodes,
as it drew its colonists. To go farther back still, we have in
Mr. Stevenson's collection a series of neolithic implements
which bring us into contact with the original inhabitants—the
descendants of Auson and Aeolos. Whether these implements
were found within the tombs is not stated, but as the cemetery
must have remained in use for at least several centuries, to
judge by the various dates of the objects already referred to, we
could readily suppose it to have been entered upon even in
primitive times. The tombs were sunk into the earth, lined
with squared slabs of the black stone of the district, and
covered with blocks of the same nature. It is to be hoped that
further excavations may be made in this interesting island, with
results no less satisfactory than those which have just been
noticed.

A. 5. MurRRAY.

NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANTAS. 57

NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

ΤΙ.
Booxs IIL, IV., V., VI., VIL, VUL
[Prates LXV.—LXVIIL]

In the present paper we continue the commentary begun in
last year’s Journal, and set forth the numismatic facts which
run parallel to those books of Pausanias which deal with the
remainder of Peloponnesus; Laconia, Messenia, Elis, Achaia,
and Arcadia. Athens, Phocis, and Boeotia still remain for
future treatment.

In spite of our efforts to be complete, we have already dis-
covered a number of coins of Corinth and Argos and the
neighbouring cities which had escaped us, and which present
new types, or important varieties of the types which appear in
our plates. This will necessitate the publication of a supplement
to our first paper. While this is in preparation numismatists
will be doing the greatest service if they will let us have casts
of any types in their possession which are omitted in the de-
scriptions or the plates of this paper or the last. Casts of
unusual coins of imperial times of Phocis or Boeotia will also
be most welcome.

For the purposes of the present paper, in addition to the
material already laid up by the editors, the authorities of the
Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris have kindly allowed us to have
casts of all the coins in that collection selected as desirable ;
and Dr. von Sallet, of the Royal Museum of Berlin, has sent
to London, with the utmost friendliness and liberality, casts of

58 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANTAS.

all important coins of Peloponnesus of imperial times in his
keeping.

In this instalment of the work, the numismatic lists and
comments have alike been compiled by the English colleague ;
the Swiss colleague has supplied casts and carefully revised the
whole. The text used is that of Schubart, not of Schubring, as
stated by a lapsus pennae in the first article. The method of
numbering in the plates has been modified for reasons of
convenience.

LACEDAEMON.

1.—Paus. 11.10, 7. Τρίτη δὲ ἐκ τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς εὐθείας ἐκβολὴ
κατὰ τὰ δεξιὰ ἐς Καρύας ἄγει καὶ ἐς τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς
᾿Αρτέμιδος. τὸ γὰρ χωρίον ᾿Αρτέμιδος καὶ Νυμφῶν
> x id ΄ὔ \ BA “ ) / >
ἐστὶν αἱ ΚΚάρυαι, καὶ ἄγαλμα ἕστηκεν ᾿Αρτέμιδος ἐν
ὑπαίθρῳ Kapuatioos.
Wl. 14, 2. Θεῶν δὲ ἱερὰ Ποσειδῶνός ἐστιν Ἱπποκουρίου
καὶ ᾿Αρτέμιδος Αὐἰγιναίας. ἐπανελθοῦσι δὲ ὀπίσω πρὸς
\ ie > \ > / 3 , € , b
τὴν λέσχην ἐστὶν ᾿Αρτέμιδος ᾿Ισσώρας ἱερόν' ἐπονο-
μάζουσι δὲ αὐτὴν καὶ Λιμναίαν, οὖσαν οὐκ Αρτεμιν,
Βριτόμαρτιν δὲ τὴν Κρητῶν: τὰ δὲ ἐς αὐτὴν ὁ Αἰγιναῖος
ἔχει μοι λόγος.
i. 18,4. Τὰ δὲ ἐς τὴν Κναγίαν "Αρτεμίν ἐστιν οὕτω
4 / v >’ ΄
λεγόμενα. Kvayéa ἄνδρα ἐπιχώριον κ.τ.λ.
τι. 20, 7. Οὐ πόρρω Δέρειον, ἔνθα ᾿Αρτέμιδος ἄγαλμα ἐν
ὑπαίθρῳ Δερεάτιδος.
ARTEMIS standing left, in short chiton, right extended, in left,
spear ; beside her, dog.
7K Aut. B. M. (N1i1.) Mion. S. rv. 221.
Artemis running right, holding torch in both hands, dog
beside her.
Ai Aut. B.M. (Ni1.) Mion. 5: rv. 223.
Paus. IIL. 25, 3. Θεῶν δὲ ἐν τῇ γῇ σφίσιν ἱερά ἐστιν ’Ap-
τέμιδός τε ἐπίκλησιν ᾿Αστρατείας, ὅτι τῆς ἐς τὸ πρόσω
/ ᾽ an ᾽ ΄ 3. ͵ Ae? ,
στρατείας ἐνταῦθα ἐπαύσαντο ᾿Αμαζόνες, καὶ ᾿Απόλλων
> u , \ > , » lal \ /
Apafovios: Eoava μὲν ἀμφότερα, ἀναθεῖναι δὲ λέγουσιν
αὐτὰ τὰς ἀπὸ Θερμώδοντος γυναῖκας.
ARTEMIS Astrateia 7 laur. clad in short chiton and endromides,

holds out in right, bow ? in left, shield and spear.
A Caracalla. B. M. (N 111.)
This attribution is anything but certain. The figure on the

LACEDAEMON. 59

coin is, however, apparently female, fully armed, but in an
attitude of rest. The object in the right hand seems to have a
cord attached, and may be either bow or whip. As to a shield
as an attribute of Artemis, see below N XL, XII.

Artemis clad in short chiton, holds branch in right, quiver at
shoulder, inscription KYMAPICCIA. (Olv, Head of
Rome.)

Zi Auton. B. M. Berlin. (Niv.) Imnh., Carlsruhe Mus. p. 19.

This com was not struck at Cyparissia, but probably at
Lacedaemon, on occasion of an agonistic festival.

2,—Paus. ur. 11,11. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ “Ἑρμῆς ᾿Αγοραῖος Διόνυσον
φέρων παῖδα.

HerRMES Agoraeus, wearing chlamys, to right, holds in left

hand caduceus, on left arm infant Dionysus, who raises

left hand.

A Domna. Imh. Mon. Gr. p. 173. (Ν V.)
Plautilla. Berlin. Mon. Gr. p. 173. (N V1.)

Hermes Agoraeus, wearing chlamys, to right, holds in right
staff resting against shoulder, in left, infant Dionysus and

caduceus.

fi Gallienus. Imh. Mon. Gr. p. 174.
Salonina. Imh. Berlin. (N vu.)

The staff, which is quite clear on N Vi1.,is not to be so clearly
seen on V.and VI. But the action of the right hand is the same,
and the staff may be there. If so, all the representations would
be practically identical, and almost certainly copies of the statue
mentioned by Pausanias. The staff which Hermes is carrying
in his right hand is probably a thyrsus, towards which the child
Dionysus stretches out his hand.

3.—Paus. 1.12, 8. Λακεδαιμονίοις δὲ ἔστι μὲν ᾿Απόλλωνος
᾿Ακρείτα βωμός, ἔστι δ᾽ ἐπονομαζόμενον Τ᾿άσηπτον ἱερὸν
Τῆς: ᾿Απόλλων δὲ ὑπὲρ αὐτὸ ἵδρυται Μαλεάτης.
τι. 13, 3. Ὁ δὲ Κάρνειος, ὃν Οἰκέταν ἐπονομάζουσι, τιμὰς
εἶχεν ἐν Σπάρτῃ καὶ πρὶν ᾿Πρακλείδας κατελθεῖν, ἵδρυτο
δὲ ἐν οἰκίᾳ Kpiov τοῦ Θεοκλέους, ἀνδρὸς μάντεως. Cf.
14, 6.

APOLLO naked, facing, right hand rests on head, in left, bow.
A Commodus. B. M.
Gallienus. Loebbecke. (N vit.)
Salonina. B. M. Imh.
Apollo in long drapery, holds plectrum and lyre.
fi Aut. Pius, Mion. S. ry. 224, 35. Paris. (N 1x.)

00 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS, ἢ

A comparison with the coins of Gytheium, N XXIIL, XXIv.,
seems to show that the naked Apollo, N vut1, is Carneius.
On N Ix. we seem to have rather the Pythian form of the god.

4.—Paus, ut. 14,6. Προελθόντι δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ Δρόμου Διοσ-
κούρων ἱερὸν καὶ Χαρίτων. Cf. τη. 20, 1.

The Drioscurt on horseback, charging with couched lances,
@ Aut. B. M. &c.
Hadrian. B. M. Berlin. Imh.
Commod. Mion. S. Iv. 225, 39.
Geta. Berlin.
The Dioscuri standing beside their horses.
Gallienus. Imh.
The Dioscuri standing side by side, each holding spear and
sword.

# Aut. B. M. &ce.
Ant. Pius. Mion. 11. 223, 68.
M. Aurel. Munich.
Caracalla. Imh.
Plautilla. B. M.

Heads of the Dioscuri; their pilei; two amphorae.

A Aut. B. M. &c.

5.—Paus. ul. 16,3. “Ἑλένης δὲ ἱερὰ καὶ Ἡρακλέους, τῆς μὲν
πλησίον τοῦ τάφου τοῦ ᾿Αλκμᾶνος, τῷ δὲ ἐγγυτάτω τοῦ

/ 2 > an \ ” ct / > \ e

τείχους, ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ ἄγαλμα Ἡρακλέους ἐστὶν ᾧπλισ-
μένον (and passim).

HERAKLES naked, resting, leaning on club, much in the attitude

of Glycon’s statue.
fi Ant. Pius. Paris.
Domna. B. M. (N x.)

6.—Paus. 1. 16,6. Λακεδαιμόνιος δὲ καὶ Λυκούργῳ τῷ
θεμένῳ τοὺς νόμους, οἷα δὴ θεῷ πεποιήκασι καὶ τούτῳ
ἱερόν.
Head of Lycurcus, bearded, diad., inscribed ΑὙΚΟΥΡΓΟΟ.
ZZ Auton. B. M. Mion. 11. 217, ὅσο.
7.—Paus. ΠΠ. 16,7. To δὲ χωρίον τὸ ἐπονομαζόμενον Λιμ-
ναῖον ᾿Ορθίας ἱερόν ἐστιν ᾿Αρτέμιδος. τὸ ξόανον δὲ
> r Φ / “ / \ 2 / >
ἐκεῖνο εἶναι λέγουσιν ὅ ποτε ᾿Ορέστης καὶ ᾿Ιφιγένεια ἐκ
n a a > / -} \ \ /
τῆς Ταυρικῆς ἐκκλέπτουσιν' ἐς δὲ τὴν σφετέραν Λακε-
δαιμόνιοι κομισθῆναί φασιν ᾿Ορέστου καὶ ἐνταῦθα βασι-
λεύοντος. καί μοι εἰκότα λέγειν μᾶλλόν τι δοκοῦσιν ἢ
᾿Αθηναῖοι.
> / δι , 7 / val ΄
Λθηναίοις δὲ ἄρα παρώφθη γενόμενον λάφυρον τῷ Μήδῳ:
5 n , A 2
τὸ yap ἐκ Βραυρῶνος ἐκομίσθη τε és Σοῦσα, καὶ ὕστερον
Σελεύκου δόντος Σύροι Λαοδικεῖς ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἔχουσι.

LACEDAEMON. G1

Archaic figure of ARTEMIS, wears polos, long chiton and over-
dress ; holds in raised right hand, axe, in left, buckler,
on either side, stag.

(Coins of Laodicea in Syria.)

A Elazabalus. Mion. v. 260, 795.

Philip Sen. Mion. v. 262, 806.
Gallus. Mion. v. 263, 810. B. M. (N xt.)

The same figure, turned the other way. (At Laodicea.)

J Philip Sen. B. M. (N x11.)

The same figure, holding axe in right, shield in left, in presence
of seated Tyche of city. (At Laodicea.)

# Elagabalus. Mion. 8. vir. 177, 252. (Sestini, Mus. Hed. 111. 61, 45.)

In his Attica (1. 33, 1) Pausanias says that in the temple of
Artemis at Brauron there was an archaic xoanon; but in his
opinion this was not the original. In the above-quoted passage,
he says further that the original statue was still extant at
Laodicea in Syria. That the figure on the coins of Laodicea is
a copy of this original, carried off from Attica, is sufficiently
evident. Pausanias seems to have thought that the Spartan
statue of Artemis Orthia had a better claim to have been brought
from Taurica than even the Laodicean statue. However that
be, there can be no doubt that the statue represented on tlie
Laodicean coins is very original] and interesting.

The goddess wears on her head a modius; in one hand she
carries not a bipennis but an axe of the form of a socketed celt ;
she is clad in long drapery, in the disposition of which, as well
as in the pose of her legs, but little archaism is visible. Beside
her are two stags, which make the identification certain.

The shield is an attribute unusual in the case of Artemis, but
not unheard of. Pausanias (Iv. 13, 1) heard at Messene of an
ancient statue of Artemis, which had on one occasion let fall
its shield ; and Iphigeneia is sometimes represented as carrying
a statue, which in any hands but hers might pass for a Palladium.
See Gerhard in Arch. Zeitung, 1849, pl. vil. p. 70. Compare
also Ν᾽ ut. The form of the axe is very noteworthy.

On the silver coins issued at Athens by Eubulides and
Agathocles (Beulé, Monn. d Ath. p. 287) occurs an archaic figure
of Artemis, veiled, wearing modius, holding patera and bow,
which has been by some taken for a copy of the statue existing
at the time at Brauron, or (as by Beulé) for a copy of an imita-
tion of that statue by Praxiteles, which was preserved on the

62 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

Athenian acropolis (Paus. I. 28, 7). If either of these views be
correct, there were decided differences between the statue
carried off by the Persians and that made by the Athenians to
replace it.
8.—Paus. 1. 17,2. Λακεδαιμόνιοι πολλοῖς ἔτεσιν ὕστερον
τόν τε ναὸν ὁμοίως καὶ τὸ ἄγαλμα ἐποιήσαντο ᾿Αθηνᾶς
χαλκοῦν: Γιτιάδας δὲ εἰργάσατο ἀνὴρ ἐπιχώριος. ἐποίησε
δὲ καὶ ἄσματα Δώρια ὁ Τιτιάδας ἄλλα τε καὶ ὕμνον ἐς
τὴν θεόν. ἐπείργασται δὲ τῷ χαλκῷ πολλὰ μὲν τῶν
ἄθλων Ἡρακλέους κ.τ.λ.
The PaLuas of Gitiadas, helmeted, holding lance and shield,
the lower part of the body arranged in bands adorned
with reliefs.

f Gallienus. B. M. Imh. Munich. (N x1.)
Gallienus. Sestini, Mus. Hed. 11. 131, 37.
Gallienus. Cadalvene, Recueil, pl. τι. 35.

Head of Pallas, helmeted.
Zi Domna. Paris. (N xiv.)

This identification is advocated by Koner (Zeitschr. 7. Miinzh.
1845, p. 2) and Jahn, but doubted by Overbeck (Gr. Plast.
I. p. 124), who also considers it improbable that the reliefs were
on the person of the goddess. It is, however, not easy to explain
the words of Pausanias, except on the supposition that the
reliefs were on the goddess herself, that is, on her close-fitting
chiton, and the representation on the coin, which is quite swe
generis, and can scarcely be interpreted except as it is by Koner,
seems to clinch the argument. In the upper part of the body
we may trace something of womanly form; the shape of the
lower part seems to be sacrificed to the exigencies of the
reliefs.

The head on No. xiv. must almost certainly be copied from a
statue, for the head of a deity, unless so copied, seldom or never
appears on imperial coins of Peloponnesus. It is probably a
free copy of the head of the statue of Gitiadas. The form of
the helmet, half way between the close-fitting and the Corinthian
types, is notable; but unfortunately the coin is badly preserved,
and the details obscure.

Coins of Melos (Paris Coll. and Lr. Mus. Cat., Islands, pl.
xxiv. 13) bear a type which seems to reproduce the same statue ;
the details, however, are not clear. Melos was a Laconian
colony. Of the head of this statue we have also a record on

LACEDAEMON, 63

Melian coins, of imperial times, which bear a head of Pallas
distinctly archaic, with long straight tresses falling behind the
ear, in a close-fitting helmet (N Xv.).
9.—Paus. m1. 19, 1. Καὶ τὸ ἄγαλμα ἐνταῦθα ἐνέστηκε.
μέγεθος δὲ αὐτοῦ μέτρῳ μὲν οὐδένα ἀνευρόντα οἶδα,
εἰκάζοντι δὲ καὶ τριάκοντα εἶναι φαίνοιντο ἂν πήχεις.
ἔργον δὲ οὐ Βαθυκλέους ἐστίν, ἀλλὰ ἀρχαῖον καὶ οὐ σὺν
τέχνῃ πεποιημένον: OTL γὰρ μὴ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ καὶ
πόδες εἰσιν ἄκροι καὶ χεῖρες, τὸ λοιπὸν χαλκῷ κίονί
ἐστιν εἰκασμένον. ἔχει δὲ ἐπὶ τῇ κεφαλῇ κράνος, λόγχην
δὲ ἐν ταῖς χερσὶ καὶ τόξον. τοῦ δὲ ἀγάλματος τὸ βάθρον
παρέχεται μὲν βωμοῦ σχῆμα, τεθάφθαι δὲ τὸν “Ὑάκινθον
λέγουσιν ἐν αὐτῷ. A copy of this statue as Pythaeus at
Thornax, I11. 10, 8, ef. 11, 9.
Statue of ApoLLO Amyclaeus clad in‘long chiton and aegis,

helmeted, holding lance and bow, body in form of a pillar.

A of aking thirdcentury B.c. Beside Apollo goat, and aplustre surmounted by
cock, wreath in field. B. M. Berlin. Bompois. (N xvi.) Paris
&e. Cf. Bompois, Portraits attrib. ἃ Cléoméne, pl. 1.

Similar figure without chiton.

J Commodus. B. M. (N xvi.)
Gallienus. Imh.

Leake has shown (Num. Hellen., Europe, p. 55) that the figure
on these coins is a copy of the colossus of Apollo at Amyclae.
The work seems to be of the same school as the statue of
Athene already mentioned, but ruder and earlier, the body
showing no approach to the human form. As to the exact form
of the body, however, the coins differ: the earlier make it
clad and conical, the later like a term. We can scarcely
doubt that the later representation (N xvir.) is more faithful,
since it belongs to a time when the die cutter took smaller
liberties with his model. On it the body of the deity is divided
by crossing lines into lozenge-shaped divisions, no doubt repre-
senting the plates of bronze; one can even detect on the coin
the nails by which these are secured. The head of the deity is
archaic, with long curl falling on to the neck, and a queue
behind. The whole is let into a stand or basis.
10.—OTHER TYPES at Lacedaemon :—

Male figure, bearded, seated on cippus, looking back, holds

knotted staff.

#i Ant. Pius. B. M. Imh.
Geta. Imh. Mon. Gr. p.174. (N xvii.)

G4 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

Veiled female figure seated left on cippus, in attitude of
erief.
i Geta. B. M. (N xix.)
The pose of this figure is strikingly like that of the so-called
Penelope of the Vatican.
Nike, holds wreath and palm.
Geta. Imh.

Female head, left, diad.: inscription STAPTH,
# Aut. B.M. Imh. Paris.

GYTHEIUM.

1.—Paus. 1. 21,7. Τυθεᾶται δὲ τῆς πόλεως ἀνθρώπων μὲν
> / >) \ / / Φ , \ \
οὐδένα οἰκιστὴν γενέσθαι λέγουσιν, Ἡρακλέα δὲ καὶ
᾿Απόλλωνα ὑπὲρ τοῦ τρίποδος ἐς ἀγῶνα ἐλθόντας, ὡς
διηλλάγησαν, μετὰ τὴν ἔριν οἰκίσαι κοινῇ τὴν πόλιν:
καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ σφίσιν ᾿Απόλλωνος καὶ Ἡρακλέους
ἐστὶν ἀγάλματα.
ApoLto facing, clad in long chiton, right hand extended, in
left, lyre.
i Domna. Inh.
Carac. Paris. (N xx.)
Geta. B. M.
Apollo facing, naked, holds branch and bow.

Sept. Sev. Mion. S. Iv. 230, 55. Paris. (N xxi.) (Eckhel, Num. Vet,
xslt)

Bearded HERAKLES standing, holds club, which rests on the

ground, and lion’s skin.

Ji Sept. Sev. B.M. (N xxu.)
Domna. Mion. 11. 226, 83. Paris.
Geta. B.M. Mion. Ir. 227, 87.

Herakles in attitude of Glycon’s figure.
# Geta. Paris.

The branch in the hand of the Apollo (N xx1.) reminds one
of that which Herakles holds on the coin of Croton, where he
is specially described as OIKIZTAS (Carelli, Num. Stal. Vet.
pl. clxxxiii. 21; Gardner, Types, pl. v. 2). It may refer to his
office as founder; with the other hand he seems to be laying
aside his bow. Herakles (N XxII.) is also in an attitude of
conciliation ; whether the two figures can be reasonably regarded
as belonging to one group is a question.

2.—Paus. ur. 21,7. “Ἑτέρωθι δὲ ᾿Απόλλων Κάρνειος.
APoLLo naked, right hand raised over his head, in left, which
rests on trunk of tree, leaf? beside him on a basis

GYTHEIUM. 65

horned Pan, holding pedum and nebris in right hand,

syrinx in left.
Ai Sept. Sev. Bibl. Turin.
Geta. B. M. (N xxiii.)
Similar, without Pan.

A Sept. Sev. Mus. Sanel. 11. pl. 24, 210, B.
Carac. Mion. S. Iv. 232, 65. Paris.
Carac. Berlin. (N xxiv.)

In the first of these coins the object in the hand of Apollo
appears not to be an arrow, but a trefoil leaf; in the other coins
it is not clear. The presence of Pan seems to show that Apollo
Carneius is here intended ; and the Pan and Apollo alike should
be, according to the usual tests, copies of statues, as one stands
on a basis, the other leans on a pillar.

3.—Paus. m1. 21, 7. Πλησίον δὲ αὐτῶν Διόνυσος. Cf. 22, 2,
Διονύσου δὲ ὄρος ἱερὸν Λαρύσιον καλούμενόν ἐστιν
κιτ.λ.

Dionysus standing, holds in right grapes or kantharos, in left,
thyrsos ; wears nebris.

i Sept. Sev. Mion. 8. Iv. 230, 56, 57.

(Possibly a Hermes wrongly described ; see below under
section 9: O VIL.)

4.—Paus. 11. 21,7. Καὶ ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ χαλκοῦν ἄγαλμά ἐστιν,
οὐκ ἐπόντος ὀρόφου τῷ vaw, καὶ πηγὴ τοῦ θεοῦ.

ASKLEPIOS facing, clad in himation, right hand extended, in
left, serpent-staff ; before him, snake-entwined altar.

Ai Sept. Sev. B.M. Paris. ( 1.)
J. Domna. Sest. Let. Cont. 1x. 10, 1.
Geta. Sest. Let. Cont. 1x. 10, 2.

Similar figure, with altar, in a temple: roof only over opistho-
domos, not over naos.

#E Sept. Sev. B. M. (Q11.)
Geta. Mus. Arig. τι. 25, 354.

This is a clear instance of the copy of a statue on coins; the
type of the statue is, however, quite ordinary. It seems that
the temple is rendered on the coin with some exactness. It is
seen nearly in profile from its left side. To the extreme left are
two pillars, which stand for the front of the temple; next an
unroofed space, vads, in which stands the statue; and furthest
to the right an opisthodomos with roof. That this is what is
intended seems to be proved by the fact that the corner of the
aétoma does not reach to the furthest pillar; but aétoma and
pillars and the deity himself are all represented in a perspective

Bess 0. ὙΠ: Ε

66 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

which is not correct, too much facing the spectator. The pillars
are fluted in their upper, plain in their lower half.
5.—Paus. m1. 21,7. ... Kat Δήμητρος ἱερὸν ἅγιον.
DEMETER seated, holds ears of corn and sceptre.
Δὲ Geta. Mus. Arig. τ. 9, 134.
6.—Paus, 1. 21,7. ... Καὶ Ποσειδῶνος ἄγαλμα Τ᾽αιαόχου.

POSEIDON naked, standing, holds dolphin and trident.
ff Caracalla. (0 111.)

This is a pose in which Poseidon often appears on coins of
Corinth (D Lx.—Lxu1.) and other cities of Peloponnesus.
7.—Paus. U1. 21,9. Καλοῦνται δὲ ἐνταῦθα καὶ πύλαι Καστο-
ρίδες.
The ΤΙΟΒΟΊΓΕΙ standing, each holding his horse ; between them

a tree.

4 Geta. Mion. S. Iv. 233, 75.
Leake, Sup. p. 127.

The Dioscuri standing, each holds spear and sword; between
them altar entwined by snake.

Sept. Sev. Imh. (0 Iv.)

8.—Paus. 1. 21,9. Καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλει ναὸς καὶ ἄγαλμα
᾿Αθηνᾶς πεποίηται.

PALLAS standing, holds in her right hand a spear.

# Geta. Mion. S. Iv. 2338, 72.

9.—Paus. ΠΙ. 22,1. Kara δὲ τὴν νῆσον ἱερόν ἐστιν ᾿Αφρο-
δίτης ἐν τῇ ἠπείρῳ Μιγωνίτιδος, καὶ ὁ τόπος οὗτος ἅπας
καλεῖται Μιγώνιον. τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τὸ ἱερὸν ποιῆσαι
λέγουσιν ᾿Αλέξανδρον.

APHRODITE standing, draped, holds apple and sceptre.

Zi Domna. Wiczay, Mus. Hed. τ. pl. xvit. 374.
Plautilla. Paris. R.& F. (QO vV.)
Geta. Lobbecke.

10.—OTHER TYPES at Gytheium.

Zeus seated, holds thunderbolt and sceptre.
i Sept. Sev. Caracalla. B. M.
Geta. Munich.
Zeus standing, holds Victory and sceptre, chlamys over
shoulders.
A Geta. Mion. 11. 227, 86. Paris. (0 v1.)
Plautilla. Mion. S. rv. 233, 70.
Hermes standing at altar, holds purse and caduceus, chlamys

over shoulders.
JE Sept. Sev. Paris.
Caracalla. Mion. S. Iv. 232, 68.
Geta. B. M.

BOEAE, 67

Same type, without altar.
i Sept. Sev. Berlin.
Caracalla, Vienna. (Q Vit.)

Two wrestlers.

Hi Geta. Leake, Supp. p. 127.

Artemis, left, clad in long chiton; holds in right hand, bow
inverted, in left, long sceptre.

Plautilla. Imh. (0 vit.)

Artemis, left, clad in long chiton, with quiver at shoulder,
leaning right elbow on pillar; in left hand, bow.

AK Plautilla. Berlin. Munich.

Artemis, as above, leaning left elbow on pillar, bow in right.

A Plautilla. (0 1x.)

ASOPUS.

1.

Paus. τι, 22,9. Καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἱερόν ἐστιν ἐν TH ἀκροπόλει
Κυπαρισσίας ἐπίκλησιν.
ATHENE standing, left, helmeted? clad in long chiton ; holds
in raised right, spear, in left, cypress-branch.,
Sept. Sev. Paris. (Q x.)
This coin is in so poor preservation that the description
caunot be relied on.
2. OTHER TYPES at Asopus.
Zeus facing, clad in himation, sceptre in raised right hand.
# Sept. Sev. Paris. (0 x1.)
Artemis hunting.
Ai Sept. Sev.
Dionysus standing, naked, holds kantharos and thyrsos ; panther
beside him.
# Carac. Munich. (0 xu.)
Poseidon standing.
Δὰ Carac.
Nemesis ; a wheel at her feet; holds end of her veil.
# Plautilla. Berlin. (0 χα.)
(All in Mion. S. Iv. p. 228.)

BOEAE.
1—Paus. ut. 22, 12. Μάντευμα ἣν αὐτοῖς Αρτεμιν ἔνθα
οἰκήσουσιν ἐπιδείξειν. . . Αρτεμιν ὀνομάζουσι Σώ-
τείραν.
Bust of ARTEMIS.
ΑΕ Geta. Mion. Sup. tv. 280, 54.
2.—Paus. πι|. 22,13. Καὶ ἑτέρωθι ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ καὶ Σαράπιδός

τε καὶ Ἰσιδος.
ἘΠῸ

68 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

ASKLEPIOS standing as usual.

ΚΕ Caracalla. Paris. (0 xiv.) Plautilla.
Mion. Sup. IV. 229, 53.

1515, holds sistrum and vase, usual ornament on her head.
ZL Domna. Munich. (0 xv.)

3.—Paus. 11. 23, 2. Πλέοντι δὲ ἐκ Βοιῶν τὴν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄκραν
τῆς Μαλέας λιμήν ἐστιν ὀνομαζόμενον Νύμφαιον, καὶ
Ποσειδῶνος ἄγαλμα ὀρθόν.
POSEIDON naked, standing, holds in right hand dolphin, in left
trident.
ZL Domna. B.M. (0 χνυι.)
4.—OTHER TYPES at Boeae.
Eros walking, holds bow and torch.
Caracalla, Geta. (Paris.)
{Cf. 22, 11, Aphrodisias, a small town, was incorporated in
Boeae. |
(See Mion. Sup. Iv. p. 229.)
Athene standing, holds shield resting on the ground, and
spear.
2 Geta. Leake, Sup. p. 117.

LAs.
1.—Paus. us. 24, 6. Καὶ viv ἔτι τῆς πόλεώς ἐστι THs ἀρχαίας
ἐρείπια, Kal πρὸ TOV τειχῶν ἄγαλμα Ἡρακλέους.
HERAKLES standing, holds club and lion’s skin.

ΑΕ Sept. Sev. Mion. S. 1v. 234, 77. Copenhagen.
Carac. Imh. (Q xvirt.)
Geta. Mion. 8. Iv. 235, 81. Copenhagen.

2.—Paus. U1. 24,7. "Eos δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἐρειπίοις ναὸς ᾿Αθηνᾶς
ἐπίκλησιν ᾿Ασίας, ποιῆσαι δὲ ἸΤολυδεύκην καὶ ἹΚΚάστορά
φασιν ἀνασωθέντας ἐκ Κόλχων.

ATHENE standing, in raised right, spear, left resting on shield

placed on the ground.

/£ Caracalla. Munich. Athens.
Geta. Mion. 11. 228, 88. Paris. (Q xvitt.)

This representation of Athene is in general aspect not unlike
the Brauronian statue of Artemis (N XU.), which was supposed
to be of Colchian origin ; but it has no appearance of extreme
antiquity.

3.

Paus. ut. 24, 8. Τῶν δὲ ὀρῶν ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ ᾿Ιλέου Διονύσου
τέ ἐστι καὶ ἐπ᾽ ἄκρας τῆς κορυφῆς ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ ναός.
ASKLEPIOS standing, as usual.

#E Caracalla. Mion. 5. rv. 234, 78. Paris.
Plautilla. B. M. (0 x1x.)

THURIA. 69

Stiff and apparently early figure of Hygieia standing, feeding
serpent, which she holds in left hand on fruit which she holds

in right hand.

#£ Caracalla. B. M. Χο. (0 xx.)
Sept. Sev. Imh. Occupation of hands reversed.

4.—Paus. 101. 24,9. IIpos θαλάσσῃ δὲ ἐπὶ ἄκρας ναός ἐστι
Δικτύννης ᾿Αρτέμιδος, καὶ οἱ κατὰ ἔτος ἕκαστον ἑορτὴν
ἄγουσι.
ARTEMIS Dictynna standing drawing an arrow from quiver
with right, in left, bow; beside her, dog and stag.
i Sept. Sev. Leake, Zur. Gr. p. 60. (0 XxI.)
5.—OTHER TYPES at Las.
Tyche sacrificing at altar,
#i Carac. B. M., &e.
THURIA.
See Paus. Iv. 31, 2.
TYPES ON COINS.
Athene standing, holds spear and shield which rests on the
ground.
# Auton., Sep. Sev., Carac., &c.
Tn an inscription from Thuria (Le Bas and Wad., part IT., no.
301), mention is made of a priest of Athene.
Athene standing, holds patera and spear.
ZE Sept. Sev., Carac. Loebbecke. (0 xxi.)
This is apparently a type borrowed from that of Athena
Panachaia at Patrae, Q xIv.
Zeus striding, holds thunderbolt and eagle (type of Messene).
# Auton. Mion. S. rv. 216, 56.
Zeus standing, holds eagle and sceptre.

i Sept. Sev.
Geta. Munich.

The letters AA[xedacuov/wy] in the field of many coins of
Thuria confirm the saying of Paus. Iv. 31,1. Aaxedai-
μονίοις δὲ ἔχειν τοῖς ἐν Σπάρτῃ τὴν Θουρίαν ἔδωκεν
Αὔγουστος. Cf. Weil in Mittheil. d. I. vu. 217.

Asklepios facing, leans on serpent-entwined staff.

A Geta.

Artemis, in long chiton, holds in both hands long torch.

4 Domna. Berlin. (0) xxii.)

Apollo standing, clad in long chiton, holds in right, tripod, in
left, sceptre.

ἢ Domna. Imh. (0 xxty.)

Carac. Berlin,

70 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

TycHE turreted, holds patera and cornucopiae.
& Sept. Sev.
Carac., &c.
Geta.
Tyche, holds rudder and cornucopiae.
2 Sept. Sev.
Domna.

MESSENE.

1.—Paus. Iv. 31, 9. Kai Δήμητρος ἱερὸν Μεσσηνίοις ἐστὶν
ἅγιον.

Head of DEMETER bound with corn.

A, ZZ Auton.

2.—-Paus. Iv. 31, 10. Πλεῖστα δέ σφισι καὶ θέας μάλιστα
[ἀγάλματα] ἄξια τοῦ ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ παρέχεται τὸ ἱερόν.
χωρὶς μὲν γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τῶν παίδων ἐστὶν ἀγάλματα
k.7.r., Works οἵ Damophon of Messene.

ASKLEPIOS with usual attributes ; in field wreath.

#£ Auton, (Obv. Bustof City.) B. M. (P1.)
Geta. Paris.

Hygieia standing.
fi Domna. M.S. Iv. 208, 15.

Iv. 31, 10. Πόλις te ἡ Θηβαίων καὶ ᾿Επαμεινώνδας ὁ
Κλεόμμιδος, Τύχη τε καὶ τ.λ. ἜἜστι δὲ καὶ Μεσσήνης
τῆς Τριόπα ναὸς καὶ ἄγαλμα χρυσοῦ καὶ λίθου ἸΠαρίου.

Bust of Ciry οἵ Messene wearing turreted crown and veil.
# Auton. B. M. (P-11.) Mion. 11. 211, &c.
[Cf. however 31,6. ἄγαλμα Μητρὸς θεῶν λέθου Lapiov,
Δαμοφῶντος δὲ épyor.|

P 1. and P Τὶ. are the two sides of one coin, issued. probably
in imperial times. The wreath in the field may indicate that
it, like most of the autonomous coins issued in Greece during
Roman domination, was struck on the occasion of a festival. As
to the head on the obverse, we cannot be sure whether it is
meant for Messene or Tyche, or the Mother of the Gods. There
is something in its aspect which seems to show that it is meant
for the copy of a work of art. Almost all the great statues at
Messene were made by Damophon at the time of the restoration
of the city by Epaminondas, B.c. 370. Our coins enable us to
restore the outlines of several of the statues of this interesting
artist, of whom apart from coins and the statements of Pausanias

we know nothing.
3.—Paus. Iv. 31,10. Kai Ἡρακλέους (ἄγαλμα) . . . cf. 32, 1.

MESSENE. 71

HERAKLES resting, in the attitude of Glycon’s statue.

i Sept. Sev. Paris.

4.—Paus. Iv. 31, 7. Δαμοφῶντος δέ ἐστι τούτου καὶ ἡ Λαφρία
καλουμένη παρὰ Μεσσηνίοις.

ARTEMIS Laphria standing, clad in short chiton, spear in right,
left elbow resting on column ; beside her, dog.

#i Auton. Paris. (P III.)

A comparison of this figure with that of Artemis Laphria on
the coins of Patrae (Q vil.—xI.), which reproduces the statue of
Menaechmus and Soidas, furnishes sufficient reason for calling
this figure also Laphria. It is probably, as the pillar indicates,
a copy of a statue, therefore of the statue of Damophon.
Damophon was doubtless familiar with the earlier statue of
Lapbria, which in his time stood not at Patrae but at Calydon
in Aetolia, not far from Naupactus, where the Messenians were
settled before their city was rebuilt by Epaminondas. The
chief variety introduced by him on the older type seems to
have been to make the goddess grasp a spear instead of placing
her hand on her side.

5.—Paus. Iv. 33,2. Τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ᾿Ιθωμάτα τὸ ἱερόν. To δὲ
ἄγαλμα τοῦ Διὸς ᾿Αγελάδα μέν ἐστιν ἔργον, ἐποιήθη
δὲ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τοῖς οἰκήσασιν ἐν Ναυπάκτῳ Μεσση-
νίων. '

The Zeus οἵ Ageladas striding to right; in right hand, fulmen,

on left wrist, eagle.

AM Auton. Fourth century. B. M. (Piv.) Third century. B. M. (P v.)
A & (Tripod in front.) Auton.
A (Tripod behind.) Auton.

Cf. 31,6. ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ Διός ἐστιν ἄγαλμα Σωτῆρος.
Zeus naked, standing to right; in right hand, sceptre, iu
extended left, eagle.

Auton. (Tripod in field.) B. M.
Geta. (Sceptre surmounted by eagle.) Berlin. (P V1.)

Zeus standing, holds sceptre and thunderbolt.
ZE Sept. Sev. M.S. rv. 208, 14. Paris.

Zeus Nikephoros seated.

# Carac. Postol. Cat. 1884, p. 23.

The coins (P Iv. V.), as might be expected from their date, give
us only very free copies of the statue of Ageladas ; copies from
which we can only judge of its pose and general composition ; in
details they conform to the ideas of the times when the coins
were severally struck. As to the statue itself, see Overbeck,

72 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

Kunstmythologie τι. 12. The usual opinion that the head was
beardless seems to be not well-founded.

6.—OTHER TYPES at Messene.

Athene standing, holds in raised right hand, lance, in left,

shield.

fi Sept. Sev. Stift St. Flor. pl. 111. 3.
Domna. Imh. (P VII.)

CORONE.
1.—Paus. Iv. 34, 7. Χαλκοῦν δὲ καὶ ἐν ἀκροπόλει τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς
τὸ ἄγαλμά ἐστιν ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ, κορώνην ἐν τῇ χειρὶ ἔχουσα
—cf. 34,6. καὶ Διονύσου ναός.

Head οἵ ATHENE helmeted. ev. grapes.
AR AA Auton. B.M., &c.

COLONIDES.
Paus. Iv. 34, 8.
TYPES on coins.
Asklepios standing.
/E Sept. Sev.
Aphrodite facing, holds apple and sceptre.
Zi Geta. Imh. (P x.)
Poseidon, holds dolphin and trident.
Zi Sept. Sev,
Tyche at altar, right hand advanced, in left, sceptre.
fi Sept. Sev. B. M.
Pallas standing, holds patera and spear.
Ai Geta. Athens.

MOTHONE.

1.—Paus. Iv. 35,1. Δόξῃ δὲ ἐμῇ δέδωκε τῷ χωρίῳ TO ὄνομα ὁ
Μόθων λίθος. οὗτος δέ σφισι καὶ ὁ ποιῶν τὸν λιμένα
ἐστί τόν τε γὰρ ἔσπλουν στενώτερον ταῖς ναυσὶν
5 ΄ 4 ef \ e \ > a
ἐργάζετα: παρήκων ὕφαλος, καὶ ἅμα μὴ ἐκ βυθοῦ
ταράσσεσθαι τὸν κλύδωνα ἔρυμα ἕστηκεν.

Port in form of an amphitheatre ; in the entrance a ship with

sail.

M Carac. Mus. Sancl. ul. p. 17 and 1.
Imh. Statue in entrance. (P Vil.)

2.—Paus. Iv. 85. Ἔν Μοθώνῃ δὲ ναός ἐστιν ᾿Αθηνᾶς ᾿Ανεμώ-
τιδος: Διομήδην δὲ τὸ ἄγαλμα ἀναθεῖναι καὶ τὸ ὄνομα
τῇ θεῴ φασὶ θέσθαι.

PALLAS standing, helmeted, in right hand, patera, in left, spear.

ΜῈ Domna. Mion. II. 218, 34.
Geta. B. M.
Plautilla. Mion. 11. 213, 35. Lobbecke. (P x1.) Altar at her feet.

PYLOS. 73

Pallas standing, left hand extended, in right spear, against
which leans shield.

ΜῈ Domna. B.M. (P χιι.)

This type of Athene is by no means archaic ; it is a copy of
the Athene at Patrae (q. v.) Q XIV.

3.—Paus. Iv. 35, 8. Καὶ ᾿Αρτέμιδος δ᾽ ἱερόν ἐστιν ἐνταῦθα.

ARTEMIS standing, her right hand resting on a spear: a stag
and a dog on either side of her.

# Geta. Mion. 11. 214, 36. Imh. (P XIIr.)

Artemis hunting, holds arrow and bow.

# Domna. Mion. S. Iv. 212, 34.
Geta. Mion. S. Iv. 2138, 36.

4,—OTHER TYPES at Mothone.

Isis.

# Domna. Plautilla. B. M.

Two female figures face to face, one has right hand raised, the
other right hand advanced, sceptre in left.

2 Geta. Paris.

Poseidon, naked, holds dolphin and trident.

Μὰ Sept. Sev.

Asklepios.

LE Geta. ;

Hephaestus running, holds torch in both hands.

4 Auton. Imh. JG. pl. Ὁ. 2. (P 1x.)

Female figure holding out both hands.

& Plautilla. B. M. (P x1v.)

PYLos.
1.—Paus. Iv. 36, 2. ᾿Ενταῦθα ἱερόν ἐστιν ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἐπίκλησιν
Κορυφασίας.
PALLAS standing, holds patera and spear.

JE Sept. Sev. Paris. B.M. Imh.
Caracalla. Berlin. (P xv.
Plautilla. Mion. S. rv. 215, 52, &c.

Pallas, holds owl and spear.

ΑΕ Domna. Mion. Κα. tv. 215, 48.

2.—OTHER TYPES at Pylos.

Asklepios.

i Caracalla.

Terminal female figure veiled and closely draped, holds in right
end of her garment.

# Carac. Paris.
Geta. Copenhagen. (P XVI.)

Dionysus, holds kantharos and thyrsos,
Geta.

τί NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANTIAS.

Goat reclining on basis.

AE Sept. Sev., Geta. B. M., &c.
Carae. Munich.

CYPARISSIA.
1.—Paus. Iv. 36, 7. ᾿Αφικομένων δὲ és Κυπαρισσιὰς ἐκ ἸΤύλου
, \ Ὁ \ an 4 / ΄ > /
σφίσι πηγὴ ὑπὸ TH πόλει πλησίον θαλάσσης ἐστί:
[ an \ ΄ Ν ef / , /
ῥυῆναι δὲ Διονύσῳ τὸ ὕδωρ λέγουσι θύρσῳ πλήξαντι
ἐς τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ Διονυσιάδα ὀνομάζουσι τὴν
/
πηγήν.
Dionysus standing, in short chiton, holds kantharos and
thyrsos.

fi Sept. Sev. Β. Μ. Imh. (P xvii.)
Domna, Caracalla. Paris, &c.

2.—Paus. Iv. 36, 7. ἜἜστι δὲ καὶ ᾿Απόλλωνος ἐν Κυπαρισσιαῖς
ἱερὸν καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἐπίκλησιν Κυπαρισσίας.
ATHENE standing, holds patera and spear, against which, some-

times, leans a shield.

ZE Sept. Sev. Berlin.
Domna. Mion S. 210, 20, 23.
Caracalla. (P xviit.)
Plautilla. B. M.
Geta. Munich.

APOLLO facing, naked, holds in right, branch, in left, lyre which
rests on pillar.

Zi Sept. Sev. Berlin. (P xix.)

3.—Paus. Iv. 36,5. Ἔν δὲ Αὐλῶνε καλουμένῳ ναὸς ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ
καὶ ἄγαλμά ἐστιν Αὐλωνίου.

ASKLEPIOS standing ; usual type.

f& Sept. Sev. Paris. B. M.

Domna. Loebbecke.
Caracalla, Geta. B. M.

Hygieia standing; feeds serpent from patera.
Ai Domna. Loebbecke.
4.—OTHER TYPES at Cyparissia.
Athlete, holding urn in which is a palm, and a staff.
fi Domna. Vaillant, Num. Gr. p. 92.
Poseidon naked, standing left; holds dolphin and trident.
# Caracalla. Carlsruhe.
Tyche, holds cornucopiae and sceptre.
Ai Caracalla. Munich.
ELIS.

The coins of Elis present us unfortunately in but very few
instances with copies of the numberless works of art which
existed at Olympia. There are, however, extant a very few

ELIS. 75

important pieces struck in the reign of Hadrian, and in that of
Septimius Severus, which are clearly intended as medals to
perpetuate certain works of art, and on them we have some of
the most satisfactory reproductions of ancient statues extant on
coins. Among the statues thus reproduced are the Olympian
Zeus of Pheidias, the Aphrodite Pandemos of Scopas, and the
Dionysus of Praxiteles. In the recent excavations at Olympia
a large number of coins of Elis of the Imperial age were found,
and are now in the Athenian coin-cabinet. See Postolacca’s
Catalogue of coins presented in 1883—4.

1.—Paus. v.10, 7. Καὶ αὖθις ὁ ἀετὸς κάτεισιν ἐς στενόν, καὶ

κατὰ τοῦτο ᾿Αλφειὸς ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πεποίηται.

v. 14, 6. Μετὰ δὲ τοὺς κατειλεγμένους ᾿Αλφειῴῷ καὶ
᾿Αρτέμιδι θύουσιν ἐπὶ ἑνὸς βωμοῦ: τούτου δὲ οὐ πόρρω
καὶ ἄλλος τῷ ᾿Αλφειῴ βωμὸς πεποίηται.

ALPHEIUs beardless reclining in waves, holds wreath and reed ;

before iim, vessel.

/E Hadrian. M.S. tv. 180, 49. Postol. Cat. 1884, p. 20.
Sept. Sev., Caracalla. Postolacca. 7. 6. pl. τι. 12.

Alpheius reclining, bearded, holds cornucopiae and reed.

Hadrian. Sest. Fontana Mus. p. 58, 1.

See also below.

2.—Paus. v.11. Καθέζεται μὲν δὴ ὁ θεὸς ἐν θρόνῳ χρυσοῦ
πεποιημένος καὶ ἐλέφαντος: στέφανος δὲ ἐπίκειταί οἱ
τῇ κεφαλῇ μεμιμημένος ἐλαίας κλῶνας. ἐν μὲν δὴ τῇ
δεξιᾷ φέρει Νέκην ἐξ ἐλέφαντος καὶ ταύτην καὶ χρυσοῦ,
ταινίαν τε ἔχουσαν καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ κεφαλῇ στέφανον" τῇ δὲ
ἀριστερᾷ τοῦ θεοῦ χειρὶ ἔνεστι σκῆπτρον μετάλλοις τοῖς
πᾶσι διηνθισμένον. ὁ δὲ ὄρνις ὁ ἐπὶ τῷ σκήπτρῳ
καθήμενός ἐστιν ὁ ἀετός.

ZEUS Olympius seated on throne, holds Nike and sceptre.

Hadrian. Florence. (P xx.) Berlin. (P xx1.) Athens. Fontana, pl. VI. 1.
Caracalla. Athens. Paris. Imh. Mus. Hederv.
Geta. B.M. Athens. Postolacca. Cat. 1884, p. 22.
Compare Stephani, Compte rendu 1876, plate, Nos. 3 and 4.

Head of Zeus Olympius laur.

fi Hadr. Paris. (P xxi.)
Sept. Sev. Vaill. Gr. p. 82. Paris. (P xx1ml.)

Head of Zeus.

AM Auton. B. M.
Cf. v. 24, 1. ᾿Απὸ δὲ τοῦ βουλευτηρίου πρὸς τὸν ναὸν
ἐρχομένῳ τὸν μέγαν ἔστιν ἄγαλμα ἐν ἀριστερᾷ Διός,

76 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

ἐστεφανωμένον δὲ οἷα δὴ ἄνθεσι, καὶ ἐν TH δεξιᾷ χειρὶ
αὐτοῦ κεραυνὸς πεποίηται.
Zeus striding, hurls fulmen, eagle on extended right.

A (archaic) Auton. Photiades Coll.
#E Auton. B. M.
Hadr. B. M. Postol. Cat. 1884, pl. 1. 6.

Zeus standing, resting on right leg, in sunk right hand, fulmen,

on left wrist, eagle.
ff Hadr. Postol. Cat. 1884, pl. τ. 5, 7, 8.
Zeus seated, eagle flying from him.
AR Auton. Early. B. M.
Nike winged, standing and running ; thunderbolt ; eagle tearing

serpent.
A Auton.

The reproductions, statue and head, of the colossus of Pheidias
are so fully discussed in the histories of sculpture that no more
need here be said about them. See also Gardner, Coins of Elis,
p. 48. The statues of Zeus in the Altis must have heen number-
less; we cannot venture therefore more closely to identify any
of the other coin-types.

3.—Paus. v. 13. Ἔστι δὲ ἐντὸς τῆς Ἄλτεως καὶ Πέλοπι
ἀποτετμημένον τέμενος: ἡρώων δὲ τῶν ἐν ᾿Ολυμπίᾳ
τοσοῦτον προτετιμημένος ἐστὶν ὁ IléXowW ὑπὸ ᾿Ηλείων
ὅσον Ζεὺς θεῶν τῶν ἄλλων.

PELops ? clad in short chiton, leading horse by the bridle.

fi Hadr. Postol. Cat. 1884, p. 20. Milan.
Mus. Sancl. 11. 19, 127.

4.—Paus. v.17,1. To δὲ “Ἥρας ἄγαλμα καθήμενόν ἐστιν ἐπὶ
θρόνῳ.

Head of HERA wearing stephanos.

At Auton. B. M.

5.—Paus. vi. 25,2. Κρηπὶς δὲ ἐντὸς τοῦ τεμένους πεποίηται,
καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ κρηπῖδι ἄγαλμα ᾿Αφροδίτης χαλκοῦν ἐπὶ
τράγῳ κάθηται χαλκῷ: Σκόπα τοῦτο ἔργον, ᾿Αφροδίτην
δὲ ΤΠάνδημον ὀνομάζουσι.

APHRODITE clad in long chiton and full over-garment, seated
sideways on goat galloping to right.

ἈΠ Hadr. B. M. (P xxiv.)

Sept. Sev. Postol. Cat. 1884, p. 21.
Carac. Postol. Cat. 1884, pl. τι. 11.

This identification is due to R. Weil (Archdol. Aufsdtze
LE. Curtius gewidmet, 1884), who publishes the coin of Severus,
of which a cut is here added.

ELIS. te

The coin of the British Museum, P xXxrv, though unfortunately
in a very poor state of preservation, is in a better style than this,
and apparently more faithful to the original. The attitude is
less stiff, and more graceful. The mantle of Aphrodite seems
to envelop her sides and back completely, and the chiton
reaches to her feet; only her head and arms appear; in the
treatment of these and of the drapery the charm of the statue
must have consisted.

6.—Paus. νι. 26,1. Θέατρον δὲ ἀρχαῖον μεταξὺ τῆς ἀγορᾶς
καὶ τοῦ Μηνίου τὸ θέατρόν τε καὶ ἱερόν ἐστι Διονύσου"
τέχνη τὸ ἄγαλμα Ἰ]ραξιτέλους. θεῶν δὲ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα
Διόνυσον σέβουσιν ᾿Ηλεῖοι, καὶ τὸν θεόν σφισιν ἐπιφοι-
τᾶν ἐς τῶν Θυίων τὴν ἑορτὴν λέγουσιν.

Dionysus facing; in raised right hand rhyton, in left thyrsus ;
on one side panther, on the other tympanum.

fi Hadr. Postol. Cat. 1884, pl. 11.9. Berlin. Zeitschr. f. Num. 18, 384.

Satyr, holds bunch of grapes and pedum. ~

Δὲ Hadr. Mion. S. rv. 180, 46.

Cf. v. 19,6. Διόνυσος δὲ ἐν ἄντρῳ κατακείμενος, γένεια
ἔχων καὶ ἔκπωμα χρυσοῦν, ἐνδεδυκώς ἐστι ποδήρη
χιτῶνα: δένδρα δὲ ἄμπελοι περὶ αὐτὸ καὶ μηλέαι τε εἰσὶ
καὶ ῥοιαί.

Head of Dionysus bearded, crowned with ivy.
Ai Sept. Sev. Mion. S. ry. 181, 57.

[This is a mistake; the head is really of the Olympian Zeus,
P xxu1.]

Dr. Weil has ably shown that the figure of Dionysus on the
coin of Hadrian is very probably a copy of the statue of Praxi-
teles. In addition to internal evidence, the fact that the other
coins of Hadrian bear copies of statues points in this direction.
We reproduce Weil’s cut, made under his direction from the
coins,

78 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

The forms of the god are rather effeminate; his garment,
fastened at his neck, falls round his lower limbs in full folds ;
the left leg is crossed over the right. His left elbow rests on a
prop over which also hangs his upper garment. Beside him is
on one side a panther, on the other his thyrsus and tympanum.
In his left hand is a cup, in his right he lifts aloft a rhyton.

7.—OTHER TYPES at Elis.

Female figure (Olympia ?) facing, holds eagle and palm branch ;
at her feet two rivers reclining.

Ai Hadr. Postol. Cat. 1884, pl. τι. 10.

Head of Olympia; inscription OAYMTTIA.

AR Auton. B. M.

DYME.

1.—Paus. vu. 17, 5. ΠΟοταμός te Λάρισος καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἐπὶ τῷ
ποταμῷ ναός ἐστι Λαρισαίας, καὶ ᾿Αχαιῶν πόλις Δύμη
σταδίους ὅσον τε τριάκοντα ἀπέχουσα τοῦ Λαρίσου.

vil. 17,9. Δυμαίοις δὲ ἔστι μὲν ᾿Αθηνᾶς ναὸς καὶ ἄγαλμα

ἐς τὰ μάλιστα ἀρχαῖον.

Head οἵ PALLAS, helmeted.

# Auton. Leake, Zur. Sup. p. 124.
Auton. πη. MM. G. p. 163.

FIsH.

i Auton.

2.—OTHER TYPES at Dyme.

Veiled female head, perhaps of Demeter, possibly of Mater
Dindymene (Paus. vit. 17, 9).

Auton.

PATRAE.
1.—Paus. vil. 18, 2. Tlatpéwv ἡ πόλις: od πόρρω δὲ αὐτῆς
ποταμὸς Γλαῦκος ἐκδίδωσιν ἐς θάλασσαν.

PATRAE. 79

vit. 19, 5. Ταύτης μὲν δὴ τῆς θυσίας ἕνεκα ὁ ποταμὸς ὁ
πρὸς τῷ ἱερῷ τῆς Τρικλαρίας ᾿Αμείλιχος ἐκλήθη: τέως
δὲ ὄνομα εἶχεν οὐδέν. Οἵ, 19,9. τό τε ὄνομα ἐτέθη τὸ
νῦν τῷ ποταμῷ Μείλιχος.

RIVER-GOD reclining.

46 Ant. Pius. Mus. Arig. τι. 7. 67.

2.—Paus. vi. 19, 6. Ἰλίου δὲ ἁλούσης καὶ νεμομένων τὰ
λάφυρα τῶν Ελλήνων, Εὐρύπυλος ὁ Εὐαίμονος λαμβάνει
λάρνακα: Διονύσου δὲ ἄγαλμα ἣν ἐν τῇ λάρνακι, ἔργον
μέν, ὥς φασιν, Ἡφαίστου, δῶρον δὲ ὑπὸ Διὸς ἐδόθη
Δαρδάνῳ, K.T.X.

(Box and statue in it brought by Eurypylus to Patrae.)
Man running to altar, clad in chlamys, holds a box in his

hand.

“Ὁ Hadrian. Berlin. (Q 1.)
Sabina. Sest. Lit. Num, 1x. pl. 1. 5.

The altar is probably that of Artemis Triclaria, on approaching
which Eurypylus was healed of his insanity.
Genius of Patrae, naked, facing, one arm extended over altar,

one rests on box raised on pedestal.

AM. Aurel. Imh, (6 11.) Berlin.
L. Verus. Paris.
Commodus. Paris.

Altar surmounted by box, in front of it some temple-ofticers ;
behind, spectators; in exergue, river-god reclining.

Sept. Sev. Munich. (Q Iv.)

Round box with conical cover, wreathed with ivy, within ivy
wreath, sometimes between ears of corn.

A Auton, Paris. Imh. (Q ut.) Leake, Zur. p. 83.
Auton. “δέ, Flor. p. 74, pl. 11. 21.

Similar box; thyrsus and bunch of grapes.
# Auton. Paris.

This type has perplexed many writers: it has been termed
Mons Panachaicus, or (by Leake) the tomb of Patreus; but
Kenner’s view (St. Flor. p. 74) is preferable, according to which
it represents the casket in which the statue of Bacchus was
kept.

On the reverse of the coins above described appears a figure
clad in a short chiton, holding in one hand a torch, in the other a
short thyrsus or spear. This appears in our plates,Q xu. Leake
supposes it to be a representation of the figure of Dionysus
contained in the chest. A Dionysus it may be, but it can

80 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANITAS.

scarcely stand for a statue supposed to have been brought from
Ilium, and so, presumably, of archaic type. There is something
to be said for the view of Kenner (S¢. Flor., 1. c.), that the
deity represented is rather Artemis Triclaria, with whose cultus
the box containing the Dionysus was closely connected.

21,1. Καὶ Διονύσου κατὰ τοῦτο τῆς πόλεώς ἐστιν ἱερὸν
ἐπίκλησιν Καλυδωνίου: μετεκομίσθη γὰρ καὶ τοῦ Διονύ-
σου τὸ ἄγαλμα ἐκ Καλυδῶνος.

21,6. Διονύσου δέ ἐστιν ἐνταῦθα ἀγάλματα, ἴσοι τε τοῖς
ἀρχαίοις πολίσμασι καὶ ὁμώνυμοι: Μεσατεὺς γὰρ καὶ
᾿Ανθεύς τε καὶ ᾿Αροεύς ἐστιν αὐτοῖς τὰ ὀνόματα.

Dionysus? radiate, holds in right, bunch of grapes, over left arm,
nebris.

# Elagabalus? Paris. (0 νυ.)

Dionysus standing, himation wrapped round loins, holds in
right hand kantharos, left rests on column.

EM. Aurel. Mus. Arig. τ. 6, 86.

Dionysus, and Satyrs, one of whom supports him, and one
follows ; also panther.

ZE Sept. Sev. Ramus, Cat. Num. Dan. τ. tv. 1.

3.—Paus. vil. 18, 9. Πατρεῦσι δὲ ὁ Αὔγουστος ἄλλα τε τῶν
ἐκ Καλυδῶνος λαφύρων καὶ δὴ καὶ τῆς Λαφρίας ἔδωκε
τὸ ἄγαλμα, ὁ δὴ καὶ ἐς ἐμὲ ἔτι ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλει τῇ
Πατρέων εἶχε τιμάς.

18,10, Τὸ μὲν σχῆμα τοῦ ἀγάλματος θηρεύουσά ἐστιν,
ἐλέφαντος δὲ καὶ χρυσοῦ πεποίηται, Ναυπάκτιοι δὲ Μέ-
ναύχμος καὶ Σοΐδας εἰργάσαντο: τεκμαίρονται δὲ σφᾶς
Κανάχου τοῦ Σικυωνίου καὶ τοῦ Αἰγινήτου Κάλλωνος
οὐ πολλῷ γενέσθαι τινὶ ἡλικίαν ὑστέρους.

ARTEMIS Laphria facing, clad in short chiton which leaves
right breast bare, a quiver at her shoulder, right hand
rests on hip, in left bow, chlamys falling over left arm;
to left a dog, to right a pedestal, on which the bow rests,

#i Galba. Berlin. Inser. DIANA LAPHRIA.

Domitian. B. M.

Hadr. Imh. Loebbecke. (Q VI.)

L. Verus. B. M. Stuttgart. (Q vu.)
Commod. Mus. Arig. τ. 7, 111.

Carac. B. M.

Artemis facing, clad in short chiton, right on hip, left rests on
bow which is supported by low pedestal; beside her,
dog.

# Carac. Berlin. Imh. (Q vu.)

PATRAKE, 81

Similar figure turned to right, bow rests on ground.

Mi Nero, Paris. (0 1x.) Inscr, DIANA LAPHRIA.

Artemis Laphria and Aphrodite of Corinth side by side.
i Commodus. B. M. Paris. Imh. (Q x.)

Artemis, carrying bow, in chariot drawn by four stags.
Sept. Sev. Mus. Arig. τι. 9, 98.

(It may be doubted if this supposed figure of Artemis be not
her priestess as in Q XIII.)

Quiver with strap and hound.
# Nero. Bibl. Turin, Insecr. DEANA LAPHRIA.

The figure of Artemis Laphria on coins VI.—X. is almost
unvaried ; the only marked variation being that the bow rests
in some cases on a high pedestal, in some cases on a low pedestal,
in some cases on the ground. The goddess stands, her head
slightly turned to her left, clad in a short chiton with diplois
which leaves the right breast bare, a chlamys hanging over her
left shoulder, high cothurni on her feet. Her hair is in a knot
at the back; a quiver is at her shoulder. Her attitude is one
of ease, yet not quite free from stiffness ; the left knee slightly
advanced, the right hand resting on her side; in the left hand
a bow. The type is clearly a copy of the cultus-statue of Artemis
Laphria; this is even proved to demonstration by coin No. X.
where it appears side by side with the Aphrodite of the Corin-
thian acropolis. We thus arrive at an interesting result. It is
distinctly stated by Pausanias that the cultus-image at Patrae
was the work of Menaechmus and Soidas of Naupactus. On
this Brunn (G7. K. I. 112) remarks that its date must be earlier
than the settlement of Naupactus by the Messenians at the
beginning of the Peloponnesian war. And Pausanias says that
the sculptors must have lived not much after the archaic

sculptors Callon of Aegina, and Canachus of Sicyon. But ~~

the statement of Pausanias seems exaggerated in view of
the style of the figure on the coins, which may perhaps be
assigned to the middle of the fifth century, but can with diff-
culty be given to an earlier date. In any case this will be one
of the earliest statues which represent Artemis in Amazonian
form, earlier than the statue of Strongylion (A I. I1.), and as
early as the rude relief from Asopus, Arch. Zeitung 1882,
p. VL 1;
4.—Paus. vil. 19, 1. Ἰώνων τοῖς ᾿Αρόην καὶ "Ανθειαν καὶ
Μεσάτιν οἰκοῦσιν ἣν ἐν κοινῷ τέμενος καὶ ναὸς ᾿Αρτέμιδος
Η 5. Ή ΤΟΙ, VII. α

82 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

Τρικλαρίας ἐπίκλησιν, Kai ἑορτὴν οἱ Ἴωνες αὐτῇ καὶ
παννυχίδα ἦγον ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος.

20, -7. Τῆς δὲ ἀγορᾶς ἄντικρυς κατ᾽ αὐτὴν τὴν i ς
τέμενός ἐστιν ᾿Αρτέμιδος καὶ ναὸς Λιμνάτιδος.

Artemis running, holds torch and spear.

“Ὁ Hadrian. Imh. Stag beside her. (Q x1.)
M. Aur. M.S. rv. 144, £60. Paris.
L. Verus. B. M. Dog at her feet.
Commodus. Vienna. Stag and dog at her feet.

Artemis? standing in short chiton, holds torch and spear or
thyrsus.
# Auton. St. Flor. p. 75, pl. τι. 21. Leake. Paris. Imh. (Q xu.)

The same figure which Leake (Hur. p. 83) calls Bacchus; it
is not possible to say with certainty which of these deities is
intended. See above.

Artemis on horse, with inflated veil, riding right; before her,

Pan holding pedum, seated on rock.
ἘΜ. Aur. Sest. Let. Num. Ὑ. τ. 18.

Sestini states that this coin, in the Cabinet de Chaudoir, is in
poor preservation. The description cannot therefore be relied on.

Paus. VIL. £8, 12. Πομπὴν μεγαλοπρεπεστάτην τῇ ᾿Αρτέμιδι
πομπεύουσι, καὶ ἡ ἱερωμένη παρθένος ὀχεῖται τελευταία
τῆς πομπῆς ἐπὶ ἐλάφων ὑπὸ τὸ ἅρμα ἐζευγμένων.

PRIESTESS in chariot drawn by two stags.

iM. Aur. B.M. Loebbecke. (Q x1I1.)
Elagabalus. Mion. 11. 197, 364.

6.—Paus. vil. 20, 2. Tod περιβόλου δέ ἐστιν ἐντὸς τῆς
Λαφρίας καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶς ναὸς ἐπίκλησιν ἸΠαναχαΐδος"
ἐλέφαντος τὸ ἄγαλμα καὶ χρυσοῦ. Cf. 20,6; 20, 9.

PALLAS standing in distyle temple, owl beside her: holds patera

and lance, against which rests a shield.
i M. Aur. Mion. 11. 195, 347. Paris, (Q xiv.)
M. Aur. M.S. tv. 143, 958.
Commod. M.S. rv. 146, 976, 977. Paris.
Pallas standing, holds spear and Victory.
#E Hadr. M.S. rv. 141, 947.

Pallas standing, holds spear advanced and shield,
ἈΚ Hadr. Leake, Fur. p. 84.
Hadr. Berlin, (Q XV. )
Sabina. B.
Pallas Sane holds spear and shield.
fi Auton. (Obv. Head of Herakles.) B. M., &c.
Coin Q XIV. is particularly valuable. The image on it is
shewn by the temple in which it is enclosed to be a copy of a

PATRAE, 83

cultus-image, probably of that of Athena Panachais. The figure
of Athene holding in one hand a patera, in the other a spear
appears on the coins of many of the cities of Peloponnesus,
whether they had an ancient cult of Athena or not. We may
account for this fact in either of two ways: (1) we may suppose
that the various cities produced on their coins the widely-known
type of the statue at Patrae, or (2) we may suppose that the
cities commonly established within their own walls a shrine of
Athena Panachais with a statue copied from the metropolitan
statue of Patrae; and that these local imitations were again
imitated on the coins. It may count against the second view
that Pausanias mentions no other temples of Athena
Panachais.

7.—Paus. Vil. 20, 3. ᾿Ερχομένῳ δὲ ἐς τὴν κάτω πόλιν Μητρὸς
Δινδυμήνης ἐστὶν ἱερὸν, ἐν δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ΓΛττης ἔχει τιμάς"
τούτου μὲν δὴ ἄγαλμα οὐδὲν ἀποφαίνουσι: τὸ δὲ τῆς
Μητρὸς λίθου πεποίηται.

KYBELE seated ; holds patera and sceptre ; lion beside her,

Commodus. Paris. ;

Female figure draped and turreted, holding a bunch of grapes
in right hand and something in left, standing on cippus ;
on either side of her a similar figure appearing to grasp
her, and to be dancing or leaping.

# Geta. Berlin. (Q xvi.)

This type, the details of which are somewhat obscure, seems
clearly to refer to the orgiastic rites connected with the worship
of Mater Dindymene.

8.—Paus. vil. 20,3. Ἔστι δὲ ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ Διὸς vaos Ὀλυμ-
πίου, αὐτός τε ἐπὶ θρόνου καὶ ἑστῶσα ᾿Αθηνᾶ παρὰ τὸν
θρόνον.

ZEUS seated in temple of six columns.

ΑΕ Hadr. Mion. τι. 194, 848.

Zeus seated, holds Victory and sceptre.

# Hadr. M.S. rv. 141, 946.
Commod. Mion, 11. 196, 354, Imh. (Q xvi.)

Zeus seated, holds patera.
EM. Aur. Mus. Arig. 1. 6, 87.
The Zeus on No, XVIL. is of the usual Olympian type ; compare
the coins of Elis, P xx. ΧΧΙ.
9.—Paus. vil. 20, 3. Τῆς τε Ἥρας ἄγαλμα τοῦ ᾿Ολυμπίου
πέραν πεποίηται.

G 2

84 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

HERA? veiled, seated on throne with high back ; right hand

advanced, in left pomegranate ?

fi Hadr. ΒΒ, M.
Aelius. Imh. (0 xvut.)

The presence of the throne sufficiently proves that we
have in this case a copy of a statue. That the figure is
of Hera is however not certain. In the statue itself the
arms would be both stretched forward, the backward turning
of the left hand on the coin is probably only an attempt at
perspective.
10.—Paus. vil. 20, 3. ‘Iepov te ᾿Απόλλωνος πεποίηται, καὶ

᾿Απόλλων χαλκοῦς γυμνὸς ἐσθῆτος.

20,6. “Eyeras δὲ τῆς ἀγορᾶς τὸ @belov, καὶ ᾿Απόλλων
ἐνταῦθα ἀνάκειται θέας ἄξιος: ἐποιήθη δὲ ἀπὸ λαφύρων,
ἡνίκα ἐπὶ τὸν στρατὸν τῶν Ταλατῶν οἱ Πατρεῖς ἤμυναν
Αἰτωλοῖς ᾿Αχαιῶν μόνοι.

30,9. Ἔν τούτῳ τῷ ἄλσει καὶ ναοὶ θεῶν, ᾿Απόλλωνος,
ὁ δὲ ᾿Αφροδίτης: πεποίηται λίθου καὶ τούτοις τὰ ἀγάλ-
ματα.

APOLLO naked, standing, his right hand extended, his left

holding lyre which rests on base.

Ant. Pius. Mion. 11. 195, 344.
L. Verus. Mus. Arig. tv. No. 34, pl. vi. (Altar before him.)

Apollo seated, holds in raised right lyre, behind him cippus on
which a bird.
# Domit. Mus. Arig. rv. pl. rv. 34.
The engraving in this work is inaccurately drawn and not
trustworthy.
Apollo standing on basis, holds in right hand Victory, in left
branch.

#E M. Aur. M. S. 1v. 148, 959.
Commod. M.S. τν. 149, 992.

It is unfortunate that we have been unable to procure a cast
of the coin last mentioned, which might perhaps be a copy of
the statue set up at the time of the Gaulish invasion. It is also
not impossible, though such conjectures are very dangerous, that
the Apollo γυμνὸς ἐσθῆτος of Pausanias may be represented by
the type of Apollo first mentioned, the naked Apollo with the
lyre resting on a basis.
11.—Paus. vii. 21, 7. Πρὸς δὲ τῷ λιμένι Ποσειδῶνός τε ναὸς

καὶ ἄγαλμά ἐστιν ὀρθὸν λίθου.

PATRAE. 85

POSEIDON standing with one foot resting on rock ; holds dolphin

and trident.
A Domit. Paris. Inscribed NEPTVNO.
Hadrian. Imh. (Nodolphin.) (Q xix.)
Commod. M.S. rv. 147, 983.
Sept. Sev. Paris. (Holds figure of Pallas and trident, but the coin is
tooled and the figure of Pallas added. )

This type is shown by Q ΧΧΙ. to be a copy of the statue
mentioned in the text. No. ΧΙΧ is varied in the omission of
the dolphin, but otherwise is like the rest.

Poseidon standing, naked, thrusts with trident; dolphin on

extended left arm:
Hi Auton. (Obv. Head of Pallas.) B. M. (Q xx.)

Obv. Owl; Rev. Trident.

Ai Auton.

View of harbour of Patrae; in the foreground, vessels; in the
background tigure of Poseidon (as above) in temple, and

another temple.

A Sept. Sev. Sest. Fontana, pl. u. 16. Berlin. (Q ΧΧΙ.)
Geta. St. Flor. pl. 11. 22. Paris.

View of same harbour: in the foreground vessels and statue
of Emperor; in the background arcades surmounted by

temples.
Μὰ Commod. Mion. 11. 197, 359. Imh. (Q ΧΧΙΙ.)
Gordian. 111. M.S. Iv. 156, 1035.
Gordian, 111. Gessner, Jing. pl. 176.

View of same harbour from the land; temples in foreground ;
in background vessels and mole surmounted by tower
and equestrian statue.

Sept. Sev. Sest. Fontana, pl. τι. 11. Vienna (0 ΧΧΠΙ.)

All these coins are discussed by Kenner, St. lor. p. 78.

12.—Paus. vil. 20, 9. Τὸ μὲν δὴ ἄγαλμα τοῦ ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ,
πλὴν ἐσθῆτος, λίθου τὰ ἄλλα.
vu. 21, 14. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἱερὸν Πατρεῦσιν ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ"
τοῦτο τὸ ἱερὸν ὑπὲρ τὴν ἀκρόπολιν τῶν πυλῶν ἐστὶν
ἐγγὺς αἱ ἐπὶ Μεσάτιν ἄγουσιν.
ASKLEPIUS standing, resting, as usual, on serpent-staff.
2 Sabina. Berlin.

M. Aur. M.S. tv. 144, 962. Paris.
Commod. B.M. Berlin. (0 xxtv.)

13.—Paus. vil. 21,10. Ἔν Πάτραις δὲ οὐ πολὺ ἀπωτέρω τοῦ
Ποσειδῶνος ἱερά ἐστιν ᾿Αφροδίτης.

Head of APHRODITE.
R Aut. 18. M.

86 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

Eros embracing Psyche.
4 Commod. Imh. JM. G. p. 166.
14—Paus. vil. 21, 10. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἀγάλματα τοῦ λιμένος
ἐγγυτάτω χαλκοῦ πεποιημένα ἤλρεως, τὸ δὲ ᾿Απόλλωνος.
ARES standing, helmeted, holds spear and shield.

7M, Aur. Paris. (No shield.)
Sept. Sev. M.S. rv. 151, 1009.

15.—Paus. vit. 21, 13. Ἔν Πάτραις δὲ πρὸς τῷ ἄλσει καὶ
ἱερὰ δύο ἐστὶ Σαράπιδος: ἐν δὲ τῷ ἑτέρῳ πεποίηται
μνῆμα Αἰγύπτου τοῦ Βήλου.

Head-dress of ISIs.

J Cleopatra. B. M. Imh.

16.—OTHER TYPES at Patrae.

Male figure naked, standing on a column in a circular

enclosure.

ff Galba. Berlin.
Domit. Naples. Paris.
Hadr. M.S. Loebbecke. (RI.)

Rome seated, holding standard, crowned by a warrior wearing

helmet and holding spear.

JE Domitian. Froehner. (R 1.)
M. Aur., Commodus. Paris, &c.

Genius of the City; holds patera and cornucopiae at altar.
(Sometimes inscribed GEN[ius].)

JE Nero. Imh. B. M. Domit., &c.

Tyche of the city, turreted, holding cornucopiae.

ZE Verus, Commodus, το.

Head of Tyche, with cornucopiae.

Herakles resting on club,

Z Nero. Imh. Inser. HERCVLI AVGYSTO.
M. Aur. B. M., &c.

Herakles holding club in both hands, lion’s skin on left
arm.
2 Commodus. Bibl. Turin. (R 111.)
Hermes seated, ram at his feet; holds purse and caduceus.
fi Carac. B. M. Imh. Berlin.
Similar figure in temple.
Ji Commod. Mion. Berl. Carac. Imh. (Riv.) B. M. Berlin.
Hermes standing, ram at his feet; behind him, term.
fi Verus. Berlin. (RvV.)
Commod., Severus.
Juppiter Liberator (so inscribed) :—
Zeus standing, holds eagle and sceptre.
Zi Nero. Paris.

Libertas, ὅσο.

AEGIUM. 87

~ The figure of Hermes seated (R Iv.) is closely similar to a
type of Corinth (F cx., cx1.), but not identical, for at Patrae
the god holds a purse in his right hand, which he does not at
Corinth. In this case it is clear that either the people of
Patrae copied their cultus-statue from that of the Corinthians,
or the people of Corinth from the Patreans. The standing
figure of Hermes (R Vv.) also nearly resembles one on a coin of
Corinth (Εἰ LXXXxV1L.).
AEGIUM.

1—Paus. vil. 23, 5. Αἰὐγιεῦσι δὲ Εἰλειθυίας ἱερόν ἐστιν
ἀρχαῖον, καὶ ἡ Εἰλείθυια ἐς ἄκρους ἐκ κεφαλῆς τοὺς
πόδας ὑφάσματι κεκάλυπται λεπτῷ, ξόανον πλὴν προσ-
ὦπου τε καὶ χειρῶν ἄκρων καὶ ποδῶν: ταῦτα δὲ τοῦ
᾿ Πεντελησίου λίθου πεποίηται: καὶ ταῖς χερσὶ τῇ μὲν

ἐς εὐθὺ ἐκτέταται, τῇ δὲ ἀνέχει δᾷδα. :

ἔργον δὲ τοῦ Μεσσηνίου Δαμοφῶντός ἐστι τὸ ἄγαλμα.
EILEITHUIA facing, clad in long chiton with diplois, head
wears polos; holds in raised right torch, in extended

left hand another torch.

A Ant. Pius. B. M. Mus. Arig. τι. 14,155. Bibl. Turin. (R v1.)
L. Verus. Mus. Arig. 1. 5, 76.
S. Sev. Sest. Mus. Font. p. 51, 4. Berlin.
Carac. Imh. (Position of arms transposed.)

Geta. Paris. (Figure turreted.) Inscr. ΑἸ ΓΊΕΟΟΝ ACI (R vit.).

The identification of the figure on R VL, vi, as Eileithuia
cannot be regarded as certain. If we accept the identification
we must suppose that the word das has fallen out after ἐκτέταται,
‘in one hand she holds out a torch, in the other holds up a
torch’: and in support of this emendation we may cite the
occurrence of δᾷδας in the plural in the next line. On the
other hand the Paris coin (R Vil.) presents in this view dif-
ficulties. On it the head of the goddess wears a turreted crown,
which seems inappropriate to Eileithuia. The final letters of
the inscription on this coin are uncertain; all that is visible is
ACI which may stand for 10 assaria, but may also be the
beginning of some explanatory word like the ZEYC METAC,
which occurs at Aegium beside the figure of Zeus. Nearly
similar are the two figures on a coin of Argos, Καὶ XL., which are
explained in the text as two EHileithuiae.

The following may, perhaps, be ἃ representation of
Kileithuia :—

88 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANIAS.

Female figure, hair in knot, and clad in long chiton with
diplois ; holds in extended right an object which may be
a torch, her left hand hangs by her side.
# Auton. Obv. head of Artemis. B. M. Klagenfurt. (R vu.)
Engraved in Wieseler’s Denkmaeler (τι. 57, 729) and Gerhard,
Ant, Bildw. ccctx., 1, is a figure of Eileithuia professedly taken
from a coin of Aegium. It is, however, evidently badly drawn,
and appears to be rather a copy of a figure of Eileithuia or
Demeter at Bura.
2.—Paus. VIL. 23, 7. Τῆς δὲ Εἰλειθυίας οὐ μακρὰν ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ
τέ ἐστι τέμενος καὶ ἀγάλματα “Ὑγιείας καὶ ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ.
ἰαμβεῖον δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ βάθρῳ τὸν Μεσσήνιον Δαμοφῶντα
εἶναι τὸν εἰργασμένον φησίν.
ASKLEPIOS seated to right, on throne, himation falling from
shoulder, holds in right hand sceptre ; before him, serpent

twined round altar.
Ji M. Aurel. M.S. 1v. 25, 146. Paris. (Said to hold Victory, but wrongly.)
Commodus. Berlin. (Kk Ix.)
Sept. Sev. M.S. Iv. 27, 158.
Hygieia standing; her right hand over altar, round which
snake twines; in her left, patera.

EM. Aurel. Vienna.
Sept. Sev. Loebbecke. (R x.)

Asklepios seated, and Hygieia standing; between them, altar
entwined by serpent.
# Commod. M.S. Iv. 26, 152,154. Paris. (R χι.)

There can be scarcely a doubt that these figures reproduce
the group of Damophon ; on all the coins the snake-entwined
altar appears as a sort of identification; and the separate figures
on IX. and X. are exactly reproduced in the group on XI. We
thus gain definite and welcome information as to the style of
Damophon, information which seems to show that in repre-
senting Asklepios he followed the type of the Zeus of Pheidias.
In his Hygieia, also, which is of noble and majestic type, he
seems to have followed the traditions of the best school. This
confirms the view of Brunn (G7. K., 1. 291), ‘we shall not err
in recognising in Damophon one of the most religious artists
of his time, who endeavoured to retain art at that level of
moral elevation to which it had been raised, principally by
Pheidias.’

3.—Paus. VIL 23,9. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ Διὸς ἐπίκλησιν Σωτῆρος
ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ τέμενος, καὶ ἀγάλματα ἐσελθόντων ἐν

AEGIUM. 89

> a a \ > / \ \ >? ” /
ἀριστερᾷ χαλκοῦ μὲν ἀμφότερα, TO δὲ οὐκ ἔχον TH γένεια
ἐφαίνετο ἀρχαιότερον εἶναί μοι.
24, 4, Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἄλλα Αἰγιεῦσιν ἀγάλματα χαλκοῦ
πεποιημένα, Ζεύς τε ἡλικίαν παῖς καὶ Ἡρακλῆς, οὐδὲ
a » / ᾽ / / nm. 3 /
οὗτος ἔχων mw γένεια, ᾿Αγελάδα τέχνη τοῦ ᾿Αργείου.
Archaic statue of Zeus on basis, naked, without beard, holds

in raised right, thunderbolt, on extended left arm, eagle.

# Auton. Obdv. Head of bearded Zeus. B.M. (R x11.) &e.
Ant. Pius. B. M. Paris.
Ant. Pius. Sest. Mws. Font. pl. iv. 2.
M. Aur. Mion. ΚΒ: Iv. 25, 144. Paris. (R ΧΕ.)
Sept. Sev. Leake, Lur. p. 5.

The British Museum coin (R XII.) bears the inscription
HMIOBEAIN (ἡμιωβόλιον), shewing its current value. The
inscription on the Fontana coin is in the engraving in the
Mus. Font., ZEYC MELAC, the second word being indistinct,
so that there stood on the coin either ZEYC ΜΕΓΑΚ or,
perhaps, ZEYC CWTHP. On the Paris coin (R XL) the
reading seems to be AIFIEWN NAIC, ‘the child of the people
of Aegae.” The figure of Zeus on both the coins on our plate
is beardless. There can be no question that this striding archaic
figure is intended to represent a statue; this is proved by the
basis or plinth, sometimes hung with wreaths, on which he
stands. A doubt may, however, be entertained which of the
statues of Zeus mentioned by Pausanias is here intended: he
speaks of two, both archaic, and both beardless. He seems to
ascribe one of the two to Ageladas of Argos, and our coin-type
is in attitude just like that which reproduces the statue by
Ageladas preserved at Messene (P v.). It is not important to
decide the question, as the attitude of the figure of Zeus on the
coins is quite conventional. The hinder foot does not rest: flat
on the ground, but the heel is raised; and the anatomy of the
body is well rendered, but the treatment of the hair, which falls
in long curls, is archaic.

There seems insufficient foundation for Jahn’s theory that
Zeus under this form is regularly Polieus.

Zeus as an infant suckled by the she-goat Amaltheia; on

either side, tree; above, eagle with spread wings.

# Auton. Bull. dell’ 1. 1848, p. 109. (Streber, Denkschr. αἰ. K. Acad. zu Minch.
vil. pl. τῷ 26.) Bibl. Turin. (R xiv.)

The proper home of the myth of Amaltheia was in Crete ;
but there was probably at Aegium a local legend which in

90 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

some way connected the name of the city with her, Αἴγιον
with αἴξ.
4.—Paus. VIL 24, 2. Καὶ τέταρτον “Ομαγυρίῳ Διί. ἐνταῦθα
Διὸς καὶ ᾿Αφροδίτης ἐστὶ καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἀγάλματα.
ὋὉμαγύριος δὲ ἐγένετο τῷ Διὶ ἐπίκλησις, ὅτι ᾿Αγαμέμνων
ἤθροισεν, K.T.D.
24,3. ᾿Εφεξῆς δὲ τῷ “Ομαγυρίῳφ Διὶ ΠΠαναχαιᾶς ἐστὶ
Δήμητρος. |
-E of Achaean League :—
Obv. Zeus standing, naked ; holds Nike and long sceptre (R XV.).
fev. Female figure seated, holds wreath and long sceptre
(R Xv).
fi Geta. Zeusasabove. M.S. tv. 30, 168.

As all the bronze coins of the Achaean League bear these
types, they would seem to represent the principal deities of the
place of meeting of the League. After the destruction of
Helice, this was Aegium, and solemn sacrifices were offered to
the principal deities of that city. It seems that the historical
associations connected with Zeus Homagyrius made him a
peculiarly suitable patron-deity for the League.

The figure on the coin, a naked Zeus, holding Victory in his
hand, may well be a copy of a statue set up in this temple in
the days of the revival of the League, or possibly at an earlier
period. The figure of the reverse may, perhaps, be Demeter
Panachaia, but it certainly has none of the attributes of Demeter.
It would therefore be preferable to regard it as representing not
Demeter but Achaia personified. Similarly Aetolia appears on
coins of the Aetolian League, Bithynia on those of the Bithynian
kings, Roma on those of Rome, &c.

The following is certainly Demeter :—

Demeter standing, holds in right hand poppies and corn, in
left hand, sceptre.

LL. Verus. Leake, Suppl. Eur. p. 111. (R xvii.)

Zeus naked, standing, holds eagle and long sceptre, held

transversely, garment over Jeft arm.

JL. Verus. Arig. 1. Imp. v. 76.
Carac. M.S. rv. 28,159. Paris. (R XvIutt.)

Zeus seated, holds Victory and sceptre.
Plautilla. Pellerin, Mélanges, 1. pl. 1, 8.

Head of Zeus, right, laur.
# Auton. Vienna. (R xix.) Imh. B.M. Inscribed HMIOBEAIN.

AEGIUM. 91

A very unusual type of head for Zeus.

5.—Paus. vil. 23,9. Αἰγιεῦσι δὲ ᾿Αθηνᾶς τε ναὸς καὶ Ἥρας
ἐστὶν ἄλλος. ᾿Αθηνᾶς μὲν δὴ δύο ἀγάλματα λευκοῦ
λίθου. Cf. 23,10. Ἔστι μὲν Ποσειδῶν καὶ ἩΗρακλῆς,
ἔστι δὲ Ζεύς τε καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶ, θεοὺς δὲ σφὰς καλοῦσιν ἐξ
Αργους. ᾿

PALLAS standing, holds spear and shield which rests on the
ground.

ALM. Aurel. Mus. Arig. τι. 14, 154. (Pallas unhelmeted ἢ
Commod. Sest. Princ. Danimarca, 18, 1.
Carac. Berlin. (R xx.)

This type of Athene is not usual in Peloponnese ; it is quite
different from the usual Athene Panachaea (Q XIV.).
6.—Paus. vu. 24, 1. Αἰγιεῦσι δὲ ἔστι μὲν πρὸς TH ἀγορᾷ
ναὸς ᾿Απόλλωνι καὶ ᾿Αρτέμιδι ἐν κοινῷ: ἔστι δὲ ἐν τῇ
ἀγορᾷ ἱερὸν ᾿Αρτέμιδος, τοξευούσῃ δὲ εἴκασται.
Artemis clad in short chiton; in her raised right, torch; in

her left, which rests on pillar, a bow; dog at her feet.

Ant. Pius. Imh. (ἢ XX1.)
Sept. Sev. Berlin.

Artemis running, her veil floating round her head; holds torch
in each hand: at her feet, dog (which, however, looks
more like a peacock).

ΑΕ Domna. Imh. (R xxi.)

Τοξευούσῃ δὲ εἴκασται reminds us of the phrase used by
Pausanias of Artemis Laphria at Patrae; and the figure on
R ΧΧΙ. is apparently a variation on the archaic Laphria of
Menaechmus and Soidas, the goddess holding a torch in her
right hand, instead of resting it on her side.

7.—Paus. vil. 24, 2. ΤΠΙρὸς θαλάσσῃ δὲ ᾿Αφροδίτης ἱερὸν ἐν
Αἰγίῳ, καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτὸ ἸΤ]οσειδῶνος.

PosEIDON standing, his right foot on a rock, his right hand

resting on trident.
Zi Commodus. M.S. tv. 27, 155.
APHRODITE naked, arranging her tresses; at her feet, dolphin.
A Faustina Jun. Griolet at Geneva. (R XXII.)
8.—OTHER TYPES at Aegium.
Phthia advancing right, her peplum flying, before her, dove of
colossal size.
# Auton. B. M. (R xxiv.) Eckhel, W. V. p. 118.
For the story of Phthia and the dove, see Athenaeus, p. 395a.
This is, with one doubtful exception (Overbeck, Kunstmyth.

92 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

Ir. p. 415), the only representation of the myth cf Phthia, It
has already been rightly explained by Khell and Eckhel.

River-god reclining; holds vase and reed.

Z Auton. LEckhel, VW. V. 118. Vienna.

Head of Aegium turreted, inscribed AITION.

# Auton. Vienna.

Sarapis and Fortune, side by side.

fi M. Aur. Kenner, St. Flor. p. 59, pl. 11.8.

Turreted female figure, holds sceptre and cornucopiae.

fi M. Aur. Sept. Sev. Plautilla.
Carac. Loebbecke.

HELICE.
1.—Paus. vil. 24,5. ᾿Ενταῦθα &ento‘EXixn πόλις, καὶ ἴωσιν
ἱερὸν ἁγιώτατον Llocerd@vos ἣν ᾿λικωνίου.
Obv. Head of POSEIDON in circle of waves.

Rev. Trident between fishes in wreath.
# Auton. Fourth century. Z. /f. N. vit. pl. vil. 6.

BURA.

1.—Paus. vu. 25, 9. Τῆς Bovpas ἐγένοντο οἰκισταί. Naos
ἐνταῦθα Δήμητρος, ὁ δὲ “Adpoditns Διονύσου τέ ἐστι,
Ν yA 7 > / / a , \
Kat ἄλλος Εἰλειθυίας. Ad@ov τοῦ ]εντελησίου τὰ
ἀγάλματα, ᾿Αθηναίου δὲ ἔργα Εὐκλείδου: καὶ τῇ Δήμητρί

ἐστιν ἐσθής.
DEMETER or EILEITHUIA, clad in long chiton and himation ;

right hand raised; in left, torch.

J Caracalla. Munich.
Geta. B.M. (ΒΒ 1.)

APHRODITE partly nude ; holds sceptre.

fi Domna. Mion. 11. 165,128. (Vaillant.)

It is not certain whether the figure on § 1. is of Demeter or
of Eileithuia. The outstretched right hand would tell rather
in favour of the latter attribution, it being very usual to
find on vases figures of Eileithuia with outstretched hands,
a gesture intended to indicate a smooth course in child-
birth. The phrase of Pausanias strictly taken would seem to
assert that the figure of Demeter alone was draped, those of
Aphrodite, Dionysus, and Eileithuia all undraped; but it can
scarcely be supposed that Eileithuia would be nude. As to
Eucleides of Athens see Brunn (Gr. K. 1. p. 274), who con-
jectures that he worked for the people of Bura when they
restored their city soon after its destruction in B.c. 373. In

AEGIRA. 93

that case he would be a contemporary of Damophon, a period
which will very well suit the figure on 5. 1. We shall return to
Eucleides under Aegira.

2—Paus. vill. 25, 10. Καταβάντων δὲ ἐκ Bovpas ὡς ἐπὶ

θάλασσαν ποταμός τε Bovpaixds ὀνομαζόμενος καὶ
«ς “ > / > \ 3 / > / \
Ἡρακλῆς ov μέγας ἐστὶν ἐν σπηλαίῳ" ἐπίκλησις μὲν
καὶ τούτου Βουραϊκός.

Temple on a hill, in the side of which is a portico, and a cave
within which statue of Herakles, spear? in raised right

hand; below, a vase.

Ji Geta. Prok.-Osten, 4. Z. 1843, pl. rx. 14.
Athens. (§ 11.) Vienna.

HERAKLES bearded, standing ; raised club in right hand, lion’s
skin in left; behind him, bow.

J Geta. Mion. τι. 166, 129.
Geta. Vienna. (§ III.)

There is an apparent discrepancy between the type of the
figure in the shrine or cave on § I. and the figure of Herakles
on $11. The former seems to hold a spear, and is so described
by v. Duhn in Mittheil. d. d. Inst. Ath. 11. 62; the latter clearly
holds a club. But considering the very small size of the figure
on § IL. we can scarcely insist upon this apparent difference. It
is likely that in both cases a figure of Herakles is intended, of
which figure § UL. gives us, of course, the best idea. This
figure is of stiff and decidedly archaic type, dating from not
later than the middle of the fifth century. The antiquity of
the Buraic cultus of Herakles is shewn by its seat being in a
cave, and by the survival in connection with it of a primitive
oracle by lot. Beside the cave on § U. is a portico, and
above it, on the top of the hill, a temple, no doubt of one of
the deities mentioned by Pausanias in the passage above
quoted.

AEGIRA.
1.—Paus. Vil. 26, 3. ᾿Αρτέμιδος ᾿Αγροτέρας ἐποιήσαντο ἱερόν,
τὸ σόφισμα ἐς τοὺς Σικυωνίους οὐκ ἄνευ THs ᾿Αρτέμιδος
σφισιν ἐπελθεῖν νομίζοντες... .. .. ᾿Αρτέμιδός τε ναὸς
καὶ ἄγαλμα τέχνης τῆς ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν.
vil. 20,11. Θεῶν δὲ ἱερὰ Διονύσου καὶ ᾿Αρτέμιδός ἐστιν"
ἡ μὲν χαλκοῦ πεποίηται, βέλος δὲ ἐκ φαρέτρας λαμ-
βάνουσα.
ARTEMIS as huntress, standing; holds in left, bow, and with

94 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

right hand draws arrow from quiver; at her feet, dog
looking up.

Plautilla. B.M. Munich. (§1v.) M.S. Iv. 22, 128.

In Sest. Lett. Num. Cont. v. p. 11 Artemis is said to hold a
torch in place of the bow on coins of Plautilla.

Similar figure of Artemis running.

ΑΕ Plautilla. Berlin. (§ v.)

The phrase τέχνης τῆς ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν would well characterize
either of these figures.

Deer.
KX Auton. B. M.

2.—Paus. Vil. 26, 4. ἸΤΙαρείχετο δὲ ἡ Αἴγειρα és συγγραφὴν
ἱερὸν Διὸς καὶ ἄγαλμα καθήμενον, λίθου τοῦ Ἰ]εντελησίου,
᾿Αθηναίου δὲ ἔργον Εὐκλείδου.

ZEUS seated, in attitude of the Olympian deity ; holds Victory

and sceptre.

ZE Sep. Sev. Sest. Lcté. Num. Cont. vit. p. 2, No. 2,
Plautilla. B. M. (§ vi.) Sest. Zc. No. 4.
Plautilla. Leake, Hur. Sup. p. 111.

This representation, though of very ordinary character, yet, if
we suppose it a copy of Eucleides’ work, has interest as shewing
that Eucleides adhered to the Pheidian school in his statue
of Zeus, as indeed we might suppose from his representing a
seated Zeus at all. Eucleides was probably a contemporary of
Damophon, and he seems, if we may judge from the very
slight evidence which remains (see under Bura), to have
followed the same tendencies.
3.—Paus. VI. 26, 4. Ἔν τούτῳ τῷ ἱερῷ καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἄγαλμα
ἕστηκε: πρόσωπόν τε καὶ ἄκραι χεῖρες ἐλέφαντος καὶ οἱ
πόδες, τὸ δὲ ἄλλο ξόανον χρυσῷ τε ἐπιπολῆς διηνθισ-
μένον ἐστὶ καὶ φαρμάκοις.

PALLAS standing, holds spear, and shield which rests on the

ground,

Zi Sept. Sev. Paris. Loebbecke. (§ vil.)
Plautilla. Mus. Arig. τν. pl. x11. No. 54.

Compare R xx. and our remarks on it.
4.—Paus. vil. 26, 7. ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ δὲ ἀγάλματα ὀρθά ἐστιν ἐν
lal \ ay / ὃ e / 0 \ 24] | ὃ , Ν lal
ναῷ, καὶ Σαράπιδος ἑτέρωθι καὶ Ἴσιδος, λίθου Kai ταῦτα
Πεντελησίου.

ASKLEPIUS standing as usual,
Plautilla. M.S. τν. 22, 129; 29, 166. Paris.

PELLENE. 95

Head of Asklepius.

J Auton. Mion. 11. 164, 118.

ACKAH in wreath (Asklepicia, the Games).

#E Auton. Sest. Let. Num. 1x. pl. 1. 32.

Hygieia standing.

Geta. St, Flor. p. 61, pl. 11. 9.

5.—Paus. VIL 26,8. Οἶδα καὶ οἴκημα ἐν Aiyetpa θεασάμενος:
ἄγαλμα ἣν ἐν τῷ οἰκήματι Τύχης, τὸ κέρας φέρουσα τὸ
᾿Αμαλθείας: παρὰ δὲ αὐτὴν “Epws πτερὰ ἔχων ἐστίν.

TYcHE turreted ; holds sceptre and cornucopiae.

A Plautilla. M.S. 1v. 22,131. Paris.
Plautilla. Berlin. Loebbecke. (§ σι.)

Tyche as above, face to face with Eros winged, who stands
with legs crossed leaning on a long torch or staff:
between them, altar entwined by serpent ?

A Plautilla. Berlin. (§ 1x.)

In this case, the juxtaposition of Tyche with Eros shews that
both figures are intended as copies of the statues.

PELLENE.

1.—Paus. vil. 27,2. Κατὰ δὲ τὴν ὁδὸν ἐς αὐτὴν τὴν πόλιν
ἐστὶν ᾿Αθηνᾶς λίθου μὲν ἐπιχωρίου ναός, ἐλέφαντος δὲ
τὸ ἄγαλμα καὶ χρυσοῦ: Φειδίαν δὲ εἶναι τὸν εἰργασ-
μένον φασί, πρότερον ἔτι ἢ ἐν τῇ ἀκροπόλει τε αὐτὸν τῇ
᾿Αθηναίων καὶ ἐν Ἰ]λαταιαῖς ποιῆσαι τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τὰ
ἀγάλματα.

PALLAS clad in long chiton, thrusting with lance, and holding

before her oval shield.

J Sept. Sev. Bibl. Turin. (§ x.) Mus. Arig. 1v. No. 52, pl. xt.
Domna. Paris.
Plautilla, δέ, Flor. p. 79.

This is a most interesting illustration of what 'Pausanias con-
sidered to be the early style of Pheidias. The character of the
figure on our coin is far earlier than the Athenian statues of
Pallas by Pheidias, and in type approaches such figures as
the Athene Chalcivecus N ΧΠῚ., or the statue by Dipoenus and
Scyllis at Cleonae H 1. The device on the shield of the god-
dess is on our coin (§ x.) not clear, it looks like the upper
part of a human figure; in the Arigoni Cat. it is drawn as the
upper part of a Giant or Triton. It may very probably be
only a winged Gorgoneion. The hair of the goddess seems
to fall in a queue behind; her closely-fitting chiton is divided

96 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

into a set of vertical bands, which bands may possibly have been

adorned with scenes in relief, as in the case of the Pallas of

Gitiadas ; her aegis falls over her bosom as a breast-plate. The

type is fully discussed by Kenner (St. Flor. p. 79).

2.—Paus. vil. 27,3. Τοῦ δὲ ἄλσους τῆς Σωτείρας ἱερὸν ἀπαν-
τικρὺ Διονύσου Λαμπτῆρός ἐστιν ἐπίκλησιν: τούτῳ καὶ
Λαμπτήρια ἑορτὴν ἄγουσι, καὶ δᾷδάς τε ἐς τὸ ἱερὸν
κομίζουσιν ἐν νυκτί, καὶ οἴνου κρατῆρας ἱστᾶσιν ἀνὰ
τὴν πόλιν πᾶσαν.

Dionysus clad only in cothurni, standing; holds in right,
wine-cup, in left, long thyrsos or torch, bound with
fillet.

# Sept. Sev. Β. Μ. (§ x1.) Mus. Sancl. Ν. 5. τι. 25, 222.

3.—Paus. vil. 27,4. Ἔστι καὶ ᾿Απόλλωνος Θεοξενίου Πελ-
ληνεῦσιν ἱερόν, τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα χαλκοῦ πεποίηται:
Πλησίον δὲ τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος ναός ἐστιν ᾿Αρτέμιδος"
τοξευούσης δὲ ἡ θεὸς παρέχεται σχῆμα. Cf. 27, 3.

Head of APOLLO.

M Auton.

ARTEMIS clad in short chiton, running, holds arrow or torch
and bow, quiver at shoulder ; in front, stag, behind, dog.

J Sept. Sev. Mus. Sanel. N.S. τι. p. 288.
Carac. B.M. (8 x11.)

This precise type of Artemis, and the stag and dog on either
side of her, forming as it were supporters, appears also on the
coins of Corinth, D Lxvi.-Lxvul.; and at that city is proved
to be a copy of a statue by its appearance on coins in a
temple.

4.—Paus. vil. 27, 11. ᾿Απωτέρω δὲ οὐ πολὺ ἀπὸ τοῦ Μυσαίου
ἱερόν ἐστιν ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ καλούμενον Κῦρος, καὶ ἰάματα
ἀνθρώποις παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ γίνεται.

ASKLEPIUS standing : holds serpent-staff, left hand wrapped in

himation.
JES. Sev. Mus. Arig. tv. No. 55, pl. χιν.
Domna. M.S. Iv. 158, 1041. Paris.
Domna. Munich. (§ xm1.)

This is a variety on the usual representations of Asklepius:
the deity holds the serpent-staff differently.
OTHER TYPES at Pellene.

Zeus standing, naked, holds in right, long sceptre.
i Sept. Sev. Berlin. (Καὶ xiv.)
Carac, B. M. (Cf. Paus. vir. 27, 8.)

MANTINEIA. 97

Tyche, holds patera and cornucopiae.

Z Sept. Sev. B. M. Loebbecke.
Geta. B. M.

Nike.
A Caracalla. Imh.
The Zeus is like the standing figure of that deity at Argos,
K xxviii.
ARCADIA.
1.—Paus. vil. 2, 6. “O ἸΠελασγός: ὁ δὲ τὸν καρπὸν τῶν
δρυῶν οὔτι που πασῶν, ἀλλὰ τὰς βαλάνους τῆς φηγοῦ
τροφὴν ἐξεῦρεν εἶναι.
Acorn. (Coins of Mantineia.)
M Auton. Fifth century. B. M. &c.
2.—Paus. VIL 3, 6. ᾿Εποίησεν ἄρκτον τὴν Καλλιστώ, *Apte-
pus δὲ ἐς χάριν τῆς Ἥρας κατετόξευσεν αὐτήν. καὶ ὁ
Ζεὺς “Ἑρμῆν πέμπει σῶσαι τὸν παῖδά οἱ προστάξας, ὃν
ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ εἶχεν ἡ Καλλιστώ.
Arcas. See below, under Mantineia.
Bear. See below, under Mantineia.
CaLuisto. See Orchomenus, Methydrion.
HERMES AND ArcAS. See Pheneus.

MANTINEIA.

1—Paus. vil. 9,1. Ἔστι δὲ Μαντινεῦσι ναὸς διπλοῦς μάλιστά
που κατὰ μέσον τοίχῳ διειργόμενος: τοῦ ναοῦ δὲ τῇ μὲν
ἄγαλμά ἐστιν ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ, τέχνη ᾿Αλκαμένους.

ASKLEPIUS standing, serpent-staff under left shoulder.

#£ S. Sev. and Carac. M. 11. 249, 33, 35.
Domna. Loebbecke. (§ xv.)
Plautilla. B. M.

Hygieia standing.
#i Domna. M. 11. 249, 34.

The figure of Asklepius is of the usual conventional character,
just like the Megarean type A vi. We should naturally expect
the statue of Alcamenes to be seated; and there is no special
reason to suppose that the figure on the coin reproduces a statue.

2.—Paus. vill. 9, 1. To δὲ ἕτερον Λητοῦς ἐστὶν ἱερὸν καὶ

τῶν παίδων: ἸΠραξιτέλης δὲ τὰ ἀγάλματα εἰργάσατο
τρίτῃ μετὰ ᾿Αλκαμένην ὕστερον γενεᾷ. Cf. ὅ4,ὅ. Μετὰ
δὲ ἐκτραπεῖσιν ἐς ἀριστερὰ ὅσον στάδιον ᾿Απόλλωνος
ἐπίκλησιν ἸΤυθίου καταλεχυμένον ἐστὶν ἱερὸν καὶ ἐρείπια
ἐς ἅπαν.

H.§.—VOL. VII. Η

98 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

ApoLo clad in long chiton and himation, holds in might,
plectrum, in left, lyre which rests on column.

i Domna. B. M.
Plautilla. Β. Μ. (§ xvi.) Munich.

Head of Apollo.
JAX Auton.
ARTEMIS advancing, accompanied by her dog.

& Sept. Sev. M.S. 1v. 280, 47.
Plautilla. M.S. rv. 280, 52.

Artemis clad in short chiton, holds torch in each hand.

. & Plautilla. M.S. rv. 280, 53. Paris. (§ xvii.)
Plautilla. Leake, Hur. Sup. p. 132.

We can scarcely venture to connect these types with the
statues of Praxiteles.

3.—Paus. vil. 9, 2. Μαντινεῦσι δέ ἐστι καὶ ἄλλα ἱερά, TO
μὲν Σωτῆρος Διός, τὸ δὲ ᾿Επιδώτου καλουμένου.

Zeus naked facing, in right, long sceptre, left hand on hip.

Ai Geta. Paris.

4.—Paus. vul. 9,2. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ Διοσκούρων .. . ἱερόν.

Altar or edifice; over the top of which appear the heads and
shoulders of the DioscURI wearing pilei, one hand raised,
spears over shoulders.

A Auton. Fourth century. B. M.
Imh. Jon. Gr. p. 199. (§ Xviil.)

The obverse of this coin is as follows :—
Fisherman? wearing conical pileus, clothes girt round waist,
and boots with toes turned up; carries two lances.

M Auton. Fourthcentury. B.M. Photiades Coll. (§ xrx.)
Imh. Mon. Gr. pp. 199, 200.
# Auton. Ibid.

Both of these types are, on coins of so early a period, of
unexampled singularity. They are discussed by Imhoof /e.
One of the most curious features of the supposed fisherman are
his boots, which are not merely turned up, but seem to end in
serpents ; his clothes too are girt up in an extraordinary fashion.

5.—Paus. vill. 9,3. Πρὸς δὲ τῆς Ἥρας τῷ βωμῷ καὶ ᾿Αρκάδος
τάφος τοῦ Καλλιστοῦς ἐστι.

Bearded head of warrior, ARCAS ?

A Auton.

Arcas as an infant, seated.

AM Auton. Photiades Coll.

Arcas? standing; rests right hand on bearded Term; in left,

spear.
Zi Sept. Sev. Berlin. (Καὶ xx.)

ORCHOMENUS. 99

The terminal figure may signify a tomb, as on coins of Sicyon
H 1 uw. And in that case the hero standing may well be
Areas. Local heroes of the <Atistes class are very frequently
represented on coins of Peloponnesus.

6.—Paus. vill. 9, 7. Σέβουσι δὲ καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶν ᾿Αλέαν, καὶ
ἱερόν τε καὶ ἄγαλμα ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἐστὶν ᾿Αλέας αὐτοῖς.

Head of PALLAs, helmeted.

AM A Auton.

7.—Paus. vill. 9,7. ᾿Βνομίσθη δὲ καὶ ᾿Αντίνους σφίσιν εἶναι
θεός: ναῶν δὲ ἐν Μαντινείᾳ νεώτατός ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ ᾿Αντίνου
moe hs fe δὲ τιμὰς δὲ ἐν Μαντινείᾳ κατὰ τοιόνδε
ἔσχηκε. γένος ἣν ὁ ᾿Αντίνους ἐκ (Βιθυνίου πόλεως)
Βιθυνίας τῆς ὑπὲρ Σαγγαρίου ποταμοῦ: οἱ δὲ Βιθυνιεῖς
᾿Αρκάδες τέ εἰσι καὶ Μαντινεῖς. τὰ ἄνωθεν.

ZK Obv. Bust of ANTINOUS.

Rev. Free horse.

Inscribed EETOYPIOC TOIC APKACI.

The horse is a symbol of the heroic honours paid to

Antinous.

Bridled horse.

i Caracalla. Berlin.

8.—Paus. vul. 10, 2. Παρὰ δὲ τοῦ ὄρους τὰ ἔσχατα τοῦ
Ποσειδῶνός ἐστι τοῦ “Ἱππίου τὸ ἱερόν, οὐ πρόσω σταδίου
Μαντινείας" τὸ μὲν δὴ ἱερὸν τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν ὠκοδομήσατο
᾿Αδριανὸς βασιλεύς.

POSEIDON seated left, on rock, holds dolphin and trident.

fi Auton. B. M.

Poseidon naked, striding with trident; sometimes a dragon
before him.

# Auton. B. M.

Trident.

AR A Auton.

9,—OTHER TYPES at Mantineia.

Tyche ; holds patera and cornucopiae, at altar.
#E Plautilla. Imh. &c.

Nike running: holds wreath.

Plautilla. Berlin.

ORCHOMENUS.
1.—Paus. vill. 13,1. Ἔν ἀριστερᾷ τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς ἀπὸ ’Ayye-
σιῶν, ἐν ὑπτίῳ τοῦ ὄρους τὸ ἱερόν ἐστι τῆς Ὑμνίας
᾿Αρτέμιδος.
Η 2

100 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

18, 2. Πρὸς δὲ τῇ πόλει ξόανόν ἐστιν ᾿Αρτέμιδος- ἵδρυται
δὲ ἐν κέδρῳ μεγάλῃ, καὶ τὴν θεὸν ὀνομάζουσιν ἀπὸ τῆς
κέδρου Κεδρεᾶτιν.

ARTEMIS standing, clad in long chiton, shooting arrow from bow.

# Auton. B. M. (§ xx1.)

Obv. Artemis wearing petasus and short chiton, kneeling;
right rests on the ground, in left hand, bow, from which
she has just discharged an arrow; behind her, dog
seated (§ XXIL.).

Rev. CALLISTO with bosom bare, seated, and falling backward ;

in her bosom an arrow ; beside her, Arcas playing.

#, Auton. B. M. &e. (§ xxu1.)
Imh. Mon. Gr. p. 203. (Arcas lying.)

Cf. below, VIII. 35, 8.
Artemis clad in short chiton; holds in either hand a torch ;
dog at her feet.

ΚΕ Sept. Sev. Mus. Arig. τ. Imp. 7, 104.
Domna. Mus. Arig. 11. Imp. 21, 289, 290.
Domna. Imh. (§ xxiv.) Munich. (Artemis turned the other way.)

Artemis? seated on throne ; her right hand resting on throne ;
in her left a parazonium.
#£ Auton. Prok.-Osten, Zned. 1854, p. 45. Imh.

We cannot venture to identify the various types of Artemis.
The figure holding two torches (§ XXIV.) nearly resembles that
at Mantineia (§ XVII), and that at Caphyae (T xiv.). The
figure described by Prokesch-Osten as a seated Artemis must
almost certainly be a personification of Arcadia.

2 PaAus. Villy olds, ee Kai Ποσειδῶνός ἐστι καὶ
᾿Αφροδίτης ἱερά: λέθου δὲ τὰ ἀγάλματα.

POSEIDON standing, holds dolphin and trident.

# Domna. M.S. tv. 284, 70.

Female figure draped, resting right arm on column, holds in

left, apple or helmet ? (Venus Victrix ?)

ZE Domna. Μ. S. Iv. 284, 69.
Domna. Leake, Zur. Sup. p. 136. Loebbecke. (T 1.)

3.—OTHER TYPES at Orchomenus.

Dionysus standing, holding wine-cup; beneath the left arm,
stump of tree, panther at his feet.

# Sept. Sev. B. M. Paris. (T τι.) Munich (Without tree).

Apollo in long drapery, leaning on tripod.
# Sept. Sev.

Asklepius standing.

Sept. Sev., Carac,

PHENEUS. 101

Tyche, holds patera and cornucopiae.

«Ἢ Carac.

Two Satyrs facing; one holds grapes and pedum, the other
krater over shoulder.

# Sept. Sev. B. M. (T 111.)

Hero, holding spear and shield.

“Ὁ Auton.

PHENEUS.

1—Paus. vill. 14, 5. .... ᾿Θδυσσέα ἔφασαν ... . idpv-
σασθαι μὲν ἱερὸν ἐνταῦθα ᾿Αρτέμιδος, καὶ Εὑρίππαν
ὀνομάσαι τὴν θεὸν, ἔνθα τῆς Φενεατικῆς χώρας εὗρε τὰς
ἵππους.

Obv. Head of Artemis.

Rev. Horse feeding.

Z Auton. B. M.

2.—Paus. vill. 14, 10. Θεῶν δὲ τιμῶσιν ᾿Ερμῆν Φενεᾶται
μάλιστα, καὶ ἀγῶνα ἄγουσιν “Ἑρμαια, καὶ ναός ἐστιν
Ἕρμοῦ σφισι καὶ ἄγαλμα λέθου: τοῦτο ἐποίησεν ἀνὴρ
᾿Αθηναῖος, Εὔχειρ Ἰυὐβουλίδου.

HERMES naked, carrying in one hand, caduceus, in the other,
young Arcas; inser. APKAS.

Ai Auton. Fourth century. B. M. Loebbecke. (T 1v.) Berlin. (T v.)

Hermes wearing petasos and chlamys, seated on rock ; holds in
right, caduceus, left rests on rock.

A Auton. Fourth century. B. M. Imh. Paris.

Hermes standing: holds purse and caduceus; wears chlamys ;
before him, term.

Carac. M.S. 286, 83. Berlin. Imh. (T VI.)
Plautilla. Μ. 5. 287, 88.
Geta. Loebbecke.

Head of Hermes; caduceus.
AR A Auton.

The autonomous coins (T Iv. and v.) give us no doubt a group
invented by the die-sinker, and not a copy of any sculptural
work. T VI. on the other hand, seems, from the presence of the
Term, to be a reproduction of a statue, very possibly that of
Eucheir, who was, as Brunn (Gr. Kiin., 1. 551) maintains, an
artist of early imperial times, or thereabouts. The general
type is not unlike that of the Hermes on the Ephesian Column,
a type widely spread in Roman times (Journ. Hell, Stud.
τι. 96).

102 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

3.—Paus. vill. 15. Φενεάταις δὲ καὶ Δήμητρός ἐστιν ἱερὸν
ἐπίκλησιν ᾿Ελευσινίας, καὶ ἄγουσι τῇ θεῷ τελετήν, τὰ
Ἐλευσῖνι δρώμενα καὶ παρὰ σφίσι τὰ αὐτὰ φάσκοντες
καθεστηκέναι.

Head οἵ DEMETER.

Ὁ ZZ Auton. Fourth century.

HADES seated, Cerberus at his feet.

A Carac. Mion. 11. 252, 55. M.S. Iv. 286, 82.
Plautilla. Paris.

Hades standing, Cerberus beside him.

# Plautilla. M.S. rv. 287, 86.

Dionysus standing, naked, holds wine-cup and grapes, rests
left arm on tree: beside him, panther.

fi Carac. Munich. (T vil.) Paris.
Plautilla. B. M. δὲ. Flor. p. 96.

Dionysus; holds kantharos and thyrsos.

fi Carac. M.S. Iv. 287, 85.
Mion. 1. 252, 54.
Geta. M.S. Iv. 228, 89. Paris.

Bearded Satyr, Marsyas? naked, right hand raised.
£8. Severus. Rhousopoulos. (T vi.) Paris.

CLEITOR.

1.—Paus. vill. 21, 3. Κλειτορίοις δὲ ἱερὰ τὰ ἐπιφανέστατα
Δήμητρος, τὸ δὲ ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ.

DEMETER? standing; holds patera and long sceptre.

i Domna. B. M. (T 1x.)

On οὖν. Head of Domna as Demeter, holding cornucopiae.

ASKLEPIOS standing.

i Domna. M.S. Iv. 277, 35.

2.—Paus. vit. 21,4. Κλειτορίοις δὲ καὶ Διοσκούρων καλου-
μένων δὲ Θεῶν Μεγάλων ἐστὶν ἱερόν, ὅσον τέσσαρα
ἀπέχον στάδια ἀπὸ τῆς πόλεως, καὶ ἀγάλματά ἐστιν
αὐτοῖς χαλκᾶ.

Naked HORSEMAN on horse galloping.

A Auton. Fifth century.

This horseman may be intended for one of the Dioscuri.

3.—Paus. vill. 21, 4. ἸΠ]εποίηται δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ ὄρους κορυφῆς
σταδίοις τριάκοντα ἀπωτέρω τῆς πόλεως ναὸς καὶ
ἄγαλμα ᾿Αθηνᾶς Kopias.

Head of ATHENE.

A ZH Auton.

4.—OTHER TYPES at Cleitor.

ALEA, 103

Head of Helios.

AX A Auton.

Tyche standing at altar; holds patera and cornucopiae.

Plautilla.

S?TYMPHALUS.

1.—Paus. vill. 22,7. Ἔν Στυμφήλῳ δὲ καὶ ἱερὸν ᾿Αρτέμιδός
ἐστιν ἀρχαῖον Στυμφηλίας: τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα ξόανόν ἐστι
τὰ πολλὰ ἐπίχρυσον. πρὸς δὲ τοῦ ναοῦ TO ὀρόφῳ
πεποιημέναι καὶ αἱ Στυμφηλίδες εἰσὶν ὄρνιθες: σαφῶς
μὲν οὖν χαλεπὸν ἣν διαγνῶναι πότερον ξύλου ποίημα
ἣν ἢ γύψου, τεκμαιρομένοις δὲ ἡμῖν ἐφαίνετο εἶναι
ξύλου μᾶλλον ἢ γύψου.

vill. 22, ὅ. Αὗται μέγεθος μὲν κατὰ γέρανόν εἰσιν ai
ὄρνιθες, ἐοίκασι δὲ ἴβεσι, ῥάμφη δὲ ἀλκιμώτερα φέρουσι
καὶ οὐ σκολιά, ὥσπερ αἱ ἴβεις.

Head of ARTEMIS Stymphalia crowned with laurel.

AR A Auton. Fourth century.

Head of Stymphalian bird.

RQ Auton. Fourth century. B.M. &. Imh. (T x.)

Same head emerging from reeds,

JR Auton. B. M. (JT x1.) &c.

HERAKLES naked, striking with club; in his left hand, bow and
lion’s skin.

“ἃ Auton. B. M. (T x11.) &e.

Head of Herakles.

A Auton.

It is interesting to compare the birds’ heads on the coins
T X., XI, with the exact description of Pausanias. They are
an extreme instance of the dislike of the Greeks for monstrous
forms, reducing the terrible Stymphalian birds of the tale to
mere ordinary water-fowl. It is very curious, too, that Herakles
should be represented as attacking these birds with club rather
than bow.

ALEA.
1—Paus. vil. 28,1. Θεῶν δὲ ἱερὰ αὐτόθι ᾿Αρτέμιδός ἐστιν
Ἐφεσίας καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶς ᾿Αλέας.
Obv. Head of ARTEMIS.
Rev. AA Strung bow.
A, and 4 Auton. B. M. Imh.
Obv. Head of ATHENA.
Rev. AAEA in wreath.
# Auton. Paris.

104 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

CAPHYAE.

1—Paus. vil. 23, 3. Kadvatais δὲ ἱερὰ θεῶν ἸΠοσειδῶνός
> \ > / ri / ᾽ / vy Ν
ἐστι καὶ ἐπίκλησιν Κνακαλησίας ᾿Αρτέμιδος. ἔστι δὲ
αὐτοῖς καὶ ὄρος Κνάκαλος, ἔνθα ἐπέτειον τελετὴν ἄγουσι
τῇ ᾿Αρτέμιδι.

PosEIDON standing, holds dolphin, and trident transversely,
himation wrapped round waist.

A; Domna, Earis, Berlin: (i xr), MES av. 27, 275 =

2.—Paus. 23, 6. Kadvav δὲ ἀφέστηκεν ὅσον στάδιον Kov-
δυλέα χωρίον, καὶ ᾿Αρτέμιδος ἄλσος Kal ναός ἐστιν
> “ / / Ν > lal
ἐνταῦθα καλουμένης ἹΚονδυλεάτιδος τὸ ἀρχαῖον.

ARTEMIS facing, clad in short chiton, a quiver at her shoulder,

holds torch in each hand.

# Auton. M.S. rv. 275, 24.
Sept. Sev. B. M. Leake, Zur. Sup. p. 119.
Domna, M.S. Iv. 276, 29. Imh. (T Σιν.)

3.—OTHER TYPES at Caphyae.

Demeter standing, holds poppy-head and corn-ears.

#£ Auton. Imh. (T xv.) Prok.-Ost. Jnedita 1854, p. 44.

Demeter, or Artemis, clad in long chiton, holds a torch in right
hand.

i Carac. M.S. Iv. 276, 31.

Female figure, indistinct, running, a serpent arched over her

head ; holds in right, head of serpent.

ΤΕ Domna. Paris. (T xvVI.)

Apollo naked, facing, holds in right hand, branch; in left,
which rests on tripod, a scroll.

i Sept. Sev. B. M. Loebbecke. (T xvii.)

Asklepios standing.

Geta. Berlin

Tyche, holds patera and cornucopiae, at altar.
Sept. Sev., Plautilla. Paris, &c.

PSopPHIS.

1.—Paus. vill. 24, 1. Ψωφῖδος δὲ οἱ μέν φασιν οἰκιστὴν
γενέσθαι Ψώφιδα τὸν “Appwvos τοῦ ᾿Ερυμάνθου τοῦ
᾿Αρίστα τοῦ IlapOdovos τοῦ Ἰ]εριφήτου τοῦ Nuxtipou-

vad Ihe) > / / va) Ss /

τοῖς δέ ἐστιν εἰρημένα θυγατέρα Ψωφῖδα εἶναι Ἐξάνθου
τοῦ ᾿Ερυμάνθου τοῦ ᾿Αρκάδος.

Bust of nymph ῬΒΟΡΗΙΒ wearing wreath, sceptre on shoulder.

# Geta. Mus. Sanclem. 111. pl. 27, 263.

PSOPHIS. 105

2.—Paus. vit. 24, 5. Λεγεται δὲ ὡς Ἡρακλῆς κατὰ πρόσ-
τάγμα Εὐρυσθέως παρὰ τῷ ᾿Βρυμάνθῳ θηράσειεν ὗν
μεγέθει καὶ ἀλκῇ τοὺς ἄλλους ὑπερηρκότα.

Obv. Head of HERAKLES bearded, laur.

Rev, Boar running.

# Auton. Paris. Imh. Sest., Mus. Font. pl. 1. 16.

3.—Paus. vit. 24,12. Ψωφιδίοις δὲ καὶ παρὰ τῷ ᾿Ερυμάνθῳ
ναός ἐστιν ᾿Ἐρυμάνθου καὶ ἄγαλμα.

River-god Erymanthus reclining, naked to waist, holds in
right, branch, rests left elbow on vase ; below, fish.

# Domna. M.S. tv. 291,106. Imh. (T xviii.)

4.—Paus. Vill. 21,2. Εἰσὶ δὲ ἐχθῦς ἐν τῷ ᾿Αροανίῳ καὶ ἄλλοι
καὶ οἱ ποικιλίαι καλούμενοι: τούτους λέγουσι τοὺς
ποικιλίας φθέγγεσθαι κίχλῃ τῇ ὄρνιθι ἐοικός.

Fish.

A Auton. Fifth century.

5.—Paus. vill. 23, 8. Ἐπὶ δρυμὸν ἀφίξῃ Yopwva διά τε
᾿Αργεαθῶν καὶ Λυκούντων καλουμένων καὶ Σκοτάνης.
ἄγει μὲν δὴ ὁ Σόρων τὴν ἐπὶ Ψωφῖδος: θηρία δὲ οὗτός
τε καὶ ὅσοι δρυμοὶ τοῖς ᾿Αρκάσιν εἰσὶν ἄλλοι παρέχονται
τοσάδε, ἀγρίους ὗς καὶ ἄρκτους καὶ χελώνας μεγίστας
μεγέθει.

Stag: forepart of doe.

A Auton. Fifth century.

ARTEMIS clad in short chiton, her right hand on her side, her

left on a spear, quiver at shoulder.

Sept. Sev. M.S. tv. 291, 105.
Sept. Sev. Leake, Zur. Sup. p. 148. (T xrx.)
Domna. Leake, 7. c. (Position of arms reversed.) (T xx.)

6.—Paus. vill. 24, 4. "Ἔχει δὲ τὰς πηγὰς ὁ ’EpvpavOos ἐν
ὄρει Λαμπείᾳ: τὸ δὲ ὄρος τοῦτο ἱερὸν εἶναι Πανὸς
λέγεται.
Pan standing, holds in his hands human head (mask or
syrinx 7).
# Geta. Vaill. Num. Gr. p. 120.
Naples. Cat. No. 7578.

7.—OTHER TYPE at Psophis.
Dionysus clad in short chiton; holds wine-cup and long
thyrsus.

Sept. Sev. B. M.
Domna. Munich. (T xxt.)

106 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

THELPUSA.

1.—Paus. vill. 25,4. Mera δὲ Θέλπουσαν ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν τῆς
Δήμητρος ὁ Λάδων κάτεισι τὸ ἐν ᾿Ογκείῳ: καλοῦσι δὲ
Ἐρινὺν οἱ Θελπούσιοι τὴν θεόν, κ.τ.λ.

vull. 25, 7. Τὴν δὲ Δήμητρα τεκεῖν φασὶν ἐκ τοῦ ἸΤοσειδῶ-

νος θυγατέρα, ἧς τὸ ὄνομα ἐς ἀτελέστους λέγειν οὐ
νομίζουσι, καὶ ἵππον τὸν ᾿Αρείονα.

Obv. Head of DEMETER, adorned with necklace ending in
horse’s head.

fev. EPIQN. The horse ARION, running, bridled.

A and # Auton. Paris. Imh. (T ΧΧΙΙ., xxm.) Mon. Gr. p. 209.

2.—OTHER TYPES at Thelpusa.

PAN horned, wearing nebris over shoulders and holding pedum,

touching with his left hand the top of a reed (Syrinx).

fi Sept. Sev. B. M.
Plautilla. Imh.
Geta. Vienna. (T xxiv.)

See Zeitschr. f. Num. τ. p. 125. The love of Pan for Syrinx
and her transformation into a reed is related by several ancient
writers. Pausanias vill. 38, 11, mentions Melpeia in Arcadia
as the place where the syrinx was invented by Pan.

Female head, radiate, possibly of Demeter Erinnys.

i Auton.

Isis.

ZE Sept. Sev.

Artemis hunting.

i Geta.

Dionysos naked, holds wine-cup and thyrsus.

LE Sept. Sev.

Hermes, holds purse and caduceus.

A Geta. Berlin.

Tyche ; holds patera and cornucopiae.

Zi Geta. Loebbecke.

HERAEA.

1.—Paus. vill. 26, 1. Ἡραιεῦσι δὲ οἰκιστὴς μὲν γέγονεν
Ἡραιεὺς ὁ Λυκάονος, κεῖται δὲ ἡ πόλις ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ
᾿Αλφειοῦ.

River god ALPHEIUS reclining, before him an ox standing;
below, fishes.

Zi Carac. Mion. 11. 248, 30. Paris.

The ox may bear allusion to the sacrifices brought to Alpheius
in Peloponnese, especially at Olympia.

MEGALOPOLIS. 107

2.—Paus. vu. 26, 1. Fiat δὲ καὶ Διονύσῳ ναοί: τὸν ‘péev
καλοῦσιν αὐτῶν Ἰ]ολίτην, τὸν δὲ AdEltnv. Kai οἴκημά
ἐστί σφισιν ἔνθα τῷ Διονύσῳ τὰ ὄργια ἄγουσιν.

Dionysus standing; in both hands grapes, left elbow resting
on column ; beside him, panther.

fi Carac. Leake, Zur. Sup. p. 128. (T xxv.)

Dionysus in short chiton ; holds in each hand grapes.

fi Carac. Leake, l.c. (T xxvii.)

The former of these types is characteristic, and clearly the
copy of a statue.

3.—Paus. VIL. 26,2. Ἔστι καὶ ναὸς ἐν τῇ Ἡραίᾳ ἸΤανὸς ἅτε
τοῖς ᾿Αρκάσιν ἐπιχωρίου. τῆς δὲ Ἥρας τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ
ἄλλα ἐρείπια καὶ οἱ κίονες ἔτι ἐλείποντο.

Pawn standing, left foot resting on rock, holds in left hand
spear, chlamys over shoulder.

Μὰ Auton. Fifth century.

HERA standing, holds in right hand sceptre.

Zi Sept. Sev. M. S. rv. 278, 39.

Head of Hera, veiled.

AX Auton. Sixth century.

4.—OTHER TYPES at Heraea.

Head of Pallas.

Head of Artemis. |

zR Auton.

Artemis kneeling, discharging arrow.

A Auton. Imh. Photiades Coll.

Tyche, holds patera and cornucopiae.

HE Sept. Sev. Paris.

MEGALOPOLIS.

1.—Paus. vit. 30, 2. Περέβολος δέ ἐστιν ἐν ταύτῃ λίθων καὶ
ἱερὸν Λυκαίου Διός. ἔσοδος δ᾽ ἐς αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστι.

90,10. Ταύτης τῆς στοᾶς ἐστὶν ἐγγυτάτω ὡς πρὸς ἥλιον
ἀνίσχοντα ἱερὸν Σωτῆρος ἐπίκλησιν Διός: κεκόσμηται δὲ
πέριξ κίοσι. καθεζομένῳ δὲ τῷ Διὶ ἐν θρόνῳ παρεστήκασι
τῇ μὲν ἡ Μεγάλη πόλις, ἐν ἀριστερᾷ δὲ ᾿Αρτέμιδος
Σωτείρας ἄγαλμα. ταῦτα μὲν λίθου τοῦ ἸΠεντελησίου
᾿Αθηναῖοι Κηφισόδοτος καὶ Ἐενοφῶν εἰργάσαντο.

ZEUS seated facing, on throne ; holds in raised right, sceptre ;

himation over left shoulder.
A Sept. Sev. B. M. (V1.) Paris.
Head of Zeus.
A 4 Auton. Β, Μ. &c.

108 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

We can scarcely hesitate to consider the facing Zeus (V I.) as
a reminiscence of the statue by Cephisodotus and Xenophon,
set up soon after B.c. 370. The figure seems to be of the noble
Attic type. What Zeus holds in his left hand it is unfortunately
not possible to distinguish.
ARTEMIS? standing to left clad in short chiton; spear in
raised right hand, in left the end of her over-dress.

ΜῈ Sept. Sev. Paris.
Domna. M.S. tv. 282, 59. Berlin. (Ὁ 11.)
Carac. M.S. iv. 282, 61. (?)

Cf. vil. 32,4. "Eats δὲ ἐν τῇ μοίρᾳ ταύτῃ λόφος πρὸς
ἀνίσχοντα ἥλιον, καὶ ᾿Αγροτέρας ἐν αὐτῷ ναὸς ᾿Αρτέμιδος,
ἀνάθημα ᾿Αριστοδήμου καὶ τοῦτο.

In the Brunswick cabinet is a coin of Sept. Severus, on which
is a figure in attitude and dress resembling V II. but the head
bearded and turned to the right. It is therefore very doubtful
if the figure in the plate be of Artemis.

2 —Paus. vill. 38,5. Ἔστι δὲ ἐν τῷ Λυκαίῳ Πανός τε ἱερὸν
καὶ περὶ αὐτὸ ἄλσος δένδρων, καὶ ἱππόδρομός τε καὶ πρὸ
αὐτοῦ στάδιον.

90, 3. Καὶ ἄγαλμα ἸΠανὸς λίθου πεποιημένον: ἐπίκλησις
δὲ Οἰνόεις ἐστὶν αὐτῴ.

Pan horned naked, seated on rock, over which is spread his
garment, holds in right hand pedum ; below, syrinx.

A Auton. Fourth century. B. M. &c.

Klagenfurt, X API on rock. Loebbecke, OAYM on rock. (V ut.)

Pan horned seated on rock, right hand raised, in left pedum.

“Ὁ Auton. Sometimes eagle before him. B. M. Xe.

Pan naked seated on rock, holds in right hand pedum which
rests on the ground, left rests on rock; all in wreath.

# Auton. B. M. (V Iv.)

Pan walking, spear in right hand, in left pedum.

A Sept. Sev. M.S. rv. 281, 58. Paris.

(Probably an incorrect description of the type V 11.)

3.—Paus. Vil. 30,3. Ἔστι δὲ πρὸ τοῦ τεμένους τούτου χαλ-
κοῦν ἄγαλμα ᾿Απόλλωνος θέας ἄξιον, μέγεθος μὲν ἐς
πόδας δώδεκα, ἐκομίσθη δὲ ἐκ τῆς Φιγαλέων συντέλεια
ἐς κόσμον τῇ Μεγάλῃ πόλει.

APOLLO naked, laur., standing, leaning on column, holds branch
in right, and bow in left.

4£ Sept. Sev. Paris. (V νυ.)
Carac. M. S. rv. 282, 60.

LYCOSURA. 109

The coin probably reproduces the pose of the colossal figure
mentioned in the text. On the coin figured branch and bow
are not clearly distinguishable.

4.—Paus. vill. 30, 7. Τῶν ἀρχαίων δὲ ὄπισθε ναὸς Τύχης καὶ
ἄγαλμα λίθου πεποίηται ποδῶν πέντε οὐκ ἀποδέον.

ΤΎΟΘΗΕ, holds rudder and cornucopiae.
Ji Sept. Sev. Paris.

5.—Paus. vil. 31,3. "Ἔστι δὲ καὶ Ηρακλῆς παρὰ τῇ Δήμητρι
μέγεθος μάλιστα πῆχυν: τοῦτον τὸν Ἡρακλέα εἶναι τῶν
Ἰδαίων καλουμένων Δακτύλων ᾿Ονομάκριτός φησιν ἐν
τοῖς ἔπεσι. κεῖται δὲ τράπεζα ἔμπροσθεν. Cf. 31, 7.

HERAKLES bearded, in form of term, lion’s skin wrapped about
him, the head visible under his left arm.

fi Carac. Paris. (Ὁ VI.)

Herakles bearded in form of term; no lion’s skin.

Geta. Berlin. (¥V vu.)

6.—Paus. vu. 31,5. Ἔστι δὲ ἐντὸς τοῦ περιβόλου... ..
᾿Αφροδίτης ἱερόν. Cf. 32, 2, ἐρείπια δὲ καὶ τῆς ᾿Αφροδίτης
ἣν τὸ ἱερόν, πλὴν ὅσον πρόναός τε ἐλείπετο ἔτι καὶ
ἀγάλματα ἀριθμὸν τρία, ἐπίκλησις δὲ Οὐρανία, τῇδ᾽ ἔστι
ΠΠάνδημος, τῇ τρίτῃ δὲ οὐδὲν ἐτίθεντο.

APHRODITE naked facing, in attitude of Medicean Venus;
beside her, dolphin.

i Sept. Sev. Paris. (V vill.)

METHYDRION.

1.—Paus. vin. 35, 8. Σταδίους δὲ ὡς τριάκοντα καταβάντι
ἐκ Kpovvav τάφος ἐστὶ Καλλιστοῦς, χῶμα γῆς ὑψηλόν,
δένδρα ἔχον πολλὰ μὲν τῶν ἀκάρπων, πολλὰ δὲ καὶ
ἥμερα. ἐπὶ δὲ ἄκρῳ τῷ χώματι ἱερόν ἐστιν ᾿Αρτέμιδος
ἐπίκλησιν Καλλίστης.

CaLLIisvro, falling back, pierced with an arrow, her arms

extended ; beside her, the infant Arcas lying.

# Auton. Obv. Head of Zeus.
Imh. UM. G. p. 200, pl. E. 9.

LYCOSURA.
1.—Paus. vil. 38,5. Ἔστι δὲ ἐν τῷ Λυκαίῳ... . στάδιον"
τὸ δὲ ἀρχαῖον τῶν Λυκαίων ἦγον τὸν ἀγῶνα ἐνταῦθα.
AYKAIA on coins of Sept. Severus. Athens.
The early silver coins of the Arcadians, having on the obverse
a seated figure of Zeus and on the reverse a female head, were
formerly attributed to Lycosura and regarded as illustrative of

110 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.

the cultus of Zeus Lycaeus, and of Despoena. It is, however,
shewn in Imhoof’s Monnaies Grecques, p. 196, that they were
probably issued at Heraea, and have reference to the cultus of
Zeus at Olympia and that of Artemis at Heraea.

PHIGALEIA.

1.—Paus. vill. 39, 5. Ἔστι δὲ Σωτείρας τε ἱερὸν ἐνταῦθα
᾿Αρτέμιδος καὶ ἄγαλμα ὀρθὸν λίθου: ἐκ τούτου δὲ τοῦ
ἱεροῦ καὶ τὰς πομπάς σφισι πέμπειν κατέστη.

ARTEMIS standing, clad in short chiton with dipiois, holds

bipennis and lance.

ff Sept. Sev. Leake, Hur. Sup. p. 140.
i Caracys Bs Ms ὙΠ {ἼΧῚ

Artemis as huntress.

J Sept. Sev. M.S. Iv. 288, 91.

Artemis holding a torch in right hand.

A Plautilla. M.S. rv. 290, 102.

Artemis (or Demeter) in long chiton, holding out a torch in
each hand.

iS. Severus. Lambros. (V x.)
Domna. M.S. Iv. 289, 95.
Carac. Paris.

Artemis Soteira sometimes bears torches (Megara A 1.).
2.—Paus. VI. 39, 6. Ἔν δὲ τῷ γυμνασίῳ τὸ ἄγαλμα τοῦ
“Ἑρμοῦ ἀμπεχομένῳ μὲν ἔοικεν ἱμάτιον, καταλήγει δὲ οὐκ
ἐς πόδας, ἀλλὰ ἐς τὸ τετράγωνον σχῆμα.
Term-like figure of HErmeEs, clad in himation, and holding
caduceus in right hand ; end of garment wrapped round

left arm.

i Sept. Sev. Leake, Hur. Sup. p. 140. Berlin. ( x11.)
Carac. M.S. Iv. 290, 100.
Geta. Leake, Hur. p. 90.

Similar figure, caduceus not visible, placed in arched niche
between columns.

“ΜῈ Domna, Munich. (¥V xt.)
Carac. M.S. Iv. 290, 101.

Paus. vil. 39, 6. Πεποίηται δὲ καὶ Διονύσου ναός:

3.
> / > > an \ lal >? /
ἐπίκλησις μέν ἐστιν αὐτῷ Tapa τῶν ἐπιχωρίων
᾿Ακρατοφόρος.

Dionysus standing, holds wine-cup and thyrsus.

ΜῈ Sept. Sev. Naples.

4.—Paus, vir. 41, 2. ἸΤοταμὸς δὲ ὁ καλούμενος Λύμαξ ἐκδίδωσι

\ > \ / ’ > \ yA / ip.
μὲν ἐς τὴν Νέδαν παρ᾽ αὐτὴν ῥέων Φιγαλίαν, γενέσθαι
δὲ τοὔνομά φασι τῷ ποταμῷ καθαρσίων τῶν Ῥέας ἕνεκα.

PHIGALEIA. 111

RIVER-GOD seated on rock looking back, himation over one
shoulder; holds in right, vessel from which he pours, in

left, branch,

Δὲ Plautilla. Paris.
Geta. Munich. (V xiii.)

5.—Paus. vill. 41, 10. ᾿Αφροδέτη δέ ἐστιν ἐν Karting: καὶ
αὐτῇ ναός τε ἣν οὐκ ἔχων ἔτι ὄροφον καὶ ἄγαλμα
ἐπεποίητο.
APHRODITE naked, leans her right elbow on a pillar, with left
hand grasps her hair ; head turned to left.
Μὰ Plautilla. Loebbecke. (V xtv.)
6.—Paus. vill. 42, 1. Τὸ δὲ ἕτερον τῶν ὀρῶν TO’ EXdiov ἀπωτέρω
μὲν Φιγαλίας ὅσον Te σταδίοις τριάκοντά ἐστι, Δήμητρος
δὲ ἄντρον αὐτόθι ἱερὸν ἐπίκλησιν Μελαίνης, οἵ. 42, 4;
see also above under Thelpusa.
DEMETER ? holding a torch in each hand. See above under
Artemis. :
Demeter veiled, facing, right hand extended, in left sceptre ;
over-dress over both arms.
Zi Domna. Munich. (V xv.)
Demeter veiled standing left, holds in right hand poppy-head ?
left rests on her side.
ΖΕ Carac. Munich. (V xv.)
Demeter standing veiled, holds in right long sceptre, left
wrapped in mantle.
fi M. Aurel. Paris. (ΑΥ̓͂ xvii.)
Demeter facing, veiled and clad in chiton, holds in each hand
ears of corn?.
J Domna. Paris. (V xvutl.)
7.—OTHER TYPES at Phigaleia.
Pallas standing, holds patera and sceptre.
Δ Domna. Paris. Carac. &c.
Pallas, holds olive-branch and spear.
ZK Carac.
Pallas, holds spear and shield.
i Sept. Sev. Paris.
Pallas, holds Victory and spear.
Ai Carac. Domna.
Pallas, leaning on spear and another figure with both hands
extended, probably Demeter ; behind the latter, altar.
i Domna. B. M. (Ὁ xix.)
Asklepius standing.
ZK Sept. Sev. Paris &c,

112 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANTAS.

TEGEA.
1.—Paus. vu. 45,6. Ta δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἀετοῖς, ἔστιν ἔμπροσθεν
ς 7 “ eX lal / / \ Ἁ
ἡ θήρα τοῦ ὑὸς τοῦ Καλυδωνίου: πεποιημένου δὲ κατὰ
μέσον μάλιστα τοῦ ὑὸς τῇ μέν ἐστιν ᾿Αταλάντη
καὶ τ. λ.
47,2. ἐν τῷ ναῷ τὰ ἀξιολογώτατα, ἔστι μὲν τὸ δέρμα ὑὸς
τοῦ Καλυδωνίου.
ATALANTA as a huntress, quiver at shoulder, spearing the

Calydonian boar, who stands under a tree.

ἢ Domna. Mion. 11. 256, 75. Paris. Bibl. Turin. (V xx.)
M.S. rv. 294, 120.

2.—Paus. vu. 45, 4. Τεγεάταις δὲ ᾿Αθηνᾶς τῆς ᾿Αλέας τὸ
ἱερὸν τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐποίησεν Αλεος.

46,4. Τῆς ᾿Αθηνᾶς τὸ ἄγαλμα... .. ἐλέφαντος διὰ
παντὸς πεποιημένον, τέχνη δὲ ᾿Εἰνδοίου.

47,1. Τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα ἐν Teyéa τὸ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἐκομίσθη μὲν
ἐκ δήμου τοῦ Μανθουρέων, “Ἱππία δὲ παρὰ τοῖς Μαν-
θουρεῦσιν εἶχεν ἐπίκλησιν.

ATHENE, fighting.

# Auton. Leake, Hwr. p. 98.

Athene, in long chiton ; holds raised spear and shield.
= Sept. Sev. Leake, Zur. Sup. p. 147. (V XxX1.)

It may, perhaps, be doubted whether the statue which served
as model for the coin V ΧΧΙ. was the statue by Endoeus, 16-
moved to Rome by Augustus, or the later statue called Hippia .
brought to supply its place. Brunn (G. ΛΔ΄. 1. 118) has shewn
that the date of Endoeus must be brought down to about
B.c. 500, and the type of statue on our coin is not inappropriate
to such a time; but on the other hand it is unlikely that the
die-cutters of Tegea would attempt in the time of Severus to
reproduce a statue removed to Rome, rather than one which
remained among them, and the attitude on the coin is well
suited to Athene Hippia if we suppose her driving in her
chariot against the Giants. There is a likeness between the
type on this coin and that which at Pellene probably reproduces
an early statue by Pheidias, § x.

Olv. Head of Pallas.

Rev. Owl: inscribed AGANA AAEA.
JE Auton. Leake, 1. c.

Head of ALEUS; inscribed AAEOS.
ZL Auton. Leake, 1. c. Imh.

TEGEA, 113

3.—Paus. vill. 47,5, Λέγοντες ὡς Κηφεῖ τῷ ᾿Αλέου γένοιτο
δωρεὰ παρὰ ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἀνάλωτον ἐς τὸν πάντα χρόνον
εἶναι Τεγέαν: καὶ αὐτῷ φασὶν ἐς φυλακὴν τῆς πόλεως
ἀποτεμοῦσαν τὴν θεὸν δοῦναι τριχῶν τῶν Μεδούσης.

ATHENE handing to Sterope as priestess the hairof Medusa,
which the latter receives in a vessel.

ΑΕ Auton. B. M. Imh. (Ὁ xx.)

Same scene in the presence of CEPHEUS, who receives the hair
from the goddess.

#E Auton. Β. Μ. Imh. (Ὁ xxi.)

Head of Medusa.

A Auton.

Obv. Head of Athene.

Rev. Cepheus or other hero charging.

A # Auton,

Cepheus ? naked, standing; holds shield and spear.

ZE Sept. Sev. Paris.
Carac. M.S. rv. 294, 121.

4.—Paus. Vill. 48, 7. Καὶ ἐκτεθῆναι tov Τήλεφον λέγοντι ἐς
τὸ ὄρος τὸ Παρθένιον, καὶ τῷ παιδὶ ἐκκειμένῳ διδόναι
γάλα ἔλαφον.
TELEPHUS suckled by a doe.
& Auton.
5.—Paus. vu. 48, 7. Τὴν δὲ Εἰλείθυιαν of Τεγεᾶται, καὶ yap
ταύτης ἔχουσιν ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ ναὸν καὶ ἄγαλμα, ἐπονομά-
ζουσιν Αὔγην ἐν γόνασι.
Head οἵ EILEITHULIA, torch over shoulder.
#£ Auton. B. M.
6.—OTHER TYPES at Tegea.
Herakles as term; lion’s skin wrapped about him.
# Geta. Imh. WM. G. p. 209. (V xxiv.)
Cf. vit. 48,6. Αγαλμα τετράγωνον: περισσῶς yap δή
TL τῷ σχήματι τούτῳ φαίνονταί μοι χαίρειν οἱ ᾿Αρκάδες.
This figure of Herakles is closely like that on the coins of
Megalopolis (ΤΥ vi.). Megalopolis being a new city built B.c. 370
had to borrow the forms of its deities from its neighbours.

Hera ? seated, holds sceptre and pomegranate ?
Sept. Sev. Naples, Cat. No. 7580.

P.S.—The coins of Asine in Messenia were in the first paper
incorrectly ascribed to Asine in Argolis, a city of which in
historical times only ruins remained.

ἘΠῚ ὙΠῸ VIE Ι

114 ON SOME WORKS OF THE SCHOOL OF SCOPAS.

ON SOME WORKS.OF THE SCHOOL OF SCOPAS.

OF one of the greatest masters of the great age of Greek
sculpture nothing certain or satisfactory was known until three
fragments found at Piali were proved in 1880 to belong to the
sculpture that filled the pediment of the temple of Athene Alea
at Tegea. These fragments—the helmed head of a youthful
warrior much defaced, another youthful head with nearly all the
features preserved, and the head of a boar—can be as directly
traced to the hand of Scopas as the figures of the Parthenon
pediment to the hand of Pheidias. The recent handbooks and
histories of Greek sculpture have not taken them sufticiently
into account; and yet they are our sole material for an imme-
diate study of Scopas, and having been brought to the Central
Museum of Athens are now fairly accessible, and have been
minutely examined and scientifically estimated by Dr. Treu,}
who has endeavoured to affix their place in the development of
style, and has shown their relations to other works. But bis
employment of them as criteria has chiefly a negative result.
He finds in them certain characteristics which speak against
the claims sometimes advanced of the Niobid figures, of the
Ephesian Alcestis relief, of the Vatican Apollo Citharoedus, and
of the Munich relief of Amphitrite’s marriage, to represent the
style of Scopas and his school. The main object of this paper is
to notice a few works in which a more or less close resemblance
to the Tegean heads is discernible. For this purpose it 15
necessary to briefly examine the account given by Dr. Treu, an
account to which—as he admits—he is-assisted chiefly by draw-
ings, and not by the immediate observation of the originals.
The main result of his statement is that the heads reveal

1 Mittheil. d. deut. Inst. 1881.

AUTOTYPE

,
=“ +
as

“i

ON SOME WORKS OF THE SCHOOL OF SCOPAS, 115

Peloponnesian forms; and he explains this by referring to the
Peloponnesian influences which shaped the earlier work of
Scopas. But the explanation rests merely on hypotheses, such
as that he was the son of the Parian sculptor Aristandros, who
wrought a bronze statue at Sparta in commemoration of Aegos-
potami, and that the son began his career in the Peloponnese as
his father’s pupil. But this paternity is merely conjectured ; and,
if it were true, the teaching of Aristandros must have been
Athenian and not Peloponnesian teaching, as Attic influences
must inall probability have been dominant in Parian workshops.
Even the view that the works of Scopas found in the Pelopon-
nese belonged to his youthful period, when his style was forming,
rests on the date of the reconstruction of the temple of Athene
Alea at Tegea; and the view becomes doubtful unless it is quite
certain that the building of the new temple began immediately
after the burning of the old, that is after 394 B.c.; but of so
ambitious and costly a work this cannot with certainty be said.
At any rate, when he was called to Teyea his style and his fame
must have been partially established, and there is no @ priori
reason for supposing that this style lad any peculiar affinity
with the Peloponnesian.

The Tegean fragments alone can decide, At the first survey
of them one is struck with the broad surfaces of cheek, of which
the lower bones are in the one case clearly but not too sharply
marked, with the great depth of the head as compared with the
height, and with the rather flattened line of the top of the skull.
The structure has thus something of the largeness and stead-
fastness that belonged to the type prevalent in the latter part
of the fifth century. So far Dr. Treu, who calls attention to
this system of forms, has not been misled by the drawings which
are the sources of his description.1 But so far there is nothing
distinctively Peloponnesian ; for this breadth of cheek and depth
of head are found in Attic works of the Pheidian age and at the
beginning of the fourth century, for instance in the Eirene of
Munich, in the relief of the Villa Albani, and the grave slab of
Dexilaos. Another trait, not noticed by Dr. Treu in his analysis,
but contributing much to peculiar effect of these Tegean heads,
is the great breadth of the central part of the face; for the sides

1 Mitth. d. deut, Inst. 1881, pl. xiv,

116 ON SOME WORKS OF THE SCHOOL OF SCOPAS.

of the face do not converge gradually towards the middle, but
form as it were distinct, though not sharply-bounded planes.
Such a structure does not belong to the Peloponnesian treat-
ment, but in reality to the older conception of forms, and to the
earlier manner of Pheidias himself, as seen in the statuette of
Athene Parthenos; yet the effect which it produces in these
Tegean heads conveys no hint of a more archaic or mathematical
scheme. But it gives a quality to the countenance which I do
not remember to have found in any other heads of the fourth
century, except those few which are below mentioned, and which
I connect with Scopas.

It is chiefly in the preponderance given to the lower part of
the Tegean face over the upper by the large chin and strongly-
marked cheek-bones that Dr. Treu finds Peloponnesian influences.
He admits that these proportions are to be found in Pheidian
heads, but thinks that such a system soon disappeared from
Attic style. Whether it might not be found in some Attic work
of the fourth century is a question that need not now be raised,
for I cannot help believing that he has here been deceived by
his drawing. Judging from recent observation of the originals,
I should say that the bone-structure is far from being so em-
phasised as he represents it, and the chin did not appear to me
to be strikingly large.

I cannot, then, see that there is anything specially Pelopon-
nesian in the structure of the heads, or that we have found in
them a link between Polyclitus and Lysippos; and in any case,
in the details of the features, in the life and expression of the
whole the work is immeasurably distant from the Peloponnesian
—as it is known to us—and stamps the sculptor as a master of
the spiritual Attic style. For while in the proportions we see
the traces of an older, severer, and larger style not seen in the
work of Praxiteles and Lysippos, we note, also, the character
of the fourth-century Attic work in the free and mobile ren-
dering of the flesh upon the forehead, the cheeks, and the
throat. The aim of his two great contemporaries, to portray
the individual momentary life in emotional forms, the temporary
mood rather than the abiding character, is the aim of Scopas
also; there is passion and changeful life rendered masterfully,
and with extraordinary warmth, in the Tegean heads; and there
are certain details in which they show also a formal resemblance

ON SOME WORKS OF THE SCHOOL OF SCOPAS. 117

to the Lysippian and Praxitelean type, for instance, a partial
resemblance in the rendering of the forehead, in the lines about
the face, and in the firm setting of the head upon the throat.
But the work of Scopas is distinct both in spiritual effect and
in form. There is here more fulness and breadth, more com-
pression of the masses of flesh than in the heads of the
Hermes and <Apoxyomenos. The throat is broader, more
swollen, and more columnar; and the countenance, while being
‘not so high and so open as the Praxitelean, is not so tightly
drawn as the Lysippian. The lips are full and short and
drawn upwards. The breadth between the eyes is very great,
and at each extremity of the eyebrow and underneath there
are violent swellings of the flesh, the eyelid being almost hid,
and the eye appearing as from under a penthouse. When we
view the face sideways the wall of the eyesocket near the nose
appears conspicuously large, and the eye, being much shorter
than in the Hermes’ and Apoxyomenos’ heads, appears swollen
and compressed towards the centre. There is an unique and
vivid power in these forms, and an unique spiritual quality in
the whole. The life in the face is as eager, but not so restless
and self-conscious, as in the faces of the Lysippian style; nor is
it self-absorbed and delicate as in those of the Praxitelean, but
it is full healthy corporeal life, throbbing with masterful emotion,
and penetrated with the excitement of action! In fact, it is
the distinct quality of this work, that the expression of the face
is dramatic, and if we may assume that this quality belonged
to all the figures of the group, we have here a new point of
departure in monumental sculpture, in so far as in the older
sculpture the figures alone show the movement and action, the
faces are comparatively indifferent. And though the expression
is here very highly-wrought, the effect is firm and plastic, and
the laws imposed by the nature of the material are properly
regarded. These fragments, then, are sufficient to attest the
greatness of Scopas, in spite of the possibly depreciative silence
of Lucian concerning him; to suggest the qualities which
charmed in his group of Achilles and the sea-divinities, and, in
some degree, to explain the ecstatic description of Callistratos,
who found the works of Scopas κάτοχα καὶ μεστὰ μανίας.

1 As Dr. Treu points out, the two which the combat between the Greeks
heads come from the pediment in and Telephos was represented.

118 ON SOME WORKS OF THE SCHOOL OF SCOPAS.

It would be well if we could fix precisely the date of the
Tegean sculpture; but at present exact data are wanting, as
we only know the year of the conflagration (394 B.c.), and are
left to conjecture? what interval elapsed before the new work
was set on foot, and how long the process of construction lasted.
For the completion of so great a design we may have to
suppose a period of many years, and a longer period would
better accord with the style of the heads than a shorter; for
that so powerful a development of the pathetic style did not
belong to the first decade of the fourth century is proved by
the relief of Dexilaos, in which only the germ of this new
expression is found.

The first work to which we should naturally apply the criteria
which these heads afford is the Mausoleum frieze—although
this has not yet been done with any result. The work of Scopas
upon the frieze has been estimated by Brunn? without any
reference to the Tegean discoveries. Neither does he attach
any value to the position in which the fragments were found,
as he regards this as purely accidental. Guided merely by the
tests of ¢»mposition and workmanship, he ascribes to Scopas
the slabs on which are represented a Greek dragging an Amazon
off her horse, and two Greeks striking down a fallen Amazon,
and another slab (Newton, 7ravels and Discoveries, Pl. IX., 1)
showing a mounted Amazon. It 15 to the present purpose only
to note how far the Tegean style appears here in the rendering
of the faces. Now the head of the Greek who is unseating the
Amazon shows certainly the marked cheek-bones, the broad
surfaces, and something of the same treatment of the eye-
sockets and eyebrows: but the face is too high, and the middle
of it not broad enough, to recall vividly the type of the Tegean
heads. The only other well-preserved male face in this series
is that of the Greek at the extreme left, who is raising his
sword above the fallen Amazon, and this shows some of the
general features of the type, but nothing of the essential and
characteristic style, nothing, for instance, of the peculiar treat-
ment of the flesh. So far, then, the applied criteria do not

1 The architectural remains do not Vz. p. 61, 66.
seem to give very exact evidence, but 2 Berichte d. Kénigl. baier. Acad. a.
vide Milchhofer, Alitth. d, deut, Inst. Wie3. 1882, 2, p. 114.

ON SOME WORKS OF THE SCHOOL OF SCOPAS. 119

speak very decisively, and Brunn’s theory must rest merely on
the general excellence of the work.!

But it is in a different part of the frieze where Dr. Treu has
discovered the work of Scopas, guided by the clue which tl.e
Tegean heads supply, and by the statement of Pliny that Scopas
carved the reliefs on the Mausoleum ‘ab oriente. Now four
relief-slabs 2 were found on the east side of the Mausoleum, and
as three were connected together, it is a fairly probable supposi-
tion that these at least belonged originally to that side; and
Dr. Treu believes himself to have found in these, or at least in
one of them,* the same system of forms which he has found in
the Tegean heads, ‘ the broad cheeks with severely flat surfaces,
the protuberance of the forehead, the strikingly large eyes with
the small raised eyelids, the deep eyesockets.’ But the flat
surfaces of cheek are according to my impression by no means
characteristic of the work of Scopas, and the other qualities are
found indeed, but in no striking measure, in the head of the
Mausoleum figure. In fact most cf the heads in the Mausoleum
frieze more closely resemble the type than this, which has
nothing of the peculiar rendering of the flesh, and nothing of
the emotional expression.

But it is also in the rendering of the torso of the Mausoleum
youth that Dr. Treu finds the marks of Scopas’ hand. And
here his theory seems almost wholly arbitrary, as the remains at
Tegea tell us only the mode of Scopas’ handling of the head.
He notes the meagre length of this figure, the flatness of the
surfaces, the sinewy muscles, the sharply-defined joints and
outlines of the diaphragm and thorax. Such qnalities may
belong to the ‘mathematical Peloponnesian style ’—but ὦ privrt
—and we are only dealing with @ priori assumptions—cannot
be assumed to belong to the style of Scopas, or to be appropriate
to the spirit of his most famous works, the Maenad and the
group of Achilles and the sea-divinities: that they are found
in this Mausoleum figure should incline us to suspect that it is

1 It is curious that Mr. Murray,
Hist. of Greek Sculp. vol. ii. p. 300,
regards one of the slabs, which if not
actually part of Brunn’s ‘ fourth series’
is on Brunn’s own statement very
closely related to it, as one of the worst
in the frieze,

2 Three are reproduced very unsat-
isfactorily in Overbeck (Gesch. d.
griech. Plast. ii. fig. iii. lnm) ; another
in Newton, Hist. of Discov. pl. ix. 1.

3 In the youthful warrior who has
sunk on his knee and is feeling for
his sword,

120 ON SOME WORKS OF THE SCHOOL OF SCOPAS.

no Σκοπάδειον ἔργον, in spite of the position in which it was
discovered—a clue which is the less trustworthy as the frag-
ments are comparatively small.

In other heads of the frieze we find more characteristics of
the type, although nowhere is it fully presented. For instance,
the head of the Greek on slab 251 who wears a sword-belt and
whose breast is half-bared, has the large forefront of face, the
well-marked cheek-bones, the breadth between the eyes, and
the upward spring of the lips, but the flesh is not so emphasised
or so wrought with emotion. On slab 21, showing a Greek that
has fallen upon his knee, there is a head that with its deep
eye-socket and protruding forehead swelling over the eye at
once recalls the Tegean, though the throat appears to be longer
and not so full. Elsewhere in the frieze? we have scattered
indications in the rendering of one or two features, or in the
emotional expression, or the handling of the flesh, but nowhere
the full and complete evidence that we are seeking. Such
traits as occasionally remind us of Scopas are not decisive, for
they appear in various parts of the frieze, and show that a part
of this system of forms with which we are dealing had become
a common manner of different contemporary schools. The
combat between the Greeks and Amazons, and between the
Greeks led by Achilles and Mysians led by Telephos, are
motives so nearly alike that we might have expected the
sculptor who dealt with both to have invested both themes
with the same spirit. The figures in both pediments of the
temple at Tegea may have closely resembled in their move-
ments and grouping many of the figures on the frieze. But of
this we know nothing, In the meantime it is certain that no
Mausoleum head in the Amazonomachia at all approaches the
Tegean heads in imaginative power, in originality of forms and
expression. The tone of expression, so to speak, is often the
same, but weaker; nor need this surprise us, for the sculptor
may not have thought right to employ all the resources for the
relief which he had used for the free sculpture. But it is more
strange that the striking and predominating mark of the Tegean
heads—their great depth—is nowhere found, as far as 1 am

} The numbers are those attached ° For instance, in the Amazon and

to the slab in the Mausoleum room in Greek on the left half of the Genoese
the British Museum. slab.

ON SOME WORKS OF THE SCHOOL OF SCOPAS. 121

aware, or not conspicuous, in the heads of the frieze. We may
explain this by boldly declaring that we have no sculpture from
the east frieze at all, though this is to suppose a somewhat
curious chance. We cannot at least explain it by the usual
assumption that the master’s sketch has been left to the pupil’s
hand to execute ; for it is such a trait as this which becomes
part of the manner of a school.

So far then the comparison between the Tegean heads and
the Mausoleum frieze has not resulted in the discovery of
Scopas’ own handiwork there, but has perhaps sufficed to prove
the strong influence of Scopas upon his contemporaries.

But a piece of the Mausoleum sculpture that seems to stand
nearer than any other to the Tegean heads is the figure of the
charioteer* bending forward in the race. The workmanship of
the whole body, the forms and expression of the face, are worthy
of the greatest sculptor’s hand ; no other part of the Mausoleum
sculpture can be compared to it for the warm and soft treat-
ment of the surface ; and it has been noticed that the arrange-
ment of the drapery, the simplicity of the lines, recall an older
style, of which traces would seem to have been found in Scopas.
The depth of the head and broad surfaces of cheek with the
firm marking of the bone-structure are striking; and the
breadth and pronounced forms of the throat, the very deep eye-
socket, the eye-ball that seems to protrude in the centre, the
half-open mouth, and the upward spring of the upper lip, are
other traits of the Tegean type that characterise this head. On
the other hand there are certainly some differences in detail ;
the lower lip is slightly dimpled and hangs over, and there is no
noticeable swelling above the eyes; nor is there the same
violent energy here as that which the Tegean head displayed in
tension and compression of the features. But the expression
here is in kind the same, an expression of fresh and buoyant
vitality, of the ardour of action upon which the mind is set ;
there is more than the mere ‘anima’ of a Ladas upon the lips
and in the eyes of the charioteer.

In dealing with the sculptures of the Mausoleum, while
much uncertainty attaches to them, we are on comparatively
safe ground, for the hypothesis that the influence of Scopas was

1 Very well reproduced in Mr. Newton’s Travels in the Levant, pl. 16.

122 ON SOME WORKS OF THE SCHOOL OF SCOPAS.

operative in any particular part of the whole work is one which
we may always put forward and endeavour to test. But there
are other works, of which we may not know the origin or
purpose or even place of discovery, but which exhibit a type of
features and expression that relates them more or less closely to
the Tegean. Some of these I wish to mention and describe,
but with much diffidence, feeling that one’s personal impres-
sions of scattered and unrecorded works are likely to be
deceptive.

There is a terra-cotta head at Oxford, belonging to the
valuable collection which Mr. Fortnum has kindly lent to the
University, and showing the workmanship of the best style of
the fourth century. The head, which is of life size and has the
features of a young boy, is inclined to the left and is gazing
upward ; and the fragment of a hand which is attached to the
left cheek enables us to complete the figure. The boy is either
seated or is leaning against a pillar, and his face is propped on
his left hand. The first is the more probable position if this is
a sepulchral monument: and that this is its designation is the
opinion which I believe was formed by Mr. Newton and Dr,
Helbig when they saw the head, and which is confirmed bj the
extraordinary expression of sorrow in the face. The features
might be suitable to a representation of Eros or Hypnos, but
certainly not the emotion that speaks from them. The original
purpose of the work can at present only be gathered from its
own character and not from any external clue, for 1 have been
able to ascertain nothing of the circumstances or position in
which it was found, only that it was excavated on the Esquiline.
But at present I am move concerned with the style than the
subject. Before any discussion it is necessary to mention that
doubts have been thrown on the antiquity of the work, chiefly
on account of the quality of the clay, but also because of the
position of the hand, which is supposed to betray a certain
affectation or modernism. In regard to the first objection,
Mr. Evans, the keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, who has care-
fully examined the head, pronounces the clay to be genuinely
Greek, and has discovered on parts of the surface a deposit which
proves its age. The position of the hand is repeated without
much variation in many figures that belong to sepulchral scenes,
and if it is right to see a certain affectation here in the extended

ON SOME WORKS OF THE SCHOOL OF SCOPAS, 123

fingers lying delicately on the cheek, this will be a defect but no
proof of modernism. But such suspicions can scarcely remain
after a careful study of the style of the head. The surviving
works of the fourth century that can compare with this in fresh-
ness, geniality, and nobility of form and expression, are but few ;
there is an extraordinary warmth in the surface, and fluency in
the modelling of the features, that display many of the most
striking characteristics of the Tegean and the kindred Mausoleum
heads. The depth of the head is greater than the height, and
we note the rather large chin, and the broad surfaces of the
cheeks which are firmly set above the full and largely-modulated
throat. The lips are short and high-arched. The eye-sockets
are deep, and the eyeballs are convex ; the forehead is strongly
barred, the eyebrows are swollen at the extremities and over-
hang but do not conceal the eyelids. The forms of the skull
are shown as in the Tegean head, and here as there it is by
the rendering of the eye and mouth that the imaginative quality,
the strong and distinct spiritual expression is conveyed. This
expression, the cast of the features, and the outlines of the head,
differ in the same way as in the Tegean work they differ from
those of the Praxitelean and Lysippian types. In the terra-
cotta and in the Tegean fragment there is a high pathetic and
dramatic emotion free of all morbid consciousness, and wrought
in large and satisfying forms, and both seem to show the impress
of an independent master-hand working on the one directly, in
the other influencing the work.

There is a woman’s head in the Central Museum! at Athens,
found at Delos, which for many reasons suggests comparison
with those of Tegea, and may be more naturally ascribed to the
school of Scopas than to the school of any other great sculptor
of the fourth century. Among the best productions of this
century that have come down to us it certainly takes rank,
although M. Homolle, who describes it in the Bulletin de
Correspondance Hellénique, judges it to be ‘posterior to the
great Greek epoch.’ Its style is in the highest degree warm and
genial, showing the greatest fluency and perfect mastery over
the material, free of any trace of Alexandrine affectation or

1 Published in the Bulletin de $27, and described ibid. 1880, p. 88.
Correspondance Hellénique 1879, p.

124 ON SOME WORKS OF THE SCHOOL OF SCOPAS.

excess. Though the head is high, the depth is greater than the
height, and the forms of the face, which is a very full oval, as
well as the structure of the head, recall the Tegean works. We
note the same swelling at the extremity of the eyelids, the deep
eye-socket, the same effect of the eye and eye-socket as seen
sideways, the short full mouth straining upwards, the same lines,
though fainter, about the nose and mouth. The cheeks are
broad and the throat is high and full, but not so prominently
marked or so columnar; and the tension of features which was
the striking characteristic of the Tegean head is absent here.
But these differences can be naturally explained as due to the
difference of sex, and of the emotion represented; and the life
of the face is the same, appearing in its rich and full forms
distinct from that which belongs to the Praxitelean and
Lysippian type. The expression is one of high sorrow, not
restrained and yet not ecstatic, and thus displayed with perfect
freedom and yet with no excess; it is the mode of representing
emotion which we notice in the terra-cotta head.

Some slight corroboration of the theory that this head is to
be referred to the school of Scopas is its likeness to one of the
heads discovered on the ruins of the Mausoleum, and described
by Mr. Newton as ‘a colossal female head remarkable for the
largeness and simplicity of treatment and intense pathos of
expression.’ ! It recalls the Attic head chiefly in the pose, in the
contour, and in the expression, so far as the disfigured surface
allows this to be estimated. The breadth of the head is nearly
two inches more than its height, the surfaces of the cheek are
large and are not very clearly marked from the throat; the lips
are full and short, and are drawn somewhat upwards. The
eyes are very deep, and the width between them seems great,
and we have traces of the protuberances in the forehead above
them.

The ‘Heroic Head’ (No. 48) found on the south side of the
Mausoleum shows some of the forms and something of the
expression of this type, and may perhaps be considered as an
example of a later development of the style. Its influence on

1 The same female type is seen in Herakles and the fallen Amazon in the
some of the Amazons’ heads on the Genoese slab.
frieze, e.g. the Amazon in slab 8 near

ON SOME WORKS OF THE SCHOOL OF SCOPAS., 125

the later epochs is hard to trace, but may be surmised. Rhodian
sculpture was probably impressed by it, and the greatest of the
Asia Minor schools, the school of Pergamon. For on many of
the heads of the Pergamene frieze, in the treatment of the
forehead, eyes, and mouth, we see an exaggeration of the
manner which the heads of Tegea display ; and we may dis-
tinguish a Pergamene type of countenance as a species of
the general Alexandrine type. It is at least a tenable hypothesis
that it was the sculpture of Scopas, the great master of the
dramatic and pathetic style, that influenced the Pergamene
sculptors, whose work is a profuse display of pathos and violent
dramatic movement.
L. R. FARNELL.

126 IMPERIAL CUIRASS-ORNAMENTATION,

IMPERIAL CUIRASS-ORNAMENTATION,
AND A

TORSO OF HADRIAN IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

ΙΝ the last volume of the Jowrnal of Hellenic Studies (vi.
pp. 878-380) Prof. Newton has commented at length on some
remarks made by me in the same volume (vi. pp. 199—201) on
the torso of an imperial statue found at Cyrene and now in the
British Museum. Before considering Mr. Newton’s paper in
detail I may be permitted to say a few words on the subject
of cuirass-ornamentation in general,

In his Winckelmanns-fest-program for 1868, Dr. Hubner
referred to the want of a classified list of ornamented cuirasses
of emperors. No one has, at present, attempted to compile
such a list, which would, practically, have to take the form of
a complete monograph on sfatwae thoracatae, m which the
restorations, style, material, pose, and attribution of each figure
would have to be carefully studied. To carry out this work it
would be necessary to make a personal examination of a large
number of statues which have not hitherto been critically
described, and which have suffered greatly at the hands of
restorers. A difficulty which specially complicates the study of
this class of monuments would also have to be borne in mind—
namely, that in many cases the body of imperial statues appears
to have been originally made apart from the head. It seems
certain that it was sometimes the practice to export from
Greece torsos of Greek marble with ornamented cuirasses for -
sale in Italy or elsewhere—such torsos being provided with heads

AND A TORSO OF HADRIAN. 127

(sometimes of inferior work, and of Italian marble) after they
had come into the hands of the purchasers. When, therefore,
we find in our museums a cuirass-statue with an inserted head
made of different material from the rest of the figure, we are
not always compelled to assume that there was no con-
nexion in ancient times between that head and its body,
though of course in numerous instances the head can be proved
either to be not antique or to be an antique head arbitrarily
applied to the statue in modern times. (See on this point the
important remarks of Benndorf and Schone, Die antiken Bild-
werke des lateranensischen Musewms (1867), p. 125; Diitschke,
Ant. Bildwerke in Turin, ἕο. (1880), No. 55, p. 39; Fried-
laender, Sittengesch. Roms, ii. Ὁ. 187 ff.; Hiibner, Augustus
(1868); and U. Kohler in Annali (1863), p. 433.) A paper
confined to the present limits obviously makes no pretensions
to supply such a monograph as is needed, but the lists here
given of diiferent types of cuirass-ornamentation, though not
exhaustive, and probably requiring expansion and correction in
several details, may be useful to future workers, and may serve
as a provisional basis on which to discuss our subject.

The representation of the emperor in military dress is very
commonly found in imperial statues of marble and bronze from
the time of Augustus till the period of Constantine, or even
later. The prominent feature in the costume is a cuirass more
or less richly decorated with designs in relief.1_ In the middle
of the upper part of the cuirass there is almost invariably
present a Gorgoneion which not only formed a convenient
ornament, but also served as an apotropaion. Sometimes, how-
ever, the Gorgoneion is wanting, or its place is taken either by
some such device as the mask of a Triton (Clarac, No. 2414,
Pl. 338); the Head of Isis (Clarac, No. 2413, Pl. 337); the
Head of Poseidon (Matz and Von Duhn, Ant. Bildwerke in
Rom, i. No. 1349), or by a design such as that of Helios in his
chariot, rising from the sea (ep. Nos. 31*, 32* in our list, in/ra).

1 Occasionally the design is of ornamented with a gorgoneion-aegis.
extreme simplicity, 6.5. on the The statue in Clarac, no. 2487 D.,
‘Panzer-statue mit Kopf (?)’, ‘Com- PI. 936 D has a cuirass entirely
modus?’ found at Olympia (Die covered with an acanthus ornameu-
dusgrab,, ii. Pl, xxviii.) which is only tation,

128 IMPERIAL CUIRASS-ORNAMENTATION,

The central portion of the cuirass is taken up with a com-
position which, though varying in subject and details, commonly
presents a simple scheme in which two human figures stand
one on each side of an inanimate object, such as a Trophy or a
Candelabrum. A decorative scheme of this kind is very commou
on Roman terra-cotta reliefs. (See, for example, reliefs in the
British Museum figured in Ellis, Townley Gallery, i. pp. 88, 90,
91, 99, 105, 111, 116, 131, 136.) Immediately below the
central composition is usually a floral or acanthine ornament,
and attached to the lower part of the cuirass are the πτέρυγες, or
flaps, which are nearly always covered with medallions of various
device. The floral ornament of the Hierapytna statue (list,
No. 53*) and that of the Cyrene torso (55*) is pierced with
holes, evidently for the attachment of some metallic ornament.
It is not at all unlikely that the reliefs of cuirasses were picked
out with colour: at any rate on the well-known Augustus of
the Vatican (No. 68*) there were found distinct traces of
colouring; the figures having been carefully painted in blue,
red, and yellow, though the ground of the cuirass was left
plain.

LIST OF THE PRINCIPAL TYPES OF CUIRASS-ORNAMENTATION.
Type I—Two GRIFFINS.
A.—Two Griffins facing one another.

ΤῈ Mus. Capitol. Clarac, No. 2318 A, Pl. 912 B.

2*, Mus. Capitol. Clarac, No. 2442, Pl. 949.

3*, Rome, Coll. Giustiniani. Clarac, No. 2508, Pl. 973.

4*, Rome, Coll. Giustiniani. Gall. Giust.1. tav. 99; Clarac,
No. 2504, Pl. 974; Matz and Von Duhn, Antik. Bildwerke in
Rom, i. No. 1348.

5*, Rome, P. Carpegna. Matz and Von Duhn, Ant. Bildw.
in Rom, i. No. 1349.

6*. Rome, P. Ruspoli. Matz and Von Duhn, Ant. Bildw.
in Rom, i. No. 1353.

7*. Rome, P. Valentin. Matz and Von Duhn, Ant. Bildw.
in Rom, i. No. 1354.

8*, Rome, Stud. Monteverde.—‘ Die Arbeit ohne besonderes
Verdienst.. Matz and Von Duhn, Ant. Bildw. in Rom, 1.
No, 1354a.

AND A TORSO OF HADRIAN, 129

9*. Mus. Borbonico. Clarac, No. 2318 ἢ), Pl. 916.

10*. Florence, Uffizi. [Trajan ?—‘Der Kopf ist angesetzt,
aber antik.’] Diitschke, Die antike Marmorbildwerke der Uffizien
an Florenz, No. 59, p. 22.

11*. Florence, Palazzo Pitti. Greek marble. Diitschke,
Zerstreute ant. Bildwerke in Florenz, No. 8, p. 6.

12*. Mus. Dresden. Clarac, No. 2441, Pl. 949.

13*, British Museum. Found in the Great Theatre at
Ephesus. Lower portion of the cuirass, including the lower
parts of the Griffins, broken off. Rough work. Engraved,
Wood's Discoveries at Ephesus, p. 75.1

B.—Two Griffins ; between them, Candelubrum.

14*, Villa Albani. Clarac, No. 2354C, Pl. 936A; Ber-
noulli, Rém. Ikon. 11. p. 148, No. 13 (doubtful whether of
Tiberius, as Clarac says).

15*. Villa Albani. Clarac, No. 2449 B, Pl. 936 B.

16*. Rome, Coll. Giustiniani. Clarac, No. 2503, Pl. 974.

17*. Rome, P. Rospigliosi. Titus. ‘Arbeit municipal.’
Matz and Von Duhn, Ant. Bildw. in Rom, i. No. 1348.

18*. Mus. Borbonico. Found near Herculaneum. Clarac,
No. 2998 Ὁ, Pl. 916.

19*. Mus. Borbonico. Cuirass, ‘d’un bean travail’; Clarac,
No. 2448, Pl. 954.

20*. Mus. Borbonico. Cuirass, ‘d'un trés-beau travail’;
Clarac, No. 2463, Pl. 957.

21*. Glyptothek, Munich. Brunn calls the head Tiberius,
but Bernoulli (Rom. Ikon. ii. p. 175, No. 36) says it is not of
that emperor, rather, perhaps, of Germanicus. ‘Der Kopf ist
von besserer Arbeit als der wahrscheinlich jiingere decorativ
behandelte Panzer’; Brunn, Beschreibung der Glyptothek, 3rd
ed., Munich, 1873, No. 264, p. 251.

22*. Leyden. Trajan. Found at Utica. ‘Een practig
bewerkt curas. Janssen, Grieksche en Romeinsche Beelden en
Beeldwerken, Leyden, 1849, Pl. V., Fig. 13.

1 On a headless statue from Carthage Graeco-Roman Sculptures pt. ii. (1876),
in the British Museum, the right p. 37, no. 79): the left side of the
{spectator’s left] side of the cuirassis cuirass is partially covered by the
ornamented with aGriffin (nota Victory, paludamentum,
as described in British A/wscwm Guide to

H.S.—VOL. VIL. K

139 IMPERIAL CUIRASS-ORNAMENTATION,

23*, Louvre. [Caracalla?] Clarac, No, 2485, Pl. 292.
24* Louvre. Work well-executed. Clarac, No. 2499,

25*, Louvre. Clarac, No. 2501, Pl. 292.
26*. Louvre. Clarac, No. 2373, Pl. 277.

C—Two Griffins ; between them, plant, flower, &e.

27*, Rome, P. Sciarra. (Between Griffins, plant.) Matz
and Von Duhn, Ant. Bildw. in Rom, i. No. 1352.

28*, Vicenza, Museo Civico. (Between Griffins, laurel.)
Diitschke, Ant. Bildwerke in Vicenza, Venedig, &c., No. 15, p. 4.

29*, Rome, P. Torlonia. (Between Griffins, rose.) Matz
and Von Duhn, Ant. Bildw. in Rom, 1. No. 1850; Marmi Tor-
lonia, 1. 15 = Clarac, No. 2450, Pl. 951.

30*. Palestrina, P. Barberini. (Between Griffins, thyrsus.)
Matz and Von Dubn, Ant. Bildw. in Rom, i. No. 1359.

D—Two Griffins and two Phrygians.

31%, Lateran Mus. On upper part of cuirass, ‘ Helios’ in
chariot; sea beneath: in centre of cuirass, two Griffins, to each
of which a bearded Barbarian in a Phrygian cap presents a
bowl.—Greek marble. Well-executed. Benndorf and Schéne,
Die ant. Bildw. des lateran. Mus. 1. No. 204, p. 1247. = Clarac,
2362 A, Pl. 936 E.

32*, Turin, Museo d’Antichita. On upper part of cuirass,
‘Kos’ in chariot: in centre of cuirass, on each side of a flower,
a Barbarian in a Phrygian cap offering a bowl to a Griffin.—
Work, ‘fein und sorgfiltig.’ Diitschke. Ant. Bildw. in Turin,
ἄς., No. 2, p. 2 = Clarac, 2354 A, Pl. 924; Mém. del Acad. Imp.
de Turin, 1805, 537 ff.

[With the Helios and Eos of Nos. 31* and 32*, ep. Monaco,
Les Monum. du Mus. Nat. de Naples, Pl. 98.]

Type I].—Two Vicrorigs; BETWEEN THEM, CANDELABRUM.

33*. Villa Albani. (Victories crowning candelabrum: be-
neath, two chariots.) Probably Augustus (so Bernoulli, Rom.
Ikon. 11, p. 32, No. 23; 2b. p. 74). Clarae, No, 2386388
Pl. 936 B.

AND A TORSO OF HADRIAN. 131

34*. Rome, P. Altieri. (Victories crowning candelabrum :
upper part of cuirass restored.) Rossi-Maffei, Raccolta, tav.
ex.; Matz and Von Duhn, Ant. Bildw. in Rom, i. No. 1845.

35*, Louvre. (Victories crowning candelabrum.) Cuirass,
‘d’un beau travail.’ Clarac, No. 2500, Pl. 292.

36*. Villa Albani. (Victories touching candelabrum.) Clarac,
No. 2459 C, Pl. 936 A.

37*. Lateran. (Victories touching candelabrum.) Benndorf
and Schone, Die ant. bildw. des laterun. Mus., No. 587, p. 899.

38*, Parma, Museo d’Antichiti. (Victories touching can-
delabrum.) Found in the ruins of the Basilica of Velleja.
Antolini, Ze rovine di Velleja, ix. 5; Diitschke, Antik. Bildw. in
Vicenza...Parma, &c., No. 890; p. 369.

39*. Florence, Palazzo Cepparelli. (Victories touching
eandelabrum.) The relief ‘ist fein gearbeitet’; Diitschke,
Zerstreute ant. Bildw. in Florenz, No. 409, p. 194.

40*, Louvre. (Victories touching candelabrum.) Cuirass
noteworthy. Clarac, No. 2401, Pl 337; and Pl. 356, No. 29.

41*, Louvre. (Victories touching candelabrum.) Torso of
statue found at Gabi. ‘D'un travail exquis’; Clarac, No.
2535 [A], Pl. 355.

42*, Glyptothek, Munich. (Victories carrying candelabrum.)
Moderate work. Brunn, Beschreibung der Glypt., No. 192,
p. 222; Clarac, No. 2481, Pl. 964.

Tyrer IIJ.—Two VICTORIES ; BETWEEN THEM, TROPHY.

43*. Rome, P. Colonna. (Victories hanging shields on
trophy, near which, barbarian woman and child.) Matz and
Von Dubn, Ant. Bildw. in Rom, i. No. 1355; Braun, Ant.
Marmorw. 11. 9.

44*, Turin, Museo d’Antichita. (Victories with shields.)
Probably Claudius. From Susa (Segusium). Statue of Pentelic,
head of Italian, marble—‘Der angesetzte Kopf von guter
Arbeit.’ ‘Der Sturz von ziemlich handwerksmiissiger Arbeit.’
Diitschke, Ant. Bildw. in Turin, &c., No. 55, p. 39; Ermanno
Ferrero in the Atti della Societa di Archeologia e Belle Arti per
la Provincia di Torino, i. Fasc. 4, Τὰν. xvili.; ep. Bernoulli,
fiom, Ikon. 11, p. 835, No. 20.

K-23

132 IMPERIAL CUIRASS-ORNAMENTATION,

45*, Landesmuseum at Agram. (Victories with shields;
beneath trophy, two bearded captives.) Torso ‘aus grauen
Stein’ <Archacologisch-Epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Oester-
reich, Jahrgang 111. (1879), p. 166.

46*, Louvre. (Victories with shields; beneath, trophy, two
captives.) Found at Gabii. Cuirass, ‘d’un excellent travail.’
Clarac, No. 2414, Pl. 338 and Pl. 356, No. 42.

47*, Madrid. (Victories with shields.) Italian marble.
According to Hiibner, good work, of the time of Hadrian and
the Antonines. Hiibner, Die ant. Bildwerke in Madrid (1862),
No. 81, p. 84 = Clarac, No. 2504 A, Pl. 910 Β (‘ungenau’) ;
cp. Hiibner, ‘ Augustus’ (1868).

48*, Mus. Capitol. (Victories crowning (?) trophy.) [M. Au-
relius?] Clarac, No. 2447, Pl. 953.

- 49*, Rome, Coll. Panfili. (Victories crowning trophy.)
Clarac, No. 2507, Pl. 981.

50*, Leyden. (One Victory has wreath, the other, sword.)
Janssen, Giricksche en Romeinsche Beelden, &c., Pl. V., Fig. 14.

51*. Venice, Palazzo Grimani. (One Victory has wreath,
the cther, sword.) Diitschke thinks it superior to other similar
statues in the fine execution of the details, and in the graceful
pose of the figure. Diitschke, Ant. Bildw. in Vicenza, Venedig,
&c., No. 376, p. 146; Bernoulli, Rom. Ikon. p. 36, No. 48 and
p. 78; Clarac, No. 2412 A, Pl. 940.

52*, Athens, Kentrikon Mouseion. (Two Victories; between
them, trophy.) Sybel, Katalog der Sculpt. zu Athen, No. 2150,
Ῥ: 176:

Type LV. A.—-Two VICTORIES CROWNING PALLADIUM.

53*. Constantinople, Imperial Museum. (Beneath Palladium,
Wolf and Twins.) Hadrian. Found at Hierapytna in Crete.
Photographed, Gazette archéologique, 1880, Pl. 6; pp. 52-55;
see also Journ. Hell. Stud. vi. pp. 199-201 (W. Wroth); 10.
pp. 378-3880 (C. T. Newton) and p. 140 of the present article.

54*, Torso and head of Hadrian from the excavations at
Olympia. (Beneath Palladium, Wolf and Twins.) Ausgrab-
ungen, li. Pl. χχισ tv. p. la; vy. ΕἸ xxiv. Nooo a>:

55*, British Museum. (Beneath Palladium, Wolf and
Twins.) Torso found at Cyrene. Brit. Mus. Guide to Graeco-

AND A TORSO OF HADRIAN. 133

Roman Sculptures, pt. 1. (1879), p. 21, No. 46; p. 16 in ed. of
1874. Journ. Hell. Stud. vi. pp. 199-201; 378-380 and p. 138
of this article; Friederichs and Wolters, Die Gipsabgiisse ant.
Bildw. (Berlin, 1885), No. 1655, pp. 668, 669.

56*, Berlin Museum. (No wolf and twins.) Augustus:
according to Hiibner has its own hea, though head and body
are of different marbles. Hiibner, Augustus, Marmorstatue des
Berl. Mus. (Berlin, 1868); Clarac, No. 2835, Pl. 914; Bernoulli,
Rom. Ikon. ii. p. 42, No. 87; p. 73.

57*. Mus. Borbonico. (No wolf and twins.) ‘Beau torso.’
Clarac, No. 2412, Pl. 942.

58*, Athens. (Fragment: no wolf and twins?) MHiibner,
Augustus (1868), Pl. i. No. 2; p. 12; Sybel, Katalog der
Sculpturen zu Athen, No. 5957, p. 373; Friederichs and Wolters,
Die Gipsabgiisse ant. Bildw, (Berlin, 1885), No. 1656, p. 669.

59*, Vatican. (Two Victories and Palladium [? Trophy]:
no wolf and twins.) Clarac, No. 2479, Pl. 964; cp. Hiibner,
Augustus (1868), p. 12.

Tyre IV. B—Two DANcING-GIRLS; BETWEEN THEM,
PALLADIUM.

60*. Mus. Borbonico. ‘ La cuirasse est fort belle d’execution,’
Clarac, No. 2505, Pl. 973.

61*. Turin, Museo d’Antichita. Found at Susa (Segusium).
Cuirass of fine work. Diitschke, Ant. Bildw. in Turin, No. 1.
p. 1, and reff. there; Hiibner, Augustus (1868); Bernoulli,
ftom. Ikon. 11. Ὁ». 200, No. 1; Clarac, No. 2326, Pl. 919.

Type V.—Iwo CaPTIvES.

62*. Rome, Coll. Torlonia. (A male and a female barbarian
captive seated opposite one another.) Matz and Von Duhn,
Die ant. Bildw. in Rom, No. 1351; Marmi Torlonia, τι. 58;
Clarac, No. 2480, Pl. 965.

63*. Villa Borghese. (In central portion of cuirass, two
captives.) Clarac, No. 2449 A, Pl. 964.

64*, Louvre. (Trophy, on each side of it, a captive.) ‘ Fine-
ment décorée de sculptures,” Clarac, No. 2413, Pl. 337.

134 IMPERIAL CUIRASS-ORNAMENTATION,

Tyree VI.—Two NEREIDS ON SEA-HORSES.

65*, Head and torso of Titus from excavations at Olympia:
(Two Nereids on sea-horses; beneath, two dolphins.) Good
work, Die Ausgrabungen zu Olympia, 111. Pl. xix. No. 3; p. 13;
ἵν pols: ν ΕἸ Στ Nos 2p, 15.

66*, Athens, Kentrikon Mouseion. (On breast, Selene (?)
in chariot; beneath, two Nereids on sea-horses.) Torso from
Megara. Sybel, Katalog der Sculpturen zu Athen, No. 421, p. 76.

67*. Lowther Castle, England. ([Two?] Nereids on sea-
horses, carrying the armour of Achilles.) Found in the Villa
of Alexander Severus, near the Via Ostiensis. Michaelis,
Ancient Marbles in Great Britain, p. 490, No. 13.

ΤΎΡΕ VII.—HISTORICAL SUBJECTS.

68*, Vatican. Augustus. From Porta Prima, about nine
miles from the Porta del Popolo, Rome. Fine work. On upper
part of cuirass, Caelus (God of the Sxy); beneath him, Sol in
chariot, preceded by Pandrosos and Aurora. In centre of
cuirass, a warrior [Mars? Augustus 1], attended by a wolf,
receives standards from a Parthian. To right and left of
central group, a captive; beneath central group, Tellus
reclining; Apollo; Diana.—JIonumenti, vi. Pl. 84, 1, 2; Rayet,
Monuments de Cart antique; Annali, 1863, p. 432 (Kohler) ;
Hiibner, Augustus (1863), p. 97; L. Mitchell, Hist. of Ancicnt
Sculpture, p. 675; Friederichs and Wolters, Die Gipsabgiisse
ant. Bildw, (Berlin, 1885), pp. 663-665, No. 1640; O. Jahn,
Aus der Alierthumswissenschaft, Pl. 6, pp. 259, 285; Bernoulli,
Rom. Ikon. 11. pp. 24-27 ; 72; W.C. Perry, Descriptive Catalogue
of the Collection of Casts at South Kensington Museum (London,
1884), p. 112, No. 241.

VILi.—Various TyPkss.

69*. Villa Albani. Geta? Two figures (Hercules and a
nymph ?) reclining. Clarac, No. 2486 B, Pl. 236 Ὁ.

70*. Rome, P. Colonna. Palladium; beneath, Ge and
Okeanos reclining. Matz and Von Duhn, Ant. Bildw. in Rom,
i. No. 1857; Braun, Ant. Marmorw. ii. 10.

AND A TORSO OF HADRIAN. 135

71*. British Museum. Doubtful if the head (Hadrian)
belongs to it. Female figure (fortune or Victory) holding
palm-branch and cornucopiae; on right and left, two captives,
each kneeling at the foot of a trophy; beneath, reclining female
figure (Abundantia or Tellus), Anc. Marbles in Brit. Mus. xi.
PL. 45; Ellis, Zownley Gallery, i. p. 256; Guide to the Graeco-
Lioman Sculptures ὧν Brit. Mus, (1874), Part 1, p. 8, No. 19 (so
also in ed. of 1879); Clarac, No. 2420, Pl. 944.

72*. Mus. Pioclem. Found at Castra Nuovo. Cuirass similar
to No. 71*. Clarac, No. 2462, Pl. 957.
73*. Mantua (Museo). Pentelic marble. Female captive (?)

near trophy (7) ; on each side, Nike slaying ox. Diitschke, Ant.
hildw. in Turin...und Mantua, No. 634, p. 279; Labus, Museo
dellu reale Academia di Mantova, ii. Tay. xl. [The familiar
figure of Nike slaymg an ox occurs also on a cuirass in
P. Sciarra, Rome; see Matz and Von Duhn, Ant. Bildw. in
ftom, i. No. 1361.]

74*, Naples. Caligula (probably). From Minturnae. Horse
attacked by Chimaera; beneath, rider, thrown. ‘ Trés-belle.
Clarac, No. 2375, Pl. 933; Bernoulli, Rom. Ikon. ii. p. 306,
No...9.*

Most of the cuirasses described in the above lists appear on
torsos, many of which have been restored and provided with

1 Some further references to various
cuirasses &c., may here be added :—
Benndorf and Schone, Die ant. Bildw.
des lateran. Mus., 1867, No. 497;
Bernoulli, Rom. Zkon. ii. p. 306, No.

10 = Clarac, No. 2374, pl. 933;
Clarac, No. 23853, pl. 924; No.

2420 B, pl. 986 A; No. 2509, pl. 973 ;
Wor 2502) pl. 9714; Νο: 2525, pl.
980 = Mich. F. v. Jabornegyg-Alten-
fels, Karnten’s réimische Alterthiimer,
Klagenfurt, 1870, p. 145, No. ecelxix ;
Diitschke, Zerstrewte ant. Bildw. in
Florenz, Giardino Boboli, No. 88 (22),
p. 46; Diitschke, Ant. Bildw. in
Turin, Brescia, Verona and Mantua,
No. 678, p. 304, ‘ Hadriansbuste ’
(Mantua); 70. No. 857, No. 372
(cuirass) ; Friedlaenderin Arch. Zeitung,
1860, p. 34; pl. 136, Der Erz Coloss
von Barletta ; Heydemann, Die ant.

Marmor - Bildwerke ... . ww Athen
(Berlin, 1874), No. 422 (150) νυ. 162;
ib. No. 608 (186), p. 221; Hiibner,
Die ant. Bildw. in Madrid, No. 82, p.
85; 7b. Nos. 692, 693, p. 294; Matz
and Von Duhn, dnt. Bildw. in Loin,
i. No. 1844 (cuirass plain); ib. No.
1346, 1847; No. 1360 (fragment of
cuirass, ‘ Victory with vexillum ’) ; No.
1361 A; No. 1362; L. von Sybel,
Katalog der Sculpturen zw Athen, No.
420, p. 76; No. 422, p. 77, ‘Torso
einer (unteritalischen 1) Stadtgottin ;
aus der Kaiserzeit.? She wears a
cuirass with a representation of Skylla,
see authorities cited by Sybel ; 7b. No.
423, p. 77; No. 3919, p 281; No.
3944, p. 282; No. 4849, p. 331; No.
5956, p. 818; No. 6394, p. 395; No.
6488, p. 399; No. 6608, p. 405.

136 IMPERIAL CUIRASS-ORNAMENTATION,

heads of emperors: the number of cuirasses on statues which
undoubtedly or probably retain their original heads—and these
alone have been noted in our lists—is, unfortunately, extremely
small. It is thus very difficult to determine when any particular
type of cuirass first made its appearance ; how long it continued
in use; and whether different types were appropriated to dif-
ferent emperors. The commonest type is No. 1., in which two
Griffins are represented either facing one another, or with their
fore-paws placed on a candelabrum or a plant. This singularly
banal device certainly came into use for cuirass-ornamentation
in the first century A.D., and was employed during the second
century, and probably later. It was, no doubt, derived—though
we cannot trace all the steps of descent—from some such
ancient design as that on the relief with Griffins, in the Louvre,
found at Arados (figured, Mitchell, Hist. of Anc. Sculpture,
p- 115). Originally the plant was a sacred tree, but by the
time it appeared on Roman cuirasses it had become a mere
piece of decoration, and its place might equally well be taken
by a candelabrum or a thyrsus. The style of the griffin-
cuirasses varies a good deal, some specimens being stone-masons’
work of the most ordinary kind, while others, especially in
Type I. B, are finely executed. A iore pleasing variety of the
type may be found in I. D, in which two Barbarians are offering
the Griffins drink from a bowl. This last design is found also on
Roman terra-cotta reliefs (¢.g. on a relief in the British Museum,
figured in Ellis, Townley Gallery, i. Ὁ. 91).

Hardly less numerous than the griffin-cuirasses are those on
which two figures of Victory appear; in our lists, the varieties
of this scheme are treated as distinct types (II., IIL, IV. A.).
Type 11. (Victories and candelabrum) first occurs on a statue
which is probably of Augustus (No. 33*). Several specimens
are of good work. In Type III. the Victories are hastening
towards a trophy upon which they generally hang their shields?;
sometimes two captives are seen beneath the trophy. On a
statue at Venice, which is stated to be exceptionally fine
(No. 51*; ep. 50*), one Victory brings to the trophy a wreath,
the other, a sword. The first appearance of this type is on a

1 Cf. the Victories holding shields Matz and Von Duhn, Ant. Bildw. in
&c., on the reliefs of Sarcophagi, Rom, ii. p. 142, ἔς

AND A TORSO OF HADRIAN. 137

figure which may be of Claudius (No. 44*). More interesting is
Type IV. A., in which the Victories are engaged in crowning an
archaic, or, rather, archaistic, figure holding spear and shield,
This figure has sometimes been called Roma, but it is certainly
Pallas, or the Palladium, for on some examples it is accompanied
by an owl and serpent. On Nos. 53*, 54*, 55* an additional
device—the Wolf and Twins—is placed beneath the Palladium.
The type thus amplified occurs on two statues of Hadrian
(53*, 54*), and its introduction has been plausibly attributed
by Dr. Treu (Die Ausgrabungen zw Olympia, iv. p. 13) to that
Emperor himself :—‘ Die Beziehung des reichen Reliefschmuckes
am Panzer [No. 54* of our lists] auf dem Philhellenen unter
den rémischen Kaisern ist jetzt unverkennbar; die Vereinigung
des altertiimlichen Schnitzbildes der athenischen Burggéttin
mit der romischen Wolfin ist ganz in seinem Sinne. It is not
at all unlikely that this type may have been specially used for
cuirasses of Hadrian, though it must be remarked that the type
of two Victories crowning the Palladium occurs—though without
the addition of the Wolf and Twins—on the Berlin statue
which bears the head of Augustus (No. 56*). The place of the
Victories (who wear either long or short chitons) is occasionally
taken (IV. B) by Dancing-girls, such as those which appear on
a marble candelabrum in the Louvre and on other monuments
(see reff. in Baumeister, Denkmdler des klass. Altertums, s.v.
‘ Hierodulentanz’).

As type V., I have classed three specimens bearing figures of
Captives. Type VI. is a somewhat graceful representation of
two Nereids on sea-horses. On No. 67*, found in the Villa of
Alexander Severus, near the Via Ostiensis, the Nereids are
carrying the armour of Achilles—a subject which, as is well
known, is found on all classes of Greek and Roman monuments.
(See a list in Heydemann’s monograph, Nereiden mit den Waffen
des Achill, Halle, 1879.) The type of two Nereids was used on
cuirasses at least as early as the reign of Titus (see No. 65*).
Type VII. (No. 68*)—the Vatican Augustus—seems to be a
unique instance of a cuirass-relief making allusion to a historical
event. As has already been pointed out by several writers, we
have here a record of the famous recovery of the Roman
standards from the Parthians. It is the Golden Age of
Augustus: sun and sky are smiling upon the fruitful earth, and

138 IMPERIAL CUIRASS-ORNAMENTATION,

Apollo and Diana are present as the patrons of the Roman
state 1 :—
‘Tua, Caesar, aetas
Fruges et agris rettulit uberes
Et signa nostro restituit Jovi
Derepta Parthorum superbis
Postibus, et vacuum duellis
Janum Quirini clausit.’*

Between the devices which decorate the πτέρυγες of nearly
all cuirasses there is a strong family likeness, and it does not
appear that each type of cuirass was accompanied by a distinct
set of πτέρυγες. The staple ornamentation consists of animals’
heads, interspersed with human heads, weapons, rosettes, &c.
Type I. (Griftins) seems rather to have a predilection for πτέρυγες
adorned with heads of animals (lions, rams, eagles, &c.) ; Types
Ill. and IY. usually display among the medallion-ornaments a
head of Ammon (in the centre) and a head of Medusa. One
cuirass of Type III. (no. 50*) has representations of ten Labours
of Herakles on its πτέρυγες, but as a rule there is little variety
in this part of cuirasses, though sometimes the medallions (eg.
the Medusa-heads) are executed with much refinement.

We have now to consider the torso from Cyrene, referred to
at the beginning of this article (no. 55* in Lists). Professor
Newton thinks that this torso belongs to the Augustan
Age, and I admit that the 1efined work of which, though
sadly weather-worn, it still shows traces is worthy of that
period. Fine cuirass-ornamentation is not, however, the mono-
poly of the Augustan Age, for, as our lists of Types will
abundantly prove, good work is found on Imperial cuirasses of
nearly every class. Many of the fine cuirasses cannot, indeed,
be dated with certainty, but it will hardly be maintained that
they all belong to the age of Augustus, and some we know
positively to be of post-Augustan periods. Stylistic considerations
do not then necessarily compel us to assign this torso to the
time of Augustus. I proposed to name it Hadrian, mainly on
account of the resemblance of its cuirass to that on a statue

1 Cp. Hor., Carm. Sacc. and Boissier, 80 (ff.
La keligion romaine (1878), i. p. 2 Hor., Carm. iv. 15, 4.

AND A TORSO OF HADRIAN. 139

found at Hierapytna in Crete which has its original head—a
head which I did not think would be disputed to be that of
Hadrian (see the statue photographed in Gazette Archéologique,
1880, pl. 6, pp. 52—55 ; Lists, 53*). The emperor in that statue
is trampling on a captive, and as this is a motive of extreme
rarity, I, perhaps, went too «ἴ in assuming that the Cyrene
torso originally presented precisely the same motive. [I still
think, however, that that torso need not of necessity be assigned
to the time of Augustus, and that when complete it was probably
a statue of Hadrian.

Mr. Newton has drawn up in his paper the following list of
cuirasses on which are designs described by him as similar to
those on the Cyrene and Hierapytna monuments :—

1. Clarac, PJ. 919, No. 2326. (Turin.)

2. Clarac, Pl. 942, No. 2412. (Naples.)

3. Clarac, Pl. 963 [misprint for 964], No. 2479. (Vatican.)

4, Clarac, Pl. 973, No. 2505. (Naples.)

5. ‘ Augustus’ at Berlin [No. 56* in our List of Types].

6. Torso and head from Olympia [No. 54* in our List of
Types].

7. Fragment at Athens [No. 58* in our List of Types].

And he remarks that it is incumbent upon me to prove that all
these statues and torsos represent the Emperor Hadrian rather
than any other emperor. Certainly if they all displayed cuirasses
identical with the Cyrene cuirass it would be necessary to take
them all into consideration ; but in so far as they are not identical
with that cuirass they may surely be set aside as irrelevant to
the argument. Now, No. 1 in Mr. Newton’s list does not
represent—as the Cyrene torso does—two Victories crowning
the Palladium, but two dancing-girls engaged in that act. No. 4
also may be set aside as it does not present the figures of
Victory. In fact, the only cuirass in the list which exactly
presents the Cyrene cuirass-scheme of Victories, Palladium,
Wolf and Twins, is No. 6—and that isa statue of Hadrian.
Nos. 2, 5 and 7 (and perhaps No. 3) have the Victories and the
Palladium, but are without the Wolf and Twins. I do not feel
sure that the absence of the Wolf and Twins constitutes a dis-
tinct type of cuirass, and so far I admit that the existence of
these four monuments—one is of Augustus and the others cannot

140 IMPERIAL CUIRASS-ORNAMENTATION,

be assigned—renders the attribution of the Cyrene cuirass to
Hadrian less certain than it would otherwise be, though it cer-
tainly does not seem to invalidate that attribution altogether

A cuirass practically identical with that on the Cyrene torso
occurs, then, on two monuments—the head and torso found at
Olympia (No. 54*)—and on the Hierapytna statue. Are these
two monuments of Hadrian ?

The torso of the Olympian statue was found by itself in the
Exedra, but its head was fortunately afterwards discovered.
Dr. Treu calls it the head of Hadrian, and in this he seems to
me perfectly justified.

The attribution to Hadrian of the Hierapytna statue has, on
every ground, been called in question by Mr. Newton. He
considers it to be the statue of some emperor (whom he does not
name) of the third century A.D.; and with regard to its style
generally he pronounces it the ‘ clumsy work of a provincial artist,
just such as might have been expected in an island like Crete.’
Mr. Newton does not state that he speaks from a personal
examination of the statue, but, in any case, an opinion from him
on a question of style deserves serious consideration. Against it
must be set, however, the opinion of Longpérier who recognized
in the figure ‘une des plus belles statues d’Hadrien’; the
opinions—incidentally expressed—of Dr. Treu (Die Ausgrab. zu
Olymp. v.p. 15), and of Dr. Wolters (Die Gipsabgiisse ant. Bildw.,
Berlin, 1885, pp. 668, 669, no. 1655), both of whom admit the
Hadrian attribution ; the opinion of M. E. Goold, who in his
Catalogue of the Imperial Museum of Constantinople (cited Gaz.
Arch., 1880, p. 53) describes it as ‘fort belle’ ;* and finally the
opinion of M. Sorlin-Dorigny, who, though admitting that the
statue as a whole is ‘d’un aspect un peu lourd,’ speaks of it as
one of ‘les plus belles statues iconographiques de l’Empire
romain. Even, however, if we were forced to adopt Mr. Newton’s

1 The object placed between the
Victories on No. 3 is called by Clarac
(No. 2479, pl. 964) the ‘ Palladium,’
though it is not very distinct in his
engraving, and Hibner (Augustus
(1868), p. 12) calls it atrophy. No. 7
isa fragment and it is impossible to
say whether it originally had or had
not the Wolf and Twins device.

* M. Dethier of the Constantinople
Museum called the statue ‘ Caracalla,’
but it certainly has not the character-
istic head and features of that
Emperor.

3 J regret that I have not had
access to a copy of Mons. S. Reinach’s
Catalogue of the Constantinople
Museum,

AND A TORSO OF HADRIAN. 141

view as to the very inferior style of the statue, we should not
necessarily have to pronounce it a monument of the third century:
it might have been badly executed even in the time of Hadrian
—might be, in fact, a clumsy copy by a provincial artist, just
such as might have been expected in an island like Crete.

With regard to the motive of this statue, Mr. Newton remarks:
‘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 character-
istic of the third and fourth centuries A.D. than of the age of
Hadrian.’ He does not bring forward any direct evidence as to
the usage of statuaries in the matter, and so far as I have myself
noticed this motive in an imperial statue is at present unique.
I fully admit the justice of Mr. Newton’s remark about the
numismatic analogies, though even there the evidence is not all
one way, for on a coin of Rhescuporis II., who was ruler of
Bosporos in the latter part of the first century a.D., we find the
king represented standing with one of bis feet resting on the
back of a captive (see Koehne, Mus. Kotschoubey, p. 231, pl. xi.
no. 26).

The statue, as I have already stated, retains its original head.
This head is adorned with a wreath, in the centre of which is
placed a medallion, and Mr. Newton states that he would ‘not
have expected’ such a head-dress on a statue of Hadrian. It
is, however, a fact that this head-dress was used for imperial
busts and statues in the time of Hadrian and in the second
century A.D. It is found (1) on a head of Trajan preserved in
the Glyptothek at Munich (Brunn, Beschreibung der Glypt.,
no. 268, p. 252); (2) on the head of Hadrian himself, found at
Olympia (Ausgrabungen, v. pl. xxiv. no, 3; p. 15); and (8) on
the head of Antoninus Pius, also found at Olympia (Ausgrad.
il. pl. xx. no. 5; p. 14).

To myself the features of the Hierapytna statue certainly
seemed and still seem to be those of the Emperor Hadrian.
This also was the opinion of Longpérier, Sorlin-Dorigny, Wolters,
and Treu. And I may add that two of my friends who (like
myself) have to deal almost daily with the varied imperial
portraiture of Greek and Roman coins, on seeing the photograph
of the statue pronounced its head to be that of Hadrian, The
head, moreover, bears, both in head dress and features, a very
close resemblance to the head found at Olympia (Ausgrabungen,

142 IMFERIAL CUIRASS-ORNAMENTATION.

v. pl. xxiv. no.3; p. 15), which is called Hadrian by Dr. Treu.
Mr. Newion briefly refers in his paper to the discovery of the
latter head, but I rather think that the photograph of it (in
vol. v. of the Ausgralungen) was not accessible when he wrote:
if he now pronounces it to be Hadrian he will be almost com-
pelled, I think, to admit that the head of the Hierapytna statue
is likewise Hadrian. If, however, he still maintains that the
Hierapytna statue belongs to the third century A.D., the task
will devolve on him of naming some third century emperor to
whose features its head bears a much closer resemblance than
it bears to those of Hadrian.

This statue may, then, I hope be considered to be certainly
of Hadrian, and as both it and the Olympian statue of Hadrian
are ornamented with cuirasses practically identical with the
cuirass on the Cyrene torso, I would submit that the name of
Hadrian rather than that of Augustus should be given to the

torso in question.
WARWICK WROTH.

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL VISIT TO SAMOS. 143

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL VISIT TO SAMOS.

ENGLISH enterprise in excavation has been considerably
checked of late years by the impossibility of obtaining anything
like fair terms from the Greek or Turkish governments. Greece
will grant concessions on an agreement being duly signed that
everything found shall belong to the Greek government and that
the works shall be superintended by a Greek ἔφορος who has
been educated in Germany. Turkey whose relations with the
English Government have of late been rather strained will come
to no arrangement whatsoever. So we chose Samos last winter
as a likely field owing to its haying an independent government,
but this government in every way follows the lines of Greece, and
thongh I tried hard to obtain a concession for taking away one
half or one third of the things found I was eventually obliged
to sign the same agreement which the French excavator M. Clerk
had signed two years before, and which stipulated that every-
thing found should belong to Samos. Consequently if English
archaeologists wish to prosecute researches on the actual soil of
Hellas, it remains for them to decide whether they are sufficiently
remunerated for their trouble and outlay by the bare honour of
discovering statues, inscriptions, and other treasures to be placed
in the museum of Athens, or, as is the case in Turkey,
for the inhabitants to make chalk of, or build into their houses.

Between the time of my landing in Samos and the time when
the council would meet which could grant the leave to excavate
six weeks elapsed which we spent in visiting some of the neigh-
bouring islands to inspect the antiquities. There isa small group
of islands called the Fournoi near Samos, the principal of which
is now called Krousae, the ancient Corassia, and on the hill close
to the harbour are considerable. remains of an Hellenic town

144 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL VISIT TO SAMOS.

built on a marble rock which has been much cut and adorned ;
under the highest point stood a colossal statue the holes for the
feet of which are still visible with an inscription round the base
so obliterated that scarcely any letters can be deciphered ; thi
was the case too with numerous rock-cut inscriptions and or-
namentations which covered this rock. On the coast of Corassia
about 10 miles from the town is the base of an Hellenic marble
temple with a well.preserved approach, but on the top two small
Byzantine churches had been erected, and in digging here we
failed to find any inscription or further trace of antiquity.

Patmos, Leipso and Archi form another group at some little
distance from Samos, and at Patmos near the harbour are traces
of a considerable Hellenic town built in dark stone and without
a single trace of marble. On the western extremity are the
ruins of a temple of considerable size and one portion of the
city walls is built of polygoual stones whereas the other is con-
structed of well-cut rectangular ones. To the north the walls
are flanked by two square towers, which form a sort of platform,
and close to them is easily to be distinguished the ancient gate-
way into the town. The circle of the walls must be at least a
mile and a half, and the débris inside prove it to have been a
place of considerable importance.

On Leipso, which lies a little to the east of Patmos, there are
several traces of ancient habitations. Though most of these
seem to belong to the Roman period, there are traces of a fine
Hellenic fortress commanding the harbour, from which the
following inscription was taken :—

ETMIZTEDANHODOPOY ANTI
OXOY TOY AIZEXINOY
PPOYPAPXOS THE NHE
ΣΟΥ AIONYZIOS El
PHNIOY ΦΎΣΕΙ AE
EAAINOY ANHP Al

KAIOS

On Gadharonisi, or Agathonisi, a small low island, formerly
Ladé, the scene of the naval battle between the Ionians and the
Persians, we saw considerable traces of ancient buildings. . To

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL VISIT TO SAMOS. 145

complete our tour of the islands of the Ikarian Sea we then
went to Nikaria, and here, from what we heard from the in-
habitants, we hoped to be able to do some profitable excavation.
For this purpose I endeavoured to secure the leave of the
Kaimakam, but I was told that we should not be allowed even
to see the antiquities with our eyes, or to visit any of the
villages. At this threat we laughed, but found that we could
persuade no boatman or muleteer to accompany us; and after
being virtually prisoners for several days in Nikaria, we got a
boat to take us to Samos.

We commenced our excavations at Tigani, the site of the old
capital of Samos, and the first difficulty that presented itself
was this, that the whole area of the ruined town, several miles in
circumference, is now planted with vineyards; and to purchase a
vineyard at haphazard for excavation would have not only been
a very doubtful speculation, but would have exhausted most of
my funds. So we determined on digging only on waste places,
and in one or two fields, where the proprietors gave us per-
mission free of charge. We first opened several graves, and
found several stelae on a spot called Glyphada. The stelae of
Samos are nearly all alike very well executed, with the armour
and habiliments of the deceased sculptured on the background.
In the tombs we found only a few insignificant objects, and then
we turned our attention to a waste field which the proprietor
said was so full of marble that he had never been able to plant
anything in it. After several days’ digging, and the discovery
of much marble of no special merit, we came across a large
marble, on the uppermost side of which was a long Greek
inscription (see below), and on the lower side a Byzantine one;
in point of fact, all the remains on this spot showed that they
had been used for some considerable Byzantine building, into
which ancient stones had been introduced for ornamentation.

We found it precisely the same in the next field we attacked,
out of which Some lovely marbles were disinterred, which will
probably soon be used for the foundations of a pier, which is at
present being constructed at Tigani, and which already contains
the pillars and decorations of two temples which were excavated
some years ago. We were told that all the Hellenic treasures
lay buried beneath the late Roman and Byzantine town; so we
went very deep in one or two places, but found no trace of

H.S.— VOL. VII. L

146 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL VISIT TO SAMOS.

foundations below those on which the Roman buildings had been
erected. At another point we came across a Roman villa, with
a beautifully tessellated marble floor. The subsequent occu-
pations and spoliations of the ancient town of Samos seem to
leave little hope of valuable discoveries being made here, unless
at a great outlay of money in buying up the vineyards and
working steadily through them. The French excavators at the
Heraeon came to the same conclusion, After working through
Byzantine and Roman rubbish they came upon the Hellenic
foundations, and nothing more.

As these results were not altogether satisfactory, aud as we
had exhausted most of the available waste ground at Tigani, we
decided on visiting other parts of the island, where Hellenic
remains exist.

At Potamos, a lovely gorge to the north of the island, we
found traces of a town, close to which was a ruined Byzantine
church, with four Corinthian pillars, huge blocks of stone and
cut jasper, probably from some ancient temple. In digging on a
tiny plain beneath this we came across the remains of Hellenic
buildings, in one of which was a marble slab, rounded at one
end, 2 feet 8} inches by 2 feet 9; this marble was very neatly
worked with a rim round the edge, and a lip at one end from
which the juice of something pressed on the slab was evidently
intended to run. Underneath the marble was most ¢arefully
worked with slight ornamentation.

To the south of the island, under the slopes of Mt. Kerketeus,
which after Samothrace is the highest mountain in the Archi-
pelago, we found the remains of an extensive Greek town, at a
spot called Kastri, where we pitched our tent and decided to
work for several days. The brow of a low hill is encircled in
terraces by massive Hellenic masonry, and here we dug up a
large basalt grinding mill, six feet in diameter, with a central
pivot for the handle of the grindstone, rising fourteen imches
from the level of the bowl. The thickness of the outer rim was
four inches at the edge, but the thickness below was very great,
and underneath it was not cut at all, whereas inside it was
very neatly finished off with chiselled wavy lines from the pivot
to the edge. A few yards from this we found the stone which
had evidently been used for grinding. Amongst these walls we
found nothing but Byzantine remains, and on the plain just

INSCRIPTIONS FROM SAMOS. 147

below we found the ruins of a large Byzantine church, in digging
amongst the ruins of which we came across many pieces of
ancient marble carving.

Our last excavation on Samos was made near Karlovassi, to
the north, where our attention was drawn to the foundations of
a large Hellenic building, seventy feet long by fifty wide,
constructed of enormous stones, the centre of which had been
converted into a barley field. For a small sum we compounded
with the farmer, who rented the land, for his crop, and proceeded
to dig, and came across many curious cross walls inside the
building, which would have doubtless formed an interesting plan
if we had been allowed to clear the whole area; but the actual
owner of the soil, whose consent we had unfortunately omitted to
obtain, came down upon us before we had proceeded very far,
and in most abusive terms drove us from our work.

We heard of two other places near here where antiquities
had been found, but considering the difficulties in our way, and
the unsatisfactory conditions of my agreement, I elected to
excavate no more in Samos.

J. THEODORE BENT.

INSCRIPTIONS FROM SAMOS.

THE chief fruit of Mr. Theodore Bent’s recent visit to Samos
is the discovery of an important agonistic inscription, which
gives a list of victors in some games at Samos, probably the
Heraea. The limits of date are given on the one hand by the
mention of Apameia, founded by Seleucus Nicator, on the other
hand by the absence of all Roman names. The forms of the
letters with their squareness and strongly marked extremities
seem to indicate the second century B.C.

The Heraea were celebrated at Samos from early times.
Plutarch tells us that after the battle of Aegospotami the
Samians renamed the festival after Lysander. But it soon

L 2

148 INSCRIPTIONS FROM SAMOS.

resumed the older name. In one inscription of imperial times!
it is called ἐπώνυμος ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τῆς βασιλείου θεᾶς “Hpas
ἀγών; in an inscription of the Antonine age? the festival is
termed τὰ μεγάλα Σεβαστὰ ‘Hpaia. The festival was doubtless
a great Ionic πανηγυρίς, attended by all the pleasure-loving
people of the coast and worthy of the language in which the
Homeric hymn speaks of the Delian festival.

Nevertheless until the present inscription was discovered we
knew but little about it. Fragments of lists of victors had been
discovered at Samos, but the most important of these ὃ does not
refer to the Heraea, but to the training of Ephebi. An in-
scription* which does seem to record victors in the Heraea is
much mutilated. It is therefore of great interest to bring to
light so full a list of victors at the Heraea, one of the most
complete agonistic lists indeed in existence.°

The inscribed part of the stone is about 43 feet by 1 foot in
size; the letters half an inch high and clearly cut where not
injured. I edit, at Mr. Bent’s request, from a squeeze taken by
him, and therefore labour under some disadvantage as compared
with any scholar who may have access to the stone itself.

1 ETIANTITTATPOYAFQNOOCETOYNTQNEPMITTTIOY

TOY. JAPIZTEIAOYTOYATTOAAO
AOTOY

NIKOAAOYTOY|, ἸΔΟΥΓΥΜΝΑΣΙΑΡΧ
ΟΥ̓ΝΤΟΣΣΩΣΙΣΤΡΑΤΟΥΤΟΎΣΩΣΙ ἼτοΥυ
ΤΟΥΝΕΩΤΕΡΟΥΕΝΙΚΩΝΟΙΔΕ

SAATTHE| JOYETPAAAIANOZKHPY=

EYBIOZZEQETPATOYYTTOKPITHEITAAAIAZ TPA
ΓΩΔΙΑΣΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ

ΝΙΚΑΡΧΙ ἹΜΤΤΑΔΙΤΟΥΗΦΑΙΣΤΟΥΤΟΎΣΑΤΤΟ
ΤΤΡΩΤΩΝΛΕΩΝΙΔΗΣΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΥΧΗΣΙΕΥΣ

1 No. 38, in the collection in Stam- published are C. 1 G@. 1584, 2214,

atiades’ Samiaka. 2758. The nearest parallels, however,
2 Ibid. No. 58. to the present list are those recently
3 Ibid. No. 44 (1-3). found at the site of the Amphiaraeum
4 Ibid. No. 44 (4). at Oropus in Boeotia. See Ephem. Arch.

5 Some of the most important lists 1884, p, 124.

INSCRIPTIONS FROM SAMOS. 149

5 ΛΑΜΤΤΑΔΑΡΧΗΣΑΡΙΣΤΟΜΕΝΗΣΑΡΙΣΤΙΤΤΙΤΟΥΧΗΣΙ
EY=, |ZAIAAZKAAOYETQNKIOAPIZTON
KAAAIKPATHZEKAAAIKPATOY

[ |THENEIAEYZAMMONIOYA[. JOZKIOA
PISTIQN[ = JANTIFONOYPYEEIAEZIMAKOQN
TOZKIOAPQAOZAYKQN

AYAQN| [ΤΠ |PAN[. |XHEIEYE
AL JHEZQTONKAAAIKPATOYXHEZIEYE
AAMTTAAAPXHE

ΤΤΟΣΕΙΔΙΤΤΙ ἸΟΥΧΗΣΙΕΥΣΤΟΥΣΙΤΟΙΗΤΑΣ
[ ΪΝΚΑΙΝΩΝΣΑΤΥΡΩΝΑΡΧΕΝΟΜΟΣΕΡΜΙΑΡΟΔΙ
ΟΣΤΟΥΣΤΤΟΙΗΤΑΣ

ΤΩΝΚΑΙΝΩΝΤΡΑΓΙ Δ[ ΞΟ ΡΣ
[ ἸὙΓΤΟΚΡΙΤΑΣΔΗΜΉΤΡΙΟΣ
ΝΙΚΑΙΟΥΜΙΛΗΣΙΟΣ

10 ΤΟΥΣΤΤΟΙΗΤΑΣΤΩΝΚΑΙΝΩΝΚΩΜΩΔΙΩΝΑΡΙΣΤΩΝ
TIMOS| ἸἸΤΟΥΑΘΗΝΑΙΟΣΥΙΤΤΟΚΡΙΤΗΣΙΚΑΜΝΑ
ΓΟΡΑΣΣΤΡΑΤΩΝΟΣΜΑΛΛΩΤΗΣ

ΓΤΑΙΔΑΣΔΟΛΙΧΟΝΑΣΚΛΗΙΤΙ ΑΔΗΣΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΟΥ
ΑΝΔΡΑΣΑΤΤΟΛΛΩΝΙΟΣΑΛΙΚΙΤΓΤΓΤΟΥΕΦΕΣΙΟΣ
ΤΤΑΙΔΑΣΣΤΑΔΙΟΝΑΓΑΘΟΚΛΗΣΑΤΤΑΛΟΥ

ANAPAZZQTONKAAAIKPATOYTIAIAAZAIAYAON
AT AQOKAHEATTAAOYANAPAZEQTANKAAAI
KPATOYTT JAONAPIZTEYEZHNOAOTOY

MAT NHEATTOMAIANAPOYITAIAASTTAAHNTIMOOE
OLITMTOSTPATOYATTAMEYZATTOMAIANA POY
ANAPAZAPXQNAPXONTOSTTAIAASTTYEMHN

(line 14 Wanting)

Το. ἸΠΑΙΔΑΣΤΤΑΓΚΙ ]
ONAMMONI|.
1, ᾿Επὶ ᾿Αντιπάτρου: ἀγωνοθετούντων ᾿Ερμίππου τοῦ [ i?
᾿Αριστείδου τοῦ ᾿Απολλοδότου,
Νικολάου τοῦ [ Sou: γυμνασιαρχοῦντος Σωσιστράτου

n Ss ΄ a / = 5 9 16 Ἢ
του Σωσ[ιστρά]του του VEWTEPOVU EVLKE@MY OLOE

150 INSCRIPTIONS FROM SAMOS.

σαλπισ[τὴς Jous Τραλλιανός: κῆρυξ Ἐὔβιος Σωστρά-
του: ὑποκριτὴς παλαιᾶς τραγῳδίας Δημήτριος

Νικάρχ[ου: τῇ λα]μπάδι τοῦ Ἡφαίστου τοὺς ἀπὸ πρώτων
Λεωνίδης Θεοδώρου Χησιεύς,

5. λαμπαδάρχης ᾿Αριστομένης ᾿Αριστίππου Χησιεύς" [τοὺς

διδασκάλους τῶν κιθαριστῶν Καλλικράτης ΚΚαλλικράτου.
αὐλη]τὴς Νειλεὺς ᾿Αμμωνίου α[ὑλῳδ]ὸς Κιθαριστίων [ |
᾿Αντιγόνου φύσει δὲ Σιμακῶντος: κιθαρῳδὸς Λύκων'
αὐλῶν [ |r Ἰραν [ 7 Χησιεὺς: λ[αμπαδιστ]ὴς Σώτων
Καλλικράτου Χησιεύς: λαμπαδάρχης
Ποσείδιπ[πος Jou Χησιεύς" τοὺς ποιητὰς [τῶ]ν καινῶν
σατύρων ᾿Αρχένομος “Eppia Ῥόδιος: τοὺς ποιητὰς
τῶν καινῶν τραγ[ῳ]δ[ιῶν] Σωσ[ίσ]τρατ|ζος " τοὺς]
ὑποκριτὰς Δημήτριος Νικαίου Μιλήσιος:

10. τοὺς ποιητὰς τῶν καινῶν κωμῳδιῶν ᾿Αρίστων Τιμοσ[τρά͵του
᾿Αθηναῖος, ὑποκριτὴς Καμναγόρας Στράτωνος Μαλ-
λώτης"

παῖδας δόλιχον ᾿Ασκληπιάδης Δημοκράτου" ἄνδρας ᾿Απολ-
λώνιος ᾿Αλκίππου Εφέσιος" παῖδας στάδιον ᾿Αγαθοκλῆς
᾿Αττάλου"

ἄνδρας Σώτων Καλλικράτου: παῖδας δίαυλον ᾿Αγαθοκλῆς
᾿Αττάλου: ἄνδρας Σώτων Καλλικράτου" πἰένταθἾ]λον
᾿Αριστεὺς Ζηνοδότου

Μάγνης ἀπὸ Μαιάνδρου: παῖδας πάλην Τιμόθεος Ἵππο-
στράτου ᾿Απαμεὺς ἀπὸ Μαιάνδρου: ἄνδρας Αρχων
"Apyxovtos’ παῖδας πυγμὴν

10. 'παῖδας παγκ[ράτι)ον ᾿Αμμώνι[ζος

The list falls naturally into two sections at the eleventh line ;
the first part commemorates the victors in music, with which
curiously the torch race is included ; the second part the victors
in gymnastic contests. The competitions are

(1) With the trumpet or bugle.

(2) Of heralds.

(3) Of actors of ancient tragedy (see below).

(4) In a torch race in honour of Hephaestus, the trainer also
receiving a prize. Such contests were common in Greece and
are mentioned by Herodotus.’ The phrase τοὺς ἀπὸ πρώτων is
discussed below.

1 viii. 98. Cf. Schoemann Gricch, Alterth., 3rd, edit. 11. 519.

INSCRIPTIONS FROM SAMOS. 151

(5) Of trainers of lyrists.

(6) With the flute.

(7) In singing to the flute. The word αὐλῳδός 15 supplied,
assuming that Kitharistion is a proper name; an adopted son
of Antigonus, but actually son of Simacon. Before ᾿Αντιγόνου
there is space for three letters only, which seems fatal to the
alternative view, that a....os is an ethnic, and κιθαριστιῶν
the outa of a contest. In this space one should perhaps supply
KA, which is in Asia Minor a usual contraction for καθ᾽
ὑοθεσίαν. See C. I. G. No, 2055.

(8) Singing to the lyre.

(9) Playing a satyric? strain on the flute. Ifin line 7 we are
justified in reading σατύραν we shall have a word not in the
lexicons. As however the letters T and PAN are clear, no
other word occurs as probable.

(10) The winner (if the word λαμπαδιστής is rightly sup-
plied) and trainer in a second torch-race.

(11) Of writers of satyric plays.

(12) Of writers of tragedies.

(13) Of actors, in what we cannot say with certainty, the
text being imperfect, very probably in the tragedy last
mentioned.

(14) Of writers of comedies. With this victor was crowned
his actor.

(15) The long race (dolichos) for boys; and for men.

(16) The stadion for boys; and for men.

(17) The diaulos for boys; and for men.

(18) The pentathlon, whether for boys or men not stated.

(19) Wrestling for boys; and for men.

(20) Boxing for boys.

(21) The pancratium for boys.

The remainder is lost.

The phrase ὑποκριτὴς παλαιᾶς τραγῳδίας in line 3 15
valuable as correcting a view of Boeckh propounded in the
C. I. G. i. p. 766, that the phrases παλαιὰ τραγῳδία and παλαιὰ
κωμῳδία in lists of this class mean lyrical tragedies and
comedies newly composed, though of an ancient kind, such a
kind indeed as was usual before acting was introduced, and
which afterwards survived in many festivals. But in the
present list the special mention of an actor shows that here

152 INSCRIPTIONS FROM SAMOS.

at least the παλαιὰ τρωγῳδία is an old tragedy revived on the
occasion of the festival; probably a tragedy of Sophocles or
Euripides, who retained supremacy in the theatres of Asia
Minor until Imperial times. Boeckh argues that in every case
the prize was given for new poetry, not for the revival of old
poetry: this contention is no doubt just in the case of the
ῥαψῳδὸς κιθαρῳδὸς and the rest, but surely in the acting of
standard plays there might be so much difference of merit as to
entitle one actor rather than another to a prize.

The phrase τοὺς ἀπὸ πρώτων in line 4 is remarkable, and
requires consideration. Unfortunately our knowledge of the
details of the torch-race is very slight, the statements of
ancient writers being apparently contradictory. It seems that
there were various kinds of torch-races, and we have no means
of discriminating them. Dean Liddell’s article, Zampadephoria,
in Smith’s Dictionary of Antiquities, gives an able summary of
what is known on the subject. But it is possible to suggest
a meaning for the phrase without examining the nature of the
contest. Two facts are prominent in this list of victors; (1)
the order of events is curiously irregular; (2) a torch-race is
twice mentioned, the word λαμπαδάρχης occurring in the 5th
and 7th lines. The simplest way of accounting for these facts
is by supposing that the order of the text is the order in which
the contests actually took place, and that there was a Lampa-
dephoria on the first two evenings of the festival. In that case
some such word is to be supplied after πρώτων as λαμπαδιστῶν,
and we must render “the victor in the first day’s torch-race.” If
we accept this view we shall have, on the first day, the contests
of heralds and trumpeters, with which such festivals usually
began, and of actors in old tragedies, with a torch-race in the
evening ; on the second day contests with flute and lyre, with a
torch-race in the evening; and on subsequent days the contests
in tragedy and comedy, and in athletic sports.

The ethnic Χησιεύς which so frequently recurs signifies an
inhabitant of the village of Chesion in Samos,' or perhaps on
the mainland opposite. That the festival was open to and well

1 Stephanus of Byzantium mentions the Schol. to Callimachus’ Hymn to
Χήσιον as a village (πολίχνιον) of Ionia, Artemis (1. 228) states that Χήσιον was
and, according to some readings, Pliny a promontory of Samos. The present

includes Cheseopolis among the coast- _ inscription renders it probable that the
towns of Ionia, On the other hand town was in Samos itself,

INSCRIPTIONS FROM SAMOS. 153

attended by foreigners, especially Ionians of Asia, we have
abundant proof in the recorded nationalities of the winners, of
whom one is Athenian, and one comes from each of the
following towns: Tralles, Rhodes, Miletus, Mallus, Ephesus,
Magnesia on the Maeander, and Apameia in Phrygia. .

An Attic comic poet of the name of Ariston is mentioned as
a contemporary of Alexander the Great by Athenaeus.' It is
very probable the Ariston mentioned in the text may be one of
his descendants.

In Byzantine times this stone was used again; on the back
of it was cut the following barbarous legend :—

TC Χο ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς
Cross.

NH KA vn Ka
Ke BWIGIT x| ups |e βωίθι τ-
YAYAYCY ov δούλου σοῦ
BEWAWTY Θεωδώτου
ANATNWC avayvac-

x se [ τ]οῦ

Mr. Bent also found the following sepulchral inscription in
letters of Roman times, three-quarters of an inch high :—

MENEKPATHS
TTOTAMQNOSE
ΠΡΌΣ XPHETOE
XAIPE
., ῬΈΠΟΥ GARDNER.

1 xii, p, 589, a.

154 AN INSCRIPTION FROM CHALCEDON.

AN INSCRIPTION FROM CHALCEDON.

THROUGH the kindness of the Rey. C. G. Curtis, of Constan-
tinople, we are enabled to publish the following inscription.
The stone on which it is cut is now in his possession, and was
found at Chalcedon (the modern Kadikevi).

TOIAEEAAXONAIEIMNHN
MHNATIOTAMION
KAIEETEDANQEANATEMONA
EYDAMONANTIAOXOYFTOAIA
TYNAAPIXOEKAAAIAAPOD II
ITOTAEETTIKPATEOCEAIAE
AAMOKPATHEAOCANAIQNOETT PTE
IQTTYPIQNMEEEANIOYTTOAI τ
APIETQNAIONYEIOYTTO~TQI
10 KPATINOEIQIACYPOTTAI
AIONYEIOETTYOATTAPTE
ATTOAAQNIOZOEOMNAETOYOAIAN
Ὁ AMATPLOZATTOAAOAQPOY APA
ANTANAPOEMENEKPA ~ A

οι

Τοίδε ἔϊλ]αχον αἰσιμνῆν

μῆνα ἸΠοτάμιον,
Καὶ ἐστεφάνωσαν ἁγεμόνα [βουλᾶς
Evdpapov ᾿Αντιλόχου Ἰ]ολια[τήας:
Τυνδάριχος Καλλία Apo . .
Z(@)tas ᾿Επικράτεος Avac .

Or

AN INSCRIPTION FROM CHALCEDON. 15

qt

Δαμοκράτης ᾿Αθαναίωνος IIlalpte ... .
Ζωπυρίων Μεσσανίου Ἰ]ολια[τήας
᾿Αρίστων Διονυσίου Ἰ]οτ[τ]ῳ . .

10 Κρατῖνος Ζωΐλου ἸΙοττῳ .. ..
Διονύσιος ἸΠύθα ἸΙαρτε . .
᾿Απολλώνιος Θεομνάστου ᾿Ολιὸὃν..
ΔΊαμάτριος ᾿Απολλοδώρου ᾿Ηρα[κλήας (Ὁ)
᾿ΑἸντανδρος Mevexpa[teos .. ..

For the form and substarce of the inscription οἵ, C.J. @.
3794, also from Chalcedon: our decree however appears from
the forms of the letters to be older than the one in the Corpus,
which uses the forms AOS.

For the functions of the αἰσυμνῆται at Chalcedon, see Boeckh,
ad loc. They seem to have corresponded to the Prytanes at
Athens, and the ἁγεμὼν βουλᾶς was their president. It is
singular that only one of the seven names of tribes found
attached to the names of the αἰσυμνῆται in Boeckh’s inscription
recurs in this one ; as at least six new ones are here found, it
follows that there must have been more than either ten or
twelve tribes at Chalcedon. In this inscription, again, there are
ten αἰσυμνῆται beside the president; in C. J. G. 3797 he
and the scribe have to be included to make up the same
number.

Line 1.—The ὁ in αἰσιμνῆν confirms the reading in the other
Chalcedonian decree ; there is no necessity to alter it to uv.
The use of the verb in this technical sense, ‘to be an
αἰσυμνήτης, is interesting. The participle occurs in the
Corpus inscription.

Line 2.—There is no trace of a month Potamios in the Bi-
thynian calendar; it would therefore seem to be peculiar to
Chalcedon, and associated with a local river worship.

Line 4.--.τὈΓΠολιατήως sc. φυλῆς. The name of the tribe is
appended to the names in the same way in the other inscription
from Chalcedon.

Line 6.—Zéras: this seems the natural restoration. I think
I can detect traces of an Q on the back of the squeeze, but it
is by no means clear. The name Ζώτης is known elsewhere.

Line 7.—The name ’A@ava/wy is found in the other Chalce-
donian inscription in the Corpus.

156 AN INSCRIPTION FROM CHALCEDON.

It seems safer to leave the names of the tribes fragmentary,
and not to attempt to restore them. The names Ilapre... and
Ilorrw... seem to suggest compounds of παρὰ and ποτὶ
(= πρὸς).

It will be observed that there are some inconsistencies in the
forms of π᾿ and μ; these are preserved from the transcription,
and are borne out by the squeeze so far as visible ; but they must
not be insisted on.

ERNEST A. GARDNER.

Ivyé IN GREEK MAGIC. 157

Ἴυγξ IN GREEK MAGIC.

THE strange word ζυγξ is familiar to all classical scholars
from the first refrain in the Φαρμακεύτριαι of Theokritos,
from two passages in Pindar, and a line in the Persae of
Aischylos.

Theokritos IT. :
iuyé ἕλκε τυ τῆνον ἐμὸν ποτὶ δῶμα τὸν ἄνδρα.
Pindar, Pyth. ΤΥ. 213 (strophé «):
πότνια © ὀξυτάτων βελέων
ποικίλαν ἔἴυγγα τετράκναμον Οὐλυμπόθεν
ἐν ἀλύτῳ ζεύξαισα κύκλῳ.
(ant. vo’):
μαινάδ᾽ ὄρνιν Kumporyévera φέρεν
πρῶτον ἀνθρώποισι λιτάς T ἐπαοιδὰς ἐκδιδάσκησεν
σοφὸν Αἰσονίδαν' κ.τ.λ.
Pindar, Vem. 1V. 35:
ivyye δ᾽ ἕλκομαι ἦτορ νεομηνίᾳ θυγέμεν.
Aischylos, Pers. 988:
luyya μοι δῆτ᾽
ἀγαθῶν ἑτάρων ὑπομιμνήσκεις κ.τ.λ.
Also, Aristophanes, Lysist. 1110:
ὡς οἱ πρῶτοι τῶν “Ἑλλήνων TH σῇ ληφθέντες tvyye
συνεχώρησάν σοι καὶ κοινῇ τἀγκλήματα πάντ᾽ ἐπέτρεψαν.
Diogenes Laert. VI. ο. 2, 76:
τοιαύτη τις προσῆν Luyé Διογένους τοῖς λόγοις.
Lykophron, 310:
πυρφόρῳ βέλει
ἔἴυγγιε τόξων.
Schol. :

ἔυγξ δὲ λέγεται ὁ ἔρως Kal ὄρνεόν τι ᾧ χρῶνται ai φαρμακίδες

els ἔρωτα.

158 "Ivy IN GREEK MAGIC.

Xenophon, Mem. III. 11, 17 (Sokrates conversing with
Theodoté) :

ev ἴσθι ὅτι ταῦτα οὐκ ἄνευ πολλῶν φίλτρων TE Kal ἐπῳδῶν
καὶ ἰύγγων ἐστί. Χρῆσον τοίνυν μοι, ἔφη (ἡ Θεοδότη), τὴν
ἴυγγα ἵνα ἐπὶ σοὶ πρῶτον ἕλκω αὐτήν. ᾿Αλλὰ μὰ Δί, ἔφη,
οὐκ αὐτὸς ἕλκεσθαι πρὸς σὲ βούλομαι ἀλλὰ σὲ πρὸς ἐμὲ
πορεύεσθαι.

Aelian, H.A. XV. 19:

σαν δὲ dpa ἐρωτικῶς ἐχούσης χελώνης ivyyes, οὐκ ὠδαὶ μὰ
Ala, οἵας Θεόκριτος ὁ τῶν νομευτικῶν παυγνίων συνθέτης ληρεῖ,
ἀλλὰ ἀπόρρητος πόα κ.τ.λ.

Hesychius (δι voce):

ἴυγξ' φίλτρον ἀπὸ ivyyos τοῦ ὀρνέου, τὸ yap ὄρνεον τοῦτό
φασιν εἶναι ἐπιτήδειον εἰς τὰς μαγγανείας. καλεῖται δὲ καὶ
κιναίδιον. φασὶ δὲ καὶ ᾿Αφροδίτην αὐτῷ χρῆσθαι. ἀπὸ δὲ
τοῦ ὀρνέου καὶ τὰ κατασκευαζόμενα εἰς ἔρωτας ἴυγγας
καλοῦσιν.

Aristotle in his ‘ History of Animals’ gives a description of
the bird and uses τρέζειν of its cry.

Anthol. Pal. 5, 205 may also be referred to; and the word
occurs, naturally, in the Scriptores Hrotict.

We see from these passages (1) that ἔυγξ was the name of a
bird,! the wryneck, which stretched on a wheel was used in
magic rites, cf. especially Pindar Pyth. IV. 213, the scholion on
Lykophron, and ἕλκω αὐτήν in the passage ot Xenophon:
(2) that ἤυγξ was used in the sense of charm, cf. the passages
of Aelian, Aristophanes, Diogenes and Pindar Nem.: (8) that
ἴυγξ meant love or desire, cf. Lykophron, schol., and Aischylos
Pers.

The two last meanings are generally derived from the first.
From the particular charm of the wryneck the word would
easily come to mean a charm in general; and as the object of
the charm was to excite or attract love, the transition to the
third meaning is equally easy.

How are we to explain ζυγξ in the refrain of Theokritos? It
does not here mean charm in general, but charm in its etymo-
logical sense —carmen, incantation; cf. Aelian, @édal οἵας

1 «“Tyngis torquillae”’ Linn., quae a schol. σεισοπυγίς ‘‘ motacilla” vocatur.
Gallis 16 torcol, nune a Graecis govgov- —FRITZSCHE.
pada vel κωλοσοῦσα appellatur, falso a

υγξ IN GREEK MAGIC, 159

Θεόκριτος κιτιλ., and Virgil’s imitation, mea carmina. Thus
ivy& would seem to have passed from a particular meaning to a
general and then again to another particular meaning. The
passage in Pindar’s Fourth Nemean Ode, and an examination of
the word itself may lead us to a different conclusion,

Pindar says: though the τεθμός does not allow me to dwell
on certain matters, yet an tvy& draws me to touch upon them
on the new-moon festival. Why does Pindar use this rare word
ζυγξ here? Those who are familiar with Pindar’s intentional
use of words will not be disposed to admit that he used it with
no purpose or special appropriateness. When we remember that
the ζυγξ in Theokritos is an incantation of the moon, and that
the other refrain is φράζεό μευ τὸν ἔρωθ᾽ ὅθεν ἵκετο, πότνω
Σελάνα, we are led to conclude that Pindar used tuyy on
account of veounvia, and that ἴυγξ had the special senses of
moon-charm and moon-song. A moon-charm was wrought upon
Pindar at the new-moon feast. We shall find this interpretation
confirmed by the word itself.

Substantives of the consonant declension ending in -yé& are
closely related to forms of the O declension in -yyos ; just as
forms in -v(@)s are related to forms in -νθος. We have for
example μήρινθα, accus. implying a hypothetical μῆρινς,
beside μήρινθος nomin. (cf. πείρινς and πεέρινθος). Thus we
may place /vy&, in point of form, beside οὔπιυγγος, the name of
a moon-song in Thessaly. This word is formed from Odzis, an
appellation of Artemis, evidently in her capacity of moon-
goddess (cf. Kallimachos, Hymn to Artemis, 204, Oda ἄνασσ᾽
εὐῶπι φαεσφόρε), and in exactly the same way I suppose ἴυγξ
to have been formed from *I#. Io was a name of the moon at
Argos, and however indisposed to commit ourselves to inter-
pretaticns of mythology, we cannot refuse to see in the story of
Io a lunar legend. Sorcerers calling on the moon and crying
Ἰώ Ἰώ! would be said ἐύξζειν (just as those who cry ἐώ (alas),
φεῦ, are said ἐύξειν, pevferv, etc., or as τέζειν is used of one who
says τί τί;), for v is latent in the w of “Ie, as is proved by gen.
᾿Ιοῦς, acc. ᾿Ιοῦν. And similarly those who called Odds Οὗπε!
would be said οὐπέζειν. To these hypothetical verbs ἐύζειν and
οὐπίζειν the nouns ἔυγξ and οὔπιυγγος bear the same relation as
φόρμιγξ and σῦριγξ to φορμίζειν and συρίζειν.

On this theory the explanation of the use of the wryneck in

160 “Ivy IN GREEK MAGIC.

magic rites becomes easy. The bird was called ἔυγξ from its
call (ἐυγμός) which sounded like ἐώ ἐώ; and it was used in
lunar enchantments because it was supposed to be calling on Io,
the moon.

The close connexion of ἴυγξ with ἐώ and ἐύζω in the con-
sciousness of the ancients is proved by the passage in the Persat
and that in the Fourth Pythian Ode.

In the lamentations of Xerxes ἤυγγά μοι δῆτ᾽ (988) responds
to iw ἰώ μοι (973), as the first lines of antistrophe and strophe
respectively. So it is not too much to suppose that Aischylos
intended to suggest a second sense of ἴυγξ---ἰυγμὸς as well as
πόθος.

In the fourth Pythian Ode, Aphrodite uses the charm of the
wryneck to attract Médeia to Jason, that he might be enabled
to perform the tasks imposed by Aiétés. ποικέλαν ivyya are
the first words of the last line but one of the tenth strophe.
When Jason had succeeded in ploughing the field with the fiery
oxen, the effect produced on Aiétés is described in I. ἜΘ. the
last line but one of the eleventh strophe :

PRO Werks ἐν. βιατὰς ἐξεπόνησ᾽ ἐπιτακτὸν ἀνὴρ

237 μέτρον' ivEev δ᾽ ἀφωνήτῳ περ ἔμπας ἄχει

δύνασιν Αἰήτας ἀγασθείς.

Aiétés tvéev, cried ἰώ; and it is important to note that ἴυξεν
occurs in the same line of the strophe and same part of the line
as luyya (cf. for this principle, Mezger’s commentary on Pindar’),
thus reminding us that this effect is originally due to the ἴυγξ
and suggesting that Aiétés is thus indirectly compelled by the
charm.

The theory, which I propose, that ivy originally meant a
moon-song (a song to the moon-goddess ’I#) independently of
the wryneck, which on account of its cry was used in magic
moon-worship, will (1) account for this curious practice of using
a wryneck in magic rites, will (2) explain the appropriateness
of ἴἤυγγε in Pindar Vem. IV. 35, will (3) elucidate the first refrain
in the moon-song of Theokritos.

JoHN Β. Bury.

1 This verbal responsion and many others have been left unnoticed by Mezger.

GREAT HALL IN THE PALACE OF TIRYNS. 161

A SUGGESTED RESTORATION OF THE GREAT HALL
IN THE PALACE OF TIRYNS.

In his very minute and accurate description of the Tirynthian
Palace, Dr. Dorpfeld has almost wholly confined himself to the
discussion of what actually exists or can with certainty be inferred
from existing evidence, and has not committed himself to a
conjectural restoration of any part of this most interesting
building.*

I venture therefore to offer to the Hellenic Society a proposed
restoration of the Great Hall—the Homeric Megaron as Dr.
Dorpfeld and other able archaeologists hold it to be.

This restoration is based partly on the evidence of the existing
remains, partly on what may be called structural necessity, and
partly on the analogy of other buildings or ancient sculptured
reliefs.

Fig. 1 shows the front of the Hall, the αἴθουσα δόμου opening
from the Great Court. The conjectural parts are the exact
heights of the structure, including the pillars, antae and doors,
and the form of the roof. The clearest proofs exist of the dia-
meters of the antae and pillars, the width of the doorways with
their double doors on revolving pivots. The steps are in perfect
preservation, and so is part of the very carefully formed concrete
floor with its incised and coloured pattern in red squares
separated by blue bands.

It is also evident, not only that the antae and pillars were of
wood, but also that the whole of the walls of this outer porch

1 No complete description of the supplement to Dr. Dorpfeld’s valuable
structure is attempted in this paper, work. ᾿
which is only intended to be ἃ brief

ESV lia ΤΙΣ M

162 A SUGGESTED RESTORATION OF THE

were once lined with wood, either from top to bottom, or possibly
with a wooden dado on the lower part, the upper portion being
decorated with painted stucco.

The presence of a large number of small fragments of thin
beaten bronze suggests, what from other reasons would seem
probable, namely that the wood linings were used only as a
backing on which were nailed bronze plates with repoussé
reliefs.

Metal emblemata in all probability were also used to cover
the antae and pillars: the designs used would no doubt resemble
the rich surface reliefs on the marble capital and fragment of a
shaft which once belonged to the main doorway of the so-called
‘Treasury of Atreus.’

Fic. 1.—Front oF HALL.

This rich decoration of chevrons studded with little bosses
clearly is taken from a metal original: the nail-heads which
served to attach the metal plates to the wooden column have in
the marble copy become rows of ornamental bosses. In earlier
works on the subject this very magnificent fragment has always
been figured wrong way up, making the capital into a base. Its
proper position is pointed out by Dr. Dorpfeld. The fact that
this column tapers downwards, instead of becoming narrower
towards the top, no doubt misled earlier writers as to its position,
This peculiarity exists, though in a very slight degree, in

GREAT HALL IN THE PALACE OF TIRYNS 163

the column between the two lions over the chief gate of
Mycenae.!

It appears at first sight especially anomalous that a wooden
shaft should taper downwards, but a probable explanation seems
to be this—that these stone examples were copied from Oriental
buildings in which palm trunks were used to support the roof,
such as one still sees in many modern buildings in parts of
Arabia. Now the palm-tree grows very considerably thicker
towards the top, and thus the eye of the builders may have grown
accustomed to what appears to us a very unnatural form. This
notion is perhaps strengthened by the discovery made some years
ago among the ruins of the great Palace of Khorsabad of a frag-
ment of a wooden column, which was still covered with plates of
repoussé bronze, beaten into the form of the scales on a palm

MYCENAE SELINUS PARTHENON

Fic, 2.—CAapITALs oF COLUMNS.

tree—a survival perhaps from the time when the bare trunk
with its natural scales was left visible.

In the restoration of the capitals of the Tirynthian columns I
have followed that of the lion-gate of Mycenae, the design of
which seems specially suitable for a wooden capital, as the three
distinct members of which it consists would naturally arise out
of super-imposed slabs or thick boards of wood. It is, I think,
worth while to suggest that the capital on the lion-gate shows
us a primitive form of the Doric capital, and that the peculiar
early Doric capital of the oldest Selinus temple, and that found
at Tiryns (both dating probably about 600 B.c.) form a link

1 My own measurements make the [18 too rough for any minute exactness
column about 1} inches wider at the of measurement.
top than at the bottom, but thé work

164 A SUGGESTED RESTORATION OF THE

between the ancient Mycenae form and the perfect development
of the mouldings such as one sees in the Parthenon, The
cavetto which forms the lowest of the three members in the
Mycenae capital is absent in the later Doric, but exists in a
modified form in the Selinus and Tirynthian examples. See
Fig. 2.

Prof. Ramsay in the Hellenic Journal, 1882, Pl. XIX. shows
a very interesting example from a rock-cut tomb in Phrygia,

ω
Ψ΄
-
uw
a
-
a

WOMENS COURT

THE
ὦ OTHER SMALL
ROCMS |

Fic. 3.—GROUND-PLAN OF HALL.

where what is clearly a wooden column decorated at the top
with a metal emblema is represented in stone. In this case the
shaft has no true capital, though the applied ‘ palmetto’ orna-
ment gives somewhat the effect of one to the eye without any
of its structural use in spreading the pressure over a larger area,

GREAT HALL IN THE PALACE OF TIRYNS. 165

so as to diminish the risk of the wood splitting from the top
downwards.

The height of the walls and columns in Fig. 4 is purely con-
jectural. But the limits of possible height in this case are very
narrow from constructional reasons, both because the wall of
unburnt bricks could not have been carried high without causing
a crushing of the lower part, and also from the weakness inherent
in a tall wooden shaft with a diameter such as that used at
Tiryns.

ΡΩΓΕΣ
MEFAPOI9O

ee”

HALL.

WOMEN S?

SECTION. A.A
Fic. 4.—Srcrion or Ηλι,

The perfect way in which a very thin coating of lime stucco
will protect unbaked clay from the weather, even in a rainy
climate, is very remarkable.

In the district of Wales near Aberystwith and Lampeter many
large cottages exist, some nearly a century old, the walls of
which, with the exception of a low stone plinth, are wholly
formed of sun-dried clay or rather mud, merely protected by
successive coats of lime-white applied with a brush.

The resemblance of this method of building to that used at

166 A SUGGESTED RESTORATION OF THE

Tiryns is very curious. The stone plinth in both cases is about
_ the same height, eighteen inches above the floor, and in both
the stones are set in clay-mortar.. In the Welsh cottages, how-
ever, the walls were built of shapeless lumps of wet mud moulded
roughly as the wall was being formed, and thus only about two
feet in height could be built at one time. When each layer was
dry the next course was laid on. This is of course a very inferior
method to that employed at Tiryns where the clay was moulded
into bricks which were thoroughly dried before being used.
This method of building was practised in Wales within living
memory, but is now extinct. In Oriental countries it is still
common,

The roof-principle shown in Fig. 1 is adopted from that
sculptured in stone in the same Phrygian tomb which is
mentioned above (Hell. Journ. 1882, Pl. XIX.).

Both for esthetic and practical reasons it seems more probable
that this low-pitched form of roof was used than a quite flat
covering, from which the rain would not run off quickly—a
very important point in the case of a roof covered, as this
probably was, with a layer of unburnt clay.

I observed among the débris some small fragments of sun-
dried clay coated with a very thin layer of pure lime stucco.
These I believe to have been part of the roof covering, though
Dr. Dorpfeld was inclined to think that the roofing clay was
unprotected by stucco.

The visible woodwork of the roof may have been decorated
with bronze repoussé ornaments.+

The three double doors leading from the αἴθουσα into the
πρόδομος probably in their construction closely resembled those
from Balawat made for Shalmaneser II. (ninth century) now in
the British Museum.—A series of planks set side by side were
bound together with broad bands of repoussé bronze, which
lapped round a round wooden post shod with neatly-fitted
bronze pivots made to revolve in holes in the threshold and
lintel.. This form of door appears to have been used as late as
the end of the fifth century.B.c., as is shown on a beautiful

1 Some very interesting examples of | Olympia, dating apparently from the
bronze plates with figures. beaten in early part of the sixth century, or even
relief, which were once attached to earlier. ris
wooden planks, have been found at

GREAT HALL IN THE PALACE OF TIRYNS. 167

pyxis in the British Museum, on which is painted a toilet scene :
a female slave brings a jewel-box to a lady seated in her room,
which is decorated with vases containing flowers. The folding-
doors bound with metal bands are shown behind.!

It is interesting to compare the design of this facade, the
araeostyle intercolumniation and three doors behind, with the
triple Etruscan temples, such as that on the Capitoline hill
dedicated to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. The resemblance is
very remarkable.

In the attempt to work out a restored section of the Hall
(see Fig. 4) it appeared that a very probable explanation
of the much-disputed ὀρσοθύρη naturally presented itself. On
one side of the great Hall, 31 feet wide, is a narrow passage
intervening between it and the second or Women’s Hall. Now
it is obvious that a height of roof which would be suitable and
even necessary for a large room would be quite out of place in
a narrow passage, and thus the obvious thing to do would be to
divide the passage into two stories by a ‘ mezzanine’ floor—a
common device in the architecture of all countries,

Thus a door from the upper floor of the passage would open
into the wall of the Megaron at a height of six or seven feet
from the floor of the latter (see A on the section and plan).

If a wooden stair or ladder (κλῖμαξ) led from this upper door
downwards into the Megaron, as is indicated on the plan, one
can understand why Melanthius was afraid to venture up it,’
on account of Odysseus who was standing by the οὐδός : see
Od. xxii. 136.

This too would give that direct communication between the
Megaron of the men and the women’s apartments, which seems
from several passages in the Odyssey to have existed in the
Homeric house.*

The phrase στόμα λαύρης which is applied to the ὀρσοθύρηῃ

1 This scene is figured by the present
writer in Encyclopedia Britannica, Art.
‘Pottery,’ p. 614, fig. 31, as an ex-
ample of painted vases used to hold
flowers in a Greek room.

2 Agelaus uses the word ἀναβαίνειν
of the approach to the ὀρσοθύρη, sug-
gesting a climb up.

3 See Prof. Gardner’s interesting
article on the Homeric Palace, in the
Hellenic Journal, iii. p. 276.

4 Another communication between
the two parts of the palace seems to
me to have existed at the N.E. angle
of the great αὐλὴ, or court of the
men.

168 A SUGGESTED RESTORATION OF THE

appears specially suitable for this upper door into the λαύρη cr
passage.

That an upper story did exist over part of the Tirynthian
house is proved by the clear traces of a staircase in two
flights, which are still visible in the women’s part of the
palace.

I have also ventured to show in the section the possible form
of the lantern which Dr. Dorpfeld suggests as having existed
over the four pillars of the hall, partly devised to form an exit
for the smoke of the fire on the circular learth beneath—
as was the custom in the mediaeval halls of England and the
Continent.’

It will be seen from the section that an active man could
swarm up one of the pillars and reach the windows in the
lantern and so escape on to the roof; thence he could descend
into the θάλαμοι by a stair, such as is still constructed in most
oriental houses to give access to the roof. Such a staircase
existed in Circe’s house, see Od, x. 554,

This explanation, if correct, may explain the meaning
of the escape of Melanthius ἀνὰ ῥῶγας μεγάροιο, Od. xxi.
151 seq.

In illustration of the beautiful alabaster frieze studded with
blue paste (θρυγκὸς κυάνοιο) which Dr. Dorpfeld discovered at
Tiryns, I may mention what I have never yet seen noted,
namely, that one of the marble fragments from the doorway of
the ‘Treasury of Atreus’ (now in the British Museum) was
once enriched in a similar way with glass or jewels.

The fragment referred to is part of a slab of red marble,
which, from its shape, evidently formed a frame to the triangular
slab which once filled the opening over the main door. Its
ornament consists of three parallel bands of spirals: the centre
of each spiral in the central band was once set with a small
boss, probably of glass, which in every case is now lost, though
tle marks of the cement used to fix the false jewel are still
visible.

1 This lantern survived as an orna- very graceful lantern over the Hall of
mental appendage long after fire-places Trinity College, Cambridge, and many

with flues were constructed, and it had other halls, are simply survivals of the
ceased to have any special use. The primitive place of escape for the smoke.

GREAT HALL IN THE PALACE OF TIRYNS. 169

The British Museum also possesses what appears to be the
apex of the triangular slab itself which closed the relieving
aperture over the main door of the ‘Treasury. This is of
greenish-grey marble, and has a spiral ornament framed by a
slightly enriched moulding which seems to be the prototype
of the later Greek egg and dart enrichment.

J. Henry MIDDLETON.

170 THE HOMERIC HOUSE,

THE HOMERIC HOUSE, IN RELATION TO THE
REMAINS AT TIRYNS.

EveERrY discussion relating to Tiryns may fitly commence with
a tribute to the energy and enthusiasm which, there as else-
where, have characterised the excavations of Dr. Schliemann ; a
tribute which has at all times been ungrudgingly rendered by
his critics, even when they have been least able to accept the
theories which have been founded on those results by the dis-
tinguished excavator. It will ποὺ be the purpose of the present
paper to discuss the questions which have been raised concerning
the origin and age of the remains at Tiryns; whether, as
Dr. Dorpfeld holds, they represent a prehistoric palace, built
by Phoenicians about 1100 B.c.; or, as others believe after
seeing them, belong to buildings of post-classical date and of
rude construction, in which partial use was made of archaic
or classical material found on the spot. The question with
which alone this paper deals is the following. Given the plan
of the house at Tiryns, as Dr. Dorpfeld traces it, can this plan
be reconciled with that of the typical Homeric house, as indicated
in the Homeric poems? By ‘reconciled’ is not meant, har-
monised in every detail, but brought into an intelligible agree-
ment as regards features essential to the Homeric story. The
position maintained in Dr. Schliemann’s work is that, with
reasonable allowance for variations between one house and
another of the same period, such a general reconciliation is
possible. This is a very important issue, not only for Homeric
archaeology, but for all study of Homer.!

' Among recent writings on the (2) Papers by Mr. Watkiss-Lloyd in
Homeric House, the following may be the Builder of June 4th and 25th,

mentioned : (1) Winckler, Die Wohn- 1870; and in the Architect of August
hdauser der Hellenen, Berlin, 1868; 4th and 11th, 1877; (8) A note by

IN RELATION TO THE REMAINS AT TIRYNS. 171

οὐ Assuming the accuracy of the ground-plan delineated by Dr.
Dorpfeld, we find in the house at Tiryns certain general features
common to the Homeric house. The Homeric πρόθυρον, or front
entrance to the court, is identified with a propylaeum ; a form
of gateway which archaeologists have been startled to find asso-
ciated with a prehistoric building in Greece, where its earliest
appearance had not hitherto been carried above the fifth century
B.c. We find also the courtyard (αὐλή), with a colonnade on all
four sides,—that on the side opposite to the front entrance being
the αἴθουσα specially so-called,—the portico of the πρόδομος, or
fore-hall, Immediately within this is the great hall of the men,
the Homeric μέγαρον. Thus far, then, there is a general resem-
blance. But we now come to a difference of the most striking
and essential kind. At Tiryns the men’s hall has no outlet
except the door by which it is entered from the fore-hall. The
women’s apartments are identified with a second and smaller
hall, completely isolated from the other. This smaller hall has
᾿ 15. own αἴθουσα, and its own court. Buchholz remarks (Hom.
Realien, τι. 93): ‘Everywhere in Homer an αὐλή is mentioned,
never αὐλαί, so that the view of those who assert that there
were two, may be regarded as finally disposed of” Dr. Dorpfeld
replies (Ziryns, 237): ‘This sentence is directly refuted by the
palace at Tiryns. There may indeed have been palaces in
Homer’s time which had only one αὐλή; but we now know for
certain that some there were which contained two” From the
men’s hall to the women’s apartments the only modes of access
were by very circuitous and intricate routes! (See Plan 1.)

Mr. A. Lang on Od. 22. 2, in Butcher
and Lang’s translation; (4) J. Pro-
todikos, De Aedibus Homericis, Leipsic,
1877. . He has consulted, besides
Winckler’s work, writings by A. Hirt,
H. Rumpf, Eggers, J. B. Fricdreich,
J. H. Krause, Emil Worner, L. Ger-
lach; (5) An article by Prof. P.
Gardner in the Journal of Hellenic
Studies, iii. 264; (6) E. Buchholz,
Homerische Realien, Leipsic, 1871-3.
Helbig, (Das Homerische Epos aus den
Denkmélern erléutert) 1. viii. pp. 74-88,
deals with the materials and decor-
ations of the house, rather than with
its plan.

1 They are thus described by Dr.
Dorpfeld (Ziryns, p. 236) :—‘ In the
north-west part of the palace lies a
small court, with colonnades and ad-
joining rooms, which has no direct
connection with the main court; it is
the court of the women’s dwelling.
You must pass many doors and
corridors to reach this inner part of
the palace. ‘There appear to have
been three ways of reaching it. First,
from the back-hall of the great Pro-
pylaeum, through the long passage
XXXVI., to the colonnade XXXI. ;
and from this, through the outer court
XXX., to the east colonnade of the

172 THE HOMERIC HOUSE,

In the Homeric house, on the contrary, as the Homeric
poems indicate it, the women’s apartments are immediately
behind the men’s hall, and directly communicate with it by

Lex

ne

12:

Smee

2, OD
weet
EER

PLaN J.—THE Hovse AT TIR¥YNS.

a door, as shown in plan II}

The contention in Dr, Schlie-

mann’s book is that the Homeric data do not require such
an arrangement, but are compatible with the arrangement

women’s court. Secondly, you could
go from the great court or from the
megaron, past the bath-room, into
corridor XIJ., and then through
passages XIV., XV., and XIX., to
reach the vestibule of the women’s
apartments. A third way probably
went from the east colonnade of the
great court, through room XXXIIL.,
into the colonnade XXXI., and
then along the first way into the
court of the women’s apartments. All
these three approaches are stopped in
several places by doors, and the
women’s apartment was therefore quite
separated from the great hall of the

men’s court.’

The above three routes can easily be
traced on our Plan 1. (copied from part
οἵ a reduction of Dérpfeld’s plan in the
Quarterly Review for Jan, 1886), by
means of the Arabic numerals which I
have placed to represent Dorpfeld’s
Roman numerals: (1) for the first
route, —36, 31, 30: (2) for the second,
12, 14, 15, 19: (8) for the third, 33,
31, 30.

1 This general feature is common
to all plans of the Homeric house
hitherto given. I have taken the
plan of J, Protodikos as a basis,

IN RELATION TO THE REMAINS AT TIRYNS. 173

found at Tiryns. I propose, therefore, to do what (so far
as I know) has not been done before,—viz. to present in
a connected form the evidence of the Odyssey on this question.
As the house of Odysseus is that which will almost exclu-

MYX0& AOMOY

OANAMOE OAYE<ENE
GAAAMOE

AAINOZ — OYAODE
®@ OPEOOYPA

Φ
eMETAPONe

e
EEXAPA
©

NPOAOMOE

AYAH

a
Ζεὺς EPKEIOZ

eee
AIOOYEA AYAHS
AlOOYEA AYA §
eee ese

Pian I].—TuHe Homeric House oF THE ODYSSEY.

sively engage our attention, it is right to observe that, on
this question, little or no additional light can be gained from
the other Homeric houses, though they afford confirmatory
evidence on some points. It will be practically convenient to
begin with a series of passages which are independent of any

174 THE HOMERIC HOUSE,

obscure or doubtful points in the μνηστηροφονία, and then to
consider that episode separately.

I. Passages showing that the women’s apartments were behind
the megaron, or great hall of the men, and directly communicated
with it by a door.

1. In book xvii. Odysseus comes to his house in the guise of
an aged beggar. Telemachus, to whom alone the secret is known,
is in the great hall with the suitors. Odysseus, with the humility
proper to his supposed quality, sits down ‘on the threshold of
ash, within the doors’ (17. 339) :

ἷζε δ᾽ ἐπὶ μελίνου οὐδοῦ ἔντοσθε θυραων,

ae. at the lower end of the hall, on the threshold of the
doorway leading into it from the prodomos. The suitors who,
with their retinue, numbered about a hundred and twenty, were
feasting at a series of small tables, which may be imagined as
arranged in two rows from end to end of the hall, leaving in the
middle a free space in which the twelve axes were afterwards
set up. Telemachus sends food to Odysseus, with a message
that he should advance into the hall, and beg alms from table
to table among the suitors. Odysseus does so, and, while he is
thus engaged, one of the suitors, Antinous, strikes him. Odysseus
then returns to his place on the ashen threshold. Meanwhile
Penelope is sitting among her handmaids in the women’s apart-
ments (17. 505). She hears—doubtless through one of the
women-servants—of the blow dealt by Antinous to the humble
stranger; and she sends to the hall for EKumaeus. When he
comes, she desires him to go and bring the mendicant into her
presence. He delivers her message to Odysseus, who is still
seated on the ashen threshold. Odysseus replies that he would
gladly go to Penelope; ‘ but, he adds, ‘I somewhat fear the
throng of the forward wooers...... For even now, as I was
going through the hall, when yon man struck me, and pained
me sore,—though I had done no wrong,—neither Telemachus nor
anyone else came to my aid.’* That is, he declines to go to

1 Od. 17. 561. οἷδα γὰρ εὖ περὶ κείνου, ὁμὴν δ᾽ ἀνεδέγ-
Εὔμαι, alla κ᾽ ἐγὼ νημερτέα πάντ᾽ μεθ᾽ ὀϊζύν.
ἐνέποιμι ἀλλὰ μνηστήρων χαλεπῶν ὑποδείδι᾽

κούρῃ Ἰκαρίοιο, περίφρονι Πηνελοπείῃ", ὅμιλον,

IN RELATION TO THE REMAINS AT TIRYNS.

175

Penelope, because, in order to reach her apartments, he would
have to pass up the hall, among the suitors, one of whom had
already insulted him.

2. The supposed mendicant is then accommodated for the night
with a rough ‘shake-down’ in the prodomos—the fore-hall or
vestibule of the megaron. As he lies awake there, he observes
some of the handmaids pass forth from the men’s hall (20. 6) :—

κεῖτ᾽ ἐγρηγορόων' Tal δ᾽ ἐκ μεγάροιο γυναῖκες
ἤϊσαν.

But, after escorting Penelope to the interview with the stranger
in the hall, they had returned to the women’s apartments
(19. 60). Thus again it appears that the direct way from the
women’s apartments to the court lay through the men’s hall.

3. The next day, while the suitors are revelling in the hall,
and taunting Telemachus, Penelope is sitting, as before, in the
women’s apartments. She is not in her own room on the upper
storey, to which she presently ascends (21. 5), but on the ground-
floor, level with the hall. She places her chair ‘over against’
the hall (κατ᾽ ἄντηστιν, 20. 387), 1.6. close to the wall dividing
the hall from the women’s apartments; and thus ‘she heard the
words of each one of the men in the hall’ (20. 389). Similarly
in 17. 541, being in the women’s apartments, she heard Tele-
machus sneeze in the hall. Such incidents would be impossible
in a house of the type supposed at Tiryns.

4. In preparation for the slaying of the suitors, Odysseus and
his son decide to remove the arms from the hall, and to carry
them to a room in the inner part of the house. That such was
the position of the armoury is made certain by the phrases used
with regard to it,—el/ow (19. 4), ἐσφόρεον (19. 32), ἔνδον (22. 140).
But, before doing this, Telemachus, in the hall, ‘ called forth’ the

τῶν ὕβρις τε Bln τε σιδήρεον οὐρανὸν
ἵκει.

—viz., by an outside passage,—it is
enough to reply that the supposed

kal yap viv, ὅτε μ᾽ οὗτος ἀνὴρ κατὰ
δῶμα κιόντα

οὔτι κακὸν ῥέξαντα βαλὼν
ἔδωκεν,

οὔτε τι Τηλέμαχος τόγ᾽ ἐπήρκεσεν οὔτε
τις ἄλλος.
1 If it is argued that, as we shall

presently see, there was another way

of reaching the women’s apartments,

ὀδύνῃσιν

stranger need not have been expected
to know this; and that Eumaeus
might well refrain from suggesting
it,—either as divining the stranger’s
reluctance (Odysseus was waiting till
he could see Penelope alone), or as
thinking such a back-way an unsuitable
mode of bringing the new-comer to the
mistress of the heuse,

176 THE HOMERIC HOUSE,

nurse Eurycleia (19. 15), and said to her: ‘Shut up the women
in their chambers, till I shall have laid by in the armoury the
goodly weapons of my father.” Thereupon ‘she closed the doors
of the chambers’ (19. 30), and the removal of the arms was
effected. Whence was Eurycleia ‘called forth’ into the hall ?
Evidently from the women’s apartments immediately behind it,
as in the similar case at 21.378. The doors which she closed
were those leading from the women’s apartments into the hall.
The arms were then taken from the hall to the armoury by a
side-passage (to be noticed presently), which ran along the wall
on the outside.

II. The episode of the vengeance in book xxii. entirely
confirms the conclusion drawn from the passages noticed above.
The scheme is that the suitors are to be shut up in the hall, and
then shot down by Odysseus, his son, and the two faithful
servants (Humaeus and Philoetius), who command the access to
the armoury. The door at the upper end of the hall, leading
into the women’s apartments, is fastened, from within them, by
Eurycleia, before the conflict begins (21.387), and unfastened by
her when it is over (22. 399). The door at the lower end of the
hall is closed,—for javelins strike it (22. 257),—but it is not
fastened ; that was unnecessary, since it was commanded by
Odysseus, who stood on the threshold in front of it. We observe
that, when the slaughter is over, Phemius and Medon pass freely
out by this dvor from the hall into the court (22. 378), although
nothing has been said about unfastening it ; whereas, in the case
of the other door, at the upper end of the hall, the act of un-
fastening receives express mention (22. 899). The front door of
the court (θύραι αὐλῆς) has been fastened from within by
Philoetius, who, after doing so, passed back into the hall
(21. 389).

Thus the plan of action—perfectly clear and simple in outline
—not only allows, but requires, that the women’s apartments
should be behind the hall, and should communicate with it by
a door. This is the main point with which we are concerned,
and this is certain. Some minor details are more doubtful. It
is interesting to consider these, and, if we can, to form a distinct
conception of the episode as a whole.

1. The first question which might be raised is, ‘From which
end of the hall did Odysseus shoot the suitors?’ I have already

IN RELATION TO THE REMAINS AT TIRYNS. 177

intimated my belief that it was from the lower end. But the
evidence for the other view must be attentively examined.

The threshold on which Odysseus first sat is called, as we have
seen, the threshold of ash (μέλενος), and was at the lower end
of the hall (17.339). Next day Telemachus makes him sit down
‘by the stone threshold within the hall’ (ἐντὸς ἐύσταθέος μεγάρου,
mapa λάϊνον οὐδόν, 20. 256),—a proceeding which the proud
suitors resented, though Telemachus had provided his humble
euest only with ‘a mean settle and a little table’ The stone
threshold—if there was only one stone threshold—was certainly
at the upper end of the hall. In 23. 88 Penelope crosses ‘ the
stone threshold’ in passing from the women’s apartments to the
hall. Two other circumstances confirm this inference. (i) When
the suitors try the bow of Odysseus, they come to the threshold
for that purpose, and the first to come is Leiodes, who always
sat puxolratos,—in the innermost part of the hall (21. 146).
He was the θυοσκόος of the suitors, and had that place, not
merely because it was one of honour—rapa κρατῆρα, by the
‘mixing-bowl (21. 145)—but also, no doubt, in order that he
might be near the ἐσχάρα. Thus, the stone threshold being at
the upper end, Leiodes would be the nearest to it of the suitors,
and would naturally be the first to try the bow. (11) In 21. 359
Eumaeus takes up the bow to carry it to Odysseus, as had been
arranged between them. The suitors raise an outcry, and
Eumaeus sets it down again, but is commanded by Telemachus
to advance with it. ‘And the swine-herd, carrying the bow
through the hall, came and stood by Odysseus, and put it into his
hands ; and he called forth Kurycleia and spake to her, — bidding
her close the women’s apartments (21. 379). Thus, when
standing by Odysseus, Eumaeus is near the door of the women’s
apartments; for all his movements have been closely described
up to the moment at which he reaches the side of Odysseus.
In the course of book xxi: Odysseus rises from his seat near the
stone threshold, and goes out of the hall with Eumaeus and
Philoetius (21. 190); but the poet is careful to say that he
returned to the same seat (243). From that seat he sends the
arrow through the holes in the axes (21. 420). Immediately
afterwards the slaughter of the suitors begins. Its beginning
is marked by the words, ‘he sprang on to the great threshold’
(22. 2). If the‘ great’ threshold is the same as the ‘stone’

H.S.—VOL. VIL. ΟΝ

178 THE HOMERIC HOUSE,

threshold, then Odysseus shot the suitors from the upper end
of the hall.

Mr. A. Lang is (or was) disposed to adopt this view, observing
in his note on 22. 2 that it is not Homeric to leave unmentioned
so important a movement as one from the upper to the lower
end of the hall. On thé other hand, Mr. Watkiss Lloyd, in the
Architect of Aug. 11, 1877, assumes that Odysseus passed from
the upper to the lower end of the hall, though the poet bas not
told us so. I concur with Mr. Lang’s criticism, but with Mr.
Lloyd’s conclusion. It seems to me that the difficulty as to the
poet’s silence is greatly lessened, if it is not altogether removed,
by the words of Odysseus just after he has sent the arrow
through the axes, and just before he springs on the threshold.
The supposed mendicant turns to Telemachus, and says :—
‘Telemachus, thy guest that sits in the halls does thee no
shame. In nowise did I miss my mark, nor was 1 wearied with
long bending of the bow. Still is my might steadfast,—not as
the wooers say scornfully to slight me. But now it is time that
supper too be got ready for the Achacans, while it is yet light, and
thereafter other sport be made with the dance and the lyre, for these
are the crown of the feast.’ ἢ

It is obvious that these words would be perfectly suitable to
the moment, if, while he pronounced them, the stranger should
rise from his seat’ and proceed down the hall, as if about to
retire from it. He would thus say, in effect,—‘ Sir, I have now
justified your courtesy to a humble guest; and, having done so,
I leave these lords to their festivities.’ So, while I agree that
it would be un-Homeric to leave the movement of Odysseus
unnoticed, [ think that Homer, without mentioning, has indi-
cated it, and that, too, in a highly dramatic manner. There is
still a possible objection to be met. If the stone threshold was
not that from which Odysseus was to shoot the suitors, what was
the ‘crafty design’ with which Telemachus had seated him near
it? (κέρδεα νωμῶν, 20. 257). Not that he might more easily obtain
the bow; for the trial with the bow occurs to Penelope’s mind
only at the beginning of book xxi.; and the scheme originally
concerted between father and son was that, in removing the

191. 424, f. Ingiving Butcherand sport.’ In the original it is simply

Lang’s version, I enbstitute ‘other καὶ ἄλλως ἑψιάασθαι. From my point
sport be made’ for ‘we make other οἵ view the difference is significant.

IN RELATION TO THE REMAINS AT TIRYNS. 179

other arms from the hall, Telemachus should leave weapons for
their own use (16. 295). The ‘crafty design’ must, then, have
been simply that Odysseus might be better able to see that the
door of the women’s apartments was closed, and might be near
his son when the moment should arrive for giving the signal
(21. 431).

If, on the other hand, the ‘great’ threshold from which
Odysseus shot the suitors was at the upper end of the hall,
several passages become unintelligible.

(1) In 22. 75, during the fight, Eurymachus (one of the suitors)
says, ‘ Let us all have at him with one accord, if haply we may
drive him from the threshold and the doorway, and then go
through the city.’ +

(2) In 22. 250 Odysseus and his three comrades are described
as being ἐπὶ πρώτῃσι θύρῃσι, ---' at the entrance of the doors.’
This phrase would be wholly inappropriate to the door at the
upper end of the hall.

(3) In 22. 270 the suitors fall back before Odysseus μεγάροιο
puxovee,—to the innermost part of the hall. The word μυχός
is not one which could be applied indifferently to either end of
the hall. It means the end farthest from the entrance,—the
‘ben. Compare 7. 87 and 96 (with reference to the house
of Alcinous) és μυχὸν ἐξ οὐδοῦ, and μυχοίτατος above (21.
146).

Unless, then, we conclude that Odysseus passed from the
upper to the lower end between trying the bow and beginning
the onslaught, we have to suppose a Adivos οὐδός at both ends.
The pédwos οὐδός would then be an outer threshold at the
lower end. But this is most improbable.

(4) In 22. 136 the words dyyt yap αἰνῶς αὐλῆς καλὰ
θύρετρα furnish another argument on the same side, but this
will be best taken presently, in connection with the second
question of detail raised by book xxii. It is the following.

2. How were arms introduced into the hall after the fight
had begun ?

At the end of book xxi. the situation is as follows. Odysseus
has his bow and arrows, but is otherwise unarmed. Telemachus

aT, Τῇ; ἐπὶ δ᾽ αὐτῷ πάντες ἔχωμεν
ἀθρόοι, εἴ κέ μιν οὐδοῦ ἀπώσομεν ἠδὲ θυράων,
ἔλθωμεν δ᾽ ἀνὰ ἄστυ.

180 THE HOMERIC HOUSE,

has a sword and a spear. The last two lines of book xxi. are
traditionally read thus :—

ἀμφὶ δὲ χεῖρα φίλην βάλεν ἔγχεϊ, ἄγχι δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ αὐτοῦ
map θρόνον ἑστήκει κεκορυθμένος αἴθοπι χαλκῷ:

Telemachus ‘took the spear in his grasp, and stood by his
high seat at his father’s side, armed with the gleaming bronze.’
There are two objections to this. (i.) As appears from 22. 109
and 113, Telemachus had no defensive armour, such as
κεκορυθμένος denotes, until he brought it from the armoury:
then ‘he girded the gear of bronze about his own body first’
(22. 113). (1.) He was not yet ‘at his father’s side.’ It is
only at 22. 99,—after killing one of his father’s assailants with
a spear-thrust in the back (κατόπισθε βαλών 22. 92),—that he
rushes forward and joins his father on the threshold. In 21. 434
we should read, as Protodikos proposed, κεκορυθμένον, and
translate -—‘ he took the spear in his grasp; near him it stood
by his chair, tipped with gleaming bronze.’ Cp. 22. 125 δοῦρε
δύω κεκορυθμένα χαλκῷ. Telemachus was sitting at one of the
small tables at the upper end of the hall. His chair was
probably set,—like that of Demodocus in the house of Alcinous,
—near a pillar, against which his spear leaned. Having come
to his father’s side on the threshold, he proposes to bring arms
for both of them, and for the two servants. Odysseus bids him
run and bring them at once (οἶσε θέων, 22.106). He at once
goes to the armoury in the inner part of the house (βῆ δ᾽ ἔμεναι
θάλαμόνδ᾽, 109), and returns ‘very quickly’ (112) with four
helmets, four shields, and eight spears. Observe in passing how
rapid and easy is the way of access to the armoury which all
this implies. But what was that way? One way alone was
open to him, if, as we have shown, he was at the lower end of
the hall. It was the same way by which, before the conflict,
the arms had been removed from the hall, after the door at its
upper end was closed,—viz., a passage running along the wall of
the hall on the outside, and so leading back to the inner part of
the house.

The suitors are now hard-pressed, and a similar manoeuvre
is undertaken in their interest. At 22. 126 we read !:—‘ Now

1 ᾽Ορσοθύρη δέ τις ἔσκεν ἐύδμήτῳ ἐνὶ ἀκρότατον δὲ παρ᾽ οὐδὸν ἐῦστα-
τοίχῳ, θέος μεγάροιο

IN RELATION TO THE REMAINS AT TIRYNS. 181

there was a certain raised postern (ὀρσοθύρα) in the well-builded
wall; and by the uttermost threshold of the stablished hall there
was a way into a passage (ὁδὸς ἐς λαύρην), closed by well-fitted
Jolding-doors (σανίδες). And Odysseus bade the goodly swine-
herd stand near thereto and watch the way, for there was but
one approach.’ ©

All interpreters, so far as I know, have assumed that the
postern (ὀρσοθύρα) was identical with the ‘way into a passage’
(ὁδὸς εἰς λαύρην), closed by folding-doors. Consequently they
have been constrained by tiie words ἀκρότωτον... παρ᾽ οὐδόν to
place the ὀρσοθύρα near the threshold held by Odysseus. But
an insuperable difficulty then arises. On this view, Eumaeus is
standing near the ὀρσοθύρωα, guarding it. And yet Agelaus,
one of the suitors, proposes to Melanthius (the goat-herd, in
league with them) that he should go up to the ὀρσοθύρα,
—guarded by Eumaeus, and close to the deadly threshold,—
and so sally forth to raise the town! Obviously the ὀρσοθύρα
was nearer to the upper than to the lower end of the hall, and
was under the command of the suitors. Another proof of this
occurs at 22. 333, where Phemius,—when the surviving suitors
are already cowering at the upper end,—proposes to slip out by
the ὀρσοθύρα. into the court,—Eumaeus having now left his
post of watch near the threshold, in order to join in a charge on
the suitors (22. 307). The ὁδὸς és λαύρην was, I think, distinct
from the ὀρσοθύρα. It was a second way of reaching the
λαύρα from the hall. It was opposite the end of the threshold
on which Odysseus stood, and could be closed by folding-doors
(σανίδες). These folding-doors were now open, and Eumaeus
was posted near them, ready to intercept any one attempting to
pass from the hall, by the λαύρα, into the court. There was
‘only one way of approach,’ viz., by the λαύρα itself, which the

ἣν ὁδὺς ἐς λαύρην, σανίδες δ᾽ ἔχον καὶ εἴποι λαοῖσι, βοὴ δ᾽ ὥκιστα γένοιτο;

εὖ ἀραρυῖαι.

τὴν δ᾽ ᾿Οδυσεὺς φράζεσθαι ἀνώγει δῖον
ὑφορβὺὸν

ἑσταότ᾽ ἄγχ᾽ αὐτῆς" μία δ᾽ οἴη γίγνετ᾽
ἐφορμή.

τοῖς δ᾽ ᾿Αγέλεως μετέειπεν, ἔπος πάν-
τεσσι πιφαύσκων.

ἾὮὮ φίλοι, ode ἂν δή τις av ὀρσοθύρην
ἀναβαίη

“- fa) ἫΝ > mi Ὁ ἢ ,
τῳ Κε TAX OVUTOS ἀνὴρ νυν VOTaATG τοξάσ-
σαιτο.

τὸν δ᾽ αὖτε προσέειπε Μελάνθιος, αἰπόλος

αἰγῶν.

Οὔπως ἔστ᾽, ᾿Αγέλαε διοτρεφές᾽ ἄγχι
γὰρ αἰνῶς

αὐλῆς καλὰ θύρετρα καὶ ἀργαλέον στόμα
Aadpns.

182 THE HOMERIC HOUSE,

enemy could enter by the ὀρσοθύρα at the upper end. There
was an evident utility in such a second entrance to the λαύρα
from the lower end of the hall. By its proximity to the mouth
of the λαύρα, opening on the court, 1t enabled occupants of the
hall to command that entrance. The special convenience of
the ὀρσοθύρα, on the other hand, would be rather for communi-
cation with the back part of the house, and more particularly
for service. When it is proposed to Melanthius that he should
‘90 up to the ὀρσοθύρα, he replies, ‘It cannot be ; for the fair
doors of the court are terribly near, and strait is the mouth of the
passage’ (22.1386 f.). That is, ‘Eumaeus down yonder could
hold the narrow passage against me, and his allies are close by,
at the door leading from the hall to the court.’ -

But Melanthius has another resource. ‘Come,’ he says, ‘let
me bring you armour from the thalamos,—for methinks ‘tis
within, and nowhere else, that Odysseus and his son laid by the
arms.’ So saying, ‘he went up by the ῥῶγες of the hall,’ * and
quickly returned with a supply of arms,—twelve shields, twelve
helmets, and twelve spears.

What were the ῥῶγες μεγάροιο, mentioned only here? They
have been explained as a clerestory, by which Melanthius gained
the roof of the hall. Dr. Dorpfeld supposes that the hall at
Tiryns had a clerestory over its four central pillars; though the
late Mr. James Fergusson, who assumed a basilican mode of
lighting for the Parthenon, thought it improbable in the case of
Tiryns. Others, again, have taken the paves to be windows in
the side-walls; or stairs leading to the roof; or shelves, forming
part of sleeping-galleries, along the sides of the walls. The
feature common to almost all explanations has been to under-
stand ἀνέβαινε as meaning that Melanthius elimbed up something.
But he quickly returns with a great load of armour. And
neither his exit nor his return is noticed by Odysseus. Both
these facts seem incompatible with the idea of climbing, unless
the ῥῶγες are supposed to be regular stairs outside of the hall.
On the other hand ἀνέβαινε ought certainly to mean ‘went up,
not merely, ‘went back” The Homeric use of this verb always
implies literal ascent,—as in going on board ship ; though the

1 22. 142 ἐς θαλάμους ᾿Οδυσῆος ava payas μεγά-
ὡς εἰπὼν ἀνέβαινε Μελάνθιος, αἰπόλος ροιο.

αἰγῶν,

IN RELATION TO THE REMAINS AT TIRYNS. 183

Homeric use of ἀνά with the ace. is larger (¢.g., Od. 12. 333 ἀνὰ
νῆσον ἀπέστιχον, 1.6. ‘up’ from the coast). And this condition
is satisfied, if we suppose that Melanthius, in order to reach the
ῥῶγες, ‘went up’ to the raised postern, the ὀρσοθύρα.

It is to the Modern Greek language, and to scholars writing
in it, that we are indebted for preserving the true interpretation
of paves, as I, at least, cannot hesitate to think it. The Homeric
ῥώξ, pwyos is the Modern Greek ῥοῦγα. The two changes
which have taken place are both normal. (i.) The ancient ὦ
has become ov: cp. σκώληξ, Neo-H. σκουλίκι: ζωμός, ζουμί:
κώδων, κουδοῦνι: κωπίον, κουπίον. (1i.) The stem of the
ancient noun of the third declension has been used to form a
mew noun of the first; cp. πτέρυξ, Neo-H. φτεροῦγα : νύξ,
νύχτα : γυνή, γυναῖκα (Neo-H. nom. sing.): ἀνήρ, ἄνδρας (do.).
In his Dictionary of Modern Greek (1835), Skarlatos, of
Constantinople, giving povya as ‘a narrow way or passage,
compares the Homeric ῥῶγες. In a Greek version of the
Homeric Lexicon of Crusius (Athens, 1874) J. Pantazides says
on pa@yes: ‘The most probable interpretation is that of
Eustathius, “ passage,” “narrow way,’’ and refers to the modern
ῥοῦγα. And the same interpretation is adopted by J. Protodikos
(1877)2 I am indebted to Professor M. Constantinides for a
valuable note on this subject. Speaking as a native of North-
western Asia Minor, he observes that potya is thoroughly
familiar, in the sense of ‘lane, to the Greeks of Asia Minor,
though ii is rare among Greeks of Europe, who employ instead
a Turkish word, σωκάκι. One illustration of the modern use
which he has given me is so apposite that it must be quoted.
It occurs in a popular song trom the region of Cyzicus. A
young princess is gathering flowers and weaving them into
chaplets, like Persephone of old, when she and her maidens are
surprised by a monster, who, singling out the princess, chases
her :—

στοὺς δρόμους τὴν κυνήγαγε,
μὲς τὴν αὐλὴ τὴν διώχνει,

1 Another derivation has been sug- too far back to make this explanation
gested for potya,—viz., the Low Latin probable. And the way in which the
ruga (‘furrow,’ then ‘path’) whence ῥῶγες are mentioned (Od. 22, 143)
O. It. ruga and Fr. rue (see Brachet proves that the word was in familiar
s.v.). But the Greek use of potya goes — use.

184 THE HOMERIC HOUSE,

Kal μὲς ταῖς ῥούγαις ταῖς στεναῖς
r la) ἊΝ /
τοῦ παλατιοῦ THY φθάνει"

‘he hunts her to the streets, he pursues her into the court, and
in the narrow passages of the palace he overtakes her,

The ῥῶγες μεγάροιο would, then, be narrow passages leading
from the outside of the hall to the inner part of the house. We
shall find that this perfectly agrees with the whole tenor of the
passage from 22,126 to 179. Such ῥῶγες would be especially
used for service, and it is natural that a servant of the house
should know them. Agelaus had wished Melanthius to go up
to the dpco@vpa,—which Melanthius could safely do,—and then
to pass into the court,—which he could πού do without being
intercepted by Eumaeus. Melanthius, therefore, ‘went up’ to
the ὀρσοθύρα, but, when inside it, turned in the opposite direc-
tion from that leading to the court,—along the passages (p@yes)
leading to the back of the house. Odysseus and his men at the
other end of the hall, busy with the conflict, do not notice the
exit of Melanthius. We need not imagine the ὀρσοθύρα as
raised high above the floor; and Melanthius, among the throng
of suitors, could easily slip through it unnoticed. When he has
returned to the hall, and the suitors are seen to have obtained
armour, Odysseus suspects that it has been brought either by
Melanthius or by the women (22. 151). At this moment,
Odysseus, Telemachus, and Eumaeus are standing close together
at the lower end of the hall—the two former on the threshold,
and Eumaeus near the end of it, at the open folding-doors
leading from the hall into the λαύρα (cp. 22. 163). Eumaeus,
warned by Odysseus, now keeps his eyes on the ὀρσοθύρα at the
upper end.. When Melanthius slips out by it for the second
time, Eumaeus espies him (22. 162). Then Eumaeus and
Philoetius, passing out by the folding-doors into the αὔρα,
follow Melanthius to the armoury at the back of the house, and
catch him in the act of plundering it (22. 176). It may be
asked,—‘ Why did not Odysseus anticipate this manoeuvre of
Melanthius, seeing that the suitors had the use of the ὀρσοθύρα 2’
The answer is given by the words of Telemachus (22. 155 ἢ),
who takes the blame to himself, because he had left the
door of the armoury ajar. Odysseus and Telemachus relied,
then, on means of fastening the door of the armoury from

IN RELATION TO THE REMAINS AT TIRYNS. 185

the outside. Probably they had a κλείς for it, as Penelope
had for the θησαυρός (21. 6). Remark, too, the words of
Telemachus: ‘I left the door open, and there has been
one of them but too quick to spy it’ (22. 156). That is,
he suspects that one of the women, coming round by the
p@yes to the ὀρσοθύρα, had reported his oversight to the
enemy.

3. The sequel of the contest—When the slaying of the suitors
has been accomplished, Telemachus is ordered by his father to
‘call forth’ Eurycleia. He does so by shaking or striking a door,
while he calls to her through it (22. 394),—

κινήσας δὲ θύρην προσέφη τροφὸν Εὐρύκλειαν.

Then she opened the door,—the same which she had closed at
21. 387,—the door between the women’s apartments and the
hall. She enters the hall; Odysseus questions her concerning
the conduct of the handmaids; and she receives his command

to bring them forth from the women’s apartments. Then ‘she
went through the hall to tell the women’ (22. 433). Odysseus

next instructs Telemachus that they are to be ‘led out of the
hall’ into the court (441).

Thus the story of the Odyssey from book xvil. onwards presents
itself as a clear and intelligible whole. In the view of it which
I have endeavoured to present, there may be details on which
opinions will be divided ; but such details do not affect the main
conclusion which it is my purpose to establish. The whole tenor
of the narrative pre-supposes two essential conditions for the
Homeric house :—

(1) The women’s part of the house was immediately behind
the men’s hall, directly communicating with it by a door.

(2) There was a second way of going from the men’s hall to
the Lack part of the house, by a passage outside of the hall ;

1 Protodikos thinks, as I do, that
Melanthius went out by the ὀρσοθύρα:
but, assuming the ὀρσοθύρα to be the
only way from the hall into the λαύρα,
he has to suppose that the door which
Eumaeus was set to watch was that
leading from the mouth of the λαύρα
into the court. This places Eumaeus
outside of the hall. But he was

HSV Olu, Ι,

inside it, close to Odysseus, to whom
he speaks when he sees Melanthius
slip out (22. 163). Further, he has
to suppose that the ἀκρότατος οὐδός of
22. 127 is the edge of the threshold
of the ὀρσοθύρα on the side towards
the λαύρα, and that it is called the
‘threshold of the hall’ merely because
the ὀρσοθύρα led out of the hall.

O

186 THE HOMERIC HOUSE,

and this second way, though, of course, less direct than the other,
was still easy and rapid,—as book xxii. abundantly proves.

With these two general conditions, we contrast two general
conditions of the house at Tiryns :—

(1) The primary isolation of the women’s apartments from the
men’s hall.

(2) The extremely circuitous and tortuous character of the
only routes by which it was possible to pass from one to the
other. For these, the reader may be referred to Dr. Dorpfeld’s
own description, quoted above (p. 171, note).

At p. 227 of Ziryns Dr. Dorpfeld argues that the arrange-
ment at Tiryns can be reconciled with the Homeric data. He
notices five passages only. The first four of these are only the
oft-repeated verse in which Penelope, entering the hall from the
women’s apartments, is said to stand by the door-post of the
hall (1. 333; 16. 415; 18. 209 ; 21. 64) :—

a \ \ iy a
στῆ pa παρὰ σταθμὸν τέγεος πύκα ποιητοῖο.

On this Dr. Dérpfeld merely says that the door at the lower end
of the hall is intended. The fifth passage (21. 236) is that in
which, before the slaying, Eurycleia is ordered to shut the doors
of the women’s apartments. On this Dr. Dorpfeld remarks that
there is nothing to show that these doors opened on the hall;
and that the object of closing them was ‘ not to keep the suitors
from escaping, but to keep the women undisturbed within.’
Those who have followed the evidence given in the foregoing
pages will be able to judge how far such statements go towards
meeting it.?

1 In a foot-note on the same page
(227) another passage is adduced from
Od. 6. 50 ff., where it is said that
Nausicaa, after finding her mother at
the hearth, met with (ξύμβλητο) her
father as he was going forth to the
council, This argument assumes that
the hearth at which Nausicaa found
her mother was in the women’s apart-
inents, and that, as Nausicaa, coming
thence, ‘met’ her father leaving the
house, she entered the hall by the door
from the court. The answer is fur-
nished by Od. 7. 189 ff. We there

find Areté and Alcinous sitting together.
in the men’s hall near the ἐσχάρα at its
upper end,—where Penelope also sits
in 20. 55, and where Helen joins
Menelaus (4. 121). Nausicaa, on
awaking, wishes to tell her dream to
her parents. She goes κατὰ δώματα,
‘through the house,’ from ner own bed-
chamber in the women’s apartments,
to the men’s hall,—the door between
them beingopen. In the hall she finds
her mother. Her father she found,
we may suppose, in the prodomos or
in the aule, ‘about to go ferth.’ It

Ψ

IN RELATION TO THE REMAINS AT TIRYNS. 187

It has been suggested by Prof. Gardner that, as the remains
of the house-walls at Tiryns are only about three feet above the
ground, a raised postern (ὀρσοθύρα) may once have existed in a
side-wall of the megaron. On this point, I can only refer to the
statement of Dr. Dorpfeld (p. 228), that no trace of such a pos-
tern is now discernible. Let us suppose, however, that it once
existed. It would then have necessarily been the usual mode
of access from the women’s apartments to the men’s hall. To
it, therefore, we should have to refer the often-repeated phrase
concerning Penelope standing ‘by the door-post of the hall’
(1. 333, ete.) ; which, however, manifestly refers to a principal
entrance, and not merely to a postern in a side-wall. But tlie
hypothesis of an ὀρσοθύρα at Tiryns, even if it were probable
in itself, would leave untouched a whole series of irreconcilable
discrepancies between the house at Tiryns and the house of the
Odyssey. These have been exhibited in the foregoing pages.
Here it is enough to recali a few of them in the briefest terms.
(1) Odysseus, being at the lower end of the hall, refuses to go
to the women’s rooms because he would have to pass up the
hall among the suitors. (Above, 1. 1). At Tiryns he would
.only have had to turn his back upon the suitors, and to leave
the hall. (2) The women, coming from their own sleeping-
rooms at night, issue from the men’s hall, and pass by Odysseus
sleeping in the prodomos. At Tiryns they would have gone out
by the separate approach to their own court. They could not
have passed through the men’s hall or its prodomos. (Above,
I, 2). (3) Eumaeus, when at the upper end of the hall, is in
the right position to call Eurycleia forth from the women’s
apartments, and to charge her privily to close them. (Above,
If. 1). At Tiryns,—even with the hypothetical ὀρσοθύρα;---
this could not have so happened. (4) After the slaying,
Telemachus, being in the men’s hall, calls forth Eurycleia by
striking a closed door. But both the ὀρσοθύρα and the door at
the lower end of the hall were then open. And the men’s hall
at Tiryns, even if we give it an ὀρσοθύρα, had no third door.
(5) The armoury at Tiryns has to be identified with one of the
small rooms on the side of the women’s hall furthest from the

is absurd to press ξύμβλητο as if directions. It means simply ‘fell in
it necessarily implied that the two with,’ ‘chanced to find.’
persons were moving in exactly contrary

188 THE HOMERIC HOUSE.

men’s hall. Such a position—accessible from the men’s hall
only by long and intricate routes—is utterly incompatible with
the swift pail easy access to the armoury which is ; Supposed 1 in
book xxii.

As Prof. Gardner has well observed in this oumadll ‘the
best proof that the Homeric house had historical reality is_to
be found in the fact that in the Greek mansion of historical.
times we can se2 the descendant of the house of Homer.’ That
is, as he there explains, the later ἀνδρών answers to the Homeric
μέγαρον, standing between the αὐλή and the γυναικωνῖτις, and
communicating with both. This form of house was suited to the
Hellenic spirit in domestic life, which was intermediate between
the oriental and the modern European; providing, on the one
hand, for the seclusion of women from the outer world, and,
the other, for the social unity of the family. The difference
between this Hellenic form of house and the form said to exist
at Tiryns is not merely a variation of detail; in regard to the
most vital aspect of the home, it is a contrast ofptype. And if
the Tiryns type is assumed as that which the Homeric poet
intended, the Odyssey ceases to be intelligible. .

-"

R.. ΟἽ πὴ}

+ Vol. itt, Ὁ». 288:

ON A BRONZE LEG FROM ITALY.

[Puates LXIX. anp LXIX. A.]

Or the bronze fragment which forms the subject of Pl. LXIX.,
and which has been recently acquired for the British Museum,
this only is certain: that it is the right leg of an armed figure
in motion. With a few fragments of drapery it is, unfor-
tunately, all that remains of a statue of heroic size: there is
therefore ample room for speculation as to its subject and
action. The leg is armed in a greave, and the pieces of drapery
bordered with one of the forms of the Greek fret incised and
originally inlaid with silver, must, from the character of the
folds, have belonged to the skirt of a short chiton, such as was
worn under armour. The figure was therefore that of a hero
in full armour, and that it was in motion is sufficiently indicated
by the fluttering movement of the pieces of drapery.

It will be well to introduce here some notes which Mr. Murray
was kind enough to send to me, and which were a most
valuable assistance to me in the preparation of this paper :—

I will offer one or two observations regarding the bronze leg
recently acquired for the British Museum from M. Piot in Paris.
M. Piot and others have assemed that the original statue of which
this leg formed a part had represented a runner in the armed race,
ὁπλίτης δρόμος. Τὸ this view it may be objected first that the action
of the muscles of the leg is not the action of a runner, and secondly
that with this leg were found three pieces of drapery which evidently
belonged to the same statue, and as such preclude the possibility of

H.S.—VOL. VII. Ρ

190 ON A BRONZE LEG FROM ITALY.

its having represented a runner, since the armed race was run with-
out drapery of any kind. It is recorded of the first winner of this
race, towards the end of the sixth century, B.c., that his costume
consisted of a helmet, shield, and greaves.!_ In the course of time
the greaves came to be an encumbrance and were discarded, but
except in this respect no change was ever made in the costume of
the armed race. In no representation of it that I have seen is there
any signof drapery. On the black-figure vases ἢ from the beginning
of the fifth century, B.c., or perhaps a little earlier, we have illus-
trations of armed runners, always with helmet, shield, and greaves.
The same costume continues down towards the end of the fifth
century, B.c. on red-figure kylikes of a more or less severe style.®
The greaves appear to have been given up about B.c. 400, if we
may judge by a red-figure vase here representing the armed race.
The oldest dated vase I know of, on which the runners are without
greaves, is a Panathenaic amphora here bearing the archon’s name
for the year B.c. 336.4

If, then, it is still maintained that the bronze leg may be that of
an armed runner, it will be necessary to assign it a date not later
than B.c. 400, or perhaps B.c. 420. Though quite convinced that
it has nothing to do with an armed runner, I would yet readily
accept for it a date about B.c. 420. It is hardly conceivable that
at any later time there could have been produced a work of such
largeness and simplicity of style. Again, if you compare the
Gorgon’s head on the front of the greave with coins of about the
middle of the fifth century, B.c., you will find a striking analogy.
Similarly if you consider the broad inlaid border on the fragment
of drapery, and compare it with other borders as, for example, that
of an archaic bronze statuette here from Verona, you will be led
again to near the middle of the fifth century as the most reasonable
date.

As regards the complete statue its attitude must, I think, have
been that of standing with the weight of the body resting on the
left leg, and with the right leg (now preserved) thrown a little
back, only the front of the foot touching the ground, much as ina
bronze statuette here, of an armed figure, possibly Ares, which also
wears greaves along with a cuirass and helmet; from below his
cuirass the chiton hangs to halfway down the thigh in thick folds.
Now the three fragments of drapery mentioned above, constitute
just three such folds, and from this comparison we may carry our
restoration of the Piot bronze a step farther and assume the original
statue not only to have stood in the manner of this statuette, but to
have worn the same form of armour and chiton.

A. 8S. Murray.
1 Olymp. 65, see Pausanias vi. 10, 2 % See Kylix in Brit. Mus. signed by
and compare y. 8, 3. painter Pheidippos and potter His-
* See Oinochoe in Brit. Mus. en- chylos.
graved, Mittheil. d. Inst. in Athen, 4 Engraved Mon. dell’ Inst. Arch. x.

1880, pl. 13. pl. 48° fig. 3.

ON A BRONZE LEG FROM ITALY. 191

As regards the attitude of the figure, my first impression was
the same as that which Mr. Murray has expressed, namely, that
the leg was thrown back ; but with a springing movement as of
a man brandishing a spear, not only because the drapery shows
that the figure must have been in motion, but because the
play of the muscles of the leg seems to me to preclude the
possibility of the figure being at rest. In that case the body
must have been more or less upright, and the weight ‘resting
fully on the toes of the right foot, with the left foot advanced,
and the leg is consequently not placed in its proper position
in the case in the Museum; it should be inclined with the knee
forward, and the thigh nearly upright. But I do not think
that the action of the leg corresponds to this position. <A
eareful study of the living model (see Plate LXIX. A.) makes
it, I think, clear that in no backward attitude of the leg could
the muscles take precisely the aspect which they present in
the bronze. I have therefore come to the conclusion that the
right leg was in advance with the toes resting on the ground,
very much in the position in which it is now seen in the
Museum, but with the knee possibly a little more forward. The
weight, I should think, was divided between the forward and
the back leg; for when the right Jeg is advanced and the whole
weight of the body thrown upon it, the action of the muscles is
more violent. It is true that this excess of action is seen more in
the thigh than in the leg (and the thigh being wanting we can-
not argue from it), for when the toe is pressed on the ground
with the leg advanced, the extensor muscles of the leg do not
change much with the amount of weight which they have to
support ; on the other hand the great tendons of the tibialis
and extensor of the great toe come into more violent action than
we find in the example before us. Besides, there is an air of
‘lightness in this beautiful limb which is not in accordance with
the violent exertion which is even momentarily sustained while
the whole weight of the body is thrown on the toes.

The attitude might therefore very well be that of running, the
moment chosen being that when the body is about equally poised
on the two legs. But to judge of the action of a whole statue
from that of the muscles of one leg alone, and that leg broken
off above the knee, is really most difficult even with nature
before one, and I should not like to commit myself further than

Ῥ 2

192 ON A BRONZE LEG FROM ITALY.

to say that I do not think that the figure can have been simply
standing with the leg thrown back.

Therefore, although Mr. Murray in his note disposes con-
clusively of the supposition that the figure represents a runner
in the armed race, I do not think it by any means certain that
the hero represented was not in the attitude of a runner.t

T will also leave to Mr. Murray the question of the probable
date; merely remarking that it seems difficult to believe that
the workmanship is more recent than the sculptures of the
Parthenon. The date might vary slightly according to the
locality in which the statue was executed (on which point we
unfortunately have no clue), work produced in the provinces
possibly retaining traces of archaism after they had finally
disappeared in Greece proper. I may remark also that in the
absence of the head it would seem unsafe to assign more than
an approximate date; judging by the sculptures from Aegina,
a free treatment of the limbs preceded the natural rendering of
the head; for, as we well know, the heads of the Aeginetan
warriors are curiously destitute of life and individuality as com-
pared with the limbs and bodies. At the same time the work of
this bronze is far more advanced than that of the Aeginetan
sculptures, aud I suspect that if a happy chance were to restore
to us the head we should find it in no way inferior to the limbs.
The treatment proper to bronze may also have retained for that
material a certain severity of style at a time when work in
marble may have been modified to more softness in the rendering
of flesh. No doubt, moreover, the Gorgon’s head on the greave
gives an expression of a more archaic style than is to be found
in the general execution; but, as Mr. Cecil Smith pointed out
to me, this treatment of the Gorgon’s head is traditional, and
therefore is of no use in determining the date for us, except in
so far as the style of execution corresponds with the heads on
the coins referred to by Mr. Murray.

To the artist, the interest of this magnificent fragment les
not so much in these things, as in its being of unsurpassed

1 After reading the above remarks at chariot, and he would be standing with
the meeting of the Hellenic Society, it the right foot on the ground just going
was suggested to me that the statue to spring upwards. The action of the
may have represented a hero mounting muscles would correspond very well

a chariot ; in that case the left leg with this intention.
would be raised with the foot on the

ON A BRONZE LEG FROM ITALY. 193

workmanship, and of that culminating period of art, when,
having’freed itself from the archaism which hampered expression
it still retains that severity of style which shews that the idea
to be expressed is still the dominant one in the mind of the
artist, and that the study of beauty and the utmost skill of
workmanship were still to him the means to an end; the means,
that is to say, of glorifying to the highest point the subject on
which he was engaged.

The slow development of the sense of beauty is one of
the most remarkable features in an art of which beauty became
finally the most conspicuous attribute. In the earliest speci-
mens of Greek sculpture there is absolutely no trace of it
in any form—being in this the very reverse of Egyptian art,
where from the beginning there was not only the sentiment
of order in composition, but a high sense of symmetry of form,
and a still stronger feeling for nature; and this sense of
beauty, though limited, and of course never developed, is found
throughout the whole range of Egyptian art until the time
when it became merely mechanical. With the Greeks the idea
to be expressed held the first place; to honour the yods, to
reverence the dead, to record and glorify the deeds of their
heroes, was their prime aim and object; not the search for
beauty, which did not begin until after the highest point was
reached ; nor the mere love of nature, as in modern art.

In their first efforts at sculpture, the rudest symbolism was
all that they could achieve, or cared for. The Apollo of Tenea
or Orchomenos is nothing but grotesque, and the reliefs found
at Assos shew no sense of order or composition. Nor was it the
love of beauty in art for its own sake which brought about the
development from these childish works to the incomparable
perfection of the Phidian period; the aim was rather towards
improvement in the execution of their work, and to approach
ever nearer to nature, as being the only means of rendering
their idea with truth, and of giving vitality to their figures:
but up to the beginning of the fifth century, although we find
a rapidly-increasing beauty of composition, both in vases and
reliefs, beauty either of individual form or face has, as yet,
received no attention. But by degrees, with the knowledge of
nature, and the improved mastery over material, gradually
acquired during successive generations of artists, and in the

194 ON A BRONZE LEG FROM ITALY.

search for distinctions of character and freedom of movement,
came the appreciation of beauty, and it at last began to be felt
that not only was it the business of the artist to give life and
action to his figures, but they should also be exalted by beauty
and grandeur of form above the common-places of life. Thus
the grand simplicity of treatment which we find in the great
works of the Phidian age, was not the result of a conscious
endeavour to simplify or conventionalise nature into typical
forms; it was, so to speak, inherent in the archaism which the
art had hardly shaken off; it was the still lingering tradition of
the imperfect art which saw only generic forms, and received
only generalised impressions from nature. It is precisely at the
point when this sense of the exalting value of noble and beauti-
ful form flashed like an inspiration from heaven on the Greek
school that the culmination of art was reached. Of such a
period was the heroic figure whose leg we are considering: and
my object in introducing this brief disquisition is an endeavour
to realise, if possible, the state of mind under which such a work
was produced.

Vigour and elegance of line, firmness of form, complete ex-
pression of all the subtleties of life and movement, yet with no
insistence on trivialities of detail, perfect symmetry of pro-
portion, and, as I have said, workmanship of unsurpassed beauty,
are all combined in this superb fragment, which seems to me
second to nothing which the museum already possesses. The
finish is that of a gem or a coin, while the largeness of treatment
is such that it might have been hewn with an axe, and the play
of the muscles is as full of spring and elasticity as life itself—
the heel alone seems to me a masterpiece. The surface, more-
over, of this bronze is in the most perfect condition; I should
like to think that it never had more polish than we now see
on it: the texture is wonderfully like that of the living
epidermis.

But it may be asked how are we in a position to judge of
the original movement of the statue from the action of the
muscles, when the whole leg is encased in a greave? why
should we see this play of muscles at all? and it has been
suggested that the greave must be intended for leather, through
which the working of the limb can be traced—as in the mag-
nificent Medici statues of Michelangelo—where, through a

ON A BRONZE LEG FROM ITALY. 195

leather cuirass, moulded in the form of a torso, by a convention
of the artist, the natural movements of the muscles of the chest
and abdomen are shewn.

But that the greave cannot be of leather is obvious, for there
is no clasp or strap to fasten it round the leg. Moreover we
know not only that the greaves of the Greeks were of metal,
for they are to be found in all museums, but we see in this leg
the division down the back of the greave which allowed it to
be opened for the insertion of the leg, on which it closed by its
own elasticity; and it resembles in every respect the greaves
which are found in the tombs. We know also that these
greaves, like the metal cuirasses, were highly modelled in imita-
tion of the natural leg, the anatomy being carefully represented,
for there are several such in the British Museum—one pair
being ornamented with a Gorgon’s head, as in this fragment ;
they were sometimes carried to as great perfection, in point of
art, as the most finished sculpture; as may be seen in a pair
belonging to Mr. Boehm, R.A., of a slightly later date than this
leg, where the workmanship is of the highest kind. There can,
therefore, be no doubt that what is represented here is a bronze
greave, which the sculptor was bound to model up to the
highest point in imitation of the natural anatomy.

To me it is quite obvious that in representing such a greave
on the living figure, the jarring contrast between a limb in
action and muscles in a state of repose, was more than the artist
could bear; he has therefore chosen to make his greave with
the same play of muscles as though the leg were exposed. If
the figure had been simply standing, he would have made the
muscles at rest.

It only remains for me to congratulate the British Museum
on the acquisition of so unique a specimen of the acme of
Greek art.

E. J. POYNTER.

196 THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS.

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS.

TWO UNPUBLISHED VASES IN THE GRAECO-
ETRUSCAN MUSEUM AT FLORENCE.

[PLATE LXX.]

My object in the following paper is two-fold; first, to comment
on two hitherto unpublished vases relating to the myth of the
Judgment of Paris; secondly, to discuss the typography of the
myth generally, and in particular to offer some suggestions as to
the origin of its early art form.

First as to the unpublished vases. Both the amphora and
the pinax are now in the Graeco-Etruscan Museum at Florence.
The drawings and photographs were executed under the kind
supervision of the Director of the Museum, Sig. Milani; he was
however unable to tell me where the vases were found: they
are manifestly both of Attic work. It is fortunate that they
both are now in the same Museum, as they present certain
well-marked analogies in treatment, evident at the most
eursory glance.

A detailed description of the two vases is superfluous, as
accurate reproductions lie before the reader, but 1 would call
attention to one or two points. The amphora (Plate LXX.
and Fig. 1) I should class as belonging to very early black-
figured manner—before the regular B. F. Attic style is fully
established—with reminiscences of the so-called ‘Chalcidian’
and of the ‘Corinthian’ styles. We note especially the
curiously cut cloaks of the women, which appear frequently
on Corinthian vases, of which there are numerous examples
in the Louvre; and we note also the rosettes on the animal
frieze and the very ‘Chalcidian’ horror vacui, e.g. the little owl
between the feet of Hermes.

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS. 197

The dress of the figures has on the other hand marked
analogies with the Francois vase, and with such early bits of
work as the Marathon plate (Kohler, itt, 1882, Taf. 3). This

Fic. 1.—OBVERSE OF AMPHORA IN PLATE.

analogy is specially marked in the dress of Paris, where the
Dionysos of the Marathon plate wears just such a fine-ribbed
chiton indicated by waving lines. This love of ribbed lines is
further observable in the wavy lines that indicate the trees

198 THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS.

(see on this ‘Chalcidian’ peculiarity, Cecil Smith, ‘Four
Archaic Vases from Rhodes,’ Jowrnal Hell. Stud. V. p. 224).
I may note in passing that these fine-ribbed chitons continued
in special favour with the potter Amasis (eg. the figure of
Dionysos, A. Z. 1884, Taf. 15). The figure of Paris is identical
in dress and almost identical in posture on both amphora and
plate. It is in every detail (ungirt, ribbed chiton with border

Fic. 2,—PINAX IN MusEuM AT FLORENCE.

at neck and feet, narrow form of Doric himation) exactly
similar to that of Peleus in the vase which shows such marked
analogies to the style of Amasis (Heydemann, Griech. Vas.
T. 6, 4, see F. Studniczka, Beitrdge zur Geschichte der alt-
griechischen” Tracht, p. 66).

The only substantial differences between the treatment in
the two vases are (1) the figure of Hermes which differs in

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS. 199

dress and action, (2) on the amphora we have two figures
added to fill up the ampler space. I attach no mythological
importance to them; they are primarily space fillers, second-
arily, they are engaged in what if we discuss Italian art we
should call the ‘sacre conversazioni. As regards the amphora
as a whole it falls under the class noted by Dr. Furtwiingler, in
his catalogue of the Berlin vases, as Aftische Amphoren, 26,
Gruppe 3, though it precisely corresponds to none of the Berlin
specimens. Of published vases the nearest to it in character is
the recently published amphora found at Corneto, with Herakles
and the Amazons and the hunt of the Calydonian boar (Jonuw-
menti, 1884, Taf. ix.—x.). The pinax has two holes in the upper
part of the rim which seem to have been made for the purpose
of passing a string through to suspend it. As to the treatment
of the myth we may note that it is an instance of the class I
shall call in my scheme 0. Hermes leads the three goddesses
into the presence of Paris, Paris betrays alarm :—before passing
on I would call attention to the fact that, similar though the
goddesses are, the centre one (whom I believe to be uniformly
Athene) is distinguished by the presence of spots on her cloak,
and further by the talaric chiton after the Ionian fashion of the
ἑλκεχίτωνες (II. 13, 685): these ἑλκεχέτωνες appear in Corin-
thian, ‘Chalcidian’ and early Attic work, and, as Mr. C. Smith
has remarked, appear on the Harpy tomb (see op. cit. p. 230).

I turn to my second point, the discussion of the typography
of the myth.

I do not intend to attempt the complete enumeration of all
known instances. The black-figured vases have recently been
exhibited in tabular form by Dr. A. Schneider in his Der
troische Sagenkreis in der dltesten griechischen Kunst (Leipzig,
1886), and as this book is in the hands of every student of the
Trojan cycle of myths, I shall adopt his lettering in referring
to the vases, and shall not repeat his enumeration of the
familiar literature of the subject. He does not undertake to
give a list that shall be complete, nor do I think,such com-
pleteness at all essential for the discussion of the question of
typography: instances of the myth are, as every one knows,
remarkably numerous, and in a great number of cases the
treatment is in all matters of importance perfectly uniform :
the mere enumeration of such is a barren task and may well

200 THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS.

be omitted. The essential thing is to accumulate sufficient
material for the safe establishment of the principal type-forms,
subsequent instances will then only need to be noted in so far
as they present variations.

Before however I begin the work of classification I will
briefly note a few vases which do not appear in existing lists,
and which seem to me to be of sufficient importance to be
registered. I number them separately; belonging as they do
to all styles and periods, I cannot attempt to incorporate them
into Dr. Schneider's list. Three belong to the Antikenkabinet
αὖ Copenhagen, two are in the Louvre, one in the National
Museum at Naples, two at Palermo.

1. Oinochoé. Copenhagen. B.F. Paris turns to fly at the
approach of Hermes and the three goddesses.

2. Lekythos. Copenhagen. B. F. Paris turns to face
Hermes, who is followed by the three goddesses: behind
Paris a low chair, from which he has just risen.

3. Lid of a Pyxis. Copenhagen. Fine Attic style ; published
Vases peints, Dumont et Chaplain, III. plate x. This vase,
though long known to exist, has attracted but little notice.
The representation is unique: Hera advances in a chariot
drawn by four horses, Athene by two bearded snakes, Aphro-
dite by two Erotes.

4. Amphora. Paris. B. F. Three goddesses stand almost
in a line. Paris attempts to fly. Hermes seizes him by the
left wrist (vide wood-cut to type B).

5. Amphora. Paris. B. F. Two goddesses only. Paris
attempts to fly. Hermes raises left hand in speech : inscrip-
tions unintelligible.

6. Krater. Naples. Very late R. F. (Heydemann, Cat. 2870).
Paris seated (below handle) in Phrygian dress and holding spear.
To him behind small tree approaches Hermes followed by two
chariots, each drawn by two horses and containing each two god-
desses. In the front chariot Athene and Hera, behind Aphrodite
and Artemis. Above Hermes indications of rock and foliage
behind which appears Pan holding pedum: inscriptions PAPI€
A@ANAIH APTINE AMPOAITA..HE.. Lower part of
figure of Paris effaced and upper part of Hermes. The drawing
is very late and coarse, the manner of depiction both as regards
the presence of Artemis and Pan and the inscription PAPI<

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS. 201

(in place of the customary ᾿Αλέξανδρος) unique, but I see no
reason to suspect the genuineness of the vase, though possibly
the inscriptions are modern.

7. Fragment of Vase. Palermo. Fine red-figured. Paris in
Phrygian cap, high boots, Greek chiton, holding in left hand
two spears, is seated on rock. Hermes in chiton, chlamys, and
flat hat, raises left hand in token of speech. This occupies the
whole fragment, probably obverse of a cotylos. We may suppose
that on the reverse the three goddesses were depicted.

8. Amphora. Palermo. ἢ. F. Obverse, Paris seated on
rock, wears chlamys and flat hat and boots: right hand raised
meditatively to support chin, left hand holds club. To him
approaches Athene only, in helmet and aegis, right hand
holding spear, left rests on hip: behind her Hermes in similar
attitude. Reverse, youth draped, holds staff: to him approaches
draped female figure offering alabastron; behind her, second
draped figure.

I would add also that the oinochoé marked A in Dr.
Schneider’s list and 5 in Overbeck’s, and noted as belonging to
Colonel Coghill, is in the possession of Mr. Ionides, of Holland
Park, London, by whose kind permission I saw and identified
it. The Aegina amphora marked ‘q’ ‘Privatbes. i. Athen,’
must be I think the one I examined in the private collection
of M. Rhousopoulos: it is of the most delicate archaic style, the
flesh parts of the women white, the centre figure holds a spear
so that she may safely be described as Athene. Hermes does
not wear Fliigelschuhe, only the high, pointed boots. On the
reverse is the combat of Theseus and Minotaur. In any
tabular view of the typography of a myth it seems to me a
grave oversight to omit the indication of the reverse subject ; for
purposes of identification, if for nothing else, it is essential.

I now proceed to the classification. I have preferred to keep
the number of classes or of type forms few, and to note under
these few heads the more important modifications. The classi-
fication is in many respects so obvious that its main outline has
been already anticipated, but I shall hope to show, when I come
to the question of the origin of the original type form, that the
somewhat stricter system I propose is not without its use. I
letter the types in capitals, the modifications in small letters,

202 THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS,

ΠῪΡΕ A.—Procession form, Paris absent.

Hermes advances, usually to the right, followed by the
three goddesses. Usually Athene only is characterised,
and, when characterised, she invariably walks second.
Hera and Aphrodite (Athene also sometimes) wn-
characterised.

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS. 203

Type L.—Procession form, Paris present, standing.
As before but Paris present; he stands, facing
Hermes.

b. Modification of B. Paris shows alarm in one
of three ways.

1. He simply turns to fly.
2, Hermes seizes him by the arm or shoulder.

3. Hermes actually wrestles with Paris.

Tyrer B 3.

204 THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS.

Type C—Procession form, Paris present, seated.

The order of the goddesses fluctuates ; Paris usually
surrounded by some attempt at scenic effect, a tree, a
house, his flocks, ete.

ὁ. Modification, the goddesses arrive in chariots.

οὐ. One or two goddesses represented instead of

| gai ΚΕΝ

TypE D.—Procession form abandoned.

Paris seated or standing tn the centre or to the right
or left. The three goddesses grouped around in every
variety of pose. Often many unimportant accessory
figures.

d. Important accessory figures indicated often in
back-ground. Themis, Eris, Zeus, chariot of Helios,
and especially Apollo, Artemis, and Apolline symbols.

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS. 205

Before discussing the orizin of type A and its development
into B, C and D, I wust offer a few somewhat disjointed remarks
on certain instances of the several types.

With reference to type A the important facts to be borne in
mind are (1) that the type is confined so far as 1 am aware to
black-figured Attic vases, (2) that frequently the goddesses are
not characterized at all, where they are it is to Athene only
that prominence is given. The Attic origin of the work may
account for her prominence, but it does not account for her
taking invariably the second place: in red-figured vases, e.g.
the Hieron cup in Berlin, she not unfrequently walks first.
I shall have to offer later a suggestion to account for this
middle position.

Dr. Schneider has rightly observed with respect to the
Xenckles cup that the crouching or seated attitude of Hermes
is merely due to inadequate space—we are not to regard it as
Overbeck has done as representing a preliminary deliberation,
I would add however that at the time when Xenokles worked
in all probability the type of the seated Paris C was in vogue,
and that this may have suggested the seated Hermes. I would
add further what seems to have passed hitherto unnoticed, that
in the Xenokles cup the goddesses present a curious modification
of the ‘three in one cloak’ type: the upper part of the cloak
is common to all, but each has also a separate piece over Οἱ
outside the arm. I am taking for granted that Overbeck’s
reproduction based on that of Raoul Rochette is correct: the
cup itself is lost. Dr. Furtwingler thinks that this type of
two or more women enveloped in one cloak is nothing but a
simplification conventionelle, and has no reference to actual
custom (Collection Sabouroff, Coupe d Argos, plate li.). On the
general principle I am not inclined to agree with him: when
two women or more stand, those farthest from each other face
to face with a large and unnecessary space of cloak stretched
out between them, I cannot regard the treatment as wne
simplification. My own impression is that there was some
religious ceremony in which two or more women enveloped
themselves in one cloak, that this ceremony was depicted on
vase paintings, that subsequently seeing its convenience the
vase painter adopted the type for mere ordinary scenes in
which two or more women similarly attired walked together.

H.S.—VOL. VII. Q

206 THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS.

This I believe to be the case in the Xenokles cup, and Xenc-
kles, always a cramped, somewhat confused draughtsman, halts
between two opinions, and makes an impossible cloak half
common to all three, half separate to each.

Dr. Schneider gives seventeen instances of the simple pro-
cession type of Hermes and the three goddesses; many additions
might be added, but these are amply sufficient to establish it.

We pass to type δ.

Instances in which Paris is simply standing quietly awaiting
the arrival of the procession are comparatively rare. It is
noticeable also that in several instances of this type one of the
goddesses is omitted (¢.g., G. A. V. clxxu.). This I attribute not
so much to carelessness on the part of the artist as to the fact
that his eye was thoroughly habituated to the type A, 1.6. three
figures preceded by a fourth. How curiously the artist was
filled with the processional character of the scene may be noted
in G. 4. V. clxxii. where Paris heads the procession and Hermes
(taking the place of Paris) turns round to watch it approaching :
the figure of Paris has been called Apollo or a Muse because
he holds the lyre: a black-figured Muse does not so far as I
know exist, and the black-figured lyre-playing Apollo is quite
a different figure.

I would further remark that type & so long as it is black-
figured remains strictly processional: but the type was taken
over by red-figured vase painters, and under the influence no
doubt of type D, where the processional order is lost, its strict
early form becomes modified. An example of what I mean is
the delicate red-figured pyxis of the Sabouroff Collection at
Berlin (Furtwiingler, Coll. Sab. 1xi.): here Athene stands behind
Paris, and Hera the last in order turns her back on Aphrodite to
meet Iris or some winged female messenger who approaches,

In type B there is distinctly perceptible the beginning of a
desire to characterize Hera and Aphrodite, as well as Athene.
Hera walks first, Aphrodite last. It 15 easy to see the reason :
the fact of the judgment is distinctly emphasized by the presence
of Paris, and therefore clear differentiation becomes necessary.
I pass to a very interesting variation of S, 1.6. the scheme (0) in
which Paris expresses reluctance, and as a rule undergoes com-
pulsion. Dr. Schneider notes seven instances; if to these we
add two Paris amphoras (Nos. 4 and 5 of my list) and the two

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS. 207

vases now published for the first time, we have in all eleven
instances of the Ὁ scheme: they are in fact more numerous than
B. They are uniformly black-figured with the single but well-
marked exception of the British Museum stamnos (Overbeck,
Ο. H. ix. 8). I think the reason of this is not far to seek. The
great Attic cylix painters Hieron, Brygos, and their contem-
poraries, took up the type with Paris seated, and by their
graceful treatment of it effaced the popularity of the standing
type. The rude motive of the actual struggle was supplanted
by such gentler sentiments as amazement and admiration.
Whether there was any literary tradition of the struggle
between Paris and Hermes I do not pretend to decide; it
is by no means necessary to presuppose such tradition; the
artist is quite as well able to invent such a modification of
the story as the poet himself: indeed in one instance he
noticeably goes back on artistic in place of literary tradition
in the well-known lekythos of the Berlin Museum (Furtwiingler,
Cat. 2005, Arch. Zeit. 1882, Taf. 11) where the Peleus and
Thetis wrestling scheme is adopted for Hermes and Paris.
We may note also that in all early conceptions of myths we
find a tendency to the exhibition of forcible situations with a
view to emphasizing the compulsory obedience to the will of
the gods. R

In type C the essential advance in the treatment of the
subject is that Paris is seated; he no longer forms any part of
the procession, nor is he lable to be confused with Hermes who
approaches him. A sort of transition from the standing to the
seated type is to be noted in the Copenhagen lekythos (number
2 of my supplementary list): here Paris has just risen from a
low chair. Type Οὐ is an essentially red-figured type, but two
black-figured instances are known, Overbeck, ix. 6, and an
amphora in the British Museum: in both Paris is seated in
a quaint inclined position on a rock, indicated by a curved
line.

The vase painter of type C seems to give his fancy full rein
as regards the order of precedence among the three goddesses:
in the Hieron cylix (Berlin, 2291) Athene is first; in another
Berlin cylix of the fine Attic style (Berlin, 2536), Aphrodite ;
in the Brygos cylix they are undistinguishable; in a Nolan
amphora of the British Museum (Overbeck, (', H. x. 1), Aphro-

Q 2

208 THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS.

dite heads the procession. Olympian etiquette is fast becoming
relaxed, among the goddesses there is a rapidly growing feeling
of democratic equality.

It is not necessary to dwell on all the graceful picturesque
variations of the simple theme, which are due wholly to the
play of the vase painter’s fancy. To turn from the stiff stereo-
typed procession of types A and B and the black-figured
instances of C to the work of the red-figured cylix painters
is to pass from frost-bound winter to the new impulse, the
budding life of spring. Sometimes Paris is seated in a little
temple house and watches unabashed with kingly grace the
coming of the goddesses: at another he hides his face behind
his cloak in rustic terror. Brygos makes him sing to his lyre,
and with up-turned head take no notice of the coming pro-
cession ; sometimes a flock of goats gathers thick about him,
sometimes a single sheep suffices as a symbol. With the
goddesses there is every graceful variety of posture and attri-
bute. Hera holds a small lion, or Aphrodite a tiny love-god
perched upon her hand or perhaps a throng of loves clustering
about her head. To base any theory on this endless diversity
of attributes and arrangement would be useless and absurd.
With respect however to the presence of the love-gods I would
notice one particular instance, both because I think it marks a
definite advance in feeling and because it has some interest
with respect to Dr. Benndorf’s new theory of interpretation as
to the ‘Thanatos’ drum of the column from Ephesus in the
British Museum. In a cyathos of the Berlin Museum (No.
2610, Annali 1833, tav. d’agg. E.) which belongs to type C,
Eros is standing evidently talking to Aphrodite and encour-
aging her as to the issue: a full-grown Eros is quite common
when we come to type D, but in the procession form C with
this one exception he never appears. The Erotes one or many
who hover about Aphrodite in type C whether one or many are
attributive, scarcely personal; when Eros enters as a distinct
personality, powerful to persuade and compel, not merely as a
sort of symbol of the charm of Aphrodite, we have an evident
advance in sentiment, we are nearing the Praxitelean manner.
In fact as regards Eros the myth in question has three stages:
Ist, in types A and B Eros is wholly absent, 2nd, in C he is
present attributively, 3rd, in D and in the one case cited of C he

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS. 209

is present personally, often in his three aspects as Eros, Pothos,
and Himeros. If Dr. Benndorf (Bulletino αἰ, Comm. Archeo-
logica Communale, Rome, 1886, xiv. 1, 2, 3, p. 54) is right in
interpreting the scene on the Ephesos drum as the Judgment of
Paris, we have a full-grown personal Eros in the processional
type, just as in the cyathos in question.

Type C undergoes many modifications according to the space
at command or the fancy of the painter, eg. in the Nolan
amphora of the British Museum referred to befure and in the
amphora (wood-cut to type C), Paris and the three goddesses
occupy the obverse, Hermes alone the reverse: in the Palermo
fragment (my number 7) Paris and Hermes occupy one side and
(presumably) the three goddesses the other.

Modification ὁ calls fur no special comment. It is so far as I
know confined to the two instances I have cited, the Copenhagen
and the Naples vases (my list 3 and 6). It was a pleasant fancy
of the vase painters to make the goddesses come in their chariots,
but it is a fancy that suggests that the interest of the myth
itself was somewhat exhausted and needed the stimulus of
artificial treatment.

Finally we may note under type C a transition stage to 7).
In a lekythos published by Welcker, A. D. v. Taf. #4, 1, the
procession form is beginning to disappear. The centre goddess
Athene stands in repose with her feet crossed, not advancing at
all; the hindmost goddess, whether Hera or Aphrodite, is seated
balancing the seated figure of Paris.

Lastly in type D the procession form wholly vanishes: what-
ever thought (and this question we shall consider later)
prompted this procession form in the early types is now wholly
forgotten. Paris is the centre of the scene, Hermes and the
three goddesses are scattered about—as it seems, no matter how.
A very troublesome element in the late form of this as of
every other myth are the accessory figures. These for the most
part are unmeaning, attendants perhaps, women with fans,
extra gods, space-filling ‘supers’ of every kind. This fourth
century type came in of course with the love of loud showy
compositions, perspective elements and all the other signs of
decorative and expressive decadence. Often in this class of
vase the figures are so vaguely characterized that it is impossible
to say if the painter really intended to depict a ‘Judgment’ cx

210 THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS.

not; the impression left on one’s mind is that he was too idle
and indifferent to care to make up his mind what he really
did mean. Among the mass of such vases, vulgar to look at,
unprofitable to discuss, there stand out, however, a small number
which we class as d, 1.6. the type with important accessory
figures. These I would note under two heads. Ist. Those
which seek to lend a new motive to the contest by the intro-
duction of Themis or Eris: such are the well-known Carlsruhe
vase (Overbeck, H. G. xi. 1), with Eris; its scarcely less well-
known sister of St. Petersburg (see woodcut, type D). 2nd.
Those which add a new factor in the conditions of the judgment
by the introduction of Zeus or Apollo with Delphic surroundings
—instances of this are the new Vienna krater (Vorlegebldtter,
Serie E, xi. a vase of the highest interest which adds new
emphasis to problems already suggested by such vases as
Vorlegeblitter, Serie A, x. 2, and A, ix. 1. In these it will
be remembered that Zeus appears and seems to delegate the
Judgment rather to Apollo than to Paris. This new conception
I believe to be in close connection with the Zhemis origin of
the strife—the figure of Themis seated on the Delphian tripod
(Vorlegeblatter, Serie A, xi. 2) in the middle of a cylix will not
be forgotten. Together with the appearance of Themis as new
cause, and Apollo as new decider of the strife, there appears the
desire to add scenic effect by introducing in the background
the chariot of Helios and the figure of Selene or Eos—but this
may probably be put down to the general love of the fourth
and fifth century for this cosmical background.

ΤῸ is my purpose here only to raise the question of the special
connection of Apollo with the myth. Ido not see my way at
present to the solution of the difficulty. It is of course perfectly
easy to conceive that the delicate question of the priority of
the goddesses was referred to the Delphic oracle, but what we
really want to know is what causes the marked appearance
in the fourth century of this factor in the depiction of the
vase-paintings. Was there some special literary impulse or
did some great monumental picture or sculptural group suggest
the idea—or, lastly, was there some great contemporaneous
impulse to the worship of Apollo which caused this element
to be introduced into the Judgment—and into many other
myths 7

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS 211

I turn from this general discussion of the typography of the
myth to the more definite and positive subject of my paper,
1.6. my theory as to the origin of the early type-form of the
‘ Judgment.’ :

At the outset we are met by a fact that piques curiosity and
prompts us to investigation. Every commentator on the
‘Judgment’ vase-paintings has noticed one curious point. I
mean the presence and long persistence of type 4. Hermes
and the three goddesses alone, without Paris. Surely it is a
curious way to represent the myth with the principal figure
conspicuous by its absence. The early vase painter if he was
nothing else was a story-teller and a somewhat garrulous one,
he was much more likely to err in the addition than in the
suppression of detail: no technical difficulty here stands in his
way—if he could draw four figures he could add a fifth—why
then in so large a number of cases does he advisedly dock the
scene of its principal actor, and represent a purely preliminary
stage? Further, why does he adopt the procession-form at all ?
We are so used to this procession-form that it perhaps requires
some effort of the imagination to conceive of the myth as em-
bodied otherwise, but if we rid ourselves of preconceived notions,
surely the natural way of representing the myth would be
something of this sort: Paris in the centre facing the successful
goddess Aphrodite to whom he speaks or hands a crown, behind
him—to indicate neglect—the two disappointed goddesses,
Hermes anywhere, just to indicate the mandate of the gods, in
fact such a form.as actually appears later on a pyxis already
cited, Furtwangler, Sabowroff Collection, 1xi. Wherever, in fact,
we have an order strictly processional, Hermes present always
and always conspicuous, we have a form that seems to me
to tell its own story, 1.6. that it was not made for the myth
but merely adapted and taken over, having had originally
another and more apposite significance—a myth in which Paris
played no part at all. .

Welcker (A. D. v. 366) felt the difficulty and in the manner
of his times accounted for it by supposing the procession-form
based on some special literary emphasjs on the going to Ida;
he concludes that ‘die Poesie gleich diesem ersten Theile einen
gewissen Charakter oder Glanz gegeben hitte’ (Welcker, Ep.
Kyklos 11. 88). Dr. Liickenbach in his Verhdliniss der griech-

212 THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS.

ischen Vasenbilder, 592, denies this literary source and suggests
that the early art form of the myth was due to the lve of
archav art for processions. Dr. Schneider, Der troische Sagenkreis,
Ῥ. 99, revives Welcker’s literary interpretation, according to the
reactionary canons he consistently adopts throughout his book.
In general I have no hesitation in saying that I am with
Dr. Liickenbach in his method of interpretation, and entirely
adverse to Dr. Schneider, but in this particular question I have
my own solution to offer which coincides entirely with neither
of theirs. The general question would need to be discussed in
connection with a large number of myths, and this is beyond
the scope of the present paper; I can therefore here only say
that though I thank Dr. Schneider for pointing out (p. 2) the
ever-present peril of the exaggeration of a principle, I still adhere
to the ‘Schulprogramm’ (op. cit. p. 2) of typography to which
he is so strongly averse, and I hope in this individual instance
I am now discussing to support and strengthen my position.

I will first state why it seems to me that the explanations
both of Dr. Schneider and Dr. Liickenbach are inadequate.
First Dr. Schneider's literary explanation. Proklos says, νεῖκος
περὶ κάλλους ἐνίστησιν ᾿Αθηνᾷ Ἥρᾳ καὶ ’Adpoditn, αἱ πρὸς
᾿Αλέξανδρον ἐν Ἴδη κατὰ Διὸς προσταγὴν ὑφ᾽ ᾿Ερμοῦ πρὸς τὴν
κρίσιν ayovrac—here Dr. Schneider stops, but it is better to
cite the whole passage, καὶ προκρίνει τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην ἐπαρθεὶς
τοῖς ‘EXévns γάμοις ὁ ᾿Αλέξανδρος. Now taking this passage
as a fair summary of the acccunt of the Judgment in the Cypria,
one is forced to own that in all probability the poet dwelt on
three points, the beginning of the strife among the goddesses,
the coming of Hermes and his leading them to Paris, and the
Judgment itself. But suppose the ancient vase-painter to be
perfectly unfettered in his choice, there is nothing to make him
give preference to the procession to Ida: in fact that, if anything,
is the transitional unimportant moment; the two important
moments are, the kindling of the strife and the pronouncing of
the Judyment. If therefore we even suppose (which I do not
for a moment) that the vase-painter based his representation
on the account in the Cypria, what governed his selection of
the moment? and why did he chovse the least important ?
I wish to make clear that I agree with Dr. Schneider in sup-
posing that the going to Ida was described in the Cypria, but

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS. 213

I disagree with him in supposing that that is sufficient to
account for the marked prominence of the procession-form in
the art expression of the myth.

Jf the vase-painting were based on the literary form, what
we should naturally have would be e¢.g., obverse, the three
goddesses led by Hermes to Ida, reverse, the actual judgment
but quite distinct in type, whereas what we do find is that the
procession is the root and ground of the art form, the all-im-
portant and constant factor in it, and Paris is present or absent
in a very strange and subordinate fashion.

Turning to Dr. Liickenbach we find that his suggestion is
that archaic art loved processions, hence the Judgment is con-
ceived of as a procession. Surely this is going a little too far,
we can scarcely wonder that Dr. Schneider is roused to wrath.
Ancient art did undoubtedly love processions, but not with a
passion so foolish and unreasonable : the Judgment isa situation
essentially stationary, Hermes a subordinate figure ; in depicting
other myths, ancient art is not driven to express its thought in
terms of an inappropriate procession; it is indeed, as [am always
eager to maintain, usually governed by traditional form but not
to the extent of unnecessary obscurity in the thought to be ex-
pressed. We need a stronger motive power, we are driven it seems
to me to the supposition that the black-figured type A was not
invented at all for the myth it represents, but was taken over
from a conception processional in its nature, and in which
Hermes played a prominent and necessary part.

Type A contains unfortunately no very early instances, no
Corinthian work, not even any very early Attic work, only
for the most part vases of the stereotyped black-figured style.
The vases I publish here for the first time are among the earliest
instances, and yet the artist is obviously only repeating a thrice-
told tale. Where Corinthian and early Attic vases fail us we
turn of course to literature and ask if we have any account of
Peloponnesian works of art embodying the myth at an earlier
date. On both the chest of Cypselos and the throne of Apollo
at Amyclae it appears—and in both it is satisfactory to find that
the treatment coincides with that of type A. The presence of
Paris is not indeed, as some have said, precluded, but the main
emphasis is laid on Hermes and the form is evidently pro-
eessional. The passages of Pausanias are too well known to

214 THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS.

need citation. What it is important to us to note is that the
established type of the myth in the art of the seventh century
B.c. was that of a procession of the goddesses led by Hermes,
and this type it was that was taken over to the B. F. Attic
vase-paintings of the sixth and fifth century.

We have yet another branch of evidence to examine. It is
not well to consider vase-paintings in complete isolation: have
other departments of art, 6... sculpture, bronzes, terra-cottas of
archaic style so early that they might be supposed to have
influenced B. F. vase-paintings, left us any instances of the
‘Judgment of Paris’ ?

If we ask this question in its point-blank form the answer
has to be ‘No.’ Of this myth so widely popular in B. F. vase-
painting, other forms of contemporary art have left us, so far as
I am aware, no trace; but if we put the question in another and
more abstracted form—if we ask, has archaic art left us any
type of these goddesses linked together by a common purpose
and under the guidance of Hermes? the answer will I think be
more favourable, and will to my mind offer the solution of the
difficulty.

A large class of reliefs exist, of which two in the Sabouroff
collection at Berlin (Furtwangler, Coll. Sab. plate xxvii.) may
be taken as typical, or again, the well-known relief from
Gallipoli, now at Vienna.

The subject is Hermes conducting three nymphs into the
presence of Pan. Pan is seated on a rock. The resemblance
to type C of our myth is obvious and striking even at the most
superficial glance. The style, however, of these nymph reliefs
is uniformly late: the earliest known is I believe the Archandros
relief published by Milchhofer, J/itz. V. p. 206. It may date
about the time of Pheidias, or a little later, Now obviously if
these reliefs of late date were all we had, we could base nothing
on the resemblance, however striking it might be. Happily we
can trace back the type to earlier days. Dr. Furtwiingler, in
his admirable paper on the Charites of the Acropolis (Jit.
III. 181) has shown beyond a doubt that these frequent nymph
reliefs are but the descendants of a much earlier type, namely,
of the Charites led by Hermes. He distinguishes three stages
in the development—Ist, the Charites alone, 2nd, the Charites
led by Hermes, 3rd, the Charites transformed into nymphs and

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS, 215

led by Hermes into the presence of Pan. I believe that in the
second stage we find the origin of our myth type A. Literature
abundantly connects Hermes and the Charites: the prayer at
the Thesmophoria will not be forgotten (Aristoph. Zhesm.
line 300), καὶ τῷ “Epp καὶ Χάρισιν; Plutarch says (de recta aud.
rat. 13), ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν “Ἑρμῆν ταῖς Χάρισιν οἱ παλαιοὶ συγκαθ-
ίδρυσεν, and again (de nat. deorum cap. XVLI., p. 164) “Ηγέμονα
παραδιδόασιν αὐτῶν (τῶν Χαρίτων) τὸν “Ἑρμῆν; in Samos
Hermes was worshipped as Χαριδώτης, and in a sacrificial

Fic, 8.—NymruH RELIEF FROM GALLIPOLI.

inscription in pre-Eucleidic letters found at Eleusis, Hermes
Agoraios and the Charites are named together. For the whole
literature of the subject I refer to O, Benndorf, ‘Die Chariten
des Sokrates, A. Ζ. 1869, p. 58, where he discusses the well-
known Vatican relief of the Three Graces and the other
replicas of the same subject.

I only cite these passages to show that the worship of Hermes
as leader of the Three Graces was familiar to of παλαιοὶ ; it is
therefore, ὦ priori, highly probable that in very early days there

216 THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS.

were votive reliefs representing Hermes and the Three Charites,
although our earliest actual instances are of the fourth century,
B.c.—those referred to by Dr. Furtwangler (op. cit.). <A very
closely analogous monument of the early fifth century is the
Thasos relief in the Louvre, where the Charites are certain
from the inscription. Hermes is their leader, as Apollo is that
of the Muses.

I am inclined to think that my view of the origin of type A
may be confirmed by an examination of details, and this in two
special particulars. (1) I have repeatedly noted that in type A
one goddess only is characterized, ὁ.6. the middle one, Athene.
It is I think a noticeable fact that in the type of the Charites
later developed into the Nymphs one trait is almost constant—
the middle figure turns en face. This, of course, arose from the
desire to compose the group pleasantly. In type A frequently,
though not always, Athene turns her head and looks back at
the third goddess. It has been usual to interpret this by
supposing that the third goddess was either a sort of Cinderella,
dishked and snubbed by the two elder goddesses, or else that
she is regarded with fear proleptically as the successful rival. I
am not prepared to say that one or other or both these notions
were not in the mind of the red-figured vase painter, but I think
the variant attitude of the second goddess was already fixed in
accordance with the Charites type; in fact, I think the attitude
suggested the thought rather than the thought the attitude.
If contempt or fear had been the primary motive of the attitude
both the goddesses would have equally turned round to gaze at
Aphrodite, instead of one only. It would perhaps be fanciful to
draw attention to the fact that the second Charis is draped in
the Doric chiton again merely from the desire to get variety
in the design, and that this possibly may have suggested
the position of the severer Athene; the third Charis or
Nymph frequently muffles the hand in drapery, an attitude
which appears also in the Aphrodite of many of the vase-
paintings.

(2) Very frequent attributes in the hands of any or all of the
goddesses are flowers and fruit. The fruit, indeed, has given
rise often to wrong interpretations, and has been made to stand
for the golden apple of Discord, which, as is now well known,
never appears on vase-paintings. Now I am well aware that it

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS. 217

is no unfrequent thing to find a woman figure carrying flowers
and fruit when no special meaning can be attached to it. I
cannot, however, forbear noting that in the hands of the Charites
they have peculiar significance. Our word Graces but feebly
and partially expresses the function of these goddesses, and
seizes indeed only their later and more superficial aspect. The
Charites are primarily nature goddesses of increase, the givers
of all good things to man, the goddesses of fruitfulness.
Aphrodite herself is but the mightiest of their number ; her
worship was closely associated with theirs. In the regular
Charites and Nymph type of the reliefs the three hold hands,
and therefore cannot carry gifts, but in the closely-analogous
type of the Eumenides reliefs (J/itt. IV. 9) the three Kumenides
hold flowers, in their capacity of benevolent givers of gifts.

I believe it to be a mere coincidence, and attach no import-
ance whatever to the fact, but it is curious to note that in gems
of late date (¢.g. Overbeck, G.H. XI. 9) the three goddesses take
the precise form of the later representations of the Graces and
pose in an attitude evidently copied from the group most
familiar in the replica of Siena.

My special business is with the origin of the art form of the
myth, but I would note that there is a certain analegy between
the Charites and even the literary aspect of the goddesses of
the Judgment. The myth of the judgment has been for the
most part regarded as having its origin in the beauty-contests,
καλλιστεῖα, which are known to have taken place among
mortal women; others regarded it as an echo of the Three
Sisters Saga common to so many nations. It is possible and
probable that many strands may have gone to its weaving, and
I do not pretend to the trained mythological sense necessary
for their disentanglement. I would throw out, however, this
concluding suggestion. May not an element in the myth be
this, that the three goddesses are the Charites as rivals, the
gift-givers at strife? As gift-givers they appear before Paris;
as gift-givers we may remember these very three goddesses
conjointly with Artemis dowered the daughters of Pandareus
(Odyssey, XX. 64). We cannot too carefully remember that as
rivals in beauty they appear only in late degenerate art. I
cannot therefore.for a moment regard the καλλιστεῖον as the
kernel of the: myth. This notion is contemporary with the

218 THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS.

in-coming of the golden apple; rather to my mind there under-
lies the myth a thought far more austere and reverent. The
Judgment of Paris is a conflict of σημεῖα ; the perfectly fortu-
nate man needs for the dowering of his life the χάρις of glory,
the χάρις of wisdom, the χάρις of love ; but it may be he must
choose between them, and according to ancient thinking the
mightiest of these is Aphrodite, the χάρις of love.

It may seem that this is an abstract notion unnatural to early
days, but I think the further one goes back to the origines of
Greek mythology the more one is struck by a certain fluc-
tuating quality, a certain instability of personality, interchange-
ability of attributes. It is not so much vagueness as a certain
economy of utterance both literary and artistic which makes
one thing serve many purposes. It is like the absence of precise
differentiation in the early uses of mood and tense. Hence it
seems to me that in regarding the three Judgment goddesses
as rival Charites we are in harmony with the spirit of early
mythological developments: the method is sound for the literary
form of the myth as for its artistic expression.

Briefly to resume, it seems to me probable, as regards the art
form of the myth :—-

1. That the origin of type A was the taking over of the type
of Hermes leading the Charites.

2. That this accounts for the prominence of Hermes and the
at first subordinate position or even absence of Paris.

3. That it further accounts for the fact that at first the middle
goddess only is differentiated.

4. That the theory of the subordinate position of Paris in the
myth is further supported by the fact that in fourth century
representations there is observable a tendency to refer the
Judgment to Apollo rather than Paris.

5. That possibly as Hermes and the Charites are the proto-
type of Hermes and the three goddesses, so the seated Pan in
the Nymph reliefs may be the prototype of Paris and his rival
surroundings in red-figured vase-paintings.

That as regards the myth itself of the Judgment apart from
its art form :—

1. An important element in the myth is the aspect of the
three goddesses as rival Charites or gift-givers.

2. That the myth in this form may have existed long

THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS. 219

before the Trojan war, and had no necessary connection with
Paris.

3. That it was connected with Paris in consequence of the
prominence given to Aphrodite, and therefore by a writer
(possibly the author of the Cypria) who desired to honour
Aphrodite.

4, That the notion of the καλλιστεῖον leaving, as it does, no
trace in early literature or early art cannot be regarded as the
origin of the myth. The Judgment was, like the conflict
between Athene and Poseidon, a contest of characteristic gifts,
σημεῖα.

It occurs to me that the view stated above as to the origin of
the type may serve to throw light on a curious late black-
figured amphora of the Berlin museum (Furtwiingler’s Cat. 2154),
On the obverse of this vase Hermes carvying a ram precedes three
female figures in the regular “Judgment” scheme. The women
carry flowers and fruit. Hermes Kriophoros might without any
absurdity precede the three Graces as goddesses of fertility.
To suppose that he carried a ram when escorting the three
goddesses to the Judgment would be manifestly ridiculous. The
vase, however, is so Etruscan in style that any misunderstanding
might easily occur. If the painter was copying, he must, I
think, at any rate have had before him not a representation of
the Judgment but of Hermes and the Graces, and one in which
the original designer clearly intended to express this subject.
Dr. Furtwingler explains as “Zug zum Parisurteil (?)” The
undersized youth preceding Hermes I cannot for a moment
suppose to be Paris, he is I think just a boy attendant.

JANE EH. HARRISON.

ine)
to
oO

THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET.

THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET.

Mr. PErrRie£’s excavations at Naucratis, in the first season
(1884-5), threw new light on many branches of classical archae-
ology: and a full share has fallen upon epigraphy. That science,
indeed, has acquired new facts which not only form an important
addition where additional evidence was most needed, but also
necessitate a modification of certain theories which have hitherto
been regarded as certain and fundamental. It is difficult, though
not impossible, to reconstruct a portion of the foundations with-
out injuring the edifice built thereon. But this attempt must be
made, if we would neither ignore newly discovered material, nor
allow its discovery to shake our confidence in the whole com-
plicated structure of facts and theories that constitutes the
science of epigraphy.

In the chapter on the inscriptions which was incorporated with
Mr. Petrie’s Memoir, the present writer endeavoured to give to
the earliest records of dedication their true interpretation, and
to assign to them what seemed their due place in the history of
the Greek alphabet. But, with another season’s work in prospect,
it appeared premature to do more than this, or to draw general
conclusions which further discoveries might again modify. That
second season is now over, and work on the site of Naucratis
is, for the present at least, discontinued. Though we have dis-
covered many more inscriptions, several of them of considerable
interest and importance, there are none which approach in age
those found before by Mr. Petrie, and published in the first
Memoir. The early inscriptions already published must there-
fore stand alone; and there is no reason for further delay before

1 Naukratis, Part I, published by order of the Committee of the Egypt
Exploration Fund,

THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET. 2291

an attempt is made to estimate more carefully their importance,
and to consider the changes they involve in our views as to the
earliest adoption and use of the alphabet by people of Hellenic
race.

The inscriptions now referred to all contain dedications to
Apollo; they are incised with a sharp instrument upon very
early pottery; and the forms of the letters are in every case
perfectly distinct. Two of them, which were found at the
bottom of a well in the temenos dedicated by the Milesians to
Apollo, were upon soft red-brown ware, decorated with black
bands. From the place where they were found no exact date
can be inferred; but similar pottery was found elsewhere at
Naucratis in positions where it must have been buried at least
before the middle of the seventh century B.c.:! and this is a
date which would well accord with the style of the ornamenta-
tion. Other very early inscriptions, though in some instances
distinctly later than these, were found upon massive dishes of
coarse drab-coloured ware. These dishes were buried near the
bottom of a trench into which the refuse of the temple pottery
was thrown, at a level assigned by Mr. Petrie to a date of
640—630 B.c. The alphabet used in the earliest inscriptions
is represented in a convenient form for reference in the space
assigned to the first four classes on the table which forms
Plate XXXV. of Nauwkratis, Part I, the Memoir already referred
to. Its essential characteristics are here reproduced.

g

ΓΤ
=

ay
Ξ

For the interpretation of the inscriptions themselves, and the
consequent identification of the symbols above reproduced, I
must refer to the chapter in which I have previously written
about them.? I cannot indeed expect that the conclusions there

1 Petrie, op. cit. pp. 5, 19. level 250 in. 600 B.c. approximately.

2 Op. cit. pp. 19, 20. They occur at 3 Op. cit. pp. 54-61.
level 230 in. and level 220 in. is 650 B.c.,

ea Olin ὙΤΙ: R

222 THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET.

drawn will be accepted without due consideration ; but I venture
to think that the weight of evidence in their favour is so strong
as to overcome the hesitation which their strangeness must at
first produce.

It is of importance to note that these early inscriptions were
all found in the temenos dedicated by the Milesians to Apollo.
Now the city of Naucratis existed long before the time of
Amasis, who, as Herodotus tells us, gave it to the Greeks to live
in; but it was from the first a Greek colony; and the Milesians,
if not, as is probable, the first to found it, were at least among
its earliest inhabitants. As the scriptions all contaim dedica-
tions to Apollo, in later examples expressly called the Milesian
Apollo, it is natural to assign them to Miletus. We can go
thus far pretty safely on what we may call external evidence
only; here we have inscriptions, dating from the middle of the
seventh century B.c., and written in all probability by Milesian
colonists. It remains for us to examine the forms of the letters
themselves, and thence to gather what results we can for the
science of epigraphy.

In the first place, we need not hesitate for a moment to which
class of alphabets we must assign these inscriptions. They are
uvmistakably Ionic, as indeed we should have expected from the
place where they were found, and the dedications they record.
But if Ionic, then they are nearly, if not quite, a century earlier
than any Ionic inscription that has hitherto been known. For
the names and records cut upon the legs of the colossi at Abu
Simbel must now not only give up their place, as the earliest
monuments of the Ionic alphabet, but must even be left outside
the connected series of Ionic inscriptions which we now possess :
they, in fact, represent a local and quite distinct variety of the
early Greek alphabet, and cannot properly be called Ionic at all.
Abu Simbel has so long held its place that it seems almost to
possess a right of prescription—a right which must, however,
yield to new facts. But to these Abu Simbel inscriptions we
shall have to recur; at present, as has been said, they are
altogether outside the question—just as much 50 as the alphabets
of Thera, of Chalcis, or of Athens.

Bearing this in mind, we may now consider what new
characteristics we meet with, how this earliest Ionic alphabet
differs from the form which it assumed a century later, and

THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET. 223

which ultimately became universal throughout the Hellenic
world. For there is no essential difference between the inscrip-
tions of Branchidae and the uncial Greek type in use at a printing
office of to-day. But this previous century had produced important
changes: already, however, in these the earliest records of Ionic
writing that we possess, we find that the long and short o have
been differentiated, that the ὦ is in full use. As to ἢ unfortunately
we have no evidence, nor as to the symbols for ¢$, y, and w,
usually regarded as typical of this alphabet; but «, Δ, 0, 7, p
and 7 have already assumed the forms with which we are familiar,
even ¢ is already a straight line, and preserves no trace of the
characteristics of its Phoenician original. With e, μ, v, and o
the case is otherwise. Of these four letters the forms are entirely
new to the student of epigraphy ; and they are of the highest
interest, since in every case they preserve resemblances to their
Phoenician or other prototypes which have in all other extant
examples completely disappeared. These then we will notice
in order.

(1) «. A glance at the table given above will show that while
the ordinary early form of this letter, that identical with the
Phoenician He, is found on the earliest inscriptions, another
also occurs. This is turned round, with the points downwards,
a position only before known at the turning point of βουστρο-
φηδόν lines, where it is due to the mere accidental requirements
of the writing. But here, in direct lines,} a different explanation
must be sought. The hieratic Egyptian form found in the
Papyrus Prisse, from which the Phoenician symbol is now by
general consent derived, is absolutely identical with this Nau-
cratite letter. In the scantiness of our records of early Phoenician
forms two explanations are possible. Either we see here a
modification due to local Egyptian influence—hardly likely at
this date, when the forms from which the Phoenician alphabet
was derived were perhaps already obsolete ; or else, as is far
more probable, the Greek has here faithfully preserved a form

1 1 have said nothing as to direction
of writing. The earliest inscriptions of
course run, as a rule, from right to left ;
but in one or two the direction is re-
versed It is obvious that such acci-
dental reversion is just what one might

expect in the use of a new and un-
familiar invention, as in a child just
learning to print letters. One or two
instances of βουστροφηδόν are distinctly
later.

R 2

224 THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET.

of the Phoenician symbol which does not happen to occur on
any of the very few equally old or older Phoenician monuments
that we possess. This is a hypothesis that will hardly seem
untenable, when we remember that a few years ago early forms
of some other Phoenician letters, samekh for instance, were
preserved only in their Greek derivatives, though more recent
discoveries have shown the same in Phoenician inscriptions ; we
can hardly yet hold that we are acquainted with all the local
varieties of the Phoenician alphabet from which the Greeks can
have borrowed. This Naucratite e, then, not only adds a new
form to the Greek alphabet, but also to the Phoenician its
parent: and moreover it adds yet another link to the chain
of evidence that joins the Phoenician with the hieratic Egyptian
symbols.

(2) μ. The forms of this letter present a phenomenon strange
indeed, but by no means inexplicable. To speak morphologi-
cally, they are the latest forms of w that have yet been dis-
covered ; sometimes even all the strokes of the Phoenician
prototype have been preserved in Greek; to this day four of
them remain in our M: but in this Ionic form they are reduced
to three. The reason is clear. The necessity of differentiation
from ν and from san caused elsewhere the preservation of the
extra strokes. Here, since those two other letters took the
forms we see in the table, there was no danger of confusion ;
hence the # at once and naturally sank to the easiest form in
which it did not lose its distinct character. Thus its case is
precisely analogous to that of the three-stroke σι, which we know
in some cases—at Aegina and at Athens for instance—to have
been earlier in actual date than the four-stroke form which
undoubtedly precedes it in morphological development. In
both cases the change to the fuller form must have been due
either to external influence, or to the necessity of avoiding a
confusion not before to be feared.

The third form given in the table closely resembles the
Phoenician type, but as it, as well as the last form given under
o, occurs on a vase of somewhat later fabric, its importance must
not be too highly estimated.

(3) ν. The forms of this letter are new, and to the Greek
epigraphist somewhat surprising, but do not call for so much dis-
cussion, however great their importance. For a glance will show

THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET, 225

that they are absolutely identical with the Phoenician original
from which the Greek character is known to have been derived.
Such resemblance is only what might be expected in a monu-
ment so much earlier, in its class, than any before known. It
is instructive to note the influence upon other letters of a type
like this. It is in no danger of being confused with pw, hence
» can lose its extra strokes and sink to the three-stroke form
we actually find. But, on the other hand, if ν be as we here
see it, ¢ cannot lose its fourth stroke without the risk of con-
fusion: hence the four-stroke form must be preserved. Had pv
continued to be placed in the position in which these Naucratite
inscriptions present it, then we should to this day be printing
and writing M with three strokes, and 8 with four.

The reason for the transformation to the ordinary form of ν is
not easy to see: it is clearly an assimilation to w which entailed
as a necessary consequence the preservation of the fourth stroke
of μα: but as w has in these inscriptions already lost that stroke,
we must regard this assimilating process as one which went
on contemporaneously with but imdependently of the early
alphabet which these inscriptions preserve to us. Many such
phenomena cannot be explained except by the influence, con-
scious or unconscious, of one branch of the alphabet upon
another.

(4) o. The forms which are placed second and fourth upon
the table under this letter are not new: they seem practically
identical: similar characters occur at Abu Simbel (once only)
and at Sparta. Their origin is by no means easy to explain,
but as no light is thrown upon it by the mere fact of their
occurrence at Naucratis, it will be better to pass on at once to
the new forms we have before us. These, the first and third
upon the table, are of high importance. If the vexed question
of the origin of the Greek sibilants were not once for all set at
rest by the abecedaria οἵ Caere, Formello, and Coile, these forms
alone would suffice to prove that it is the Greek sigma, and
not san, which is, in form at least,! derived from the Phoenician
shin, From this form, turned round later just as those of ε and

1 The names of the sibilants are of paper. They at least can hardly be
course a difficulty : but as these dis- adduced as an argument against the
coveries throw no light on them, they Υἱοῦ here adopted.
are outside the scope of the present

226 THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET.

ν also were, came the four-stroke o, which from its origin to the
present day has remained the ordinary Ionic form.

In the original form of σ, just as in that of v, we have a letter
absolutely identical with its Phoenician prototype, whose con-
nexion with the Greek has hitherto been a matter rather of
inference than of proof by the evidence of facts.

Now that we have examined in detail the new forms which
have been acquired, their relations to one another and to forms
previously known, and the light which, individually treated, they
throw upon the origin and history of the earliest Ionic alphabet,
we are in a position to take a more general view of the questions
they raise. What is the position of this earliest Ionic writing
in the history of Greek epigraphy, and what is its relation to
other known branches of the Hellenic alphabet? These are
difficult questions, especially as a considerable modification of
accepted theories is now necessary. But an attempt must be
made to answer them: and first it will be well to briefly sketch,
so far as they concern the questions before us, the theories
hitherto held by the highest authorities: and to consider how
far these theories are confirmed by our new evidence, or how
far they must be modified so as to be brought into harmony
with it.

It is hardly necessary for our present purpose to go back to
the systems of Boeckh and Franz: for their theories, so far as
still tenable, are of necessity incorporated in the work of all
others who have since built upon the foundations which they
were the first to lay. Even of the views of more recent epi-
graphists no complete account can or need here be given. It
will suffice to select what seem the most typical, and to see how
far they will help us in answering the questions we are
endeavouring to solve.

M. Lenormant’s' arrangement and elucidation of the various
branches of the early Greek alphabet, which, as professedly a
modified revival of that of Franz, may claim to be the oldest,
is extremely clear and complete in appearance. But if we try
to deduce from it any results that will be an aid in our present
investigation, we are met by considerable difficulties. A primi-
tive ‘Cadmean’ alphabet, such as he reconstructs, will not even
account for all the forms supposed to be derived from it in the

1 Daremberg and Saglio: art. ‘ AlphaLe‘um.’

THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET. 227

branches already known and recognised, much less for those
which occur on the earliest Naucratite inscriptions. All these
derived forms cannot be deduced from one primitive Hellenic
alphabet, unless indeed that alphabet be identical with the
Phoenician, But then this‘ Cadmean’ alphabet becomes a mere
abstraction, a name convenient perhaps for purposes of reference,
but misleading if associated with any set of characters that were
ever in actual use in inscriptions.

If we next turn to Prof. Mommsen’s division, a similar diffi-
culty meets us. His views are, indeed, propounded with the
special aim of explaining the phenomena exhibited by the western
branches of the Hellenic alphabet. But it is impossible to
discuss a portion of this complicated problem without at least
forming an opinion as to the whole; and hence we might
hope to find some light thrown also upon the most easterly
division. But the new facts do not, unfortunately, fall into their
place in Prof. Mommsen’s system. The Ionic alphabet, in its
earliest form, cannot now be regarded as a later modification of
the alphabet of twenty-three letters which we see in Thera and
Melos, since it exhibits earlier forms of certain letters than any
which are found upon those islands. Since, on the other hand,
it already possesses ὦ, if no other of the additional letters, it
cannot itself be taken as an early typical form of that alphabet
of twenty-three letters ; and moreover, though some of its forms
are earlier, others are just as distinctly later in type than those
found in Thera.t Hence it follows that no theory can be main-
tained which derives the one branch of the early Greek alphabet
from the other.

With the great principle of Prof. Kirchhoff’s system, the dis-
tinction between the eastern and western branches of the Greek
alphabet, we are not here concerned, except to notice that the
fundamental nature of that distinction is yet more emphasised
by this extremely early appearance of some of the most charac-
teristic peculiarities of the Ionic alphabet. But his history of
the Ionic alphabet, in which he traces it back from its later form
to what have till now been regarded as its earliest examples, is
of the utmost importance to our present investigations. Now,

1 Or perhaps it would be better to to’ and ‘more remote from the Phoe-
substitute for the expressions ‘earlier’ nician prototypes.’
and ‘later’ in this discussion, ‘closer

228 THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET.

however, we possess a far more complete set of examples than
was before Prof. Kirchhoff when he wrote; for at Naucratis
was found a set of dedications, in the ordinary forms of the
Ionic alphabet, or with but slight deviations therefrom, which
extends in an uninterrupted series from about 525 B.c. back
nearly, if not quite, to the beginning of the sixth century. So
far all is clear; we only add new matter to Prof. Kirchhoff’s
sketch ; we need not on any essential point diverge from it.
But when his next step backwards takes him to the Abu Simbel
inscriptions, it is now no longer possible to follow him. We are
therefore obliged for the present to leave them on one side, and
to continue our way, still indicated by a few landmarks, back
to these primitive Ionic records, which are as early as even the
earliest date that has been assigned to the Abu Simbel inscrip-
tions ;—fully half a century earlier than the date which is claimed
for those inscriptions by Prof. Wiedemann, and which, as we shall
afterwards see, is almost certainly the true one. Now since these
Naucratis inscriptions already possess the ὦ, we cannot derive
the alphabet of the Abu Simbel inscriptions from that in which
they are written; since, on the other hand, they have forms of
ε, v, and o which are earlier not only than those found at Abu
Simbel, but even than those used in Thera, they cannot exhibit
later forms of the same alphabet we see at Abu Simbel. Hence
in Prof. Kirchhoff’s order of date, first Theraean, then Abu
Simbel, then Jonic, it is impossible to find a place for these
Naucratis inscriptions: for our necessary arrangement will be
first Theraean and Ionic of Naucratis, the one exhibiting earlier
forms of some letters, the other of others ; then, after considerable
interval of time, Abu Simbel. Of the derivative relations among
them, if there be any, we must afterwards speak. At present
it suffices to note that Prof. Kirchhoff’s theories will not explain
all the facts we have now before us, and that others must
therefore still be sought.

Dr. Isaac Taylor’s fundamental principle may be summed up
in his own words: ‘in palaeographic, no less than in linguistic
or zoologic science, the laws of evolution are supreme, leaving
no room for arbitrary invention or intention.’? And this prin-
ciple has led him to throw out the only suggestion which is not
at variance with the new facts; the suggestion that the Greek

1 The Alphabet, II. 93.

THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET. 229

alphabet in its various branches must in all probability be
referred to various centres of Phoenician influence, to the
colonies traditionally said to have been founded in Thebes,
Corinth, and the Aegean islands! But surely if we accept this
theory of direct and more or less independent borrowing at
various places, we must reject the old notion, repeated elsewhere
by Dr. Taylor himself, of a ‘comparatively definite and uniform’?
alphabet during the first epoch, afterwards splitting into local
varieties ; unless indeed that ‘comparatively definite and uni-
form’ alphabet be the Phoenician itself. Moreover, however
true at bottom this theory of evolution may be, however
certainly it may save us from many improbable suppositions,’
a too scrupulous observance of it in detail may sometimes be
misleading; surely many adaptations to their own use by
peoples or individuals must have been the work of intention,
though in accordance with general tendencies. And so, to pass
to what more nearly concerns us now, the adaptation of the
Phoenician alphabet to Greek use can hardly have been a
matter of many centuries of unconscious change. I dwell
upon this point here because it may appear necessary in some
matters to suggest violations of the law of gradual evolution ;
and I would not be thought to do so without recognising
its extreme importance, and assigning good reasons for any
deviations that may occur.

We have now briefly passed in review the theories hitherto
held by the highest authorities on Greek epigraphy, so far as
they concern the questions we are trying to answer: we have
seen what help they lend us towards the solution of those ques-
tions, and how far they are inconsistent with the new facts
before us. Now that we have learnt what we can from the
theories of others, we must return to our facts, and en-
deavour to meet in some way the problems to which they give
rise.

The fundamental difference between all previous systems and
that we must now adopt lies in the fact that we no longer
recognise Abu Simbel as giving the typical form of the early
Tonic alphabet. Then what are the Abu Simbel inscriptions ?

1 Op. cit. 11. 68. Clermont Ganneau, deriving F from e,

2 Ibid. p. 63. x from τ, ¢ from 9, from v,
5 Such, for instance, as those of M,

230 THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET.

Till this is decided, we are not justified in setting them apart
from our Ionic series.

The evidence in favour of the old view may be briefly
stated as follows. No was known earlier than the middle
of the sixth century. At Abu Simbel were inscriptions which,
in every essential matter except the presence of w, showed forms
identical with those of the Ionic alphabet ; these inscriptions
were written by Ionians from Teos and Colophon, and Dorians
from Rhodes, either about 590 B.c. or fifty years earlier.1 The
evidence that these inscriptions preserved the earliest known
form of the Ionic alphabet naturally seemed complete ; nothing
could possibly controvert it except the discovery of the existence
of w at as early a date or an earlier one. Now this is precisely
the discovery that has been made. Since then the conclusion
is proved to have been wrong, there must be some flaw in the
evidence. The inscriptions were written by Greek mercenaries,
who all used the same alphabet—lIonians and Rhodians alike.
Hence it was inferred that the Ionic alphabet had spread to
Rhodes. This is just the inference that was not quite a certain
one, and it has led to the mistake. But if the alphabet these
Rhodian and other mercenaries used was not Ionic, the most
natural supposition is that it was a local alphabet, allied indeed
to the Ionic, but distinct from it. As to the Rhodian alphabet
evidence is, unfortunately, extremely scanty,” but what there is
can hardly disprove this view. Our Rhodians are thus easily
accounted for. In the men from Teos and Colophon it must
be confessed that a difficulty still remains. All that can be
said is that this difficulty is easier to meet than those we
must face upon any other supposition. It may be suggested
as a probable solution that these Ionians were perhaps illiterate
men, who could not write when they left home, and who learnt
the use of the alphabet while on service from their Rhodian
comrades. Since the true Ionic alphabet was already in use at
Miletus and its colony Naucratis in 650 B.c., it is very impro-
bable that it was not, when the Abu Simbel inscriptions were

1 See below.
date now excessively improbable, but
insert it here lest 1 seem to assume
what some epigraphists do not grant.

2 Two vases found in Rhodian tombs
are generally quoted; one with the

I think the earlier

Argive alphabet, another with a semi-
circular y. But there is no necessity
for them to represent the local alphabet
at all. The evidence of coins only
shows that the Ionic alphabet was
in use in Rhodes in the fifth century.

THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET. 231

written, also in force at Teos and Colophon.’ If the view here
adopted of the Abu Simbel inscriptions seem at all fanciful, it
must be remembered that it is not an unfounded theory, but an
attempt to explain and reconcile in some way actual facts
that are now before us.

Before we leave these Abu Simbel inscriptions, it is worth
while to note some evidence as to their actual date that has
turned up at Naucratis. Near the bottom of the trench in the
temenos of Apollo was found a vase with a frieze of animals of
Rhodian type upon it; and near it also a Rhodian pinax, of
similar style and fabric. These two were clearly almost, if not
quite, contemporary, and their date could not be far removed
from the beginning of the sixth century. On the vase was a
dedication in Ionic characters, with four-stroke o, y, and o.
On the pinax was another dedication,” with three-stroke o and
o for w—in forms identical with the Abu Simbel inscriptions.
Now since the inscription of the vase cannot probably, from its
characters, be less than half a century later than the earliest
Naucratis inscriptions, and again these earliest inscriptions
cannot well be earlier than the time of Psammetichus I, or
about 650 B.c., it follows that the inscription on the pinax, and
with it those of Abu Simbel, cannot probably be placed before
the beginning of the sixth century. Hence we must assign
them to the reign of Psammetichus II., or about 590 B.c.

But it is time to leave these side issues—for we now see the
discussion of the Abu Simbel inscriptions to be a side issue—
and to return to the main course of the Ionic alphabet, which
we must endeavour to trace from its origin to its perfect
development. For the sake of clearness, it will be best to
throw this constructive part of the present paper into the form
of a direct historical narrative. But of course it must be
acknowledged that many of the statements are merely conjec-

1 1 am indebted to Prof. Ridgeway
for the suggestion of another possible
explanation. The fullest form of the
Ionic alphabet, with all the non-Phoe-
nician signs, may have been in the
earliest period restricted to Naucratis,
while in Asia Minor, perhaps even in
Miletus itself, the less complete form
may still have remained in use. This

suggestion does not affect the import-
ance of the early alphabet found at
Naucratis, since in any case it after-
wards became universal,

2 The difference between the alpha-
bets used upon the two is of course due
to the fact that the one was dedicated
by a Milesian, the other by a Rhodian ;
and each used his own local characters.

232 THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET.

tural, and that what is put down as fact may not be more
than probable theory.

In the reign of Psammetichus I. a band of Milesians founded
the colony of Naucratis,! probably about the middle of the
seventh century, B.c. This new city could not, like most
colonies, spread its rule over its barbarian neighbours, and
become independent of its mother state. It must have served
from the first as an emporium for trade between Miletus and
Egypt; and the trade route was doubtless the same as that
followed by the Naucratite Herostratus, who, as Athenaeus ?
tells us, was in the twenty-third Olympiad on a trading cruise
with Naucratis as his ultimate destination, and touched at
Cyprus on his way. There is no doubt that in the early days
of Greek navigation the direct and open route would be less
used than this past Cyprus. On that island the Milesian
traders would meet not only its native inhabitants, but the
Phoenician merchants who must constantly have come across
their path, both near home and in their most distant voyages.
Both Cypriotes and Phoenicians already possessed the art of
writing. The usefulness of the Phoenician alphabet had indeed
already been recognised by the Greeks of the Aegean islands,
Thera and Naxos, perhaps also of Corinth, and of Chalcis, the
maritime rival of Miletus. In all these various centres of early
commerce the Phoenician invention was being adapted to the
requirements of Hellenic speech: not indeed quite inde-
pendently, for in their commercial or other intercourse each
kept touch with the other, and there is a remarkable uniformity
in the lines along which the adaptation was carried; yet in
each place the forms of the letters were directly derived from
their Phoenician originals. In no other way can the various
early forms ἢ be explained which can find a common origin in
nothing short of the Phoenician alphabet itself; perhaps even
they go back to a type of that alphabet in some respects earlier

1 Strabo’s words (XVII. 1, 18) will hardly possible. It is against tradition,

bear this meaning, if we do not assume
the Inaros he mentions to be identical
with the ‘ Inaros son of Psammetichus’
who lived two centuries later. May not
the name Inaros have come in here
merely by a confusion of associations ?

2 XV. 675. The date mentioned is

probability, and the evidence of ex-
cavation that Naucratis existed before
the time of Psammetichus I.

3 For instance, the Therean « and z,
the Corinthian 8 and e, the Chalcidian
A, the Naucratite ν and o. It is im-
possible to refer these all to a primitive

THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET. 233

in form, though not in date, than any extant monuments. It
is not likely that the Milesians were much behind their rivals
in the use of the alphabet. We can see, indeed, from the forms
of some letters which are common to all alike, that they were
not. But they were not content with the twenty-two Phoenician
signs, and the v which others had evolved from the F, and set at
the end of their alphabet. They seem to have felt a need for
the distinction of o and ὦ from the first; and the source whence
they drew new symbols is not far to seek. Prof. Deecke has
already shown the resemblance between the non-Phoenician
signs of the Greek alphabet, φ, y, y,! and certain symbols that
represented kindred sounds in the Cypriote syllabary. But at
the time when he made this suggestion the antiquity of w was
not yet known, nor were the means by which the Cypriote influ-
ence was exercised so clear as they are in the case of the Ionians
at Naucratis. These Milesian traders, constantly calling at
Cyprus, cannot have failed to know something of the Cypriote
syllabic writing: if their alphabet needed supplementary signs,
this is undoubtedly the natural source from which they would
draw them. Of ¢, y, Ψ, Prof. Deecke has already written; to
represent w the Cypriote symbol for o could not well be used,
as it was not of a character to suit the Greek type of letters:
but the symbol resorted to was /\, which stood for Ko, that is to
say for o preceded by any guttural, as the transliteration of Greek
words shows. This Cypriote Ko, often irregularly shaped,? is
almost identical with the early forms of ὦ which we find on the
Naucratis inscriptions of the most archaic classes. And it may
be noted as a very strong argument against the common sup-
position that © is an arbitrary modification of O, that the
resemblance of © to O is strongest in its later forms, while in

‘Cadmean’ alphabet; unless by Cadmean
we mean Phoenician. For the Cor-

dependent Greek invention : besides v is
just the one letter whose later Greek

inthian Band ε see Taylor, Alph. I. 103,
115. May we not infer similar forms in
Phoenician, just as, were all Chalcidian,
Boeotian, and early Attic inscriptions
lost, we might infer L from Latin ?

1 See his popular account in Bau-
meister, Denkmdler, I. 51. He adds v,
but as that letter is not distinctively
Ionic, it is more probably an in-

forms are nearer to the Cypriote than
its earlier.

2 See Deecke’s table in OCollitz,
Griechische Dialekt-Inschriften 1. One
form of Ko identical with the later
Greek Q is given there, but with a
query.

3 See the last form given on the
table, page 221.

234 THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABBRT,

the most primitive forms we can find, no resemblance whatever
between the two can be seen. This is precisely the opposite of
what would be the case if the one letter were but a modified form
of the other. This common view would hardly have gained such
general acceptance, but that it was thought the invention of @
was not earlier than the middle of the sixth century, when
foreign influence was improbable. Now that we know it is a
whole century older, some such explanation as that which is
here offered must in all probability be adopted. Whether
¢, x, and wr were borrowed simultaneously with from
the Cypriote syllabary is a question as to which no actual
evidence can be produced. But it is most probable that
they were. Their position in the alphabetic order is else
inexplicable.?

Thus we see that the Ionic alphabet, as used by the Milesians
of Naucratis, already possessed its full complement of alphabetic
symbols. When this fact is once realised, it is a comparatively
easy task to trace its subsequent development and history; the
difficulties we shall here meet only affect matters of detail, and
can in almost all cases admit of simple explanations. There
are only two letters whose forms call for any individual notice :
these are ἢ and co. When the first of these originated, that is
to say, when the symbol for the spiritus asper was no longer
felt to be necessary, and in consequence was used to meet
another want, and to denote 7, cannot as yet be finally decided.
This change was not necessarily contemporary in all cases with
the adoption of a separate symbol for ὦ ; at Abu Simbel we find
the Rhodians used a separate symbol for ἡ, and not for ὦ ; while
in Thera ὦ seems to have been distinguished before ἡ. All
that can be asserted is that ἢ is in use by about 600 B.C. at
Naucratis, as elsewhere among Greek peoples.

With o the case is different. We have seen the four-stroke
form, though in a peculiar position, on the earliest inscriptions.
From the earliest to the latest of our continuous series of
dedications which present the typical forms of the Ionic
alphabet, this four-stroke form, €, is always the normal one.
But there are exceptions; a three-stroke form, $, is occasionally

1 Of course they might, from this indication, have been borrowed earlier ;
but not later.

THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET. 235

found; but not by any means upon the earliest specimens. If,
indeed, it is possible to establish a chronological relation at all
between the two, it seems that the four-stroke form is the
earlier even in time; it undoubtedly is so morphologically.
But the difference may be local rather than temporal. The
fact is that the relations of the complete and the curtailed
form! are often misapprehended. They seem sometimes to be
used indiscriminately; but I doubt if it can be shown that the
three-stroke form was in any branch of the alphabet older in
recular usage than that with four strokes ;—except, indeed, in
cases where the intrusion of the latter was due to the spreading
influence of the Ionic alphabet just before its universal adoption.
Many instances, which upon tables compiled for convenient
reference seem to controvert this statement, will be found to
disappear entirely if the sources? from which they are drawn be
earefully investigated. But for the analogy of the Abu Simbel
inscriptions, formerly regarded as the earlier form of the Ionic
alphabet, so (literally) preposterous a theory as this, that the
later form generally preceded the earlier,? could never have
gained so wide an acceptance.

We have vow traced the stages by which the Ionic alphabet
proceeded from its origin to its perfect development, to the
form in which it was adopted by all the Hellenic peoples, and
in which it is actually used to the present day. But it is
impossible to modify the history of one branch of the Hellenic
alphabet without touching on matters which affect the develop-
ment of others. We must, therefore, in conclusion, take a brief
and general review of these, as far as their relations with the
Tonic alphabet and with one another are concerned.

We need not here discuss the individual characteristics of the
other early Greek alphabets: we have already noticed that each
of them possesses forms which they cannot have borrowed from
one another, or indeed, from any source but the Phoenician

1 Or is the four-stroke form derived inscriptions. In the very rare cases
from shin, the three-stroke one from
tsade ? A suggestion confirmed by the
form occupying the place of tsade in the
abecedarium of Caere.

* At Argos, for instance, the three-
stroke form rests only on the evidence
of Fourmont, the notorious forger of

when $ occurs earlier than &, both
may have been in use together from the
first.

3 The true relation of the two is
pointed out by Mommsen, Unterit.
Dial. 5.

236 THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET.

itself. Thus they and the Ionic seem all to have arisen more
or less independently, and to have continued for a considerable
period their separate development. In this development various
tendencies were exhibited; that, for instance, to distinguish
long and short o gave rise to various confusing forms; here
probably really differentiated from o,! which the new symbols
always resemble: though in some cases the Ionic symbol was
borrowed and the Ionic usage reversed (Q = 0, 0 = a, Paros,
Siphnos, Thasos). But these are matters of detail. The first
great and important influence that the Ionic alphabet exercised
upon its less fully equipped neighbours concerned the represen-
tation of double consonants, whether compounded with ἢ or
with ¢. The symbol for 6 seems to have been a common
heritage of all, but the sounds afterwards represented by ¢, +, V?
were in the earliest times denoted in writing by two separate
symbols. At what time the Ionic symbols for these letters were
generally adopted cannot be definitely stated ; but it certainly
was a very early change, probably not much later than their -
first use by the Ionians themselves. Here, however, a very
singular phenomenon meets us. Most of the eastern Greeks
borrowed the Ionic symbols, ,+, yy, and used them just as the
Tonians had done. But certain peoples of the mainland of
Greece, of Euboea, and of the Chalcidian colonies, those, in
short, whom Prof. Kirchhoff assigns to his western division, use
these symbols, but in the order +, @, WV, and with the sig-
nification &, @, xy. This is a fact that has never yet been satis-
factorily explained : Dr. Taylor has even been driven by it into the
supposition that the symbols are of quite different origin, and
that their resemblance in the two cases is a mere coincidence.
But perhaps a less improbable explanation is possible: and the
clue to it may be obtained by carefully observing the order
of the symbols, as preserved to us by the abecedaria found
on vases at Caere and Formello. It is a recognised rule,
to which there are few exceptions,* that the symbols of any
one alphabet borrowed at one time from any other alphabet

1 A dot was placed in the middle for adapted to its later use.
w (Thera), or half the symbol was 3 Unless of course, as in Arabic and
used for ο, the whole for w (Melos). Sanskrit, the alphabet has been entirely
2 —must also have been a common rearranged on new principles.
inheritance, but it was not at first

THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET. 237

invariably preserve the order they held in that other alphabet ;
and that new symbols, whether produced by independent
differentiation or by fresh borrowing, are placed at the end in
tlie alphabetic order, or next to the symbol from which they
originated, as our J, V, W. But this is only possible when the
symbols are not also used as numerals in their alphabetic order.
If we apply this rule to the last symbols of the western
alphabet, +, Φ, y, we see at once that they cannot be
derived from the Ionian ¢, +, Ψ. If we take the last two
letters only, d, VY, there is no objection to meet as regards
order. Hence + must have been there before. Now this
+ is used with the signification of ἕξ, but in these western
alphabets the alphabetic place of the Phoenician samekh and
the Greek € is filled by a symbol evidently borrowed from the
Phoenicians, but for practical purposes disused, ΕΠ.: Evidently
what had happened here is the same as what we find in the
ease of Fand v. The Phoenician symbol is borrowed, and falls
into practical disuse; but a secondary symbol evolved from it is
placed at the end of the alphabet, and continues to hold its
place in writing. So EE survived as a symbol only, but +4, its
simplified form,? continued to live and to represent the sound &.
And the new form + was naturally placed at the end of the
alphabet. Now when the western Greeks, already possessing
this symbol, came to borrow from the Ionians , +, Ψ, they
could not adopt the +, simply because it was identical with the
symbol they already possessed and used to denote & But the
other two they borrowed, and put after their + at the end of
their alphabet; they retained in its original form; but for
the guttural aspirate they needed a sign far more than for the
combination zo,* and accordingly they made the other new
symbol, vy, serve to denote that sound.

Against the view here proposed two chief objections may be
brought forward. The first is that it is contrary to analogy for
a distinct symbol for & to be in use before the aspirates ¢ and y.
But it is clear that the symbol used for & belongs to the
alphabet as originally borrowed from the Phoenicians: hence its

1 Τὸ is true that this form is not that such must have been the original
known in Phoenician ; but the various form.
forms derived from it seem to imply aT SO lavlore ΠῚ “71:
3 or go.
ΕΠ 5.--- ΟἿ; VII, 5

238 THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET.

adaptation to use, since it already existed, may be regarded as
not impossible. The second objection is a more serious one: to
derive the symbol used for y in one alphabet from that used for
Ψ in another is to violate the phonetic law almost always
observable in alphabetic transmissions; the law, that is, that a
letter is derived only from a letter that denotes a kindred sound.
But a violation of this law can perhaps be justified by analogy :
the symbol H, for instance, when no longer required for the
aspirate, came to be used for ἡ ; surely this is just as arbitrary
an adaptation. The theory just suggested cannot, however, be
regarded as certain; it may be confirmed or refuted by new
facts: In any case it is an attempt to solve a problem of which
no previous solution can be asserted to be free from grave
difficulties.

This discussion of remote details has, however, led us some-
what away from our subject, the early history of the Ionic
alphabet. Nor does the accuracy of that history, as we have
tried to sketch it, depend on details such as these. If the facts
from which we started are correct—and I think they are not
without good foundation—it is hardly possible to escape the
main conclusions that we have reached. And these alone are
enough to throw a flood of new light on the obscure beginnings
of the Hellenic alphabet, and to correct many erroneous opinions
that have hitherto been held as to its origin and development.

Ernest A. GARDNER.

1 Mr. FE. S. Roberts, to whom Iam _ also a similarity of sound, as is in-
indebted for kind permission to make dicated by the fluctuations of early
use of the materials he has collected, usage. It is hard to find a more
suggests that there may be here certain instance.

Nore.—Since none of the old classifications of the earliest
Greek alphabets appeared completely adequate, in view of the
new facts now before us and the conclusions drawn therefrom,
it may seem desirable that some new classification should be
suggested. To completely arrange and discuss the Greck

THE EARLY IONIC ALPHABET. 239

alphabets is of course out of the question here. But the fol-
lowing suggestion may be useful. The two earliest alphabets
are the Theraean and the Ionic; next come the Corinthian and
the Chalcidian, partly dependent on the other two, partly in-
dependent. From these four I think it will be found possible to
derive all known forms of writing among the Greeks.

Hy A, Ὁ.

2409 NOLES ON A COLLECTION OF ANCIENT MARBLES.

NOTES ON TH# COLLECTION OF ANCIENT MARBLES

IN THE

POSSESSION OF SIR CHARLES NICHOLSON, BART.
[Puates LXXI. ann C]

I HAVE been asked to add a few notes on the collection of
ancient monuments of which specimens are published on Plates
LXXI. and C. These marbles were formerly in the possession
of Mr. George McLeay, who, while residing in India, deposited
them in the South Kensington Museum, where Professor
Michaelis saw them. Most of them have already been
described by Michaelis in his Ancient Marbles in Great Britain
pp. 481 seg. Mr. McLeay had a house at Smyrna, and it was
in Asia Minor, chiefly at Smyrna and in its neighbourhood,
that he collected his antiquities. They have since been pre-
sented by him to Sir Charles Nicholson, who has placed them
in his house, The Grange, Totteridge, Hertfordshire.

Most of these monuments belong to the Roman period of
Greek art in Asia Minor. There can be no doubt that the
interest attaching to such works will grow with the develop-
ment and systematisation of the study of archaeology. For we
may reasonably hope that, as our power to fix in time and to
distinguish with accuracy the broader characteristic points of
distinction between Greek and Graeco-Roman art grows, we
shall not halt at this stage, but shall advance still further in
successful endeavours to establish more detailed distinctions of
time and even locality within these broader divisions.

Even at this moment it is possible to produce numbers of
monuments of the Roman period, Roman in subject and in

NOTES ON A COLLECTION OF ANCIENT MARBLES. 241

treatment, which are known to come from different places, from
Rome itself, from the South of Italy, from Greece Proper, or
from Asia Minor. And the time may soon have arrived when
‘to take a definite instance) it may lead to instructive results to
compare with conscientious exactness instances of the same
Roman portrait statue as presented to us in the definite locali-
ties of Rome, Greece Proper, Asia Minor, ἄς, &e. Of course
the question will then have to be considered and weighed, how
far Greek artists worked for the foreign markets, whether they
settled in the place where their goods were in demand, whether
and how far Greek artists transplanted to foreign countries the
hereditary name and craft. Their own idiosyncrasies might in
the latter case be considerably modified by the customs, taste,
and needs of the community in which they lived. Nay, when
art became art-manufacture (as it did become to a certain degree
in these later periods), the work might become modified by the
characteristic demands of its place of destination, just as, in a
far earlier period, it appears to me, the Cypriote works received
their hybrid character from the action of such influences.

Such and similar questions will have to be considered; but
even these questions will be more readily answered if such a
eareful grouping of monuments the origin of which is fully
established is carried out, and they are subjected to accurate
comparative study.

I. Plate LX XI, 1—The first work is of great interest; it has
not been exhibited at South Kensington, and has neither been
described nor figured. The statue is of marble, and measures from
knee to head 4 ft.9} in. There are wanting—both legs below
the knee, both hands, and the point of the nose. A piece is also
chipped out of the upper portion of the left arm. The head
was detached from the neck, and has recently been fitted to the
statue ; but it undoubtedly belonged to the statue, as it not only
is of the same marble and in a similar state of corrosion, but a
continuous groove has been formed by running or trickling
water on the top of the head,on the right side of the statue,
which runs down the right side of the face, and continues at
the neck and over the chest in an unbroken line. The whole
surface of the statue has been much damaged by the wear of
weather, especially the continuous dropping of water. This
furrowing up of the surface is to be seen on all sides, There is

242 NOTES ON A COLLECTION OF ANCIENT MARBLES,

but one limited surface on the small of the back where the
marble retains something of its original smoothness. Even the
nates are thus affected on all sides. The water must thus have
run over the statue on all sides, and it appears therefore to have
stood unprotected in the open air. It is difficult to understand
how the small receding portion in the back should have escaped ;
and this is not explained by assuming that it lay on its back.
Two holes on the back near the left shoulder, one oblong and
large, the other round and smaller, evidently served to fix it
against some backeround, perhaps the tympanon of a pediment ;
and this would point to its being a pedimental figure. But it
is impossible to arrive at any definite conclusion on this point,
which presents fewer fixed data than the Aegina Marbles,
concerning the corrosion of which such difference of opinion
still exists.

The pose of the statue illustrates the type of Hermes as
presented in the famous Hermes of Andros in the Patissia
Museum (Athens), the Hermes in the Belvidere of the Vatican,
and the Hermes from the Farnese Collection, now in the British
Museum. A similar statue also exists at Munich.t As in all
these statues so in ours, the youthful figure rests upon the right
leg, and the right hip is thus thrust outwards. The right hand
is pressed on the right hip. The head is slightly lowered and
turned towards the right shoulder, which is also lowered. The
figure is nude; but the chlamys is carried so that the one end
hangs over the left shoulder and the breast, and, passing down
the back, is wound round the left fore-arm, and then hangs to
the ground. The figure probably held the caduceus in the left
hand, as is the case in the Farnese replica.

Let us first consider the three well-known statues of Hermes
to which ours corresponds fully: the Hermes of Andros, the
Hermes of the Belvidere, and the Hermes Farnese. They
no doubt all go back to an original prototype, the earliest of
which we find in the famous Hermes carrying the infant
Dionysos, by Praxiteles, discovered at Olympia. But there
can be no doubt that the type has in them become consider-
ably modified, both in the attributes and attitude, as well as in
style. These three statues are later than Lysippus, and the
head has undergone changes in the Lysippian direction. It

1 Clarac, Musée de Sculpture, &c., vol. iv., Pl. 659, 1523.

NOTES ON A COLLECTION OF ANCIENT MARBLES. 243

has become shorter and rounder. The hair is not blocked
out in the same way as in the Praxitelean statue, but has
become more distinctly modelled in curved masses. Whereas
in the Hermes of Praxiteles it is more specifically of the
marble technical treatment, it has in these modified replicas,
as it were, passed through the bronze technique, which is here
reproduced in the marble, and this treatment characterises
the heads of other statues ascribed to Lysippus, such as the
Apoxyomen’s and the Ares Ludovisi. This is more pro-
nouncedly the case in the Farnese and Belvidere replicas
than in the Hermes of Andros. They are nearer the imme-
diate Lysippian type, represented by the Ares Ludovisi, than
the head of the Hermes of Andros. The head from Andros has,
in general, more of that expression of dreamy sentiment
which we find in the Hermes of Praxiteles—the lips are
closed; while in the other heads the general expression of
dreaminess has given way to one of more decision, and the
lips are parted, as in the Lysippian head of Ares. As regards
the modelling of the body also, the Hermes of Andros is
softer and less mechanical than in the other replicas. The
latter are Roman in character, whereas the statue of Andros
is more Greek in the working; it shows less of the very
manifest mastery over, and reliance upon, the skilful use of
tools which we perceive in even the most perfect specimens
of works of Roman origin. As a slight but characteristic
instance of this, I would but point to the circular incisions in
the umbilical region, and at either breast. In the two Roman
(especially the Belvidere) replicas, they are, as it were, drawn
and incised as with compasses, perfectly and accurately round
and unbroken. In the Hermes of Andros, and in the Praxi-
telean statue, this is not so to the same degree: we have
more traces of hand-work, in a certain ungeometrical irregularity,

These peculiarities of the Greek statues, as far as the
treatment of the body is concerned, are also to be found in
our replica from Asia Minor. Only, in addition to these, we
find a greater insistence upon a more realistic indication of
the muscles, which points to a more conscious study of the
living model and of the anatomy of the human figure. This
can be best appreciated in examining the treatment of the
right arm, where all the individual muscles are indicated, the

244 NOTES ON A COLLECTION OF ANCIENT MARBLES.

work being almost too much elaborated in detail. This looks
as if all the replicas had passed through the influence of
Lysippus, and as if this statue had, in addition, passed through
that of the schools of Pergamon and Rhodes, and the stamp of
these Asiatic schools had been impressed upon it.

Finally, the head of this statue differs from all the other
heads in that it is much more individual, in fact, is iconic. The
upper part of the face is comparatively much broader than the
rest, the cheek-bones protruding, and this appearance is increased
by the comparative sharpness of the chin. The mouth is small,
the lower lip is very full and has a curious pouting thickness in
the central portion. A further peculiarity is the treatment of
the hair, which has, on the whole, been so much abraded that
it can hardly be distinguished. But there remain clear indications
of the fringe above the forehead, which resembles a succession
of small points like the teeth of a dog or fox. This frmge we
find in the head of the Hermes Logios, the so-called Germanicus,
of the Louvre, which, according to the inscriptioa, is the work of
Kleomenes, the son of Kleomenes, who is probably? the same
Kleomenes as the one mentioned by Pliny,? the sculptor of the
statues of Thespiadae ordered by Pollio Asinius. I think it nght
to point to this similarity in the working of the hair; though I
cannot at present see what relation our statue holds to this work
of Kleomenes.

This statue thus appears to me to go back ultimately to the
original type of the Hermes found in the famous work of
Praxiteles at Olympia, which became in the course of time
modified by Lysippian elements, and it is probably the work of
an artist following those of that period of revival of Neo-Attic,
Neo-Hellenic, or Hellenistic art which, according to Pliny ®
began to thrive’ in the 156th Olympiad (B.c, 156-3). But
there are in it traces of elements which distinguish the chief
schools of Asia Minor (Pergamon and Rhodes), so that we must
assion it to a period of the growing Roman influence, but to
the home in which the statue itself was found, nameiy, Asia
Minor.

To clench what has been said, I would introduce a very im-
portant monument into this series of statues of Hermes, This

1 Overbeck, Gesch. d. Gr. Plast., ii. Ὁ ΝΗ S.6 <\phy ay
p. 379. 2 ON A, Xxxiys Gls

NOTES ON A COLLECTION OF ANCIENT MARBLES. 245

work has been discovered at Delos by the French excavators,
and is described and published by M. Homolle.!| The statue is
that of a Roman, Caius Ofellius Ferus, in the form of Hermes,
and no doubt (as other similar statues found on the same site
show) had a portrait head of the Roman. The inscription on
the base of this statue, published by M. Homolle, tells us that
it is a work by Dionysios, the son of Timarchides, and Timar-
chides, the son of Polykles. It has been shown by M. Homolle
(and this bears out the ingenious hypothesis of Brunn, made
many years previous to the discovery of this statue and this
inscription), that Timarchides and Dionysios, here mentioned,
are cousins, and that Dionysios joined his father Timarchides
and his uncle Polykles, who all three are reported by Pliny” as
having been fellow-workers at the Porticus erected by Mete'lus
in the year 146 Bc. Furthermore, one of these artists,
Polykles, is mentioned by Pliny? with Timokles, who again
is mentioned in passages by Pausanias* as being, together
with Timarchides, the son of Polykles. In the passage of Pliny
the artists are mentioned among those who signal a revival of
art at Rome, where it languished before, in the 156th Olympiad,
1.0, 156-3 B.c.; and Brunn has justly pointed to this particular
date assigned by Pliny as the time when Metellus Macedonicus
invited the Greek artists to Rome to decorate the Porticus.
Moreover, M. Homolle shows that from inscriptions at Delos
these works are fixed between the years 190—167 B.c., and
that the date of this statue is probably nearer the year 167.
Overbeck has first pointed to the fact that this Hermes-
Ofellius is a modified replica of the Hermes of Praxiteles.
And when we study the whole series of these works it becomes
ina most interesting manner evident that this statue is the
link between the Praxitelean type of Hermes and the group of
the other statues of Hermes mentioned above. The whole pose
is much nearer to the Hermes of Praxiteles than are the other
statues ; and the right arm, which is lowered to the hip in the
others, is here raised as in the Praxitelean work. But in this
work from Delos we have the first step towards a modified
arrangement of the chlamys in the direction of the Hermes of
1 Bulletin de Corresp. Hellen. 1881, SLO RXV moll oe

δ: p. 890, pl. 12. 4 Paush vise 4 bs) 15. Oe 88. δὲ δὶ
Σ᾽ N.A, Xxxvi. 88,

246 NOTES ON A COLLECTION OF ANCIENT MARBLES.

Andros ; the end, namely, hangs over the left shoulder, and it is
partly wound round the fore-arm. But it retains more ot the
massing of the drapery as it hangs down by the fore-arm, and
of the peculiar treatment of folds which characterises the re-
markable drapery passing under the infant Dionysos, and
hanging over the tree-stem, in the Praxitelean work. It is
exactly the intermediary stage between the fourth century
prototype and the later Roman modifications. Moreover, this
work corresponds to our own statue from Asia Minor, in that it
had a Roman portrait head added to the body of the Hermes.
It is perhaps also well to remember that in connexion with this
revival of Greek art at Rome about the year 145 B.c. we have
mention of the custom of borrowing types from earlier Greek
works, nay, of copying parts of such works. So Pausanias tells
us that two of these very artists (Timokles and Timarchides)
copied the shield of the Athene Parthenos by Pheidias in their
statue of a warlike Athene at Elateia1 We thus have an
interesting series :—First the Hermes with the infant Dionysos
of Olympia by Praxiteles about the middle of the fourth century
B.c. Then a work from about the year 167 B.c. by Dionysios
and Timarchides, a Greek work of the early Roman period which
marks the transition to still more modified types of the Roman
period, one from Greece (Andros), another from Asia Minor, the
others more Roman in character, found on the site of Rome,
and probably the work of Greek artists there resident.

II. Plate LX XI, 2.—The next important work in this collection
is that of a headless marble statue of a draped female figure,
found in the same district. It appears to me that Michaelis,
who describes the statue (No. 1 in his lst) in the following
terms, and who couples it with the figure immediately following
it, has under-estimated its merits :—

Statue of a female, in long chiton, and over it the cloak, which
covers the head and the whole body as far as below the knees. The
treatment and fall of the folds resemble those in the terra-cotta
figure, Clarac, v. 890 B, 2267 F, only the cloak is not thrown back
over the 1. shoulder, but covers the 1. breast and thence falls down.
The lowered ]. arm is quite covered in the cloak, the upper part of
the r. arm is likewise lowered, the fore-arm is missing, as is also the
head. The figure rests on the r. leg, on the outside of the shin is a

SL eHAIGE ἐπ BY LST

NOTES ON A COLLECTION OF ANCIENT MARBLES. 247

square puntello which suggests an attribute (torch?) or some other
accessory. H. abt. 1°70. Cf. the remark on no. 2.

To this description I should like to add, that the left hand,
which is broken away, rested below the left breast, and that the
point of a finger remains quite uninjured at a fold of the hima-
tion. The modelling of the drapery is unequal; somewhat
coarse in the chiton as it covers the foot, but of great beauty in
portions of the modelling of the outer garment. Throughout,
the indication of texture, both in the drapery and in what
remains of the nude about the neck, is of good work. The keen
sense for texture, and the careful elaboration of the drapery in
the outer garment, is manifested in a point of detail, in that the
massing of folds in the under-garment, where it is drawn over
the girdle, is indicated on the surface of the outer garment, on
the side where this covers the chiton, by very delicate waves
that can hardly be called folds. The whole composition of the
figure, and the moderation in the treatment of the drapery,
show a nobility which characterises Greek, in contradis-
tinction to Roman, workmanship. This will be appreciated
the more when this work is compared with the statues
of Vestal virgins recently exhumed at Rome at the Temple of
Vesta, to which our statue bears a strong resemblance (it was
probably the statue of a priestess with the outer garment
passing over the head). In comparison with these Graeco-Roman
works, our statue is again more Hellenic in character, and thus
stands nearer to a type of the fourth century Greek art from
which all these works may have been derived, namely, the
statue of Artemisia surmounting the mausoleum of Halicar-
nassus. Hence its relation to the earlier Greek prototype and
the later Roman works would be similar to that just established
with regard to the Hermes before described ; its provenance also
being the same. JI hear that this work was found surmounting
a Mahometan grave on the road between Sardis and Magnesia,
nearer Sardis.

ILI. The other draped female figure is far inferior. Michaelis
says of it:—

Statue of a female, in doubled chiton and over it a cloak, com-
pletely corresponding to four of the statues of the Loggia de’ Lanzi

in Florence (Cavalieri, Antiq. stat. 1. I. et 11. Pl. 81; cf. Clarac,
Iv. 767, 1894; v. 978 B, 2524 F). She rests on the r. leg. Missing:

218 NOTES ON A COLLECTION OF ANCIENT MARBLES,

head, r. arm, 1. fore-arm with the folds of the drapery below 10.
H. abt. 1:70. Both the statues, nos. 1 and 2, stand on low irregu-
larly shaped plinths. They are very slender in their proportions,
slim in the upper part of the body, becoming broader below, witn
not quite common motives of drapery. Ordinary execution. They
are exact counterparts of the statues at Oxford, nos. 1—9 (ef.
Oxford, after no. 9).

Since Michaelis saw the statue, a heal which belonged to
the collection has been added. This head does certainly not
belong to the statue, and ought to be removed. It is an in-
teresting head, though the hair is inferior, modelled in “ corded”
ridges. The face, especially the modellmg about the eyes, is of
great softness, and reminds us of the Aphrodite of Melos. The
statue itself is, it appears to me, of a later date than the pre-
ceding one, more Roman in character, and, as has been said, in
every way inferior.

IV. Fig. 1—The fragment of a sepulchral relief, described by
Michaelis as No. 16, is not of marble, but of terra-cotta. He
says of it :-—

Vragment of a sepulchral relief, broken both at top and bottom.

On the 1]. stands a youth, full face, almost nude, holding the chlamys
on the r. shoulder with r. hand, the 1. lowered. Beside him a nude

NOTES ON A COLLECTION OF ANCIENT MARBLES. 249

boy, who turns up his face and vr. hand to him; in the lowered 1.
hand he holds the strigil (στλεγγίς) and the alabastron. Lively exe-
cution, H. 0.92, 1, 0°30, From Smyrna,

This interesting terra-cotta relief must be compared with the
unfinished Greek relief of the fourth century found at the
Dipylon at Athens, and now in the Patissia Museum; it is
described and figured by M. Pottier The Athenian reliet
represents a victorious athlete standing nude, and with his up-
raised right hand placing the victor’s wreath on his brow, while
in his left hand he holds a palm-branch. The similarity in the
type of the body and in the attitude is so striking that it is
hard not to believe in a more or less immediate dependence.

V. Plate (Ὁ, 1.— Relief. On a field surrounded by a frame there sits
enthroned in the middle, Zews, turned 1., his legs covered by his cloak,
the 1. hand high up on the sceptre, the r., perhaps with a cup, on the
thigh. To the 1. before him stands, very nearly in full face, a noble
Jemale figure in chiton and cloak, with a long sceptre on her r. arm,
the 1. hand lowered; a high ornament on the head (modius 1) may
designate her as Hera or Demeter, or again as the tutelary goddess
of a town. Behind the throne of Zeus stands Anubis, with the
head of a dog, draped in a chlamys. Very coarse and much
abraded. Below the relief a large empty space. H. 0°65, L. 0°36.
From Erythrae.

To this description I should merely like to add that the
ornament on the head of the female figure seems a modus,
but has also the appearance of horns; still it seems to represent
a deity of a town, and this will be confirmed when we compare
it with the relief from the base of a statue of Tiberius found at
Puteoli (Puzzuoli) in 1840, which contains in alto relievo four-
teen figures of towns of Asia Minor with their respective names
inscribed below them,? of the figures of Sardis, Magnesia, Phila-
delphia, Kyme, Myrina, Apolloneia, and Aegae, have ornaments
on their heads corresponding to the traces on the head of the
figure in question.

Concerning the other works in this collection we can but
repeat the remarks of Michaelis in his own words :—

Group of Ganymedes and the eagle. The youth, nude except for a

Phrygian cap and boots, stands with 1. knee bent by a pillar which
is partly covered by his chlamys; the outstretched 1. arm lies on the

1 Bullet. d. Corresp. Hellen. v. p. 65, 2 Overbeck, Gesch, ὦ. Gr. Pl. ii.
pl. 3. p. 435.

250 NOTES ON A COLLECTION OF ANCIENT MARBLES,

pillar ; of the lowered r. arm with the pedum only remnants are
preserved. Ganymedes looks up at the eagle, which sits above his 1.
arm on the pillar (cf. Monuwm. dell’ Inst., 1856, Pl. 18). The pose of
Ganymedes is somewhat stiff and affected. The whole group is
backed with a pillar, and was therefore most probably meant for
architectural decoration (cf. Cambridge, no. 4, Wilton, no. 144); the
moderate execution falls in with this view. H. 0°76.

Statue of Pan. The god stands by a tree on which hangs the
syrinx. <A leather apron full of fruit hangs slantwise from the r.
shoulder ; in the 1. arm he holds a pruning-knife (blade missing).
These attributes remind one of Silvanus. Head of unpleasantly
brutish expression. Goat’s legs. Lowered r. arm and part of 1. leg
below the knee missing. Late, ordinary Roman work. H. 1:01.

Light heads, of bad, late workmanship, and rather damaged ;
from Smyrna, Rhodes, &c. The following may be particularly
mentioned: a head over life-size, perhaps of Zeus, though of a
gloomy aspect, which suggests Pluto rather than Zeus; a head
of Herakles with curly hair and beard; a pretty good female head.

Plate C, 2.—Votive relief, flanked by two antae which carry an
entablature furnished with roofing tiles. On the |. stands a youth
in chlamys beside a horse; before him, in about the middle of the
relief, stands a female figure, in chiton, the 1. arm and the lower
part of the body enveloped in cloak, offering the youth a cup. Both
figures are on a much larger scale than those at the r. end of the
scene: a male and two female figures, and in the foreground three
children (apparently two boys and a girl). These six persons
approach in adoration ; before them a boy, quite small, leads a ram
to the altar which stands between the two principal personages.
The relief is moderately low and reminds us of Attic reliefs.
H. 0-41. L. 0°56. From Smyrna.

Sepulchral stone of Sandioklos, broken into two fragments. On
the r. sits a female figure completely veiled (head missing). In the
background a tree, entwined by a snake. To the 1. stands in full
face the deceased, a bearded man, in cloak, the |. hand lowered,
the r. before the breast; for his somewhat self-conscious attitude
cf. Oxford, no. 89. By him a diminutive attendant, with crossed
legs, the head supported on the 1. hand. Below, the inscription,
in characters indicating the Roman period: χαῖρε Σανδίοκλε. (For
the name cf. Σανδίων, the Savdios λόφος near Myus, Thuk. 3, 19,
Σανδώκης of Kymé, Her. 7, 194.) Rather high relief. H. abt. 0°60,
L. 0°44.

Relief in a frame. A man ina very short chiton and with boots,
flourishing a whip in his r. hand and holding out a cloth in his ].,
advances against a tiger which springs at him from the r. Coarse
stone. H.051. L. 0°66. From the amphitheatre at Pergamon.

CHARLES WALDSTEIN.

THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE, 251

THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR
INFLUENCE.

THE questions concerning the art of Pergamon, its character-
istics and later influence, depend partly for their solution on the
reconstruction and explanation of the fragments in Berlin.
Much progress has been made in the work during the last
year. The discovery which decided what was the breadth of
the staircase, and what were the figures which adorned the left
wing and the left staircase wall, has been already mentioned in
the Hellenic Journal It is now officially stated that the stair-
case was on the west side of the altar, although Bohn, in his
survey of the site, at first conceived that this was impossible.
Assuming that this point is now settled, we may note what is
certain, or probable, or what is merely conjectural, in the placing
of the groups. We know that the wing on the left of the
staircase, and the left staircase-wall, were occupied by the
deities of the sea and their antagonists: by Triton, Amphitrite,
Nereus, and others which we cannot name. Among them, also,
we may perhaps discern the figure of Hephaestos, and in their
vicinity we must suppose Poseidon. On the right wing of the
staircase, and around the south-west corner, we have good
reason for placing Dionysos, with Cybele and her attendant
goddesses, although the order of the slabs on which these latter
are found is not the same as was formerly supposed. There can be
little doubt that the south-east corner was filled with the forms of
the goddesses of the nether world, of Hekate and the goddesses
akin to her—among whom are Demeter and Persephone,’ if I

1 Vol. vi. No. 1, p. 140. was discovered on the west side ; which
2 Vide Hellenic Journal, vol. vi. No. accords with the position now assigned
1, pp. 106-108. Thesmall fragment on for Dionysos,
which is found the inscription SATYPOI

252 THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE,

have rightly interpreted the figures of the group; at the right
extremity of this series comes Artemis, with a goddess that may
be Leto, and although there is a break in the continuity at this
point, we must suppose that Apollo was near here, or at all
events belonged to this series. Farther on, towards the north
extremity of the east front, will come the slabs showing the
combats of Zeus and Athene ; finally, the series #’ to K, on
which appear the gods that I have supposed to be the Dioscuri,
must be placed on the right of the north-east corner. So far we
are guided by evidence that leaves little room for doubt, by the
method in which the slabs are cut to suit a particular place on
the altar, and also by the position in which certain fragments
were found. By means of these clues the groups that filled
each side of five out of six of the corners are fairly certain ; for
if, as we can scarcely doubt, Poseidon was present on the frieze,
who plays a leading part in most of the larger representations
of the gigantomachy—at times fighting on horseback,’ more
often on foot and armed with the trident—we can place him
nowhere else than in the vicinity of Triton, that is, near the
western extremity of the northern wing, on the right of the
north-west corner; and near to this place must be brought the
slab that shows the fore-parts of two sea-horses yoked to his
chariot, from which he was fighting, or which, as on the western
pediment of the Parthenon, was being guided by one of his
following and was waiting on him. Finally, an inscription
attests the presence of Ares on the frieze at the left side of one
of the corners: by elimination there remain only two possible
places for him, the extremity of the right staircase wall im-
mediately at the left of Dionysos, and the northern extremity of
the eastern front at the left of the series # to K. Reasons?
have been shown, in a former paper, for placing him in the
latter position, although it would not be out of accord with myth
or religious conception if we grouped him with Dionysos. ‘The
accompanying sketch will show the system of arrangement that
has been set forth partly above and partly in the earlier
paper.

1 E.g. on the Louvre Amphora, and 2 Hellenic Journal, vol. vi. No. 1,
on ἃ coin and on a gem of Berlin: vide p, 181.
Toelken, Geschnittene Steine, p. 92, No.

53,

i Η Ἷ i τ "TDi οἷ ὃ , n
(Poseidon with chariot) tHfelios, Eos, Selene. Dioseuri ?7Enyo 2
3 <
: |
a g

S Θ
i &
By
1

Ἔ

eee ee ο
Nereus, Hephaestos(?)! Ξ

| birt | a

ἢ} }}1{}}}}7] ᾿ς

᾿ || εξ

| | Hdd o

x

| :

| =

Ξ

aan Ξ

| TTT <

TTT ᾿-

| σ᾽

] ] =

| Ξ

] ΕἸ

Ξ

i
1.542

Ϊ S 1Z

ΙΞΞ

le

Ξ

Ξ

| tl Θ

' ΕΞ

Combat a

between <

eagle and ee

serpent, =

is) 2
3 A
ns a
Ἔ Ξ
εἰ o
5 Ἢ
S :
Ξ o
‘=a 3
n Ri "ὦ
Cybele, nyimplis, Cabiri. Divinities Ξ

ν
᾿

THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE. 253

of lower world,

We have no material with which we may fill up the space on
the right staircase wall, except a single slab, from the farthest
and narrowest part of the frieze, on which a youthful snake-
footed giant is seen hastily retreating, and an eagle is in fierce
combat with the serpent, and has struck his talons through the
reptile’s lower jaw.

It is very uncertain what groups we may place in the middle
of the south or north front. The more sure the reconstruction
of the monument becomes, the sculptors’ principle of connecting
the groups according to religious or mythic affinity emerges the
more clearly; but this cannot decide for us here. We have

H.S8.—VOL. VII. ἢ

5.

with
ehariot of Zeus.

254 THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE.

two alternatives in choosing from the material that is at hand ;
the hypothesis that Helios and his kindred were wrought for the
north side, and were not far from the ‘ Dioscuri, has been
already put forward; but were they on the south side, between
the Cabiri and the torch-bearing goddess of light and the lower
world, the appropriateness of their position would be quite as
clear. All the persons in the group of Helios move from right
to left, and this might be thought to give a clue for deciding
whether they belong to this or that side of the frieze. This
would be the case, were the subject and treatment of the
Pergamene akin to those of the Parthenon frieze, where a
regular procession is represented, with a given starting-point and
goal. But here there is no real centre, beginning, or end of the
action; and movement in one direction is often immediately
counterbalanced by the opposite movement. From such con-
siderations, therefore, we can draw no theory of arrangement.
If we leave the group of Helios in the centre of the north, we
have other material that may as fitly fill, or help to fill, the
south centre.

The slabs marked Q and # in the last edition (1885) of the
Beschreibung der pergamenischen Bildwerke are important for the
estimate of the style of the whole monument, but the action
offers little interest, and the personages lack clearness of
character, Slab Q shows us a goddess who has overthrown a
hideous snake-footed giant, whose face, with its violent contor-
tions, expresses nothing more than mere animal pain. She is
threatening him with some weapon in her right hand, and with
her left is clutching his hair, while her left foot is pressing hard
on his serpent-limb. He is turned partly towards her, seeking
to repel her with his right arm, and with his left hand to release
his hair. We see here a motive that has been used no less than
five times in the Pergamene frieze. There is more energy and
life, but not more originality, in the action on the adjoining slab
It. A goddess is hurrying forward and bending over a youthful
giant who has fallen, and who 15 striving with one hand to check
the thrust of the spear with which his enemy is transfixing him
from above. The two goddesses resemble each other closely,
both in action, drapery, and face, but there is nothing in their
figures that proclaims thei personality. Perhaps the fragments
seen on the slab adjoining Y on the left will give a clue. The

THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE. 255

upper parts and right arm of a goddess are preserved, who is
advancing in the opposite direction from that of the goddess
in Q, but at the same time is turning round and defending
herself with a sword against the serpent on slab ᾧ. She bears
a quiver at her side, and we may therefore conjecture that she
and the neighbouring female figures were part of the company
either of Artemis or Cybele: for these two are the only god-
desses on the frieze who are armed with the bow. But when
we reckon up the room already filled on the east side by the
figures that may claim to be there, there is scarcely space
left to range these three goddesses or nymphs with Artemis.
For this reason, and for certain peculiarities of workmanship,
it is a more probable hypothesis that they belong to the group
that gathers round Cybele.

The great goddess herself, at the south-west corner, is seated
on the back of a lion that is springing rapidly forward from
left to right. Her pose is essentially the same as that of
Eos, there being the same contrast between the direction of
the upper and lower parts of the body. We may conceive
that she was lying at her ease a moment before, her body
facing backwards, and that now she has turned her face and
shoulders partly round towards the enemy against whom
she is acting. Behind her shoulders is a quiver, in her left
hand a bow, of which nothing is preserved. With a certain
studied elegance of movement, she is drawing an arrow from the
quiver. Neither in the action nor in the weapon, which seems
capriciously chosen, is there anything that speaks to the person-
ality of the goddess. There is no characteristic attribute, nor
anything distinctive in the drapery. It is only because she is
riding on the lion that we can name her, and can recognise in
her the Ταυροκτόνων λεόντων ἔφεδρος, as she is represented on
the frieze of Priene. The latter monument and the Pergamene
frieze stand alone in ascribing to Cybele, who, as a rule, plays
little part in the drama of Greek mythology, an active share in
the gigantomachy. The sculptors of both monuments may
have been prompted by the suggestions of local or at least Asia
Minor worship; and we know that her cult was indigenous in
the neighbourhood of Pergamon. But the Pergamene sculptor
at least was obliged, for merely mechanical reasons, to admit her
into the representation, as the space that he must cover was so

T 2

256 THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE.

great that he could not dispense with any recognised figure of
the Greek Pantheon.

As the other representations of the goddess that have sur-
vived were as a rule intended for the purposes of worship, and
show her in repose or inactivity, we cannot suggest any other
source from which the Pergamene motive is derived, except the
frieze of Priene, assuming that this is certainly prior in time.
But the resemblance between the earlier and later work is only
general and superficial: her pose, her drapery, and her action
are different on the two friezes. Whatever her weapon may be
in the relief of Priene, it cannot be the bow!; nor does her
figure there show any complicated design, or the profuse detail
and careful elegance of drapery which marks the work on the
altar. While, as a rule, she is clad in the chiton and mantle,
she here wears nothing but a light and soft chiton, which leaves
the arms and shoulders bare, and a veil that flutters arch-wise
around her head.2 But the Tong hair, the softly-rounded and
voluptuous forms that remind us of the later ideal of Demeter,
are found in other representations of Cybele, and may be said_to
belong to the Hellenistic type. Above her, in the left corner of
the slab, is an eagle carrying a thunderbolt bound by a fillet,
which ends in two bell-shaped tassels. I do not know if this
is a motive that occurs elsewhere in sculpture; it is ἃ pictur-
esque adjunct, probably not due to the imagination of the
Pergamene sculptor, for we find a similar representation on a
coin of Ptolemy Euérgetes.*

Beneath the lion is a fragment showing that Cybele is in the
midst of the contest, the upper parts of a giant in a cuirass who
is lying overthrown from left to right. A goddess of large and
striking proportions advances before Cybele, protecting herself

1 Tt is very rare that any warlike
attributes are given toCybele. Ona car-
nelian in Berlin described by Toelken,
p. 87, No. 9, she, or a goddess akin to

M. Waddington, representing Cybele
seated on a lion, her right hand ex-
tended over his head. As the coin
belongs to the early part of the fourth

her, carries a spear, and rests her hand
on a shield.

2 Cf. a coin of Stratoniceia published
by Eckhel, Num. Vet. Tab. 12, No. 12,
on which Cybele appears with a veil so
arranged, riding on a lion. Prof.
Gardner has called my attention to an
electrum stater of Cyzicus belonging to

century, this will be the first known
instance of such a position.

3 Miller Denk. d. alt. Kunst. 1, 1111.
No. 250; a type that becomes very
prevalent, ¢.g. on coins of Amphipolis
and Thessalonica, vide Head, Coins of
Macedon, pp. 51 and 111.

THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE. 257

with her left hand against a serpent’s head, and with her raised
right hand levelling a weapon, probably a spear, against an
enemy who is not immediately threatening her. Her movement
shows energy and some dignity; her drapery consists of a half-
sleeved double chiton, which is caught by the wind and swayed
back by the movements of her body so as to display the forms of
the lower limbs. Around her head, upon which there are traces of
a diadem, is a large mantle or veil, like that of Cybele, curved
and filled in the same way by the air. Before her, on the right,
is a male figure with very strongly developed forms, who
certainly belongs to the ministration of the great goddess. He
stands swinging a heavy hammer in both hands, against a
giant who is turned away from him. His enemy has serpent-
legs, the hump, ears, and horns of an ox, and a semi-human face,
—a monstrous creation, overcharged with coarse animalism, which
may perhaps have been suggested by the Hesiodic description of
Typhoeus,' and by certain purposes of symbolism, but which is
altogether unsuited for sculpture. The movements of the mon-
ster, who seems to be butting forward violently against some
adversary on the right, are explained by the fragments that lie
underneath him: a left leg, with a serpent that belongs to the
giant fastening its teeth into the calf; a small portion of the
right leg, and a very mutilated fragment of a back; a left arm
muffled in a cloak, and a left hand that is plunging a sword into
the giant’s body. From these we can safely construct the figure
of a youthful naked god, who is partly overthrown and yet
victorious, supporting himself on his right knee, while with his
right hand he is dragging down his enemy’s head by the horn,
and is stabbing him with his left. The composition is skilful,
and I do not know any exact parallel, though certain passages
in the representations of the Centauromachia bear a general
resemblance.

The sequence of the group of Cybele here abruptly ends, but
there are two slabs which on intrinsic grounds must be placed
on the south, near to these just described. A goddess (7 3) in
long chiton and upper garment, with long hair streaming on her

1 Hesiod, Theogony, 830; ef. Ovid, 2 The curve of her lion’s tail incloses
Fasti, iii. 799, ‘matre satus Terra, mon- part of the serpent thigh of the giant
strum mirabile, Taurus Parte sui ser- in 7 2,
pens posteriore fuit,’

258 THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE.

shoulders, is advancing to the left against a giant, of whom
nothing is seen but a left hand and arm appearing under a
shaggy fell and clasping the spear which she wields against him,
and fragments that prove him to be winged and serpent-footed.
Her left hand rests placidly on the mane of a lion that
has overthrown a youthful giant of human form. We see the
one paw on his left shoulder, the other grasping his left thigh,
and his jaws rending and mangling his left arm. We observe
here the same principle of composition which we see elsewhere
on the frieze, the inclusion of an episodic incident on the lower
field between the two prominent figures of the action; and we
are struck here by the power of the contrast between animal
fierceness—for the lion’s head is a masterpiece of naturalistic
treatment and expression—and the repose in the figure and
action of the goddess, who seems to pause as her onset is
checked.

The slab 7'2 on the right of the goddess is evidently connected
with 7’ 1, and contains fragments just sufficient to make the
action intelligible. One of the fiercest and bulkiest of the
giants is thrusting his whole weight violently forwards with his
head downwards against an unseen antagonist, probably a lion,
as we see traces of a lion’s claw on his left thigh. Above
his left hip is a large protuberance of flesh, which gives him
something of the animal character that distinguishes the giant
above described. They resemble each other also in pose and
movement.

The proneness to monstrous combinations in sculpture may be
thought to betray Oriental influences ; and yet what is striking in
the whole group of Cybele is the simple Hellenic representation
of the divinities. The sculptor has not been tempted into subtle
allusion to the mysteries, or into the employment of symbols of
foreign cults. There is no Oriental and no mystic figure in her
company, nor can any peculiarity of garb or weapon help us to
recognise on any of the preserved slabs a Hermes-Cadmilos, or an
Attis as we may perhaps recognise him in the gigantomachy of
the Melos vase. The female figures which follow and precede
her possess no attribute which might mark them as belonging to
the ordinary priesthood or service of the Phrygian goddess
Being so near to Dionysos and Cybele, they must be Bacchantes,
but with more than usual dignity of action and drapery. We are

THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE. 259

here in the range of the Greek religious ideas of the sixth and fifth
centuries, when the affinity of the two divinities was the
cardinal point of Cybele’s worship. This conception is simpler
and older than that which places her near to Zeus as an omni-
present and all-powerful goddess."

Before we can estimate the fidelity with which the Pergamene
sculptors adhered to the traditional divine types, we may try
to discover other of the Olympians on the frieze. We may be
certain that Hephaestos was present; but we cannot say in what
form or group, as neither literary nor artistic record serves to
determine with any exactness his part in the action; there are
red-figured vases which represent him in the gigantomachy, but
too quaintly to suggest a motive for monumental sculpture. In
one of the last groups that cover the left wall of the staircase,
(Z 2), we see a god and a goddess driving a number of giants
before them. The goddess is wielding a club, and is partially
concealed behind the strongly-marked and more prominent form
of the god, who wears a short exomis that leaves bare the right
part of the chest and the right leg, and whose body is swung
backwards to the left for a violent blow. His full broad face is
powerful, but has an almost bowrgeois expression, which 15
helped by a coarse beard ; the features are broad and heavy, and
the cheeks are swollen beneath the eye-sockets. His chest is
well developed, but there is nothing ‘ gigantesque’ in the treat-
ment of the muscles, and in his face none of the wild expression
which is seen in the face of Boreas. It is not improbable that
this god is Hephaestos, to whom the particular costume and type
of countenance would be appropriate : for the hint of deformity,
the more certain mark, it is useless to look, as the lower part of
the left leg is missing, and we cannot say what weapon he held
in his hands. But should this theory be proved true, we need
not be surprised at finding him here in the vicinity of the
sea-divinities; for not only are there legends in which he
has relations with Poseidon, but on two vases in Berlin? he is
fighting in the gigantomachy by Poseidon’s side. But if the
deity on our frieze be not Hephaestos, it is hard to suggest any
other of the twelve Olympians to whom the forms are appro-
priate. Poseidon must have been near his sea-chariot, of which

1 Vide Apoll. Rhod. 1, 1098. 2 Overbeck, Kwnst-Mythologie, 1, p.
362, Nos. 14 and 15.

260 THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE.

a large fragment is preserved, but for which there is here no
room, and neither he nor Oceanus, whose presence somewhere in
this part of the frieze is attested by an inscription, could have
been thus represented. And if he is a subordinate personage, he
must belong to the train of the deities of the sea; but he has
neither the forms nor the expression proper to the beings of this
element.

Whatever theory we take about his personality, it will be
difficult to reconcile with any the figure of his companion, the
club-bearing goddess. For we cannot suppose that the weapon
is assigned her out of pure caprice, and yet there is no goddess
who can be elsewhere found so armed in the gigantomachy or in
any other action. The only passage in any ancient record of the
myth that might suggest an interpretation is a sentence of
Apollodorus, if we could accept an emendation of Heyne’s which
has received little credit.

There are two other divinities of the sea which may be
recognised upon the slabs, the one by an inscription, the other
by his costume. The slab on the left of the north-west corner
of the left staircase wall shows us a goddess of massive
proportions threatening a youthful snake-footed giant, who
yields before her, and tries to defend himself with his left hand.
That she is Amphitrite is proved by an inscription on the block
of the coursing above; although neither her figure, nor her
drapery, nor her accoutrements, speak with any clearness as to
her personality. We cannot see or conjecture her weapon: a
long chiton falls between her legs into deep and narrow folds,
and one fold of the mantle which is wound about her breast
passes over her left shoulder and falls down at the side of her
left knee. This costume of chiton and himation which accords
with the dignity of the goddess, and which on archaic as well as
later monuments she is seen wearing, is yet not essential to her,
as the differently draped figure from the Parthenon west gable
may tell us, and is not peculiar enough to be any sign of her.
There is no tradition which gives her a part in the gigantomachy,

2 Bibl. 1, 6, 2: Μοῖραι 5€”Aypiov kal bable, asin each item of the descrip-
Odwva χαλκέοις ῥοπάλοις paxouevovs— tion it is the equipment and arms of
the Palatine MS. reads μαχομένας: the divinities that are mentioned, and
Heyne suggests paxduevar—and for never those of their antagonists.
intrinsic reasons this seems very pro-

THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE, 261

or in any other very dramatic event: the Pergamene sculptor is
perhaps the first who has made her play such a part, but he has
not succeeded in lending much distinction either to her figure
or to her action. On the other side of the corner is a kindred
deity of the sea, whom an inscription proves to be Nereus.
Except the peculiar hat which he wears, which seems to be
partly made out of fish-seales, there is nothing in his appear-
ance which does not belong to the traditional representation ;
only the marks of old age, which are often seen on his figure, are
absent here. His hair is thick, and matted as though with
water; his face has little expression, and none of the peculiar
sentiment which distinguishes many of the divinities of the sea.
Here, as in the greater number of the vase-paintings, he is of
full human form, which properly belongs to him always, and
which he only loses when he is confounded with Triton, His
costume is that which he wears in the greater number of repre-
sentations, a chiton with a mantle above it. As regards the
action, there is no series of representations from which we can
illustrate it, nor is the frieze-work sufficiently perfect here to
allow us to explain it. We see his left hand enveloped in the
folds of his mantle near his waist. The right hand, which held
his weapon, is missing, but the shoulder shows us that the arm
was not raised high; and the pose of the right leg and the
arrangement of the drapery are too sedate for any violent
action. It is probable that here, as in other scenes, he is bearing
the trident, but not for immediate attack; he plays, in fact, a
very subordinate part in the action, as his figure is partly
covered by the more prominent and energetic goddess on the
right.

So far there appears but little character in this group of sea-
divinities. Of the representation of its leading figure, Poseidon,
we have, as has been said, no direct evidence. But some clue
may be offered by examining one of a series of free statues that
were discovered near the great altar, and are now in the magazine.
Among them we can recognise Zeus, Athene, Helios, Artemis, and
Poseidon. As regards the first four, their movements and drapery
leave little room for doubt that they are free reproductions of
their corresponding figures on the frieze ; and it is most natural to
suppose that these did not belong to any separate group, but
were placed above their counterparts between the columns of

262 THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE.

the colonnade that rose immediately above the frieze. Is, then,
the statue of Poseidon one of these? At first sight, his figure
does not seem to accord with the idea of such an action. His
eyes seem gazing into the distance, and his hair is bound with
a chaplet ; nor does the drapery show any violence of movement,
the chiton being folded round the lower part of his body, leaving
the torso bare, and then falling over his left shoulder and arm.
And yet his right arm is uplifted as if brandishing the trident,
and the statue may in its essentials be a replica of the Poseidon
in the frieze. That it is more peaceful in its character than we
should have expected is no certain argument against such a theory
of its origin: for the sculptor, in reproducing the main forms, may
have subdued the violence that was proper to the action of the
original figure. We note this difference between the movements
and the forms of the Zeus statue and those of the Zeus on the
frieze.

There is one cycle of deities specially connected with Perga-
mon of whom there is no certain trace on the frieze; I mean
the deities of health, Asclepios and his family. Although no
legend and no representation gives them any place in this or in
any similar myth, yet we may well believe that the Pergamene
sculptor could scarcely have refrained from bringing them into
this action: for he needed every divinity, and there was none
whose type and presence were so familiar at Pergamon as those
of Asclepios.1 But it is certain also that his figure can be recog-
nised in none of the preserved sculpture or fragments. It has, how-
ever, been suggested that two slabs, of which the right position
on the frieze has not yet been proved, contain the figure of a
personage who is connected with him and his worship. A giant
of the older and fiercer kind, but human throughout in form,
has sunk on his right knee before a goddess who is wresting
aside his shield, on which the thunderbolt is carved for a badge.
Fig. 1. The weapon with which she is attacking him is a curious
missile, a jar or pitcher encircled with a small snake. Her form
and face and movement show considerable beauty ; her throat is
broad and well modulated, her action has much animation, and her
countenance has more than ordinary expression. A veil flutters
behind her head, and a chap!et that seems to end in a knot of

1

Furtwingler notes the two represented at Pergamon, Sabowrof
different modes in which the god was ‘oll, Livy. xii. pl. 24.

THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE. 263

Fic. 1.

264 THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE.

wool sways down from her hair. The arrangement of her drapery
is elaborate and fine; a mantle passes obliquely over her breast
and is looped up over her left shoulder, and underneath is a
diploidion of rich texture. The whole form and action are
peculiar, and difficult to interpret. In a theory put forward by
Trendelenburg,’ it is argued that she is a demi-goddess of the
family of Asclepios; not Hygieia, or any one of his daughters,
for the forms are said to be too matronly ; but possibly Epione,
his wife, whose temple and statue at Epidauros are recorded by
Pausanias. The vessel she hurls is a mortar, used for the mixing
of drugs ;” the fillet, and of course the snake, are appropriate.
His main theory would be strengthened if his interpretation of
some fragments that appear on the frieze above the head of the
fallen giant were certain. These belong to the upper parts of a
large serpent which Trendelenburg believes to have no connec-
tion with any giant, but rather to be the familiar attendant of
the goddess, and to be aiding her in her attack by striking with
its fangs at the head of the enemy. It is more likely, then, that
the goddess belongs to the family of Asclepios, although an
Erinnys or a Bacchante might possibly be represented as receiving
such aid. But Trendelenburg’s explanation of those fragments
is precarious enough. The reptile certainly does not belong to
the giant beneath it, but may well be part of another giant on
the right whose figure is lost; and so far as we can follow the
lines of its movement the serpent appears to be attacking neither
the goddess nor her fallen adversary; but some object in the
upper part of the frieze, possibly an eagle, or the face of a god
belonging to the lost group on the right. Even if we admit
that the missile in the hands of the goddess and the serpent
attaching to it have reference to the cult and the functions of
the deities of health, it will still be difficult to name her with
certainty. Trendelenburg proposes to call her Epione rather
than Hygieia because of a certain matronly character which he
seems to find, but which I have not been able to discern in the
figure. It is questionable whether this disposition of drapery

? A. Trendelenburg, Die Giganto- ἃ banquet in honour of the dead, which
machie des perg. Altars, Taf. iv. Furtwingler refers to the mysteries of
* He lays great stress on the shape Demeter. Sabouroff Coll. Livr. 18,
of the vessel; but the same sort of pl. xxx.
jar is found on a votive relief, showing

THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE, 265

accords with his theory, for at least on one votive relief at
Athens! which contains the figure of Epione, her person is dis-
tinguished by the large himation which is drawn over the head
in form of a hood; and the figure of Coronis which is seen on
the coins of Pergamon? is similarly draped. But while there are
difficulties in Trendelenburg’s explanation, it is not easy to
suggest a more certain. It has been supposed that these slabs
were in close sequence with Q and R, and if, as I have suggested,
the figures on these latter belong to the company of Cybele, then
the goddess with the jar might well be a Bacchante, as we else-
where find Bacchantes as the ministrants of Cybele. The jar
with the serpent will then be a very free reproduction of the
type which we not infrequently find on Pergamene coins, the
Bacchie cista and the serpent entering the top.* But if a
Bacchante was to be brought in as a combatant on the frieze,
why should she be so far separated from Dionysos, as she must
be according to the previous calculations? And why should the
sculptor in carving the sacred chest have so widely departed
from the ordinary tradition concerning its form? Neither the
Bacchic cista nor the Aesculapian mortar is a natural weapon
for serious warfare, and in fact, whatever the explanation may
be, it must be admitted that this is a vicious and unreal
motive.

These slabs belong to a small series, in which two other
combats are represented. On the left of the goddess we see
a motive not uncommon in the battle-scenes of Greek art, an
ὠθισμὸς ἀσπίδων, a giant and a god clashing their shields |
together and levelling their lances at each other. We recognise
the giant by his constrained position which foretells his inevi-
table defeat, and by his cuirass which distinguishes him from
the god who wears an exomis.

This costume, which leaves a large part of the torso bare, and
which we see in other parts of the frieze, and also in the frieze
of Priene, is probably used to denote the inferior divinity, here
perhaps one of the Cabiri, if these slabs are in connection, as

1 Milchhofer, Die Muscen Athens, 3 For the date which we may assign
p. 46, 2. to the first use of this coin-type at
2 Choisseul-Gouffier, Voyage Pittor- Pergamon, vide Inihoof-Blumer, Die

esque, ii. pl. v.; Wroth in Num. Miinzen der Dynastic von Pergamon,
Chron, 1882, pl. 1, 18. pp. 29—82.

266 THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE.

has been suggested, with Q and &, and if these latter belong to the
group of Cybele. Immediately at his left, on slab Z, there
is a goddess whom Trendelenburg supposes to be Iris, draped in
a short chiton, ard in a mantle that is folded round her breast.
She stands behind her enemy, whose head she is wrenching
backwards with her left hand, while she raises her right to
plunge a sword into his breast, a motive often recurring on the
frieze. There are few heads in the whole work that are so
wrought for the expression of animal pain and rage as his. The
eyes are staring, the mouth is wide open, and the violence of
the countenance corresponds with the violent rendering of the
forms, with the tension of the swollen muscles. The scaly
growth which is seen on the upper part of his serpent limbs
seems intended to show that he has affinity with the water, for
Prof. Brunn’s complaint that such marks are capriciously added
as mere decoration,' is scarcely well founded. But what has
Iris specially to do with the beings of this element? Neither
the wings—for there are many winged goddesses on the frieze
—nor her maidenly attire, nor her rich buskins ornamented
with crescents and arabesque designs, are sufficient marks to
enable us to name the goddess. Here as elsewhere in the
frieze we feel that this sculpture lacks the faculty of vivid
characterisation.

When we have studied all the slabs we find that there are but
few divinities who are distinct and recognisable, and these are
made so by certain obvious and conventional attributes, rarely
by any individual character appearing in the forms or counte-
-nance. The power of the Pergamene school in spiritual expres-
sion would have been best tested by examining the heads of
Zeus, Athene, and Apollo; but these have not been discovered,
while those heads of divinities that yet remain on the frieze
disclose on comparison a certain monotony of form and
expression. Many of the faces of the goddesses are rendered
in a merely decorative style, without any mental quality
or inner life; and where a mental effect is found in the
features, it is often only a fixed earnestness, stereotyped
and conventional. The countenance is sometimes quickened
with a certain physical excitement, but is on the whole

1 Ueber die Kunstgeschichtliche Stellung der perg. Gigantomachie, p. 13.

THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE, 267

without ethos; and it is interesting to note how this school
of sculpture, lacking the power of spiritual expression, has
achieved a high success in dealing with the forms of Helios
and Selene; for all that was here demanded for showing the
character of the divinity was the power of so handling the
features that they should convey an allusion to the physical fact
which is personified; and the head of Selene’ with the shadows
upon it strikingly illustrates this power which belonged to the
Pergamene and to other schools of Alexandrine art.

But on the whole, the older functions of sculpture have per-
ished. The frieze, fragmentary as it is, attests that the sculptors
are unable to deal—as the earlier generation dealt—with the
spiritual forms of the Greek religion. It is not that their inven-
tion has flagged in the appropriate display of action and move-
ments, although undoubtedly many motives have been borrowed
from earlier representation or dictated by received tradition,
but the fatal defect is the lack of character and meaning in
the countenance. Nor does it serve for justification to maintain
that the aim of the work is mere decoration, that the architec-
tural surface was too uniform to admit of any special interest
being added to any particular part so as to arrest and absorb
the spectator. This is the theory which has been advanced and
very skilfully developed by Prof. Brunn in his treatise on this
subject.?, But,in the first place, it is surely untrue to say that
there is an equal diffusion of interest throughout the various
parts of the frieze, for even the execution varies considerably,
and some motives, externally or formally at least, have a trans-
cendent interest. And, in the second place, there are surely many
works of Greek sculpture which equally fulfil a decorative
purpose, and which yet find room for the highest spiritual
expression: so that we have right to conclude that the absence
of this in the Pergamene work is to be ascribed, not to a reserve
of power, but to a failure of power.

But there are other works which the excavations have
brought to light, free statues, or heads of divinities, which have
no architectural purpose at all, but of which the forms are
treated for their own sake, and which can bear witness to the
limitations of the Pergamene school in the range of religious

1 See Hellenic Journal, vol. iv. 128. lung der pergamenischen Giganto-
Ὁ Ueber dic Kunstgeschichtliche Stel- machie, pp. 54—56.

268 THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE.

sculpture. The best preserved and most important of these is
the statue of Athena or Atnena-Nike placed at the farther end
of the ‘Assyrian’ Room in the Berlin Museum. The sculptor
has adhered to the later ‘ Alexandrine’ style in the rendering of
the drapery: in the whole there is much praiseworthy care and
warmth of execution, and the treatment of the face is so far
appropriate that it is free of the mobility and passionate
sentiment common in the Pergamene heads; but it wants the
breadth of cheek, the peculiar treatment of eye and evebrow,
that marks the great and earlier type of Pallas; and thus it
wants the high purity, the ideal impression which that type
demands, and it shows instead a certain quality of heaviness,
an almost prosaic character, so to speak.

There is another head in this room, of glistening fine-grained
marble, with surfaces very softly handled, but without much
warmth of execution in the whole. The contour is oval, the
centre of the face rather broad; the forehead is rather high,
and there is great breadth between the eyes. Some of these
forms, and the thick masses of hair bound with a fillet,
suggest an Apollo; but what ethos or distinctive genius
does the work show? We find here, as in many other heads
of this school, a certain strongly sensuous consciousness, but
little spiritual expression or meaning. The most striking
instance of the Pergamene manner is the head of Dionysos
crowned with vine-leaves, placed near the former head. There
is certainly much beauty and much freshness here in the hand-
ling of the forms, and the face cannot be said to be lacking
in expression. The lips, full in the centre and half parted, the
open corners of the mouth, the faint and soft depressions on the
cheeks, the forehead, which protrudes in the middle and thus
deepens the well-rounded sockets of the eyes,—all these features
and marks combine with the sideward inclination of the head to
create and enhance the impression of sensuous character. And
as this character is at least in some degree appropriate to the
god, the Pergamene schoo! have been able to achieve something
in their representations of him, notably in this head, which
is an important addition to the religious sculpture of later
Hellenism ; in the figure also on the frieze, whose drapery and
flesh display the voluptuous, half-effeminate character; and
again in the well-preserved figure of Dionysos on a smaller

THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE. 269

frieze, which from fragments that have been found appears to
have reproduced some of the scenes of the larger gigantomachy.
But in the earlier art, the sensuousness is only half expressed in
the face of the god, and is blended with refined spirit : but in
this later style it is this sensuousness which is obtruded upon
us, which violently dominates the whole countenance.

Another frequent theme of Pergamene sculpture was Heracles,
who through the legend of Telephos became a familiar figure
in the native mythology. He was placed on the great frieze
probably near to Zeus ; he is seen on a slab of the smaller series
contemplating Telephos and the doe, and the skilful reconstruc-
tion of another relief has restored the scene of the deliverance
of Prometheus.

There can be little doubt that the group of Telephos and
Heracles, the recognition of the infant by his father, is an
original invention of the Pergamene school, just as the myth itself
is Pergamene: an invention, indeed, of the older school, as the
subject occurs on the coins of Capua;1+ though whether the
original was a painting or a work of sculpture need not now be
discussed. We have then a new motive gained for sculpture by
the Pergamene school. But though the store of plastic subjects
is thus enlarged, there cannot be said to be any display of
original power here in dealing with the forms of Hellenic
religion. In the Telephos relief, the body of Heracles is treated so
as merely to express the idea of power by methods similar to those
used to express the same idea in the bodies of the giants. The face
is unfortunately missing here; but the head of the Farnese
statue—if this may be taken as evidence—shows an acceptance
of the older forms, and no new thought or presentation of
character. .

In the other relief-work, the deliverance of Prometheus, the
face and figure of Heracles are almost wholly preserved. There
is a great effect and dramatic vigour in the forms, and there is
much show of energy in the face, in the half-opened mouth, the
wide eyes and fixed glance, which recalls Philostratus’s descrip-
tion of Heracles:” τείνων τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐς νοῦν τινα Kal οἷον

1 Friedliinder, Oskische Miinzen, — scription of the picture showing the
Taf. iii. 19,20; Helbig, Pomp. Wand- combat between Heracles and Antaeus:
gemdlde, p. 161. many traits recall the style of a Perga-

2 Philostratus, ii. 21, from the de- mene gigantomachy.

HS:—VOL. VII. U

270 THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE,

διάσκεψιν τῆς πάλης. It is not easy to decide the question
how much the Pergamene sculptor has borrowed from an earlier
original, how much he has himself contributed both to the
motive and expression. Miichhofer arguing from the pose of
Heracles and the lack of plastic symmetry in the group, refers
the idea of the whole to some earlier painting. But to what
age or school the painter belonged we have no direct evidence
to show. We know that the subject was differently handled in
Panaenus’ painting on the throne of the Zeus Olympios.

As regards the picture painted by Parrhasius, which
Milchhofer believes to be the original of the later works we
know only—if we can trust the account—that it represented the
martyrdom of Prometheus: there is no hint of the presence
of Heracles, and in fact the story implies that the face of
Prometheus expressed nothing but hopeless agony, and that
therefore the deliverer had not yet arrived. But in any case
the very existence of such a picture must be doubted; for when
Seneca is choosing a subject for a school exercise in rhetoric, his
historical authority is not great.

In fact, though we may find a picturesque character in the
Pergamene relief, and certain common elements in the works
which Milchhofer quotes as treating the same theme, we are
not obliged to suppose that there was a great common origi-
nal, and that this was a picture. For those works differ in
composition considerably the one from the other : they agree only
in showing Heracles drawing the bow, the chained Titan, and
the vulture on his knee. Now the first two are necessary to the
very idea of the action, and the position of the vulture may
belong to an ancient artistic tradition.

The picture described by Achilles Tatius,? painted by a certain
Euanthes, and hung in the opisthodomus of the temple of Zeus
Kasios at Pelusium, seems to have borne a striking resemblance
to the Pergamene relief both in composition and sentiment ; and
if we knew that this was prior to the relief, we must say, either
that this inspired the latter representation, or that both are
from a common original. But we are not sure of the priority of
the Pelusian picture ; and on account of the singular affinities
which according to the description it possessed with Pergamene

1 Die Befreiung des Prometheus, 2 Erot. Script. iii. 6 (ed. Jacobs).
tT 21,

THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE, 271

style and motive, we might even believe it to have been produced
under the influence of this school.

If these considerations are just, it will appear that there is no
clear evidence to show that the representation of the ‘ Prometheus
Unbound’ at Pergamon is a copy of an earlier work of another
school. It is a theme that would naturally attract a Pergamene
sculptor or painter, offering great scope, as it does, for dramatic
and pathetic effect, for the expression of physical pain and the
quasi-physical emotion of terror. But even if the composition
is borrowed from an earlier work, the peculiar style of Pergamon
appears at least in many of the details: for instance, in the
treatment of the lips and eyes, in the naturalistic rendering of
the lion’s fell which covers his head.

It is, then, proved by the monuments that the native art—or
the local art—was able to deal successfully in some degree with
the types of Dionysos and Heracles, although in neither case
can it be said to have added or discovered anything: rather
it has emphasised the sensuous sentiment of the one, and the
physical life and energy in the form and features of the other.
It is also true that these are the two types which demanded least
power of spiritual expression in the sculptor.

The lack of this power in the frieze-work is therefore not ai
solely to its architectural purpose or to its decorative character,
but it is a defect which the Pergamene school, in spite of its high
achievements and its peculiar skill in a certain range, shared
with the other schools of Alexandrine sculpture. Besides those
already described, there are other fragments of statues of
divinities in the museum and magazine, such as a head of
Athene helmed, with a breadth of cheek as of the Pheidian type,
but with some forms of a later style; a large statue of Athene,
lacking the head, in drapery and pose an interesting copy of the
Pheidian Athene Parthenos; fragments in very transparent mar-
ble of the fingers and arm of a colossal goddess, probably Athene ;
fragments of another colossal statue, probably of Artemis, namely
two legs, the one wearing a buskin, and a hand with finely-wrought
veins, the fingers probably closing on the bow string. If these
statues are not imported, but are of native work, they will show
that at Pergamon, as elsewhere, sculpture was occupied with
reproducing older forms, and while still retaining perfect mastery
in detail, and a genius for imposing colossal effect, could no

υ 2

272 THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE.

longer work immediately, or with creative gift,in the range of
religious sculpture.

Note I.—The following are the more recent discoveries con-
cerning some of the fragments for which hitherto no place on
the frieze had been found :—

(1) A large piece of the chin and cheek of Gaia has been
found, almost completing the lower part of her face, and show-
ing large and rounded forms of countenance with surface much
disfigured.

(2) A fragment of Selene’s left arm, with part of her mantle,
and the back of her mule’s head, which the drapery touches.

(8) Fragments of serpents’ limbs with the left foot of a god
pressing on one, and his right calf and foot; belonging almost
certainly to the group of the god and the lion-headed giant.

(4) Fragment of the right leg of the giant who lies below
Apollo, and who is of human shape throughout. The giant’s
head has also been found: of the youthful type, helmed, small
curls appearing below the cheek-pieces; the expression of the
face is very excited, the brows are knitted, the lips are parted,
the eyes are swollen in the centre, the eyebrows are thick and
strongly indicated, the lower eyelids are broad and heavy. The
head is drooping towards the earth, and the pose strikingly
resembles that of the dying Gaul of the Capitoline.

(5) Head of the giant who is advancing with the spear, on
the right of Apollo: of youthful type, and covered with a
helmet, beneath which locks of hair escape; the expression is
vehement and determined; the face is a broad oval, with the
usual depressions about the mouth and chim, and the high
spring of the eyebrows, and the protruding eyeballs.

(6) Fragments of Dionysos: the left arm with part of the
chlamys upon it, the left foot and the lower part of the left leg
with the buskin.

(7) Fragments of group B: the right arm of the goddess, who
is thrusting her sword downwards, and the left hand of the giant
beneath her who is clutching this forearm.

(8) The head of the goddess next to Artemis on the right,
who is brandishing a torch: the face, much disfigured, is a large
oval. The head and body of her antagonist have been almost
fully reconstructed out of fragments, and his shape is unique;
most of his form is human, but he has wings at his shoulders,

THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE. 273

and claws on his fingers and toes, and a serpent springs from his
back like a tail. He is supporting himself with his left arm,
and his left hand is clenched against the rocky basement, while
his right hand is raised to grasp the torch. Faint marks on the
drapery of the goddess, which were not formerly understood, are
now seen to be the marks of his claws. His mouth is rather
broad, and reveals the teeth.

Nore I1—There is a small head in the British Museum
which may be briefly mentioned, and of which a cut is here
given. The fragment is about four inches high, and is of fairly

274 THE WORKS OF PERGAMON AND THEIR INFLUENCE.

good workmanship, belonging probably to the first century
before Christ. It appears from the cutting of the marble at
the back to be part of a high relief, perhaps the decoration of a
sarcophagus. It is described in the Museum Register as a satyr-
head from Trebizond, and that is the only record I can find
concerning its origin. This identification is due probably to -
the misinterpretation of the expression, and perhaps to the
belief that small horns were discernible above the forehead.
But none are really there, and the head is obviously that of
a dying giant. I know of no work, except perhaps the ‘dying
Alexander, that stands in so close a relation with the frieze, or
so clearly shows the same manner and character. The pose
strikingly resembles that of the young giant’s head, who is
falling before Athene; and the expression of wildness and
violent agony recalls the countenance of the giant in group A
who lies at the feet of the goddess with the torch. And all the
features belong essentially, both in structure and spirit, to the
type of the youthful giants’ heads which prevails on the great
frieze. We see the thick clusters of dishevelled hair, the
violently protruding forehead, the overhanging brow, and the
deep-set eyes and swollen eyeballs, the half-opened mouth and
the high spring of the upper lip, the oval contour of the face,
and the emphasis given to the fleshy parts. The forms are not
mechanically or conventionally rendered, nor are there any marks
of the Roman period. If the report is trustworthy, it is an in-
teresting fact that Trebizond is the place whence the marble was
brought. The legend of the gigantomachy was indigenous there,
and the city, like Pergamon, traced its origin to Arcadia. It is
conceivable that the influence of the Attalid kingdom and the
Pergamene school was felt at Trapezus as we know it was felt
at Cyzicus.
L. R. FARNELL.

to
~1
or

NIKE SACRIFICING A BULL,

NIKE SACRIFICING A BULL.
[Putates D, ἘΠ)

THE group of Niké βουθυτοῦσα is one which is already so
well known among works of ancient art, that in adducing further
instances of this type we cannot hope to bring forward much
that adds to our previous knowledge of the subject. It is, how-
ever, just one of those cases which, from the very frequency of
its recurrence in ancient art, has a special claim upon our atten-
tion ; a motive which, starting as it doubtless does, from a great
Greek original, continues favourite down to late Roman times,
is worthy of study in the phases of development which different
material and different periods bring about, and therefore I think
no apology is needed for introducing the fresh examples of it
now before us.

The starting point, the Haupttypus so far as we know, of this
motive, is of course the small fragment which remains to prove
that it existed in the reliefs on the balustrade of the temple of
Athena Niké at Athens. In his admirable monograph on these
sculptures, published in 1869, Kekulé contented himself with a
brief description of this fragment, without being able to identify
the original motive of the group from which it came, or its
position on the frieze. In his subsequent publication, however,
on the same subject,” he was enabled to compare it with several
representations on ancient works of art, with results which
clearly prove that the fragment of the relief yet surviving is
part of the group of Niké sacrificing a bull, of which the knee
of the figure resting on the back of the bull is unfortunately all
that remains. This discovery is of the greatest importance,

1 Die Balustrade des Tempels der Tempels der Athena Nike. Stuttgart,

Athena Nike in Athen. Leipzig, 1869. 1881.
2 Die Reliefs an der Balustrade des

276 NIKE SACRIFICING A BULL.

because it enables us to trace back, perhaps to its origin, the
existence of a group which from this time forward continues one
of the most favourite motives in decorative art of all subsequent
times. Kekulé gives several instances of its repetition on
erra-cottas of a late period, and quotes its occurrence on certain
coins. In the British Museum alone, we have a great number of
representations of this scheme, and it is my present purpose, in
giving some account of them, to attempt in some measure to
date these instances, and in so doing to trace the development
of the type through all the different periods of its appearance
in art from the balustrade downwards.

First in point of date as in importance in our list, comes the
bronze mirror case, of which the relief given on Plate D is the
decoration ; it is said to have been found at Megara, and was
acquired last year by the British Museum. The diameter of the
muror is 14°5 centim., the greatest width of the relief, 8 centim.,
greatest height, 12 centim., and greatest projection, 1°5 centim.

The relief is chased from a thin sheet of metal, and was
fastened to the top of the disk which served as a cover for the
protection of the polished surface of the mirror The bull has
fallen on its knees to the right and is pressed downwards in that
position by Nike, whose knees rest against the shoulders of the
animal; with her left hand she grasps the bull’s nose, forcing its
neck back in readiness to deal it the cowp de grdce with the knife
which she holds in her right hand. Beside the bull, on the
right-hand side of its neck, the groundwork of the relief is not
as elsewhere cut away close to the design, but extends for about
a + in. outside the line of the bull’s neck. The reason of this
is apparent if we look at the top of this space; here is an object
in slight relief, formed by two lines converging outwards,
evidently part of some object which is meant to be indicated as
in the background beside the bull. It is difficult to say what
this object was; but I think this is a proof that the artist was
copying from some well-known group, in which the original

1 Unfortunately the Plate before us
gives only a general idea of the group,
witbout at all expressing the delicacy
and refinement of the original. This
was no fault of the artist, who has
done as much as was possible in very
difficult circumstances. The patination

of the metal, and the foreshortening
employed, made photography almost
useless, and upon a very imperfect
negative the lines of the original had
to be painted in, and were then repro-
duced by autotype process.

NIKE SACRIFICING A BULL. 277

intention of this detail would be sufficiently recalled to the
spectators for whom the mirror copy was intended.

As it is, it seems almost as if added as an afterthought ;
possibly the artist may have desired to break the monotony of the
long line formed by the upraised throat of the bull continued on
into the line of Nike’s wing, and for this purpose it certainly has
an artistic value; it may be that we have part of a loutron or
small altar, such as would be natural in a sacrificial group, and
of which one or two examples occur on the Balustrade. The
relief is by this means made to assume an ear-shape, a form very
suitable for application as ornament to a circular space, and one
which, whether intentionally or not, the designers of this class
of bronze reliefs frequently adopted. :

Since the publication of Μ. Mylonas upon Greek mirrors,’ the
list of known mirror cases with appliques which he there
collected has been considerably increased. and the number of
those already described amounts to upwards of forty. So far as
can be judged from the published notices, none of these go back
to a period earlier than the beginning of the third, or end of the
fourth century. This date seems to have been most fertile for
this style of bronze relief, and the class of subjects usually chosen
is just what we should expect from the idyllic temperament of
the period, which delighted in genre scenes of loves and ladies.

Our mirror case stands alone, not mercly in the choice of its
subject, worthier of an artist’s hand, but also in its execution.
So far as I can gather from the descriptions given in the Bulletin
de Corr. Hell., and elsewhere, these other instances are usually
described as cast, whereas our example, like the bronzes of Siris,
is certainly repoussé.

In considering this question, it would be interesting to ascer-
tain what proportion of these bronze reliefs were repoussé ; it
may be quite possible that many of the flatter reliefs, such as
heads of Aphrodite, &e., which occur in this connection, are cast ;
and, indeed, many of these later examples are of such poor
execution as to suggest their having been reproduced mechanically
‘by the dozen. At the same time, all those which I have been
able to examine from the back seem to show traces of work
behind as well as in front; the material is usually quite thin
throughout, and the most delicate details of the outer surface

1 Ἑλληνικὰ κάτοπτρα, 1876.

278 NIKE SACRIFICING A BULL.

have their corresponding depression within. The usual method
of attaching them to the flat disk of the mirror was by the
medium of some metallic composition (solder?) which solidified
the relief at the same time, and so rendered it less fragile :
otherwise, especially in later cases, the applique was fastened by
rivets, and for this purpose a narrow flat edge was left outside
the relief.

There is one point, however, which practically settles our
mirror case as repoussé, and that is the employment of under-
cutting. In the Siris bronzes this process is of course very
successfully employed, and in the present instance it also occurs,
e.g. in the face of Niké, and the top of her pinion, though very
slightly. The evident desire of the artist to gain this effect is
further shown in the knife which Nike holds, and which is
separately modelled ; passing through the hand, it is fastened
by solder at the back. The plan of introducing separately-
moulded weapons, horses’ bits, &c., into marble reliefs, is quite
in accordance with the best traditions of low relief, there being
plenty of instances both on the Parthenon and Mausoleum
friezes. And here, too, the artist, though not a Pheidias or
Skopas, has used it with consummate skill; as without breaking
the beautiful curved outline of Nike’s wing, it relieves that
portion of the design from flatness, forming a balance to the
strong modelling of the bull’s head, and adds at the same time
a wonderful spirit and boldness to the treatment.

In work so delicate as this, the difficulty of obtaining a high
relief is indeed a crucial point as testing the skill of the artist,
and as a rule, the later the relief, the less relatively is the skill
in this direction exhibited. In our mirror case, the artist has
been hampered by the difficulty of obtaining sufficient relief in
treating such thin material to excessive repoussé; and from this
point of view it is interesting to compare with the Siris bronzes.
Τὴ the latter, the thickness of the metal in the unbeaten portions
is not greater than that of the Victory; but the delicate material
is handled with such skill, and its malleability is so thoroughly
understood, that the most salient portions, ¢.g. the helmet of the
warrior, stand out almost in the round, and at this point the
bronze is hammered to the thinness of paper.

In the Victory group, on the other hand, we can see how
much the composition would have gained by a more salient

NIKE SACRIFICING A BULL. 279

relief ; from the necessity of keeping the relief down, the
human figure scarcely stands out at all from the side of the
bull, and the result is that she does not appear to have the firm
purchase with her feet which is necessary to the exercise of
strength brought to bear in keeping the bull in its position. She
must, it seems, in another moment, either plunge the knife in the
neck of the animal or lose her balance and slip down off its side.
In the group on the Balustrade we may be sure no such difficulty
oceurs.

There, we may be sure from the small fragment that remains,
the action was certainly vigorous and decided. In all probability
the figure of Niké was nearly erect; and it is curious in this
connection to note that whereas on the Balustrade, with all the
subtle variations on the same theme of figures of Niké, the
whole of the figures are erect; in the later reproductions of
similar motives, the figures of Victory are almost invariably in a
crouching or kneeling attitude. Nothing illustrates this so well
as the set of gems on Plate #, of which a brief description will
suffice.

1. Green paste, set in ancient silver ring. Nike kneeling,
with left knee on back of bull, whose nose she grasps with her
right hand, cutting its throat with her left ; drapery swings back
from her waist, but the upper part of her body is nude. On
right a small cippus, on which is statuette of a goddess holding
the forelegs of two animals with either hand.

2. Yellow paste, similar, but turned to left.

4. Upper half of white paste ; figures larger; Niké accroupie to
right beside bull, whose head is thrown back by her left hand ;
her right hangs at her side ; drapery hanging from left arm ; hair
short like that of a male; body like that of effeminate youth.

5. Yellow paste; very slight relief; similar to preceding ;
hindquarters of bull not given.

6. White paste almost identical with preceding.

7. White paste with greenish tinge, similar to preceding, but
turned to left, and in place of the absent hindquarters of the
bull, a curl of drapery. A background for the whole composition
is provided by a large altar (#) with volutes, decorated with
branches over the centre. The left side just comes outside the
bull’s neck.

I have collected here all the instances that we have in the

280 NIKE SACRIFICING A BULL.

British Museum on gems of this motive; it will be noticed that
they are always pastes. What the intention of these pastes
was we can hardly tell; in some cases, no doubt, they were
intended as reproductions of subjects composed in fine stones,
and were set in rings for people who could not afford the finer
material ; in other cases they may have been employed as moulds
for the terra-cotta gilt jewellery, which seems to have been
greatly in use for the decoration of the dead. In any case, they
are probably of a late period, and belong generally to the time
when glass manufacture, originally a monopoly of the East, was
freely introduced into the Hellenic world. I have added to
these a relief from the top of a terra-cotta lamp feeder or guttus
of black glaze in the British Museum (Vase Cat. No. 1880),
which gives very much the same type as the gems. The
numerous instances that occur on vases of this form must all
date from about the middle of the third century, and this would
give a very fair date for the pastes. Among the gems before
us, Nos. 1 and 2 seem for various reasons to be the earliest,
and in these it is noticeable that whilst the figures of Nike and
the bull are relatively smaller, Nike is standing almost erect.
In the other examples, Niké invariably kneels, and there is in
consequence room in the design for a larger figure.

We have said that on the Balustrade the figure of Nike is
nearly erect. In the earlier representations of struggles of men
and animals the attitude is almost invariably the same. Where
Herakles is overcoming the Kretan bull or Theseus the" Mara-
thonian bull, the hero as a rule controls the animal by grasping
its horns, pressing with his knee against the animal’s shoulder.
The attitude of kneeling on or beside the fallen animal is one
which seems most appropriate to the contest with a smaller
animal, such as a ram, and in fact, on several vase-paintings
of the lower Italian style, Niké occurs in this attitude with a
ram. It may be that this motive originated in some work of
art, where Nike and the ram were represented in this combina-
tion. From a practical point of view, if we assume that the
representations on the Balustrade give us scenes which the
artist must have constantly witnessed iu sacrifices at the temples
of his native town, he must have known it to be impossible to
hold a bull down in this position unless it were first bound or
stunned with a blow. When once the type becomes settled in

NIKE SACRIFICING A BULL. 281

the kneeling position, we get a variety of slight variations in
small details; occasionally the bull struggling, one foreleg free ;
and occasionally the hand of Niké which holds the knife is
raised to the animal's throat; but inasmuch as neither of these
motives are consistent with the crystallised actionless type of
later art, the bull has usually all four legs bent beneath him,
and the hand of Nike falls aimlessly at her side. When we
consider how frequently this subject of Niké βουθυτοῦσα must
have come into ancient art, it is not surprising to find varia-
tions in the Nachklange. For we know of its occurrence in the
Balustrade ; it may also have come in on the throne of Olympian
Zeus. It is referred in a passage of Tatian to Myron, and Pliny
describes a similar group of Menaechmus. For any votive
dedication commemorating the successful issue of any crisis in
the life of an individual, nothing could be more appropriate
than this group of Niké and a bull. Among so much prepara-
tion for sacrifice and the surroundings thereof, which we see on
the Balustrade, it is natural to suppose that the central point of
interest is that where the sacrifice itself is consummated.2. The
Nike βουθυτοῦσα is the mainspring of the story there depicted,
and would be the most natural group to select for isolation
where the requisite was to find a single group which should tell
a plain story and be complete in itself. And it is quite possible
that even great artists may not have been above executing to
order replicas of a well-known motive, into which their own
individuality of style could be imparted. In this connection it
is worthy of note that of the numerous variations of the type
which occur on the Balustrade, this is the only one which sur-
vives to any extent in late times.

On some of the gems in our list, and also on some of the

1 Or, according to another interpre-
tation, to Mikon. Knapp argues (Nike

an attitude astride of the victim, as on
a leaden tessera (Bulletin de Corr. Hell.

in der Vasenmaleret, Tiibingen, 1876,
p- 77), that the passage of Tatian,
μόσχος, ἐπὶ δὲ αὐτοῦ Νίκη, is not ap-
plicable here, because of what follows,
ὅτι τὴν ᾿Αγήνορος ἁρπάσας θυγατέρα
μοιχείας καὶ ἀκρασίας βραβεῖον ἀπηνέγ-
karo. I cannot see that a group of
Nike βουθυτοῦσα need be considered so
inappropriate an allusion to the Europa
legend. The use of ἐπί would suggest

viii. Pl. vi. No. 223) Niké bestrides
aram, and on electrum coins of Kyzi-
kos a tunny-fish.

2 See Friederichs-Wolters, Gipsab-
giisse, Ὁ. 286, No. 773. The position
of this group on the Balustrade was
next to Athené in the centre of the west
side, and specially marked by the
attitude of Athené, who turned round
towards it.

282 NIKE SACRIFICING A BULL.

terra-cotta reliefs (see post), our Niké group is accompanied by
an additional motive; in gems Nos. 1 and 2 this takes the form
of a small cippus surmounted by an apparently archaic statuette
of a goddess holding in either hand an animal by the forelegs.
{ do not think we need necessarily attach much importance to
the introduction of this statuette in the design; it may be that
the two pastes are both copied from some original group where
this combination was well known; but on the other hand, as we
see in the case of the terra-cottas, little archaistic zoana of this
kind are frequently inserted where they can only have been
introduced to serve a decorative purpose. And I should be
inclined to think that in the pastes they are employed merely
as a Rawmausfiillung, such as the shape of the field in these
special instances requires.’ No. 7 is a specimen of the liberty
which the artist allowed himself in a purely decorative direc-
tion. Here the altar or column is placed behind Nike, and is
sufficiently exaggerated 1m size to form a background for the
entire group. On the mirror case, as 1 poimted out, we have
some indication of a similar motive, but there the lowtron is
merely suggested, and may possibly have been borrowed from
some similar idea in the Balustrade sculptures.

Without wishing to engage in the vexed question of the
probable date of the Balustrade reliefs,? we may at any rate
accept it as proven that this cannot be later than the end of the
Peloponnesian War, B.c. 404. While in all probability they are
much earlier, this date at any rate places the Balustrade
βουθυτοῦσα group before any other known instance of the
type. Perhaps the nearest approximation to the marble, in
point of date, is the motive which occurs on the gold coin of
Abydos (see British Museum Guide to Coins, Pl. 18, 14). Here
Nike is sacrificing a ram, upon which she kneels, her figure is
fully draped, and the right leg of the ram is free. This design
is Impressed in an incuse square, and can therefore hardly be
later than about B.c. 400.

Again, on the gold stater of Lampsakos,’? which must go back
to a period before B.c. 359, when the gold coinage was superseded

1 OnaBerlin gem, Miiller, Denkm.ii. see Murray, History of Sculpture, ii.
209, a statuette of Athené occurs in ἃ pp. 179-180.
similar relation to this group. 3 Numismatic Chronicle, 1885, Pl.
* For a general statement of thecase, 1, 9.

NIKE SACRIFICING A BULL. 283

by Philip, a similar type, with the ram, occurs. It 15 certainly
significant that the only two coin types of the fourth century
which employ this motive should introduce the ram instead of
the bull; and I think that here again we have a suggestion
that though the Balustrade gives us the earliest type of Nike
with a bull, the attitude itself and the idea may have been
borrowed from an earlier existing type of Nike, or some other
figure, sacrificing a ram.

On the coins of Roman times, as of course in every other
branch of Roman art, the group is of frequent occurrence. On
the two Roman marble groups in the British Museum (Jus.
Marbles, x. 25, 26), which are a good deal restored, a certain
amount of vigour is imparted to the formulated type by varia-
tion in slight details and the fancy of the restorer, but the
formula is nevertheless unmistakable.

There is another point in the comparison between the earlier
and later types of this group which is at once obvious, and
belongs to the general history of Greek sculpture ; whereas in
earlier Greek art representations of the female figure are almost
universally draped, from the Praxitelian period downwards there
is a decided preference for nude forms ; or if drapery is employed
at all it is only partially introduced, and serves, as in the so-
called Venus of Milo, as a foil to throw up the rounded softness
of the portion left nude. We see the influence this sentiment
has on the type of Niké in the well-known Brescia figure,’
where the same arrangement of drapery is used as in the Venus
of Milo and the Aphrodite of Capua. On Pl. £, fig. 8, I have
placed, to illustrate this point, a paste in the British Museum ;
it is of a beautiful deep-blue colour, and though of rough execu-
tion is obviously a reproduction of the same type as the Brescia
statue. Nike stands with her left foot resting on a helmet, and
writes upon a shield which is supported by her left hand and
knee: her body is nude to the waist, and her hair is tied ina
knot behind.

On the Balustrade the entire series of figures are completely,
nay, voluminously, draped. On the Parthenon pediment, and
on the Paionios figure this is equally the case, but in both

1 Though of course the Brescia that asa type it must be an imitation
Nike is probably of the first century of an eatlier period ; see Friederichs-
A.D., it is I believe generally agreed Wolters, op. cit. p. 565.

284 NIKE SACRIFICING A BULL,

these instances the drapery is such as admits of the free
and unimpeded action necessary to the messenger of the
gods; and so on our bronze, though the figure is undoubtedly
feminine, the close-girt light drapery does not impede the
free action of the limbs, and the well-fitting shoes bespeak a
character widely different from the stay-at-home type of the
ordinary Athenian maiden. On the other hand, there is
already a trace in this group of the sentiment which is
creeping in; Niké is holding the bull in a position which
sufficiently indicates her purpose, but instead of directing her
attention to the work in hand, she looks away to the right,
and by this small detail alone the action seems indefinitely
postponed. Still, in point of exquisite finish of detail, even’
down to the stippled surface of the bull’s hide, there is a large
gap between the bronze group and the pastes and terra-cottas
of later times: as a further example of this difference, and as
showing how much the type became conventionalised, we may
remark the working out on the bronze of the hindquarters of the
bull ; on the later pastes and terra-cottas this portion of the design
is either left out entirely, or its place is supplied by a sweep of
the otherwise useless drapery. These minor lapses are what
one might overlook in works of art so small as the pastes, were
it not that on the terra-cotta reliefs, which are usually about
2 ft. by 1 ft, the same remarks equally apply, and there the
increased size renders them consequently the more apparent.
Of these terra-cotta reliefs we have in the British Museum no
less than ten examples, five complete and five fragmentary, of
which a brief description is given below."

The whole subject of Roman terra-cotta mural reliefs is one
that needs working out: meantime I think there can be no
question that the form in which they come to us was derived as
a direct tradition from Greek work of a similar kind of about
the third century or earlier. The series of Tarentine terra-
cottas which late years have brought us, give us a fairly

1 They divide into four types, as of ditto. C.—1. Group to left, one
follows: A type.—l. Group to right, foot of bull free; Niké stabs the bull
one foot of bull free, knife at side; on downwards in throat; on left, tripod
right elaboratealtar. 2. Similar, with with basket (?)on it. D.—1. Similar,
blazing thymiaterion in place of altar, without tripod. 2-4. Fragments of

supported by female statuette. B.—1. ditto.
Similar, without altar. 2, 3. Fragments

NIKE SACRIFICING A BULL. 285

complete connection, and take us back at least so far. To this
period I think, then, we must attribute the formation of the
stereotyped group so favourite in Roman times. It was an age
when the type of Niké was undergoing a process of complete
transformation, This is specially apparent on the vase-pictures
of the period. .

With the growing fashion in favour of the polychrome method
and the use of perspective in the later vases, comes in a
tendency towards the selection of groups which should afford
scope for the employment of white colour, and for the artist's
skill in representing soft, rounded forms. The first effect 15
shown in the alteration of the type of Eros; he is no longer
the strong youthful figure of the Parthenon, but becomes a
sort of hybrid creation who is neither male nor female, a
personification of the attendant genius of love: and into this
type it is that Niké, stripped of her clothes, becomes merged.
A small fragment of drapery is left to her, but it is a mere
useless rag which only emphasises the nudity of the form which
it is not intended to conceal. Similarly, as we see on the pastes
and terra-cottas, Niké is no longer an essentially feminine type ;
the form is soft and rounded, qualities which are well brought
out in the crouching attitude suggestive of the Aphrodite
accroupie ; but the chest is as much masculine as feminine, and
the features and head-dress are decidedly those of a male
figure.

To sum up, tben; in tracing the development of this motive
of Niké βουθυτοῦσα, I would suggest that the earliest type is
that where Niké is erect with one knee on the bull which she
stabs, is fully draped, and is of a decidedly feminine character ;
the latest, where she kneels beside the bull, the knife hanging
purposeless in her hand, where her body is undraped and her
form androgynous in type. And between these two extremes
we may range all the variations which occur according to their
tendencies to one or the other.

CECIL SMITH.

1 See Knapp, Nikd in der Vasenmaleret, chap. 4.

ἘΠ. - ΟἹ. Vl; x

286 σι JULIUS THEUPOMPUS OF CNIDUS.

C. JULIUS THEUPOMPUS OF CNIDUS.

‘Es ist das schoene Vorrecht der historischen Forschung, die
Verstorbenen in der Erinnerung der Nachwelt wieder aufleben
zu lassen. Erscheint es billig, dass die Namen derer, welche
sich hohe Verdienste um ihr Volk erworben, der Vergessenheit
nicht anheimfallen, so ist es menschlich, denen tiberhaupt
nachzuforschen, welche einst in weiten Kreisen von der Mit- und
Nachwelt genannt und gefeiert worden sind.’

With these words, used by Dr. Koehler! in regard to the
once famous ‘condottiere,’ Diogenes, in the third century B.c.,
I beg to introduce to the reader a personage who, although
perhaps of limited interest, was once celebrated and powerful
and had the honour of calling himself the friend of Julius
Caesar. His son moreover did his best to prevent a deed,
the failure of which would probably have changed the
direction of the history of the world,—the murder of
Caesar.

The passages in ancient writers which relate to the man of
whom I speak are well known, but they have not hitherto
been rightly connected with one another, or thoroughly under-
stood. Among the memorable men who came from Cnidus in
his own time—xa0’ 7as—Strabo (p. 656 c) has recorded a
certain Theopompus, and his son Artemidorus. To the name
of the former is added a predicate, due apparently to facts
within the writer’s knowledge though he does not state them—
ὁ Καίσαρος τοῦ θεοῦ φίλος, τῶν μεγάλα δυναμένων. Curiously
enough both Mr. Newton (Hist. of Discoveries, p. 712) and
M. Waddington (Lebas III. ἡ. 1572) have on the strength of
this passage of Strabo called Theopompus a friend of Augustus.

1 Hermes, vii. p. 1.

C. JULIUS THEUPOMPUS OF CNIDUS. 287

But there is no reason why Καῖσαρ ὁ θεὸς should not signify
here, as usually, Julius Caesar, the more so as there exists un-
mistakable evidence of friendship between him and Theo-
pompus. This evidence has been strangely overlooked, and
yet it occurs in no out of the way writer, but in Plutarch’s
Life of Caesar himself, cap, 48: Καῖσαρ... ἁψάμενος δὲ τῆς
᾿Ασίας, ἸἹΚνιδίους τε, Θεοπόμπῳ, τῷ συναγαγόντι τοὺς μύθους,
χαριζόμενος, ἠλευθέρωσε καὶ πᾶσι τοῖς τὴν ᾿Ασίαν κατοικοῦσι
τὸ τρίτον τῶν φόρων ἀνῆκεν. ‘This took place immediately
after the battle of Pharsalus (A. U. c. 106). From a comparison
of the different accounts of Caesar’s pursuit of Pompeius it
seems possible that he touched at Ephesus (Bell. Civil. cap. cv) ;
most probably he passed Cnidus (Appian, Bell. Civ. τι. 116, see
below) aad certainly Rhodes (Appian, op. cit. τ. 89, ep. Bell. Civ.
cap. CVI). His whole stay in this region occupied only a few days,
as the pursuit was particularly prompt and rapid.

We are certainly entitled to argue from Plutarch’s expressions
that Theopompus was aman still well known to the author's
contemporaries, both for his literary pursuits and for his con-
nection with Caesar. It is not improbable that this is the
same Theopompus, who appears about three years later in
Italy, in Cicero's ZYusculwm, and again in connection with
Caesar. He is possibly also the man whose expulsion and
flight to Alexandria is so severely commented upon by Antonius
in his letter to Hirtius (Cicero, Philipp. xiii. 16, 13). [015 true
that the Theopompus in question is very ill spoken of by
Cicero in that passage. But we must remember that Cicero's
judgments were notoriously affected by considerations of the
moment. This Theopompus may therefore be identical not
only.with the person mentioned above (Ad Aft. XIII. 7, 1) but
even with the man of the same name who is referred to, ina
very friendly way, in a letter to Quintus (Ad Quint. fr. I. 2,3, 2).
This, however, is not at all certain, as the letter was written as
early as A. U.C. 695. Still more perplexing is another very brief
mention of a Theopompus (4d Quint. fr. II. 10, 4. A. τ. ©.
709).

This is all the historical evidence we possess in regard to

1 Ad Attiewm XIII. 7, 1. Sestiws — scribere, sibi certum esse Romae manere
apud me fuit et THnorompus pridic; οἷο.
venisse a Caesare narrabat litteras, hoc

x 2

288 C. JULIUS THEUPOMPUS OF CNIDUS,

Theopompus. It does not look particularly interesting, or
worthy of much attention ; but in this case also inscribed stones
have given as 1t were life and flesh to the poor skeleton of
tradition. More than forty years ago, W. T. Hamilton published
in Researches in Asia Minor (Inser. n. 287) a Cnidian inscription,
repeated by Lebas (III. n. 1572), which belonged to a statue of
Gaius Julius Theupompus, son of Artemidorus. This was a
private dedication to Apollo Karneios, by a friend Apollonios,
who however, like Theopompus, had a Roman praenomen and
gentilicium, Maapxos Αἰφίέκιος, and was even the son of a
Maapkos.1

But this was not the only statue of Theopompus at Cnidus.
Mr. Newton discovered and trausferred to the British Museum a
second stone, bearing the following inscription (Hist. Discov.
pylon, 2

Ὃ ᾿ἸἸουλιέων τῶν καὶ Λαοδικέων 3

n \ na « rn
τῶν πρὸς θαλάσσῃ τῆς ἱερᾶς

\ > / \ > / 7.
καὶ ἀσύλου καὶ αὐτονόμου Ἐάϊον

ev /

Ἰούλιον ᾿Αρτεμιδώρου υἱὸν Θεύπομ
πον εὐνοίας ἕνεκεν

and in fact it is this document which, as belonging to my share
in the inscriptions to be published for the British Museum,
has led to the whole of this little inquiry.

A third inscription was found at Rhodes by M. Foucart : ὃ

ὁ δᾶμος ὁ Ῥοδίων
ἐτίμασε

Γάιον ᾿Ιούλιον
Θεύπομπον ᾿Αρτεμιδώρου
ἀρετᾶς ἕνεκα καὶ εὐνοίας
a ” -"

ἃν ἔχων διατελεῖ

εἰς τὸ πλῆθος τὸ ‘Podlwv.

No doubt the Theopompus of the three inscriptions is the
writer of myths and the friend of Caesar. Now we understand

1 The form Mdapxos was formerly re- _p. 286, foll.
garded as pointing to a period between * The word ὁ δῆμος, which is wanted
620 and 680 a. vu. c. But Mommsen in line 1, must have been written on
has established the use of this form an upper part of the pedestal now lost.
from the time of Hannibal to that of 3 Revue archéologique, 1866, xiii.
Augustus. Lphem. Epigr. 1. 1872, p. 157, 9.

C. JULIUS THEUPOMPUS OF CNIDUS. 289

how he obtained the Roman citizenship through the interference
of his powerful friend and therefore adopted the praenomen
and nomen of his protector. In a like manner the grandfather
of Pompeius Trogus had called himself after Pompeius
(Justin, 43, 5,11).

We may safely suppose, that the chance which has spared
three inscriptions relative to the same man, did not spare all ;
but even so that vague expression of Strabo’s τῶν μεγάλα δυν-
apévev begins to have a more precise and significant look.
The general relief accorded by Caesar (cp. above, Plut. Caes.
cap. 48) seems to have been attributed—at least in part—to the
interference of the well-known Cnidian Theopompus.’ In fact
these were services which could only be hinted at in such
general terms as are found in the inscriptions. Laodicea proved
a fervent adherent to Caesar’s party even afterwards (cp. Dio
Cass. XLVIT. 30, C. I. Gr. 4470, 4471, Appian, Bell. Civ. V. 7).

So each of the great rivals had his Greek literary adherent :
Pompeius his ill-famed Theophanes from Lesbos (see Mommsen,
Rt. Gesch. 111. §. 536), and Caesar his Theopompus from Cnidus.
It is a remarkable fact that the memory of the latter should
have been so long lost in oblivion : 5 over such a man as Caesar
no one was likely to gain such an influence as over his weak
antagonist Pompeius. Nevertheless it seems certain that Theo-
pompus was in high favour with the greatest of Romans.

Moreover the relations of Theopompus or at least of his
family with Caesar are kept up to the end. On the day of Caesar’s
death, according to some accounts, 1ὖ was a certain Artemidorus
from Cnidus who handed him the roll which contained the
details of the conspiracy, only it was unfortunately not read by
the dictator. Others relate that Artemidorus did his best to
approach Caesar but could not force his way up to him (Plut.
Caes. cap. 65, ep. Appian, Bell. Civ. 11. 116, Cass. Dio 44, 18).

Mr. Newton and M. Waddington, supposing Theopompus to
have been a friend of Augustus, naturally assumed this Artem1-
dorus to have been his father, as mentioned in the inscriptions.

1 That he was very well known is already that such services as we have
proved too by the omission of theethnic traced had been performed by Theo-
in the Rhodian inscription, in spite of | pompus.
his being a Cnidian and not anative of 2 yen Drumann, as far as I can see,
Rhodes. M. Foucart 7, 7, presumed does not mention Theopompus.

290 Cc. JULIUS THEUPOMPUS OF CNIDUS.

But now I think there cannot be any doubt that he was rather
Theopompus’ son, who is mentioned by Strabo /. 1. If we accept
the words of Appian in a strict sense (Bell. Civ. 11. 116 ὁ δ᾽ ἐν
Κνίδῳ γεγονὼς αὐτῷ (Καίσαρι) ξένος ᾿Αρτεμίδωρος) Caesar
made his acquaintance during the short stay at Cnidus we sup-
posed above, p. 287. Artemidorus was like his father a learned
man, “Ελληνικῶν λόγων σοφιστής (Plut. Caes. cap. 65) and both
were evidently men of the same class as their contemporaries
at Lesbos, Theophanes, Lesbonax and Potamo (see Plehn,
Leshiaca pp. 211, 217-18; Strabo XIII. p. 617, Newton, Discov.
p. 712).

Nor is there wanting epigraphical evidence for this ἀξιόλογος
Kviécos of the time of Strabo. Once more, W. T. Hamilton
found an inscription at Cnidus (nm. 294) which was repeated
by Lebas (IIL. 7. 1572, δὴ) and brought into the British Museum
and republished by Mr. Newton (Discov. p. 766, π. 52). There
Artemidorus while yet alive is honoured τιμαῖς ἰἐσοθέοις ; a
contest is to be celebrated every fifth year under the name
᾿Αρτεμιδώρεια, etc.’ We may fairly assume that Augustus in
this case as in so many others did not forget the adherence of
Artemidorus to his uncle and that he favoured Cnidus for his
sake as Caesar had favoured it before for the sake of his
father.

Thus all the scattered fragments of tradition fit easily together
and constitute as it were a coherent picture.

Yet a century later in the time of the Emperor Trajan the
Cnidians honoured members of this family, gratefully remem-
bering at the same time the merits of their ancestors. Cp. Mr.
Newton’s Discov. p. 788, foll. n. 44, 45, 47-50. All these in-
scriptions I hope to lay again before the public in the fourth
volume of the inscriptions of the British Museum.

GUSTAV HIRSCHFELD.

KGONIGSBERG, PR.

1 Mr. Dubois has published a muti- * Mr. Newton found at Cnidus an
lated inscription from Cnidus, which inseription, where it is open to question
now exists in the island of Nisyros; it whether the words τοῦ κατακτησαμένου

is not impossible that this part of a +... ἐλευθερίαν καὶ ἀνισφορίαν refer to
decree belongs too to our family. Theopompus or Artemidorus (Discov.

Bulletin de Corresp. Hellén. vii. p. 485. pp. 760, n. 47).

THE RHAPSODISING OF THE /Z/4AD. 291

THE RHAPSODISING OF THE JZIAD.

Styce the time of Wolf there has been one point in the
‘higher criticism ’ of the Homeric poems on which all scholars
have been agreed: it is that in the ninth century B.C. there was
no reading public in Greece. Further, since the time of Wolf,
the majority of critics have assumed, without attempting to
prove, that a poem can be delivered orally only if it is short
enough to be delivered at a single sitting; and that a longer
poem is by its very length shown to have been designed for a
reading public and not for oral delivery, No one maintains
that the Jliad, as we have it, could be recited at a single sitting
(except Buchholz, Vindiciae Carm. Hom. I. 8). It follows
therefore that the present shape of the J/iad is due to the
demands of a reading public; and that if there was an J/iad at
all in the ninth century, its length must have been such as was
compatible with the conditions of an oral delivery. To account
for the evolution of the Jliad as we have it, from a poem or
poems short enough to be recited at a single sitting, various
theories have been proposed. They may be distributed into
two classes: theories of aggregation, and theories of expansion,
According to the former class, the Jliad is an aggregation of
lays or ballads, composed independently of each other by
different poets, but related to the same subject, and exercising
a natural attraction on each other. The theory of aggregation
is based on the analogy of what was supposed, but is now
denied, to have occurred in the history of other literatures; it
is not based on a study of the conditions under which literature
developed in the earliest Greek times. According to the ex-
pansion theory which has now almost completely ousted the
ageregation theory, the story of the Wrath of Achilles was
orginally told in a short form; but the plot was so simple and so

292 THE RHAPSODISING OF THE JLIAD.

elastic that it admitted, almost invited, the interpolation of fresh
incidents by the successive generations of poets who recited and
transmitted it. The expansionists therefore have set to work
to remove these incrustations, and to lay before us the Wrath
in its original purity of outline, just as the aggregationists
before them undertook to dissect the J/iad into its constituent
lays. But though the original justification for both processes,
that of dissection and that of restoration, was the necessity of
reducing the liad to the limits assumed to be set by oral
delivery, yet both aggregationists and expansionists have been
much less concerned to prove the truth of their initial assump-
tion, than they have to insist on the confirmation which their
theories find in the inconsistencies and inconsequences dis-
cernible in the Jizad as we have it.

Now out of the Zliad to carve a poem, an admirable poem,
which shall be capable of recitation at a single sitting, is easy.
Every investigator produces a new J/iad, and all are admirable
poems. Each new and original //iad is intended to explain the
inconsistencies in the Jliad as we have it, and each succeeds in
persuading only its author that it is a satisfactory explanation.
In fact, the inconsistencies in the /iiad are as fatal to every
form of the expansion theory as they are to any shape which
the doctrine of unity has assumed; and if many scholars still
adhere to the theory of expansion, it is not because any form of
the theory accounts for the discrepancies in the Jiiad, nor
because the expansionists show any signs of reaching an agree-
ment amongst themselves, but because of the assumption that
the original Z/iad must have been a much shorter poem than
the Jliad is as we have it.

As the assumption of an originally short poem seems, after
long trial, to bring us no nearer the solution of the important
problem, How to account for the discrepancies? it would seem
to be time to try some other base for the investigation; and if
this has not been done before it is because the upholders of the
unity of the Jliad have hitherto contented themselves with the
sterile policy of negative criticism. They have been content to
prove that there is no evidence to show that Pisistratus organised
an originally accidental aggregation of independent lays into
a readable whole; or to demonstrate that there is nothing in
the structure of the language of the poems to indicate that

THE RHAPSODISING OF THE JZIAD. 293

their origin was recent. And they have satisfied themselves
with insisting on the harmonies and denying the discrepancies
in the Jliad, until it has come to be believed that on the
theory of unity discrepancies do not admit of explanation. Yet
the activity of the rhapsodists must have been almost as great,
according to the theory of unity, as it was according to the
theory of expansion. But whereas the expansionists have at
least endeavoured to demonstrate that the discrepancies in the
Iliad are explained by their view of the rhapsodists, the ad-
herents to the doctrine of unity have made no attempt, I
believe, to show how their conception of the activity of the
rhapsodists will account for inconsistencies and inconsequences.
It would seem therefore to be time not only to show that the
failure of the expansionists is due to the falsity of their initial
assumption, but also to show that the right assumption leads to
an explanation—not a bare denial—of real discrepancies.

To Prof. Paley belongs the credit of having first demonstrated
that if the Ziad at its present length could only have been put
together for a reading public, it cannot date from before B.c. 420,
for that it was only about that date a reading public came into
existence in Greece. The composition therefore of a poem
having the length of the Ziad could not have been incompatible
with the condition of-oral delivery. Now unfortunately most
writers on the Homeric question have written as though the
oral delivery of Homer were something unique, whereas no
other means of publication was known in the classical period
of Greek literature. I have argued at length elsewhere (History
of Greek Literature, pp. 41-58, 159, 384, 396, 492), that it is
by this fact alone that we can understand the evolution of
Greek literature ; it will be enough here for me to point out
that where oral delivery is the sole means of publication, the
form taken by literature varies with the occasion and place in
which ‘an audience can be got together. The size of the
audience too affects, indirectly, the length of the work recited.
A small audience, such as that formed by the household of a
Homeric chieftain, may easily be the same from night to night,
and a tale begun one evening may be continued on the next.
A large audience is either assembled at long intervals, as was
the case with the festivals at which Greek tragedies were pro-
duced ; or if assembled more frequently, as was the Assembly,

294 THE RHAPSODISING OF THE 7114.

does not consist of the same people: in either case the work
produced must be begun and finished at a sitting.

Now whoever gave the Jliad its present shape and length
did so, as all scholars have seen since Wolf pointed it out,
because there was a demand for a long poem. In the time of
the rhapsodists there was no such demand, The audiences to
which rhapsodists recited were large, and the festivals at which
they recited were held at rare intervals. Further the time of the
rhapsodists falls in the period of Lyric poetry ; and in that period
the conditicns under which literature was produced admitted only
of the production of short works, as is shown by the length of
lyric poems. Rhapsodists have not yet been traced earlier than
the sixth century: the Lyric period commences at least as early
as the beginning of the seventh century B.C.

The only period in the history of Greek literature when an
audience existed of the nature postulated by the production of
the Jliad as we have it, was the epic period—the period of the
earliest audience known, which is the family. In those days
there were no rhapsodists. So before rhapsodists existed, the
Iliad was.

‘But this only shows that the work of interpolation was
completed before the time of the rhapsodists.’ Be it so: it is
something to be rid of the false assumption that we must at
all costs prove that the //iad was originally a short poem.
‘But it may have been originally a short poem.” ‘True; and so
may the Aeneid, but there is nothing in the external conditions
under which either epic was produced to lead us to think that
the poem was originally short and subsequently expanded.
The expansionist position can only be rested now on the internal
evidence afforded by the Jliad. The question is whether the
bare discrepancies in the J/iad, deprived of the support of the
false assumption that the J/iad cannot originally have been of
its present length, need, to account for them, any hypothesis not
equally applicable to the discrepancies in the Aeneid. To say,
No, is simply to withdraw from the discussion. To say, Yes,
seems to be abandoning the unity of the Jiad. ‘This is not
the case however.

The external history of the J/iad differs from that of the
Acneid, and admits of different hypotheses. While on the one
liand the history of the Zliad admits, and that of the Aeneid

THE RHAPSODISING OF THE JLJAD. 295

does not admit, of the hypothesis that the poem may indeed be
the work of more than one poet; on the other hand the Lliad
for some considerable time was rhapsodised, the Aeneid not.
Before then resorting to the assumption (which has no external
support) that the Z/iad has been expanded from a short original
poem, we are bound to consider how far the rhapsodising of the
Lliad—a vera causa—will account for the difficulties which
every explanation has to account for.

Even in Germany and among expansionists of a determined
stamp the importance of the part played by the rhapsodists is
beginning to assert itself. Christ (/liadis carmina, Leipzig, 1884)
and Fick (Homerische Ilias, Gottingen, 1886) though both
expaunsionists, and bitterly opposed to each other, both find
themselves compelled to make large allowances for the action
of the rhapsodists. Christ, abandoning the Alexandrian division
of the Jliad into twenty-four books, has reverted to the division
into rhapsodies as indicated by the Greek titles prefixed to each
book. Fick ascribes to a rhapsodist the metamorphosis of the
originally Achaean //iad into its present Ionic form. Fick's
demonstration of Ritschl’s conjecture that the Jliad was
originally composed in the Achaean—or Aeolian—dialect, and
only subsequently metamorphosed into Ionic, has been scouted
in Germany as too revolutionary. But the revolution will, |
apprehend, be found to be of the most conservative description.
It will throw down many fanciful theories; but it will only
strengthen the true doctrine of the unity of the Iliad, for
although Fick himself supports the expansionist theory, his
great discovery does not. The test of language which Fick’s
discovery supplies proves nothing to be spurious which the
defenders of an indivisible Zliad had not already rejected: where
Fick himself rejects other passages it is on other than linguistic
grounds. But further the new light with which Fick has
illumined the whole Homeric question reveals, as I hope to
show, fresh strength in the position of the conservative
critics.

It will be convenient to here state Fick’s position—briefly
ov γὰρ δεῖ μακρηγορεῖν ἐν εἰδόσι. The story of the original
Iliad was a story about Achaeans and was originally told to
Achaeans in the Achaean dialect. The Achaeans and the
Aeolians are identical; Αἰολίς : Adds : : ᾿Αργολίές : “Apyos,

296 THE RHAPSODISING OF THE J/ZI4D.

and ’Ayatds : Αἰός :: ᾿Ασσύριος : Σύρος. Aeolic as we know
it from inscriptions is essentially identical with, though younger
than, the Achaean in which the Jliad was originally composed.
In the sixth century B.c. the Jliad was Ionicised, 1.6. wherever
the metre allowed, Ionic forms displaced the corresponding
Aeolic forms. Thus the Aeolic forms ᾿Ατρείδας, ᾿Ατρείδαν were
displaced by the metrically equivalent Ionic forms ᾿Ατρείδης,
᾿Ατρείδην : but the Aeolic ᾿Ατρειδάων could not be displaced
by the Ionic ᾿Ατρειδέων, because of the metre. So too νύμφα
was displaced by νύμφη, but θεά had to be left because in Ionic
there was no θεή (they said ἡ θεός). In the verb, the Aeolic
forms were displaced by the metrically equivalent Ionic forms:
but the Aeolic infinitives in -evas, -wev were metrically fixed,
and φορήμεναι, for instance, could not be displaced by φορέειν.
Now whereas the J/iad is studded with metrically fixed Aeolisms,
metrically fixed Ionisms only occur in lines rejected as spurious
even by conservative critics. In other words metrically fixed
Aeolisms prove that the passages in which they occur were
originally composed in Aeolic: metrically fixed Ionisms prove
the lines in which they occur to have been originally composed
in Ionic.

The date at which the J/iad was Ionicised has also been
discovered by Fick. In the Iliad we find the Aeolic form λαός
stil surviving. Ifthe Z/iad had been Jonicised at a time when
the metrically equivalent ληός was in use, ληός would have
displaced λαός: on the other hand if the J/iad was Tonicised
at a time when the old Jonic Anos had been driven out of use
and out of memory by the later Ionic form λεώς, we can under-
stand how it was that the Aeolic form λαός was left untouched.
Now the latest author whom we can trace using Anos is
Hipponax, B.c. 540. The Jiiad therefore was Jonicised after
Bc. 540. Further: Ionic lyric poets before B.c. 500 composed
in pure Tonic. After B.c. 500 we find them using Aeolic forms
side by side with Ionic forms in a way which could scarcely
have been suggested by anything but the mixture of forms
which was the result of Jonicising the J/iad.

That the J/iad was originally composed in Aeolic and was
Tonicised at the end of the sixth century B.c., Fick seems to me
to have proved conclusively. The proof is purely linguistic and
absolutely independent of the expansionist or any other theory.

THE RHAPSODISING OF THE 1114}. 297

But Fick isan expansionist and tries to press his great discovery
into the service of the expansionists: with what success I do
not propose here to inquire. It is only necessary to point out
that on any theory the Ionicising of the J/iad was the work
of the rhapsodists.

Fick indeed, falling into the common expansionist error that
a rhapsodist recited the whole twenty-four books of the Lliad
straight through one after the other, maintains that the liad
was Ionicised by one single rhapsodist for one single definite
festival. But the conditions under which the rhapsodists recited
were those which governed the production of all literature in
the Lyric period: they admitted only of short recitations. The
nature of the extracts from Homer, which the rhapsodists
recited, we can learn from the ‘rhapsodies’ indicated by the
Greek titles prefixed to each book of the Jliad, e.g. Διομήδους
ἀριστεία, “Extopos καὶ ᾿Ανδρομάχης ὁμιλία, κατ. The rhap-
sodists chose for recitation such incidents as could be readily
detached, were interesting in themselves, and did not take too
long to recite. That the rhapsodists recited only extracts and
not the whole of the poem, may be inferred from the Homeric
Hymns. These Hymns are a collection of the invocations with
which the rhapsodists preluded their recitations. The practice
seems to have been for the rhapsodist to first pay his reverence
to the god, at whose festival the recitation was being given, and
then proceed with his ‘rhapsody’ Thus ‘the hymn to Artemis
(ix.), in which Apollo is mentioned, was probably in use at the
festival held in honour of the two deities at Claros, near Colo-
phon, History of Greek Literature, p. 73 (cf. H. H. ix. 5, és
Κλάρον ἀμπελόεσσαν); and the rhapsodist concludes his
invocation of the local deity by saying,

σεῦ δ᾽ ἐγὼ ἀρξάμενος μεταβήσομαι ἄλλον ἐς ὕμνον,

where the ‘ other lay’ is obviously a ‘rhapsody’ from Homer.
But a good many of these invocations end with a different
formula: the rhapsodist concludes his invocation by saying to
the local deity,

> \ > \ \ al \ + fe ral age a
αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ καὶ σεῖο καὶ ἄλλης μνῆσομ ἀοιδῆς.

I have never seen this formula explained by anybody: and I
think it can only be explained on the assumption that the

298 THE RHAPSODISING OF THE JLIAD.

rhapsodists recited extracts from and not the whole of the [liad.
The plain meaning of the words is that the local deity will
figure in the recitation from Homer which the rhapsodist is
about to deliver. Now if the rhapsodist were going to recite
the whole of the liad, it would be a cheap compliment for him
to assure the local deity that he or she would be found to be
mentioned sooner or later somewhere in the Jdiad. The formula
is only intelligible if we suppose that the rhapsodist has resolved
to select some portion of the J/iad in which the local deity is
the principal or a prominent figure. Thus the mvocation of
Athene (xi. or xxviii.) is pointless if we suppose it intended as
an introduction to the whole of the Jliad, but is specially appro-
priate as an introduction to E and Z 1-311, which formed as
we know a separate rhapsody, the Διομήδους ἀριστεία, and in
which Athene figures prominently. So too the invocation of
Hephaestus, H. H. xx., is appropriate to the Shield but not
to the whole J/iad.

Sometimes the rhapsodist found himself in the unfortunate
position of being about to recite at the festival of some deity
not mentioned in Homer. The only course open to him, in
such a case, if he was bent at all costs on paying the customary
compliment to the local deity, was to insert a reference to
the god or goddess of the festival as judiciously as he could.
For instance, in the Διομήδους ἀριστεία, which seems to have
been a favourite rhapsody, we find a passage, Z 130-141,
descriptive of the worship of Dionysos, which sober critics have
regarded as spurious and which extreme critics have regarded
as proving the late origin of the whole rhapsody. But neither
class of critics has explained why a reference to Dionysos should
have been inserted, or what motive the interpolator had. Yet
the obvious explanation is that the rhapsodist, who composed
the invocation to Dionysos (H. H. xxvi.), not finding any allusion
to the god in the liad or in the Odyssey (Ξ 325, 325 and
w 74, are too inconsiderable and are probably spurious also),
proceeded to insert these verses of his own composition. And
this seems all the more probable because of the points of
resemblance between Z 130—141 and H. H. xxvi.

Critics are almost unanimous in rejecting T 90-136 as an
obvious interpolation ; and I conjecture that this unseasonable
celebration of the birth of Heracles is the work of the rhapsodist

Ἐ

THE RHAPSODISING OF THE J/L/AD. 299

who composed the invocation of Heracles (H. H. xv.), and recited
apparently at Thebes, As Heracles was not referred to in
Homer (A 601 is unanimously condemned), the rhapsodist
inserted a reference. The reference in the Odyssey (A 300) to
the Dioscuri was probably inserted in the same way by the
author of H. H. xxxiii. Whether the references in B to the
Muses (484 and 594) point toa late date for their insertion or
not, the invocation of the Muses (H. H. xxv.) was evidently
composed as a prelude to the Catalogue, which was naturally a
favourite rhapsody recited in many different cities and particu-
larly exposed to interpolations which the rhapsodist thought
likely to gratify his audience. The connection between the
Hymn and the Catalogue is shown by the Boeotian origin of the
Hymn (which belongs to the Hesiodic school of poetry, cf. 1. 1
with Hes. Zheog. 1, 2—5 with 7b. 94--97, and 6 with 7. 104),
and the Boeotian colouring of the Catalogue.

Rhapsodists did not confine themselves to interpolating
references to the gods at whose festivals they recited. They
were under the temptation to interpolate legends of local heroes,
if those heroes did not happen to already have a place in the
Iliad, or to expand the legends if the heroes were mentioned.
A clear case of expansion of this kind is found in T 213-250;
in this passage Aeneas is made to claim a position of equality
with Hector; there is almost a reference to the sovereignty
which Aeneas according to some legends was to exercise over
Troy: and this exaltation of Aeneas, the son of Aphrodite, was
accordingly in all probability designed for the gratification of
an audience who worshipped Aphrodite as their patron local
goddess. This seems to be confirmed by the references to
Aeneas in the Hymn to Aphrodite (cf. especially H. H. iv. 196—7
with YT 242—3), which was composed for an audience in
Cyprus.

The Hymn to Aphrodite and all allusions to Cyprian legends
are particularly interesting because of the light which they
throw on the linguistic history of the Iliad. As the Lliad was
Ionicised by the rhapsodists, and as they recited the Iliad
piece-meal and not as a whole, they must have Ionicised it
piece-meal also. A rhapsodist reciting from Homer at an Ionic
festival, such as the festival of the Delian Apollo for which
H. H. i. was composed, would in the first place take care to

300 THE RHAPSODISING OF THE 2114}.

select a rhapsody in which Apollo played the leading part, say
A ,which was certainly recited by itself under the title of Μῆνις.
In the next place he would Ionicise the original Aeolic, 1.0.
would substitute Ionic forms and words for Aeolic, wherever
the metre allowed. Thus in course of time the whole Iliad
would become Ionicised.

But rhapsodists recited at other than Ionic festivals, and to
other than Jonian audiences: and if they adapted the dialect
of the poem to their audience in one case they probably did in
all cases. And this I venture to think actually did happen.
We know from the Hymns to Aphrodite, iv. and x., that
recitations were given by rhapsodists in Cyprus at Salamis.
We have seen that T 213—250 is probably an interpolation
made to gratify a Cyprian audience. And H. H. iv. was origi-
nally composed in Cyprian, though now Ionicised. If then
rhapsodies, such as the Mfrs, which were commonly chosen for
the Ionic festivals of the Delian Apollo, were Ionicised for the
benefit of the Ionic audience; then we should expect those
rhapsodies which would probably be chosen for the festivals of
Aphrodite in Cyprus to be Cyprianised. Now the Cyprian
dialect is closely allied to Aeolic; but there is one word which
we know on the authority of inscriptions was peculiar to Cyprian
and was not in use in Aeolic or any other dialect. The word
is Fudé. Wherever therefore fdé is metrically fixed the line at
least in which it occurs is probably of Cyprian origin. Fick
indeed almost regards one fidé as enough to prove the Cyprian
origin and authorship of the whole book in which it occurs.
To such lengths does the expansion-theory carry its adherents.
It seems more reasonable however to regard these metrically
fixed Cyprianisms in the same light as Fick himself regards
metrically fixed Ionisms, and for the same reasons. Metrically
fixed Jonisms are in a minority as compared with metrically
fixed Aecolisms, and therefore indicate only that the rhapsody
has undergone an Ionic redaction, not that it is of Ionic origin.
So too Frdé indicates a Cyprian redaction of the rhapsody in
which it occurs.

Ειδέ does not often occur in the J/iad, and it is only, as far
as I can make out, certain in eight places. Three of these occur
in the Catalogue, B 511, 585, 697: and this does not surprise
us, for the Catalogue as I have said before was recited in many

THE RHAPSODISING OF THE ILIAD. 301

different places, and is likely to show in its language the traces
of the linguistic metamorphoses through which it must have
gone. Two instances of frdé occur in the Διὸς ἀπάτη (Ξ 165,
175), a rhapsody which from the part played in it by Aphrodite
would be frequently chosen by rhapsodists to recite in Cyprus.
The favourite rhapsody, Διομήδους ἀριστεία, seems to have
been recited at Cyprus as well as at other places, for we find
Ειδέ in E 171, in a passage we may note in which Aeneas
figures prominently. The other two places in which βιδέ is
metrically certain are } 589, in the Shield of Achilles, and in
T 285. As for the latter passage it contains a reference to
Aphrodite: on the former we may form some opinion, if we
compare the beginning of A. In A 15 fidé is not metrically
certain but is probably genuine, for the passage must have been
appreciated in Cyprus, as it not only contains a reference to
Tithonus, a Cyprian hero, but also to that imitation of lapis
lazuli, κύανος, for which Cyprus was famous. In Cyprus, ‘ the
home of copper, also interest would be taken in the working
of metals and therefore in the making of the shield of
Achilles.

If, as I have argued, rhapsodies recited to a Cyprian audience
were Cyprianised just as those recited to an Jonic audience
were Ionicised, the linguistic vicissitudes of the Ziad form an
interesting and somewhat complicated chapter in the history of
the Homeric poems. Originally Aeolic, some rhapsodies were
first Cyprianised and then Ionicised. And the process of
metamorphosis probably did not stop there. The Ionic into
which the rhapsodists metamorphosed what they recited was
the Ionic of their own day, as is shown by the fact that they
left unchanged the Aecolic λαός, because the Ionic form ληός,
though metrically equivalent, was no longer in common use.
Consequently, as Ionic changed, the rhapscdists accordingly, I
conjecture, modified what they recited; and thus the later
rhapsodists introduced later linguistic forms. For instance, in
K 121 the original Aeolic μετίην was left untouched by the
early Ionic rhapsodists because the metre did not allow μεθίησι
to displace it. But when μεθιεῖ came into use, the later
rhapsodists naturally substituted μεθιεῖ for periéne: and now
μεθιεῖ is quoted as evidence for the late origin of the book in

ἘΠ --- Ψ01,, Vit. M

302, THE RHAPSODISING OF THE ILIAD.

which it occurs. To condemn a whole book as late on linguistic
grounds is evidently a process which craves wary walking,
While Dr. Monro says of the Δολωνεία that ‘the language
shows exceptionally numerous traces of later formation, Fick
says, ‘Clumsy Ionisms are not common, and as a rule occur in
those parts which on other grounds show themselves to be late
interpolations.” When we find these authorities agree in con-
demning a passage, though on different grounds, as they do
e.g. In 211-217, 252-3, 396-399, we can cheerfully let the
passage go. But these cases of agreement are few: and the
passages thus condemned are not more numerous in the
Δολωνεία than in any average book.

If then it is as yet premature to condemn whole books on
linguistic evidence, the expansionists must for the present rest
their case on the inconsequences and discrepancies to be found
in the /liad. But some certainly of these discrepancies can be
explamed as due to the rhapsodising of the Jiiad, A certain
number are due to the habit rhapsodists had of rounding off
their recitation by a few lines which wound up their extract
very well, but which, if read as part of the continuous text,
cause much confusion (see Christ, p. 8). Examples are: A 611,
A 548, Z 311, M 175-181, N 345-360, P 400-423, Σ 354-368,
Φ 227. Christ points out (p. 46) a good instance of the con-
fusion thus wrought. In E 575-579 Pylaemenes is killed by
Menelaus; but in N 656-659 Pylaemenes ignores this trivial
incident and takes an active part in his son’s funeral. The
explanation is that N 656-659 were inserted by some rhapsodist
who thought they would make an effective finish to the extract
(N 330-655) which he had selected to recite before a Cretan
audience.

Another class of inconsistencies can, I venture to think, be
referred to the habit rhapsodists had of inserting a line or two
to recall or to explain to their audience features in the story
necessary for the comprehension of the extract. These inser-
tions may only take the form of redundancies, but they may also
be introduced in such a way as to make the rhapsody in which
they occur apparently inconsistent with the rest of the poem,
As an instance of the former I will take © 371-2. They were
athetized by Zenodotus and Aristarchus as superfluous, and no

THE RHAPSODISING OF THE /LTAD, 803

one defends them. But no one explains why they were ever
inserted. For an audience that had just heard the preceding
books they are superfluous. But for an audience assembled to
hear only the KoXos μάχη, in which the insertion occurs, the
lines are not superfluous. ‘They recall the situation which is
presupposed though not depicted in the rhapsody.

An instance of an explanatory inconsistency is to be found in
ἘΞ 30-40, a passage which a rhapsodist reciting the ᾿Απάτη Διός
may well have introduced in order to sketch in the scenery ;
but the passage is inconsistent with the rest of the Lliad, for it
supposes the wall to have been built at the beginning of the
war. Another instance is II 69-86, This passage is well
enough adapted to paint in the background of the Τ]ατροκλεία,
and was, I suggest, inserted by a rhapsodist wishing to make
his extract complete in itself. But the passage is inconsistent
with the rest of the J/iad, and the expansionists have accordingly
made much capital out of it, as also out of & 30-40.

For these inconsistencies the expansion theory offers no
satisfactory explanation. The first business of an interpolator
is to make his interpolations harmonise with the rest of the
poem. The sole concern of the rhapsodist was to make his
extract explain itself: and consequently, if by the insertion of
a few lines his extract could be effectively introduced or con-
cluded or made self-explaining, his immediate object was
attained. That an incident—rhapsody or book—is now easily
detachable proves only that it was frequently detached for
recitation, not that it originally had an existence independent
of the J/iad, still less that it is an interpolation. The fragments
of rock which are detached by the sea from the Permian cliffs
on the Durham coast, are by the sea so polished and
rounded and brought to resemble the curious concretions in
the rock itself, that their appearance suggests the erroneous
theory that the cliff was originally made out of them, not they
out of the cliff. So, too, the episodes detached from the Lliad
by the rhapsodists have been so rounded off by the action of
the rhapsodists, that it has been found possible to imagine that
the J/iad was originally made out of rhapsodies, not they out of
the Zliud. If the theory of the aggregationists, that the Jliad

is an agglomeration of originally independent lays, is thus the
Y 2

304 THE RHAPSODISING OF THE IZIAD.

precise reverse of what really happened, it is because they have
started from an assumption which is precisely the reverse of the
actual truth. They have started from the assumption that
early epics must have been short, and only late epics could be
long, whereas a study of the conditions under which Greek
literature was produced proves conclusively that only in the
earliest period was the composition of long poems possible,
while the later periods permitted of nothing but short re-
citations.

As the expansion theory is based on the same false assump-
tion as is that of the aggregationists, we may expect to find
that the expansionists also have been led to exactly reverse
what really took place. Christ has pointed out, and Mr. Leaf
agrees with him, tliat a rhapsodist, having time to recite more
than one book, but not time enough to recite the whole Jliad,
would select such portions as together gave an outline of the
plot—precisely as modern critics do when they undertake to
show that the essence of the //iad may be condensed into a
length compatible with recitation at a single sitting. And I
would add that probably such success as expansionists have had
in constructing ‘original’ J/iads of this kind is due to the fact
that they have unearthed the old workings of the rhapsodists
before them. Here, however, I wish to point out that some of
the discrepancies in the Jliad can, as I think, be explained by
the action of the rhapsodists in thus abbreviating the Z/iad for
purposes of recitation.

Any trifling alterations which the rhapsodist found necessary
in order to make his extracts follow smoothly on one another he
would make unhesitatingly. But these very alterations would
mar the original sequence ; and if left in the text would give
rise to discrepancies such as are found in the Jiiad as we have
it. For instance, Fick maintains that all the books between
B 47 and A 57 have been interpolated into an original Mis
which knew nothing of them; and Mr. Leaf believes that he
lias found a confirmation of the fact in the real meaning of the
words ἐπὶ θρωσμῷ πεδίοιο in A 56. Assuming that Mr. Leaf’s
interpretation is correct, we mus! admit that A 56 cannot be in
place where it now is; it is wholly inconsistent with the
position which the Trojans ought (according to our Iliad) to be

THE RHAPSODISING OF THE JZIAD. 305

occupying. But the explanation is that A 56 is just the slight
alteration which a rhapsodist would make who wished to proceed
from say B 483 to A 57.

A more important instance of the confusion caused by a
rhapsodist’s abbreviation of the J/iad I have found I think in B.
In that book Zeus sends a delusive dream to Agamemnon,
encouraging him to make a grand attack upon the Trojans.
Full of confidence Agamemnon calls a meeting of his men and
proposes with every sign of dejection to at once flee home.
The inconsequence is extreme. And it is not mended by the
fact that Agamemnon has previously explained privately to the
chiefs that he is going to ‘test’ the Achaeans ; for he so con-
fidently and correctly anticipates the result of the test, that he
instructs the chiefs to prevent the men from acting on his
proposal. Here, if anywhere, we seem to have the work of
different hands confounded together. The inconsistencies
seem to be radical; the discrepancies to be discrepancies of
conception not of expression. The unbounded confidence of
Agamemnon in the "Ovecpos is irreconcilable with his extreme
dejection in the Avazrecpa. Above all, Agamemnon’s confidence
in the delusive dream is utterly at variance with his proposal to
flee, which is wholly unintelligible as a means of calling the
Achaeans to arms, or as a manceuyre for delivering a general
attack upon Troy. The critics who sneer at mere athetesis will
hardly find in the whole Jliad a better case for disintegration
than this. Unfortunately, however, for the expansionists, their
theory of interpolation breaks down at this pomt. It is im-
possible to imagine that a poet capable of producing the
Διάπειρα would not have worked it in better than it stands
now. ‘The theory accordingly has been started that the author
of the Avazrecpa never did intend it to be worked in thus: but
that it was intended to be an alternative to the "Ovecpos, and
has been stupidly combined with the "Ovecpos by a later hand.
This theory, however, is rebutted by the fact that there is a
clear allusion to the “Ovecpos in the Διώπειρα (B 436, ἔργον ὃ
δὴ θεὸς ἐγγναλίζει).

The solution, therefore, if any, and whatever it is, cannot be
found in separating the "Ovevpos from the Διώπειρα. If the
latter is retained the former must also be retained; and the

306 THE RHAPSODISING OF THE /Z/AD.

function of the dream in the economy of the epic is obvious to
all. That the vacillating Agamemnon, who is always ready to
despair and to run away, should choose the moment of Achilles’
defection to do what for nine years, even with the aid of Achilles,
he had not succeeded in doing, viz., engage the Trojans, would
be wholly incomprehensible, if it were not for the “Ovezpos.
The first book, the "Ovevpos, and the Διάπειρα hang together.
The problem then is: given these three factors, to harmonise
them. ‘The solution is to athetize B 35-41.

Rhapsodists, I conjecture, anxious to get on to the fighting,
and perhaps not caring to recite the Thersites scene to demo-
cratic audiences, were in the habit of skipping the Διάπειρα,
and, in some cases, of proceeding at once to the ἀριστεία of
Agamemnon in A. In order to smooth and explain the transi-
tion from B 34 to A 15, the rhapsodist inserted B 35-41, lines
(the only lines) which represent Agamemnon as confidently
believing in the dream. The sequence thus obtained was
extremely effective. But we need not dwell on it. We are
more immediately concerned to see the effect on B of athetizing
B 35-41. Omitting those lines, the only lines in B, I repeat,
to show that Agamemnon puts the least trust in the dream, we
have the following state of affairs. Agamemnon, in despair at
the defection of Achilles (this is shown by B 375-880), is visited
by a dream assuring him of complete success, and ordering him
to attack in full force ; he relates the dream to the chiefs, who
do not seem to think much of it (80, εἰ μέν τις τὸν ὄνειρον
᾿Αχαιῶν ἄλλος ἔνισπεν, | ψεῦδός Kev φαῖμεν καὶ νοσφιζοίμεθα
μᾶλλον), and proposes to the Achaeans to run away. If on
this any one should remark that it leaves the fundamental
discrepancy of conception untouched—that only a man with a
theory to maintain would find it tolerable that Agamemnon
should wholly disregard the dream in this way, I should not be
surprised. Nor do I think I should improve matters were I to
reply that, if having a theory to maintain constituted a dis-
qualification, every one competent to judge—and therefore my
objector—would be ruled out of court. I propose, therefore,
instead to call a witness who is competent, and who, as far
as we know, is not subject to the disqualification mentioned.

‘The seventh Book of Herodotus, says Grote, ‘reminds us in

THE RHAPSODISING OF THE 71.714}. 307

many points of the second Book of the J/iad. . . . The dream
sent by the gods to frighten Xerxes when about to recede from
his project’ has ‘a marked parallel in the Jliad.’ Let us follow
it further than did Grote. Agamemnon after the defection of
Achilles, as Xerxes after the defection of Artabanus, was ‘about
to recede from his project.’ To both a delusive dream is sent
urging them to proceed. Day dawns, Xerxes calls a meeting,
and announces that he has resolved not to proceed. In the
other case, Agamemnon at break of day calls a meeting, and
proposes to retreat. Xerxes says nothing of his dream. Nor
does Agamemnon (in the ἀγορά). Wherein do the two cases
differ? Is it that Herodotus expressly says of Xerxes, ἡμέρης
δὲ ἐπιλαμψάσης ὀνείρου μὲν τούτου λόγον οὐδένα ἐποιέετο,
while in Homer there is nothing to correspond with this? A
single line would suffice, and may easily have been displaced by
the interpolated lines B 35-41.

There remains a difficulty—the βουλή (B 53-85). It is here
that Agamemnon announces his intention of ‘testing’ the
Achaeans—which seems to show that he had not finally made
up his mind to give up his expedition, as had Xerxes.
Agamemnon relates his dream to the chiefs, and then says:
We might try to call the men to arms, but first I will in the
usual way ‘test them with words. What he means by ‘the
usual way,’ ἣ θέμις ἐστίν, is more than all the commentators
together have succeeded in making out. I may be excused,
therefore, for venturing to suggest that the ‘usual’ thing was to
submit any big question—such as ‘fight or fly?’—to the
assembled Achaeans for their decision. Neither Agamemnon
nor the chiefs put much trust in the dream, and they agree to
be guided rather by the decision of the men than by the dream.
Tf the men decide to retreat, the dream drops; if to remain, the
dream comes into operation.

The only objection to this view is to be found in B 75, which
looks as though Agamemnon had made up his mind—this time
to stay. But as the majority of critics have long decided to
reject it, the objection is not fatal.

In conclusion, we do know on good external evidence that
the Iliad was rhapsodised. We do not know, and there is no
external evidence of any description which leads us to suppose,

308 THE RHAPSODISING OF THE JLIAD.

that the Jliad was ever expanded. In the ‘higher criticism,’ as
in other investigations, the scientific mode of procedure is to
exhaust the consequences of a vera causa before having recourse
to the action of causes purely hypothetical. As modifying the
Iliad, and producing inconsequences and inconsistencies in it,
the rhapsodists are a vera causa; expanders and diaskeuasts
are not.

F, B. JEVONS.

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 309

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOITA.
(1205—1303.)

δ΄ 1. Introductory. The history of Euboia during its occupa-
tion by the Latins is, according to Mr. Freeman, ‘the most
perplexed part of the perplexed Greek history of the time.’ ?
If we turn for information on the subject to Finlay, our one
English authority on the period, we find no attempt at a
consecutive account of it, merely some allusions; the history
of Negroponte is a missing chapter in Finlay, which the present
paper is an attempt to supply. It is also hoped that it will
help to clear up some of the perplexities which beset the
subject.

Before Hopf the history of this island was almost a blank.
Historical investigations concerning the Franks in Romania
may be divided into three periods, represented by Ducange in
the seventeenth century, Buchon 1825-1846, and Hopf 1850—
1870. Buchon’s publication of the Βιβλώον τῆς Kovyxéotas”
(with which Ducange indeed had become acquainted, but not
until his Histoire de Constantinople sous les Empereurs francais
had been published), his discovery of the Livre de la Conqueste
in Brussels, the new documents, treaties and diplomas, which
he brought to light, opened a new era and stimulated a fresh
study of the ‘perplexed’ history. Nothing was required now
but German diligence and exhaustiveness to ransack archives
and fill up the gaps, and German accuracy to correct the slips
made by that /ranzdsische Nonchaiance of which Hopf says even
Buchon was occasionally (stellenaeise) guilty.

1 Historical Geography, p. 423. article ‘The Franks in the Pelopon-
2 A good account of the Greek nese,’ Hellenic Journal, iv., pe 165;
chronicle and its language will be 5η6.
found in Mr. H. I. Tozer’s interesting

310 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

Nee mora longa fuit. The first and only volume of the last
work of Buchon was published in 1846; and the third period
may be dated from the Sitzwng of the Vienna Academy on the
second of October 1850, at which two Bavarian professors, Tafel
and Thomas, were present. Tafel read a paper on the MSS.
relating to Venice in the Imperial Archives on which he and
his colleague were engaged ; and Thomas read the Greek text
and a translation of the remarkable treaty of Michael Palaiologos
with Venice in 1265. Just three years later a paper read before
the same assembly (October 19, 1853) made it quite evident
that a new mine of sources for mediaeval Greek history had
been opened, namely Karl Hopf's Urkundliche Mittheilungen
diber die Geschichte von Karystos auf Eubéa, 1205-14701 The
Geschichte der Insel Andros which followed in 1855, and the
Veneto-byzantinische Analekten in 1859 justified natural expec-
tations and proved the competence of the explorer. The Liber
Allus, the Acta Pactorum, Libri Misti and Libri Commemoriales
were searched and gave up their dead—the forgotten lords
especially of the Aegean islands. Who knew anything of the
Cornari of Skarpanto or the Navigajosi of Lemnos until Hopf
unearthed their history? Hopf followed up his successes and
ransacked many libraries in Southern Europe, in Palermo for
example and Malta; the voluminous Registri Angiovini at
Naples yielded a copious supply of new facts. In 1867 the
Griechische Geschichte appeared, and it was a greater advance on
3uchon than Buchon had been on Ducange. The lost history
of the Greek islands was recovered; the existence of the
Teutonic order and power of the Navarrese company in Achaia
were new facts. To comprehend the amount of progress that
Hopf made, it is only necessary to compare the paragraphs
devoted to Negroponte in Recherches et Matériaux with the Essay
on Karystos; and again if we compare the Essay on Karystos
with the corresponding portions of the Griechische Geschichte we
shall see how much Hopf’s later is superior to his earlier work
in mere knowledge of facts.

This paper relies mainly on Hopf whose history is so detailed
and complete that it may almost be used as if it were an
original source.

1 Jn 1856 an Italian translation by ditions and changes by the author. I
G. B. Sardagna appeared, with ad- have not been able to procure a copy.

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOTA. 311

I divide the history of Euboia from 1205-1470 into three
periods :

I. 1205-1262; the Lombards are paramount in Euboia and
the overlordship of the Prince of Achaia is undisputed.

II. 1262-1385; Venetian influence grows and is finally
paramount: the overlordship of Prince of Achaia is merely
nominal.

III. 1385-1470; undisputed domination of Venice.

These periods are further subdivided.

1.
(1205—1262.)

§ 2. Partition of the Eastern Empire. In the anticipatory
partition of 1204 Euboia was included in the three-eighths of
the empire which fell to the share of Venice. It will be remem-
bered that by that act three-eighths were assigned to the
Crusaders, three-eighths to Venice and one-fourth to the
emperor whoever should be elected. But after the capture of
Constantinople and the election of Baldwin, Count of Flanders,
certain circumstances interfered and prevented the actual
partition of the empire which ensued from resembling the
paper partition which had been designed beforehand. One
circumstance was the peculiar position of Bonifacio, Marquis of
Montferrat, the unsuccessful candidate for the imperial throne,
who was too ambitious and too powerful to be treated as one of
the rank and file of the crusaders. The other circumstance
was the fact that Venice, not having an army available, did not
take immediate steps to enter into possession of the territories
which had been assigned to her. The situation was perplexed
further by a Bulgarian war.

By the act of partition Boniface was assigned the Asiatic
provinces of the empire. After Baldwin’s election he proposed
that in lieu of this he should receive Thessalonica and the sur-
rounding territory with the title of kmg. It would not have
been safe for Baldwin to refuse at this juncture, though he
apprehended danger to his new empire in Boniface’s proposal,
which was soon confirmed by his disinclination to do homage

312 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

fur the kingdom. It became evident that Boniface designed to
organise a Lombard kingdom independent of the empire.

§ 3. Compact of Adrianople. The transaction which took
place at Adrianople in August 1204,! between Boniface and
the Republic of St. Mark gives a further clue to Boniface’s
wide-reaching designs. It was immediately determined by the
firm and prompt action of Baldwin in insisting on an acknowledge-
ment that the King of Thessalonica was vassal of the Emperor
of Romania. By this compact Boniface ceded to Venice Crete
and the sum of 100,000 hyperpers which Alexius III. had
promised to him, also a fief in Europe conferred by Manuel
Komnénos on his father; moreover Thessalonica and its per-
tinences intus et fovis. In return he was to receive 1,000 silver
marks, and as much land in the west, that is in Epeiros, as will
yield an annual revenue of 10,000 gold hyperpers. He bound
himself to defend Venetian possessions.

The fact that Boniface bargained for lands in the west of
Greece shews that he designed to form a Lombard kingdom
extending to the shores of the Adriatic, and as nearly as possible
in communication with his Italian possessions. The fact that
he placed his kingdom under Venetian supremacy shows that
Baldwin’s energy convinced him that he could not yet declare
himself independent of the empire unless he, at least provision-
ally, formed a coalition with another power, and naturally with
Venice. The Venetians who had fixed covetous eyes on Crete,
the bridge to Syria and Egypt, were well satisfied with this
refutatio as it is called by which they acquired a claim to the
island.

It was arranged by Marco Sanudo and Ravano dalle Carceri
of Verona;” aud among the seven witnesses were two of whom
we shall hear again, Dominus Pegorarius de Verona, and
Dominus Gilbertus de Verona.

δ 4. Occupation of Euboia by Jaques @ Avesnes. Karly in the
following year Boniface advanced into Greece at the head of
the Crusaders to conquer the lands which had been assigned

1 Buchon, Lecherches ct Mat. i. 10. S. R. L. xxiii. 984) mentions that,
2 «Domino Marco Sanuto et domino ‘Ser Marco Sanudo e Don Romano
Ravano de Verona recipientibus pro- dalla Carcere Veronese’ arranged the

curatorio nomine pro demino Henrico cession of Crete.
Dandulo’ ete. Navagero (Muratori,

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 313

to them. Another part of his scheme now unfolds itself. He
makes use of his position as commander of the Crusaders to
invest them with fiefs and make them vassals of the kingdom
of Thessalonica, whereas according to the treaty of partition
they should have been immediate vassals of the emperor. [Ὁ
was becoming plainer and plainer that the kingdom of Thessa-
lonica was an anomaly, judged by the original designs. It was
not, however, until after Boniface’s death that the empire and
the kingdom collided on this head. The common enemies—
the Bulgarians, the Greeks of Nikaia and the Greeks of Epeiros
—prevented an earlier collision.

Having successfully overcome the opposition that was offered
at Thermopylai by the Greeks under Leon Sguros, Boniface
invested Otho de la Roche with Boidtia and Attika, and Jaques
d’Avesnes with the island of Enuboia, called by the Italians
Negroponte, by the French Nigrepont, by the Greeks Εὔριπος."
D’Avesnes built and garrisoned a castle at Chalkis, also called
Negroponte, and then hastened immediately to rejoin Boniface,
who had advanced to besiege Corinth whither Leon Sguros
had retreated.

With the island d’Avesnes does not appear to have troubled
himself further; and in August 1205, reserving the lordship to
himself, he allowed his overlord Boniface to divide it into three
large fiefs and invest therewith three Lombard lords whose
connection with the compact of Adrianople indicates perhaps
that they may have been specially well-disposed to Bonifacio.
Ravano dalle Carceri was invested with Southern Euboia,

1 Jt is generally recognised that
Negropont> is a corruption of Evripos
pronounced vulgarly Egripos. This
sees quite proven by the form
Aegripons (Aigrepont) which we also
find used by the Latins, e.g. by Pope
Innocent JIT. (Epist. xi. 256) Hpisco-
patum Acgripontis. The initial ἡ
must be explained by a false separation
(ef. the English words newt, nich-
name) in the expres ‘ion’s τὸν Ἔγριπον,
which became sto Negripon (ef. Ellissen,
Analekten, ii. p. 19). The bridge
at Chalkis was a remarkable feature
which would impress a visitor: it was
not unnatural then that the instinct of

Volksetymologie should form Negro-
ponte. In Latin works of Italian
chroniclers we also find Pons Niger,
e.g. in the Historia Gul. et Alb. Cor-
tusiorum de Novitatitus Paduac et
Lombardiac, Bk. x., 6. 7 J noticed
‘carcerantur in Ponte Nigro,’ and just
below ‘ Nigropontem intraverunt.’ In
Villehardouin’s Conqguéte the island is
called Nigre, and the town, Nigre-
pont. Nigre is curious. The French
evidently interpreted Nigrepont, as
they called Chalkis, ‘the bridge of
Nigre,’ and supposed Nigre, which
suggested no idea, to be the name οἵ
the island,

314 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

including Karystos and Larmena; Gilbertus de Verona who
was related to Ravano received the central part of the island,
and Pegoraro dei Pegorari the northern third.’’ These three
lords were called the terzieri (tierciers) of Negroponte. Hopf
calls them Dreiherrn, and we may call them triarchs.

Before 1209 Jaques d’Avesnes died without issue, and thereby
the triarchs became independent except of the overlordship of
the emperor which was disputed by the Count of Biandrate
(Blandrate) on behalf of the heirs of Boniface, who died in 1207,
In the meantime Pegoraro, the lord of North Euboia, had
returned home, leaving his Third in the possession of either
Ravano alone or Ravano and Gilberto conjointly. Shortly
afterwards, apparently about the beginning of 1209, Gilberto
died, and, although he had two sons Guglielmo and Alberto,
Ravano became sole lord.

§ 5. War of the Barons. In the year 1207 Oberto, Count of
Biandrate (li cuens des Blans-Dras), and the Constable Amadeo
Buffa, acting in the name of Boniface’s son, Guglielmo of Mont-
ferrat, refused the allegiance due from the King of Thessalonica
to the Emperor Henry, Baldwin’s brother and successor. All
the Lombard Barons of Northern Greece, including Ravano of
Euboia, supported the disloyalty of Biandrate. Otho de la
Roche, megaskyr of Athens, upheld the lawful authority of the
Emperor. Henry who possessed the energy and firmness of his
brother Baldwin decided to march against the refractory barons
and enforce their submission,—a necessary step, as the idea of
a rival Lombard empire under William of Montferrat was in the
air. Ravano possessed considerable importance among the
Lombards ; he was named as one of two delegates for a proposed
committee of five who should decide the disputes with Henry?
When the Emperor is at Halmyros in Thessaly, Ravano appears
in the gulf of Volo with a number of galleys, and has an inter-
view with Conon de Béthune and Anseau de Cayeux with the
object of a conciliation, which however was not eftected.2 Henry
adopted a conciliating policy, and most of the barons of Greece,
including Geffrey of the Morea, did homage to him at Ravennika
(a place of mysterious topography) in May 1209,

1 T have deduced this division from Ρ. 868, ed. Natalis de Wailly (3rd ed.).
the division of 1216. 3 Id. δ. xxxiii. ; p. 404,

* Henri de Valenciennes, 6. Xxx. ;

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 315

Ravano, however, was not disposed to submit and did not
attend this diet. In March (1209) he had sent his brother
Henry, Bishop of Mantua, as an envoy to Venice, to offer to the
Republic the overlordship of Negroponte ; and trusting in this
he ventured to defy Henry. But the siege of the Kadmeia
changed the aspect of the situation and induced Ravano and
Alberto, lord of Bodonitza, who was also recalcitrant, to submit.
Peace was made, and the Count of Biandrate who was a prisoner
at Thessalonica was released. Vowing to avenge himself on
the emperor he proceeded to Negroponte. Henry also repaired
thither, and his visit may be related in the words of Henri de
Valenciennes."

§ 6. Ravano entertains the Emperor Henry. ‘The Emperor
went to the principal church in Athens to pray; this church is
called Nostre Dame; and Othes de la Roche, who was lord
thereof (to whom the marquis had given it) honoured him there
as far as was in his power. There the Emperor sojourned two
days and on the third set out towards Negrepont. He passed
the night in a village and rested there until the next day, when
Banduins de Pas told him that the Count of Blans-Dras was at
Negrepont: “and know, sire, that I passed the night at Negre-
pont and heard there that if you go he will seize you.” And
when the Emperor heard it he was very sad thereat, and said
that on account of this he would not fail to go.

‘He then called Ravans and the Constable who was with him,
and Othon dela Roche and Ansiel de Kaeu (Anseau de Cayeux),
and told them that the Count had threatened to seize him, were
he to go to Negrepont. And Ravans bade him not to be afraid :
“ You know well,’ said he, “that the city is mine, and I will take
you thither with a safe conduct, my head upon 10. “I know
not,” answered the Emperor, “ what may or may not come of it,
but I will go.” The next day he set forth in a galley, he and
Ravans, to go to Negrepont. But under whatsoever augury
he may have entered the city, I trow he will feel great terror
before he can leave it; for the treachery was all agreed upon
and prepared.

‘The Emperor Henry entered Negrepont with great joy, and

‘the Greeks (li Grifon) of the town and the country received him
gladly and came to meet him with a great sound of trumpets

PG Cy RXV) Ρ. 418,

316 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

and musical instruments, and conducted him to a church of
Our Lady to pray. And when he had prayed as much as it
pleased him he arose and left the church. The Count of Blans-
Dras had already arranged how the Emperor was to be slain.
They said he had come almost unattended, for he had with him
only thirty knights. They agreed to seize him when at table
or when sleeping in his bed; thus they might be avenged and
not otherwise.

‘The Emperor remained in this manner amongst them for
three days. News came to Thebes that be had been taken at
Negrepont. Then you might have seen his knights wonder-
stricken and strangely incensed and disconcerted. And the
news spread throughout all the Jand. The Emperor was three
days αὖ Negrepont and no one said or did anything to displease
him. And Ravans acted as if he knew all the plot and how it
had been concerted. ‘Then he went to the Count and said to
him: “ Count of Blans-Dras, what wouldest thou do? How in
God’s name could thy heart resolve to commit such a disloyal
act as to slay the Emperor, from the shame whereof thou
couldest not in the end escape? And moreover thou knowest
it for truth that he has come to Negrepont upon my safe
conduct; and I am his liegeman. How canst thou think then
that I could permit him to be injured? Count of Blans-Dras,
why should I say more to thee? So aid me God, I cannot
permit it.”

‘What avails this? If Ravans had not been there, the
Emperor could not have left Negrepont without much troub!e
or without receiving bodily injury. The Emperor expressed a
desire to return to Thebes to see his men, who as he had been
told were in fear for him. He left Negrepont and arrived at
Thebes. And we need not ask if his men came to meet him
and gave him a great reception as their liege lord. But for
the present our tale is silent on this matter, and returns to
Burile (Vorylas) who was preparing to enter the Emperor's
territory with a Jarge force.’

δ 7. Venetian settlement at Negroponte. The appeal of Ravano
to Venice in 1209 gave her an opportunity to place a hand,
gently indeed at first, on this important island. The Republic
might indeed have claimed it as having been assigned to it in
the Treaty of Partition ; but this claim was never urged, and

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 317

it was only gradually that the Venetian power became dominant
in Euboia. At first the Venetians took no measures to take
possession of the large territories—the Peloponnésos, Epeiros,
Euboia, and the islands in the Archipelago—to which the Par-
tition conferred a claim. In the first place these countries had
to be conquered, and Venice was not disposed to go to the
necessary expenses; and in the second place her attention was
engrossed with two tasks which she considered of paramount
importance, the occupation of Kandia and the establishment of
the authority of the new patriarch. One of the arrangements
of the Partition was that the patriarchate should be held by a
Venetian; the Venetians had said, ‘ Imperium est vestrum, nos
habebimus patriarchatum.’+ Venice saw the importance of
having the Church in her hands as far as poxssible, as a balance
to the influence of Innocent III. and the Curia, with which she
was generally not on very good terms. She had also been
engaged in founding the short-lived colony of Korft.

On receiving the embassy of Ravano, who offered to pay to
the Republic 2,100 gold pieces annually, and grant it free
quarters in Negroponte and any other towns of the island, the
Doge despatched Pietro Arimondi to Euboia to arrange matters
with the baron; and the agreement was concluded in 1211. It
is uncertain whether the post of Bailo (μπαίλος, bajulus) of
Negroponte was instituted in this year or not until 1216 at the
time of Ravano’s death.

It is important to note that this was the mode in which
Venice set foot in Euboia; for wrong conceptions were after-
wards entertained, as was perhaps natural, seeing that the
island de jure belonged to Venice if the Treaty of Partition were
valid. Thus we read in the Storia Veneziana of Navagero that
the city of Negroponte, which at the division of the empire had
fallen to the share of the Signoria di Venezia, ‘fu da quella data
in feudo a Don Roman dalle Carceri e fratelli e nipoti. I quali
a propie spese l’andarono ad acquistare e la possederono co’ loro
eredi sino a questo tempo (1255). It was from Boniface and
not from Venice that the triarchs received Euboia.

§ 8. Ravano and the Church. It was not merely the unplea-
sant relations subsisting between Henry and the kingdom of
Thessalonica with which Ravano identified himself, that rendered

1 Pertz, Mon. Hist. Germ. xvi. 12,
HS:.—VOL. VIL. Z

318 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

the protection of Venice desirable. Ravano had fallen foul of
the most mighty potentate of the time, Pope Innocent III.,
and Venice was the power that would be most ready to coun-
tenance an anti-papal attitude. After the death of Jaques
d’'Avesnes, and perhaps before it, Ravano did not scruple to
interfere with Church property, and the Templars who had settled
in the island? lodged a complaint at Rome. Innocent wrote
thus to the Bishop of Damala: ‘Suam ad nos dilecti filii, fratres
militiae Templi, querimoniam transmisere quod nobilis vir
Ravanus, dominus insulae Nigropontis, quasdam possessiones a
Jacobo, quondam domino de Avennis, pietatis imtuitu concessas
eisdem in animae suae dispendium detinere presumit’ (15
October, 1210).

In another way also had Ravano sinned. He had a liaison
with one Isabella, a married lady, and wedded her after her
husband’s death. Berard, Archbishop of Athens, under whose
jurisdiction was included the bishopric of Negroponte, excom-
municated him; in 1212 Innocent released him from the ban.*
Perhaps Berard would not have proceeded to this extremity
had not Ravano opposed him in another matter. Theodoros
was the Greek Bishop of Euboia, and Cardinal Benedict, the
Pope’s legate, probably at the instance of Ravano allowed him
to remain in office and (1208) the Pope confirmed this arrange-
ment. But Berard deposed him for employing non-Latin
ritual, yet did not succeed in effecting his removal.

Four bishoprics in Euboia are mentioned as subject to the
Archbishop of Athens—Negroponte, Karystos, Zorkon, and
Avalona. There is difficulty as to the identification of the

3 Tnnocent’s letter
which

1 Ep. xi. 117 isa letter addressed to Berard in

‘ Nobilibus viris dominis Nigripontis,’
bidding them pay the tithes due to the
Theban Ecclesia.

2 The possessions of the Templars in
Euboia are detailed in Letter xiii. 146,
which is addressed to them: ‘domum
Nigripontis cum his quae habet in
Nigroponte et domum de Lageran et
casale de Oizparis cum eoruin pertin-
entiis ac alia quae tenetis in insula
Nigripontis.’ These grants were made
by Ravano, Jaques d’Avesnes and
Giberto (Gubertus),

he removes the ban (mis-
ericorditer dispensare) is dated 27th
May, 1212. The dispensation is on
condition that no agreement had been
made between Ravano and the lady
during her husband’s life-time, and
that she had not been instrumental in
contriving her husband’s death. This
condition makes the affair look some-
what suspicious.

4 Episcopatum . Abelonensem,
Zorconesem, Caristiensem (Inn. Ep.
xi. 256).

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOTA. 319

two last; that they are in Euboia seems almost certain. Hopf
suggests the identification of Zorkon with Oreos, but for this
there is neither evidence nor probability. I propose to identify
the name Zorkon with that of the modern village Zarka, a little
to the north of Styra, and the ancient Zarex. Avalona, I would
suggest, may have been in the neighbourhood of Avalonari,
south of Kumi.

The diet of Ravennika in May, 1210 (to be distinguished
from the assembly at the same place in May, 1209) was chiefly
of ecclesiastical importance. Although Innocent confirmed it
in December, the spirit of the emperor and the barons was by
no means favourable to the papal pretensions. It was distinctly
a settlement of differences between Church and State without
consulting the Pope. Henry adopted the secular policy of which
Frederick II. was the representative in the thirteenth century ;
and in his anti-papal attitude he found an ally in the Venetian
Patriarch Morosini, who desired to render the Church in Romania
independent of Rome. Morosini was a promoter of the diet of
Ravennika, which established the payment of the akrostichon
by the clergy to the secular powers and secured the principle of
secularising Church property—a principle which the Venetians
were already adopting in Crete.

Ravano signed the articles of Ravennika with the other
barons.

§ 9. Division of Euboia on Ravano’s death. In 1216 Ravano
dalle Carceri died, and the three parts of Euboia which had been
united under his lordship were again divided. The Venetian
Bailo, Pietro Barbo, helped to arrange a new partition (November
17) among the claimants, who were six in number, three pairs :
namely, (1) Isabella, Ravano’s widow, and Berta his daughter,
(2) Rizzardo and Marino, the sons of his brother Redondello
dalle Carceri, whom he had adopted before his marriage, (3)
Guglielmo and Alberto de Verona, his kinsmen, sons of Giberto
de Verona, formerly triarch of Central Euboia.

The southern Third was assigned to Isabella and Berta; the
central Third to Guglielmo and Alberto, naturally succeeding
to the Third which had been their father’s; the northern Third,
which had been Pegoraro’s, to Marino who married Pegoraro’s
daughter Margherita, and his brother Rizzardo. The Thirds
thus fell into Sixths, which however it was intended should be

Ζ 2

320 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

rejoined ; for a peculiar arrangement was made, by which, if one
of the two hexarchs (sestieri) died, the other hexarch, and not
the deceased’s heirs, was to succeed.

It seems that Ravano had a younger daughter, Felisa dalle
Carceri. She afterwards married Otho de Cicon, who was
invested, by her sister Berta presumably, with the barony of
Karystos.

It is to be observed that in the growth of Venetian influence
in Kuboia the year 1216 marks a distinctly new stage. By the
treaty of 1211 a sort of overlordship of the island nominally
belonged to Venice, not colliding however with the relation of
Ravano to the emperor. But it is not till 1216 that she prac-
tically interferes in its affairs. When the Venetian Bailo
arranged matters between the Lombard claimants, a precedent
of great practical consequence was formed, and the influence of
the Bailo was enormously increased. This increase of influence
was marked by the introduction of Venetian weights and mea-
sures, the extension of Venetian privileges, and endowment of
the church of San Marco. In fact a Venetian station was
instituted at Negroponte of the same kind as the settlement at
Constantinople. <A large influx of settlers from Venice probably
took place about this time. In the year 1224 it was ordained
that the Bailo’s salary should be 450 gold hyperpers, out of
which he was to maintain a notary, a servant and three horses ;
besides this he was to receive as viaticum 100 pounds.

§ 10. Relations of Euboia to Achaia. Some obscurity hangs
over the relations of the triarchs of Euboia to the principality
of Achaia. According to the chronicle of Morea, Bonifacio of
Montferrat invested Guillaume de Champlitte with the over-
lordship of Athens and Euripos.’’ This of course is fictitious.
It is also very doubtful whether the story, contained in the same
untrustworthy chronicle, that the Emperor Robert conferred the
suzerainty of the Archipelago on Geffrey II. at Larissa,” has any
foundation ; the context is certainly legendary. In 1286, how-
ever, Geffrey, who had come in person to Constantinople and
aided Baldwin II. with a considerable sum, was invested by that

1 ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸν ἔδωκε τρί ὁμάτζια ἐκ τὴν Βερόναν ἤσασιν ἀπὸ τὴν Λουμ-
τοῦ Εὐρίπου... παρδίαν.᾽
οἱ δὲ τοῦ Εὐρίπου ὅποῦ λαλῶ, ἐκεῖνοι 2 Buchon, Chron. Etr. p. 63.

a > /
τρεῖς αὐθέντες

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 321

emperor with tbe overlordship of the Archipelago (Duchy of
Naxos), Euboia and the possessions of the Duke of Athens
which lay south of the isthmus. By this investiture the triarchs
were engaged to supply to the prince a galley or eight knights.
Geffrey himself received 2,150 muggi (modi) of land in the
island, Euboia now stood in the same relation to the Prince
of Achaia as it at first stood to the King of Thessalonica.

At the siege of Monembasia in 1247-8, the triarchs performed
their duty as vassals of William of Achaia. The chronicle ot
Morea makes them take part also in the siege of Argos and
Corinth, which it erroneously places in the time of William,
whereas they were really exploits of Geffrey II.

§ 11. Gap in Euboian history from 1216-1255. Of the internal
history of Euboia during the time of Geffrey II. of Achaia and
the first ten years of the sovereignty of his successor William
we know almost nothing; we have not even a record of the
Baili of Negroponte. This is the more unfortunate, as after-
wards, when our sources of information become fuller, we are
met with certain difficulties which a more precise knowledge of
the events of this period would solve.

In 1220 Rizzardo dalle Carceri, hexarch in northern Euboia,
was dead. He had one daughter, Carintana, of whom we shall
hear more, but, in accordance with the arrangement of 1216, his
Sixth reverted to the surviving hexarch, and accordingly Marino
became triarch of north Euboia.

The same thing soon afterwards happened in central Euboia.
Alberto died and Guglielmo became sole lord.

Of southern Euboia we hear nothing. After 1216 Isabella
and Berta are as the Germans say verschollen.

Four other events happened before 1255: (1) Marino died,
and his son Narzotto succeeded him as triarch; (2) Carintana,
niece of Marino and cousin of Narzotto, became possessed of
either a Sixth or Third of Euboia; (3) Grapella, son of Alberto
and nephew of Guglielmo da Verona, became a_hexarch;
(4) Carintana married William Villehardouin, Prince of
Achaia.

In 1255 the lady Carintana died, and William laid claim in
her name to the north of Euboia, calling himself a triarch. At
this point a great difficulty as to the distribution of the Euboian
fiefs begins to appear.

322 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

δ 12. Problem as to distribution of Thirds and Sixths. The
diticulties and apparent inconsistencies which meet us are as
follows :

(1) In 1216 Isabella and Berta possess the southern Third ;
after this we hear nothing of them.

(2) In 1255, when Villehardouin claimed the Barony of Oreos,
according to Hopf (p. 277), ‘Zogen...Guglielmo da Verona und
dessen Schwiegersohn Narzotto dalle Carceri, welche damals die
iibrigen zwei Drittheile besassen, alsbald ihren Antheil, die
Baronie Oreos ein und beliechen damit den Grapella dalle Carceri,
ihren Verwandten. As Guglielmo was triarch of central
Euboia, this implies that Narzotto was lord of southern Euboia.
But as heir of his father Marino we expect to find him lord of
northern Euboia. Here are two questions: how does Narzotto
become lord of southern Euboia ? and how did Carintana obtain
northern Euboia ?

That William’s claims were based upon Carintana’s actual
possession of a part of Euboia and not merely upon the fact that
her father Rizzardo had once been hexarch, is proved by the
circumstance that she invested a Venetian, Michele Morosini,
with territory in the island. It is extremely improbable that
William would have engaged in a war with his vassals on this
pretext. Hopf is here inconsistent. He says (p. 273) that the
whole northern Third descended from Marino to Narzotto, and
that William seemed even then—just after his accession—
inclined ‘die Anspriiche seiner Gemahlin gegeniiber den andern
Dreiherrn geltend zu machen’; and again (p. 274), ‘trotzdem
fiel es nun dem Fiirsten ein, ihre (Carintana’s) angeblichen
Anrechte auf ein Drittel der Insel geltend zu machen. From
these passages it would appear that Narzotto was in posséssion
of northern Euboia, and that Carintana had no actual portion
in the island. This is inconsistent not only with the investiture
of Morosini (recorded p. 278), but with the passage quoted
above. The fact stated there distinctly implies that Carintana
did possess the Barony of Oreos until her death, upon which
the other triarchs took possession of it and transferred it to
Grapella.

(3) Seeing that in some unexplained manner Narzotto is lord
of south Euboia and Grapella of north Euboia, we find by
following out the line of inheritance that in 1320 Ghisi has

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 323

south Euboia, Beatrix de Noyers central Euboia, Maria Cornaro
and Pietro dalle Carceri northern Euboia.

But in 1341 this Maria’s daughter, Guglielma, who claimed
her mother’s Sixth, which Pietro had in the meantime seized,
had a dispute with Agnese of Larmena, professing to be liege
lady of that place. Now Larmena is close to Styra in southern
Euboia, and hence it would appear that the Sixth, claimed by
Guglielma and possessed by Maria and her father Gaetano,
must have been in south Euboia. In other words Grapella,
who was succeeded by Gaetano and Grapozzo, must have
possessed a Sixth in south Euboia. Here is a glaring in-
consistency.

(4) Another difficulty is the position of the Barony of
Karystos, which generally appears independent of the triarchs,
and yet was originally part of the southern Third.

§ 13. Hypothesis to solve these difficulties. From the fact that
we hear no more of Ravano’s daughter Berta we may deduce
that she died without heirs. I propose to assume that on her
death the two remaining triarchs, Guglielmo and Marino (or, if
he were dead, his son Narzotto), made a new arrangement,
with the assistance probably of the Bailo of Negroponte. Three
persons would naturally put in a claim; Felisa dalle Carceri,
Berta’s younger sister, who had married Otho de Cicon, lord. of
Karystos ; Carintana, Marino’s niece, and daughter of the former
hexarch Rizzardo; Grapella, Guglielmo’s nephew, and son of the
former hexarch Alberto,

The arrangement, I suppose, took this form :

Grapella received a Sixth, half of southern Euboia, and
married Guglielmo’s daughter, his cousin Margherita ;

Carintana received a Sixth, but instead of receiving the
other moiety of southern Euboia Narzotto took it and gave to
her half of northern Euboia, doubtless the same part which her
father Rizzardo had held, including Oreos ;

Felisa and Otho de Cicon probably did not receive an
extension of territory, but in lieu thereof Karystos was made
independent of the triarchs.

I believe that this hypothesis will explain all the difficulties.
It follows that both the Third of Narzotto and the Third of
Grapella consisted of two Sixths not contiguous. The southern
Sixth of Grapella must have fallen to the share of Gaetano, and

324 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

thus is explained the second difficulty mentioned above—
Guglielma’s claim to Larmena.

As to Grapella receiving a Sixth we may compare Hopf,
p. 275: ‘Da aber Alberto’s altester Sohn Grapella...sich mit
Margherita da Verona, Guglielmo’s Tochter, vermihlt hatte,
iiberliess letzerer gern dem Eidam einen Antheil an der Herr-
schaft. That Guglielmo would have transferred to Grapella
any considerable part of his own Third seems most highly
improbable. The basis of this statement is doubtless an
unprecise allusion to Grapella’s acquisition in the south.

William Villehardouin claimed the Barony of Oreos. We
must not identify it with the northern Third, as Hopf does.
The Barony of Oreos was the Sixth of Carintana; the other
Sixth was Narzotto’s. That William claimed a whole Third?
need not necessarily be inferred from the fact that he called
himself a triarch (tertiarius). The word tertiarius, terziero, was
probably used in a general way to designate a lord of Euboia.
We find it afterwards applied to Bonifacio da Verona, who was
not even a hexarch.

That some arrangement in regard to southern Euboia took
place between 1216 and 1255 is certain. That which I have
suggested above seems to me the only one which could produce
the circumstances which we find afterwards. Documents
bearing on the subject may yet be brought to light.

§ 14. Zhe triarchs and Venice prepare for war. William
Villehardouin and Carintana dalle Carceri had no children, so
that if William’s claim had been admitted a Sixth of Euboia
would have passed completely from the Veronese family.
Guglielmo, Narzotto, and Grapella were not disposed to favour
such an idea, even though William was their overlord, and
though Guglielmo had married Simona, a niece of William,
after the death of his first wife Helena of Montferrat. The
solidarity of the three triarchs had been rendered firm by two
marriages: Grapella married Margherita da Verona, Narzotto
married Felisa da Verona; Margherita and Felisa were sisters,
daughters of Guglielmo.

When Carintana died (1255) and William asserted his claims

1 Navagero, who in these matters is cessione di madre il principe d’Achaia,

not accurate, says : ‘Era neldominio di __ restati gli altri due terzi nella familia
quella οἰ τὰ un terzo pervenuto per suc- dalle Carceri’ (p. 997).

325

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

to her Sixth, appealing in vain to the Venetians to assist him
in enforcing them, Narzotto and Guglielmo quietly took
possession of the Sixth and gave it to Grapella. William’s
attitude was threatening.

Paolo Gradenigo was bailo at this time. In 1256 (June 14)
a new treaty was made between Venice and the Lombard lords
for the purpose of joint operations against the Prince of Morea.
It was on the basis of the old treaties of 1211 and 1216.
Guglielmo gave up the castle on the bridge of Chalkis—the
Black Bridge, Negroponte, as it was called—to Venice, and also
a considerable tract of land close to Chalkis—probably a strip
of the famous Lelantine plain. All the receipts of custom were
to go to the Venetian treasury, the triarchs themselves being
alone exempted from paying duties; on the other hand they
were released from the tribute of 700 hyperpers which they used
to pay to Venice.!

But the distinctive feature, as it was the motive, of this treaty
is the ‘viva guerra’ to be waged against Villehardouin if he
persist in illegal claims.

The treaty was not finally concluded till January, 1257.
Among the witnesses was Francesco da Verona, a son of
Guglielmo.”

Thus a coalition was formed between Venice and the Lombards
against the Prince of Achaia. This coalition was joined by
William de la Roche, brother of Guy of Athens, and baron of
Veligosti in Morea, who was thus recusant to his liege lord. On
the other band Otho de Cicon,’ lord of Karystos, and Leone dalle
Carceri, nephew of Guglielmo and brother of Grapella, sided
with William.

Michele Morosini,* liegeman of Carintana, left the island to

1 That is 700 hyperpers each. The _ settlement in Negroponte.

tribute originally arranged was 2100
gold hyperpers, see § 7.

* The treaty was renewed again on
May 6th, 1258, with the new Bailo
Barozzi, with two modifications: the
war was tobe confined to Romania, and
the power of concluding peace was
restricted to the Doge. Among the
witnesses were Buturello dalle Carceri,
a brother of Grapella, and Marzio
Zuglano, podest’ of the Venetian

3 Otho de Cicon was third son of
Jacques de Cicon and Sibylla, adaughter
of Pons Flagey, a younger brother of
Otho de la Roche.

4 This Morosini was procurator of
William, and this must be connected
with the fact stated by Hopf that
Carintana had invested him with a sixth
of the island, i.e., her whole property ;
but Morosini was not a hexarch.

326 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

escape from a dilemma which vexed his conscience—the necessity
of fighting against his country, Venice, or fighting in an unjust
cause. The behaviour of Morosini, de Cicon, and Leone cer-
tainly indicates that William had a considerable show of right
on his side—had more right than would be established by the
mere fact that his wife Carintana was the daughter of Rizzardo,
whose claim to a Sixth had legally lapsed on his death in 1220.

§ 15. William Villehardowin makes war on Euboia. In 1256
William marched to Rupo, the ancient Orobiai, on the north-
west coast of the island. His position as overlord gave him the
upper hand. He summoned the two most prominent triarchs,
Guglielmo and Narzotto :1 they did not think it wise to disobey
their liege lord, and he promptly laid them under arrest.

Then Simona, the wife of Guglielmo and niece of William
Villehardouin, and Felisa, the wife of Narzotto, accompanied by
«a number of the dalle Carceri family, appeared before the
Venetian Bailo, Marco Gradenigo, ‘with rent raiment and
dishevelled hair, to beg his intervention for the release of the
two barons. In the meantime William had sent a detachment,
which took possession of the town of Negroponte, but the bailo
at the head of his Venetians recaptured it. He did not hold it
long, however, for Geffrey de la Bruyéres, William’s nephew,
soon arrived and drove the Venetians out.

There ensued a long siege of a year and a month. The bailo
blockaded the town with three galleys and erected a bulwark—
said to have been built in one day—la difesa di Santa Maria dei
Cazzonelli. William de la Roche did all he could to assist the
Venetians; even the Pope, Alexander IV., interfered, using his
influence to induce William to come to terms. The long
blockade was at length crowned with success, and the town
capitulated at the beginning of 1258.

During the siege William had kept troops in occupation of
the Barony of Oreos, which he claimed ; these he now withdrew
to concentrate his forces on Negroponte, leaving, however, a
garrison in the town of Oreos. The new bailo Barozzi, who
succeeded Gradenigo in 1258, acted with vigour, and in a battle
which took place to the north of Chalkis completely defeated
the army of Achaia. The prisoners captured in this engage-
ment were sent to Venice. Barozzi, determined to follow up his

1 Navagero calls them ‘i due compadroni.’

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 327

victory, continued his march northward to Oreos, but was re-
pulsed with considerable loss in an attempt on that town.
Among others Paolo Gradenigo, formerly bailo, lost his life.

About the same time William gained another success in
Attica. Causes of offence had passed between him and Guy de
la Roche, William claiming the overlordship of Athens, which
Guy refused to acknowledge. In 1258 William took decisive
measures to punish Guy, invaded Attica, and defeated him in
the battle of Karydi, notwithstanding the treachery of his
trusted nephew, Geftrey de la Bruyéres, the baron of Karytena.
William and Guy made peace on the understanding that the
subject of their dispute was to be submitted to the arbitration
of St. Louis.

The result of Karydi, combined with the defeat at Oreos,
rendered Venice inclined to make peace. The new bailo,
T. Giustiniani (1259), was directed to treat with Villehardouin,
and at the same time two ambassadors were sent to Morea.

§ 16. Treaty ef Thebes. But a series of events was now
taking place, not immediately connected with the politics of
Euboia, but destined soon to affect that island as well as all
other parts of the empire of Romania. The first of these events
was the battle of Pelagonia (Oct. 1259), in which William of
Achaia was taken prisoner by Michael Palaiologos. Guy de la
Roche, who was then absent in France, laying before king Louis
his dispute with William, was elected temporary governor or
bailo of the Morea. On hearing the news he returned with all
possible speed to the East, and restored the order which had
been disturbed through want of a responsible head. He set
free the triarchs Guglielmo and Narzotto, and treated with
Venice, which (January 2, 1262) empowered Andrea Barbarigo,
the bailo, and others to arrange a peace with the prince of
Achaia or his representatives.

About the same time William was released from captivity on
certain hard conditions, and returned to his principality. There,
urged by his vassal, the Venetian Lorenzo Tiepolo, lord of
Skyros and Skopelos, he consented to negotiate a treaty with
Venice. The transaction took place in the house of Archbishop
Henry at Thebes on the 15th and 16th of May, 1262.

(1) The general basis of the treaty was the restitution of the
status quo before the outbreak of the war, or as it was expressed

328 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

in the treaty before the lady Carintana’s death, but with certain
modifications. (2) The arrangement made in 1256, that Venice
was to levy the custom duties, continues in force; but now the
prince as well as the triarchs is declared exempt. (8) Venice
also retained the quarters then granted to her, except the palace
of Villehardouin in Negroponte, in which Michele Morosini, his
procurator, had resided. (4) Venice engaged to restore to the
triarchs all property which the baili had conferred in fief since
1255.1 (5) The triarchs engaged to demolish the castle of
Negroponte ; the site was to remain theirs, while the right of
pre-emption of houses they might build thereon was reserved to
Venice. (6) Guglielmo, Narzotto, and Grapella were recognised
as the terzierl. (7) All treaties made between the triarchs and
Venice to the detriment of the prince of Achaia were annulled
—the treaties of 1211, 1216 of course remaining valid, so far as
not modified by subsequent treaties in force. (8) William was
recognised as lawful suzerain of the triarchs of Euboia.
(9) William granted to Venice personal security for all
Venetians in the Morea.

Among the witnesses were Francesco da Verona, William de
la Roche, Lorenzo Tiepolo (afterwards Doge).

$17. Position of parties after the war. It will be seen that
this treaty was least favourable to Venice of the three parties
concerned.

The triarchs had carried their point against William as to the
Barony of Oreos, which remained in the hands of Grapella,
while their relations to Venice were hardly altered.

William, too, though unsuccessful in regard to the original
caussa belli, had forced Venice to recognise him as overlord of
the triarchs.

Whereas Venice on the one hand had not much improved its
relations with the Lombard barons, and on the other hand had
suffered a decided defeat from Villehardouin. This, its first,
attempt to become paramount in Euboia had been unsuccessful.
We can see that the Republic was keenly sensible that it had
made a mistake, by the principle of non-interference in feudal

1 Τὴ practice exceptions seem tohave Bailo in 1256 for 20 years and were
been made. Hopf mentions the cases allowed, Villehardouin consenting, to
of D. Moro and Enrico Trevisani who _ retain them.
received investitures of fiefs from the

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 329

disputes, which it henceforward instructed the baili of Negro-
ponte to adopt. They were especially cautioned against
sequestering fiefs,

The settlement in Crete consoled Venice to a certain extent
for her disappointment in Euboia. In 1266 Crete was called by
the Doge fortitudo et robur imperii, a phrase which in the next
century became more applicable to Kuboia.

The relations of William with the triarchs continued friendly
until the death of the former in 1278. He became especially
attached to Guglielmo da Verona (the husband of his niece
Simona), the oldest and most influential of the three; and
actually conceived the plan of transferring to him the overlord-
ship of not only his fellow triarchs but of the Duke of Athens.
The plan was not carried out, as Guglielmo died in 1263,
having been a lord of Euboia—at first a hexarch, and after the
death of Alberto a triarch—for forty-seven years. It is said
that the sons of Guy de la Roche were ready to transfer their
allegiance to Guglielmo; this shows that he must have been a
person of influence and auctoritas, His claim to the kingdom of
Thessalonica—now only titular, but nevertheless a distinction—
by his first wife, Helena of Montferrat, was recognised by the
emperor, Baldwin 11., and the Pope (1243-4); this gave him
additional prestige.

It may be mentioned here that Baldwin on his way from his
lost capital to Italy in 1261 visited Euboia, and was honourably
entertained by the triarchs.

§ 18. Condition of Euboia in the thirteenth century. The posi-
tion of Venice in Negroponte resembled her position in Constan-
tinople, and must be distinguished from her position in Crete,
or even in the south of Messenia, Crete was regularly colonised
by Venetians, its government was completely in the hands of
Venetians, it was designed to be a second Venice, and Kandia
was laid out on the model of the city of the lagoons; in Euboia
Venice had at first merely a sort of naval station and diplomatic
bureau. Though Koron and Modon were towns in a land which
did not belong to her, the towns themselves were completely in
the hands of her military castellans; whereas the town of
Negroponte was not completely Venetian, but belonged to the
Lombard lords of Euboia who resided in it.

Yet the bailo of Negroponte was more important than the

330 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

dukes of Crete in the general political transactions of Venice in
the East, and was far more important than the captains who
governed Koron and Modon.' The central position of Negro-
ponte made it an important position, and it afterwards became
the chief object of Venice’s concern.

It was probably fortunate for the prosperity of Euboia that it
was in the hands of Lombards, for Lombards were more likely
than Franks to live peacefully with Venetians. For the
Lombard character, partly chivalrous and partly commercial,
was a sort of mean between the martial Frank and the trading
Venetian ; just as Venice itself was a sort of half-way house
connecting the Greeks with the western nations, partaking of
the character of both. Their mutual experience in the north of
Italy rendered Venetians and Lombards suitable neighbours in
the East.

The Lombard barons were amateur corsairs, and the position
of Euboia rendered it an excellent headquarters for such a
pursuit. Narzotto dalle Carceri and Grapella were especially
notorious for their energy and success in enriching themselves
by piracy. They filled their castles with the spoils of ships
taken in the Archipelago, and extended their expeditions as far
as the coast of Asia Minor. Their ships numbered a hundred,
and it is related that once near Anaia, a town facing Samos,
they took the immense haul of 50,000 hyperpers’ worth of gems
and precious metals. The Archipelago was infested with pirates
at this time; even the de la Roches of Athens indulged in
the art.

A large number of kinsmen of the triarchs lived in Euboia,
provided with appanages. Many had migrated from Lombardy
and settled in Euboia. The empire of Romania in the thirteenth
century resembled in one respect the English colonies in the
nineteenth; it was a place for younger sons to try their
fortunes. Nicolo dalle Carceri, a nephew of Ravano, and
brother of Marino and Rizzardo, was one of the first arrivals.
He had a son Marino, first cousin of Narzotto; and a document

1 The salary of the Bailo was 450, was consigned to them. The office of
that of the Castellan 250 gold hyperpers. _ the Bailo according to Navagero(p. 997)
In 1249 two councillors were appointed was to administer ‘ragion sommaria’
to assist the Bailo, and in the following to the Venetians who were in Negro-
year the duty of collecting the revenue _ ponte.

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 331

is extant in which Narzotto’s son Merinetto (of whom we shall
hear more hereafter) grants to this Marino certain lands, in-
cluding the village of Trapano. The sons of Alberto (brothers
of Grapella) lived in the island, taking part in the wars in which
their kinsmen were engaged, and doubtless also in the piratical
expeditions—Leone, Butarello, Giovan Goberto, and Bonifacio.
Francesco da Verona, le viellart as he was called, a brother of
Guglielmo I., was a person of special consequence; his sons
afterwards became sestieri.

The town of Negroponte was the general residence of the
Lombard barons and their kinsmen; here all deeds and titles
were issued; for it was common to all and not particularly
identified with the triarch of central Euboia.

We have already mentioned Otho de Cicon, the Burgundian,
who among the lesser lords in Kuboia was especially notable.
Through his mother Sibylla he was connected with the ducal
house of Athens; and by his wife Felisa he became lord of
Karystos, which he converted into a strong fastness. The docu-
ment which records his present to the abbey of Bellevaux in
1250 is preserved in the Cartulaire de Bellevaux,! and is worth
quoting. It shows that he too had a house in Negroponte.

‘Je Othe de Cycons, sires de Caryste, doigne ἃ labbaye de
Bellevaus en Bourgoigne de l’ordre de Cisteans, vint livrées de
ma terre que je ait en Bourgoigne pour l’ame de moi et pour
les ames de mon pere, de ma mére et de mon frére. Et vuoil
et commant que al lor soit assenée et delivrée sitost comme on
saural que je serai trespassez de cest siegle. Et por ce que cest
dons soit fermes et estables, ai-je fait sailer ces lettres de mon
séel, Et ce fut fait ἃ Aigrepont en ma maison, l’an de lincar-
nation Nostre Seigneur mille deux cents et cinquante, en
décembre.’

The condition of the Greek population in Euboia was much
ameliorated under the Latin domination. Euboia, like the
other parts of the empire, must have experienced the general
depression and misery produced by the incompetent misgovern-
ment of the Angeloi. We learn that in the latter half of the
thirteenth century the population was increasing, which is the
surest sign of material improvement. During the war with the

1 Quoted by Hopf in his Abhandlung on Karystos, Sitzwngsber. der Wiener
Akad., 1853.

332 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

prince of Achaia, and still more afterwards during the war with
the Palaiologoi, the inhabitants necessarily suffered; they were
continually exposed to danger from pirates. Nevertheless,
though of course there was not the same prosperity as there
had been in the ninth and tenth centuries, there was a vast
improvement on the twelfth.

Thus the external choregia of life which forms one, and that
a large, portion of the happiness of the average man was
probably enjoyed by the Euboidtes.

As to the other factor, spiritual freedom, it meant to the
Greeks of that time nothing more than orthodoxy; all their
aspirations were limited by the horizon of the Greek Church,
This also was secured to them. To judge from the fact that
Theodéros was allowed to continue in his see, in spite of Arch-
bishop Berard, the Greeks had not to suffer much from Latin
attempts at conversion.

We must not omit to mention that there were a considerable
number of Jews in Euboia, who were compelled to pay a large
proportion of taxes. We shall have occasion to mention this
point again,

I.
(1262—1385.)

§ 19. Divisions of the Second Period. During this period the
Venetian power grows and becomes finally predominant in the
island; the Lombards become completely dependent on Venice.
It is a period of wars; and a point I would insist on is that it
was just these wars that specially favoured the extension of
Venetian influence.

The period may be conveniently divided into three parts :

(1) 1262-1803, from the Treaty of Thebes to the Peace of
1303 between Venice and the Greek emperor. The character-
istic of this sub-period is that the Lombards and Venetians are
combined in a war against the Greeks.

(2) 1303-1340, from the Peace with the Greeks to the death
of Pietro dalle Carceri. Venetian power is opposed by the
Lombards, who combine with the Catalonians, but finally
prevails. The devastations of Turkish pirates promote union
among the Latins.

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 333

(3) 1340-1385, from the death of Pietro dalle Carceri,
whereby the last obstacle to Venetian domination is removed,
to the death of Nicold dalle Carceri, after which Venice
appoints the triarchs herself. Venice is dominant, but the
Lombard barons have still an independent position, and some-
times oppose the Republic.

ἵν
(1262—1303,)

§ 20. New Terzert. The triarchs who consented to the
Peace of 1262 did not survive it long. Guglielmo da Verona
died in the following year, and was succeeded by his eldest son
Guglielmo, who married Margaret de Neuilly, daughter of John
de Neuilly, baron of Passava, and became thereby marshal of
Achaia. Narzotto and Grapella died some years afterwards.
The former was succeeded by his son Marino II., who was called
Merinetto. Grapella had no children; and so his Third was
divided between his wife’s nephews, Gaetano and Grapozzo, sons
of Francesco da Verona, and grandsons of Guglielmo I. Grapozzo
received the Sixth in northern Euboia—the Barony of Oreos;
Gaetano the Sixth in southern Euboia, including Larmena.

§ 21. Change in the situation of affairs; the Greeks threaten
Huboia. The new triarchs found themselves in a new situation.
A great change took place in the politics of the East after the
Greek victory of Pelagonia in 1259, and the recovery of
Constantinople in 1261. The appearance of Charles of Anjou
in Italy and his coalition with the Pope introduced another
novelty. We may say that 1260 marks a definite division in
the history of Romania. The influence of the Palaiologoi in
western Romania begins with the battle of Pelagonia; and the
importance of the Genoese in the eastern seas dates from the
Treaty of Nymphaion in 1261.

There were three separate points at which the Emperor
Michael tried to beat back the western nations from the limits
of the old Byzantine empire: Northern Greece, where, however,
it was chiefly the Greek Angeloi dynasty that he had to contend
against, Euboia, and the Peloponnesos. In Morea the Sebasto-
krator, assisted by the Slavonic settlers, carried on a land

ἘΠῚ —— AAO AYA Us A A

334 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

warfare against the Franks; North Greece was harassed both
by land and sea; and the Greek fleet, which often cruised in the
Gulf of Volo, was able to vex the Lombards of Negroponte, as
well as the coasts of Thessaly.

A common foe both strengthened the bonds between the
prince of Achaia and his Kuboian vassals, and caused friendly
relations to subsist between them and Joannes of Neopatrai.
Guglelmo da Verona, who used to maintain 400 knights,
shortly before his death in 1263 supplied Villebardouin with a
contingent to subjugate the Slav revolt m Tzakonia; and
William afterwards aided the triarchs when they were hard
pressed.

But the interests of Venice were not the same as those of the
feudal lords; and as the Greeks were not her rivals in commerce
she felt no disinclination to keep on good terms with Michael.
The Treaty of Nymphaion, which he had concluded with the
Genoese in 1261, opening the Black Sea to them, and granting
important privileges, alarmed Venice, and forced her into an
alliance with the power which commanded the gates of the
Euxine. The policy of such an alliance for both parties was
further increased by the rise of Charles of Anjou, and his
coalition with the Curia. Genoa was at this time an ally of
Charles.

§ 22. Treaty between Venice and Michael in 1265. Accord-
ingly in 1265 a treaty was arranged between Michael Palaiologos
and Venice, establishing an ‘affection pure and without guile’
(ἀγαπὴν καθαρὰν καὶ ἀδολίευτον) between the two parties, on
the thoroughgoing basis that Venice was to oppose all powers
who attacked the Greek empire, not excepting even the Pope ;
the kings of France, Sicily, Castile, England (Ἰγκλινίας),
Aragon (‘Payovvas), Count Charles of Anjou, the Republics of
Genoa, Pisa, and Ancona are expressly mentioned. Korone and
Methone were left in the possession of the Republic, as well as
Crete and the islands in the Aegean which beionged to it
already.

In regard to the war in Euboia arrangements are made in
some detail. It will be advisable to give the original text:

Eis τὸν Εὔριπον iva ἔχωσιν εἴ τι ἔχουσι σήμερον. ἵνα δώσει
τὐτοῖς ἡ βασιλεία μου εἰς τὸν ᾿Αλμυρὸν τόπον εἰς κάθισμα καὶ

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 325

ποιήσωσιν ἐν αὐτῷ ἀναπαύσεις. ἐπεὶ δὲ ἔχει ἡ B. μ. μάχην
μετὰ τοῦ Εὐρίπου καὶ εὑρίσκονται ἐν αὐτῷ Βενέτικοι, ἵνα ἔχῃ
ἡ β. μ. κατακεκρατημένην τὴν σκάλαν τοῦ ᾿Λλμύρου, ὅπως μὴ
ἐπαίρωσιν ἀπὸ τῆς τοιαύτης σκάλας βρώσιμα καὶ πόσιμα οἱ ἐν
τῷ Εὐρίπῳ Βενέτικοι καὶ ἀποκομίζωσι ταῦτα εἰς ζωάρκειαν τῶν
ἐν τῷ Εὐρίπῳ ἐχθρῶν τῆς B μ. Λατίνων: μέχρις ἂν δώῃ Θεὸς
καὶ γένηται ἐγκρατὴς ἡ β. μ. τοῦ Εὐρίπου καὶ τότε ἵνα
ἀπολύσῃ ἡ β. μ. καὶ τὴν τοιαύτην σκάλαν πρὸς τὸ μέρος τῆς
Βενετίας" ὅτε δὲ μέλλει πολεμεῖν ἡ B. μ. μετὰ καὶ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ
βοηθείας τοῖς εἰς τὸν ὔρυπον Λατίνοις οὐ μὴν ἀποστείλῃ ἡ
Βενετία συμμαχίαν ἢ χρῆμα εἰς βοήθειαν αὐτῶν: ἀλλὰ καὶ
οἱ ἐν τῷ ὐρίπῳ εὑρισκόμενοι Βενέτικοι εἰ μὲν ἀποσχισθῶσιν
ἀπὸ τοῦ μέρους τῶν ἐκεῖσε Λατίνων καὶ πέσωσιν ἰδικῶς καὶ
οὔτε τοῖς Λατίνοις συμμαχοῦσιν οὔτε τῇ β. μ. ἀντιδικοῦσιν ἵνα
φυλάσσωνται καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα αὐτῶν παρὰ τοῦ μέρους
τῆς β. μ. ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ Βενέτικοι: εἰ δὲ ἀντιδικήσουσιν οὗτοι
μετὰ τῶν ἐκεῖσε Λατίνων τῷ μέρει τῆς β. μ. εἰς τὸν κατὰ τῶν
Εὐριπιωτῶν γενησόμενον πόλεμον ἵνα καὶ εἰς αὐτοὺς καὶ εἰς τὸ
πρᾶγμα αὐτῶν ποίῃ ἡ β. μ. ὅπερ βούλεται: ἀφότου δὲ βοηθείᾳ
Θεοῦ ἐπιλάβηται ἡ β. μ. τοῦ ᾿ὐρίπου τὸν τόπον ὃν εὑρίσκεται
ἡ Βενετία ἔχουσα ἐν αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν σήμερον, ἵνα δώσει τοῦτον
πάλιν ἡ β. μ. πρὸς τὸν εὐγενέστατον δοῦκα Βενετίας καὶ τὸ
κουμούνιον αὐτῆς: καὶ ἔχωσι πάλιν τοῦτον καθὼς ἔχουσι
σήμερον.ἷ

The treaty was confirmed by the Doge with some modifica-
tions in 1268.

§ 23. Licario of Karystos. Considerable assistance was ren-
dered to the Greek emperor in his designs on Euboia from an
unexpected quarter.

Marino II., son and heir of Narzctto dalle Carceri, was a minor
at the time of his father’s death, and his Third was managed
for him by his mother Felisa, who resided in Negroponte with
him and four daughters. Felisa, who was still young and
charming, made the acquaintance of a certain Italian gentleman
of no very brilliant origin, named Licario,? whose family had come

1 The text is to be found in the μου. σκάλα means a landing-place
Sitzwngsberichte of the Vienna Academy (‘stairs’).
in 1850, edited by Thomas. I have 2 Called by the Byzantine historians
used the abbreviation 8. μ. for βασιλεία Pachymeres and Niképhoros Gregoras,

AAC

336 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

to Euboia from Vicenza, and who now resided in Karystos with
his brother. They fell in love; but the kinsfolk of the lady did
not approve of the amour. When Fiancesco da Verona and his
brother Giberto became aware that their sister had secretly
married Licario, they vowed vengeance against the adventurer
of Karystos. He fled and tried in vain through the influence of
friends to conciliate the barons. He finally occupied the castle
of Anemopylai, near Karystos, and having strongly fortified it
and collected a number of adventurous friends, converted it into
an independent sea-castle, from which he used to descend and
plunder the neighbouring farms and villages. He thus reduced
the country people to such a state of terror that they took up
their abode within the walls of the nearest town and did not
venture to pursue their work in the fields without the precaution
of stationing sentries (ἡμεροσκόποι) ἢ

He soon bethought himself of forming relations with the
Greek emperor, who was then making attempts to wrest Euboia
from the Lombards. He first sent ambassadors to Michael, and
afterwards went himself, leaving a sufficient garrison in his
fortress. Michael readily caught at Licario’s promises to restore
Euboia to the empire. <A Greek garrison was placed in
Anemopylai, and a guerilla naval warfare began, in which the
islands of the Archipelago suffered from both parties.

§ 24. Batile of Volo. It was not until 1275 that the first
decisive engagement in which the Latins of Euboia were
engaged took place. In that year the Greek admiral Philan-
thrdpénos was stationed in the gulf of Volo, while the despot
Joannes Palaiologos led an army by land against Joannes [. of
Neopatrai. The latter cultivated friendly relations with the
Latins, especially with the barons of Kuboia and the Duke of
Athens. His interests rendered him also friendly to Charles of
Anjou, as both desired to hinder the westward advance of the
Palaiologoi in Thessaly and Epeiros. The assistance of Jean de
la Roche secured to Joannes, the Sebastokratér, ἃ brilliant
victory at Neopatrai.

Ikarios—misled by which name Finlay _ seduced the Greek historians to suppose
has in one place identitied him with that L was the article.
the Genoese Zacharia. The omission 1 See Niképhoros Gregoras, vol. i.

of the L arose perhaps from a little (ed. Bonn) p. 95, sqq.
dangerous knowledge of Italian, which

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 337

But this defeat was the indirect cause of a victory for the
Greeks, which went far towards consoling them.

When the Lombards of N egroponte heard the good news, they
conceived the idea of attacking the Greek fleet which lay off
Déemétrias. They had already prepared a small fleet, not for
the purpose of attacking the imperial navy, says Niképhoros
Gregoras, for that they deemed would be much the same as to
shoot at the sky (εἰς οὐρανὸν τοξεύειν), but to defend their
own shores. The good news of Neopatrai induced them to
abandon their defensive policy. A Venetian, Filippo Sanudo,
was elected commander; he was the son of a former bailo,
Leone Sanudo.

The chief Lombard lords, Guglielmo, Gaetano, Giberto,
Francesco, Butarello, took part in the bold enterprise; and
although the Greeks numbered eighty. ships and they them-
selves twenty-two, of which only twelve were war- galleys, they
completely defeated the admiral Philanthrépénos, who was
himself severely wounded.

But an accidental circumstance turned this success into a
defeat.

It happened that John Palaiologos and the Greek fugitives
from the unlucky field of Neopatrai arrived at that moment on
the coast; and hearing of the misfortune of the Greek fleet he
manned the routed galleys, which were driven shoreward, with
the remnant of the land army. The Lombards, already weary,
were surprised and disconcerted at the unexpected attack, and
suffered a disastrous defeat. Guglielmo, the terziero and
marshal of Achaia, was killed; Gaetano, the sestiero, Francesco
da Verona, his father, Butarello dalie Carceri, and the captain,
Sanudo, with many others of lesser note were taken prisoners.
Giberto da Verona was fortunate enough to escape.

It should be noticed that in accordance with their engage-
ments to Michael, the Venetians of Euboia officially took no
part in the action; but nevertheless Venetian mercenaries
assisted the triarchs, and the captain was a Venetian. In 1273
the Venetians had taken care to strengthen the castle which
commanded the bridge at Chalkis.

§ 25. The Greeks conquer Euboia; career of Licario. The
admiral Philanthroépénos and Licario, who was probably present

338 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

at the battle of Volo, prosecuted the war against Euboia, where
the defence now chiefly devolved on Giberto da Verona. who
succeeded as triarch his slain nephew Guglielmo. John, Duke
of Athens, contributed aid, and the Venetian Bailo seems to have
been not over-strict in observing the neutrality to which he was
bound,

The chief event of 1276 was the siege of Karystos, the strong-
hold of Otho de Cicon. Licario blockaded it by land and sea ;
but the natural strength of the place, rendered still stronger by
art, defied for a long time the besiegers, to whom its strength
made it a capture all the more desirable. Licario was at last
successful, and was invested by the grateful emperor with the
island of Euboia, with the obligation of serving the emperor
with 200 knights. Michael was introducing the feudal system
among the Greeks. He also gave Licario a noble Greek lady,
richly dowered ; we are not told what happened to his first wife
Felisa dalle Carceri. During the siege of Karystos the island
was devastated by another division of the Greek fleet which had
its headquarters at O.eos. The fall of Karystos was followed
by the capture of four other fortresses, la Clisura, Armena
(Larmena’), Mandrucho and Kuppa.

In the meantime Venice had recovered its interest in Euboia
which had flagged after the treaty of 1262. She preferred that
the island should remain in the possession of the Lombards than
pass into the hands of the Greeks. Accordingly in a treaty with
Michael in 1277 (March 19), it was expressly stipulated that it
the Venetians assisted the triarchs in their war with the Greeks
such assistance should not form a casus belli between Venice
and the empire. (This principle was employed again in 1280
in a treaty between the empire and Florenz of Hainault, Prince
of Achaia, wherein the peace was confined to Achaia, it being
agreed that aid given by Florenz elsewhere to the foes of the
Greeks should not prejudice the general peace. It was also
employed in the treaty between Genoa and Venice in 1299, see
δ 33.) At the same time the prisoners Gaetano and Butarelio
were released as well as 500 Venetian captives.

Licario, who was now the imperial vice-admiral, had been very
successful. He had taken five strong places in Euboia, and in

1 L is evidently the Italian article.

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 339

the same year he reduced Skopelos and Lémnos. Lémnos was
stoutly defended by the Grand Duke Paolo Navigajoso, who
refused Michael’s offer of 60,000 gold hyperpers. He, and
after his death his wife, succeeded in protracting the siege of
his castle till 1278, but the rest of the island was won by

Licario’s arms. He next determined to make an attempt on

Chalkis.

Giberto da Verona and his friend John de la Roche, the hero
of Neopatrai, marched forth to meet him with a force of Sicilian
mercenaries who had served King Manfred. Licario was com-
pletely victorious, and captured the persons of Giberto and the
Duke of Athens, who were both wounded. The defeated army
took refuge in Chalkis, capturing in their retreat a small body
of Spaniards who had too rashly pursued them. To their
amazement Licario stayed his hand and did not advance on
the capital, although he had gained the day and had a fleet
at Oreos to back him.

It appears that for the second time a battle in Thessaly
influenced the course of events in Euboia. Just as three years
before the news of the battle of Neopatrai elated the Lombards
and produced the disaster of Volo, so now the news of the
battle of Pharsalos, where John the Sebastokratér had com-
pletely defeated the imperial forces under Synadénos and
Kayallarios, saved Negroponte from an attack. Soon afterwards
assistance arrived to the menaced city. Jaques de la Roche
(a cousin of John, Duke of Athens) governor of Nauplion,
mustered a body of knights and marched. to its relief. In
conjunction with him the Venetian Bailo, Nicolo Morosini, took
measures for its defence, and Licario gave up for the time all
thought of attempting it.

But though Negroponte was saved, the rest of the island was
in the hands of the Greeks. As governor of Euboia, Licario
established himself in the strong castle of Filla which
commanded the Lelantine plain.

Licario’s successes must have had from private causes a

- peculiar zest for him. He had humbled the haughty? family

ee

of Verona who despised an alliance with him. Giberto, his

1 The expression τὴν Λατινικὴν ὀφρῦν regard to the Lombard lords of Euboia.
(superciliwm) is used by Niképhoros in

340 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

brother-in-law, was his prisoner, and he himself, who had once
been looked on as a vulgar hind, and had afterwards become
the freebooter of Anemopylai, was now the lord of Evboia, high
in imperial favour. He was now made Great Constable.1_ The
career of Licario, though we know it only in such brief outline,
presents to the imagination material for a drama. The last
scene is given us ready-made by Niképhoros Gregoras :

‘The ruler (a4pynyos) of Euboia is led in chains by Ikarios to
the emperor; and having survived but for a short space he died.
Now his death was on this wise. When he entered the palace
and stood near the door as behoves a prisoner, and saw the
emperor himself sitting on the imperial throne, and round about
him all the court standing in brilliant and elegant array ; and
saw Ikarios, the slave of yesterday or the day before (τὸν χθὲς
καὶ πρότριτα δοῦλον), now in brilliant apparel and insolent”
manner coming in and going out, and conversing in the
Emperors ear,—he straightway snaps the thread of life and
falls forward suddenly upon the floor, being unable to en-
dure the violent reversal of fortune (τὸ τῆς βιαίας τύχης
παράλογον).

Butarello dalle Carceri who had been the negotiator of a
treaty between Joannes of Neopatrai and Charles of Naples,
seems to have fallen about the same time into the hands of
the Greeks ; his eyes were put out.

Licario soon afterwards succeeded Philanthrépénos as admiral,
and did good service for the Greeks by expelling the Venetians
from the islands of the Archipelago. As lord of Euboia he
still made Filla his headquarters. We hear nothing more
of him.

δ 26. The triarchs. In the same year as the Greek successes
in Euboia took place, the castle of the Navigajosi in Lémnos
fell. Paolo Navigajoso, who died during the siege, had two
daughters, Maria and Agnese; Maria was married to Giberto
da Verona the triarch, Agnese to Gaetano the hexarch. The
widow of Paolo, who defended the castle after his death, took
refuge with her daughter Maria in Euboia. At this time Agnese
and her husband Gaetano were absent in Naples at the court

1 μέγας κονοσταῦλος ; Pachymeres, 2 “Swaggering’ is the exact word for
Mich. Pal. vy. 27. σοβαροῦ : Nik. Greg. vol. i. p. 96.

q

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOLA. 241

of Charles, and Leone dalle Carceri actsd as vice-hexarch for
Gaetano in his absence, as we learn from the introductions
which Charles gave to Galeran d’Ivry whom he sent in 1278
to act as bailo of Morea. The triarchs named are Giberto,
Marino and Leone; the fact that Grapozzo is not also men-
tioned perhaps indicates that Leone at this time was acting
for him also.

Grapozzo married Beatrice the daughter of Giberto. Her
brothers Guglielmo and Francesco died young; she was there-
fore heiress of her father’s Third. Her mother Maria admin-
istered it after Giberto’s death, and is mentioned among the
triarchs of Euboia as late as 1310.

Marino II. died without heirs, and his two Sixths were
inherited by his sister Alice, who married Giorgio Ghisi, lord
of Ténos and Chalandritza. Thus a Sixth in northern and
a Sixth in southern Euboia passed into the family of the
Ghisi.

§ 27. Attitude of Venice; treaty of Orvieto. The dominant
influence of Venice in the Archipelago received a blow from
the sea-campaigns of Licario; almost all the islands were in
Greek hands in 1280. It was apparent that the thorough-
going offensive and defensive alliance of 1265 with the Greeks
versus the nations of the West was unnatural and therefore
impracticable. It was the Genoese who had no hand in the
events of 1204, not the Venetians, who were the natural allies
of the Greeks; we need not therefore be surprised to find
Venice in 1281 concluding ἢ treaty that ran directly contrary
to that of 1265.

The treaty of Orvieto (July 3, 1281) was a coalition between
Charles of Anjou, Venice, and the Pope for a grand expedition
against the Greeks to restore the empire of Romania and
establish on the throne the titular emperor, Philip I. of Cour-
tenay. Though preparations were made and _ preliminary
skirmishes took place among the Greek islands, especially about
Euboia, the expedition was prevented by the Sicilian Vespers ;
just as the expedition which was to follow the Treaty of Viterbo,
1267, had been prevented by the invasion of Conradin.

But in 1285 after long negotiations, a peace was patched
up between the Emperor Andronikos and Venice, which

342 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOISA.

shows that Euboia was the chief apple of discord. It was
expressly agreed that hostilities in Euripos should not affect tie
general peace.

From 1281 Venice enters upon an active policy in Euboia.
I do not think that this change was due merely to the fact
that the Greek advances under Licario interfered with . her
interests and possessions at the time. This of course was very
important in determining her general policy. But I conceive
that a special circumstance in regard to Euboia created a new
interest in it, and induced her to exert unwonted activity in its
behalf. This circumstance was the death of William Ville-
hardouin, the overlord of the Triarchs, without male issue.
The suzerainty was now in the hands of a woman. Venice
foresaw that future princes of Achaia would not be likely to
interfere in Euboian affairs, having quite enough to do in Achaia,
where the hostility of the Greeks was now continually engaging
the attention of the Franks ; and consequently the field seemed
clear for the extension of Venetian influence.

§ 28. Recovery of Euboia from the Greeks. In 1279 Euboia,
with the exception of Negroponte the capital, was as we have
seen in the power of the Greeks. Tne feature of the next
sixteen years is the gradual recovery of the island by the joint
efforts of the Venetians and Lombards. The lukewarmness
displayed by the former after the war with the Prince of Achaia
had given place to a decided and ultimately paramount interest
in the island; and the popular baili, Nicold Morosini, called
‘the good, and Nicolo Falier, acted with energy against the
Greeks.

The first fortress they recovered was la Clisura; it fell by
treachery. An Italian of Euboia, Bonagiunto Forese, induced
some of the garrison to betray it; with the help of sailors, sup-
plied by the Bailo Falher, the castle was taken (about 1281).
Argalia was the next to fall (? 1282) and it seems that Forese
was invested by Venice with these two places as a reward for
his services.

During the next fourteen years Filla, Manducho, Kuppa and
the other fortresses were recovered one by one. Karystos,
Larmena and Metropyle in the south of the island held
vut until 1296. Their reduction brings us to speak of a

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 343

Lombard lord who was very prominent in Euboia at that
time.

§ 29. Bonifacio da Verona. Bonifacio da Verona was son ot
Francesco, /e viellart, and nephew of Giberto. His natural
parts, his wisdom and his knightly bearing secured him the
favour of young Guido, Duke of Athens; and one of the most
interesting chapters in Ramon Muntaner, the historian of the
Catalonian Grand Company, relates to him. But before quoting
this we may give Muntaner’s account of his early life, which
though untrue possesses interest.

‘It is truth that the lord of Verona had three sons. His
eldest he made heir of Verona; to the second he gave a goodly
array of thirty knights and thirty knights’ sons and sent him
to Morea, to the Duchy of Athens. And he who was Duke of
Athens, father of this Duke of whom 1 tell you [Duke Guy],
received him with the greatest kindness, bestowed on him much
of his own possessions and made bim a powerful riche-homme ;
then he gave him a wife with great riches and made him
knight. And by this lady he had two sons and two daughters.
And when his brother knew that it went so well with him,
Messire Boniface! who was the youngest of all said to his
eldest brother that he wished to go and join his brother in
Morea ; and this project pleased his eldest brother greatly and
he aided him with the best he could.

‘His only possession was a castle which he sold to equip
himself. His brother knighted him because it was better to
set out as a knight than as a squire, for in these countries no
son of a riche-homme is of any account (n'est considéré) until
he be a knight. The Duke received him well on his arrival.
He found his brother dead, leaving two sons and a daughter.
He looked on himself as ruined, for the property of his nephews
could not benefit him, The Duke comforted him and had his
name entered for a fair and good income for him and his com-
pany, and thus he lived for seven years, and was the most
elegantly dressed man at the court. And the good Duke of
Athens remarked his good sense and his understanding, although
he did not pretend to remark it; and moreover he found him
full of wisdom in counsel.’ 5

1 Jn Spanish ‘micer Bonifaci de * I have translated from Buchon’s
Verona.’ version of Muntaner,

344 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

§ 30. Bonifacio da Verona knights Guy, Duke of Athens.
Muntaner recounts the following incident, ‘afin que les rois, fils
de rois et riches-hommes prennent bon exemple.’

‘It came to pass one day that the good Duke of Athens
wished to take the order of knighthood ; and he convoked the
cortés of all the land, and ordained that on St. John’s day in
June all the noble men in his duchy should assemble in Thebes,
where he wished to take the order of knighthood. He likewise
convoked the prelates and all other good people (lonnes gens).
Then he caused to be published in all the empire, in all the
Despotate and all Vlachia, that every man who desired to come
thither had only to present himself and he would receive from
him favours and presents. And this plenary court was proclaimed
six months before its assemblage.

‘So at the time at which the duke convoked his plenary
court, everyone hastened to get fair apparel made for himself
and his suite, and also to distribute such to the jongleurs in
order to give more lustre to the court. Well, the day of the
high court arrived, and in all the court there was no one more
elegantly and more nobly dressed than Messire Boniface and
his company. He had fully a hundred brands [of wax] marked
with his arms. He borrowed wherewith to defray all their
expense, engaging in advance the money which he was to
receive later. Well, the festival commenced in splendid wise.
And when they came into the great church where the duke was
to receive the order of knighthood, the Archbishop of Thebes
said Mass, and on the altar were deposited the arms of the
duke. All awaited with anxiety the moment at which the duke
should receive the order of knighthood, and they imagined as
a great marvel that the King of France and the Emperor would
have disputed it and have held it a great honour that the duke
should wish to receive the order of chivalry from their hands.
And at the moment at which all were thus expectant, he caused
Messire Boniface da Verona to be called. He immediately
presented himself and the duke said to him : ‘ Messire Boniface,
sit here quite close to the Archbishop, for I wish you to arm me
knight.’ Messire Boniface said to him: ‘Ah, lord, what say
you? Assuredly you jest with me.’ ‘No,’ said the duke, ‘ for
I wish it to be so.’ And Messire Boniface seeing that he spake
from the bottom of his heart, advanced to the altar near the

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 345

Archbishop and gave the duke the order of knighthood. And
when he had created him knight the duke said in presence of
all: ‘Messire Boniface, the custom is that always those who
receive a knight should make him a present. Well, 1 wish to
do quite the opposite. You have made me knight and I give
you, dating from to-day, a revenue of fifty thousand sols towrnois
to possess for ever, for you and yours, and all of it in castles and
other goodly places and in freehold, to do with it all your will.
I give you also to wife the daughter of a certain baron, who is
portioned under my lordship, and who is lady of a third part
of the island and the city of Negroponte.

‘ Lo how in one day and one hour he gave him a fair inherit-
ance. And certes it was the most noble gift for a long time
that any prince made in a single day. And it was a thing new
and strange. And Messire Boniface lived rich and opulent.’

Muntaner knew Bonifacio personally and had been in his
house in Negroponte. Bonifacio’s habit of dressing in very rich
attire seems to have produced a great impression on him. He
is mistaken as to the possessions of his wife; she was not the
daughter of a triarch. We have already heard of Otho de
Cicon, lord of Karystos and Aegina. He and Felisa had three
children, Agnes, Siegwin and Guy. In 1284 Siegwin was dead,
and Guy a prisoner at Constantinople, whither Felisa went to
ransom him in vain; no more was heard of him. Thus Agnes
inherited Karystos, which was in the possession of the Greeks,
and Aegina. Hence her husband Bonifacio was entitled Lord
of Karystos, Aegina? and Gardiki.

§ 31. Recovery of Karystos. In 1296 Bonifacio determined
to make Karystos and all that belonged to Agnes’ heritage really
as well as nominally his own. He was successful in wresting
from the Greeks the three castles which they still retained in
Euboia, Karystos, Larmena and Metropyle; while the Bailo
J. Barozzi was attempting to recover Therasia and Santorin.
It does not appear that Metropyle belonged to the Barony of
Karystos, and we know that Larmena belonged to Gaetano’s
Sixth. We may conjecture then that Bonifacio held Larmena

1 Bonifacio de Aragona, the grand- castri et insulae Ligenae’—another
son of Bonifacio da Verona, is named example of the propensity of the
‘dominator Eghenae’ and ‘dominus article to trespass.

346 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

in fief from Gaetano and Metropyle from him or one of the
other triarchs. He was now one of the most important lords
in Euboia.

§ 32. Situation in 1296; Venice. Thus in 1296 Euboia was
again in the hands of the Latins ; but the importance of Venice
in the island had been greatly increased by the war with the
Greeks. Accident gave the Republic at this time a specially
good opportunity for interfering in the affairs of the Lombards,
for the baronies happened to be altogether in the hands of
ladies. Gaetano and Grapozzo the hexarchs were dead; the
Sixth of the former in Southern Euboia descended to his
daughter Maria; that of Grapozzo in Northern Euboia was in
the hands of his wife Beatrice, as her son Pietro dalle Carceri
was a child. The same lady Beatrice was heiress also of central
Euboia, but her mother Maria seems to have managed it, or at
least part of it. The remaining two Sixths were held by Alice,
sister of Marino II. All these ladies were afterwards married
—Maria dalle Carceri to Alberto Pallavicini, Beatrice to Jean
de Noyers, and Alice to Giorgio Ghisi— but at this time
Venice and Bonifacio da Verona were the chief powers in the
island.

We have already mentioned that the population of Euboia
increased in the latter half of the thirteenth century. The
Jews formed an important part of the taxpayers, and in 1291 a
considerable extra tax was levied on them to meet the increase
of salary (250 to 400 hyperpers), which was to compensate the
Venetian councillors of Negroponte for the disability to trade
which had been imposed on them. The Jews addressed a
petition against this hardship, which was temporarily suc¢ess-
ful, but in 1297 the innovation came into force again. Some-
times exemptions from these taxes were granted to particular
families. Among foreigners who acquired property in the is!and
and became Venetian citizens is mentioned Catarino Guercio, a
Genoese. Venice herself extended her own possessions. The
Bailo Nicold Falier was directed (at end of 1281) to purchase
as large a portion as possible of the site of the demolished castle
of Chalkis; and in 1284 the property of one Marco Manolesso
was purchased. Venetian churches were richly endowed.

The strict watch which Venice maintained over the conduct

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 347

of its officers and governors—her determination to prevent
private interfering with public interests, one of the causes of
her success—is illustrated by a circumstance which happened
in 1289. Nicold Quirini, who had been Bailo of Negroponte in
1275, had a dispute with Marco Sanudo, second Duke of Naxos,
respecting Andros which Sanudo held and Quirini claimed. In
1289 Quirini did his utmost to secure his own appointment to
the post of Bailo of Negroponte ; but as it was suspected he
intended to use the position in order to pursue private ends and
take measures against the Duke of Naxos, the Republic refused
to appoint him. The matter was arranged by a money payment
on the part of Sanudo in 1292.

§ 33. War of Venice andthe Empire continued until 1303.
From 1285 to 1294 Byzantium and Venice were at peace except
in Euboia, and even in Euboia perhaps there were not very
serious hostilities ; at least it 1s probable that the castles which
Venice assisted in recovering were recovered before 1285, and
that hostilities were suspended until Bonifacio’s enterprises in
1296. But in 1294 war broke out between Genoa and Venice,
and entailed on the latter a war with Andronikos, Pisa, which
had lately suffered the ruinous defeat of Meloria, aided Venice
with what aid it could. The Archipelago became the scene of
another naval war of piratical character, in which the Venetians
of Euboia took part.

Venice made peace with Genoa in 1299, but did not come
to terms with Andronikos, in spite of all attempts to negotiate
a treaty until 1303. The peace of 1299 is interesting, in that
it affords a parallel to the treaty of 1277 between Venice and
Michael VIII. Support given by the Genoese to the Greeks
against Venice was not to found a casus belli between the
Republics. This was almost equivalent to stipulating that
the war should be restricted to the east part of the
Mediterranean.

At length in 1303 the war, which consisted mainly in piratical
depredations (the Bailo of Negroponte fitting out armatoli),
came to an end and a ten years’ peace was made, which in 1310
was renewed for twelve years more.

q

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

348

(0101 θ10}94) 11 OULLTY

“2.2

ISU)

HOU (ded)

6L6E1

ΟἹ] 0Z.1 N

§ pucooy

ΟΠ ) |

"qaVq παρ ‘Moore [Vp Οαγθῖ
OLVUIOD Ὑ }

τα} |

(OLZL alojoq) ouRzars)

vppodeary

{DUOUIDT) YRS! SLIT

9IZL ὍΠ|94851 pue vyaag

S06L

$ τι00 {Ὁ} ὉΠῚῸΡ OUBABY

“Puy, UloyInosy

QISL “1 OWeTpsnsy) pure oj.loq [Vy

QZEL ‘MeoreD o[[ep οα914
OZEL ‘OoLIyBOg
stoXON ap uyor )
(OLET 1911) ΘΟΤαγ 96} \
(GOEL 2068} stoAoN ap uyor |

GIZL BUR] + 6161 oolaqyrog |

“TI ooqty

G9SL “ἼΠ owporpsnsy

(OSS etojoq) “1 ourjetpsny

GOSL ‘MaoIey 9170} ouravy

COZL “BUOLOA BP ογιθα τ

Pdcy [, [DLjUAD

‘VIOdNA 10 SAYINL AHL— I

“-
2

YD “Neg

IIT) Ὃ)
ax ὍρῃΥ |

(0261 atojoq) Ι ouneyy

GGZL etojaq) ΟἹ ͵ΟΖΙΌΝ

OL@L “ἽἼ ouneyy
“UPLLS ῥιιοοῦκ!
(602i ὃ

0.1

ὶ

(τς

2068} Laoiry Θ77ῈΡ eae

(01 ς

(LFS

[ et0foq) ozzodeary

Ceol ‘epjadvary
alojoq j) BURJULIR,)
1 ouneyy

0GEL

OIZT ‘Opaezziyy

(802LQ) YRS 982]

Θ1070.0) Lane”) [Bp OULARIT

TLeL0HaJ Lop OLVIO5AT

“PLVy T UMayqlony

349

NETIANS IN EUBOIA.

.
4,

THE LOMBARDS AND VI

OdUIULOTOJIV
| (6121 Ῥ
(ISIYD OTS101 *ur) “Ογ7Θ ὉΠ 1970)
ΠΌΤ, “TT oun
[Sak Φ ee
|
(στ (θποαθλ (4951 Ῥ
‘OINJIJSOAUT τι} ΒΘΑΤΘΟΘα) ep CsI[aq “UL) : VIBYOV JO ooully πὶ πὶ)
OULIV TT 044 0z1 NT BULIULIVO
|
| (0761 Ῥ) (mwoaIQ ap 0430 “π) ἢ
ΟΤἹΟΟΤΝ OULIv]T OpleZzZz1yy ἘΒ119 1 e0g
\ ee ee | ἘΠῚ ι.
|
(9IZI Ῥ
| (enquey_ 10 doysiq) B[[eqesy τπ)
O[Tepuopory ‘ ΟΟΤΙΤΙ OuUvAeY

: |
| |

1901eQ 9ΠῈΡ

TUHOUVO ATTIVG AHL 10. ASNOH—'II

B

B

VII,

S.— VOL,

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

390

TUIDTART [VY] VIB JO το} 98} pue vurporpsns) Jo 197515 911 oq 07 posoddns sva ooryRog (2) {euo1 A up
OdSAOUVI,T JO MOS Ὁ OPLUL SBM OIJOTY (9) 11 OUTIL Jo vagyhnwp Ὁ opvU sv ddITY (4) ‘ eUoeT Jo Uos Ὁ sv porvodde ouezory (Ὁ) : ozzoderyH ou sear
9101} (g) πιθσπολι 8 oq 07 posoddns svar vijedvay (6) Sao, ySnep souvary “eplog YIIM poylyUopr sea vuvqzuriey Avsse oy} Uy (1) : ore Avssa 911
popalloo svy apyoryasay ayasryoarss) OY} YUM Ur szUrod Joryo oyy Jo omog ‘A[Gviaptsuod ἀ0}10 Ao} 2811 pUNoJ oq T[LM 41 “(gEgT) ewapnypr
WOU AL Lop ayyorsogshunzry apy ut soysdre yy uo hunppunygp 8 jdoy 07 poxouur osoyy YIM poredunoo 918 5976} [BOLSO[voUED esoyy J[—"ALON

IULOLART [RY BUILATLS WY)

(551 Ῥ
S οαθπαορ, vorpuy (6) OLJOLT (ττοοαῦθρ OT[VP) Οα 91
“ΠΠΟΙΔΌΠΙΒ OOTY (TL) “) |
BIA] (8Z8L Ῥ
| § s19£0 NV ap wear (Z) (pooyprryo (pooypyyo
(osolvstar Ny osousy “τπ) (ootyrog τα) “Θοαθ A vp ozzodery (1) “τπ) UL petp) UL peTp)
oOuvpoRy) ozz0dary ΘΟΤΑ ΘΕ ΟΟΒΘΟΠΒΙ ΟἸΠΙ]ΘΙ]51ι8)
| | | [ee ΕΒ. τ
(G22 Ῥ
(opnurg (19 “4g ep CTO (6) (6121 Ῥ * AT[IMa NT
OULIe yy τα) (0}JOZ1B Ν᾽ “τι) ‘eypodey ({) ‘ut) (JART[OTA OT) £ osofestar Ny ele] “Ut) ap OPIONSLV I] “ul)
BIZLO RSTO] BYLLOYLOLv IY oosodURA ἢ “TT ογιθα 1) ἽΙ οὐπ]οι σι)
| al | | = eon wae
(θποῖο 4 vp
ΟΙΌ ΠΤ) BULLIYHLV IY τα)
(G9L Ῥ OLORITMOT oTpareyn] auoa'T TUUBAOTS) eppodery
{ uMopavyoT[LA, vuowtg (Zz) | | | Se ea
“‘vyLUo[essoyy, Jo ΒΠΟΙΘΉ (1) τα) |
*[ Oulperponyy 010 V
|
(0791 Ῥ)

BUOIIA BP Ογιθα 10)

‘VNOUWA γα ASNOH— ΠΙ

THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOLA.

IV.—BAILI OF NEGROPONTE.
(1216-1470. )

1216. Pietro Barbo (il Zanco).

(1216-1222.
1222-1224.
(1224-1252.
1252-1254.
1254-1256.
1256-1258.
1258-1259.
1259-1261.
1261-1263.
1263-1265.
1265-1266.
1266-1267.
1267-1268.
1268-1269.
1269-1271.
1271-1273.
1273-1275.

1289-1291.
1291-1293.
(1293-1295.
1295-1297.
1297-1299.
1299-1300.
1300-1302.
1302-1304.
1304-1306.
1306-1308.
1308-1310.
1310-1312.
1312-1314.
1314-1316.
1316-1317.
1317-1319.
1319-1321.
1321-1322.
1322-1323.
1323-1325.

Not recorded.)
Benedetto Falier.
Not recorded. )
Leone Sanudo.
Paolo Gradenigo.
Marco Gradenigo.
Andrea Barozzi.
Tommaso Giustiniani.
Andrea Barbarigo.
Nicold Barbarigo.
Giberto Dandolo.
Filippo Orio.
Marco Bembo.
Andrea Dandolo.
Andrea Zeno.
Nicold Miglani.
Vittore Delfino.

. Nicolo Quirini.

. Andrea Dandolo Beretta.
. Pietro Zeno.

. Nicolé Morosini Rosso.

. Nicold Falier.

3. Andrea Zeno.

. Giovanni Zeno. ~

. Jacopo da Molino.

. Marino Soranzo.

Marco Michieli.
Nicold Giustiniani.
Not recorded. )
Jacopo Barozzi.
Francesco Contarini.
Giovanni da Canale.
Andrea Zeno.
Francesco Dandolo.
Pietro Morenigo.

Pietro Quirini Pizzagallo.

Belletto Falier.
Luigi Morosini.
Enrico Delfino.
Gabriele Dandolo.
Michele Morosini.
Francesco Dandolo.
Lodovico Morosini.
Gabriele Dandolo.
Marco Michieli.
Marino Falier.

1325-1327.
1327-1329.
1329-1331,
1331-1333,
1333-1335.
1335-1337.
1337-1339.
1339-1341.
1341-1343.
1343-1345.
1345-1347.
1347-1349.
1349-1351.
1351-1353.
1353-1356.
1356-1358.
1358-1360.
1360-1362.
1362-1364.
1364-1366.
1366-1368.
1368-1370.
1370-1372.
1372-1374.
1374-1376.
1376-1378.
1378-1379.
1379-1381.
1381-1383.
1383-1384.
1384-1386.
1386-1387.
1387-1389.
1389-1391.
1391-1393.
13893-1395.
1395-1397.
1397-1399.
1399-1401.
1401-1402.
1402-1403.
1403-1405.
1405-1408.
1408-1410.
1410-1412.
1412-1414.
1414-1416.

Marco Minotto.
Marco Gradenigo.
Filippo Belegno.
Pietro Zeno.
Belello Civrano.
Nicold Priuli.
Andrea Dandolo.

Benedetto da Molino.
Pangrazio Giustiniani.

Nicold Gradenigo.
Marco Soranzo.
Giovanni Dandolo.
Tommaso Viaro.
Nicold Quirini.
Michele Falier.
Giovanni Dandolo.
Pietro Morosini.
Fantino Morosini.
Pietro Gradenigo.
Domenigo Michieli.
Giovanni Giustiniani.
Andrea Zeno.
Giovanni Delfino.

Bartolommeo Quirini.

Pietro Mocenigo.
Andrea Barbarigo.
Carlo Zeno.
Pantaleone Barbo.
Andrea Zeno.
Marino Storlado.
Fantino Giorgio.
Donato Trono.
Saracino Dandolo.
Guglielmo Quirini
Gabriele Emo.
Andrea Bembo.
Carlo Zeno.
Giovanni Alberto.
Nicold Valaresso.
Francesco Bembo.
Tommaso Mocenigo.
Bernardo Foscarini.
Francesco Bembo.
Nicolé Venier.
Paolo Quirini.
Benedetto Trevisani.
Nicold Giorgio.
BB 2

351

352 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.

1416-1418. Vidale Miani.
1418-1420, Nicold Malipiero.
1420-1422. Marco Cornaro.
1422-1424, Daniele Loredano.
1424-1425. Donato Arimondo.
1425-1427. Antonio Michieli.
1427-1429. Andrea Capello.
1429-1430. Nicold Loredano.
(1430-1431, vice-bailo Luigi Polano. )
1431-1432. Andrea Gabrieli.
1432-1434, Maffeo Donato.
1434-1436. Albano Sagredo.
1436-1438. Melchiore Grimani.
1438-1440. Fantino Pisani.
1440-1442. Nicolo Buono.

1442-1444,
1444-1446.
1446-1448.

1448

1448 -1451.
1451-1453.
1453-1454.
1454-1456.
1456-1459.
1459-1461.
1461-1463.
1463-1465.
1465-1468.
1468-1470.

(To be continued.)

Bertuccio Civrano.
Matteo Barbaro.
Vettore Duodo.
Fantino Pisani.
Giovanni Malipiero.
Lorenzo Onorati.
Paolo Loredano.
Angelo Pesaro.
Girolamo Bembo.
Leone Venier.
Leonardo Calbo.
Fantino Giorgio.
Francesco Gradenigo.
Paolo Erizzo.

JOHN B. Bury,

A BYZANTINE REFORMER. 353

A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

THE object of the present paper is to give some account
of the scheme of political and social reform for the Peloponnese,
which was propounded in the year 1415, by Gemistos Plethon,
in the form of two pamphlets, addressed respectively to the
emperor of Constantinople, Manuel Palaeologus [1., and to his
son, Theodore II., who at that time held the office of Despot
of the Byzantine province of the Morea. These are entitled
Γεωργίου Ἰτεμιστοῦ τοῦ Ἰ]λήθωνος πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα Ἔνμαν-
ουῆλον περὶ τῶν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ πραγμάτων λόγος, and Τοῦ
αὐτοῦ ἸΪλήθωνος συμβουλευτικὸς πρὸς τὸν δεσπότην Θεόδωρον
περὶ τῆς Ἰ]ελοποννήσου λόγος. They were first printed at
Antwerp in 1575, as an appendix to the first edition of Stobaeus,
W. Canter being the editor; but the manuscript from which
this text was derived was imperfect, and the first complete
edition was that of Dr. Ellissen of Gottingen, who published
the ‘Addresses,’ after a collation of a manuscript existing at
Florence—with a German translation, and an excellent Intro-
duction and notes—in 1860, in the fourth part of his Analekten der
mittel- und neugriechischen Litteratur, The first person however
who in modern times drew the attention of scholars to the import-
ance of their contents was Prof. Fallmerayer, in his Geschichte der
Morea, published in 1830. Though the proposals which they
contain never were, and in all probability never could have
been carried into effect, yet a greater interest attaches to them
than to mere paper schemes and imaginary systems, because
they were intended to be adapted to the circumstances of the
case. But, independently of this, they are of value as throwing
light on the character and ideas of their author, who was one
of the most striking personalities of his age, and, from the
prominent part which he played in reviving the study of the

354 A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

Platonic philosophy in Western Europe, is intimately associated
with the history of the Renaissance, so that even Gibbon}
in the midst of his contempt for the later Byzantines,
devotes to him a paragraph of lofty commendation. The
country also, to which they refer, was at that time passing
through a remarkable phase, and whether it be regarded from
the point of view of its greatness in antiquity, or as the most
important remaining province of the expiring Greek empire, or
as a strange congeries of nationalities, deserves at least a passing
glance from the historian.”

The materials for a life of Plethon are scanty, and some
important facts relating to the early portion of it rest on the
authority of his strongest opponent, the Patriarch Gennadius,
though there is no sufficient reason for discrediting them. He
was originally called George Gemistos, and for the latter of
these names Plethon was a fanciful equivalent, the two together
forming a doublet of the same kind as Desiderius Erasmus,
or as the ‘Doblado’ of our own times, Blanco White. This
name he seems to have adopted in his old age, during, or
shortly after, his residence in Italy at the time of the council
of Ferrara and Florence, in 1438-9, for Syropulos, the historian
of that council, always speaks of him as George Gemistos; and
his object im making the change seems to have been, partly
to assume a more purely Hellenic form, and partly perhaps
to assimilate his name to that of Plato, for his disciples playing
on this resemblance often spoke of him as “a second Plato.”
He was born at Constantinople in the middle of the fourteenth
century, but the exact year of his birth is a matter of question,
the only evidence with regard to it being the statement that
he was nearly a hundred years old when he died in 1450.
After he was grown up he betook himself to Adrianople, which
since its capture by the Ottomans in 1361 had become the

1 Decline and Fall, vol. viii. p. 115,
ed. Smith.

* The works which I have principally
used in writing this paper, are —
(1) Ellissen’s Introduction and Notes
to his edition of Plethon’s Addresses.
(2) Alexandre’s edition of Plethon’s
Laws, with a French translation by
Pellissier, and an Introduction by the

editor, and appendices (Paris, 1858) ;
the text of this will be referred to as
Traité des Lois, the remainder of the
volume as ‘Alexandre.’ (3) Schultze’s
Georgios Gemistos Plethon und seine
reformatorischen Bestrebungen (Jena,
1874). The Addresses themselves will
he referred to as ‘ Add. IJ.’ and ‘ Add.
MLE

A BYZANTINE REFORMER.’ 355

capital of Sultan Amurath I, and was at that time a great
resort of educated men; it was probably the encouragement
which that ruler held out to learning that attracted him
thither. At that place he was much in the company of
Elissaeus, a Jew, who was in favour with the Turkish authorities ;
he was a free-thinker, and it was perhaps owing to his teaching
that Plethon gave up his belief in Christianity—to which,
indeed, a thinking man was not likely to be firmly attached
by the influence of the Greek Church at that period. ‘Towards
the end of the fourteenth century he seems to have migrated
from Adrianople to the Peloponnese, and his preference for
that country over Constantinople may have been caused by
the distress which prevailed at the capital, in consequence of
the inroads of the Turks and the blockade they established
in Bajazet’s reign. His place of residence was Mistra, the
capital of that province, which was now a city of some im-
portance, and was better suited for philosophical study than
Constantinople, as being less disturbed by political excitement.
Here he became a teacher, especially of philosophy, and that
function he continued to exercise for the remainder of his life
with great success, so that Bessarion and other leading literary
men were among his pupils, and Mistra became a considerable
centre of study. To. the early part of this, or perhaps to the
preceding period of his life, belong the numerous minor works
which he composed ; consisting, in addition to the history of
Greece from the death of Epaminondas to that of Philip, of
illustrative extracts from a large number of the ancient Greek
writers, together with original treatises on philosophy, rhetoric,
geography, and astronomy. Some of these have been printed,
but the majority remain in manuscript, and are to be found in
various European libraries; they attest at once his great
industry and his profound learning. At the same time he
won the approval of the Court of Constantinople, for he was
appointed to be judge at Mistra, an office which he held until
his death.

In the spring of 1415, the Emperor Manuel visited the
Peloponnese, having left Constantinople the previous summer,
and spent three months in subduing the island of Thasos,
after which he passed the winter at Thessalonica. Before this
time Plethon had addressed a letter to his sovereign on the

356 A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

subject of the condition of the Peloponnese,’ and this appears
to have produced an impression upon him, for one of the first
things which he undertook was the construction of a wall across
the Isthmus of Corinth, in order to secure the country from
invasion—a measure which Plethon had strongly recommended.
Possibly it was the vigorous behaviour of the emperor on this
occasion which induced Plethon to expound his views to him
at greater length, for it was now that he drew up the two
Addresses of which I have spoken. The latter of these—
that to the Despot Theodore—was the first in order of com-
position, as is shown by a passage in that to the emperor, which
refers toit;* but the import of both was the same, advocating
a radical change in the system of administration, the organ-
isation of classes in society, and the tenure of land. Though
these proposals were not adopted, they seem at all events
to have increased the estimation of their originator as an
authority, for in 1428, when the emperor John VI. (Palaeologus),
the son and successor of Manuel, visited the Peloponnese, he
consulted Plethon on a subject which at this time was upper-
most in his mind—the reunion of the Eastern and Western
Churches, as a means of obtaining succour from Western
Europe against the Turks. It is likely enough that the
philosopher’s answer was prompted by the desire of facilitat-
ing the introduction of the new religion, which he had been
maturing in secret, and the prospects of which might have been
impaired by a measure, which might have the effect of strength-
ening Christianity. Perhaps also his patriotism made him
sincerely anxious to prevent his countrymen from entering into
an arrangement, in which they were certain to be the losers.
Anyhow, though he replied evasively, he was so far from
encouraging the emperor in his project, that he laid the
greatest stress on the necessity of stipulating beforehand,
that in any deliberative assembly, which might be summoned
for this purpose, the votes should be taken in such a way, as to
secure equal influence to both parties—a condition, to which
the other side were pretty certain not to agree. However,
ten years later, when the pressing needs of the Greeks increased
their eagerness for overtures, Plethon was appointed one of the
representatives of the Eastern Church at the Council which

1 Schultze, p. 41. τ ἈΠ. Ἴ ο, 2b:

A BYZANTINE REFORMER. 357

met first at Ferrara and subsequently at Florence, notwithstand-
ing that he was unfavourably disposed towards the result at
which it aimed, and that the orthodoxy of his religious views was
already seriously questioned. When the council was assembled,
he wasappointed one of the committee for preparing the questions
for discussion, and he rendered valuable aid to his side by ex-
posing a forged manuscript of the Second Council of Nicaea,
containing the doctrine of the Filioqgue, which was submitted
by their opponents. Throughout the debates he came forward
as a strong opponent of the union; but his conduct at this
time can hardly be acquitted of the charge of dissimulation,
for both to the Greek Patriarch, and to his pupil Bessarion, who
was one of his coadjutors, he definitely professed himself a
Christian.

At the time of his visit to Italy Plethon was more than
eighty years old, and his venerable age and dignified appearance,
as well as the estimation in which he was held in that country
as an authority—arising, we may suppose, from several of the
leading teachers of that period having been his scholars—caused
him to be regarded with great reverence. It was thus that he
won the attention of Cosimo de’ Medici; and the eloquence
with which he expounded the Platonic philosophy so fascinated
that prince, and the learned society by which he was surrounded,
that he then conceived the idea, which he subsequently carried
out, of founding the Florentine Academy for the study of Plato’s
works, This was the origin of the revival of the admiration for
that philosopher in Western Europe—a movement, which gave
a lively impulse to the rebellion against Aristotle, and the
scholastic philosophy that was based on him, which had com-
menced at this time. Plethon himself composed and published
in Florence a treatise On the points of difference between Aristotle
and Plato (epi ὧν ᾿Αριστοτέλης πρὸς Πλάτωνα διαφέρεται),
which was intended chiefly to demonstrate the superiority of
his favourite philosopher.

After the conclusion of the council Plethon returned to Mistra,
where he resumed his functions as judge. He soon became
engaged in a controversy with George Scholarios (afterwards
the Patriarch Gennadius), who held the office of Chief Justice
(καθολικὸς κριτής) at Constantinople, and had taken part in the
council as a layman; at that time he was an advocate of the

358 A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

union of the two churches, but after his return he warmly
adopted the opposite view. The question of Aristotle’s views
was the nominal subject of discussion between them, but the
real point at issue was Plethon’s views of Christianity, with the
nature of which Gennadius was acquainted. During the
remainder of his life we may conceive of him as engaged in
completing his system of philosophy, and in communicating his
esoteric doctrines to a body of select disciples, whom he had
gathered round him, and in company with whom, in all proba-
bility, he celebrated the strange religious worship which he
devised. He died, at the age of nearly 100 years, in 1450, and
therefore was spared the grief of seeing Constantinople cap-
tured and the Peloponnese subjugated by the Turks. His sons
inherited the lands which from time to time had been bestowed
on him by the Byzantine emperors. In 1465 his bones were
brought from Mistra to Rimini by an admirer, Sigismund
Pandulph Malatesta, and were deposited in a newly erected
church of St. Francis in that place: a link of connection had
previously existed between Plethon and that family, since he
had pronounced a funeral oration over Cleopa, the wife of the
Despot Theodore II., who was a Malatesta of Rimini, and died
αὖ Mistra. The most salient features in his character were
idealism and energy, which were combined in a remarkable
degree, and account for the influence which he exercised on
others. There is abundance of evidence to prove both the
excellence of his moral character, and his uprightness as a judge;
and, in particular, his great adversary, Gennadius, spoke of him
after his death as a worthy example of virtue for the young to
imitate. The style of Greek which he employed in his writings
is more classical than that of his contemporaries, and is free
from the rhetorical verbosity of the ordinary Byzantines. Its
fault is an affectation of Atticism, which, though Gibbon pro-
fesses to admire it, was ridiculed by his contemporaries, and, in
consequence of his fondness for recondite phrases, often renders
him difficult to understand.

During his lifetime Plethon had communicated his doctrines
orally, and had only published a few short treatises, which em-
bodied disconnected portions of his philosophic views. But he
was known to have compiled a work, which embraced the whole
of his teaching, and on which he relied to bring to pass the

A BYZANTINE REFORMER. 359

great revolution which had been the aim of his life. This was
his Zreatise on the Laws (Συγγραφὴ περὶ Νόμων), or, as he
himself called it, Code of Laws (Νόμων Συγγραφή), of which
we have now to speak. That such a work existed as early as
1428 is known from the express testimony of Gennadius, who,
in his letter addressed to Joseph the Exarch on this subject,’
affirms that he became acquainted with the nature of its con-
tents when he visited the Peloponnese in the company of the
emperor John in that year; but it does not follow from this, as
has sometimes been supposed, that the treatise was completed,
or even that the philosopher's views were wholly matured at
that time, though his advanced age is in favour of the latter
supposition. Only fragments of the work now remain, for it
was destroyed shortly after his death. The history of this pro-
ceeding is as follows: At the time of the author's death, his
book passed into the hands of Demetrius Palaeologus, who had
succeeded his brother Constantine as Despot at Mistra in 1448,
when the latter became emperor of Constantinople in the place
of John VI. Demetrius would allow no copy to be taken of it;
and when Mahomet II. conquered the Peloponnese in 1460,
and brought that prince as prisoner to Constantinople, Demetrius
handed over the work in person to Gennadius, who had now
been created Patriarch. A. short perusal of it convinced Genna-
dius of the polytheistic nature of the religious views which 1ὺ
contained, and he thereupon committed it to the flames, sparing
only the contents at the beginning and the hymns to the gods
at the end, with a view to his own justification. Modern writers
on the subject have generally acquitted the Patriarch cf any
unworthy personal motive for this proceeding, such as male-
volence towards a former antagonist, and have decided that
according to the ideas of the period, as the book was formally
submitted to him as the head of the Orthodox Communion, he
could hardly have acted otherwise. There is no doubt that
Plethon would have done the same thing in like circumstances,
for in his code, death by burning is the punishment for all who
should ‘disseminate views in opposition to his tenets. Besides
the portions which Gennadius reserved, various fragments now
exist, one of which—the chapter On Fate (περὶ εἱμαρμένης)---
was published in the lifetime of the author, perhaps during his

1 Alexandre, Append, xix., pp. 412, 413.

360 A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

residence at Florence. The remainder may be accounted for by
the supposition that copies of certain parts were possessed by
his pupils. All these were collected and edited in 1858 by
M. Alexandre.

The object which Plethon proposed to himself in the three
books of the Zaws was to provide men with rules of life, accord-
ing to which they could live well and happily. But, in order
to discover wherein the happiness of man consists, he finds it
necessary to understand both the nature of man himself, and
the system of which he is a part—that is, the universe. Hence
his treatise was intended to be, not so much a legislative code,
as a complete system of philosophy. In this scheme theology
occupies the primary place. ‘Kverything in human life,’ he
says, ‘as regards its being done rightly and wrongly, depends on
our religious beliefs’! Thus a great part of the work was
devoted to the investigation of what he conceived to be the
truths of religion, and to prescribing forms of worship in accord-
ance with his views. Among the teachers, whom he specially
mentions as his intellectual and spiritual guides in this and his
other enquiries, Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Plato and Plotinus hold
the most prominent place. From the discussion of man’s
religious duties he proceeds to those which he owes to himself
and to his fellow-men. The nature of his teaching on these
we have to gather, as far as this book is concerned, from what
is introduced in connection with the subject of religion, for the
parts of the work which relate to Virtue and to Government
are lost. But, though it is somewhat hazardous to draw con-
clusions with regard to an author’s ultimate opinions from his
earlier writings, it is probable that his existing essay On Virtue
(Περὶ dperis)—which seems to have been written early in the
fifteenth century, and has been described as a combination of
Platonic and Stoic views on that subject?—represents the
ethical teaching of the Laws; and that the political ideas em-
bodied in that work did not greatly differ from what is found
in the Addresses on the sulject of the Peloponnese. 'This latter
point receives some confirmation from what is said with regard
to the treatment of this part of the subject in the brief summary
prefixed to the Laws.’

1 Trailé des Lois, p. 130. 3 Traité des Lois, p. 2.
2 Schultze, p. 220.

A BYZANTINE REFORMER. 801

Plethon is represented as having expressed, during his stay
at Florence, the belief that both Christianity and Mahometanism
would ere long be superseded by a religion not greatly differing
from that of the ancient Greeks —by which he meant his own.
This was, in fact, a strange form of Neo-Platonic polytheism.
Whether the gods of Plethon’s system are to be regarded as
embodiments of Plato’s Ideas, or as a resuscitation of the Aeons
of Gnosticism, or as an eclectic combination of the two, his
object was to reconstruct paganism on the ruins of existing
ereeds. But this paganism was such as no ancient Greek would
recognise, for the functions and relationships of the Hellenic
divinities are completely perverted. Zeus, indeed, is the
supreme god, but Kronos (for instance), instead of being the
father, is the illegitimate son of Zeus, and he together with the
other Titans represent the Ideas of the mortal and perishable,
though they are immortal and imperishable themselves. In
like manner the other divinities have other functions in the
order of the universe assigned to them, without reference to
their classical attributes. The whole scheme is one of many
attempts to bridge over the chasm which separates the world
of sense from a transcendental original, by tracing gradations
in the evolution of the chain of existence ; but Plethon does not
even endeavour, as others had done, to explain the origin of evil,
for he represents the illegitimate children of Zeus, equally with
the legitimate, as being sprung directly from him, though they
create mortals, who are subject to evil.2/ The Neo-Platonist
philosopher, whose scheme of polytheism most nearly resembled
his, as Gennadius pointed out, was Proclus.? But it must not
be supposed that these divinities, however arbitrary and fanciful
their names may be, were in Plethon’s mind merely allegorical.
On the contrary, they were to him in the highest degree living
realities, on whose personal superintendence the universe de-
pended. His whole system of religious worship is pervaded
by an intense spirit of dogmatic belief, which on any other
supposition is meaningless, As regards a future state, he
believed in metempsychosis, which he contrasts advantageously

1 George of Trebizond, in Alexandre, 8 Gennadius’ letter to Joseph the
p. Xvi. note 1. Exarch, in Alexandre, Append. xix.
* See Hymn xii., in Traité des Lois, p. 424; see also Proclus’ scheme, as

p. 213. given by Alexandre, pp. Ixxx, Ixxxi,

362 A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

with the Christian doctrine of the immortality of the soul. In
the latter of the two Addresses, that to the Despot Theodore, we
can trace—faintly indeed, but with tolerable clearness both
from what is stated and from what is omitted—the outlines
of these views.?

The forms of worship, which were to be the support of this
theological system, consisted of allocutions, or addresses to the
gods, and hymns. The former of these partake partly of the
character of creeds, and partly of prayers; and perhaps the
professions of faith and the didactic element, which they
contain, may explain the absence of anything corresponding to
sermons in Plethon’s services. The hymns are composed in
dactylic hexameters, regulated by quantity, the metre of which
is of a nature to set a scholar’s teeth on edge. In these all the
deities are invoked in turn, more or less frequently, according
to their dignity, and they consist both of recitals of their attri-
butes, and of prayers for special graces. The principles of
self-regulation and rules of conduct, which are indirectly
suggested, both in these and the allocutions, are often excellent.
In addition to these, rules are prescribed for fasts and festivals,
for sacred seasons, for the observance of the services, and for
the prostrations to be used in them; besides which there is
to be an order of priests, and also of heralds—an office corre-
sponding, apparently, to the muezzin who call the Mahometans
to prayer. Plethon lays stress in one place on the importance
of restricting this religious worship within the limits which
suffice to influence the imagination.? The ordinary reader will |
rather be disposed to question whether there is anything here
to affect the imagination at all, for anything drier or more
uninspiring than these addresses and hymns it is difficult to
conceive. No part of his proposals, indeed, is more unpractical
than that which relates to these services. Noone but a theorist
could have conceived, that a people, who were attached to a
form of worship, however debased, could be led to profit by
such stiff and, to all but quite the initiated, unmeaning
prayers.

Having in this manner obtained some idea of the person who

1 Traité des Lois, pp. 258-260. μέτριόν τε, καὶ ὁπόσον γ᾽ ἂν ἡμῶν τὸ

2. Add. II. ce, 15-18. φανταστικὸν ἱκανὸν πλάττειν, ὑὕπερ-
9. Traité des Lois, p. 152; μήτεαὖῦ τὸ βάλλοντες"

A BYZANTINE REFORMER. 363

proposed to reform the Peloponnese at the commencement of
the fifteenth century, let us endeavour to realise the state of the
country to which these reforms were to be applied. Besides
what we can gather from Plethon’s own remarks, some curious
evidence on the subject is afforded by the satire entitled
Mazaris, of which an account has been given in a previous
article in this Jowrnal+on ‘ Byzantine Satire,’ and which appears
to have been composed almost identically at the same time as
Plethon’s two Addresses. The author of that story was a person
who combined a highly malevolent disposition with a strong
sense of burlesque humour, so that the same circumstances,
which suggested to the philosopher serious plans of reform,
furnished him with an opportunity for satire. Indeed, it is not
a little curious to think of Mistra as containing at once two
writers of such opposite temperaments, the one of whom in-
vested the Peloponnese in his imagination with a halo of its
former glories, while the other makes one of his characters, who
had lately returned from a visit to Hades, say, that it was a
question whether the Morea (or Mora, as he calls it,) or the
infernal regions were the more objectionable abode.2 The
statements in Mazaris, therefore, require to be accepted with
caution, though they receive some corroboration from other
sources. The town of Mistra, or Mizithra, which by the writers
of this period is often called Sparta or Lacedaemon, was built
on a spur of Taygetus, on the opposite side of the valley to the
ancient city. For a description of its site, and for an account of
its foundation, history, and present condition, I may refer to
what I have written in a paper on ‘The Franks in the
Peloponnese. * It was now the capital of the province, and a
populous and flourishing Byzantine city. But before proceed-
ing further, it may be well to notice a passage in Mazaris,
in which the races who then inhabited the country are
enumerated.

At this time, the writer says, there were seven races in the
Peloponnese, besides persons of mixed parentage—viz., Lace-
daemonians, Italians, Peloponnesians, Sthlavinians, Illyrians,
Egyptians, and Jews.t Possibly, as he was deeply versed in

1 vol. ii. pp. 257 foll. pp. 176, 178; 227-233.
2 Mazaris, c. 19. 4 Mazaris, ο. 22.
3 Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. iv.

364 A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

classic lore, the number seven may have been suggested to him
by a passage in Herodotus,’ where the historian divides the
inhabitants of that country at the period of which he wrote into
the same number of races; though the author himself, with
characteristic virulence, goes on to say, that seven is the sacred
number, and is polluted and dishonoured by being applied to
such rascals as the Moreotes. Anyhow, it is possible to deter-
mine what nationalities are signified by these titles. (1) The
Lacedaemonians are the old, and probably Hellenic, tribe of
Tzaconians, of whom Mazaris says elsewhere, ‘The Laconians
have been barbarised, and are now called Tzaconians.’2 Of this
people at the present day not more than fifteen hundred families
remain, and these inhabit a district in the east of Laconia, but
at an earlier period they extended over a much wider area in
the same neighbourhood, and were an important factor in the
population. They are mentioned by some of the Byzantine
historians, from Constantine Porphyrogenitus onwards, and also
in the Frankish Chronicle of the Conquest of the Morea. Their
language, to which considerable attention has been devoted by
philologists, is markedly different from modern Greek, and
appears to be a genuine survival of an ancient dialect. It is
curious that the specimens of it given in J/azaris are not
Tzaconian at all, but only forms of the popular language ;
though this is less surprising in a satirist, who cared more to
collect material for ridicule, than to observe accuracy of state-
ment.? (2) The Italians are the remains of the Latin con-
querors of the Peloponnese, who originally were mainly of
French extraction, but now might fairly be described as Italian,
because they were confined to the Venetians, and to the
Zaccaria family in Achaia. (3) By the Peloponnesians are
intended the Greek inhabitants of the country at large, who,
though their blood was mixed with a Slavonic element, had
assimilated most of the settlers of that race who had invaded
the country during the middle ages, and now included the vast
majority of the population. (4) The Sthlavinians are the two

1 Herod. viii. 73. Griechenland, vii., pp. 183, 184,
2 Mazaris, ο. 19. believes—but in my judgment without
3. Hertzberg, (Geschichte Griechen- sufficient reason—that by the ‘ Lace-

lands, ii. p. 468, note) following Hopf, daemonians’ are here meant the
Griechische Geschichte, in Brockhaus’ Byzantine officials at Mistra.

A BYZANTINE REFORMER, 365

remaining Slavonic tribes, the Melings and Ezerites, who
inhabited the lower slopes of Taygetus. These, though at the
present day they have disappeared and left no trace, at the
beginning of the fifteenth century still preserved their nation-
ality and language. A century earlier another tribe, the
Skortans, in the mountain region of north-western Arcadia,
would have had to be added to these, but in the interval they
had been completely mastered by the Greeks. (5) By the
Illyrians are meant the Albanians, who now form the majority
of the inhabitants of certain parts of Greece, but were first in-
troduced into the Peloponnese in the middle of the fourteenth
century by Manuel Cantacuzene, the son of the {Emperor of
Constantinople. The object of this proceeding was to repeople
those districts which had been depopulated in the course of the
struggle between the Franks and Greeks, and especially Arcadia ;
and to plant there a rude and vigorous race, whose energy was
greater, and whose needs were fewer, than those of their
predecessors. At the same time it was a necessary result of
this, that the standard of civilisation in the country was so far
lowered. We may notice in passing, that a number of these
Albanians, when they were driven out of the Morea by
Mahomet II., occupied the islands of Hydra and Spezia, and
that it was from them that Miaoulis and other naval heroes of
that nationality were descended, who effected so much in the
cause of Greek independence. (6) The ‘ Egyptians’ are the
Gipsies, who were called by the Franks in the Peloponnese
Acingani. This people, as is well known, sprang originally from
India, and migrated westward at different periods. The branch
that afterwards entered Greece came into Europe in the thir-
teenth century, in connection with Genghis Khan’s conquests,
and after settling for some time in Wallachia, passed into the
neighbouring countries, and in particular into the Peloponnese,
which they reached by way of Aetolia and the Straits. Their
settlements were discouraged by the Palaeologi, but the
Venetians on the other hand favoured them, and they were
allowed to inhabit streets in the neighbourhood of their towns;
and of other headquarters of the Franks in Greece. (7) The
Jews from old times had maintained colonies in Greece, though
they were treated with contumely by the Greeks, and were
restricted by the Venetians to the exercise of retail trade. But
HS.—VOL. VII. eG

366 A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

the latter people tolerated them, in the same way as they did
the Gipsies; and the names of ‘Jews’ Castle’ (E@pavoxactpo)
and ‘Gipsies’ Castle’ (ΓΠυφτόκαστρο), which are attached to
many ruins in Greece, and are a standing puzzle to the
traveller, date from this period, and are a memorial of the
settlements of those races in the suburbs of the cities.

The history of the Peloponnese during the two preceding
centuries has been told from the point of view of its Latin
occupants, who conquered the country subsequently to the
Fourth Crusade, in the paper already referred to on The Franks
in the Peloponnese. But it may be well briefly to notice here
the circumstances which particularly affected the Byzantine
province, and led up to the condition of things which Mazaris
ridiculed, and Plethon sought to remedy. It was in 1262,
fifty-seven years after the first invasion, that the tide turned m
favour of the Greeks, when William Villehardouin, having been
made prisoner at the battle of Pelagonia, ceded the fortresses of
Monemvasia and Grand-Maina, and the newly-established city
of Mistra, to the emperor Michael VIII., as the price of his
freedom. From that time onward the Greek power in the
Peloponnese slowly, but steadily, advanced, until, in 1320, they
made themselves masters of the two border fortresses of Karitena
and Akova in north-western Arcadia. After this only Messenia,
Elis, and the northern coast of the peninsula remained in the
hands of the Frankish principality. From the period of Manuel
Cantacuzene (1349) the Byzantine province in the Morea was
of sufficient importance to be erected into a separate despotat,
and became the appanage of the second son of the emperor of
Constantinople as imperial viceroy: to this office Theodore
Palaeologus, the son of the emperor John V., was appointed in
1388. But meanwhile, in 1381, the Frankish dominions had
been conquered by the Navarrese Company, a band of adven-
turers resembling the Catalan Grand Company ; and subsequently
their leader, Peter de San Superan, whose one object was to
maintain his own position, solicited aid from Sultan Bajazet to
assist him against the Greeks. In answer to this appeal, the
Ottoman general, Evrenos-bey, was sent with a body of troops
in 1397, and overran and devastated the Morea, and made both
Theodore and Peter himself tributary. From this yoke they

1 Hertzberg, op. cit. pp. 470-4738.

A BYZANTINE REFORMER. 307

were delivered by the advance of Timour, which resulted in the
battle of Angora, and Bajazet’s captivity (A.D. 1402); but the
invasion had sufficiently proved how little power existed in the
country for resisting a serious attack. In fact, at this time
Theodore, in despair at his own weakness, had offered to cede
his dominions to the Knights of Rhodes, and was only prevented
from doing so by the people of Mistra rising in revolt, and
refusing to admit the detachment which was sent to occupy the
place. But the fall of Bajazet, and the disorganised condition
of the Ottoman power which followed, afforded the Greeks a
respite, which suggested to them the hope of ultimate escape.
The Despot, Theodore I., died in 1407, and was succeeded in
that office by Theodore 11., the son of the emperor Manuel. In
1415, as has been already mentioned, that emperor visited the
Morea in person, and provided that the isthmus should be
defended by a wall, in order to secure the country against
future inroads. As all that remained of the Byzantine empire
was Constantinople and the neighbouring part of Thrace, one or
two islands, the city of Thessalonica, and the Peloponnese, it
was evident that the last-named province was the most im-
portant possession of the Greeks, next to the capital. Plethon,
therefore, was justified in appealing to the emperor, and to the
despot, who was his immediate ruler, to reorganise the country
in such a manner that it might be capable of providing for its
own defence.

But the condition of things, which it was proposed to remedy,
seems to have been almost desperate, when we consider it in
the light of the descriptions of Mazaris and Plethon, together
with what we can gather from other sources. First among the
causes of confusion was the behaviour of the ruling class, or
archonts. The emperor Cantacuzene, in his History, when
speaking of these men, says, not without a touch of humour,
that their love of disturbance and their traditionary feuds were
such, that they neglected the laws of Lycurgus, and observed
only one of those of Solon, namely, that which placed under a
ban those citizens who refused to join either side in a sedition.
This remark had reference to their treatment of his son Manuel,
when he tried to introduce order into the country and to con-
ciliate the chief men. For, whereas before that time they had

1 Cantacuzene, vol. iii., p. 87, ed. Bonn.
cc 2

368 A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

been constantly quarrelling among themselves, and pillaging
one another, when he appeared on the scene, they immediately
combined against him. The satirical description of the same
class by Mazaris is even more rasping. ‘If you wish,’ he says,
‘to estimate the character of the Peloponnesians—the wrongs
they inflict day and night on one another, their disloyalty to
their sovereign and general disregard of law, their truce-breaking,
perjuries, and murders—you will find them, one and all, heady
and bloodthirsty, rapacious, haughty and contentious; you will
find their honour false, and full of deceit and treachery; in a
word, in their dealings with one another, each of them has three
different sides—their tongue speaks one thing, their mind
devises another, and their actions execute a third.’! In par-
ticular, when the emperor Manuel had constructed the wall
which was to defend the isthmus, the same writer accuses them
of threatening to pull it down, and of boasting that they would
ruin him, either secretly or by open violence.? Plethon also by
implication passes a similar condemnation. When speaking of
the necessity of drawing a sharp distinction between the func-
tions of different classes, he says that the ruling class should be
such in reality, and not only in name, exercising their authority
for the preservation and protection of the rest of the citizens
but abstaining from mean occupations, such as trade, and
especially from unfair dealing in these, 1.6., from injuring the
oppressed agriculturists by the use of unfair weights, and in
numerous other ways.? The inherited feuds, which prevailed
among these landholders, may remind us of the vendetta, which
still exists among the mountaineers of Maina, the district of the
ancient Taenarian promontory, where each family lives within
its own walled enclosure, and is animated by irreconcilable
hatred towards one or another of its neighbours.

Another prevailing evil was the hardships to which the people
at large were exposed. The rural population not only paid
taxes, but were expected at a moment’s notice to leave their
occupations and serve in the army, when occasion arose; and
the taxes, though not heavy, were exacted at frequent intervals,
and by numerous collectors, and were rendered more burden-
some by being required to be paid in money and not in kind.
As Plethon remarks, it was not to be expected that persons

1 Mazaris, α, 21. 2 ibid. α. 23. +" Add: Il. Ὁ. 24:

A BYZANTINE REFORMER, 369

who were forced into military service, and in many cases were
unprovided with arms, aud whose thoughts were occupied with
their farms and crops, should be suitable defenders of the
country At the same time it was these very persons who had
been most impoverished by the long-continued struggle with
the Franks, since their homesteads, their agricultural imple-
ments, and the produce of their farms, had been destroyed in
the continual forays. Justice, also, was imperfectly adminis-
tered, and the currency was greatly debased. But the most
hopeless sign was the demoralised condition of the people at
large. Of the numerous races whom Mazaris enumerates,
there were several, of whom, as aliens, no patriotism could be
expected ; and the half-breeds, or Gasmuls, as they were called
—the offspring of marriages between Franks and Greeks—
would naturally be, from their equivocal position, the most
untrustworthy of all. But it would seem also that the Greeks
of the middle and lower classes, who formed the great body of
the population, had become deeply corrupted by the long-
continued insecurity, and the absence of healthy influences.
The sources of weakness arising from these causes, and still
more the danger to which they were exposed from the superior
power of the Turks, Plethon saw as clearly as any one; he
admits that the position is almost desperate, but he protests
against giving way to despair, as cowardly and unreasonable.
To him the regeneration of nationalities was one of the lessons
of history. Troy, he said, had risen again in Rome, the Persian
empire in the Parthian; and so he believed that a future
might be in store for Greece, if only the right measures were
adopted.”

What those right measures were, we have now to consider.
At the commencement of his first Address he assures the
emperor that his object is to make such suggestions as may be
of service to the country, and it is easy to see that his general
ideas on reform were suggested by the existing state of the
empire. The wall that had recently been constructed across the
Isthmus, he felt, would be useless, unless behind it there lay
a state which was capable of defending it, and such a state
could not exist except under conditions greatly differing from
those under which they were at present living; in fact, a social

Adds E. οὐ 2 Add, IT., ec. 2, 3, 20.

370 A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

and moral renovation of the people was necessary. It is
important not to leave this out of sight, or to suppose that
Plethon was guided simply by speculative considerations in the
scheme of reform which he proposed, when we notice the
influence that ancient precedents, and the authority of Aristotle,
and still more of Plato, exercised upon him. He was, indeed,
before all things, a Hellenist. Instead of priding himself, as
Byzantines generally did, on being a ἱῬωμαῖος, he lays stress,
over and over again, on the Greeks generally, but above all the
Peloponnesians, being "EXAnves. He interprets the history of
his own period by the light of classical times, occasionally even
to the verge of absurdity. To him the hostility of the Turks
is a form of revenge for the subjugation of their supposed
ancestors, the Paropamisadae, or inhabitants of Afghanistan,
whom Alexander conquered on his way to India.t In appealing
to the emperor for support, he reminds him of the debt which
Constantinople owed to the Peloponnese, because the city of
Megara, of which Byzantium was a colony, was closely bound
to that country by the ties of Dorian kinship. And when he
comes to subjects further removed from the sphere of pedantry,
he has the experience of antiquity before his eyes, when he
reminds those whom he addresses of the self-sufficing character
of the district in respect of its products, and of the facilities
which it offered for defence. At the same time he had sufficient
consciousness of the necessities of the time to propose measures,
which, in his opinion, might remedy the existing evils.
According to Plethon’s scheme, society should be divided into
three separate classes: (1) the cultivators of the soil; (2) those
employed in trade and manufactures; (3) those whose function
it is to preserve order. Under the last head are included the
prince, the judges and other administrators of the law, all
government agents and similar officials, and the soldiery; these
are the ἀρχικὸν φῦλον. The best form of government, he
thinks, is monarchy, provided that the ruler is advised and
guided by a council of state composed of a moderate number
of persons—neither few enough to intrigue for their private
interests, nor sufficiently numerous to be swayed by unreasoning
impulse; and, further, of men of moderate means, who are free
from the temptation to rapacity arising from great wealth (as
2 Add Ti. ic; 2 Ada: Tex:

A BYZANTINE REFORMER. 371

in the case of the archonts), and from the dependence caused
by poverty. The occupations of these three classes he would
keep carefully distinct; and he specially provides that the
governing class should not engage in trade—an arrangement
which was intended to check the abuses, which we have already
noticed as being practised by the same aristocrats, and probably,
also, those of the tax-collectors, and other Byzantine officials.?
A further restriction forbids the employment of public money
for the purpose of rewarding those who, either by important
services, or by handsome contributions, had deserved well of the
state; such persons are sufficiently requited by the higher
estimation in which they are held. Such benefactors as receive
in the form of gifts a recognition of their former liberality, he
compares to the cow that, after having been milked, kicked
over the milkpail.? We may infer from this that an extensive
system of bounties and largesses prevailed; and in a society
where place-hunting was found to the extent which is described
in Mazaris, these would hardly be confined to public bene-
factors.

In a similar manner, though for a different reason, the tax-
paying agriculturists are to be kept distinct from the rest of
the community, and especially from the soldiery. At first sight
this arrangement appears like a revival of a part of the old
Byzantine statecraft. During the flourishing period of the
Eastern empire, no feature of the administrative system was
so jealously maintained as the separation of those who paid
taxes from those who served in the army. The object of this
was twofold. On the one hand, in order to support the revenue,
it was necessary to guarantee that a sufficient number of
families should contribute to the exchequer; on the other, the
natural jealousy which was felt by the central government of
entrusting the provincials with arms, comprising as they did a
variety of peoples, whose allegiance to the empire was easily
relaxed, and who often had the will, if they had the power, to
revolt, suggested the expediency of maintaining the army in
an independent position. But the object that Plethon had in
view was a different one, viz. to equalise the burdens of the
state, and to maintain an efficient military force. The taxes
were to be paid entirely by the cultivators of the soil. This

Add. Less a Add. Il. ce. 24. SP Radi Ly οἱ live

372 A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

arrangement he justifies, because their needs are provided for
by the other two classes; the ruling class guarantees them
safety and order, the trading class the instruments of work, and
means of life. But those who bear the fiscal burdens ought
not at the same time to be responsible for the defence of the
country, and are therefore to be exempt from service in the
army, for which, besides, their want of experience and training
renders them unfit. On this ground—because they paid taxes,
and took no part in administration and defence—Plethon,
with a fine disregard of the associations of an opprobrious name,
calls this class the Helots? At the same time he affirms that
they ought to be held in honour, as the chief support of
the commonwealth, and carefully guarded against additional
exactions.

In reviewing the system of the army, he strongly protests
against the use of mercenaries, as being an untrustworthy
defence, and liable to turn against their employers.” In order
that the soldiers may at once have a stake in the country, and
be well trained and ready for service, he proposes a twofold
method. The soldiery will be drawn mainly from the agricul-
tural class, but will pay no taxes. In those districts where the
population generally are capable of bearing arms, a system of
pairs is to be established, so that two men should possess
common capital and common property, and that one should
work while the other serves, and vice versd. On the other hand,
where a considerable portion of the people are unfit to bear
arms, the soldiers are to have Helots assigned to them—a foot-
soldier one, a cavalry-soldier two, and the officers more in pro-
portion—on the understanding that they should receive the
amount which such Helots would otherwise pay to the ex-
chequer.? In this way a standing army would be formed, which
would have many of the advantages, and none of the dis-
advantages of a militia; and by means of this it would be
possible both to guard the wall across the Isthmus and the
strong places in different parts of the country, and to have a
force in readiness to take the field when required.

The monks, who at that time formed a numerous body in the
country, Plethon regards, as might be supposed, with no favour.

1 Add. I. c. 13. 5. ΑΔ. 1 cits Meena:
5. Add: Τ᾿ οἱ 9 Tite ΤΌ:

A BYZANTINE REFORMER. 373

In speaking of them as ‘ professing philosophers’ (οὗ φιλοσοφεῖν
φάσκοντες)! he is only using a term, which from the time of
the Christian Fathers was applied to the monks of St. Basil,
as they were supposed to devote their lives to retirement and
contemplation, but he evidently intended the phrase to convey
a sarcasm. He calls them the drones of the community. He
would tolerate them, and allow them to retain their possessions,
but denies them any share in the public revenues, to which
they contribute nothing. On the other hand, to the higher
clergy he would assign a certain number of Helots for the
service of their households, regarding them as state officers.
And in like manner, the higher officials, and especially the
Despot, are to be provided with attendants by this means.

In discussing the question of imposts, he enumerates three
modes of taxation, and discusses their relative advantages and
disadvantages ; all these, it may be observed, exist in the
Turkish empire at the present day. First, there is the system
of compulsory labour (dyyapela, corvée), according to which
persons are required to give their services to the state gratis,
in constructing roads and fortifications, and in any similar
employment which may be assigned to them. This he dis-
misses, as being excessively burdensome, besides which, en-
forced bodily labour is derogatory to a free man. The second
system is that of payment in money. Plethon’s objections to
this arose from the abuses which it had produced in practice.
The amount exacted had been a fixed sum, and had not varied
according to the income of the contributor; it had not been
demanded in a single payment, but in the form of numerous
small items, and at different periods; and each of these had
been paid to a different collector, by which means the oppor-
tunities of extortion had been greatly increased. These hard-
ships had been farther aggravated by the debasement of the
coinage, which destroyed the regular standard of value, and
gave openings for innumerable disputes. Under these circum-
stances he advocates the third method of taxation, that by
payment in kind; this was to amount to a certain proportion
of the year’s produce, which was never to be exceeded, and it
was to be paid at one time, and to one collector.? Plethon does
not notice—probably he was not aware of—the primary evil of

SENG IG (oy 16: 2 Add) I. σὲ 11,3 11 Ὁ 1%

374 A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

this system, which renders it so oppressive in Turkey at the
present day, viz. that the grain has to be left in the threshing-
floor or elsewhere, exposed to damage from the weather,
sometimes for many weeks, until the collector has made his
rounds.

This leads us to the most revolutionary part of the reformer’s
proposals, his arrangement for the tenure of land. He appears
here as a socialist. The inhabitants of a country at large have
an inalienable right to the possession of the soil, and the owner-
ship of this should be vested in the state to the exclusion of
private holdings. He acknowledges the harshness which was
involved in such a change, but excuses it on the plea of the
necessities of the case and the pressure of circumstances, and
expresses his willingness to withdraw his proposal in favour of
any other which could claim to be a better solution of their
difficulties. The affection with which a family may regard its
ancestral possessions he philosophically ignores, suggesting that
the loss of these would be sufficiently compensated by the
opportunities afforded to them of occupying whatever land they
chose elsewhere. His practical object seems to have been to
prevent the large landholders from claiming extensive districts,
which, nevertheless, they took no trouble to cultivate. ‘Ac-
cording to my scheme,’ he says, ‘all the country would be made
productive, and no part of it would remain barren and un-
profitable, if every one had equal nght to till the soil wher-
ever he chose; and by this result both the public and the
individual would benefit.’ The condition of tenure was that
the occupier should do his duty by the land; subject to this,
he might settle where he would, without prejudice arising from
the claims of previous owners: but if he in his turn neglected
it, the property would revert to the state, and another would
have the right of occupying it.

This entire plan seems to imply that there was a considerable
amount of unappropriated land in the country, in which case
so radical a change, even supposing it to have been practicable,
would have been unnecessary: but in Plethon’s mind it was
closely connected with his scheme of taxation, and with the
disposal of the revenues derived from the soil. He proposed
to divide the annual proceeds of each property into three equal

1 Add. I. 18, 19; II. 13.

A BYZANTINE REFORMER. 375

parts. One of these was to be paid to the state in the form of
taxes, and was to be applied to the purposes of government ;
that is, to the maintenance of the ruling class, or that element
in the state which provides for the security of the rest. Another
third was to be paid over to the capitalist, who provided the
farm stock, whether it was the implements of husbandry for
the grower of corn and the vine-dresser, or the cattle for the
grazier and shepherd. The remaining portion belonged to the
occupier. If, however, he himself provided the capital, then he
received two-thirds ; if the capital was advanced by the state,
and not by private hands, then the state received a second
portion, in addition to what was paid as taxes. In any case,
before the division was made, the seed-corn for the coming
year, and the cattle required for breeding, were to be deducted?

In the matter of exports and imports, Plethon was a pro-
tectionist; but he regards the question rather from the point
of view of the consumer than from that of the producer. His
main object is to enable the country to provide for its own
wants, and to be independent of supplies from abroad. With
this view he would lay a tax on the importation of such articles
as are not serviceable to the people at large, while those that
are generally useful should be admitted free of duty. Similarly,
the exportation of serviceable things should be checked by the
imposition of duties, so that either the home consumer on the
one hand, or the exchequer on the other, might be benefited.
He lays great stress on the self-sufficing character of the Pelo-
ponnese, a feature which has been noticed also as characteristic
of that peninsula in ancient times, and arose from the great
variety of elevation in different districts, which caused a cor-
responding variety of products. ‘Iron and arms,’ he says, ‘are
the only necessaries which the country does not furnish, and
these can be obtained from abroad in exchange for cotton,’
The last-named article is one which we also hear of as being
grown in the Peloponnese in antiquity.2 On the same principle
he strongly recommends the use of native materials for garments.
Why should they employ wool brought from the Atlantic, and
converted into garments on the other side of the Ionian Sea, and
neglect the wool, flax, hemp, and cotton, which were produced
at home? He also impresses on his countrymen generally, but

Add: Tee ates. 2 Pausan. V. 5, §) 2.

376 A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

especially on the upper classes and the court, the need of re-
trenchment in respect of luxuries, that they might have more
money to spare for the defence of the country.

In addition to these leading features of Plethon’s scheme,
two subjects of less importance remain to be noticed, in respect
of which he desired to introduce reform—the currency, and
the punishments inflicted on criminals. As regards the former,
it would seem that the Byzantine currency in the Peloponnese
had been so neglected, that the people generally were obliged to
avail themselves of debased coins of Frankish origin. The
evil arising from this, he believes, would be in great measure
remedied by the adoption of exchange in kind throughout the
country, a system for which the Peloponnese, owing to its self-
sufficing character already noticed, was peculiarly fitted; but
whatever money was required for the purposes of daily life
should be good of its kind, and not foreign.? In the matter of
punishment, he remarks that sentences of death had ceased to
be carried out; and, as a matter of fact, there was at this time,
and there still exists among the Greeks, a strong aversion to
executions, even of the worst criminals.2 Thus it came to pass
that many malefactors escaped altogether, and those who were
punished were subjected to mutilation of the extremities, a
practice, which had become traditionai in the Eastern empire,
but which Plethon deprecates, as producing objects offensive to
the eye, and being contrary to Hellenic ideas. In place of both
of these punishments he advocates the employment of criminals
on public works, such as repairing the wall across the Isthmus,
by which means the soldiery would be relieved from laborious
tasks, and the burdens of the community would be lightened.*
It is clear, however, that Plethon had himself no objection to
the punishment of death, for m his code it is prescribed for a
large number of crimes,’ and in the second of his two Addresses
he urges that it should be put in force in the case of incorri-
gible malefactors. The form of capital punishment which he
advocates is that by burning.

It is not difficult to see that many points in this plan of

1 Add. I. ec, 22, 23 ; II. c. 14. be found in Belle, Voyage en Gréce,
3 .Ἀπ4. Τὸ ALS ΤΠ ΟἿ: pp. 357, 358.
3 A ghastly description of a pro- ZENO. c 2007 11: ὉΠ:

vincial execution in modern times will 5 Traité des Lois, yp. 124 foll.

A BYZANTINE REFORMER. 377

reform were suggested in the first instance by the study of
Plato.t’ Plethon’s governing class, whom in one place he speaks
ofas the κοινοὶ φύλακες," at once recall the ‘ Guardians’ of Plato’s
Republic. His regulations with regard to exports and imports
correspond almost exactly to those of that philosopher, who
ordained that objects of luxury, which are not produced in the
country itself, should not be imported, where there is no
necessity for them, and that nothing which is indispensable for
the country should be exported; but he allowed the same
exception to this rule as Plethon does, viz., that arms, and
materials which may be of service for the defence of the
country, are to be imported, when those in authority find it
desirable.? Plato, also, desired to impose restraints in the
matter of luxury on his Guardians,‘ in the same spirit in which
Plethon impresses the need of frugality on the leading men of
his time. The separation of classes in respect of their
employments, which Plethon insists upon, is equally prominent
in Plato’s scheme, for he required that husbandmen and
artificers should form distinct classes of the population,
and that the artificers should not exercise more than one
occupation.® Again when Plethon deals with more speculative
matters, he borrows still more directly from his master; 6.0.
where he discusses the various forms of political constitutions,
and determines that the best form of government is monarchy,
when the ruler is bound to act in accordance with just laws.®
So too when Plethon mentions the three essential points in
religious belief, which both states and individuals ought firmly
to maintain, he puts in a positive form those tenets, the negation
of which Plato speaks of as being erroneous, viz., the belief
(1) that God exists; (2) that He takes thought for men;
(3) that His judgment is incapable of being influenced by gifts
and offerings.’ At the same time the mediaeval Platonist was
no servile follower of his intellectual guide. Occasionally he
adopts views more or less different from those of his predecessor,
and where he avails himself of his ideas, he usuaily modifies

1 The correspondences with Plato 5 Rep. ii. pp. 869, 370; Laws, viii.
have been carefully collected and criti- . 846.

cised by Ellissen in his edition. 6 Politicus, p. 302.
5. ἈσΘΩ. Το, 15, 7 Add. II. c. 15; Plato, Laws, x
3 Laws, viii. p. 847. p. 885.

4 Rep. iii. p. 416.

378 A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

them so as to meet, according to his own notions, the wants of
his age and country.

In estimating the general character of these proposals, it is
fair to remember that they were suggested as a remedy for a
state of things which was almost desperate. Their author
adinits that they are subversive of deeply rooted habits and
modes of life, and expects that they will be unpopular with
certain classes, but he entertains no hope of success from
anything less than a radical change.’ This consideration may
lead us to hesitate before acquiescing in the severe judgment
which has been passed upon them by some writers, for instance
by the practical Finlay, who says that Plethon would have
rendered society even more barbarous than he found it.?
Possibly this might have been the case, and yet in great
political crises even stranger changes have served to renovate
society, if there is forthcoming a sufficiently vigorous material
to work upon. That Plethon did not regard them as merely
speculative suggestions, is shown by his offering to carry them
out himself, if no other administrator should be found ready to
do so;* and the enthusiastic and uncompromising character
which is attributed to him, and which appears in his writings,
makes it probable that he believed he was capable of remedying
the existing evils. But to us who look back upon his ideas
in the light of subsequent history, two causes are plainly visible
which must have rendered them futile in their operation. In
the first place, they came too late ; the empire of Constantinople
was doomed to fall within a limited period, and proposals such
as his, which aimed at the regeneration of the national charac-
ter, could only produce an effect after the lapse of a consider-
able space of time. And besides this, there did not exist either
adequate power in the government to enforce them, or sufficient
vitality or moral force in the people at large to be invigorated
by them. He regarded the restoration of prosperity as de-
pending on the will of the Despot Theodore II.,* and he was a
man of no vigour, and the archonts of the Morea had already
shown to what an extent they were ready to defy him. As to
the inhabitants of the country, they were what we have already
seen. We may admire Plethon for his determination, in spite

1 Add. I. c. 10; II. ec. 22, 27. 5. Add. 1. 6. 2b
2 History of Greece, vol. iv. p. 241. ἜΑ, wile 51.

A BYZANTINE REFORMER. 379

of all discouragements, not to despair of the state. But his
scheme, like that of Saint-Simon in our own century, which in
several points it resembles, must be reckoned among those
which could not have taken a practical form.

There only remains the melancholy task of narrating the
sequel of the story. Of Plethon’s proposals, as might be
expected, no notice was taken; but the efforts of the emperor
Manuel to improve the administration of the Peloponnese had
some effect for the time, and at last the whole of the territory
which remained in the hands of the Franks of the Principality
of Achaia was won from them by the Greeks. In 1423,
however, Manuel became involved in hostilities with the
Turks, and an Ottoman army under the general Turakhan
broke through the wall across the Isthmus, and overran and
plundered the country. Three years later Manuel died, and
was succeeded as emperor by his son John VI., and he, in the
year 1427, divided the Peloponnese between his three brothers,
Theodore, the existing Despot, Constantine, and Thomas. This
partition put an end to any hopes of reform, and the courts
of these three princes became the centres of intrigues, which
ultimately resulted in civil war between them. After the
retirement of Theodore into a monastery, somewhat greater
vigour was for a time introduced into the government; but in
1446, when Amurath II. invaded the Morea in person, the wall
was again stormed, notwithstanding the imposing force by
which it was defended, and the northern and central districts
of the Peloponnese were ravaged. Throughout this period the
only part of the population that offered a determined resistance
were the Albanians, and they became alienated from the Greeks
owing to a rebellion, by which they endeavoured to obtain their
independence. In order to reduce them the two Despots,
Thomas and Demetrius (the latter had entered on his office
when Constantine became emperor of Constantinople by the
death of his brother John VI.), solicited and obtained aid
from the Sultan—a proceeding which proved how little patriot-
ism remained in the hearts of the rulers. When Constantinople
fell in 1453, it was clear that the reduction of this province was
only a question of time ; indeed the systematic abduction of the
inhabitants which was practised by the Turks in their inroads—
sixty thousand persons are said to have been carried off at one

380 A BYZANTINE REFORMER.

time and sold as slaves—had already almost consummated the
ruin of the country. In 1458 Mahomet II., the great destroyer,
invaded the Peloponnese, but was contented with rendering it
tributary. Two years later, the rebellion of one of the Despots
once more summoned him to the spot, and the province was
incorporated in the Ottoman empire. All that remained in
Christian hands was the fortresses possessed by Venice, and the
last of these was ceded to Suleiman the Magnificent after the
lapse of eighty years.

H. F. Tozer.

i a ee
KLICUARD CLAY AND SONS, LONDON AND BUNGAY,

“THERE JOURNAL

Hoe NIC STUDIES

με .Ν ᾿ "
Ὁ 7 . |
4 ᾿ 7 | ’ |
a car “ P . = 7 a
ao = >> Sto 45 pase : δι
= ᾿ , ‘
7 fa ἣ
γῖν ἘΣ, ἣν
5.
- {
K
5 ᾿ ΓΉ
10. ΦΓΗ͂ΒΕ
PORT 6 σα ie αὐτοῦ τ
At ν. ι ' : iti
͵
a
= »
¢

THE SOGIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES

THE JOURNAL

Or

HELLENIC sTUDIES

VOLUME VII

PUBLISHED BY THE COUNCIL, AND SOLD ON THEIR BEHALF
ἘΝ
MACMILLAN AND CO., 29, BEDFORD STREET, STRAND
LONDON

MDCCCLXXXVI

The Rights of Translation and Reproduction are Reserved

ae |

sh

oe aS
: (OUTER

i) ΔΓ
toy en
bed -
)
᾿ ;
r
ing Ψ j ᾿ ἑ ! } τ 4 ἢ
Ξ δ
ι
Ν f f
hi j ‘ f
ι ἐ' ἢ i ¥ 27 E
RicHARD CLAY AND Sons,
LONDON AND BUNGAY.

δ᾿

τι

ὮΝ if? Wa On

, i,
Ξ ae |
‘hn of ear j is, ta ᾿

(0h a cr
0: Soe ae
ἀπ γὼ Νὰ i

CON EEN Ts,

ERIM RO SOCIO GUE τ. clio, atts, Wpsaoeh ets. . ἐπ Pies els
List of Officers and Members ..... . ρος
Transactions of the Society—1886.........2.4.2...-.

1.—Recent Discoveries of Tarentine Terra-Cottas. Plates LXIII.—IV.
SAC TMLINVEAINTS SO, Gs Ao city tees i ke oS. ΟΝ

2.—Antiquities from the Island of Lipara. Plate LXIJ. A. S. Murray

3.-—Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias. Part 11. Books IIJ.—VII1I.
Plates LXV.—VIII. F. Imnoor-BiuMeEr and P. GARDNER

4,—On Some Works of the School of Scopas, (Plate.) L. R. FARNELL.

5.—Imperial Cuirass-Ornamentation, and a Torso of Hadrian in the British
MMIRGUM MEM ea Ve ODE τς πόνοι τατον Ve,

6.—An Archaeological Visit to Samos. J.T. BENT. .
Inscriptions from Samos. P. GARDNER . .

7.—An Inscription from Chaleedon. E. A. GARDNER .
8.—"Ivyé in Greek Magic. J.B. Bury .

9.—A Suggested Restoration of the Great Hall in the Palace of Tiryns.
J coe MEDD BETON@. τ fs) ners Re ee Pe Se

10.—The Homeric House, in relation to the Remains at Tiryns. R. C. JEBB
11.—On a Bronze Leg from Italy (Pls. LXIX., LXIX.4.).—E. J. PoYNTER

12.—The Judgment of Paris: Two Unpublished Vases in the Graeco-
Etruscan Museum at Florence (Pl. LXX.).—JANE EK. HARRISON .

13.—The Early Ionic Alphabet.—E. A. GARDNER. ..........

vi CONTENTS.

14.—Notes on a Collection of Ancient Marbles in the possession of Sir
Charles Nicholson (Pls. LXXI. and @.).—C. WALDsTEIN.

15.—The Works of Pergamon, and their Influence.—L. R. FARNELL.

16.—Nike Sacrificing a Bull (Pls. D. and #.).—Crcitu SMirH. .

17.—. Julius Theupompus of Cnidus.—G. HirscHFrEe.p

18.—The Rhapsodising of the J/iad.—F. B. Jevons. .. .

19.—The Lombards and Venetians in Euboia (1205—1303).—J. B. Bury.

20.—A Byzantine Reformer (Gemistus Plethon).—H. F. Tozer .

CLASSIFIED TABLE OF CONTENTS.

I.—EXCAVATION AND TRAVEL.

PAGE
J. T. Benr.—An Archacological Visit toSamos............ 148
\. J. Evans.—Recent Discoveries of Tarentine Terra-Cottas ...... 1

R. C. Jess.—The Homeric House in relation to the Remains at Tiryns . 170

--
—

1. Mippteron.—A Suggested Restoration of the Great Hall in the
ΟΡ ΠΣ MA DVIISE Oc). estas oll ieee Es a eT

IIL.—ART AND MANUFACTURE.

1, Rk. FARNELL.—On some Works of the School of Scopas. ...... 114
> The Works of Pergamon and their Influence... . . 951

J. Ε. HARRISON.

The Judgment of Paris: Two Unpublished Vases . . 196

F. Imnoor-BiuMER and P. GArDNER.—Numismatic Commentary on Pau-

SU ane ACU MN satis a oe aie fe oe et I table, awa oe DY,
A. 5. Murray.—Antiquities from the Island of Lipara ........ °&«5zi1
E. J. PoyNter.—On a Bronze Leg from Italy. ...........-. 189

Cre1t Smirn.—Nike Sacrificing a Bull .
C, WALpsTEIN.—Marbles of Sir Charles Nicholson . ......... 9240

W. Wrotn.—Imperial Cuirass Ornamentation ............ «126

III.—INSCRIPTIONS.

EK. A. GARDNER.—An Inscription from Chalcedon. ........2.. 164

᾿ς es The Early Tonite Alphabet»... . 5+ ss + wpe 90

Vili CLASSIFIED TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE

P: GARDNER. —Inscriptions from Samos... «ἡ - + + + oe ee ee 147

G. HirscHreLp.—C. Julius Theupompus of Cnidus .......... 286

1V.—HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES.

J. BS Bury—wytaniGreek Magic i. i co > πὸ οἴ. ΠΡ 157
Ἴ The Lombards and Venetians in Euboia.—I. ..... Pe kth)

Et: Bo JEVONS.— The Rhapsodising of Homer <5. 0. <2 . τ τ 291

H. F. TozEr.—A Byzantine Reformer (Gemistus Plethon) ...... . δ

LIST OF PLATES.

PLATE
LXII. Paintings on Two Vases from Lipara.
(a) Scene from a Comedy.
(8) Head of a Satyr.
LXIII. Terra-Cottas from Tarentum.
(a) Head of Persephone.
(8) Frieze with Male and Female Winged Figures.
(vy) Model of a Boat.
LXIV. Terra-Cottas from Tarentun. .
(a) Eros as a Child.
(8) Female Head.
(y) Negro Boy crouching under Amphora.
(5) Statuette of Aphrodite adjusting her Sandal.
LXV.
LXVI. Photographs from Casts of Coins of Laconia, Messenia, Elis,
LXVII. Achaia, and Arcadia, in illustration of Pausanias.
LXYVIII.
LXIX. A Bronze Leg from Italy in the British Museum. Héliogravure by

Dujardin.
LXIX. 4. Studies of the Human Leg. By E. J. Poynvrer.
LXX. The Judgment of Paris. From an Amphora at Florence.

LXXI. (a) A Figure of Hermes, from Asia Minor.

(8) A Female Figure, from Asia Minor.

LIST OF WOOD-CUTS, &c.

PAGE
Map of Tarentum. . - τς τὸν 22 τος τυ 5 4
Head of Chthonic Dionysos (Terra-Cotta). ...°. = τς .0e cae 18
'Tarentme Ferra-Cottas . 2 - 6 28 6 τος 6 sale a > 2 or 25
Cake Mouldifrom Tarentum’.. .*. 3%. τς τις «6 loners 45
Vasesfroma Lapara.. < <4; - πο περ πὸ ΕΣ 54, 55
Aphrodite Pandemos\(Com οὗ Blis)s - - . το cian een nen 77
Dionysos’ (Coin of Elis). «2. segues, ως τς, oe ) op se 78
Head of the School of Scopas. Terra-Cotta. (Plate) ......... 114
Restorations of Great Hall of the Palace at Tiryns. ...... 162, 164, 165
Capitals’ of {Columms:: 6.5). ἢ he eee τινος peste ee or 163
Plan of Houseat ‘Tiryns) τ’: Ὁ: πὴ π΄ ς΄ 1a) eects 172
Plan of Homeric ἘΠ 50 Fan iene een cle 30. 8 173
Amphors in Museum at Wlorenée) -92 24. . 5°. s 6 ΡΠ ΠΡ 197
Pinax in Museum/at Hlorence “9% 25. 2). *.->> - = τς 198
Successive Types of Judgment of Parison Vases. .....-.. 202, 203, 204
Nymph: Relief from'Gallipoli| Ὁ 3-0 - = 1.) + eee ee 21s
Sepulechtral Relief—Youth and Boy 5 5 «. ... » s. Goss ΠΡ 248

LIST OF WOOD-CUTS, &c. xi

Relief—Zeus, female figure, and Anubis (Pl. C,1)*.........-. 249
menet—tieroand Adorers (Pl, C, 2)... 6 eck te νὸς 249
Female Vase Thrower (Pergamene Frieze) . ...... 2. + ee eee 265
ΠΣ ΠΥ ΔΗ LOM LTO DIZONG) ct .ᾳ-Φ0. Ὁ τς nel «wg 273
ake Srerifieing a Bull—Bronze (Pl.D) .... 1... 2% se wee 275

Hf fF LEIS Hes (WG PIR) το - 3... Bete clo 7 279

* ΤΊ, A is unlettered (p. 114); Pl. B is omitted,

Reo Es

OF THE

SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION: OF
BHELEENIC. STUDIES.

I. 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.

Il. 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 archeological 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
ς

XIV

the Society shall be chosen from among its Members,
and shall be ex 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 shall 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.

XV

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 Keport,
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,
¢2

XVI

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.

XVli

24. The names of all candidates wishing to become
Members of the Society shall be submitted to a
Meeting 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 £15 I5s., 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

XVvill

the Members present shall concur in a 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 Committee
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 eleven A.M. to six P.M., when
either the Librarian, or in his absence some responsible
person, shall be in attendance.

VII. 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.

xx

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.

The Library Committee.

PROF. PERCY GARDNER.

MR. WALTER LEAF.

Mk. GEORGE MACMILLAN (fon. Sec.).
MR. ERNEST MYERS.

REv. W. G. RUTHERFORD, LL.D.
Mr. E. MAUNDE THOMPSON.

REv. W. WAYTE (Aon. Librarian).

Assistant Librarian, MISS GALES, to whom, at
22, Albemarle Street, applications for books may
be addressed.

THE

SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES,

OFFICERS AND COUNCIL For 1886-1887.

President,
THE RIGHT REV. J. B. 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.

MR. SIDNEY COLVIN.

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

MR, J. K. INGRAM, LL.D.
PROF. R. C JEBB, Litt.D, LL.D.

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

THE EARL OF MORLEY.
PROF. Ο: I. NEWTON, 6.8:
REV. PROF. A. H. SAYCE, LL.D.
MR. E. MAUNDE THOMPSON.

THE REV. H. M. BUTLER, D.D.,
Master of Trinity College, Cam-
bridge.

REV, Ἡ- EF. EOZER:

PROF. RB. ¥: TYRRELL.

Council.

MR. 1. THEODORE BENT.

PROF. S. H. BUTCHER.

MR. INGRAM BYWATER.

REV. PROF. LEWIS CAMPBELL.
REV. W. W. CAPES.
MR.CHARLES I. ELTON,Q.C.,M.P.
MR. ARTHUR J. EVANS.

MR. L. R. FARNELL.

MR. E. A. FREEMAN, D.C.L.
MR. E. A. GARDNER.

PROF. PERCY GARDNER, Lirt.D.
MR. JAMES GOW, Lirt.D.

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

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

MR. WALTER LEAF.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, Barr., M.P.
MR. GEORGE A. MACMILLAN.
PROF. J. H. MIDDLETON.

MR. A. S. MURRAY.

MR. ERNEST MYERS.

MR. H. F. PELHAM.

MR. WALTER PERRY.

PROF. F. POLLOCK.

MR. P. RALLI.

PROF. W. M. RAMSAY.

REV. W. G. RUTHERFORD, LL.D.
MR. J. E. SANDYS.

MR. J. R. THURSFIELD.

l MRE Be TYLOR: DIC L., ἘΠΕ 9.

MR. CHARLES WALDSTEIN.
REV. W. WAYTE.

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

Hon. Secretary.

MR. GEORGE A.

Assistant

MACMILLAN,

Secretary.

MR. W. RISELEY.

Editorial Committee.

MR. INGRAM BYWATER.
PROF. PERCY GARDNER.

REV. PROF. HORT.

PROF. R. C. JEBB.

Auditors for 1886-87.

MR. DOUGLAS W. FRESHFIELD. |

MR. J. B. MARTIN,

Bankers.
MESSRS. ROPARTS, LUBBOCK, & CO., LOMBARD STREET.

CAMBRIDGE BRANCH

OF

THE SOCIETY FOR THE, PROMOTiags
OF -HELLENIC ΒΘ ΌΘΙΕΕΣ

OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE FOR 1886-1887.

Chairman.
Rev. B. H. KENNEDY, D.D.

Vice-Chairman.
Mr. J. E. SANDys, LiTT.D.

Committee.
Mr. OscAR BROWNING. REv. E. S. ROBERTS.
Mr. SIDNEY COLVIN. Mr. A. H. SMITH.
Mr. HENRY JACKSON. Mr. ARTHUR TILLEY.
REv. S. S. LEwIs. Mr. A. W. VERRALL.
Prof. J. H. MIDDLETON. Mr. C. WALDSTEIN.

Mr. J. S. REID.

Hon. Secretarp.

Mr. M. S. DIMSDALE, K1NG’s COLLEGE.

XXII

HONORARY MEMBERS.

His Majesty the King of the Hellenes.

Mr. Alfred Biliotti, 7.2.17. Consul at Trebizond.

Prof. H. Brunn, Adnzgliche Museen, Munich.

Prof. D. Comparetti, /s¢¢tuto di Studit Superiort, Florence.

M. Alexander Contostavlos, Athens.

Geheimrath Prof. Ernst Curtius, atthai Kirchstrasse 4, Berlin

Mr. George Dennis, 1.2.17. Consul at Smyrna.

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

His Excellency Monsieur J. Gennadius, Minster for Greece,
5, St. Fames’ Street, S.W.

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

Prof. A. Kirchhoff, University, Berlin.

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

Prof. S. A. Kumanudes, University, Athens.

Mr. Charles Merlin, 7.2.M/. Consul at the Pireus.

Prof. A. Michaelis, University, Strassburg.

Monsieur B. E. Ὁ, Miller, Membre de PInstitut, 25, Rue de
L’?Université, Paris.

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

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

His Excellency Monsieur W. H. Waddington, Membre «de
l'Institut, French Embassy, Albert Gate, S.W.

M. le Baron J. de Witte, 2,7. de ?’Inst., Rue Fortin 5, Paris.

Mr. Thomas Wood, H.8.M,. 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, Abbey Road, N.W.
*Abercromby, Hon. John, 21, Chafel Street, Belgrave
Square, S.W.
+Abrahall, Rev. J. H., Combe Vicarage, Woodstock.
Abram, Edward, 1, Middle Temple Lane, E.C.
*Acland, Sir H. W., K.C.B., M.D., F.R.S., Broad Street, Oxford.
Adam, James, Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

XXIV

Ainger, A. C., Eton College, Windsor.
Anderson, J. R., Lazrbeck, Keswick.
*Antrobus, Rev. Frederick, 7he Oratory, S.W.
Archer-Hind, R. D., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Argyropoulos, Georges A.
*Armstrong, E., Quzen’s College, Orford.
Armstrong, Prof. G. F., Queen’s College, Cork.
Arnold, Prof. E. V., University College, Bangor.
Atkinson, Rev. E., D.D., Waster 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., 32, Addison Read, S.W.
*Balfour, Right Hon. A. J., M.P., 4, Carlton Gardens, S.W.
Ball, Sidney, S¢. John’s College, Oxford.
Barlow, Miss Anne, Greenthorne, Edgworth, Bolton.
Barlow, Mrs., 10, Wontague Street, Russell Square, W.C.
Barnewall, Sir Reginald A., Bart., 6, Park Street, Grosvenor
Sguare, W.
Bath, The Marquis of, Longleat, Warminster.
Bayfield, Rev. M. A., Zhe College, Malvern.
Belcher, Rev. Henry, High Schoo, Dunedin, Otago, N.Z.
Belcher, Rev. T. Hayes, The College, Brighton.
Bell, Rev. G. C., The Lodge, Marlborough College.
Bell, Rev. William, The College, Dover.
Benachi, L. A., 26, Lzmnet Lane, Sefton Park, Liverpool.
TBenn, Alfred W., 70, Via Cavour, Florence.
Benson, Arthur C., Eton College, Windsor.
Bent, J. Theodore (Council), 13, Great Cumberland Place, W.
Bent, Mrs. Theodore, 13, Great Cumberland Place, W.
}Bikelas, Demetrius, 4, Rae de Babylone, Paris.
Birdwood, Sir George C. M., C.S.1.,7, Aspley Terrace, Acton, W.
Blackstone, F. E., British Museum, W.C.
Blomfield, A. W., 6, Montagu Place, Montagu Square, W.
Blore, Rev. Dr.
Boase, Rev. C. W., Exeter College, Oxford.
Bodingten, Prof. N., Principal of the Yorkshire College, Leeds.
Bond, Edward, C.B., Brztish Museum, W.C.
Bond, Edward, Elm Bank, Hampstead, N.W.
Bosanquet, B., 131, Edury Street, S.W.
Bosanquet, Rev. F. C. T., Enfield Cottage, Sandown, Isle
of Wight.
Bousfield, William, 33, Stanhope Gardens, S.W.
Bowen, Lord Justice (V.P.) 1, Cormwall Gardens, S.W.
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, Westminster.S.W.
Bramley, Rev. H. R., Magdalen College, Oxford.
Bramston, Rev. J. T., Culvers Close, Winchester.

XXV

Branteghem, A. van, Candilli, Constantinople.
Broadbent, H., Eton College, Windsor. iar
*Brodie, E. H., H.M.L.S., St. John’s House, Worcester.
Brooke, A. S., Azug’s College, Cambridge.
Brooke, Rev. Stopford A., 1, anchester Square, W.
Brown, Colville, 55, Ashburnham Road, Bedford.
Brown, Prof. ἃ. Baldwin, Zhe University, Edinburgh.
Browning, Robert, 19, Warwick Crescent, Harrow Road, W.
*Browning, Oscar, K77g’s College, Cambridge.
*Brunton, T. Lauder, M.D., F.R.S., 50, Welbeck Strezt, W.
*Bryce, James, D.C.L., M.P., 35, Bryanston Square, W.
Burkitt, F. C., Zrénzty College, Cambridge.
*Burn, Rev. Robert, 77zuzty College, Cambridge.
Bury, J. B., Zvénzty College, Dublin.
Butcher, Prof. S. H. (Council), Zhe University, Edinburgh.
*Butler, The Rev. H. M., D.D. (V.P.), Master of Trinity College,
Cambridge.
Butler, Arthur J., Wood End, Weybridge.
Butler, Rev. Canon George, Wnchester.
Buxton, F. W., 42, Grosvenor Gardens, SW.
Bywater, Ingram (Council), 93, Omslow Square, S.W.
+Bywater, Mrs., 93, Ozslow Square, S.W.
Calvert, Rev. Thomas, 15, Albany Villas, Hove, Brighton.
+Calvocorrssi, L. M.
*Campbell, Rev. Prof. Lewis (Council), St. Andrew’s, N.B.
Campion, Rev. W. J. H., Keble College, Oxford.
Cannon, Miss F. A., 82, Mortimer Street, Cavendish
Square, W.
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.
TCarr, Rev. A., Wellington College, Wokingham.
Cates, Arthur, 12, York Terrace, Regent’s Park.
Cave, Lawrence T., 13, Lowndes Square, S.W.
Chambers, C. Gore, Zhe Grammar School, Bedford.
Chambers, F. C., Rodmil, Shortlands, Kent.
Chambers, C. E., 77inzty College, Cambridge.
Chavasse, A. S., University College, Oxford.
+Chawner, G., Azng’s College, Cambridge.
+Chawner, W., Emmanuel College, Cambridge.
+Chester, The Right Rev. the Bishop of, Cheszer.
Chettle, H., Stationers’ School, Bolt Court, E.C.
*Christie, R. C., Glenwood, Virginia Water, Staines.
Christian, Rev. G., Redgate, Uppingham.
*Church, Very Rev. R. W., D.C.L. (V.P.), The Deanery, Si.
Pauls, E.C.

XXVl

Clark, P. E., 2, Culverden Park, Tunbridge Wells.

Clark, W. Gilchrist, Kzmg’s College, Cambridge.

Clarke, Henry, 14, Ladbroke Grove, W.

Tt Clarke, Hyde, 32, St. George’s Square, S.W.

Clarke, Rev. R. L., Queen’s College, Oxford.

Clay, C. F., West House, Cambridge.

Clinton, E. Fynes, Grammar School, Wimborne, Dorset.

Cobbold, Felix T., Holywells, Ipswich.

*Cobham, C. Delaval, 4.2.47. Commissioner, Larnaca, Cyprus.

Cohen, Mrs., 30, Hyde Park Gardens, W.

Colby, Rev. Dr., Lztton Cheney, Dorsetshire.

Cole, A. C., 64, Portland Place, W.

*Colvin, Sidney (V.P.), British Museum, W.C.

Comyn, John S., M.D., 32, Dawson Place, Bayswater, 177.
*Constantinides, Prof. M., 6, Leamington Villas, Acton, W.
t+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.

Cookson, C., Sz. Paul’s School, Kensington, W.

Cookson, C. A., H. B. M. Consul, Alexandria.

Coolidge, Rev. W. A. B., Magdalen College, Oxford.

Corgialegno, M., 21, Pembridge Gardens, W.

Corrie, E. K., 19, Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C.

Courtney, ὟΝ. L., Mew College, Oxford.

Courtenay, Miss, 34, Brompton Square, S.W.

Cowper, The Right Hon. Earl, K.G., Panshanger, Hertford.

Craignish, The Baroness, Albemarle Club, Albemarle St., W.

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, N.W.

Curtis, Rev. Canon, Constantinople.

Cust, H. J. C., Ellesmere, Salop.

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., cave of Messrs. Asher, Berlin.

*Dilke, The Right Hon. Sir Charles W., Bart., 76, Sloane St.,S.W.

Dill, S., Grammar School, Manchester.

Dillon, Edward, 13, Upper Phillimore Gardens, W.

Dimsdale, M. S., King’s College, Cambridge.

Dix, C. M., Oratory School, Edgbaston, Birmingham.

Dixon, Miss Kate, Stoke Lodge, 41, Hyde Park Gate, W.

XXVli

Donaldson, Rev. S. A., Eton College, Windsor.

Donaldson, James, LL.D., Principal of The University, St.
Andrews.

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, Rue de ?Echauderie, ἃ Reims.

Duhn, Prof. von, University, Heidelberg.

Duke, Roger, Post-Master General, Malta.

*+ Durham, Rt. Rev. the Bishop of (President), Auckland Castle,

Bishop Auckland.

Edmonds, Mrs., Cartsbrook, Blackheath, S.E.

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

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

Eld, Rev. F. J., Zze Grammar School, Worcester.

Ellis, Robinson, 7yrinity College, Oxford.

Eliot, C. N. E., British Embassy, St. Petersburgh.

Elton, Charles, Q.C., M.P. (Council), 10, Cranley Place, Onslow
Sguare, S.W.

Ely, Talfourd.

+Escott, Rev. W. W. S., King Henry’s School, Coventry.

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

Evans, A. J. (Council), 32, Broad Street, Oxford.

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

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

Farnell, L. R. (Council), Exeter College, Oxford.

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

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

*Fearon, Rev. W. A., D.D., The College, Winchester.
Feetham, T. O., 23, Arundel Gardens, Kensington Park, W.
Fenning, W. D., Hazleybury College, Hertford.

Fitz-Patrick, Dr. T., 30, Sussex Gardens, Hyde Park, W.
Flather, J. H., Cavendish College, Cambridge.
Flower, Wickham, Swan House, Chelsea, S.W.

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

Ford, Sir Francis Clare, K.C.M.G., A.B.M. Minister,
Madaria.
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.W.

+Franks, A. W., F.R.S., British Museum, W.C.

Frazer, J. G., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Freeman, C. E., Parkhouse, Southborough, Tunbridge Weiis,

XXvlil

*Freeman, Edward A., D.C.L. (Council), Somerleaze, Wells,
Somerset.

*Freshfield, Douglas W., 1, Airlie Gardens, Campden Hill, W.

+Freshfield, Edwin, 5, Bank Butldings, E.C.

*Fry, F. J., Eversley, Leigh Wood, Clifton.

Furneaux, Rev. W. M., Repton Hall, Burton-on-Trent.

Fyffe, C. A., 64, Lexrham Gardens, South Kensington.
fGardner, E. A. (Council), 13, Oak Hill, Hampstead, N.W.
*+ Gardner, Prof. Percy, Litt. D. (Council), British Museum, W.C.

Gardner, Miss Alice, Newnham College, Cambridge.

Geddes, W. D. (V.P.), Principal of the University, Aberdeen.

Gibson, Mrs. J. Y, Swaynesthorpe, Upper Long Ditton,

Kingston-on- Thames.

Gilkes, A. H., The College, Dulwich, S.E.

Gilliat, Rev. E., Harrow, V.W.

Glazebrook, M. G., Harrow, N.W.

Goodhart, H. C., 7rénzty 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.

ΘΕ.
+Gordon, R. G., King’s School, Canterbury.

Gore, Rev. C., Pusey House, 61, St. Giles, Oxford.

Gould, Theodore W., 8, Orrisdale Terrace, Cheltenham.

Gow, James, Litt.D. (Council), zgh School, Nottingham.

Gray, Rev. H. B., Bradfield College, Berks.

Greenwell, Rev. 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, Rev. W., Zhe College, Malvern.

Guillemard, W. G., Harrow, N.W.

Gurney, John, Sprowston Hall, Norwich.

Gwatkin, Rev. T., 74, Regent Street, Cambridge.

Hager, Herman, Ph.D., Owens College, Manchester.

Hall, Rev. F. H., Ovzel College, Oxford.

Hall, Rev. F. J., Wymondley House, Stevenage, Herts.

Hall, W. H.. S¢x Azle Bottom, Cambs.

Hallam, G. H., Byron House, Harrow, N.W.

Hamerton, P. G., Pvé Charmoy, Autun, Sabne-et-Loire, France.

Hammond, W. A., A7zg’s College, Windsor, Nova Scotia.

Hancock, Mrs. Charles, 125, Queens’ Gate, S.W.

Hardie, W. Ross, Balliol College, Oxford.

Hardwicke, Philip, 2, Hereford Gardens, W.

*Harrison, Charles, 5, Upper Berkeley Street, Portman Sq., W.
+ Harrison, Miss J. E., 45 (Ὁ), Colville Gardens, W.

ΧΧΙΧ

Harrison, Mrs. Robert, 73, Cromwell Road, S.W.
Harrower, Prof. John, Zhe University, Aberdeen.
Hartshorne, B. F., 41, Elm Park Gardens, Chelsea, S.W.
Haslam, S., Zhe School, Uppingham.
Hatch, Rev. E., Vice-Principal, St. Mary's Hall, Oxford.
Haussoullier, M., 37, Rue Kaneau, Paris.
t+ Haverfield, F. J., Lancing College, Shoreham.
Hawes, Miss E. P., 89, Oxford Terrace, W.
tHay, C. A., 127, Harley Street, W.
+Haynes, Miss Lucy.
Hazzopulo, S., Bella Vista, Manchester.
‘Heard, Rev. W. A., 2, Lzttle Dean’s Yard, Westminster, S.W.
+Heathcote, W. E., 114, Edury Street, S.W.
Heberden, C. B., Brasenose College, Oxford.
Hedgecock, Mrs. Harrison, 21, Caversham Road, N.W.
Herschell, The Rt. Hon. Lord, 46, Grosvenor Gardens, S.W.
Hervey, H., 12, Lowndes Street, W.
Heydemann, Dr. Heinrich, 7ze University, Halle.
Hicks, John Power, Cl/fton Lodge, Blomfield Road, Maida
Hill, W.
Hicks, Rev. E. L., Hulme College, Manchester.
Hirschfeld, Prof. Gustave, Ph.D. Konigsberg, Germany.
Hobhouse, Walter, Hertford College, Oxford.
Hodgson, F. C., Education Department, Whitehall.
Holden, Rev. Henry, D.D., South Luffenham Rect., Stamford.
Holden, Rev. H.A., LL.D. (Council), 20, Redcliffe Square,S.W.
Holiday, Henry, Oak Tree House, Branch Hill, Hampstead,
N.W.
Holland, Miss Lilian, 56, Porchester Terrace, W.
Hollway-Calthrop, H. C., Stanxhoe Hall, King’s Lynn.
Homolle, M., Mancy, France.
Hope, Rt. Hon. A. J. Beresford, M.P., 1, Connaught Place, W.
Hopkins, Prof. Gerard M., S.J., Und¢versity College, Dublin.
Hornby, Rev. J. J., D.D., Provost of Eton College, Windsor.
Hort, Rev. Prof., Ὁ. Ὁ. (Council), S¢. Peters Terrace, Cambridge.
Howorth, Henry H., M.P., Derby House, Eccles, Manchester.
Hiigel, Baron Friedrich von, 4, Wolford Road, Hampstead, N.W,
Hughes, Rev. W. Hawker, Jesus College, Oxford.
Hunt, William, Pex Villa, Yeovil.
Inge, W. R., Eton College, Windsor.
Ingram, J. K., LL.D. (V.P.), Zvinity College, Dublin.
+Ionides, Alex. A., 1, Holland Park, W.
lonides, Luke A., 17, Upper Phillimore Gardens, Kensington, W,
Jackson, Henry, Litt.D. (Council), 7vznzty C ollege, Cambridge.
Jackson, Rev. Blomfield, Azug’s College School, Strand,
Jackson, Rev. W. W., Exeter College, Oxford.
Jackson, T. G., 11, Nottingham Place, Marylebone, W.
*James, Rev. H.A. 2

XXX

James, Rev. S. R., Eton College, Windsor.
Jassonidy, O. J., Nécosta, Cyprus.
Jeans, Rev. G. E., Haileybury College, Hertford.
*Jebb, Prof. R. C., LL.D., Litt.D. (V.P.), University, Glasgow.
Jenkinson, F. J. H., Zvinity College, Cambridge.
Jenner, Charles, Easter Duddingston Lodge, Portobello, Mid-
Lothian.
Jenner, Louis Leopold C. A., Trinity College, Oxford.
Jenner, Miss Lucy A., 63, Brook Street, W.
Jevons, F. B., The Castle, Durham.
Jex-Blake, Miss, Girton College, Cambridge.
Johnson, Thomas M., Osceola, Mo., U.S.A.
Johnstone, P. D., Ostorne House, Bolton Gardens South, S.W.
Jones, E. Burne, A.R.A., Zhe Grange, North-end Road, Fulham.
Joynt, J. W., Zrznzty College, Dublin.
Keep, R. P., Ph.D., Free Academy, Norwich, Conn., U.S.A.
Keltie, J. S., 52, Cromwell Avenue, Highgate, N.
Kennedy, Rev. Prof. B. W., D.D., Zze Elms, Cambridge.
Ker, W. P., 203, Newport Road, Cardiff.
Kieffer, Prof. John B., 230, Lancaster Avenue, Lancaster Pa.,
{95.5.2
King, Rev. J. R., St. Peter’s Vicarage, Oxford.
Kitchin, The Very Rev. G. W., D.D., Zhe Deanery, Winchester.
Lacaita, Sir James, K.C.M.G.,27, Duke Street, St. Fames’, S.W.
Lamb, J. G., 17, Wellesley Road, Great Yarmouth.
Lambros, Spiridion, Athens.
Lane-Poole, Mrs. Stanley, 6, Park Villas East, Richmond, S.W.
*Lang, R. Hamilton, Oftoman Bank, 26, Throgmorton St., E.C.
Lang, Andrew (Council), 1, Warloes Road, Kensington, W.
Layard, Sir Henry, K.C.B., 1, Queen Anne’s Street, W.
Leaf, Herbert, Pazus H7zll, Cobham, Surrey.
t Leaf, Walter (Council), Old Change, E.C.
Leeper, Alexander, Warden of Trinity College, Melbourne,
Australia.
Leigh, W. Austen, Kzzg’s College, Cambridge
Leighton, Sir Frederick, Bart., P.R.A., Holland Park Road, W.
t Lewis, Prof. T. Hayter, 12, Kensington 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., D.D., Dean of Christchurch, Oxford.
Liddon, Rev. Canon, Christchurch, Oxford.
Lindley, Miss Julia, 10, Aédbrook Terrace, Shooters Hill
Road, S.E.
Lindley, William, το, Kidbrook Ter., Shooter's Hill Rd., S.E.
Lingen, The Rt. Hon. Lord, K.C.B. 6, Westbourne Crescent, W.
Litchfield, R. B., 31, Kensington Square, W.
Livingstone, Rev. R. G., Pembroke College, Oxford.
Lloyd, Miss A. M., Caythorfe Hall, Grantham,

χχχὶ

Lloyd-Roberts, H., 1, Pump Court, Temple.
tLock, Rev. W., Kedle.College, Oxford.
Lowell, J. Russell.
*Lubbock, Sir John, Bart., M.P. (Treasurer), High Elms,
Flayes, Kent.
Ludlow, Τ, W., Cottage Lawn, Vonkers, New York.
Lumley, His Excellency Sir John Saville, H.B.M. Ambassador,
Rome.
Lushington, E. L., Park House, Maidstone, Kent.
Luxmoore, H. E., Eton College, Windsor.
Lyttelton, Hon. and Rev. E., Ezon College, Windsor.
Lytton, The Right Hon. the Earlof, Knebworth, Stevenage, Herts.
*Macan, R. W., Unversity College, Oxford.
Mackail, J. W., 2, Mandeville Place, W.
Macmillan, Alexander, 29, Pedford Street, Covent Garden, W.C.

*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, W.C.
Macnaghten, The Rt. Hon. Lord, 3, Mew Sguare, Lincoln's
Inn, W.C.
Magrath, Rev. J. R., Provost of Queen’s College, Oxford.
Maguire, Prof., Z7znzty College, Dublin.

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

Maine, Sir Henry, K.C.S.I1., 27, Cornwall Gardens, S.W., and

Trinity Hall Lodge, Cambridge.

Mann, J.S., Z7zuzty College, Oxford.
}Marindin, G. E., Eton College, Windsor.

Margoliouth, D. S., Mew Coliege, Oxford.

Marklove, M. W. C., 1, Lzttle Dean’s Yard, S.W.
+Marquand, Prof. Allan, Przxceton College, New Fersey.

Marshall, R., Broomfield, Duppas Hill, Croydon.

Marshall, T., Highfield, Chapel Allerton, Leeds.

*tMartin, John B., 17, Hyde Park Gate, S.W.

+ Martyn, Edward, 7z/lyra Castle, Ardrahan, County Galway.
Mason, Η. Ὁ. F., Hazleybury College, Hertford.
Mavrogordato, Pandeli, South Sea House, Threadneedle St.,E.C,
McEwen, Rev. Alex. Robertson, 4, Woodside Place, Glasgow.
McGregor, Sir Charles R., Bart., 3, Queen’s Gate, S.W.
McPherson, Miss Florence, 7e Lodge, Blundeil Sands, Liverpool,
Merriam, Prof. A. C., Columbia College, New York.

*Middlemore, S. G. C., Edgbaston, Birmingham.

*Middleton, Prof. J. H. (Council), Azzg’s College, Cambriage.
Miller, Alex., Q.C., LL.D., Clonard, Stanmore.

Miller, Thomas, ὃ, Getsmar Chaussée, Gottingen, Germany.
Mills, Rev. W. H., Grammar School, Louth.

Milner, Alfred, 35, Duke Street, St. James’ Square, S.W.
Minchin, James Innes, 8, Westbourne Park, W.

XXX

t+ Misto, John P., Smyrna.

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

*Monro, 1). B. (V.P.), Provost of Oriel College, Oxford.

*Moraitis, Prof. D.

Morgenthau, J. C., Ph.D., 243, Broadway, New York.

*Morison, James Cotter, Clairvaux, Fitzjohn’s Avenue, Hamp-

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

*Morley, The Rt. Hon.the Earlof(V.P.),31,Princes’ Gardens, S.W.

Morris, J. E., Zhe Grammar School, Bedford.
Morshead, E. D. A., The College, Winchester.
Moss, Rev. H. W., The School, Shrewsbury.
Moule, C. W., Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
Moulton, Rev. W. F., D.D., The Leys, Cambridge.
Mudie, C. E., The Limes, Muswell Hill, N.
Murray, A. 5. (Council), British Museum, W.C.

Murray, G. S. D., 6, Campden Hill Road, W.

ἜΤ Myers, Ernest (Council), 31, /wverness Terrace, W.
Myriantheus, The Archimandrite H., 104, Zaverness Ter., W-
Nall, C. H., 18, Dean’s Yard, S.W.

Nance, Rev. J. ΤΣ St. John’s College, Oxford.
Neil, R. A., Pembroke College, Cambridge.
Nettleship, R. L., Balliol College, Oxford.
Newman, W. L., Pittville Lawn, Cheltenham.

*Newton, Prof. Ὁ, T., C.B. (V.P.), 2, Montague Place, W.C.
Nicholson, Sir Charles, The Grange, Totteridge, Herts.
Nicolson, Rev. W., The Bible Society's Depot, St. Petersburg.
Northampton, The Most Noble the Marquess of, K.G., 37,

Bury Street, St. Ffames, W.

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

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

Page, Hollis B., 102, Chestnut Street, Boston, U.S.A.

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.

Parry, Rev. R. St. J., 77znity College, Cambridge.

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

Pattengill, Prof. A. H., dun Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.

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

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

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

Pember, E, H., Q.C., Vicars Hill, near Lymington, Hants.
*} Percival, F. W., 36, Bryanston Street, W.

Percival, Rev. J., D.D., School House, Rugby.

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

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

ἣν

ΧΧΧΙΪ

*Perry, Walter C. (Council), 7a, Manchester Square, W.
Phelps, Rev. Lancelot Ridley, Oriel College, Oxford.
Phillpotts, J. Surtees, School House, Bedford.

Pollock, Sir Frederick, Bart., 59, Montagu Square, W.
Pollock, Frederick (Council), 48, Great Cumberland Place, W.
Poole, Reginald Stuart, British Museum, W.C.
Porter, Rev. J. L., D.D., President of Queen’ s College, Belfast.
Porter, Miss Sarah, Farmington, Connecticut, U.S.A.
TPostgate, Prof. J. P., Zvinity College, Cambridge.
Poynter, Edward J., R.A., 28, Albert Gate, S.W.
Preston, Rev. G., Azng’s School, Chester.
*Price, Prof. Bonamy, Morham Gardens, Oxford.

. Prickard, A. O., New College, Oxford.

Prideaux, Miss Sarah, Goldsmiths’ Hall, E.C.
Prothero, G. W., K7zzg’s College, Cambridge.
Pryor, Francis R., Lancaster Mansion, Savoy, W.C.
Psychari, A., Hotel Bellevue, Dresden.
Pullan, R. P., 9, Welbury Road, Kensington, W.
Radcliffe, W. W., Fonthill Rectory, Tisbury, Salisbury.
*Ralli, Pandeli (Council), 17, Belgrave Square, S.W.
1411, Mrs. Stephen A., Cleveland House, Thornton Road,
Clapham Park, S.W.
TRalli, Theodore, 12, A//es des Capucines, Marseilles.
Ramsay, Prof. W. M. (Council), The Universily, Aberdeen.
Raven, Miss, Grove Cottage, Frognal, Hampstead, N.W.
Rawlins, F. H., Eton College, Windsor.
Rawnsley, W. F., Parkhill, Lyndhurst, Hants.
Raynor, A. 6. S., 3, Lzttle Dean’s Yard, S.W.
Raynor, Rev. P. E., Christ’s College, Hobart, Tasmania.
Read, General Meredith, cave of Messrs. Munro ἃ Co., Par‘s.
Reeve, Henry ; C.B., 62, Rutland Gate, W.
Reid, J. S., Litt.D., Cazus College, Cambridge.
}+Reinach, Salomon, 31, Awe de Berlin, Paris.
Rendall, Rev. F., 20, Ladbroke Square, Notting Hill, W.
TRendall, Prof. G. H., Principal of University College,
Liverpool.
Renieri, M. Mario, Athens.
Rich, Anthony, Heene, Worthing, Sussex.
Richardson, B. W., M.D., F.R.S., 25, Manchester Square, W.
*Richardson, H., The College, Marlborough.
Richards, H., Wadham College, Oxford.
Richmond, W. B., Bevor Lodge, West End, Hammersmith.
Ridgeway, Prof. W., Queen’s College, Cork.
Ridley, Edward, 34, Chapel Street, Belgrave Square, S.W.
Rivington, Septimus, 3, Waterloo Place, S.W.
Roberts, Rev. E.S., Caius College, Cambridge.
Robertson, Rev. Archibald, Hatfield Hall, Durham.
Robertson, Rev. J., Hazleybury College, Hertford.

XXXIV

Robinson, Edward. .
Robinson, G. G., Winton House, Winchester.
Robinson, T. P. G., Ashfield, Spring Grove, Bedford.
Rogers, S. L., Grammar School, Bedford.
Rolleston, T. W. H., Fairview, Delgany, Co. Wicklow.
tRosebery, The Right Hon. fie Earl of, Lansdowne House
Berkeley Square, W.
Rotton, J. F., 3, Zhe Boltous, S.W.
Roundell, C. S., 16, Curzon Street, W.
Rous, Lieut.-Colonel, 14, JZotcomb 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.
tRyle, Rev. H. E., Principal of St. David’s College, Lampeter.
*Samuelson, Sir B., Bart., M.P., 56, Princes Gate, S. Kensington.
Sandys, Frederick, Zhe Cottage, Holland Park Road, W.
Sandys, J. E. (Council), Litt.D., St. John’s College, Cambridge.
Saumarez, Hon. James St. V., Bury St. Edmunds.
*TSayce, Rev. Prof. A. H., LL.D. (V.P.), Queen’s College,
Oxford.
+Scaramanga, A. P., 12, Hyde Park Place, Hyde Park, W.
Schilizzi, John S., 93, Westbourne Terrace, W.
*Schliemann, Dr. H., Athens.
Schulhof, J. Maurice, 76, Palace Gardens Terrace, Ken-
sington, W.
*Schuyler, Eugene, cave of Mr. B. F. Stevens, 4, Trafalgar
Sguare, W.C.
TScott, The Very Rev. Robert, D.D., Zhe Deanery, Rochester.
Scouloudi, Stephanos, Athens, Greece.
Seaman, Owen, Rossall, I leetwood.
*Sellar, A. C., M.P., 75, Cromwell Road, S.W.
Sellar, Prof. W. Y., 15, Buckingham Terrace, Edinburgh.
Sellers, Miss Eugenie, 38, Cambridge Street, Hyde Park, W.
Selwyn, Rev. E. J., Pluckley Rectory, Ashford, Kent.
+Sendall, Walter J., 15, Southwell Gardens, South Kensington
Seymour, Prof. Thomas D., Vale College, Newhaven, U.S. A.
Shadwell, C. L., Oriel Gye. Oxford.
Sie, fe A., ic ist’s College, Cambridge.
Sharland, S. C. » Balliol College, Oxford.
Shuckburgh, E. S., Fair View, The Avenue, Cambridge.
Sidgwick, Arthur, Corfus Christi College, Oxford.
Sidgwick, Henry, 7rinzty College, Cambridze.
Sime, Donald, H.M.1.S., Bonar Bridge, Sutherland.
Simpkinson, H. W., ducation Office, Whitehall, S.W.
Simpson, H. B., 45, Gloucester Terrace, Hyde Park, W.
Sinclair, Lieut. H. M., R.E., Lonsdale House, Fulham, S.W.
*Skrine, H. D., Claverton Manor, Bath.
*Skrine, Rev. J. H., Uppingham, Rutland.

a

XXXV

Smith, Arthur H., Riverbank, Putney, S.W.
Smith, Cecil, British Museum, W.C.
Smith, Rev. E. H., Pembroke College, Oxford.
+Smith, Miss Agnes, Swaznesthorpe, Upper Long Ditton,
Kingston-on-Thames.
+Smith, Prof. Goldwin, 716 Grange, Toronto, Canada.
Smith, R. J., 2, Tanfield Court, Temple, E.C.
Smith, William, LL.D. 94, Westbourne Terrace, W.
+Snow, T. C., St. Fohn’s College, Oxford.
tSomerset, Arthur, Frimley Priory, Farnborough, Hants.
Sonnenschein, Prof., 7, Noel Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham.
tSouthwell, The Right Rev. the Bishop of, Thurgarton Priory,
Southwell.
*Spartali, Michael, 25, O/d Broad Street, E.C.
Spooner, Rev. W. A., Vew College, Oxford.
Spratt, Vice-Admiral, C.B., Zusbridge Wells.
Spring-Rice, 5. E., 113a, Queen's Gate, S.W.
Stanton, Charles H., 65, Redcliffe Gardens, S.W.
Statham, H. Heathcote, 40, Gower Street, W.C.
Stephenson, Rev. H. M., St. Peter's School, York.
*Stillman, W. J., 3, Challoner Street, Baron’s Court, W.
Stillwell, James, 1, Victoria Park, Dover.
Stogdon, J., Harrow, N.W.
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.
*7 Stuart, Sir William, K.C.B., H.B.AZ, Minister, The Hague.
Stuart, Mrs. J., 4, Palace Gate Mansions, S.W.
*Sturgis, Julian R., 2, Gluucester Place, Portman Square, W.
Sturgis, Russell, 304, Hast 17th Street, New York.
Surr, Watson, 28, Zhreadneedle 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. Ὁ. C., Rossall School, Fleetwood.
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, FE. M. (V.P.), British Museum, W.C.
Thompson, E. S., Christ’s College, Cambridge.
Thompson, F. E., Cotton House, The College, Marlborough.
Thorley, G. E., Warden of Wadham College, Oxford.
Thring, Rev. E., Uppingham.
Thursfield, J. R. (Council), 11, Wontague Place, W.C.
Tilley, Arthur, K7z7g’s College, Cambridge.
Todhunter, John, Ovchardcroft, Bedford Park, W.

XXXVI

*+Tozer, Rev. H. F. (V.P.), 18, Norham Gardens, Oxford.
*+Trotter, Rev. Coutts, 77inity College, Cambridge.
}+Truell, H. P., F.R.C.S., Clounmannon, Ashford, Co. Wicklow.
Tuck, Rev. A. J., Zhe School, Uppingham.
*7Tuckett, F. F., Frenuchay, near Bristol.
*Tuckerman, Hon. C. K., 18, Avenue Kléber, Paris.
Tudeer, Dr. Emil, Helsingfors, Sweden.
yTurnbull, Mrs. Peverill, Sazdy-Brook Hall, Ashbourne.
Tylor, E. B., D.C.L., F.R.S. (Council), Zhe Museum House,
Oxford.
Tyrrell, Prof. R. Y. (V.P.), Trinzty College, Dublin.
*Tyrwhitt, Rev. R. St. J., Ketélby, Oxford.
Upcott, E. A., Wellington College, Wokingham.
Upcott, L. E, The College, Marlborough.
Urquhart, Miss Margaret, 5, St. Colme Street, Edinburgh.
*Valetta, J. N., 27, Hatherley Grove, Bayswater, W.
} Valieri, Octavius, 2, Kensington Park Gardens, 117.
Vanderby], Mrs. Philip, Werthwood, near Winchester.
Vardy, Rev. A. R., Aing Edward's School, Birmingham.
Vaughan, The Very Rev. Ὁ. J., Dean of Llandaff, Te Temple,
LNG:
+ Vaughan, E. L., Eton College, Windsor.
Venning, Miss Rosamond, care of Miss Eyre, 18, Cumberland
Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W.
Verrall, A. W., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Vie, E. J., Boys High School, Stockton-on-Tees.
Vince, C. A., The School, Mill Hill, N.W.
*Vincent, Edgar, Catro, Egyft.
+Wagner, Henry, 13, Half Moon Street, W.
+Waldstein, Charles, Ph.D. (Council), Azmg’s College Cambridge.
Walford, Edward, 2, Hyde Park Mansions, N.W.
Walker, Rev. F. A., D.D., Dun Mallard, Shootup Hill, Bron-
desbury, N.W.
Walpole, A. S., Ze School, Rossall, Fleetwood.
*Ward, Prof. A. W., Litt.D., Tie Owens College, Manchester.
Ward, W. W., Cliffe Court, Frenchay, Bristol.
Warr, Prof. G. C., 4, Pen-y-Wern Road, S.W.
Ward, T. H., 61, Russell Sguare, W.C.
+Warre, Rev. Edmond, D.D., Eton College, Windsor.
Warren, T. H., President of Magdalen College, Oxford.
Washbourn, Rev. J. R., Rudford Rectory, Gloucester.
Waterhouse, Mrs. Edwin, 13, Hyde Park Street, W.
Watson, A. G., Harrow, N.W.
*Way, Rev. J. P., Azng’s School, Warwick.
Wayte, Rev. W. (Council), 6, Onslow Square, S.W.
+Welldon, Rev. J. E. C., The School, Harrow, N.W.
Wells, J., Wadham College, Oxford.
Wheeler, James R., carve of Baring Bros., 8, Bishopsgate, E.C.

XXxvli

Wheeler, Prof. J. H., University of Virginia, Albemarle Co.
Virginia.
+ White, A. Cromwell, 3, Harcourt Buildings, Temple.
White, James T., 4, Clarendon Place, Hyde Park, W.
White, John Forbes, 107, King Street, Aberdeen.
White, Prof. J. W., Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
White, William 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.
Wilkins, George, High School, Dublin.
Wilkins, Prof. A. S., LL.D., Litt.D., Zhe Owens College
Manchester.
Willert, P. F., Exeter College, Oxford.
*Winwood, Rev. H. H., 11, Cavendish Crescent, Bath.
Wood, G., Pembroke College, Oxford.
*Wood, J. T., 24, Albion Street, Hyde Park, W.
Wood, Rev. W.S., Uford Rectory, Stamford.
+Woods, Rev. H. G., Trinity College, Oxford.
Woodward, Rev. W. H., 13, St. Domingo Grove, Everton,
Liverpool.
Woolner, Thomas; R.A., 29, Welbeck Street, W.
+Wren, Walter, 2, Powzs Square, W.
Wright, R. S., 1, Paper Butldings, Temple, E.C.
tWright, W. Aldis, Trinzty College, Cambridge.
Wroth, Warwick W., British Museum, W.C.
+Wyndham, Rev. Francis M., St. Charles’ College, St. Charles
Sguare, W.
Yates, Rev. S. A. Thompson, 396, Commercial Road, E.
York, The Most Rev. His Grace the Lord Archbishop of
Bishopthorpe, York.
*Young, Rev. E. M., The School, Sherborne.
Yule, Miss Amy, 3, Pen-y-Wern Road, Earls Court, S.W.

XXXVili

LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS TO THE ΠΟΘΙ
OF HELLENIC STUDIES.

The University College, Aberdeen.
The University College Library, Aderystwyth.
The Amherst College Library, Amherst, Mass.
The Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass., U.S.A.
The National University, Athens.
The Johns-Hopkins Library, Baltimore.
The Peabody Institute, Baltimore, U.S.A.
The Royal Museum Library, Berlin.
The Royal Library, Berlin.
The Mason Science College, Birmingham.
The Boston Athenaeum Library, Boston, U.S.A.
The Public Library, Boston, U.S.A.
The University Library, Breslau.
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, Caméridge.
The Girton College Library, Cambridge.
The University Library, Christiania, Sweden
The Public Library, Czzcinnati, U.S.A.
The Adelbert College, Cleveland, Ohio.
The University, Dz7ov.
The King’s Inns Library, Dud/zn.
The National Library of Ireland, Dud/in.
The Royal Irish Academy, Duddin:
The University College, Dundee.
The Durham Cathedral Library, Durham.
The University Library, Erdangen.
The University Library, Frezburg.
The University Library, Glasgow.
The Ducal Library, Gotha (Dr. W. Pertsch).
The University Library, Gottingen.
The Philological Society of the University of Gzessen.
The Royal University Library, Greifswald.
Che Dartmouth College Library, Hanover, U.S.A.
The School Library, Harrow, NV. W.
The Cornell University Library, /thaca N.Y.

ΧΧΧΙΧ

The University of Kamsas.

The Royal and University Library, Konzgsberg.

The Public Library, Leeds.

The Free Library, Lzverfool.

The Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Byzt7sh
Museum, W.C.

The Library of University College, London.

The Athenaeum Club, Pall Mall, London, S.W.

The Burlington Fine Arts Club, Savzle Row, London, W.

The London Library, S¢#. James's Square, London, S.W.

The Reform Club, δα Mall, London, S.W.

The Sion College Library, London Wall, E.C.

The Chetham’s Library, Hunts Rank, Manchester.

The KGnigliche Paulinische Bibliotheck, J7unster, 7. W.

The Royal Library, Munch.

The Library of Yale College, Vewnaze.

The Astor Library, Mew York.

The Columbia College, Mew York.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vew York.

The Library of the College of the City of New York, Mew York.

The Cyprus Museum, JVicosza, Cyprus.

The Library of Worcester College, Oxford.

The Library of Christchurch, Oxford.

The Library of St. John’s College, Oz/ord.

The Library of New College, Oxford

The Library of Queen’s College, Oxford.

The Library of University College, Oxford.

The Union Society, Oxford.

The University, Prague.

The Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele, Rome.

The Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, U.S.A.

The School Reading Room, Rugby.

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

The Imperial University and National Library, Strassburg.

The Free Library, Sydney, New South Wales.

The University Library, Toronto.

The General Assembly Library, Wellington, N.Z.

The Library, Westminster School, S.W.

The Boys’ Library, Eton College, Wzndser.

The Public Library, Winterthur.

The Free Library, Worcester. Mass., U.S.A.

The Williams College Library, Wz//iamstown, Mass., U.S.

The Bibliotheque de I’Institut de France.

The Bibliotheque de l’Universitié de France.

The Bibliotheque des Museés Nationaux.

The Bibliotheque National de Paris.

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

The Transactions of the American School, Athens.

The Parnassos Philological Journal, Athens.

The Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (published by the
French School at Athens).

The Publications of the Archaeological Society, Athens.

The Mittheilungen of the German Imperial Institute at Athens.

The Journal of the Historical and Ethnological Society of
Greece, Athens.

Bursian’s Jahresbericht fiir classische Alterthumswissenschaft.

The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.

The Jahrbuch of the German Imperial Archaeological Institute,
Berlin.

The Revue Archéologique, Paris (per M. Georges Perrot, 45,
rue da’ Ulm).

The Numismatic Chronicle.

The Publications of the Evangelical School, Smyrna.

The Annuaire de I’Association pour ?Encouragement des
Etudes Grecques en France, Paris.

The Mittheilungen of the German Imperial Archaeological
Institute, Rome.

The Journal of the American Archaeological Institute, Boston,
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, Con-
stantinople.

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

xli

THE. SESSION OF > 1885-6,

The First General Meeting was held on October 22, 1885,
PROFESSOR C, T. NEWTON, Vice-President, in the Chair.

The CHAIRMAN read a paper by Mr. A. 5. Murray ‘On
a Terra-Cotta Diadumenos recently acquired in Smyrna by
Mr. W. R. Paton’ ( Journal, Vol. VI. p. 243). The Vaison
and Farnese marble copies in the British Museum of the
original bronze Diadumenos of Polycleitus were clearly
executed at a date when the canon of Lysippus had super-
seded that of Polycleitus, so that an artist even when copying
the latter could hardly shake off the influence of the former.
_ This was especially noticeable in the length of the thigh. It
was therefore difficult to form a just idea of the style of
Polycleitus. The present terra-cotta, however, seemed to
some extent to bridge over the gulf between the extant
marble copies and the original works. Its proportions ap-
proximated far more nearly to the known canon of Polycleitus,
and in the workmanship there was more effort shown to
imitate the effect of the bronze. As to date Mr. Murray was
inclined to assign the statuette, from certain traces of the
influences of Praxiteles, to the short period between that
sculptor and Lysippus.

The CHAIRMAN said that in general treatment the figure
reminded him of the fragments he had ‘found on the ancient
surface of the Mausoleum, fragments remarkable for their
beauty of modelling. It was possible that these and the
statuette now in question had been models prepared for the
use of art students.

xl

Mr. GARDNER, in showing photographs of the terra-cotta
and the Farnese Diadumenos, pointed out the superiority of
the former in point of workmanship, and agreed with Pro-
fessor Newton that the fineness of execution could hardly
be accounted for in a terra-cotta otherwise than by supposing
it to have been a sculptor’s model.

The HON. SECRETARY read a paper by Professor
W. Ridgeway ‘On the Land System of Homer’ (/ournal,
Vol.. VI. p. 319). The writer’s object was to prove, by
minute examination of words and passages bearing on
agriculture, that traces of the primitive common field system
were to be found in the //zad, while the Odyssey seemed to
imply a later system, tending towards the hereditary and
separate ownership which in the time of Hesiod had become
thoroughly established.

PROFESSOR CAMPBELL, while admitting the great interest
of the paper, was inclined to think that it contained some
assumptions which would hardly bear examination.

Mr. GENNADIUS illustrated and confirmed the Homeric
use of certain agricultural customs and phrases from the
usage of modern Greece, and maintained that a knowledge
of the language and customs of the Greece of to-day was
essential to a true understanding of the classical texts.

This contention was supported by PROFESSOR NEWTON,
who gave several instances, from his experiences in the
Levant, of the survival of Homeric customs ; and Mr. Bent
bore similar testimony in regard to the Greek islands.

The Second General Meeting was held on J/arch 11, 1886,
PROFESSOR C. T. NEWTON, Vice-President, in the Chair.

Mr. A. S. MuRRAY read a paper on ‘ Antiquities from the
Island of Lipara’ (Journal, Vol. VII. p. 51). After rapidly
sketching the history of the island to Roman times, Mr. Murray
showed illustrations of two interesting vases, one of which
represented a graceful female figure standing between two
grotesque old men, while the other had the design of a head,

xh

probably of a Satyr, drawn in profile on a large scale. Most
of the objects found belong to the third and fourth cen-
turies B.C.; but there was a red figure /ecythus of Sicilian
type which could hardly be later than the sixth century, and
a series of neolithic implements which bring us in contact
with the original inhabitants. Mr. Murray expressed the
hope that further excavations might be undertaken in this
interesting island.

Mr. ARTHUR J. EVANS read a paper on ‘ Recent Discoveries
of Tarentine Terra-cottas’ (/ournal, Vol. VII. p. 1). The
author prefaced his account of the terra-cottas by a summary
review of the topography and architectural remains of the
Hellenic city, upon which an entirely new light has been
thrown by the excavations connected with new government
works, having for their object the conversion of Taranto into
the Toulon of the Central Mediterranean, and by the local
researches of Professor Luigi Viola, appointed by the Italian
Government to watch the excavations in the interests of
archaeology. The discoveries of terra-cottas have been
specially important, including three extensive deposits of
ex-votos connected respectively with three local sanctuaries,
one of Apollo, and the other two of Chthonic divinities, |
besides a highly interesting series from the tombs and others
of more general provenance. Of these various classes the
author had acquired a considerable series during repeated
visits to the spot, the whole of which will now be deposited
in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford, of which he is keeper.
Amongst those more particularly described were a collection
of votive pieces (from a sanctuary which the author showed
to have been dedicated to Persephoné-Gaia Iacchus and the
Chthonic Dionysus) displaying a remarkable analogy with
sepulchral subjects; and another collection from a /emenus
consecrated to Persephoné, including, besides almost life-size
heads and smaller reliefs of the goddess in the most perfect
style of art, a series of figures from a recently discovered
archaic stratum of limited extent, which are well-nigh purely
Egyptian in their features. They were found associated with
scarabs, and in the course of the paper the suggestion was

ae

xliv

offered that some of these may have been imported from
Naucratis. Amongst other classes of Tarentine terra-cottas
described, specimens of which were exhibited, were moulds
for sacred cakes, covered with a variety of symbols, some
undescribed varieties of antefixes, perforated discs with in-
scriptions, &c., and a small collection of terra-cotta impressions
of gems and signets. Among the objects from the tombs
were parts of friezes and sepulchral slabs presenting reliefs ;
a model of a boat, with bands of colour on the sides and an
eye painted on either side of the prow; a beautiful torso of
Aphrodité stooping to fasten her sandal; and two little
masterpieces of the Koroplastic art, an Eros playing at ball,
and a negro slave boy asleep under an amphora, of striking
realism and pathos.

Mr. GENNADIUS pointed out that moulds like those
exhibited were still used for stamping cakes in Greece at
the present day.

PROFESSOR GARDNER said that similar deposits of terra-
cottas, mostly in fragments, had been found at Naucratis, and
mentioned a suggestion previously made by Mr. R. Anderson
that such deposits were due to the periodical clearing out of
temples.

The Third General Meeting was held on J/ay 6, 1886,
PROFESSOR C. T. NEWTON, Vice-President, in the Chair.

PROFESSOR JEBB read a paper ‘On the Homeric House in
Relation to the Remains at Tiryns’ (Journal, Vol. VII.
p. 170). The structure of the house at Tiryns, as traced by
Dr. Doérpfeld, was shown by a plan. Beside it was placed
another, showing the arrangement of the Homeric house as
archaeologists have hitherto usually deduced it from the data
of the Homeric poems, the sketch given by J. Protodikos
(1877) being taken as a basis. It was not Professor Jebb’s
aim to enter upon the questions of the origin and age of the
remains of Tiryns, whether they were Phoenician, of about
i100 B.c., as Dr. Schliemann thinks, or of post-classical date
(some archaic materials having been partially used), as some

xlv

have thought. The single question discussed was: assuming
Dr. Dérpfeld’s plan of the house at Tiryns to be correct, can
this plan be brought into intelligible agreement with the
Homeric poems? ‘The general features common to the house
at Tiryns (according to Dr. Dorpfeld) and the Homeric house
were first indicated. The essential difference was then
pointed out. At Tiryns the megaron is altogether isolated
from the apartments of the women, which are identified
with a similar but smaller hall, parallel with the other at
the north-east corner. The only communications between
them are by long and circuitous routes, through labyrinths
of intricate passages. In the Homeric house, on the contrary,
a vital feature is the situation of the women’s apartments
immediately behind the men’s hall, with which they are in
direct communication by a door. This was shown by a series
of passages, taken chiefly from books xvii. to xx. of the
Odyssey. The Hellenic house, alike of the Homeric and of
the later classical age, was contrived to combine the seclusion
of women from the outer world with the social unity of the
family. The arrangement at Tiryns was ill-suited to secure
either object. The difference was one not merely of detail,
but of type. Given.a house of the Tiryns type, the Odyssey
becomes unintelligible.

PROFESSOR BUTCHER thought that the writer had made
out his main contention conclusively. The relative position
of the men’s and the women’s apartments in the plan at
Tiryns made the story of the Odyssey impossible. He also
agreed with Professor Jebb that Odysseus shot the suitors
from the lower end of the hall, for if it was from the upper
end, why did not the suitors escape by the lower door into
the αὐλή, which was not fastened? Professor Jebb’s view as
to the ὀρσοθύρη being distinct from the ὁδὸς ἐς λαύρην (Od.
xxii. 127) was new, and required consideration. It certainly
disposed of some difficulties, but no one reading lines 126
and 127 with an open mind would imagine that more than
one door was in question. Similarly as to the meaning of
ῥῶγες μεγάροιο, Professor Butcher was still inclined to the
view of its implying an upper passage or clear-story, and

xlvi

the modern use of ῥούγα might have been derived from such
an idea.

PROFESSOR GARDNER, while agreeing as to the necessary
connection in the Homeric house between the men’s and
women’s apartments, was not convinced that such an arrange-
ment was shut out by the plan at Tiryns. Was the apparent
isolation of the two reasonable on the face of it at any period
of history ? As only foundations remain, why may there not
have been a door (ὀρσοθύρη) between the θάλαμος and
μέγαρον, raised above the floor, and therefore no longer to
be traced? Admittedly the main divisions of αὐλή, αἴθουσα,
μέγαρον, and θάλαμος were represented in the plan at Tiryns.
So, too, was the site of the altar in the αὐλή, and of the
hearth in the μέγαρον. The conclusions of so competent an
archeologist as Dr. Dérpfeld could not be lightly set aside.
Professor Gardner further quoted the opinion of Professor
J. H. Middleton that the palace at Tiryns explained the
Homeric poems far better than any plan previously given.

In reply to Professor Gardner, PROFESSOR JEBB pointed
out that Dr. Dorpfeld does not recognise any ὀρσοθύρη at
Tiryns, and that if it had existed it would necessarily have
been the usual mode of access to the men’s hall from the
women’s, as being so much the easiest. To it, then, we
should have to apply the oft-repeated verse as to Penelope
‘standing by the door-post of the hall,’ which, however,
obviously refers to one of the principal entrances, not to a
mere postern in a side wall.

The Annual Meeting was held on /une 24, 1886, PRO-
FESSOR C. T. NEWTON, Vice-President, in the Chair. The
following Report was read by the Hon. SEC. on behalf
of the Council :—

Although there is no striking event to record in the history of the
Society during the past year, there is every reason to feel satisfied
with its progress. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, by which in the
main the Society’s work may best be judged, steadily maintains its high
position among periodicals of its class. That it is appreciated elsewhere
than in England is testified not only by the increasing number of foreign

xlvii

members and foreign libraries that subscribe for it, but also by the
readiness of foreign scholars to contribute to its pages. Thus in the
volume for 1885 Prof. Michaelis continues his invaluable record of the
‘Ancient Marbles in Great Britain,’ and discusses in detail one of the
‘Xanthian Marbles in the British Museum’; Dr. Six, the author of an
exhaustive treatise on the ‘Gorgon in Greek Art,’ deals with ‘Some
Archaic Gorgons in the British Museum’; while Dr. Imhoof-Blumer, in
conjunction with Prof. Percy Gardner, publishes the first part of a
‘Numismatic Commentary on the Text of Pausanias,’ the importance of
which to all students of Greek art need not be pointed out. The English
contributions in the same volume are fully equal in interest and variety
to those which have appeared in previous volumes. Among them may
be mentioned a memoir on the ‘Tomb of Porsenna at Clusium,’ by the
late Mr. James Fergusson, whose lamented death has removed one of
the foremost authorities on ancient architecture ; notes on the ‘ Islands
of Telos and Karpathos,’ by Mr. J. T. Bent; a paper on the ‘ Homeric
Land System,’ by Prof. W. Ridgeway; on ‘Judith and Holofernes,’ by
Rev. E. L. Hicks; the conclusion of Mr. L. R. Farnell’s paper on the
‘Pergamene Frieze,’ and shorter papers by Messrs. E. A. Gardner,
A. 5. Murray, C. T. Newton, Cecil Smith, and othérs.

In last year’s Report mention was made of the excavations undertaken
on the site of Naucratis, on behalf of the Egypt Exploration Fund, by
Mr. Flinders Petrie, who contributed to the Journal for 1885 a short
summary of his work. During the present spring these excavations
have been continued under the able direction of Mr. E. A. Gardner,
with -very important results, of which an account will appear in due
course. The Council felt justified in contributing a further sum of £100
towards the cost of so interesting an undertaking.

The only other matter of this kind which has come under the notice
of the Council during the past year was an application from Mr. Bent
for aid in the exploration of Samos. The sum of £50 was granted, but
the Council regret to say that, owing to unexpected difficulty in obtaining
permission to dig in the island, Mr. Bent has not been so successful as
he had hoped. He has, however, spent only half the amount.

The grant of #100 for three years, in aid of the proposed British
School at Athens, announced in last year’s Report, has not yet been
called for. But in the interval the house at Athens has been built, and
the promoters have good reason to hope that the School may be opened,
at any rate on a moderate scale, before very long. The only difficulty
lies in raising the sum still needed to ensure an adequate endowment.
It has been suggested that some part of this might be obtained in the
form of annual subscriptions, and the Council take this opportunity of
commending the suggestion to all members of the Hellenic Society.
Subscriptions or donations for the School may be sent to the Treasurer
Mr. Walter Leaf, Old Change, E.C.

xlvill

It has long been felt that the Library of the Society, which, though
not large, contains some of the chief archaeological journals, would be of
more use to members if it were placed in a room which was entirely at
the disposal of the Society. The Council are glad to be able to announce
that during the past year they have obtained from the Royal Asiatic
Society the sole use of the small room at 22, Albemarle Street, in which
the books have hitherto been kept. Here members may consult the books
on any day between 11 and 5. The Rev. W. Wayte has kindly accepted
the office of Hon. Librarian, and Miss Gales has been appointed Assistant
Librarian. It is to Miss Gales, at 22, Albemarle Street, that members
should address themselves, who wish to borrow any book under the con-
ditions laid down in the Library Rules. It is hoped before long to issue
to members a Catalogue of the present contents of the Library, and
additions will thereafter be recorded in each yearly volume of the Journal.
Members are reminded that contributions of books bearing on any branch
of Hellenic Study will be gratefully received.

The financial position of the Society is set forth in the accompanying
Balance Sheet. The receipts of the year, including the subscriptions
of members and of libraries, and the sale of the /ournal to non-
members, amount to £732 155. τοῦ. The expenditure, which covers
the cost of Vol. VI. of the /owrna/, and includes the above-named grants
for excavations at Naucratis and at Samos, amounts to £769 14s. 11d.
During the past year more Life-subscriptions to the amount of £220 Ios.
have been invested in Consols, making a total of £714 so invested. The
present balance at the bank is £621 13s. 10d. A further asset is the sum
of £95 75. 9d., advanced more than a year ago towards the cost of
photographing the Laurentian MS. of Sophocles. It is hoped that the
sale of the remaining copies of the MS. will allow of this sum being
repaid by the end of the present year. Lastly, there are arrears of
subscriptions amounting to about £160, so that on the whole the financial
position of the Society may be regarded as very satisfactory.

Since the last Annual Meeting thirty-eight new members have been
elected, and eight libraries have been added to the list of subscribers.
Against this increase must be set the loss of nine members by death or
resignation, so that the net increase of members and subscribers is 37 ;
the present total of members being 624, and of subscribers 72.

It will be seen from this Report that the Society still steadily
advances, and can look back upon another year of efficient work in
the promotion of Hellenic Studies. But the Council must not, in con-
clusion, omit to remind members that constant effort is necessary on the
part of all concerned to maintain and improve upon the progress of the
past seven years. And the most effective mode of helping forward the
cause which all have at heart is to be found in the steady yearly increase
of the number of members.

xlix

Ὅ381 ‘or

φ
"Σ.“Ο21}}2:} {

‘A 1aIdHSAVA
“NILUVIN

“A SVTONOG

‘d NHOL

or £1 129¥ * Cn ν ἐς

6 0 olS‘1¥ 6 ο ofS'1¥
ΟΙ er 1zQ να Orel Tel, Ome he οὶ Gone el a srayueg ie “ « 9 Cr 66 Se ee
¥ gregy «°° 5° * °° τ © * *junodDy [euIno[ 70 soured “* «of 9 € be
Ὁ. S ἕε mis 98st ‘of μάν 1 Sggr Avy ᾿ΑτθΊϑαοθς juvisissy “ἢ ΘΎ
6 £ kt ae ek” τ * qunoooy sunuig satipung “ἢ Ὁ g 12
oS ee oe ΠῚ π| δι * -foogenbagane “2 Avy 9 9 88
ΡΟΣ os" Ss δον “pang uonvaojdxy 3dASy oJ JURID ‘ “gz ες 9 γὲ Sz
or €x Sr ss sss ss ss ἡ γαποοοῦ ase}sog pue Arsuoneg * “Sz -qagq ae ν
οο of "sss ss * * soureg 18 SUOTIVAVOXY 10} Yuag ayy “Ὁ ΒΓ © 8 8
Ὅθ8ι1 o 9 148 ———
Oo OI ZI SS PR OI Rat (ibe ΟἽ ΞΘ 70 ΠΡΌΣ Ghee keer 297 oO Ol OL
9 zz ss ss ss es ss ΘΙΘΊΠΙΩ 28 7901. uo sduvansuy ‘* oz oO gi ofS
€ of zr SO EE ED SO sippy, ΠῚ 1 Se yagojedalsiGt “0 190
€ +1 or "ss tos ss ss sgunos0y asvjsog pue AzauonE3s “f ‘of Ane or 6 Lr
O02 O20 bos ee ee eee Se SJOSUOS) (Uli po SoA] ΔῊ Ole ΞΌΠῚ 11 z 648
“ἢ “Ὁ 4 “Sgor ‘p tty $ Ἑ Cty! δά
LNHNALVLS HSVO
¥ or 81:9 ¥ or 916 Χ
ἢ 8 οἱ zSr ----
ΤΟ
ε She LOL
°o ort
o 61 Str
ο 4 ςς
© OI OT
ς Si Shr ——.
GS “Fr fz
6 0 zzx
Ο OI Zb
ΕΣ
9 11 +9
Pie Te COP il ον ρόδον ποσῶν Ἰπποοον ysed ΟἹ assure “ Oe tere
DB. Gerster ον Ὁ Bic tof sae 01 ‘bggx ‘x Ain ‘feuinof jo sates Aq ‘unf | © Ὁ τς
pis ¥ "98st BES Foe SBS aS

* * "ss[oA youg 10} ‘sjuowkeg “"

295 ΟΣ

“7991109 11 PUY PUL ‘sIOYONOA ayy YIM II paredurod puv ‘yuNoddv 5111 poutTURKX savy OA,

‘NVTIINOVIN

SIayURg 10 20uryvg ΟἹ,

. Ὁ 167 +e eee ὅροι ee oe “ec
* * og—Sggr ‘suondrosqng Αια} “ἢ
Jeumof jo 5190 Λ ἘΠ 10. ss he
τ srieay Li Ss

* + + * 891 ‘suoidiiosqnsg

* + * uondriosqns 9117
98—Sggi ‘suondiosqng ,siequiayy

* sjosuoD uo spuaprar(y
* JUaIIVIS 150] JO auLLg OF,

“ec ae

τ “e
«

ee

‘VY πϑϑοξϑο

of Av]
“93st

“of AVN
881

ὋΞ Avy
991

* * slaquisyy OJ aseIIED puv Sunprg
req “TA TOA Sunung ‘suog 32 Arg ““
qunoossy 0D ὮΝ Jeuunig

* slaquisy ΟἹ ΘΘΌ μα Ὁ) pur Suryoeg
2 weg ἼΔ ‘JOA Sunutig ‘suog 2 ArO
* Surydeasoyary 10} ‘yunos0y 5 9

* qunossy sedeg “oo 2 uosurypId “

* * * gunoosdy ‘Auvduiog adAjoiny

* Suimviqy 10} Qunyjgq “‘

τ * qunoooy sedeg "100 29 UosuTIIqT ©

<<) a> ἼΠΠΟΟΟΌ ᾿'Λατάπιοῦ adAjoiny

" * * * urlAjog jorg.1ad ‘ydevasojoyg “*

Suravasug pur ‘ojoyg 10} ‘snw0javig OT,

Ῥ ee
Ἵ ounf
991

“LNNOOOV «.SAIGALS ΟἹἸΝΉ ΤΊΒΠΗ AO IVNUNOL AHL,

l

On a ballot being taken, the following officers were elected
for the ensuing session: President, Right Rev. the Lord
Bishop of Durham; V7zce-Prestdents, Lord Justice Bowen,
the Dean of St. Paul’s, Mr. Sidney Colvin, Principal Geddes,
Dr. J. K. Ingram, Professor R. C. Jebb, the Provost of Oriel,
the Earl of Morley, Professor C. T. Newton, Professor A. H.
Sayce, Mr. E. M. Thompson, the Master of Trinity, the
Rev. H. F. Tozer, and Professor R. Y. Tyrrell.

The following were elected to fill vacancies on the Council:
Mr. A. J. Evans, Mr. L. R. Farnell, Mr. E. Gardner, Professor
J. H. Middleton, and Mr. A. S. Murray ; while Professor
P. Gardner, Dr. H. Holden, Dr. Hort, Mr. H. ἘΣ Pelham;
Mr. W. C. Perry, and Mr. J. R. Thursfield were re-elected.

In the usual address from the chair PROFESSOR NEWTON
reviewed the chief archaeological discoveries of the past year,
mentioning first the remarkable archaic statues found by
excavation on the Acropolis at Athens. These were most
valuable as links in the development of Greek sculpture,
especially as some of the figures bore distinct traces of
colour. Photographs of these statues were exhibited by
Dr. Waldstein. Of the excavations at Eleusis a full report
was not yet forthcoming, but in Boeotia a temple of Apollo
had been found, which contained bronzes similar in character
to the Apollo of Kanachos. In Crete a grotto had been
found which was considered to be identical with the tra-
ditionary birthplace of Zeus. An inscription found in the
island of Lemnos and published in the Audletin de Corre-
spondance [Tellénique was particularly interesting because,
though in Greek character, it was quite unintelligible. It
was suggested that the language might be Pelasgic. The
speaker then referred to the intended completion of the
German excavations at Pergamon and to the appearance
at Berlin of the first instalment of the official report of the
previous discoveries there. In Asia Minor, Dr. Sterrett, who
was prominent among American workers in the field of
classical archaeology, had been extraordinarily diligent and
successful in collecting inscriptions. He had, moreover,
identified the site of Lystra. In this connexion it might

li

appropriately be mentioned that Professor W. M. Ramsay
was now prosecuting further researches in Asia Minor. The
Evangelical School at Smyrna had in the past year resumed
its important publication of inscriptions. A patriotic Greek
gentleman in Constantinople, Mr. Mavrogordato, had given a
large sum for the examination and tabulation of MSS. in the
monasteries of the Levant. Some remarkable MSS., such as
letters of Julian and Libanius, had already been discovered,
and were being published, with a complete catalogue, in the
Proceedings of the “λλήνικος Φιλολόγικος Σύλλογος of Con-
stantinople. The papyri found at Fayum, in Egypt, had
now been arranged at Vienna, and a provisional report had
been published. Among them were a MS. of St. Matthew’s
Gospel and part of that of St. Mark, which was thought to
be the earliest in existence; a very early MS. of the Gorgzas
of Plato; fragments of Hesiod, of the Avrgonautica, and of
the Odyssey ; and many documents belonging to the Alex-
andrian and Arab epochs, which would require years of
study. In conclusion, the Chairman referred to the thor-
oughness and beauty of illustration which distinguished the
archaeological publications of France, Germany, and even of
sO poor a country as Greece, and expressed the wish that
private aid were more readily forthcoming to make such
publications possible in England.

Mr. E. GARDNER gave a short provisional account of the
year’s work at Naucratis. The cemetery had been uncovered,
but yielded little of importance, as all the graves were
considerably later than the period of the real prosperity of
Naucratis. The temples of the Dioscuri and of Aphrodité
had been cleared, and were interesting as showing the readi-
ness of the Greeks to adapt their architecture to local
conditions. These temples were built in the simplest form
out of the material of the district, viz., mud-brick. Three
temples of Aphrodité, belonging respectively to the Ptole-
maic period, the fifth century B.C., and at latest the end of the
seventh century B.c., had been found superimposed. The
most important find of the year was a thick stratum of
miscellaneous fragments of pottery and statuettes on a level

lu

with the floor of the earliest temple of Aphrodité. Some
specimens of pottery, of Rhodian character, were shown to
the meeting, and it is hoped that many more vases may be
pieced together from the innumerable fragments brought
home. One kind was conspicuous by its absence, viz. the
ordinary black and buff, whether black figured or red figured.
The statuettes were strikingly Egyptian in character, though
of Greek workmanship. Mr. Gardner considered that these
fragments when carefully examined would throw much light
upon the early history of Greek pottery, painting, and sculp-
ture. Egyptian influence was particularly noticeable, but
the workmanship was still strictly Hellenic, both in spirit and
execution.

The HON. SECRETARY read a short paper by Mr. Bent
upon his ‘Recent Visit to Samos.’

A Special General Meeting was held by permission in
the rooms of the Society of Antiquaries on μάν 2, 1886, for the
purpose of discussing the remains at Tiryns, DR. SCHLIE-
MANN and DR. DORPFELD being present by invitation.
Dr. J. EVANS, President of the Society of Antiquaries, was
in the Chair.

Mr. F. C. PENROSE read a short paper based upon notes
taken during a recent visit to Tiryns and Mycenae. After
explaining that his visit had been hurried, so that he did
not profess to come forward with any detailed statement,
Mr. Penrose said that the question he wished to raise was
whether the walls uncovered by Dr. Schliemann at Tiryns
belong to the same epoch of civilisation as the so-called
Treasury of Atreus and the Lion Gate at Mycenae. Un-
doubtedly strong arguments in favour of the antiquity of
these walls were brought forward in Dr. Schliemann’s book,
but a careful and unprejudiced examination might show that
he had unconsciously overlooked circumstances which tell
against his view. Mr. Penrose’s main contention was that
between the undoubted Pelasgic architecture of Mycenae

lit

and Tiryns and the so-called Palace of Tiryns the dif-
ference in character of work was fundamental. In short,
they had nothing in common. Meanly-built walls of
quite small stones, worked with the saw and chisel and
with a tubular metal drill, seemed to him inconsistent
with the Pelasgic period, especially as_ bricks — fairly
burnt red bricks—were not unfrequently introduced. Dr.
Schliemann’s theory that these burnt bricks were due to a
conflagration which destroyed the palace was not borne out
by the opinion of a practical brickmaker to whom Mr. Pen-
rose had submitted the point. The true Pelasgic walls had
been dressed without metal tools, whereas the numerous cuts
seen in the walls of the palace at Tiryns were clearly pro-
duced by a metal saw. If this fact be admitted, could a
people who used steel or iron for their tools have been
content to use only bronze for their weapons? Again, in
some of the walls claimed as pre-Homeric stones occurred
which were obviously borrowed from older structures, and were
yet of regular Hellenic workmanship, as found in classical
times. The plan of the building at Tiryns might be that of
a Greek house, but Professor Jebb had disputed its analogy
with the plan of an Homeric palace. In short, it was hard
to conceive that the same men could have built these slovenly
walls and such walls as those of the Treasury of Atreus.
Without discussing in detail the objects found at Tiryns
and Mycenae, Mr. Penrose doubted whether the pre-Homeric
character of the treasures and pottery had yet been perfectly
established. The decorations at Tiryns, to judge at least
from the drawings, had some archaic character about them,
but might be bad imitations of earlier work.

Dr. SCHLIEMANN, after sketching the history of his work
at Tiryns, proceeded to reply in some detail to the objections
of Mr. Stillman and others. As this palace was practically
the first Greek private house that had been discovered, it
was natural that its character should have been disputed,
especially by those who had not studied his book 77zryus on
the spot. Since the excavation the floors and thresholds had
been purposely covered over to preserve them from exposure,

liv

and a visitor to Tiryns not provided with Dr. Dorpfeld’s
plans might easily fail to identify these and other essential
details. He might as easily fall into the blunder of mistaking
prehistoric for Byzantine building. An instance of such
liability to error, on the part cf those not fully informed of.
all the circumstances of the excavation, was that of the
boundary walls of the tombs at Mycenae, to which reference
had been made by Mr. Penrose. Their conglomerate character,
including fragments of true Hellenic building, was fully ac-
counted for by the fact that they were not yet ten years old,
having been rebuilt by the Greek Archaeological Society in
1878, from materials lying on the spot, in order to consolidate
the terrace of the tombs. These were the walls which
Mr. Stillman, Mr. Penrose, and their companions, on the
ground of their containing blocks of the classical period, had
assumed to belong to, at earliest, the third century B.C., and
to be the work of the Celtic barbarians who then overran
Greece. There was no evidence whatever that the Celts at
that time penetrated beyond Delphi. As to the objection
that walls of quarry stone bonded with mortar were unworthy
of the heroic age, it was sufficient to point out that such walls,
consisting in the lower part of quarry stones and in the
upper of sun-dried bricks, had been found in prehistoric
buildings in all parts of Greece—at Troy, at Eleusis, in
Cephalonia, and in the island of Thera. Dr. Schliemann
then alluded to the wall-paintings, which were of the most
archaic design, and bore the same patterns as had been found
at Orchomenus and elsewhere in buildings certainly 2,000
years older than the foundation of the Byzantine Empire.
Similarly the objects of human industry found at Tiryns
could only be compared with those of prehistoric character
which had been dug up in other parts of the world. In con-
clusion, Dr. Schliemann expressed the hope that scientific
experts might visit the ruins at Tiryns with his book in hand,
and test for themselves the accuracy of the statements and
plans there given. He and his collaborator, Dr. Dérpfeld,
were quite content to leave it to the judgment of such
travellers, whether the result of the excavations at Tiryns

lv

deserved to be described, as Mr. Stillman had described it in
the Z7zmes, as ‘one of the most extraordinary hallucinations
of unscientific enthusiasts which literature of all times can
record.’ In a letter to the 777,65 Dr. Dorpfeld had offered
to accompany Mr. Stillman to Tiryns and Mycenae, that he
might convince him of his error; but Mr. Stillman had taken
no notice of the proposal. Undaunted by the severe criticism
which their work had at times met with in England, Drs.
Schliemann and Dorpfeld had just planned another archaeo-
logical enterprise with pickaxe and spade, and the appreciation
of the Hellenic Society would serve as a great spur and
encouragement in this new campaign.

Mr. NEWTON ‘then read a paper by Dr. Dérpfeld, who
began by expressing his readiness to explain any point upon
which doubts had been raised in regard to the discoveries at
Tiryns. After alluding to Mr. Stillman’s letters to the 77mes,
in which he had first maintained that the palace at Tiryns
was the work of Celtic barbarians in the Macedonian period,
and afterwards adopted an alternative theory that the building
was Byzantine, Dr. Dérpfeld discussed in detail the question
whether the Palace of Tiryns and the tombs at Mycenae
really belonged to the heroic age. It had long been erro-
neously supposed that nearly all buildings of the classical
age in Greece were made of rectangular stones, so that walls
of a different character, whether of quarry stones bonded
with clay mortar or of sun-dried bricks, were held to be
Roman or Byzantine, or even barbarian and modern. This
supposition was directly traversed by Vitruvius, who expressly
described walls of sun-dried brick, and praised them for their
lasting qualities, and stated further that not only private
houses, but the royal palaces of the Attalides in Tralles, of
Croesus at Sardis, and of Mausolus at Halicarnassus, were
built of them. Dr. Dérpfeld went on to point out that
wherever such walls were found in Greece or Asia Minor the
lower parts were composed, as at Tiryns, of irregular stones,
either with or without mortar. They were also wainscoted
on both sides with clay or lime plaster, which was often
covered with painting. Their angles were provided with

lvi

regular square-cut stones or with timber beams. The same
style of architecture constantly occurred in the most ancient
edifices of Mesopotamia and Egypt, and we might well
suppose that the Greeks had learnt it from the people of
those countries at a very early date. In the face of such.
facts no one who had really studied the art of building among
the Greeks and Romans would maintain that such walls as
described were incompatible with the classical or the heroic
age. There were four main points for determining the date
of such walls when found:

(1) The later the date the greater the likelihood of finding
in the walls other materials than quarry stones and unbaked
bricks, as, e.g., fragments of classical building, kiln-burnt
bricks, or especially clay tiles. If these occurred the wall
could hardly date from the heroic age.

(2) The style of painting on the lime wainscoting’ was
a sure test of age, for a wall could not possibly be later
than the plaster which covered it.

(3) The material and workmanship of the parastades, of
the free-standing columns, and of the door-sills were another
sure test of age.

(4) There was the evidence of potsherds and other objects
found near a wall, but into this point Dr. Dorpfeld, as an
architect, did not propose to enter. Applying these tests to
the case of Tiryns :

(1) After four months’ careful examination Dr. Dorpfeld
had found no trace of other materials in the walls of the
palace than quarry stones bonded with clay and sun-dried
bricks. Appearances which had been attributed by Mr. Pen-
rose, Mr. Stillman, and others to the presence of kiln-burnt
bricks and of lime mortar were in fact due to a conflagration
which had destroyed the palace, and had in parts calcined
the walls. Walls which did contain other material would be
found on close examination to belong either to the founda-
tions of a Byzantine church or to Byzantine tombs, as
indicated in the plan.

(2) The wall-paintings, some of which were found zz situ
on the walls, while others lay on the floor, agreed closely in

lvii

design and ornamentation with the stone reliefs of the dome-
shaped tombs at Mycenae and with the famous ceiling of the
Thalamos found at Orchomenus. The great antiquity of
those examples had never been doubted. Walls decorated
\with such designs could not be otherwise than _pre-
historic,

(3) As to the working of the antae and the door-sills, this
had been carried out at Tiryns with the stone-saw, the pick-
axe, and the cylindrical bore, the very instruments whose use
was characteristic of the dome-shaped tombs and the Lion
Gate at Mycenae. The use of these tools at Tiryns had
strangely been taken by Mr. Stillman as direct evidence of
the lateness of the building, Dr. Dorpfeld was quite pre-
pared to prove on the spot that they had been used in the
admittedly prehistoric buildings at Mycenae. Further evi-
dence of the antiquity of the palace was furnished by the
close correspondence of the angles of the outer wall of the
Acropolis with those of the palace. The masonry of the
inner and outer walls was really identical, though in the one
case small and in the other colossal stones had been used, a
natural distinction between the walls of a dwelling-house and
of a fortress. Again, the alabaster frieze, inlaid with small
pieces of Egyptian glass (κύανος), found in the vestibule of
the Megaron, closely resembled in construction and design
the reliefs found in the treasury at Orchomenus. Similar
friezes had been found in most ancient buildings in Meso-
potamia, and such a frieze of κύανος was distinctly mentioned
by Homer in his description of the palace of Alcinous. In
‘conclusion, Dr. Dérpfeld touched on the question of the
agreement of the plan of the palace at Tiryns with the
dwelling-house implied in various parts of the “ας and
Odyssey. He doubted whether Homer’s statements were
complete enough to allow of a trustworthy reconstruction
of the Homeric palace, but in his opinion, though Homer
nowhere described the palace at Tiryns, there was essential
agreement between his statements and the plan of that palace.
Dr. Dérpfeld considered that the technical evidence he had
brought forward could only be met by actual counter-proofs

Ἴ

—— σ᾿"

ly

that the palace at Tiryns dated from Macedonian or even
Byzantine times.

As Mr. Stillman was not able to be present, MR. PELHAM,
who explained that he to some extent shared the doubts
expressed by Messrs. Penrose and Stillman, read a paper
which Mr. Stillman had written for the occasion, and which
briefly summed up the arguments he had already put forward.
After long study of prehistoric monuments in Italy and in
some parts of Greece, he had come tc the conclusion that
such buildings showed no evidence of stone-cutting proper,
z.c., the use of edge tools, chisels, &c., in shaping stone to its
position. No appliances seem to have been used beyond the
drill, the stone-axe or hammer, and trituration. Any ruin to
be attributed to the prehistoric epoch in which Tiryns was
founded must conferm to these technical conditions. But at
Tiryns the stones were cut with a chisel, sawn, and drilled
with a tubular drill of apparently rather modern and excellent
metallic make, laid with profusion of mortar, and accom-
panied by burnt bricks, all indications of a comparatively
modern date. Further, the bases of the columns were cut in
a rude and slovenly style, and no columns had been found to
correspond. The Acropolis walls—the latest visible work of
the classical Tiryns—were of a solid, deliberate, and most
painstaking character ; while the house walls, with their rude
bases for columns (which were probably of built-up material),
were hasty, flimsy, and entirely unlike any archaic work the
writer had ever seen. Such technical indications forbade the
hypothesis of an early barbarism antecedent to Greek civilisa-
tion, so the only alternative was to come down to a relapse
into barbarism after the fall of that civilisation. Tiryns was
unoccupied in the time of VPausanias, and there was no
evidence of any occupation between the destruction of the
city by the Argives and his time. Nor was there any trace
of an occupation later than that to which we owed the walls
now in question, although in places there seemed to be some
evidence of buildings beneath them. In some parts of the
ruin there were admitted evidences of Byzantine occupation,
and there was no technical difference between the work ther

a

lix

and elsewhere. Mr. Stillman’s conclusion was that this
Byzantine occupation was the only one which had taken
place after the destruction of Tiryns by the Argives, and that
the discoveries of Dr. Schliemann could only be attributed to
the period of that occupation.

PROFESSOR MIDDLETON opened the discussion upon the
papers which had been read. The main reasons, he said,
against the antiquity of the building seemed to be (1) the
fact that the stones of the wall of the palace were small com-
pared with those of the outside wall. Of this the natural
explanation was that in building a thin wall it would be
extremely inconvenient to use large stones; (2) the tools
employed were said not to be consistent with an early period.
In his opinion the tools used in working the Tirynthian walls
were a sharp-pointed hammer, a chisel, a saw, and two sorts
of drills. All these were used in Egypt at a very early period.
The drills and saw had clearly been used with some hard ᾿
stone such as sapphire or emery, as might be seen from the
rapidity with which they had cut into the stone. The rapidity
of the saw-cuts and of the spirals of the drills would have
been impossible with metal tools, and could only be explained
by the use either of diamond-studded drills or of those worked
with loose emery or powdered corundum—tools certainly of
extreme antiquity. As to mortar or burnt bricks, even if
they occurred in these walls (and Dr. Dérpfeld maintained
the contrary) there was ample evidence of their use in other
countries far earlier than the date claimed for the Tirynthian
palace. Another proof of early age was the use of wooden
columns. Not a single stone column had been found. It
was generally accepted that wooden columns were only used
in very early times. Again, the extreme care with which the
walls had been originally built was another evidence in favour
of Dr. Schliemann’s and against Mr. Stillman’s theory.
Though built of rubble they were first smoothed outside with
clay, then overlaid with three coats of stucco, the last, which
took the paintings, being almost of pure lime. In some rooms
the walls had further a carefully-fitted wooden lining, as was
proved by dowel marks, and in some cases pegs still existing

lx

in the wall. The constant occurrence in the débris of small
pieces of bronze made it almost certain that metal plates had
been nailed to the wooden planks. This style of ornamenta-
tion, which must have had an extraordinarily rich effect, was
mentioned in Homer, and was known to have been used in
the Treasury of Atreus. The alabaster frieze and the wall-
paintings were in their character and design further unmis-
takable evidence of archaic work, showing distinct traces of
Phoenician and Egyptian influence.

Mr. PELHAM said that his position was that of one who
waited to have his doubts removed. He had seen a large
number of prehistoric remains in Italy and a few in Greece,
and certain points in these remains at Tiryns had certainly
startled him. He asked whether the walls rested on the
natural rock or on débris. (To this Dr. Schliemann at once
replied that they went down to the rock.) Then the character
of the work—not merely the smallness of the stones, which
Professor Middleton had explained—seemed to him far more
slovenly than one would have expected. Then there was
need of some clearer line of distinction between the early
work and that which was admitted to be Byzantine. Where
did the latter end and the prehistoric work begin? As to
the use of smortar, he did not think that the Roman instances
adduced by Professor Middleton were conclusive, nor did he
think that much would be gained for the decision of the
question at issue by instances drawn from buildings which
could conceivably have come under the influence of
Etruria.

Replying to some of the objections raised, DR. SCHLIEMANN
dwelt particularly upon the very perfect system of drainage
which had been discovered in the palace.

Replying to Mr. Penrose, DR. DORPFELD asserted that no
burnt brick had been found in any part of the building that
was claimed as prehistoric, as he was prepared to prove to
any one onthe spot. As to the tools used, they were identical
with those of which traces were clearly visible on the ad-
mittedly prehistoric walls in Tiryns, Mycenae, and Orchomenus,
This also he was prepared to prove to any one on the spot,

lxi

He held, therefore, that the main contentions of ἢ
Penrose and Stillman fell to the ground.

ΜΕ. PENROSE, replying on his part, said that no discusiony
could really settle the questions at issue that did not,\,
Drs. Schliemann and Dorpfeld had suggested, take place
the spot. He was surprised, however, to hear Dr. Dorpfeld
assertion that no burnt bricks were found except in the so-
called Byzantine church. Though he had no notes to refer ἱ
to, his recollection was strong that they occurred elsewhere.
He had already brought forward the opinion of a practical
brick-maker that the phenomena could not be accounted for
by the theory of a conflagration. Dr. Dorpfeld had quoted
Vitruvius, but he had always understood Vitruvius to refer in
that passage not to sun-dried, but to kiln-burnt bricks.
Mr. Penrose added that he would be quite satisfied with his
part in the discussion if it had encouraged further examina-
tion of this most interesting discovery, which, whatever the
outcome, must reflect the greatest possible credit on Dr
Schliemann and his able coadjutor.

Mr. KARL BLIND quoted Mr. James Fergusson’s opinion
in support of the antiquity of the Tirynthian palace, and the
discussion closed,

CSSIrs.

ε΄

lx

THE CAMBRIDGE BRANCH

or

THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION
be CLE NIC ὙΤ ΤΠ DiS:

SESSION of 1885-6.

December 1, 1885.

The Annual Meeting was held in the Archaeological
Library on Tuesday, December 1, at 4 P.M.

The Master of Trinity College was re-elected Chairman,
Professor Sidney Colvin Vice-Chairman, and Mr. Oscar
Browning Secretary. The retiring Members of the Com-
mittee, Professor S. Colvin, Mr. O. Browning, Dr. Reid and
Dr. Jackson were re-elected.

PROFESSOR COLVIN read a paper on the ‘Statuette of a
River God,’ formerly belonging to J. M. W. Turner. This is
the only extant river god in the round, which can certainly be
identified as such, and analogous to the figures of the river
god of the Parthenon which is only identified by inference.
The style is ‘Pergamene’; the treatment of the muscles and
of the hair being both analogous to that of the Pergamene
sculptures. Perhaps more members of the group to which
this belonged may be hereafter identified.

MR. VERRALL read a paper on the “σῦριγξ in the Chariot-
wheel, as described by the Attic tragedians, The object of

Ixi

the paper was to show that the interpretation ‘box’ or ‘ nave-
hole,’ commonly given, is inconsistent with other meanings of
σῦριγξ and with the use of the tragedians, and to call attention
to the interpretation given by the scholiast on Aesch, Septem
contra Thebas 205, according to which the σύριγγες were the
‘cross-staves’ in an archaic type of wheel, the predecessor of
the form with spokes.

March τι, 1886,

The Terminal Meeting was held in the Archaeological
Library at 4 P.M. on Thursday, March \1th, 1886.

Mr. WALDSTEIN read a paper on the ‘ Statue of the Venus
Genetrix in the Louvre’ and the ‘Esquiline Venus, in the
museum of the Capitol.’ He pointed out that the statue of
the Venus Genetrix (of which many replicas exist) had
previously been compared with the representation of a Venus
Genetrix on a coin of Sabina, and had thus been brought into
connection with the famous statue of the Venus Genetrix
by the sculptor Arkesilaos. This view had since been
abandoned.

Without any reference to the comparison of the statue with
the coin and to its possible attribution to Arkesilaos, he had
found that the peculiar characteristics of style manifested in
this Venus were most nearly approached, of.all most excellent
works known to him, in the female figure of the bronze group
at Naples known as Orestes and Electra, especially when the
difference of material (marble and bronze) was taken into
account ; and he was thus led to conclude that the Venus
Genetrix most closely approached the school and the age of
Pasiteles, to which the Naples group must beyond doubt be
ascribed. When these facts were borne in mind, a recon-
sideration of the coin showed that there were noticeable
similarities between the figure on the coin and the statue in
the Louvre; that the coin reproduced with the greatest
probability the statue of the Venus Genetrix in her temple
dedicated by Caesar in the year 46 B.C.; that the statue
dedicated by Caesar was by the sculptor Arkesilaos, the well-

lxiv

known contemporary of Pasiteles, mentioned in the same
passage with him by Pliny quoting Varro; and that thus the
attribution of the type of the statue in the Louvre to the
sculptor Arkesilaos receives the very strongest support.

Mr. WALDSTEIN did not propose to enter upon the question
of the interpretation of the interesting statue of the Esquiline
Venus. He enumerated the peculiarities of style in this
statue, laying particular stress on the contrast between the
extreme delicacy and realism in the modelling of the nude
body of this figure and the return to almost archaic simplicity
and severity in the upper part of the head (nose, brow, hair).
These peculiarities he believed to be those of the school of
Pasiteles, and he therefore ventured to ascribe also this statue
to that period and school.

THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM LIBRARY

TY CENTER LIBRARY

NUCL AU MN

JAN 2 3 1979

ον tes
τσ ΣΥΣΣ Σ ΡΣ

ἈΑΣΙΣΣΣΣΣ
τ ΣΟ; τ ρυ; τς.
ὍΣΣ ΣΟΣΤΕΣ

Serene oe rae cree aa
ἘΞ ΖΑ Renata

Serr ores
bcp

25522.:.,:
ae one ἘΣ ΣΉ mpe ee a
pa ocean αν oy moma

Se ater ene

ὩΣ τ tee ata Δ anit gate Sere se oF “ ἢ Foe neta Se Pyne Pe EE
‘ perpen τος τον SE 2 cL Ce pee ee ᾿ SOE,
ae eee ta ecer eens 5 ΡΣ ΡΣ Maree Saas
Sin hae oi ear ines 3 LL ET IEE ; ἜΡΩΣ
ΞΖ ΣΣΣΕ ΤΕ ᾿ SAA aoe at po eee cea Ὦ ; ΠΣ
ΕΣ : ΡΣ ΖΟΣ 52, Per 3:::
2 Les ggg eae pect, Spa reckecatest eater cnet
LE Tipe 2 Ξ : ἘΣ ἘΜΈΕΣ ΩΣ
Ee ae Saf epia eros Eee Seana eee aerate ea
; ἜΣΤΕ aes ΖΈΣΙΣ, 3 ΠΣ, τ λυ ΕΞ ρας τ θα
Sey ae ΠΣ ee ot ae ere Baa τ τ, % Samp apcpencrees sod
ΡΤ: a ae op μη οσον igen irre, orn as crap eg Bacar We mare ὩΣ
ies Bsc Ecc ΞΟ see De ep oes L ae aT eh och MLO RET γπ
Ξ Bees

ap Cope τ ἀπε fo wee »" oe #

LOGO EL GE
1222: 5 ΕΣ 3, Ὁ, Z
C5 Eine erent
Diese top Deasin Vere ᾿ ee τ ecg :
meee reeset rece ae : : 5 ΡΣ etree ee
SS eae : 2 ἐς eevee 2 ΣΆ Sar Γ ΡΣ ore
Bilao alert

eer τς
cacao porage pooper tensors ier
ἐστ ΠΣ er oe.
Lan ue οἷο om,

C4
ree

er ἜΣ,

"τ᾽

CS i seta

; Steet A Shp oanePadopogon! prec ce.
Seip itioius ce haat enaad
nape cle pe touche the wahoo Pe ee δ, <r
4 Geil eaten aha al

β ai Sch aoe eet etme

Ad as ΣΡ 25:

i Acearetesa vee πο συν 4 ESI ETE EI

Ne ἱ = eres oa sane Aide ide ie te lh do de tap ar oe he teh hag we
ee Bie on ae bank te bt bn nee ip oe ee ρον ΨΡ SEE, Sica No doa