ie Aakad
LIL,
wa Shy
eee ἼΞΕΡΣΣ
βου τ τ ττ
Ἐξ τ τττ, are
=
οτος τ τε τα τς τὶ
orion
oor
tig:
Soa
ΠΟ ἹΣ on
Rese ΖΞ
ey
Le ᾿ :
γι.
ΠΣ Tai *
a
re Ne Saal
= ~ aa
a
THERE JOURNAL
OF
HEHELLENIC STUDIES
THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES
THE JOURNAL
OF
HELLENIC STUDIES
VOLUME VIII
1887
KRAUS REPRINT
Nendeln/Liechtenstein
1971
Reprinted by permission of
THE SOCIETY FOR PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES
KRAUS REPRINT
A Dwision of
KRAUS-THOMSON ORGANIZATION LIMITED
Nendeln/Liechtenstein
1971
Printed in Germany
CONTENTS.
PAT
ἘΠ Bue Pee Stok Sat POU UD tt ska see se ys sw 8 xi
Lastipf .Officars.and Mombers εἰσιν τ νιονδ «swe .edeele. 2. xix
SNE UREPORT ee ee ene ne tae ad oes XXxix
Transactions of the Society—1887 . . .«, wuslismewseets . +s xlvii
1. A Rhyton in Form of a Sphinx. Plates LXXII.-I1I.—A. 8S,,Murray. |
2, Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias, II]. Books IX. X., I. 1-38,
Plates LXXIV.-VIII.—F. Imnoor-Biumer and P. GARDNER. . 6
ὃ. Exagvatiqnaim Carin. — Wak PATON s").%a eyyolaio’) wallwhoe. « . . 64
ar ieson 1, 1 ORS ee * Oe eee ee ner eae rs 83
5. Two Naucratite Vases. Plate LXXIX.—E. A.GARDNER...... 119
6. The Trial Scene in Ziiad XVIIIL—WaAuttTER LEAF ......... 122
7. The Homeric Talent :-its Origin, Values, and Affinities. —W. Ripcrway 133
8. Recently Discovered Archaic Statues\—E. A. GARDNER. ...... 150
9, The Lombards and Venetians in Euboia, 1303-1340.—J. B. Bury 194
10. An Inscription from Boeae.x—E, A. GARDNER... 2... ..... 214
11. Notes on a Tour in Asia Minor.—A. H. SMITH .......... 216
12. Vases Representing the Judgment of Paris. (Note.)........ 268
13. Two Vases from Cyprus (Pls. LX XXI. and LXXXII.).—A.S. Murray. 317
14. The Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles (Pl. LXXX.).—A. MICHAELIS 324
15. Inscriptions from Salonica.—D. G. HoGARTH ........... 356
16. Apollo Lermenus.—D. G. Hocartu and W. M. Ramsay... .. . 376
17. A Thasian Decree, iy Τὸ, HIGEA. gastiendnet> sah won smell + + = 401
18. Inscriptions from Thasos.—E. L. Hicks and J.T. Bent ...... 409
19. Itys and Aedon: a Panaitios Cylix.—J. E. HarrisoN ....... 439
20. Vases from Calymnos and Carpathos (Ρ]. LXXXIII.).—W. R. Paton. 440
21. The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, II—W. M. Ramsay. ... . 461
vi CONTENTS.
PAGE
SUPPLEMENT.
Excavations in Greece, 886-42... αν τς το nes oo 269
Sculpture and Epigraphy, 1886-7 .....-...-.++-+.--.--. 278
NOTICES OF BOOKS.
(A) Art and Manufacture—
Petrie’s ‘Naukratis’; Reinach’s ‘Conseils aux Voyageurs Arché-
ologues’ ; Furtwiingler’s ‘ Beschreibung der Vasensammlung
im Antiquarium’ ; Klein’s ‘Griechische Vasen mit Meister-
signaturen’; Klein’s ‘ Euphronios’ ; Winter’s ‘Jiingere At-
tische Vasen’; Morgenthau’s ‘Zusammenhang der Bilder
auf Griechischen Vasen’ ; Schneider’s ‘ Troische Sagenkreis’ ;
Vogel’s ‘Scenen Euripideischer Tragédien in Griechischen
‘Vascngemdlden! sai oe cane wo ee <a ae at 286
Pottier and Reinach’s ‘ Nécropole de Myrina’; Furtwangler and
Léschcke’s ‘Mykenische Vasen’; Heydemann’s ‘Jason in
Colchis’ ; Robert’s ‘Archiiologische Mirchen’; Urlich’s
‘Ueber griechische Kunstschriftsteller’; Robinson’s ‘ De-
scriptive Catalogue of Casts at Boston’; Ronchaud’s ‘ Par-
thenon ;Collionon’sPhidias νὴ. τον τ Ξ| 520
(B) Inscriptions—
Meisterhans’ ‘Grammatik der Attischen Inschriften’; Collitz’
‘Sammlung der Griechischen Dialektinschriften’ ; Loewy’s
‘Inschriften Gucchischer Bildhauer’; Reinach’s ‘Traité
d’Epigraphie grecque’ ; Ma ote ‘Inscriptiones Tyrae,
ΟἹ Ια. "aes y a ΡΥ artes) a es ok rable ἊΣ . 299
Kirchhoff’s ‘Studien,’ Ed. — Roberts’ ‘Introduction to
Greek Epigraphy: *s:3 οι. 20 sunlit oa oan? op ook 533
(Ὁ) ITistory and Antiquitics—
Lusolt’s ‘ Griechische Geschichte,’ Vol. I.; Max Duncker’s ‘ His-
tory of Greece,’ Vols. I. II.; Holm’s ‘ Griechische Geschichte,’
Vol. I.; Head’s ‘ Historia Numorum’; Beloch’s ‘ Beviélke-
rung der Griechisch-romischen Welt’. ......... . 809
Studniezka’s ‘Altgriechische Tracht’; Helbig’s ‘ Homerische
Epos aus den Denkmiilern erliiutert,’ Ed. II.; Gardner’s
‘Greek Coins of Peloponnesus’ ; Haverfield’s ‘ Topographical
Model of Syracuse’
INDEX To Vorumrs Ville. ΗΝ οὐ ee ee ee Ν 541
CLASSIFIED TABLE OF CONTENTS.
1.—EXCAVATION AND TRAVEL.
J. T. Bent.—Inscriptions from Thasos. . . . . «00.05.66
E. A. GARDNER.—Recently discovered Archaic Statues .
Ὁ. G. Hocartu.—Apollo Lermenus. .......
W. R. Paron.—Excavations in Caria
A. H. Smitu.—Notes on a Tour in Asia Minor
ἘΣ 1 ae ae
Pion isl Ge em, |e
I].—ART AND MANUFACTURE.
E, A. GARDNER.—Two Naucratite Vases .
J. E. Harnison.—Itys and Aedon, a Panaitios Cylix
F. ImHoor-BivmMrer and P. GARpDNER.—Numismatic Commentary on
PSUSHNIAR ELLs css. vues
A. Micnariis.—The Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles
A. S. Murray.—A Rhyton in form of a Sphinx
δι ἊΝ Two Vases from Cyprus. .....
W. R. Paton.—Vases from Calymnos and Carpathos
I11.—INSCRIPTIONS.
Εν A. GAnpNER.—An Inscription from Boeae .
Rg: oh CT ee κι ε.
Pr A Thasian Decree .
" », Inscriptions from Thasos .
D. ἃ. Hocarrnx.—Inscriptions from Salonica .
PP Apollo Lermenus. . .
a) a's; ide mie Oe ἄν el κα
ee tae |
viii CLASSIFIED TABLE OF CONTENTS.
IV.—HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES.
J. G. Bury.—The Lombards and Venetians in Euboia, 1303-40 . . .. .
W. Lear.—The Trial Scene in Jad XVIII. ......2.2.2-...-
W. M. Ramsay.—The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, II. ..... .
W. Ripceway.—The Homeric Talent: its Origin, Value, and Affinities .
LIST OF WOOD-CUTS, &c.
PAGE
Wialivat assert (Carian 51 2) τόν vs + 9% Le Howes Saree 64
RRR MAELO ἀν J. oe as uw ai. dP owt τὰς ἡ πὶ δα ee oe am he 66
ΠΝ EA UE λυ ξεν ne oasis os 9 tg τῶ ρῶν ae 67, 72, 78, 79, 80
Pottarytiput Assert Gene NORMA ot OMT 69, 71, 74, 75, &c.
Fibula from Assarlik. ... 1... 5s siunh εἱ Pare mtene «eed daria Tt
Archaic Statues, Athenian Acropolis. ...... εν 8, θα, 18.,. kat
Head from Temple of Apollo Ptous . . ΠΕ yh ee 184
Statue from Temple SATO SE COM ie, eerie ese Sey Sack bien ἡ πως 188
Map-or part of Phrygia τὴ, i. So is oo ἘΝ Aaa ak aed, “ie 267
Plan to shew place of Recent Excavations on Athenian Acropolis .... 269
Plan of Propylaea, Olympieium, Athens ........ ὅτ tay λων ἐΐὰ 272
Pian Gia heme atCommth cer. Bee wii Ak) wt shlametiet sa, veo tee 275
Sketcuebianotelheatre a ΘΙΟΥΟΝΝΝ τ᾿ «45 6% + ues) es σον ἐμ « 6 276
Statue of Cnidian Aphrodite, Vatican (Perrier, Kraus, and Visconti). . . 828
Coins of. Cnidus with Figure of Aphrodite . . ...'1 2 ese es 840
ΒΒ ΘΙ Θ᾽ of Aphrodite, Tarsus: - eas ns se lk ὁ ἢ Ὁ 345
Vatican and Munich Statues of Aphrodite ........+.4.+2++.-. 347
mead of Aphrodite: Olympia, (Plate)... . 0... 2.1 ee ee 353
PIR ΠΗ͂ΜΑ COO OS fete be ss ee 8 a ee le μὴν ΔῈ 440, 441
aan G Me ΠΡΟΤῚ ΑΙ ΝΥΠΤΘΝΑ. αν, τς τ κτὖ = Oa sos νὰ γεν ἀκ. τς ς 447
ΝΟ MERE el wa ns. τς ee Πρ τς 461
PLATE
LXXII.
LXXIII.
LXXIV.
LXXV.
LAXVI,
LXXVII.
LAXVIII.
LXXIX.
LXXX.
LXXXI,.
LXXXII.
LXXXIII.
LIST OF PLATES.
A Rhyton in the Form of a Sphinx; British Museum. Autotype
print.
Painting from the same Vase; Subject, Childhood of Erichthonius.
Drawn by F. Anderson ; lithographed by W. Griggs.
| Photographs from Casts of Coins of Phocis, Boeotia, Athens, &c.,
; in illustration of Pausanias. Executed by Brunner and Co.,
Winterthur.
͵
Two Fragments of Pottery from Naukratis. Drawn by F, Anderson ;
lithographed by W. Griggs.
The Cnidian Aphrodite, Vatican. Autotype print.
Vase from Cyprus: Female Figures. Drawn by Εν Anderson, Jun, ;
lithographed by W. Griggs.
Red-figured Vase from Cyprus: Subject, Death of Sphinx. Drawn
by F, Anderson, Jun, Autotype print.
Vases from Calymnos and Carpathos, Drawn by F. Anderson, Jun. ;
printed by the Clarendon Press.
RULES
OF THI
SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF
HELLENIC STUDIES.
1. THE objects of this Society shall be as
follows :—
I. To advance the study of Greek language,
literature, and art, and to illustrate the history of
the Greek race in the ancient, Byzantine, and Neo-
Hellenic periods, by the publication of memoirs and
unedited documents or monuments in a Journal to be
issued periodically.
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 οἱ
ΧΙ
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.
xiii
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.
to. All questions before the Council shall be
determined by a majority of votes. The Chairman
to have a casting vote.
11. The Council shall prepare an Annual Report,
to be submitted to the Annual Meeting of the
Society.
12. The Secretary shall give notice in writing to
each Member of the Council of the ordinary days of
meeting of the Council, and shall have authority to
summon a Special and Extraordinary Meeting of the
Council on a requisition signed by at least four
Members of the Council.
13. Two Auditors, not being Members of the
Council, shall be elected by the Society in each
year.
14. A General Meeting of the Society shall be held
in London in June of each year, when the Reports of
the Council and of the Auditors shall be read, the
Council, Officers, and Auditors for the ensuing year
elected, and any other business recommended by
the Council discussed and determined. Meetings
of the Society for the reading of papers may
be held at such times as the Council may fix, due
notice being given to Members.
15. The President, Vice-Presidents, Treasurer,
Secretaries, and Council shall be elected by the
Members of the Society at the Annual Meeting.
ε
NV
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 Mecting.
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
lie manner be provisionally filled up by the Council
until the next Annual Meeting.
XV
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-
datcs 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 15s., entitling
compounders to be Members of the Society for
life, without further payment.
26. The payment of the Annual Subscription, or
of the Life Composition, entitles each Member to
receive a copy of the ordinary publications of the
Society.
27. When any Member of the Society shall be six
months in arrear of his Annual Subscription, the
Secretary or Treasurer shall remind him of the
arrears due, and in case of non-payment thereof
within six months after date of such notice, such
defaulting Member shall cease to be a Member of
the Society, unless the Council make an order to
the contrary.
28. Members intending to leave the Society must
send a formal notice of resignation to-the Secretary
on or before January 1 ; otherwise they will be held
liable for the subscription for the current year.
29. If at any time there may appear cause for the
expulsion of a Member of the Society, a Special
Meeting of the Council shall be held to consider the
case, and if at such Meeting at least two-thirds of
"ee
XVI
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.
so. 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.
xvli
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.
ΧΥΠῚ
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.
Mr. GEORGE MACMILLAN (fon. Sec.).
Mr. ERNEST MYERS.
REV. W. G. RUTHERFORD, LL.D.
Mr. E. MAUNDE THOMPSON.
REV. W. WaAYTE (Hon. 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 1887-1888.
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.
PROF. PERCY GARDNER, Lirt.D.
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. C. T. NEWTON, C.B.
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. H. F. TOZER.
PROF. R. Y. TYRRELL.
Council.
MR. J. THEODORE BENT.
PROF. §. H. BUTCHER.
MR. INGRAM BYWATER.
REV. PROF. LEWIS CAMPBELL.
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.
REV. H. A. HOLDEN, LL.D.
REV. PROF. HORT, D.D.
MR. HENRY JACKSON, Litr.D.
MR. ANDREW LANG.
MR. WALTER LEAF.
THE, RT. HON. LORD LINGEN,
-
MR. W. WATKISS LLOYD.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, Bart.,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.
PROF. W. M. RAMSAY.
REV. W. G. RUTHERFORD, LL.D.
MR. A. HAMILTON SMITH.
MR. J. E. SANDYS.
MR. J. R. THURSFIELD.
MR. E. B. TYLOR, D.C.L., F.R.S.
MR. CHARLES WALDSTEIN.
REV. W. WAYTE.
MR. HERMAN WEBER, M.D.
Treasurer.
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK, Bart., M.P.
Hon. Secretary.
MR. GEORGE A. MACMILLAN,
Assistant Secretary.
MR. W. RISELEY.
Editorial Committee.
MR. INGRAM BYWATER.
PROF. PERCY GARDNER.
REV. PROF. HORT.
PROF. R. C. JEBB.
Auditors for 1887-88.
MR. DOUGLAS W. FRESHFIELD. |
MR. J. B. MARTIN,
Bankers.
MESSRS. ROBARTS, LUBBOCK, & CO., LOMBARD STREET.
CAMBRIDGE BRANCH
OF
THE: SOCIETY FOR THE* PROMOTION
OF HELLENIC STUDIES.
OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE FOR 1886-1887.
Chairman.
Rev. B. H. Kennepy, D.D.
Vice-Chairman.
ΜΕ. J. E. Sanpys, Litt.D.
Committee.
Mr. Oscar BROWNING. REv. E. S. RoBERTs.
Mr. Henry Jackson, Litt.D. Mr. ARTHUR TILLEY,
REv. 5. 5. Lewis. Mr. A. W. VERRALL.
ProF. J. H. MIDDLETON. Mr. Ὁ. WALDSTEIN.
Mr. J. S. Rep, Litt.D.
Bon. Seeretarp.
Mr. M. 5. DimMSDALE, K1NG’s COLLEGE.
XXI
HONORARY MEMBERS.
His Majesty the King of the Hellenes.
Mr. Alfred Biliotti, W.2B.47. Consul at Trebizond.
Prof. H. Brunn, Konigliche Museen, Munich.
Prof. Ὁ. Comparetti, /stituto di Studit Superiori, Florence.
M. Alexander Contostavlos, Athens.
Geheimrath Prof. Ernst Curtius, A/atthai Kirchstrasse 4, Berlin.
Mr. George Dennis, 1.2.17. Consul at Smyrna.
Herr Wilhelm Dorpfeld, Ph.D., Director of the German Imperiat
Institute, Athens.
Monsieur P. Foucart, Director of the French School, Athens.
His Excellency Monsieur J. Gennadius, Minister for Greece,
5, St. Fames’ Street, S.W.
Prof. W. Helbig, Casa Tarpeia, Monte Caprino, Rome.
Prof. A. Kirchhoff, University, Berlin.
Dr. H. Kohler,
Prof. S. A. Kumanudes, University, Athens.
Mr. Charles Merlin, 10, Observatory Gardens, Campden Hill,W.
Prof. A. Michaelis, University, Strassburg.
Monsieur B. E. Ὁ, Miller, Membre de PInstitut, 25, Rue de
L’Université, Paris.
Monsieur A. R. Rangabé, Ministre Hellénique, Berlin.
Prof. L. Stephani, Hermitage, St. Petersburg.
His Excellency Monsieur ὟΝ. H. Waddingtor., Membre de
UInstitut, French Embassy, Albert Gate, S.W.
M. le Baron J. de Witte, M7. de ?Inst., Rue Fortin 5, Paris.
Mr. Thomas Wood, H.B.M. Consul at Patras.
His Excellency, Hamdy Bey, Keeper of the Museum of
Antiquities, Constantinople.
LIST OF MEMBERS.
* Original Members. ὁ Life Members.
The ether 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, Chapel Street, Belgrave
Square, S.W.
tAbrahall, 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.
ΧΧῚΙ
Ainger, A. C., Eton College, Windsor.
Aitchison, G., A.R.A., 150, Harley Street, W.
Amherst, W. A. Tyssen, M.P., Didlington Hall, Brandon.
Anderson, J. R., Lairbeck, Keswick.
Anderson, W. C. F., Orel College, Oxford.
*Antrobus, Rev. Frederick, 714 Oratory, S.W.
Archer-Hind, R. D., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Argyropoulos, Georges A.
*Armstrong, E., Queen’s College, Oxford.
Armstrong, Prof. G. F., Queen’s College, Cork.
Atkinson, Rev. E., D.D., Master of Clare College, Cambridge.
Baddeley, W. St. Clair, 5, Albert Hall Mansions, S.W.
Bagley, Mrs. John, Washington Avenue, Detroit, Michigan.
Baker, Rev. William, D.D., Merchant Taylors’ School, E.C.
*Balfour, G. W., M.P., 32, Addison Road, W.
“Balfour, Right Hon. A. J., M.P., 4, Carlton Gardens, S.W.
Ball, Sidney, St. John’s College, Oxford.
Barlow, Miss Anne, Greenthorne, Edgworth, Bolton.
Barlow, Mrs., 10, Wimpole Street, W.
Barnewall, Sir Reginald A., Bart., 6, Paré Street, Grosvenor
Square, W.
Bath, The Marquis of, Longleat, Warminster.
Bayfield, Rev. M.A., Zhe College, Malvern.
t+ Beaumont, Somerset, Shere, near Gutldford.
Belcher, Rev. Henry, High School, Dunedin, Otago, N.Z.
Belcher, Rev. T. Hayes, The College, Brighton.
Bell, Rev. William, The College, Dover.
Benachi, L. A., 26, Linnet Lane, Sefton Park, Liverpool.
+ Benn, 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.
TBikelas, Demetrius, 4, Rue de Babylone, Paris.
Birdwood, Sir George C. M., C.S.1., 7, Aspley Terrace, Acton, W.
Blacker, C., 12, Sussex Square, Hyde Park, W.
Blackstone, F. E., British Museum, W.C,
Blomfield, A. W.,A.R.A.,6, Montagu Place,Montagu Square,W,
Blore, Rev. Dr., St. Stephen’s, Canterbury.
Boase, Rev. C. W., Exeter College, Oxford.
Bodingten, Prof. N., Principal of the Yorkshire College, Leeds.
Bond, Edward, C.B., British Museum, W.C.
Bond, Edward, £/m Bank, Hampstead, N.W.
Bosanquet, B., 131, Edury Street, S.W.
Bosanquet, Rev. F. C. T., Exfield Cottage, Sandown, I. of W.
Bousfield, William, 33, Stanhope Gardens, S.W.
Bowen, Lord Justice (V.P.), 1, Cornwall Gardens, S.W.
Bowen, Rt. Hon. Sir George F., G.C.M.G., DCL: 11...
Atheneum Club, Pall Mall, S.W.
xxii
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., Cudvers Close, Winchester.
Branteghem, A. van, Bristol Hotel, Burlington Gardens, W,
Broadbent, H., Eton College, Windsor.
*Brodie, E. H., A.M.1.S., St. John’s House, Worcester,
Brooke, A. S., King’s College, Cambridge.
Brooke, Rev. Stopford A., 1, Manchester Square, W.
Brown, Colville, 55, Ashournham Road, Bedford.
Brown, Prof. ἃ. Baldwin, The University, Edinburgh.
Browne, Rev. Prof. G. F., St. Catherine’s Coll., Cambridge.
Browning, Robert, 29, De Vere Gardens, W.
*Browning, Oscar, King’s College, Cambridge.
*Bryce, James, D.C.L., M.P., 35, Bryanston Square, W.
Burkitt, F. C., Zrinity College, Cambridge.
*Burn, Rev. Robert, Trinity College, Cambridge.
Bury, J. B., Trinity College, Dublin.
Butcher, Prof. S. H. (Council), The University, Edinburgh.
*Butler, The Rev. H. M., D.D. (V.P.), Master of Trin. Coll. Camb.
Butler, Arthur J.. Wood End, Weyoridge.
Butler, Rev. Canon George, Winchester.
Buxton, F. W., 42, Grosvenor Gardens, S.W.
Bywater, Ingram (Couneil), 93, Onslow Square, S.W.
+ Bywater, Mrs., 93, Onslow Square, S.W.
Calvert, Rev. Thomas, 15, A/bany 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., 13, Rue Monsigny, Paris.
Canterbury, The Most Rev. His Grace the Lord Archbishop
of, Lambeth Palace, S.E.
Capes, Rev. W. W., Bramshott, Liphook, Hants.
Cardpanos, Constantin, Deputé, Athens.
*Carlisle, A. D., Hatleybury College, Hertfordshire.
tCarr, Rev. A., St. Sebastian's Vicarage, Wokingham.
Cates, Arthur, 12, Fork Terrace, Regent's Park.
Cave, Lawrence T., 13, Lowndes Square, S.W.
Chambers, C. Gore, The Grammar School, Bedford.
Chambers, F. C., Langley Lodge, Beckenham, Kent.
Chambers, C. E., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Chavasse, A. S., University College, Oxford.
t+Chawner, G., Kiny’s College, Cambridge.
tChawner, W., Emmanuel College, Cambridge.
Chester, The Right Rev. the Bishop of, Chester.
Chettle, H., Stationers’ School, Bolt Court, E.C.
*Christie, R. C., Glenwood, Virginia Water, Staines.
xxiv
Christian, Rev. G., Redgate, Uppingham.
*Church, Very Rev. R. W., D.C.L. (V.P.), Zhe Deanery, St.
Paul's, E.C.
Clark, P. E., 2, Culverden Park, Tunbridge Wells.
Clark, W. Gilchrist, King’s College, Cambridge.
Clarke, Henry, 14, Ladbroke Grove, W.
fT Clarke, Hyde, 32, St. George’s Square, S.W.
Clarke, Joseph Thacher, College Road, Harrow, N.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., Zhe Lodge, Felixstowe, Suffolk.
*Cobham, C. Delaval, H.38.M. Commissioner, Larnaca, Cyprus.
Cohen, Mrs., 30, Hyde Park Gardens, W.
Colby, Rev. Dr., Litton Cheney, Dorsetshire.
Cole, A. C., 64, Portland Place, W.
*Colvin, Sidney (V.P.), British Museum, W.C.
Compton, Rev. W. C., Uppingham.
Comyn, John S., M Ὄ. , 32, Dawson Place, Bayswater, W.
*Constantinides, Peas M., Doddleston House, Kirchen Road,
Ealing Dean.
Conway, W. M., Savile Club, 107, Piccadilly, W.
Conybeare, C. A. V., M.P., 40, Chancery Lane, W.C.
Cookson, C., St, Paul’s School, Kensington, W.
Cookson, C. A., C.B., 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, W. 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.
Crewdson, Wiison, 60, Courtfield Gardens, S.W.
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., Trintty 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., Newton House, Surbiton, S.W.
Deibel, Dr., care of Messrs. Asher, Berlin.
XXV
* 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.
Donaldson, Rev. S. A., Eton College, Windsor.
Donaldson, James, LL.D., Principal of The University, St.
Andrews.
Donkin, E. H., The School, Sherborne, Dorset.
Drisler, Prof. Henry, Columbia College, New York, U.S.A.
Drummond, Allan, 7, Enazsmore Gardens, S.W.
Duchataux, M. V., 12, Rue de δ᾿ Echauderie, ἃ Reims.
Duhn, Prof. von, University, Heidelberg.
Duke, Roger, 8, Neville Terrace, Onslow Square, S.W.
*+ Durham, Rt. Rev. the Bishop of (President), Auckland Castle
Bishop Auckland.
Earl, Mrs. A. G., Grammar School, Tonbridge.
Edmonds, Mrs., Cartsbrook, Blackheath, S.E.
Edwards, G. M., Stdney Sussex Coll., Cambridge.
Edwards, Miss Amelia B., The Larches, Westbury-on-Trym.
Bristol.
Eld, Rev. F. 7., Zze Grammar School, Worcester.
Ellis, Robinson, 7rinity College, Oxford.
Eliot, C. N. E., British Embassy, St. Petersburgh.
Elton, Charles, Q.C., M.P. (Council), 10, Cranley Place, Onslow |
Square, S.W.
Elwell, Levi H., Amherst College, Amherst, Mass.
Ely, Talfourd, Spandauer Berg 2, Westend, bet Charlottenburg,
Berlin.
t+Escott, Rev. W. W. S., King Henry's School, Coventry.
Eumorfopoulo, A., 1, K ensington Park Gardens, W.
Evans, A. J. (Council), 33, Holywell, Oxford.
Evans, John, D.C.L., F.R.S., Mash Mills, Hemel Hempstead.
Eve, Hz: 'W., 37, Gordie Square, W.C,
Everard, C. HG Eton Colle. oe, Windsor.
Farnell, L. R. (Gonwen): Exeter College, Oxford.
Farrar, 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, "1".
Flather, J. H., Cavendish College, Cambridge.
Flower, Wickham, O/d Swan House, Chelsea, S.W.
+ Forbes, W. H., Lalliol College, Oxford.
Ford, His Bxcelleriecy Sir Francis Clare, K.C. at ΟΠ ΈΒΒΝ:
.\inassador, AZadrid.,
ΧΧΥῚ
Foster, Prof. Michael, M.D., Sec. R.S., Shelford, Cambridge.
Fowler, Harold N., Ph.D., Harvard College, Cambriage,
Mass.
*Fowler, Rev. Professor, President of Corpus Christi College
Oxford.
*Fowler, Sir Robert, Bart., M.P., 137, Harley Street, W.
Fowler, W. W., Lincoln College, Oxford.
Fox, Ernest Long, 18, Vean’s Yard, Westminster, S.W.
+ Franks, A. W., F.R.S., British Museum, WC.
Frazer, J. G., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Freeman, C. E., Parkhouse, Southborough, Tunbridge Weus.
*Freeman, Edward A., D.C.L. (Council), Somerleaze, Wells,
Somerset.
*Freshfield, Douglas W,, 1, Airlie Gardens, Campden Hill, W
+ Freshfield, Edwin, 5, Baxk Buildings, E.C.
Freston, Henry W., Zagle’s Nest, Prestwich, Lan.
*Fry, F. J., Eversley, Leigh Wood, Clifton.
Furneaux, L. R., Rossall School, Fleetwood.
Furneaux, Rev. W. M., Repton Hall, Burton-on-Trent.
Fyffe, C. A., 64, Lexrham Gardens, South Kensington.
tGardner, E. A. (Council), 13, Oak Hill, Hampstead, N. W.
*+ Gardner, Prof. Percy, Litt.D. (V.P.), 31, Vorham Rd., Oxford.
Gardner, Miss Alice, Newnham College, Cambridge.
Geddes, W. D. (V.P.), Principal of the University, Aberdeen.
Gibson, Mrs. Margaret D., Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
Giles, P., Catus College, Cambridge.
Gilkes, A. H., The College, Dulwich, S.E.
Gilliat, Rev. Ε., Harrow, N.W.
Glazebrook, M. G., Harrow, N.W.
Goodhart, H. C., 7r¢nzty College, Cambridge.
Goodrick, Rev. A. T. S., St. Fohn’s College, Oxford.
Goodwin, Prof. A., University College, Gower Street, W.C.
*Goodwin, Prof. W. W., Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass.
U.S.A.
tGordon, 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., High School, Nottingham.
Gray, Rev. H. B., Bradjeld 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’.
Gwatkin, Rev. T., 74, Revent Strect, Caumbridze.
XXxvli
Hager, Herman, Ph.D., Owens College, Manchester.
Hall, Rev. F. H., Oriel College, Oxford.
Hall, Rev. F. J., Wymondley House, Stevenage, Herts.
Hall, W. H.. Szx Mile Bottom, Cambs.
Hallam, G. H., Byron House, Harrow, N.W.
*Hamerton, P. G., Pré Charmoy, Autun, Sabne-et-Loire, France.
t+Hammond, B. E., 7rintty College, Cambridge.
*Hammond, W. A., King’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, 29, Lennox Gardens, δ.
t Harrison, Miss J. E., 45 (D), Colvzlle Gardens, W.
Harrison, Mrs. Robert, 73, Cromwell Road, S.W.
Harrower, Prof. John, Zhe University, Aberdeen.
Hartshorne, B. F., 41, Elm Park Garaens, Chelsea, S.W.
Haslam, S., The School, Uppingham.
Hatch, Rev. E., Vice-Principal, St. Mary’s Hall, Oxford.
*Haussoullier, M., 37, Rue Vaneau, Paris.
+Haverfield, F. J., Lancing College, Shoreham.
Hawes, Miss E. P., 89, Oxford Terrace, W.
tHay, C. A., 127, Harley Street, W.
tHaynes, Miss Lucy, 7, Zhornton ΕΠ 1, Wimbledon.
Hazzopulo, S., Bella Vista, Manchester.
Headlam, A. C., Ad] Souls’ College, Oxford.
Heard, Rev. W. A., 2, Little Dean’s Yard, Westminster, S. ii’.
t+Heathcote, W. E., 114, Edury Street, S.W.
Heberden, C. B., Brasenose College, Oxford.
Hedgcock, Mrs. Harrison, 21, Caversham Road, N.W’.
Herschell, The Rt. Hon. Lord, 46, Grosvenor Gardens, 5. 11΄-
Hervey, H., 12, Lowndes Street, W.
*Heydemann, Dr. Heinrich, Zhe University, Halle.
Hicks, John Power, Clifton Lodge, Blomfield Road, Muida
Hill, W.
Hicks, Rev E. L., Hulme Hall, Manchester.
*Hirschfeld, Prof. Gustave, Ph.D. Konigsberg, Germany.
Hobhouse, Walter, Hertford College, Oxford.
Hodgson, F. C., Education Department, Whitehall.
+ Hodgson, J. Stewart, 1, Audley Square, W.
Hogarth, David G., Magdalen College, Oxford.
*Holden, Rev. H.A., LL.D. (Council), 20, Redcliffe Sguare,S. IV.
Holiday,Henry, Oak Tree House, Branch Hill,Hampstead, N. ΗΖ,
Holland, Miss Emily, 19, Ridgway Place, Wimbledon.
Holland, Miss Lilian, 56, Forchester Terrace, W.
Hollway-Calthrop, H. C., Stanxhoe Hall, King's Lynn.
*Homolle, M., Nancy, France.
Hopkins, Prof. Gerard M., S.J., Unzversity College, Dublin.
Hornby, Rev. J. J., D.D., Provost of Eton College, Windsor.
XXV1i1
Hort, Rev. Prof., Ὁ. Ὁ. (Council), S¢. Peter's Terrace, Cambridge.
Howorth, Henry H., M.P., Bentcliffe, Eccles, Manchester.
Hiigel, Baron Friedrich von, 4, Holford Road, Hampstead, N.W.
Hughes, Rev. W. Hawker, Jesus College, Oxford.
Hunt, William, Pen Villa, Yeovil.
Inge, W. R., Eton College, Windsor.
Ingram, J. K., LL.D. (V.P.), Zrinity College, Dublin.
tlonides, Alex. A., 1, Holland Park, W.
lIonides, Luke A., 17, Upper Phillimore Gardens, Kensington, W,
Jackson, Henry, Litt.D.(Council), Trinzty College, Cambridge.
Jackson, Rev. Blomfield, King's College School, Strand.
Jackson, Rev. W. W., Exeter College, Oxford.
Jackson, T. G., 11, Nottingham Place, Marylebone, W.
*James, The Very Rev. H.A., The Deanery, S. Asaph.
James, Rev. S. R., Eton College, Windsor.
Jeans, Rev. G. E., Shorwell, Newport, Isle of Wight.
*Jebb, Prof. R. C., LL.D., Litt.D. (V.P.), University, Glasgow.
Jenkinson, F. J. H., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Jenner, Charles, Easter Duddingston Lodge, Portobello, Mid-
Lothian.
Jenner, Louis Leopold C. A., 7rinzty 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., Osborne House, Bolton Gardens South, S.W.
Jones, E. Burne, A.R.A., The Grange, North-end Road, Fulham.
Joynt, J. W., Trinity 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. H., D.D., The Elms, Cambridge.
Ker, Prof. W. P., 203, Newport Road, Caratf.
Kieffer, Prof. John B , 230, Lancaster Avenue, Lancaster Pa.,
U.S.A:
King, Rev. J. R., $4. Peter’s Vicarage, Oxford.
Lacaita, Sir James, K.C.M.G.,27, Duke Street, St. Fames’, S.W.
Lamb, J. G., 25, Verulam Street, Liverpool.
Lambros, Spiridion, Athens.
*Lang, R. Hamilton, O/toman Bank, 26, Throgmorton St., E.C.
Lang, Andrew (Council), 1, Marloes Road, Kensington, W.
Lathbury, Miss Maria, 19, Lingfield Road, Wimbledon.
Lathbury, Miss Mary, 19, Lingfield Road, Wimbledon, S.W.
Layard, Sir Austen Henry, K.C.B., 1, Queen Anne’s Street, W.
Leaf, Herbert, Pains Hill, Cobham, Surrey.
t Leaf, Walter (Council), Old Change, E.C.
Leathes, Stanley, 77incty College, Cambridge.
Leeper, Alexander, arden of Trinity Coilege, Melbourne,
Australia.
XXIX
Leigh, Rev. A. Austen, Vice Provost, King’s Coll., Cambridge.
Leigh, W. Austen, King’s College, Cambridge
Leighton, Sir Frederick, Bart., P.R.A., Holland Park Road, W.
Lewis, Harry, 51, Holland Park Road, Kensington, W.
+ Lewis, Prof. T. Hayter, 12, Kensington Gardens Square, W.
*+ Lewis, Rev. 5. S., Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.
+ Lewis, Mrs. S. 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, Ktdbrook Ter., Shooter's Hill Rd., S.E.
Lindley, William, 10, Kzdbrook Ter., Shooter's Hill Rd., S.E.
Lingen, The Right Hon. Lord, K.C.B. (Council), 13, Wetherby
Gardens, S.W.
Litchfield, R. B., 31, Kensington Square, W.
Livingstone, Rev. R. G., Pembroke College, Oxford.
Lloyd, W. Watkiss (Council), 3, Kent Terrace, Regent’s
Park, N.W.
Lloyd, Miss A. M., Caythorpe Hall, Grantham,
Lloyd-Roberts, H., 1, Pump Court, Temple.
tLock, Rev. W., Keble College, Oxford.
Loring, Frederick, Kurfirstenstrasse 77, Berlin.
Lowell, J. Russell.
*Lubbock, Sir John, Bart., M.P. (Treasurer), High Εἴη,
Hayes, Kent.
Ludlow, T. W., Cottage Lawn, Yonkers, 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., Eton College, Windsor.
Lytton, His Excellency the Right Hon. the Earl of, H.B.M.
Ambassador, Parts.
*Macan, R. W., University College, Oxford.
Mackail, J. W., 2, Mandeville Place, W.
MacEwen, Rev. Alex. Robertson, 4, Woodside Place, Glasgow.
Macmillan, Alexander, 29, Bedford 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 Square, Lincoln’s
Inn, W.C.
McGregor, Sir Charles R., Bart., 3, Queen’s Gate, S.W.
McPherson, Miss Florence, Bank House, Maghull, Liverpool.
Magrath, Rev. J. R., Provost of Queen's College, Oxford.
Maguire, Prof. Trinity College, Dublin.
*Mahaffy, Rev. Prof. J. P., D D., Trinity College, Dublin.
ΧΊΟΝ
Mann, J. S., 6, Blandford Square, N.W’.
+ Marindin, G. E., Hilibrow, East Liss, Hants.
Margoliouth, 1). S., Mew Coliege, Oxford.
Marklove, M. W. C., 1, Lzttle Dean’s Yard, S.W.
t+ Marquand, Prof. Allan, Princeton College, New Fersey.
Marshall, G. V., Spanish Consul, Patras.
Marshall, R., Broomfeld, Duppas Hill, Croydon.
Marshall, T., Azghfield, Chapel Allerton, Leeds.
*; Martin, John B., 17, Hyde Park Gate, S.W.
t+ Martyn, Edward, 7z/lyra Castle, Ardrahan, County Galway.
Mason, H. C. F., Hazleybury College, Hertford.
Mavrogordato, Pandeli, South Sea House, Threadnecdle St.,E.C.
Merriam, Prof. A. C., American School, Athens.
* Middlemore, 5. ἃ. C., Malvern.
* Middleton, Prof. J. H. (Council), Azwg’s College, Cambriage. -
Miller, Alex., Q.C., LL.D., Clonard, Stanmore.
Miller, Thomas, 8, Gezssnar Chaussée, Gottingen, Germany.
Mills, Rev. W. H., Grammar School, Louth.
Milner, Alfred, 35, Duke Street, St. James’ Square, S.W.
Minchin, James Innes, 8, Westbvurne Park, W. ;
t+ Misto, John P., Smyrna.
*Monk, C. J., 5, Buckingham Gate, S.W.
*Monro, D.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., The School, Rugby.
* Morley, The Rt. Hon. the Earlof (V.P.), 31, Princes Gardens,S.W.
Morris, J. E., The Grammar School, Bedford.
t Morshead, Ε. Ὁ. 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.
Mount, Rev. G. B., 14, Nerham Gardens, Oxford.
Mudie, C. E., The Limes, Muswell Hill, N.
Murray, A. S. (Council), British Museum, W.C.
Murray, G. 5. D., 6, Campden Hill Road, W.
*+ Myers, Ernest (Council), 31, /uverness Terrace, W.
Myriantheus, The Archimandrite H., 104, Jnverness Ter., W-
Neil, R. A., Pembroke College, Cambridge.
Nettleship, R. L., Badliod College, Oxford.
Newman, W. L., Pittville Lawn, Cheltenham.
Newton, Sir C. T., K.C.B. (V.P.), 2, Montague Place, W.C.
Nicholson, Sir Charles, The Grange, Tottertdge, Herts.
Nicolson, Rev. W., ΤᾺΣ Bible Society’s Depot, St. Petersburg.
Northampton, The Most Noble the Marquess of, K.G., 37,
Bury Street, St. Fames, W.
*
XXXI
Ogle, J. W., M.D., 30, Cavendish Square, 11".
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., Zrinity College, Cambridge.
Parsons, Daniel, Stuart’s Lodge, Malvern Wells.
Pattengill, Prof. A. H., Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.
Pears, Edwin, 2, Rue de la Bangue, Constantinople.
Peile, John, Litt.D., Master of Christ’s College, Cambridge.
Pelham, H. F. (Council), 20, Bradmore Road, Oxford.
Pember, E. H., Q.C., Vicar’s Hill, near Lymington, Hants,
Penrose, F. C., Chapter House, St. Paul’s, E.C.
*+Percival, F. W., 36, Bryanston Street, W.
Percival, Rev. J., D.D., School House, Rugby.
*Perry, Walter C. (Council), γα, 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.
Port, Dr. H., 148, Finsbury Square, E.C.
Porter, Rev. J. L., D.D., President of Queen’ s College, Belfast.
Porter, Miss Sarah, Farmington, Connecticut, U.S.A.
tT Postgate, Prof. J. P., 7rintty College, Cambridge.
Poynter, Edward J., R.A., 28, Albert Gate, S.W.
Preston, Rev. G., King’s School, Chester.
Prickard, A. O., New College, Oxford.
Prideaux, Miss Sarah, Goldsmiths Hall, E.C.
Prothero, G. W., King’s College, Cambridge.
Pryor, Francis R., Lancaster Mansion, Savoy, W.C.
Psychari, A., Hotel Bellevue, Dresden.
Pullan, R. P., 9, Melbury Road, Kensington, W.
Radcliffe, W. W., Fonthill, East Grinstead, Sussex.
*Ralli, Pandeli, 17, Belgrave Square, S.W.
tRalli, Mrs. Stephen A., Cleveland House, Thornton Road,
Clapham Park, S.W.
tRalli, Theodore, 12, Adles des Capucines, Marseilles.
t+ Ramsay, Prof. W. M. (Council), The University, Aberdeen.
Raven, Miss, Grove Cottage, Frognal, Hampstead, N.W.
Rawlins, F. H., Eton College, Windsor.
Rawnsley, W. F., Parkhill, Lyndhurst, Hants.
Raynor, A. G. S., 3, Little Dean’s Yard, S.W.
Raynor, Rev. P. E., Christ’s College, Hobart, Tasmania.
t+ Read, General Meredith, 128, Rue La Boetie, Champs Elysces,
Parjs.
ΧΧΧΙΪ
Reeve, Henry, C.B., 62, Rutland Gate, W.
Reid, J. S., Litt.D., Cazus College, Cambridge.
+Reinach, Salomon, 31, Rue de Berlin, Paris.
Rendall, Rev. F., 20, Ladbroke Square, Notting Hill, W.
+ Rendall, Prof. G. Ἠ. » Principal of University College, Liverpool,
Renieri, M. Mano, A¢hens.
Rich, Anthony, Heene, Worthing, Sussex.
Richardson, B. W., M.D., F.R.S., 25, Manchester Square, W.
*Richardson, H., The College, Marlborough.
Richards, H., Waihi College, Oxford.
Richmond, W. B.,A.R.A.,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.
Robinson, Edward. 3
Robinson, G. G., Winton House, Winchester.
Robinson, T. Ρ. G., Ashfield, Spring Grove, Bedford.
Rogers, S. L., Grammar School, Bedford.
Rolleston, T. W. H., Fairview, Delgany, Co. Wicklow.
+Rosebery, The Right Hon. the Earl of, Lansdowne House,
Berkeley Square, W.
Rotton, J. F., 3, The Boltons, S.W.
Roundell, C. S., 16, Curzon Street, W.
Rous, Lieut.-Colonel, 14, Motcomd Street, S.W.
Rudd, Rev. Eric, Rectory, Freshwater, Isle of Wight.
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, The Cottage, Holland Park Road, W.
tSandys, J. E. (Council), Litt.D., St. John’s College, Cambridge.
Saumarez, Hon. James St. V., Bury St. Edmunds.
*ftSayce, 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.
Schuster, Ernest, 2, Lancaster Road, Belsize Park, N.W.
*Schuyler, Eugene, care of Mr. B. F. Stevens, 4, 7rafalgar
Square, W.C.
Scouloudi, Stephanos, Athens, Greece.
Seaman, Owen, Rossall, Fleetwood.
XXXIl1
*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 College, Oxford.
Sharkey, J. A., Christ’s College, Cambridge.
Sharland, S. C., Balliol College, Oxford.
Shuckburgh, E. S., Fair View, The Avenue, Cambridge.
Sidgwick, Arthur, Corpus Christi College, Oa/ford.
Sidgwick, Henry, 77inity College, Cambridge.
Sime, Donald, H.M.1.S., Bonar Bridge, Sutherland.
Simpson, H. B., 45, Gloucester Terrace, Hyde Park, W.
*Skrine, H. D., Claverton Manor, Bath.
*Skrine, Rev. J. H., Claverton Manor, Bath.
Smith, Arthur H. (Council), Riverbank, Putney, S.W.
Smith, Cecil, British Museum, W.C.
Smith, H. B., Education Office, Whitehall, S.W.
Smith, Rev. J. Hunter, Azag Edward's School, Birmingham.
TSmith, Prof. Goldwin, The Grange, Toronto, Canada.
Smith, R. J., 2, Tanfield Court, Temple, E.C.
Smith, William, LL.D. 94, Westbourne Terrace, W.
Spratt, A. W., St. Catherine's College, Cambridge.
tSnow, T. C., St. Fohn’s College, Oxford.
+Somerset, Arthur, Castle Goring, Worthing.
Sonnenschein, Prof., 7, Noel Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham.
tSouthwell, The Right Rev. the Bishop of, Thurgarton Priory,
Southwell.
Spooner, Rev. W. A., New College, Oxford.
Spratt, Vice-Admiral, C.B., Tumbridge Wells.
Spring-Rice, 5. Εἰ, 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., Bourn Vicarage, Cambridge.
*Stillman, W. J., 44, Via Gregoriana, Rome.
Stillwell, James, 1, Victoria Park, Dover.
Stogdon, J., Harrow, N.W.
Stone, Rev. E. D., Stonehouse, St. Peter’s, Isle 07 Thanet.
Strachan-Davidson, J. L., Balliol College, Oxford.
Strachan, Prof. John, Owens College, Manchester.
Street, A. R., St. Chad’s, Denstone, Uttoxeter.
*+Stuart, Sir William, K.C.B., H.B.MZ. Minister, The Hague.
Stuart, Mrs. J. Meliss, Evdstra, Ledatg, Argyllshire.
*Sturgis, Julian R., 2, Gluucester Place, Portman Square, W.
Sturgis, Russell, 304, East 17th Street, New York.
Surr, Watson, 28, Threadneedle Street, E.C.
Swanwick, Miss Anna, 23, Cumberland Terrace, N.W.
χχχὶν
*Symonds, J. A., Davos Platz, Grisons, Switzerland.
Talbot, Rev. Ε. 5. Warden of Keble College, Oxford.
Tancock, Rev. C. C:, Rossall School, Fleetwood.
Tatton, R. G., Balliol College, Oxford.
Theologos, Pantaleon, Director of the Credit Bank, Athens.
Thomas, Charles G., 12, Grafton Street, Vi’.
Thomas, Rev. T. Ll., Jesus College, Oxford.
*Thompson, E. M. (V.P.), British Museum, W.C.
Thompson, E. S., Chrést’s College, Cambridge.
Thompson, F. E., Cotton House, The College, Marlborcugh.
Thorley, G. E., Warden of Wadham College, Oxford.
Thursfield, J. R. (Council), 11, Montague Place, W.C.
Tilley, Arthur, Kzmg’s College, Cambridge.
Todhunter, John, Orchardcroft, Bedford Park, W.
’ Tottenham, H. R., St. John’s College, Cambridge.
*+Tozer, Rev. H. F. (V.P.), 18, Morham Gardens, Oxford.
TTruell, H. P., F.R.C.S., Clonmannon, Ashford, Co. Wicklow.
Tuck, Rev. A. J., The School, Uppingham.
*+Tuckett, F. F., Frenchay, near Bristol.
*Tuckerman, Hon. C. K., 12, Jacopo da Diacceto, Florence.
Tudeer, Dr. Emil, Helsingfors, Sweden.
7Turnbull, Mrs. Peverill, Saxdy-Brook Hall, Ashbourne.
Tylor, E. B., D.C.L., F.R.S. (Council), Zhe Museum House,
Oxford.
Tyrrell, Prof. R. Y. (V.P.), Zvinzty 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 Strect, Edinburgh.
*Valetta, J. N., 27, Hatherley Grove, Bayswater, W.
tValieri, Octavius, 2, Kensington Park Gardens, W.
Vanderbyl, Mrs. Philip, Merthwood, near Winchester.
Vardy, Rev. A. R., King Edwards School, Birmingham.
Vaughan, The Very Rev. C. J., Dean of Llandaff, The Temple,
EL
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.
Vince, C. A., The School, Mill Hill, N.W.
*Vincent, Sir Edgar, K.C.M.G., Cazro, Egypt.
+Wagner, Henry, 13, Half Moon Street, W.
7Waldstein, Charles, Ph.D., Litt.D. (Council), Azug’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., The School, Rossall, Fleetwood.
XXXV
*Ward, Prof. A. W., Litt.D., The Owens College, Manchester.
Ward, T. H., 61, Rusvell Sguare, W.C.
Ward, W. W., Cliffe Court, Frenchay, Bristol.
Warr, Prof. G. C., 4, Pen-y-Wern Road, S.W.
t+ Warre, Rev. Edmond, D.D., Eton College, Windsor.
Warren, T. H., President of Magdalen College, Oxford.
Washbourn, Rev. J. R., Rudford Rectory, Gloucester.
Waterhouse, Miss M. E., 3, Adge Lane, Liverpool.
Waterhouse, Mrs. Edwin, 13, Hyde Park Street, W.
Watson, A. G., Harrow, N.W.
*Way, Rev. J. P., Azug’s School, Warwick.
Wayte, Rev. W. (Council), 6, Onslow Square, S.W.
+ Weber, F. P., 10, Grosvenor Street, W.
Weber, Herman, M.D. (Council), 10, Grosvenor Street, W.
t+ Welldon, Rev. J. E. C., The School, Harrow, N.W.
Wells, ]., Wadham College, Oxford.
Wheeler, James R., Ph.D., care of Dr. John B. Wheeler,
Burlington, Vermont, U.S.A.
Wheeler, Prof. J. H., Newbury, Orange Co., Vermont, U.S.A.
tWhite, A. Cromwell, 3, Harcourt Buildings, Temple.
White, Prof. J. W., Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
White, William H., 9, Comduzt 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.
Wilson, Donald, Lincoln 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, Powis Square, W.
Wright, R. S., 1, Paper Butldings, Temple, E.C.
tWright, W. Aldis, 7rznzty College, Cambridge.
Wroth, Warwick W., British Museum, W.C.
t+tWyndham, Rev. Francis M., St. Charles’ College, St. Charles
Square, W.
+Wyse, W., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Yates, Rev. S. A. Thompson, 396, Commercial Road, E.
ΧΥΝΧΝΑῚ
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,
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS TO THE JOURNAE
OF, HELLENTIC.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, Baltzmore, 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 Bibliotheque Universitaire de Bordeaux, Bordeaux.
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, Camébridge.
The Library of Trinity College, Caméridge.
The Fitzwilliam Archaeological Museum, Cambridge.
The Girton College Library, Cambridge.
The Library of Canterbury College, Christchurch, N.Z.
The University Library, Christiania, Sweden
The Public Library, Cincinnati, U.S.A.
The Adelbert College, Cleveland, Ohio.
The University, Dzjon.
The King’s Inns Library, Dudizn.
The National Library of Ireland, Dud/in.
The Royal Irish Academy, Dudlin.
The University College, Dundee.
The Durham Cathedral Library, Durham.
The University Library, Erlangen.
The University Library, Frezburg.
The University Library, Glasgow.
The Ducal Library, Gotha (Dr. W. Pertsch).
ΧΧΧΥῚΙ
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, N. W.
The Cornell University Library, /thaca N.Y.
The Royal and University Library, Kdnigsterg.
The Public Library, Leeds.
The Philologische Leseverein, Lezfzzg.
The Free Library, Lzverfool.
The Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British
Museum, W.C.
The Library of University College, Loudon.
The Athenaeum Club, Pad? Mall, London, S.W.
The Burlington Fine Arts Club, Savz/e Row, London, W.
The London Library, St. James's Square, London, S.W.
The Reform Club, Pa// Matl, London, S.W.
The Sion College Library, London Wall, E.C.
The Chetham’s Library, Hum/s Rank, Manchester.
The Konigliche Paulinische Bibliotheck, Munster, 7, WW’.
The Royal Library, Munich
The Library of Yale College, Vewnazer.
The Astor Library, New York.
The Columbia College, Mew York.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vew York,
The Library of the College of the City of New York, Vew York,
The Cyprus Museum, /Vicosia, Cyprus,
The Library of Worcester College, Oxford.
The Library of Christchurch, Ox/ord.
The Library of St. John’s College, Oxford.
The Library of New College, Oxford
The Library of Queen’s College, Oxford.
The Library of University College, Oxford.
The Union Society, Oxford.
The Bibliothéque de l'Institut de France, Pavzs.
The Bibliothéque de l’Universitié de France, Pavzs.
The Bibliothéque des Museés Nationaux, Paris,
The Bibliothéque National de Paris, Parcs.
The University, Prague.
The Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, U.S.A.
The Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele, Rome,
The School Library, Rossa.
The School Reading Room, Rugby.
The St. Louis Mercantile Library, S¢. Louis, U.S.A.
The Archeological Museum, Zhe University, Strassburg (per
Prof. Michaelis).
The Imperial University and National Library, Strassdurg.
The Free Library, Sydney, New South Wales.
Ὁ
XXXVIii
The University Library, Zovonto.
The General Assembly Library, Wellington, N.Z.
The Library, Westminster School, S.W.
The Boys’ Library, Eton College, Windsor.
The Public Library, Winterthur.
The Free Library, Worcester, Mass., U.S.A.
The Williams College Library, W2l/camstown, Mass., U.S.
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 a’Ulm).
The Numismatic Chronicle.
The Publications of the Evangelical School, Smyrna.
The Annuaire de |’Association pour |’Encouragement des
Etudes Grecques en France, Parts.
The Mittheilungen of the German Imperial Archaeological
Institute, Rome.
The Aa of the American Archaeological Institute, Boston,
SA
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 Archeology (Dr. A. L. Frothingham),
29, Cathedral Street, Baltimore, U.S.A.
The Journal of the Royal Institute ot British Architects, 9,
Conduit Street, W.
Mnemosyne (care of Mr. E. J. Brill), Lezden, Holland.
CATALOGUE
OF
BOOKS, PERIODICALS, &c.
IN THE
LIBRARY OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF
HELLENIG STUDIES.
FEBRUARY, 1888.
Aeschylus, Seven.against Thebes. Ed. Verrall, with Introdue-
tion, Commentary, and Translation. London. 1887.
Abram (Ed.). A Ride through Syria. London. 1887.
American Journal of Archeology. Vols. I. II. Vol. III. (1 and 2).
Baltimore. 1885-6.
Archaeological Institute of America—
Annual Reports. Boston. 1880—1886.
Bulletin I. Boston. 1883.
Papers of the School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Vol. 1. (1): and Two Reports. Boston. 1883—5.
Papers. Classical Series. I. Report on Investigations
at Assos. Boston. 1882.
Papers. American Series. I. Hist. Introduction to
Studies among Indians of New Mexico: and Report
on Ruins of the Pueblo of Pecos. Boston, 1881.
Annali dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica. Vols.
LVI—LVII. Rome. 1880-1886.
xl
Annuaire de I’ Association des Etudes Grecques. 4 vols. Paris.
1881-4.
Aphentoules (Th.) Κρίσις ἐπὶ τοῦ οἰκονομείου διαγωνίσματος.
Athens. 1879.
Archiiologische Zeitung. Berlin. 4to. 1880-5. Vols. i.—vi.
Architects, Royal Institute of British. Transactions. 4to.
1880—1884: and New Series. Vols. I. and II. 1885—6.
Proceedings, Oct. 1885—Jan. 1888.
Aristotle. The Politics. Ed. with Introduction, Essays and Notes
by W. L. Newman, M.A. Vols. I. and II. Oxford. 1888.
Beloch, Dr. Julius. Die Bevélkerung der griechisch-rémischen
Welt. Leipzig. 1886.
Bikelas, D. περὶ Βυζαντινῶν μελέτη. London. 1874.
Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Othello and King
Lear, translated into Modern Greek. Athens. 1876.
——-—— Λούκης Adpas, a tale of the Revolution of 1821. Athens,
1881.
The same in English, tr. Gennadius. London, 1881.
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (complete). Athens and
Paris. 1877-1887.
Bullettino dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica, Roma
e Berlino. 1880-5. [See the new Jahrbuch for continuation. |
Calogeras, N. ᾿Αλεξάνδρου ᾿Επικήδειον (Funeral Oration on Abp.
Alexander of Syra and Tenos). Athens. 1876,
Cambridge Philological Society, Transactions of, Vol. I. 1872-
1880; Vol. IL, 1881-1882, with Index. Edited by J. P.
Postgate. 2 vols. London. 1881-3.
Coumanoudes, St. A. Σξυναγωγὴ Λεξέων ἀθησαυριστῶν ἐν τοῖς
Ἑλληνικοῖς Λεξικοῖς. Athens. 1883.
Carapanos, Constantin. L’Oracle de Dodone. Paris. 4to. 1878.
Dodone et ses Ruines. 2 vols. (Text and Plates.)
Paris. 4to. 1878.
Carolides, P. Καππαδοκικὰ, τόμος d. Constantinople. 1874.
Caravella. Index to Aristophanes. Oxford. 1822.
Cesnola, Gen. Luigi Palma di, Antiquities of Cyprus discovered
by. Photographed by Stephen Thompson from a selection
made by ©. Τὶ Newton, M.A. With an Introduction by
Sidney Colvin, M.A. 36 Plates. Folio. London. 1873.
Coelho, J. M. L. Demosthenes. O Oracio da Coroa. Lisbon.
1880,
ΝΠ
Compte Rendu de la Commission lupériale Archéologique. Avec
un Atlas. St. Petersburg. Folio. 1878-9.
Contopulos, C., ’A@avacia τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς Γλώσσης.
Contos, Constantine ὃ. Τλωσσικαὶ ΠΠαρατηρήσεις ἀναφερόμεναι εἰς
τὴν νέαν Ἑλληνικὴν γλῶσσαν. Athens, 1882.
Cordella, A. ἡ Ἑλλὰς ἐξεταζομένη γεωλογικῶς καὶ ὀρυκτολογικῶς.
(Geological and Mineralogical Survey of Greece). Athens.
1878.
Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. 4 vols. Folio. Berlin.
Damirales, M. N. Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra in
Modern Greek. [From Parnassos]. Athens. 1882.
Shakespeare’s Coriolanus. Athens. 1882.
Dante. De Monarchia. Tr. F. J. Church. London. 1879.
Δελτίον τῆς ‘Ioropixns καὶ ᾿Αρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρίας. 2 vols.
Athens. 1884-5,
Digenis, B. Quelques Notes Statistiques sur la Gréce. Marseille.
1877.
Dragoumes, Emm. Λογοδοσία. Athens. 1881-4.
Duncker, Max. Geschichte des Alterthums, Bd. 1 ἃ. 2. Griech.
Geschichte. Leipzig. 1884-6.
Abhandlungen aus der Griech, Geschichte. Leipzig.
1887.
—— History of Greece, by Alleyne and Abbott; Vols.-I.
and II. London. 1883-6.
Egypt Exploration Fund—
First Memoir. The Store City of Pithom and the Route
of the Exodus. By Edouard Naville. 4to. 1885.
Second Memoir. Tanis. By W.M.F. Petrie. Part 1.
4to. 1885.
Third Memoir. Naukratis. By W. M.F. Petrie. 4to.
1886. ἜΜ
Fourth Memoir. Goshen. By E. Naville. 4to. 1887.
Kichthal, G. d’. Socrate et Nos Temps. Paris. 1881.
The same in Greek, by J. N. Valetta. Athens. 1884.
Ἔκθεσις Μνημείων τοῦ Ἱεροῦ ’Ayavos. (Catalogue-of Exhibition of
Relics of the War of Liberation). Athens.
Ἔκθεσις τῆς Σχολῆς τῶν ᾿Απόρων ἸΤαίδων. Athens. 1874.
"Edypepis ᾿Αρχαιολογική. Athens. 1883-6.
Euripides. Medea. Ed. A. W. Verrall, with Introduction and
Commentary. London. 1881.
"i
xlil
Eustathopoulos, C. Σύνοψις τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς Tpapparodoyias,
Athens. 1885.
Fergusson, J. The Temple of Diana at Ephesus. London. 1883.
Freeman, E. A. Historical Essays. First Series, ed. 4. London.
1886.
----- --- Pe Second Series, ed. 2. London. 1880.
re 3 Third Series. London. 1879.
—— Methods of Historical Study. London. 1886.
Gardner, P. British Museum. Catalogue of Greek Coins. (Pelo-
ponnesus). London. 1887.
Samos and Samian Coins. London. 1882.
Gerhard, Eduard. Auserlesene Griechische Vasenbilder, haupt-
sichlich Etruskischen Fundorts. 4 vols. 4to, Berlin.
1840-58.
Grammar of the Greek Tongue, chiefly the Attic Dialect, for the
use of the Greek schools by P. G. Petrakides. (Greek),
Constantinople. 1886.
Greece. Handbook. Murray. 1884.
Harrison, Jane E. Introductory Studies in Greek Art. London.
1885.
Haussoullier, B. La Vie Municipale en Attique. Paris. 1884,
Quomodo Sepulchra Tanagrei decoraverint.
Parisiis. 1884.
----- Le Déme d’Eleusis. Angers. 1886.
Head, Barclay V. Historia Numorum. Oxford. 1887.
Ἑλληνικὸς Φιλολογικὸς Z’AAoyos. Constantinople. Publications.
1871-1885.
Hicks, Rev. E. L. Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions.
Oxford. 1882.
Homer. The Iliad. Ed. W. Leaf, with Notes and Introduction,
Vol. 1, London. 1886,
Imhoof-Blumer, F. Monnaies Grecques. Parisand Leipzig. 4to.
1883,
Zur Miinzkunde Kilikiens. From the Zeit-
schrift fiir Numismatik. Berlin. 1883.
Portratkopfe auf Antiken Miinzen. Leipzig.
1885.
Jabrbuch des Kaiserlichen deutschen Archiologischen Instituts,
herausgegeben von Max Frankel. Vol. i. Berlin. Imperial
ὅνο. 1886. [See Bullettino.]
xliii
Jahresberichte iiber die Fortschritte der classischen Alterthums-
wissenchaft. Ed. Bursian. Berlin. 1880—87.
Jebb, R. C. The Attic Orators from Antiphon to Isaeos. 2 vols.
London. 1876.
Modern Greece. London. 1880.
Joannes, Philip. Φιλολόγικα Idpepya. Athens. 1874.
Journal of Philology, vols. i—xvi. Cambridge. 1868-88.
Hellenic Studies, vols. i—viii. London. 1880-87.
— the Royal Asiatic Society. NewSeries. Vols. xii.—xix.
1880-87.
Karacrarixov (Constitution) τῆς Ἱστορικῆς καὶ ᾿Εθνολογικῆς Ἕταιρίας.
Athens. 1882.
Lambros, 8. P. Kananos Laskaris and R. Balalzes. Two H:|!-
lenic Travellers.
᾿Ανέκδοτα Νομίσματα κοπέντα ἐν Γλαρέντσα x.t.X.
(Coins struck in the Peloponnese by Robert of Anjou, Duke
of that country). Athens. 1876.
Monnaies Inédites des Grands Maitres de
Rhodes. Athens, 1877.
᾿Ανέκδοτα Kepxupaixa. (Fragments from unpub-
lished MSS. at Mount Athos, Cambridge, Munich and
Corcyra). Athens, 1882.
Legrand, E. Bibliotheque Grecque Vulgaire. TomelI. Paris.
1880.
Lewis, Campbell. Tr. Sophocles, ed. with English Notes and
Introductions. 2 vols. Oxford. 1881.
Libadas (P.) Στοιχεῖα τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς Πραμματικῆς. Athens. 1848.
Maccas (G. A.) Λόγος x. 7. A. (Presidential address). Athens,
1875.
Mahaffy (J. P.) Alexander’s Empire. London. 1887.
——_—_——— Greek Life and Thought from the Age of
Alexander to the Roman Conquest. London. 1887.
Rambles and Studies in Greece, ed. 3. London.
-----.-.-.-
1887.
Social Life in Greece, from Homer to Menander.
Ed. 6. London. 1888.
Mansolas, Alexandre. Renseignements statistiques sur les
Etablissements industriels ἃ vapeur en Grice. Athénes.
1876.
Merriam, A. Ἐν The Greek and Latin Inscription on the
Obelisk-Crab. New York, 1883.
72
xliv
Michaelis, Ad. Der Parthenon (Text and Plates). Lei:zig.
1870-71.
Miller, E. Périple de Marcien d’Heraclée. Paris. 8vo. 1855-57.
Eloge de Chevelure. Paris. 1840.
Manuelis Philae Carmina. 2 vols. Paris. 1855-7.
———— Catalogue des MSS. Grecs de la Bibliothéyue de
lEscurial. Paris. 1848.
Mélanges de la Littérature Grecque. Paris. 1868.
Mélanges de Philologie et d'Epigraphie. Part I.
Paris. 1876.
et Aubenas. Revue de Bibliographie Analytique.
Paris. 1840-1.
Mistriotes, G. Κρίσις rod Βουτσιναίου ποιητικοῦ ἀγῶνος. Athens.
1871.
Mitchell, Lucy Μ. . History of Ancient Sculpture. London.
1883.
Mittheilungen des kaiserl. deutsch. Archiol. Instituts, Rémische
Abtheilung. Rome. BandI. Heft 1, 2, 3.
Archaol. deutschen Instituts in Athen, Vols.
i-xii. Athens. 1876-87.
Mnemosyne. New Series. Vols. 1-14. Leiden. 1873-86.
Monumenti Inediti pubblicati dall’ Instituto di Corrispondenza
Archeologica, Vols, xi-xii. Rome. Folio, 1879-85.
Morgenthau, J.C. Zusammenhang der Bilder auf Griech. Vasen.
I. Schwarzfigurigen Vasen. Leipzig. 1886.
Μουσεῖον καὶ Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἘΕὐαγγελικῆς Σχολῆς. Smyrna.
1873-80.
Miiller (C. Ὁ.) Scientifie Mythology. Tr. Leitch. London. 1844.
——_—_— Ancient Art and its Remains. Tr. Leitch.
London. 1852.
and Oesterley (C.) Denkmiler der Alten Kunst.
Gottingen. 1835. Oblong 4to.
Νεοελληνικὰ ᾿Αναλεκτά. Vol. II. Parts7and 8. Athens. 1881-2.
Newton, C. T. Essays on Art and Archeology. London. 1880.
Nicolaides, G. Ἰλιάδος στρατηγικὴ διασκευνὴ καὶ τοπογραφία.
(Homeric topography).
Numismatic Chronicle. Third Series. Vols. i.—vii. London. 1881-7.
Papadopoulos, A. Νεοελληνικὴ Φιλολογία. Parts 1,2. Athens.
1854-7.
Parnassos. 10 vols. Athens. 1877-86.
xlv
Phardy, N. B. Διατριβὴ περὶ drovov καὶ ἀπνευματιστοῦ γραφῆς.
(On writing without accents and breathings). Marseille. 1884.
Φιλίστωρ (a Greek philological review). 4 vols. Athens. 1861-2.
Plato. Phaedo. Ed. Archer-Hind, with Introduction, Notes,
and Appendices. London. 1883.
- Timaeus. Same Editor. With Introduction, Notes, and
Translation. London. 1888.
Platonist. Vols I., 11., ΠΤ. 1880-1-4.
Polites, N.G. ὁ Ἥλιος κατὰ τοὺς δημώδεις μύθους. Athens. 1882.
—— τὸ δημοτικὸν dopa τοῦ νεκροῦ ἀδελφοῦ. Athens.
1885.
Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν ᾿Αθήναις ᾿Αρχαιολογικῆς ‘Eraipias. Athens. 1874-
80-1-2-3.
Remiéres, M. Περὶ Βλοσσίου καὶ Διοφάνους. Leipzig. 1873.
Revue Archéologique. Vols. i-xxi. Paris. 1860-70. Vol.
xxii. incomplete. Vols. xxiii—xxxii. Paris. 1872-76.
Vols, xli.—xlii. incomplete. Vols. xliii—xliv. 1882. Third
Series. Vols. i-ii. 1883.
Revue de Bibliographie Analytique. Vols, i-iv. Paris. 1840-1.
Revue du Monde Latin. Vols. i-v. Paris. 1883-—4—5.
Roberts, E. S. An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy. Part I.
The Archaic Inscriptions and the Greek Alphabet. Cam-
bridge. 1888.
Rose, Hugh James. _Inscriptiones Graecae Vetustissimae. Cam-
bridge. 1825.
St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. Revised
Text with Introductions, Notes, and Dissertations. Ed.
J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., Bishop of Durham. Ed. 8. London.
1886.
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Same editor. Ed. 9.
London. 1887.
to the Philippians. Same editor. Ed. 8.
London. 1885.
Sathas, Const. Vies des Saints Allemands de ]’église de Chypre.
Génes. 1884.
Scott, Walter. Fragmenta Herculanensia. Oxford. 1885.
Schliemann, Dr. Heinrich. Atlas Trojanischer Alterthiimer.
Photographische Abbildungen zu dem Berichte tiber die
Ausgrabungen in Troja. Leipzig. Folio. 1874.
— Mycenae. London. 1878.
xlvi
Schmidt, J. H. Heinrich. Rhythmic and Metric of the Classical
Languages. Tr. White. London. 1879.
Six, J. De Gorgone. Amstelodami. 4to. 1885.
Smith, Agnes. Through Cyprus. London. 1887.
Smithsonian Institute, Reports of. 1881-3, 1884 part ii., 1885
part i.
Sophocles. Ed. Lewis Campbell, with English Notes and Intro-
ductions. 2 vols. Oxford. 1881.
Sophoclis Scholia. Ed. Elmsley. Oxford. 1825.
Spratt, T. A. B. (Admiral.) The Cretan Venus. [Soc. of Anti-
quaries. |
Travels and Researches in Crete. 2 vols.
London. 1865.
Remarks on the Dorian Peninsula and Gulf, with
notes on the Temple of Latona. [Soc. of Antiq.]
—and Prof. Ed. Forbes. Travels in Lycia,
Milyas, and the Cibyratis. London. 1847.
Terzetti, Mme. Ad. [ἃ Gréce, ancienne et moderne, considérée
sous l’aspect religieux. Paris. 1884.
Thucydides. Tr. by B. Jowett, with Introduction, Notes, and
Indices. 2 vols. Oxford. 1881.
Toukyrogdes (M.) τὰ Spupvaixa. Smyrna. 1880-1885.
University of Athens, Inaugural Addresses at. Athens. 1870-
1-3-5-7,
Vincent (E.) and Dickson (T. G.) A Handbook to Modern
Greek. 3rd Ed. London. 1887.
Wagner, Prof. W. Trois Poémes grecs du Moyen Age, inédits.
Berlin. 1881.
Waldstein, C. Essays on the Art of Pheidias. Cambridge.
1885.
Walford, Edward. Handbook of the Greek Drama. 12mo.
London. 1856.
Walker, F. A. L’Orient. Nine hundred miles up the Nile.
London. 1884.
Weber, G. Le Sipylos et ses Monuments. Paris. 1880,
Whitehouse, F. Cope. Lake Moeris. London. 1885.
Zographos (J). Δημοσιονομική (a Treatise on Finance). Vol. I.
Pt. 2. Athens. 1882.
xlvil
iit ΘΙ ΘΕΤΟΝ, OF 1686-7,
The First General Meeting was held on October 21, 1886,
MR. SIDNEY COLVIN, Vice-President, in the chair.
On the motion of the HON. SECRETARY, seconded by Lord
LINGEN, Mr. COLVIN was appointed to represent the Society
upon the Managing Committee of the British School at
Athens.
ΜΕ. POYNTER read a paper upon a bronze leg recently
acquired for the British Museum from M. Piot, of Paris
(Journal, Vol. VII. p. 189). This leg, which had belonged to
a statue of heroic size, was armed with a greave, and the few
fragments of drapery which alone had come to light with the
leg showed that the figure must have been that of a hero in
full armour and in motion. After communicating some notes
from Mr. A. S. Murray, arguing that the figure could not
represent a runner in the omA/tns δρόμος, and assigning its
production to about 450 B.c., Mr. Poynter proceeded to show
on anatomical grounds that the attitude might have been that
of a runner at the moment when the body was about equally
poised on the two legs. The interest of this fragment to the
artist lay not so much in its probable date (as to which
Mr. Poynter was disposed to agree with Mr. Murray) as in its
beauty of workmanship. The British Museum was to be
heartily congratulated upon the acquisition of so unique a
specimen of the acme of Greek art.
xiv
Mr. C. SMITH stated that some further fragments of drapery
had just reached the Museum.
Mr. A. H. SMITH reminded the meeting that this leg was
one of several specimens of sculpture upon which M. Francois
Lenormant had based a theory, which had found no accept-
ance, as to a native Tarentine school of scuipture.
Miss J. HARRISON read a paper on the representation in
Greek art, and especially in vase-paintings, of the myth of
the judgment of Paris (Journal, Vol. VII. p. 196). After
dealing in detail with the various types which extant examples
assume, the writer propounded a new theory, both as to the
primary significance of the myth and as to the artistic origin
of the earliest type, in which Hermes leads the three god-
desses in procession, and Paris is absent from the scene. The
theory was that this type had been taken over from the well-
known type of Hermes leading the Charites to Pan.
In thanking Miss Harrison for her paper, the CHAIRMAN
said that her theory was probably well founded.
The Second General Meeting was held on February 24,
1887, MR. SIDNEY COLVIN, Vice-President, in the chair.
Mr. CECIL SMITH read a paper by Mr. A. 5. Murray on ‘A
Rhyton in the form of a Sphinx’ (/Journa/, Vol. VIII. p. 1).
Mr. Smith added some remarks upon a similar but inferior
vase of Sphinx form at St. Petersburg. This, which was
probably of later date, had been found in a tomb with two
other similar vases belonging to a date as late as the end of
the ninth century B.C.
PROFESSOR MIDDLETON called attention to the wonderful
brilliance of the vermilion pigment on this and other vases of
the kind, due, as he had ascertained by experiment, to the
presence of pyroxide of iron.
xlix
The Hon. SECRETARY read a paper by Professor W.
Ridgeway on ‘The Homeric Talent: its Origin, Values, and
Affinities’ (Journal, Vol. VIII. p. 133), arguing that the ox
was the original unit of value, and the talent its metallic
representative.
The CHAIRMAN described the paper as extremely interesting
and suggestive,
Mr. HEAD said that even if the whole chain of argument
could not be maintained, this valuable paper would be of
great use in the study of metrology. So far as the Homeric
talent was concerned, Professor Ridgeway was certainly right
in associating it with the ox. But when he went on to argue
that the ox was everywhere of the same value for more than
a thousand years he went too far. In was indeed inconceiv-
able that at any time the ox had the same value everywhere.
That the ox had a conventional value in early Greece, and
also that the ox unit=the talent of Homer at a given
time might be granted, but all the rest was doubtful. For one
thing in early Greece all the coinage was silver, and gold was
not used until the time of Philip of Macedon. All the Greek
silver talents and minae were of Oriental origin, developed
ages before the Greeks received them. The route by which
they reached Greece was established by the study of coins.
Gold and silver bullion were the medium of exchange in the
East from the earliest times. It was hazardous to suppose
that all the coins were based on the ox. That the Babylonian
gold shekel bore a certain relation to all Greek standards
implied that all had a common origin in the East, but not
necessarily that this was the value of the ox. In historical
times the ox was certainly of fluctuating value in Greece, as
we had evidence to show.
The Third General Meeting was held on “4271 21, 1887,
Mr. SIDNEY COLVIN, Vice-President, in the chair.
PROFESSOR GARDNER read a paper by Mr. W. R. Paton
on ‘Tombs in the Neighbourhood of Halicarnassus’ (printed
]
in Journal, Vol. VIII. p. 64, under the title ‘Excavations in
Caria’). In introducing the paper, Professor Gardner dwelt
on the light Mr. Paton’s discoveries threw upon the history
of this interesting district, the cradle and, down to the time
of Mausolus, the home of the Leleges.
Mr. ARTHUR EVANS concurred in thinking that the
remains belonged to the Leleges. He pointed out that in
general plan—an avenue, a domed chamber. and an outer
circle of slabs—these tombs had many parallels from Ireland
(New Grange) on the one side to Graeco-Scythia, Sarmatia,
Kertch, and Mycenae on the other. The ornamentation on
the sarcophagi also closely resembled the gold ornaments
from Mycenae> The presence of fibulae was of special im-
portance. The presence of iron, and of vases with concentric
circles and bands, like those found in Cyprus, pointed to a
later date.
Mr. Newton said that Mr. Paton did not dwell enough upon
the massive character of the gateway, which recalled the
Lion Gate at Mycenae. Professor Gardner and Dr. Gustav,
Hirschfeld also took part in the discussion.
Mr. WALTER LEAF read a paper on the ‘ Trial Scene in
Iliad, XVIII, (Journal, Vol. VIII. p. 122), arguing that the
point reached by Homeric Society was intermediate between
the stage of the punishment of homicide by exile, and of its
commutation for a fine, and that the dispute in the scene in
question really turned upon the infliction of one penalty or
the other.
PROFESSOR POLLOCK expressed general agreement with
Mr. Leaf’s views, but thought he was perhaps too ready to
take for granted the formalisation of early law. He could
not recall any evidence of such sharp transition as was
suggested from one stage to another. In early Teutonic
law, certainly, there was a period when several alternatives
were possible, and Homeric society might have been in the
same stage. As to the reconciliation of the ἵστωρ with the
h
γέροντες Mr. Leaf was probably right. The appointment of
judges by a single judge was known to Roman law. A propos
of the reference made by Mr. Leaf to the story of ‘ Burnt
Njal,’ it was worth noting that in later times of Icelandic law
indictments were set out minutely ‘over the head of John.’
This John might represent the fe¢rwp—the man without whose
authority the judges could not have been summoned. Pro-
fessor Pollock cited the first book of the //zad as affording
ground for doubting whether the early Greeks were so much
more orderly than the Icelanders.
Mr. NEWTON referred to an inscription from Priene, and
described a trial scene which he had witnessed at Rhodes.
The next of kin of a murdered man publicly refused any
satisfaction but blood for blood, though the murderer on the
scaffold offered to become the slave of his victim’s family.
ΜΕ. EVANS said that the blood-feud still existed in Upper
Albania, though it might be compounded for by the murderer
ot his representative going to the house of the victim with a
sword round his neck, presenting gifts, and going through a
certain ceremony. As a rule, the man who accepted this
restored part of the deposit, or else the matter would come
before the Council of the elders and then of the people.
MR. LEAF exhibited photographs of a new prehistoric house
found at Mycenae in the previous December beneath the
foundations of a Doric temple.
The Annual Meeting took place on /ume 23, 1887, MR.
SIDNEY COLVIN, Vice-President, in the chair.
The following Report was read by the HON. SEc. on the
part of the Council :—
AMONG the most important events in the history of the
Society during the past year should be mentioned the fully
attended Special Meeting held by permission in the rooms
li
of the Society of Antiquaries on July 2, 1886, for the purpose
of discussing various questions which had been raised in
regard to the remains at Tiryns. Dr. Schliemann, accom-
panied by Dr. W. Dorpfeld, came over from Athens on purpose
to attend this meeting, and the discussion excited very general
interest. A full report appeared in the Proceedings issued
with the last Part of the Journal. It is enough to say here
that, quite apart from the merits of the controversy, the
meeting had the undoubted effect of emphasizing the posi-
tion of the Society as the natural centre in England for
discussions on questions of Hellenic archaeology, and was
the means of attracting several new members.
The ordinary General Meetings of the Session have been
fairly well attended, and interesting discussions have taken
place. But as so many members live out of London, and
the papers read are almost without exception afterwards
published in the Journal, these meetings, pleasant and useful
as they are to the members who can attend them, are not
to be regarded as the most important part of the Society's
work. Members therefore who cannot attend the meetings
need not feel that their support is of no avail, for without it
the Society could hardly continue to exist.
Foremost no less among the original objects of the Society,
than among its achievements, must still be placed the /ournaz
of Hellenic Studies, which has won for itself a high rank
among periodicals of its class. The last volume, for 1886
was in no way inferior to its predecessors in variety and
interest. Among the contents may be mentioned an import-
ant paper by Mr. Arthur Evans on Tarentine Terra-Cottas ;
a second instalment of the valuable Mumzsmatic Commentary
on Pausanias, by Dr. Imhoof-Blumer and Professor Percy
Gardner; Mr. Farnell’s papers on The School of Scopas and
on the Works of Pergamon ; Mr. E. A. Gardner’s paper on
the Early [onic Alphabet ; Miss Harrison’s on the /udgment
of Paris, as dealt with by the Greek vase painters ; Professor
Jebb’s on The Homeric House in relation to the Remains at
Tiryns, and Professor Middleton’s on The Great Hall in the
Palace of Tiryns. Inthe department of later Greek history
iii
Mr. J. B. Bury contributed the first instalment of a careful
paper on The Lombards and Venetians in Euboia, while Mr.
Tozer gave some account of Gemzstos Plethon, a Byzantine
reformer of the fifteenth century A.D. Shorter papers were
contributed by Mr. J. T. Bent, Dr. Gustav Hirschfeld, Mr.
F. B. Jevons, Mr. A. 5. Murray, Mr. E. J. Poynter, R.A., Mr.
Cecil Smith, Dr. Waldstein, and Mr. Warwick Wroth.
In regard to the /ournal, as members have already been
informed, two important modifications of the original plan
have recently been decided upon after full consideration. It
has more than once been suggested that a bibliography of
new publications in Greek archaeology, a summary of foreign
periodicals, and a record of discoveries in Greece and the
adjoining countries, might be added to the /ourna/ with great
advantage to members who have no facilities for keeping
themselves informed of the progress of research. But the
preparation of such a Supplement involves so much care and
labour that it has been found impossible to make arrange-
ments for it upon the same basis as the rest of the Journal.
The acting Editor however represented to the Council that if
the matter in this Supplement could be paid for at a moderate
rate he was prepared to arrange for its regular and efficient
production; the progress of archaeology at Oxford and
Cambridge, and the foundation of a British School at Athens,
affording better facilities for work of this kind than were
available some years ago. The question was fully discussed
at a Special Meeting, and the Council decided in the interests
of the Society to adopt Professor Gardner's suggestion.
The second modification is in the form of the Journal. A
good many members have found the separate Plates incon-
venient. The size of the Plates and their separate packing
and carriage have moreover been a source of heavy expense
to the Society. The extra cost of the Supplement made it
necessary to consider whether a saving could not be effected
in some other direction. After full consideration it was
decided to raise the size of the text to imperial 8vo. A
single page plate in this form will be large enough to illus-
trate most objccts of antiquity, while a double page plate
liv
._ will be nearly as large as those now issued. The biblio-
graphical Supplement will begin with the next number of the
Journal, which will be issued early in July. But arrangements
have already been made which involve the issue of one more
volume in the original form. When this is complete an index
will be issued to the first eight volumes of the Journal, and
also a list of the seventy separate Plates, which may be
collected in a convenient portfolio.
In consequence of representations received from several
members of the Society, the Council have decided to set
apart annually such a sum as the financial position of the
Society may allow for the purchase of books for the Library.
During the past year the following books have been purchased
on the recommendation of the Library Committee: Over-
beck’s History of Greek Sculpture, Boeckh’s Corpus Inscrip-
tionum Graecarum, Mitchell’s Hzstory of Greek Sculpture,
Waldstein’s Essays on the Art of Phetdias, and Gerhard’s
Auserlesene Vasenbilder. The first nine volumes of the
Journal of Philology, completing the set, have been presented
to the Society by the publishers. Several important books
including Mr. Head’s masterly Historia Numorum, have been
sent for notice in the new Supplement of the /ourna/, and as
all books sent for that purpose will be eventually placed in
the Library it is hoped that many valuable additions may be
made in this way. Members are again reminded that
presents of appropriate books are always welcome. Before
long a Catalogue will be issued of the present contents
of the Library, and future additions will be recorded in the
Journal,
Among the objects stated in the Rules of the Society is
the collection of photographs of Greek works of art, ancient
sites and remains. Till recently the Council have not seen
their way to any fruitful effort in this direction. But during
the past year the generous offer of Mr. W. J. Stillman to
place at the disposal of the Society the negatives of a very
important series of photographs taken by him of the monu-
ments of Athens afforded an opportunity of which the
Council gladly availed themselves. Mr. Stillman’s offer was
lv
promptly accepted, and satisfactory arrangements were made
with the Autotype Company for the reproduction upon an
enlarged scale and in permanent form of twenty-five of the
most important subjects. A complete set of proofs, mounted
in a portfolio, was acquired for the Library of the Society,
and the Autotype Company undertook to supply members of
the Society with copies of the prints at a reduced rate. As
a circular on the subject has been sent to every member of
the Society, it is not necessary to enter here into any further
detail.
In the autumn of 1886 the British School at Athens was
opened under the directorship of Mr. F. C. Penrose, and the
grant of £100 made by the Society for three years has
accordingly been called for. Four students have been
enrolled during the season, and the results of the work done
will be recorded in the form of Reports by the Director and
some of the students in the next number of the Journal of
Hellenic Studies. A grant of £50 was made in the autumn
to Mr, J. Theodore Bent, in aid of explorations in the island of
Thasos. But as £25 of the £50 granted last year was repaid
by Mr. Bent the charge upon the Society’s income this year is
only £25. The results of the expedition have been decidedly
encouraging, among the discoveries being an important
female votive statue, with an inscription, an archaic statue of
Apollo, two bas-reliefs,and many inscriptions. Mr. Bent will
contribute some account of his explorations to an early
number of the Journal.
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,
the sale of the Journal to non-members, and the interest on
money invested, amount to £914 155. 2d. The expenditure,
which covers the cost of Volume VII. of the /ourna/, and
includes the above-named grants to the School at Athens
and to Mr. Bent, amounts to £792 14s. It should be
pointed out that the receipts include Life Subscriptions to
the amount of 494 10s. A further sum of £300, including
these Life Subscriptions, has been invested in Consols, making
lvi
a total of £1,014 so invested. The balance at the bank on
May 31 was £488 15s. A further asset is the sum of
£95 75. 94. advanced towards the cost of photographing the
Laurentian Codex of Sophocles. As all the other expenses
of that undertaking have now been cleared off, the sale of
the remaining copies will gradually cover also the debt to the
Society. Lastly, there are arrears of subscriptions amounting
to about £150. On the whole, then, the financial position of
the Society may be regarded as satisfactory.
Since the last Annual Meeting 34 new members have
been elected and 12 libraries have been added to the list
of subscribers. Against this increase must be set the loss
by death or resignation of 28 members, so that the net
increase of members and subscribers is 18; the present
total of members being 627, and of subscribers 84.
On the whole the progress of the Society during the past
year has been, as this Report shows, of a satisfactory character.
Good work has been done, and though the actual increase in
the number of members has been less than in previous years
there has at least been no loss of ground. As so much of
the efficiency of the Society depends upon the support it
receives from every quarter, the Council once more urge upon
members the importance of making the Society widely known
among their friends, with a view to securing a steady supply
of new members.
lvii
“Lagi “γι aunf
-sconpny { C@TIIAHSAYA “M SVTONO
Ὁ
~
3
va)
opel
|
Meo Vo
Ree |
}
oor
os
of
οοοονοοοο
I
ο
ο
Ι
re Se
ο
ο
ο
oOoOwnmwo
~
7
ο
Ξ
ο
[ν]
toa)
-
N
6
X
-
ὶ ‘NILUVAN ἃ NHO
Sn? se ἀν Jae ae fe siayueg 1Ὲ ae «
ν “ * * * * γπποοῦῦ πὸ} jo ΘΟΌΈΙΒΕ “
Lggt ‘1€ Ary οἱ ‘oggr ‘x Avy ‘Areyas0ag bd sé
* gggt ‘of saquiasoyy 0} ‘ueLeiqry yuEIsIssy *
"cs ss ss τ τὸ yunosoy Zunuug seupung “'
9881 ‘oz 196 {π909(7 03 yUNODDY aZvjsog pue AsauoNeS “Ὁ
τ * * suayiy ‘JOOYyIS ysuug 0} uoNduasqng “ἢ
“ * * * soseyy, γ8 suoneavoxy 10} Quog apy “ἢ
* £ggr ‘of ounf{ 0} 1vaf auo ‘swooy jo quay ““
oe δ We ges) gle ane S]OSUO>) UT paysoAuT “e
sf ss sos sos yunosoy Sunuug saupung ‘¢
st tos ss ss Areaqvy Qunosoy Zurpurg **
τ ess * δ ΒΑΘ, μ4 38 σους jo aoueinsuy **
* * 9ggt “ΠΟΧΈΪΝ 07 Ava jyey ‘swooy so quay “"
“ * + gggr ὋΣ AvP 0} ‘ueliwiqry jueysissy “ἢ
‘o£ ounf 03 junod°0y aSe}sog pue A1auoneig Ag
“gr
“re Ὅ9ΩΗ
© 9
Ir “po
“Or
“6 Ame
9881
‘29S “HOH ΝΥ ΠΠΝΟΥΜ Ὑ ADUOAD
"7994109 31 pulyy PUL “SA9YONOA 91} YIM }1 Ρϑχθάϊποῦ ‘yunoooe 5110} pauruexa savy 344
GFSI BON ag ee κυ ρον ρον του ρος ΤΡ ΠΡ 18 ΘΟΕ ΟἹ, “1 Mvp
9
ο
ο
‘©
Φ
©
z
oL
ὯΝ
Si δος
Ὁ of
ο Sz
οἱ 9.1
oo08
ὯΝ i
°
°
ti oz
€1 1z9
ἜΣ SBS ee
“LNAWALVLS HSVD
* + * oggr ‘of aunf{ 02 ‘Sggr ‘x Ajnf ‘yeusnof jo sajes Ag
tse ss 8 + + gunossy ἢ582 ΟἹ a0uxjeg “ἡ
κι}
-Lggr
©
mo wowmogondo
γι ξὺν
Sr gz1
*Lggi
aponay Jo saidod ooz 10} ‘uosjoysINy “> 1g ““ ἔξ “5
{ ss fs 8s © yoneiojdxg sours ~ “Logi
247 JO JUNODDY UO papuNjay ἼΘΙ spy ‘* “ἐξ Aine
- - . . 9881
"ἼΟΛ 4G 10} 5γυϑιπάε "" a
> Se «He σὰν οὐ en ἃ siveuy «ε ae
7 Se ie 9ggi—Sggr “ « “ec
* £gg1—gggr ‘suonduosqng Aaeaqry *
Jeuinof 10 “sjoA yORq 10,4 ω- BS
. sieaiy ΩΣ ae ε
* 9ggi—Sggr ‘suorjduosqns Σ sé
* * * suonduosqns 981 S ξε
881-981 ᾿βϑιοάμοξαμς siequiay “1 Avy
“Lggr
τ ΤΟ * * * 2 9ιΠ9}8} 258] Jo Vurjeg oy, ‘of Av
"+ + + * © *s1osuogd uo spuaprarcy <
* sdaquiayA] ΟἹ asvuIBD pue Suryorg “"
δ χα WA ἼΟΛ Sunuug ‘suog ἡ ΔΈ]. “"
τ * * Suravisug ἹΠΊΠΟΗ zy rye “
* qunoooy sadvg “0D 2 uosuTysIG ‘6 ‘ge
Cigar «aia Βα ΔΈΩ 10} ‘uosiapuy “
9881
"coc ss ts Zutavizug ‘uewyng “oz Avy
τ τ τ yunosoy Auedwoy adMojny “ 6 -qayq
wee a . cn. ὧν Ὁ uipaeing, «-
"+ + Suravasuy ‘qyeimog ἢ aeyyeqy “© τ “uve
τ τ * qunosdy Auvduiod adMjojny ‘
* slaquiayy OlasetueD pure Suryoeg “
1184 WA JOA δα ‘suog 32 Avo “+12 229q
* * ΟΝ ‘sydessoj0yd IY ‘stuavyaeig “ἢ
* qunosy iadvg “on 2 uosuryoIdy “
‘+ * qunosoy Auedwoy adAjoyny <“*
stots ss Zurmesg 195 swuoueay 6 τ σὰ “90
"ΣΡ ss s qunosoy ded ‘wauunig “zr
ss tos ss Surmvsq 10} :9η 19] “+6
τ * * qunosoy AuvedwoD edAjojnyoy 1 ἅ
“988
10
a
lvili
In moving the adoption of the Report, the CHAIRMAN
alluded sympathetically to the recent foundation of the
Classical Review, and referred briefly to the chief archaeo-
logical discoveries of the year. The progress of research had
been steady, if not sensational, and various institutions of all
nations had been working with good result. Among these
might now be numbered the British school at Athens, which
had taken part in an important excavation on the site of the
Temple of Olympian Zeus. The Athenian Archaeological
Society had been very active, and had discovered on the
Acropolis not only a large number of archaic statues of great
interest, but, in the space between the Parthenon and the
Erechtheum, the site of a primitive temple, certainly earlier
than the Parthenon, and possibly dating from the period of
Pisistratus. The excavations at Eleusis had also been con-
tinued with good result. The French School, besides the
discovery of an ancient gate, κατὰ τὸ ᾿Αφροδίσιον, at the
Piraeus, had conducted very important excavations at the
temple of Apollo Ptoieus in Euboea, where numerous archaic
figures, resembling the Apollo of Thera and others, had been
found, as also many inscriptions. Further work had been
done by the French in the island of Delos. Turning to indi-
vidual workers, Mr. Colvin referred to Mr. Bent’s investigations
in the island of Thasos, and to Mr. W. R. Paton’s examination
of ancient tombs and necropoleis in Caria. In Cyprus the
site of Arsinoe had been discovered, and in the course of the
excavations had been found vases of really fine workmanship,
a ring, and other objects, which promised a rich result from
further explorations. If funds could be raised, a most im-
portant excavation might here be carried on upon a most
favourable site. The matter would probably be brought
before members of the Society in the course of the autumn.
In conclusion, the Chairman dwelt strongly upon the im-
portance of adding as many members as possible, that the
Society might have a large surplus of income each year, and
be able to devote really adequate sums in aid of explorations
as Opportunity might arise.
lix
ΜΕ. WATKISS LLOYD seconded the motion, and the Report
was unanimously adopted.
At the usual ballot the former President and Vice-Presidents
were re-elected, Professor P. Gardner being added to the latter.
Lord Lingen, Mr. Watkiss Lloyd, Mr. A. H. Smith, and Dr.
H. Weber were elected to fill vacancies on the Council, Mr.
Capes, Mr. Gow, and Mr. P. Ralli retiring by rotation.
Mr. BENT gave a short account of his discoveries in Thasos.
These included (1) a Roman arch with three inscriptions re-
cording that it had been erected in memory of certain emperors
and generals who had protected outlying parts of the empire
from barbarian invasion. He had also found a statue of a
female, probably a priestess, named Sabina. He had further
uncovered a theatre, and found that each seat was inscribed
with a name, the letters in some cases being of good date.
A peculiar feature was a circle of large blocks of stone in the
centre of the orchestra, each inscribed with two large letters—
HP. PA, DE, &c., not, however, making up a sentence. In
the front of the theatre was a pretty Doric colonnade, but the
stage was of Roman date. In the field adjoining the theatre
was found a good archaic bas relief representing a banqueting
scene.
εὴ; teas Davies, ‘ad org
Moobaaessitben sinabieaenet τ
Ὑρτανσ σι σεταύνκύνανείοτν
ah baa. attiee Haig
ani irtideranls οὐξίχάν φοὐονὸ οὐ ἠδ ον
had ονηβαλοῖι er eae bh a
᾿ κῃ 2 The idan d
napeudl I st volaeccatle ide dauqaer noilad:
σε SapaaharRhy 1a ¢tivndesecnasmltiota yi a
Regs aietioy te yamemiei betes +. ebachbiade
AEA At, Koei Bt eyo batbasoneedyhil, αὶ
ἢ ἴω, ἄυλον ἃ, gue ool iy weble . pan σοῦ prea
merlot, bei oH, euider doasen itched oma ᾿
shpat se Jace tage tatth aayokrhes Stanly ΤΥ
sbooy ha nied: PO re φυβκυοιβυναακλιιρν Ὁ:
aye Sages le αὐἰηοία φορᾶι. to ϑίψηλ enwermitibg
τ 338 syrah on. tery pod Hats tig te νσγεεϑεθννεε θεν
υϑορολπῆς Gas oge τογοῦ ἡ ραν δον i ἢ
4. id, cbpacolga ρξιοκῇ, μένπτα a δεν eater edie
Yanda adi yaisigyba bled edtoal qfstabounieMeie
Bequdond 2 galtrsess lola: epdobedoite πολι
La the talane of Thdaws and ic ΜΕΝ ΨΚ Pytoiae
ji wacker? the ard ceceopole® Ie Caria, δος
whe of Arsinoe hed bled dlecowered, κϑ in Te
ivrayations had een Snel oases of, cealiy ἅμ ies
erin ane οι "ἢ δίῳ, which prewaised a right *
Wet. ey nei κα 10. fends “could be call, ἃ ἦν
ocetent evcavaios might hero Ue conritel ca eo ‘
ἐμ wale alte, ‘The matree w ald probably.
velore aatimbera οὐ tbe Society in Cie conn of th
Yo Leo Austien, the Chairman Geel ἈΜΗΘΕΙ fe
φρῴράώχμος αἱ abs ng aa’ κεν a
i δ΄
+
ὝΝΝ myst have & ἐχε surplus
bay 2) ΠΥ Se lg
wi ὠνκφυπῆν cult μον. εν
A RHYTON IN FORM OF A SPHINX.
[Prates LXXII anp LXXIII]
THE rhyton here published was found in a tomb at Capua
in 1872, as described briefly in the Bullettino of that year
(p. 42); it was acquired in the following year by the British
Museum, and was soon thereafter included, but only in one
view, among the ‘Photographs of the Castellani Collection,’
pl. 12. Always much admired for its beauty, both in the
modelling of the Sphinx and in the drawing of the figures
which encircle the cup above her head .or oecupy the spaces
under her body, this vase has been seen at a certain dis-
advantage, as I believe, from a defective interpretation of the
subject painted round the cup. In the Budllettino this subject
was called ‘Triton, Nike and other figures,’ and this description
has remained unchallenged. But obviously the figure here
named Triton does not end in the tail of a fish, as a Triton
should end. It is the tail of a serpent, and therefore he must
be identified with some legendary person possessed of this
combination—a human body ending in the coils and tail of a
serpent. There can be no doubt that he is Kekrops, Κέκροπα
σπείραισιν εἱλίσσοντα as he is described by Euripides,! or as
1 Jon, 1163. It should there be seen the abstract of his paper in the
stated that the subject represented on Mittheilwngen of the Roman Institute,
this vase was rightly identified by 1. p. 190, till after my article was set
Hartwig at a meeting of the Roman up in type.
Institute last year. I had not however
ἘΠῚ -- 1 ὙΠ: Β
3 A RHYTON IN FORM OF A SPHINX.
he appears in a Berlin terra-cotta, representing the birth of
Erichthonios.1_ On the terra-cotta Athene receives the infant
Erichthonios from Gaia, who rises from the earth holding
him up.
On the vase with which we are now concerned the in-
cident has advanced a step. Athene and Gaia have dis-
appeared, and the three daughters of Kekrops have come
ou the scene. Nike is offering a libation to Kekrops; the
boy Erichthonios sits closely wrapped up in a mantle on a
rock of the Acropolis. It is understood that in the mean-
time Athene had confided the boy to the care of the three
daughters of Kekrops with injunctions as to secrecy. One of
them, however, Pandrosos, had yielded to curiosity and opened
the basket in which the boy lay. At the sight she ran frantic.
We may assume that the frenzied figure behind Nike is
Pandrosos, and thus while Nike is, so to speak, congratulating
Kekrops on the secrecy ? of the birth of Erichthonios, his daughter
has exploded the arrangement, and the presence of the boy is
in the way of becoming an open fact. One of the daughters,
standing before Erichthonios, hoids a sceptre—probably to
indicate the sceptre which is to pass to him in time. The
third daughter shares a little of the astonishment of Pandrosos.
While Kekrops is yet unaware of the divulging of the secret,
Erichthonios, on his part, appears to be still oppressed with
mystery, if we may judge so much from his mien and from his
being closely wrapped up; the covering of his head is still
conspicuous, though it has been pushed back as if to show
the beginning of his awakening to reality. We have thus
a better illustration, I think, than has yet been noticed of
the lines where Euripides makes Ion hang up a piece of
embroidery,*
1 Arch. Zeit. 1872, pl. 63. Mr. Head,
Hist. Num. p. 452, fig. 277, gives a
stater of Cyzicus with Gaia holding up
Erichthonios, and on the same page he
speaks of a figure of Kekrops, also on
a Cyzicene stater. A vase in the British
Museum, which has generally passed as
a representation of the birth of Erich-
thonios, is now described as Athene
receiving the infant Dionysos from the
nymph Dirke. See Robert, Arch. Maer-
chen, p. 190. It is the vase engraved in
Gerhard’s Auwuserlesene Vasenbilder, iii.
pl. 151.
? In the Berlin terra-cotta Kekrops
places a finger on his lips to indicate
that he was aware of the secreey which
was to be maintained.
3 Jon, 1163.
A RHYTON IN FORM OF A SPHINX. 3
Kat’ εἰσόδους δὲ Κέκροπα θυγατέρων πέλας
σπείραισιν εἱλίσσοντ᾽, ᾿Αθηναίων τινὸς
ἀνάθημα:
Ton being (line 54) χρυσοφύλακα τοῦ θεοῦ | ταμίαν τε πάντων
πιστόν would have access to the stores of embroideries dedicated
in the temple.
As regards the Satyr with his club and the female figure,
possibly a Maenad, which occupy the spaces under the body of
the Sphinx, there may not be any explanation of them beyond
that of mere decorative effect. The Sphinx herself, however,
suggests a train of thought appropriate to the secrecy of the
birth of Erichthonios, no less than to what befel Pandrosos for
her excess of curiosity. It is perhaps deserving of notice that
in the same tomb with this vase were found (1) a deep cup with
a scene of Demeter, Triptolemos and others at Eleusis, painted
by Hieron,’ (2) a hydria with Boreas pursuing Oreithyia, (3)
another hydria with a somewhat similar subject, and (4) a kylix
painted by Brygos? with scenes from the comic stage, one of
them recalling Aristophanes, Birds, 1202, where Iris enters. So
marked a consistency in the selection of Attic subjects may be
held to prove what otlerwise is very probable, that these vases
had all been imported from Athens, as was the piece of em-
broidery at Delphi representing Kekrops and his daughters.
The date of this importation would be earlier than the date of
the Jon (Olymp. 89), but not much so; and we must therefore
suppose that both Euripides and the painter of the Sphinx vase
had derived a suggestion or impulse from a work of art con-
spicuous in Athens in their time. What that work was does
not appear.
I may here mention, though it is not strictly necessary to
the present purpose, that Euripides in the chorus of the Jun
beginning (line 184) οὐκ ἐν ταῖς ζαθέαις ᾿Αθάναις has been
thought to have had in his mind a reference to newly executed
sculptures on the temple at Delphi,’ and indeed it would seem
hardly credible that he could have introduced those allusions
to sculptures which follow on in this chorus without some
1 Mon. dell’ Inst. Areh. ix. pl. 43: Annali, xliv. p. 294. Now in the
Annali, xliv. p. 226. Now in the British Museum.
British Museum. 3 Weleker, Alte Denkmédler, i. p.
2 Mon. dell’ Inst. Arch. ix. pl. 46: 169.
BS
4 A RHYTON IN FORM OF A SPHINX.
occasion of public interest to make them acceptable to his
audience. On the other hand, if the sculptures which he
there mentions were really sculptures on the temple at
Delphi, it is remarkable how appropriate they were to the
subject of his drama, being all of them connected with creatures
of a serpent or semi-serpent nature. First we have Herakles
slaying the Hydra, then Bellerophon with the Chimaera, and
again groups of deities slaying giants, which perhaps we may
assume to have been anguipede. If we suppose, as has generally
been done, that these groups were selected by him from among
the metopes of the temple, he need not have had any purpose
to serve in mentioning them other than to help to strike the
keynote of his drama, to form a sort of prelude to the great plot
of Kreusa with her drops of Gorgon’s blood, in which case the
argument as to these sculptures having been then freshly
executed would not necessarily follow. To the pediment
groups, representing, the one, Apollo, Leto and Muses, the
other, Helios, Dionysos and the Thyiades, he only refers with
the words! διδύμων προσώπων καλλιβλέφαρον φῶς. The
mention of such subjects would not have helped to tune the
minds of the audience for the drama that was to be evolved, as
did such a phrase as σκέψαι κλόνον ἐν τείχεσι λαΐνοισι
Γυγάντων (line 206). It is commonly thought that the groups
from the Gigantomachia which the chorus proceeds to notice
had been sculptured in the form of metopes, like the groups of
Herakles with the Hydra and Bellerophon with the Chimaera ;
but the phrase ἐν τείχεσι λαΐνοισι seems rather to indicate a
transition from the metopes to the frieze of the temple sculptured
with a continuous composition like the Gigantomachia on a
large krater in the British Museum,’ of the severe red-figure
style.
To return to the vase, it should be noted that the body of the
Sphinx is painted a soft, nearly creamy, white, which combines
finely with the black, red, and vermilion of the rest of the
1 Bronsted, Voyages dans la Grice, anias, x. 19, 4, having been later
ii. p. 151, had argued from this silence _ additions according to Bronsted. But
as to the subjects of the pediments Welcker seems to be right in rejecting
that there had in fact not been seulp- this view, Alte Denkméiler, i. p. 169.
tures in them at the date of the Jon, * Engraved in Heydemann’s Gigan-
the groups by Praxias and Andro- tomachie (1881).
sthenes, as we know them from Paus- %
A RHYTON IN FORM OF A SPHINX. 5
rhyton. The feathers of her wings are only faintly rendered by
modelling, the contours of them being strengthened by lines of
a yellowish colour; the small feathers in the breast are indicated
in yellow colour; she wears a necklace formed of three Gorgon’s
heads of terra-cotta gilt suspended on a red line. Her lips and
eyes are coloured. The hair over her forehead is gilt, the rest
of it being inclosed in a vermilion cap on which is painted a
pattern of fine zig-zag lines in white. Between her feet is a
small spout connected with the interior of the vase, and possibly
meant to facilitate the cleaning out of so irregularly shaped an
interior. The Satyr and the female figure which occupy the
spaces under the body of the Sphinx, one on each side, are in
red with a black ground like the design round the cup. Both
the drawing of the figures and the modelling of the Sphinx
retain traces of the archaic manner, from which it may be inferred
that the date of the rhyton would fall about B.c. 440.
A. 5. Murray.
ὐ NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANIAS.
NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
EE
Booxs IX. X., I. 1—38.
AND SUPPLEMENT.
[PLrates LXXIV—VIII]
WITH this third part our Numismatic Commentary is completed.
It consists of three sections :—
(1) Boeotia and Phocis (Paus. IX. X.)
(2) Athens (Paus. I. 1-38.)
(3) Supplement; containing coins of Peloponnesus omitted
in parts I. and II. of the Commentary.
The Athenian section of the work involved great difficulties,
especially in view of the fact that it was difficult to treat of the
Athenian coins without reference to reliefs and other works of
art of Athens. This difficulty the compilers have met as best
they eould: the Athenian coin-lists were drawn up in the first
instance by the Swiss colleague.
Special thanks are due to Herr Arthur Loebbecke and
Professor Rhousopoulos of Athens for most liberal envois of
casts: also to Professor Michaelis for valuable hints and cor-
rections in the Athenian section.
F. ImHoor-BLUMER.
PERCY GARDNER.
PLATAEA.
Paus. IX. 2,7. Πχαταιεῦσι δὲ ναός ἐστιν “Ἥρας, θέας ἄξιος"
. τὴν δὲ Ἥραν Τελείαν καλοῦσι, πεποίηται δὲ ὀρθὸν
μεγέθει ἄγαλμα μέγα' λίθου δὲ ἀμφότερα τοῦ Πεντε-
λησίου, ἸΤραξιτέλους δέ ἐστιν ἔργα. ἐνταῦθα καὶ ἄλλο
Ἥρας ἄγαλμα καθήμενον Καλλίμαχος ἐποίησε. Νυμ-
φευομένην δὲ τὴν θεὸν ἐπὶ λόγῳ τοιῷδε ὀνομάζουσιν.
Ἷ
PLATAEA. 7
Head of HERA to right wearing stephanos.
® Auton. Fourth century. Imh. Photiades. Paris.
B, M. Cat, pl. 1x, 3.
Similar head, facing.
JR Auton. Fourth century. Vienna. Imh.
B. M. Cat. pl. 1x. 4.
Head of Hera in profile, wearing pointed stephane,
AX Auton. Fourth century. IJmh.
Auton. Imh. Num. Zeit. 111, pl. 1x. 12.
The reverse of the bronze coin is a cow, which was sacrificed
to Hera, asa bull to Zeus. See Paus. rx. 3,8. An ox was a
dedicatory offering of the Plataeans at Delphi: Paus. x. 15, 1,
and 16, 6.
The two silver coins with the head of Hera are fixed by
Mr. Head (B. M. Cat. 1.c.) to B.c. 387-374, They are thus con-
temporary with the earlier activities of Praxiteles. We cannot
with confidence assert that they are in any sense copied from
his statue, but they will illustrate it as works of contemporary
art.
THEBES.
1.—Paus. 1x. 11, 7. Ὑπὲρ δὲ τὸν Σωφρονιστῆρα: λίθον βωμός
ἐστιν ᾿Απόλλωνος ἐπίκλησιν Σποδίου, πεποίηται δὲ ἀπὸ
τῆς τέφρας τῶν ἱερείων.
ΙΧ. 17, 2. Statue of Apollo Boedromius.
10,2. Statue like that at Branchidae.
APOLLO seated on cippus, naked, holding bow ; behind him, on
the cippus, his tripod.
Auton. Coin of Boeotia struck at Thebes. B. M. Cat. Pl. vi. 5.
2.—Paus, 1x. 11, 4. Ἐνταῦθα Ἡράκλειόν ἐστιν, ἄγαλμα. δὲ
τὸ μὲν λίθου λευκοῦ IIpouayos καλούμενον, ἔργον δὲ
Ξενοκρίτου καὶ Εὐβίου Θηβαίων" τὸ δὲ ξόανον τὸ ἀρχαῖον
Θηβαῖοί τε εἶναι Δαιδάλου νενομίκασι καὶ αὐτῷ μοι
παρίστατο ἔχειν οὕτω... .. .. Θηβαίοις δὲ τὰ ἐν τοῖς
ἀετοῖς ἸΤραξιτέλης ἐποίησε τὰ πολλὰ τῶν δώδεκα
καλουμένων ἄθλων.
25,4. Herakles Rhinocolustes.
26,1. Temple of Herakles Hippodetus.
HERAKLES advancing with club and bow; carrying off tripod;
shooting ; stringing bow ; or strangling serpents.
- ® Auton. Fifth century.
B. M. Cat. Pl. χες 1-8. Num. Zeit. 1877. Pl. 1.
These types, representing the exploits of Herakles, are given
8 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
in the B. I. Cat. to B.c. 446-426. In any case they are much
earlier than the time of Praxiteles, and can have nothing to do
with his pediments. The Herakles holding club and bow is the
most interesting figure, and seems clearly to stand for the Hera-
kles Promachos ascribed to Daedalus. But it can resemble that
statue only in pose and attributes; in the execution the die-
cutter followed the ideas and customs of his own time. Compare
the Messenian coin P Iy.
3.—Paus. 1x. 12, 4. πλησίον δὲ Διονύσου ἄγαλμα, καὶ τοῦτο
᾿ὈὈνασιμήδης ἐποίησε δι’ ὅλου πλῆρες ὑπὸ τοῦ χαλκοῦ"
τὸν βωμὸν δὲ οἱ παῖδες εἰργάσαντο οἱ ἸΠραξιτέλους.
Ix. 16,6. καὶ ἐγγυτάτω τοῦ θεάτρου Διονύσου ναός
ἐστιν ἐπίκλησιν Λυσίου.
Bearded Dionysus, in long chiton, standing, kantharos in
right hand.
# Auton. First century, 4.1. Photiades. (X 1.)
Head, Coinage of Bocotia, p. 95.
Head of bearded Dionysus.
El. At Auton. Fifth and fourth centuries.
B. M. Cat. Pl. x11. 5-9, &e. Num. Zeit. 1877, pl. u.
Head of young Dionysus.
# Auton. Third century B.c.
Bru, *Cat.. ΕἸΣ vied:
The reading in the passage first cited is corrupt: Kayser has
suggested ἐπιχώριος in the place of πλῆρες ὑπὸ τοῦ. See Brunn,
G.K.1. 297. The date of Onasimedes is unknown. The figure
on the coin is certainly archaic, as is proved not merely by the
beard and the long drapery, but by a certain stiffness of pose
and hardness in the outline of the back. We may compare the
Athenian coin CC VI.
4.—Paus. 1x. 16,1. Temple of Tyche;
25, 3 of Mater Dindymene.
Female head laureate and turreted, TYcHE or CYBELE; pro-
bably the former.
# late Auton. Photiades. (X m1.)
Head, Boeotia, p. 95.
We may compare the head probably of Messene, on the Mes-
senian coin P 1. At Messene there was a statue of Thebes of
the time of Epaminondas.
5.—Paus. 1x. 16, 5. Temple of Demeter Thesmophoros.
25,5. Grove of the Cabeiri, Demeter and Cora.
Head of DEMETER facing, crowned with corn.
fi 4 Auton. B. M. Cut. Pl. vi. 6-8. Imh.
THEBES. 9
6.—OrTHER TyPEs at Thebes (see B. MM. Cut.)
Poseidon seated and standing.
Head of Poseidon.
Head of Zeus.
Nike.
Athene standing, winged. See Imh. Fliigelgestalten, Num.
Zeit. U1. pp. 1-50. This type must represent rather Athene
Nike than Athene Zosteria (Paus. 1x. 17, 3): the only Athene
mentioned by Pausanias at Thebes.
TANAGRA.
1.—Paus. 1x. 19, 6. Τοῦ δὲ Εὐρίπου τὴν Εὔβοιαν κατὰ τοῦτο
ΠΗ͂ΡΕ ΓΕ n , es yD , ͵
ἀπὸ τῆς Βοιωτῶν διείργοντος. .. . Ναὸς δὲ ᾿Αρτέμιδός
> > lel \ ) / / a \ \
ἐστιν ἐνταῦθα καὶ ἀγάλματα λίθου λευκοῦ, TO μὲν
δᾷδας φέρον, τὸ δὲ ἔοικε τοξευούσῃ. ... φοίνικες δὲ πρὸ
τοῦ ἱεροῦ πεφύκασιν.
ARTEMIS huntress in a tetrastyle temple, spear in raised right
hand, torch in left ; on each side of it a palm-tree ; below
ship with sailors.
ΤΠ Anton. Pius. Paris. (X II1.)
ΜΗ; 111 522,110:
Artemis as above, without temple.
# Anton. Pius. Imh. (X Iv.)
Mion. 8, 111. 522, 111 (dog beside her),
In a distyle shrine, Artemis on a basis advancing to right;
holds spear and torch.
A Commodus. B. M. (ΣΧ νυ.)
Artemis advancing to right, holding burning torches in both
hands,
Auton. Imh. Num. Zeit. 1877, p. 29, 104.
The temple of X 11. containing a statue of the hunting
Artemis and flanked by palm-trees is clearly the temple by the
Euripus. The statue X v. is not greatly different from that on
X 111, and the difference in the number of pillars is not
essential,
2.—Paus. 1x. 20, 1. Ταναγραῖοι δὲ οἰκιστήν σφισι ἸΤοίμανδρον
γενέσθαι λέγουσι... . Ποίμανδρον δὲ γυναῖκά φασιν
ἀγαγέσθαι Τάναγραν θυγατέρα Αἰόλου. Κορίννῃ δέ
ἐστιν ἐς αὐτὴν πεποιημένα ᾿Ασωποῦ παῖδα εἶναι.
Head of PoEMANDER: inscribed MOIMANAPOC.
ZZ Auton. Imh.
Num. Zeit. 1877 ; 29, 106.
10 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANIAS.
Head of Asopus: inscribed ACQNOC.
# Auton. Imh. (X V1.)
Num. Zeit, 1877 : 30, 108.
The head of Asopus is ones it does not appear to be
horned, or present the distinctive type of a river-god.
3.—Paus. 1x. 20,4. Ἔν δὲ τοῦ Διονύσου τῷ ναῷ θέας μὲν καὶ
τὸ ἄγαλμα ἄξιον, λίθου τε ὃν Ilapiov καὶ ἔργον Καλά-
μιδος, θαῦμα δὲ παρέχεται μεῖξον ἔτι ὁ Τρίτων.
Under a roof, supported by two Atlantes on pillars, young
DIONYSUS wearing nebris and boots; holds kantharos
and thyrsos: below Triton swimming to left looking back.
# Anton. Pius. B. M. (XX vir.)
M. Aurel. Imh. (X vi.) Berlin.
Commodus. Rhousopoulos.
Num. Zeit. 1877 ; p. 82, 111. E. Curtius. Arch. Zeit. 1883, 255.
P. Wolters. Arch. Zeit, 1885, 263.
Imhoof, followed by Curtius, published this coin as giving a
representation of the statue by Calamis, as well as of the Triton
in the temple. Wolters, however, maintains (1) that the Triton
at Tanagra was no work of art but a specimen preserved by
pickling; (2) that the type of Dionysus on the coin is certainly
not earlier than the time of Pheidias, and cannot represent a
work of Calamis. There is force in these observations : perhaps
a solution of the difficulty may be found in this direction; the
Triton may be introduced as a sort of mint-mark or local symbol
of the city of Tanagra of which the pickled Triton was the chief
boast. And the building represented on the coin may not be
the temple of Dionysus, but a shrine with roof supported by two
Atlantes, and containing not the statue by Calamis, but one of
later date.
The following may be a figure of Dionysus :—
Male figure standing to right, in raised right, sceptre or thyrsus,
in left an object which looks like a huge ear of corn or
bunch of grapes.
Augustus. Imh, (X 1x.)
This figure is on so small a scale that the details are obscure.
The god seems to wear a chlamys or nebris over the shoulders:
whether he is bearded or beardless is uncertain. This figure
should from the analogy of the other small coins of Tanagra
represent a statue; and it is more like what we should
expect in a Dionysus of Calamis than the figure of the
previous coin.
TANAGRA. 11
4.—Paus. 1x. 22, 1. Ἔν Τανάγρᾳ δὲ παρὰ τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ
Διονύσου Θέμιδός ἐστιν, ὁ δὲ ᾿Αφροδίτης, καὶ ὁ τρίτος
a fal ᾽ / e fal \ ’ a Ἂ Μ /
τῶν ναῶν ᾿Απόλλωνος, ὁμοῦ δὲ αὐτῷ [καὶ] "Αρτεμίς τε
καὶ Λητώ.
x. 28,6. Apollo at Delium. ἐδήλωσε δὲ καὶ ὁ
Μῆδος Δᾶτις λόγοις τε, Os εἶπε πρὸς Δηλίους, καὶ τῷ
» e / 2 / A OD ΄ \ ϑ /
ἔργῳ, ἡνίκα ἐν Φοινίσσῃ νηΐ ἄγαλμα εὑρὼν ᾿Απόλλωνος
> / 5 / : /
ἀπέδωκεν αὖθις Ταναγραίοις ἐς Δήλιον.
Archaic APOLLO facing; holds in right hand a branch, in left
a bow: hair in formal curls.
4 Germanicus. Imh. (ΣΧ x.) B.M. Eckhel, Syl/oge pl. 11. 10.
Commodus (Germanicus?) Jus. Sanclem., pl. 24, 201.
This figure is of the usual archaic type, much like the Apollo
of Tectaeus and Angelion at Delos (CC x1.—xIV.) and decidedly
more archaic than that of Canachus at Miletus, since the legs
seem to be parallel to each other as well as the arms. On the
coin the hard outlines of chest and hips are conspicuous. This
figure may be a copy of the statue at Delium, traditionally said
to have come out of a Phoenician ship.
5.—Paus. 1X. 22,1. Ἔς δὲ τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ τὰ ἱερὰ τοῦ τε Kprodopov
καὶ ὃν ἸἹΠρύμαχον καλοῦσι, τοῦ μὲν ἐς τὴν ἐπίκλησιν
λέγουσιν ὡς ὁ Ἑρμῆς σφίσιν ἀποτρέψαι νόσον λοιμώδη
περὶ τὸ τεῖχος κριὸν περιενεγκών, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ Κάλαμις
ἐποίησεν ἄγαλμα ‘Epuod φέροντα κριὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ὦμων. ...
Τὸν δὲ “Ἑρμῆν λέγουσι τὸν Πρόμαχον ’Epetpiéwy ναυσὶν
ἐξ Εὐβοίας ἐς τὴν Ταναγραίαν σχόντων τούς τε ἐφήβους
ἐξαγαγεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν μάχην, καὶ αὐτὸν ἅτε ἔφηβον στλεγ-
γίδι ἀμυνόμενον μάλιστα ἐργάσασθαι τῶν Ἑὐβοέων
τροπήν. Κεῖται δὲ ἐν τοῦ ἹΠρομάχου τῷ ἱερῷ τῆς [τε]
ἀνδράχνου τὸ ὑπόλοιπον' τραφῆναι δὲ ὑπὸ τῷ δένδρῳ τὸν
“Ἑρμῆν τούτῳ νομίζουσιν.
HERMES Criophorus; naked, facing.
# Auton. Imh. Num. Zeit. 1877, 29, 106-7.
ΒΜ (ee τὶ) (Cat, Plex. 15. Berlin, Imbhse (ex)
Prokesch-Osten, Jnedita 1854, 11. 62.
Hermes Promachus facing, holds in right hand a strigil, in left
a caduceus (?)
#& Trajan. B. M. (X xur.) See however B. J. Cat. p. 66.
Hermes naked, his feet winged, standing to right, caduceus in
left hand; beside him a tree on which sits an eagle ;
right hand rests on hip, left on tree.
12 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANIAS.
# Trajan and Ant. Pius. (X χιν.) Rhousopoulos.
M. Aurel. Imh. (X xv.) Vienna (X XVI.)
Num. Zeit. 1877, 32, 110.
The first of these types (XL, XII.) clearly reproduces the
He: mes of Calamis. One arm of the god passes round the fore-
feet and one round the hindfeet of the ram; on one coin the
hands seem to meet on the breast as in the well-known Athenian
statue of Hermes carrying a bull, on the other coin one hand
seems to be higher than the other. The pose of the god is stiff
and his legs rigid: he is naked. He is also beardless, but
whether his feet are winged, the scale of the coin makes it
impossible to say.
The second type (XIII.) is identified by means of the strigil,
if it be a strigil, with Hermes Promachos. This type seems
to represent an oviginal of the fifth century. The hair of
the god is long, his left leg is advanced and bent, but he can
scarcely be said to lounge.
The third type (XIV.—XVI.) is connected with the temple of
Hermes Promachus by the tree whereon the eagle sits, which is
doubtless the andrachnus of the story. At the foot of the tree
is a curved object which may be a strigil. The figure is youthful
and wears short hair, but the pose is somewhat stiff.
6.—OTHER TYPES at Tanagra.
Three nymphs draped, hand in hand.
Augustus. B. M. Cat. Pl. x. 13. Vienna. (X xvii.)
Cf. the Athenian coin (KE VI.)
HALIARTUS.
1.—Paus. Ix. 26,5. ᾿Απὸ δὲ τοῦ ὄρους τούτου πέντε ἀπέχει
καὶ δέκα σταδίους πόλεως ἐρείπια ᾿Ογχηστοῦ. φασὶ δὲ
ἐνταῦθα οἰκῆσαι Ποσειδῶνος παῖδα ᾿Ογχηστόν. ἐπ᾽
ἐμοῦ δὲ ναός τε καὶ ἄγαλμα Ἰ]οσειδῶνος ἐλείπετο
᾿᾽Ογχηστίου καὶ τὸ ἄλσος, ὃ δὴ καὶ Όμηρος ἐπήνεσε.
PosEIDON naked, charging to right with raised trident.
A Auton. Fifth century Imh. B. M.
Num. Zeit. 1871, 335, 19.
Onchestus was in the territory of Haliartus.
THESPIAE.
1.—Paus. Ix. 26, 8. τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα τὸ Διονύσου καὶ αὖθις
Τύχης.
TYCHE standing : holds patera and cornucopiae.
# Domitian. 48. IM. Cat. pl. xvi. 15. (Χ xviii.)
Mion. S. 111. 533, 189 (turreted).
THESPIAE. 13
. 2.—Paus. 1x. 27, 5. ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἑτέρωθι Αφροδίτης Μελαινίδος
ἱερόν, καὶ θέατρόν τε καὶ ἀγορὰ θέας ἄξια' ἐνταῦθα
‘Holodos ἀνάκειται χαλκοῦς.
Head of APHRODITE, with one or two crescents in the field,
AR Auton, Fourth century B.c. Florence.
B. M. Cat. pl. xvi. 8-10. Imh.
Aphrodite standing draped; the end of her himation falling
over her left arm, her right hand outstretched over a
draped figure, apparently female, who holds flower and
lifts her dress.
ZZ Domitian. Imh. (X xix.)
One is tempted to bring this group into connexion with the
statues of Athene Ergane and of Plutus standing by her, men-
tioned by Pausanias (26, 8). But the taller figure has none of
the attributes of Athene, and the shorter figure is clearly a
draped goddess and no representation of Plutus. The statues
of Aphrodite resting on a draped archaic female figure are
collected by Gerhard in his paper Venere Proserpina, plates
vii.—xli, See also R. Schneider, Statuctte der Artemis, Vienna,
1886,
3. OTHER TYPES at Thespiae.
Apollo with hair in queue seated to right on cippus, in
citharoedic costume ; holds lyre.
# Domitian. Ὁ. M. (X xx.) Rhousopoulos,
Here again we are at first sight tempted to see a copy of a
monument described by Pausanias, the seated statue of Hesiod
thus described by Pausanias (30, 3): Κάθηται δὲ καὶ Ἡσίοδος
κιθάραν ἐπὶ τοῖς γόνασιν ἔχων, οὐδέν τι οἰκεῖον ᾿Ησιόδῳ φόρημα.
But the figure is clearly beardless, which we can ΒΟΔΙΌΘΙΥ
suppose Hesiod to have been. It is, however, open to question
whether Pausanias may not have taken an Apcllo Citharoedus
for a Hesiod. :
Apollo draped, facing, holds plectrum and lyre,
Domitian. B. M. (X xxt.) Rhousopoulos.
Veiled female head, wears calathos.
ff Auton. B. M. Cat. pl. xvi. 12-13.
Veiled female figure, right hand raised.
«Ἢ Domitian. B. M.
CORONEIA.
Paus. 1x. 34,1. Πρὶν δὲ ἐς Κορώνειαν ἐξ ᾿Αλαλκομενῶν
ἀφικέσθαι, τῆς ᾿Ιτωνίας ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἐστὶ τὸ ἱερόν... . ᾿Εν δὲ
τῷ ναῷ χαλκοῦ πεποιημένα ᾿Αθηνᾶς ᾿Ιτωνίας καὶ Διός
τ
1: NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS,
> » 4 -- / TF) U a \
ἐστιν ἀγάλματα" τέχνη δὲ Ayopaxpitov, μαθητοῦ τε Kal
> / / > / ἈΝ \ r / > ΄
ἐρωμένου Φειδίου. ἀνέθεσαν δὲ καὶ Χαρίτων ἀγάλματα
ἐπ᾿ ἐμοῦ. Λέγεται δὲ καὶ τοιόνδε, ᾿Τοδάμαν ἱερωμένην τῇ
θεῷ νύκτωρ ἐς τὸ τέμενος ἐσελθεῖν, καὶ αὐτῇ THY’ Αθηνᾶν
φανῆναι, τῷ χιτῶνι δὲ τῆς θεοῦ τὴν Μεδούσης ἐπεῖναι
τῆς Γοργόνος κεφαλήν.
Head of ATHENE facing, and in profile.
AR Auton.4 bo πα ΟΡ:
Imh. Nwm. Zeit. 1877, 20, 57.
Gorgoneion,
M Auton. BL. M. Cat. pl. vu. 6-9.
Imh. Num. Zeit. 1877, 19, 56-57.
PHOCIS.
1.—Paus. x. 2,5—7. Mention of Onomarchus and Phalaecus.
Both names are found on autonomous copper of Phocis
B. MM. Cat. Ὁ. 23, &e.
DELPHI.
1—Paus. x.5,1. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἄνοδος διὰ τῆς Δαυλίδος és
τὰ ἄκρα τοῦ ἸΠαρνασοῦ, μακροτέρα τῆς ἐκ Δελφῶν, οὐ
μέντοι καὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ χαλεπή.
PARNASSUS within wreath; inscribed NYOIA.
£ Auton. Millingen, Récuci? τι. 11. Mus. Sanclem. τ. 179.
In the engraving of Millingen, Parnassus appears to be
depicted on the coin much in the style of modern landscape-
painting, a mountain with three summits. This is for Greek
art a most unusual mode of representation, the nearest parallel
being the type of Mons Argaeus on the coins of Caesareia in
Cappadocia, aud the mountains on two coins of Amisus, struck
by Trajan and Hadrian (Imh.)
2.—Paus. x. 5,13. τὸν δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν τῷ θεῷ ναὸν ὠκοδόμησαν
μὲν ἀπὸ τῶν ἱερῶν οἱ ᾿Αμφικτυόνες χρημάτων, ἀρχι-
τέκτων δέ [τις] Σπίνθαρος ἐγένετο αὐτοῦ Κορίνθιος.
Χ, 19,4. Τὰ δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἀετοῖς, ἔστιν ἴΑρτεμις καὶ Λητὼ
καὶ ᾿Απόλλων καὶ Μοῦσαι". .... τὰ μὲν δὴ πρῶτα αὐτῶν
᾿Αθηναῖος ἹΙραξίας μαθητὴς Καλάμιδός ἐστιν ἐργασά-
μενος.
24, 1. Ἔν δὲ τῷ προνάῳ τῷ ἐν Δελφοῖς γεγραμμένα
ἐστὶν ὠφελήματα ἀνθρώποις ἐς βίον. ἐγράφη δὲ ὑπὸ
ἀνδρῶν ods γενέσθαι σοφοὺς λέγουσιν Ἑλληνες.
94 4. “ δὲ \ ’ / N lal δύ 5 > \ δὲ
24, 4. ἕστηκε δὲ καὶ ἀγάλματα Μοιρῶν δύο: ἀντὶ δὲ
DELPHI. 15
αὐτῶν τῆς τρίτης Ζεύς te Μοιραγέτης καί ᾿Απόλλων
σφίσι παρέστηκε Μοιραγέτης.
24,5. Ἔς δὲ τοῦ ναοῦ τὸ ἐσωτάτω παρίασί τε ἐς αὐτὸ
ὀλίγοι, καὶ χρυσοῦν ᾿Απόλλωνος ἕτερον ἄγαλμα ἀνά-
κειται.
Front of tetrastyle temple, with pediment containing standing
figures: Ε (Delphic ΕἸ) between pillars.
# Hadrian. Copenhagen. (X xx111.)
Faustina Sen. nh. (X xxu.) Zeitschr. f. Num. τ. 115 (hexastyle).
The pediment is variously represented on these two coins:
on No. xxl. there seems to be a standing figure with hand
raised between two crouching animals; on No. XXII. there
seem to be several figures.
TEMPLE OF APOLLO with six columns at side: in the entry
statue of Apollo naked, standing, resting left elbow on
a pillar, his right hand advanced; at his feet omphalos
or altar.
FaustinaSen. B. M. (X xxiv.) Rhousopoulos (X xxv.) cf. M.S. 111. 500, 49.
Similar figure of Apollo without temple or omphalos—
4 Hadrian. Mus. Parma (X xxvi.) Paris. Rhousopoulos,
Apollo naked, standing to left, his right foot supported on a
square basis, holds in right hand lyre which rests on
knee, in raised left branch of laurel, left elbow rests on
tripod, on the basis of which is inseribed ΠΥΘΊΑ.
Hadrian. Sestini, Ifws, Hederv. pl. x. 2.
For this coin our only authority is the plate of Sestini’s work,
which is not altogether trustworthy ; the lyre seems impossibly
small, and the letters TYOIA may be suspected; in fact it is
not unlikely that the figure described by Sestini may be
identical with that in the next description.
Apollo naked, standing, in his right hand a branch, his left
hand raised; behind him, tripod on basis: at his feet,
river-god (Pleistus, Paus. x. 8, 8).
Hadrian. Berlin (¥ 1.)
Berl. Biatter, v. pl. uv. 8. Zeit. 7. Num. vu. 217.
There is an appearance of a staff in the left hand of Apollo.
Tripod on stand.
A Hadiian. Ramus. τι pl. 1. 12.
Antinous. Photiades (Υ̓ 11.) Cf. Zeit. fi. Nua. xin. pl. iv. 8, where the
tripod is inverted.
Altar bound with laurel.
# Hadrian. B. M.
10 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANTAS,
Apollo standing; in right hand branch or patera; left arm
resting on pillar and holding lyre.
# Hadrian. Mion. S. 11. 499, 38 (Vaillant).
Caracalla. Mion. 11. 98, 31 (Vaillant).
The types thus far described are such as can with reasonable
probability be supposed really to represent the temple at Delphi
and objects contained in it. First we have the front of the
temple (KX XXII.) supported by six Ionic columns and _ sur-
mounted by a pediment, in which may be discerned a standing
figure with arm raised as if to strike, and two animals crouching
in the corners. Steps lead up to the temple. The letter E,
which occupies the intercolumniation, is no doubt the mysterious
Delphic εἶ as to which Plutarch has written : it here stands, in the
shorthand usual in Greek art, for all the wise and witty sayings
set up in the pronaiis. Next comes a side view of the same
temple (K XXIVv.), the pediment occupied by a mere disk. In
the front appears a naked standing figure of Apollo, his elbow
resting on a column. This figure repeated in K XXv1I. would
seem to be the principal statue of Apollo in the Temple. Two
other sets of coins present to us a figure in general pose closely
like this, but varied in attribute and detail. Of one set, only
known from the descriptions of Vaillant, we are unable to figure
a specimen. The other type appears as Υ 1. Here the figure
of Apollo is doubly localised, by the presence of the river-god,
and by the tripod on a stand in the background, which tripod
is the type of Ὑ 11. It has been wrongly supposed that this
tripod stands for that dedicated by the Greeks after Plataea and
placed on the brazen serpents still preserved at Constantinople
(cf. Paus. X. 13, 9), wrongly, since in Pausanias’ time the tripod
had already disappeared and only the stand remained. Rather
it stands for the sacred tripod whereon the soothsaying priestess,
the Pythia, sat to deliver her oracles, On the coin published
by Sestini it is inscribed ΠΎΘΙΑ; this inscription, supposing it
really to exist, is somewhat ambiguous: it may indicate that
the tripod was dedicated in memory of a victory in the Pythian
games, or it may have a more local signification.
When we reach the question in what part of the temple the
statues copied on these coins existed we land in great difficulties.
The two statues mentioned by Pausanias are that of Apollo
Moeragetes, and » golden statue undescribed, kept. in the
DELPHI. 17
adytum. The latter statue is mentioned by various writers,
but not described. Wieseler (Denhm. τι. 184) observes that tlie
statue probably held a lyre, but even this is not completely
established by the passages he cites, Plutarch, de Pyth. ον. 16,
Sulla 12. It is therefore not improbable that the figure on the
coins above mentioned may be the Apollo of the adytum, though
we must mention as an alternative possibility that that statue
is repeated rather on some of the coins mentioned below which
bear the type of a Citharoedic Apollo,
The golden statue can scarcely be supposed to be of earlier
date than the times of Onomarchus, or it would probably have
been seized by him.
Paus. X. 16, 3. Τὸν δὲ ὑπὸ Δελφῶν καλούμενον dudaror,
λίθου πεποιημένον λευκοῦ, τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ ἐν μέσῳ γῆς
πάσης αὐτοί τε λέγουσιν οἱ Δελφοί, κιτ.λ.
Obv. Tripod.
Rev. Omphalos ; thus represented ©,
AR early Auton. Imh. B.M. &c. Zeit. f. Num. τ. 294.
Δὲ Auton. Ramus, 1. pl. 111. 12.
Faustina Sen. B. M.
Omphalos, entwined by snake, and covered with net-work.
A Auton. Berlin. ev. Num. 1860, pl. x11. 8.
44 Hadrian.
Omphalos on basis.
Ὁ Hadrian. Imh.
Omphalos on rock.’
#i Hadrian. 8. ΗΠ. Cat. pl. tv. 20.
Apollo naked, standing, right hand resting on head, left hand
half raised.
A Hadrian) ΒΡ MM. (Y 111.)
Apollo Citharoedus, in long chiton, advancing to right, playing
on lyre.
Zi Auton. Millingen, Récwetl, τι. 10 and 11.
Hadrian. B. M. Copenhagen (Y¥ tv.) Berlin. Rhousopoulos.
Overbeck, Berichte der Kais. Sachs. Ges. der IVissensch. 1886,
Apollo Citharoedus facing, clad in iong chiton, holds plectrum
and lyre.
A Faustina Sen. Rhousopoulos.
Apolio, wearing himation, seated on omphalos; right hand
raised.
# Hadrian. Berlin. (Y v.)
Apollo laur., naked to waist,seated to left on rock, on which
lyre; his right hand rests on his head.
i Faustina Sen, Vienna, Schottenstift (Y v1.)
ἘΠ ΘΙ; Vill. σ
18 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANIAS.
Coin struck by Amphictyons (x. 8,1). Obv. Head of Demeter
veiled and crowned with corn. ev. Apollo, laur., clad
in long chiton, seated to left on omphalos; right hand
raised to his chin, in left, laurel-branch ; lyre beside him.
R Fourth zent. B.M. (Y vi.)
Imh. Berlin.
Inscription ΠΡΟΠΟΛΟΙ AM@IKTYONEC.
ΜΒ Antinous. Imh. Zeit. 7. Num. xii. pl. tv. 3.
Head of Apollo, laureate.
AR # Auton. Berlin. (Bow before head.)
Faustina Sen. B. δῖ, (Y vu.) Rhousopoulos. (Y rx.) Imh.
We have here a large group of types of Apollo the origin of
which we cannot refer to any known statue at Delphi. The —
first type (Y 111.) certainly has a statuesque appearance, and
Y Iv. belongs to that class of representations of Apollo Citha-
roedus of which the origin is attributed to Scopas. As to these
see Overbeck in the Berichte of the Saxon Academy, 1886.
Wieseler (Denkmaeler, u. 134a) regards the figure on the coin
as a copy of a statue in the theatre of Delphi. The seated
figures of Apollo cannot be traced back to a sculptural original :
one of them (Y vil.) belongs to a period when we should expect
the die-sinker to invent a type for himself, and not to copy a
statue; the other two are of imperial times, but cannot be
identified. The latter of the two heads of Apollo (Y vur, Ix.)
is probably copied from a statue; the queue falling on the neck
of the god behind, and the severe features seem to indicate a
work of early att.
Laurel wreath inscribed ΠΥΘΊΑ (Paus. x. 7, 8).
#, Auton. Hadrian. Anton. Pius. Faustina Sen. Caracalla.
Tripod with NYOIA.
# Auton. ~Brondsted, Reisen 1. p. v1. (Obv. Apollo Citharoedus. )
Table with NYOIA.
Ai Faustina Sen. B. M. Mus. Civico, Venice.
3.—Paus. x. 8, 6. ᾿Εσελθόντι δὲ ἐς τὴν πόλιν εἰσὶν ἐφεξῆς
vaol’.... ὁ τέταρτος δὲ ᾿Αθηνᾶς καλεῖται IIpovolas. Τῶν
δὲ ἀγαλμάτων τὸ ἐν τῷ προνάῳ Μασσαλιωτῶν ἀνάθημά
ἐστι, μεγέθει τοῦ ἔνδον ἀγάλματος μεῖζον.
ATHENE standing; spear in her raised right hand, shield on
left arm.
# Hadrian. Paris. (Y x.)
Faustina Sen. Imh. (Y x1.)
Mion. S. 111. 500, 50-51.
DELPHI, 19
This type may be compared with those ot Athens (AA XVv.,
XvI.). The pose and attributes of the goddess belong to the
time when the stitf archaic Palladia had been superseded by
statues of softer outline and gentler movement, but before
Pheidias had entirely recreated the ideal of the deity.
4.—Paus. x. 32, 7. To δὲ ἄντρον τὸ Κωρύκιον μεγέθει τε
ὑπερβάλλει τὰ εἰρημένα, καὶ ἔστιν ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ὁδεῦσαι
δι᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄνευ λαμπτήρων'" ὅ τε ὄροφος ἐς αὔταρκες
ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐδάφους ἀνέστηκε, καὶ ὕδωρ τὸ μὲν ἀνερχόμενον
ἐκ πηγῶν, πλέον δὲ ETL ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀρόφου στάζει, ὥστε
καὶ δῆλα ἐν τῷ ἐδάφει σταλαγμῶν τὰ ἴχνη διὰ παντός
ἐστι τοῦ ἄντρου. ‘lepov δὲ αὐτὸ οἱ περὶ τὸν Παρνασὸν
Κωρυκίων τε εἶναι Νυμφῶν καὶ ἸΙανὸς μάλιστα ἥγηνται.
Pan naked, in human form, seated on rock, in right hand
pedum, which rests on another rock.
# Hadrian. B.M. (Y x1.)
Pan seated to left in Corycian cave.
# Hadrian. [τη]. (Y xi.) Zeit. 7. Num. τι pl. ἂν. 9a.
Baumeister, Denkmaeler der Cl. Alt. p. 961.
Pausanias does not speak of a statue of Pan: the repre-
sentations on the coins seem to be rather of the class which
indicate the presence of deities at certain localities than of the
class which reproduce works of art.
6.—OTHER TYPES at Delphi:
Altar wreathed, on basis.
ΤΣ Hadrian. Imh. Β. M.
Raven on olive-branch.
# Hadrian. B. M. Paris.
Lyre on rock.
# Hadrian. Munich.
Artemis as huntress, clad in short chiton.
i Faustina Sen. Paris. (Y xiv.)
Mion. 11. 97, 30: Sup. 11. 501, 55.
Several figures of Artemis are mentioned among the donaria
at Delphi.
ELATEIA.
1.—Paus. x. 34, 6. ᾿Επὶ τῷ πέρατι δὲ τῷ ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς πόλεως
θέατρόν τέ ἐστι καὶ χαλκοῦν ᾿Λθηνᾶς ἄγαλμα ἀρχαῖον'
ταύτην τὴν θεὸν λέγουσιν ἀμῦναί σφισιν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὁμοῦ
Ταξίλῳ βαρβάρους.
᾿Ελατείας δὲ ὅσον σταδίους εἴκοσιν ἀφέστηκεν ᾿Αθηνᾶς
ἐπίκλησιν Kpavatas ἱερόν.
C2
20 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
8. To δὲ ἄγαλμα ἐποίησαν μὲν καὶ τοῦτο οἱ Πολυκλέους
παῖδες, ἔστι δὲ ἐσκευασμένον ὡς ἐς μάχην, καὶ ἐπείρ-
γασται τῇ ἀσπίδι τῶν ᾿Αθήνησι μίμημα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀσπίδε
τῆς καλουμένης ὑπὸ ᾿Αθηναίων Ἰ]αρθένου.
ATHENE in form of Palladium.
i. Auton. B.M. (Y¥ xvi.) &c:
Similar; in field, tripod.
# Auton. B. M. Imh.
Athene charging to right with spear advanced, shield on left arm.
E Auton. B.M. (Y xv.)
Head of Athene.
# Auton. Paris.
We meet here with a difficulty: Pallas appears fighting in
two different attitudes; and it is impossible to say with
certainty which is nearer to the sculptural work of the sons
of Polycles, Timocles and Timarchides. But the date of these
artists is later than that of the coins, 3rd century B.C.
ANTICYRA.
1.—Paus. x. 36, 8. Ἔστι δέ σφισιν ἐπὶ τῷ λιμένι Ἰ]οσειδῶνε
οὐ μέγα ἱερόν, λογάσιν ὠκοδομημένον λίθοις: κεκονίαται
δὲ τὰ ἐντός. τὸ δὲ ἄγαλμα ὀρθὸν χαλκοῦ πεποιημένον,
βέβηκε δὲ ἐπὶ δελφῖνι τῷ ἑτέρῳ τῶν ποδῶν: κατὰ τοῦτο
δὲ ἔχει καὶ τὴν χεῖρα ἐπὶ τῷ μηρῷ, ἐν δὲ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ χειρὶ
τρίαινά ἐστιν αὐτῷ.
Head of PosEIDON.
# Auton. Berlih.
Zeit. f. Num. νι. 15. Rev. Num. 1843, pl. x. 3.
2,.—Paus. x. 37, 1. Τῆς πόλεως δὲ ἐν δεξιᾷ, δύο μάλιστα
/ ᾽ > Ε) lol / / / 5) e /
προελθόντι ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς σταδίους, πέτρα τέ ἐστιν ὑψηλή,
μοῖρα ὄρους ἡ πέτρα, καὶ ἱερὸν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς πεποιημένον
> \ > 72 ” la] } A ”
ἐστὶν ᾿Αρτέμιδος" ἔργον τῶν ἸΠραξιτέλους, δᾷδα ἔχουσα
τῇ δεξιᾷ καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ὥμων φαρέτραν: παρὰ δὲ αὐτὴν
κύων ἐν ἀριστερᾷ: μέγεθος δὲ ὑπὲρ τὴν μεγίστην γυναῖκα
τὸ ἄγαλμα.
ARTEMIS clad in short chiton advancing to right, quiver at
shoulder; in her right hand bow, in her left torch; dog
beside her.
#E Auton. Berlin. (Y xvi.)
Let, 7. Num. 1.c, Rev. Num. 1.c.
This type and the head of Poseidon are two sides of the same
coin. The torch borne by Artemis is distinctive, and gives us
reason to think that the figure of the coin is, if not exactly a
ANTICYRA. 21
copy, at all events a free reproduction of the Anticyran statue
of Artemis by the sons of Praxiteles, Cephisodotus and Timar-
chus. The old reading was ἔργων τῶν LpaksréXovs, and the
statue is
cited by Brunn (G. K.) and other writers as a work of
Praxiteles himself. And in fact the reading of our text does
not exclude Praxiteles as the artist, cf. the phrase ἔργον τῶν
Μύρωνος (ix. 30, 1) and compare Arch. Zeit. 1876, p. 167.
ATHENS.
1. (2) Paus.1.1,1. Athene Sunias: temple on the top of the
() Ἢ:
(ὦ).1:
(d) 1.
(6) 1.
(f) 1
() 1.
(h) τ.
(i) τ.
(7) τ.
(1) τ.
Ὁ
(m) 1.
(m) I.
(0) I.
promontory of Sunium.
1,3. Athene in Piraeus, bronze statue holding lance.
1, 4 and 36, 4. At Phalerum. Temple of Athene
Sciras.
2,5. Near Cerameicus. Statue of Athene Paeonia.
8, 4. In the temple of Ares, statue of Athene by
Locrus of Paros.
14, 6. In or near the temple of Hephaestus. Statue
of Athene with blue eyes, γλαυκοὺς ἔχον τοὺς od-
θαλμούς.
28, 4. Onthe Acropolis, Statue of Athene Hygieia
(by Pyrrhus of Athens).
24,1. On the Acropolis. Athene striking Marsyas,
for picking up the flutes thrown away by her.
24,2. On the Acropolis. Athene springing from the
head of Zeus.
24,3. On the Acropolis. Athene producing the olive,
and Poseidon waves.
24, 5. The Parthenon. Subject of west pediment
birth of Athene, of east pediment contest of Athene
and Poseidon for the land.
24,5-7. In the Parthenon. Chryselephantine statue,
standing, in long chiton; on her breast, Medusa-head ;
holding Nike and spear, shield at her feet, by her
spear, snake.
26, 4. On the Acropolis. Seated statue by Endoeus.
26,6. On the Acropolis. Athene Polias, very sacred
statue said to have fallen from heaven.
28,2. On the Acropolis. Bronze statue by Pheidias
(Promachos). Lance-point and helmet visible on the
way from Sunium: shield decorated by Mys. —
92 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANIAS.
(p) 1. 28, 2. On the Acropolis. Athene Lemnia, most
remarkable of Pheidias’ works.
(φ) 1.80, 4; 31,6. At Colonus. Altar of Athene Hippia,
also at Acharnae.
(r) 1. 32,2. On Pentelicus. Statue of Athene.
(s) 1.37, 2. Temple of Demeter on sacred way. Athene
and Poseidon honoured there.
(ἢ τ. 87,6. Temple of Apollo on sacred way. Statue of
Athene.
In the following classification of the various types of Athene
we would not be understood positively to endorse the identifica-
tions inserted in the text of coin-types with ancient works of
art. But for the identifications there is, in each case, much to
be said, and as we have not space to discuss them at length, we
accept them provisionally in order to obtain a basis for arrange-
ment. If any of them be hereafter disproved, it will not destroy
the value of our. work.
1. ATHENE PARTHENOS (ἢ.
Athene standing, aegis on her breast; holds in right hand
Nike, in left, spear; left hand rests on shield represented
in profile.
fi Imh. B.M. Loebbecke. (Y xviii.)
Hunter Coll. Pl. x. 36, 37.
As last, shield bearing Gorgoneion partly conceals her body.
EB. M. (Y xrx.) Beule 258, 1.
As last but one; snake at her feet.
AB.M. (Yxx.) Beulé 258.
AB. M. (Υ xxi.) Beulé 258.
With these coins we may compare the following type on a
Cilician coin of the fourth century B.c. which seems also a
reproduction of the Athenian Parthenos.
Athene facing, holds in right hand Nike, left hand rests on
shield, right elbow supported by trunk of tree.
ARB. M. Gardner, Types, pl. x. 28. De Luynes’ coll. (ΑΥ̓͂ xxi.)
Also tetradrachms of Alexander I. and Antiochus VII., Euer-
getes, of Syria (Wieseler, Denkm. τι. 203; Br. Mus. Cat.
Seleucidae, pl. xv. 5; pl. xx. 6, &c.).
Paus. 1. 24,5. Μέσῳ μὲν οὖν ἐπίκειται of τῷ κράνει Σφυγγὸς
εἰκών,. .«. . καθ᾽ ἑκάτερον δὲ τοῦ κράνους γρῦπές εἰσιν
ἐπειργασμένοι.
Head of Athene in three-crested Athenian helmet; on the
ATHENE PARTHENOS. 23
side of it Pegasus running; over the forehead foreparts
of horses.
A Auton. B. M. (¥ xxui1.)
Bust of Athene in crested Athenian helmet, of which the
ornamentation is obscure, but there seems to be an owl (?)
on the neck-piece; wears necklace and aegis.
# Auton. Loebbecke. Parma. (ΑΥ̓͂ xxiv.) Berlin.
With these may be compared coins of Alexandria struck
under Julia Mammaea.
Bust of Athene in three-crested Athenian helmet: on the top,
sphinx, on the side a Pegasus or griffin, over the forehead
heads of four horses.
Potins BM. (Y;xxv:)
The literature which treats of the Parthenos statue of Pheidias
and its reproductions in statuette relief and coin is so extensive
that it is quite impossible here to summarise the results which
it establishes. The coins add little to our knowledge; but on
one or two points their testimony is important :—
(1) the prop which on the Athenian statuette discovered in
1881 supported the right hand of Athene does not appear on
the Athenian coins; but it does on a leaden tessera at Berlin,
which bears the inscription AOE and reproduces the Parthenos
statue (v. Sallet, Zeit. Κ Num. X. p. 152.) On the Cilician coin
above cited, the stump of a tree is similarly introduced as a
support, In our plates will be found several instances in which
a prop appears to have been placed under the arm of a statue,
see EK LXxxvil, N xxiv., O 1Χ., T vi1, and more particularly
the reproductions of the early statue of Artemis Laphria at
Patrae on pl. Q, and the seated female figure, pl. ἘΠΕῚ XVI, XVIL.,
who rests her hand on a column.
(2) The animal on the side of the helmet of Athene on late
silver coins of Athens is generally quite clearly a Pegasus (as
in XXIII.) but sometimes, though rarely, certainly a griffin.
The coin of Imperial times (XXIV.) gives us a nobler, and in
some respects truer, representation of the original, but the
details cannot be made out. The coin of Alexandria (xXv.)
adds the Sphinx as a support of the crest, and distinctly con-
firms the probability, established by coins and gems, that the
visor of Athene’s helmet was adorned with foreparts of four
horses. Schreiber (Arch. Zeit. 1884, p. 196) remarks that
owls are sometimes found on the coins in the place of the fore-
24 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
parts of horses; such coins are entirely unknown to us; the
foreparts of horses are universal, and it can scarcely be doubted
that they represent something which existed over the forehead
of the Parthenos statue. A curious variant, however, occurs in
the gold reliefs of St. Petersburg which give the head of the
Parthenos (Athen. Mittheil, 1883, pl. xv., p. 291). In this case
a sphinx supports the crest, flanked by Pegasus on each side ;
but over the forehead, in the place of the foreparts of horses,
are foreparts of griffins and stags alternately.
2. ATHENE PROMACHOS (0).
Athene facing, head left, spear transversely in right hand,
shield on left arm, aegis on breast.
ZEB.M. (4 1.) Imh. Loebbecke (Ζ 11.)
Beulé 390, 7. Lange in Arch. Zeit. 1881, 147.
Similar; before her, snake.
A Hunter, pl. x. 39.
On the whole Lange’s identification of this type as a
reproduction of the Promachos of Pheidias seems sound. He
maintains that the turn of the head visible on the coin
reproduces a turn of the statue’s head which was directed
towards its right shoulder. He considers that the relief and
statues published by von Sybel in the Athenian J/ittheil. 1880,
p. 102, also represent Athene Promachos.
.3. THE ACROPOLIS.
The Acropolis-rock ; on it to the left the Parthenon, to the
right a staircase leading up to the Propylaea; between these,
figure of Athene on basis; below, cave in which Pan seated
to left.
Ai B. M. (Z 111.) Imh. (Z tv.) Paris (Z v.)
Beulé, 394. Lange in Arch. Zeit. 1881, p. 197.
Similar ; Propylaea lower down, and type of Athene different.
A Vienna (Z vi.) Rhousopoulos.
Similar, right and left transposed.
# Beulé, 394, 2. Berlin. Michaelis Paus. descr. arcis, p. 1, 3.
Loebbecke (Z Vit.)
i. Ivy. and y. of the plate represent roughly the Acropolis as
seen from the north-west angle, in which aspect the marble stair-
case leading up to the Propylaea would appear on the extreme
right, next, the Propylaea themselves, next, the bronze Athene,
and next, the Parthenon; the Paneion being somewhat to the
left of the staircase. The staircase is the principal feature
of the view, this ἔργον τῆς ἀναβάσεως was executed in the
THE ACROPOLIS. 25
reign of Caius (C.I.A. ui. 1284-85). The coins are all of the
age of the Antonines. When, however, we come to a con-
sideration of details we find much want of exactness. The
Propylaea are very inadequately represented, and the orientation
of the Parthenon is incorrect. M. Beulé thinks that Pan is in
the act of playing on the flute ; but this is very doubtful.
But the most important point is the type and attitude of
Athene. It is clear from the position of the statue that the
intention of the die-cutter was to represent the bronze colossus
of Pheidias which stood in the midst of the Acropolis, and we
ought thus to gain some evidence as to the details of that
colossus. But any such hope is destined to failure. On some
of the coins such as Z Iv., as Lange has already observed, the
type represented is clearly that of the Parthenos. On others
(as Z 111.) she clearly holds Nike in her right hand, but her
left seems to be raised. It is further a doubtful point whether
the apparent differences between Z IU, and Z Iv. do not arise
from mere oxidation.
4, ATHENE IN PEDIMENTS (/).
Athene running to right; in left shield and spear; right hand
extended, beneath it olive entwined by snake; in
front, owl.
EB. M. &c. Imh. (Z vit.)
Beulé, 890, 12. Arch. Zeit. 1870, pl. xxx. 3.
E. A. Gardner in Jowrn. Hell. Stud. 111. 252.
Schneider, Die Geburt der Athena, 1880, pl. 1.
Similar figure ; no olive, but to right snake or snakes.
& Loebbecke (Z 1x.) Rhousopoulos.
Beulé, 390, 10 and 11.
Similar figure ; no olive, but to left snake.
Z Loebbecke (Z x.)
With these we may compare the following :—
Similar figure, plucking with right hand twig from olive;
under olive, owl on pillar ; to right, altar,
A Roman medallion of Commodus. B. M. (Z x11.)
Froéhner, p. 137.
Similar figure, holding in right hand Nike.
ΑΕ of Tarsus: Balbinus, &c.
R. Schneider (op. cit.) discusses the origin of this type which
is widely copied in sculpture (6.9. Clarac. pl. 4624, No. 858a, a
small statue of Pentelic marble in the Capitoline Museum) and
in reliefs, as well as on coins and gems. By the aid of a puteal
20 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
discovered at Madrid (engraved also in L. Mitchell’s History oy
Sculpture, p. 350) he traces the running figure of Athene back
to the east pediment of the Parthenon, where the birth of the
goddess is depicted. The resemblance of the coin-type to
Athene on the puteai is very striking; but on the other hand
we lack any satisfactory proof that the design on the puteal
closely reproduces that of the pediment. Other writers, as
Friederichs (Bausteine, 401) and Mr. Ernest Gardner (Journ.
Hell. Stud. ut. 252) have seen in the type reproduced in statues
and coins of this group Athene from the west pediment.
Certainly she is closely like the goddess in Carrey’s drawing of
that pediment, only turned in the opposite direction. The
attitude of the right hand is enigmatic. Mr. E. Gardner sees
in it a gesture of triumph as the goddess points to the olive of
her creation, but on the Roman medallion the goddess is
distinctly plucking an olive-spray from the tree.
Thus it cannot be considered certain which of the pediments
has furnished the prototype of this running Pallas; but it is
not improbable that she may be traced to one or the other;
her likeness to the extant figure called Iris in the eastern
pediment strengthens the presumption,
A figure closely similar occurs in a round temple on a gem,
in Wieseler, Denkmdler, τι. 216c. This may be regarded as
telling against the identification here proposed, but not with
great force.
4, ATHENE AND POSEIDON (ἢ and J).
Olive-tree entwined by snake, owl seated in the branches. To
left of it Poseidon, in whose raised right hand trident
pointed to the ground, and on whose left arm chlamys ;
at his feet dolphin. To right of it Athene, right hand
advanced, in left shield and spear.
4 B. M. Rhousopoulos (Z x1.) Vienna (Z xu.) Paris. Loebbecke (Ζ xiv.)
Stephani, Compte Rendu, 1872, p. 5, 3; p. 185, 1.
Similar, owl and dolphin wanting.
Zi Imh. (Z xvi.)
Athene standing to right ; shield behind her, her left stretched
towards olive, round which snake twines; owl on olive.
On the other side of the tree Poseidon standing to left,
his right foot resting on a rock, left hand resting on
trident, right hand advanced,
ATHENE AND POSEIDON. 27
Loebbecke (Z xvu.) Rhousopoulos.
cf. Wieseler, Denkmédler, No, 234.
Athene standing to left, grasping with right hand olive-tree,
against which her spear leans, behind her shield and
snake : on the other side of the tree Poseidon to right,
his left foot resting on rock, right hand resting on
trident, left hand advanced.
“Ὁ Roman medallion of M. Aurelius.
Prov. Museum, Bonn (Z xv.)
ef. the relief published by Robert in the Athens Iittheilungen for 1882.
We have here two entirely distinct groups, each comprising
Athene, Poseidon, and an olive-tree entwined by a snake. The
first group (XL, XII, XIV., XVI.) is closely like the celebrated
group on the vase of St. Petersburg published by Stephani
(C.R. 1872) and repeated in this Journal (1m. p. 245), where
some account is given of the various interpretations to which
the group has given rise. In the other group (XV. XVII.)
Athene and Poseidon are not in conflict but at rest, and
apparently engaged in colloquy. One is naturally tempted to
bring the former group into connexion with the west pediment
of the Parthenon, and to regard the latter group as connected
with the anathema on the Acropolis mentioned by Pausanias
in passage j. A noticeable point in the coins of the first
group is that the snake is in all cases distinctly hostile to
Poseidon,
5. ATHENE STANDING BY OLIVE.
Athene standing to left before olive-tree; in her right hand
spear held transversely, in her left shield which rests on
the ground.
£ B. M. Rhousopoulos. Bibl. Turin. (Z xvii.) Snake twined round tree,
B. M. (Z xx.) Owl perched in tree.
Loebbecke. Owl at foot of tree.
Beulé, 390, 8. Owl in tree, snake at foot.
This Athene may perhaps be part of a group, which, when
complete, would include Poseidon on the other side of the tree.
On one specimen (Z xvill. B. M.) the snake which is twined
round the tree seems to be looking at an enemy, who can
scarcely be other than Poseidon. On the other hand the
Athene of these coins is not exactly like the Athene of the
groups above cited; more, however, like the goddess in the
second than in the first group.
98 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANIAS.
6. OLIVE-TREE.
Paus. 1. 27, 2—Olive-tree in temple of Athene Polias :—
Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἐλαίας οὐδὲν ἔχουσιν ἄλλο εἰπεῖν ἢ TH θεῷ
μαρτύριον γενέσθαι τοῦτο ἐς τὸν ἀγῶνα τὸν ἐπὶ τῇ
/
χώρᾳ.
Olive-tree with snake and owl.
ZB. M. &c.
Beulé, 391, 7-11.
Olive-tree with owl and amphora,
i B. M. Loebbecke, &c.
Beulé, 391, 10.
Olive-tree, owl, amphora, palm-tree.
Rhousopoulos.
Ramus, I. pl. 111. 18.
Olive-tree, snake, and dice-box.
Beulé, 392, 2. |
Olive-tree, snake, owl, and dice-box.
Beulé, 154.
7. ATHENE AND Marsyas (}.)
Athene standing, dropping the flutes; before her Marsyas in
an attitude of surprise.
4 Athens Mus. Rhousopoulos (Z xx.)
Beule, p. 398. Z. f. Num. vit. 216.
Overbeck, Gr. Plastik. 1. p. 209.
Wieseler, Denkmdler, No. 2390.
Athene to left, right hand advanced, at her feet serpent; —
before her Marsyas in an attitude of surprise.
& Bibl. Turin (Z xx.)
This is an interesting group, and we find in it traces of
sculptural origin, although Athene is not, as in the group
described by Pausanias, striking Marsyas. Wieseler suggests
(Nachrichten der k, Gesellsch. d. Wis, Gottingen, 1885, p. 324)
that the reading Μαρσύαν παίουσα is corrupt, and that a
better would be Μαρσύαν αὐλοῦντα ἀναπαύουσα. Cf. however
Michaelis, Paus. descr. arcis, p. 9, and Petersen, Arch. Zeit. 1880,
who explains the phrase of the text.
Several writers whose opinions are summed up by Overbeck
(Gr. Plastik. 1. 209, and note 165) agree in regarding the
Marsyas of the coin, which is like a marble statue in the
Lateran and a bronze statuette in the British Museum, as
copied from the Marsyas of Myron. The attitude of Athene is
on the two coins different, and as they are too ill-preserved for
ATHENE AND ΜΑΒΒΥ ΑΒ, 29
us to judge of it in detail, we must content ourselves with
saying that she is in a quiet attitude, indicating neither anger
nor hostility. Pliny speaks of a group by Myron thus, (/ccif)
salyrum admirantem tibias et Minervam, which phrase applies
far better to the group of the coin than the phrase of Pausanias ;
it thus appears not unlikely that we may have here a repro-
duction of the group of Myron, which may have been preserved
at Athens.
We next reach a number of types of Athene which cannot be
definitely traced back to a sculptural orivinal: some are mere
varieties of the types already described, some are new, and offer
a field to investigation in future.
8, ATHENE NIKEPHOROS.
Athene standing to right; spear in raised right hand, Nike in
left, himation round waist.
LB. M. Loebbecke. Paris (J xxu1.)
Furtwiingler in Roscher’s Lexicon, p, 702.
Beulé, 290, 6.
Athene standing to left ; holds in right Nike, in left spear, shield
slung on left arm.
JE Loebbecke (Z Xx111.)
Athene standing to right; in right hand Nike, in left spear;
at her feet snake to right ; behind her, owl on pillar.
ZE Naples (Cat. No. 7156) (AA 1.)
The first coin under head 8 belongs to the class of figures of
which the Pallas of Velletri is the most noteworthy specimen.
Furtwingler in Roscher’s Levicon, Ὁ. 702 describes the class,
which seems to have originated in the fourth century.
9, ATHENE HOLDING OWL.
Athene standing to right; owl in left hand, patera (?) in right ;
clad in long chiton.
ZEImh. B. M. Loebbecke (AA 11.)
Beulé, p. 387, 1, 2.
(Obv. Head of Zeus or Head of Artemis. )
Athene standing to left ; owl in right hand, spear in raised left ;
himation over shoulders.
#. B. M. (AA 111.)
Athene standing to right ; owl in her right hand, in her left
spear held transversely ; coiled snake at her feet.
i Imh. Loebbecke. Rhousopoulos (AA Iv.)
Hunter, pl. x. 33.
80 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
Athene standing to right; owl in right hand, spear in left
hand, shield on left arm, himation over shoulders.
= B. M. (AA VY.)
Athene standing to right; in raised right hand owl; behind
her owl on pillar.
££ Rhousopoulos. Loebbecke.
ef. Miiller-Wieseler, Denkmdler, 11. No. 221, where the object in the hand
of Pallas is identified as a pomegranate.
The first described of these types is the most important, and
seems clearly to portray a sculptural original of the early
period; there is in the pose something of archaic stiffness.
Beulé suggests that it may portray the Athene Archegetis, of
which the scholiast to Aristophanes (Aves, 1. 515) says γλαῦκα
εἶχεν ἐν τῇ χειρί. But this phrase is not distinctive, the owl
being a usual attribute of Athene: we are equally likely to be
right in considering the present type as Athene Paeonia.
Athene Hygieia it cannot be, as that statue held a spear in the
left hand: cf. Michaelis in Athenian Jittheil. τ, 389,
10, ATHENE HOLDING PATERA.
Athene facing, head to left; patera in right hand, spear in
left; shield on left arm.
ZX Loebbecke. Rhousopoulos (AA VI.)
Athene facing, head to left; in right holds patera over altar,
in left spear; shield on left arm.
£ Hunter, pl. x1. 4.
Beule, 256, 3.
As last, but left hand rests on shield; to left of altar, olive,
with snake and owl.
Z Beulé, 256, 2.
11. ATHENE STANDING, ARMED.
Athene standing to left, her raised right resting on spear,
shield behind her; wears himation.
Z Beulé, 390, 8. Imhoof (AA VII.)
Athene standing to right; holds in raised right hand spear,
left rests on shield before her.
Loebbecke (AA vill.)
Athene standing to right; holds in raised right hand spear, on
left arm shield; snake at her feet.
£Z Loebbecke (AA Ix.)
| 12. ATHENE ARMED, RUNNING.
Athene running to right, looking back, right hand outstretched,
in left shield and spear ; drapery flying from her shoulder ;
before her, snake to right.
ATHENE ARMED, RUNNING, 31
£ Paris (AA x.)
Athene running to right, right hand outstretched, on left arm
shield ; before her, snake to right.
JE Loebbecke (AA X1.)
The former of these two types is closely like the above-
described figure of Athene from a pediment (Z VuL-x.), the only
noteworthy difference being in the position of the right arm,
which in the pediment type is extended backward, in the
present type is stretched to grasp the edge of Athene’s shield.
This latter type is remarkably like Athene (or Enyo) on the
coins of the Lucanians and Bruttians of the third ceutury.
Athene moving to left, spear transversely in right hand, on
left arm shield ; before her, snake to left.
& Loebbecke (AA xu.) Rhousopoulos.
Athene moving to left, right hand advanced, in left shield and
spear; before her snake, behind her owl.
A Loebbecke (AA XIII.)
13. ATHENE FIGHTING.
Athene fighting to right; in raised right hand thunderbolt, on
left arm shield.
ΖΚ Β. Μ. (AA xiv.) ἄς Before her snake, horse’s head or other symbol.
Beulé, 386, 1-3.
Athene fighting to right; in raised right hand spear, on left
arm shield.
EBM. (AA xv.)
Similar figure; behind her, olive-tree entwined by snake;
before her, owl.
# B. NM. (AA xv1;)
Beule, 890, 13.
Similar figure, charging rapidly to right.
#B.M. (AA xvn.)
Athene charging to right; in right hand spear outstretched, on
left arm aegis,
JE Loebbecke (AA xviii.) B. M. (AA x1x.)
Beulé, 390, 1: 346, 3.
At her feet snake, owl, or other symbol.
These types seem to represent successive stages in the
development of the normal Athene Polias.
14. ATHENE HOLDING OLIVE-BRANCH.
Athene standing to left, holds in right olive-branch over coiled
snake, on left arm shield.
E Beulé, 390, 4. Hunter. x1, 10.
32 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS,
This type closely resembles some of those ranged under
Athene running. Compare especially AA XII.
15. ATHENE VOTING.
Athene facing; left hand on hip, in right, vote which a
drops into amphora ; beside her, Hei
Rhousopoulos.
This coin is very obscure in details; it may represent Athene
Areia, of the Areiopagus, cf. Paus. 1. 28, 5.
16. ATHENE SEATED.
Athene seated to left on throne; Nike in right hand, spear in
left ; shield behind seat,
Z Loebbecke (AA xx.) Imh. &e.
Beulé, 320, 1.
Athene seated to left on throne; patera in right hand, spear
in left ; shield behind seat; before her olive-tree.
LB. M. (AA xx1.) Loebbecke.
17. ATHENE IN CHARIOT.
Athene, holding spear advanced, in galloping biga to right.
# B. M. (AA xx.) Imh. Rhousopoulos (small size.)
Beulé, 890, 14 and 15,
Similar figure in quadriga,
LB. M. Loebbecke (AA xx111.)
Athene, with spear in raised right, in galloping biga.
EB. M.
18, ATHENE-NIKE. Cf. Paus. I. 22, 4. Temple of Nike
Apteros.
Athene or Nike winged facing, clad in chiton and helmeted,
holds in left hand a standard surmounted by an archaic
Palladium.
A Copenhagen (AA xxtv.)
Kev. Num. 1858, p. 357: Wieseler, Denkin. 11, 220.
(Reverse, AO, Owl.)
This is a remarkable and unique drachm, assigned by
M. Beulé in the Revue to the time of Conon. It was perhaps
intended to circulate in Asia, and in fact was probably issued
from an Asiatic mint. It cannot be said with certainty whether
the representation should be called Athene or Nike: the helmet
and the Palladium are in favour of the former attribution. We
have no reason to think that it reproduces a statue; certainly
not that of Athene Nike on the Acropolis.
2.(a) Paus. 1. 1, 3. At Peiraeus. Bronze statue of Zeus,
holding sceptre and Nike.
ATHENE NIKE. 33
(Ὁ) 11,3. At Peiraeus. Statues of Zeus and Demos by
Leochares.
(c) 1.1,4. At Phalerum. Temple of Zeus.
() 1.2,5. Inthe gymnasium of Hermes. Statue of Zeus.
(e) 1. 8, 2. Near the royal stoa. Zeus Eleutherius.
(f) 1. 3,5. In the senate-house. Xoanon of Zeus Bulaeus.
(g) 1.18,6. Inthe Olympieium. Colossus of Zeus in ivory
and gold, set up by Hadrian,
(kh) 1.18,7. Inthe Olympieium. Zeus in bronze.
(ὦ) 1.18, 9. Temple of Zeus Panhellenius and Hera, founded
by Hadrian.
. 24, 4. On the Acropolis. Statue of Zeus by Leo-
chares.
(k) 1.24, 4. On the Acropolis. Zeus Polieus.
(ἢ 1.32,2. On Hymettus. Zeus Hymettius.
(m) 1. 32,2. On Parnes. Bronze statue of Zeus Parnethius.
(x) 1. 32,2. On Anchesmus. Zeus Anchesmius.
ZEus naked, thundering, left hand advanced; archaic treatment
of hair and beard ; at his feet, eagle ; sometimes symbols
in field.
4 B. M. &. Imh. (ΒΒ 1.)
Beulé, 249, 281, 357, 368.
Zeus naked, standing, thunderbolt in right hand which hangs
down, left hand advanced. .
# Munich. B.M. Imh. (BB 1.)
Zeus naked, standing, thunderbolt in right hand which hangs
down, in left patera over altar entwined by snake.
#B.M. (BB 111.)
Beulé, 396, 1.
Zeus seated, naked to waist, Nike in right hand, sceptre in
left.
ZB. M. (BB iv.)
Beulé, 396, 2.
Jahn has proposed the theory (WV. Memor. dell’ Inst. A. p. 24)
that the more archaic Zeus (I.) on the coins is a copy of the
archaic statue of Zeus Polieus (0), and the later Zeus of a
similar type (III.) is a copy of the statue by Leochares which
stood beside it (7). On this theory Overbeck (Κ΄. M. p. 54)
remarks that Jahn’s identification of the archaic statue of Zeus
Polieus though not certain is probable; and certainly its
parallelism with the recognized type of Athene Polias (AA XIV.)
is in favour of such identification. To Jahn’s argument as to
H.5:—VOL. ‘VII, D
ἄπ
a
we
μ-
34 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANIAS.
the statue by Leochares, Overbeck adds that the altar in front
of the figure on the coin (II1.) may stand for the altar which
stood before Zeus Polieus, where was performed the annual
ceremony of the Buphonia or Diipolia (Paus. τ. 28, 11.)
The seated figure of Zeus (IV.) is very probably copied from
the colossal statue set up by Hadrian in the Olympieium (9)
which would naturally be a copy of the chryselephantine statue
by Pheidias at Olympia.
3. (a) Paus. 1. 1, 3. At Peiraeus. Temple of Aphrodite,
founded by Conon, after his victory at Cnidus.
(Ὁ) 11,5. Promontory Colias. Statue of Aphrodite Colias
and the Genetyllides.
(Ὁ 1.8, 4. In the temple of Ares. Two statues of Aphro-
dite.
(7) 1.14, 7. Near the Cerameicus. Temple of Aphrodite
Urania: statue by Pheidias of Parian marble.
(ec) 1.19, 2. In the gardens (κῆποι). Temple of Aphrodite,
and herm of Aphrodite near, called Urania, eldest of
the Moerae.
(7) τ. 22, 3. South of Acropolis. Statues of Aphrodite
Pandemos ; new, but good.
(7) τ. 23, 2. On the Acropolis. Statue of Aphrodite by
Calamis, dedicated by Callias.
(Δ) 1.37, 7. In the pass to Eleusis. Temple of Aphrodite.
(ἢ 1. 20, 2. In Street of Tripods. Standing Eros and
Dionysus by Thymilus.
Aphrodite does not seem to occur on coins of Athens. The
ἤρατο described by Beulé (p. 225) as the Syrian Aphrodite is
Isis; that figured as Aphrodite with the Genetyllides is the
Delian Apollo.
Eros facing, with right hand crowns himself; in his left
a palm.
A Imh.
Beulé, 222.
Riggauer, Eros auf M. p. 8.
4. (a) Paus.1. 1,4. At Munychia. Temple of Artemis Muny-
chia.
(Ὁ) 1. 19,6. At Agrae. Temple of Artemis Agrotera: καὶ
τὸ ἄγαλμα διὰ τοῦτο ἔχει τόξον, K.T.D.
(c) τ. 23,7. On the. Acropolis: καὶ ᾿Αρτέμιδος ἱερόν ἐστι
Βραυρωνίας, ἸΤραξιτέλους μὲν τέχνη τὸ ἄγαλμα, τῇ
ARTEMIS. 35
θεῷ δέ ἐστιν ἀπὸ Βραυρῶνος δήμου τὸ ὄνομα. καὶ τὸ
ἀρχαῖον ξόανόν ἐστιν ἐν Βραυρῶνι, “Aptemis, ὡς
λέγουσιν, ἡ Ταυρική.
(ἢ 1. 30,4. On the Acropolis: Τῆς δὲ εἰκόνος πλησίον τῆς
᾿Ολυμπιοδώρου χαλκοῦν ᾿Αρτέμιδος ἄγαλμα ἕστηκεν
ἐπίκλησιν Λευκοφρυηνῆς, ἀνέθεσαν δὲ οἱ παῖδες οἱ
Θεμιστοκλέους.
(ὁ) 1.33,1. At Brauron. Archaic xoanon of Artemis.
(f/f) τ. 29,2. By the Academy : περίβολός ἐστιν ᾿Αρτέμιδος
καὶ ξόανα ᾿Αρίστης καὶ Καλλίστης.
(σ) 1. 38, 6. At Eleusis. Temple of Artemis Propylaea.
Archaic ARTEMIS facing, clad in chiton with diplois, hair in
formal curls; holds patera and bow; beside her, stag
looking up.
AB. M. (ΒΒ ν.) Paris (De Luynes) (BB VI.)
Beulé, p. 287.
If the archaic figure of Artemis at Brauron was a copy of
the ancient xoanon carried off by the Persians to Susa and
given by Seleucus (Paus. 111. 16, 7) ὑο the people of Seleucia in
Syria, on whose coins (N XI. XII.) we find copies of it, the
present representation does not reproduce the Brauronian
statue as Beulé supposed, being of another type. It is far
more probably an Artemis Leucophryne. The statue dedicated
by the sons of Themistocles would in all probability be modelled
more or less closely on the cultus-statue of that deity in her
temple at Magnesia in Ionia, where Themistocles was dynast.
This cultus-statue is often reproduced on late coins of Magnesia ;
the goddess was represented in nearly the same form at Mag-
nesia as at Ephesus, with polus on head, the body in term-like
shape, pendent fillets hanging from the outstretched hands.
The figure on our coin does not fully conform to this description ;
the feet are articulate, and in the outstretched hands are patera
and bow; nevertheless the scheme seems rather Asiatic than
European, and it seems not unlikely that the sons of Themis-
tocles may have innovated in details on the fixed traditional
type.
Archaic Artemis facing, clad in long chiton, holds torch in
each hand.
ARB. M. (BB vit.)
Beulé, 380.
Artemis (not archaic) or Demeter facing, clad in long chiton,
D 2
36 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
holds torch in each hand: beside her seated Dionysus,
q.v.
ARB. M. (CC vit.)
Beulé, 202.
Artemis running to right, clad in long chiton, holds two torches
—quiver at shoulder.
ZE Loebbecke (BB vit.) B. M. (BB 1x.) Rhousopoulos (BB x.)
JE Loebbecke (BB x1.) Rhousopoulos. (Figure to left.)
Artemis Agrotera in short chiton, running, spear in her raised
right hand, her left outstretched ; beside her, hound.
FB. Ma (ΒΒ τι)
Beule, 214.
Artemis clad in short chiton, running, torch in both hands.
ARB.M. Imh. (BB xur.) £Imh. (BB xv.) Loebbecke. (BB xiv.)
Beulé, 375.
Artemis clad in short chiton, running, a torch in each hand:
beside her Demeter standing, clad in long chiton, holding
a torch.
ἣν B. M. (BB xvi.)
Beule, 325.
On Athenian coins, Artemis, when she bears one or two
torches, is not easily to be distinguished from Demeter. The
figure with short skirts is of course Artemis; as to the figure in
long skirts we may hesitate: but on some coins, notably X, a
quiver is distinctly visible, which can of course belong only to
Artemis. When Artemis appears in company with Demeter
(xvi.) Beulé (p. 325) calls her Propylaea, there being a temple
of Artemis Propylaea at the sanctuary of Eleusis.
5. (a) Paus.1.1,4. At Phalerum. Temple of Demeter.
(>) 1. 2, 4 Within the Peiraean gate: καὶ πλησίον ναός
ἐστι Δήμητρος, ἀγάλματα δὲ αὐτή τε Kal ἡ παῖς Kal
δᾷδα ἔχων Ἴακχος: γέγραπται δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ τοίχῳ γράμ-
μασιν ᾿Αττικοῖς ἔργα εἶναι Πραξιτέλους.
(c) 1. 14, 1. ναοὶ δὲ ὑπὲρ τὴν κρήνην ὁ μὲν Δήμητρος
πεποίηται καὶ Κόρης. ἐν δὲ τῷ Τριπτολέμου κείμενόν
ἐστιν ἄγαλμα.
(d) τ. 22, 8. At entrance to Acropolis. Temple of Demeter
Chloe.
(6) 1. 51,1. In the Halimusian deme. Temple of Demeter
Thesmophoros and Cora,
(f) 1. 31,1. In the Prospaltian deme. Temple of Demeter
and Cora.
DEMETER. 37
DEMETER or Cora standing; holds two torches turned down-
wards.
AB. M. (BB xviz.)
# Munich. (BB xvui.)
Beulé, 198.
Demeter standing to left clad in chiton and over-dress ; holds in
right ears of corn, left rests on hip.
A Oxford. (BB xrx.)
Beulé, 210.
Demeter facing, head bound with ears of corn, clad in chiton
with diplois, over-dress over arms; holds in left long
sceptre, with poppy at top (?); right hand extended.
A Paris. (BB xx.)
Beulé, 258, 1.
Demeter seated to left crowned with corn ; holds in right two
ears of corn, in left torch.
AB. M. (BB xx1.)
Beulé, 334.
Demeter seated to left on throne ; holds in right hand two ears
of corn, left rests on sceptre.
ΚΒ. M. Loebbecke. (BB xxi1.)
Demeter seated in chariot of snakes; ears of corn in her hand.
ZB. M.
Overbeck, Demzter, pl. ix. 24 and 2b. Imh. 27. ΟὟ. pl. c. 26.
Demeter as above ; torch in left hand.
EB.M. Beulé, 289, 6; 322-23.
Demeter standing in chariot of snakes; holds ears of corn and
cornucopiae.
R #.
Beulé, 289, 2 and 4; 291, 1.
Demeter as above, holds ear of corn and torch.
MR Paris. Cf. Beulé, 289.
f4iImh. (BB xxitt.)
Overbeck, Demeter, pl. viii. 38.
Demeter, holding torch, standing in chariot of snakes: before
her Cora holding long torch, behind her Artemis (?) who
also holds torch.
# Parma. (BB xxiv.) Rhousopoulos.
Beulé, 291, 2. Overbeck, Demeter, pl. viii. 39.
Triptolemus naked, standing in chariot of snakes.
Beulé, p. 291, 3.
Triptolemus naked to waist seated in chariot of snakes ; holds
ears of corn.
# B. M. = Loebbecke.
In the above list we have not attempted to distinguish types
which represent Demeter from those which represent Cora. Nor
38 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
is it possible to determine which of the types represent sculptural
originals. Most of them are discussed by Overbeck (KX. Jf. 111
497); and we have not space for so long a discussion as would
be necessary if we attempted to discriminate them properly.
6. (a) Paus. 1. 2,5. In the Gymnasium of Hermes. Dionysus
Melpomenus.
(Ὁ) 1.14,1. Inthe Odeium. A Dionysus Oeas ἄξιος.
(c) 1. 20,2. In the Street of Tripods. Temple with statue
by Thymilus.
(ὦ τ. 20,3. Near the Theatre: Tod Διονύσου δέ ἐστι πρὸς
τῷ θεάτρῳ τὸ ἀρχαιότατον ἱερόν. δύο δέ εἰσιν ἐντὸς
τοῦ περιβόλου ναοὶ καὶ Διόνυσοι, 6 τε ᾿Ελευθερεὺς καὶ
ὃν ᾿Αλκαμένης ἐποίησεν ἐλέφαντος καὶ χρυσοῦ.
(6) 1. 29,2. At the Academia. Temple to which on set
days was brought the statue of Dionysus Eleuthereus.
(f) 1. 31,6. At Acharnae. Dionysus Melpomenus and
Dionysus Cissus.
Bearded Dionysus, arms and shoulders bare, seated on throne,
holds wine-cup and sceptre ; hair hanging in long tresses,
and crowned with ivy.
AX Parise Οὔτ:
)
#Imh. (CC uu.) BM. (CC 1.)
Beulé, 261, 1—3.
Similar figure; before him incense-altar on table,
“Ὁ Imh. Photiades. (CC Iv.)
Beulé, 261, 4.
Head of bearded Dionysus, crowned with ivy, hair falling in
long tresses.
“«Ἔ Loebbecke. (CC v.)
Beulé, 376, 1 and 3.
There can be little doubt that the figure reproduced on these
coins is, as Beulé has suggested, the Dionysus of Alcamenes.
His likeness to the Pheidian Zeus is conspicuous in regard to
his general attitude and the fashion of his outer garment, which
does not cover the upper part of his body, but is brought over
the left shoulder. There does not seem to have been a chiton
under it. He is well adapted for a great cultus-statue, and that
he served as such is proved by the table and altar of the coin IV.
The head on the coin last described seems to be an exact
enlargement of the head of the seated figure. It is certainly of
noble type, but we may be somewhat surprised to find Aleamenes
perpetuating so archaic a fashion of doing the hair.
DIONYSUS. 39
Bearded Dionysus standing, clad in long chiton; hair in
archaic fashion; holds wine-cup and thyrsus transversely,
the latter bound with fillet.
RB.M. (CC v1.)
Beulé, 376.
Young Dionysus standing, clad in short chiton, holds wine-cup
and rests on thyrsus.
# Bunbury. Num. Chron. 1881, pl. iv. 4.
Young Dionysus, standing in long chiton; holds in right hand
mask, in left thyrsus.
ARB. M. (CC. vi.)
Beulé, 373.
Dionysus seated, facing, clad in long chiton, two torches over
shoulders; beside him Demeter or Artemis standing,
holding torch in each hand.
Ay. MM. (CC vii.)
Beulé, 202.
Of these figures the first (CC vi.) seems undoubtedly a copy
of an archaic statue, of about the time of Calamis. The figure
holding a mask may be copied from one of the statues of
Dionysus in the Theatre or its neighbourhood. The female
figure in company with Dionysus should be Demeter rather
than Artemis; the artistic type, however, would do for either.
Paus. 1. 21. THEATRE OF DIONYSUS.
The Theatre of Dionysus; above, the wall of the Acropolis,
over which the Erechtheum, the Parthenon and the
Propylaea of the Acropolis.
AB.M. (CC x.) Photiades. (CC 1x.) &c.
Beulé, 394; Donaldson, Architectura Numismatica, No. 2,
It seems probable that this Theatre was chosen as a type for
coins in consequence of the great improvements effected in it
about the time of Hadrian, notably the erection of an elevated
logeion. See C.L.A. ili. 239. Donaldson has called attention to
the openings or niches which appear on the coin at the top of
the cavea and at the foot of the Acropolis rock, and has cited in
connexion with them the words of Pausanias, I. 21, 3, who says
that at the top of the theatre is a cave in the rocks, wherein is
a tripod, and in it Apollo and Artemis slaying the children of
Niobe. In Michaelis’ plan of the Acropolis a cave is indicated
at the same spot, which was formerly blocked by the choragic
monument of Thrasyllus (Deser. Arcis Athenarum, 1880.) On
the Brit. Mus. coin (X.) there is an appearance of a monument
40 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANIAS.
over one of the caves, but this appearance is probably due to
accident only.
7. (a) Paus. 1. 2, 5. In a sanctuary of Dionysus. Apollo
made and dedicated by Eubulides.
(>) 1.3, 4. In or near the temple of Apollo Patrous. Apollo
Patrous, by Euphranor; Apollo, by Leochares; Apollo
Alexicacus, by Calamis.
(c) 1.3, 5. Inthe Senate-House. An Apollo, by Peisias.
(4) 1.8, 4. By the temple of Ares. ᾿Απόλλων avadovpevos
ταινίᾳ THY κόμην.
(ὁ τ.19,1. Near the Olympieium. Statue of Apollo
Pythius.
(9) 1. 19, 1. Near the same place. Temple of Apollo
Delphinius. |
(7) 1.19, 3. Lyceium. Temple of Apollo Lyceius.
(h) 1. 21,3. Cave in Acropolis-rock. Apollo and Artemis
slaying the Niobidae.
(ὃ 1.24,8. Near the Parthenon. Statue in bronze of
Apollo Parnopius, by Pheidias.
(k) τ. 28, 4. On the north-west of the Acropolis. Sanctuary
of Apollo in a cave.
(ὃ 1.31,2. At Prasiae. Temple of Apollo; connected with
Hyperboreans.
(m) 1. 31,6. At Acharnae. Worship of Apollo Aguieus.
(n) 1. 37,6. The pass to Eleusis. Temple and statue of
Apollo.
Archaic APOLLO, naked, polos on head, holding in right hand
the three Charites on a sort of frame, in his left, bow.
A Copenhagen.
filmh. (CC x1.) Loebbecke. (CC x1.)
Beulé, 364.
Wieseler,-Denkmaeler, No. 126, &c.
Similar figure, griffin rearing against him on each side.
M Paris. (CC x11.) B.M. (CC xiv.)
Beulé, 364.
Furtwingler, Arch. Zeit. 1882, p. 331.
This figure has long been recognized as a copy of the Delian
statue of Apollo by Tectaeus and Angelion, which held the
Charites in its hand. Furtwiingler 1,0. was the first to identify
the griffins.
Apollo standing, naked, right hand outstretched, in left, bow.
AB. M. (66 xy.)
Beule, 271, 1-2.
APOLLO. 41
Similar figure, holds branch and bow.
AB. M. (Facing.) (CC xv.)
Lambros. (To right.) CC xvi.)
Beulé, 271, 3.
Apollo standing, naked, his right hand on his head, in his
left, bow.
ARB. M. (CC xvi.) (Beside him tripod on stand.)
Beulé, 285.
Beulé, 285. (Behind him laurel.)
Apollo standing, naked, his right hand on his head, his left
rests on lyre.
#B.M. (CC χιχ.) Rhousopoulos,
Beulé, 285, 3.
Apollo to left, clad in long chiton, holds patera and lyre.
AB. M. (CC xx.) Loebbecke. (CC xx1.)
Beulé, 888, 2.
The descriptions of Pausanias are not sufficiently exact to
enable us to identify with certainty any of these figures of
Apollo. But the early figure CC xv.-xvil. is connected by
Furtwingler (Roscher’s Lexicon, Ὁ. 456) with the so-called
Omphalos Apollo of Athens and the Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo of
the British Museum. TT. Schreiber (Athen. Mittheil. 1884,
p. 248) maintains that it is probably a copy of the statue in the
Daphnephoreion at Athens (Athenaeus, x. p. 424 #7). That in
which the hand rests on the head (XVIII. xIx.) seems from the
description of a statue of Apollo Lyceius (above, g) in Lucian
(Anacharsis, 7) to be meant for a copy of the statue in the
Lyceium. The tripod and the laurel would very well represent
such a locality as the Lyceium.
8. (a) Paus. 1. 8, 4. Near the temple of Ares. Statues of
Theseus and Herakles.
(Ὁ) 1.17, 2-6. Temple of Theseus. Paintings of battles with
Centaurs and Amazons.
(c) 1. 34,1. On Acropolis, Fight of Theseus and the
Minotaur, :
(2) 1.27, 8. Story of people of Troezen that Aegeus hid
sword and sandals under a rock for Theseus to lift.
On Acropolis, group in bronze embodying the tale.
(6) 1. 27,9. On Acropolis. Dedicated group of Theseus
driving the bull of Marathon.
Also 3, 1 and 15, 2.
THESEUS standing, naked, right arm outstretched, left resting
on club.
E Beulé, 398, 1.
42 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
Theseus standing, right hand extended, club in left.
ZE Loebbecke. (DD 1.)
Theseus naked, raising with both hands rock, beneath whica
are sword and sandals,
4B. M. Loebbecke. Imh. (DD 11.) Rhousopoulos.
Beulé, 398, 2.
Wieseler in Berichte k. Ges. d. Wiss. Gottingen, 1886, p. 71.
Theseus, holding in right hand club, seizing with left prostrate
Minotaur.
EB. M. Imh. Rhousopoulos, (DD 111.)
Beulé, 398, 4.
Theseus, club in raised right, lion’s skin on left arm, rushing
on sinking Minotaur.
4B. M. (DDiv.) Loebbecke.
Beulé, 398, 5.
Theseus as in last, without Minotaur.
4EB.M. (DD v.) Loebbecke. Beuld, 398, 3.
Theseus holding Minotaur by the horn, and striking him
with club.
4B. M. (DD vi.) Soutzo.
Beulé, 398, 6,
Theseus (?) driving a bull before him (the Marathonian
bull ?).
EB. M. Locbbecke. ( vu.) Rhousopoulos, Vienna. (DD σι.)
Beulé, 392, 1.
Head of Theseus, beardless, club on shoulder.
B. M. &e.
It is remarkable that the only sculptural records of Theseus
mentioned by Pausanias are: his statue beside that of Herakles
(a); his fight with the Minotaur (c) ; his lifting the stone (d) ; and
his driving the bull of Marathon (e). The subjects of all these
four representations appear on coins, but no other deed of Theseus,
none of the exploits, for instance, which were depicted in the
metopes of the so-called temple of Theseus. This is an interesting
fact,and shows that many people at Athens were, like Pausanias,
more impressed by separate groups than by those which merely
formed part of the decoration of a temple. It is likely that one
of the coins (DD 1.) gives us the type of the statue of Theseus ;
and the group of Theseus raising the stone, as it appears again
quite similarly treated on coins of Troezen (M X1.), is probably a
copy of the bronze group on the Acropolis. As to the other
types we cannot say whether they are original or copies; but
the tameness with which the bull walks before the hero seems
scarcely worthy of a sculptural group.
EIRENE. 43
9.—Paus. 1. 8,2. Near the Tholos, Εἰρήνη φέρουσα Πλοῦτον
maida. (A work of Cephisodotus.)
EIRENE clad in long chiton with diplois, over-dress at her back,
holds in right long sceptre, on left arm young Plutus,
who extends his right hand, and holds in his left
cornucopiae ; her head turned towards the child.
ZB. M. (DDix.) Munich. (DD x.), &e.
Beulé, 202. (Demeter and Dionysus.)
Friedrichs, Arch, Zeit. 1859, 1-14 (Gaea Curotrophos. )
Brunn, Ueber die sog. Leucothea, 1867 (Eirene and Plutus. )
Friedliinder, Zeit. 7. Num. v. pl. 1. 5.
Kohler, Athen. Mitth. vi. 363-71.
The identification of the group here presented has been
attempted by many archaeologists, with varying results, which
are above slightly indicated. The view usually accepted is that
of Brunn, who sees in it a copy of the Eirene and Plutus of
Cephisodotus, of which he supposes a sculptural copy to exist
at Munich. Wieseler (D.A.X. τι. 990) is disposed to find
difficulties in this view. He remarks that the sceptre does not
properly belong to Eirene [she does, however, hold it on late
Roman coins], and further that the statue of Cephisodotus was
in marble while the original of the Munich group was in bronze.
He therefore prefers the attribution of Cora and the child
Tacchus. Overbeck (Gr, Plastik. 11. 8) remarks that on the
coin Eirene holds the end of the cornucopiae: this, however,
does not seem to be the case in the specimens we have
examined.
10.—Paus, 1. 8, 4. Nearthe temple of Ares, Statues of Herakles
and Theseus.
1.19, 3. Cynosarges. A temple of Herakles.
I. 24, 3. On the Acropolis. Herakles strangling
serpents,
1. 31,6. At Acharnae. Herakles worshipped.
1, 32,4. At Marathon. Herakles worshipped.
HERAKLES standing, naked, right hand resting on side; left
hand, wrapped in lion’s skin, rests on club.
££ Loebbecke. Rhousopoulos. (DD x1.)
Beulé 397, 1.
(Beulé 397, 3, is of Uxentum in Calabria.)
Kohler, Athen. Mittheil. να. p. 865.
Herakles clad in long chiton; right hand rests on club, in
left, cornucopiae. The coin thus described by Beulé
(397, 2) is identical with the following :—
44 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
Herakles as a term, lion’s skin over shoulders, right hand
rests on club, in left, cornucopiae.
4 Munich. (DD x11.) Cf. Hartwig, Herakles m. d. Fiilihorn, p. 51.
The Herakles first described (XI.) is exactly in the attitude
of Glycon’s statue.
Herakles naked, standing to left; right hand advanced, in left,
club, which rests on ground,
Z Rhousopoulos. (DD xu.)
11.—Paus. 1. 8,5. Οὐ πόρρω δὲ ἑστᾶσιν" Αρμόδιος καὶ ᾿Αριστο-
γείτων οἱ κτείναντες “Ἱππαρχον"... . τῶν δὲ ἀνδριάντων
οἱ μέν εἰσι Κριτίου τέχνη, τοὺς δὲ ἀρχαίους ἐποίησεν
᾿Αντήνωρ. Ἐέρξου δέ, ὡς εἷλεν ᾿Αθήνας ἐκλιπόντων
τὸ ἄστυ ᾿Αθηναίων, ἀπαγαγομένου καὶ τούτους ἅτε
λάφυρα, κατέπεμψεν ὕστερον ᾿Αθηναίοις ᾿Αντίοχος.
HArMODIUS and ARISTOGEITON charging: Aristogeiton bearded,
holding sheath in left hand, chlamys over left arm:
Harmodius beardless, naked, sword in raised right.
RB.M. (DD xiv.). Paris. (DD xv.)
Beulé 335 ; Friedrich, Arch. Zeit. 1859, p. 64-71, pl. CXXVII.
Harmodius naked, facing, holds sword raised, and sheath.
AX Athens.
Kohler in Zeit. 7. Num. x11. 103.
Harmodius naked, charging to left, right hand raised with sword.
# Loebbecke. (DD xv1.)
Aristogeiton advancing to right, sword in right hand, chlamys
on left arm.
Z Loebbecke. (DD xvu..)
Aristogeiton (?) advancing to right, holds sword and chlamys.
# Loebbecke. (DD xvi.)
This group from the statues of Critius and Nesiotes has so
often been discussed that it is unnecessary to say anything more
about it. See Overbeck, Gr. Plastik, 1. p. 118, and Michaelis in
Journ. Hell, Stud. v. 146. The three coins of Mr. Loebbecke
(XVI.-XVIII.) seem to be unpublished, and the two first of them
are decidedly interesting in point of style; the powerful forms of
the heroes remind us of the Naples statues.
12,—Paus. 1. 15, 1, Ἰοῦσι δὲ πρὸς τὴν στοὰν ἣν Ποικίλην
ὀνομάζουσιν ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν, ἔστιν “Ἑρμῆς χαλκοῦς
καλούμενος ᾿Αγοραῖος καὶ πύλη πλησίον.
I. 22,8. At entrance to Acropolis. Hermes Propylaeus.
1. 27,1. Κεῖται δὲ ἐν τῷ vad τῆς Πολιάδος ‘Epps ξύλου,
Κέκροπος εἶναι λεγόμενον ἀνάθημα, ὑπὸ κλάδων μυρ-
σίνης οὐ σύνοπτον.
HERMES, 45
I, 28,6. On the Acropolis. A Hermes.
HERMES as terminal figure, caduceus in left hand.
AM Paris. (DD xix.)
Beuleé 152.
Archaic Hermes bearded standing to right, holds caduceus in
left hand.
MR (DD xx.)
Beule 348 (Beulé mistakes the caduceus for a wreath, and calls the figure the
hero Stephanephoros. )
Hermes running, chlamys flying, holds purse and caduceus.
ZH Loebbecke. (DD xxi.) Rhousopoulos.
Beulé 362, 1.
Hermes naked, standing, holds strigil and caduceus (?)
# Vienna. (DD xxi.) Loebbecke. (DD xxi11.)
Beulé 862,
The archaic figure of Hermes (Xx.) may be a copy of the
Hermes Agoraeus set up before the Persian wars. See Hermes,
XXI. pp. 493, 600. The figure carrying a purse (XXI.) would seem
to be a later Hermes Agoraeus. The third figure (XXII. XXIII.)
we cannot positively identify ; the strigil is clear and this seems
to indicate Hermes if we compare the Hermes Promachus at
Tanagra (ΣΧ XIII.) ; but the caduceus is not certain; in fact the
object looks more like a club. Perhaps the figure may be
Theseus or Herakles. .
13.—Paus. 1.18, 1. To δὲ ἱερὸν τῶν Διοσκούρων ἐστὶν ἀρχαῖον'
αὐτοί τε ἑστῶτες καὶ οἱ παῖδες καθήμενοί σφισιν ἐφ᾽
ἵππων.
I. 81,1, The Dioscuri worshipped at Cephalae.
The Droscurt, naked, their arms about one another, one holds
patera, the other spear.
R (EE 1.)
Beulé, 339,
This type of the Dioscuri seems to be a copy of an archaic
work ; they embrace one another like Dermys and Citylus on
the Boeotian mcnument. Hegias an Athenian artist of early
times made statues of the Dioscuri, which were afterwards
carried to Rome. See Pliny, V.H. xxx1v. 78.
14.—Paus. 1. 20,3. Ἦν ᾿Αριστίων ᾿Αθηναῖος, ᾧ Μιθριδάτης
πρεσβεύειν ἐς τὰς πόλεις τὰς Ἑλληνίδας ἐχρῆτο' οὗτος
ἀνέπεισεν ᾿Αθηναίους Μιθριδάτην θέσθαι “Ῥωμαίων
ἐπίπροσθεν.
Coins of Athens of the late type bearing the name of Aristion,
46 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ΟΝ PAUSANITAS.
and the name of Mithridates, as well as his badge, a
star between two crescents.
MB. M. &. Beulé, 237. A/ Berlin, Zeié. 7. Nwm. tv. 9.
15.—Paus. I. 21,4. Τοῦ δὲ ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ τὸ ἱερὸν ἔς Te τὰ ἀγάλ-
ματά ἐστιν, ὁπόσα τοῦ θεοῦ πεποίηται καὶ τῶν παίδων,
καὶ ἐς τὰς γραφὰς θέας ἄξιον.
I, 23,4. θεῶν ἀγάλματά ἐστιν “ὑγιείας τε, ἣν ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ
παῖδα εἶναι λέγουσι, καὶ ᾿Αθηνᾶς ἐπίκλησιν καὶ ταύτης
“Ὑγιείας.
ASKLEPIOS clad in himation; his right hand rests on serpent-
rod, his left on his side.
ARB. M. (EE 1.) Loebbecke (EE 111.) Rhousopoulos (ΕἸ ΕἸ rv.)
Beulé, 331 and 401.
Similar figure, but left hand raised.
& Beulé, p. 331.
Hygieia; holds in left hand patera, snake rising over her
shoulder.
ARB. M. (EE νυ.)
Beulé, 259.
Hygieia; holds in left hand patera; behind her, stem of tree
whence snake rises over her shoulder; her right resting
on her side.
ZE Beulé, 259.
16.—Paus. 1. 18, 9. Hadrian builds a gymnasium at Athens.
Table surmounted by head of Athene wreath and owl; beneath
it sometimes amphora, or in field, palm.
AB. M &e.
Similar; side of table inscribed AAPIANEIA.
Berlin. Rhousopoulos,
Similar table; on it small figure of Pallas and owl; beneath,
amphora; to the left, palm.
4B. M. Rhousopoulos,
The Berlin coin proves that this agonistic table has reference
to games established by Hadrian.
17.—Paus. 1. 22, 8. Charites by Socrates, at the entry to the
Citadel.
Three female figures clad in long chitons, moving hand in
hand; the foremost with outstretched hand.
A B. M. de Hirsch (EE στ.)
Beulé, 297.
Benndorf in Arch. Z. 1869, 61.
Bliimner in Arch. Z. 1870, 83.
This coin does not unfortunately help us in the interpretation
of this much discussed group, which appears frequently on
CHARITES. 47
Athenian reliefs. Whether the figures represented are three
nymphs, three Charites, or the three daughters of Cecrops
remains uncertain.
18.—Paus. 1. 23. Ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ νοτίου καλουμένου τείχους, ὃ τῆς
ἀκροπόλεως ἐς τὸ θέατρόν ἐστι τετραμμένον, ἐπὶ τούτου
Μεδούσης τῆς Γοργόνος ἐπίχρυσος ἀνάκειται κεφαλή,
καὶ περὶ αὐτὴν αἰγὶς πεποίηται.
A Gorgon-head also on the aegis οἵ Athene, ἄς,
Head of MEDUSA.
RR HR. M. &e.
Beulé, 346.
19.—Paus. 1. 28, 4, Pan venerated in grotto near Propylaea.
PAN seated in grotto on side of Acropolis-rock.
ΜῈ. See Acropolis.
20.—Paus. I. 32,4. Monument of Miltiades at Marathon, and
a trophy of white marble.
MILTIADES armed, dragging a captive Persian to a trophy.
&B.M. Imh. (EE vit.) Photiades. (EE viii.)
In the Theatre were statues of Miltiades and Themistocles ;
beside each, a Persian prisoner. (Schol. Aristid. II. p. 535,
Dind.).
21.—Paus. I. 83,2. Μαραθῶνος δὲ σταδίους μάλιστα ἑξήκοντα
ἀπέχει Ῥαμνοῦς .... μικρὸν δὲ ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ἄνω Νεμέ-
σεώς ἐστιν ἱερόν... . Φειδίας τὸν λίθον εἰργάσατο ἄγαλμα
μὲν εἶναι Νεμέσεως, τῇ κεφαλῇ δὲ ἔπεστι τῆς θεοῦ στέ-
φανος ἐλάφους ἔχων καὶ Νίκης ἀγάλματα οὐ μεγάλα'
ταῖς δὲ χερσὶν ἔχει, τῇ μὲν κλάδον μηλέας, τῇ δεξιᾷ δὲ
φιάλην.
Coin of Cyprus: fourth century B.c. Goddess facing, clad in
long chiton, holds branch and patera.
AB. M. Cypriote legend.
Six in Num. Chron. 1882, 89.
The identification of the figure on the coin with the Nemesis
of Rhamnus, a work of Agoracritus, not of Pheidias, is advocated
by M. Six, and has much in its favour. In the flourishing times
of Athens coins of Cyprus and the neighbouring coast bear not
unfrequently copies of the great statues of Athens.
22 —OTHER TYPES at Athens:
Isis standing to left, lotus on head, holds flower.
ARB. M. (BE 1x)
Isis or Demeter facing, clad in long chiton and over-dress, holds
48 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
ears of corn and long torch or sceptre: on head, head.
dress of Isis.
Νὰ Paris. (EE x.)
Beulé, 248.
Tyche facing, holds sceptre and cornucopiae.
ARB. M. (EE xt.)
Nike standing to left, winged, holds cornucopiae (?) and drops
lot into amphora.
AR Vienna. (KE x1.)
Hero facing, naked, spear in raised right hand, left rests on
side.
ARB. M. (BE x11.)
Metellus laureate seated facing, holds in right spear or sceptre,
in left, sword across knees.
A de Hirsch (EE xtv.)
Similar figure, crowned by Nike who holds wreath and sceptre,
ARB. M. (ΒΕ xv.)
Draped female figure seated to right on rock, rests left hand
on a column,
ΜῈ Berlin. (HE xvi.) Loebbecke. (EE xvii.)
Published by Beulé (p. 400) as a figure of Solon: Lange
(Athen. Mittheil. v1. p. 69) is much nearer the mark in suggesting
that it may be a Demeter; but even this attribution is uncertain.
ELEUSIS.
1,—Paus. 1. 37,2. Temple of Demeter and Cora on the sacred
way.
1. 37,6. Another in the pass to Eleusis.
1. 38, 6. Temple of Triptolemus at Eleusis.
1. 38,7. The Sanctuary of the two Goddesses.
DEMETER seated in chariot of snakes, veiled, holds in right
hand ears of corn.
ZB. Μ. ἄς. (EE xx.)
Imhoof, Δ. G. pl. C, 28,
Triptolemus, standing in chariot of snakes, holds two ears ot
corn in right hand.
2 8. M. &c.
Imh, ALG. pl. C, 29.
Triptolemus seated in chariot of snakes, naked to waist : holds
in right hand two ears of corn.
ZB. M. &. (EE xx.)
Imh. If.G. pl. C, 27.
Overbeck, Demeter, pl. ix. 1 a and ὃ.
Athen. Mittheil. 1v. 250 and 262.
OROPUS. 49
OROPUS.
1.— Paus. 1. 84,2. Καὶ ᾿᾽Ωρωπίοις ναός τέ ἐστιν ᾿Αμφιαράου καὶ
ἄγαλμα λευκοῦ λίθου.
AMPHIARAUS seated on throne, naked down to waist; his right
hand extended, in his left, long sceptre; at his feet,
snake,
ΜῈ Gallienus. B. M. (BE xvut.)
Head of Amphiaraus bearded and laur.
ΞΕ Auton. B.M.
Koehler in Athen, Mittheil. tv. 262.
On these coins Amplhiaraus is represented exactly in the
guise of Asclepius, as a god rather than as a hero, in accordance
with Pausanias’ statements.
SALAMIS.
1.—Paus. 1. 36,1. Ἔν Σαλαμῖνι δὲ .... τρόπαιον ἕστηκεν ἀπὸ
a , ἃ a £ f y ΜΕΝ χἢ
τῆς νίκης ἣν Θεμιστοκλῆς ὁ Νεοκλέους αἴτιος ἐγένετο
γενέσθαι τοῖς “Ἑλλησι ... .. ναυμαχούντων δὲ ᾿Αθηναίων
πρὸς Μήδους δράκοντα ἐν ταῖς ναυσὶ λέγεται φανῆναι.
THEMISTOCLES in cuirass, helmeted, standing on galley, holds
wreath and trophy; on ship, owl; before it, snake.
JLB. M. Photiades. (EE ΧΧΙ., xxv.) Imh. Loebbecke.
Beulé, 305.
Owl and snake sometimes absent.
OTHER TYPE:
Demeter standing to left, holds in right hand ears of corn, in
left, torch,
JE Caracalla. Welzl de Wellenheim, Catalogue, No. 3965, (It is however
doubtful whether this coin be not misread, )
Kohler, Athen, Mittheil. tv. 262.
SUPPLEMENT.
Since previous parts of the Commentary were published,
several new types, or better specimens of types already pub-
lished have been discovered, in most cases owing to the friendly
cooperation of the custodians of the national collections at
Berlin and Paris and to Prof. Rhousopoulos. These we subjoin,
preserving the same order of subjects as in the earlier paper
and the same numbers of sections where possible. In cases
in which the passages of Pausanias have been already cited
at length we here content ourselves with a mere reference.
H.S.—VOL, VIII, E
50 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
MEGARA.
8. APOLLO facing, clad in citharoedic costume; holds branch
and lyre.
/® Anton. Pius. Paris. (FF 1.)
This is a variety of A IX., and apparently a copy more or less
free of a statue of Praxiteles. In this specimen the attitude of
the god appears less stiff than in A IX., and the body rests more
on one leg than the other. It is of course a great gain if we
can trace a citharoedic type of Apollo to Praxiteles.
ARTEMIS holding bow and drawing arrow from quiver; Apollo
as above ; Leto leaning on sceptre.
#E Commodus. Rhousopoulos. (FF 11.)
It is interesting to compare this type with A x. The figure
of Apollo in it is more closely like the detached Apollo of A IXx.,
and thus the probability that the group reproduces that of
Praxiteles is increased. There is a correction to make in
the description above under Megara, § 8: Artemis holds a bow,
not as there stated, a plectrum.
9.—ATHENE standing erect, spear in raised right hand, shield
on left arm.
ZE L. Verus. Rhousopoulos. (FF 11.)
This is a better specimen than A XI.
PAGAE.
1 a.—IsIs standing in temple; holds sistrum and vase.
# Commodus. Rhousopoulos, (FF tv.)
Isis to right, and Asklepius, standing face to face.
ZE Sep. Severus. Rhousopoulos.
2.—HoRSEMAN galloping right or left, chlamys flying.
££ Sept. Severus. Rhousopoulos.
Geta. Rhousopoulos.
Possibly this figure may represent Aegialeus, son of Adrastus,
whose tomb was at Pagae, Paus. 1. 44, 7; but more probably it
stands for the Emperor.
CORINTH.
3.—Athene Chalinitis taming PEGASUS.
£ Anton. Pius. Paris.
Athene here takes the place of the more usual Bellerophon.
Chimaera.
ἃ Commodus. Rhousopoulos.
6.—IstHMmus holding patera and rudder, seated in circular
temple with conical roof surmounted by dolphins: on
either side of temple, tree.
#E Domna, Paris. (FF v.)
CORINTH. 51
This coin seems to represent a different sacellum of Isthmus
from that already figured (¢ xxxvuil.). The form of the temp!e,
and the pose of the statue within it, are quite different in the
two cases.
10.—PosEIDON naked, standing; right foot rests on a rock ;
trident in raised left hand; in right hand, which hangs
down, aplustre (?) ; behind, tree.
/& Caracalla. Rhousopoulos.
Cf. Ὁ uit.
Poseidon seated on throne, holds dolphin and trident trans-
versely.
ZE Domitian. Berlin.
A variety of D LIv.
Poseidon, holding dolphin and trident, in chariot drawn by
four horses.
Plautilla. B. M.
11.—Quadrangular HARBOUR; at the top, temple, to which steps
lead from the water, to left of it a shrine (?) to right a
statue (?); at the two sides a range of colonnades: in
the water, two Tritons, face to face.
ZE Caracalla. Rhousopoulos. (FF V1.)
As Ὁ Lx. represents the harbour of Cenchreae, so the present
coin seems to represent that of Lechaeum, which was a made
harbour on the Corinthian gulf and the chief station of the
Corinthian war-fleet. The temple in that case would be
Poseidon’s (Paus. I. 2, 3, ἔστι δὲ ἐν Λεχαίῳ μὲν Ποσειδῶνος
ἱερὸν καὶ ἄγαλμα χαλκοῦν).
Poseidon standing naked, holds dolphin and trident; before
him Aphrodite, holding shield, with her back to him;
between them, Eros.
i Commodus. Berlin.
13.—APHRODITE, facing, draped, holds in right hand apple, in
left hand the end of her dress.
#£ Auton. Rhousopoulos. (FF vii.)
Obverse, Head of Lais or Aphrodite. A different type of
Aphrodite from D Lxx. The figure may however be Tyche, as
there is an attribute which looks like a cornucopiae.
Aphredite, holding mirror, in a biga drawn by Tritons.
# Nero. Munich. (FF' viii.)
Previously mentioned, but not figured.
19.—ZEUs seated to left on throne, holds Nike and long sceptre.
ff Hadrian. Rhonsopoulos. (FF 1x.)
M. Aurelius. B. M.
ἘΠ 9
52 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
Probably a representation of the Capitolian Zeus; the throne
has no back, otherwise the type is closely like that embodied
by Pheidias in the Olympian Zeus (P XXL).
20.—PALLAS seated on throne; holds in right, Nike; in left,
spear; against which rests shield.
ZE Sept. Severus. Rhousopoulos. (FF x.)
Possibly Roma rather than Pallas.
Pallas standing, on basis: her right hand is extended, in her
left spear.
JEM. Aurelius. Loebbecke.
Plautilla, Rhousopoulos (FF x1.)
The basis shows that we have here a copy of a statue: that
it is of Pallas is not quite certain, the head not being clear on
either specimen.
23.—HERAKLES facing, head turned to left ; holds in right hand
club which rests on a cippus, on left arm lion’s skin.
# Anton. Pius. Berlin (FF x11.)
A different type of Herakles from F cil., ctv.; but like
them probably a copy of one of the numerous statues of Herakles
which the city must have contained.
Herakles naked standing to left; right hand raised, in left,
which is partly raised, club and lion’s skin; before him,
Aphrodite holding shield.
# Commodus. Berlin (FF xu.) Cf. F crv.
24,—PEIRENE personified as a nymph, naked to waist, seated on
throne? holds on her lap water-pot; behind, snake
to left.
Caracalla, Berlin.
Cf. F cvit., but in the present case Peirene is seated on a
throne, a fact confirming the view that the coin-type is a copy
of a figure by the spring.
25.—Paus. 11. 2,8. Καὶ ᾿Απόλλων ἐπίκλησιν Κλάριος χαλκοῦς
ἔστι. ἀπ πὶ 5.2.
APOLLO naked, standing, ho!ds in right plectrum, in left lyre
which rests on tripod ; snake twined round tripod.
i Sept. Sev. Berlin (FF xiv.)
This figure of Apollo is connected by tripod snake and lyre
with the oracular functions of the god, and therefore probably
stands for Apollo Clarius. The oracle of Apollo at Clarus was
celebrated and said to have been founded by Manto, daughter
of Teiresias.
CORINTH. 58
28.—HERMES naked, seated on rock, ram (?) beside him; the
whole group on a basis, in front of which is a basin for
water.
fE Commodus. Paris (FF xv.)
This adds another to the representations on coins of Corinthian
fountains : the figure of Hermes seems to be a copy of that in
the sacellum, F cx1.; the figure of the ram, however, is not to
be clearly made out in the present coin.
33.—APHRODITE, naked, but holding shield; kneeling at the
feet of the Emperor.
JE Sept. Severus, Berlin.
Aphrodite, naked to waist, turned to right, supporting with
both hands shield which rests on pillar: the whole in
tetrastyle temple on rock.
«Ὁ Hadrian. Rhousopoulos (FF xvi.)
This is a curious variety of (ἃ CXXI.—CXXVL., inasmuch as
Aphrodite is turning in the wrong direction, and her shield
rests on a pillar which stands in the place occupied on other
coins by Eros,
34,—OTHER TYPES at Corinth.
Military female figure (Achaia?) seated on rock, holds spear
and sword, looks backward; behind her, spears and
shields.
4E Plautilla. B. M.
This specimen serves to correct. our description of @ CXL., in
which we call the spears ears of corn.
Turreted female figure sacrificing left at altar; holds in left
hand rudder.
Anton. Pius. Paris.
This seems to be a form of Tyche.
Turreted female figure holding sceptre, standing beside
trophy.
Caracalla. Berlin.
An embodiment of the city of Corinth.
The Emperor, standing, in a tetrastyle temple.
fi Nero, 3B. M. Rhousopoulos, &e.
Male figure standing; holds in right hand tessera ; over left
arm chlamys.
Domitian. Rhousopoulos.
Perhaps an Athlete drawing lots for his turn in the Isthmian
games,
54 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANTAS.
Maenad clad in short chiton: holds in raised right hand torch
or knife (?), in Jeft human head.
& Caracalla. Rhousopoulos (FF xvi.)
Perseus facing, naked, holds in right hand head of Gorgon, in
left harpa.
ἜΣ Auton. Paris.
TENEA,
Cf, :Paus. τι 5, Ὁ.
TYPES.
Dionysus (?) standing to left; holds in right hand kantharos,
in left thyrsus.
4 Domna. Zeit. f. Num. τ. 320, pl. ΙΧ. 3.
Tyche standing.
i Sept. Severus. B. M. Cat. Peloponnesus, pl. 1x. 28.
SICYON.
9. ASKLEPIOS seated on throne, sceptre in raised left hand,
right hand extended over the head of a snake.
i Geta. Paris.
Cf. the statue at Epidaurus, L, 101.—Vv.
OTHER TYPES at Sicyon.
14. Amazonian figure, clad in short chiton, on top of pillar; she
extends her right hand, and holds in left spear.
fE Caracalla. Paris (FF xvit.)
Either a statue of Artemis (cf. 11. 10, 2) or one of the numerous
memorials of notable persons which existed at Sicyon.
Isis to left; holds sistrum and vase.
“ΜῈ Geta. Rhousopoulos.
Horse ridden by human head.
£ Geta. Rhousopoulos,
PHLIUS.
1.—Bearded male head crowned with reeds (ASOPUS ?).
“ἢ Auton. B. M. Cat. Peloponnesus, pl. vt. 6.
3.—ARTEMIS running to right, holds in left hand bow, with
right hand draws arrow from quiver: dog at her feet.
i Geta. Berlin (PF x1x.)
4a.—Paus. 1. 18, 7. Οὐ πόρρω δέ ἐστιν ὁ καλούμενος
ὀμφαλός.
ΟΜΡΗΑΙΟΒ represented as a circle in the midst of a wheel.
M Auton. B. M. Cat. Peloponnesus, pl. vu. 4.
5a.—Paus. 11. 18, 7. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ᾿Απόλλωνος, καὶ ἄλλο
» Ν ‘ \ ΝΜ a tA a nr .
Ισιδος. τὸ μὲν δὴ ἄγαλμα τοῦ Διονύσου δῆλον πᾶσιν,
ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὸ τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος.
PHLIUS. 55
APoL_o naked, standing to right; bow in advanced left hand.
ZE Geta. Rhousopoulos (FF xx.)
6.—APHRODITE (?) facing, right hand raised.
“Ὁ 1. Domna. Rhousopoulos.
It is impossible to determine whether this figure is of
Aphrodite or some other goddess, owing to the bad preservation
of the coin. It may be of Hebe.
CLEONAE,
OTHER TYPES :
Asklepios seated to left on throne, extends his right hand over
head of coiled snake, in his left hand sceptre; dog lying
behind him.
iE Sept. Severus. Berlin.
A close copy of the Epidaurian statue by Thrasymedes:
ef. L 111. —v.
Artemis to right, holds in left hand bow, with right hand
draws arrow from quiver; dog at her feet.
/# Plautilla. Berlin.
Artemis facing, head turned to left, dog beside her ; on either
side a cypress.
J Sept. Severus. Brunswick (FF xxi.)
ΝΈΜΕΑ. (Coins of Argos.)
2.—HYPSIPYLE running to left in alarm with arms spread
towards erect serpent, which holds in its coils the body of
Opheltes inverted.
AX Hadrian. Berlin.
ARGOS.
8.—Perseus bearded (?) standing, chlamys over shoulders ; holds
in right hand harpa, in left Gorgoneion.
Μὰ Sept. Sev. Berlin (FF xxi.)
This type of Perseus is quite different from the conventional
figure of I XvIl., XVIII.
9.—APOLLO (Lycius?) naked, facing, holds in right hand a
branch ; rests left elbow on Ionic column.
JE M. Aurelius. Rhousopoulos.
L. Verus. Rhousopoulos (FF xx1ut.)
Above described, but not figured: possibly a reproduction of
the work of the sculptor Attalus (Paus. τι. 19, 3.)
- 16.—LerTo, right hand raised to shoulder, the left extended over
a small figure of Chloris, within a temple.
Anton. Pius. Paris (FF xxiv.) Berlin.
These important coins complete the proof that the group of
56 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
these coins, as well as of Καὶ xXXvI.—VIII. is a copy of the work
of Praxiteles. On these specimens there is nothing in the left
hand of Leto, her right hand is raised to her shoulder, whether
to a quiver or to adjust her dress. Chloris seems to be a
somewhat stiffly-draped figure.
17.—DeEMETER standing, clad in long chiton; holds in extended
right hand poppy-head, in left ears of corn.
EL. Verus. Berlin (GG I.)
Demeter, holding poppy-head and ears of corn, in a railed
inclosure.
ZE Sept. Severus. Paris.
The pose of this figure is not unlike that of Demeter on
K xxxIx. The inclosure in which she stands, probably the
only occurrence of such a barrier on Greek coins, proves that
the figure is a copy of a statue. The coin is too ill-preserved to
be reproduced.
18.—One of the Dioscuri, naked, standing, holds spear and
sword.
ff Hadrian. Rhousopoulos.
Antinous. Paris.
19.—Two figures of EILEITHUIA to left, each holding two
torches, one raised, one lowered.
/® Hadrian, aris.
21.—ATHENE standing, holds in right hand patera, in raised
right spear, against which leans shield.
Hadrian. Berlin (@G 1.)
24.—ASKLEPIOS seated on throne, in the front of a temple with
five Ionic columns at side.
ff, Anton. Pius. Berlin (GG 111.)
We have here further proof that the statue of Asklepios by
Xenophilus and Strato is that reproduced on the coins. The
coin however on which the figure of Hygieia appears, K XLVIII,
is not of Argos, but of Aegium: see R x.
29.—ARES standing, armed, clad in short chiton, holds patera
and spear.
4. J. Domna. Rhousopoulos,
Compare L L.
30.—OTHER TYPES at Argos.
Goddess standing, clad in long chiton; holds patera and
sceptre.
Sept. Severus. Rhousopoulos (GG Iv.)
Goddess standing, clad in long chiton, holds pomegranate (?)
ARGOS. 57
and sceptre; on either side of her, altar; behind her a
second figure clad in long chiton, who raises her right
hand and holds sceptre in left.
AJ. Domna. Rhousopoulos (GG v.)
Standing figure, apparently male, holding long sceptre in round
shrine on basis.
& Anton. Pius. Paris (GG v1.)
Artemis running, discharging arrow.
«Ὁ M. Aurelius. Paris.
River-god reclining (Inachus ?),
«Ὁ Ant. Pius. Rhousopoulos.
EPIDAURUS.
2,—The ΑΒΚΙΕΡΙΟΒ of Thrasymedes seated to left; before him,
snake,
Δ Anton. Pius. Berlin (GG vu.)
Cf. L u1—v. The present coin is added beeause of its
remarkable execution and preservation. Even the head of
Asklepios is quite distinct ; it is closely like that of Zeus on
fourth century coins.
3.—HYGIEIA standing in round temple,
# Anton. Pius. Berlin (@G@ vit1.)
In this coin as in L, VI. the details of the figure are not clear,
nor even its identification certain, She stands to left, clad in
long chiton and over-dress; her right hand is extended, her left
hangs down.
6.—OTHER TYPES at Epidaurus.
Female figure facing, in chiton and over-dress; holds in raised
right long sceptre, in left a vessel (7).
Anton. Pius. Paris. Berlin.
A®GINA,
3.—Nude figure of APOLLO, right, in the act of discharging an
arrow,
Auton. Munich (GG 1x.)
This is a different type of Apollo from L I1., but probably
like it a copy of a work of art of the early Aeginetan school.
7.—Is1s; holds sistrum and vase.
Geta. Rhousopoulos.
TROEZEN.
4.—APoLLo holding an arrow and leaning on a tripod, around
which is twined a serpent; he is draped from the waist
downwards.
££ Sept. Severus. Paris (GG x.)
58 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
Paus. 11. 31, 10. Kai ‘Epps ἐνταῦθά ἐστι ἸΠολύγιος
καλούμενος ; close to the statue, an olive.
HERMES facing, right hand raised, in left hand chlamys and
caduceus ; at his feet, on either side, ram and lyre.
/E Sept. Severus. Paris (GG x1.)
Hermes advancing to right, drags goat by the horns, and holds
in left hand caduceus.
© Sept. Severus. Paris (@G@ x11.)
7.—Hippolytus, standing, chlamys over shoulders, spear in
raised left.
ZZ Commodus. Rhousopoulos.
Sept. Severus. Rhousopoulos.
HippoLytus, with spear and sword, before Phaedra (or her
nurse), who approaches him in an attitude of sup-
plication.
Sept. Severus. Berlin (GG xu.)
9.—ASKLEPIUS standing at altar, snake-entwined staff in his
left hand ; all in temple.
£ Commodus. Rhousopoulos (GG xiv.)
10,—FounNTAIN, a pillar with lion sitting thereon, water flowing
into basin from his mouth,
& Sept. Severus. Loebbecke (GG xv.)
A curious variant on the representation of the same subject
on M x., where the water flows from between the lion’s feet, and
the basin is supported by a pillar, and not, as here, by legs.
12,—OTHER TYPES at Troezen.
Circular shrine, apparently surrounded by pillars: in the front
of it, closed doors.
ZZ Commodus. Berlin (@G xv1.)
HERMIONE.
1.—PosEIpon naked, standing to right, holds trident and
dolphin, left foot rests on rock.
Caracalla. Berlin (@G@ xvit.)
3.—The drapery of Dionysus on M 1. is peculiar, consisting of
a skin or nebris reaching down to the knees: it may be that
this is the black goat’s skin from which at Hermione Dionysus
took his name.
LeRNA and NAvupLIA. Coins of Argos.
3.—PosEIDON naked, standing, left foot propped on a rock ;
holds trident and dolphin.
ZE Sept. Severus. Rhousopoulos.
AMYMONE seated on rock, her right hand raised to ber neck,
δα.
LERNA AND NAUPLIA. 59
her left resting on hydria; before her Poseidon standing ;
holds trident in right, and carries chlamys over left arm.
“Ὁ Ant. Pius. Rhousopoulos (G@G@ ΧΥ 111.)
This description cannot be relied on, as the prongs of
Poseidon’s trident, and the hydria οἵ Amymone, the two details
which identify the scene, are obscure. There is an uncertain
object (sea-snake ?) above the left arm of Poseidon. Compare
L Liv.
Amymone seated on rock, hydria at her feet; right hand
extended, left rests on rock.
E Paris (G@G@ x1x.)
Amymone standing, clad in long chiton; her right hand is
raised to her neck, in her left she holds hydria.
Antoninus Pius. Rhousopoulos (@G@ xx.)
There is a curious likeness between this type and L LL, thie
hydria on this coin appearing instead of the dolphin in the
other. Probably in both cases the intention is to represent
the nymph,
LACEDAEMON.
1—ARTEMIS Astrateia facing, clad in short chiton with
diplois; holds in right hand strung bow, in left spear
and shield; beside her, stag.
«Ὁ J. Domna. Rhousopoulos (GG xx1.)
This interesting coin entirely confirms our attribution and
description of ΝΥ 111. as Artemis Astrateia,
GYTHEIUM.
1.—HERAKLES bearded in form of a term, clad in lion’s skin,
arm folded over breast.
Ai Sept. Severus. Rhousopoulos.
Closely resembling Y VI.
COLONIDES.
Niche or distyle TEMPLE, within which a female figure,
indistinct.
Geta. Rhousopoulos (@G@ xx11.)
ASINE,
OTHER TYPES at Asine.
Perseus facing, naked, holds in right hand harpa, in left head
of Medusa.
J. Domna. Rhousopoulos (@@ xx111.)
Coiled snake, on basis.
J Sept. Severus. Berlin.
Plautilla. Imh.
60 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
Apparently a reproduction of some votive work of art.
Terminal figure of Hermes, draped, right hand holds end of
nebris, in left caduceus.
4 Sept. Severus. Berlin.
Draped female figure; holds what looks like a huge wreath or
shield.
E Sept. Severus. Berlin.
PYLOS.
1—PALLAS standing to right, clad in long chiton; holds in
raised right spear, on left arm shield,
ZE Sept. Severus. Rhousopoulos (@G@ xxiv.)
PATRAE.
Male figure standing on column in circular ENCLOSURE; he
seems to wear military dress, or short chiton; his left
hand is raised and rests on a spear or sceptre.
iJ. Domna. Rhousopoulos.
A variety of R1.; probably a figure of an Emperor, from a
market or gymnasium,
I.—INDEX OF ARTISTS.
(1, 2, 8, &c. refer to the sections under citics, 1*, 2*, 3", de. to the Supplement. )
Acginetan school—Aegina, 8, 3*, 6, 7
Ageladas—Messene, 5, Aegium, 3
Agoracritus—Athens, 21
Alcamenes—Athens, 6
Angelion—Athens, 7
Attalus—Argos, 9, 9*
Bryaxis— Megara, 6
Calamis—Tanagra, 8, 5
Callon—Troezen, 2
Cephisodotus I. — Megalopolis, 1,
Athens, 9
Cephisodotus II.—Anticyra, 2
Critius—Athens, 11
Daedalus—Thebes, 2
Damophon—Messene, 2, 4, Aegium, 1, 2
Dipoenus—Cleonae, 1
Endoeus—Tegea, 2
Eucheir—Pheneus, 2
Eucleides—Bura, 1, Aegira, 2
Gitiadas—Lacedaemon, 8
Hegias—Athens, 13
Hermogenes—Corinth, 13, 13*
Hermon—tTroezen, 5
Leochares—Athens, 2
Lysippus — Megara, 4,
Argos, 11
Sicyon, 6,
Menaechmus—Patrae, 8
Myron—Athens, 1 (7)
Naucydes—Argos, 6
Nesiotes—Athens, 11
Onasimedes—Thebes, 3
Pheidias—Megara, 8, Elis, 2, Pellene,
1, Athens, 1 (1-5)
Polycleitus—Argos, 6, 11
Praxias—Delphi, 2
Praxiteles — Megara, 8, 8*, 11, 12,
Argos, 16, 16*, Elis, 6, Man-
tineia, 2, Plataea, 1, Anticyra, 2
Pythocles—Sicyon, 5
Scopas—Sicyon, 7, Elis, 5, Delphi, 2
Scyllis—Cleonae, 1
Soidas—Patrae, 3
Strato—Argos, 24, 24*
Strongylion—Megara, 1, Pagae, 1
Tectacus—Athens, 7
Theocosmus—Megara, 8
Thrasymedes—Epidaurus, 2, 2*
Timarchides—Elateia, 1
Timarchus—Anticyra, 2
Timocles—Elateia, 1
Xenophilus—Argos, 24, 24*
Xenophon—Megalopolis, 1
ORDER OF CITIES.
01
II.—ORDER OF CITIES.
PART I.
Megara, A 1-15
Pagae, A 1-7
Aegosthena, A 1
Corinth, B 1- 144
Sicyon, H 1-20
Phlius, H 1
Cleonae, H 1, 2
Argos, I 1-L 56
Epidaurus, L 1-8
Aegina, L 1-8
Troezen, M 1-12
Methana, M 1-4
Hermione, M 1-38
Asine, M 1, 2
Lerna and Nauplia, M
12
PART II.
Lacedacmon, N 1-19
Gytheium, N 20-0 9
Asopus, O 10-13
Boeae, O 14-16
Las, O 17-21
Thuria, O 22-24
Messene, P 1-7
Corone.
Colonides, P 10
Mothone, P 8, 9, 11-14
Pylos, P 15, 16
(With references to Plates).
Cyparissia, P 17-19
Elis, P 20-24
Dyme.
Patrae, Q 1-R 5
Aegium, R 6-24
Helice.
Bura, S 1-3
Aegira, S 4-9
Pellene, S 10-14
Areadia.
Mantineia, 8 15-20
Orchomenus, αὶ 21-T 8
Pheneus, T 4-8
Cleitor, 'T 9
Stymphalus, T 10-12
Alea.
Caphyae, T 13-17
Psophis, T 18-21
Thelpusa, T 22-24
Heraea, T 25, 26
Megalopolis, V 1-8
Methydrion,
Lycosura,
Phigaleia, V 9-19
Tegea, V 20-24
PART III.
Plataen.
Thebes, X 1, 2
Tanagra, X 3-17
Thespiae, X 18-21
Coroneia.
Phe cis.
Delphi, X 22-Y 14
Elateia, Y 15, 16
Anticyra, Y 17
Athens, Y 18-EE 17
Eleusis, EE 19, 20
Oropus, EE 18
Salamis, EE 21, 22
SUPPLEMENT.
Megara, FF 1-3
Pagae, FF 4
Corinth, FF 5-17
Tenea.
Sicyon, FF 18
Phiius, FF 19, 20
Cleonae, FF 21
Argos, FF 22-GG 6
Epidaurus, GG 7, 8
Aegina, GG 9
Troezen, GG 10-16
Hermione, GG17_
Lerna and Nauplia, GG
18-20
Lacedaemon, GG 21
Gytheium.
Colonides, GG 22
Asine, GG 23
Pylos, GG 24
Patrae.
IlI.—SUBJECTS REPRESENTED IN PLATES.
Zeus ; head, K 27, P 22, 23, R 19
Zeus ; childhood, R 14
Hera seated, I 12, 13, 15, Q 18
Hera; head, I 14
Hebe, 115
(Order of K. O. Miiller).
Zeus seated, A 3, K 25, 26, P 20, 21,
Q 17,86, VJ, BB 4, FF 9
Zeus standing, A 4, E 89, 90, H 10,
K 28, L 54, 0 6, 11, P 4-6, R 12,
18, 15, 18, S 14, BB 1-3.
Hebe ; head, H 1
Peacock, I 16
Poseidon seated, D 52, 54-56.
Poseidon standing, B 6, D 53, 60-68,
69, F 104, L 8, O 3, 16, Q 19, 20,
T 13, GG 17.
See also Athene.
Poseidon ; head, D 51
Poseidon in chariot, D 57-59
Poseidon and Amymone, M 2, GG 18
Triton, X 7, 8
62 NUMISMATIC COMMENTARY ON PAUSANIAS.
Demeter seated, H 20, BB 21, 22
Demeter standing, A 12, 13, K 39,
R17,°S"1, 19,15, V 15-19, “BB
16-20, 24, CC 8, GG 1
Demeter; head, T 22
Demeter in chariot, BB 28, EE 19
The Chthonia, M 3
Arion, T 23
Triptolemus, G 138, BB 24, EE 20
Apollo seated, X 20, Y 5-7
Apollo standing, A 9, 10, F 109, I 22-
24, ΤΡ ΜΝ 5, 8 18. dz
20, 21, 23, 24, P19, $ 16, T 17,
V 5, X 10, 21, 24-26, Y 1-4, CC
11Ξ-92}᾽. ἘΠ Ὶ, 2. 14, 20 23a,
9, 10
Helios in chariot, F 101, 102
Apollo; head, Y 8, 9
Artemis seated, C 32
Artemis, Al, 2, 10, Ὁ 66-69, H 17-
9, Me 1256, Ne d—4; ΠΩ Ὁ
8, 9, 21, 28, P 8, 18, Q 6-10, 11,
12, Bh, 2h 22, eed, δ, 12.617.
21,, 24, i 145, 19). 20) BV" by 9.10:
X 38-5, Y 14, 17, BB 5-16, FF 2,
195 21 GGa2)
Artemis and Callisto, S 22, 23
Priestegs of Artemis, Q 18
Leto, A 10, F 2
Leto and Chloris, K 86-88, FF 24
Hephaestus, P 9, G 136
Athene seated, AA 20, 21, FF 10
Athene standing, A 11, D 55, E91-93,
F116, H1, 1 20, M 8, 5, N13, 010,
183790)" ΒΟ ΓΙ Ae 15, 18.60
14, 15, R 20, S 7, 10, V 19, 21,
Y 10; 10. 15; 16, 18-22, % 1, 9,
8-10, 13, 18, 19, 22, 28, AA 1-19,
FF 3, 11, GG 2, 24
Athene in chariot, AA 22-28.
Athene; head, M 1, 2, N 14, 15, Y
23-25
Athene, Cepheus and Sterope, V 22,
23
Athene and Poseidon, Z 11, 12, 14-17
Athene and Marsyas, Z 20, 21
Ares, G 137, L 50
Aphrodite, D 63, 70, 71, F104, G 125,
134, H 16, L 51, M 4, 9, 05, P10,
Q 10, K 23,-T'1,'V'8, 14, X19) FF
7, 13, 16
Aphrodite in chariot, D 72, FF 8
Aphrodite on goat, P 24, Elis 5
Aphrodite: head, E 73
Aphrodite and Eros, G 121-124, H 15
Eros, S 9
Hermes seated, F 110, 111, R 4, FF
15
Hermes standing, E 86, 87, K 32, 33,
L.5,.6, O 7, BR 5; δ ΠΣ 10,
X 11-16, DD 19-22, GG 11, 12
Hermes and young Dionysus, E 88,
Ν.5-7, Ὁ 4, 5.
Dionysus seatel, A 8, E 81, 82, CC
1-3
Dionysus standing, A 5, E 77-80, H ©
4,15, ΠΟΙ ΜῈ 1, ΟΣ ΕΣ ΕΝ,
S11, T 2, 7, 21, 25, 26, Elis 7,
X 1, 7-9, CC 6, 7
Cista of Dionysus, Q 1-4
Dionysus ; head, CC 5
Satyrs, T 3
Marsyas, T 8. See also Athene
Pan, jh? N28; V 8. 4. Ὑ 15 18
Pan and Syrinx, T 24
Maenad, H 6, 7, FF 17
Asklepius seated, K 47, L 8-5, R 9,
GG 8,7
Asklepius standing, A 7, H 13, K 85,
O 1, 2, 14, 19, P 1,.Q 24, ‘8 18,25,
EE 2-4, GG 14
Asklepius ; head, L 2
Childhood of Asklepius, L 1
Temple with serpent, F 118
Asklepius and Hygieia, A 6, F 117,
R ll
Hygieia or Epione, H 14, K 48, L 6, 7,
O 20, R10, EE 5, GG 8
Cronus, G 135
Dioseuri, M 7,0 4,8 18, EE1
Hecate, Καὶ 41, L 3
Nemesis, L 53, O 13
Eirene and Plutus, DD 9, 10
Nike, G 141, 142, AA 24
Charites, I 11, EE 6
Eileithuia, R 6-8, Καὶ 40
River-god, T 18, X 6, Y 1
Nymph seated, P 105-108, V 13, GG
18, 19
Nymph standing, L 51, GG 20
Three Nymphs, X 17, EE 6
Tyche, A 14, E83, 84, H 2, 3, K 29,
SUBJECTS REPRESENTED IN PLATES. 63
COP Me 22.8.8, 18, ἘΠ 11.
12
Tyche; head, E 85, K 31, P 2, X 2
Populus, G 139
Genius of city, G 143
Gens Julia, E 96
Isthmus, B 10, 21, 22, C 33-38, FF 5
Harbours personified, C 39, 40, G 134
Achaia, G 140, R 16
Roma, R 2
Isis, D 64, F 119, O 15, EE 9, 10,
IF 4 -
Isis with Horus, 1, 52
Cybele, A 4, F 120
Phrygian dance, Q 16
Herakles, F 103, 104, H11, 110, N 10,
21, 017, R 3, S 2, 3, V6, 7, 24,
DD 11-13, FF 12, 13
Labours of Herakles, 11, Δ 1, T 10-12
Theseus, M 11, DD 1-8
Hippolytus, L 54, M 8, GG 13
Melampus, A 1
Atalanta, V 20
Amphiaraus, EE 18
Ino and Melicertes, B 18-24
Melicertes, B 1-17
Bellerophon and Pegasus, C 25-32
Opheltes and Hypsipyle, I 2-9
Danae, L 49
Perseus, I 17-21, FF 22, GG 23
Perseus and Athene, I 20
Diomedes with Palladium, K 43-45
Phthia, R 24
Areas, S 20
Cleobis and Bito, K 34
Eucleides, A 1
Harmodius and Aristogeitou, DD 14-18
Miltiades and captive, EE 7, 8
Themistocles on ship, EE 21, 22
Metellus, EE 14, 15
Athletes, C 41-46
Uncertain figures, A 15, H 8, 9, L 8,
55s. 56) ΝΒ OP. 14.916, Silo)
T 16, EE 18, 16, 17, FF 18, GG 4-6,
22
Fountains, F 112-115, M 10, GG 15
Harbours, D 60, 65, L 1, P 8, Q 21-28
Acropolis, G 126-138, K 42, M 8, 4,
Z 8-7, CC 9, 10
Temples without statues, B 11, 13,
Ὁ 49, 50, E 94, 95, 1,7, X 22, 23,
F 6, GG 16
Theatre of Dionysus, CC 9, 10
Gates and arches, A 5-7, F 97-100
Tombs, E 74, 76, H1, 2
Other buildings, C 47, 48, G 144, Rl
64 EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA.
EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA.
Mr. Newron in his History of Discoverics, p. 588, gives the
following account of an excursion to tlie peninsula which lies to
the west of Budrum (Halikarnassus) where he was then
excavating :—
We next proceeded to examine the hill with the level top. This
hill is called Assarlik,
Fig, 1—WaALL At ASSARLIK.
In ascending it we came to a piece of the wall of an ancient city
with a massive gateway, running down the hill from north to south
(Fig. 1).
EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA. 65
Ascending from this gateway we passed several other lines of
ancient walls, and on gaining the summit of the hill found a plat-
form artificially levelled. There are not many traces of walls here.
The sides of the hill are so steep on the north and east that they do
not require walls. The platform terminates on the north-east in a
rock rising vertically for many hundred feet from the valley below.
The top of the rock is cut into beds to receive a tower. The view
from this platform is magnificent.
[After brief mention of several tombs passed in the way down,
Mr. Newton proceeds :]}
The acropolis which anciently crowned the rock at Assarlik must
have overlooked a great part of the peninsula and commanded the
road from Halicarnassus to Myndus and Termera. From the
number of tombs here, and their archaic character, it may be
inferred that this was a fortress of some importance in very early
times.
It has been stated ante p. 41, that there were in the peninsula in
the time of Mausolus, eight towns still held by the Leleges, the
inhabitants of six of which he forcibly transplanted to his new
metropolis, Halicarnassus. The two which were left independent
on this occasion were Myndus and Syangela ; and when the proximity
of Gumisch-lu to Assarlik is considered, and the importance of both
sites in reference to the defence of Halicarnassus from the north-
west, I think it probable that, as the former place is certainly the
site of Myndus, we must look for Syangela at Assarlik. It is
curious that the tombs which I discovered here presented in their
plan and structure several peculiarities, which are also to be met
with in the earlier tombs of Etruria, and this archaic character leads
me to ascribe them to the indigenous population of Caria, rather
than to the Dorian settlers. In the time of Strabo the tombs and
fortresses of the Leleges could still be pointed out in various parts
of Caria, though this race had long since ceased to exist ; and hence
it is probable that their remains were distinguished from later
Hellenic works by some peculiarity of structure. This statement of
Strabo may further serve to explain the obscure tradition preserved
in Stephanus Byzantius, that Syangela received its name from
having been the place of interment (coda) of the indigenous king
(yéAas) Car, who may be regarded as the eponymous founder of the
Carian race. This may be only a mythical way of stating the
general fact, that at Syangela were tombs believed to be those of
the earliest native races in Caria; and if it be admitted that the
site of this ancient city is to be found at Assarlik, the tombs
observed by me may be connected with this vague tradition.
H.S.—VOL.. ὙΠ, F
06 EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA.
In historical times, Syangela was governed by a tyrannos and
paid tribute to Athens at the commencement of the Peloponnesian
war.
Fig. 2 represents a wall of a far more primitive type than
the regular masonry of Assarlik, which exists at Myndus in the
Fic. 2.—WALL AT Mynpwus.
same district. This wall runs along the crest of the peninsula
on the west of the harbour of Myndus and reaches from the
summit to the sea on the north.
The Editors of the Journal of Hellenic Studics have much
pleasure in laying before the Society reports received from
Mr. Paton of excavations conducted among the tombs of this
interesting district, the cradle, and down to the time of
Mausolus, the home of the Leleges. It is unnecessary to point
out the importance of this new material in reference to the
earliest history of Greece and even Italy :—
REPORT ON TOMBS IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF
HALICARNASSUS.
The acropolis of Assarlik between Myndus and Halicarnassus
has been identified by Mr. Newton with Souagela, which as its
name signified was the burial-place of the kings. The existence
EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA. 67
in its neighbourhood of a large series of tombs of the same class
as those described by him (Halicarnassus, &c., pp. 580. seq.)
supports this conjecture. The tombs seen by Mr. Newton are, I
believe, those situated in a valley running north. Those which I
shall describe are on the ridge facing the acropolis to the S.E.,
and beyond this on both sides of a torrent bed, the direction of
which is south-easterly, and which joins the sea near Chifoot-
Kale-si; by Mr. Newton identified with Termera.
Of these tombs the most conspicuous are two large tumuli
situated some distance to the §.E. of the acropolis, on a saddle
between two rocky eminences. They are close together, and
externally similar.
I will first describe that on the east (A). See Fig. 3.
=
=
S
™
-
=
ῷ
Fig. 3.
A circular wall of two courses of irregularly shaped stones, ot
which only a small portion is visible, incloses the whole structure.
The diameter of the circle must have been about 30 ft. On the
top of this are piled the loose stones forming the tumulus; in
the centre is the sepulchral chamber, closed at the top by two
large stones, and entered by a passage opening to the N.W.
It was filled up half with stones and half with earth, which
must have fallen in from above. As the section shows, the two
F 2
68 EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA.
walls parallel to the entrance passage curve inwards very
considerably as they rise, so as to support the two large blocks
which form the roof; the two other walls curve less sensibly, the
length at the top being 3ft. 9in. The dromos is roofed by
large rectangular stones. The door is formed by a large
rectangular block resting on two others with a threshold stone
between them. Its height i is 3 ft. 3 im., width of the threshold
3 ft., at the top 2ft.6in. The walls of the chamber and of the
dromos are built of irregularly shaped stones. The tomb, like
all the others here, had been plundered. I found in it :—
Pottery—I1. At the end opposite the entrance, resting on a
flat stone, a portion of a large urn filled with bones and nee
2. A bowl with two handles and lip, Fig. 4
3. A small amphora, Fig. 6, with remains of ornament
composed of four horizontal bands surmounted on each side
by two sets of concentric half-circles.
Fragments of iron weapons, among them a portion of a lance-
head, and of a curved knife.
The sepulchral chamber of B is similar to A. It is some-
what smaller; the door leading to the passage is loosely built ;
the dromos opens to the 8.W.
Here were found :—
1. Fragments of a cinerary vase, similar to that from A, in the
neighbourhood of a flat stone opposite the entrance.
2. Fragments of a thin curved plate of bronze nailed to
wood.
3. Two gold spiral ornaments, Fig. 7.
4. Fragments of iron weapons.
To the 8.W. of these two tumuli, on the top of the same
ridge, which commands a magnificent view of both seas, are a
series of circular and rectangular inclosures formed by single
courses of polygonal stones. I could distinguish at least seven
circles and four rectangles, the rectangles in all cases closely
adjoining the circles. Each circle contains a sepulchral chamber
covered by two or three large blocks. In the rectangles, I found
no traces of such tombs, but in one a small superficial cavity
lined with four siabs of terra-cotta, and covered by a large
circular stone. Many such stones, more or less circular in shape,
averaging 3 or 4 ft.in diameter, convex on the upper side, flat on
EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA. 69
the lower, are to be seen lying about near, so that these
receptacles must have existed here in considerable numbers.
The one mentioned contained only ashes. It was only after
Fic. 5.—HeEIcur 33 INCHEs.
Fic. 6.—HeErcut 64 INcHEs. Fic. 7.—AcTruAL SIZE,
examining the inclosures lower down the hill, where a good
many of these ostothecae remain intact, that I recognised their
existence here. The objects found in some of the latter show
them to be contemporary with the larger tombs.
The circular inclosures are evidently the remains of tumuli,
the greater portion of the earth and stones which composed
the mound having been removed. The construction of the
chambers is in all cases the same as that of A, the sides curving
inwards and forming a kind of arch, on the top of which rest
the covers.
To commence with the tomb furthest to the east (C).
The dimensions of the chamber are, at the bottom—length,
70 EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA.
11 ft. 8 in.; width, 9 ft. 8 in.: at the top—length, 9 ft.;
width, 6 ft. 7 in.: height, 6} ft.: height of entrance, 3} ft.;
width, 3 ft.: length of dromos, 13 ft.
The top has fallen in; the entrance passage opens to the
S.W. The interior had been much disturbed. Portions of two
cinerary amphorae were found on flat stones at the corners
opposite the entrance. They had seemingly been placed within
sarcophagi of terra-cotta riveted with lead and furnished with
liandles, fragments of which were found in sitw, in the longi-
tudinal axis of the chamber. Fragments of another similar vase
were found in the corner to the right of the entrance.
In all I found here :— .
1. The fragments of sarcophagi above mentioned.
2. Portions of three cinerary amphorae. Of one aconsiderable
part remains, and I put it together roughly and photographed it
(Fig. 8). The surface is unhappily much destroyed ; the body of
the vase was decorated with two series of bands alternately black
and white, but these disappeared in cleaning. The white is
clearer in colour than the white on vases of the late Mycenae
style. The rest of the body of the vase has apparently been
coloured black. The neck is apparently decorated with a large
maeander ; and the handles, which are flat, are thus ornamented
on the outside, Fig. 9.
3. A cup with one-handle.
4. A small jug, Fig. 5. With this may be compared Fig. 26
of Schliemann’s Mycenae.
5. Numerous other fragments of pottery, including part of a
bowl with a broad band painted close to the rim.
6. Fragments of a large jar with impressed or moulded
zigzag ornaments, Fig. 10.
7. One bronze fibula and fragments of two others, one with
double spring.
8. A circular ornament of beaten gold, decorated with five
punctuated triangles at the upper edge, with a catch behind for
suspension, Fig. 11.
9. An oblong piece of beaten gold with zigzags, and at each
end a hole for a nail, Fig. 12.
10, A small ring of twisted gold wire, Fig. 13.
11. Fragments of iron weapons, among them a spear-head; a
knife curved towards the point; a small knife.
EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA, 71
IVWAVAIRAIN
SE —
Fic. 12.--LeEnwrH 3 INCHES. Fic. 13.—Acruau S1Z£.
72 EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA.
Adjoining this tomb is the rectangular inclosure in which is
the ostotheca mentioned above.
D to the west of C—Sepulchral chamber of similar con-
struction within circle.
Length of chamber. . .... . + . 8ft. 8in.
Width °F . ΠΤ ea, ee fe
Present’ height”. .°: A+ «<a
The chamber contains three tombs, thus arranged (Fig. 14).
Their dimensions are equal, 6 ft. by 1 ft. 10in. They are lined
with terra-cotta slabs 14 in. thick; the height of the lining is
1 ft. 51n.; the dromos opens to the N.W.; the width of the
door is 2 ft. 3 in.
Fic. 14.
Here were found :—
Pottery—1. Fragments of more than one large vase, with
remains of painted ornament, horizontal bands and large
concentric circles, Fig. 15.
2. Portions of a small thin kylix, of elegant shape, with dull
black glaze.
Fragments of iron weapons, among them a knife.
#.—Another circular inclosure. The chamber was only
partially cleared out, so I cannot describe it. A jug with
narrower neck than Fig. 5 was found in its position on the
floor of one grave. There were no traces of terra-cotta sarcophagi
here.
EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA. 73
Lower down the hill to the south for a long distance on
both sides of the stream, wherever a small ridge affords a flat
space, are similar inclosures. Here rectangles predominate ;
some of them contain large sepulchres, together with the small
receptacles described above, others apparently only the latter.
The circles are few, and only contain in the centre these small
ostothecae.
I will describe two adjacent rectangular inclosures which I
examined,
M—Length, 45 ft.; breadth, 18 ft. Here, at the east end, were
found only two ostothecae, with the covers in situ. Both con-
tained ashes. In one was a small fibula similar in shape to
those from C. These receptacles, unlike that above, are lined,
not with tiles, but with four stones, They are usually about
18in. by 12 in.
N.—A double inclosure. The plan, Fig. 16, shows the
arrangement of the tombs and small receptacles. In one of
O.B.Y.6.€
OSTOTHGKAE
IS Fr
REMAINS OF
TOMB
2. Ὲτ
54 FT
HIG.) 18.
the latter, 8, the ashes were contained in a large vase, and a
portion of a bowl, ornamented with concentric circles and a
horizontal band encircling it near the rim, was also found here.
The tomb is comparatively narrow, measuring 8 ft. 5 in. by
3 ft. It has no entrance. The place of a sarcophagus was taken
by a large jar,-5 ft. lin. by 2ft. 10in. at its greatest width,
pointed at the bottom. In it was found part of a bronze fibula
with a larger spring than those in the other tombs.
I also opened two ostothecae in a large inclosure, Ὁ, further
down the hill, and in one were found fragments of pottery,
74 EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA.
somewhat better preserved than those from other tombs, and
showing the characteristic decoration of horizontal bands and
concentric circles. :
This inclosure also contained at least five larger tombs like
that in V. In one of these I found the pithos still in its place.
Inside it was found a large bronze fibula, Fig. 17. At the side
of the tomb underneath the pithos I found :—
1. A Biigelkanne (Fig. 18) ornamented on the shoulder with
concentric half-circles. The inner lip of the spout is attached
to the Biigel in the centre.
Fic. 18.—Heicur δὲ INcHEs.
2. A three-legged vase (Fig. 19) with traces of horizontal
bands and small concentric circles.
-
Fic. 19.—Herricut 7 INcHEs.
3. Portions of a large amphora without handles.
I also cleared out two tombs on the same ridge where the
EXCAVATIONS IN ΟΑΒΙΑ. 75
circular inclosures are situated, but higher up. The tops of both
had been carried away; and the depth of earth was only about
two feet. In the first were found a number of fragments of
terra-cotta sarcophagi with elaborate geometrical designs, pro-
duced by moulding, not by colour. Below are sketches of the
designs on some of these fragments, Figs. 20 to 25. In Fig. 20
“d
Fia.
—
20.—ScALE 1.
the depressed surfaces are shaded, the other figures give only
the general pattern, In the second was a brick sarcophagus
Fig. 21.—ScA.E 4.
without ornament and portions of a jar; also two bronze armlets,
and two bronze spirals of 6 inches diameter.
76 EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA.,
These results, though meagre enough, are yet sufficient to
show the system of ceramic decoration which prevailed among
Fic, 22.—Sca.zE }.
the Leleges(?), and this is of great importance at the present
stage of conjecture concerning early Greek pottery.
Fic, 23.—ScaeE 4.
On all the fragments, with one exception, which bear any
trace of painted ornament, this consists of horizontal bands
EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA. 77
either alone or in combination with large concentric circles or
segments of circles. This exception is a very small vase, and is
decorated with horizontal bands and a zigzag pattern. The
impressed ornaments on the larger vessels of coarse clay,
Fic, 24.—ScaLeE ἢ.
including some small fragments that I have not mentioned,
consist exclusively of zigzag or wavy patterns. The decoration
of the sarcophagi, however, is largely composed of intersecting
circles and maeanders. On one of the pieces of gold we have
this same design ; on another a series of triangles.
Fic, 25.—Scaun 1,
There is no trace of any but geometric design.
The fibule are all of one pattern.
The weapons are exclusively of iron.
The bodies have in all cases been burnt.
78 EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA.
LATER REpoRT, FEBRUARY 1887.
Assarlik.—Contiguous to the large tombs described by Mr.
Newton here, are rectangular inclosures containing ostothecae
covered by large circular stones like those I have described. I
found none of these im situ. The four tiles he mentions in a
note as having been dug up by a peasant near one of the tombs
formed, no doubt, the sides of one of these ostothecae.
Other Sites—1. On the western part of the same range on
which the Assarlik tumuli are placed is another series of tombs.
They commence to the east of the windmills marked in the chart,
and extend as far as the top of the mountain west of these mills.
They are all on or close to the actual summit of the ridge.
Those I noticed were all inside rectangular inclosures. Tombs
cut in the rock occur sporadically near Assarlik and here.
2. Immediately above the small village known as Mandrais,
on the road from Gumisch-lii (Myndus) to Gheresi is a
rocky eminence with a flat space on the top. This summit,
wherever the natural rock does not sufficiently defend it, is
fortified by walls of polygonal stones loosely put together. The
whole of the interior of this acropolis is occupied by rectangular
inclosures containing tombs. In some places the inclosing walls,
which are built of rectangular stones, have three or four courses
still standing. The larger inclosures contain several tombs.
The tombs which I examined were carelessly constructed,
natural fissures in the rock being supplemented by loose stone-
work. They are covered by two or three large oblong blocks
like the Assarlik tombs.
They were chiefly filled with loose stones, and the fragments
of pottery were too weather-worn to retain their original sur-
face. I found a small fragment of a pithos with a pretty
spiral moulded design, quite different from those of Assarlik,
Fig. 26. Beneath this acropolis, on the spur of the same ridge
to the east, are other tombs of the same class.
3. The ridge, on which is the village of Gheresi, forms three
summits before it sinks to the sea. On the second of these is
a tower, the masonry of which is the same as that of the towers
in the city wall of Myndus, the corners being channelled. On
the west side of the same hill are two tombs, the entrances of
EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA. 79
which lead out of a semicircular wall built into the face of the
hill facing west. These tombs resemble in their construction
the chambers in the Assarlik tumuli, the sides converging to
the top, so as to support the covering stones. There are
Fic. 26.
probably other tombs here, but the brushwood which covers the
hill is quite impenetrable. This site seems to have been
occupied in later times, as I saw many fragments of glazed
pottery, black and red.
On the next summit is a very remarkable tomb. The
dimensions of the chamber can be seen from the plans, Figs.
27, 28 (which were made for me by Mr. Calesperi, of Calymnos).
[.]
eo
~
3,60
Fic, 27.—P an.
It is encircled at a distance of 8 m. from the centre by a wall,
which is destroyed in some parts, and which consists now at
least of only one course of stones.
80 EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA.
The chamber is roofed by five enormous blocks of stone.
The whole is encircled by a second wall at a distance of
24m. down hill from the first (Fig. 29). Of this wall six or
Fic. 28.—SEcv1I0n.
seven courses of stones are standing in some places. Opposite
the entrance of the tomb there is a gate.
Fig. 29.—SoaALeE yayo.
The masonry of the tomb is very beautiful. It has been
used as a chapel or an anchorite’s cell, as there are remains of
rude frescoes on the walls. It was filled up with earth to a
height of several feet. I removed this partly, in order to
EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA. 81
measure the height, and found that the chamber was paved
with blocks of stone of great size and thickness. Some efforts
had been made to raise one of these. 1 found some fragments
of marble, possibly forming part of the door or of a sarcophagus,
and a very small fragment of an Attic vase, probably of the fifth
century, with the design in red and fine glaze.
It would be hazardous to judge of the date of the tomb from
this fragment, but if one could do so I should be inclined to
think from its magnificence and conspicuous position that it
was the tomb of one of those Carian princes who are mentioned
in the Attic tribute lists.
At any rate it must be of a much later date than the Assarlik
tumuli, and shows that the same style of sepulchral architecture
survived long among these people.
Immediately above Boudroun almost on the narrowest part of
the peninsula is an ancient acropolis now known as Tchoukcheler
Kale (Chalar Kale in the chart). The walls are in fine preser-
vation. A tower at the S.E. corner has still sixteen courses
standing. The masonry closely resembles that of the wall of
Assarlik. On the ridge to the S. is a series of tumuli of the
same construction as those of Assarlik, but more numerous and
of greater dimensions. The width of the chamber of one
which I measured is 4°70 metres, the diameter of the outer
circle about 15 metres. There are large tumuli on several other
eminences in the neighbourhood of the acropolis. I had before
I visited this site been convinced that the identification of
Assarlik with Souagela and Chifoot Kale with Termera could
not be maintained. The necropolis of Assarlik extends nearly
half-way down to Chifoot Kale, and at the latter site are
neither ancient tombs, nor other remains of a very early
date. Myndus is described in the Athenian tribute lists as
mapa Τέρμερα, and Assarlik is between Chifoot Kale and
Myndus. The only evidence for identifying Assarlik with
Souagela was the series of tombs there. The tumuli at
Tchoukcheler are of the same antiquity but more remarkable,
and I was led to conjecture that Svouagela is to be placed
here. I was fortunate enough to discover some further
evidence favourable to this identification. Near the tumuli
I came across two sepulchral altars of the type common
ἘΠῚ:- ΟῚ. VIII. α
83 EXCAVATIONS IN CARIA.
in Rhodes with bucrania and garlands. One of them bore
the inscription
EZTIOAQ.,&
THEP EO 30. isa. ΠΕ
The existence of these altars here seems to indicate that the
site was inhabited in later times. Souagela wes one of the
towns which Mausolus allowed to survive. We find in the
Athenian tribute lists a Pigres who was despot of Souagela.
Here it was doubtless a famous name and remained in use. If
Tchoukcheler is Souagela, Assarlik must be Termera. They
are evidently sister towns of the same age and the same people.
Souagela and Termera were both towns of the Leleges, and we
learn from the tribute lists that they were places of considerable
importance in the fifth century B.c.
W. R. Paton.
IASOS. 83
TASOS.
To a traveller sailing over the Aegean from the West, and
threading his course tetween the Sporades towards the Carian
coast, two headlands would stand out as prominent Jandmarks,
Mount Poseidion to the north and the city of Myndos to the
south. Between these two points lies the middlemost of the
three large bays into which the coastline of Caria is irregularly
broken. And nearly in the innermost recess of this central bay
—for the bay itself is subdivided into a number of lesser
inlets—a little rocky island, of only a mile and a quarter in
circumference, lies close to the Carian mainland, to which
indeed in later days it has become united by a narrow isthmus.!
Upon this rocky islet, lurking as it were behind the shelter of
inclosing shores, a Greek colony—from Argos, it was said—had
early established itself. But in their struggle with the Carian
natives, who resented their intrusion, the settlers experienced
such reverses, that they were glad to invite the son of Neleus,
the founder of Miletus, to come to their relief. This he did, and
with important results; for this influx of Ionian settlers from
Miletus, while it repaired the fortunes of the little colony,
transformed lasos from a Dorian into an Ionian city.”
handsome, like that of Ephesus. This,
which has been repaired in many places,
now incloses rubbish, with remnants
of ordinary buildings, and a few pieces
of marble. Single pinks, with jonquilles,
grew among the thickets of mastic,
and we sprung some large coveys of
1 Chandler’s 7’ravels, i. pp. 226, 227,
230: ‘Their city covered a rocky islet
lying near the continent, to which it is
now united by asmallisthmus.’ ‘The
north side of the rock of Iasus is abrupt
and inaccessible. The summit is occu-
pied by a mean but extensive fortress.
At the foot is a small portion of flat
ground. On that and on the acclivities
the houses once stood, within a narrow
compass, bounded to the sea by the city
wall, which was regular, solid, and
partridges, which feed on the berries.’
2 Polyb. xvi. 12: ‘H δὲ τῶν Ἰασέων
πόλις κεῖται μὲν ἐπὶ τῆς ᾿Ασίας ἐν τῷ
κόλπῳ τῷ μεταξὺ κειμένῳ τοῦ τῆς Μιλη-
σίας Ποσειδίου Ko τῆς Μυνδίων πόλεως
84 TASOS.
Such was the story of its origin, according to the accepted
tradition ; nor is there any reason to doubt its substantial truth.
The name of Iasos was undoubtedly brought from the Pelopon-
nese, where a number of mythical persons of the name were
connected with Argos itself—not to mention JIasios the
legendary Arcadian who won the Olympian horse-race in the
days of Heracles! The Peloponnesian origin of the name has
been obscured by the manuscript tradition, which very fre-
quently gives the word as ᾿Ιασσός, perhaps misled by the
analogy of the -σσ- so common in the termination of Carian
names. But “Iacos is the form invariably found in ancient
inscribed monuments,” and it probably ought to be restored in
all the Latin and Greek texts.
A mere rock itself,® the island of Iasos was encircled by rocky
bays which none but pilots who knew the coast could safely
navigate, and abounding in all kinds of fish. The one interest
and industry of the place was therefore its fisheries, which must
have given rise to something of an export trade, and furnished
the Iasians with the means of accumulating wealth. At all
[τῷ mapa μὲν τοῖς ᾿Ιασεῦσιν ᾿Ιασικῷ ἢ]
προσαγορευομένῳ, παρὰ δὲ τοῖς πλείστοις
Βαργυλιητικῷ, συνωνύμως ταῖς περὶ τὸν
μυχὸν αὐτοῦ πόλεσιν ἐκτισμέναις, εὔχον-
ται δὲ τὸ μὲν ἀνέκαθεν ᾿Αργείων ἄποικοι
γεγονέναι, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα Μιλησίων,
ἐπαγαγομένων τῶν προγόνων τὸν Νηλέως
υἱὸν τοῦ κτίσαντος Μίλητον διὰ τὴν ἐν
τῷ Καρικᾷ πολέμῳ γενομένην φθορὰν
αὐτῶν. τὸ δὲ μέγεθος τῆς πόλεώς
ἐστι δέκα στάδια (I have tried to fill ἃ
lacune which exists in the copies of
Polybius by an insertion suggested by
Thucyd. viii. 26); Strabo, xiv. 658:
Εἶτ᾽ Ἰασὺς ἐπὶ νήσῳ κεῖται προσκειμένη
τῇ ἠπείρῳ. Haltkarnassos itself is an
instance of a Dorian colony becoming
lonian in dialect. Cf. Herod. i. 144.
1 See Pape-Benseler, s.vv. Ἴασος,
Ἰάσιος. There was a town (πόλισμα)
named Ἴασος in Lakonia, see Pausan.
vii. 13, § 5. Ἴασον is an epithet of
“Apyos in Homer, Od. xviii. 246: Εἰ
πάντες σε ἴδοιεν av’ *lacov”Apyos ᾿Αχαιοί,
κιτιλ. One of the Jasos coins, of im-
perial times, bears the legend 1acoc
KTICTHC, with a bearded head of the
Oekist (Head, Historia Numorum, p.
528).
2 Steph. Byz. Ἰασσός, πόλις Καρίας
ἐν ὁμωνύμῳ νήσῳ κειμένη, ἢ καὶ ὀξυτόνως
λεγομένη. ὁ πολίτης Ἰασσεύς, ἀφ᾽ οὗ
Χοιρίλλος ἐὼν Ἰασσεύς. ᾿ἸἸΙάσος δὲ τὸ
“Apyos καὶ ᾿Ιάσιοι οἱ κατοικοῦντες. Lo-
beck, Prolegomena ad Pathol. Serm. Gr.
p. 408, in treating of -σ and -σσ, writes :
‘ Fadem seripturae inconstantia laborant
vocabula topica, quorum pauca modo
speciminis loco producam, ae primum
Cariae oppida a Stephano nominata,
primum Ἰασσός---λέγεται καὶ ὀξυτόνως,
quem accentum saepe habet in libris
nostris, nec raro grayatur (v. Tzsuck.
ad Strabon. xiv. 626) plerumque uno
sigma scriptum ut in nummis et lapi-
dibus.’
3 The marble on which all the Iasos
inscriptions I have myself seen and
handled are engraved, is of a peculiarly
flinty hardness, and very brittle. It is
of a slaty grey colour, and takes a fine
polish.
IASOS. 85
events, Archestratos, the Sicilian poet of gastronomy, who
flourished in the earlier half of the fourth century B.c., singled
out a kind of shrimp or prawn caught at Iasos for special praise
(Athen. iii. p. 105 6): ὁ δὲ ὀψοδαίδαλος ᾿Αρχέστρατος παραινεῖ
τάδε
"Hy δέ ποτ᾽ εἰς Ἴασον Καρῶν πόλιν εἰσαφίκηαι,
καρῖδ᾽ εὐμεγέθη λήψει, σπανία δὲ πρίασθαι.
And Strabo, who generally gives his readers some historical
notices of the cities he is describing, when he comes to Iasos,
finds little to remark except that the inhabitants cared for
nothing but the fishery. ‘Next comes Iasos, situated upon an
island lying close to the mainland. It contains a harbour, and
the inhabitants get their living almost wholly from the sea; for
the fish are abundant, and the soil is poor. And in fact there
are all sorts of stories, like the following, told about the Jasians.
One day a musician was there, singing and playing the harp, and
for a while they all were glad to listen; but when the bell rang
in the fish-market, they all hurried away to their fish except one
very deaf man. Whereupon the musician stepped up to him
and said, “ Sir, I feel deeply grateful to you for the interest you
have shown in me and in my art: for all the rest, directly they
heard the market-bell, left me and hurried away.’ “ What do
you say?” cried the man, “did you say the bell had rung?”
“Yes.” “Then good-bye,” he replied, and jumped up to follow
the rest.’ }
The history of Iasos before the middle of the fifth century is
an utter blank. The town is not named by Herodotus in his
account of the struggle with Persia; but we may believe that
Tasos, like the rest of Caria, shared the fears and hopes, the
victories and defeats of Ionia in those stormy times. Iasos, like
the rest of Caria, must have passed under the sway, first of
Creesus,? then of Persia.? Next it shared the vicissitudes of the
Ionic revolt,‘ and of the great Persian war; perhaps some of its
sturdy fishermen helped to man the fleet of Xerxes.® At all
1 Strabo, xiv. p. 658. This capital 2 Herod. i. 28.
story will be better appreciated by those 3 Herod. i, 174.
who have watched the herring boats 4 Herod. v. 103, 117—129.
come in, and have heard the market- 5 Herod. vii. 938.
bell and watched the fish auctions, at
Whitby or elsewhere,
86 IASOS.
events, when the great conflict ended, and the power of Persia
was broken, Iasos was among the Asiatic cities that joimed in
the Delian confederacy under Athens. This we know, not only
from the account of Thucydides but also from the extant
‘Quota-lists, which record the names and reveal the amount
paid by the tributary states.’ These lists (so far as their remains
have come down to us) commence in B.C. 454-3 and go on in a
more or less complete series down to the middle of the Pelopon-
nesian war. The name of Iasos happens to be lost from some
of these fragmentary marbles; but we are able to discover that
in B.c. 450 its contribution was assessed at one talent; in B.C.
447 at the same sum, and again in B.c. 442. In the lists of B.c.
446, 445, 441, 436, the name of the Iasians is recognised, but
the cyphers are lost which indicate the payment.? A fresh
assessment of tribute was made 8.6. 425, when the policy of
Athens, no longer controlled by the wisdom of Pericles, was
beginning to lend itself to schemes of costly adventure. A
Quota-list subsequent to this assessment indicates the Jasian
tribute as raised to three talents. Towards the close of the
year B.C. 412, Iasos was captured by the Peloponnesian fleet and
Tigaplesnes) and so became again subject to the Persian
dominion. There was evidently no suspicion of treachery in
the capture, nor do the townsmen seem to have been shaken in
their loyalty to Athens by the trebling of their tribute. It is
true that in the following year Peisander at Athens laid the loss
of Iasos at the door of Phrynichus, declaring that he might have
shown more energy in the Ionian waters. But it is plain that
the city was simply taken by surprise, and the language of
Thucydides implies that it made a gallant resistance. The
1 Thucyd. viii. 26, 28.
2 Kohler, Urkunden und Untersuch-
angen zur Geschichte des delisch-attischen
Bundes (1870), p. 185, &c. ; Corpus
Inser. Att. i. p. 231, and No. 230 foll.
3 Corpus Inscr.. Att. i. Nos. 230,
233, 238, and Nos. 234, 235, 239, 244.
Compare my Manual, Nos. 24, 30, 35.
4 Corpus Inser. Alt. i. No. 262.
5 Thucyd. viii. 28: καὶ ὡς ἦλθον [οἱ
Πελοποννήσιοι], Τισσαφέρνης τῷ πεζῷ
παρελθὼν πείθει αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ Ἴασον, ἐν ἧ
᾿Αμόργης πολέμιος ὧν κατεῖχε, πλεῦσαι.
καὶ προσβαλόντες τῇ ᾿Ιάσῳ αἰφνίδιοι καὶ
οὐ προσδεχομένων ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ᾿Αττικὰς τὰς
ναῦς εἶναι αἱροῦσι καὶ μάλιστα ἐν τῷ
ἔργῳ οἱ Συρακόσιοι ἐπῃνέθησαν... καὶ τὴν
Ἴασον διεπόρθησαν καὶ χρήματα πάνυ
πολλὰ ἡ στρατιὰ ἔλαβε" παλαιόπλουτον
γὰρ hv τὸ χωρίον...τό τε πόλισμα Τισ-
σαφέρνει παραδόντες καὶ τὰ ἀνδράποδα
πάντα, καὶ δοῦλα καὶ ἐλεύθερα, ὧν καθ᾽
ἕκαστον στατῆρα δαρεικὸν παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ
ξυνέβησαν λαβεῖν, ἔπειτα ἀνεχώρησαν
és τὴν Μίλητον. Comp. ch. 26.
6 Thucyd. viii. 27, 54.
IASOS. 87
historian speaks of Iasos as a mere ‘ town’ (πόλισμω) and as a
‘post’ (χωρίον) occupied by Pissuthnes with a garrison or body-
guard (τοὺς ἐπικούρους τοὺς περὶ Tov ᾿Αμόργην). He adds that
the plunder was considerable, as the town contained the accu-
mulated wealth of generations (παλαιόπλουτον yap ἣν τὸ
χωρίον).
All these expressions exactly fit in with what we know from
other sources of the character of the town. It was small, and
with no capacity for enlargement; but the rugged remoteness
of its site enabled its people to garner in, undisturbed for many
a long year, their harvest of the sea; and also from time to time
(as will also be seen later on) it became an opportune position
to be held by any one who wished to command Caria by sea
or land. The word παλαιόπλουτον does not necessarily imply
great wealth, but only that the wealth was the accumulation
of long years of thrift. This agrees with the evidence of the
Quota-lists. When the tribute of Ephesus was seven and a half
talents, of Teos six, that of Halicarnassus one and two-thirds, of
Cnidus and Tenos three, that of Iasos was one talent.!
For the next twenty years the history of Tasos is again a
blank. The Peloponnesian war had meanwhile ended in the fall
of Athens, and ten years of Spartan misgovernment had taught
the cities that had been so ready to quit the Athenian alliance,
to wish for the old days back again. This sentiment soon found
terrible expression. Ifin the battles of Corinth and of Coroneia
(B.C. 394) Sparta had escaped defeat with loss only of men and
of prestige, the crushing defeat inflicted by Conon in the same
year, off Cnidus, destroyed the maritime empire of Sparta at a
blow. City after city proclaimed its independence, and many
hastened to assist in creating a new confederation under Athens.?
The name of Iasos is not to be read amongst the cities which
inscribed their names on the famous stelé, recording the forma-
tion of the new Athenian alliance. That marble bears the date
of the Archon Nausinicus, B.C. 378—7, and ten years before then
the fatal Peace of Antalcidas had handed ever Iasos, like all the
other cities of Asia, to the dominion of the king. It has been
shown however by M. Waddington, in an interesting essay, that
1 Corpus Inscr, Att. i. pp. 226 foll. 8 Corpus Inser. Att. ii, No. 17;
3 Grote, ch. 74; my Manual, Nos. Manual, No. 81.
65—70, 78—81.
88 ΙΑΒΟΒ.
immediately after the victory of Conon (B.c. 394), and before
any formal steps were taken to reconstitute an Athenian confe-
deracy, several Aegean states, headed probably by Rhodes,
entered into an independent league. We owe our knowledge
of this movement to the silent testimony of the federal coinage
struck on this occasion. Didrachms of Rhodes, Ephesus, Samos,
Cnidus, and also of Iasos are found, all of them similar in
standard, and identical in style, and stamped alike on the reverse
with the infant Heracles strangling two serpents! This type,
as M. Waddington suggests, was intended to symbolize the
aspirations of the nascent league, whose liberties were threatened
on all sides by the power of Persia, or of Lacedaemon, or of
Athens.
From the time of the Peace of Antalcidas, B.c. 387, the Greek
cities of Asta Minor were reckoned as part of the Satrapies of
Persia. The Satrap? of Caria about this time was Hecatomnus,
a native prince, whose son Maussolus, succeeding him probably
B.C. 377, has left an abiding name in history, not only through
the costly grief of his widow enshrined in the mausoleum, but
also by virtue of his own energy and ambition. Transferring his
royal residence from Mylasa to Halicarnassus, he not only con-
solidated his power in Caria, but aimed also by force or by
persuasion at the annexation of the Ionian cities. His intrigues
may be traced at Erythrae by help of an existing decree in his
honour,’ besides other places. He joined 8.6. 362 in the revolt
of the Satraps against Artaxerxes Memnon, and in 357 B.C. was
the chief instigator of the revolt of the allied cities against
Athens. Inscriptions however reveal the fact, which might
have been expected, that the centralizing policy of Maussolus,
which was converting the loosely-defined authority of a ‘Satrap’
into the organized government of a ‘king,’ stirred up a violent
opposition in some of the Greek cities. The decrees from Mylasa
quoted above (dated respectively B.c. 367, 361, 355) declare the
1 Waddington, Mélanges de Nuwmis- known decrees from Mylasa (C. 1. G.
matique, pp. 7 foll.; Percy Gardner,
Samos and Samian Coins, p. 54: Head,
Historia numorum, p. 528.
2 Maussolus and his father were only
kings (βασιλεῖθ) by courtesy: satrap
was the proper title, and is duly trans-
cribed into Greek letters in the well-
2691, ς, d, 6) ; ᾿Αρταξέρξευς βασιλεύον-
τος Μαυσσώλου ἐξαιθραπεύοντος, K.T.A.
Dittenberger, Sylloge, No. 76, where
see note; my Manual, No. 101.
3 My Manual, No. 102, where see
notes.
IASOS. 89
confiscation of the property of certain who had conspired against
Maussolus, and profess the profoundest loyalty of the city towards
himself and his dynasty.1 A similar document from Tasos 2 reveals
that in that city also there was a party of opposition, whose
efforts were promptly suppressed and their goods confiscated.
We have reached the threshold of a new era. Alexander
crossed the Hellespont in 334 B.c., and thenceforward the little
town, whose fortunes we have been endeavouring to follow, has
no history apart from the empires successively of Macedon, Syria,
and Rome. The summer of B.c. 334 found Alexander, after his
victory at the Granicus, engaged in the capture of Miletus; with
consummate skill he compelled the whole Persian fleet, from the
neighbouring promontory of Mycalé, to witness the taking of the
town, without being able to effect anything for its deliverance.
In vain did the Persians daily challenge the invader’s fleet ;
Alexander declined the challenge. An attempted surprise had
no better result. Five ships of the Persians sailed right into
the harbour that lay between the island of Lade and the main-
land. The Greek army occupied the latter shore, the Greek
fleet occupied the island: the hope was that the ships might be
surprised on the shore of Lade while their crews were away
upon forage duty. Some were so absent, but the rest were soon
on board, and got afloat in time; so that the five Persian ships
steered round and made the best of their escape to the main
fleet out at sea. One of the five, says Arrian, ‘was captured
with her crew, not being a fast sailer, and this was ‘the vessel
of the Iasians.’* Τῇ we may trust Arrian, and the authorities
which he followed, the incident thus detailed agrees entirely
with all we know of the Iasians. That they should serve on the
side of Persia, as part of the fleet of Memnon,—that they should
contribute only one ship,—that their sailors should be selected,
or should volunteer, for this daring and perilous adventure—
all is exactly what we could expect. ,
From Miletus Alexander marched into Caria, where the
1 Manual, No. 101. ἡ μὲν ᾿Ιασσέων (sic) ναῦς ἁλίσκεται
* Discovered in 1880, and first pub- αὐτοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν τῇ φυγῇ, οὐ ταχυναυ-
lished by MM. Am. Hauvette-Besnault τοῦσα' αἱ δὲ τέσσαρες ἔφθασαν κατα-
and M. Dubois, Bulletin de Correspon- φυγεῖν εἰς τὰς οἰκείας τριήρεις" οὕτω μὲν
dance Hellénique, v. (1881); p. 491; δὴ ἀπέπλευσαν ἄπρακτοι ἐκ Μιλήτου οἱ
Dittenberger, Sylloge, No. 77. Πέρσαι.
8. Arrian, Anabusis, i. 19, §11: καὶ
90 IASOS.
Persian forces had concentrated at Halicarnassus to make a
final stand for the possession of the seaboard. His own fleet he
promptly disbanded, confident in’ his own strength by land, and
the proved impotence of the Persians by sea. The fall of Hali-
carnassus after a vigorous siege left him master of the western
shores of Asia Minor. Leaving Ada in the Satrapy of Caria, he
marched on into Lycia, having secured his hold on the coast not
only by his garrisons on the Hellespont and in Caria, but sull
more surely by the affectionate loyalty of the Greek cities, to
all of which he granted autonomy, restoring their democracies,
and liberating them from tribute. lasos, though not honoured
by the conqueror’s presence, shared in the deliverance he
brought.
The little town, however, was not without a personal interest
in the great campaigns of Alexander. We know at least two
citizens of Iasos who were with the conqueror in the far East,
one of them (if not both) being on his staff as superintendent
of the armoury (ὁπλοφύλαξ). He is the hero of a story repeated
by Athenaeus in connection with the Dionysia which Alexander
celebrated so magnificently in the autumn of B.c. 324.1 ‘“ Many
were assembled to the spectacle,” says Ephippus, “ and proclama-
tions were being made in a braggart and presumptuous vein,
outdoing even Persian vain-glory. For while one and another
was belauding the king with all sorts of toastings and crownings,
one of the superintendents of the armoury, to outdo all flattery,
instructed the herald (by royal permission) to proclaim how that
Gorgos, the superintendent of the armoury, dedicates to Alexander
son of Ammon, a chaplet worth three thousand gold-preces ; and
when he lays siege to Athens, ten thousand suits of armour and a
like supply of catapults and other artillery, as many as he may
vequire.’’ This fierce allusion to Athens is exactly in tune with
the feeling then prevalent with Alexander and his troops.
Harpalus had only a few months before fled to Athens; and a
false rumour had reached the East that he had been welcomed
by the Athenians as an enemy of Alexander, and had received
1 xii. p. 588, ἐν ExBardvois. Com- the Satyric Drama Agen, quoted by
pare Arrian, vii 14; Plutarch, Alex. Athenaeus, xiii. p. 596, and acted be-
72: Droysen, Hellenismus, i. 2, p.312 fore Alexander at Susa in the spring of
foll. this very year.
2 See Grote, ch. 95; and his note on
IASOS. 91
the freedom of the city by way of manifesto against the Mace-
donian supremacy. It may be unsafe to identify, as Droysen
proposes to do,! the Gorgos of this story with Gorgos the mining
engineer (μεταλλευτής) whose account of the Indian gold and
silver mines is referred to by Strabo (xv. p. 700). But there is
no doubt that the Gorgos who proposed the toast at Ecbatana
is identical with the Gorgos named ina well-known Iasian decree
which thanks him and his brother for using their interest
with Alexander on behalf of their native town. It runs as
follows :*
Ἔπει]δ[ὴ Γό]ργος καὶ Μιννίων * Θεοδότ-
ov υἱ)οὶ κ[αλ]οὺὶ κἀγαθοὶ γεγένηνται
πε]ρὶ τ[ὸ] κοινὸν τῆς πόλεως,
κα]ὶ πολλοὺς τῶν πολιτῶν ἰδίᾳ εὖ [π-
5 ἐποιήκασιν, καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς μικρῆς
θαλάσσης * διαλεχθέντες
᾿Αλεξάνδρῳ βασιλεῖ ἐκομίσαντο
κ]αὶ ἀπέδοσαν τῷ δήμῳ: δεδόσθαι
αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐγγόνοις ἀτέλειαν καὶ
10 προεδρίην εἰς τὸν ἀεὶ χρόνον᾽
ἀναγράψαι δὲ τὸ ψήφισμα ἐν τῇ
παραστάδι τῇ πρὸ τοῦ ἀρχείου
Another inscription, from Samos, speaks of the same pair of
brothers as using their influence with Alexander in 323 B.c. on
behalf of the Samian exiles. The Samians who had been driven
out of their country wholesale by the Athenians in B.c. 365, 361,
1 Hellenismus, i. 2, p. 518.
2 6.1.6. 2672 ; Hicks, Manual, 132;
Dittenberger, Sylloge, 116; Droysen,
Hellenismus, ii. 2, p. 861.
8 This unusual name occurs more
than once in the lists of subscribers to
the Dionysia inscribed in the theatre
at lasos;.Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage
Arch. iii. Nos. 285, 287.
41 cannot agree with Dittenberger
in understanding μικρὴ θάλασσα tomean
a ‘lake’ or large fish-pond ; he com-
pares Sylloge, No. 6, line 44. After
what we have seen of the prevailing
oceupation of the ITasians, it scems
natural to take ‘ the little sea’ to mean
some part of the Iasian gulf especially
valued for its fishing, the exclusive
right over which may have been lost
to Iasos for a while, after Alexander’s
reconstruction of the government of
Caria. Such rights to a fishery would
be termed θάλασσα ; see my Manual,
No. 38; compare the fishery of the
Mare Piccolo at Tarentum (Head, His-
toria Numorum, p. 44).
5 The ἀρχεῖον at Iasos, or Record
Office, was a building of some import-
ance, and adjoined the βουλευτήριον.
Both appear to have been restored by
the bounty of Antiochus the Great, as
we shall see presently.
92 IASOS.
and 352, their island being simply repeopled by Attic colonists,
had taken refuge in various friendly states. A large number,
we learn from this decree, had come to reside at Jasos; and
when in 322 Perdiccas undertook to give effect to the decree of
Alexander for the universal restoration of exiles—(a decree
which the ‘ins’ were glad enough ‘to postpone as against the
‘outs, on the plea of Alexander’s death having supervened)—
the citizens of Iasos permitted the Samian sojourners to take
away their property without payment of export duty, and pro-
vided them with transport vessels at the public cost. Gorgos
and his brother had strongly urged these exiles’ claim upon the
kindness of the Iasian people ; and we may perhaps trace in this
action the same vein of hostility to Athens which inspired the
vapouring toast at Ecbatana. It would seem that the wholesale
restoration of all exiles ‘ by order of the king’ (κατὰ τὸ διάγραμμα
τοῦ βασιλέως), which is known to have produced much disorder
and strife in many cities, caused no disturbance at Iasos, where
probably the whole free population (and it was not large) was
loyal to the Macedonian cause. We hear of no parties or factions
at Iasos until the time of Antiochus the Great,—of which pre-
sently. On the other hand we hear of Iasos being applied to
by the people of Calymna to send them five dicasts to try the
cases which had accumulated in that island upon the return of
the exiles. C.I. G. No. 2671 is a decree of the Iasians compli-
menting the five dicasts upon their return; to which is appended
the decree passed by the Calymnians in their honour.
The position of Iasos made it an important maritime outpost,
and involved it repeatedly in the conflicts of those troubled
centuries that followed the death of Alexander.
Asander, to whom his master had bequeathed the Satrapy of
Caria, seems to have placed a garrison at Iasos. At all events,
when Antigonus and Demetrius in B.c. 313 decided to crush the
ambition of Asander, who was encroaching upon their Ionian
dominion, their general Ptolemaeus was sent to reduce [8508 to
submission.2. The policy of Antigonus and Demetrius was a
policy of ‘ freedom and democracy’ for all Greek cities, and the
expulsion of garrisons, We cannot be wrong therefore in sup-
1 Hicks, Manual, 135: Dittenberger, p. 22; compare Gardner, Samos and
Sylloge, No. 119; see the interesting Samian Coins, p. 58.
dissertation of C. Curtius, Jnschriften 2 Diod. xiv, 75; Hellenisinus, ii. 2,
und Studien zur Geschichte von Samos, Ῥ. 29.
IASOS. 93
posing that Iasos, when it passed under the sway of Antigonus
and his son, enjoyed whatever liberty is capable of being con-
ferred by a conqueror’s grace, and received a material pledge of
freedom in the removal of the garrison. This autonomy was
probably maintained for the most part, if not during the reign
of Seleucus, at all events under Antiochus Soter and his
successors."
To this century (the third B.c.) of freedom and comparative
peace we may probably assign the series of honorary decrees
from Iasos published by Béckh, C. 1. Ο. 2675—2678. They
confer the citizenship of Iasos, with other privileges, upon
citizens of Caunus, Macedon, Miletus, and elsewhere, who had
rendered services to the Iasians. The decrees are ordered to be
inscribed upon the anita in front of the Record Office (ἐν τῇ
παραστάδι τῇ πρὸ τοῦ ἀρχείου). In this and in other par-
ticulars these decrees closely resemble the wording of the
decree cited above in honour of Gorgos and his brother, and
suggest a similarity of date. One expression, however, which
recurs in them would imply that the autonomy allowed to Iasos
under the Syrian kings did not permit them the entire control
of the taxes and customs. Among the privileges decreed to
distinguished strangers is ἀτέλεια ὧν ἡ πόλις κυρία ἐστί. To
this same tranquil period probably belong the coins of Iasos
described by Mr. Head,? as follows: ‘Olv, Head of Apollo (or
else a lyre); Acv. IA or IAZEQN Youth swimming beside
dolphin, which he clasps with one arm. Magistrates’ names.’
The best account of this singular device will be in the words
of Duris, a Samian historian contemporary with Alexander,
as quoted by Athenaeus (xii. 606): ‘And there is a story of a
dolphin at Iasos falling in love with a boy, as Duris narrates in
his ninth book. He is speaking of Alexander, and he says as
follows: “And he sent for the boy of Iasos. For there was a
1 See the letter of Antiochus Soter
to the Ionian city Erythrae, Hicks,
Manual, No. 164 (B.c. 278 %): ἐπί τε
᾿Αλεξάνδρου καὶ ᾿Αντιγόνου αὐτό[ν]ομος
ἣν καὶ ἀφορολόγητος ἣ πόλις ὑμῶν, κιτ.λ.
The Syrian monarchy so far lacked
stability and concentration, that it was
glad to purchase the allegiance of the
Greek cities on the coast by allowing
them to enjoy autonomy. The decree
of Iasos in favour of Antiochus the
Great, which will be presently men-
tioned (Inscriptions in the British
Musewm, No. eccexlii.) expressly says :
[τὴν δημοκρ]α[τ]ίαν καὶ αὐτονομίαν δια-
φυλάσσειν, γέγ[ραφε] πλεονάκις τῷ δήμῳ
περὶ τούτων, ἀκόλουθα πράττων τῇ διὰ
πατέρων ὑπαρχούσῃ αὐτῷ πρὸς τοὺς
“Ἑλληνας εὐεργεσίᾳ.
2 Historia Numorwn, p. 528.
94 IASOS.
boy about this town named Dionysios, who used to leave the
palaestra with the others and go to the sea and bathe. And a
dolphin would come to meet him out of the sea, and take him
on his back and swim off with him ever so far, and bring him
back safe to land.”’ In the face of such contemporary evidence
we must allow that the marvel was really believed at Tasos at an
early date, however false to facts; nor need we doubt that this
rival of old Arion was actually sent to Alexander at Babylon.
Aelian, in his History of Animals (vi. 15; compare viii. 11),
tells the story at greater length, but without reference to
Alexander. He adds that ‘the gymnasium at Iasos lies close to
the shore, and the youths who have been racing and wrestling
go down and bathe in the sea according to immemorial custom
there.’ He makes the youth lose his life by accidentally open-
ing a vein by a scratch from the dolphin’s fin, and says that the
dolphin deposited his dying favourite on the shore, and lay down
and died by his side. ‘Whereupon the Iasians, in tribute to
the strong affection between them, reared one tomb for both
the beautiful boy and his dolphin-admirer, and set up a stele,
adorned with a lad riding on a dolphin. And they struck a
coin in silver and copper, with a device to represent their fate,’
The version of Plutarch (De Solertia animalium, 36) so closely
resembles that of Aelian, that we may suppose both writers to
have borrowed from a common source later than Duris, which
Pliny also (Nat. Hist. ix. 8) appears to have followed. Like
Plutarch, he attributes the boy’s death to ‘repentinae procellae
fluctibus, and gives his name as Hermias. He also says that
similar stories of dolphins were told in various parts of Greece,
and that two youths at [asos had a similar experience, one of
them being sent for to Babylon by Alexander, who made him
priest of Neptune! Plutarch (/.c.) and also Pollux (Onom. ix. 84)
both mention the type on the coin, the former saying: καὶ τοῦ
πάθους ἐπίσημον ᾿Ιασεῦσι TO χάραγμα τοῦ νομίσματός ἐστι,
παῖς ὑπὲρ δελφῖνος ὀχούμενος, and the latter: ᾿Ιασεῖς de παῖδα
δελφῖνι ἐποχούμενον [τῷ νομίσματι ἐνεχάραττον). It is curious
that all these writers speak of the boy as ‘riding on’ the
dolphin (ἐποχεῖσθαι, ὀχεῖσθαι, ἱππεύειν), whereas the existing
coins represent him as merely swimming by the dolphin’s side,
with one arm over its back. And the story itself may be
1 Compare the audacious story of Pausanias, iii. 25, § 5.
IASOS. 95
perhaps accounted for by the established belief among the old
Greek sailors in the friendliness of the dolphin, by the abun-
dance of works of art wherein dolphins are represented in
companionship with deities of the sea, and by the vanity of
Iasos, which expanded some swimming adventure of an imagi-
native youth into a marvel. The legend, however, is interesting
in two ways, as symbolizing the amphibious life of the people of
Jasos, and as taking for granted the friendly relations we know
to have existed between the great Conqueror and the loyal
little town.
To this same period (third century B.c.) we may assign one
or two other documents which indicate, by their rarity, how
slight were the relations of Iasos with the outer Grecian world.
A handsome monument is preserved in the British Museum
which came from lasos, and is inscribed with letters of a good
time : Ελλανίων Tapoevs. This may be the tomb of a Cilician
merchant who either died at Iasos, or was wrecked in the bay.
In the large collections of later Attic inscriptions now published,
hardly a mention of Iasos occurs: no Iasian is named among
the foreigners (ξένου) who trained among the Ephebi of the
Athenian gymnasium; nor among the prize-winners at the
Athenian Panathenaea, Lenaea, or Dionysia, It is quite in
keeping with this, when in C. 7. G. 2682 an Jasian declares that
he was the ‘ first Iasian’ who had ever won the long race at the
Pythia, Nemea, Isthmia, and Olympia in succession (περίοδος) ;
he also had won a prize at the Capitolia at Rome instituted by
Domitian A.D. 86. An Iasian, however, named Samiades is
named in a list of mercenaries at Athens of the third century B.c.
(C. 1. A. 1. 963). Kumanudes also includes the epitaph of an
Jasian family in his collection of Attic sepulchral inscriptions
(No. 1850): ᾿Απολλώνιος ᾿Ιασεύς: Βρύασσις" Bitro.
An inscription from Iasos, which I had the pleasure of first
editing in its entirety,” gives a graphic picture of the diplomatic
1 It is observable that Βιττώ is known
as the name of the women of Cos, of
Samos, and of Halicarnassus, all neigh-
bours of Tasos (see Pape-Benseler, 8.0.)
I suspect Βρύασσις to be a mistake for
Βρύαξις, a name which occurs repeatedly
at Iasos (see Greek Inscriptions in the
British Museum, part iii. p. 66; and
Dittenberger, Syiloye, No. 77, passim.
But comp. Bechitel, Znschriften des Jon.
Dial. No. 104, note.
2? Manual, No. 182: Greek Inscrip-
tions in the British Museum. part iii.
No. cecexli.; compare Le Bas- Wadding-
ton, Voyage Archéol. part ν. 251. This
is the document described as follows
90 IASOS.
relations of Rhodes, Iasos, and Philip V. just before the outbreak
of the Macedonian war, B.c. 200. The lasians, whose interests
Philip undertakes to champion, have remonstrated with Rhodes
about certain encroachments and injuries which they have
suffered at the hands of Rhodians dwelling in the Rhodian
peraea, a strip of the Carian mainland belonging to Rhodes,
Their remonstrances had been backed by a letter from the king.
The Rhodians return a very civil reply; they are most unwilling
to harm or offend ‘their kinsmen’ and friends the Iasians.’
Similar assurances of peace and goodwill are voted to Philip also.
It was the last effort of diplomacy to avert a rupture. Within
a few months the Macedonian war had broken out, which in-
volved both sides of the Aegean in a sharp and decisive struggle.
In the treaty of B.c. 196 the Roman Senate dictated as one of
the provisions that Philip should withdraw his garrison from
numerous cities, and among them from Iasos.?
But the autonomy promised to Iasos by the treaty of B.c. 196
was not for some time to be realized. The Romans, while
occupied in subduing Philip, had allowed Antiochus to pursue
those ambitious schemes of conquest which gained him his title
of Antiochus ‘the Great. Nor was he slow to take advantage
of the Macedonian defeat. His garrisons at once took posses-
sion of the towns evacuated by Philip; and, among other cities,
Iasos, under the plea of being protected in its liberties, became
practically a subject-city of the Syrian monarchy. In the
year 190 B.c. we are expressly told by Livy* that Iasos was
occupied by a royal garrison, and narrowly escaped attack from
by Chandler, Travels in Asia Minor, i.
p. 227: ‘ By the isthmus is the vaulted
1 « Kinsmen,’ because Iasos was ori-
ginally a Dorian colony from Argos.
substruction of a considerable edifice ;
and on a jamb of the doorway are
decrees engraved in a fair character,
but damaged, and black with smoke ;
the entrance, which is lessened by a
pile of stones, serving as a chimuey to
a few Greeks, who inhabit the ruin.’
This door-jamb is now in the British
Museum, the most perfect portion of
the inscription being of course the last
twenty lines, which had been con-
cealed from view and from injury by
the accumulation of soil, until the
marble was removed cz sitw,
3 Compare Polyb. xvi. 12; xvii. 8;
with Livy xxxii. 33 ; and xviii. 27 (44)
with Livy xxxiii. 30. ἙΕὔρωμον δὲ καὶ
Πήδασα καὶ Βαργύλια καὶ τὴν ᾿Ιασέων
πόλιν, ὁμοίως “ABvdov, Θάσον, Μύριναν,
Πέρινθον, ἐλευθέρας ἀφεῖναι, τὰς φρουρὰς
ἐξ αὐτῶν μεταστησάμενον.
3 See Polyb. xviii. 80 (8,0, 194);
ibid. 33: γελοῖον yap εἶναι τὰ Ῥωμαϊκὰ
ἄθλα τοῦ γεγονότος αὐτοῖς πολέμου πρὸς
Φίλιππον ᾿Αντέοχον ἐπελθόντα παραλαμ-
βάνειν.
4 xxxvil 17,
IASOS. 97
the Roman fleet. The exiles of Iasos, who belonged to the
Roman party, and were now serving under Aemilius, besought
him to spare the town, assuring him that they represented the
true feeling of the inhabitants, who had simply been overborne
by the Syrian faction, assisted by the king’s soldiery. The
Rhodians added their entreaties to the same effect, that the
town might be spared. But an Jasian inscription which I first
published in my Manual (No. 174), and more accurately in
part 111. of Greek Inscriptions in the British Musewm (No. eecexlii.),
shows that Antiochus had secured Iasos to his side not by mere
force, but by intrigue and by gifts. He had also appealed to
the superstition of the people by an oracle from Branchidae in
his favour; and he had steadily given himself out as the friend
of democracy as against the Roman and oligarchical party. It
is interesting to find the old party lines of Greek history still
surviving, at least in name. The decree assures Antiochus that
Tasos is ‘unanimous’ (μεθ᾽ ὁμονοίας πολιτεύεσθαι) in supporting
the democracy and in loyalty to the king. In other words, the
philo-Roman oligarchs had been expelled, viz. those whom Livy
speaks of as with Aemilius. Another inscription from Iasos in
the Museum (No. cccexliii. 1...) records a dedication made by
certain ‘Commissioners of the Senate-house and the Record
Office’ to ‘Concord and the People’ (Οἱ αἱρεθέντες rod τε
/ \ fa) > / > x \ € >
βουλευτηρίου καὶ τοῦ ἀρχείου ἐπιμεληταὶ.. .. καὶ ὁ apyi-
τέκτων .... Opovola καὶ τῷ δήμῳ). It is a safe conjecture
that the gifts of Antiochus, mentioned in the decree just cited,
had been laid out in the repair or adornment of those public
buildings ; 1 so that the completion of the work was made to
serve as a demonstration of the triumph of the democratic party
and of the Syrian cause. The end soon came. Antiochus was
hopelessly defeated at Magnesia, B.c. 190 ; and in the treaty which
followed, Caria, and Jasos with it, was handed over to Rhodes—
a striking commentary on the remonstrances which Iasos had
made to the Rhodians, through the medium of Philip V.,
against their encroachments on the Carian mainland. After the
war with Perseus, however, B.c. 168, one of the methods adopted
by the Senate to humiliate and cripple Rhodes was to deprive
her of her tributary cities on the mainland, and to declare the
1 The ἀρχεῖον isnamed repeatedly in assigned to a century before Antiochus ;
the series of decrees which I have (C.1.G. Nos, 2673 foll. See above.
Η.5.--ΟΙ,. VILL. Η
98 IASOS.
independence of Caria.’ For the next forty years accordingly
Iasos enjoyed again a formal independence until the city was
merged, with the rest of Caria, B.c, 129, in the Roman province
of Asia.
It is to this period of revived autonomy, during the middle
portion of the second century B.c., that a considerable number of
Iasian documents must (on independent grounds) be assigned,
which curiously illustrate the inner life of a Greek city while
the lamp of freedom was still flickering, shortly to expire.
Our attention is first claimed by certain inscriptions which
are still to be read ὧν situ on the wall of the Iasian theatre.
They are thus described by Chandler: ‘In the side of the rock
is the theatre, fronting 60m. east of north, with many rows of
seats remaining, but covered with soil, or enveloped in bushes.
On the left wing is an inscription in very large and well-formed
characters, ranging in a long line, and recording certain donations
to Bacchus and the people.’? This inscription is really a series
of inscriptions, extending over a period of forty years or more;
they have been admirably edited by Le Bas-Waddington (Voyage
Archéol. Nos. 252 foll.). They record the names of citizens who
from year to year had furnished funds for the maintenance of
the Dionysia, and the engagement of distinguished performers.
One of them will suffice here for a specimen; it shall be No. 255,
which comes early in the series, and is of importance as fixing
the date of the whole —
"Emi στεφανηφόρου ᾿Απόλλωνος τοῦ δευτέρου μετὰ
Μένιππον, ἀγωνοθέτου δὲ Πανταίνου τοῦ
« ͵ / ᾿ς ,ὔ Lal > /
Ιεροκλείους, οἵδε ἐπέδωκαν τῶν ἐπινευσάντων----
> ΄ ΄ e /
ἀγωνοθέτης Ἰ]άνταινος ᾿ἱεροκλείους
ὅ αὐλήτην Σάτυρον ᾿Αριστοκλείους Βοιώτιον
e / ὃ ’ὔ \ e e , \ ς
ἡμέρας δύο καὶ εὗρεν ἡ πάροδος δραχμὴν ἡ δὲ
θέα ἐγένετο δωρεάν ---Αριστόκριτος Τλαύκου
1 Polyb. xxx. 5: κατὰ δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν rate. There is one dedication Διονύσῳ
καιρὸν ἣ σύγκλητος ἐξέβαλε δόγμα διότι
δεῖ Κᾶρας καὶ Λυκίους ἐλευθέρους εἶναι
πάντας, ὅσους προσένειμε Ῥοδίοις μετὰ
τὺν ᾿Αντιοχικὸν πόλεμον. So Polyb.
xxxi. 7; Livy xliv. 15.
2 Travels in Asia Minor, i. p. 227.
Chandler’s description of the contents
of these inscriptions is not very accu-
καὶ τῷ δήμῳ (C.I.G. 2681 = Le Bas-
Waddington, No. 269) made by Sopater
son of Epicrates, who is also named in
No. 259 ibid. This determines the
date of the dedication, and leads us to
connect the expression τῷ δήμῳ with
the revival of autonomy at Iasos in
B.C. 168.
IASOS. 99
κατὰ ὑοθεσίαν δὲ Διοδώρου χορηγήσας πρότερον
Κράτωνα Ζωτίχου Καλχηδόνιον αὐλήτην ἡμέρας
10 δύο καὶ εὗρεν ἡ πάροδος δραχμὴν ἡ δὲ θέα ἐγένετο
δωρεάν----.Ἡράκλειτος Φορμίωνος χορηγήσας πρότε-
plov ᾿Αθηνόδωρον κωμῳδὸν καὶ εὗρεν ἡ πάροδος δρα-
χ)μὴν ἡ δὲ θέα ἐγένετο δωρεάν"---Κλεάναξ Κλεαινέτου
ἀγωνοθετήσας πρότερον ᾿Αθηνόδωρον κωμῳδὸν
1ὅ καὶ εὗρεν ἡ πάροδος δραχμὴν ἡ δὲ θέα ἐγένετο δωρε-
ἄν K.T.Dr.
(Three other citizens are similarly named as engaging three
- other comedians respectively.)
Several points would deserve notice. In line 1, Apollo him-
self is the Eponymus of the year, and that for the second time
together, in succession to Menippus: on this practice of
nominating a tutelary god to the eponymous office, see Greek
Inscriptions in the British Museum, Pt. 111. pp. 19, 31, 32. In
treating of another Iasian document (77d. p. 65), I have ventured
to translate the curious formula of lines 4—7 &c. as follows:
‘The president of the festival, Pantaenos, son of Hierocles
[engaged at his own cost], Satyros, son of Aristocles of Boeotia,
the flute-player, for two days; now his appearance commanded
a drachma [for entrance fee], and the performance cost [the
authorities of Iasos] nothing.’ I imagine that Iasos could ill
afford to supply funds for the Dionysia (a theoric fund) out of
the civic exchequer ; accordingly the leading citizens undertook
in turn to engage popular performers at their own cost, and so
with this attraction the celebration became virtually self-sup-
porting. In this particular year the artists thus specially
secured were :—
Satyros, a Boeotian flute-player ;
Craton of Chalcedon, a flute-player ;
Five comedians.
Craton of Chalcedon is well known from a series of documents
respecting him, emanating from the college of Dionysiac artists
at Teos (C. I. 6. 3067—3071), one of which is in the Fitzwilliam
Museum at Cambridge (No. 3068). Craton flourished at the
court of Pergamon in the reigns of Eumenes II. and Attalus
Philadelphus, and died B.c. 151 or 152 (see Béckh on No. 3069).
H 2
100 IASOS.
This determines the date of this curious series from the Iasian
theatre : it coincides pretty certainly with the period of autonomy
from B.c. 168—129. Many of these lists record only subscrip-
tions in money for the same purpose, and one? is a decree of
the Teian Dionysiac artists,in response to an appeal from Iasos,
in which they undertake in view of the necessities of the Iasians
(ἐν τοῖς ἀναγκαιοτάτοις καιροῖς) to send free of charge for the
performance of the Dionysia at Iasos the following company of
artists: two flute-players, two tragedians, two comedians, one
harper and singer, one harp-player. Another [asian inscription
records the success of an Iasian poet named Dymas (ποητὴς
τραγῳδιῶν) whose tragedy on the ‘ Adventures of Dardanos’ had
been received at Samothrace with much favour, as com-
memorating the ancient glories of that island.* Dymas must
be added to the one literary name recorded by Strabo (xiv. 658)
in connection with Iasos—Diodorus the dialectician, surnamed
Cronus, who flourished at the court of Ptolemy Soter, and was
an Jasian by birth.
To the same period (the middle of the second century B.C.)
belong two Iasian decrees published by M. Haussoullier,
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, viii. (1884), p. 455. Both
are unfortunately incomplete ; especially the second of the two,
which recorded the names of certain citizens who had contri-
buted towards the purchase of corn in a time of scarcity. The
existing lines, as copied by M. Haussoullier, I would venture to
restore somewhat as follows :—
.. + ες Bovropevole ἀεὶ
διασώξεσθαι τὴ]ν δημοκρατίαν ἑκόν-
τες ἐπέδοσ]αν ἀργύριον [ἐκ τῶν ἰδ-
/ -“ > a Sean > ,
lov ὅπως 1ὸ δῆμος ἀεὶ εὐδ[ αιμονοίη
5 καὶ ἐν τῇ ἐν]δείᾳ σίτου γίν[οιτο καθ᾽
«ς Ia > 3, - rn ͵
ἡμέραν ἐξ σης πᾶσι τοῖς πἰολίταις
τῶν ἐωνημέ]νων σιτομετρία"
Με]νεσθεὺς Κλεάν[ακτος ὑπὲρ av-
1 Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage Archéol. λ[έγων] καὶ πράττων ἀγαθὸν διατελεῖ
No. 281; Liiders, Die dionysischen περὶ τῆς νήσου, κατὰ τά[χ]ος τε ἄπό-
Kiinstler, pp. 87, 181. δειξιν ἐποίησατο τῆς αὑτοῦ φύσεως καὶ
2 Lately published in Greek Inscrip- πραγματείαν σ[ζυνέ]ταξεν ἐν δράματι τῶν
tions in the British Museum, Part iii. Δαρδάνου πράξεων τὰς μεγίστας μνη-
No. cecexliv ; see lines 16 foll.: ἀεί τι μοσ[ύναΞ] k.7.A.
IASOS. 101
τοῦ «lal τοῦ υἱοῦ Κλεάνακτος Spay-
10 μὰς] ἑξακοσίας: Φάνυζλλος τοῦ
δεῖνος δ]ραχμὰς δια[κοσίας"
ὁ δεῖνα Νημε]ρτέως [ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ
Kal Tov viod . . . Xo.
A Cleanax, son of Cleanax, is named in the theatre-lists above
quoted passim, and [Νημε]ρτέως is restored from Νημερτέα in
No. 252, ἐν. The other decree is only partially restored by
M. Haussoullier, who observes that ‘ Antenor, son of Evandrides
of Miletus’ is the same who is named in a Milesian inscription
(C. I. Ο. 2859) as προφητεύων, holding the office of ‘ prophet.’
The wording and orthography of the decree so closely resemble
No. cceexx. of the Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, that
it must belong to the same age, and can be readily restored -—
Ἐπὶ στεφανηφόρου ᾿Απόλλωνος το[ῦ δευτέρου,
μηνὸς] ᾿Αφροδισιῶνος" ἔδοξεν τῇ βο[υλῇ
καὶ τῷ] δήμῳ᾽ ἕκτῃ ἱσταμένου: Φιλίσκος
᾿Αρτεμ]ιδώρου ἐπεστάτει" πρυτάνεων [γνώμη:
περὶ ὧν] ἐπῆλθεν Δημαγόρας ᾿Εξηκ[εστίδου (1)
ἵνα ᾿Αντή]νωρ Evavdpidov Μιλήσιος ἐπ[αινεθῇ
καὶ στ]εφανωθῇ τῷ ἐννόμῳ στεφάνῳ ἀρετῆς
ἕνεκε]ν ἧς ἔχει περὶ τὴν πόλιν" δεδόχ[θαι
τῷ] δήμῳ ἐπηνῆσθαι ᾿Αντήνορ[α Evavépidou
Μιλήσι]ον καὶ στεφανῶσαι αὐτὸν τῷ ἐννόμῳ
[στεφάνῳ κ.τ.λ.]}
It was a mark of a flourishing city when numerous aliens came
to sojourn within its walls either to enjoy its comforts or to
share its trade. The lists of subscribers to the Dionysia, above
mentioned, include not a few such resident aliens (μέτοικοι),
who subscribed side by side with the citizens. They are stated
to belong to the following cities: Alabanda, Alinda (4), Euromos,
Myndos (all in Caria) ; Antioch (probably the Pisidian city of
the name,—4), Antioch on the Orontes (πρὸς Δάφνη), Phaselis,
Magnesia (probably ad Sipylwm), Magnesia on the Maeander,
Phocaea, Laodicea (probably the city on the Lycus,—3), Hiera-
polis, Tralles (the well-known city of the name), Tralles ‘ beyond
Taurus’ (Τραλλιανὸς Τραλλέων τῶν ἐπέκεινα τοῦ Ταύρου, te.
probably the Phrygian city of the name: see Franz, Fiinf
102 IASOS.
Inschriften und fiinf Stddte in Kleinasicn, p. 31), Apamea (pro-
bably the Phrygian city,—2), Myrina, Cume, Sinope, Thrace,
Heraclea Pontica, Marathon, Syracuse, Seleucia (on the Tigris 7),
and—most interesting of all—there is a Jew of the dispersion,
Νικήτας ᾿Ιάσονος ᾿Ἱἱεροσολυμίτης, whose mention in such a
connection reminds us forcibly how closely the fortunes of the
Jewish people were at this time bound up with the policy of
the Syrian monarchs,
_ The liberation of Iasos from Rhodian control in B.c. 168
brought with it a release from tribute } and restored the prestige
of the city. But the revival of freedom, if accompanied (as it
probably would be), with the restoration of exiles and the re-
adjustment of parties in the city, would be likely to lead to some
disturbances. To this period certainly (to judge by its ortho-
graphy and general appearance), we may ascribe a long inscription
in honour of a dicast from Priene and his secretary who had
visited Iasos to decide some serious suits which demanded great
impartiality. The document was found at Priene, on the site
of the temple of Athena, and has been recently published by
me.? It contains two decrees, one of the Iasians who testify to
the benefits conferred by the Prienian dicast, and a second passed
at Priene in acknowledgment of the former, a copy of which
has been formally sent on from Jasos, The Iasians say: ὁ δῆμος
ὁ IIpunvéwy ἔν τε τοῖς πρότερον χρόνοις εὔνους ὧν Kal φίλος
διετέλει, καὶ νῦν ἀξιώωσάντων ἡμῶν ἀποστεῖλαι δικαστὴν ἀπέσ-
τείλεν ἄνδρα καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν Ἡροκράτην ᾿Ανδρίου, ὃς παρα-
γενόμενος τὰς μὲν συνέλυσε τῶν δικῶν οὐθὲν ἐλλείπων προθυμίας
ἀλλὰ πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ποιούμενος ἵνα συλλυθέντες οἱ ἀντίδικοι
1 See Polyb. xxxi. 7, where the Rho- this date upon internal evidence alone.
dian envoys at Rome bitterly complain
of their loss of Caria and Lycia: ὅτι
Λυκίαν καὶ Καρίαν ἀπολωλέκασιν, els ἣν
ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν ἐδαπάνησαν χρημάτων
ἱκανὸν πλῆθος, τριττοὺς πολέμους ἀναγ-
κασθέντες πολεμεῖν αὐτοῖς, νυνὶ δὲ προ-
σόδων ἐστέρηνται πολλῶν ὧν ἐλάμβανον
παρὰ τῶν προειρημένων. They reckon
their revenue from Caunus and Stra-
tonicea alone to have been 120 talents
(£30,000) yearly.
* Greck Inscriptions in the British
Museum, Part iii. No. ceecexx., where
I have given reasons for assigning it to
In reference to the subject of this decree
and the many others of its class, we
may gather that δίκαι were a favourite
weapon of faction and revolution—
‘domestica seditioni tela’ — from
Thucydides’ account of the Corcy-
rean sedition (iii. 70), and Aristotle,
Politics, viii. 8, § 3—4 (Congreve = p.
1802 B.): διὰ δὲ φόβον στασιάζουσιν οἵ
τε ἠδικηκότες, δεδιότες μὴ δῶσι δίκην,
καὶ of μέλλοντες ἀδικεῖσθαι, βουλόμενοι
φθάσαι πρὶν ἀδικηθῆναι, ὥσπερ ἐν Ῥόδῳ
συνέστησαν οἱ γνώριμοι ἐπὶ τὸν δῆμον
διὰ τὰς ἐπιφερομένας δίκας.
IASOS. 103
τὰ πρὸς αὑτοὺς μεθ᾽ ὁμονοίας πολιτεύωνται, Tas δὲ διέκρινεν
δικαίως κατ. This language points to disputes which had a
political bearing.
There is one other inscription which may perhaps be attributed
to the same period, although its heading and its conclusion being
both mutilated, we are left with the slighter evidence of date.
Incomplete however as it is, M. Haussoullier who discovered and
published 10,1 may rightly say that it gives us a picture of Greek
life (vivid as an instantaneous photograph), which is true of each
century of Greek freedom, and not of one town only but of many.
The text as read by M. Haussoullier is as follows, the marble
being broken at the top and bottom and left, and entire only
on the right-hand side :—
OEKK NAIA
OYAHMOYETPIIPA KPEONT
KAEITOY lETIAIOZEAPOAAQNIAOY
NNIONOZ%O IEPOKAEOYETOYEMEN
AZEKAZTOYMHNOETHINOYMHNI
TOZ.. AOHKONTAEKKAHSIAETIKONTOYZA
EKAZTOYMHNOZEKTHIIZTAMENOYKAITAIZ
TIAIZEKTIOENAIAMATHIHMEPAIKEPAMIONMETPHTIAION
PAHPEETPYPFHMAEXONKYAMIAIONAPEXONAMOTHETHE
INIITAADIEZOAIAETOYAQPAMATAIHAIQAI
ATEAAONTIKAITOYENEQPOIAEKAQHEOAIKAIPAPAKEIZOAI
TTQIKIBQTIONEEDPATIEMENONYPOTQNPPOETATQNEXON
AMHKOZAIAAKTYAONPAATOE
TYAON PADOATAIKIBATIANITHEPYAHETOYNOMA
POPEYOMENQNAIAOTQEKAZTOZPEZEON
THEAYTOYDYAHEEPIFPAYAZTOAYTOYONOMA
OE OO... 1IOAENEQVOIHEEMBAAAETQ
ZOQNQTAONOMATALPATPOOEN
=0..PEZEONPAPAII
E.AZTQNKIBQT
1 It was found in the island of Cary- semble probable que la pierre a été
anda. ‘Il resterait Aconnaitrele nom apportée dans 1116 de Karyanda par
de la ville qui a rendu ce décret, Il quelque pécheur, qui l’aura prise pour
104 IASOS.
T have little to add to the excellent comments made by
M. Haussoullier; but I think the text is capable of a much
completer restoration than he has attempted to give. The head-
ing and date are lost; the preamble, however, doubtless was
drafted after the same pattern as the Tasian decrees we have just
referred to, which run thus: Περὶ ὧν ἐπῆλθεν κατ. In line
1, M. Haussoullier rightly recognizes the words [τ]ὸ éxx[Anovac-
τικὸ]ν διδόναι]. But in line 2, instead of reading with him
[τ]οῦ δήμου, I am led by the proper names following to a different
suggestion. I would note in passing that the Iasians appear in
their public documents to have been rather fond of rehearsing
at large the names of members of their magisterial boards or of
their citizens who engaged in public life. And the names in
lines 2—4, though sadly mutilated, can be restored with tolerable
certainty by a comparison of other monuments. In line 6, 1
incline to suspect M. Haussoullier’s text of a slight imaccuracy.
If I mistake not, instead of TOS.. AOHKONTAE, we should
read TOKAQHKONE. But this conjecture must stand or fall
according to the evidence of a paper impression or a re-reading
of the marble. I would restore the document thus :—
[Ἔδοξεν τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ: πρυτάνεων γνώμη"
[περὶ ὧν ἐπῆλθον οἱ νεωποῖαι ἐπερωτῶντες]
πῶς δεῖ καὶ πότε τ]ὸ ἐκκ[λησιαστικὸ]ν διδ[οναι"-
ὁ δεῖνα Εὐ](θ)υδήμου, ᾿Επι(κ)ρά[της] Kpéovt[os,
ὁ δεῖνα Ηρα]κλείτου, Ἱστιαῖος ᾿Απολλωνέδου,
ὁ δεῖνα Μι]ννί(ω)νος, Φο[ρμίων] ἹἹεροκλέους,-
τοὺς μὲν νεωποί]ας ἑκάστου μηνὸς τῇ νουμηνίᾳ
δέχεσθαι] τὸ (καθ)ῆκον ἐκκλησιαστικὸν τοὺς δὲ
ἀλλοὺς] ἐκάστου μηνὸς ἕκτῃ ἱσταμένου, καὶ ταῖς [ἐκκλη-
σίαις ἐκτιθέναι ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ κεράμιον μετρητιαῖον
πλῆρες τρύπημα ἔχον κυαμιαῖον ἀπέχον ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς
10, έχρι ποδ]ῶν (ἑπ)ὴτά" (2) ἀφίεσθαι δὲ τὸ ὕδωρ ἅμα τῷ ἡλέῳ[άἀν-
ατέλλοντι" καὶ τοὺς νεωποίας καθῆσθαι, καὶ παρακεῖσθαι [ἑκά-
στῳ κιβώτιον ἐσφραγισμένον ὑπὸ τῶν προστατῶν, ἔχον
Or
lester sa barque. Elle vient donc d’une
des villes voisines, Iasos, Bargylia, ou
Karyanda. La présence des vewmotat
dans l’assemblée (C. 7. G. 2671, &c.),
l’époque des séances (le 68 jour du mois,
C.1.G, 2673 ὃ. &e.), nous font penser ἃ
Iasos ; c’est d’Jasos, croyons-nous, que
Pinseription aura été apportée.’—Bul-
letin de Corresp. Hellén. viii. (1814), p.
218 foll. Its Iasian origin is amply
confirmed by the Iasian names it con-
tains,
ITASOS. 105
ἕκαστον τρύπημ]α μῆκος διδάκτυλον πλάτος [διδάκ-
τυλον, [καὶ ἐπυγεγ]ράφθω τῷ κιβωτίῳ τῆς φυλῆς τοὔνομα"
Ἰδτῶν δὲ εἰσ]πορευομένων διδότω ἕκαστος πεσσὸν [τῷ
νεωποίῃ] τῆς αὑτοῦ φυλῆς, ἐπιγράψας τὸ αὑτοῦ ὄνομα
πατρό]θεῖν κατὰ τὸν ν]ό[ μο](ν): ὁ δὲ νεωποίης ἐμβαλλέτω
εἰς τὸ κιβώτιον καὶ καλείσθω τὰ ὀνόματα πατρόθεν
1.4.00... πεσσὸν παρα....
20 1... €.ag τῶν κιβωπ[ίων....
The proper names which I have ventured to restore in lines
2—4 appear to have been arranged symmetrically, two in a
line. They are all (excepting Εὐθύδημος and Κρέων) known as
the names of Jasian citizens from other documents: viz.
᾿Ἐπικράτης, Le Bas-W. Nos. 254, 259, 268, 269 ; Ἡράκλειτος,
Le Bas-W. No. 255; ‘Iotiaios, Dittenberger Syll. No. 77;
᾿Απολλωνίδης, Le Bas-W. No. 265, Ditt. Syll. No. 77; Μιννίων,
Le Bas-W. Nos. 285, 287, Ditt. Sy/l. Nos. 116, 119 (see above) ;
Φορμίων, Le Bas-W. No. 255, Ditt. Syll. No. 77; Ἱεροκλῆς,
Le Bas-W. Nos. 254, 255, 257, 258, 285, Greek Inscriptions in the
British Museum, Part iii. No. cecexliii. These I take to be the
names of the neopoiai or wardens of the temple of Artemis
Astias, and perhaps of the temple of Zeus Megistos also (of
which more presently), The neopoiai are commissioned by
this decree to register the attendances made by the members
of the ecclesia (lines 11 foll.), a duty which did not strictly
belong to their office, Their proper business was to take care
of the fabric of the temple, and superintend the erection of any
kind of monument in the building, It is evidently implied by
lines 11—16 that the neopoiai were a board elected (annually,
no doubt), one from each tribe. It is certain that at Ephesus
the neopoiai were twelve in number, elected annually, two from
each of the six tribes As representatives of the Iasian tribes
the neopoiai would be well suited for the purpose here described,
and the sacred dignity of their office, removed as it was from
party politics, well qualified them to undertake this disciplinary
function in the assembly of the people. It is true that in Iasian
inscriptions we sometimes find τὸν νεωποίην or τὸν νεωποίην τὸν
ἐνεστῶτα in the singular, as_well as τοὺς νεωποίας (see CL.G.
1 This will appear from a dedication published in Part iii. of Greek Inserip-
of the first century A.D., soon to be fivns in the British Museum, section 2.
106 IASOS.
Nos. 2673, 2675, 2677 as compared with Nos. 2671, 2678). But
the singular number proves nothing, as we may understand it
of the chairman of the board. ‘Now there is good reason for
concluding that the prytanes at Iasos were six in number (see
Dittenberger, Sylloge, No. 77, note 4),1 and that they stood in the
same relation to the boulé and ecclesia as the similar board at
Athens. If so, we may be pretty certain that the number of
tribes at Iasos was six, and that each tribe furnished a neopoies
and also a prytanis. In the decree about Maussolus just cited
there are enumerated thirty-four citizens under the heading:
οἵδε ἀπὸ φυλῆς. They seem to have been representatives
nominated by each tribe as assessors to the magistrates in the
matter of this confiscation. The number thirty-four is not
divisible by any figure which might suggest a more probable
number of tribes than six. The names, however, of the six
Tasian tribes are wholly unknown. If recovered, they might
give curious evidence of the intermingling of Dorian and Ionian
elements in the population. The months of the Iasian calendar
(line 7), so far as they are known to us, are Ionian: viz. :—
᾿Απατουριών, Le Bas-W. No. 281 jin.; Bulletin v. p. 493;
Dittenberger, Sylloge, No. 77.
᾿Αφροδισιών, C.I.G. 2673, 2674.
Γηφοριών, Greek Inscriptions in the British Musewm, Part iii.
No. cccexli.
᾿Ἐλαφηβολιών, CLG. 2675), 26770.
—— εών (? Ταυρεών), Dittenberger, Sylloge, No. 77.
In reference to ἑκάστου μηνὸς ἕκτῃ ἱσταμένου, M. Haussoullier
observes truly that in the Iasian decrees the demos is always
described as assembled on the sixth of the month. We conclude
that the ecclesia met monthly on the sixth, for the despatch of
ordinary business. In line 12, the προστάται are to seal the
boxes supplied to the six neopoiai for the assembly. It is they
therefore who, at the close of the meeting, had to examine all
the vouchers and authorize the payment of the ‘ecclesiasticon’ to
1 But Dittenberger’s explanation of
the discrepancy in the number of pry-
tanes enumerated in C.J.G. 2677 will
not stand, as ‘Epulas Μέλανος the ἐπισ-
τάτης is named also among the πρυτά-
Perhaps we should add in the
vels,
secretary (Kpavabs Παυσανίου éypap-
udreve) to make up the number to six.
Compare my note on p. 66 of Greck
Inscriptions in the British Museum,
Part iii.
IASOS. 107
those who had attended. If I am right in what I have said of
the functions of the Iasian prostatai in No. ecccxx. of Greek
Inscriptions in the British Musewm, this board was concerned
with the admission of strangers to the citizenship,’ and the keep-
ing of a register of citizens. As such, none were better able to
make sure that only citizens attended the ecclesia or received
pay for such attendance. It is against any such fraud or per-
sonation that the precautions enjoined in lines 11 foll. are
directed. The phrases ἐπιγράψαι τὸ αὑτοῦ ὄνομα πατρόθεν,
καλεῖσθαι τὰ ὀνόματα πατρόθεν, are abundantly illustrated by
the way in which the citizens of Iasos are named in their public
documents. At Athens the man’s deme would have been also
added; at Ephesus probably his chiliastys or ‘thousand’; at
Jasos, the citizen’s name is simply followed by that of his father.
At Athens similar precautions against the intrusion of non-
citizens were entrusted to the lexiarchoi, six in number, who
kept the entrance of the Pnyx, assisted by a number of armed
police (τοξόται). The lexiarchoi no doubt had a list of all the
citizens qualified to take part in the ecclesia, and could challenge
the entrance of any whom they did not know by sight.”
The other object aimed at in the Iasian decree, is to secure
a good and punctual attendance. The assemblies of the ancient
Greeks, met, I believe universally, in the early morning—in
order, no doubt, to encroach as little as possible upon the
ordinary duties of the day.? Even then, however, there appears
1 The use of the term προστάτης in Kaibel’s comment is: ‘ Quindecim
Greek authors and in the inscriptions
is worth a careful enquiry ; see Ditten-
berger, Sylloge, No. 317, note 3, quoting
Sauppe. As tothe metrical dedication
of a statue of Hermes found at Cnidus
by Mr. Newton, I quite concur in
Kaibel’s explanation (Epigrammata
Graeca, 783). But if at Cnidus the
board of prostatai was such as I have
described, the appropriateness of the
expression in this place is vastly en-
hanced, The inscription runs as follows:
*Em) νεοπολιτᾶν προστατᾶν ἀφικόμαν
Ἑρμᾶς ᾿Αφροδίτᾳ πάρεδρος᾽ ἀλλὰ χαί-
ρετε.
Οἵτινες δ᾽ οἱ προστάται, γραφὴ παροῦσα
σημανεῖ. (Then follow fifteen
names. )
viri, quorum nomina infra scripta,
aliunde Cnidum profecti Cnidiam civi-
tatem adepti sunt eorumque auspiciis
Mercurius, quem olim in ipsorum patria
maxime coluerant cuive ut mercatores
imprimis addicti erant, Veneri socius
conlocatur ... προστατᾶν minime pub-
licum intelligo munus.’
2 See Schémann, Griech. Altcrthiimer,
i. pp. 382, 395, 396 ; and the Lexicons,
ϑιυυ, πίναξ ἐκκλησιαστικός and ληξιαρ-
χικὸν γραμματεῖον.
3 Plato, Laws, xii. 961 B.: δεῖν δὲ
ὄρθριον εἶναι τὸν σύλλογον, ἡνίκ᾽ ἂν τῶν
ἄλλων πράξεων ἰδίων τε καὶ κοινῶν καὶ
μάλιστ᾽ ἢ τις σχολὴ παντί.
108 IASOS.
to have been some difficulty in getting a good attendance; and,
in the absence of party government, it was nobody’s business
to ‘make a house. In some cities, therefore the law inflicted
a fine for non-attendance. But this fine, which could not be
recovered from the poorer citizens, tended to pack the assembly
with the richer class, and was regarded as a piece of oligarchical
‘gerrymandering.’ In democratical Athens, however, some such
penalty existed, the relic perhaps of an earlier time. The
lexiarchoi, says Pollux, ‘fined those who did not attend the
ecclesia. * We learn also from the opening of the Acharnians,
and the note of the Scholiast thereon, that the lexiarchs and
their policemen always closed the booths in the agora near the
Pnyx as soon as the ecclesia was opened, and compelled all
loiterers in the market-place to ‘move on,’ and, if citizens, to
proceed to the assembly. Their method was to ‘net’ the agora
(so to say) with a cord rubbed with red chalk, so that whoever
was marked might be pursued and impressed into the assembly
by the police, even though he eluded capture at the instant.
Schomann supposes the ‘fine’ inflicted for non-attendance by
the lexiarchoi to have consisted merely in the loss of the
attendance-fee by those who come thus branded with the mark
of truancy. This may be true of the period after Pericles ;
but I think these compulsory powers of the lexiarchoi, sur-
1 See Aristotle, Politics, vi. 13 (Con-
greve = 1297 A.), a chapter which
affords an admirable example of im-
ἐν Asuxduart, καὶ τριάκοντα ἀνδρῶν
αὐτοῖς προσαιρεθέντων, τοὺς μὴ ἐκκλη-
σίαζοντας ἐζημίουν, καὶ τοὺς ἐκκλησιά-
partial and penetrating criticism of the
actual working of Greek political ma-
chinery. Plato, Laws (vi. 764 A.),
approves of thus compelling the richer
citizens to attend : ἴτω δὲ els ἐκκλησίαν
kal τὸν κοινὸν ξύλλογον ὁ βουλόμενος,
ἐπάναγκες δ᾽ ἔστω τῷ τῶν δευτέρων καὶ
πρώτων τιμημάτων, δέκα δραχμαῖς ¢n-
μιουμένῳ ἐὰν μὴ παρὼν ἐξετάζηται τοῖς
ξυλλόγοις᾽ τρίτῳ δὲ τιμήματι καὶ τῷ
τετάρτῳ μὴ ἐπάναγκες, ἀλλὰ ἀζήμιος
ἀφείσθω, ἐὰν μή τι παραγγείλωσιν οἱ
ἄρχοντες πᾶσιν ἔκ τινος ἀνάγκης“ ξυνιέναι.
This Aristotle stigmatizes as oligarchical
in his criticism of the Laws, Politics,
ii. 6. § 19 (Congreve = 1266 A.)
2 Pollux, viii. 104: Ληξίαρχοι ἕὲ
καθίσταντο τῶν πολιτῶν ἐγγεγραμμένων
ὦντας ἐξήταζον᾽ καὶ σχοινίον μιλτώσαν-
τες διὰ τῶν τοξοτῶν συνήλαυνον τοὺς ἐκ
τῆς ἀγορᾶς εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. Pollux
is no doubt copying from some much
earlier authority.
3 Acharnians, 21 :—
of δ᾽ ἐν ἀγορᾷ λαλοῦσι, κἄνω Kal κάτω
τὸ σχοινίον φεύγουσι τὸ μεμιλτωμένον.
4 Gricch. Alterthiimer, i. 895. ‘Die
Strafe bestand aber ohne Zweifel nur
darin, dass ihnen die Marke (das σύμ-
Bodov) nicht eingehandigt wurde, des-
sen Vorzeigung zur Erhebung des
Ecclesiastensoldes nothwendig war, so
dass sie, auch wenn sie wirklich noch
der Versammlung beiwonten, doch des
Soldes dafiir verlustig gingen.’
IASOS. 109
viving as they did in the full blaze of Athenian democracy,
were the relics of a system of fines which belonged to an
earlier and much more oligarchical time.
In democratic Athens (as is well known) attendance at the
ecclesia was encouraged, not by fining the rich so much as by
paying the poor. At what date the practice was begun is
unknown, but it was certainly later than the payment of the
dicasts. The question has been discussed with much ingenuity
by C. Wiirz, De Mercede LEcclesiastica (Berlin, 1878), and one
point at least he has made clear. The proverb Οβολὸν εὗρε
Παρνύτης (which a grammarian explains of ‘ Callistratus who
established the payment of dicasts and ecclesiasts’) refers to
the Callistratus who prosecuted Melanopus for a discrepancy of
1} obols in his public accounts, according to Aristotle (Rhet. i.
14: οἷον ὃ Μελανώπου Καλλίστρατος κατηγόρει, ὅτι mape-
λογίσατο τρία ἡμιωβέλια ἱερὰ τοὺς ναοποιούς). Wiirz supposes
that Agyrrhius was the first to propose any μισθὸς ἐκκλησιασ-
tixos. All we certainly know is that for a time the payment
stood at one obol, and that it was raised to three obols (a half-
franc) by Agyrrhius, shortly after the fall of Athens! Some
twenty years before this, Dicaeopolis in the opening of the
Acharnians, complains of the unpunctuality of the ecclesia,
The attendance is wretchedly slack, he says, and even the
prytanes do not arrive ‘until the day is half over’ (μεσημβρινοί
—a humorous exaggeration, of course). No mention is made
in this play (produced 8,0, 425) of the payment for attendance ;
and either it had not yet been adopted, or else the one-obol fee
was too small to have effect. That the latter is the true
account of the matter appears probable from the well-known
lines of the Zcclesiazusae, 300 foll. (B.c, 392) :
ὅρα & ὅπως ὠθήσομεν τούσδε τοὺς ἐξ ἄστεως
ἥκοντας, ὅσοι πρὸ τοῦ
μὲν, ἡνίκ᾽ ἔδει λαβεῖν
ἐλθόντ᾽ ὀβολὸν μόνον,
καθῆντο λαλοῦντες
ἐν τοῖς στεφανώμασιν'
νυνὶ δ᾽ ἐνοχλοῦσ᾽ ἄγαν.
1 Certainly not long before the acting Curtius, Greich. Gesch. ii. 202, and
of the Evclesiazusac, B.C. 892; see note; Bockh, Staatsh. i. 320.
Schémann, De Comitiis, p. 65 foll. ; 2 Passages to the same effect, prov-
110 ITASOS.
I am not aware of any evidence to show how many, and what
cities adopted the practice of paying their ecclesiasts. We may
infer from the language of Aristotle that it was the common
practice of democratic states.1 That it existed at Iasos, we
learn from this decree. If I am at all right in my restoration
of the preamble, the practice had been in existence for some
time, and irregularities had crept in which needed correction by
means of a new enactment. This may well have been at the
recovery of Iasian independence in 168 B.C.
At Athens the method of ensuring punctuality in the ecclesia
was by hoisting a flag by way of signal, which was lowered at
the commencement of proceedings.” Any citizen who entered
before the lowering of the flag received at the hands of the
lexiarchoi a σύμβολον, or voucher; and upon the close of the
meeting received his pay upon presenting his voucher to the
Thesmothetae. This appears from the passage in the Ecclesta-
zusae (lines 282 foll., 289 foll.), where the women are hurrying
betimes to the Pnyx disguised as men:
οὖς ἀλλὰ σπεύσαθ'᾽, ὡς εἴωθ᾽ ἐκεῖ
τοῖς μὴ παροῦσιν ὀρθρίοις ἐς τὴν πύκνα
ὑπαποτρέχειν ἔχουσι μηδὲ πάτταλον.
χωρῶμεν εἰς ἐκκλησίαν, ὦνδρες, ἠπείλησε γὰρ
ὁ θεσμοθέτης, ὃς ἂν
μὴ πρῷ πάνυ τοῦ κνέφους
ἥκῃ κεκονιμένος
. μὴ
δώσειν το τριώβολον.
ὅπως δὲ τὸ σύμβολον
λαβόντες ἔπειτα πλη-
σπευδε ταχέως᾽ ὡς τὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας |
ing that the τριώβολον found plenty
σημεῖον ἐν τῷ Θεσμοφορίῳ φαίνεται"
of claimants, occur in the Plutus, line
171: ἐκκλησία 8 οὐχὶ διὰ τοῦτον ylyve-
ται; and line 329, foll.:
δεινὸν γὰρ εἰ τριωβόλου μὲν οὕνεκα
ὠστιζόμεσθ᾽ ἑκάστοτ᾽ ἐν τἠκκλησίᾳ,
αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν Πλοῦτον παρείην τῳ λαβεῖν.
1 Politics, vi. 18 (Congreve = 1297
A.), referred to above.
2? Schomann, De Comitiis, p. 153 ;
Aristoph. Thesmophoriazusae, 277: ἔκ-
Compare Andocides, De Mysteriis, § 36.
The payment of dicasts is a parallel
but distinct subject: with them too,
at Athens, the signal for attendance
was a similar flag. See Wasps, 689:
ἥκειν εἴπῃ πρῷ nav ὥρᾳ δικάσονθ᾽, ὡς
ὅστις ἂν ὑμῶν | ὕστερος ἔλθῃ τοῦ σημείου
τὸ τριώβολον οὐ κομιεῖται.
ΤΑΒΟΒ, 111
σίον καθεδούμεθ᾽, ὡς
ἂν χειροτονῶμεν
oe ΧΕ δε. >) ἢ, /
ἅπανθ᾽ ὁπόσ᾽ ἂν δέη"
So extremely punctual was the ecclesia that morning, that
the whole proceedings were over soon after daybreak, and many
of the men were too late in arriving (ibid. 376) :
BA. ἀτὰρ πόθεν ἥκεις éréov ; XP. ἐξ ἐκκλησίας.
BA. ἤδη λέλυται γάρ; ΧΡ, νὴ Δί᾽, ὄρθριον μὲν οὖν.
καὶ δῆτα πολὺν ἡ μίλτος, ὦ Ζεῦ φίλτατε,
γέλων παρέσχεν, ἣν προσέρραινον κύκλῳ.
That is, the proceedings were over, and the ecclesia had
adjourned, before the toxotae had time to finish clearing the
agora of idlers. They were still busy with their chalky cord,
when the assembly broke up, and their performance (never a
very serious matter at the best) became a mere laughing-
stock.
At Iasos the modus operandi was more exact. A water-clock
of homely construction stood in a prominent position in the
ecclesia; and no citizen who failed to announce his name and
deliver his voucher {πεσσός), inscribed with his name, to the
neopoies of his tribe before the clock ran down, could claim his
pay for attendance. The payment was made, it would appear,
by the prostatai.
This last period of freedom was of short duration; in B.c, 129
Caria was merged in the Roman province of Asia, and Iasos
henceforth has no history apart from Rome. Like the rest of
the province it took its share in the terrific assassination and
revolt under Mithridates, and met with scant mercy from
Sulla, who permitted the pirates to pillage the town under his
own eyes.?, A decree of the boulé and demos of Iasos, in-
scribed at Cos, which I would assign to the date of the Mithri-
datic War, has been recently published by S. K. Pantelides in
the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (xi. 1887, p. 76). It
1 Such, I feel sure, is the exact
meaning, although I have never seen
the lines so explained; observe the
imperfect προσέρραινον, they had not
done clearing the agora, and chalking
idlers with their rope, before the return
of the citizens from the Pnyx told
them it was all over.
2 Appian, Iithr. 63: Ἰασός γέ τοι
καὶ Σάμος καὶ KAaCoueval καὶ Σαμοθρά-
kn Σύλλα παρόντος ἐλήφθησαν, καὶ τὸ
ἱερὸν ἐσυλήθη τὸ Σαμοθρᾷάκιον χιλίων
ταλάντων κύσμον, ὡς ἐνομίζετο.
112 IASOS.
is nearly perfect, and apparently quite legible ; various indications
betoken the first century B.c.—the form of 1, the dissimilation
of N in words like ἀνανγελῇ, πλίστου for πλείστου, the in-
constant use of iota adscriptum, and so on. The decree is in
honour of Teleutias, son of Theudorus of Cos, for his services
to the people of Iasos, awarding him praise and a chaplet of
gold, besides the privileges of prozenia, of citizenship, and of
procdria. Its opening words are as follows :—
Ἔδοξε τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ, πρυτάνεων
γνώμῃ: (sic) περὶ ὧν ἐπῆλθον προστάται καὶ στρα-
τηγοὶ, ἐπειδὴ Τελευτίας Θευδώρου Κῴος,
ἀνὴρ καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός ἐστιν εἰς τὴν πόλιν
5 καὶ ἰδίᾳ τε τοῖς ἐντυνχάνουσιν τῶν πολιτ[ῶ ]ν
εὐχρηστῶν διατελεῖ καὶ κατὰ κοινὸν παντὶ
τῷ δήμῳ εὔνους ὑπάρχει, ἀεί τι καὶ λέγων
καὶ πράσσων ὑπὲρ τοῦ πλήθους, ἵνα ἐπαινεθῇ
τε ὑπὸ τῆς βουλῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου κ.τ.λ.
I do not think στρατηγοί (lines 2-3) are named in any other
Iasian document. Here they join with the prostatai in pro-
posing the grant of honours. This so far confirms the con-
jecture that Teleutias of Cos may have rendered some military
service to Iasos at the outbreak of the Mithridatic War: Cos,
like Iasos, declared for the king (Appian, Mithr. 23 fin).
Moreover, we can hardly resist the conclusion that the Τελευτίας
Θευδώρου Ke@os of the decree is identical with a Teleutias, son
of Theudorus, concerning whom an epitaph is extant in the
Anthology, composed by Antipater of Sidon (Anth. Pal. ii,
p. 32, No. xci.) :—
A. Εἰπὲ, λέων, φθιμένοιο τί πρὸς τάφον ἀμφιβέβηκας,
βουφόνε; τίς τᾶς σᾶς ἄξιος ἣν ἀρετᾶς ;
Β. Υἱὸς Θευδώροιο Τελευτίας, ὃς μέγα πάντων
φέρτερος ἦν, θηρῶν ὅσσον ἐγὼ κέκριμαι.
> / “ / / / > lal
οὐχὶ μάταν ἕστακα, φέρω δέ τι σύμβολον ἀλκᾶς
ἀνέρος: ἦν γὰρ δὴ δυσμενεεσσι λέων.
We must not press too closely the poetical conceits of an
epigrammatist, but certainly the symbol of the lion on the
tomb, and the explanation given in line 6, would be more in-
telligible if Teleutias took a prominent part, and perhaps lost
IASOS. 113
his life, in promoting the revolt under Mithridates; compare a
similar epitaph from Mytilene (C. ... G. 2168 = Kaibel, 242).
Antipater of Sidon flourished early in the first century (circa
100—80 B.c.), so that he would be a contemporary, and perhaps
a friend, of Teleutias. After the Mithridatic War, Iasos is not
(I believe) mentioned by any historian, and we are left to glean
what we can from other sources.
Its fisheries were not exhausted, and its strong position
marked it out as one of the Roman customs-stations for the
province of Asia. The following inscription, first published in
the Μουσεῖον καὶ Βιβλιοθήκη of the Smyrna Evangelical
school (1878, ii. p. 49), has received an interesting commentary
from MM. Durrbach and Radet in the Bulletin de Correspondance
Hellénique (x. 1886, p. 267) —
Ποῦλχερ
κοινωνῶν
λιμένων ᾿Α-
σίας οἶκο-
νόμος ἐν
Ἰασῴ.
Pulcher is a freedman, or perhaps a slave, who acted as
oixovopuos} (or villicus) of the publicani farming the customs
of the province of Asia under the empire: the word κοινωνῶν
is a translation of sociorwm (of societates publicanorwm). There
is known to have been a similar customs-station at Miletus.
The forms of the letters AC suggest the first or second
century A.D.
Another inscription,? in Latin, is too fragmentary to be
entirely recovered; but it records the restoration (restetwit) of
some public building at Iasos by one Servilius, in the ‘ consulship
of [C]alvisius Sabinus,’ 1.6. either B.c. 39, or more probably
A.D. 26. Coins of Jasos are found from Augustus to Gordian ;*
but the town was not a libera civitus, nor anything more than
one of the third-rate towns of the province (ἐλάττους πόλεις,
see Rim. Alt. iv. 185). Iasos is named by Hierocles in his
1 On the meaning of this word, 2 Bulletin de Corr. Hell. viii. 1884
which is important to the understand- p. 457.
ing of Romans xvi. 23, see Menadier, 5. See Head, Historia Numorum, p.
Qua condicione Ephesii usi sint, p.77; 528.
and C.J. LZ. iii. 447.
H.S.—VOL. VIII. T
114 IASOS.
Synecdemus (see Kuhn, Verfassung des Rémischen Reichs. u. 282,
284): and it sent its Bishop to the Council of Chalcedon, a.D.
451 (Harduin, ii. 64 and 477, PraKiAros ᾿Ιασσοῦ). Still later,
in the middle of the sixth century, Paulus Silentiarius, in his
Description of S. Sophia (Migne, Patres Graeci, vol. 86, p. 2148,
lines 630 foll.), speaks of a certain mountain at or near Tasos as
yielding a beautiful kind of veined marble :—
“Ὄσσα φάραγξ βαθύκολπος ᾿Ιασσίδος εὗρε κολώνης,
αἱμαλέῳ λευκῷ τε πελιδνωθέντι κελεύθους
λοξοτενεῖς φαίνουσα.
A few words respecting the res sacrae of Iasos, and its
sepulchral monuments, must bring our study to a close. The
principal temple was that of Artemis Astias, concerning which
Polybius (xvi. 12) records a curious superstition, and then adds
a still more curious apology for mentioning it. ‘What the
Bargylians affirm and believe of their image of Artemis Kindyas,
this the Iasians say of their image of Artemis Astias, namely,
that although it stands in the temple open to the sky, neither
snow nor rain ever falls upon it. Now it is hardly possible for
me to go on throughout my work challenging and questioning
statements of this kind made by historical writers. Such stories
in fact appear to me to be simply childish, as falling outside
the limits not only of probability but of possibility. The man’s
state of mind must be hopeless who declares that certain bodies
can be placed in the light without casting a shadow: yet this is
what Theopompus has done, when he says that those who enter
the inner sanctuary of Zeus in Arcadia lose their shadows. And
the story before us is of a piece with it. Of course in whatever
tends to preserve the religious sentiment among the masses,
we may excuse some of our historians for indulging in the
marvellous and the mythical on such matters; but there are
limits to our toleration. It may be difficult, I know, to draw
the line, but it is not impossible. I am willing to extend a
degree of indulgence to ignorance and prejudice ; but beyond
a certain point we are bound summarily to set them aside,’
This temple is alluded to in the decree in honour of the Prienian
dicast (Greek Inscriptions in the British Musewm, Part iii. No.
420): ἀν]αγράψαι δὲ τὸ. ψήφισμα καὶ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ
τῆς ᾿Αρτέμιδος. Again C.I.G. No. 2683 is a dedication to this
ITASOS. 1Lé
goddess and the Emperor Commodus: ᾿Αρτέμιδι ᾿Αστιάδι καὶ
Αὐτοκράτορι Καίσαρι M. Αὐρηλίῳ Κωμόδῳ ᾿Αντωνίνῳ Σε-
βαστῷ κιτιλ. The other principal sanctuary at Iasos was that
of Ζεὺς Μέγιστος. The most ancient inscription as yet dis-
covered at Iasos is a public enactment of the fifth century B.c.,
detining the perquisites of ‘the priest,’ ὁ ἱερεὺς tod Διὸς τοῦ
μεγίστου. In the decree concerning Maussolus, already cited,
eleven priests of Zeus Megistos are enumerated; we must
understand this of a college of ten with a chief priest at their
_ head. Two boundary-stones (ὅροι), probably of imperial times,
are published in the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique
(viii, 1884, p. 456): one reads Διός, the other Διὸς ὑψίστου.
They probably came from the temenos of the same temple.
The little island of Iasos being entirely occupied by the city
itself, the burying-place had to be on the adjoining mainland.
‘The sepulchres of the Iasians on the mainland,’ writes
Chandler,? ‘are very numerous, ranging along above a mile on
the slope of the mountain. They are built with a slaty stone,
and perhaps were whitewashed, as their aspect is now mean.
They consist mostly of a single camera or vault; but one has
a wall before it, and three chambers, which have been painted.
Many of them have a small square stone over the entrance
inscribed, but no longer legible.’ Perhaps their mean appear-
ance, which offended Chandler, is due to the fact that the
existing tombs are of a comparatively late time, when the
sense of beauty was nearly extinct and the chief object of a
funeral monument was to secure the absolute possession of the
spot for a family burial-ground. Most of the Greek epitaphs
of the imperial period have more to say about rights of
property than about the merits of the departed, and in fact,
they read like extracts from wills. Nearly all the funeral
inscriptions from [8505 have this character: they may be found
in C.L.G. Nos. 2685-2690; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage Archéol.
1 Greck Inscriptions in the British
Musewm, Part iii. No. 440.
2 Travels in Asia Minor, i. p. 228.
8. And such some certainly were, as
the following epitaph from Iasos(C. 1. G.
No. 2690, now at Oxford) will show:
Td ἡρῷον τοῦτο Λουπέρκου τοῦ Θρέπτου,
ἐπιγραφὴν ἔχον ἣν διέταξεν ἐν αἷς ἔθετο
διαθήκαις" οὐδενὶ δὲ ἐξέσται ταφῆναι ἐν
ᾧ κατεσκεύακα πρὸς τοῖς προαστίοις
ἡρῴῳ ἢ μόνοις ἐμοί τε καὶ τῇ γυναικί μου
A. ᾿οΟνησίμῃ. ἐὰν δέ τις ὑπεναντίον τῇ 5
ἐμῆς γνώμης ποιῶν θάψῃ τινά, ὁ μὲν
τοῦτο τολμήσας λόγον ὑφέξει τυμβωρυ-
χίας, τὸ δὲ τεθὲν ἐξενεχθῆναι βούλομαι
πτῶμα,
I 2
116 IASOS.
Nos. 304-312; Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, viii.
(1884), pp. 456 foll.
E. L. Hicks.
P.S.—Since the foregoing article was in print, Mr. W. R.
Paton has very kindly forwarded me his own transcript of the
decree about the ecclesiasticon, which for the sake of clearness
I append here. He observes that ‘the marble was dug up in
the island of Tarandos; but as there is a ruined church close
by, it may have been brought here in modern times.’ ὶ
JEKK/ NAIA
IA MOYEDIKP/ KPEONTO
AEITOY IEZTIAIOZAPOAAQNIAOY
NNIQNOSDOPMIQNIEPOKAEOYS . TOYEMEN
AITOIZ EOQIOIAZEKAZTOYMHNOZTHINOYMHNIA
TONOPFAOHKONTAEKKAHSIASTIKONTOYESL
= TOYMHNOSEKTHIIZETAMENOYKAITAIS
ΣΙΑΙΣΓ. TIOENAIAMATHIHMEPAIKEPAMIONMETPHTIAION
ZPAHPESTPYIIHITAEXONKYAMIAIONAPEXONAPOTHSIHE
ᾧΦ F|ONPOAQNEP'AADESOAIAETOYAQPAMATSIHAIQI 1
ON ΤΟΥΣ. E.. OLAZEKAQHEOAIKAIPAPAKEIZOAI
TOIK . ΒΩΤΙΟΝΕΣΦΡΑΓΙΣΜΕΝΟΝΥΠΟΤΩΝΠΡΟΣΤΑΤΩΝΕΧΟΝ
Ι ΙΣ ΜΗΚΟΣΔΙΔΑΚΤΥΛΟΝΠΛΑΤΟΣ
ΜΟΥΚΑΙΕΠΙΓΕΓΡΑΦΟΩΤΩΙΚΙΒΩΤΙΩΙ ΤΗΣΦΥΛΗΣΤΟΥΝΟΜ.
ΕΕΙΣΤ ΑΝΠΟΡΕΥΟΜΕΝΩΝΔΙΔΟΤΩΕΚΑΣΤΟΣΠΈΣΣΟΝ 1
ΙΟΤΙ ΣΑΥΤΟΥΦΥΛΗΣΕΠΙΓΡΑΥΑΣΤΟΑΥΤΟΥΟΝΟΜΑ
ΟΘΕ > P ΟΔΕΝΕΩΠΟΙΗΣΕΜΒΑΛΛΕΤΩ͂
JEZEOQTAONOMATAPATPOOEN
QNPESSONPAPA
ΑΣ ITIAZTONKIBO 9
ΕΠ OTIOY
[4]
A comparison of Mr. Paton’s text with that of Μ. Haussoullier
(which I will term respectively P and H), demonstrates the
substantial accuracy of both. Unfortunately I have not yet had
IASOS. 117
access to an impression: the forms of the letters might have
helped us to fix the date. There is no apparent reason why
the decree should not be assigned to the third or even fourth
century B.c. In the earlier lines my conjectural restoration of
proper names is now confirmed, with the one exception of the
name Ἱἱστιαῖος in line 3, where P seems to give ‘Eotiaios. In
lines 4, 5, P shows that two boards of magistrates were named, and
not one only as I had restored. In line 6, P gives TONOFAO-
HKONTA, which disposes of any doubt concerning the accuracy
of H. We must obviously restore: [ἑκα]τὸν ὀγδοήκοντα se.
δραχμάς. It also becomes necessary to supply a fresh numeral
at the beginning of line 7, possibly τριώβολον. Line 9: P
reads ΣΠΛΗΡΕΣ, 6. [ὕδατοϊς πλῆρες. Line 10: P con-
firms my conjectures, but we must write [ἐφ᾽ [ὅ]σον
ποδῶν ém(r)d, and ἀφέσθαι instead of ἀφίεσθαι. Line 13 :
some word is wanted for the slit in the top of the box;
τρύπημα does not agree with the letters read by P. Line
15: read [τῶν δ]ὲ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν πορευομένων x.7.r.
Line 17: P leaves the beginning of the line as doubtful as
before ; [πατρ]όθε[ν] is certain, but κατὰ τὸν νόμον is probably
wrong. Line 18: apparently γραφέσθω instead of καλείσθω.
Line 20: restore from P [τ]ὼς [σφρα͵]γί[δ]ας τῶν κιβωτίων].
The reason why the neopoiai and the members of the other
board (probably the prytanes) are to receive their pay on the
first of each month is because they had to take a prominent
part in conducting the ecclesia on the sixth, and would there-
fore have no opportunity then of receiving their fees. Moreover,
I conjecture that, as the prytanes and neopoiai formed two
standing committees, the one for the political and the other for
the religious concerns of the state, each member of both boards
received daily the same pay which an ordinary citizen received
for his attendance at the ecclesia. If we assume this to be
three obols as at Athens, and if Iam right in supposing either
board to number six members (according to the probable number
of the Iasian tribes), we arrive at the following curious coinci-
dence. The payment to 12 men of 3 obols each for 30 days,
amounts to exactly 180 drachmas, the sum we have to restore
in line 6. We may now re-write the more important part of
the inscription somewhat as follows :—
τοὺς μὲν | [πρυτάνεις 1 κ]αὶ ro(d)s [ν]ε(ωπ)οέας ἑκάστου
118 IASOS.
‘ A , val \ e Ν » / >
μηνὸς TH νουμηνίᾳ | [NaBeiv δραχμὰς ἑκα]τὸν ὀγδοήκοντα ἐκ-
κλησιαστικόν, τοὺς δὲ ἄλλους | τριώβολον ? ἑκά)στου μηνὸς
ἕκτῃ ἱσταμένου: καὶ ταῖς [ἐκκλη]) σίαις ἐκτιθέναι ἅμα τῇ
ἡμέρᾳ κεράμιον μετρητιαῖον | [ὕδατο]ς πλῆρες, τρύπημα ἔχον
κυμιαῖον ἀπέχον ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς | [ἐφ᾽ [ὅ]σον ποδῶν ἑπίτ)ά'
ἀφέσθαι δὲ τὸ ὕδωρ ἅμα τῷ ἡλίῳ [ἀν]] ατέ(λλ)οντι: καὶ τοὺς
νεωποίας καθῆσθαι, καὶ παρακεῖσθαι [ἑκά)] στῳ κιβώτιον
ἐσφραγισμένον ὑπὸ τῶν προστατῶν ἔχον | [ἕκαστον εἸἰσ[βολ-
ὴν 1] μῆκος διδάκτυλον TAG ὐ wed 2 t μου: Kal
ἣν 1) μῆκος ν πλάτος [οὐ μείζονα 1.| κυά μου" καὶ
> ΄ a f a a " a \ >
ἐπιγεγράφθω τῷ κιβωτίῳ τῆς φυλῆς τοὔνομα: [τῶν | δ]ὲ εἰς
τ[ὴν ἐκκλησίαν πορευομένων διδότω ἕκαστος πεσσὸν [τῷ |
/ a ς a a > / \ e fo] ”
vew|(m)ol(y) τῆς αὑτοῦ φυλῆς, ἐπιγράψας τὸ αὑτοῦ ὄνομα
[πατ ρ]όθεϊν" . ... +] ὁ δὲ νεωποίης ἐμβαλλέτω: K.T.r.
E. L. Η.
TWO NAUCRATITE VASES, 119
TWO NAUCRATITE VASES,
[PuaTe LXXIX]
THE two vases of which portions are reproduced upon PI.
LXXIX. may serve as representative specimens of the two
most important classes of Naucratite pottery. They were both
found, mixed with innumerable other fragments, amid the
rubbish that covered the whole area of the temenos of Aphrodite,
excavated by me in the season 1885-6. The two smaller figures
represent the two sides of one fragment. These two vases are
of especial interest, because they were both beyond any doubt
made in Naucratis. Last year the special name of Naucratite
ware was given to a class of vases covered with a fine whitish
glaze, and with a polychrome decoration outside; black inside, with
lotus patterns in red and white. This ware was often found
by Mr. Petrie in 1884-5, and also in 1885-6, with dedicatory
inscriptions painted on before baking, thus proving beyond
doubt its local origin. The fragment now figured with a sphinx
is one of the finest specimens of this same ware ; in its treatment
both inside and outside it preserves the essential characteristics
that may be seen in the simpler examples.
The other vase, with the lions and the stag, is one of a set
of large bowls of which I found several nearly complete ; in
1884-5 only a few fragments had appeared. These always have
a dark glaze inside—red or black according to the firing ; on
this are painted concentric circles in white and purple. Their
ornamentation is identical with that found on the inside of the
eye-bowls; hence it would seem that these large bowls are a
development of the eye-bowl type, just as the large polychrome
vases are of the other Naucratite ware. On the inside of
one of the large bowls, 14; inches in diameter, I found an
130 TWO NAUCRATITE VASES.
inscription in large white letters, painted on before firing,
ον THEETHIENAVEKDATI ᾿Αφροδέ]τῇ τῇ ἐ(ν) Ναυκράτι. Thus
it is proved that these vases also are of local manufacture.
The specimens of these two local wares that are reproduced
on our plate speak for themselves. The upper fragment is
a portion of a large bowl, about 15 inches in diameter, -
of which some thirty or forty pieces have been recovered :
below the part reproduced comes a band of lotus design, with
alternating buds and open flowers, then another narrower band
of maeander, Beneath this are wedged-shaped rays that diverge
from the base. On the left of the plate is visible the end of a
spiral lotus pattern, such as all these bowls have on both sides
of their handles: its complete form may be seen in Naukratis 1.,
PE xin, 2.
All the figures and the ornaments are drawn in brilliant
black varnish on a light ground; over this varnish are added
details in red and white, and the figures are finished with
incised lines. The background is still filled with various
ornamental designs.
The two lower fragments represent the inside and the outside
of a vase that is one of the richest specimens of what seems to
have obtained by prescriptive right the name of ‘ Naucratis
ware’; though, as we have seen, the claim of the other bowls
to this title is just as well founded. These vases are almost
always of the typical crater shape,! even in the smaller specimens.
The lower part of their body is generally ornamented with
plain red horizontal bands, on a white ground; the upper
conical surface is the field for a polychrome decoration. In this
four colours are used, which produce a wonderfully rich effect.
The ground is yellow, and the figures are executed in red, white,
and brown, light or dark (the difference of shade is due only to
accidents). It is natural to suppose that these four colours,
often found in early decorative painting, are the four colours
that we hear Polygnotus used. We see here what could be done
with them in figure painting. Incised lines are never used on
the finest specimens of this ware, but the outlines are drawn
with the brush. The inside is covered with a black ground,
over which are painted plain and decorated bands, and lotus
1 That to which our fragmeuts be- in diameter at the top.
long must have been about 144 inches
TWO NAUCRATITE VASES. 121
and palmetto designs of great richness. Our plate shows the
rim. Below is often similar, but less gorgeous, ornamentation,
varied with broad bands where the black ground is left plain.
In the centre or bottom of the bowl is generally an elaborate
pattern of rays and concentric circles, also in red and white.
A few words may be added as to the subjects represented.
The lions in our upper fragment are wonderfully strong and
powerful beasts; with their square muzzles and powerful jaws,
and their thick-set and massive proportions, they remind one
of the lions in the magnificent Assyrian lion-hunt in the
British Museum. When a lion or other beast is represented
on the other, more delicate ware, he is smoothed down to suit
the style: sometimes his muscles become mere spiral designs
and his rugged strength disappears. The stag, again, in our
upper basaent, is characterized, in spite of the false drawing
of the foreleg, with a freshness and vigour that can hardly be
matched in early Greek work ; τ not among the more
conventional animals that appear on the polychrome Naucratite
vases. The sphinx on the lower fragment, with curved wings
and a spiral rising out of the head, is of a type often found at
Naucratis.
But this is not the place to arrange and discuss the styles of
work we find at Naucratis;? such an attempt would require
numerous illustrations and examples, and must be reserved for
the more complete account that will, I hope, be published in
the course of the present year. The two specimens that are
now before us can only serve to afford some notion of the skill
attained by the vase-painters of Naucratis in the sixth century
before our era.
ERNEST A. GARDNER.
1 Perhaps we see the hind legs and Smith have written of the pottery in
tail of one in our fragment; but there Naukratis, I. ; but last year the finest
is hardly enough to identify the beast styles were either unknown, or repre-
by. It may be another sphinx. sented only by very inadequate frag-
3 Both Mr. Petrie and Mr. Cecil ments
THE TRIAL SCENE IN 1.1.Ὁ XVIII
THE TRIAL SCENE IN 7.1.4.) XVIII.
THERE are probably no twelve consecutive lines in the Homeric
poems which have been obscured by so many explanations as
Thad xvi. 497—508.
The interpretation which I propose to
give has possibly been anticipated piece-meal, but I have not
come across any case in which it has been presented as a whole.
Still it is a matter of common courtesy only that one should
begin by offering apologies to the unknown previous expositor,
if he should after all prove to exist.
For convenience of reference it will be best to begin by
setting out the passage at length.
Σ 497
λαοὶ δ᾽ εἰν ἀγορῇ ἔσαν ἁθρόοι' ἔνθα δὲ νεῖκος
YP?
, , ’ yy “ fol
ὠρώρει, δύο δ᾽ ἄνδρες ἐνείκεον εἵνεκα ποινῆς
ἀνδρὸς ἀποκταμένου" * ὁ μὲν εὔχετο πάντ᾽ ἀποδοῦναι,
500
δήμῳ πιφαύσκων, ὁ δ᾽ ἀναίνετο μηδὲν ἑλέσθαι:
ἄμφω δ᾽ ἱέσθην ἐπὶ ἴστορι πεῖραρ ἑλέσθαι.
\ a Ἄ b] , b \ > ,
λαοὶ δ᾽ ἀμφοτέροισιν ἐπήπυον, ἀμφὶς ἀρωγοί.
κήρυκες δ᾽ ἄρα λαὸν ἐρήτυον' οἱ δὲ γέροντες
ida ee \ A / e Fil 5h /
εἴατ᾽ ἐπὶ ξεστοῖσι λίθοις ἱερῷ ἐνὶ κύκλῳ,
δ)
σκῆπτρα δὲ κηρύκων ἐν χέρσ᾽ ἔχον ἠεροφώνων'
τοῖσιν ἔπειτ᾽ ἤισσον, ἀμοιβηδὶς δὲ δίκαξον'
κεῖτο δ᾽ ap’ ἐν μέσσοισι δύω χρυσοῖο τάλαντα,
50S
1 Hofmeister (‘Die Gerichtsscene im
Schild des Achill.’ in Zteehe, fiir ver
gleicheiuls Rechtswissensehaft, ii, (1880),
p. 443 110} as quoted by Ameis-Hentze
(Anhang ad loc.) gives the right inter-
pretation of the relation of the ἴστωρ
to the γέροντες. Miinscher in the Ally.
Schulzcitung, 1829, ii. 579, takes ἀναί-
veto μηδὲν ἑλέσθαι as negavit se quid-
A ’ a \ A , > / »
τῷ δόμεν ὃς μετὰ τοῖσι δίκην ἰθύντατα εἴποι.
quam aceepturum (Ebeling, Lex. Hom.
8.V. dvalvoua). I have not been able
to see either of these papers.
* MSS. ἀποφθιμένου, but the text,
which is clearer, was the reading of
Zenodotos and af πλεῖσται according
to Didymos. The question does not
affect the general sense.
THE TRIAL SCENE IN JZ7AD XVIII. 123
‘The people were gathered in the place of assembly, and
there had sprung up a strife; two men were striving about the
price of a man slain. The one averred that he had paid in
full, and made declaration thereof to the people, but the other
refused to accept aught; and both were desirous to take an
issue at the hand of a daysman; and the people were shouting
for both, taking part for either side. And the heralds were
restraining the people, and the elders sate on polished stones in
the holy circle, and in their hands they held the clear-voiced
heralds’ staves. With these they rose up and gave sentence in
turn; and in their midst lay two talents of gold to give to him
among them that spake the justest doom.’
Here there are obviously two scenes; first, the dispute in the
market place, when the litigants are supported by the clamour
of the crowd, and wish to refer the matter to an ἔἴστωρ. Secondly
the scene ‘in court,’ where the γέροντες are the judges, and the
shouting crowd are kept in the background. As elsewhere in
the Shield the distinction of the two scenes is not expressly
marked; but there need be no hesitation in admitting it,
Beyond this there is little agreement as to details.
The first matter upon which it is essential to decide is the
exact nature of the point at issue. That it is about the blood-
price of a man who has been slain is of course obvious. But
in their interpretation of line 500 commentators take the
first opportunity of going astray; almost without exception
they take the words to mean ‘one asserted that he had paid the
price, the other denied that he had received it.” The issue is
thus a bare question of fact; had a certain price been paid over
or not? A strange subject, surely, to be honoured with a place
among the types of human activity which the Shield presents
us, and hardly a worthy one to be chosen as the representative
of that civic energy which to a Greek was the very breath of
his nostrils. Why too such popular ferment, with the machinery
of heralds and councillors and prizes for forensic eloquence,
about a simple matter which could only be settled, if at all, by
oaths and witnesses ? ᾿
Happily, however, this unlucky interpretation, however re-
spectably supported, is one which the words will not bear. So
far as I can see ὁ δ᾽ dvaiveto μηδὲν ἑλέσθαι can mean one thing
only; ‘the other refused to accept anything. ἀναίνομαι, at
124 THE TRIAL SCENE ΙΝ 7.14. XVIII.
least in Homer, always means ‘to reject, generally with the
added notion of contempt and indignation, as will be clear to
any one who will take the trouble to look up the passages in
Ebeling’s Lexicon. In two cases only it might appear to mean
‘deny’; and in these (1 116 & 149) the context shows that it
implies really the repudiation not of a gift offered but of an
idea presented. The change in the conception of the scene
arising from this difference of interpretation may seem small,
but it is really fundamental, and requires a short review of the
acknowledged steps by which criminal law arose.
The first stage of course is that of unmitigated blood-feud.
If A kills B or one of his men, B’s men have to avenge his
blood by killing A or one of his men; and so the feud goes on
ad infinitum. The obvious inconveniences of a system under
which a purely accidental homicide might deprive the state of
an indefinite number of its most useful members led to two
successive advances. Firstly, the homicide might flee, and live
in exile. Later, he might pay a definite price to the family of
the murdered man, and be exempt even from the penalty of
exile. By these means the blood-feud was extirpated.
The force by which the change was brought about is clear.
It was not by any moralizing of the individual man; we have
hardly even yet reached the stage at which the instinct of
‘blood for blocd’ has vanished from the human heart. The
work was done by pressure of public opinion in consideration of
the common weal.
The point which had been reached by Homeric society is a
comparatively advanced one. The first stage, that of actual
blood-feud, seems to have been long passed, at least there is, I
believe, no case in the poems where blood is ever exacted for
blood. Homicide sometimes leads to exile, and is sometimes
commuted for a fine; we are at the transition from the second
to the third stage. In one of the latest portions of the poems,
I 632-6, the payment of a fine in lieu of exile is indeed spoken
of as the recognized course,
καὶ μὲν τίς TE κασιγνήτοιο φόνοιο
ποινὴν ἢ οὗ παιδὸς ἐδέξατο τεθνηῶτος"
καί ῥ᾽ ὁ μὲν ἐν δήμῳ μένει αὐτοῦ πόλλ᾽ ἀποτίσας,
τοῦ δέ T ἐρητύεται κραδίη καὶ θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ
ποινὴν δεξαμένου.
THE TRIAL SCENE ΙΝ JZIAD XVIII. 125
But we find also numerous cases of exile, even for homicide of
the less heinous sort, such as that of which Patroklos was
guilty, and that this penalty was a familiar one we see from
Q 480-1,
ς δι Ἦν » 39. 2 \ ΄ ce a SYN ΄
ὡς δ᾽ ὅταν ἄνδρ᾽ ἄτη πυκινὴ λάβῃ, ὅς 7 ἐνὶ πάτρῃ
lal / ” 5 / a
φῶτα κατακτείνας ἄλλων ἐξίκετο δῆμον, K.T.X.
In passing, another point may also be mentioned as showing the
advance made by Homeric society. It is the usual primitive
rule where blood-feud exists that murder within the kin cannot
be compounded by money-fines, but requires exile without any
alternative; only where a man of another blood has been slain
can the slayer avoid for a price the full penalty of his act. But
in Homer the old tribal division is extinct. The doctrine of
kindred blood has lost all the significance which in the oldest
form compelled a kin of unlimited extent to take up the feud
individually when any of a vast number of relations within
known but often most remote limits had had his blood shed.
So far at least as appears from the poems, the Homeric hero
felt his family relationships much as we do; the father, brother,
or son of a slain man takes up the feud so far as the receipt of
compensation goes; but of any concern among more distant
relations we hear nothing, much less of any obligation imposed
by the mere bearing of a common tribal name. The tribe had
no place in the organization of Homeric society. How it is
that we find the tribes in full life in Attica at a much later
date is an interesting question, and I think one to which a
satisfactory answer can be given; but to touch upon this now
would lead us too far afield.
What was the process by which society had advanced from
blood-feud, first to the penalty of exile, then to the receiving of
the blood-price ?
The change must have been gradual. Public opinion would
first decree that the homicide should be expiated by a payment
in lieu of exile in cases where the bloodshed was either justifi-
able, as in self-defence, or purely accidental ; the obvious public
advantages of the milder system would gradually secure its
extension. Reipublicae interest ut sit finis litiwm is nowhere
clearer than here; and the community must needs claim the
right of deciding in every case whether exile or a fine should
126 THE TRIAL SCENE ΙΝ 11.141) XVIII.
be the penalty. It is at this point that the scene on the Shield
finds its appropriateness. The manslayer claims to expiate his
bloodshed by a payment; the next of kin refuses to accept the
money, and claims the penalty of exile. The matter is therefore
one of a public character; it is taken up by the people at large,
and referred to the council of γέροντες to be decided with all
the formalities of political debate.
We have now at least raised the dignity of the subject to a
point at which it is well worthy of a place in the Shield.
Instead of assisting at a mere squabble about the payment of a
price, we see the state in its corporate capacity engaged in the
actual creation of criminal law, in full consciousness of its
momentous task. But we have yet several details to consider.
The disputants are anxious ‘ to take an issue before a judge,
ἐπὶ ἴστορι πεῖραρ ἑλέσθαι, and yet we find directly afterwards
that the decision is in the hands not of a judge, but of the
council of γέροντες. How are these things to be reconciled ?
The answer I believe is to be found in the interesting passage
of Ancient Law* in which Sir Henry Maine deals with this
scene ; though, with all humility be it said, he does not seem
to have perceived the full significance of the parallel which he
draws. He describes the archaic procedure known to Roman
law as the Legis Actio Sacramenti, and shows that it is ‘a drama-
tization of the origin of justice. The primitive meaning of
the quaint ceremonial which he describes is this. ‘Two armed
men are wrangling about some disputed property. The Praetor,
vir pietate gravis, happens to be going by and interposes to stop
the contest. The disputants state their case to him, and agree
that he shall arbitrate between them, it being arranged that the
1 The ordinary objection to the in-
terpretation of dvalvero as ‘refused’ is
sional acceptance of the blood-price.
The ‘sanction’ here is religious, re-
that the kin of the murdered man have
free choice as to whether they will
accept the blood-money or no, In
primitive societies this is certainly
true. But the mere fact that the blood-
feud disappears shows that there must
have been a middle stage when this
free choice was restricted. I under-
stand from Mr. Arthur Evans that the
blood-feud is still prevalent in North
Albania, but is mitigated by the occa-
conciliation being effected through the
Franeiscans. Gross cases, however, as
when a man is slain within a tribe
under whose protection he is, come
under the cognizance of the pljech or
village council (literally = γερουσία).
It is much to be hoped that Mr. Evans
will publish his inquiries into this
important piece of social history.
* Pp. 875—377 of the fifth edition.
THE TRIAL SCENE IN 7114. XVIII. 127
loser, besides resigning the subject of the quarrel, shall pay a
sum of money to the umpire as a remuneration for his trouble
and loss of time.’
Here the resemblance is clear enough. The Praetor is repre-
sented by the ἔστωρ, referee or ‘daysman, * to whom both parties
are anxious to leave the settlement of the dispute. But there
is an important difference. In the Legis Actio the question
is merely a private one, which the Praetor can decide without
more ado. But the question of the punishment for homicide is
seen to be one of public importance by the zeal with which the
people have taken it up.” The ἔστωρ therefore cannot deter-
mine it alone; he must call the council to his aid. Thus the
difference between the two cases is the whole difference between
private law and public, between Torts and Crimes. It is this
significant distinction which Sir Henry Maine misses when,
neglecting the ἔστωρ altogether, he regards the collective
γέροντες as representing the Praetor.
There is another point in which the Legis Actio may throw
some light on the Homeric trial. Sir H. Maine says (p. 375):
‘The subject of litigation is supposed to be in Court. If it is
moveable, it is actually there. If it be immoveable, a fragment
or sample of it is brought in its place; land, for instance, is
represented by a clod, a house by a single brick. The words
δήμῳ πιφαύσκων may indicate something of the same sort ; for
though it is quite possible to take them to mean only ‘declaring
his case to the people, yet it is more natural tu supply as the
object the πάντα of the preceding line. He actually displays
before the people the price of the man killed—whether in gold
or oxen or tripods—as a proof of his ability as well as his will-
ingness to pay. This constitutes a formal and legal tender;
and it is in virtue of this act that he ‘avers that he has paid
the full price,’
The two talents of gold which lie in the midst have already
1 This sense is conclusively esta-
blished by the only other Homeric
passage where the word occurs, Ψ 486,
where Agamemnon is named as referee
to settle a bet.
2 It seems a priori likely that the
division of public opinion, as qualify-
ing a case for the cognizance of the
state as a political body, would become
a conventional form ; in other words,
that in trials such as these the litigants
would have to come into court accom-
panied each by a body of friends, repre-
senting their party among the people.
Can the custom of compurgators have
arisen from such a practice ?
128 THE TRIAL SCENE IN JZIAD XVIII.
been identified by Sir H. Maine with the Sacramentum, or
deposit by the litigants under the form of a wager, which was
taken by the court as remuneration for trouble and loss of time.
The explanation is at least probable, though not certain. We
may suppose that the ἔἴστωρ as president of the council assigns
it to that councillor whose advice he judges to have contributed
most to the final decision. But the other alternative is equally
possible; that the sum is really a wager, and goes not to the
court but to the successful litigant. The question is quite
insoluble, because we have not material for deciding whether
δίκην εἰπεῖν means ‘to pronounce judgment’ or ‘to plead a
cause. The latter is the sense in which the phrase—which is
however rare, and occurs chiefly in the form δέκας λέγειν---
occurs in Attic; but that of course decides nothing for Homer.
In any case it is certain, as was long ago pointed out, that two
Homeric talents are far too small a sum to represent the price
of the man slain.}
Now this account of the procedure may seem to be only a
more or less plausible hypothesis, dependent upon reading into
the text a great deal more than is to be found there. As a
matter of fact the only important link which has been supplied
is the actual appointment of the ἴστωρ, and the reference by
him to the council of state. The omission to state this step
explicitly will be intelligible if we can see ground for supposing
that it was a well-understood and regular part of early Greek
criminal procedure. Now it so happens that we have a most
elaborate and explicit account of a trial conducted on what
were supposed, at Athens in the fifth century, to be the most
ancient of forms. And in this trial this very step is fully brought
out as an important point in the process. The jurisprudence
of the Zwmenides will be found to fit in with and supplement the
scene in Homer in a somewhat remarkable way.
Both trials are on the same subject. In the Hwmenides a
woman has been slain. One of the litigants, Orestes, asse-
verates that he has paid the price of the homicide, the other,
the Chorus, refuses to accept anything, and insists on the full
penalty of lifelong banishment. The price in question is not
one in money, but in ceremonial offerings and lustrations; but
that is due partly to the conditions of the story, partly to
1 See Mr. Ridgeway in Journ. Phil. x. 30.
THE TRIAL SCENE IN JL/AD XVIII. 129
changed religious views. While the parties are face to face in
the Akropolis at Athens, the Chief of the State, in the person
of Athene, enters, and enquires the cause of dispute. The form
of a casual appearance which Sir H. Maine points out is, it will
be observed, fully kept up; the goddess has heard the cry of
Orestes, but does not know in what capacity she is needed. In
answer to her questions, both parties express their desire to
refer the dispute to her arbitration ; the αἰτίας τέλος placed in
her hands in line 434 is only Attic for the Epic πεῖραρ.
Athene accepts the office, and asks for a statement of the
case. On hearing it she immediately says that the matter is
too great for a man to decide; even she, a goddess, must not
give judgment in a case of murder, but must refer to the people
(470—489).
TO πρᾶγμα μεῖζον εἴ τις οἴεται τόδε
‘ ,ὔ »O\ \ > \ /
βροτὸς δικάζειν: οὐδὲ μὴν ἐμοὶ θέμις
φόνου διαιρεῖν ὀξυμηνίτου δίκας.
/ ee A A > A \ /
κρίνασα δ᾽ ἀστῶν τῶν ἐμῶν τὰ βέλτατα
A a lal ᾽
ἥξω, διαιρεῖν τοῦτο πρᾶγμ᾽ ἐτητύμως
ὅρκον πορόντας μηδὲν ἔκδικον φράσειν.
In the Eumenides, as in the Iliad, the transition from the
first scene, the appeal. to the judge, to the second, the actual
trial, is marked by the heralds thrusting back the crowd (566),
ΑΘ. κήρυσσε, κῆρυξ, καὶ στρατὸν κατειργάθου,
while the ‘ holy circle’ in which the councillors sit is reflected
by the hill of Ares which hallowed the deliberations of the
Athenian court—a body like the γέροντες in Homer, originally
political, the ‘privy-councillors’ of the state.
The limitations of the tragic stage did not permit Aeschylos
to present the people of Athens taking sides, even if this part
of the primitive trial had survived so long in memory. But we
may perhaps see a trace of the conventional form, above alluded
to, in the way in which Apollo presents himself not only as a
witness but as a partisan, καὶ μαρτυρήσων .. . καὶ ξυνδικήσων
(576, 579). If so, we may find a trace of the factions of the
agora even in the ξύνδικος, the modern ‘ counsel,’ the prisoner’s
‘friend’ in the court-martial. But this is unessential. At all
H.S.—VOL. VIII. K
150 THE TRIAL SCENE IN 714. XVIII.
events we may say that, as Orestes ‘is unable to present in view
of the court the ceremonies of lustration which he has fulfilled,
he goes as near it as possible in presenting the god under whose
auspices they have been performed ; and it may not be without
significance that Apollo in his address uses the very word
πιφαύσκω (620) which may very likely have had a technical
use in this connexion. Finally, the two trials continue parallel
even to the rising up of the judges to give sentence in turn.
That in the Eumenides they do not speak but only vote may
again be a concession to scenic convention; but the silent
voting of the γέροντες is at least consistent with one of the
possible interpretations of = 508.
The parallelism between the two trials seems thus to be close
enough to justify us in believing that they both represent one
form of procedure, the oldest in chronology, though not in
evolution, known to us in the history of European law. A
further illustration of the critical step by which criminal juris-
diction became a matter of tws publicwm may be drawn from
the most outlying member of the Indo-European family, and
will serve to show that the assumed historical development is
not a mere matter of fancy.
In the story of Njal the final catastrophe is brought about
by the cowardly and unprovoked murder by Njal’s sons of
Hauskuld the priest of White Ness. The suit is taken up
by Flosi, his kinsman by marriage, who appears at the Thing
with his band. The endeavours of Njal’s sons to obtain
supporters among those present at the Thing are related at
length; 1“ Asgrim sprang up and said to Njal’s sons, ‘We
must set about seeking friends, that we may not be overborne
by force ; for this suit will be followed up boldly.’” The ques-
tion on which the men of Iceland are thus made ἀμφὶς ἀρωγοί
is precisely that which we have recognised in Homer and
Aeschylos ; is atonement to be accepted, or is the blood-feud to
goon? The peculiar atrocity of the crime makes Flosi at first
refuse atonement; only after others have failed does his father-
in-law, Hall of the Side, ‘a wise man and good-hearted,’ induce
him to yield; ‘my wish is that thou shouldest be quickly
atoned, and let good men and true make an award, and so buy
the friendship of good and worthy men. The question that
1 Dasent, The Story of Burnt Njal, ch. exviii.
THE TRIAL SCENE IN 7014 XVIII. 131
actually comes up for decision is therefore only the awarding of
the atonement for the slaying.
The deliberations of the twelve ‘daysmen’ to whom the
award is referred may perhaps give us some dim idea of the
debate among the γέροντες.
“*Will ye,’ said Gudmund, ‘award either the lesser or the
greater outlawry? Shall they be banished from the district,
or from the whole land ?’
“*Neither of them,’ says Snorri, ‘for those banishments are
‘often ill fulfilled, and men have been slain for that sake, and
atonements broken, but I will award so great a money fine that
no man shall have had a higher price here in the land than
Hauskuld.’
“They all spoke well of his words.
“Then they talked over the matter, and could not agree which
should first utter how great he thought the fine ought to be,
and so the end of it was that they cast lots, and the lot fell on
Snorri to utter it.
“Then Snorri said, ‘I will not sit long over this, I will now
tell you what my utterance is, I will let Hauskuld be atoned for
with triple manfines, but that is six hundred in silver. Now
ye shall change it, if ye think it too much or too little.’
“ They said that they would change it in nothing.” 1
If there had been a reward to ‘the judge who gave the most
righteous decision,’ clearly Snorri would have taken it. So far
from receiving money however, the judges here agreed to
subscribe half the fines.”
This case I quote only to show the public importance of these
questions of the acceptance of an atonement, and the way in
which they are taken up by the community as matters trans-
cending mere family interests. In other respects the attitude
of the Icelanders towards the law is different enough from
that of the heroic Greeks. Though the question has to be
brought before the Thing, the community does not enforce
the acceptance of blood-money, but only gives a moral support
1 Burnt Njal, ch. exxii. tion of Christianity. He though a
2 In Burnt Njal, ch. ci. Hall of the heathen decides for the new religion ;
Side gives Thorgeir, ‘the priest of and consequently ‘heathendom was all
Light-water, who was the old Speaker done away with within a few years’
of the law,’ three marks of silver asa space.’ The payment of judges was
fee for an utterance as to the introduc- _ therefore not unknown.
K 2
132 THE TRIAL SCENE IN 7ZIAD XVIII.
to private influence. Their pure democracy admits no ‘head
of the state’ to whom the question can be referred in the first
instance as ictwp, as an intermediate step before it comes
before the people. They have not even so much as a
‘council of state’ to whom the question is sent as a matter
of course. The whole community has equal rights of judging.
In spite of their elaborate procedure and lengthy formalities,
the men of Iceland, living not in towns but in their scattered
garths, were far less amenable to the commands of the
state than were the Greeks. In this very instance, after
the award has been made, a few taunts on either side are
enough to break down the reconciliation, and the feud is
carried on to the bitter end. But such differences only show
the more clearly that in the central interest of the trial-scene
the poet of the ‘Shield’ has selected for us a typical moment
in the evolution of society.
WALTER LEAF.
THE HOMERIC TALENT, 133
THE HOMERIC TALENT, ITS ORIGIN, VALUE, AND
AFFINITIES.
THIS paper is an endeavour to discover (1) the origin, (2) the
value, and (8) the affinity of the Talent of the Homeric Poems
to other systems. In those Poems we find two systems of
denominating value, the one by the ox (or cow), or the value
of an ox, the other by the talent (τάλαντον). The former is
the one which has prevailed and does still prevail in barbaric
communities, such as the Zulus, where the sole or principal
wealth consists in herds and flocks. For several reasons we
may assign to it priority in age as compared with the talent.
For as it represents the most primitive form of exchange, the
barter of one article of value for another, before the employment
of the precious metals as a medium of exchange, consequently
the estimation of values by the ox is older than that by a talent
or ‘weight’ of gold, or silver, or copper. Again in Homer all
values are expressed in so many beeves, ¢.g.
χρύσεα χαλκείων, ἑκατόμβοι᾽ ἐννεαβοίων. (Il. vi. 236.)
The talent on the other hand is only mentioned in relation to
gold; for we never find any mention of a talent of silver. But
the names of monetary units hold their ground long after they
themselves have ceased to be in actual use, as we observe in
such common expressions as ‘bet a guinea,’ or ‘ worth a crown,
although these coins themselves are no longer in circulation.
Accordingly we may infer that the method of expressing the
value of commodities in oxen, which we find side by side with
the talent, is the elder of the twain. Was there any immediate
connexion between the two systems, or were they, as Hultsch
maintains (Metrologie? p. 165), entirely independent? It is diffi-
cult to conceive any people, however primitive, employing two
134 THE HOMERIC TALENT,
standards at the same time, which are completely independent
of each other. For instance, when we find in Jliad xxiii. 751
that in a list of three prizes the second is an ox, the third a
half-talent of gold, it is impossible to believe that Achilles, or
rather the poet, had not some clear idea concerning the relative
value of an ox and a talent. Now it is noteworthy that, as
already remarked, nowhere is the value of any commodity
expressed in talents. Yet who can doubt that talents of gold
passed freely as a medium of exchange? A simple solution of
this difficulty would be that the talent of gold represented the
older ox-unit. This would account for the fact that all values
are expressed in oxen, and not in talents, the older name pre-
vailing, in a fashion resembling the usage of pecunia in
Latin.!
Let us now see if we have any data to support this hypo-
thesis. Pollux ix. 60, says: τὸ παλαιὸν δὲ τοῦτ᾽ (sc. δίδραχμον)
jv ᾿Αθηναίοις νόμισμα καὶ ἐκαλεῖτο βοῦς, ὅτι βοῦν εἶχεν
ἐντετυπωμένον. εἰδέναι δ᾽ αὐτὸ καὶ “Ὅμηρον νομίζουσιν εἰπόντα
ἑκατόμβοι᾽ ἐννεαβοίων. καὶ μὴν κἀν τοῖς Δράκοντος νόμοις
ἔστιν ἀποτίνειν εἰκοσάβοιον᾽ καὶ ἐν τῇ παρὰ Δηλίοις θεωρίᾳ
τὸν κήρυκα κηρύττειν φασίν, ὁπότε δωρεά τινι δίδοιτο, ὅτι βόες
τοσοῦτοι δοθήσονται αὐτῷ, καὶ δίδοσθαι καθ᾽ ἕκαστον βοῦν δύο
δραχμὰς ᾿Αττικάς" ὅθεν ἔνιοι Δηλίων ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ᾿Αθηναίων
νόμισμα εἶναι ἴδιον τὸν βοῦν νομίζουσιν. ἐντεῦθεν δὲ καὶ τὴν
παροιμίαν εἰρῆσθαι τὴν βοῦς ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ βέβηκεν, εἴ τις ἐπ᾽
ἀργυρίῳ σιωπῴη. From this passage we learn that the Attic
didrachm was called Bods. On the other hand the best autho-
rities maintain that the type of an ox is entirely unknown on
the Athenian coinage. That, however, the name might be applied
to a coin or sum of a certain value is rendered highly probable
by the fact that Draco with true legal conservatism retained
the primitive method of expressing value in oxen in his code.
Now it is evident that the term εἰκοσάβοιον must have been
capable of being translated into the ordinary metallic currency,
whether that was bullion in ingots or coined money. The βοῦς
therefore must have had a recognised traditional and con-
ventional value as a monetary unit, and this is completely
demonstrated by the practice at Delos. Religious ritual is even
more conservative than legal formula, so we need not be sur-
1 Cf. Plautus, Persa, ii. 5, bini boues sunt in crumena,
ITS ORIGIN, VALUE, AND AFFINITIES. 135
prised to find the ancient unit, the ox, still retained in that
great centre of Hellenic worship. The value likewise is expressed
in the more modern currency. But we are not yet certain
whether the two Attic drachms, which are the equivalent of the
Bods, are silver or gold. Now Herodotus (vi. 97) tells us that
Datis, the Persian general, offered at Delos three hundred talents
of frankincense. Hultsch (Metrol. p. 129) has made it clear that
the talent here indicated must be the light Babylonian shekel of
gold or the gold daric. For if they were either Babylonian or
Attic talents, the amount would be incredible. Frankincense was
of enormous value in antiquity, wherefore Hultsch is probably
right in assuming that in the opinion of the Persian who made
the offering the 300 ‘weights’ of frankincense, each of which
weighed a shekel, were in value likewise equal singly to a shekel
of gold, or a daric. Now the gold daric = two Attic gold drachms.
But as the Bods at Delos = two Attic drachms, and the offering of
frankincense of Delos is made in τάλαντα, each of which is
worth two gold Attic drachms, there is a strong presumption
that this τάλαντον is the equivalent of the Bods, and that the
Attic drachms mentioned by Pollux are gold. Besides, it is
absurd to suppose that at any time two sdlver drachms could
have represented the value of an ox,! and it is not at all likely
that the substitution of silver coin for gold of equal weight
would have been permitted by the temple authorities. But
we get some more positive evidence of great interest from the
fragment of an anonymous Alexandrine writer on metrology,
who (Reliquiae Scriptorwm Metrologicorum, Hultsch, I. p. 301)
says: τὸ δὲ παρ᾽ Ὅμήρῳ τάλαντον ἴσον ἐδύνατο τῷ μετὰ ταῦτα
Δαρεικῷ. ἄγει οὖν τὸ χρυσοῦν τάλαντον ᾿Αττικὰς δραχμὰς β,
γράμματα ς΄, τετάρτας δηλαδὴ τεσσάρεις. Here there can be
no doubt but that Attic drachms mean gold Attic drachms.
Are we wrong then in supposing that at Delos still survived
the same dual system which we found in Homer, the ox and
the talent? But that at Delos both were of equal value we
can have little doubt. For the βοῦς = 2 Attic drachms = 1
daric = 1 τάλαντον = light shekel = 130 grains.2» Who can
doubt that at Delos was preserved an unbroken tradition from
1 Even at Athens in times of ex- 2 Two Attic drachms = 135 grs, ;
treme scarcity of coin Solon put the the Daric = 130 grs. But practically
ox at five silver drachms. they were equal.
136 THE HOMERIC TALENT,
the earliest days of Hellenic settlements in the islands of the
Aegean ?
This identification of the ox and the Homeric talent is of im-
portance. For it gives a simple and natural basis for the earliest
Greek metallic unit of which we read. It explains why on the
coins of Euboea the ox-type appears, it explains the proverb
βοῦς ἐπὶ γλώσσῃ, which dated from a time long before money
was yet coined, or the precious metals in any form whatever
employed for currency, and clears up once for all some interesting
points in Homer. In the passage (J/. xxill. 751) already referred
to, the ox is second prize, a half-talent of gold is the third. The
relation between them is now plain, the ox = a talent, or the
half-talent = a half-ox.
The vexed question of the Trial scene (1, xviii. 507) :
κεῖτο δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐν μέσσοισι δύω χρυσοῖο τάλαντα
τῷ δόμεν ὃς μετὰ τοῖσι δίκην ἰθύντατα εἴποι.
can now be put beyond doubt. In the Journal of Philology
(vol. x.) the present writer argued that the two talents repre-
sented a sum too small to force the ποινὴ of a murdered man,
and consequently must be the sacramentwm, as proposed by
Sir H. Maine. Now we know that the two talents = two oxen.
But in Iliad xxiii. 705, the second prize for the wrestlers was a
slave woman, whose value was four oxen (τίον δέ € τεσσαράβϑοιον).
Now if an ordinary female slave was worth four oxen = four
talents, it is impossible that two talents (= two oxen) could have
formed the blood-gelt of a free-man. Probably four oxen was
not far from the standard price for an ordinary female slave. Of
course women of superior personal charms would fetch more ;
for instance, Eurycleia,
τήν ποτε Λαέρτης πρίατο κτεάτεσσιν ἑοῖσιν,
πρωθήβην ἔτ᾽ ἐοῦσαν, ἐεικοσάβοια δ᾽ ἔδωκεν"
ἶσα δέ μιν κεδνῇ ἀλόχῳ τίεν ἐν μεγάροισιν.
Od. i. 480---2.
The poet evidently refers to this as an exceptional piece of
extravagance on the part of Laertes. We can likewise now get
a common measure for the ten talents of gold, and the seven
slave women, who formed part of the requital-gifts of Agamemnon
to Achilles (71. ix. 124 segq.), and can form some notion of the
value of the prizes for the chariot race (7. xxiii. 262).
ITS ORIGIN, VALUE, AND AFFINITIES, 137
But results more important than merely the determination of
the value of Homeric commodities may be obtained as regards
the weight-standards of Asia and their congeners in Europe. For
by taking as our primitive unit the ox, we may be able to sub-
stitute a much more simple account of the genesis of those
standards than that which hitherto has been the received one.
As a first step it is necessary to give a summary of that
received doctrine.
First! came the age of barter pure and simple, pastoral
peoples estimating values in the produce of their flocks. In
Egypt and Asia from the earliest times gold and silver were used
in daily life, their value in relation to one another being more
or less accurately determined, Abraham, who was ‘rich in cattle,
in silver and in gold,’ weighed to Ephron 400 shekels of silver
current (money) with the merchant. Gold was plenty in Ur
of the Chaldees, but as there are no auriferous rocks or streams
in Chaldaea, it must have been imported from India by the
Persian Gulf? Gold and silver were weighed, but it is probable
that the scales were not employed in every small transaction,
and that small pieces of gold and silver of fixed weights, though
as yet unstamped, were often ‘counted out by tale.’ These
pieces or wedges of gold and silver served as a currency, ‘and
were regulated by the shekel and mina.’ This leads to the
weight-standards. The Egyptian weights in most common use
were the ten, or uten, and the kat. 1 ten=10 kats. Two
standards of the ten are found, one of 1400 grains, the other of
1436-1450 grs., giving respectively kats of 140 grs. and 148--
5 grs3
The astronomical skill of the Chaldaeans is proverbial. They
first divided the day into hours of sixty minutes, and the minutes
into sixty seconds. It is thought that the Babylonian standards
of weight and capacity were based on the same unit as their
measures of time and space. As they determined the length of
an hour of equinoctial time by the water-clock, so ‘ they may
have fixed the weight of their talent, mina, and shekel, as well
as the size of their measures of capacity by weighing or measur-
ing the amount of water which had passed from one vessel into
1 Hultsch, Metrologic, p. 162 sqq. 8. Ibid. xxix.
3 Head, Historia Numorum, p. 4 Brandis, Wiinz-Mass-und-Gewichts-
XXViili. wesen, p. 19.
138 THE HOMERIC TALENT,
another during a given space of time. As 1 hour = 60
minutes, 1 minute = 60 seconds, so 1 talent = 60 minae,
1 mina = 60 shekels. This sexagesimal system is charac-
teristic of Babylonian arithmetic. The Assyrians diffused the
systems of Babylon, which they adopted. The actual weights
found at Nineveh, Khorsabad, and Babylon show that in
the Assyrio-Babylonian system there were two weight-standards
side by side; the one being just the double of the other. The
light system seems especially Babylonian,’ whilst on the other
hand both systems were in use in the Assyrian Empire. The
weights of the light series are of stone, and are in the form of
ducks, those of the heavy are of bronze, some of them fitted with
handles, and in the shape of lions. Some of the former are
inscribed with cuneiform characters, some of the latter both
with cuneiform and Aramaean characters, indicating the amount.
The heavy minae are just double the weight of the light, the
former being about 1010 grms., the latter 505 grms.! The
Aramaic inscriptions on the heavy series were probably for the
Phoenician merchants. The later Phoenicians and Hebrews
adopted the sixtieth of the heavy Babylonian manad as their own
unit or shekel, but did not at the same time adopt the sexa-
gesimal method in its entirety. They multiplied the unit by
fifty to form a new mina of their own: then sixty minae made
a talent.
The Lydians formed an important link between Hellas
and Asia, They received (possibly through the medium of the
Hittites), from Assyria the light Babylonian shekel, ‘which
afterwards in Lydia took the form of a stamped ingot or coin.’
Why they took the light instead of the heavy mina is unex-
plained. By the extension of their kingdom (circ. B.c. 700) the
Lydians came into contact with the Asiatic Greeks, who had
already learned the use of the heavy stater (260 grains) from
the Phoenicians. The Lydians were the first to stamp coins
which were made of electrwm or ‘ white gold, a native alloy of
seventy-three parts of gold and twenty-seven parts of silver.
Thus when gold was to silver as 13.3 :1, electrum : silver =10: 1.
By this relation the same standard served for electrum and
silver, since 1 stater of electrum = 10 staters of silver. Silver
was not weighed by the same standard as gold, but by one
1 Hultsch, op. cit. 396 ; Brandis, 46, scqq.
ITS ORIGIN, VALUE, AND AFFINITIES. 139
derived from the gold thus: gold was to silver as 13.3:1. This
proportion made it difficult to weigh both metals on the same
standard. That a round number of silver shekels might equal
a gold shekel, the weight of the silver shekel was either raised
above or lowered below that of the gold.
The heavy gold shekel = 260 grs., the light gold shekel =
130 grs.
SILVER STANDARDS DERIVED FROM THE GOLD SHEKEL.)
I. From the heavy gold shekel of 260 grs.
260 x 13.3 = 3458 grs. of silver.
3458 ors. of silver = 15 shekels of 230 grs.
On the silver shekel of 280 grs. the Phoenician or Graeco-
Asiatic silver standard may be constructed :
Talent 690,000 grs. = 3000 staters.
Mina 11,500 grs. = 50 staters.
Stater 230 grs.
II. From the light gold shekel of 130 grs.
130 x 13.3 = 1729 grs. of silver.
1729 grs. of silver = 10 shekels of 172.9 grs.
On the silver shekel of 172.9 grs. the Babylonic, Lydian and
Persian silver standard may be thus constructed :
Talent 518,700 grs. = 3,000 staters = 6,000 sigli.
Mina 8,645 grs. = 50 sap Loo CC,
Stater 172.9 grs.= 1 magpie:
Siglos 86.45 grs.
It is desirable ‘ to take note of the fact that in Asia Minor and
in the earliest period of the art of coining, (a) the heavy gold
stater (260 grs.) occurs at various places from Teos northwards
as far as the shores of the Propontis; (8) the light gold stater
(180 grs.) in Lydia (Kpotcevos στατήρ) and in Samos (?); (γ)
the electrum stater of the Phoenician silver standard chiefly at
Miletus, but also at other towns along the west coast of Asia
Minor, as well as in Lydia, but never however in full weight ;
(8) the electrum and silver stater of the Babylonic standard
chiefly, if not solely, in Lydia; (e) the silver stater of the Phoe-
nician standard on the west coast of Asia Minor.’
1 Head, op. cit, xxxvVi.
”
140 THE HOMERIC TALENT,
We are now in a position to inquire into the relation in
which the Homeric talent or ox-unit of about 130 grains stood
to these ancient systems which we have just enumerated.
Before doing so let us first inquire if there is any connexion
between the Homeric unit, and the standards of historical
Greece. The latter have been regarded by the highest autho-
rities as imported from the East; I therefore feel that it
is presumptuous on my part to re-examine the question. As
long as the old Greek unit of the Homeric times was unknown,
it was natural and right to seek for the sources of the Greek
standards in the region from which Greek civilization came. But
when the old Homeric unit is fairly fixed, scientific method
directs us first to see if the later Greek standards are descended
from it. It is only when we fail there that we must turn to
extraneous sources,
There were two principal standards in the historical Greece,
(1) the Euboic of 185 grs. (2) the Aeginaean of 194 grs,
(Head, op. cit.) but originally over 200 grs.2 The practical
identity of the Euboic with the Homeric unit at once strikes
us. Gold probably in early times in Greece Proper stood to
silver as 15:1, so the round number of fifteen ingots of silver
corresponded to one gold ingot of similar weight. Ten was a
more convenient number than fifteen in certain respects, so that
if they divided an amount of silver equivalent to 1 gold unit
of 135 grs.
135 x 15 = 2025 grs. of silver.
2025 grs. = 10 silver staters of 202.5 each.
According to the common theery, the traders of the great
Euboean cities, Chalcis and Eretria, which flourished especially
in the eighth and seventh centuries B.c., had received from Asia
through the medium of Lydia the light Babylonian shekel of
130 grs.,and used it as the standard for silver and electrum
which formed their earliest coins. They thus transferred the
weight used for gold in Asia to their own silver, having little
gold of their own, raising it to 135 grs. From Euboea it was
diffused over a large portion of Hellas by the wide commercial
1 Head, op. cit., xxxvi. dard. The gold unit of 130 grs. gives
2 One of electrum weighs about 207 10 silver staters of 195 grs. 130 x 15
grs. Hultsch (p. 191) thinks the later = 1950.
Aeginetic really a Peloponnesian stan- :
ITS ORIGIN, VALUE, AND AFFINITIES. 141
relations of Chalcis and Eretria. This may have taken place
towards the close of the eighth century B.c. Several difficulties
(irrespective of the fact that there was no need to borrow a
standard already existing in Greece from very early times) meet
this theory. (1) If the Euboeans derived their standard from
Tonia, why did they not rather adopt the Phoenician standards
on which the Ionian cities based their coinage of gold, silver,
and electrum. Some very early electrum coins found at Samos
(Head, op. cit. xli.), have suggested that Samos was the connecting
link. But since the recognised Samian coins are of the Phoe-
nician standard (Head, op. cit. 515), it would be strange if the
Euboeans from occasional contact with Lydian coins in Samos
would have adopted that standard in preference to that of the
Ionian cities with which their commerce lay. (2) Why did they
take the Lydian gold standard of 130 grs. instead of the silver
standard of 172.9 grs. for their silver and electrum, if they were
borrowing a ready-made standard? (8) Why did they raise
the weight to 135 grs. ?
The earliest coinage of Greece Proper was struck at Aegina,
from of old a meeting-place of merchantmen. This Aeginetic
standard in early times was widely extended through not only
Peloponnesus, but also the island states, such as Ceos, Naxos,
Siphnus, and Crete, and in Central Greece, Thessaly, Phocis,
Boeotia, and was used at Athens until Solon’s time (590 B.c.).
‘The derivation of this standard has caused much perplexity.
Some consider it a raised Babylonian silver standard (172.9 to
230), others as a reduced Phoenician silver (230 to 194 grs.), and
Hultsch regards it as an independent standard standing midway
between the Babylonian and Phoenician silver standards, the old
Aeginetan mina of silver being equivalent to six light Babylonian
gold shekels, gold being to silver as 13.3:1. But there is
evidence to show that in early Greece gold was to silver as 15:1.
The early colonists of Sicily and Italy brought from home their
standard of the relative value of gold and silver. The earliest
coins of Cumae, Rhegium, Naxos, Zancle, Himera, all follow the
Aeginetic standard (Head, op. cit. xlix.). The same relation
between gold and silver would hold throughout all Sicily. Now
Mr. Head (Coinage of Syracuse, '79,) has proved that at Syracuse
in the time of Dionysius gold was to silver as 15:1, whilst in
the time of Agathocles it was as 12:1. Syracuse, a colony of
142 THE HOMERIC TALENT,
Corinth, would probably have the relative standard of the
mother-city, and Corinth would have the same standard as the
neighbouring states. This being the relation between gold and
silver in Greece, Hultsch’s solution breaks down, unless it be
assumed that the standard was constructed in Asia, of which
there is no trace.
On the other hand from the old Greek standard unit, taking
the relations of gold to silver as 15: 1, we get a singularly close
approximation to the standard of the existing coins.
If we accept the doctrine that Greeks received their standards
from Asia across the sea, the Aeginetic from Phoenician inter-
course with Peloponnesus, the Euboic from Lydia, a difficulty
meets us. In the time represented in the Homeric poems there
is not as yet a single Greek colony on the coast of Asia Minor
(Mr. D. B. Monro, Historical Review, January, 1886). We have
seen that at the same time the Greeks are already employing
a gold standard identical with the light Babylonian or Lydian
gold shekel. But they were in commercial relations with one
Asiatic race, the Phoenicians. If, then, they had got their
standard from Asia, it must have been the heavy gold shekel
of 260 grs. employed by the Phoenicians, and consequently the
Homeric talent would be 260 grs. instead of 130 grs.
Hence it follows that the Hellenes before they came into
contact with either Phoenicians or Lydians had a unit of their
own based on the cow. It will be noticed that the fluctuation
in value of the ox in later times does not affect my position.
Most likely in Homeric times the actual purchasing power of
oxen varied in some places from the conventional value set on
the ox as the unit of barter, and which was represented by the
Homeric talent. The metallic unit once struck, when differences
arose between the talent and the cow, the metallic unit from
its superior utility as a medium of trade would remain constant.
Hence the fact that the Greeks did not coin gold till late is of
no consequence. That they had a gold standard is clear. That
the relation of silver to gold would have been learned em-
pirically, as doubtless it was in Asia, is probable. The ordinary
traffic in ornaments would render it necessary to know the
relative value of the metals. In historic times the Sicilian
Greeks had a small talent, probably likewise brought from
Greece Proper, used exclusively for gold, the threefold of our
ITS ORIGIN, VALUE, AND AFFINITIES, 143
Homeric unit, side by side with the Aeginetic silver standard.
For purposes of daily life the relation between their gold and
silver standards must have been defined. Thus from Homeric
times downwards the Greeks must of themselves have known
the relative value of the precious metals, and consequently
‘ would have no need to import ready-made silver standards from
Asia.
This small talent just mentioned (also known in Egypt, as
we shall see below) is called Macedonian by Eustathius (τὸ δὲ
Μακεδονικὸν τάλαντον τρεῖς ἦσαν χρύσινοι). Whether Mommsen
is right in thinking that this name was given to it in Egypt in
consequence of its introduction by the Lagidae or not, it
equally indicates that from of old such a talent, confined to
gold, and the threefold of the ox-unit, existed in Macedonia.
Hence possibly Philip got the unit for his gold currency, and
not from Athens. The fact that Philip’s standard was somewhat
heavier than the ordinary Asiatic light gold shekel or daric is
to be noticed. We have already seen a like variation of standard
in the Euboic stater of 1385 grs. But we must return to the
consideration of this point further on.
The objection may be raised that whilst granting that the
Homeric talent is the parent of the standards in European
Greece, and that that talent represented an ox, it is possible
that the metallic unit was not indigenous, but that it was a
standard borrowed from Asia and adjusted to the barter system
of the primitive Hellenes. This brings us face to face with the
theories which base all the standards on the scientific studies of
the Chaldees.
Whilst some would obtain the unit by weighing or measuring
the amounts of water which had passed from one vessel into
another during a given space of time, the given space of time
having been only previously determined by generations of
astronomical observations, on the other hand, Dr. Hultsch
(Metrologie® p. 393) arrives at the unit thus: the Babylonian
maris is equal to one-fifth of the cube of the Babylonian ell,
itself based on astronomical observations. The weight in water
corresponding to this measure of capacity gives the light royal
Babylonian talent. This talent was divided into sixty minae,
and each mina into sixty parts, or shekels. Their gold talent
was derived from the sixtieth of the royal mina, with the
144 THE HOMERIC TALENT,
modification that now fifty sixtieths made a mina of gold, and
sixty minae made a talent (Hultsch, op. cit. p. 407). At the
outset I may remark that both hypotheses alike represent to us
that the Chaldees, after spending long ages in gazing at the
stars, and thus obtaining their famous sexagesimal method,
neglected their invention when they came to frame a standard
for the precious metals, the thing above all others to call for
their most advanced scientific accuracy. Thebes and Babylon
were not built in a day; these peoples, too, had their first
beginnings of primeval savagedom and barbarism. Egypt and
Babylon must have had their age of barter; certain natural
objects, animate or inanimate, must have served as units of
value. With them, as well as elsewhere, the ox probably formed
the most common article of wealth, especially in the earliest
times.
When gold came into use, certain portions of it, fluctuating
more or less in size, would be adjusted to the ox-unit as in
Greece, and as I shall show in the case of silver among the Kelts
in historical times. But we cannot rest here. We saw above that
there was no gold found in Chaldaea, and that therefore it must
have been imported by those Chaldaean merchantmen ‘ whose
cry was in their ships,’ from India by the Persian Gulf. But was
there no gold in Chaldaea until the shipmen of Ur were able to
construct vessels capable of a voyage, even though a coasting
voyage, to the mouths of the Indus? Working in metals must
have far advanced when such ships were built. That, however,
gold came from India, we can have little doubt. Lassen and
Max Miller have given good reasons for identifying the Ophir
of the Old Testament with the land of the Abhiras, the modern
Ahirs, along the Indus. But it probably came overland for
ages before any thing in the form of a ship larger than a ‘dug
out’ had floated on the Indian seas. If any one doubts the
possibility of such an overland trade in early times, let him
remember that the implements of jade found in the lake-
dwellings of Switzerland must have come across Asia from
Turkestan, and that the golden Baltic amber could make its
way in pre-historic times to Mycenae and Tiryns. The first
voyage to the ancient El Dorado was probably to search for the
region whence came the gold. In lke fashion the merchants
of Massilia sent out Pytheas to investigate the sources of
ITS ORIGIN, VALUE, AND AFFINITIES. 145
the tin and amber, which reached them overland from Britain
and the Baltic.
If we can gain any information respecting the people who
lived in the land where the gold was found, and their fashion of
life, we can then form a better estimate of the earliest origin of
the gold unit. Such a source is ready for us in the Rig-Veda.
The Aryans, who composed the hymns, had not yet extended
down to the sea, whither by the time of Solomon, according to
Max Miiller, they had arrived. From the objects of their
prayers and invocations, it is easy to see in what the wealth of
these simple people consisted. One or two examples will suffice
for our purpose: ‘The potent ones who bestow on us good
fortune by means of cows, horses, goods, gold, O Indra and
Vaya, may they blessed with fortune ever be successful, by
means of horses and heroes, in battles’ (Mandala, vii. 90, 6;
606, 6). Again, ‘O Indra, bring us rice-cake, a thousand
soma-drinks, and an hundred cows, O hero. Bring us apparel,
cows, horses, jewels, along with a manda of gold’ (Mand. viii. 67,
1-2; 687, 1-2). Yet once more, ‘Ten horses, ten caskets, ten
garments, ten gold nuggets I received from Divodaisa, Ten
chariots equipped with side-horses and an hundred cows gave
Acvatha to the Atharvans, and to the Payu’ (Mand, vi. 47, 23-4;
488, 23-4).
Now we are at once struck by the word mand in the second
extract. Kaegi (Fleckeisen’s Jahrbiicher, 1880) called attention
to its occurrence in the Rig-Veda, Hultsch (op. cit. p. 131)
says it is evidently a loan-word from Babylon (‘offenbar aus
Babylon entlehnt ist’).
Possibly this is not so very certain after all. For the word
has many cognates in Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin,
But what of the word hiranya-pinda, gold nugget, in the last
extract? Is it, too, borrowed from Babylon, or does it represent
the most primitive word which could be applied to a small mass
of gold? In the only place where the simple word pinda occurs
in the Rig-Veda (i. 162, 19) it is used of the pieces of flesh of
the sacrifice.
Bothlingkt and Roth explain it by the words SBallen,
Klumpen, Kloss (Mehlkloss) ; it is also used of the knobs on the
end of the tongs. Now it is plain that this is no loan-word
It cannot be identified with shekel. Yet it is evidently a fixed
H.S,—VOL. VIII. L
146 THE HOMERIC TALENT,
amount. In the enumeration by tens of horses, chests, clothes,
it is evident that the ten hiranya-pindas must have all been of
equal value. Now return to the passage which contains mand.
It is to be noticed that the words vyatjana, and abhyafjana are
collective nouns in the singular, and so gdm (cow) and asvam
(horse) are both used in the singular collectively (cf. ἡ ἵππος =
a body of horse). The inference naturally follows that mand
hiranyaya is likewise a colleetive noun, which of course implies
subordinate units. Is it too rash to surmise that those sub-
ordinate units are represented by the hiranya-pindas? If so,
we have at last hunted down the first gold unit, which was
called shekel and stater by the Semites and Greeks respectively.
The word shagal means in the cuneiform inscriptions, and in
the Old Testament, both to weigh and to cownt. The Greek
στατήρ explains itself as the standard unit, or ‘weigher. But
hiranya-pinda is the word of the gold-finder, just as much as
our word nugget, or the Greek βῶλος, or Spanish pala. Now
all men know that the name of an article or product usually
accompanies it from the place where it was first obtained. The
words florin, besant, dollar, will serve as examples. Is it, then,
not within the fair bounds of possibility that from the land,
whence, as we saw, gold was first brought to Chaldaea, the name
mand, meaning a certain number of the units (hiranya-pindas)
likewise came? The borrowing people would naturally give a
name expressing its position as unit to the hiranya-pinda,
whilst retaining the collective term mand for a certain number
of these nuggets. What that number was, we know not. The
fiig- Veda furnishes us with no further information. It is worth
noting that whilst the number ten occurs seventy-four times in
the Rig-Veda, the number twelve only appears four times, and
that the number one hundred occurs one hundred and twelve
times, as compared with eleven instances of the number sixty.
The number fifty occurs five times. I am perfectly sensible of
the dangers of the statistical method when applicd to words,
but I think on the whole we are justified in concluding that
the decimal system preponderates over the duodecimal and
sexagesimal. So if the Aryans borrowed the mand from
Babylon, they do not seem to have borrowed the system to
which it belongs. Once more we have to face the question,
1 Hultsch, p. 405.
ITS ORIGIN, VALUE, AND AFFINITIES. 147
How was this first metaliic unit defined? Our answer is the
same as before, by the unit of barter, and that that unit among
the Aryans was the cow, will be seen by the following quota-
tion: ‘Who buys from me my Indra for ten milch cows?’
(Mand. iv. 24,10; 320,10). For the sake of argument let us
grant that the Homeric τάλαντον was a weight borrowed from
the East, and simply adjusted to the ox-unit. If, then, the
Greeks found it necessary to adapt to the ox-unit a standard
which they found ready-made, @ fortiori the Aryans for the
first time making a metallic unit would have based it on the
unit of barter. But we are not yet done with the Rig-Veda.
We saw in Homer that the τάλαντον was only used of gold,
never of silver. It is certainly curious to notice that both
mand and hiranya-pinda are used of gold. But as each only
occurs once, it would be most rash to lay much stress on
such usage. When, however, we find that there is no mention
of silver in the Rig-Veda, we can now draw some most important
conclusions. First we see that the metal which is the most
precious, gold, is the first to be weighed. The Homeric
evidence alone would make this almost certain. But when
we find definite weights of gold appearing in the Rig-Veda
before silver is known to the Aryans, it is demonstrated.
Secondly, it makes it almost impossible that the word mand
was borrowed from Babylon. For on the supposition that
the manah was invented by the Chaldaeans when they had
attained high mathematical skill, by that time they must have
been acquainted with silver, and as it would form a ready and
acceptable article to be given in exchange for gold, the Indians
must thus have become acquainted with it. Finally if rupa,
the Sanskrit word from which rupee is derived, really means
cattle, as is asserted, we have here tradition to testify to the
origin of the first metallic unit, just as we found it in pecunia,
βοῦς, and English fee, from the Anglo-Saxon feoh (gangende
Jeoh) which retained its original meaning.
Now we are at last in a position to examine more closely
some points in the received doctrines. First we shall deal with
the Babylonian sexagesimal system. In the talent of mer-
chandise the sexagesimal method, as shown by the weights
discovered, was carried out completely in both the heavy and
light system ; sixty sixtieths = one manah; sixty manahs = one
L 2
148 THE HOMERIC TALENT,
talent. But in the case of gold and silver the system was
different. The tribute-lists of the Egyptian king, Thothmes IIL,
show us that at the beginning of the sixteenth century B.C. in
Babylonia and the neighbouring countries gold and silver were
not weighed according to the mercantile talent, but that fifty
shekels = one manah; sixty manahs = one talent. We saw
above how Hultsch obtained his unit by subdividing the mer-
cantile talent into 3,600 (sixty x sixty) parts. Now we are
told that the Babylonians got their sexagesimal system after
great scientific researches, and Hultsch points out that the
precious metals would call for the highest degree of accuracy
in weighing, yet here we find them, after having employed their
new scientific method most consistently in the mercantile
talent, become strangely confused. Taking the sixtieth of the
mercantile mina, their courage seems to fail them, and they can
only multiply it by fifty. Then having got their gold mina,
they screw their courage to the sticking-point, and multiply
their mina by sixty this time. The same method of fifty
shekels = one mina; sixty minae = 1 talent is followed in the
case of silver. Turning to the Phoenicians, we find the
same wavering and want of decision in these shrewd traders.
‘The Babylonian sexagesimal system was foreign to Phoenician
habits.’ So accordingly they only took fifty shekels for their
mina. But the next moment we find that the Phoenician
suddenly overcomes his objection to the sexagesimal system,
and takes quite kindly to a talent of sity minae! We
have already seen the same peculiarity in the case of the
Lydian, Persian, and Greek systems. The Egyptian multiple
of the unit is ten (ten kats = one uten). In the Rig-Veda we
saw the predominance of the decimal system. The evidence
of the Homeric poems points in the same direction. For we
find ten talents of gold in the gifts of Agamemnon, and the
same number in the ransom-price for Hector (reminding us of
the ten hiranya-pindas). In the Odyssey (ix. 202) the priest
Maron gave Odysseus ypugod .. . evepyéos ἑπτὰ τάλαντα (where
the epithet εὐεργὴς may refer to the gold being wrought into
‘ring money’). Now 7 x 7 = 49, a close approximation to the
fifty shekels of the Babylonian gold mina. To sum up our
results, every where alike the first multiple of the unit in the
case of gold and silver is decimal or quinquagesimal, not sexa-
ITS ORIGIN, VALUE, AND AFFINITIES. 149
gesimal. Now Mr. Head has well remarked that the Phoenicians
probably grafted the Babylonian system on a previously-existing
one of their own: ‘The Phoenicians, in common with the
Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Hebrews, &c., with whom they
dealt, were at no time without their own peculiar weights and
measures [whence derived 7], on which they appear to have
grafted the Assyrio-Babylonian unit of account.’! What if the
very same principle applies to the Babylonians themselves ?
We have already seen reasons to believe that gold is the first
article to be weighed. Now at no epoch have the ordinary run
of mankind felt any pressing need for the employment of large
weights such as the ton, or even the more modest stone, in
weighing their gold and silver. Down to the present day Troy
weight, with its pound of twelve ounces as its highest unit,
serves us for weighing the precious metals, whilst side by side
with it we have the avoirdupoids scale for merchandise of larger
bulk. Are we foolish in supposing that the ordinary Chaldee
found that a system which went as high as 1 manah = 50
shekels (= 1 lb. 1 oz. 10 dwt. 20 grs. Troy) would amply suffice
for his ordinary needs? Merchandise would only be weighed
after long time. Corn was measured, not weighed. Now we
can see that the mina of fifty shekels found in Babylon, Phoe-
nicia, Lydia, Persia, Greece, was in use before the sexagesimal
method was dreamed of. Then the latter was invented, and
a scientific adjustment of weights and measures was attempted.
For mercantile purposes, taking the original gold unit, they con-
structed a true sexagesimal system, corresponding to the division
of minutes and seconds, with a great talent at its head. They
made the standards of gold and silver tolerably symmetrical
by adding a higher unit, the sixtyfold of the mina, just as our
rulers have endeavoured to give usa taste of the decimal system
by thrusting the florin in upon the crown and half-crown, and
the shilling with its twelve pence.
I have spoken before of the small talent, used solely for gold,
called the Sicilian and Macedonian talent. It is possible that
it was used by the Carthaginians also, since the crown given
by them to Demareta, weighing 300 talents, seems certainly to
have been estimated on this system. But on the other hand it
is more likely that the Sicilian Greeks, who were the recipients,
1 Cf. Brandis, op. cit. p. 5.
150 THE HOMERIC TALENT,
described the crown in accordance with their own national
standard. However that may be, the ordinary gold piece of the
Carthaginians weighed about 135 grs.,1 a very close approxima-
tion to our ox-unit, in fact being identical with the Euboic unit,
and the Macedonian gold unit of Philip, and possibly, as we
have seen, with the gold unit on which the Aeginetic silver
standard was based. This same small talent is found in Egypt
under the Ptolemies, whether introduced under Macedonian
auspices, or dating from still earlier times. In favour of the
latter view it may be noted that according to Lenormant and
Hultsch (p. 375) the gold ring-money found in Egypt is based
on a standard of 127 grs., where we once more obtain a close
approximation to our ox-unit, and therefore this ring-money
probably was based on the οχ. The gold talent, then, is simply
the multiple of this native unit. Again, in Genesis xxiv. 22,
we read that Abraham’s servant gave Rebekah ‘a golden ear-
ring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands
of ten shekels weight of gold.’ The word translated ‘ earring’
in the Authorised Version is taken by others to mean ‘nose-
ring. The same word appears in Job xlii. 11: ‘Then came
there unto him all his brethren and all his sisters and all they
that had been of his acquaintance before . .. . every man also
gave him a piece of money, and every one an earring of gold’
There can be little doubt that the shekel mentioned in Genesis
is the shekel of the Sanctuary, that is, the heavy Babylonian or
the twofold of the so-called light Babylonian shekel. Con-
sequently the ring of gold of half a shekel weighed 130 grs.,
that is the ox-unit. We are not told the weight of the earrings
contributed for the afflicted patriarch, but it is evident that
they were all of one recognised uniform standard, and it is
hardly going too far if we conjecture that they were of the same
standard of half a shekel of the Sanctuary, as the gift to Rebekah.?
It is not unlikely, then, that in both passages we have to deal with
ring-money such as that found in Egypt. The practical identity of
weight is certainly striking. Have we, then, in this Hebrew ring-
money, simply another instance of the ox-unit? If these things
be so, we need not trouble ourselves any longer as to whether
the Egyptians borrowed the light shekel from the Babylonians or
1 Hultsch, op. et. p 433. 3 Cf. Hultsch, p. 471.
2 Cf. Brandis, p. 80.
ITS ORIGIN, VALUE, AND AFFINITIES. 151
the Babylonians from the Egyptians. We can explain the facts
by the simple hypothesis that over all these ancient lands from
the Indus to the Eurotas at an early period the cow formed the
unit of value.
The objection may be raised that it is impossible to suppose
that the ox had the same value in all parts of the ancient
world for so long a period, inasmuch as fluctuations in its
value are on record in historical time. This seems formidable
at first sight, but is readily removed the moment we shake
off our notions derived from modern life, and project our-
selves into the conditions of early pastoral society. It will
be admitted, I suppose, that there must have been a time when
there was nothing in the nature of a large city between North
India and the Hellespont. When the Indo-European family
expanded it had already the ox, for the name appears in all the
languages (Sanskrit gaus, Greek Bods, Latin bos, Irish bo,
English cow, German Kuh). Over all the region which they
gradually occupied the cow would obtain as the unit. For
where would the break come between community and com-
munity? For purposes of barter, or compensation between
tribes, the cow would be the common measure. And naturally
so. For cattle in a semi-wild condition, as now on the
American ranches, differ but little in value from one another,
the conditions under which they are reared and pastured being
very equable, and at the same time artificial breeding and cross
breeding has not marked off those wide distinctions between
Shorthorns and Devonshires, or Alderneys, which affect the
relative values of cattle in modern times. Again, the cost of
production is uniform. The world is yet but sparsely popu-
lated ; there is as yet no ‘land hunger, the whole earth is
open, each man has endless space to pasture his flocks and
herds, and has not to pay rent to any one. If the Aryans came
into contact with other races in Hither Asia, Semitic tribes for
instance, it makes no difference. For their Semitic neighbours
were keeping cattle on exactly the same conditions as they
themselves. ‘Is not the whole land before thee ?’ said Abraham
. to Lot, when ‘the land was not able to bear them: for their sub-
stance was great, so that they could not dwell together.’ This
gives us an insight into the way in which pastoral peoples
expanded, When the family and their flocks became too
152 THE HOMERIC TALENT,
numerous to dwell together, its members divided off, but did
not lose touch of each other. For we find Abraham coming to
the rescue of Lot. At the present moment across wide regions
of South Africa the ox has a constant value. So long as the
barbaric tribes are in touch with one another, and not shut off
by impassable barriers of flood or forest, from one end of the
region to the other, the unit of barter will be as uniform as is
the value of a sovereign between John οὐ Groat’s and Land’s
End. If then in Northern India one branch of the Aryan
race were the first to learn the use of gold} and by a purely
empirical process came to regard a certain sized nugget, or
hiranya-pinda as equivalent to a cow, their brethren who dwelt
to the west of them, the ancient Persians, who had an almost
similar name for gold, zaranya, having previously the same
ox-unit, would receive in way of exchange the hiranya-pinda,
as equivalent to a.cow ; 5 from them being passed on from man to
man it would cross all Asia, probably by that line of country
which formed the trade-route of later times, and then dividing
into two branches, one passing to the north, the other to the
south of Taurus, the former passing along by the Euxine up to
the Hellespont, crossing into Thrace and Hellas, the latter
passing into Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt. The gold-nugget
having got a conventional value of an ox and the ox the value
of a gold-nugget strongly impressed upon it, nothing but the
development of large settled communities could shake their
inter-relation. With the growth of city life the whole land
is no longer open for the herdsman to move ‘to-morrow
to fresh woods and pastures new. There is δὴ ever-
increasing demand for the produce of the herd, flesh, milk,
butter, cheese, and hides. The value of the ox of course rises,
but not so quickly as might at first be supposed. For instance,
a tillage community like Babylon learns rapidly to live on the
product of a most bountiful soil, and less and less depend for
subsistence on the produce of herds and flocks, until at length
they live almost entirely on farinaceous food. Such probably
was the case at Babylon. Such we know to have been the
1 Cf. The Book of Wonderful Stories, 2 Of course the size of the nuggets
ascribed to Aristotle, 833 ὁ, 14; gaol would vary somewhat in different re-
δὲ ἐν Βάκτροις τὸν Ὦξον ποταμὸν KaTa- gions.
φέρειν βωλία χρυσίου πλήθει πολλά.
ITS ORIGIN, VALUE, AND AFFINITIES. 153
process with the Indians. Passing into India as a pastoral
people, the Aryans under changed conditions of population, soil,
and climate, gradually became more and more vegetarian, until
at the present day grain forms the staple food of myriads. But
the gold unit having been once conventionally fixed, it would
remain just as constant as did actually the Euboic unit, sup-
posed hitherto to have been borrowed from Lydia Therefore I
cheerfully admit that in historical times in various regions the
ox had various values.
From this general uniformity in the value of the ox and its
metallic representative would follow the close agreement be-
tween the standards of the various regions. At the same time
we find a simple reason for certain slight deviations in the
weight of the Egyptian ring-money, the Euboic and Mace-
donian standards already noticed, and which can be seen in the
following table :—
Egyptian ring-money . 127 grs.
Hebrew ring-money?. . . 130 grs.
Babylonian light gold sheke 130 grs.
Lydian gold stater . 130 grs.
Persian gold daric . 130 grs.
Euboic-Attic silver. Shei mah ose. ΡΤΕ.
Aeginetic (gold unit, on which the
silver standard was based)? . 130-5 grs.
Carthaginian. 135 grs,
To sum up, if my argumentation is sound, we have not merely
learned the value and origin of the Homeric τάλαντον, but also
obtained a natural unit on which to base the various systems,
Egyptian, Babylonian, Hebrew, Phoenician, Lydian, Persian,
Greek, and Macedonian. This will explain why the Lydians
employed the light instead of the heavy Babylonian shekel, and
explains why the Persians ‘adopted’ the same standard when
they became the masters of Asia. For the Lydians had this
weight from of old without any need to borrow it, and the
1 That a very short time serves to
fix a monetary unit based on an article
of barter, is shown by the ‘skin’ =
2 shillings, employed in the Hudson
Bay Territory. It meant originally a
beaver skin. Though of course the
actual value of a skin is now much
more, the conventional money unit
‘skin’ remains unchanged. So the
‘bar,’ originally a bar of iron, repre-
sents at Sierra Leone 3s. 6d. worth of
any kind of goods.
154 THE HOMERIC TALENT,
Persians brought it with them into the plains of Chaldaea, and
retained it in preference to that double shekel, which was
developed most probably among the Aramaic peoples of Syria.
It is certainly curious to find another instance of the tendency
to double the unit actually in the same region. At Antioch
there was a talent used for weighing wood, and probably other
bulky articles as well, called by the anonymous Alexandrine
metrologist (Seriptor. Metrol., i. 301) ξυλικὸν ἐν ᾿Αντιοχείᾳ
τάλαντον, Which was the double of the heavy talent employed
there (Hultsch, Metrologie? p. 591). Articles which cost re-
latively little compared to their weight and bulkiness require to
_ be weighed after a heavier unit. Does this give us some clue
to the development of the heavy Assyrio-Babylonian shekel ?
It is found especially in Syria and Phoenicia, and is possibly the
weight of Carchemish, that is of the Hittites. We know the
Phoenicians to have been a great community of merchants,
doing chiefly a carrying trade. If the Hittites were likewise
‘mediators’ between Babylon and the West, we can now see a
reason for the doubling of the light unit. Traders would require
a heavier unit for articles less precious than gold. Did the
Aramaic merchants devise the double shekel for weighing silver
and other commodities as a first step before they devised their
separate standard for silver, and before the standard for mer-
chandise (60 x 60 = 3600) had been as yet developed? Possibly
the doubled gold-unit was based on the double ox-unit, that is a
yoke of oxen, which form the basis on which Solon rated the
third of his classes, the ζευγῖται (with which compare the bint
boves quoted above).
We must therefore abandon the method of obtaining the
gold-unit by subdividing the royal Babylonian talent, and
instead we must start with a primitive unit of gold, based
on the ox or cow. Gold, as the most precious commodity, is the
first to be weighed. We find it current by weight in Homer,
when as yet silver is not so employed, but only in manufactured
articles. Finally, to clinch all, we found gold in the Rig- Veda
estimated by the hiranya-pinda, or nugget, and the mand,
whilst as yet silver is unknown. The first step towards a
higher unit is in the multiplying of the ox-unit by ten, as in
Egypt; by fifty in Babylon itself, Phoenicia, Lydia, Greece.
Next a separate standard based on the gold-unit is devised and
ITS ORIGIN, VALUE, AND AFFINITIES. 155
employed over a large part of Asia Minor, its higher unit or
mina being the fifty-fold of the original unit, exactly as in the
case of the gold. The Aramaeans form a similar silver standard,
based on the double gold-unit (itself a first step towards a unit
for objects less precious than gold), their mina likewise being
quinquagesimal. The next stage reveals the mathematical
development of Chaldaea, and the application of science to their
weights. The second higher unit for both gold and silver,
called the talent, is obtained by multiplying the mina by sixty ;
but the force of custom is too strong for them to remake the
already existing mina, the /if/ty-fold of the primitive unit, by
dividing it into sixty parts in accordance with their new scientific
method. But nowa standard for bulky merchandise is required
to meet increasing wants, and the scientific metrologists, taking
the primitive gold-unit, frame a complete sexagesimal scale:
60 shekels = 1 mina, 60 minae = 1 talent. That at this time,
and constantly in after days, ancient mathematicians devoted
their attention to the adjustment of the standards of weight,
length, and capacity, there can be little doubt. From the tables
of Galen (Script. Metrol. i. p. 229), and from the table ascribed
to Dioscorides (iid. i. p. 241), it is plain that the ancients
discussed the question whether water or wine was best adapted
for a standard unit. Hence it is that scholars regarding all
antiquity as one brief span have had as little hesitation in
starting primitive peoples with standards based on astronomy or
on Nile water, as philologists have had in making our Indo-
European ancestors converse in abstractions called roots, utterly
oblivious of the fact that men expressed their ideas of breadth
and depth by such homely phrases as ‘the breadth of a crow’s
foot,’ or ‘the depth of an ox-hoof, before they ever conceived
the idea of ‘one-fifth of a cube,’ and expressed the changes of
the seasons by the flight of the cuckoo and the crane ages before
they had marked out the zodiac. A little reflection therefore
will convince us that the scientific adjustment of standards took
place only at a late period of human development, just as with
ourselves in the case of the relation between the pound and a
cubic foot of water. But because in modern times we have
discovered a scientific standard for weights and measures, are we
to look for such niceties in the systems of primitive peoples ?
Lastly, if it is recognised that the Homeric talent is the
156 THE HOMERIC TALENT,
equivalent of the light Babylonian shekel, not that of the
Graeco-Asiatic or Phoenician heavy shekel employed at Miletus
and along the Ionian coast, we get another indication that the
Homeric poems were composed in Hellas Proper.
If I can adduce historical evidence to show that many of the
steps in the evolution of the monetary system from a primitive
ox-unit, for which we could only claim probability, have actually
occurred within historic time in an Indo-European community,
the general hypothesis will have been greatly strengthened. I
shall accordingly now add such support to the views advanced
concerning the systems of the East by illustrations from the
West. In Ireland there existed an Indo-European race, who
(unfortunately) lay outside the limits of the Roman empire.
In ancient and mediaeval Ireland the cow was the unit, and
a single glance at almost any page of the Brehon Laws will show
that the nomenclature remained unchanged long after the
precious metals were used as currency. To this very hour the
Irish-speaking people of Munster have a phrase, ‘she is cowed,’
meaning that she has got her portion of the paternal property.
Now in the Laws we find a term cwmhal constantly eniployed.
This properly means ‘a female slave,’ but is commonly used to
express the value of three cows. We saw that the slave-woman
offered as a prize by Achilles was valued at four cows. Whether
Achilles gave a slave of the most ordinary description, or one a
little out of the common, we cannot say. But the fact that the
poet makes the onlookers express her value (τίον δέ € τεσσαρά-
Bovov) would imply that they are expressing their admiration of
the munificence of the hero. Also the poet describes the woman
as ἀμύμονα ἔργα ἰδυῖαν, the expression employed by Agamemnon
in reference to the seven Lesbian women selected as part of
the compensation for Achilles, whom we may regard as picked
specimens, just as the horses sent are described as ‘prize-
winners. It is not a point on which to lay much stress, but
the close coincidence in the conventional value of an ordinary
handmaid as measured in beeves among the Homeric Greeks
and Kelts illustrates the persistency of the value of conventional
units over wide areas and long periods. Now we found the
twofold of our primitive unit (which may have been based on
the yoke of oxen) and also its threefold employed in certain
regions. Am 1 overbold in throwing out the suggestion that
ITS ORIGIN, VALUE, AND AFFINITIES, 157
the small gold talent (= 3 Homeric talents = 3 light shekels)
may correspond to the Irish cwmhal, and have originally repre-
sented the value of a slave? We found the ox as the unit of
value in the’ penalties of Draco and in the ritual of Delos:
similarly in the penitentials of the Irish and Welsh churches
do we find ‘ ancillae’ and ‘ vaccae’ retained as symbols of value.
For instance, in the ancient laws of Wales, ‘si quis rixa macta-
verit hominem, sive manum, sive pedem, sive oculum excuss-
erit, ancillam sive servum redditurum cognoscat. Quodsi polli-
cem manus excusserit, ancillae medium, id est, dimidium pretii,
sive servi medium reddat’ (c. 11, 12). Again, in the Irish
canons (Wasserschleben, die Bussordnungen der Abendldndischen
Kirche, p. 142), ‘si quis iecerit episcopum et si mortuus fuerit,
accipiatur ab eo pretium sanguinis eius L ancillas reddet, id est,
VII ancillas uniuscuiusque gradus.’ Here it is to be noticed
that 7 x 7 are regarded as equivalents to the round number
50, which supports my suggestion in reference to the seven
talents in the Odyssey. We find the value of a cumhal
given in money (Wasserschleben, op, cit. p. 187): ‘XII altilia
vel xiii sicli praetium uniuscuiusque ancillae. But the value
of a cow is put beyond all doubt by a passage from the
Brehon Laws (i. 246): 1 cow = 1 ounce of silver. But.the
ounce is the monetary unit everywhere in the Brehon Laws, so
here we obtain a clear example in actual practice of the adjust-
ment of the metallic-unit to the primitive ox-unit. But the
Irish went farther, and adjusted the subdivisions of the ounce to
their various kinds of stock.
The unga (Lat. uncia) = 24 screapalls (Lat. scripulum).
The screapall = 3 pinginns or pennies.
1 cumhal (ancilla) = 3 cows (tri ba).
1 milch cow (bo mor) = 24 screapalls = 1 unga.
1 three-year old heifer (samhaisc) = 12 screapalls
=} unga = ἃ cow.
1 two-year old heifer (colpach) = 6 screapalls = } unga
= } cow.
1 yearling heifer (dairt) = 4 screapalls = 4 unga =} cow.
1 sheep (caera) = 3 screapalls = 4 unga = } cow.
1 kid (mennan) = % pinginn = ,j,; unga = +45 cow.
This illustration will, I think, help us to understand the process
1 President Sullivan called my attention to this use of ‘ ancilla.’
158 THE HOMERIC TALENT.
by which rude peoples pass from barter to the use of metallic
currency. The most general article of wealth is taken as the
standard ; their other live possessions are adjusted to it, either
as a multiple, as the slave, or as fractions, as in the case of the
calf and sheep. The first metallic unit is adjusted to the
animal unit, and its multiples and fractions are adjusted to those
of the animal unit. If the objection is raised that the Imsh did
not evolve the system of ounces and screapalls, but borrowed
them from Rome, my answer is as before, that if, when a people
borrow a ready-made metallic system, they nevertheless find it
necessary to adjust it to their own primitive system, ὦ fortiori a
people evolving for the first time a metallic unit must.certainly
base that unit on the primitive unit of the age of barter. Even
on the orthodox doctrine that the Greeks got their unit from
Asia, the analogy of the Kelts, when they borrowed the Roman
system, adjusting it to their own animal unit, affords good
support for my identification of the ox and talent of the Homeric
poenis.
It is with great diffidence that I have ventured to propound
those suggestions which touch on the origin of weights, and
especially the province of Greek numismatics, Indeed, did I
not feel that, when once we had learned the value of the ancient
Greek standard of the Homeric age, and found that it was
identical with one of the two chief standards of historical Greece,
the coincidence is too striking to be left unnoticed, I would
never have dared to question the decision of scholars of the
highest abilities, who have devoted their lives to these difficult
questions. It is for others to judge if I am justified in so
doing.
WILLIAM RIDGEWAY.
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES, 189
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
THE last year has been most fruitful of results to the
archeologist. Excavations on many Greek sites have supplied
abundant material for new work and speculation. But im-
portant as may be the gains to other branches of archzology,
none are so brilliant as those that have so greatly increased our
knowledge of the early history of Greek sculpture. It must
be many years before archwxologists are agreed on the exact
position and import of the new statues in relation to the early
history of art; longer still before all that those statues can
teach us shall have been learnt. In the present paper no
attempt can be made to criticise and discuss fully the many
difficult questions to which their discovery has given rise—
much less to assign finally to each of them its place in the
history of religion and sculpture. Many of the early chapters
of that history must be reconsidered and in part rewritten
before all the statues we now possess find their due place in a
recognised aud unbroken series of monuments of various ages and
of various local schools. Meanwhile it may be well to indicate
the directions in which the influence of our newly-acquired
knowledge is likely to be felt, and to endeavour to estimate the
meaning and the importance of the new material that the
science of archeology has acquired.
Though the Acropolis has been the richest and most important
field of discovery, other sites have also yielded their contribu-
tions. And even on the Acropolis itself other schools besides
the Attic are represented by interesting and important speci-
mens of their work. But it is of the Attic school more than of
any other that our knowledge has been so greatly increased :
160 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
and therefore it seems best to first give some account of the
statues that show us how sculpture had progressed in Athens
before the Persian wars. Afterwards it will be easier to apply
our new information to the history of other early schools, and
to attempt to estimate the value of what we learn about them.
For not only do many of them receive fresh illustration from
new specimens of their work, but their relations both with one
another and with the early Attic school are now far clearer than
they could be before.
In order to realise the importance for the Attic school of the
new discoveries, it is necessary to call to mind how little we
knew of it before the recent excavations on the Acropolis.
Brunn’s criticism! was most delicately refined in its description
and its apprehension of the characteristics of early Attic art;
and it has been wonderfully borne out by later discoveries. But
it was practically based upon a single monument, the stele of
Aristocles, and though we may admire the success of his con-
clusions in contrast to the scantiness of his material, it must be
most satisfactory to feel that there is now a broader foundation
for them to rest upon. A seated statue, without a head and
with but little of the original surface of the marble unworn,
and a few reliefs or fragments, were all that then or for many
years later could be added to our store of old Attic sculptures,
The Athenian masters who worked before the Persian wars were
mere names to us, not to be connected, however indirectly, with
any extant work or style. Of Simmias, Antenor, Amphicrates,
we knew practically nothing; the name of Endoeus had, in-
deed, by a not impossible conjecture, been associated with an
extant work, the seated Athena found on the Acropolis;
but Aristocles alone was a known artist. In names we
are now far richer. The period of Antenor has been dated
by an inscription; and we know now that Euenor, Eleu-
therus, Philo, Thebades were during the same period busy in
Athens; but of their work we must speak afterwards. For
though it may be still impossible to assign any extant statues
to the hand of any known artists of this period, we can now at
least present to ourselves a very fair picture of the school to
which they belonged, of its aims and tendencies in art, and of
1 Gesch. d. Gr. Kiinstler, pp. 109—111.
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. 16]
its influence upon its contemporaries and its successors. Even
of these successors, the Attic artists between the time of the
Persian wars and Phidias, we knew little before : of one of them,
perhaps the most characteristically Attic of all, we possess no
work, nor even a certain copy. This defect is not remedied ;
but perhaps it is now possible to imagine what a statue by
Calamis may have been. For though even the most advanced
specimens of early Attic art that we now possess must fall short of
the perfection and grace that made his style famous even in an
age of later and corrupted taste, we may already see in them
a possibility of growth, a tendency to those very characteristics
that have been praised in him by Lucian and other critics.
But this is a matter of inference. We must first retrace our
steps, and investigate from the beginning the growth of the
school that found in him its culmination.
It would be beyond the scope of this paper to give a narrative
of the various excavations that have been recently made upon the
Acropolis ; but the circumstances of the chief discovery must
be remembered, for they supply valuable evidence as to the date
of the statues it brought to light. These statues, together with
several inscriptions, were found buried to the north-west of the
Erechtheum, close under the wall of the Acropolis : among them,
at three different levels,} was refuse from the construction of
that wall; hence they must have been buried while it was
being built. It is generally acknowledged? that this part of
the wall was constructed immediately after the Persian invasion ;
the conclusion is obvious that the statues were among those
that had been thrown down and broken by the Persians when
they captured the Acropolis. Thus we have the year 480 as
the lower limit for their date. The inscriptions found with them
all fall by their forms into periods V. and VI. of Schiitz’s table
of the Attic alphabet, and so may be assigned to 525-500 B.c.
Hence we may, from external evidence, suppose that the statues
themselves belong to the latter half of the sixth century, or the.
earliest years of the fifth. But no inscribed pedestal can be
with certainty associated with any of the statues ; hence for their
relation to one another, and their chronological sequence, we
bave to depend only on their style. By this test they may be
1 Cavvadias, Ἐφ. ’Apx. 1886, p. 74. where other authorities are quoted.
* Michaelis, der Parthenon, p._8,
HS:—VOL, VItl. M
162 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
roughly classified; such a classification will make lighter the
task of considering them singly. Two of the statues, however,
must at once be excluded from our present arrangement, as
certainly not belonging to the Attic school: these will be
separately noticed in their own place.
If we speak of the rest of the Acropolis statues as products
of the Attic school, a few words of explanation are necessary.
Statues of a type that seems at first glance identical have been
found in great numbers on other sites: they are similar in
position and in drapery. Such have come to light, for instance,
in Delos: and their rougher prototypes, in great numbers, in
Cyprus, in Rhodes, and at Naucratis. But the Acropolis
statues, especially in the treatment of the face, show so much
character and originality, that it seems justifiable to regard
them as the product of an independent local school, though
doubtless preserving something of the type from which they
are derived.?
Regarding them accordingly as works of purely Attic art, we
may distinguish three periods, which may conveniently be
named: I., the archaic Attic ; II.. the transitional Attic; and IIL.,
the early fine Attic. In the first of these periods, again, we
may notice two distinct types, which we may call (a) the com-
mon type Atticised, and (0) the Attic type. The use of these
terms may seem somewhat arbitrary, but they will fairly
indicate the characteristics that seem in each case the most
important. We must now briefly consider each of these classes
more in detail.
' It has been my object in writing
this paper to give the results produced
by independent examination of the
originals. I have not therefore referred
often to previously published accounts.
Among these may be especially men-
tioned those of Dr. Waldstein, in the
“Pall Mall Gazette, 13 March, 1886,
giving a criticism of the style and a
theory as to its origin; of Mr. W.
Miller, in the Amer. Journ. of Arch.
1886, p. 61; and of M. S. Reinach, in
the Revue Arch. 1886, p. 77. In the
first part of the Musées d’ Athénes, M.
Cavvadias has only given a brief ac-
count, beside those which he published
in the Ep. ’Apx. for 1886. Archae-
ologists will look with great interest
for his fuller discussion and criticism
in the second part of the same pub-
lication. I cannot here attempt to
give a complete bibliography of the
daily increasing literature to which
these statues have given rise. If I
have unconsciously repeated the views
of others, an independent confirmation
will be afforded; if I have differed
from them, it may yet be possible to
learn something from this difference.
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. 108
I, Archaic Attic.
(~) Common type Atticised, B (Fig. 1).
Fic. 1.—B.
In these two statues, B and D, we may already observe a
tendency to the delicacy and refinement of detail, and the
? For purposes of reference some no- _ from the north-west corner of the room
tation is necessary: I have therefore they occupy in the Acropolis Museum ;
lettered the statues of the great find so from 4 to M; N and O were found in
consecutively, 4, B, C, &c., beginning 1888, and are reproduced in the Ἐφη-
M 2
1: RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
striving after meaning and expression in the face, which we
observe in the rest ; therefore they have a right to be considered
as belonging to the Attic school, as we now represent it to
ourselves. But, on the other hand, these tendencies are as yet
but very slightly developed: we do not yet find that grace of
position and that pleasing effect of the general impression pro-
duced, which Brunn, knowing only the stele of Aristocles, had
almost prophetically indicated as the great characteristic of the
early Attic style. Nor again do we find the small, narrow eyes,
the delicate, often-exaggerated richness of the curves of the
mouth which in the other classes are so remarkable. ' Here the
eyes are wide open and staring, though not prominent, but
rather flat: the mouth forms a simple curve, or even two
straight lines, at an angle to one another, with their junction
rounded off; its ends are rather sharply terminated by the
vertical lines at the two extremities. Thus the general impres-
sion 1s of a pleasant and smiling but somewhat vacant stare—a
great contrast to the lively expression of the next class.
If we may notice in the face the survival of a treatment
common to many schools of archaic Greek sculpture, much more
is this the case in the figure. In the case of B, the body from
below the waist is merely an oblong pillar, with the lines of
the drapery marked upon it: it is essentially of the same form
as the primitive image dedicated by Nicandra in Delos—a type
well enough known in the earliest art. Doubtless it is originally
derived from the primitive ξόανον, a mere beam or plank, with
the semblance of a head and arms indicated. On & some attempt
is indeed made, both by relief and painting, to indicate the
drapery ; in this respect it is perhaps more advanced than any
other example that so completely adheres to the primitive type.
But even in the upper part of the body there is a merely con-
ventional rendering of the forms, and no attempt at a direct
imitation of nature.
In the treatment of the hair and in the head-dress B and D
are almost identical. Both wear a plain band round the back
of the hair from ear to ear: over the forehead, in both alike,
μερὶς ᾿Αρχ. of that year, Pl. 8. By PI and II. of the publication Les Musées
denote the statue found March 10, 1887. d’ Athénes, Part I. In the same, PI. III.
Gand M are the two non-Attic statues. and 1V. are K, VI. is H, and VII. and
&, A, C, and J are figured in the illus- VIII. are & In Part IJ, IX. is 6, X.
trations 1-4, and 4 and Jon plates V. [15 B, XIII. is Z, and X1V. is M.
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. 108
are a series of holes for the insertion of bronze rays, pieces of
which remain here and there: in addition to these, B has over
the forehead a woollen fillet, or a chain of beads. Under this
head-dress the hair is waved in broad curves over the forehead ;
from the head-dress it passes in parallel tresses to the back of
the head, whence it descends in a mass of similar parallel tresses
down the back. In front of each shoulder fall three separate
tresses; these are subdivided by wavy lines parallel to their
length, and so are strongly distinguished from the similar
tresses we find in the next class. In all these details B and D
are identical.
In the treatment of the body D is distinctly more advanced
than B ; the ξόανον type seems to have disappeared ; but in the
shape it is preserved; for a section of the figure at the waist
and at the hips would present two almost perfect rectangles of
about the same size. But, with this exception, if due allowance
be made for the flatness of the folds that is a natural conse-
quence of such a shape, the drapery is treated with some
truth and feeling for nature, and is not so stiff and conventional
as in B. Yet it must be acknowledged that the impression
produced by this figure is of a dull and flat work, in great con-
trast to the life and feeling we shall meet with in the next class.
The well-worn conventional archaic type has indeed been
infused with a little Attic brightness; but this has not been
enough to permeate the whole statue, and to raise it to the level
of a free and independent work of art.
Before we pass on to the next class, there are one or two more
examples that must be referred to, though they need not delay
us long, as the most important of them is already known.
This is the head of Athena, helmeted, found in the Acropolis,
and reproduced on Pl. I. in Mrs. Mitchell’s History of Ancient
Sculpture. In the prominence of the round eye-balls this face
is different from all the other statues of the Acropolis; and also
in the gentle finishing of the ends of the lips; in all other
cases they are either cut at right.angles by the vertical line of
the cheek, or pointed off in continuation of the curves of the
mouth. The epithet one would apply to this head is distinctly
γλαυκῶπις ; the others, especially of the classes to follow, seem
rather to require the description ἑλικῶπις ; but this is a point
to which we must afterwards recur.
166 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
This head has now been fixed to the upper part of the body *
of an Athena, armed with the Aegis, seemingly from a pedi-
mental group of a gigantomachy. But the fracture is much
Fic. 2.—A.
broken away, and the lines do not seem perfectly continuous, so
that the real connection of the two may perhaps be regarded as
still a matter of uncertainty. Neither the head nor the body
1 Studniczka, Witth. d. d. Inst. zw Athen, 1886, p. 185, sqq.
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. 107
gain in their effect by the union, and it is hard to avoid the
impression that they do not belong to the same figure.
Here also we may insert /, the smallest, and in most respects
the least pleasing of the statues found together in 1886. The
eyes are roughly shaped protuberances, with no attempt at
form: and the mouth, with a simple but absurdly exaggerated
168 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
curve, forms an arc of a very small circle, whose centre would
be about the tip of the nose. But the drapery, which is very
peculiar, is treated with much more care and feeling. The
treatment of the hair is also in most respects similar to that of
B and D, though in the clumsy overhanging mass above the
forehead it differs strongly from them. It might be possible, by
adducing various fragments in the Acropolis Museum and else-
where, to add more examples of this class, as of others also.
But these instances will suffice to give some general notion of
its characteristics.
I. (Ὁ). Attic type, A (Fig. 2), C (Fig. 3), #—As might be
expected from the title, the statues included under this head
are of much greater interest and more pleasing effect than
those just described. It would hardly “have caused much
surprise had the statues of the I. (a) type been found upon
any site of early Hellenic art. But it is hardly rash to assert
that those we now approach find their due place nowhere but
in Attica; and that any resembling them found elsewhere
must show either Attic work or Attic influence. For scanty
as may be our evidence as to the early tendencies of Attic
art, it seems to point in this direction, especially when we
consider the characteristics of Calamis, the master in whom it
found its highest especial perfection, before it was raised by
Phidias to be the art no longer of a single city, but of Greece
and of the world. It is especially in the general impression
and in the treatment of the face that these statues are dis-
tinguished from those of other contemporary schools. In
drapery their care and delicacy has perhaps elsewhere been
rivalled, though not surpassed. But the expression of the face
is so full of life agsto be astonishing at so early a date: it is
often indeed exaggerated, so that the next step in development
must necessarily be towards restraint rather than towards fuller
power of expression, The eyes are always small and narrow,
almost as if drawn up to concentrate the intense expressiveness
of the glance. But the lines of the mouth are even more
remarkable. They preserve indeed the well-known archaic
smile; yet it is no longer a meaningless grin, but full of
meaning, often only too much exaggerated in its striving after
expression and effect. The lines of the lips never form a
simple curve: but the central bend is always supplemented by
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. 109
a smaller and shallower one on each side; and the outer ends of
these are delicately finished and pointed off, often with a slight
subsidiary curve at the outer end. The extraordinary expressive-
ness of the appearance thus gained is most remarkable in C,
where it is combined with a rich fulness of the lips that greatly
enhances its effect. But the same result is obtained more or
less in the other examples, though in their case it is not at first
glance so striking.
Some details of treatment tliat are common to this class are
worthy of notice, not only for their own sake, but because they
serve as a confirmation of the classification adopted, and show
that it is not merely accidental or fanciful. In the treatment of
the hair, A, C, and # are remarkably similar: all three wear a
similar head-dress, an upright stephane of even width ; within
it on the top of the head the hair is worked only in broad, low,
curved ridges, as if covered by a cap of some thin material: at
the back it descends in parallel zig-zag tresses, as in the case of
B and D, but with this ditference: in the case of A, C, and #
the tresses are not all precisely similar, but the two in the
middle are opposed, or rather united so as to form a single tress
of double width. Again, the tresses that descend on the shoulders
are varied by transverse cuts or depressions in each zig-zag, not
by lines parallel to their length : hence it is clear that a different
system was adopted by the masters of this style. The treatment
of the hair over the forehead was more a matter of individual ἢ
caprice, thus in A and C' we have varieties of a system of
waves; while in # we find descending zig-zags, ending in spiral
curls. The fact of a similarity in just the parts that were
executed most mechanically, and on which least thought or
invention was expended, is the best possible proof of connection
with the same school of artists.
To this class we may also assign a head from Eleusis, now in
the Central Museum at Athens (No. 363). The statue J, dis-
covered in 1889, and published on Pl. 5 of the Zphemeris of that
year, also finds best its place here ; though it is by no means a
typical specimen of this class. It is chiefly remarkable for its
drapery, similar to that of A. Of this we must speak after-
wards. But in the treatment of the face, especially in the
finely-finished curves of the mouth, it seems most to resemble
the statues we have just been considering.
170 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
No hard and fast line can be drawn between this period and
that which follows it. Even as regards style and development
the two have much in common; and viewed chronologically
the distinction has even less claim to certainty. But it is con-
venient to make some distinction, even if it be a vague one;
and the statues now to be described seem more pretentious,
though sometimes not more successful, in their execution, and
in other ways appear to bear the stamp of a more developed
art.
II. Transitional Attic.
As a typical example of this class we may take J (Fig. 4);
and with it the smaller statue O (found in 1888, and repro-
duced ’E¢. ’Apy. 1883, Pl. 8) has an affinity so strong that the
two can hardly be separated. J, in general appearance, is one
of the most pleasing and graceful of all; but it must not be
forgotten that the richness of the impression produced is in part
at least due to the extraordinary preservation of the colour upon
the borders. If one comes to look more into details, it becomes
very easy to find defects. Thus the drapery, though carefully
and elaborately worked out in detail, and though at first sight
very light and graceful, is hung in a manner that seems hardly
possible. The folds, though in no way held in or constrained, and
though the material of the dress is clearly soft and flexible, do
not hang vertically. They have a distinct slope from the left
breast towards the front of the waist, such as could be produced
in reality by quick motion: yet the statue is evidently at rest.
It seems as if the artist did not imitate his drapery from
nature. He must have started from a certain fixed and stiff
scheme of arrangement; then to modify this he perhaps introduced
the slant in the folds that seemed to give a more varied and
rhythmical appearance to the whole, without considering the
way in which such a slant could be in reality produced. Very
likely he had been struck by the effect in some statue by
another artist in rapid motion, such as the torso of Nike, which
we must soon consider, and tried to imitate the effect without
remembering the motive that justified it. This slant is a
peculiarity also to be observed in O and in K.
While we are considering the treatment of the drapery in
this class, it will be best to refer to the Nike just mentioned,
which is by far the most remarkable example. Itis an extremely
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. 171
interesting early study of drapery under the influence of quick
motion. Large oblong holes in the back of the figure show the
places where the wings were once fixed, and e very fold is curved
Fie. 4.—J,
by the wind of their motion. Here we find the strongest
striving to express speed in the lines of the drapery. The
statue flies along towards the right of the spectator. In many
12 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
details great success is attained, but not in the general tendency
and harmony of the whole drapery. Thus the skirts float away
to the spectator’s left, the folds on the breast curve to his right,
and some bits hang undisturbed. But in spite of this, the whole
effect must have been very fine, and in many details the treat-
ment is more advanced than in any other of the Acropolis
statues. But it is full of inconsistencies and inadequacies, such
as were likely to attend an early and bold attempt to represent
floating drapery. When the artist felt confident, he has often
produced an excellent piece of work, though sometimes it does
not harmonise with the general system of the drapery or the
result of the motion: but when he was timid, he fell back on
the old conventional treatments, which have thus a strangely
incongruous effect."
The treatment of the drapery has led us into a digression
from the typical examples of the transitional class, to which we
must now recur. In the treatment of the hair on the top of the
head, J, O, and KX again show a marked similarity; in all three
the circular area within the stephane is divided into four
quadrants, in each of which the wavy lines are paral'el, so as to
produce an appearance of radiation from the centre. But in
each case the hair on the forehead is treated in a different
manner ; this seems always to have been a field in which an
artist tried to display his originality, so that hardly two of all
the statues found are alike. In X, moreover, the tresses that
descend over the breast are treated ditferently, with a spiral,
screw-like, arrangement, perhaps a reminiscence of bronze
technique, which is also indicated by the fact that the tresses
are worked free between head and shoulder. The treatment of
the hair above the forehead in J is of interest, as it is found also
in the most perfect example of the third period, Z, and in the
intermediate type P—a wavy arch in the middle, overlaid by a
descending curve over each temple.
In type of face and figure, J seems to combine the character-
istics of the two distinct types which we observed in the earliest
period : of the other transitional statues, H seems rather to tend
towards a massive dignity that may be the outcome of the class
1 This Nike forms the subject of a 1886, pp. 375 qq. The above para-
very important article by Prof. Petersen, graph was written before that article
just published in the Mitth. ἃ. ἃ. Inst., had appeared.
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. 173
denoted Ja; while K has more of the angular delicacy that
belongs to Jb. H and K have, however, one peculiarity in
common, that the eyes were inserted. In the case of H the
erystal still remains, though damaged in surface. The eyes of
K have lost their filling; but the peculiar hollow remains; the
whole space within the outline of the lids being uniformly cut
out to a depth of about τῆς in.,so that the lower surface is parallel
to what the outc. would have been.
One other example of this class must be noticed, P, the
statue discovered on March 10, 1887. It is mentioned in this
place because in the rounded forms of the face, and in the
treatment of eyes and hair, it approaches more nearly than any
other to Z. But it is in some other respects, especia!ly in the
treatment of the drapery, less advanced than many that we have
already considered. The lines of the mouth are peculiar, not
exactly like any other of the statues found ; but they seem to show
rather a refinement of the type we have already seen in Ja, than
of the richer and fuller furms which seem more characteristic of
archaic Attic work; perhaps here, too, we may see a tendency
towards the more perfect type, in which the exaggerated but
lively forms are not discarded, but softened to a delicacy worthy
of the best period.
III. Early fine Attic, Z. This class has only one repre-
sentative specimen among the recently-discovered statues; but
we have no cause to complain, for that one specimen is of such
extreme excellence and in so wonderful preservation! that this
class is really, as we could wish, the most adequately rep:e-
sented. The head of the statue Z is, indeed, one of the most
perfect and beautiful specimens of original Greek marble work
that is now extant; as such it seems strange that it has not
hitherto attracted more notice. We know that it was in marble
especially that the eailly Athenian masters excelled; and that
it was by the inheritance of their tradition that Praxiteles
acquired the most perfect treatment of marble that was ever
known, now happily exemplified to us by a masterpiece from
the sculptors own hand. But of his predecessors we know
1 Especially as to surface, the tip of 50 that it is impossible to say much as
the nose is gone ; otherwise the head is ἰὸ the treatment of drapery.
perfect. All below the waist is lost,
174 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES,
little from extant monuments. Neither architectural sculptures
nor the work of handicraftsmen could supply adequate illus-
trations of this early Attic marble work. And from the pre-
Persian period we had only one work whose execution and
artist’s signature made it an exception—the stele of Aristocles.
This work was indeed invaluable ; and the most instructive use
was made of it by Brunn. Yet it was only a relief, and thus
could only give partial information as to the work of the same
school in free sculpture. Hence a statue which bears even
more unmistakably the stamp of a master’s own handiwork
deserves to be studied with the utmost care, and to occupy the
most prominent place in any future attempt to estimate the
influence and the attainments of the early Attic school of marble
sculptors.
It can hardly be disputed that we are justified in regarding
the statue as a typical example of the work of this school: but
it is perhaps as well to briefly review the grounds on which such
a supposition is based. It is borne out*alike by the evidence of
extant monuments and by that of literary tradition. The
evidence of the former has already in part been indicated in
what has been said of the other statues of the series that finds
in this work its highest perfection. In the treatment of
drapery, Z preserves the same scheme, even some of the same
conventional inadequacies that are apparent in the rest: the
hair too, though worked with the utmost care and delicacy, has
still the somewhat conventional arrangement that we have seen
elsewhere. But it is in the expression of the face that both the
similarity of treatment and the wonderful advance in feeling and
in effect are most evident. The lively and pleasant, but some-
times exaggerated, smile has been ennobled and idealised here
into a σεμνὸν καὶ λεληθὸς μειδίαμα, as of a half-conscious
delight in its own perfection: and this is tinged also with an
almost melancholy, half-pathetic, expression, such as has often
before been noticed in the greatest masterpieces of Attic art.
These are things which cannot be described, but they are well
enough known to all who have looked with care and apprecia-
tion at the few original works that we now possess. But it is
not only with the series ou the Acropolis that this face shows an
idealised affinity. The face of Aristion, as represented by
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. = 175
Aristocles! upon the stele we have already more than once had
occasion to refer to, is the one work that more than any other
produces on the spectator the same impression as does the
statue Z. In detail too the resemblance can be traced. The
eye in both cases is the most inadequate part of the work : in
both cases it is the mouth in which the expression mostly lies.
The delicate lines of the mouth of Aristion (always unsatis-
factorily reproduced in illustrations) are well known; and the
mouth of the statue Z is worked in exquisitely rounded curves,
and with a softness and care in the modelling which it would
not be easy to match. This is a point which is of con-
siderable significance, as we shall see when looking at the
literary evidence. Yet another thing is common to these two
early Attic works: in both alike we see a technique distinctively
adapted to work in marble, as in hardly any other example
that we now possess —excepting, of course, the Praxitelean
Hermes, also in Parian marble. There is a delicate roundness
of modelling and a play of light and shade upon the surface
that would be completely lost in any other material: thus it is
impossible to obtain any notion of the impression produced by
the stele of Aristocles from a cast, just as it is of the Hermes.
I know no other works that suffer as much as these from such a
manner of reproduction, and a cast could give but a very faint
notion of the Acropolis statue, for the same reason. Hence it is
clear that our knowledge not only of early Attic art, but also
of the highest perfection of Greek work in marble, will be
increased by the new discoveries.
If we turn next to literary tradition, our evidence, though but
scanty, tends again to prove that in the best of the Acropolis
statues we find the most typical specimens of a really Attic art.
Of the style of Attic sculptors before the time of the Persian
wars we hear little or nothing. But of the time immediately
before Pheidias our information is more abundant; above all the
names of Calamis and of Myron stand forth conspicuous. But
though Myron doubtless conformed in many respects to the Attic
type, he was not a native Athenian ; he was a pupil of the Argive
1 The possibility that Aristocles was which he and other early Attic masters
connected with Aristion, andsoaParian worked. And it was in Attic soil and
by origin, hardly affects the question. ἴῃ the Attic climate that it reached its
For his art was imported to Athens perfection.
from Paros, as much as the marble in
176 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ΑΒΟΠΑΙΟ SCULPTURES.
Ageladas, and he worked almost exclusively in bronze, never in
marble. For the same reason the dry and muscular work of Critius
and Nesiotes has little connexion with our present discussion. It
is Calamis, then, who is the representative in literary tradition of
the highest attainments of the Attic school of marble sculptors,
distinguished for the grace and delicacy of their style. And
there were certain characteristics of the work of Calamis that
were never surpassed by his successors. Hence even in an age
when all the refinements of art had been exhausted by the
various masters that came after him, it was still to Calamis that
the critic went back for the highest perfection of expression in
the face, and more especially in the treatment of the mouth.
This often-quoted passage of Lucian is most important to us
in connexion with the judgment just expressed as to the same
feature in the most beautiful of the Acropolis statues. Selecting
for his eclectic statue the most beautiful points from all the
greatest works known, he says, ἡ Lwodvépa te καὶ Κάλαμις
αἰδοῖ κοσμήσουσιν αὐτὴν, καὶ TO μειδίαμα σεμνὸν Kal λεληθὸς
ὥσπερ τὸ ἐκείνης ἔσται. As one reads these words it is im-
possible not to call to mind the Acropolis statue, which they
seem to describe far more exactly than any other work of art
that we know. Of course that statue is not the Sosandra, nor
is there any sufficient evidence for attributing it to the hand of
Calamis. But it certainly does seem to approach far nearer
than anything we knew before to his work; it is the most
perfect example extant of the school of which he was recog-
nised as the most representative sculptor; and it dates trom a
time that coincides with the earlier years of his artistic activity,”
the beginning of the fifth century. The altar adduced by
Overbeck ® as probably containing figures of Hermes Criophorus
and Aphrodite derived from the works of Calamis, affords an
indication of similar import: the face of the Aphrodite is much
worn; but that of the Hermes distinctly resembles, especially in
the expression of the mouth, the stele of Aristocles; and we
have already noticed the affinity of that work to the Acropolis
statue ZL. Hence it is clear that, though we might wish our
evidence to be clearer and more decisive, its general tendency
1 Tinagg. 6. the eighties in Olympiads.
2 So Overbeck, Gesch. d. Gr. Pl. 3 Op. cit. p. 219, inadequately re-
p. 217, the seventies and beginning of produced.
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. 177
cannot be mistaken. It would be rash to assert that in this
statue we have a work from the hand of Calamis himself; but
we shall not be going beyond what our attested knowledge will
justify, if we assume that it is really a typical example of the
best work of the school to which he belonged, at the time when
he was already becoming the chief representative of the Attic
art of marble sculpture. And if this view be correct, it must
henceforth take its place not only as one of the most perfect
examples of marble work that we possess, but also as affording
the most valuable and indispensable evidence as to the early
history of art in Athens and Greece.
There are certain questions in connexion with the statues now
in the Acropolis Museum that can best be considered separately,
as they are for the most part common to the whole series, and
it is simpler thus to look at them in a connected manner than
to notice each indication as we meet it in each individual
case.
It would be tedious to discuss all these questions in detail,
especially without more numerous and elaborate plates than
we have now before us; but some of them are of so great
interest that they must be briefly mentioned, at least in
their more general aspects. For the sake of clearness it will
be as well to number them, and then to consider them in turn ;
they are :—
(1) The use of insertions, marble and metal.
(2) The drapery and its treatment.
(3) The use of colour.
(4) The subjects represented.
(1) This is not a matter that need detain us very long. The
commonest case of an insertion in marble is the lower arm from
the elbow, when it is bent at right angles; this is a part
frequently inserted in all statues; but the manner of fixing
calls for notice: the part to be inserted has a long wedge-like
end to fit into the socket made to receive it; a circular hole is
then drilled through socket and wedge, and it is secured by a
closely-fitting peg of marble. Sometimes the tresses hanging
over the breast in front have the portion between the ear and
the shoulder made separately and affixed. Sometimes the tresses
are lengthened by hanging ends that are fixed by pegs upon the
H.S.—VOL. VIII. N
178 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
breast. M. Cavvadias asserts! that sometimes the head, and
frequently the feet and legs from the middle of the shin-bone,
were made of a difierent piece of marble and joined: this he
explains by the fact that the material, being Parian marble, was
imported. Hence it would be valuable, and the transport of
large blocks would be as much as possible avoided. .
The use of bronze insertions as ornaments, both in the head-
dress and elsewhere, will cause no surprise. But one very
peculiar insertion is found in many (not, as is sometimes stated,
in all) of the statues. This is a straight spike of bronze, which
is fixed vertically in the middle of the crown of the head. It is
hard to find a better explanation of this than the one mentioned
by M. Cavvadias, that the spike served to support the disk which
we know to have been used to protect statues in the open air
from rain and other accidents; the rich colouring of these
statues would make such a protection especially necessary in
their case. , Perhaps an analogy may be here suggested. Terra-
cotta figurines, as is well enough known, often wear, balanced as
it were on the top of their heads, a little flat disk, rising to a
point above: this is worn by figures who are already veiled, and
so need no hat; and it does not fit as a hat, nor could it possibly
stop on the head, if used as one, in the slightest wind or motion.
It seems that this disk is merely a survival;? a reminiscence of
that used to protect statues in the open air, reproduced in
figurines which needed no such protection. If so, it may give
us some notion of the appearance and shape of those disks.
Except the spike that supported them, they were probably
not made of bronze, but of wood or some other perishable
material. For no remains of them have been found; and,
moreover, the drippings from a bronze disk would be likely
to damage and discolour a statue more than the rain that it
kept. off.
Bracelets are in two or three cases worked in the marble
itself, and painted in imitation of bronze, not added in bronze,
as we might have expected.
(2) The drapery of the Acropolis statues gives rise to so many
and so difficult questions that it is impossible to fully discuss it
1 Musées d’ Athénes, pt. 1. the case of the terra-cotta; but I
° This suggestion is so obvious that do not remember having seen it any-
it has probably been already made in where.
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES 119
here, without swelling this paper to an inconvenient bulk. And
moreover it cannot be treated separately from that of similar
archaic statues or statuettes found on every site of early
Hellenic civilization. Hence the only possible course is to
reserve it for consideration on some future occasion; only it is
to be observed that no account of Greek dress in any existing
handbook is sufficient to explain more than a very small number
of the schemes and arrangements on which the earliest archaic
artists delighted to exercise their ingenuity, and which their
successors or imitators often reproduced without understanding
or intelligence. For the present it must suffice to notice a few
of the simplest and commonest arrangements, and to see how
they were rendered in sculpture.
The chiton represented, whether it be covered by an upper
garment or not, is in every case the Ionic, not the Doric; that
is to say, it is elaborately made up into a dress, and is not
merely an oblong piece of material draped upon the body and
secured only by brooches. The sleeves are sometimes loose, some-
times close-fitting, and they are often decorated with elaborate
borders. Similar borders or lines of ornamentation are often
found on other parts of the dress, not only round the neck and
along the edges, but down the middle of the front. The most
usual over-garment is of the ordinary himation form, with the
upper edge folded over so as to form a diplois that falls to the
level of the waist; it is frequently passed under the left arm
and obliquely across the breast, and is then fastened with a
succession of brooches upon the right shoulder and upper arm.
But sometimes, in Α΄ for instance, instead of being allowed to
hang beneath the left arm, it is drawn up tight in front and
behind, and fastened with a brooch upon the left shoulder also.
If so arranged, it clearly differs in no essential respect from the
so-called Doric chiton; and in any case this upper garment is
girt round the waist, beneath the diplois, and is ornamented not
only with borders but with a line of decoration down the middle
of the front; this line often descends from the middle of the
virdle, and then rises in a curve to the left hand that holds
up the drapery. These details are of considerable interest,
since they seem to indicate that the rigid distinction between
chiton and himation is hardly to be observed ; or that, if it be
observed, the garment commonly known as the Doric chiton is
N 2
180 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
to be regarded as, in origin at least, not a chiton at all, but
rather an ἐπίβλημα than an ἔνδυμα.
The upper and the under-garment are usually of different
materials. The upper is as a rule of a stuff that falls in broad
smooth folds, but is hght enough to hang very gracefully. The
under-garment is, on the other hand, almost always represented
as offering the peculiar crinkly surface of zigzag lines that is
often found upon archaic sculptures. This surface is rendered
in various ways ; it is instructive to notice the various sections
that it offers, here roughly reproduced,
Amt AE K
mim im BDBDHLP
Ty Le Cc
myn ΝΟ
There is a texture still made and worn in Greece in which
threads of a different material are inserted at intervals in the
woof; and this, when a little worn, is drawn up so as to present
a crinkly surface just like that represented in these early statues.
It seems hardly improbable that to represent some similar
material may have been the intention of the sculptor.
There is one peculiarity that is common to almost all the
statues—the treatment of the folds that radiate from the clasps
upon the shoulders. These are treated exactly alike both in the
under and the upper garment, in spite of the difference of
material, and this fact is quite in accordance with the con-
ventional and unintelligent treatment of the folds themselves
one can bardly deny that they are the weakest point in the
whole work. On each side of each clasp or brooch three or four
thin lines of zigzag diverge, either to lose themselves in the
plain surface, or to join into a system of crinkly surface that is
often quite at variance with the rest of the drapery. These
folds evidently offered a dittculty that was not met by original
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. 181
observation, but avoided by a blind adherence to the old and
conventional method of rendering them. It is singular that
this characteristic should survive even in work that is otherwise
thorough and careful in every detail.
One more difficulty can hardly be now passed over ; this is the
very curious scheme of drapery which we see in A and in NV; in
other cases, such as / and P, it again recurs, but is obscured by
a veil drawn across the back and shoulders ; it is found also in
the well-known seated Athena, and in a small statue in the
Acropolis Museum (now numbered 281), which perhaps affords a
clue to the meaning of the arrangement in the other instances.
Here the position of the figure and the arrangement of the
drapery are apparently the same as may be seen in J ; but there
are important differences. The line of division between the
crinkled and the smooth drapery is not, as in A, continued
round the back ; but it rises from the left hand in gentle curves
towards the elbows, and gradually becomes less marked as it
rises; and these curves are not even symmetrical on the two
sides. At the back, which is however but roughly worked, the
garment seems coritinuous from head to foot. Hence it would
seem that only a single garment is meant to be represented,
both in this case and in the others; were there two, it is hard
to see how the garment visible on the legs is held up, if it be
over the other. or if the garment visible on the body be the
outer one, its shape is incomprehensible. If then only one
garment be represented, the difference in treatment between the
upper and lower part is due to the fact that in the lower part
it is strained tight by the hand that draws it together in front,
and so is prevented from assuming the crinkled appearance
that it presents when, as in the upper part here, it is allowed to
hang loose.
These are but a few of the more difficult and important
questions that we meet in the drapery of the Acropolis statues ;
but it is hardly possible here to go into more detail on this
subject, which really requires a separate treatment, both from
the point of view of art and from that of the history of
dress.
(3) One of the most important acquisitions gained from the
Acropolis statues is the light thrown upon the vexed question
of the application of painting to sculpture among the Greeks.
13. RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
Much baseless theorising has been written upon this matter,
both by those who defended the practice, and by such as found
it at variance with their taste. The use and the preservation of
the colour on the recently-found statues has perhaps attracted
more attention than anything else about them; and so, its
importance being already fully recognised, we need only add a
few remarks as to its principles.
Colour is never applied in mass to a broad flat surface; thus
neither the flesh nor the whole surface of the drapery are
tinted, but they are left in the pure whiteness of the marble,
relieved only with painted details and ornaments. The only
exceptions are the hair, which was always of a uniform reddish-
brown colour, and occasionally the under-garment; but this
was only painted over its whole surface when but a small part
of it showed, so that the extent of the colour was very limited.
Thus in the case of # it is dark green, in J dark purple; but in
neither case does much of its extent show. In other cases,
beside the borders in the places already referred to, we some-
times find the whole surface dotted with stars or other orna-
ments. The stephane also is generally painted. The commonest
designs are the maeander and the palmetto. The colours most
used are dark-green and dark-purple; red and blue are also
found. In the nude parts, we tind red applied to the lips and
the iris of the eye; the eyebrows, the outlines of the eyelids and
the iris, and the pupil, are sometimes coloured with a dark
pigment.
But it is in the general effect and the impressson produced
upon the eye that the chief interest lies: for it has hitherto
been impossible to judge of the real appearance of the Greek
coloured sculpture of the best period, of which so much has
been written. When the colour is thus applied, so as in no
way to obscure the modelling or to hide the texture of the
marble, there results a richness and harmony of effect that plain
white marble would not possess: this will, I think, be admitted
by any unprejudiced spectator. There is not the slightest
tendency to the revolt of modern taste such as is felt when we
see a completely coloured cast:! for it is the suspicion of
inferior material and the hiding of the true surface that most
offends us. From the Acropolis statues these objections are
1 E.g. the tinted cast of the Parthenon frieze at the Crystal Palace.
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. 188
entirely removed ; in them the colouring adds to the effect of
the sculpture, but takes nothing from it.
(4) One question remains which can be neither ignored nor
answered. Whom do these statues represent? A goddess or a
human being? And what goddess, or what human being? The
external evidence seems at first sight clear enough: the statues
were found on the Acropolis of Athens, together with dedica-
tions to Athena: hence those who give great weight to such
evidence will probably assert that they represent that goddess.
But few if any archeologists who have carefully studied these
statues, and who are also familiar with the Athena type in
Greek art, will be satisfied with such an explanation. The
head of Athena found on the Acropolis is typical, and is as
different from these as possible: even Athena Ergane could
hardly change her nature when she lays aside her warlike attri-
butes. But it is easier to reject this view than to substitute
another forit. Of the type it is not so hard to speak. Its gradual
development can be traced in a now numerous series of examples,
which show that it originated in the primitive representations
of a great female goddess, often spoken of as the later Greek
Aphrodite. The Aphrodite type is still unmistakable in some
‘of the Acropolis statues, notably in C; yet it would be rash to
assert that they represent Aphrodite. For the type was often in
early times transferred from the goddess to her worshippers, who
thus dedicated to her their own images ; this is clear at Cyprus,
and perhaps at Naucratis, where many such female figures were
found dedicated in the temple of Aphrodite; and some male
figures also, one of a hunter with his spoils. So priestesses
and worshippers, as well as goddesses, were thus represented and
dedicated ; the statues would not be portraits, but variations on
the original type. But until more decisive evidence be found,
it is impossible to come to any definite decision. One inscribed
pedestal, with a statue that certainly belonged to it, would
decide the question; and while there is still hope of such a
discovery, it need cause no surprise that archeologists hesitate
to venture an opinion that may next day be refuted by indis-
putable evidence. Meanwhile we must be content to leave the
matter in doubt; only holding, for help in our appreciation of
the statues, to the opinion that seems least at variance with our
knowledge of established styles and types. Whatever may have
184 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
been the intention of the artist, his work was, at least in out-
ward form, connected with a series with which we are familiar.
And thus we shall be able the better to appreciate his progress
and his attainments in art.
In the preceding section of this paper an attempt has been
made to indicate what we may learn from the statues recently
found on the Acropolis as to the early history of Attic art, and
to estimate their value as examples of archaic sculpture. But
they have hitherto been considered only in their relation to one
another. It is necessary also to regard them as representing
one of the many schools that were active in the age of growth
and development—and of a school that exercised a very great
influence on its contemporaries and successors, yet was hitherto
but very imperfectly known to us. This influence could not
previously be certainly defined or accurately estimated : and now
that we have gained some notion of the history and tendencies
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES, 185
of early Attic art, it will be as well to make a brief review of
other archaic schools that seem ‘to have been connected with it
or to have felt its influence. In this way we shall also have an
opportunity of noticing other works of archaic sculpture that
have been found either on the Acropolis or on other sites.
Especially important among the latter is the temple of Apollo
Ptous in Beeotia, where the French excavations, conducted by
M. Maurice Holleaux, have brought to light some extremely
interesting statues and heads.
One of these heads (Fig. 5) shows so little affinity with any
known style, and is of such excessively primitive workmanship,
that it may best be treated separately before we proceed to any
classification. It is represented in the Bulletin for 1886, Pl. V.,
from which our figure is reproduced. The very extraordinary
appearance of this work is obvious at first glance; all the
effect is produced by flat intersecting planes and mere cuts in
the surface of the stone, in no way shaped or rounded off. The
nose is formed merely by intersecting planes, with no attempt
to indicate the natural structure ; the mouth is little more than
a long shapeless slit. These planes and cuts may be the work of
a man used to working in wood; but perhaps another possibility
is worth considering. In general appearance, especially of the
nose, eyes, and mouth, this head strongly reminds one of some
of the Mycenz gold masks.1_ Of course we cannot assume any
artistic or typical connexion between the two; but if the
resemblance in appearance be a coincidence, that appearance is
perhaps due to the same cause in both cases. Now the Mycenw
masks were formed simply by beating a thin plate of metal
into a certain shape: this same process was, as we know, used
by some early Greek artists in making the bronze statues known
as σφυρήλατα, or ‘hammered out’ in plates. May not the
head found by M. Holleaux preserve the characteristics of this
primitive metal technique? If so, it is of great interest, as
giving us some information as to a class of early works of
statuary of which we had hardly any knowledge before. This
suggestion is made with all reserve; but the head has so little
resemblance to the specimens we have bitherto regarded as pre-
serving the characteristics of other early methods of working,
1 The similarity is not in style or seem to depend mostly on the material
expression, but only in such detailsas and the éechnigue.
16 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
that it seems worth while to consider all the possible explanations
of its peculiarity.
Leaving this head out of our account, as being quite isolated
in character, we may now proceed with our more general sketch,
and assign other new examples to their due places as we go on.
In the earliest works of Greek sculpture that we possess, it
seems possible to notice two types, distinct in countenance
and expression. It is not easy to assign either to any particular
schools; but in the period when artists wandered so often from
place to place, it may be admissible to recognise a tendency
without giving to it ‘a local habitation and a name. The two
types referred to we may roughly distinguish as the stolid type
and the grinning type. The first is the natural result of an
early realistic art, copying what it sees before it, perhaps in a
model tired by long sittings and a fixed attitude; the second as
naturally results from an attempt to avoid lifelessness by the
addition of a ‘pleasing expression,’ which only result in a
grimace.? Instances of either will occur in plenty: of the
stolid type the best known and most representative is the
so-called ‘Apollo of Orchomenus’: of the grinning type we
may mention the Hera of Olympia, the winged figure some-
times identified as the Nike of Archermus,’ the ‘ Apollo’ statues
of Tenea and of Thera.
For the sake of clearness, it is perhaps as well to state here
by anticipation the later development of these types, as it will
1 Part of the face has stains of bronze.
This might seem to indicate it was ori-
ginally covered with σφυρήλατα bronze
plates. But there are no signs of the
attachment of them, such as we should
in that case expect to find.
2 These two types are curiously
enough illustrated by photography,
which mechanically reproduces the
realism of a pri nitive art.
3’ Though the highest authorities
have decided against the connexion of
this figure with the Archermus pedestal,
I venture to think the evidence for
this identification is at least as strong
as that for many others now accepted.
Whether Archermus himself called the
winged figure Nike is another question.
As to the size of the base, which is
thought too small for the statue, thie
following measurements seem conclu-
sive. Ina precisely similar sinall figure
in the Acropolis the height is 34 inches,
the breadth from foot to foot 24, the
length of the part inserted in the
pedestal is only 14, for both feet are
left free in the air, as in flight. The
figure is supported by the drapery only.
The height of the Archermus figure was
about 40 in., the length of the hole in
the pedestal 13 in. (Since writing the
above note, I see that Prof. Petersen
(Mitth. d. d. Inst. 1886, p. 386) has,
on the same grounds, connected the
Archermus basis with the winged figure
from Delos: his thorough discussion
may be held to settle the question
finally. )
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. 181
be traced and exemplified in the following pages. The first, or
stolid, type is represented by G among the statues found on the
Acropolis, and by the life-size statue found at the temple of
Apollo Ptous: it seems not to have been so popular as the other
for a time, but to have persisted till it was filled with life and
idealised in the finest period. This improvement must have
been gradual; we see the transitional period in M of the
Acropolis; but it took place without passing through the stage
of the so-called archaic smile. Finally it became the prevalent
type of the schools independent of the Attic; we see its direct
descendants in the works of Pythagoras of Paros and of
Rhegium,! and of the Argive school.
The second, or grinning, type had a more varied history. It
was adopted in a more refined form by the Aeginetan ani
Attic schools; and was especially, as we have seen, by the latter
filled with a meaning and expression that it originally had not.
The success of the Attic artists led to the spread of Attic
influence; and hence we find elsewhere imitations that often
fail to reproduce the life of the Attic models they strive to
follow. Some interesting specimens of these imitations have
been found, again at the temple of Apollo Ptous; and to them
inay perhaps be added a stele from Abdera.
This brief outline must now be filled in by a description of the
newly-found examples, most of which have already been referred
to. The statue G, as has already been said, is totally different
from all the others found with it upon the Acropolis, and is
made of a different marble. The subject is a female figure,
who holds an apple or pomegranate to her breast in her left
hand—a common archaic type. It certainly is not a product of
Attic art. The eyes are small and flat, the lips simply drawn in
incised outline; the mouth quite straight; thus it is very weak
and lacking in character, The hair is rendered by shallow wavy
lines in front; at the back it is blocked out in squares. The
drapery is also indicated by parallel shallow lines, only varying
slightly in their distance apart according to the texture repre- .
sented: in arrangement and treatment it resembles that of thie
column-like figure found at Samos: but as that figure lacks its
head, the comparison cannot be carried farther. The whole
1 Assuming Dr. Waldstein’s identi- to be correct. If so it seems a I’asi-
fication of the ‘Apolloon the Omphalus’ _ telean copy.
18 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
seems to show very timid work; and all effects are gained by
very slight and diffident touches. The general forms are care-
fully shaped, and their details are added by the most shallow
lines or modelling. The effect is painfully weak, in contrast
Fic, 6,
to the bold, often-exaggerated Attic work by which it is sur-
rounded. In our dearth of exact knowledge as to other early
styles, it seems inadvisable at present to assign this statue more
definitely to any local school.’
1M. Cavvadias at first suggested its
connexion with Theodorus ; but he
has now given up that view, and as-
sociates it with Archermus, ’Ed. ’Apx.
1886. But for this latter view also
the evidence is by no means conclusive ;
there is no resemblance to the Nike
which, as we have seen, probably is
the work of Archermus.
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. 189
Our next example, the life-size statue found by M. Holleaux
at the temple of Apollo Ptous (Fig. 6), belongs to a well-known
series ; it takes its place, in the history of art as in the Museum
at Athens, beside the ‘ Apollo’ statues of Thera and Orchomenus.
A comparison of the three is very interesting. The ‘Apollo’!
of Palagia—for we may conveniently name the recently-found
statute, like the others, after the place where it was found—is
in general proportion nearest to that of Thera, but it has even
rounder and slighter forms. The face is of an evenly rounded
oval shape, without any marked projections in outline: the
highest points of the arches of the eyebrows are nearer together
than in the ‘Apollo’ of Thera, the eyes are more almond-
shaped. The mouth, though it has not the brutal stolidity of
the ‘Apollo’ of Orchomenus, is quite straight and absolutely
lacking in expression—a great contrast to the broad grin of tlic
Theracan figure: in this feature the ‘ Apollo’ of Palagia strongly
resembles the statue G on the Acropolis.
All the forms of the body have a more marked downward
curve than is to be noticed in the other two ‘ Apollo’ statues.
The play of the muscles at the lower part of the chest is clearly
but slightly marked; owing to the state of the surface they can
now be seen only if caught in outline from the side. Below
them the front of the body is not so flat as in the Theraean
statue, but is well rounded. No muscles are distinguished, and
thus we have a marked contrast to the strange and exaggerated
ribbed surface of this part in the ‘Apollo’ of Orchomenus.
The back is only roughly finished, and here again we find a
contrast to the other Boeotian figure, which is in this part most
carefully finished. The form of the arms is rather peculiar, as
two of the surfaces form a sharp angle where they meet, close to
the side; but this is perhaps only due to the position, as there
is only a narrow opening between the arms and the body in this
place. On the outside of the elbow is a decided hollow, but it
is marked in the flesh, not in the skin, as in the case of the
‘Apollo’ of Orchomenus.
On the whole, this new statue is decidedly more advanced than
either of its two fellows, yet it does not much resemble the
1 The name ‘ Apollo,’ usually applied adopt it. But it is by no means free
to these statues, is so firmly established from doubt. See below.
in usage that it is almost necessary to
1909 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES.
‘Apollo’ of Tenea; in the treatment of the face, especially, it
is totally different. Thus it serves to fill a gap between the
early ‘ Apollo’ figures we before knew and the athlete statue of
the more perfect art that succeeded.
The discovery of one of these ‘Apollo’ statues in the sacred
precinct of Apollo Ptous is of great importance : it seems to make
untenable the theory that these figures stood upon graves as
portraits of the deceased: but they may still be athlete statues ;
such were usually erected in the precinct of the god in whose
honour the contest had taken place. Here, as in the case of the
female statues on the Acropolis, it is as yet impossible to decide
whether the statues represent a divine or a human personage.
The next example before us is that denoted as 77 among the
Acropolis statues. This seems to be the product of an art
quite as highly developed as that of Z, but of a totally different
kind. The face and figure seem younger and more girlish.
The face certainly does not seem to be of an Attic type; it
has a low brow, and rather strong and angular forms; the
eyes are long and narrow, and the ridge of the eyelids
strongly projects: the line of the mouth is nearly straight,
but slightly depressed towards the corners, and thus is gained
the half-contemptuous expression that we often see in fifth
century work of other schools than the Attic. The drapery
is very peculiar, Where it is thin, it can hardly be dis-
tinguished in texture from the nude: where of thicker
material, it lies in very broad, smooth folds, almost devoid of
any indication of texture. On the thin chiton, over the breast
and the left shoulder, is a very peculiar ornamentation—a
frieze of chariots and horses. These are drawn very freely in
dark outline, and sometimes filled in with red colour, This
decoration is again in marked contrast with the exclusively con-
ventional ornaments found upon the dresses of the Attic statues.
The work we see in this statue is perhaps more surprising than
that in any of the others found with it, if it really belong to a
date before 480 B.c.
One more head must be here mentioned—the remarkable
small bronze in the Acropolis Museum, reproduced in Les Musces
d’ Atheénes, Pl. XVI. In expression this is not unlike 77; but it
bears a strong resemblance to the Apollo of the West Pediment
at Olympia. ‘The significance of this resemblance cannot here
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. 191
be followed out; it is enough to say that neither this head nor
that found at Olympia bears any resemblance to the type we have
in this paper regarded as Attic; they seem rather to belong to
the other of the two great classes we have noticed.
We must now pass on to the second of these great classes—
the class which starts from the archaic smile, turns it from a
grimace into an expression, and thence derives its more perfect
type. To the primitive specimens of this class belongs a small
marble head in the Acropolis Museum, which even in details
resembles closely the Hera of Olympia, thus affording another
example of the wanderings of early artists, or the wide pre-
valence of carly types. The two great schools which ennobled
and handed on the characteristics of this class were, as has been
said, the Attic and the Aeginetan, To the first of these the
first section of this paper has been devoted. As to the Aeginetan,
a fow words may be here added. The close relation of the
Acginetan artists with Attica is proved both by inscriptions and
by other evidence. A basis, bearing the name of Callon of Elis
as its artist, was previously known; recently another basis has
been found, with the words ᾽Ονώτας ἐποίησεν. Nor are we ouly
tantalised by the bare name which shows that works of the two
great Aeginetan masters existed once on the Acropolis. A life-
size bronze head has been found,? which is so similar to what
we recognise as specimens of Acginetan work, that it can without
hesitation be assigned to the Aeginetan school, perhaps even to
one of its two best-known sculptors. In any case its importance
can hardly be over-estimated. Our previous knowledge of the
famous Aeginetan style was derived mainly from architectural
works, the pedimental figures now at Munich. Now we have
the head of an independent statue ; and that too in bronze,® the
material constantly used by Aeginetan artists. Of its charac-
teristics it is not necessary now to speak at length, as they arc
those with which we are already familiar in the Aeginetan
pedimeuts; but here more marked, as the material is that to
which the artists are most accustomed. It is enough to observe
that this head must in future occupy a most prominent place
1 Loewy, Jnschi. gr. Bildh. 27. this bronze, to discover the Aeginetan
5 Reproduced in J/usées d’Athéncs, mixture which Myron preferred to all
Plate xv. others.
> It would be worth while to analyse
192 RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES,
in the account given of the Aeginetan school by any historian
of Greek sculpture.’
Next in order come those works which seem to show a
more or less direct dependence on the Aeginetan and Attic
schools. A remarkable example of these is the statue ”
found by M. Holleaux, with a dedication to Apollo Ptous in-
scribed on the outside of its thighs. In the treatment of the
body there is a resemblance to the Strangford Apollo;* and so
to the Aeginetan sculptors to which the affinity of that statue
is now generally recognised. In the face there is an exaggerated
smile, which is very different from what we have seen in the
earlier examples of Boeotian art; more expression is aimed at,
though hardly attained. This may be also due to the Aeginetan
influence; but the smile seems too strong for such an explana-
tion. It looks more like an unsuccessful attempt to reproduce
the lively expression of contemporary Attic works, In profile
this statue is almost exactly similar to the head of a youth on a
stele from Abdera;* and it is perhaps easiest to trace the
common influence in both cases to Athens.
But however this may be, the Attic influence in a female
head, also found near the temple of Apollo Ptous, is unmistak-
able. Though similar statues are common,’ the resemblances in
detail to the Acropolis statues are too strong for us to deny an
Attic influence; we find the same diadem, the same ear-disks,
the same spike in the top of the head. Yet the work is not
Attic: the smile is copied, but its characteristic life is lost; in
all the forms there is an absence of that delicacy and refine-
ment of feeling that we find in a really Attic statue. Here
then, beyond doubt, we see an attempt by a Boeotian artist to
copy an Attic model: and thus we have a certain proof of the
influence exercised by the Athenian school on its contemporaries.
There are many more statues that might be included in this
notice: but those that have been selected seem to be the most
representative. It is obviously beyond the scope of such a
1M. Cavvadias suggests that this 8 Observed by M. Holleaux, Bul-
head may be the work of Theodorus of — Jeti, loc. cit., but his further inferences
Samos, whose name is found ona basis _are different.
on the Acropolis. 4 Athens, central museum, No. 7.
2 Reproduced in the Bulletin, 1886, > As urged by M. Holleaux, Bul.
Pl. vi. (without the head, which has 1887: he thinks the coincidences may
now been added). be accidental.
RECENTLY DISCOVERED ARCHAIC SCULPTURES. 198
prper as this to attempt a complete or exhaustive enumeration
or discussion of the abundant new material that has been
gained. Our object will have been attained, if we be found to
have given some notion of the importance of last year's dis-
coveries, and at least to have indicated the direction in which
we may hope they will increase our knowledge of the early art
of Greece.
ERNEST A. GARDNER.
H.S.—VoOPL, VI,
19: THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA,
THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.
(Continued from Vol. VIL. page 352.)
2,
(1303—1340.)
§ 33. Disputes between Venetians and Lomblards—In 1303 a
subject of dissension arose between the Republic and the Lom-
bard barons. It was probably about this time that Beatrice da
Verona, who shared the Third of her father Giberto with her
mother Maria, contracted a second marriage with John de Noyers,
Lord of Maisy. Thus John became on his marriage lord of one
Sixth, and as the Sixth of his mother-in-law Maria would revert
on her death to Beatrice, he was prospectively lord of one Third.
Moreover he was practically master for the present of the Sixth
in the north of the island which had belonged to Beatrice’s first
husband Grapozzo, and was administered by her as guardian of
her son Pietro. Hence John de Noyers was in a position to
make his influence felt in Euboia; and being a man of energy
he asserted himself. He assumed an independent attitude
towards Venice.
A demand was made by the Lombard podesta in 1303 on a
Venetian citizen named Meo, who resided in Lombard territory,
to pay taxes. For twenty years he had been a resident in the
island and never been called on to pay them before. The
requisition is very plausibly ascribed by Hopf to the suggestion
of John de Noyers. A dispute arose in consequence, and the
attitude of the Lombards was so hostile that Venice directed
Francesco Dandolo (4 January, 1304) to close the Venetian
THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 195
quarter in Negroponte off from the rest of the town. That the
atfair assumed a really serious aspect is shewn by this measure
and the means they took to execute it. The cost was calculated
at 2,000 hyperpers. This sum was to be contributed by the
Jews, and the 400 hyperpers which formed the salary of each of
the Bailo’s councillors, and was paid by them, was reduced to
300. Before the year 1308 the aspect of the town must have
been somewhat changed as the walls.were erected round the
Venetian quarter, a new street for Jews was built and a Domi-
nican monastery. Considerable care and money was spent on
the Euboian settlement by Venice, and in 1309 proveditori were
sent to report on the state of the island. It was ordained that
the Bailo and one of the councillors should always be within
the walls.
The double government in Euboia was sometimes found con-
venient for shifting blame. It is recorded that in 1309, one
Enrico de Lusani put in at Oreos with a cargo of slaves. The
slaves were disembarked, concealed in the houses of the Tem-
plars, and set free. Enrico, being a citizen of Spigno, laid the
matter before Frederick, king of Sicily, who communicated on
the subject with Venice. That city declined to interfere as Oreos
was not completely Venetian, and directed the appeal to be
made to the Lombard lords, who gave no satisfaction.
The Greek war had been in more than one respect advant-
ageous to Venice. The lords of the islands who had been
dispossessed by the Greeks used to acknowledge the over-
lordship of the dukes of Naxos. When Venice expelled the
Greeks and restored the islands to their Latin lords, the latter
professed allegiance to the Republic. This caused hostilities
between Guglielmo Sanudo, who desired to restore the old
relations, and the island lords with the exception of the Ghisi.
Venice was often obliged to interfere, as indeed the matter more
or less concerned her; privileges entail obligations. Sanudo
imprisoned J. Barozzi; the Republic interfered; he was set
free and sent to Negroponte. In these disputes Sanudo and
Ghisi were for referring to Philip of Savoy, Prince of Achaia, as
the suzerain ofthe Aegean islands, while their opponents desired
to make the Bailo of Negroponte arbitrator.
The general result of all these quarrels was the growth of
Venetian influence in the Aegean.
ο 2
190 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.
δ 34. The Catalan Grand Company—After 1303 Venice had
no occasion to feel much alarm from the Greeks in regard to
Euboia. But about that time a new power appeared in the
East which was destined to occasion it considerable uneasiness
in 1309 and the following years. The mercenaries who had been
employed by the House of Aragon in the wars of Sicily and
Naples were no longer required when the peace of Calatabellotta
had been concluded in 1302, and were let loose on the East,
where they appeared as the Catalan Grand Company in the ser-
vice of the Greek Emperor Andronikos against the Turks under
the leadership of Roger de Flor. Having inflicted perhaps more
injury on their employer than on the foe, they finally quarrelled
with him in consequence of the assassination of their leader.
Roger was succeeded by Berenger d’Entenza who established
himself in Gallipoli, as a basis for pillaging expeditions, and
styled himself ‘By the grace of God Grand-duke of Romania,
lord of Anatolia and the islands of the empire. He was taken
prisoner ina battle with the Genoese and succeeded by Rocaforte.
For two years the company resided at Gallipoli, until they had
reduced to a wilderness all the land between Constantinople and
Selymbria. They were then obliged to move their quarters ; and
as their leaders quarrelled they went westwards in three detach-
ments, under Entenza (who had been released), Rocaforte and
Fernando Ximenes. The members of the company always looked
upon themselves as subjects of Frederick of Sicily, and he always
showed himself interested in their fortunes. 1t was now threat-
ened with dissolution on account of the divided leadership, an
evil which Frederick tried to remedy by appointing his nephew
the Infant Ferdinand of Majorca captain of the company.
Ferdinand visited Negroponte on his way to Gallipoli, and was
well entertained there. He soon discovered that it was quite
impracticable to deal with Rocaforte, and that the problem of
uniting the company was beyond his power, so that he determined
to return to Sicily. It is from this point that the Catalan
expedition begins to affect the affairs of Euboia.
The Catalan expedition was fortunate in the fact that a gifted
historian was in the number of the company ; this advantage it
shared with the Fourth Crusade. Ramon Muntaner resembles
Geffrey Villehardouin in that both were less personally ambitious
and perhaps better than their comrades, and yet neither was too
THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 197
good for the company he was in. Villehardouin’s narration lends
a dignity to the Fourth Crusade which few historians can resist,
even though they should agree with Finlay that the heroes of
1204 were a mere crew of adventurers. Of Muntaner too, it is
hard to say a hard word, though he belonged to a force purely
and recklessly destructive, and yet never appears to doubt that
the company was perfectly justified in their conduct. He attri-
butes its success to two causes; they always attributed the glory
to God, and they always practised justice among themselves.
The second of these causes is a condition of the success of the
unjust as well as of the just, as Plato explains in the Republic ;
and we may concede thus much to the apologists of the Catalan
soldiers, that they were only ‘half-wicked,’ ἡμιμοχθηροί. It is
amusing and in some ways instructive to read the laudations
bestowed by modern Spanish writers on the Catalan heroes. For
example, a monograph, which shows considerable learning,
entitled ‘La Espedicion y dominacidn de los Catalanes en oriente
juzgadas por los Griegos’ by Don Antonio Rubid y Lluch glori-
fies the expedition as a series of exploits of which the Spanish
nation and especially Aragon may be proud.!
As midway between the virulent antipathy of the Greeks and
the partiality of the Aragonese, we may note the simple state-
ment of G. Villani, that under the leadership of Fra Rugieri, a
Knight Templar, a dissolute and cruel man, the Catalan soldiers
proceeded to Romania to conquer lands and ‘si chiamarono la
Compagna, stando e vivendo alla roba d’ ogni huomo.’?
§.35. The infant Ferdinand and Ramon Muntaner at Negro-
ponte-—Accompanied by Muntaner, tiie historian of the expedi-
tion, he set sail from Thasos with four galleys and two boats. He
1 For example (p. 6) he speaks of
‘los secretos de heroisino maravilloso
‘Y casi delito imperdonable de lesa
nacionalidad seria datia X conocer, si
que encierra la conquista del Oriente
por nuestras armas, no menos digna de
admiracion, bajo muchos conceptos que
las immortales expediciones de las Cru-
zadas.’ With less extravagance he
compares the company (p. 7) to Xeno-
phon’s Ten Thousand. Characteristic
of his point of view is the mode in
which he introduces an extract from
the violently anti-Catalan essay of
Theodulos περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιταλῶν καὶ
Περσῶν ἐφόδῳ γεγενημένων. He writes,
por una parte no la devirtuara su estilv
enfatico y declamatorio,’ &c.
* Bk, x. Cap. 50. But we may
readily accept the words of Moncada in
the Proemio to his celebrated history :
‘las quales [fuerzas] fueron tan formid-
ables que causaron temor y asombro ἃ
los mayores principes de Asia y Europa,
perdiciéu y total ruina 4 muchas naci-
ones y provincias y admiracién 4 todo
el mondo.’
108 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.
determined to visit Negroponte, remembering the good enter-
tainment he had received on his outward journey; and they
reached it by Halmyros and Skopelos, where they killed the
inhabitants and plundered their property. At Negroponte they
found ten Venetian galleys which had just arrived under the
command of Giovanni Quirini and Marco Minotto, sailing in
the name of Charles Valois to join the company. The envoy o:
Charles, Thibaut de Cepoy, was also there. En Fernand demanded
and received a safe-conduct from the lords of Negroponte and
likewise from the captains of the galleys. But when he landed
the Venetian galleys attacked the Spanish ships, especially that
of Muntaner who was reported to have untold treasures. They
killed forty men ; Muntaner himself was fortunately ashore with
the Infant. Cepoy then procceded to hand over the prince and
lis attendants to ‘Jean de Nixia, that is Jean de Noyers, tlic
triarch. Jolin sent him to the Duke of Athens, who owing him
a grudge for his behaviour at Halmyros, confined him in tlic
castle of St. Omer at Thebes.
With Muntaner they dealt otherwise. He and one Garcia
(;omeés Palasin, a personal foe of En Rocaforte, were sent back
to the company at Kassandria, the Euboians expecting that both
would be put to death. And Rocaforte was highly pleased to
see both, but for different reasons. Without sentence and in
the presence of all he caused Garcia’s head to be cut off; but
Muntaner was treated by him and by all the company with the
greatest consideration. In the negotiations which followed
between Cepoy and Rocaforte, the latter made it a sine gud non
condition of his alliance with Charles of Valois, that Muntaner’s
property which had been robbed at Negroponte should be re-
stored; the Venetians promised to restore it. Muntaner was
determined to leave the company and did not listen to Cepoy’s
persuasions to remain. He returned to Euboia with the ships
of Quirini, and as soon as he reached Negroponte, John de Noyers
the triarch, Bonifacio de Verona and the Venetian Bailo—the
three most important persons in the island—made a proclamation
that Muntaner’s property, valued at 100,000 gold florins, should
be restored. It proved, however, impossible to recover it ; but
the matter was not forgotten. Fifty years afterwards, as we
learn from a document in the Libri Commemoriali, Muntaner’s
1 Muntaner (Buchon’s version): Jean Tari et Mare Miyot.
THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 199
grand-daughter Valenza, wife of Pasquasio Mazana received as
an indemnity 10,000 gold florins.
Muntaner then proceeded to Thebes to visit the imprisoned
En Fernand.
§ 36. Attitude of the Venetians of Negroponte.—Venice looked
with great suspicion on the Grand Company. Its alarm for
Negroponte had considerable foundation; for Duke Guy II. of
Athens, the next neighbour of the islanders, was well- disposed
to the Catalans, and his friend Bonifacio da Verona, the influential!
Baron of Karystos, was always on friendly terms with the Com-
pany. The Venetians feared that Bonifacio might invite the
Spaniards to Negroponte and make use of them to diminish
the Venetian power.
One of the elements which contributed to the dissolution of
the Company was the want of unity among the leaders. Cepoy
and Rocaforte were now at enmity, and it was the policy of
Venice to keep this enmity alive. At this juncture Venice and
Cepoy coalesced in preventing the projected marriage of Rocaforte
with Jeannette de Brienne, step-sister of Duke Guy. Twice in
1308 was the Bailo of Negroponte warned to keep vigilant guard
against Catalan designs.
A change in the situation was produced by two events. One
of them was the death of Duke Guy and the succession of his
step-brother, Walter of Brienne, to the dukedom; the other was
the arrest of Rocaforte who died in the dungeons of Aversa, and
the consequent assumption of the sole command by Cepoy. He
conducted the Company to Thessaly, where they remained for
a year 1309-1310 at peace with the Thessalians. Benedetto
Falier, Bailo of Negroponte in 1309, received an embassy from
Cepoy proposing a Veneto-Catalan alliance. Here again the
existence of the Lombards in Euboia made an evasive reply easy.
Falier said that he could not conclude a treaty without consulting
G. Ghisi and A. Pallavicini—John de Noyers is not mentioned.
When information in regard to this matter had been received at
Venice, the Bailo was directed to take the most careful pre-
cautions for the safety of the island and to arrange a money
claim of Cepoy—probably the money claimed for Muntaner. The
triarchs, Ghisi and Pallavicini presumably, were ready to pay
two-thirds or half of the amount, and Venice hoped in time to
_ be able to pay the residue also at the cost of the Lombards. But
200 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOLA.
the money was not paid, The directions from Venice to the
Bailo are dated November 29, 1309; and Cepoy, weary of the
Grand Company and despairing of making anything out of it,
had left Greece in September.
The situation is now changed again. After Cepoy’s departure
the Catalans formed themselves into a republican company,
and in the spring of 1310 passed into Boiotia, to serve under
Walter of Brienne, Duke of Athens, who had become acquainted
with the ways and manners of the Catalans in Sicily, and
knew their language. This alliance confirmed Venice in her
distrust; and in the treaty with the Greek Emperor (Nov. 11,
1310) all Venetian Rettori were strictly forbidden to have any
dealings with the Catalans or the lands in which they were
quartered.
§ 37. Butile of Kephisos—The Duke of Athens who had
lired the company for the war in Epeiros obtained some suc-
cesses there, but probably found, as the Emperor had found
before, that the Catalans were troublesome servants. So having
made peace with Anna, the Despoina of Epeiros, he resolved to
dismiss them, and declined to pay the arrears. But the Catalans
were not men to be so easily disposed of; they retired to
Thessaly and prepared for war. Walter on his part made ex-
tensive preparations, and collected seven hundred chosen knights,
incluling Pallavicini and Ghisi, the triarchs of Euboia, and
Bonifacio, Lord of Karystos, and a large army besides. The
battle took place on the plain of Képhisos (March 15, 1311),
and would have resulted in a victory for the Duke, whose army
was far superior, but for the craft of the Spaniards, who, by
means of the waters of Lake Kopais, turned the plain into a
marsh. The knights advanced unsuspectingly on the Catalans
who stood still where they were drawn up, and their steeds sank
in the morass. Then the Spaniards rushed in and massacred
them. Only two survived; Roger des Laux, who had arranged
the negotiations between Walter and the company, and Boni-
facio da Verona, who had always been friendly to the Catalans,
and whose life was preserved as soon as he was recognised.!
1 An old wall fell in the citadel of | these were the arms of the knights
Chalkis in 1840 and an immense num- - slain in this battle, suggesting that
ber of arms was found behind it. they were collected and heaped up as a
Buchon put forward the theory that monument by Bonifacio da Verona. Of
THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 201
The company wanted a leader. Their republican government
did very well while they were in Thessaly ; but now they were
in a more dangerous position, hedged round by foes, and they
concluded that the rule of many was not a good thing. They
offered the command to Bonifacio da Verona, but he prudently
declined it, and Roger des Laux was appointed.
Thus in 1311 Catalan mercenaries were in possession of Attika,
‘Je dilizie de’ Latini, and the next neighbours of Euboia.
§ 38, Schemes of Bonifacio da Verona.—The triarch Giorgiv
Ghisi and the hexarch Alberto Pallavicini had fallen in the
fatal battle of the Képhisos. The son of the former, Barto-
lommeo, inherited half of southern and half of northern Euboia,
and the islands of Ténos and Mykénos; as he was a minor his
mother Alice acted as his guardian. Pallavicini’s widow Maria
married Andrea Cornaro, lord of Skarpanto (Karpathos), in the
following year (1312), and thereby he becaine hexarch of Euboia
and lord of half Bodonitza, the other half of which was the
portion of Maria’s daughter, Guglielma.
The third war in which Euboia was engaged during the
Lombard and Venetian period now approached.
It became apparent to the Venetians that the lord Bonifacio
was scheming to invite into Euboia the Catalans who were now
established in Attica. If we inquire what would probably have
happened had the Catalans conquered the island we may be
able to guess the object of Bonifacio’s design. The Venetians
would have been expelled from it, or at least their influence
would have been annulled; and the island would have been
subject to a Spanish lord, or a lord in the Spanish interest.
Bonifacio himself would have certainly been elected; he hac
already been offered the duchy of Athens; he might then have
become the first Duke of Negroponte. In time Euboia would
probably have become completely Lombard, as Bonifacio (or
his successors) would have doubtless shaken off the Catalans
when they had served his turn, It is at least plain that Boni-
facio’s motive was not a peculiar affection for the Spaniards ;
his object was the expulsion of the Venetians, for which purpose
he planned to make use of the company.
this there is of course no proof, and it arms to Bonifacio, even though he wa
seems improbable, asthe Catalanswould their friend.
have hardly granted all the valuable
202 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.
The Grand Company, which felt itself in a precarious con-
dition and required powerful recognition and assistance against
the enemies by which on all ‘sides it was surrounded—the
Franks of Morea, who had lost many of their best knights in
the battle of Képhisos, the Venetians of Negroponte, the
Angeloi of Epeiros, who remembered their campaign with the
Duke of Athens, the Palaiologoi, who had not forgiven their
behaviour in Thrace—did not forget that they were subjects of
Frederick of Sicily, and asked him to appoint one of his sons
Duke of Athens. He appointed Prince Manfred, who was still
a boy, and sent as his representative Berenger Estatiol to Athens,
who governed the land during the years 1312-1316.
In the meantime Johanna, the widow of Walter of Brienne,
was stirring up hostilities in the west against the new lords of
Attika, and trying to enlist Robert King of Naples, Prince
Philip of Tarentum, and Pope Clement in the interests of her
son Walter. Many negotiations in the west took place, but
they remained negotiations.
The republic of St. Mark did not delay to take measures in
good time for the defence of the island against an only too
possible attack. Money was borrowed in September, 1311, for
this purpose; and in January, 1312, on the appointment of a
new Bailo, Enrico Delfino, it was arranged that the salary of the
Bailo should be increased by 200 hyperpers, and the salaries of
the counsellors by 100 hyperpers, until the affairs of the island
should again run smooth. In the following year more money
was borrowed, and some reserve forces were sent from Crete.
The organisation of a fleet was one of the most important
measures, and in this Venice expected the Lombard barons to
cooperate. Andrea Cornaro, the new hexarch, came to Negro-
ponte in May, 1313, and took an energetic part in concert with
the Bailo for the protection of the island. All the triarchs and
hexarchs, that is, John de Noyers, A. Cornaro, and Alice the
mother of Bartolommeo Ghisi, agreed to contribute their share
to the costs of providing half the fleet.
At this juncture Bonifacio manifested openly his disaffection.
He was asked to contribute his share to the costs of the fleet,
and he refused.
Three other points in which he fell foul of Venice and the
triarchs who were cooperating with Venice are recorded. (1) He
THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 203
claimed a Jewess, doubtless a subject of Venice, as his slave ;
(2) he plundered the ship of Giacomo Buticlaro, which carried
a cargo of barley for the triarchs: in regard to this point
Bonifacio charged Buticlaro with having pillaged in his villages ;
(3) he committed some act of violence against the property or
subjects of Cornaro who revenged himself in kind. These things
took place in the spring and summer of 1313.
The hostile relations between Bonifacio and the other powers
of Euboia seem to have smouldered until 1317 without any
serious outbreak. In the meantime Venice had made anti-
Catalan alliances with the House of Anjou, Fulco Villaret, and
the Pope.
ὃ 39. Venice and the Triarchs at war with the Catalans (1317).
—Berenger Estafiol died in 1316. King Frederick’s illegitimate
son, Alfonso Fadrique, succeeded in 1317 (as Manfred was dead),
and his arrival in Attika at the beginning of the year brouglit
tlie relations with Negroponte to a point.
He inmediately married Bonifacio’s daughter, Marulla da
Verona, a fair girl of sixteen, whom Bonifacio made his heiress,
although he had a son, Tommaso, ‘She is assuredly,’ writes
Muntaner, ‘one of the most beautiful Christians in the world.
I saw her in her father’s house when she was only eight years
old, the time when the lord Infant and myself were imprisoned
and kept in the house of Messire Bonifacio. From the same
authority we learn that she brought her husband thirteen castles
on terra firma in the duchy of Athens, and the third part of the
town of Negroponte and of the island. The latter part of this
statement is due to the false idea that Bonifacio was a terziero.*
As early as March hostilities began. At first the Catalans
were successful; Cornaro, with whom Bonifacio was especially
at enmity, and the Bailo Morosini were forced to conclude a
truce. The enemy then took possession of Chalkis; infantry
and cavalry to the number of 2,000 marched from Boidtia over
the bridge, and having expelled Morosini from the city pro-
claimed Alfonso lord.
1 Moncada, p. 63 (ed. G. Rosell, tuvo en ella muchos hijos, y ella vino
1852), ‘Tenia esta sefiora la tercera ser una de las mujeres mas senaladas
parte de 18 isla de Negroponte y trece de su tiempo, aunque Zurita no siente
castillos en la tierra firme del ducado en esto con Muntaner a quien yo sego.’
de Aténas. El infante don Alonso
204 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.
At this point the triarchs looking about for aid bethought
themselves that Matilda, the princess of Achaia, was their lege
lady. She was then at Andravida, and they sent to beg her
protection. She could only appeal to the Doge to take the most
rigorous measures to preserve the island and dissolve the truce
(March 28). Venice acted with vigour. On July 10 Francesco
Dandolo was named successor to Morosini, and money was
borrowed for the necessary costs.
In the meantime Bonifacio of Karystos, just when he was
beginning to see a chance of the accomplishment of his favourite
design, died. Alfonso was acknowledged in Karystos and
Larmena without resistance on the part of Tommaso. The
truce had not expired, but the compuny, in possession of both
Negroponte and the strong places of Bonifacio in southern
Euboia, proceeded to take possession of the rest of the island.
Venice protested against this violation of the truce, and made
representations to King Frederick, who, not wishing to exhibit
himself with that state which was then supported by the pope,
signed an order commanding the evacuation of the island.
Francesco Dandolo sailed to Negroponte with twenty galleys,
and laid the order before Alfonso. He refused to obey, and a
battle ensued in which the Venetians were victorious. They
recovered Negroponte, and the Spaniards had to recross the
bridge to the continent about November, 1317.
The war of 1317, of which Venice had borne the brunt as
champion of the island, served to increase her influence in it.
In this way it proved advantageous to ber domination there,
just as the war against the Greeks had proved. She had
advanced another step towards the complete possession of
Euboia. On December 6, 1317, a decree of the Doge was
published announcing the intention of the Republic to occupy
all the towns and fortresses and calling on the triarchs to act
cordially in unison with Venice, their protectress. The measure
was carried out without resistance. It was soon found necessury
to appoint a second chancellor to administer justice in the new
acquisitions of Venice (1319),
§ 40. Hostilities continued (1818)—Venice was inclined to
make peace with the Catalan Duke of Athens, and Frederick
1 The Jews were very loyal to Venice duty of 5 per cent. on exported wares.
in the war and were released from the
THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 205
of Sicily did his utmost to promote it. On the other hand,
pressure was brought to bear on Venice by the Angiovins of
Naples and Pope John XXII, as well as by Walter 11. of
Brienne, titular Duke of Athens, to continue the war.
The arguments of Philip of Tarentum, the titular Emperor
of Romania, and King Robert of Naples, rested on the conduct
of Alfonso, who bad both devastated Euboia and invaded Morea.
The arguments used by His Holiness (in a letter) for war
against the Catalans were that they employed Turks to devastate
Christian lands and that Alfonso ousted Tommaso da Verona
from his rightful heritage.
The envoys of Brienne (March 1318) promised material
advantages to Venice if he were restored to his duchy; namely,
complete exemption from custom duties within the limits of his
ducal territory and an arrangement whereby Euboia should
become completely Venetian. In regard to the latter point it
is not certain whether Walter intended to induce the triarchs
to do homage to Venice as suzerain, or to persuade the Prince
of Achaia to transfer his feudal rights over Euboia to Venice.
They asked Venice for a loan of 40,000 gold florins, 400 to 500
cavalry, and 1,000 to 1,500 infantry.
But Venice did not see her way to closing with these pro-
posals, and took no hostile measures against Alfonso, but strictly
preserved the truce.
Some time after this, perhaps in May, three Catalan ships
captured and plundered a number of individuals, among them
two Venetians who were soon released, as Alfonso hitherto
punctiliously observed the peace with the Republic. But the
Bailo Francesco Dandolo acted here independently. In June
he induced Nicolaus, the patriarch of Constantinople and Bishop
of Negroponte, to dispatch a summatio to Alfonso, which two
Franciscan brothers delivered. For the plundered Venetians
forty hyperpers were claimed, but the cause of the other sufferers
was also espoused.
On June 21, before receiving a reply from se se} the Bailo
heard that a galley was to sail to Athens to hire Turkish mer-
cenaries, and gain imperial aid. He commanded Captain
Ruggiero Foscarini to keep watch for it in the Euripos; and
he, hearing that two of the three vessels which had caused the
dispute then pending were anchored at Talandi, and the crews
300 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.
had disembarked, immediately repaired thither, and burned the
two vessels.
In the meantime Alfonso’s reply arrived ; it was to the effect
that he was most strict in his commands that no harm should
be offered to Venetians, and was most unwilling to break the
truce. He advised Venice to remember that war was a risky
thing and to beware of rushing into it without justification.
If this refusal to take the claims of the two Venetians into
consideration seemed equivalent to a declaration of war, Alfonso
made a more unequivocal declaration when he learned that
his two ships were burned. He forbade all traffic and intercourse
with Euboia; for the intercourse of the island with Attika had
not been disturbed for the last six montlis.
We learn from a letter of the Duke of Kandia, dated July 16,
that Alfonso obtained aid from that island to reconquer Euboia.
At the same time he made an expedition against his enemy the
Duke of Naxos, and plundered Mélos, carrying off 700 prisoners.
There can be no doubt that at the same time he used his strong-
holds, Karystos? and Larmena, for plundering southern Euboia.
Meanwhile King Frederick had been endeavouring at Venice
to bring about peace between the Euboian Venetians and the
Catalans; and King Robert, on the other hand, had been con-
tinuing his attempts to bring about an offensive alliance between
Venice and Walter of Brienne. In September the two chief
charges against Alfonso, to which the envoys of the King of
Sicily at Venice had to reply, were the expedition against the
Duke of Naxos and the occupation of southern Euboia. In
reply to the latter charge it was said that he had taken pos-
session at the wish of his wife, Marulla, her brother Tommaso
not objecting at first. When he afterwards protested and
appealed to John de Noyers, his overlord,? John decided the
matter in favour of Alfonso. Besides, Alfonso had further
interests in Euboia, as Pietro dalle Carceri had transferred to
him a third of all his property in the island including the
vassals, castles, and villages therein contained. As for the Duke
of Naxos, he was the vassal of the Princess Matilda, not of
1 The castle of the barons of Karystos the island. It must have been in
may be seen in Buchon’s A¢/as (pl. xv.). Central Euboia and belonged to John
* When Bonifacio disinherited Tom- de Noyers.
maso he procured him an appanage in
THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 207
Venice. At the same time the envoys, demanding that Alfonso
should be recognised as a feudal lord in Euboia, undertook that
he would pay the usual tribute to the Republic and recompense
all injury that had been done to their citizens.
On September 4—two days after this statement—Venice was
called upon by the Cardinal Nicolaus, Bishop of Ostia, in the
name of the Pope and King Robert, to take measures against
the Catalan Company, ‘the canaille of humanity.’
But Venice was disposed to make peace. The truce with
Alfonso expired on December 2+, and when that day came the
senate informed the Sicilian ambassadors that the Republic
would renew this truce until April if Frederic and Alfonso
promised to repair completely all injuries and losses inflicted by
the Catalans, to renounce corsairs, to maintain no ships except
a boat for the transfer of envoys, to surrender the towns in
Euboia unjustly occupied. The Duke of Naxos and his son
Nicold as well as the triarchs, were to be included in the peace.
Venice surrendered all claim to Larmena and Karystos. It seems
to have been also stipulated that Alfonso was to have his share
of the tolls of the bridge of Chalkis, and a collector of his own.
The peace was concluded on these terms, and in the following
year (June 9, 1319) was renewed for six months. The triarchs
are enumerated: John de Noyers, Pietro dalle Carceri (now of
age), Andrea Cornaro, Bartolommeo Ghisi
§ 41. Pietro dalle Carceri—Tommaso da Verona had not
inherited the ambition and energy of his father Bonifacio.
But about the time at which Bonifacio died (1317), or not long
before, Pietro dalle Carceri, the son of Beatrice de Noyers and
Grapozzo, came of age and soon showed that the cloak of
Bonifacio—ambition and anti-Venetian tendencies—had fallen
upon him, His character set a new obstacle in the way of the
development of Venetian influence in Negroponte.
The first hint we receive of disputes among the Venetians
and Lombards at this time is the announcement of the Bailo
Dandolo, shortly after the affair of Talandi in 1318, that the
presence of the ships of Foscarini at Negroponte was absolutely
necessary to check the hostile feelings prevailing among the
Lombards who were like to annihilate each other. We cannot
doubt that the young hexarch, Pietro, was at the bottom of
these feuds,
208 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.
The next point is the important statement, cited above, of
the Sicilian envoys in the Venetian senate on September 2.
This proves that Pietro was already following the policy
of Bonifacio, and had entered into an alliance with the
Catalans contrary to the interests of Venice and the other
Lombards.
Pietro was not at all satisfied with being merely a hexarch.
Half of southern Euboia belonged to his first cousin Maria,
Marchioness of Bodonitza, and her husband Andrea Cornaro.
Maria died in 1322, and Pietro immediately occupied her Sixth.
Cornaro, who was absent in Crete, appealed to Venice, and an
investigation of the matter was arranged. But Cornaro’s death
in 1323 secured to Pietro his acquisition. Maria’s daughter
Guglielma, wife of Bartolommeo Zaccharia, laid claim to it, but
her claims did not endanger Pietro’s possession, who in the
meantime took care to foster good relations with Alfonso
Fadrique.
ἢ 42. The affairs of Lavmena.—For some time Alfonso re-
mained at peace with the Baili of Negroponte. In 1321
(May 11) the treaty was renewed for a year with certain new
conditions. When Alfonso’s treaty with the Turks expired, he
was to cease relations with them and take measures to protect
Christian states against their plundering expeditions. He was
to build a new castle in the barony of Karystos, and Venice
undertook to erect no fortified place between Larmena and
Karystos. The triarchs as before subscribed to the treaty,
Michele da Benevento representing Β, Ghisi, and T. Sturione
acting for A, Cornaro.
The hostility of the Pope to the Catalans did not alter their
relations to Venice; on October 1, 1322, he promulgated a bill
against them. But the Turks, Alfonso’s discarded allies, con-
tinued hostilities, and in 1324 carried off a large number of
Euboians into slavery,
Venice made attempts to purchase Karystos from Alfonso,
offering as much as 89,000 hyperpers, but in vain. In 1324,
however, he conceded Larmena to Tommaso da Verona, who
lived only two years to enjoy it. His death at the beginning
of 1326, probably in February, formed a turning-point. It
occasioned the causes of the second war between Alfonso and
Venice.
THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 209
Tommaso’s only daughter and heiress was Agnese Sanudo, the
wife of Angelo Sanudo, one of the Naxos family. But she was
not allowed to inherit Larmena peaceably. On March 1, Athenian
ships well-manned appeared at the bridge of Chalkis, and Marulla
the wife of Alfonso demanded admission to the capital to do
homage to the Bailo Marco Minotto. He, suspecting the designs
of the Catalans, referred her to the Doge, and immediately sent
information to Venice; Bartolommeo Ghisi and Beatrice de
Noyers took his part, for which support the Bailo expressed his
acknowledgments. He then invested Agnese Sanudo with
Larmena. Preparations were made for defending the island in
case Alfonso should begin hostilities.
In May 1327 the news arrived in Venice that Alfonso had
declared war. In the island itself, moreover, there was a philo-
Catalan coalition against Venice. Pietro dalle Carceri, who had
all along acted as an ally and friend of Alfonso, induced Barto-
lommeo Ghisi, Constable of Achaia, to Catalanize also, and
Ghisi went so far as to betroth his son Giorgio to Simona, the
eldest daughter of Alfonso, while Alfonso invested him with the
castle of St. Omer at Thebes. The disaffection of Ghisi was a
great blow to Venice.
In the following year (1328) the death of his mother Beatrice
de Noyers, whose husband John had died two years before, gave
Pietro an opportunity of extending his influence and possessions
in the island. He immediately took possession of the central
Third, and was thus lord of two Thirds of Euboia. Thus in 1328
there were only two triarchs, and both were anti-Venetian ; and
so Venice was apparently in a worse position than she had
been in 1317 when all the triarchs (except Pietro, who had
then little influence), supported her.
§ 43. Huboia plundered by Catalans and Turks—We have
not a detailed account of the warfare of 1328 and the following
years ; we have only a few notices in letters of Sanudo that
Euboia was laid waste by Catalan and Turkish corsairs.
(1) Sept. 18, 1328, the Bailo Marco Gradenigo wrote to Sanudo
that there was imminent danger of Euboia and the Archipelago
falling into the hands of the pirates (Ep. 20). (2) In the latter
part of 1329 the archbishop of Thebes (Ep. 23) mentioned that
the Turks had laid waste Thrace since Easter, and had even
approached Chalkis. (3) In 1330, Negroponte was again
H.S.—VOL. VIII. P
210 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.,
harassed with the plundering raids of the infidels, and the
danger was very serious.’
During the following three years, 1831-1333, the terrible
devastations of the Turks continued, fraught with slavery to
multitudes. In 1331 more than 25,000 Christians were led
captive and sold into bondage. But Alfonso was becoming
tired of these Turkish allies, who did not in the least scruple to
plunder their employers; and Walter of Brienne was making
active preparation against the company,” with the help of Pope
John XXII, who in 1330 commanded the patriarch of Con-
stantinople to bid them depart from the duchy. These two
circumstances determined Alfonso to conclude a truce with the
Bailo (Filippo Belegno), April 5, 1331, on condition that he was
to remain in possession of Karystos. The term of the truce
was fixed at two years, commencing May 1, 1331, and the two
triarchs were included. The triarchs had no doubt soon ex-
perienced that war under the conditions of the case was very
disadvantageous, and that an alliance with an ally of the Turks
was not in every respect desirable. Alfonso pledged himself to
give up his alliance with the infidels, to build no forts in Euboia,
and to pay the Venetians 5,000 hyperpers for the damages they
had suffered since the war began in 1327. It was arranged
that corn-growers in Alfonso’s Euboian possessions might bring
it in safety to Negroponte for sale. In 1333 this treaty was
renewed, and again in 1335, the Republic preferring these
minor treaties to a peace of a long term, which Frederick of
Sicily wished to bring about. In 1333, Alfonso consented to
surrender a portion of Tommaso’s property to Agnese, in whose
favour the Assizes of Morea had decided.
There were two places in the island which Venice was
especially anxious to secure for herself—Oreos, the chief town
1 Compare G. Villani, x. 150: ‘ Etiam-
dio i detti Turechi con loro legni
armati corrono per mare e presono e
rubarono pil isole dell’ Arcipelago.. .
E poi continuamente ogni anno feciono
loro armate quando di 500 o di 800
legni tra grossi e sottili e correvano
tutte Visole d’Arcipelago rubandole
e consumandole e menandone li huo-
mini e femine per ischiavi e molti
ancora ne fecero tributarii.’
2G. Villani, x. 190, notices this
expedition. At the end of August,
1331, ‘il duca d’Atene, cioé conte di
Brenna, si parti di Branditio e passd
in Romania,’ with 800 French cavalry
and 500 Tuscan infantry. In open
battle he would have regained his land,
but ‘quelli della compagnia maestre
volmente si tennero alla guardia delle
fortezze e non vollonouscire a battaglia’;
so that the expedition came to nought.
THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN ΕΌΒΟΙΑ, 211
in northern Euboia, and Karystos, the most important place in
southern Euboia. She made further attempts in 1352 and
1333 to acquire these places; Pietro dalle Carceri would not
concede Oreos, and Alfonso was determined on retaining
Karystos. At the end of 1334 she gained possession of
Larmena, and placed in it Giovanni Dandolo as castellan.
The treaties of the Catalans did not bind the infidels. In
May and June 1332, 380 Turkish ships plundered Negroponte
and the archipelago! Pietro Zeno, the Bailo, was obliged to
pay tribute to save the inhabitants of the island from
extermination.
In the meantime in the west Marino Sanudo and others were
preaching a combination of Christians against the Turkish
infidels.
§ 44. Increase of Venetian influence in Euboia—Troubles
with the Catalans of Attika were now over. They began
to turn respectable and make common cause against the
Turks, who inflicted as much injury upon them as upon the
Euboians.?
Alfonso Fadrique died in 1538. In the same year the
Venetian senate commanded that the walls of Negroponte
should be raised higher and the expense defrayed by a tax of
5 per cent. on all wares imported. The measures which the
Republic was obliged to take for protection against the Turks
1 These misfortunes are mentioned
by two Italian contemporaries, G. Vil-
lani and L. Monaldeschi. The latter
writes (Muratori, S.R.I. xii. p. 534):
‘Nel detto anno [1332] li Turchi mes-
sero al Mare 280 navi e andarono a
Constantinopoli contro l’Imperatore dei
Greci; ma fu ajutato l’Imperatore da’
Venetiani e Genovesi ; cosi lassomo la
grande impresa e fecero gran guadagno,
che pigliorono pit di mille Greci, fecero
tributarj li Negropontesi.’ Villani (x.
224) says that in May and June 1332
the Turks manned 380 vessels with
more than 40,000 men and attacked
Constantinople. Desisting from™this
enterprise, as the emperor was strongly
supported, they ‘guastarono pit isole
d’Arcipelago e menaronne in servaggio
pit di 10 mila Greci e quelli di Negro-
ponte per paura di loro si fecero tribu-
tarj, onde venne in Ponente grande
clamore al Papa e al Re di Francia e ad
altre Signori di Christiani ; per la qual
cosa s’ordind per loro che l’anno ap-
presso si facesse armata sopra Turchi
6 cosi si fece.’
2 The impression made by the Cata-
lans on the Greeks of Euboia has
survived to the present day in a
proverb, αὐτὸ οὔτε of Καταλάνοι τὸ
κάμνουν (E. Stamatiades, of Καταλάνοι
ἐν τῇ ᾿Ανατώλῃ, 1869, quoted by Rubidé
y Lluch, op, ett.). Similarly in Thrace,
the scene of many Catalan cruelties, a
curse came into use, ἡ ἐκδίκησις τῶν
Καταλάνων εὕροι oe. In Akarnania
the name Catalan is the equivalent
of a brutal villain.
bo
P
912 THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA.
helped to consolidate and extend its power in the island. The
chief object of taxation is the protection of the community,
and conversely the protecting power has a claim to the right
of taxation; Venice looked now on the whole island as
taxable.
It had been a subject of complaint that criminals in Negro-
ponte found shelter in the territories of the triarchs. It was
now ordained that for such the triarchs must be responsible to_
the Bailo, who should decide criminal cases every Friday. The
triarchs were made aware of this on Sept. 8, 1338, and informed
that all persons banished by the Bailo were banished from the
territory between the rivers Lilantus (Lélantos) and Argaleos (a
river to the north of Chalkis). This territory was in the central
Third, which belonged to Pietro dalle Carceri, and as he did not
approve of this obligation, which he could not however resist, he
resorted to the plan of selling central Euboia to the Duke of
Naxos. But the Duke of Naxos was too powerful to be an
acceptable triarch in the eyes of Venice, and the Bailo succeeded
in hindering the proposed transaction.. The affair shows how
the power of Venice had increased and that of the triarchs
diminished during the preceding fifteen years. The Baili had
still their eyes on Karystos, which they had so often attempted
in vain to obtain ; it was now in the possession of Alfonso’s son,
Bonifacio Fadrique. In 1339 the castellan offered for a certain
sum to give # up to Venice, but the Bailo unfortunately had
not the requisite money to hand.
In order to strengthen Venetian influence among the in-
habitants, Venetian citizenship was bestowed on many in-
dividuals. The Jews who used to pay taxes to the amount of
100 hyperpers to the Lombards were transferred to the juris-
diction of Venice, and payed 200 hyperpers.
In the year 1340 (December) the chief element of opposition
to the Venetian domination was removed by the death of Pietro
dalle Carceri. After him the triarchs were never recalcitrant;
the footing of the Republic was securely established, and the
suzerainty of the Princes of Achaia was a thing forgotten.
The history of the Venetians in Euboia is a good example of
the manner in which the efficient protector becomes the ruler.
It was the three wars, (1) with the Greeks, (2) with the Catalans,
(3) with the Catalans and Turks, that contributed more than
THE LOMBARDS AND VENETIANS IN EUBOIA. 213
anything to secure the Venetian supremacy in Negroponte.
The other side of the same fact is the declining power of the
Lombards ; Pietro dalle Carceri was less powerful than Bonifacio,
and Bonifacio was less powerful than Guglielmo da Verona.
JoHN Β, Bury
(To be continued.)
214 AN INSCRIPTION FROM BOEAE.
AN INSCRIPTION FROM BOEAE.
By the kindness of the Rev. H. J. Bidder, we are enabled to
publish the following inscription, obtained by him from Boul, the
modern Nedpolis, in Laconia. On a slab of white marble: size
ll in. x 7d in. x din, height of letters in. Theslab is broken
away at the top and right side; more lines may be lost above; it
is also broken across.
to
HAOCCOITR
HNAENTAPFAAEHCIATR
WCCEAKCH EA fOYWCPOBE OLKLTE DA
Ν
5 ει AOCEXOY CE PIATONIKEN NXBYCHA
EPrFAAABHN WIHKAI SPENKACHAENOO
OTKENTICYE YC AITOTTPOCOYAY AtTrO
KY TPIAINH PITOAONA BANATOYC
HK AL AGHNARIHCTTAPEAPON 6 EALENHS
re) APTEALITOCKIAAHC TO XO $0 POYAOXIH
TANTOIHCAVPETHCK RIEI MEOCEINEK
KAITINYTHE EPATHC KAI GPENOCHTA
peers KAKLONTECENOIKOICOYTIO
| INONACGHAAK Prw NITAH COYCINIE NE
tL CHNAPETHNTIE ATE PAC AO $ POCYNHN TE
ElLAOCTEHTAIOCEONA PEC KOYCAKAYTH
"A
=
C\
G
Gg
The forms of the letters are somewhat inconsistent: thus we
find ) 1. 6, A 1. 11, P twice, 1. 15, beside the more characteristic
forms. In 1. 14, the fifth letter was first inscribed as N, by a mere
inadvertence, and then corrected.
Before the inscription was cut, faintly scratched lines were ruled
to keep the letters in even rows.
The date, from the forms of the letters, seems the second or
third century of our era,
AN INSCRIPTION FROM BOEAE. 215
Transcription :—
᾿Α[ρέσκουσαν τήνδε γονεῖς κλαίουσι θανοῦσαν,
20) 9 4 \ om” /
nd ὅσσοι ταύτην λαοὶ ἔχουσι πόλιν’
> Ν Ν a“ 297 Ν »Μ
ἦν μὲν γὰρ γενεῆς ἰδίης περι[καλλὲς ἄγαλμα,
ε ΄ 3 / ε ἘΦ ,
ὡς σέλας ἠελίου, ὡς ῥόδεος στέφανοϊς,
> Ν a) Ν Ν ~~? ,
5 εἶδος ἔχουσ᾽ ἐρατὸν ἴκελον χρυσῇ ᾿Α[ φροδίτῃ,
ΝΜ | ee / Ν / 329 /
ἔργα δ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίῃ καὶ φρένας ἠδὲ νόον.
οὐ κέν τις ψεύσαιτο πρὸς Οὔλυμπον [κληθεῖσαν
Κύπριδι νηοπόλον ἀθανάτους μ[ εθέπειν,
ἢ καὶ ᾿Αθηναίης πάρεδρον θέμεν, ἠδέ γε νύμφην
10 ᾿Αρτεμίτος καλῆς τοξοφόρου λοχίης,
παντοίης ἀρετῆς καὶ εἴδεος εἵνεκεν ἁγνοῦ
καὶ πινυτῆς ἐρατῆς καὶ φρενὸς ἠγαθἤ έης.
A ha / 3 Ν ᾿, 2 ἊΝ
τῶ ρ᾽ ἄμοτον κλαίοντες, ἐν οἴκοις οὔπο[θ᾽ ὁρῶντες,
αἰνοπαθῆ δακρύων πλήσουσιν γενέτ[αι,
15 σὴν ἀρετὴν tea τ’ ἔργα σαοφροσύνην τε π[οθοῦντες
75 ΄ 3) A ᾽ ,ὕ ΄
εἶδός τε ἠγάθεον, ᾿Αρέσκουσα κλυτή.
The name ᾿Αρέσκουσα (= Blandina, Pape) occurs in a Boeotian
inscription, C./.G. 1626. The wish to introduce it as near the end
as possible seems the cause of the lameness of the last pentameter :
and that before it is made equally bad, perhaps by way of pre-
paration,
E. A. GARDNER,
216 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
In the summer of 1884 I was permitted to accompany Pro-
fessor Ramsay? on his journey in Asia Minor, assisted by the
Senate of the University of Cambridge with a grant from the
Worts Fund. To my great regret, however, a fever compelled
me to return home after spending only two months in the
country, during which time I had been a novice in the various
arts required for scientific travel. Hence, therefore, so far as
my personal share in the expedition is concerned, the results
obtained are limited both in number and in value. Such as
they are, they are embodied in the following pages, and in the
accompanying map; I have also introduced matter, as will be
seen by the references, of which the credit belongs entirely to
Professor Ramsay.
It will be seen from a study of the map, that our route
during the part of the journey to be discussed in these pages,
lay in the upper valley of the Maeander, with its tributary the
Karasu (Morsynus); in the upper valley of the Gerenis Tchai
(Indus) ; in the valleys of the Gebren Tchai and of the Istanoz
Tchai, and in the district west of the Lake of Buldur. As
regards the political divisions, it lay in the border lands of
Caria, Phrygia, and Pisidia. The whole journey occupied about
five weeks, as we left the railway at Kuyujak on May 28, and
rejoined it near Denisli on July 5.?
1 To avoid the necessity of constantly
quoting the name of Professor Ramsay,
I must at the outset make a general
acknowledgment of my obligations to
him for much help received. I must
also express my thanks to the Rev. E.
L. Hicks for his kindness in reading
these sheets, and making valuable
suggestions.
2 Some account of the route followed,
with dates, will be found in the Cam-
bridge University Reporter, May 5, 1885,
in the form of a letter to the Vice-
Chancellor of the University.
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 217
Different parts of the district had already been visited by
various travellers, some of whom carefully worked out their
routes. But no rigid survey has ever been made, and great
inaccuracy of detail must necessarily therefore prevail in the
maps. And until a scientific triangulation shall have been
made by skilled observers, of which event there seems to be no
near prospect, recourse must be had to the rougher methods of
map-making, and a certain value attaches to each observer’s
results, erroneous though they may be. In the absence of
absolute knowledge, the result is inevitably a compromise based
upon the various and sometimes apparently conflicting pieces
of evidence available, each of which is in itself imperfect.
The materials which I have attempted to combine in the
construction of the present map are as follows :—
(1) Astronomical positions,
(a) Latitude.—I have a few observations, taken with a 38-inch
sextant and artificial horizon kindly lent me by the Geographical
Society. The only other observation that I have used in the
construction of the map, is that of Hamilton for Denisli, as 1
was then unaware where Wrontchenko’s results could be found,
and I know of no other observations within the area in question,
with the exception of an untrustworthy observation by Fellows
at Aphrodisias,? and those quoted below, for Buldur.
17. F. de Schubert, Hrposé des Tra- des Décowvertes Géog. des nations Ewro-
vauc Astronomiques ct Géodésiques, &c. péennes, ii, p. 604,
2 Cf. Vivien de Saint Martin, Hist,
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
218
‘ronrydo δ᾽ ΡΒ strejog
0771p
‘soleyUy pues si1e[O J
“98 PP ο88 OYWIYO}UOI AA ἜΣ EAE aS 5 ART TBIOT
*SolvJUY pue ΒΙΧΌΤΟΣ
pestjqo sem 1 axojoq ‘Aournol 901 10 4184 puovss 971 πὶ poure;qgo 1 sapnqzyey
“SIIB[Og
‘SoIvJUY pues Β118701
HE LE 940000q
uG¥ jOP VAS ΤΟ. TULe FY το ae -PRRe“Ee* ST EBTH TF
uw¥G {OP LE OYMOYopUOI A
0741p
0741p
‘soIRUY pue slie[og
*SyIVUIOY ῬΟΠ9ΜΙ
8S 9
1 LG
ult BY
u&E OF
ἢ BE
wt = 9S
“81 63
“81 WP
v9 =
0 2,81
uw&G ST
ὍΠΙΒΑ
ο88
olf
olf
Lf
Lf
oLf
olf
ease ρων Abt ἢ ιξ. “
ΟΞ er
ΠΝ τ “
tees fo “arg “purag “1 “
ΡΝ FI Aine
“aMl0Y 11818 04
901 Sarystqnd jo Ayrunzs0ddo 51η} 9781 1
[OD τϑρατάθῃ uo tmaxorag t Ane
sation Prag εις τΟΎΠΠΠΟ epmy oz “
"089°" geuysmo “Ar “ANPING es “
ττλτετοτετενενενεν sees eerga gay i“
ττητηττηνννη ΓΝ ones Ἐ Blog 81 “
ΠΣ ““ anu ¥ “ραν 991 Ph eunr
084 Ὅ1υα
“ACALILVT YOX SNOLLVAWASAO AO 1511
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 219
(Ὁ) Longitude——In placing the lines of longitude I have
assumed as an arbitrary initial point the position of Karayuk-
bazar as given by Wrontchenko, and have not used any other
astronomical observation.
(2) Measurements of Distance by Time.—It is obvious that
this method of measurement is only approximately accurate, if
the roads are of varying degrees of straightness, as is usually
the case in a rough country, and if the horse varies his pace.
(3) Prismatic Compass Observations.—Apart from the risk of
local variations in the amount of deviation, it is very difficult
even for a practised observer accurately to fix points on either
side of his course, if there is uncertainty as to the lengths of
the base lines, and any error tends continually to increase, In
constructing the map, I have assumed a uniform deviation of
5° W. In two instances in this map, a region has been mapped
in from observations taken at the two ends of a base, estimated
with some care, though not measured. The cases are (a) in the
neighbourhood of Kizil-Hissar, (6) between Tefeny and Sazak.
(4) Other Sowrces—The Maeander and its villages are inserted
from a railway survey, a copy of which is in the possession of
Mr.Ramsay. The villages immediately north of Karayuk-bazar
are entered from Mr. Ramsay’s map.
Considering the character of the materials, it will readily be
seen that the results obtained can only be approximate, and
that it is therefore likely that discrepancies should appear in
the results of two observers passing over nearly the same ground.
That being the case, I ought expressly to assume sole responsi-
bility for the map as here given, since, in certain details, it
does not exactly agree with Mr. Ramsay’s results, and further
observations are required to ascertain the truth. I append in a
note? references to the best maps published for studying the
general lie of the ground in this region.
11, Kiepert, Karte von Kleinasien illustrating Tschihatscheff’s routes,
und Tiirkisch Armenien (1842), with Perthes’ Mittheilungen, Ergdnzungsheft
corrected sheet for Lycia and Pisidia 20, 1867. 4. Kiepert, Prof. G. Hirsch-
(Memoir tiber die Construction der karte feld’s Reiseroute in sildwestlichen Klein-
Kleinasiens, redigirtvon Dr.H.Kiepert, asien, 1874; Monatsber. d. k. Akad,
Berlin, 1854, taf. iv.) 2. Kiepert, d. Wiss. zw Berlin, 1879. 5. Kiepert,
Fiinf Inschriften und Fiinf Stédte in Lykia; Wien, 1884.
Kleinasien, 1840. 3. Kiepert’s map
220 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
The observations for altitude were made with an aneroid and
two boiling-point thermometers, lent me by the Geographical
Society, and all corrected at Kew. The altitudes thus calculated
cannot of course claim to be as precise as they appear with
respect to the sea, though fairly true with respect to the neigh-
bouring heights. On returning, however, to the sea-level after
about five weeks, and after having ascended 6,000 feet, the
discrepancy between the real and calculated height was only
about fifty feet. The results are also satisfactory, when they
can be compared with other observations. Thus Spratt, and
Forbes? give the altitude of Istanoz as 3,500 feet, whilst I
make it 3,522 feet; Tschihatscheff 2 makes the altitude of the
Kestel-Gol 2,608 Paris feet = 2,856 English feet, whilst I obtain
2,813 feet.
The chief topographical results of our expedition have been
already published by Professor Ramsay,® who has made his own
the study of Hierocles and the Byzantine lists considered in
relation to the actual topography of the district.
The following tables contain the names of the sites established
within the area of the map. The first table contains the names
of towns that had been already determined or plausibly con-
jectured before our expedition, with references to the evidence
on which the identification is based. The second table gives
the sites ascertained by inscriptions found on the spot; and the
third table gives certain conjectures, based upon other argu-
ments, which have been published by Professor Ramsay.
1 Travels in Lycia, vol. i. p. 244. 8 Athenacum, Dec. 20, 27, 1884;
2 Ritter, Erdkunde von Asien, ix. ii. Mittheilwngen des arch, Inst. in Athen,
p. 675. x. p. 335,
22]
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
“ῬΠΠ.ΒῚ ῬΈΘΑΙΞΤΟΙ ΑἸΞΠΟΙΔΌΙΙ ΟΠ RRR eee eee Σ eee ZL “ON (7, ee ee T[WStae eterna ene vULyvy,
‘TIT ὋΝ pur] 5 “Ἵ τι -ysup fo be τας Pe ὁ ὅδ (Arepanoq
‘ULN0f “Laup *GGey “Δ “shidy μα a “A\) sosse[eseg
*g ‘089 ΒΘ] ΟΙΌΤΗ
‘[a]maaagaa Sora = Ὁ ON ‘IPG ἃ “x “uahunpoyny 66 | wowtnew ---- yoqwse-pizry | amagoaridayy soley
: ‘OL ὋΝ (7 ee ere rT ere eer eee ee ee ee eee) 29. 9.196. “.. λο)56. ΚΏΟ]ΛΙ (τῶν
951 “2651 “Δ “διά “ἀπ Ἐς ayoiquey pues n[pnsig usemyog 1 διπθίπορ
"gee “ἃ -x ςς ΟΡ. Ξ ΕΚ paar ses aqlog
*[eorquopr 0518 ΒΘΙΠΈ NT ΠΟ υ 288 πηι Χ ‘uabunpayyeyy ‘uorydt10suy eee ee cee ewer cece eee nreeen tenses vf{puy συ. ἜΡΘΡαΥ
ὝΒΒΙ “ῬΘΙΠΉΠΟΡΙ sooe[g 10 1511---Ἴ ἩΊΘΥΙ,
"gp ἃ ‘myh7 “μιϑάοτῃ ‘wu a[sus
Ὁ Aq worerunuosd 1800] 971 Suruesaidar ul snoumuvun 918 sxo[[aAvs} Jnq ‘syuauMIO0p jeIoyo ut AuUajay, yods 51 ouIvU SIYT, ,
FL “ἃ Ὧν "5. Ἢ, ΟΣ ἢ ‘q1odory -9UIevU jo Ayyuopy PTT eTTT TIE δι... ὉΠΠῸ ccc cccscccccces e[s0q
"eho “ἃ “Mt “7794 “4109
ap ‘yng ‘eusayng pue ποιοῦ ss sao eogeeere tee aes AIO, SBONT Wee ae WOTIUIG
169 “d τῷ "ΧΙ ‘wasp uoa
IpUnypLT “ΘΊΙΗ {τ ‘w10quoyag «ec οοὐδοουποοοσουοουουοοσουοοοοδοοῦ ἩΠΙΘΓ961 «σ9οουοδοούδσοοοοο ἘΞΌΘΙΟ
Ὅ45 “ἃ 7 ‘saqiog pue yyeidg ΠΥ ΌΞΞΞΞΞΞ -- ἘΠῸΧ UIPtsE,y ΠΑΥ͂ terete eeeeeee woqse'y
"993 ἃ “1 ‘mohT
ur SIL, ‘saqioy pue qyerdg 1 en rrr rrr eee eee eee ee ULOOZIO FT ewe cccccccceces evi fqty
Ἵ ὋΝ 9 ‘ogee “M79 ‘suoyduosuy | “"Π [. ΤΈΒΕΤΗ Π56],, ΞΞ] avssy | 7 ππππ vpnyy
πο ποείη |, τ’ Be pans ec ose ἘΠὅΘ | tt SBISIPO πάν
‘gg ἃ (4}21) ouryy Msp wo βιμουμραμόση 1} .....Ψ....νννννννον @ ... f Wuapurae yy
‘gyoo00g ᾿ΒΘΙΙΌΙΘΙΠΉΊΪ 94} pues (801 A) πᾳ } ATMO POV NV me eIqoo1yuy
“STLOIPBAIBSAO “joolg ὍΦΙΩΣ WIIPOWL “awe JUIIOUy
‘I Giadvi
a oe ee eA ee SE 8 eS ee eee τον τσ -ς
222
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
The following conjectures have been offered by Mr. Ramsay.}
TABLE III.
Ancient Name. Modern Site. Observations.
NGriane | es τες noes Belew. on. csusadens-caennts = Olbasa.
Ceretapa --c..cccecn- anes Kayadibi.
t+Limobrama............... On Kestel Gol ............ = Limnobria ?
Gy sila sc .csc.asensoe os sa0 Enesh ?
Maximianopolis......... Tefenty: ΤΣ, 1 ones scare sores: = Ormelion.
Phylakaion............... Elles.
Rege-salamara........... Regio on Lake of Buldur.
Sinda (near Cibyra) ... | Alankewi ...............00. So Kiepert.
Sinda (= Isinda, &c.)... Mandropolis of Spratt and
Forbes (vol. i. p. 247),
At Evde Khan.?
Between Elmaly and
Termessus.
TreDenuNaeccsn cet decease
PART I—TOPOGRAPHICAL NOTES AND INSCRIPTIONS.
ATTUDA.
In the year 1701 Dr. W. Sherard, at that time British consul
at Smyrna, visited Aphrodisias,? accompanied by the physician
Picenini. Thence they crossed over the shoulder of the Baba
Dagh, and returned to the valley of the Maeander. At a
distance of ‘four short hours’ from Aphrodisias they arrived
at a village whose name they give as ‘Ipsili-Hissar.’ Here
1 Athenaeum, Dec. 20, 1884.
2 Mittheilungen des arch. Inst.x.p.343.
8 I should like to take this oppor-
tunity of calling attention to a fact
which has not been noticed, so far as
I am aware, If it has not been de-
stroyed by Turks or other barbarians,
there is an elaborate piece of sculpture
at Aphrodisias, which seems to belong
to the Pergamene school. ‘In the
walls of the city, towards the south-
west corner, there are some very fine
reliefs, which seem to have been part
of a frieze ; they are mostly Cupids or
winged persons, encountering the giants
with spears, bows, and arrows; the
latter are represented below with two
serpents instead of feet, turning up
like the tails of Tritons, At one end
Jupiter in a small figure has one under
his feet, and is levelling his thunder
at another ; a person near is drawing a
bow at them, and there is a trophy
near Jupiter.—Pococke, Observations
on Asia Minor (1745), p. 70.
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 223
they copied certain inscriptions (C./.G. 3950-3952) assigned
indeed by Sherard to Aphrodisias, but more rightly by Picenini
to the so-called Ipsili-Hissar (C.I.G. 3950).
One of the inscriptions in question (No. 3950) contains
a part of a name restored by Boeckh, ᾿ΑἸττουδέ[ω]ν and
hence Attuda has been placed at Ipsili-Hissar. Mr. Ramsay’s
inquiries of the natives failed to discover any place of that
name, but it is certain, from Chandler’s account, that we fol-
lowed the same route across the shoulder of the mountain as
did Sherard, and that the place described by him as [psili-
Hissar is a village now known as Assar, which we reached
in about four and a half hours. We failed, unfortunately, to
discover the important inscription above quoted, but we found
in this village another of the inscriptions assigned by Picenini
to the village of Ipsili-Hissar, thus confirming the inference,
based upon Chandler’s account, that Ipsili-Hissar is identical
with Assar.
This inscription, a decree in honour of the boy athlete Neikias,
has been published (6.1.6. 3952) from an excessively incor-
rect copy by Sherard. Le Bas (pt. v. No, 743-744) and
Bailie (cf. C.J.G. add. p. 1105) have furnished more correct
copies of this inscription, which apparently are derived from an
identical source, Bailie’s version having been touched up by
himself.
The inscription, as we saw it, appeared to be complete, having
a margin of four inches at the bottom, and consisted of the
same twenty-five lines that had been copied by Sherard; nor
was there anything further to be found in the village. On
the copy, however, given to Bailie and Le Bas there is an
addition of several lines, chiefly made up from data furnished
by the first part of the inscription, This fragment is certainly
not inscribed on the stone in question, and if it comes from
Assar, it must have been arbitrarily connected with the chief
inscription, The copy given by Le Bas is nearly correct, and
I will therefore only give differences of reading.
294 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
No. 1.
Le Bas. W. M. R. and A. H. 5.
Line
2. ΤΩΝΕΥΓΕΓΟΝ. ΤΩΝ ΤΩΝΕΥΓΕΓΟΝΟΤΩΝ
6. APXASK- APXAS . K-
8. EKTETI EKTETE
9. NEIKHSAI NEIKHEAN
ΤΊ. ΤΩΝ. ΤΩΝ
13. TAK \TAK-
14. ANAPIANTEIATIAIAS ANAPIANTEIATIAIAQ»
15 (14). TIAAHN TIAAHN .
In line 13, the erasure of 12 in. is deliberate. In line 14 ν is
written in the middle of a,
Line 14. ANAPIANTEIA is certainly the true reading as
given by Le Bas, though Sherard reads ANAPI.ANTAIA,
which Boeckh emends to AAPIANEIA, as does Bailie.
These games therefore were not held in honour of Hadrian,
but were probably established by the agonothetes Andreas, and —
named in his honour. Cf. Le Bas, V. 1233 (CLG. 4380m,
addenda, p. 1169) ᾿Αγωνοθετοῦντος . . . . Εὐαρέστου mavnyup-
éws € [ἀγώνων] Εὐαρεστείων ἧς αὐτὸς συνεστήσατο K.T.A.
THE RIVER CADMUS.
At a distance of about six miles (one hour, fifty minutes)
from Denisli, and in a direction from it of about east-south-east,
there is a remarkable natural phenomenon which has already
attracted the notice of travellers, and has been discussed by
Arundell.?
The road from Kizil-Hissar to Denisli traverses a narrow
pass between Khonas Dagh on the east, and the eastern spurs
of Baba Dagh on the west. This pass is also traversed by a
stream of some size, the Tchukur Tchai (see Kiepert’s map),
which drains a small deep valley, shut in on all sides by moun-
tains. On entering the pass from the south, the stream is at
first on a level with the road. But, as commonly occurs in
Asia Minor, the stream has made a deep gorge for itself
in the narrow part of the pass, whilst the road skirts the side
1Cf. Ramsay, Journal of Hellenic 2 Dise. in Asia Minor, vol. ii. p.
Studies, iv. p. 58. 159, ff.
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 225
of the hill, and descends more gradually into the plain. Hence,
towards the northern end of the pass, the road is some 200 feet
above the river bed. At this point the pass becomes somewhat
broader, so as to form a small green valley. Here, at a point
slightly to the west of the road, a copious supply of water springs
into a pool forming a charming natural bath, and thence flows
under the road which crosses this stream by a bridge, and
onwards towards the main stream. After flowing thus for a few
hundred yards the stream disappears in the ground, and makes
its way by a subterranean passage to the main river, It is
heard flowing from the side of the deep gorge and falling down
to the bed of the river.
Arundell recognises (p. 174) that there are two noteworthy
instances of a river disappearing in this neighbourhood, There
is the disappearance of the Lycus at Colossae, which is described
by Herodotus,* and which has probably been identified by
Hamilton,” though Arundell himself failed to find it, and there
is the disappearance of the Cadmus mentioned by Strabo
(xii. § 8, p. 578): Ὑπέρκειται δὲ τῆς πόλεως ὄρος Κάδμος ἐξ
οὗ καὶ ὁ Λύκος ῥεῖ, καὶ ἄλλος ὁμώνυμος τῷ ὄρει. τὸ πλέον δὲ
οὗτος ὑπὸ γῆς ῥυείς, εἶτ᾽ ἀνακύψας Τσυνέπεσεν εἰς ταὐτὸ τοῖς
ἄλλοις ποταμοῖς κιτλ. It is possible indeed to make οὗτος
refer to ὁ Λύκος, regarding the mention of the Cadmus as
inserted parenthetically, and so to make Strabo refer to the
same disappearance as Herodotus. But seeing that the dis-
appearance actually takes place at Kara Gol as well as on the
Lycus, we are justified in understanding Strabo’s text in the
natural manner. It has been shown? that Mount Cadmus must
be identified with Khonas Dagh rather than with Baba Dagh,
which is Salbakos. Two streams flow from Khonas Dagh, one
of which, the Tchoruk Su, drains its north and north-east sides,
and the other, the Tchukur Tchai or Gieuk Bounar Su of
Hamilton, drains the west side. The Tchoruk Su is undoubtedly
the Lycus, and hence the River Cadmus must be the only other
important stream flowing from the mountain, namely the Tchukur
Tchai, or Gieuk Bounar Su, for the Bounar Bashi Su is not of
any great length. This is the view of Arundell, though his
account of this river is not quite accurate, and of Hamilton
1 vii. chap. 30. 3 Hirschfeld, Monatsber. der Akad,
2 Asia Minor, i. p. 511. zu Berlin, 1879, p. 325.
ἘΠῚ: ΤΟΙ, VIII. Q
226 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
(i. p. 153), though he does not recognise that the Cadmus
disappears.
KARAYUK-BAZAR (THEMISONIUM 2).
No. 2.—Milestone, built into a fountain, outside the village.
Diameter of column, 21 in.
W. M. R.
A. H.S.
OIC OIC HAAUWN
AYTOKPATOPCIN
AIOKAHTIANWKAI
KAIMA MAIANUWCEBB
ὃ KAIKWCTANTIW
KAIAAAZIMIANUW
ETTID’’K ECAPCIN
wr A
Tots [ὁσιωτάτ]οις ἡμῶν
αὐτοκράτορσιν
Διοκλητιανῷ καὶ
καὶ Μ[αξιἹμιανῷ Σεβ(αστοις),
5 καὶ Κωσταντίῳ
καὶ Μαξιμιανῷ
ἐπιφ(ανεστάτοις) Κέσαρσιν.
μί(λια) ἃ.
SAZAK.
No. 4.—Rectangular basis, in the graveyard, about 3 ft. high.
On side to left of main inscription, Hermes, with wings. On
side to right, a female head, perhaps Hera. In centre of front
side, bust of Zeus, with chlamys over left shoulder and sceptre.
W. M. R,
A. HS.
ATTOKOIFL > M: KAA
TIOYPNIOYAOTTOY
NATPQNOCIAIOY
Bust of Zeus
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 227
M* KAATIOYPNIOC
5 ETTINEIKOCMICOQ
TH TQNTEPIAAALCTO
TOTTQNAIIMETICTQ
"Amro κοίτης M. Καλ-
moupviou Λόγγου
πάτρωνος ἰδίου
Μ. Καλπούρνιος
> /
Επίνεικος μισθω-
\ A \u
τὴς τῶν περὶ ᾿Αλαστοῖν
τόπων Διὶ Μεγίστῳ.
Cf. Collignons Bull. de Corr. hell. ii. p. 173.
wer
M. Collignon does not attempt 1-3. Line 6, TE PIAAALTON.
* Liées.
The name of M. Calpurnius Epineikos appears on an in-
scription at Karamanli, Bull. de Corr. hell. ii. p. 263.
Δῆμος Περμινοδέων.
Opposite the spot marked in the maps as Kizilkaya-bazar, a
place altogether deserted except on market days, is the village
of Kizil-agatch. The village stands near the mouth of a small
valley, or rather of an arm of the plain, which penetrates a
short distance into the group of hills upon the south side of
the Lake of Kestel.
At a little distance up this valley, there are interesting remains
of a rock-cut shrine, proved by its inscriptions to have been
dedicated to Apollo. A terrace has been cut into the rock some
twenty feet above the level of the plain, and in front of this
terrace of rock there seems to have been an additional level
space made up with soil, and bounded by a perpendicular
wall. For though the earth has now fallen forwards into the
plain, and there is now no difficulty in approaching from the
front, the original mode of approach appears to have been by a
passage in the rocks, and a small staircase. This passage is at
the south-west rock of the shrine. At the north-west angle
there is a rock of a peculiar natural shape, which perhaps
reminded the Perminodeis of the Omphalos of Apollo at Delphi,
Q 2
228 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR,
and so suggested the construction of the shrine. In this
omphalos-like stone there are a few small niches cut, whilst
there are other niches in the main or east wall. The niches
were empty, and no trace remains of the figures presumably
once placed in them. But the followmg inscriptions still remain,
being cut in the rock itself :—
No. 5.—A panel in the rock-shrine of Kaizil-agatch.
A. HS,
MAI, Aina) AO MEE
Υ]ΟΙ ΘΥ ΘΝ VY
Απολλυυνιπερὴ
ΔΕευΝΕ ΠΗΚ OW
ΧΗΝ
Or
Mail Kail
υἷοι
᾿Απόλλωνι Περμ[ινο-
δέων ἐπηκόῳ
ὄ εὐ]χήν.
No. 6.—Rudely scratched on rock.
ETPTPO E(t) tpo-
10C ‘€YXHN m los εὐχὴν
ATIOAAW ᾿Απόλλαϊ νι.
No. 7.—On northern side.
LI éild
EYXHN εὐχὴν
No. 8.—On northern side.
W. M. R.
MAPKOCTIBE Μάρκος Τιβέριος
PIOC ANTW ᾿Αντώνιος ᾿Ισινδευς
NIOCICINAE εὐχήν.
YCEYXHN
Cf. Mittheilungen des arch. Inst. in Athen. x. p. 340, for
᾿Ισινδεύς, a native of Isinda or Istanoz.
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 229
No. 9.
W. M. R.
TIKAPOYES2NATTOAASININEPMINO
AES2NEYXHN
Τι(βέριος) Κλ(αύδιος) Ρούσων ᾿Απόλλωνι ἹΠερμινο-
δέων εὐχήν.
In the list οἵ Hierocles (680, 3) an entry occurs δήμου
Mevéevéw(v). It has been shown by Mr. Ramsay! that these
inscriptions, and the position that the Mendeneis occupy in the
list of Hierocles, plainly justify the correction of the text to
δήμου ἸἹ]ερμινοδέων, and at the same time establish the ancient
name of this site.
BERREKET.—Ko@un Μοατρέων.
No. 10.—Rude figure in high relief: stone 4 ft. 6 in. high,
with inscription at side. Figure that of Herakles, nude; head
lost ; lion’s skin and club in left hand, patera in right hand.
AA oS:
W.M. R.
HPAKAHC 1 Ἡρακλῆς
KUJMHCMOATPE κώμης Moatpe-
WNAIAETIIME wv διὰ ἐπιμε-
AHTUNMANOY λητῶν Mavov
δ TATA ἢ Τατᾶ,
ΚΑΙΑΤΤΑΛΟΥ καὶ ᾿Αττάλου
ATIOAAWNIOY ᾿Απολλωνίου᾽
KAITPOIAOCAPNE |C... καὶ Tp(w)idros Apvel os
TOYTYAEWC τοῦ Tudéws
10 HPFACETO sic € 10 npyacero.
Line 10 ἠργάσετο, cf. No. 57, line 4, ἐστρατεύσετο.
The existence of this village of the Moatreis is only recorded
in this inscription. In the lists of Hierocles there is no name
1 Athenaeum, Dec. 20, 1884; Mit- χ. p. 334.
theilungen des arch. Inst. in Athen.
280 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
in which the true title of the place can be lurking concealed.
The town can never have been of much importance—for it is
high up amongst the spurs jutting out on the western side of
the Kestel range, where I came upon it without previous
warning.
At the same time the existing remains are not altogether
inconsiderable. The adjacent Turkish graveyard contains a
large number of architectural fragments, and there are also still
in situ the four lower courses of a “heroon or some such building,
whose dimensions were 26 ft. 5 in. x 32 ft.
Duwar.
No. 11.—Stele in centre of village.
AYTOKPATOPCIKAICAPLI
CFAIWAYP 7OYAAEPIWAIOKAH
TIANWEYCEBIEYTYXICE
BACTW “KAIMAPKWAYPHAIN ¢
5 OYAA “MA=IMIANWEYLCEBEI
EYTYXEICEBACTW “ΚΑΙ
DAABIWOYAAEPIWKWELT:ANTIW
KAIFAA IWKWCTANTIW
ETTIPDANECTATOICKAICAPCI
10 HAANTIPACALAAACCIWN
TIOAIC
Αὐτοκράτορσι Καίσαρσι
Γαΐῳ Αὐρ. Οὐαλερίῳ Διοκλη-
τιανῷ Εὐσεβὶ Εὐτυχῖ Σε
βάστῳ, καὶ Μάρκῳ ᾿Αυρηλίῳ
Οὐαλί(ερίῳ) Μαξιμιανῴ Ἐὐσεβεῖ
Εὐτυχεῖ Σεβάστῳ, καὶ
Φλαβίῳ Οὐαλερίῳ Κωσταντίῳ
καὶ Τ᾽αλ[ερ]ίῳ Κωσταντίῳ
ἐπιφανεστάτοις Καίσαρσι
10 ἡ λανπρὰ Σαγαλασσ(έ)ων
πόλις.
σι
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 231
The stone is a Jarge one, and it is not likely that it has
travelled far from its original position. Hence follows the
natural inference, that the territory of Sagalassus extended
along the south side of the Lake of Buldur, and this is proved
by a boundary-stone found by Mr. Ramsay in the burying-
ground of Duwar—pobérncav τὰ μὲν ἐν δεξιᾷ εἶναι Σαγαλασ-
σέων τὰ δὲ ἐν ἀριστερᾷ K.7.r. (Athenaeum, Dec, 20, 1884; Eph.
Epigraphica, v. 1355; American Journal of Archaeology, vol. ii.).
YARISHLI (TAKINA).
No, 12.—Stone built into the village fountain.
SES CAC KOA, tise οὐ ib. ete Ail Sees dates, deena IOYAIA
~MONHCTUJNMELICTUNKAIAI...1....-- IWINAYTOKPATO PWN
ee CEONAR@OT civatl.:xcoiaawT aon iMAYPANT
ΝΠ ΕΙΝΟΥ. can! . .Y OT. ationi. gigatl AKPiGHoraed. Yorke... .
- NEACHPACIOYAIAC [Here “follows ‘a'* long
‘erasure of about seventy letters] KAITOY
_ CYNTTANTOCOIKOYTWNCERACTUWNKAIIEPACCYNK AHTOYKAI
| AHMOYTOYPWMAIWNETTIIANOYTTATOYTOYAAMTIPOTATOY
| TAPIOYTITIANOY: THT AYKYTATHTTATPIAITWTAKINEWNAH
~MUJMETATTIACACAPXACTEKAIAEITOYPFIACKAIAIATIONTIOY
| TIPECBEIACACHNYCENETIIOEOYKOMMOAOYTPYQWN
ATIOAAWNIAOYYTIOCXOMENOCATIOTIPOIKOCIAAOCOYTFA
TPOCIAIAC'PUWAOCKAITIPOCDIAOTEIMHC AMENOCMETA
᾿ς THCFYNAIKOCAMMACAAOYKAIEICTONBACIAWTHC
[OYFATPOCA ἐν. ANAOTONETTIITQKAIAYTACAIABIOY
METEXEINEK TEAECTOBAAANEIONTIAPEAQKEN |
Ὑπὲρ σωτηρ]ίας καὶ [velens κ]αὶ [alwr]iov διαμονῆς τῶν μεγίστων
καὶ ἀϊνεικήτ]ων αὐτοκρατόρων
Λουκίου Σεπτιμίου] Σεουήρο[υ καὶ] Μ. Αὐρ. ᾿Αντωνείνου [καὶ
Νέας Ἥρας Ἰουλίας [καὶ Π. Σεπτιμίου Τέτα .. .. 7 καὶ τοῦ
᾿σύνπαντος οἴκου τῶν Σεβαστῶν καὶ ἱερᾶς συνκλήτου καὶ δήμου τοῦ
Ῥωμαίων ἐπὶ ἀνθυπάτου τοῦ λαμπροτάτου
Ταρίου Τιτιάνου' τῇ γλυκυτάτῃ πατρίδι τῷ Τακινέων δήμῳ μετὰ
πάσας ἀρχάς τε καὶ λειτουργίας καὶ διαποντίους
232 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
6 πρεσβείας as ἤνυσεν ἐπὶ θεοῦ Koppodov, Τρύφων ᾿Απολλωνέδοι
ὑποσχόμενος ἀπὸ προικὸς lados θυγα-
7 τρὸς ἰδίας ἡρω[ίδ]ος, καὶ προσφιλοτειμησάμενος μετὰ τῆς γυναικὸν
"Appas Δάου καὶ εἰς τὸν Βασιλώτης
8 [θυγατρὸς α[ὑτ]ῶν λό(γ)ον, ἐπὶ τῷ καὶ αὐτὰς διὰ βίου μετέχειν
> / ~ a ν
ἐκτελέσ(ας) τὸ βαλανεῖον παρέδωκεν].
This inscription, which must have been copied very hastily
by Arundel]l [Asia Minor, ἵ 117] was first published by him
as restored, and translated by Colonel Leake [loc. cit. p. 115,
C.I.G. 3956)]. Bailie’s copy, 6.1.6. add. p. 1106, Le Bas V.
No. 1700, is not an independent copy, but Arundell’s version,
slightly improved; it is given an affected appearance of
originality by the use of uncials.
Α very faulty but independent copy is given by Mr. E. J.
Davis, who makes a correct division of the lines. Line 4.
Leake, τῶν Ῥωμαίων; Davis, TOYPQMAION ; Leake, ἐπὶ ἀνθυ-
πάτου λαμπροτάτου ; Davis inserts TOY. Line 5. Leake,
Τατιόυ; Davis, TAPIOY ; Leake, Λακινέων ; Davis, TAKINEQM.
Arundell remarks (p. 118): ‘The name AAKANEQN ΔΗΜΟΣ
occurs in the inscription on the fountain. From the form of
the first letter it might be mistaken for TAKANEQN.’ It is,
however, undoubtedly TAKINEQN. Cf. Waddington—Le Bas,
V. 745, TOTAKINEQNAHMQ®, communicated to Le Bas by
Dethier, the companion of Arundell, as the first line of a long
inscription copied by Arundell. It can hardly fail to be derived
from this inscription, though not from the first line. Line 7.
Arundell, ᾿Αμμίας ; Davis, AMMINE.
Νέα “Ἥρα ᾿Ιουλία is Julia Domna. Arundell’s copy gave
“Pwpaias instead of Ἰουλίας, which is the true reading (Davis,
ΙΟΥΜΑΣ). Hence the commentators have hesitated between
Plautilla, wife of Caracalla (Leake and Boeckh, C.I.G. 3956b)
and Julia Domna (Boeckh, 6 1. add. p. 1106, and Waddington,
Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques, No. 162). Τῷ Taxwéwv dp
= Takina. This place does not appear in Hierocles or the
Notitiae. Mr. Ramsay? conjectures that it has dropped out
from Hierocles, p. 680, 8.
This inscription in 1872 was a ‘cornice over the fountain.’ ὃ
But since then the fountain has been rebuilt, the inscription
1 Anatolica, p. 138. 2 Athenaeum, Dec. 20, 1884. 3 Anatolica, p. 138.
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 233
occupies a different position, and its last line has gone. This is
given, however, by Davis as above. With the help of a
correction by Mr. Hicks, AOTON for AOTON in the line now
wanting, the general sense becomes clear: Tryphon, a munifi-
cent citizen of Takina, had done good service by holding various
civic offices, and by going as an envoy (to Rome?) in the time
of Commodus. Then, when the public bath needed building
or rebuilding, he undertook the cost of it out of the portion he
had intended for his daughter Ias, who had died (ἡρωίδος).
Moreover, he made a further generous contribution, acting in
concert with his wife Amma, and making a payment on the
account of his daughter Basilote, the two ladies making their
contributions on the condition that they, as well as Tryphon
(καὶ αὐτάς), should have the use of the bath for life, free of
charge. Tryphon, on these conditions, completed the βαλανεῖον,
and handed it over to the state.
PART II.—MISCELLANEOUS INSCRIPTIONS.
The preceding inscriptions have been grouped together, as
being of topographical interest. Those which follow are of a
miscellaneous character.
No. 18:—Dede to the north-east of Ali Agha Chiflik.
Stone 28} x 12 in.
; TOMNHMEION
ATIOAAQNIOYTOY
ATIOAAQNIOY
ZH
To μνημεῖον
᾿Απολλωνίου τοῦ
᾿Απολλωνίου.
Ζῇ.
KARAYUK-BAZAR.
Ne, 14,—Circular tombstone, by mosque.
A. H.8.
W. M. R.
AIMOYNANIZATTOA
AQAOSTIAEY? OY
984 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
MAMAIKAIXOP AAAH
ΤΟΙΣΑΔΕΛΈΟΙΣΚΑΙ
5 MANHAOSTEKNSATIOA
AQAEIKAITIPFRTISNI
TSCYNTPODSI Al CIA
HMHTHPZ&2=AMNEI
A= XAPIN
Αἰμούνανις ᾿Απολ-
λῶδος Πλευΐου or Πλεύ(ρ)ου ἢ
Μάνηδι καὶ Χο[ρ]δαδῇ
τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς καὶ
5 Μάνηδος τέκνῳ ᾿Απολ-
λώδει καὶ ἹΠρωτίωνι
τῷ συντρόφῳ.... Ela
ἡ μήτηρ ζῶσα μνεί-
ας χάριν.
C.1.G. 3953m.
This inscription was copied by Fellows and Schénborn, who
omitted to uncover the left-hand side of the lines.
Line 7. Schonborn FAPEIA.
YUSUFCHA.
No, 15.—Circular basis, beside entrance to the mosque.
ACH ΕΣ
OAHMOSKAIOITIPAT MA
TEYOMEN!I ENTAYGAPOSM
OIETIMHZANMIOPHNEYTTP
ΧΡΥΣΟΙΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΙΤΙΜΟΙΣ
ῦ ΚΑΙΕΙΚΟΙ
Ὃ δῆμος καὶ οἱ πραγμα-
τευόμεν[ο]. ἐντᾶυθα Ῥωμζ[αῖ-
οἱ ἐτίμησαν Μίθρην Ε.......Ἅ.ὕ»
χρυσῷ στεφάνῴ........«ννννον
»
\ be
5 καὶ εἰκόΪνι.
Copied by Falkener, and published by Henzen, Annali dell’
Inst. 1852, p. 177, and Waddington—Le Bas V. No. 1218. The
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 235
right side of the stone is engaged in a wall, and difficult to see
from its position as well as obliterated. My copy adds several
words to that of Falkener.
Falkener reads 1. 2, TEYOMENI: 1. 4, STEDANQETIM:
1. 5, ΕἸΙΚΟΙ.
Compare with this stone the inscription of Cibyra (Bull. de
Corr. hell. τι. p. 598, No. 5).
Compare also the inscription of Cibyra (abidem, p. 599, No. 6),
which can be restored with the help of the inscription here
given.
RELIEFS REPRESENTING THE θεὸς σώζων.
The inscriptions from Tefeny, Nos. 16, 17, were found in
company with a series of rock-reliefs of a class already well
known as existing in this neighbourhood.
Having been informed of the existence of ‘written stones’
whilst at Tefeny, we went somewhat sceptically to look at the
rocks on the south-east side of the hill to the west village. We
found it covered with a large number of reliefs of this peculiar
class, The usual type of relief may be described as follows:
A seated figure on horseback is carved on the rock in low
relief. He wears a flying cloak, the left hand rests on the
horse’s neck, and the right hand brandishes a club. In one
instance the figure carries an object on his shoulder, hardly
distinguishable from the effects of weather, and presumably
a double axe, though to me the group was suggestive of a
Hermes on a ram, carrying a caduceus,
The series of figures on these rocks may be classed as
follows :—
Specimens.
(1) The Hermes-like figure just mentioned . . . 1
(2) Large figure in high relief. The figure is 1 ft.
2 in. high, and the horse is 1 foot from head
to tail. EN eer ee ete eee eee 1
(3) Figures of horsemen 9 in. high, the right arm
extended to the back waving a club, the left
hand on the horse’s neck . 54
Total number . 56
236 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
All the figures are enclosed in shallow niches, which are
either square, or with a rounded top, or surmounted by a
pediment. These reliefs are additional members of a class
which is already numerous, and has been discussed and illus-
trated by M. Collignon, who met with several examples, all of
them in the immediate neighbourhood! The most important
group is at Khodja Tash, a short distance to the south-west
of Tefeny. The sculptures of Khodja Tash are very similar
to those of Tefeny.2 Of the accompanying inscriptions, however,
only insignificant fragments remain.
Thus the title of the god cannot be ascertained from the in-
scriptions either at Tefeny or at Khodja Tash.
But No. 18, from Karamanli (Collignon, Bulletin, iv. p. 298),
a marble seen by Collignon at Tefeny (ibidem), and a marble at
Adalia (ibidem, p, 294) leave little doubt that the same title of
θεὸς σώξων must be given to the equestrian figures of Khodja
Tash and Tefeny. The θεὸς σώξων is thus a local god, who,
as M. Collignon points out, shares the attributes of Men, of
Zeus Labrandeus, and of Zeus Masphalatenos, but is not identical
with any of these deities.
TEFENY.
No. 16.—Rock inscription, upon the rocks to the west of the
village, attached to one of the best preserved reliefs of mounted
horsemen.
W. M. R.
A. H.S.
MENEAAOLC MHNIAOS Μενέλαος Μήνιδος
OPODYAA ὁροφύλαϊ &
EYXEN εὐχήν.
ΕΤΘΥΓ ét(o)us
ΣΟΡ (ε)ορ΄.
cop’ = 175. Assurhing that these inscriptions employ the
era of Cibyra, the date is 199 A.D.
ὋὉροφύλαξ is a word which I cannot find elsewhere. It
? Collignon, Bull. de Corr. hell. i. iv. p. 291.
p. 366; ii. p. 170; iii. p. 334, 346; 2 Bull, de Corr. hell. iv. pl. ix.
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 237
seems to mean ‘guardian of boundaries, used asa title of an
official ; a word based on the model of λιμενοφύλαξ (Ditten-
berger, No. 343), ὁπλοφύλαξ (C.L.G. 39029), ἄς. Or perhaps
the word is ὀροφύλαξ, mountain-guard.
With reference to the reliefs, vide supra.
No. 17.—Rock inscription on cliffs,
Engraved on a panel 11 x 9 inches. Remainder of panel
never engraved.
W. ΜΝ. R.
AL.'S,
IEPS2NBYKOIOY Y (if any letter should be read
ETOYE * BOP
here, which is doubtful),
|
“Er(o)vs Bop’ | or amore probable reading of the inscription
Ἱέρων Βυκοίου Ἔτους Bop’
| Ἱέρων B’ Κοίου
Bop’ = 172 = 194 Α.Ὁ., according to the era of Cibyra.
KARAMANLI.
No. 18.—Stone built into a fountain, outside the village.
On the lower part is a relief representing a horseman,
riding towards the right, and carrying a double axe on his
shoulder.
Stone 1 ft. 104 in. x 113 in. Height of figure 12 in.
About three inches broken away on left [= three letters].
238 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
μ᾽ βοϊχμῆ A. H.S.
|
OCAEICATTAA | Transcribed and took an
OYIAPACAMEN impression.
WZONTICTHKO®
€YXHN ANES
¢ - ἯΚΕΝ
Relief of
Horseman.
᾿Οσαεὶς ᾿Αττάλ-
ov ἱ(ε)ῃρασάμεν-
os Σ]ώζοντι [ἐπηκόῳ
εὐχὴν ἀνέθηκεν.
The inscription is published by Collignon, Bull. de Corr.
hell. ii. p. 172, and the relief, «bidem, iv. pl. x. fig. 8. Line 1.
Collignon, AMAA; Duchesne, APTAA. I have no doubt
the true reading is ATTAA. Line 3. Collignon reads ἔτη κθ',
but suggests ἐπηκόῳ as a possible reading.
The name ’Ocaeis appears to have been very common in
this particular region. Cf. 6.106. 4366w, line 16, Ὀσαεὶς
᾿Αττάλου and passim. Compare also No. 23, side A, line 7,
᾿Αττάλου ᾽Οσαεί.
ΤΈΕΕΝΥ.
No. 19.—Large pedestal, standing in a cross-road, in a suburb
of the village.
A, HLS:
AOYACMHNI
AOLCKAIOIYIOIAY
TOYENOIHCANMH
NIAINOCIAWNIOY
MNHMHCENEKAN sic A
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 239
Ka]éovas Μῆήνι-
\ € ιν >
δος Kal οἱ υἱοὶ av-
“ > ͵ Γ ,ὔ
τοῦ ἐποίησαν Μη-
vide ἸΠοσιδωνίου
μνήμης ἕνεκαν.
‘TEFENY.
No. 20.—In the yard of the Bey’s house.
Α. Ἡ. 8.
J.R.S.Sterrett.
AHMHTPIOCAHMHTPIOY
EAYTWKAITHPFYNAIXI sic X
ZWNETIOHCEN
Δημήτριος Δημητρίου
: ἑαυτῷ καὶ TH γυναιχὶ
ζῶν ἐπόησεν.
γυναιχί, οἵ. ὄκλον and ὄχλον used indiscriminately in the
Hei-ja inscription, No. 23.
TEFENY.
No. 21.—Stelé (six feet high) in front of a house near that
of Bey.
A. HLS.
ἘΝΑΓΗΓΥΝΗΑΥΤΟΥ Ἔνας ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ
KAIMOY* AIOCKAI καὶ Μουσαῖος καὶ
ΙΕΡΩΝΟΙΥΙΟΙΑΥ “Ἱέρων οἱ υἱοὶ ar-
TOYKAIMOYCAIOC τοῦ καὶ Μουσαῖος
Sic Y. 5 OANYYIOC AYTOY ὃ ὁ ἀνύψιος αὐτοῦ
APTEM! TQTTATPI ᾿Αρτεμί σίῳ] τῷ πατρὶ
MNIAC ΧΑΡΙΝ , μνίας χάριν.
No. 15 (6).—On the lower part of the same stele, somewhat
further round to the right, the same inscription is repeated.
240 NOTES ΟΝ A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
Sic €NACHT YNHATOY
KAIMOYCAIOC KAI
10 ΙΕΡΩΝΟΙΥΙΟΙΑΥ
TOYKAIMOYCAIOC
Sic Ὺ. OANYYIOC AYTOY
APTEMICIGOTOOTIATPI
MNIAC XAPIN
"Evas ἡ γυνὴ α(ὐ)τοῦ
καὶ Μουσαῖος καὶ
10 ‘Iépwy οἱ υἱοὶ αὐ-
τοῦ καὶ Μουσαῖος
ὁ ἀνύψιος αὐτοῦ
᾿Αρτεμισίῳ τῷ πατρὶ
μνιάς χάριν.
The name “Evas does not seem to occur elsewhere, except in
this neighbourhood ; cf. No. 68. It may perhaps be restored in
No. 27, and in Bull. de. Corv. hell. 11. p. 603, No. 15.
TEFENY.
No. 22.—Stone built into the wall of a house, in the street
leading towards Sazak.
A. H.S8.
W. M. R.
LKAIMHNI
IACONIKAIEIA
ZQCIN
wan ee s καὶ Mjvi[s
Ἰάσονι καὶ Eid.
ζῶσιν.
= Οὗ Bull. de Corr. hell. ii. p. 263.xThe edges of the stone are
perfect, and it is therefore impossible to restore Εἰδοθέᾳ, as
Collignon conjectures.
HEI-JA (near Tefeny).
No. 23.—Square base, inscribed on all four sides.
Height, 4 ft. 2 in. Breadth, 1 ft. 5 in. at top,1 ft. 7 in.
at bottom.
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR, 241
Side A.
ὟΝ ἢ,
ΑΓΑΘΗ uncut
KATPODIMOCITAAIKOYCTI
MHCETONOXAON XA
FAElLOCAICMH uncut
5 ANE€CTHCEN
ETTITIPOATONT DNMHNIAOCAIC
NEIKAAOY
ATTAAOYOCAEIAYATTHC
AICTOYOCAEINPOATQN
ETEIMHCENTONOXAON
10 ¥POCAEICMHNIAOCOCAEIOY
AAAPOYOKEPHIFEAAOCETI
MHCENTONOXAONXN
KAAAIKAHCMHNIAOCMEA
TWNOCETIMHCENTONO
15 XAONXC
COAWNNIKAAOYMENEC
O€OCETIMHCENTON
OXAONXN
TIANCACKACIOYETI
20 MHCENTONOXAON X¥KE
MHNICNEAPKOYAATIOY
€TIMHCENTONOKAONX¥N
MHNICHPAKAEIAOYKAC
TOPOCETEIMHCETON
25 OXAONXKE
ATTAAOCKEMAKOCOIA
ONYCIOYTOYBPOMIOYE
TIMHCANTONOKAON ¥W\
wun AHNICAICKAAAYOYE
30 gS MHCENTONOXAONX N
AHMHCCYMAKOYTGYIOY
NIOYETEIMHCENTONOKAON
HS.—VOL, VIII. R
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
10
bo
Oc
30
¥NMHNICAIC uncut
PWNOCETEIMHCENTONOK
ONX*KE
᾿Αγαθῇ (τύχῃ)
Κλ(αύδιος) Τρόφιμος ᾿Ιταλικοῦ [ἐ]τι
μῆσε τὸν ὄχλον ¥ ,
Γάειος δὶς Μή(νιδος)
ἀνέστησεν
ἐπὶ προαγόντων Μήνιδος δὶς
Νεικάδου,
᾿Αττάλου Ὅσαεί. Av. "Attys
δὶς τοῦ ᾿᾽Οσαεὶ προά(γ)ων
ἐτείμησεν τὸν ὄχλον
¥p. Ὀσαεὶς Μήνιδος 'Ocaei
αδάρου, ὁ κὲ Ῥήγελλος ἐτί-
μησεν τὸν ὄχλον ¥ ν.
Καλλικλῆς Μήνιδος Me(Ni-
τωνος ἐτίμησεν τὸν -΄
χλον ¥ Ps
Σόλων Nixddov Mevec-
θέος ἐτίμησεν τὸν
ὄχλον * ν.
Πάνσας K[alovov ἐτί-
μησεν τὸν ὄχλον δ κε.
Μῆνις Νεάρκου Λάπου
ἐτίμησεν τὸν ὄχλον * ν.
Μῆνις Ἡρακλείδου Κάσ-
τορος ἐτείμησε τὸν
ὄχλον * κε.
"“Attaros xe Md(p)xos οἱ Διε-
ovuciou τοῦ Βρομίου ἐ-
τίμησαν τὸν. ὄκλον XK ..-
Μῆνις δὶς Καδαύου ἐ-
τἤμησεν τὸν ὄχλον * ν.
Δημῆς Συμάκου τοῦ ᾿Ἴου-
νίου ἐτείμησεν τὸν ὄκλον
Ἀ v. Μῆνις δὶς [Té-
ρωνος ἐτείμησεν τὸν ὄκ[ν
ον Ἃ κε.
’Ov-
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 243
Side B.
Ἂ TES:
W. M. R.
KACIOCAICTOYTTANCAETI
MHCENTONOXAON ¥P
KPATEPOC AYAIOYETIMH
CENTONOXAON XP
5 ATTOAAQAOTOCMHNIAOC
MIAAKOCETIMHCENTONOX ¥* N
AON
MHNIC TPICMEAICCO
PFOYETIMHCENTON
OXAON Χ O€ ATTOAAO
10 Δοτογδιζαπολλυυ
NIOYMIAAAKOCETEI
MHCENTONOXAON ¥P
- MHNICATTOAAOAOTOY
MIAAAKOCKEAYTOCE
15 TIMHCENTONOXAON X¥N
MAPKOCMHNIAOC AIC
CATAPAAOCETIMHCEN
TONOXAON ΧΝ
ATTAAOCMENNEOYKIK
20 KOYETEIMHCENTONOKAONX¥N
MENNE AC KIKKOY €TI
MHi€ TON GKAON ΧΝ
APATAOYETI
HNIAOC
25 ΥΕΤΕῚ
ΧΛΟΝ
Κάσιος δὶς τοῦ Ilavea ἐτί-
\ ” =
μῆσεν τὸν ὄχλον δέ p,
Κρατερὸς Λυδίου ἐτίμη-
σεν τὸν ὄχλον Ἃ ρ.
24.
10
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
5 ᾿Απολλ(ό)δοτος Μήνιδος
Μίδακος ἐτίμησεν τὸν ὄχλον δ ν.
Mis τρὶς Μελισσό-
ργου ἐτίμησεν τὸν
ὄχλον * οε ᾿Απολλό.
10 ὃοτος δὶς ᾿Απολλω-
νίου Μώλακος ἐτέι-
μησεν τὸν ὄχλον δέ ρ.
Μῆνις ᾿Απολλοδότου
ΔΙώλλακος κὲ αὐτὸς ἐ-
15 τίμησεν τὸν ὄχλον ¥ ν.
ΔΙάρκος Δίήνιδος δὶς
Σατάραδος ἐτίμησεν
τὸν ὄχλον * ν.
"Ἄτταλος Μεννέου Κίκ-
κου ἐτείμησεν Tov ὄκλον ¥ ν.
Μεννέας Κέκκου ἐτί-
b
μῆσε τὸν ὄκλον δ ν.
ὁ δεῖνα Σμ]αράγδου ἐτί [μησε τὸν
ὄχλον ¥ .... [ὁ δεῖνα ΜΊ]Ίήνιδος
τοῦ δεῖνος] ἐτεί [μησε τὸν
ὄχλον [Ἀ...
Side C.
THNICMENANAPOY MAPK
ETIMHCENTONOXAON X KE
XAATIXAPETWNNEAPKOY Mimy,
NELANOYETEIMHZEENTONOKAON
KACTWPMHNIAOC MO
AYKOCETIMHCENTONO
XAON¥PCOYPNOCCYM
MAXOYKPATEPOYETEI
MHCENTONOXAONXA
ANTWNIOCMHNIAOC
IBYPOYETEIMHCEN
TONOXAONX¥NAHMHCMH
IAOCKIBYPOYETEIMHCEN
ONOXAONXKE
bo
or
Lb
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
VHNICAIACKOYPIAOYBI
CETIMHCENTONOXAONX
MENECOEYCAICDYPPOYETI
MHCENTONOXAON XKE
AAAYACMKNIAOCKAAAO
AIOYIOCAYTOYMHNICKAA
OYETEIMHCENTONOXAON
ONHCIMOCMHNIAOCMOAY
KOCET HCENTONOXAON * K
NTIOAA EOCKAIC
IOCAYTOY
TPICET] MHCANTONOX/
ΜΊῆνις Μενάνδρου Mapx{[ov
ἐτίμησεν τὸν ὄχλον Χ κε.
Χαλπ. Χαρέτων Neapxov Με
νειάνου ἐτείμησεν τὸν ὄκλον [Ἀ...
Κάστωρ Μήνιδος Μό-
λυκος ἐτίμησεν τὸν ὄ-
χλον ¥ p. Σοῦρνος Lu
ROT
μ-
μάχου Kpatépou ἐτεί-
μησεν τὸν ὄχλον * Δ.
10 ᾿Αντώνιος Μήνιδος
ΚἸυβύρου ἐτείμησεν
τὸν ὄχλον ¥ v. Δημῆς Μή-
ν]ιδος Κιβύρου ἐτείμησεν
τ]ὸν ὄχλον ¥ κε.
15 Μ|ῆνις Διασκουρίδου Βί[ω-
vols ἐτίμησεν τὸν ὄχλον * ..
Μενεσθεὺς δὶς Φύρρου ἐτί-
μησεν τὸν ὄχλον * κε.
K]adavas Μίή)νιδος Καδα(ύ)οϊ υ
20 κ]αὶ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ Μῆνις Καδί αύ-
ou ἐτείμησεν τὸν ὄχλον [Χ...
Ὀνήσιμος Μήνιδος Μόλυ-
κος ἐτ[είμ]ησεν τὸν ὄχλον ¥ x.
᾿ΑἸπολλ[ώνιος .. .. εοσ] x[ali [ὁ
aD-UloguuToy Ss Ls. te ys ke
τρὶς ἐτίμησαν Tov dy[Aov *....
245
246
5
10
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
Side D.
MHNICAXIAAEOCE
TIMHCENTONOXAONXN
AXIAAEYCMHNIAOCMO
YNFOYETIMHCENTONOXAOXN
EPMHCBKAAOYPKOYETI
MHCENTONOXAONX¥A
AIONYCIOCAICTOYBIPIIIN
OCETIMHCENTONOXAON ¥K
MENNEACAIONYCIOYMEN
NEOYKIKOYETIMHCENTO
NOXAON ¥ AE
AHMOQWNAIONYEZIOYETIM
CENTONOXAONXKE
MENNEACKAPTIOCA
TIOAAUNEIOYEIC
PEOCETEIMHCEN
TON OXAON ἘΝ
Finis.
Maus ᾿Αχιλλέος €-
τίμησεν Tov ὄχλον ¥ ν.
᾿Αχιλλεὺς Μήνιδος Μο-
ύνγου ἐτίμησεν τὸν ὄχλοί(ν) δ ν.
5 Ἑρμῆς B’ Καδούρκου ἐτί-
μησεν τὸν ὄχλον ¥ 2.
Διονύσιος δὶς τοῦ Bip. ..
os ἐτίμησεν τὸν ὄχλον * κ.
Μεννέας Διονυσίου Μεν-
10 νέου Κίκ(κ)ου ἐτίμησεν τὸ-
ν ὄχλον Ἂ λε.
Δημόφων Διονυσίου ἐτίμ[η-
σεν τὸν ὄχλον δ κε.
Μεννέας Καρπὸς ᾿Α-
15 πολλωνείου εἰἶ[ε]-
ρέος ἐτείμησεν
τὸν ὄχλον δέ ν.
sie
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 247
Side A, line 10. OYAAAPOY. So also, in an inscription at
Tefeny, Collignon and Duchesne (Bull. de Corr. hell. ii. p. 58,
l. 85), correct Schénborn’s reading (CLG. 4366w, 1. 56)
OYAAAPOY to OYAAAPOY.
C, line 15. AIACKOYPIAOY. Cf. Bull. de Corr. hell. ii.
p. 254, 1. 21, 24.
This large stone was standing, inverted and half-buried, in
the grave-yard of Hei-ja, a village somewhat to the north of
Tefeny. It had been seen both by Schonborn! and by Col-
lignon.2 Schénborn copied a considerable part of one side (A),
beginning at line 7, and a few words on a second side (8), but
did not observe that the stone was engraved on more than two
sides. Collignon copied nearly the same part of the side A that
Schénborn had done, beginning at line 12, but did not observe
that the stone was engraved on more than one side. When the
stone had been dug out, and set erect by the united efforts
of the villagers, it proved to be closely inscribed on all four
sides,
The stone contains little except a list of subscribers with
their respective contributions for some public purpose. Col-
lignon (loc. cit. p. 257) conjectures that the money was dis-
tributed amongst the people, but as the inscription opens after
the invocation, ᾿Αγαθῇ (Τύχῃ) (and some interpolated names)
Tdeos . . . ἀνέστησεν, the rest of the list seems to refer to
contributions towards the expenses of erecting a statue. Mr.
Hicks suggests that possibly the statue may have represented
the ὄχλος or people.
Inscriptions containing similar long lists of names are of
frequent occurrence in the neighbourhood of Tefeny.? In many
instances, as might be expected, the same names and com-
binations of names occur on more than one inscription.
Line 6, ἐπὶ προαγόντων «.7.r. This title of a magistrate
occurs on other inscriptions from this neighbourhood, but does
not appear to be met with elsewhere.*
1=0.1.G. 4367. and Bull. de Corr. hell. pp. 243—25?,
2 Bull. de Corr, hell, ii. p. 255. Nos. 7—10, 12 (at Karamanli).
3 Cf C.1.G. 4866. = Bull. de 4 Cf. Bull. de Corr. hell. ii. p. 250,
Corr. hell. ii. p. 56, No. 1 (at Tefeny); 1.8; p. 258, 1. 9.
2.48 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
SAZAK.
No. 24.—Fragment in a wall.
10 1X]
NEIAOC
EAENOY
Νεῖλος
“Ἑλένου
So Collignon. The limes, however, are complete at each
end, instead of being fragments from the centre of the stone as
represented by Collignon.
HEI-JA.
No. 25.—Fragment of a stele, lying in graveyard.
Inscription hastily and rudely scrawled.
A. H.S.
W. M. R.
MHNICAOYA-2.A
> €ETTOHCEMHNI
AITWAAEATIW
KATHMHTPIKAIAY sic
TWKAITHS
-
~
Μῆνις Δούλ[λ]α
ἐπόησε Μήνι-
δι τῴ ἀδελπῷ
κα(ὶ) τῇ μητρὶ καὶ av-
5 τῷ καὶ τῇ γ[υναικί
KALJIK.
No. 26.—Built into house of Bey.
Relief of man on horseback, as on other inscriptions in this
neighbourhood. Cf. No. 16.
1 Bull. de Corr. hell. ii. p. 268, No. 17.
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 249
A. HS
W.M.R
J-R.S.8S
----
| Reliet. |
ry ἀν 1
KWBEAAICAIC Κώβελλις- bis
TOYATTH | τοῦ ᾿Αττὴ
TIOCEIAWNI | Ποσειδῶνι
€TTHKOW ἐπηκόῳ
5 €YXHN | 5 εὐχήν.
Cf. a similar inscription! in cemetery at Karamanli. Δάμας
Μήνιδος Διφίλο[ζυ] θεῷ ἐπηκ[ό]ῳ Ποσειδῶνι εὐχήν.
No. 27.—Small rude stone, about one foot high.
J.R.S.8
A. Hi. 8,
ΠΟΛ WNIC
ΣΔΙΙΠΛΟ
YTWNIE |
OANITOAO!
JONEYKHN sc
τι
᾿ΑἸπολ[λ]ώνιο-
ς Act Πλο-
>
ύτωνι E......
- \ 7 /
5 πὸν εὐκήν.
Mr. Hicks suggests Ἔ[π|0. (φ)άνιε for the illegible epithet of
line 3.
1 Bull. de Corr. hell. ii. p. 178.
250
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
No. 28.—House of Bey.
.R.S.S
J.R.S.S.
W. M. Β.
A. H.S.
=
EMMENIAHL | ᾿Εμμενίδης
ἌΡΧΟΝΤΟΣ Αρχοντος
ΛΓΕΥΚΕΥΣΙι ᾿Απευκεύς
EM AA Ἔμ weve |da
UZ-BAGHCHE.
No. 29.—Base in graveyard—much weatherworn.
A, H, 8:
KACT WP
NACK AIATAC
OTTOC
OIKAHCONOMOI
5 LAT
1M ICKEN
Κάστωρ [καὶ "E-
vas καὶ Aras
olloc[......
οἱ κλη(ρ)ονόμοι
5 κ]ατ[εσκεύασαν
μν]ήμ[ης ἕν]εκεν.
”E]vas, compare remarks on No. 15.
KALOWISLAR.
No, 30.—Stone outside mosque,
Defaced relief. Inscription below.
A. Η. 5
TIOTTAIOCKOPNHAIOC
ABACKANTOCKAIKOP
NHAILATYXHMAPKW
KAATIOYPNIWBIPPIW
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 251
ὃ EYTYXHTWYIWAY
TWNKAIEATOIC
MNHMHCENEKEN
Πόπλιος Κορνήλιος
᾿Αβάσκαντος καὶ Kop-
νηλία Τύχη Μάρκῳ
Καλπουρνίῳ Βιρρίῳ
Εὐτυχῇ τῷ υἱῷ av-
τῶν καὶ ἑα(υ)τοῖς
μνήμης ἕνεκεν.
ὧι
6. ἑατοῖς. Cf. No. 1ὅ (Ὁ), line 1, ἀτοῦ. The form frequently
occurs in inscriptions of the post-Augustan period. Cf. Meister-
hans, Grammatik der attischen Inschriften, p. 69.
BELENLI (OLBASA).
No. 31.—Stelé in front of mosque. The latter parts of the
lines much obliterated.
A. Ἡ. 5.
W. M. Β.
᾿ NIKANAPOC
MAPKWT
Ιωκ τ
| KICE, NK
δ΄ ALWTWYIW
| CLONAIATH
TPIZWN
€CTHCAMN
HMHC /
Νέκανδρος
Μάρκῳ τίῷ ὑ-
ιῷ κ[ὲ] Τ[ατίᾳ γυνε-
ΚΙ [ΓΚ] ΠΕ
λίῳ τῷ υἱῷ [κὲ
Εἰο(υ)λί[ᾳ] τῇ [θυγα-
or
252 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
tpl ζῶν [ἀν-
ἔστησα μν-
jens χίάριν.
Parts of the above are taken from Mr. Ramsay’s copy.
IspANoz (ISINDA 7).
No. 32.—Small stone, about two feet high, produced by a
native.
Beneath a rude relief apparently representing a female figure.
EPMAICTPOC
ONAOYOYTA
TPIMNHMHC
X APIN
“Eppat(o)s Tpo(«)
ovdov θυγα-
Tpl μνήμης
χάριν.
Cf. Τροκόνδας ‘Epuadov on an inscription from the supposed
site of Cretopolis, published by Mr. Ramsay, Bull. de Corr. hell.
vil. p. 268. See also C.LG@. 43679.
Names in -vos are often thus contracted into -ἐς in late docu-
ments. Cf. Keil, Specimen Onomatol. Gr. p. 78.
No. 33.—In graveyard.
The stone is broken in two, and the fragments are a little
distance apart.
W. M. R.
A ES
AOYAIKOL Δουλικὸς
ANEAEYOEPOL ἀπελεύθερος
ΑΤΤΑΛΟΥΚΑΙ ᾿Αττάλου καὶ
KECTPOYKAIAA Κέστρου καὶ Δα-
ΜΟΓΤΟΥΤΩΜΙ͂ΛΑ 5 pos(t)ov τῶν Πλά-
ΤΩΝΟΓΑΤΤΑΛΟΥ τωνος ᾿Αττάώλου
ΜΑΤΕΤΓ Tier
/ ‘
KATEOTIOE τὴϊν
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 253
Ν ¢ a
[ copo ν ἑαυτῷ;
ΚΑΙΓΥΝΑΙΚΙΜΕΛΙ καὶ γυναικὶ Μελι-
10 TINHKAIKOIPIAAH 10 τένῃ καὶ Κοιρίλλῃ
ΤΗΠΕΝΘΕΡΑΑΥΤΟΥ τῇ πενθερᾷ αὐτοῦ.
EANAETISETEPOC "Kav δέ τις ἵτερος,
ΒΙΑΓΗΤΑΙΔΏΓΕΙ βιάσηται δώσει
τηπολειχαφ “Th πόχει ¥ad
ABV FARADIN YAILA (LAGBON).
No. 34.—Large rock tomb, with sculptured lion, upon lid of
sarcophagus.
(a) On hid,
W. MR.
A. Η. 5.
—— AYP’KE {{{||{|΄
pe yatta
(b) On fave of tomb.
KAITH AENIEZON
ECTAIENIL TA OCT °F
5 TWEPFWTO EAITEPQ) ATW
MIELWXBD OKAITW AT
ONMICQ WTH
¥XWPIO¥ XD
ιΔε TIBO¥AE ¥CC
10 TAETIZWNET iP PAY
᾿ ἔτους εἰς. Αὐρ Ke... .. [τὴν σόρον
κατεσ[κεύασεν ἐαυτῷ
καὶ τῇ [γυναικὶ . .. ... "Ἄλλῳ δὲ οὐδ]ενὶ ἔξον
ἔσται ἐπισ[ενέγκειν
τῷ ἔργῳ To [ τῷ] ἱερωτάτῳ [Tra
μιείῳ ¥& βφ' [καὶ τῇ πόλει B] φ' καὶ τῷ [κ]ατὰ
τόπ͵]ον μίσθῳ, τῇ [δὲ
γερουσίᾳ τῇ κηδομένῃ το]ῦ χωρίου ἃ φ'
εὐ δέ τι βουλε(ύ)σω ἄλλο
10 ταῦ]τα ἐτὶ ζῶν ἐπιγράψω.
οι
εἰς = 215, which by the era of Cibyra, is equal to 287 A.D.
954 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
ZIVINTKEWI.
Nv. 35.—On a stone lying by the side of a street, carved in
a sunk panel.
HBOYAHKAIOAHMOS
ETEIMHECNMAPKONG
NAANKIONAEAFLA
TONKTIZTHNKAISIAO
TIATPIN
οι
Ἢ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος
ἐτείμησεν Μάρκον
Πλάνκιον Λέλεγα
Ν , \ ,
TOV κτίστην καὶ φιλό-
5 πατριν.
For a similar decree in honour of the wife of this Μ, Plancius
see No. 36. .
Line 8. Λέλεγα, cf. Strabo, Geog. 570.
ZIVINTKEWI.
No. 36.—Square pedestal, 4 feet high.
HBOYAHKAIOAHMOS
ETEIMHZENIOY
AIANXAIAHN'Y
NAIKAMAPKOY
5 TIAANKIOYAEAETO
=2DPONAKAIENAPETOI
H βουλῆ καὶ ὁ δῆμος
ἐτείμησεν ‘lov-
λίαν Χλίδην γυ-
ναῖκα Μάρκου
5 Πλανκίου Λέλεγος
σώφρονα καὶ ἐνάρετοϊν.
For M. Plancius, cf. No. 35.
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 255
No. 37.—Part of a small relief. The lower three-fourths of
a female figure, closely draped.
AIONYCIOCAIONYCIA
AIAEIMNHCTOYMNH
MHEXAPIN
Διονύσιος Διονυσία-
de ᾿Αειμνήστου μνή-
ens χάριν.
ANDYA (ANDEDA).
No. 38.—Inside mosque. An oblong marble slab. On top,
a surface of polished marble with device ΕΣ in the centre.
Probably a Christian altar dedicated to Constantine and
Helena. Cf. C.l., 8742.
On side A. H.S.
TVYATIOYKOCTANTINY Ha
KETICATIACEAENIC
On front face
evxi ΦΙΛΊ ΠΟ ΣΦ, OMEN
AMI
+H Tod ἁγίου Κοσταντίνου --
Ké Tis ἁγίας ᾿Ἑλένις,
᾿Ευχὶ Φιλέποίυ (Κ)ομεν(ῶου
᾿Αμέϊν
Εὐχή. Cf. CLG. 8863.
FouLa (PoGLa).
No. 39.—On a pedestal in the graveyard near Foula.
ZWCIMOCKAI
CA
Τ
“ώσιμος καὶ
a...
350 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
No. 40.—Architectural fragment in the graveyard at Foula.
CMETAANGPWITWNG
νος μετὰ ἀνθρώπων.
No. 41.—Pedestal at entrance to the mosque.
A," TLS:
W. Mek.
H5GYAHKAIOAHMOS
ETEIMHEENAYPHAI
APMACTANTHNKAI
TES TIANMEAONIOS
5 APTEMEOYEIYNAIKA
᾿ΣΩΦΡΟΝΑΓΕ NOYES
TOYTIPSTEYONTOS
|IEPAZAM:NINHPASBA
ΣΙΛΙΔΟΣΔΗΜΙΟΥΡΓῊ
10 ΣΑΣΑΝΑΡΧΙΑΙΡΑΣΆΜΞΝΗΝ
ΚΑΙΠΑΝΤΑΤΑΕΠΙΤΟΥΤΟΙΣ
ΝΕΝΟΜΙΣΜΕΝΑΠΟΙΗΣΑ
ΣΑΝ TONAEANAPI
ANTAANES THEENAYP
[ὃ APTEIMIANOSAIAEITPI
ANOZAPTEIMAZOAN
AYTHE
Ἢ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος
ἐτείμησεν ᾿Αυρηλί[αν
“Αρμ[άϊσταν,[τ]ὴν καὶ
Τε[ρ]τίαν, Μέ[δ]ον[ τῆος,
᾿Αρτεμέους γυναῖκα
σώφρονα, γένους
τοῦ πρωτεύοντος,
ἱερασαμένην ρᾶς βα-
σιλίδος, δημιουργή-
10 σασαν, ἀρχιαιρασαμένην,
or
‘ ΄, \ κ᾿ Ξ
καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐπὶ τουτοῖς
, /
νενομισμένα ποιήσα-
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 957
σαν. Tov δὲ ἀνδρι-
άντα ἀνέστησεν Αὐρ.
1ὅ ᾿Αρτειμιανὸς Διλειτρι-
ανὸς ᾿Αρτειμᾶς ὁ ἀνὴ[ρ
αὐτῆς.
For a defective copy of the first ten lines by Schonborn, see
6.1.6, 43677.
Line 10, ἀρχιαιρασαμένην. Compare a companion inscription
from Foula, published by Mr. Ramsay, Mittheilungen, x. p. 335.
Line 5, ἀρχιαιρέως.
KARIBTCHE.
No. 42.—Square base in front of a house in the village.
Small relief, of two figures.
Α. Η. 5
AAMACTH/////OY δΔααμᾶς Τη....... t Jou
OCAEITIOIHCEN ᾽σάει (ἐ)ποίησεν
ΚΑΛΛΙΟΓΗΤΟΟ Καλλιόπῃ τ(οῦ) Ὃ-
ΓΑΕΙΉΓΥΝΑΚΙ ϑ8ῖς σάει τῇ γυνα(ι) κὶ
5 ΜΝ-Μ-ΓΧΑΡΙΝ μνήμης χάριν,
ΚΑΙΕΑΥΤΟ καὶ ἑαυτῷ.
Cf. Schonborn, 6.1.6΄., No. 43677.
KESTEL.
No. 43.—In graveyard on hill, one hour to the north-east.
HBOYAHK AIOAHM Ἢ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμ[ os
ΕΤΕΙΜΗΓΑΝΓ ΟΥΑΛ ἐτείμησαν Γ(αϊον) Οὐαλ-
EPIONIOYAIANONIOYNOPA ἔριον ᾿Ιουλιανὸν ᾿Ιούνορα
HPWATONAEANAP ἥρωα. Tov de ἀνδρί ε-
5 ANTAANECTHCENH 5 ἄντα ἀνέστησεν ἡ
ΜΗΤΗΡΑΥΤΟΥΑΥΡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ Aup’
MAPKIAMHTPWN Mapxia Μητρών-
sic AOYAHMHTPIOY (8)ov Anuntpiov
DIAOCTOPFIACKAI φιλοστοργίας καὶ
ΟἹ MNHM HCXAPIN 10 μνήμης χάριν.
H.S.—VOL. VIII. 5
258 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
SITE TO WEST OF GULDE CHIFLIK.
No. 43.—Two large architectural fragments.
(a) (0)
MENANAPOLCTPSEIAOYTTAOYTSENIKAIKC 7HEYXHNEK TS
NIAISENANEOHKE
Mévavépos Tpwidrou ἸΓλούτωνι καὶ Kopn εὐχὴν ἐκ τῶ-
ν ἰδίων ἀνέθηκε.
t No, 44.—Rude late relief. Two figures. Line 5 is cut on
the field of the relief.
A. HS.
W. M. R.
WNKOAAINOCANEOH
KETOYTOTONM-N-MEIO
NAMMATHOYIFATPIMN....C
/APINKAIEYNOIACTP
ἢ EICEAYTHN
Ame wv KoXatvos ἀνέθη-
κε τοῦτο TO <v> μεηξνημεῖο-
ν ΓΛμμᾳ τῇ θυγατρὶ μυ[ήμη]ς
χάριν καὶ εὐνοίας τῆϊς
ὅ εἰς ἑαυτήν.
Line 5. Apparently a scribe’s blunder for €AYTON.
No. 45.—Fragments of panel of a sarcophagos.
W. M. R.
A, HeS.
a b
KEN THNCOPON
ΤΑΥ͂ ὶ ΛΗΡΟΝΟ
ΜΟΙΓΟ ΚΟΛΟΥ
OHCE!
These two fragments may perhaps be fitted together thus
‘ [ὁ δεῖνα ἀνέθη-
κεν τὴν σορὸν
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 259
ταύτηϊν. Τοῖς κ]ληρονό
μοις οὐκ ἀἸκολου-
θήσει.
Τοῖς κληρονόμοις κιτ.λ. a translation of the ordinary Latin
formula, ‘Heredem non sequitur.’
Cf. Rev. Archéologique, N. S. xxx. p. 51, an inscription at
Smyrna, Kal τοῦτο τὸ μνημῆον κληρονόμῳ o[v]« ἀκολουθήσει.
HADJILAR.
No. 46.—Small sepulchral relief in wall of a fountain
opposite the mosque.
LW OL'
5 ENOItC
Γ ΟΥ̓ΓᾺ
Relief. Three
figures.
TPIMNHM
Ζώ[σιμ]ος
. ἐποίησ-
[ε... τῇ]θυγα-
τρὶ μνήμ-
[ns χάριν].
YARIKEWI.
No. 48.—In graveyard.
1 NBHN [Λουκίῳ Σεπτι ]
OICNAPOI [ui Σεουήρῳ ]
KQGIE gare. [Εὐσεβεῖ Περτίνα- |
oe no elite ° [xe καὶ Μάρκῳ ]
BOGE DY OS : [Αὐρηλίῳ ᾿Αντωνείνῳ |
foe ΤΟΝ [Σεβάστοις μεγίστοις]
ΜΕΓΑΛΩὼΝ [Δραβικοῖς]
BACIAEWN 1 ᾿Αδι]αβην[ε
10 KAIOYAIA x lois Παρθι-
260
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
AOMNH
MHTPIKA
CTPWN a
10
κοῖς.[ «και II.
Σεπτιμίῳ
μεγάλων
βασιλέων
καὶ Ἰουλίᾳ
Δόμνῃ
μητρὶ κά-
στρων.
The inscription was written between the elevation of Caracalla
to the empire (198 A.D.) and that of Geta (208 a.D.).
Cf. CLG. 4371.
ELLES.
No. 49.—In graveyard.
[H βουλὴ καὶ ὁ]
[δῆμος ἐτείμησαν]
ANTS2NEINON
MENNEOYAEIKE
ZANAANAPS2
NAAHNOEMIAOS
AONIAAHASA 5
NOXPEMAT S2N
MAIMIAIOYAON
COYTIPS2THE
ΑΧΘΕΙΣΕΓΤΟΥ
ΚΑΙΑΓΏΩΝΟΘΕ
ΤΟΥΝΟΣΔΙΑ
ΒΙΟΥ
10
YARISHLI.
? a
Αντωνεῖνον
Μεννέου νεικτ΄-
Sains
σαντα ἀνδρῶϊν
/
πιίλην θέμιδος
(4 ᾽
Λονγιλληας a-
\ /
πὸ χρήματων
3
M. Αἰμιλίου Λόν-
͵ὔ
you mpwrns
/ A
ἀχθείσης τοῦ
Ν ᾿
καὶ ἀγωνοθε-
τοῦντος διὰ
βίου.
No. 50.—Square stone inscribed on its four faces, supporting
one beam of porch of mosque.
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 261
Aes.
W. M. R.
Side A.
1 NYNCOITTANTATEAEIAAIMWNKAIEIC
OPOONOAHTE! TIPAZEICTIANTAKA
TANOYN-KETITPYXECEAYTON
sic Z ETNTEYZHCYTEAMEMITWCWNANETI
5 OYMEIC
Side B.
1CKAILAMHXA 1CinsOCA
>YAHNHNIIPACCEICOEOCOYKEAAAAANAMEINON
EINONAEEICEPINEPXECOAIKAIAT WNAAIKHNAE
ΓΓΓΔ IASAAKTIZEICNPOCKENTPATIPO
10 NTIAKYMATAMOXOEIC¢IXOYNENNIEAATE!
HTEICMHCIEYAETINPAZINGOYCOIXPHCI
ONECTIOEOYCBIACACCOAIAKAIPWC
~AATT |A¢MHAECYDPIKTANOEIMHAAN
TIAAAIMONOCEPXOYENANTADPONEINOYOE
15 FAPONHCIMONECTINATIAYTOY¢OYAOAON
ANCTEIXEICKEPAOCTICOIECTINATIAYTHC
Side 4.
Νῦν σοὶ πάντα τελεῖ δαίμων Kai εἰς
’ \ 4 lal ΄ ,,
ὀρθὸν ὁδηγεῖ. ΤἹἸΠράξεις πάντα κα-
τὰ νοῦν, μηκέτι τρῦχε σεαυτόν.
> / / > / e δ ’
Ἐπιτεύ(ξ)η σύ Te ἀμέμπτως ὧν ἂν ἐπι-
ὅ θυμεῖς.
Side LB.
-ς Kal ἀμήχανα
BlovAnv ἣν πράσσεις θεὸς οὐκ ἐᾷ' ἀλλ᾽ ἀνάμεινον.
ΔΊεινὸν δὲ εἰς ἔριν ἔρχεσθαι καὶ ἀγῶνα, δίκην δέ.
γγγδ' ιδ' ᾧ Λακτίζεις πρὸς κέντρα, πρὸΪς
10 ἀ]ντία κύματα μοχθεῖς. ᾧ ᾿Ιχθὺν ἐν πελάγει
ζ]ητεῖς, μὴ σπεῦδε τι πρᾶξιν: 4 Οὔ σοι χρήσι-
μ]όν ἐστι θεοὺς βιάσασ-«:σ;Ξ-θαι ἀκαίρως.
262
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
ylaayy’ 18'S Μηδέ συ φρικτὰ νόει μηδ᾽ av-
tla δαίμονος ἔρχου. ¢ Ἰ]άντα φρονεῖν οὐθὲϊν
" A ] ,ὔ ’, 5 a ᾽ > -“ > ᾽ « Ν
15 γὰρ ὀνήσιμόν ἐστιν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ᾧ οὐδ᾽ ὁδὸν
17
20
30
ἃ / ΄ ὃ , "5 δ ρυ τ 5 2A
nV στείχεις, KEPOOS τί σοί ἐστιν ATT AVTNS.
Side Ο΄
NOAONOPMACOAIKAI
ZCEIN uncut CCCCC uncut
AMBAINEOYMEAAEIC COIECTAIAM
ON OPONT APCOIOPAMCINONMETA
TAAEECTAISTONTEDOLON
NONTAAEOPACE]
Side D.
‘CCAQEAEICTIPAZEICEYPHLEICOCCA .. » MNA
ENXEIPIZENEOAPCHCACTTANTECTINETOIMA
HCYXABOYAEYOYKAICOIGEOCHTEMONEYEI
ΓΓΓΕ AKA
EICIKAAAITIPAZEICCTIE YAECEXPHMOCOAAYAA
EK PEYZHT APNOYCOYX AAETTHCTITANT WNAE
KPATHCCIC¢K AITONAAWMENONENZENIHW
PHHZEINOEOCAYAA
Side C.
τὴ]ν ὁδὸν ὁρμᾶσθαι καὶ
οὐ σσειν. σσσς'
ἄμβαινε οὗ μέλλεις, [τόδε γάρ] σοι ἔσται ἀμ-
eivov. ἀμεῖνον μετὰ
τάδε ἔσται. ᾧ
Side D.
"Oloca θέλεις πράξεις, εὑρήσεις ὅσσα [μερι]μνᾶϊς.
Ἔν χειρὶ, [ξ]ένε θαρσήσας, πάντ᾽ ἐστιν ἕτοιμα.
Ἥνσυχα βουλεύου καί σοι θεὸς ἡγεμονεύει.
γγγσς" Ko’
Εἰσὶ καλαὶ πράξεις: σπεῦδέ σε χρη(σ)μὸς ὁδ᾽ αὐδᾷ. |
᾿Εκφεύξῃ yap νούσου yarérns, πάντων δὲ |
κρατήσ[ε]ις. Καὶ τὸν ἀλώμενον ἐν Eevin (χ)ώ-
ρῃ ἥξειν θεὸς αὐδᾷ.
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR. 263
In Arundell’s time, the stone stood against a wall, and he
could only copy sides 4 and D#
Side C is very much defaced, and difficult to read.
For a series of γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι (in iambics) very similar
to this, cf. C.L.G. 4310, addenda.
No. 51.—In graveyard.
Ἂ ΕΓΒ;
W. M. R.
PETOYCCIOMHNOCAPTEMICIOYLYPO
CAPTEMQNOCKAIMYPCINHNANALC
2 ATIOAEIZAMENOYAIATHENEOTHTOCTEAE
IOYTIPOLCTTANTAHOHKAIODYLINATW ETAT”
1 Ἔστους 016’, μῆνος ᾿Αρτεμισίου, Σῦρος ᾿Αρτέμωνος
καὶ Μυρσίνη Νανᾶς.......
2 ἀποδειξαμένου διὰ τῆς νεότητος τελείου πρὸς
, ” \ , 2 /
πάντα ἤθη Kai φύσιν, ἀ(ν)επιλήσ[του.......
These two lines, which are incomplete on the right, are
inscribed on a large architectural fragment, doubtless the cornice
of a heroon, erected by Syrus and Myrsine to their son (?),
whose name is lost. ἀνεπέληστος is given by Liddell and Scott,
as used by Aristaenetus (450 A.D.) in the sense of ‘never to be
forgotten.’ One would expect ἀνεπιλήπτου, ‘blameless, reading
the inscription: ἀποδειξαμένου διὰ τῆς νεότητος τελείου πρὸς
πάντα, ἤθη καὶ φύσιν ἀνεπιλήπτου ; but the stone hardly admits
this reading. σιθ' = 219 = 135 AD.
KAYADIBI.
No. 52.—Sarcophagos in main street of village.
AGH. 5.
EATIICAA¥ALIC
MHNIAITPOOIMDYY
> TA¥K¥TATWANAPI
KAIEAYTHTHNCO
PONKATECKEYACEN
1 Arundell, Dise. in Asia Minor, ii. p. 116; 6.1.6. 3956 @,
264 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
"Ermis ᾿Αλύ(δ)ος
Μήνιδι Τροφίμου
γλυκυτάτῳ ἀνδρὶ
καὶ ἑαυτῇ τὴν σο-
ρὸν κατεσκεύασεν.
No. 53.—Stelé built into a house in the Bazaar.
A, HS:
W. M. R.
ENACTIOTTIAIOY
ΓΥΝΙΚΑΙΠΟΠΛΙ
OCAICKAIMHNIC
OIAAEADOIANEC
THCANTOICTONI
€YCIMNEFMHCX APIN
“Evas Ποπλίου
γυνὴ καὶ ἸΠόπλι-
os δὶς καὶ Μῆνις
οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ἀνέσ-
τησαν τοῖς γονι-
εῦσι μνήμης χάριν.
“Evas, cf. No. 15.
No. 54.—On a small altar, lying in the Bazaar.
A. H.S.
WME.
AIEIKAIVAPI
Διεὶ Καίσαρι.
No, 55.—Built into a house adjoining the Bazaar.
AL Bos:
MHTHP
μητήρ.
»
No. 56.—Built into a house at corner of Bazaar. In part
concealed; but the missing parts were communicated by a
Greek living in village.
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR, 265
OYCTAO
MOCITOYTTATIIOY
YACEAYTWKAITHIY
NAIKIAYTOYAYP*AMKAMIAZWCI AX
TOANTEION
"Et lous TAO’
Τρόφι)μος y' τοῦ ἸΠαπίου
κατεσκε)ύασε (é)avT@ καὶ τῇ γυ-
Lavrov Αὐρ' ᾿Αμμίᾳ Ζωσίμου
ναικὶ αὐτοῦ Αὐρ' ᾿Αμμίᾳ Ζωσίμ
τὸ ἀνγεῖον.
TAO’ = 339 = 255 AD,
No, 56a,—Built into a house in the Bazaar,
A, Hi 8.
APTEMWNITOAC
NOCK AMMIAC
CYNHAYTOY TPO
KONAATWTEKNW
5 PIAOCTOPFIACKAI
MNHMHCENEKEN
DPIAWNANAPONIKOY
ETTOIHCEN
᾿Αρτέμων Πολέ[μ-
ὠἾνος κ[αὶ] ᾿Αμμίας
ἡ] γυνὴ αὐτοῦ Tpo-
κόνδᾳ τῷ τέκνῳ
φιλοστοργίας καὶ
μνήμης ἕνεκεν.
Φίλων ᾿Ανδρονίκου
’
ἐποίησεν.
σι
266 NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
No. 57.—Built into a wall near the Bazaar.
A. Ea:
W. M. R.
PAPI LAITY
XEPETETTAPOAEITAI | χέρετε παροδεῖται
"
Relief—A man on
horseback, anda . |
small figurein |
| front. |
AYPEIPHNAIOCEIC | A ]up: Elpnvatos εἰὶσ-
: TPATIWTHCECTPA τρατιώτης ἐστρα-
SiC TEYCETOENAOZWC SiC τεύσετο ἐνδόξως“.
Ὁ TIOAAOYCWAECEN 5 πολλοὺς ὠλεσεν.
CTACAIAXIPWNETE στὰς διὰ χιρῶν ἐτε-
AEYTHCENENAY λεύτησεν ev Av-
KIAAIAAYPOICE|! | kia Atpupors εἰ-
AIWOANATWOI | δίῳ θανάτῳ. Oil a-
10 AEATIOIAYTOY 10 δελποὶ αὐτοῦ
Line 4, ἔστρατευσετο, cf. No. 10, line 10, ἠργάσετο.
An example of the introduction of a vowel
Smyrna, etc.]. So
εἰστρατιώτης.
before a double consonant [cf. Ismir =
TTATTIACKAITEILAA
IACOILATIOAAW
NIOYTOYCYPIXE
Παπίας καὶ Τειμ-
ίας οἱ ᾿Απολλω-
/ a /
νίου τοῦ Συριχίΐ os
[ἀνέστησαν μνήμης]
[χάριν.]
Journal of Hellenic Studies, iv. p. 26, Ἰστρατιώτου.
Line 2,
The meaning seems to be that Eirenaeus slew many of his
enemies, and finished by dying himself in hand-to-hand combat.
I have failed to find any special warfare in which this veteran
met his death. Lycia had been made a Roman province by
Claudius, on account of intestine quarrels, and it doubtless
remained a very wild region.
30.30
== |
COMAMA®
outa
' ee
47:
28.30 29° 29.30 30° 30°30
= T at = =I Τ Ϊ I I r Τ a I I
ae | — = = = — ᾿ Ξε Sy
| Vi | | |
“\Orlakehe Ahmet |
| | Giarkersbaws |
! ᾿
|
| Ae ANTIOCHIA
| ¢ an 4gha nif ik
| ΠΝ |
\ |
i : |
ἢ ζϑεο. VAadtkow ] ae Zs
| ᾿ Β τ: ὅσια ae ‘es Ipt Stor Elles = | |
πα eer πεν A eee ee
aba. 1) «ἰδ
|| ALBAKOS :
|
|
|
|
| =
| |
| ἀχηίπεων
πὶ 10 —
Ayas*
Yaringél |g wiak aryudidy |
|| , ANtche D ae * a.
. 1 | Sos. yuk 7
Wee ee 9} 8. aes Vgemareyukebogar Ὁ
| / |
| /
| Jorum D Bshler D.
]
ΡΝ
Η ὌΧ
Ϊ Bex D. ΩΝ |
% 4 2
| is S
| Tel
ἐν 3803
Η
] Ϊ
| |
| pee A Horzoom
Seale, 10 English Miles to the Inch CIBYRA
δ 5 10 30 |
|
| —.a-=-—.—.-. Route of AH. Smith, 1884.
|
Rv} | - 37
HL | τ | = ae |
[Ξ Ξ Τ = 4 - ἜΤ
28°30 29 29.30 3080
PP Kall Το τι, τὰ το Walken Tand 2
207
NOTES ON A TOUR IN ASIA MINOR.
‘poyvoiput 1aarasqo 911} Aq uses τιοθα ATO
|
| Pe ‘d "x “ec J comscecesteersesrewencce “ec
Ἵ W “A OFE “dL Ὗ “ec ] 5 στη ΔΩ ΟΛΊΥ63}1 sony
gee ‘d -x [1 | ΠΣ ΝΌΝνΙΒΑΊΧΟ SUTL}UOD
cee “ἃ "x uabunpouneny | ΞΕ eee eee eee 901
ry ὖὈΠῚῪἠΐἱῪγ cee FOFL [7 ΓΤ
τι Ἢ ἔν οοὐοο οἷον ΦΟΡΙ ε- «ς ἘΦ Tees meee <aar cpaiedeer cm “..6.. [é uorwyep sy]
Il *[oa] Ϊ wee ee eee ZOFL ce ce ς-ὖὃϑΘῦὃξᾧ[ eee eee eee eee eee ee er κεν wt eeee -. Surya,
‘yotp 40 “unor *tauip” κ΄ [cee cue: =<* 5 (410911104 jo Axepunoq “M) SnSSsU[Bseg
Se silk <esmenees L9EL «ce ec «ec - rs
66 ids wwe ee eces 9661 “cc «ec ες ξ οοουσθοςοοσσσοουσοοώοσοῦδο κοι να, wecvecce “cc
“ec Ϊ wee e eens 1G8L ‘ec «e (7 eee ee Σ BUITLLOD
"ΑΙ Ἵϊ Δ πεσε . POEL 2 τ Ἢ ]
ἄρον gel
Ὃ ὋΝ ‘Fee ‘d | t |
1 100 oe ap "NT JO eet e wees 2091 «ς « ee ae eet ΟΠ Ξε. - “cc !
Ἵ ὋΝ 88 ἃ Ϊ
ἡ 1124 “LOO ap yng "19 ete nee aee L9EL “ec ce «ες ΟΠ Πρ «-
Ὁ ὋΝ ‘tee ἃ
Ἕ 2124 "Alo ap ἽΠΠΩ ἼΩ ΠΟ ewe 0991 “e “e «ec wee eee cee ewe . eee . “ce
Ὁ ὋΝ ‘cee “dT 204 :
“μ02 ap Ne 10 ἭὝἭ W ὙΠ see στο σε. 6SEL “A -διάη “yd eee ee ee ee ee ete ere "" ἘΞΌΘΙΟ
*SUOIPBAIOSYO “MOLPVOYGNU JO θοῦ “ay JUDIOUY
|
woy ‘aloyaasta poysttqnd useq Apealye savy
‘fouinol sty} Sunp perdoo
sey vordtiuosut 911} ‘pojyonb οαὉ s[erpUr 97} θα Δι
oS ee
ΠΟ 5 «ς tL
Biate slates piss ΡΣ youese-pizry ς᾽
5 vApuy ol
sto incknic doe Pach ττ -- ejnog | TZ
ΝΞ eee errr “ce 01
τοττετνννννννενννν sari | 80
ἘΠῚ ΟἿΣ eens) ΟΕ το τος πηδαῦχ | go |
Pes dchsgutie ballewuune gmieiwen reang | 29
Ἔ 99
x 49
Ὁπογημθν puw uppasiy wemyeg | 9
aS icucaahancses te “ eyastg uessey{ | £9
RE 49 if
PUPP Teer eee eee ere πὴ 5 se 19
ΟΣ “ec 09
weeeee Stee ewe w eee ee eee “cc 6¢
ἐ ee ee es yuapeg | 86
OHS "ON
‘satdoo mo
‘suOT}ALIOSUI SUIMOT[OF 91],
208
VASES REPRESENTING THE JUDGMENT OF PARIS.
(NOTE.)
WITtTH reference to the plate and the amphora with represen-
tations of the Judgment of Paris, published in the last number
of the Jcurnal, Professor Milani, Director of the Museo Greco
Etrusco at Florence, kindly sends me the following note :—
‘Tl piatto fu di me acquistato pel Museo di Firenze insieme
con tutta la collezione Spannochio Sergardi di Cortona e so
esattemente di esso proviene dagli scavi fatti presso I’ ipogeo di
Camucie. Riguardo all’anfora, essa entrd nel Museo insieme
con molti altri vasi a f. ἢ, (corinzi ed attici arcaici) e vasi di
bucchero trovati dieci ὁ dodeci anni or sono alle Pescie
Romana.’
By some mistake I had understood Professor Milani to say
the provenance was unknown.
JANE E, HARRISON,
EXCAVATIONS IN GREECE, 1886-1887. 269
EXCAVATIONS IN GREECE, 1886—1887.
Tue following list enumerates the chief places in Greece where
archaeological investigations are now, or have very recently been
carried on, namely, Athens, Pireus, Eleusis, Oropus, Thoricus,
Sicyon, Mycenez, Ptoos, Elateia, Orchomenos, Dimini near Volo, and
in the islands of Delos, Thasos, and Cephalonia, to which Tiryns,
Olympia, and Epidaurus should be added, although at these places,
were FOUND
ag] * HERE Sraruce \
most oF THE AROHAIC
Founparions of Ancienr
᾿ | Τεμριε
PARTHENON ]
Me a
for the present, the works have been discontinued. There is also
the expectation that the French examination of Delphi will be
shortly resumed.
In Athens very important results have been obtained. First in
interest is the ancient temple on the Acropolis which, although
some of its foundations were visible even in 1845, has been practi-
270 EXCAVATIONS IN GREECE, 1886-1887.
cally discovered and the discovery energetically followed up by
Dr. Dorpfeld. The position of the temple is shown on the sketch-
plan (fig. 1) which accompanies this paper. A careful plan of the
site and the foundations, and a description, has been contributed by
Dr. Dorpfeld to the Alittheilwngen in the first part for 1887 (see
p. 337, and plate). A plan of the restored temple is given by him
in the Antike Denkmaeler of the Kaiserlich Deutsch. Archaeol. Institut,
band 1, 1887.
I have not yet been able to devote sufficient time to go into the
architectural evidence of tne restoration which Dr. Dorpfeld has
made from a diligent combination of scattered fragments found in
the Cimonian wall and various parts of the Acropolis, and which
he also supports by ingenious references to passages in the ancient
writers; but I cannot but think that much will have to be con-
sidered before a final judgment can be passed on the exact restoration
or history of this temple. It is, however, a most reasonable
supposition that most of the archaic sculptures recently found were
contained in it,
A very important discovery is that of the Calchotheke near the
Propylaea, and towards the north-east. It seems to have been built
earlier than the Propylaea of Mnesicles, and to be founded on walls
of a still older structure, apparently those of a large cistern ; for a
drainage channel connected with the older structure has been solidly
filled up by its walls. An inscription having reference to the
Calchotheke was found in the excavations, and two bronzes in its
immediate vicinity.
The true access to the grotto of Aglauros has been found where
marked on the sketch-plan, so that the stair-case a little to the east
of it, which, though itself evidently of more recent construction, had
generally been thought to follow the old direction, has been proved
to be of Turkish or medieval work.
Around the Erechtheum the ground has been almost entirely
ransacked and the rock exposed to view. This operation has been
rewarded by the discovery of the archaic statues which have become
so famous, and by the discovery of some foundations of buildings,
of one especially of great solidity, as the sketch-plan will show, and
others of a slighter and domestic character. There are also a few
remains which will merit careful study, due west of the Erechtheum
in. the place where probably the Arrhephori had their dwelling. In
the Ephemeris Archaiologike of 1886, p. 73, is an account by Cavva-
dias of the archaic sculptures, and also in the Practica of 1886,
p. 11. The exposure of the back of the Acropolis wall to the north
and north-east of the Erechtheum, where the wall rests upon drums
EXCAVATIONS IN GREECE, 1886-1887. 271
of marble columns, shows that the lower courses were constructed
in great haste, whilst above them a wall of very carefully squared
and jointed masonry was subsequently erected. It is into the
latter that the entablatures of the original Parthenon (as I still
must hold, notwithstanding Dr. Dirpfeld’s desire to attribute them
to his ‘ancient temple’) have been inserted. The appearance of
these lower courses seems therefore to confirm the theory of their
Themistoclean construction during the crisis so well-known.
A very deep excavation has been made at the south-east angle of
the Parthenon, nearly forty-feet below the upper step of the temple.
The architectural results obtained have been the recovery of some
very curious materials—fragments of pre-Persic architecture—some
of which must have belonged to the ancient temple, and others no
doubt to the earlier Parthenon as well as to other buildings. One
fragment is remarkably curious, namely of poros stone, apparently
the drum of a column with twenty or twenty-four Doric flutes
covered with the usual fine stucco of the early period: but the
flutes twine spirally up the column—an arrangement with which
we are familiar in very late Roman work, but which seems to be a
solecism in Greek architecture of an early period : and this fragment,
found in company with pre-Persic remains, was certainly thrown
into the place where it was found at least as early as the time of
Pericles. One of the architectural fragments is of a Doric cornice
fully coloured, in which the guttae stand out white, having been
formed of white stone and inserted into the mutules like so many
pegs. Some pieces of sculpture were also found which are preserved
in the Museum.
Near the extreme east end of the Acropolis some walls of a large
building have long been visible. The site has now been cleared and
some marble fragments of columns have been found, and of a cornice
with extremely peculiar mouldings. The execution, however, shows
it to be a work of the best period. This building abuts against a
portion of very ancient walling of polygonal masonry which formed
once the outer defence of the Acropolis ; filling up a weak place in
the rock. This wall has been laid open on both sides.
All the above-named works have been undertaken at the cost of
the Athenian Archaeological Society. In the lower town, under the
auspices of the German Archaeological School, search has been made
for the ancient Agora in the valley or rather gentle slope lying
between the Pnyx and the Temple of Theseus. Nothing of any
importance has been discovered excepting that in the part of the
excavation nearest the Pnyx an enormous depth of earth had to be
removed ; which seems to have been washed down by the rains
272 EXCAVATIONS IN GREECE, 1886-1887.
from the Pnyx itself, confirming an opinion which had already been
advanced by an American archaeologist, that originally the Bema
of the Pnyx was the centre of a theatre-shaped cavea which was
upheld by the wall of massive stones, of which part still exists, but
which was originally very much higher than at present.
Also, in the Dionysiac Theatre, an excavation conducted by the
Germans has exhibited a wide and deep channel resembling a drain
in front of the lowest row of seats and concentric with them.
Similar channels have been found in other theatres, for instance,
Epidaurus, Oropus, and lastly, Sicyon. At Epidaurus, however, the
depth is not great. The very great area given to the section of
this channel in the other instances is difficult to explain if merely
gt
a
Pian of Propy.a@a ΟΝ Ν. sive oF Peripoius 70 Ea [
Tempe of Juiter OLyMPIUS . ATHENS;
FOUNCATIONS FOR
5 soft Basts oF fos
— τὰ | ἐξ}
gis, Ξ
᾿ξ :
| :
wz
TGs ΟΣ
intended for the discharge of rain water; but it could also have
been used in fine weather, and during the performance of a play, as
an underground and concealed passage from one side of the stage
to the other.
At and around the temple of Jupiter Olympius a good deal has
been done. An accidental cutting to improve the road on the
north side of the Peribolus disclosed a portico of which the plan
can be perfectly recovered, as well as the pedestal and base of its
columns and antae, which formed a sort of Propylaea ranging with
the east end of the temple. There was probably a similar portico
westwards, but whatever existed there has been entirely cleared
away. I give on fig. 2 a plan of this portico, which, from the style
EXCAVATIONS IN GREECE, 1886-1887. 273
of the architecture, may with the greatest probability be assigned
to the time of Hadrian, It was never completely finished. Near
it are the foundations of pedestals of statues and parts of the
pedestals themselves with inscriptions upon them were found
near them.
Near to this portico as shown on the plan are the foundations
of a building evidently of an earlier epoch, which are formed of
segments of the drums of large columns unfluted and of poros stone.
The diameter of one of them is not less than seven feet ten inches.
It can hardly be doubted but that they are parts of Doric columns
prepared by Peisistratus. An examination of the temple itself has
shown that one of the isolated standing columns rests upon a pile
of complete drums of similar material and diameter, and probably
some of the other columns were supported in the same way. Some
excavations for the purpose of determining the plan of the temple
itself have been carried on by the Society of Dilettanti under my
direction, and have resulted in proving that the temple was octa-
style instead of decastyle, as generally supposed. The foundations
have been much uprooted by the searchers for building stone in
past times, but amply sufficient has been found for recovering the
complete plan of Antiochus’ temple, and also some interesting
particulars respecting the earlier foundations. It is remarkable,
however, how very few fragments of the superstructure, excepting
drums of the external columns, have been brought to light, and
absolutely no sculpture.
A little more clearance has been made in the interior of Hadrian’s
stoa, where a fine Roman mosaic was discovered two years ago.
See Practica, 1886.
The Practica of 1886 gives a description, page 63, and also a
plan, of the slips or docks of the port of Zea; and connected also
with the Pireus is a paper in the Bulletin de Corresp. Hellénique
for 1887, p. 129, on the fortifications &c., of the harbour, by
M. Barnay.
The most important investigation out of Athens has been that
of the temple at Eleusis, see plan in Practica 1885 by Dr. Dorpfeld,
and in the same volume is a description by the Ephor Philios who
superintended the work ; p. 64. Since that year the whole of the
Peribolus has been excavated, and a stoa and an apsed structure,
which has been named the Bouleuterion, has been found between
the church shown on the plan and the gate marked B, but little
else of importance in that part.
The most conspicuous objects in the interior of the temple itself
are the shafts of columns four and a half feet in diameter of Eleu-
Hijo. V Ola. ὙΠ|, T
274 EXCAVATIONS IN GREECE, 1886-1887.
sinian stone, of some of which the lower drums are standing. These
are marked on the plan by the numbers 1, 2, 3, ke. They seem to
belong to a comparatively late period and to be of Roman construc-
tion. The traces of the pre-Persic temple, which are marked in red
colour on the plan, can be very clearly made out. It did not,
however, occupy much more than one quarter of the area finally
covered, and there are also evident traces of a subsequent recon-
struction; in which perhaps the columns of the pre-Persie temple
may have been re-used ; which extended the building considerably
towards the north-west: these are marked by the letter 8 on the
plan. The great and celebrated work of Ictinus, by which the area
of the construction which immediately preceded it was nearly
doubled, is represented on the plan by three square spaces in the
lower left-hand corner of the plate, where solid piers were found.
These have been since covered up, but other traces of a corresponding
size cut in the rock, which were subsequently discovered, are left
in evidence. They occur in the continuation of the line δ΄ 6” and
in the parallel line passing through the 6 of the plan, The inter-
columniation was upwards of twenty-eight feet, so that no doubt
the architraves were of timber. Besides the above there are some
traces sufficient to show that even the pre-Persic temple, referred to
above, was not itself the original foundation.
In the Ly hemeris Archaiologike for 1886, p. 188, is printed a
curious inscription, giving instructions to an architect Φίλαγρος
relative to the supply of stone from Pentelicus, Aegina, Pireus, and
the local stone of Eleusis for the use of the temple.
Near the summit of the Acropolis of Mycene the Athenian
Archaeological Society have found the remains of ἃ building
resembling that excavated by Dr. Schliemann at Tiryns, having a
strong confirmation of a very early date, because a Doric temple has
been founded upon a portion of the site, subsequently to the
destruction of the older building.
At Corinth the whole plan of the temple has been laid open and
found to have been built upon foundation lines cut in the rock.
The temple, shown on the accompanying fig. 3, was peculiar, having
been distinctly double ; with entrances and pronai both east and
west. A careful plan by Dr. Dorpfeld is given in the first part
of the Mittheilungen of 1887, and there is a description, also by him,
at page 297 of the preceding number. I took the levels of the
western stylobate of this temple, and of the contiguous portion of
the south flank, and found that a curvature had been given to the
horizontal lines amounting to a rise in the centre of the front
of ‘070 feet (not quite of an inch) in a length of about seventy
EXCAVATIONS IN GREECE, 1886-1887. 275
feet, or one part in 1000. This was probably one of the earliest
experiments in this direction. Afterwards it was found desirable
to make the ‘adjection,’ as Vitruvius calls it, more considerable.
In the Parthenon it is one in 400. There was a corresponding rise from
the south-west angle towards the east extending a short distance
along the flank: but the general line of the flank appears to be
level. In this respect the temple resembled that of Neptune at
Paestum,
The work of the Athenian Archacological Society has been very
successful at Oropus. A plan of the Amphiareum in the Practica
of 1885 shows what had then been found. During the last autumn
a very important extension of the excavation has been made to the
right hand of what is there shown, and extremely interesting
remains of a theatre has been discovered. Some account of this
has been given in the Mittheilungen of 1886, p. 328. By these
ESS ii ----
ΤῈ ξέβεσες SSS SS
ore PSE ἜΣΤΩ,
6 ὃ ΠΥ τσ τὶ =o
᾿Ξ τῇ
Bot Gee Gs
Fic. 3.—PLANn oF TEMPLE AT CORINTH: SCALE 1 : 350.
excavations a considerable portion of the Proscenium with small
Doric columns, still erect, has been found, together with the
orchestra and with five chairs for the dignitaries level with it. The
actors also were clearly on a level with the orchestra.
A drain channel similar to that at the Dionysiac Theatre at
Athens has already been noticed. Two valuable inscriptions were
found on friezes lying outside the Proscenium wall recording that
one of the Agonistae built the Proscenium and the Pinakes, and
another, which belonged to the outer architrave, refers also to some
donor. The two are :—
a |TQNOOETHEAETOTTPOSKENIONKAITOYET IN| axas
THNEKHNHNKAITAOYPQ| para
The grooves in the stone between the columns of the Proscenium
for inserting the Pinakes still remain in their original places. The
cavea has not yet been excavated.
T 2
276 EXCAVATIONS IN GREECE, 1886-1887.
Neither at Olympia nor Tiryns has anything fresh been done
recently. During the autumn a Roman structure of no particular
interest was found at Epidaurus, but the workings there were
shortly discontinued.
At Orchomenos Dr. Schliemann has further explored the domed
building resembling the Treasury of Atreus at Mycenz, and two
other similar structures have been found; one in Mazarakata of
Cephalonia ; and the other at Dimininear Volo, where the Athenian
Archaeological Society have also found some very curious gold
ornaments.
The researches of the French Archaeological School are being
continued at Delos, where the general plan of the temple of Apollo
and of the sacred Temenos has been established. A plan by
M. Nenot has been published in a work entitled Les Archives de
Fic. 4.—SKErCH-PLAN OF THEATRE AT SICYON.
Vintendance Sacrée ἃ Delos, par Théophile Homolle, Paris, 1887.
Also at Ptoos the site of the temple of Apollo has been found,
together with some good specimens of painted architecture, as well
as the sculpture of which full accounts have been given from time
to time in the Bulletin, but there is much difficulty in exploring
these ruins completely ; owing to the Byzantine and other more
recent buildings which occupy the site.
The work at Elateia has also been prosecuted diligently, and the
last number of the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, page 39,
contains a very full and interesting account of the researches on
the temple of Minerva Cranaia.
The French archaeologists have lately obtained leave from the
Greek Government to resume their explorations at Delphi, dis-
continued since 1881,
EXCAVATIONS IN GREECE, 1886-1887. 277
The Committee of the American School have excavated at Thoricus
a theatre, which is in many respects remarkable. The plan of the
cavea is not, as usual, the segment of a circle, but more of an
elliptic shape, and of rather irregular curvature. It was evidently
a rough and provincial work. A small temple, probably of Bacchus,
opens directly upon the scena.
The Americans have also commenced operations at Sicyon with
very promising results ; the primary object being the theatre. It
occupies a large area, but it would be premature to give dimensions
or any definite particulars. I am enabled, however, to give a rough
sketch-plan showing what the excavations have already pointed out.
Fig. 4.
Mr. Theodore Bent at Thasos has discovered a Roman triumphal
arch and some pieces of sculpture. One of these, representing
Hercules and the Lion, he considers to be the work of a good period.
He has also found some inscribed pedestals.
F. C. Penrose,
April 22, 1887,
278 SCULPTURE AND EPIGRAPHY, 1886-1887.
SCULPTURE AND EPIGRAPHY, 1886-1887.
THERE are two directions in which there has been much good work
to report from Greece during the last few months ; the discovery
of new antiquities, and the arrangement and exhibition in accessible
places of those which were known before, the whole now profiting
by the able direction of M. Cavvadias. All students of archaeo-
logy will be glad to hear that the excellent principle has been
adopted of bringing together all the most important sculptures now
on Greek soil in the new Central Museum at Athens: the only
considerable exception will be in the case of the Olympian dis-
coveries, for which a fine Museum has been built upon the spot.
It is thus possible now for archaeological travellers to study the
art treasures found upon any site in Greece at their leisure, while
living comfortably at Athens: they will then be free, when travelling
in other districts, to devote their attention to those questions of
architecture and topography that can only be studied upon the
sites themselves. In accordance with this principle, many sculptures
from various sites have been brought to the Athenian Central
Museum ; and the arrangement of that Museum is now rapidly
progressing, Among well-known works now exhibited there may
be mentioned the heads of two heroes and the boar from the
pediments of the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea, which we know
to have been designed by Scopas; the archaic statues from Delos,
including that dedicated by Nicandra, and the pedestal of Archer-
mos, with the winged figure that high authorities now refuse to
associate with it ; and the statues found in the Greek excavations
at Epidaurus before 1884, notably the pedimental figures of mounted
Amazons, &c, Other and more recent discoveries have also been
brought to the Museum; but these must be mentioned rather
among the new results of excavation.
While we are expressing our gratitude to the authorities for
thus faciliating the study of the objects in their charge, it may
be as well to refer to one thing that does much to impair the
SCULPTURE AND EPIGRAPHY, 1886-1887. 279
enjoyment that students and lovers of Greek art can now gain in
the Central Museum. The pedestals and the large frames in
which the most beautiful of the Attic grave reliefs are set are con-
structed of wood: and over its surface the brushes of a gang of
those workmen who produce imitation marbling of the most gaudy
description have been allowed to run riot. The result may be
better imagined than described. It is obvious that it thus becores
impossible to duly appreciate the effect of the simple and delicate
work that is surrounded on every side by these unsightly frames.
Surely better pedestals might as easily have been obtained in the
land of marble; or at least the wood might have been painted a
neutral and inoffensive colour. It would be easy even now thus to
restore a possibility of undisturbed appreciation to the works
preserved in this unrivalled collection.
The Acropolis Museum is rapidly filling, though it receives only
the objects found on the spot. It has also been arranged now in
such a way that one can easily see and enjoy the most interesting
works it contains. The largest hall is occupied by the statues found
in February, 1886.
At Olympia no fresh excavation is being made, but the working
up of the abundant material already found is still being vigorously
carried on. Professor Treu is in charge of the work on the spot.
An important acquisition to our knowledge of the topography is an
inscription, proving that Herr Botticher was right in identifying
the south-west building as the Leonidaum. The building of the
great Museum is now practically finished: it contains, as well as
smaller rooms and galleries, a great hall, large enough to contain
in their full length the pediments of the temple of Zeus. Here the
German sculptor, Herr Griittner, is employed in piecing together
and erecting in their proper position all the statues and fragments
that have been found. The arrangement adopted for the originals
is that advocated by Prof. Curtius, which is certainly the most
harmonious and imposing, whatever may be the technical arguments
for and against it. The metopes are also being pieced together, in
many cases out of a great number of fragments. The Hermes of
Praxiteles is not yet finally put together and erected : but in choos-
ing a position for this statue, due care will be taken that the light
shall, as far as possible, fall upon it in the same way as in its
original position in the Heraeum—a consideration that will be
appreciated by all who have seen the wonderfully soft and delicate
modelling of its surface.
The new discoveries of the past year are already in part known,
for some of them are of such importance and interest that they
280 SCULPTURE AND EPIGRAPHY, 1886-1587.
could not long remain in obscurity. Many sites have contributed
their share, but it is the Acropolis that has yielded the richest and
most varied results: these are now mostly in the Acropolis Museum.
Two very archaic works there exhibited may perhaps be mentioned
here, though, having been known since 1884, they do not take their
place among new discoveries: for their extreme importance as the
earliest specimens of pedimental grouping is hardly yet recognised.
It is pointed out indeed in a paper by Herr Studniczka in the
Mittheilungen d. deutsch. Inst. of 1886, but with a criticism that seems
hardly convincing; the relief, though low in one of them, is well
rounded, and does not seem to show any trace of wood technique.
This pediment in low relief (one and a half inches) represents the
fight of Heracles and the Hydra: the fitting of the design to the
space is excellent. Jolaus has a chariot, in which the fastening of
the yoke is very clear and interesting. The other pediment, of a
relief varying from six inches in the middle to four inches at the
sides, represents the struggle of Heracles with the ‘old man of
the sea.’
The statues found in February, 1886, have already received so
much attention that it is not necessary to again describe them here.
They exhibit specimens not only of the Attic school, but of two
others—of what it is difficult to decide. Their number has been
increased by the discovery, on March 10, 1887, of another similar
statue, of Attic type: though less advanced than many in drapery,
its treatment of face seems in some ways to fill the gap between the
earlier and the most advanced of those before known. This statue
was found almost immediately when the level was reached at which
its fellows had been discovered : but now the whole neighbourhood
has been nearly cleared, and there seems little hope of any more
for the present.
Several recently discovered fragments have been with considerable
ingenuity and probability explained by Herr Studniczka (Mitth. ἃ.
deutsch. Inst. 1886), as coming from a pediment representing a
gigantomachy: several are limbs of conquered giants; the most
important is the upper part of the body of Athena, with an aegis
splendidly decorated with red, white, and blue scales. On this has
been fixed the well-known archaic head of Athena found before on
the Acropolis. But its connexion is hardly incontestable.
Two other statues, which formed part of the great find of
February, 1886, call for notice. One of these is a winged Nike, in
rapid motion, and is a most interesting study of floating drapery,
though often inadequate. On the whole it is the most advanced
piece of work in this direction that was found: unfortunately the
SCULPTURE AND ἘΡΙΟΠΑΡΗΥ, 1886-1887. 281
head is lost. The other is a great contrast; it represents a nude
horseman. ‘The treatment of the man’s body is very curious. The
outlines of the muscles, both in front and behind, are most carefully
drawn, by incised lines ; but are hardly modelled at all. The work
in the horse is much better, the chest, in particular, being very finely
modelled.
One of the best preserved specimens of coloured sculpture yet
remains to be noticed—the fragments of a Phrygian archer clad in
a tightly-fitting dress, which is divided in a lozenge-shaped pattern,
and brilliantly coloured.
Bronzes have also been found ; two or three to the north-east of
the Propylaea, whence some think this the probable site of the
Chaleotheca, Some of these are of great interest. One is a small
head that recalls in type that of the Apollo of the Olympian pediment.
Another, of a bearded and once helmeted warrior, is distinctly
Aeginetan, and in connexion with the names of Aeginetan artists
found on the Acropolis seems to afford a proof of close artistic
relations between Aegina and Athens. The age of the inscriptions,
in the Attic alphabet, precludes the possibility of their importation
from Aegina after the Athenian conquest.
Another most interesting small bronze was found last month in
the excavations to the north of the Erechtheum ; it is fifteen inches
high, and represents Athena, unhelmeted, but clad in chiton and
aegis. Its construction is very peculiar. It is nearly flat, and con-
sists of two bronze plaques worked in very low relief and then
fastened together ; the feet, the right arm, and the left wrist are
worked almost in the round. Both sides were gilded. The right,
which represents the body about three-quarter face, is the best
preserved ; on the left, which is consequently three-quarters back
for the body, the aegis hangs lower down, as is usual. On both
sides alike the face is exactly in profile. The work is extremely
careful and delicate, of the finest archaic style, the forms of an
exaggerated slimness. It is difficult to conjecture for what purpose
this bronze was used: a hole in the top of the head and several
remains of nails or attachments elsewhere seem to show it was part
of the ornamentation of some richly-decorated piece of furniture,
perhaps a tripod : both sides must have been visible, though probably
the right was meant to be seen more clearly.
Near the Ercchtheum there has also been found, at a depth of
half a metre, a life-size marble head: it certainly belongs to the
period after Alexander the Great, to whom its likeness is con-
siderable.
Together with the statues upon the Acropolis have been found
282 SCULPTURE AND EPIGRAPHY, 1886-1887.
numerous inscriptions: especially interesting are those containing
the names of artists, which already make a supplement to Loewy’s
invaluable collection desirable. Most are probably Attic, for instance
Euenor (three times), Antenor (the sculptor of the original tyranni-
cides), Eleutherus, Philo, &c.; Thebades seems Boeotian. Other
foreign artists’ names are well known to us; such as Onatas and
Theodorus ; Archermos of Chios also occurs in an inscription, the
alphabet of which differs greatly from that used in the Delian
dedication of Archermus ; it seems then that not he, but a local
stone-cutter, is responsible for the strange forms we find on his
Delian basis. Some of the inscriptions referred to have been
published in the Ἐφημερις “Apx for 1886: so also has a list of
dramatic victories dating from the latter part of the fourth
century, recording among others the year when Aeschylus won
with the Agamemnon.
Elsewhere in Attica the interest has chiefly centred in the plan
and architecture of the buildings discovered. At Oropus an inscrip-
tion has been found containing regulations as to the management
of the sanctuary of Amphiaraus. At the temple of Apollo Ptoos in
Boeotia the French excavations, conducted by M. Holleaux, have
found some most valuable statues ; these have been brought to the
Central Museum, They throw considerable light on early Boeotian
art. As they have all been published by M. Holleaux in the Bulletin
de Corr. Hell. 1886-7, it is not necessary to describe them here: but
one or two seem worthy of especial notice. The bottom of a ἕόανον
preserves -oros, half an artist’s name, and the form ἐποίξη'ε, similar
to which one is already known on the inscription of "Aroros or
"Atwros of Argos. May this be an earlier member of the same
family? There are two almost perfect statues of the ‘ Apollo’ type,
one inscribed, several other heads, and some small bronzes. Two
of these are inscribed, one with Etye:rias ἀνέθηκε τῶ Πτωιέω (genitive,
read το[ῦ) Πτοιεο[ι] by Δ. Holleaux) ; the other with a name Képos
(which is known, and seems more probable than M. Holleaux’ Κίδος.)
Taken altogether, these discoveries rank only second to those of the
Acropolis statues in their importance for the history of early art.
The excavations of the Greek Archaeological Society at Epidaurus
have been resumed during the last year, and have again proved
very rich in their yield. The inscriptions are only of Roman period,
and do not seem to approach the interest of those previously dis-
covered; but the newly-found statues, now all in the Central
Museum, are numerous and important. They make an imposing
list, arranged according to subjects. ('Apy. Δελτίον, October,
December, 1886.)
SCULPTURE AND EPIGRAPHY, 1886-1887. 283
Asclepius standing ; seven. One life-size, and a relief, representing
Asclepius seated.
Aphrodite ; four. One, life-size, represents the goddess standing,
in a transparent chiton, and with a himation round her lower limbs;
she wears a sword slung over her shoulder,
Athena ; three. Two of these, though only of Roman period, are
very interesting, as being extreme examples of the λαοσσόος type ;
armed with shield and spear, the goddess rushes violently forward,
stretching out her arm to incite her followers.
Hygieia, with a snake wound about her body ; three.
Nike ; a winged figure, with floating drapery, the breast half
bare.
Apollo ; a torso, of the sauroctonus type.
Pan, on an inscribed basis.
To these may be added other torsoes, heads, and fragments of
statues, male and female.
In the early palace on the top of the hill at Mycenae have been
found some most interesting paintings, both on the walls and on
the basis of the Ἑστία, The ground is usually a light yellow, the
colours most used red, blue, and light and dark brown. On the
walls the designs are mostly spiral and vegetable. The report that
monsters have also been found similar to those spoken of by
Prof, Milchhéfer in his Anfainge der Kunat in Griechenand is true ;
but pending their publication by their discoverer, M. Tzountas, I
am not at liberty to give a description of them. The steps of the
Ἑστία are decorated with a cymatium pattern, and with circles
surrounded with dots, such as are often seen on early vases,
For the date of the vases of Mycenae some new evidence has
appeared. It was known that vases of similar types had been found
in Egypt, but the record of their discovery was in no case preserved.
I have received a letter from Mr. F. Ll. Griffith, now excavating
with M. Naville at Tell-el-Yahudiyeh, twenty miles north-east of
Cairo, in which he says: ‘I believe we have found some facts of
importance bearing on the early Greek pottery. There are tombs
here in the desert with shell-lamps like those of Naucratis (saucers
with one side pinched in), pilgrim bottles of red ware with concentric
circles, and Cypriote bottles like those of Nebesheh, and a two-
handled vase with false mouth in the middle between the handles
and spout at the side [a sketch is added, proving it to be of the
typical Mycenae shape]. This is decorated with red bands round
the vase. I cannot be certain whether these are native Egyptian
or foreign, but I think they are twenty-sixth dynasty or earlier.
They are distinct from a set of ninteenth dynasty tombs which also
284 SCULPTURE AND EPIGRAPHY, 1880.-1887.
give us a quantity of pottery. I hope this will be cleared up soon,
Probably they should belong to mercenaries.’
If it be found possible to date this discovery accurately, the gain
will be very great. In any case the evidence seems to tend against
the extremely high antiquity now generally given by the best
authorities to the Mycenaean vases, and to bring them nearer to the
earliest historic times.
Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Bent are now exploring in Thasos. They
seem not as yet to have come across any of the archaic sculptures
or inscriptions for which the island seemed so promising a field.
But the agora has been found, and a triumphal arch with an in-
scription in honour (apparently) of Caracalla; if so, it gives him,
in addition to his other titles, that of Pertinax, not hitherto met
with on his inscriptions. In front of the arch were two bases. One
of them held a statue, more than life size, which has been recovered,
It is a female portrait, and on the basis is the following very
curious inscription, calling Flavia Vibia Sabina μητέρα γερουσίας, and
stating that she was the first and only woman from all time that
ever shared equally in the privileges of the senators.
᾿Αγαθῇ τύχῃ. ἡ γερουσία PA. Οὐειβίαν Σαβεῖ(να)ν τὴν ἀξιολογωτάτην
ἀρχιερεῖαν καὶ ἀπὸ προγόνων ἀσύνκριτον, μητέρα ἑαυτὴς, μόνην καὶ πρώτην
τῶν ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος μετασχοῦσαν τῶν ἴσων τειμῶν τοῖς γερουσιάζουσιν.
Flavia Vibia Sabina seems to have been an ancient and successful
champion of the political rights of her sex: and if, as may be hoped,
her statue be transported to London, it should not in these times
miss its due honour. On the other basis was a colossal group of
Heracles and the Lion, of better period; Mr, Bent hopes to recover
all the fragments of this work. Hight other inscriptions have also
been found in the first few days of work.
In the province of epigraphy, the great discovery of the year comes
from Crete. Dr. Halbherr has there found, at Vigle in Gortyna,
some fragments of laws earlier than the great code of Gortyna.
These are not only prior to the codification of the law, but also to
the introduction of money, since the primitive manner of reckoning
amounts in λέβητες and τρίποδες is still in full use, On these and
also on epigraphic grounds Prof. Comparetti, who has published the
inscriptions in conjunction with their discoverer in the Museo italiano
di antichitd classica, 1886, seems fully justified in assigning them to
the first half of the seventh century B.c., a date as early as can be
claimed for any Greek inscription known. Hence the forms of the
letters are of the highest interest: 7 and F have curious rounded
forms, but β is most péculiar of all: it is in the form of a erook,
with a curving spiral at the top ( ), This is for two reasons important :
SCULPTURE AND EPIGRAPHY, 1886-1887. 285
in the first place it can be derived from no other Greek form, but
must be an independent modification of the Phoenician original :
hence it adds a strong confirmation to the view that the borrowing
of the alphabet took place directly from the Phoenician at several
Greek centres, to which Crete must now be added: in the second
place, this character, as well as those of 7 and Ff, is not a lapidary
form; a curve is a very ditflicult form to cut on stone without
mechanical aid, and would hardly be adopted. Hence some other
material for writing on must have been in use among the Cretans
or those from whom they borrowed ; this is an interesting indication
that is worth following out.
M. Reinach, in his Chronique d’ Orient for the beginning of 1887,
gives an account of Herr Richter’s excavations in Cyprus, with
illustrations of some of his most interesting discoveries. At
Tamassos were found tombs: in one was, among other things, a
large vase of grey earth, painted with red figures ; these had black
outlines. The drawing is extraordinarily primitive and lacking in
style ; various scenes of war and the chase are represented: one
apparently of the decapitation of a prisoner by two enemies is
interpreted by M. Reinach as Perseus and the Gorgon. A bilingual
inscription was also found. At Arsinoe also were tombs: and 131
inscriptions in Cypriote characters have been recovered.
To turn from the past to the future, the most important results
may be hoped from the excavations for which the French have ob-
tained leave at Delphi. Delphi has not been so wonderfully protected
by an accumulation of earth as Olympia; yet the site must once
have been as rich. With such a prospect for the coming season, it
seems hardly rash to hope that the brilliant attainments of the past
year may be equalled or even surpassed by future discoveries. It
is becoming daily truer that Greece is the only place where it is
possible to study adequately the history of Greek art.
E. A. GARDNER.
NOTICES OF BOOKS.
(4.)\—ART AND MANUFACTURE.
Naukratis: part I. By W. M. Firnpers Perrize; with chapters
by Cecrz Smit, Ernest GarpNer, and Barctay V. Heap.
Third Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Fund, Triibner & Co.,
1886.
Since the termination of Mr. Wood’s excavations at Ephesus in
1874 Englishmen have made no systematic excavations in Hellenic
countries, until Mr. Petrie was fortunate enough to light upon the
site of Naukratis. The Egypt Exploration Fund was established
rather for the exploration of Biblical than of Hellenic sites, but the
committee wisely made an exception in favour of so important a
spot as Naukratis, and the result of the first year’s digging is con-
tained in the present volume. The volume containing the results
of the second season’s digging will probably be published by Mr.
Ernest Gardner towards the end of this year.
It is Mr. Petrie’s rule “to let each year see the publication of
the year’s work ;”’ he thinks the publication of somewhat hastily
compiled accounts of excavation a less evil than the delay which
would be caused by waiting to thoroughly work out his matter.
That the highest authorities in Germany do not accept these
views as to speedy publication we know, from the long time which
elapses before the marbles of Pergamon and the Lycian heroon are
published to the world. There is something to be said on both
sides, but it were ungracious to complain of Mr. Petrie for adopting
a plan by which archeologists in general are benefited, while he
himself must have been driven to labour under most painful
pressure.
The character of the book before us, with its merits and its
demerits, is the result of Mr. Petrie’s doctrine as to the desirability
ART AND MANUFACTURE. 287
of speedy publication. It bears however the highest testimony to
Mr. Petrie’s merit as an excavator ; the depth at which objects were
found is exactly recorded, and the plans of the town and the great
temenos, identified by Mr. Petrie with the Hellenion of Hero-
dotus, show the utmost care in measurement, and great labour in
induction.
There are four chapters containing dissertations of a very im-
portant character. Chapter vi., by Cecil Smith, deals with the
painted pottery, which is in general of the archaic period, and like
the well-known pottery of Cameirus in Rhodes (ef. our plate Ixxix.),
Chapter vil., by Ernest Gardner, analyses the dedicatory inscriptions,
which are on the whole the most important fruit of the Naukratite
excavations. The conclusions at which the writer arrives are set
forth in his paper on the early lonic Alphabet in our vol. vii. p. 220.
See also Prof. Hirschfeld’s article in the Rheinisches Museum,
xlii. 209. Chapter viii. by Barclay Head, gives lists of the coins
found; most important among them are autonomous coins of
Naukratis itself, of the end of the fourth century B.c, Chapter ix.,
by Mr. Petrie himself, contains a most laborious inductive investi-
gation of the weights found.—P. G.
Conseils aux Voyageurs archéologues en Gréce et dans
l’Orient hellénique. By Satomon Rernacn. Paris. 1886.
In this little book—one of the volumes of Leroux’s Petite Bibliotheque
dart et d’archéologie—M. Reinach gives some useful advice to
travellers in Greece and the East. The writer does not address
himself only to professional archaeologists but also to ordinary
travellers interested in Hellenic studies, who would often be willing,
if they knew how, to render some humble service to knowledge by
such researches and observations as they are able to make during
their journey. Even without excavating, the traveller may find
plenty to do: there are unpublished inscriptions to be copied ; badly
published inscriptions to be recopied ; places and antiquities to be
photographed ; distances to be calculated and geographical observa-
tions to be made. At present the traveller, and even the archaeolo-
gist, often starts with the intention of observing everything and
ends perhaps by doing little or nothing. The ambitious traveller,
(remarks M. Reinach) takes counsel with the specialists a few weeks
before he starts :—‘‘le botaniste, l’entomologiste, le géologue, le
prchistorien, le météorologiste, le géographe, l’archéologue, l’anthro-
pologiste chacun recommandera ‘quelques légers instruments’ et
288 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
redigéra des instructions concises. A la veille du départ, les instru-
ments rempliront une grosse caisse et les instructions un volumineux
dossier.” The traveller must make up his mind beforehand as to
what he means to undertake, and if he listens to M. Reinach he will
not burden himself with cmpedimenta. Chapter I. (‘ Epigraphy’)
gives some hints on copying inscriptions and directions for taking
impressions, ‘The traveller is advised before starting to compile
from Boeckh, and, if possible, from some of the principal periodicals
a little pocket ‘Corpus’ of inscriptions found in the districts he
intends to visit, as a guide to what is already published. In
Chapter IT. the writer points out how many ancient monuments—
hundreds of sepulchral reliefs, for instance—are known only from
verbal descriptions and still need to be drawn or photographed.
Useful directions are given as to photography, and ΔΙ, Reinach well
remarks that the amateur photographer need not be a learned
man—‘l’habitude seule de la photographie sur papier sensible le
mettrait en mesure de rendre les plus grands services et de combler
une véritable lacune dans notre connaissance... des monuments
figurés de l’antiquité.’ On the delicate question of purchasing
antiquities the writer remarks: ‘ L’exportation des ceuvres d’art
antiques étant interdite par les lois grecques et turques, nous ne
conseillons pas au voyageur d’acheter les antiquités qu’on lui
offrirait. S’il a la chance de trouver une Vénus de Milo, le courage
et l’habileté de la transporter en lieu sfir, nous lui addresserons tous
nos compliments ; mais les présents Conseils n’ont pas la prétention
d’enseigner ou d’encourager la contrebande.’ Terra-cottas (of which
‘on a fabriqué un trés grand nombre de fausses’) should rather be
photographed than purchased by the ordinary traveller, who should
also beware of the engraved stones offered him for purchase. The
safest plan would be to secure a sealing-wax impression of the latter
objects. In the chapter on numismatics the different methods of
taking copies of coins are described. So great is the danger of
buying forgeries that the traveller is advised to eschew gold and
silver coins as costly temptations, and to buy only bronze coins,
especially those offered by the peasants in out of the way places—
for ‘les pitces fausses pullulent dans les villes.’ The concluding
chapter deals with topography. M. Reinach in every case gives the
addresses of shops where the photographic apparatus, &c. recom-
mended by him can be best procured, though, unfortunately for the
English traveller, only the names of French firms are mentioned.
W.. We
ART AND MANUFACTURE, 289
K6éniglichen Museen zu Berlin. Beschreibung der Vasen-
sammlung im Antiquarium. Von ApoLr FurtwAycten.
Mit 7 Tafeln, 2 Biinde. Berlin, W. Spemann.
Tue first volume of the old Catalogue of the Vases in the Anti-
quarium at Berlin was issued by Lezevow in 1834; the last supple-
ment, by Gerhard, appeared in 1846. Since that date the collection
has been enriched by upwards of a thousand vases. It-would have
been easy to furnish a new supplement, and thereby add another
element of confusion to the student. The Direction of the
Berlin Museum felt, however, that the time was come for a fresh
departure. A catalogue in the present state of science must no
longer be merely a printed inventory, it must be a classification—a
register not only of material, but of the high-water mark of opinion
as regards the ordering of that material.
Berlin boldly leads the way; the other great vase collections of
Europe can scarcely refuse to follow. Criticism of the particular
classification he adopts Dr. Furtwiangler provisionally deprecates.
He had intended to preface each class with a statement of the
grounds on which he based his arrangement. He—wisely we think
—modified his plan, and the classification now challenges opinion
without its substructure of theory. This theory he promises to em-
body in a hand-book, the appearance of which will be eagerly looked
for; till then, criticism may fairly wait. No one would be more
disappointed than Dr. Furtwingler if new material and further
study did not modify opinion. While a catalogue remained a state-
ment of fact, a correction was the confession of a blunder; now
that to fact it adds theory, to correct is often merely to register
advance.
Without attempting to criticise, we may note that to the amateur
Dr. Furtwingler’s classification will probably appear excessively
minute. Under four universally accepted heads he has thirty-five
subdivisions, and, to take one example, C’. Altattische rotfigurige Vasen.
IL. der schine Stil, dltere Hd’/te—in itself, one of the thirty-five sub-
divisions—has within it no less than eighty-five further sub-
divisions ; in fact, it frequently happens that a vase has a sub-class
to itself. This minuteness has, however, a double justification.
First, the catalogue is manifestly so framed as to be a basis for the
classification of all vases, not merely those in the Berlin collection.
Sub-heads sparsely represented there may be of large content else-
where. Secondly, minute classification tends to economise space.
Vain repetition is the besetting snare of the catalogue compiler ;
the ideal catalogue notes in respect to individual specimens only
ESV Oli, ὙΠ. U
200 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
variation. In the troublesome terminology of decoration, Dr.
Furtwiingler makes an effort after brevity and precision. He
adopts Lau, Die griechischen Vasen, as his system ; and surely, till a
better system appears, we might all do the same, and employ
uniformly such convenient terms as Dunktrosette, Stabornament,
Netzornament, for certain familiar, decorative schemes. The ad-
mirable brevity of his descriptions can only be appreciated by those
who know the difficulty of the work. The body of the catalogue
is preceded by a preface stating the general plan, and by a history
of the growth of the collection. It is followed by a series of excel-
lent registers, drawn up by Dr. Wernicke. These include a com-
parative table of the numbers in the old and new catalogue, an
index of shapes, of provenance, of inscriptions with the exception of
proper names and of subjects. It seems a pity not to have given a
separate index of potters’ signatures: these are included under the
general head of proper names. Dr. Furtwangler has not seen his
way to what we may hope for in the future—a register of type
forms as well as subjects. By this catalogue, as a monument of
patient and accurate labour, Dr. Furtwingler has deserved well
of his country. Of the book, as a testimony to his insight and
ability, till his promised handbook appears, we cannot speak.—
J. KE. H.
Die Griechischen Vasen mit Meistersignaturen. Von
Wituetm Kuen. Zweite Vermehrte und Verbesserte Auflage.
Wien, Gerold, 1887.
In speaking of the second edition of Dr. Klein’s Meistersignaturen,
I shall confine myself rigidly to the new material which now appears.
Presumably the altered form of the book is due to a desire for
uniformity with the new edition of the Hwuphronios. It is a
uniformity deeply to be regretted. Any one who has used the old
Meistersignaturen, with its ample pages and easy conspectus, its
ready facilities for comparison, will regret the wearisome turning of
pages, the reference forward and back necessitated by the new form.
However, form is a trifle, and in substance the new edition makes a
marked advance. The main sources of the advance are, Dr. Klein
notes, the issue of the new Berlin Catalogue, the important papers
by P. Meier, A. Ζ. 1884, s. 237, and 1885, s. 179; and, in a less
degree, Wernicke’s Beitrdge, A. Z. 1885, 5. 2 and 9, besides a host
of minor references that have reached him from scattered museums
and individual archeologists. Briefly, the sum of the new material
is this: In place of 88 signatures in the old edition we have now 96;
ART AND MANUFACTURE. 291
in place of 389 signed vases, now 429. (I include those mentioned
in the Nachtrag.) By far the most important edition is the beautiful
polychrome alabastron of the British Museum, with the hitherto
unknown signature ‘‘( )asiades,”’ Dr. Klein, on what authority
is not stated, restores “Jasiades.” Mr. Cecil Smith (Classical
Review, I. 26), from traces remaining of the first letter, restores
conjecturally ‘“ (P)asiades.”
A few trifling supplementary notes we may be allowed to register
here. To the 78 pieces signed by Nikosthenes must be added an
amphora in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford ; No. 55 of the same
master, “ Kelle mit einem hohen Henkel,” is in the private collection
of Signor Augusto Castellani; the handle is ornamented by an
animal’s head, the design as described. Exekias 5, “ Hals eines
Deinos,” is in the same collection. No. 5 (p. 109), “ Hermoglyph
bei der Arbeit,’ is in the museum at Copenhagen. The Brygos
vase (3) Parisurtheil—is in the Campana collection of the Louvre.
The Euthymides vase, p. 222, has disappeared from the Turin Museum.
It may not be amiss to note that much remains to be done not only
in the discovery of hitherto unknown signed vases, but also in
the rediscovery of vases known to us now only by literary record
or publication. The long-lost Troilos Euphronios vase has re-
appeared at Perugia, but, to pass over a host of less important
instances, we have still to seek for the following vases, of which
all clue is lost, but which are presumably intact somewhere :—The
Praxias amphora, an oinochoé by Taleides, a cylix by Archikles and
Glaukytes, the last notice of which is that it came to England ;
the Xenokles cup, with the Judgment of Paris, last heard of in the
Hope collection ; four vases by Pamphaios, five by Epiktetos, three
by Kachrylion, one of great interest, with a cycle of Theseus’ ex-
ploits ; four by Duris, three by Hieron, one by Hermonax. The
most elementary knowledge of vase painting and inscriptions would
enable the chance traveller with Dr. Klein’s book in his hand to
identify any of these. We cannot refrain from recommending the
task to members of the Society. Reference in the new edition is
greatly facilitated by five excellent indexes. In addition to the
single list of “ masters’ names” we now have registers of the love-
names, subjects represented, publication, present “ habitat.’’ Under
this heading 139 are marked “ Unbekannt.” Surely the number
might be reduced.—J. E. H.
a
Lo
293 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
Euphronios. Eine Studie zur Geschichte der Griech-
ischen Malerei. Von WitHetm Kein. Zweite umgear-
beitete Auflage mit 60 Abbildungen in Text. Wien. Druck
und Verlag von Carl Gerold’s Sohn, 1886.
THe new external form of the second edition of the Luphronios
is as much matter for rejoicing as that of the Jeistersignaturen is
for regret. Still more satisfactory is the addition of illustrations.
Hitherto, the full series of Euphronios vases has been accessible
only to the few who possessed the Wiener Vorlegebldtter V.—a series
now out of print. Apart from this publication the Luphronios was
difficult reading. In the new edition the nine Euphronios vases
(including the Berlin Ilioupersis fragments) are all reproduced: on
a small scale, it is true, but with quite sufficient clearness to enable
the reader to follow the commentary. Added to these plates, the
text is freely interspersed with about fifty wood-cuts illustrating
various points connected with the technique of Euphronios. The
change will only be appreciated by those who have achieved the
laborious, though fruitful task of mastering the first unillustrated
edition.
As with the Meistersignaturen, I shall confine myself strictly, in
noticing the text, to the new material incorporated. Passing over
numerous slight modifications of opinion, two notable enlargements
must be summarized :—1. The discussion of the Pamphaios Hypnos
and Thanatos vase. 2. The Ilioupersis fragments.
As the Hypnos-Thanatos vase is in the British Museum, Dr.
Klein’s discussion has special claims on English readers. Briefly
Dr. Klein maintains that Pamphaios made the vase, that he
painted the Silen in the interior, that he began to decorate the
exterior, but only got so far as the black-figured ornament ; that
the vase then, for some reason unknown, fell into the hands of his
contemporary and possible fellow-workman LEuphronios; that
Euphronios executed the design on the obverse, Hypnos and
Thanatos with the body of Memnon, and also that of the reverse,
the seven Amazons arming. The arguments by which this some-
what startlingly minute supposition are supported are as follows :—
1, As regards the signature ITAN®AIOS EMOIESEN, it states
nothing but that Pamphaios was the potter. Moreover, itis on the
foot. Usually, if a potter signs on the foot and paints the vase
also, he considers it necessary to repeat his signature on the design.
2. The Silen in the interior is quite in the manner of Pamphaios.
It is harsher in style than the customary Silen of Epiktetos, less
humorous than that of Kachrylion, and accords well with the some-
whatschematic and receptive rather than creative spirit of Pamphaios.
ART AND MANUFACTURE. 2038
With respect to this Silen, it is natural to ask if the exterior
designs are to be referred to Euphronios, why not refer the Silen
ulso, and thus obtain the simpler position that Pamphaios was
potter, Euphronios sole painter? Dr. Klein thinks not: he makes
a careful examination (from three ‘“ Panaitios” vases) of the Silen
type of Euphronios and from the wood-cuts of these three Silens
compared with the supposed Pamphaios Silen, it is difficult to con-
ceive he can be wrong. 3. The arming scene of the Amazons on
the reverse, when compared with a known arming scene by
Pampbaios, presents a markedly different type. 4. The anatomy
of Pamphaios is in his other vases beneath criticism ; the anatomy
of the body of Memnon shows the hand of a master, and, moreover,
shows just the kind of skill evidenced by Euphronios, e.g., in the
Antaios Krater. 5, The difficulty arises why, if Euphronios painted,
did he not sign? This Dr. Klein gets over by the supposition
that Pamphaios intended to finish the vase, as shown by the black
ornament, but that, from some change of plan, it passed into the
hands of Euphronios.
It will be seen that the theory rests clearly on consideration of
points of style. The decision can scarcely, therefore, be made on
any other basis than personal judgment. To this (presumably)
Euphronios vase Dr. Klein adds three other, two of which have the
“‘ Panaitios ” inscription. The other is included on the grounds of
style.
2. The Ilioupersis fragments. When the first edition of
the Luphronios appeared, these fragments were already in the Berlin
Museum ; in fact, they formed part of the bequest of Gerhard,
but, as is so often the case with fragments, they remained unnoticed.
They were published by Dr. Robert, A.Z., 1882, Taf. 3. Dr. Klein’s
commentary on them will be of absorbing interest to all students of
the typography of the Ilioupersis. As is well known, we have no
B.F. collective Ilioupersis scheme. The Berlin amphora at best unites
the two principal scenes—the slaying of Priam and the meeting of
Helen and Menelaos. On the other hand, R.F. painting presents
us with a well-established collective scheme, notably in the two
familiar instances of the Vivenzio and the Brygos vase, to which is
now added the Euphronios cylix. From this fact Dr. Robert has
advanced the theory that a collective Ilioupersis was unknown to
archaic art, which contented itself with single episodes of which Dr.
Robert enumerates five. The collective red-figured Ilioupersis
formula was due, Dr. Robert thinks, to the influence of the monu-
mental wall-paintings of Polygnotus and his contemporaries ; also
to the fact that the Ilioupersis was a sort of mythical prototype of
294 NOTICES OF BOOKS,
the Persian war, This double influence no one will deny: but as
Dr, Klein in his finely discriminating way points out, though the red-
figured cylix masters were specially influenced by the monumental
painter and sculptor of their day, it was rather in the choice of
subjects than in the manner of depiction, The reason is obvious:
Euphronios and his contemporaries were craftsmen, and closely
bound by the traditions of their craft, 7.6, by the type-forms handed
down to them. Dr, Klein takes up therefore a position diame-
trically opposed to that of Dr. Robert. He supposes that the
isolated scenes of the Ilioupersis which B,F. vase paintings have
left us are only fragments of a collective Ilioupersis type, an
instance of which we may any day recover, He pertinently calls
attention to the fact that Kleanthes, the early Corinthian painter,
left a Τροίας ἅλωσις, The work of R.F, vase-painting, therefore,
was not according 'to Dr. Klein the blending and combining of
isolated scenes, but rather the reconstruction and amplification of a
whole that had been pre-existent. Dr, Klein then proceeds to
examine the relation between the Euphronios fragments and the
Vivenzio and Brygos vases, for the interpretation of which they are
of the first importance, Into these minute details we cannot follow
him, It must suffice to say that, for close adherence to early
types, and for freshness and intelligibility of treatment, he gives,
as we should expect, the palm to Euphronios,—J, E, H.
Die jiingeren attischen Vasen und ihr Verhdltniss zur
grosseren Kunst. Von Franz Winter. Berlin und Stuttgart.
Verlag von W, Spemann, 1885.
Dr, Winter takes up the history of Attic vase-painting just where
Dr, Klein leaves it, The study of signed vases will always be sure
of its votaries; there is about the subject not only the fascination
of artistic personality and often a peculiar charm of treatment, but
also, from the signatures, an element of scientific certainty that will
always attract students. Dr, Winter is all the more thankworthy
because, passing by this attractive but now well-worn field, he breaks
new ground, by attempting the chronology of vases which imme-
diately follow Brygos, and which he dates B.c, 440-400, It is not,
he thinks, a mere chance that signatures are few during this period,
The age immediately preceding Pheidias was an age of personalities,
archaic fetters were broken through, and as yet the incubus of
perfection, the tradition of a perfect style was not incumbent.
Just, however, at this period of climax, when sculpture attained
its highest, vase painting began both in quantity and quality to
ART AND MANUFACTURE. 295
decline, It has been customary to point to the Peloponnesian war
as the cause. That its damaging influence was felt no one will
deny, but Dr. Winter thinks that we must look rather to the
Italian colonies, to the market than to the fabrique. He takes two
instances. Immediately after the finest signed work there is a
marked falling off in two particular classes of vase manufacture,
i.e, the Nolan amphora and the R. F. cylix. The cause he thinks is
obvious. Between 8,0, 445-424 Campagna was laid waste by the
Samnites, the inhabitants of Nola were forced to leave their city,
a new population with presumably no special taste for the “ Nolan”
amphora took their place. It is easier to destroy a fashion than to
revive it, So with the cylix; the chief demand for this particular
shape was in Etruria. After Hieron’s victory at Cymae the Etruscans
had a troubled time and trade languished; gradually the demand
for Greek wares, and notably for the popular cylix, fell off.
Dr. Winter has decided to take not all the vases that follow the
signed period, but a strictly limited group, for two reasons. First,
he thinks their chronology can, from internal evidence, be strictly
determined ; secondly, they have a specially close relation to the
major arts of the time, to sculpture and monumental painting. As
regards internal evidence for chronology, he dwells specially on two
notes of time, which for brevity’s sake we may call post-Parthenon
attitude, post-Parthenon drapery. It may be noted in passing that
Dr. Winter inclines to exalt the influence of sculpture somewhat at
the expense of monumental painting. From a careful analysis of a
large number of vase paintings of all periods he deduces the follow-
ing principle as regards attitude :—In archaic painting, a figure
standing in repose full face will rest the weight of the body equally
on both feet and have both turned in profile, This no one will
dispute. In transitional painting—e.g., that of Euphronios, &e.—a
similar figure will rest the weight on one foot, that foot will be seen
full face, the free leg and foot will be turned profile; in post-
Parthenon painting the foot on which the weight rests will be
turned profile, the free leg and foot will be full face. From this
simple observation, which we are bound to say we think he fully
establishes, Dr. Winter dates as pre- or post-Parthenon a large
number of vases hitherto left in the vague; his second criterion,
pre- and post-Parthenon drapery, is less novel and more obvious,
and we need not dwell on it.
_ Dr, Winter then proceeds to the interesting subject of the in-
fluence of the major on the minor arts. Here with great insight
and discrimination he expands a principle already indicated by
others. During the time of the Meistersignaturen, sculpture and
290 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
monumental painting suggested swhjects in vase-painting, as e.g.,
in the well-known case of the Theseus cup of Euphronios. During
the period that followed, the suggestion was not so much of subject
as of manner of treatment especially as to attitudes, grouping, pose.
From 440 to 400 B.c. bit by bit the vase-painter began to take
delight, not in the telling of a story, but in the manipulation of
the new vocabulary of gesture left him by Pheidias and Polygnotus,
as Robert well says (Annali 1882, p. 280), ‘11 loro’ (subjects of the
time) ‘pregio consiste in cid, che permettono all artista di produrre
una grande varieta di motivi ed attitudini.” Such a vase is notably
the famous Codros vase, in which we feel through all the delicate
beauty of the figures, not only that the meaning is obscure to us,
but that its importance was even to the artist strictly subordinate.
The book ends with a register (not put forward as complete) of
vases of the period 440-400 5.6, ;—the dating of some of these will
assuredly be matter for dispute—J. Ἐς H.
Der Zusammenhang der Bilder auf griechischen Vasen.
I. Schwarzfigurigen Vasen. Von Jutius C. MorerntHay, A.B.
College of the City of New York, Ph.D. Leipzig. Leipzig, 1886.
In the days of Creuzer and Panofka it was the fashion to lay great
stress on the connection between what—by a somewhat loose
terminology—are called the obverse and reverse of a vase. An
overstrain of the connection principle led to interpretations which
Dr. Morgenthau rightly characterises as abenteuerlich. A reaction
set in, with the melancholy result that each portion of the decoration
of a vase was treated in isolation and too often published apart.
A counter-reaction has now begun, and of this Dr. Morgenthau’s
book is the outcome. In his first issue he treats of black-figured
vases only. The point he desires to maintain is this: granting
that in the major number of vases the relation of obverse and
reverse is arbitrary, there yet remain a considerable class in which
the intention of the vase painter to correlate the two designs is
clear. Certain principles which govern this correlation can, Dr.
Morgenthau thinks, be made out, and according to these principles
vases can—qud the correlation of their designs—be classified.
‘Under each of the classes he adopts, he examines the behaviour
of the several shapes of vases, amphora, cylix, &e. His two main
divisions of correlation are—(a) designs in which one subject is
divided (Vertheilte Bilder), and (b) designs in which the subject
varies (Bilder Verschiedenen Gegenstandes). Two pitfalls await the
investigator, the obvious and the over subtle. It seems difficult to
ART AND MANUFACTURE. 297
see what is gained by enumerations of class ὦ, vases where, ἐν.»
we have obverse Perseus, reverse the three Gorgons. On the
other hand, when we come to correlate designs with different
subjects (0) we are on slippery ground. When we have under the
heading Vorbereitung-Angang a correlation established between a
Troilos and an Ilioupersis conviction halts.—J. E. H.
Der Troische Sagenkreis in der aliesten griechischen
Kunst. Von Dr. Arrnur Scunerper, Leipzig. Verlag von
Wilhelm Engelmann, 1886.
Dk. SCHNEIDER’s monograph is avowedly polemical. He raises again
the old time-honoured question of the relative weight of literary
and artistic influence, as regards the type forms of vase paintings
that deal with the mythology of the Trojan cycle. The question of
Bild und Lied had we thought been pretty thoroughly threshed
out—abundant chaff and some grain had certainly resulted—and it
is with a sense of considerable weariness that we take up again
such questions—to which no answer can ever be given, as whether
Paris was ever described in the Cypria as playing on the lyre
(p. 102), and whether Nereus was described as present or any way
responsible for the wrestling of Peleus and Thetis (p. 82). Is it
really worth while to catalogue the Thetis-Peleus vases, with a view
to discovering in how many of them one snake, how many two, in
how many a panther, appear as symbols and transformations? Such
questions each reader will answer for himself ; it must suffice here to
state that Dr. Schneider takes up a reactionary position as regards
the relation of Bild und Lied. He does not indeed proceed (after
the fashion of Dr. Schlie in Die Kyprien) to reconstruct whole lost
epics from the evidence of vase paintings, but he thinks that the
evidence of artistic as opposed to literary tradition has been
recently much overstated—in a word, he wages war against what
he calls the Schulprogramm of Loschke, Liickenbach, Furtwiingler,
and most distinctly of Milchhofer, the doctrine of the independent
development of traditional art-types. This doctrine be examines
in detail with respect to the whole series of Trojan myths.—J. E. H.
Scenen Euripideischer Tragédien in griechischen Vasen-
gemalden. Archdologische Beitrage zur Geschichte
des griechischen Dramas, Von Dr. Juuivs Vocet, Leipzig.
Verlag von Veit & Comp., 1886.
The chief interest and intent of Dr. Vogel’s book is avowedly
literary. It is as a contribution to the history of the Greek drama,
298 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
not as an examination of a particular period of vase-painting, that
it must be weighed by the reader. Where the artistic interest of
a particular period of art is slight, the archeologist may be thankful
that literary considerations lead to its investigation. Dr. Vogel’s
position is briefly this—the influence of the drama on black-figured
vase-paintings is, whether in manner or matter, ni/; in red-figured
vases a certain indirect influence, chiefly on manner, may be detected.
On monumental wall-paintings of the same period this influence is
of similar character but more pronounced. As regards all three,
however, the actual form of the subject-matter is coincident with
that of the epic and lyric rather than the dramatic poets. When
we come to lower Italy vases the state of the case is quite otherwise.
The influence of Attic drama, and very specially Euripidean drama,
is palpable and immediate. This leads of course to the question
why this influence of Euripides is felt so far from home, Dr. Vogel
connects this fact with the wide spread of the guilds of Dionysiasts
(ol περὶ τὸν Διόνυσον τεχνῖται) in the colonies of Lower Italy, Further,
the vase painters of Lower Italy were naturally less bound by epic
tradition than those who worked in the studios of Athens or
Corinth, they were free to draw their types straight from the drama
before them. The question next comes to be discussed of the date
of these Lower Italy vases. Dr. Vogel places them between the
early Diadochoi and the downfall of the Campanian, Apulian, and
Lucanian cities by the campaign of Hannibal. He rightly notes that
the Canosa inscription, which has been used as an argument for the
fabrication of these vases down to 67 Β,0., only shows that the
custom of placing them in graves still obtained at that date.
If it can be shown that Lower Italy vases were immediately in-
spired by scenes from the play of Euripides, then, making ample
allowance for certain artistic tendencies, notably the decorative
necessity for brevity and amalgamation, Lower Italy vase-paintings
may rank somewhere with the Fabule of Hyginus as sources for
the conjectural restoration of the lost Euripidean plays. This is
the line Dr. Vogel takes. He examines with much perspicuity
a large series of three vases, grouping them under three heads.
(1) Vases which can be shown with certainty to owe their inspiration
to Euripides. (2) Vases about which there is considerable proba-
bility. (3) Vases wrongly attributed to such influence. The book
has a good index.—J. E. H.
INSCRIPTIONS. 299
(B.)— INSCRIPTIONS.
K. Meisterhans: Grammatik der Attischen Inschriften.
Weidmann, Berlin, 1885; pp. imix, 1—119.
An attempt to gather up the results of a grammatical study of Attic
inscriptions was made by N. Wecklein in his interesting Cwrae
epigraphicae ad grammaticam Graecam et poetas scenicos pertinentes
(Leipsic, Teubner, 1869). Since then something of a literature has
grown upround this subject, of which Meisterhans gives a catalogue
(pp. vii.—ix.). To his list should be now added a second dissertation
by Schmolling published in 1885 (Ueber den Gebrauch einiger
Pronomina auf attischen Inschriften), and Keil’s Analecta Isooratea.
Meisterhans has dealt with the abundant materials at his com-
mand in copious and accurate detail, with due brevity and lucid
arrangement, and above all with scrupulous attention to the date
of every document he cites. Fairly full indices complete a manual
which will be of the greatest value to all students of Attic Greek.
It is a mistake to suppose that Greek public documents were drafted
in an archaic or official style, differing from the spoken language.
On the contrary, it is an ascertained fact that the inscriptions
represent, more faithfully than the Historians or Dramatists, the
contemporary Attic speech. Thus -rr- is given by the inscriptions,
as against the archaizing -σσ- of the Historians, (p. 41), and a
similar result follows from a comparison of inscriptions and authors
in respect of the forms σφῶν and σφέτερος αὐτῶν (p. 68), or ξὺν and
σύν (p. 106). To review a work like the present, which is a crowded
storehouse of classified facts, is impossible; it will suffice to call
attention to its general character, and to endeavour to supply one
or two omissions. Ch. i. deals with the Alphabet. The gradual
introduction of the Ionic letters, before their official adoption B.c.
403, is duly pointed out. They were naturally employed first in
private monuments, and an instructive paper by Kohler (Die attische
Grabsteine des fiinftes Jahrh.) in the Mittheilungen (1885, x. p. 359)
is worth consulting. On p. 4 (Jnterpunktion) reference should have
been made to the use of siz dots in the boustrophedon fragment
C.I.A. i. no. 531 (Supplem. p. 53),—unless they are numeral sigla,
and of this class of signs Meisterhans makes apparently no mention.
Ch. ii. deals with Orthography (Lautlehre). Here we realize that
-we must learn Attic spelling from the evidence of contemporary
300 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
iuscriptions, Walving our ἃ prioré prejudices in deference to Athenian
fashions—‘ si volet usus, Quem penes arbitrium est et jus et norma
loquendi.’ Inscriptions establish not only διανεκής (uot διηνεκής),
συβήνη (not συβίνη), but also Καλλένικος, ἀρχεθέωρος (pp. 6, 7),
Πυανοψιών (p. 9), Μουνιχιών (p. 13), μείξω, μεικτός (pp. 25, 87), and
apparently κάτροπτον (p. 41) as the best Attic forms. Meisterhans
seems to have omitted the form ἐνῳδίω (ear-rings), which is attested
by inscriptions of B.c. 397 and following years (C.Z.A. ii. 2, nos. 653,
656, 650, etce.). Very interesting is the discussion of the respective
dates of the forms ἐλαία ἐλάα, αἰεὶ ἀεί, ete. (p. 14), and the chronology
of the various interchanges of εἰ and i, € and εἴ, o and 6, wand 3,
at successive stages of Attic speech and writing (pp. 16 foll.). On
p. 81 are some good remarks on the erroneous insertion of iota
mutuin (e.g. ὀπίσῳ) which occurs more frejuently in inscriptions of
various parts of Greece than has hitherto been noted. Pp. 34 foll.
treat of the Consonants. Reference might have been made to Keil’s
epigraphical notes on the ‘Attic’ aspirate (Schedae Epigraphicae,
1855, p. 6). The evidence of the Attic marbles as to the assimilation
and dissimilation of consonants (τὸλ λόγον, συμμαχία, συνμαχία et sim.)
is given very fully (pp. 42—46). If however our view were extended
beyond Attica, it may be said (more strongly than Meisterhans puts
the case), that assimilation was on the whole the mark of earlier
Greek, and dissimilation the tendency from the second century B.c.
onwards. On p. 47 there is inserted a statistical table of the use
of ν ἐφελκυστικόν. Next ch, iii. deals with Fleaionslehre (pp. 48 foll.),
beginning with the epigraphical evidence of datives in -ἄσι, -ησι,
“aol, not, τ-οισι, and of the use and forms of the dual endings. The
dual endings in-a, -av are not consistent in participles and adjectives,
and are entirely wanting to the pronouns and the article (p. 50).
Pp. 62 foll. deal with certain peculiar words (e.g. υἱός) differently in-
flected at different stages of the dialect. The forms of the adverbs set
forth, pp. 64—5, are important for textual criticism: thus ἀσυλεί,
ἐνταυθοῖ, ὀνομαστί are good forms of the fifth century. Meisterhans
cites νηποινεί from the Amphipolis decree (C.J G. 2008) of the fourth
century ; he might have added ἀκονιτεΐ from the inscription [of Thea-
genes of Thasos?] at Olympia (circa 470 B.c , Rohl, /nserr. Antig. 880).
The epigraphical evidence on the Pronouns (pp. 68 foll.) is perhaps
given more elaborately by Schmolling in the dissertations already
alluded to. Among the forms of the adjectives ὀλείζων is of course
given as the comparative of ὀλίγος (p. 67), but the curious form of
the positive ὀλίος is not mentioned (see MWittheilungen, 1884, ix.
p. 289, in a document of the second century B.c.). The account of
the verbal forms is very complete (pp. 74 foll.). The displacement
INSCRIPTIONS. 301
of imperative endings in -ντῶν, τσθὼν by forms in -woar, and of -όσθω:"
by -έσθων is chronologically traced. It is noteworthy that the perfect
of τίθημι (p. 82) was τέθηκα until the first century B.c., the 2nd aor.
of τέμνω is ἔτεμον, the future of τίνω was spelt τείσω (pp. 88, 24), σῳζω
(p. 87) requires the iota mutum, and οἰκτίρω (not οἰκτείρω) oikrips,
oxtipa is the good old Attic spelling (‘bid.). The earliest Attic
exunple of γίνομαι is In B.C. 288 (p. 85), and γιγνώσκω is traced down
to B.c. 325. In the Roman period the forms γιγν- and γιν- are used
promiscuously. The earliest instance of γινώσκω the writer is aware
of isin the decree of Alexander respecting Priene (Greek Inscriptions
iv, the British Museum, 111. no, ecee.), probably of B.c. 334. Not less im-
portant are the remarks upon Syntax (pp. 89 foll.). In the oldest
inscriptions the article is omitted in a manner very different from
later Attic usage; but the omission survived to a large extent in
the case of proper names (Δημοσθένης Δημοσθένους), and of local
names like ἐμ πόλει, ἐν ἄστει, gu πρυτανείῳ. The facts concerning the
use of the dual are interesting (pp. 93 foll.). The dual of verbs is
consistently used in older Attic, but gives way to the plnral in
middle and new Attic. Similarly the dual of nouns and adjectives
is replaced by the plural in Macedonian times. In the imperial
period the dual was in part revived, in consequence of the revived
study of the classics (p. 95), Among the construction of *verbs
(p. 68) Meisterhans speaks of πεντάθλῳ νικᾶν being found as well
as πένταθλον νικᾶν ; he might have added λαμπάδι and λαμπάδα νικᾶν
(Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, i. no. xli.). As regards
the forms és and eis (p. 101), the usual spelling down to B.c, 380 is
és, which appears for the last time (in prose) in a document of B.c.
334. In other words és passes into εἰς just at the time when EI
ceased to be written E, and it is suggested that ‘és und εἰς nur
graphisch von einander verschieden sind’: certainly ΕἸΣ is found
before Euclid. As to ἕνεκα, εἵνεκα, οὕνεκα (pp. 103 fol.), Meister-
hans is not prepared (with Wecklein, Curae £piyr. p. 37) to deny
the existence altogether of the prepositional use of οὕνεκα, for it is
found once in a metrical epitaph from the Peiraeus (Kumanudes,
2961; see Kohler, Mitthetlungen, x. p. 363, who assigns it to the
fifth century B.c.). It is interesting to trace the careful distinction
maintained in the inscriptions between the aorist and the present,
στεφανῶσαι στεφανοῦν (p. 100), and between pera and σύν (pp. 109,
107), the former meaning ‘in company with’ (of persons), and the
latter ‘including’ (of quantities and things); eg. οἰκῶσιν pera
᾿Αθηναίων, ἔθεντο τὰ ὅπλα μετὰ τῆς πόλεως (collective sense), δόντων
μετὰ τῆς βουλῆς, and so on, but δεσμὰ σιδηρᾶ σὺν τῷ μολύβδῳ, σὺν
ἐπωτίοις, ete. This distinction was confused in Roman times.
802 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
By help of this storehouse of facts, the scholar may verify the
dicta of the old grammarians, may test the canons of modern gram-
marians and textual critics, and fix the date of the various develop-
ments of Attic speech and writing. In so far as it deals with later
Attic, when it became blended with the κοινή, this treatise is of
service to the student of Greek epigraphy generally ; but the gram-
mar of the non-Attic dialects remains yet to be written. The
materials are being carefully collected by Cauer, Bechtel and
others. Some readers may wish that Meisterhans had concerned
himself more with the rationale of the forms, and with ‘scientific
grammar.’ But does not the classified registration of ascertained
facts deserve the name of science?
E. Το, H.
Dr. Hermann Collitz, Sammlung der _ griechischen
Dialekt-Inschriften. Erster Bann. Géttingen, Vandenhoeck
and Ruprecht, 1884, 8vo.: M. 4, 50.
Vou, 1, consisting of pp. 410, contains the inscriptions of Cyprus,
Aeolia, Thessaly, Boeotia, Elis, Arcadia and Pamphylia.
The collection took its origin (Preface) from the well-known series
of articles on the individual dialects, which have appeared from time
to time in Bezzenberger’s Beitrdge x Kunde d. indog. Sprachen.
The method of publication differs from that of the Bettrdge in so
far as (1) the present collection gives as a rule only a cursive Greek
transcript of each inscription (supplemented by a digest of variae
lectiones), omitting the additional transcript given in the Beitrdge
which does not distinguish the texts into words, (2) the exegetical
notes are more scanty than in the Beitrdge. The dialects are divided
into the ὥ- group and the é- group, and in the first volume we have
the inscriptions of those dialects ‘welche sich besonders eigenartig
entwickelt haben.’
Pp. 1—80. The Graeco-Cyprian inscriptions in epichoric charac-
ter, revised by W. Deecke. ‘No searching critical, grammatical,
and historical interpretation is intended’ (Introduction). The most
important authorities are cited for each inscription, the texts given
as accurately as possible, first in Latin character and then in Greek
cursive character. The text is followed by notes, which contain
only the most necessary critical material, and the most indispensable
hints for the interpretation. The texts divide themselves into two
groups: (1) inscriptions proper on stone, metal (gold, silver, bronze,
lead), terra-cotta, occasionally also other materials (glass, tortoise-
shell), and (2) a selection of coin-legends, which last, owing to the com-
INSCRIPTIONS. 303
paratively scanty nature of the other materials, cannot be dispensed
with. The inscriptions proper are arranged locally according to the
later division of the island into four districts : the coins ure arranged
alphabetically according to kings. Inscriptions of which the Graeco-
Cyprian origin is not certain, and inscriptions supposed to be forged
are omitted, (Similarly the so-called Old Trojan inscriptions from
Schliemann’s works are omitted—none having been certainly shown
to be Greek, even if the written character is akin to the Cyprian).
Pp. 8—12 contain a very clear and useful summary of the principles
adopted in the transcription of the epichoric character. Deecke
concludes with the remark that a closer study of the Hittite hiero-
glyphic writing has convinced him of its kinship with the Cypriote
character. The inscriptions (to the number, with the coin-legends,
of 212, pp. 13—72) are followed by a lithographed table exhibiting
in facsimile in no fewer than nineteen columns the varieties of the
Oypriote character, which prevailed in the several localities,
The Aeolic inscriptions (pp. 83—143, nos. 213—372, with
Addenda, pp. 873—386, nos, 1270—1333) revised by F, Bechtel.
These are given under the heads of: I. Lesbos, II. Pordoselena,
III. Tenedos, IV. the neighbouring coast of Asin Minor, V. Delos,
(one inscription only) ; and an Appendia (in which the editor duly
recognises the services rendered by O, Puchstein, Lpigrammata
Graeca in Aegypto reperta, Strassburg, 1880), containing the
archaising poems of Julia Balbilla.
The Thessalian inscriptions (pp. 127—143, nos. 324—373, with
Addenda, pp. 377—886, nos, 1278—1333), revised by A. Fick. The
arrangemeut of the inscriptions is local: 1, Thessaliotis, II. Hes-
tiaeotis, III. Pelasgiotis (including the important long inscription
of Larisa, which has necessitated the re-writing of all accounts of
the Thessalian dialect), IV. Perrhaebia.
The Boeotian inscriptions (pp. 147—309, nos. 374—1129, with
Appendix pp. 306—309, nos. 1130—1146, of Boeotian inscriptions
not found in Boeotia, and Addenda and Corrigenda, pp. 389—406)
revised by R. Meister. The number of inscriptions in this collection
considerably exceeds that of Larfeld’s Sylloge.
The Elean inscriptions (pp. 313—336, nos. 1147—1180) by
F. Blass. The Introduction (pp. 3183—315) sums up concisely the
principal peculiarities of the dialect. Blass remarks on (1) the
mutilated state in which most of the inscriptions have come down
to us, (2) the evidence of extreme carelessness on the part of the
engravers, a carelessness justifying an unusual latitude of restoration
on the part of an editor, (3) the difficulty experienced in determining
the position of the dialect by reason of the striking inconsistencies
304 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
met with in the older stratum of inscriptions—the later, in which
the dialect is almost pure, being represented by the Damocrates-
bronze, no. 1172. He is inclined to seek a partial explanation of
the dialectical fluctuation and inconsistency in the relations of the
Pisatid district, in which Olympia was situated, to the Elid territory
and in the tradition of an early immigration from Aetolia. (His
suggestion that the Pisatid dialect may have been related to the
Aveadian is criticised by Prof. H. W. Smyth, dm. Journ. Phil.
vii. (1887), no. 4, The Dialects of North Greece). The inscriptions
(pp. 316—336) are arranged as far as possible chronologically.
Blass’s critical and exegetical notes are on a more extensive scale
than that adopted in the other sections of the volume, and afford
real and substantial help to the student. One result of his keen
criticism and sceptical treatment is to throw doubt upon many
forms previously quoted from these inscriptions as etymological
certainties,
The Arcadian inscriptions, including coin-legends (pp. 339—361,
nos. 1181—1258) revised by F. Bechtel. Apart from no. 1181 (a
decree of the Arcadian league), and no, 1182 (the older coin-legends
of the ‘ Arcadians,’) the remainder consist of inscriptions and coin-
legends from the individual towns. In no. 1222 (the well-known
Tegeatan inscription relating to contracts for public buildings)
Bechtel explains the inuch debated xav by κε + dy, against Meyer,
Gir. Gr. § 24, and Spitzer, Ark. Lautl. p. 8.
The Pamphylian inscriptions and coin-legends (pp. 365—370,
nos. 1259—1269) revised by A. Bezzenberger. In the inscription
from Sillyon, no. 1266, the editor differs widely from Roehl ()180)".
Graec. Antiquissimae) in his readings, chiefly in the direction of
greater caution and reserve. The sign for spiritus asper wherever
present in the original is represented by H, and the sign ΝᾺ by τὸ;
T. Bergk’s explanation (Ztschr. f. Numism. 188+, p. 533) of the
latter, as denoting, at least in some words, a sibilant, probably
appeared too late to be noticed. The volume concludes with tables
giving the numbers of inscriptions cited in Meister’s Griechische
Dialekte, vol. 1., corresponding to the numbers in this collection.
E. S. BR,
Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer, mit Facsimiles he-
rausgegeben. Em. Loewy. Leipzig, Teubner. 1885.
Tuis book supplies invaluable material, not only for the history of
art, but also for that of the alphabet. It is much to be desired
that Dr. Loewy’s scattered hints as to the post-Euclidean alphabet
INSCRIPTIONS. 305
should be collected ; a treatise embodying his intimate acquaintance
with the subject would meet what is now the greatest need of
epigraphists.
As is observed in the preface, the growth of material since
Hirschfeld’s publication (1870) required a new collection ; this one
contains some 600, as against Hirschfeld’s 250. The help afforded
in all quarters by the first epigraphists, and the care with which a
facsimile of every accessible inscription is given, makes the work of
extraordinary value and interest. The following important statistics
are collected :—
(1) Position of inscription: beside the usual position, it appears
on the horizontal surface of the basis only at Olympia; on parts of
the statue itself once in archaic times, once in the third century ;
commonly in imperial times.
(2) Form: this is identical in different inscriptions of the same
artist only thirty-six times out of sixty-three; hence arguments
cannot be based on differences. The description of the artist with
his father and place is commonest in Hellenistie times ; the ethnic
is given where it is not likely to be known, as at Olympia and
Rhodes. The father’s name only is not often given; at Olympia
only when he also was an artist. A metrical form is never com-
moner than prose, but occurs oftener in early times than later. The
use of ποιέω is always prevalent; the aorist is commonest; the
imperfect occurs occasionally in archaic times, never in the finest
period ; then it comes in from the east, and is more usual in imperial
times and in forgeries. The forms ποιέω and ποέω always coexist ;
but that zoéw is not found outside Attica before the fourth
century.
(3) Work done in common.
(4) Fathers of artists (if artists also).
(5) Comparison with literary tradition: in the fourth and fifth
centuries, some two-thirds of the artists’ names are known to us ;
in archaic, Hellenistic, and imperial times, a comparatively small
proportion.
The artists’ signatures follow, divided according to period and
locality. They are followed by such as are doubtful, or are not
original. Last come forgeries, whether executed on stone, or merely
invented on paper.
Other inscriptions referring to artists in their work or in public
and private life are added.
A few important inscriptions may be mentioned in detail.
1 is the famous Archermos inscription (which has never yet been
satisfactorily read and restored) ; its connexion with the winged
Heo - - ΟΕ Vill. Χ
303 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
figure found near it is rejected by the highest authorities, A full
discussion is given of the dedication of the Nike of Poeonius, and of
other interesting inscriptions. In the fourth century the epi-
graphical evidence becomes important ; in 64 and others we already
see traces of the widening of strokes at the end; but this is not yet
the rule. Under 93 is given a valuable discussion of the family of
Naucydes, Daedalus, and Polyclitus. In 119, from the years soon
after Alexander, with very wedge-shaped strokes, rravoi πόδες are
explained as referring to a herald, not arunner. In the Hellenistic
period the forms seem to have remained stationary in Attica, and
the tendency to spread the stroke at the end, already seen in the
fourth century, was not allowed full play till the middle of the
second, A full discussion is given of the dates of the great
Pergamene works, upon epigraphic and other evidence. A careful
study is also made of the epigraphy of the Rhodian group; a
transition is visible, Jasting about three generations ; in the earlier
period, the strokes are only emphasised at the end; later they
spread out into swallow-tails: the earlier are proved to date from
about 200. The peculiarities of these inscriptions do not depend
on the individual artists, The connexion of the Venus of Melos
with the inscribed basis is discussed, and, on the whole, rejected as
not proved.
The inscriptions on the colossi of Monte Cavallo are classed as
antique, but not original. Among the forgeries is the Venus de’
Medici, and it forms an exception to the rule that forged names are
usually known from literature or otherwise, Excellent and full
indices and tables are given, of the artists and their families and
place of origin, their works, and the places where inscriptions have
been found.—E, A. G.
Traité d’Epigraphie geecque. Saroman Reinacu. Paris,
Leroux. 1885.
Tuis manual is a very useful compilation, including also a consider-
able amount of original work. Such a book, as is pointed out in
the preface, is much needed, the work of Franz being antiquated.
An account of the results of epigraphy has already been given in
Mr. Newton’s essays, which, translated, form the first section of the
book ; the second section, dealing with the methods of the science,
is new. At the end of the preface are useful instructions for the
training of the epigraphist : these contain advice as to the methods
to be adopted in travelling, as to taking photographs and squeezes,
&e. They have in great part been repeated in M, Reinach's
Conseils aux voyageurs archéologues.
INSCRILTIONS, 307
Section I, Mr. Newton's essays are illustrated by numerous
quotations, sometimes including more recent material: on pp. 2-5
is a valuable note, giving a list of the most important publications
in which inscriptions are to be found; throughout the work such
bibliographical hints are very useful.
Section II, (1) History of the Greek alphabet. A convenient
sketch of the alphabet before Euclid is compiled, with the various
theories as to its origin. The table on pp. 186-7 is particularly
useful, as embodying in the completest form what is known of the
various local varieties. Many important tables compiled by others
are reproduced, e.g. that of Schiitz for the Attic alphabet, and some
of Dr, Isanc Taylor's. It was hardly possible in this way to avoid
some inconsistencies, Thus the Greek derivatives from the
Phoenician Shin and Tsade given in the table on p, 181 are at
variance with the note on p. 192, which gives the only view now
tenable, A table is also given (p. 204) of post-Euclidean forms at
various periods: but this can of course only give a few essential
marks, especially as local differences are not taken into account,
Some remarks are added on ligatures and punctuation ; some very
convenient lists of numerical signs are given, and also two lists of
abbreviations in use before and during the Roman period.
(2) a. Orthographic peculiarities of inscriptions. (This chapter and
the next contain much matter independently treated in Meisterhans’
treatise, which appeared about the same time.) Such especially
are treated as afford chronological indications ; aspiration, assimila-
tion interior and final, hiatus and ν ἐφελκυστικόν ; the last, in Attic
at least, seems commoner before consonants than before vowels, Then
follow double consonants (written single in ancient texts), oo before
hard consonants, the later confusion of o and ζ, ξὺν and σύν, rr,
γίνομαι, first found in 289 B,o, The details as to vocalism are more
complicated ; the most important are those as to the representation
of ov and « by single or double symbols: also as to the relation of
«, εἰ, &e,, and ὁ adscript. Larfeld’s table of Boeotian vocalism is
given.
δ, Grammatical peculiarities (chiefly Attic). Here come such
matters as the early frequency of the dual, the use of the article,
declensions, mas and ἅπας, comparatives, ὅστις, &e,, the aygment in
ἡ, the imperative, σὺν and μετά, final clauses, and conditional
sentences, Also the beginning of the κοινή.
(3) Of Inscriptions in general. Affected archaism is sometimes
found, Facts are given as to the manner of engraving inscriptions
and the materials used, wood, stone, marble, bronze; as to their
exhibition in public places, and the preservation of copies; also as
308 NOTICES OF BOOKS,
to secretaries and stone cutters, the expenses of engraving, and the
transcription of laws. A most useful list is added of the commonest
errors made by stone cutters, and a comparison of the accuracy of
inscriptions and MSS., as exemplified by a decree preserved by
Thucydides.
(4) Public documents. For these the customary headings are
mentioned, and the formulae found in Attic and other decrees,
titles, ke. ; a few words are added as to metrical inscriptions. Then
follows information as to Proxeny decrees, reasons for honours
voted, and their nature, and the forms observed in them; and also
as to honorary decrees, dedications, statues, ex voto, kc. The most
frequent kinds of catalogues are enumerated ; of victors, ephebi,
prytanes, subscribers, goods sold, naturalised citizens, &ec.; of
members of religious associations, of enfranchised slaves, of offer-
ings, accounts, &e. Other matters included are ceremonial pre-
scriptions, oracles, letters of public importance, from sovereigns,
towns, ἄς. ; judicial inscriptions, such as those of Gortyna, choragic
and agonistic documents, competitions and victors, offerings dedi-
cated by them, and honours decreed to them. Ephebic inscriptions
inform us of the oath taken by the youths, decrees in honour of
them and their trainers, the constitution of the college, &e.
(5) Various inscriptions, private documents, &c. These include
boundary stones, &ec.; epitaphs (of which the local and temporal
varieties of usage are noted) ; maledictions of violators of the tombs
and other imprecations; artists’ signatures (a résumé of the
customary forms is given, mostly from Hirschfeld’s and Loewy’s
results) ; Tabulae Iliacae ; signatures of painters and mosaic
workers ; inscriptions on vases and terra-cottas (explanatory of the
subject, or giving the artist or the possessor, or mere graffiti) ; on
lamps, glass, &c. ; on amphora handles ; on gems; on weights; and
on tesserae.
(6) Supplementary statements. As to chronology, much valuable
information is collected, such as lists of various local eras, years,
months, and days; also prytanies. Next come proper names and
private titles, and their transliteration, and a careful index of the
equivalence of Greek and Roman titles. A few words are added as
to the later fate of inscriptions, collections before the Corpus, and
the present state of the work.
The Addenda include some important points—especially some
additions to the table of early forms, on p. 548. A short index
concludes the work.—E. A. G.
HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES. 309
Inscriptiones Tyrae, Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae, ἄς, By
B. Latyscuey. St. Petersburg, 1885. 4to., pp. i-viii. 1-243.
THis is the first volume of the corpus of ‘Greek and Latin
Inscriptions from the Northern Shores of the Euxine,”’ undertaken
by Mr. Latyschev for the Imperial Archeological Society of Russia.
The commentary on the inscriptions is in Latin, and in most cases a
translation in Russian is appended. The work is especially welcome,
as many of the texts printed in it were hitherto only to be found in
rather inaccessible Russian publications. The inscriptions of Tyras
and its neighbourhood occupy pp. 3-18. There is a rich series of
Olbia (pp. 18-164), including honorary, dedicatory, and sepulchral
inscriptions. No. 17, a decree in honour of Nikeratos, a benefactor
of Olbia, gives a glimpse of the wretched condition of the city
shortly before the beginning of the Christian Era, when it was
exposed to the invasions of a barbarian people (perhaps the Getae).
No. 46 is an edict of the “Septemviri” of the city. No. 50 and
following numbers form a series of dedicatory inscriptions which
accompanied the gifts annually made by the city magistrates to
various divinities, especially Apollo Prostatés, Hermes Agoraios,
and Achilles Pontarchés. There are few sepulchral inscriptions.
The inscriptions of Chersonesus fill pp. 173-218. In the series of
“ Decrees” of this city, No. 185 is an important text found in 1878,
and since commented on by Foucart and other writers (see Latyschev,
p- 174). It is a decree in honour of Diophantes, the general of
Mithradates the Great, and mentions three campaigns undertaken
by him against the barbarian enemies of Chersonesus.—W W.
(C).—HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES.
Griechische Geschichte bis zur Schlacht bei Chaironeia.
Von Dr. Geore Busoxtt. I. Teil. Bis zu dem Perserkriegen.
Gotha, 1885.
History of Greece from the Earliest Times to the End of
the Persian War. Translated from the German of Prorgssor
Max Duncxer by 8. F. Atteyne and Evetyn Apporr. Vols, 1.
and IJ. London, 1881.
Griechische Geschichte von ihrem Ursprunge bis zum
Untergange der Selbstandigkeit. Von Avpoztr Ho wm.
Erster Band. Berlin, 1886.
In these three works we have the latest results of the labours of
German erudition directed to a thorough examination of the sources
310 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
of early Greek history and a reconstruction of that history in the
light that has recently been brought to bear on it, chiefly from the
discoveries and generalisations of archaeologists and comparative
mythologists. But the work of criticism and of reconstruction has
in each case been undertaken from a different point of view, and
its results are presented in a different form. Dr. Busolt’s work
shows generally a more sceptical attitude than that of the other
two authors. It also supposes that his readers possess both an
acquaintance with ancient and modern sources and facilities for
referring to such sources. His chapters on authorities at the
beginning of each chapter are most useful, and his foot-notes refer
us to all manner of stores of information. Prof. Duncker’s book
is that of one who has long laboured in the same field and is in
some respects more original and less critical. For the convenience
of the general reader, he not only refers to, but copies in eatenso, all
that the earlier and traditional authorities have to tell us on some
important subjects, even where his subsequent examination of their
statements makes them almost entirely valueless. He has, as he
says in his preface, ‘woven together the indispensable critical dis-
quisitions upon a basis of traditional facts.’ The history of Holm
is shorter, less pretentious in character, and truly admirable for the
clearness with which proved facts are distinguished from dubious
hypotheses. The narrative in the text is not much broken by
critical examinations, but very valuable criticisms are given in an
appendix to each chapter. The book is thus at once attractive to
the general reader, and useful to those preparing for special
studies.
Some of the characteristics of each author may be shown by
comparing the view which each takes of a few important problems
in Greek history, such as the nature of the pre-Dorian population
of the Peloponnese, the work of Lycurgus, the Phoenician settle-
ments in Greece, and the character of the Corinthian tyranny.
On the first of these points, the state of the Peloponnese before
the Dorian invasion, we cannot present any positive opinion of
Dr. Busolt, as his criticism is here mainly destructive. He
considers that the races dispossessed by the Dorians were akin to
the Arcadians, and so far from attaching any credit to the tradi-
tions of their early greatness, regards the remains of Tiryns and
Mycenae as belonging to Dorian princes, and would even attribute
the renown of the Peloponnesian Achaeans to Spartan pride work-
ing on the material of epic poets, in whose eyes the Achaeans
were inhabitants of Thessaly and not of the Peloponnese at
all. Prof. Duncker, on the other hand, believes in the greatness
HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES. 311
and the wealth of the empire of the Pelopidae, and his views as to
the origin of the Greek people seem substantially the same as those
of Prof. Curtius. It is, however, exceedingly difficult to determine
clearly what he would connote by the names given to primitive
Greek peoples. ‘We may be quite sure,’ he says, ‘that the
Pelasgians, Achaeans, and Hellenes were not three distinct races,
but that these names rather indicate three distinct periods of Greek
history, and denote three stages arising out of, and following one
another, in the development of the one Greek people.’ In another
place he speaks of ‘the name of Pelasgus, derived from the universal
intuition of the Greeks of ancient times.’ To Holm, however, the
Achaeans are not a phase, but a definite people, who inhabited
Argolis and probably also Laconia before the Dorian occupation, and
the Pelasgi also are a definite people, inhabiting definite districts
in Europe and Asia, whose name was extended, for various ex-
plicable reasons, so as to take in many to whom it did not properly
belong. The primitive, pious, peace-loving, rather colourless
Pelasgians of the ordinary conception seem to be banished to the
regions of the blameless Ethiopians. In his chapter on the remains
of prehistoric art in Greece, the author sets before us a lively
picture of the best times of Tiryns and Mycenae, calling in the
historical imagination to relieve the vagueness of conflicting
traditions and conjectures.
If we turn to another matter—the character of Lycurgus and his
work—we see similar differences in method of treatment. Dr.
Busolt does not go so far as to deny the historical personality of
Lycurgus altogether, but he would not attribute to him any of the
fundamental institutions of the Spartan state, nor yet, apparently,
the peculiarities of the Spartan discipline. Prof. Duncker has a
brilliant theory, which would account for much that has hitherto
baffled investigation, especially the double monarchy, the eponymous
titles of the kings, and the position of the law-giver. He holds that
the work of Lycurgus was the union into one political body of two
Dorian states, dwelling on the Oenus and on the upper Eurotas
respectively, and that this union was effected after King Charilaus
had been worsted in the war with the Tegeans. The military
system, the discipline, and the sumptuary laws of the Spartans he
would assign to a later period. Holm recognises the great ingenuity
of Duncker’s hypothesis without venturing to adopt it. But he
_ does not consider it impossible that the laws against wealth and
luxury may have originated at the same time as the new political
order, and have been promulgated by the originator of that order.
In tracing the early history of Attica, Dr. Busolt rejects all
312 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
traditions of Phoenician colonies, though he recognises the im-
portant influence of Phoenician trade. ‘The opinion that they (the
Phoenicians) colonised Thebes is certainly unfounded, nor have we
any more reason to suppose that a colony in Athens (Melite) was
founded by them.’ Duncker, on the other hand, regards the settle-
ment of the Phoenicians in Athens as a clearly ascertained fact,
and associates its overthrow with the union of Attic communities
into one state traditionally ascribed to Theseus. Holm considers
the existence of Phoenician colonies in Thebes and in Athens as
not improbable, though not clearly proved.
Tn treating of the government of the Cypselidae in Corinth, both
Busolt and Duncker are inclined to a more favourable view than
that of Herodotus, Busolt attributes the sentiments of the speech
put by Herodotus into the mouth of the Corinthian Sosicles to the
relations existing between Athens and Corinth at the moment
when the historian published his narrative. Duncker traces
the motive which led the Corinthians to accuse their tyrants of
spoliation, to the desire to represent as their own property the
treasures laid up at Delphi and elsewhere. But while defending
Periander from some of the charges brought against him, Prof.
Duncker insists, on grounds which hardly seem sutticiently strong,
that he ‘must bear the guilt of the death of Melissa.’ Holm does
not pass a definite judgment on the arbitrary acts of Cypselus
and his son, but shows the improbability of the theory that princes
who encouraged the worship of Dionysus should in their internal
regulations have acted solely with a view to public order and
decency.
In spite of all differences, however, we may observe important.
common characteristics in the methods of all three authors. All
alike take a wide view of the province of history so as to make it
include the literary, artistic, and religious, as well as the political
development of the people. All are very ready to make use of
archaeological results, especially those of numismatics. In the
use of early historians, not even Busolt entirely disparages the
authority of Herodotus, though they would all restrict it within
certain limits. Thus for the date of Phidon of Argos, all three
prefer the statements of Pausanias to those of Herodotus, and
Duncker confidently asks, ‘ Who can seriously adopt the argument
that the coins of Phidon belong to the end of the seventh century—
that is, that they were struck just before the time of Solon ?’
One of the chief drawbacks to the value of Dr. Busolt’s work is
the difficulty the ordinary reader meets in clearly ascertaining the
grounds of his conclusions, especially where they are drawn from
HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES. 313
archaeological materials. Thus we find him confidently asserting
the existence in the fifth century of a monetary alliance among the
Arcadian states, though in a foot-note he refers to the rival
hypothesis by which Imhoof-Blumer would explain the coins with
the inscription Arkadikon. Still more serious is the difficulty caused
to the student by the statement that the theory of Prof. Curtius as
to the early migrations of the Ionians ‘has long been found un-
tenable,’ for the proof of which statement he is referred in a foot-note
to articles in various German periodicals.
The difficulty we experience in trying to determine Prof. Duncker’s
canons of evidence are of a different kind, and arise from the mannor
in which brilliant and plausible hypotheses are stated as if they
were matters of fact. Besides the views given above of the union
of the two Spartan states under Lycurgus and the combination of
the Attic cantons in opposition to the Phoenicians, we have an
interesting theory of the origin of the Parthenii and their discontent,
which he attributes to a restoration of the old and strict marriage
laws and a retrospective enforcement of the same; also some
interesting generalisations concerning the moral influence of the
religious sentiment in the Greek aristocracies. In one or two places
his deductions from archaeological facts seem rather questionable,
as when he says, ‘ That the Cypria were composed before the year
600 B.c. is evident from the representation of the Judgment of Paris
on the chest of Cypselus.’ The general arrangement of the work
is not all that might be desired in point of clearness,
In the introductory remarks to his history, Holm observes that
in the investigation of original sources, what we now require is noi
so much the reconstruction of the lost works of ancient authors, as
the discriminating study of those we still possess. If we extend this
remark and apply it to modern authorities in special fields, we
arrive at the conclusion that a writer of ancient history is now
likely to produce good work in proportion as he is able clearly and
justly to estimate the historical import of the labours of specialists
in all subjects which are or might be made auxiliary to the study of
history.— A. G.
Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics.
By B. V. Heap. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1887.
Tue first title of this work is distinctive, and marks its mosi
essential characteristic. Hitherto all general works on Greek
Numismatics, from Eckhel’s great work, Doctrina Numorum
Veterum, down to the handbooks of Akerman and Werlhof, have
H.S.—VOL. VIII. Y
314 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
taken up the coins of each district and city from the points of view
of geography and mythology rather than from that of history.
With Mr. Head, Numismatics takes its rightful place as one of the
most useful of the sciences auxiliary to history.
The application of scientific historical method to ancient numis-
matics is a thing of comparatively recent date, and no one has done
more service in this direction than Mr. Head, whose Coinage of
Syracuse, published in 1874, was the first thoroughly scientific
monograph on the coinage of a Greek city, and a model of careful
induction. In Historia Numorum he applies the same method to
the whole of the coins of the ancient world, arranging the coins of
each city or district in chronological series and groups. Those who
know the size of the field of ancient numismatics, and how much of
it is almost virgin soil, will not need to be told that within the
limits of time and space imposed upon Mr. Head the attempt could
not be entirely successful. Where he is working on ground which
he has already explored, as in his account of the coins of Syracuse,
Macedon, Beotia, and Ephesus, he furnishes a sketch as complete
as could be written in so narrow a space. Where he treats of places
which have been the subject of satisfactory catalogues and mono-
graphs, as Acarnania, Crete, or Phenicia, his summary is still
complete. But in dealing with districts which have remained
comparatively untouched, he is necessarily less thorough and com-
prehensive. Generally speaking, the book is far more complete
for Sicily and European Greece than for Asia Minor and Syria; for
the British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins has not yet reached
Asia, and not only the great museums of Europe, but even private
collectors, such as M. Waddington and M. Six, possess large
numbers of Asiatic coins which are unpublished and unknown.
Nor have the dates of the coins issued in Asia received anything
like so much attention as the dates of Sicilian coins, or those of
Hellas, or even those of Italy. But even in regard to Asia Minor
it is a very great gain to possess a satisfactory summary of the
coinage, so far as published matter serves: fresh material will now
rapidly accumulate for a still more valuable second edition. It
must also be observed that where Mr. Head’s summary is least
final it is probably to the numismatist most valuable, as it opens
Lew ground,
It is to students of Greek history that Historia Numorum is
particularly adapted. Those who wish to form an idea of the
importance of numismatics to early Greek history should look at
the foot-notes to Busolt’s volume, reviewed in these pages. But to
those occupied with ancient geography, philology, art or mythology,
HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES. 315
it will also be a storehouse of useful facts, facts hitherto scattered over
the pages of periodicals and in the transactions of learned societies.
A few words of special notice are claimed by the index, or rather
indexes, for places, rulers, inscriptions, magisterial titles, epithets
of cities, are all indexed separately, and there is a general Index
Rerum to close the gaps. The indexes occupy fifty-five pages, and
they are the most important pages in the book, mainly because the
author has not abandoned the work of indexing to other hands, but
done it himself.—P. G.
Die Bevolkerung der griechisch-romischen Welt. Von
Dr. Jutius Betocw. Leipzig, Duncker and Humblot. 1886.
Tue aim of the author of this book is to apply the whole of the
available material to determine the populousness of the various
sections of the Greek and Roman world. At present we are only
concerned with that part of the work which deals with the Hellenic
populations. The data for the purpose are extremely slender and
untrustworthy. Figures are specially prone to corruption in MSS.
and cannot be recovered from the context—and moreover writers
of skill and fidelity seem to have had little sense of the possible
and impossible in numbers ; while among later and less trustworthy
authors we are given statistics of a purely fantastic kind. For
example, Prokopius assigns a billion as the number of inhabitants
of the Roman Empire.
The monumental materials would be far more trustworthy if we
had them; but unfortunately they are very scanty, consisting of
little more than a few catalogues of Ephebi.
The materials fall into the following classes :—
(1) Direct statements about population.—The most important is
the statement by Athenaeus, on the authority of Ktesikles, of the
numbers given by the census of Attica under Demetrius of Phalerum,
towards the end of the fourth century. We often have information
about the number of citizens of a state, and from this it is possible
to estimate the whole population.
(2) Military data.—The numbers of the troops furnished by
different states to military expeditions furnish a ground for com-
parison of their populations.
(3) Area.—The law that equal areas of equal fertility and placed
under similar conditions will at any given time contain populations
not very different in number, affords a means of determining by
comparison the worth of statistics or estimates.
(4) Food consumption and supply.—In several cases we have
records of the corn-production and corn-importation of states. The
316 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
amount of corn consumed per head can be calculated from the known
allowances of slaves and soldiers, and from the consumption in
modern times, and thus a rough estimate of population can be
formed.
Attica is the country for which the best materials are available,
and moreover it is there that the problem presents most interest.
Dr. Beloch’s treatment of the population of Attica is the most
elaborate and the best example of the application of his method.
Hack particular section of the argument is by no means conclusive,
but when the results derived from the number of citizens, the number
of soldiers, the population of similar areas, the production and con-
sumption of corn are found to produce consistent results, and
moreover to show changes in the population at different periods
entirely in agreement with the causes known to have been at work,
it is impossible to avoid accepting in the main his conclusions. The
author differs from Boéckh in rejecting as incredible Athenaeus’
statement that Demetrius found the number of slaves to be 400,000.
Béckh defended this number, and his view was followed by Clinton,
and till now has been generally accepted. But Dr. Beloch’s arguments
seem conclusively to show that the fourth part of this number would
be nearer the mark,
We must regard as equally fabulous the 470,000 slaves which
Athenaeus assigns to Aegina, and the 460,000 of Corinth, numbers
which have found supporters among some of Béckh’s followers,
though Bockh himself did not defend them.
At the end of the book a convenient table gives the results for
432 B.c. For the Peloponnese we have a population of 890,000.
230,000 of these are in Laconia and Messenia, of whom 175,000 are
slaves, including Helots. Argolis, including Corinth, accounts for
335,000. Attica has 235,000, of whom 100,000 are slaves. Boeotia
150,000, of whom one-third are slaves. The whole population of
Greece, including the islands, Thessaly and Macedonia is reckoned
at 3,000,000.
Dr. Beloch is thoroughly master of the materials. His arrange-
ment is clear, and his exposition lucid. As he says himself, any one
who wishes to overthrow his results must attack his whole system,
and not any one part of it, for his various arguments give support
to one another. His book must remain the standard authority
upon the subject, unless the discovery of fresh material throws
entirely new light upon the question.—H. B. 8.
[Notices of Periodicals are postponed for want of space.]
TWO VASES FROM CYPRUS.
[PraTes LXXXI. anp LXXXII_]
i
THE pottery found hitherto in Cyprus has been for the most
part of a rude, local fabric, resembling both in its shapes and
system of decoration the pottery of Egypt. The Greek element
in the population of Cyprus and the frequent participation of
outside Greeks in the affairs of the island might have been
expected to leave some decided trace in the pottery. But this
expectation had not been realised to any degree till last year,
when excavations at Poli tis Chrysokhou brought to light an
extensive series of Greek vases and other antiquities? Among
the vases were the two here published.
The locality where these antiquities were found is supposed
to be that of the ancient Marion, a town on the west coast of
Cyprus, of which little is recorded except that it had been taken
by an Athenian fleet under Kimon,? on which occasion its
inhabitants were treated with much clemency,-and that subse-
quently it was destroyed by Ptolemy, on which occasion its
inhabitants were removed to Paphos. At that time it was
ruled by a prince called Stasioekos. Its existence as a town is
1 See Jahrbuch des Arch. Inst. 1887, 2 Diodorus Sic. xii. 3-4.
p- 85, pl. 8, where thesilver girdle now 3° Toud., xix. 19,4.
in the British Museum is published.
Hs—VOL, VIL. ὁ
318 TWO VASES FROM CYPRUS.
said to have been revived under the name of Arsinoe. The old
name of Marion, however, seems also to have come again
into use. :
How eagerly the Athenians, in the time of Kimon, looked to
Cyprus as a stronghold against the Persians, if they could but
get it thoroughly into their hands, is a matter of notoriety.
They made great efforts, and if Diodorus Siculus? is to be trusted,
they gainel great successes. Diodorus may be wrong in some
points, but as regards Kimon’s siege of Marion, which he alone
mentions, and which finds no place in the brief narrative of
Thucydides,” we must view it as a fact in his favour that this
locality has now yielded a considerable series of vases which go
back in date to the time of that siege—about B.c. 450. That
these vases were imported from Athens there can, I think, be no
doubt ; they are as clearly Athenian as the rude ware found in
the tombs with them are the work of the local Cypriote potters.
Nor was this importation of vases only of short duration. It
appears rather to have gone on till the town was destroyed by
Ptolemy about B.c. 315. If, then, from about B.c. 450 to 8.0. 315
the people of Marion manifested a marked taste for Athenian
pottery, we may conclude that in other respects also they had
maintained a friendly feeling towards Athens, and that the
capture of the town by Kimon had been productive of lasting
good,
The older of the two vases here published is an alabastos
(pl. LXXXII.), covered with a creamy slip, on which are drawn
in with fine black lines two female figures, the one presenting a
cup of wine, towards which the other advances energetically,
holding a branch of laurel in each hand. Round her body is tied
a deer’s skin, which, together with the wine cup, give the cere-
mony a Bacchic character. Appropriate to the Bacchic character
of the scene is the crane which stands between these two figures,
The crane is painted in fully in black, a proceeding which saves
the trouble of indicating the wings and feathers. Yet with all
its want of detail the form of the bird is admirably rendered.
The two female figures are drawn in with lines only, except that
over parts of the draperies a yellowish-brown glaze has been
1 See Duncker, viii. p. 379. ἐστράτευσαν ἐς Κύπρον καὶ αὐτῆς τὰ
21.112, He had before said (I. 94) πολλὰ κατεστρέψαντο.
of the Lacedaemonians and Athenians,
TWO VASES FROM CYPRUS. 319
painted and fired much as on the draperies on a fine kylix im the
British Museum by Panphaeos,' with whom the painterof our vases
was probably a contemporary. He signs himself Pasiades. The
name has been given out as being Jasiades;* but in that case there
would be too much space between the first two letters, while in
favour of the reading Pasiades is the fact thatthe letter P would
bring the spacing right and that there is a breakage in the vase,
which would have carried off the upper part of the letter,
Whether Iasiades or Pasiades, the name was previously unknown
among vase painters. It is an acquisition which will be valued
by the many admirers of signed vases. Even those who, so to
speak, do not collect autographs of vase painters will welcome
gladly the charming archaic drawing of this vase with its fine
touch and delicate sentiment.
In Karlsruhe is an alabastos * which, so far as one can judge
from a rather mannered engraving, is of the same style as ours.
It is signed by the painter Psiax and the potter Hilinos, who
have been classed along with the painters Panphaeos, Epiktetos,
and Kachrylion. I have mentioned a technical point in our
alabastos which recalls Panphaeos. Further, there was found in
the same tomb with it a red-figure kylix bearing the inscription
TIPOSAFOPEVO.* The small number of existing vases with
this inscription have been associated with the painter Epiktetos,
and there is no mistaking the fragmentary figure on the kylix
in question as belonging to his school. Again, in the same set
of tombs was found a kylix by Kachrylion.» We may therefore
class Pasiades in that school of painters, and as the alabastos in
Karlsruhe came from Athens, so also our alabastos may have
come thence, quite apart from the historical conditions which
made importation from Athens favourable at that time.
In the tomb with our alabastos was also found a beautiful
finger-ring of silver, with a gold fly resting on it as if by chance,
some vases of local fabric, and other objects. The British
Museum possesses the contents of the tomb.
1 Klein, Meistersignaturen, 2nd Ed.
Ῥ. 94, and Luphronios, 2nd Ed. pp,
272-3.
° Klein, Meistersignaturen, 2nd Ed.
p- 222.
® See Panofka, Namen der Vasen-
bilduer, pl. 3, figs. 9-10, p. 16; Klein,
Meistersign. 2nd Ed. p. 134; Vasen-
Sammlwag zu Karlsruhe (1887), No.
242.
4 Klein, Meistersign. 2nd Ed, p. 221,
cf. p. 110.
5 Klein, JZeistersign. 2nd Ed. p.
221.
ὟΣ
330 TWO VASES FROM CYPRUS.
Il.
The second of the vases here published (pl. LXXXI.) is a
lekythos with red figures ona black ground, but with accessories
of white colour and gilding. It is Athenian in its whole character.
The figures represented are Oedipus (ΟἹ ΔΙΠΟΣῚ, the Sphinx
(=...), Athena (A@HNA), Apollo (-TTOAAQN), Kastor
(KAZTQP), Polydeukes (POAVAEVKHE), and Aeneas
(AINEAS). The subject is, therefore, Oedipus putting an end
to the Sphinx. Usually it has been thought that Oedipus had put
an end to the Sphinx by simply reading her riddle, whereupon she
threw herself from the high rock on which she sat and was no
more heard οὗ The point of the legend was that he, ‘Swollen-
foot’ by name,? had been destined to explain the riddle as to
what creature was tiwo-footed, three-footed, and four-footed.
Any act of violence on his part would have spoiled the incident.
Such was the general belief. On the other hand, it has been
argued from an ancient paste in Berlin, where Oedipus is seen
attacking the Sphinx with a sword, and from various references
in Greek literature, where the words φθίνειν, ἀναιρεῖν, φονεύειν
are employed, that in some older version of the legend he had
actually taken her life. So Overbeck contended.? But Jahn,
who held the opposite view, maintained that Oedipus may very
well have despatched the Sphinx when she had once thrown
herself down, and have thus brought on himself the literary
expressions just cited. I venture to think that our vase is a
strong confirmation of Jahn’s view.
In the first place, the attitude of the Sphinx is that of a
creature which has fallen from a height. Her legs are repre-
sented as if they had lost all power through such a fall. It is
inconceivable how a stroke from the spear of Oedipus could have
produced this result instantaneously. Her neck has been broken;
we see only the back of her head, her face being turned away.
Oedipus has his foot planted on her head. He could not have
gone so far if the Sphinx had been capable of resistance. He
1 Diodorus Sic. iv. 64, 3. riddle of the Sphinx, Fragmenta Poet.
* Euripides, Phoeniss. 26; Soph. Comic. p. 502 (Didot).
Oed. Tyr. 1003. Ina fragment of the 3 Heroische Bildwerke, p. 18 ; Euri-
Neottis of Anaxilas there is a play on pides, Phoeniss. 1508 and 1732. Jahn,
the name of Oedipus in referenceto the Arch. Beitrage, p. 115.
TWO VASES FROM CYPRUS. 321
must then have, by a previous blow, rendered her unresisting,
which would leave him now in an undignified position. Or we
must revert to the theory that she had fallen from a height and
had broken her neck, in which case he would be entitled to come
forward to despatch her. I think, also, that her wings are
raised to indicate the fall just accomplished.
In the second place, it is obvious that what Oedipus here does
is done in terror. He clings for protection to a column which
may represent a temple of Apollo or Athena It is not, I think,
likely to be the column on which the Sphinx is sometimes seen
to be seated? In any case he clings to it vigorously, with a
look of terror on his face, notwithstanding the presence of
Athena, the friend of all slayers of monsters. His attitude is
thus quite opposed to the theory of his having slain the Sphinx
outright without her having helped him by throwing herself
down from a height. It is only with fear that he has planted
his foot on her head and has drawn back his right arm to give a
final stroke with his spear, or perhaps has already delivered
the stroke.
The presence of Athena and Apollo is natural to the scene,
he, seated, as the god whose mysterious oracles played so large
a part in the fate of Oedipus. Probably he is here as Apollo
Ismenios, whose priest was styled daphuephoros,’ as the god also
might be styled from the laurel which he holds. Both were
deities much worshipped in Thebes. But Athena may be said
to have had a special interest in the event. Pausanias,* in
describing the Athena Parthenos of Pheidias, says, when he
comes to the Sphinx on her helmet, that he will explain it in
his chapter on Boeotia. All the explanation he gives, however,
is to tell the story of Oedipus, how he went from Corinth with
an army and ‘removed’ (ἐξεῖλεν) the Sphinx.?
1 Soph. Oed. Tyr. 20, πρός τε
Παλλάδος διπλοῖς | ναοῖς ἐπ᾽ ᾿Ισμηνοῦ
τε μαντείᾳ σποδῷς Athena assists
Kadmos, on a kylix in the British
Museum, engraved by Heydemann.
Bericht εἰ. sachs. Gesell. d. Wiss. 1875,
pls. 3a-c.
2 On vases the Sphinx is to be seen
seated on a column, on a rock, and on
He forgets to
an altar.
p. 115.
8 Pausanias, ix. 10, 4. At the
entrance to the temple of Apollo
Ismenios at Thebes were statues of
Athene and Hermes.
Ὁ 1 954. .5;
ὅχαχ. G26,02:
Cf. Jahn, Arch. Beitrage,
322 TWO VASES FROM CYPRUS.
notice Athena in the matter, but he may be assumed to have
had in his mind on the first mention of the subject the notion
that the Sphinx on the helmet of the Parthenos was meant to
indicate her participation in the exploit of Oedipus, such
participation as we see on our vase. The drapery, arms, and face
of Athena are painted white; her shield, aegis, and helmet have
been gilt, traces only of the gilding being left. We may suppose
that the vase painter had intended to represent a chryselephant-
ine statue. [Ὁ cannot be the Parthenos of Pheidias, if her robes
were of gold, as appears to have been the case. Besides, in the
right hand of the Athena on the vase is not a Victory, but
simply a spear. The type of Athena as here given is not un-
common, and considering that in an actual chryselephantine
statue the drapery would hardly have been of ivory, we may
suppose the vase painter to have made a freer use of his colour
than a sculptor would have made of his ivory. Thus, while
intending to convey the aspect of a chryselephantine statue,
he has not confined himself to any particular statue of that
kind, so far as I can see.
The scene on the vase appears to be complete with Oedipus,
the Sphinx, Athena, and Apollo. I cannot account for the other
figures of the Dioscuri and Aeneas, except as beings whose
names were familiar for the help they rendered in time of need.
They are recognisable only by their names. We could suppose
that they represent the friends of Oedipus who followed him
from Corinth, and that the names of Kastor, Polydenkes, and
Aeneas had been chosen merely to indicate the help they had given
him. A figure like that of Aeneas occurs with some variations
on the Meidias vase in the British Museum, and twice on the
west frieze of the Parthenon. With greater variation it occurs
on lekythi, with gilt accessories, which there is every reason to
believe to be of Athenian fabric. Similarly, a figure like that
of Kastor is to be seen on another lekythos of this description in
the British Museum."
While, then, our lekythos from Cyprus has all the marks of
having been imported from Athens, we have still to consider its
date. It must be older than the destruction of Marion about
1 Jahn, Bemalte vaser mit Goldschmuck, pl. 2, fig 1.
TWO VASES FROM CYPRUS. 323
B.c. 315. On that point there would be no doubt, apart from
the historical record, as to the fate of the town. Perhaps a fair,
round date would be B.c. 870. The objects found in the same
tomb are now in the British Museum. Among them is a frag-
mentary askos with red figures, which might be placed, if any-
thing, later than B.c. 370.
A. S. Murray.
324 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
[Puate LXXX.]
Νὴ Δία τῶν Πραξιτέλους ποιημάτων τὸ KaAALoTov.— LUCIAN.
Every visitor of the Vatican Museum knows the fine statue
of Aphrodite placed near the large staircase in the Sala a eroce
greca on account of its beauty as well as by reason of the fact
that its lower half is covered with a drapery of tin. The greater
will be the surprise of many of our readers, looking at our
Plate LXXX., to see unveiled the secret charms of that figure,
and they will ask how the goddess could be allowed to lay aside
for some moments the garment forced upon her a century ago
by a misplaced sense of pretended decency. We owe it to the
persevering zeal of Mr. Walter Copland Perry to have found a
means of obtaining such a cast for the Collection of Casts from
the Antique in the South Kensington Museum, by the formation
of which Mr. Perry has begun so happily to fill up a sensible blank
in the artistic collections of the British capital. The British
Museum is so astonishingly rich in first-rate Greek originals
that we can easily understand how the importance of a museum
of casts could be rather undervalued, and how to the University
of Cambridge was left the merit of forming the first English
collection of casts from the antique on a greater scale. But not
even the very first museum of Greek sculpture—a rank which
never will be disputed in case of the great national institution—
can be so far perfect as to represent with equal completeness
every period or school of Greek art, nor can it comprise good
THE CNIDIAN APHRODIT#& OF PRAXITELES. 325
ancient marble copies of all those innumerable masterpieces the
originals of which either have been lost, or have become the
property of other public institutions or private collections. Nay,
precisely the relative completeness of the British Museum would
seem at once to require and to facilitate such a supplement as
Mr. Perry has had the praiseworthy idea of bringing together
with great personal sacrifices of every description. What a
splendid thing it would be if in the British Museum the large
saloons which contain the original marbles were accompanied
by parallel galleries exhibiting choice casts of such sculptures,
of the same periods or classes respectively, which are not in the
Museum. The whole history of Greek sculpture would be
placed in the most perfect form before the eyes of students and
dilettanti. But—“there is nothing perfect under the sun.” As
the space in the British Museum would scarcely suffice to allow
the execution of such a scheme, the greater universal gratitude
and the more general interest are due to the collection recently
formed in the South Kensington Museum under the intelligent
direction of Mr. Perry.
Going through the catalogue of the casts?, we not only find
such universally known casts -as form as it were the indispensable
contents of every such gallery, but we are particularly pleased
to meet with some very rare pieces, which are not only worthy
to gain the interest of the general amateur and to delight the
student of classic art, but also to promote the purposes of
scientific archeology. Such a cast, beyond doubt the rarest of
all, is that of the Vatican Venus, the moulding of which we
understand to have been permitted under the—absurd, to be
sure, but strict—obligation that only this one copy should be
taken! In direct contrast with this narrow-minded condition
imposed by the Superintendence of the Vatican Museum stands
the prompt liberality with which the Editors of this Journal
have been allowed to take and to publish photographs of the
cast. I especially am under great obligations to Mr. Perry for
having kindly renounced in my favour the agreeable task of
accompanying the plate with some remarks, as I can avail
myself of this opportunity to correct certain false statements
1 W. C. Perry, A Descriptive Cata- Antique in the South Kensington
logue of the Collection of Casts from the Museum. London, 1884.
326 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
and erroneous conclusions of a former article on the same
subject 2, to which I was misled by defective knowledge of the
matter of fact.
The statue of the Sala a croce greca, which has kept that place
since the first arrangement of the Museo Pio Clementino, is to-
day nearly universally thought to be that very statue which
once adorned the cortile delle statwe in the Vatican Belvedere
and enjoyed a high reputation. This opinion seems to go back
to Gerhard, who, in his catalogue drawn up in 1826, identifying
our statue with that engraved in the Museo Pio Clem., 1. 11, adds
to a short mention of the statue the words: “probably already
since Julius II. in the cortile delle statue of the Belvedere” ὃ,
Most archeologists since have neglected the precaution used by
Gerhard ; in Em. Braun’s book, for instance, on the “ Ruins and
Museums of Rome”, and in the very defective official catalogues
of the pontifical museum, the provenance of our statue from
the Belvedere is spoken of as a matter of fact. Bernoulli* as
well as myself shared this opinion so far as to declare the
identity to be likely. An accurate enquiry into the history of
the Belvedere collection, the general results of which will soon
be published 1 in the En ee Jahrbuch, has shewn me this
opinion to be erroneous. I shall here restrict myself to those
observations which deal directly with the Vatican statues of
the goddess of love. -
It is well known that the collection of statues in the Belvedere
was founded by Pope Julius II. Among the first statues placed
in the court-yard of the Belvedere there was an inscribed group
of Venus Felix with young Cupid’, a sculpture of very modest
merit as a work of art, but nevertheless highly appreciated in
those times. This group is meant wherever the older astygraphi
—Fulvius (1527), Marliani (1534), Fauno (1548), Mauro (1556),
—speak of the Vatican Venus. It was drawn, between 1535 and
1538, by Marten van Heemskerck, in whose sketch-book there
is no other Belvedere Venus®. I have little doubt that Vasari
2 Archacol. Zeitung, 1876, p. 145— 5 Mus. Pio Clem. ii. 52. Clarac iv.
149, ‘‘die vaticanischen Repliken der 609, 1849.
knidischen Aphrodite”. : 6 Life of Bramante, iv. p. 157, ed.
3 Beschr. d. Stadt Rom ii. 2, p. 232, Milanesi. Visconti Mus. Pio Clem. i.
No. 10. Ῥ. 68, not. 1, ed. Mil. preferred to
4 Aphrodite, p. 206. understand the Cnidian Venus.
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 327
also (1550)* has in view this Venus; nay, a century later John
Evelyn § praises this group as one of the “rare pieces”, without
even mentioning any other Venus in the Belvedere.
Long since, however, a second Venus had found a neigh-
bouring place in the cortile delle statue, probably during the
pontificate of Clement VII. (1523-1534). We meet with the
first mention of it in the notes of travel of John Fichard of
Frankfurt who, in 1536, describes a nudum puellae simulacrum,
cut alter pes (quod mutilus erat) a recentioribus statuariis restitutus
est, ita tamen ut egregie deprehendas dissimilitudinem, et illos arte
veteribus inferiores fuisse®. The incognito in which the goddess
is here introduced did not last long, for precisely at the place of
the “naked girl”, Aldrovandi (1550) noticed a Venere tutta ignuda
intiera, che con la mano dritta si cuopre le membra sue genitali,
con la manca tiene la sua camicia pendente sopra un giarrone: ed
ὃ ogni cosa di un pezzo'*. From that time, this statue keeps its
fixed place beside the older group in all the later descriptions of
the Belvedere, from Gamucci (1565) and Boissard (1597) up
to Ficoroni (1744). All these short notices however, do not
afford any more detailed knowledge ; the assertion of Keyssler
(1730), that it had been discovered about 180 years ago under
the church of S. Peter and S. Marcelline, seems to be a
mistake". At last Perrier, in his Segmenta nobilium signorum
(1638, published in 1653), Pl. 85, gave the first engraving of our
Venus e balneo, which is nearly identical with the engraving of
Jan de Bisschop (Janus Episcopius) published some time after-
wards (Signorum veterum icones, Pl. 46), from the drawing of a
Dutch artist called Doncker; the only material difference being
that Bisschop, or Doncker, from artistic reasons omits the trunk
of the tree near the right leg which Perrier is scrupulous enough
7 Heemskerck’s sketch-book is in
Berlin, see J. Springer in Jahrb. der
11 Keyssler Neweste Reise, 1740,
p. 804. The notice seems to contain a
preuss. Kunstsamml. 1884, p. 327, and
in Ges. Studien zur Kunstgeschichte
Siir A. Springer, p. 226. I owe to
Prof. Conze the notice above referred
to about the contents of the book.
5. Diary, Jan. 18, 1645.
9. Frankfurtisches Archiv, edited by
Fichard, iii. p. 49.
10 L. Mauro Antichita de la Citta di
Roma, Ven. 1556, p. 120.
misunderstanding of an account of
Flaminio Vacca, 824 in Fea Miscell.
p. Ixvi. = Schreiber Berichte εἰ, sachs.
Ges. 1881, p. 64: A Santi Pictro ὁ
Marcellino sotto la chiesa vi si trovd.. .
una Venere grande del naturale, fingera
uscir del bagno con un Cupido appresso,
la compro il Cardinale Montalto. The
mention of Cupid excludes our statue.
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 329
to reproduce. This stem again serves to identify the statue
with that published in Visconti’s Museo Pio Clenentino, I. 11,
as having been “gid nel Cortile delle Statue del Vaticano”,
though here the statue is defaced by a drapery of stucco which
covers the lower half of the body. This drapery, according to
Visconti, was meant to serve as a model for a drapery of metal,
by which the goddess, after having been exposed in her unveiled
beauty for more than two centuries in the Pope’s palace without
giving any offence, was to be adapted to the more modern
notions of decency, which liked to adorn statues with fig-leaves
and to clothe angels with shirts. Now, such a drapery of tin,
as a matter of fact, has been applied to the statue which
stands actually in the Sala a croce greca, represented in our
plate; but one glance on the vessel and the drapery, and the
absence of the trunk, suffice to prove that this is not the old
Belvedere statue’. What then has become of the latter, and
whence did this second statue come into the Vatican Museum ?
Up to Visconti’s time no second copy of the same type can be
traced in the Vatican’. Suddenly Visconti speaks not only of
two but of three replicas of that Cnidian type as existing in the
Museum", It would seem that two of them belonged to
12) This diversity has first been that the author intended to have that
pointed out by Stahr, Torso, 1., Ὁ. 349,
who blunders in ascribing the tasteless
drapery to Julius II., and referring the
engraving of the Museo Pio Clementino
to our statue, but who rightly discerns
the latter from the Belvedere statue
engraved by Episcopius. The same has
been done independently by Preuner,
Arch, Zeit. 1872, p. 110, and Ueber die
Venus von Milo, p. 30, and by
Bernoulli Aphrodite, p. 206. Comp.
my own observations, Arch. Zcit., 1876,
pp. 145 and 146,
13 InP. A. Maffei’s Raccolta di statue,
1704, pl. 4, there is an engraving of a
“Venere uscita dal bagno. Negl ’orti
Vaticani”, which is neither identical
with the statue of the Sala a croce greca
nor with that of the Belvedere, although
its place in that book among the cele-
brated masterpieces of the Belvedere
(plates 1-9) leaves scarcely any doubt
statue engraved. On the other hand
it corresponds so precisely in every
detail, especially in the clumsy
arrangement of the (modern) drapery,
with a much-restored statue in the
Ludovisi Villa (see below, J), that
the engraver—Claude Randon, who
engraved also most of the Ludovisi
marbles for that work—seems to have
made a mistake, either reproducing
the Ludovisi statue instead of the
Vatican one, or putting a false in-
scription on the plate. My former
supposition that Maffei’s statue might
be identical with the statue of the
loggia scoperta (see above) is contra-
dicted by chronological reasons as
exposed above.
147, p. 68, note 2, ed. Mil.: due
altre antiche ripetizioni di questa statua
nello stesso Museo Pio Clementino.
330 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
the recent acquisitions made by the popes in all quarters
expressly for the purposes of the new Museo Pio Clementino,
This supposition is fully borne out by Massi’s first official
catalogue of that Museum of 1792, the only book which affords
a complete survey of the Museum before its spoliation by the
French in conformity with the treaty of Tolentino’. Here
we find:
(1) in the loggia scoperta (p. 69): statwa di Venere di quelle simili
alla Gnidia esistente gia nella galleria Colonna ;
(2) in the galleria delle statue (p. 81): H. Statwa di Venere con vaso
a piedi, che nell’ esposizione al Tomo I. del Museo ἑαυ. XI. vien dimo-
struta essere un’ antica copia della famosa Venere Gnidia opera di
Prassitele. LEsisteva nel Cortile delle Statue qui in Vaticano ;
(3) in the Sala a croce greca (p. 127): num 241%, Statua di Venere,
alira ripetizione della famosa Venere Gnidia di Prassitele.
Nothing is said in the catalogue as to whether these statues
were draped or not. Now it is very strange, but still it is certain,
that the drapery of tin which was to cover No. 2 really has been
made use of to drape No. 3, while the two other statues, Nos. 1
and 2, as is proved by the later catalogues 17, have remained
undraped in their places during the whole reign of Pope Pius
VII. at Chiaramonti, No. 2 occupying even a conspicuous place
in one of the most splendid compartments of the Museum.
Finally a new razzia undertaken—apparently by order of
Pope Gregorius XVI.—against naked females in the pontifi-
cal galleries banished the two nude statues into the magazines,
where Anselm Feuerbach, the author of the ingenious book on
the Vatican Apollo, was happy enough, in 1839, to discover
No. 2, to recognize it as the statue of the Belvedere, and to
admire its “grandeur of conception marvellously blent with the
highest charm of beauty” ?8. The place of No. 1 remained
15 Indic. antiquaria del Pont. Musco 178, No. 38 and p. 194, No. 2. None
Pio-Clem., Rome, 1792. of them mentions drapery.
16. The common number adopted 18 Nachgelassene Schriften, iii.
here indicates that the statue is one (Gesch. ἃ, griech. Plastik, ii.), p. 120.
of the acquisitions made by Pius VI.; It is worth mentioning that neither
see preface, p. 5. Gerhard nor any of the other catalogue-
17 Vasi Itinerario di Roma, 1804, ii. makers seems to have paid special
pp- 616 and 624. Fea Deseriz.di Roma, attention to the copy ; comp. below, A.
1820, i., pp. 112 and 114. Gerhard, —Astothe statue No.1, sce Em. Braun,
Besehr. d. Stadt Rom [1826], ii. 2p. Ruinen wu. Muscen Rois, p. 582.
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 331
empty, No. 2 was replaced by a big statue restored as a
Euterpe’; only No. 3 owing to the mock modesty of its
drapery remained undisturbed in its rather dark recess.
10 may be allowable to put forth a conjecture concerning the
place from which the latter statue came into the Vatican
Museum. As to the statue of the loggia scoperta, Massi and
the other authorities say that it was formerly in the Colonna
Gallery. Now an inventory of the antiquities in that palace,
drawn up in 1714”, enumerates as existing in its large Gallery
the following two statues:
(a) Una statua di marmo antica ristawrata, con un vaso aceanto
6 panno in mano che posa sopra detto vaso, riattaccata alle braccie,
testa ὁ gambe, rappresentante una Venere che esce dal bagno, alta
pal, 83, [1.90 m.]...
(Ὁ) Una statwa di marmo antica con vaso accanto, con panno
sopra che lo tiene con la mano, riattaccata alle braccie, gambe ὁ
testa, rappresentante wna Venere che esce dal bagno, alta pal. 9
[2.01 m.]...
As neither of these statues actually exists in the Colonna Palace,
it is evident that one of them is the statue once exposed on the
loggia scoperta. Is it an unlikely supposition that on the same
occasion also the second Colonna copy should have been
incorporated into the Vatican, and that it is precisely our statue
of the Sala a croce greca, which certainly was acquired at the
very time of the foundation of the Museum?! ? The indication
of the modern restorations, identical in both Colonna statues,
furnishes no objection to, but seems rather to be in favour of
that conjecture’; and the height of ὁ is pretty identical with
that of the Vatican statue.
It might seem, from this long and rather detailed enquiry,
that our statue, renouncing the pretence of being the old Venus
of the Belvedere, loses something of its importance. From a
certain point of view this may really be the case; on the other
hand we shall find that it continues to occupy a very dis-
tinguished place among the great number of similar statues.
For this purpose it will be necessary to draw up anew a critical
catalogue of the repetitions of the Cnidian Aphrodite. When
19 Gall, delle statue, No. 400. *1 See Note 16.
το Monum. ined. per servire alla storia 22 Comp. Prof. Percy Gardner's state-
dei Musei @ Italia, iv. p. 893. ments, below D.
332 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
Levezow, in 1808, endeavoured to demonstrate our type to
have once enjoyed a high fame”, he could bring together not
more than four marble replicas (4 D Je of the ensuing
catalogue). Half a century later B. Stark, with the aid of
Clarac’s useful work, was able to enumerate twice as many
copies (4 BH F J M Oh). A more thorough and nearly
exhaustive enquiry led Bernoulli? in 1873 to give a critical
inventory comprising, besides coins and gems, eight marble
statues (A δ) HE F J O δὴ), one terracotta figure (1), six
torsoes (V 7 U bc 7), and seven marble statues which could
not with certainty be ascribed to our type (C G Καὶ @Q d a),
altogether twenty-two pieces. This pretty large number
however did not allow a certain judgment on various points
of importance, most of the copies being only superficially
known. Better catalogues of certain collections, and several
new discoveries enable us not only to considerably increase this
number, but at the same time to give more authentic information
about some of the marbles in question. On a visit to Rome in
1878, I had an opportunity of examining myself the statues
D F HJ; I owe some further information to Prof. P. GARDNER
(D), Mr. Murray (a e), Dr. Loewy and Prof. PETERSEN (C’), Mr.
PoTTIER (ὃ ε), Dr. StuDNIczKA (D Ὁ), Prof. TREv (S U d), Dr.
WoLtTERs (S Ὁ).
For convenience’s sake we assign the first place to the statues
and torsoes, life size or colossal, the second to the statuettes, the
third to some variations rather than copies. Within these
classes, the degree of preservation has determined the order of
the individual specimens.
I.— FULL SIZE OR COLOSSAL.
1, STATUEs.
A. VATICAN, formerly in the Cortile delle statue, now in the
magazines (Bernoulli p. 207, 2). Engr. Perrier Segm. nobil. sign.
pl. 85 (the copies differ in giving the statue either right or reversed ;
Arch, Zeit. 1876 pl. 12, 2), Episcopius Sign. vet. icones pl. 46
(reversed; Kraus Sign. vet. ic. pl. 25, right; Miiller-Wieseler
*3 Ueber die Frage ob die mediceische 4 Berichte der sdchs. Ges. d. Wiss.
Venus ein Bild der knidischen vom 1860, p. 52.
Pravxiteles sey, Berlin 1808, p. 73. *5 Aphrodite, 1873, p. 206.
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 333
Denkm. 11. pl. 35, 146 c, reversed) ; with the drapery of stucco JM/us.
Pio Clem. 1. pl. 11 (Levezow Ueber die Frage ἄς. fig. 3. Clarae. tv.
602, 1332. Arch. Zeit. 1876 pl. 12, 3).—Marble. H. 1. 91 m. (8 pal.
7 on.), with the plinth 2.09 m. (94 pal.).—Visconti testifies that the
garment is fringed, that there is an armlet inlaid with a gem at the
left arm, and that the head is unbroken. This is corroborated by
a curious passage of Raph. Mengs, Opere 11. p. 6 ed. Azara (p. 358
ed. Fea. Bottari-Ticozzi Race. di lett. vi. p. 340): ‘‘ Nel Vaticano
si conserva una Venere assai mediocre, e quasi goffa, ma con la testa
molto bella, equale alla Niobe, e quella certamente ὃ la sua, non essen-
dole mai stata staccata’”’. In another passage (p. 87 ed. Fea) he says
of the same head: “ Puo darsi che la bellezza anche perfetta resti
alquanto fredda quando non ὃ aiutata da qualche espressione che possa
esprimere la vita. Questo si vede in una Venere al Vaticano, che resta
insipida, benché nella sostanza sia pit bella di quella di Firenze in
quanto alla testa”. About the same time a French traveller who
visited Rome in 1765 (Voyage d’un Francois en Italie, 2 ed., Yverdon,
1769, 111. p. 186) speaks of the statue as of a figure antique trés-
médiocre. Vasi, Fea, Gerhard (see above p. 330, note 17) mention the
statue without adding a word in praise of its artistic merit. A very
different judgment is pronounced by Feuerbach (see p. 330, note 18),
who praises the figure as distinguished durch die wunderbarste
Verbindung einer grossartigen Auffassung mit dem hichsten Schmelz
der Schinheit. As to restorations, the only direct testimony is that
of Fichard (see p. 327), that one foot is badly restored ; no doubt
this refers to the right leg supported by the awkward trunk of
the tree. .
B. Municw, no. 131, until 1811 in the Brascui palace at Rome
(Bernoulli p. 207, 8). Engr. Flaxman Lect. on sculpt. pl. 22. Clarac
Iv. 618, 1877. Liitzow Miinchner Ant. pl. 41 (Roscher Lew. d. Mythol.
1. p. 416). Arch. Zeit. 1876 pl. 12,5. Liibke Plastik 1.8 p. 215 fig.
146. Overbeck Plastik 11.3 p. 31 fig. 99 b. Perry Greek and Rom.
sculpt. p. 447 fig. 196. Baumeister Denkm. 11. p. 1405 fig. 1557.
—Parian marble. H. 1. 62 m., with the plinth 1. 74 m.—Modern :
back and right part of head, with the exception of the hair to the
left of the forehead, nose, tip of lips; half right forearm, left arm
from armlet inlaid with a gem (which is antique) to wrist, fingers of
left hand, feet including ankles, parts of vaseand drapery. Tolerably
good copy, highly praised by Rauch the sculptor, especially on
account of the execution of the body (Urlichs Glyptotheh p. 20)
which however bears a rather superficial character and is poor
in details.
C. Fuorence, Pau. Prrts, gall. d. statue, Diitschke 11. no. 17 (Ber-
noulli p. 215, 1); it belongs to the old Cinquecento stock of
Florentine antiques. Engr. Gori J/us. Ftr. 11. pl. 35. Clarac tv.
624, 1388.—Pentelic marble. H. about 2.00 m.—Modern : tip of
nose, left arm from below armlet (inlaid with an oval jewel, as in
B), half right forearm, lower part of both legs from below knees,
vase and drapery, pedestal. Head broken, but its own ; the neck
ΕΠ —VOL.. Vill. Ζ
334 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
is too short, and the restorer has given the head a false direction,
the antique part of the neck shewing the original movement to have
been the same as in / (Petersen). Gori does not make much of
the workmanship ; Burckhardt (Cicerone® p. 466) speaks of good
Roman work ; Diitschke points out the very robust forms (and so
does Petersen), and the simple type of the head, being stern and
rather lacking charm.
D. Vatican, Sala a croce greca no. 574, probably until about 1780
in the Cotonna Palace, see above p. 331 (Bernoulli p. 206, 1). Engr.
Plate LXXX.; with the drapery of tin Arch. Zeit. 1876 pl. 12, 1.
Overbeck Plastik 1%. p. 31 fig. 99a. Letarouilly Vatican m1., Mus.
Pio Clem. pl. 6. Baumeister Denkm. ut. p. 1403 fig. 1556.—Greek
marble. H. 2.05m. (Colonna statue ὦ: 2.01 m.), with the plinth
2.13 m.—Modern in the Colonna statue: arms, legs, and head.
In the Vatican copy, according to my revision in 1878, which nearly
agrees with the observations of Professor Treu made in 1865°6 and
is completed by some remarks of Dr. Studniczka, the head (new:
half nose), which is much superior to the statue, is attached to the
body by the insertion of a modern neck including bottom of chin.
Studniczka, examining the statue without the aid of a ladder, had
the impression that the head is of different marble (Pentelic) from the
body and the drapery (large-grained Greek marble). Modern: right
arm from below elbow, left arm including armlet downwards to
fingers, the ends of which are antique ; support of vase except upper
part of square plinth directly below vase; feet and pedestal. A
careful examination of the cast by Prof. P. Gardner has moreover
shewn that the right leg is antique to about 0.08 m. above ankle
bone and instep, but that there is some repairing just below the
knee, and that the left leg is ancient to about 0.08 m. below knee.
The puntello which unites statue and drapery is broken at both ends,
but seems to belong originally to the statue, as the modern com-
position of the two parts being effected by an iron cramp did not
require that marble puntello.
E. Rome, Pau. VaLenrixt, Matz-Dubn no. 756 (Bernoulli p. 207,
6).—Marble. Bigger than life.—Rich hair on the neck. Modern:
head, lower parts of legs except feet, part of pedestal. Left arm
unbroken, but hand with upper part of drapery seems modern ;
right arm broken in different places, but antique with the
exception of three fingers. The drapery is drawn up with
left hand.
F. Rome, Musro Tortonia No. 106 (104), formerly in the Torlonia
Palace (Bernoulli p. 301,4). Engr. Vitali Iarmi scolpiti Torlonia
τι. 55, Clarac rv, 616, 1366 C.—Greek marble. H. 2.05 m. (Clarac :
8} pal. = 1.90 m., probably without plinth).—Clarac: head un-
broken (to me it appeared doubtful, but it is nearly impossible to
*6 Comp. Gerhard Besehr. d. St. Rom. in Bursian’s Jahrcebericht 1876, 111.
ii. 2, p. 232, No. 10. Braun Ruan op. 105. Treu in slusgr. von Olympia,
u. μαύρης p. 447. Preuner frei. ν. p. 1d.
Zev. VAV2, pp. 110. Matz and Preuner
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 335
ascertain such points in the Torlonia Museum, most of the marbles
being wretchedly smeared over with colour) ; modern: lobe of right
ear, nose, left foot, pedestal except portion below right foot, vase
and drapery but for a portion nearest to left hand. Cracks in left
arm and right foot. Commonplace copy.
G. Rome, Museo Tortonta no. 26 (24), formerly not in the
Giustiniani collection, but in the Torlonia Palace (Bernoulli p. 216,
5). Engr. Vitali Marmi sco/p. 1. 26. Clarae iy. 616, 1366 A.—
Pentelic marble. H. 2.05m. (Clarac: 11 pal. ὃ on. = 2.60 τι. ?)—
Clarac: head broken, but its own; modern: hair on top of head,
tip of nose, mouth, chin; fingers of right hand, left arm from
deltoides, right leg from below knee, left leg from half thigh. No
doubt, pedestal, vase, and drapery are also modern.
H. Rome, Musto Tortonta no, 146 (144), from the Torlonia excava-
tions at Porto.—Pentelic marble. H. 2. 05:m.—Modevn (Schreiber
Arch, Zeit, 1879 p. 75): half of right forearm, left arm including
armlet, legs from knees, and all the attributes which serve to
convert the statue into an Aphrodite Euploea, dolphin to right,
column with ship, dolphin, and oar to left. The head (nose new),
though broken and patched at the neck, seemed to be the original
head to Schreiber as well as to myself.
2. TORSOES AND OTHER FRAGMENTS, EITHER UNRESTORED OR MADE UP
INTO STATUES.
J. Roms, Vitta Lupovisi no. 97 of Schreiber’s Catalogue (Ber-
noulli p. 207, 5). Engr. Maffei Raccolta pl. 4 (Arch. Zeit. 1876 pl.
12, 4, see above p. 329, note 13). Braun Jorschule pl. 77.—Greek
marble. H. 2.00 m.—Only the torso is antique, including shoulders,
thighs, and left knee. Also the head, highly praised by some
modern authors, is new. Execution all but excellent, forms rather
clumsy, the whole body sadly polished.
Δ΄. Rome, Vitra Pamrivi, Matz-Dubn no. 775 (Bernoulli p. 216,
3). Engr. Villa Pamph. pl. 81. Clarac tv. 624, 1386.—Carrara
warble. 1116 size—Now clad witha shirt of stucco. Antique:
torso, greater part of right upper arm, left upper arm with armlet
decorated with twigs, thighs excluding knees.
1. Lowrner Castte no. 1 of my Catalogue, Anc. Marbl. Gr.
Brit. p. 488. Found about 1776 in Rome near 8. Peter’s, within
the circuit of the Circus of Nevo, sold by Gav, Hamilton to Gro,
GRENVILLE, afterwards Marquis of BuckincHam, bought at the Stowe
sale, in 1848, by Lord Lonspate.—Thasian marble. H. 1.96 m.—
Modern: head and part of neck, right arm, greater part of left
arm including armlet, both legs from below knees; toes and portion
of pedestal seem to be antique. Very broad in the region of the
hips, flatter in the breast. Good Roman workmanship. Vase
and drapery belong originally to another copy: see I.
Z 2
336 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
Jf. Vatican, formerly in the CoLonyna Palace, afterwards on the
loggia scoperta, not in the magazines (comp. Bernoulli p. 207, 2,
see above p. 331).—Marble. H. of Colonna statue a: 1.90 m. (δὲ
pal.).—Armlet on left arm (Visconti Jus. Pio Clem. τ. p. 63 note
2). Much corroded and disfigured by modern restorations (Gerhard) ;
modern: arms, legs, and head (Colonna Inventory).
N. Mantua, Diitschke ty. no. 825 (Bernoulli p. 208, 13). Engr.
Labus Mus. di Mant. τι. 37.—Parian marble. H. 1. 14 m (colossal).—
Torso without head, arms, lower parts of legs ; right knee preserved.
On left thigh remains of puite/lo, ‘This torso, one of the best
pieces of the whole collection, notwithstanding its horrible
mutilation, betrays a grand beauty’? (Conze Arch. Anz. 1867 p.
105 *).
0. eee PALAZZO DEL COMMERCIO (formerly ViscaRpI), Matz-Duhn
no. 759 (Bernoulli p. 207, 7). Engr. Clarac iv. 606 B, 1343 C.
Comp. Engelmann, Arch. Zeit. 1878 p. 158.—Italian marble. Η.
1. 90 m.(83 pal.).—Armlet on left arm. Head antique, but not its own.
Modern : right arm including shoulder, right breast, left forearm
and drapery, front of right thigh, right leg including knee, left leg
from below knee, dolphin.
P. Rome, ΠΑ Lupovist no. 232 of Schreiber’s Catalogue.—
Italian marble. H. 0.80 m.—Torso, half of left upper arm with
broad bordered armlet, half thighs. Poor execution. This frag-
ment may originally have been part of the same statue as
P’. Vita Lupovist no. 275, life size, comprising legs from half
thighs downwards, vase and pedestal.
Q. EncGuanp, formerly in possession of the sculptor BistRoEM in
STOCKHOLM, and sold by him to England, where it has been lost
sight of (Bernoulli p. 217, 6; it has nothing to do with a statue
found on the Appian road and preserved in the R. Museum at
Stockholm, see Wieseler in Philologus xxvii. p. 194 note 2).—The
statue which is known only by the casts in Dresden (Hettner
Abgiisse* p. 118 no. 215) and at Berlin (Friederichs Lausteine’ no.
591), is restored after the Capitoline type, but the right leg, on
which the body rests, and the more upright position of the body led
Bernoulli to ascribe it to our type. Head, arms, and legs seem to be
due to a restorer.
R. Rome, Vitra Mepici, Matz-Duhn no. 776.—Marble. Life
size.—Modern: head and neck, right arm with great portion of
shoulder, left arm almost entirely, legs from middle of thighs, vase,
pedestal. The resting of the figure on right leg seems in favour of
the attribution of the torso to the Cnidian type, although it should
be ascertained whether the left shoulder is sutticiently raised.
S. Paris, CABINET DES MEDAILLES (LuyNEs Collection)? A cast
of the Mengs collection at Dresden (Hettner Abgiisse* p. 101 no.
116. Bernoulli p. 209, 17) is, according to Prof. 'Treu, probably
identical with no. 56 of Chalybeeus’ Catalogue (Das Mengs’ische
Museum zu Dresden, 1843) 2°“ Bin jugendlich frischer angebl. Veius-
horper zu Neapel”. Another copy of this cast, in the Fitzwilliam
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 337
Museum at Cambridge, bears the stamp of the Heo/e des Bewux-Arts
at Paris, with the same indication that the original is at Naples.
Wolters however assures me that at Naples there is neither such a
a torso nor a statue made up from it. Messieurs Pottier and
Homolle, who saw the cast at Dresden, expressed to Prot. Treu their
conviction that the original belongs to the Luynes collection given
by the duke to the Cabinet des \Jédailles ; he may have acquired it
at Naples.—H. 0.94 m. (bigger than life).—Torso including
shoulders and small portions of arms, and upper half of both thighs,
which are a little damaged in front; remains of punte//o on left
thigh. The cast bears evident marks of the original having at one
time been restored. Roman work, but of real beauty.
17, British Museum, Gr.eco-rom. Sc. no. 172 (Bernoulli p. 208,
14). Found at Nettuno, sold about 1766 by Jenkins to W. Locke,
by Locke to the Duke of Ricumonp, broken at a fire which destroyed
Richmond House in Privy Gardens in 1791, bought in 1820 by
Devis the painter, and ceded by him in 1821 to the Museum
(Noehden in Bottiger’s Amalthea 111. p. 1. J. T. Smith Nollekens 11.
p- 178). Engr. Amalthea ur. pl. 3. Ane. Marbl. Brit. Mus. x1. 35.
Ellis Townley Gall. 1. p. 268. Vaux Handbook p. 172.—Parian
marble. H. 0. 73 τὰ. (life size).—Torso, including small portions of
arms, upper part of right thigh (left thigh modern). Surface cal-
cined. Very good sculpture.
U. Cast of the ΜΈΝΟΒ coLLEcTION at Drespen (Hettner Adg.* p.
105 no. 146. Bernoulli p. 208, 12), comprising pretty exactly the
same portions as the Richmond Venus 7. Remains of puntello on
right thigh.—H. 0.80 m.—According to Hettner, the original should
exist at Naples, but the older catalogues of the Dresden collection,
compared by Prof. Treu,-afford no evidence of this cast coming from
Naples, nor did Wolters find at Naples a marble like U.
V. Rome, vitta Massrt (formerly ΟἸΟΒΤΙΝΙΑΝΙ, near the Lateran),
Matz-Duhn no. 774. Engr. Clarac tv. 634 B, 1386 A.—Italian
marble. H. 2.08 m. (94 pal.).—Modern: head and neck, arms
from middle of upper arm, legs and dolphin ; but also the torso, of
disagreeable slender proportions, is not free from suspicion. The
position of the left upper arm leaves some doubt whether this copy
belongs to our type.
W. LowrHeErR CasTLE No. 1. With the torso Z, of Thasian marble,
has been united, prebably for G. Hamilton, a fragment of Pentelic
marble exhibiting the vase and the drapery, which is being lifted up,
both much retouched. The combination of the two fragments is
rather awkward, the drapery approaching too near the body, and
being too much advanced.
X. Rome, σι Workonsky, Matz-Duhn no. 757.—Greek
marble. Life size.—Left hand laying aside draper y, with portion
of it ; thumb and index wanting.
338 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
IL—STATUETTES AND OTHER SMALL COPIES.
a. Britisn Museum. From Antarados, in Syria. Engr. Murray
TTist. of Greck Sculpt. u. p. 396, comp. p. 271.—Small marble sta-
tuette, height less than 0.30 m., perfect with the exception of left
forearm from elbow to wrist. Left hand rests on top of tree stem
over which drapery falls to the ground; towards foot of stem an
amphora is marked out in low relief. Execution very poor.
b. Vatican, Musro Cutaramonti No. 112 (Bernoulli p. 207, 3).—
Marble. H. about 1 m.—Head broken but its own ; modern: nose,
right hand, left arm from shoulder to wrist ; both calves from knee
to ankle broken but apparently antique. Drapery, which is
represented falling, and left hand, three fingers excepted, are
antique.
ὁ. Rowe, Vitta Boreuese. Engr. Scu/t. d. V. Borgh. τι. st. vi.
no. 10.—Marble. H.0.52m. (22) pal.)—Nothing known about resto-
rations ; certainly head vase and drapery are modern, but the whole
statuette appears suspicious. I find no further notice of it either in
the catalogues of the Villa or in those of the Louvre.
α΄. Drespen no. 234 (340), formerly in the Chigi collection (Ber-
noulli p. 216, 4). Engr. Le Plat Recueil pl. 118. Clarae tv. 624,
1587.—Greek marble. H. 0.90 m.—Antique: torso, left shoulder
including armlet, both thighs, left knee. Remains of puntello on
left thigh.
e. British Musevm, “5. a. P. 104”, from Kyrene (Bernoulli p.
209, 15).—Marble. H. 0. 37 m.—Small torso, wanting head, left
arm, right hand (marks of fingers remaining on left thigh), half
jeft thigh and lower halves of legs. Armlets on both arms.
J. Wtrzpure no. 42 of Urlichs’ Catalogue p. 7 (Bernoulli p. 209
no. 16). From Athens, Faser collection (Scholl Mittheil. aus
Griechenl. p. 91 no. 54).—Pentelic marble. H. 0.15 m.—Lower
part of body and upper part of thighs, with a pwntello indicating
position of right hand; hole and scratched spot on left thigh.
Refined style.
g. Rome, Donattccio, Matz-Duhn no. 758.—Marble. H. 0.09
m.—Pedestal of statuette, with feet, small round vase, drapery, left
hand. Elegant work.
h. STATUETTE FROM Tarsos (Bernoulli p. 208, 9). Engr. Barker
Lares and Penates p. 193 no. 48, see below p. 345.—Terracotta.—Ste-
phané on head.
7. STATUETTE FROM Myrina. Pottier and Reinach Wécrop. de My-
rina p. 284 no. 8.—Terracotta. H. 0.23 m.—Head turned to left ;
long curls fall down on shoulders.
k. Oxrorp, Mr. Artuur Evans. Murray Hist. of Greek Sculpt.
Ir. p. 272 note. ‘Small intaglio of rude workmanship inscribed
KOPINOOY. Aphr. standing nude to front, looking to left and
holding drapery above a vase on the left.”
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF ΡῬΕΑΧΙΤΈΙΈΕΝ. 339
III.— VARIATIONS OF THE TYPE.
a. ἸΝΤΛΟΙΙΟ : Lippert’s Daktylothek 1.1, 81. Engr. Miiller-Wie-
seler Denkm. 1. 36, 146 6.—The goddess rests on {671 leg, and looks
towards her right side. Drapery apparently lifted up with left
hand,
8. Municw no. 104 (Bernoulli p. 216, 3). Bought from Pacerri
in Rome, one of Prince Ludwig's tirst acquisitions (Urlichs Glypt. p.
4). Engr. Clarac. 1v. 618, 1375.—Parian marble.—H. 1.40 m.—
Modern: head, fingers of both hands, tail of dolphin.—Vase and
drapery are wanting ; the left arm is bent, with raised hand ; attri-
bute (mirror 1) lost.
y- STATUETTE FROM Myrina. Pottier and Reinach Wécropole de
Myrina p. 284 no. 9.—Terracotta. H. 0.185 m.—Left hand holds
apple ; forearm covered by drapery falling down on vase. Head
wanting.
6. SrarveTre FRoM Myrina. Engr. Froehner Terres cuites Gréau
pl. 101, comp. p. 65.—Terracotta. HH. 0. 25 m.—Resting on /eft
leg. Right hand, protecting nudity, holds piece of the drapery
which, covering the left forearm, falls down on the vase. At the
back of plinth potter’s stamp AI®IAOY. (Three copies.)
The following terracotta statuettes e—., from Asia Minor, shew
the vase placed near the wight leg of the goddess ; consequently she
lifts up the drapery with right hand, and protects her nudity with
the deft. High-hair dressing. _
e. ATHENS, Lampros ; from Smyrna? Engr. Froehner 76) 768 cuites
εἴ Asie Mineure pl. 22, 3; comp. p. 49.—H. 0.13 τὰ.
¢ Paris, Louvre; from Myrina. Pottier and Reinach Vécrop. de
Myr., Catal. no. 19.—H. 0.225 m.—Ornament on breast ; ring on left
hand. On back of plinth AI®IAOY (ibid. p. 187 fig. 16).
η. From Myrina. Pottier and Reinach p. 283 no. 6.—H. 0.18
m.—Ornament on breast ; head turned to her left, looking up a
little.
6. From Myrina. Pottier and Reinach p. 283 no. 7.—H. 0.27
m. Ornament on breast ; head turned to right ; gilt stephane.
u. Paris, Louvre; from Myrina. Engr. Pottier and Reinach pl.
5, 4; comp. p. 281. Catal. no. 20.—H. 0.14 m.—Right arm not bent
but extended downwards ; long curls falling on shoulders.
x. RomE, VILLA Pamrini, Matz-Dubn no. 760.—Marble. Life
size.—Grasping drapery with right hand, covering bosom with left
(comp. Froehner Terres cuites d’Asie Min. pl. 21, 1).—Not free
from suspicion but, on account of its place, not allowing of closer
examination.
This list is long enough to prove abundantly that a type is
in question which must have enjoyed an uncommon reputation,
particularly in Rome and its environs, whence all the large
310 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
copies and some of the statuettes originate. Only very few
other types of Aphrodite, of a decidedly more modern, that is
to say Hellenistic character—as for instance the Capitoline-
Medici type, the goddess arranging her sandal, the crouching
Aphrodite—can boast of a greater number of copies. But it is
not only Rome where that type was appreciated; its popularity
over large parts of the Greek world is attested by the small
marble copies from Athens, Kyrene, and Syria (ae/), by the
terra-cotta statuette from Tarsos (/),and by an excellent marble
head discovered at Olympia of which we shall speak afterwards.
If then this often-repeated type agrees in all essential points
with certain well-known imperial coins of Knidos, there is at
AROLSEN.
BERLIN.
least a very strong presumption that all these copies go back to
that masterpiece of Praxiteles by which he nobilitavit Cnridum *.
This reason seems good not only against those who, in old and
a large cithara; a fourth coin, at
AROLSEN, exhibits a similar composi-
tion in which Asklepios occupies the
place of Apollo (see cut). All these
coins shew in the obverse Caracalla
(youthful) and Plautilla.
*8 I cannot make out who first
recognised in these replicas the
Cnidian statue. This opinion is
57 The main specimens are one of the
Paris cabinet (Gardner ‘‘ Types of
Coins,” pl. 15, 21), which, according to
Weil (in Baumeister’s Denkmédler, iii.
p- 1402) and Dr. Imhoof-Blumer, is
very much retouched, especially in
the vase and drapery, but also in
the hard outlines given to the figure
itself; one of the Brrurn collection
(Arch. Zeit. 1876, p. 149. Weil 7. cit.),
repeated above. A third coin, of the
BERLIN collection (Overbeck Plastik 3
- li. p. 30, fig. 98 c, also in the Wad-
dington collection, see Rev. Numism.
1851, p. 238), shews the goddess
grouped with Apollo leaning on
spoken of as a common one in J. G.
Keyssler’s Neweste Reise, Hannover
1740, i. p. 804, and in Falconet’s
Ocwvres, ii. p. 330 ; but it was Visconti’s
high authority which gave as it were
the official stamp to it (Mus. Pio Clem.
i. p. 63. 69).
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 341
new times, strangely inverting the natural development of
Greek art, and neglecting the only direct ancient testimony”,
have made themselves the advocates of the Medici type as the
truest imitation of Praxiteles’ statue, but also against those
who quite recently would prefer to recognise the traces of the
Cnidian goddess rather in certain terra-cotta figures originating
from Asia Minor*!, In these (e—c) the goddess protects her
nudity with her left hand, not with the right, as in the marble
copies. Now, to be sure, Ovid says in well-known verses ® :
ipsa Venus pubem, quotiens velamina ponit,
protegiur LAEVA semireducta manu,
but nothing proves that he speaks of the Cnidian statue, instead
of the image most popular at his time, viz. the Capitoline type,
in which that function is really performed by the left hand, and
which seems directly hinted at by the expressive word semire-
ducta. In the terra-cottas, the place of the vase and the drapery
near the right leg, on which the figure rests, instead of the left
slightly bent, is a consequence of the aforesaid change of the
hands, which seriously impairs the original conception, because
that position, as we shall explain below, would better agree with
the action of laying down than of lifting up the drapery. The
direction of the head varies so much in the different terra-cotta
replicas that nothing can be deduced from it. Finally that high
hair-dressing towering on the head of all of them has nothing
to do with the simplicity of Praxitelian style, but is a distinctive
°9 Pseudo-Lucian Amores 18, πᾶν δὲ
τὸ κάλλος αὐτῆς ἀκάλυπτον οὐδεμιᾶς
ἐσθῆτος ἀμπεχούσης γεγύμνωται, πλὴν
doa τῇ ἑτέρᾳ χειρὶ τὴν αἰδῶ λεληθότως
ἐπικρύπτειν. (Comp. Cedrenus, p, 322
Par. γυμνή, μόνην τὴν aide τῇ χερὶ
περιστέλλουσα). It is evident that the
other hand had no share in covering
any part of the nude body. Reinach’s
opinion (Nécrop. de Myrina, p. 282,
note 3) that ἑτέρα χεὶρ signifies the Jet
hand is contradicted by numerous
passages in Pausanias and elsewhere.
30 Comp. Overbeck’s remarks Plastik
ii? p. 170, note 54.
31 Froehner Terres cwites d’ Asie
Mineure, p. 48, seems to undervalue
the importance of the agreement in the
main points of so many copies, though
he goes not so far as to ascribe the
composition of e, ‘‘digne du plus
grand maitre,” to Praxiteles himself.
Reinach, Wécrop. de Myrina, p. 284,
lays great stress on the left hand pro-
tecting the nudity, and adds ““77
Jaudrait en conclure que certaines
Jigurines sont plus voisines de Voriginal
que les imitations de la numismatique
et de la statuaire. Crest une question
qui dott encore rester ouverte.”
32 Ars Am. ii. 613, see Reinach, p.
282. Overbeck had no reason for
quoting this passage as it does not
mention expressly the Cnidian statue.
942 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
mark of post-Lysippian art; it appears to have originated in
the necessity of giving the head a height proportional to the
lengthened limbs of the Lysippian canon of proportions. Con-
sidering these peculiarities, I cannot find any sufficient reason
for taking this figure, which has no representative whatever in
coins, in marble statues or elsewhere in monumental art, for
more than a variation of the original Cnidian type; the more
so as, as far as I can see, in the terra-cotta figures from Myrina,
very seldom, if at all, occur exact copies of known works of
higher art, the merit of the potters consisting rather in having
converted the inspiration received from that quarter into
numerous variations, more or less free, of the original types.
The original type of our figure can be recovered with tolerable
exactness by a comparison of the above-named statues and
statuettes, which, with the exception of very few slight variations
(a—6), are in full accord with one another as to certain points
which may be looked on as the distinctive characteristics of this
type. The figure rests on the right leg; consequently the right
hip is considerably curved, forming that gently flowing line for
which Praxitelian art has so marked a predilection. The left
knee is slightly bent so as to make the thigh advance a little
before the right thigh, against which it is tightly pressed, the
left foot touching the ground only with the toes. The upper
part of the body shows a slight forward inclination, considerably
less than in the Capitoline-Medici type, but sufficient to make
the whole position easy, and to withdraw a little the lower part
of the body which is protected by the right hand. In this way
the whole arrangement places all those parts which serve to
assure at once repose and decency to the figure on its right
side, which, looked at in front, by means of the curved lines of
the hip and of the bent arm forms an animated undulating out-
line. On the other hand the left side, being on the whole nearly
perpendicular, seems to require some supplementary object, and
at the same time is at liberty for some freer kind of action.
Both these requirements are served by the drapery held with
the left hand. The drapery serves as a material support to
the marble statue, and seems to replace in some way the stem
of a tree or a similar support of the Olympian Hermes, the
Sauroktonos, and other Praxitelian figures. In connexion with
the action of the hand, the left shoulder is raised a little above
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 343
the level of the right one, and is slightly withdrawn; a
peculiarity so characteristic that, the position of the left arm
in Rk V being not exactly known, it remains uncertain whether
these copies really belong to our type. An armlet slightly
ornamented seems to go back to the original, as it appears in
ABCKM?0OPde; hence the restorers of DHZM? ὃ will
have borrowed this detail; the armlet is wanting in the inferior
copies HFG V (uncertain whether it belongs here); in e both
arms bear armlets.
The forms of the body are throughout full, μήτ᾽ ἄγαν ἐλ-
λυπεῖς αὐτοῖς τοῖς ὀστέοις προσεσταλμέναι, μήτε εἰς ὑπέρογκον
ἐκκεχυμέναι πιότητα ἢ. The Munich copy .}, and still more
some of the torsoes, particularly those at Mantua (7), at
Paris (S), and the ‘ Richmond Venus’ of the British Museum
(7), seem to have preserved something of the refined and
grand style, full of breathing vitality, which must have dis-
tinguished the original. Other copies bear the common-place
character of Roman copiers’ work ; among these, I am afraid,
notwithstanding Feuerbach’s enthusiastic encomium, would rank
also the Belvedere copy A, styled clumsy, goffa, by Mengs and
nearly overlooked by Gerhard and others, if it should rise one
day from its tomb in the Vatican magazines. A certain clumsi-
ness belongs also to C.J; in the Vatican copy JD too, judging
from the photograph which alone I can consult, certain parts
appear rather bulky, and especially those fleshy cushions as it
were at the right side of the back, which are caused by the
contraction of this part of the body, seem too strongly marked.
The want of harmony between the broad hips and the flat breast
in Z, or the slenderness of another copy (77), may also be ascribed
to want of skill of the copyists. On the whole, it would appear
that the larger copies, of heroic size, are fatter and clumsier
than those which restrict themselves to the size of life or still
smaller proportions. The original itself will scarcely have been
bigger than the size of life.
There remain two points in which the different copies do not
agree, and which require more subtle investigation, as they are
_ of capital importance for rightly understanding and judging
Praxiteles’ conception, viz. the drapery with the vase, and the
position of the bead.
33 Pseudo-Lucian Amor. 14.
914 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
As to the DRAPERY, in most of the copies it is either wanting
or due to modern restoration 53, Those which have preserved
it may be divided into two classes. In A 6H W the drapery
is drawn wp with the left hand. Accordingly, in A B W (£ is
not precisely known in this respect) the garment forms one
narrow long mass, slantingly rismg from the vase towards the
hand, the upper face of which is turned outwards*. It is quite
otherwise in the second class comprising D FY (not known in
detail) δὰ δι. Here the drapery is falling straight down on the
vase In broader masses, being laid down by the hand which in
D Fb turns upwards its upper face ; the portion of the drapery
grasped by the hand in D F’ forms an end hanging over. The
forearm, in harmony with the chief action, seems to be a little
more lowered than in the statues of the first class; nay, in the
terra-cottas ἡ and « the arm hangs down nearly perpendicularly.
Which of these two classes has better preserved the
original conception of Praxiteles? Did the goddess draw up,
or lay down the drapery? Was she preparing herself for the
bath, or was she, to use the old inscription of A, a Venus ὁ
Lalneo? In order to answer this question, I still believe one
observation to be decisive which I have set forth in my former
article °°, If the goddess were taking hold of the garment in
order to put it on, she would naturally turn her body towards
the vase, and she would rest on the leg nearest to it. Indeed
this is the direction in which the motive has been changed in
the gem a and in the terra-cottas e—6, in full accord with the
natural movement after the bath, while in the terra-cotta figure
t, where the garment is clearly being laid down, the same position
of the feet produces an indistinct and ambiguous impression.
On the other hand, in all the larger copies as well as in the
smaller monuments a—k, the resting of the figure on the right
leg stands in connexion with a slight turning of the body in
that direction; the bent left leg advances a little between the
34 C, G—V, c—f, B. The detuils
cannot be made out in agikr«. In
between the fingers (comp. D F).
Probably this was the case also in B,
7 5, the drapery rests on the left fore-
arm. untelli or remains of them on
the left thigh appear in BDLIN
S ds; similar remains on the right
thigh in U require explanation.
ὅ5 In A part of the drapery issues
where this portion is to some extent
restored.
36 Arch. Zeit. 1876, p. 147, approved
by Overbeck Plastik ii.* p. 171, note 55.
Murray Hist. of Sculpt. ii, p. 272,
note 1.
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 345
right one and the drapery ; the latter being placed directly near,
nay a little behind, the left thigh, and the left arm being
accordingly bent backwards, the goddess seems as it were to
separate herself from her drapery. Thus the general movement
and the action of the left arm appear complete and carried out
with full consequence, a clear proof that here the artist’s original
idea is preserved.
The same conviction results from an examination of the
drapery itself. That long towel-like garment of & and its
Statuette 2, from Tarsos.
companions, with which / joins in this respect, bears no com-
parison with those magnificent masses of falling drapery which
captivate our eyes most forcibly in D, but an echo of which
resounds still from ἢ. It is precisely in this drapery that
consists the main value of the Vatican copy; our phototype,
taken from the cast, brings forth this excellence to much greater
advantage than the common photographs taken from the original
in its rather dark recess. The whole treatment of the drapery
in its material character, and the folds equally rich and clearly
346 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
disposed, remind us forcibly of that marvellous masterpiece of
sculptured drapery, the mantle of the Olympian Hermes of
Praxiteles ; nay, the similarity is such as to positively ascertain
the Praxitelian origin of this part of the composition. To me it
seems absolutely incomprehensible that a Roman copyist should
have changed the dry garment of B into this splendid drapery ;
on the other hand, it is easily understood how the transformation
of the general motive into the action of drawing up the drapery
could convert the beautiful creation of Praxiteles into that
unpleasing towel.
The case is the same with the VASE, the shape of which varies
in the different copies. Twice (Z W) it is qualified as ointment
vase (Salbgefaess), which seems to point to a taller shape; in #
it is a small amphora partly fluted, looking so poor that one
would suppose it to be seriously retouched. The common shape
is that of a big round vessel, of larger or smaller size, either an
amphora, or a so-called stamnos, or hydria (A Babghae.);
the big form belongs also to the vase on the Cnidian coins 87,
But in no other copy the vase shews even approximately that
noble and genuine Attic elegance of outline which marks the
hydria of D, which moreover, in its fluted handles and the
beautiful sculptured ornament at the back below the main
handle, betrays the imitation of one of those fine vases of metal
which we admire in the museums of Naples, of St. Petersburg,
and elsewhere. The square plinth below the hydria returns in
the terra-cotta figure e. On the other hand, abstraction must
be made of that high and clumsy support on which the modern
restorer of 7) has placed the hydria. Unless I should prove
entirely mistaken, it owes its origin merely to an unskilful
recomposition of the figure and the vase with the drapery,
which seems to go back to two mistakes. First, the restorer has
made the legs a few centimeters too long. A glance at the two
cuts suffices to shew that the legs of B are shorter, that is to say,
that they agree better with the Praxitelian proportions, as they
appear in the Hermes, the Sauroktonos, &c., which, in opposition
to the Lysippian canon, combine a rather heavy body with
proportionately short legs. A comparative measurement con-
37 The vase in the Paris coin is οὗ the falling drapery seem to have
evidently retouched (see Weil in Bau- been converted into handles.
meister’s Denki. 111. p. 1402); parts
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 347
firms the view that the legs of D are about four centimeters
longer than they ought to be in proportion to those of B. Of
much greater interest however has been the false ponderation
of the figure introduced by the modern restorer who provided
the statue with its right foot and left leg. Unfortunately, the
artist from whose photographs the cuts have been made has not
taken care to keep exactly the same point of view for the two
statues; otherwise it would be better evident that the body of
VATICAN STATUR (2). MUNICH STATUE (8).
D inclines far too much towards its right side, and that the left
shoulder stands considerably too high. A glance at Pl. LXXX.
will serve to corroborate this statement. The figure being
rightly placed, and perhaps the forearm being somewhat more
lowered (the left arm is modern), vase and drapery would not
need to be placed so high, and there is scarcely a doubt that,
both faults mended, a small augmentation of the plinth would
suffice to allow the vase to be placed directly on the ground.
948 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
Probably the vase and the drapery originally occupied a place a
little nearer to the figure.
If D really has preserved to us the truest imitation not only
of the drapery but also of the hydria, it is clear that the latter
cannot be an indifferent accessory, but that the general opinion
has rightly referred it to an imminent BATH of the goddess. A
different view has recently been maintained by Murray 35.
Referring to the subordinate way of representing the vase in the
statuette a, one of the very poorest copies, he maintains that
the greater prominence given to the vase and the relation of it
to a bath is an innovation introduced by later copiers, whereas
in the original conception it would have merely been “an
artistic accessory required to support the drapery” ; for, says he,
“it must be to the sea where she was born that the goddess
is represented as returning ... any other interpretation
would not be conducive to a reverential regard for the
goddess”. But Murray himself is well aware that Aphrodite’s
“returning to the ocean is a motive but slightly founded in
religious belief”. Generally spread as was the conception of
the goddess rising from the sea, the Anadyomene, celebrated
by Pheidias and by Apelles, the idea of Aphrodite returning
to the sea is,as far as I know, utterly unheard of in ancient
poetry and art 8. On the other hand, the motive derived from
the bath is in complete harmony with the general character of
Praxitelian art, which likes to transplant the gods into the
sphere of purely human situations and feelings, and to lend to
their actions as well as to those of kindred human beings
(ψελιουμένη, κατάγουσα) a genre character, As the unwearied
herald of the gods under the chisel of Praxiteles changes into
a reposing youth dallying with the infant Dionysos; as his
youthful Apollon leaning on the tree is satisfied watching for
the playing lizard; as the Satyr in repose, generally referred to
Praxiteles, aims at nothing else but fully to enjoy a dolce far
qiente ; as on the whole Praxiteles has become the truest
interpreter and the chief waymaker of a new epoch to a great
extent precisely by making artistic reasons predominate over
38. Hist. of Greck Sculpt. ii. p. 271. marinos fluctus SVBIT, though this
39 The only instance of such an idea _ signifies scarcely more than to bathe in
Τ can renember is a phrase of Apuleius — the sea, fluctus swbire being different
Met. 2, 28, in speeieom Veneris qua from in fluctus redire.
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 349
religious relations: thus the conception of our Aphrodite is
taken from common female life, the rich variety of which offers
scarcely any motive better answering the purpose of placing
before our eyes the full charms of the goddess of beauty than
that of the bath, as indicated by the vessel particularly serving
such a use, the hydria, and by the action of laying down her
drapery. Looked at as a mere support for the drapery, the vase
would be superfluous, as the drapery could very well be repre-
sented as falling on the ground; presuming the goddess to
return to the ocean, the addition of the vase would even be a
serious fault, as nobody could assign to it a “function identical
with that of the vase constantly associated with river gods in
later art”.
A few words may here find a place concerning an objection
repeatedly brought against the identity of our type and that of
the Cnidian statue, that the drapery not only is never mentioned
in the ancient descriptions, but also prevents the figure from
being looked at equally from any side, an advantage expressly
acknowledged by ancient authorities*®, The fact of the
garment not being mentioned, not to speak of the witness
furnished by the coins, is of little importance considering
the peculiar attraction which necessarily must have been
exercised by the charms of the beautiful body. Nor should
the words wndique, ex quacumgue parte, πάντη be laid too
great stress upon, the right interpretation, as has well been
observed, being afforded by the description given by
Pseudo-Lucian *. According to this, the statue was placed not
in an acdicula quae tota aperitur but in an ἀμφίθυρος νεώς, and
whosoever, having paid his tribute of admiration to the front of
the image, wanted καὶ κατὰ νώτου τὴν θεὸν ἰδεῖν ἀκριβῶς, Was
obliged to leave the front part of the chapel, to go round to the
back part of the holy circuit (εἰς τὸ κατόπιν τοῦ σηκοῦ
περιελθεῖν), and to have the door of the back part of the
sanctuary unlocked by an attendant. Hence it is evident
that there cannot have been a free space around the statue,
Ὁ Pliny 36, 21, aedicula tota σκέπτῳ ἐνὶ χώρῳ.
aperitur, wt conspici possi undigque 41 Overbeck Plastik ii®. p. 170, note
effigies... nee minor ex quacumgue 54. Murray ii. p. 275.
parte admiratio est. Anthol. Pal. app. ® Amor. 13.
Planud. 160, πάντη δ᾽ ἀθρήσασα περι-
H.S.—VOL. VIII. A A
900 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
but that some insurmountable barrier must have separated
the two parts of the chapel, perhaps a wall, in the middle of
which an opening was left for the reception of the image.
Thus the vase with the drapery would have found its place
exactly between the statue and the wall, so as not to encroach
on the view of the statue. Nay so remarkable an arrangement
of the temple may serve to shew that the statue (as is the
case with the Hermes, the Sauroktonos, the Satyr) was not
meant at all to be seen directly from the sides, but was
only calculated for the two main aspects, from the front and
from the back.
The second question arises about the HEAD. In my former
article, relying on the notice that the head of the Vatican copy
D was unbroken (a notice caused by confounding A and D), I
felt authorized to imply that the MOVEMENT OF THE HEAD, being
more advanced and a little inclined, was the original one. This
opinion was shared by Bernoulli and others. But Treu was
right in rejecting it*’. The whole neck οὗ D being a modern
insertion, and the head moreover being made of different marble,
the argument falls to the ground. On the other hand, the
Belvedere and the Munich statues (A B), and perhaps the
Torlonia statue F, have preserved the neck unbroken, and all
of them equally give it the same direction towards the left
shoulder, combined with a slight inclination backwards. In CL
the remaining portion of the neck points to the same movement;
the restorers of J K V d, perhaps led by similar traces, have
followed the same line ; only ὦ, the head of which was broken, and
H O seem to have approached nearer to the movement of D.
(The terra-cotta figures may better be left aside, as a great
variety reigns in them as to this point). Reasoning from these
facts, there can scarcely subsist any doubt that the authority of
monumental tradition speaks.in favour of the movement of the
head as represented by the Munich statue and its companions,
the more so as the direct profile of the head in the Cnidian
coins, though evidently exaggerated on account of the rules of
the severe styles of relief‘*, is more easily explained by that
position than by that of the Vatican copy D. Another argu-
ment may be deduced from the general observation that
8 fusgrab. von Olympia, V. p. 15.
4* See Visconti Wus, Pio Clein. 1. p. 64, note 1.
THE CNIDiIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 351
Praxiteles had a marked predilection for shewing his heads in
a three-quarters’ profile. What troubies have arisen from the
circumstance that the Olympian Hermes does not look directly
at the little brother he bears on his arm but, in gentle reverie,
looks into the void. Instead of all efforts more or less artificial
towards interpreting this fact, it suftices to refer to the Apollon
Sauroktonos, who in exactly the same way does not direct his
eyes towards the lizard he is threatening with his arrow, but
looks past the animal more towards the spectator. Both these
gods shew the head in a three-quarters’ profile, evidently because
the sculptor wished to exhibit the countenance under the most
favourable aspect. The same favourite motive of Praxiteles
appears in our Aphrodite, though modified in so far as no certain
object, as in those statues, calls forth an inclination of her head,
but the head left eutirely to itself takes a soft and easy position
which is in admirable harmony with the flowing lines of the
whole figure. Hence this manner of carrying the head appeared
to be so characteristic for Aphrodite, that it passed but little
modified to more recent images of the goddess, like the
famous Medici statue.
But it is not only the position but also the TYPE AND
EXPRESSION OF THE HEAD which require some words. This
to be sure is a very hard enquiry without a new examination
of the principal specimens in the original, or at least in casts
or photographs, the common engravings, particularly the older
ones, being insufficient for such subtle analysing work. Thus
I am unable to judge about most of the heads and busts
enumerated by Bernoulli**, and I must restrict myself to
exemplify my opinion by a few copies of which I am sufficiently
informed. These agree in the proportions and the general
features of the countenance, in the simple arrangement of the
wavy hair which, being simply parted and brushed back on
both sides in accordance with the old Attic way, without any
elevated hair-dressing towering above the forehead, gives full
prominence to the beautiful outline of the skull. Twice encircled
45 Aphrodite, p. 212.—I leave aside its features so generalised as to afford
the coins of Knidos exhibiting a head no useful material for ow enquiry,
of Aphrodite in profile which may be (comp. Baumeister Denhin. iii. p. 1402,
meant to contain a reminiscence of fig. 1555. Gardner, ‘‘ Types of Coins,”
Praxiteles’ masterpiece, but which give 9]. 15, 20).
AS
352 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
by a simple fillet, the hair is gathered into a small knot behind,
the absence of which in δ᾽ is exclusively due to the restorer who
supplied the occiput. These details, common to all copies,
serve to distinguish our type from the later heads with, their
artificial hair-dressing. But apart from these accords, we may
easily observe in the individual copies certain differences which,
if I am not quite mistaken, are connected with the larger or
smaller size of the copies (comp. p. 343). Of the heads of heroic
size I possess sufficient information of that of the Vatican copy
D, of an exact but rather superficial replica, a cast of which is
in the Strassburg Museum“, and of a Farnese head in the
Museum of Naples *’. All of them shew rather robust forms,
and a precise, nay sharp indication of certain. details, especially
of the line of the brows and of the eyelids; the hair, meant to
produce a soft and wavy effect, is not free from hard and dry
treatment, and its beginnings at the forehead are too sharply
marked. All these heads, though of tolerably good execution,
yet bear unmistakably the rather dry character of Roman
copiers’ work which destroys the subtleties of the original the
more these are of a refined character. The same seems to be
the case with the Florentine statue C; and also in the head of
the Belvedere copy A, which is said to be decidedly superior to
the rest of the statue, Mengs blames the insipid expression
which proves the beautiful forms to lack internal life “8,
An entirely different style reigns in the head of the Munich
statue B (which is only the size of life), although the workman-
ship is all but refined. Instead of the sharp outlines we here
meet with soft transitions, instead of the rather stern expression
with a charm which approaches to coquetry. This expression
may easily 1684, and, as a matter of fact, has led several judges
τὸ Michaelis Verzeichnis der Abgiisse
in Strassburg, No. 732, where it is
erroneously assigned to the Vatican
copy itself. The cast belonged for-
merly to Steinhaeuser the sculptor.
47 Finati R. Mus. Borbon. p. 194,
No. 77. New: nose, neck, and bust.
Prof. Treu has placed to my disposition
a large photograph made by R. Rive
at Naples.
4 See above p. 333. Of the Madrid
head highly praised by Mengs we have
no exact information; we cannot even
say whether No. 102 of Huebner’s
catalogue be meant.—To the same class
with the above-named heads seem to
belong the Capitoline head, Braun
Vorschule, pl. 82 (Bernoulli, p. 212,
2), and the Borghese one in the Louvre,
Bouillon Jus. de Sculpt. i. 68, 1
(Bernoulli, p. 212, 3. Miiller-Wieseler
Denkm. i. 35, 146 @).
f ve
ΒΕΒΕΚῚ
ALA
1
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 353
to give the preference to the head of D. But as soon as one
compares the charming little head which, in January 1881, was
found in Olympia in the ruins of the Leonidaion (the ‘South-
West edifice’), and has soon acquired a well-deserved favour,
one will easily become aware that the unfavourable impression
of B is chargeable partly to the lack of skilfulness of the copier,
and partly to the additions of the restorer. Speaking of the
Olympian head, Curtius has contented himself with acknow-
ledging generally the Praxitelian character of the work’,
but Treu is completely right in recognizing in it not only a
_replica of the Cnidian goddess, but the very best of all®.
If the engravings hitherto published”, although most of
them are good in their way, still could leave a doubt about the
identity, because in all of them the head is wrongly placed °°, our
autotype, which shews the head in exactly the same position as
that of the Munich statue, will serve to remove any doubt, and
at once it will prove the head to be a much finer and more
authentic replica. What in the Munich head may be guessed
in a faded reflection and as it were through a disfiguring veil,
here appears incarnate before our eyes in a slight but spirited
sketch. All the forms are well rounded, and exhibit that sober
fulness which distinguishes the best copies of the body (p. 343).
The plain round forehead towers in calm splendour over the
softly vaulted brows, and with incomparable ease the hair is
detached from the forehead—forming an eloquent commentary
on the praise bestowed by Lucian * in his description of the
Cnidian image upon Ta ἀμφὶ τὴν κόμην Kai μέτωπον ὀφρύων
τε τὸ εὔγραμμον. The hair itself in an easy and sketchy way
is rather indicated than executed, reminding us of the Hermes,
inasmuch as there too the rough and curly hair is treated quite
differently from the soft flesh. The fillet is not rendered directly,
but only its place is slightly indicated by a furrow ; the occiput,
which was made of a separate piece of marble, is lost. Still
A. Funde von Olympia, pl. 19, A.
Boetticher Olympia, pl. 6. Baumeister
Denkm. ii. p. 1087, fig. 1294. L.
49 Height 0.16, length of face
0.10 m., that is to say, about half the
size of life.
His-
50 Funde von Olympia, p. 15.
51 Arch. Zeitung, 1881, p. 74. Athen.
Mittheil. 1881, p. 418. Ausgrab. von
Olympia, v. p. 15.
52 Ausgrab. von Olympia, v. pl. 25,
Mitchell, Selections pl. 19, 1.
tory of Sculpt. p. 452.
53 So are also the casts which are on
sale at the Berlin Museum.
54 Tmag. 6.
354 THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES.
more than the contrast between the hair and the flesh, the eyes
afford a striking analogy with those of the Hermes and of the
infant Dionysos sitting on his arm, especially the lids, the soft
and subtle texture of which forbids any sharp outline; the
gentle, nearly imperceptible transition of the lid to the eye
itself is rendered with remarkable refinement. In this respect
I know nothing which would better bear comparison with the
Hermes. The narrow shape of the eye, the slight upcast of
the upper, and the equal drawing up of the whole lower lid, the
effect of which is an expression of tender sentiment and of long-
ing languor, correspond again exactly to Lucian’s words about
τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τὸ ὑγρὸν ἅμα τῷ φαιδρῷ καὶ κεχαρισμένῳ.
Unfortunately the nose is sadly battered, and the Munich statue
with its restored nose affords as little compensation as the noses
either totally or partly modern of the larger copies. On the
contrary the mouth gently opened, with its full lips, is really
charming, without a trace of that luxurious excess which spoils
the countenance of the Medici Venus; precisely in this respect
our autotype is superior to the former publications, most of
which giving the head an exaggerated inclination backwards
seem to disfigure and to vulgarize the really noble expression of
our marble. If the conformation of the mouth itself is in
harmony with the μικρὸν ὑπομειδιᾶν of Pseudo-Lucian δ΄, the
movement of the head produces the effect of the ὑπερήφανον,
and only the σεσηρὼς γέλως of the description appears to
contain a slight exaggeration or incongruity. A peculiar
charm lives in the small round chin which as it were rises
a little towards the mouth, and at the same time forms
a gentle line of transition towards the inferior part of the
chin®’, Not less beautiful is the junction of the head with
the neck, a beauty which again we admire in the Hermes,
and which we should probably admire also in the Saurok-
tonos if better copies were preserved to us. The neck
itself in the Munich statue appears rather long, and the same
will have been the case in the Olympian statuette, as it cor-
© This part tooof the Munich statue σεσηρότι γέλωτι μικρὸν ὑπομειδιῶσα.
has suffered from bad restoration. In 57 In the coins mentioned above,
the Pitti statue C the upper row of note 45, the chin is perhaps that part
teeth becomes slightly visible. which best might bear comparison with
56 Amor. 13, ὑπερήφανον καὶ the marble heads,
THE CNIDIAN APHRODITE OF PRAXITELES. 355
responds with the other also in the fleshy fulness of the neck.
It is certainly no mere chance that we meet with the same
peculiarity in a still higher degree in the neck of the beautiful
Demeter from Knidos in the British Museum, a statue the
origin of which nobody would like to search for far beyond
the limits of Praxitelian influence.
To sum up: we possess very few antique heads of a similar
tenderness of feeling *’, and I see no decisive reason against the
opinion of those who would assign our head to a time and a
school not very distant from the original itself**. Imagining the
_ whole figure executed in a similar refined but less sketchy style,
we may understand the ecstasy of whole antiquity caused by
this δαίδαλμα κάλλιστον. And though we should scarcely like
to take it for the best representative of οὐρανία ᾿Αφροδίτη ὃ,
still we may look at this image as the most perfect specimen
of an artistic tendency which aimed to transplant the gods into
the reach of human feelings, which made the goddess of beauty
and love a beautiful wife, feeling at once and inspiring love, but
still maintaining intact that ideal spirit of inherited divine
nature, which preserved her from merging, like her later com-
panions, into the vulgarity of mere earthly instincts. In our
goddess there is still something of that lofty character which
reminds us of the poet’s words: ι
das ewig Weibliche
zicht uns hinan.
AD. MICHAELIS.
STRASSBURG.
dere Apollon or to the Aphrodite of
Melos.
59 Treu (note 51). Furtwiingler in
58 A comparison of our head with the
fine bronze head of Aphrodite from
Asia Minor, in the British Museum,
will easily shew why I cannot approve
Engelmann’s opinion (Arch. Zeit. 1878,
p- 150) shared by Murray (Hist. of
Sculpt. ii. p. 274), that this head
might go back to a similar bronze
statue by Praxiteles. The general
character of the countenance with its
slight pathetic tendency as well as
certain details seem to point rather to
the Hellenistic period, and to assign to
the head a place nearer to the Belve-
Roscher’s Lex. d. Mythol. i. p. 416.
Wolters Gipsabg. ant. Bildw. No. 321.
—Flasch in Baumeister’s Denkm. ii.
p- 1104 OO would like to assign the
head to a later time of Graeco-Roman
copying work.
60 Lucian. De Imag. 23, where the
Cnidian statue is said not to be
identical with the goddess herself
who lives in heaven, but still is
referred to as her best representative.
356 INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA.
THE appended inscriptions are the outcome of a short visit to
Salonica in April of this year: the object that I had in view
in going there was rather to hear and see on the spot the
situation of ancient remains, the possibility and prospects of
research, the attitude of the authorities and the general ‘lie’
and state of the country, than to investigate the actual
antiquities of Salonica itself: however I copied or impressed as
many Greek inscriptions as came to my notice in my short stay,
the great majority being sepulchral of a commonplace order
found in the foundations of houses in the Jewish quarter, and
too frequently relegated to the stonemasons’ yards to be cut
up for modern gravestones. I have ranged first the three
non-sepulchral inscriptions, the first being a mere fragment
containing apparently part of an Imperial letter to the
Thessalonians ; the second a dedication by the city to the
Emperor Claudius, and containing the titles and names of the
chief magistrates; and the third, again a fragment, being a public
document of the time of Antoninus Pius relative to certain
κυνηγία, apparently left by will to the city or some religious
foundation therein. If any of these have been previously
published, I must apologise for my ignorance: but I cannot
discover among the various records accessible here in Athens
any trace of them ; and indeed Salonica has been spared the
archaeologist to a surprising degree. Where the stelae were
sculptured I have briefly indicated the nature of the reliefs:
there are a few others without inscriptions, but, as none of the
sculptures are early or of merit, I have not thought it necessary
to detail them.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM ΒΑΤΙΟΝΙΟΑ, 357
In: Salonica itself Hellenic remains are few ; probably two or
three towns lie one on the top of the other, and to get to the
Macedonian city would need extensive excavation; for the
Roman stelae here published lay at a depth of from ten to twelve
feet; the majority, it appears, were found together within a
very small space, an indication of how much might be uncovered
were excavation undertaken ; but in the crowded congested city,
as full of life now as it ever was, this would be well nigh im-
possible even at great expense. The most hopeful locality near
the town is from all accounts the slopes to the east beyond the
graveyards, and near the bay, as there is reason to think that
the Macedonian city lay nearer to the south-eastern point than
does the existing Salonica. The authorities throw no difficulties
in the way of research, beyond keeping a sharp eye on the
researcher, but unfortunately they have become sufficiently alive
to the possible value of archaeological finds to no longer allow the
wholesale deportation that has been practised, more especially
py the French, for the last century, and everything that is
valuable and attractive is reserved for burial in the Sultan’s
treasury at Constantinople—a fate which has lately befallen the
(reported) interesting contents of a sarcophagus.
(1) On a marble fragment lying in the garden of the British
Consulate, broken on all sides, and much defaced in various
places: 70 cent. x 20 cent. at the longest and broadest, and
40 mill. thick. The letters are smal! (15 mill. in the upper lines,
declining to 10 mill. in the lower) and exceedingly well cut.
Copy and impression.
ELOY
\PONETECTEPONTIM
ANOYTQCEXHTATIA
NIOYC/ CEZETETIAI
5 €TIPECBCY~ ... >MITI
ΟἸΚΑΙ ΜΙ ΕΡ 2) 470". CKOC
ENNIOE ceive g ocd
MAX O.CTeu.. Ἐπί
JAIONAQ...€IMH
10 JMAKEAONQN
NOGEO . TTATHPMO
INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA.
1A(T)OYOY.ENOCEMO
lIEYAOTO~ )YAANATKAI
EANQOE - AXIII . ICETT
15 INIKHM(€) . HCYMET(OHI ἢ)
vin Et EG ana LAANBA EN
lIOLONCY<ATOTIPOCYN
FZOiICA . ΤΩΝΛΟΙΠΩ͂
(N)OYKAE . IPETAI . NOA
20 CHM... ΤΟΜΕΝΚΑΙΓ
NIAYT . NAIAAEITIOY CAC
FQME. CITOCOCITOCC
KAITPITONETOCAPZAMC
NOIOECCAAONIKEICAN
\CYTIOT OY O€COYTIATE
TPOCTENTIOAINOIAM#
*AIOTIY MINAEAOKTAI
JITIOATIIAEIQTHCE
TOICDOAPATONYME
30 ITAYTHVWMEAAH
MAAIATETAKT/
NEIKEYCINTAAC
MONWYTIO/
ONMONN
35 YTAC
bo
ζι
(ξἕ)τερόν τι.
. ἂν οὕτως ἔχῃ τὰ πάϊντα
... v οὔσας ἕξετε πάΪντα
5... ἐπρεσβ(ε)ύσ[αντ]ο Μέτι[ος
. ols Καμέριος [Πρίσκος
ἙρἸέννιος. .... os Φ
.» « γος II... τος Ὁ
ἐφ]όδιον δωσίετε] + εἰ μὴ
10 .. ὁ Μακεδόνων
. . . ὁ θεὸς] πατήρ μου
1ἀθαν]άτο(υ) οὐδένος ἐμός
INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA. 359
. εὔλογος] οὐδ᾽ avayxailos
A > ’
. . ἄνωθε[ν] ἀχ[ήρηϊ]ς er . .
15 Θεσσαλ)]ονέκη μ(ό)νη συνη(ρ)ετο [dca ?
Big Tee, δ ee ς συλλήβδην
. 1 (ἐμνημ)ονεύσατο πρὸς ὑμ[ᾶς
... ζοῦσα[ν] τῶν λοιπῶν
1QQT IO} καθαίρεται. ..
20... ἐϊ]σημη[να]το μὲν καὶ.
. ἐϊνιαυτὸν διαλειπούσας
τ τῶ) ἃ τῷ ἔθει τοσσ[ούτῳ
. Kat τρίτον ἔτος ἀρξάμεΪνος
. οἱ Θεσσαλονικεῖς...
25 ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πατ[ρ]ό
Ba. (ede ΠΟ plos
: πρὸς THY WoAW......
. . « διότι ὑμῖν δέδοκται
e \ / lol
. Ol πολὺ πλείω τῆς.
Lk ya τ σφόδρα τῶν ὑμετέρων
EP aaa ene a ταύτην μελλή[σετε
erate ἘΝῚ διατέτακται ..
.. . Θεσσαλο]νεικεῦσιν τάδε
/
SR tale μόνην ὗπο. ..
ee ee, οἷς aluras .. .
The fragment tapers to a point at the bottom, and there is a
deep hole in the marble where I have marked dots in lines 5-9.
The phrase ὁ θεὸς πατήρ μου, which occurs twice (lines 11,
25), proves it to be the remnant of an Imperial edict or letter
to the people of Thessalonica (24, 32), but the identity of the
writer and the drift of his writing are alike obscure. The right
side is possibly the rea! limit of the tablet, the left side being
defective as well as the top and bottom: it is much to be
regretted that an interesting inscription should be in such a
condition: from line 15 we may conjecture that some signal
service rendered to the Emperor’s father is the subject of a letter
of thanks, possibly granting certain privileges.
(2) On a tablet found on the property of M. Bitzo, dragoman
to H.B.M. Consulate-General. It is 3 in. in thickness and has
evidently been let into a wall, The letters are 30 mill. high and
somewhat rudely cut. Copy only.
360 INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA.
ΕΤΟΥΣ MOSEBASTOYTOYKAIBQP
AY TOKPATOPITIBEPIQKAAY AIC
KAIZAPIZEBAS=TQFEPMANIKQ
APXIEPIAHMAPXIKHSEZOYSIAS
TOTETAPTONYTIATQATIOAEAIFMENC
TOTETAPTONAY TOKPATOPITOOFAOON
ΠΑΤΡΙΠΑΤΡΙΔΟΣΗΠΟΛΙΣΠΟΛΙ . Al
XOYNTON
NEIKEPATOYTOYOEOAA
HPAKAEIAOY TOY AHMHTPIOYS
ETTIMEAHTOYMENANAPOYTOY
TIEAHTE!INOY
"Etous $06 σεβαστοῦ τοῦ καὶ Bop:
Αὐτοκράτορι Τιβερίῳ Κλαυδίῳ
ράτορι Τιβερίς ;
ζαίσαρι, Σεβασ-σ:-τῷ, Τερμανικῷ,
᾿Αρχιέρι, δημαρχικῆς ἐξουσίας,
Τὸ τέταρτον ὑπάτῳ ἀποδεδιγμένῳ
Or
To τέταρτον Αὐτοκράτορι, τὸ ὄγδοον
Πατρὶ πατρίδος, ἡ πόλις πολι[τ]α[ρ]
χούντων, :
Νεικηράτου τοῦ Θεοδᾶ
10 Ἡρακλείδου τοῦ Δημητρίου -
᾿Ἐπιμελητοῦ, Μενάνδρου τοῦ
Πεληγείνου
This is evidently the dedicatory tablet affixed to a statue or
other votive offering from the city of Thessalonica to the
Emperor Claudius, recording besides his name and titles those
of the two chief magistrates of the year, and that of the
Curator under whose direction the offermg has been erected:
he may be identical with the Ταμίας τῆς πόλεως of (΄.1.΄. 1967.
The mention of two Poleitarchs only is noticeable : in the inscrip-
tion just referred to there would seem to be six, if not seven
(vid. Béckh’s note in the Appendix to the vol.), the first being
honoured with a fuller designation than the rest. If it were
not for this, two would be a very natural number, and perhaps at
the date of this dedication, at least forty years earlier than
that of O..G. 1967, which, according to Béckh, is posterior to
INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA., 361
the accession of Vespasian, the primitive duumvirate still
survived. It must also be admitted that there is enough doubt
about readings &c. in the Corpus inscription to prompt a
suspicion that the first two names therein connected by «ad are
the Poleitarchs ; and the rest are something else.
The name Θεοδᾶς is identical with Θευδᾶς or Θεοδῶρος (Pape).
The double date and the exact specification of the earlier era
by the word σεβαστοῦ, is very interesting as removing the lest
shadow of uncertainty as to the other doubly-dated Thessalonian
inscription (C./.G. 1970), and proving the correctness of Béckh’s
judgment as to the eras intended there. This date will be
799 A.U.c. or A.D. 46. The strange form assumed by sigma is
identical with that quoted by Reinach (Epig. Gr. p. 223) as the
sign of 6,000. It would seem therefore that it is a form long
anterior to the 11th century, and that the oblique stroke of
the reversed R, does not, as M. Reinach asserts, designate the
thousand.
(3) In the courtyard of the Konak on a limestone slab Τὶ
cent. high, and 45 broad; inscribed in fairly neat letters, 2
mill. high. The stone is a good deal weather-worn, and broken
on the left side. Copy and impression.
Or ©
JCTIF . YAIAL. “AAPI
“CEBOYCCWTHP . CKAI
\IOYOYHP . YKAICAPOC
lIEPACCYPKAHTOYKAI
5 AECOHCOMENAKYNHP1/
EK AIAGHK WNEPENNI
ΜΈΝΑ * YITTOTHCKPATI(C)
AATA * AIATWNTIVPI
AIEPEA * TIOAEIIAPA.....
1 While I was taking the latter I was
interrupted by a message from the
Minister of Public Instruction, who
desired an interview (a pretext for a
nearer view of a possible Austrian spy !),
and the paper was left on the stone to
the tender mercies of the wind and the
crowd. Consequently it was lifted up
all round the edges, and its value con-
siderably diminished. From the ap-
pearance of this stone it must have
been uncovered for a long period,
though whence it came I was unable
to learn. Perhaps it has been copied
previously.
962 INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA.
10 DJYKPATEPOY * PU OOY
APZETAIAE * TAK . NH
AWN . AP. CIAI(Q)N * EAATI
IY CCYTY(XEITCP) 2
XOH !
The inscription as it stands does not continue quite up to the
right edge of the stone, a considerable blank space being left
after several lines, 6... line 8, but the letters have either been
less deeply cut or have weathered more at the ends of the lines:
I have indicated by points wherever there seem to have been
letters in these spaces. It would seem that only the right half
of the inscription is here, whether the initial portion were
engraved on a lost piece of the same stone, or on another placed
alongside. The cleanness of the fracture makes one suspect the
latter.
In the last three lines the impression ceases to be of much
service, and I have given what I copied from the stone itself
entirely ; but the indications were very faint.
In the first three lines we have evidently the names and titles
of an Emperor and a Caesar, by whom the inscription is dated.
The Emperor’s name reads T/z[o]u Αἰλίου] ᾿Αδρι [avod and must
therefore be Antoninus Pius, for his adoptive father’s praenomen
was Publius, and his successor did not bear the name of Hadrian.
The ᾿Αντωνίνου without which his name never appears must
follow on the lost fragment of stone. The second name must
therefore be that of Marcus Aurelius who received the title of
Caesar in 138 A.D. and will read M. AdAdov Αὐρηλίου Οὐήρ[ο]υ
Καίσαρος, which name he bore till his succession in 161.
Between these dates the inscription falls. The two names
appear in the same inscription in C.1.G. 4661.
The rest is too fragmentary to do more than conjecture that
it refers to certain hunting-grounds left by the will of one
Herennius either to the city of Thessalonica or to some
religious foundation therein, and the object cf the inscription
would seem to be to record the terms of their future
regulation.
It is useless to attempt much restoration beyond the Imperial
names and titles,
INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA. 363
Ἐπὶ αὐτοκράτορ]ος T[i]rouv Αἰλίου] ᾿Αδρι-
ανοῦ ᾿Αντωνίνου Εὐ]σεβοῦς Σωτῆρ[ο]ς καί
Μάρκου Αἰλίου Αὐρη]λίου Οὐήρ[ο]ν Καίσαρος
κατὰ ἐπιταγὴν τῆς ἱερᾶς συγκλήτου καί
5 . τοῦ δήμου τὰ ἀποτε]λεσθησόμενα κυνήγι[α
ες Aahtpos.« nye eh Ἰἐκ διαθήκων ‘“Epevvilov
ΕΚ Χο Ἰὑπὸ τῆς κρατίσ-
5 | aera rater tie arse ] .. . διὰ τῶν περι
MEMO TUE 9, apy |vepéa Ἰ]ολειταρχ[ οὐντ-
10: νοι ππρ, Gt. » - |] . . Κρατέρου Ῥούφου
| Ἄρξεται δέ τὰ κυνή-
ΝΣ κῶν... 7. ᾿Αγ[α]σιλίων ξ ᾿Ελλη..
ΤΟ wt + ] . (ε)ὐτυχεῖτ(ε) -
The inscription is too fragmentary for any certainty, but, as
line 11 seems to be entire, there is hardly room for the names
of more than two Poleitarchs: cf. the previous inscription.
(4) On a sarcophagus of grey limestone, now in the courtyard
of the Hotel Colombo: sarcophagus 95 cent. x 1 m. 20 cent.
and cap 48 cent. x 1 m. 30 cent. In fine letters, 75 mill. in
height. Copy only.
M AIAIOZ TIAPAMONOE
AIAIA DAYETA -ν- THIKAIKI
KAIEAYTQ > ZQN
ETOYS AIT
M. Αὔλιος Ilapdpovos
Αἰλίᾳ Φαύστᾳ τῇ γυναικί
καὶ ἑαυτῷ ζῶν
ἔτους Out’.
In line 2 τῇ γυναικί is added in cramped letters. The date
(314) is probably reckoned from the second of the two eras used
in C.L.G. 1970, 1.6. from the principate of Augustus, which was
evidently then coming into use, and, supplanting the older era,
would be used in this later inscription alone. The date will
accordingly be A.U.c. 1037.
(5) In the courtyard of the Konak on a stele bearing the
figure of a child holding a wand in the right hand, much muti-
lated. Copy and squeeze.
901 INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA,
Above the figure.
A .KANOYAEIOLC 9 A. Kavovaeios
ZWEIMOLAYTWZWN Ζώσιμος αὐτῷ ζῶν.
Immediately below in smaller letters.
QMAAAKS ὦ μαλακός!
Below the figure.
KAIKANOYAE Καὶ Kavovne-
5 |ANOTAMIAA 5 ta Motapira
HAFEAEY OE τῇ ἀπελευθέ
PAKAIEYEP pa καὶ Evép-
-FETICHMH yer’ ion (2) μνη-
MH X APINS μῆς χάριν.
10 EROYE ¢ 9 10 ἔτους yos'.
The words ὦ μαλακός must be the later addition of a malig-
nant or mischievous hand :
Line 5.—The name Ποτάμιλλα occurs in CLG. 569.
Line 8.—This personal use of ἴσος may be partly paralleled
from Avist. Pol. 4, 11, 8: it must distinguish the freeborn
Evergetis from the freedwoman Potamila. Evergetis does not
appear to be known elsewhere as a proper name, but the
masculine form is used C.I.G. 110.
Line 10.—The date (293), if reckoned as in the preceding
case, will give A.U.c. 1016: if counted from the creation of the
Macedonian province, A.U.c. 900. Even the doubtful criterion
of C.L.G. 1970 fails here, as the second reckoning would place
this inscription nine years earlier: but in default of any certainty
the first-named era may perhaps be preferred.
(6) Zbid.: a stele bearing a female bust in low relief: above
the bust in good letters. Copy only.
DAABIAKAL * CANAPA Φλαβία Κασσάνδρα
ΛΥΚΑΤΗΟΘΥΓΆΑΤΡΙ ᾧ Λύκᾳ τῇ θυγατρί
MNEIACXAPIN μνείας χάριν.
in smaller and ruder letters on the neck of the bust
AYKA Λύκα
ΧΑΙΡΕ χαῖρε.
The latter words have evidently been added by some friend
of the deceased : perhaps bv a lover.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA. 365
(7) Zbid.: on an altar-shaped stele bearing the figure of a
horseman in the act of hurling a dart. The figure is much
mutilated and the-inscription more so, almost the whole surface
of the stone having broken away. On the right side of the
block are two hands with the backs outwards. Copy only.
The following letters are all that remain, and many are
doubtful :—
KAIEAYTHE..AKAIOYIO AYTi
eee Pee tens τὴν A
ΑΝ εν CIA UW
The first line would seem to be
καὶ ἑαυτῆς [ζῶσα καὶ ὁ vids αὐτ[ῆς].
In the latter part line 2,
[τοῖς ἰδίοις τέϊ]κν[οις] μνίας χάριν.
may perhaps be restored. The incorrect form μνέα is else-
where found, but the letters are too faint to be sure of it here.
Cf. C.I.G. 1972, also from Thessalonica.
(8) Ibid.: on a marble stele bearing a boy riding towards an
altar, behind which stands a tree with serpent issuing from it
as in supra No. 7. In fine clear-cut letters, Copy only.
ΗΡΩΙ Ἥρωι
ΠΑΤΡΟΒΙΩΤΩ Πατροβίῳ τῷ
ΓΛΥΚΥΤΑΤΩΤΕ γλυκυτάτῳ τέ-
ΚΝΩΕΤΩΝΕΙΚΟ κνῳ ἐτῶν εἴκο-
ΣΙΠΕΝΤΕΦΟΡΤΟΥ σι πέντε Φορτου-
ΝΑΤΟΣΚΑΙΠΕΡΩ vatos καὶ Πετρω-
ΝΙΑΜΝΗΜΗΣ νία μνήμης
ΧΑΡΙΝ χάριν
ΚΑΙΕΑΥΤΟΙΣΚΑΙΤΟΙΣ καὶ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ τοῖς
IAIOIZ =ZQEZI ἰδίοις ζῶσι.
H.S.—VOL. VIII. BB
366 INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA.
(9) Ibid.: on an altar-shaped stele bearing the figure of a
youth, nude, except for a cloak falling from the right shoulder
over the left thigh : a spear in the right hand. On his right a
bird ; on his left a palm-branch and a wreath. In large letters
above the figure. Copy only.
AIAIQ NETTQTI
Aitio Νέπωτι.
Below the figure, the first line in large well-cut, the second
in smaller and crowded letters—
A.BAZKANTOS. KAIXAPITHN ᾿Αβάσκαντος καὶ Χάριτ(ιὴν
TWTEKNWMNEIACXAPIN τῷ τέκνῳ μνείας χάριν.
The name Χάριτιν, a form of Χαρίτιον, is found in CLL.G. 3394,
and may safely be read here, more especially as the last two
letters of the name would seem to have been omitted at first
and supplied afterwards, possibly phonetically.
On the left side of the stele, in clear but rather ‘flat’ and
shallow letters, the lines sloping downwards: the whole a later
addition ? (copy and squeeze)—
TICTIATPICECTICOIHAENETIWCONO MECTICOIECTIN
TIATPOCABACKANTOYAWAEKETHCFENO MAN
TICTEPOCENTY MBOICNIKHDOPONOYK AAFHCEF AP
TIANKPATIWNITENOMHNOYAENMAAHCTEPAC
5 CTEDSEICAENTIATPHTOCCOYCANEGHKATOKEYCI
TIPINCTEPANOYCOYCNYNANTEA ABONTEONEWC
These verses take the form of a dialogue between a passer-by
and the deceased, and may be transliterated and translated as
follows :—
Τίς πατρίς ἐστί σοι ἠδὲ. Νέπως ὄνομ᾽ ἐστί σοι; Ἐς στίν'
Πατρὸς ᾿Αβασκάντου δωδεκέτης γενόμ(η)ν.
Τί στέφος ἐν τύμβοις νικηφόρον; Οὐκ ἀδ[α]ὴς yap
ΠΠανκρατίων γενόμην οὐδὲ πάλης ἱερᾶς"
- θ \ δὲ ? ΄ 7 ie a Ψ lal
Στεφθεὶς δ᾽ ἐν πάτρῃ τόσσους ἀνέθηκα τοκεῦσι
Πρὶν στεφάνους ods νῦν ἀντέλαβον τεθνεώς.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA. 367
‘What is thy country, and is Nepos thy name? It is: I was
Abaskantus’ son, and twelve years old. What is this wreath of
victory on thy tomb? It is there because I was not unskilled
in the pancratium or the sacred wrestling-matches ; and when
I was crowned I dedicated to my parents in my fatherland as
many wreaths aforetime as on my death I have obtained in
exchange.’
The latter half evidently refers to the garland or garlands
carved on the left hand of the figure (vid. supra), and exciting
remark in the case of so young a boy. The πάλη ἱερά must be
some definite competition in honour of some divinity ; possibly
the expression ἐν πάτρῃ κ'τ'λ. may imply that it took place at
a distance, and the prizes gained by this young Thessalonian at
so important a competition brought honour to his parents while
he lived, and to himself when dead. In spite of the incon-
gruity of such a contest, the inscription seems to be Christian
(cf. the palm-branch), and to draw a parallel between earthly
and heavenly crowns. A squeeze of these curious verses is at
the disposal of anyone.
(10) Zbid.: on a stele broken at the bottom, bearing the
figures of an adult male, two adult females, a young girl and a
little child, all much defaced. The inscription very clear in
letters 40 m. high. Copy and squeeze.
TITOYCCEKOYN Titovs Σεκούν-
AOYKAIKAEYTTW δου καὶ Κλεύπω
HCY MBIOC MAKE ἡ σύμβιος Maké-
THKAIMAPKWTe τῃ καὶ Μάρκῳ τέ-
KNOICTEONWCI Kvolts τεθνῶσι
MNHMHCXAPIN μνήμης χάριν.
The readings both on the stone and on the squeeze are quite
unmistakable throughout the inscription: T/rovs must be an
error of ignorance or carelessness. Κλεύπω is akin to the
Κλεῦπιν of 6.1.6. 5234; Maxéra seems to be a distinctively
Macedonian name, cf. Pape s.v. Maxéra, ‘Ein Theil von Mace-
donien nach welchem Macedonien selbst Maxérva hiess.’ Hence
it becomes a female name.
BB 2
368 INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA.
(11) Zbid.: on a stele bearing a group of figures: on the left
a boy riding, a dog and a boar ; the boy rides towards an altar
behind which stands a tree with a serpent issuing from the
branches ; and on the extreme right stands a Hermes with a
caduceus. In ornate letters of a late period. Copy only.
NEOCNOYMICIOCPHAIEZO
KAIBAAACKAIXPHCTHHAAEA
DHIEPAKIKAIEPMHTOICIAI
OICAAEADOICMNHMHCXA
5 PIN
Νέος Νουμίσιος Φήλιξ ὁ
καὶ Βάλας καὶ Χρηστὴ ἡ ἀδελ-
φὴ ἹἹέρακι καὶ Ἑρμῇ τοῖς ἰδί-
ous ἀδελφοῖς μνήμης χά- ᾿
5 ριν.
Line 1.—The letter ¢ is evidently ποὺ } but 2, the
sigmas being all square both in this and in the parallel inscrip-
tion, infra No. 12, where X again occurs in the same name.
Taylor gives a similar form as in use in Boeotia, and the =
of the Roman period (Rein. Hpig. Grecque, p. 204) might easily
pass into this.
(12) In a stone-mason’s yard between the British Consulate
and the quay; on a marble stele broken at the top, 1 πὶ. 24 cent.
x 46 c. (at the base) and 39 c. (at the top): below, a much
mutilated sitting female figure. In well-cut letters 20 mill. high.
Copy only.
NZEOCNOYM Νέος Noup-
ECIOCHHAIE ἐσιος Φήλιξ
OKAIPAAAL ὁ καὶ (B)adas
XPHCTWTH Χρηστ(ῃ) τῇ
5 ΙΔΙΑΘΥΓΑΤΡΙ ἰδίᾳ θυγατρί
ΜΝΜΈΧΑΡΙ μνήμης χάρι-
Ν ν.
The four following epitaphs in the same stone-mason’s yard
I only heard of at the last moment, and was unable either to
impress or visit a second time.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA. 369
(13) On a large marble slab in fine letters 60 mill. high:
KAAIKPATI . KAI Καλικράτης καὶ
AAEZANAPA ᾿Αλέξανδρα
ΝΙΚΑΝΟΡΙΠΑΤΡΙ Νικάνορι πατρί
MMOL YNCENE μνημοσύνης ἕνε-
5 ΚΕΝΕΗΈΤΕΓΡΑ κεν σῆμ ἐπέγρα-
YETOAE ape τόδε.
(14) Very rudely cut below a head of very poor workman-
ship :
AMTTIANOCOAKOCMANTA
THIAIAOPENTHMVML
XAPIN
᾿Αμπίανος θᾶκος Mavta
τῇ ἰδίᾳ θρέπτῃ μνήμης
χάριν.
A manifestly illiterate production : ᾿Αμπίανος is for ᾿Αππίανος.
Μάντα appears to be not known elsewhere. Θᾶκος seems to
mean here a ‘ resting-place,’ possibly a Christian euphemism.
(15) On ἃ marble stele, very well cut in fanciful letters :
r N >a
KAAYAIA . NAPAMONAHOYFATPI
KAIKAAYA!AEOPTHH@YIFATPIAH
ΤΙ. KAAYAIGTTAPMONG@EAYTOTEKAI
MEPENICOAIAMMONI Toor MBPS2Z05IN
Κλαυδίᾳ ἸΠαραμόνᾳ τῇ θυγατρί
καὶ Κλαυδίᾳ “Ἑορτῇ τῇ θυγατρίδῃ
Te. Κλαύδιος Παρ[αἼμονος ἑαυτῷ τε καί
Μ. “Ἑρεννίῳ Αἰδήμονι τῷ γαμβρῷ ζῶσιν.
The name ‘Eopt7 may be compared with the ‘Eoptvos οἵ
CIG. 3662.
The three letters [, N, =, are inscribed at regular intervals
on the first moulding above the rest of the inscription: the
370 INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA.
narrowness of the moulding makes them much smaller. They
may represent the date (253) 1.6. reckoning from the later era,
976 A.U.C.
(16) On a stele bearing a large female head and a sitting
child ; the letters rather hard to read:
MATTICOFEMEAAS Martios Γέμελλος
=(H ?)EINAHTYNAI Σητείνᾳ τῇ γυναι-
ΚΙΚΑΙΓΡΑΠΗΗΈΝΘΕ κὶ καὶ Γράπτῃ τῇ πενθε-
PAMVMIXAPIN pa μνήμης χάριν
The name Σήτειναϊ appears to be otherwise unknown.
Γράπτη occurs twice in the C.LG.
(17) In the British Consulate, on a stele slightly broken on
the left side, bearing a group consisting of a female sitting
between a child and a tree; two male figures, one leading a
horse, advance towards her. The letters are small and of a good
period. Copy only.
ITIOZ[ TPA we ITTTIOSTPATQITQYIQI
)Σ. KAIAN Ξ 9 ΗΡΩΙ. ΚΑΙΕΑΥΤΟΙΣΖΩΝ
ΓΊΓΟΝΑ SWS ΤΕΣ
([π)πόστρα- Ἵπποστράτῳ τῷ υἱῷ
(τοὴς kau Av ἥρωι καὶ ἑαυτοῖς ζῶν-
(τ)έγονα. τες.
The omission of the iota adscript in the case of the article
only would indicate that this inscription belongs to the early
period of transition between its invariable use and its frequent
or invariable omission, cf. Rein. Zraité de l’Epig. Gr. p. 270:
perhaps to the 1st century B.c.
(18) Jbid.: on a stele bearing a group in very high relief
of man, woman and adult daughter. Copy and squeeze.
AIQNKAIKOYOEINAE
ATIQYFATPIMHH.
XAPIN
INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA. 371
Δίων καὶ Kovdew Δέ-
λτι θυγατρὶ μνήμης
χάριν.
Stone and squeeze are both perfectly clear: Κούθειν must be
a Greek translation of a barbarian name. AéAtis does not
appear to be known elsewhere as a proper name.
(19) Jbid.: on a marble stele bearing a group of two women
(one sitting) and two children. Copy and squeeze.
TEPENTIA . T. OYTATPI
TEPTYAAA . THT YNAIKIEAYTOY
POCTANIO[£ . T . YIOCKAI
€AYTQ ZANTI
7 /
Τερεντίᾳ if θυγατρί, ,
Τερτύλλᾳ τῇ γυναικὶ ἑαυτοῦ
eX
? -ἄνιος T. υἱὸς καὶ
«ε A “
ἑαυτῷ ζῶντι.
Line 2. ἑαυτοῦ is added beyond the original line.
Line 3. The stone is hopeless at the beginning of the line: I
give the best indications I can from my impression ; the lunar
letter may be €, for there is a suspicion of a cross-bar on the
paper: the next letter should be T from its elongation, but on
the stone it was more like [. It is hard to say whether the two
small half-circles marked before these are really parts of letters
or no: if so the whole name may be BPETANIOC.
(20) Jbid.: on a marble stele bearing a standing female
figure to whom a child with a casket in her left hand offers a
mirror (?) with her right. The inscription is on a raised tablet
of which almost all has broken away. Copy only.
Wot WOK δὲ DUR, wile os
\NOYAI (2 Ka) vovd(evos)
OYPATHe ...p)upatn(s)
“TATH (2‘Imao) otatn(s)
AIK
372 INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA.
(21) Zbid.: on a small stele broken on the left, bearing two
heads. Copy only.
WMA. ZWCA . KAEWIKH. TH
PIMNEILACXAPIN
——ap)opo ζῶσα Krewvixn τῇ
θυγατ)ὴρὶ μνείας χάριν
The name of the daughter would seem to have come first
on the lost portion of the stele: for ἀμώμῳ cf. another
Thessalonian inscription, C.J.G. 1974. The order of the words
is odd if correct.
(22) Jbid.: on a stele, much weather-worn, bearing a youth
riding with cloak streaming in the wind behind him: part of
the right side is broken, including the horse’s head. The
inscription cannot be read with any certainty. Copy and im-
pression, the latter of little service as the surface of the stone
has worn almost smooth.
AAMOK. ΟΣΚΦιλ ἘΣ ἢ Δάμοκ A Jos K. Dir tor
.TTACAM.N.TQ(M ἢ... η] Πασαμ ὁ]ν ὠ] τῷ (vie ἢ
ΚΟΑΥΤΟΙΣ κ. ἑαυτοῖς
Δάμοκλος occurs in CLG. vol. iii. p. xiv. No. ὅθ. Φιλίστη
in 385.
The last word of line 2 may be anything so far as the
stone is concerned; the M given above being only a most
doubtful indication.
(23) Ibid.: on a stele bearing four heads, those of a male,
female, and two children. The inscription was apparently
a mere scratch originally, and is now nearly hopeless. Copy
only.
ee? et eee ye Naw φγ 3
ΙΕ feo Saree MEIAC . API.
μνείας [χ]άρι[ν] is all that remains.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA. 373
(24) On a small stele 27 cent. high, in the possession of
Mr. Bitzo: bearing a sitting female and behind her a man
standing, in low relief. Copy only.
PETHANTEPQTI [Ap έτη ᾿Αντερῶτι
(25) Ibid.: on a rude stele bearing five heads, a child above,
man and woman below, and two children below again. Copy
only.
DIAOAOZOCAPTEMIA Φιλόδοξος ᾿Αρτεμιδὸ-
ὡρΑΤΗΙ ΔΙΑΓΎΝΕΚΙΑΝΕ ὥρᾳ τῇ ἰδίᾳ γυνεκὶ ave-
ΘΕΤΟ θέτο
(26) On a fine marble sarcophagus, formerly used for ἃ
fountain, and now standing at the cross-roads immediately
outside the Arch of Constantine. On the front is carved in
low relief a winged figure holding in the right hand a palm
branch, in the left a wreath. The inscription is on a small
raised tablet 21 x 23 cent., and is rather poorly cut in small
letters; three holes have been pierced in it in its fountain
days, and the flow of water has made havoc of the lettering.
Copy and impression, the value of the latter much discounted
by the “help” rendered in the taking of it by the large and
appreciative crowd which quickly gathered in so public a
spot.
ZEPpE! . 'AIPEINI
δῇ τυ Ran
Alem ( enter Ale 4 oes ΚΗ
ἢ, Ὁ ὦ
5 M.IM N
* (a, a, a, = the three holes).
This might be partially restored thus:
Σερ[ β]ε[ᾳ ΤΠ|α[τ]ρείνῃ
T. Σέρβ]ε]}ι[ος] ILa]tpo[s]
374 INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA.
Kar X[epBela ἡ yuvn|x(a)[é
τ[οῖς] τ(έ[κνοις ζῶντες 2]
μ[ν]ήμης χάριν.
--------- os
The angular © in line 6 will justify the restoration of Σέρβειος
in line 2. The letters are not regular enough to form any
accurate judgment as to the number missing in any one line.
This inscription must have been a long time in its present
position, and has probably been previously copied.
(27) On a large sarcophagus now used to receive a medicinal
spring at Sheikh-souyu on the high ground east of the citadel.
In one or two places the water has worn away the stone, but the
fine letters (60 mill. high) are on the whole perfectly legible.
Copy and partial squeeze (of lower left corner).
IOYAIAAPPIAAYKAKAIAYPHAIXEDMAG
PAT ACSFNAWONZAYTOICZANELCEK TANK O
INA OTTAN<CEANAETOAMC/ {HE TEPSETINAKA
TAQECOAKWICTWNTITPOrEPAMENN
5 AWEITWQ@PNTATWAMIWITIPSTEIMOYXM
Ἰούλια “Appia Λύκα καὶ Αὐρήλιος Σμά-
ραγδος τὴν ληνὸν ἑαυτοῖς ζῶντες ἐκ τῶν κο-
νῶν κόπων ' ὃς ἂν δὲ τολμήσῃ ἕτερό(ν) τινα κα-
ταθέσθαι χωρὶς τῶν προγε(γ)ραμμένων
5 δώσει τῷ [ἱε]Ἰρωτάτῳ ταμείῳ προστείμου X mv.
The inscription was inaccurately cut, and contains corrections
and erasures, ¢.g.in line 2 a line across the second H: in line 3 a
stroke has beenerased between C and H of τολμήσῃ: in line 4 the |
of καταθέσθαι was at first omitted, and then attached for want
of space to the following letter thus, X: and the second [
of προγεγραμμένων has been omitted. In line 5 the strange
sign in the eighth place is evidently the result of an erasure ;
the whole space has been scooped out, and the squeeze shows
the relics of an ε or τ thus 7, in a circular excision.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM SALONICA. 375
(28) I can also add to and correct C..G. 1988. The inscrip-
tion is in a fountain near the church of St. George, hence the
discrepancy of Lucas and Clark. By the judicious, if immoral,
use of fingers and stick I succeeded in dislodging enough of the
mortar and bricks into which the stone is built to read all the
remaining letters on the right, except two. The left side
resisted my efforts. The whole inscription will now read:
OYNAOZSKAIKAZZANAPAOI . LOY
AOYTOYAEYKIOYEAYTOIZKAI . IO
AQTQAEYKIOYKAOQZAIEOF ..
Bockh’s conjectural restoration is therefore erroneous in
respect of the names which end and begin the first and second,
and begin the third lines: these should evidently be [[Ἰουκ]οῦνδος,
Ἰου[κούν]δου and ᾿Ιο[υκούν]δῳ respectively, not Σεκοῦνδος,
Σεκούνδου and Σεκούνδῳ:
D. G. HoGarta.
ATHENS, May 7, 1887.
376 APOLLO LERMENUS.
APOLLO LERMENUS.
In May of the current year, while Professor W. M. Ramsay,
accompanied by Mr. H. A. Brown and myself, was travelling in
the Tchal district, we were informed at Demirdjikeui of the
existence of ruins in or near Badinlar, three hours away to the
north. In a previous year Professor Ramsay had paid a hasty
visit to this village and seen nothing of importance: on this
occasion fortune favoured us: for, visiting the village a day
or two later, we were guided on Whit Sunday to the site of a
small temple situate on a conical eminence, which fell on the
further side to the southern bank of the Maeander, which here
enters on one of the narrowest passes of its gorge. Only the
platform on which the temple had stood remained i situ, and
very few fragments could we find of columns or cornice: such
as remained ‘of the frieze showed by their formal regular orna-
ment the Ionic of Roman period. Overlooking the river was a
vaulted tomb, and traces of sarcophagi were apparent among
the heaps of grey stone covering the summit of the hill. At
first there seemed to be nothing whereby to determine the
ascription or period of the temple, but a laborious search
revealed several inscribed fragments, and finally a square
pedestal bearing the following inscription :
(1) ATIOAAQN////
AAIP MHNONOE///
ETI ANHKATAETL///
TATHNXAPI=ENO//
MENEKAEOYLC/////
NY Z[OTIOAEITH////
σι
10
APOLLO LERMENTS. 377
ETOYS=qdPMHNOCL:K
ATIOAAWNIAAIPMHN///
MAPKOLCAIONYLOA////
POYMOTEAAHNOLCKAT/////
PWAMMIANTHNOPE////
MOYKATATHNETIITACHN
OEOYEIAETICETIENKA////
@HCEIILTONOEONTIPOCTE!
MOY XBOKAIICTONDICKON
AAAAXBQO
᾿Απόλλων[α
Λαιρμηνὸν θεόν
ἐπιφανῆ κατὰ ἐπῖι-
ταγὴν Χαρίξενοϊς
Μενεκλέους [Διο-
νυσοπολείτηϊς.
"Etous σόγ' μῆνος ξ΄. κ',
᾿Απόλλωνι Λαιρμην[ᾧ
Μάρκος Διονυσοδ[ώ
ρου Μοτελληνὸς κατ[αγρά-
dw ᾿Αμμίαν τὴν θρεϊ ππτήν
μου κατὰ τὴν ἐπιταγήν
θεοῦ: εἰ δέ τις ἐπενκα[λεῖ
θήσει ἰς τὸν θεὸν προστεί-
μου (δηνάρια) Bd’ καὶ is τὸν φίσκον
ἄλλα (δηνάρια) Bd’.
The first six lines form the original dedication, the remaining
ten being afterwards cut on the pedestal in smaller characters.
The date (equivalent to the 20th day of the 6th month, 209 A.D.)
is in the usual full Phrygian form. This temple was evidently
the centre of
or Lairbenus,}
an important local worship of Apollo Lairmenus,
whose name recurs on many inscriptions of this
1 For this local title see Professor W.
M. Ramsay’s ‘ Cities and Bishoprics of
Phrygia,’ in the Jowrnal of Hellenic
Studies, vol. iv. p. 882. I may men-
tion here that all these inscriptions
now published were seen, and almost
all copied, by Professor Ramsay: ina
few I shared, but their accuracy is so
entirely due to him, that I have not
thought it necessary to make any
distinction among them by means of
initials,
378 APOLLO LERMENUS.
district, and in every case in this immediate vicinity in the first
form. Motella, the Byzantine Metellopolis and modern Medele,
already known from inscriptions, lies within sight across the
river, and Dionysopolis, although its exact position is not fixed,
must be at or near Ortakeui; half an hour to the south-west.
The smaller inscribed fragments found in and about the
temple were eleven in number, but in no case were we able to
establish any inter-connection between them. Of these, six are
evident relics of deeds of enfranchisement similar to the second
half of No. 1, and can be readily restored in any respect, except
names and sanctions, by reference thereto:
(2) ταγραῷ ὁδεῖνα xa lraypag|w τὸν τε]θρεμέν[ον.. . .
OPEMEN .... εἴ τες δὲ ἐ]πευΐ καλεῖ θήσει κ.τ.λ.
JPHCEIT
TTEN
(3) TIENKA 1. + εἰ δέ τις ἐἸπενκα[λεῖ θήσει]
IIPOCTEIM = mpooredul ov is τὸν φέίσκον δὲ κ.τ.λ.
(4) \PHNTOYO .. kata ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ δ᾽ εοῦ, a ee
YLBIALL
The remaining letters may represent ἱερε]ὺς βιασσ[θεὶς ὑπὸ
tov θεοῦ, a formula which occurs below, No. 12.
(5) ONIIAIIL ὁ δεῖνα καταγράφω τὸν τεθραμμέν jov Tami] av?
NWEITICI ᾿Απόλλωνι Λερμη νῷ ᾿ εἴ τις ἐϊ πενκαλεῖ
ΓΙΠΡΟΓΤ θή]σι προοτί είμου κ.τ.λ.
(6) IICKO .... ἐρ τὸν φ)ίσκοίν ¥.... τούτου ἀντί
ΝΑΠΌΚΕΙΤΑ γραφο]ν ἀποκεῖτα[ε εἰς τὸ tepov? ἀρ]
\ION χίον.
ΙΩΝΑΠ
EY=EN
1 See Citics and Dishoprics, p. 379.
APOLLO LERMENUS. 379
Except the name Ev€evos, the rest is lost. There never were
any more letters in line 3 after ION, and it appears that a
number of deeds were inscribed successively on one stone, in
this case, as in those published in Cities and Bishopris,
Nos. 3, 4.
(7) KAIAMIANKA
OEOYEITICAEET
EICTONQIC
[ὁ δεῖνα καταγράφω τὸν δεῖνα] καὶ ᾿Αμίαν κα[τὰ
ἐπιταγὴν τοῦ] θεοῦ ; εἴ τις δὲ ἐπ[ενκαλεῖ
θήσει] εἰς τὸν dia[kov. .. ..
The remaining five are either honorific or uncertain. The
following seems to be honorific:
(8) AILA ? Σὺν Toy lais al γαθαῖς
ZMAIHZH ttous.. ζ΄. wh(vos)a. on. Ζη] νόδοτ-
ΔΙΉΓΥΝΜΟ os κ]αὶ ἡ γυν(ή) μου. . .. ἀν-
ΕΝΤΟΝΕ εστήσαμ]εν TOM Nadi:
ΝΟΣ iT Min aeRO OS! Tecate, wel
EIC
The following may be anything :
ii ΛΕΙ͂Α ap |yeca
ONT
(10) BACTHTAO Σε]βαστή, and perhaps γλουΐ dor,
ΓΝΗΓΑΝ for which see below, note on p. 390.
(11) BA
AIEPA ἱερά, for whom in connection with
AAN this shrine compare below, Nos.
KA 12, &c.
380 APOLLO LERMENUS.
Another has only the letters MEAAI, and another is too frag-
mentary to be worth publication. To conclude these disjecta
membra, a piece of the architrave of the temple, now forming
the lintel of a hut in the gorge below, must be mentioned. It
had been inscribed perhaps with the dedication of the temple,
but some half-effaced and unintelligible letters are all that
remain.
Excavation—which from the natural character of the site
would be easy and comparatively inexpensive—would probably
reveal many other tablets and pedestals of similar purport ; but
enough has been found to demonstrate the importance of the
part once played by this shrine in the social life of the Maeander
valley.
In the neighbouring villages of Ortakeui and Badinlar
we discovered further interesting and important evidence of this.
In the remarkable series of inscriptions which follow, the god
appears as a malignant deity to whose influence is ascribed the
visitation of heaven upon offenders against various points of
religious observance. Many of these offenders represent them-
selves as ἱεροί or ἱεραί, and from the fact that the transgression
is in two or three cases stated to have been committed on the
χωρίον, it is evident that they were resident in or about the
temple itself: at least the remarkable hill on which the latter
stood is the most natural location of this χωρίον, and its vicinity
was apparently distinguished from the neighbouring villages as
consecrated ground. Others again do not appear to be specially
attached to the temple, but simply residents in Motella or
elsewhere. The actual nature of the visitation is not stated,
but it undoubtedly took the form of disease, perhaps malarial
fever, which always hangs about the valley. Six of these in-
scriptions fall into one class, and may represent some one
particular visitation from which the inhabitants of the district
suffered at some period: this may be inferred from the striking
similarity of the appearance of these six stones, and still more
from the extraordinary barbarism of their orthography and
etymology, looking like the work of one illiterate hand. The
supposition that they are couched in some strange dialect
peculiar to this valley is precluded by the utter absence of any
phonetic or philological uniformity in their strange aberrations,
and by the existence of similar inscriptions in the same localities
APOLLO LERMENUS. 381
in ordinary Greek. The application to the vowels of the
phonetic laws obtaining in the modern language will go a little
way, but will not explain all varieties, while the frequent omission
of necessary consonants, and substitution of false ones, points to
the ignorance and carelessness of a particular lapicide. If, as
has been suggested to me,’ he was in the habit of cutting all
the perpendicular strokes first, and then working back to make
the horizuntal and curved, some explanation may be found for
the presence of N where TT should be, Γ where E, P where Φ,
T where Γ, and vice versd. The letters were as a rule clearly
cut and well preserved, and the strange orthography is not due
to the copyist: most of them were seen and most carefully
examined by both Professor Ramsay and myself. Their inter-
pretation is as strange to the province of philology as epigrapliy,
and is sheer puzzle-guessing in many cases, and I cannot hope
to have done more than suggested a possible solution of many
of their worst lines, with all the labour that I have expended
upon them. Any one who criticises such solutions must bear in
utind the extraordinary variants which present themselves in
the really certain portions of the inscriptions, e.g. KOAAOIN,
ΚΟΛΑΘΕΣΑ, KOAAZOEI2, and KOAE@EI2; ΕΠΟ and
THO in the same inscription; EMAPTHNKENAI and
HMAPTHKEINEI; KATA®OPNHZFI, KATA®PEINH-
XYEI, and ΚΑΤΑΦΡΟΝΕΙ͂Ν and so forth. The motive of these
inscriptions may be paralleled from certain others published in
the Μουσεῖον τῆς Σμύρνης. The five are as follows :—
(12) In the wall of a house in Badinlar: broken at the
top.
IOEICATAOHME
OYIEPABIAOICA
YTIOAYTOYKEHMA
PTHCAETHKGOKOA
AOECAETIOTOYOE 5
ΟΥ̓ΕΠΙΟΚΕΓΤΗΛΟΠ
1 By the Rev. H. A. Wilson, of 2 Nos. ti’, τκζ', tay’, τλδ', TAB’,
Magdalen College Oxford, towhomlam vay’, vas’, va’, vt’, to which my
indebted for one or two other sugges- attention was called by Professor
lions in the guessing of these puzzles. liamsay.
es Ὁ, VILL. CC
382 APOLLO LERMENUS.
PADHCENTIAPAT
EAGONMHAENAKA
ΤΑΦΡΟΝΕΙ
ἡ δεῖνα ἡ] (π)ό(σ)ις 2 ᾿Αγα(θ)ημέ[ρ]ου ἱερὰ βιαθῖσα ὑπὸ
αὐτοῦ κὲ ἡμάρτησα ἐτήκω κολαθεσα ἐπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐπὶ ὁ
a RW Ae we παραγέλων μηδένα καταφρονεῖν τὸν θεόν.
.) wife of Agathemerus, a servant of the god, having
been forced by him (z.e. Agathemerus) and sinned, wasted away
under the punishment of the god; after which she also set up
a stone, advising none to despise the god.”
At least one line has been lost at the top of this stone, but it
is complete at the bottom. The general character of the lady’s
offence would seem to be intercourse with her husband while
engaged in the service of the temple; possibly the women of
the neighbourhood served for short periods in turn, and during
such periods were expected to keep free from the pollution of
sexual intercourse: on any other supposition the mention of the
husband would be strange, and a similar explanation suits the
following text also :
(13) In the wall of a house at Badinlar, on a stele with
pediment, a good deal defaced, but otherwise complete.
Atte////// /'|/NIOY
Μ᾽ ΟΤΕΛΛΗΝΟΓΕΖΟΜΟΛΟΓΟῪ
M |EKOAACOEILYTIOTOYOE|OY
ETT|EIHOEAHCAMEINE ME!TA
CYNIEKOCAIATOYTOOYNTT |A ~ 5
P/ANFEASNACINM////AE
N/IKALAI////OMHTOOE@E ITT
ΓΖΊΕΙΙ 40 (\IAHNEZ ON
ILAAPION METAT HC
E|MII~ YNEKOC 10
BAEIAIAOC
The arrangement of the letters on the stele is so erratic that
it is hard to be always certain how many have dropped out:
probably one in line 4, two? in line 7, besides those lacunae
APOLLO LERMENUS. 383
which are obvious. I subjoin a conjectural restoration and
translation :—
᾿Απέϊλλης ᾿Απολλ]ωνίου Μοτελληνὸς ἐξομολογοῦμε κολασ-
θεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπεὶ ἤἠθέλησα μεῖνε μετὰ γυνεκός" διὰ τοῦτο
οὖν παρανγέλω (π)ᾶσιν μ[η]δένα κα(τ)α(φ) ρ]6(ν)ὴ τῷ θεῶ ἐπὶ
ἕξει (τη) ὀ[μ]λην 1 ἔξ[οὗ τ]ὸν (στ)ὴηλάριον ἰ μετὰ τῆς ἐμί(ῆς)
γυνεκὸς Βασιλίδος.
There are many points here which, to say the very least, are
doubtful: it is conceivable that more letters have dropped out
in line 4 and owAnv 15, for these inscriptions, not out of the way
for ὁμιλίαν. I will hazard the conjecture that the last letters
conceal the name BACIAIAOL, and that a verb has either
dropped out after it, or is understood. No letters would then
be required in line 10.
‘I Apelles, son of Apollonius, make my confession, having
been punished by the god for wishing to remain with my wife :
wherefore I recommend to all that none despise the god when
he shall have intercourse? whereupon (I erected) this tablet
together with my wife Basilis ?’
The wife in this case again is ἱερά, and, when not ‘in course,’
resident with her husband at Motella. Perhaps he, too uxorious,
had detained her beyond the date at which she should have
taken up her abode at the temple.
The next three ascend:a scale of difficulty and obscurity :
14. At Badinlar
IIALOYATIOAA
ut AITOHMAPTHK
—INEIETIEITOXOPITINCE
TYXEIKAIAIHOATHN
Ko MHBANAFNAAHMON 5
HCATTAPH MHEICTHNK@MH
TIAPATEAG MHAEILKATAO
PEINHCEIT@OENETEIEZ
EITHNCEIAHNEZOTIPAPE!
EPAICETONMETONHTIPOFEMENE 10
IIINX€ELCKAIEZCOMOAOTHCA
HIINTTITK AVELRAOHLO
3t4 APOLLO LERMENUS.
One or two letters may be missing at the end of the last
line. The right side is a little worn and a letter here and there
has gone.
... Adp](n)Alov ᾿Απολλ[ωνέ]γου) δι(ὰ) τὸ ἡμαρτηκ(ε)ένει" ἐπεὶ
τῷ χωρί(ῳ) ἰσετύχει καὶ διῆθα τὴν κώμη(ν) ἄναγνα λημον [τ]ῆς
ἀπάρηίς) “ μὴ εἰς THY κωμη[ ν]. Παραγέλω μηδεὶς καταφρεινή-
σεὶ τῷ Oew@<v> ἐπεὶ ἕ(ξ)ει τὴν σείλην 1 ἐξ ο(ὗ) π(α)ρα(βδ)ει ole?
(β)αισετον μετον ? ἡ πρὸ (τ)εμένε[ος] [ἀτΊυχεις καὶ ἐξωμολογη-
σάϊμην] καὶ εἰ(κ)α(θ)ηζόϊμην] . 1
It would be idle to defend this restoration at any length; the
latter part is only possible on the supposition that the lapicide
knew next to nothing of Greek, at least as a written language.
The fault committed is pretty clear—the transgression of a
definite injunction against entering a certain village without
purification. ᾿Απάρη I have little doubt is for ἐπάρη, and the
concluding σ᾽ has fallen out by carelessness ; διῆθα must repre-
sent διῆ(λ)θα (i.e. διῆλθε, for nothing is so shaky as the verb
and substantive terminations in these inscriptions), and λήμον,
λή(σ)μων. So far there is some approach to certainty, but the
meaning of σείλην is most obscure: can it be for σάλην, 1.2.
‘sickness’ or ‘trouble’?! The next words are hopeless: my
suggestion that they represent an aorist form of βαίνω is the
last effort of despair, and the change of subject does not add
to the probability of the conjecture: μετὸν I hardly venture to
suggest as representing werd in its compounded sense of
‘behind, the following πρό is the only justification I can
offer: εἰκαθηζόμην may be compared with εἰστηλογράφησα in
No. 15.
{νὸν wife of Aurelius Apollonius because she had sinned
since she chanced upon the high place and passed through the
village, unpurified, forgetting the ban against entering the
village. I recommend none to despise the god since (if he does
so) he will have trouble because he transgressed (?) You must
go behind or before the sacred enclosure. Being in evil plight
I both confessed and sat as a suppliant.’ ?
If there is any intelligibility in this interpretation, a village
1 Mr, Ramsay suggests that CEIAHN __ be a lapicide’s error for TT and A have
conceals ATTEIAHN, in th: sense of dropped out before it.
‘the threatened punishment’: C might
APOLLO LERMENUS. 385
must have lain about the temple and within the pale forbidden
to all but ἱεροί.
oN
(15) | METACATIOAA@AEI MHNC |
IL
At Badinlar CODPONIEPOCKOAEOL
ETTOATIOAAGNOLCAEI
MHNOY AEITOEMAP
TANKENEITOICTPIMOIC 5
ΕΙΔΑΓΤΗΝΚΛΗΓΕΙΠΟ
ΚΕΙΤΟΓΖΗΝΕΙΔΆΑΓΑΠΟ
AWNOYMAKEAOLKAI
AMAZONALKAY EIKOI
AXE////TALAILEZOMOA///// τὸ
HCA MENOLEICTHAOP!
DHCATIAPALEAW MIIAqI
CK ATAPOPNHLEIETEIT
OX CHMNEVACI ELIT
//[ENCY 15
With the exception of one or two illegible lacunae this stele
is complete. Unfortunately, while its forms are slightly less
obscure than those of the preceding inscription, its general sense
is far more so, and the most important part, the description of
the offence, is not the least uncertain. The unnecessary dot in
the O of line 4, and the closing of the H in line 5 prepare us
for unusual aberrations in the sequel, and the end of the latter
line is the first difficulty. After trying all variations and con-
sidering the common sound of ἐ, οὐ, ὑ, ἡ and εἰ in modern Greek,
I can only suggest that it is a phonetic rendering of ὑπειστρέφησα,
an aorist formed from ὑποστρέφω by ignorant analogy, as in the
preceding text I conjectured that ἔβησα was used as aorist of
βαίνω. Τῇ so, it will mean ‘I turned round, and E!AA(C) should
be the thing turned ; from line 9, where εἰκό(ν)α isa pretty certain
reading, the inference arises that some indignity paid to temple
garniture is here in question: can ecdas then = ἕδος, a seat or
386 APOLLO LERMENUS.
stool, perhaps a votive tripod ? It recurs in the next line, and, sup-
posing ’Azro[A]Awvouv to be a mistake rather for ᾿Απολλωνέου
than ᾿Απόλλωνος which is rightly spelt in the heading above, it
would then mean ‘the seat of Apollonius the Macedonian,’ (the
omission of a syllable of Maxeé(ov)os is nothing surprising.)
‘and the Amazons,’ (some well-known votive group in the pre-
cinct), ‘and a statue of Chelidia’(?) I leave this suggestion to
those versed in ill-spelt texts, and return to the greatest difficulty
of all, viz. the words following the first evdas, and presumably
defining its identity: KAHCE looks like κλῆσις which, from the
sense of ‘name, passed into the later one of mere ‘word, and
ITTOKEITO(C) must have some relation to ὑπόκειμαι. The
general reference appears to be to a chair over which was written
a name contained in the letters ZHN, which may represent the
poetic name of Ζεύς or a partially obliterated Ζήν(ωνος), or the
like; but I cannot suggest any probable construction, and must
append only an imperfect cursive text and translation.
Μέγας ᾿Απόλλω Λειμηνός.
Σόφρον ἱερὸς κολε(θε)ὶς ἐπὸ ᾿Απόλλωνος Λειμηνοῦ δ(ιὰ) τὸ
ἐμαρτηνκενε. (ὑ)π(ε)στρ(ἐ)φησα 1 Exu>d(o)s?......... 21
ἕςι;δ(ο)ς 1 ᾿Απο[λ]λων(ῶου Maxed(av)os καὶ ᾿Αμάζονας xa(t)
εἰκό(ν)α Χε[λ]ιδέα--ι:-ς- ἐξομολ[ ογ]ησάμενος εἰστηλογ[ράφησα
παρα(γγ)έλων μί(ηδε)ὶς κατα(φρο)νήσει éem<e>t τῷ χωρίῳ
"Am[oAAwvo]s [Λει]μενοῦ.
‘Great is Apollo Lermenus. I Sophron, the servant of the
temple, having been punished by Apollo Lermenus, since 1 had
turned round (or over?) the chair... ., the chair of Apollonius
the Macedonian, and the Amazons, and the statue of Chelidia (?),
made confession and set up a tablet, recommending that none
despise the god, upon the high place of Apollo Lermenus.’
Chelidia is an unknown name, and, as I have indicated, the
stele is a little worn at this place: but Χελέδων is found in
C.I.G. 4595.2 The metathesis in καταφορνήσει reveals the care-
lessness of the lapicide. The last words prove that this stcle,
probably like all the others, originally stood in the temple
1 The suggestions which occurred to texts appears over bold, I must crave
me for the filling upof this lacunaand indulgence for the disinclination of
that in the following text, I have, in human nature to ‘give up’ a puzzle.
deference to more experienced dpinion, 2 Also the name of Verres’ mistress.
suppressed. If anything in the other
APOLLO LERMENUS. 387
precinct; and if the restoration were not so uncertain, it might
be an interesting addition to our knowledge of the character
and contents of the temple on the Maeander.
(16) Stele on the wall of a house at Badinlar: below the
inscription a rude representation of two legs and the generative
organs,
HAIOC
ras
Ν PXO
BRS ah =
AHMOCTPATOYMOTEA
HNOCKOAAOINETIOTOOFr
5 OYTIAPATEAWNMHAI
CANAIIONANABHTETTITOX
WPIONETTPOKHCIHKHNE
ETETONOPXICEF WIE
AHKHNH=AMHNETTITOX
10 WPIWN.
This inscription is a piece of very careless work: κολαθιν, To
θεοῦ, μηλ(ει)ς and so forth are transparent errors. In line 6,
there has been a cross-stroke between the two uprights in the
fifth place, looking like the cross-bar of a 7, very low down;
the letter was probably N and the whole word ANA(TN)ON used
as an adverb. ANABHTE is probably ἀναβῆται. I cannot
satisfactorily interpret the last four lines of this text, which
appears to be equally obscure and obscene. The forms
KHNE[C JETE and HKHNHCAMHN are probably connected with
κινέω : but ETIPOKHCI and the connection of ὄρχις with the
preceding words I must give up.
(Α)ὐρήλιος Σωτηρχὸς Δημοστράτου Μοτελληνὸς κολαθζε)ὶ(ς)
ἐπὸ το(ῦ) θεοῦ, παραγ(γ)έλ(λ)ων μη(δεὶ)ὴς ἄνα(γν)ον ἀναβῆτ(αι)
rr a ὄρχις - ἔγωγε (δ)
(ἠκηνησάμην 1) ἐπὶ τὸ χωρίζ(ο)ν.
The first letters of Aurelius are cut far away on the left as
indicated : Soterchus is a name known to Pape.
(17) Stele broken at the left hand top corner, high up in the
388 APOLLO LERMENUS.
wall of a house at Ortakeui: although in a somewhat in-
accessible position, the letters were easily read by us both, and
may be taken as certain:
KAOAPI OICKEOYCIAICL
YPIONINAMYTOEMONCW
LIKEMOTIC MEATIOKAOELCT*CE
ICW MATIAIOTIAPAN EAAGOMHO
ὃ ENAIEPONAOYTONAICFOTOMIONELOE
INETEITTAOITETACEMALCEMALKOA
ACEIC
This stele was a fortunate find for several reasons: its purport
is sufficiently clear and very interesting ; and, being more care-
fully cut and better spelt than the preceding texts, while
showing evident traces of similar aberrations, it can be used as
a commentary on them, and a justification of otherwise impro-
bable interpretations. For example, we have παραγγέλλω nearly
‘ correct for the first time, and the verb and substantive termi-
nations are uniformly normal : but μηθένα and ἔσθειν are obvious
errors, and ma@ite,1 which ought to have a future sense (unless
it be a ‘habitual’ aorist), shows an instructive uncertainty in
tense usage: MY, which must be μοί, is a common phonetic
variant, but QMCE for ὄψε suggests that y was unknown to
the lapicide, and indeed it is never once found on these inscrip-
tions. AITOTOMION is probably a single word, coined for the
occasion and meaning a goat-steak; it might be for aiy(a)
τόμιον ἐσθίειν = ‘to eat, cut into pieces, but would not possess
much meaning. The second M in line 3 is difficult to account
for, on any other supposition than that of a pure lapicide’s error,
similar to the reduplication of ἐμάς in line 6. There is not very
much to guide the restorer in the mutilated lines 1 to 4, but,
luckily the purport of the whole does not depend thereon to
any serious extent. Comment on the whole I will postpone to
the end of the set.
[(Mame) ...] Kxadap[p]ois? κὲ (θ)υσίαις (ἐϊτέίμησα ? τὸν
κ]ύριον (?)va pu τὸ ἐμὸν colpa σώωώζ]ει 3 κε μ' O<p>e
1 Perhaps παθῖτε for afuture madeira, for a larger letter after the P than I.
3 There appeared to be space enough About ten letters have gone in line 2.
APOLLO LERMENUS. 389
ὰ
ἀποκαθέστησε [τῷ ἐμ](ῷ) σώματι: δι᾿ ὃ παρανγέλλω μηθένα
ἱερὸν ἄθυτον αἰγοτόμιον ἐσθειν ἐπεὶ πάθιτε τὰς ἐμὰς «εμας -..
κολάσεις.
(I... .] honoured the Lord? with purifications and burnt
sacrifices, that he might rescue my body, and at length he healed
me in my body: wherefore I recommend that none eat a sacred
goat-steak which may not be sacrificed: for he will suffer my
afflictions (if he does so).’
In line 8 σώζει, if right, must be a phonetic misspelling for
σώζοι (ev and οὐ are proncunced alike in modern Greek) ;
κουφίζοι would be better, but, unless the letters were much
crowded, there seems bardly room for it: in the next line the
letters of σώματι are so crowded, and four letters are not too
much to supply before the broken 0).
(18) Stele in the wall of a house at Badinlar, broken on the
left side and the bottom; its triangular head shows the middle
of the lines of the inscription to be at A in line 1.
HTIAAHCATTA Ασκλ |nriadns ᾿Αττά-
EPOCKOAAL Rov ἱερὸς κολασ-
ΠΟΤΟΥΕΠιΙφΦ Peis ὑ]πὸ τοῦ ἐπιῴ-
ΓΑΤΟΥΘΕΟΥ͂ aveot ώτου θεοῦ
5 \QNOCAAP "Amor |Aw@vos Aap-
TITTENDOEIC pyvov ὅτι πενφθείς
OAOTIANIMA εἰς ἀπο]λογίαν ἡμά-
ΙΚΑΙΟΤΙ ρτηκεν] καὶ ὅτι...
If the third complete letter of line 7 is really a T, we have
here the name of some unknown village: but it is more than
probable that it is either a mistake for a [, or has been wrongly
copied, owing to the horizontal stroke being cut too far to the
left of the upright. If so ὁμολογίαν or ἀπολογίαν can be
restored. The letters become smaller and more crowded from
line 6 downwards. We are again in the region of ordinary
Greek and a translation is unnecessary, for the meaning of
πε(μ)φθείς εἰς ἀπολογίαν can hardly be determined without
the last portion of the inscription.
(19) Stele, of which only the mutilated top remains, in
Badinlar. ,
390
AOAAIOCATIOAW
HAIWOMOCAL
AB
APOLLO LERMENUS.
Λόλλιος ᾿Απόλω
νι ᾿Ηλίῳ ὄμοσας
One or two more letters in line 3 were wholly illegible. This,
with the following, is probably honorific, but is added here to
complete those referring to Apollo.
(20) Stele in the wall of a house at Badinlar, broken on the
right side, but otherwise complete ?
ACKA/
NIOCAI
IEPOCCAN
YTIEPATTO
5 NANTPA
MENOIATIC
Since ᾿Ασκλ{ζᾶς is almost certainly the necessary restoration
in the first line, and ᾿ΑπόλλωἼ]νιος seems to follow it, only half
the original stele is here preserved, and any restoration must
be somewhat conjectural. The following I suggest as its original
form :—
᾿Ασκλζᾶς καὶ ᾿Απολλώ]νιος ᾿Α(π) ολλωνέίου] ἱερός. ς;:»
ἀν[εστήσαμεν] ὑπὲρ ᾿Απο[λλωνίου ... . . εὐξάμενοι ᾿Από]λ-
λωνι.
Notwithstanding the considerable element of uncertainty in
most of these inscriptions, they assuredly add something to our
knowledge of this cult of Apollo, who divided with Leto the
Mother! the religious supremacy in this portion of the Maeander
1 See Cities and Bishoprics of
Phrygia, p. 375. In connexion with
this goddess an inscription is there
published (No. 7) from the mosque at
Ortakeui, which Professor Ramsay had
an opportunity of examining again this
year. The first name appears now to be
NEIOC, but little light was thrown
on the obscure 6th line: instead of
KEKOAAOITD...., Professor
Ramsay read this year KEKOAA-
OICAIN ... κὲ kora(a)6(e))s. What
TONFAOYOPON, which was
read on both oceasions, may be, is hard
to say : could it be FAOYQPON
and be a barbarous word, connected
with γλύφω, and meaning an inscrip-
tion? The last lines would then mean,
‘and I having been chastised erected —
the inscription as an offering to Leto
the Mother.’
APOLLO LERMENUS. 391
valley. We have found the central shrine, once evidently replete
with inscribed tablets, emancipatory, honorific and votive:
adorned with statues and possibly other votive objects, such as
tripods: situated on a consecrated ywpdov and surrounded by a
κώμη lying within the pale which none might enter without
purification. The service of the temple was done by members
of hieratic families, male and female, normally resident in the
neighbourhood, but performing their sacred duties in certain
courses (?), and separated, during such periods, from their
ordinary avocations and family relations. To them belongs, as
perquisite, the sacrificial meat, after it has been formally offered
to Apollo. Any offence against sacrificial observance or the de-
mands of the position of a ἱερός is heid to be visited directly upon
the offender by the god, and indeed other offences, if followed by
illness or other misfortune, seem to be considered as under his
cognisance. In atonement the offender makes public confession,
doubtless in the temp’e, and erects a votive tablet recording the
same. Even without the dubious inscription No. 16 we should
naturally infer the character of the worship to be orgiastic, like
Phrygian worship in general and that of Leto the Mother in
particular, and possibly its sensual elements may account for
the reluctance of Apelles (No. 13) to allow his wife to take up
her required residence at the shrine. The whole set of inscrip-
tions form a curious memorial of the religious life of this pastoral
district in the period immediately antecedent to the general
spread of Christianity through Phrygia by the labours of
St. Abercius.
I will add a few inscriptions gathered from the villages lying
around the shrine, but not relating directly to it. The first is
a most interesting fragment relative to the regulation of vine-
yards, which still cover the hill slopes of this fertile district, a
district which, compared to most of the great central plateau, is
a smiling garden; and the city’s name proves their great import-
ance of old in this region. The fragment is unfortunately too
much mutilated to tell us more than that these were strict vine
laws, apparently in the interest of the δεσπόται τῶν ἀμπέλων.
It is an altar-shaped marble stele in the courtyard of a
house at Develar, half-an-hour south-west of Ortakeui: it
1 Tbid. p. 384.
392 APOLLO LERMENUS.
was originally 24} inches in breadth, but a piece has been
broken off the right-hand side, reducing the breadth at the
first legible line to 18} inches, the breakage becoming slightly
narrower towards the bottom. It is also broken at the top,
wholly illegible at the base, and much worn on the left edge
where one or two letters must be allowed for in every line. The
letters which are very indistinct in many places, are well and
carefully cat in small characters, and the whole has the appear-
ance of a public document of importance.
(ZA) yienew? avedeaed ἢ παρῇς ἀξομῖ
EZANTEAQN!S A QNAHTI
TITINAY TACHPOOAL(II1)HU'T(OY)TIN AO
ENATIC!!K(E)ANAETICITAPATAY TATIO
ENAELCTIOTAICTQNAMEAQNKTOY
5 YTEPAYTQNTOTIPAPFMAAIENENKHT/
ENTECAMTEAOILBOCKHMATAHO
PEINKATEXINPOCTWBAABHTTAN—
VV TANQCANTICBOYAHTETOYCAENC
~MENAOYAOYCTPOLCAFFEAAOMENOYE
10 \WAYTOITINOMENOILCTIAPADY AAZINMAL
CTOATEXECXECOEAY TOYCH-E(T)IIIONOYI
EINEAEKEK TQNAAAQNTTAPXONTONTHE
IK ENZX YPACIANIOIICOETTAPATQNAELCTIOTS
EMMATONETIOIMENONTQNAEYOEPQNETOIE
15 NTQNXQPIQNQN(H) AYCANTQNTOYCTIOIMN
\CTACANTEA
SEMOMKO! τῷ
ΣΟ TON 2
The loss of the top, and from six to four letters on one —
side, and two, as a rule, on the other, makes a satisfactory
restoration impossible. In lines 5, 12, 13, 14, and 16 no letters
APOLLO LERMENUS. 393
are wanting on the left, and in 15 perhaps none on the right.
I have inclosed in brackets one or two doubtful letters.
.. ἐξ ἀνπέλων (ἤ κ)χῶν(α) ἤ πίτόρθον κόπτιν ἤ BX ?-
ἀά]πτιν αὐτὰς ἢ προφάσί(ε)ι ἤ........
ἐν ἀπο(θή) κ(ῃ) ἂν δέ τις παρὰ ταῦτα πο[ιήση ..
. ἐν δεσπόταις τῶν ἀμπέλων K(al) [......
5 ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν τὸ πρᾶγμα Suevévent(a)[r....
ἐν τ(αϊ)ὴς ἀμπέλοις βοσκήματα ἢ ο[ΐας ἢ....
ἄγειν ἢ κατέχιν πρὸς τὴν βλάβην ἀν[ϊπέλων ...
τ]ούτων, σαν τις βούλητε, τοὺς δὲ πο[ιμένας τ-
ovs| μὲν δούλους προσαγγελλομένους ...
10... αὐτοι γινομένοις παραφυλαξιν μάστιγας 1
i]s τὸ ἀπέχεσ-χες:θε αὐτοὺς [τ]ῆς ἐπι(π)ύνου 1
... δὲ κ(αὶ) ἐκ τῶν ἄλλων ὑπαρχόντων τῆς ....
κ(αὶ) ἐνεχυρασίαν ποιῖσθε παρὰ τῶν δεσπότωΪν κ(αὶ)θρ-
εμμάτων κ(αὶ) ποιμένων τῶν ἐλευθέρων .....
15 .. τῶν χωρίων ..... λυσώντων τοὺς ποιμέν-
(αὴς τὰς ἀνπέλ[ους.
20) , , .
. ἔποικοι
. δοῦλοι.
(22) In the precinct of the mosque at Develar: altar-
shaped marble stele, much worn on each side, but otherwise
complete.
HPS2ONKAIOTI
¥TONTOTIOCA
MOQNOCAIOMHAC
¥APEMQNOCC*¥
5 PHCINAAR2QNTO¥
¥TITAPATO¥ AHMO¥
ETEOCENQKHAE
EAEOAPEMS2NA
MHAYTO¥XPYCOTT
934 APOLLO LERMENUS.
10 CETEPS2AEMHAENIC
ΤΑΙΠΑΡΑΤΑΓΕΓΡΑΜΜ
ΕΙΔΕΤΙΓΕΠΙΙΗΔΕΎΥΓΕ
ΗΓΕΙΤΟΙΕΡΤΑΤΩΤΑ
ILS APAXMACROTO¥
15 TO¥TOANTIFPADONATEE
@HICTAAPXEIA
To]np@ov καὶ ὁ πἴερ-
ὶ αἸὐτὸν τόπος ᾿Α[ρτ-
ἔϊμωνος Διομήδο[ζυς
το]ῦ ᾿Αρτέμωνος συΪνχ-
5 @lpynow λαβὼν τοῦτο-
πο]υ παρὰ τοῦ δήμου.
eT<T>E0S * ἐν ᾧ κήδε[ύσε-
τε δὲ ὁ ᾽Αρτεμων Kali ἡ γ-
υ]7 ν)) αὐτοῦ Χρυσόπ[ολ-
10 ἧς" ἑτέρῳ δὲ μηδένι ἐ[ξέσ-
ται παρὰ τὰ γεγραμμέν-
a]: εἰ δέ τις ἐπι(κ)ηδέυσε[υ
θ]ήσει τῷ ἱερωτάτῳ τα μ-
(εδίῳ δραχμὰς Bq’ " τού-
1ὅ του τὸ ἀντίγαφον ἀπετέ-
θη is τὰ ἀρχεῖα.
The second T in ligature in line 7 is a lapicide’s error: there
appeared to be no trace of letters before ἔτεος, and the numeral
must have been in the preceding line.
The following are from Medele (Motella) : the first I give in
cursives only, since we had not sufficient opportunity of noting
its uncial forms. It is cut on an oblong tablet, once fastened to
a wall by two projecting wings. The present possessor, who,
for some reason only known to himself, had coloured it purple,
demanded an exorbitant price for a permission to copy it;
failing to bring him to reason, Mr. Ramsay kept him in play,
while I learnt the inscription by heart.
(23) ᾿Αγαθῇ τύχῃ Διί Σωτῆρι
καὶ θεοῖς σεβαστοῖς καί
τῷ δήμῳ τῷ Μοτελληνῶν
APOLLO LERMENUS. 395
ἤΛτταλος ᾿Αττάλου Ζήν-
wvos τὴν ἐξέδραν καί
τὴν στουὰν παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἀπο-
καθέστησεν ἔτους σκά
μί(ῆνος) ὍὙπερβερταίου δεκάτῃ.
The year is equivalent to 137 A.D. Hyperbertaeus was one
of the Macedonian months which were imported into Asia
Minor.
(24) Fragment in the wall of a house.
ΓΛΥΚΕΙ͂Α . . γλυκεῖα
APIN ae x |apuv
(25) Fragment in the wall of a house, rudely cut.
AHM Δημ[ ὄστρατος M |nvoyévol us ᾿Απολλω ]νίῳ
HNOTENO
NIWIAIWY ἰδίῳ vi io μνήμης] χάριν
ΧΑΡΙΝ
The two following were copied in 1888 by Mr. J. Β. 5. Sterrett,
while travelling with Professor Ramsay :
(26) Altar-shaped stele broken at the base.
AMMIABPYQNOZSBPYQ “Appia Βρύωνος Βρύωνι καὶ
ΝΙΚΑΙΠΑΠΙΑΤΟΙΣΕΑΥ Παπίᾳ τοῖς ἑαυτῆς τεκνοῖς τὸ
ΤΗΣΤΕΚΝΟΙΣΤΟΜΝΗ μν(ν)ημεῖον ἐκ τῶ(ν) ἰδίων
MEIONEKTQIAIQN ἐποίησεν μνήμης [χάριν
ΕΠΟΙΗΣΕΝΜΝΗΜΗΣ
(27) Altar-shaped stele, in the precinct of the mosque,
complete.
ETO¥=Z=ACMH Ἔτους σλξ΄ μῆνοφ (Δ)είου ζ΄.
ΝΟΣΛΕΙΟΥΖΑΜ ᾿Αμμία Μηνοφίλου ᾿Αμμίᾳ Πα-
ΜΙΑΜΗΝΟΦΙΛΟΥ͂ΑΜ πίου θυγατρὶ idia ἐποίησεν
ΜΙΑΠΑΠΙΟΥΘΥΎΓΑ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων, μνήμην χάριν
ΤΡΙΙΔΙΑΕΠΟΙΗΣΕΝ
ΕΚΤΩΝΙΔΙΩΝΜΗ
ΜΗΣΧΑΡΙΝ
396 APOLLO LERMENUS.
The year is equivalent to 151 a.D.; Dios is anoth2r imported
Macedonian month. "'
The following Christian inscription is cut in semicircular fashion
in poor letters of late period upon a stone, now built into the wall
above the door of the mosque at Keuseli, a village about an
heur north-east of Medele.
cLACTHPIONETIIK yy 4
O
x
400
a ;
~ Ο
v ~
Β
cae (oP
< Θ
ae >
Σ ᾿
Ἐν τ
” aA
4 =
Ξ -
-- πόντος
(28)
+ Ἰνδ(ικτίωνος) Sx’ μῆ(νος) dit! «d+ ἀνέστη τὸ θυσιαστήριον
5 \ - A / ,
ἐπὶ Κυριακοῦ τοῦ θεοφιλεστ(άτου) ἐπισκ(όπου).
The order of the numerals in the date is strange: &&@’ must
belong altogether to the Indiction, as a 20th year is impossible
in this reckoning: if so, the last numeral of all must be the
year, and, following the small marks to the right of the numerals,
I have divided the whole as above. (17th day of the 150 month
of the 10th year of the 24th Indiction). Reckoning from the
Constantinople era (312 A. D.), we get 667 A.D. as the date at
which this θυσιαστήριον was erected in the episcopate of Cyriac.
According to Dr. Lightfoot! the θυσιαστήριον was rather the
sacrarium in which the altar stood, than the altar itself: in
this case it was possibly an addition to a previously existing
church.
Returning to the other side of the Maeander, the following
sepulchral stelae were found in Ortakeui this year :
1 Apostolic Fathers, vol. ii. p. 43.
APOLLO LERMENUS. 397
(29) (Also copied in 1883).
TATIAAAEZANAP©O Τατία ᾿Αλεξάνδρῳ Μηνάδος-
MHNAAOCIAI@ ἰδίῳ ἀνδρὶ μετὰ τῶν τέκνων
ΑΝΔΡΙΜΕΤΑΤΩΝΤΕ μνείας χάριν ἐποίησεν.
KNGONMNEIACXA
PINETTOIHCEN 5
(30) CWITATPW Σωπάτρῳ.
(Relief of a man standing).
TIATIIACMETATWN Παπιάς μετὰ τῶν velov μνήμης
YEIWNMNIMHCXAGIN χάριν.
The following were copied by Professor Ramsay and
Mr. Sterrett in 1883:
(31) TATIANOCTPICTOYMHNOAQ
JY THCAYKYTATHTEKOYCHME!
INHKAIFNHCIAT YNAIKIAMMIAK
OYTATPIAMMIAKAIEAYTQLYN
TOICMNHMHEXAPIN
Τατίανος τρὶς τοῦ Μηνοδώ[ρ]ου
τῇ γλυκυτάτῃ τεκούσῃ Me[AT ivy
καὶ γνησίᾳ γυναικὶ ᾿Αμμίᾳ
κ[αὶ] θυγατρὶ Αμμίᾳ καὶ ἑαυτῷ
ὅ σὺν [αὐ]τοῖς μνήμης χάριν.
(832) ΑΠΟΛΛΩΝΙΟΓΠΑΠΙΑΤ Απολλώνιος, Nara τῳ]
AAEAQ@MNEIALXA ἀδελφῷ μνείας χαριν.
ΡΙΝ
(33) MAPKOCOIAIN Μάρκος Φιλέππῳ τῷ πατρί
TTWTWITATPI μνήμης evexev.
MNHMHCENE
KEN
(34) On a fragment of the architrave of a large grave.
A - ATIDIATC φλ(αβία) ᾿Απφία τί. ........ ἐκ)
TOINAIS τῶ(ν) i(d)c(w)v.....
BS. VO.) ὙΠ᾿ DD
398 APOLLO LERMENUS.
(35) Right half of a stele.
HP ial ys gaaotas o
OTH ΝΆ vane o SAE
οὐ AM ota cue wns «Pe
THI [᾿Ασκληπιῷ Σω Ἰτῆρι
MENH ove εὐξα μένη
HNAN e τὴν στήλην ave-
| Onxev |
These fragments were found in Badinlar.
(36) Stele bearing a rude relief of a sitting figure, feet resting
on a high stool, facing the spectator; on the sides, two birds
drinking out of dishes. Broken at top; beneath—
OMOIQCKAIHE YNMOYZQOCIMEETIOIE!
ὁμοίως Kal ἡ γυνή μου Zwalun ἐποίει.
(37) In the wall of a house: a fragment.
MOTEAAHNOI Μοτελληνοί.
(38) Finally a small sepulchral stele in a cemetery on the
right-hand side of the new road to Demirdjikeui, near the village
of Seid.
OINEOI Οἱ νέοι Διονύσιον τὸν Γραμματοφύ-
AIONYCION λακα' ἐν ᾧ οὐδεὶς ἕτερος κη-
ΤΟΝΓΡΑΜΜΑ δευθηΐ σεται.
TODYAAKA
ENQOYAEIC
ETEPOCKH
AEYOH
This belongs to the κοινόν of the Hyrgalean Plain.
Below is appended Professor Ramsay’s own account of two other
inscriptions of the district.
APOLLO LERMENUS. 399
‘The following inscription I copied in 1887, in the court-yard of a
house in the village of Kabalar about sunset. I give the transcrip-
tion in cursive without the epigraphic text, which is so engraved
as to defy reproduction except by a careful drawing. It gives the
names of two villages in the territory either of Dionysopolis or
of Mossyna; and it proves that the name of Salsalouda which I
gave in my Cities and Bishoprics (J.H.S., 1883, p. 386) should be
Salouda, the first syllable having been doubled by an error of
the engraver.
The stone is covered with rude sculptures, portraits of the
persons enumerated, and the names are engraved in the
rudest style in the most irregular way between the reliefs. Two
hodjas,' unfortunately, were in the court-yard; one of them was
firmly resolved that I should not copy the inscription, the other
was willing to let me see it for a consideration. The former was
almost prepared to use violence in defence of the stone,
threatening it and me with a pickaxe; at one time when he
actually seized me by the shoulder, I thought that fighting was
unavoidable, but a few words induced him to remove his hand
and trust to the pickaxe again. In the circumstances it was
rather difficult to use the rapidly diminishing light to the best
advantage. Next morning we all went in a body to the house,
but bribes would not induce the hodjas to allow us again to
enter the court; without leave one cannot well enter a Turkish
house, though after leave is once given to enter, one does not
feel bound to retire as soon as the owner gets tired of one’s
society. I have therefore no description of the stone and its
reliefs ; and also I feel sure that examination in a better light
would give the text more completely.
. ++. .Jas Μηλοκωμητῶν φράτρα ἀνέθηκεν.
᾿Απολ]λωνέδην Μαγάδος ἡγεμόνες Μηλοκωμητ[ῶν
Ἰν Σαρβαλα ει την Σαλουδέαν “Ἰκ[εσί]ου ᾿Αριστέδου
ἐπιμελησαμένου Απολλωνίδου τοῦ ᾿Απολλονίδου (sic) το[ῦ Apio |
τίϊδου 1] Μηλ[ο]κωμήτου Ka...... ο7υ Σαλουδ[έω 1]ν. Σαλου-
δεῖς. Σαλουδ[ε]ῖς. ᾿Αλέξανδρος ᾿Απολλωνίδου Μελοκωμήϊ της].
1 In Asia Minor every village has αὖ Smith informs me that the case is
least one hodja for each mosque, who different in Arabia, where any one of
leads the prayers and attends to the the villagers leads prayers, not a
mosque, receiving a certain allowance special functionary.
from the village. Prof. Robertson
DD2
400 APOLLO LERMENUS.
᾿Ατταλίων ᾿Αρείδου Μηλοκωμήτης. Μηνόφιλος Μηνοφίλου
᾿Απελλιδης LapBara Σαλουδεύς. Φύρανδρος Pverpou(?) Σαλ-
ου[δεύς]. Ile. . . ν[εἸστης [Μη]λοκω[ μήτης].
᾿Απολ]λονίδης [Δο]υλειχίων [Σαλο]υδεύς. ᾿Απολλών[ιος] Μακρυ ?
[π]απαδε[ύς]. Τρώιλος Γαίου [Σαλου]δεύς.
At a third attempt in 1887 I at last read completely the
inscription published in Cities and Bishopries, supra vol. iv.
p. 383, No. 6: ᾿Απολλωνέῳ Μηνοφίλου τῷ διὰ γένους ἱερεῖ τοῦ
Σωτῆρος ᾿Ασκληπιοῦ κ-.τ.λ.
W. M. R.
Itis possible that future travellers will yet find other unpublished
stelae in the villages of Ortakeui and Badinlar; for it takes a
Turkish villager a very long time to produce what he has in his
possession ; and even our two days in Badinlar may have been
too short for the workings of his mind. We have, however, the
double satisfaction of being at least more fortunate than our
predecessors, and of having made a real contribution to the
social history of what must once have been one of the most
populous and prosperous districts in Phrygia.
D. α. HoGartu.
MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD.
A THASIAN DECREE, 401
A THASIAN DECREE.
THE stone bearing the following inscription was found by
Mr. Theodore Bent last year at Limena in Thasos, built into
the wall of a Byzantine church which was pulled down for the
erection of a house. Mr. Bent made an excellent impression of
the inscription, which he has kindly sent me; upon this the
text is based. The inscription is entire on the right and at the
bottom ; the left and the top are mutilated. The existing
portion measures just one foot in height, and nine inches in
width. The surface is for the most part well preserved, and the
readings are certain except at the beginning of lines 17—18,
of which more will be said. The letters are engraved
στοιχηδόν.
NWNEILONPAP/
SELEHETEOA LT AP?
PHO BoE N ΘΛ ΓΑ PAX 1 ἢ οἰ
MILEQOONOME 1! AONTANT
ie hOvds i bay EYYakOrN ΤῈ ©, Yur
POoAILTAILEZTANENHME P
PofeTATHEMHTETANAAA
τ ΑΓ Eel NOP TP ONA ANAK ἃ TOE
RAE Phe coop TA PiBvs Τ ΕΝ ove ANDO Act F
ENHO ELE HETPIHKON TAMNAEO
KHPY Χ OEI€ ΒΓΕ THe Sap Hee oT
Benes A NUT AHI ATEAHEZEETHKA
LAEVHOD bem EOPKO=MHAE I €
PO: b= OoAAAOTIANEPD |
EY
ΚΑ
ΑΜΗ
Ar i.o
ΡΠ ΘΗ ο΄ ΡΟΝ ΟΜΝ Ὺ
ΡΑΤΑΙΝ ΠΡ YAN TEEZE 1 ΞΔ. ὦ ΟΝ E
CN YE ο(ΑΝΤ 1 F PAPDATETONEPAMM
ANATPAYANT EEEAA |
NAE
HNK
BoA
1 HP
ο AH
M RiecA oA NT Ak A
Berths! ΑἸ Ac&
BE ιν κοῦ Pr Ὸ
ΟΥ̓Δ ΓΟ Ά. AP Xs
HMoOYON ANH
ZENAEO© AEn
OoXO € KAE
=YNPFPAYHIAP X
OPnNOPAENNIAH
Mo Y © vacant.
ALCAN TA Ak POAT 5
TAZT HE ANTAE K 20
409 A THASIAN DECREE.
I venture to restore as follows :-—
we. 81. εἰ δέ τινι ἢ ἀτέλεια ἢ πρυταν]εῖον παρὰ [τῷ
δήμῳ ἀνερρήθη μὴ γενη]θείσης τε oduyapy[tn-
ς ἄκυρα ἔστω, ὅσα δὲ ἀνερ]ρήθη ἐν ὀλιγαρχίῃ [κ-
ύρια: § 2. of τε νῦν ἄρχοντες 1] μισθὸν ὀφειλόντων τ-
5 ὧν δούλων ξ τοῖς συνεστ]ῶσι" ὃ 3. οἵ τε φεύγοντες ὑπ-
ὁ τοῦ δήμου ἣν κατίωσι] πολῖται ἔστων ἐν ἡμέρ-
ῃ τῇ αὐτῇ, καὶ μήτε π]ροστάτης μήτε τῶν ἄλλ-
ων τις θελέτω ζήτημα ἄγειν πρῶτον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐ-
ν ἡμέρῃ τῇ αὐτ]ῇ πολῖται ἔστων" ὃ 4. ὃς δ᾽ ἂν ὀλιγ-
10 apyins νῦν ἤδη γ]ενηθείσης τριήκοντα μνᾶς φ-
έρῃ τῇ πόλει] κηρυχθεὶς εὐεργέτης τῆς πόλ-
ews ἐπῃνήσθω] εἵως ἂν ζώῃ, καὶ ἀτελὴς ἔστω" ὃ 5. κα-
i μὴ δυνάσθω μη]δὲ ψήφισμα μηδὲ ὅρκος μηδεὶς
ἄκυρον ποιεῖν) τὸ ψήφισμα το(ῦ)το, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἂν ἐπι-
15 ὧν τις χρηματίξζῃ ἢ ὅρκον ὀμνύῃ πάντα ἀκρα-
τῆ νομιζέσθω- § 6. κ]αὶ ἀναγράψαντες εἰς λίθον θέ-
σθων ἐν τῷ Διονύσου, 1] ὃ 7. ἀντίγραφά τε τῶν γραμμ-
atav ἐς στήλας] λειοτάτας ἀναγράψαντες ἐλ λι-
μένι αὐτὰ σῳξζ]έσθω(ν)" ὃ 8. ὅρκον δὲ ὀμόσαι πάντας ᾿Α-
20 θηναίους τοὺς] ὀλιγαρχίην καταστήσαντας" κ-
αἱ ὀμόσαι τοῦ δ]ήμου ὃν ἂν ἡ βουλὴ συνγράψῃῃ. ὃ 9. ΓΑρχ-
wv ᾿Αθή(νησι) Καλλία]ς, ἐν δὲ Θάσῳ Ἡροφῶν Θρασωνιδ[έω],
ὁ δεῖνα τοῦ δεῖνος, . . . .Joyos Κλεοδήμου.
A glance at the document suffices to connect it with the
revolution at Thasos described by Thucydides (viii. 64) as part
of the programme of Peisander and his friends in 8.0. 411.
Peisander and the leading oligarchs in the armament at Samos
had entered into communication with Alcibiades and Tissa-
phernes in the winter of B.c. 412—411. Fired with the double
hope of crushing their political opponents at home, and of ending
the weary war with Sparta by help of the Persian gold, they
had sent Peisander and his brother envoys to Athens, and had
laid all in train for the suppression of the democracy.1 Early in
the year 411 B.C. Peisander sailed from Athens for Ionia, with
ten Athenian envoys, to pursue negotiations with Alcibiades and
Tissaphernes.* They sogn discovered how unsubstantial was
1 Thucyd. viii. 47, 48, 53, 54. 2 Thucyd. viii. 54.
A THASIAN DECREE. 408
their hope of Persian help, and how grossly Alcibiades had
deluded them. They returned to Samos to take counsel with
their friends. It was decided to go on with the political revo-
lution at any cost, and to prosecute the war as before.! Accord-
ingly Peisander and five of the envoys are despatched to Athens,
to consummate the destruction of the democracy, with instructions
to call upon all the cities they could upon their way, and
establish an oligarchy.? Tenos, Andros, Carystos, Aigina and
other cities were thus visited by Peisander, and the government
changed. While Peisander and the five envoys were thus
engaged upon their mission westward, the other five were de-
spatched under Diotrephes upon similar errands among the other
dependencies of Athens ; the words of Thucydides are (viii. 64) :
παρακελευσάμενοι οὖν τοιαῦτα τὸν μὲν Πείσανδρον εὐθὺς τότε
καὶ τῶν πρέσβεων τοὺς ἡμίσεις ἀπέστελλον ἐπ᾽ οἴκου, πρά-
Eovtas τἀκεῖ, καὶ εἴρητο αὐτοῖς τῶν ὑπηκόων πόλεων αἷς ἂν
προσίσχωσιν ὀλιγαρχίαν καθιστάναι" τοὺς δ᾽ ἡμίσεις ἐς τἄλλα
τὰ ὑπήκοα χωρία ἄλλους ἄλλῃ διέπεμπον. καὶ Διοτρέφη, ὄντα
περὶ Χίον, ὑρημένον δὲ ἐς τὰ ἐπὶ Θράκης ἄρχειν, ἀπέστελλον
ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχήν. Diotrephes sailed to Thasos, overturned the
democracy and established an oligarchy in its room: καὶ
ἀφικόμενος ἐς τὴν Θάσον τὸν δῆμον Katérvoe. It is this
revolution to which our inscription refers. But although success-
ful at the moment, it proved no exception to the failure which
everywhere attended the plans of the Four Hundred. Their
hatred of the demos had blinded them against seeing facts as
they were: it was obvious that in such revolutionary times there
could be no halting-place—especially when all Greece was
divided into two hostile armies—between democracy and the
Athenian alliance on the one hand, and oligarchy and the
Spartan alliance on the other. The proceedings at Thasos were
a case in point. Within two months the oligarchy at Thasos
was in correspondence with other Thasian oligarchs who had
1 Thucyd. viii. 56, 63; comp. Aristot.
κατέχειν ἐπειρῶντο τὴν πολιτείαν.
Politics, viii. 4, § 13 (Congreve) = 1804
B: ὁτὲ μὲν yap ἐξαπατήσαντες τὸ πρῶτον
ἑκόντων μεταβάλλουσι τὴν πολιτείαν,
εἶθ᾽ ὕστερον βίᾳ κατέχουσιν ἀκόντων,
οἷον ἐπὶ τῶν τετρακοσίων τὸν δῆμον
ἐξηπάτησαν, φάσκοντες τὸν βασιλέα
χρήματα παρέξειν πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον τὸν
πρὺς Λακεδαιμονίους, ψευσάμενοι δὲ
Aristotle seems to imply that Peisander
and his colleagues had overstated from
the first their confidence in the promises
of Alcibiades, and were not so sinned
against as Thucydides describes.
3 Thucyd. viii. 64, 65.
3 Thueyd. viii. 69, with Grote’s re-
marks thereon, History, ch. 62.
101 A THASIAN DECREE.
previously been driven to take refuge in Peloponnesus. Before
long Thasos had received a Lacedeemonian garrison and harmost.
The comment of Thucydides is striking: περὶ μὲν οὖν τὴν Θάσον
τἀναντία τοῖς THY ὀλιγαρχίαν καθιστᾶσι τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ἐγένετο,
δοκεῖν δέ μοι καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις πολλοῖς τῶν ὑπηκόων: σωφροσύνην
γὰρ λαβοῦσαι αἱ πόλεις καὶ ἄδειαν τῶν πρασσομένων ἐχώρησαν
ἐπὶ τὴν ἄντικρυς ἐλευθερίαν, τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων ὕπουλον
αὐτονομίαν οὐ προτιμήσαντες.ἷ
Short-lived as this Thasian revolution proved, it was part of
a movement which at the instant vibrated from one shore of
the /Egean to the other, and to the oligarchs of Thasos must
have seemed a matter of life and death. No wonder therefore
if they took pains to secure themselves against a counter-
revolution (lines 12 —16), and ordered copies of the documents
which established the new constitution to be carefully inscribed
and preserved (lines 16—19).
If the historical reference of the decree were less obvious
and certain, I should have hesitated on palzographical grounds
to assign the inscription to so early a date as the fifth century.
On the one hand the forms of M and € are decidedly splayed,
the right leg of N does not touch the line, and the middle
stroke of Ε is equal in length to the upper and lower strokes;
but, on the other hand, © o nm are rather smaller than the
other letters. In fact the forms are practically identical with
those of the, Thasian inscriptions which Bechtel (Zhasische
Inschriften ionischen Dialekts im Louvre, p. 3; published in the
Abhandlungen d. K6énigl. Gesellschaft der Wassenschaften zu
(éttingen, 1884, Band xxxil.) assigns to about B.c. 300. But,
the truth is, Ionic paleeography underwent little or no change
during the latter part of the fifth and the fourth centuries B.C.
The Olynthian treaty between Amyntas and the Chalcidians
(Dittenberger, Sylloge, No. 60) cannot be much later than 400
B.c., and its lettering (to judge by excellent impressions which
lie before me) is quite as far advanced in the direction of decline,
if not more so, than that of our Thasian decree. The letters
of our decree are simple and firm, and engraved στοιχηδόν, this
arrangement being only violated twice, in lines 12 and 21, where
H! and ON are made to occupy each but one space. Such
1 The very next year, B.c. 410, Thasos κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον στάσεως γενο-
again reverted to the Athenian alliance μένης ἐκπίπτουσιν of Λακωνισταὶ καὶ 6
(Xen. Hellen. i. 1, 32): Ἔν Θάσῳ δὲ Λάκων ἁρμοστὴς ᾿Ετεόνικος.
A THASIAN DECREE. 405
deviations are not unknown in Attic documents of the fifth
century (e.g. see Greek Inser. in B. M., Pt. i., Nos. xxvii., line 39 ;
xxxviil. B, line 26; C_l.A.1i., Nos. 45, line 10; 500, line 3; 419,
lines 5, 6; 438, line 29; 443, line 2; compare ibid. supplem.,
No. 6la). OY has not entirely taken the place of 0 for the
diphthong : in line 21 we have BOAH and perhaps [ΔΙ JONYZO
in line 17; but [ A ]HMOY and KAEOAHMOY in lines 21, 23.
More noteworthy as an index of date is Ο for the genuine
diphthong ov in TOTO = τοῦτο (line 14): in Attic inscriptions
of the latter part of the fifth century the same mistake is
occasionally found (see Meisterhans, Grammatik der attischen
Inschrifien, p. 30). The dialect is consistently Ionic: ὀλυγαρχίη
in lines 8, 20; τριήκοντα, line 10; ζώῃ in line 12, from ζώειν
so common in Herodotus. ΕἸΩΞ in line 12 is certainly efws for
ἕως ; but it must not be confused with the supposed Homeric
form ews = ἕως, which all the recent grammarians discard as
a mere blunder of the MSS. for efos or jos (see Ebeling, Lew.
Hom. s.v. and γε). Rather it is an early example of that
tendency to insert an iota after epsilon, which became so com-
mon in the Attic and Ionic of the fourth century ; compare
forms like δείηται, ἱδρύσειως, ῥείουσα and so on (see Meisterhans,
Grammatik, pp. 21 fol.). This spelling of the particular word
ἕως does not appear to occur elsewhere, but examples of other
words so modified are not wanting as early as our inscription ;
see Bechtel, Jnschriften des ion. Dialekts, No. 18, who edits
δειόμενον in a document hardly later than our decree, and men-
tions, as the earliest instance he has noticed, NyAe/ws in an
inscription of B.c. 418 (ξφημερὶς ᾿Αρχαιολ., 1884, 161). Our
inscription is neatly engraved, but there are some slips:
ΘΡΑΞΩΝΙΔΗ in line 22 should be O©PAEQNIAEN, and
-EZOQ at the beginning of line 19 is almost certainly a blunder
for -EZOQ[N |.
The phrasing of the document is terse and brief; unfortun-
ately it seems to contain none of the conventional formulae to
enable us to determine the exact length of the lines. Lines 7,
9, 18, and 20 foll. seem the easiest to restore, and I suppose the
lines originally to have consisted of 36 letters each. The 23
imperfect lines before us form only the conclusion of the
original decree, which may have been three times as long. The
earlier portion must have contained provisions respecting the
change of government from democracy to oligarchy, the con-
400 A THASIAN DECREE.
stitution of the Boule (comp. line 21), the terms of the oath
(comp. lines 19 foll.), and other particulars. The extant frag-
ment contains only a few subordinate clauses, which I have
endeavoured to recover as follows :—
§ 1. Honours and privileges granted by the preceding govern-
ment are cancelled (lines 1—4). This question would be sure to
arise ; but my restorations are by no means certain: ἀτέλεια ἢ
πρυτανεῖον occurs in a similar connection in the well-known
ancient inscription from Cyzicus, about Manes, son of Medices
(Dittenberger, Sylloge, No. 312 = Rohl, Inscriptiones Antig. 491).
This repudiation by an oligarchy of the acts of the democracy
illustrates an interesting passage of the Politics, where Aristotle
discusses the identity of the state, and how far a government is
bound to recognize the engagements made by its predecessor.
He inclines to make the identity of the πόλις depend upon
identity of constitution (πολιτεία); but he hesitates to justify
repudiation by this theory (iii., 3, Congreve = 1276, see the notes
of Susemihl) : ἀποροῦσι yap τινες πόθ᾽ ἡ πόλις ἔπραξε Kal πότε
οὐχ ἡ πόλις, οἷον ὅταν ἐξ ὀλιγαρχίας ἢ τυραννίδος γένηται
δημοκρατία' τότε γὰρ οὔτε τὰ συμβόλαια ἔνιοι βούλονται
διαλύειν κτλ. and thid. ad fin. εἰ δὲ δίκαιον διαλύειν ἢ μὴ
διαλύειν ὅταν εἰς ἑτέραν μεταβάλλῃ πολιτείαν ἡ πόλις, λόγος
ἕτερος.
§ 2. Rewards voted. ἐο the slaves (1) who had assisted in the
revolution (lines 4,5). I place no dependence upon my con-
jectural restoration, beyond the fact that line 4 certainly refers
to a debt which is not to be repudiated by the new government,
and -Q¢€| in line 5 is part of the dative of the persons to whom
the debt is due.
§ 3. Outlawed members of the party to be ipso facto restored to
civie rights upon their return to Thasos (lines 5—9). That is,
no period of probation should be required, nor any formal vote
of the Boule. The vote of the demos which had disfranchised
them is hereby cancelled, and they become what they were
before. The reference to the προστάτης is interesting, and
illustrates what I have remarked on an Iasian decree in Part
111, (1) of Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, No. eccexx.,
lines 28 foll.; compare some remarks upon the Athenian
practice in the Hellenic Journal, 111., p. 138.
§ 4. Rich men invited to contribute money to the needs of the
state (lines 9—12). The general sense can hardly be other than
A THASIAN DECREE. 407
as restored, although I lay no stress on the particular words I
have suggested.
ὃ 5. Lhe present decree to be a fundamental law of the Con-
stitution. If I am right in connecting our decree with the
oligarchical revolution of B.c. 411, this clause received an
ironical comment in the counter-revolution in favour of
Lacedzemon which took place two months later. It is worth
noting that in another Thasian decree, of the third century B.c.,
there is inserted a similar clause forbidding any attempt to
repeal the enactment (C..G., 2161): μ[ὴ ἐξεῖ]ναι δὲ ὑπὲρ τούτων
μηδενὶ μήτ᾽ εἰπεῖν μήτ᾽ ἐπερωτῆσαι ὑπὲρ λύσιος μήτε ἐπιψη-
φίσαι: κρατεῖν δὲ πάντα τὰ ἐψηφισμένα. Ὃς δ᾽ ἂν παρὰ
ταῦτα εἴπῃ ἢ ἐπερωτήσῃ ἢ ἐπιψηφίσῃ, τά τε δόξαντα ἄκυρα
ἔστω καὶ χιλίους στατῆρας ὀφειλέτω ἱεροὺς ᾿Απόλλωνι τῷ
Πυθίῳ, χιλίους δὲ τῇ πολει.
§ 6. This decree to be inscribed (lines 16,17). The letters in
the impression at the beginning of line 17 are too faint to be
read with certainty, but I fancy they may be -ONY<O. If so,
the phrase ἐν τῷ Διονύσου may be paralleled by C.L.G., 213:
ἀναγράψαι δὲ τόδε τὸ ψήφισμα ἐστήλῃ λιθίνῃ ἐμ ILavdlovos
τοὺς ἐπιμελητάς. But I confess that the reading is very
doubtful.
§ 7. Duplicates of the docwments to be inscribed and preserved
(lines 17—19). What documents are alluded to as τὰ γράμματα ?
Probably not the present decree, but some correspondence which
had preceded it—perhaps a letter from Peisander himself. The
word AEIOTATA®€ is rather dim, as the surface of the stone
just here is somewhat worn; but there is little doubt of the
reading, though the expression is unusual. I have restored ἐλ
λι[μένι], although Mr. Bent warns me that ‘ Limena,’ as a
proper name of the place where the marble was found, is only
modern : it is, however, the chief harbour of the island, and is
built on the site of the old town of Thasos.
§ 8. Who are to take the oath besides the Thasian oligarchs ?
(lines 19—21). If I am right in restoring ᾿Α[θηναίους], these
are the Athenians who accompanied Diotrephes on his cruise,
as described by Thucydides, /.c. I have omitted the article
before ὀλιγαρχίην in line 20, following the example of lines 2,
3,9. ‘And every member of the demos shall take the oath,
ἦ.6. every citizen whom the Boule shall constitute a member of
the demos.’ This may be compared with Thucydides, ψ111., 67,
408 A THASIAN DECREE.
which describes the appointment of συγγραφεῖς at Athens to
draw up a new constitution, and the power given to the
oligarchial Boule to constitute and summon only when and as
it pleased the nominal demos of ‘ Five Thousand,’
δ 9. A twofold date, Athenian and Thasian (lines 21—fin.)
There can be little doubt about my restorations here. The
intrigues of the Four Hundred took place during the spring of
BC. 411, 1.6. during the latter half of the archonship of Kallias.
The official date at Thasos was expressed by naming three
archons, as we learn from the Thasian decree already quoted
(Bechtel, Jnschrifien des ionischen Dialekts, No. 72 = CLG,
2161), which is headed: ᾿Αρχόντων ᾿Αριστοκλέους τοῦ Σατύρου,
᾿Αριστομένευς τοῦ ᾿Αμωμήτου, [Λυ]γ(σ)ισ[ τρά͵του τοῦ Βιτίωνος.
Three archons: of Thasos were similarly named in our decree,
though only the names of two are extant, and one of these
is imperfect. Herophon, however, and the others are well-
known Thasian names; in the Attic decrees concerning the
sons of Apemantus and others, who had been exiled from
Thasos through loyalty to Athens (C./.A., 11., 3 and 4), we read
of an’Av[8]péwv ‘Hpod[d]vtos, and [Ἡρο]φῶν Στελλανδρί[δου] :
also among the lists of Thasian θεωροί published by Bechtel
(Thasische Inschriften ionischen Dialekts im Louvre, 1884), in
No. 12 we find Mus Ἡροφῶνϊ[τος], and in No. 15 Ἡροφ[ῶ]ν
"AreEapyov. In No. 18 «hid. occurs the name Thrasonides,
Εὔφριλλος Θρασωνίδο[υ], and in No. 20 [Θ]ρασωνίδης Oacwvos.
Also Bechtel, Inschrijten des ion. Dialekts, No. 82a (from Thasos),
Εὐθ[ἤδης Opacwvidevs, and 820, Opacwvidns Τιμανδρίδου.
Again the mutilated name... . oyos in line 23 may be restored
as [Θερσώλ]οχος, [’Avtir]oxos, [᾿Αντίοχος or [Κλεόλ]οχος, all
known Thasian names; see Bechtel, Zhasische Inschriften cm
Louvre, pp. 23, 14, 6,10. Finally Κλεόδημος, line 23, was also
the name of a Thasian who was carried to Athens as a hostage
(probably by Thrasybulus, B.c. 408-7), and there died and was
buried (Dittenberger, Syl/oge, No. 69); his epitaph reads thus:
Κλεοδηήμο(υ) το(ῦ) ᾿Αριστ(ὥππο(υ) Θασίο(υ) ὁμήρο(υ).
FE. L. Hicks.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 409
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
THE following inscriptions were discovered in Thasos in the
winter of 1886, by Mr. J. Theodore Bent. Owing to the
opposition of the Turkish authorities he was prevented from
conveying to England the original marbles and monuments, and
had to be content, for the present, with his memoranda of the
sites explored and impressions of the inscriptions. One of these
paper impressions has supplied the text of the Thasian Decree
discussed in the preceding pages. The other Thasian im-
pressions were placed by Mr. Bent in the hands of Mr. A. H.
Smith of the British Museum, to be prepared for publication in
this Journal. Mr. A. H. Smith however found the task he had
undertaken in preparing an Index to the Hellenic Jowrnal was
making such demands upon his time, that he invited me to
relieve him by editing the whole of Mr. Bent’s Thasian
impressions. Mr. Smith had already made transcriptions of a
number of the texts, which he kindly placed at my disposal.
IT am however myself responsible for the arrangement and
restoration of the texts as here given. Their interest and value
will be considerably enhanced by the memoranda which Mr.
Bent himself has furnished respecting the sites and buildings
wherein the various inscriptions were discovered. None of them,
so far as I know, have been published before.
No. 1. ‘From the temple at Alki” ‘Close up against the
southern side of the entrance stood a large block of marble, with
an inscription on it relating the names of various archons,
polemarchs, &c.’ The inscription is entire ; the letters in line 1
are larger than the rest.
410 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
AF XUWNHPATOPACNEIKAAOY
TIEPIFENHCNY MDIAOCANTIQANHC
EICIAWPOY : TOAE MAPXOICLWUDPWN MAPKEXAEINOY
ANTANAPOCOEOFENOYMAPKOCAPHTOY - XAPITUUN
5 TIAPAMONOYZWCI MOCEYDPOCYNOYAIOCKOYPIAHCIEPOKHP
ATIOAOF OIDIP MOCTIE TPWNIOYHPAT OPACAPXEAEOY
AOYKIOC
"Apyov + ‘Hpayopas Necxddov, | ἹΠεριγένης Νύμφιδος,
᾿Αντιφάνης Εἰσιδώρου + -Πολέμαρχοι + Σώφρων Mapxe-
λείνου, | ᾿Αντανδρος Θεογένου, Μάρκος ᾿Αρήτου, Χαρίτων |
Παραμόνου, Ζώσιμος Εὐὐφροσύνου"-Διοσκουρίδης ἱεροκῆρυ ξ"-]
Ἀπολόγοι + Dippos ἹΠετρωνίον, Ἡραγόρας ᾿Αρχελέου, |
Λούκιος.
In the Thasian decree O.J.G. 2161, (= Bechtel, Inschriften
des ion, Dialekts, No. 72), the names of three archons are given
by way of date; similarly three archons are named in
the decree published on p. 401 ante. In the fragmentary
psephisma published by Conze (Reise auf den Inseln d. Thrak.
Meeres, p. 8), the date is lost. In a Thasian lease however
(Bechtel, J. c. No. 71), only one archon is named: “El
Λυσιστράτου [τοῦ Alicypwvos ἄρχοϊντος x.7.r.]. We may
therefore understand that though the board of three archons
ought properly to be named as the eponymi of the year, yet
sometimes only one was named as the primus inter pares. A
like apparent discrepancy meets us in respect of the board of
neopoiai at Iasos (see p. 105 of this Jowrnal), and also the board
of priests of Zeus Megistos at the same town, (Jdid., p. 115).
Accordingly, in the present dedication, I understand the board
of arechons to number three, who are each named: but the first
is ἄρχων in a stricter sense, as presiding. Hence the combina-
tion of the singular ἄρχων with three proper names following,
much as in the decree on p. 401 ante.
The πολέμαρχοι are not otherwise known at Thasos, and
perhaps may be taken as equivalent to στρατηγοί. Perhaps
there were five Thasian tribes.
The ἀπολόγοι of Thasos, known to us already from C.L.G. 2161,
are to be identified with the εὔθυνοι, λογισταί, ἐξετασταί,
συνήγοροι of other cities (Schdmann, Antigg. Juris Publ. Gree.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 411
p- 85). In other words they were financial magistrates; but
the title is elsewhere unknown. The father’s name 18
omitted only in the case of Dioscourides the herald (line 5),
and of Lucius one of the Apologi (line 7). Dioscourides may
have been a freedman, and this would account for the omission.
But Lucius, if holding an important office, must have been a
full citizen, and the omission may be accidental.
No. 2. ‘From the temple (Pantheon) at Alki. This stone was
‘in the wall behind’ the votive altar, No. 5. Letters 2 in. high.
AIONYZIOE Διονύσιος
ΕΡΩΟΤΟΣ "Epwros,
ΙΕΡΟΚΗΡΥΞ ἱεροκῆρυξ
"Epws is the name of the father of Dionysios.
No. 3. ‘From Aliki.” Broken at top, and on either side.
ACHCTTAPAMONHCETH:
(Vacant.)
εν π]άσης παραμονῆς τῆ(ς...
Liddell and Scott say 8:0. παραμονή : ‘a station or watch,
Byzant.’ This may be the meaning here. The lettering is
coarse and late.
No. 4. ‘From the temple, Alki.’
O A fragment broken on all sides.
ΟΙΣ
ΡΠ
ΚΕ
No. 5. ‘ Little altar (hollow inside) from the temple at Alki.’
Height 13in.; width of inscribed face, 8in. The upper surface
of the marble is injured.
KENGEW
MHNITYPAN
NWAIONYCUW
AAEOYXAPII
CA vacant
412 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
[ὁ δεῖνα or ἡ δεῖνα]
» /
ἀνέθη-
κεν Θεῴ
Μηνὶ Τυράν-
/
vo Διονύσῳ "
Λαέου χάρι(ν) ποι-
ov loa?
Votive offering to the deity Men Tyrannos Dionysos, from
a woman (?) on account of Laeos (her husband 7). The worship
of the Moon-deity Men was widely spread, in Asia Minor
especially ; see the inscriptions from Phrygia published by
Professor Ramsay in this Journal (iv. 1883, p.417); Head,
Historia Numorum, (Index, s.v. Mén). The classical passages
are Strabo xii. 557,577; and Spartian, Hist. Caracall.6,7. I
know no other instance of the title Τύραννος being elsewhere
given to this deity, nor of his identification with Dionysos.
Probably the giver of the offering was a foreigner.
No. 6. ‘From Aliki’ Apparently a dedication from the
temple.
“ΝΟ εν bo tonne aie AWS ἐν
JMENOL vacant soe obese eOMEVOS
Ν vacant ἀνέθηκε]ν ?
No. 7. ‘Edge of step, Alki. ‘At the south-western corner of
this outer chamber, which was in width 32 ft. 7 in., we came
across a raised platform . .. along this, in letters of an early
period, ran the inscription AAOSATIOAA’... The letters are
27 in. high.
CAAOEAPOAAO Proken
The O at the end is certainly given by the impression, and it
is impossible to restore any case of ᾿Απόλλων. The flourish
proves the commencement of the line to be complete. I
restore, with confidence, something like the following :—
Δᾶος ᾿Απολλο[δώρου ἀνέθηκεν.
The letters may be of the third century B.c.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 413
No. 8. ‘From Alki. Apparently broken at top, left, and
bottom. Perhaps from a dedication.
TOCAYTWN uUnin-
AECTATHN scribed
fore « v|tos αὐτῶν
wos ἐπιμε Ἰλεστάτην
No. 9. ‘Stone dug up in the marble building, near the sea,
Aliki. From the same building described in the heading of
No. 15. Also we found another well-cut stone with Anteros
scribbled on it in large irregular letters.’
ANTEPWC
EN
These may be casual graffitii But I prefer to consider them
as one inscription, engraved by an ignorant or careless workman.
The letters of ᾿Αντέρως are three times as large as the rest.
ἀνέσ-
᾿Αντέρως [tyo-] Αὐρ. A.
εν.
The nomen and praenomen Αὐρ. A. ought to have preceded ;
but, having been omitted, are put in after the name ᾿Αντέρως.
No. 10. ‘From the temple at Alki: edge of a cup or bowl.’
Apparently an ex voto.
X<AIRIO* Possibly Xaip’ ’Idu... ?
No. 11. Stone built into the Skale of Mariaes, Agios Jannis.
Broken bas-relief
with seated
jigure.
BENAOYCTY Βενδοῦς τύϊχ.. 1]
AYP - €YTYXC Adp. Εὔτυχ[ος ...
Perhaps an ex voto.
H.S.—VOL. VIII. EE
414 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
No. 12. ‘Slab with votive inscription from the temple, Alki.’
Height 1 ft. 8in.; width 2ft. 7in. The stone seems to be sadly
worn,
ONT/TTH
YTTAOIATSZMIN
TOTPSAAINAY/
NECONAEPIWWEPITIAEYCAL
5 N ΥΣΑΙ N
δ CYN ACTIAL
OILIATLOS
KAI EYDPANAC AINAYTI
OT TIEPETIAEYCA
We can only decipher a few words here and there. ἘΕὔπλοια
here means ‘a votive offering for a safe voyage:’ see Nos. 16,17.
[ΕἸὔπλοια τῷ Ζμιν[θίῳ ᾿Αποόλλωνι]
τῷ Τρῳάδι ναυ[κλήρῳ κ.τ.λ.
We may take Τρῳάδι as a local dative. Then followed a
metrical dedication of very small merit.
For ’Aepéa as a name
for Thasos see Steph. Byz. s.v. Θάσος.
Νί(ῆ)σον ’Aepienv περιπλεύσας... ..
ν[α]ῦς
oupverifL. [Poly motaciraaedt
. . ποϊσίμηατι eos .
Kal . . . evdpdvas .. αὖ vavTifre..
O.T. . . Wep ἔπλευσῶι
No, 13. ‘From the temple at Alki.’ Broken at top and right ;
measuring apparently 1 ft. 4in., by 1 ft.
€YTT Εὔπί λοια τῷ
ACK/ "Ack ληπιῷ
TW TH s
cya GU. 6s
ap WE τως.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 415
Nos. 14, 15. From the East and West sides repectively of a
pedestal from the temple at Alki. ‘About three feet from the
wall we laid bare a larger pedestal, with votive inscriptions
behind and before. The inscription to the front was headed
with the name of Athene...the inscription behind ...e¢agopos. ...
Near this pedestal we found fragments of a draped statue, which
had presumably stood upon it.’
No. 14.
Aon! "ζ΄ "A On(v) 7.
EYTIAECATWHPA Εὔπλεα τῷ ‘Hpa-
KAHTWEYTYXH κλῇ τῷ Εὐτύχῃ
TWOECCAAONEI τῷ Θεσσαλονει-
δ ΚΕΙΤΩΕΠΙΚΤΗΧ κεῖ τῷ ᾿Επικτή-
TOYKAIZWAOY του καὶ Zwidou
Ζυυδ ΑΡΧΙΚΕΡ Ζωΐλῳ ἀρχικερ-
AENTIOPWEY/ δενπόρῳ ev-
TYXWC/ τυχῶς.
Apparently a votive offering to Athena and to Heracles,
bespeaking a successful voyage (εὔπλεα = εὔπλοια by a late
itacism) for Eutyches of Thessalonica, son of Epictetus and for
Zoilus son of Zoilus. The latter seems to have belonged to a
guild of merchants who resided at Thasos, and had taken for
their patron-god Hermes xepdéurropos. They styled them-
selves accordingly κερδέμποροι, and Zoilus was their president,
ἀρχικερδέμπορος (line 8). The inscription is very illiterate, —
and the blundering use of the article is highly confusing: it is
not earlier than the second century A.D.; the cross at the end
of line 5, and the strokes at the end of lines 8, 9, are merely
flourishes. Εὐτυχῶς is a common finish to a late votive
dedication, as Mr. Wood’s Ephesian inscriptions abundantly
testify. The reader may compare two well-known inscriptions,
C.I.G. Nos. 124, and 2271, which speak of associations of
merchants, ἔμποροι Kai νάυκληροι.
EE2
416 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
No. 15.
ee ρον ες ταν Lo -
Κις ΡΟ Υ 3.3:
ΚΑΡΙΑΝΩ .... (σ)αριανῷ
DIMQNAYKA Tpo φίμῳ ναυκὰ-
ὃ ΩΚΑΙΤΟΙΓΟΥΝΠΛΕ np |» καὶ τοῖς συνπλέ-
OYCI ειζφορος ovary | εἷς φορός.
I explain ΕἸσΦΟΡΟς in line 6 as standing for εἷς φορός͵
“thou art favourable,” and suppose these to be the last words
of a votive dedication, to bespeak a favourable journey (εὔπλοια)
for the persons mentioned in the preceding lines. The lettering
appears to be somewhat less late than that of No. 14.
No. 16. ‘From Alki’ ‘Between the southern wall of the
temple and the hill which rose abruptly behind it ran a narrow
passage, with steps leading down to the sea.... This passage was
7 ft. 4in. wide, and at forty feet from the top of the steps was
divided by a wall anda door... . This passage . . . evidently
was in connection with the temple, for on one stone of the outer
wall of the temple we found a much obliterated inscription, of
which all we could decipher was ‘to Poseidon...,’ and in
another line the name Asclepius, and in the third the name
Pegasos.
TEYTIAOIATUTIOCEIA
AITWACKAHTTIWT WII
surface iywred TIET ACW
The marks at the beginning seem to be the remains of an
initial flourish. The word εὔπλοια means here ‘a votive offering
for a fair voyage.’ See Nos. 12, 13, 17.
Εὔπλοια τῷ Ποσειδ[ῶνι
K\(al) τῷ ᾿Ασκληπιῷ τῷ π..
re et ες Ὁ Πεγάσῳ
No. 17. From the temple at Alki. ‘Another votive tablet...
was dedicated to Artemis ... by Eutychus, &c.’
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 417
ZYTIAOIALCOIAPTEMI
NAYKAHPOYEYTYXOY
MYTIAHNAIOYTIPONAYKAH
POYTYXIKOYKYBEPNH
TOYIOYKOYNAOY
The letters are large, from 1}in. to 2in. high: Y tends to
indulge in flourishes, and E has lengthened horizontal strokes,
Εὔπλοια has here, as in No. 16, the meaning of ‘a votive
offering for a voyage.’ With cou”Apteus compare the Εὐχαριστῶ
σοι ἴΑρτεμι of many of the Ephesian dedications discovered by
Mr. Wood in the Artemision. The date of our document is
about 100 A.D.
Εὔπλοιά σοι "Apteme
/ > 4
ναυκλήρου Ἐὐτύχου
Μυτιληναίου πρὸ ναυκλή-
ρου Τυχικοῦ, κυβερνή-
του ᾿Ιουκούνδου.
No. 18. ‘From western gate of Thasos; with bas-relief
attached.’
KEPAQNIILT Κέρδων Μέγ[ as] ?
OKAIZIZIPOENE ὁ καὶ Σίσιρος Ne-
ΜΕΣΕΙΑΠΑΛΛΑ μέσει ἀπαλλα-
ΓΕΙΣΚΥΕ --.:-: Σ ᾿ γείο' ε(ὐπλοία)-
EYXHN εὐχήν.
An ex voto to Nemesis offered by some superstitious mariner
after a safe voyage. He is reconciled to Nemesis (ἀπαλλαγείς),
having escaped her wrath; but he does not boast of his good
fortune, and so writes εὐπλοίας in cipher. The dots are on the
original marble.
No. 19. From Thasos: but the locality is not specified.
Perhaps from the temple at Alki?
418 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
EYHME Εὐήμε-
POCAIO pos Ato-
NYCIOY νυσίου
NEAAECEI Νεμέσει
€YXHN εὐχήν
No. 20. ‘Scribbled on the floor of the temple between the
columns, Alki’ The impression is a bad one; parts of the
inscriptions are marked on the impression with blue (by
Mr. Bent?) but are otherwise invisible. The slab measures
2 ft. 11 in. by 1 ft. 9 in.
I—x=
1IXLOXI
OYVY
O1i3-1
OLIIdV
KAAOE
“E>
ΛΕΙ
ΝΗ
Evidently from various hands. They may be thus
transcribed :—
(a) ᾿Αριστογείτω[ν] καλός].
(6) Καλὸς ... ες... ee... νή. Or perhaps, as no other
letters appear in the impression, we may combine thus:
Μεσ[σαλείνη.
(c) I can make nothing of the smaller letters.
No. 21. ‘Inscribed on the floor of the temple, Alki, between the
Doric columns. Measures 3 ft. 4in. by 1 ft. 4in. Unsuccessful
impression. The letters vary from 3 in. to 4in. in height.
AE EBAZIAE
ΛΙΕΕΡΜΙΓΈΝΗ
ΧΑ
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 419
Possibly something like this:
Δέ[κμ]ς Βασίλε[ιε],
[Αὔγλιε “Ἑρμ(ο)γένη[-],
χαίρετε].
No. 22. ‘Scrawled upon the floor of the temple, between the
columns, Alki.’ The slab measures 14 in. by 2 ft. 3 in.
=IMOZIAAPOC
KAAOE
EF - KAPAIANC
The original inscription seems to have been Σῖμος καλός " I’.
Kapésa—. C(aius) Cardia— is the admirer who scrawled the
inscription. The epithet ἱλαρός was an afterthought of his,
inserted in smaller letters ; the other letters are 3 in. high.
No. 23. ‘Scrawled on the floor of the temple between the
columns, Alki.’ The slab measures 1 ft. 9} in by 8 ft.
w<
es 28
DA ΦΙΛΩΝ Ξ
ITEIPNTAE
IAOEZ
MYPCINH
These appear to be by different hands and may be thus
transcribed :—
(a) Φίλων (Ἠ)πειρώτας [φ] ἕλος.
(Ὁ) [Ema](iv)etos καλ[ός].
EDN 45. ἡ,
(d) Μυρσένη (in much less careful letters).
No. 24. ‘On stone at west door of the theatre.’
AIPIAOZAIDIAOY
IEPFYS'r™ μενα
420 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
Bold letters of a good time, not later than second century, B.C.
Those of line 2 rather smaller.
Δίφιλος Διφίλου
ἱερεὺς γε[ν]όμενοϊς 1 κ.τ.λ.
No. 25. Specimens of rough inscriptions from seats in the
theatre of Thasos :—
S7
ΞΕ MEMBMBOQAA SV
2ft. lin. wide. Three holes 5 in. in diameter, 43 in. deep.
..@vos Am...
K turned into B.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 421
ay?
RSSSCSSSEESS
~
SES See SS SSS Ὡς SS Sa δον ἔ ΟΣ ΝΣ
4ft. 9in. long. 1 ft. 7 in. wide.
“ν΄. QAVETNS
(ὦ).
Tbe measurement is not given.
? Ilapapov...
(¢).
Ἄ,
oPAY eA
™~
3 ft. 6in. long, by 1 ft. 6 in. wide.
... vos Φαυστει...
422 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. —
(Ff
ἔτι: ρου]
{ |
Broken in two, no measurement given.
[Θ]εοδώρου
wos
| (9).
ἀπο Tine έν τ oe τ δὴ
The Omega is 2 ft. long, by 1 ft. wide.
(2).
=
A
\
Seat next to Omega had A } ft. high; a great many seats had
Omega and Alpha upon them.
—_—_—_
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 423
(ὃ.
1 ft. 5in. wide. 3ft.6in. long. Very marked curve.
νον doviov,
(m).
Ze
‘Specimen of = from large inscription in theatre.’ From
impression: = is 8in. high.
424 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
(n).
‘Specimen letter of large inscription round orchestra of theatre’
From impression: TT is 8 in. high.
No. 26. ‘From the theatre.’ Letters 6 in. high.
PEC
No. 27. ‘From front edge cf a seat in the theatre.’ The
letters are 23 inches high.
ONHCIMOYAEFAEKTOY
᾿Ονησίμου ᾿Ε!γλέκτου.
No. 28. ‘From the Roman arch.’ Inscribed in two long lines
TONMZIIZTONKAIOZIOTATONAYTOKPATOPA AIZAP
AMAYPHAIONANTWNZINONZYSZBHZ2B-TT4! (ΟΝΜΞ
ΓΒΡΞΤΑΝΝΙΚΟΝΜΞΓ-ΓΞΡΜΑΝΙΚΟΝ | MZP HOAZIWNTT
OAIZ lOYAIANAOMNAN77P°PHOAZIWNTOAIZ OO
NAZZTITIMIONZZYI «++ + TERTINAKA - HOASIWN —
TIOAIZ
(a) Tov μέγιστον καὶ θειότατον Αὐτοκράτορα [K]laicapa
Μ. Αὐρήλιον ᾿Αυτωνεῖνον Εὐσεβῆ Σεβ(αστόν), ΠΠα[ρθι]κὸν
μέγ(ιστον), Βρεταννικὸν μέγ(ιστον), Γερμανικὸν μέγ(ιστον) ἡ
Θασίων πόλις.
(Ὁ) Ἰουλίαν Δόμναν Σεβ(αστὴν) ἡ Θασίων πόλις.
(c) Θεὸν A. Σεπτέμιον Σεὔ(η) ρον] Περτίνακα ἡ Θασίων
πόλις.
a is in honour of the Emperor Caracalla, after the death of
Septimius Severus in A.D. 211, who is therefore styled Θεός in ¢,
and after the death of Geta in B.c. 212, for he is not named,
and before the death in 217 of Julia Domna, the widow of
Severus and mother of Caracalla; to her ὦ is dedicated.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 425
In this and the following inscriptions note the affected form of
the letters: = here is reversed, and E is represented by a
reversed = with a tongue inserted; compare C.1.G. 2162
(Thasos), 1508, 2112.
No. 29. ‘From the Roman arch’ (?)
ΔΙΟΣ — KPAYNIOY Διὸς Kepavviov.
Sa (Representation of a thunderbolt.)
Of the same date as the preceding.
No. 30. ‘ From southern pedestal in front of arch,’
ATASH TYXH
TINAZIOAOTRTA
TIAPXIZPZIAN
M=ZMMIANBSAAHI
ANAAZZANAPANTO
ZEMNOTATONZ¥N
ZAPIONTHZFZEPO¥
Z1AZTHNMHTZPA
¢ E¥TYXWS ¢
᾿Αγαθῇ τύχῃ:
τὴν ἀξιολογωτά-
τὴν ἀρχιέρειαν
Μεμμίαν Βελληΐ-
αν ᾿Αλεξάνδραν τὸ
σεμνότατον συν-
έδριον τῆς γερου-
σίας τὴν μητέρα"
εὐτυχῶς.
Of the same date as the preceding.
426 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
No. 31. ‘ From the Roman arch.’
ATA SHIT¥XHI
HP EZPO¥SZIA
AN OYZIBIANZABEIN
THNAZIOAOLWTIIN
5 APXIZPZIANKAIATIO
TPOTONWNAZYN
ZPA
N HN
UN
10
ZXOYZANTWNIZW
TZIMNTOIZPZPOYZIAZOYZIN
᾿Αγαθῇ τύχῃ'
Ἢ γερουσία
Or. Οὐειβίαν Σαβείν[ην],
τὴν ἀξιολογωτάτην
ἀρχιέρειαν καὶ ἀπὸ
προγόνων ἀσύν-
κρίτον, μητέρα
ἑαυτῆς, μόνην
καὶ πρώτην τῶν
ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος μετα-
σχοῦσαν τῶν ἴσων
τειμῶν τοῖς γερουσιάξζουσιν.
The same affectation in the lettering. The phrase μόνος καὶ
πρῶτος τῶν ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος is common enough in the boastful
athletic inscriptions of the later empire. Of the same date as
the preceding.
No. 82. ‘From northern pedestal at back of arch.’
AFASHITYXHI ᾿Αγαθῇ τύχη
ΙΟΙΣΡΝΤΑΤΟΝΊΙΕ (Τ)ὸ ἱερώτατον (υ)έ-
ONBAKXIONTONAD ov Βάκχιον τὸν a€-
IOAOTWTATONTOYN ιολογώτατον ᾿Ἰούν.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 427
5 NAB' MAKZEAONA AaB. Μακεδόνα
NEAYTWNIEPOOA [7d |v ἑαυτῶν iepoda-
IMHO ENANTEST [ντην] μηθὲν ἀντε(στὴ-
EvT™ [ὦτα ]" εὐτυχ[ ds.
A similar affectation in the lettering: Σ is reversed in line 7
and E in the earlier lines is scarcely distinguishable from =
except by its longer tongue. The νέον Βάκχιον must have been
a religious society for the celebration of Bacchic mysteries. Of
the same date as the preceding.
No. 38. ‘Broken fragment of a sarcophagus, Aliki’ Un-
inscribed at end of lines and at the top.
ITATHPKATEGHKEGANONTA
OETETIWNYAAIHN
EIAWNEYKTAIONEOHBON
AAAFANAYA γιιογ
Be denn seh ge πατὴρ κατέθηκε θανόντα
Pe ger De TA Der’ ἐπωνυμίην"
ae τοῖα, .. .€0av Εὐκταῖον ἔφηβον,
PRP sae Si ἀλλ᾽ ἄγαν ἁψάμ]ενος.
No. 34, ‘Sarcophagus at Aliki, ΤΉδβοβ A description of the
cemetery of Thasos is given by Mr. Theodore Bent in the
Classical Review, July 1887, p. 210. Large, well cut letters, two
inches high, hardly earlier than 100 A.D.
ACKAHTIIAAHCK AIXPHCTOC
ADODIAAITHIAIAMHTPIMNH
MHCXAPIN
᾿Ασκληπιάδης καὶ Χρῆστος
᾿Αφφιάδι τῇ ἰδίᾳ μητρὶ μνή-
μης χάριν.
428 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
No. 35. ‘ From Alki.’
TPODIMOITEIMOKPATHE
JIFVAPIN
Tpodiu(w)c Τειμόκράτης
μνήμ]ης χάριν.
Tombstone of about 100 A.D.
No. 36. ‘ Broken stone found on the isthmus Alki.’
TTOMIAHTOY
(Here is a bend wn the stone.)
EPOZ
/// P
ΓΡΟΚΛΗΟῪ
. ajo Μιλήτου;
. ἐρος
εὐ ll
ἸἸα]τροκλήουϊς.
Perhaps part of a sepulchral stele.
No. 37. Tombstone ‘from Alki’: broken on all sides. Height
1 ft. 1 in.; width 34 ft.
/////// Θρεπτος Υ WKYMOPOITYAABOIMi
ENAETO¥EIAAYFALCTIAIL
TWNTECCAPWN won OYTEMEFYMNACIOICE
OYTENEMOICNACTOIC
X AIPE AMNNATAQOYCHFEIPEN
NON>Y TIENOIMAOLCEILCAIM
TOPONIHTPOCTECAAONTIOAYOPH y ANANATIATEPTIAYLAIMA
ONOY
.
\
i
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 429
[ὁ δεῖνα] θρεπτὸς
rae TOV τεσσάρων
χαῖρε.
[--- — —] τορον ἰητρὸς τεσμὸν πολύθρηνον.
᾿Ωκύμοροι τύμβοι με. ....
» > ? > \ a
ἔπλετο <u> εἰ δ᾽ αὐγὰς παῖδα. ..
οὔτε με γυμνασίοις...
OUT ἐπ᾽ ἐμοῖς παστοῖς. ..
ἀλλὰ τάφους ἤγειρεν . ..
πένθιμος εἰς aL...
> \ / / »
ἄλλα, πατέρ, παύσαιμ ....
. ovov...
No. 38. ‘From the ruins of Byzantine Church, on the hill,
above Limena, Thasos. Height 1 ft., width 2 ft, 2 in.
MEAETHIIIODAE
ΖΕΟΣΓΎΝΗΔΕ
TIPOYDPIOYTTAPAAAEO
KPITHIKAAMOY
Line 4 is inscribed in letters apparently of the third
century B.C.; the iota is adscript. This formed perhaps the
original inscription. The stone was some three or four centuries
iater employed for another epitaph.
(a) Κρίτῃ Κάδμου
(Ὁ) Μελέτη Προσδέ-
Eeos, γυνὴ δὲ
II. Ῥουφρίου ἸΙαρδαλέοζυ.
No. 39. ‘Large blocks belonging to the Mausoleum of Philo-
phron, from Phoumous, near Limena, Thasos. Compare Mr.
Bent’s account in the Classical Review, July 1887, p. 211.
(2) φιλοφ
φιλ
(Broken at bottom and right.)
H.S.—VOL. VIII. FF
430 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
NW
() ΦΡΟΝΟΣ HATTOTENZWOICIN N €IKEA
(vacant) MATPWNACOOIIK IC ICAP NH
TIACANOMHAIKIHNITEPIWCIONAN ACA
TOYNEKAKAIMETIOCICMYPETEA: AION
5 KAITIAIAE TECETHTYMOMOYNEKAMOIPH
TIPOYAAb Nil KIENECMOPONEAKOMENA
ANXADIAOITIAYCACOAIEL WITOOE™
TIPOCOEDIAOYTIOCIC
ZWAAAYDIAATEKNAYTIE
10 €YXOMAIKAICETTIOCIC
EAQOONTAQEOAWPEOM
OdPATIONWNAHOH
Whether a should be made to read into the heading of ὃ is
doubtful: if so, we might then restore—
Φιλόφ[ρονι
Φιλ[ςό]φρονος.
The metrical inscription is an epitaph upon a wife, perhaps
the wife of Philophron. It may be restored somewhat as below :
observe the interchange of αὐ and é in lines 4 and 7, μύρετε for
uvpetat, and παύσασθαι for παυσάσθε. In line 10 similarly
ac is made short as equivalent to é.
"Ha ποτ᾽ ἐν ζωοῖσι v[eavidos ἀ]ν[ θ]εὶ κεδνῴ,
[καὶ] μάτρωνα σοφ(ὴ) κ[ αΤὶ (ω)σα γ[υ]νή.
πᾶσαν ὁμηλικίην περιώσιον ἀ(ν) .... aca.
τοὔνεκα καί με πόσις μύρετε ἀΐδιον
καὶ παῖδεϊς δακρύονἾτες ἐτήτυμον, οὕνεκα μοίρη
προὔλαβ[ε]ν ἡ[λε]κέην ἐς μόρον ἑλκομένα.
ἀλλὰ φίλοι παυσάσθαι' ἐγὼ ποθέο(υ) σιν ἀκούω 1]
πρόσθε φίλου πόσιοϊς. ..
ζῶ: ἀλ[λ7 αὖ φίλα τέκνα bre...
εὔχομαι καί σε πόσις...
ἔλθόντα Θεόδωρε ow. ..
ὄφρα πόνων ληθὴ. ..
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 431
No. 40. ‘ Built into window of Skala of Mariaes, Agios Jannis.’
W MENHCYBIOYAY
Evidently from a gravestone ; the writing is late, and the
grammar is at fault.
..+. kal TH ἀγαπ]ωμένῃ συ(μ)βέου (sic) ad(r)[od . .
No. 41. ‘ Bas-relief in Agios Jannis, Thasos; 1 ft. 10 in. in
diameter.’ Inscribed on different panels of the stone.
(0) (a) (c)
Ι iol
KET AETW7 OA EI
oIcr HOH TIA
AOIKE KEON EBOYA
TATO EMA HOGWNC
YEIO YTH XFTO
ΙΓ KETW
ΓΛΟΙΚΟ
TATWM
2>YAAPI
The orthography is barbarous, and the lettering late and
course.
(a) [[ποίησ]α 1 ἐγὼ (τ)ό(δ)η θηκέ(ον) ἐμαυτῇ κὲ τῷ γλοικο-
τάτῳ μου ἀ(ν)δρὶ, (0) κὲ τοῖς γλοικ(ο)τάτοζις] νεἱοῖς. (ὁ) El
τι δὲ βουχληθῶν (ἐ)χέτο.
The phrase ἐὰν δέ τι βουληθῶ is common enough in the wills,
or extracts from wills, inscribed on later gravestones. Here we
have apparently εἴ tu δὲ βουληθῶν (sic), ἐχέτο (= ἐχέτω). The
meaning is : ‘this tomb is for the afore-mentioned persons only,
but if I add a codicil in favour of another person also, let it
so hold good.’
No. 42. ‘Little stone at Agios Jannis, Thasos, Measures
6 in by 5 in.
Fra
432 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
Evidently part of a panelled sepulchral stele of the ordinary
type.
BedOus . .
"Arron |Aodwpou 7
No. 43. From Thasos, but locality not named. The surface
is very much worn.
μων FNM?
Py tell a any yep
Cc»
al
JATTC
EAS QNC
or
== ΚΒΙΘ ΣΕ ΠΩ,
CAF
The cross reveals the Christian origin of the inscription. In
line 9 OATIO may suggest the common Greek prayer for the
dead that they may rest ἐν τοῖς κόλποις ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ ᾿Ισαὰκ
καὶ ᾿Ιακώβ κιτιλ. Compare e.g. OL.G. 9120, 9121; and Bulletin
de Corresp. Hellénique, i. 321. Line 8 may be a citation from
Scripture [“A]yzos éywx.7.r.
No. 44. ‘From a wall, Limena. Measures 1 ft. 9 in. in
height; 1 ft. 2 in. wide,
ΟΣ
MAXOY
AXOZATTIKOY
HEX AIPE
OZAOYKIO
IIZTIPOEOIA
XAIPE
ANOZSAOYK
TOANKA
ΦΙΛΗΣΧΑΡ
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 433
πος
1 you
(0) ... ayos ᾿Αττικοῦ
[προσφιλ]ὴς χαῖρε.
(c) .. . og Δονμίο[υ]
[ἐτῶν] of προσφιλ-
[ns] χαῖρε.
() ... avos Aoux{[dov],
[ἐτῶν κδ'
[προσ]φιλὴς χαῖρ! εἸ.
Funeral stele to the members of the same family: the
inscriptions were added from time to time.
E. L. Hicks.
434 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
THE following notes respecting the four buildings which I
excavated on the island of Thasos last winter may perhaps serve
to illustrate the foregoing inscriptions.
(a) The temple at Alki. Alki is a promontory to the south
of Thasos, where the marble quarries were, and it is connected
with the capital by a road of fine old Hellenic work, many portions
of which are still in perfect preservation. The ruins of the town,
where the marble merchants and operatives lived, are on a
narrow tongue of land which unites the marble isthmus to the
main island. Close to the sea on the eastern side of this isthmus
we saw the foundations of a considerable building. Five grades
of marble steps led to the water’s edge, and these steps were
constructed of immense blocks of marble; that on the northern
edge of the lowest grade measured 16 feet 11 inches long, 5 feet
3 inches wide, and 2 feet thick; that on the northern angle of
the top platform was 12 feet long, 5 feet 3 inches wide, and
1 foot 7 inches thick. The building which stood on this plat-
form was entirely ruined, and in the debris several feet deep we
found many remains. The front length of the top of the plat-
form was 54 feet, and 2 feet 4 inches from the outer edge was
the foundation of the temple building, with a fagade of 45 feet.
Our time only allowed of the partial excavation of the two outer
chambers, the one towards the sea being 32 feet 7 inches in
length. On the south-west of this we found a raised platform,
along the front of which ran inscription No. 7, and in the debris
in front of it were the inscriptions Nos. 12, 13, 17; a well cut
stone, 3 feet 1 by 1 foot 3, down the front of which was carved
a curious head with a long beard in 5 braids, which appeared as
if it had been one side of a seat; a small, rudely cut head; and the
torso of a male archaic statue. This statue had 15 braids of hair
down the back, and measured from below the trefoil-shaped
knee to the neck 4 feet 5 inches, around the shoulders it
measured 4 feet 104 inches, and round the waist 3 feet
4 inches; strength was wel] developed in the sinews of the
legs and chest.
This outer chamber was divided from an inner one by a wall
of large, well cut blocks of marble, fastened together with iron
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 435
rivets set in lead. The two first blocks on the northern side
measured respectively 3 feet 2 inches and 12 feet 24 inches, and
formed the base of a square-cut ornamentation which had
adorned the front of this wall. Then came the entrance, 5 feet
wide, closely fitted on to which was inscription No. 1. In front
of this was a small pedestal which had evidently carried a statue,
of which we found no trace; but about three feet from the
wall was a larger pedestal, on the front of which was inscription
No. 14, and at the back No 15; close to this lay the trunk of a
small draped statue. On the southern wall of this chamber was
another raised platform similar to the one in the other chamber,
on which we found the votive altar No. 5, and above it, in the
wall, a stone with inscription No, 2 upon it; near this stood a
circular pedestal of apparently archaic date, 6 feet 2 inches
round at the base, 1 foot 6 inches diameter at the top, and
3 feet 2 inches round the neck, and 3 feet 5 inches high; it had
twenty flutings of Doric style.
This chamber was 14 feet 8 inches wide, and the outer wall
formed a curious conglomeration of the old Doric edifice and
later Roman alterations. On the central marble were the bases
of two Doric columns, 2 feet 8 inches in diameter, and 6 feet
6 inches apart; they stood on a platform 3 feet 1 inch wide,
which was continued to the south by a narrower platform with
traces on it of a later colonnade, before which were the bases of
columns of late date. Between the two Doric columns were the
scribblings Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23.
Between the south wall of the temple and the hill ran a
narrow passage with steps down to the sea, and the southern
wall was formed of slabs of marble curiously thin in proportion
to their thickness, one being 11 feet 5 inches long, 1 foot 7 inches
high, and only 7 inches thick. In this passage (7 feet 4 inches
wide and 40 feet long) we found the stone with inscription
No. 9 upon it, and in the temple wall a stone with No. 16
upon it,
(Ὁ) The theatre. In the town of Thasos the theatre occupied
a bend in the hill just inside the walls, about five hundred feet
above the level of the town. The lines of the seats, and the
colonnade behind the stage, were visible, but’ were covered with
brushwood and soil; on clearing some of the seats—of which
we roughly conjectured that there must have been from twenty-
480 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
five to thirty rows—we found the rough inscriptions Nos. 25, 26,
and 27. Commencing at the edge of the semicircle, we found
that beneath the seats, dividing them from the orchestra, had run
a wall of twenty-seven large blocks of marble, the average size of
which was 5 feet 9 inches by 4 feet 8 inches wide, and 10 inches
thick. These blocks had been pushed frontways from their
position by the weight of earth from behind, and on each block
were two large letters, specimens of which are given—No. 25
(Mm). Some of the blocks were missing, but the letters on those
we found ran as follows :—
up [μὰ [σε] air) |
Γ | | τ ἫΝ ΩΣ ᾧ ΗΓ δ
| A! ME| JA}. 1 “<n A | NH |
| je |
| AP fa ahaa
| ἢ ἢ | |
| |
TH | | no l |
= ats = : - =|!
‘
Along the top of these blocks ran iron railings to protect the
seats, the front row of which appears to have been so placed that
the knees of the spectators would be on a level with the top of
the wall.
The orchestra and stage fittings had been subjected to con-
siderable alterations during the Roman period: behind the pro-
scenium had run an elegant Doric colonnade with light columns
2 feet 94 inches round, with fifteen flutings, on which rested a
triglyph 1 foot 6 inches high, with plain metope one foot square ;
and behind this colonnade were the bases of six massive columns,
which had evidently supported the exterior decorations. <A
narrow passage by which the chorus entered ran underneath
the stage, which was of late construction, as was evident from a
portion of the Doric colonnade having been used to build it;
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS. 437
this passage was 2 feet 5 inches wide, and the marble pavement
of the orchestra was 10 feet 8 inches below the level of the
stage. From one extremity of the semicircle to the other the
theatre measured 76 feet. At the western gate we found in-
scriptions 18, 19, and 24.
(ὃ The Roman arch we found in the town occupied a con-
spicuous position on what appears to have been the central
street, the site being only indicated by a stone about three feet
out of the ground, the rest being buried in some twelve feet
of soil.
The arch was 54 feet in length, and rested on four bases—the
northern and southern columns being alone perfect—4 feet
8 inches square at the base, 9 feet 5 inches high, and having a
small pattern down the outer edge. The two outer entrances
were 6 feet 2 inches in width, the central expanse being 20 feet,
and the whole structure rested on a raised marble pavement
6 feet 11 inches in width. The capitals which adorned these
columns were of very elaborate workmanship, representing floral
patterns in very high relief, below which ran an egg and tooth
border; they were only worked on two sides, and had evidently
been affixed to the body of the arch. Each capital, of which we
found two large and four small, had a different design, the larger
ones being 2 feet 10 inches square at the top, and the smaller
ones 2 feet 4 inches. Above these capitals appears to have run
a very rich frieze 2 feet 6 inches wide in huge blocks of marble,
ranging from 7 to 10 feet in length. The top of this frieze was
decorated with a deep egg and tooth pattern, and below this, to
the front of the arch, ran the inscription No. 28, 19 feet 7 inches
long, in two lines, and in letters three inches deep. Above
the frieze ran a projecting cornice, and at the top of the arch
stood a colossal statue of a man struggling with a lion, the frag-
ments of which we found in the soil below; the man’s head was
missing, and the lion’s much damaged. The man had his left
arm round the lion’s neck, which he is tightly squeezing, so that
the lion’s tongue hangs out, and his right arm was apparently
held up with a weapon in it, ready to strike; he had one knee
on the ground, and wore a short tunic. The lion’s haunches
rested on the ground, and the forepaws are fixed in the man’s
flesh. The length of the lion, from the head to the root of the
tail, is 7 feet 6 inches, and the man is 3 feet 53 inches round the
438 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THASOS.
thigh; but from the fragmentary condition of the statue it was
difficult to select satisfactory measurements.
In front and behind the two central columns of the arch were
four pedestals, three with inscriptions, Nos. 30, 31, 32. That to
the front and to the right was 6 feet 9 inches high, and had in-
scription No. 31; just below it lay the statue which had sur-
mounted it, in perfect condition save for the tip of the nose and
the right hand. It represented a female figure 6 feet 3 inches
high, enveloped in a long cloak, the left hand by her side
being adorned with a large ring; the face was that of a young
and graceful lady, and the drapery hung much more gracefully
than it did on fragments of the statues which we found close to
the other pedestals.
In the neighbourhood of the arch we found many well cut
stones with decorations of a date much earlier than that of the
arch, and a stone with inscription No. 29.
For tomb of Philophron and others, vide above-mentioned
number of Classical Review.
J. THEODORE BENT
ITYS AND AEDON: A PANAITIOS CYLIX. 439
ITYS AND AEDON: A PANAITIOS CYLIX.
THE cylix which is the subject of the following paper has a
double claim on the interest of archaeologists ; first, it presents
a peculiar, and—so far as at present known—for art a unique form
of a familiar myth, the slaying of Itys; second, it is inscribed
with the love-name Panaitios, and therefore is readily classed
with an already familiar group.
The vase in question is first reported by Dr. Helbig in the
Bullettino, 1878, p. 204. It was found at Cervetri in the
Boccanera excavations. It is now in the museum of Munich,
and it is to the kindness of Professor Brunn that I owe the per-
mission to publish the vase and the superintendence of the
necessary drawings. A vase of so great interest could hardly
have escaped publication but for the fact that it made its
reappearance in the world saddled with what seems to me a mis-
taken interpretation. Dr. Helbig, without any hesitation, says
(loc. cit.): ‘Una tazza . . . la quale nell’ interno rappresenta un
mito molto raro cioé quello di Prokne ed Itys,’ and cites as a
parallel the well known Paris vase (Ann., 1863, tav. d’agg. C.)
Dr. Klein, who had not seen the vase, describes from report
(Meistersignaturen, p. 145): ‘ Prokne im Begriffe dem auf einem
Bette, u.s.w.’) My own view is that not Prokne, but her myth-
ological prototype Aedon, the original nightingale, is repre-
sented, and that the vase-painter embodies the Homeric, not the
later Attic form of the myth. The Munich cylix gives us the
earlier (Aedon), the Paris cylix the later (Prokne) tradition.
. It is solely to draw attention to this point that the remarks that
follow are addressed; the interesting question of the origin,
development, and various transformations of the myth I reserve
for a future occasion.
440 ITYS AND AEDON: A PANAITIOS CYLIX.
A few technical points must first be noted. I examined the
vase myself a year ago in Munich, but before I had the intention
of publishing it; for the detailed account of its actual condition,
and the restorations made, I am therefore indebted to Professor
Brunn: he writes: ‘Der rothe Thongrund des Inneubildes ist
von der Zeit stark mitgenommen und dadurch wird anch die
schwarzen Innenlinien vielfach angefressen und deshalb von
Neuem mit schwarzer Farbe itibermalt worden, indessen fast
durchgiingig auf der Grundlage der noch vorhandenen Reste.
Ausserdem ist zwischen der linken Hand und der Hiifte des
Knaben ein Rest alter Linie der mir nicht verstiindlich ist, ob der
Rest irgend eines Attributes? Oder sollte sich etwa das Kissen ~
ITYS AND AEDON: A PANAITIOS CYLIX. 441
unter dem Kopfe sich bis dorthin verliingert haben. Die Kopfe
auch der des Frau sind alt, aber waren ebenfalls zerfressen und
wird deshalb tibermalt.’
It will be seen from this that the vase is in a somewhat un-
satisfactory condition, though no doubt as to the general features
of the representation need be felt. The faces of both figures, to
judge from the tracing, have been much modernised, especially
that of the woman figure; and they have altered still further in
the process of engraving The cut given is considerably
reduced, the original has a diameter of 18 centimétres. The
exterior designs (Fig. 2) are so damaged as to be useless for
purposes of the consideration of style. Satyrs and Maenads
1 It has been thought best to reproduce the restorations, but to indicate them
hy dotted lines,
443 ITYS AND AEDON: A PANAITIOS CYLIX.
after the usual scheme are represented ; of these a rough wood-
cut is given for the sake of completeness.
To return to the interior main design. The composition is
very simple. A woman holding a sword in her right hand is
about to plunge it into the neck of a naked boy; with her left
she holds his hair, keeping him backwards the better to strike
home. The boy lies on a long couch leaning against a cushion,
he half struggles up and stretches out the right hand to implore
mercy. In front of the couch is a large deinos; suspended on
the wall behind is a cylix and the sheath of a sword. Dr. Klein
(doc. cit.) says in his description ‘neben ihm liegt seine phrygische
Miitze, but the ‘phrygische Miitze’ is obviously only the conical
and tasselled cushion of the ordinary shape. It closely resembles
the cushions of the Euphronios Kottabos vase. Though the
composition is so simple, it is very satisfying; the swaying curve
of the woman’s figure and the counterbalance of the outstretched
hands of both figures, the downward intention of the body of the
slayer and the upward of the slain, are notes which mark the
design as belonging just to that happy time when the decoration
of the circular interior of the cylix was at its finest.
The boy is clearly inscribed | Τὺ 4. I may remark in passing
that I incline to hold with Roscher (Lewicon sub voc, Aedon) that
the name Itys or Itylos is not onomatopoeic, but rather, as
Hesychius (swb voc.) explains, is a name meaning tender, young
= νέος, ἁπαλός. Itys remains a constant feature in the later
Attic development of the myth. As regards the woman figure,
it has been usual to consider that she is uninscribed, and hence
the name Prokne was unhesitatingly given. I believe that the in-
scription starting from the hilt of her sword and extending over
the boy’s head refers to her. Its position makes no difficulty.
Quite clearly to be read are the letters A- EAONAI, and
between the two first a portion of a letter which may safely be
restored I. Thus we have,I think, quite beyond doubt avedovau.
I hoped for traces of a final a to make up avedovava, but
Professor Brunn informs me there are none. This form avedovara
for the nightingale ἀηδών, so far as I know, nowhere exists, but
-I cannot resist the conviction that the inscription is the name of
the woman figure and the equivalent of ἀηδών.
If this be the case, we have here the representation of no
specifically Attic legend, but an embodiment of the story known
ITYS AND AEDON: A PANAITIOS CYLIX. 443
to Homer; for completeness I cite the familiar words (0d.
xIx. 518).
ὡς δ᾽ ὅτε Πανδαρέου κούρη χλωρηϊς ἀηδὼν
καλὸν ἀείδησιν ἔαρος νέον ἱσταμένοιο,
δενδρέων ἐν πετάλοισι καθεζομένη πυκινοῖσιν,
ἥ τε θαμὰ τρωπῶσα χέει πολυηχέα φωνὴν,
παῖδ᾽ ὀλοφυρομένη ἔϊτυλον φίλον, ὅν ποτε χαλκῷ
a a) / le) / Μ
κτεῖνε δι’ ἀφραδίας, κοῦρον Ζήθοιο ἄνακτος.
The murder was unwitting (δι᾿ ἀφραδίας), its remoter cause the
scholiast on the passage tells us. It may be worth while to
quote his comment in full: ᾿Αηδὼν δὲ ἡ πρεσβυτάτη Ζήθῳ γαμη-
θεῖσα τῷ Διὸς μὲν παιδὶ ᾿Αμφίονος δὲ ἀδελφῷ Ἴτυλον ἔσχε
παῖδα, φθονοῦσα δὲ τῇ ὁμονύμφῳ τῇ ᾿Αμφίονος γυναικὶ Νιόβῃ τῇ
Ταντάλου, τινὲς δὲ Ἱππομεδούσῃ, ἐχούσῃ πλείονας παῖδας, ὧν ὁ
ἄριστος ἣν ᾿Αμαλεὺς, ἐπεβόυλευεν τούτῳ. καὶ τῶν ἀνεψίων
συντρεφομενων ὅθεν καὶ συγκοιμᾶσθαι συνέβη κρύφα παρήνεσεν
τὴν ἐνδυτέρω κοίτην ἑλέσθαι, ὅπως εὐεπιβούλευτος αὐτῇ νύκ-
τωρ ὁ ᾿Αμαλεὺς γένηται. καὶ τοῦ πάθους αὐτὴν σφόδρα κατα-
λαβόντος ηὔξατο πᾶσι θεοῖς μεταστῆναι ἐξ ἀνθρώπων καὶ
ἠλλάγη εἷς τὸ ὁμώνυμον ὄρνεον'
The same story in its main outlines, though with difference of
detail, is told by Eustathius ὦ propos of Pherekydes (fig. 29):
γαμεῖ δὲ Ζῆθος μὲν ᾿Αηδόνα τὴν τοῦ Πανδαρέου. τῶν γίνεται
Ἴτυλος καὶ Νηΐς' ἼΙτυλον δὲ ἡ μήτηρ ᾿Αηδὼν ἀποκτέινει διὰ
νυκτὸς δοκοῦσα εἷναι τὸν ᾿Αμφίονος παῖδα ζηλοῦσα τὴν τοῦ
προειρημένου γυναῖκα ὅτ᾽ αὐτῇ μὲν ἦσαν ἕξ παῖδες αὐτῇ δὲ δύο.
ἐφορμᾷ δὲ ταύτῃ ὁ Ζεὺς ποινήν. ἡ δὲ εὔχεται ὄρνις γενέσθαι καὶ
ποιεῖ αὐτὴν ὁ Leds ἀηδόνα. θρηνεῖ δὲ aed ποτε τὸν τυλον ὡς
φησὶ Φερεκύδης.
I have said above that it is not my purpose to trace the myth
through its various literary ramifications. The main lines are
clear. The Greek—who was a better poet than naturalist—
mistook, there is no doubt, the male bird for the female; he put
‘Philomela’ for ‘Philomelus, and the song seemed to bim not
one of gladness and rapture, but of passionate regret: the bird
was robbed of her nestlings. Then, by a process perfectly easy
and familiar to the Greek and every other humanising mind, the
bird became a princess who had lost her child; then so passionate
was the note, it seemed she had sinned as well as suffered: she
444 ITYS AND AEDON: A PANAITIOS CYLIX.
had slain her child, unwitting, but with intent to slay another’s.
So far only one sister, one sad bird, the nightingale, appears ;
but there was another bird of spring with a ‘thin, sharp cry, the
swallow, and the fierce hoopoe who, tradition said, followed the
pair, and so we have the horrid story of Prokne, Philomela, and
Tereus. How far this was originally a native myth, when
exactly it arose, whether the story of the two Attic sisters
existed separately and was afterwards blended with the Aedon
metamorphosis, I do not at present propose to consider; neither
can I discuss whether the actual nightingale gave rise to the
original story, or whether a princess Aedon slew her child, and
then by etymology became connected with the nightingale. The
point I desire to emphasise here is that as the simple Aedon
myth still maintained itself in Attic times in literature, so here,
if the inscription be read rightly, we have an instance hitherto
wanting of this form in art. No doubt the play of Sophocles,
the ‘Tereus,’ in which the two sisters are represented as slaying
the child, tended to efface in literature as in art the earlier con-
ception. We may note that the vase-painter takes the story
as presented by the scholiast only in its simplest and most
essential outlines; there is no attempt to depict the two children.
It is enough that Itylus is slain.
The remaining inscription above the head of Aedon may be
restored PAN AITIOS; the actually remaining letters are
D-NA 10 ; the $ given by Dr. Klein cannot be clearly
read, though there are the remains of some letter plainly visible.
Dr. Klein has collected the seven Panaitios vases. The name
occurs seven times, once on a vase by Euphronios (British
Museum, 222), once on a vase by Duris (Berlin, 2285), five
times on unsigned vases. The question naturally rises, are we
to connect the Aedon vase with either master. It is of course
much to be regretted that the restoration of the faces prevents
a careful comparison of the drawing of profiles, but the com-
position certainly recalls that of the interior picture of the
Euphronios Troilos vase. We have the same back-drawn figure,
the lifted sword, the hand grasping the boy’s hair, and the boy’s
arm extended for mercy. This similarity in composition was the
thing that struck me on my first glance at the vase before I even
saw what was the subject represented. It will be remembered
that the Troilos vase comes ninth in Dr. Klein’s chronological
ITYS AND AEDON: A PANAITIOS CYLIX. 445
series of Euphronios vases; we shall therefore perhaps not be far
wrong if we connect the vase with the later manner of Euphronios.
This connection with the later manner of Euphronios is borne
out by certain analogies to the style of Brygos. The long
graceful figure of Aedon, draped in the full chiton and diploid
is strikingly like some Brygos figures, noticeably the Andromache
of the Ilioupersis vase and the women figures of the Komos cylix
(Wurzburg 346). At the same time the pose of the Aedon
figure is very similar to that of the figure of Eos in the Eos
and Memnon Duris cylix of the Louvre.
J. E. HARRISON.
HS.—VOL. VIII. a G
430 VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS.
VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS.
(Pu. LXXXIII]
OF the vases figured on Ρ]. LXXXIII. nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 come
from the island of Calymnos. Nos. 1, 4, 5, and the large amphora
of which a cut (Figs. 1, 2) is given below, belong to a series which
has been described by Cecil Smith in the Classical Review, i. p. 80.
The Biigelkanne (no, 2), was obtained by me subsequently, and
was found on another site. The sponge-fishers of Calymnos have,
by little and little in the last hundred years or so, come to regard
the probability of invasion as more remote, and have consequently
devoted their spare time and money to bringing their houses
nearer the sea, until they have at length taken their lives in
their hands and established themselves close to their native
element. When Ross visited the island the only town was that
which is still known as “ἡ χώρα. It is situated about two
miles from the harbour and immediately underneath the still
older medieval fortified town, now quite deserted. There is no
evidence that there was an ancient city on this site, but the
chief sanctuary of the island, the temple of Apollo, was in the
immediate neighbourhood, on a ridge which overlooks two of the
most productive valleys in this barren island. Most of the
inhabitants have now moved down to the modern town which
is close to the harbour and which bears the name of an ancient
deme—Pothia. This name is probably genuine, as that tender
regard for antiquity which finds a home for an outcast ancient
name in the face of inseparable difficulties is not so developed
here as in the kingdom of Greece. That there was a Hellenic
settlement on this site is indicated by the inscriptions and
VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS. 447
fragments of architecture which have been found near the old
church of the ‘ Panagia Calamiotissa’ (not Calymniotissa as
Newton gives it in the Inscriptions of the British Museum).
Fic, 1. Vasr From CALYMNOs,
Quite near this modern town, on the slopes to the east of the
torrent which falls into the harbour, there is an extensive
Hellenic necropolis. The tombs which have given us these
Fic. 2. ANIMALS ON REVERSE OF VASE,
vases are situated on the hill to the west of the torrent, and are
excavated in the pumice (pozzolana). All I can learn of the
circumstances of their discovery 1s that the twenty vases
GG 2
448 VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS.
described in the Classical Review, i. p. 80, and about ten others
of inferior interest, were found together. The Biigelkanne, (no.
2), was found with other Mycenaean vases, most of which were
broken, on a site about half a mile distant, but also in the
pozzolana on the right bank of the stream.
Although these vases are undoubtedly later than most of those
from Ialysus, I do not think there is any reason for pronouncing
them to be later than many of the fragments from Mycenae and
Tiryns ; and certainly none for calling them archaistic, as Reinach
does in his notice of them, Rev. Arch. x. p. 88. The animals on
the large vase (Fig. 1) seem to have been drawn by a hand ac-
customed to draw birds: cp. the heads and necks of the birds on
the vase Myk. Thonyef. pl. ix., and the bird’s head Myk, Vasen,
no. 400. Quadrupeds drawn in the same style appear on the
fragments Myk. Vasen, nos. 409, 412, 416a and ὃ, 417. As birds
occur on Mycenaean pottery before quadrupeds, this shows quite
a natural development. We have no exact parallel from Mycenae
for the manner in which the bodies of the animals are filled in
with dots, but a glance at Myk. Vasen, nos, 392, 397, 398, 406,
417, and Tiryns, pl. 15a, will show that there is great latitude
in the fillings which are adopted for the bodies of animals. We
find them filled in with dots on a fragment from Ziryns (plate
xxi.a), belonging to a class certainly later than the Calymnos
vases, and distinguished by the use of white paint, and by sub-
jection to the influence of the geometric style. The bodies of
the fishes and birds on the calathus, (no. 5), are completely filled
in in the colour of the glaze, like those of most of the quadrupeds
on the fragments from Mycenae, where on the other hand we
find on the bodies of fish and birds various combinations of
lines (ILyk. Thongef. pl. ix., Myk. Vasen, 383, 384, 397, 398, 402,
415, and 63) from Ialysos). The reverse of our vase (Fig. 2) is oc-
cupied by a similar scheme of two pairs of animals facing a tree.
Their bodies are filled in with colour, but not entirely, a space
being left between the filling and the outline. There is nothing
else in the decoration of the vases which would warrant us in
placing them in a category by themselves. The heraldic scheme
of two animals facing a tree, which betrays oriental influence,
is found at Mycenae (uos. 412, 413, and fig. 36). The shapes of
the bird’s tails on our no. 5 show an adherence to the older
traditions of Mycenaean painting, as they correspond very closely
VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS. 449
to those on a vase from one of the tombs, 77,1. Thongef.
pl ix.
The bronze sword (no. 3), and the five vases 6—10, are frorn
Carpathos, and were found, according to trustworthy informa-
tion, in the same tomb. They have been already described in
Furtwingler and Léschke’s Mykenische Vasen, p. 83. There are
only two mistakes in this notice which I have to correct. The
first relates to the discovery of the tomb, the credit of which
is wrongly assigned to me; the second to the description of
no. 10. This vase has not two handles, but opposite the handle
the head of a goat is applied in relief. For an animal's head
thus employed we may compare MMyk. Vasen, pl. xliii. There it
is underneath the handle. The form of the vase, if we except
this appendage, exactly corresponds to no. 71.
The bronze sword corresponds in form to Myk. Vasen, pl. D,
no. 11. The handle had been filled with ivory, fragments of
which were found still attached to the rivets.
Although several of the vases here published show interesting
varieties of form and ornament, their importance lies rather in
the locality of their discovery, than in the additions which they
furnish to our knowledge of the Mycenaean style. The occur-
rence in an island so near the coast of Caria as Calymnos of an
extensive Mycenaean necropolis might seem to favour the
hypothesis of the Carian origin of this civilisation. I take this
opportunity of making a few remarks on questions suggested by
this discovery and by the results of excavations which I made
in Caria in 1886.
Although much study continues to be devoted to the early
pottery of Greece, the ethnographic relation of the Mycenaean
and geometric styles has still to be established. While we know
the former to be the earlier, we have no evidence which enables
us toassign a definite chronological limit to the period of either.
The scarab of Amenhotep III. from Ialysos loses any value it
ever possessed in this respect, if it is, as Torr pronounces
(Classical Review, i. p. 250), a later imitation. I scarcely think
that our knowledge or ignorance of Egyptian art in the interval
1 Furtwangler conjectures that the wise similar animals on the reverse of
difference in the birds’ tails on this our amphora (Fig. 2), one of which has
vase is a distinction of sex. We cer- a beard while the other has none.
tainly find this distinction in two other-
459 VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS,
can be profound enough to enable us to assert with him, that
an imitation of a work of the fifteenth century cannot have
been made until the seventh, and in any case we could not take
the pottery with us in this salto mortale, as nothing ‘ Mycenaean’
is recorded as having been found in the same tomb with the
scarab, The occurrence of a Biigelkanne on the wall-paintings
of the tomb of Rameses III. only shows that this form was then
known in Egypt or Phoenicia, from whence the ‘Mycenaean’
ceramic art may afterwards have borrowed it. The signed vase
of Aristonophos, which is executed in the style of the most
remarkable of those from Mycenae (Myk. Vasen, pl.42 and 4:3),
is evidently an imitation, probably of Italian origin! (Arndt,
Studien zur Vasenkunde, p. 4). Kohler (Mitth. ii. p. 8) was the
first to assign a Carian origin to the ‘Mycenaean’ civilisation.
Furtwiingler and Loschke regard the ‘Mycenaean’ style as
Achaean, the geometric style as Dorian, but as they print
‘“Achaean’ in inverted commas and style the pottery pre-
Hellenic, it is evident that they do not assign to the term its
strict ethnological meaning, and we must wait for the book on
the subject which Furtwiingler has promised us, to learn what
it connotes to him. Diimmler and Studniczka (J/itth. xi. p. 1),
have given convincing reasons for regarding the geometric style
as proto-Hellenic, and the ‘Mycenaean’ style as foreign or
pre-Hellenic. They both adopt Kohler’s Carian hypothesis.
It is better if we can to look at the question first from the
point of view of a palaeethnologist unaided and unencumbered
by literary tradition. The tombs of Mycenae and Orchomenus,
and the palace of Tiryns have revealed to us the art of a
11 think the Italian origin of the
vase is indicated by its subject.
Another monument, which gives us
also one of the earliest representations
of Greek myths, in point of style,
which we possess, the carved tusk
from Chiusi (Mon. x. pl. xxxviiia)
relates to the same story, that of Poly-
phemus ; a story localised in the West.
That this carving is not Phoenician
work is shown by the type of the
griffin, which is Greek, and by the
lotus pattern which resembles that on
the Rhodian vases, but the style of
the figures is Phoenician, and the
tomb in which it was found must be-
long to the same period as the Regulini-
Galassi tomb at Caere (cp. the pattern
on the bronze fragment Mon. x. pl.
Xxxviiia with Mus. Etr. pl. xxxii.),
where many objects in metal and
ivory were found which we know
to be Phoenician in style. Although
these two works are executed under
different influences, the identical form
of the ships on both isasign of com-
mon origin.
VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS. 451
people, who were evidently in close relations with Egypt. This
Egyptian influence is most apparent in the wall decorations of
Tiryns and Orchomenus, where we have designs borrowed
from the tombs of Thebes (see Schliemann, Ziryns, p. 111),
and in the contents of the probably contemporary necropolis
of Jalysos. But even in the earlier tombs inside the wall
of Mycenae we have not only a method of burial resembling the
Egyptian, but we find bronze weapons of Egyptian shape, the
inlaid work on which is certainly Egyptian in style if not in
workmanship, In the pottery of the same epoch we have a
system of ornament, independent in its origin of any known
foreign influence, and obviously developed among a maritime
people. This native system makes itself felt in the mural
paintings, but does not borrow the more ambitious Egyptian
designs of the latter. Although among the objects in metal
and ivory found in the tombs there are some which may be
regarded as Phoenician importations (6.9. the gold Astarte-figures
from Mycenae, and the ivory box from Menidi), we find on the
pottery the very slightest traces only of oriental influence. The
motive of two animals facing a tree only occurs on the latest
examples, and the tress, a favourite ornament in Mesopotamia,
is found only twice (Myk. Vasen, 9, 338). We are led to look
for the origin of this pottery in the islands of the Aegean partly
by the marine ornaments, and partly because it can be shown to
be derived from an earlier class of ware, found in the pre-
historic settlements of Thera, and which is again connected with
the earliest pottery of the ‘ Hissarlik’ period (Diimmler, Mitth.
ΧΙ. p. 32); Furtwangler has promised to demonstrate this. The
area of its discovery extends over Eastern Greece, the Southern
Cyclades, Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, and the islands off the coast
of Caria. In the northern islands of the Aegean very few
specimens have come to light, and we have practically nothing
from Asia Minor. In Cyprus the later classes of ‘Mycenaean’
ware begin to show themselves only in the later tombs of the
epoch represented by the necropolis of Alambra. Phoenician
_ vases make their appearance simultaneously (Diimmler, Mitth. xi.
p- 234). It is evident that Cyprus is thus excluded from the
area within which the style may have originated. The same
remark applies to Melos for the same reason (Diimmler, Mitth.
xi. p. 40). Indeed Thera is the only island where vases of the
453 VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS.
earliest Mycenaean technique have been found. We may, I
think, conclude that the Mycenaean style had its origin among
some family of the people whose remains we find at Hissarlik,
in Cyprus and the Cyclades, αὖ a time when these people were
already in communication with Egypt and the East, and that
the locality of its birth and growth is to be sought somewhere
in the southern coasts or islands of the Aegean, but probably not
in the Cyclades. The geographical distribution of the finds
rather points to Crete as a centre of production, during the pre-
valence of the later styles at least, and Thera where the tran-
sitional vases have been found 15, of all the islands, that most
accessible from Crete. Certainly the lentoid gems which
accompany this class of pottery have been found in greater
numbers in Crete than elsewhere.
Although we are less perfectly instructed concerning the
customs and surroundings of the people who employed the
‘oeometric’ style, we know that it only appears in the seats of
Mycenaean civilisation at a late period of the latter. We cannot
I think say that it derives anything from the style which pre-
ceded it (except possibly the shape of the Bugelkiinne). There
are certain geometric motives, such as cross-hatching, triangles
and rhomboids, which the Mycenaean style inherited from the
‘ Hissarlik’ types of ornament, and which are also common to
it and the later geometric style. On the other hand the
maeander is foreign to it, and concentric circles are only em-
ployed to accentuate the shape of the vase. Furtwiingler and
Lischke cite the quatrefoil and the double axe among the
types borrowed by the geometric style, but the quatrefoil on
‘Mycenaean’ vases, such as the bull’s head (pl. Ixxxiii. fig. 9), is
perfectly different from the ‘geometric’ form (see Annala, 1872,
pl. k, no. 8). The double axe on the ‘Dipylon’ vase (Cesnoia
Cyprus, pl. xxix.) has the form which we know from Carian
coins and monuments. That on the fragment, Wyk. Vasen, 195,
is something quite dissimilar, and I question whether it is an
axe at all, as the same object occurs on other ‘Mycenaean’
vases without any trace of a handle.
The geometric vases are found associated with fibulae, iron
weapons (Helbig, Homer. Epos, 2nd ed. p. 79 ; Monuments Grees.
11-153, p. 42), and incineration, while in the ‘ Mycenaean’ tombs
the weapons are of bronze and burial is practised. We have in
VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS. 453
fact an absolute break in our tradition, which can only be
accounted for on the hypothesis of conquest by a different race.
The earlier style however survived after the introduction of the
later, and gradually came under its influence. This influence is
especially apparent on fragments from Tiryns (see F. and L.
Myk. Vasen. p. xii.) Everything points to the conclusion that
the conquerors were Greeks, and the conquered race therefore
not Greek. With the geometric style begins the organic de-
velopment of Greek pottery ; we can trace its influence through
a certain class of vases found chiefly near Athens and illustrated
by Bohlau (Jahrbuch, 1887, p. 33) until we come to the earliest
inscribed Attic vases (Beundorf, Griech. Vasenbilder, pl. liv.).
The form of these transitional vases and the style of the figures
are quite ‘geometric. Whatever ‘Mycenaean’ elements we
find in them are probably derived from the islands, where this
influence seems to have remained active; the small ornaments
scattered on the Melian vases and the spirals are undoubtedly
‘Mycenaean.’ We have other specimens of this mixed insular
style in the fragment of a pithos from Crete (Mitth. 1886, pl. iv.),
and on gold work found at Corinth (4.Z. 1884, pl. 8). This
vitality of ‘Mycenaean’ traditions in the islands seems again to
point to the conclusion that the style originated there. The
Greek character of the ‘geometric’ style is confirmed, as
Studniczka has shown, by its association with the fibula, and
by its long continued ceremonial and sepulchral use in Attica
and elsewhere.
Further researches may enable us by the aid of this clue to
trace something of the earlier history of the Greek race, and to
determine the degree of their kinship with other peoples. For
the purpose of a comparison of geometric pottery from Greece
with that found elsewhere, we may, in the absence of a history
of its development, distinguish two classes: (1) Vases of the
‘Dipylon’ type proper, where figure-paintings are common,
and where there is a predilection for small concentric circles
connected by tangents; (2) Vases where the decoration is
purely geometrical and is composed chiefly of horizontal bands,
maeanders, large concentric circles, and zigzags. The bodies of
these latter are usually glazed, only a small field being left for
the ornament. Pottery ornamented in this simple geometrical
manner is found in Greece, in Rhodes (Camirus, see Jahrbuch,
454 VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS.
1886, pp. 136-7), and in the tombs of Assarlik in Caria (supra,
p. 64). The cinerary amphora from thence (p. 71, fig. 8) exactly
corresponds in form and ornament to amphorae from Greece in
the British Museum; the only apparent difference is that some
of the encircling bands are filled in with white colour. I do
not know to what extent white can be detected on geometric
vases from Greece; at any rate it has disappeared, if it ever
existed, on the specimens I have seen. I am inclined to regard
it as a mark of Asiatic origin (v. infra). The concentric half-
circles on the Biigelkanne from Assarlik (fig. 18) and on the
small amphora (fig. 6) may be compared with those on the
Rhodian vase (Jahrbuch, 1886, p. 136, no. 2996). The vase from
the ‘tomba del guerriero’ at Corneto (Mon. x. pl. x.¢, no. 12)
belongs to this class, and its similarity to pottery from Camirus
has been pointed out by Helbig (Ann. 1874, p. 262). At
Assarlik were found fragments of vessels where the ornamenta-
tion is more limited, consisting only of horizontal bands and
large concentric circles, and where the body of the vase is
not glazed (see p. 72, fig. 15). It is however impossible to
draw a definite line between these vases and those where glaze
is more extensively applied, as the same decorative motives are
found on both, and the surface of the pottery has been so much
destroyed, that we cannot tell in many instances where there
has been glaze and where not. Fragments bearing a close
analogy to the Assarlik pottery have been found by Dennis in
the Bin Tepe tumuli at Sardis (Smith, Class. Rev. i. p. 82), and
by Spiegelthal in the tomb of Alyattes there. The latter have
been described and illustrated by Olfers (Lydische Kénigsgraber
bet Sardes, pl. v): in three instances, figs. 4, 5, and 6 white
colour is employed. The vase figured in the Annali, 1872, pl.
K 13, seems to belong to the same class, and is thus described
by Hirschfeld, p. 153: ‘In clay, form, and colour, it is quite
different from the vases together with which it was found.
The clay is of an opaque red, and is covered with glaze of a
blackish hue, in which, on the body and rim, are incised straight
lines filled with white. It is with some hesitation that I cite
for comparison with this vase some others found in the so-
called tomb of Alyattes in Lydia, as it has not been possible
to find this pottery at Berlin.’ The vases mentioned in the
text are those described by Olfers, those referred to in a foot-
VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS. 455
note as having a similar glaze are no doubt Dennis’ fragments.
It is unfortunately impossible to decide if the exact technique
here described is employed on the Assarlik vases, as the only
one which showed traces of white lines has been injured in
cleaning. Probably the fragment found near the tomb of
Tantalus at Old Smyrna mentioned by Burgon (77. A. δ.
of Lit., N. S. ii. p. 258) is also to be added to this list.
He cites it as resembling Athenian geometric pottery. It
is impossible to judge from the illustration which he gives.
Professor Ramsay has shown me fragments decidedly of the
same class as those from Assarlik, which he picked up in the
neighbourhood of Phrygian tombs.
I think that, as this ware only occurs near centres
of Greek colonisation, we cannot help recognising here a
geometric style of Asiatic origin, to which the majority of
the Rhodian vases and some of those found in Greece and
even Italy belong; and, as fibulae and gold ornaments such as
those from Assarlik are elsewhere associated with geometric
ornament and incineration, we cannot separate them from the
rest of the find, and must expect to discover them also in the
Asiatic tombs which contain similar pottery. Whether such
tombs are peculiar to the west of Asia Minor, or extend far
inland, we do not as yet know.
Supposing the existence of an Asiatic geometric style to be
established, it does not follow that that of Greece is derived
from it. It may be possible to distinguish a Greek style
characterised by the employment of the small concentric circles
connected by tangents, which we find on bronze work of
undoubtedly Greek origin, and an Asiatic style to which large
concentric circles and possibly the use of white? are peculiar.
Could we be certain that the sarcophagi from Assarlik were
Asiatic, we should have to admit a much more direct and
powerful influence of Asiatic on Greek work than the evidence
of the painted vases enables us to detect. The stamped designs
upon them correspond very closely to painted ornaments on
fragments from Tiryns and Athens. (TZiryns, fig. 21, pl. xvia.
pl. xxb. Mon. ix. pl. xxxix., and for the fringe outside the
circles on fig. 24, p. 77, ep. Tiryns, pl. xxa.). But it is possible
1 For the characteristic use of white on later Asiatic pottery, see Smith,
J.H.S. vi. p. 185.
450 VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS.
that these sarcophagi may be imported. It is interesting to
find that M. Rayet was inclined to regard the geometric style
as of Carian origin (Afon. Grecs, nos. 11-13, Ὁ. 43). I am sorry
to say that, if the book mentioned there has been published
since his lamented death, I have not seen it.
In Italy during a period when the weapons are chiefly of
bronze and when iron is of rare occurrence, we find fibulae and
incineration together with incised geometrical patterns on the
pottery (Poggio Renzo, Villanova, the majority of the ‘tombe
a pozzo’ at Corneto). As the ‘geometric’ discoveries in Greece
and Asia belong to the developed iron age, we have no materials
for comparing this system of ornament with that employed by
those people in the same stage of civilisation, but it resembles
that of the later Greek painted geometric pottery in its
love for the maeander and differs from it in its avoidance of
circles. This absence of circles may indeed depend only on
technical reasons, as they would not be attempted by a work-
man tracing patterns in moist clay with the hand: indeed it
seems that st«mped circles do occur on certain vases from these
tombs. (Helbig, Ann. 1884, p. 131.) With the introduction
of the precious metals, the more general use of iron and traces
of communication with Egypt, burial begins to take the place
of burning Among the articles of personal ornament most
frequently found in the later ‘tombe a pozzo, where the bodies
are still burnt, are circles of pale gold attached to bronze, (Mon.
xi. pl. xxiva. 6, pl. lix. 23, Mon. xi. pl. i. 21. Bull. 1882, pp.
43, 163, 213, 1883, pp. 115, 120), and spirals of either bronze,
silver or gold, which Helbig conjectures may be for the hair
(Homer. Epos. second edition, p. 243). Two similar spirals were
found in oue of the Assarlik tombs (supra. p. 69, fig. 7); of the
pale-gold circles we have one specimen from Assarlik (fig. 11),
and three from Rhodes, 4.Z. 1884, pl. 9, nos. 6 and 8 (Camirus),
Myk, Vasen, p. 17, fig. 5 (lalysus). In a few of the later
‘tombe a pozzo, and in the ‘tomba del guerriero’ (Mon. x. pl. x.),
and others of its class (Bull. 1874, p. 55), where burial is
practised, but which are connected with the earlier tombs by
the occurrence in them of semilunar razors and other objects,
we mect for the first time with painted pottery. One of the
vases from the ‘tomba del guerriero’ is, as we have seen,
probably Asiatic, but the others show a different system of
VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS. 457
ornament, There are no circles, but, together with common
geometrical patterns such as broken maeanders, rhomboids, and
triangles, we have friezes of birds. These birds occur on the
geometric fragments from Nineveh (Ann. 1875, pl. H.), and they
seem to be the earliest and commonest animal motive employed
by the Greek ‘geometric’ style. Gold ornaments with similar
designs were found in the same tomb, Mon. x. pl. xb. 2, cp, A.Z.
1884, pl. 10, 1. As these designs on gold and pottery appear at
a period not distant from the introduction of the precious
metals and of the art of painting on clay, we are justified in
concluding that the system of decoration here employed was
imported simultaneously. We cannot connect it directly with
Greece or Asia Minor, but the pale-gold circles and the spirals,
as well as the occurrence of the Asiatic vase mentioned above,
indicate at least communication between Asia Minor and
Etruria.
We may now inquire how the facts we have met with
illustrate and are illustrated by information derived from
other sources and current hypotheses.
In the early native Italian tombs we have indications of
affinity with the Greeks and some justification for referring
the geometric style tu an Italo-Greek or Aryan origin, while
in the contents of the first tombs where there are traces of
foreign influence there.is at least fuel to feed a belief in the
Asiatic origin of the Etruscans. We are fortunate in being
able to look forward to a comprehensive treatment of these
questions by Helbig in the second part of his ‘ Beitrige zur
altitalischen Kultur- und Kunst-Geschichte.’
The existence in Greece and Asia Minor of allied geometric
styles, combined with fibulae and incineration, will, if confirmed,
point here also to a common origin of their populations. If we
had to deal only with the Leleges, to whom the tumuli of
Assarlik and old Smyrna probably belong, we might point to
many parts of Greece where Leleges are said to have once
existed, and to names ending in -ssos, -ssa, -sos, -sa, which meet
us frequently in Greece, and which, although distributed over a
large area in Asia Minor, are far commonest in that part of the
sea-coast of Asia which was the home of the Leleges (see Pauli,
Vorgriechische Inschrift auf Lemnos, p. 44). If, however, these
discoveries extend over Phrygia and Lydia, our conclusions
458 VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS.
will reach further, but we must wait before formulating them
for clearer notions of the ethnography of Asia Minor.
If we regard the non-Hellenic character of the Mycenaean
civilisation as established, we must reconcile this with its
correspondence in many particulars and in geographical dis-
tribution to the Greek world of epic tradition. Its most
important seats are at Mycenae, Orchomenus, Sparta, the
towns most famous in the Epos. The relations in which
the ‘Mycenaean’ people stand with regard to Egypt are
mirrored in the account of the voyage of Menelaus and the
narrative of Odysseus (Od. ξ 192). The conspicuous position
occupied by Crete in the Homeric poems accords with the
conjecture that it was one of the chief seats, and probably the
fatherland, of this civilisation. Jt might perhaps seem too
adventurous to seek in the Mycenaean vases found in Sicily
(Ann. 1876, p. 56), an illustration of the early connection
between Crete and Sicily shadowed in the stories of Daedalus
and Minos, The area of the distribution of Mycenaean pottery
in the Mediterranean seems curiously conterminous with that
described as Greek in the Homeric catalogue, and which was
subsequently Dorian. If, starting from the Peloponnesus,
we travel through the islands where extensive Mycenaean
discoveries have been made, Aegina, Melos, Thera, Crete,
Rhodes, Carpathos, Calymnos, we are accompanied by Homer
and the Dorians, and where one guide fails us, as in Thera
and Melos, the other continues. On the other hand, we have
much to set off against this correspondence with Homeric
tradition. Helbig: has shown in detail how the Greeks of the
Epos had degenerated in the arts of war and peace from the
princes of Mycenae. The descriptions of the entombments of
Hector and Patroclus suggest to us, as Studniczka has already
noticed, a form of burial, as well as a structure of tomb, such as
we find at Assarlik together with ‘geometric’ surroundings.!
We can only arrive at the conclusion that the ‘Achaean’ con-
querors of Sparta and Mycenae found there a people whose
civilisation they inherited rather in the imagination of the epic
poets than in reality; that, after reaching the heart of this
civilisation in the Peloponnesus, or possibly in Crete, they
1 Even the envelopment of the cine- illustrated by a discovery at Corneto
rary urn in a linen cloth has been (Bull, 1884, p. 13).
VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATIOS. 459
circulated with it through the islands, and that the Dorian
colonisation, if not identical with this progress, at least, starting
from the same source, followed in the same track. Wherever
we seek the birth-place of this Mycenaean civilization, certainly
there is no evidence of weight for its Carian origin. We should
in that case expect to find survivals of it in Caria after it had
disappeared even from the islands. Nothing ‘Mycenaean’ has
been found in Caria and the pottery of the Leleges, the inhabi-
tants of its coast, belongs, as we have seen, to a primitive
geometric system. The Carian or Lelegian ownership of the
tombs of Assarlik, which I have assumed throughout, has been
questioned by Studniczka (Miitth, xii. p. 18). I have tried to
show that Assarlik is the site of Termera, a town of the Leleges,
but the strongest argument is of course the Asiatic character of
the pottery. If Helbig is right in his interpretation of the line,
Il. B. 872, referring to Amphimachos the leader of the Carians,
we have in the spirals found at Assarlik at least an interesting
illustration of it, We cannot argue from the occurrence of the
double axe either on the ring from Mycenae, or on the Dipylon
vase (Cesnola, Cyprus, pl. xxix.) for the Carian origin of either,
and, if we could, the latter corresponds most closely to the
Carian form, The double-axe was probably not originally any
more exclusively Carian than the triquetra was exclusively
Lycian. The tradition preserved by Plutarch (Quaest. Graec. 45)
seems to indicate that it was derived from Lydia. We have, it
is true, notices of Carian settlements in Greece, but not in
those places where products of Mycenaean art have as yet been
found. I think that the whole story of the Carian occupation
of the islands is lacking in trustworthiness, As Herodotus tells
us, the Carians themselves knew nothing of it. It is a little
curious that this historian should go to the Cretans for the
early history of his native land, even supposing a well-known
saying had not reached his ears. Most probably he did not hear
this story in Crete, but in Halicarnassus, where it may well have
originated in the time of Artemisia, whose mother was a Cretan
lady. It seems to be formulated in a way calculated not to
wound the susceptibilities of the native population of Caria.
Thucydides derives his information from Herodotus, adding as
a confirmation the tombs found in Delos. Probably these were
Greek tombs of the ‘geometric’ period in which the bodies were
400 VASES FROM CALYMNOS AND CARPATHOS.
burnt, and a quantity of iron weapons were deposited. At the
date of these interments the method of disposal of the dead and
the shape of the weapons were doubtless similar in Caria and
Greece. Here they had been superseded in Thucydides’ time,
but had survived in Caria, until this day, of all the coast-
provinces of Asia Minor, that most impervious to Hellenic
influence.
W. R. ῬΑΤΟΝ.
» @
i? ᾿
ΠῚ
᾿ -
. ὦ ‘ a Or ee ee
¢ LP
{ " us
ες 4 κε τιον waitin, ΟΝ ra ᾿ ᾿ "
' " ad i
i 7 " i ΓΙ ΤΊ +a
aa Υ ἡ" vrei
7 δ aa ’
h. ᾿ 4 at ᾿
,
a ° @ey ᾷ : othe
h
δυ χε 6) pet
᾿ Hyer val
᾿ ;
14 ; ΡΟΝ πο γ" ὌΝ τ...
δον ον ate —- 4 Th γα
+o) pow) wee
J i, .
ἐλ f 7
Tart Pi ω
/ Ay
yi my ‘a δὴ i
᾽ %
ἡ ; Ἀ Ym \
.᾿ by th ¢ -
σὸν ' XY
‘aalMeal | i
weed am
al
ΒΕ " ἐφ ἄν
"Ἢ
Ἢ omy
5“, Γ] - ‘
. wey A ) αὶ sant
Ἴ ᾿- οὐ Ψ "ὦ ᾿ ὧν ᾿ A nT “ Lin
‘ i chine 8 far ee "ἢ a ΑΝΑΝ ;
“ elite 4 eran ' > ι ὡς
ον ν ἐδ χὰ; ὌΝ ean eae Ἢ ρου) καὶ
eS Ὁ ~~, “a ad »
yd es ν “na, A Zz ef” ee ὅν , :
γι ; 7 a Ε ᾿ Ἂν ἡ τς: f ἫΝ
i. , ah
“ ᾿ ‘ id
τὶ " κρημ Aik Quor =
ἊΝ ae is δὴ νὰ Ὁ ἡ ? 4 ΝΜ a ἡ a :
“ % ί ἜΝ er Ww
/ ᾿νε iat
‘ Roi, «W'S 1
s « ὶ m4 I ΔΕΒ vd .
ΩΝ, κῸ 4 b ; tag
“ ᾿ na wnt ᾿
' ra ett s|'
af - ἄς... ΤᾺ
, > ΜΝ , ss,” , 1 πον ᾿ς
ui as ie : - ; “Py ‘ . “) hs ἡ)
i re ee ' ἱ
ate ᾿ νυ ' © ry
» Pe we) ᾿ am " 1 " ἡ Ν τὺ
banaue , ἊΨ ΝΑ is. ῳ » ; ab : ἣ
a Se a
; " | )
ebierady ᾿ ᾿ tg
~The δ
I
\ ¢
. as πον bee ot Ὁ ἡ
an na re eee i ne
! ᾿
REFERENCE
Boundaries of Dyzanhne Provinces
» Roman
Roman Roads
Bysanlive Reads
Ae eee
eMart
Traifnopolisy
x
δἰ ξρῖοεται τὰ ταν
i taal
ἡ, ἢ Ἐν"
ἰακαΐοι asso.
Ne ee
KeryiniorsAge ra.
Bilenk Mole
Austin can pes
ει κοι
Hierokh ae
κόνει πιεῖ 4,
Susud
Gordcserbi
o Ambaxony.
August
cies
NiliopoUus 6 peg, HKU
GUAT AS LEA SPs ΟΝ
tkkylren?
Kudarias
ikenta —,Jasanianopetis
ALCL ED © pte Hissar
᾿ Pessuus
Bala Messrs,
‘ δ
Oy NS
Fountaan
Jtistia
Ke SBE AONTA
Cr aell Livuplwruesivace: anisoms re
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA., 461
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
Pager LL
THE study of the Phrygian cities, the concluding part of
which is here published, claims to be complete in the sense that
it enumerates and places every polis, 1.0. district, which had at
any period a self-centred municipal existence; besides this it
enumerates and discusses many villages and towns which formed
part of the territory of these πόλεις. The hope of the writer is
to make a study of the local history of the whole central plateau
of Asia Minor, tracing from the beginning of recorded history to
the Mohammedan conquest the varying fortunes of every district,
collecting the scanty indications of its social condition at different
points in this long time, and essaying a picture of the growth
and decay (which sometimes recur in a second cycle) of its civi-
lization. The present study is restricted by the conditions of
available space to the narrowest limits of a preliminary survey
of the entire country of Phrygia. This survey is founded on
certain principles, some of which are here enunciated for the
first time, while others have been to a certain degree recognized
and stated by M. Waddington and Professor Hirschfeld, though
they have never been consistently applied and carried out to
their logical conclusion. I may here briefly state them.
1. The Byzantine ecclesiastical lists (including Hierocles’
Synekdemos) must be the foundation of any systematic investi-
gation of Anatolian antiquities.
ΗΒ. τι ον, VILL HH
462 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
2. These lists are complete for their respective periods, and
the discrepancies between them are all to be explained by
the modifications of provincial organization and ecclesiastical
rank.
3. The order of enumeration adopted by Hierocles, when once
his principle is understood, may be pressed very close as topo-
graphical evidence."
4. The ecclesiastical subdivisions of the various provinces
were made strictly according to locality: each subdivision is a
distinct local group of bishoprics. This principle, towards which
I was gradually forced in writing Part I., and which I there
advanced with much hesitation, has proved itself in the follow-
ing cases: (1) the Hierapolis group, (2) a second Hierapolis
group, (3) the Khonai group, (+) the Akmonia group, (5) the
Kotiaion group, (6) the Amorion group, (7) the group along the
Roman road Kormasa-Kretopolis in Pamphylia.?
5. The common formula, ὁ Στρατονικείας ἤτοι Καλάνδου, ὁ
Παλαιουπόλεως ἤτοι ᾿Αλιεροῦ, ὁ Σελευκείας ἤτοι ᾿Αγρῶν, 15
correctly interpreted by Professor G, Hirschfeld as giving the
names of two neighbouring towns, and not two names for the
same town. The reason lies in an historical process of great
interest—the gradual transition from the Graeco-Roman sites,
easy of access and either defenceless or strong through artificial
fortifications, to a different kind of situation, which suited the
disturbed state of the country when Sassanian, Arab, and Turkish
conquerors successively swept over Asia Minor.
6. A modern town or village of more importance than its
neighbours usually corresponds to each ancient city, though it is
generally on a different site. The reasons which lead to change
of site form the subject of a special investigation;* but the
1 Lexcept Lydia and Hellespontus, Ach. 1887 and 1888: the others are
of which the lists are very puzzling, discussed in the course of the present
both in order and in extent; they paper.
seem to me not to be founded on 8 This investigation forms the subject
ecclesiastical lists, and to be unique in of a paper which will, I hope, soon
their character among al] the provinces appear in the Transactions of the Royal
of Asia Minor. Geographical Society ; the reasons in
* (8) and (7) are discussed in my brief are (1) change in the lines of
‘Antiquities of Southern Phrygia and road, (2) military strength, (3) water
the Border Lands,’ see Amer. Journ. — supply.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 463
fact of such correspondence often furnishes topographical
evidence.
7. In the Peutinger Table the distances, apart from frequent
inaccuracy, are reckoned from city to city; the cities often lay
a little apart from the direct line of road, and the sum of sepa-
rate distances is therefore decidedly greater than the whole
length of the road. The distances on milestones, in the few
cases where we know them, are reckoned direct along the
road?
8. The lists of bishoprics in each province given in the
Notitiae do not exactly correspond with the actual facts of any
single period, and are often self-contradictory, Thus in Votitiae
VIII, IX., Amastris occurs twice, both as an archbishopric
and as a bishopric subject to Gangra; it was created an arch-
bishopric about 800, and obviously in these Notitive the list of
the province of Paphlagonia has been left uncorrected. In the
later Notitiv, I. Amastris is entered only as an archbishopric:
the list of Paphlagonia has been corrected. Such a fact, which
is typical of a large class, shows how carelessly the modification
and rectification of the registers was performed.
9. Allowing for this character of the Notitiac, they may be
arranged in the following chronological order: VII. is the oldest,
and while it contains some facts of the ninth century, it in
general represents the state of the Eastern Church at a decidedly
earlier time; it is much to be regretted that so large a part of
it is lost, including the whole of Phrygia Pacatiana, VIII. and
IX. are almost identical, and stand between VII. and I. 1. is
dated A.D. 883, but is not corrected up to date: in one case (see
C) it gives an arrangement which had been disused before
787. III., X., XIII. are the latest, and in some respects show
the changes effected by the Palaeologi, but alongside of this
show some marks of a much earlier time. The other published
Notitiae give only the metropoleis and archbishoprics, and not
the lists of bishoprics subject to the various metropoleis.
10, The lists of metropoleis at the beginning of most .Voritire
are much more carefully corrected to date than the lists of
1 I have proved this in detail in| in my ‘Antiquities of Southern
regard to the great eastern highway Phrygia.’
HH 2
464 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
subordinate bishoprics, the latter sometimes giving a state of
things centuries earlier than the former.
11. The terms, city (πόλις) and bishopric, are coextensive,
and Hierocles’ list of poleis is therefore equivalent to the list of
bishoprics of his time, and has been very greatly influenced by
ecclesiastical lists.
12. The order of precedence among the metropolitans cannot
be proved to have been settled earlier than Justinian; certain
lists of bishops at Concil. Chalced. 4.D. 451, which are arranged
in the later order of precedence, are made at a later time. The
order of precedence was probably settled by Justinian, though I
have not as yet found any certain proof of this.
XX.—A passage of Strabo! proves that there was in Phrygia
a city bearing the name of the god Men. Men Askaenos was
worshipped in the two cities immediately adjoining Sebaste, viz.
Alia and Eumeneia. This suggests the probability that the
Menopolis of Strabo, which must be a place of some consequence
and which yet has left no other memorial of itself, changed its
name to Sebaste under Tiberius, who is known to have made
some changes in Phrygia and Pisidia.”
XXI.—Exovza or ALouppaA struck no coins: considering its
advantageous position on a great road, this can hardly be
explained except by its being subject to Sebaste: this would
also explain why Dios Kome (at Kabaklar) was subject to
Sebaste, as is shown to have been the case by the inscription
which mentions it.
XXIIL—AKMONIA was situated at Ahat Keui, as has almost
universally been agreed by writers of this century. Situated on
a half-isolated hill between two confluent streams, it must have
been a fortress of the first importance in ancient time. It was
a caput viac, roads radiating from it to Apia and Kotiaion, to
1 P. 557, τὰ ἐν Φρυγίᾳ (ἱερά), τό τε be in Phrygia), &e.
τοῦ Mijvos ἐν τῷ ὁμωνύμῳ τόπῳ, καὶ τὺ * Tiberiopolis in Phrygia, Pappa
τοῦ ᾿Ασκας«ην;»οῦ τὸ πρὸς Avtioxeia TH «= Tiveria in Pisidia, derive their name
ποὺς Πισιδία (Which Strabo considers to — or secon:t nae from him.
πο
i
sue ni! ιν
bea ate
Ὁ ᾿ Φα piven ας
ath
mi pee bed ’
᾿ δ. ΠῚ ᾿ MGs
’ 7 | " ᾿ ᾿ δε yee et
. ἡ a ῥηνὼν UA
Ἀ ὡς ΤῸΝ | rane ἐν
ἢν τῳ ὦ βννριεγ ρνϑανευλ᾽ i
Ι CAR ενβοννα wht
ἀκ ηκον τ τ
“pitas i. bce ἡ
“ὩΣ Ὁ 1
Κὰρ, aretenies | ee
Wares | ¥
wa "
του εξ .b
βΑΥ πον δῦ
NEOs’ ὁ
ἣν: ce ἈΛΙΒΜΗΜ weigh’ of
τὰ RO AP eee |
F gra nee bie,
y μηνὶ τὰ Ba ὴ
heed feat
are |
κῶν. - owe sem tele acer =
ane awe ey re
(ope, ων λυ! Mk
| Meee icannatalen ett ΝΣ
ΠΌΣΩΝ υλιωνηνν" Ὁ Ἡ
ἐφυῳσ ἕῳ ἐφυλὰν να ἀφ ν . et
δ fo teeagint ted eth}
harika νυν σα 1}
“Ween ἃ ty wiv yt leejwhpltT )
ἰγάμλόνμν ἐσ seit ἢ
"ὦ dy oe ee
ΔΙῚ al Ty BHI dy eo i
να bey hy htm δ he Ld
al ee i el ae
[ 7? 4 νὴ ΡΣ J “8 gt!
iNet ow αὐ ἢ
τά ὁ μη μι! Ἢ i
{wuld ὦ ee hie τας ἡ
ΓΝ)
1 Δ.) volun’ OT
Cus Ἰφηλδυς ονδθ ,
ΠΤ εν γὴν A), galt ἃ
A Yai μι) ety ee ea 7
AY i Way ay" ai
(ebay tic ional)
[atmague νυ μα ἢ
ἀν, [σεα ον ἸΜΑΡΟΣῚ
ee [ὠφυνίφη Pui del]
ΠΣ ἐν aatren’ ὁ
-- Rar wt
a
. ΡΣ]
hw ἀφ γῶν than! 1
pie Pampy4 pian wali we
᾿ cm et Penn 4 4 ai
᾿
rm ais woh? ὦ:
wi δ Lind λλνμωνσηος Gf
aa ee Ἀὺ ποῦ Αὐνυνς, 4...
Ψγ
teal oe
(hae es
Di
ent,
hone » he
Μὴ sangre
Panter
a
he
1
@ »S
ae
1 pr bagel
fen
Pond aes a
υ:
{
{
1
Fh, widens
:
pe oa Ve)
ῬΤΌΙΕΝΥ.
[Λαοδίκεια]
Ἱεράπολις
Tuscr. 120 A.D.
[Βιτόανα ἢ]
[Τραπε(ούπολι:]
(Herod ; Strabo)
Διοκαισάρεια
Θεμισώνιον
[Γάγηνα ἢ
Σανις
(Pliny)
(Pliny)
[Village of |
Tuser, 200 A.D.
Πέλται
Εὑμένεια
Σίλβιον
(Menopolis Strab, 1)
["Αλυδδαὶ
'Ακμονία
Μοξεανοί
4 Διόκλεια, or
Δόκελα
Κυδισσεῖς i
Κερκωπία
Α(ανοί
Τιβεριούπολις
[Κάδοι]
YAyKupa
Σύναος
(Pausanjas)
{ Grimenothyritai
Τραιανόπολις
Inscr. ὁ, 138 A.D,
PHRYGIA PACATIANA.
[Τὸ fee XXII.
AAOAIKEQN
IEPATIOAEITIN
ATTOTAEDN
ΤΡΑΠΕΖΟΠΟΛΕΊΤΩΝ
ΚΟΛΟΣΣΗΝΩ͂Ν
{ΔΙΟΚΑΙΣΑΡΕΩ͂Ν
| ΚΕΡΕΤΆΠΕΩΝ
ΘΕΜΙΣΩΝΕΩ͂Ν
AIONTSONOAEITAN
ὙΡΓΑΛΕΩΝ
Eumeneia)
OKOKAIEQN?
ΠΕΛΤΗΝΩ͂Ν
ΕΥ̓ΜΈΝΕΩΝ
ΣΕΙΒΛΙΑΝΩ͂Ν
ΒΡΙΑΝΩΝ
ΣΕΒΑΣΤΗΝΩ͂Ν
AKMONEON
AAIHNON
IEPOXAPAKEITQNMOL
AIOKAEANQNMOI~
EANON
KIATHSZEQN
ATIMIANODN
AIZANEITON
TIBEPIONOAEITON
KASOHNON
ATKTPANON
STNAEITON
THMENOOTPEQN ᾿
ΦΛΑΒΙΟΠΟΛΕΊΤΩΝ
ΓΡΙΜΕΝΟΘΥΡΕΩΝ |
ΤΡΑΙΑΝΟΠΟΛΕΙΤΩ͂Ν J
Counci, or CHALCEDON,
451.
Laodiccia
(Hierapolis, Cone, Eyles.)
Mossynoi
Attoudda
Trapezopolis
Colossae
Ceretapa
Themissos
Nea (i.c. Sanea ἢ)
Dionysopolis
(Anastasiopolis, Conc.
Atanassos
(Lounda, Syn. vii.)
Peltae
Silbium
Sebaste
Tlouza
Akmonia
Alianoi
Diokleia
Aristion
Kydissa
Philippopolis ?
Kadi
Theodosiopolis
Synnaos
Temenothyrae
Hienoctes, 530.
Λαοδίκεια
Ἱεράπολις
Μόσυνα
‘Arruda
Τραπεζούπολις
Κολασσαί
Κερετάπα
Θεμισόνιος
Οὐαλεντία
Σαναός
Κονιούπολις
Σιτούπολις
Κράσος, Κράσσος
Λοῦνδα
Μόλτη
Εὐμένεια
Σιβλία
Πέπουζα
Βρίανα
Σεβαστή
Ἴλουζα
᾿Ακμῶνα
᾿Αδιοί
᾿ἸΙουχαράταξ
Διοκλία
᾿Αρίστιον
Κιδυσσός
᾿Απία
Εὐδοκίας
᾿Αἴανοί
τιβεριούπολις
Κάδοι
Θεοδοσία
“Ayxupa
Σύνναος
Τημένον Θύραι
Τανούπολις
Πουλχεριανούπολις
Nori 1., ΥΠ|., IX.
ὁ Λαοδικείας
II. ὁ Ἱεραπόλεως
ΤΙ. 6, Μοσύνων, Μεσύνων
Il. δ, ᾿Αττούδων, ᾿Ατγούδων
18, Τραπεζουπόλεως
[District separate]
[District separate]
[District separate]
[District separate]
(District separate]
II. 8, Διονυσουπόλεως
11. 4, ᾿Αναστασιουπόλεως
17, ᾿Αττανασσοῦ, ᾿Ατγανασοῦ
(District separite]
5, Πέλτων
12, Εὐμενείας
19, Σιβλίως, Σικλίος, Σικλίον i
18, ᾿Ικρίων ({,6, ᾿Ιβρίων)
11, Σεβαστῆς, Σεβάσης
9, Καρίας, Ἰλούζων
[District separate)
15, ᾿Αλίνων
[District separate]
[District separate]
(District separate]
(District separate]
6, ᾿Αππίας, Σεπίας
8, ᾿Αζανῶν, ᾿Αζαύνων
2, Τιβεριουπόλεως
7, ᾿Ακάδων, Κάδων
14, ᾿Αγαθῆς Κώμης
᾿Αγκύρας
} 4, ᾿Αγκυροσυνσοῦ Strain
13, Τημένου Θηρῶν, Τιμηνουθηρός
10, Τρανουπόλεως
II. 2, Μετελλουπόλεως
|
Notitia 1Π., X., XIII.
ὁ Λαοδικείας
Il. ὁ Ἱεραπόλεως
II. 4, Μοσύνων
II. 8, Αὐτούδων ᾿Ατούδων.
3, Τραπεζουπόλεως
HI. ὁ Χωνῶν
5, Χαιροτόπων, Χαιρετάπων
19, Θαμψιουπόλεως
18, Συναοῦ, Σιναοῦ
᾿ 11. 5, Φόβων
12, ᾿Αττανωσοῦ, Τανασοῖ
18, Λούνδων
7, Πέλτων
8, Εὐμενεία:
9, Σουβλαίον
22 Olkovduou ἥτοι Οἰκοκώμεως
'"Ιουστινιανουπόλεως, Οἰκοκώμης
4, Σεβαστεία:
17, ᾿Ελάζης, 'EAov¢ns
8, ᾿Ακμωνείας
16, 'Ωρίνων 1
15, 'Ὡράκων
20, Διοκλείας
21, ᾿Αριστείας
14, Κιδισσοῦ, Κηδισσοῦ
6, ᾿Απείας
II. 10, Zavav
II. 8, Τιβεριονπόλεως
Il. 9, Κανῶν
Il. 6, ᾿Αγκύρας
Il, 7, Συναοῦ
10, Ποιμαίνου Θυρῶν, -μένον Θηρῶν |
11, Τρανουπόλεως, Τραιανουπόλεως
II. 2, Μεταλλουπόλεως
τ !
(49
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 465
Philadelphia and Smyrna, and to the Pentapolis (see XXXIV.).
I found the eleventh milestone from Akmonia on the Hamam
Su (Zphem. Epigr. 177 and 1399)! a few miles north of Islam
Keui.
The inscription published in Part I. 30, was not completely
restored : I have since published a study of it,? and add here the
complete text: [ἡ πόλις] ἐϊτείμησεν Λούκι]ον Σερουήνιον
Δο[υκίου υἱὸν Αἰμ)ιλίᾳ Κορνοῦτον δέϊκανδρον ἐπ] τῶν κληρονο-
μικῶν δικα[στηρίων, τ]αμίαν δήμου “Ῥωμαίων ἐπα[ρχείας]
Κύπρου, ἀγορανόμον. στρατηγ[ ὁν], πρεσβευτὴν καὶ ἀντιστράτ-
nyo[v] Μώρκῳ ᾿Απωνίῳ Σατουρνείνῳ ᾿Ασι[ανῆς] ἐπαρχείας,
τὸν ἑαυτῆς εὐεργέτην. The consulship and proconsulship of
Aponius Saturninus, who is familiar to us from Tacitus’
Histories, were hitherto unknown.
XXII. bis—KeERAMON AGoRA. When Peltai has been fixed
near the Maeander, and Caystri Pedion and the Fountain of
Midas have long been determined by Hamilton, there can remain
no doubt that Keramon Agora was somewhere near Akmonia.
The modern village of Islam Keui occupies a site of the very
first importance: it lies where the narrow valley of the Hamam
Su opens on the great plain named the Banaz Ova, amid an
open, fertile, and well-watered country. All communication
between the cities of the Banaz Ova and the country to the
north, north-east, and east must pass through Islam Keui and
up the Hamam Su.
The Royal road of Herodotus, from Sardis to Susa, followed
this route: so also did the Roman road from Smyrna, Sardis,
and Philadelphia to Kotiaion, Dorylaion, and the north-east. It
is a necessity of nature that the Anabasis of Cyrus should follow
this road, and military considerations make it ἃ practical
certainty that an army, if it halted anywhere between Peltae
and Caystri Pedion, would halt near Islam Keui. I have there-
fore great confidence in placing Keramon Agora here.
In the Roman period it is clear that Keramon Agora, though
certainly an important place, to judge from the remains, was
not an autonomous city, but subject to Akmonia,
At some unknown period Akmonia must have been raised to
1 1 refer by the numbers to the two lished in the Ephemeris Epigraphica,
Supplements to C.1.L. vol. iii. pub- 2 Amer. Journ. Arch., 1885.
400 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
the dignity of a metropolis, and a group of bishoprics (XXIV.—
XXVIL.), lying along the roads which lead from the Banaz Ova
to the north-east and east, was subjected to its authority. This
arrangement is evidently unknown to Hierocles, and is therefore
later than his time, and the Council lists of A.D. 586, 692, and
787, show that it did not exist in those years. Dut Notitiae I.,
VIIL, IX. omit the five bishoprics, which form a frontier district,
and this omission can be explained only by the separation
(perhaps merely temporary) of this district from the coutrol of
the metropolis Laodiceia.
XXIII.—AL1a must probably be placed near Kirka, as I have
already stated. The order of Hierocles shows that it must be
near Akmonia, and the fact that it is not included in the district
subjected in later time to Akmonia suggests a situation on
the west.
Two references to this obscure city may be mentioned here.
(1) The inscription (Lebas-Wadd. 699.) Θεᾷ ᾿Αλιανῇ εὐχήν :
M. Waddington remarks that la déesse Aliane est inconnue, but
if we understand her as the goddess of Alia, her character and
seat of worship are determined: such titles, Θεὰ Λαγβηνή,
Μήτηρ Σιπυληνή, &e., are very common. (2) A passage in
Aelian,! when compared with the discussion of Sabazios, Sozon,
and Men, which I have given elsewhere,? and with the account
which Clemens Alex. gives of the Phrygian Mysteries, shows
what was the character of the god Men Askaenos, who appears
on coins of Alia and on a votive relief found near the site of
the city.
X XTV.—HIEROKHARAX appears in Hierocles under the corrupt
form Ioukharatax, which I corrected conjecturally to Atyokharax.
The only evidence of the correct form is a coin of Geta, belong-
ing to M. Waddington, with the legend
IEPOXAPAKEITQN MOTLeavov.
The I must be understood as an incomplete £, and Hiero-
1 "AAla τῇ SuBdpews ἰούσῃ εἰς ἄλσος Anim. XII. 39.
᾿Αρτέμιδος (ἣν δὲ ἐν Φρυγίᾳ τὸ &Acos), * ‘Antiquities of Southern Phrygia
δράκων ἐπεφάνη θεῖος, μέγιστος τὴν and the Border Lands,’ in Amer. Jowrn.
ὄψιν, καὶ ὡμίλησεν αὐτῇ, <Aelian, De Arch.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 467
kharax was evidently one of the two cities in the territory of the
Moxeanoi, which vied with each other for the honour of first
city of the tribe (see XXV.)
XXV.—DoKELA or DIOKLEA vied with Hierokharax (see
XXIV.), and apparently the rivalry between the two was
submitted to the Roman authorities and decided in favour of
Dioklea! (1) προκεκριμένη τοῦ Μοξεανῶν δήμου Διόκλεια). The
form of the name Μοξεανοί depends on the inscription already
printed, which I again verified in July 1887. Coins of Dioclea
and Hierokharax give I not £, but it must be read as an
imperfectly formed αἵ.
Dioclea is situated on the road from the Banaz Ova to the
Sandykli Ova (see XXXIV.); Hierokharax on the road from
the Banaz Ova towards Apia and the north, and towards
Paroreios Phrygia and the east generally.
XX VI.—ARISTION or ARISTEIA: this town is mentioned only
in the Byzantine Lists. Hierocles gives it between Dioklea
and Kidyessos : it must therefore be placed in the western half
of the Sitchanli Ova, where some inscriptions, marbles, and large
blocks of squared stone, in the villages of Ginik, Gone, Karadja
Euren, and Duz Agatch, indicate an ancient site. The evidence
lies only in the situation of Kidyessos and the order of Hierocles
and of the Notitiae (Dioklea and Aristion always together).
The country does not seem very rich, and no coins of Aristion
are known.
XXVII.—KIpYEssos is proved to have been in the eastern
part of the Sitchanli Ova by an inscription, almost defaced, on
a block of marble in the cemetery at Bulja, which I copied in
June 1883. It is very badly defaced, but after some study I
could read the name FPATIANON of the emperor honoured in
the inscription and most of the letters (fragments of each alone
remaining) of ἡ Κιδυησσέων πόλις. This inscription completely
upset all my previous topographical views about this district,
but has since then proved itself true by working in so well with
all subsequent discovery.”
1 Compare the history of the rivalry 2 Without such confirmation the
between Ephesos and Smyrna, Tarsos existence of a decree of Kidyessos
and Anazarbos, Nicaeaand Nicomedia, here would not be sufficient proof that
&e. the neighbouring city was Kidyessos.
468 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
Kidyessos commands a very fertile territory, and was a station
on the Roman road between Conni and Brouzos. Its coins,
from Nero to Otacilia, mention the magistracies, Logistes and
Archon, and a high-priesthood (ἀρχιερεύς). The actual site is,
I think, at a village reported in 1883 by my companion, Mr.
Sterrett, as Cutch Eyuk, but whose real name must, I think,
be Geukche Eyuk.’ ‘
XXVIIIT—PacaTIANA and SALUTARIS. Before proceeding
further, it 1s necessary to discuss the Byzantine division of
Phrygia into two provinces, which, roughly speaking, was
consummated about A.D. 300.
The boundaries will become clear in the discussion of the
several cities, and are given in the annexed map. It is obvious
that these boundaries are entirely inconsistent with the old
Roman division into conventus, as the following lists of the
various conventus will show. In each I give first the cities
actually mentioned by Pliny as belonging to it, and add the
other places within the limits thus indicated which are known
to have been self-administering communities during the first
centuries after Christ.
1 Everyone who has tried knows the common in Turkish nomenclature.
difficulty of catching the proper form 2 I disregard here the well-known
of Turkish names from the badly controversy as to the time and manner
articulated pronunciation of peasants. of this division, which is for our pre-
Geuk means blue, Geukche bluish, sent purpose immaterial.
and Eyuk twmulus: both are very
9
.
J
4(
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
‘erauindy 0} stodosXuorg ‘epueqrpy 0} Suojaq stpodozadeay, pure ‘aeqey, Jo Α9110Λλ 9111 pue
“ΒΙΠΟΓ [ΟἽ Ὁ WaT ‘s7pWIAU0I 511} 07 Buopaq plnoo You Β01110 eay-AjUeM, puy 01 e[qissoduur st 4]
ΒΘΤΊΤΟ uvrpAryT 1091110 pure
TOUTES
sopuriig
vpphouur[yd
vypeqay,
avi fyyousuLty
avid y}OUsUla J,
παλιν
sovutg
stfodonaqny,
SaTIqoUst UTR 29
OB}T[OMTOSO TT
ev} ΟΠ πο} Ὁ
aevypodormoyuy παθγ οι τα,
ἘΠΠΟΘΥΤΗ
{πο 4] Ὁ ΡῈ} Π|4
jij TOOT
(IuonpYy sauopadeyq) lope y
siparg
Ἃ
core
are
91
Θὺ Θ ν»ἴ[ ΟἹ δῷ τῷ
τοὶ τὶ τ τ γι
mA πιῶ ὦ τ oO
ἡ ΤΟΡΌΙΓΣΣΥ OF
j 5ογϑῖοαο
ὁ BIUMOOLL,
sopuryyourg
uoLloWwy
OTR,
j Τ9781
i Tao ed
iis THTOoNI'T]
WOLIq UIA J,
τιοτ[9τπ 0 114
‘AI
ΒΟΧΌΤΥ
τπιοτι τ] 06
snqoA sopned
BpunopIqig
seisa'T
ao yy
ΘΙΘΙΟΝΌΝ
sossonw Ag
TOLRT4O
ΤΟΙΙΌΖΙ
sossad pry
WO1I1040048
sOznoig,
5Π0.10
stjodo.1ar py
"AX soptqoust mbraa
sasuol[n(
ToUpr
rae, Alo
tuadaivony
raviddy
ΒΟΠΟΒΟΛ
epruudg
ANH WOrOD
ὙΠ
‘SSOLNAANOOD NVIDAYHd AHL
GG
1G
0G
61
81
21
91
91
FL
81
GE
Il
OT
aN οὐ Hin tt ο 55
TOURIXO FY
sopune[g
sovuBg
ΒΩ
ὉΔῚ
ayseqag
slo ΘΙ ΛῊ
ΒΡΓΠΟΙ
ΘΙ ΘΙΠΠΉ
“XI sepiqousr mbrpor
TUBIqnis
Τ92194
ΒΘΒΤΙΘΙΕΟΤΙΟΥ͂
tuoqtoydngy
avytjodosAuor(y
avqypodorqo yy
vrawedy
‘Il
9T
ST
tL
81
ΟἿ
IL
OL
τὶ ΟἽ οὐ τῇ ἰῷ cor on
‘AX peat : ἼΧΧ “1 1
j stjodoyseqag eT
4 Bpepy FT
SOULRIPT YT
evppnojyy
eudssoyy
Tesso[oy
uoreyepAyd
ΤὨΘΖΊΙΉ
ἘΠΙΥ ΘΙ,
edvya.ia yy
ΘΒ] ΠΟΔΒΙΘΙΗΙ
SOUOSTULOY I,
ΘΌΖΠΘαΡΛΉ
ΘΙΘΌΤΡΟΒΤΙ
I PAN ON qunitesauwoa
τ
er Aqty)
470 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
Now it is naturally probable, and it is confirmed by various
facts which would find their place in a full discussion of the
provinces, that the lines of demarcation in the new Byzantine
organization followed existing divisions to a very considerable
extent, and that the reorganization attributed to Diocletian
confirmed a tendency which had already been in operation.
Hence, since the new organization utterly disregards the old
conventus, I infer that the conventus had either been greatly
subdivided? or had ceased to exist before the time of Dio-
cletian. The Pentapolis (see XXIX.) was perhaps one of a
number of administrative districts, which replaced the old
convents.
When the two new provinces of Phrygia were formed there
were at first no generally recognized names to distinguish them.
The Verona MS. calls them Phrygia Prima and Secunda,
Polemius Silvius (ab. 385) calls them Phrygia (Prima? omitted)
and Phrygia Secunda or Salutaris (the MSS. vary).? Caro-
phrygia also occurs as the name of the eastern province about
the middle of the fourth century : in Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. iv. 8.
Valentinian and Valens write τοῖς ἐκισκόποις Καροφρυγίας
Πακατιανῆς."
The names Pacatiana‘ and Salutaris® Phrygia came into use
already in the fourth century, and soon established themselves
universally, Allowing for a certain interval after their first
introduction before they were universally adopted, we may say
that no example occurs later than about 400 in which the
provinces are called by any other name, whereas all the rare
references to them between 300 and 390 use some other name
either alone or concurrently with the later name.
The name Parva Phrygia occurs in one or two rare cases in
the sense of Salutaris. This points to a distinction made at
1 Marquardt (I. 341) has shown that
Philadelphia became the seat of a
conventus between the times of Pliny
and of Aristides.
2 The variation indicates that the
later and common name was substi-
tuted in one MS. for the disused title
Secunda.
3 Πακατιανῆς is the later name, added
perhaps by Theod. himself, or by a
scribe, to explain the name actually
used by the emperors.
4 The name Pacatiana occurs as a
highly probable correction, Cod. Theodos.
xi. 23, 3 (rejected however by Gotho-
fredus), A.D. 396, and in Not. Dignité.,
A.D. 413.
> Salutaris first occurs in the case
quoted above from Polem. Silv., where
it is probably due to later correction,
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA, 471
one time between the two provinces as Great and Little. The
preceding paragraph has shown how natural these names were
in the early period when the provinces were called First and
Second, and how easy it is to understand the conflict between
many different names for the new provinces, and the final
triumph of one particular pair, which are henceforward used by
all writers for the following 500 years. On the other hand it is
inherently improbable that after the provinces had existed for
more than two centuries, and after two names had established
themselves in universal use for nearly 150 years, the names
Magna and Parva should come into use, survive in one or two
instances, and again disappear, leaving the old names Pacatiana
and Salutaris once more victorious. This view has no presump-
tion in its favour, and cannot of itself, without some other
corroborative evidence, be allowed. The conclusion therefore
is that if the term Parva is used in the sense of Salutaris in a
Byzantine document of doubtful date, the document was pro-
bably written during the fourth century.
This argument, which I advanced in brief terms in this
Journal, 1882, p. 345, is rejected by M. Duchesne,’ who thinks
that when Justinian, A.D. 536, raised the governor of Pacatiana
to the rank of comes spectabilis, the province acquired the title
magna in contrast with the lower rank of the governor of
Salutaris. But it was of course on account of the well-known
superiority in size, wealth, and importance of Pacatiana that
Justinian so honoured it; he did not make it the great province
but promoted it on account of its already existing and recog-
nized greatness. Again, if the names Magna and Parva were
introduced under Justinian, how does it come that not a single
example of their use can be proved afterwards? On my theory
the disappearance of the names is simple and natural, on
_ M. Duchesne’s theory it is unintelligible. When I stated my
theory at first it seemed so obviously true that I thought it
unnecessary to search for proofs; but, when challenged for proof,
I appeal to the following passages.
(1) Steph. Byz. sv. Evxapria, δῆμος τῆς Μικρᾶς Ppvyias-
. ἱστορεῖ Μητροφάνης tov βότρυν ἐκεῖ x.7.4. The natural inter-
pretation of this passage is that Metrophanes is the authority
throughout, and that he used the term Φρυγία Muxpa; he is
1 ‘Saint Abercius,’ in Revie des Quest. Histor., 1883, p. 21.
412 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
known to have written περὶ Φρυγίας in two books, obviously
devoting one book to each province.
What then is the date of Metrophanes? In Smith's Dictionary
no date is given to him, but the references in Waitz, Lhetores
Graeci (see index s.v.), show that he was later than Minucianus
(about 270) and earlier than Syrianus (about 430). Space
forbids me to enter here on the point; but I may say that my
investigation was made and the date fixed with the help of
Mr. Bywater.
Here we have one example of the term Μικρὰ Φρυγία
denoting Phrygia Salutaris during the fourth century.
(2) Suidas (5.0.) calls Amachios ἄρχων μικρᾶς πόλεως Φρυ-
γίας, and tells the story of his execution of four Christian
martyrs under Julian (A.D. 364). Socrates (iii. 15) and Sozo-
men (v. 11) tell the same story, mentioning that Amachius
was governor of the province; and therefore we must either
read in Suidas, as has been proposed by Wesseling with
general approval, ἄρχων Μικρᾶς Φρυγίας, or suppose that
Suidas or his authority misunderstood the expression Muxpds
Φρυγίας in the original account of the incident and inserted
πόλεως. In either case we are forced back to an original
authority using the expression Little Phrygia. The error is
unintelligible if Salutaris Phrygia was the name in the earliest
accounts. This earliest authority must be older than Socrates
and Sozomen (who use the expression ἄρχων τῆς ἐπαρχείας,
ἡγεμών, Or ἄρχων simply), and must therefore be very little
later than the actual occurrence. The improbability of
M. Duchesne’s hypothesis is clearly brought out by this
example: according to his view the expression ἄρχων τῆς
Μικρᾶς Φρυγίας must have been substituted in the original
account by a writer soon after 535, for the name Μικρὰ did not
permanently establish itself, and can have suggested itself only
to one writing under Justinian, and this writer of the sixth
century must have been used by Suidas or by his authority.
Besides the ease with which my theory explains both the
appearance and the disappearance of the name Little Phrygia,
I have therefore made it probable that two writers of the
fourth century used the name. I now come to the original
point in dispute—the date at which the legend of Saint
Aberkios was composed. I first argued that it was. composed
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 473
shortly before A.D. 400.1. M. Duchesne prefers the sixth century
or later.
My argument rested on the use of the term Little Phrygia,
which seemed to me, and still seems, conclusive. I shall,
however, give further evidence which leads me to the same
view.
To discuss this question with authority, one ought to have
studied the lives of the various Saints of Asia Minor. This
investigation, when some one is found to undertake it, will
repay the toil. Of those which I have hastily read over, a
certain number, distinguished by local knowledge and multi-
tude of details, make on me the impression of having been
composed not later than the fifth century. Among these I
would include the tale of Aberkios, the tale of Trophimus,
Sabbatius, and Dorymedon, the tale of Ariadne of Prymnessvs
(Sept. 17th), the tale of Therapon (May 27th),? Hypatius
(June 17th: this dates about 450), &c. These were written by
natives of Phrygia, familiar with the country and obviously
ignorant of other countries, and they abound in details which
throw light on the state of the country at the time. About
the year 400 there took place a very decided literary movement
in central Phrygia, marked by such names as Metrophanes of
Eucarpia, and by a Christian literature, of which only a few
miserable remains have come down to us. The state of
manners and of government in the martyr-romances is older
than Justinian, 6... the Asian Dioecesis is administered by a
vicarius, whereas Justinian in 535 abolished the vicarius.
One point in these romances is of special interest: when they
were composed, the pagan religion was not eradicated, and they
preserve to us some curious information: 6.9. a feast of Artemis
called Κάλαθος was practised
17th, p. 343).
1 In giving the limits 363 and 385.
A.D, (though I used the dates only
approximately) I made my view seem
too hard and fast: the latest date at
which the tale was first reduced to
writing is the time when Salutaris
became the universally used term, and
we can hardly place this earlier than
the beginning of the fifth century.
* Mere excerpts of the stories of
in Bithynia (Act. Sanct., June
Ariadne and Therapon are given in the
Acta Sanctorum: if any MS. can be
found containing their complete bio-
graphy, it will be topographically very
valuable.
3 Acta SS. Troph., Sabb., &e.,
where also the governor resident at
Synnada has not the rank of conswlaris,
which he had acquired some time before
Justinian,
474 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
Further, the date when the term ‘Little Phrygia’ came into
use can be still more narrowly defined. About 385-95 Theo-
dosius disjoined a large district from Phrygia, and used it to
form a new province, Galatia Secunda (see LXXIV.). Phrygia
Secunda, already less important and wealthy, now became also
smaller, than Phrygia Prima.
I must advert to one other argument, used by ΔΙ. Duchesne :
he thinks that the use of Σαλουταρία for Μικρὰ in one MS.
disproves my theory (suffit pour écarter le systeme proposé par le
jeune savant anglais). But I cannot see why the substitution
of the term which became practically universal soon after 400,
in all books known to us, for the term which was very rare, and
which on my theory was disused about 400, tells in any way
against my theory: such a process is on my theory the most
natural thing in the world of copyists.
One other objection to my theory, raised by myself in this
Journal, 1883, p. 425, remains. I there argued that the text
of the epitaph was transcribed by the writer after the original
inscription was defaced in one line, that this defacement was
clearly intentional, and must have been done by some orthodox
partisan who fancied that the line favoured heresy. I suggested
the Paulician heresy as the one which led to this orthodox
Vandalism ; but Bishop Lightfoot in his work on Ignatius and
Polycarp considers that heresies prevalent before 400 were quite
sufficient to produce the same result, and it is moreover probable
that the words were erased while the Saint was still remembered
in the country, and while people still thought the stone an im-
portant religious monument. I still adhere to all that I said
1883, p. 425, except the suggestion about Paulicianism.
XXIX.—THE PuRyYGIAN PENTAPOLIS. This district may be
noted as a typical example of the obscurity in which the topo-
graphy of Phrygia was involved before the work of the Asia
Minor Exploration Fund began. Of the five cities whose number
caused the name, Eucarpia gave rise to frequent conjectures,
none of which even approximated to the true situation. Of
Brouzos M. Waddington? remarks that it does not appear to
be mentioned except in Hierocles. Of Otrous the same might
be said. Hieropolis had been so entirely forgotten that 10 was
confused with Hierapolis of the Lycus valley, and its bishops
1 Voyaye Numisinatique, s.v. Drouzos.
PToLEMY.
[70 face XXIX.
Norirtia I.
Wormray 111.- x:
Εὐκαρπία
Ἱεραπολῖται
| Δροῦζος
᾿Ανάβουρα
[Βεῦδος Παλαιόν]
Λυσίας
Σύνναδα
Πρυμνησία
eee
Κόννα
Νακόλεια
Δορύλλειον
Μιδάειον
Λυκάονες
[Aulocrene, Plin. ]
[Πρεπενισσό5]
TplBavra 2
[Kotyaion Strab.]
π΄
12, Εὐκαρπίας
11, Ἱεραπόλεως
ἢ “Orpov
| [Stektorion, Pausan.]|8, Στεκτορίου
15, Βρύζου
14, Αὐγουστουπόλεως
10, Φυτείας
19, Κιναβωρίου
13, Λυσιάδος
| 1, ὁ Συννάδων
6, Προμισοῦ
22, Νικουπόλεως
5, ἼΨψου
[in Galatia II.]
[ἢ Galatia 11.]
20, Κόνης
7, Μήρου
8, Νακωλείας
2, Δορυλαίου
, τοῦ Μηδαίου
~
17, Λυκάονος
28, ᾿Αβρόκλων
| 9, Σιβίλδου
21, Σκυρδαπίας
11. ὁ Κυτυαείου
11, Εὐκαρπίας
10, Ἱεραπόλεως
15, Ἴτρου
17, Στεκτωρίου
14, Βρύζου
18, Αὐγουστουπόλεως
21, Κλήρων
9, Φυτείας
12, Λυσιάδος
ὁ Συνάδων
6, Προμησοῦ
5, ᾿Ακροκονοῦ
4, “γψοῦ
[in Galatia 11.]
[in Galatia 11.]
II. 3, Κωνῆς
7, Mnpov
III. 6 Νακωλείας
2, Δορυλαίου
3, Μηδαίου
16, Λυκάονος
8, Σινβίνδου
j II. 2, Σπορῆς
ὶ 11. 4, Γαϊουκώμεως
II. 1, ὁ Κοτυαείου
18, Γορδορινίας (-ovvias)
19, Καβαρκίου (-ουρκίου)
PHRYGIA SALUTARIS.
[Τὸ face XXIX.
Pro.emy. Corns. HIFROCLES. |
]
Εὐκαρπία ΕΥ̓ΚΑΡΠΕΩ͂Ν Εὐκαρπία
“Ἱεραπολῖται IEPOMOAEITAN Ἱεράπολις
OTPOHNAN “Oorpous
[Stektorion, Pausan.] STEKTOPHNON Σεκτόριον
Δροῦζος BPOYZHNON Bpovtos
Γ Κλῆρος 'Oplyns ) |
AvdBoupa fa |
Κλῆρος Πολιτικῆς i
[Βεῦδος Παλαιόν]
Λυσίας
Σύνναδα
Πρυμνησία
᾿Ιουλιόπολις
Δοκίμαιον
Κόννα
Νακόλεια
Δορύλλειον
Μιδάειον
Auxdoves
[Aulocrene, Plin.]
[Πρεπενισσός]
Τρίβαντα Ἱ
[Kotyaion Strab.]
NAKOAEQN
AOPTAAEDN
MIAAEQN
ZIBIAOTNAENN
KOTIAEQN
Δεβαλά-
-κια
ΔΛυσιάς
Σύνναδα
Πρύμνησος
ἽΨος
Πολύγωτος
Δοκίμιον
Μητρόπολις
Μῆρος
Νακολία
Δορύλλιον.
Meddiov
δήμου Λυκαῶν
δήμου Αὐράκλεια
δήμου ᾿Αλαμασσοῦ
δήμου Προπνίασα
CoNCIL. CHALCED.
A.D, 451.
Notitr# VII., VIIL, 1X.
Noritra I. |
Noritra III., X. |
|
|
|
Eukarpia |
Hierapolis |
Otrous |
Stektorion
Brouzos |
[Augustopolis, 553)
Bilandensis
Kinnaborion
Lysias
1, Synnada
Prymniassa
Ipsos
Polybotos
Dokimion
Nakoleia
Il. Dorylajon
Midaion
Praipenissos
Kotiaion
14,
Evtxapr'as
18, Ἱεραπόλεως
18,
20,
17,
10,
12,
21,
15,
10,
8,
24,
i,
i,
6,
19,
25,
10,
23,
2,
“Orpov, "Ὥτρου
Στεκτονίου
Βρύζου
Αὐγουστουπόλεως
Φυτείας
Κινναβωρίου, Κηναβορίου
ΔΛυσιάδος, Λυσσιάδος
Συνάδων
Προμισσοῦ, Προμνησοῦ
Νικοπόλης
Ἴψου
Πολυβότου
τοῦ Δοκιμίου
Κόνις ἤτοι Δημητρίου πόλεως
Μήρου
Νακολίας
Δορυλλαίου
τοῦ Μηδαίου, τοῦ Μηδιαίου
Λυκαονίας, Λυκάωνος
Αὐρόκλων
Σικνόδου, Σιβήνδου
Σκυρδαπίας, Σκορδασπίας
Κυτιμίου, Κομιτίου
12, Εὐκαρπίας |
11, ‘lepardAcws |
16, “Orpov |
18, Στεκτορίου |
15, Βρύζου
14, Αὐγουστουπόλεως
10, Φυτείας
19, Κιναβωρίου
18, Avoiddos
1, ὁ Συννάδων
6, Προμισοῦ
22, Νικουπόλεως
δ, Ἵψου
{in Galatia 11.1
fin Galatia IT.]
20, Kévns
7, Μήρον
3, Νακωλείας
2, Aopudatov
4, τοῦ Μηδαίου
17, Λυκάονος
38, ᾿Αβρόκλων
9, Σιβίλδου
21, Σκυρδαπίας
II. ὁ Kotvaelov
11, Εὐκαρπίας
10, ᾿Ἱεραπόλεως
15, “Irpou
17, Στεκτωρίου
14, Βρύζου
18, Αὐγουστουπόλεως
21, Κλήρων
9, Φυτείας
12, Λυσιάδος
ὁ Συνάδων
6, Προμησοῦ
5, ᾿Ακροκονοῦ,
4, 'γψοῦ
[in Galatia IJ.)
[in Galatia IT.)
Il. 3, Κωνῆς
7, Μήρου
III. ὁ NaxwAclas
2, Δορυλαίου
8, Μηδαίου
16, Λυκάονος
8, Σινβίνδου
11. 2, Σπορῆς
Il. 4, Γαϊουκώμεως
IJ. 1, 6 Κοτυαείου
18, Γορδορινίας (-ovvias)
19, KaBapxlou (-ουρκίου)
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 75
and its coins referred to the better known city; Kiepert how-
ever observed the distinction and placed the second Hierapolis
far away to the north, near Afiom Kara Hissar, which led bim
also to suggest situations for Stectorion and Otrous in the same
neighbourhood. The name Pentapolis had not been observed,
the five cities had not been connected together, and no one of
them had even by conjecture been placed in the valley of
Sandykli where they were all situated. Hamilton proposed
(and Kiepert accepts the hypothesis), to place Euphorbium in
the valley of Sandykli (see LIII.).
The name Pentapolis is given in the following signature at
Concil. Constantinop. A.D. 553 (Labbe, p. 585 [223]),? Paulus
misericordia Dei episcopus sanctae ecclesiae Stectoric civitatis
Pentapoliticae regionis Phrygiae Salutaris provinciae.
In one other passage (Nicet. Chon., 162) the Phrygian Penta-
polis is referred to. About the year 1158 there was a war
between Manuel and the Seljuk Turks under Kili Arslan, and
Manuel invaded the Pentapolis (τοῖς περὶ τὴν ΤΠεντώπολιν
ἐπιτίθεται). Cinnamus describes this war more fully: he says
that Manuel advanced by way of Philadelphia, but the rest of
his vague description conveys no note of locality except χῶρόν
τινα Σαράπατα Μύλωνος (Cinnam. 196). The astonishment of
the Turks that asmall Byzantine army should invade the district
is vividly described by Cinnamus.
The order in Hierocles shows that the five cities are Eukarpia,
Hieropolis, Otrous, Brouzos, and Stectorion. About these cities
no trustworthy information existed until 1882, when I published
in the Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique a paper, ‘ Trois Villes
Phrygiennes,’ in which I showed that Brouzos was situated at
Kara Sandykli, that Hieropolis must be a city of the same valley
and probably Otrous also, and suggested that Eukarpia was to
be sought in the country immediately north-east, and Stectorion
south, of the Sandykli valley. In 1883 I visited the Sandykli
Gva twice, first along with Mr. J. R.S. Sterrett in June, and
again in October alone, in order to fill up some gaps in the
1 Forbiger, Alte Geogr., does distin- written in Athens, some in Oxford
guish the two, but inthe same page he (Mansi), some in Aberdeen: the paging
makes three remarks about the lesser varies according to three different edi-
city which are true only of the greater. tions. To reduce it to umformity would
2 My quotations from the Act. Concil. necessitate weeks of toil, from which
are made from lists and notes, some I shrink.
470 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
evidence. I had previously spent two days in the valley in
November 1881, and again in 1887 I spent four days; the last
of these visits produced no new evidence.
The rich valley of Sandykli, in which the five cities were
situated, lies on the upper waters of the Glaukos, a tributary of
the Maeander. Sandykli is now the seat of a Kaimakam, in
the Sanjak of Kara Hissar: it is a town of medieval growth,
placed, for convenience of water supply, on the higher eastern
side of the valley, whereas the ancient cities all lay in the low
rich land on the west side.
XXX.—EvxK arpa. No direct evidence has yet been discovered
about this city; but after placing the other four cities on well-
marked sites in the valley, there remains near Ille Mesjid one
other ancient site, evidently the most important of all, as it
possesses a small theatre, and the fifth city of the Pentapolis
must be placed here. Corroborative evidence is obtained from
the line of the Roman road. In the Peutinger Table Eukarpia
is placed on the road from the north to Apumeia between Konna
and Eumeneia. Geographical possibility leaves no doubt about
the line of this road south of Konna:! Eukarpia must lie in the
Sandykli valley, and no other site can be found on the road.
The accompanying map shows that the necessary lines of the
Roman roads here are confused in the Peutinger Table, the
direct road from Eukarpia to Apameia being mixed with the
road from Eukarpia by Eumeneia to Apameia.
XXXJI.—HIEROPOLIS was situated beside Kotch Hissar: the
ruins are still considerable. On the north side there are remains
of walls, built of large blocks of stone, probably of the original
temple which formed the religions centre of the valley. This
temple, if temple it be, is the only one I have seen in Asia
Minor which appears to be older than the Graeco-Roman epoch :
some excavation would be required before its character can be
determined.
The evidence for the exact situation of Hieropolis lies entirely
in the tale of Saint Aberkios * and the relation of the city to the
hot springs: they are about two miles south of Kotch Hissar,
and are still a great medicinal resort. Kiepert acutely argued
1 To determine this was one of the proposed to ourselves in our exploration
first objects which Mr. Sterrett and 1 of 1883. 2S. S882.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF ΡΗΒΥΟΙΑ. 477
from the name that the town must have been situated beside
some natural phenomenon, and conjectured that the site was at
the hot springs now called Gejek Hamam, about eight miles
north-east of Afiom Kara Hissar.
Hieropolis must undoubtedly have been originally the chief
place in the valley: the population dwelt scattered over the
whole country, the priests of the central hierom ruled them, and
around the /ieron grew a town, Hiero-polis: though no express
evidence of this period is preserved, yet the analogy of other dis-
tricts is convincing. Hence, according to Ptolemy (quoted LXV)
the population of the whole valley were called ἱἸεροπολῖται.
Another evidence that the name Hieropolis (or, as the Greeks
preferred, ‘Iepa Πόλις) was extended over the whole valley lies
in a passage of Strabo hitherto not understood (p. 3874): τὰ
μέταλλα τῆς ποικίλης λίθου τῆς Σκυρίας καθάπερ τῆς Καρυστίας
καὶ τῆς Δευκαλλίας (2) καὶ τῆς Συνναδικῆς ἱἹἹεραπολιτικῆς.
Meineke would expunge the last word, but such an alteration
cannot be accepted. AE€YKAAAIAC must be corrected ΔΟΚΙ-
MAIOY,? and Συνναδικῆφ is perhaps to be explained as a gloss
on Aoxtpaiov, whieh was also called Synnadic marble. Hiera-
politic marble was perhaps found in the almost unknown moun-
tains between Hieropolis and Synnada: the other Phrygian city,
Hierapolis on the Lycus, is not likely to be meant, as marble in
that neighbourhood could hardly have escaped attention in
modern times. It is also possible that Strabo used the expres-
siun Συνναδικῆφ ἱβεραπολιτικῆς to specify the marble accurately,
T shall show below (XX XVI.) that Synnada was the central office
for managing the Phrygian marble trade.
These references to Hieropolis, and the important remains of
the city, make it difticult to accept the conelusion that it alone
of the five cities struck no coins. I have bought in the neigh-
bouring villages three coins, all bearing the legend |€PONOAE!I-
ΤΩΝ, and all of the third century: besides these, 1 saw or
bought in the neighbourhood coins of Eukarpia, Otrous, Stec-
torion, and Brouzvs, also of Metropolis Phrygiae, of Synnada, of
Kumeneia, of Apameia, and only one of Laodiceia. This state-
ment shows how improbable it is that three coins of Hierapolis
1 The first corruption was A€Y- seeStrab. p. 577. Hierapolitan marble,
KAAAIOY. and then the gender Const. Porph., Cevimon., p. 644.
Was corrected : on the form Δοκιμαίον
HOS Ὁ WILT, Lt
478 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
ad Lycum, all bearing the very rare form of the name as Hiero-
polis, should have been found beside the site of this other
Hieropolis. The type on one of these coins moreover is, as
M. Waddington informed me, identical with that of a coin of
Brouzos in his collection. This fact is conclusive. The rule,
then, seems clear: coins of the third century, |EPONOAEITAN,
are to be attributed to the city of the Pentapolis. There are
also some early coins with the same legend: these belong to
Hierapolis ad Lycum. Where Greek language and civilization
had fully established itself, the name is ‘Iepa Πόλις : the name
in central Phrygia, in Cappadocia, and in Syria is ἹΙερόπολις.
Hievrapolis on the Lycus fell entirely under Greek influence in
the first century of the Empire.
XXXII.—Stectorion. The site of this town is fixed at Emir
Hissar by the passage in Pausanias (x. 27. 1): τούτου [1.0.
Muydovos] μνῆμά τε ἐπιφανὲς ἐν ὅροις πεποίηται Φρυγῶν
Στεκτορηνῶν. About a mile north-east of the village is a row
of tumuli on a ridge. One of them is very large, and is a con-
spicuous object in the view from most parts of the valley. I
suppose that this is the tomb of Mygdon. The actual site of the
city is at the village Emir Hissar, and the acropolis is on a little
hill on the north side: the walls can be traced in the greater
part of their circuit. The ruins of the city have suffered severely
since Hamilton (11. p. 169) visited them, when they were so
perfect that a plan of the whole town might have been made.
XXXIII.—Orrovs. It seems hardly credible that three dis-
tinct cities and bishoprics should have existed so close together
as Emir Hissar, Tchor Hissar, and Kotch Hissar, but the remains
at all three places prove the existence of cities of which that at
Tchor Hissar—at present a village of one or two houses only—
was the smallest. The name Otrous is appropriated to this site
by the following inscription, on a large basis in the cemetery at
Tchor Hissar, which I copied in October, 1883 :—
AAEZANAPONMAKEAONA ᾿Αλέξανδρον Μακεδόνα
K TICTHNTHCNOAE SC κτίστην τῆς πόλεως
It is impossible to interpret this inscription as raised under
the Empire to commemorate a patriotic fiction that Alexander
the Great had founded the city: the Macedonian conqueror
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 479
would not have been styled simply Alexander the Macedonian.
There can be little doubt that this Alexander is the same
who is mentioned on coins of Otrous about 200U—215 A.D., with
the legend :
AAEZANAPOC ACIAPXHC ANE€OHKEN OTPOHNON.
Alexander was a wealthy native, who filled the high-priesthood
of Asia, and brought his native city into the knowledge of the
world. He probably contributed the expense of striking the first
coinage of Otrous,! thus marking its claim to be a city, and
was therefore honoured with the title “ Founder” in this inscrip-
tion. The epithet Μακεδόνα is remarkable: it bears witness,
perhaps, to an attempt to concoct a pedigree for Alexander.
The anxiety of Anatolian cities to connect themselves with
ancient Greek history or legend is attested by many examples:
many Macedonian colonies had been planted by the early
Diadochi in Phrygia, ὁ... at Peltae, Dokimion, Kadoi, ἄς. It
was therefore intended to flatter Alexander by representing linn
as of the true European lineage.
The proper form of the name is undoubtedly Ὄτρο Fos, whence
the adjective ’Orpofnvos: the town is named after the Phrygian
hero Otreus, in whom G. Curtius long ago recognized the Greek
hero Atreus (Gricch. Etymol. ii, p. 293). Otreus and Mygdon
were the Phrygian chiefs who fought against the Amazons on
the banks of the Sangarios (J/iad iii. 186), and it is certainly
remarkable to find "Orpofos, the city of Otreus, and Stectorion,
the city where Mygdon was buried (Pausan. x. 27, 1), side by
side in this valley. Otreus was known also in Mysia (Strab.
Ρ. 566) at Otroia (Orpofia).2 The coinage of Stectorion and
Otrous also bears witness to the survival of ancient Phrygian
heroic legend in the valley: in both places a remarkable type
oceurs:*® (1) at Stectorion, “Héros casqué et cuirassé allant a
vauche en retournant la téte et posant le pied droit sur une proue
de navire: de la main droite il brandit une arme et de la gauche
1 Compare the account of the coinage mon among late scribes) of οι, so
of Peltae, given in my ‘Antiquities of that the word ought to be ’Orpoia.
Southern Phrygia and the Border ὑπὲρ τῆς ᾿Ασκανίας λίμνης Οτροία.. ..
Lands,’ which will shortly appear in εἰκάζουσι δ᾽ ἀπὸ “Orpews ’OTpolay καλ-
the American Journal of Archacology. εἶσθαι, Stvab. p. 566.
* Plut. Lucull. lias ’Orpvat, where 3 Tmhool-Blumer, Worn. Gr. p. 412:
v is probably a misspelling (cum- Mionnet s.r, Otrous,
ra.2
480 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
3»)
il sabrite de son bouclier ;” (2) at Otrous, “ Héros se retournant,
le pied droit sur une proue de vaisseau, la main droite levée, et
tenant dans la gauche la haste.” Imhoof-Blumer and Head
suggest the name Mygdon for this hero, but it appears to me
that the name must be given according to a coin of Otrous,
representing Aeneas armed bearing Anchises on his shoulders
and leading by the hand the young Ascanios, towards whom
he turns his head. The interpretation of the last coin is certain,
and hence in the other we are not justified in seeking an
otherwise unknown native legend, but we must find the Greek
hterary legend of Aeneas leaving Troy: the love of the Anatolian
cities for introducing Greek legend, and the evident contempt
of the Phrygians and Lydians for native legend, have been noted
by me frequently. We see, then, in this district a cultus of
Otreus, Aeneas and Ascanios, essentially the same as that implied
by Strabo (p. 566) at the lake Ascania.
An inscription which I found in the mosque at Kelendres
must be left in the same doubt as when I first published it !:
[Adroxpd]ropa [Καίσαρα] A. Σε[πτίμιον] Σεουῆ[ρον Περ[τίνακα
Σεβαστ]ὸν ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δ]ῆμος Ol τροην]ῶν (or ὁ [Βρουζην]ῶν)
ἐπιμε[ληθέντή]ηων τῆς ἀϊναστάσεω)ς Ἑρμογένους] καὶ Εἰὐτυ-
[χιαν]οῦ τοῦ καὶ . . .. .Juvtavov [ἀρχόν]των, but the former
restoration suits the space much better.
XXXIV. Brovzos.—The name is fixed at Kara Sandykli by
the following text on a basis standing in front of the mosque
(Ramsay, 1881): A. Σεπτίμιον S[eov]jpov. ..... ἡ Βρουζη-
[νῶν] πόλις - τὴν ἀνάστασιν ποιησαμένων τῶν περὶ ᾿Απέλλ[η]ν
B τοῦ Λουκίου ἀρχόντων. The inscription originally ended
thus, but the other archons apparently desired to have their
names recorded, arid a new hand added καὶ Σικε[ιπ]ίωνος β' καὶ
Πωλίωνος καὶ ᾿Απολλωνίου Ilazou,? showing that there were
four archons at Brouzos. The name, according to Fick’s canon,
is for Broughos, which is perhaps a formation from Φρύγοες
through Φροῦγος.
An easy araba road runs from Akmonia up the Ahat Keui
1 Trois Villes Phrygienncs, p. 517: are published in my Trois Villes Phry-
‘O[tponv]ay still seems to me most giennes. One contains the remarkable
probable, on account of the small space expressions ἐνορκιζόμεθα δὲ τὸ μέγεθος
remaining in the line to receive the τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς καταχθονίους δαίμονας,
niissing letters. and οὐκ ἤμην' ἐγενόμην: οὐκ ἔσομαι'
3 Two other inscriptions of Brouzos σὺ μέλί( ενι μοι: ὁ βίος ταῦτα.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 481
water, and down the Aram Tchai to the Pentapolis. That an
imperial Roman road such as those of the Peutinger Table
existed along this track is not probable; but the remarkabic
type on coins of Akmonia and Brouzos, Zeus slaying two giants,
bears witness to intercourse between the two cities.
In the rest of Phrygia Salutaris, it is not convenient to follow
the order of Hierocles. There still remain some serious dif_i-
culties in the topography, and it is impossible to face these until
we have first placed those about which definite evidence remains.
After placing the cities whose situation is certain, we narrow the
question about the rest.
XXXV.—Synnapa. The site was first proved by M. Perrot
in the Revue Archéologique, 1876, from inscriptions copied in the
town of Tchifut Cassaba (“ Jews’ Market”) by M. Choisy. All
previous conjectures had been far wrong. I need not repeat
what M. Perrot has there stated as to the history of Synnada.
Study of the geography of the district shows that Synnada
lies off the direct line of the great eastern highway: the easy
road runs straight from Metropolis to Lysias, while the detour
by Synnada leads over a decidedly more difficult country. Hence
Synnada is omitted by Artemidorus and Strabo (p. 628) in the
sketch of the great highway.
The Romans, who made Synnada the central city of a dicecesis,
introduced it also, against the nature of the country, into their
road-system. No straight road is possible from Apameia to
Synnada, or from Metropolis to Synnada: only a difficult moun-
tain-path leads from Metropolis to Atlii Hissar. The main
- highway to the east has a singularly easy route through a moun-
tainous country, by Metropolis, Euphorbium, Kinnaborion, and
Lysias; it will some day be the line of a railway.
For a short time during the first century before Christ, when
the pirates made the voyage along the south coast of Asia Minor
unsafe, the Roman governors of Cilicia landed at Ephesos and
made the journey along the eastern highway to Tarsos. They
were thus obliged to pass through Laodiceia and Apameia, and
not far from Synnada: it was therefore arranged that they
should hold the conventus of Kibyra, Apameia, and Synnada (to
1 See Imhoof-Blumer, Zeitsch. f. tains, over which an easy road passes
Numism. 1885, and Waddington, west and east, are impassable north to
Voyage Numismatique. These moun- — south.
482 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
which we may safely add Philomelion’) as they passed, and that
the Kibyratic conventus should assemble in Laodiceia, which
became henceforth the chief seat of that dioccesis.
Strabo (p.577) says of the plain of Synnada: Σύνναδα δ᾽ ἐστὶν
οὐ μεγάλη πόλις - πρόκειται δ᾽ αὐτῆς ἐλαιόφυτον πεδίον ὅσον
ἑξήκοντα σταδίων. There can be no doubt that the statement
about olives was never true. Olives can never have been culti-
vated in the high plain of Synnada (3,400 feet above sea-level).
Olives at the present day are cultivated for commercial purposes
only in the lower Maeander valley: even in the Lycus valley
they are said not to flourish, but above this they are almost un-
known. Probably Strabo’s text should be corrected to [ἀμπΊ]ε-
λόφυτον : his general accuracy in regard to Asia Minor leaves
me no hesitation in dismissing the idea that he made an error in
such a point.
XXXVI.—Doximion. The site is assured by the proximity of
the Dokimian marble quarries, which lie beside the junction of
the two streams flowing past Seidilar and Itchja Kara Hissar,
about two miles from each. Texier and Hamilton have both
placed Dokimion correctly at Itchja Kara Hissar.
I have discarded the common view derived from the appear-
ance of the roads in Tab. Peut., that a Roman road ran from
Doryiaion and Nakoleia by Dokimion and Synnada to Apameia.
Such a road can hardly have existed, owing to natural difficul-
ties between Nakoleia and Dokimion, and is certainly not wanted
alongside of the other road from Nakoleia by Konna to Apameia.
The Peut. Tab. really gives two roads—Dorylaion-Amorion and
Synnada-Dokimion-Amorion, which, in the distorted represen-
tation of the country, look like a single road.
The administration of the marble quarries of Dokimion, which
belonged to the emperors, is a difficult subject. 1 have elsewhere ”
suggested that the name Synnadic marble, by which Dokimian
marble was known to the Romans, must have arisen because the
central office for administering the Phrygian marbles was situated
at Synnada, and that communications about the marbles passed
between Rome and Synnada. Western peoples ordered the
Phrygian marble from Synnada and called it Synnadic marble.
1 Marquardt is not quite certain ° “Inseriptions Inédites de Marhres
. Ρ κι." . Β . - ᾽ A
whether Philomelion was the seat of a Phrygiens,’ in Jlélanges αὐ Archéol. et
conventus. de Ling., Rome, 1882.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 483
The procurator marmorum, a freedman of the emperor, resided
at Synnada, and a subordinate office—that of the actual con-
tractor for the works, or of the officials charged with the cutting
(caesura)—existed at the quarries themselves. In the time of
M. Aurelius we learn of procurators of Phrygia, imperial freed-
men, also probably resident at Synnada, It is possible that the
latter belong to a reorganization of the entire fiscus in Phrygia,
which placed the administration of all imperial revenues, in-
cluding the marbles, the estates, and other sources, in one cen-
tral office. This is of course a mere hypothesis, propounded to
guide future study towards its proof or disproof: according to
the hypothesis the procuratores marmoruwm were superseded by
procuratores Phrygiae about A.D. 160. The following procura-
tors are known :—
1. [M. Ulpius] Marianus Aug. lib. proc., on two inscriptions of
Synnada (Zph. Epigr., 127 and 128; Inscript. de Marb. Phryg.,
1 and 2). His name gives his approximate date 110—130.
2. Irenaeus Aug. lib. procurator, on two blocks of Synnadic
marble at Rome, date a.D. 137 (Bruzza, Annali, 1870, No.
258—9).
3. M. Aurelius Aug. lib. Marcio, procurator marmorum, who
afterwards became procurator of Britain, and finally procurator
Phrygiae, known from an inscription of Trocnada, or Tricomia
(6.1.1. iii. 348).
4. Aurelius Aristaenetus, proc. Phrygiae, on an inscription of
Synnada (Perrot, Rev. Archéol., 1876, p. 198).
5. M. Aurelius Aug. lib. Crescens, procurator Phrygiae, known
by a Greek inscription of Eukarpia (C_.L.G., 3888, where it is
falsely ascribed to Eumeneia).
The subordinate office at Dokimion is implied in the follow-
ing quarry-marks on blocks of marble found there :—
OFFicina? PELAgii ΑΡ. 145 (Eph. Epigr.) No. 114
OFF Icina ? [PELAgii] a.p. 146 :, No. 115
OFFicina ? PELAgii A.D. 146 ᾿ Νο. 1381
OFFicina? ASIATici A.D. 147 » No. 116 & 1376
OFFicina? ASIATICi a.p. 164 " No. 118
CAESura DOMitii ? A.D. 164 τὴ Νο. 118
With regard to the quarries, we find Brachium SECundum,
Brachium TERTium, Brachium QVARTum.
484 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
The symbol REPR in five inscriptions, which I interpreted
repr(ohatuin) [non sine aliqua specie veri, Momms.], is perhaps
REPR, badly formed and badly spelt, for B. Tert. : quarry-marks
are singularly rudely and even falsely scratched on the blocks.
The marble quarries of Dokimion were still rich in Α.Ὁ. 414
(Cod. Theodos., xi. 28, 9).
The distance (xxxii.) on the Peutinger Table between Doki-
mion and Synnada is true if we assume it as the sum of the
distances Dokimion-Pry mnessos (xvul.) and Prymnessos-Synnada
(xv.), The accompanying map shows the line of the road by
which the vast blocks of Dokimion marble (Strabo, p. 577) were
carried to the sea. This road does not touch the town of
Synnada, but passes through its territory.
In the later Byzantine time Dokimion was separated from
Phrygia Salutaris, at the formation of a new ecclesiastical division
under Amorion as metropolis. This was perhaps coincident
with the fermation of the Khonai metropolitan district,1 though
the fact is not recorded. This suspicion is roused by the
following facts:—(1) The only reference to the advanced dig-
nity of Khonai: [Φώτιος] ἀπαστέλλει Θεόφιλον ἐπίσκοπον
[read ἀρχιεπίσκοπον) τοῦ ᾿Αμορίου καὶ Σαμουὴλ ἐπίσκοπον
ἄχρις ἐκείνου τῶν Χωνῶν ὑπὸ Λαοδίκειαν τυγχάνοντα ἀρχι-
ἐπίσκοπον τετιμηκώς, Vit. S. Ignatii, Mansi Οὐποῖϊ. xvi. p. 235.
(2) The early Notiiae VII., VIII, IX., give Amorion as a
bishopric under Pessinus, and arrange its dependent bishoprics
in the same way as Hierocles, whereas Not. I., 1Π1., X., ΧΠῚ,
give the following list :—
wor, I.
Γαλατίας δευτέρας“
Hierocles &
Nor. Il. Nor. Not. VIL. VILL. IX.
ὁ τοῦ Apop tou
ὁ ΦιλομηλίἼου | a’
ὁ τοῦ Aokimiov β΄.
ὁ Κλάγξ |
ὁ Πολυβώτου δ΄.
ὁ Πισσίας ἘΠ
᾿Αμορίον Φρυγίας
ὁ Φιλομιλιον
6 τοῦ Δοκιμίου |
. 6 Κλανεοῦ ]
ὁ Πολυβότου ᾿
ὁ Πισσίας |
τῷ ᾿Αμωρίῳ τῆς
Φρυγίας
| 6 Φιλομηλίον
ὁ Δοκιμίον
ὁ Κλαθεοῦ
ὁ Πολυβότον
ὁ Πισσίας
Galatia Salutaris
Pisidia
Phrygia Salutaris
| KAgveos Galatia
| Salutaris
| Phrygia Salutaris
| Not mentioned
1 About 859 A.D. or soon after.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGLA, 485
Such a contradiction among the Notitive points to a change in
the middle of the ninth century, if we could feel any confidence
that it was entered immediately in the lists. (3) In Concil.
Nicaen. II., A.b. 787, Amorion is ranked as autokephalos, coming
at the very end of the list of superior bishops, and just before
the list of ordinary bishops begins. It had therefore been
already raised to independent ecclesiastical rank, whereas in
692 it ranks as an ordinary bishopric subject to Pessinus. But
even in 787 it is only autokephalos, not a metropolis: Dekimion,
Klaneos, Philomelion appear in their proper provinces. At last,
in the Council of 879, it appears as a metropolis, with Pissia
dependent on it.
This Amorian dioecesis is a well-marked district, within which
we must not look for any of the other Phrygian bishopries, and
the order in Hierocles proves that the names Κλῆρος ᾿Θρινῆς,
Κλῆρος Πολιτικῆς, Δεβαλακία, Δυσιάς, are to be sought south
of this district, towards Synnada and the Pisidian frontier. The
importance of this inference will appear below.
XXXVII—Prymnessos. The site of this city was long
sought in vain. Franz and Kiepert placed it at Seidi Ghazi on
the evidence? of an inscription found there, engraved on a huge
block of marble by the Prymnessian people. In my paper,
“ Prymmnessos and Metrepolis,” I argued, from a false interpreta-
tion of the following inscription,” that Prymnessos was in the
valley of Bayat: [Imp. Caesari L. Septimio, &c.] a Prymnesso IIT.
In the first symbol of the number the engraver has distinctly
cut not 1, but ): this, combined with the blurred surface, made
me ynderstand [M]if, and look for Prymnessos thirteen miles
away. In reality this milestone is the third from Prymnessos,
and just three miles south of the bridge in which it is now built
are the ruins of a city which was important enough to possess
a small theatre. ‘The ruins are situated beside the village of
Seulun: the main road from Afiom Kara Hissar to Tchai and
Ak Sheher passes through them, and 10,15 almost incomprehensible
how they escaped notice till October, 1883. This road is one of
the most important routes in the country, and even at the pre-
sent day an observant eye detects the signs of an ancient city on
the actual road, though the theatre is not in sight from the road.
After discovering the city, and recognizing at once that it must
te Gals Τὸ 9518. * Eph. Epigr., 176 and 1466.
480 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
be Prymnessos, I went to verify the milestone quoted above, and
saw the true reading.
XXXVIII.—KoneE, Konna was situated, according to the
Peutinger Table, between Nakoleia and Eukarpia, on the road
leading from Dorylaion to Apameia. There can be no doubt as
to the course of the road from Dorylaionto Apameia. It ascends
the river Parthenios to its source, descends a tributary of the
Adji Su, and passes by Kidyessos into the Pentapolis. Between
Nakoleia and Kidyessos it passes two ancient sites—the first at
Kumbet, the second near Beuyeuk Tchorgia. To determine
which of these is Konna, we have to look at the Byzantine
lists.
XXXIX.—METROPOLIS is mentioned by Hierocles between
Dokimion and Meros. The Notitiae do not contain the name,
but three of them mention Kovns ἤτοι Δημητριουπόλεως.
Demetriopolis is the “city of Saint Demetrios.” It is well
known that the goddess Demeter was often transformed into
the Saint Demetrios, and in this case obviously the Meter
Goddess has suffered the same transformation: Metropolis and
Demetriopolis are the same place.
Kone and Metropolis were therefure situated near each other,
and were united under the charge of a single bishop. The order
of Hierocles here is important : he enumerates Polybotos, Doki-
mion, Metropolis in a-line going westward, and then turns north
to Meros and Nakoleia.
XL.—AMBASON is mentioned by Steph. Byz., ἼΑμβασον,
Μητρόπολις τῶν Φρυγῶν. It is probably identical with a place
᾿Αμποῦν, mentioned on the road leading from Iconium past
Afiom Kara Hissar towards Constantinople by Anna Comnena
in her account (Book xv.) of her father’s expedition against
Iconium.
Alexius Comnenus, hard pressed by the Seljuk army in the plain
south of Polybotos, avoided the road via Dorylaion by which he
had advanced towards Iconium, and took the road πρὸς ᾿Αμποῦν.ἷ
This latter road must obviously be the alternative route to Con-
stantinople by way of Kotiaion, and the name “AuBacov or
᾿Αμποῦν appears to be still preserved as Ambanaz, a village on
1 It is remarkable that the historian cities existed on this well-known and
specifies the road by such an unimpor- frequently used road.
tant name as ᾿Αμποῦν, when well-known
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 487
the road in question, and situated in the same valley with
Tchorgia. Ambason (1.6. Metropolis) and Kone must therefore
lie in the valley north of Afiom Kara Hissar.
Stephanus, in the entry quoted above, need not necessarily be
understood as implying that Ambason and Metropolis are two
names for one town. He is probably quoting from a statement
(such as we often find in Byzantine documents’), “AuBacov ἡ
νῦν Μητρόπολις, which does not imply that the two names
denoted exactly the same place. Accordingly Kone, Metropolis,
Ambason, were three small towns in the same neighbourhood.
It is, I think, possible to go further and specify the exact
situation of Kone and of Metropolis, as we have done for
Ambason. The remains of Byzantine life, and especially the
rock-cut churches, at the village Ayaz Inn (“Caves of Hoar
Frost”), mark it as a place of importance in Christian time:
on the other hand, the remains of Roman life are unknown at
Ayaz Inn, but are found about Tchorgia. Kone was the more
important place in the peaceful Roman time: it lies in the open
plain near Tchorgia. Metropolis became more important when
the country was subject to the inroads of Sassanidze and of
Saracens: it lesin the hills at Ayaz Inn. The process whereby
typical Roman sites were gradually abandoned in favour of safer
sites in secluded positions is one to which 1 have frequently to
call attention.
This account of Metropolis is sufficient to prove that no coins
can be attributed to it (see below, LXX XVII). Coins of Konna
might, however, be expected : their absence suggests that it was,
under the Empire, not autonomous but subject to Prymnessos
(see LXVI.). The coins of Prymnessos bear the head and name
of ΒΑΣΙΛΕῪΣ MIAAS, which refers to the remarkable series
of early Phrygian monuments close to the site of Metropolis.
XLI—Acrogenos. This name occurs with the variants
Acronios, Acroinos, Acrounos.? I have in an old paper given in
detail the evidence which proves that the impregnable castle of
Kara Hissar was the fortress Acroenos, so important in the
1 ¢.g. Κολοσσαὶ αἱ νῦν Χῶναι : Kolos- and occurs as such in the Tekmorian in-
sai and Khonai are two different cities, scriptions: ep. ᾽Οτροηνός from ἴΟτρους.
near each other: the latter-in latetime The name refers to the remarkable rock
supplanted the former. (Greek aipés).
2 ’Axponvés, strictly, is an adjective,
488 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.,
Byzantine wars,! and need not here repeat it, as it involves a
study of two different campaigns—in 739 and 1117. The
earliest reference to Acroenos is in A.S. 716, but it must have
existed as a fortress before that time. As soon as foreign in-
vasion began to sweep over the country, the situation of Acroenos,
on a column of volcanic rock rising sheer out of the plain toa
height of nine hundred feet, must have made it a tower of
strength for the country round.
XLII—NIcopoLis is mentioned in Notitiae VII., VIIL., IX.,
and I. I have (d.c.) shown that this is probably the name given
to the castle of Acroenos in commemoration of the great victory
of 739, a turning-point in the struggle against the Arabs. This
Greek name, like many others of the kind, gave place to the
native name in later times: in the last Notitiae 111., X., XIII, we
find no Nicopolis, but Acroenos. When this fortress tirst became
a city and bishopric, it was put at the end of the list with Kone
and Skordapia, which are in the same district ; but as it must have
steadily grown in importance, till it is now one of the chiet
towns of Anatolia, we find it in the late lists placed fourth in
order, immediately before the neighbouring city Prymnessos. In
these later lists I feel certain that the correct entry would be
ὁ ᾿Ακροηνοῦ ἤτοι Πρυμνησσοῦ. As Acroenos flourished, Prym-
nessos must necessarily decay ; and there are various examples
of the retention of a bishopric in the ecclesiastical lists after its
place had been taken by another city. Thus Perga remains
after Attalia had become the first city of Pamphylia and seat of
the archbishop ;? and Pessinus was merged in Justinianopolis
(Sivri Hissar).*
XLITI.—Paroretos PuryGia. The region so named has
never yet been accurately specified. Strabo’s language (p. 576)
describes the long valley which extends along the northern side
of the Sultan Dagh (ὀρεινήν twa ῥάχιν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀνατολῆς
ἐκτεινομένην ἐπὶ δύσιν). Paroreios extends from Tchai (Holmoi)
1 *Prymnessos and Metropolis,’ in discussion of the site of Acroenos as
Mittheil. Athen., 1882. In this, my conclusive, and to confirm by fresh
first attempt at reasoning on Phrygian reasons the situation assigned to
topography, with only a hurried glance Augustopolis.
at the district to work on, and encum- * See my paper ‘ Antiq. of S. Phry-
bered by the traditional misconception gia and the Border Lands,’
as to the road from Nakoleia toSynnada, % As I shall prove in a forthcoming
lam pleased to be able to quote the study of Galatia.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA., 489
to Ilghin (Tyriaion) ; it stretches north-west to south-east
between Sultan Dagh and Emir Dagh.
Strabo (p. 576) gives a list of the districts and cities of
Phrygia Magna; he uses this term in the ancient sense, as dis-
tinguished from Phrygia Epiktetos and Phrygia Hellespontiaca,
not in the later Byzantine sense (see XXVIII.). Phrygia Magna
is divided into (1) Paroreios Phrygia; (2) Phrygia πρὸς Πισιδίᾳ,
including Antioch of Pisidia, Limnai, and much of Ptolemy’s
Φρυγία ἹΠισιδία; (3) τὰ περὶ ᾿Αμόριον καὶ ᾿Ακμόνειαν καὶ
Σύνναδα, Central Phrygia in our conception, but Strabo in-
cludes all Northern Phrygia in Epiktetos or in Mysia; (4)
᾿Απάμεια ἡ Κιβωτὸς λεγομένη καὶ Λαοδίκεια: περίκειται δὲ
ταύταις [ἄλλα Te]! πολίσματα Kal... . ᾿Αφροδισιὰς Κολοσ-
σαὶ Θεμισώνιον Σαναὸς Μητρόπολις ᾿Απολλωνιάς, ἔτι δὲ ἀπω-
τέρω τούτων ἸΠέλται Τάβαι Ἑὐκαρπία Λυσιάς ; this group in-
cludes the southern and south-western part of Phrygia, with
which Strabo included the plain of Tabae.?
This entire list is clear and well arranged, if we remember
that Blaundos is reckoned to Lydia (not, with the numismatists,
to Phrygia), that Trajanopolis and Temenothyrai belong to
Strabo's Maionia, and that Kadoi, Ancyra, and Synaos belong
to his Mysia. One correction of the text, however, has been
required, AAMONEIAN for EYMENEIAN; the latter word dis-
turbs the order, and renders unintelligible the whole list. No
writer could place Peltae and Eukarpia in one district, Eumeneia
in another,
It shows the obscurity of Phrygian topography that Paroreios,
a district which is so clearly marked by nature and by ancient
writers. should never yet have been correctly defined. Its chief
cities are Polybotos, Julia, Philomelion,? Hadrianopolis. and
Tyriaion; it extended, according to Strabo, from Holmoi
(Tchai) τὸ Tyriaion.
XLIV.—Potypotos. The accusative Πολύβοτον is still in
use, as Leake observed, under the form Bolowodun, the name of
an important town, the seat of a kaimakam, on the horse-road
1 The insertion is mine. ὃ ταύτης δὲ τῆς Μεγάλης (Φρυγιάς)
2 Yet in 570, using a different ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ Παρόρειος Φρυγία, περὶ ἣν τὸ
authority, Artemidorus, he places φΦιλομήλιον, Eustath, ad Dionys.
Tabae in Pisidia. Tabae is perhapscor- _Petieget. 815:
rtipt ih the passage in the text above.
490 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
from Constantinople by Eski Sheber to Konia; this road was
one of the most important in Asia Minor from the foundation of
Constantinople till steamships recently superseded land roads as
the means of communication between the capital and the south
coast of Syria and Cyprus. Before Constantinople was founded,
Polybotos lay off the main road and was an unimportant place,
while Julia, in the same plain further south, was the chief
city.
XLV.—Jviia. This city was situated between Philomelion
and Synnada, and it struck numerous coins from Tiberius
to Valerian. The distance from Philomelion is given in the
Table as xxxv. miles, and from Synnada as xxxil.; one or other
of these numbers must be wrong, as the total is too great.
Kiepert places Julia at Tchai, and this cannot be far wrong. I
should however look for a site nearer Sak!i, correcting the
distance from Philomelion to xxiv., and reading the whole road
Philomelium xxiv. Julia xii. Lysias xxiii. Synnada xxviii
Metropolis xxviii. Apamcia. My reasons ure: (1) some ancient
city must have existed in the wide and fine plain between
the lakes Eber Gol and Ak Sheher Gol; (2) Sakli is an
important market town, and the seat of a mudir; (8) Sakh
is on a road which was important both in modern times and
under the Roman Empire; (4) the modern boundary between
the vilayets of Konia and Brussa lies south of Sakli: it is pro-
bable that the boundary has descended from Byzantine time,
and that it was the boundary between Salutaris and Pisidia ;?
(5) Sakli is in Paroreios, and Julia-Ipsos is one of the few cities
which may have been in Paroreios; (6) Tchai is more difficult
to reconcile with the Peutinger Table’s numbers.
XLVI.—Irsos was the scene of the decisive battle fought
in 801 Bc. by Antigonts against Seleucus and Lysimachus.
Antigonus had wintered at Synnada; in the spring he marched
eastwards with the view of preventing a junction between the
forces of his two antagonists. Seleucus, coming from Syria, and
Lysimachus, coming from the Hellespont, naturally met in the
plain that stretches between Sakli and Bolwadun.
1 Synnada to Tchai 9 hrs., Tchai to power began: but ecclesiastically, they
Philomelion (Ak Sheher) 9 hrs. lived as long as the Church organizaticn
2 These provinces disappeared, politi- lived.
ally speaking, long before the Turkish
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 491
Ipsos is never mentioned under the Roman Empire, but 1s
known under the Greek kings and as a Byzantine bishopric;
Julia is mentioned only under the Roman Empire, and yet it
was an important city with rich coinage. Ipsos and Julia were
in the same district, and the conclusion is inevitable that the
name Julia superseded Ipsos under the Romans, but that before
Hierocles the old name had once more come into use.
XLVII.— PHILoMELION has been proved at Ak Sheher by
Hamilton. It was in all probability a foundation of the Dia-
dochi, otherwise it could hardly have been omitted by Xenophon.
It was therefore an obscure town or village tiil some of the
Syrian or Pergamenian kings took- advantage of its fine situation
to found there a great Greek city with a Greek name. It was
the seat of a conventus (see XXVIII).
XLVIII—HaDRIANOPOLIS was situated on the direct road
from Philomelion to Ikonion, at or near Doghan Hissar
(Cinnam. p. 42).
XLIX.—THyMBRION, aceording to the route of Xenophon,
must have been near Doghan Hissar. It was still a city in the
time of Pliny, but does not occur later. These facts show that
it was the town which’ was refounded by Hadrian under the
name Hadrianopolis.
L.—TyRIAIoN has been proved by Hamilton at Ilgin. I
believe that the Tyriaion of Xenophon's time was situated
between Ilgin and Khadyn Khan, and that huge lines of
embankment and sculptures’ in Syro-Cappadocian (Hittite)
hieroglyphics mark the site.
LI.—The city which Xenophon means when he speaks of
Καύστρου Iledéov must be Ipsos, His distances are, starting
from Apameia :
days’
march, parasangs. miles. hours,
Peltai 2 10 25 8 Yaka Keui.
Keramon Agora 2 12 30 94 near Islam Keui.
Kaystrou Pedion 81 80 75 24 Sakli.
Thymbrion 2 10 25 8 near Doghan Hissar.
Tyriaion 2 10 25 8 near Ilgin.
Ikonion 3 20 50 16 Konia.
1 This must certainly be corrected to was the day’s march, anda very good
5.:noarmy could march 75 milesinthree march it is,
days, and it is clear that 12 to 15 miles
493 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
The fountain of Midas is, as Hanuiton saw, unmistakable; it is
about five miles north of Philomelion.
LIi.—Avcusropo.is, as I proved in a former paper! from
the passage of Anna Comnena already quoted (see XL.), was
situated at Surmene, nine miles E.S.E. from Afiom Kara Hissar.
It appears in all the Notitiae, and in several of the Councils
from 553 onwards, under this name. Such a city must, though
omitted in the list of Hierocles, be concealed in it under
another name.
The very name Augustopolis, applied to a place not important
enough to coin money, and not found before the fifth century,
rouses the suspicion that it gained its name from being an
imperial estate ; this suspicion long haunted my mind, and at
last I discovered, in the tale of Saint Eutychius,? a complete
confirmation: he was born, A.D. 512, in Augustopolis, and the
expression Θεία Κώμη (imperial estate) is used as another
name for his birthplace.
LIIL.-—Kieros Orrines. LIV.—Kuirros Porttixes. The
name κλῆρος is oftem applied to an estate, and in these two
eases it has probably that sense. There is only one kind of
estate which could rank as a recognized separate and self-
governing community—an imperial estate. fn several other
cises sach estates appear in Hierocles’ list, in Caria χωρία
πατριμόνια, in Pamphylia Kriya Μαξιμιανουπόλεως. It is
well known that imperial estates did exist in Phrygia,’ and we
may therefore safely interpret these two Kleroi as two great
imperial estates; one is ‘the estate of the mountain land,’ the
other ‘the estate of the city land.’ 5
Horses from the Phrygian estates were highly prized, and
ranked with the Cappadocian as the finest known. The Cappa-
docian estates are known to have been at Andabalis, near Tyana,
aud the horses reared there were called Palmatiami from a
1] need hardly utter a warning
against the error I made in the same
paper, in identifying Augustopolis with
Metropolis: the false belief that
Metropolis struck numerous coins,
together with Professor Hirschfeld’s
erroneous view about the position of
the southern Metropolis, which I could
only accept implicitly, were stfficient
to mislead me.
2 Act, Sanet., April 6th, p. 550.
3 Horses ‘quos Phrygiae inatres sacris
praesepibus edunt,’ Claud. (‘ sacris ’ de-
notes imperial property) : cp. Cod. Lheo-
dos. passim.
+ χώρας being understood : in Sparta
πολιτικὴ χώρα was the property of the
Spartiate community,
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 493
certain Palmatius. The Phrygian horses were named Hermo-
geniani! In rearing horses in Asia Minor it is of the first
importance to take them to very lofty pastures in the heat of
summer; these were on the Kléros Oreines, and the two Kleroi
were therefore both required for the one purpose, and were pro-
bably under one management. This fact makes it probable that
the two κλῆροι formed one estate,and were in the Notitiae grouped
under the name Augustopolis.
In Not. III. both Augustopolis and Kleroi occur: I might
quote a similar instance of double mention, and might show
the exact year (879) whep this error was introduced, but
considerations of space forbid.
LV.—TroxonDa. The demos of the Trokondenoi was situ-
ated somewhere near Augustopolis: it is mentioned only in
an inscription copied by me in 1884 at the same bridge where
the Prymnessian milestone still lies: the upper part of the
stone, on which was sculptured a bust (of Zeus?) has been
broken off :
EIPHvalOC MHNOOI
AOY TOY ANII///////OC, HAs
OY FAMPOC, Ὑπὲρ AHMOv
TPOKONAHNWN
A€l €YXHN
Trokonda is related to the personal name Trokondas, as
Kidramos to Kidramouas, as Kadoi to Kadouas. It is possible
that Trokonda was the early name of Augustopolis.
LVI.—Anazsoura, LVIJ.—ALaNnprRI Fontes are placed on
the direct road from Synnada to Pessinus, by which Manlius
must have marched.
LVII.-LVIII.—Bervupos Verus is placed with definite cer-
tainty by the reference in Livy xxxvili. 15; it was five miles from
Synnada on the march towards Galatia. This brings us into the
1 Gothofredus, ad Cod, Thceodos, vol. 1 should consider the simplest explan-
ii. p. 56A., promises the proof that ations of the names to be that Palma-
Hermogeniani and Phrygiaci or Phryg- _ tius and Hermogenes were the respective
isci were identical. 1 donotseethathe lessees or managers of the Cappadocian
has explicitly redeemed the promise; and Phrygian estates in the latter part
but the identification appears necessary. οἵ the fourth century.
HA—VOL. ὙΠ]. K kK
494 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
hilly country between Synnada and Augustopolis, and the very
considerable remains at the village of Aghzi Kara, “ Black
Mouth,” must be assigned to Beudos Vetus. It is probable that
ΒΟΡΕΙΑ, which is mentioned by Nonnus and by Steph. Byz.,}
is another form of the name Beudos. This suggests the pos-
sibility that PHyTIA or PHyTEIA of the Wotitiae may also be the
same place. The variation in form is great, but names in their
Byzantine dress have sometimes a strange appearance.
At Concil. Chalcedon., A.D. 451, Mirus Εὐλάνδρων, or Eulan-
drae, or Eulandrorum, was present among the bishops of Phrygia
Salutaris. He cannot be a bishop of Blaundos in Pacatiana, by
mistake reckoned to Salutaris, for Blaundos was really in Lydia,
and its bishop was present at the same Council. He must
therefore be a bishop of some city of Salutaris whose name is
corruptly written. The variant Mirus Bilandensis suggests the
probability that Beudensis is the correct form.? The order in
which the names occur supports this hypothesis—Synnada,
Beudos or Eulandra, Ipsos, Lysias—though much stress cannot
be laid on the order in the ecclesiastical lists.
Beudos is related to Synnada as the older Phrygian city on
the hills to the new Greek city in the plain: hence the epithet
Vetus.
Beudos, then, is a city coining money in the second century
after Christ, a bishopric in A.D, 451, and again in the Notitiae ;
it cannot, therefore, fail in Hierocles. Being a city which coins
money, it cannot be identified with Kleros Oreines, though its
situation among the hills would readily lend itself to such an
identification.
LIX.—DeEBALAKIA. The name, which is unknown except in
Hierocles, is obviously corrupt. The district in which it must
lie is narrowed by the results of our inquiry to the neighbour-
hood of Synnada or of Augustopolis. In this district we have
just found that Beudos or Boudeia must have been known to
Hierocles, and I shall now go on to prove that Kinnaborion also
must have been known to him. I therefore suppose Debala-Kia
to be a corruption of these two names.
1} Nonnus and Stephanus agree in been assimilated by copyists to the well-
Boudeia and Doiantos Pedion: probably known Blandos or Blaundos: the letter
Nonuus is Stephanus’ authority. p often crept into the last syllable of the
* The unimportant name Beudos has latter name, BAéavdpos for Βλάνδος.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 495
LX.—KINNABORION is mentioned first in the inscriptions of
the Ξένοι Τεκμόρειοι in the third century; it is a bishopric in
the Councils of 451 and 787, and in the earlier Notitiae VIL.,
VIII, IX., and I. These references prove an unbroken exist-
ence of a town of some consequence from 200 to 800. Such a
town cannot be unknown to Hierocles, and its apparent omission
can be most easily explained by the supposition just advanced.
A study of the Tekmorian inscriptions makes me place Kin-
naborion in the south-western part of the Karamiik Ova, perhaps
near Geneli, which occupies a fine situation, with a splendid
fountain supplying a river that flows into the duden (katabothron)
of Karamiik.!. The bishopric of Kinnaborion must have included
the adjoining Oinan Ova.
LX1.—EvpHorBIvUM is mentioned in the Peutinger Table on
the road between Apameia and Synnada. If this table be
correct, Euphorbium must be identified with Metropolis, and we
might suppose that the whole plain was called Euphorbium, the
inhabitants Euphorbeni, and the town Metropolis.2 This view
is, however, irreconcilable with Pliny, v. 106, who mentions both
Euphorbeni and Metropolitae in the conventus of Apameia.
Hence it is more probable that Euphorbium is to be placed on
the great eastern highway between Metropolis and Lysias, in the
Oinan Ova; and the error, which this position presupposes in
Tab. Peut., is due to the difficulty of representing the compli-
cated roads in this district. The roads, then, are:
xxviul, Synnada, xx11I. Lysias
x11. Euphorbium, xxiv. Lysias ΧΙ, Julia,
Apameia, xxvi1I, Metropolis {
LXII.—OIn14, or Ornatos, The form is uncertain; the only
authority is the ethnic Οἰνιάτης in the Tekmorian inscriptions,
The name is still in use in the form Oinan, the name of a village
and a small valley among the mountains of the Phrygo-Pisidian
frontier. Remains of ancient life are abundant at Oinan, At
1 1 have visited Geneli (few remains),
and inquired as to the course of the
stream which rises there.
5. The distances agree well with this
view.
3 The possibility must however still
be left open, either that Pliny is wrong
ἴῃ distinguishing Metropolis and
Euphorbium (a supposition which is
most improbable, considering that Pliny
is doubtless quoting froma list of the
conventus), or that these two cities were
both in the same valley, and that
later Euphorbium was merged in
Metropolis.
496 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
Aresli, two miles distant, I copied the following inscriptions in
1886.
(1) wYAIOC ACKAAAOCL
EPMOKAHEC EYTYXOY
MEAITWN AAAWNTOLC
IMAN~ CICINOY
(2) complete at right and bottom, broken at top and left.
I
YT WE
NAIWPOEW διωρθώσατο ?
EFENETOTIPO ἐγένετο προ [ef Καλάνδων ?
OCTAYTAKYPIAME ταῦτα κύρια μέϊνειν ?
Soy MACYNKAHTOY
YAIOCAIKINNIOCTIOMIAIOY C. Licinius P.[F
IOTTEPITOYTOYTTPAFMATOCOY
CEFPAYENHEAWKENTICINHA GE!
EAWPHCATOEICECKATHNHMEPAN
TIPECBEYTAIEICACIANAIABANTEC
Euphorbium was perhaps the name of the whole plain, Oinia
of the town.
LXIII.—S1s1pounDA is not mentioned by Hierocles, yet it
struck coins from Marcus Aurelius to Gordian, and is mentioned
in all the Notitiae in forms more or less corrupt—Sibindos,
Sinbindos, Sebindos,-Sibildos, Siknodos. Sibidounda then was
certainly a city in the time of Hierocles. It does not however
occur either at any Council or in Hierocles; and this fact
rouses the suspicion that it may be concealed under one of the
names which occur in Hierocles and the Councils, but not in
the Notitiae, viz. Praipenissos and Amadassa. The former is
impossible, and I therefore suggest the possibility that the
people Amadasseis had in their country a city Sibidounda; at
the same time I am fully conscious of the want of reasons to
support this view (see LXIV.).
LXIV.—AMADASSA is mentioned Concil. Chalcedon. 451, Concil.
Constantinop. 558, Conecil. Nicaen. 11. 787, and in Hierocles
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 497
under the corrupt form ᾿Αλαμασοῦ.Σ No other reference to the
place occurs, and evidence as to its situation is therefore practi-
cally non-existent. All that can be said is, first, that it was a
place of some consequence, being mentioned in 451, 530, 553,
and 787,and that it must therefore be mentioned in the Notitiae
under some other name; while it cannot of course be identified
with any name occurring in the same lists that meution it.
These considerations appear to narrow us down to an identifica-
tion with Sibidounda: we may suppose that the demos named
Amadassa possessed a city named Sibidounda. The name Sibi-
dounda occurs in the second century; then Amadassa takes its
place from 451 to 787; finally corrupt forms of Sibidounda return
in the Notitiae. Amadassa may be indicated by the corrupt
Γαμμαοῦσα of Ptolemy.
LXV.—LystAs. About this city also hardly any evidence
exists: if we could trust the conclusion of Droysen,? that it was
founded by some of the Diadochi, we should have to look for it
on the line of one of the great roads, and probably on the great
eastern highway. Beyond this we have only the order of Hiero-
cles to guide us; he appears, in the four names, the Kleroi,
Debalakia, and Lysias, to be in the neighbourhood of Synnada
and Prymnessos, and thereafter he passes to the eastern frontier,
with Ipsos and Polybotos. We also know from Strabo (p. 577,
ep. XLIII.) that it was not in Paroreios. On these presumptions
I have placed the name Lysias? at Bazar Agatch, on the road
from Synnada to Julia. Remains of ancient life are found there
and at the neighbouring villages of Akarrim and Karadja Euren,
and the character of the country suggests that a city of some
consequence, such as might coin money, existed here. There is
a duden here, through which the water of the whole valley from
Geneli downwards disappears. The site conjectured by Kiepert,
Khozrev Pasha Khan, is inconsistent with the order in Hierocles,
and moreover I shall show that Kakkabokome was situated
there.
I argue that, if Lysias was founded by the Diadochi, it pro-
bably stood on the eastern highway, on the following grounds: The
1 Implying a transposition, Adamas- 3 I saw several coins of Lysias at
sos: cp. Kapatiana, Morea( = Romaia), Sandykli: this suggests a situation
Καπλικλάριος (clavicularius), &c. within easy communication of Synnada
3. Gesch. ἃ, Hellenismus. and the Pentapolis.
498 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
cities on this road are almost all founded or refounded during
the Greek or Roman period—Antiocheia, Laodiceia, Apameia,
Synnada, Julia, Philomelion (see XLVII.), Laodiceia Katake-
kaumene, Archelais, Caesareia, the only important exception
being Tyriaion; on the other hand, there is not a single founda-
tion of that period on the older Royal road of Herodotus.
LXVI—Menros is placed with confidence by the order in
Hierocles on the road between Metropolis and Nakoleia at
Kumbet. The situation is confirmed by Constantine Porphyr.,!
who mentions it as the boundary between the Anatolic and
Opsikian Themes. It appears to have been a place of small
consequence under the Roman Empire, but to us it is interesting,
as the monuments of the old Phrygian kings round the tomb of
Midas are close to it. The mountains in which these monu-
ments are situated, and in which some of the upper waters of
the main Sangarios stream rise, were called Ballenaion (from
Ballen, “king”: Pseud. Plut., De Fluv.).
I give here the text of a fragment of inscription at Kumbet:
I copied it first in 1881, but the faintness of some letters baffled
me. M. Waddington pointed out the word μισθωτής, and I have
since re-examined the stone twice, verified the word μισθωτής,
and recovered the general sense of the whole.
JYIAI
MANIKC
4CKAIAH 1
AHMOYNAK /
ATITTAMIC = QH
OYKAICAPOCIEAY
AQsIKATACKEYING
QNIAIQNAN OF
ANIOHCETAITOYAIOC¢ To
\OCAAEZANAPOYs!I MALY
ὑπὲρ Αὐτοκράτορος Τ᾽αλλιηνοῦ, &e., Γερ]μανικο[ζῦ Καίσαρος
ἀιδίου διαμον]ῆς, καὶ δήμου ἸΤρυμνησσέων καὶ] δήμου Νακ[ο]-
1 De Thematibus, i. pp. 14 and 25; Meros has already been drawn by
the correct inference as to the general, several authorities, e.g. Kiepert on
though not as to the special, siteof Franz, Fiinf Inschr.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 499
λ[έων “Eppoyévns 1] ᾿Αππᾶ μισ[θ]ωτὴ[ς χωρίων τ]οῦ Καίσαρος
τῇ ἑαυ[τοῦ γυναικὶ Ῥό)δῳ τὴν κατασκευὴν το[ῦ ναίσκου 1 ἐκ
τ]ῶν ἰδίων ἀνέθη[κεν. ᾿Εἰπιμέλει]αν ποήσεται τοῦ Διὸς Tof. . .
Νέαρχ ?Jos ᾿Αλεξάνδρου [Κ͵]ὠμαρχ[ος. The names Ἑρμογένης,
Νέαρχος are supplied exempli gratid : the name of the possessio
of the emperor may have been given instead of the suggested
χωρίων. I believe the restoration Πρυμνησσέων, though dis-
tant from Meros, is right. This monument was a tomb in the
form of a (small temple ?) of Zeus (See J. H. S., 1884, “Sepulch.
Customs ”).
There is every probability that (Hermogenes?) was lessee of
the saltws mentioned above as Kleros Oreines. The dominion
of Prymnessos probably extended over Konna and Metropolis,
so that Prymnessos and Nakoleia were neighbours of Meros
and Kleros Oreines.
LXVII.—NAKOLEIA was at Seidi Ghazi, as was first proved by
the late Dr. Mordtmann. J. R. Steuart copied the inscriptions
which prove this, and states that they do so, but as he did not
print his inscriptions, his statement passed unheeded, and the
false idea that Prymnessos was at Seidi Ghazi was universally
accepted till Mordtmann’s paper was published. Mordtmann
however makes an error in concluding that Acroenos was a late
name for Nakoleia. He does so because there is a great tekke 2
and the tomb of Seidi Ghazi here, and it is known that the his-
torical Seidi Batal Ghazi was slain at Akroenos. But it is impos-
sible to suppose that the Turkish dervishes who founded this tekke
had any knowledge of an obscure historical fact of a.D. 739.8
Seidi Ghazi was one of the heroes of the Bektash dervishes—a
sect which was once immensely powerful in Turkey because the
Janissaries belonged to it, but which lost power when the Janis-
saries were exterminated by Sultan Mahmud. How he became
their hero is unknown to me, but the connection between
Nakoleia and Seidi Ghazi arises through the dervish tekke, and
not from his death having occurred there. Seidi Ghazi is widely
1 [K]wudpx[ns is also possible: the a special revelation: ἃ field near was
other letters, though incomplete, are called Shesh-enkutsch. The revelation
certain. was, as we now see, false: and no con-
2 Tekke, establishment of dervishes. tinuous tradition existed. For the
3 In Sultan Ala-Eddin’s time the story see Ethe, Fahrten des Sayyid
place where Seid died was discovered by Batthal, Leipzig, 1871, p. 215.
500 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
known as a hero in Asia Minor, and a curious romance of his
life exists in Turkish, and 15 accessible in a German translation :
Akroenos was situated at Afiom Kara Hissar. Not. X. clearly
distinguishes Nakoleia and Akroenos, giving the former as an
archbishopric, the latter as a bishopric.
Nakoleia increased in importance during the Byzantine period,
and was at some time after 787 dissociated from the metropolis
of Synnada, and made an independent metropolis! In the year
862 Achillas was appointed archbishop of Nakoleia (Acta Sancto-
rum, Feb. 4, p. 549), but in Not. I., dated a.p. 883, the list of
Salutaris is still uncorrected, and Nakoleia is ranked under
Synnada, whereas in the latest Notitiae (IL, III., X., XL, XII,
XII.) it is an independent metropolis, though apparently without
any subordinate bishoprics.
Nakoleia shared in the usual Phrygian reputation for heresy.
Theodotus, the Iconoclast Patriarch of Constantinople, was a
native of Nakoleia. Constantine, also an Iconoclast, was bishop of
Nakoleia during his time?
Nakoleia possessed under the Roman Empire a wide territory,
extending on the east up to the river Sangarios. The Byzantine
system was opposed to such wide-spread power, and the history
of Nakoleia shows a steady diminution in territory. This dimi-
nution also is coincident with a steady growth in prosperity and
importance of the northern parts of Phrygia, which may be clearly
traced in Byzantine history. Southern Phrygia was far more
important under the Roman Empire, lying as it did on the great
eastern highway; but northern Phrygia grew steadily when
roads led to Constantinople. The great Byzantine military road ὃ
went by Dorylaion and across northern Phrygia. I cannot here
do more than briefly indicate the line of this road. It was first
regularly organized by Justinian, who formed a series of fortres.es
' In the earlier Notitiae the interme-
diate class of ἀρχιεπίσκοποι αὐτοκέφαλοι
exists, but these archbishoprics are all
converted into metropoleis in the latest
Notitiae.
26 πάσης ἀκαθαρσίας ἀνάπλεως καὶ
συντρόφῳ ἀπαιδευσίᾳ συζῶν [Κωνσταν-
Tivos] ὁ Νακωλείας 6 ἐπίσκοπος, Theo-
phan. I. 402.
ὁ ψευδεπίσκοπος NakoAlas καὶ of κατ᾽
αὐτὸν ἐμιμήσαντο τοὺς παρανόμους ᾿Ἰου-
δαίους καὶ τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς ~ApaBas, καὶ
ἐνύβρισαν τὰς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ
Theophan. contin., 484.
3 It has to be distinguished from the
direct road to Ankyra, the pilgrim’s
route, which I have described in an
Appendix to the translation of the
Bordeaux Itinerary published by the
Palestine Exploration Fund.
θεοῦ.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 501
along it—Justinianopolis Mela, Dorylaion, Justinianopolis Palias
(Sivri Hissar), &c. A series of ἄπληκτα, points where the armies
of the different provinces assembled to join in any eastern cam-
paign, were formed along the road—at Malagina, Dorylaion, Ka-
borkion, Colonia (Archelais), Caesareia (Mazaka), and Dazimon.!
The following villages of the territory of Nakoleia are known :
some of them afterwards became independent bishoprics :—
LXVIII.—KaxkkaBas, or KAKKABOKOME, was a village in the
territory of Nakoleia, known from an inscription found at
Khozrev Pasha Khan (where I copied it in 1881 and 1883):
᾿Αλέξανδρος ᾿Αρχιλόχου Κακκαβοκωμήτης ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ σωτη-
ρίας καὶ τῶν ἰδίων πάντων τῇ Θεῷ εὐχήν. Kakkabas was there-
fore probably the small ancient town situated at Bassara, about
a mile to the east of Khozrev Pasha Khan. The village is men-
tioned in the fifth century, when at the Council of Ephesus, in
431, Διομήδης, οἰκῶν ἐν κώμῃ KaxdBas,? ἐπιγνοὺς τὴν ὀρθό-
δοξον πίστιν, καὶ παρακαλέσας τον ἁγιώτατον ἐπίσκοπον
Θεοφάνιον, recants the Quatuordeciman heresy (Act. Synod.
Ephes., Mansi, IV., p. 1361).
LXIX.—SANTABARIS is mentioned on the route of the Em-
peror Alexius Comnenus, between Dorylaion and Kedrea (now
Bayat), and may therefore be identified confidently with the
modern village Bardakchi, where there are numerous Byzantine
remains. The account of Theodorus Santabarenus (Vit. Nicolai
in Act. Sanct., Feb. 4) also suggests that it was near Nakoleia.
LXX.—PeErara is known only from a dedication Avi Πετα-
paig, copied at Baghlije, in 1883 (Sterrett-Ramsay) :—
CWKPATHCNEIKOAAOY Σωκράτης Νεικολάου
€PMHC ΚΑΙ FAIOC MHNO “Epis, καὶ Τ᾿άιος Mnvo-
mIHOY NAKOAEYCAIITIE φίλου Naxonevs, Avi Πε-
TAPAIWEYXHN ταραίῳ εὐχήν.
This dedication by Gaios and Socrates Hermes leaves it doubtful
whether Petara is actually part of the territory of Nakoleia or
belongs to Amorion.
1 Malagina is apparently alatename on Kaborkion see below.
for Justinianopolis Mela, now Bilejik : 2 The Latin text has in vico Caccaba or
Colonia Archelais is now Ak Serai: Choccaba.
Dazimon is the Kaz Ova north of Tocat :
502 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
LXXI—Serea. LXXII—VeEKROKoME. (See J. 17. S., 1884,
pp. 258-260).
LXXIII.—A surname of the native god of Nakoleia, probably
derived from a place of his worship, occurs in the following in-
scription on a defaced stele at Seidi Ghazi (Ramsay, 1881;
Sterrett-Ramsay, 1883).1
KOPNHAIOC Κορνήλιος
ΑΝΤΩΝΙΟΓ ᾿Αντώνιος
All PYMIW Διὶ Ῥυμίῳ
EYXHN εὐχήν.
LXXIV.—KABoRKION? was an ἄπληκτον, where the troops
of the Anatolic Theme collected, and must therefore have been
in a good camping position near the Byzantine military road
which ran between Dorylaion and Justinianopolis Palias (Sivri
Hissar). The one fine position in this district is at the fountains
of the Sangarios; and here to the present day there is at
Tchifteler a station for cavalry and an estate of the Sultan.
The position of Kaborkion is given (1) by the description of
the ἄπληκτά in Constantine Porphyr., De Cerimon. I., app., Ὁ. 444,
and (2) by the fact that it was a bishopric of Salutaris. Now’
the discussion of the bishoprics of Galatia Salutaris will show
that the country along the right bank of the Sangarios was in-
habited by the Orkoi or Orkaorkoi, one of whose towns was
called Orkistos; etymologically there must be a connection
between the people Orkaorkoi and the town Kaborkion, which
in earlier time would be spelt Καουόρκιον, and in later time
Καβόρκιον. Ihave sometimes thought that the name OPK AOP-
KOI, known only from Strabo, is corrupted from KAOYOPKOI,
and that Καουόρκιον is the centre of the Kaovopxou.
The territory of Orkistos and of Kaborkion originally was sub-
ject to Nakoleia. Orkistos was made independent 331; Kabor-
kion was in all probability made independent by Justinian when
he formed the great military road, and though it does not appear
in any Wotitiae except III., X., XIII., we observe that precisely
1 Published by me incomplete, J. H. 2 In Wot. X. and XIII. the name is
S., 1882, p. 125. The restoration pro- given twice Kamarkos and Kabarkion :
posed by Prof. Gomperz, Arch. EZpigr. Not. 111., which is a copy of the same
Mitth. Oesterr. vi. p. 52, is incorrect. list, gives the correct text.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 503
these three Notitiae alone preserve the name Justinianopolis,
which was for a time given to Seiblia.1
LXXV.—Sanaia. Its situation is mentioned by Strabo, the
only author who gives the name. It was at the fountains of the
Sangarios, 150 stadia from Pessinus—decidedly an understate-
ment. Sangia was therefore one of the villages of the Kaborkoi.
LXXVI—Pazon, another village in the same neighbourhood,
is twice mentioned by Socrates as a seat of the Novatians. The
same remarks apply to it as to Sangia. It was included in
Phrygia when we hear of it (about 400), which is natural, as it
was in the territory subject to Nakoleia.
LXXVII.—OrkKIstTos was made independent in 331, and
transferred between 386 and 395 to Galatia. It is impossible to
gain a clear idea of the eastern border of Phrygia without dis-
cussing the western part of Galatia, the province which was
called Galatia Secunda or Salutaris in Byzantine time. The
whole of this district was originally Phrygia, and the boundary
between the two provinces varied much at different times.
Space prevents me from discussing the subject here, but I
hope to prove elsewhere that Amorion, Klaneos, Orkistos, and
Trikomia were taken from Phrygia by Theodosius 386-395, and
used to form the new province of Galatia Secunda.
LXXVIII.—Dorytaion. Its position at Eski Sheher, with
its hot springs, has long been known. Lying where the impor-
tant roads from Constantinople to the east and to the south fork,
it was a place of the first importance, and is connected with
many events in Byzantine history.
It is mentioned at Concil. Chalcedon. 451, in such a way as
to show that it was then avtoxépados, and not subject to the
metropolitan of Synnada; but in all the Wotztiae it is an ordi-
nary bishopric. It was a station of Scholarii (as was Kotiaion)
until Justinian’s time (7heophan., p. 236).
The ruins of Kara Sheher, three or four miles W.S.W. of
Eski Sheher, probably mark the city built by Manuel Comnenus
in his attempt to strengthen the empire against the Seljuk
power (A.D. 1175). Dorylaion had then been in ruins for some
_ time, and the new city was built on a different site. The Roman
city stood round the mound now called Sheher Eyuk, two miles
1 This I have proved in my forthcoming ‘ Antiquities of Southern Phrygia.’
504 THE CITIES ANI BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
north of Eski Sheher ; the hot springs are at the northern out-
skirts of Eski Sheher.
The river Tembris, called Thyaris by Cinnamus, flows past
Dorylaion, arid receives a tributary called by the same historian
Bathys. The Tembris in its upper course was called Tembro-
gius, as is recorded by Pliny and corroborated by an inscription
which I copied in the district Praipenissos, at Utch Eyuk, in
1884.
LXXIX.—MEZEA was a village in the territory of Dorylaion,
mentioned in the following two inscriptions copied by me in
1883, at Eski Sheher :—
(1) On a stele, under a relief of bull’s head; broken at
bottom :
MCZCAN M[e]f[e]av-
Wy! HP AK AH οἷν “Ηρακλῇ
NEIKHTQ ᾿ΑἸνεικήτῳ
ANQ’EK Meflav@ Ke εκ
(2) On lower part of broken stele :
XOIKAI Ls + YOU καὶ
MEZEANOIMH Μεζεανοὶ Mn-
TPIEYXHN | τρὶ εὐχήν.
LXXX.—Mrpaton. Its position is determined (1) by its
situation on the Tembris, which is mentioned on its coins;
(2) by its distance—eighteen miles from Norylaion, on the road
to Tricomia and Pessinus. These conditions point to Karadja
Euren, where important remains reveal the site.
LXXXI—Karassos. This plain, mentioned once or twice in
the Byzantine wars, was situated, as I have proved in Appendix I.
to Part I., on the lower Tembris.
LXXXII.—GorporiniA, or GORDOROUNIA, is mentioned only
in Not. III., X., where it occurs with Kaborkion at the end of
the list. I have already shown that the north-eastern corner of
Salutaris increased in importance during the fifth and sixth
centuries, and that these bishoprics at the end of Not. TIL, X.
perhaps preserve to us the state of the province soon after the
reorganization by Justinian. Hence this bishopric may be safely
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 505
placed in the north-eastern district of Phrygia. Now there
remains little room except between the river Tembris and the
middle course of the Sangarios, or on the Tembris below Midaion
in the plain of Krassos, and no name has ever yet been placed
in this utterly unknown plain. Another argument may be de-
rived from the name, which is probably equivalent to “the
Orounia of the country Gordos”; we have then to inquire
about this country, Gordos, whose very name has hitherto escaped
notice.
LXXXIII.—Gorpos, as a district of Phrygia, is mentioned in
a few rare cases. In the life of Theodore Sykeota,! we find that
in Buzaeorum loco, sub Gratianopolim sito, in the regio Gordiana
and beyond the boundaries of the province Galatia, the people
were making a bridge over a stream lable to be swollen by
torrents. The very name Gratianopolis is unknown except in
this passage; but the story shows that the place was not very
far from Sykea, and on the south side (out of Galatia Prima).
Again the town Justinianopolis Mela in Bithynia is often called
Justinianopolis Gordi at the Council of 553, 1.6. Justinianopolis
of the country Gordos: the old name Juliopolis (west of Sykea
twenty-four miles) was Γόρδου Κώμη, where also I understand
the country Gordos: Gordorounia, which appears to be in the
same country, and Gordoserba, which lies near Bilejik, probably
contain the same name. These scanty traces point to a country
Gordos extending from Bilejik eastward between the Sangarios
and the Tembris. The mythical Gordos, father of the Phrygian
historical king Midas, is probably the eponymous hero of this
country.
The life of Theodore Sykeota contains some information about
this obscure country, A.D. 550-600. There was a direct road
from Lagania (Anastasiopolis) to Dorylaion (p. 58), by which
Theodore went to Constantinople instead of taking the short
road by Juliopolis and Tataion. The bad text and the utter
want of exploration make it impossible at present to fit on the
story to the country; only the conjecture may be made after
the preceding remarks that Gratianopolis is perhaps Gordorounia,
and if so, we have a proof of the period when this country began
to come into importance.
1 Act. Sanct., April 22, p. 42.
506 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
LXXXIV.—Kor1aion still retains the old name as Kutaya,
and is one of the great cities of the interior. I adopt the spell-
ing favoured by coins, but Kotudiov is a common form, and the
connection with the Phrygo-Thracian Κότυς cannot be doubted.
There is no doubt that Kotiaion was ranked in Sa!utaris, not in
Pacatiana ; numerous testimonies confirm Not. 11]. [X., which
mention it first among the bishoprics subject to Synnada. We
saw that Dorylaion aimed at independent rank in the fifth cen-
tury: we have no express proof that Kotiaion also did so, but it
can hardly be doubted that it would not be less attentive to its
dignity than the smaller town of Dorylaion. I believe that
it maintained its right to be autokephalos in the fifth and
sixth centuries, and that this is the reason of its omission
from Hierocles’ list. We have a parallel case in Eukhaita of
Pontus. It is omitted by MHierocles, and it is known to
have been autokephalos at an early time: it is mentioned by
the Notitiae as an archbishopric, and not as an ordinary
bishopric subject to Amaseia. In both cases Hierocles, who
is much influenced by the ecclesiastical lists, has been
misled.
But it is clear that in 692 and 787 Kotiaion had not the
position of autokephalos: it ranks among the ordinary bishops
of Salutaris. So Dorylaion appears as of higher rank in 451,
and as an ordinary bishop of Pacatiana in 553.
Kotiaion grew steadily in importance during the Byzantine
period, and is placed by Const. Porphyr. second only to Nicaea in
the Opsikian Theme, Dorylaion being third, and Midaion fourth.
The list proves the importance of northern Phrygia in later time
(see LXVII.). It ranks as a metropolis in Nod. 1., IIL, X., XIII.
In Not. III. and X. three bishoprics of Salutaris are placed
ander its authority—those which lie on the important road to
the south and east, passing from Constantinople, by Kotiaion
and Akronios: this road is often mentioned, and was used
as an alternative route to the Dorylaion road by the
Byzantine emperors in going from Constantinople to the
East?
1 At the same time, pending further Kotiaion, and that for some reason or
investigation, I quite admit that Eudo- from error Hierocles may have placed
kias (as I was disposed some years ago it in Pacatiana.
to think) may be a temporary name of 2 See Ambason.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 507
—— τς : va
Nor. III. Nor. X.
τῷ Κοτυαείου Φρυγίας | τῷ Κοτυαείῳ τῆς Φρυγίας |
ὁ Σπορῆς |
ὁ Κωνῇς |
ὁ ΓΤαϊουκώμεως ὁ Γαϊουκώμης
Nor. 1. -- Ἐπαρχίας Φρυγίας Σαλουταρίας ὃ Korvaelov. |
Of these three subordinate bishoprics Kone has already been
discussed and placed. The other two bishoprics must be placed
on the roads (one now in use as a waggon road, the other as a
horse: road) which connect Kone with its metropolis, Kotiaion
(see XCI., XCII.).
At the end of his list Hierocles gives four demoi These
seem to be classed together, not because they were near each
other geographically, but because they are demoi, as distinguished
from the preceding poleis,
LXXXV.—Demos Lyxaonon. The Lycaones are a people
rarely mentioned, and it is therefore difficult to localize them.
Besides the Byzantine lists, Pliny and Ptolemy mention them.
Pliny (Υ. 105) gives the Lycaones in the conventus of Synnada.
Ptolemy mentions them in a passage which requires correction : I
give the text as it ought to be read: ὃ 27. καὶ δῆμοι παρὰ μὲν τὴν
Λυκίαν Φυλακήνσιοι (?) καὶ Θεμισώνιοι, παρὰ δὲ τὴν Βιθυνίαν
Μακί(εδόνες) Καδοηνοὶ καὶ Κιδυησσεῖς, ὑφ᾽ ods Πελτηνοὶ, εἶτα
Μοξεανοὶ, εἶτα Λυκάονες, ὑφ᾽ ods ᾿Ἱεροπολῖται.3 In this enumer-
ation Ptolemy arranges the demoi in lines from east to west:
Kaédonvoi and Κιδυησσεῖς along the north of Phrygia, then
along a line further to the south Peltenoi, Moxeanoi, and
Lykaones; south of the Lykaones lie the Hieropolitai. These
1 Hierocles mentions them in the Avxlay, where Phylakaion and Themi-
genitive, because he uses as authority
lists of bishoprics.
3 In this passage I have transposed
Λυκάονες and Φυλακήνσιοι : elsewhere I
have proved that this change introduces
geographical accuracy, in place of incon-
ceivable inaccuracy. The error was
produced by a would-be corrector, who
thought that Λυκάονες must be παρὰ τὴν
sonion were adjoining cities on the
Lycio-Caro-Phrygian frontier (see my
paper on ‘Antiquities of Southern Phry-
gia,’ in the Amer. J. Arch. 1887). I
have also corrected the form of Κυδισ-
σεῖς, Μοξιανοί, ἹἹεραπολῖται (see above)
and Μοκκαδηνοί : Φυλακήνσιοι seems to
me ἃ false form (perhaps Φυλακηνοὶ ἤτο
Φυλακαιεῖς.)
508 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
lines are approximately correct, if we understand that the
Peltenoi include the population of the entire plain of Ishekli,
which Strabo calls Πελτηνὸν Ileddov. The Lykaones, then, are
the people of the Cutchuk Sitchanli Ova, which lies north of the
Sandykli Ova; and this is one of the districts that we have
hitherto left vacant in placing the names given by Hierocles.
The preceding passage of Ptolemy seems to me conclusive,
unless we suppose that Ptolemy has attained in this description
a degree of inaccuracy which he does not elsewhere succeed in
reaching. But I discovered the site from other reasons or pre-
sumptions, and after discovering it I observed the correction
required in Ptolemy. My first reasoning was from the frequent
references in Byzantine documents to a monastery of the
Lykaones; now among the hills which separate Lykaones and
Prymnesseis there is still a monastery of considerable fame and
sanctity,” and in a country which has been almost wholly Turkish
for centuries such a monastery must be an old establishment.
Again, among the unpublished lists of Ξένοι Τεκμόρειοι, who
formed a religious union worshipping Artemis of the Limnai, a
person entitled Λυκαονεὺς πρὸς ἔνδον twice occurs. The situa-
tion assigned to the Lykaones fills up the circle of districts
round the Limnai, and this consideration, combined with the
passage of Pliny and the fact that the Lykaones were a Phrygian
people, constituted sufficient evidence of the situation, and gave
me the clue to understand and correct Ptolemy.
The expression Aveaoveds πρὸς ἔνδον, is used in distinction
from the Lycaonians proper, whose country is nearer the southern
sea.
The monasteries of the Lycaones are frequently mentioned in
Concil. Constantinop. A.D. 536. The following are the chief
references :—
(1) Ζώσιμος ἐλέῳ Θεοῦ πρεσβύτερος καὶ ἡγούμενος μονῆς
Λυκαόνων πλησίον τοῦ ἁγίου Λαυρεντίου ὑπογράψας ἐπέδωκα:
Labbe, p. 133.
Ζώσιμος, ἄς. . . . Λυκαόνων δεηθεὶς ὑπέγρ.: Labbe, p. 112.
1 Except in the Strategiai of Cappa- 2 Near Kalejik: I have not visited
docia, but the geography of thatcountry it. The permanence of religious insti-
is very difficult even with modern maps, — tutions in Asia Minor is an interesting
and was then little known, whereas this subject in many respects.
part of Phrygia was well known.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 509
Ζώσιμος τῆς Εὐτυχίου τῶν Λυκαόνων : Labbe, p. 76.
Ζωσίμου τὴς Ἰυὐτυχίου τῶν Λυκαόνων : Labbe, p. 53.
Ζώσιμος πρεσβ. κ. Hy. μονῆς Edvtvylov τῶν Λυκαόνων πλησίον
τῶν Ματρώνης ὑπέγραψα: Labbe, p. 33.
(2) Μόδεστος ἐλέῳ Θεοῦ πρεσβύτερος καὶ ἡγούμενος μονῆς
τῶν Λυκαόνων ὑπογράψας διὰ Φλαβιανοῦ πρεσβυτέρου [καὶ
δευτεραρίου 1) ἐπέδωκα : Labbe, p. 133.
Φλαβιανὸς πρεσβύτερος καὶ δευτεράριος τῶν Λυκαόνων;:
ib, p. 76.
DraBiavos πρεσβ' x. Sevt. τῆς Μοδέστου τῶν Λυκαόνων:
ab. p. 53.
Φλαβιανὸς πρεσβ. x. devt. Mobdéatov θεοφιλεστάτου πρεσβ.
καὶ ny. τῆς Movijs ἐπίκλην τῶν Λυκαόνων ἀξιώσας ὑπέγραψα:
uw, p. 33.
The doubt is whether these monasteries are actually in the
city of Constantinople, or merely subject to Constantinople ;
the former is the natural interpretation of the text, but seems
. Impossible.
Παῦλος ἐλέῳ Θεοῦ πρεσβύτερος Kai ἀρχιμανδρίτης τῶν
Λυκαόνων ὑπέγραψα (Labbe, p. 176) occurs only once, and is
perhaps due to some mistake.
No bishop of the Lycaones was present at any Council.
LXXXVI—AULOKRA, AUROKRA, AUROKLA, is mentioned by
Hiecrocles in the form δήμου Αὐράκλεια, which is either a false
form or a corruption. The situation of this demos is fixed by
the fountain and lake Aulokrene, which lie on a plateau behind
Apameia to the east, and according to the unanimous belief of
ancient and modern time supply the great fountains of the
Maeander and Marsyas in the lower valley. I have little to add to
the description of the fountain and its surroundings which I have
given in my paper, “ Metropolitanus Campus” (J. H. S., 1883) ;
the argument by which it was there shown that the fountain
Aulokrene was the same which is mentioned by Livy on the
march of Manlius, is confirmed by the observation which I sub-
sequent!y made that the Rhotrinos Fontes in Livy (altered in
almost all the editions, quite unjustifiably, to Obrimae Fontes)
is only a slight corruption of Rhocrinos, the adjective derived
from [AuJrocra. The name Aulocrene must have been originally
1 Restored from the Latin version, and from the other signatures.
He ΟἹ: NEL, I. 1
510 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
Αὐλοκρηνή or Αὐροκρηνή (πηγή), and the form Αὐλο-κρήνη,
“ flute-fountain,” is a typical example of the influence exerted on
Anatolian nomenclature by popular etymology seeking to give
Greek meaning to non-Greek words. This name, combined with
the importance of the flute in Phrygian music,’ gave form to the
Greek legend of Apollo, Marsyas, and Athena.
LXXXVII.—Metrropotis. In my older papers I have distin-
guished correctly between the two Phrygian Metropoleis, and
have shown that all coins which read MHTPOTIOAEITQN OPY
must be referred to the Metropolis situated in the Tchul Ova,
south of Synnada. This city was in the Byzantine province of
Pisidia. In the Byzantine provincial division it is hard to
understand why Apameia and Metropolis were assigned to
Pisidia, while Aurocra, which lies on the road between them,
was assigned to Phrygia Salutaris. The reason may lie in the
history of Aurocra. There can be no doubt that in the great days
of the prosperity of Apameia, the valley of Aurocra was part of its
dominion; in later time, when Apameia ceased to be one of the
great cities,2 Aurocra became independent, and acquired the
rights of a πόλις in accordance with the common Byzantine
policy. To emphasize the separation, and completely destroy
all sense of dependence, Aulocra was placed in a different
province. ‘
LXXXVIII.—Pratrenissos, Propniasa. The latter form is
probably corrupt, while the former, which occurs in Ptolemy ὃ and
at Council. Chalcedon., is a Grecised form. The variation of forms
in -σσός and -ca is common in the Greek representation of
Anatolian names. The true native form probably lies between
Hierocles and Ptolemy.
Praipenissos is placed by the following considerations: (1) it
is within the bounds of Phrygia Salutaris; (2) it is given by
Ptolemy as a midland city of Mysia. Only a city in the north-
1 One who listens to the remarkable system was then revolutionized: all
music of the flute and cymbals at the
dances of dervishes in Konia or Kara
Hissar of Phrygia can understand the
intoxicating influence which it had
over the devotees and populace of
autiquity.
2 This must be subsequent to the
founding of Constantinople: the road
roads henceforward led not to Rome but
to Constantinople, and Apameia, pre-
viously on the great eastern highway,
was on a mere by-road, away from the
main tracks of intercourse. Not. X.,
XIII. confuse Abrokra and Kaborkion.
3. Prepenissos in Mysia interior with
Alondda and Trajanopolis.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 511
western part of Salutaris fulfils these conditions, and only the
Altyntash district remains unoccupied. Now it was shown
above (LX X XV.) that Ptolemy conceives the Kidyesseis and the
Μακί(εδόνες) Καδοηνοί as lying along the northern frontier of
Phrygia towards Bithynia, and Propniasa, which lies further
north, cannot be reckoned by him as part of Phrygia; on the
other hand, his language in the passage there quoted would
suggest that Praipenissos should be assigned to Bithynia. If he
assigns it to Mysia, and if, again, he places Kotiaion and Dorylaion
in Phrygia, these, like many similar contradictions in his work,
are to be attributed to his use of different authorities. The
boundaries of Phrygia and Mysia were so uncertain as to be
proverbial—ywpls τὰ Μυσῶν καὶ Φρυγῶν.
The authority of Ptolemy may also serve to prove that Prai-
penissos lay south of Dorylaion and Kotiaion ; if it had lain to
the north of these towns, it would have been in the Roman pro-
vince Bithynia-Pontus, and there would then have been much
less danger of misplacing it. Ptolemy’s lists are very fairly accu-
rate as regards the Roman lines of division, where he had definite
authority to trust to, but they are very loose as regards the
historical and non-existent lines of division within the Roman
provinces, in which his authorities contradicted each other in
the most puzzling way.
LXXXIX.—BENNISOENOI are proved by published inscriptions
to have been a demos inhabiting the plains around Altyntash.
The Bennisoenoi, not being mentioned in any Byzantine list,
must have been included in a bishopric which bears another
name, and the evidence has already forced us to place Prepe-
nissos in this region.
In the following remarks I expose myself to the charge of
overstraining the possibilities of language, but I think that a full
statement of the actual corruption of native Anatolian names in
giving them a Greek dress and appearance (which cannot be
made here) would justify me. I believe that the second part of
Pre-penissos is a Grecised form of Bennisoa, There was a great
tendency to the termination -σσος, which is a Grecism of an
Anatolian -; or -ca; and I look on Pre- as a prefix. I compare
the wide variety of forms given to the name of the city which
struck coins with the legend TPEBENNATOON, Prebena, Tre-
bena, Trebenna, Perbaina, and Trebendai (Ptolemy). The Gallic,
LACS
512 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
Messapian, and Thraco-Illyrian word Benna (Deecke, Rh. Mus.
37, p. 385) means ‘waggon’: Bennis-oa, ‘having treasure of
waggons’ (Steph. Byz., s.v. Souagela): Zeus Bennios or Benneus
(like Jupiter Stator according to Benfey), ‘he who stands on a
cana
XC.—SkorpaPia. We have still to compare the evidence
of the Notitiac. The district where the Praipenissos of earlier
time (Ptolemy, Hierocles, and Concil. Chalced.) was situated,
must have been a bishopric still in late time. In Notitiae VIL,
VIII, [X., ΤῸ, there remains only Skordapia, or Skordaspia, to be
placed, and the unsatisfactory method of applying the one
remaining name to the one remaining district is our only resort.
In Notitiae IIL., X. XIIL., we find no Skordapia, but instead of
it we find two bishoprics, Spore and Gaiou Kome, which are
definitely proved to belong to this district. Now, Skordapia is
suspicious form, and we shall see that a name Sgerca was
perhaps equivalent to Spore, while it is known that Apia lay on
the west of this district. These slight presumptions lead me to
see in Skordapia a corruption of the name of one or other of the
two bishopries into which the rich and fertile district of Prai-
penissos was cut in the ninth century; these two bishoprics
must be discussed next.
XCI—SporeE is mentioned in Notitiae IIL, X., as subject
to the metropolis Kotiaion. The reasons already given place it
between Kotiaion and Konni, and an inscription, brought from
Karagatch Euren to Kotiaion (J. 17. S., 1884, p. 259), perhaps
mentions the same place under the name Isgerea. I should, in
a cordance with these slight indications place this bishopric in
the plain between Doghan Arslan and Gerriz.
Isgerea was a village of the country which worshipped the
vod Benni (/. H. S., 1884), and in the growing importance
of this district it became at last a bishopric. The ruins of
late date, but of considerable extent, near Gerriz satisfy all
these conditions, and demand a name corresponding to their
iniportance.
XCII.—Gatovu Kone is the third bishopric under Kotiaion,
which remains to be placed between Kone and the metropolis.
The important site of Altyntash (‘Stone of Gold’) on the horse-
1 (Cp. Ἐσουακώμη, where E is inorganic, as in Ἰσεύμνος for Σκύμνος Ke.
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 513
roadremains without a name, and the remains show it to have been
a place of real importance in late Roman and Byzantine time.
Probably Γαίου κώμη is the Christian name of the village, whose
church was dedicated to a saint Gaius; otherwise such a name
is unintelligible, and must be considered as a corruption. An
inscription in very worn letters which I copied there in 1881
and 1884, mentions -ATOYKQMHL; I have sometimes thought
that the true name has to be found between Gaiou and
‘ATOY.
XCIII.—Torrora, the ancient name of the village Besh
Karish Eyuk, is proved by the following inscription, in a ceme-
tery one mile and a half north of the village, copied by me in
188+ :
OPOITO ὅροι To-
ΤΤΟΗ TTON-
NWN νῶν.
The name occurs also in Bithynia in the forms Τάταιον, Ταταού-
tov,’ Τότταιον ; it is evidently formed from the personal name
Tatas or Tottes, the stem of which must be TataF or Tartu, from
which comes Tata F-to-v.
XCIV.—TRIBANTA is mentioned only by Ptolemy, whose in-
dications point to a position a little west of Azanoi. It may
occur in the following inscription, though there is no evidence
of the restoration; I copied the inscription at Zemme in 1884.
The stone measured fourteen inches in breadth, of which eight
inches on the left are broken away :
NT QNOCIQ ὁ δῆμος ὁ [Τριβὰ ντ[]ὦὼν “Octo
KOQEYEAME Δικαίῳ ᾿Ε πη]κόῳ εὐξάμε-
ΓΕΝ νος καθιέρωσεν.
XCV.— ABEIKTA occurs only in the following inscription
(copied by me at Yaliniz Serai in 1885), which proves that it
was one of three neighbouring villages united in a union or
Trikomia :
1 So Ptolemy’s Παταούιον must be corrected.
ald THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.
MHNACMHNAAOC Μηνᾶς Μηνᾶδος
ABEIKTHNOCYTIE ᾿Αβεικτηνὸς ὑπὲ-
PTHCTPIKWMI p τῆς Τρικωμί-
ACCWTHPIACKA as σωτηρίας Ka-
ITWNIAIWNTTAN L τῶν ἰδίων πάν-
ΤΩΝΑΝΕΘΗΚΕΝ των ἀνέθηκεν
A€IBENNIWEY Act Βεννέῳ εὐ-
XHN way
Abeikta, [Triba]nta, and a third village at Utch Eyuk, were
perhaps the Tricomia.
The Latin dedication at Yaliniz Serai to an Augusti dispensator
suggests the possibility that some imperial property existed here,
and its boundary may be marked by another Latin Bure
of the district (Zph. Epigr., No. 1451).
XCVI.—Zincot. XCVII.—Iskome. (J. H.S., 1884, p. 261.)
The name Zingot recalls a Scythian type, Skolot, &e., on which
see Neumann, ‘glen in Skythenlande, p.179. All these places
(XC. to XCVII.) belong to the district Praipenissos.
After this discussion of Salutaris there remains now little to
detain us in north-western Phrygia.
XCVIII.—AppisA. The name of Appia is still retained under
the form Abia to designate a small village, where a Roman
bridge and numerous remains reveal the ancient site. The
territory of the city includes the country along the north-
eastern side of Mount Dindymos (Murad Dagh), in which a very
large number of villages exist, never yet visited by any traveller.
With this name Appia the Phrygian personal names Appios,
Appia, Appion, &c., are probably all connected, and all are
derived from Appa, or Appas, a name of the god understood as
the father: cp. Papas of Phrygia and Bithynia.
Appia was a station on the Roman road between Kotiaion
and Akmonia. This road is defective in the Peutinger Table,
and should probably be read as follows: Dorylaeum, Cotiaeum,
Appia, Akmonia, Aludda, Clannudda, Philadelphia.
The course of the road is marked by the following mile-
stones :
(1) The eleventh milestone from Akmonia (see XXII).
(2) The sixth or seventh milestone north of Appia ἀπὸ
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGTA. 515
Ammias Μί(λια) ς or € (C. 1. G. 3857¢, Lebas-Wadd. 788),
found at Geukcheler.
(3) The eighth milestone north of Appia, a few fragments at
the end of lines, and at the foot the distance MH, copied by me
in 1884 at Geukcheler. This may be the same inscription as
Lebas-Wadd., 787, C. 1. G., 3857d, where the number is lost.
(4) The twelfth or thirteenth milestone from Appia was
copied by me at Haidarlar in 1884; it gives the line of road
between Appia and Kotiaion, which evidently follows the gorge
of the Tembris, or Tembrogius 1 :—
* Tots [κυρ]έοις ἡμῶν Τ᾽ αε(ίῳ) Ovar [ερίῳ Δι]οκλετιανῷ καὶ
Γαλ(ερίῳ) Οὐαλ(ερίῳ) 5 Μαξιμιανῷ Σεββ. [καὶ Pr. Οὐ]αλ(ερίῳ)
[ΚΊονσταντίῳ καὶ [Οὐαλερίῳ] Μαξιμιανῷ [τοῖς
ἐπιφ]ανεστάτοις [Καίσ]αρσι. ᾿Απὸ ᾿Α[π]πίας Μι[γ 7]
XCIX.—EUvDOKIAS is mentioned only by Hierocles, who places
it between Apia and Aizani; this points to a situation on the
north side of the Murad Dagh (M. Dindymos) in a country
absolutely unknown, but which has been reported to me to con-
tain many villages (see also KoTIAION, footnote).
C.—In the latest Notitiae, IIL, X., XIII. five bishop-
rics, Aizanoi, Tiberiopolis, Kadoi, Ankyra, and Synaos, are
disjoined from Laodikeia and placed under Hierapolis. The
five form a group in the north-west corner of the province. The
reason and the exact period of this change are unknown, but it
had taken place before Concil. Nicaen. II., A.D. 781,3 while it had
not come into operation in the Councils 680 and 692. The
other Notitiae take no notice of this arrangement, but mention
all these bishoprics as subject to Laodikeia.
We have therefore here a clear proof that Notitiae VIL.,
VIII., [X., and I., give an arrangement of Pacatiana which had
already become antiquated in 787, although I. is dated 883,
and the others all contain some traces of early ninth century
institutions.
CI.—Aizanol. The site at Tchavdir Hissar, with the striking
ruins of the temple of the native god, who was identified with
the Greek Zeus, has long been known.
1 The course of this river is utterly 870 is doubtful, but rather tends to
false in Kiepert’s map. 2 Sic. show that the original arrangement had
3 The evidence of Concil. Constantin. been restored.
516 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA.,
CII.—TIBERIOPOLIS is very rarely mentioned, and topo-
graphical evidence is wanting. The order of Hierocles demands a
situation in the north of Phrygia, which is opposed to the far in-
ferior authority of Ptolemy. Notitiae L, VIIL, IX., also mention
it with Aizanoi, Ankyra, and Synaos, and the authority of the
arrangement in III, X., XIII, confirms this position. I see
only two possibilities: either Tiberiopolis is to be placed where
I have placed Eudokias, and Eudokias is to be identified with
Kotiaion—a supposition which has been already rejected; or
Tiberiopolis was the city whose remains exist about Amet,
Hassanlar, and Egri Goz. M. Waddington (Lebas-Wadd., 1011)
places Ankyra there, but the inscription on which he relies,
reading ᾽Α Ἰν[κυρα]νῶν, does not justify the restoration, as may
be seen by comparing the epigraphic text. Ankyra was
certainly not situated here (see CIII.). The published inscrip-
tions mention ἱερεὺς ὁμοβωμίων Θεῶν Σεβαστῶν, and perhaps
ἱέρειαν νεῶν [ὁμοβωμίων)], and another which I copied in 1884
at Amet on a basis reads:
TEKNATIATPI τέκνα πατρὶ
KAIO€CoTIMHN καὶ θεῷ τιμήν.
These inscriptions prove that ἃ cultus of the early emperors was a
prominent feature in the city. M. Waddington interprets the
ὁμοβώμιοι Geo) as Augustus and Livia; it is however possible
that Tiberius and Livia are meant, or that Tiberius gave the
city leave to adopt his name and institute a special worship of
his parents.
The inscriptions of this valley prove that a city of early
imperial civilization existed here. If it is not Tiberiopolis, it
must be some city of Mysia,and I find none which could well be
placed here. On these grounds I place Tiberiopolis at the head
waters of the Amed Su, a tributary of the Rhyndakos. Its
course is falsely given on Kiepert’s map; I was assured by
natives that it joins the Rhyndakos near Harmanjik.
CII]—Anxyra. CIV.—Sywnaos. These two cities, whose
names are in some Byzantine authorities given as a single word
Ancyro-synaos, have been proved by Hamilton at Simav and
Kilisse Keni. I have visited both places, and have nothing to
add to Hamilton. I have already referred to Μ, Waddington’s
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA., 517
theory that Ankyra was situated at Hassanlar (see CII ἐν
Ankyra bears the title Ferrea or Sidera in some Byzantine lists.
CV.—KADOI retains its ancient name as Gediz (Καδοῦς in
accus.!). It is on the upper waters of the Hermus, which is on
this account called Gediz Tchai. The adjective Kaéonvos, 1...
KaédoFnvds, shows that Καὶ ἄδοι is analogous to "Otpous ("Orpo Fos),
and has the form Kaéofor; it is obviously connected with the
name of the Lydo-Phrygian hero Kaévs, which in its turn may
perhaps be a variety of the Phrygo-Thracian Kotus.?
CVI—THEODOSIA is called THEODOSIOUPOLIS in Concil.
Chalcedon. If we may judge from its position in Hierocles
between Kadoi and Ankyra, it was situated at the important
mining centre Shap Khane, ‘Alum House, which is still the
seat of ἃ mudir. The original name of this place is unknown ;
the name Theodosiopclis, given to it doubtless when it was
dignified with the rank of a πόλιες, soon passed out of use again.
CVII.—TeEmeENnotHyRAl. The situation is determined by the
situation (1) outside of the bounds of Lydia, (2) on the river
Hyllos.*? The Hyllos is known from coins to be the tributary of
the Hermus that flows past the Lydian Saittae, and only its
upper waters can lie across the frontier and within Phrygia.
The name clearly means ‘the Gates, or Passes, of M. Temnos,’
and the allusions to this mountain suit and almost necessitaté
its identification with the great chain that extends east and west
on the southern side of the valley in which lie Synaos, Ankyra,
and the river Makestos. Of the many villages which doubtless
existed in the territory of the Temenothyreis, we know the
name only of one, Koloe (see CX.).
CVIIT.—TRAJANOPOLIS has been proved by M. Waddington to
be a name given to the central town of the people Grimeno-
thyreis. It corresponds to the important modern city Ushak,
but the view of M. Waddington that it was situated there is
not strictly accurate. The actual site was at Giaour Euren, six
miles east of Ushak, near Orta Keui; the rock-tombs near the
site have been described by Texier. The actual date of the
foundation is perhaps given in the following inscription in the
outer wall of the mosque at Tcharik Keui; it was copied first
1 Κάδοι nom. for Κάδοξοι, but Kadods and Otreus, Attalosand Ottalos, Tataion
accus. for KaddéFous. and Tottaion.
3 The variation of vowel as in Atreus 3 Pausan. i. 35, 8.
518 THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGTA.
by Hamilton (who could not decipher the date), and after-
wards by me in 1883 and again in 1887: ᾿Αγα[θὴ Τύχη].
Αὐτ[οκράτορα Καίσαρα] θεοῦ [Τραιανοῦ Lap6ix0d] υἱὸν θεοῦ
Nepova υἱωνὸν Τραιανὸν Σεβαστὸν ᾿Αδριανὸν δημαρχικῆς ἐξου-
σίας ἡ Τραιανοπολειτῶν πόλις τὸν εὐεργέτην καὶ κτίστην" ἐπι-
pernbevT@my .....- ἔτους a6, μη(νὸς) Δείου β΄.
The date is end of September, A.D. 119, which proves that
the inscription was not connected with a visit of Hadrian.
CIX.—PULCHERIANOPOLIS. The order of Hierocles shows
that this city was situated on the Lydo-Phrygian frontier, south
of Trajanopolis. I formerly thought that it might be a tempo-
rary name of Blaundos, but Blaundos is always placed in Lydia
by the ecclesiastical documents, and there seems therefore no
alternative except to identify Hierocles’ Pulcherianopolis with
the Metellopolis of the Notitiae. The situation of Metzllopolis
is certain. It was one of the first set of bishoprics attached to
the metropolis of Hierapolis, and is therefore in the south-
western part of Pacatiana. It is identical with the Motella of
numerous inscriptions, and the situation of Motella is given by
these inscriptions and by the preservation of the name as
Medele.! The district of Motella is at present united with
Dionysopolis and Hyrgalean Plain in a single district called
Tchal. This modern unity existed in ancient time also, as is
shown by the close religious connection which is seen in the
inscriptions ; and the name Pulcherianopolis reveals a stage in
the gradual breaking up of these greater districts into smaller
πόλεις. Dionysopolis was separated by the Pergamenian kings ;
Motella by Pulcheria in the fifth century.
CX—The Lypo-PHryGiAn frontier is determined appro-
ximately by the preceding investigation. To fix it still more
closely requires a discussion of the Lydian cities, which is at
present too obscure a subject. The site of the Lydian Blaundos
is well known since Hamilton; the Lydian Tralla was perhaps
at the ancient site reported by Hamilton near Geune; Clan-
noudda is determined by the course of the Roman road from Phila-
delphia to Akmonia. This road must go either by Takmak or by
Ine; on each of these routes, about 45 miles from Philadelphia
1 Jn Part I. I failed to observe the investigation to put them side by side.
identity of Motella and Metellopolis, I detected the identity just too late to
and was obliged by the course of my change the text of my paper.
᾿
THE CITIES AND BISHOPRICS OF PHRYGIA. 519
there is an ancient site, one at Bei Sheher, the other at Ine.
On the whole, considering that the latter road is much the
easier, I incline to place Clannoudda at Ine, and to explain its
apparent disappearance from history through its being at an
early time absorbed in the territory of Blaundos. Bei Sheher
then awaits a name. Bagis, Tabala, Maeonia, Saittae, and
Silandos have all been determined by older travellers. To these
I have to add Satala, a bishopric, which still retains its name as
Sandal, near Koula. This situation is confirmed by the legend of
Saint Therapon, who was led from Synaos towards Lydia through
Satala, a city on the Maeander (Act. Sanct., May 27, p. 680).
The idea which has hitherto been generally accepted is that
Koula preserves the ancient name of ἡ κατοικία Κολοηνῶν,
mentioned in an inscription ? now at Koula. I have seen this
inscription, and have ascertained that it was brought to Koula
from the district of Kara Tash, on the head-waters of the
Hyllos, and that it was found there by workmen digging up
madder-root.2 Koloe therefore was a village in the territory of
the Temenothyreis. Moreover this town of Koula is mentioned
by the Byzantine writers, who explain the name as a term used
by the Turks in the sense ‘castle ;’ it is the Arabic Ala.
I have now traversed the entire extent and bounds of Phrygia,
except the southern frontier, which forms the subject of a special
paper in the American Journal of Archaeology, 1887 and 1888,
where I have corrected the site assigned in the first part of the
present paper, according to the old idea, to Keretapa.!
W. M. Ramsay.
1 Called by Arundel Besh Sheher.
2 Wagener, Jnscr. Grec. Recueillies en
Asie Min. No. 1. (read A for A, in day
of month).
3 Koula was once a great centre for
the madder-root trade, though in recent
years madder-root has been superseded
by bad cheap European dyes, and Kara
Tash district, once rich, is now impover-
ished.
4 J must correct the statement made
by Mr. A. H. Smith in this Jowrnal,
p-. 220, that ‘the chief topographical
results of our journey have been al-
ready published by Prof. Ramsay.’
I purposely left the whole subject to
Mr. Smith: but as his report was de-
layed, I published a very few topo-
graphical results, which were likely
to have been discovered by more.
recent travellers. Those which I pub-
lished made about a tenth part of the
results of our journey: the rest may
be found in the American Journal.
Note to LXXXVI. Aurokra is
omitted Not.
NOTICES OF BOOKS.
(4.)—ART AND MANUFACTURE
La Necropole de Myrina. By E. Portier and 8. Rernacu.
Paris, 1886. Vol. I. (With Plates).
THE first part of an exhaustive and thorough account of the exca-
vations conducted by MM. Pottier and Reinach at Myrina. The
introduction sketches the history of the excavations. The necro-
polis at Kalabassary, the ancient Myrina, was discovered by some
peasants in 1870. Various terra-cotta statuettes and heads were
found from time to time, but no systematic exploration was under-
taken till July 1880, when Pottier and Reinach began their work,
which was much facilitated by M. Aristides Baltazzi, the owner of
the land excavated. The excavations were continued in 1881 and
1882, and some subsequent explorations have been made, though not
by the French archaeologists. Many of the terra-cottas, &c., dis-
covered have been placed in the Louvre.
Chapter I.— Topography and History of Myrina.”
Chapter II.—‘ Les Tombeaux.” The various kinds of graves are:
1. Fosse quadrangulaire
2, Fosse ronde . taillées dans le tuf.
3. Chambre funéraire
4. Tombeau en pierres taillées
5. Sarcophage en pierre posés dans la terre.
6, Sarcophage en terre cuite
Nos. 1, 2, 3 occur most frequently at Myrina. Our authors noted
the orientation of more than a thousand graves, and are convinced
that there was no fixed rule in the matter. The skeletons were
found more or less completely preserved. The skulls were often
intact, and the teeth also were remarkably well preserved. Crema-
tion and interment were both practised during the same period at
ART AND MANUFACTURE. 521
Myrina. Interment was the most frequent practice. The position of
the corpses in the graves is not uniform. In several instances the
bodies were found mutilated—the head or the feet being cut off.
Pottier and Reinach recognize in this a religious usage of which
there are analogies in early Roman sepulture (pp. 75-77). In a
few cases the bones of dogs, horses, and sheep were found beside
the human remains.
Lists of objects found in the tombs are given on pp. 78-100,
with remarks (p. 101 ff.). The objects, as a rule, lie near the bones,
and have evidently been deposited at the same time as the corpse.
They appear to have been thrown into any vacant space, especially
on each side of the head and the feet. Many of the statuettes
found in the graves had been mutilated in antiquity, intentionally,
and probably to render them worthless spoil to any plunderer of the
tombs. In modern Greece the grave-clothes are purposely torn with
a similar object. Of ninety-four graves opened in a certain week
of the excavations, only fifteen contained terra-cotta statuettes,
most of them yielding nothing. Rich tombs were scattered among
the poorer ones without any external mark of difference. The
objects found are of four classes: 1. the earthly belongings of the
deceased, such as strigils, mirrors, aryballi, &c. ; 2. objects for the
reception of food for the dead (drinking-vessels, ce.) ; 3. coins ;
4. terra-cottas. ‘The earliest coins found are of Alexander and his
successors, the latest specimen is of Germanicus. Many of the late
copper coins of Myrina occurred, but none of its tetradrachms. The
coins (which did not occur in all the graves) were placed near the
head as Charon’s fee. The specimens found serve to show that
the contents of the Myrina necropolis belong to the two centuries
preceding the Christian era. There is reason to believe that this
necropolis had been used before circ. B.c. 200, but that, on its
becoming overcrowded, the remains were removed to another spot,
and deposited in large common graves. With regard to the
statuettes the authors noted that female figures (Aphrodite,
Demeter, Nike, &c.) occurred chiefly in the graves of women, male
figures (Dionysos, Herakles, Atys, ἄρ.) in the graves of men. Eros
was found in the graves of children.
The authors collected sixty-three sepulchral stelae from Myrina.
As they estimate the graves discovered (by themselves and others)
at between four and five thousand in number, it is probable that
many of the stelae have been destroyed, or removed for building
purposes. The stelae are not interesting. The inscription generally
gives simply the name of the deceased and his father’s name. The
522 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
name of a married woman’s husband is often recorded. These
inscriptions are printed on pp. 113-124.
Chapter 111.--- Les Figurines de Terre cuite.” The Myrina terra-
cottas are characterized by “la teinte bistre, plus claire que celle
de Smyrne, moins grise que celle de Pergame, beaucoup moins rouge
que celle d’Aegae.” At least nine different pastes or fabrics may
be distinguished among them. Few of the statuettes were made by
hand, the majority being produced from moulds. Certain parts of
the body—wings of Eros, for instance—have however been separately
made by hand. Several figures have been touched up with a tool
after being withdrawn from the mould and while the clay was still
wet. The processes of manufacture are the same as those employed
at Tanagra and elsewhere in Greece. AJ] the statuettes appear to
have been painted, as all show traces of the white ground-mixture
upon which (and not directly upon the clay) the colours were laid.
The colours do not seem to have been burnt in, or, if so, very
slightly. Those employed are red, rose, blue, black, yellow, brown,
and green. Red and blue are the favourite colours. Gilding is
sparingly employed. With regard to subjects, more than half of
the statuettes represent divinities, clearly marked as such by their
attributes. Aphrodite, Eros, Dionysos, and Nike are found, but the
great gods Zeus, Poseidon, and even Apollo rarely occur. Some
fantastic gods are doubtless due to the creative fancy of the potter.
Such is a Dionysos with the lyre of Apollo and the wings of Eros.
Other subjects are taken from ordinary life—dancers, children,
comic actors, animals, &c, The figures of males are generally comic
or caricatures. The draped female figures and the groups of mother
and daughter which often occur are believed by the authors to
have been originally religious in intention—the group representing
Demeter and Kore. In course of time and through the realistic ten-
dencies of later art such figures became mere human beings, their
sacred origin being probably forgotten. In style some of the Myrina
terra-cottas are conventional and preserve archaic types. But on
the whole the influences of Hellenistic art are distinctly visible.
Notice especially the small head placed on a long body, and the
fondness for copying or imitating celebrated works of statuary,
such as the Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles. Many of the sta-
tuettes are inscribed (generally on the back) with a name, probably
that of the maker, in the genitive case. The name Diphilos occurs
most frequently. The best statuettes are unsigned.
Chapter IV.—“ Le Mobilier funéraire : bronzes, verreries, pote-
ries, objets divers.” Objects in the precious metals were rare,
ART AND MANUFACTURE. 523
though fragments of gold sepulchral diadems were discovered.
Among the bronze objects were one hundred mirrors, all unengraved,
and a number of strigils, one of which was ornamented with a
figure of Hermes. In a good many graves small bronze tablets,
bearing the name of the deceased in incised, dotted letters, were
discovered. Of the pottery found, our authors give a full descrip-
tion under the headings ‘‘ Common Ware” and “ Poterie de Luxe.”
Among the amphora handles found, twelve were of Rhodes, eleven
of Cnidus, and nine of Thasos. The decorated vases belong chiefly
to a late period of Greek ceramic art. Among them are small
black-glazed amphoras with floral ornaments in yellow, &c. Various
miscellaneous objects in terra-cotta were found, including the small
pyramids and cones that have been so often discovered elsewhere.
Ws. WV.
Gli Scavi della Certosa di Bologna descritti ed illustrati
dall Ingegnere architetto capo municipale, AnrTonio
ZaNNoNI. Bologna. Regia Tipografia 1876—1884.
Ueber die Ausgrabungen der Certosa von Bologna
zugleich als Fortsetzung der Problemen in der
Geschichte der Vasenmalerei. H. Brunn (aus den
Abhandlungen der k, bay. Akad. der Wissenschaften, 1887.)
THE excavations conducted by Zannoni at the Certosa of Bologna
have raised the Museo Civico of that town to the front rank among
the museums of Italy. The Museo Civico is a model of orderly
arrangement ; the contents of each of the four separate sets of
tombs—however various—have been carefully kept together, and
the same excellent system is observed in Zannoni’s work : whether
he goes to the Museo or opens the book, the archaeologist is so far
as possible present at the actual scene of excavation ; he knows what
each tomb contained and the exact ‘lie’ of each object ; no link is
missing that might suggest a date or correct a hypothesis. The
author justly says it is rather his province adequately to present
the material than to discuss the questions arising therefrom. Some
general conclusions he however sets forth. In his preface he gives
the history of the beginning of the excavations (1869,, and the
reasons for the identification of the site with the ancient Felsina
‘ princeps Hetruriae.’ Here we are bound to note that Sig. Zannoni
is lamentably inadequate in his citation of ancient texts: Pliny,
Nat. Hist. iii., Silius Italicus, De Bello Punico, Lib. 8, Livy, Lib. 52,
might surely be amplified. The first part of the book is devoted
524 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
to the detailed description of the excavations under the head of the
four groups of tombs, the second to the discussion of the furniture
of the tombs, the evidence given of the funeral rites observed and
consequent deductions as to the degree of civilization obtained by
Felsina (a) before the Etruscan invasion, (6) during the Etruscan
epoch. Briefly, Sig. Zannoni concludes, from a conspectus of the
Certosa excavations and others undertaken in consequence.
1. That the territory round Felsina was peopled before the
coming of the Etruscans by a succession of races, among whom a
Lithuanian stock can clearly be distinguished.
2. To these succeeded the Umbrians. So far the earliest stages
of their art have not been discovered. We come upon them first at
the stage of a ‘brilliante arcaismo,’ e.g. at the excavations of Benacci:
this develops step by step to the stage found at Arnoaldo, at
Stadello della Certosa, and at the Arsenal excavations: the highest
development here attained sinks into a decadence, the first stage
of which may be studied in the Sepolereto Arnoaldo and at
Stadello.
3, That the Etruscans invaded the district at a period when they
were themselves considerably Hellenized, and developed there a
civilization markedly different from that of their kinsmen on the
other side of the Apennines.
4, Next, traces of Gallic influence are found—notably in the
Sepolereto Benacci and De Luci.
3. Finally, the impress of Roman supremacy is clearly observ-
able.
Dr. Brunn avowedly approaches the subject of the Certosa
excavations with a special object, the support of his theory long ago
published in the Probleme. From an examination of the other
contents of the Certosa tombs, notably the bronzes and the famous
stelai, he comes to the conclusion that they must be dated low down
in the third century. Unless therefore we hold that the inhabitants
of Felsina, so far as pottery was concerned, only buried with their
dead what we might call ‘ancestral plate,’ ¢.e. such pieces as were
consecrated by long family usage and had become heirlooms, or that
there was a special manufacture of trade in archaic black ware
for funeral purposes, we must conclude, Dr. Brunn says, that the
black-figured ware found in these tombs was made during the latter
half of the third century—i.e. we must accept the main contention
of the Probleme, which is that a large quantity of the black-figured
ware which we are accustomed to regard as genuine fifth century
B.C. work is in fact archaistic. The painting of black or red figures
ART AND MANUFACTURE. 525
on vases was, according to Dr. Brunn, not a matter of strict
chronological sequence, but rather a question of convention with
respect to certain vase-shapes and varied much with the fashion of
the day. Perhaps some of Dr. Brunn’s incidental criticism will be
valued by some more than his main contention, notably his careful
analysis of the development of style in the funeral stelai and of
their decorative motives: also his very pertinent remarks on the
development of Umbrian art. Art, he says, in the outlying districts
(Peripherie) of Greek and Italian culture cannot be measured by
the same standards as those that may be applied in the great native
centres. Umbrian art is a neighbour growth which starting from
the same root had to a certain extent a separate life, but was never
able to attain for itself full and distinct development. Nor had it
even the advantage of consecutive pari passu influence from Greece.
By a rough analogy it may be compared to Byzantine art which,
while Italy and all Western Europe has gone through whole cycles
of development since the days of Giotto, remains still trammelled in
the mountains of the Balkan ; if we can suppose it suddenly released
from hierarchic fetters and brought into vital contact with the west,
it would be constrained to a non-natural development, overstepping
many intermediate stages and catching up the west where it would
find it at the present. By some such supposition we must fill up
the /acunae in Umbrian development.—J. E. H.
Mykenische Vasen: Vorhellenische Thongefiisse aus dem
Gebiete des Mittelmeeres im Auftrage des k. ἃ. Arch, Inst. in
Athen: gesammelt τι. herausgegeben von ADOLF FURTWANGLER u.
Grora Léscucke: mit einem Atlas von 44 Tafeln. Berlin : Verlag
von A. Asher & Co. 1886.
Tue earliest history of Hellenic life and art has received a special
share of attention within the past twenty years, mainly for the
reason that since the excavations at Ialysos in 1864, and Mykenae
and other sites more recently, it is now possible to test former con-
jectures with independent scientific deductions. Among the mass
of material provided by these finds bearing on this question, the
decorated pottery is by far the most important, as it is the largest,
class. Whenever presumably primitive Hellenic graves have been
opened, vases analogous to one or other of the Mykenae groups
have been brought to light ; and what has been most needed in
recent years was that some one should collect and connect these
ΠΟ Ξ 0 1 NU. MM
526 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
loose ends of information as a preliminary basis for future inves-
tigation.
This laborious task has been admirably fulfilled in the work
before us: Mykenische Vasen is practically a Corpus, complete up
to date, of all the information on the subject, with an atlas of
illustrations (besides the six plates and numerous wood-cuts in the
text), which for fulness and exactness of rendering leave nothing
to be desired. The vases are catalogued under the localities in
which they were found, with a statement of all possible information
that can throw light upon them: and they are grouped, under these
heads, either according to the objects found with them in the tombs
or according to peculiarities of style. To this catalogue is prefixed
a statement of the authors’ method of classification of the different
fabrics, and the deductions which they draw from them. The
numerous important questions involved would demand a fuller
treatment than our limited space allows: I can only give here a
bare uncritical outline of the scope and direction of this work.
This classification of fabrics will be best understood from a
reference to the coloured plates of Mykenische Thongeftisse (a
Festschrift published by the same authors in 1879 as a preliminary
to the present undertaking): it depends primarily upon the frag-
ments of pottery found at Mykenae, and is borne out by a com-
parison with other finds: it takes its stand upon a detailed exami-
nation of the technique, style, and motive of the decoration. This
gives us two main classes, viz. (1) ‘Mattmalerei,’ that is, where
the decoration is painted in a dull colour directly onto the clay:
(2) ‘ Firnissfarbe,’ where a shiny varnish either for the clay, or
for the decoration, or for both, is employed.
Class 1 is found at Mykenae, Thera, and Tiryns, and in point of
date clearly lies between the earliest fabrics of Hissarlik, Cyprus,
and the so-called Karian island graves on the one hand, and the
later ‘Mycenaean’ vases of Sparta and Ialysos on the other.
Class 2 with its shiny glaze—the exclusive property of Hellenic
fabrics and of those dependent on them—and also in the schemes of
decoration, shows us the basis on which all subsequent Hellenic
pottery is founded. The whole of this class has so homogeneous a
character, that the authors think it must be referred toa single
place of manufacture ; and this for various considerations they hold
to have been Mykenae. It divides naturally into four chronological
groups, with marked differences of detail, representing centuries of
development, of which Mykenae alone gives us an unbroken series :
the third of these groups, which we may here call c, embraces the
ART AND MANUFACTURE. 527
great majority of the vases of this type wherever found ; it pro-
bably immediately precedes in point of date the so-called ‘ Dipylon’
style, with which the fourth group of Mykenae varnished vases, d,
is contemporary.
This Dipylon style, of which the original centre was possibly
Krete, was the outcome of a people who must recently have raised
themselves above the level of the Bronze Period of mid-Europe: a
people accustomed to the arts of graving on bone and metal, and of
weaving in conventional patterns ; a graft upon Hellenic civilization
which is represented in history by the Dorian immigration. If we
put the Dorian immigration at the tenth century B.c. it follows
that the manufacture of Mykenae vases ceased about 800 B.c.
How far back may we put them? Kohler had remarked (Mittheii.
vii. 249) that the decoration at Orchomenos and that of the
Mykenae swords was analogous to the period of the first Ramesside
kings of Egypt: and lately a sword of precisely similar character
and decorations has been found in an Egyptian tomb of the six-
teenth century. Again, on the wall-paintings of the tomb of
Ramesses III. is depicted a clay Biigelkanne, a form which is not
found until class 2 group c, at Mykenae: the authors therefore
put the earlier tombs of Mykenae at the fourteenth or fifteenth
century B.C,
The majority of the other objects in gold, glass, ivory, &c. which
are found with Mykenae vases are probably from the Peloponnesos
and of Argive-Sikyonic workmanship. Some archaeologists have
gone so far as to call this art of Mykenae ‘ barbaric,’ but it has
in germ the undoubted elements of all Greek art ; ‘Like Greek
history, so Greek art has its commencement in the Peloponnesus,
and Mykenae is its first chapter.’—C. 8.
Elftes Hallisches Winckelmannsprogramm. Jason in
Kolchis. Von Heinrich HEYDEMANN, mit einer Doppeltafel.
Halle. Niemeyer 1886.
Jason, Dr. Heydemann observes, does not take the prominent place
in art we should expect from his mythological fame. It must be
borne in mind however that only at Colchis is he protagonist among
the Argonauts; there his ἀριστεῖα are two—(1) the taming of the
fire-breathing bulls, (2) the slaying of the dragon who guards the
fleece. Art deals with a third and preliminary scene—his first meeting
with Medea. Of these three events Dr. Heydemann collects all the
known representations in art, laying special stress on vase-painting,
Mu 2
528 NOTICES OF -BOOKS.
He has nothing actually novel in theory to offer, but he gives some
important additions to and corrections of previous lists. Passing over
the meeting scene which has little of interest, we may note some
points with respect to the two ἦθλα, and first the taming of the bull.
The much disputed Hermitage vase (Eremitage 2012) we are glad
to find Dr. Heydemann assigns, in agreement with Michaelis, and
in opposition to Purgold, to Theseus, not Jason. Much difficulty
about this and similar cases would be avoided if it were clearly
recognized that the type form for all three myths, Herakles and
the Cretan bull, Theseus and the Marathonian bull, Jason and the
fire-breathing bull are the same, with the further difficulty that in
two cases out of the three the figure of Medea is at least, if not
necessary, permissible. In the case of the Hermitage vase, rough
though the drawing is, the gesture of excited departure of Medea
must, it seems to Dr. Heydemann, decide for the Theseus myth.
Only in one vase are two bulls, the necessary number for a yoke,
present ; Dr. Heydemann explains this by the borrowed origin of the
type. As regards the second ἄθλον, the fight with the giant, it has
three type forms—in the first Medea is a mere spectator, in the
second an assistant, in the third the combat becomes a general one
between the whole company of the Argonauts and the dragon. To
these four must be added as ἅπαξ εἰρημένον the Vatican cylix in which
Jason swallowed by the dragon is returned to earth alive; as expla-
nation of this curious and problematic representation, Dr. Heydemann
only suggests the free fancy of the vase-painters. Finally the
combat with the dragon appears in parodied form ; a satyr replaces
Jason attended by Dionysos. Dr. Heydemann in the accompanying
plate publishes three new vases; we would implore of him to give
the shape of vases in his plates as well as in his text.—J. E. H.
Robert ; archaeologische Marchen (Part X. of Kiessling and
Wilamowitz-Mollendorf, Philologische Untersuchungen).
THE intention of this work is to trace to their origin various popular
theories, or to show their error.
I. Die Daedaliden. Daedalus and his school are discussed, and
the stories about him are traced to their sources, which seem to
flow from no early authorities.
Il. Die Kunsturtheile des Plinius. These are derived from Varro,
Varro’s from Xenocrates; hence the Lysippean prejudices that
appear in the sections on the bronze-workers. In Quintilian and
others we find the influence of the Pergamene tradition and
ART AND MANUFACTURE. 529
Antigonus, but little used here by Pliny. In the sections on
painting he draws on it far more extensively, only some of the
criticisms betraying Xenocrates by their style.
III. Aristeides und Euphranor. The two sources of Pliny’s
information are distinguished from their inconsistency in state-
ments about these two painters.
IV. Hagelaidas der Lehrer des Polykleitos. A discussion of the
dates of the two proves the connexion impossible; Polyclitus’
activity begins when that of Phidias ends.
V. Dontas oder Medon. Medon is right ; Dontas an error when
it occurs in the MSS., certainly not to be introduced elsewhere.
VI. Die Bildhauerfamilie in Chios. Stories about this family not
to be traced beyond Pergamene tradition ; the caricature story only
arose from ignorant criticism of an archaic work.
VII. Die Anftinge der Malerei. The various stories and confu-
sions are due to a purely conjectural treatise of the same period as
the Daedalos legend.
VIII. Timomachus von Byzanz. There is no reason for rejecting
Pliny’s statement that he was a contemporary of Caesar, as some,
from preconceived notions, have done.
IX. Die Cultbilder der Brauronischen Artemis. Legends as to the
origin of the image Uc. are post-Kuripidean fictions. A discussion
follows of the statues of Artemis on the Acropolis, one by the
elder Praxiteles.
X. Der Eros von Thespiai. Benndorf’s theory, that we see a copy
of this statue on the Ephesian column, as part of a judgment of
Paris, is disputed, and the writer’s view is confirmed ; the figures are
Thanatos and Alcestis.
XI. Die Riickkehr der Kore. Vase scenes are sometimes wrongly
referred to this story, in which a female is emerging from the
ground. She is really a water nymph, sometimes Dirce, holding up
the babe Dionysus in a nebris.—-E. A. G.
Urlichs: Ueber griechische Kunstschriftsteller. Wurzburg.
1887.
Tus treatise contains a brief discussion of the ancient writers on
art, treated historically, and in their chronological sequence. Of
Polyclitus’ work we have much of the main principles preserved,
and also individual sentences. His successor is the painter Pam-
philus, who stated that art was impossible without arithmetic and
geometry. Many others follow, especially architects; but the
530 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
names of many of the best-known artists are in the lists, and
quotations from their works can be identified. Duris of Samos was
a pupil of Theophrastus ; he wrote of artists rather than of art:
thus to the Peripatetics are to be traced many of the anecdotes
preserved about early masters. Xenocrates was his contemporary :
after these comes a gap—the same observed by Pliny in the history
of art, after 300 B.c. Then came the Pergamene tradition, repre-
sented by Antigonus. To him and to Polemon are to be traced the
inconsistent accounts often found in Pliny, Pausanias, and others.
Note I. on Οἷς. de Juvent. IL. i. 1. a reference is detected to a
Greek epigram on Zeuxis at Croton.
Note II. Hephaestus is to be struck out of the list of the works
of Euphranor, who has been confused with Aleamenes.—E. A. G.
Descriptive Catalogue of the Casts from Greek and
Roman Sculpture: Boston Museum of Fine Arts. By
Epwarp Rosinson, Curator of Classical Antiquities. Boston,
1887.
Ty this catalogue Mr. Robinson’s aim is to combine ‘both a guide
for general visitors and a useful handbook for students.’ These
purposes are to a certain extent contradictory, and those who have
tried can understand the difficulty of combining them: our concern
is with the second purpose only. The account of the 252 Greek
works, and 64 Roman, of which casts are exhibited in the Boston
Museum, shows wide and accurate reading, independence of view,
and a careful loving study of the works themselves for their own
sake. Thorough acquaintance with the best that has been done in
Germany is a special feature in this book. One may consult it
with almost the certainty of finding the most important German
ideas alluded to. Few references are permitted by the plan of the
book, but several times in every page one observes in the turn of a
phrase, or in words φωνᾶντα συνετοῖσι, proof that the writer had
in his mind some recondite treatise on the subject in hand. But
while the German training of the writer is obvious everywhere, he
has not become a German: he retains his own standpvint, and a
distinct individuality characterises almost every description of the
more important works.
The descriptions, while by no means complete in detail (a com-
plete description would require ten times the space), are well
selected, and touch the points which are least obvious, e.g. no. 90
finds room to notice the mark of a spur on one foot and to add
ART AND MANUFACTURE. 531
the note that this is characteristic of the Amazon: the spectator,
seeing that the right foot is a restoration, could not gather this for
himself. The style of the descriptions is removed both from sculp
tor’s technicalities and from aesthetic twaddle. The brief sum-
maries of characteristics in certain works are often admirable, and
sometimes perfect in feeling and tone: take some of the tritest
cases, the contrast between the Laocoon and the Dying Gaul, the
concluding sentences on the Parthenon Frieze, and the three lines
summing up the Hermes of Praxiteles. 1 quote the latter, chiefly
because I have found myself always unable to agree with the last
point in it: ‘the soft elastic texture of the skin, the infinite
modulations of the surface, the exquisite outline of the figure from
every point of view, and the extreme sensitiveness of the face’ ;
but it would not be easy to analyze better in so few words the
qualities of the surface.
In 16 we might have expected some slight indication of a differ-
ence in style between the two Aeginetan pediments, and I should
have liked an acknowledgment of the skill shown in some details,
e.g. the ears. That ‘Greek artists regarded the body not the face
as the chief vehicle of expression’ is true, but the two lines which
follow press it too hard.
In choosing a set of casts individual tastes are sure to differ. I
should have thought that more specimens of the Olympian metopes
might judiciously have been added: Mr. Robinson’s remarks too
about them seem to me to miss the poetry which place some of
them, in spite of their technical defects, among the most charming
works of Greek art.
I observe the misprint ‘ Melan’ on p. 23, and occasional inaccu-
racies of expression, where the words do not convey exactly the
sense which the writer intended, e.g. no. 73 ‘found on its original
site. —W. M. R.
Au Parthénon. Par L. de Roncnaup. Paris. Leroux, 1886.
Tus little book is one of the Petite Bibliotheque d Art et d’ Archéologve,
and contains two essays. The first, and shorter, is a suggestion
somewhat sketchily worked out, of new names for two of the so-called
“Fates” in the east pediment of the Parthenon.
M. Ronchaud starts from Pausanias x. 29, where describing the
paintings of Polygnotus in the Lesché at Delphi he says: ἐστὶν
ἀνακεκλιμένη Χλῶρις ἐπὶ τοῖς @vias γόνασιν, a description which ob-
viously applies to two of the figures. Pausanias does not give us
532 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
much information about the goddesses, except that they were friends,
and that Thyia was beloved of Poseidon and Chloris of his son
Neleus.
With this we join the fact that Codrus was one of the Neleidae,
and this with their being grouped between Phaedra and Procris shows
that they belonged to Attic legend.
Thyia, we learn elsewhere, was mother of Delphos, and we may
also connect with her name the Thyades, Attic women who
worshipped Dionysos yearly on Parnassus.
Thus we can see that Thyia, and Chloris her friend the mother of
the Neleidae might well be present in the pediment to symbolise the
old connection between Athens and Delphi. The names would fit
in with the theory of Beulé, who like Brunn starts from the Homeric
Hymn. M. Ronchaud postpones the task of proving the claims of
these goddesses against the others set forward, and refuses to name
the third figure, which he holds is not necessarily closely connected
with the pair. On the whole then the essay, which is quite short,
is rather the statement of a “happy thought” than a serious
solution of a difficult problem.
The second essay is much of the same character but longer
and more discursive. It is on the inside decoration of the cella
of the Parthenon. M. Ronchaud propounds the idea that the
decoration of the cella, apart from painting, consisted of draperies
and that these draperies were reproductions of the peplos. His
theory is that the Panathenaic peplos was made for the Athena
Polias of the Erechtheion, and not the Parthenos of the Parthenon,
and that as the latter in her raiment of gold had no need of such a
garment the peplos was applied to the decoration of hercella. He
quotes Euripides, Lon, lines 1132—1165, and assumes that Euripides
there describes in terms which are borrowed from the cella, a
tent erected for the Athenians at Delphi.
He points out that the cella with its columns all round lent itself
to decoration by hangings, while the open roof called for an awning
to protect from the weather the chryselephantine statue, and the
treasures near it.
For this he finds the πτέρυγα πέπλων of the Ion, embroidered as
it was with all the heavenly bodies, particularly appropriate.
The spoils of the Amazons, an offering of Herakles, is plainly
suited for an Attic temple, and would do well for one of the sides.
The other sides might well be decorated with the barbarian
tapestry with the sea-fight against the Greeks on it, and with the
gift of the Athenian, which represented Cecrops with his snake’s
INSCRIPTIONS. 533
tail and his daughters. To these subjects we might add that of the
war with the giants which passages in the Hecuba and Luthyphro
suggest to us.
The theory is supported by Plutarch’s mention of ποικιλταί among
the workmen of Pheidias, nor is it at all improbable that an all
round artist like Pheidias should have employed tapestry as a means
of decoration.
This is the gist of the essay, but itis interspersed with discussions
on the use of colour in architecture, the plan of the Parthenon
and the foreign origin of the Athena cult, not to speak of the
relations of ancient and modern art; in fact it is eminently
“ chatty.”—W. Ο F. A.
Phidias. Par Maxime Collignon. Paris. Rouam.
THis is a popular account of all that is known about Phidias, and
professes to give the latest results of archaeological criticism.
M. Collignon does not pretend to be original, or to do anything
more than state results, otherwise he could hardly have brought his
work into 124 pages. However he gives most abundant references
on every point, so that apart from the text the book ought to be of
considerable use in serious work. It contains a number of
illustrations.—W. C. F. A.
(B.) INSCRIPTIONS.
Kirchhoff. Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen
_ Alphabets. Ed. IV.
A New edition of a book familiar to all students of epigraphy calls
for no detailed description, but only for a brief notice of the nature
and scope of the modifications introduced. Professor Kirchhoff
still believes that the time is not yet come for writing a history of
the alphabet, and accordingly allows no new theories to interfere
with the old arrangement of his facts. It is in details then, not in
general principles or classifications, that we find alterations : almost
all of these consist in assigning the cardinal monuments of epigraphy
to an earlier date than before. Thus the earliest Milesian inscrip-
tions are now supposed to be as early as the end of the seventh
century ; a most important change, as regards the earliest history
534 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
of the Ionic alphabet ; the Abu Simbel inscriptions are still con-
sidered of the same age as before, the end of the reign of Psamme-
tichus I. or Ol. 40 (620 B.c.). The Naucratite inscriptions are
assigned to the second half of the sixth century. An important
addition is a sketch of the Phrygian alphabet, from recent dis-
coveries.
Among other branches of the alphabet the changes are not so
great. The Theraean inscriptions remain at the same date as before
—earlier, probably, than those of Abu Simbel. The series of Attic
inscriptions also now goes back to the seventh century, but this is
more from the discovery of new material than from shifting of the
old.
In the Western alphabet, we may notice the addition to the
abecedaria of the Formello alphabet, which certainly represents the
mother-alphabet of Italy.—E. A. G.
An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy. Part I. The Archaic
Inscriptions and the Greek Alphabet. By ἘΔ 8. Roserts.
Cambridge, 1887.
The subject of Greek Epigraphy, which thirty years ago advanced
with slow and cautious steps under the auspices of the Berlin
Academy, is now moving on, not pedetentously (to borrow a word’
coined by Sydney Smith), but by leaps and bounds ; and yet there is
nothing rash and immature in its recent progress. The labours of
the illustrious Béckh and his immediate successors in editing the
original Corpus of Greek Inscriptions are now beginning to yield
manifold fruit, gathered in from the co-operation of many scholars
taking up different branches of Epigraphy. Kirchhoff has given us
the history of the Greek Alphabet and arranged its several varieties
geographically and according to periods; Hicks and Dittenberger
have both published a valuable selection of historical texts ; Roehl
has edited for the Academy of Berlin the most ancient Greek Inscrip-
tions exclusive of those from Attica. In the works of Cauer and
Collitz specimens of all or nearly all the known Greek dialects
are published with a short commentary.
The Zvaité d’ Epigraphie of Reinach shows the immense develop-
ment of the subject since Franz published his Hlementa Epigraphices
Graecae. These works have followed each other in rapid succession,
but still there was ample room for the long expected work of
Mr. Roberts, who has at present the great advantage of having said
the last word on several important questions in dispute, and being
INSCRIPTIONS, 535
able to notice the very latest discoveries. It is true that in such a
progressive science as Epigraphy the ultimate view of to-day soon
becomes the penultimate as new discoveries are made, but one of
the great merits of Mr. Roberts’s work is that it furnishes the
student with references throughout to the sources, foreign or English,
where he can get the latest and soundest information without
being obliged to search for it in endless periodicals and memoirs, a
task which only those who have gone through such ungrateful
labours in days before Handbooks can appreciate.
It will be seen that in the work before us the inscriptions are
arranged in three groups. The Eastern group comprises the islands
of the Aegean Sea, Attica, Corinth and its colonies, Argos, Megara,
Aegina, and the inscriptions in the Ionic dialect from Abou Symbel,
Naukratis, Miletus, from Ephesus, Halicarnassus, and other cities
on the West coast of Asia Minor and elsewhere.
In the Western group are placed the towns of Euboea, the Eretrian
and Chalcidean colonies, Boeotia, Phocis, Locris, Thessaly, Lakonia,
Arkadia, Tarentum, Elis, Achaia, &c. Lastly we have the Hellenizing
Alphabets of Phrygia, Lycia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Caria, Hispania.
Not the least valuable part of the work are the supplementary
commentaries in the Appendix, classed as Addenda and Addenda
Nova. The many intricate problems which present themselves in
tracing the history of the alphabet and in interpreting the text of
the earliest Greek inscriptions are handled throughout with a sobriety
of judgment and a clearness and terseness of expression which are
worthy of the previous reputation of the author and of the
University which reared him.
The book, which has been printed at the University Press, is an
admirable specimen of typography. I regret that time does not
permit me to give a fuller and more critical notice of this work, to
which I hope to return in a future number of the journal.
gel Mi
536 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
(C).—HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES.
Studniczka—Beitradge zur Geschichte der altgriechischen
Tracht. (Part VI. 1. of the Abhandlungen des arch. epigr.
Seminares der Univ. Wien).
A uistory of the development of dress in the earliest times only.
First the literary authorities are discussed; they show that the
early simple garments, fastened with brooches, were superseded by
Asiatic or ‘Ionic’ linen garments, sewn: these again partly gave
place through a national reaction to the original or ‘ Doric’ dress.
The monuments are then considered. In pre-Homeric times,
at Mycenae, we find drawers on the men; but the women’s dress
was not of this form; what we see is an attempt to render the
forms beneath the drapery in the skirt; nor is the breast meant to
be bare. Or, if this view be not correct, then the dress is an
oriental importation.
The greater part of the book is taken up with the discussion of
the dress used in Homeric times, and its representation on extant
monuments. The materials and colour are discussed ; also inwoven
designs, and the various articles of male dress receive detailed con-
sideration, both under-garments and over-garments, especially the
diplax and its analogies, the linen φᾶρος and the woollen χλαῖνα.
The women’s chief garment is the peplos or heanos: the use of brooches
is discussed, and it is maintained, in opposition to Helbig, that the
dress is of the ‘ Doric’ type, and not slit down the breast ; girdles,
head-dresses, dc. receive due attention. The name peplos in Athens,
though used generally in a vague sense, is especially applied to the
simple garment of the goddess, dating originally from a time before
Ionic innovations ; it is also worn by the goddess in her best-known
statues.
The usefulness of this interesting work is greatly impaired by
the absence of any index or table of contents.—E. A. G.
Das Homerische Epos aus den Denkmalern erlautert.
Archiologische Untersuchungen, von W. Hexic. Zweite ver.
besserte und vermehrte Auflage. Leipzig. Teubner. 1887.
Ir is no disparagement of the first edition of this notable work to
say that it is necessarily superseded by the second. The mere
HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES. 537
increase in bulk is considerable—from 353 to 470 pages; though
this is partly due to somewhat more liberal “leading” on the
printer’s part. But the discoveries of the three years elapsed since
the appearance of the book have considerably added to the material
to be employed, and bave of course found their place in Dr. Helbig’s
exhaustive synopsis of his subject.
The portion which has had to undergo the most extensive
remodelling is that which treats of female dress. An entirely new
light was thrown upon this by Studniczka’s Beitrdge zur Geschichte
der altgriechischen Tracht, and many of Helbig’s conclusions have
had to be reconsidered. In particular, his argument for a breach in
continuity of development between the Homeric and classical ages
has lost some portion of its force, since Studniczka has convincingly
shown that the costume of Homeric women was identical—at least
in principle—with the “Doric garb” of classical days, and bears
every mark of remote antiquity.
The discoveries at Tiryns have necessitated a rewriting of a great
deal of the chapter (viii.) on dwelling-houses. The use of stucco for
lining the walls has naturally altered many views; among other
points, attention may be called to Helbig’s proposed explanation of
ἄλειφαρ as “a fine white shining stucco” in the description of stone
seats as λευκοί, ἀποστίλβοντες ἀλείφατος (γ 406). This chapter also
includes a new investigation of the Homeric chair, but we miss a
discussion of that thorny question, the plan of Odysseus’ house.
Among the more important additions in other places may be
mentioned the introductory pages recognizing the differences in
culture which must belong to the widely different periods of the
strata composing the Jiiad and Odyssey—a difference taken by
Helbig as at least 400 years, from the 10th to the 6th century.
He here follows Wilamowitz—by no means a safe guide, though
these limits are probably not far from the truth ; but I do not find
that the recognition of this element, important though it is, has
materially influenced the treatment of individual points. The
chapter on Die Wagen has an addition of eight pages accepting with
a modification (and 1 think improvement) my suggestions as to the
harnessing of the horses made in an earlier number of the Journal.
In pp. 259-266 is an interesting discussion of the Epic language
and manners as showing in many respects a conventionalism similar
to that which the author traces in Homeric art.
The last half of the book is not materially altered, though
additions of more or less importance will be found on pp. 275,
288, 376, 383-8, 391-4, 408, 424. With some of the author’s
538 NOTICES OF BOOKS.
views as to armour I must still venture to disagree. He does not
notice the brief section in Gemoll’s Homerische Blatter bearing on
this point. ἢ
It is a pleasure to congratulate Dr. Helbig on the speedy
appearance of a second edition ; in the interests of science we must
unselfishly hope that it will soon be superseded by a third.
W. L.
Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Peloponnesus. By
Percy GArpNER, Litt. D. Edited by Reeinatp Stuarr Pooxs,
LL.D. London. 1887.
A VALUABLE contribution by Professor Gardner to the “ Catalogue
of the Greek Coins in the British Museum,” published by the
Trustees under the editorship of the Keeper of Coins. The volume
deals with the entire Peloponnesus, Corinth excluded. The descrip-
tion of the coins occupies 203 pages and there are 37 plates of
autotype reproductions of the specimens. The usual full Indexes
of Types, Inscriptions, &c. accompany the book. Brief but inter-
esting foot-notes are added to many of the descriptions of the types,
and numerous references are given to Pausanias, whose Periegesis so
often illustrates and is illustrated by the coinages of Peloponnesus
(Compare the Numismatic Commentary on Pausanias by Imhoof-
Blumer and P. Gardner). The introduction (pp. i.-lxii.) gives a
masterly sketch of Peloponnesian numismatics. The first section of
this deals chiefly with the monetary standards employed in the
Peninsula and some of its chief results may be summarized as fol-
lows. The earliest regular issue of money in the Peloponnese
cannot be placed before B-c. 500. During the two centuries pre-
ceding this date the want of a native currency was no doubt
supplied by the tortoise coins of Aegina. Aegae, Sicyon, Elis,
Cephallenia, Zacynthus, Argos, and the Arcadian towns Heraea,
Cleitor and Psophis begin to strike coins before Bc. 471, and
“towards the end of the fifth century all towns of any importance
in the Peninsula have mints.” Bronze coins first appear about
B.c. 400. Gold coins are extremely rare and are considered by
Professor Gardner to be “in no case of quite unimpeachable authen-
ticity.”
The Aeginetan coinage came to an end towards the close of the
fifth century and after that time the genera/ currency—as distinct
from the local issues—of Peloponnese seems to have consisted of
the abundant money of Sicyon and Elis. Later on, about B.c. 300,
HISTORY AND ANTIQUITY. 539
the tetradrachms of Alexander and imitations of them circulated
freely in the Peloponnesus. The coins of Athens and Corinth
never seem to have been a medium of exchange in southern Greece.
After the foundation of the Achaean League, circ. B.c. 280, a federal
coinage in silver and copper began to spread gradually in the
Peninsula. The silver coins are hemi-drachms of reduced Aeginetan
weight, interchangeable with the Corinthian drachms and Attic
tetrobols of the period. It is curious to note that ‘some of the
chief cities of the League issued municipal coins concurrently with
those of the League,” and that local magistrates (probably monetary
officers) inscribe their names on the Federal coins. Dr. Gardner
remarks that these facts demonstrate the rhetorical exaggeration
of Polybius’s statement that the cities of the League “ used the
same laws, weights, measures and coins, and . . . the same magis-
trates.” After the destruction of Corinth in B.c. 146 the issue of
silver in Peloponnese appears to have ceased, but there are some
limited issues of bronze coins assignable to the period B.c. 146-31.
In most of the cities coinage is not resumed “ until the days of the
philhellene emperor Hadrian, or even until the time of Septimus
Severus and his sons.”
In the pre-Macedonian period the usual weight standard is the
Aeginetan, with didrachms and drachms of the maximum weight of
192 and 96 grains, Exceptionally, Troezen coins on the Attic
standard, doubtless for convenience of trade with Attica. Zacynthus
employs a combination of the Aeginetan and Attic systems, issuing
Aeginetan didrachms for its commerce with Corcyra. “ A custom
prevailed in many cities of Peloponnesus during the latter part of
the fifth and the earlier part of the fourth century of placing on
small silver coins a mark of value [consisting] of the first letter or
letters of the denomination to which they belong.” The denomina-
tion is also indicated in other ways: thus, at Argos the wolf, the
half-wolf and the wolf’s head are the respective types of the
drachm, the hemi-drachm and the obol.
The remaining sections of the Introduction deal more in detail
with the coinages of the several districts of Peloponnesus. Only
a few notes can here be offered.— Achaia: Of the twelve Achaean
cities enumerated by Herodotus only five are known to have issued
coins before the time of the League. Aegae first issues coins (with
Dionysiac types) in the fifth century B.c.—The series of Sicyon is
an extensive one though, as the author remarks, “its beauty is
marred by its unfortunate choice of that most unsatisfactory com-
pound the Chimaera, for type.’’—The coin attributed on p. 39
540 : NOTICES OF BOOKS.
(no. 27, Pl. vii. 7) to Phlius should certainly be transferred to
Gortyna in Crete (see Wroth, Catal. of the Coins of Crete, tc.,
Pl. xi. 13 and the description there given on p. 46, no. 69).—£lis :
The author has in some cases assigned less narrow limits of date
for the various coin-issuing periods than those first proposed by
him in his monograph on the “Coins of Elis” (see Numismatic
Chronicle for 1879).—Laconia: No extant coins of Sparta can be
assigned to the period before Alexander. The famous iron money
is not known to exist, though Peloponnesian iron coins, probably of
the fifth century B.c., have been published by U. Kohler with the
types of Heraea, Argos, and Tegea.—Argolis : The copper coins of
Tiryns (silver coins have by some been attributed to it in error) are
here assigned to the periods B.c. 421—370 and 8.6. 370—300.
Tiryns was captured by the Argives circ. B.c. 468. The issue of
these coins may (Dr. Gardner suggests) indicate that the city
regained its autonomy, being perhaps played off by the Spartans
against the Argives in the war of B.c. 394. Or it is possible that
the Argives ‘‘ themselves colonized Tiryns and allowed the colonists
to issue a few local coins in copper for their own use.”—W. W.
Topographical Model of Syracuse. By F. Haverrietp and
J. B. Jorpan. 1887.
WE notice this model, the accuracy of which is allowed by those
who have a close acquaintance with the topography of Syracuse, not
for the purpose of criticising, but merely to direct attention to a
fresh proof—Rome and Athens have been previously executed in
relief—of the spreading feeling that history must be studied not
in books only, but with appeal whenever possible to external fact.
It is to be hoped that Mr. Haverfield will proceed with other
districts.—P.G.
We are compelled by want of space to omit notice of periodicals.
H.S.-—VOL. VIII.
INDEX
TO
VYOLUMES- 2—Viri.
NN
INDEX TO VOLUMES [—VIIL
EDITED BY A. H. SMITH.
PAGE
I: ISpEx (Or TATTHORSS 2.0) SORE TE ΣΕ ΕΞ 543
H.. ον or SUBIECTS kip εἴν Aver ἐν hyd ath ae ok ΕΝ 546
1}. INDEX OF CLASSICAL AUTHORS 5.6! 4 orien 0 5: 3, gv aaa 572
IV. Erigrapuic INDICcEs.
(AN aGeographival Mhidee τὰ GOS Ta, Celis Oe) SR eee 573
(B) Index of Published Inscriptions corrected in the Journal of
Fre States sau \aes oi is. ws 4 wiles, ia) Je kisltclae , alas Sate 575
Nore,—Greek words, occurring in the INDEX oF SuBJEcTs, are placed according
to the order of the English Alphabet.
In the INDEX oF CLAssIcAL AUTHORS, only those passages are inserted of
which the interpretation is discussed, or in which a new reading is
proposed, Passages merely cited in illustration are omitted.
Subjects connected with the Homeric Poems are collected under the heading
‘Homer.’
Places whose coin-types are discussed, are collected under the heading
‘Coins.’
INDEX.
1.—INDEX OF
Anderson, J. Reddie.
Antefixes from Tarentum, iv. 117
Bent, J. Theodore.
Researches among the Cyclades, v
42
On the Gold and Silver
Siphnos, vi. 195
Telos and Karpathos, vi. 233
An Archaeological Visit to Samos,
vil. 143
Inscriptions from Thasos, viii. 434.
Brown, (ἃ. Baldwin,
Sepulehral Relief from Attica, at
Vinton Castle, vi. 16
Bury, J. B.
Notes on the Trilogy, vi. 167
Notes on Certain Formal Artifices of
Aeschylus, vi. 172
“Iuyt in Greek Magic, vii. 157
The Lombards and Venetians in
Euboia, Part L., vii. 309 ; Part IL.,
viii, 194
Bywater, I.
Bernays’ Lucian and the Cynics, i.
301
A bio-bibliographical note on Coray,
i. 805
Campbell, L.
The Aeschylean Treatment of Myth
and Legend, vi. 153
Cobham, C. D.
Introduction to ‘A Pre-Historic
Building at Salamis,’ iv. 111
Colvin, Sidney.
On Representations of Centaurs in
Greek Vase-painting, i. 107
A New Diadumenos Gem, ii. 352
Paintings on the Amazon Sarcopha-
gus of Corneto, iv. 354
An undescribed Athenian
Monument, v. 205
Mines of
Funeral
AUTHORS
Comparetti, 1).
On two Inscriptions from Olympia,
ii. 365
The Petelia Gold Tablet, iii. 111
Dennis, G.
Two Archaic Greek Sarcophagi, iv, 1
Edwards, Amelia B.
On an Archaic Earring, ii. 324
Evaus, A. J.
Recent Discoveries
Terra-Cottas, vii. 1
Farnell, L. R.
The Pergamene Frieze ; Its Relation
to Literature and Traslition, Part
1., iii. 801; Part II., iv. 122; Part
ΠῚ, vi. 102
On some Works of the School of
Scopas, vii. 114
The Works of Pergamon and their
Influence, vii. 251
Fergusson, J.
Stairs to Pandroseum at Athens, ii.
of Tarentine
83
The Tomb of Porsenna, vi, 207
Freeman, E, A.
Some Points in Later Greek, iii. 361
Gardner, E. A.
Athene in the West Pediment of the
Parthenon, iii. 244
Ornaments and Armour from Kertch
in the new Museum at Oxford, v.
62
A Statuette representing a Boy and
a Goose, vi. 1
Inscriptions copied by Cockerell in
Greece, I., vi. 143; 1]., vi. 340
Inscriptions ‘from Cos, &e., vi. 248
An Inscription from Chalcedon, vii.
154
The Early Ionie Aiphabet, vii. 220
Two Naucratite Vases, viii. 119
NON 9
F,
544 INDEX OF
Gardner, E. A. ‘continucd)—
Recently discovered Archaic Seulp-
tures, vin. 159
An Inseription from Boeae, vill. 214
Sculpture and Epigraphy, 1886-87,
vill. 278
Gardner, Perey.
Stephani on the Tomhs at Mycenae,
1. 94
The Pentathlon of the Greeks, i. 210
Note on Terra-cotta Helmeted Head,
ii. 82
Boat-races among the Greeks, 11. 90;
at Athens, 11. 315
Statuette of Pallas from Cyprus, 11.
326 :
Horses on Coins of Tarentum, iii. 239
The Palaces of Homer, ili. 264
Clay Disks from Tarentum, iv. 155
Votive Coins in Delian Inscriptions,
iv. 243
A Statuette of Eros, iv. 266
A Sepulchral Relief from Tarentum,
v. 105
Amphora Handles from Antiparos,
vi. 192
Inscriptions from Samos, vii. 147
Gardner, Perey (and FE. Imbhoof-
Blumer).
Numismatic Commentary on Pau-
sanias.
Part 1. Megaris, Corinth, vi. 50
Part II. Laconia, Messenia, Elis,
Achaia, Arca:lia, vil. 57
Part IL]. Boeotia, Phocis,
Athens, Supplement, viii. 6
Garson, J. G.
Notes on an ancient Grecian Skull
obtained by Mr. Theodore Beut
from Antiparos, v. 58
Greenwell, W.
Votive Armour and Arms, ii. 65
Harrison, Jane FE.
Monuments relating to the Odyssey,
iv. 248
Odysseus and th Sirens, Dionysiac
Boat-Races ; A Cylix by Nikos-
theues, vi. 19
The Judgment of Paris: Two Un-
meee ae Vases in the Gracco-
‘truscan Museum at Florence, vii.
196
Vase representing the Judgment of
Paris (note), vili. 268
Itys and Aedon: a Panaitios ΟΥ̓Χ,
Vili. 439
Hicks, E. L.
An Inscription at Cambridge (C. 1. 6,
106), i. 98
On the Characters of Theophrastus,
i. 128
AUTHORS.
Hicks, E. L. (continwed)—
An Inscription from Priene, iv.
237
Note on an Inscription from Priene,
v. 60
Judith and Holofernes, vi. 261
Jas ‘s, viii. 83
A Thasian Decree, vili. 401
Inscriptions from Thasos, viii. 409
Hirsehfe'd, G.
Notes of Travel in Paphlagonia and
Galatia, iv. 275
C. Julius Theupompus of Cnidus,
vii 286
Hogarth, D. G.
Jnscriptions from Salonica, vill. 356
Apollo Lermenus, viii. 376
Imhoof-Blumer, F. (and P. Gardner).
Numismatic Cominentary on Pau-
sanias.
Part 1. Megaris, Corinth, vi. 50
Part 11. Laconia, Messenia, Elis,
Achaia, Arcadia, vii. 57
Part III. Boeotia, Phocis,
Athens, Supplement, viii. 6
Jebb, R. Ὁ.
Delos, i 7
Homeric and Hellenic Ilium, ii. 7
Pindar, iii. 144
The Ruins at Hissarlik and their
relation to the Iliad, iii. 186
Note on ‘The Ruins of Hiss:riik,’
iv. 147
The Homeric House in relation to
the Remains at Tiryns, vii. 170
Jevons, F. B.
The Rhapsodising of the Jliad, vii.
29]
Leaf, Walter.
Some Questions concerning the
Armour of Homeric Heroes, iv. 73
Notes on Homeric Armour, iv. 281
The Homerie Chariot, v. 185
The Trial Scene in Iliad XVIIT.,
vill. 122
[πο ἢ, Bishop of (C. Wordsworth).
Where was Dodona? 11. 228
Lloyd, W. W.
The Battle of Marathon, ii. 380
Sophoelean Trilogy, v. 263
Mahaffy, J. P.
On the Authenticity of the Olympian
Reyister, ii, 164
The Site and Antiquity of the Hel-
lenic Ilion, iii. 69
Michaelis, A.
Marble Head of a Horse, iii. 234
The Metrological Relief at Oxturd,
iv. 335
Ancient Marbles in Great Britain :
Supplement I., v. 143
INDEX OF
Michaelis, A. (continwed)—
Ancient Marbles in Great Britain :
Supplement II., vi. 30
Sarapis standing on a Xanthian
Marble in the British Museum, vi.
287
The Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles,
viii. 318
Middleton, J. H.
A suggsted Restoration of the Great
Halt in the Palace of Tiryns, vii.
161
Monro, D. B.
On the Fragment of Proclus’
Abstract of the Epic Cycle con-
tained in the Codex Venetus of the
Iliad, iv. 305
The Poems ot the Epie Cycle, ν. 1
Murray, A. S.
The Erechtheum, i. 224
Bust of Perseus, li. δῦ
The Ram in Aeginetan Sculpture, ii.
227
Perspective as applied in Early Greek
Art, ii. 318
Herakles Epitrapezios, iii. 240
A Terra-cotta Diadumenos, vi. 243
Autiquities from the Island of Lipara,
vii. 51
On a Bronze Leg from Italy, vii. 189
A Rhyton in form of a Sphinx, vii. 1
Two Vases from Cyprus, viii. 318
Myers, E.
The Pentathion, ii. 217
Newton, C. T.
Hellenic Studies :
Address, i. 1
Statuette of Athene Parthenos, ii. 1
On an unedited Rhodian Inscription,
11. 354
Inscription from Kalymnos, ii. 362
Statue of an kmperor in the British
Museum, vi. 378
Paley, F. A.
Remarks on Aeschylus dAgam. 1172,
in emendation of Mr. Bury’s read-
ing, vi. 381
Paton, W. R.
Excavations in Caria, viii. 64
Vases irom Calymnos and Carpa-
thos, viii. 446 '
Penrose, F. C.
Excavations in Greece, 1886—1887,
Vili. 269
Petrie, W. M. Flinders.
The Discovery of Naukratis, vi. 202
Poynter, E. J.
On a Bronze Leg from Italy, vii. 189
Ramsay, W. M.
Newly discovered Sites near Smyrna,
i, 63
An Introductory
AUTHORS. δ
Ramsay, W. M. (continued)—
On some Pamphylian Inscriptions,
. 242
Notes and Rectification ; Pampliyliin
Inscription, ii. 222
A Romaic Ballad, i, 293
Coutributions to the History of
Southern Aeolis, Part I., ii. 44;
Part II., i. 271
Studies in Asia Minor: I. The Rock
Necropoleis of Phrygia, iii. 1;
11. Sipy-os and Cybele, iii. 33
Inscriptions from Nacoleia, iii, 119
Some Phrygian Monuments, iii. 256
The Tale of Saint Abercius, iii. 339
The Graeco-Roman Civilization in
Pisidia, iv. 23
Metropo:itanus Campus, iv. 53
The Cities and bishoprics of Phrygia,
iv. 370; Part IL., viii. 461
Sepulchral Customs in Ancient
Phrygia, v. 241
Note on a Phrygian Inscription,
viii. 399
Richter, M. O.
A Pre-Historic Building at Salamis,
iv. 111
On a Phoenician Vase found in
Cyprus, v. 102
Ridgeway, W.
The Homeric Land-System, vi. 319
The Homeric Talent, its Origin,
Value, and Affinities, vill. 153
Roberts, E. 8.
The Oracle Inscriptions discovered at
Dodona, i. 228; Part 11. Inscrip-
tions from Dodona, ii. 1U2
Sayce, A. H.
Notes from Journeys in the Troad and
Lydia, i. 75
Ex loratious in Aeolis, iii. 218
The Ruins of Hissarlik, iv. 142
Schliemann, H.
Exploration of the Boeotian Orcho-
menus, ii. 122
Six, J.
Archaic Gorgons in
Museum, vi. 275
Smith, A. H.
On the Hermes of Praxiteles, iii. 81
Athene and Enceladus : a Bronze in
the Museo Kircheriano, iv. 90
Notes on a Tour in Asia Minor, viii.
216
Smith, Cecil.
An Archaic Vase with Represe: tation
of a Marriage Procession, i. 202
Kylix, with Exploits of Theseus, ii.
57
the British
Corrigenda: Inscriptions on two
Vases, ii, 225
DAG INDEX. OF
Smith, Cecil (contiawed)—
Actors with Bird-Masks on Vases, il.
309
The Petelia Gold Tablet, iii. 111
Vase with Representation of Herakles
and Geras, ἵν. 96
Inscriptions from Rhodes, iv. 136,
901
Amphora-stopping from Alexandria,
ive 108
Pyxis: Herakles and Geryon, v. 176
Early Paintings of Asia Minor, vi.
180
Vases from Rhodes with Incised
Inscriptions, vi. 371
Nike sacrificing a Bull, vii. 275
Tozer, H. F.
Mediaeval Rhodian Love-poems, i.
308
Byzantine Satire, ii. 233
Vitylo and Cargese, iii. 354
The Franks in the Peloponnese, iv.
165
A Byzantine Reformer (Gemistus
Plethon), vii. 353
Verrall, A. W.
On some Ionic elements in Attic
Tragedy;) Part 1415260 Part lh.,
ii. 179
The Bell and the Trumpet, v. 74
The Trumpet of the Areopagos, v.
162
The Libation-ritual of the Eume-
nides, v. 166
On the Syrinx in the Ancient Chariot,
vi. 364
Waldstein, Charles.
Pythageras of Rhegion and the Early
Athlete Statues, Part I., 1. 168;
Part 11., ii. 332
SUPLECTS:.
Wa'dstein, Charles (confined)
A Hermes in Ephesian Silver-work on
a Patera from Bernay in France,
ili. 96
Hermes with the Infant Diony-os :
Bronze Statuette in the Louvre,
111. 107
Notice of a Lapith-head in the
Louvre, from the Metopes of the
Parthenon, tii. 228
Views of Athens in the year 1687,
iv. 86
A Ring with the
‘Attulas,’ iv. 162
The Hesperide of the Olympian
Metope, and a Marble Head at
Madrid, v. 171
The Eastern Pediment of the Temple
of Zeus at Olympia, and the
Western Pediment of the Parthe-
non, v. 195
Notes on a Collection of Ancient
Marbles in the possession of Sir
Charles Nicholson, vii. 240
Warre, E.
On the Raft of Ulysses, v. 209
Wordsworth, C., see Lincoln, Bishop of
Wroth, W. W.
Teles} horos, iii. 283
A Statue of the Youthful Asklepios,
iv. 46
Telesphoros at Dionysopolis, iv.
161
Hygieia, v. 82
A Torso of Hadrian in the Britisk
Museum, vi. 199
Imperial Cuirass Ornamentation and
a Torso of Hadrian in the British
Museum, vil. 126
Inscription
II.—INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
A.
Abeikta, viii. 513
Abercius, life, iii. 339; date, iii. 342,
viii. 473
Abu- Simbel, colossi, i. 89 ; inscriptions,
vii. 222, 230
Achaia (?), on coin of Corinth, vi. 76 ;
viii. 53 ; personified, vii. 90
Achilles and Briseis, vase in Vatican,
i., pl. vi. p. 175
Aemonia, iv. 415 ; viii. 487 ®
Acorn on coins of Mantineia, vii. 97
Acrocorinthus, successive remains, iii.
361
Acroenos, viii. 487
Acropolis of Athens, see Athens
Actium, scene of boat-races, ii.
p. XxXXvil., 93
Actors with birdmasks, ii., pl. xiv. B.,
p. 309
Adae, ii. 27%; iii. 218, 220
Aeacus on coin of Aegina, vi. 94
Aedon, viii. 439
Aegae, site, ii. 284, 295; architectural re-
mains, ii. 292 ; history, ii. 296, iii. 220
INDEX OF
Aegeidae, iii. 147
Aegialeus, viii. 50
Aegina, school of sculpture, ii. 227 ;
vill. 57, 191, 281; in relation to
Pindar, iii. 177
Aegis (giant), iii. 307
Aegis, as weapon of Zcus, iii. 322
Aeneas, legends of, iil. 71, 205; v. 32;
at death of Sphinx, vili. 322
Aeolis (Southern), map, il. 274 ; topo-
graphy, ii. 275; history of early
settlements, ii. 271, 301; earliest
inhabitants, ii. 276 ; prehistoric Ne-
cropoleis, ii. 298; early pottery, ii.
303 ; masonry, ii. 306 ; explorations,
iii. 218
* Aeschines,’ letter on Ilium, ii. 29
Aeschylus, influenced by his age, vi.
154, 165; formal arrangement of
dramas, vi. 172; Seven against
Thebes, vi. 154; Oresteia, vi. 105,
171; Persae, vi. 158; Prometheus,
vi. 158, 172; Supplices, vi. 162;
Agamemnon, vi. 164
Aethiopis (Epic), plan, and relation to
Homer, v. 11
Agathos Daimon, representations of,
vi. 307
Ageladas, Zeus, vii. 71, 89
Agonistic inscriptions, iv. 58 ; vii.
148
Agoracritus, Nemesis, vili. 47
Aianteia, ii. 316
αἰσυμνήτης at Chalcedon, vii. 154
αἴθουσα in Homeric house, iii, 267 ;
vii. 171
Aizanoi, viii. 515
Akesios, iii. 286, 299
Akshi-ki i, claim to represent Troy, ii.
14, iii. 195
Alabanda, iii. 383
Alandri Fontes, viii. 493
Alcamenes, Asclepius at Mantinea, vii.
97 ; Dionysus, viii. 38; Hecate, vi.
111, 114
Alcyoncus, iii. 304
Aleus on coin of Tegea, vii. 112
Alexander at Ilium, ii. 28, 30; iii. 73,
76, 208; patron of racing. ii, 92;
portraits: Alexander (so called) in
Hamilton Collection, vi. 31; ‘Dying,’
11. 335, 337
Alexandria Troas, remains at, i. 81
Alia, viii. 464, 466
Alki (Thasos), temple at, viii. 434
Aloades, iii. 313
Alondda, iv. 414 ; viii. 464
Alphabet, early Tonic, i. 59 ; iii. 261 ;
vii. 222; of Naucratis, vii. 222; of
Naxos, i. 59 ; of Pamphylia, i. 245,
249 ; of Phrygia, 111. 261 ; of Phoe-
SUBJECTS. DAT
nicia, v. 44; vii. 223, 232; mutval
relations of Greek alphabets, vil. 205,
Vili. 533
Alphabet of Love, i. 308
Alpheius, on coins of Elis, vii. 75; of
Heraca, vii. 106
᾿Αλσεῖος, month, ii. 264
Alyattes, tomb of, vi. 220; vill, 454
Amadassa, vill. 496
Ama!theia, vil. 89
Amasis, potter, vil. 198
Amastris in Paphlagonia, iv. 277
Amazons, in Asia Minor, ili, 225; in
Gigantomachy, iii. 315; on Corneto
sarcophagus, iv. 357 ; represented in
Greek art, iv. 359
Ambason, vili. 486
Amblada, iv. 37, 43
Amorgos, island of and inscriptions at,
v. 48, 44
Amphiaraus, at Oropus, viii. 49
Amphictyones, coins at Delphi, viii.
18
Amphitrite on Pergamene frieze, Vii.
260
Amphora-handles, iv. 159; vi. 192;
places of origin, vi. 192
Ampoun, viii. 486
Amyclae, throne of Apollo, i. 113, 129
Amymone and Poseidon, on coins of
Argos, vi. 101; viii. 58, 59
Anaboura, viii. 493
Anastasiopolis in Phrygia, iv. 390
Ancestor worship, v. 116, 131
Ancyra, viii. 516
Andravida in the Peloponnese, iy. 213
Angelion, Apollo and Charites, vili. 40
Anos, son of Apollo, i. 13
Anna Comnena, vocabulary, iii. 377,
390
Antefixes from Tarentum, iv., pl. xxxii.,
Dawa
Antinous of Mantineia, vii. 99
Antiparos. reniains at, ν. 47 ; amplicra-
handles, vi. 192; archaic female
’ figeres, v. 49, figs. 1—9
ἀπεικόνισμα, iii. 104
Aperas, Mt., vi. 82
Aphaia at Aegina, vi. 94
Aphrodite, armed, ii. 329; of Cnidus,
see Praxiteles; on Pergamene frieze,
vi. 132 ; statuettes, 11. 828 ; Taren-
tine terra-cotta, vii. 36, 43 ; mosaic
at Castle Howard, vi. 40
On Coins and Monuments—Aegina,
vi, 94; Aegium, vii. 91; Argcs,
vi. ΟΣ Athens, vil. 34; (of
Eucleides) Bura, vii. 92 ; Colo-
nides, vii. 72; Corinth, vi. 66,
67, 68, 74, 75, vill. 51, 52, 53;
Gytheium, vii. 66 ; Hermione, vi.
548 FNDEX' OF SUBJECTS.
99; Megalopolis, vii.109; Methana, Arcadia (?), on coins of Orchomenus,
vi. 99 ; Nauplia, vi. 100; (Pande- vil. 100
mos of Scopas) Olympia, vii. 76; Arcas, on coins of Mantineia, vii. 98 ;
Patrae, vii. 85; Phigaleia, vii. 111; Methydrion, vii. 109 ; Pheneus, vii.
Phlius, viii. 55; Sicyon, vi. 79; 101
Thespiae, vii. 18; Troezen, vi. 97 — Arcesilas of Cyrene, iii. 165
Aphrodite Phile, temple, ii. 123 Arcesilaus, Venus Genetrix, vii. p.
Apollo, of Delos, 1. 13; at judgment lxiii.
of laris, vii. 210; at death of Archaistic sculpture, ii. 844
Sphinx, viii. 321; A. Lermenus,~ Archermus, viil. 282
iv. 382; viii. 376; A. as God of ἄρχων (Thasos), viii. 410
Medicine, iv. 51; A. Mylas, in Arctinus, date of, v. 17 ; characteristics,
Rhodes, iv. 352; A. of Permino- v. 33; lliupersis, iv. 308
deis, vili. 227 Areopigos, trumpet of, v. 162
In Works of Art—A. of Canachus, i. Ares, on Pergamene frieze, vi. 131
170; of Choiseul-Goutiier, i., pl. On Comms and Monument:—Argos,
νον. 1783 i 339; tig: 1, 340, vi. 91; viii. 56; Coriuth, vi. 76 ;
ig. 3; = ephedros pankratiast Patrae, vii. 86
σ᾿
g.
(Euthyinus?), 1. 178, 11. 334; Arion at Thelpusa, vii. 106
compared with coins, ii, 848; Aristaeus, as represented in art, iv. 47
with head at Naples, ii. 351; A. Aristeides Rhetor, iii. 284
‘on the Omphalos,’ i. 179, ii. 332, Aristides (Aelius), journey, ii. 44, 48
vill. 41; head of A. (Ὁ) from Per- Aristion, on coins of Athens, viii. 46
gamon, vil. 268; A.on Pergamene Atistion in Phrygia, viii. 467
frieze, vi. 119, 121, 125, fig. 2; Aristomache, relief, vi. 16
A. Ptous, viii. 188; A. of Lo:d Aristomedes and Socrates, iii. 179
Strangford = Theagenes of Glau- Ariston, vii. 143
kias(!), i, 199; A. and statues of | Aristonophos, vase of, viii. 450
athletes, i. 169 Aristophanes—
On Coins and Monuments—Aegina, Birds—represented on vase (7) 11. 312
vi. 94; viii. 57 ; Amyelae, vii. 63 ; Frogs—represented on vase, li, 313
Argos, vi. 84; viii. 55; (Pythaeus) Aristotle, on unhistorical character of
Asine, vi. 100; Athens, viii. Homer, ii. 37 ; on the Cypria, v. 5;
40; (and Charites) Athens, viii. on the Little Iliad, v. 23, on Olym-
40; Caphyae, vii. 104; Corinth, pian Regis‘er, li. 164
vi. 72; viii. 52 ; Cyparissia, vii. 74; Armour, trom Kertch, v. 63; scale
Delium, viii. 11; Delphi, viii. 15 armour, v. 66; votive inscriptions,
—18; (Cithdroedus) Epidaurus, ii. 65
vi. 93; Gytheium, vii. 64; Lace- Arvrachion, statue, i. 169
daemon, vii. 59; Mantineia, vii. Arrhephori, ii. 325
98 ; Megalopolis, vii.108 ; Megara, Arslan Kaya (Phrygia), remains at, v.
vi. 55, viii. 50; (with Artemis 243, fig. ; date of, v. 247
and Leto) Megara, vi. 56; Orcho- Artemis and Cybele, iii. 55; at Delos,
menus, vii. 100; Patrae, vii. 84 ; i. 16 ; Odms, vii. 159; worship in
Pellene, vii. 96; Phlius, viii. 55; Pisidia, iv. 42, 64
Sicyon, vi. 78; Tanagra, viii. 11 ; In iVorks of Art—A. of Strongylion,
Thebes, viii. 7; Thespiae, viii. 13 ; vi. 118, vii 81; from Delos, i. 51;
Thuria, vii. 69; Troezen, vi. 96, dedication of Nikandre, i. 52, 59 ;
7; vill. 57 on Pergamnene frieze, vi. 115;
Temples—at Calymna, ii. 363; at Α. (ἢ from Pergamon, vii. 271 ;
Delphi, viii. 15, 16; in Delos, i. Ephesian, on Phrygian relief, iv.
41; of A, Ptous, viii. 185, 188, 378; on Gigantomachia vases, Vi.
282 ; of Thymbra, 1. 79,93 ; niche 116
on Sipylus, iii. 37, 38, fig. 8, 58 On Coins and Monuments—Aegina,
ἀπόλογοι (at Thasos), viii. 410 vii. 93; Aeginin, vii. 91; Aeges-
Apoxyomenus of Lysippus, iv. thena, vi. 59; Alea, vil. 103;
346 Anticyra (of Praxiteles), vill. 20 ;
Appia, viii. 514 Argos, vili. 57; Asopus, vil. 67,
Aqueduct near Myrina, ili, 222 81; Attica, vill. 34; Boeae, vii.
Aquillius (Μ᾽), ii. 45 67; Brauron, vii. 60; vili. 35;
Arbela, battle, ii. 394 Caphyae, vii, 104; Cleonae, vi.
INDEX OF
=
Sis cv. δῦ; Corinth, vi. 62, 67,
68, 73; Delphi, viii. 19 ; Gy-
theium, vii. 67 ; Heraea, vii. 107 ;
Lacedaemon, vii. 58; viii. 59;
Laodicea, vii. 61; Las, vii. 69 ;
Mantineia, vii. 98 ; Magnesia, viii.
35; Megalopolis, vil. 10%; Me-
SUBJECTS. 549
Associations (religious) in Rhcdes, ii. 357
Astarte, ii. 329
Asterie, on l’ergamene frieze, vi. 110
Atalanta at Tegea, vii. 112
ἀτέλεια, ii. 110
Athene in Works of Art:
Sculpture—at Castle Howard, vi. 34,
gara, vi. 58, 56 ; viii. 51 ; Messene,
vil. 61, 71; Methana, vi. 99;
Mothone, vi. 99; vii. 73 ; Orcho-
menus, vii. 100; Pagae (by
Strongylion), Vi. 57 ; : Patrae, Vil.
71, 79, 80, 81, 91; Pellene, vii.
6; Pheneus, vil. 101 : Phigaleia,
vii. 110; Phlius ; vi. 81, viii. 54;
Psophis, vii. 105; Sicyon, vi. 79,
80, vill. 54 ; Stymphalus, vii. 108 ;
Tanagra, viii. 9; Thelpusa, vii.
106; Thuria, vil. 69; Troezen, vi.
96
Artemisia, vii. 247
ἀσάμινθοι, iii. 273
Asvanius, lii. 127
Ascanius portus, ii. 279
Asclepieion (at Athens), v. 85, 88,115
Asclepius, Hygieia, and Telesphorus,
111. 293 ; children of A., v. 83; A.
in Byzantine satire, ii, 252, 254 ;
votive offerings, 111. 133; v. 116,
139 ; A. as represented in art, iv.
47, 50; on Pergumene frieze, vii.
262; statue at Edinburgh, v. 157
On Coins and Monwients—Aegium,
vii. 88; Aegina, vii. 94; Argos,
vi. 86, 89; viii. 56; Asine, vi.
100; Athens, viii. 46 ; Boeae, vii.
68; Caphyae, vii. 1045 Cleitor,
vii. 102 ; Cleonae, vi. 81, viii. 55;
Colonides, vii. 72; Corinth, vi. 74;
Cyparissia, vii 74; Epidaurus, vi.
92, 93; vill. 54, 57; Gytheium, vii.
65; Las, vii. 68; Mantineia, vii. 97;
Meyara, vi. 54; Messene, vii. 70;
Mothone, vii. 73; Orchomenus,
vii. 100: Pagae, viii. 50; Patrae, vii.
85; Pellene, vii. 96; Phigaleia,
Mil) sePhlinsiMivy. 49) svi, 81 ;
Pylos, vii. 73 ; Sicyon, vi. 79 ; viii.
54; Thuria, vii. 69; Troezen, vi.
98 ; vili. 58
Asia Minor, languages, iv. 32; (Caria,
Phrygia, Pisidia) discoveries in, viii.
217; map, viii. 267 ; sce Aeolis, Caria,
Phrygia, &c.
Asopus, on coin of Tanagra, viii. 10 ;
of Phlius, viii. 54
Assarkeui, ii. 223
Assarlik (Caria), remains, Viii. 66, fig.
2, 81; tombs, viii. 67, fig. 3 and
pref. ; pottery, viii. 69, ΤῊ gold
ornameitts, vill. 456
36; at Dresden, iii. 334; at
Madrid (Puteal), iii. 333; from
Pergamon, viii. 268, 27 1; on
Pergamene (rieze, 111. 331 ; iv. 90
Terva- -coltas—fromCy prus, i il. ‘pl. ante
p- 826 ; trom 'l'arentum, vii. 23
Bronzs—at Athens, viii. 281: at
Rome (Mus. Kircheriano), iv. 90,
pl.
On Coins and Monuments—Aegina,
vi. 95; vii. 94; Aegium, vii. 91 ;
Alea, vii. 103; Argos, vi. 88,
viii. 56 ; Asopus, vii. 67 ; Athens,
Athene armed, viii. 30; fight-
ing, viii. 31; with Marsyas, viii.
28; Nikephoros, viii. 29; with
olive branch, viii. 31; with
olive tree, viii. 27; with owl,
vili. 29; A. Parthenos, and frei
pediments of Parthenon, see s.7.;
with patera, viii. 30; Po‘ias,
i. 203; with Poscidon, iii. 250,
vill. 26; Promachos, viii. 24;
springing from Zeus, iil, 251 ;
Boeav, vii. 68; Cleitor, vii. 102 ;
Cleonae, vi. 81; Colonides, Vii. ἐν :
Corinth, vi. 70, 745 vill. 50, 52;
Coroue, vii. 72 ; Coroneia, viii. nt
Cy parissia, vii. 74; Delphi, Vili.
18, 19; Dyme, vii. 78; Llateia,
vill, 20; Gytheium, vii. 66;
Heraea, vii. 107; Las, vil. 68;
Lacedaemon, vii. 62 ; Mantineia,
vil. 99; Megara, vi. 56; viii. 50;
Melos, vii. 62; Messene, vii. 72 ;
Methana, vi. 99; Mothone, vii.
2; Patrae, vii. 82 ; (by Vheidias)
Pellene, vii. 95; Phigaleia, vii.
Us) SP VlGs,sevilh 735, avila (0;
Sicyon, vi. 80; Tegea, vii, 112;
Thebes, viii. 9; Thuria, vii. 69 ;
Troezen, vi. 96
Athens, besieged by Morosini, iv. 87 ;
views of, in 1687, iv. 88, pl.
Acropolis on coins, viii. 24 ; excava-
tions, viii. 269, 280 ; remains, viii.
269, 280; relief, v. 89; statues,
Vili. 159, 280
Central Museum arrangement, viii.
278; Apollo on the Omphalos, i.,
pl. v., p. 179; Apollo Ptous,
sculptures from temple of, vili.
184, 188 ; Athene Parthenos, copy
of, ii. 3, fig.
550. INDEX OF
Athens (continued) —
Olympieion, excavations, viii. 272
Theatre of Dionysus, viii. 39, 276
Athletes, head-dress before Persian
wars, i. 171; head-dress in early
art, ii. 336 ; on coins of Corinth, vi.
64 ; of Cyparissia, vil. 74
Atlantes, iii. 320
Attalus, Apollo at Argos, vi. 84 ; viii.
δῇ
5
Attanassos in Phrygia, iv. 394
Attila, supposed ring of, iv. 162
Attoudda in Phrygia, iv. 403; viii. 223
Atyochorion in Phrygia, iv. 382
Atys confounded with Telesphorus, iii.
297; and Zeus, iii. 56
Augustopolis, viii. 492
Augustus in Hamilton Collection, vi.
30; at Castle Howard, vi. 35
Auloera, viii. 509
Aulocrene in Phrygia, iv. 71; viii. 509
Aurelius, Marcus (so called), at Castle
Howard, vi. 36
Avircius, iii. 350
Axe, Homeric, v. 218.
Ayazeen, necropolis, iii. 17; lion
tombs, iii., pls. xvii. xvili., p. 19
B.
Babas, iii. 126
Bacchanalia, Senatus consultum de B.,
iii. 118
Bacchante at Castle Howard, vi. 39 ;
in Sicyon, vi. 78; on Pergamene
frieze, vil. 265 ;
Bacchylides, iii. 162
Badpéutos, month, 11. 364
Balawat, gates of, vii. 166
Ballads, Romaic, date, iii. 359
Bandus, iii. 382
Βασιλεύς applied to Zeus, 11. 78
Baubo, iii. 126
Baucis and Philemon, iii. 58
Bellerophon on coins of Corinth, vi. 62,
Bells, v. 74 ; on armour, v. 76
Beloch, Die Bevolkerung der griech-
isch-romischen Welt, reviewed, viii
815
Bentley on use of λέγεται, ii. 10
Bennisoenoi, viii. 511
Berlin Museum—
Pergamene Frieze, see Pergamon
Vase, ii., pl. xiv. A, p. 309
Bernay, Treasure, iii. 96 ; Hermes on
patera, ΠῚ 98
Bernay’s Lucian and the Cynics, i. 801
Beudos Vetus, viii. 493
Bird masks, ii., pl. xiv. B, p. 309
SULJECTS.
Boat, model from Tarentum, vii. 34
Boat-races among the Greeks, ii. 90;
Dionysiac,. ii. 8315 ; vi. 24; of Attic
Ephebi, ii. 315 : on vases, vi. 24, 28 ;
boats employed, ii. 317
Boethus, Asclepius, iv. 48; Boy and
Goose, vi. 2, 12
Boreas, iii. 304 ; on Pergamene frieze,
vi. 103; on vases, vi. 103; on chest
of Cypselus, vi. 103
βοῦς-ετάλαντον, Vili. 134
Boxers on coins of Corinth, vi. 64
Boy drawing thorn, vi. 12, 14
Boy and Goose, statuette (British
Museum), vi, pl. Aa. p. 1, 8, fig. ;
date, vi. 9 ; school, vi. 12 ; instances
of subject, vi. 3
Boy on Goat at Castle Howard, vi. 35
Boy (Roman) in Hamilton Collection,
vi. 32
Bria, in Phrygia, iv. 406
Bricks at Tiryns, vii. p. liii.
British Museum—
Sculpture — Aphrodite, viii. 987,
348 ; Apollo (of Choiseul-Gouffier),
i., pl. iv., p. 178; ii. 339, figs. 1,
2; Apollo (Strangfcrd), i. 199;
Asclepius (Cyrene), iv. 46, pl. ;
Bull (Hillingdon Court), vi. 32,
pl. c. ; Diadumenus (Farnese), ii.
354 ; Diadumenus (Vaison), ii. 3/4,
vi. 244, fig. ; Emperor, torso, vi.
878 ; Giant, head, vii. 273, fig.;
Hadrian, torso (Cyrene), vi. 199 ;
Harpy-tomb, v. 141; Heracles
(Koujounjik), iii., pl. xxv., p. 240;
horse’s head (Tarentum), iii., pl.
xxiv., p. 234; Parthenon marbles,
see Parthenon ; Perseus, head, ii.,
pl. ix., p. 55; Sarapis (Xanthus),
vi., pl. lvili. p. 287; Sepulelral
relief (Tarentum), v. 105 (pl. in
text)
Silver—Sarapis, vi. 304, fig. ; Boy
and Goose, vi., pl. A, p. 1
Bronzes—Cerberus, vi. 293; greaves
(Kuvo), vi. 283; handle (deco-
tated), vi., pl. D, p. 284; head from
Armenia, viii. 355 ; leg (Piot), vii.,
pl. lxix., p. 189; Nike and Bull,
vii., pl. facing p. 278; stamp (in-
scribed), iv. 161
Vases—from Assarlik, viii. 69;
Capua, v. 179; Chiusi, ii. 226 ;
Naucratis, viii., pl. lxxix., p. 119 ;
Rhodes, vi.,pl.lix.,p.278, 372, fig. ;
᾿ 874, fig. ; 375, fig. ; Vulci, ii. 225;
vases with actors, ii., pl. xiv. B,
p. 309 ; Amasis’ signature, iv. 82 ;
athletes, i., pl. vili., p. 212; ii. 219,
fig. : Heracles and Geras, iv., pl.
ΤΙΣ, OF
XXxx., p. 96; Heracles and Gorgon,
v. 176, fig. ; Marriage procession,
i., pl. vii., p. 202; Odysseus and
Polyphemus, iv. 263, fig. 6; Ue-
dipus and Sphinx, viii., pl. Ixxxi.,
p. 320; Pasiades alabastron, viii.,
pl. Ixxxii., p. 317; Peleus and
Cheiron, i., pl. it., p. 122; perspee-
tive, examples of, ii., pl. xv., p.318;
Sphinx-shaped rhyton, viii., pls.
Ixxii., I]xxiii., p. 1; Amphora-
stopping, iv. 158
Terra-cottas—Athene (Cyprus), ii., pl.
Xvi, p. 326; Nike, vii., pl. E, p.
280; sarcophagi, iv. 19, figs. 14, 15,
pl. xxxi.
Gems—Centaur, i. 180, figs. 2, 3 ;
Gorgoneia, vi. 285, fig. ; Hermes
and Soul, iii. 90, fig. 6 ; Hygieia,
v. 98, fig.; Nike, vii., pl. Ε, p. 279;
Satyr, i. 146, fig. 5
Bronze, when superseded by iron, i.
104 ; plates at Tiryns, vii. 162
Broom Hall, ancient marbles at, v., pl.
xlvill., p. 144
Brouzos, vill. 480
Bryaxis (artist), v. 90; vi. 54
Bull, Attic, vi. 32, pl.c; head near
Myrina, iii. 223 ; on coins of Argos,
vi. 85; of Phlius, vi. 80, 81
Bunarbashi, claim to represent Troy,
iii, 195
Busolt, Griechische
viewed, viii. 309
Buonaparte, alleged Greek origin, iii.
58
Geschichte, re-
Bupalus, Tyche, vi. 56
Burial customs, v. 128 f.
Butades, iii. 182
Butcher, 5. H., on Homeric House, vii.
p. xlv.
Byzantine Satire, ii. 233
C.
Cabiri (?) on Pergamene frieze, vi. 136
Cacus, myth of, iv. 101
Cadmus, R. and Mt. (Asia), sites of,
viii. 225
Caelus on cuirass, vii. 134
Caesar, C. Julius, bust at Edinburgh,
v. 158
Cakes, sacred, vii. 44, 49
Calamis, style, i. 189; viii. 168 ; C. and
Pindar, iii. 178
Works—Asclepius at Sicyon, iv. 49 ;
vi. 79; Dionysus at Tanagra, viii.
10; Hermes Criophorus, vi. 95 ;
viii. 12
Calendar, ii. 868 ; vii. 155; viii. 106
SUBJECTS, ἢ 5]
Callisto on coin of Methy:lrion, vii.
109 ; at Orchomenus, vii. 100
Callon, Athene Sthenias at Troezen,
vi. 96
Calymna, temple of Apollo, ii. 263 ;
calendar, 11, 363 ; pottery, viii. 446
Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum:
bronze lecythus, ii. 69, fig.; 70, fig.;
ring (Attulas), iv. 162
Camel in Greek art, v. 67
Cameos, Kertch, ν. 69
Canachus, Aphrodite at Sicyon, vi. 79 ;
Apollo, i. 170; vi. 97
Canephori, ii. 324
Cappadocia, art, iii. 29, 257; C. and
Assyria, ili. 45
Captives on cuirasses, vii. 133
Curgese, Greek colony at, iii. 355
Caria, excavations, viil. 65 ; discoveries,
viii. 217; C. and Mycenage, viii. 450;
pottery, vili. 450
Carians in Delos, i. 14
Carlsruhe, Kelebe (Odysseus and Ram),
iv. 248, figs. 1, 2
Carnuntum, relief, Hermes and Diony-
sus, 111, 91, fig. 7
Carpathns, island of, vi. 255
Carts cn monuments, i. 207
Cassandra, desceudants of, ii. 103
Castellani Collection, Cylix (Odysseus
and Ram), iv. 250, figs. 3, 4
Castle Howard Collection of Marbles,
vi. 33
Catalans in Greece, iv. 166
Cecrops on vases, viii. 1
Cenchreae and Lechaeum on coins of
Corinth, vi. 64, 66
Centaurs, etymologies, i. 148 ; etymo-
logies of individual names, i. 159 ;=
personified torrents, i. 155 ; genesis
of type, i. 127; in Homer, i. 167,
133; battle with Lapithae, i. 107,
164; encounter with Heracles on
Mount Pholoe, i., pl. i., p. 111, 124 ;
Nessos and Heracles, i. 116, 129,
fig. 1 ; Cheiron and Peleus, i., pl. ii.,
p. 118, 131, 138, fig. 4; C. and Diony-
sus, i. 142; C. and Satyrs, i. 145,
165; C. and his, i., pl. iii., p. 139 ;
C. as hunters, i. 122; C. of Zenxis,
i 123; C. and Giants, iii. 814; C. on
sarcophagus, iv. 20, fig. 15
Ceos, remains at, v. 44
Cepheus on coins of Tegea, vii. 113
Cephisodotus, Artemis at Anticyra,
viii. 21 ; Artemis and Zeus at Mega-
lopolis, vii. 107 ; Eirene and Plutus,
lii. 92 ; viii. 43
Cerberus, representations of, vi. 293 ;
on coins of Pheneus, vii. 102; of
Sicyon, vi. 80
553 INDEX OF
Ceretapa in Phrygia, iv. 403
Chalcedon inscription, vil. 154
Chalkoina, iv. 41
Chariot, Homeric, v. 185; on sarco-
phagus, iv. 3, 4; σῦριγξ, vi. 364
Charites and Hermes, vii. 214; C.
of Pindar, iii. 174; C. and Apollo
of Tectacus, viii. 40; early statues,
ii. 133 ; C. in Heraeum at Argos, vi.
83:C. of Socrates, viii. 46; temple
at Orchomenus, il. 133
Charmides vases, iv. 97
Cheiron, i. 125, 133, 158; C. and
Peleus, i. 118, 131; C. and Achilles,
i. 121; C. in comedy, 1. 141
Chesion, vii. 152
Child suckled by Goat at Aegosthena,
- vi. 58
Chimaera on cuirass, vii. 135 ; on coins
ot Corinth, vi. 62, 73; viii. 50
Chionis, stele, 11. 172
Choerilus, vi. 169
Christian Inscriptions: Boeotia, vi.
149 ; Phrygia, iii. 350 ; iv. 399, 435;
cursing in, iv. 400, 406
Cimon οἵ Cleonae, painter, iv. 255
Cithaeron, il. 126
Clarus, oracle of Apoilo, viii. 52
Clazomenae, iv. 14, 21
Cleobis and Biton at Argos, vi. 86
Cleomenes, *Germanicus,’ vii. 244
Cockerell, inscriptions copied in Greece,
vi. 143, 350
Coins: the Homeric talent, and its
affinities, viii. 133; origin of the
Greek standards, viii. 137, 538;
sexagesimal system, viii. 147 ; Greek,
dedicated in temples, iv. 246; repro-
ducing statues, vi. 61
Coins (see also il. 288)—
Acmonia, viii. 481
Aegina, vi. 98, 94; vii. 93 ; vill. 57
Aegium, Vii. 87, 92
Aegosthena, vi. 58
Alea, vil. 103
Anticyra, viii. 20
Apamieia, ili. 342 ; iv. 69
Arcadia, vil. 97
Argos, vi. 82, 84, 100; viii. 55
Asine, vi. 100 ; vii. 113 ; viii. 59
Asopus, vii. 67
Athens, viii. 21
Bizya, v. 117, fig.
Boear, vii. 67
Brouzos, viii. 481
Bura, vii. 92
Caphyae, vii. 104
Cleitor, vii. 102
Cleonae, vi. 81; viii. 55
Cnidus, viii. 340, fig.
Colonides, vii. 72 ; viii. 59
SUBJECTS.
Coins (continued)—
Corcyra, 11. 90 ; iv. 427
Corinth, vi. 59; viii. 50, 51
Corone, vii. 72
Coroneia, viii. 13
Crete, v. 87
Croton, vii. 64
Cyparissia, vii. 74
Cy prus, viii. 47
Delphi, viii. 14, 15
Diocleia, iv. 422
Dionysopolis, iv. 161
Dyme, vii. 78
Elateia, viii. 19
Eleusis, viii. 48
Elis, vii. 74
E;-idaurus, v. 91; vi. 91 ; viii.
Gythcium, vii. 64 ; viii. 59
Haiiartus, viii. 12
Helice, vii. 92
Heraea, vii. 106
Hermione, vi. 99 ; viii. 58
Hierapolis, iv. 376; v. 88
Hieropolis, iv. 432; viii. 477
Hierocharax, viii. 466
Jasos, viii. 93
Lacedaemon, vii. 58 ; viii. 59
Las, vii. 68
Lycosura, vii. 109
Magnesia, ili. 53, 59
Mantineia, vil. 97
Megalopoiis, vil. 107
Megara, vi. 53 ; viii. 50
Messene, vii. 70
Metapontum, ii. 348
Methana, vi. 98
Methydrion, vii. 109
Metropolis, iv. 60, 66; viii. 510
Mothoue, vii. 72
Neonteichos, ii. 283
Nicopolis, ii. 96
Orchomenus, vii. 99
Orophernes, vi. 269
Oropus, viii. 49
Otrous, viil. 479
Pagae, vi. 57 ; viii. 50
Pandosia, ii. 348, fig. 4, 349
Parium, iv. 269, pl.
Patrae, vii. 69, 78, 85; viii. 60
Pellene, vii. 95
Peloponnesus, viii. 538
Perga, i. 246
Pergamon, ili. 286
Pheneus, vii. 101
Phigaleia, vii. 110
Phlius, iv. 49 ; vi. 80; viii. 54
Phocis, viii. 14
Plataea, viii. 6
Priansus, v. 87
Prymmessus, vill. 487
Psophis, vil. 104
57
INDEX OF
Ceins (continucd)--
Pylos, vii. 73 ; viii. 60
Rhegium, v. 91
Salamis, villi. 49
Segusiavi, ili. 287
Selinus, ii. 845, fig. 5; v. 87
Sicyon, iv. 246; vi. 77; viii. 54,
539
Sillyon, i. 243
Stymphalus, vii. 103
Tanga, vili. 9
Tarentum, vii. 3, 6, 13, 23, 37
Tegea, vii. 112
Temnos, ii. 291
Tinea, viii. 54
Thebcs, viil. 7
Thelpusa, vii. 106
Thes}iae, vill. 12
Thuria, vii. 69
Trebenna, viii. £11
roezen, vi. 95; viii. 57
Collignon, Phidias, reviewed, viii. 533
Collitz, Dialekt-Inschriften, reviewed,
vili 302
Colophon (city), unknown to Homer,
v. 39
Colotes (artist), v. 85
Colucci Museum, vii 32
Column in Phrygian tomb, iii. 24,
pl. xix.
Colvin, S., on statuette of river-god,
vii. p. 1xii.
Comedy, scenes on vases, vii. 54
Comneui, period of, ii. 241
Constantine Porphyrogenetus, vocabu-
lary, ili. 376, 486 -
Constantinople Museum; Hadrian from
Hievenytna, vi. 199
Copa, il. 160
Copais, Lake, ii. 162
Corassia, Hellenic remains, vii. 143
Coray, edition of Hippovrates, 1, 305;
notes on Xenocrates, i. 306
Corvyra,scene of boat-races, ii. p. xxxvii.
Corinth, excavations, viii, 274; early
alt. iii 182: art at, after B.c. 146,
vi. 59: temple of Poseidon, vi. 65;
mole at Cenchreae, vi. 66 ; statue of
Aphrodite in Acropolis, vi. 75; Ὁ,
personified, viii. 53; Corinthian
Puteal, vi. 46, pl. facing p. 48.
Cornucopia, syi:bol of gods, vi. 307
Coro-bux, victor at Olympia, 11, 173
Coronea, ii. 128
Corsica, modern Greeks in, iii. 855
Corycian cave, viii. 19
Crasus in Phrygia, iv. 433
Crete, laws, viii. 284 : intercourse with
Cyrene, vi 201; Cretan inscripticns
at Delos, i. 54
Crimea, Greck art in, v. 72
SULJECTS. 553
Critios, Tyrannicides, ii. 61; v. 140;
Vili. 44
Crommyon, sow of, ii 60, 61
Cuirasses on Imperial statues, vii. 126 ;
types of ornamentation, vii. 126 ;
patterns of pteryges, vii. 138
Cupids (two) in Hawilton Collection,
VL. $2
Cybele, worship at Magnesia and
Sipylus, iii. 52; C. and Herma-
phroidite, iii. 54; C. and Artemis,
11 55; C. of Broteas, iii. 62;
Hieron, near Smyrna, i. 68
In Works of Art—at Euyuk, iii. 4 ;
near Magnesia, iii. 35, 45; near
Midas Tomb, iii. 41, 42, fig. 9;
ou frieze of Pergamon, vi. 140, vii.
225; on frieze of Priene, vil 256 :
on Sipylus (‘ Niobe’), i. 88, iii. 40
Cn Coins and Monuwments— Amphi-
polis, vii. 256: Corinth, vi. 74;
Cyzicus, vii. 256; Hermione, vi.
100; Pagae, vi. 58; Patrae, vii.
838; Stratonicen, vii. 256; Thebes,
viii. 8; Thessalonica, vii, 256
Cyclades, prehistoric remains, vy. 42,
43; races and languages, v. 45
‘Qycle,’ meaning of terin, iv. 821
Cyclopean walls in Aeolis, ii, 306 ; in
Lydia, i. 91; near Myrina, iii. 221,
224 ; near Smyrna, i. 64, fig. 70; in
Troad, i. 83
Cyllene, ii. 279
Cyme, ii. 272, 276; iii. 218; C. and
Larissa, ii. 282
Cynics, i. 301
Cypria (Epic), iv. 306 ; plan, structure,
v. 3; relation to Homer, v. 4; on
Judgment of Paris, vii. 212, 219
Cypriote syllabary, i. 78; vii, 288 ; in-
scriptions from Thymbra, i. 78
Cyprus, excavations, viii. 285
Cypselus, chest of, i, 113, 119, 126,
127, 129; iii. 804; vi 108
Cyrene, worship of Asclepius at, iv. 51 ;
terso of Jmperial statue from, vii.
138
D.
Dactyli, iii. 181
Daedalus, 111, 182 ; Heracles at Thebes,
viii. 7
Daemon Agathos in Corinth, vi. 69
Damophon (artist); v. 90; vii. 70, 71;
Asclepius and Hygieia, vii. 88 ;
Tyche, vi. 57
Danae on coin of Argos, vi. 99
Danaid in Argos, vi. 90
Dancing girls on cuirasses, vii. 133,
137
504
Daphne, it. 123
Dead, worship of, v. 124
Debalakia, viii. 494
Del: s, history, i. 7 ; topography, i. 39 ;
plan, i. 40; excavations, vili. 276;
epigraphy, 1. 53; grotto of Apollo,
i 42, fig. 1; temple of Apollo, i. 44,
tig. 2; sculpture, 1. 51 ; female head,
vii. 123; statue of C. Ofellius, vii.
245
Delphi, buildings, &e., at, vili. 14;
excavations, vili. 276, 285
Demeter and Gaea, vi. 107; D. of Praxi-
teles, vi. 108 ; on Pergainene frieze
(2) vi. 105; on vase in Giganto-
machia, vi. 107 ; in statuettes, ii.
928 ; temple im the Troad, i. 80
On Coins and Monuments—Acgina,
vi. 95; Aegium, vii. 90; Argos,
vi. 87, 90 ; vili. 56; Athens, viii.
96; Bura, vii. 92; Caphyae, vii.
104; Cleitor, vii. 102; Delphi,
viii. 18 ; Dyme, vii. 78; Eleusis,
viii. 48 ; Gytheium, vii. 66; Her-
mione, vi. 100; Megara, vi. 56;
Messene, vii. 70; Panachaia, vii.
90; Pheneus, vii. 102; Phigaleia,
vii. 111; Salamis, viii. 49; Sicyon,
vi. 80; Thebes, viii. 8; Thelpusa,
vii. 106
Demetrius Nikator, vi. 262
le metrius of Scepsis, character, ii, 84;
iii. 70, 73, 79, 204, 215 ; the Tpwi-
Kos διάκοσμος, li. 84; iii. 215; on
condition of Ilium, 11, 26; iii. 77,
216; on site of Troy, ii. 36 ; iii. 69,
73
Des Tombes, M., Attic sepulchral relief,
v., pl. xxxix., p. 205
liadorva, etymology, iii. 389
liadumenus, sce Polycleitus
)iisoteria, ii. 316
ldiocleia in Phrygia, iv. 422; viii. 467
liogenes (sculptor) of Athens, iii, 240 ;
author of Heracles in British Museum,
ili, 240
iomedes and Palladium on coin of
Argos, vi. 88, 89
Dione, goddess of Dodona, i. 231; on
Pergameue frieze, vi. 132 ; on coins,
vi. 132
])ionysiac processions at Castle Howard,
vi. 39
Dionysius (sculptor), v.
245
Dionysopolis in Phrygia, iv. 379
Dionysus and boat-races, ii. 315; vi. 24;
D. and centaurs, i. 142 ; Chthonian
character of, iv. 122; worship at
Pergamon, iv. 384 ; tauro-morphie
type of, iv. 120
84, 85; vii.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS:
Dionysus (continucd)—
In Works of Art—of Alcamencs, viii.
38 ; at Castle Howard, vi. 35, 37 ;
at Edinburgh, v. 158; terminal
bust in Hamilton Collection, vi.
32; on Pergamene frieze, iv. 125,
vi. 141; vii. 272; head frem. ]: 1-
gamon, Vil. 208; Dionysus and
Hermes of Praxiteles, sce Prayi-
teles ; on vase, iv. 253, fig. 3; on
Tarentine terra-cottas, vil. 10, 40 ;
votive terra-cottas from Halicar-
nassus, Vii. 12
On Coins and Monuments—Argos,
vi. 89; Asopus, vii. 67 ; Athens,
Vili, 38 5. Connth. νι 55, πθ΄
Cyparissia, vil. 74; Gytheium, vii.
65; Heraea, vii. 107 ; Hermione,
vi. 99, vili. 58 ; Lacedaemon, vii.
59; Megara, vi. 54 (of Praxiteles) ;
Olympia, vii. 77 ; Orchomenus, vii.
100; Pagae, vi. 58; Patrae, vii.
79, 80; Vellene, vii. 96; Pheneus,
vii. 102; Phigaleia, vii. 110 ;
Phiius, vi. 81; Psophis, vii. 105;
Pylos, vii. 73; Sicyon, vi. 77;
Tanagra, viii, 10; Tenea, viii. 54 ;
Thebes, viii, 8; Thelpusa, vii.
106
Dionysus, theatre at Athens, viii. 39
Dioscuri on Pergamene frieze (1), vi.
137 ; on Gigantomachia vases, vi,
137
On Coins and Monuments—Argos, vi.
87; viii. 56; Athens, vili. 45;
Cleitor, vii. 102; Gytheium, vii.
66; Lacedacmon, vii. 60; Man-
tineia, wii. 98; Tarentum, vii, 13,
22; T'roezen, vi. 97
Dioscuros (so-calied) at Castle Howard,
vi. 38
Dios Kome, iv. 414
Diotrephes in Thasos, viii. 408
Dipoenus and Scyllis, Pallas at Cleo-
nae, vi. 81, 96
Discobolus (bronze) at Vienna, i., pl. v.,
28 ewe
Discus-throwing, i, 213
Disks (clay) from Tarentum, iv. 186 :
vii. 41
Docimion, viii. 482
Dodona, inscriptions, i. 228; ti. 102;
site, ii. 228
Deerpfeld, on strata of Hissarlik, iii,
188 ; iv. 144, 151, 436 ; on remains at
Tiryns, vii., p. lv., Ix.
Dogs, epitaphs on, iii. 129
Dorylaion, viii. 503
Doryphorus, sce Polycleitus
Draehina, meaning of the term, iy.
244
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. ΓΕ
Dranisus, site of Dodona, ii. 228
Dresden, archaistic Athene at, iii.
333,
Dualism in design, ii. 318
Dumont, on pottery of Hissarlik, 11],
191; iv. 142, 145, 149
Duncker, History of Greece, reviewed,
viil. 309
E.
E in Ionic inscriptions, vii. 224
Eagle in Gigautomachia, iii. 324; on
Pergamene frieze, vi. 185; on coin
of Cleonae, vi. 81
Earring, archaic, ii. 324, fig. ; from
Kertch, v. 67
Ecclesia, arrangements at Jasos, viii.
106 ; attendance at, viii. 108
Echetlus, ii. 389
Edinburgh Museum, ancient marbles,
v. 156; vi. 16
Eileithuia on Coins and Monuwments—
Acgium, vi. 88; vii. 87; Argos, vi.
88; viii, 56; Bura, vii. 92; Tegea,
vii, 118
Kirene and Plutus, viii. 48
ἐκ in composition, ii, 206
Elaea, ii, 279 νὴ
Elateia, excavations, viii. 276
Eleusis, ii. 125; viii. 278
Eleutherae, ii. 126
Elouza, iv. 414; viii. 464
Emblemata, iii. 102
Emotion as expressed in sculpture, iii.
230
Empress (Roman) in Hamilton Collec-
tion, vi. 32
Endeis, i. 135
Endoeus, Athene Alea at Tegea, vii.
112
Enfranchisement, deeds of, if, 363
English language, history of, compared
with that of later Greek, iii. 374,
377
Enyo on Pergamene frieze, vi. 131 ;
on coins, vi. 131
Kos on Pergamene frieze, iv. 181; on
cuirass, vil. 130
Epeius, Hermes at Argos, vi. 86
Ephedros, i., pl. vi., fig., p. 183, 219 ;
ii. 337
Ephesus, temple of Artemis ; Hermes
on drum, iii. 100; silversmiths, iii.
103 ; inscription, 111. 104
Ephorus on Olympian Festival, ii. 169
Epie cycle, iv. 313, v. 1
Epidaurus, discoveries at, v. 85, viii.
283
Epione at Epidaurus, vi. 93; en Per-
ganene
fig. 1
Epirus, history, ii. 109
Kpistates, iii, 138
Eponymous magistrates, iv. 54, 137
Eyuestrian figure in Hamilton Col!ec-
tion, vi. 31
ἔρανοι, i. 354
Erechtheum, ground plan, i. 224, ii.,
p. xxxv., 83; clevation of w. wall,
li. 86, fig.
Eris, iii, 315
Eros present at Judgment of Paris, vii.
208
In Works of Art—Eros at Castle
Howard, vi. 34; of DPraxiteles at
Parium, iv. 268; statuette (Prin-
cess of Wales), iv. 266, pl. ; statu-
ette from Smyrna, iv. 272, fig. ;
Tarentine terra-cotta, vii. 36, 37,
40, 41, 44
On Coins and Monuments—Aegira,
vii. 95; Boeae, vii. 68; Corinth,
vi. 74; Parium, iv. 271; Sicyon,
vi. 80 ;
Erymanthus, at Psophis, vii. 105 ; Ery-
manthian boar, vii, 105
Frysichthon, in Delos, i. 19
Trythrae, relief, vii. 249
ἐσχάρα in Homeric house, iii, 271
Eteocles, ii. 138
Etruscuns, Lydian origin of, iv. 6; F.
art, iv. 868; Ε΄, sepulchral reliefs,
v. 118
Euanorides, victor at Olympia, ii. 171
Euanthes, Prometheus, vii. 270
Euboea, 1833—13840 a.p., viii. 195
Eucarpia, viii. 476
Eucheir, iii, 182 ; Hermes at Pheneus,
vii. 101
Eucleides of Megara on coin, vi. 53
Eucleides (sculptor), vii, 92, 94
Eudokias, viii. 515
Eukoline, stele, vi. 43
Eumeneia, iv. 399 ; viii. 464
Eumolpus, Heroon, ii. 124
Euphorbion, viii. 495
Euphronios, vases, viii. 292
εὔπλοια, Vili. 414
Eurymedon (giant), iii. 310
Eurypylus, vil. 79
Eurytion, i. 159
Eutelidas, statue at Olympia, ii. 173
Euthalidae, ii. 356
Euthymus, stitue by Pythagoras, i. 198
Euyuk, sculptures at, ii. 305 ; iii. 41
Exactor of Nacoleia, iii. 121
Exekias, amphora, vi. 28
ἐξετασταί, ii. 99
Fye, (evil) protection from, vi.
treatment of, in art, v. 175
frieze (?), vii. 262, 263,
313 ;
INDEX
F.
Fayum, papyri from, vii. p. li.
Ferrara, Council of, vii. 356
Fibula, from Assarlik (Caria), viii. 74,
fig.
Fish, at Psophis, vii. 105 ; preserved in
jars, iv. 160
Fish-dealer, on vase of Lipara, vii. 53
Fisherman, on coins of Mantineia, vii.
98
F'o ence Archaeological Museum : sar-
cophagus from Corneto, i., p!s. XXX Vi.-
XXXVillL, p. 354; vases, 1... pl. iii.,
p- 139 ; iv. 261, fig. 5; vii., pl. lxx.,
p. 191, fig. 1 ; 198, fig. 2
Flute players, accompanying dramas,
ii. 310
Fortnui, C. Drury, terra-cotta head of
boy, vil. 122, pl.
Fortuna, at Castle Howard, vi. 33; on
coin of Asine, vi. 100
Fountains in Corinth, vi. 78
Frangois vase, i. 110, 120, 129, 137
140, 161
Franks in the Peloponnese, iv. 165; F.
tower at Athens, iii. 362.
Frogs, how represented in- comedy, ii.
311
Funeral feast, on terra-cottas, vii. 8,
16
Furtwangler, A., Beschreibung der
Vasensammlung, im Antiquarium,
reviewed, viii. 289; Mykenische
Vasen, reviewed, viii. 525
Fury, at Castle Howard, vi. 40
Future life, Greek ideas of, v. 127, 133
G,
Gaea and Demeter, vi. 107; G. on
Pergamene frieze, iii, 885; vii. 272;
on cuirass, vii, 134
Gaion Kome, viii. 512
Gallipoli, velief of Hermes and Nymphs,
vii. 215, ἢν, 3
(;ames in Asia Minor, iv. 58
γαμίλιος, name of month, ii. 114
γάμος, use of term, i. 206
Ganymede and eagle, Nicholson Col-
lection, vil. 250
Gardner, E. A., Excavations at Nau-
cratis, 1885- 6, vil., p. li.
Gardner, Pes houses at Tiryns, vii.
p- xlvi. ; Catalogue of the Greek coins
of Peloponnesus, reviewed, viii. 538
Gauls in Ilium, ii. 25; iii. 78; in Asia
Minor, iv. 241
Geldart, E. M.,
p. XXXVI.
on ξηρός, ξανθός, ii.
OF SUBJECTS.
Gemistus, see Plethon
Genetyilides (2), on Pergamene frieze,
vi. 106
Genius, male, in Corinth, vi. 76; G. of
Patrae, vii. 79, 86
Genoese in Icaria, i. 293
Genre sculpture, vi. 10
Geometrical decoration, at Assarlik, viil.
67, 75, fig. ; on Phiygian tubs, iii.,
pl. xxi. A, p. 26
Geras, personified, iv. 99, 101
Geryon in art, v. 151; on vases, Vi.
110
Geta, erased on coins, iv. 247
Giants, primitive conception of, iii. 301;
development of types, iii. 302, 311;
serpent feet, ili. 503, 319 ; wings,
iii. 303,319; pre-Hellenic deities (7),
iii. 306 ; kindred conceptions, iii.
313 ; euhemeristic theories, iii.
317
In Works of Art—Acragas, iii. 320 ;
from Acropolis, villi, 280; at
Aphrodisias, iii. 3824, 327; on
Athene at Dresden, iii. 333 ; head
in British Museum, vii. 273 ; on
Parthenon, iii. 815; at Pergamon,
see Pergamon ; at Priene, ili. 828,
839; on vases, iii. 307, 315, 325,
828, 382.5 vi. lS /els8 phen:
Vatican relief, iii. 323, 327; at
Wilton House, 111, 327
Gipsies, vil. 365
Girl, statuette at Edinburgh, v. 159
Gitiadas, Athene, vil. 62
Gladiatorial reliefs (ἢ) from Cos, vi.
259
Glaukias, Theagenes, i. 199
Glycon, Heracles, viii. 44
Gnomic poets, quoted in Attic tragedy,
ii, 180
Goat at Castle Howard, vi. 37
Gold ornaments, from ‘Assarlik (Caria),
viii. 67, 70; in Crimea, v. 68
Goodwin, on strata of Hissarlik, iii, 191;
iv. 142, 149, 151
Goose in antiquity, vi. 11
Goose and Boy, vi. 1
Gordorinia, vill. 504
Gordos, viii. 505
Gorgon, origin of myth, vi. 276
Gorgoneion, types of, iv. 118 ; vi. 278;
on Phrygian tombs, 111. 14 ; on coins
of Coroneia, viii. 14
Gothie art at Mycenae (?), i. 108 ; Goths
at Orchomenus, ii. 149
Gréau Collection, Eros, iv.
fig.
Greaves of metal, vii. 194
Greece, in medixyal times, iv. 108 ; see
Euboea
272,
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 557
Greek language, in Eastern Empire, ii.
263, iii. 372; in late inscriptions of
Orchomenus, ii. 158 ; literary and
colloquial dialects, ili. 364
Griffins on cuirasses, vil. 128, 136
Gryphon in Phrygian art, v. 247
Guilford, Lord, Collection, vi. 40
Gygaean Lake, i. 87
H.
Hades, as conceived by the Greeks, iv.
107 ; represented on vases, iv. 107 ;
statue in Villa Borghese, vi. 294 ; on
coin of Pheneus, vii. 102
Hadrian, at Athens, viii. 46; bridge
of H. over Cephissus, ii. 124 ; statues
of H. from Cyrene, vi. 199; vil.
138 ; from Hierapytna, vi. 199; vil.
138, 140 : from Ulympia, vii. 139
Hadrianopolis, viii 491
Hair, how worn by the Greeks, i. 170;
on archaic statues, viii, 169
Haliartus, 11, 127
Halicarnassus, decrees of, ii. 99 ; figure
of Artemi-ia, vii. 247
Halys, river, iv. 278
Haiilton Palace Collection of ancient
marbles, vi. 30
Harpies on sarcophagus, iv. 4, fig. 4
Haverfield, Syracuse, reviewed, viii.
541
Head, Historia Numorum,
viii. 313
Hebe on coins of Argos, yi. 83; of
Phlius, vi. 80
Hecate, mythological character, vi. 112;
H. of Alcamenes, vi. 111; H.
on Pergamene frieze, vi. 110, 141
On Coins and Monwments—Aegina,
vi. 94; Argos, vi. 88; Pherae, vi.
58, 80
Hegias, Dioscuri, viii. 45
Helbig, Das Homerische Epos, reviewed,
viii 535
Heliadae, iii, 181
Helios, worship of, iv. 134; Lermenus,
iv. 382
In Works of Art—on cuirass, vii.
130, 134; on Pergimene frieze,
iv. 131, 133
On Coins and Monuments—Cleitor,
vii. 103 ; Corinth, vi. 63, 71
Hellanicus on Ilium, ii. 39 ; character
as a writer, ii. 40,. 111, 74, 213
Helmets, Greek, iv. 12, 16 ; votive, of
Hiero, ii. 66; from Kertch, v. 65;
property of late Bishop of Lincoln,
li. 68 ; from Olympia, ii. 67 ; fictile
models, 11, 69, 82
JS == VOL, ὙΤΠΙΙ.
reviewed,
Hephaestus on Pergaimene frieze, vii.
259
On Coins—Corinth, vi. 76; Methana,
vi. 98 ; Mothone, vii. 73
Hera in Gigantomachia, ili. 307, vi.
130 ; Lakinia, vii. 10
On Coins and Monwineints—Argos,
vi. 83; Elis, vii. 76; at Heraca,
vii. 107 ; Patrae, vii. 83; Plataea,
vill. 7; Tegea, vii. 113
Heraclea, ii. 297
Heracles, and Centaurs, i. 111, 124;
and Geras,iv.96; inGigantomachia,
iii. 325 ; and Hades, iv. 107 ; and
Nereus,iv.106; at Nacoleia,ili.124;
Temple near Orchomenus, ii. 133
In Works of Art—H. Epitrapezius
of Diogenes, iii. pl. xxv. p. 240;
of Lysippus, 11, 241; Head
(Nicholson Collection), vii. 250;
Terra-cottas of Tarentum, iv., pl.
xxxii, p. 119; vii. 43
On Coins and Monuments—Argos, vi.
82, 83, 91; Athens, vii. 43 ; Bura,
vii. 98; Corinth, vi. 72, 75; viii.
52; Gytheium, vii. 64; viii. 59; La-
cedaemon, vil. 60; Las, vii. 68 ;
Megalopolis, vii. 109, 113 ; Megara,
vi. 57 ; Messene, vii. 70 ; Pagae, vi.
58; Patrae, vii. 86 ; Psophis, vii.
105; Sicyon, vi. 79; Stymphalus,
vii. 103; Tegea, vii. 113 ; Thebes,
viii. 7, 8
Heraea, games at Samos, vii. 147 ἡ
Heraeum, Argive, coins relating to, vi.
83
Hermaphrodite, and cultus of Cybele,
iii, 54
Hermes, and Charites, vii. 214
In Works of Art—Hermes of Andros,
vii. 248 ; on patera of Bernay, iii.,
pl. xxii, p 98; on drum of ae
sus, iii, 100; vii. 101; in Nichol-
son Collection, vii., pl. Ixxi., p.
241 ; on Phrygian relief, iii, 7 ; ἢ
and Dionysus of Praxiteles, sce
Praxiteles; from Tarentum, vii.
33, 40
On Coins and Monwments—Aegina,
vi. 95; Argos, vi. 86; Asine, vi. 100,
viii. 60 ; Athens, viii. 44 ; Corinth,
vi. 69, 72, 73; viii. 53; Gytheium,
vii. 66; Hermione, vi. 100; Lace-
daemon, Vii. 59; Patrae, vii. 86 ;
Pheneus, vii. 101 ; Phigaleia, vii.
110; Tanagra, vi. 95; viii. 11;
Thelpusa, vii. 106; Troezen, viii. 58
Hermogenes, sculptor, vi. 68
Hermon, Dioscuri, vi. 97
Herodotus on the Battle of Marathon,
11. 385
oO Oo
558
Heroes, sepulchral reliefs to, v. 116,
262
Heruli in Peloponnese, i. 102
Hesiod, statue at Thespiae, viii. 13
Hestiaea, on the Trojan plain, ii. 38
Heydemann, Jason in Kolchis, re-
viewed, viii. 527
Hierapolis, iii. 340 ; iv. 375
Hierapytna, statue of Hadrian, vii. 138,
140
Hiero, votive helmet, ii. 66
Hierocharax, viii 466
Hierocles, Synecdemus, iv.
461
Hieropolis, iii. 340; hot springs, iii.
351 ; vill. 476
Hillingdon Court, Bull, vi. 32, pl. c.
Hippias, and the Olympian register, ii.
169, 174, 176
Hippocrates, edited by Coray, i. 306
Hippocrates, stele, vi. 42
Hippolytus on coin of Troezen, vi. 97 ;
Vili. 58
]lippothoon, tomb, ii. 124
Hissarlik (see also Ilium, Troy), claim
to represent Troy, iii. 193, 198; the
sequence of cities, 111, 185, 212; iv.
144, 147, 436; pottery, iii. 191; iv,
142, 149
Hittites in Asia Minor, i. 84, 89; iii
225 ; inscription on Sipylus, iii. 226
ΠΡ Miviechachs Goalie idxeriawed.
viii. 809
Homer—
Aeolic elements in Iliad, vii. 302
Agriculture, vi. 336
Armour, iv 78, 281; thorax, iv. 76;
shield, iv. 284; helmet, iv. 291;
greaves, iv. 299; spear, 299;
sword, iv. 802
Art, Homeric subjects in, iv. 248 ;
vy. 34
Axe, vy. 213
Blood feud, viii. 124, and pref.
Bronze decoration, ii, 145
Chariot, ν. 185—194, fig.
Charlemagne Cycle compared, iii.,
p. xlviii.
Cyprian elements in Iliad, vii. 300
Date of fall of Troy, ii. 104
Date of Odyssey XXIV., v. 15 ἢ.
Date of Homer, ii. 168
Fick’s theory of structure of Iliad, vii.
302
Games, ii. 167
Geography of the Iliad, eclectic, iii.
198 ; iv. 155. See Ilium, Hissarlik,
Troad, Troy
House, iii. 264; plan, contrasted
with Scandinavian house, 265 ; H.
of Alcinous, 279; of Circe, 279;
372 ; viii.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Homer (continwed)—
historic realit¥, 280; compared
with Tiryns, vil. p. liii., 166, 170;
plan deduced from Odyssey, vii.
173; compared with historical
Greek house, vii. 188
House-communities in Homer, vi.
331
Iliad—
Rhapsodizing of, vii. 291—308 ;
Fick’s theory, vii. 295 ; Cyprian
elements, vii. 300; Ionic and
Aeolic, vii. 302; original shape
of Iliad, vii. 306
Inconsistencies in Homer, vii. 302
Judgment of arms, legends of, v. 34
Land system, vi. 319—339 ; vii. p.
ΧΙ.
Odyssey, society more advanced than
in Iliad, vi. 334; date of Book
XXIV. v. 15 n.
Palace, see House
Plough, vi. 324
Pottery of Ilium, iii, 191; iv. 142,
149
Property, vi. 826
Racing, ii. 90
Raft of Odysseus, v. 209
Rhapsodizing of Iliad, vii. 291—308
Scholia, passages in, iv. 78, 81, 297 ;
vi. 821, 329
Society, more advanced in Odyssey
than Iliad, vi. 884
Talent, viii. 133 and pref.
Weapons, see Armour
Homer (words explained)—
αἴθουσα, iii. 267 ; vii. 164
&kAnpos, vi. 882
ἀλήϊος, vi. 828
ἀμείβοντες, iii. 279
auplpadros, iv. 293
ἀναίνομαι, viii, 124
ἀοιδός, ili, 157
ἀπουρίσσουσι, vi. 823
ἀσάμινθοι, iil. 278
ἀσπὶς ἀμφιβρότη, iv. 281
αὐλή, iii. 267 ; viii. 171
αὐλός, iv. 800
γύης, vi. 324
δόρυ, iv. 300
ἕδραι, 111. 267
ἐσχάρα, iii. 271
Fide, vii. 300
ζυγόδεσμον, v. 189
ζῶμα, iv. 73, 80
θάλαμος, ili. 268, 273, 278
θόλος, iii. 267
θύραι δικλίδες, iii. 267
θώρηξ, iv. 80
ἴκρια, ν. 218
κλῆρος, Vi. 330
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Homer (words explained) —
κλῖμαξ, vil. 167
κτάομαι, κτῆσις, κτῆμα, KTEpas, Vi. 326
κτεατίζω, Vi. 333
κύανος, Vii. 168
λαισήϊον, iv. 285
λαύρη, iii. 276; vii. 167, 181
Ants, vi. 328
μέγαρον, iii. 269 ; vii. 164
μεσόδμαι, ili. 270
μίτρη, iv. 73
μυχός, iii. 272
ξίφος, iv. 302
ὁρσοθύρα, iii. 274; vii. p. xlv., 167,
181
ovdds, iii. 269
οὖρον, vi. 320
πέλεθρον, Vi. 325
moAvAhios, vi. 328
πόρκης, iv. 301
mpddouos, ili. 268
προθέλυμνος, iv. 284
ῥάβδοι, iv. 287
ῥῶγες, iii. 277 ; vii. 168, 182
σαυρωτήρ, iv. 801
σταθμός, iii. 269
τελαμών, iv. 289
τέμενος, Vi. 885
τερμιοείς, iv, 287
repo τρυφάλεια, iv, 298
ὑπερθύριον, iil. 269
φάλαρα, iv. 297
φάλος, iv. 12, 17, 298
χιτών, iv. 81
Homesteads, Modern Greek, vi. 240
Hoplites dromos, vii. 189
Horae (?) on Pergamene frieze, vi. 122
Horse, head from Turentum, iii. pl.
xxiv. p. 234; in Greek sculpture, 1],
235 ; of St. Mark’s, Venice, iii. 235 ;
on funeral reliefs, v. 106, 114; vii.
14; oncoins of Tarentum, iii. 239 ;
on terra-cottas of Tarentum, vii. 13
Horse ridden by human head on coins
of Cleonae, vi, 81; of Sicyon, viii.
54
Horseman on relief at Edinburgh, v.
159 ; on relief from Mosyna, iv. 378 ;
on sarcophagus, iv. 6, fig. 6; iv. 18,
fig. 14
Hydra, Cape, iii. 220
Hygieia, v. 82; in 4th cent., v. 85,
88; of Dionysius, v. 84; relief
from Argolis, v. 82; at Castle
Howard, vi. 34 ; on Parthenon, v. 86;
on Pergamene frieze, vii. 252; at
Titane, v. 84; on vases, v. 94; on
coins, v. 87; see also Numismatic
Commentary on Pausanias, passim ;
Athene H., v. 96; Roman goddess,
ν. 97
559
Hypsipyle, on coin of Argos, viii 55
Hyrgulean Plain (Phrygia), iv. 386
1.
Iacchus on Tarentine terra-cottas, vii.
10, 21
Iasos, history, viii. 85
Icaria, topography, 1. 296 ; occupied by
Genoese, 1. 293 ; vocabulary, i. 298
Ἰλίων κώμη, iil. 195
Ilium (see a/so Hissarlik, Troy), visited
by Xerxes, ii. 22 ; iii. 78, 211 ; under
Pharnabazus, ii. 22; visited by
Alexander, -11.),20.5. 11, 208, 911.
under Lysimachus, ii. 24; iii, 78 ;
visited by Mindarus, iii. 73, 211 ; in
third century B.C., ii. 24 ; visited by
Gauls, ii. 25 ; iii. 78, 216 ; by Antio-
chus, 11. 26; by L. Scipio, ii. 26;
favoured by Augustus, ii. 27 ; visited
by Caracalla, ii. 27; by Julian, ii.
27; letter of ‘Aeschines,’ ii. 29;
identified with Troy by Alexander
and the Romans, ii. 80 ; iii. 76, 211;
by inhabitants, ii. 8, 33 ; by Hella-
nicus, ii, 39; identification rejected
by the learned, viz. by Strabo, ii. 88,
87; by Demetrius of Scepsis, ii. 36 ;
iii. 70 ; Aeolic Ilium, ii. 21; Ilium
laced at Hissarlik in time of Croesus,
li, 20, 88 ; iv. 145
Iliupersis (Epic) plan, relation to Homer,
vy. 27; relation to Little Iliad, v. 33;
on vases, Vili, 293
Inachus (1) at Argos, vili. 57
Ince Blundell Collection of Marbles,
vi. 41
Ino and Melicertes at Corinth, vi. 61,
68
Invocatory formulae, i. 280
lo, myth, vii. 159; at Castle Howard,
vi. 88; from Tarentum, vii. 33
Ionic elements in Attic tragedy, i.
260; ii. 179; festival at Delos,
a |
Toucharatax, iv. 417 ; viii. 466
Iphigenia, legends of, v. 8
Iphitus, ii. 165, 177
Ipsos, vill. 490, 491
Iris and Centaurs, i. 139 ; and Satyrs,
i. 141; on Pergamene frieze, vii.
266
On Coins and Monuwments—Aegina,
viii. 57 ; Argos, vi. 91; Athens,
viii. 47 ; Boeae, vii. 68; Cleonae,
vi.81 ; Corinth, vi.66,74 ; Methana,
vi. 99 ; Mothone, vi. 99; vii. 73;
Pagae, vi. 58; viii. 50; Sicyon,
viii. 54; Thelpusa, viii. 106
σῸ 2
560
Iron substituted for bronze, li., Ὁ. XXXVi.,
74; at Orchomenus, il. 187, 155
Isgerea, vill. 512
ἴσος in composition, 11. 199
Isthmus of Corinth personified, vi. 63,
viii. 50
ἴστωρ, Vili. 126
Ithaca, early remains, iii. 264
Itys, viii. 439
ἴυγξ in Greek magic, vil. 157
Jason in Colchis, viii. 527
Judith and Holofernes, vi. 261
Julia Gens, temple at Corinth, vi. 71
Julia, in Phrygia, viii. 490
‘ Julian,’ letter on Ilium, ii. 27
Juno Lanuvina of Argos, vi. 90; see
Hera
Kaborkion, vili. 502
Kadoi, vili, 517
Kakkabas, viii. 501
Karabel Pass, i. 83; ii. 53
Keramon Agora, viil. 465
Kerkyon and Theseus, ii. 62
Kertch ornaments and armour, v. pl.
xlvi., xlvii., p. 63; vase, v. 95
Key of temple in Argos, vi. 91
χελώνη, game, ii, 64
χρηστός on epitaphs, iii, 141
kidyemus, viii. 467
Kinnaborion, iv. 39; viii. 495
Kirchhoff on the alphabet, vii. 227 ;
viii, 533
κλάδος, iii. 181
Klein, Vasen mit Meistersignaturen, re-
viewed, viii. 290; Euphronios, re-
viewed, viii. 292 ; K. on Chalcidian
vases, v. 232
Kleros Oreines, viii. 492 ; Καὶ. Politikes,
viii. 492
Knights of St. John in Rhodes, i. 208
κώδεια, Vv. 81
κώδων, v. 74
κόλλυβα, v. 109, 180n.
Koloe, viii. 519
Kone, viii. 486
Kopevw, i. 283; ii. 187, 207
Korynetes, club, ii. 63
Kotiaion, vili. 506
Koujounjik, Heracles from, iii. 240
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Krassos, iv. 433 ; viii. 504
Kronos in Corinth, vi. 76
L.
Lade, ancient remains, vii. 144
Lais(?), on coin of Corinth, viii. 51;
tomb, vi. 68
Lakes personified in Lydia, iii. 57
Lamberg Collection—vase(Pancratiasts)
i., pl. vi., p. 183
Lampadephoria, vii. 150, 152
Land system in Homer, vii., p. xlii.
Laocoon, and Pergamene sculpture, iii.
334, 338
Lapithae, i. 164; Lapith head from
Parthenon metope, ii., pl. xxiii.,
p. 228
Larissa (Aeolis), i. 91 ; 11, 276, 279;
L. and Cyme, ii. 282; later history,
. ii, 288
Latin and Greck in the Eastern Em-
pire, iii. 372
Latin, literary and colloquial, 111, 367
Latyschev, Inscriptiones Tyrae, re-
viewed, viii. 309
Leaping, amongst the Greeks, i. 212,
ii. 217 ; compared with English per-
formances, ii. 218
Lebadeia, ii. 128 '
Lechaeum and Cenchreae on coins of
Corinth, vi. 64; viii. 51
Leg of bronze from Italy, vii. 189
λέγεται as used by Greek authors, ii.
10
Legis Actio, viii. 127
Leipso, Hellenic remains and inscrip-
tion, vii. 143
Leleges, remains of, viii. 66, 457
Lenaia, i. 208
Lenormant on the alphabet, vii. 226
Leochares, Zeus Polieus, viii. 33
Lerna, subjects relating to, on coins of
Argos, vi. 100
Lesches, Little Iliad, iv. 306
Leto, worship in Asia Minor, iv. 375
In Works of Art—L. and Chloris at
Argos, vi. 87; viii. 55; L., Apollo
and Artemis at Megara, vi. 56
Leuce, 111, 219; v. 17
Leyden, sepulchral reliefs in museum,
v. 116
Libanotris, used in temples, iv. 41
Lincoln (Bp. of) on site of Dodona, ii.
228. °.
Lincoln (Bp. of) Collection: bronze
helmet, ii., pl. xi. (1), p. 68
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Lion, on tombs at Ayazeen, iii., pls.
᾿ς Xvii., xviii., p. 18 ; at Castle Howard,
vi. 37; gate of lions at Mycenae, iii.
19; on vase of Naucratis, viii. 121 ;
on sarcophagus, iv. 13, figs. 11, 13
Lipara, history, vii. 51 ; excavations,
vii. 51, 53; inscriptions, vil. 55 ;
stone implements, vii. 56; painted
vases, vil. 53
Little Iliad (Epic), iv. 318; v. 18
Locri, tribute to Ilium, iii. 74, 212
Loeschcke, Mykenische Vasen, reviewed,
viii. 525
Loewy, Inschriften Griechischen Bild-
hauer, reviewed, viii. 304
λογογράφοι, ii. 39; ill. 74
Lombards in Euboea, viii. 195
London: Atkinson, H., Collection of
Marbles, vi. 42; British Museum,
see British Museum ; South Kensing-
ton Museum: cast of Aphrodite of
Cnidus, viii., pl. lxxx., p. 324
Lotus on Cyprian vases, v. 103
Lounda in Phrygia, iv. 395
‘Louvre—
Sculpture—head of Lapith, iii., pl.
Xxiii., Ὁ. 228; Venus Genetrix,
vii., p. Lxiii.
Bronze—Hermes and Dionysus, iii.
pl. facing p. 107
Vases—i. 138, fig. 4; vi., pl. xlix.,
p. 20
Lowther Castle Collection, v. 100 ; viii.
335, 337
Lycaones, viii. 506
Lycian sepulchral reliefs, v. 118
Lycurgus on destruction of Troy, ii. 14 ;
iii. 72, 76, 207
Lycurgus, viii. 311; on coins of Lace-
daemon, vii. 60
Lysias, viii. 497
Lysippus, Canon, ii. 346 ; iii, 242; vi.
‘ 245; School, vi. 38, 115
Works — Apoxyomenus, iv. 346 ;
Heracles Epitrapezius, ili. 241 ;
Heracles at Tarentum, 111. 243 ;
Zeus at Argos, vi. 85; Zeus of
Sicyon, vi. 78
M.
McLeay, Collection of Marbles, vii.
240
Madrid (Museum), marble head, v. pl.
xlv., p. 172 ; puteal, ili. 333
Maenad on coin of Corinth, viii. 54
Magna Graecia, school of sculpture, ii.
346
561
Magnesia, iii. 51 ; worship of Apollo,
ili, 58; of Asclepius, iii. 59; of
Cybele, iii. 53
Magula, ii. 130, 156
Mainotes, iii. 354
Manlius, his march through Asia Minor,
Ly. 55, 67
Mannheim, relief, Hermes and Diony-
sus, ili. 89, fig. 4
μάντις, ii. 369
Marathon, battle, ii. 380 ; topography,
li, 882, 384; cave of Pan, 11. 390;
bull, ii. 64
Marion, viii. 317
Marriage, ceremonial of, i. 202
Marsyas, myth, iv. 71; on coin of
Pheneus, vii. 102; see also Myron
Masks on the dead, i. 101; on statues,
viii. 185
Mausoleum, sculpture, vii. 118, 124
Mazaris in Hades, ii. 235, 257 ; date,
ii. 235, 258 ; language, ii. 262
Measures of length, Greek, iv. 337
Meisterhans, Grammatik der Attischen
Inschriften, reviewed, viii. 299
Medea, legends of, v. 40
Medusa’s hair on coins of Tegea, vil.
113; M. head on coins of Athens, viii.
47, sce Gorgoneion; M. on Roman
gems, ii. 56; M. from Tarentum, vii.
33
Melampagitae, ii. 296
Melampus on coin of Aegosthena, vi.
58
Melas, source, li. 132
Melicertes at Corinth, vi. 59, 60, 64
Memnon, legends of, v. 16, 17
Mén, worship of, iv. 31, 35;
41...
Menaechmus, Artemis Laphria, vii. 71,
81, 91; Nike and Bull, vii. 281
Menemen, iii. 225
Meros (Phrygia), remains near, v. 241 ;
viii. 498
Metaphrastes, life of Abercius, ili
339
Metellopolis in Phrygia, iv. 376
Metellus on coin of Athens, viii. 48
Meter Theon in Athens, iii. 140
Metrological relief at Oxford, iv., pl.
XXXYV., p. 835
Metrophanes, viii. 471
Metropolis in Phrygia, iv. 53, v. 246 ;
remains near, v. 241 ; vili. 486, 510
Mezea, viii. 504
Michaelis on Nicholson Collection, vii.
246
Micon, Nike and Bull, vii. 281
Midaion, viii. 504
Midas, tomb of, iii. 3, 16 ; rock reliefs
in neighbourhood, iii. 6
viii.
0602
Middleton, J. H., on remains at Tiryns,
vil., p. lix.
Milesians in Athens, vi. 146
Milestones, between Ephesus and
Tralles, ii. 45 ; Ephesus and Perga-
mus, ii. 47, 54; Pergamus and
Adramyttium, ii. 47 ; at Bournabat,
ii, 51; at Kuyujak, iv. 430; at
Karayuk-Bazar, viii. 226 ; at Mene-
men, ii. 52, 54 ; at Prymnessus, viii.
485 ; see vili. 514
Miltiades, ii. 381, 384; tactics at
Marathon, ii. 387 ; on coin of Athens,
vill. 47
Mimi, ii. 314
Mines of Siphnos, vi. 195
Minotaur slain by Theseus, 11. 60
Minyas, ii. 134
Mirror cases, vii. 277
Mistra (Peloponnesus), iv. 228
Moerae (3), on Pergamene frieze, vi. 106
Molossi, ii. 103
Mommsen on the alphabet, vii. 227
Monarchia at Calymna, 11. 364
Monemvasia, in the Peloponnese, iv. 233
Monideia, iii. 59
Morea in 15th cent., ii. 261 ; meaning
of the name, iv. 194
Morgenthau, Zusammenhang der Bil-
der auf Griechischen Vasen, reviewed,
viii. 296
Mosaic at Castle Howard, vi. 40;
(Roman) in Hamilton Collection, vi.
32
Mosyna in Phrygia; iv. 377
Motella in Phrygia, iv. 393
Moulds for terra-cottas, vii. 44; for
cakes, vii., p. xliv., 44
Mud used for building, vii. 165
Munich: Aphrodite of Cnidus, viii.
347 ; Cylix of Panaitios, viii. 439
Munychia, ii. 316
Murex, vil. 6
Mycenae, in Aeschylus, vi 163; and
Caria, viii. 450 ; and Phrygia, iii.
257
Excavations, 1886-7, viii. 274
Contents of Tombs—Stephani’s the-
ory, i. 94; their homogeneous
character, i. 95; analogies else-
where, i. 98; viii. 450; complete
absence of Hellenic works, i. 103,
105; masks on the dead, i. 100;
obsidian arrowheads, i. 104 ; paint-
ings, viii. 283
Fragment of column, 11]. 24
Lion-gate, iii. 19 ; vii. 163
Treasury of Atreus, vil. 162; com-
pared with Treasury of Orcho-
menus, 11. 139
Vases, viii. 283, 448, 525
IN DEX..OF
SUBJECTS.
Mylas, title of Apollo, iv. 352
Myndus, primitive wall at, viii. 66
Myrina, site, ii. 277; 111. 222; exca-
vations, vill. 520
Myron, historical position, i. 173
Works—Atheneand Marsyas, ili. 254,
vill. 28; Discobolus, ii. 338;
Hecate in Aegina, vi. 94 ; Nike and
Bull, vii. 281
Mythology, as viewed by the Greeks,
vi. 161
Ne
Nacoleia, iii. 119 ; cults, 111, 123 ; in-
scriptions, iii. 121; viii. 499
Names, Graeco-Roman, iv. 35
Naples Museum: early bronze head, ii.
351
Naucratis, site, vi. 202 ; dates, vi. 203 ;
vil. 221, 232; excavations, 1885-6,
vii. 4 ; incised inscriptions, vii. 220 ;
pottery, vi. 204; viii., pl. lxxix.,p.119;
Great Temenos, vi. 204
Naucydes, Hebe at Argos, vi. 83;
Hecate in Argos, vi. 88
Nauplia, subjects relating to, on coins
of Argos, vi. 100
Navarrese Company, the, iv. 182
Neandria (2) i. 82
Necyomanteia, ii. 239
Negro on Tarentine terra-cotta, vii. 37
Nemea, coins of Argos relating to, vi.
82
Nemean games, symbols on coins, vi.
82
Nemesis on Coins and Monwments—
Argos, vi. 91; Asopus, vil. 67;
Megara, vi. 57 ; Rhamuus, viii. 47
Nemus, i. 116, 160
Neonteichos, site, ii. 279; history, ii.
283
Neoplatonism of Plethon, vii. 361
Neopoiai at Iasos, viii. 105
Νεώτεροι, 111. 72, 209
Nereids on cuirasses, vil. 184, 137
Nereus, in Homer, iv. 103; on Perga-
mene frieze, vii. 261
Nervi, i. 191
Nesiotes, Tyrannicides, see s.v.
Nestor, connected with Hades, iv. 109
Netteia, ii. 359
Nicetas, vocabulary, iii. 377, 390
Nicholson, Sir C., Collection of Marbles,
vii. 240
Nicopolis, viii. 488
Nikandra, offering to Artemis, i. 52,
59
Nikaria, vii. 145
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Nike, βουθυτοῦσα, vii. 275, plates D, F;
from Acropolis, villi, 280; on
cuirasses, viii. 135 ; on Pergamene
frieze, vi. 120; on Tarentine terra-
cottas, vii. 40
On Coins and Monwments—Aegina,
vi. 95; Athens, viii. 48 ; Lacedae-
mon, vii. 64; Mantinea, vii. 99 ;
Pellene, vii. 97; Sicyon, vi. 80;
Thebes, viii. 9
Nikosthenes, style, vi. 23 ; vases of, v.
233 ; vi., pl. xlix., p. 19
Niobe (so-called) in Hamilton Collec-
tion, vi. 81, 382; (so-called) on
Sipylus, i. 88; iii. 39, 60; head-
dress, iii. 226
Nostoi (epic), plan and relation to
Homer, v. 37
Notitiae, order of, viii. 463
Nymphs of Tanagra, viii, 12
0.
Obelisk on coins of Megara, vi. 55
Obrimas, river, iv. 70
Oceanus on cuirass, vii. 134
Octavia (?), on coins of Corinth, vi. 71
Odysseus, house of, iii. 264; raft of,
vy. 209 ; O. and Polyphemus, iv. 252 ;
and the Sirens, vi. 19
Oenoé, ii. 126
Ofellius, statue at Delos, vii. 245
Oinia, viii. 495
Old age, Greek ideas about, iv. 101 ;
represented in Greek art, iv. 105
Olive-tree on coins of Athens, viii. 28 ;
olives of the Cephissus, ii. 122
Olympia, personified, vii. 78
RKemains—Temple of Zeus, east pedi-
ment, v. 195, pl. in text ; Hesperid,
v., pl. xlvi., p. 171 ; Hadrian, vii.
139 ; Heracles and Centaur, i. 129,
fig. 1; ii. 148; inscribed spear-
heads, ii., pl. xi., p. 71; Byzantine
remains, iil. 361
Olympiads, see Olympian Register
Olympian Festival, supposed origin, ii.
165 ; development, 11. 166
Olympian Register, authenticity, ii. 164;
edited by Hippias, ii. 169, 174, 176,
178; date of first authentic records,
i. 175
Olympieion at Athens, excavations,
viii. 272
Omphalos, on coins of Delphi, viii. 17 ;
Phlius, viii. 54
Onasimedes, Dionysus of Thebes, viii.
Onatas, Hermes Criophoros, ii. 227, vi.
95; O. and Pindar, iii. 178
563
Onchestus, ii. 127
Onomarchus, viii. 14, 17
Opheltes, serpent and
Nemea, vi. 82
Oracle inscriptions of Dodona, i. 229
Orchomenus, ii. 130; name, ii, 157 ;
in Homer, ii. 134 ; inscriptions, ii,
158 ; excavations, viii. 276 ; fountain,
ii. 156; plan, ii. 181; pottery, ii.
152; tombs of Minyas and Hesiod,
11. 156 ; tumuli, ii. 155 ; treasury of
Orchomenus, ii., pl. xliii., p. 135;
plan, ii. 140 ; employment of bronze,
ll. 142, 144 ; ceiling of thalamos, ii.,
pls. xii. xiii., p. 147
Orvistos, iii. 120 ; viii. 502
Orion (?), on Pergamene frieze, vi. 116
Orophernes, king of Cappadocia, vi. 269
Oropus, excavations, vill. 275
Orphic, doctrines, iii. 153; rites, iii.
115 ; verses on the soul, iii. 113
Orphism in Magna Graecia, iii 117
-oovyn ἢ use of words with these ter-
-oovvos J minations in Attic Tragedy,
i, 260 ; ii. 179
Otrous, viii. 478
ovmis, vii. 159
Ox as standard of value, viii. 138
Oxford University Museums—
Sculpture—Metrological Relief, iv.,
pl. xxxv., p. 335
Gold—Ornaments from Kertch, v.,
pls. xlvi. xlvii., p. 63
Terra-cottas—fr.m Tarentum, vii.,
pls. lxiii. lxiv., p. 1; head, vii.,
plate facing p. 114
Hypsipyle in
a
Palaemon on coins of Corinth, vi. 60
Palaephatus, i. 149
Paluio-Sebaste, iv. 412
Palamedes, legends of, v. 9
Palatium, iii. 384
Pailadium of Troy, v. 26, 29, 34; on
cuirasses, vil. 182, 1387; on coins of
Argos, vi. 88
Pallas (giant), iii. 306, 312
‘Pallene, iii. 305
Palm-trees used as columns, vii. 163
Pamphaios, vase of, viii. 292
Pamphylia, inscriptions, i. 242; ii.
222; glosses, i. 258
Pan at Marathon, ii. 390 ; panic terror,
ii. 393
In Works of Art—at Castle Howard,
vi. 36, fig. 40; with Hermes and
nymphs on reliefs, vil. 214; in
Nicholson Collection, vii. 250; on
Tarentine terra-cotta, iv. 118
0.
Pan (cuveinued)—
On Coins and Monuments—Athens,
vill. 24, 47; Delphi, viii. 19;
Gytheium, vi. 65; Heraea, vii. 107;
Megalopolis, vii. 108 ; Psophis, vii.
105 ; Thelpusa, vii. 106
Panathenaea, boat-racing, ii. 98
Panticapaion, ornaments and armour
from, v., pls. xlvi. xlvil., p. 63
Papas (Zeus), li. 124; v. 257
Paphlagonia, iv. 275
Papias, iil. 124
Paraballon, victory at Olympia, ii. 171
Paregoros of Praxiteles, vi. 57
Paris, Judgment of: ‘ Typography,’ vii.
199 ; in literature, vil. 212; origin
of processional type, vil. 211 ; repre-
sentations on aes Vii., ply Ί ΣΧ p:
196, 198 tig. 2, 200 ; viii. 268
Paris, Cabinet des Médailles :
from Bernay, i., pl. xxii.,
Louvre, see 5.0.
Parnassus on coin of Delphi, viii. 14
Paroreios, Phrygia, viii. 488
Parrhasius, Prometheus, vii. 270
Parthenion, site, ii. 294
Parthenon, later history, iv. 86 ; Elgin
marbles at Broom Hall, v., pl.
xlvill., p. 144
Athene Parthenos—Lenormant sta-
tuette, ii. 1; Athenian statuette,
li. 1, 3 fig. ; bronze at Turin, ii. 6 ;
on coins, vil. 271; vili. 22
East Pediment—compusition, 11. 322 ;
v. 201 ; viii. 25 ; Athene on coins,
vill. 25 ; horse’s heads, iii. 235
West Pediment —composition, v. 201,
pl. ; interpretation, v. 202 ; illus-
trated by vase from Kertch, iii.
245, fig. ; Asclepius and Hygieia,
y. 86; Athene, iv. 94; Athene on
coins, iii. 251, 252, fig. ; viii. 27,
1; Dione (2) vi. 133
Friexe—interpretation of east side, ii.
323 ; horses, iii. 235 ; fragment at
Broom Hall, v. 144
Metopes—Lapith head in Louvre, iii.,
pl. xxiii., p. 228
liternal arrangement, vili. 532
Patera
p- 96;
Parthians, conquered by Augustus, Vil. -
137
Pasiades, viii. 319
Pasiteles, school, ii 344, 346 ;
p- ) xiii.
Patellae, used in temples, iv. 41
Patmos, Hellenic remains, vii. 144
Pattison, M., on πλοῖον, ii., p. Xxxvii.
Pausanias, native of Magnesia, iii. 67 ;
trustworthiness, v. 196 ; on destruc-
tion of Troy, ii, 12; on Olympian
victors, 11. 171
Vil.,
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
Pausanias (continued )—
Numismatic Commentary on—
Book I. 1-38, viii. 21
I. 39-44, vi. 50;
ΤΠ ῸῪ1 59%
III. vii. 58
IV. vii. 70
Vo Vie vii
VII. vii. 78
VIII. vii. 97
IX. viii. 6
X. viii. 14
Index to Commentary, viii. 60
Pazon, viii. 503
Pegasus on coins of Corinth, vi. 62, 75 ;
viii. 50
Peiraeus, statues, &e., at, viii. 33
Peirene on coins of Corinth, vi.
villi. 52
Peisander, viii. 402
Pelasgi, viii. 311; in Aeolis, ii. 276 ;
in Aeschylus, vi. 162
Peleus and Thetis, i. 118
Pelham, H. F. on Tiryns, vii., p. lviii.,
xe
Peloponnesus, schemes of Plethon, vii.
369; population and condition in
fifteenth century, vil. 363 ; subjected
to the Turks, vii. 379
Pelops, ‘ Throne,’ i. 73, 90; ili. 66 ;
P. on coins of Elis, vii. 76
Peltai in Phrygia, iv. 397
Penelope (so-called) of Vatican, vii.
64
Vili. 56
vill. 50
ΤᾺΣ
Penrose, F. C. on Mycenae and Tiryns,
vii. p. lii., Lxi.
Pentathlon, i. 210; ; li. 217 ; order of
contests, i. 214; ii. 218; method of
winning, i. 217 ; il. 220°
Peplos, vii. 532
Pepouza in Phrygia, iv. 404
Pergamon, cult of Asclepius and Teles-
phorus, iii. 285
Sculpture—character of, vii. 266 ;
influence on later schools, vii. 244 ;
technique, iii. 322, 329 ; types, iii.
331, 335
Great Altar—breadth of staircase,
vi. 141; frieze, iv. 92, 122; its
arrangement, vil. 251; mytholo-
gical conception, iii. 318
Figures in Frieze—Aphrodite, vi. 132;
Apollo, vi. 119, 124, 125, fig. 2 ;
Ares, vi. 131; "artemis, Vi. ἼΤ᾽,
Asterie, vi. 110 ; Athene, i iv. 92:
vi. 130 ; Athene group, iii. 331 (pl.
in text) ; relations to Laocoon, iii.
334, 338; Boreas and giant, vi.
103 ; Cabiri(?), vi. 136; Cybele,
vi. 140 ; Demeter, vi. 105 ; Dione,
vi. 1382; Dionysus, iv. 122, vi.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
141 ; Dioscuri (4), vi. 137 ; eagle,
vi. 185 ; Enyo, vi. 131; Eos, iv.
131; Gaea, 111. 335 ; giants, types
of, iii. 336; Hecate, vi. 110, 141 ;
ΠΕΊΘΗΙ, αὖ. 191: Hera, vi 130 ;
Heracles (ἢ), iii. 326; vi. 139;
Horae (?), vi. 122; Leto (2), vi. 119;
Lion-giant, vi. 123 ; Moerae (ἢ), vi.
106; Nike, vi. 120,130; Orion(?), vi.
115 ; Proserpine, vi. 108 ; Selene,
iv. 128; Themis, vi. 121.; Triton,
vi. 141; Thyia (?), vi. 104; un-
known goddesses, vi. 133, 135 ;
Zeus group, ili. 321 (pl. in text)
Single Works of Sculptwre—near Great
Altar, vii. 261; head of Apollo,
vii. 268; Artemis (3), vii. 271;
Athene, vii. 268 ; (head), vii. 271 ;
Athene Parthenos, vii. 271 ;
Dionysus, vii. 268; Heracles and
Prometheus, vii. 269; Heracles
and Telephus, vii. 269; Relief
(Nicholson Collection), vii. 250
Perminodeis, viii. 227
Persephone on Tarentine terra-cottas,
vil. 10, 11, 21, 25, 34, 44 ; sanctuary
at Tarentum, vil. 23; votive terra-
cottas from Halicarnassus, vii. 30
Perseus, bust, i., pl. ix., p. 55; on
coins of Argos, vi. 84, 88 ; viii. 55 ;
Asine, viii. 59 ; Corinth, viii. 54
Persian war, ii. 381
Personitication, allegorical, in Greek
art, iv. 99; vi. 121
Perspective, as applied in early Greek
art, ii. 318
Petara, viii. 501
Petasus, a circular roof, vi. 217
Petelia, gold tablet of, iii. 111
Petersen, A., on west pediment of Par-
thenon, iii. 247
Petrie, W. M. F., Naukratis, reviewed,
viii. 286
Peutinger table, ii. 52; viii. 463, 482,
484, 495, 514
Phaedra and Hippolytus (?), on coins of
Argos, vi. 91
Phaia, ii. 61
φαιδρύνω, iii. 133
Phalaecus, viii. 14
Phallus on Sipylus, i. 90 ; as a protec-
tion against spells, vi. 315
φασι, as used by Greek authors, ii.
0
ih
Phayllus, leap of, i. 212 ; 11. 217
Pheidias—
Athene Parthenos, and Parthenon,
see Parthenon
Athene at Pellene, vii. 95, 112
Athene Promachos, viii. 24
Zeus at Megara, vi. 53
Pheidias (continued)—
Zeus at Olympia, ii. 322; vii. 75;
base, ii. 321; iv. 129
Phiale, used in temples, iv. 41
Philomela, viii. 443
Philomelion, viii. 491
Philyra, 1. 135
Phlegon on the Olympian Festival, ii.
167
Phlegra, iii. 304
Phoba in Phrygia, iv. 391
Phocaea, ii. 279 ; vases from, ii. 304,
fig., 305, fig. ; ruins near, iii. 219
Phoenicians, relations with Delos, i. 13,
47, 57 ; in Attica, viii. 311 Ἶ
Pholos, i. 111, 125, 160
Photius, patriarch, iv. 305
Phrygia, relations with Mycenae, iii.
257; with historical Greece, iii. 260;
art, 111. 256; v. 247; P. conventus,
vill. 468 ; divided into provinces, iii.
343 ; vill. 468 ; cities and bishoprics,
iv. 370; viii. 461; sepulchral cus-
toms, v. 241 ; rock monuments, iii.
6, 12, 256, 260, 262; vii. 164; rock
necropoleis, iii. 2, 17
Phrygian, from Acropolis, viii. 281
Phrygians on cui asses, vii. 130
Phrynichus, vi. 169
Phthia on coin of Aegium, vii. 91
Phyrites, 111, 66
Pindar, patriotism, iii. 145; political
position, ili. 147 ; religious creed, iii.
150 ; doctrine as to the soul, iii. 152 ;
ethics, iii. 154, 157; feeling for
nature, iii. 156; P. and Homer, iii.
157 ; view of the poet’s position, ili.
158, 171 ; poetical training, ii. 161 ;
P. and Bacchylides, iii. 162; P. on
Olympian festival, ii. 168 ; his art,
ii. 163; his language—metaphor, iii.
167 ; ‘superlative imagery,’ iii. 168 ;
inversions, iii. 168 ; similes, iii. 169;
metrical dislocations, iii, 172 ; syn-
tax, 111. 173; P. and Greek art, iii.
175; P. and archaic art, iii. 181;
P. and the drama, iii. 183
Piot, bronze leg, vii. 189
Plakos, iii. 52
Plate, ancient, iii. 96 ; copied in terra-
cotta, iii. p. xxxvil.
Plato, on destruction of Troy, ii. 13;
revival of study of P., vii. 357, 377
Plethon, Gemistus, vii. 253; his
religion, vii. 361; schemes for the
Peloponnesus, vii. 369
πλοῖον, use of word, ii. p. XXxvil.
Ploughman at Castle Howard, vi. 39
Pluto, as conceived by the Greeks, iv.
107
Plutus and Eirene, viii. 43
566 INDEX OF
Pnyx, excavations near, viii. 272
Poemander, on coins of Tanagra, vili. 9
Poleitarchs at Thessalonica, viii. 360,
363
Polvbotus, viii. 489
Poiyeleitus, canon, ii. 346
}Vorks—Diadumenus Farnese, ii. 353;
of Vaison, li. 353; terra-cotta
statuette, vi, pl. Ixi., 243 ; vii.
p. xli.; on gem, i. 1352,. fig:
Doryphorus, iy. 346; Hecate, vi.
88 ; Hera, vi. 83; Hygieia(?), v.
86; Zeus, vi. 85
Polycles, sculptor, vil. 245
Polygnotus, Sack of Troy, iii. 73, 206 ;
Vents
Polyphemus, on vase-painting, iv. 252
Pomegranate, symbol of the dead, v.
122, 130
Population of the Greek and Roman
world, viii. 315
Populus on coin of Corinth, vi. 76
πόρπαξ, V. 77
Porsenna, tomb of, vi. 207
Poseidon and Athene, ‘see Athene
in gigantomachia, vii. 252
on Pergamene frieze, vii. 252, 259
statue from Pergamon, vil. 261
temple at Corinth, vi. 64 ;
tum, vil. 3
On Coins and Monuwments—Aegina,
vi. 95; Aegium, vii. 91; Anti-
cyra, vill. 20; Asopus, vii. 67 ;
Boeae, vii. 68 ; Caphyae, vii. 104 ;
Colonides, vil. 72 ; Corinth, vi. 63,
65, 66, 67, 72, 75 ; viii. 51 ; Cypa-
rissia, vil. 74; Epidaurus, vi. 93 ;
Gytheium, vii. 66 ; Haliartus, viii.
12 ; Helice, vii. 92 ; Hermione, vi.
99 ; viii. 58; Lerna,- viii. 58, 59 ;
Mantineia, vii. 99; Methana, vi. 99;
Mothone, vii. 73; Nauplia, viii. 58,
59 ; Orchomenus, vii. 100 ; Patrae,
vii. 84 ; Thebes, viii. 9
Potamios (name of month), vii. 155
Pothos, Tarentine terra-cotta, vii. 37
Pottery, methods of interpreting vases,
i. 184; technique of, ii. 310 ; vi. 183,
184, 188; viil. pref.; typography of,
iv. 258
Pottery, prehistoric, of Antiparos, v.,
pl. xl, p. 54 (figs. 10-13); Orcho-
menus, li. 139, 152; Troad, i. 77;
carly, of Aeolis, ii. 303; Alyattes’
tomb, viii. 454; Asia Minor, vi. 180,
181, figs. 1, 2: Assarlik, viii. 68,
454; Bologna, viii. 524; Calymnos
and Carpathos, viii. 446 ; Chalcidian,
v. 181, 220; vii. 198; Lipara, vii.
53: Magna Graecia at Broom Hall,
vy. 156; Mycenae, i. 98; ii. 154;
SUBJECTS.
viii. 283, 448; Naucratis, vi. 204;
vill., pl. Ixxix., p. 119 ; Phocaea, ii.
304, fig. ; 305, fig.; Phoenicia, v. 103,
fig. and pl. in text ; Rhodes, v., pls.
xl.—xlili., p. 220; vi. 183, 186, fig. 3,
371 ; Tarentum, vil. 32; Thera, i. 78
Pottery, geometric, viii. 452; later
vases, relation to drama, viii, 298 ;
signed vases, viii. 290, 292; at end
of fifth century, viii. 294 ; compared
with Parthenon marbles, viii. 295 ;
connection of designs on vases, Viii.
296 ; inscribed pottery, ii. 160, 226 ;
vii. 55; viii. 120
Pottier, Nécropole de Myrina, reviewed,
viii. 520
Praipenissos, viii. 510
Pratinas, vi, 169
Praxidamas, statue at Olympia, ii.
173
Praxiteles, style, iii. 98; iv. 268
Works—Aphrodite of Cnidus, viii.
pl. Ixxx., p. 324; hist. of Vatican
statues, vill. 327 ; table of replicas
in sculpture, viii. 332; statuettes,
Vili. 338 ; variations, viii. 339 ; on
coins, vill. 340, fig.; original type,
vill. 342
Artemis at Anticyra, viii. 21; Arte-
mis Brauronia, vii. 61; Demeter,
vi. 108; Dionysus, vii. 77; Eros
at Parium, iv. 268; Hera at Pla-,
taea, villi. 7; Heracles’ Labours,
viii. 8
Hermes and Dionysus, iii. 81, 87,
fir) ὃ. Vil. 242" ὙΠ|2 nosso
compared with other renderings of
same subject, 11], 82, 107; sug-
gested restorations, iii. 89, 108
Leto, Apollo, and Artemis at Megara,
vi. 56; viii. 50; Leto and Chloris
at Argos, vi. 87; viii. 56; Pare-
goros, vi. 57; Tyche at Megara,
vi. 56
Priene, citadel, iv. 240; vi. 265; temple
of Athene Polias, vi. 265 ; frieze, vii.
256
Proclus, grammarian, iv. 305
Procne, viii. 439
Procopius, vocabulary, iii. 381
Procrustes, slain by Theseus, ii. 63
Prodicus of Samos, iii. 117
Proedri, iii. 137
Prometheus from Pergamon, vii. 269 ;
of Parrhasius, vii. 270 ; of Euanthes,
vii. 270
Propylaea of Eleusis, ii 125
προσαγορεύω On vase, Vili. 319
Proserpine (?) on Pergamene frieze, vi.
108 ; on Gigantomachia vases, vi.
109
INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 567
προστάτης, Vili. 107, 406
Prymnessusg, iii. 122 ; viii. 485
Prytanes, iii. 135 ; at Iasos, viii. 106
Psellus, Michael, ii. 254
Pulcherianopolis, viii. 518
Puteal, Corinthian, vi. 46, pl. facing
p. 48, pls. lvi., lvii.
Pyrrhus (artist), Hygieia, v. 96
Pythagoras of Rhegion, i. 189; ii. 343 ;
iii. 179
Pythicus river, ii. 278
Pythionice, tomb, ii. 122
Pythocles, Apollo at Sieyon, vi. 78
Python, vase of, at Castle Howard,
vi. 40
R.
Raft of Odysseus, v. 209
Ram, in Greek sculpture, ii. 227 ; of
Phrygian sculpture, iii, pl. xx., p.
25
Raven on coin at Delphi, viii. 19
Rayet Collection, vase (black figured),
Heracles and Centaurs, i., pl. i., p.
116, 124
Reinach, S., Conseils aux Voyageurs
Archéologues, reviewed, viii. 287 ;
'Traité d’Epigraphie Grecque, re-
viewed, viii. 306; La Nécropole de
Myrina, reviewed, viii. 520
Renshaw, Miss L., Archaic earring, ii.
324, fig.
Repoussé work, technique of, vii. 277
Rhapsodists, iii. 158 ; inscription at
Dodona, ii. 105
Rhexibius, statue at Olympia, ii. 173
Rhodes (ancient) and Pergamon, iv.
135; religious associations, li. 357 ;
vases from, v., pls. xl.-xliii., p. 220
Rhodes (mediaeval) occupied by Knights
of St. John, i. 308; love-poems,
i. 308
Rhynthon, vii. 39
Rhythm in sculpture, i. 193
Rhyton, Sphinx-shaped, viii. pls.1xxii.,
lxxili. p. 1
Right hand, as an omen, 11]. 11
Ring, supposed, of Attila, iv. 162
River-gods, in Greece, ii. 350 ; worship
in Lydia and Thessaly, iii. 56 ; at
Castle Howard, vi. 35; statuette
(Turner), vii., p. Ixii.; on coins of
Aegium, vii. 92; Patrae, vii. 79 ;
Phigaleia, vii. 111
Roads in Asia Minor, iii, 345; in
Phrygia, iii. 120; viii. 465, 476, 481,
482, 486, 490, 500
Robert, on west pediment of Parthe-
non, iii. 248, 252; Archiologische
Marchen, reviewed, viii. 528
Roberts, E. S., Introduction to Greek
Epigraphy, Part 1., reviewed, viii.
534
Robinson, E., Catalogue of Casts, Bos-
ton Museum of Fine Arts, reviewed,
vill. 530
Roma on coins of Corinth, vi. 71; viii.
52; of Patrae, vii. 86
Romaic ballad, i. 293
Roman, at Castle Howard, vi. 35
Romanus, iv. 11, 250
Rome—Palazzo Albani: athlete, ii. 342,
fig. 3.. Museo Kircheriano: Bronze,
Athene and Enceladus, iv. 90, pl. in
text. Vatican—Sculpture, Aphrodite
of Cnidus, viii. pl. Ixxx. p. 324,
347, fig. ; Apollo Belvedere, vi. 157 ;
Gigantomachia, vi. 115 ; Vase, Achil-
les and Briseis, i., pl. vi., p. 175
Ronchaud, Au Parthénon, reviewed,
vill. 531
Rosettes, history of ornament, ii. 148
povya (Neo-H), vii. 183
Runner on coins of Corinth, vi. 64
Ruthven, Baroness, vi. 16; collection
of vases, v. 161 ; reliefs, v. 161
Ss.
=, shape on Ionic inscriptions, viii. 224,
234; = Ξ, viii. 368
Sabouroff Collection, inscription, v.
262; reliefs from Tanagra, v. 119,
129
Sacred way to Eleusis, ii. 122
St. Petersburg — Hermitage :
Athene and Poseidon, iii. 245
Salamis (isle), ii. 124
Salamis (Cyprus), ii. 330; prehistoric
building, iv., pls. xxxiil., xxxiv.,
112
Vase,
Salmoneus, tii 304
Saloe, lake, iii. 65
σάλπιγξ, v. 74, 162
Salsalouda in Phrygia, iv. 386; viii.
399
Salus, goddess, v. 100
Samos, an archaeological visit, vii. 143 ;
excavations, vii. 145; stelae, vii.
145 ; agonistic inscription, vii. 147 ;
measures, iv. 339, 349
Sanctuaries of Asia Minor, iv. 42
Sandioklos, sepulchral relief (Nicholson
Collection), vii. 250
Sangia, vili. 503
Santabaris, viii. 501
Sarapis, identified with Pluto, vi. 289,
307
In Works of Art—Representations,
vi. 291 ; at Castle Howard, vi. 35 ;
in British Museum, vi., pl. Ἰν111.,
p. 307 ; vi. 304, fig. ; at Dresden,
vi. 299, fig. ; at Florence, vi. 297,
fig. ; in Hamilton Collection, vi.
31; engraved by Maffei, vi. 305,
fig. ; at Pompei, vi. 306 ; on coins,
vi. 80; vi., pl. E, p. 295; vil. 92;
exvoto tablets, v. 135
Sarcophagus at Castle Howard, vi. 39 ;
from Clazomenae, iv. 1; vi. 182;
from Corneto, iv., pls.xxxvi,-XxxvViii.,
p. 354 ; from Rhodes, iv. 2; vi. 182
Sardes, i. 86
Satire, Byzantine, ii. 233
Satyrs and Iris, i. 141; 8. and Cen-
taurs, i. 145, 165; Satyr, head in
British Museum, vii. 273 ; on gem
in British Museum, i. 146, fig. 5;
on vase, vi. 190, fig. 4; on sarco-
phagus, vi. 190 ; on coin of Orcho-
menus, vii. 101
Saw used at Tiryns, vii. p. liii.; at
Mycenae, vii. p. lvii.
Scarabaeus from Tarentum, vii. 26
Scepsis, the dominion of Aeneas, ii. 37;
iil. 70, 216
Schliemann, on strata of Hissarlik, iii.
187 ; on excavations at Tiryns, vil.
p. liii.
Schneider, Troischer Sagenkreis in der
altesten Kunst, reviewed, viii. 297
Sciron slain by Theseus, ii. 63
Scopas, influence on successors, vii.
124; Aphrodite, vii. 76; Apollo,
vill. 18; Asclepius, iv. 48, 49; vi.
55; Hecate, vi. 88; Heracles, vi.
79; Hygieia, v. 90; Mausoleum
sculptures, vii. 118, 124; sculpture
at Tegea, vii. 114 ; terra-cotta (Fort-
num), vii, 122; female head from
Delos, vii. 123
Scordapia, viii. 512
Sculpture, prehistoric, at Antiparos, v.
50, figs. 1-9
Greek—Archaic style, iv. 343 ; types
of archaic sculpture, viii. 185 ; ex-
pression of emotion, iii. 280; re-
port, 1886-7, viii. 278
Scylla at Corinth, vi. 73
Scyllis and Dipsenus, Pallas at Cleonae,
vi. 81, 96
Sebaste in Phrygia, iv. 409
Seiblia in Phrygia, iv. 402
Selene, on Pergamene frieze, iv. 128 ;
vii. 272
Selinus, metopes, ii. 347
σέμελος, ii. 371
Sepulchral customs in Phrygia, v. pl.
xliv., p. 241; reliefs representing
banquets, v. 105; reliefs inscribed, v.
116, 119, 121, 136; relief (Atkin-
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
son), vi. 42 ; at Broom Hall, v. 148 ;
at Castle Howard, vi. 39; (des
Tombes), v., pl. xxxix., p. 205; Ley-
den, v. 116; (Nicholson), vii. 248 ;
Samos, vii. 145 ; from Tarentum, vii.
33; at Winton Castle, vi., pl. B, p. 16
Serapis, see Sarapis
Serpents in Greek mythology, iii. 303 ;
v. 113; emblem of Hygieia, v. £0 ;
on coin of Epidaurus, vi. 93
Sesostris (so-called) at Nimphi, i. 83;
il. 53; iii, 219; newly-discovered
Sesostris, i. 84
Shields, Greek, iv. 17
Ships on vases, vi. 21, 24
Sibidounda, viii. 496
Sibulla, iii. 59
Sicily, chronology of Greek colonies,
1 177
Sicyon, excavations, viii. 277
Sigeum, i. 81; built of remains of
roy isle
Silenus, mythical character, i. 158,
165 ; worship in Phrygia, iv. 384 ;
at Castle Howard, vi. 35, 38; on
Tarentine terra-cottas, vil. 13, 22
Simonides, iii. 159
Sinis, punished by Theseus, ii. 60
Siphnos, gold and silver mines, vi. 195
Sipylene Meter, cult in Aeolis, ii, 299
Sipylus, i. 88; i. 33; etymology, 11].
59 ; topography, iii. 35; foundation
of city, iil. 46 ; worships, ili. 52, 56 ;
local legends of Zeus, iii. 56 ; per-
sonification of Lakes, iii. 57 ; throne
of Pelops, i. 73, 90; ili. 66; inscrip-
tions near, 111, 227
Sirens, vi. 19: on vases, vi. 22
Siris, bronzes of, technique, vii. 278
σχεδίη, derivation, v. 210
Skripu, tumuli near, ii. 180 ; excava-
tion at, ii. 162
Skull from Antiparos, v. 58
Slave, etymology of, iii. 387
Slaves, enfranchisement by dedication,
iv. 381; epitaphs, iv. 140; inter-
marriage, iv. 140; value, 11. 120
Smilis, iii. 179
Smyrna, ancient sites in neighbourhood,
i. 63; ii. 301; road to Pergamus, ii.
50; to Ephesus, ii. 51; relief from,
vii. 250 ; tiles from, ii. 302
Snake, see Serpent
Socrates (sculptor), iii. 179 ; viii. 46
Soidas, Artemis Laphria, vii. 81, 91
Sophocles—trelation of plays of S. to
history, v. 303 ; Sophoclean trilogy,
v. 263 ; Ajax characterized, v. 280 ;
Philoctetes characterized, v. 292;
Trachiniae characterized, v. 271
Sortes of Dodona, i. 229
INDEX OF SUBJECTS,
Souagela, site of and remains at, viii. 81
Spalate, etymology, ili. 389
Sparta in Aeschylus, vi. 164 ; reliefs
from, Vv. 121, fig. ; v..123, fig. ; vil.
14, 16
Spear-heads (votive) from Olympia, ii.
71; from Peloponnesus, ii. 77
Spear-throwing, 1. 213
Sphinx on Naucratite vase, viii. pl.
Ixxix p. 119; and Oedipus, viii.
320; in Phrygian art, v. 247 ; form-
ing rhyton, viii., pls. Ixxii., Ixxiii.,
p- 1; on sarcophagus, iv. 6, fig. 6
Spore, vill. 512
σταμίς, ν. 218
Stark, on Sipylus, iii. 33
Stater, meaning of the term, iv. 243
σταθμός, iil. 269 3
Statues copied on coins, iv. 269; vi.
51; metal insertions, viii. 177 ;
drapery, viii. 178, 190; painting,
vill, 182
Stectorion, viii. 478
Stephani, on tombs of Mycenae, i. 94 ;
on west pediment of Parthenon, iii.
246
Stevenson, J., vases from Lipara, vii.,
ἣ Ixii., p. 51
Sthlavinians, vii. 364
Stone implements from Lipara, vii. 56
Stopper of Amphora from Alexandria,
iv. 158
Strabo, character as a writer, ii. 39;
lil, 75, 214 ; on desolation of Troy,
li. 10; iii. 209 ; onsite of Troy, ii. 14 ;
on the boundaries of the Troad, ii. 31;
on Ilium, ii. 83, 87; on Homer’s
accuracy, ii. 42; on Τροία, iii. 205 ;
estimation of distances, ii. 50
Strato (sculptor), Asclepius and Hy-
gieia, vi. 90; viii. 56
Strongylion, Artemis, vi. 57, 118 ; vii.
81
Studniczka, Beitriige zur Geschichte der
altgriechischen Tracht, reviewed,
vill, 536
Stymphalian bird on coin of Stym-
phalus, vii. 103
Sundorne Castle, Venus, vi. 44
Suppliant boy (/) in Sicyon, vi. 78
Synaos, viii. 516
Synnada, viii. 481
Syrinux, vii. 106
ie
Talent, Homeric, and affinities, viii.
_ 188
Tantalus, iii. 46 ; reputed monuments,
lil. 64
569
Tarentum, topography, vii. 1, 31; Dorie
temple, vil. 2; sanctuary of Derse-
phone, vii. 23; tombs, vil. 31;
chthonie cults, vii. 10; φλύακες,
vii. 39; fishing industry, vii. 35 ;
pottery, vil. 32, 42; sculpture, 11].
234; v. 105; vii. 3; terra-cottas,
vil. 7
Taurus, P. Aelius, Cippus at Castle
Howard, vi. 39
Taylor, 1., on the alphabet, vii. 228
Tectaeus, Apollo and Charites, viii.
40
Tegea, temple of Athene Alea, vii.
114
Tegyra, 11. 161
Telchines, ii. 181
Telegonia (Epic), plan, &c., v. 41
Telephus, from Pergamon, vil. 269 ; at
Tegea, vii. 113
Telesphorus, iii. 283 ; in art, ili. 284,
291; origin, iii, 285; functions,
iii, 296; supposed phallic cha-
racter, iii. 297
On Coins—Pergamon, 111, 286 ; towns
of Asia Minor, iii. 288 ; Dionyso-
polis, iv. 161 ; Seyusiavi (1), iii.
287; Thrace, ili. 289; Rome, iii.
291
Cult at Athens, iii. 290, 295; T. and
Asclepius, ili, 293
Tellus on cuirass, vii. 134, 135
Telos, island of, vi. 233
Temenothyrai, viii. 517
Temnos, site, ii. 284; walls, 11. 287 ;
architectural remains, ii. 288 ;
history, ii. 291; etymology, ii.
902
Termera, = Assarlik, viii. 81 ; remains
at, vill. 66
Terminal figure on coins of Aegina, vi.
95; Argos, vi. 91; Megara, vi. 57 ;
Pylos, vii. 73
Terra-cottas, of Myrina, viii. 522; of
Tarentum, vii. 7 ; technique, ii. 327 ;
meaning of statuettes, ii, 327
Thanatos (so-called) on drum (Ephesus),
vil. 208
Thasos, excavations, viii. 277, 284;
epigraphy, viii. 404, 409; revolution,
vill. 402; arch, viii. 437; temple,
viii. 434; theatre, viii. 435
Theagenes (athlete), i. 199 ; Theagenes
(cynic), i. 802
Thebes, ii. 126
Themis, and Judgment of Paris, vii.
219; on Pergamene frieze, vi. 121
Themistocles at Salamis, viii. 49
Theodore of Smyrna, ii. 251
Theodorus and Rhoecus, iii. 182
Theodosia, vill. 517
570
θεοκόλος, li. 867
Theophanes, vocabulary, iii. 376, 385
Theophilus, emperor, 11. 252
Tueophrastus, the Characters illustrated
by inscriptions, il. 128 ; μικροφιλο-
τιμία, ii. 129; περιεργία, li. 141
θεὺς σώζων, reliefs of Tefeny, viii.
335
θεοξενία, v. 136
‘Tuermodon, river, iv. 279
Theseion (so-called), metopes, li. 59
‘Vheseus, exploits, ii. 58; in Homer,
v. 26, 34; on vase in British Mu-
seum, il. 57; on Coins and Monu-
ments—Athens, viil. 41; ‘Troezen,
vi. 98
Thessalonica, in the twelfth century,
ii. 244
θέθμιον, ii. 366, 368
θωάζω, ii. 875
Thoricus, excavations, viii. 277
Thrasymedes, Asclepius at Epidaurus,
vi. 92, viii. 57
Thriasian plain, ii. 124
Throne, marble, at Broom Hall, v.,
pl. xlviii., p. 146
Thucydides, on Olympian Register, ii.
164, 169; system of chronology, ii.
177
Thunderbolt, used by Athene, iv. 91
θυσιαστήριον, Vili. 396
Thyia ({) on Pergamene frieze, vi.
104
Thymbra, iii. 195 ; necropolis, i. 78
Thymbrion, viil. 491
Tiberiopolis, viii. 516
Tiberius, in Hamilton Collection, vi.
31
Tiles from old Smyrna, ii. 302, 303,
fig.
Tillemont on Abercius, iii. 340
Timaeus on destruction of Troy, ii. 11
Timarchides, sculptor, vii. 245 ; viii.
20
Timarchus, Artemis at Anticyra, viii.
21
Timarion’s Sufferings, ii. 234,
date, ii. 235 ; language, 11, 262
Timocles, Pallas at Elateia, viii. 20
Timotheus, Asclepius at Troezen, vi.
98
Tiryns, great hall restored, vii. 161 ;
the remains compared with Homeric
descriptions, vii. 171; date and cha-
racter of remains, vil. p. liil.
Tisamenus in Pentathlon, i. 220
Titans in Gigantomachia, 111. 108
Titnaeus (river), 11. 295
Timolus and Tomarus, 111. 56
Tombs, rock-cut, in Carpathms, vi.
236; near Halicarnassus, viii. 57,
241 ;
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
fig.; on Halys, iv. 278, fig. ; at
Petra, vi. 224, fig.; of Aruns, vi.
212, fig. ; of Alyattes at Sardis, vi.
220, fig. ; at Myrina, viii. 521; of
Porsenna, vi., pl. lx., p. 207; on
coins of Sicyon, vi. 77 ; at Tarentum,
vii. 32 ; see Sepulchral, &c.
Tottoia, vill. 513
τοῦλδον, 111. 386
Tragedy, Ionic elements in Attic, i.
260; ii. 179; παλαιὰ τραγῳδιά, vii.
151; T.’s from the Epic Cycle, iv. .
317 ; v. 6, 18
Trajanopolis, viii. 517
Treu on style of Scopas, vil. 114
Tribanta, viii. 513 ;
Trilogy, origin, vi. 167 ; length of time
for performance, vi. 170 ; Sophoclean
TW 23
Tripod on coin of Delphi, viii. 15, 16,
17
Triptolemus on Coins and Monuments
—Athens, viii. 37 ; Corinth, vi. 76 ;
Eleusis, viii. 48. Temple of T. at
Eleusis, ii. 125
Triton in Gigantomachia, iii. 308 ; on
Pergamene frieze, vi. 141 ; on temple
of Poseidon at Corinth, vi. 64; at
Tanagra, viii. 10
Troad, geology, ii. 38 ; boundaries ac-
cording to authorities quoted by
Strabo, ii. 81; topography, iii. 194 ;
Lydian remains, ii. 21; relations
with Egypt, iii 258; with Greece,
iii. 259
Troezen, history, ii. 100
Trophonius, oracle at Lebadeia, ii.
128
Troy (=the city of Homer. Sce also
Hissarlik, Ilium), condition after
sack in opinion of ancients, ii. 8; iii.
69, 72, 79, 204; of Timaeus, ii. 11;
of Sophocles, iii. 72, 206 ; of Plato,
ji. 13; of Polygnotus, ili, 73, 206;
of Lycurgus, il. 16 ; ili. 72, 207; of
Strabo, li. 10; ili, 72, 206, 209; of
Pausanias, ii. 12; of Grote, iii. 73 ;
Homeric data, iii. 198; materials
employed at Sigeum, ii. 11; claims
of Bunarbashi, i.75; ili. 195; of Akshi
Kioi, ii. 14; iii. 195; of Hissarlik,
i. 75; T. an eclectic composition, iii.
198 ; iv. 155
Trumpet, v. 74, 79, 162
Tyche on coins, sce Numismatic Com-
mentary on Pausanias, passim
Typhoeus, iii. 303, 305
Tyrannicides, group, ii. 61; v. 146;
viii. 44
Tyriaion, vill. 491
T’zacones, ii. 264; vii. 364
INDEX OF
Y.
ὑπόζωμα, ν. 217
Venetians in Euboea, viii. 195
Venus Genetrix, ii. 330 ; vii., p. Lxili. ;
Victrix (?) of Orchomenus, vii. 100
In Works of Art—at Castle Howard,
vi. 40; of the Esquiline, vii., p.
Ixiv.; Hamilton Collection, vi. 31;
Sundorne Castle, vi. 44
Vespasian, in Hamilton Collection, vi.
3u
Victory on coin of Corinth, vi. 76 ; on
cuirasses, vil. 180, 136
Vienna—
Cabinet of Antiques: bronze disco-
hols is "piu vs, figs: 1, 25° Ῥ.
176; silver dish, Hermes and
Dionysus, iii. 89, fig. 5
Vigellia, Cinerarium at Castle Howard,
vi. 39, 40
Vigellius, Cinerarium at Castle Howard,
vi. 39
Villehardouin, Geoffrey, iv. 168
Vines, law relating to, viii. 392
Vitylo, iii, 354
Vogel, Scenen Euripideischen Tragidien
in Vasengeinilden, reviewed, viii.
297
Votive armour and arms, li. 65; in-
tended for use, ii, 70; made at
Olympia, ii. 81; votive inscriptions
at Dodona, ii. 102; offerings to Ascle-
pius, ii, 133
Votive reliefs, at Broom Hall, v. 149,
152; at Edinburgh, v. 157; in
Nicholson Collection, vii. 250
Urlichs, Ueber griechische Kunst-
schriftsteller, reviewed, viii. 529
ἣν.
Wagner, mediaeval Greek texts, i.
308
Waldstein, C., on Venus Genetrix, vii.
p. Ixiii.
Wales, Princess of, Eros, iv. 266, plate
Warrior (1), bust at West Park, vi. 44;
en sarcophagi, iv., pl. xxxi., p. 3
Warriors, bronze heads from Acropolis,
viii, 281
Weights, Greek, iv. 157
West Park, marble bust, vi. 44
Wilton House, Gigantomachia, iii. 327
Winter, Die jiingeren attischen Vasen,
reviewed, viii. 294
Winton Castle, relief, vi. 16
SUBJECTS. ὅτ]
Wolf and Twins on cuirasses, vii. 132,
137
Wood, J. T., on the Erechtheum, ii.,
p. XXXxv.
Wrestlers on coins of Gytheium, vii.
67
X.
tav6ds, ii. p. Xxxvii.
Xanthus (river), 11. 278
Xenocles, potter, vil. 205
Xenocrates, edited by Coray and C, de
Ancora, i. 306
Xenophilus, Asclepius at Argos, vi. 90;
Vill. 56
Xenophon, Zeus and Artemis at Mega-
lopolis, vii, 107
ξηρός, li, p. XXXvii.
Xerxes at Ilium, ii. 22 ; iii. 73
Z.
Zannoni, Scavi della Certosa di Bologna,
reviewed, vill. 523
Zeus, in Gigantomachia, iii, 821; in
Lydian legends, iii. 56; Z. Bron-
ton, iii, 123; Z. Naios, at Dodona,
i. 231; ii, 102; Z. Sabazius, iii.
58 ; Z. Soter, iii. 128
In Works of Art—Z. of Pheidias at
Olympia, ii. 822; of Leochares,
vill. 83; Z., Anubis and City
(Nicholson Collection), vii. 249 ;
head of Z. (Nicholson Collection),
vii. 250; Z. from Paramythia, in
British Museum, iii. 242
On Coins and Monuments—Aegina,
vi. 94, 95 ; Aegira, vii. 94; Aegium,
vii, 88, 89, 170; Argos, vi. 85;
Asopus, vii. 67; Athens, vili, 32 ;
Corinth, vi. 70 ; viii. 51 ; Elis, vii.
75 ; Gytheium, vii. 66 ; Hermione,
vi. 100; Lycosura, vii. 109, 110;
Mantineia, vii. 98; Megalopolis,
vii. 107, 108; Megara, vi. 53 ;
Messene, vii. 71 ; Methana, vi. 99 ;
Patrae, vii. 88, 86; Pellene, vil.
96 ; Sicyon, vi. 78; Thebes, viii.
9; Thuria, vii. 69; Troezen, vi.
97
Zeuxis, centaurs, i. 123, 143
Zingot, vili. 514
ζυγόδεσμον, v. 188
572
INDEX OF CLASSICAL AUTHORS.
IIL—INDEX OF CLASSICAL AUTHORS.
Aeschylus,
Agamemnon.
Choephoroe. 942:
Eumenides.
410:
415:
445:
455:
1172
1277:
470-489:
566:
944:
vi. 177
vi. 176
vi. 177
vi. 176
: vi. 175, 381
vi. 175
1. 269
viii.
v. 163
W165,
129
1044: v. 167
Persae.
Yrometheus
Septem.
240:
_ 884:
Supplices. 845:
Avistophanes,
Eccles. 300, 376:
Plutus. 701:
584:
529:
5386:
5438:
551:
579:
1054:
11:
i. 267
i, 264
vi. 173
i ahs
ens
ii, 218
rey fal
i, 290
i, 290
v. 78
li, 214
viii. 109, 111
v. 82 note
Aristotle, Rhetoric, III. 16:
iv. 325
Callimachus, Epigram., Anthol., XII.
43: iv. 329
Catullus, 1V.: ii, p. xxxvil.
Cicero, De Div. 1. 84, 76: i. 229
lemosthenes, De Cor. 275: i. 275
Diogenes Laertius, VIII. 46: i. 192
Euripides,
Alcestis. 939: ii, 188
Andromache. 109: 1, 286
1014: 11. 189
1040: ii. 189
1179: 11. 211
1186: ii. 208
Bacchae. 875: 1. 288
885: 11. 184
882: ii. 184
1297: ii. 204
Hecuba. 100: i. 268
Helena. 381: 11. 206
Hercules F. 676: ii. 187
Hippolytus. 161: 1, 277
196: ii. 192
1234: vi. 364
1364: i. 289
Ton. 184: viii. 3
1080: 1. 288
1090: i. 282
1163: viii. ὃ
Euripides,
Aph:. in Aulis; “761i; us 19%
790: 1. 279
1431: i. 197
Iph. in Taur. 439: 11. 195
1280: ii. 191
Medea. 422: 1.279
635: i, 185
1094: ii. 191
Orestes. 349: 11. 201
: 1013: ii. 198
1381: ii. 188
Phoenissae. 185: i, 290
Rhesus. 383: v. 77
Troades. 590: i. 286
990: ii. 195
Frag. 447: 1. 290
489: ii. 186
608: ii, 185
848; ii, 185 .
ἰ 965: i, 272
Herodotus, VII. 42: ii. 22
Hesiod, Theog. 1019: v. 13
Homer,
liad IV. 132—138: (s
IV. 185—187 : adie
1V. 215:
IV. 459: iv. 12
V. 153: vi. 326
V. 722—82: v. 192
V. 748: iv. 17
WI. 243) vi. 381
IX. 264: vi. 328
X. 351: vi. 820
XI. 353: vi. 326
XII. 295: iv. 287
XII. 4211: vi. 320; 328
XIV. 489: vi. 327
XVII. 81; ἵν. δὲ
XVIII. 497—508 : viii. 122°
XVIII. 507: viii. 136
XX. 216: ii. 14
XX. 306: iii. 71, 205
XX. 397: v. 30
XX. 413: iv. 80
XXI. 408: vi. 820
XXI. 407: vi. 825
“XXII. 488: vi. 323
XXIII. 481: vi. 320
XXIV, 29: v. 7
XXIV. 265—274: v. 187
XXIV. 804: v. 18
XXIV. 610: i. 61
XXIV. 615: i. 89
Odyssey 11. 337: iii. 278
EPIGRAPHIC INDICES,
Homer,
Odyssey V. 28383—261:, v. 209
VI. 9, 10: vi. 330
VI. 50: vii. 186
VIII. 124: vi. 320
VIII. 499: iii. 197
XI. 489: vi. 332
XI. 577: vi. 825
XIV. 68: vi. 332
XIV. 482: iv. 80
XV. 403: i. 50
XVII. 339: vii. 174
XVIII. 550: vi. 336
XX. 6: vii. 175
XX. 387: vii. 175
XXI. 304: i. 128
XXI. 434: vii. 180
XXII. 136: iii. 276
XXII. 151: vii. 168, 182
XXII. 270: vii. 179
XXIV. 207: vi. 333
Hymn. in Apoll. 391—-544: i, 55
Hymn. in Venerem, 123: vi. 333
See also Homer in General Index
Hovace, Carm., I. 15, 2: v. an
Oracula Sibyllina, III. 363:
Pausanias, V. 18, 7: 1. 74
Philostratus, de Gymn, 8: i, 221
Pindar,
Nem. VII. 70: ii. 220
ὙΙ1.: 1. 222
Pyth. IV. 237: vii. 160
573
Plato,
Leges. 682 Ὁ: ii. 14
683 A: 1]. 14
69] c: ii. 183
Phaedo. 67 A, Ὁ: i. 274
Rep. 616 c: v. 217
Pliny,
ΗΝ 4.5. 19]
XXXVI. 13: vi. 209
Plutarch, Apophth. Lacon. 230 Ὁ : i. 21
Sophocles,
Ajax. 14: v. 76
Antigone. 148; 1. 292
376: ii. 202
Oedipus Col. 333: 1. 287
1211: ii. 181
1229: ii. 181
Philoctetes. 1144: ii. 195
Trachiniae. 1264: ii. 197
Frag. 658: i. 276
Strabo XII. 8, p. 578: viii. 225
XIV. p. 643: v. 87 ἢ
Theocritus, II. ; vii. 157
Theophrastus,
μικροφιλοτιμία : iii, 129, 183, 134
περιεργία : iii, 141
Tyrtaeus, see 4 (Bergk) «
Virgil, Aen. 11, 81: v.
Vitruvius, III. 1-3: iv. wv
i, 268:
IV.—EPIGRAPHIC INDICES.
(A) Geographical Index.
(a) ORIENTAL INSORIPTIONS.
(6) GREEK INSCRIPTIONS.
(c) LATIN INSCRIPTIONS.
(B) Index of Published Inscriptivns
corrected in Journal of Hellenic Studics.
(A) Geographical Index.
(a) ORIENTAL INSCRIPTIONS—
Hittite on Sipylus, iii. 226
Pamphylian, i. 242 ; ii. 222
Phrygian, iii. 261; v. 246
Unknown (Hissarlik), i. 78 fig.
HS.——VOL,, Vill.
(Ὁ) Greek INSCRIPTIONS.
Asia MINoR.
Acmonia (Shabban), iv. 416; viii.
465
Alia, iv. 417
Altyntash, viii. 518
Amet, viii. 516
Ampelada, iv. 23
Anastasiopolis (Utch Kuyular), iv.
391
Andeda (Andya), viii. 255
Antiochia (Ali Agha Chiflik), viii.
233
Apameia, iv. 64
Aperlae, vi. 355, 356, 357
Aresli, viil. 496
Attuda (Jpsili Hissar= Assar), viii.
223
Atyochorion (Ladinlar),
viii. 376, &e.
iv. 383 ;
PP
ὅτ.
Asta ΜΊΝΟΆΕ (conrtinued)—
Badinlar, sce Atyochorion, Diony-
sopolis
Baghlije, viii. 501
Bakir, vi. 347
Ballyk, iv. 432
Branchidae, vi. 350, 351, 353
Bria, iv. 407
3rouzos (Ara Sandykli), viii. 480
Caria, vi. 9591
Chalcedon (Awdikew?), vii. 154
Coryeus, vi. 362
Cyane, vi. 359
Diocleia (Dola), iv. 422 ; vili. 467
Dionysopolis (Sazak, Badinlar, Orta
Keut, Zeire, Kubalar, Develar), iv.
380 ; vill. 391
Dios Kome (Zaluklar), iv. 415
Doghalar, v. 260
Dorylaeum, v. 255
Elles, viii. 260
Ephesns, iii. 104; vi. 349
Eshi Sheher, vill. 504
Euearpia (Mayghajil), iv. 402, 429
Eumeneia, iv. 399; v. 251
Gulde Chiflik, viii, 259
Hadjilar, viii, 259
Haidarlar, viii. 515
Halicarnassus (7), 11, 98
Hei-ja, viii. 24
Hierapolis, iv. 375 ; vi. 345, 346
EL eropolis (Kotch Hissar), iii. 341 ;
iv. 424, 430
Hyrgaleticus campus, iv. 386 ; viii.
398
Tasos, viii. 91
loucharatax (Hierocharax, Otowrak),
iv. 419
Isinda (/stanoz), viii. 252
Kaljik, viii. 248
Kalowislar, viii. 250
Kara Bazar (near Dorylaeum), ν. 256
Karayatch-Ewren, v. 259
Kara Hodja, ν. 253
Karananli, viii. 238
Karibtche, viii. 257
Kayadibi, viil. 264
Keatel, viii. 257
Khozrev Pasha Khan, viii. 501
Krasos, iv. 433
Korase, iv. 434
Kuinbet, viii. 498
Kutavah, v. 259
Kuyujak (near Hieropolis), iv. 431
Kuyujak (near Nacoleia), v. 258
Lagbon (dbu Faradin Yaila), viii.
253
Lounda (Lsabey, Kavaklar), iv. 395
Magnesia, vi. 348, 349
Melampagitae (Aeolis), ii. 296
Menemen, ii. 53; vi. 348
EPIGRAPHIC INDICES.
AsIA MInor (continued) —
Metropolis (Tatarly, Horrow), iv. 57
Μοατρέων Κώμη, vill. 229
Mesyna (Geveze), iv. 378
Motella (.Wedele), iv. 393 ; vill. 394
Myra, vi. 358
Myrina, iii. 221
Nacoleia, iii. 121 ; v. 257, 260
Naos (Zneh), iv. 432
Olbasa (Pelenii), viii. 251
Olympus (Lycia), vi. 361
Orta Keui (Dionysopolis), iv. 380 ;
viii. 397
Otrous, viii 478, 480
Palaio-Sebaste (Payamalan), iv. 412
Patara, vi. 354, 358, 359
Pepouza ( Ai/ter), iv. 405
Περμινοδέων δῆμος (Kizil Agatch),
Vill. 227
Pogla (Foula), viii. 255
Priene, iv. 2387 ; v. 60
Sagalassus (Duiwar), viii. 230
Salouda, Salsalouda (Aabalar), iv.
386 ; viii. 399
Saineh (Pergamus), vi. 347
Sardes, vi. 346
Sazak, iv. 380 ; vili. 227, 248
Sebaste (Scvaslii), iv. 410
Scidi Ghazi, viii. 502
Seleucia, vi. 362
Sillyon (Assarkew?), i. 242 ; ii, 222
Sipylus, Mt. iii. 227
Souagela (Tchoukeler), viii. 82
Takina ( Yarishli), viii. 231, 261
Teharik Kewi, viii. 517
Tefeny, vill. 236, 238
Themisonium (Aarayuk-Bazar), viii.
226, 233
Thyatira, vi. 347
Thymbra, i. 80, fig.
Tottoia, viii. 513
Trokondenoi, viii, 493
Tymion (Hodjalar), iv. 428
Uz-baghehe, viii. 250
Valiniz Serai, viii. 518
Varikewi, viii, 259
Yusufcha (near Cibyra), viii. 234
Zemme, Vill. 518
Zivintkewi, viii. 254
Ecypr.
Abu Simbel, vii. 222, 230
Alexandria, iv. 158 (amphora)
Elephantine, 1. 92
Maharrdka (Nubia), i, 92
Naucratis, vili. 120 (vase)
GREECE.
Athens, vi. 146
Boeae (Laconia), viii. 215 fig.
EPIGRAPHIC INDICES. 575
GREECE (continued)—
Boeotia, vi. 150
Copae (Boeotia), ii. 161
Dodona, i. 228 ; ii. 102
Eleusis, vi. 146
Messene, vi. 151
Olympia, ii. 66
Orchomenus, ii. 139, 158
Plataea, vi. 149
Salonica, viii. 357
ISLANDS OF THE ABGEAN.
Amorgos, v. 44
Antiparos, vi. 193 (handles of diotae)
Calymna, ii, 362
Camirus, see Rhodes
Cos (or neighbouring coast), vi. 251
Delos, vi. 345
Tasos, viii. 103
Leipso, vii. 144
Rhodes: Camirus, iv. 196, 140, 351 ;
Apolakkia, ii. 854; Kerami, iv.
188, 1389; Jfonolitho, iv. 138;
Catavia, iv. 141; doubtful pro-
venance, vi. 249, 253
Samos, vi. 350 ; vii. 147
Seriphos, vi, 198
Tarandos, viii. 116
Telos, vi. 284, fig.
Thasos, vili. 401
ITALY AND SICILY.
Chiusi, ii. 226
Lipara, vii. 56
Petelia (gold tablet), iii. 111
Tarentum, iv. 156, 158; vii. 41
UNKNOWN PROVENANCE.
Broom Hall (Fife), v. 150
Edinburgh Museum, v. 150
London, stele of Hippocrates, vi. 43
(c) LATIN INSCRIPTIONS.
Bernay (France), iii, 102 (patera)
Castle Howard, vi. 89, 40
Edinburgh Museum, v. 160
IV. Ephemeris
(B) Published Inscriptions corrected in
the Journal of Hellenic Studies.
I. Corpus Inseriptionum Graecarwm.
C.1.G.106: ii. 98
300: vi. 146
1632: vi. 150
1988: viii. 375
2370: vi. 343
2870: vi. 344
2949: vi. 343
8810: v. 255
3884: iv. 402
3888: iv. 402; viii. 483
39020: iv. 489
3909: vi. 343
3952: viii. 223, 224
3953m: villi. 234
3956): viii. 231, 282, 263
4336: vi. 343
4342c* (iii p. 1160): 1. 242
4366w: vili. 247
4367: viii. 247
4367f, ὁ: viii. 257
9267: iv. 486
See also vi. 341
II. Le Bas, Voyage.
L.B. 102: vi. 351
730: iv. 410
737: iv. 410
743: vill. 223
1218: viii. 234
1700; viii. 231
1724: ii. 52
111. Bulletin de Correspondance Hel-
lénique.
Bull. 11. (1878) p. 172: viii. 239
p. 178: viii. 227
p- 255: vii. 245 °
p. 263: vili. 240, 248
VI. (1882) p. 518: iv. 427
VII. (1883) p. 4487. : iv. 421, 428
qraphicu,
V. 176, 14 viii, 485
νι
“ὁ WALT γον enna) ere, Aotass4 4
ye hale, ce ky Mn a
aoe "Ὁ UNS ees, ὦ mat a
᾿ ‘ i"
igo
ἐκ} Oe Ak 2 ODT Ὅλο,
ἐν ΑΥὟΝΙ τόνε " 7} + γον
pal Na Tao l τῶν " ᾿ (atte
ce ΠΥ τἀ C= :
28 ty ote? 5
632 wy + Ve ᾿
Κι dix pads
oom ἢ POU
2) νυ] = beh
We avi A Aber -
PP jae ὠκὴ Wis ih
cho 19. 3 COV ᾿
"ον a 1.1} bd bate 7 , Pe . = ey
4.0 ω Αι ἡ a A ᾿
io }) ae oar "bi heme
ae tay: aad a re wha
Rag iy + BGG) as ὌΝ Ὰ-
y\ αὐ ΗΠ’ bt Les thy ᾿ a >
: wit rw
a ity sh
b (|
; PATS.
i j ΤᾺ Π act tr
μι on, ἢ Wid ui ἰδ:
" ᾿ 1] ν ie "
om
'
Mod 0 .
Ϊ fei [ A thd
h Ξε { Ἰ >
i Pf Bit ity Δ᾽
| ply ”
Ὁ ‘ aes v3
‘ Π ἘΦ - rey
ma} -
4 ¢ ’ 1 aye
ate ' Ks ” ᾿
ὁ CHa rE
aabisaten ots tr τ. pel dara cu)
species ‘ 7 2 Ἢ ἣν ἍΝ
weer ᾿ ψν
ἕ te ’ é Ψ ] led Thy
ni [ἃ se γῶν"
Si
- i}
aie. i Serres
, 2
5 ᾿ ε Sue ae
δῷ δὲ
* ars '
Ψ ἱ a" : 904) Ly a
᾿Αϑερυῖανς, Βα, ὮΝ ~~ Vat anda Sevag, ᾿ ir
eh ΡΥ oh Nay PERE (ἢ "ie Powe ἡ" : Μ 7) ΤῊ me πε
ἔωυλδα, 4
j = < ΒΝ
A. m4. » wg
ἐπ - ει" ᾿
4)
, ,
ὲ
j ! owt > υ
᾿
re ᾿
7 Mee »
=
iil a by ntye,
᾿ Μὰ ἡ ὑπ ete ΠΝ ἊΝ ie πω .
"; i Γ᾿ ; share 8 ᾿ ' ὅν. " Ἶ
ΟΝ ἘΠ πα be an
}
/
δι ξ
ν ἢ" moe
ΩΣ ΔΝ πο. ἡ ae ;
= Pe
Νὰ
᾿ ᾿ ma
;
. ᾿
Ss
|
J
τ
PAUL
TER LIBRARY JAN 23 1979
Ob
Ara
“22:2
τ, 7,5: a
᾿Ξ:
Fe
op
Cie
fee
ΧΗ
ay or) a
3
ie
pee
ge
Gey
pee
Wire fee
Le ete Ae.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11