Skip to main content

Full text of "The Journal of Hellenic studies"

See other formats 


ec Seopr ase phos 
ese, 


essa 
An nr an oer pea 


peer 
γί το Se 


δα Fare 
Berra re 


= 


BERS 


ae 


css 32 pies c : : Z : : τε tas was nae 
sere pte τ : 
ΣΝ ΠΣ ΩΣ 3 Lege 


We te Ae ee me 


τς  ς22. ὅπ. ΧΙΣ-Σ 


~ 


3 ae “2 
ΣΟ oes 
/ oo 
ae 
recog eet 
pereneoorpe ssa 


τ᾿ 


THH JOURNAL 


HELLENIC STUDIES 


TAWVHUOL BHT 


a0 
a 


a Oe ΡΠ ΠΤ ΓΑΙ LA 


Che Society for the Promotion of Wellenic Studies 


THE JOURNAL 


meee ΝΟ SU DTS 


VOLUME XVII. (1897) 


1897 


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 


PAGE 
Kules of the Society ... ... .. 1s ie pe ee 1X 
εὐρν of Aomvers and, Mem betieccs. κα very yeh ais: Pwo 1 xv 
Proceedings of the Society, 1896-7 . (ods) Na ες ees Sie es XXXill 
Proceedings of the Cambridge Branch of the Society... ΕΞ xl 
δ πον που νήσοις, xis seb Une eee dees wes 5A xlv 
List of Periodical Publications in the Library Pe ey ore l 
warooue Or Lantern Slides τ. eke Tye τὸν τρις 9) eee lili 
ALLEN (T. W.) ...... The Text of the Homeric Hymns. Part If... 45 
» 55 ... «The Text of the Homeric Hymns. PartIV. ... 241 
ANDERSON (J. G. C.) .... The Road-System of Kastern Asia Minor with the 
Evidence of Byzantine Campaigns (Plate L.) ... 22 
ve ᾿ ot .. A Stuunmer in Phrygia: [. (Plate XT.) Ἄν 396 
Bury (J. b,) ee LG NBER INTOD, a: e- toate eee ρου : υ3 
CALVERT (FRANK) ... On the Tumulus of Choban ἀηρροι in the 'Troad ... 319 
Crowroot (J. W.) ... A Thracian Portrait (Plate XI.) ... ... ...  ... 952] 
Kpear (C. E.) ... ... Two Stelae from Kynosarges (Plate IV.) ...- .... 174 
Evans (A. J.) .... 0... Further Discoveries of Cretan and Aegean Seript : 
with Libyan and Proto-Egyptian Comparisons 
(Plates TX. 20.) uo." cee! Wi A ase Gea” \oacee 2 δ 
Garpnen (EK. Α.)... ... Caeneus and the Centaurs: A Vase at Harrow 
{ΘΙ ΒΥ 1), ἃς ee ae δου ee oe eis πο see 
GARDNER (Percy) ... The Mantinean Basis: a Note... ... ... ... 120 
Grunpy (G. B.) ...  ... Artemisium PREY Anerey. ΜΝ oh tet 9.5 
i nd .. .. The Account of Salamis in Herodotus... ... 230 
Hon (Gb. ) ... ... Notes on Additions to the Greek Coins in the 
British Museum, 1857-1896 (Plate IL.) ... ... 78 
Hurron (C. A.) ... ... Votive Reliefs in the Acropolis Museum (Plates 
Δ ΠΣ: αν 
ΜΆΑΟΘΚΕΝΖΙΕ (1}.)... ... Excavations of the British School at Melos: the 
Site of the ‘Three Churches’ (Plate V.)... ... 122 
Munro (J. AntHur R.) Inscriptions from Mysia Pate Oe dar, CERT, Tae χοῦ 
Mees (0 t.), dona)» τὸ | Exeavations in Cyprisin 1894 ..... ...5 ca ss (LSS 
hoperts (W. Rirys) ... The Greek Treatise on the Sublime: its Modern 
Interest τ Naethe Weds, Sue (eeeetl sinc” Van 
_ my ny ... The Greek Treatise on the Sublime: its Author- 
ite Leable) iis). Sear a? Ss. τ 1995 
Peete (ORCL)... 29. Inscriptions from Melos... ὦ «en > <8 aw Ι 
Watters (H. B.) ... On some Antiquities of the Mycenaean Age 


recently acquired by the British Museum 
PP iets ee, tein, Sees Rh eee τ 65 


CONTENTS. 


LIST OF PLATES. 


Map of Eastern Asia Minor illustrating the Road System. 
Greek Coins added to the Collection of the British Museum. 
Engraved Gems added to the Collection of the British Museum. 
Reliefs from Kynosarges. 

Melos: Site of the Three Churches 

A Vase at Harrow: Caeneus and the Centaurs. 

Votive Rehefs from the Acropohs, Athens. 

Primitive Cretan Vrism-seals of Steatite. 

A Thracian Portrait. 


Map of the District of Laodiceia. 


CONTENTS 


LIST OF TLLUSTRATIONS 


Rock-Tomb new Klimatoboun: 
Stelae from Melos 
Two Gold Fibulae 
Bronze Knite ; Bronze Chisel 
Marble Pyxis from: Aegina 
Seal of Rock Crystal from Cyprus 
Amethyst from Mycenae 
Karly Pottery from Cyprus 
Bowl from Saqqara 
Vase from Erment 

7 »  Calymna 
Kylix ,, 
Terracotta Model of ἀπήνη... 
Plan of the lmperial Quarter of Constantinople 
Field of ‘the Three Churches, Melos 
Statues found at Melos 
Pottery from Ag. Paraskevi 
The Neighbourhood of Kalopsida (Map) ... 
Various Objects from Kalopsida 
The Neighbourhood of Larnaka (Map) 
Laksha tu Riu: part of contents of Tomb 4 .. 
Engraved Chalcedony, Larnaka... 
Larnaka, Turabi. ‘Tomb 56 
Haematite Scaraboid, Larnaka ... 
Graeco-Phoenician Pottery from Larnaka 
Lypes of Wine Amphorae from Larnaka... 
Amphorae from Larnaka 


Votive Figures, Kamelarga 


IN 


vil 


THE TEXT 
4 ‘ 
4 44 ᾽ 


s] 
le 
“1 
ὡς 


125, 126, 127, 128, 129 
137 

139 

140, 141 

149 

150, 151 

152 

157 


vill CONTENTS. 


PAGt 
Plan of the Battle of Sakumis ; Original Position . 237 
= ἐς 2 ts 3 Advance 238 

-- -" ἘΞ 5: Ea Contact ... 239 

A Vase at Harrow 295 
Votive Terracotta Reliefs from Athens ... 309, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317 
Tamutus of Choban Tepeh m the Proad οι, 320 
Coin of Kotys 321 
Three-sided Seal of Steatite from Kalokhorio ... 329 
Steatite Gems, Mallia and Elunda 334 
Steatite Gems, Crete .. 335 
Steatite Seal from Siteta 336 
White Steatite Seal, Crete... 37 
Pictographie Symbols =... 25 5. Se τ <2 ull Eine paty oD Oy OLDE Grae 
Convoluted Agate Seal-stone from Gortyna 541 
Signets from Crete —. wee he OP EE ag et ce ee 
Lentoid Bead of Steatite, Knosos 346 
Black Steatite Whorl, Knosos 347 
Comparative Examples of Monogrammatie Signs B48 
Yellow Steatite Seal, Kalamatka “48 
Inscribed Marble Vase from Cerigo ... 349 
Inseribed Libation Table from Diktaean Cave... .. ere ἦν nf 002s GOD LoDy 
Sketch Plan of Atrium of Cave of Psychro (Diktaean Cave) δῦ 
Inseription on Diktaean Libation Table ... bo 
Signs from Diktaean Cave, with Parallel Forms 360 
Prism-seal of Steatite from Karnak.. $62 
Three Inscribed Cylinders ... 364 
Libyan Bead-Seal from near Constantine... 368 
Comparative Table of Human and Animal Types ... 360 
Proto-Egyptian Clay Figure. Marble ‘Idol,’ Amorgos ... 3381 
Signs on Clay Vessels from Abydos. . 383 
Comparative Table of Sign-Groups 384 
π᾿ ᾿ Signs 386 
Sketch Section of Levels near Liaodiceia ... 407 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 


Tue following inscriptions were cither copied or excavated by the 
members of the British School during the spring of 1896, some during our 
preliminary visit in January, but the greater part during March—May, when 
we were living at Trypete. The majority of the inscriptions of the island are 
the product of the promiscuous amateur digging which has been going on 
probably almost continuously for nearly a century: they are consequently 
usually in the hands of peasants, who in most cases can only give one vague 
traditions regarding their original provenance. The personal interest of their 
present owners in them is naturally very small: it awakens to a languid 
existence when from time to time a foreign visitor makes them the subject of 
notebooks and (occasionally) of drachmas: but for the most part no sort of 
care is taken for their preservation, and if an inscription is to be employed 
as a paving-stone, it is usually the inscription side which meets the foot and 
the weather. Of course this state of things is not confined to Melos: I only 
mention it because there is at last serious talk of collecting the inscriptions 
and perhaps some of the other more important antiquities of Melos into a 
Jocal museum: whether as the result of our urgent representations or of those 
of the German visitors of last year, or as the result of years of suggestions, it 
inatters very little. It is greatly to be hoped that the good intentions of the 
demarch of Castri nay soon be carried out. 

The inscriptions of this island have been the subject of numerous publi- 
cations ; a list of the most important is given below.! In the summer of 1895 
Melos was visited by Messrs. Hiller von Gaertringen and Schiff, who were 
vccupied in collecting the inscriptions of this group of islands for the forth- 
coming volume of Js/vnd Inscriptions. Thanks to their kind cooperation I 
was enabled to climinate from our series those which had been previously 
published, or seen by them, and the list now printed, with one or two excep- 
tions (here included because the previous publications were defective), con- 
sists, so far as we are aware, only of examples hitherto unknown. 


1 Besides the collections in C. 1. G. 2424  Mitth. i, 246; ii. 223; xi. 111; xxi. 220; Ricci 
ete., 7. G. A, 412 ete. Ross in Jaser, Gir. ned. in Mon. Ant. Lincei, ii. (1894), 276 ; and a Latin 
iii. 226 ete. and Peisen, iii. 19, see Ann, dell’ — inser. in C. J. LZ. iii, 490. Vesides these there 
Inst. 1829 p. 343; 1843, p. 332; Bull. dell’ is a small series published in Trans. Loy. See. 
Tast. ii, (1830) p. 195; Rangabe, Ant. Well. ii, Lit. second series, vol. v. p. 29 fiom Lieut, 
(1855), 1193 ete. ; ἘΦ. "Apx. 1859, 3507 etc. ; — Leycester’s copies, but the copies do not seem 
Bull. de Corr. Hell. ii. 521; iii. 256; Ath. — to have been preserved. 

H.S.—VOL. XVII. Lb 


~ 


2 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 


Melian inscriptions naturally fall into three main divisions, correspond- 
ing to the chict political vicissitudes which the isliund underwent: the first 
class covers all those in the Mechan character, which appear to belong to a 
period previous to the destruction of the town in 416 B.c.; the second class 
consists of those attributable to the brief period of the Athenian occupation ; 
and the third includes all those subsequent to Bc. +06, when, after the battle 
of Acgospotami, Lysander reinstated the Mchans (Xenophon, 7701]. i. 2.9; 
Plutarch, Lysand. xiv. 441) in the possession of the island. Of this latter 
class it is a curious fact that by far the largest proportion belong to Imperial 
times; indeed, it is extremely rare to find examples (written at least in other 
than Melian characters) which can with certainty be referred to a period be- 
tween 400 Bc. and the time of the Emperors. Of course it may be that the 
returning Meliaus went on for some period using their own style of lettering 
—even this is not as yet proved, and is at best only a probability—but it is 
most improbable that they can have resisted the imtroduction of the κοινόν 
for more than a century at the most. Possibly further excavation may con- 
tribute material which will supply the gap: but meanwhile the coimeidence 
seems worthy of notice. 

A general discussion of Melian epigraphy will be more suitably left to 
the publishers of the Island Corpus, when the whole material will be brought 
together. I shall confine myself mercly to recording the few notes and obser- 
vations on the inscriptions of the first class which were jotted down in our 
notebooks at the time when these inscriptions were copied or discovered. 

The inscriptions in the Mclian character, as is well known, consist almost 
wholly of epitaphs, cut on slabs of the rich reddish-black trachyte which is 
the characteristic building material of the prac-Roman architecture of the 
island. With the disappearance of the Mehan lettering, this material also 
goes out of use, and the iuscriptions (like most of the architecture) of the 
later period are invariably inimarble. Judging from those examples which are 
more complete, the form is also invariable, presenting an oblong face which is 
surmounted at the upper extremity by an obtuse-angled triangle, roughly 
suggesting a pediment. lnimediately below this pediment follows the in- 
scription, on a surface which has been carefully prepared by tooling; as a rule 
« considerable space remains below, unoccupied by the inscription, and this is 
usually left with a somewhat rougher surface. In No, 20 this lower portion 
projects about 3 cm. beyond the inscribed surface, but the lapidary, being 
pressed for space above, has cut on it the final € of his inscription. This in- 
scription, it will be observed, is couched in a formula different from that of 
the ordinary Melian epitaph; possibly this fact is accountable for the difti- 
culties which the lapidary seems in this instance to have found. 

As the back of the stone is also as a rule left rough, it would seem that 
this class of inscriptions was intended to be partially sunk in the ground, 
probably against the eutrance to the tomb, in such a way that only the upper 
portion with the lettering was visible: in this respect they seem to have 
been followed by the stele of class 11., except that these terminate in a shaft 
specially prepared for insertion in the ground or a socket (see fig. 3). So far 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 3 


as can be ascertained, the inscriptions with Melian lettering have been chiefly 
found in the neighbourhood of Klimatobouni, where the tomb was usually in 
the form of a chamber, cither cut horizontally into the rock beside the ancient 
road, or (as the one in fig. 1) sunk into the ground. 

As regards date, the evidence is unfortunately extremely scanty. Of 
the four periods given in Roberts (Gh. ELpigr. p. 36), those which can be 
assigned to period i, at present known are very rare: we have found no 
examples. Between periods ii, and iii. there is a stage of transition, when 
the sigma is found on the same stone in both forms, M and = (see nos. 12, 14, 
20). In the best period the desire seems to be felt of avoiding straightness 
of line in the formation of the letters, which are here composed of a series of 
firm sweeping curves (see no. 2). In the latest examples there is a tendency 
to omit the horizontal lines between the rows of letters.!. If it be true, as the 
peasants assert, that no. 3 was found in the tomb-chamber which contained 
the red-figured vase with a Gigantomachia now in the Louvre, this would 
point to a date of about 430 νον for the inseriptions of the best Melian 
period ; but of course it does not necessarily follow that the vase and inscrip- 
tion were. actually contemporary. 

As was doubtless the case with most Greek inscriptions, these also appear 
to have had the letters usually painted ; but whereas the ordinary custom was 
to colour the lines alternately red and blue, in the Melian inscriptions of class 1 
one colour alone seems to have been employed: wherever such colouring 
could be proved to exist, this was invariably a rich vermilion, which in some 
cases was traceable in consecutive lines. 

The inscriptions of this class are all reproduced to a scale of 1 of the 
actual size, except nos, 23 and 46 which are 4'5. 


ip ᾿Εχετίμα Λυσι[δίκου 
On a slab of red trachyte in the courtyard of the house of Nicolaos 
Tsoulios at Trypete, where it is used as a paving-stone ; complete at sides, 


1 Pollak in Ath. Mitth. xxi. p. 222 regards — against the third period ; but he gives no reason 
the absence of horizontal lines as evidence for for this view, which seems to me highly im- 
attributing an inscription to the second, as probable. 

B 2 


Ι INSCRIPTIONS FROM METLOS. 


broken above and below, surface in excellent condition. Ht. 4a; 1m. 
W.°32 m. Published Rohl, Zaser7. Gr. no, 422; Roberts, Gh. Epigr. p. 33, 
no. A, and elsewhere. 


2. EvOv?|xpitos . ay. λε[{|δα() 


On a slab of red trachyte in a wall at Trypete, belonging to Peros 
Antonis Kyritsis. The owner took it out for us. Complete on r. side: the 
edge on l. side appears to be complete at the back, but is broken away on 
the face. Ht. 37m. W.:295. Thickness ΤΟΥ m. Space between ruled 
lines ‘09 m. 


No. 4. 
3. Nixoda ?|uos ᾿Ιμα[ράτου ¢ 
On a slab of red trachyte in the house of Nicolas Antonis Kyritsis at 
Klimatobouni. Ht. 86m. W. 32m. Space between ruled lines “12. τη. 
Said to have been found in a family cave-tomb, which also contained the great 


red-figure Gigantomachia vase now in the Louvre. For ‘Iwapatos ef. CLG. 
lll. 547 - 


a 


ἘΞ: ορος Δικαφ[ίλου ? 

On a slab of red trachyte, used as a paving-stone in the small church of 
St. Georgios at Klimatobouni: it lies near the centre of the nave, near the 
wooden screen. The surface has suffered considerably from the feet and 
candle-grease of the pious followers of the saint. Complete at sides, broken 
above and below. Ht.:27 τὼ. W.°23 in. Space between ruled lines ‘077 in. 


et PS 


CM 


0, 5. 


EM Νικοφ]ύλη (2) [ΕἸσθῆτος (ἢ) 
Ou τι slab of red trachyte, used as a paving-stoue in the courtyard of the 
house of Andreas Joanunes Babouni at Klimatobouni, where it was placed by 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 5 


his father about twenty years ago, Broken on all sides except on the r., where 
itis complete. Ht. “33 τὼ. W.-:27 m. Space between ruled lines “102 m. 

6. ... op[ak 1] ΤΠΙραξ[εἸκλέους. 

On a slab of red trachyte, in the house of Michael Joannes Bechos at 
Trypete. Ht. “34. m, W. “31 m. by ‘10 m. thick. Complete on both sides : 
the face worked away on Τὶ upper side. The letters in the lowest line are 
somewhat contracted into the space on the r. It is noticeable that p is here 
quite clearly P, instead of the usual R. 


7. Op ]εψ[εἸκλῆς...... 

On a slab of red trachyte, in the wall of the courtyard of Emmanuel Bechos 
at Trypete. Complete on r. side only. Surface in good condition, Ht. “21 τη, 
W. 26 ἢ. I have read Θρεψικλῆς and not Δεξικλῆς, because the form of & 

£) is perfectly well proved for Melian inscriptions of this period (see nos. 6, 
15; I.G.A. 431, &c.). It does not seem probable then, as has been recently 
asserted (Ath. Mitth. xxi. pp. 221, 254, 432), that the alphabet of Melos at 
any period followed that of Thera in the use of V = ξ. In the inscription 
which gave rise to this theory (Ath. Mitth. xxi. p. 221), ΤΠΠραξικύδης seems at 
first sight certainly the more likely form; but considering the strangeness of 
Melian names in general, we need not reject Tpawixvdns as impossible. I 
may here remark that according to my copy of that inscription the initial 
letter cannot possibly be aM. In the companion inscription from the same 
house, the patronymic appears to be Evpudvax[tos: cf. Bull. de Corr. Hell. ii. 
p. 521, 1, Εὐρνανακτιδᾶν; the 6th letter is wrongly given there as M. 

8. . στωσία Lwroxp...? 
From a house in Trypete: upper part much worn. Ηΐ. “30 τη. W. 91. 


fi INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 


9: ᾿Αρχ]ήἷἶδαμος ᾽Λρσι. 

From a house in Trypete: upper part of surface much injured. Com- 
plete on both sides. Ht. 39 in. W. 24. τη. 

10. Nuxora Kad... .. 

On a slab of red trachyte in the courtyard of the house of Andreas 
Joannes Babouni at Klimatobouni. It was found with a quantity of other 
uninseribed fragments in a cave on the street of tombs near Klimatobouni. 
The two sides are complete, and the upper edge from the 1. to near the centre, 
showing that the top was of pediment-form. Ht. 33m. W.°30 in, Space 
between ruled lines 10 χη. 


No. 11. ΝΟ. 19. 

11: _... Πλλαγόρα. 

On ἃ 5140 of red trachyte, in the house of Joannes Mourachis at Klima- 
tobouni, where it is built into the front wall, on the 1. of the door, laid on its 
r. side. It is apparently complete at the sides and lower edge, though only 
the r. side has a good edge. Surface in good condition. Ht.°32m. ΝΥ, “29 m. 

Here it may be noted as a sign of transition that though the y is Γ, 
the o is C: it seems therefore to belong to the third period. 


12. .... actos 
Broken above and below: 1. side and part of r. complete. Ht. 19 τη. 
ες 
a 
No. 13 Now 14: 
13. Ἥρα ?]«Alwv Φασί .. ... 


On a slab of red trachyte found by us in the wall of the garden of Nicolas 
Tsoulios at Klima, and now removed to his house there. Complete only on 
the upper part of the 1. side, and perhaps on the right edge. Ht. ‘27 m, 
W, *29 m, 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 7 


1. Ix [μ|]Ἱνὸς (7) 

On a slab of red trachyte, found on Mareh 28th in the exeavation at 
Klima on site B (see the plan ΠΝ xvi. p. 848), beside the base of a column 
belonging to the lite Roman stoa: it lay on the pavement, ΑἹ ΗῚ depth of 
about & ft. below the level of the soil. The inscription is complete below, 
and the stone is complete on the 1. side. Ht. 92 χὰ, W.°:23 1m.) The surface 
is in excellent preservation, and the rea colour in the letters was vers brilliant 
when if was first taken out of the ground. From the position in which it 
was found it must have been used as building material for one of the late 
walls of this site: from which it would appear that the destruction of the 
Melian chamber tombs must have begun at an early period of our era. 


ἘΝ 


Nw. 15. No. 16. 


1: .... Bevapyou. 

On a slab of red trachyte, in the house of Basilios Michael Kyritsis at 
Trypete. Ht. 905 m. W. 265 m. by ‘09 m. thick. Complete edge on each 
side : surface in good condition: traces of red colour in the letters. 


16. Βουλίας M.... 


On a slab of red trachyte, brought by one of our workmen to Trypete. 
Complete edge on the 1. and at the apex of the pediment. Ht. 305 τη. 


W. 26 m. 


No. 17. No. 18. 
17. Kidpis ὐρυφι[λίδου ? 
On a slab of red trachyte, used as the doorstep in the house of Francescos 
Lilis in Klimatobouni. Complete edge on each side. Ht. 36m. δ. 99 χη. 
Lines ‘105 m. apart. Letters 10. m. Jugh. 


8 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 


18. “Αγνοσ[θένης 1. 


On a fragment of red trachyte, taken for us from the wall of a field out- 
side Klimatobouni: broken on all sides. Ht.-16m. W.-10 m. by 17 m. thick. 


No. 19. ΝΟ, 20: 


ΠΩΣ επ. {LO 


On a fragment of red trachyte, used as ἃ paving-stone in the path 
leading down from Trypete to the house of Nicolaos Tsoulios: removed by 
us to Trypete. Broken on all sides, but surface in good condition: no ruled 
lines between the rows of letters. Ηὖ, 1ὅ m. Greatest width ‘17 m. 


20. II 1]ασιθέα ἀδελφεοῖς. 


On a slab of red trachyte, in the house of the widow Marina Constantina 
Kyritsis at Trypete. Said to have been found in her field on the farther side 
of Klimatobouni, two or three years ago: probably in a cave-tomb such as 
are of frequent occurrence in that neighbourhood. Complete edge on both 
sides. Ht. 45m. W. °32 m. by ‘15 m. thick. Below the ruled lines of the 
main inscription, the surface is raised about 3 em. and left rough, and on this 
surface the final € is inscribed. Evidently the lapidary had found the space 
prepared for him insufficient when he got to the end of the first word, and 
not even the diminution in the size of letters of the second word gave him 
room enough. The occurrence of the Ionic form ἀδελφεοῖς in a purely 
Doric series of inscriptions is interesting. 


iB ATA 


21, Διὸς Κατα͵ιβάτα 


Engraved on the West side of a mass of rock which projects from the 
soil at the S, E. corner of the ‘Three Churches field:’ (see plan /oe, cit, site E). 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 9 


Judging from the form of the rock, it probably represented a natural open 
air altar; unfortunately the greater part has been hacked or blasted away 
to furnish material for walls. We dug all round it, but the results seemed 
only to show that it was natural outcrop. The surface is considerably 
weathered, but the letters are perfectly clear. Ht. of letters ‘07 m. Width 
from B to the final Α “27 τὰ, This inscription may be restored from the 


MOSK Ay 
AIBAT- 


Engraved ona rock at the top of the hill Perianti (see plan Joc. cit., there 
erroneously named Bereadi), near the S. edge of the hill; the rock has been 
cut roughly into the form of an altar, but is now half broken away. The 
inscription is on the upper surface, and reads from the W. side. Published 
incompletely in Ath. Mitth. i. (1876), p. 248, No. 6. Total length of letters 
in upper line ‘265 m. Ht. of A 034. For other instances of this formula, 
see the article by M. Delamarre in the Revue de Phil. 1895, p. 129. 
M. Perdrizet has kindly called my attention to yet another instance—Plutarch 
Demetrius x. describing the entry of Demetrius into Athens, says καὶ τὸν 
τόπον, ὅπου πρῶτον ἀπέβη τοῦ ἅρματος, καθιερώσαντες καὶ βωμὸν ἐπιθέντες 
Δημητρίου Καταιβάτου προσηγόρευσαν." 

The exposed and prominent position of these two rocks is appropriate to 
the divinity ‘that descends in thunder and lightning’—The altar of Zeus 
Kataibates at Olympia was protected by a fence. Τοῦ δὲ Καταιβάτου Διὸς 
προβέβληται μὲν πανταχόθεν πρὸ τοῦ βωμοῦ φράγμα (Paus. v., 14, 10): 
possibly it was a natural rock similar to ours, and being thus likely to have 
its sacred character overlooked, required some such special protection. 


aN EAITIA SR ONEA 


No. 23. 


23. Μελιτίας Πωνεα (7) 

In the hill outside Klimatobouni to the 8.W. is a series of underground 
tomb chambers excavated in the sandstone: on the wall of one of the largest 
of these the above inscription is engraved. 

The chamber measures 19 ft. 10 in. by 11 ft. 5 in., and is entered by a 
doorway at the bottom of a deep pit, from which two steps lead down to the 


1 For other instances of the same formula see ©1672b. ‘The first of these is a steld marking an 
C.I.A. vol. iv. (suppl.) pt. ii., nos. 16595 and ἄβατον of Zeus Kataibates. 


10 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 


Hoor of the tomb. which lies about 13 ft. below the level of the soil. On the 
side opposite the doorway a single recess has been hewn out (marked A in 
fig. 1) at a height of about 2 ft. from the floor, sufficiently large to contain a 
body: and three similar recesses occur in each of the side walls. In the 
recess marked B in the plan, an opening has been made (apparently for the 
purpose of rifling the tomb) communicating with an excavated passage from 


the soil level. 


Section through Cc. 


Fic. 1.—RockK-TOMB NEAR KLIMATOBOUNI. 


Above A the inscription is cut in deep letters of careful workmanship 
but diminishing in size from 1. tor. The height of the M is no less than 
8S inches: that of the final A is 53 in. Published by Ross, Reisen iii. 16, and 
Jaser, Gr. Inca, 235, but incompletely. 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOs. 11 


The following inscriptions seem to belong to a period Jater than the fifth 
century BC. when the Melian character was no longer in use, 


XAPH ZATTOAAOPANOYS 
XAIPE 


24. odes Oey 


On a fragment of bluish marble, used as a paving-stone in the courtyard 
of the house of Nicolaos Chronis at Trypete: the owner says that it was 
broken from the same stone as the inscription beginning ᾿Ακροπόλεως 
(Schiff No. 52) which belongs to the same owner, and was found at Tramy- 
thia, but the scale of the letters in this fragment seems too large. Ht. 35 τη. 


W. °33 m. 


~ ὡς > ΄ - 
25. Χάρης ᾿Απολλοφάνους χαῖρε. 


On a stele of yellowish marble surmounted by a pediment with a 
palmette crowning the apex. Nearly complete, but broken away below the 
inscription. In the house of Georgios Geouroukes at Klimatobouni. Ht. 
‘61 m. Greatest width "25 m. tapering slightly towards the top. Thickness 
‘085 m. The inscription occupies the extreme lower part of the stele. 


TIOOEINONOAPFIIYY AHS FN ENEAL 
XA|PEIN 


No. 26. No. 27. 
26. Ποθεινὸν Θαργηλίου χαίρειν (Fig. 2). 


On ἃ stelé of yellowish-white marble in the house of Georgios 
Geouroukes at Klimatobouni. Complete, with vivid traces of colouring. 
Above, a pediment with broad lower moulding; at the base of the stelé, a 
broad moulding on which has been painted egg and dart pattern. The colour 
on the main surface seems to have been chiefly vermilion ; but in this, as in 


12 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 


the preceding case, the position of the inscription at the base of the stele 
may be due to the fact that the upper portion was painted with a design : 
but if so, no traces of it beyond the red colour already described can now be 
identified. The lower part under the moulding tapers rapidly into a squared 
shaft. Ht. from lower moulding to apex of pediment ‘505 τὰ. W. °225 τη. 
by 10 m. thick. 

The purpose of the squared shaft is seen from Fig. 3, which represents a 
third marble stelé (uninscribed) which is in the same house. This stelé, 


TIO@EINON@APrHAICY 
ΧΑΊΡΕΙΝ 


Fic, 2.—Sre_t rrom MELOs. Fia. 3.—Srevtt FROM MELOs, 


which measures ‘635 m. high by “38 m. wide, has within a sunk panel at the 
top (unfortunately partly broken away) a relief representing ἃ man in an 
himation holding in his 1. hand a roll, presumably a poet or philosopher 
beside whom stands a boy looking up at him: both figures stand facing the 
spectator. Here also the lower part terminates in a squared shaft, which is 
evidently intended to fit into the socket of a rectangular base, found with it, 
so that the stelé may stand upright. As the back{of the stelé is left rough 
it probably stood in this way against the door of the tomb. 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 13 


Nos. 25 and 26 (and probably also the sculptured stelé) were found in 
1866 by the side of an ancient road running from Klima to Adamas, which 
seems to have had tombs on both sides: it is now buried several metres below 
the present level of the soil, but its course can clearly be made out skirting 
the hill near Klimatobouni somewhat higher up than the present road. From 
inquiries we learnt that most of the tombs were excavated in the sixties 
chiefly by, or on behalf of, a certain Nostrakis. 

The character of the sculpture and of the inscriptions points to the first 
half of the fourth century B.c. for these stelae: they have a peculiar historical 
interest as probable relics of the 500 Athenian ἄποικοι sent to colonise Melos 
after the destruction of the town in 416 B.c. (Thucydides v. 116). 


27. .... Tos ὑπὲρ ἀνδρῶν 
Ans σωενεας (?) 


On a fragment of marble moulding. Ht. ‘075 m. ΥΥ͂. 14 τὰ. (Ht. of 
moulding ‘04 m.) The letters, which are much worn, and in the second line 


difficult to decipher, appear to belong to the first half of the fourth 
century B.C. 


28. 
Ἣράκλ ἴ]ειτος Εὐ. . . 
σε Ἰ]αυ[σανίας 
"Ay ?|nvopos ᾿ΑΥὙ[7 
.... 6 Εὔφρων 


σι 


. πάτρου Ape 


...9 New 


ΤῸ. 4 


On a fragment of a marble slab. Ht.:15 m. W.°09m. Broken onall 
sides but the top. Brought to me by a villager in Trypete. 


29. 6 


αὐτοκ]ράτ[ορα ? 
ov. 


On a fragment of bluish marble. Ht. 13 m. W. ‘09 m. by ‘06 νη. 
thick. The lower edge is complete about ‘015 m. below the inscription. 


14 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 
30, HPQOF: “Hpa@os. 


On a cylindrical marble base or altar in a field at Tramythia, below the 
tower of polygonal masonry. The upper part of the back portion is broken 
away. Diam, ‘55 1m. Letters ‘04 1. high, 


« AIONY= @ 
TPIEFTHELS @ 


4 lal 
Διονύσῳ Τριετηρικῴ. 


On a cylindrical marble base or altar, in the field of Manolis Galanos at 
Tramythia; the property of the Kallergis family. It was discovered in the 
course of an unauthorised private excavation four years ago, and when found 
was fitting into a socket in the pavement of a room, 4 ft. below ground level. 
Ht. 1:17 m. Diam. of base, 12 m. Height of letters, 045 m. The upper 
surface has a circular sinking. 4 centimetres deep, at a distance of “12 τὴ. from 
the circumference, probably intended to receive the dedicated object. The 
former excavators overturned it, and when re-cxcavated by us it was lying on 
its side under 3 ft. of earth. 

The epithet Τριετηρικός occurs as an epithet of Dionysos Bassareus in 
the Orphic Hymns; hymn no. 45 has the title ὕμνος Διονύσου Baccapéws 
Tpretnpixod. It is possible that this dedication may be associated with the 
inscription which follows (No, 82) and which was found in the same field 
with it. 


5:5: <M>M APION M. Μάριον 
TPODIMON | tii 
TONIEPODAN τίν. 

TRIN P 
> OIMYZ TAI οἱ μύσται. 


Inscribed on the front of the rectangular shaft of a marble iconic herm, 
found in the same field with the preceding, lying on the mosaic pavement. 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 15 


The shaft is ‘28 m. wide: letters ‘03 m. high. The figure, of which unfortunately 
the head has not yet been found, wears a short chiton, over which is a nebris, 
knotted over the 1. shoulder, The soft rounded forms and the feminine 
appearance of the dress would appear to suit the special character of a priest 
of Dionysos Bassareus. The mosaic, which, with the herm, will be published 
in a forthcoming number of the Hellenic Journal, has its most important panel 
occupied with spreading vines. It may be that the base, herm, and mosaic 
are all to be referred to the same cult; the hall, of which the mosaic forms the 
floor, is from its size unsuited to the requirement of a temple or private 
house ; it was possibly the τελεστήριον, the hall of initiation into the religious 
association of which M. Marius Trophimus was the hierophant. The fact that 
on the herm the name of the cult is not mentioned, is an argument for the 
existence near it of monuments or buildings which would leave the matter 
beyond doubt. This inscription proves the existence of a Melian branch of 
those religious associations of mystae which, under the Empire, were so much 
in vogue, especially throughout the islands and cities of Asia Minor. We 
know from other examples (see Foucart, Assuc. Hel. p. 114) that members of 
the most considerable families commonly took part or held office in these 
colleges. At Crete a festival in connection with one such association was 
celebrated every third year, when the sufferings of Dionysos were dramatically Ὁ 
represented (7bid. p. 111): the principal fete of the Dionysiastae at Rhodes 
also took place every third year, so that the epithet Τριετηρικός was probably 
characteristic of the type of Dionysos worshipped in this class of cult. 


33. 


κα... 


On a fragment of white marble, found in a wall in the ‘ Three Churches’ 
field. Complete on the 1. side and at the top. Ht. ‘15 τὰ. W. ‘30 τη. 
Letters ‘02 m. high. ; 


34, ἐσ ἀμ 
Καίσαρα. 
.OTaS... 


θε]οῖς ? 


On a fragment of white marble, excavated in the ‘ Three Churches’ field ; 
broken on all sides, but possibly complete below the lowest line. Ht. "12 τὴ. 


16 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 


W. 095 m. Letters 028 τὴ. high. From the writing and size of the letters 
it evidently does not belong to the same inscription as No. 33. 


Μνασικριτ... 


κ]αὶ φιλίζας ἕνεκεν 7 


On a fragment of white marble, excavated in the ‘Three Churches’ 
field. Broken on all sides, but apparently nothing has been inscribed above 
the top line. Ht. 08 m. W. ‘03 m. 


36. Οἱ περιβώμιοι τὴν 
φίλανδρον Αὐρηλί- 


τι Δ " tal 
av Εὐποσίαν ἐν τῷ 
ἰδί ΄ cal ΕΣ 
ἐδίῳ αὑτῆς ἔργῳ. 


OLTTEPIBWMIOITHN 
PIAANAPONAY PHAL 
AN EYTIOCIANENTW 
IAIN AYTHEEPCW 


On a marble base of a herm: described Ath. Mitth. 1890, p. 246, note 1 
by Wolters, who gives previous notices. Ht. ‘06m. W. 14 m. 

An Aurelia Euposia is mentioned in an inscription from Cyzicus, 
C. I. Gr. 3690, the wife of a certain Aelius Chrestion. The expression 
περιβώμιοι may signify the fellow members of some religious association, to 
which the lady here honoured belonged. For the phrase ἐν τῷ ἰδέῳ αὑτῆς 
ἔργῳ cf. Ath. Miith. 1896, p. 113. 


37. 
AN TPATANONKAIZ APALE BAL TON 

OYAYIONTONEYEPCE THNKAIZQTHPA 
EYZAY TOY TI TOL@AABIOL AAMEINOL 


TITOZ4AABIOY API TOAAMOSEKAIAOHKHE 
5 ¥ TANSAABIOYA A MEINOY 


Avtoxpatopa Nepovjav Tpaiavov Kaicapa Σεβαστὸν 

Θεοῦ Neplova υἱὸν εὐεργέτην καὶ σωτῆρα 

ὁ ἀρχίερϊΠεὺς αὐτοῦ Τίτος Φλάβιος Δάμεινος 

... Titos Φλάβιος ᾿Αριστόδαμος ἐκ διαθήκης 
δ..... αἸὐτῶν Φλαβίου Δαμείνου. 


On a slab of yellowish marble complete on all sides but 1, used as a 
support for wine casks in the house of the tenant of site A (see plan Joc. 
cit.) at Klima. Ht. “ὅθ τὰ, W. 1:20 m. by 13 τὰ. thick. Surface a good deal 
worn. Said to have been found in the adjoining garden together with the 
Poseidon statue now in'the National Museum at Athens and other marbles: 
among these are a marble equestrian figure presumably of an emperor which 
still lies in the garden, but which I understand will shortly be published 
in the Ath. Mitth. As this inscription apparently refers to the erection of a 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 17 


statue of Trajan set up by the high priest of his cult in Melos, it is possible 
that the equestrian group is the one in question: the size of the slab would 
be suitable for such a purpose. About ‘20 m. from the lower edge three 
small rectangular sinkings. are wrought in the surface parallel to the inscrip- 
tions at regular intervals “90 τὴ, apart. At the extremity of ll. 3,5 a vertical 
line has been drawn, from the upper end of which a horizontal line is drawn 
to the r. edge of the stone: and on the upper edge are engraved four char- 
acters FA Η — Il, but it is not certain that any of these marks are contem- 
porary with the inscription, 


~t, QPEINIANOEL 
LAPXOANMIAIQN TOP 
EKTANIAIONENTOIAINTOTQITO2PO 
AO ION ~ OHKEN 


Tos Σωρεινιᾶνος 
Co Re vtos (1) ἄρχων Μηλίων τὸ γ 
ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων, ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τόπῳ τὸ ὧρο- 
λόγιον " ἀνέθηκεν. 

Inscribed on the face of a Roman Doric capital in grey marble, found in 
our excavations on site D; when found it was in an inverted position, serving 
as the base for a column in coarse poros, in the corner outside the door of the 
cave in the field of Panagiouli Vichos. The abacus, on which is the inscrip- 
tion, measures ‘42 m. in length by ‘095 m. in height: the 1. upper portion is 
broken away: the lower member is ‘33 m. in length on the under side, and 
‘068 τη. in height. The office of ἄρχων as held in imperial times in this 
island, is probably referred to on the coin of Melos (Br. Mus. Cat. of Coins, 
Crete, &c. p. 107), where a certain Ti. Pankles is named_as eponymous magis- 
trate for the third time, τὸ γ' 


᾿ OAXMOX 
ἈΠΕΙΠΙΝΧΝΓΕΡΜΧΝΙΚΟῪ 
ΚΑΙΣΧΡΟΣΓΎΝΔΙΚΧΘΕΟΙΣ 


Ὃ δᾶμος 
᾿Αγριππείναν Γερμανικοῦ 
Καίσαρος γυναῖκα θεοῖς. 

On ἃ rectangular block of whitish grey marble, found laid in a bed of 
cement in our excavations on the ‘Three Churches Site,’ slightly to the n. of 
no. 40, The base measures ht. ‘59 m., w. ‘54 τη. by ‘37 m. thick: the traces 
on the upper surface show that it supported a statue. The first half of the 

H.S.—VOL. XVII. σ 


18 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 


word Agrippina seems to have been twice inscribed, as if the lapidary had 
blundered in his first attempt. For a similar dedication of a statue of 
Agrippina see C.J. Gr. i. 1301, perhaps from Messene. The cult of Agrippina 
Major in Lesbos is probably referred to in C. L Gr, 11. 2183. 


YPALONYM HX 
TATRA EO 
ee ΙΓ ΠΕΣ FH | 


5. TATPAAKA 
EITA MEISE. 
TPO 


Κλεωνύμης 
πατέρα ΤΙαγκλῆν ὃ[- 
αβεβιωκότα τὰ μέν 
mplo[s το]ὺς [θεο]ὺς [ε]ὐσεβῶς, τὰ [δὲ 
ὅ πρὸς τὴν] πατρίδα Kali πρὸς 
τοὺς πολ]εῖτα[ς] ὁσίως 
mpo[s] ἐμὲ δὲ 
φιλο]στόργ[ως. 

On a drum of white marble, found by us lying on its side in a foundation 
wall in the field of the ‘Three Churches’: surface much weathered. The 
height of the drum is ‘83 m.: its upper diameter is ‘60 m., its lower ‘68 m. : 
the letters are ‘(02 m. high. The references in this inscription to the services 
Pankles rendered to his country and fellow citizens seem to imply that he 
was a public character: if so, we may perhaps identify him with the eponym- 
ous magistrate (archon 7) named on the coins of Melos already referred to (see 
ante, no. 38). 

The name, which appears to be of Spartan origin (see C. I. Gr. 1260, 1. 7), 
also recurs in another Melian inscription, C. J. Gr. 2433, which is worth 
quoting here as it seems to throw light on the family relationships. 


Δαμ]α[ἤνετος [ΦἸερεκύδου 
καὶ ἘΠ" αγόρα ΤΙ αγ[κλέ]ους τὰν α[ὑτῶν 
θυγ]ατέρα, [ΚΊλε..... SN sesh. 
κ]α[ὶ Φ]ερεκύδης oft] Δα[μαινέτου 
τὰν ἀδελ[φ]ὰ[ν ..... θεοῖς.] 

By a comparison of this with our inscription, it looks as if we may 
restore in 1, 3 [Κ]χε[ωνύμη]ς. Now in C. 7. Gr. 2439 (an inscription from 
Melos of about the same period), we have the metrical epitaph of Κυδίλα 
Δαμαινέτου, whose name certainly sounds as if she had belonged to the same 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 19 


family. The name of the mother of this Κυδέλα is read in the impossible 
form Κλεισφύσσα, which I would suggest is an error for Κλεισαγόρα :' if so, 
it admits of a restoration of this name in 1, 2, and we then obtain from a 
combination of the three inscriptions the following pedigree for the family ;— 


Pherekydes Pankles 

Damainetos m. Kleisagora Kleonymes (the dedicator of No, 46) 
ae cre ae rig 
Kleonymes Sais): Pherekydes Kydila 


41, 


εὐ ANQE 
. ANQIKAIET 
ONIXAAKEAIAtE 


[Ὁ δᾶμος τῶν Μαλίων 1] 
ἐστεφ]άνωσ[εν χρυσῷ 1 
/ \ > 
atep lave καὶ ἐτ[ἐμησεν ? 
> ‘ / > a 
e[ix]ove χαλκέᾳ ἀρετᾶς 
“ ‘ > / \ \ 
ὅ ἕνεκεν καὶ εὐνοίας κ[αὶ διὰ ? 
\ ᾽ , ἃ »Μ ὃ tal 7 
τὰς εὐερ]γεσίας ἃς ἔχων [διατελεῖ 7 
Great hue OT san 


On a block of white marble found by us built into a foundation wall in 
the same field as the two preceding. The letters are 03 m. high. 


42. TPO $ IMO = < Tpodipos 
KAAYA A= MAY ; Κλαυδίας Mas 
iATO PA mA oe TON ἀγοράσας τὸν 
TOTONK A'T E o> τόπον κατεσ- 
KEYAZE NHAYT2 5. κεύασεν ἡαυτῷ 
ΚΑΙΤΉΓΎΝ ΑἸΚΙΔΥῪ αἱ τῇ γυναικὶ αὐ- 
TOY KAITOI ~~ ¥ τοῦ ae τοῖς 
TEKNOIX : τέκνοις. 


1 The recurrence of the first compound KAe- _— Kydila similarly suggests the second compound 
in the names of Kleisagora and Kleonymes is in ἴῃ the names of her brother and paternal grand- 
favour of their being brother and sister: father. 


Cc 2 


20 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 


On a thin slab of yellowish marble, in the house of Kati Isanna Bechos 
at Trypete. Ht. “39 τη. W. “20 m. by ‘02 τη. thick: complete on all sides: 
said to have been found in a cave below Trypete. It seems to have been let 
into a wall. and bears the mark of an iron clamp on the centre of the upper 
and lower front edges. L. 4 τὸν τόπον probably refers to the site itself and 
κατεσκεύασεν to the excavation of the cave in it. 


43. ; ARON ED. τι: 


On a fragment of white marble excavated in the same field as nos, 38-40. 
Ht. 22am. Wl; 


44, 


TW ἐμένα tn 
ΟΙΓΠ ...00ls me... 

1E OC’ νιν λίε οστ΄... 
«ΝΟ avoy 


On a fragment of white marble, brought by a villager to Trypete, said to 
have been found at Klima. Broken on all sides. Ηἴΐ, "22 m. Ὑ. "14 τη. 
Height of letters ‘025. 


αει 
Toca 
tAEWVE 


λεξα 


On a fragment of a white marble slab, brought by a villager to Trypete. 
Ht. ‘08 m. W. ‘07 m. by ‘04 m. thick. 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MELOS. 21 
" ; 


ῬΔΓΙΕΘΕολιΡΕΦΡΟΝΤΙΖΕΗΜ ΟΝ 


ΤΊΑγεε Θεόδωρε φρόντιξε ἡμῶν +. 


Inscribed on a slab of a marble ambon in the northernmost of the two 
churches at Kepos (see Br. School Annual, vol. ii. pp. 161, 168 These 


churches are half sunk in the earth and nearly ruined; they appear to be 
of great antiquity. 


CECIL SMITH. 


bo 
lo 


THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR 


THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR WITH THE 
EVIDENCE OF BYZANTINE CAMPAIGNS. 


[PiaTE 1] 


Pann 2 


OF late years a good deal of discussion has been devoted to the Road- 
System of Cappadocia and the Tauros region in ancient times, and it might 
seem at first sight superfluous to discuss the subject over again. But con- 
clusions already reached must always be tested in the light of new facts; and 
in the case before us several new facts have come to hand, which illuminate 
our subject and enable us to introduce into it a considerable amount of 
simplification. I propose, therefore, in the following paper to describe the 
roads which traversed this part of the country and then to prove their 
direction as well as their importance from the evidence of Byzantine cam- 
paigns. This is the simplest order to follow, because one campaign generally 
covers several routes and it would involve a sacrifice of clearness to break up 
the campaigns into a series of disjecta membra. 

At every period in the history of Asia Minor the most important roads 
from the west converged towards. Caesareia-Mazaka (Kaisariye), which in 
later times became the metropolis of Cappadocia, and radiated thence towards 
east and south. Sebasteia-Sivas forms another centre only second in import- 
ance to Caesareia; and the entire road-system of Eastern Asia Minor is most 
easily described and most clearly understood by taking these two cities as 
the starting-points. I shall therefore begin with the roads leading East 


and South from Caesareia and afterwards go on to those radiating from 
Sebasteia-Sivas. 


I. ROADS FROM CAESAREIA TO THE EAST. 


These are two in number: (1) what may be called the great Eastern 
route by Herpa, Ariarathia, Tzamandos (Azizie), and Gurun to Melitene and 
the east; and (2) the Roman road over Anti-Tauros by the Kuru Tchai pass 
and thence by Kokusos (Geuksun) and Arabissos (Yarpuz) to Melitene. 

(1) The former of these two routes has been almost entirely over- 
looked. Yet it was at all times the great route to the east. It is 


/ J.H.S.VOL. XVII (1897) ρὲ. 1. 


: EASTERN ASIA MINOR 


ILLUSTRATING 
THE ROAD SYSTEM. 


English Miles . 
ο 20 20 0 60 80 200 


J-H.S.VOL. XVI (1897) PLL. 


}Satala 
Ts (Sadaghs | 


Arnuracag7 


(Ghat ay, < 
»- Is 


Ne κ' 
| = Ὁ 
a off 
| Ἢ fiver ε 
© = πὶ 
Ε er \ 
o féimara = τ 


GS. 
μ᾿ 


(Romanopolis) 


Arsamosata (Shamshag)s (~~ 


We 


MAP OF 


EASTERN ASIA MINOR 


ILLUSTRATING 
THE ROAD SYSTEM. 


THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASTA MINOR. 23 


the Persian Royal road!: it existed in Roman times: and it is the 
roal to the east throughout the Byzantine period. The course of the 
road is as follows. From Caesareia it goes over the plain to Arasaxa 
(Zerezck) and after crossing the River Karmalas (Zamanti Su) proceeds by 
Larissa ® to Herpa (Yere Getchen) on the main stream of the river which it 
follows as far as Tzamandos (Azizie). The fortress Tzamandos (Tfayavdds), 
which is mentioned several times during the tenth and eleventh centuries 
after Christ,’ is placed by Prof. Ramsay (Jist. Geog. pp. 289 ff.) with the 
greatest probability beside the modern Azizic, and the name is regarded as a 
native Anatolian word, which survives in the modern name_of the river 
(Zamanti), At Azizie there is a “magnificent series of fountains which rise 
from the hills that fringe the Karmalas-Zamanti” and flow down into that 
river: and Prof. Ramsay supposes that the modern name Zamanti Su is 
derived from the city beside these fountains, “the river being called ‘the 
water that comes from Tzamandos” just as the Hermos is now called Gediz 
Su, ‘the water that comes from Kadoi’ (Kdéous, accus.), though both 
Tzamandos and Kadoi were situated some distance below the actual source of 
the river.” * While Tzamandos is frequently referred to in the late centuries, 
no mention is made of Ariarathia, which was situated at an important point 
in the upper Karmalas valley on the Sebasteia-Kokusos road. In order 
to account for this strange fact, Prof. Ramsay formerly conjectured (H. @. pp. 
310, 289 f.) that Tzamandos and Ariarathia were to be identified, Tzamandos 
being the native name which had been preserved in popular usage and passed 
into official use about the ninth century of our οἵα. ὃ He would now, 
however, modify this suggestion in view of a new piece of evidence. In an 
Armenian Notitia Episcopatwum (a translation of a Greek original of ca. 
1200), published by Mr, Conybeare in Byz. Z/t. V. p. 127, we find Tchamanton 
(obviously Tzamandos)*® and Ararathias “quae est in Dauthn (i.e. ‘the 
warm’)” given as two distinct bishoprics under Caesareia. Now Dauthn 
(see infra) is probably the pass leading by Kuru Tchai and Kokusos-Geuksun 
into Kommagene; and consequently Ariarathia should be brought lower 
down the Karmalas valley and located at, or very near, Herpa.’”_ The 


1 See Ramsay, Citics and Bish. of Phrygia, 
vol. i. p. xiv. n., and the Excursus at the end 
of this paper. 

® Larissa and Herpa must have been near each 
other. Herpa (Strabo, pp. 537, 539) or Herpha 
(p. 663) was on the road from Caesareia to 
Melitene at the point where it crossed the 
Karmalas (see Hist. Geog. pp. 289, 272-3). 
Larissa cannot be located with certainty, but 
lay on the direct road to Melitene, not far east 
of Arasaxa (H. α΄. pp. 272-3, and campaign of 
1069 infra). It was given, along with Komana, 
Tzamandos, ete., to the Armenian prince Gagik 
in 1064. 

% By Const. Porph. De Them. p. 32 and De 
Adm. Imp. p. 228; in 976 (Kedr. ii. p. 423) 


and 1068 (Mich. Att. pp. 121-2, Skylit. 678), 
see infra. The Armenian name is Dzamentay 
or Dzamentou, Arab. Samandou (St. Martin, 
Mém., sur V Arménie, I. p. 191). 

4 The quotation is from MS. notes of Prof. 
Ramsay’s, to whose unfailing kindness I owe far 
more than can be actually specified in the 
preparation of this paper. 

5 For similar cases see pp. 279 n., 280 n. 

8 TCapayrds in Mich. Att. 121. 

7 It is quite likely that Herpa is the older 
name of the town, which was renamed Aria- 
rathia after one of the Cappadocian kings, 
Ariarathes (ca. 350-36 B.c.): Herpa is not 
mentioned after beginning of first century B,c, 


24 THE ROADSYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR 


Dazmentos of this Notitia is probably the same place as the fortress 
Dasmenda mentioned by Strabo (φρούριον ἀπότομον Δασμένδα, p. 540) as 
situated in Chamanene, “at the western extremity of the ridge which bounds 
Cappadocia on the north” (ZZ. G. p. 290). 

After passing Tzamandos-Azizie, our road goes over the hills eastwards 
to Gurun. The section Gurun-Caesareia just described was traversed by 
the late Col. Stewart, and it will be useful to give his statistics (for which I 
am indebted to Prof. Ramsay). 


Miles 
Gurun. 
19% Keupek Euren, alt. 5994 ft. 
Commenced ascent of Gédilli Dagh. 
Crest of Pass, about 6,700 or 6,800 ft, due W. of Azizie. 
Borandere vill. 
Karagoz vill. 
Ford of Zamanti. 
Kara Boghaz. 
Azizie. Road over Godilli 1). is bad ; the araba road goes round North end of Dagh. 
Ekrek. 
Karadai. 
Kaisariye. 


»: 
"ἡ ὦ OW os CO 
Ro bo τον -- 


τῷ μ- 
ao ϑ' CO he 
hoe tot 


At or near Gurun the road passes through Lapara-Lykandos, which 
Prof. Ramsay now places here and identifies with the Paulician city Lokana, 
mentioned in Basil’s march, 872 a.D.1_ This localization is convincing and 
suits admirably the description of the march of Bardas Skleros in 976 (infra). 
The κλεισοῦρα of which Tzamandos and Lykandos are the limiting points 
(Const. De Adm. Jmp., p. 228) will then be the pass over Gédilli Dagh. 
Leaving Gurun, the road descends the Tokhma Su (Melas) to Taranta, 
Pliny’s Daranda-Dalanda, mod. Derende?; and thence to Melitene (Malatia). 
Somewhere in this vicinity was the pass (στενοχωρία) Boukoulithos (βυύκου 
λίθος) mentioned by Kedr. IL. p. 421. From Melitene the road goes to the 
Euphrates which it crosses at Tomisa, situated on the left bank at the 


1 See Class. Review, April 1896, p. 140 and 
137, and Map accompanying this paper. 
* Cl. Rev. 1.6. p. 137. The comparison of the 


Malatia was taken by the Greeks ca. 698, the 
Moslems settled at Taranda after it had been 
captured in 702, It lies three marches distant 


Arabic Taranda (Biladhuri, p. 186, ed. M. de 
Goeje), Armenian Daranda, Syriac Turanda (St. 
Martin /.c. p. 190), makes assurance doubly 
sure. Taranta was a place of importance, 
especially in the first half of the eighth century, 
when the district of Melitene was in Saracen 
hands. It is mentioned by Theoph. p. 312 De 
door (see infra) ; in 701 A.D. it was beseiged in 
vain by Abd Allah (’AfdeAGs), p. 372. Some 
further information about the fortress is given 
by Biladhuri, for all references to whom I am 
indebted to the kindness of Mr. Le Strange who 
has taken the trouble to translate for me his 
chap. on Mesopotamian Fortresses in the ‘ Book 
of the Conquests’ (ca. 869 a.p.). When 


from Malatiyya, deep in the Greek country ; 
and was held by a garrison of about 2,000 
troops from the Mesopotamian army, during 
the summer only (Biladh. p. 185). When 
Omar II. became Caliph (end of 717 Α.}.}, ‘he 
removed the Moslem population from Taranda, 
for he feared for their safety, the enemy being 
30 near ; the people however objected, and when 
they were perforce removed, they would leave 
nothing for the enemy, breaking even their oil 
and vinegar jars. The Caliph transported them 
to Malatiyya, leaving Taranda to ruin’ (p. 
186). In the following century it was a 
Paulician stronghold and surrendered to Basil I, 
in 872 a.p..(Theoph, Cont. 267). 


THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASTA MINOR. 25 


extremity of Sophene, and then enters Anzitene, called in Byzantine times 
Xavéir, the military centre of which was the fortress Hanzit, frequently 
mentioned by Armenian writers as Handzith and by Arabic geographers as 
Hanzit (Hinzit), one of the Greek frontier fortresses near the Euphrates, 
between Melitene and Samosata. Anzitene-Hanzit is generally placed further 
east, but the evidence seems clearly to show that it denoted the country 
between the Euphrates (starting from about Tomisa where Sophene ends), 
the Murad Tchai (as far at least as Palu-Romanopolis), and the sources of 
the Tigris! A little to the south-west of Kharput (Χάρποτε, Kedr. IT. 419) 
the road forks. One section goes to Kharput and thence by Arsamosata 
(Arab. Shamshat or Shimshat) on the Murad Tchai to Palu (Romanopolis) : 
but no doubt there was an alternative route by mod. Kizin to Palu. 
Arsamosata-Shamshat has been located by Mr. Le Strange from the de- 
scription of Ibn Serapion (see p. 57) who says, ‘the Nahr Salkit (= Peri 
Tchai) falls into the Arsanas (Murad Tchai) one mile below the city of 
Shamshat, near a mountain that is over the city and closes it in’ (p. 314, 
ef. pp, 45, 63). Combine this with Ptolemy’s μεταξὺ τοῦ Evdp. καὶ τῶν 
τοῦ Τίγριδος πηγῶν .... ᾿Αρσαμόσατα x.t.r. (v. 13, 18-19) and the 
inference is clear that the city is to be placed one mile from the junction of 
Peri Tchai and Murad Tchai on the left (south) bank of the latter river.? 
It formed at one time a Theme in the Byzantine Empire ᾿Ασμοσάτου 3 θέμα, 
Const. De Adm. Imp., p. 226). Romanopolis, which derives its name from 
Romanus I. Lecapenus, has been identified with the highest probability by 
Prof. H. Gelzer (Georg. Cypr., pp. 176-7) with Palu, Armen. Balu. The 
κλεισοῦρα, therefore, mentioned by Const. lc. p. 226 (τὸ δὲ Xavtir 
καὶ ἡ 'Ῥωμανοπ. κλεισοῦρα), lies on the road between Palu and Kharput 


1 Only the most important evidence can be 
given here. Ptolemy (v. 13, 19) places 
᾿Ανζιτηνὴ μεταξὺ τοῦ Εὐφράτους καὶ τῶν τοῦ 
Τίγριδος πηγῶν, including amongst its towns 
”Av¢nra and Arsamosata (below). In Byzantine 
and Arabic times it clearly denotes the district 
indicated above. It is always connected with 
the κλεισοῦρᾳαᾳ Romanopolis-Palu: before 
Romanus I. it was attached to Melitene (τὸ 
XavQr καὶ ἡ Ῥωμανοπ. κλεισοῦρα τῶν Μελιτηνια- 
τῶν ὑπῆρχον, Const. De Adm. Imp. p. 226), and 
was assigned by him along with Kamacha, 
Keltzine (Acilisene), etc. to the newly-constituted 
Theme of Mesopotamia (p. 227). Nicephorus, 
De Velit. Bell. p. 250 (quoted at end of Pt. 1.), is 
quite explicit: the trans-Euphrates passes into 
Saracen territory are those crossing ‘ the (Tauros) 
mountains which separate Chanzit from the 
enemy’s country as far as Romanopolis.’ All 
the passages from Syriac and Arabic writers 
collected by Gelzer, Geo. Cyp. p. 178 f., confirm 
this localization: 6.6. Faustus Byzant. v. 16 
gives as conquered in succession Arzanene, 
Sophanene, Ingilene (about Egil), and Anzitene, 


preserving the geographical order from south- 
east to north-west. The Arabic writers all agree 
in placing the fortress Hanzit close to the 
Euphrates between Malatya and Sumaysit 
(Samosata), on a tributary of the Euphrates, 
says Ibn Serapion, which ‘passes the city of 
Hanzit and the province thereof’ and then falls 
into the Euphrates (ed. Le Strange, p. 54, cf. 
nm. on p. 49), The Euphrates dépasse la ville de 
Hanzyt, puis tourne vers Vowest, arrive a 
Sumaysat...(Ibn Khordadbeh, Trans. p. 177). 
Space forbids further quotations. The fort 
then, should apparently be looked for near the 
Euphrates, west of Kizin: the position of the 
‘ province’ Anzitene-Hanzit seems clear. 

2 Ibn Serapion’s description is confirmed by 
Ibn Khordadbeh and Yakut (cf. Le Strange, Zc. 
p. 57). 

3 This is a reproduction of the Armenian 
form ASmusat, as Χανῶτ is of Handzith (Prof. 
Gelzer on Geo. Cyp. p. 172). The Theme of 
which Arsamosata was the central fortress 
apparently extended north of Murad Tchai 
(Arsanias). 


26 THE ROADSYSTEM OF EASTERN ASTA MINOR. 


or Kizin. Crossing the river at Palu, the road then follows the 
right bank of the Murad Tchai to Akhlat (XAva7, see campaign of 1069 
infra) on the lake of Van. The other section of this Eastern road passes to 
the south of Kharput by way of Kizin to Amida (Diarbekr) whence it 
follows the valley (left bank) of the Tigris to Nineveh, then crosses the R. 
Zab and proceeds to Arbela (Erbil). This I believe to be the line followed 
by the Persian Royal Road from 'Tomisa (see Excursus). 

This great and direct line of communication between West and East 
is the route generally taken in Byzantine Expeditions against Persia, and 
the section Tomisa-Caesareia will be seen to be the favourite route for 
Turkish raids into Asia Minor. Its direction is fixed by Theoph. p. 312, ed. 
De Boor, where the return of Heraclius from his second expedition against 
the Persians is described. On March 1, 626 Α.Ρ., before leaving the Lake 
of Van on his homeward journey, Heraclius held a consultation with his 
troops as to the route which he should take. The choice lay between two 
routes, (1) one leading ἐπὶ TdpavToy, 1... Taranta-Derende, and (2) another 
ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν Συρίων γῆν. The latter, which was unanimously chosen 
because it was better supplied with provisions, although the more difficult of 
the two, is the route leading over the Eastern Tauros (near Van), across 
the Tigris, and then by Martyropolis (Meiafarkin) and Amida (Diarbekr) to 
Samosata.! The alternative route ‘by way of Derende’ went along the 
right bank of the Murad Tchai (Arsanias) to Palu where it crossed the 
river and descended by Arsamosata-Shamshat to Kharput, and then joined 
the ‘Eastern road’ through Tomisa, Melitene, Derende, &c., to Caesareia. 

Some other marches which concern this route alone may be added here. 
In starting for his second expedition (624 A.D.), Heraclius probably took this 
same road. It has been generally supposed that he went to Armenia by 
sea; but it is pointed out by Εἰ, Gerland (Die Pers. Feldziige des Kaisers 
Herakleios in Byz. Zt. 111. p. 345 ff.) that while Byzantine authors are silent 
on the point, the Armenian historian Sebéos states that Heraclius marched 
from Constantinople to Caesareia in Cappadocia and thence to Armenia. 
This is obviously the correct account. Caesareia would be the most con- 
venient ἄπληκτον at which his forces could concentrate for an expedition to 
the East; and from Caesareia he then marched to Erzerim and the Araxes 
valley. He thus chose the same route as Philippicus, the general of Maurice, 
had done in 585-6: for it is stated that he also marched to Armenia by way 
of Caesareia. Finally, it is most probable that Heraclius returned by this 
way in 628 A.D. after his third expedition. 

A very important march is that of Bardas Skleros in 976 a.p. (Kedr. II. 
pp. 419—423). Skleros, who was appointed governor of Mesopotamia by 
Basil II., revolted against the king and proceeded to invade Asia Minor. 
After laying up stores at Kharput and obtaining assistance from the Emirs of 
Amida and Martyropolis, he began to march towards Caesareia. <A 
detachment sent to reconnoitre fell in with a division of the Imperial troops 


+ See the description in Theoph. p. 313. 


THE ROADSYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 27 


at the pass Boukou-lithos (ἔν tue στενοχωρίᾳ), and suffered defeat. After 
some delay Skleros started himself and in three days! reached Lapara, ‘ now 
called Lykandos, where he met and defeated the Emperor’s forces, and 
proceeded thence to Tzamandos, a populous and wealthy city situated on a 
steep rock (ἀποκρήμνῳ πέτρᾳ). Lykandos and Tzamandos, therefore, are 
both on the direct route to Caesarcia, 

For other campaigns see Part II. 


(2) The Roman Road.—The other route from Caesareia to the East is 
that followed by the Roman military road, viz. Kuru Tchai—Sirica (Kemer) 
—Kokusos (Geuksun)—Arabissos (Yarpuz)—Melitene. The direction of this 
road has been established by the discovery of a series of milestones (several 
of them i sitw). A large number of these was found by Mr. 1), G. Hogarth 
and Mr, J. A. R. Munro in 1891, and the whole subject is treated in a 
complete and admirable paper by Mr. Hogarth in Mod. and Ane. Roads in 
East. Asia Minor (R. G. 8. vol. iii), part ii, pp. 38---78, Only a brief 
description, therefore, is required here. From Caesareia the road follows the 
route just described [no. (1)] to Arasaxa-Zerezek where it branches off to 
Muhajir on the Karmalas-Zamanti and then crosses Anti-Tauros by the Kuru 
Tchai pass through the modern village Tass and Coduzabala to Sirica- 
Kemer.’ Coduzabala, which the Antonine Itinerary gives as a station both 
on the Caesareia-Kokusos and the Sebasteia-Kokusos roads, should probably 
be placed on the Kuru Tchai pass at the junction of these two roads (see 
Map). Sirica, placed by Prof. Ramsay on the Saros six* miles east from 
Komana-Shahr (#7. @. p. 312), ve. at Kemer, probably corresponds to the 
Serikha of the Armenian Notitia following Tchamanton (Tzamandos): for, as 
Prof. Ramsay remarks, it naturally follows Tzamandos which was situated in 
the same region. From Sirica the road goes nearly due South along the base 
of Bimboa Dagh to Kokusos-Geuksun, and then strikes North-East along the 
Geuk Su to Arabissos-Yarpuz, after which it crosses the Khurman Su at 
Izgin and the Sogutli Irmak near Ahazli and thence passes over the hills in 
a nearly direct line by Osdara, Dandaxina, and Arga-Arca® to Melitene. 
The latter section of this road from Arabissos is fully described in H. G, 
pp. 273-4. 


1 Measured apparently from about the 
Euphrates, though this is not precisely stated. 

2 Tzamandos was situated on the hill above 
the modern Azizie, which occupies the lower 
slopes. 

ΠΟΥ Id. aD. 2.1, 

4 *One too many,’ Hogarth 1.6. p. 51. 

6 With Arga it would be possible to identify 
the Paulician fortress Argaous, which occurs in 
the marches of Basil I. in 872 (Apyaové, 
Theoph. Cont. p. 270) and of Romanus IY. in 
1068 (’Apyaod, Ioan. Skylit. 670). Kedr, IJ. 
p. 154 tells us that Argaous and Amara were 
the first cities founded by the Paulicians with 
the aid of the Emir of Melitene ; and that when 


their numbers increased Tephrike was added. 
The first city would be in, or close to, Saracen 
territory : but as the sect grew in strength and 
became to a certain extent an independent state, 
they would have to find sites for their new cities 
outside Saracen territory, 1,6. further north. 
Now Amara (see infra iv. (2) δ) is north of 
Argaous and Tephrike is north of Amara. 
Argaous therefore might be Arga. But it is far 
more probable that it should be identified with 
modern Argovan, about twenty-five miles almost 
due north of Malatia, This suits the line of 
both marches (infra) far better and is in itselfa 
more natural position for the first Paulician 
city. 


28 THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 


The evidence of the milestones shows that the military road was built or 
reconstructed (restitwit) by Sept. Severus, 1.6. not earlier than the end of the 
second century after Christ, but a road of some kind may have previously 
existed along this line. That there was a trade route from Ephesus to the 
East as early as 100 B.c. is certain. This κοινὴ ὁδὸς is described by Strabo 
(p. 668) on the authority of Artemidorus. Up to Caesareia the description is 
full and clear. But what line did the section Caesareia-Euphrates take ? 
Strabo merely says ἐντεῦθεν δ᾽ ἐπὶ τὸν Εὐφράτην μέχρι Τομίσων χωρίου τῆς 
Σωφηνῆς διὰ ΗἩρφῶν πολίχνης χίλιοι τετρακόσιοι τετταράκοντα. Ἥρφαι, 
elsewhere Ἧρπα (pp. 537, 539), is Herpa on the Karmalas-Zamanti (see 
H. G. p. 289). The route indicated therefore is evidently that by Herpa- 
Azizie-Gurun-Derende-Malatia-Tomisa (opposite Isoghli): for the Roman 
Road did not go by Herpa but branched off at Arasaxa, and the other route 
is the natural line for a trade-route to the East and the easiest way to the 
Euphrates. I take this, then, as a proof of the importance of the Caesareia- 
Derende-Tomisa route in the early Roman period. The line of the Roman 
military road was probably determined by different considerations—viz. to 
connect with Germaniceia-Marash and the Syrian frontier, as well as with the 
frontier at Melitene. In the Byzantine period an army marching from the 
West towards Melitene never takes this route. 


II. ROADS FROM CAESAREIA TO THE SOUTH. 


(1) To Germaniceia-Marash. An army marching to Germaniceia would 
follow the Roman road by Arasaxa-Zerezek and over Anti-Tauros by the 
Kuru Tchai pass to Sirica-Kemer. At Sirica, the road to Germaniceia forks, 
and two routes were possible : (a) by Maroga (Maragos) and Tanadaris (Tanir) 
to Arabissos and thence by the well-known pass to Germaniceia and Adata. 
See H. G. pp. 271-2. This was the route almost always taken by Byzantine 
armies, and it is hardly necessary to quote campaigns in proof. 

(Ὁ) The alternative route still followed the Roman road to Kokusos- 
Geuksun. From that point there are three modern routes to Germaniceia, but 
only two of these are known to have been used in ancient times: (a) the Ayer 
Bel pass, which crosses the Geuk Su, ascends Ayer Bel, and passing Kalli- 
polis and Padasia (at Temelilik) crosses the Pyramos-Jihun to Germaniceia. 
This road is marked in the map in H. G. p. 266, and mentioned on p. 276. 
It was taken by Basil in 877, and Romanus IV. in 1068 (infra). (8) The 
other route, the most difficult of all, is the pass by Geben and thence along 
the Kursulu Su, round Dolaman Dagh to the Jihun (see Map). This was the 
road followed by the Crusaders in 1097 (below). 

Germaniceia is a great centre from which roads radiate in all directions, 
and it is just this fact which accounts for its strategical importance. Leading 
towards the East there is a road over the Ak Su past Adata (which lay to 


1 For the importance of Arabissos, see H, G. pp. 277, 311, 280, ete. From Tanadaris—Tanir 
there is also a direct road to Sebasteia (iv, (2) ὃ infra), 


THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 29 


the south of Inekli!), Katamana, Nisus, and Tharse to the Euphrates which 
it crosses at Samosata. See H. G. p. 279. Towards the South there are two 
roads. One leads straight to Antioch along Mt. Amanos, and was followed 
eg. by the Crusaders in 1097. The other goes by Doliche-Duluk to Aintab 
and thence to the Euphrates at Zeugma-Birejik (see ΓΤ, @. p. 279) or south- 
wards to Aleppo (Χάλεπ). This latter route was frequently taken in Byzan- 
tine marches into Syria (infra). 

This route by Kuru Tchai and Kokusos to Kommagene was called τὸ 
Δαουθᾶ, or at least it passed through the district which went by that name. 
In the difficult but important passage of Niceph. de Velitat, Belli p. 250 
(quoted below, p. 32), which summarises the Passes from Byzantine 
territory over Tauros into the Saracen country, the Anti-Tauros region is 
denoted by to Καησοῦν καὶ τοῦ (?) Δαουθᾶ. By τὸ Καησοῦν is probably 
meant the district traversed by the passes over Anti-Tauros to Sis (see (2) 
infra). The word Aaov@a seems to have been at last explained by Mr. 
Conybeare’s Armenian WNotitia, which gives as separate bishoprics under 
Caesareia Tchamanton-Tzamandos and Ararathias in Dauthn. As already 
mentioned, therefore, Ariarathia must be placed at or near Herpa, and the 
pass crossing Aaov@a4a—Dauthn is the road from Caesareia by Kuru Tchai. 


(2) To Sision-Sis. There are two roads to Sis, both indicated in the map 
in H. G. p. 2667: (a) from Caesareia by mod. Tomarze to Sebagena- 
Seuagen (or Suwagen) on the Karmalas-Zamanti and thence by the Gez Bel 
pass over Anti-Tauros to Hadjin. Between the point where this road leaves 
the Karmalas valley and Hadjin, probably near the mod. village Urumlu, is 
to be placed the Kaisos mentioned in Basil’s march 877 A.D. (Theoph. Cont. 
279, Kedr. II. p. 214, infra). Kaisos should probably be connected with 
Kabissos (8 = fF, cf. H. G. p. 312 n.) given in Not. I. as a bishopric of Cilicia 
Secunda, and by Ptolemy as Kabassos in Kataonia,® and also with the 
τὸ Καησοῦν of Nicephorus, 0, Καησοῦν is the district of which the fort 
Kaisos-Kabissos is the centre. The name of the fort would be extended 
to cover a district beyond its actual vicinity, just as Sebasteia, or Koloneia, 
gives its name to the whole Theme. The passes therefore which cross τὸ 
Καησοῦν are the pass which we are describing and the following more 
westerly pass to Sis; and the whole expression τὸ Kay. καὶ τοῦ (?) Δαουθᾶ 
will denote ‘the Anti-Tauros region crossed by the passes leading over 
Tauros, From Hadjin the road leads across the Saros-Sihun (here called 
the Geuk Su) and thence over Mt. Tauros to Sis. 

(Ὁ) The alternative route branches off from (a) on the north side of 
Mt. Argaios to Ferakhtin or Frakhtin on the Karmalas, thence to Kiskisos- 
Kisken and across Anti-Tauros by Enderessi Yaila to the Saros, after which 
it crosses Mt. Tauros to Sis. 


(3) The two passes on the west of mount Argaios leading from 
Caesareia to the south are of ped pos sig See H. G. PP. 350 ff. 


1 Cl. Review, l.c. pp. 138 sf. β ἮΝ pp. 271, 281, 291. 3 See H. G@. pp. 386, 451. 


30 THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 


(a) The less important of the two is the difficult road which runs nearly due 
south by Develi-Kara-Hissar to Podandos-Bozanti and through the Cilician 
Gates to Tarsus. This pass was called “ Karydion” (77. G. p. 351). (Ὁ) The other 
pass “ Maurianon” by way of Tyana and Loulon was the regular route across 
Tauros into Cilicia. It coincides with (a) nearly as far as Develi Kara Hissar 
and then branches off to the place now called Zengibar Kalesi, half an hour 
west of Develi, “a striking mediaeval castle on a lofty two-peaked hill.” This 
is the absolutely impregnable fort which the Crusaders in 1097 passed by 
without attempting to take (see infra). It is not named by the historians of 
the first Crusade, but Prof. Ramsay points out to me that it was Kyzistra, as 
is proved beyond all doubt by a passage in Chamich’s history. In 1079 
Gagik, the exiled king of Armenia, marched from Tarsus in the direction of 
Caesareia to annoy the Greeks and on arriving “on the plains of Arzias, near 
the fort of Kyzistra,” allowed himself to be led into an ambush and was 
imprisoned in the fort, which was impregnable. The Armenian chiefs laid 
siege to the place but could not take it, and when the body of the murdered 
King was suspended from the walls before their eyes, they retired, convinced 
that nothing could be done against his murderers. From Kyzistra the road 
proceeds to Tyana (Kizli-Hissar, three miles south of the mod. village Bor) 
and thence by Loulon to Podandos where it rejoins (a) and passes through 
the Pylae Ciliciae to Tarsus. 

From Tyana there is another route to Herakleia-Kybistra (Eregli) and 
thence either through the Cilician Gates or westwards to Barata, where roads 
diverge to Iconium and over the Isaurian mountains. These routes occur in 
the marches of Romanus and the Turks in 1069 and of the Crusaders in 
1097 (infra). 


III. PASSES FROM MELITENE INTO KOMMAGENE. 


The consideration of these will complete the list of Tauros-passes. 
There are at least two, and probably three, roads over Tauros from Melitene 
into Kommagene, indicated by Niceph. /.c.as those crossing τὰ (sc. ὄρη) παρακεί- 
μενα Μελιτήνην τε καὶ τὰ Καλούδια. The word Καλούδια is explained by a 
reference in Biladhuri (/.c. p. 187) who says that the fortress Kalaudhiyya 
was destroyed by the Grecks under Constantine Copron. in 751 A.D., after the 
capture and sack of Malatiyya (Malatia). Καλούδια is therefore the 
Graecized form of the Arabic name for Claudias. This fortress was situated 
on the Euphrates near Melitene and not south of Samosata, as is sometimes 
supposed. This is confirmed by Amm. Marcell. xviii. 7. The Persian King 
Sapor, marching into Asia Minor by way of Nisibis and Constantina, halted 
at the latter town where he learned that the Euphrates had risen high and 
could not be crossed by a ford; and consequently he decided to turn north- 
wards (flecti in deaterum latus) and, taking a more circuitous road through a 
fertile district, to make for the two fortresses Barzala and Laudias (Claudias), 
where the Euphrates “tenuis prope originem et angustus, nullisque adhuc 
aquis advenis adolescens, facile penetrari poterit, ut vadosus.” “ Prope 


THE ROADSYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 31 


originem ” is of course an absurd exaggeration, but the passage indicates that 
Claudias was far up the river near Melitene, as is shown by the fact that the 
Roman troops on receiving intelligence of this movement prepared to hasten 
to Samosata and, after crossing the river there and breaking down the bridges 
at Zeugma and Capersana, to repel the Persian advance. Now it has already 
been mentioned (§ 6) that a detachment under the tribunes was engaged in 
fortifying the western bank of the Euphrates “castellis et praeacutis sudibus 
omnique praesidiorum genere.” All these facts, combined with the words of 
Niceph., seem to prove the existence of a pass leading south along the river 
by Claudias, Barzalo, and other places of uncertain situation to Samosata (as 
marked in the map in HW. G. p. 266). 

The other two passes are better known. (1) One leads direct to 
Germaniceia up the course of the Sultan Su past Sozopetra-Zapetra (Arabic 
Zibatra, situated at Viran Sheher, four miles off the road towards the right’) 
and over Tauros by Surghi, Erkenek, Pavrelu, Inekli on the Ak Su, and past 
the ‘famous’ fortress Adata (Al-Hadath) to Germaniceia. 

(2) The other pass follows this same route as far as Surghi and thence 
turns south-eastwards to Perre (Hisn Mansur, mod, Adiaman) and Samosata- 
Samsat (as in map in H. G.). It was traversed in 872 A.D. by,a detachment 
of Basil’s army despatched from his base camp on the Zarnuk south-west of 
Melitene. This column after passing through τὰ στενὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ captured 
Zapetra, laid waste the adjacent country, and took Samosata: whence they 
returned to the Zarnuk. 


IV. ROADS RADIATING FROM SEBASTELA. 


Almost all these roads join one or other of the routes already described. 
They are all Roman roads except Sebasteia-Tephrike (3), which is not known 
to be Roman. 

_ (1) Sebasteia-Caesareia.—This road is of considerable importance as 
affording a direct route from Sivas (on the great military road of the Byzantine 
period) to Isauria or to the Cilician Gates; and as such it was used eg. by 
Romanus IV. in 1069 when he wished to reach the Cilician passes without 
loss of time in order to intercept the rapid retreat of the light Turkish 
horsemen. The road is clearly marked in Prof. Ramsay’s map (p. 266) and 
described on p. 270. It runs parallel to the course of the Halys through 
Malandara, Armaxa, and Aipolioi to Caesareia, Aipolioi is the Aepolion of 
the Armen. Not., and the name is preserved in mod. Palas.’ 


΄ 


(2) Sebasteia-Germaniceia.—There are two routes :— 
(a) Sebasteia-Tzamandos-Ariarathia and thence over Kuru Tchai by 
Kokusos to Germaniceia. The change in the position of Ariarathia 
necessitated by the Armen. Not. and the recognition of Kuru Tchai as the 


1 See Cl. Rev. l.c. p. 188 f. as in modern Greek.’—Prof. Ramsay in MS. 
2 * Palas=AlwoAlous, { being pronounced as y, —notes. 


32 THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASTA MINOR. 


great Anti-Tauros pass will involve a modification of the route laid down in 
ΗΠ. G. p. 214. The road will now run by Tonosa-Tunus, Karmalis on the 
Karmalas-Zamanti (Viran Sheher, H. G. p. 289), Tzamandos-Azizie, 
Ariarathia-Herpa (at Yere Getchen), and thence by Kuru Tchai and 
Coduzabala to Sirica and Kokusos-Geuksun. At Tzamandos it joins the 
eastern route Caesareia-Azizie-Tomisa [I. (1)] which it follows to Ariarathia- 
Herpa and there leads it into route II. (1) to Germaniceia. 

(Ὁ) Sebasteia-Gurun-Arabissos-Germaniceia. See AH. G. pp. 274-5. 
This was an important Roman road, used also in Byzantine times as affording 
a direct route north to Sebasteia from Germaniceia by the famous Arabissos 
pass [II. (1) a]. From Sebasteia it runs to Blandi (near Ulash) and thence 
to Euspoena-Ispa (at Deliklitash) on a branch of the Tokhma Su, the course 
of which it follows to Gauraina (Gurun) and Lykandos-Lokana where it 
crosses the eastern route. About midway between Euspoena and Gurun, 
near Manjilik, is probably to be placed the Paulician fortress Abara-Amara. 
The two names are obviously to be identified. Amara (Kedr. 11. 154) was 
one of the first two Paulician cities, the other being Arguous-Argovan (see 
note on Arga, supra, p. 27). Abara was one of the Paulician forts captured by 
Basil I. in 872 in his march from Tephrike by Taranta-Derende to Melitene 
(Cont. 267, Kedr. 207), and it was given along with Sebasteia, Larissa, and 
other cities to Senakerim, prince of Asprakania, by Basil 11. in 1021 (Kedr. 
Il. 464). It was a τοῦρμα of the Theme Sebasteia and became a κλεισοῦρα 
under Romanus IV. (Const. De Adm. Imp. p. 228). These statements seem 
to leave no doubt that it was situated on the pass between Sivas and Gurun, 
near Manjilik (see Map). From Gurun the road goes to Tanadaris-Tanir 
where it leads into the Arabissos-Germaniceia pass. 

(3) Sebasteia-Tephrike (Devrik).—This road leading to Tephrike and 
thence to Zimara (Zimarra) on the Euphrates was of great importance during 
the Paulician revolt in the ninth century. It is probable that there was 
also a road of some kind from. Euspoena joining a road from Tephrike at 
mod. Kangal and thence following the course of the Kuru Tchai to Melitene. 
On this road Aranga-Arani was perhaps situated (7. G. p. 275). This is 
the direction in which Basil I. marched after withdrawing from Melitene in 
872, capturing Argaous-Argovan and several other Paulician forts in this 
district. 


Before I go on to give some proof of the lines laid down for these 
roads by an investigation of Byzantine campaigns which passed over them 
it will be useful to quote and endeavour to explain the passage of Niceph. 
De Vel, Bell. p. 250, which summarises the majority of the routes described 
above. The words are δι’ οἵας yap ὁδοῦ διελθεῖν βουληθῶσιν (sc. the 
Saracens), ἀπό te τῶν ἐν Σελευκείᾳ κλεισουρῶν καὶ τοῦ τῶν ᾿Ανατολικῶν 


1 This might possibly be the ‘Aragines in βούκου λίθος near the Euphrates (Kedr. ii, 421, 
Pharakn’ of the Armen. Notitia. Is it possible supra, p. 24)? Prof. Ramsay, however, think 
that Pharakn (= ‘the sheepfold’) is the pass that Pharakn=Everek at base of Mt. Argaios. 


THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 33 


θέματος, καθὰ τὰ Ταυρικὰ ὄρη τήν τε Κιλικίαν διορίζουσι Καππαδοκίαν τε 
καὶ Λυκανδόν' πρὸς τούτοις δὲ (sc. δι᾿ οἵας ὁδοῦ διελθεῖν βουλ.) καὶ τὰ 
(sc. T. ὄρη) παρακείμενα Γερμανίκειάν τε καὶ Ἄδαταν! καὶ τὸ Καησοῦν καὶ 
καὶ τοῦ (1) Δαουθᾶ Μελιτήνην τε καὶ τὰ Καλούδια' καὶ τὰ πέραθεν τοῦ 
Εὐφράτου ποταμοῦ διορίζοντα τήν τε τοῦ Χανζῆτι λεγομένην χώραν καὶ τὴν 
πολεμίαν ἄχρι Ρωμανουπόλεως" ἐν ὅλοις τοῖς τοιούτοις θέμασι, δι᾿ οἵας ἂν 
ὁδοῦ ὑποστρέφοντες διελθεῖν πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν βουληθῶσιν, K.T.Xr. 

The importance of this passage lies in the fact that Nicephorus is 
speaking from personal knowledge of the country gained during the wars 
against the Saracens. But the passage is exceedingly difficult, and 
especially the first clause (ἀπό... Λυκανδόν), which can hardly be right as 
it stands (if the words are taken strictly): for the passes between Seleukeia 
and the Anatolic Theme cannot be the passes leading from Cilicia over 
Tauros into the Themes of Cappadocia and Lykandos! The meaning must 
be (1) the passes from the Anatolic Theme over Isauria to Seleukeia, and 
(2) those on the west of Mount Argaios, especially the Cilician Gates, and 
probably also the passes to Sis; (3) the passes across the Tauros Moun- 
tains overlying the district of Germaniceia and Adata on the one hand, and 
the Anti-Tauros region (Kaésoun? and Daoutha) on the other, 7.2. the passes 
to Germaniceia; (4) the passes across the Tauros Mountains overlying 
Melitene and Kaloudia (Claudias), 1.6. the passes from Melitene into Komma- 
gene: and (5) the passes beyond the Euphrates leading from the district 
between Tomisa and Romanopolis-Palu (Xavéir) into Saracen territory. Cf. 
Const.’s words, τὸ δὲ Xavtir καὶ ἡ Ρωμανοπ. κλεισοῦρα (De Adm. Imp. p. 226). 


Parr. 


CAMPAIGNS IN THE CAPPADOCIAN DISTRICT SHOWING THE 
ROUTES DESCRIBED. 


Heraclius’s March in 626 (Theoph. pp. 312-313). Routes traversed : 
Samosata—Germaniceia [under II. (1) ]; (?) Germaniceia- Arabissos—Sebas- 
teia [II. (1) a and IV. (2) a}. 

After reaching Samosata by way of Martyropolis and Amida, Heraclius 
took the direct road to Germaniceia, passing Adata on the way. Theo- 
phanes’ description of his subsequent route is confused; and it seems best 
to accept Prof. Ramsay’s correction Ἄδατα (for ‘Adava) and the slight 
transposition which makes the sentence read περάσας τὴν Ἄδατα eis Γερμ. 


1 Perhaps taken as a fem. sing., but ordin- 
arily rhy”Adara. ᾿Αδατᾶν in Bonn ed, isclearly 
wrong. 

2 From this passage alone it would be natural 
to connect Kaésoun with modern Khesun in 
Kommagene, south of Besne : but see above II. 
(2) and campaign of 877 infra. The Sis passes 

H.S.— VOL. XVII. 


should strictly be included under τὸ Kay. καὶ τὸ 
Aaova but Niceph, is evidently thinking of the 
passes leading from the Anti-Tauros region 
generally across Tauros to Germaniceia and 
Adaia, The Sis passes ought to come under 
those leading from the Theme Lykandos into 
Cilicia. 
D 


34 THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 


ἀφίκετο καὶ πάλιν τὸν Ταῦρον ὑπερβὰς ἦλθε πρὸς τὸν Xdpov.! The route 
taken by Heraclius will then be the Arabissos pass (which was the 
ordinary route) to the Saros which he crossed by a bridge, a solid structure 
with προπύργια capable of defence, such as we might expect to find on this 
road. While he lay encamped there, he was overtaken by the Persian 
general, Shahrbarfz, who had reached the Euphrates before him, and broken 
down the bridge of boats at Samosata, but had failed to intercept his 
retreat. The Persians succeeded in bringing on a battle but were defeated. 
Heraclius then continued his march to Sebasteia, when he went into winter 


quarters. 


Cont. p. 277 ff, Kedr. II. 


Basil’s Campaign in 876-7? (Theoph. 
[Π-. (1) 4]; 


213 ff.). Routes traversed : Caesareia—Kokusos—Germaniceia. 
and the passes towards Sis [II. (2) a & 6]. 

To understand Basil’s movements in 877, it is necessary to observe that his 
march into Kommagene in that year was not a mere isolated expedition, but 
part of a concerted scheme to drive the Saracens out of the whole Tauros region. 
Operations were being simultaneously carried on in the north against the 
remnants of the Paulician community, in the south-west against Loulon and 
Tarsus, and by Basil himself against the country between Caesareia and 
Adata. The Arabs did not really conquer this region: they merely held it by 
strong garrisons in the various fortresses, levying imposts on the Greek 
inhabitants ; and consequently the capture of these strongholds would mean 
the recovery of the whole country. This was Basil’s object. In 876 the 
fortress Loulon, commanding the Tyana-Tarsus pass and therefore occupying 
a very important strategic position (Cont. 277), which ‘through the 
negligence of preceding Emperors had been captured by the Saracens and 
fortified and garrisoned by them on account of its natural strength, was 
recovered by Basil’s generals. This was followed by the surrender of the 
fort Melouos, on the Laranda-Kelenderis pass. About the same time the 
Paulician town Katabatala,? to which the Paulician refugees had retired 
after the fall of Tephrike (873), was taken and sacked. Next spring 
(877) these successes were followed up by an expedition against the inter- 
mediate country (between Caesareia and Kommagene) undertaken by Basil 
himself, while his generals continued the war in the vicinity of Tarsus and 
against the Paulicians in the north (see n. 37). Starting from Caesareia, 
Basil sent forth a detachment to pioneer the way and followed himself with 
the main body. The detachment captured the forts Psilo-kastellon (Cont. 


most improbable that he would cross (1) Amanos, 
(2) Tauros by Cilician Gates, and thence by a 
most difficult route come round to Sivas. 


1 See Class. Review, 1.6. p. 140 note, and 
H. G. p. 311. If the text of Theoph. is right, 
the description is obviously very bad. It may 


be answered that he meant to say ‘on his way 
over Tauros (Amanos, cf. Mich. Att. 120, Sky). 
677) he reached Germaniceia, and passing Adana 
came to the Saros.’ If so, the text requires 
much alteration, for the proper order is Ger- 
maniceia—Amanos—Saros—Adana ; and it is 


2 The date is 877, not 880, for Sima, who 
submitted to Basil, was killed by Tulun of 
Egypt in 878 (Weil, Gesch. der Khal. ii 
473 n.). 

3 Kedr. calls it Kameia. 


THE ROADSYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 35 


Xylo-kastron, Kedr.) and Paramo-kastellon (Phyro-kastron, Kedr.). Then 
the fortress Phalakron voluntarily surrendered. These forts lay between 
Caesareia and the Karmalas-Zamanti on the routes leading into the two Sis 
passes and the pass over Anti-Tauros towards Kokusos, Basil’s plan obviously 
being to secure all the passes as he advanced southwards.!__ Basil then 
crossed * the Onopniktes (Karmalas) and the Emir of Anazarbos (Anazarbe) 
along with the troops from Melitene fled before his advance (ἐπεὶ ἤγγιζε, 
Kedr.), thus leaving him free to secure the passes beyond the Karmalas. 
This was effected by the capture of Kaisos [or Katasama; Kasama, Kedr.], 
Robam [Kedr. gives Karba], Endelechéne* or Andala [Ardala, Kedr.], and 
Krémo-sykéa (or -sykaea, Cont.) ; and thereupon Simas ‘the son* of Taél,’ 
who held the passes of the Tauros (1.0, Anti-Tauros) and harassed the Roman 
borders, submitted to Basil, who then crossed the River Saros and continued 
his advance towards Koukousos (Kokusos). 

These fortresses are again to be looked for on the passes leading to Sis.° 
Kaisos and Robam cannot be identified with Ibn Khordadbeh’s Kaisoum 
and Ra‘bin (De Goeje’s Trans. p. 70) which are frontier fortresses of Meso- 
potamia and identical with the Armenian Khesoun, modern Khesun (south 
of Besne), and the Armenian Rhaban, south-west of Khesun, between that 
town and Marash (St. Martin, Mém. sur lV Arménie, I. p. 194). But Kaisos 
should probably be connected with Kabissos of Not. I. and Ptolemy’s Kabassos 
in Kataonia, and Niceph’s. τὸ Καησοῦν (see above). τὸ Καησοῦν then is the 
district of Kaisos-Kabissos, which is itself to be placed on the more easterly 
of the two passes over Anti-Tauros towards Sis, nearly opposite to Kiskisos- 
Kisken on the western pass. 

Arrived at Kokusos-Geuksun, Basil set fire to the woods round the 
town and then plunged into the defiles of Tauros, cutting his way through 
the pathless forests,® and cheering on his men by his personal exertions, 
past Kallipolis and Padasia to Germaniceia. The Arabs remained within . 
their walls, not venturing to offer him battle, but as the siege of the town 
was hopeless he passed on to Adata (Adapa in Kedr., 7 for τ), which he 
besieged in vain. He then devastated the adjacent country and captured the 
πολίχνιον Geronta (? Geron). After another attempt on Adata, he retired 
cautiously in fear of an ambush, and after receiving the submission of 


1 Phalakron may be Frakhtin (Ferakhtin) on 
the western pass to Sis; the -tin is the Arabic 
word Din widely adopted in Turkish [W. M. 
R.]. Ῥ511ο-, Xylo-, ete. are all Graecized 
forms. 

2 Cont. and Kedr. do not precisely say so ; 
after enumerating all the forts they say vaguely 
τὸν ᾿Ονοπνίκτην λεγόμενον ποταμὸν Kal τὸν Sdpov 
διαπεράσας, knowing only that the forts were in 
this district somewhere. The Saracen army 
would not take to flight, nor would Simas, ‘ who 
held the Tauros passes’ (infra), submit before 
Basil had reached the Karmalas, as their language 
would imply. 


It might be suggested that the curious name 
Onopniktes is a popular word expressing the 
difficulty of fording the river (ὄνος, πνίγειν), 

8 Cont. says τῆς Ῥοβὰμ ἤτοι ᾿Ενδελεχόνης ἡ 
πόρθησις γέγονεν, ἅμα δὲ καὶ ἡ τῆς ᾿Ανδάλου : 
probably to be changed to τῆς ᾿Ανδάλου ἤτοι 
Ἐν δελ. 

4 Simas was not ‘son of Tael’ but his sur- 
name was Tawil, i.e. ‘the tall’ (Weil, le. ii. 
p. 473 n.). 

5 Endelechone— Andala may perhaps be 
Enderessi on the western pass. 

§ Which shows that this was not the ordinary 
route to Germaniceia, 


D 2 


36 THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 


Abdelomel, ὃς τῶν ἐκεῖσε τόπων ἐκυρίευσε, returned across Mount Argaeos to 
Caesareia. Here he received the news of his generals’ victories, which 
were soon confirmed by the arrival of the prisoners from the district of 
Koloneia and from Loulon,—they are said to be Saracens and Kurds 
(Kovprot) from Tarsus and the Paulician fortresses,—and after slaughtering 
them all he returned by Midaion, where his army went into winter quarters, 
to Constantinople. 


Campaign of Romanus IV. in 1068 (Mich. Attal. pp. 104 ff, Skyl. pp. 
668 ff.). Routes traversed: Caesareia-Lykandos [I. (1)] Sebasteia-Kokusos- 
Germaniceia-Aleppo [IV. (2) @ and II. (1) 0]; through Cilicia by Cilician 
Gates to Constantinople [II. (3) 6]; the Turks traverse I. (1) to Amorion. 

This is the first of a series of campaigns against the marauding bands of 
Seljuks, whose ever-increasing raids made Asia Minor insecure from end to 
end. In the spring of 1068 Romanus set out from Constantinople with the 
intention of operating first of all against the Turks on the northern frontier. 
He advanced through Bithynia and Phrygia, 1.6. by the military road passing 
through Dorylaion and Sebasteia, and when he had got as far (apparently) 
as Basilika Therma, the Turks made a feint of retiring before him, and he 
resolved to march southwards into Syria against the Saracens of Aleppo 
(Χάλεπ) who, in concert with the Turks, were constantly attacking Antioch 
as the first step in a scheme for the reconquest of the whole of Syria. He 
therefore left the road leading ‘straight to Sebasteia and Koloneia’ and 
marched southwards obviously by the road leading to Caesareia and thence 
by the eastern route [I. (1)] to Lykandos, where he intended to remain 
during the hot season and then advance into Syria in the autumn. While 
encamped here, he received intelligence that the Turks had made a sudden 
raid on Neocaesareia-Niksar and were returning again loaded with their 
-spoils. Without losing a moment, he marched rapidly northwards again διὰ 
ἀτραπῶν δυσβάτων towards Sebasteia, and as he approached the town, he 
ordered the main body of his army under Andronikos to proceed thither, 
while he himself with thé cavalry hurried over the hills between Argaous 
and Tephrike? in pursuit of the rapidly retreating Turks. This means that 
he marched along the Gurun-Sivas road [IV. (2) Ὁ] about as far as Abara- 
Amara and then struck right across the hill-country towards Tephrike and 
the north-east. By this cross-march (κατὰ τὸ ἐγκάρσιον) he succeeded in 
overtaking the marauders and compelled them to relinquish their plunder 
and prisoners. He then rejoined his army at Sebasteia (beginning of October) 
and after a halt of three days marched south again by the defiles of Kokusos 
(διὰ τῶν τῆς Κουκουσοῦ αὐλώνων) to Germaniceia. Evidently, therefore, he 


1 This means that the war begun the year the order of the words does not prove that 
before in the south-west and north was being Argaous is north of Tephrike: he has just said 


carried on at the same time as Basil’s expedition: εὐθὺ KoAwvelas καὶ SeBaorelas. The site assigned 
next year (878) Abdallan, Emir of Tarsus, was to Argaous (supra) at Argovan suits this passage 
decisively defeated at Podandos. well. 


2 τῆς τε Teppixns καὶ τῆς ᾿Αργαοῦ (Skyl. 670) : 


THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 37 


took the route by Tzamandos and the Kuru Tchai pass. Before reaching 
Germaniceia, {.6. probably from Kokusos, he despatched a large division to 
Melitene to guard the frontier [route I. (2)] and prevent Apsinalios or 
Ausinalios [= Afschin (Weil, 1.6. iii. p. 112, 2. 2)], the Turkish commander in 
these parts, from raiding across the Euphrates. So inefficiently was the 
command executed that a band of Turks actually passed Melitene before the 
very eyes of the garrison and fell wpon Romanus’ foraging parties, some of 
which they cut off. They must therefore have crossed into Kommagene by 
the Melitene-Germaniceia pass [III. (1)]. Romanus, after leaving German- 
iceia entered the district (θέμα) called by the Armenians Τελοὺχ [Doliche,} 
the Dolouk of Ibn Khordadkeh (p. 70), mod. Duluk, two hours north-west of 
Aintab], and thence passed on to Aleppo, at this time under the Emir 
Mahmud (Μαχμούτιος). After ravaging the country around without 
attacking the town itself, Romanus marched against Hierapolis (Membid)) 
which he captured and fortified as an outpost to guard the Syrian 
frontier. While he was engaged in besieging the Acropolis, Mahmud made 
an unexpected advance from Aleppo and inflicted a serious defeat on the 
troops set to guard the part of the town already captured: but the disaster 
was avenged after the final capture of the town by a night attack on the 
Saracen camp, which freed the Emperor from further molestation. Placing 
Membidj under a στρατηγός, he advanced to Azas,? which he failed to take, 
then entered the country of Ausonitis where he burned Katma® (a fort. of 
the Emir of Aleppo) and encamped at Terch&la (Tarchéla). Shortly after 
this he,entered Byzantine territory and marching in the direction of Antioch 
captured by the way a town Artach (near Antioch), which was evacuated by 
its Saracen inhabitants. At this point he determined, in consideration of the 
exhaustion of his troops, not to proceed to Antioch but turned towards north- 
west and crossing Mt. Amanos by the Syrian Gates (Beilan pass, ai 
κλεισοῦραι δι’ ὧν ἡ Κοίλη Συρία τῆς Κιλικίας χωρίζεται) reached Alexandros 
(Alexandretta), Thence he marched by the road which skirts the Amanos 
range (τὸν Ταῦρον), until he emerged into the plain of Issos; whence he 
marched through Cilicia and the Cilician Gates to Podandos. Just as he 
was entering Typsarion or Gytarion (Skyl.) which Prof. Ramsay with great 
probability locates at the point where the Tarsus-Tyana and Tarsus-Caesareia 
(‘Maurianon’ and ‘Karydion’) passes forked, he received reports of the 
mismanagement of the general sent to Melitene to guard the frontier, 
who had allowed the Turks to cross the Euphrates and pass along the 
‘Eastern road’ [I. (1)] by Caesareia to Amorion, which they took and 
plundered. They had left their camp at a place called Ghalceus (τῇ τοῦ 
Χαλκέως τοποθεσίᾳ) near Tzamandos, where the Roman general had his 
troops stationed; but so far from suffering any inconvenience from his 


1 Δολιχὴ becomes Dolouk and then againin Chesney. It is called “Αζάζιον, two days’ march 
Greek Τελούχ ! It is mentioned both as πόλις from Berroia (Aleppo),”” in Kedr. ii, 492. 
and as θέμα in Kedr. ii. 494. 3 Modern Kutma, nearer Antioch. The 
2 “ Azaz is about twenty miles north by west description of the march is very accurate. 
of Aleppo,’ Finlay, i. 472 quoting from Col, 


38 THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 


presence there, the Turks on their return had actually defeated him and shut 
him up in the fort. Consequently the Emperor finding himself unable to 
pursue them returned direct to Constantinople. 


Romanus’ campaign in 1069 (Mich. Attal. 122 ff., Sky]. 678 ff.). Routes 
traversed: Caesareia—Melitene, over Euphrates, [1 (1)] and thence north to 
Acilisene ; Koloneia — Sebasteia — Caesareia — Herakleia [IV. (1) and II. 
(3) b]; Melitene — Caesareia —Iconium [1. (1) and IT. (3) 4]; Icontum— 
Seleukeia—by Syrian Gates to Aleppo. 

In 1069 Romanus undertook a second campaign against the Seljuks. 
After quelling the rebellion of Crispin, a Norman noble in his service, he 
arrived with a large force at Caesareia and continued his march eastwards to 
Larissa, where he heard that a Turkish horde was engaged in pillaging the 
country in the vicinity. A detachment despatched against them was driven 
back in rout, and Romanus then moved onwards towards Melitene. While 
he was engaged in pitching his camp, the Turks suddenly appeared and, 
occupying the higher ground, proceeded to attack the Byzantine army in the 
plain below, but were defeated. Romanus allowed them to retreat without 
molestation and when he followed them three days afterwards they crossed 
the Euphrates and encamped there, waiting till he should return home. 
When he had advanced within less than two days’ march of Melitene, he 
thought of returning again and abandoning a wearisome and _ fruitless 
pursuit, merely leaving a force to guard the frontier; but he 
finally determined to cross the Euphrates and march against Χλιῴτ, mod. 
Akhlat, on Lake Van, hoping by the capture of the town to secure the 
Armenian frontier and arrest the ruinous incursions of the Turks. Accord- 
ingly he advanced by Melitene and crossed the river (τῆς προσωτέρω 
φερούσης ἥψατο ἕως τὸν Εὐφρ. διαπεραιωθεὶς x.7.r.), compelling the Turks 
to retreat inland (εἰς τὰ σφέτερα). The line of march is thus the ‘ Εἰδβύθγῃ 
road’ [I. (1)]. The direct route from this point to Akhlat went by Kharput 
and Romanopolis—Palu and thence through difficult country to Van (supra). 
This route he followed for a short distance (ὡς yap εὐθὺς τῆς ‘Pwpavor. 
ἐλαύνων ἐφαίνετο, ἐξ ἧς ἡ πρὸς TO Χλιὰτ κάθοδος διὰ στενωπῶν ἐπιγίνεται, 
μεταστρέψας τὴν γνώμην...) and then suddenly halted ἐν βαθεῖ τόπῳ, where 
he divided his army and placed the stronger division under the command of 
Philaretos for the defence of the frontier, while he himself turned north- 
wards,! preferring a cooler climate. After passing over rough and mountain- 
ous country, he reached a place called Anthias, a fertile and well-watered 
spot amidst high mountains. It should be looked for in the watershed south 
of Mezur Dagh. Thence he proceeded to cross “ Mount Tauros, called by the 
inhabitants Movfoupos,” 1... Mezur Dagh (Arabic Jabal Mazur), and passing 
a second time over the Euphrates entered Κελεσίνη (Acilisene, Skyl. 
Κελτζηνή), which is accurately described as separated from Mezur Dagh by 
the river. While encamped here he received intelligence that Philaretos had 


' The crossing of Murad Tchai is not mentioned, but must be assumed. 


THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 39 


been defeated by the Turks and the routed troops soon arrived at his camp, 
fleeing by way of Anthias and Mezur Dagh. The Turks pursued for some 
distance, but finding the country impracticable for light horsemen, they 
turned back, crossed the Euphrates above Melitene, and over-ran Cappadocia 
in their usual manner, making for the populous but defenceless city of 
Iconium (Konia). Romanus rallied his forces and determined to intercept 
their return. His first plan was to “lead his army through the town of 
Keramon to the banks of the Euphrates as far as Melitene,” but it was 
pointed out that this route ran through a deserted and pillaged district where 
supplies would be hard to obtain, and that time would be wasted in traversing 
ground where it was necessary:to march in single file. The route indicated is 
not clear, but apparently it crossed Mezur Dagh towards Murad Tchai and 
Melitene! In any case he abandoned this idea and marched through 
Koloneia and the Armeniac Theme to Sebasteia, 7.e. by the road Satala— 
Koloneia—Nicopolis—Sebasteia. At Sebasteia he learned that the Turks 
were marching through Lycaonia and Pisidia on their way to Iconium? and 
so he advanced to Herakleia—Kybistra (Eregli), 1.2, by the road through 
Caesareia [ IV. (1)] and thence by Tyana to Herakleia [ II. (3) 6]. Hearing 
at this point that the Turks had sacked Iconium. and were returning, he 
despatched a detachment to Cilicia to effect a junction with Katatourios, the 
governor (“duke”) of Antioch, whom he requested to secure the passes east 
of Mopsuestia (Missis). The Turks marched διὰ τῶν τῆς Σελευκείας ὀρῶν 
and, as they emerged into the plain of Tarsus, they were attacked by the 
ΟΠ Armenian inhabitants but escaped, with the loss of their booty, through 
Cilicia. Being informed by Greek captives that a force was awaiting them at 
Mopsuestia, they avoided the town and after a short halt at Blatilibas 
(Baltolibas, Skyl.) hurriedly crossed Amanos (τὸ Σαρβανδικὸν ὄρος) by the 
Syrian Gates to Aleppo. Romanus learning of their escape at Claudiopolis, 
whither he had advanced to meet them, left a force to operate against other 
Turkish bands and returned to Constantinople. 


The First Crusade in 10973 Routes : Nicaea—Dorylaion—Iconium— 
Herakleia (Eregli); thence to Tarsus—Adana—Syrian Gates—Antioch 
[under II. (3) ὃ ete.]; Herakleia—Caesareia—Kokusos—Germaniceia— 
Antioch [II. (3) ὃ and II. (1) Ὁ]. 

After the capture of Nicaea, the Crusaders proceeded by Dorylaion and 
Iconium to Herakleia—Kybistra, which was evacuated by the Turks on their 
approach. At this point the army divided. Baldwin and Tancred with their 
own following marched southward by Podandos and the Cilician Gates to 
Tarsus, which they captured without difficulty ; whereupon Adana (Addana, 


1 Keramon can hardly be connected with τὸ 
Κεραμίσιον on the Zarnuk, the most easterly 
tributary of Tokhma Su (Melas) flowing past 
Melitene (Theoph. Cont. 268). 

2 The Turks therefore took their favourite 
route by Caesareia [I. (1)] and thence to Iconium 


[II. (3) 2]. 

3 I have followed the accounts of the Latin 
writers in Migne’s Patrol, Lat. vols. clvi. 
(Guibert) and οἷν, (Rob. Mon., Tudebodius, 
etc.). 


40 THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 


Rad. Cadom.; Athena, Guibert 728 etc.) and Mopsuestia (called Mamistra, 
Mamysta, Manustra) voluntarily surrendered. From Mopsuestia Baldwin 
marched (through Amanus Gates) across the Euphrates to Edessa, while 
Tancred proceeded by the Syrian Gates to Antioch. Leaving Herakleia, the 
larger portion of the Frankish army under Raymond, Bohemond, and Godfrey 
took a longer route. They entered the ‘Armenian country, and marching by 
Tyana towards Caesareia reached a certain fortress on an impregnable site, 
which they made no attempt to take. This fort is not Tyana (in the plain) but 
Kyzistra (see on II. (8) δ), mod. Zengibar Kalesi, half an hour west of Develi 
Kara Hissar, “a striking mediaeval castle on a lofty two-peaked hill.... 
which has been (prob. not correctly) identified with Nora, where EKumenes 
defied Antigonus in 320 B. c.” (Hogarth in Sir C. Wilson’s Handbook p. 163). 
After passing Kyzistra they reached Caesareia, where they were welcomed by 
the inhabitants. They thus took the route traversed by Romanus in 1069 
(in the opposite direction). At Caesareia they turned again towards Antioch. 
Marching no doubt by the Kuru Tchai pass, they arrived first at Plastentia, 
a town situated in a beautiful and fertile country (multae pulchritudinis et 
situs uberrimi civitatem), which had been besieged in vain by the Turks for 
three weeks before the arrival of the Crusaders, who were received with open 
gates. Plastentia! is evidently the Armen. Ablastha, Syriac Ablestin, 
which has usually been identified with Albistan, but should apparently be 
placed in the upper Saros valley. Thence they moved onwards to Coxon 
(Guibert, 730; Coxan, Tudebod. 776; Cosor, Rob. Mon. 695), 1.6. Geuksun— 
Kokusos, which was at that time in a very flourishing condition” From 
Geuksun they marched towards Marash by a route so exceedingly difficult 
that it calls fprth from the monk Tudebodius such choice epithets as diabolica, 
exsecrata montanea. It is described as a narrow path (arctus et nimis scrupeus 
calles praeruptus, Guibert), so broken and steep that everybody alike had to go 
on foot and it was impossible to pass by the man in front. It is evident, 
then, that they did not take the pass traversed by Basil in 877 and by 
Romanus in 1068, ὁ.6. the Ayer Bel pass by Kallipolis and Padasia, which by 
general testimony is by far the easiest road through the eastern Tauros (see 
the interesting account by Hogarth, Mod. and Anc. Roads in East. Asia Minor, 
p. 20), but the route by Geben along Kursulu Su and round Dolaman Dagh 
to the Jihun—Pyramos and thence to Marash. In the description of this 
pass in Sir Ο, Wilson’s Handbook, Mr. Hogarth says, “it crosses the spurs of 
Dolaman Dagh by a very difficult rocky path. The descent to the Kursulu 
Su which has run, with several falls, through a deep chasm, is very steep, and 
there is an equally bad ascent, the path being in places only a foot wide” (p. 
271). Compare the words used by Robert, the monk of Reims, who gives a 
vivid account of the soldiers’ despair, ‘Semita non amplius quam unius pedis 
spatio dilatabatur’ (p. 695). 


+ The name is given by Baldric, 3 Von Moltke, quoted by Hogarth in Mod. 


2 ‘In qua erat maxima ubertas atque stipata and Anc. Roads, etc. p. 20, describes the road 
omnibus bonis quae nobis erant necessaria,’ from Marash to Geuksunas difficult. This may 


Tudeb, 1.6. : so Guibert, etc, have been the route he took. 


THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 41 


After emerging from this ‘exsecrata montanea,’ the Crusaders reached 
Marash (Marasim, G'wibert and Rob. Mon.; Marusim, 7udeb.), where they were 
hospitably received, and after a day’s rest proceeded towards Antioch. 


Basil’s campaign of 8721 (Theoph. Cont. 267 ff., Kedr. 207 ff). Routes: 
Military Road to Tephrike [IV. (8)]; thence by IV. (2) b to Gurun and [by 
I. (1)] to Derende and over the hills to R. Zarnuk (west of Melitene). 

In 872 Basil marched against the Paulicians by the Dorylaion— 
Sebasteia road to Tephrike. Failing to take the town, he captured several 
of their fortresses, the most important being Abara—Amara on the Sivas— 
Derende road (supra). As he marched southwards along this road, Taranta— 
Derende submitted and its submission was followed by the surrender of 
Lokana—Lykandos. From Derende he then crossed the hill-country between 
the Tokhma Su (Melas) and the Sultan Su (Arab. Karakis) to a position on 
the river Zarnuk (supra), south-west of Melitene, sending a detachment 
against Zapetra (Viran Sheher) and Samosata—Samsat. When this detach- 
ment returned, he marched on Melitene. The Emir’s forces sallied out to meet 
him but were defeated and shut up within their walls. It was hopeless, 
however, to attempt to besiege the strongly fortified town and Basil marched 
northwards again through the Paulician territory by way of Argaous— 
Argovan, which he captured. Several other forts were taken in the country 
between Argaous and Arauraca (which seems to be the place meant by 
Ararach—Rachat), and Basil then returned home. Tephrike was taken and 
the Paulician community crushed in the following year (873). 


EXCURSUS. 
THE Roya Roap. 


BEFORE discussing the line of the Royal Road from Caesareia eastwards, 
it is well to have realised the importance of the route by Herpa, Tzaman- 
dos-Azizie, Melitene, and over the Euphrates at Tomisa throughout the 
Byzantine period and apparently also in the last two centuries B.C., as 
reported by Strabo on the authority of Artemidorus (supra on I. 2). 
After passing Tomisa, the road to Persia would naturally turn south by 
Amida-Diarbekr and along the left (north) bank of the Tigris,—much in the 
line assigned to it in this part by Kiepert. The distance from the first 
crossing of the Halys to the Euphrates by this road will be found to cor- 
respond approximately to the 1194 parasangs (3585 stadia) which Herodotus’ 
Itinerary (V. 52) gives as the whole distance for Kappadokia and Kilikia 
(to the Euphrates). 

Why then should this line for the Royal Road be doubted? Largely 


1 Discussed in Class. Rev., l.c. pp. 136 ff., and only summarised here in the briefest possible 
manner, 


42 THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASTA MINOR. 


because of the so-called ‘ Kilikian question’ in Hdt.’s account of the road, 
1.6. the extraordinary fact that while Kappadokia is crossed only in twenty- 
eight stages (104 par. or 3120 stadia) the large district of ‘ Kilikia,’ 
extending to the Euphrates, requires only three stages (15} par. or 465 
stadia). Now considering the large size of Hdt.’s ‘ Kilikia’ which extends 
‘on one side to the Halys (1. 72), on another to Euphrates (V. 52), and also 
down to the Cyprian Sea (V. 49), the shortness of the distance across 
Kilikia reasonably excites suspicion. It is possible then that the distances 
are wrongly distributed between the two districts. This might be due (@) to 
corruption in the text; for it is admitted that the text of the Itinerary 
is corrupt at least in one place (de la Barre’s emendation) and probably in 
another (Stein’s transposition of the three Armenian rivers to Matiene). 
Or (Ὁ) it might be due to misconceptions on the part of Hdt. His knowledge 
of the Royal Road is derived not from ὄψες but from some unknown authority. 
But in one point Hdt. has misconceived his authority. The διξαὶ πύλαι and 
διξὰ φυλακτήρια passed by the traveller on the borders of Kappadokia and 
Kilikia must almost certainly refer to the guard at the Cilician Gates. Hdt. 
therefore conceived the road to pass through the Gates into maritime Kilikia 
either because he confused the guard at the Kilikian frontier with the guard 
at the Cilician Gates or because he has put ‘together two separate and un- 
connected facts: he has put the guard of the Cilician Gates on the Royal 
Road, and he has connected the “ Royal Road” therefore with maritime 
Cilicia (V. 49) whereas it crossed Cappadocian Kilikia (V. 52)’ (Ramsay, 
Cit. and Bish. of Phrygia, I. p.xiv.n.). Such an initial error would lead to 
other distortions of the facts before him, in order to bring them into harmony 
with the first misconception. We are familiar with the manner in which 
modern writers, more scientific than Hdt., often strain facts to make them 
fit into a theory. But apart from this supposition as to the διξαὶ πύλαι, 
Hadt., while very likely retaining the whole distance (1194 par.), may have 
modified the Kilikian distances! to suit his own ideas of ‘ Kilikia,’ which of 
course he would believe to be right! ‘Kilikia’ with Hdt. is no very 
definite region: it is the ‘land inhabited by the Kilikians’ as Assyria is that 
inhabited by the Assyrians, and Egypt by the Egyptians (II. 17),—a con- 
venient cloak for ignorance. Apparently it is made to extend to the Halys 
and Euphrates, just because these were the two great dividing lines in 
Eastern Asia Minor of which he knew, though his knowledge was vague 
enough. ‘But is ‘ Kilikia,’ after all, a large district in his conception? The 
distance between the Halys, the Euphrates, and the Cyprian Sea must have 
been for him exceedingly small. The source of the Halys must have been 
near the Euphrates, for it divides Lower Asia ἐκ θαλάσσης τῆς ἀντίον Κύπρου 
ἐς τὸν Εὔξεινον πόντον (1. 72); and it is only five days’ journey across this 
narrow isthmus (!). Need we be surprised then that, with conceptions like 
these to accommodate, ‘ Kilikia’ is crossed in three stages of 155 parasangs ? 
The Kilikia of Hdt.’s authority—if Kilikia was mentioned by him—may 


1 i.e. if his authority mentioned Kilikia. 


THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASTA MINOR. 43 


have extended to Halys and Euphrates, and he may have given 119} par. as 
the whole distance for Kappadokia and Kilikia from the first crossing of the 
Halys to the Euphrates. If so, his conception of Kilikia differed entirely 
from the Kilikia of the old well-marked and natural division between 
Kappadok (the country between Tauros and Euxine, Kuphrates and Halys), 
Kilik (the sea-board country south of Tauros and west of Amanos) and 
Kumukh (Kommagene) : according to which the Royal Road would not pass 
through Kilikia at all (on any theory now held).!| We may note that this 
older division is reflected in Hdt. e.g. v. 49, vii. 91, and that the inclusion of 
‘ Posideion on the borders of Syria’ (iii. 91), ie. of the strip of coast fringing 
Amanos, is consistent with the older conception and constitutes no argument 
for the inclusion of Kommagene in Kilikia, 

From all these considerations it would seem that an undue importance 
has been attached to the ‘ Kilikian question’ in discussions on the course of 
the Royal Road. Various solutions of this question are possible: and we 
must look outside Hdt. for evidence as to the line of the road. 

An ingenious theory, which endeavours to explain the three Kilikian 
stages, has been lately put forward by Mr. Hagarth and accepted by others 
(see Macan’s Hdt. iv.—vi., vol. II. pp. 299 ff.). This theory brings the road 
from Pteria either in a direct line to the head of the Tokhma Su, and thence 
by Derende to Melitene, or by a détowr to Caesareia—Mazaka and east to 
Melitene (as advocated in this paper): but instead of crossing at Tomisa the 
road is made to turn south from Isoli and run up the basin of the Gerger 
Tchai by Kiakhta to Samosata, where it crosses the Euphrates and runs 
across the desert south of Mount Amasius to Nisibis and thence to Nineveh, 
&c. The difficulties of such a route over Tauros to Samosata and then 
through the desert to Nisibis, when an easier and more direct route is open, 
do not predispose one in its favour. What are its advantages? (1) It claims 
to solve the ‘ Kilikian question’ by making the distance between the spine of 
Tauros (the frontier of Kappadokia and Kilikia) to Samosata represent the 
three Kilikian stages of Hdt. Obviously this solution is reached only by an 
arbitrary interpretation and limitation of Hdt.’s ‘ Kilikia,’ which makes 
it include Kommagene while denying that it extends north of Tauros. But 
if Hdt. says that Kilikia extends to the Euphrates, he also says that it 
extends beyond the Halys, ὃς ῥέει διὰ Κιλικίας (i. 72): and the inclusion of 
Posideion (iii. 91) does not support the extension beyond Amanos_ to 
Kommagene. The reconciliation with Hdt., therefore, disappears. (2) It 
claims to be supported by Strabo’s account (p. 663) of the κοινὴ ὁδός to the 
east. The account, however, after Tomisa, is far from clear. At this point 
there is a break in the description, where Strabo cites the authority of 
Eratosthenes as confirming Artemidorus’ account of the subsequent route to 
India and refers to Polybius ; we note a vagueness and a lack of sequence in 
the following words as compared with the description of the Ephesus- 


1 If Hadt.’s authority was an official document, should we not expect it to be based upon 
this division ? 


44 THE ROAD-SYSTEM OF EASTERN ASIA MINOR. 


Caesareia section; and it looks as if Strabo had mixed up or fused together 
two separate routes, one crossing the Euphrates at Tomisa and another 
‘beginning at Samosata’ (which is not described and may simply have joined 
the former road at Amida, so that it would be possible to make a détowr by 
Samosata). Anyhow the description is not at all clear. The road goes ‘to 
the Euphrates as far as Tomisa in Sophene. Mr. Hogarth explains that the 
meaning is that the road ‘ touched Euphrates opposite to Tomisa but did not 
cross the river. But Strabo does not say this: for surely his words ought 
plainly to mean that the road crosses to Tomisa. Then he goes on: τὰ δ᾽ 
ἐπ᾽ εὐθείας τούτοις [Τομίσοις 1 and the dat.?] μέχρι τῆς ᾿Ινδικῆς τὰ αὐτὰ 
κεῖται καὶ παρὰ τῷ ᾿᾽Άρτεμ. ἅπερ καὶ παρὰ τῷ ᾿Ερατοσθένει... ἄρχεται 
δὲ [subject ?1] ἀπὸ Σαμοσάτων ... εἰς δὲ Σαμοσ. ἀπὸ τῶν ὅρων τῆς 
Καππαδοκίας τῶν περὶ Τόμισα ὑπερθέντι τὸν Ταῦρον σταδίους εἴρηκε 40. 
The last statement is incorrect : it is about 650 stadia. Mr. Hogarth explains 
the discrepancy by supposing that ‘ Strabo reckons from the spine of Taurus 
on the right bank lower down than Tomisa, which is not in Cappadocia at 
all’: it must at least be admitted that ἀπὸ τῶν ὅρων ths Karn. τῶν 
περὶ Τόμισα is a singular way of expressing it. 

But in any case, even if the description were quite clear, we have to 
remember that this was a trade route and that the Royal Road was not a 
trade-route but a road for administrative purposes, a road for couriers. The 
line of a later trade-route would be determined by different considerations ; 
thus, for example, the Royal Road along the upper Hermos is so difficult 
that it could never have been chosen as a caravan-route. Lastly, the Roman 
bridge at Kiakhta need only show the importance of this district in a scheme 
of frontier defence and the road, if it existed, would be used for this 
purpose.2 It is hard therefore to see that this route affords any evidence for 


the line of the Persian Royal Road. 
J. G. Ὁ. ANDERSON. 


1 It ought to be τὰ δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ εὖθ. τούτοις, etc. cation of the west bank of the Euphrates in 
2 Cf. the importance attached to the fortifi- Amm. Marcell. xviii. 7 (supra iii.). 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: III. 45 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 


Part III. 


In the first two parts of this treatise, vol. xv. p. 136 sg. and 251 sg. I 
discussed the relation of the MSS. of the Homeric Hymns, and the history 
of the text so far as it could be inferred from them. Incidentally to this in 
Part II. a number of observations were offered on passages where the reading 
of the MSS. differed. I now, by way of completion, comment on lines where 
the MS. testimony is unanimous. My notes are critical, and do not aim at 
more than noticing passages where there is or has been doubt as to the 
reading or the sense. For historical and archaeological information I make 
constant reference to the excellent commentaries of Ilgen (1796), Baumeister 
(1860), and Gemoll (1886), to which, failing the discovery of new sources, it 
is unlikely that much will be added. Gemoll’s book is particularly valuable 
for the care with which the literature is summarised. I refer also frequently 
to the latest text of the Hymns, published at Oxford in 1896, for which, as 
Mr. Ὁ. B. Monro has been kind enough to declare (Classical Review, Dec. 
1896), I am mostly responsible. It is but the truth to state that the edition 
owes a great part of what value it may have to Mr. Monro’s unrivalled 
judgment and feeling for Homer. To this edition the present treatise may 
serve as Pro- and Epilegomena. Other works upon the Hymns in general 
there have hardly been since 1886, if we except reviews of Mr. Goodwin's 
edition (18938), and of this last text; these together with other periodical 
literature are referred to below. The Index Homericus. Appendix Hymnorum 
Vocabula continens, 1895, by A. Gehring, is a very useful concordance, spoiled 
however to some extent by faulty method. 

Before proceeding to the Hymns in detail, it may be well to mention 
two principles of criticism which have been lately advanced by authoritative 
scholars, Professor Tyrrell, in a brilliant review of Mr. Goodwin’s edition, 
(Hermathena, ix. p. 31) says: ‘we believe that the only theory on which we 
can account for the present condition of the text is the assumption that 
lacunae constantly interrupt the narrative.’ I am inclined to believe that 
such an assumption, if it is intended as a practical guide for our dealings 
with the text, can only be admitted under very precise conditions. In 
textual criticism, as elsewhere, our argument must proceed from the known 
to the unknown, and our inferences of what took place in the period before 


» 


46 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: III. 


our MSS. ought to start from the phenomena that we can observe in them. 
In a list which will be found in vol. xv. p. 272-4, I have collected the 
omissions in the different MSS. of the Hymns. It is clear that among these 
the proportion that are due to obvious graphical causes is vastly greater than 
those for which no apparent reason can be assigned. I could easily increase 
the field of my induction. The inference seems sound, and is confirmed by 
all that we know of uncials and papyrus, that the same holds of MSS. of 
all ages. Now the actual fact occurring in a particular MS. and the scope 
that is allowed a modern scholar in reconstituting one, are very different 
things. The critic is bound by probability, and a low percentage of proba- 
bility practically disappears for him. Thus M may omit Ap. 23-73 without 
apparent cause, but the critic cannot make any MS. have omitted fifty lines 
anywhere he pleases. That fifty lines may have been omitted anywhere 
cannot be disproved; but it is a possibility that the critic is debarred from 
making any overt use of. All that a critic may allow himself—a critic who 
presents suggestions for serious readers and wishes his conjectures to have a 
chance of permanence—is to assume a moderate omission conditioned by 
homoeoteleuton, homoearchon, or some similar external cause. And, to clinch 
his suggestion, he should be able to fill his own lacuna by a verse or verses 
which should in this way explain their omission. I have, with however little 
success, endeavoured to do this. Wider lacunae than this are incommensur- 
able; nor do I find that the interpretation of the Hymns would demand such 
assumptions could they be legitimately made. In one place only (Herm. 415 
sq.) should I be inclined to have recourse to such an expedient—and this is 
only equivalent to a confession of impotence. The text does not explain 
itself, no alteration of the words is satisfactory, in despair we say ‘something 
is lost.’ But what, and how much, it is impossible to define. 

Another expedient is proposed by Professor Arthur Ludwich (in the 
preface to his edition of the Hymn to Hermes. Regimont. 1890/91), that of 
transposition. This method appears to me to possess less justification than 
the last. In mediaeval MSS. the scribes, who passed over a corruption or an 
omission with serenity, seem to have been peculiarly awake to dislocations; I 
may refer to the Journal of Philology, xxii. p. 181, where it is shown with 
what care the diorthotes of Laur. xxxii. 9 rearranges the dislocated text of 
Apollonius Rhodius. I think, as in the other case, we are bound to infer 
equal care in the earlier centuries. A palliation is sometimes brought to 
cloak the naked act of permuting lines; it is said that lines often fell out of 
a MS., and being added in the margin, were, when the particular MS. in its 
turn came to be copied, inserted in a wrong place in the resulting text. This 
is at best special pleading, for if you want to transpose a given line or couplet, 
what ground have you to assume this line or couplet have been assigned by 
Providence to this accident? Really, there is no palaeographical justification 
whatever for such procedure; and it is better to call things by their names, 
and say that when we transpose we do so at the bidding of our personal 
judgment. On a small scale, and under the same conditions a8 omission, we 
do find transpositions in MSS.; e.g. Ap. 41 is read by the D family in the place 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: ITI. 47 


of 36, because 35 and 40 both end in ὄρος αἰπύ, and therefore transposition 
of small passages, under these conditions, may occasionally be admitted. The 
wandering eye, however, was far more prone to omit than to exchange : the effect 
of homoeoteleuton, etc. in causing omission in prose is enormous, as anyone 
may see by reading the apparatus to Stein’s ‘ Herodotus’: in the liad MSS. 
omissions are so common as to be almost negligible. Transpositions on 
the other hand are comparatively rare, nor, to take another argument, did the 
Alexandrines employ the expedient on any large scale. 

I will take this opportunity of noticing Dr. Hermann Hollander’s tract 
‘Ueber die new bekannt gewordenen Handschriften der homerischen Hymnen, 
Osnabriick, 1895. The learned author, to whom belongs the indisputed credit 
of first classifying the MSS. of the Hymns, deals here with the subject that 
occupied part of Part I. of this treatise. Upon the general question of the 
place that these new MSS. are to hold I am glad to see that we are agreed. 
On some points however I find myself differing. These I will briefly discuss. 
P. 6 Hollander, speaking of Goodwin’s edition, says it would have been better 
if the editor had confined himself to a smaller number of MSS. ‘ Welchen 
Wert hat es, dass man die Lesarten von 13 Codices der 7-Klasse findet?’ 
he asks, and suggests that P (Vat. Pal. 179) might represent the family. To 
me it appears that in the case of late and admittedly corrupt MSS., their 
cumulative testimony is essential; by this means the accidental is separated 
from the material. If P, as Hollander suggests in his note, were the actual 
parent of the Paris family then naturally the others might be neglected; but this 
has to be proved. P has this peculiarity, that it can be dated approximately ; 
the year of Manetti’s death (1459) is a terminus ad quem before which it 
must have been written. Otherwise it seems to me one of a family. ‘There- 
fore in Mr. Gooidwin’s edition I printed in full the evidence that I had upon 
the Paris family ; in the text of 1896 I denoted their concurrence by the letter 
p. P.10, 11, it is maintained that S (Vat. 1880) is an apograph of the copy 
of the ed. pr. which is in Laurenziana. That the ed. pr. agrees in many places 
with S (and At D)I have pointed out in my first part, p. 157, 8; but I 
regarded the ed. pr. rather as composed with the help of S and similar MSS. 
than as a source for them. According to Hollander the Laurentian copy has 
marginal readings entered in writing and at least one important correction of 
the text (γενοίμην for γ᾽ ἐροίμην, Ap. 65), and these MS. additions agree with 
S. The coincidence is interesting, and that there is a connection between the 
two documents can hardly be denied. But it appears more probable to me 
that a possessor of the Laur. ed. pr. copied readings out of δα into it, than that 
the contrary process took place. For (1) Hollander admits S has various 
readings of its own which are not in the ed. pr. (2) of S’s peculiarities one at 
least, εὔβωλο σε, 44}. 54, is corrupt as it stands, and therefore was probably in 
the archetype of S; but it is not in the ed. pr. (3) if S were an apograph of 
the ed. pr. we should expect to find it a sixteenth century MS. like G, a real 
instance of a copy from the printed text. But S is well within the fifteenth 
century, and may have been written before 1488. P. 24 note. I regret 
that I misunderstood Hollander’s classification. I take the opportunity of 


48 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: III. 


stating my own, to which I hold; it will be elucidated by a stemma, accident- 
ally omitted in part II., which is now presented. I make 4 classes, 1, M; 2, 
x = ELIIT and the minor members At DS ed. pr. HTK; 3, y = marginalia of 
2; 4. Par. or p, the entire Paris family. 2,3 and 4 are descended from a com- 
mon ancestor 2. 


ἡ 
| 


p 
Oo 
EO 7 £7 Ate σι Had ah ABCFEL,L,NOPQ RR, V Non. 


FRAGMENT TO DIONYSUS. 


I agree with most editors and Εἰ, Maass (Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, Aug. 
23, 1898) that the lines quoted by Diog. Sic. III. 65 are part of this hymn. 

2. ὡς δέ, Ta μὲν τριάσοι πάντως τριετηρίοιν aiel. A verb is evidently 
wanted in the protasis, and Mr. Goodwin’s ἅδεν is so far justified. It may be 
simpler to read ta μὲν as one word τώμεν τε ἐτάμησαν. Translate ‘as three 
cuts were made, so shall men celebrate you at three-yearly festivals.’ For 
the construction τέμνειν δύο τρία x.7.r. ‘ cut into two, three’ cf. Theocr. ix. 
25 & κρέας αὐτος σιτήθην...... πέντε ταμὼν πέντ᾽ οὖσιν. On the dis- 
memberment of Dionysus-Zagreus see Preller, J.c. p. 0806 5ῳ., Roscher, 
Ausfiihrl. Lexicon, p. 1057. The number of parts into which Dionysus was 
divided is it is true given by the authorities as seven (Lobeck, Aglaophamus, 
p. 557), but a different tradition will have been followed or established by 
the Hymn-writer, who seems to have wished to account for the orgiastic 
τριετηρίς. , 

4—6, 7. It is impossible to deny, with Maass, /.c., that these verses are 
alternatives ; cf. vol. xv. p. 300. 

10. ἐπιλαθόμενοι. Ruhnken emended ἐπιληθόμενον, comparing Dion. 
vii. ὅθ. A slighter alteration would be ἐπιληθομένῳ. Φ 18 the MSS. vary 
between ἐκγεγαῶτι and ἐκγεγαῶτα. 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: TTT. 49 


DEMETER. 


This Hymn had until the present year received but little recent 
attention. Since Biicheler’s separate edition in 1869, we have had Gemoll’s 
in 1886, but little magazine-literature, the most important being Ludwich’s 
article Newe Jahrb. f. Phil. 1879 p. 303 sg. to which may be added the 
contribution of Wackernagel Rhein. Mas. 1889 p. 631, and Bloch Philologus, 
1892 p. 65. Wegener’s long study Philologus 1876 p. 227 sq. is a sterile 
attempt at reconstruction. The programmes, collected up to 1886 by Gemoll 
are not helpful. We have now the very useful edition by Vittorio Puntoni, 
Bologna 1896. From the editor's critical method and aims I have expressed 
my dissent in the Classical Review, Nov. 1896, but I recognise with gratitude 
his conservative text and exhaustive variorum commentary, and in the 
prolegomena I have profited by many acute observations. The latest account 
of the myth is by Leo Bloch, in Roscher’s Lexicon pp, 1284—1379 (Kora 
und Demeter). I should mention also a work of very different quality, Mr. 
Pater’s profound and beautiful essay on Demeter in his Greek Studies, Oxford 
1895. Mr. Farnell’s recent Cults of Greek States deals with Hecate (vol. ii.). 

The Hymn to Demeter is contained in a single document. Criticism 
of this Hymn therefore is on a different footing to that of the 
others, and at its freest ; if the Mosquensis contained nothing else, bounds 
could hardly be set to it. Fortunately we are able to control and ascertain 
the peculiarities of the MS. by comparison with the rest through the greater 
part of the other hymns. This has been done in Parts I. and II. to which 
I may refer the reader. or convenience I repeat here the conclusion there 
arrived at, The Mosquensis was seen to be a MS. of independent origin, 
containing a large percentage of peculiar readings. It had been deeply 
corrupted in the course of transmission and presented many voces nihili and 
impossible forms, some slightly corrected, but most in their native roughness. 
Omissions owing to homoeoteleuton were frequent. Instances of gross corrup- 
tion are such as δίνησι for χλαίνησι, ἐκθήσομωι for τεχνήσομαι, δυσκλέε᾽ for 
δυσηλεγέ᾽, ἐκ μὴ τοῦ δὲ for ἐκβῆτ᾽ οὐδέ, ἐπ᾿ ἀμήτων for ἐπιβήτορες, νεοθηλέαν 
ἀγκαλωρήν for νεοθηλέος ἄγκαλον ὕλης. See vol. xv. p. 143-5, That 
similar depravation had attacked M in the Demeter-hymn we know from the 
passage 419 sq., which exists nearly identically in Hesiod J’heog. 351 sg. In 
the Hymn the following corruptions are seen to have taken place: ῥόεια for 
podeda, μηλοβόστη for μηλόβοσις, ὠκύρθη for ὠκυρόη, ἀκατάστη for ἀκάστη, 
ταλαξαύρη for γαλαξαύρη. Moreover in lines that are unguaranteed by any 
external evidence there are impossible and unmetrical words, 12 «@édus 7’, 
228 ἐπηλσίησι, 261 ποίησασα (for ποίησα), 267 συναυξήσουσ᾽, 299 πτᾶσα, 
430 δρεπομένη. The character of M is therefore, as one might expect, the 
same in Demeter as in the other Hymns. Emendation therefore must 
proceed upon these lines and expect to find small omissions and gross 
unconcealed corruptions, to be healed with a free hand, , 

10. θαυμαστὸν γανίωσα σέβας τότε πᾶσιν ἰδέσθαι. Torte is retained 

H.S.—VOL. XVII. ᾿ E 


50 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: I 


by Puntoni and no doubt can be translated. Goodwin’s τό ye however gives 
a far more natural and Homeric turn, and the alteration is insignificant. 


12, 93. τοῦ καὶ ἀπὸ ῥίζης ἑκατὸν κάρα ἐξεπεφύκει 
a 295 a nr ᾿] ᾽ Ἂς > \ [4 
κῶδις T ὀδμῆ πᾶς δ᾽ οὐρανὸς εὐρὺς ὕπερθε K.T.Xr. 


κηώδει (Ruhnken), κηώεντ᾽ (Ludwich) κύκλῳ tes (Goodwin) are all too far 
from the text: κωδείας (Mitscherlich) might stand, if it were established 
that the word is used of the heads of other flowers beside the poppy. The 
solution however, is given by Tyrrell’s κὦξ᾽ ἥδιστ᾽ ὀδμή (Hermathena, |.c. 
p. 34); the emendation preserves every letter of the MS. even to the 
circumflex upon #. The syllable & fell out, as many syllables have in M, 
see vol. xv. p. 144. Crasis as Tyrrell observes is not to be tabooed in epos; 


cf. 227 «ov, Hesiod, Theog, 447 ἐξ ὀλίγων βριάει καὶ ἐκ πολλῶν μείονα θῆκεν, 
Ar. Pax, 1282 καὐχένας ἵππων (Kinkel, Epic. Graec. Fragmenta, p. 70). 

For the construction ὀδμὴ ὄζει, cf. ε 59 + 210. That M here ‘manum 
emendatricem experta est’ is really too much for Baumeister to ask us to 
believe. 

17. Νύσιον ἂμ πεδίον. Iam sorry to see that the unhappy suggestion 
νείατον or μέσσατον for Νύσιον is retained in the last edition of Preller’s 
Griech. Mythologie, p. 758 n. 3; no support is given it in Bloch’s article, 
although it pleased Baumeister and is gravely registered by Biicheler and 
Gemoll. The professional critic is an insufferable creature; he avenges his 
own ignorance on the document. So this Hymn is to be deprived of its one 
geographical indication because there was more than one Nysa, and Gemoll 
ejects Εὐρώπη from Ap. 251 and 291, the earliest mention of the name in- 
Greek literature, because the connotation of the term is uncertain. Why 
not banish “EAXas from the J/iad, and in short bring all historical documents 
down to the level of the critic’s intelligence ? Topography is sacrificed with 
equally light heart at v. 99 by Wolf, who turned Παρθενίῳ φρέατι into πὰρ 
θείῳ φρέατι and the clumsy gash is accepted by most editors. 


22,23 οὐδέ πη ἀθανάτων οὐδὲ θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων 
ἤκουσεν φωνῆς οὐδ᾽ ἀγλαόκαρποι ἐλαῖαι. 


Neither gods nor men nor olives heard her cry, for the first two were far 
off, and the trees were deaf. I venture to differ from Professor Tyrrell and 
many critics, who consider the introduction of trees in this context impossible. 
The participation (or non-participation) of Nature in human feelings is 
frequently assumed in Latin poetry, see Eelogues, i. 38, x. 13, and many 
parallels given by Forbiger. Our‘present passage simply proves that the 
notion is earlier than one usually supposes. I find Ignarra was of this view 
and the English translator Robert Lucas, who painfully renders 


Alas! nor god nor man would hear her cry, 
whilst e’en the grove itself denies reply. 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: III. 51 


Of the conjectures for ἐλαῖαι, I can only say, with great respect for their 
learned authors, that one is worse than the other. Puntoni relieves me from 
mentioning them. 

Olives are natural features of any Mediterranean landscape ; Proserpine’s 
flowers grew in the fields among them. The epithet ἀγλαόκαρποι needs no 
justification (7 115 ἃ 58 it is used of apple-trees) but it is peculiarly appro- 
priate to the glossy black olive-berry when ripe. 


24 εἰ μὴ Περσαίου θυγατήρ atara φρονέουσα 
ἄιεν ἐξ ἄντρου. 


Wackernagel’s οἴη for εἰ μὴ (Tthein, Mus, 44, p. 631) is most unnecessary 
and has not been accepted. 

37. I agree with most editors in accepting Hermann’s lacuna here; the 
omission of the actual cry, and the necessary antecedent to δ᾽ put the case 
outside the limits of those to be noticed below. The sense required seems 
to be ‘when she saw the light leaving her, ἤχησε μὲν Περσεφύνη, ἤχησαν δ᾽ 
ὀρέων Kopudal.’ 

«40. οὔτ᾽ οἰωνῶν τις TH ἐτήτυμος ἄγγελος ἦλθεν. The repetition of τῇ 
from 44 and the somewhat unusual accent are effective. Hermann’s common- 
place οὐδέ. τις οἰωνῶν τῇ was preferred by editors until Gemoll. The 
principle of anomalia should play a far greater part than it actually does in 
metrical criticism. 


51-61 ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ δεκάτη οἱ ἐπήλυθε φαινολὶς ᾿Ηώς, 
ἤντετό οἱ ‘Exarn, σέλας ἐν χείρεσσιν ἔχουσα. 
καὶ ῥά οἱ ἀγγελέουσα ἔπος φάτο φώνησέν τε' 
πύτνια Δημήτηρ, ὡρηφύόρε, ἀγλαόδωρε, 
τίς θεῶν οὐρανίων ἠὲ θνητῶν ἀνθρώπων 
ἥρπασε Iepoepovny καὶ σὸν φίλον ἤκαχε θυμόν ; 
φωνῆς γὰρ ἤκουσ᾽, ἀτὰρ οὐκ ἴδον ὀφθαλμοῖσιν 
ὅς τις env: σοὶ δ᾽ ὦκα λέγω νημερτέα πάντα. 
ὡς ἄρ᾽ ἔφη ‘Exdatn: τὴν δ᾽ οὐκ ἠμείβετο μύθῳ 
Ῥείης ἠύὔκομου θυγάτηρ, ἀλλ’ ὦκα σὺν αὐτῇ 
ἤϊξ᾽ αἰθομένας δαΐδας μετὰ χερσὶν ἔχουσα. 


This passage is treated by Puntoni, introd. pp. 3-9. His discussion 
contains many acute observations by which I have profited. He analyses and 
refutes the suggestions of modern scholars with much success, but towards 
the author of the Hymn his attitude is too much that of the giudice istruttore 
inviting a prisoner to reconcile his inconsistent statements. Such legal criteria 
have no application to literature at all, much less to a composition of the 
nature and the age of this Hymn. The difficulties of this Hecate-episode are 
concerned principally with ἀγγελέουσα v. 53 and σοὶ δ᾽ ὦκα λέγω νημερτέα 
πάντα 58. The role that Hecate plays in this Hymn is as regards the 
development of the action, useless: this is justly observed by Puntoni, p. 5. 
Her introduction both here and 438 sg. is doubtless due to the formal con- 

E 2 


52 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: III. 


secrated story as actually represented in the Mysteries, and here I will refer 
to the acute and subtle observations (p. 9) in which Puntoni shows how a con- 
secrated story may fetter a poet who puts it into literary form. Critics how- 
ever have not been willing to accept this negative view of Hecate, and have 
tried in this passage to emend or interpolate so as to make her offer practical 
advice to Demeter. The majority, following Hermann, assume an omission 
after 58 in which a reference to Helios should be contained; ‘I know nothing, 
but Helios will tell you’ :! again, ἀγγελέουσα in 53 is objected to because no 
ἀγγελία is actually given; therefore ἄγχε θέουσα, ἐγκονέουσα are proposed. 

I will briefly state my own view. Hecate, for all that her introduction 
into the poem may be due to the myth, is given a certain ἦθος by the poet. 
She is an officious, well-meaning, nurse-like person, inefficacious, but eager 
to offer assistance: the dignified and serious Demeter ignores her entirely, 
Hecate now has an ἀγγελία, news, to offer: she is one of the two beings who 
heard Kora’s first shriek : and this important information she comes to give. 
Her natural volubility however induces her to put the cart before the horse, 
and satisfy her own curiosity before giving her information concisely. ‘Oh 
Demeter, who has carried off Persephone? I heard the cry, but that’s all I 
know: you are certain to have the best and latest information.’ To which 
the daughter of Rheia vouchsafed no answer, but tacitly allowed her to go 
with her on the rest of her journey. 

To give this sense to v. 58 one must construe λέγω δέ σοι πάντα νημερ-᾿ 
téa [εἶναι], 1 say that to thee all things are immediately manifest [or, certain]. 
I think that there is no essential difficulty in so doing, though no doubt it 
may startle people familiar with the old view. Not the least advantage 
is that a genuine and indisputable value is put upon ®@ka—a word that has 
been a stumbling-block in most other interpretations. 

To object that Hecate only found Demeter on the ninth day is surely to 
introduce considerations entirely foreign to this sort of literature; on the 
other hand it is a real objection to the usual lacuna that it involves the 
situation of Demeter, a superior goddess, depending for counsel upon an 
inferior, Hecate. The objection that Hecate disappears from the moment of 
finding Helios till the return of Persephone is again false in such a context. 
If we are to reduce the poem to the conditions of an ordinary tale, the 
situation is that Demeter having vainly sought hither and thither for eight 
days, on the ninth betakes herself to the last resort of the Homeric world, 
the all-seeing Helios, safeguard alike of husbands and mothers, and on her 
way thither is met by the eager and unnecessary Hecate. 

I trust that these considerations may commend themselves to Signor 
Puntoni; I can hardly expect that they, or any other argument will avail to 
recall his dismemberment of the poem. On the construction ὅς tus ἔην ef. 
vol. xv. p. 288, Dem. 119. 

70. καταδέρκεται, 71 ὄπωπεν. The second person alone is possible and 
Ruhnken emended καταδέρκεαι, ὄπωπας. The source of the corruption is 


'E.g. σοὶ δ᾽ ὦκα λέγοι νημερτέα πάντα | ᾿Ηέλιος ὃς πάντ᾽ ἐφορᾷ καὶ πάντ᾽ ἐπακούει (Hermann). 
you νήμερ ρᾷ 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: III. 53 


hardly an error of sense (as Hest. xxix. 3 vol. xv. p. 268), since here the 
subject is very close. One must look rather to a scribes-tendency to separate 
adjoining vowels, e.g. K 82 ἔρχεαι ἔρχεται, 115 νεμεσήσεαι νεμεσήσεται. 
Karaédépxeat then having become καταδέρκεται, ὄπωπας followed suit. 
Somewhat similarly Ap. 71 (ns, ἀτιμήσω in x (vol. xv., p. 269). 

64, αἴδεσσαί με θεὰν σύ περ. This is Ludwich’s excellent conjecture 
(Newe Jahrb. f. Ph. 1879, p. 305) for θέας ὕπερ: the other conjectures, collected 
in Puntoni, are unsatisfying ; best in sense is Peerlkamp’s θεὰν θεός, but like 
the Dutch school generally it leaves entirely out of account the evidence of 
the document. This is amply recognised by Ludwich; θεᾶσύπερ gave θεᾶς 
ὕπερ. 

85. ἀμφὶ δὲ τιμὴν | ἔλλαχεν ὡς τὰ πρῶτα διάτριχα δασμὸς ἐτύχθη. 
Τιμὴν has been altered into τιμῆς and τιμῇ--- ΘΟ ΟΘΒΒΆΡΙΥ it would seem, for 
the sense ‘about honour, he hath by lot even as the partition was made’ is 
very prosy. I would take ἀμφὶ as part of the following verb, whether ἔλλαχεν 
or some other (for ἔλλαχεν may have come from 87), and separated from it by 
tmesis : τιμὴν would then be the direct accusative, and ἀμφὶ possess the 
quasi-intensive sense ‘fast, tight.’ For the order of the words cf. Hes. Opp. 
74 ἀμφὶ δὲ τήν γε | Ὧραι καλλίκομοι στέφον ἄνθεσιν εἰαρινοῖσι. 

87. τοῖς μετάναίεται (sic) τῶν ἔλλαχε κοίρανος εἶναι. Puntoni ventures 
on one of his rare conjectures, μεταναιετάειν ; it is, 1 am sorry to say, wholly 
unnecessary, and the difficulties raised as to this part of the poem are pure 
moonshine. The purely clerical correction of Voss μεταναιετάει should 
satisfy anyone. ; 

99. Παρθενίῳ φρέατι ὅθεν ὑδρεύοντο πολῖται. For the metre of φρὲατι 
οἵ. below, 101, παλαυγενέϊ ἐναλίγκιος, and La Roche’s qggection on Ὦ, 285. 
The difficulty that Puntoni (p. 85) feels at the dative is surely illusory; see 
later on Aphr.173 ἔστη ἄρα κλισίη. On Wolf's πὰρ θείῳ φρέατι I have 
spoken above: I find unexpected assistance in Baumeister, whose words 
deserve all publicity. ‘Neque omnino critici diligentis esse videtur, vocem 
difficilem explicatu Ilap@ev/@ pro corrupta vel interpolata habere.’ Si sic 
omnia. 

115. οὐδὲ δόμοισι | πιλνᾶς ; ἔνθα γυναῖκες x.t.r. It being held as 
certain that this active form (Hes. Opp. 510 wiAvd 3rd pers. sing.) cannot be 
used in a neuter sense, Voss’s πίλνασαι, supported among other forms in the 
Lexx. by πέλναται, Ap. Rhod. iv. 592, and ὑποδάμνασαι π᾿ 95 seems better 
than Hermann’s 7Avd, which rests only on E 99 @ τε σὺ πάντας | δαμνᾷ 
ἀθανάτους and is graphically farther from πιλνᾶς ; the syllable ac (as 
ἐπιβήσεσθ᾽ 332) was omitted doubtless from the effect of the hiatus. More 
or less parallel are Theognis, 1388, δώμνας δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων πυκινὰς φρένας, 
where Bergk reads δώμνασαι, δαμνᾶς the reading of D on ἘΞ 199, the variants 
πειρᾷ πειρᾶς φ 459, Aristoph. Hg. 161, καταγελᾶι R for καταγελᾶς. 

119. τέκνα φίλα τίνες ἐστε γυναικῶν θηλυτεράων M. By an iota Fontein 
healed this line. (Cf. Hermanin’s correction πῆμα μέγ᾽ αἱ θνητοῖσι for μέγα 
θνητοῖσι, Hes. Theog. 592.) For the parenthetical use of αἵτει!ες ef. vol. XV. 
p. 288, and Theocr. xxii. 54 χαῖρε ξεῖν᾽, ὅτις ἐσσί. I should be inclined 


54 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: ΤΗ. 


to stop τέκνα φίλ᾽, αἵτινες ἐστε, γυναικῶν θηλυτεράων ; Demeter does not 
know the girls’ names, and addresses them by such description as she can 
give: ‘dear children of women, whosoever ye be.’ 

122. δὼς ἔμοι γ᾽ ὄνομ᾽ ἐστί. Fontcin’s Anw has been widely accepted 
and is retained by Puntoni. It provides for the metre, and the corruption is 
not unlike that of ἀέδης for ἀδῆ of Ap. 76. Still as Demeter is called Anew 
already in line 47 it seems better that here she should invent an epithet 
which was not one of her real names; her story is false, her name should be 
false also. But the matter is settled by Hesiod’s line, Opp. 356, das ἀγαθή, 
ἅρπαξ δὲ κακή, θανάτοιο δότειρα, where das is plainly an adjective. The 
linguistic connection between the Hymns and Hesiod is palpable, cf. the 
statistics in Francke’s dissertation quoted below ; the list of Oceanides, 418 sq. ; 
and Herm. 36, a literal parody of Opp. 365. The necessary μὲν was supplied 
by Brunck. 


ΟΡ « Ν ” 
125 sq. οἱ μὲν ἔπειτα 
a , al 
νηὶ θοῇ Θορικόνδε κατέσχεθον, ἔνθα γυναῖκες 
, ͵ > 4 > / ἠδὲ Ν > U 
ἠπείρου ἐπέβησαν ἀολλέες, NOE καὶ αὐτοί. 
΄ Ν ΄, ΄ 
δεῖπνον ἐπηρτύνοντο παρὰ πρυμνήσια νηός. 


It is a difficult question whether Hermann’s lacuna after 127 is 
necessary. On the whole I think we may see in the passage only a 
compression of the usual formula (A 432 ¢ 150, 547, μ 6 & 346 Apollonius i. 
1110) if we compare the general elliptical style of this Hymn; eg. here the 
other γυναῖκες are first mentioned when they disembark, 317 ὡς ἔφαθ᾽ is said 
of Zeus while his*éctual words are not given, 446 sg. we have the remarkable 
construction νεῦσε δέ of κούρην x.7.r. where both verbs ὑπὸ ζόφον [ἰέναι 
and παρὰ μητρὶ [μένειν] are saved. 


137 ὡς ἐθέλουσι τοκῆες" ἐμὲ δ᾽ αὖτ᾽ οἰκτείρατε κοῦραι 
/, / / ’ὔ Ν , > ὦ 
προφρονέως φίλα τέκνα τέων πρὸς δώμαθ᾽ ἵκωμαι 
ἀνέρος ἠδὲ γυναικός. 


Here on the other hand the MS. reading can hardly be construed, though 
Baum. and Puntoni print it. Οἰκτείρατε cannot by any stretch govern τέων ; 
Cobet’s ἐμοὶ δ᾽ αὖτ᾽ εἴπατε is mere patch-work, and Ruhnken’s τέως 
improbable in the construction, apart from the lateness of such a use of the 
word. A lacuna therefore containing the idea ‘and tell me, seems wanted 
e.g. τοῦτο δέ μοι σαφέως ὑποθήκατε ὄφρα πύθωμαι (cf. 149); in this case 
προφρονέως which hardly suits οἰκτείρατε would qualify ὑποθήκατε. Besides 
the homoeoteleuton of my supposed πύθωμαι it is possible that προφρονέως 
and πρόφρων had to do with the omission of a line. The omission of αὖτ᾽ 
has been proposed, but the apparent metrical difficulty of τοκῆες is in its 
favour. 

144. καὶ κ᾽ ἔργα διαθήσαιμι γυναικός. .Voss’s διδασκήσαιμι γυναῖκας 
(Hes. Opp. 64 ἔργα διδασκῆσαι) is excellent in sense and not farther from 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: III. 55 


the MS., than the ascertained corruptions of M. Of the other suggestions 
Bothe’s διαθρήσαιμι (with γυναικός) is perhaps the best, though ἀθρεῖν 
(Ilerm. 29, 414) and its compounds do not seem to contain the sense of 
‘oversce.’ 

157. κατὰ πρώτιστον ὀπωπήν. Ignarra’s ὀπωπῆς accepted by Voss is 
well refuted by Franke. Gemoll, whose conjecture I will not quote, returns 
to the charge. That superlatives occasionally take two terminations is a 
well-known fact, see Kiihner-Blass, 1, p, 554, Anmerk., and πρώτιστον ὑὐπωπὴν 
is as well established as ὀλοώτατος ὀδμὴ ὃ 442. 

205. ἣ δή of καὶ ἔπειτα μεθύστερον εὔαδεν ὀργαῖς : ‘who, 1.6. Iambe, 
pleased her humour even afterward, that is Demeter continued to find relief 
in Iambe’s company. Biicheler’s ὀργή is not only prosaic, but incorrect, for 
Demeter’s mood altered considerably before long. Of Iambe, who was 
Demeter’s companion as long as she remained in Celeus’ house it would be 
just to say ‘she pleased her afterwards also, not merely for the moment. It 
is easy to understand that Voss’s εὔαδ᾽ ἑορταῖς did not find favour with 
Ruhnken. ’Opy7 is post-Homeric,! but it occurs in Hesiod and frequently in 
the next age, see the Lexx., and ef. for the sense of ‘mood, humour’ Tyrtaeus 
11, 8 εὖ ὃ ὀργὴν ἐδάητ᾽ ἀργαλέου πολέμου, Simonides, Amorg. 7, 11, ὀργὴν δ᾽ 
ἀλλότ᾽ ἀλλοίην ἔχει, 41 ταύτῃ μάλιστ᾽ ἔοικε τοιαύτη γυνή | ὀργήν: Theognis, 
213, Κύρνε, φίλους κάτα πάντας ἐπίστρεφε ποικίλον ἦθος | ὀργὴν συμμίσγων 
ἥντιν᾽ ἕκαστος ἔχει, 215 Ιουλύπου ὀργὴν ἴσχε πολυπλόκου κιτιλ., 312 
γινώσκων ὀργὴν ἥντιν᾽ ἕκαστος ἔχει, cl. 964, 1059, 1072, 1073. I find no 
difficulty in the double dative ; it is a clear case of the σχῆμα καθ᾽ ὅλον καὶ 

μέρος, commoner no doubt with the accusative, but cf. @ 129 δίδου δέ οἱ ἡνία 
χερσίν (Jelf). A 24 ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ᾿Ατρείδῃ ᾿Αγαμέμνονι ἥνδανε θυμῷ. cl. the 
variant. Ν 82 τήν σφιν θεὸς ἔμβαλε θυμῷ. Scut. 221 ὥμοισιν δέ μιν ἀμφὶ. 


211 δεξαμένη δ᾽ ὁσίης ἕνεκεν πολψπότνια δηώ 
τῇσι δὲ μύθων ἦρχε ἐύζωνος μετάνειρα. 


Mr. Tyrrell justly objects to Voss’s ἐπέβη as a preposterous substitute 
for ἕνεκεν; even Baumeister considered it ‘paullo longius a litterarum 
ductibus recedentem. ‘Ooins ἕνεκεν seems particularly sound, ‘to save the 
rite, that is primarily the θεμιτόν of 207 and secondly the ritual of the 
historical mysteries. The other expedient, Franke’s πίε for πολὺυ- is almost 
as violent, and the compound epithet is well-established, cf. Apollonius, i. 
1125, 1151, iv. 1069. Mr. Tyrrell’s own ἐνέχεεν for ἕνεκεν is more than 
ingenious ; but why should we complicate the situation by making Demeter 
pour the κυκεών from one cup into another? She drank it simply; ἔπιε, as 
the various other accounts of the story have it (and cf. Hippocr. Acut. 39 οἱ 
δὲ καὶ κυκεῶνα ἔπιον); any substitute for ἕνεκεν must=éme, as Voss 
remarks, I am surprised, considering the soundness of the line that no one 


1 As χλεύη (202) also. Useful lists of this De h. in Cer. Hom. comp. dict. aetate, Kiel, 
Hymn’s vocabulary are given by K. Francke, 1881. 


56 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: III. 


(except now Puntoni, whose discussion pp. 60, 61 is correct though needlessly 
wordy), has made a lacuna, ¢.g. :— 


ἔκπιεν: ἡ δὲ λαβοῦσα δέπας θέτο ἔνθεν ἄειρε, 


or some other line sufficient to set up homoeoteleuton. 

227.-Opéxpw κοὔ μιν ἔολπα καλ. Mr. Monro and Sig. Puntoni inde- 
pendently keep θρέψω and κοῦ ; the abruptness is not intolerable, and for the 
crasis see on v.12. Mr. Agar’s (Classical Review, 1896, Nov. p. 388) θρεψόμεν 
is no better than any of the other alterations, and his palaeography is illusory. 


228 sg. οὔτ᾽ ap’ ἐπηλσίησι δηλήσεται οὔθ᾽ ὑποταμνόν, 
οἶδα γὰρ ἀντίτομον μέγα φέρτερον ὑλοτόμοιο 
οἷδα δ᾽ ἐπηλυσίης πολυπήμονος ἐσθλὸν ἐρυσμόν. 


Ruhnken’s ἐπηλυσίη in 228 seems certain, cl. Herm. 37. The conjectures 
for ὑλοτόμοιο introduce words which do not exist, and moreover give no 
satisfactory sense. In the Classical Review, 1895, February, p. 13, I suggested 
that ὑποταμνόν and ὑλοτόμοιο the ‘under-cutter’ and the ‘ woodcutter’ were 
periphrases for ἕλμενς or σκώληξ, the worm, and that Demeter guaranteed 
Metaneira’s child against this malady. Cf. Aratus 959 σκώληκες | κεῖνοι 
τοὺς καλέουσι μελαίνης ἔντερα γαίης, Hesiod’s φερέοικος ‘snail, ἀνόστεος 
‘cuttle’ ἕδρες ‘ant, Theocr. ΧΙ. 35 βούτομον ‘rush, and the epithets 
βοὸς ὑλοφάγοιο, Hes. Op. 591, γειοτόμοι μύρμηκες, Apollonius, iv. 1453. 
The forms of the words ὑποταμνόν, ἀντιτόμοιο, ὑλοτόμοιο seem guaranteed 
by the jingle. ᾿Αντίτομον, ἀντιτέμνω etc. are known from other places 
(v. Lexx.) in the sense of ‘antidote, but ἀντέτομον was chosen here doubt- 
less for the verbal antithesis to ὑλοτόμοιο. “1 know a counter-cutter to 
the woodcutter. ὑποτάμνον is the part., and must be so accented. 
Adjectives in -νός doubtless τά in the scribe’s head. For substantive and 
adjective cf. ἀμφιφῶν (Monro, Homeric Grammar, § 243, 1). | 

236. οὔτ᾽ οὖν σῖτον ἔδων ov Onodpevos. Δημήτηρ. Hermann’s lacuna, 
and his supplement of γάλα μήτρος to 236 are generally accepted, and are an 
excellent instance of the method. 

240. λάθρα φίλων γονέων. AadOpa φίλων weathered Ruhnken and 
Hermann, and seems first to have roused the suspicion of Spitzner. Zeno- 
dotus at I’ 244 read ἑῇ for φίλῃ, but I am disposed to think λάθρα or λάθρη 
ἑῶν too violent an alteration here, and much more so κρύβδα φίλων. Is 
λάθρᾶ impossible? It is true that it occurs nowhere else but in a doubtful 
fragment of Euripides (1117 Dind. v. 28), but why may it not be formed on 
the analogy (perhaps false) of σέγῃ σῖγα, aud ἅμα, κρυφῇ κρύφα, διχᾷ δίχα, 
τριχῇ τρίχα (Kiihner-Blass, ii. p. 306) ? 

258. μήκιστον ἀάθης. The probability is certainly strong in favour of 
Voss’s νήκεστον, cf. Hes. Opp. 283, but I should like to feel certain that the 


writer did not intend μήκιστον ἀάσθης as a superlative of μέγ᾽ ἀάσθη and 
ἀάσσατο δὲ μέγα. 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: III. 57 


267. συναυξήσουσ᾽. συνάξουσ᾽ Ignarra, Ilgen. The word must result 
ove no 
from συνάξησ᾽, i.e. συνάξησ᾽ corrected; cf. 261 momocaca=olaca, +22 
ar n 

ἀκατάστη = ἀκατη, 431 δρεπομένη = δρεπόμεν, and vol. xv. p. 263. ἃ became 
av in obedience to a common law, ef. vol. xv. p. 289, and Herod. ii. 111 συναυ- 
λίσαντας for cvvadicavta. The meaning of 265—267 is not likely, failing 
new materials, to be satisfactorily made out; Matthiae’s alteration of ἐν 
ἀλλήλοισι into ᾿Αθηναίοισι will be admitted to merely heighten the 
confusion. 


269 ἀθανάτοις θνητοῖσιν ὄνειαρ Kal χάρμα τέτυκται. 


The line as it stands labours under two defects: (1) the absence of 
copula or other connection between ἀθανάτοις and θνητοῖσιν, (2) hyper- 
metry, unless ὄνειαρ be read as a dissyllable. The former difficulty has been 
met in two ways: (a) by altering ἀθανάτοις to ἀθανάτων (Stoll); this 
allows the genitive to depend on μέγιστον of the line before, but it gives but 
a mediocre sense. Demeter’s magnificent boast that she is the help and joy 
of gods and men, Olympus and earth (as the Hymn proves) equally dependent 
on her, is watered down to the undignified contention that she is the most 
useful divinity to men. (ὦ) θνητοῖσιν is altered to θνητοῖς τ᾽, and this I 
incline to accept, both for the sake of the sense, and as being a far slighter 
palaeographical change than the alteration of dative to genitive. 

“Ovevap remains. With θνητοῖς τ᾽ preceding we have to scan it JC _; 
whether this is best done by leaving ὄνειαρ tel quel, or by writing it dveap 
(Ilgen’s proposal), is a matter perhaps best left to etymologists. In the 
Oxford text Mr. 1). B. Monro, following Schulze, Quaestiones Epicae, p. 228, 
wrote dveap, and in this I should acquiesce. 

Two attempts to give ὄνειαρ its natural full value of J _ _, viz. Mr. 
Tyrrell’s ὄνειαρ kappa τέτυκται and Mr. Agar’s ὄνειαρ καὶ πολὺ χάρμα, have 
raised an interesting controversy upon the legitimacy of the lengthening of 
the 4th thesis by position in the Classical Review for Dec. 1896, Feb. and 
April, 1897. The question it is evident does not arise directly if θνητοῖς τ᾽ 
be accepted, and so far as these two emendations are concerned the evidence 
is not sufficiently strong to rule them out. The examples given by Mr. Platt 
from Hesiod alone (/.c. April, 1597, p. 154) amply cover them, and between 
the greater Hymns and Hesiod there is, as I have noticed on v. 122, con- 
siderable connection. As it is maintained that this lengthening of the 4th 
thesis is totally absent from post-Homeric writers, I may quote Matro, 35, 
ἣ μόνη ἰχθὺς οὖσα τὸ λευκὸν καὶ μέλαν οἷδε. For the rest Mr. Tyrrell’s 
κἄρμα, though ingenious and explicable palaeographically, is an improbable 
substitute for the familiar χάρμα; Mr. Agar’s hemistich does not require 
consideration. 

279. ξανθαὶ δὲ κόμαι κατενήνοθεν w@movs. Ruhnken substituted the 
singular, which no doubt is correct, and is followed by Biicheler and Gemoll, 
The latter however quotes a remark from Franke that to the writer of the 


58 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: It. 


hymn κατενήνοθεν may have scemed a plural; with this I entirely agree, and 
would refer to v. 351. 

289. ᾿Ηλούεον is not ‘impossible’ (Gemoll) but only a false formation. 
Cf. Smyth, Zonie Dialect, p. 535. Somewhat similarly Apoll. 120, the scribes 
give us the unmetrical λοῦον. The washing was not unnecessary, as Ludwich 
(NV. J. f. Ph. 1879 p. 307) thinks; the child must have been covered with 
wood-ash. The sisters only performed Demeter’s usual functions. 

296. πολυπείρονα λαόν. Ἰ]ολυπείρονα again is a false-epic formation ; 
as ἀπείρων = boundless, πολυπείρων = many-bounded, wide. (So Voss). 
IloXv7apova which Gemoll prints lacks any probability. 

328. τιμάς 8 ἅς κ᾽ ἐθέλοιτο μετ’ ἀθανάτοισιν ἑλέσθαι. ᾿Εἰθέλοιτο 
survived Ruhnken and Ilgen, but moved the just indignation of Hermann, 
who substituted κεν ἕλοιτο, and θεοῖσι at the end of the line from 444. This 
arrangement though since accepted is by no means binding ; ἐθέλουτο may be 
more naturally explained as having supplanted an original βόλοιτο. A 319 
for δὴ βόλεται Ly, 45, 99 Ven. Vat... Mg have δὴ ἐθέλει; on ἐβόλοντο a 234 
βόλεσθε π᾿ 387 there is no such gloss. ᾿ὡθέλοιτο then may result from 

ἐθέλοι 
κε βόλοιτο. 

337. ἀπὸ ζόφου ἠερόεντος. ΑΒ Voss pointed out, ὑπὸ is the preposition 
in the same phrase ¢ 56 Hes. Theog. 653, but it docs not seem therefore 
obligatory here. Where a change is so slight it is more prudent to hold to 
the tradition. Hes. Theog. 652, 659, the MSS. vary between ἀπό and ὑπό: ib. 
669 ὑπὸ without variant. 


344 ἠδ᾽ ἐπ᾿ ἀτλήτων 
ἔργοις θεῶν μακάρων μητίσετο βουλῇ. 


In face of ἠδ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ἀτλήτων I must confess to being helpless: the metre as 
well as the sense of ἐπ᾿ ἀτλήτων defy explanation ; probably in ἐπ᾽ ἀτλήτων 
we have one of M.’s characteristic corruptions, but in the absence of another 
source it is hopeless to expect one conjecture to outweigh another. The 
earlier attempts are collected by Ilgen.!. In the next line however we may 
see some light; the line is unmetrical, and as θεοὺς in 325 has caused the 
loss of U_, so here the same synizesis has removed οὐ ~; in 325 Valckenar 
restored πατήρ, here after μακάρων insert στυγερόν, χαλεπόν or a similar 
word; ‘she was devising in her mind an evil thing against the deeds of the 
blessed Gods.’ The ingenuity of Ignarra’s ὀργισθεῖσα for ἔργοις θεῶν deserves 
recognition. As ‘to the reference in ἥδ᾽ (so corrected out of ἠδ᾽) I incline 
against Matthiae and Baum., to give it to Demeter, cl. v.27. Persephone’s 
innocent character was not given to revenge. 

349. ἐρέβευσφι. This spelling is the vulgate at I 572 where however 
the’ MSS, La... 15) τῶ ¥CDaio ea See Mag Meee Ea, Moveore τὰ 


Δ Ignarra’s ἀποτηλοῦ is one of the best. To γὰρ ἀτλήτων | μῶμον ὑπερπροφυγὼν, which how- 
the exx. of τὰ short in the commentators I add ever Hauvette rightly considers late. 
the epigram ap. Steph. Byz. 8.0υ. Θούριοι : τῶν 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: III. 59 


ἐρέβεσφι; Hes. Theog. 669 only ‘V,’ has épéBeode. With Franke | have 
restored the correct form. 

351 παύσειεν. I have little doubt that this word is original. <A 
correction such as παύσαιτ᾽: ἐπειὴ or Hermann’s λήξειε would be casy, but 
such a method ends by divesting documents of their linguistic value: cf. v. 
279 above, and Aphr. 280 (vol. xv. p. 298). The writer may have justified 
himself by the epic examples usually quoted, Hes, Scut. 449 παῦε μάχης, 
ὃ 659 μνηστῆρες (as) δ᾽ ἄμυδις κάθισαν καὶ παῦσαν ἀέθλων, Where the MS. 
evidence is all but entirely in favour of the nominative. 

366. σχήσησθα. The earlicr editors kept this form, the later follow 
Hermann (quoted from Franke) in reading σχήσεισθα. It is safer to leave 
what the MS. gives us. Cf. in gencral Bergk’s note on Sappho fr. 21 (P. LZ. G. 
ed. 4, vol. iii. p. 96). 


371 αὐτὰρ Gy’ αὐτός 
ῥοιῆς κόκκον ἔδωκε φαγεῖν μελιηδέα λάθρη 
ἀμφὶ  νωμήσας. 


These words have tortured and been tortured by every interpreter since 
Ruhnken confessed his ignorance. The use of the word νωμᾶν is well put 
out in Voss’s long note, but his conclusion that νωμήσας here = προσαγαγόμενος 
‘drawing her to him’ is singularly inconsistent. The word as we know it has 
two senses; (1) to distribute (2) to handle, whether literally, the bow, etc., or 
figuratively, of the mind, to ‘turn over, examine.’ The sense of distribution, 
with or without the alteration of ἀμφὶς for ἀμφὶ € is proposed by Santon, 
Hermann, Franke, and acquiesced in by Baum. and Gemoll. The Greek is 
possible, but the interpretation introduces an idea quite foreign to the story, 
that Hades shared the pomegranate with her. We have further a view 
dating from Matthiae and which is suggested by Liddell and Scott and 
apparently approved by Prof. Tyrrell (/. 6. p. 39) that νωμήσας is absolute, 
and -- παπτήνας. This rests upon Herod. iv. 128 νωμεῦντες οὖν σῖτα avatpeo- 
μένους τοὺς Δαρείου. When Plato, Cratylus, 411 1), says εἰ δὲ βούλει ἡ γνώμη 
παντάπασι δηλοῖ γονῆς σκέψιν καὶ vOunow τὸ γὰρ νωμᾶν καὶ σκοπεῖν 
ταὐτόν, he means by σκοπεῖν ‘search, turn over,’ in the primary sense of 
vopav. <A third view assumes a τμῆσις, and that the verb ἀμφινωμᾶν 
(Aeschyl. fr. 297, Nauck) = surround, clasp. The word would suit a nurse 
‘handling’ a baby, but hardly applies to a grown-up woman. 

For myself I can only explain νωμήσας as governing κόκκον or pony; 
‘handling it about her.’ Aidoneus no sooner receives the news of the will of 
Zeus, than he thinks of the pomegranate which will serve his end (and 
‘smiles with his eyebrows’ ; Wegener followed by Gemoll is plainly wrong in 
putting Persephone’s eating the pips into the past, for why should the 
circumstance be mentioned here 7); Persephone jumps up in a transport, 
while he, ‘ handling’ (0.6. stealthily reaching for it and opening it) a pome- 
granate ‘about,’ that is virtually behind, ‘ her, privily,’ gives her a few pips to 
eat. Λάθρη again is of course Περσεφόνης, so as not to rouse her suspicion, 


60 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: TII. 


not “Ἑρμαίαο, who had no personal interest in the ménage. Puntoni’s 
discussion (p. 40, 41) is interesting and clear, but goes off into the vague as 
soon as it leaves the actual interpretation of νωμᾶν. Persephone’s account of 
the incident (411 sg.) is naturally and properly different to that given here. 
Actually, in her exaltation, she paid no attention to the pomegranate pip: 
questioned by Demeter she remembers that Aides did put it into her mouth, 
and not at her wish ; but there was no sort of struggle. Any other criticism 
is forensic and inapplicable. 

386. Ruhnken’s objection to the propriety of comparing Demeter to a 
μαινάς is a lapse of perception commoner in other critics. His contemporaries 
quoted X 460 of Andromache. 

399. ef δὲ πτᾶσα. I may be allowed to point out the superiority of Mr. 
Goodwin’s τὸ πάσσαο over the vulgate δ᾽ ἐπάσω, inasmuch as it takes account 
of the τ in πτᾶσα. How does Puntoni get his ἢ δή τοι πάλιν adres toda’ out 
of the line? It is a curious but of course perfectly natural circumstance that 
in this damaged passage the perfect MS. had several gross corruptions. I see 
no reason, with Dr. O. Crusius (Literarisches Centralblatt, 1895, 5 Januar, p. 21) 
to plead for the retention of παομένη v. 393. 

404. Ruhnken is evidently right in supposing an omission here; a 
question is required for the answer at 415. Supply as Hermann λέξον δ᾽ 
ὅππως ἦλθες ὑπὸ ζόφον ἠερόεντα, or perhaps εἰπὲ δὲ πῶς σ᾽ ἤρπαξεν Vv. ζ. ἡ. 
The homoeoteleuton with 403 explains the omission. 

412. αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν ἀνόρουσ᾽ ὑπὸ yappatos. Apparently the first particle 
(which would naturally be ἤτοι) has been superseded by the second, as Σ 208 
αὐτὰρ ᾿Αχιλλεὺς ὦρτο διίφιλος" ἀμφὶ δ᾽ ᾿Αθήνη several MSS. have αὐτὰρ 
᾿Αθήνη. At the end of the line ὃ λάθρη is certain, as Mr. Goodwin’s note 
shows, and the propriety of the adverb cannot be a moment in doubt. 

419 sq. The names of the Oceanids agree in the main with Hesiod’s 
catalogue, Thevg. 349 sg. Hesiod names 41, of whom the Hymn-writer has 
16, and adds of his own Leucippe, Phaeno, Melite, Iache, Rhodope. The 
passage has this interest among others, that it supplies an authority to which 
to compare this part of the Hymn, otherwise dependent entirely on our 
fourteenth-century scribe. Ταλαξαύρη for γαλαξαύρη is trivial, but poeca for 
ῥόδεια, μηλοβόστη for μηλόβοσις, ἀκατάστη for ἀκάστη are remarkable, and 
illustrate the result of solitary tradition. ‘There are many fifteenth century 
MSS. of the Theogony, but the possibility of comparison and the existence of 
an external standard, has prevented these graphical corruptions. The text of 
Pausanias also, who, iv. 30, 4, quotes 417—42(), seems to be correct. This 
evidence confirms the conclusion (vol. xv. p. 307) that the Hymn to Demeter 
was lost at a very early period from the z corpus and that M was reproduced 
for centuries without contact with z. On the other hand the name χρυσηΐς 
in 422 has been thought the original of the corruptions κρυσίη, xpnonis, 
κρυσηίς, ete. Hes. Theog. 359. Pallas and Artemis (425) are companions of 
Persephone in all versions of the legend: in Claudian they even show fight. 
That they are mentioned last is surely a trivial objection ; the writer could 
hardly have mixed them with the Oceanidae, and the tail of a procession 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: III. 61 


is under certain circumstances more honorific than the head. Puntoni, p. 96, 
retains the line. 

429. νάρκισσόν θ᾽ ὃν ἔφυσ᾽ ὥσπερ κρόκον εὐρεῖα χθών. The substitu- 
tions for ὥσπερ κρόκον are all extremely violent: I need only mention Voss’s 
ὑπείροχον, commonly received, and Hermann’s αἰπὺν δόλον! I agree entirely 
with Ilgen’s second thoughts, that ὥσπερ κρόκον means not ‘as also the 
crocus,’ in which sense Ruhnken seems to have taken it, but ‘as abundantly 
as the crocus.’ The narcissus which tempted Persephone was no ordinary 
flower ; it was designed as a δόλος, and had a hundred flowers on one stalk, 
a marvel to Gods and men (8 sq.). Persephone illustrates this extraordinary 
abundance by saying ‘it grew like a crocus,’ In our ignorance of where the 
Νυσήιον πεδίον was, it would be rash to commit oneself to a definite botanical 
statement, but in Italy, and therefore probably in other Mediterranean 
countries, the narcissus is abundant only locally in damp places. (Anth. Pal. 
v. 143 θάλλει δὲ φίλομβρος | νάρκισσος). The crocus on the other hand 
covers the driest hillsides, and the mention of olives vy. 23 is enough to give 
this character to the field where Persephone was picking flowers. 

438. γηθόσυναι δὲ δέχοντο trap’ ἀλλήλων ἐδίδοντο. Τηθοσύνας and 
ἔδιδόν τε Ruhnken, but γηθοσυν---ἰη the plural is always adjectival in 
Homer, and the phrase γηθοσύνας δέχεσθαι καὶ διδόναι is somewhat strange, 
even with Ruhnken’s parallel v. 8. Perhaps a line has fallen out to this 
effect, μῦθον τῶν ὅσ᾽ ἑκάστη ἐποίησάν 7 ἔπαθόν τε. Cf. δὸς δὲ δίκην καὶ 
δέξο Herm. 312, and the similar expression, though in another sense, v. 217 
καὶ χαλεπόν περ ἐόντα δεχώμεθα μῦθον ᾿Αχαιοί. 

441. ἐκ τοῦ is abrupt, but it has not roused any commentator’s suspicion. 

443. ἣν μητέρα κυανόπεπλον. Fontein’s Δημήτερα for ἣν μητέρα is 
attractive and has commanded universal acceptance. I am not sure however 
if it is indispensable: ἣν μητέρα obviously in itself has much force (Rhea, 
Hes. Theog. 454, was mother to both Zeus and Demeter), and as to the 
construction, in the terse style of this hymn αὐτάς can be supplied to ἀξέμεναι 
easily out of ταῖς, and a nominative to ἕλοιτο from the general sense, 

446 sq. I have noticed this extraordinarily pregnant construction above 
v. 126. Hermann originally made a lacuna after 448 (in which Biicheler 
follows him), Voss conjectured νεῖσθαι for νεῦσε ‘quod’ says Baumeister in 
one of his rare judicial moments ‘fidem prope excedit.’ 

452 sq. I apply Baumeister’s words to Gemoll’s astonishing pronounce- 
ment on this passage ‘Die Verse sind verdorben.’ On the contrary every- 
thing is in perfect order and ἕκηλον which Ruhnken, with the occasional 
aberration of a great man, condemned is an epithet peculiarly applicable to 
the idle and resting earth; the same idea of profitless waste is conveyed in 
Apollonius’ fine lines, iv. 1245 s9., 

οἱ δ᾽ ἀπὸ νηὸς ὄρουσαν, ἄχος δ᾽ ἕλεν εἰσορόωντας 
ἠέρα καὶ μεγάλας νῶτα χθονὸς ἠέρι ἶσα 

τηλοῦ ὑπερτείνοντα διηνεκές" οὐδέ τιν᾽ ἀρδμόν 
οὐ πότον οὐκ ἀπάνευθε κατηυγάσσαντο βοτήρων 
αὔλιον, εὐκήλῳ δὲ κατείχετο πάντα γαλήνῃ. 


62 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IIL. 


454 sq. The picture is consistent though elliptical. The field is suddenly 
to bloom with long ears [blades with ears], and then (dpa) on the ground the 
fat furrows are to be heavy with ears [.6. the ears are to be cut and falling on 
the ground cover the furrows] and other corn is to be being bound up in 
sheaves. So Franke. There are two times of year, the growing time and 
the harvest, and the harvest has two moments, reaping and binding into 
sheaves. These two moments are the same as in Σ 552. 


δράγματα δ᾽ ἄλλα pet’ ὄγμον ἐπήτριμα πῖπτον ἔραζε [= πέζῳ] 
ἄλλα δ᾽ ἀμαλλοδετῆρες ἐν ἐλλεδανοῖσι δέοντο, 


a place which and, with Gemoll’s leave, not Hes. Seut. 288 sy. was the 
hymn-writer’s model. Cf. Pseudophocylid. 165, ὁππότ᾽ ἄρουραι---λήια κειρώ- 
μεναι καρπῶν βρίθωσιν ἁλωάς. Hes. Opp. 473. 

474 sq. Of the variants in Pausanias, 11. 14, 3, δεῖξε appears from Mr. 
Goodwin’s collation to have been the original in M; the sixteenth century 
corrector gave εἶπε. The explicit statement in Paus. that Homer mentioned 
the daughters of Celeus, Diogencia, Pammerope and Saisara, led Ruhnken 
to suspect a lacuna after 477, which Voss filled with the two lines. My con- 
tribution would be ΤΓαμμερόπῃ καὶ Σαισάρᾳ καὶ Acoyeveia, and the resem- 
blance of the last word to Διοκλεῖ would account for the omission. I do not 
however guarantee the quantity of Σαισάρα. Δρησμοσύνην has been unani- 
mously preferred to χρησμοσύνην ; the change from X to A is slight (ef. vol. 
xy. p. 143), but it is not certain that ypnop. is to be rejected, especially as 
δρησμοσύνη is itself an ἅπαξ λεγόμενον. The Lexx. quote Herod. ix. 33, 
χρησμοσύνης μετέεσαν, Which might be interpreted to support M’s reading. 

479. ἀχέειν is still unscttled, but there is the stronger reason for leaving 
the word unaltered till itis. The meaning required is surely ‘divulge, reveal.’ 
Mr. Agar’s κοεῖν is not likely. He revives in 478 Ruhnken’s παρεξέμεν, which 
cértainly gives a good sense, but if ἀχέειν means ‘give out’ is hardly wanted. 

490, ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἄγ᾽ (Ruhnken) seems the simplest correction for ἀλλὰ 6- ; 
ἄγ᾽ or ἄγε has often produced small confusions, e.g. H 299 & 314 (δέ γ᾽). 
In 494 Voss’s ὀπάξειν is easy for ὄπαζε; the infinitive as imperative is often 
corrected in Homeric MSS., e.g. ® 217 ῥέξε ῥέζειν. 


THomas W. ALLEN. 


J.H.S. VOL.XVII.(1897) PL.I 


ENGRAVED GEMS, RECENTLY ADDED TO 
THE COLLECTION OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 


Ἐς ae 
L* 7 δ ᾿ -- Ἃ ay ? 


= 


our aa pe eeu are Σὐυνᾶς ΗΝ μή 
νϑ νὸν tig avalide Se, Pees 


> nee ake Με" peal 
5 ad. By sep) 


oe eek. ὙΜΟ allen 208 Dente κυ Ἁ 
opcg ἡ tthe ery athaila, ie ‘ ΓΝ ει ay 3 ΝΟΣ 
CY Wi. ῥτπεϑ ἀμ" ais Ἵ ΑΝ ἃ nt 
iv ποι Rattles Ne ine visto 

ἐὼν νυν ι ΔΊ» OM. we δ Fray, i uf at : 
ον na raphy) / aad abana, ub 
5 γ ἢ τ : ible at ce Fer Folie, 
eee er συσίῳ, Ra 


" 
: wit! ᾿ Δ ἤν ΩΝ "ἡ 
" ἐλ : Σι Rupa ny ι 
νιν tin. ἢ ha 5 
μη } Ἢ “ὌἌάΠοΕΥΨου υἱὲ 


ἊΣ Ά, } WA Ss a" ty ae. etd 


bind <i ree Ly. Beye, ἀνα 

wi ier ee Ἰὼ ων ΠῚ apps ΨΩ 

ἢ Lj rl, ἢ ne αὐ reads 

) iin ὟΝ cd. ae μόμυν ἮΝ vee i ovale 
4 es ΓΑ lions ; 49 fe ἴω oe ying ἡ 
! yw ee We" Us Poa 
rials ποφυόζυνῃ, tog: 
a 44 id win ey a 
were iy, ὧν We 


j 
ΜΔ 
“μιν UY 


4a 


τ G3G0A YWITHRORR 290 OSVARONE 
“MU32UM H2ITING 3HT 40 Μοῦ δου 
᾿ φϑις -- 


ON SOME ANTIQUITIES OF THE MYCENAEAN AGE. 63 


ON SOME ANTIQUITIES OF THE MYCENAEAN AGE RECENTLY 
ACQUIRED BY THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 


[Piate 111} 


THE present paper is intended as a bricf summary of acquisitions of the 
British Museum during the past ten years or so, which may be assigned to 
the Mycenaean period, and which have not as yet been published. The 
results of the Museum excavations at Curium and Salamis (Cyprus) in 
1895-6 are not included, being reserved for publication elsewhere, and the 
gold treasure acquired in 1892 has been fully described by Mr, Arthur 
Evans in the Journal, vol. xiii. p. 195 ff. In the case of the vases the terminus 
post quem is afforded by the publication of Furtwaengler and Loeschcke’s 
Mykenische Vasen in 1886; for the gems, by the issue of the Museum 
Catalogue in 1888. ᾿ 

The most convenient classification for a description of this kind is 
perhaps a geographical one, but as in some cases the provenience of the 
objects is unknown or indefinite, I have thought it better to group them 
under the heading of material, with a geographical sub-classification, so far 
as such is practicable. 


I.—GoLp OBJECTS. 


Cyprus. Two fibulae from Moni near Amathus (Figs. 1,2). These are of a 
type not usually associated with Bronze-Age tombs in Cyprus, but rather with 


Ric, 1. ΕἸα. 2) 


those of the 7th—6th centuries B.c. (see O.-Richter, Kypros, the Bille, and Homer, 
pp. 355, 466, and Athen. Mittheil. xii. 1886, p. 19; other examples from the 
Brit. Mus. excavations at Amathus and Curium, 1894-5). But although no 
evidence on this point has reached the Museum, I am inclined to think that 
they may have come from a Bronze-Age tomb, for two reasons: (1) that 


64 ON SOME ANTIQUITIES OF THE MYCENAEAN AGE 


together with them was acquired a seal of undoubted Mycenaean character, 
which is described below ; (2) that a fragmentary bronze fibula of the same 
shape was found in a tomb with Mycenaean vases and gems at Curium in 
1895. This tomb no doubt belongs to the latter end of the Mycenaean 
period, but all the other objects contained in it were purely Mycenacan. 
There is however much presumptive evidence to be drawn from recent 
excavations that the Mycenaean civilisation lingered on in Cyprus for many 
years after it had disappeared from other parts of the Greek world, and there 
need therefore be no cause for surprise that fibulae of this type should be 
associated with ‘ Bronze-Age’ tombs. Mr. Arthur Evans (Jowrnal, xiii. p. 228, 
note 52) records the finding of two gold fibulae at Paphos in 1888, together 
with a ‘sub-Mycenaean’ pscudamphora. These are now in the Ashmolean 
Museum (Nos. 1197, 1198), and resemble in shape the examples from Moni. 
A similar fibula, again, was found by Mr. Paton in his excavations at Assarlik 
in Caria (Journal, vii. p. 74, fig. 17), and is attributed by him to the transition 
period between the Mycenaean and Geometrical styles; this would accord 
very well with the evidence of our examples from Cyprus. 


II.— BRONZE. 


1. Suria or Suria, an island north of Karpathos, supposed to be the 
ancient Nisyros. From this site come three bronze implements presented by 
Mr. W. R. Paton in 1889. The first (Fig. 3) is a knife of a common Bronze- 


Fic. 3. 


Age type (length 17-2 cm.), the handle of which is lost, but there remain 
three rivets at the broad end by which it was attached.! The second object 
(Fig. 4) may be described as a chisel, and is also of a form familiar in the 


Fig, 4. 


Bronze-Age ;* similar chisels have been found in Kythnos, and there are two 
specimens in the Prehistoric Saloon of the Brit. Mus. from that island.’ 


1 For similar knife-blades from Ialysos, see Britain, p. 165 ff. 
P.-L. Mykea. Vasen, Pl. D., nos. 18 and 19. 3 Proc. Soc. Ant. 2nd Ser.iii. p. 437. 
* Evans, Ancient Bronze Implements of Gt. 


RECENTLY ACQUIRED BY THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 65 


The form is that of a narrow bar of metal brought to an edge at one end and 
left blunt at the other to receive the blows of the hammer or mallet, like the 
ordinary chisel of the modern stone-mason or mechanic. One such chisel 
Sir J. Evans gives as found at Plymstock in Devonshire ; others are known 
from Hungary, Switzerland, and Hissarlik.!. The third is a flat celt, length 
19 cm.,? nearly oblong in shape, with slightly convex edge, and narrowing 
towards the head, where is a diamond-shaped opening through which passed a 
rivet for fixing it in the handle. This variety of celt is also represented in 
the Ethnographical Department of the British Museum by one found in 
Kythnos and illustrated in Prov. Soc, Ant, 2nd Ser. iii. p. 437. Sir J. Evans 
distinguishes four types of celt: (1) the flat oblong or axe-head-shaped celt, 
associated with the Bronze-Age in Southern Europe; (2) the flanged celt, 1.6. 
with a projecting ledge to each of the long sides; (3) the winged celt or palstave, 
1.6. with short high flanges and a stop-ridge across the middle to prevent the 
blade from being driven too far into the head; (4) the socketed celt, with a 
hole for insertion of a wooden handle. The three latter classes are associated 
with the Iron-Age in classical countries. 

2. Aegina. A bronze knife,? length 26:4 cm., in two pieces. The blade 
is of unusual size and resembles in form the κοπίς which is frequently repre- 
sented on later vase-paintings. The handle has probably been covered on 
either side with a piece of ivory, and was joined to the blade by a series of 
rivets, some of which still remain. The bronze is in bad condition, being 
much corroded. It was probably found together with the marble pyxis and 
the four Mycenaean vases mentioned below. A knife of the same shape, but 
with the blade and handle in one piece, is given in F.-L. Myken. Vasen, pl. D, 
ey. 


11.-- MARBLE. 


Aegina, A pyxis (Fig. 5) with cover on which is a knob; round the 
cover, a design of heart-shaped leaves; round the side, a band of chevrons. 
Ht. 13°5 em.; diam. 19cm. <A stone pyxis, but of a different (spheroidal) 
shape, with elaborate decoration, is given in ’E¢. Apy. 1888, pl. 7, 1, as found 
in a tomb at Mycenae. 


1V.—ENGRAVED Gems. 


1. Cyprus. A hemispherical seal of rock-crystal (Plate III. 1, and 
fig. 6) set in a gold swivel, found at Moni near Amathus and acquired with 
the two fibulae described above. On the base of the seal is an engraved 
design composed of an animal with circular body and six legs, which may be 
intended to represent a sea-urchin, between two trees with stiff branches ; 


1 Schliemann, 7'roy and its Remains, p. 332. Catalogue of Bronzes. 
2 Length 15°8 cm. An illustration of this 3 An illustration of this object will be given 
celt will be given in the forthcoming Museum in the forthcoming Catalogue of Bronzes. 


HS ΞΞΞ ΘΙ. ΧΥ ΤΙ. ᾽ν 


66 ON SOME ANTIQUITIES OF THE MYCENAEAN AGE 


above is a tunny-fish. The swivel is formed of a double piece of gold wire 
passed through a hole at the base of the seal, the two ends of which are 
twisted together above and end off in a loop for attachment. The hole 
through the seal is lined with gold, and there is a ring of gold round the 
base. 


Fig. 5: 


The Mycenaean character of this seal is clearly shown by the design on 
the base, both in style and subject. The work 1s careful, but the trees are of 
a very conventional type. The tunny-fish is of course a common object on 
Mycenaean gems, and the sea-urchin (if that be the creature intended) is 
another instance of the fondness of these people for marine objects. 


These are the first examples of the Mycenaean period that have 
come from the site of Moni. It is about six miles from 
another early site, that of Mari, which appears to be of considerable 
extent, as Mycenaean remains have appeared in several villages of the neigh- 
bourhood. Until two years ago no extensive Bronze-Age necropoleis were 


RECENTLY ACQUIRED BY THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 67 


known on the south coast of the island, but since the unexpected and im- 
portant discoveries at Curium, to say nothing of those at Salamis, it is 
impossible to say where Mycenaean remains may turn up in Cyprus. 

2. Crete. Our knowledge of Island-gems has been increased by many 
accessions of late years, but no district has been more generous in this respect 
than the island of Crete. Mr. Arthur Evans’ discoveries need no further 
reference here, and it may suffice to say that it was largely the richness of 
Crete in Island-gems that led Milchhoefer! to regard the island as the centre 
of Mycenaean civilisation. The British Museum has indeed only acquired one 
gem during the past ten years from Crete, but it may be fairly said that it is 
one of the finest existing examples, and may well be compared with the 
basalt scaraboid from Giiriane 2 or the gem illustrated on p. 81 of Milchhoefer’s 
work. It is an agate chaleedony (Plate III. fig. 2) of a colour varying from 
rich brown to pale yellow, and measures 2°3 cm. in diameter. The design 
consists of a bull walking to the right, guided by a man who stands on the 
further side of it and holds a cord in both hands which is fastened round 
the bull’s horns. The figure of the man forms a curious contrast to that of 
the bull, with its rudely-drawn features and pinched-in waist, which gives a 
triangular form to the upper part of the body. He appears to wear a loin- 
cloth wrapped round his waist. ‘The anatomy of the legs is well rendered, 
and the arms fairly so, but the head is as usual quite incorrectly portrayed, 
though free from any Oriental conventionality. 

This gem naturally recalls to our mind the Vaphio cups, with their life- 
like bulls and vivid naturalism, the most perfect production of this phase of 
Mycenaean art. And here I must express myself as fully in accordance with 
the views put forward by Mr. Arthur Evans (Journal, xiii. p. 220), with 
reference to the entire absence of Oriental influence, not only on the Vaphio 
cup but on the Island-gems of all kinds. Whatever theories we may hold of 
the date of the Mycenaean civilisation, or of the origin of the nation to whom 
it belongs, it cannot be denied that on a large class of objects no outside 
influences can be traced, and that whether we term them ‘Greek’ or not, they 
can only be products of some indigenous fabric, the sphere of which is confined 
to the Greek islands and the Peloponnese. ΤῸ quote Mr. Evans’ words: ‘In 
spite of every effort to bring it ready-made from Northern Syria or elsewhere, 
Mycenaean art has an obstinate way of clinging to the mainland and islands 
of Greece . . . . The noble representation of the bull-catching on the Vaphio 
cups, which we are asked to regard as of Syrian manufacture, cannot be 
separated from the fine animal figures, some representing parallel subjects, on 
the contemporary lentoid gems. But, unfortunately, amongst the many gems 
found on the Syrian coast and the neighbouring tracts of Asia Minor, this 
Mycenaean class is conspicuous by its absence, and the animal representations 
by their coarseness. On the other hand, the inexhaustible source of the 
gems which reproduce the Vaphio style in glyptic art is Greece and its islands, 
in a principal degree Crete and the Peloponnese.’ 


1 Antange der Kunst, p. 125 ff. 2 Times, 6 Jan., 1896. 


68 ON SOME ANTIQUITIES OF THE MYCENAEAN AGE 


) 


3. Calymnu. A haematite or basalt lenticular gem (Plate III. 3), 
2 cm. in diameter, with a very rudely executed Cretan goat standing to the 
left with its head thrown back over its shoulder. In the field are two 
branches. This gem was presented by Mr. W. R. Paton in 1889, together 
with the vase A 296, to be described below, and three terra-cotta whorls of 
the common Bronze-Age type (frequently found at Hissarlik and in Cyprus), 
all being from Calymna. 

4. Melos. No less than Crete this island has been a fruitful source of 
Mycenaean gems, although here again we have only one example to discuss 
among the recent acquisitions. This is a small lenticular sea-green steatite 
(Plate III. fig. 4), 1°8 cm. in diameter, engraved with a cuttle-fish, above 
which is a tunny-fish to the right. The workmanship is somewhat inferior, 
as if the soft nature of the stone had tempted the graver to careless work, 
whereas the best work is often seen on the harder materials which called 
forth the best energies of the craftsman, like the example from Crete just 
described. The lines are lightly cut and ill-defined, while the tentacles of 
the cuttle-fish are merely indicated by a succession of shallow drilled holes. 

5. Hydra. <A carnelian glandular gem (Plate 111. 5), 2 cm. in 
length, the surface partly striated with white. This gem bears a design of 
peculiar interest, as belonging to a class discussed by Milchhoefer’ and A. B. 
Cook,? with reference to animal-worship in the Mycenaean age. In the centre 
stands a figure to right wearing a horse’s skin over the head and body which 
is tied in at the waist and hangs down to the feet behind ; a ridge of upright 
hair extends all down the back. On either side of this figure is a man with 
whom he appears to be conversing; their hands are raised with animated 
gestures, and each wears the διάζωμα or loin-cloth characteristic of the 
period. The work is very careful, and the figures of the men closely re- 
semble that on the gem from Crete (supra). , 

As to the interpretation of this subject, it may be taken in conjunction 
with the representations figured by Milchhoefer and Cook (loce. citt.), which 
are all very similar. Both agree in regarding the figures as evidence of a 
horse-cult, but differ slightly in their exposition. The cult is that of the 
Chthonian horse as described by Pausanias in connection with Phigaleia 
(where one of the other gems with similar subject was actually found). The 
figure in the horse’s skin denotes a worshipper, a common feature of ancient 
cults, for which it is only necessary to quote the instance of the ἄρκτοι or 
maidens who went in bear-skins in the processions in honour of Artemis 
jrauronia. The exact signification of the scene before us is not easy to 
indicate; but possibly it is intended like the others to imply the subjugation 
of the death-deity by a mortal, according to Mr. Cook’s interpretation (speak- 
ing of a coin of Nicaea): ‘We have here a collateral relic of the Phigaleian 
rite, in which men dressed in horse’s skins and furnished forth with the 
emblems of death were overpowered by the celebrant—the purpose of the 
performance being to secure by mimetic magic immunity from danger.’ 


' Anfinge der Kunst, p. 54 ff. * Journal, xiv. p. 81 ff. 


RECENTLY ACQUIRED BY THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 69 


M. Pottier (Cat. des Vases Ant. du Louvre, i. p. 190) casts doubts ou Mr. Cook’s 
theories on the ground that they imply a too highly-developed system of 
religion for the period. It is however impossible to believe that these 
peculiar figures with their ceremonial garb had no significance, religious or 
otherwise, and were merely products of artistic fancy. 

6. Sparta. Rock-crystal lenticular gem (Plate III. 6), 2°2 em. in 
diameter. On it is engraved a Cretan goat to left, with head twisted back 
over its left shoulder; in the two vacant spaces in the field are two crosses, 
which may possibly be characters like those of the Cretan script, but are more 
probably of a merely decorative character, and due to a horror vacwi.. On 
the left of the scene is an upright object, probably intended for a tree-stem. 
Except for the joints of the legs, the eye, and the nostril, the drill has not 
been employed. The ingenuity with which the animal’s limbs and horns are 
disposed to fill up the space is worth noting; but the design is of no great 
merit. 

7. Galaxvidi. A small steatite lenticular gem (Plate ITI. 7) of a dull 
green colour, 1:6 cm. in diameter. The design consists of a stork to r., with 
addorsed wings, holding an cel by the middle in its beak; above is a dolphin 
to the right. The wings of the stork are treated in the usual manner, by a 
row of deep parallel vertical lines. 

8. Mycenae. An amethyst in the form of a crouching lion (Fig. 7), 
the head resting on the fore-paws, the body curled round. Length 1°5 em. 


The under side is flat, with a characteristic spiral pattern (Plate III. 8). 
The style is naturalistic, but the proportions are too thin, and the whole 
effect is meagre. Amethyst is a somewhat rare material for gems of My- 
cenaean Age. 

9. Calabria. Mycenaean antiquities from Italy though rare are not 
quite unknown. Furtwaengler and Loeschcke (p. 48) give some examples of 
pottery from various sites, but no ‘island-gems’ have been hitherto recorded. 
The example about to be described (Plate HI. 9) is a lenticular sard (?), 
of a reddish-pink colour, with bands of greasy white, 2°5 cm. in diameter. 
The design consists of a deer to right with head bent round’ towards a fawn 
which she is suckling. The fawn approximately fills the space below the 
deer. In the field above is a dog extended at full length to the left. The 
drill is largely employed for the legs of the deer and fawn. 


1 Journal, xiv. p. 272. 


70 ON SOME ANTIQUITIES OF THE MYCENAEAN AGE 


GEMS OF UNCERTAIN PROVENIENCE. 


10. A small dise of sea-green steatite (Plate III. 10), acquired in 
Athens, and said to be from Amorgos, 11 cm. in diameter. On it is engraved 
a man on horseback to right, holding the bridle in his left hand, and_bran- 
dishing a club or short spear in his right. In front of the horse is a bird 
with head thrown back. The work is rather inferior, the forms being very 
thin and angular. 

11. A circular steatite gem (Plate III. 11) engraved on both sides, 
acquired in Athens, but the place where it was found is unknown; diameter 
2 cm. On the obverse is a bearded man running to the right and looking 
back; his attitude is that of the ‘Knielaufschema’ so familiar on archaic 
vases. The design is somewhat obscure, but he appears to brandish a sword 
in the right hand over his head, while his other hand is held up in a menacing 
fashion, In the field on the left is a tree. On the reverse is a Pegasos to 
right, with recurved wings; below, a bough with long sharp leaves. Only 
two of his legs are indicated. 

12. A haematite lenticular gem (Plate III. 12) of a metallic indigo 
colour, 2.9. cm. in diameter. This gem has already been illustrated more 
than once,’ and a detailed description of it is therefore unnecessary, but it 
is included here to complete the series, and in order to ensure a more satis- 
factory publication. The design consists of a bull led by two men, one at 
its head, the other apparently over its back, but probably meant to be on 
the further side of it. Mr. Murray has pointed out the interest and im- 
portance of this gem for the points of comparison that it affords with tlie 
Tiryns fresco-painting. It may also be compared with the gem from Crete 
described above (no. 2), to which in style it is vastly inferior. 

13. <A lenticular burnt sard,? said to be from the Greek islands, 2 cm. in 
diameter (Plate III. 13. On it is engraved a Hippocamp to right, 
with one fore-leg extended; the scales of the body are indicated by a double 
row of indentations, and the markings of the pectoral fin by a series of hatched 
lines. In the field are two water-plants in the form of thick stems marked 
all the way up with a row of indentations. 

14. Α steatite cone or pyramid (Plate III. 14) with four sides, 
height 2°5 cm., with a hole pierced through the top, engraved on the base 
with two rude figures of a lion and a smaller animal running to the left, 
merely rendered in outline. 

15. A pyramid or cone of black basalt (Plate III. 15), with four 
sides, acquired with No. 10, and also said to be from Amorgos ; the height is 
23cm. A hole is pierced through the upper part of the pyramid, indicating 
that it has been strung on a necklace, On the base is engraved a very rude 
face, the eyes filled in with white; above it is an unintelligible mark. 


‘ Arch. Anzeiger, 1890, p. 69; Perrot and and Journal, xiv. p. 127. 
Chipiez, vi. p. 851, Fig. 482, no. 12; Murray, 2 An illustration given in Perrot and Chipiez, 
Handbook of Gk. Archaeology, p. 45. Also vi. p. 851, fig. 482, no. 18. 
referred to in Class. Review, iv. (1890), p. 282, 


RECENTLY ACQUIRED BY THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 71 


10. A nearly hemispherical steatite gem (Plate IIL. 16), engraved 
with a Gorgoneion surrounded by a double ring. The type is that of the 
archaic Greek Gorgon, with tusks and tongue protruding. 


PorTTeRY. 


1. Cyprus. In 1888 a collection of thirty-four vases from the necropolis 
of Ayia Paraskevi near Nicosia was presented to the Museum by Col. 
Falkland Warren. This site is well known as a hunting-ground for early 
Cypriote pottery and Bronze-Age antiquities, and has been the scene of several 
different excavations, for a record of which it may be sufficient to refer to the 
forthcoming Cyprus Muscuwm Catalogue, Myres and O,-Richter, Oxford 1897, p.1. 
An account of the most recent exploration of the site is given by Mr. Myres 
in the current volume of the Jowrnal. The necropolis is wholly of the 
Bronze-Age period, and the finds closely analogous to those of Alambra, 
Curium, and Phoenikiais. 

The pottery of the Bronze-Age tombs in Cyprus may be roughly divided 
into two periods, the earlier of which corresponds to the remains of the 
second city at Hissarlik, and is represented in Cyprus by red or black glaze 
hand-made vases with geometrical patterns incised with a hard tool and filled 
in with white. The second period is that in which we find imported 
Mycenaean vases in conjunction with local pottery; the latter takes the form 
of bowls, still hand-made, covered with a white slip, on which patterns are 
painted; or jugs of a thin gritty clay of metallic appearance on which 
patterns are painted in matt white or laid on in relief in the form of snakes 
or of cable-patterns. The group of vases above-mentioned belongs almost 
entirely to the earlier class. A few typical specimens may be described in 
detail. 

(1) A 5 in forthcoming Cat. of Vases (vol.i.). Ht. 45cm. ; diam. 10°2 em. 
Plain bowl covered with a lustrous red glaze ; it has a small handle in the 
form of a thick ear pierced with a small hole. 

(2) A 10. Ht.17-8cem. Jar with high looped handle and a small ear 
as A 5. It is of red ware, partly glazed and imperfectly fired. 

(3) A 19. Ht. 12:1em. Jug or lekythos, of very rough clay, partially 
glazed. The vase is covered with patterns of bands, wavy lines, chevrons, 
and a sort of chain. pattern, all of which have been incised with a blunt. tool 
while the clay was still soft, and then fired. It is interesting to note that a 
similar practice obtains to this day in Cyprus, in the decoration employed on 
the pottery manufactured at Famagusta. 

(4) A 30. Ht. 20 em. This vase may perhaps be described as a 
stamnos; it 15 ἃ form very common in Cypriote pottery of all dates, with 
more or less bulging body, straight wide neck, and horizontal side-handles. 
The colour of the clay varies from red to black; it is not lustrous and is 
imperfectly baked. The decoration consists of raised wavy lines and rings 
all round the neck and body, and wavy lines on the handles. 

(5) A 33. Ht. 16 cm. Funnel-shaped vase, of rather rude execution, 


72 ON SOME ANTIQUITIES OF THE MYCENAEAN AGE 


and made of a red unglazed clay. In the rim are two holes for suspension, 
which have been pierced through the clay while soft. The whole of the vase 
is decorated with rows of short incised lines, forming in their general effect a 
chequer pattern. 

(6) A 34. Ht.45cem. Diam.13cm. A bowl (Fig. 8) broken in fragments 
and pieced together. Itis covered with a black glaze, on which the patterns are 


incised (on the exterior) and filled in with white. On the rim is a small ear. 
The patterns consist of a wavy line round the edge, three bands of hatched 
lines, and on the base a cross formed of hatched lines. . 

(7) A 35. Ht. 57 cm. Diam. 10°8 cm. A similar bowl, but with 
different decoration; round the rim are two bands with groups of hatched 
lines at intervals ; below are triangles of hatched lines placed apex to apex, 
alternating with broad zigzags vertically placed and filled in with cross lines. 

(8) A 36. Ht.64cm. Diam. 12:8 cm. A bowl covered with lustrous 
red glaze, with a small ear on the rim; round the top are bands of straight ἡ 
and wavy lines (incised and filled in with white), and below are parallel 
bands of hatchings. 

(9) A 37. Ht. 58cm. Diam. 121 cm. Bowl covered with bright red 
glaze. Round the upper part are six quadrilateral figures filled with vertical 
incised lines and divided into four by diagonals; round the bottom are 
concentric rings with parallel lines drawn diagonally across them so as to 
form a star of four points. 

(10) A 38. Ht. 43°83 em. Large jug with long narrow neck (the 
ordinary Cypriote shape), covered with a lustrous red glaze. On the body 
are incised chevrons, vertically placed ; on the neck, chevrons and plain bands 
of lines. 

(11) A 40. Ht. 15:9 em. Similar jug; round the neck, bands; on the 
body, rows of parallel lies going in different directions, interspersed with 
concentric circles. 

(12) Α 41. Ht. 14cm. Jug as before, with rather flat base; the glaze 
is of a yellow-brown colour; the patterns consist of lozenges filled with 
hatched lines, and bands. 

(13) Α 42. Ht.14cm. Jug as before; lustrous deep red glaze. On 
the neck, a vertical row of hatched lines; on the body, chevrons between 
parallel vertical bands. 

(14) A 44. Ht. 146 cm. Jug as before; very lustrous red glaze; 
patterns on body as the last example. 


RECENTLY ACQUIRED BY THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 73 


(15) A 47. Ht. 307 οἴη. ‘Stamnos’ (Fig. 9) like A 30 described above, but 
the neck is larger. This vase is very richly decorated with incised patterns, 
consisting of lozenges, chevrons, and concentric circles. On one hanglle deep 


Fic. 9. 


incisions have been made while the clay was soft, ason A 19. At the base 
of the neck are two small thick ears, and on the rim are upright projections, 
two low and solid, the other two (one broken away) pierced with three holes 
for suspension. 

(16) A 48. Ht. 331 em. ‘Stamnos’ as A 30 but slimmer, of dull red 
clay. It is richly decorated with incised lozenge patterns and chevrons. 

(17) A 66. Ht.13:°2cm. A jug or lekythos (Fig. 10), shaped as No.10, but 
belonging to the later class of Bronze-Age pottery, that found with white 
slip ware and Mycenaean vases. It is of the ‘ base-ring’ type, and of a thin 


hard clay with dull black slip. The handle is flat and attached to the neck 
half-way up; from the base of it on either side springs a serpent in relief. 
Their heads are flat and lozenge-shaped, the eyes being indicated by large 
dots, and they have beak-like mouths, slightly open. Between the snakes 
are two vertical raised lines. 

Paphos. During the excavations conducted by the Cyprus Exploration 
Fund in 1887 by Messrs. Hogarth and James on the site of the temple of 
Aphrodite at Paphos, a few Mycenaean antiquities were brought to light. 
Among them were the two gold fibulae mentioned above, now at Oxford. 
The share of antiquities that fell to the British Museum included a fragment 
of Mycenaean ware (height 7:7 cm.) of the technique of the later period, 


74 ON SOME ANTIQUITIES OF THE MYCENAEAN AGE 


decorated with a scale-pattern. These evidences of a Mycenaean settlement 
at Paphos have been strangely overlooked in the published report of the 
excavations (Jowrnal, 1x. p. 216 ff). 

2. Hgypt. (1) Though not strictly speaking a vase of Mycenaean 
fabric, the specimen from Saqqara here illustrated (Fig. 11) must be included 
owing to its close conection therewith.! It is a bowl of a class familiar in 


Cyprus, and undoubtedly manufactured in that island. It is hand-made, 
11 cm. in height and 17-5 to 20 cm. in diameter, and is numbered C 4 in the 
forthcoming Vol. i. of the Cataiogue of Vases. The class to which it belongs 
is known as the ‘White slip ware’? and in Cyprus is always found in 
conjunction with Mycenaean ware and intombs of the Bronze-Age period, 
especially at Ayia Paraskevi and Curium. The example under consideration 
is of a rather flattened and elliptical shape, and the handle is broken off. It 
is ornamented with various linear patterns in a black colour which tends 
to fade to brown; the lines are mostly vertical, and combined in threes 
with triple cross-lines at intervals; alternating with these are pairs of 
vertical wavy lines with double lines of dots down each side of them, 

Several other specimens of this ware have been found outside Cyprus, 
mostly in very early strata of pottery. Thera ὃ. has yielded one bowl complete, 
and a fragment has been found on the Acropolis of Athens; Brueckner 4 
records a fragment from the more recent excavations at Troy, and mentions 
another as having been found by Dr. Schliemann.® Specimens have also been 
found at Tell-el-Amarna and Tell-Hesy.© For further discussion of this class 
see Myres, Cyprus Mus, Cat. p. 39, Duemmler in Athen. Mittheil. xi. 
p. 233, and Furtwaengler, Bronzef. aus Olympia, p. 8. 

(2) A very remarkable Mycenaean vase from Erment (A 349) was 
acquired in 1890 through the late Rev. G. Chester. It is mentioned by Mr. 
A.S. Murray in Amer. Journ. of Arch. vi. p. 437 ff, ἃ propos of an almost 
identical vase in New York, there published, and is published by Perrot and 
Chipiez, vi. p. 625, fig. 485, but repeated here for the sake of completeness. 
The New York vase is a jug with spreading, rather squat, body, and straight 


1 For Mycenaean vases from Saqqara, see Myken. Vasen, xii. 80, p. 22. 


F.-L. Myken. Vasen, pp. 31, 82. 4 Troja, 1893, p. 101. 
2 Myres, Cyprus Mus. Cat. p. 39, q.v. for § Schliemann collection 8125. 
classification of Cypriote pottery generally. 6 Petrie, 7'ell-cl-Amarna, p. 17 ; Bliss, Mound 


8 Fouqué, Santorin, Pl. 42, Fig. 6; F.-L. of Many Cities, pl. 4, 181. 


RECENTLY ACQUIRED BY THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 75 


up-turned lip, but the Museum one (fig. 12) is of a shape not uncommon in 
Mycenaean fabrics, but for which there is no exact name. It is of a very flat 
shape, the sides being curved over to the mouth, and there is practically no 


neck ; there are three small ear-handles.!. The colour of the clay is of a deep 
greenish-yellow, and the varnish is laid on in no great thickness, but otherwise 
the technique is quite ordinary. The height of the vase is 11 em. The 
decoration consists of a representation of the Argonaut or paper Nautilus? 
(not the chambered Nautilus with which we are more familiar) repeated in 
each space between the handles, while all the remaining surface of the vase is 
filled in with sca-weed patterns. It will be seen that the design is almost the 
same as that of the New York vase, and that the treatment of the Argonaut is 
absolutely identical. 

3. Calymna. Together with the gem described above (p. 68) was 
acquired a vase of great interest and artistic merit, a pseudamphora (A 296; 
fig. 13) 26 em. in height, with figures in bright red on a deep buff ground, 
Perrot (vi. p. 929) gives a very similar vase from Pitane in Aeolis, but the 
design is there somewhat rougher though fuller in detail. On the front of 
the vase, below the spout, is the body of an octopus mouth downwards, from 
which extend nine tentacles, of which eight meet in pairs at the back of the 
vase ; the remaining one falls vertically and ends in a leaf-shaped sucker. 
The other tentacles end in spirals, and each pair is united by an oval radiated 
object, the meaning of which is not quite clear. Between the tentacles is a 
curious sort of webbing, formed of striated bands which are interlaced, and 
hold the tentacles together for about a third of their total length. In the 
field of the vase and between the tentacles are various animals: on either 
side of the spout, two birds; on the left side, in three rows between the 
tentacles, (1) two horses confronted, (2) a bird, porcupine, and sea-urehin, (3) 
three birds to the right ; on the right side, (1) two Cretan goats back to back 
(2) two birds, (3) a porcupine, sea-urchin, bird, and crab. On the shoulder 
on the reverse are two circles marked with crosses, and on the top of the 
handle is a large rosette. 


1 For the shape see F.-L. Myken. Vasen, Mycenaean and other vases, see Perrot and 
Pl. 44, no. 82. Chipiez, vi. p. 926 and F,-L. Myken. Vasen, 
For other representations of the Nautilus on _ p. 80. 


76 ON SOME ANTIQUITIES OF THE MYCENAEAN AGE 


For a curious interpretation of the subject of the Pitane vase which may 
be regarded as applying also to the one under consideration, it may be 
sufficient to refer to an article by M. Houssay in Rev. Arch. 3rd Ser. xxvi. p. 
1 ff.; the writer’s views are carried out further in another article in Rev. Arch. 


aie 
ἵ Vin 


μ' : 

y) A me ἽΝ 

ἐν δὲ 
Pha Se J Ἷ 


7 
\ 


xxx, p. 81 ff. MM. Perrot and Reinach have expressed themselves as in 
accord with the writer’s zoological theories, but the criticisms of M. Pottier in 
Rev. Arch. xxviii. p. 24 ff. appear to give a sufficient refutation of them 
without further discussion here. 

Another series of Mycenaean vases obtained by Mr. Paton from Calymna 
has been described in vol. viii. of the Journal, p. 456; Pl. 83, but one vase 
that was not then published may be regarded as of sufficient interest to 
include in the present paper (fig. 14). ΤΌ is a kylix of the familiar Ialysos 


type (ht. 18:5. em.); the shape is exceptionally graceful and the workmanship 
distinguished by care and delicacy. It is in excellent preservation except 
that the foot is restored, and the design, which consists of a cuttle-fish, is 
painted in red on a deep buff ground. The reverse is free from all decoration 
It will be seen from the illustration that the cuttle-fish is entirely conven- 


RECENTLY ACQUIRED BY THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 77 


tionalised and approaches nearly to the phase of a mere decorative pattern, 
though it is still clearly recognisable what animal is intended. 

Aegina. Your vases obtained together with the marble pyxis and bronze 
knife described above. None of these are of special interest or importance ; 
they consist of (1) a jug, numbered A 350, ht. 11°5 cm., with straight-rimmed 
tip and a pattern of four lozenges on the shoulder, end to end, the angles 
filled in with curved lines; (2) pseudamphora, ht. 25°4 em., with net-work 
and parallel bands; (3) ‘stamnos’ (ht. 165 cm.) with ivy-wreath on 
shoulder; (4) ‘stamnos’ (ht. 13°3 cm.) with band of dots and wavy lines round 
shoulder. 

Tiryns. A series of fragments of Mycenaean pottery, thirty-eight in all, 
obtained by Mr. A. H. Smith, in 1890, on the Acropolis of Tiryns, and 
presented by him. ‘Together with them was a fragment found on the 
Acropolis of Athens. 


Summary. It will be seen from a comparison of the monuments 
described above that, although here and there special points of interest and 
importance may have arisen, there is nothing among them that throws any 
really new light on the problem of Mycenaean civilisation. In any case it 
would be beyond the province of a paper of this kind to enter into a discussion 
of this question ; it is a question the solution of which archaeologists must be 
content to forego for the present, and indeed nothing is to be gained by hasty 
generalisations from isolated pieces of evidence, to which there may have been 
some tendency hitherto. 

It might have been hoped that Cyprus, with its close connection with 
Egypt and Phoenicia, would have furnished satisfactory and decisive evidence, 
if not for dating Mycenaean objects, at any rate for deducing the origin and 
ethnological affinities of the race. But though the recent excavations at 
Salamis and Curium have been fruitful beyond all expectations, it cannot be 
said that they have availed to settle the question except in so far as they 
have shown that the Mycenaean civilisation lingered on in Cyprus to a 
remarkably late date; a fact which will hardly surprise any one conversant 
with Cypriote archaeology and the circumstances of early Cypriote history. 
What holds true of Cyprus does not therefore necessarily hold true of other 
Mycenacan centres; and perhaps we must still look to Egypt to afford us, out 
of her wonderful treasure-house of things new and old, the key to this most 


perplexing problem of classical archaeology. 
Η. B. WALrERs. 


78 NOTES ON ADDITIONS TO THE GREEK COINS 


NOTES ON ADDITIONS TO THE GREEK COINS IN THE 
BRITISH MUSEUM, 1887—1896. 


[πα IT.] 


DurtnG the last ten years no less than 4,361 coins of various parts of 
the Greek world have been added to the national collection.1 A certain 
number of these have been published year by year by Mr. Warwick Wroth 
in the Nwmismatie Chronicle, under the title ‘Greek Coins acquired by the 
British Museum.’ A still larger number are described by Mr. Barclay Head, 
the Keeper of Coins, in the annual Parliamentary Return of the Accounts &e. 
of the British Museum. As the former publication is not seen by all who 
are gencrally interested in classical studies, while the latter suffers the fate of 
most Blue Books, it has been suggested that a short paper on the subject of 
these additions might be interesting to readers of this journal. I need hardly 
say that the selection here given is not meant to be representative. Had I 
attempted to give a full report of the acquisitions during the last ten years, 
these notes would have reduced themselves to a mere catalogue. It has 
been necessary therefore to choose out a very few coins from among the more 
important acquisitions. I have omitted in the first place coins which have be- 
come well known through publications not primarily confined to numismatics ; 
in the second, pieces of purely numismatic interest ; and in the third, many 
rare and interesting coins, such as the coin of Nabis, tyrant of Lacedaemon, 
or the gold stater struck at Athens in the name of Mithradates, simply 
because it would be difficult to add anything to the information already 
collected by my predecessors. Even in the case of the coins selected, I shall 
be largely going over old ground; but my excuse must be that some 
readers will be glad to be reminded that they will find fuller and more 
valuable information on these subjects in the publications to which I have 
referred. 

The date 1887 has been taken as a starting-point, for the reason that 
that year saw the publication of Head’s Historia Numorwm, to which every 
archaeologist naturally first refers for information on Greek numismatics. 
In the arrangement of places I have followed the geographical order of that 


work. 
The sizes of the coins are given in inches and tenths and the weights in 


grammes. 


1 See the statistics given by W. Wroth in Chronicle, 1897, part ii. (‘Greek Coins acquired 
his forthcoming article in the MNuwmismatic by the British Museum in 1896’). 


J-H.S. VOL. XVII. (1897) PL.II. 


Wo 


NY 


te 
; > ἐς ; 
een, δ δι τὴ" 
ZNO 


ut & 
Ue) Ϊ 


avTorrre 


GREEK COINS ADDED TO THE COLLECTION 
OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM 
1887 - [896 


et CR) VION 2.4, es 


“ἢ 77 yen ΜΝ AD 


PM A) OG WE DWP Tea σευ; 
Poth) gh (ie lar, FA a 


a γι ial oF vy, 
Rate 
ΡΩΝ 


Vode 


‘oy, (8 wA db. i 
ow bg (@ nih been Ὁ 


) 301 ΟΥ̓ g8a0e 2HIDS Keane 
i3.0M HEITIAd ST 36 
ϑ98ι ~ Teal 


IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, 1887—1896. 79 


ΜΆΑΘΕΡΟΝ, Philip 1]. 


1. Head of Zeus 1., laureate. 


Border of dots. 


Rev. PIAIP POY. Naked jockey, holding palm-branch in r., on horse to 


r. In field r., bee. 
MR °95. 


Wt. 14°39 ers. 


Pl: ilk, 


[Wroth, Num. Chr. 1894 p. 2, Pl. 1. 1]. 
This coin is worthy of illustration for the sake of the unusually fine 


treatment of the head of Zeus. 


It should be compared with the head on the 


Lampsacene Stater described below (No. 10), with which it has much in 


common, and which it helps us to date. 


The symbol in the field of the 


reverse probably indicates the mint of Melitaea in Thessaly. 


CHALCIDICE 2 


2. Bunch of Grapes. 


Border of dots. 


Rev. Nude male figure running to r.; he has curved wings on his 
shoulders and wears boots with large tags; in each hand he holds a wreath. 


The hair is long, and is represented by dotted lines. 


square within incuse square. 


AR 0}; 


Wt. 16°93 grs. 


The whole in dotted 


og iy SR 


[Head, Num. Chr. 1891 p. 1, Pl. I. 3; Wroth, Num. Chr. 1892 p. 19.] 
This is one of a small find of archaic coins from the island of Cos. 
Mr. Head has attributed this piece to Cyrene, in company with three other 


staters from the same find.! 


1 These other pieces have a similar obverse 
type, but on the reverse either a head of 
Heracles or a helmet. The dies are inter- 
changed, which proves that all these cvins be- 
long to the same place and period. The hoard con- 
tained also an archaic tetradrachm of Mende of the 
usual type, and the presence of this coin at first 

‘suggested Chalcidice to Mr. Head as the district 
to which the coins might belong. He however 
rejected this suggestion, mainly for the following 
reasons: (1) ‘there seems to be no city of 
Chalcidice to which such a type as a bunch of 
grapes would be appropriate’ ; (2) ‘ the reverses of 
all these Chalcidic coins consist merely of incuse 
squares, either quartered or subdivided into 
triangles. None of them in the earliest period 
exhibit a device upon the reverse, and at a 
later period, when reverse-types first make their 
appearance in Chalcidice, they are never 
enclosed, as on two out of the three coins now 
before us, in a dotted square.’ In the Museum 
is another coin which should be considered in 
this connection [B.M. Cat. Macedon ete. p. 136 


no. 2: Figure running to r.; 1. arm raised, 
holding wreath; wings attached to waist by 
belt, from which hangs a short skirt ; on feet, 
winged talaria ; in front a flower r.: border of 
dots. Rev. Quadripartite incuse square. Note : 
‘This coin was procured by Mr. Borrell at 
Salonica ?, to the neighbourhood of which town 
he attributed it.’]. Babelon (Rev. Nwm. 1885 p. 
397) has attributed this coin to Cyrene, but its 
probable provenance is in favour of a Macedonian 
origin, and Dr. H. Weber possesses a specimen 
which was certainly found in Thasos. The 
small flower may be compared with that 
which figures on the coins of Acanthus [e.g. 
Berlin Beschreibung der ant. Miinzen Ba. ii Pl. 
ii 17]. With regard to Mr. Head’s objections to a 
Chalcidic origin, it may be pointed out that the 
bunch of grapes might well be the type of some 
wine city of which we have no other coins ; and 
that the helmet on one of the series is most 
suitable to Macedonia. Mr. Wroth (l.c) has 
suggested some objections to the attribution to 
Cyrene. 


80 NOTES ON ADDITIONS TO THE GREEK COINS 

Whatever may be the origin of these coins, the one before us gives a 
fine example of the early type of winged figure. Mr. Head describes the 
figure as a wind-god, comparing those winged divinities on cups of Cyrenaic 
origin which have been explained by Studniczka as Boreades. We may 
compare also the little winged figure which runs along the outstretched arm 
of Apollo, usually holding one or two branches, on the coins of Caulonia." 
The true interpretation of the winged figure seems, however, to be suggested 
by the words of Studniczka,? which Mr. Head himself quotes: ‘Similar... 
figures fulfil on Cyrenean bowls with victorious riders the same function as 
Nike does elsewhere.’ With regard to these figures it has been suggested ὃ 
that they are personifications of Agon; and that the same or a similar 
interpretation applies to the figure on our coin seems to me hardly to admit 
of doubt. The meaning of the wreaths is quite obscure, if the figure is a 
wind-god; but obvious, if it is a personification of Agon or something 
similar. If so, it belongs to the earliest representations of the kind, as its 
date is in the first years of the fifth century. The correctness of this 
interpretation of course does not depend on the attribution of the coins to 


Cyrene. 


EUBOEA ? 


3. On a raised circular field, a horseman riding to front. His head and 
that of his horse are turned to r.; his r. hand comes round in front of the 
horse’s neck. With his 1. he leads a second horse, the head of which is to L., 
by a rope passing round its neck. The tails of the horses are seen in the 
space between their legs. 

Rev. Incuse square divided diagonally. 

AR Ὁ. Wt. 5°56 gr. 

[Wroth W. C. 1890, p. 328, Pl. XIX. 20.] 


PI ὙΠῸ Ὁ: 


4. Horseman riding to front as on previous coin, but without a second 
horse. 

fev. Incuse square, with traces of diagonal division. 

AR 65. Wt. 2°64 or. PETES 

These two coins belong to an interesting series, the most remarkable of 
which are tetradrachms representing a whole quadriga seen from the front. 
'The series falls into two classes, an earlier and a later, the dividing line being 
about 500-480 B.c. 

(a) Earlier class; lumpy fabric. 

Tetradrachm (16° 77grs.) with quadriga. 
1892, Pl. XV. 8. 


1 Gardner, Types, Pl. 1. 1. For other parallels 


Weber collection, Num. Chron. 


s.v. Agon. The figure on this coin is clearly 


see Babelon, Rev. Num. 1885, p. 295 ff. 

2 Kyrene, p. 24 

3. Knapp, Nike in der Vascnmalerei, p. 64, 
ἃ propos of the British Museum Vase, B 1. I 
owe the reference to Mr. Walters. 

* See Reisch in Pauly-Wissowa, Real Encyel. 


not to be classed with the ‘ Eros-figures of later 
times with agonistic attributes, which have been 
explained as Agon, on Athenian tetradrachms 
(Beulé, Monn. d’ Athénes, 222), intaglios (Arch. 
Zeit. VII. Pl. 2. 2) and sarcophagi (O. Miiller, 
Hdbch. d. Arch, 2. ed. p. 668)’ 


IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, 1887—1896. 81 


Octobol (5°60-5°56 gers.) with rider leading a second horse. Weber 
collection, l.c. Pl. XV. 9; Brit. Mus. (above no. 3); Sambon, Cat. d’wne prec. 
coll. etc., 1889, No. 833, Pl. IV. 

Tetrobol (2°79 grs.) with single rider. Weber collection, /.c. Pl. XV. 10. 

On the coins of this class the thighs of the riders seem to be held far 
out, almost at right angles to the body ; they are, however, really meant to be 
seen in profile, owing to the difficulty of foreshortening. 

(0) Later class ; flat fabric. 

Tetradrachm (15°68 grs.) Obv. Diademed beardless head to 1., archaic 
curls on forehead, and bunch of long hair on back of head. 

Rev. Quadriga facing, in incuse square. Weber collection, 1.6. Pl. 
my, ey. 

Tetrobol (2°63-2°46 grs.). Single rider, the legs foreshortened. Paris, 
Bibliotheque Nationale (Rev. Num, 1883, p. 66, No. 6, Pl. 11, 6) and B. M. 
(above No. 4). 

To these must be added a coin described by Mionnet (PI. LI. 7) from the 
Allier cabinet: Obv. Horse standing facing with a man beside it: Rev. Eagle? 
flying 1. in shallow incuse square. [Weber in Num. Chron. 1892, p. 191.] 

The scheme of arrangement on the tetradrachms is strictly symmetrical. 
The heads of the two inside horses (ζύγιοι) are turned towards each other, 
while the trace-horses (σειροφόροι) look outwards. This again is a method 
of avoiding the difficulty of foreshortening. As to the parallels from other 
ancient objects, the Selinuntine metope, which naturally occurs to the mind, 
does not offer a very close analogy. The high relief in which the metope is 
worked has allowed the artist to represent the heads of the horses in their 
natural position. 

The closest parallels are to be found on the black-figured vases and the 
so-called Argivo-Corinthian bronze reliefs. For the latter I may refer to the 
monograph of de Ridder. Of the vases with a facing quadriga it is perhaps 


worth while to give the following list, which of course does not pretend to 
be exhaustive :— 


1. Hydria of Chalcidian style. B. M. Cat. B 76. 

2. Corinthian? Crater. 4 Β΄ 15. 

8. Chalcidian Amphora. Gerhard, A. V. II. Pl. CVI. 

4, Corinthian Oenochoe. Pottier, Vases Ant. du Louvre, KE. 648, p. 59, 
Pk Τῇ: 

5. Attic Cylix. Gerhard, A. V. I. Pl. LXII., Berlin Cat. 1799. 

6. Attic Amphora.’ B. M. Cat. B 207. : 

7. Crater, Attic, or Italian imitation, from Gela. Gardner, Ashmolean 
Vases, no. 190. 


1 De Ectypis quibusdam aéneis quae falso scribed as a spear, but a goad would be more in 


vocantur Argivo-Corinthiaca, p. 68. keeping with his function and with other 
2 According to Lischcke (Ath. Mitth. xix. p. similar representations, 6.9. no. 1 and the tetra- 
516) this also should be classed as Chalcidian. drachm of series (a). 


8 The object which the charioteer holds is de- 
H.S.—VOL. XVII. G 


82 NOTES ON ADDITIONS TO THE GREEK COINS 


8. Attic Amphora. Gardner, l.c. no. 208. 
Sa = és no. 210. 
i ee , + By Andocides. Burlington Fine Arts Club Cat. 
(1888), no. 108 (Northampton collection), 
11. Attic Oenochoe (style of Andocides). Β. M. Cat. B 524. 
12. Attic Cotyle. Berlin Cat. 2085. 
13. Eretrian Lecythus. Ath. Mitth. xi. p. 94. 


The representations of a single horseman riding to the front are less 
common on vases.1 On a gold coin of Cyrene of later date (period B.c. 
431—321) there is a fine representation of a facing quadriga conducted by 
Nike. On the whole, the evidence of the vases is not very conclusive as 
regards the distribution of the coins; but they all point to Central Greece, 
and some of them to Euboea. 

The fact that the tetrobol in the French collection was found at, 
Histiaea is also in favour of a Euboic origin. Olynthus in Chalcidice has 
been suggested; and Dr. Weber (Num. Chron. 1892, p. 191) adduces in 
favour of that suggestion the later coins of Olynthus with an eagle.? But 
the eagle occurs also on the coins of Chalcis in Euboea.* On the whole 
therefore the evidence seems to me to be in favour of Euboea, 

The series of coins described above are further interesting for the evident 
attempt to express denomination by means of the type. 


AEGIUM in Achaia. 


5. AIT] EQN Head of Zeus, r., laureate. 

Rev. HMI OBE AIN (the last three letters retrograde). The infant Zeus 
suckled by the goat Amalthea, who stands to r. between two trees, with head 
raised towards an eagle above with expanded wings. 

LE 18: Pl. II. Fig. 16. 

The type has been published by Imhoof-Blumer and Gardner,* 
who say that ‘the proper home of Amalthea was in Crete; 
but there was probably at Aegium a local legend which in some way 
connected the name of the city with her, Aiyov with αἴξ But, as Head 
points out,® there is more direct evidence. Strabo says of Aegium δ: 


ἱστοροῦσι δ᾽ ἐνταῦθα τὸν Δία ὑπ᾽ αἰγὸς ἀνατραφῆναι, καθάπερ φησὶ καὶ 
"Apatos, 

al€ ἱερή, τὴν μέν τε λόγος Aci μαζὸν ἐπισχεῖν' 

ἐπιλέγει δὲ καὶ ὅτι 

᾿Ὡλενέην δέ μιν alya Διὸς καλέουσ᾽ ὑποφῆται" 

δηλῶν τὸν τόπον, διότι πλησίον ᾿᾽Ωλένη. 


1 Cf. Gerhard, A.V. iv. Ρ]. CCXLVIII. 4 Num. Comm. p. 85, R XIV. 
2 Head. H.N. p 184 ; Berlin cat. Pl. V 48. 5 Brit. Mus, Return 1895, p 85. 
3 B.M. Cat. Central Greece, Pl. XX. 7 ff. 6 VIII. p 387. 


IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, 1887—1896. 83 


| The form HMIOBEAIN occurs on other coins of Aegium, but nowhere else. 
It may be compared, for its termination, with such a word as FPAMMATIN, 
found at Patara,! and other similar forms collected in J.H.S. 1895, p. 120. 


PHENEUS in Arcadia. 


6. Hermes, nude, seated to 1. on basis of two steps; petasus hangs behind 
his neck, being fastened by a string; 1. hand rests on the basis, r. holds a 
caduceus which rests on his right thigh. Behind, on the blank space in the 
field, EV+A in graffito. 

Rev. OF. Ram tol. 

. A 45. Wt. 96 gr. Pl. II. Fig. 8. 

[Wroth, Nwm. Chr. 1896, p. 90 no. 7.] 

The characters in graffito, which Mr. Wroth describes as uncertain, and 
which are barely visible in the photograph, may, I believe, be read Evya. If 
this reading is correct, it adds interest to the coin, which would seem to have 
been devoted at the shrine of Hermes. A considerable amount of evidence 
as to the practice of dedicating coins in this way has been collected by F. 
Lenormant.? The nearest parallel to the present inscription is ANA@G 
(ἀνάθημα); which Lenormant has noted on a great number of coins. 

Apart from the graffito the coin is remarkable for the style of the obverse, 
which, particularly in the square and massive treatment of the chest, recalls 
the style of the school of Polycleitus, Statues of Hermes by this master and 
by his pupil Naucydes are known ®; but neither seems to have had any connec- 
tion with Pheneus. Hermes was the chief god of Pheneus, as would be clear 
from the coinage even if Pausanias did not tell us so (viii. 14. 10). 


SYBRITA in Crete. 


7. Head of Dionysus r., bearded; wears ivy-wreath with berries; in 
front, bunch of grapes. 

Rev. [<]YBP ITIQN. Head of Hermes r., wearing petasus tilted forward 
on head, and attached by cord passing round the head; drapery on neck. In 
front caduceus. 

MR 85. Wt. 11:28 grs. Pl. 11. Fig. 10. 

[Wroth, Num. Chr. 1890, p. 11, Pl. XIX. 11.] 

This didrachm, a work of the first half of the fourth century, gives per- 
haps the finest representation of the head of Dionysus to be found on coins of 
this period. The work is of a much softer character than on the coins of 

-Thasos with which it has been compared ;* but the expression nevertheless is 


1 Herberdey u. Kalinka, Ber. uber zwei Reisen 8 Plin, V.H, xxxiv. 80: Naucydes Mercurio 
in 5. W. Kleinasien, 1896, p. 27, No. 26. et discobolo et immolante arietem censetur, 
2 Rev. Num. 1874-77, p. 325 ff. ; see also P. 4 Gardner, Types Pl. VII. 8. 
Gardner, Num. Chron. 1873, p. 183 ff. J 
G 


84 NOTES ON ADDITIONS TO THE GREEK COINS 


by no means effeminate. The nearest parallel is perhaps to be found in the 
small electrum coins of Thebes issued about B.c. 395—387.1 

The head of Hermes on the reverse is of somewhat inferior execution, 
and is chiefly remarkable for the way in which the petasus is worn. Usually, 
on coins, the petasus sits well on the back of the head; but on vases of all 
periods it is as common as not to find it tilted forward,? although it usually 
fits better than in the present case. 


BITHYNIA. 


8. AYTAOMITIANOSKAIS-APZSEBAFEPMA. Head of Domitian 
r. laureate. 

Rev. SEBAZTH OMONOIA. Homonoia standing to 1., holding in r. 
olive branch, in 1. cornucopiae ; beside her, serpent to 1. 


& 14. PL. IL Fig. 19. 


9. AYTAOMITIANOSKAIZAPZSEBASTOS. Head of Domitian ΓΤ. 
laureate, 

Δίου. OMONOIA SEBASTH. Homonoia, veiled, standing to 1., 1, resting 
on sceptre or long torch, in r. uncertain object. 

fi 1:1. 

These are two of a mysterious series of coins, the attribution of which 
is uncertain. They are all struck under either Domitian or Trajan. A coin of 
the former emperor with the monograms TP and ff is published by Imhoof- 
Blumer,? who sees in them the initials of Prusias ad Hypium. This coin, 
he adds, is Bithynian in style, and the same is true of the coins above 
described. The omission of the mint-name on the majority of specimens 
may point to the coins being meant for circulation throughout the province. 
In fact, these bronze coins seem to correspond more or less to the silver 
‘medallions’ which replaced the cistophori in Asia Minor in imperial times. 

For the various representations of Homonoia on Greek coins it is 
sufficient to refer to the article in Roscher’s Lexikon, which gives a very 
complete if somewhat undigested mass of material. It is ditticult to see 
what is the meaning of tlie serpent which occurs on No. 8. 

Two other coins of Domitian, belonging to the same series, also have 
the serpent, but differ from our cvin in that the cornucopiae is replaced by 
along torch. But these seem to be the only instances of the serpent being 
given as an attribute of Homonoia. It is not impossible that we have here 
a blending of Homonoia with Hygieia.® 


’ B.M. Cat. Central Greece, p. 77, 78, Pl. five by Augustus to Ianus, Salus, Concordia, 


Vie: and Pax ; coin of Galba with the head of Salus 
* £.g. Berlin Cat. 2538, Gerhard, Auserl. on obv. and Concordia on rev. (Cohen. Jfonn. 

Vasenb. Pl. 327. Imp.? I p. 342 No 357) ; ef. Lucan 1V. 190: 
3 Gricch. Miinz. No. 813. mixti salus Concordia mundi. Cf. also Sospes 
+ ΤΡ, 2701 ff. Drexler-Stoll. Concordia (Roscher I. p. 920). 


° See Peter in Roscher’s Lex. I p. 916: sacri- 


IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, 1887—1896. 85 


LAMPSACUS in Mysia., 


10. Head of Zeus 1., laureate ; fulmen showing behind shoulder. 

fev, Forepart of winged sea-horse τ, Traces of incuse square. 

ΑΙ 75. Wt. 8°45 grs. Pl. II. Fig. 12. 

[Wroth, Num. Chr. 1889 p. 257, Pl. XII. 12; B. M. Cat. Mysia, 
Pk AUX... 6], 

The obverse of this coin should, as I have said, be compared with that 
of the silver tetradrachm of Philip II. of Macedon (no. 1). The present 
coin shows the finer work of the two, but Philip’s coin is much above the 
average. The treatment of both is more dignified and less florid than that 
of the heads on the coins of Alexander of Epirus! and of Metapontum 2 
with which the Lampsacene stater has been compared. Both are of essen- 
tially the same epoch (the middle of the fourth century), but the coin of 
Lampsacus, judging from its style, is the earlier by a few years. As the 
tetradrachm of Philip comes between the dates 359 and 336 B.c., we are 
justified in placing the Lampsacene somewhere near the earlier of these two 
dates, 


11. Head 1. wearing wreath (of myrtle ?); a small wing springs from 
the neck. 

Rev, As on preceding coin. 

A’ ‘7 Wt. 8°45 grs. Pl. II. Fig, 14. 

[Wroth, Num. Chr. 1894, p. 11, Pl. 1. 11}. 

Both Mr. Head? and Mr. Wroth have described this type as a head of 
Eros. The character of the features, however, has always seemed to me 
decidedly feminine. A comparison with two other heads on Lampsacene 
staters will I think show the probability of this view. Both the head of 
Actaeon (here no. 12) and that of a female satyr* show a strong stylistic 
resemblance to the present coin; and all three coins are justly attributed by 
Mr. Wroth to the same hand. On the neck of Actaeon the sterno-mastoid 
muscle is strongly and definitely marked; in the heads of the female satyr 
and of the ‘Eros,’ on the other hand, the roundness and the fold under the 
chin, characteristic of the well-developed female neck, are plainly visible. 
The strong development of the brow, which might be adduced as an argu- 
ment in favour of the male sex, is also found in the female satyr’s head. 
The hair is dressed in practically the same way as on the stater representing 
Persephone,® but is treated in a more florid manner, a tress being allowed to 
escape and hang down in front of the ear, as on the satyr’s head, There is 
no ear-ring, and this again finds a parallel in the head of Persephone. 

For all these reasons I venture to differ from the authorities 
who have already described this type, and to suggest that the head is that of 


1 Gardner, Types Pl. V 87. 4 B.M. Cat. Mysia, Pl. xix. 2; Head, Coins 
a ibid. Pl.V,) £0: of the Ancients III A 18. 
3 Brit, Mus. Return, 1894, p. 87. 5 B.M. Cat. Mysia, Pl. xix. 1. 


86 NOTES ON ADDITIONS TO THE GREEK COINS 


Nike or Iris. The wreath has been described as myrtle, and is certainly not 
laurel; but it is treated in a somewhat different manner from the myrtle- 
wreath worn by Artemis at Massalia! or by Hekate at Pherae.? A coin of 
the latter place offers a parallel in another respect ; just as the wing on the 
coin of Lampsacus is absurdly inadequate in size, and is merely placed on the 
neck as it were to identify the type, so Hekate at Pherae is identified by a 
small hand holding a torch. 

Of course the possibility of an androgynous Eros being represented on 
this coin is not to be excluded. 


12. Male head 1., with sprouting stag’s horn. 
Rev. As on no. 10. 
Al Ἵ. Wt. 8°45 grs. Pl. Fl Big ΗΠ: 
[Wroth, Num. Chr. 1893 p. 9, Pl. I. 16]. 
This head is worth reproducing as a fine example of the rare represent- 
ations of Actaeon on coins. The head of Actaeon on the electrum coins of 
Cyzicus is of earlier date but of very much less artistic interest. 


MYTILENE in Lesbos. 


13. MYTI. Head of Apollo r. laureate, with short hair. 
Rev, ‘ Mill-sail’ incuse square. 
EL. "τό. Wt. 15°44 gr. PINIL Fig Ὁ; 

[Wroth, Num. Chr. 1890, p. 15, Pl. XIX. 16; B. M. Cat. Troas, &c. 
PLEX XE ay 

The later electrum coinage of Phocaea and Lesbos is represented solely 
by hectae, with the exception of this unique stater. The convention between 
Mytilene and Phocaea, according to which coins were to be issued by each 
city for a year alternately, is well known.’ It is noticeable that in fabric this 
stater is assimilated to the contemporary Cyzicene currency (although the 
‘mill-sail’ form of the incuse square has not been so neatly produced): and 
the staters of Lesbos were evidently meant to compete with those of 
Cyzicus, although they were issued in much smaller numbers. 

In style the head of Apollo does not closely resemble any other head 
occurring on Greek coins, being peculiar in its boyish expression. 


Ionia. 


14. Heraldic arrangement of two lions, heads reverted, standing each on 
one hind-leg; between them a column, against shaft of which each rests 


1 Head, Coins of the Ancients, ΤΥ C 1. Cyzicus, P|. 1 25, 26 ; Babelon, Rev. Num. 1892 
2 B.M. Cat. Thessaly, Pl. X 18. Pl Ves: 
3 Gardner, Types, Pl. VII 36. 5 See Wroth in B.M. Cat. Troas. etc. p. Ixv. 


* BM. Cat. Mysia, Pl. VI 6; Greenwell, 


IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, 1887—1896. 87 


his other hind-leg ; on the capital each places one paw, the other being raised 
above. 

Rev. Rude incuse square. 

EL. °75. Wt. 14°00 grs. P). II. Fig. 3. 

[Wroth, Num. Chr. 1896, p. 99. Pl. VII. 15.] 

This coin, the importance of which as illustrating a certain class of 
architectural types need hardly be emphasized, was obtained through 
Mr. Lawson of Smyrna. Mr. Wroth says: ‘The coin before us can hardly be 
later than the middle of the seventh century B.c.; Mr. Head is even inclined 
to place it as early as 700 B.c.’ It is in any case distinctly earlier than the 
time of Croesus; but, apart from the opinions of the authorities quoted, I 
should have placed the coin, in judging purely on grounds of style, late in 
the second half of the seventh century, if not actually in the sixth century. 
In general appearance (fabric and colour) the coin bears a great resemblance 
to the stater attributed to Chios,! although the incuse square is shallower. 
And this and other similar coins are attributed by Head (/.c.) to about B.c. 
500. The ruder, shallower incuse square of our coin, however, may permit us 
to place it earlier than this low date. 

The details of the column are unfortunately not clear. The capital is 
represented by two dots; the base by a single line projecting from the shaft. 
Comparison with Phrygian architectural decorations is obvious; for the lions, 
see Perrot and Chipiez, vol. IV. pp. 111, 157, 180; for the form of the 
column, ibid. p. 136 (the two dots on the coin are probably meant to represent 
the Ionic volutes), The heads of the lions are represented as reverted, owing 
to the inability of the artist to foreshorten them. He doubtless thought of 
them as looking out of the relief, as once did the heads of the lions of the 
Lion-gate at Mycenae. 

A much later representation of this type occurs on a coin of Tlos of the 
early part of the fourth century; but there the column is absent, its place 
being taken by a Lycian symbol, and the lions are seated. 

The resemblance of this coin to those attributed to Chios, Clazomenae, 
Samos and other cities,? seems to point to the Asiatic coast of the Aegean as 
the district to which we must attribute it. 


EPHESUS in Ionia. 


15. Head and titles of Antoninus Pius. 
Rev. ἸΙΕΡΑΠΉΜΗ ΕΦΕΓΙΩΝ. Four-wheeled waggon with arched 
canopy supported on pillars, drawn by four mules to 1. ; within, driver seated. 
# 1°35. Pl. II. Fig. 17. 
The ἀπήμη or ἀπήμη ἱερά is a well-known object on the imperial coins 
of Ephesus, to which place the spelling ἀπήμη (for ἀπήνη) is, as far as I 


1 Head B.M. Cat. Jonia, Pl. 119, III 19. 3 Head, B.M. Cat. Jonia, PI, I 19, ete. 
2 B.M. Cat. Lycia, etc. Pl. VIII. 3, 


88 NOTES ON ADDITIONS TO THE GREEK COINS 


know, peculiar! On this coin the car is drawn by four, instead of, as usual, 
two animals, The compound word ἱεραπήμη is otherwise unknown, But for 
the fact that the adjective ἱερά, when used in this connection, is placed after 
the substantive, it would seem probable that an A has been accidentally 
omitted, 

Of the two forms of ἀπήμη or ἀπήνη which are to be distinguished, that 
with two wheels is much commoner than the four-wheeled form. Homer is 
acquainted with the τετράκυκλος ἀπήνη (Jl. xxiv. 324); but in later Greek 
times the two-wheeled waggon was more generally used both for racing and 
for travelling purposes. Illustrations may be found on the coins of Rhegium 
and Messana (of which latter place a didrachm is illustrated, Pl. I. Fig. 7, for 
the sake of comparison).? In the ἀπήνη of mules, as opposed to the racing- 
chariot drawn by horses, the driver was seated. As regards the four-wheeled 
ἀπήνη, Mr. A. S. Murray has called my attention to a terracotta from 
Alexandria which is apparently an instance in point. (Fig. 1.) The 
waggon is seen from the side, but with the object of showing the driver the 


opening of the tilt is brought round; while the back view shows a window 
in the side of the tilt. This is presumably the ordinary form; the sacred 
waggon at Ephesus was open at the sides, the tilt beimg replaced by a 
canopy supported on columns. It was doubtless used for the purpose of 
carrying the images of Artemis in procession from the pronaos of the temple 
to the theatre and back again, according to regulations such as those 
prescribed in the Salutaris inscription,’ 


For other illustrations of the car see Head, _ see the article ἀπήνη in Pauly-Wissowa, Real. 
3.M. Cat. Jonia, Pl. xiii. 18, xiv. 11. Ene. 


For references to the illustrations on vases 3 Gr, Inscriptions in B.M. No. 481, p. 132. 


IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, 1887—1896. 89 


PHOCAEA in Ionia. 


10, Seal to r. Below, Ὁ. 

fev. Two incuse squares, one larger than the other. 

ΑΙ ‘85. Wt. 16°516 grs. Pl. II. Fig. 1. 

[Wroth, Num. Chir. 1894, p. 14, Pl. 1. 14]. 

This is one of the only two extant gold staters of Phocaea dating from 
the time of the thalassocracy of that state (B.c. 602-560). The coin, apart 
from its historical importance and rarity, is metrologically interesting, as a 
specimen of the Phocaic standard! The other specimen, which is at Munich, 
is a little lighter, its weight being given as 16°50 grs. The normal weight of 
the stater was probably 16°8 gr., 7.c. double the weight of the pure gold stater 
of Croesus. The Phocaic metal of this period is of very fine quality, con- 
taining much less silver than, for instance, the coins struck on the Milesian 
standard. Mr. Head infers that the coins struck on the Phocaic standard 
were meant to circulate as gold. The reproach which in antiquity was cast 
upon the Phocaic currency (Hesychius: Pwxaeis: τὸ κάκιστον χρυσίον) can 
hardly refer to anything but the later electrum. 

Of the form © which occurs on this coin there is, so far as 1 know, only 
one other instance, viz. on an early coin of Phaselis.? 


CN1DUS in Caria. 


17. Head of Aphrodite 1., wearing ear-ring and necklace. Behind, in 
field, small prow 1. 

Rev. KAAAIQPAN. In exergue, KN!. Head and r. foreleg of lion r. 

M9, Wt. 1458 grs. Pl. II. Fig. 15. 

[Montagu Sale Catalogue, Ist Portion, lot 599, Pl. VIII]. 

The head of Aphrodite on the obverse of this coin, which is dated by 
Head ® between B.c. 390 and 300, seems to me to bear more resemblance than 
is usual on Cnidian coins to the head of the Praxitelean Aphrodite. Un- 
fortunately the work is somewhat careless, particularly as regards the nose, 
The symbol behind the head presumably identifies the goddess with 
Euploia, which was the standing designation of the goddess at Cnidus, [1 
is noticeable that none of the copies of the head on coins shows the fillet 
which confines the hair on the best replicas in marble. The other coins 
mostly represent the hair as rolled, or confined by an ampyx, a point in 
which again they are less faithful than the tetradrachm befure us to the 
Praxitelean type. 


1 See Head in Num. Chr. 1875, p. 281 ff. ; 3 B.M. Cat. Caria, p. 272, no. 28 A. 
Cat. Ionia, p. xx. ff. 4 But it may be merely a magistrate’s signet. 
2 B.M. Cat. Lycia, etc. Pl. XVI 5. 


90 NOTES ON ADDITIONS TO THE GREEK COINS 


LyYcIA. 


18. Female head 1. ; three rows of snail-shell curls on forehead, the hair 
confined by a fillet which passes three times round it, and taken up behind. 
In the ear, pendant of the shape sf. Truncation of neck dotted, to repre- 
sent necklace. 

Rev. 3[6]13Δ 33 ΔΤ (Taththivaibi). Lycian tetraskeles syinbol. 
‘Serew’ border. The whole in incuse square. 

A 8. Wt. 9°79 grs. Pl. 11. Fig. 4. 

(Hill, Num. Chr. 1895, p. 26, Pl. I. 21; B. M. Cat. Lycia, p. 19, no. 89, 
PL Ne 81: 

This stater belongs to an important series of coins struck by the Lycian 
dynasts Taththivaibi and SOMETPIP (Sppntaza), between about 480 and 
450 B.c. Since the publication by Wroth? of two staters, one of each of 
these dynasts, the series of known coins has become fairly large.? The person 
represented is probably Aphrodite, and the mint to which the coins belong 
perhaps Antiphellus.? For our present purpose the head is chiefly interesting 
on account of its fine archaic style and its headdress. The latter is a good 
illustration of the crobylos, and the little spiral which is used to take up 
the hair behind, and which is of the kind identified by Studniczka with the 
tettix,t may be easily made out. The ear-pendant is of a form peculiar to 
this series, and the curious border on the reverse is, so far as I know, not to 
be found outside the Lycian series. 

A similar head, of a more developed type, occurs on coins of Lycia 
towards the end of the fifth century.’ 


SELEUCIA ad Calycadnum in Cilicia. 


19. Bust and titles of Macrinus. 

Rev. CEAEVKEQ[N] ΤΩΝ TIP OC ΤΩ KAAV. 

Naked child seated to front on throne; on either side one of the 
Corybantes beating shield with sword; behind, the upper part of a third 
Corybant. 

f& 1°15. Pl. II. Fig. 18. 

[Wroth, Num. Chr. 1895, p. 103, Pl. V. 16.] 

This representation belongs to a class generally connected with the birth 
of Zeus; but as Sestini and Imhoof-Blumer point out, it is Dionysus about 
whom the Corybantes are dancing: 


1 Num. Chr. 1893, pp. 15, 16. 3 B.M. Cat. Lycia, p. xxxiv. 
2 See Babelon, les Perses Achéménides, PI. xiii. 4 Jahrb. 1896, p. 284 ff. 
11; B.M. Cat. Lycia, Pl. V. 5 BM. Cat. Lycia, Pl. VI. 6, xliv. 9. 


IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, 1887—1896. 91 


ἀσπιδιῶται 
παιδοκόμοι Κορύβαντες ἀεξομένου Διονύσου, 
“Ὁ 4 , Μ , , . ee / 
ot Φρύγα κόλπον ἔχοντες ὀρεσσιπόλῳ παρὰ ‘Pein, 
νήπιον εἰσέτι Βάκχον ἐκυκλώσαντο Θθοείαις. 
(Nonnus, Dion. xiii. 135.) 


The proof of this lies in the fact that in similar representations on the 
coins of Magnesia on the Maeander, the cista mystica appears below the throne 
on which the infant is seated; while other coins of the same place show the 
infant Dionysus seated on the cista.1_ The whole question of the Corybantic 
cultus has been discussed by Immisch.2, With regard to the types with 
which we are concerned, it must be remembered that in Asia Minor, the play- 
ground of mythology, a hard and fast line cannot always be drawn between 
Zeus and Dionysus. ‘Sabazius-Dionysus, son of Zeus and Ariadne’ is 
Ramsay’s description of the infant round whom the Corybantes dance at 
Laodicea.® 


1 Imhoof-Blumer, Griech. Miinzen, Nos. 314 
ff. Pl, VIII 31-34. I take this opportunity of 
pointing out that the type of a coin of Adada in 
Pisidia, which I have described as an altar (B. M. 
Cat. Lycia, etc. p. 172, No. 6 Pl. xxx. 4) is 
probably a cista mystica with the dome-shaped 


lid which sometimes occurs, as in Imbhoof- 
Blumer 1.6. Pl, VIII 30. 33. Huber’s reading 
BAXXEIA (Cat. Lycia, p. exviii.) is thus 
quite appropriate. 

2 Roscher’s Lexikon, 5. v. Kuretes. 

3 Cities and Bishoprics, J, p. 34. 


G. Pam, 


92 THE NIKA RIOT, 


THE NIKA RIOT, 


THE great popular insurrection which shook the throne of Justinian in 
the fifth year of his reign and laid in ashes the imperial quarter of Constan- 
tinople has been treated again and again by historians, but never in a com- 
pletely satisfactory way.! Its import has not been quite clearly grasped, 
owing to an imperfect apprehension of the meaning of the circus factions; the 
sources have not been systematically correlated; the chronology has not been 
finally fixed; and the topographical questions have caused much perplexity. 
It is not therefore superfluous to submit the material to a new investigation. 
I do not propose to enter upon the subject of the circus factions, as they have 
been well treated recently by the Russian scholar, Th. Uspenski;? but shall 
confine myself to problems relating to the authorities, the chronology, and the 
topography. 


T.— AUTHORITIES. 


The accounts of several contemporaries, some of whom were eye-witnesses 
of the event, have come down to us directly; two or three other contemporary 
notices have been preserved in the works of later writers. 


§ 1. The Count Marcellinus was an Illyrian by birth, like Justinian him- 
self. He had been an official? in the service of Justinian when that Emperor 
was a Master of Soldiers in the first year of Justin. He retired from public 
life and embraced the clerical profession, before his patron came to the throne. 
The first edition of his Chronicle reached the year A.D. 518, but he sub- 
sequently re-edited it, bringing it down to A.D. 5384, His notice of the 
insurrection of A.D. 532 is brief’ but highly important, not so much for the 


1 Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. x). 


618 sqq. 


Lebeau, ed St. Martin, vol. 8, 184-196. J. B. Bury, Later Roman Empire, i. p. 340 
W. A. Schmidt, Der Aufstand in Constan- «ηη. 


tinopel unter Kaiser Justinian, 1854. 

P. Kalligas, Περὶ τῆς στάσεως τοῦ Nika, in 
Μελέται καὶ λόγοι (1882), p. 329 sqq. 

Labarte, Le Palais impérial de Constantinople, 
etc., p. 18-15. 

A. Paspatés, The Great Palace of Constan- 
tinople, (transl. W. Metcalfe), p. 59 sqq. 

L. von Ranke, Weltgeschichte, ii, 2, p. 28 
894. 

T. Hodgkin; Italy and her Invaders, iii. p. 


2 In the Vizantiski Vremennik, i. p. 1 sqq. 

3 Cancellarius. Justinian was mag. equituin 
ct peditum praescntalis, in A.D. 521. See C. J. 
L. 5, 8120, 3. Cp. Mommsen, Chron. Min., 2, 
p. 41. 

4 Ed. Mommsen, Chron. Min., 2, p. 103. It 
is strange that M. Kalligas, whose study on 
the Nika revolt is fuller than any other (except 
Schmidt’s), should have entirely ignored the 
notice of Marcellinus, 


THE NIKA RIOT. 93 


details as for the colouring it gives to the event. The revolt is represented 
as a conspiracy organized by the nephews of Anastasius for their own personal 
ends, and not a hint is breathed of any other causes, This account is at 
variance with our other sources, in which the part played by Hypatius and his 
brothers is represented as merely an after-thought and quite unconnected with 
the origin of the tumult. When we remember the close personal connexion 
of Marcellinus with Justinian, we are justified in regarding the notice in his 
Chronicle as a quasi-official account. I do not mean to say that it was directly 
‘inspired’; I mean only that Marcellinus, in sympathy with the existing 
régime, gave utterance to that interpretation of the revolt which Justinian 
and the court wished or feigned to believe,—namely, that it was not a genuine 
expression of popular feeling, but merely due to the machinations of Hypatius 
and his friends. 

At the same time Marcellinus lets out a very significant fact. <A large 
number of the higher classes took part in the insurrection. This confirms 
the statements of other sources.” 


§ 2. The narrative of Procopius* presents a marked contrast to that of 
Marcellinus ; it is full and circumstantial, it sets forth the causes of the revolt, 
and, though nothing disrespectful is said, we are permitted to read between 
the lines that the writer's sympathy is not with Justinian, but with the 
nephews of Anastasius. It is abundantly clear that in the Public History Pro- 
copius adopted the plan of placing his own hostile criticisms on the government 
in the mouths of the actors who appear on the stage of his story. He might 
thus defy censorship. If he were called to account for enumerating the 
evils which Justinian’s administration brought upon Italy, he had only to 
reply: ‘But I was only recording the lies uttered by the barbarian Totila.’ 
We are therefore justified in seeing a reflexion of the personal sympathies of 
Procopius in the last words of Hypatius: ‘We are innocent. We could not 
resist the people. It was from no illwill to the Emperor that we entered the 
Hippodrome.’ This is a blank denial of the view reflected in the notice of 
Marcellinus. The nephews of Anastasius are represented as innocent victims; 
the sentence of Justinian as unjust. And there is no doubt that it was the 
view of Procopius himself. 

IT have said that the narrative of Procopius is circumstantial, but here it 
contrasts with the other circumstantial narrative which has been preserved, 
that of John Malalas. The historian leaves out no point essential for the com- 
prehension of the general course of the revolt and its political significance ; 
but he omits a great many details where the Chronicler is circumstantial, and 


1 Tam plerisque nobilium coniuratis, Mommsen, Hermes, 6, p. 377, and in Theoph- 
2 In the account of Procopius, we find the anes, p. 185, 1. 30 ed. de Boor). Cp. Panchenko, 
senator Origen among the rebels; and the 0 tainoi istorii Prokopiia, in Viz. Vrem., iil. 
property of the senators who supported Hypa- Ρ. 302. 
tius is confiscated. Malalas mentioned the 3 Bell. Pers., i. c. 24; vol. 1, p. 119 δα. ed. 
banishment of ‘eighteen illustres and senators’ Bonn. ἡ 
(omitted in the abridgement of the Baroccianus, * B. G., iii, 21, p. 340 ed. Comparetti. 
but preserved in the Escurial fragment ed. by 


94 THE NIKA RIOT. 


on the other hand he is circumstantial where the Chronicler is meagre. Pro- 
copius summarizes the tumults and conflagrations of the first days of the 
rebellion, in a few lines; he omits altogether the scene in the Hippodrome on 
Jan. 13; and he begins his circumstantial story on the evening of Saturday, 
Jan. 17. The great interest in his relation is that he describes what happened 
in the palace. Malalas only knows what went on in the city and the Hippodrome, 
but the secretary of Belisarius knew the doings and the deliberations of the 
court, nor can there be much doubt that he was in the palace with Belisarius 
during the last days of the insurrection. We may, I think, safely contrast the 
story of Procopius with that of Malalas by saying that: Procopius followed the 
revolt from the Palace, while in the account of Malalas the point of view is that 
of α spectator in the town. 


§ 3. John the Lydian gives a brief account of the revolt in his treatise De 
Magistratibus (written after A.D. 551)... He does not relate its course, but 
enumerates some of the buildings which were burned down, and states that 
nigh fifty thousand of the populace were killed. The main interest of his 
notice lies in the fact that he ascribes it mainly to the rapacity and malad- 
ministration of John of Cappadocia. This is significant, when we remember 
that the writer, although disappointed, was loyal to Justinian and had still 
hopes from the court which would have prevented him from saying anything 
offensive.2 We may infer that, after the disgrace of John of Cappadocia in 
A.D, 541, Justinian was willing to let fall on that minister's administration 
part of the blame which, when Marcellinus wrote in A.D. 534, was imputed 
entirely to Hypatius and his adherents. 


§ 4. The notice of Victor Tonnennensis, though very briefs supplies two 
points which we find in no other source. (a) Hypatius and Pompeius were 
slain at night. (b) The body of Hypatius was thrown in Rhewma; the Greek 
sources say simply into the sea. Victor was contemporary, though he wrote 
more than thirty years later, and might have heard from eye-witnesses. But 
it is probable that he took the notice straight from Italian Consularia. 


§ 5. A summary account from the Ecclesiastical History of Theodore 
Lector (who carried his work down into the early part of Justinian’s reign) is 


ὁ δὲ δῆμος οὐδὲν Bpadivas, καθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ δὲ κινηθείς, 
αὐτὸς μὲν ἀπώλλυτο, ἡ δὲ πόλις πυρὶ πᾶσα διεφ- 


1 Β, iii., c. 26, ν. 265-6 ed. Bonn. The 
author has been describing the decay of the 


office of Praetorian Prefect, and, in connexion 
therewith, the misdeeds of John of Cappadocia. 
Lydus also notices the Nika in his treatise De 
Ostentis, § 8, p. 14 ed. Wachsmuth. He is 
enumerating portents of sedition and civil war ; 
among these he mentionsa kite hovering in the 
air over a crowded theatre, ὁποῖον ἱπποδρομίας 
ἐπιτελουμένης εἴδομεν ἐπὶ τῆς ἄρτι διελθούσης 
ἐνάτης ἐπινεμήσεως (A.D. 530-1) ἧς ἀγομένης 
ἰκτῖνος τὸ βέλος, τὴν λεγομένην σαγίτταν, τῷ 
ῥέμφει φέρων, ὅλον ἐπικυκλώσας τὸν δῆμον ἐπὶ 
τοῦ ὀβελοῦ ταύτην διωλύγιον συρίττων ἀπέθετο. 


θείρετο, ws καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν βασιλείαν, εἰ μὴ θεὸς 
ἀντέπραττεν, οὐ πόρρω κινδύνων ἐλθεῖν. 

2 For ἃ description of the career of John the 
Lydian I may refer to my Later Roman 
Empire, ii. p. 183-4. 

8 Ed. Mommsen, Chron. Min., ii. p. 198, ad 
ann. 530. I suspect that the false date was due to 
the circumstance that 530 was Lampadio et 
Oreste conss. and 5382 py. c. Lampadi et Orestis 
ann. iii. 

4 Cp. Mommsen, op. cit. p. 180. 


THE NIKA RIOT. 95 


preserved in Cramer, Anecd. Par. ii. 112, and with slight variations in Theo- 
phanes (see below § 9); and in a fuller form in Cedrénus (below § 10). It 
adds nothing to what we know from other sources. 


§ 6. An interesting notice, though inaccurate and enveloped in verbiage, 
has been preserved in the Continuation of Zacharias of Mytilene.1 The 
cause of the riot is here imputed to the exactions of John of Cappadocia, 
who ‘favoured one of the factions.’* There were constant complaints ὃ 
against the Praefect and the Emperor; at length, the factions united for some 
days. The revolt is then briefly described with certain variations from, 
and additions to, the other accounts. 


§ 7. Of the Chronicle of John Malalas (Rhetor) of Antioch, the first 
seventeen Books (with a few paragraphs which were then part of B. 17 but 
were afterwards prefixed to B. 18) appeared between A.D, 528 and 540. A 
second edition appeared after A.D. 565, bringing the work down to Justinian’s 
death (B. 18). The question is debated whether this revision and continuation 
was due to the author of the original work, John Malalas himself, or to some 
one else.* I believe that the second view is the true one; but in either case 
the chronicle of Justinian’s reign is due to a contemporary, and that is enough 
for our present purpose. Of the revised chronicle (published probably c. A.D. 
566) the text which has been handed down in the unique Oxford MS.° is only 
an abbreviation. But we have material for approximating to the original 
shape in the works of other compilers who copied slavishly from the complete 
chronicle. So faras the eighteenth book is concerned, this subsidiary material 
consists of (1) the Paschal Chronicle, (2) Theophanes, (3) the Constantinian 
excerpts published by Mommsen,’ (4) excerpts published by Cramer’ from a 
ninth-century chronicler.’ 

This material does not, in the present case, enable us to restore with 
certainty the narrative of Malalas, though it enables us to see that this 
narrative was considerably longer in the original text than in the Oxford 
epitome. The difficulty is that the Paschal Chronicler and Theophanes used 
another source as well as Malalas ;° and it is impossible in certain passages 
to determine which of the two sources was responsible. It is however 
indispensable to make an attempt to distinguish these two sources, 


1B. 9,14. Mr. E. W. Brooks most kindly 7 Anecd, Paris, vol. 2, 320. 


supplied me with an epitome of the passage. 
It will be included in the forthcoming transla- 
tion of Zacharias and his Continuator, by 
Messrs. Hamilton and Brooks. 

2 μέρη. 

3 ἐκβοήσεις. 

4 It is not necessary to go further into the 
‘Malalasfrage’ here. See Krumbacher’s Gesch. 
der byz. Litteratur, § 140, and my review in 
the Classical Review, 1897, May. 

5 Baroccianus 182. 

8 Hermes, Bd. 6, p. 877 (fragment on Nika 
revolt). 


8 I omit other chronicles which have to be 
taken into account in dealing generally with 
Malalas, but which do not help us for our 
present purpose (¢.g. John of Nikiu, George 
Monachus),. 

® TI pointed out (Classical Review, loc. cit.) 
that Theophanes used three sources ; the proof 
being that he has three introductions, the third 
of which is the introduction of Malalas. The 
Paschal Chronicler also used the other unknown 
source. Gleye proved (against Patzig) that he 
used the Malalas chronicle. 


96 THE NIKA RIOT. 


To begin with; we must compare our text of Malalas with the Constantinian 
excerpt. This fragment is not an excerpt in the proper sense; it 1s not a 
verbal extract or series of extracts, but a brief summary in which the original 
phrases are not always retained. 

(a) The fragment does not give the causes of the insurrection, but rushes 
in medias ves: ἀντῆραν αὐτῷ (lovativiave) ὁ δῆμος τῶν λεγομένων πρασινο- 
βενέτων καὶ πολλὴν ἀταξίαν καὶ ἅλωσιν ἐν τῇ Κωνσταντινουπόλει. These 
words are of course mercly a general introductory summary, and the only 
phrase which we can claim with security for Malalas is the compound 
πρασινοβένετοι, which the excerptor (as τῶν λεγομένων shows) did not make 
for himself2 The next clause notices the burning of a number of buildings : 


καὶ ἔκαυσαν οἱ αὐτοὶ δημόται τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους τόπους ἀπὸ τοῦ 
παλλατίου ἕως τοῦ φόρου καὶ τῆς ἄρκας δεξιὰ καὶ ἀριστερὰ μετὰ τῶν 
παρακειμένων πασῶν οἰκιῶν καὶ τὸ πραιτώριον τοῦ ἐπάρχου τῆς πόλεως καὶ 
τὸ λεγόμενον ὀκτάγωνον. 


Now in our Malalas text conflagrations are mentioned at two points of 
the narrative: (1) on the night of the 13th Jan., and (2) after the conflict 
with Belisarius and his force of Goths. In the first case, the praetorium was 
fired and the following places were burned down :* 


Ν , \ id »“ Lal / “ aA Lal \ e , 
TO πραιτώριον καὶ ἡ χαλκῆ TOU παλατίου ἕως τῶν σχολῶν καὶ ἢ μεγάλη 
ἐκκλησία καὶ ὁ δημόσιος ἔμβολος. 


In the second case, it is merely stated generally: καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις τόποις ἔβαλον 
πῦρ At first sight the mention of the praetorium might seem to show that 
the excerptor had in view the first. conflagration, and ὁ δημόσιος ἔμβολος 
might be supposed to mean the porticoes along the Mesé, between the 
Augusteum and the Forum of Constantine. But (1) it is hardly conceivable 
that the excerptor would have omitted to enumerate the Great Church ; (2) 
ὁ δημόσιος ἔμβολος is, in the context, more naturally understood of the 
portico of the Augusteum than of the porticoes on either side of the Mesé; 
(3) the excerptor says nothing of the events which, in our Malalas-text, 
occurred between the two conflagrations, but goes on directly to the events 
after the second conflagration ; (4) it will be shown below that the praetorium 
was fired a second time. 

I think we may therefore provisionally conclude that the words in our 
Malalas-text καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις τόποις ἔβαλον πῦρ are the epitomator’s summary 
of an enumeration of buildings, which is, wholly or partly, preserved in the 
Constantinian fragment ; the phrase ἐν ἄλλοις τόποις being suggested by 
the first words of the original τοὺς ὑποτεταγμένους τόπους (where 


1 The date is given falsely eis τὸ δεύτερον 
ἔτος ᾿Ιουστινιανοῦ. 

2. So George Monachus, i, p. 528, ed. 
Muralt. I have not devoted a special section 
to the notice of this chronicle (cp. the corre- 


sponding notices in Leo Grammaticus and 
Theodosius Melitenus) ; it is abbreviated from 
OF ,—it contains nothing that is not in CF. 

3 p. 474, 17, ed. Bonn, 

4 p. 475, 10. 


THE NIKA RIOT. 97 


ὑποτεταγμένους suggests the position of the buildings between the first and 
second hill). 
(8) The fragment proceeds (without any hint of a time-interval) : 


καὶ πάλιν μὲν ταῦτα κράζειν (sic) ὁ δῆμος, Ὕπάτιε αὔγουστε τούμνικας 
[id est, τοῦ Biyxas]. 


Our Malalas relates that on the 18th Jan. the Emperor appeared in the 
_ Hippodrome with the Gospels ; the people gathered together and the Emperor 
προσεφώνησεν αὐτοῖς μεθ᾽ ὅρκων μανδᾶτα (the Paschal Chronicle explains this 
clause, which in itself is not very clear): then 


lal Ν 
καὶ πολλοὶ μὲν τοῦ δήμου ἔκραξον αὐτὸν βασιλέα ἕτεροι δὲ ἐστασίαζον 
κράζοντες Ὕπατιον. 


We can infer with certainty that Ὕπάτιον of the epitomator is an 
abridgment of Ὕπάτιε αὔγουστε, τοῦ Biyxas. But we may infer more than 
this. The words πάλιν μὲν ταῦτα imply the repetition of a cry already 
mentioned, and have no meaning in the extract. It follows that they occurred 
in the original, where their meaning must have depended on a preceding 
account of cries uttered by the people. Hence we conclude that this passage 
was abridged by the epitomator of the Oxford text. Jn the original Malalas 
the words Ὑπάτιε αὔγουστε τοῦ Biyxas must have occurred twice. 

This conclusion is confirmed by the Paschal Chronicler who supplies us 
with the material for restoring the passage which the Oxford epitomator has 
omitted. There we read, after the scene in the Hippodrome, that Justinian 
retired into the palace and dismissed the senators, that the people met 
Hypatius and Pompeius and cried Ὕπάτιε αὔγουστε τοῦ Biyxas. These 
incidents are omitted in our Malalas-text ; but this second cry is preserved in 
our Constantinian fragment. Thus we are justified in inferring that this 
passage in the Paschal Chronicle (καὶ éacev......rod βέγκας, p. 624, 1 sqq.) 
was derived from Malalas; to whom we may restore it with some such slight 
change as καὶ πάλιν ταὐτὰ; ἔκραζεν (for καὶ ἔκραξαν). 

(y) The next section, describing the elevation of Hypatius, is much 
shortened in the Constantinian fragment=CF, but one or two points are 
preserved there which are lost in our Oxford Malalas text = OM. 


CF. ΄ ΟΜ, 
καὶ ἀγαγόντες Ὑπάτιοντὸν στρατηλάτην καὶ λαβόντες οἱ δῆμοι τὸν αὐτὸν Ὕπάτιον ἀπή- 
ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ. γαγον αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ λεγομένῳ Φόρῳ Κωνσταντίνου. 


Thus in the original Malalas, after the people met and saluted Hypatius in 
the street, he retired to his house, and the people fetched him thence to the 
Forum of Constantine. Moreover he was described by his title στρατηλάτης 
(magister militum). Another detail preserved in the CF, is his elevation ona 
shield, when he had been invested with the royal dress: καὶ ἀναγαγόντες 
αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ σκουταρίῳ. 


1 So possibly for ταῦτα ; or perhaps simply πάλιν ἔκραζεν. ‘ Quellenforschung ᾿ has its limits. 
H.S.—VOL. XVII. H 


98 THE NIKA RIOT. 


(8). The next clause of CF. records the gathering of the people in the 
Hippodrome and is entirely omitted in ΟΜ. : πληρωθέντος δὲ καὶ ὅλου τοῦ 
ἱππικοῦ ἐκ τοῦ δήμου ὡς θελόντων θεωρῆσαι βασιλέα στεφόμενον. The 
sentence is incomplete; it probably fits in after the words ἐκ τοῦ παλατίου, 
Mal. p. 475, 22. 

(c). The next sentence describing the orders of Justinian is also omitted 
in OM., and should come before the first words of p. 476, 1: ἔτε δὲ γέμοντος 
τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἱππικοῦ ἐκ τοῦ ὄχλου ἐκέλευσεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἀπολυθῆναι τὸν 
στρατιώτην αὐτοῦ μετὰ καὶ φανερῶν ἐξάρχων. CF. also notes the places 
where Belisarius and Mundus respectively entered the Hippodrome: καὶ 
εἰσῆλθε Μοῦνδος μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ καθίσματος ἐπάνω τῶν θυρῶν τοὺς ὄντας 
δήμους ἐν τῷ ἱππικῷ καὶ Βελισάριος ὑποκάτωθεν τοῦ καθίσματος. 

(ζ). Passing over all the details of the scene in the Hippodrome CF. 
states the number of the slain less precisely than OM., but with a phrase 
which probably found a place in the original Malalas: 

CF. OM. 


καὶ ἀπέκτειναν ἐν φόνῳ waxalpas meph οἱ δὲ 
τὰς λ΄ χιλιάδας. 


ἐν τῷ ἱπποδρομίῳ σφαγέντες ἦσαν 


χιλιάδες τριάκοντα πέντε μικρῷ πλέον ἢ ἔλασσον. 
(n). CF. gives the reasons for the execution of Hypatius and Pompeius, 
and records the banishment of eighteen other senators (points omitted 


by OM.): 


καὶ συνελάβετο' ᾿Ιουστινιανὸς καὶ τὸν ὙὝπάτιον καὶ ἸΤομπήϊον καὶ 
ἀπέκτεινεν αὐτοὺς, τὸν μὲν ἕνα ὡς φορέσαντα βασιλικὴν φορεσίαν καὶ 
ἀντάραντα, τὸν δὲ ἕτερον ὡς συνευρεθέντα μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ τή ἰλλουστρίους 
καὶ συγκλητικοὺς δημεύσας ἐξώρισεν διὰ τὸ κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς τῇ τυραννίδι 
Ὑπατίου προσθέσθαι. 


(θ). CF. concludes with remarks which are left out in OM: 


A 2 / ’ / b] a / \ / wv fel , 
Kal ἐγένετο εἰρήνη ἐν TH πόλει. Kal προεβάλετο ἔπαρχον τῆς πόλεως 
Τρύφωνα καὶ πολλοὺς τῶν δημοσιῶν ἐκόλασε. καὶ ἱππικὸν οὐκ ἦν ἐπὶ πολὺν 
χρόνον. 


§ 8. We are now in a position to consider how far the Paschal Chronicler 
used Malalas. The short summary of the ἄκτα διὰ Καλαπόδιον---ἢ 6 
recriminations between the Emperor and the Greens—which are reproduced in 
full by Theophanes, was derived from another source.?, The Chronicler seems 
then to pass abruptly to the middle of the narrative of Malalas. He omits the 
incident of the two criminals who fell from the gallows; and does not even 
state that the Blues and Greens reconciled their differences. Hence his 
story, taken by itself, is unintelligible; and it seems possible that our text is 
imperfect. It begins with the supersession of John, Tribonian, and Eudae- 


1 συνελάβετο was probably not in the 
original, in this clause ; the excerptor took the 
word from the description of Belisarius seizing 
Hypatius and Pompeius (χειρὶ συνελάβετο, 
476, 11). 

2 Cp. above § 7, par 2, p. 95. 


3 There is, at the transition, a curious inser- 
tion in P, not found in the other MSS. It does 
fit into the context ; some words must have 
fallen out :— 

καὶ ἀπέστειλεν & βασιλεὺς ἰδεῖν τί κράζουσιν 
[P: ὡς ἔτυχεν: ἀλλ᾽ ὅτε πολλὴ γένηται ἀνάγκη 


THE ‘NIKA RIOT. 99 


mon; and it is clear from the following comparison that the Pasch. Chron. 
derived this passage from the work of Malalas. 


CHRON. PASCH. (Ὁ. 620). 

καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἰδεῖν τί 
κράζονσιν. καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἀπὸ τοῦ παλα- 
τίου & πατρίκιος Βασιλείδης ὁ ποιῶν τὸν 
τόπον τοῦ μαγίστρου Ἑρμογένους ἐν 
Κωνσταντινουπόλει, καὶ Κωνσταντίολος. 
καὶ στἠσαντεςτὰεἰσελαύνονταπλήθη 
ἔξω τοῦ παλατίου κατασιγήσαντες αὐτὰ 
προσεφώνησαν αὐτοῖς, 
ζητοῦντες γενέσθαι στασιάζετε; καὶ 
ἔκραξαν κατὰ τοῦ ἐπάρχου τῶν πραιτωρίων ᾿Ιωάν- 
νου τοῦ Καππάδοκος καὶ ‘Poudivou (sic) τοῦ κυαίσ- 
τορος καὶ τοῦ ἐπάρχου τῆς πόλεως Evdaluovos. 
καὶ ταῦτα «ἀκηκοότες ἀνήγαγον τῷ βασιλεῖ. καὶ 
εὐθέως διεδέξατο τὸν ἔπαρχον τῶν πραιτωρίων 
Ἰωάννην καὶ ἐποίησεν ἂντ᾽ αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ. 
διεδέξατο δὲ καὶ Ῥουφῖνον τὸν kvalatopa καὶ 
κι τ. λ. καὶ τὸν ἔπαρχον δὲ τῆς πόλεως 
Εὐδαίμονα διεδέξατο καὶ κ. τ. λ. 


λέγοντες, τί 


[The words preserved in either 
printed in spaced type.] 


ΟΜ. (p. 475). 


καὶ ἐξελθόντες of περὶ Μοῦνδον καὶ Κων- 
σταντίολον καὶ Βασιλίδην μετὰ βοηθείας 
κατὰ κέλευσιν τοῦ Βασιλέως, } 


βουλόμενοι 
κατασιγῆσαι τὰ στασιάζοντα πλήθη: 


κατέκραζε γὰρ τὸ πλῆθος ᾿Ιωάννον τοῦ 
ἐπίκλην Καππάδοκος καὶ Τριβουνιανοῦ τοῦ κοιαί- 
στωρος καὶ τοῦ ἐπάρχου τῆς πόλεως Evdaiuovos: 
καὶ ταῦτα map’ αὐτῶν ἀκηκοότες οἱ ἐκπεμφ- 
θέντες συγκλητικοὶ ἀνήγαγον τῷ βασιλεῖ' 
καὶ εὐθέως διεδέχθησαν τῆς ἀρχῆς" ὅ τε ᾿Ιωάννης 
καὶ Τριβουνιανὸς 


καὶ Εὐδαίμων. 


source and omitted in the other are 


We at once remark that the epitomator has here gone to work very 


discreetly. 


He has omitted those clauses, whose omission can best be spared, 


and the only positive facts he has left out are the names of the ministers who 
were appointed to replace John, Tribonian, and Eudaemon.? The Paschal 
Chronicler was less discreet. While he “unnecessarily repeats the names of 
the offices of the deposed ministers (τὸν ἔ ἔπαρχοι τῶν TpaT. K.Tr.), he omits 
the important words μετὰ βοηθείας. 

The next omission of the epitomator is less fortunate. Having mentioned 
the Emperor's concession in deposing the obnoxious ministers, he goes on to 
state that Belisarius issued forth with Gothic soldiers and fought with 
the mob. It was obviously necessary to say that the concession had failed to 
appease the people. The Paschal Chronicle preserves the requisite words : 


CHRON. PASCH. OM. 

ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἐπέμενεν ἔξω τοῦ παλα- 

τίου εἰσελαύνων: καὶ τούτου γνωσ- 

θέντος ἐξῆλθεν ὁ πατρίκιος Βηλισάρις ὃ 

στρατηλάτη 5 μετὰ πλήθους Γότθων καὶ ἔκοψε 
πολλοὺς ἄχρις ἑσπέρας. 


καὶ ἐξελθόντος BeAtoaplov μετὰ πλήθους Γοτ- 
θικοῦ καὶ συμβολῆς γενομένης πολλοὶ ἐκ τῶν 
δημοτῶν κατεσφάγησαν. 


the original, but may be due to the epitomator 
who had to make up for the omission of the 
preceding sentence. 

2 The Constantinian Fragment mentions the 
name of the new Praefect of the City, Tryphon ; 
but at the end of the episode. 


τότε ποιεῖς ἃ ἐβουλεύσω. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ 


βασιλεὺς ἐξέλθατε οὖν καὶ μάθετε τίνος χάριν 
στασιάζουσιν]. Kol ἐξῆλθεν κ.τ.λ. 

Somebody seems to be remonstrating with 
Justinian in the Palace on his indecision, 
need not have been in 


1 κατὰ κέλ. τ. Bac. 
H 


100 THE NIKA RIOT. 


I suspect that the first clause was dropped by the epitomator, because 
almost the same words had occurred before, (p. 474, 19) καὶ ἐπέμεινεν ὁ δῆμος 
εἰσελαύνων ἀτάκτως. 

At this point the Paschal Chronicler leaves Malalas and copies his other 
source. From p. 621-623, we can find no trace of Malalas. The motive for 
thus changing sources doubtless lay in the circumstance that Malalas did not 
describe in detail the events of Thursday evening, Friday, and Saturday. In 
OM. we have nothing whatever corresponding to this period of time beyond 
the chronologically vague statement: θυμωθὲν δὲ τὸ πλῆθος Kal ἐν ἄλλοις 
τόποις ἔβαλον πῦρ καί τινας ἀτάκτως ἐφόνευον. As we have seen, this is 
supplemented by an enumeration of buildings which were burned, in CF. 
We may infer, I think, that the original Malalas did not contain much more 
than this enumeration. 

On Sunday, Jan 18, the Paschal Chronicler returns to Malalas, and 
preserves more fully than OM. the scenes of Justinian’s appearance in the 
Hippodrome and the elevation of Hypatius. This is proved by the numerous 
verbal coincidences and especially by the argument which I brought forward 
above, in connexion with CF. Nor can there be much doubt that the 
incident of the sending of Ephraim to the Palace was related in the original 
Malalas. The epitomator merely gives the result of the mission, which was 
that Hypatius learned that Justinian had left the Palace. 


CHRON. PASCH. OM. 


(Ephraim says to Hypatius) ‘6 Ἰουστινιανὸς ἦν γὰρ μαθὼν ὁ Ὑπάτιος ὅτι ὁ βασιλεὺς ave- 
ἔφυγε καὶ οὐδείς ἐστιν «“ ἐνὶ τῷ παλατίῳ.᾽ καὶ χώρησε" 


ταῦτα ἀκούσας ὃ Ὑπάτιος ἔδοξε θαρσαλεώτερος | 
καθέζεσθαι ἐν τῷ δεσποτικῷ καθίσματι τοῦ καὶ καθεσθεὶς ἐν τῷ καθίσματι μετὰ θράσους 
ἱππικοῦ. 3 | ἐτυράννει. 


After this, the Paschal Chronicle has a sentence (ἦλθαν δὲ ἀπὸ Κωνσταν- 
τιανῶν K.T.r.), of which there is no trace in OM., and which may or may not 
have been in the original Malalas. It then goes on to relate that Justinian 
proceeded to the Cathisma, accompanied by Mundus, Belisarius, and others ; 
and there can be no question that in what follows the Paschal Chronicle 
copied Malalas.2 In OM. it is not stated that Justinian himself went to the 
Cathisma, but there is no reason to suppose that this detail was got by the 
Paschal Chronicler from a different source. 

The notice of the burial and epitaph of Hypatius (p. 627-8) may have 
been derived either from Malalas or from the other source; but the notice of 
the confiscation of the property of the two brothers and a number of senators 


1 Above § 7, (8). 
2 καὶ ἀκούειν τὰς εἰς αὐτὸν εὐφημίας καὶ τὰς 


ὑβριστικὰς φωνὰς ἃς ἔλεγον εἰς τὸν βασιλέα 


Antioch (Theupolis), was slain in the Hippo- 
drome, must come from Malalas, and most 
distinctly points to Antiochene influence in the 
᾿Ιουστινιανὸν καὶ εἰς τὴν αὔγουσταν Θεοδώραν. early part of the eighteenth Book. A purely 
Cp. Cramer, Anecd. Par., 2, 320 καὶ I. βασιλέω Constantinopolitan writer would never pick out 
ἀναθεματίζοντες ἐφύβριζον, Ὑ. δὲ πατρίκιον of 30,000, a person of purely local importance at 
εὐφήμησαν ἐν τῷ καθίσματι στέψαντες. Antioch ; whereas it is just what an Antio- 
3 The notice preserved in the Paschal  chene would do 
Chronicle that a certain Antipater, vindex of 


THE NIKA RIOT, 101 


was derived from Malalas. This is clear from a comparison with Theophanes 
and CF, 


Cr, THEOPH. (p. 185, 30), CHRON, PASCH. (628), 
καὶ ἐδημεύθησαν of οἶκοι αὐτῶν, τὰ δὲ διαφέροντα αὐτοῖς πάντα 
καὶ ih ἰλλουστρίους καὶ συγκλη- μετὰ καὶ ἄλλων if πατρικίων καὶ ἐδημεύθη καὶ οἱ λυιποὶ πατρίκιοι 
τικοὺς δημεύσας ἐξώρισεν διὰ τὸ ἰλλουστρίων καὶ ὑπατικῶν δημευ- | οἱ ἅμα αὐτοῖς εὑρεθέντες ἔφυγον 
κατ᾽ αὐτοὺς τῇ τυραννίδι Ὑπατίου θέντων ὡς συνδρόμων Ὑπατίου. οἱ μὲν εἰς μοναστήρια οἱ δὲ εἰς 
προσθέσθαι. ᾿ καὶ ἐγένετο φόβος μέγας. εὐκτηρίους οἴκους καὶ ἐσφραγίσθη- 
σαν οἱ οἶκοι αὐτῶν. φανεροὶ δὲ 


Kal ἐδημευθησαν καὶ ἐξωρίσθησαν. 


§ 9. Theophanes! begins by (1) ἃ summary of the events of the sedition, 
derived from Theodore Lector. He then (2) copies in full the ἄκτα διὰ 
Καλαπόδιον, from some unknown source. (3) He passes to Malalas, and 
follows him mainly, though not altogether, for the details of the rebellion. 

Adopting the same introductory formula as Malalas, Theophanes 
abbreviates and makes verbal alterations in the account of the incident 
of the two criminals rescued by the monks of St. Conon, Theophanes does 
not mention the four rioters who were beheaded, but only the three who were 
impaled ; on the other hand, he states that the two who escaped fell twice from 
the stake, while the epitomator of Malalas mentions only one fall. There is 
one discrepancy, which however need not be more than apparent. Theo- 
phanes states that the crowd, seeing the criminals lying on the ground, cried : 
τούτους TH ἐκκλησίᾳ, while OM says that they acclaimed Justinian 
(εὐφήμησαν τὸν βασιλέα). But there is no reason against supposing that 
the original text of Malalas, which both Theophanes and OM abbreviated, 
contained both statements. 

And now we come to a remarkable point in the narrative of Theophanes. 
He states that the praefect sent soldiers to guard the rescued criminals in the 
asylum of St. Laurentius : 


n , > \ 
ἀκούσας δὲ ὁ ἔπαρχος ἔπεμψε στρατιὼτας τοῦ φυλάττειν αὑτοὺς, 


which corresponds to Malalas, 473, 19: 


e 


fa) fol \ ΄ 
καὶ γνοὺς ταῦτα ὁ τῆς πόλεως ἔπαρχος πέμψας στρατιωτικὴν βοήθειαν 


Ε) ͵ > \ > wv 
ἐφύλαττεν αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖσε ὄντας. 


But instead of continuing the narrative as it stands in Malalas, he omits the 
events described in 474, 1-14, and at once proceeds to the incident of the visit 
of the demes to the praetorium, to ask for an answer respecting the fate of 
the criminals, 

om. (474, 14). 


Bpabdelas δὲ γενομένης ὥρας ἦλθον ἐν τῷ πραι- 
τωρίῳ τοῦ ἐπάρχου τῆς πόλεως αἰτοῦντες ἀπόκρι- 


THEOPHANES (184, 12). 
καὶ γνόντες of δῆμοι ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον 
αἰτοῦντες τὸν ἔπαρχον ἀποστῆναι ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου 
Λαυρεντίου τοὺς φυλάσσοντας στρατιώτας" καὶ σιν περὶ τῶν προφύγων τῶν ὄντων ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ 
ἀποκρίσεως οὐκ ἔτυχον παρ’ αὐτοῦ" καὶ θυμωθέντες Λαυρεντίῳ. καὶ μὴ τυχόντες ἀποκρίσεως ὑφῆψαν 
ἔβαλον πῦρ εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον. | πῦρ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ πραιτωρίῳ. 


1 Theophanes is cited throughout from C. de Boor’s edition. 


102 THE NIKA RIOT 


Now the passage which Theophanes has here omitted is absolutely 
indispensable to the comprehension of the story, for it describes the union of 
the Blues and Greens. This union is the key of the whole episode, and the 
narrative of Theophanes is vitiated by its omission. The question arises : 
what was his motive for omitting.it? The answer is: 

Theophanes thought that the scene in the Hippodrome described by Malalas 
(p. 474, 1-14) was the same as that in which the altercation between Justinian 
and the Greens respecting Calapodius had occurred, and which he had already 
tlescribed from another source. He therefore omitted it, to the detriment of his 
whole story. 

Theophanes then states, with Malalas, that the people, receiving no 
answer, set fire to the Praetorium; but goes on, apparently deserting Malalas 
to group all the conflagrations of the riot together without distinction of the 
days on which they took place. His enumeration falls into three groups ; 
Ρ. 184, 1. 15-19; 2b. 1. 19-24; ib. 1. 24-27; corresponding respectively to 
Chron. Pasch. p. 623; p. 621-2; p. 622. 

The Paschal Chronicler does not give the date of the first conflagration 
which he mentions, but he places it immediately after the sally of Belisarius 
and his Goths from the palace; the second took place on Friday: the third on 
Saturday. That he and Theophanes used the same source for their events is 


clear from a comparison. 


CHRON. PASCH. 


καὶ λοιπὸν ἐνέπρησαν τὴν εἴσοδον τοῦ παλατίου 
τὴν χαλκόστεγον καὶ ἐκαύθη μετὰ τοῦ πορτίκου 
τῶν σχυλαρίων καὶ τῶν προτηκτόρων καὶ κανδιδά- 
των, καὶ γέγονε διακοπῆ. ὁμοίως δὲ ἐκαύθη καὶ 
τὸ σένατον ὕπου ἐστὶ το λεγόμενον Αὐγουσταῖον 
καὶ ἣ μεγάλη ἐκκλησία πᾶσα σὺν φοβεροῖς καὶ 
θαυμαστοῖς κίοσι πᾶσα ἐκ τετραέντου κατηνέχθη. 
κἀκεῖθεν κατῆλθεν ὃ δῆμος πάλιν εἰσελαύνων. ἐπὶ 
τὸν Ἰουλιανοῦ λιμένα εἰς τὸν οἶκον Πρόβυν: καὶ 
ἐζήτει παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λαβεῖν ὅπλα καὶ ἔκραζον, Πρό- 
βον βασιλέα τῇ Ῥωμανίᾳ. 
οἶκον τοῦ αὐτοῦ πατρικίου Πρόβου: καὶ ὀλίγων 
καυθέντων ἐλείφθη τὸ πῦρ καὶ ἐσβέσθη. τῇ 
δὲ παρασκευῇ ἡ μέρᾳ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μηνὸς ιστ΄ 
ἦλθον οἱ δῆμοι εἰς τὸ πραιτώριον τῶν ἐπάρχων καὶ 
ἔβαλον ἐκεῖ πῦρ καὶ ἐκαύθησαν αἱ στέγαι τῶν 


καὶ ἔβαλον πῦρ εἰς τὸν 


βασιλικῶν οἴκων καὶ μόνον τοῦ αὐτοῦ πραιτωρίου 
ἐφύσησεν γὰρ ἄνεμος βορρᾶς 
καὶ τὸ πῦρ ἔξω τυῦ πραιτωρίου ἐδίωξεν καὶ ἐκαύθη 
τὸ βαλανεῖον τῶν ᾿Αλεξάνδρου καὶ ὁ ξενὼν τῶν 
Εὐβούλου ἐν μέρει καὶ ἣ ἁγία Εἰρήνη (ἥτις ἦν 
κτισθεῖσα K.T.A.) καὶ ὃ ξενὼν τοῦ Σαμψῶνος ὃ 


g ‘ 
ὅπου Ta σκρίνια, 


μέγας ἐκαύθη, καὶ ἀπώλοντο οἱ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀνακείμενοι | 


ε 


oaBBaty...... oi 
ὄχλοι ἦλθον αὐτοὶ εἰς τὸν ὀκτάγωνον τὸν ὄντα εἰς 


ἄρρωστοι. τῷ δὲ 


1 Om. codd., restituit de Boor. 
. Bieliaev is certainly wrong in 
suggesting as an alternative emendation τὸ στενὸν 


ἕνατον codd, 


THEOPH. (184, 19-24). 
καὶ ἐνεπύρισαν τὴν εἴσοδον Tod παλατίου τὴν 
χαλκόστεγον καὶ τὸν πόρτικον' τῶν προτικτόρω» 


, 9 ~ > , 
καὶ τὸ σένατον" τοῦ Αὐγουστέω-. 


καὶ κατῆλθεν ὃ δῆμος εἰς τὸν Ἰουλιανοῦ, τὸν 
Σοφίας λέγω, λιμένα, εἰς τὸν οἶκον Πρόβου 
ζητοῦντες ὕπλα καὶ κράζοντες ἄλλον βασιλέα τῇ 


.« πόλει: καὶ ἔβαλον πῦρ εἰς τὰ Πρόβου καὶ κατη- 


νέχθη ὁ οἶκος. 


καὶ ἦλθον καὶ ἔκαυσαν τὸ βαλανεῖον τοῦ ᾿Αλε- 
ξάνδρου ; 


καὶ τὸν ξενῶνα τῶν Σαμψὼν τὸν μέγαν καὶ 
ἀπώλοντο οἱ ἄρρωστοι, καὶ τὴν μεγάλην ἐκκλησίαν 
σὺν τοῖς ἀμφοτέροις κίοσιν: καὶ πᾶσα ἐκ τετραέντου 
κατηνέχθη. 


(meaning the Golden Hand) ; Pyzantina, i. 132. 
σένατον is certain. 


THE NIKA RIOT. 103 


CHRON. VPASCH, THEOPH, (184, 19-24). 


μέσον τῆς βασιλικῆς τῶν Tovvaplwy καὶ τοῦ δημο- | 
| 
| 


σίου ἐμβόλου τῆς Ῥηγίας' καὶ. . . of στρατιῶται 
. ἔβαλον πῦρ καὶ ὑφῆψαν τὴν ὀκτάγωνον" | 
καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πυρὺς ἐκαύθη τὰ πέριξ τοῦ ἁγίου ] 1, 15-17, 
Θεοδώρου τῶν Spwpaxiov δίχα τοῦ σκενοφυλακίου καὶ ἐκάησαν οἱ ἔμβολοι awd τῆς καμάρας τοῦ 


τοῦ Φούρνου τοῦ ἁγίου οἴκον. ὁ δὲ ἔμβολος ὅλος φόρου ἕως τῆς χαλκῆς τά τε ἀργυροπρατεῖα καὶ τὰ 
τῶν ἀργυροπρατείων καὶ ὃ οἶκος Συμμάχου τοῦ Λαύσου πάντα πυρὶ ἀνηλώθησαν. 

ἀπὸ ὑπάτων dpdivaplwy καὶ ἡ ἀγία ᾿Ακυλῖνα ἕως | 

τῆς καμάρας τοῦ ἄλλου ἐμβύλου τοῦ φόρου Κων- — 

σταντίνου ἐκαύθη. } 


Comparing these two accounts we see that : 

1. Theophanes transposes the conflagrations which arose out of the 
burning of the octagon and which the Pasch. Chron. explicitly assigns to 
Saturday, and places them before the conflagrations which the Pasch. 
hron. assigns to Friday and the preceding days. 

2. While Theophanes presents in the same order as the Pasch. Chron, 
the conflagrations which took place before Friday and those which took place 
on Friday, he exhibits one remarkable discrepancy. Instead of bringing the 
burning of St. Sophia into connexion with the burning of the Senate House 
and the palace porticoes, which the Pasch. Chron. places before Friday, he 
brings it into connexion with the burning of the Bath of Alexander, the 
Xenon of Sampson, &c. which the Pasch. Chron. places on Friday: and yet 
he describes the burning of St. Sophia in the identical words used by the 
Pasch. Chron. 

3. While in the main Theophanes Ἴ the Paschal Chronicler were 
using the same source, there is one striking discrepancy as to a fact. They 
describe in almost the same words the rush to the house of Probus, but, 
while the Paschal Chronicler says that the fire was quenched ὀλέγων 
καυθέντων, Theophanes states that κατηνέχθη ὁ οἶκος. It seems clear that 
one of the two chroniclers must have here referred to a different source. 

4. In the description of the conflagration of Friday, the text of 
Theophanes omits the important buildings, St. Irene and the Xenon of 
Eubulus, which are mentioned by Chron. Pasch., and of course by the 
common source. I do not believe that Theophanes intended to omit them. 
They easily fell out through homoioteleuton, and we should probably amend 
in the text of Theophanes (p. 184, 1. 25) : 


καὶ τὸν Eevava τῶν «Εὐβούλου (ev μέρει) Kal τὴν ἁγίαν Εἰρήνην 
καὶ τὸν ξενῶνα τῶν; Σαμψὼν τὸν μέγαν. 


5. In the conflagration of Saturday (Chron. Pasch.), Theophanes (184, 
17) mentions the Palace of Lausus, which is not mentioned by Chron. Pasch. 
but he omits all mention of the Octagon and other buildings. 

The main question which here arises is this: how is the remarkable 
inversion of the order of events in Theophanes, as compared with the 
Paschal Chronicle, to be explained? The answer must be postponed, till we 
come to consider the topographical difficulties connected with the riot 


(see below § 21). 


104 THE NIKA RIOT. 


From the enumeration of the burned buildings, Theophanes passes to 
the resolution of Justinian to flee and gives us a unique notice as to the 
Emperor's plan of flight (184, 27-30). It is impossible to determine whether 
it comes from Malalas or not; but it seems to be out of its order, for the 
next sentence (185 1. 1—2=Chron. Pasch. 622, 18), concerns the events of 
Saturday. 

The following account of the elevation of Hypatius and the final scenes 
is derived from Malalas, This can be seen without any difficulty by 
comparing it with the Oxford Malalas and Chron. Pasch,? 


§ 10. George Cedrénus seems to have derived the first part of his 
brief account of the riot from Theodore Lector. It corresponds closely to 
the notice which Theophanes took from Theodore; only it is fuller, and 
therefore was not derived through Theophanes. It is fuller in two points: 
(a) the Xen6dn of Eubulus is mentioned; (ὦ) to ἡ μεγάλη ἐκκλησία are 
added the words καὶ τὰ χαρτῶα αὐτῆς δικαιώματα καὶ ἡ πρόσοδος πᾶσα." 
The second section is identical with the second part of the fragment of 
Cramer, Anecd. Par. ii. p. 320.3 This should conclude the notice ; but a 
statement is added that the Octagon and Zeuxippus were burnt; and there 
is a reference to the fire of A.D. 476. There is no trace here of the use of 
Theophanes,. 


§ 11. Zonaras had before him, in writing his account of the Nika revolt,‘ 
a lost source which differed considerably from those that we possess.° 

Starting with an introductory sentence suggested by a source which was 
also used by Cedrénus,® Zonaras comes at once to the main point, the union 
of the Blues and Greens. But the distinctive feature of his story is the 
prominence given to the battle between the barbarians and the demes, and 
the vain attempt of the clergy to pacify the tumult. He calls the barbarians 
Heruls,’ and his notice igs confirmed by Procopius, who mentions (at a 
different stage of the episode) that Mundus had a force of Heruls with him. 
From Zonaras alone do we learn of the part played by women in the riot. 


1 This is so clear that it is unnecessary to 
show it in full But the comparison may be 
facilitated by the following references :— 


Theophanes (de Boor) 
185, 2-3 =cf. Malalas, 475, 22-23 
” », il = ” 476, 1 
39 ᾽ν) 13 = 3} ” 3 
f » 21 =ef. Mal., Hermes, 6; p.377. 
Ἢ », 22 =Malalas, 476, 9 
37) 9?) 24 = 99 ” 10 
τὸ EO OU aes », 19-22 
ΩΣ ,, 80 =Mal., Hermes, 6, 377. 


2 It may be noticed that Cedrénus gives τὸ 
προσκήνιον (τῆς βασιλικῆ5), as in Cramer, 
Anecd, Par. ii. 112; whereas Theophanes has 
προσκιόνιον, 


3 καὶ τοὺς δύο ἐμβόλου----ἐν τῷ ἱπποδρόμῳ. 


4 Ed. Dindorf, vol. 8, p. 271, 8-273, 22. 

5 P, Sauerbrei, in his study on the sources of 
the middle part of the history of Zonaras, 
observed this, and describes the source as opti- 
mus ut videtur fons deperditus. De Font. Zon. 
quaestiones, in Comment. Philol. Jenenses, vol. 
I. p. 77. This (?) optimus fons deperditus was 
also used for the reigns of Leo and Zeno, 

8 To the effect that all the beauty in the city 
left by the former great fire (of A.D, 476) was 
now consumed. Cp. Cedrénus p. 647. Probably 
both were using a common source. I cannot 
enter here upon the latest combinations of 
E. Patzig,—the Leoquelle and the Zwillings- 
quelle, &e. 

7 Αἰλούρων. 


THE NIKA RIOT. 105 


But at this point! the value of the account of Zonaras ceases. He 
mentions that the fire was propagated by a violent wind—a fact known 
otherwise only from the Paschal Chronicler ; but of the buildings burnt he 
only mentions some in the region between St. Irene and the Palace. He has 
a peculiar statement? that Justinian wished to speak to the demes in the 
Hippodrome (‘theatre’), but that they, afraid of being caught (ὡς ἐν 
εἱρκτῇ), refused to run into the trap. This statement, referring to the 
appearance of Justinian in the Hippodrome on Sunday morning, is discordant 
with the account of Malalas (Chron. Pasch.), from which it appears that the 


demes did assemble in the Hippodrome and reviled Justinian. 
The rest of the story however accords with the account of Malalas and 
may well have been derived either from Malalas or from a source dependent 


on Malalas. Compare : 


ZONARAS, 272, 31. 
καὶ ἐπὶ ἀσπίδος 
ἀναγορεύουσι βασιλέα. 


αὐτὸν μετάρσιον ἄραντες 


ZONARAS, 273, 4. 
ἴσχυσαν οἱ wep) τὸν βασιλέα πλείστων χρημά- 
τῶν διανομαῖς ὑποσῦραι τῶν Βενέτων πολλούς, 


καὶ οὕτως τὴν τῶν δήμων ὁμόνοιαν 
διαστήσαντες χωρῆσαι κατ᾽ ἀλλήλων αἰντοὺς πε- 
ποιήκασι. 

τότε τοίνυν ἀθρόον ἐκ τῶν βασι- 
λείων οἱ προκοιτοῦντες τῶν κρατούντων ἐξέθορον 
ἔνοπλοι. 


Ib. 1. 12. 
μεστὸν γὰρ ἦν ἀνθρώπων τὸ θέατρον 
τῶν μὲν τῆς τῶν στασιαζόντων μοίρας, τῶν δέ γε 
πλειόνων κατὰ θέαν τῶν γιγομένων καὶ THS τοῦ 
Ὑπατίου ἀναρρήσεως ἠθροισμένων. 


MALALAS. //ermes, 6, 377. 
καὶ ἀναγαγόντες ἐν τῷ σκουταρίῳ. 


THEOPH., 185, 14 (MAL. 476, 4). 
ὑπέσυρέ τινας ἐκ τοῦ Βενέτου μέρους poyevoas 
χρήματα. 
MALALAS, 476, 6. 


διχονοῆσαν δὲ τὸ πλῆθος ὥρμησαν κατ᾽ 
ἀλλήλων. 
THEOPH., 185, 2. 
ἐνόπλων στρατιωτῶν βοήθειαν καὶ κουβικουλα- 


ρίους καὶ σπαθαρίου-. 


MAL. HERMES, 6, 377. 

πληρωθέντος δὲ καὶ ὅλου τοῦ ἱππικοῦ 
ἐκ τοῦ δήμου ὡς θελόντων θεωρῆσαι βασιλέα 
στεφόμενον. 


Now I do not indeed regard these comparisons as conclusive ; it is quite 


possible that they represent a different account, which agreed with, but was 
independent of, that of Malalas. Still it is remarkable that the account of. 
Zonaras would serve as a very accurate, brief summary of the account of 
Malalas. We must bear in mind the method of Zonaras, who was always con- 
cerned to change the words of his sources. If he found ἑἱππεκόν he was certain 
to substitute θέατρον ; if he found a part of πληρόω, he would use a part of 
γέμω or μεστός εἰμι; if he found ὑποκλέπτω one could predict that he would 
employ ὑποσύρω or something else? And he always of course avoided 
colloquialisms or Latinisms like σκουτάριν. There are only two points, one 
at the beginning, and one at the end, of this part of the episode, where the 


1 p. 272, 5. 

2 p, 272, 20-26. 

3 Malal. and Chron. Pasch. have ὑποκλέπτω, 
Theophanes, ὑποσύρω. We must infer that 
ὑποκλέπτω was in the original Malalas. But it 


would be improper to infer that Zonaras must 
have here used Theophanes ; for there it was 
quite natural that Theophanes and Zonaras 
should have hit independently on the same 
synonym. 


106 THE NIKA RIOT. 


influence of another source necd be assumed. The statement that Hypatius 
was proclaimed πῇ μὲν ἄκοντα, πῇ δὲ memecopévov,' which is in accordance 
with the story of Procopius, is not found in Malalas, so far as we can 
judge ; yet it would be a possible inference from the incident of the sending of 
Ephraim to the Palace. The number of the slain is set by Zonaras? at 
‘about 40,000.’ According to Malalas, it was 35,000. It may be conjectured 
that in his other source Zonaras found 50,000 (the number given by John 
Lydus) and that he adopted 40,000 as somewhere between the two, 

While I admit fully that the general coincidence may be accidental, and 
that Zonaras used throughout a different source, I cannot help thinking it 
more probable that the latter half of his narrative was derived, directly or 
indirectly, from Malalas. 


IT. — CHRONOLOGY. 


§ 12. Our data for determining the days on which the events of the riot 
took place are derived from Malalas and the Paschal Chronicler (who here pro- 
bably means Malalas), supplemented by two indications of Procopius. Theo- 
phanes has omitted all notes of time, except the most unimportant—namely 
that Hypatius and Pompeius were executed the day after they were 
arrested, 

The first note of time is given to us by Malalas. The beginning of the 
tumult, the union of the Blues and Greens, the formal declaration of that 
union in the Hippodrome, took place on the 13th of January, A.D. 532.3 
Their union was caused by the execution of members of both parties by the 
praefect; and that execution had taken place three days before,* that is on 
Sunday the 11th January. It follows that the celebration, at which the 
Greens pressed their complaints against Calapodius, took place not later than 
the 11th. Most historians have fallen into the error of confounding this first 
scene in the Hippodrome (described by the Paschal Chronicler and Theo- 
phanes) with the second scene on Jan. 13 (described by Malalas).° 

On the night of the 13th (which fell on Tuesday),° the united demes, 
having got no satisfaction from the Emperor, proceeded to the Praetorium, 
and demanded whether the praefect had decided to pardon the escaped 
prisoners. Receiving no answer they set fire to the praetorium. Other 
places were burned, and the people remained in the streets, εἰσελαύνων 
ἀτάκτως (during the night). 

In the morning (Jan, 14th, Wednesday),’ further outrages were com- 
mitted ; the complaints against John of Cappadocia, Tribonian, and Kudaemon 
were preferred, and they were deposed; Belisarius issued forth with a body of 


1 p, 272, 29. distinguished them, and was followed by 


2 p. 273, 19. Kalligas (so too Ranke). The assembly was 
% p. 474, 2-6. The date is also given by doubtless held on the eleventh, preliminary to 

Marcellinus, the celebration of the thirteenth. Schmidt, p.47. 
4 Ib. 1, μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας. δ Bpadeias δὲ γενομένης Spas, p. 474, 14. 


® Gibbon, Hedgkin, ete. Schmidt rightly 7 καὶ πρωΐας γενομένης, ἐν, 20, 


THE NIKA RIOT. 107 


Goths, and there was a conflict; then there were more conflagrations. ΑἹ] 
this is told in Malalas,' as if it took place on Wednesday, and in the 
corresponding part of the Chron, Pasch. there is no mark of time. But (1) it 
is improbable that all this occurred in one day; (2) the next events of which 
we hear belong to Friday; which leaves Thursday unaccounted for. Now in 
any case, something has been left out by the epitomator between the notice 
of the deposition of the obnoxious officers and the notice of the attack of 
Belisarius on the mob;? and this is probably the place where the night 
intervened. We may I think conclude, with great likelihood, that the main 
event of Wednesday, Jan. 14, was the deposition of the three ministers, and 
that the main event of Thursday, Jan. 15, was the sally of Belisarius from the 
Palace.® 

At this stage Malalas, as represented in the Baroccian Epitome, deserts 
us; but fortunately the Paschal Chronicler, who up to this point has 
furnished no dates, now becomes precise, and fixes the events of Friday and 
Saturday. 

On Friday, Jan. 16, the praetorium was burnt, according to Chron. 
Pasch.; the conflagration was carried by the wind from that building, 
and other buildings were burned, which are enumerated. 

On Saturday, Jan. 17,5 there was a conflict between the soldiers and the 
mob. The soldiers set fire to the Octagon, and the fire spread to other build- 
ings. This was the fifth day of the riot, and here we get our first indication 
of time from Procopius.6 On the evening of this day, Justinian dismissed 
Hypatius and Pompeius from the Palace. 


§ 13. The events of the following day, Sunday, Jan 18, are dated by 
Malalas, the Paschal Chronicle, Procopius, and Marcellinus. Malalas and the 
Paschal Chronicle give both the day of the week and the day of the month. 
Procopius names the day following the fifth day.’ Marcellinus is slightly in- 
accurate. While he assigns the beginning of the sedition to the 13th January, 
he states that the sedition lasted guingue continuos dies, and that Hypatius 
was elevated guinta huius nefandi facinoris die. It is clear that, if he counted 
the 13th, he should have said sex continwos dies, and placed the final scene (like 
Procopius) on the sixth. But the inaccuracy is a pure inadvertence. Every- 
one remembered two things: that the Hippodrome scene took place on the 
Ides, and that the riots lasted for five days. They began late at night on the 
13th with the attack on the praetorium, and they were over before the night 
of the 18th. Thus the statements of Marcellinus, true separately, lead, 


1 474, 20,-475, 10. 


2 At 475, 8. 5 Ib, τῷ δὲ σαββάτῳ, τουτέστιν τῇ ιζ΄ τοῦ αὑτοῦ 
3 Schmidt places the action of Belisarius on ἀυδυναίου μηνός. 
Wednesday, the burning of Chalké ete., on 5 p. 123; τῇ δὲ πέμπτῃ ἀπὸ τῆς στάσεως ἡμέρᾳ 
Wednesday night, the attack on the honse of περὶ δειλὴν ὀψίαν. 
Probus on Thursday (p. 60-1), Thus he follows 7 τῇ δὲ ὑστεραίᾳ (7d.), in reference to the date 
Chron. Pasch. cited in preceding note, 


- -“ col , ~ , 
4 γῇ δὲ παρασκευῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μηνὸς ιστ΄, 


108 THE NIKA RIOT. 


when combined, to a misconception. On the reckoning that Hypatius 
was elevated on the fifth day, the 14th of Jan. must be counted as the 
first day. 

It would seem certain then that the appearance of Justinian in the 
Hippodrome with the Gospels in his hand, the elevation of Hypatius, and the 
bloody suppression of the riot, took place on Sunday, Jan. 18. But this is not 
the view generally accepted. 

Although in Malalas (both in the Oxford epitome, and in the fuller 
account of the Paschal Chronicler) the elevation of Hypatius follows immedi- 
ately on the failure of Justinian’s solemn oaths to appease the revolt, historians 
have assumed that a night intervened between these two events! On this 
view, Justinian’s appearance in the Hippodrome takes place on the morning 
of Sunday, Jan. 18, and the coronation of Hypatius on the morning of Monday, 
Jan. 19. The motive for this arrangement of events is doubtless a wish to 
reconcile a slight discrepancy between Procopius and the Paschal Chronicler. 
According to Procopius, Hypatius and Pompeius were dismissed from the 
palace the night before the elevation of Hypatius. According to the Paschal 
Chronicler the senators were dismissed from the palace after Justinian’s 
appearance in the Hippodrome. It seems an easy and attractive way of 
reconciling these statements to suppose that the dismissal of Hypatius and 
his brother took place on Sunday night, and that ‘the fifth day’ meant by 
Procopius was Sunday, not Saturday. But there are serious objections to this 
combination. 

(1) It is clear from the Paschal Chronicle and the Oxford epitome that 
the original chronicle of Malalas contained precise indications as to the days 
on which the various events fell. It is extremely hard to believe either that 
Sunday and Monday, the days (according to the received view) of 
the decisive events, would not have been distinguished in the original 
Malalas, or that both the Paschal Chronicler and the Epitomator let this 
distinction drop and so placed the final scene on the wrong day. The 
elaborate description in the Paschal Chronicle forbids the second supposition. 
(2) The tenor of the story deprecates the idea that a night intervened. 
According to Malalas (Chron. Pasch.), Justinian after he retires from the 
Hippodrome—it is still very early in the morning ?—dmmediately (εὐθέως) 
dismisses the senators; and, when they went forth from the Palace, ‘the 
people met Hypatius and Pompeius, and took Hypatius to the Forum. This 


1S0 Gibbon and Mr. Hodgkin. So too 
Schmidt. 

Kalligas does not seem to assume the interval 
of a night; but he follows Chron. Pasch, in 
placing the dismissal of Hypatius from the 
Palace on Sunday. He regards it as a conse- 
quence of Justinian’s fiasco in the Hippodrome ; 
but he does not seem to observe that he deserts 
the authority of Procopius, which in such a 
matter is decisive. 

2 ἀπονύχιον (Chr. 


Pasch.). This curious 


word—émaét eip., I believe—must mean, as it is 
generally taken, in the early hours of the 
morning before the night is over. It is not 
given in the Lexicon of Ducange, but Sophocles 
compares Noy. Test. ; Mark i. 35, πρωΐ ἔννυχον 
λίαν. The closest analogy I can find to the use 
of ἀπὸ νυκτός, which the compound appears to 
presume, is in the phrase ἀφ᾽ ἡμέρας miveew=de 
die bibere. In the Wasps of Aristophanes ἀπὸ 
νυκτῶν μέσων means in the hours after midnight. 


THE NIKA RIOT. 109 


shows as clearly as possible that, according to Malalas, all happened on the 
same day. Only, Malalas has fallen into an error, easily explicable. Hypatius 
and Pompeius had left the Palace, as Procopius states, the evening before, and 
the people fetched them from their houses. Nothing would be more natural 
than a mistake of this kind,—the transference of the dismissal of the two 
brothers from the time at which it actually occurred to the time at which it 
assumed significance. (3) The statement of Marcellinus is decisive against 
the 19th as the day of the elevation of Hypatius. For in that case the 
sedition would have begun according to him on the 15th, which is, on no 
theory, possible. 
On Jan. 19th (Monday), Hijpstion and Pompeius were put to death. 


IIJ.—ToroGrapuHy. 


§ 14, It will be most convenient in the first place to determine as far as 
possible the sites of the buildings which were connected with the Nika riot, 
and then to examine, in the light of our conclusions, the evidence of the 
authorities, who in some respects conflict with one another. 

There is no difficulty any longer as to the general position of the 
buildings around the Augusteum.? That place was bounded on the north by 
the southern side of St. Sophia, on the east by the Senate-house of the 
Augusteum (which must be carefully distinguished from the Senate-house of 
the-Forum of Constantine) * and part of the palace wall, on the south by 
Palace buildings, the Chalké or main entrance to the Palace, and the Baths 
of Zeuxippus. There is still room for doubt whether the west side of the 
Augusteum was partly closed by buildings or not. No doubt, an accurate 
line was drawn between the precincts of the Augusteum and the Mesé. The 
Mesé (‘ Middle Street’) led down from the Augusteum into the valley 
between the First and Second Hill, and ascended to the Forum of Constantine 
on the top of the Second Hill. Passing through the Forum it went on all 
the way to the Golden Gate; but with its course beyond the Forum of 
Constantine we have not to do here. The Milium, opposite to the S.W. 
corner of the atrium of St. Sophia, must have stood on the line which 


1 Malalas, 476, 21. (So Theophanes).- 
2 It is unnecessary to argue here against the 


cepted fact. But then he is totally ignorant of 
the investigations of MM. Strzygovski and 


untenable view of M. Paspatés, which has been 
universally condemned by competent critics. 
(His mistake was partly due to the confusion of 
the Augusteum with the Forum of Constantine ; 
a mistake partly derived from Labarte). See my 
paper in Scottish Review, April 1894, on the 
Great Palace of Constantinople ; Lethaby and 
Swainson, S. Sophia, p. 7 sqqg. Mr. Grosvenor in 
his recent work on ‘Constantinople’ (2 vols. 
1895), a work which has very little archaeologi- 
cal value, adheres to the view of his master, 
M. Paspatés, as if it were an established and ac- 


Forchheimer on the cisterns of Constantinople. 

3 This mistake was made by Labarte, and 
before him by Ducange, who was guilty of a 
triangular confusion ; namely, the senaton of 
the Forum =the senaton of the Augusteum = the 
Basilica. This has been fully pointed out by 
Bieliaev in his important article, Chram 
Bogoroditzy Chalkopratiskoi v Konstantinopolie, 
in the Lietopis for 1892 of the Hist. Phil. 
Society of the University of Odessa (Viz. 
Otdiel. i.); p. 104-5. 


110 THE NIKA RIOT. 


divided the Augusteum from the Μοβῶ The Baths of Zeuxippus, which 
lay on the left of one issuing from the Chalké, occupied the south-west 
corner of the Augusteum. The position of these Baths in relation to the 
Chalké on one side and to the Kathisma of the Hippodrome on the other is 
represented with fair correctness on the plan of Labarte.? 


"&, 
δ 
2) 
4 
Chalhoprateia 2 
» So, 


Bas,)- 
Cungitiva 


arig. 
δὰ andor 


Plan of the imperial quarter 
of 
C ONSTANTINOPLE 


Nore.—Buildings, ete., of which there are actual remains in situ are distinguished by 
BLOCK LETTERS underlined. RoMAN CAPiTALs are employed for sites which can be inferred 
with complete or approximate decision ; italics for those whose determination is only tentative. 


Thus the general lie of the group of buildings around the Augusteum 
can be determined with sufficient certainty for our purpose, nor is there any 
doubt about the buildings north of St. Sophia—the Xendn of Hosios 


1 There can be no doubt about the position of He shows from Constantine Porph., De Caer. 
the Milium. See Bieliaev’s thorough discussion 17, 106, 10, 84 (i. ed. Bonn) that in proceeding 
in Byzantina: Ocherki, etc., ii. p. $2-94; ep. from the Chalké to the Milium the Emperor had 
the Odessa Lietopis, 1892, op. cit., p. 102. This the Zeuxippus on his left, in procceding from 
involves a considerable change in the plan of | the Milium to the Chalké on his right ; and in 
Labarte which Biecliaev inserted in the first vol. one ceremony the Zeuxippus was a station be- 
of his Byzantina. tween the Milium and the Chalké. 

2 Cp. Bieliaev, Byzantina, ii. p. 93, note 1. 


THE NIKA RIOT. 111 


Sampson, the Church of St. Irene, and the Xenén of Eubulos. 
and Sampson are still there. 


The Irene 


§ 15. It is different when we come to the buildings which were situated 
westward, on either side of the Mesé, between the Augusteum and the 
Forum.' Here we must be content with approximate and conjectural results, 
We have only a fixed line and a fixed point, in relation to which we have to 
attempt to group a number of edifices which have been destroyed. The fixed 
line is the direction of the Mesé; the fixed point is the position of the 
Basilica. 

The site of the Imperial Stoa or Basilica, which contained the Library, 
is identified by the Cistern Basilica or Jeré batdn Serai. This identity, 
recognised by Gyllius, has been completely established by Strzygovski2 
Procopius tells how Justinian built the cistern, and gives the valuable infor- 
mation that the cistern was laid on the south side of the great quadrilateral 
peristyle court of the Basilica.* We thay infer from this that the greater 
part of the Basilica buildings were to the north of Jeré batiin Serai, and that 
it did not reach down to the Mesé. 

The Basilica is described as ‘behind the Milium’ by the anonymous 
author of the Patria,t and Zonaras® states that it was ‘very close to the 
Chalkoprateia, The proximity comes out in the fire of A.D 476. That fire 
began in the Chalkoprateia and destroyed the Basilica and ‘both the stoai.’ ® 
What are both the stoai? and was the quarter of the Chalkoprateia north of 
the Basilica, or between the Basilica and the Mesé ? 

The position of the Church of the Virgin in Chalkoprateia, which was 
unportant in the court ceremonies, has received an elaborate discussion 
recently from Bieliaev.’ He shows clearly that it was on the north side of 
the Mesé, and that the Emperor when, in passing from the Forum of 
Constantine to the Palace, he visited this church, turned to the left from the 
Mesé in order to reach it. He also thinks that the church was quite close to 
the Portico which ran along the north side of the Mesé; but his arguments 
are not decisive.2 It cannot be determined from the data of the De Caeri- 
montis how far the Emperor had to proceed up the street to the left® before 
he reached the Chalkoprateia. Those data are uot inconsistent with another 
view which places the Chalkoprateia close to the north-west of St. Sophia, 


11 shall use ‘Forum’ simpliciter, as Byzan- _ teum, whereas it means of course the approach to 


tine writers did, for the Forum of Constantine ; 
ὁ φόρος is regularly used thus, 6.4. in Theophanes. 
For this use ep. Bieliaev in the Odessa Lietopis, 
1894, p. 17. 

2? Die byzantinischen Wasserbehiilter von 
Constantinopel, by P. Forchheimer and I, Stray 
govski (1893), p. 177-180. Cp. Mordtmann, 
Esquisse topographique, p. 66-7. Strzygovski 
falls into error in interpreting a passage of Con- 
stantine Porphyrogennetos (i. 165) concerning 
the second procession on the feast of the Annun- 
ciation. He places the Antiforumat the Augus- 


the Forum (of Constantine), and he takes the 
Church of St. Constantine in the Forum for the 
Church of St. Sophia (p. 179). 

3 See De Acdificiis, i. 2. 

4 Banduri, 29. Codinus, 39. 

5 xv. 3, (iii. p. 340, Dind.). 

§ Cedrenus, i. 616 = Zonaras, xiv. 2 (p. 257), 

7 Op. cit. in the Lictopis of Odessa, 1892. 

ΒΊΩΙ 101. 

9 ἀριστερὸν ἐκκλίνας, Const. Porph., i. p. 


112 THE NIKA RIOT. 


and thus north of the Basilica. This view is held by Mordtmann who 
identifies the Church of the Virgin with the Mosque of Zeineb Sultan,! and 
is also suggested on other grounds by Krasno-sel’tzev.2, To this question we 
shall return again. 


§ 16. The anonymous author of the Patria, advancing from the Augus- 
teum to the Forum, speaks successively of the following buildings:* the 
Milium, the Church of St. John, the Apostle, the Church of St. Theodore 
Σφωρακίου, the Octagon, and the Palace of Lausus. It is left indeterminate 
which of these buildings is to the south and which to the north of the Mesé. 
The position of the Church of St. John (Diippius) can be pretty confidently 
placed south-west of St. Sophia, south-east of the Basilica, and not far from 
the Milium;* but it does not concern us at present. The Octagon he 
describes as close to the Basilica;® and this agrees with the notice of the 
Paschal Chronicler that it lay between the portico of the Regia (that is, the 
Basilica) and the basilica of the skindressers.6 The most probable inference 
is that it was west of the Basilica. It could hardly have been south, for then 
it would have been adjacent to the Mesé and there would hardly have been 
room for the basilica of the skindressers. Assuming then provisionally that 
it lay west of the Basilica, we might place the Church of St. Theodore pro- 
visionally south of the Octagon, that is, between the Octagon and the Mesé. 
This would suit the order of the Anonymus, quoted above, where St. Theodore 
is reached before the Octagon.’ 


§ 17. We now come to the Palace of Lausus, as to which new views have 
been recently put forward. It was close to the Mesé, but the question is, was 
it on the north or on the south side? The anonymous topographer leaves it 
open. Mordtmann places it on the south side; but Bieliaev and Strzygovski 
have independently argued that it was on the north side. 

Bieliaev® has derived his view from passages in the De Caerimoniis. 
‘Like the Chalkoprateian Church, the House of Lausos was on the right side 
of Middle Street, to one going along it from the Augusteum to the Forum of 
Constantine, and lay near the right-hand portico.’ The passages in the De 


1 Esquisse top., p. 4. He quotes Antony of 
Novgorod, the Russian traveller, who says that 
‘going towards the Hippodrome [from the 
Forum] under the covered portico of Eubulus, 
we meet the Church of the Mother of God, 
containing the marble table, on which our Lord 
celebrated the Sacrament.’ Is the portico of 
Eubulus the north portico of the Mesé? In 
any case, it is not necessary to conclude that 
the Church was adjacent to the Mesé. It is 
enough that the traveller reached it by a street 
off the Mesé. 

* Zamietka po voprosu o miestopolozenti Chal- 
kopratiiskago chrama v Konstantinopolie, in 
the Odessa Lictopis of 1894, p. 309-316. 


% Banduri, 27 sqq. 

4 Mordtmann, p. 66, cf. his plan. 

5 τὸ τετραδίσιον ὀκτάγωνον πλησίον τῆς 
βασιλικῆς». 

6 p. 621. 

7 The position is discussed by Mordtmann, p. 
67. He places it north of the Octagon, but I 
fail to see the evidence. In any case Gyllius 
was wrong in seeking it on the western slope of 
the third hill, near the Véfa Meidani (i.11, p.58). 
Ducange’s notice does not help us (Deser. Urb. 
Const., p. 139-40). The Anonymous (Banduri 
53) places the perfume market near the Octagon 
συνεγγὺς TOD ay. Θεοδώρου Tod Σφορακίου. 

8 Op. cit. p. 103. 


THE NIKA RIOT. 113 


Cerimoniis describe the progress of the Emperor from the Forum to the 
Chalkoprateian Church. The Emperor having passed through the Anti- 
forum ‘enters the portico near the Lausus and from there goes’ to the 
Chalkoprateian Church.! If the weather is bad, he goes to the Forum (from 
the Milion) ‘by the portico, and ‘comes down again by the same portico and 
the Lausus, and turning to the left goes to the Chalkoprateia.’* It must be 
certainly admitted that prima facie it would be natural to understand the 
northern portico of the Mesé; and this would seem to imply that the Lausus 
was at the northern side of the Mesé, close to the street which turned north- 
ward to the Chalkoprateia. 

We have however another totally different indication. The Church of 
St. Euphemia ἐν τῷ ἱπποδρόμῳ was west of the Hippodrome.* It was 
situated ἐν τοῖς ᾿Αντιόχου πλησίον τοῦ Λαύσου. It seems unlikely that the 
definition πλησίον τοῦ Λαύσου would be used, if the Lausus had been north 
of the Mesé. The Church of St. Euphemia was probably south-west of the 
Hippodrome.® 

The indication of the proximity of the Palace of Lausus to the cistern 
of Philoxenus, which supplied it with water,® is unfortunately of no use, as 
the cistern of Philoxenus has not been found. It used to be identified with 
the Bin bir dirék,’ but this view has been upset by Strzygovski.* The cistern 
of Philoxenus was certainly close to the Forum, and adjoined the church of 
St. Aquilina; and Strzygovski concludes, by combining the Anonymus of 
Banduri-with statements of the Paschal Chronicler relating to the Nika riot, 
that the Lausus was on the north side of the Mesé. The force of the data 
in regard to the Nika riot will be appreciated below. 

Certainly, the most important passages seem to be most satisfactorily 
explained by the view that the Lausus was on the north side of the Mesé ; 
and perhaps the passage of the Synaxarion may be brought into unison by 
supposing that part of the palace of Antiochos reached the Mesé and faced 
the palace of Lausus. 


§ 18. One building still remains to be considered, the Praetorium. To 
reach the Praetorium from the Palace, one proceeded along the Mesé past the 
Palace of Lausus.® It was apparently on the Mesé, between the Lausus and 
the Forum.” Moreover it was close to the Church of the Forty Martyrs, 
which was in the Mes¢.1 But the Anonymus of Banduri seems to place this 


1 Const. Porph., i. p. 165. καὶ εἰσέρχεται ἐν τὸ πραιτώριον ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ of Πράσινοι eis τὸ 
τῷ ἐμβόλῳ πλησίον τοῦ Λαύσου, καὶ amd τῶν Λαῦσον. 


ἐκεῖσε ἀπέρχεται κ.τ.λ. 10 Cp. the account of the fire in A.p. 603, in 
2 p. 169. Chron. Pasch. p. 695: ἐκαύθη ἡ μέση ἀπὸ τῶν 
3 Cp. Ducange, op. cit. p. 145. Λαύσου καὶ Td πραιτῶριν τοῦ ἐπάρχου τῆς πόλεως 
4 Synaxaria, July 11. ἕως τῆς ἄρκας ἄντικρυ τοῦ φόρου Κωνσταντίνου. 
5 Mordtmann, Joc. cit., and plan. This Arca comes in the Nika riot. In Const. 
6 Cedrenus, i. 564. Porph., i., p. ὅθ, the Praetorium is a station 
7 Gyllius, p. 127. So Mordtmann. between the Forum and the Milium. 


8 Op. cit. p. 170 844. 11 Theoph. p. 267, 31. 


9 Cp. Theophanes, p. 239, 9, ἀπερχομένου εἰς 
H.S.—VOL, XVII, I 


114 THE NIKA RIOT. 


church to the west of the Forum of Constantine and near the Forum Tauri.! 
This, however, is clearly a mistake. There is a passage in the Alexiad of 
Anna Komnéna which leaves no doubt that the Church of the XL Martyrs 
was east of the Forum. The Comnene ladies meet Alexius in the Forum 
and having taken leave of him made all haste ‘to the temple of the Great 
Sophia.’ Close to the precinct of the Forty Saints they were met by the 
tutor of Botaneiatés.2 Mordtmann places the church close to the Tiirbé of 
Mahmud, whose site marks the entrance to the Forum of Constantine.’ 

The site of the Praetorium has been discussed by M. Paspatés in his 
Bufavrivai Medérar.t He thought that he had found its ruins near the 
Church of St. Anastasia, which he successfully identified with the Mechmet 
Pasha Tzamii, south-west of the Hippodrome.’ But his arguments prove 
nothing. He points to several passages which show that to reach the 
Praetorium from the Sophian port one had to go up; but this datum would 
suit many sites. I have seldom seen a weaker piece of topographical 
identification.® 


δ 19. From Procopius, John Lydus, and Malalas, one: would infer that 
there were two distinct conflagrations, of which the first consumed buildings 
around the Augusteum, and the second raged along the Mesé and especially 
among buildings north of the Mesé. 

(1) ‘The city, says Procopius, ‘was invaded by fire. And the sanctuary 
of Sophia, and the Bath of Zeuxippus, and the parts of the Imperial Palace 
from the Propylaea to the so-called house of Ares, were burnt and destroyed.’ 
That is the first group. (2) ‘ And besides there were burnt at the same time 
[z.e. on the same occasion ; not “simultaneously ”’] the great porticoes (στοαί) 
reaching up to the Agora named from Constantine, and many houses of rich 
men, and large property.’ That is the second group. 


1 p. 48: Forum ; Artopolion ; palace of Tox- 
aras ; Church of Forty Martyrs ; Anemodulion ; 
forum Tauri. Cp. p. 93. 

2 Vol. i. p. 70 ed. Reifferscheid. 

3 p. 69. ‘Une citerne ἃ l’ouest de Bin bir 
dirék, en face du tombeau de Sultan Mahmoud, 
parait marquer l’emplacement de l’église des 


XL. martyrs de Nicopolis.’ Cp. plan. 
4 p. 368 sqq. 
5 p. 364 sqq. 
ὅν. 371-2. Nor is there any proof of his 


statement that the house of Probus was near 
the Praetorium (p. 372). The texts which he 
cites—like so many of this antiquarian’s cita- 
tions—are irrelevant. This identification of 
Paspatés is, I observe, also rejected by G. 
Laskin, in his paper, Zamietki po drevnostyam 
Konstantinopolia, in the Vizantiski Vremennik, 
iii, p. 339. Laskin places the Praetorium 
between the Augusteum and the Forum, but 1 


do not see how the passage in Chron. Pasch. 
(loc, cit.) proves that it was on the north side of 
the Mesé ; for this, I suppose, is what he means 
by saying that it was ‘on the other side of the 
street’ from the Great Palace.—Laskin thinks 
that the Great Embolos built by Arcadius oppo- 
site to the Praetorium (Theoph., p. 74, 23) is 
the Cherni Veliki Ubol of Anthony of Nov- 
gorod. It is noteworthy that Kondakov (in 
Vizantiskiia Tserkvi i Pamiatniki Konstantino- 
polia, 1886, p. 182) identifies this Black Embolos 
with the μακρὸς ἔμβολος τοῦ Mavpiavod. But 
the Embolos of Maurianus was at the other side 
of the Forum, as is proved by Const. Porph., 
de Cer., p. 156 (cf. Mordtmann, p. 7). The 
Black Embolos was near St. Anastasia, which 
was said to be in the region of Maurianus (S. W. 
of the Hippodrome), which must be clearly 
distinguished from the Portico of Maurianus, 


THE NIKA RIOT 115 


(1) ‘ The fire, says Lydus, ‘beginning with the Entrance to the Palace, 
spread from it to the chief Sanctuary [St. Sophia], thence to the senate- 
house in the Augusteum, and from it to the Zeuxippos’ [here an antiquarian 
digression]. This is the first group. (2) When these were consumed,! ‘ the 
porticoes up to the Agora of Constantine’ were ravaged, and ‘the adjacent 
buildings, north and south thereof, were naturally reduced to ashes,’ This 
closely corresponds to the second group of Procopius, and one suspects that 
Lydus had the work of Procopius before him, But he adds to the first group 
the senate-house, which Procopius omits, 

(1) Malalas, as represented by his epitomator, notices the conflagration 
of the first group and connects it with the night of Jan. 13 :—7 χαλκῆ τοῦ 
παλατίου ἕως τῶν σχολῶν Kal ἡ μεγάλη ἐκκλησία καὶ ὁ δημόσιος EuBodkos— 
to which he adds on the following day μέρος τοῦ δημοσίου ἐμβόλου ἕως τοῦ 
Ζευξίππου. The original notice of Malalas, from which this is abbreviated, 
can, as we have seen, be made out with the help of Theophanes and the 
Paschal Chronicler. The important point is that the ‘public portico’ is the 
portico of the Augusteum, not of the Mesé. The phrase ἕως τῶν σχολῶν 
evidently comes to much the same thing as the ἄχρι és τὸν “Apews οἶκον of 
Procopius, and means the parts of the palace adjacent to the Chalké on the 
east side. (2) The second group, not preserved in the Oxford epitome, is 
preserved partly in the Escurial fragment—more fully in the Paschal 
Chronicler (see above § 9). 

Now while our text of Malalas preserves the date of the first con- 
flagration (13—14 January), the Paschal Chronicler preserves the date and 
circumstances of the other conflagration (having, no doubt, derived these 
facts from Malalas). It took place on Saturday, Jan. 17. This fire spread 
from the Octagon, and was the work of the soldiers. 

But there was yet another group of buildings consumed by fire, of which 
Procopius, Lydus, and our Malalas say nothing. We learn about this group 
from the Paschal Chronicler and Theophanes (who are confirmed by the 
enumerations of other writers) ; and there is reason to believe that we should 
have learned about it from the original Malalas. This group consists of the 
Church of St. Irene, the Xenodochia of Sampson and Eubulus, and the baths 
of Alexander; and according to the Paschal Chronicle this conflagration 
occurred on Friday, Jan. 16. 


§ 20. We have thus three distinct conflagrations : 
(1) Jan. 13—14: Augusteum buildings, including St. Sophia ; 
(2) Jan. 16: buildings north of St. Sophia ; 


(3) Jan. 17: Octagon, adjacent buildings, porticoes of Mesé, buildings 
south of Mesé. 


1 rév δὲ τηλικούτων σωμάτων els πῦρ μεταβαλόντων, p. 266, 1. (Possibly σωμάτων should be 


δωμάτων.) ἃ 
I 


116 THE NIKA RIOT. 


The order and the details are best preserved in the Paschal Chronicle 
(except in regard to the date of (1)). Procopius and Lydus preserve the 
order of (1) and (3), but omit (2). Theophanes falls into the curious mistake 
of changing the order to (3) (1) (2); and this mistake demands explanation. 

Another building, passed over by Procopius! and Lydus, is stated 
by Malalas, the Paschal Chronicler, and Theophanes to have been burnt. I 
refer to the Praetorium. But, strange to say, its conflagration is connected 
with group (1) by Malalas,? with group (2) by the Paschal Chronicler, with 
group (3) by Theophanes. This is a very interesting question. 

Now it is clear that topographically the Praetorium would belong to 
group (3); for we have seen that it was close to the Mesé and not far from 
the Forum. But, on the other hand, the burning of the Praetorium cannot 
be connected with the burning of group (3); for (a) it was not accidentally 
burned but deliberately fired by the people, and (Ὁ) Theophanes himself, 
following Malalas, places it as the first building burnt, whereas group (3) was 
burnt last. The circumstances of the outbreak of the riot do not permit us 
to doubt the statement of Malalas that the first outrage was the burning of 
the Praetorium. On the other hand it must not be imagined that the flames 
which consumed the Praetorium were continuous with those which consumed 
the buildings of group (1). The two fires were quite distinct. Having set 
fire to the Praetorium, near the Forum, the mob proceeded to the Augusteum 
and set fire to the Entrance of the Palace (cp. the words of Lydus). 

We now come to the statement of the Paschal Chronicle, which, as it is 
generally read, is absurd. ‘On Friday the demes went to the Praetorium and 
set it on fire; and the roofs of the two imperial houses were burnt, and of the 
Praetorium only the archives (μόνον---ὅπου ta oxpiva). For a north wind 
blew and chased the fire out from the Praetorium, and the bath of Alexander 
was burnt, and the Xenon of Eubulus in part and St. Irene,’ &c. 

As we have seen, the Praetorium was not near St. Irene and the other 
buildings mentioned.? These edifices were north-east of the Praetorium; the 
Praetorium was not north of them, as the sense of the passage, thus read, 
would require. The mistake lies in the division of the sentences; there 
should be a full period after the words ἔξω tod πραιτωρίου ἐδίωξεν. ‘Only 
a part of the Praetorium was burnt, for a north wind blew the flames away 
from it [down towards the harbour of Sophia]. And [a totally different con- 
flagration] the bath of Alexander, &c. 

My interpretation may be supported by the notice of Zonaras, who is 


1 He mentions the δεσμωτήριον, but not as Prefect of the East (Reichsjustizministerium), 


burnt. See below. 

* Kalligas on the strength of this, neglecting 
all other topographical data, represents the fire as 
spreading from the Praetorium to the adjacent 
Palace of Constantine (Great Palace) p. 340. 
But his study is useless so far as topography is 
concerned, 

% Schmidt, op. cit., p. 62, thought that the 
πραιτώριον here meant was that of the Praet. 


not of the Prefect of the city ; and he is silently 
followed by Kalligas, p. 344. There is no founda- 
tion for this view. It may be noted that Kalli- 
gas seems to have used the plan of Schmidt, 
which is hopelessly astray, but has two redeem- 
ing features—the distinction of the Forum from 
the Augusteum, and the position of the Prae- 
torium (of the Pref. of the city) near the Forum. 
In the latter point Kalligas deserts his guide, 


THE NIKA RIQT. 117 


using a different source. He mentions the detail that soldiers set fire to 
houses from which men and women were assailing them with stones, sherds 
and every missile that came to hand; that a strong wind blew, carried the 
flames, and burnt to ashes many fine buildings. He then mixes up groups 
(1) and (2). But I think we are justified in inferring that the conflagration 
of group (2) was due to the firing of houses north of the Xenodochion of 
Kubulus, the fire being propagated by the same north wind which averted 
the flames from the Praetorium. 

The conclusion is that on the night of Jan. 18, the demes, wroth at 
receiving no answer from the praefect, set the Praetorium on fire. But it 
was only partly burnt ;! and on Friday Jan. 16, they again hurled brands 
into it; but this time the north wind hindered the attempt from being more 
than a partial success. 


§ 20. It is manifest that Theophanes has here ventured to exercise a 
very unusual independence of judgment. On the strength of his own 
knowledge of the topography of Constantinople, he has permitted himself to 
alter what he found in his source. He found the burning of the Praetorium 
mentioned first in close connexion with that of the buildings of the Augusteum, 
and secondly in apparent connexion with that of the buildings north of St. 
Sophia. Rejecting these (only apparent) connexions as inconsistent with the 
facts of topography, he took upon himself to establish a juxtaposition 
between the Praetorium and the buildings of group (3) which are actually 
near it. 

Theophanes has also taken another liberty with his source. St. Sophia 
was the connecting link between groups (1) and (2), since it formed the north 
side of the Augusteum and was next-door to the Sampson. Its conflagration 
(Malalas; Chron. Pasch.) was connected with the conflagration of group (1) ; 
but Theophanes has transferred it to group (2). He seems to have thought 
it more natural that the fire should have leapt from the Sampson to the 
Church, than from the Senate to the Church? 


§ 21. A word may still be said on the third conflagration (Jan. 17) which 
begaa with the Octagon, reached the neighbouring church of St. Theodore, 
and spread to the Mesé, consuming among other buildings the Lausus-palace 
and St. Aquilina. It is to be presumed that the fire was spread by the same 
north wind which blew the day before. This suggests (a) that the Octagon 
was not north of the Basilica, otherwise the flames would have caught the 


1 Procopius (p. 120) mentions that at the be- 
ginning of the revolt the rioters went to the 
δεσμωτήριον and loosed the prisoners. It was 
the δεσμωτήριον of the Praetorium. The fact 
that Procopius does not say that it was burnt 
down may be reconciled with Malalas by sup- 
posing that only a small part was burnt; so 
that it was food for flames again on Friday. 


2 The Continuator of Zacharias of Mytilene 
has a curious notice, He places the burning of 
St. Sophia after the proclamation of Hypatius 
and says that it was set on fire (apparently by 
Justinian’s adherents) in order to disperse the 
people. There is clearly a confusion with the 
Octagon which was set on fire by the soldiers, 


118 THE NIKA RIOT. 


Basilica ; and (ὁ) that St. Theodore was south of the Octagon. Now if, as is 
probable (see above § 15) the quarter of the Chalkoprateia was north of the 
Basilica, it seems certain that the street along which the Emperor proceeded, 
when he turned to the left from the Mesé to reach the Chalkoprateian Church, 
ran between the Basilica (on the right) and the Octagon (on the left). As 
the Lausus marked the place where the street abutted on the Mesé, that 
palace would be south of the Octagon,—the Church of St. Theodore (con- 
iecturally) standing between them. If these inferences are right, the fire 
first reached St. Theodore, then Lausus, then ran along the northern portico 
of the Mesé, taking St. Aquilina in its course, and finally crossing the arch at 
the Antiforum; but meanwhile it might already have been blown across by 
the wind to the southern portico, directly from the Lausus. 


§ 22. I ought to add that, so far as the notices of the Nika-riot are 
concerned, they seem to me to be reconcilable with the position of the Palace 
of Lausus either north or south of the Mesé; for we know (cp. especially Lydus) 
that part at least of the southern side of the Mesé was burned as well as the 
northern. I therefore do not agree with Strzygovski (see above § 17) that 
the facts of the Nika-riot taken along with the anonymous writer of the 
Patria prove that the Lausus was north of the Mesé. It is the arguments 
adduced by Bieliaev from the De Cerimoniis that seem to me to carry weight. 

On the other hand, the facts seem rather to point to the conclusion that 
the Praetorium was on the south side of the Mesé; otherwise, lying in the line 
of the fire which swept continuously from the Lausus to the Forum, it would 
have been presumably mentioned in connexion with this conflagration. 
Theophanes confirms this by the form of his erroneous notice. “The 
Praetorium was burnt, and the porticoes from the Camara of the Forum of 
Constantine up to the Chalké.” The circumstance that the Praetorium was on 
the south side of the Mesé suggested the description “up to the Chalké” 
which would strictly be only appropriate to the southern ἔμβολος. 


§ 23. The course of the events of the memorable 8 days, Jan. 11-19, A.D. 
532 may then be arranged as follows:— 


Sunday, Jan. 11. “Acta διὰ Καλαπόδιον in the Hippodrome. Altercation of 
Justinian with the Greens. 

In the evening a number of criminals, both Blues and Greens, are 
executed by the Prefect of the City, clearly in consequence of the 
scene in the circus and with the political purpose of showing the Emperor’s 
impartiality to both Demes. 

The rescue of a Blue and a Green to the Asylum of St. Laurence. 

[The interval of a day gives the Demes time to concert joint action 
to obtain the pardon of the two condemned men.] 


Tuesday, Jan. 13. Horse-races in the Hippodrome. Vain appeal to the 
Emperor for mercy and open declaration of the union of the Prasino- 
venetor. 


THE NIKA RIOT 119 


In the evening new demand for reprieve from the Prefect of the 
City. On receiving no answer, the Praetorium is attacked and set on fire, 
and the prisoners are let out of the Praetorium prison. 

Then the rioters march tothe Augusteum to attack the Palace. 

Conflagrations in that quarter during the night and following day. 
(For the buildings burnt see above § 19). 


Wednesday, Jan. 14. The riot which had begun with a demand for a 
reprieve now develops into an insurrection against the oppression of the 
administration. There is an outery against John, Eudaemon, and 
Tribonian. Justinian yields, but it is too late. The insurgents are 
determined to depose him. 

The rush to the house of Probus, which probably took place on this 
day, is significant. Hypatius and Pompeius who were in the Palace 
could not be got at; so the people sought Probus. This incident 
seems to mark the stage in the riot at which the overthrow of Justinian 
became the object of the rioters. 


Thursday, Jan. 15. Belisarius and his Heruls and Goths issue from the 
Palace ; fighting in the streets. 
ΠΩ the intervention of the clergy mentioned by Zonaras. 


Friday, Jan. 16. Second attack on the Praetorium. 
Fighting continued ; conflagration breaks out in streets north of 
the Xenon of Eubulus, ne is blown southward by north wind. (For 
buildings burnt see § 19). 


Saturday, Jan. 17. Fighting continued. Rioters occupy the Octagon. 
Soldiers set fire to it, and the conflagration spreads south and south- 
west (see ὃ 19). 

Evening, Hypatius and Pompeius leave Palace. 


Sunday, Jan. 18. Before sunrise Justinian appears in the Hippodrome. 
His oath before the assembled populace. The solemnity is a failure, 
Hypatius is proclaimed, and Justinian thinks of fleeing. Council in the 
Palace, at which the view of Theodora prevails. 

The suppression of the reyolt by the massacre in the Hippodrome. 


Monday, Jan. 19. Execution of Hypatius and Pompeius, before day-break.! 
(According to the Continuator of Zacharias of Mytilene, Justinian 
wished to spare them but Theodora interfered; “ swearing by God and 
by him, she urged him to kill them ”). 

J. B. BURY 


ΝΥ night,’ Victor Tonn., ep. above § 4. 


120 THE MANTINEAN BASIS: A NOTE. 


THE MANTINEAN BASIS: A NOTE. 


IN a paper published in this Journal last year (xvi. p. 280) I proposed an 
arrangement of the sculptures of this basis. Unfortunately I overlooked a very 
able paper on the same subject by Dr. Amelung, Die Basis des Praxiteles aus 
Mantinea, Miinchen 1895, in which certain observations of a technical kind in 
regard to the sculptures are made, observations which must be carefully con- 
sidered before any arrangement of the basis can be regarded as established. 1 
give a translation of these observations. 

‘ All three slabs are on their left end cut off by a straight line, and have 
there at bottom a vertical dowel-hole, to receive a dowel rising from below. 
Thus all on this side joined other slabs. Both the slabs with figures of Muses 
on their right end have similar flat surfaces. The Marsyas slab is different. 
At its right end the marble projected above and below so far as the mouldings 
are concerned, but these projecting mouldings are roughly cut off. The sur- 
face of the end between the projections is not perfectly flat, but follows a 
slight curve. It is evident then that this slab at its right end met neither of 
the Muse-slabs. Clearly the cornice and basis projected from the front of the 
basis to the side, and were roughly cut away when the slab was fitted into the 
pavement of the church. Looking next at the back of this slab, one sees that 
its whole surface is roughened, except by the top, and by the left end where 
the cornice protruded, where there is a smooth border of the breadth of 6 or 
7 centimétres, that is, of the measure of the thickness of a slab. The Muse 
slabs shew this smooth border only at the top.’ 

‘We are thus compelled to place the Marsyas slab on the front of the basis, 
at its right end; a horizontal slab bordered it at top (at the back), on the 
right a slab ran from it at right angles (for the side of the basis). For the 
determination of the position on the basis of the two Muse-slabs two further 
facts are of importance.’ | 

‘On careful examination of the moulded bases of the three slabs, we 
observe that that of the Marsyas slab differs somewhat from those of the 
others. In the former case the upper surface of the moulding projects 
further, and the channel beneath it is cut deeper, so that the shadow is 
stronger. So great is the difference that it seems impossible to place one of 
the Muse-slabs on the left of the Marsyas slab. The reason which suggests 
itself for the difference in the two profiles is tlat the Marsyas slab was meant 
for the front, the Muse slabs for the sides of the basis; in the latter situation 
refinement of the profile of the basis would scarcely be observable.’ 


THE MANTINEAN BASIS: A NOTE. 121 


‘The second fact confirms this view, and shows the exact position of each 
of the Muse slabs. Any close observer must be struck with the fact, that on 
one of these slabs the standing Muse on the left, on the other the seated Muse 
on the right, is further distant from the end, in fact further distant from it 
than the corresponding Muses with cithara and flutes by about the measure of 
the thickness of a slab. So we cannot doubt that we should place the slab 
with the seated Muse at right angles from the right of the Marsyas slab, and 
we must suppose that a slab has been lost which contained the three missing 
Muses and occupied the left half of the front of the basis ; while the slab with 
the three standing Muses ran back at right angles from this. 

‘Thus we reach a basis of 2°70 m. in width, of 143 m. in depth, and 
‘96 m. in height, quite sufficiently large to support a group of three life-sized 
figures.’ 

Dr. Amelung’s observations show how dangerous it is to discuss monu- 
ments on the evidence of casts and photographs, and without a leisurely study 
of the originals on all sides. I argued fairly on the facts before me, but was 
not acquainted with other facts of material importance. I am unable from 
the casts to control the exactness of his statements, but presuming, as we 
are no doubt entitled to do, that they are accurate, it is very difficult to resist 
his conclusions. His arrangement, therefore, seems entitled to supersede 
those of M. Fougeres, Dr. Waldstein, and others, including my own suggested 
arrangement. I am quite ready therefore to withdraw such part of my paper 
as is concerned with the position of the slabs on the basis, as well as my 
contention that there is no ground to assume a slab to have been lost. The 
part of my paper which discusses the restoration of the group which stood on 
the basis is not affected. 


Percy GARDNER. 


122 EXCAVATIONS OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT. MELOS. 


EXCAVATIONS OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT MELOS. 


THE SITE OF THE ‘ THREE CHURCHES.’ 
[PLATE V.] 


Tue field bearing the name of ᾿ς τὰς τρεῖς ἐκκλησίας is one of several 
small sites which Mr. R. C. Bosanquet and I examined in April 1890. It is 
marked E in the map, J.H.S. xvi. p. 348. We were afterwards joined 
by Mr. C. R. R. Clark, architect to the British School, to whose skill 
and diligence is due the plan which accompanics tlis paper. In 


describing the course of the excavation I have had the free use of Mr, 
Bosanquet’s day-book. The inscriptions from our site are Nos. 21, 39, 40, 41. 
of Mr. Cecil Smith’s ‘Inscriptions from Melos, published in the present 
number of this Journal. Our inscription 4 will appear in a second series. 
Some remarks on the early cruciform font which came to light here will 


| MELos. 
SITE OF THE THREE CHVRCHES. ee 
ΕΒ τα 


BAPTISTERY. 


39 
B 


GAZ Ze 


ih See 


Hi 


SPACE 
Pe i iar 
Bi ss AS aa ZZ 
γ δὲ 
7 Ν © 
i THRESHING \ PITHOS 
| 
\ FLOOR I 
\ | 
\ ἡ 
\ yi 
ὃν 7 
S 4 
A. 
SK ἘΞ a 
Ss. 
ξξέξξι "τὰ ςς ὁ —— =| METRES 
Tos Seb ene) Ιο Ι5 20 
[ 
ἘΕΕΕΕΕΕΕΕΡΕΞ--- - -͵π  -  -π' 'ὖὁὃΘ 90’. ἢ FEET 
lo Si ο Ιο 20 30 40 5c 


J. HOS. VOL. χνι". (1897) PL. Vv. 


GROVE 


EXCAVATIONS OF THE BRITISIT SCHOOL AT MELOS. 123 


be found in the British School Annual ii. p. 161, 168, in a paper on the 
Churches of Melos, by Messrs. H. M. Fletcher and Τὸ, 1). Kitson. The 
‘Three Churches’ field was carly included in our list of likely sites. Its 
prominent position, and ancient retaining walls, as well as the reports of 
frequent finds of ancient masonry and marble, all pomted to an important 
public place having existed on the site, which thus afforded exceptional 
inducements to excavation. Work began on the 10th and lasted till the 
30th April. Owing to the confined nature of the plot only 12 or 15 men 
were employed. 


The site in question occupies the south part of a kind of saddle 
lying between the cast and the west acropolcis of Mclos, and forming 
the highest point of the ancient city if we except the citadels. The 
narrow and stony road from Trypete passes westward through the ancient 
city wall near the east portal and just to left of its protecting bastion, skirts 
our ficld on the north, and then turns steeply southward in wide zig-zags 
past the theatre to Klima and the sea. Between our site and the road on 
the north is a little olive orchard. Immediately past it a road branches off 
northward from the main one along the east edge of the saddle and branchies 
again up to Plaka and Kastro and down to Tramythia. 

The field itself descends gradually to westward and more slightly to the 
south, where it projects upon the valley, abutting on an ancient terrace wall 
overlooking the theatre. Our site commands a complete view of Klima 
valley, the gulf, and the southern reaches of Melos with the peak of Prophet 
Elias prominent in front. The west acropolis hides the prospect westward, 
with Eremomelos, from view. To northward we have again a glimpse of 
sea between the west citadel and the still loftier Kastro, the expanse of 
blue being broken by the red cliffs of Phourkovouni. 

In the south-east corner of the field is the block of grey rock inscribed 
with a dedication to Zeus Kataibates (No. 21, p. 8 supra). The presence of 
this inscription led us to connect the tradition of three churches with the exist- 
ence of early temples on the site. On the other hand nothing was noticeable 
on the surface except a few fragments of marble pavement and of statue 
bases of late workmanship dug up and broken by the present proprictor 
while improving his field. The rock crops up here and there, and the 
barren patches in the growing corn which were visible in the spring time 
testify to scanty soil below. 

Our excavation was begun at the altar with the BATA inscription and 
almost simultaneously at three points along the north dyke of the field. 

While absolutely nothing of early date was found in the vicinity of the 
altar, and in other parts only poor Byzantine walls with foundations on virgin 
soil at not more than three or four feet down, the excavation in the north part 
of the field produced two bases with votive inscriptions. 

The first, Inscr. No. 39 (p. 17 supra), a square marble base, dedicates 
to the gods a statue of Agrippina, the wife of Germanicus, the numerous 
marks of fixing on the top suggesting that the statue was of bronze. The 


124 EXCAVATIONS OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT MELOS. 


block, set in very hard cement, lay three feet down on its left side, the 
cement covering the left hand letters. The inscription face was turned to the 
north, the top of the base with the marks of fixing to the east. 

Directly south from the position of the Agrippina base and immediately 
west from a long architrave block, A, we discovered at less than a foot from 
the surface a round pedestal, like the drum of a column, with the Kleonymes 
inscription (No. 40, p. 18). The base lay with its top to the north, the 
inscription being to the west. 

The discovery of these bases and the fact that in the adjoining oliveyard 
there still hes the base of a signed statue of Roma (Loewy, Jaschr. Gr. 
Bildhauer, No. 217) seemed to mark the site as that of a public place in 
antiquity, where such statues as those referred to might suitably have stood. 

Eastward from the Agrippina base and almost in a line with it excava- 
tion subsequently opened up a series of blocks forming part of a wall running 
east and west. West from it a number of marble slabs and one column, 
unfluted, lying in disorder, once formed part of the same wall, but were 
disturbed by a party of villagers who, setting to work in a manner natural to 
miners, made a tunnel from the neighbouring field under the road into ours, 
unearthing at the time the grey granite columns now built into the field- 
dyke further north. 

East and west from the inscribed column and in line with it a second line 
of wall was next opened up, the first noticeable feature being a marble block, 
C, like part of a stylobate resting on a step projecting to north of it. East- 
ward from it were uncovered two very large blocks, A and B, of purple grey 
limestone, apparently parts of a former architrave. This wall at the west end 
turns south and then east again. All these lines of wall are similarly com- 
posed of the materials of previous buildings, the bases themselves having 
been employed for the same purpose. 

The opening up of so many lines of wal] of miscellaneous materials was 
calculated to discourage, when all at once we came upon what proved to be 
the surprise of the excavation. Immediately to the west of the inscribed 
column and in a line with it and the architrave stones was uncovered a 
square marble block with cement on the east face of it. West of it were a 
small stone and a block of cement, and west of these two long slabs of shale 
lying side by side east and west. On raising these slabs we discovered below 
them a scrap of marble drapery and below this a long wedge-shaped frag- 
ment of drapery with deep cut folds. More marble having become visible 
projecting westward from under the square marble block, this block was 
raised and proved to be the upper part of a pedestal with mouldings. It 
was placed with the narrow part below. The upper surface is all grooved 
out hollow. The straight edges below the mouldings measure, front and 
back, ‘€3 m., the sides ‘58 m. The marble projecting westward from below it 


* It is possible that some of the marks of be costly, and a block might often be re-used. 
fixing are due to an earlier use of the same Cf. the Samokles inscription at Katergari, which 
block : marble being unknown in Melos would _ seems to be a palimpsest. 


EXCAVATIONS OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT MELOS., 125 


turned out to be a round pedestal cap with marks of fixing for the feet and having 
a diameter of ‘63 m. below which exactly corresponds with that of the inscribed 
column. It was removed, and on further clearing the drapery a much larger 
fragment lying more to the west came into view. The trench was then 
lengthened to the west and widened, upon which a wall of cement marking 
the south side of a porous sarcophagus was disclosed. 

The marble on further clearing proved to be (1.) a colossal torso (Fig. 2) 
in the type of Apollo leaning on a column. The head is broken off at 


Fig. 2. 


the neck, the break looking quite fresh as if the mutilation had just been 
perpetrated before depositing the marble where found. The arms and legs 
are also missing. 

After the statue had been raised the sarcophagus, which was closed 
with slabs of slate, was opened. It had never previously been disturbed, 
but contained only a layer of fine dust half an inch deep all over the 
floor, which was pierced in three groups of holes for the escape of moisture. 
At the west end of the sarcophagus lay a curiously cut stone, evidently 


126 EXCAVATIONS OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT MELOS. 


placed in the tomb as a support for the head but certainly originally 
designed for another purpose. The stone is ‘47 m. long by “35 τη. broad. Its 
upper surface is fluted, and has a long slit in the middle, which widens 
below, communicating at each end with a low square opening grooved out of 
the lower edge of the stone. At each end is a dowel-like hole above the 
openings. 

These articles are common in Melos, We found one very similar at the 
top of the descent to Tramythia while excavating a field belonging to M. 
Giclerakis, British consular agent at Melos. The two stones appear in 
Fig. 1, our example having the lower side up. The fragment of a sinular 
stone with the fluted upper surface was found in the site (D) excavated 


Fic; 9. 


below the theatre. A further fragment with the flutings but oval in shape 
and with the dowel-holes going up from below at each end I noticed on the 
road dyke just above Kepos, at the south-east end of the island, at a farm- 
house which has numerous stones from some Roman building. I have picked 
up two examples on the road to Klima of wedge shape without the flutings, 
without the slit in the middle, but with the dowel-holes at eaeh end, the 
stump of the iron cramp still adhering in one case. 

Marble having become visible at the head of the tomb this part was 
cleared and gradually several fragments came into view. 

(II.) Lying on its back the torso of a man, draped, from just below 
ἣν paneer to below the hips, the left hand holding the folds of a mantle 

ig. 3). 
(IIT.) Beside (11.) west of the north-west angle of the sarcophagus, the 


EXCAVATIONS OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT MELOS. 127 


colossal right leg of a statue, draped, from above the knee to the ankle 
(Fig. 4). 

The colossal right foot of a statue, sandalled, broken off at the ankle, 
found wedged in between (II.) and (III.) and the head of the tomb. 

Below these, virgin soil was reached without anything further having 
been found. 

On further digging through a few inches of soil below the spot where 
torso (I.) was discovered, marble again became visible. 

- (IV.) The lower part of the torso of a woman, fully draped, from below 

the waist to near the ankles (Fig. 5). 

(V.) Lying beside (IV.) the torso of a man from the neck to the hips, 
the upper part undraped, the left hand holding the folds of a mantle (Fig. 6). 


The manner in which all these mutilated statues were packed round 
what is evidently a Christian tomb and below the foundation walls next it, 
clearly reveals the intention to bury them out of sight, and suggests at once 
that we have here the remains of a very early Christian Church dating back 
to an age when those statues were still held in honour by part of the 
community. 

The quest was now pursued further west between the stylobate block 
and the corner stone marking the turn south of the wall. Just west of the 
stylobate stone against the south-west angle of it and four feet down was 
found 

(VI.) The lower half of a female statue (Fig. 7), over life size, and fully 
draped, with a fringed mantle, apparently knotted above the waist. This 


128 tXCAVATIONS OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT MELOS 


dress would seem to identify the figure as Isis, or more probably as a portrait 
of a priestess of Isis. On its back was cut a cross which, on the statue 
having been raised, appeared inverted. East of the stylobate stone was found 
fairly in the line of the wall a square marble block with a votive inscription, 
No. 41, which on being removed showed a similar cross below. These crosses 
point to a ceremony of consecration of the ‘idols’ before using them in 
a sacred building, one statue and one inscription being so marked as represen- 
tative of all. As both the statue and the inscription form an integral part 


ἩΤΟ ἡ. 


of the walls we have here additional evidence pointing to these having been 
part of a Christian building} 

Immediately west of the corner-stone, D, and also at a depth of about 
four feet, after a fragment of drapery from the waist of a statue had been 
removed, appeared 


Mr. Bosanquet points out to me that Pro- baptistery and saw a small Christian church 
kesch, Denkwiirdigkeiten, i. 537, describes the here as late as 1825. 


EXCAVATIONS OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT MELOS. 129 


(VII.) A large marble fragment, the torso of a female statue, draped, from 
below the waist to below the knee (Fig. 8). 

Nothing further in the way of sculpture was found along this line of wall 
and the search was pursued east-ward from the sarcophagus. 

After the whole system of walls had been planned the architrave 
block, A, was removed. The huge block so evidently formed part of the 
foundations that one could not have expected anything below it belonging to 
the same line of wall. Yet here was another surprise. At one foot down 
we first came upon the upper member of a square statue-base of marble, 
with mouldings, turned up side down, one side broken off. The straight 
edges below the mouldings measure, front and back “70 m., the sides ‘56 m 


Fie. 8. Fic. 9. 


It is very similar to the one previously found above the colossal statue, only it 
shows the hollows for fixing the feet on the top. On this having been 
removed there next came into sight almost directly below it, 

(VIIL.) Part of the right leg of an over life size statue, draped, from the 
middle of the thigh to the ankle, there being also part of the left leg from 
above to below the knee (Fig. 9). The fragment had evidently been buried 
out of sight below these foundations at the time they were laid but, as the 
soft intervening earth shows, formed no constructive part of the wall itself. 

The line of wall north of this was then examined and the square marble 
block, 4, to the east of the Agrippina base was found on having been 
raised to have on its lower face a dedication inscription— ... cov ᾿Αριστέα--- 

H.S.—VOL. XVII. K 


130 EXCAVATIONS OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT MELOS. 


4 (2) lines. The top of the inscription was to the east. The stone stands 
‘72 m. high, measures front and back face ‘63 m., the sides “52 m. 

Following and deepening the north and south trench in a line 
with the wall running south from the corner-stone, D, we encountered 
tough clay just west of the line of wall. Low down in this was a 
curious round drum, like the fragment of a coarse column, set in clay and 
stones, which gave it the look of standing on a stylobate. It was about four 
feet below the level of the adjacent blocks. Close by in the same trench was 
a Byzantine pilaster, upright. The clay looked natural, but the trench had 
been daubed on the sides and floor with it. Similar gullies were opened up 
further east. All these rifts seem to be nothing more than natural chasms in 
the hill-top. 

To the south of the main building an early baptistery made its appear- 
ance a few inches under the soil. It is in shape like that discovered by us 
at Kepos,' only it has a rounded parapet at the top of each pair of steps. 
The outside is faced with narrow slips of marble arranged like wooden 
planks, following the curved wall in a polygonal line. The west lower step 
has a round opening below, which communicates with a tile-lined drain 
leading from the baptistery to the clay-lined gully mentioned above and 
explaining the same. 

The proprietor remembers breaking up four large blocks of grey stone 
which steod one at each corner of the baptistery. They may have supported 
four columns carrying a baldachino. 

Just at the close of the excavation season we cleared a line of wall 
running from the threshing floor, shown on the plan, northwards to the road- 
dyke. On the road side of the dyke a squared stone is visible in position 
exactly in line with this line of wall, and projecting in the same way from 
below the north dyke of the road are two similar squared stones, the one 
resting on the other. 


GENERAL CONCLUSIONS. 


To sum up, the results of our excavation were broadly what might have 
been expected from the indications previously existing on the surface of the 
soil. Very few traces came to light of early pottery, one fragment of 
Geometric style and one of Corinthian only being found: in fact nothing 
which can have belonged to a period antecedent to Roman Imperial times. 
The question now remains, what did the site at that period represent? As I 
have already remarked, the discovery of so many statues and bases would seem 
to indicate some important public place, if we may assume that these stood 
originally near the spot on which we found them? The size of the statues 


* See Messrs. Fletcher and Kitson’s paper rocky virgin soil, filled with soft earth, and 
already referred to. much smaller than the block over it. 
? Under block E was a square sinking in the 


EXCAVATIONS OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT MELOS. 131 


and the good preservation of their surfaces suggests that they were not 
brought far, and they could not have been conveyed any distance without 
having to be brought up hill. The loss of heads, arms, and legs is probably 
due to wanton mutilation prompted by religious fanaticism. Such portions of 
a statue were frequently carved in separate pieces of marble, especially in Melos 
after the second century B.c., and may very well have been built into the 
upper courses of the Church, to disappear when the walls were pulled down. 
It is quite possible that the walls were largely built of marble fragments, and 
that it was in order to burn these fragments into lime that the 
walls were demolished, the heavy foundations only being left in the ground. 
The proprietor has often pulled out and broken up large blocks, marble 
and other, which he has encountered while improving or cultivating his 
field. In this way whole lines of walls may have been obliterated. In 
particular, he took up the pavement of what he calls an entire Roman house 
in the north-west corner of the part which we dug, and this may quite well 
have been a porch or other public building facing the road which led from 
the east town-gate discovered by us. 

Dedicatory inscriptions, portrait statues, traces of public buildings 
here and in adjoining fields, all point to the site as that of the ancient 
Agora; this opinion has already been expressed by Weil who in Athen. 
Mittheilungen, Vol. I., p. 247, publishes two more inscriptions recording the 
dedication of statues from the same site. 

Its natural position favours the view. Firstly, it is a fairly large 
level space at the highest point of the ancient city which stretched down 
steeply on either side to south and north towards Klima and Tramythia. 
Secondly, it is next the east gate and the interior of the island whence 
came all the land produce which could be disposed of here without any 
further steep ascent or descent. There is every reason for believing that 
the prosperity of the Melians depended largely on the rich internal resources 
of the island, and if so we cannot conceive their Agora either at Klima 
or Tramythia, involving, as such a position would do, much steep descent 
and ascent. In the late Roman times when the varied natural resources of 
Melos were probably more exported, and when the harbour works were 
erected of which the remains still stand in the sea, there may have been, as 
the remains of a late Stoa there suggest, a second emporium at Klima, But 
this mart could not have entirely supplanted the Agora above, for all its most 
characteristic features are distinctly Roman. 

There is further the evidence afforded by converging roads. Firstly, 
there is the great road from the east traceable for a long way outside the 
bounds of the ancient city, and passing through the town-gate excavated by 
us. Secondly, we have a cross road into the field of Antonios Anthroulakis 
skirting the so-called west or little acropolis on its east slope and going north- 
ward between the little acropolis and the square ‘ temple’ structure in Kallitza 
Komi’s field in the direction of. the descent to Tramythia. Traces of it are 
visible in the form of a reddish pavement on passing our site just’ as we begin 
to make the descent to Klima, projecting from under the dyke on the right 

K 2 


132 EXCAVATIONS OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT MELOS. 


hand side. Traces of a precisely similar pavement in a line with it due 
north, project from below the south dyke of the first field on the Tramythia 
slope. It points upward and northward towards Komi’s ‘field in a direc- 
tion between the ‘temple’ structure and the little acropolis, and it 
points downwards towards Tramythia. Thirdly, there is the roadway, further 
east, laid bare for some yards in a field lower down towards Tramythia 
belonging to M. Gielerakis, built of smaller stones than the preceding.! 

Marbles were found in the olive-yard north of the Three Churches of a 
character and era tending to show that they belonged to the same complex 
of buildings. It is further reported that a column with γρώμματα was 
found at the same time and sold. Near the same spot was found and 
now stands inverted against the road dyke on the field side a fine marble’ 
drum, unfluted in its main body but having a ring of fluting at its 
narrow end to which an upper fluted drum must have fitted. Such 
columns unfluted below were the fashion for stoas and other public 
buildings from Hellenistic times onwards. The unfluted part was carried 
to a height which placed the delicate fluting beyond the reach of ordinary 
contact, and our drum, 1:27 m. in length, accordingly requires another unfluted 
drum below it, for which it shows a large square dowel-hole. It thus 
immediately suggests a column from the colonnade of some stoa in connexion 
with a market-place. Thus the Agora must have extended northwards 
considerably beyond the range of our excavations, but its central part probably 
lay on both sides of the ancient road which led from the interior through the 
east gate. 

With the lack of a Pausanias for the islands, we have particularly 
to regret that excavation has yielded no monumental evidence as to 
the nature of the site in Greek as distinguished from Roman times. 
We have to fall back on the following considerations. 1. The argument 
from the natural position of the site as occupying part of a large ievel space 
at the highest point of the ancient city next the east gate and the interior of 
the island has double force for those eras, preceding external invasion, when 
public prosperity in an island, historically known as emphatically self- 
sustained and independent, must have largely depended on the development 
of its internal resources. 

2. There is, further, the probability of historic continuity in the site of the 
Agora, If all the monuments point to the site as the Agora in Roman times, 
we have no reason, without evidence, to assume the possibility of the Agora 
having been elsewhere in Greek times, since even without the evidence of 
monuments we have the probability that the Romans used an agora they 
found before them. 

3. The position of our site entirely agrees with the one classical reference 
to the Melian agora—Thue. v. 115, 11—15. εἷλον δὲ καὶ of Μήλιοι τῶν ’AOn- 
ναίων τοῦ περιτειχίσματος TO κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν προσβαλόντες νυκτός, Kal 
ἄνδρας τε ἀπέκτειναν καὶ ἐσενεγκάμενοι σῖτόν τε καὶ ὅσα πλεῖστα ἐδύναντο 


* This evidence from converging roads was collected by Mr. Bosanquet. 


EXCAVATIONS OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT MELOS. 133 


χρήσιμα ἀναχωρήσαντες ἡσύχαξον. Duker, Arnold, Krueger, and Classen, 
comparing i. 62, 1 and iii. 6, 2, all agree in interpreting the agora here men- 
tioned as a kind of military agora belonging to the camp of the Athenians. 
The following considerations make this interpretation doubtful. Firstly, the 
passages compared do not afford any real ground for assuming the existence 
of any such thing in the Greek army of the fifth century as a military agora, 
and this is in agreement with the silence of Xenophon and other historians. 
Secondly, in the passages cited an agora is established only where the army 
is on such terms with the inhabitants of a district or town that they can buy 
of them, as was the case with the Peloponnesians at Potidaea (Thue. i. 62, 1), 
and the motive for holding an agora outside the walls there was, as Arnold 
himself points out, to deprive the men of all excuse for neglecting their posts 
by straggling into the friendly town. In the case of the Athenians before 
the walls of Melos all motive for even this kind of agora is taken away, for 
not only have they no intercourse with the citizens, but they have the whole 
country in their own hands. Thirdly, though the expression ἐσενεγκάμενοι 
does not necessarily coincide with the ‘frumento et aliis rebus a Meliis 
raptis ’ by which Duker interprets it, the possibility is not excluded that part 
or whole of the corn and other provisions conveyed into the city by the 
Melians may have been plundered from the Athenian camp without involving 
the presupposition that the words of Thucydides refer to a military agora 
there. Fourthly, topographical considerations are all in harmony with the 
interpretation of the passage as referring to the agora of the Melians.! 
Between the east citadel and the declivities and cliffs that descend to 
the gorge below is the only fairly level and easily accessible space over which 
a road from the interior could be made into the city. The road and the gate 
we have. The Athenian watch must have been strongest just at that point 
where they thought it most probable the Melians would attempt a sally, 
namely, at the east gate. If it had been only a matter of getting out any 
way the Melians could possibly have managed an exit at the precipitous 
parts above or below, where the watch of the Athenians from the nature of 
the ground would have been less vigilant. But since it was a case of se- 
curing provisions for the famishing citizens they must make their desperate 
venture in the direction in which it was not only most possible to secure 
these but to convey them into the city. This was at the east gate, where 
the ground is level and in direct connection through the high road with the 
interior, where alone for Melians and Athenians alike provisions were to 
be had. 
Our Agora is next the gate, and τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων τοῦ περιτειχίσματος TO 
κατὰ τὴν ἀγοράν is just where the narrative of Thucydides requires it to be. 


DuNCAN MACKENZIE. 


i ὉὉΠθΘΦΦθθόόὁόθὖθῤ΄͵͵ Ξ aioe —— .--..-..-.--... ---- —_—— ocedl —_. i= 


1 The view propounded is the same as that his discussion of the Melian fortifications in 
independently arrived at by Mr. Bosanyuet in the Brilésh School Annual, ii. p. 81. 


134 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


EARLY in 1894 the Committee of the Cyprus Exploration Fund offered 
the small balance which remained from the excavations of 1891, to the 
British School of Archaeology in Athens, for use in Cyprus if possible. Asa 
student of the School was then watching the excavations which were being 
carried on at Amathus on behalf of the British Museum, this sum was applied 
to defray part of the cost of several small excavations, the principal object of 
which was to test certain theories current in Cypriote archacology; though 
some new ground was broken incidentally. 

Five sites were examined in all; none of them exhaustively, but all with 
distinct and definite result. 


I—AGIA PARASKEVI (Wicosta District): ΒΒΟΝΖΕ AGE NECROPOLIs. 


The celebrated Bronze Age Necropolis which occupies the edge of the 
plateau §.W. of Nicosia seemed the most suitable site for making practical 
acquaintance with the Bronze Age of Cyprus, and for verifying previous 
observations, with a view to the re-organisation of the Cyprus Museum which 
took place in the course of the summer. 

Fourteen tombs were opened along the northern edge of the plateau, half 
a mile north of the Church of Agia Paraskevi, to the west of the Larnaka 
road, and between it and the stone quarries in the direction of the village of 
Agii Omologitades. The tombs in the surface of this part of the plateau were 
found nearly exhausted by Dr. Ohnefalsch-Richter’s excavations in 1883-4: 
but enough evidence was collected to illustrate the general character of the 
site. Tomb 12, as explained below, was an intruder of Hellenistic or Graeco- 
Roman date. Similar tombs have been opencd on the low hills west of the 
road to Strobilo village. 


The statistics of the finds may be expressed diagrammatically as 
follows :— 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 135 


Gold, stone bead, figurine, &c....... 


x 


Register No. of ‘Tomb, δι, λιν θ vibe ld Dl Souk tele 18] 

| 

Red Ware plain ..... Ba ES a Pet A ee LP re eg ete . x | 
molio formants ὁ νον νἀ κα bX BC dak a ESE. δὲ 

incised ornament, ............... See a x ¥ 
| Painted White Wave ...... Pate atte Sinn 56 TSC eee 
Bagorvings Wares ss fesices.. /seseapoeees| sueu% x 
ee Sp)  ΉΥ | i: 
Painted White Slip Ware ............ 1 Χ 
ον aah OS beste Sy ct. xi concn] Me Ἃ 
RRO ZOM crete de oe Bi wich eins, eco ance ars cal x 
DT COLO WE ΡΥ" ΠΝ tt x x 
| 


14 contained horse-teeth. 8 1 imitation. 


As the table shows, the tombs fall into two classes: those in which only 
the red polished ware) is found, and those which contain, in addition, black 
slip ware, painted wares, and the numerous more or less fancy fabrics which 
accompany the latter. In these tombs the red ware is almost always of 
inferior style and fabric. It is also only in the second class that bronze—or 
rather copper—implements become at all frequent. The following tombs 
deserve more detailed description. 

Tomb 1 was a small cave about 3 ft. square on the east slope of the 
plateau overlooking the new olive plantation towards the highroad to 
Larnaka. It was found collapsed through the weakening of the roof by 
surface-weathering. The pottery was all found, much broken, at a depth 
of about 8 ft. from the present surface: it comprised red ware of a coarse and 
degenerate kind, of inferior clay, ill-modelled, covered with a muddy dark red 
slip, and often almost unpolished: one fragmentary bottle of better fabric had 
incised ornamentation of concentric semi-circles applied to both sides of a 
zone of parallel lines: also one specimen of black slip ware; and a number of 
bowls, flasks and tubular-spouted bottles of painted white ware: two of these 
were fantastically formed in the shape of horned animals. There were no 
traces of bronze weapons, but a number of scraps of spiral rings of silver-lead 
were found, much corroded, and about the size of a finger ring. Ashmolean 
Museum. 

Tombs 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, contained only red ware; with the exception of 
one fragment of basc-ring ware extracted from the layer of crushed pottery in 
Tomb 4. Tombs 9 and 13 had been already rifled. 

Tomb 5 was a natural cave on the plateau, of which a large part of the 


1 he classification of the native pottery and in the Cypriote collections of the Ashmolean 
throughout this paper is that adopted in the Museum, The publication of this Catalogue 
Cyprus Muscwmn Catalogue (Myres and Ohne- has been unexpectedly delayed ; but the refer- 
falsch-Richter, Oxford, 1897), where the fabrics ences to the figures in the text will identify the 
in question are described and discussed in detail; various fabries sufficiently well. 


136 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


roof (12 ft. x 8 ft.) had fallen in irregularly, and lay in large blocks embedded 
in the débris. The tomb however was already partly full of earth when the 
collapse occurred, and some of the smaller vessels were unbroken. It contained 
many broken vessels of fine ved ware, with ornament incised and in relief, and 
much painted ware; a black clay spindlewhorl, two bronze pins of type a," 
and nine porcelain beads, all spherical except one which was narrow and 
spindle-shaped, 

Tomb 10 was under the very edge of the plateau some distance further 
west again: it must have been a natural cave like 7ombs 5 and 14. The roof 
had collapsed, but the same layer of crushed pottery was struck at about 
10 ft. from the original surface by two independent shafts. It contained all 
varieties of ved ware (Fabr. I. 1); several of the black slip ware (Fabr. I. 2) ; 
a number of small specimens of the base-ring ware (Fabr. I. 3), including one’ 
with punctured zig-zags, which perhaps shew the influence of the black punctured 
ware (Fabr. I. 5: οἵ, Kalopsida Fig. 4. 7. below) a small plate of a white basc- 
ring ware (Fabr. I. 4); and much painted white ware (Fabr. IL. 1), with frag- 
ments of the glossy variety (Fabr. IT. 2); and of the hemispherica) bowls with 
white slip (Fabr. 11. 3). No Mykenaean vases were found, though fragments 
of many are strewn all over the surface of this part of the plateau ; but the 
late date of the tomb 15 attested by the presence of one of the double-cone- 
shaped beads of soft stone? which are characteristic of the Mykenaean Age 
in Cyprus, and continue into the earlier Graeco-Phoenician Age. 

The occurrence, on the other hand, of two porcelain beads of the usual 
spherical form shows the persistence in Cyprus of this class of imitations of 
the XII. Dynasty types. 

Bronze was represented by the common dagger blades of type y (C.M.C., 
p. 53), with the midrib produced into a hooked tang; by a number of plain 
pins of type a@ (id.); an awl (C.M. 571); three ‘spiral earrings’ (C.M. 623 
a.b.c.); and a number of the common spiral coils of thin bronze ribbon (C.M. 
625). <A fragmentary object looked at first sight like part of a bow-fibula, 
but was more probably a pin with coiled eyelet head, (Type ὃ C.M.C. 598 
p. 54). Of silver were a pin like those of bronze ; a ring of the usual unrefined 
silver-lead, cf. C.M. 611-614 and Lakshd tu Rit 1 and 2, below, and spiral- 
earrings of two close turns, exactly like those of the Graeco- Phoenician Age 
(C.M. 617, cf. 4119 ff). .The latter is noteworthy, and so far as I know unique 
from a tomb of the Bronze Age. 

Of Gold there were a pair of funnel-shaped objects (C.M. 4502) with 
recurved lip at the wider end, which in spite of their unusual size, are almost 
certainly the setting of a cylindrical seal, like those of the Babylonian cylinder 
from Dr. Ohnefalsch-Richter’s excavations at Agia Paraskevi (1885, 1), which 
are also in the Cyprus Museum? A _ still more similar mounting 18 


' Cyprus Musewm Catalogue, p. 53. Homer, Pl. clxxi. 14; cf. C.M.C. pp. 57, 134. 
* Apparently coarse steatite: v. below, Lak- For the cylinder itself νυ. K.B.H. Pl. xx. 4; 
sha-ltu-Rid 4 and Larnaka Twrabi 55. Bezold, Zeitschr. f. Keilinschr. 11, (1885) 191- 


3. ©,.M. 4501. This tomb-group is published 193, 
in Ohnefalsch-Richter, Kypros, the Bible, and 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 137 


published in Dr. Ohnefalsch-Richter’s Kypros, the Bible, and Homer ῬῚ. exlvi. 
5. B; but in this latter case, as in the present instance, the cylinder itself was 
not found, 

A Figurine of fairly fine clay, but of the rudest known Cypriote fabric! 
was found not far from the gold objects. It consists of a flat rectangular 
pellet of the shape and size of a ‘sponge-rusk’ biscuit, with the nose and ears 
indicated by slight projections; the hair by a row of small curls on the upper 
edge, the eyes and nostrils by punctured dots, and the arms by short projec- 
tions from the longer edges, folded forward on to the breast. Fig. 1. 


Fic. 1.—PRIMITIVE FIGURINE Fic. 2,—REDWARE VASE FROM Ay. 
FROM Ag. Paraskevi, 1894. 10. Paraskevi, 1894. 11. 


No recognisable human bones were found, except four well preserved 
molar teeth. This tomb fell to the share of the Cyprus Museum. 

Tomb 11, a small square cave, about 5 ft. in diameter, on the slope of the 
N.E. spur of the site, contained only red ware of good quality, namely two 
large one-handled bottles, one with the serpent-ornament in relief on the 
neck; two large milk bowls, one with a tubular spout near the bottom, to 
drain off the skim-milk from under the cream; a smaller bowl, funnel-like, 
but with unperforated stem, and with projections on the rim; a pear-shaped 
jug pointed below, with two miniature jugs and a bowl set round the neck on 
the shoulder (Fig. 2); a two-handled vessel; three plain bowls; and an 
incised bottle of the black deoxidised variety of the red ware. Ashmolean 
Museum, 

Tomb 12, the Graeco-Roman tomb above mentioned, was a surface grave, 
and contained three unpainted vessels of Hellenistic fabric and common forms. 
(C.M. 2159-61.) Cyprus Museum. 


1 ΟΜ. 462 (Type I. C.M.C. pp. 27, 51). Cf. K.B.H. Ἰχχχνὶ, cxlvi. 3 B, clxxiii. 20 f. 


᾿ 


138 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


Tomb 14 was a natural cave, some yards from the edge of the plateau, 
and south-west of Zomb 10: the entrance had been artificially enlarged, and 
the dromos was bath-shaped. About 5 ft. from the surface and 2 ft. from the 
roof of the cave was a layer of bone earth about a foot thick, with 1} ft. of 
clean earth between it and the rock floor. The bone earth yielded several 
pieces of red ware and painted ware ; and several horse teeth which had been 
used as burnishers, probably in the manufacture of the fine red ware. 


II—KALOPSIDA (Famagusta District}: BRONZE AGE SITE AND 
NECROPOLIS. 


While the excavations were still going on at Ag. Paraskevi, a report 
came of a new Bronze Age site between the villages of Kalopsida and Kuklia 
on the high road between Nicosia and Famagusta, about 14 miles from the 
latter. As this in any case lay far east of any Bronze Age site then known 
in Cyprus, leave was obtained at once to make trial excavations. The general 
results of a week’s work (April 17-23) were as follows. The site of a Bronze 
Age settlement was discovered, with indications of a pot factory; and the 
extensive necropolis was shown to represent at least two distinct periods of 
the Bronze Age; (A) the earlier, in which only the red polished ware was in 
use, when the polished surface was of fine texture and bright colour, and 
when bronze implements were, if not entirely absent, at all events so rare as 
not to come to light at all during the excavation: (B) the later, in which 
the red ware was very degenerate, either smeared with a loose dark red 
pigment, and unpolished, or, when polished, left of the natural brown colour 
of the clay; while painted pottery and bronze implements and ornaments 
were comparatively common; and foreign importations, and native imitations 
of Egyptian ornaments, supply a date mark, which is not demonstrably 
earlier than the XII. Dynasty, but on the other hand is certainly not later 
than the XVIII. Dynasty. (C) Finally, on the denuded surface of the 
necropolis, though not in any undisturbed tombs, were found one or two 
fragments of characteristic Mykenaean pottery. 

The Bronze Age Scttlement.—The high road after leaving Kuklia village, 
runs nearly eastwards to Kalopsida, skirting the limestone plateau, which is 
here invaded by a southward bay of the marshes of the Pidias river. About 
a mile from Kuklia it passes a deserted farm (Daud Chiflik) on a low ridge 
between two small streams. The necropolis begins on the moor west of the 
first of these streams. The next ridge east of the chiflik is considerably 
higher, and is cut through by the road to a depth of 10-12 ft. In this 
cuttmg masses of broken pottery had been exposed; all hand-made, of a red 
or brown colour, like that from the tombs, and for the most part very rude. 
This pottery did not seem to come from tombs; but lay in a compact mass 
among loose earth and stones, some of which seem to retain a wall-like 
arrangement. What made it clear that a settlement was in question, was a 
well-defined layer of cockle shells, often broken, about 18 inches from the 
surface, and two or three inches thick: this layer could be traced for some 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 139 


yards, and on both sides of the cutting. A little trenching on the north of 
the road, and close to the west brow of the ridge, revealed a fragment of wall 
built of unwrought stones of the size of a man’s head and under, bound 
together by a mud cement which was clearly recognisable, and itself full of 
scraps of pottery. Close to the wall were found (1) the upper stone of a 
‘saddle quern, such as were commonly found all over this part of a site; two 
loomweights of baked clay, one (2) roughly conical, transversely perforated at 
the apex, and weighing 4 or 5 0z., (Fig. 4. 5.); the other (3) discoidal, with a 
small hole near the edge like one from Z'omb 32; (4) a small hand-made jug 
with pinched lip (Fig. 4. 9) 0:035 m. high, of light-coloured clay, but unpainted, 
(5) arude clay ladle like those found in the tombs (e.g. C.M. 26). (6-7) Two 


uu nly 


“any D\ was 


---- 


VWKUKLIA 


> 


= 
| 
» 


DAUD 


se 
\ 


HANNA % 


an WOM My, reg tll 
Oe, ty 


παν τὖοι Ba Rakes, Cea ce πὸ Jon τος, cy | Seale ἢ: 400000(68 mitew ὁ inch) 
! English Miles 


: [9] 
Fic. 3.—THe NEIGHBOURHOOD oF KALoPsIDA: Based upon the trigonometrical Survey of Cyprus, 
and drawn by B. V. Darbishire. 


massive but well-worked saucers of a hard crystalline rock (Fig. 4. 79); one 
(7) broken, and both still stained with a red pigment, exactly like that on the 
red pottery from the tombs: (8) a very rude saucer or crucible of coarse clay, 
(Fig. 4. 20) warped by excessive firing, with its rim pinched into two lips like 
those of the Graeco-Phoenician lamps, but wider, and at opposite sides of the 
bowl, (9) Fragments of furnace-slags. 

Hitherto no lamp of the Graeco-Phoenician type has been found in any 
Bronze Age tomb or deposit in Cyprus, and though there is a temptation to 
regard this object (8) as a Bronze Age lamp, the opposite position of the lips, 
the absence of any smoke stain on them, the overfired look of the clay, and 


140 KXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


its association with furnace-slags combine to suggest that it is more probably 
a crucible ; though whether for metallurgy or for porcelain-glazing cannot at 
present be determined. But the only Mykenaean lamp (if it be one) hitherto 
published? has the lips opposed in a somewhat similar fashion. 

The red-stained saucers (6=Fig. 4. 19) and (7) meanwhile, and the 
unpainted jug (4) of a type which is with this exception, invariably painted, 
make it clear that we have to do with a local factory, probably both of 
the polished red ware, and of the painted white ware found in the tombs. 

The Necropolis.— Tombs had been already opened in some numbers, and 
recently (though I could not discover by whom), on the ridge west of the 


Fic, 4.—KALorsipA. VARIOUS OBJECTS FROM THE BRONZE AGE SETTLEMENT AND NECROPOLIS. 
Ashmolean Musewm. 


chiflik, and on both sides of the high road: they exist also on the ridge where 
the chiflik stands, and are very frequent round the site of the Bronze Age 
settlement, East of the settlement the ground lies very low, and the 
limestone cap has been denuded away, leaving a great basin of the soft sandy 
underlying beds exposed. South of this depression the two table-topped 
hills between which the road goes appear to have been quite unoccupied at 
any time; but on the mainland of the plateau to the S.W. there are 
numerous well-preserved tombs, and these are the earliest part of the 
necropolis; which, as frequently happens, becomes later in character as it 
approaches the actual settlement.” 


_——— - --. -- 


' Tsountas and Manatt. The Mykenacan 3 Cf. the necropolis of Idalion (K.B.H. Plate 
Age. 1897. Fig. 29, 30. ii.) and of Tamassos. 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 141 


In this case, however, it is not quite clear that there was not an early 
shelter or building of some kind on the plateau itself to the S.W. of the 
furthest tombs noted in this direction: for close to the highest point of a 
well-worn short-cut from Kalopsida towards Vatili, and only a few yards 
south of site A, lie several large unhewn blocks of the cap-limestone, nearly 
in a straight line, running at a considerable angle with the nearest edge of 
the plateau-cap, and in positions into which they could hardly have fallen by 
merely breaking loose from the escarpment. The general impression was that 
of a very rude temenos, but though the site was nearly bare of soil, no pottery 
or other signs of occupation were visible within or without the enclosure. 


Fic, 5,--KALorsipA. PART OF THE ConTENTS OF ΤῸΜΒ 11. Cyprus Musewm. 


Site A. (Tombs 1-5.) The limestone cap, though not so thick as on 
the actual plateau eastwards, is firm and in good condition: the tombs are of 
the usual shaft-and-chamber type, fairly regular in form, and at a depth of 
6-8 ft. froin floor to surface. They contained nothing but polished red ware, 
usually plain; some of the bowls from Tomb 3 had notched projections 
on the rim; some of the bottles and two-handled vessels had relief 
ornaments of snakes, crescents, etc.; and a few small bottles from 2. 3. 5. had 
incised ornaments. The clay was unusually soft and soapy, and the forms 
consequently rude and heavy: the polished surface also was of poorer quality 
and colour than at Ag. Paraskevi, and the incised ornament less sharply cut ; 
the white filling however was clearly traceable. A peculiar feature of the 


142 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


ved ware, both here and on the later sites, was that the globular vessels 
almost all ended below in a blunt spike, as if to make them stand upright like 
wine amphorae in a bed of mud or sand. A similar nipple occurs very rarely 
elsewhere: e.g. Cypr. Mus. 59: Berl. Mus. (Tamassos (Lamberti) 1895. xxx ix. 
741): Ashm. Mus. (Cypr. 79): the last-named specimen will be quoted again 
below (p. 145) for its peculiar punctured ornamentation. Compare also the 
vase from Tell-el-Hesy: Bliss, Mownd of Many Cities, Pl. 3, No. 83. 

Tomb 5 produced two objects which deserve special mention. One was 
a small krater-like vessel which had formed part of a ring-vase like Cypr. 
Mus. 225-271: such ring-vases are not common, but seem to be confined, in 
the Bronze Age, to the earliest tombs: and consequently their correspondence 
with similar forms among the Libyan red-ware from Ballas and Naqada® is 
the more noteworthy, as it is not improbable that the very similar fabrics of 
Libya and Cyprus are closely related.* 

The other object is a slab of polished red ware, of about the thickness of 
a Roman brick, bent at a right angle, so as to form a base and upright back: 
the latter is imperfect above, but appears to have been divided into four 
shallow panels. Whether this was a primitive shrine, or a copy of some 
piece of furniture, is not clear. 

Site B (Tombs 6-19) lay about 50 yards north of A, in the direction of 
the road, and on the verge of the eroded hollow already mentioned. From the 
extreme east of this site (Tomb 11) westward and northward as far as the 
settlement in Site C the cornland area has been much denuded by the action 
of the weather and almost all the limestone cap has been removed; the surface 
was strewn with fragments of various kinds of Bronze Age pottery, spindle- 
whorls, and broken saddle-querns; all the tombs had collapsed, often shatter- 
ing the pottery, and many of them were found close to the surface of the 
eroded slope. , 

Site C (Tombs 20-28: 32) included the whole east and north brow of the 
ridge on which the settlement site was exposed. In the neighbourhood of the 
road the east face was much washed away by the rains, and the muddy slope 
was strewn with fragments of red ware and painted white ware: one small 
tomb (32), containing only ed ware and a discoidal loomweight (like No. 3 
from the settlement but larger), was found close below the turf at the north 
end of this area. The tombs, as on Site B were all filled with earth, and had 
apparently collapsed, as most of the pottery was found broken and mixed with 
fragments of crushed limestone. 

Site D was on the ridge west of the chiflik on the borders of a deserted 
vineyard: the tombs had mostly been rifled, and only one fresh one (29) was 
opened. It was about 7 ft. down, untouched, with the door in place. The 
lintel of the doorway was as usual level with the roof and the floor sunken 
some feet below the sill. The tomb was about half full of earth, but yielded 


1 Cf. early Graeco-Phoenician sp. from Ama- 2 Petrie, Ballas Naqada, Pl. xxvi. and speci- 
thus, 1894. 286 (Brit. Mus.); A.B.H. cxlix. mens in Ashm, Mus. 
15 6; Diimmler, Mitth. Ath, xi. 209, Beilage 3 Cf. C.M.C, Introd. pp. 16, 17. 
jii. 1, 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 143 


only one plain bowl of ved ware, and a number of porcelain beads of the usual 
spherical type. 
ἶ Site EH was on the south side of the road, and a little south-west of the 
chiflik. Only two tombs were opened here (30-31) but nothing was got out, 
as the earth with which they were filled was compactly cemented together by 
infiltration of lime from above. They served however to indicate the ex- 
tension of the necropolis in this direction. 

The tombs on Sites B C D E bore a totally different complexion from 
those of Site A as the analysis appended will show. None of the fine polished 
red ware was found at all; but in its place several coarse and degenerate 


NECROPOLIS. A B σ B iy 


Redware, plain..... x x x x | x 
relief ornt....... x x | x 
incised ornt. ... SS ΧΩ ἐς ὃς Χ Oa ae x x 


brown yar. ...... 


x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 
x 


dull smear ... . YM oe see 
Black Punctured.. ex 
White Base-ring... 
Painted Pottery .. 


Pottery. 
Xarx 
x 


eT AK ς 
x 
x 


Whetstones....... x x x 


'§ Perf. stones..... .. x 3 


ie Porcelain........... x x 
) ΘΕ νοι 6000055220525. 


Loomweight ...... x x 


Stone grinder...... x * 


* Horse-bones. + Human skulls. 
N.B.—C 26 has been intercalated in Site B to bring together the three examples of the Black 
Punetured Ware. 


fabrics; of these the principal were (a) a fairly well modelled and polished 
brown or yellowish ware, often found by itself, and differing from the older red 
ware mainly in the poverty of its forms, and in the absence of a definitely red 
surface-pigment ; (Ὁ) a very coarse and rude fabric of unlevigated clay, covered 
with finger marks and bruises, and quite unpolished, but smeared or drenched 
with a muddy red slip!: the vessels of this ware were usually diminutive 


————— 


DE 


a - - Fe eee) | I ee a a ae μα a ‘ 
Register No. of Tomb.| 1 2 3 5|6 1619 7 141018 8 13 26 1117 12 9 [af 22 25 23 28 24 21 32 29 31 


144 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


probably be regarded as the last degenerate representatives of the polished red 
ware, and may be compared with the debased red ware of some of the tombs 
from Ag. Paraskevi (v. above p. 135). 

These sites were also clearly marked off from Site A by the presence of 
bronze implements in a number of the tombs; all, of the types usual in 
the Cypriote Bronze Age, with the exception of the long small-headed pins 
(Fig. 4. 72.) encased in a spiral of thin bronze ribbon, which apparently have not 
been noticed before.? On the other hand, the mushroom-headed pin, with a hole 
half-way down the shaft, is entirely absent; which confirms the impression 
that this type is comparatively late in Cyprus, and that the tombs in question 
are prior to the stage at which it appears. One ring of unrefined silver lead, 
of the usual type (cf. Ag. Par. 1894. 10, above) was found in Tomb 11, and 
the small soft whetstones (Fig. 4. 79) in Tombs 8, 11, 14. 

Besides red ware and bronze implements, several subsidiary types of 
pottery were found on sites Band C. The common painted white ware (Fab. 
II. 1, Cypr. Mus. Cat. p. 381) was fairly frequent, but never of good quality : 
the character of the clay indicated that it was derived from a bed closely 
resembling that now worked by the potters of Varoshi (Famagusta); it is 
coarser and more gritty than that of Ag. Paraskevi, and was frequently underfired, 
so that it retains its natural greenish tint. The vessels are clumsily modelled, 
and the painted ornament is simpler, and more coarsely applied, in a very poor, 
dilute, and loosely adherent pigment of the usual native umber. A few frag- 
ments of the polished painted white ware (Fabr. II. 2, C.M.C. p. 38) were 
found on the surface, and in Tombs 9, 22, 27. It is here an importation, pro- 
bably from the neighbourhood of Agia Paraskevi, and indicates that these 
tombs are among the later of the series; which in the case of Tomb 9 is clear 
from other considerations also. 

The leather-like black or brown base-ring ware (Fabr. I. 3, C.M.C. p. 37) 
does not occur at all, with the doubtful exception of one native imitation; (Fig. 
4. 1.) which again indicates an early date for the whole necropolis, as this fabric 
does not seem to have been in use in Cyprus much before the introduction of 
the Mykenaean vases with which it is usually associated. But the group of 
fabrics which I have called white ware with base-ring (Fabr. 1, 4, C.M.C. p. 
37) is represented by two characteristic varieties ; (a) plates, and deeper bowls 
with vertical sides, of a hard and gritty, very white, and often overfired clay, 
well turned, apparently by hand, but with close resemblance to wheel-made, 
and still more to bronze types; (from Tombs 11, 17) ;? (Ὁ) oenochoae with 
distinct foot, ovoid body with angular shoulder and slender neck like a 
lekythos, of a greyish or even blackish clay, with many micaceous particles ; 
wholly devoid of ornament, but covered originally with a thin, almost lustrous, 
slip of darker colour than the clay (Tombs 9, 11) ;° the one specimen which has 


1 The spiral marks on the lower part of shaft 3 Fig. 5, 2. 4. 14.17; Fig. 5, 1-5. 10. 13-17. 
of the eyelet-pin published by Dr. Diimmler, 26-7. 

Mitth. Ath. xi. 209, Beilage i. 15, are narrower, 3 Fig. 4. 16. 26. 

and look more like the remains of the thread by 4 Fig. 4, 21; Fig. 5. 8, 

which the pin was secured. 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 145 


the neck perfect has a delicately modelled lip, and might easily be taken for a 
local imitation of an Attic vase of good period. This type suggested to the 
local potters an imitation in painted white ware, of which a specimen is pre- 
served in Tomb 11, ornamented with an eye on each side of the lip, and with 
panels, each enclosing a snake-like object, round the body: Fig. 4. 22. The 
only specimen which I have seen, which can be compared with this vase, is in 
the Turin Museum ; to which it was presented by Gen. L. P. di Cesnola, with 
the locality Throni, which remains to be identified, but is somewhere in 
this part of Cyprus. 

The last-named fabric (Ὁ) cannot be entirely dissociated from the black 
punctured ware (Fabr. I. 5, C.M.C. p. 37-8) of which the examples from Tombs 
11, 18, 26, now to be described,! are among the first found in Cyprus. The 
clay is quite black, and rather finely levigated; it is usually soft, with a 
smooth lustrous surface like that of the red ware; but when overfired it turns 
to a purple-brown colour and becomes harder; but there is always a tendency 
for a surface to flake off with long exposure. The commonest form is a small 
lekythos or aryballos on a narrow button-like foot, with depressed body, and a 
short neck with swollen rim, and without lip. The only ornament is composed 
of punctured dots, either irregularly all over the shoulder, or in oblique lines, 
or confined within triangular and other geometrical areas. This punctured 
ornamentation is occasionally imitated in ved ware (Ashm., Mus. Cypr. 79) and in 
a variety of base-ring ware (Ag. Paraskevi, 1894, 10, v. above p. 142 and C.JL.C. p. 
57.) This fabric has been since found by Dr. Ohnefalsch-Richter at Nikolides 
near Dali (Excavations of 1894. Tomb 6; Berl. Mus.; to be published in a 
forthcoming work ‘Tamassos und Idalion’); and a specimen from Cyprus, 
acquired earlier, but without locality, is in the British Museum (A 73-4). 
But it was already known from a probably Bronze Age tomb at Beth Suwour in 
S. Palestine ;3 and as a rare type of intrusive pottery on the XII. Dynasty site 
at Kahun (now in Brit. Mus. &c.: Petrie, Kahun, Pl. XX VII. 199. I llahun, Pl. I. 
202, J.H.S. XI. Pl. XIV. 9) and elsewhere in Egypt. A magnificent specimen 
with recurring spirals, and with all the incisions filled with a white chalky 
substance, acquired by Greville Chester, in Egypt but without locality, is in 
the Ashmolean Museum; and another from ‘Upper Egypt’ and the same 
collector, is in the British Museum (1891/6/23.) Others, more closely 
analogous to the Cypriote examples, were found in graves which appeared to 
be of XII XIII. Dynasty date, at Tell-el-Yahudiyeh,* Khat’aneh® and El 
Rotab.2 One from Khat’aneh (J.c. Pl. XIX. 15) is without punctured ornament, 
and recalls vases from Tell-el-Hesy,’ which appear, from the drawings published 
by Dr. Bliss, to be of the same fabric, and are of nearly the same shape as the 
example from Beth Saour, and one of those from Khat’aneh. Two other 


1 Fiy, 4. 23. 24; Fig. 5. 6. 7. 5 Onias, Pl. xix. 1-9, 15-17. Cf. Goshen, 
2 The sp. figured in Murray, Handbook of pp. 21. 

Greek Archaeology, PI. i. 8. 6 Brit. Mus. Inv. 27471-3. Goshen, p. 21. 
3 Brit. Mus. 1876/2/28/2, two specimens. 7 Bliss, Mound of Many Cities, Pl. 3, Nos. 
4 Eg. Expl. Fund Memoirs. Onias, p. 56, 89, 90. 

Eek, 5 25. 0< 


H.S.—VOL. XVII. L 


146 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


specimens in the British Museum! were acquired from Egypt, but without 
exact locality. Finally, in the National Museum at Athens,” is a globular 
vessel of greenish clay with black slip, ornamented with punctured areas 


confined by incised lines thus 7 :E~ | |; the neck is unfortunately 


broken, and the provenience is uncertain, Similar black fabrics with white- 
filled punctured ornaments have been found, as native manufactures, in Libyan 
graves at Ballas and Naqada in Upper Egypt 8 and at Ciempozuelos in Spain 
(Petrie, B-N. pp. 38, 63. Bol. R. Acad. Hist. Madrid XXV. p. 436-450. 
Pl. IV., V., XII); but these parallels are not very close, the clays are quite 
distinct, and the forms entirely different. 

The fabric in question is probably not Cypriote, but belongs rather to the 
South-Palestinian area. As it has not been found at-all on XVIII. Dynasty sites 
in Egypt, or in association with Mykenaean importations there or elsewhere, and 
as all the dated specimens known are from XII. or XII.—XIII. Dynasty sites, 
it is probably fair to regard the specimens from Kalopsida as evidence for a 
pre-Mykenaean date for this necropolis, and as affording at least a presumption 
in favour of a XII. Dynasty date. 

This presumption is confirmed by the character of the porcelain beads 
which were found in Tombs 11, 14, 26, 29, (twice, it will be noted, in 11 and 
26, in company with specimens of this black punctured ware), and are of a type 
which is commonly found in a certain class of Bronze Age tombs at Ag. 
Paraskevi and elsewhere. This type is almost identical,.in its spherical 
form, friable white paste, and thin and very pale bluish or greenish glaze, with 
a characteristic XII. Dynasty type of Egyptian bead, and is frequently found 
in Cyprus associated with other types equally characteristic of the XII. 
Dynasty; but not with any types characteristic of any later Dynasty. This 
certainly points to intercourse between Cyprus and Egypt under the XII. 
Dynasty, for though many of the Cypriote specimens may be native imitations 
made in Cyprus at a later date, the types themselves can hardly have been 
introduced, unmixed with later forms, except under or immediately after the 
XII. Dynasty. And in this instance, at Kalopsida, the combined occurrences 
of the porcelain beads and the black punctured ware seem greatly to increase 
the probability that we are dealing with a stage of the Cypriote Bronze Age 
which must be dated well before the beginning of Mykenaean influence 
in Cyprus, (and this, as the results from Lakshad tu Rid show, was itself fairly 
early in the Mykenaean Age); and probably, on the commonly accepted 
reckoning, close to the beginning of the second thousand years B.c. 

Bones, human, or other, were as usual very badly preserved at Kalopsida. 
Tomb 28 contained a thick layer of unburnt bones, apparently all human, from 
which three skulls were extracted ; one however fell to pieces at once, and the 
other two, being in too fragile a state for transport to England, were deposited 


1 Inv. 4806 a, 20849. 4 Ag. Paraskevi, 1894, 10 (C.M.C. 630, pp. 
2 No. 115 = Inv. 210]. 55, 57, cf. above, p. 186); Episkopi (Kurion) 
5 Petrie, Ballas-Nagada, Pl. xxx. 1895, 35 (C.M.C. p. 181). 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 147 


temporarily in the Cyprus Museum. Their general form resembled that of 
the early Graeco-Phoenician skulls from Amathus, now, after many mishaps, in 
the University Museum at Oxford. Tomb 9 contained part of a human jaw, 
also in very bad condition, and several horse bones; among them horre- 
teeth which were much worn on one of the long sides: they had been used 
apparently as polishers, probably for the red ware pottery. 


IIL—LAKSHA TU RIU (Larnaka District): Laren Bronze AGE NEcro- 
POLIS WITH MYKENAEAN VASES. 


During the excavation at Old Larnaka (IV. below) news was brought of 
a casual find of Bronze Age potsherds on the surface, about two miles from 
Larnaka. The site is on the Εἰ, edge of the marshy depression which drains 
towards the Salt Lake by the stream which passes under the eastern arches 
of the Larnaka aqueduct, and is diverted from the Salt Lake into the canal 
which passes the Church of St. George-in-the-Distance (Αγ. Γεώργιος ὁ 
Maxpis). This hollow extends as far as Kato Vlakhos Chiflik, where it is 
bounded by the corresponding plateau of the Pasha Chiflik and the village of 
Dromolaksha: a northern arm of the same depression nearly reaches the 
Nicosia road at the fourth milestone from Larnaka. The bridle path from 
Larnaka to Kalo Khorio descends sharply into this hollow about twenty 
minutes walk from its parting from the Nicosia road, and this part of the 
edge of the plateau seems to be known as the κατέβα (‘descent’) τοῦ καλοῦ 
χωρίου. But as Kalo Khorio is on the further side of the depression, which 
is itself known as the Aafia (‘hollow’) rod ‘P/ov and as this latter name 
was generally adopted by the men during and after the work, I have preferred 
to let it pass current as the name of the site on the E. slope? A peasant 
represented himself as owner of the site, and gave leave to excavate; but 
before the work was far advanced, the representative of a M. Zarifi living in 
Constantinople put in a counter claim, and prohibited excavation. By this 
time, however, the character of the site was evident, and it was enough to 
clear and close the tombs which were already open ; all on the strip of waste 
land along the actual brow of the hollow. So far as could then be seen, the 
ploughed land had never been disturbed ; but in the succeeding weeks the 
whole of that edge of the Zarifi estate was honey-combed with illicit digging, 
which the Government was apparently unable to prevent. By this time the 
site is probably ruined. 

Tombs are apparently abundant also near Kato Vlakhos Chiflik and 
again at Agi Anna, which lies about half way between this and Alambra, and 
commands the valley route from the lowlands of Larnaka, Kiti, and Zarukas, 
to the neighbourhood of Dali. But neither of these necropoleis has been 


1 In Kalymnos, where a rough kind of polished _one side polished by such usage, were common, 

red ware is still produced, smooth pebbles are on the surface, at Kalopsida, 
used for this purpose ; a similar ware is made in 5 It is marked L on the map of Larnaka and 
Khios ; pebbles, also, of crystalline rock, with the neighbourhood, Fig. 6, 
L 2 


148 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


properly examined, so far as I know. The only earlier hint of a Bronze Age 
necropolis at or near Larnaka is afforded by a number of hemispherical bowls 
of white slip ware (II. 4) labelled ‘Kition’ in the collection presented by 
General L. P. di Cesnola to the Turin Museum. These bowls, as will be seen 
below, were abundant in one of the five tombs opened in 1894, at Laksha tu 
Rit. A fragment of another such bowl, and one scrap of Mykenaean ware 
were found, almost on the surface, on the Turabi site, and may have come 
from earlier operations at Laksha. 

At Laksha tu Rit the limestone cap is about three feet thick, brecciated, 
and in good condition. The tombs closely resemble those of Ag. Paraskevi ; 
Tombs 1 and 5 were dome-shaped with the opening at one side of the apex 
(cf. K.B.H. clxxii. 17, 18), and the dromos short and bath-shaped as at Ag, 
Paraskevi. 

Tomb 1 showed clearly, on the sides and roof, the marks ot the 
hewing tool of its maker; which had “two cutting edges, the one adze-like, 
the other a blunt point; exactly like those of the modern κοῦσπο. This 
tomb had also a series of long shallow niches arranged round the sides, in 
which a number of the smaller vases were found lying. The floor was 
covered by a large talus of earth which had crept in between the decayed 
door-jambs and the door-stone, which was still in situ. It contained a large 
quantity of plain red ware of fair quality, and a few specimens of incised red 
ware of a dark-tinted, probably local fabric}; a number of well made vessels 
of painted white ware (C.M. 360 and Ashm. Mus.), and an unusually large 
series of bronze implements and ornaments; two axeheads (C.M. 503. and 
Ashm. Mus.); four daggers with handle-rivets (ΟΜ. Type a 5. 21-2. and 
Ashm. Mus.); one dagger with hooked tang (Ashm. Mus. cf. ΟΜ. Type y) ; 
one of the eyelet pins with large head (Ashm. Mus. cf. ΟΜ, 594-8); four 
beads of bronze ribbon, spirally coiled (ΟΜ. 626. and Ashm. Mus.) ; four 
spiral rings of bronze (C.M. 624. and Ashm. Mus.); and a concave dise or 
shallow bowl of thin sheet bronze, ornamented by four small circles stamped 
from the outside (Ashm. Mus.) ; the purpose of which is not clear, as nothing 
of the kind has been published. Several rings of unrefined silver-lead 
(C.M. 615), like the bronze rings, and an unrecognisable fragment of silver, 
complete the list of metallic objects. Three clay spindlewhorls of incised 
red ware were also found; and two perforated stone mace-heads or spindle- 
whorls like those from Kalopsida (p. 142). This tomb group is in Ashm. Mus, 
except the spp. noted in C.M. 

Tomb 2 lay on a small spur about a quarter of a mile south of the path, 
and faced north. It measured 6 ft. x 4 ft. x 4 ft., was cut obliquely to: the 
right of the door, and was full of earth. Its contents resembled those of 
Lomb 1—bowls of red ware; several vases of painted ware (C.M. 880); a 
dagger (C.M. 523), two pairs of tweezers (C.M. 602-3); three silver rings 


1 These forms were characteristic of the black but the clay in this instance was dark red all 
slip ware, which frequently oxidises and turns _ through. 
red with ill-regulated firing. Cf, C.M. 203-5: 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 149 


- Ἢ 


— SS 
{ΠῚ 


Mo 


‘ile = 
aes a a 
£ a 

sain Whe 3 Teale sani Ὄς 


| 


Te alll, oy. \— 


οἱ 


Fic, 6.—THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF LARNAKA. Based upon the Trigonometrical Survey of Cyprus and 
Drawn by Ὁ. V. Darbishire, 


150 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


like those from Zomb 1, but found linked into a chain (ΟΜ. 616); and a 
similar perforated stone (C.M. 663). The occurrence of a chain of rings in 
a Bronze Age tomb is, I believe, unprecedented, though the abundance of the 
rude rings in many cases had long made it probable that such chains were in 
use. Cyprus Museum. C.M.C. p. 58. 

Tomb 8, near the last named, was a large, perhaps partly natural cave; 
which had fallen in. It yielded very similar plain and incised red ware, and 
painted ware ; and a bronze spike or awl about 7 inches long, (C.M. 565). 
Cyprus Museum. C.M.C. p. 58. 

Tomb 5, a small collapsed tomb, near the last named, produced red ware 
and painted ware (e.g. C.M. 345), and two perforated stones. (C.M. 651, 660). 
Cyprus Museum. C.M.C. p. 58. 

Tomb 4 was of ‘beehive’ shape, like Tomb 1, and of about the same size 
but without the niches: but its contents were almost wholly different, and so 
abundant that it was thought desirable to depart from the usual practice, and 


Fic. 7.—LAKsHA TU Riv: PART OF THE CONTENTS OF Zomb 4; IN THE Ashmolean Museum. 


to divide the group between the Ashmolean and the Cyprus Museum: some 
duplicates also are in the Pitt-Rivers Museum, Oxford. Red ware was absent, 
and the ordinary painted white ware was only represented by a single bowl of 
unique form, obviously an imitation of the following type, of which 25 
examples were found. This type is the painted ware with white slip 
(C.M.C. Fabr. II. 4. p. 39=the ‘ Agia Paraskevi ware’ of Mr. H. B. Walters 
in his report on Kwrion ; id. p. 181) which, though probably made in Cyprus, 
has a wide range of distribution, from Hissarlik, Athens, and Thera, to Egypt 
and §. Palestine.' Only the common hemispherical bowls however were 
represented, and none with any specially elaborate ornament. 

The base-ring ware (Fabr. I. 3. C.M.C. p. 37 reff. Fig. 7. 3-6. 14: 8. 1-7), 
which has an even wider distribution, was abundant, and mostly of the white 


i Fig. 7. 12. 13. 18: 8. 8. 9, 11-18. Cf. references in C,M.C. p. 39, 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 151 


painted variety;! but one jug had the characteristic relief ornament of 
divergent spiral scrolls on the body,? and all showed clearly the double rims 
and bases, and the indented seam patterns which suggest that this ware 
derives from a leathern prototype. The common conical bowls, and both 
types of the one-handled jug were represented: a hemispherical cup on a 
high foot, with white binding pattern outside,’ is a new form, so far as I 
know. 

Four Mykenaean vases confirm the impression of date conveyed by the 
preceding fabrics: three‘ are ‘ pyriform vases’ = ‘stamnoi,’ with three small 
handles and a simple lattice ornament (replacing the characteristic scale 


Fig. 8.—LAxksHA TU Riv ; PART OF THE CONTENTS OF Tomb 4 ; IN THE Cyprus Museum. 


pattern) on the shoulder; the fourth ° is a fine pyriform ‘biigelkanne’ ‘= pseudo- 
amphora’ with a characteristic flower-pattern of the finest style. Two large 
unpainted kraters® of coarse white ware (whether hand- or wheel-made, is not 
clear) also show Mykenaean influence: a coarse jug with slightly pinched lip’ 
corresponds with a type which is common in the coeval necropolis at Nikolides 
near Dali; and a small pear-shaped jug of yellow clay, hand-made but shaped 
outside with a knife to a point below,® resembles a vessel from Nikolides (1894 
V. 161, Berlin Museum), and others from Enkomi (1896, 4, C.M.C. p. 188, ef. 


4 Fig. 7, 1.9: 8. 10. 
5 Fig. 7. 11. 6 Fig. 7. 8. 
8. Fig. 7. 10, 


1 Cf. Brit. Mus, A. 121. 


2 Fig. 7. 6. 
8 Ash. Mus. (Cypr. 114), shattered in transit, 7 Fig. 7. 7, 


and not included in the photograph. 


152 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


Brit. Mus.); and, still more closely, a small vase from Tell-el-Hesy, figured 
by Bliss, Mound of Many Cities, p. 87, Fig. 174. 

No bronze or silver objects were eed from this tomb; and, of 
ornaments, only three small stone beads (ΟΜ. 709-10 = Fig. 8 ee 9 and 
10) of the double cone type, which, though it begins in the Mykenaean 
Age of Cyprus (cf. Kurion 1895, Brit. Mus. 96/2/1/76—7), is equally charac- 
teristic of the earliest stages of the Graeco-Phoenician with well-bowed 
fibulae: 6... Amathus 1894, 201, 286 (Brit. Mus.): Larnaka Turabt 55 below, 
Of these ΟΜ. 709 is ornamented, like the specimens from Kuwrion, with 
drilled circles with a central point. Similar beads were found in Kalymnos 
with the sub-Mykenaean vases Brit. Mus. A 291 ff. 


IV.—_LARNAKA: (Turabt Teké): GRAECO-PHOENICIAN AND HELLENISTIC 
TOMBS. 


The land on both sides of the high road to Nicosia, and immediately 
south of the last houses of old Larnaka, which just reach it, belongs to the 
Turabt Teké, a Mohammedan shrine which lies on the east side of the road a 
little south of the houses aforesaid. The wall of old KITION can be traced as 
a nearly continuous escarpment 8-12 feet high in the fields S.W. of the 
Teké, and at about a quarter of a mile distance ; and the necropolis begins 
almost immediately outside the wall, though only with very late tombs. 
This part of the necropolis seemed to have been left almost wholly undis- 
turbed in recent times, though the traces were frequently found of ancient 


Fic. 9.—ENGRAVED CHALCEDONY, Larnaka, Hassan 4. Ashin. Mus. 


τυμβωρυχοί: and as the earliest parts of the necropolis of Kition were known 
to lie elsewhere, to the N. and to the S.W. of the ancient town, it appeared 
probable that the later Graeco-Phoenician and early Hellenistic Tombs might 
be found in this direction; more especially as a fine stele with a fourth 
century Phoenician inscription, now in the British Museum,! had been found 
im situ, at the point marked on the map (Fig. 6) with an asterisk, in 
making the highroad soon after the British occupation. 


1 Brit. Mus. No. 47.=C.4.8. viii. 44. 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 153 


As the site proposed was Vakuf land, leave to excavate had to be obtained 
from the Commission of Evkaf in Cyprus, and was eventually granted on 
condition that the Evkaf third of the finds should be deposited, with the 
Government third, in the Cyprus Museum. 

While the negotiation was going on, a few shafts were made in the field 
of Hassan Effendi, north of the last houses on the E. side of the Nicosia road : 
but only late Hellenistic or Graeco-Roman tombs were found. Unfortunately, 
though a number of bronze coins emerged, they were al] quite illegible, and for 
the most part corroded through and through. Zomls 1 and 7 contained gold 
earrings of late types: (1) Ashm.: (7) C.M. 8049. Tomb 4 contained a plain 
alabaster sarcophagus, in which were found, together with five of the coins 
and five late lamps, two small ornaments of poor light-coloured porcelain, 
a glass counter, and a seal of bluish chalcedony which is represented in Fig. 9 
(Ashm.) and gives an approximate date to the group.! 

Scattered about the tomb were 44 late lamps, 14 coins, and the usual 
apparatus of glass bottles (including fragments of purple glass), coarse pottery, 
and bronze pins, mirrors and rings: four bronze sockets, like those in Perrot- 
Chipiez Hist. del’ Art. II. Fig. 356 (New York), may have formed the supports 
of a casket. 

Tomb 6, with two long chambers in series, had certainly been opened 
before, though the door stone was in place, and no cippi or debris were in the 
shaft: for its sarcophagi had been slightly shifted, and only a Cypriote lamp, 
a small clay bottle, and a clay alabastron remained of the contents.2 In the 
side of the dromos was a small ‘ cupboard-grave’ (ἀρμάρι : = Tomb 2) with a 
spiral ring of bronze, and a few ‘bottle jugs,’ late lamps, ὅσ. 

The object of the Zwrabé excavation was to test the conclusion drawn 
from the previous excavations of the Cyprus Exploration Fund, at Kuklia and 
at Poli tis Khrysokhou, that no accurate chronology of the native Cypriote 
pottery can be attempted; that the various styles occur in inextricable 
confusion in the tombs; and in particular that the characteristic Cypriote 
fabrics which are found with Attic black-figured and red-figured vases, are 
also found with Roman Imperial coins and the clear blown glass, which 
certainly does not begin until late Ptolemaic times, and most probably not 
until after the Roman annexation of the Island. The earlier excavations at 
Poli, which formed the basis of Dr. P. Herrmann’s ‘G'rdberfeld von Marion’ led, it 
is true, to a different conclusion, which was vigorously criticised by English 
excavators at the time; but so late as 1896 the Catalogue des Vases de Terre 
cwite du Louvre of M. Pottier reckons the fine native ved ware, (which actually 
begins with the earliest fibulae, and disappears in the eighth or early sixth 
century), as an imitation vf Attic importations; and the Cypriote bucchero, or 
ribbed ware with black slip, (which begins in the Mykenaean Age, and disap- 
pears earlier than the fibulae), as a Hellenistic fabric of the late fourth or the 
third century. 


1 Cf. Brit. Mus, (Semitic Room, 1022, 1026, Commissioner of Larnaka, and placed in his 
1039). garden. 
2 One of the sarcophagi was extracted for the 


154 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


Accordingly it seemed worth while to excavate carefully a site in which 
late Graeco-Phoenician, Hellenistic, and Roman tombs were likely to be found 
together and to classify and register even the commonest objects, in the hope 
of finding, among some sixty tombs, at least one crucial instance. And the 
result seems to have fully justified the experiment. The tabulation of eight 
characteristic types of Graeco-Phoenician pottery, and of ten kinds of objects 
which are commonly found in Hellenistic or Graeco-Roman tombs elsewhere, 
shows without need of further comment, the absolute gulf which divides the 
two styles on this site. The remarkable absence of the reburials which 


Tombs marked thus x 27 δῦ 26 17 48 21 41 57 12 
Tombs marked thus x | 23 62 47 42 61 58 11 27 59 56 34 60 39 35 4 24 44 1 45 22 20151816 7 2 

Native Cups.:40t4). ἘΠῚ x Seige 3 
Flat-lipped Jugs............... x x x x 
Flat-necked Amphorae ..... x REI? AE ΟΝ CORTE 
Round-bottomed Amphorac % PRUE LG ede oP tee ex 
Native: BowiSi;-1.---.sceoe x Χο oa 
Amphorae..,. 3401. tisecch ΞΕ τς x x a ἀφ δι) εἰ cox x 

| Oenochoas . ΠΝ kee EPL ΤΣ CE: ΧΑ, 

| Cypriote lamps................ 6.428) K O28 % Se 5 Dd ΡΧΗῸΣ x 
Hellenistic lamps ........... | χει GxXDh xh SX, Yi KBxX x 
Clear Glass .ox.. τ κα | x JPGEK? XE δὲν Be x 
Mirrors. ΠΡ ΠῚ Χο ΟΣ x x 
Coins. ........<cgean nee, posers x) χριὸς Sep hoes AXE 
*°'Tear-bottlesiivn..cjcs ee ee Be Kiar Χ 
Common jugs ..... ...... ... Χωρ Ἄλεος x 
Amphorae, late types........ 2G BK Χ δὲ 
Gold ornaments .............. Χ ὃς εκ Χ 
Bone ornaments .............. x x 
Alabaster’ τος πον πο * 4M x x x 
‘* Bottle-jugs 70.0. ΜῊ ΠΕΤΣ x x PET ie: FIER OOD Ὁ x ΟΝ x x 
Bronze rings, &¢. ............. | * x x 14 * x x ΔΗ Χ 


usually confuse the tomb record of a Cypriote necropolis is probably to 
be accounted for by the fact that the site lay remote from any considerable 
thoroughfare, and that consequently burials were at all periods infrequent, so 
that the site never became over-crowded, like the eastern necropolis of 
Amathus or many parts of those at Poli, where reburials are almost the rule. 
In one instance (7 ταδί 31-87) four tombs were found in the same shaft, each 
excavated in the earthen filling of its choked or collapsed predecessor, and 
therefore in any case at some considerable intervals of time. Here indeed 
Graeco-Phoenician pottery, a silver earring of a fourth century type, a 
Hellenistic terra-cotta statuette and a number of coins and late lamps, were 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 155 


found together; but an exception of this kind, with so clear evidence of 
mixture, may be fairly claimed to ‘prove the rule’; and in any case it is 
worth noting that clear blown glass was absent, and that the coins, though 
illegible, were of Ptolemaic, rather than of Roman Imperial fabric. 

In another case, (Z'urabt 40) a μνημεῖον or surface grave, presumably of 
late date, and with the bones well preserved, had been sunk too near to the 
crown of the roof of a Graeco-Phoenician chambered tomb with a sarcophagus 
in the middle; the floor of the μνημεῖον had subsequently collapsed, and most 
of the contents had fallen on to the lid of the sarcophagus; but here there 
was no difficulty in distinguishing the two sets of remains, and fortunately 
also, nothing appeared to have been buried in the μνημεῖον except the body; 
a strong confirmation of its very late date. f 

Even the frequent evidence of previous disturbance of the tombs cannot 
be held to invalidate the argument from the pottery and glass ; since, in the most 
patent cases (e.g. Twrabt 35) only gold ornaments had been sought, and the 
pottery, glass, and other objects, and even the coins, had been left undisturbed ; 
and as it was in this very tomb (35) that the one instance occurred of a 
Cypriote lamp associated with Hellenistic lamps, the explanation is obvious 
that the Cypriote lamp was introduced by the tomb-robbers, and was probably 
used by them during their search ; just as my own men used such lamps, here 
and at Amathus, when we ran short of candles. 

The form of the tombs themselves also gradually changes, and was found 
to supply an approximate indication of date. The tombs which contained 
Cypriote pottery of sixth and fifth century styles had uniformly flat or nearly 
flat roofs, never gable-shaped or rounded. In the fourth and third century, 
to judge again by the degenerate character of the pottery, the chambers 
become larger, and proportionately longer, and the roof becomes more or less 
definitely rounded at its junction with the walls, but does not yet rise to a 
semi-circular section. On the other hand, those with distinctly Roman coins, 
much glass, and late lamps, have uniformly a well rounded barrel-shaped 
roof, and frequently have a second chamber behind the first: both chambers 
also are much longer than they are broad; and the dromos is regularly 
provided with steps, which in the later examples (e.g. Hassan 1 and 5) are 
made of thick slabs of gypsum ; in the earlier tombs they are simply cut in 
the soft rock ; and in the earlier Graeco-Phoenician tombs no steps could be 
traced at all. 

Taking the principal tombs in roughly chronological order :— 

Tomb 58 represented an early stage in the purely geometrical period 
which succeeds the Mykenaean. It was a very small tomb, and contained 
only a small plate or saucer of a local fabric of Graeco-Phoenician red ware 
(Fabr. II. 3, C.M.C. p. 60) with black lines; and a one-handled jug with a 
spout on one side of the shoulder, of white ware (= C.M. 1028a, Fabr. II. 1, 
C.M.C. p. 59) painted with a fully geometrical design of chequers, triangles, 
lozenges, and swastikas: this was of the regular Kition clay,’ which is easily 
ΝΠ ae on gl, he eee ae ee 


1 The local fabrics of Graeco-Phoenician pot- careful observation than they have received 
tery are often well marked, and deserve more hitherto, Typical specimens of this fabric of 


156 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


distinguishable : it has a fine dusty texture, rather yellowish colour, and low 
hardness, and absorbs the paint with unusual readiness. Cyprus Museum 
(C.M.C. p. 178). 

Tomb 55 cannot be very much later. It is dated by a stone bead or 
spindlewhorl of double conical form, ornamented with drilled circles, like 
those from Laksha tu Rit 4 (v. above) and the early geometrical tombs at 
Amathus quoted there, and contained also a clay horseman of the usual rude 
type,! and an oenochoe and another jug of common local fabric. 

Tomb 34 contained a plain bronze bowl (C.M. 3513), two oenochoae of 
sixth or late seventh century form with concentric circles and * on the neck, 
an amphora with groups of fine black bands on the body, and a few painted 
plates. It might very well be of the sixth century, and the same date would 
suit the following tombs. Cyprus Museum. 

Tomb 11 contained a wine-amphora of type 3 (Fig. 13), round-bottomed 
eyathi (‘bottle jugs’), a large oenochoe with bands of the purple-red paint 
which is characteristic of the fabric of Kition, two Cypriote lamps, and some 
bronze earrings and beads. Cyprus Musewm. 

Tomb 12 contained wine amphorae of types 2 and 3 (Fig. 13), a round 
bottomed cyathus, and some bronze armlets: three undisturbed interments, 
but no other personal ornaments. 

Tomb 25 contained wine-amphorae of types 2 and 3 (Fig. 13), one of the 
former mended with gypsum, and one of the latter bearing broad red bands 
edged with black : one Graeco-Phoenician amphora,” with groups of lines on the 
shoulder, and a wavy line round the greatest diameter (a sixth to fifth century 
type elsewhere in Cyprus), anciently rivetted and full of calcined bones; an 
oenochoe of sixth century form, also anciently rivetted ; another oenochoe 
with concentric circles; two pieces of the red ware, which becomes degraded 
in the fifth century ; and several commoner vases. Cyprus Museum. 

Tomb 26 contained amphorae of types 1 and 2 (Fig. 13), and two varieties 
of cyathus. 

Tomb 37, the lowest layer in the confused shaft already mentioned, (p. 154) 
contained a krater-amphora with concentric circles, a painted oenochoe, and a 
flat-lipped jug, which can hardly be later than the sixth century. Cyprus 
Museum. 

Tomb 60, in the furthest part of the site W. of the highroad, contained 
an elaborate and more artistic equipment than most ofthe early tombs ; many 
of the vessels bore the concentric circle ornament, and two the wavy line on 
the neck, which is a Mykenaean survival, and disappears almost wholly before 
the period of Hellenic importations. The band of small black triangles on 
the shoulder of the angular vessel, the occurrence of red ware, even though 
not of the finest quality, and the frequency of the flat-rimmed globular jugs, 


Kition are easily accessible at the British 4 Cf, ΟΜ. 3293-97 (Poli) ; 8299-3305 (Ama- 
Museum, South Kensington (2071/1876), and thus); Lowvre T.C. Cyprus 48 (Heuzey, Pl. x. 3); 
Ashmolean Museums. I regret that I have not Brit. Mus. (spp. from Amathus and Kurion). 
been through any German collection since my 2 Fig. 14a gives the form approximately. 
return from Cyprus. 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 157 


also point to an early date. The ornament, however, of the krater with vertical 
handles in Fig. 12. 6. (= Ashm. Cypr. 501), consisting of a carelessly drawn 
lotus with buds, in the central panel, flanked by eight or nine leaved rosettes 
on a black ground, cannot be much earlier than the revival of Egyptian com- 
merce under the XXVI, Dynasty ; and an Egyptian eye-charm in pale blue 
glazed porcelain belongs to a class which seems to have entered Cyprus about 
that time, and continues to be very popular at Amathus until the middle or 
end of the fifth century. The tomb accordingly must be dated in the middle 
or latter part of the seventh century. Among the other contents were an 
amphora of type 1, and a painted one of type 2 (Fig. 13); a cylindrical-sided 
pot with diminutive handles and very low neck (Fig. 12. 4) which closely 
resembles one from the Cesnola collection (S. Kens. 2109/1876); a flask or 
pilgrim bottle (damaged when found, and shattered on the voyage to England) 
with one face nearly flat, the other almost conical, and recalling, by the 
arrangement of its four marginal handles, both its wooden prototype, and a 
Sardinian vessel in the British Museum (A 1680?), which, from the character 


Fig. 10.—LARNAKA, TURAB{. Tomb 56, Ground Plan. 


of its concomitants (A 1680!-%, cf. the earlier tombs on the hill of St. Louis 
at Carthage’), might well be of the same approximate date; and a model of 
a circular shield like those from the Kamelargd site below (p. 168), in local 
clay, with traces of blue or green circles on the convex surface, and the 
usual single κάνων across the concave interior. All the vessels cited, except 
the amphorae, are in the Ashmolean Museum. 

Tomb 56 was in every way the most noteworthy in the whole series. It 
lay in the easternmost section, behind the Turabi orchard, in a range of very 
similar tombs nearly all of which had been rifled. The door faced E., and 
was furnished with two thick gypsum slabs, set one behind the other, and 
separated by door-jambs of masonry. The chamber itself measured 
9 ft.x 9 ft.x 54 ft., and had a quite flat roof, only rounded an inch or two 
where it joined the sides (Fig. 10). Along each side of the chamber lay a pile 


1 Delattre, Tombeaux Puniques 1890. Nécropole Punique 1896. 


158 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


of the common gypsum slabs, about 6 ft. x 2 ft., forming couches: on the top 
of each pile, and between each slab of each pile were the flattened remains of an 
interment; apparently a fresh slab had been introduced at each burial to 
avoid the disturbance of the previous occupants. Under the top slab of the 
couch on the left of the door was found at the point marked with a star 
(Fig. 10), and among the bones of the hand, a siiver ring of type d (C.ILC. 
p. 127), with a swivel mount of electrum containing a haematite searaboid 
engraved in pseudo-Egyptian style (Fig. 11), with a representation, (such as is 
commonest on monuments of the XVIIIth Egyptian Dynasty, and especially 
on those of Thothmes IIT.1), of a male figure, (the king), as Horus tended, 
perhaps even suckled by a goddess, Isis, and overshadowed by the winged 
serpent of Uazi? twined round a papyrus in allusion to the refuge of Horus 
in the marshes of Buto. The ankh behind the goddess depicts the ‘long-life’ 
which she bestows. The seal is assigned by Prof. Petrie to the XXVIth. 
Dynasty. The form of the ring itself derives from a common XVITI.—XIXth 


Fic. 11.—HAEMATITE SCARABOID : Drawn from an impression, Larnaka Turali 56; Ashm. Mus. 


Dynasty type; but it is normal in Cyprus in tombs of the sixth—fourth 
centuries. Two beads of decomposed glass were found elsewhere among the 
interments. 

Across the further end of the tomb was laid another large gypsum slab, 
on which were arranged, in the order shown in the drawing (Fig. 10), a number 
of earthenware utensils which we may regard as part of the furniture of a 
Graeco-Phoenician dinner-table. The concave-sided rings are of course the 
stands for the round-bottomed amphorae of type 2 (Fig. 13), four of which, 
with painted bands of red or yellow, edged with black and with black zigzag, 
together with one plain one, and four conical amphorae of type 1, were stacked 
together in the further left-hand corner of the chamber. The ring-shaped 
amphora-stands closely resemble Egyptian examples of XII.-XIII. and 
subsequent Dynasties. I know of no other example from Cyprus, but two 
examples of a rather deeper and narrower type have been found with 


1 £.g. Lepsius, Denkmdler III. 35. Ὁ. Khat’aneh. 
(Thothmes III.). I am indebted to Prof. 3 E.g, ΟΜ. 4186-9 (Idalion 1894. 26 
Flinders Petrie for the references and the iden- Amathus 1894. 80). 


tification of the subject. 4 E.E.F. Onias, Pl. xix. 18, 19. 
2 Cf. E.E.F. Goshen Pl. 9 Inscr. from 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 159 


geometrically ornamented amphorae of a form like Fig. 12. 14. 15. at Carthage. 
One of the last-named was carefully set upright with its mouth sealed with clay ; 
the others seemed to have been arranged regularly round it, but the collapse 
of one of the painted ones had disturbed the remainder, An oenochoe with 
black-edged red band like that of the amphorae, three ‘ bottle-jugs’ to measure 
the wine, three plain bowls holding three to four times the content of a ‘ bottle- 
jug,’ five plates (including one of the characteristic red ones), and a saucer, 
were scattered about the chamber and completed the suite. 

The cup-and-saucer-like utensils, which are of local clay, and some- 
what overfired, with a red band on the bevelled rims, are probably torch 
holders. Two similar vessels, but unpainted, are in the Cyprus Museum: 
one, C.M. 963, from Poli (C.E.F. excavations) 25, is exactly of the same 
clay as a deep dish-cover (C.M. 962) which has unfortunately lost its tomb- 
mark, but was found in 1894 lying with objects from Puli C.K.F., and may 
have come from the same suite. The other (ΟΜ. 964) bears the old label 


Fic. 12.—GRAECO-PHOENICIAN POTTERY FROM LARNAKA TuRABf 56 (10—15) AnD 60 (1—9), 
Ashm, Mus. 


[844]: it consequently belongs to an excavation not later than 1885: and as 
the vase (ΟΜ. 2148) which bears the old label [843] came from Episcopt 
(KURION) in 1884, it is possible that [844] may have come from the same site, 
There is a diminutive model of the same utensil in the Rugby School Museum, 
presented by Mr. C. D. Cobham some years ago: without locality, but 
apparently of the local fabric of Kirion. The only other examples with 
which I am acquainted are those from Tell-el-Hesy figured in Dr, Bliss’ Mound 
of Many Cities, p. 87, Fig. 174: cf. 238. These reproduce every detail of the 
outline of the vessels from Twrabt 56, adding only a very slight spout upon 
the outer rim. In the same photograph, and from the same stratum, are 
(a) a number of ‘cockleshell’ lamps of a type which in Cyprus would correspond 
with an early (seventh—ninth century) date, but which in Egypt would go 


1 Delattre. In tombs which cannot be earlier than the seventh century. 


160 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


back to the XVIII. dynasty; (@) the small jug with pointed base which has 
already been compared with a vessel from Laksha-tu-Riw 4 Fig. 7.10. and with 
others from the new Hnkomi site ; and is itself presumably of Mykenaean date- 
But the forms of the amphorae, oenochoe, and other vessels in Turabt 56, not 
to mention the ring and its engraved stone, point unmistakably to the sixth 
century or very little earlier. The persistence of the form of the torch holders 
over so long a period, is remarkable, if Dr. Bliss’s dates are accurate; but this is 
not the only instance in which discrepancy occurs between his dating of 
individual objects by their position in the Tell, and the presumable dating of 
the same objects by the correspondence of style with objects in the Cypriote 
series; and it is not improbable that whether from original unevenness of the 
layers in the Tell, or from whatever cause, some of the pottery at Tell-el-Hesy 
has been assigned to a lower layer than that to which it would more conform- 
ably belong. For the present therefore Twrabt 56 may be assigned to the 
sixth century. Its contents are in the Ashmolean Museum, with the exception 
of broken vessels, the common plates, and one of the painted amphorae (with 
yellow band and black lines and zig-zags), which was presented to the Cyprus 
Museum (ΟΜ. 2007 a). . . 


t ia θ é 4 
Fig. 13,—TyprEs oF WINE AMPHORAE FROM GRAECO-PHOEFNICIAN TOMBS AT LARNAKA. 


(1) Larnaka 26. 41. 42. ὅθ. 59. Amathus 1894. 80 and 84. cf. Naukratite forms and E.E F. 
Tanis 11. xxxiii. 4. (Defenneh): variants with acute shoulder Zarnaka 17. 60: (1a) variant 
from Larnaka 59. cf. Naukratite form: (2) Larnaka 11. 12. 17. 56. 60; variants from 34: 
frequently painted : cf. Naukratite form : (3) Larnaka 25 cf. Amathus 1894. 251, and E.E.F. 
Tanis 11. xxxiii. 6. (4) Larnaka 62; cf. late one-handled form from Larnaka 8. 


Tomb 58 contained an oenochoe of fine red ware with vertical circles, and 
groups of concentric circles: the only specimen of the fine red ware from the 
whole series of tombs. With it were two jugs, one with red bands, of common 
local type, a Cypriote lamp, a red plate like that from Tomb 56, two bowls, 
and some ‘bottle jugs.’ The fine red ware does not seem to come lower than 
the early sixth century; but the lamp was of the flat rimmed type which 
elsewhere in Cyprus seems to be rather later. Cyprus Musewm. 

Tomb 59 contained two pairs of amphorae of types 1 and 2 (Fig. 13), a 
dish-cover and an amphora-base like those from Jomb 56; and lamps, bowls, 
plates and ‘bottle jugs,’ and an oenochoe, which also corresponded with the 
equipment of that tomb. The only new feature was a flat-rimmed jug like 
those from Tomb 60 above. A conical seal of green porcelain, found in the 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 161 


dromos, would date, like the tomb, from the sixth century. The tomb itself 
had collapsed. 

Tomb 17 contained two pairs of amphorae of the same types as those in 
Tomb 56, besides eight bottle jugs and a Cypriote lamp: there was no slab in 
the doorway, and the tomb had probably been cleared of its fine pottery. The 
amphorae however are enough to give it an approximate date in the sixth to 
fifth centuries. 

Tombs 42, 43, 47, 47a, lay side by side, and were found to communicate 
with one another, and-to have been rifled. Zomb 42 had a nearly flat roof 
like the sixth to fourth century tombs at Amathus, and contained, besides 
amphorae of types 1 and 2 (Fig. 13), an unusually elaborate red ware amphora 
(C.M. 1157) the ornament of which is approximately reproduced in Fig. 14. 
The fabric appears to be local, but the style, like that of the krater from Jomb 
60, recalls that of Ormidhia;+ though I do not know of any red ware from 
that site. The apparent collocation of ‘black-figured’ and ‘red-figured’ bands 
of ornament is no argument against a sixth century date for this vase; for the 
‘red-figured’ treatment of the rosette, and other ornaments here illustrated is 


Fie. 14.—a. GRAECO-PHOENICIAN AMPHORA OF V.—VI. CEenTurRY (Turabt): ὃ. DEGENERATE 
FORM OF IIJ.—II. Century DATE (Turabi 43): c. ANOTHER DEGENERATE PTOLEMAIC FORM 
INFLUENCED BY HELLENIC FORMS (T7wrabt), 


well established in Cyprus at an early period, and derives not from a Hellenic, 
but from an Egyptian prototype. Another amphora, with ‘tree ornament,’ 
found in 43, might well be of early fifth century date. 

Tomb 23 contained one of the flat lipped jugs (cf. 60), a common plate, 
and a bowl. The fragment of Bronze Age pottery already mentioned 
Ρ. 148), came from the shaft of this tomb; and another from the abortive 


shaft 63. 
Degenerate Gracco-Phoenician Tombs. IV.—III. Century. 


Tombs 26, 27, 28 and 61, 62, represent the decadence of the Graeco- 
Phoenician Age: the equipment becomes very meagre, and the forms of the 
vessels lose their character (Fig. 14): the tombs themselves also begin to 


1 Perrot-Chipiez, Histoire de l' Art, iii. figs. 507, 623. 
H.S.—VOL. XVII. M 


162 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


change their form, and acquire barrel-shaped roofs; and are approached by 
a flight of steps. 

Tomb 26 contained only an amphora of type 1 (Fig. 13), two smaller 
amphorae of kindred type, and three ‘bottle jugs.’ The door was in place, and 
the tomb full of earth and undisturbed, so that the tomb has almost certainly 
not been plundered. The equipment of this tomb, and the even scantier 
furniture of Tombs 27, 28, resemble closely that of the majority of the earlier 
Punic tombs at Carthage." 

Tomb 61 had a slightly barrel-shaped roof, and contained an oenochoe, a 
degenerate flat-lipped jug like those of Carthage, a plate of red slip ware, two 
bowls, and a Cypriote lamp. 

Tomb 62 had-a fully rounded barrel roof, and a second chamber behind 
the first. A distinct flight of rock-cut steps descended right into the tomb: 
the door-lintel being almost level with the roof, and the door-slab resting on 
the second step from the bottom. Though the door-slab was in place, and the 
tomb apparently undisturbed, there were found only a degenerate ‘tree 
pattern’ amphora, six ‘bottle jugs, and a one-handled wine-jar of type 4 
(Fig. 13). 


Late Graeco-Phoenician Tombs with Hellenic Importations. 111.---ΤΊ, Century. 


Tombs 18, 29-80, 32-3, 39, are characterised by the presence of Hellenic 
black-glazed ware, all of poor quality and apparently of late date. Tomb 13, the 
best of these, is further assigned to a late date by the use, as its door-stone, of a 
limestone stele with the Phoenician inscription No. 2 (p.172), which itself cannot 
be earlier than the end of the fourth century. Other fragments of Hellenistic 
masonry were built into the sides of the doorway. The tomb itself contained 
a late lamp, some ‘tear bottles,’ and a black-glazed kantharos of the debased 
form which occurs also at Amathus, (e.g. (1894) 113, 119, 197, 211) and there 
seems to be uniformly late. 

Tomb 39, which was found collapsed, yielded only a black-glazed phiale 
with stamped palmettes &c., and an unpainted vessel of very late Graeco- 
Phoenician type. 

Tombs 29, 30, 32, 33, mere trial shafts nearer the line of the wall of 
ΚΊΤΙΟΝ, produced only fragments of black-glazed, and late red-figured ware, 
such as are strewn all over the surface of this part of the site. A fragment 
from Tomb 30 bore the graffito AHA////, No. 14 below: and the inscription 
No. 7 came from Tomb 33. 


Hellenistic and Graeco-Roman Tombs with late Lamps, Glass, and Coins. 


In this group, Graeco-Phoenician pottery is wholly absent, with the 
exception of the Cypriote lamp in Tomb 35. The tombs are uniformly long 
and barrel-roofed, and often have a second chamber behind the first; though 


1 Delattre, Tombeaux Puniques 1890 ; Nécropole Punique 1896. 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 163 


the partition is in many cases almost wholly decayed. As no detailed chrono- 
logy can as yet be attempted of this group, the tombs are described in the 
order of their discovery. 

Lomb 18 contained many lamps and glass bottles, a poor mirror, and 
other fragments of bronze: one valve of a Pectunculus shell may have served 
as an ornament, or as a spoon. Cippi with inscriptions Nos. 11, 12 were found 
in the dromos. 

Tomb 20, barrel-roofed, with a second chamber behind the first, contained 
sarcophagi of roughly-hewn alabaster: the contents were in confusion, but 
among a numerous late equipment there remained a fine late lamp with 
moulded top and triangular handle-plate; and a small stone altar with a 
human face between two trees, rudely incised on the front. 

Tomb 22 closely resembled 20, both in plan and in contents: a large slab 
of gypsum in the floor of the first chamber, near the left-hand wall, may have 
served as a couch like those in Tomb 56 above. A number of the very late 
ribbed amphorae of gritty red earth were set upright in the corners on either 
side of the door. Among the glass was a painted lid, like ΟΜ. 2861 ff.; but 
the colours, and even the outline, were almost wholly defaced. 

Tomb 35 was a long barrel-roofed chamber containing four plain sarcophagi, 
with room for two more towards the door. Its equipment was very elaborate, 
and particularly rich in glass, including an unusually large and thin glass 
plate, a small bottle of blue glass, and another of the blue and white streaked 
glass. It was in this tomb that the heterogeneous Cypriote lamp above men- 
tioned (p. 155) was found lying by an opened and rifled sarcophagus, all the 
jewellery of which had disappeared except one late gold earring of type e 
(C.M.C. p. 122). 

Tomb 44, with two long barrel-roofed chambers, was entirely filled with 
earth, but a tunnel through its whole length yielded an elaborate late equip- 
ment, and fragments of a terracotta sarcophagus, with outward-turned rim, 
and square projections at the corners: nothing was recovered of the cover. 
A large plain alabaster sarcophagus stood on the left side of the hinder 
chamber. One of the lamps was some ten inches long, with triangular 
handle-plate, and stamped central medallion, unfortunately blurred by over- 
firing and vitrification of the surface, but apparently representing Eros 
struggling under a heavy tree trunk; perhaps masquerading as Herakles. 
This lamp was stolen from the store-room of the Teké before it had been 
photographed, but may reappear some day in a private collection. One gold 
earring of late type had two pearls, or perhaps decomposed glass beads, as 
pendants. 

Tomb 45, of similar form to the preceding, yielded a Rhodian wine- 
amphora (C.M. 2024) bearing a rectangular stamp with a caduceus and 
illegible inscription: the caduceus reappears in the stamps C.M. 2313-5; and 
in C.M. 2321-2 associated with a grape-cluster and the name MIAA. The 
glass from this tomb was peculiarly rich, and included a saucer of millefiore 
glass (C.M. 2850) with a medley of composite coloured rods, and shreds of 
white and yellow glass, in a dark blue transparent ground. The tomb con- 

M 2 


164 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


tained also a gold ring of late type, with the gem missing (C.M. 4217), three 
late earrings (C.M. 4097, 8058-8072), and two nearly flat bronze dises with 
small handles in the middle (C.M. 3557,3559), which might be either 
miniature cymbals, or the covers of small toilet vessels. 

The fragments of a marble stele, with the Phoenician inscription No. 3, 
was found in the shaft: a fragmentary akroterion is of the same marble, and 
probably from the same stele. 

Tombs 14-16, 19, 24, 36, 38, 41, 46, 48-52, 54, 57 produced nothing of 
importance: 48-52 had been already rifled : 36 struck no tomb, but the large 
marble stele with the Phoenician inscription No. 1 was found face upwards 
about three feet from the surface: its position was about 100 ft. E. of the 
high road, and 20 feet S. of the lane leading into Old Larnaka on the north of 
the site. 


V.—LARNAKA: KAMELARGA: GRAECO-PHOENICIAN SANCTUARY WITH 
VoTIVE TERRACOTTAS. 


The circuit wall of ΚΙΤΙΟΝ, which, as above mentioned, forms a 
conspicuous escarpment in the open ground to the S.W. of Old Larnaka, has 
never been properly examined; and during the progress of the Turabi 
excavation, it seemed worth while to open a trial trench through the 
escarpment, in its highest part, where its total height is some 12-15 feet. The 
Commissioner of Larnaka, to whose hospitality and constant help I owe more 
than I could easily express, had put at my disposal the piece of ground 
marked K in the map (p. 149) lying behind his own garden, abutting south- 
wards on an unenclosed cart track leading from the 8. end of the main street 
of Old Larnaka towards the Turabt Teké, and northwards along the escarpment 
itself, on a narrower path, which at its junction with the main street aforesaid 
is lined with small houses, and dignified with the name of ‘ Leopold Street.’ 
This piece of ground goes by the name of the Kamelarga (Καμηλαργὰ : LL. 
camelaria), from a camel stable, which occupied it formerly but was pulled 
down a few years ago. The walls of this camel stable were remembered to 
have contained large stones which had been found on the site, so that there 
was reason to hope that some traces of the foundations of the wall of ΚΊΤΙΟΝ 
might still be traced at this point. As the ‘ Leopold Street’ footpath pre- 
vented a clear trench being cut from the actual foot of the slope, a beginning 
was made by a shaft above the path, near the E. boundary of the site, and at 
a point where two large stones appeared to be in situ. These proved, however, 
to be only part of the foundation of the camel stable, or of some other 
building, mediaeval at earliest, and neither here, nor on any other part of the 
site, was the Graeco-Phoenician masonry discovered. The whole of the wall 
itself in this quarter seems to have been destroyed, but the difference of level 
within and without its course indicates that its destruction here was compara- 
tively recent. Several large and well-squared blocks of compact limestone 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 165 


which must be from it were found on the site and in neighbouring walls and 
enclosures ; one on the N.W. corner of the site measured 24’ x 20” x 14", and 
others, less perfect, by estimation about the same. 

Attention, however, was wholly diverted from the town wall to a compact 
layer of votive terracottas which appeared in the original shaft A, about five 
feet from the surface, and proved to be about two feet thick. To test the 
extension of the layer a second shaft B was begun about six feet further east, 
and on the very edge of the site. Here also the layer of terracottas was 
found, but at a slightly lower level, and on tunnelling inwards the surface 
line was traced, until it joined that in shaft A. The west side of A was 
similarly enlarged by tunnelling as far as was safe, and the layer was found 
as far as the excavation extended ; but further progress in this direction was 
obstructed by the compact concrete foundation of the surface walls, which it 
would have been necessary to break up in order to go further. Towards the 
path also a series of the thick gypsum slabs marking old floors or thresholds 
at various levels above the terracotta layer made digging very difficult. It 
seemed clear, however, from a small trench beyond the road, that the heap 
did not exist undisturbed so near the surface of the slope. Probably it was 
formed against, or immediately within the circuit walls, and was a principal 
contributor to the rise of the ground-level within the town. Enough, however, 
of the layer was examined to make clear its general character, and the outline 
of its history. 

The votive terracottas were all, with the few exceptions noted below, of 
the same rude fabric, and of approximately the same dimensions ; the height 
varying from five to eight inches. They were made by the simple method of 
turning, on the potter’s wheel, a deep funnel with slightly trumpet-shaped 
rim, and truncated point. Sometimes the funnel bulged at the point ; some- 
times it narrowed evenly, and in the latter class the paint was usually more 
elaborate, and the style of the head somewhat more advanced. This, when 
partly dry, was reversed and set upon its wide mouth: and into its narrow 
end was thrust the long stalk or neck of a solid clay head, the face of which 
had been impressed in a shallow mould. Several varieties of mould can be 
recognised ; some distinctly negroid (6... ΟΜ, 5549), and the majority of the 
mixed oriental style which passes for Phoenician, but none Hellenic: all are 
beardless; but if a male figure was to be indicated, a pointed beard, often of 
considerable length (Fig. 15. 14. 19.), was added in soft clay to the freshly 
moulded chin; consequently if the chin was already somewhat dry, the beard 
failed to adhere, wholly or in part. The joint between head and body was 
superficially welded with wet clay, but remained usually, like the junction of 
chin and beard, a very weak spot. 

Similarly the arms were expressed by hand-modelled pellets of clay, and 
subordinate types of offering were distinguished by the gesture or by the 
addition of musical instruments, weapons, or various sacrificial offerings. 
Finally, the figures were dipped in a fine slip of paler colour than the clay, 
and painted; the hair, and outlines of the drapery in black; the face and 
sometimes the hands, in dark red, with the eyes in white outlined with black ; 


166 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


and the garments in brighter red, bright dusty yellow ochre, and occasionally 
in a very powdery perishable blue. 

Besides this normal funnel-bodied type, a number of simpler figures 
were found, with the body thinner, more columnar, and solid. These also 
had the head less distinctly moulded, and occasionally showed signs of hand- 


a: 


Fic, 15.—KAMELARGA. VoTIVE Figures. Cyprus Museum. 


modelling. They therefore probably represent a survival of the earlier 
‘snow-man technique’ which is common in Cypriote tombs of the ninth and 
earlier centuries, and is normal on the sites of the sanctuaries excavated by 
Dr, Ohnefalsch-Richter ! at Khytroi and Soloi. 


2 Kuyrrol, K.B.H. p. 13, Pl. xl. xli, C. M.C.5201 ff. Sotor, K.B.H. p. 20, C.M.C. 5401 ff. 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 167 


It does not follow, however, that they are wholly of earlier date, as they 
were found in approximately the same proportions at various depths and 
parts of the mass. 

A further development in the other direction from the funnel-bodied 
figures, leads to a class made all in one piece, hollow throughout, and pressed 
in a full length mould. These were represented as fully draped, with a 
rounded or peaked headdress. They were all female and all carried tam- 
bourines. Fig. 15. 4. 

The following principal types were distinguished among the funnel- 


bodied figures :— 


A. Tambourine players: either male or female; the tambourine being 
held either upright between the hands and at right angles to the body, or flat 
against the breast. Fig. 15, 3. 5. 


B. Harp players: very rare and all female; of advanced style aud 
elaborate painting: the harp is of the oriental three cornered type, held on 
the left arm and played with the right hand. Fig. 15. 76. 


C. Suppliants: fairly common and all female; the hands are pressed 
together, fingers upwards, in front of the breast. Careless workmanship con- 
fuses this type with ill-formed tambourine-players on the one hand, and 
with the ‘Oriental Goddess’ type (1) with arms crossed, or folded on the 
breast, on the other. 


D. Mother and Child: a rare variant of the Suppliant type, connecting 
it with the types which follow. In a specimen in. the Ashmolean Museum 
the child extends its arms in an attitude of adoration; so it is clearly the 
votary with her infant, not a Madonna-Goddess, who is represented in this, as 
in the other types of this series. 


E. Votaries bringing offerings; very common except at the top of the 
heap, and either male or female: the offering is frequently indistinct, and is 
either a flower, a wreath with crossed ends, a dish of cakes, a deep bowl with 
incurved rim, (in one instance, C.M. 5539, flower and bowl are combined; in 
another the bowl becomes a tall cup, and one hand is laid, in consecration- 
gesture, on the rim), a bird, (either swan, or dove); or a horned animal, calf 
orkid. Fig. 15. 4. 10. 11. 12. 14. 16. 17. 


F. Lamp bearers: rare and all female: the figure is that of a votary, 
usually carrying a bowl; on the head is a Cypriote saucer-lamp, of the late 
(fifth—third century) type with flat rim, usually gaily painted. Fig. 15. 9. 


G. Warriors: fairly common, especially in the lower part of the heap: 
of course all bearded and presumably male.2_ They wear a pointed Assyrian 
helmet of seventh century type, like that found by Prof. Petrie at Thebes in 


1 For details v. C.M.C. pp. 6. 153-7. dite’ possibly suggested by warrior-statuettes 
2 But was the story of the ‘bearded Aphro- with beards omitted or defaced ! 


168 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


1896 ; ashort sword girt high under the left arm, and very rudely represented ; 
and often also a round shield running out to a sharp central point ; to minimise 
the chances of breakage the front and back edges of the shield are usually 
pressed into the body, as though the shield were a soft petasos. Frequently 
the warriors carry also a sacrificial offering of type #. Fig. 15. 14. 19. 


H. ‘Oriental Goddess’ .type: rare and always female: the arms are 
crossed in front of the body, and the breasts are prominently indicated. It is 
difficult to believe that this type alone of the series represents the Deity and 
not the worshippers: and it may probably be taken as representing a mode of 
self-devotion, of which in this instance we have no precise account. 


How the last named type came into currency here is probably explained 
by the discovery of a number of examples of the well known solid moulded, 
flat-backed, strongly Egyptizing nude female figures, in a slightly different, 
and Nilotic-looking clay, but similar black and red paint. These came 
mostly from the middle and lower part of the heap, but are unfortunately not 
sufficiently characterized to serve as a datemark: their nearest analogues are 
from Cypriote tombs of XX VI. dynasty date. Fig. 15. 2. 6. | 

Other miscellaneous objects worth mentioning are a number of fragments 
of larger hand-modelled statues, as large as quarter life-size, of local clay, but 
in a style resembling that of the ‘Toumba’ site at Salamis,! but exhibiting a 
wider range of influences. Some of them were strongly Egyptizing; others 
more purely Cypriote: one of the former showed well the spiral ornaments 
which are frequently found in sixth—fifth century tombs in the upper as well 
as in the lower lobe of the ear.2_ One face had been modelled separately as a 
mask for suspension, with perforated eyes (C.M. 5560). 

The pointed caps of some of the little figures are illustrated on a larger 
scale by a detached male head C.M. 5555, and by a separate votive cap (C.M. 
5556), which has never been part of a statuette: and the shields of the 
‘warriors’ (type G.) by a round convex shield, with single κάνων behind, 
and red and black bands and rim-pattern of triangles outside? Fragments of 
horses and horsemen (C.M. 5562-4) and of votive doves, and a bull’s head 
modelled hollow for suspension, and painted black, complete the series of 
terracottas. 

A few stone figures were found, which are important for the dating of 
the whole find, A female figure (C.M. 5571) in a Cypriote armless chiton 
and stole, and holding a tambourine,‘ seems to belong to the later sixth cen- 
tury, and corresponds with the tambourine playing terracottas. A male 
torso (Fig. 15. 13.), of very long, narrow proportions, with arms by the sides 
and painted indications of skin-tight striped vest and red loin-cloth or drawers, 
indicates a similar date. The early fifth century is represented by a small 


1 J.H.S. xii. 116 ff. 96 

2 Cf. K.B.H. xlviii. 2, lv. 7; C.M. 5981-2 1895 (2.1). 

(Limniti ἢ). ; 131 
3 Cf. that from Larnaka Turabi 60 (in Ashmo- * Fig. 15. 18. ΟΝ, Brit. Mus. A 9, 10, 15, 

lean Museum). and one from Kurion (Brit. Mus. 18; K.B.H. Ixviii. 1, 13. 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 169 


youthful male head (ΟΜ, 5575 = Fig. 15. 7.) of the rare archaic Cypriote school 
under Hellenic influences, which is represented by the marble torso from 
Poli and sundry heads from Dali and Akhna in the British Museum ; by 
other heads from Dali and Limniti at Berlin; and by three heads from Voni, 
and another from Dali and Tamassos in the Cyprus Museum! 

On the other hand, a genre group (C.M. 5576= Fig. 15 7.) of a seated 
boy playing with a dog, though rudely cut, and gaily painted like the little 
figurines, cannot be dated earlier than the middle of the fourth century, and 
might be much later: but the total absence of any other object of Hellenistic 
style, coupled with the fact that this was found completely engaged in the 
heap, though not low down in it, precludes the reference of it to a much 
later date than the Ptolemaic conquest. A few charms and fragments 
of Egyptian glazed porcelain (C.M. 5577-8, 4712, 4766), a small stone 
incense altar C.M. 5579, and a single rude spindle whorl complete the tale 
of the discoveries. 

From the date given above, it will be seen that the extreme chronological 
limits of the deposit are given by the character of the rudest figurines, which 
cannot be put higher than the seventh century; and by the group of the boy 
and dog just mentioned, which probably belongs to the end of the fourth: 
intermediate dates have been already indicated in the sixth and early fifth 
centuries; and some evidence has been stated to show that the top of the 
heap at all events is of slightly different, and presumably later character than 
the remainder. 

The attributes, and offerings, of the votaries do not give a decisive clue 
to the presiding deity of the shrine. The mould-pressed nude female figures, 
and analogous types of tambourine players (but associated with flute-players, 
ΟΜ. 5302-3) and of votaries with drink offerings, occur on the site of the 
sanctuary of the ‘ Paphian Goddess’ at KuytTRo1:? and flowers, doves, cakes, 
lyres, and tambourines on that of Aphrodite in the lower town of IDALion.3 
The preponderance of female statuettes also argues in favour of a female deity. 
But unfortunately no inscriptions came to light in the trial shafts; and the 
mass of superincumbent walls and floors prevented the excavation of any 
further parts of the early layer with the means which remained at my 
disposal. 

A few specimens, for the most part uncatalogued, in the Salle des Origines 
of the Louvre, are so closely analogous in every particular that they may be 
regarded as certainly from this site, though their date of entry into the 
Louvre shows that they are not from the excavation of 1894. From the 
excavators’ share of the latter, duplicate sets of figurines have been offered to 
the British Museum, the Ashmolean and Fitzwilliam Museums, the Louvre, 
and the Berlin Antiquarium: and a number of examples of the commoner 
types are still available for distribution. 


1 Voni C.M. 5005-7 ; Dali, C.M. 5642; Ta- 2 O0.M C. pp. 149 ff 
massos, 6083. Cf. C.M.C. p. 30, n. 2, for 3 C.M.C pp. 157 ff. 
further references. 


170 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


VI. LARNAKA: BATSALOS. 


On my first visit to Larnaka, Mr. Cobham called my attention to a passage 
of Colonna Ceccaldi’s Monwments Antiques de Chypre &c. (p. 19, reprinted 
from Rev. Arch. 1870 p. 26), in which he describes one of General L. P. di 
Cesnola’s excavations on the borders of the Salt Lake behind Larnaka. At 
the suggestion of Colonna Ceccaldi, workmen were employed on the conspicu- 
ous mound known as Batsalos, and indicated in the map (p. 149) at the 
east end of the causeway which crosses the lagoon. According to Colonna 
Ceccaldi,! who unfortunately gives neither plan nor further details :— 


Ils mirent ἃ découvert des restes de magonnerie, substructions en petits moellons, 
enfouies peu profondément, et récolterent, éparpillés en divers endroits, un assez grand 
nombre de fragments de marbre portant tous sur leur bord, gravées en caractéres lapidaires 
assez nets, des inscriptions phéniciennes. 

Un tertre de meme genre existe sur la rive opposée du marais, a un mille environ du 
Tekieh de la Sultane,? sur une langue de terre qui s’avance assez loin dans l'eau. Des 
travaux suivis améneraient peut-étre en cette endroit des découvertes d’antiquités égale- 
ment phéniciennes. 


Acting on this suggestion I spent some time in examining, and eventually 
in testing by trial shafts, all the promontories on the west side of the lagoon 
north of the causeway. South of the causeway there is no promontory, nor 
any mound on the shore of the lagoon which would attract the attention of 
an observer standing on the Batsalos hill. In all cases we struck virgin soil— 
mere decomposed rock, immediately below the turf; and the only object of 
antiquity which was found was a fragment of a ‘hemispherical bowl’ of the 
painted white slip ware of Lakshd tu Rid: but this obviously proved no more 
than did the corresponding fragment found on the Turabt site. 

Mr. Cobham told me that in spite of the difficulties of examination, he 
had assured himself that the ‘holy place’ enclosed by the Halé Sultana Teké 
was a megalithic monument like the chapel of the Phaneroméne nearer 
Larnaka.? But I was not able to come within sight of it. 

Disappointed of a new site, I spent some days trenching the top of the 
Batsalos mound, which is a genuine hill of soft limestone, with two or three 
feet of barren soil on the top. A number of ill constructed chambers were 
traced, with walls of undressed rubble in strong cement. Most of the stones 
were small, but in some cases the foot of the wall was composed of blocks 2-3 
feet long, but still unhewn. The only detail of the construction which could 
be traced was a cement-lined gutter draining the eastern side of the building 


and falling into a shallow pit or 


1 Colonna Ceccaldi gives a map in which 
Cesnola’s site is identified with Batsalos, but 
Batsalos projects northwards into the lake from 
the southern margin of its main basin. A 
misreading of the map has given rise to new 
errors in that given in the Corpus Incriptionum 
Semiticarum I. p. 85. General di Cesnola 


cess-pool lined with rubble, a few 


himself (Cyprus, p. 55 ff.) describes the site in 
terms which suit the Batsalos hill fairly well, 
but he places the scene of his operations on the 
South- West of the Salt Lake. 

2 Halé Sultana Teké, 

8 J0H.S...iv. ps 111. 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 171 


feet from the N.E. corner. No architectural fragments were found at all: 
but on the surface one fragment of a white marble bowl with inscription 
No. 4 (Ashm. Mus.); the upper half of an Egyptian glazed porcelain 
statuette of XX VI. dynasty or later date (Ashm. Mus.) ; a fragment of a terra- 
cotta horse of snow-man technique (C.M. 5591); and two fragments of a 
fragment of a Hellenistic Draped female statuette (C.M. 5590) Attic black- 
glazed bowls with Phoenician graffiti (C.M. 1996, 1997). Cesnola’s men, or 


the stone-hunters of whom he too complains (l.c.) had done their work only 
too well. 


VII. ZARUKAS. 


From this late Bronze Age site, I acquired, from a peasant, the following 
objects now in the Ashmolean Museum; they were said, and with probability, 
to have been found together :— 

(1) a small flat saucer of green serpentine. 

(2) an oval crucible (7) of greenstone, well worked, with a spout at one 
end, and a rudimentary handle at the other. 

(3) a conical grinder or pestle of hard greenish limestone (?) ; too large to 
have been used with (1), which moreover shows no sign of grinding. 

(4) two small oxen of ‘base ring ware’ attached to fragments of the 
upper surface of a vessel of undeterminable form. These give a fair date 
mark for the whole group. 

(5) a very small conical bowl: pointed below, and only an inch across 
the rim: of quite rude hand-made fabric, and only noteworthy on account of 
a distinct flame-stain at one point of the rim: from which it is clear that the 
vessel has been used asa lamp. As there was no trace of grease or oil, this 
use cannot have been recent; consequently it may be presumed that we have 
here, so far as I am aware, the unique example of a Bronze Age lamp from a 
Cypriote site, and the only survivor of the predecessors of the Graeco- 
Phoenician saucer-lamp which was introduced, probably from Egypt, at the 
beginning of the sub-Mykenaean Age. 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE EXCAVATIONS AT LARNAKA. 


As above stated p. 152 the marble stele, now in the British Museum 
(No. 47), and published in the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (Vol. I. 
No. 44: Pl. viii. 44, 44a) was found at the point marked 7' in the map (Fig. 6. 
ef. the map in 6.1.8. p. 35). The following were found in the excavations of 
1894 above described. 

1, A stele of white marble, apparently Pentelic, in perfect condition ; in 
the form of a four sided obelisk, narrowing slightly towards the top, which is 
gable-shaped. The inscription is on the front, and about halfway down; in 
five lines of small clearly cut letters of the third century, perfect except one 


172 EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 


which was bruised by the pick of the workman who cleared the face. The 
stele is exhibited in the British Museum (No. 31) outside the entrance to the 
Cypriote Room. The inscription was published, shortly, in the Academy 
No. 1238 (Jan. 25, 1896) by Rev. G. A. Cooke, Fellow of Magdalen College, 
Oxford, who hopes to discuss it at greater length elsewhere: and by Dr. 
Néldeke, from an impression, in the Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 1894, p. 400. 
It runs as follows :— 

This is the pillar which Arish, chief of the Stewards (?) erected to his father, to Parsi, 
chief of the Stewards (?), son of Arish, chief of the Stewards (?), son of Menahem, chief 
of the Stewards (?), son of Mashal, chief of the Stewards (?) son of Parsi, chief of the 


Stewards (?) ; and to his mother, to Shenizabal, daughter of Baal-ram, son of Milk-jathan, 
son of ‘Azar, chief of the Treasurers, over the bed of their rest for ever. 


The stele was found lying face upwards, but no trace remained either of 
its base, or of the ‘bed of their rest, the tomb of those whom it commemor- 
ates. 

2. A stele of local limestone, very shelly and now rough on the surface 
from exposure ; of flat form with a low pediment. The inscription is in two 
lines close below the cornice, in large bold letters of the late fourth or early 
third century. Below the inscription, incised on the face of the slab, is an 
outline which appears to be intended for a plough or a chariot ; but only the 
upper part is preserved, as the stele has been broken obliquely across, and the 
lower part is missing. There is also a break on the left edge which damages 
two letters or so of the inscription. Published by Rev. G. A. Cooke, Academy 
no. 1287 (Jan. 16. 1896). The inscription reads as follows :— 


To ‘Abd-ashtar, son of Eshmun, 
the chariot-smith : he made this. [May (the deity) bless him]. 


The allusion to chariot-making, and, probably, to a guild of chariot-smiths, 
is new. The stone was deposited with the Commissioner of Larnaka, and is 
No. 6231 of the Cyprus Museum Catalogue. 

3. Two fragments of a stele of white marble, not unlike Parian, were 
found in the shaft leading to Tomb 45. One was part of the left hand 
akroterion, with a boldly worked palmette on the front face. The other was 
a fragment of the left edge, apparently of the same stele, with part of an 
inscription in large and coarse but quite clear letters of the same period as 
the preceding. 

To Shamar-,fibaal, .. τς 
this pillar [j,,..,. . 
to them. [ 


It is published with the preceding in Academy no. 1237, deposited with 
it at Larnaka, and numbered 6232 in the Cyprus Museum Catalogue. 

4. On part of the rim of a bowl of slightly bluish, perhaps Syrian 
marble, found on the surface of the atsalos site, is the following inscription, 
in small clear letters of the late fourth or early third century, on the flat 
upper surface of the rim. 


‘.... his lord, the son of Melgarth, the son of Mikal... .’ 


EXCAVATIONS IN CYPRUS IN 1894. 173 


The stone is in the Ashmolean Museum, and is published, with the pre- 
ceding in Academy no. 1237: cf. a note by Mr. ἃ. Β, Gray in Academy no. 
1239, (Feb. 1, 1896). 

General L. P. di Cesnola states (Cyprus 55 ff.) that he found a number 
of such inscribed bowls in his excavation by the Salt Lake (CLS. Cyprus 
14 ff.); and it is possible that this fragment may belong to one of these, but 
it has not yet been possible to assign a place to it. Another fragment of a 
similar bowl, but uninscribed, was found on the Batsalos site in 1894. 

5. Graffito on a fragment of black glazed ware, found close to the surface 
of the Batsalos site. =C.M. 5592/1996. 

6. Graffito on a fragment of black glazed ware, found on the surface of 
the Batsalos site. = C.M. 5593/1997. 

Greek Inscriptions. All from the T’wrabi and Hassan Effendi sites. 

7. Fragment of a bluish marble like No. 4: found about 10 feet down, 
in Tomb 33, a trial shaft which led to a collapsed and rifled tomb: the 
inscribed face is slightly concave: the back is roughly dressed and has a 
large rectangular boss: small clear letters of the fourth century. 


ATAOOKAHE 
MAKPQNOE 
ΠΕΡΞΗΞ 


Compare a painted stele with the ethnic Βαβυλώνι[ος] from Amathus 
(1894), 109. 

8.-13. All the remaining inscriptions were on the usual roughly turned 
cippt of local limestone. None presented any noteworthy feature, and for 
brevity the personal names only are given here, in the vocative as on the 
original, and in cursive text, as no squeezes were taken, The numbers in 
brackets are those of the tomb-shafts in which they were found: other cippi 
from (1) (5) had the name mutilated, or illegible. 

8. (1) Προτώκτητε (sic.) 
9. (5) Εὐτυχε." 

10. (5) ᾿Αρέστων. 

11. (18) ᾿Ολυμπίανη (fem.). 

12. (18) Λεονέδη (masc.). | 

13. (44) Mapov. 

14. Graffito on a fragmentary black glazed bowl from the trial shaft 
Tomb 30. 


ΔΗΛ 


1 Cf, Εὐτύχη χρηστὲ χέρε copied together Munro, in the Turab{ Τοκό itself, J. H.S. xii. 
with ᾿Ονασκ[ρ]άτη χρηστὲ χαῖρε by Mr. J. A. RR, 522. 


JoHN L, Myrgs, 


TWO STELAE FROM KYNOSARGES. 
[Prats IV.) 


THE two fragmentary stelae here published were discovered in the course 
of the excavations of the British School at Kynosarges in the winters of 1895 
and 1896. One had been built into a Roman wall, the other into a late 
Hellenic watercourse. Within the area excavated there was no trace of 
any tombs of the period to which these reliefs may be referred, nor was any 
such trace to be expected. But the masons may very well have picked them 
up from close at hand; originally they may have stood by the side of a 
neighbouring road; indeed, they may be two of the actual tombstones 
desecrated by the soldiers of Philip." 

The first of these two stelae attaches itself to an early group of grave- 
stones described and dated by Kohler in the Athenische Mittheilungen of 
1885. The letters which remain of the inscription run ...ryov«... (perhaps 
Σ]τησικίλεια or Κ]τησικ[λεια) and end with a second σ᾽ on the other side of 
the break. The H is evidently the Ionic H, and the sigma has four limbs ; 
but this need not prevent the conclusion suggested by the style, that the 
stele was erected some time, but not a long time, before the outbreak of the 
Peloponnesian War. | 

The field is surmounted by a pediment with acroteria in low relief. An 
advance towards the free pediment of later times may be seen in those stelae 
which end in an angle at the top of the central acroterion; like many of the 
earlier tombstones, such as that of Xanthippus in the British Museum (no. 
618), our stele retains the original rectangular form, the surface only being 
cut away so that the pediment itself stands out in relief. It seems, however, 
to have been bounded at the sides by pilasters. 

All that is left of the actual sculpture is the upper part of the figure of a 
woman. Her hair is confined by a band wound over it several times—a 
favourite arrangement in the second half of the fifth century. Between the 
circuits of the band the hair lies in many lines, exactly like that of Hegeso 
on the well-known relief. She wears a solid circular earring. With her left 
hand she holds her mantle out in front of her. The straightness and stiffness 
of the fingers are marks of the early date of the stele, yet the difficulty of 
representing in relief a hand so held is still evident in one work at least 


1 Livy xxxi. 24, 18. 


Te igeee ay 
) 4 νυ 
. 


ἢ ae "a. Ἢ ἐὺ " ἡ» “ A, Bi. he Ry ' 
: +, ΩΣ μ ed ie fy, Sar) ᾿ ; yi 


) aes, ᾿ τ jan ων 
io a : a ea Ὁ" ἢ of, a 

Fe ia * ‘y 4: Mm ' ar ᾽ an ; ἂν ᾿ f ? By A 

‘aad ὶ wy top eee pee | PS ἃ + : ϊ 

[Pes er es Ase ς aa δον ae ea ac ΕΣ 

j ἝΞ. 
τῇ + Υ 5B ἡ P 1? 
Ἢ d ; Ν᾿. ͵ 
i 4} x 
᾿ ( ihe a) eat on MLO 
Ρ ἢ ἢ 

f κι 


Seve ae 


“ pas . " : a mere 
᾿ 7 Ὗ 5 ‘ f wy 
See Me See clk ae 
τὸς eee , Joa T 
Ἂ ις Ζ ᾿ 
x rh ve « 
eS. mee = 
ae as Ψ 
ΔῊΝ, = ᾿ «εἷς ᾿ 
- , es ᾿ 
se elon set 
ἢ ἢ “we ~~ 
γὦ Εἰ 
\ 5 
i ‘ ae αὐ 
- ὦ -_ Pe.) ἢ 
᾿ a } "» νὰ 47 ‘ a 1 
Ι Ν ; + _ Y rr. ; 
" Ἢ ee Cee ᾿ ee ἡ ἫΝ 
' Uh 7 wes 
~ τ, x τ ἐς “ 
“ΒΥ 
' BA ἂν 
P 9 - Ὺ a ' 
é 
. ν᾿ 4 é 
Π 1.’ ae) 
ἢ 1 
μι" ὡἧςς 
» - 
ΜΒ -. 
Ὁ". ἐ 
4 ᾿ ᾿ 
νὺν “ἢ ᾽ν -” { 
᾿ ΤΡ ων Σ 
Ὶ .» *y ’ 
ῥ ~~, hits Ι ties 
, » a © ᾿ oF 
\ i= A oi 
᾿ uit  * 
4 isa 
* > ae AW? | 
᾿ a) νι 
d ἦν 
“* re Ἴ ν΄ a RPS 
τ πον th a? 


TWO STELAE FROM KYNOSARGES. 175 


which is a full generation later (Acropolis Museum; ’Ed. ’Apy. 1893, PI. 
VIII.) ; there also the little finger has the same impossible bend. 

The total breadth of the stele has been 48 centimetres. There is room 
for a second figure on the right and perhaps the Σ᾽ over this portion may be 
the last of a second name. The marble is Pentelic. 

The second stele, also of Pentelic marble, is a considerably later specimen 
of the same class of work. The relief is low and is not framed at the sides 
by pilasters. The height of the fragment is 53) centimetres, its width 29. 

The principal figure on the part which is preserved is a woman seated in 
an attitude of mourning. In the background beside her chair stands a bearded 
man who clasps hands with another figure of which only a slight fragment 
remains, probably the end of a himation wrapped round an upraised left arm. 
It is natural to infer that this lost figure represented the person in remem- 
brance of whom the tombstone was set up; for it is towards him that the 
gaze of the mourning woman is directed, while the second figure, which is 
placed in the background, can scarcely be meant for the chief member of the 
group. The arrangement of the figures in this scene (one of them seated in 
front and not taking part in the clasping of hands) is unusual. 

The attitude of the seated lady is to be observed. One frequent type of 
mourning in Greek art is a figure with bent head, the right hand supporting 
the chin or cheek, the right elbow resting on the left hand. Here this 
mourning attitude is combined with another typical expression of bereave- 
ment, the upward look into the face of the lost friend: this latter motive is 
common enough in the fourth century but not until then. One conventional 
touch, very characteristic of Greek reliefs about the close of the fifth century, 
is the way in which the mantle hangs from the lady’s shoulder. There is the 
most exact similarity in this particular between our stele and the tombstone 
of Tynnias in the National Museum in Athens. (Conze, Gr. Gr. vol. ii. pl. 118, 
Gardner, Sculpt. Tombs of Hellas, pl. x.). 


C. E. EpGAR. 


1 See sketch of development of this type by Furtwangler, Coll. Sab. Pl. xv. text. 


176 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


ITS MODERN INTEREST. 


A FEW months ago the authorities of the British Museum announced 
the discovery of some of the lost odes of Bacchylides, the con- 
temporary of Pindar. Hitherto Bacchylides has been known only in 
fragments, none of them exceeding a dozen lines in length. Now we are 
promised over a thousand lines, of which as many as two hundred belong to a 
single ode. The discovery is, thus, one of considerable importance. Directly, 
it will reveal Bacchylides himself more fully; indirectly, it may be expected 
to throw light on many points of collateral interest. One such point is the 
relation of Pindar to the poetry of his time, another is the value of the 
literary judgments of some of the ancient critics. By both the links just 
mentioned the subject of this paper associates itself with the discovery. 

The author of the Treatise on the Sublime frames an estimate of Bacchy- 
lides which seems likely to be confirmed by a fuller knowledge of his poems. 
He ranks him below Pindar for the same reason that he ranks 
Hyperides below Demosthenes. Correctness is not to be compared, says he, 
with genius; flawlessness is no match for inspiration. It is not a little 
remarkable that, in the case of Hyperides no less than in that of Bacchylides, 
the preservation of papyrus manuscripts in the sands of Egypt has enabled 
the modern world to test and verify this estimate. The result has been the 
enhancement of the already high reputation of the De Sublimitate. The 
treatise is, in point of fact, one of the best pieces of literary criticism be- 
queathed to us by classical antiquity, and any circumstance is welcome which 
helps to preserve it from the oblivion with which it has been often threatened. 

The old saying that books have fortunes of their own is eminently true 
of the Treatise on the Sublime, with its many vicissitudes of neglect and 
celebrity. Of the early history of the work little is positively known. The 
tradition which ascribes it to Longinus, the celebrated minister of Queen 
Zenobia, has long been disputed ; and in the unsettled state of critical opinion 
upon the subject it seems better to treat the author as anonymous. Written 
at a date which within the limits of the first three centuries of the Christian 
era has been most variously assigned, the treatise appears to have remained 
almost unknown until it was printed by Francis Robortello at Basle in 
1554 A.D., and by Paulus Manutius at Venice in the following year. Since 
that time it has been edited again and again. Dutch and French, as well as 


ITS MODERN INTEREST. 177 


Italian, scholars have done much for it. In the eighteenth century it reached 
the climax of its authority, and was regarded by Boileau and Pope almost as 
a final court of appeal. In the earlier part of the present century its 
popularity declined owing to various causes. A wider outlook over the world 
of literature and man reduced to their right proportions the extravagant claims 
of some of its admirers. Less legitimately, the ultra-scientifie tendency of 
classical scholarship in Germany led that country to devote more attention 
to the vexed question of the authorship of the treatise than to the elucidation 
of its contents. ' Latterly, however, there have been, in Germany as elsewhere, 
signs of a reaction. Critical texts have been attempted, and many transla- 
tions have appeared. At one time or another the book has been rendered 
into almost every European language, and within the last few decades 
versions of it have appeared in Spain, where Castilian illustrations of its 
precepts are freely offered ; in Italy, where the traditional interest in literary 
criticism and in this book in particular has produced excellent fruit; and in 
Sweden, where the vigorous modern school of Scandinavian literature thus 
connects itself with the past. In England, too, though no adequate edition 
exists, and no edition at all has been published within the last fifty years, 
signs of renewed interest may be found in the issue or reissue of several 
translations. : 

The treatise, of which about one-third has been lost, has probably often 
suffered misconception through its customary English title. It has been 
thought to be at once more ambitious in purpose, and more narrow in scope, 
than it really is. The Greek title Περὶ “Yous, ‘Concerning Height 
or Elevation,’ does not convey that idea of abnormal altitude which is usually 
associated with the word sublime. The object of the writer rather is to 
indicate broadly the essentials of a noble and impressive style. In fact, if we 
were to describe the treatise as one on style, or even on literary criticism 
generally, we should be nearer the mark than if we connected it solely with 
the idea of ‘sublimity’ in the narrower sense. The author's own words make 
this plain, for early in his book he remarks that the friend whom he is 
addressing is too well versed in literary studies to need the reminder that 
sublimity is a certain distinction and excellence in expression, and that it is 
from no other source than this, that the greatest authors have derived their 
eminence and gained an immortality of renown! The friend in question is 
Postumius Terentianus,a Roman, who though young has had some experience 
in public affairs, and who is, like the writer himself, much interested in Greek 
and Latin literature. A rapid glance at the actual contents of the book will 
show the width of its range and indicate its true character. 

At the outset the author, after offering the definition of sublimity just 
given, proceeds to ask whether there is such a thing as an art of the sublime. 


11, 8: γράφων δὲ πρὸς σέ, φίλτατε, τὸν mai- καὶ συγγραφέων οὐκ ἄλλοθεν ἢ ἐνθένδε ποθὲν 
δείας ἐπιστήμονα, σχεδὸν ἀπήλλαγμαι καὶ τοῦ διὰ ἐπρώτευσαν καὶ ταῖς ἑαυτῶν περιέβαλον εὐκλείαις 
πλειόνων προῦποτίθεσθαι, ὡς ἀκρότης καὶ ἐξοχή τὸν αἰῶνα. 
τις λόγων ἐστὶ τὰ ὕψη, καὶ ποϊητῶν τε οἱ μέγιστοι 


Η.5.- ΟΣ, XVII. Ν 


178 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


His answer is, that, though elevation of tone is innate, yet art can regulate 
the use of natural gifts. It is, he says, with diction as with life. A man 
favoured by fortune ought to know how to use his advantages; a writer of 
genius ought to profit by the help of art. In order to show that a systematic 
treatise can effect much in the way of warning as well as by means of precept, 
he gives a short account of defects of style which are opposed to sublimity. 
With this purpose he describes and illustrates the vices of tumidity, puerility, 
misplaced passion, and frigidity. This done, he further characterises the true 
sublime, and shows how it may be distinguished from false imitations. Next 
he enumerates five sources of the sublime. The first and most important of 
these is grandeur of thought—the power of forming great conceptions. This 
power is founded on nobility of character. Elevated thoughts are also, we are 
told, the result of the imitation of great models, of imaginative power, and of 
the choice and grouping of the most striking circumstances. The second 
source is vehement and inspired passion. While affirming that there is no 
tone so lofty as that of genuine passion, the author does not treat of this topic 
in detail, but reserves it for a separate work. Third in order come figures of 
speech, such as adjuration (in illustration of which is given the famous oath 
which Demosthenes swore ‘by those who at Marathon stood in the forefront 
of the danger’), rhetorical question, asyndeton, and lastly hyperbaton or 
inverted order. The writer makes the general remark that a figure is at its 
best when the very fact that it is a figure escapes attention. The fourth 
source of sublimity is noble phrasing or diction. The chief element in this is 
the choice of proper and striking words, a choice which, he says, wonderfully 
attracts and enthralls the hearer, and breathes into dead things a kind of 
living voice. Other elements are metaphors, and similes, and hyperbole. 
Fifthly and finally comes elevation in the arrangement of words. Of this 
examples are given, and some remarks are added on such specific vices of style 
as arise from the use of too few words or too many, of too much rhythm or too 
little. The author concludes with a notable passage in which he endeavours to 
trace the causes of the dearth of great literature in his own day. 

This short sketch of the contents of the treatise will indicate its relation 
to the general subject of style. When we come to particulars, this relation is 
seen to be still more intimate, and yet to imply no narrowness of view on the 
author’s part. His hints with regard to thought and expression are shrewd 
and helpful, all the more so that he is too broad-minded to have any super- 
stitious faith in such formal Rules of Style as used to be popular in England a 
generation or two ago under the shadow of his name. A few examples of his 
illuminative observations may be offered. Speaking of Demosthenes, he 
remarks how that orator shows us that even in the revels of the imagination 
sobriety is required.” His good sense is seen in his praise of familiar language 
when used in season. A homely expression, he says, is sometimes much more 


‘xxx. 1: ἡ τῶν κυρίων καὶ μεγαλοπρεπῶν πράγμασι φωνητικὴν ἐντιθεῖσα. 
ὀνομάτων ἐκλογὴ θαυμαστῶς ἄγει καὶ κατακηλεῖ 3 xvi. 4: διδάσκων ὅτι κἀν βακχεύμασι νήφειν 
τοὺς ἀκούοντας... . .. οἱονεὶ ψυχήν τινα τοῖς ἀναγκαῖον. 


ITS MODERN INTEREST. 179 


telling than elegant diction, for it is understood at once since it is drawn from 
common life, and the fact that it is familiar makes it only the more con- 
vincing.! Of tumidity, or bombast, we are told that it seeks to transcend the 
sublime, and that it is a fault which seems particularly hard to avoid, but that 
if examined in the light of day, it fades away from the awe-inspiring into the 
contemptible.? An over-rhythmical style is condemned on the ground that it 
does not communicate to its hearers the emotion conveyed by the words but 
that conveyed by the rhythm. The author is the determined enemy of 
conceits and puerilities of all kinds, and he remarks that men fall into these 
errors because, while they aim at the uncommon and elaborate, and most of all at 
the attractive, they find that they have drifted into the tawdry and affected.* 
He expressly denounces that ‘pursuit of novelty in the expression of ideas 
which may be regarded as the fashionable craze of the day.’* ‘ Art is perfect,’ 
he says in one place, ‘ when it seems to be nature, and nature attains her end 
when she contains art hidden within her’; and again ‘ We should employ art 
as in every way an aid to nature, for the conjunction of the two may be held 
to constitute perfection.’ In this spirit he makes the remark, with reference 
to Demosthenes, that the tricks of rhetoric are hidden away in the blaze of 
the noontide splendour of sublimity and passion. ‘By what means,’ he asks, 
“has the orator here concealed the figure? Clearly, by the very excess of 
light. For just as all dim lights are extinguished in the glare of the sun, so 
do the artifices of rhetoric fade from view when bathed in the pervading 
splendour of sublimity.® Evidently with the critic who writes thus the 
judgment of style was, to quote his own words, ‘the last and crowning fruit of 
long experience.” Everywhere the man’s sincerity of purpose and clearness 
of vision are manifest, and a book written in this earnest and enlightened 
spirit does not soon fall out of date. 

Furthermore, the treatise may be regarded as a disquisition not only on the 
formation of style, but on literary criticism generally. In proof of this, it is only 
necessary to add to the foregoing description of its contents the reminder 
that it is a perfect storehouse of quotations illustrating excellencies and defects 
both of manner and of matter, both of form and of spirit. Reference is made to 
as many as fifty Greek writers, whose dates range over something like athousand 
years. Some of these are quoted repeatedly, Homer oftenest of all, and after 
him Herodotus, Plato, and Demosthenes. The author’s quality as a critic is 
most decisively seen in his preference of the best. The second-rate writers of 
Alexandria, though nearer in time, are not suffered to eclipse the true classics 
of Greece ; they are quoted rather in illustration of defects than of merits. 


1 χχχῖ, 1: ἔστιν ἄρ᾽ ὁ ἰδιωτισμὸς ἐνίοτε τοῦ 
κόσμου παρὰ πολὺ ἐμφανιστικώτερον' ἐπιγινώσκε- 
ται γὰρ αὐτόθεν ἐκ τοῦ κοινοῦ βίου, Td δὲ σύνηθες 
ἤδη πιστότερον. 

7 iii, 1, 3, 4. 

3 iii, 4 and iv. 

4 γ΄, : τὸ περὶ τὰς νοήσεις καινόσπουδυν, περὶ ὃ 
δὴ μάλιστα κορυβαντιῶσιν οἱ νῦν. 

YORU, 1, SERVI. 4. 


6 xvii, 2: τίνι γὰρ ἐνταῦθ᾽ ὁ ῥήτωρ ἀπέκρυψε 
τὸ σχῆμα; δῆλον ὅτι τῷ φωτὶ αὐτῷ. σχεδὸν 
γὰρ ὥσπερ καὶ τἀμυδρὰ φέγγη ἐναφανίζεται τῷ 
ἡλίῳ περιαυγούμενα, οὕτω τὰ τῆς ῥητορικῆς 
σοφίσματα ἐξαμαυροῖ περιχυθὲν πάντοθεν τὸ 
μέγεθος. 

7 vi.: ἡ γὰρ τῶν λόγων κρίσις πολλῆς ἐστι 
πείρας τελευταῖον ἐπιγέννημα. 


180 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


But in Homer we are bidden to admire such passages as speak of Ossa and 
Pelion; of Strife, ‘with her head in the skies and her feet on the earth’; of 
the Battle of the Gods; of the earth-shaking Posidon; of the ery of Ajax to 
Father Zeus ‘to slay, if slay he must, in the light; and of the yet more impress- 
ive silence of the same hero in the shades! Nowhere is the critic’s skilful 
touch better seen than where he treats of Homer. In drawing, for instance, a 
comparison between the Iliad and the Odyssey, he assigns the former poem to 
the poet’s vigorous manhood when he was at the height of his inspiration, 
the latter to his mellower age. ‘In the Odyssey Homer may be likened to a 
sinking sun, whose grandeur remains without its intensity.’ But he is careful 
to. add, ‘If I speak of old age, it is nevertheless the old age of Homer.’ ? 
Again, he has the rather happy remark that Homer ‘has made, as far as lay 
within his power, gods of the men concerned in the Siege of Troy, and men of 
the gods.” Altogether, it is refreshing to see how often and with 
what sympathy the latest of critics reverts to the earliest of poets, 
His admiration for noble literature has incidentally accomplished even 
more for Sappho than for Homer, though the former is but once men- 
tioned by him. In his tenth chapter, as an example of the proper choice and 
grouping of the most striking circumstances, he adduces, and in so doing has 
preserved for posterity, a fragment of Sappho’s poetry. The gist of his com- 
ment on the wonderful love-ode in question is that we see depicted in it not 
one passion only but a concourse of the passions. His critical acumen is, more- 
over, seen in the illustrations given, up and down his work, not only of sub- 
limity but of its opposite. One specific instance, in which the offender is 
Aratus, the Alexandrian poet, is worth a moment’s notice, as it seems to show 
that the writer of the treatise had at least a spark of humour in his composi- 
tion. Aratus is contrasted, to his disadvantage, with the great exemplar 


Homer. When pourtraying a storm and threatened shipwreck, Homer speaks 
thus :— : 

On some tall vessel, from beneath the clouds 

A giant billow, tempest-nursed, descends : 

The deck is drenched in foam ; the stormy wind 

Howls in the shrouds ; the affrighted seamen quail 

In fear, but little way from death removed. 


Aratus, the author continues, tried to produce the same effect in the following 
line :— 
But one small plank their doom doth keep away. 


He has thus described (so runs the criticism) the scene in terms that are 
neat and trivial rather than terrible. ‘Further, he has put bounds to the 
danger by saying A plank wards off doom. After all, it does ward it οὔ ἢ 


1 vili., ix. Mb τ 7: 
2 ix. 18 : ὅθεν ἐν τῇ ᾿Οδυσσείᾳ παρεικάσαι τις 4 Iliad xv. 624-8, Lord Derby’s translation. 
ἂν καταδυομένῳ τὸν Ὅμηρον ἡλίῳ, οὗ δίχα τῆς 5 x. 5, 6: πλὴν μικρὸν αὐτὸ καὶ γλαφυρὸν 


σφοδρότητος παραμένει τὸ μέγεθος. ἶχ. 14: γῆρας ἐποίησεν ἀντὶ φοβεροῦ" ἔτι δὲ παρώρισε τὸν κίνδυ- 
διηγοῦμαι, γῆρας δ᾽ ὅμως μήοου. νον εἰπών ξύλον ἄϊδ᾽ ἀπείργει᾽. οὐκοῦν ἀπείργει. 


ITS MODERN INTEREST. 181 


Besides Aratus, other minor writers,such as Timaeus and Theopompus, are 
made to furnish examples of faults which should be shunned by those who 
wish to write in the elevated manner. But the author is of too fearless a 
nature to strike only at the lesser men. He assails the great writers, such as 
Herodotus and Aeschylus, where they seem to him to offend against the 
canons of good taste. He has the courage to say that Demosthenes is too 
austere to be graceful and witty, and that when he forces himself into 
jocularity, he does not excite laughter, but rather becomes the subject of it. 
And he makes bold to affirm with regard to Euripides, the idol of the 
rhetorician, that he is by nature anything but elevated, and that it is only by 
force put upon his natural disposition that he appears to rise to tragic heights.” 
In such comments as these, whether we agree with them or not, we recognise 
pieces of genuine literary criticism, and the literary critic stands revealed no 
less in the note of pleasant egotism which makes itself heard now and again 
in the course of the treatise, and in such general maxims as that the poet 
must himself see what he would have others see,—must, in fact, have his ‘eye 
upon the object.’ 

Nor are such well-known topics of criticism as correctness, the standard of 
taste,and the comparative method, neglected by the author. Upon the question 
of correctness he shows a breadth of view which is in marked contrast with 
the opinions commonly held (and by his admirers, strange to say) in England 
for a century or more from the time of the Restoration. He is no believer in 
what is faultily faultless ; he is a supreme believer in fervour and inspiration. 
Elevation with some flaws is, he cannot doubt, to be preferred to uniform 
correctness without elevation. The passage is a characteristic one and may 
be quoted at some little length : 


‘I am well aware that lofty genius is far removed from flawlessness ; for invariable 
accuracy incurs the risk of pettiness, and in the sublime, as in great fortunes, there must be 
something which is overlooked. It may be necessarily the case that low and average 
natures do remain as a rule free from failing and in greater safety because they never run a 
risk nor aim at the sublime, while great endowments prove insecure because of their very 
greatness. Further, I am not ignorant that it naturally happens that all human things are 
always better known by their worse traits, and that the memory of errors remains indelible, 
while that of excellencies quickly dies away. I have myself noted not a few errors on the 
part of Homer and other writers of the greatest distinction, and I am anything but pleased 
with the slips they have made. But still I do not term them wilful errors, but rather 
oversights of a random and casual kind, due to neglect and introduced with all the heed- 
lessness of genius. Consequently I do not waver in my view that excellencies higher in 
quality, even if not sustained throughout, should always on a comparison be voted the first 
place, because of their sheer elevation of spirit if for no otber reason. Granted that 
Apollonius in his Argonautica shows himself a poet who does not trip, and that Theocritus 
in his pastorals is most happy, would you not, for all that, choose to be Homer rather than 
Apollonius ?...... Again, in lyric poetry would you prefer to be Bacchylides rather than 
Pindar? And in tragedy to be Ion of Chios rather than Sophoc'es?,,,... What need to add 
that each one of the great authors often redeems all his errors by a single sublime and 


1 xxxiv, 3: ἔνθα μὲν γελοῖος εἶναι βιάζεται καὶ τὴν αὐτὸς αὑτοῦ φύσιν ἐν πολλοῖς γενέσθαι 
ἀστεῖος, οὐ γέλωτα κινεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ καταγελᾶται. τραγικὴν προσηνάγκασεν, 
2 xv. 8: ἥκιστά γέ τοι μεγαλοφυὴς ὧν ὅμως 


182 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


happy touch, and (most important of all) that if one were to pick out and mass together the 
blunders of Homer, Demosthenes, Plato, and all the rest of the greatest writers, they would 
be found to be a very small part, nay an infinitesimal fraction, of the triumphs which 
those heroes can point to on every hand ?’? 


Again, our author’s answer to the often-asked question whether there is 
any trustworthy test of the sublime—any sure standard of taste in literature— 
seems surprisingly modern because it is so permanently true: 

‘When a thing is heard repeatedly by a man of intelligence, who is well versed in 
literature, and its effect is not to dispose the soul to high thoughts, and it does not leave in 
the mind more food for reflection than the words seem to convey, but falls, if examined 
carefully through and through, into disesteem, it cannot rank as true sublimity because it 
does not outlive a first hearing. For that is really great which bears a repeated examination, 
and which it is difficult or rather impossible to withstand, and the memory of which is 
strong and hard to efface. In general, consider those examples of sublimity to be fine and 
genuine which please all and always. For when men of different pursuits, lives, ambitions, 
ages, languages, hold identical views on one and the same subject, then that consensus of 
judgment, so to say, which results from discordant elements makes our faith in the object 
of admiration strong and unassailable.’ ? 


No modern critic could formulate more precisely, in relation to literature, the 
quod semper, quod ubigue principle. 

Modern in many ways, the author is in nothing more modern than in 
foreshadowing the application of the comparative method to the study of 
literature. It is easy to scoff at literary comparisons, and no doubt there 
is often much that is puerile and inept about them. But, as M. Brunetiére 
has pointed out, the ridicule comes with ill grace from those who celebrate so 
loudly the triumphs in our own day of comparative anatomy, comparative 
physiology, and comparative philology. In a sense science may be said 
to begin in comparison, in the effort to distinguish things that differ and 
thereby to bring out the true nature of each and all. At the same time it is 
well to remember the necessary limitations of the comparative method where 
literature is concerned. It is utterly out of place and futile, if its object is to 
place the great writers in an order of merit, and to establish a sort of literary 
hierarchy. And even where the aim is simply to bring out the distinctive 
points of contrasted authors, it should not be forgotten that the methods of the 
laboratory can never fully be applied to the analysis of the finest products of 
the human mind. In this matter it may not unfairly be claimed that the 
author assumes a judicious attitude. The comparison, already quoted, of 
a passage in Homer with a passage in Aratus is distinctly happy. And so, 
in its way, is the comparison between Homer in the Iliad and Homer in the 
Odyssey. And so, again, is the passage in which he compares, not the same 
poet in different works, but two orators of different countries, Demosthenes 
and Cicero, Speaking with due diffidence as a Greek addressing a Roman, he 
ventures the opinion that it is in profusion that Cicero chiefly differs from 
Demosthenes. The latter is like a thunderbolt or flash of lightning; the 


former resembles a widespread conflagration which rolls on with all-devouring 
flames,’ 


ΦΧ ΚΠ, ΒΑ xxxvi, 2. 3. vii. 8, 4, 3 xii. 4, 


ITS MODERN INTEREST. 183 


In his use, however limited it may be, of the comparative method the 
author has the advantage over his great predecessors Plato and Aristotle, 
neither of whom knew any literature except his own. It is interesting to 
observe in what general features he agrees with, or differs from, these masters 
of literary criticism. With both he has this in common that he may often 
seem unduly verbal and philological,—may often seem to attach excessive 
importance to rhythm, to figures, and to questions of form generally. Not 
that it is so in reality. Rather, attention to such matters must be the 
backbone of criticism, and especially of early criticism. In other points the 
author resembles Plato much more nearly than he resembles Aristotle. He 
breathes the spirit of the Ion rather than of the Poetics. He is subjective 
rather than objective. He is an enthusiast rather than an analyst. He is 
better fitted to fire the young than to convince the maturely sceptical. He 
speaks rather of ‘transport’ or ‘inspiration’ than of ‘purgation’ or ‘the 
universal,’ He was not, to tell the truth, a man of deep and penetrating 
intellect like Aristotle, but he was nevertheless a critic of keen artistic 
sensibilities. His book does not offer the great luminous definitions contained 
in the Poetics, nor is it marked by the cool and searching scientific analysis by 
which that work is distinguished. Yet it may be that it supplies something of 
its own. +Aristotle but seldom makes us feel that there sometimes dwells in 
words a beauty which defies analysis because it is the direct expression of a 
human spirit and is charged with emotion as well as controlled by reason. Our 
author’s chief aim is, on the other hand, aesthetic rather than purely scientific. 
This difference in standpoint has had at least one noteworthy indirect effect. 
Let us suppose fora moment that every particle of ancient Greek literature had 
perished with the exception of the Poetics which is a fragment, or with the 
exception of the Treatise on the Sublime which is also incomplete. In 
the latter case we should at least possess the better anthology; we should be 
in a better position to form some conception of the supreme excellence of 
Homer, and Sappho, and other Greek poets. And this result would be due 
to the fact that the author's method is much less rigorous than that of 
Aristotle in the Poetics. He allows himself great liberty of quotation because 
he believes, like Mr. Matthew Arnold in our own age, that it is best to make 
free use of illustrations in order that the critic may help others, no less than 
himself, to feel their way in matters in which dogmatism is dangerous and 
advance must be tentative. 

His catholicity has led him still further. Aristotle, notwithstanding his 
encyclopaedic learning, knew, as has been already said, no literature beyond 
his own. Our author refers not only to Latin literature but to Hebrew; and 
not the least interesting feature in his treatise is that we see in it the 
confluence of three literatures. Among the many literary critics from Aristo- 
phanes to the Alexandrians and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and from Cicero 
to Quintilian and the author of the Dialogus de Oratoribus, he is distinguished 
by the account he takes of three several literatures. It is not impossible 
that he had been anticipated in this respect by the Caecilius to whom he so 
often refers, the Caecilius who is elsewhere described as ‘in faith a Jew.’ 


184 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


But we cannot tell. All we know is that, when discoursing on noble thought 
as inspired by nobility of soul, our author writes: ‘The legislator of the Jews, 
no ordinary man, having formed and expressed a worthy conception of the 
might of the Godhead, writes at the very beginning of his Book of Laws, “And 
God said—what? Let light be, and it was; let earth be, and it was.” ’? 

And here a word may fitly be said as to the connexion of sublimity, in 
the more restricted and more usual sense of the English term, with Hebrew 
influences. It has sometimes been maintained that sublimity, in this sense, 
is the peculiar possession of the Hebrew race and is unknown to the Greek 
classic writers. The contention is suggestive, but too absolute. The highest 
possible examples of sublimity, it may be urged, are to be found in such 
Hebrew writers as Ezekiel. Moderns like Milton, it may be further advanced, 
owe much of their sublimity, directly or indirectly, to Hebrew sources. But 
on the other hand we can hardly deny the quality, however rigorous may be 
our definition of it, to early Greek writers such as Homer and Aeschylus, and 
to the early phases of some of the more modern literatures. Are we, then, to 
look everywhere for Oriental influences, and not rather to seek the clue in the 
brooding wonder of primitive man wherever found? The whole question is 
too large and vague for summary treatment. In France, for instance, an 
eminent critic has suggested that the reason why the literature of his country 
is deficient in sublimity is that the I'rench translation of the Bible is a poor 
one and has never taken possession of the popular mind, while the English 
version is magnificent and has influenced English literary style for centuries. 
But surely the cause lies deeper than this. We must not forget that in 
French there is no essential difference between the vocabulary of prose and 
that of poetry. We cannot forget, either, Voltaire’s comment on the ‘darkness 
visible’ of Milton and on a similar expression in Spanish: ‘Ce n’est pas assez 
que l’on puisse excuser la licence de ces expressions, l’exactitude frangaise 
n’admet rien qui ait besoin d’excuse.’? That is quite an intelligible attitude 
to assume, but it is one which at once puts sublimity out of the question. 
We can imagine that Aristotle might have assumed it; so completely does he 
sometimes seem to regard poetry from the logician’s point of view. But such 
an attitude we should feel to be quite alien to the author of the Greek 
Treatise on the Sublime, and equally alien, we may add, to the author of the 
English treatise on the Sublime and Beautiful. Burke’s admirable work is 
notable, among many other things, for its striking quotations from the Old 
Testament and from Milton, and for its insistence upon the truth that 
sublimity is closely connected with a sense of uncertainty, obscurity, infinity. 
‘A clear idea,’ he says, ‘is another name for a little idea, and then proceeds to 
quote from the Book of Job a passage whose amazing sublimity he considers 
to be principally due to the terrible uncertainty of the things described. 
Sublimity belongs, in fact, to the region of vastness and mystery. In a 
pregnant sentence Aristotle declares that a good style must be clear without 
being mean; lucidity is, from this point of view, the first essential. But when 


1 ix.,9) 2 Voltaire, Oewvres, xiii. 441. 


ITS MODERN INTEREST. 185 


sublimity is in question, the order is reversed. First and foremost stands 
grandeur of conception, even if a certain obscurity of expression should follow 
in its train. 

It has been seen that the word swblimity is, in its modern acceptation, 
too limited in scope to cover our author’s meaning. Shall we, then, do better 
to think of him as an exponent of what is sometimes called the grand style? 
This term has the advantage of possessing a wider range than the other. But 
it has also disadvantages of its own. It is not free from the suggestion of 
bombast and excessive elaboration. Against such vices our author strongly 
protests, and he wouid have been the last to eulogise a style whose brilliance 
may seem dazzling to one generation, but whose disappearance awakens 
satisfaction rather than regret in the mind of the next. His admiration is 
reserved for something much more permanent, a classic excellence. His 
attitude is that of one who cares little whether or no the grand style dis- 
appears if only the great style remains. And his view of the elements of a 
great style is at once a discriminating and a lofty one. He is too sound a 
verbal critic to overlook the importance of the more technical or scholastic 
side. But he is also too broad-minded to forget that greatness of style must 
ultimately repose on a much wider basis than that afforded by technical rules. 
His double standpoint is worthy of attention because it must have been rare 
in his own time and it cannot be said to be common in ours. 

As a critic he sees that care and study are needed in the formation of a 
great style. And if proof of this fact were required, it would be necessary 
only to point to specific instances in ancient and in modern times. Writers 
hike Virgil and Tennyson perhaps bear the marks of elaboration upon them, 
and it would therefore be superfluous to refer to their known habits of work. 
But such carefulness has often characterised those authors whose seeming 
naturalness and spontaneity afford but little trace of it. Recent inquiries 
have shown what pains Burns and Keats lavished on their work. In antiquity 
there was a well-known story of the immense trouble taken by Plato in 
writing the exordium, so simple in appearance, of his Republic. In our own 
day the scholar who has endeavoured to make Plato an English classic is 
known to have given the greatest possible attention to the art of expression. 
The same thing might be shown to be true of writers like Cardinal Newman, 
and of more obviously self-conscious authors such as Mr. Matthew Arnold. 
Even where there is simplicity, it is usually a studied simplicity ; where there 
is ease, it is elaborate ease. 

As to our author’s own style we sometimes feel, as perhaps might be 
expected from his theme, that he neither possesses, nor simulates the 
possession of, that business-like directness of exposition which is so effective 
when information or instruction is to be imparted, and which is so foreign to 
the atmosphere of a leisurely seclusion. Of succinct expression he has little 
to say in this treatise ; it does not belong directly to his present subject, and 
possibly he had already dealt with it elsewhere. But whether he had done 
so or not, we feel that he would not have desired to conceal any limitations or 
shortcomings which could fairly be alleged against himself. His book leaves 

HS VOL, XVII. O 


186 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


upon the mind'the agreeable impression that he would have been quite ready 
to allow that there might well be defects in his own style and in his treatment 
of his subject. In his style he sometimes shows the faults of the late period 
at which he wrote, faults such as diffuseness and poetical phraseology. 
Similarly, in his treatment of his subject, he is apt to be too minute and to 
lose himself occasionally in technicalities. In fact, he does not escape the 
characteristic failing of the teacher who has to deal with pupils of all grades 
of intellectual apprehension ; now and then he appears to be unduly didactic 
and to verge upon tediousness. 

But these are trifling blemishes, and we scarcely heed them in the 
presence of his deeply earnest purpose and his breadth of view. As his fourth 
chapter shows, no one could entertain less respect than he for mere bookishness. 
Nor could any one discern more clearly how mistaken is the view of those 
who regard style as an end in itself or talk glibly of ‘art for art’s sake’ 
Like the author of the Dialogue on Oratory, he sees in literature not a 
convention, not a matter of form, but the reflexion of a national life; a 
great style is evoked by great surroundings and great events. A few extracts 
will serve to illustrate his lofty conception of individual and of national morality, 
and his view of the relation of both to literature. ‘It is not possible,’ he says 
in a noble outburst, ‘it is not possible that men with mean and servile ideas 
and habits prevailing throughout their life should produce anything that is 
admirable and worthy of immortality.’1 Again he remarks, ‘I wonder, as no 
doubt do many others, how it happens that in our time there are men who 
have the gift of persuasion to the utmost extent and are well fitted for public 
life, and are keen and ready, and particularly rich in all the charms of 
language, yet there no longer arise really lofty and transcendent natures 
unless quite exceptionally. So great and worldwide a dearth of high 
utterance attends our age.’ The explanation he finds when he glances at the 
characteristic vices of the time: ‘The love of money (a disease from which - 
we all now suffer sorely) and the love of pleasure carry us away into bondage, 
or rather, as one may say, drown us body and soul in the depths, the love of 
riches being a malady which makes men petty and the love of pleasure one 
which makes them most ignoble.” Vast wealth leads to such vices as 
extravagance, insolence, shamelessness. The final result is that ‘men no 
longer lift up their eyes and there is no further regard for fame, but the ruin 
of all such lives is gradually consummated, and sublimities of soul fade and 
wither away and become contemptible when men are lost in admiration of 
their own mortal parts and omit to exalt that which is immortal.’? His own 
conception of man’s place in the universe is a lofty one: ‘Nature has 


1 ix. 3. Probably no modern language can 
better reproduce the fine Miltonic roll of the 


tutta la vita si danno pensiero ὁ sollecitudine di 
cose piccole ¢ servili, profferiscane alewna sentenza 


author's style, with its long ear-satisfying words, 
than the Italian. Canna’s version of this 
passage, together with the sentence which 
immediately follows it in the original, runs thus: 
Perocché non é possibile, che womini, i quali per 


mirabile ὁ degna del’ immortalita ; ma grandi 
sono, con’ ὁ naturale, le parole di coloro di cut 
siano serie le cogitaziont. 

2 xliv. 1, 6, 8. 


ITS MODERN INTEREST. 187 


appointed us men to be no base nor ignoble animals; but since she ushers us 
into life and into the vast universe as into some great assembly, to be as it were 
spectators of her triumphs and the keenest aspirants for honour, straightway 
she implants in our souls the unconquerable love of whatever is elevated and 
more divine than we. Wherefore not even the entire universe suftices for the 
thought and contemplation within the reach of the human mind, but our 
imaginations often pass beyond the utmost bounds of space, and if we survey our 
life on every side and observe how surely the victory rests at every point with 
that which is striking, and great, and beautiful, we shall soon discern the purpose 
of our birth.’1 About a man who can write thus there is the profound moral 
gravity and the lofty eloquence which mark a Demosthenes or a Burke. The 
ethical fervour of the author’s style calls to mind his own saying that,‘sublimity 
is the echo of a great soul,’* He is himself a man of great moral endow- 
ments ; the misfortune was that he had fallen uponevil days. The heroic age 
was in the far past, and the present was, to him, a time of spiritual 
destitution, when men loved show and comfort, and were no longer earnest in 
the pursuit of perfection. 

Beyond and above all other motives for high effort our author places the 
hope of literary immortality. It is strange to reflect that this motive should 
have counted for so much with him and should count for so little comparatively 
with the moderns. No doubt he remembered that the spell of Homer had been 
felt for a thousand years. But to us as we look back the precariousness of such 
immortality on the merely material side seems appalling. The preservation 
of a few manuscripts appears almost an accident when we think of such 
permanence as our author himself has attained. With the moderns, on the 
other hand, there is the security of the printing-press, and there is the wide 
diffusion rendered possible not only by this but by the spread of the English 
language, by the practice of translation into various tongues, and by improved 
means of communication generally. And yet the ideal is apt to be not higher 
but lower. Immediate popularity with its rewards is sought rather than the 
approval of the best judges in all ages. As a consequence, we find many passable 
imitations of elevated style, but few sustained efforts, few real works of art. 
The very language in which our author sets forth the other view strikes a 
modern ear as somewhat exaggerated and high-flown. Aim high, says he in 
effect ; match yourself with the great ; imagine that you are appearing before 
a tribunal of the finest writers of the past; take heed that you do not act an 
unseemly part before the bar of the future. ‘For if a man fears at the time 
that he will not utter anything to outlast his own life and age, the conceptions 
of his mind must be incomplete, blind, and as it were untimely born.’* When 
we remember his longing, so often expressed, for immortality, there is 
satisfaction in the thought that his book is still read, though probably by but 
few. Much of the literary criticism and the art criticism of his time has been 
lost or is ignored, but a niche is still, we may hope, reserved for the writer of 
the Treatise on the Sublime. No one would have recognised more readily than 


REV, "2563. 2 ix. 2: ὕψος μεγαλοφροσύνης ἀπήχημα. 3 xiv, 3. 


188 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. | 


he that the author of a treatise on poetry or on rhetoric is not to be compared 
with a true poet or a true orator. But it is no mean thing to have upheld 
lofty ideals of artistic excellence, such ideals as need not shrink from the 
scrutiny of posterity. It is rather as the embodiment of a spirit, than as a 
formal system of rhetoric, that the treatise has continued to hold its own. 
It is not merely a code of laws ; it is an attempt to indicate and illustrate the 
noble temper of mind in which those who aim high should write. It is 
because of the spirit in which it is conceived that the book will not readily 
become obsolete; its rules are transient and will pass, its purpose is 
permanent and abides. 
W. Ruys RopBeErts. 


RICHARD CLAY AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BUNGAY 


THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 
ITS AUTHORSHIP. 


WHEN Francis Robortello at Basle, in the year 1554, issued the editio 
princeps of the Greek Treatise on the Sublime, he attributed the work to 
‘Dionysius Longinus. Διονυσίου Λογγένου ῥήτορος περὶ ὕψους βιβλίον are 
the words that are found upon his title-page. In this ascription he was 
followed by Paul Manutius, who in the next year (1555) published an edition 
at Venice. The fashion thus set by the earliest editors became universal. 
Edition followed edition in quick succession, and translations made the book 
known in almost every European country. But in all the editions and in all 
the translations, Longinus was assumed to be the author. It was the same 
with the foremost critics and writers of France and of England. Boileau 
was in this matter at one with the rest of the translators. His acquiescence 
in the general view was shared by Fénelon, Rollin, and Laharpe, and in 
England by Addison, Hume, Hurd, and Blair. Pope, in a well-known passage, 
speaks of the ‘ bold Longinus,’ whose ‘own example strengthens all his laws,’ 
And even the severely scientific Gibbon refers, with a touch of sarcasm, per- 
haps, in the adjective but with no touch of scepticism in the name, to the 
‘sublime Longinus,’ 

An ascription so firmly rooted in the tradition of two centuries was not 
easily shaken, and even now it finds, here and there, unquestioning acceptance. 
But since the first doubt was raised at the commencement of the present 
century, the tendency of critical opinion has been, with some fluctuations, 
increasingly adverse to the old view. I propose to examine the evidence 
under the two heads, A.—EXTERNAL, and B.—INTERNAL; and in each case 
it will be convenient to treat first of the negative indications (ὖ.6. arguments 
drawn from silence, from omissions, etc.), and afterwards of the positive. And 
in order to clear the ground, I may anticipate so far as to say that an endeavour 
will be made to establish, in the light of the most recent research, two main 
propositions : (1) the external evidence in favour of the historical Longinus 
is of a dubious character; (2) the internal evidence seems to point to the 
first century rather than the third as the period during which the treatise 
was probably composed. Having said thus much, with no desire to prejudge 
the issue but merely in order to supply a guiding thread in a somewhat com- 

H.S.—VOL. XVII. Ρ 


190 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


plicated discussion, I will now set forth, as impartially as may be, and under 
the headings already indicated, the considerations which may be advanced on 
the one side and on the other, ! 


A—EXTHRNAL EVIDENCE. 


(a) NeGative. It is a remarkable fact that the Treatise on the 
Sublime is not quoted or mentioned by any writer of antiquity. So complete 
is the silence with regard to it that some have conjectured that 10 was written 
for private circulation only. Publication, they think, was deliberately avoided 
by its author, who was influenced either by modesty or by prudential motives. 
Its epistolary form may possibly be held to give some colour to this view.} 
At all events, the obscurity which surrounded it until it was printed was 
great, as great as its subsequent celebrity. The silence extends—and this 
brings us face to face with the problem before us—to those lists of the 
works of Longinus which we owe to Porphyry, Suidas, and others. The De 
Sublimitate is not by any of these authorities mentioned among the writings 
of Longinus, and the omission is the more striking that the treatise is no 
ordinary one. The seriousness of the difficulty has long been recognised by 
those who have regarded Longinus as the author. But the ingenuity of 
scholars has, as usual, proved equal to the occasion. They suggest that the 
περὶ ὕψους formed part of of φιλόλογοι (or ai φιλόλογοι ὁμιλίαι, as the title 
is also given), one of the attested works of Longinus. But while the possi- 
bility of this explanation cannot be denied, it should be remarked that it does 
not find any very obvious support in the character of the surviving fragments 
of οἱ φιλόλογοι, nor in the character of the περὶ ὕψους itsclf. The latter, to 
all appearance, occupies a position of its own as a polemical essay directed 
against the work of a writer who is named in its opening sentence. It may 
be added that in various passages (vill. 1, xxxix. 1, xliv. 12) of the De Sub- 
limitate the author seems to indicate that he had written, or intended to 
write, about Xenophon, about composition (σύνθεσις λόγων), and about the 
passions (τὰ στάθη); but these subject-headings, also, fail to appear in the lists 
of the works of Longinus. 


(8) Positive, The absence of the treatise from the accredited lists 
of Longinus’ works, although it was felt to require explanation, caused no 
great uneasiness till the beginning of this century (1808 A.D.), when the 
Italian scholar Amati made an important discovery. He found that a 
Vatican MS, (no. 285) of the De Sublimitate contained the following inscrip- 
tion: Διονυσίου ἢ Λογγίνου περὶ ὕψους. Hitherto it had been taken for 
granted (by Robortello himself, no doubt, as well as by those who followed 
him) that all the manuscripts attributed the book to ‘Dionysius Longinus’ ; 


1 Cp, G, Buchenau, De Scriptore Libri Περὶ Περὶ Ὕψου:λεγόμενον βιβλίον Κριτι- 
Ὕψους, p. 66, and A, Jannarakis, Els τὸ καὶ Enpetdoers, p. 8. 


ITS AUTHORSHIP. 191 


it was disconcerting, therefore, to find that one of them indicated ‘ Dionysius 
or Longinus’ as the author. But this was not all. Once curiosity had been 
aroused by Amati, another discovery followed. It was found that the same 
alternative was offered by the Paris MS. 2036, which dates from the tenth 
century and is by far the best of the existing codices of the De Sublimitate, 
if it is not their actual parent. True, the other title was also given in that 
MS.; but the new point to be noticed was that, just after the index of the 
‘Physical Problems of Aristotle, the words Διονυσίου ἢ Λογγίνου occurred. 
Theyoccurred also, it was found, in MS. 985 of the Bibliothéque Nationale,’ 
And last of all, it was discovered (and for this final discovery we return 
from France to Italy) that a manuscript at Florence had, as the inscription 
on its cover, ἀνωνύμου περὶ ὕψους. The most surprising thing, perhaps, 
about all this new information, was that it was not obtained earlier, But 
the treatise had become so wedded to the name of Longinus that any 
hints to the contrary passed almost unheeded. Indeed, the variation in 
Codex Parisinus 2036 had been noted, a considerable time before Amati 
announced his discovery in the Vatican Library, by the German scholar 
Rostgaard ; but nothing came of Rostgaard’s observation. 

But once it had been fairly opened, the question could not again be 
closed. A wide field for speculation was presented. The names of‘ Longinus’ 
and ‘Dionysius,’ without further specification, lent themselves to numerous 
conjectures. And even if, as seemed most probable, the names were to be 
understood of their two most famous bearers in the literary domain, the uncer- 
tainty became, in reality, not less but greater. For when a free choice is 
allowed between two men who stand inore than a couple of centuries apart, 
we feel justified in assuming that we have before us nothing more than the 
guess of some late authority who was himself in doubt and therefore named, 
alternatively, the two most distinguished critics he could call to mind. On this 
interpretation, the title might have run, as some one has suggested, Διονυσίου 
ἢ Aoyyivou ἢ ἄλλου τινός. It might, in fact, have been compressed into a 
single word, the ἀνωνύμου of the Codex Laurentianus, 


1 During a recent visit to the Bibliotheque Nationale I have had an opportunity of examining 
P. 2036 and P. 985. In P. 2036 the περὶ ὕψους follows the Problems of Aristotle which occupy 
the greater part of the manuscript. The Problems are prefaced by an index or table of contents 
(forming fol. 1, 7. and v.). At the end of the index are added the words : 


E 
+ AIONYCIOY H AOFFINOY TI YYOYC + 


At the beginning of the text of the treatise the heading is: 
+ AIONYCIOY AOFFINOY TIEPIYYOYC: + 


This title is distinguished from the other by the absence of the #, but it is also distinguished (and 
this appears to have escaped even Vahlen’s careful scrutiny) from it by the fact that a considerable 
space separates the first word from the second and the second from the third, while the third and 
the fourth are run together. It would almost seem as if (notwithstanding the absence of the ἤ) 
the reader were still offered his choice between Dionysius and Longinus, The same absence and 
presence of the %, and the same separation and non-separation, are to be observed in DP. 985, on 
f. 222 v. (beginning of the treatise) and f. 79 v. (index) respectively. ; 

ΡΣ 


192 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


And here, while the question of the name or names found in the manu- 
scripts is under review, it may be pointed out that the traditional ascription 
of the treatise to Longinus had been felt to present a special difficulty on 
the score of nomenclature. But the difficulty, instead of encouraging a 
healthy scepticism, had led once more toa display of that ready ingenuity 
which is certainly no less characteristic of the conservative than of the inno- 
vator. The full name of Zenobia’s minister, as given by more than one 
ancient authority, was Cassius Longinus. How, then, account for ‘ Dionysius 
Longinus,’ which at best is a rather strange combination of a Greek and a-Latin 
name? The answer was ready to hand. Longinus in his youth had borne 
the Greek name of Dionysius, but later he adopted that of Cassius Longinus, 
in honour of some powerful Roman patron of that name: let us, therefore, 
designate him Dionysius Cassius Longinus. And so he was designated, until 
the discovery of the real inscription came to remind those interested in the 
matter that this elaborate theory was not only a baseless, but a perfectly 
gratuitous fabrication. 

It has already been said that the Treatise on the Sublime is not quoted 
or mentioned by ‘any writer of antiquity.’ From that statement there is no 
occasion to recede; but before we leave the consideration of the external 
evidence, allusion should be made to certain passages from an external source 
which have sometimes been supposed to show a knowledge of the book. 
The source in question is the commentator John of Sicily (Ἰωάννης Σικελιώ- 
ts). The references which John of Sicily has been thought to make to the 
treatise are vague and disputable. But even if we were to assume for the 
sake of argument that they were definite and unmistakable, they would be of 
little importance; and for this reason. The date assigned by Walz to John 
of Sicily is the thirteenth century. Now, as we have seen, the Paris MS. 
2036 of the De Sublimitate is supposed to belong to the tenth century. 
Accordingly John may have drawn any ideas he entertained with regard to 
the authorship of the treatise from that manuscript of it. He cannot, 


therefore, be safely regarded as in any sense an original and independent 
authority. 


B—INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 


(a) NEGATIVE. The Treatise on the Sublime abounds in references 
to Greek authors and in quotations from them. Catholic alike in praise and 
blame, it ranges the centuries for its illustrations of good style or of bad. 
Bards of the prehistoric days of Greece, writers of its Attic prime, erudite 


1 How precarious any arguments connected 
with John of Sicily are may be inferred from 
the fact that Emile Egger, who urged them in 


des Savants (Mai 1884). Further details, if 
desired, may be found in Vaucher, Etudes 
Critiques sur le Traité du Sublime, pp. 57, 58, 


the first edition of his Histoire de la Critique 
chez les Grecs (pp. 531-533), silently abandons 
them in his second edition and in the Journal 


62, 63, and in Canna, Della Sublimita: libro 
attribuito a Cassio Longino, pp. 39, 40. 


ITS AUTHORSHIP. 193 


poets of the Alexandrian era, rhetoricians of the Augustan age,—all figure in 
its pages. But notwithstanding the great number of its references to writings 
of an earlier date, the Treatise (or so much of it as we now possess) makes no 
mention of any rhetorician, philosopher, or other writer belonging to the second 
or to the third century A.D. Here again the supporters of the traditional view 
that Cassius Longinus was the author are confronted by a grave difficulty. 
The gap is a truly remarkable one. How comes it that no reference is made 
to the rhetorician Hermogenes, who flourished during the reign of Marcus 
Aurelius Antoninus, and who (rather than Caecilius) might have been made 
the pivot of a book? How is it that Longinus, who was the centre of a wide 
circle, makes no mention of his companions in the schools or of his friends 4 
How is it, lastly and above all, that he makes no mention of his enemies, 
some of whom presumably had written books? For granted that his taste 
may have been too fastidious to find examples of excellence in the writings 
of his contemporaries or of his more immediate predecessors, yet the task he 
set himself was the exemplification not only of the elevated manner but also 
of its opposite. And to go back for instances of defective style to Alex- 
andrian times or to a period earlier still, instead of attacking living offenders, 
would have, it is thought, meant magnanimity too great even for the man 
who, in the name of liberty, bade defiance to Aurelian and met his death 
unflinchingly. 


(8) Positive. The internal evidence of a positive character is various 
in its nature and unequal in its value. It will be convenient to examine first 
that portion of it which relates to the names of persons. The evidential 
bearings of the prosopoyraphia, so to say, of the treatise are considerable. 


I. PRosopoGRAPHIA. Under this head let us, following the example of 
the author in his book, start with Caecilius. 


(1) Caecilius. The book opens thus: τὸ μὲν τοῦ Κεκιλίου συγγραμμά- 
τιον, ὃ περὶ ὕψους συνετάξατο, ἀνασκοπουμένοις ἡμῖν ὡς οἶσθα κοινῇ, 
Ποστούμιε Τερεντιανὲ φίλτατε, ταπεινότερον ἐφάνη τῆς ὅλης ὑποθέσεως, 
κιτιλ. Τὸ ἰβ clear from these words that Caecilius had composed an essay on 
the sublime, and that our author is dissatisfied with it. Now Caecilius was a 
rhetorician contemporary with Dionysius of Halicarnassus, of whom in fact he 
was a close friend! The question, therefore, arises whether it is probable 
‘that in the third century a writer would follow, so closely as our author 
appears to do, the treatment which his chosen subject had met with in the 
reign of Augustus. To such a question, as to other similar questions 
propounded in this paper, one who entertains the most serious doubts as to 
the third-century authorship will nevertheless think it fair to reply that, 
though not likely, it is not impossible. For to borrow an illustration from 


EE ὁ... στὸ. -ΘῬΟ---ςἘς-ς-.ς---ςς-ς---- ΎἬᾳζο τ 

1 For some account of the life and literary οἵ Calacte: 8. contribution to the history of 
activities of Caecilius, reference may be made Greek Literary Criticism’ in the AMERICAN 
to an article by the present writer on ‘Caecilius JouRNAL o¥ PHILOLOGY, October 1897. 


194 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


another field, did not seventy years pass before a reply was made, by Origen, 
to the Zrue Word of Celsus? And on the fiery battle-ground of religious 
controversy one might expect that polemic would know no lengthy pause. A 
treatise need not, therefore, follow very closely in the train of one that suggested 
it. But on the other hand it must be admitted that this particular treatise is 
written with all the earnestness and ardour of a writer who is refuting the 
errors of a contemporary or a near predecessor. Hermogenes might have 
provoked a third-century antagonist to this display of zeal, but hardly Caecilius. 

(2) Moses. Moses is not expressly named in the De Sublimitate, but he 
is unambiguously indicated in the well-known words of ὁ. ix.: ‘Thus it is 
also, that the Jewish lawgiver, no ordinary man, having formed and expressed 
a worthy conception of the might of the Godhead, writes at the very be- 
ginning of his Book of Laws, “God said” —what? “ Let light be, and it was: 
let earth be and it was,”’! It is sometimes contended that the mention 
of Moses tells in precisely the opposite direction to the mention of Caecilius ; 
it makes the third century more likely than the first. But even if this be 
admitted (and we can hardly admit any implication that such a reference to 
Genesis is out of the question in a Graeco-Roman author of the first century), 
there is still open to us the plausible suggestion that we should seek a 
connecting link in Caecilius himself. The author may possibly have had no 
direct knowledge of the Old Testament, but may have drawn this illustration 
from the tractate of Caecilius, who was ‘in faith a Jew. 2 The fact that the 
citation is not an exact one may be held, so far, to confirm the conjecture. 

(3) Ammonius. At one time the occurrence in the treatise of this name 
seemed not only to supply a definite post-Augustan reference, but also to 
create a strong presumption that Longinus was the author. For it is recorded 
of Longinus that when a young man he had travelled widely, and that at 
Alexandria he had attended the classes of the leading Neoplatonists, and 
among them of Ammonius surnamed Saccas. But Ammonius, standing by 
itself, was, as F. A. Wolf cautiously observed, not an uncommon name, and 
identification must not be too hasty; further inquiry must be made before 
Ammonius Saccas, or any other Ammonius, was supposed necessarily to be 
meant. Some time after this useful word of warning and exhortation had 
been dropped, G. Roeper made an interesting discovery which he communi- 
cated in the year 1846 to the first volume of Schneidewin and Leutsch’s 
Philologus. Searching the Venice scholia to the Iliad, he found that an 
earlier Ammonius, a successor of Aristarchus at Alexandria, had written περὶ 


τῶν ὑπὸ ἸΠ]λάτωνος μετενηνεγμένων ἐξ “‘Opunpov.? These words accord so 


1 ix. 9: ταύτῃ καὶ ὃ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων θεσμοθέτης, 
οὐχ ὁ τυχὼν ἀνήρ, ἐπειδὴ τὴν τοῦ θείου. δύναμιν 
κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν ἐχώρησε κἀξέφηνεν, εὐθὺς ἐν τῇ 
εἰσβολῇ γράψας τῶν νόμων “εἶπεν ὁ θεός᾽ φησί' 
τί; “γενέσθω φῶς, καὶ ἔγένετο' γενέσθω γῆ, καὶ 
ἐγένετο" 

2 τὴν δόξαν ᾿Ιουδαῖος, Suidas.—A fuller dis- 
cussion of the passage translated above will be 
found in an article by the writer in the CrAs- 


SICAL Review, December 1897. 

3 Scuou, A HOMERI IL.{1x. 540: ἔρδεσ κεν" 
᾿Αμμώνιος ev τῷ περὶ τῶν ὑπὸ Πλάτωνος per- 
ενηνεγμένων ἐξ Ὁμήρου διὰ τοῦ ¢ προφέρεται 
ἔρεζεν. Svumpas: ᾿Αμμώνιος ᾿Αμμωνίου 
᾿Αλεξανδρεύς, ᾿Αλεξάνᾷρου γνώριμος, ὃς καὶ δι- 
εδέξατο τὴν σχολὴν ᾿Αριστάρχου πρὸ τοῦ μοναρ- 
χῆσαι τὸν Αὔγουστον, 


ITS AUTHORSHIP. 195 


well with the reference to Ammonius in the De Sublimitate (c. xiii.) that 
there can be little, if any, doubt that this is the Ammonius in question 
‘Was Herodotus alone a devoted imitator of Homer? No, Stesichorus even 
before his time, and Archilochus, and above all Plato, who from the great 
Homeric source drew to himself innumerable tributary streams. And perhaps 
we should have found it necessary to prove this, point by point, had not 
Ammonius and his followers selected and recorded the particulars,’ ἢ 

(4) Theodorus, Theodorus is mentioned in the third chapter: ‘A 
third, and closely allied, kind of defect in matters of passion is that which 
Theodorus used to call parenthyrsus.* Here the imperfect tense (ἐκάλει) 
may possibly imply that the writer had attended the lectures of this 
Theodorus, who can hardly be other than Theodorus of Gadara (or ‘of 
Rhodes,’ as he preferred to be called), who taught rhetoric to the emperor 
Tiberius, and who is often quoted by Quintilian.’ The way in which his 
name is introduced, without further preface or addition, seems to imply that its 
bearer was a recent, and (like Theodorus of Gadara) a well-known, authority. 

(5) Cicero. The treatise contains a set comparison between Cicero and 
Demosthenes, introduced by the words: ‘And it is in these same respects, 
my dear Terentianus, that it seems to me (supposing always that we as 
Greeks are allowed to have an opinion upon the point) that Cicero differs 
from Demosthenes in elevated passages. For the latter is characterised by 
sublimity which is for the most part rugged, Cicero by profusion,’ etc. We 
are not concerned here with the substance of this comparison; its main 
interest for us lies in the fact that it was instituted at all. With regard to 
its bearing upon the date of composition, two considerations present them- 
selves: (1) references to Cicero in the Greek rhetoricians are excessively 
rare, and it would be hard to find a parallel to this passage of the De 
Sublimitate in any subsequent Greek work; (2) the passage had not only a 
parallel, but a precedent, in the lost dissertation (συγγραμμάτιον) of 
Caecilius. Plutarch is our authority for the statement that ‘the all- 
accomplished Caecilius...... had the youthful temerity to publish a comparison 
between Demosthenes and Cicero.’ ® 

(6) Zerentianus, About the identification of the Terentianus to whom 


1 xiii, 3: μόνος Ἡρόδοτος ‘Ounpixwtaros ἐγέ- 
vero; Στησίχορος ἔτι πρότερον ὕ τε Ἀρχίλοχος, 
πάντων δὲ τούτων μάλιστα ὁ Πλάτων, ἀπὸ τοῦ 
ὋὉμηρικοῦ κείνου νάματος εἰς αὑτὸν μυρίας ὅσας 
παρατροπὰς ἀποχετευσάμενος. καὶ ἴσως ἡμῖν» 
ἀποδείξεων ἔδει, εἰ μὴ τὰ ἐπ᾽ εἴδους καὶ οἱ περὶ 
᾿Αμμώνιον ἐκλέξαντες ἀνέγραψαν. 

2 iii. 5: τούτῳ παράκειται τρίτον τι κακίας εἶδος 
ἐν τοῖς παθητικοῖς, ὅπερ ὁ Θεόδωρος παρένθυρσον 
ἐκάλει. 

3 Quintilian, Znst, Or., iii. 1, 17 : Theodorus 
Gadareus, qui se dici maluit Rhodium, quem 
studiose audisse, cum in eam insulam seces- 
sisset, dicitur Tiberius Caesar. Suetonius, 7%b., 
57; saeva ac lenta natura ne in puero quidem 


latuit: quam Theodorus Gadareus rhetoricae 
praeceptor et perspexisse primus sagaciter et 
assimilasse aptissime visus est, subinde in 
obiurgando appellans eum πηλὸν αἵματι repupa- 
μένον. 

4 xii. 4: οὐ κατ᾽ ἄλλα δέ τινα ἢ ταῦτα, ἐμοὶ 
δοκεῖ, φίλτατε Τερεντιανέ, (λέγω δέ, εἰ καὶ ἡμῖν 
ὡς Ἕλλησιν ἐφεῖταί τι γινώσκειν) καὶ ὁ Κικέρων τοῦ 
Δημοσθένους ἐν τοῖς μεγέθεσι παραλλάττει. ὁ 
μὲν γὰρ ἐν ὕψει τὸ πλέον ἀποτόμῳ, ὁ δὲ Κικέρων 
ἐν χύσει, K.T.A. 

5 Plutarch, Demosth. 3: 5 περιττὸς ἐν ἅπασι 
Καικίλιος...ἐνεανιεύσατο σύγκρισιν τοῦ Δημοσ- 
θένους καὶ Κικέρωνος ἐξενεγκεῖν, 


196 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


the treatise is addressed, and whose name occurs at its commencement, as 
well as in the passage just quoted and in several others, it will be convenient 
to inquire a little later. 

(7) Πυγμαῖοι, Koroaads, Πυθέα. Lastly a few miscellaneous 
names may be added to the personal names already given. The Pygmies are 
referred to in a curious passage of 6. xliv.: ‘Just as, he proceeded, the cages 
(if what I hear is true) in which are kept the Pygmies, commonly called 
nani, not only prevent the growth of the creatures confined within them, but 
also lessen their original size through the bonds which hamper their bodies, 
so one may term all servitude (though it be most righteous) the cage of the 
soul and a public prison-house.!_ The point here is that the exhibition of 
Pygmies seems to be regarded by the author as a novelty (εἴ ye τοῦτο πιστὸν 
ἀκούω). This would, it appears, apply best to the period of the early Caesars ; 
afterwards the thing became more common.? But manifestly an argument of 
this nature cannot be pressed. The gaps in our information are too formidable to 
allow us to draw, without hesitation, such inferences as the one just suggested, 
or the allied one that the author must have been living at a distance from the 
capital when he wrote the passage. Still more precarious are any arguments 
based on ‘ the faulty Colossus’ (xxxvi. 3), or on the Pythia (xii. 2). It has 
been maintained that by ‘the faulty Colossus’ must be meant, not the 
Colossus of Rhodes, but that of Nero, which was renovated under Vespasian ; 
and it has been pointed out that the Pythian priestess ceased to give oracles 
under Domitian, resumed her activity under Hadrian, and became finally 
extinct under Caracalla. Pieces of evidence so indecisive as these are added 
rather in the hope of making the review complete than of proving any special 
point. 


II. StyLE AND VocaBULARY. Arguments drawn from style and 
vocabulary are notoriously insecure, and to be of any value at all they must 
be based upon a long and minute analysis, for which there is here no space. 
I shall, therefore, pass lightly over this branch of the controversy, reserving a 
fuller statement for some future occasion. In general terms, however, it may 
here be said that the style of the De Sublimitate is thought to differ substan- 
tially, especially in its marked eloquence, from that of the fragments of 


1 xliv. 5: “ὥσπερ οὖν, ef ye’ φησί “τοῦτο 
πιστὸν ἀκούω, τὰ γλωττόκομα, ἐν ols of Πυγμαῖοι, 
καλούμενοι δὲ νᾶνοι, τρέφονται, οὐ μόνον κωλύει 
τῶν ἐγκεκλεισμένων τὰς αὐξήσεις ἀλλὰ καὶ συνα- 
ραιοῖ διὰ τὸν περικείμενον τοῖς σώμασι δεσμόν, 
οὕτως ἅπασαν δουλείαν, κἂν ἢ δικαιοτάτη, ψυχῆς 
γλωττόκομον καὶ κοινὸν ἄν τις ἀποφήναιτο δεσμω- 
τήριον. συναραιοῖ (‘but actually attenwate them’) 
is a recent conjecture of W. Schmid, Rhcinisches 
Museum, 111. (1897), p. 446. MSS, συνάροι. 

* It may be remembered that the presence of 
a nain (to use the French form) on the so- 
called Bayeux tapestry is interpreted as an 
indication of the date of its production, but 


only because the addition of the dwarf’s name 
Turold may be taken to imply contemporary 
knowledge of the events portrayed. ‘Souvent, 
dans une discussion de ce genre, ce sont les 
moindres détails qui fournissent les meilleures 
inductions,’ as M. l’Abbé J. Laffetay remarks. 
—Much recondite information with regard to 
the Pygmies both in ancient and in modern 
times will be found in B. A. Windle’s edition 
of Edward Tyson’s ‘Philological Essay con- 
cerning the Pygmies of the Ancients,’ one of 
the volumes included in Nutt’s Bibliotheque de 
Carabas, 


ITS AUTHORSHIP. 197 


Longinus admitted to be genuine. This is the opinion of many critics, and 
among them of Vaucher, who has edited and translated all the remains of 
Longinus with the utmost care.' Vaucher has also brought out very clearly 
the many points of contact between the vocabulary of the author and that of 
Plato, of Plutarch, and of Philo. But in the matter of comparisons founded 
upon style and vocabulary there are, as has already been said, many uncer- 
tainties. There is the fact that critics disagree so widely in their judgments 
upon such matters. There is also the fact that an author's manner of writing 
may, at one period of his life or when he is writing upon one subject, differ 
altogether from that which characterises him at another period of his life or 
when writing upon another subject.’ There is, further, the danger of incom- 
plete investigation. To illustrate this last point, it may be mentioned that it 
was once urged, as evidence of late authorship, that the word ἀλληγορία, 
found in the treatise, did not occur before Plutarch’s time. This often- 
repeated statement was a rash one in any case, in view of the fact that we 
possess only a few fragments of the writings of antiquity, but it did not even 
take full account of the materials we actually possess, As a matter of fact, 
the word occurs twice in Cicero, by whom it was probably derived from Stoic 
sources. 


III. GENERAL ConTENTS. This heading is still more vague than the 
last. But it may be useful to inquire whether the writer’s habits of thought 
and intellectual standpoint seem to be those of the first or of the third 
century, and with which of the two he has the closer literary and spiritual 
affinities. 

His subject is elevation (ὕψος) of style, and this, he holds, depends 
ultimately upon elevation of character. ‘Sublimity is the echo of a great 
soul’ (ὕψος μεγαλοφροσύνης ἀπήχημα, ix. 2).3 The breadth of view, here 
evinced and elsewhere prominent, is a distinctive feature of his treatise, and 
seems, as we shall see presently, to ally him rather with the Roman writers of 


the first century, than with any Greek writers whether of the first century, or 
the third. 


1 Cp. Vaucher, op. cit., p. 50: la différence Treacherous always, such comparisons are 


sensible que Von remarque entre le style simple 
et égal des fragments de Longin, et le style 
animé, véhément, figuré du Traité περὶ ὕψους, 
dont le sujet, quot qu'il en dise, ne prétait pas 
plus ἃ Véloquence que ceux des Fragments. Cp. 
also ib. 68-72, 383-442 Ruhnken, it is true, 
took another view, but he is not supported in 
it by his modern successor Cobet. 

A signal instance of such variation in our 
own day is that afforded by the style of Thomas 
Carlyle. Let it be supposed that nearly two 
millenniums had passed since he wrote, and with 
what confidence we can imagine the position 
assumed and maintained that Carlyle the Edin- 
burgh reviewer and Carlyle the philosopher 
of Chelsea could not possibly be identical. 


doubly treacherous when advanced concerning 
men of marked individuality who have been 
driven, more and more, into themselves by the 
circumstances of the times in which they live. 

3 Itis convenient, asa rule, to adhere to ‘ sub- 
limity’ or ‘the sublime’ as the accepted ren- 
dering of ὕψος. But the English expressions 
are apt to mislead, by reason of the existence 
of Burke’s treatise particularly. It is perhaps 
regrettable that the earliest English titles of the 
De Sublimitate (‘Of the Height of Eloquence,’ 
John Hall’s Translation, 1662; ‘Of the Lofti- 
ness or Elegancy of Speech,’ John Pulteney’s 
Translation, 1680) have not held their ground 
in some slightly modified form, 


198 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


But a word must first be said about the narrower or more scholastic side 
of the treatise. This offers more obvious—we must again make every 
allowance for possible defects in our information—points of contact with the 
Greek and Roman rhetoricians of the first century than with those of the 
third. In his rhetorical terminology, and it may be added in his literary 
judgments, the author is distinctly at variance with the views implied in the 
surviving fragments of Longinus, whereas on a similar book by Caecilius our 
treatise is in a certain sense based and it would seem to follow that essay more 
closely than its combative tone might on a first reading suggest.’ 

Between the De Sublimitate and Quintilian, again, the points of resem- 
blance, especially where the rhetorical figures are concerned, are many and 
unmistakable.2 So remarkable, indeed, are they that some have thought that 
both the author and Quintilian must be drawing on Caecilius.? But the 
whole question of the exact relationship between Caecilius, Dionysius of 
Halicarnassus, Quintilian, and the De Sublimitate, though highly interesting, 
seems with our present data hopelessly insoluble. The important point at 
present to be observed is that there 7s a close affinity in these cases, and also 
in that of the Dialogus de Oratoribus to which reference will be made 
‘immediately. 

But besides its decided Roman affinities, the treatise sends out its roots 
in other directions also. That it has points of contact with the Jews has 
already appeared. But here direct reference may be made to passages in two 
first-century Graeco-Jewish writers, Josephus and Philo. The passage of 
Josephus (Antigg: Iud., ad. init.) is: ἤδη τοίνυν τοὺς ἐντευξομένους τοῖς 
βιβλίοις παρακαλῶ τὴν γνώμην θεῷ προσανέχειν, καὶ δοκιμάζειν τὸν ἡμέτερον 
νομοθέτην, εἰ τήν τε φύσιν αὐτοῦ ἀξίως κατενόησε καὶ τῇ δυνάμει πρεπούσας 
ἀεὶ τὰς πράξεις ἀνέθηκεν. That of Philo (De Hbrictate, 198 ; vol. ii., p. 208, in 
Cohn and Wendland’s edition, 1896-97) is: ἐγὼ δ᾽ οὐ τεθαύμακα, εἰ πεφορη- 
μένος καὶ μιγὰς ὄχλος, ἐθῶν Kal νόμων τῶν ὁπωσοῦν εἰσηγμένων ἀκλεὴς 
δοῦλος, ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἔτι σπαργάνων ὑπακούειν ὡς ἂν δεσποτῶν ἢ τυράννων 
ἐκμαθών, κατακεκονδυλισμένος τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ μέγα καὶ νεανικὸν φρόνημα 
λαβεῖν μὴ δυνάμενος πιστεύει τοῖς ἅπαξ παραδοθεῖσι καὶ τὸν νοῦν ἐάσας 
ἀγύμναστον ἀδιερευνήτοις καὶ ἀνεξετάστοις συναινέσεσί τε καὶ ἀρνήσεσι 
χρῆται. If these two passages be compared, the first with De ϑιιδί. ix. 9, and 
the second with De Subl. xliv. 3, 4, the close parallelism will assuredly cause 
surprise. But of course such parallelisms do not furnish mathematical 
demonstration of a first-century authorship; on the contrary, they would be 
consistent with the claims of the historical Longinus. The same may be said 
of any resemblances between the treatise and the writings of Plutarch, 
resemblances which often have their origin in a common admiration of Plato. 


1 Cp. Vaucher pp. 73 segg., and Canna pp. 3 Coblentz 54, 58, 59. 
23-26, for Longinus ; for Caecilius, cp. AMERI- 4+ The more we investigate, the more certain 
CAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY (as cited above), | weare as to the existence, and the less certain as 
and the dissertations by Martens and Coblentz to the particular origin, of a vast floating mass 
named in the note at the end of this article. of literary criticism contained in the rhetorical 
2 Vaucher 45 n., 85, 201; Canna, 21, 22, writings of the first century. 


ITS AUTHORSHIP. 199 


Traces of Stoicism, also, or of Alexandrian influences, are in themselves little 
to go upon; nor yet can we safely build an argument upon the analogies 
drawn from the realm of art with which the treatise illustrates and enforces 
its literary precepts, though we are at liberty to point out that such analogies 
are very frequently employed by writers of the first century. 

More is perhaps to be expected from an examination of those speculations 
with regard to the causes of the decline of eldquence which are found in 
c. xliv. of the treatise. Here are some extracts from the chapter: ‘It remains, 
however (as I will not hesitate to add, in recognition of your desire for learning), 
to clear up, my dear Terentianus, a question which a philosopher recently 
started in conversation with me. “1 wonder,” he said, “as no doubt do many 
others, how it happens that in our time there are men who have the gift of 
persuasion to the utmost extent, and are well fitted for public life, and are 
keen and ready, and particularly rich in all the charms of language, yet there 
no longer arise really lofty and transcendent natures unless quite exceptionally. 
So great and world-wide a dearth of high utterance attends our age. Can it 
be, he continued, that we are to accept the trite explanation (πιστευτέον 
ἐκείνῳ τῷ θρυλουμένῳ) that democracy is the kind nursing-mother of genius, 
and that literary skill may be said to share its rise and fall with democracy 
and democracy alone? For freedom, they say, has power to feed the imagina- 
tions of the-lofty-minded and inspire hope, and therewith there spreads the 
eagerness of mutual rivalry and the emulous pursuit of the foremost place 
. +». One may term all servitude, though it be most righteous (κἂν 7 
δικαιοτάτη), the cage of the soul and a public prison-house.” I answered him 
thus: ‘‘It is easy, my good sir, and characteristic of human nature, to find 
fault with the age in which one lives. But ¢onsider whether it is not the 
world’s peace (ἡ τῆς οἰκουμένης εἰρήνη) that ruins great natures, but far rather 
this war illimitable which holds our desires in its grasp, aye, and further still 
those passions which occupy as with troops our present age and utterly harry 
and plunder it. For the love of money (a disease from which we all now 
suffer sorely, πρὸς ἣν ἅπαντες ἀπλήστως ἤδη νοσοῦμεν) and the love of 
pleasure make us their thralls, or rather, as one may say, plunge the ship of 
our lives in the depths with its human crew, the love of riches being a malady 
which makes men petty, and the love of pleasure one which makes them most 
ignoble..... The same is true where the entire life of each of us is ordered 
by bribes, and huntings after the death of others, and the laying of ambushes 
for legacies (Sexacpol καὶ ἀλλοτρίων θῆραι θανάτων καὶ ἐνέδραι διαθηκῶν), 
while gain from any and every source we purchase—each one of us—at the price 
of life itself, being the slaves of pleasure. Can it be that, in an age which is 
ravaged by plagues so dire, we think that there is still left an unbiassed and 
incorruptible judge of works that are great and likely to reach posterity, or is 
it not rather the case that all are influenced in their decisions by the passion 


1 For these analogies reference may be made Brzoska’s dissertation De Canone Decem Ora- 
to Εἰ. Bertrand, De Pictwra et Sculptura apud torum Atticorum Quaestiones, 
Veteres Rhetores, and to the appendix to 


200 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


for gain? Nay, it is perhaps better for such as we are to be ruled than to be 
free (ἀλλὰ μήποτε τοιούτοις, οἷοί περ ἐσμὲν ἡμεῖς, ἄμεινον ἄρχεσθαι ἢ 
ἐλευθέροις εἶναι), since our appetites, if let loose ina body upon our neighbours 
like beasts from a cage, would overwhelm the world with calamity”’ (xliv. 1, 
25,6, 9; 10). 

The drift of these passages is plain. The decline of eloquence may be 
traced to the decay of liberty, or it may be traced to the spread of wealth 
and luxury. The lament of liberty seems to be uttered with some timidity, 
and to be placed in another’s mouth. It seems to be implied more than once 
that the servitude may be a just servitude. But the main point is that the 
lament should be made at all. Nothing of the kind, I think, is found in 
similar writings subsequent to the first century—in Lucian, or Aristeides, or 
Maximus of Tyre. In the first century, on the other hand, the topic was a 
commonplace (ἐκεῖνο τὸ θρυλούμενον) of Roman literature, and as such 
doubtless it is reflected in our treatise.’ 

Much the same may be said of the reference to the evil influence of 
riches. With "HAH vocodper in the passage translated above Cobet aptly 
compares Livy’s “NUPER divitiae avaritiam et abundantes voluptates 
desiderium per luxum atque libidinem pereundi perdendique omnia invexere.” 
And Cobet further asks how Longinus could have so written of his contem- 
poraries as the author does in the words which follow those just quoted: 
‘num Longinus aut Graeci aut Syri accipiebant pecuniam ob rem iudicandam 
aut mortibus alienis inhiabant aut malis artibus heredipetarum utebantur ? 
Romana haec sunt vitia et flagitia.” 


CONCLUSION. 


We take it, then, that in the Treatise we hear the voice of a dying 
liberty, not of a liberty long since dead. We seem to catch the accents of a 
Tacitus. Those words ἅπασαν δουλείαν, κἂν ἢ δικαιοτάτη recall the bitter 
sarcasm of the Annals (vi. 8): tibi summum rerum iudicium di dedere ; nobis 
obsequii gloria relicta est. The phrase ἡ τῆς οἰκουμένης εἰρήνη reminds us 
of the Dialogus (xxxviil): postquam longa temporum quies et continuum 
populi otium et adsidua senatus tranquillitas et maxima principis disciplina 
ipsam quoque eloquentiam sicut omnia depacaverat. 

The parallelism, seen not in the point just mentioned only but in many 
others, between the Dialogus and the De Sublimitate, might well form the 
subject of a separate paper. The opening sentence of the Dialogus breathes 


1 For various references to the degeneracy lost, on the decay in prose composition, De 
and its causes, see Seneca, Hp. 114; Pliny, Causis Corruptae Eloquentiae: ep. A. Reuter, 
Hist, Nat. xiv. 1; Plin. iun. Zp. viii. 14; De Quintiliani libro qui fuit De Causis Cor- 
Tac. Dial. de Orat, xxix. xxxvi. xxxvii.; Vell.  ruptae ELloquentiae, Vratislaviae, 1887. 

Paterc. Hist. Rom. I. 17; Petronius, Satyr. 2 Mnemosyne, N.S., vii. 421. 
Ixxxviii. ; Quintil. Znst. Orat. ii. 10, 3 ete. 3 Compare also ce, xxxvi., xxxvii., ibid. 
Quintilian further wrote a separate treatise, now 


ITS AUTHORSHIP. 201 


the very tone and spirit of the Treatise on the Sublime: Saepe ex me 
requiris, Iuste Fabi, cur, cum priora saecula tot eminentium oratorum ingeniis 
gloriaque floruerint, nostra potissimum aetas deserta et laude eloquentiae 
orbata vix nomen ipsum oratoris retineat; neque enim ita appellamus nisi 
antiquos, horum autem temporum diserti causidici et advocati et patroni et 
quidvis potius quam oratores vocantur. Both inquirers—both the Roman 
and the Greek—agree in the answer they would give to this question: they 
hold that the literary decline is due to deep-seated moral causes. It is this 
elevation of view that raises their works so far above the standpoint of the 
ordinary handbooks of rhetoric. 

Among minor and more accidental points of resemblance may be 
reckoned the fact that both books have been preserved in a more or less 
fragmentary form, and that both alike lay for centuries in complete obscurity 
without a hint, from any quarter, of their existence. Possibly both were 
intended for private (perhaps for secret) circulation rather than for publication 
in the ordinary way. Around both, again, an extensive controversy with 
regard to authorship has arisen, but with marked differences in its circum- 
stances and its results. The manuscript ascription of the Dialogus to Tacitus 
is definite and unimpeachable. The book was, therefore, naturally included 
in the editio princeps of Tacitus’ then known works, that issued by Vendelin 
de Spira at Venice in 1470. The great attack upon its authenticity was 
made by Justus Lipsius a century later, an attack resting principally (like 
those which have followed it) upon grounds of style. But although scepticism 
began much earlier in the case of the Dialogus than in that of the De 
Sublimitate, the Tacitean ascription has fared better than the Longinian. 
For while a few critics still suspend their judgment, the majority (and among 
them its latest editors in America and England, Gudeman and Peterson) 
hold that the Dialogue is an early work of Tacitus. With the De Sublimitate 
it is, as we have seen, otherwise. The claims of Longinus are upheld by few. 
And although the evidence is not absolutely conclusive, we must, I think, 
perforce admit that the balance inclines strongly in favour of the first century 
and against the third. The equivocal testimony of the MSS.; the absence 
of direct references in ancient authors; the names included in the treatise or 
absent from it; its affinities in style, in thought, and in general standpoint ; 
such considerations, when taken singly, cause hesitation, and when taken 
together raise the gravest doubts as to the truth of the traditional view. 

The alternative—the highly probable alternative—is to regard the first 
century as the period of composition and an unknown author as the writer. 
An ‘unknown author,’ because the various attempts at identification have 
failed to carry conviction; they still remain conjectures, nothing more. As 
far as I am aware, no other Zonginus than the Longinus of history has been 
put forward at any time as a possible author of the treatise. But it is 
different with Dionysius, the optional name given in the manuscript inscrip- 
tion. This name has led to a plentiful crop of guesses: Dionysius of Hali- 
-carnassus, Aelius Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Dionysius Atticus of Pergamus, 
Dionysius of Miletus. But the claims advanced on behalf of these writers 


202 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


are advanced either without evidence or in the face of evidence. It is the 
same if the conjectures take a wider range. W. Christ suggests the name of 
Theon, who wrote a treatise περὶ συντάξεως λόγου But this is avowedly 
pure guesswork. Vaucher’s advocacy of Plutarch, on the other hand, is 
supported by much argument and a considerable array of facts. But the 
theory is surrounded by so many difficulties of its own that it is now 
practically abandoned.? On the whole, it seems best frankly to confess our 
ignorance, and while recognising the probability of a first-century authorship 
to think of the author himself as AvcTOR IGNoTVs. We had best inscribe 
the work ANWNYMOY, thus following the reading of the Florence manu- 
script. This may seem an inconclusive conclusion, but it is the only one at 
present within our reach. 

But while it is good science to refuse to hazard any conjecture which our 
information does not warrant, it is good science also to decline to follow some 
critics in abandoning all hope of ever seeing a solution of this knotty problem. 
Let us rather recognise that we are confronted with one of those stimulating 
and fruitful uncertainties which classical research so often presents to its 
votaries,—uncertainties which are stimulating because there is some possibility 
of removing them, and fruitful because in any case they lead to the more 
thorough investigation of the obscurer by-ways of history and literature. 
Two directions from which light might possibly come in the present case may 
here be mentioned. 

(1) Best of all would be the discovery of a fresh MS. of the De Sublimitate, 
free from the lacunae which at present disfigure the treatise. It is well-known 
that the gaps amount to something like one-third of the whole work, the 
approximate extent of the loss being ascertainable from the leaves missing in 
P. 2036. In these lost parts there may have been references which would 
help to fix more nearly the date of the book. An ounce of definite fact of 
this kind inspires more confidence than a ton of loose speculation upon 
supposed variations of style. It is men like Amati and Roeper that have 
really advanced matters, and this because they have kept their eyes open to 
hard facts within and without the treatise, and have recognised that even the 
most trivial fact may become luminous and instructive when duly correlated 
with others. Very welcome, in particular, would be the discovery of any such 
correspondence between the treatise and some other writing as one between 
the Dialogus de Oratoribus and Pliny’s Epistles which was first noticed by 
A.G. Lange. In c. ix. of the Dialogus occur the words: adice quod poetis.... 
in nemora et lucos, id est in solitudinem, secedendum est (cp. ibid. ο. xii. ad init.). 
Lange pointed out that Pliny (Zp. ix. 10), addressing Tacitus and referring to 


1 W. Christ, Gesch. d. gr. Litt. (second edi- sunt, lvi. Dionys. Att. of Perg. Vaucher 46, 
tion, 1890), p. 630. 90; Canna 12-14; Pess. 292; Blass, Griech. 

2 For Plutarch reference may be made to Bereds., 158. Dionys. of Miletus, Vaucher 91 ; 
Vaucher 93-119 ; Canna 15,16; Winkler19; Pess. 292. [Full titles of the books here in- 
Brigh. 37. ‘For Dionys. of Halic., see Vaucher dicated by the authors’ names will, where not 
44, 45, 50, 54, 90; Cannall. Ael. Dionys. of already given, be found in the bibliographical 
Halic., Vaucher 91; Egger, Longini quae super- note at the end of this article.) 


ITS AUTHORSHIP. 203 


the pursuit of poetry, says poemata .... tu inter nemora et lucos commodissime 
perfict putas. This, though it may not be proof positive, is at the least a 
remarkable resemblance, and one cannot wonder that much is made of it by 
the supporters of the view that Tacitus wrote the Dialogus. Our own 
problem furnishes, as we have seen, some similar correspondences, but we 
could wish for something more precise and definite than we at present have. 
The missing portions of the treatise, should they be discovered, might possibly 
supply our want. And in view of some pleasant recent surprises, who shall 
venture to say that such a discovery is an impossibility ? 

(2) The second possible side-light is the identification of the Terentianus 
to whom the treatise is addressed.! This question deserves, perhaps, a fuller 
consideration than it has hitherto received. 

Let us first collect the particulars as to Terentianus which are provided, 
directly or indirectly, by the treatise itself. At its commencement he is 
addressed as Ποστούμιε Τερεντιανὲ φίλτατε, though there is here in the best 
MS. a different reading, to which we must return presently. The other forms 
of address have been classified as follows in the interesting Swedish edition 
by Elias Janzon (Upsaliae, 1894), where the references are to the pages of 
Tahn-Vahlen’s text: Τερεντιανὲ φίλτατε (44,7; 66,7), φίλτατε Τερεντιανέ 
(24, 20), Τερεντιανὲ ἥδιστε (3,1; 7,17), ὦ νεανία (27, 20: altered by the 
editors to ὦ Τερεντιανέ, against the best manuscript authority, and against 
the usage of the author, who elsewhere couples some endearing epithet with 
the name Tepevtiavé), ὦ φίλος (9,16), ὦ ἑταῖρε (41, 2), ἑταῖρε (2,11; 14,12; 
16, 4), κρώτιστε (59, 12), φίλτατε (2, 14; 9, 22; 25, 25; 38, 22). It is clear 
from these expressions that a close friendship existed between the two men. 
By the form of allocution ὦ νεανία, and by such expressions as ἕνεκα τῆς σῆς 
χρηστομαθείας in xliv. 1 (cp. the didactic tone of rod μαθεῖν χάριν and ὅπως 
ἢ σοι γνώριμον in ix. 10 and 15, as well as the words ἀνεγνωκὼς τὰ ἐν τῇ 
Πολιτείᾳ τὸν τύπον οὐκ ἀγνοεῖς in xili.), it may or may not be implied that 
the two friends stood, or had stood, to one another in the relation of master 
to pupil; probably it is. Certainly they had examined the work of Caecilius 
together (i. 1), while if we follow the reading of one MS. (ὡρισάμεθον viii. 1) 
they had been even more closely associated in the study of Xenophon. It is, 
moreover, implied in the treatise that Terentianus was a cultured Roman with 
some experience of public life (xii. 4; i,2,3,4). The author seems to wish 
it to be understood that his book consists of jottings only (ὑπομνηματίσασθαι 
1. 2, ὑπομνήματος xxxvi. 4),and that it is designed specially, if not exclusively, 
for the delectation of Terentianus (i. 2). 

The particulars thus collected are interesting, but they cannot be said to 


1 In continuation of a parallelism already 
mentioned, it may be noted that the Fabius 
Iustus to whom the Dialogus is addressed was 
probably Pliny the Younger’s friend, Consul 
Suffectus in 102 a.p. The person addressed is, 
therefore, in the one case as well as in the 
other, a factor in the determination of the date. 


—Again, a question arises in both cases as to 
the precise signification of iwvenis or νεανίας. 
Tacitus (or whoever the author was) speaks of 
himself as ‘iuvenis admodum’ at the time of 
the Dialogue. In the De Sublimitate, on the 
other hand, it is Terentianus that is addressed 
in the words ὦ νεανία, 


204 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


be precise. If we chose to designate the author as the AVCTOR AD 
TERENTIANVM, that designation would not at present mean anything more 
than AVCTOR INCERTVS or AVCTOR IGNOTVS. Probably we need fresh 
material from within or from without the treatise before we can hope for an 
actual identification. But meanwhile we must make the most of every 
fragment of evidence we possess. And from this point of view it cannot be 
considered satisfactory that so little attention should have been paid to the 
reading of P. 2036 at the beginning of the treatise. P. gives Prwpevtiavé, 
for which the editors, following Manutius, have with one accord substituted 
Tepevtvavé, in order to bring the address into line with those found elsewhere 
in the treatise. Probably this change is right as far as it goes, but it does 
not go far enough to account for what, if unexplained, must seem a strange 
aberration in so excellent a manuscript as Ρ.1 I should like to suggest, though 
tentatively and with all reserve, a possible explanation. It is that, in its 
original form, the address ran thus: Ποστούμιε Mad pe Tepevtiavé φίλτατε. 
At a comparatively early stage of the manuscript transmission doubt may 
have arisen as to Madpe, it may have been changed into Φλῶρε, and finally a 
‘conflation’ of Φλῶρε and Τερεντιανέ may have yielded DdAwpevtiavé? 
Madpe might well be doubted on grounds of: (1) rarity, (2) order, (3) 
superfluity. I will take the points one by one. (1) Rarity. ‘Maurus, as a 
personal name or affix, is not common in Latin, and still less common in 
Greek, where its transliterated form may have been none the more pleasing 
because of its close resemblance to μῶρος. But the form itself is, of course, 
well attested both in manuscripts and in inscriptions such as this :— 


AM 
MIO49V 
TWZH 
+69 


Μαῦρος Μηζώτρου. 
(Kaibel, Inserr. Gr. Sic. οὐ It., 2412, 31.) 


(2) Order. The inversion in the order of Tepevtiavé and Matpe may have 
caused difficulty to a copyist. But this inversion is not uncommon, in writers 
of the imperial period at any rate. Incidentally an instance (‘Iuste Fabi’) 
has already been quoted from the Dialogus, and ‘Afro Domitio’ may be 
added from ¢. xiii. of the same book. In Greek we find instances as early as 
Dionys. Halic. (e.g. Βάρρων Tepévtios = Terentius Varro, Antigg. Rom., i. 14). 
The usage is rarer when the praenomen, as well as the nomen and cognomen, 
is used (the full array of the ‘tria nomina’ is itself rare); but I do not think 


1 The exact reading of P. is φλωρεντιανὲ, served in the Cambridge University Library, 
There is, as I can testify from personal inspec- gives gAwpévriavé, with τερεντιανγὲ in the 
tion of the MS., no doubt about the presence of margin. 
the dot. ‘A puncto notatum ut suspectum,’ 3. Φλορεντιανέ is found in other MSS. 
as the editors say.—The Codex Eliensis, pre- 


ITS AUTHORSHIP. 205 


it is unexampled in the Latin of this period. Here, I take it, considerations 
of rhythm or euphony (to which our author pays great attention) would 
suggest the order Postumius Maurus Terentianus, the same explanation 
probably holding good in the case of the Tacitean Afro Domitio already 
quoted. (3) Superflwity, A long-suffering scribe would be prone to think 
that one of these names might easily be spared, and he may therefore have 
dropped the Madpe altogether as some of the MSS. have done, or preserved 
only a scanty vestige of it in PAwpevtiavée. But I would ‘suggest,’ as the 
lawyers say, that our author of set purpose gave the name in full at the 
commencement of his treatise, and there only; he wished to be specially | 
formal and honorific at the beginning. His first sentence, even as it stands, 
is of an astonishing amplitude, and he would probably have regarded an 
additional word as an advantage rather than the contrary. Whatever the 
name may be which has disappeared,—whether it be Μαῦρε, or Φλῶρε, or 
Φλώρηνς, or Prwpevtive, or Pr. = (Φλάβιε or PrAdove),—I feel confident 
that some name has been lost, and that this is the key to the reading of the 
best MSS. For it must be remembered that they show no variation when 
Tepevtiavé occurs, as it does occur five several times, in other passages of the 
treatise. 

I will now go a step further, though still with the same diffidence, and 
suggest that the person actually addressed was Terentianus Maurus, the 
writer on prosody. I must begin by admitting frankly that we have, as far 
as I know, no evidence to show that this writer’s full designation was 
Postumius Terentianus Maurus. Consequently we can do no more than point 
out (a) that his name may, in the scanty notices we have of him, have come 
down to us in the abbreviated form in which authors are constantly 
mentioned, ‘ Terentianus’ simply being the usual designation in his own case ; 
and (6) that the combination does not seem an impossible one in itself. 
Wilmanns gives an inscription of late date (Inscriptiones Africae Latinae, 
9016) which not only unites the names Postumius Maurus, but is followed by 
a blank space, one large enough (we may add, on our own account) to 
accommodate such a word as Terentianus, if we might for a moment assume 
that it had originally stood there. 

If we were in a position (as we certainly at present are not) to establish 
this identification, the result would perhaps, after all, be interesting rather 
than important. We should hardly be able to fix the uncertain date of the 
De Sublimitate by means of the uncertain date of Terentianus Maurus. But 
though the date of Terentianus Maurus remains uncertain, yet the tendency 
of recent critical opinion has been to assign a much earlier floruit to him (as 
to Petronius Arbiter, whom he quotes) than the third century of our era. 
Teuffel (Gesch. ἃ, Rom. Litt.’ ii. 945) thinks that he lived about the close of 
the second century; A. Werth (‘De Terentiani Sermone et Aetate,’ in 
Fleckheisen’s Jahrbiicher fiir Classische Philologie, 1896) suggests that he was 
born in the reign of Hadrian (117—138 a.D.). It is not, however, impossible 
that he was writing as an old man in the reign of Hadrian or shortly after it, 
and that his youth fell well within the first century. I desire definitely to 

H.S.—VOL. XVII. Q 


206 


THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


revive this view, which (we shall see presently) is not altogether a 


new one.! 


But if we waive the question of the date, Terentianus’ genial elderly 
disquisitions (couched in various verse) De Litteris Syllabis Metris might well 
have come from a pupil of the author of the De Sublimitate, who, it will be 
remembered, is not averse from discussing the minutiae of style, and who 
inculcates the use of homely phrase upon occasion. Terentianus seems, too, to 
hint that in his earlier days he also had essayed the grand, or elevated, style:— 


Sic nostrum senium quoque, 
quia iam dicere GRANDIA 
maturum ingenium negat, 
nec spirant animas fibrae, 
angustam studii viam 

et callem tenuem terit, 
tautum ne male desidi 
suescant ora silentio. 

quid sit littera, quid duae, 
iunctae quid sibi syllabae, 
dumos inter et aspera 
scruposis sequimur vadis. 
fronte exile negotium 

et dignum pueris putes ; 
adgressis labor arduus 

nec tractabile pondus est. 
at mens tenditur acrius, 
ne contenta sit obviis, 
rimantemve recondita 
subtiles fugiant notae, 
neu discretio falsa sit 
rerum tam gracili modo. 
instat callida cautio, 

ne sermo ambiguum sonet, 
ne priscum nimis aut leve, 
vocum ne series hiet, 

neu compago fragosa sit, 
vel sit quod male luceat ; 
dum certo gradimur pede, 
ipsi ne trepident pedes. 
par examinis aestus est, 
ceu SUBLIMIA disseras: 


1 It is doubtful whether sufficient attention 
has been paid to the line, ‘dulcia Septimius qui 
scripsit opuscula nuper’ (v. 1891). The points 
to be remembered are (1) that Terentianus was, 


as appears in his Preface, an old man when he 
wrote the line, and (2) that Septimius Serenus 
is reckoned, by so high an authority as W. 5, 
Teuffel, among the poets of Hadrian’s time. 


ITS AUTHORSHIP. 207 


par est iudicii mora: 


pompae gloria vilis est. 
Praefatio, 51-84." 


The man who wrote these lines had surely a fine ideal of the dignity of 
the grammarian’s life; and in a different way the epilogue (1282— 1299) to 
his second section, that De Syllabis, is even more moving and even more 
instinct with the spirit of the ‘Grammarian’s Funeral’ :— 


Forsitan hune aliquis verbosum dicere librum 

, non dubitet; forsan multo praestantior alter 
pauca reperta putet, cum plura invenerit ipse ; 
deses et impatiens nimis haec obscura putabit : 
pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli. 
sed me iudicii non paenitet: haee bene vobis 
commisi, quibus est amor et prudentia iuxta, 
et labor in studiis semper celebratus inhaeret : 
vos sequar, in vestro satis est examine cautum. 
haec ego cum scripsi, bis quinis mensibus aeger 
pendebam ambiguum trutina sub iudice corpus, 
alternum nutans et neutro pondere sidens: 
nam neque mors avide nigros pandebat hiatus, 
nec vitam forti retinebant stamine Parcae. 
sic varios tam longa dies renovando dolores 
duxit ad hoc tempus semper sine fine minando. 
cum potui tamen, obrepens incepta peregi, 
quo vitae dubius vel sic vixisse viderer. 

De Syill., 1282-1299. 


One question may be asked and answered before we leave Terentianus’ 
grammatical discussions in verse. Did he know Greek, as the Terentianus of 
the De Sublimitate must have done? The answer is in the affirmative. He 
quotes the Greek technical terms proper to his subject, and he adduces Greek 
examples; and though he does not claim an extensive knowledge of Greek 
literature, he nevertheless feels the debt due to Greece (‘artium parens et 
altrix Graeca diligentia est,’ 342), especially the debt which the schoolboy 
owes (‘Graecus pueros ut docet insonans magister,’ 253).—Just one more 
question, the answer to which we shall hardly hope to find in these gram- 
matical treatises. Had Terentianus Maurus any part in public life, such as 
the Terentianus Maurus of the De Sublimitate seems to be taking at the time 
when he is addressed, a time which may of course be considerably later than 
the period of his instruction (if instruction he had) at the hands of the author ? 
It has sometimes been suggested, by those who advocate an early date for 


1 It need hardly be pointed out that sublimia τὰ ὑψηλότερα, τὰ ὑπερφυᾶ, τὰ μεγέθη, τὰ μεγάλα, 
and grandia are the obvious Latin equivalents .7.A. 
of such expressions in the Treatise as τὰ ὕψη, 


Q 2 


208 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


Terentianus Maurus, that he is to be identified with Terentianus, the governor 
of Syene in Egypt, mentioned by Martial in one of his Epigrams (I. lxxxvi. 6, 
7: tam longe est mihi quam Terentianus, | Qui nunc Niliacam regit Syenen. 
Date, 85-86 a.D.: L. Friedlaender). With the view that Terentianus wrote 
his De Litteris as an old man in the reign of Hadrian, and with the view that 
he is no other than the Terentianus of the De Sublimitate such an identifica- 
tion would agree admirably, but I am bound to confess that there seems to be 
no positive evidence in support of it and that it postulates an earlier date for 
Terentianus Maurus than would readily be conceded by Teuffel-Schwabe. 
But I feel free to point out that the suggestion has been made, and made 
without any thought of the Terentianus of the De Sublimitate. Perhaps it is 
just worth mention that Wilmanns, in the collection already named, has the 
following mutilated inscription (8402) :— 


MARTIALIS 
E MAVRO RO 
E SVO FECIT 


No argument can be based on an unintelligible fragment of unknown date, 
one also which, it should in candour be added, was differently read by an 
earlier authority (Vincent in Revue Africaine, xxi. 315). But if the reading 
is correct (and the authority of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum is not 
lightly to be set aside), we do at least find the names of a Martialis and a 
Maurus brought into some sort of connexion. For the sake of completeness, 
I will just add, as the names Terentianus and Maurus are both somewhat 
uncommon, that the latter is found in a two-line epigram (Anth. Pal. xi. 204) 
attributed to Palladas, which begins with the words 'Ῥήτορα Μαῦρον ἰδών. 
Flavius Terentianus occurs in Inserr, Afr. Lat. 8412 and 8932, in both of 
which inscriptions the man in question is described as ‘ praeses Mauretaniae 
Sitifensis’; the date may be given as 318-319 A.D. The inscriptions, like 
the epigram, are late; but as already said, they are added here simply for the 
sake of completeness. 

Whether or no the Terentianus of the De Sublimitate has any direct 
connexion: with any Terentianus Maurus and with Africa, we shall do well, I 
think, to recognise that the writer of the Treatise has many points of contact 
with Alexandria. In some respects the Nile (to which he refers with admira- 
tion) seems to be nearer to him than Rome itself. He sometimes writes as 
if, when writing, he knew of things in the capital by hearsay rather than by 
actual experience. He can speak in general terms of Roman vices, but he 
does not appear (as has been already seen) to possess the knowledge of 
a resident with regard to definite, though perhaps trivial circumstances, 
such as the confinement of the Pygmies. But the very theme of his book, as 
well as its specific points of contact with Philo, with Josephus, with Caecilius, 
with the Hebrew scriptures, seems to associate him, in spirit if not in residence, 
with Alexandria, the great meeting-place of Jew and Greek. 

The hypothesis that the book was produced at a distance from Rome, or 
sent to a friend at a distance from Rome, might help to account for the fact 


ITS AUTHORSAITP. 209 


that it seems to have been so little known in antiquity. If that friend was 
also in an official position, there might seem double reason for secrecy with 
regard to a work which might be held to embody seditious sentiments. A 
book designed for private circulation would naturally not be multiplied to 
any extent, and this would explain the paucity of independent copies of the 
treatise. 

However, I have, I need not say, no intention of pressing any of these 
speculations, nor even that from which they started—the identification of 
Terentianus with Terentianus Maurus. If there were any truth in this 
suggestion, it would no doubt have been made before. Some, indeed, might 
go so far as to regard the Terentianus of the treatise as an entirely fictitious 
person, the offspring of the literary convention which conducted such discus- 
sions in the form of dialogue or epistle. But so extreme a view, though it might 
be put forward, could hardly be successfully defended. For apart from the fact 
that the general practice was to introduce real personages into such letters 
and dialogues, there is a special reality and intimacy about the references to 
Terentianus in the De Sublimitate. One of the chief impressions, in fact, 
which we form upon internal evidence with regard to our anonymous author is 
that, whatever else he may have been, he was at least a warm-hearted friend 
and an enthusiastic teacher. Internal evidence also assures us that he was a 
Greek, who had some acquaintance with Latin and even with Hebrew 
literature ; that he was conversant, to some extent, with art as well as with 
literature ; that in his general view of things, as well as in his diction, he had 
been influenced greatly by Plato; and that he had written on other subjects 
than his present one.! 

This is all we can state about the author with any approach to certainty, 
and no doubt it is a meagre record when we compare it with our recollections 
of the historical Longinus of the third century, whose learning won him the 
curious designation of ‘a living library and a walking museum,’ and made him 
famous as the prince of critics; who at Alexandria had been the brilliant 
pupil of the Neoplatonists ; who at Athens gained celebrity as the teacher of 
young men ambitious of philosophical and literary culture ; who at Palmyra, 
as the minister of Zenobia, inspired the defiant reply sent by the queen to the 
letter of the emperor Aurelian which demanded her submission ; who met his 
death in the spirit of a hero. We lose much in losing the halo of romance 
which such a name throws about a book, and it is with a certain sadness that 
we see Longinus giving place to Pseudolonginus (as if the writer were an 
impostor) in the hands of every German graduand. The work has come 
to be regarded as a foundling, and to suffer the foundling’s fate. Its present 


1 The following passages seem to contain 
references to other writings of his: viii. 1, 
ὡς Kay τοῖς περὶ Ἐενοφῶντος (if this is a refer- 
ence to a separate work) ὡρισάμεθα, or ὡρισά- 
μεθον. ix. 2, yéypapd που καὶ ἑτέρωθι τὸ τοιοῦ- 
τον" ὕψος μεγαλοφροσύνης ἀπήχημα. xxiii. 8, 
καὶ τὸ Πλατωνικόν, ὃ καὶ ἑτέρωθι παρατεθείμεθα, 


ἐπὶ τῶν ᾿Αθηναίων: “οὐ γὰρ Πέλοπες,᾽ κ.τ.λ, 
xxxix. 1... ἡ διὰ τῶν λόγων αὐτὴ ποιὰ σύνθεσις. 
ὑπὲρ ἧς ἐν δυσὶν ἀποχρώντως ἀποδεδωκότες cur 
τάγμασιν... Xliv. 12... τὰ πάθη, περὶ ὧν [ἐν 
ἰδίῳ προηγουμένως ὑπεσχόμεθα γράψειν ὑπομνή- 
MATL... 


210 THE GREEK TREATISE ON THE SUBLIME. 


neglect in England may be due to some such hazy prejudice, as well as to a 
not unnatural reaction against the excessive claims at one time made on its 
behalf, in England and in France, as an infallible court of appeal. 

In future the treatise must stand upon its own merits; and it can well 
afford to do so, for those merits are of no ordinary kind. After all, it is the 
most striking single piece of literary criticism produced by any Greek writer 
subsequent to Aristotle. It claims our respect and admiration by its noble 
tone; by its apt precepts; by its judicious attitude towards fundamental 
questions such as those of the errors of genius, the standard of taste, the 
relation of art to nature and of literature to life ; by its value as a treasury of 
extracts, and of happy appreciations destined to be confirmed by every fresh 
discovery of Hypereides or Bacchylides ; and lastly, by its historical interest 
as one of the earliest essays in comparative criticism, and as an aesthetic 
treatise which has had some degree of influence upon almost every European 
literature. Surely such a book deserves an English edition. 


W. Ruys RosBERTs. 


Bibliographical Note on Recent Publications. 


I append a list of books and articles published in or after the year 1870, all of which 
deal with the De Sublimitate and most of which have some bearing upon the question of 
the authorship. These productions may be conveniently grouped, year by year, under two 
headings: A. Separate publications, B. Articles in Periodicals. 


A.—SEPARATE PUBLICATIONS. 


Aem. Winkler, De Longini qui fertur Libello ΠΈΡΙ Y¥OYS, Halis, 1870.—M. Haupt, 
Ind. lect. habend. in Univ. Frid, Guil., Berolini, 1870 (reprinted in Haupt’s Opuscula, ii. 
428-433).—H. A. Giles, Longinus, an Essay on the Sublime : translated into English, London, 
1870.—Giovanni Canna, Della Sublimita : libro attribuito a Cassio Longino, Firenze, 1871. 
—H. von Rohden, Commentat. in honorem F’. Buecheleri, Bonnae, 1873.—L. Martens, De 
Libello ΠΕΡῚ Y¥YOYS, Bonnae, 1877.—A. Reifferscheid, Indices lect. Vratislav., Vrat., 1879- 
1880,—J. Vahlen, Ind. lect. in Univ. Frid. Guil. habend., Berolini, 1880.—A. Jannarakis, 
Eis τὸ Περὶ ὝΨους λεγόμενον βιβλίον Κριτικαὶ Σημειώσεις, Marburgi, 1880.—M. Hertz, Ind. 
lect. Vratislav.,Vrat., 1881.—M. J. Moreno, Tratado de la Sublimidad traducido fielmente 
del Griego de Dionisio Casio Longino: con notas histéricas, criticas y biogrdficas, y con 
ejemplos sublimes Castellanos comparados con los Grieyos citados por Longino, Sevilla, 1882. 
—H. Hersel, Qua in citandis scriptorum et poetarum locis auctor libelli περὶ ὝΨους usus sit 
ratione. Berlin, 1884.—AIONYZIOY H ΛΟΓΓΊΝΟΥ ΠΕΡῚ Y¥OYS: edidit Otto Iahn a. 
MDCCCLXVII : iterum edidit a. MDccocLXxxviI Ioannes Vahlen. Bonnae.—B. Coblentz De 
Libelli MEPL ὙΨΟΥΣ Auctore. Argentorati, 1888.—The Poetics of Aristotle, together with 
the Treatise on the Sublime by Longinus, London, 1889. (Cassell’s National Library, edited 
by Henry Morley).—H. L. Havell, Longinus on the Sublime translated into English : with 
an Introduction by Andrew Lang, London, 1890.—Elias Janzon, De Sublimitate Libellus 
in patrium sermonem conversus adnotationibusque instructus. Upsaliae, 1894.—Rhetores 
Graeci ex recognitione Leonardi Spengel. Vol. 1. Pars II. Edidit C. Hammer. Lipsiae, 
1894, [Originally edited by Spengel in 1853.]—G. Meinel, Dionysius oder Longinus, Ueber 
das Erhabene: uebersetzt und mit kritischen und exegetischcn Bemerkungen versehen, 


ITS AUTHORSHIP. 211 


Kempten, 1895 —E. Brighentius, De Libelli Περὶ Ὕψους Auctore Dissertatio, Patavii, 
1895.—F. Nicolini, Adnotationes in Longini Περὶ “Yous Libellum. Catinae, 1896.—J. 
Freytag, De Anonymi Περὶ Ὕψους Sublimi Genere Dicendi, Hildesheim, 1897. 


B.—ARTICLES IN PERIODICALS. 


M. Schmidt, Rhein. Mus., 1872, xxvii, p. 483.—U. von Wilamowitz-Méllendorff, 
Hermes, 1876, x, pp. 334-346.—H. Diels Hermes, 1878, xiii, pp. 5, 6.—E. Rohde, 
Rheinisches Museum, 1880, xxxv, pp. 309-312.C. G. Cobet, Mnemosyne, N. S., 1882, 
x, pp. 319-323.—R. Pessonneaux, Annales de la Faculté des Lettres de Bordeaur, 
1883, v, pp. 291-303.—F. Buecheler, Rhein. Mus., 1884, xxxix, pp. 274, 5.—E. Egger, 
Journal des Savants, Mai, 1884, pp. 252-254,—M. Rothstein, Hermes, 1887, xxii, pp. 535 
-546.—J. B. Bury, Classical Review, 1887, I, pp. 300-302.—M. Rothstein, Hermes, 1888, 
xxiii, pp. 1-20.—Robinson Ellis, Hermathena, 1896, ix, pp. 385-388.—W. Schmid, Rhein 
Mus., 1897, lii, p. 446. 


212 ARTEMISIUM., 


ARTEMISIUM. 


Ir has fallen to my lot in the course of the last few months to examine 
the text of Herodotus with a view to discovering, if possible, the extent to 
which the Greeks of the time of the Persian War were acquainted with the 
principles of strategy. 

What may be called the ‘incidental’ nature of the historian’s 
narrative demands, of course, that the greatest care should be expended 
by any one who pretends to examine it, and the manifestly unprofessional 
character of the military portion of it, together with the evident inexperience 
of the author in matters connected with war, would render the task a hopeless 
one, were not the nature of the theatre of events so marked in character as 
to elucidate much that would otherwise be obscure or incomprehensible. 

Among the war problems which Herodotus places before us, that of 
Artemisium is by no means the least interesting, a fact of which the amount 
of critical literature which has grown up about it, gives eloquent, and, 
perhaps, embarrassing proof. My only excuse for adding to its volume, if not 
to its weight, is that this literature has a tendency, which has developed 
noticeably of late, to rewrite the whole history of events, on the plea that the 
tale told by Herodotus is past understanding and will not bear examination. 
As Herodotus is practically our only authority, I cannot, I confess, regard as 
convincing such reconstructions as ignore the evidence of fact which Herodotus 
gives, nor yet those which are founded on a manifest omission to take into 
consideration the whole of the facts as recorded by him. I do not for one 
moment imply that such omission is in any case intentional; it results, no 
doubt, from the method, or want of method, employed by the historian. 

In studying Artemisium we are faced by the same difficulty which we 
find in the case of Plataea. Herodotus has evidently been unable to obtain 
evidence as to the reasons which actuated those who were in responsible 
command on either side, save only where some large and generally recog- 
nizable question was involved, as, for instance, whether the great stand against 
the Persians should be made at the Isthmus or north of it. 

But again, if a line may be taken from Plataea, it might, perhaps, 
predispose us to accept, as being, in the main, true, the plain statements of 
fact which he makes with respect to Artemisium. 

Putting aside, however, any predisposition of the kind, it may be well to 
take the narrative in detail and to examine the validity of the objections 
which have been made to various parts of it. 

The strategical interdependence between the army at Thermopylae and 


ARTEMISIUM. 213 


the fleet at Artemisium is, of course, the leading factor which must enter into 
any criticism of the narrative of either battle. 

Thermopylae would have been untenable against the combined land and 
sea force of the Persians, had not the Greek fleet been at the movth of the 
Euripus, so as to 

(1) Defend the sea flank of the defending army of Leonidas; 

(2) Prevent the landing of ἃ Persian force in rear of the pass. 

The last fact seems to be recognized by all commentators, but many of 
those who have written on the subject seem to be quite unaware that the 
depth of water close in shore at the narrowest part of the land passage was 
such as to admit of ships being brought sufficiently near in for them to be 
able to take a prominent part in the attack and defence of the position! This 
is, however, to be clearly seen from the history of another fierce battle in this 
pass almost exactly two centuries later. 

In 279 B.c. Brennus and his Gauls, after invading Italy, Illyria, Pannonia, 
and Thrace, marched on South Greece. At Thermopylae they found them- 
selves faced by 25,000 Greeks. Brennus crossed the Spercheius with a force 
of 200,000, and attacked the pass with the utmost ferocity, but was unable to 
force it. This is, it need hardly be said, of the greatest importance as showing 
the immense strength of the defensive line of Mount Oeta ; but we are further 
told that in the attack the Athenian galleys, which were supporting the army 
in the strait, did considerable damage to the Gallic force by coming close in 
shore and attacking them with iissile weapons. 

What followed is not apposite to our immediate purpose, but is peculiarly 
illustrative of the strategical geography of Greece. Baulked at Thermopylae, 
the Gauls made a diversion into Aetolia, but, defeated there, returned and 
attacked Thermopylae again. The very fact of their having to return to the 
scene of their former failure shows how very restricted is the line of commu- 
nication from the north at this point. Then happened what was practically a 
repetition of the events of two centuries before. The Gauls surprised the Pho- 
kians who were defending the path of Hydarnes, of the existence of which they 
had been informed by the Herakleots, and the defending force at Thermopylae 
was obliged to embark on the Athenian galleys and sail away down the Euripus. 

The maintenance of the line of Mount Oeta against attack from the 
north was, then, absolutely dependent on the command of the Euripus, and 
not merely of the Euripus, but of the north end of it. 

Some commentators say that Herodotus had no appreciation of the 
interdependence of the two positions. That he had no professional apprecia- 
tion of the fact is, of course, true, and is exactly what might be expected 
from him; but that he had a general appreciation of it his language on several 
occasions seems to prove.” 


1 The rapidity with which this coast has 2 Cf, vii. 175: ταῦτα yap ἀγχοῦ τε ἀλλήλων 
advanced renders it probable that what was ἐστὶ ὥστε πυνθάνεσθαι τὰ κατὰ ἑκατέρους“ édvra...: 
done in 279 8,0. μόγις καὶ οὐκ ἄνευ κινδύνου and especially the passage in viii. 15 beginning 
would have been an easy exploit in 480, cf. ἣν δε was ὁ ἀγὼν....... to the end of the chapter : 
Pausanias x, 21, 4, ef, also viii. 21. 


214 ARTEMISIUM. 


But there is another general objection raised against Herodotus’ narra- 
tive, which is held to impugn the reliability of his account, and to render it 
necessary to reconstruct the whole history of events. 

It is this :— 

If,as must be admitted, there was this absolute interdependence between 
Artemisium and Thermopylae, 

and if, as must also be admitted, this interdependence was plainly recog- 
nized by the Greek commanders, 

how is it that we hear :— 

(1) Of an actual retreat to Chalkis, 1,6., of an abandonment of the north 
Euripus after the capture of the Greek outpost vessels off the Macedonian 
coast (vii. 182) ? 

(2) Of a contemplated retirement ἔσω és τὴν “EdAdéa (viii. 4), due to 
the panic which the sight of the magnitude of the Persian fleet at Aphetae 
caused among the Greeks? 

(3) Of a contemplated movement south to meet the 200 Persian vessels 
which had been sent round Euboea (viii. 9.) ? 

(4) Of a contemplated retirement ἔσω és τὴν Ἑλλάδα (viii. 18.) after 
the third day’s battle at Artemisium, in which the Greeks had been roughly 
handled ? 

This objection seems hardly valid, when the general drift of the history 
of events which Herodotus has given us is taken into consideration. 

If any general fact is brought into prominence in his account of the war 
of 480—479, it is that the Peloponnesian Greeks were ever hankering after 
the Isthmus as the line of defence against the huge Persian force. Drawing 
largely from Athenian sources, he also brings the selfishness of this policy 
into special prominence. Selfish, indeed, it must have seemed to the Greeks 
north of the Isthmus, who were probably more or less aware of the eminently 
defensible character of such a line as that formed by Oeta, though their 
acquaintance with the topography of the region north of the Boeotian plain 
seems to have been of an imperfect character! But is it so strange that the 
Peloponnesian Greeks should have preferred a defensive line at the Isthmus 
which they did know, and in which they believed, to one of which they can 
have had but imperfect knowledge, especially after they had just been 
involved in what they must have regarded as a fiasco—that expedition to 
Thessaly ? Was it, after all, in view of their then knowledge, so selfish a 
policy to fix the defence in a war in which, opposed by the enormous magni- 
tude of the Persian power, they must have faced the situation with the 
courage of despair, at a line in which they had some sort of confidence, 
rather than at one where the chances of success were impossible of calculation ? 


Ὁ Cf. the mistake made as to the defensive Lamia-Delphi road through Oeta via Cytinium, 
nature of the position at Tempe: also,ignorance in the account of Thermopylae, and this, too, 
of the existence of the path of Hydarnes at although its use by the Persians immediately 
Thermopylae: also, the absence of all mention after the battle is almost certainly implied 
in Herodotus, and, inferentially, in Herodotus’ (viii. 81), . 1 
gources of information, of the pass on the 


ARTEMISIUM. 215 


That selfish consideration of their own special interests contributed to the 
formation of their views on the strategical question is doubtless the case, but, 
at the same time, they had what must have seemed to them some very sound 
arguments in support of those views. With this policy, that of the northern 
Greeks, championed especially by the Athenians, was, of course, in conflict ; 
and though this latter policy in the end prevailed, yet Herodotus clearly 
shows that there were times throughout the whole period of the war when 
the contest between the two was doubtful, times, too, when it seemed as if 
the Peloponnesian policy must win the day. That they were all but in equi- 
librium at the time of Artemisium is evident. The northern policy had so 
far prevailed as to induce the Lacedaemonians to make a show, at any rate, for 
the defence of the northern Greeks, who, if they thought themselves aban- 
doned, were only too likely to refuse to join in the defence of the Isthmus, to 
remain at home, and be forced to medize ;1 whereas, if they had some practi- 
cal demonstration of the apparent impracticability of the defence north of 
the Isthmus, and of the apparent willingness of Sparta to make some sacrifice 
on their behalf, they might be induced to aid in the defence of the Isthmus. 
Is it possible to look on the defence of Thermopylae as having been in any 
way a serious effort on the part of the Peloponnesian Greeks? We shall 
never know with certainty the inner history of the policy which sent the 
force under Leonidas to Thermopylae, the instructions given to him and to 
Eurybiades; but, though the ways of the Spartan Ephorate were dark in 
more senses than one, and though the possession by them of a conscience in 
the modern acceptation of the term might be incapable of historical proof, it 
seems hardly likely that they deliberately and knowingly sent Leonidas and 
his band to meet their fate as a sacrifice to a policy of compromise, though 
this extreme view has been held by some who have sought to explain the 
half-heartedness or heartlessness of the policy which led to Thermopylae. 
Ignorant of the existence of the path of Hydarnes,’ it may well have seemed 
to them that in any case Leonidas and his force in combination with the fleet 
might, at worst, execute a safe withdrawal. But, be this as it may, it is im- 
possible to look upon Thermopylae as having been, or having ever been 
intended to be, a serious effort on the part of the Peloponnesian Greeks. It 
was necessary to propitiate the northern Greeks. Athens, without the co- 
operation of whose fleet even the Isthmus would be indefensible, had to be 
humoured ; and, further, a few days’ stand made at Thermopylae might, we 
can easily suppose, be of great value towards the completion of arrangements 
at the Isthmus. 

However secret the policy of the Ephors may have been, the insincerity 
of the Peloponnesian effort at Thermopylae and Artemisium must have very 
soon become apparent to those who took part in it, and it would not be 


1 Cf. vii. 206. when the decision to make a stand at Thermopy- 
2 That the existence of the path was a inatter ae was arrived at, cf. viii, 208 especially Adyor- 
of purely local knowledge cf. vii. 214, ef τῇ res δι' ἀγγέλων. 
χώρῃ πολλὰ ὡμιληκὼς εἴη: and that those 3 Cf. vii. 206, 
possessing that knowledge were not present 


216 ARTEMISIUM. 


unnatural that those engaged in such an effort should snatch at every excuse 
for withdrawal from it. We even get a hint in the Herodotean narrative 
which is not without its instructive side when the state of the case is con- 
sidered. It is with the Korinthian admiral that Themistocles has apparently 
most difficulty when the question of retreat from Artemisium is discussed ; 
and, at the end, when the retreat actually takes place, it is the Korinthian 
who leads the way. Eurybiades had to play a part. He could countenance a 
proposition to retreat, but, as representing the sham policy of the Ephorate, 
he could hardly propose it. 

Herodotus’ narrative of this part of the war is noticeable from its being 
in the form of a diary of events, or, rather, of a two-fold diary of events at 
Thermopylae and Artemisium respectively. Moreover we find two points 
of contact between the two diaries, viz. at their beginning (the 
departure from Therma) and at their end (the disaster at Thermopylae) 
with the singular result that there is a discrepancy of two days between 
the two, 1.6. the Artemisium diary covers a period two days less than that of 
Thermopylae. This inconsistency is held to discredit the narrative.’ But the 
inconsistency cuts both ways. A man who consciously invents a tale, and can 
do so at leisure, is not likely to let a manifest inconsistency be found therein. 

The explanation lies possibly in the fact that we have in the parallel 
narrative of Artemisium and Thermopylae two stories of different origin, the 
former in the main Athenian, the latter in the main Laconian. 

Busolt in his Greek History (vol. ii., p. 681, note 3), has drawn up from 
Herodotus a parallel journal of events, which reads as follows :— 


Day. 
1. Persian army leaves Therma. 
Le oa zi ae ἐῶν 5 Persian fleet leaves Therma and reaches Magnesian 
coast. 
LC ae Be "Σὰ si hrs -Storm begins in morning. 


14. Army reaches Malis Storm continues. 


15. ay bagi ΩΣ al. "ἢ. Storm continues. 

eee “5: ae τς uh Storm ceases. Fleet moved to Aphetae. Dispatch of 
200 vessels round Euboea. First sea-fight. 

by One aia = ἦν ἢ Second sea-fight after the arrival of fifty-three Athenian 
ships. 


18. First attack on Thermopylae. Third sea-fight, 


the evening. 


News of disaster at Thermopylae in 


19. Second attack on Thermopylae. 
20. Disaster at Thermopylae, 


1 An ingenious explanation has been put for- 
ward for what is thought by some to be the 
inexplicable withdrawal to Chalkis (vii. 183). 
It is suggested that this refers really to the 
sending of fifty-three Athenian vessels to guard 
the south part of the strait, and that these 
vessels returned to Artemisium after the wreck 
of the 200 in the Hollows of Euboea., 


About this theory more need not nowybe said 
than that it demands a dislocation of the whole 
story. The result is a narrative consistent, 
indeed, with itself, but wholly at variance with 
Herodotus. It is only by a close examination 
of the Herodotean version of the story that we 
can judge whether so complete a reconstruction 
is demanded. ͵ 


ARTEMISIUM. 217 


The discrepancy is evident. 

Since, however, Herodotus is practically our only authority for the 
history, he alone can furnish us with the means of correcting himself, and it 
is only by a close examination of his account that we can hope to arrive at 
some sort of conclusion as to where the error lies. 

On the twelfth day after Xerxes’ departure from Therma the fleet started 
from that place. 

Ten fast sailers preceding the Persian fleet fell in with three Greek 
scouting vessels and took two of them (vii. 179—180). Now these three 
vessels must have been far north, north even of the Thessalian coast, for we 
are told that the one whose crew escaped was run ashore finally at the mouth 
of the Peneius river (vii., 182). 

The Greek fleet was apparently at Artemisium on this day (vii. 182). 
We are then told (vii. 182) that the Greek fleet got news of the disaster by 
fire signals from Skiathos, 

The mouth of the Peneius river is just 70 miles north of Skiathos, 
therefore the disaster could not possibly have been visible from that island, 
and, as far as we can judge, the first news of what had happened must have 
been conveyed to the watchers on Skiathos by the appearance of the ten 
Persian vessels with the Greek ships in their company. It is almost certain 
then that the news cannot have reached the Greek fleet until the evening of 
the day on which the disaster occurred, and the use of fire signals may, 
perhaps, be taken to confirm this. 

On receipt of this news the Greek fleet retreated to Chalkis (vii. 182). 

There is nothing in Herodotus which indicates the time at which the 
retreat to Chalkis was made, but Herodotus evidently understood that it 
began after the news of the capture of the three vessels reached the Greeks. 
As this can hardly have reached them until the evening, and as, if Herodotus’ 
statement of the cause for this retreat be taken as true, the decision to move 
cannot have been come to without discussion, and, probably, considerable 
opposition on the part of Themistocles and the Athenian contingent, it is 
improbable that the retreat was made immediately 1.6. during the night. It 
is more probable that it began next morning. 

I would suggest that the retreat did take place next morning, apart from 
any consideration of the cause alleged by Herodotus. 

I would further suggest that it is very possible that the storm was the 
real cause. It broke on the next morning. It was a gale from the E.N.E. 
blowing straight into the northern bend of the Euripus, and, if it caught the 
fleet moored off the coast, (as it very likely would be, since the signals from 
Skiathos made it clear that the arrival of the Persian fleet might be momen- 
tarily expected) the only course for the Greek fleet would be to run before the 
wind into the inner part of the strait. Once round the bend at the N.W. of 
Euboea the fleet would be in calm water as far as Chalkis, for the mountains 
of the island edge that coast of the Euripus very closely and fall into the sea 
in a long line of lofty and precipitous cliffs: once in the narrows at Chalkis 
it would be as good as in harbour. 


218 ARTEMISTUM. 


It may seem, at first sight, strange that Herodotus does not mention this 
cause, if it existed. On the general question it is only stating a commonplace 
to say that statements of fact and statements of cause in Herodotus’ history 
cannot be placed on the same level of credibility, and that a distortion of the 
latter often becomes apparent when the moral of the tale is in question. The 
suspicion is not perhaps unfair that in this case Herodotus has shirked the 
statement of the true cause, since it would have sadly detracted from the 
moral of this part of his tale, the divine intervention of heaven (in the form 
of the winds) in favour of Greece in her great struggle, had he related how 
the Greek fleet was driven from its chosen position by a storm. Moreover the 
reason he does give would serve admirably to heighten the effect of the 
picture he draws of the magnitude of the dread which the expedition of 
Xerxes and the Persian power inspired in Greece.! 

It is noticeable that not only does this retreat never go beyond Chalkis, 
but there is nothing suggested of any intention to retreat beyond that point. 
We have not, as we have elsewhere, a contemplated withdrawal ἔσω és τὴν 
Ἑλλάδα. And yet withdrawal to Chalkis meant the sacrifice of the position 
at Thermopylae. The fleet at Chalkis might be almost as well at the Isthmus 
' for all it was worth to the land army. And yet we hear of no withdrawal or 
contemplated withdrawal from Thermopylae, though the fleet must have been 
weather bound at Chalkis for two days at least after its arrival there. If 
there was any intention to remain at Chalkis, surely it must have been plain 
to the most limited intelligence in the army at Thermopylae that the Persian 
fleet would be able to land men in rear of their pass, and the army be caught 
in the veriest trap that ever an army ran into, And yet Leonidas did not 
move. He must have known that the Greek fleet was prepared to sail back 
to its position at the north end of the strait, the moment the weather 
permitted of its so doing. 

And now for the movements of the main Persian fleet on this day. The 
details are interesting, because they afford us a very fair estimate of the 
sailing capacity of what were probably the best ships of those times. 

The fleet performed the distance between Therma and the Sepiad 
strand, which is about 120 miles,in one day. At the time of year, the middle 
of summer (viii. 12) it would be daylight shortly after 4 a.m. and dark about 
7.15 p.m. Of dawn and twilight there is but little in this latitude? That 


1 I make this suggestion of cause with the 
greatest diffidence, but with the conviction that 
Herodotus’ own evidence suggests it. It seems 
to me that calculations from the statements of 
Herodotus render it improbable that the Greek 
fleet could have started from Artemisium before 
the storm broke. At the same time I do not 
wish to give the impression, which would be a 
wrong one, that I look upon the cause stated by 
Herodotus as being impossible. Considering the 
state of feeling then prevalent in a section of 
the fleet, it would be dangerous to assert that 


any excuse, however specious, might not have 
been seized upon as an argument for a retreat. 
But here, as in the long account of Plataea, 
Herodotus’ statements of causes are not of the 
same credibility as his statements of facts, especi- 
ally when there is present anything that might 
enhance or detract from the moral which he in- 
tends to convey, f 

2 At 4 a.m. in the first week in August it 
used to be pitch dark out on the Bay of Nava- 
rino. In the evening it would be bright day- 
light at 6.45 p.m., and quite dark at 7 p.m. 


ARTEMISIUM. 219 


would give fifteen hours of daylight. We can hardly suppose that an 
expedition of this magnitude could possibly start in the dark, Again it must 
have put in at the Sepiad strand at an hour which would allow of sufficient 
daylight for what must have been the long operation of mooring and drawing 
up on shore. Ata liberal computation the amount of available sailing time 
cannot have been more than twelve hours. The pace was therefore somewhere 
about ten miles an hour, and though this seems great, yet we know that in 
later times a pace some 60 per cent. greater could be maintained by a quin- 
quereme in a voyage from Carthage to Ostia. 

If this was the pace of the fleet, it is exceedingly probable that there 
were vessels in it which could sail twelve miles an hour. 

The ten scouting vessels accomplished even a longer voyage, apparently 
on this day, but, being a small number, they would not be hampered by the 
circumstances affecting the departure or arrival of a huge armada. It is, 
however, recorded that several of them came to grief on the rock Μύρμηξ in 
the channel between Skiathos and the Magnesian mainland. 

On the thirteenth day the storm overtook the Persian fleet on the Sepiad 
strand,:and on the morning of this day probably the Greek fleet retired to 
Chalkis—by reason of the storm in all likelihood, if any calculation from the 
narrative may be made. 

On the fourteenth and fifteenth days the storm continued, and the Greek 
fleet remained at Chalkis. 

On the former of these two days the watchers on the Euboean heights 
reported to the Greek fleet at Chalkis the immense losses which the Persians 
had experienced in the storm (vii. 192). 

It is when we come to the journal of the sixteenth day that we arrive at 
what is the crucial part of the story. 

The storm had ceased. 

On the morning of this day the Greek fleet must have moved back to 
the station at Artemisium. 

The Persian fleet also moved from the Sepiad strand to Aphetae. 

We do not know with exactness the position of Aphetae. The movement 
to it is described by Herodotus as having been:—és τὸν κόλπον τὸν ἐπὶ 
Παγασέων φέροντα: and again, ἐστὶ δὲ χῶρος ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τούτῳ τῆς 
Μαγνησίης, ἐπὶ τούτῳ δὲ τῷ χώρῳ οὔνομα γέγονε ᾿Αφέται (vii. 193). It was 
therefore within the gulf, onthe Magnesian side, probably at the extreme end 
of that long narrow peninsula which shuts in the Pagasaean Gulf on the 
south. 

Artemisium is placed in our classical atlases at the N.E. point of Euboea. 
But the position of the Greek fleet cannot have been less than ten miles from 
this point, for it must certainly have been west of the entrance to the gulf. 
One of two things must be the case,—either Herodotus describes the position 


1 This fact, the fire signals on Skiathos inan  Euboeareached the Greek fleet point, as it would 
earlier chapter, and the rapidity with which the 5661), to a regularly organised signalling system. 
news of the loss of the 200 ships in the Hollows of 


220 ARTEMISIUM. 


of the Greek fleet very loosely, as seems to be the case, or the promontory 
near Oreos, in the middle of the north coast of Euboea, is Artemisium. The 
Persian fleet is recorded to have arrived at Aphetae early in the afternoon 
(vil. 6). 

The number and nature of the events which are crowded into the 
remainder of the day render it extremely probable that we must look here 
for part, at least, of the chronological error which Herodotus has made. Τὶ 
would seem as if he had attributed to one day the events of at least two. A 
very cursory consideration of the narrative might convince the reader that 
something of the kind had happened. 

The Persian fleet, then, arrived at Aphetae early in the afternoon. 
Fifteen of their vessels, however, ὕσταται πολλὸν ἐξαναχθεῖσαι, fell into the 
hands of the Greek fleet under the impression that it was theirown. Unfor- 
tunately this does not give us any clue as to the time of the arrival of the 
Greek fleet at Artemisium. One thing, however, is plain. The main part of 
the Persian fleet must have already doubled the cape into the gulf before 
these fifteen got round the Sepiad promontory. It must have been well on in 
the afternoon before the capture took place. 

That these events took place on the sixteenth day, there is plain evidence 
in the text, but it seems impossible to believe that what followed must all be 
attributed to the same day. On the mere question of lapse of time it is 
impossible. 

In viui. 4, 5, Herodotus tells us that the Greeks on seeing the magnitude 
of the Persian force at Aphetae δρησμὸν ἐβουλεύοντο ἔσω ἐς τὴν ᾿Εἰλλάδα. 
We then have the tale of the bribery of Themistocles by the Euboeans, a 
tale which may be true, or may be merely an invention of his enemies at 
Athens which gained currency in later times. As to the contemplated retreat 
and the probability of the truth of the assertion that it was discussed, we 
have already spoken. But if we come to consider the time which must have 
been spent on the discussion, and the difficulty which, from Herodotus’ own 
statement, Themistocles must have had in reversing the decision to retire, we 
are practically bound to conclude that the matter could not all have been 
settled on what remained of that sixteenth day. There is, in fact, enough- 
material to account for the expenditure of a whole day, and, in any case, 
whenever the debate began, the determination to remain at Artemisium 
cannot have been arrived at until the seventeenth day was well advanced. 

The next incident which Herodotus attributes to this day is even less 
likely to have occurred upon it. The Persians, he says (viii. 7), in order to 
let not one of the Greek fleet escape, dispatched a squadron (the number of 
which he states as 200) to circumnavigate Euboea. In the first place, before 
we enter pon the details given of the movement, it seems highly improbable 
that this squadron could have been dispatched from Aphetae on that day. 
The fleet must have been terribly disorganised by the storm and the disaster 


1 This promontory is, if 1 remember, a low cation of it with Artemisium. 
one, and this perhaps tells against the identifi- 


ARTEMISIUM. 221 


which resulted from it, and, as it left the Sepiad strand on the very morning 
after the storm had ceased, there was no time for reorganisation before the 
arrival at Aphetae. The time of the departure of the 200 is fixed for us 
within certain limits. It evidently took place in daylight, otherwise there 
would have been no reason for the deception practised with regard to the 
course taken round Skiathos. It is also quite plain from what Herodotus 
tells us that it took place before the first engagement. But this does not, 
unfortunately, give us any means of judging the day on which the squadron 
started. Still consideration of the circumstances renders it almost certain 
that the start could not have been made before the morning of the seven- 
teenth day. 

But there is another consideration in reference to this important point 
in the narrative. 

The division of the Persian fleet was a step of such magnitude that it 
cannot have been taken without Xerxes’ direct orders. A reference to the 
journal of Thermopylae shows that on the sixteenth and seventeenth days, 
Xerxes wus before the pass, but had not as yet attacked. Communication 
with the fleet before it arrived at Aphetae would have been difficult. It has 
been suggested that the squadron of 200 was despatched from the Sepiad 
- strand, not from Aphetae, as Herodotus states: that they were despatched on 
the very morning the fleet arrived there, and were wrecked in the storm which 
arose next morning. 

There is one objection which seems fatal to this hypothesis, and several 
others which militate strongly against it. This squadron was wrecked in the 
‘Hollows of Euboea.’ The ancient authorities! tell us that these hollows 
were the chief bays on the S.W. coast of the island. But the wind which caused 
the havoc on the’ Sepiad strand is described by Herodotus as having been 
ἀπηλιώτης, called by the dwellers on the Magnesian coast the ‘ Hellespontian ’ 
wind. As nearly as we can calculate, it must have been a gale from the 
E.N.E., a wind which would blow off shore, not on shore, on the S.W. coast of 
Euboea. But when we turn to Herodotus we find a curious and, apparently, 
undesigned confirmation of his statement that the storm which destroyed the 
200 ships was the same as that which broke on the Greek and Persian fleets 
at Artemisium and Aphetae respectively, after the first day’s engagement. 
He does not in this instance mention the direction of the wind; probably he did 
not know it; but he tells us (viii. 12). of δε νεκροὶ καὶ τὰ νανήγια ἐξεφέροντο 
és tas ᾿Αφέτας. The wind must have blown into the entrance of the 
Pagasaean Gulf, and, moreover, towards the Magnesian coast of it. It must 
in other words, have been a S. or 8.S.W. wind, the very wind which would 
blow vessels in the S. Euripus on to the Hollows of Euboea, Authorities seem 
to be, whether rightly or wrongly, in agreement as to the fact that Herodotus 
had no personal acquaintance with the region in which the events took place. 
This can only emphasize the undesigned confirmatory evidence which the 


1 Cf, Strabo 445... τῆς Εὐβοίας τὰ Κοῖλα τὸν τόπων' κολποῦται γὰρ ἡ παραλία. 
λέγουσι τὰ μεταξὺ Αὐλίδος καὶ τῶν περὶ Γεραισ- 


H.S.—VOL. XVII. R 


222 ARTEMISIUM. 


historian gives of the truth of his statement respecting the identity of the 
storms. ’ 

Some commentators make a difficulty as to the circuitous route which, 
so Herodotus tells us, this squadron took round Skiathos from Aphetae. I 
confess I cannot see the difficulty. The circuitous route was, it seems to me, 
evidently taken to deceive the Greek fleet at Artemisium, and was, moreover, 
admirably designed for so doing; in fact the Greeks do not seem to have 
suspected its intention until Skyllias informed them of its object. Nor is 
this surprising. ‘lhe squadron, as it doubled Cape Sepias, must have had all 
the appearance of sailing north, and might well give the impression that it 
had gone back to Therma or elsewhere for commissariat purposes. Moreover, 
a glance at the map will show that Skiathos shuts in the view at the end of 
the strait, and a squadron sailing round it, would be out of sight of the fleet 
at Artemisium. 

Jf Herodotus had not seen this region, and 7f the story of the despatch 
of the squadron from Aphetae is not true, it is a very remarkable fact that 
the invention should be so topographically correct. 

We next come to the tale of Skyllias. 

After the departure of the squadron (vill. 7 ad fin.), the Persians 
reviewed their fleet at Aphetae. It is needless to say that this cannot have 
been done in a few minutes: it must have been an affair of some hours at 
least, and must, if carried out on that seventeenth day, have occupied a large 
part of what remained of it after the despatch of the squadron. 

While this review was going on (vill. 8 ad init.), Skyllias deserted to the 
fleet at Artemisium. Herodotus thinks, as is indeed probable, that he went 
in a boat. We have no details of the adventure which might explain how he 
managed to get away in broad daylight without being pursued and brought 
back, for he must have had some ten miles to go. The hour of his arrival is, 
however, pretty well marked as the afternoon of a certain day (viii. 9), the 
seventeenth according to our calculation. The news he brought of the 
despatch of the vessels round Euboea was eminently calculated to create 
consternation in the Greek fleet. The dilemma was, indeed, a serious one. 
The detached squadron had got at least several hours’ start. Unless they 
sailed away promptly to oppose it, it might get through the narrows at 
Chalkis and land a force in rear of Thermopylae. But again, if they did 
this, the main fleet at Aphetae might sail into the Euripus from the north, 
and land a force behind the pass. There was the further possibility of their 
being caught in a trap between the two fleets unless they managed to defeat 
the 200 before the main fleet came up. It was absolutely necessary then to 
get a good start from Artemisium before the main fleet at Aphetae became 
aware of their departure. After long discussion they decided to remain 
where they were till after midnight, and then start for the inner strait. In 
the meantime they took the offensive against the fleet late in the afternoon 
(viii. 9), so Herodotus tells us. 

He also gives a motive for their so doing, viz., ‘they wished to make trial 
of their mode of fighting, etc.’—here as elsewhere in Herodotus just the sort of 


ARTEMISIUM. 


223 


motive which would suggest itself to some one unacquainted with the designs 
of those in command. The design of the latter was, no doubt, one which is 
common in the history of war at all times, viz., to cover a retreat by a previous 
attack, and to render the Persians less likely to suspect the movement which 
was about to be made to the inner strait. 

We now come to a somewhat delicate calculation, but one which can be 
made with considerable probability from the data at our disposal. As far as 
the Persian fleet is concerned, the following events (all correction of Herod- 
otus’ chronology apart) had taken place on one and the self-same day :— 

(1) The departure of the 200 vessels. 
(2) The review of the fleet. 
(3) In the late afternoon, an attack by the Greeks 

It may be taken then as fairly certain that the first of these took place 
in the early morning, any time after daylight. 

These 200 vessels were apparently picked vessels (viii. 7, ad. init.), We 
may be safe, then, in assuming that their sailing qualites were at least equal 
to, probably greater than, those of the fleet generally, i.c.,as we have seen, 
some ten miles an hour. It would require then some fifteen hours for them 
to accomplish the 150 miles from Aphetae round Skiathos to the south point 
of Euboea, which they must have reached about 8 or 9 o'clock that night. 
From what is necessarily implied by Herodotus’ account they must have been 
round this point before the storm broke upon them, otherwise they could not 
have weathered the headland. As they would then be within 70 miles of 
Chalkis, it is plain that the Greek fleet, starting after midnight, would not 
have been in time to stop them at the narrows, though it would have been in 
time to prevent their landing a force behind Thermopylae. 

At the same time the Greek fleet had no alternative but to remain where 
they were, until they could withdraw without attracting the attention of the 
Persian fleet at Aphetae. 

As a fact, had the Persian squadron ever arrived at Chalkis, it must have 
found there these fifty-three Athenian vessels which reached the fleet at 
Artemisium next day, to which fact the apparent immunity from disaster 
which the fifty-three enjoyed during the storm points. The Greeks at 
Artemisium seem to have had no actual information of these fifty-three 
vessels being on their way.’ 


1 A recent criticism of Herodotus’ story com- 
ments on the absence of ‘motive’ in Herodotus’ 
account of the arrival of the fifty-three Athenian 
vessels, It suggests that the retreat to Chalkis 
in the early part of the narrative is to be ex- 
plained as having been in reality the despatch 
of these fifty-three from Artemisium to that 
place with a view to defending the south 
entrance of the strait. 

Does it seem probable that the Peloponnesian 
contingent would have consented to remain at 
Artemisium under such circumstances, and to 
entrust the re-opening of the seriously threat- 


ened line of communicatians to a purely 
Athenian squadron? for there was, it must be 
remembered, according to this theory, no Per- 
sian fleet as yet at Aphetae to render retreat 
from Artemisium dangerous. 

In the absence of ‘motive’ given, the most 
probable which can be suggested is that the 
Athenians, at this time novices in the fitting 
out of large fleets, had not been able to make 
more than 147 of their vessels ready for sea in 
time for the despatch to Artemisium, and sent 
on the remaining fifty-three when they were 
ready. 


R2 


224 ARTEMISIUM. 


The events of the remainder of what we suggest as having been the 
seventeenth day are :— 

(1) The attack of the Greek fleet on the Persians at Aphetae 
(viii. 10). 

(2) The storm that night (viii. 12). 

(3) The wreck of the 200 in that storm (viii. 13). 

The next day, 1.6., the eighteenth of our calculation ; both sides remained 
inactive during the earlier half of the day (vii. 14). 

At an unspecified hour, certainly earlier than the late afternoon! the 
fifty-three Attic vessels reinforced the fleet at Artemisium. 

Herodotus then says:—atrai te δή σφεας ἐπέρρωσαν ἀπικόμενοι. 
καὶ ἅμα ἀγγελίη ἐλθοῦσα, etc. of the destruction of the 200 at the 
Hollows. 

The arrival of this news coincided more or less with the arrival of the 
fifty-three, or may even have been~brought by them. 

The fifty-three must have spent the night at Chalkis. The storm 
apparently did not come before daylight, otherwise we should have 
expected that the fleet at Artemisium would have started to meet the 200. 

After daybreak such a movement in view of the Persians at Aphetae 
was not to be thought of. 

Now we do not know 

(1) the hour of the wreck at the Hollows, 

but, since the Hollows are just round the south cape of Euboea, 

and the 200 must have rounded that cape before the storm broke, 

it must have taken place early in the storm, 

1.6,, early in the night. 

(2) the hour of the departure of the fifty-three from Chalkis. 

Probably they did not start at daybreak, because they would in all likeli- 
hood wait till the storm had quite blown itself out. 

They had 70 miles to go to Artemisium, at least seven hours’ voyage, 
possibly more, since the Greek vessels were not as good sailers as the 
Persian. 

They certainly arrived there before the late afternoon, so the probability, 
if there be any, is that they started about 6 a.m. 

If the wreck, as indeed must have been the case, took place early the 
night before, this would give eight or nine hours for the news to reach 
Chalkis. We may be certain that the course of the fleet had attracted the 
notice of the inhabitants of South Euboea, who must, too, have seen the 
Attic squadron pass up the strait earlier in the day. There is no impossibility 
that the tidings of the wreck were actually carried to Chalkis before the 
Attic squadron sailed thence, and were carried to the fleet at Artemisium by 
the latter. 

The last event of this day was the attack by the now united Greek fleet 
on the Cilician contingent of the Persians (viii. 14). 


1 Cf. φυλάξαντες τὴν αὐτὴν ὥρην, after the arrival of the fifty-three, 


ARTEMISIUM. 225 


viii. 15 is filled with important information. It is a journal of the 
nineteenth day. The first significant words are τὸ ἀπὸ Ξέρξεω δειμαίνοντες, 
It will however be well to have these aside until we come to a comparison 
with the journal of Thermopylae. 

The Persians now for the first time took the offensive. The battle which 
ensued seems, from what Herodotus tells us, to have been somewhat of 
a Pyrrhic victory for the Greeks. In consequence ‘dpyopov δή ἐβούλευον 
ἔσω és τὴν ᾿Ελλάδα᾽ (viii. 18, ad fin.). And now the Peloponnesian policy 
prevailed. It needed indeed but a slight weight in the balance of the then 
state of feeling to make it do so, and we may gather from Herodotus that 
Themistocles, whatever he may have thought of its wisdom, gave up for the 
time being all idea of opposing it. This anxiety seems to have been solely to 
get the Greek fleet away before the Persians could become aware of its having 
moved and the tale in viii. 19, is doubtless rightly interpreted to mean 
that he advised the lighting of fires on land in order to give the Persians the 
impression that the fleet was still at its station. The guise in which 
Herodotus presents the story is probably due to his well-known tendency to 
convey a moral, in this case the danger of disobeying an oracle. It will be 
noticed that the action of the Greeks on this occasion singularly accords with 
that of the day but one before, when they had not ventured, even under the 
most pressing danger from the squadron of 200, to leave their post under 
circumstances which would render their withdrawal immediately obvious to 
the Persians at Aphetae. 

These measures must have been taken late in the afternoon of the 
nineteenth day, for the fight took place at midday (viii. 15). 

The arrival of the news of the disaster at Thermopylae (viii. 21) set the 
seal to the decision to retire and the retirement took place during the night. 

It would seem, then, that, with the exception of the palpable crowding of 
the events of at least two days into one, the tale which Herodotus gives us of 
Artemisium is hardly deserving of that suspicion which some commentators 
have cast upon it. 

It really contains two difficulties. 

(1) The one to which I have just referred, viz., the manifest crowding of 
the events of two days into one, a mistake of the existence of which 
Herodotus himself gives us plain evidence. 

(2) The mistake which still remains, though now reduced to one day, in 
the lack of chronological concord between the journals of Thermopylae and 
Artemisium. 

I see no possibility of arriving at any evidence worth calling such as to 
the cause of the latter mistake. Herodotus gives us none, either directly or 
incidentally, and it is a pure conjecture on my part to say that I believe the 
miscalculation or mistake to have been made with respect to the number of 
days which intervened between the departure of the army and that of the 
fleet from Therma. It would, at any rate, not be unnatural for a man, 
speaking from recollection, to make a mistake of one day in a period of such 


a length. 


226 ARTEMISIUM. 


Some would reconcile the chronology by subtracting two days from the 
time which Xerxes spent inactive before Thermopylae, on the plea that the 
delay is unaccountable. 

But is it, after all, so strange that the experienced generals of Xerxes 
should have hesitated about advising a direct attack on a position of such 
strength ? 

Of its strength we have ample evidence quite apart from Herodotus. 

There is the case already mentioned of Brennus and his Gauls 
in B.C. 279. 

There is also what seems to me the most instructive case of the methods 
employed by Philip of Macedon with a view to getting possession of it. For 
his Greek policy the possession of Thermopylae was of capital importance, and 
yet, though possessed of what was far and away the best army of his time, he 
dare not attack it directly and submitted to long postponement of his designs 
in order to avoid the hazard of so doing. 

The suspicion with which Herodotus’ statement of the four days’ delay 
at Thermopylae has been received is apparently due to the absence in his 
account of any substantial motive for the delay. We are told (vii. 210) that 
after reconnoitring the pass Xerxes τέσσερας μὲν δὴ παρεξῆκε ἡμέρας, 
ἐλπίζων αἰεί σφεας ἀποδρήσεσθαι. The fact of the delay we may suppose 
Herodotus got from his source of information, but a very brief consideration 
of the circumstances may convince us of the improbability of his having been 
able to get any information worth calling such as to the real reason for the 
delay. The strength of the Greek position, ample proof of which subsequent 
history, as we have said, affords, was no doubt the first reason, but this only 
partially accounts for the course of events. In order to elucidate the point 
fully, let us consider the parallel journals of Artemisium and ‘Thermopylae, 
taking the former in its revised form 1.6. adding a conjectural day after the 
departure of the army from Therma, and dividing the events of Herodotus’ 
sixteenth day in accordance with what is demanded by his narrative. 


No. otis Ho. of 
wi aay in A . 
a DS text ot coin. Events at Artemisium. eT ane 9 
added. paper. 
13 12 P. fleet leaves Therma. Early morning. 
P. fleet arrives at Sepiad strand. Evening. 
Capture of three Greek scouting vessels | Probably before 
by Persian advance squadron. mid-day. 
G. fleet at Artemisium. 
G. fleet receives news from Skiathos of | Evening, _ pro- 
the loss of the three vessels. bably late. 
14 15. | P. army reaches | First storm begins. 
Malis. Wreck of part of P. fleet at Sepiad 
strand. 
G. fleet retires (or driven) to Chalkis. | Probably early 
morning. 


No. of day 
with 


conjec- 
tural day 
added. 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


No. of 

day in 

text of 
this 


paper. 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


Events at 
Thermopylae. 


P. army inac- 
tive before 


Thermopylae. 


P. army inac- 
tive before 
Thermopylae. 


P. army still in- 
active. 


Ῥ: army makes 
first attack on 
Thermopylae. 


Second attack 
on ‘Thermo- 


pylae. 


Third and suc- 
cessful attack 
on Thermo- 


pylae. 


ARTEMISIUM. 


Events at Artemisium. 


Storm continues. 

P. fleet at Sepiad strand, 

G. fleet at Chalkis. 

Report of P. disaster reaches G. fleet 
at Chalkis. 


Storm continues. 
Fleets as on 15th day. 


P. fleet moves to and arrives at Aphe- 
tae. 

G. fleet moves back to Artemisium. 

G. fleet captures fifteen P. vessels. 

G. commanders consult about retire- 
ment from Artemisium. 


G. commanders on Themistocles’ per- 
suasion determine to remain at 
Artemisium. 

P. fleet despatches squadron of 200 
to circummavi ate Euboea. 

P. review their fleet. 


Skyllias carries news to the G. fleet of 
the despatch of the 200. 


G. fleet engages P. fleet at Aphetae. 
Second storm begins. 


Wreck of the 200 Persian vessels in 
the Hollows of Euboea. 

Fifty-three Attic vessels on their way 
to join the G. fleet spend night at 
Chalkis. 


Both fleets inactive. 


The fifty-three Attic vessels join the 
G. fleet. 

G. fleet receives news of the wreck of 
the 200. 

United G. fleet attacks Cilician con- 
tingent of Ῥ, fleet. 


P. fleet takes offensive against αὶ, fleet. 

General engagement. 

G. commanders decide to retire ἔσω és 
τὴν Ἑλλάδα. 

News οἵ disaster 
reaches α fleet. 

G. fleet retires from Artemisium. 


at Thermopylae 


227 


Bah Fg time 


Arrival early in 
the afternoon, 


In afternoon. 


Probably even- 
ing. 

Morning. 

Probably early 
morning. 


After despatch of 
the 200. 
During the re- 


view. Arrived 
at Artemisium 
in afternoon. 
Late in afternoon, 
Early in the 
evenin 

Early in the 
night. 

Night 


ae part of 


Earli ier than the 
late afternoon. 
About same time 

as above. 
Late afternoon. 


228 ARTEMISIUM. 


It now remains for us to consider briefly the relation between the two 
series of events at Thermopylae and Artemisium respectively. 

A comparison of the two brings into immediate prominence the fact that 
the delay of four days at Thermopylae corresponds practically with the time 
during which the Persian fleet was delayed outside the strait by the storm. 
It is also noticeable that the first attack on Thermopylae was made on the very 
day after the fleet arrived at Aphetae, when it would be in a position to force 
the strait, or, at any rate, to keep the Greek fleet employed. It is not 
unreasonable so suppose that Xerxes reckoned on his fleet having no difficulty 
in forcing the strait immediately after its arrival. It was immensely superior 
in numbers, and was drawn largely from nations who had the reputation of 
being the best seamen of their time. 

I venture to think, too, that Xerxes and the experienced generals with 
him may have been apprehensive lest the Greek fleet should sail close in 
shore and take part in the defence of the pass, an actual possibility which the 
events of two centuries later make quite evident. I do not say that the 
Greeks had any such intention, at least, there does not exist the slightest 
evidence of their having had it, but nevertheless it was plainly a contingency 
which might present itself to the consideration of the Persian council-of-war, 
and might decide them to defer the attack until their own fleet arrived to 
occupy the attention of the Greek naval force in the straits. 

The despatch of the 200 ships round Euboea would seem to have had as 
its main object the capture of the whole Greek fleet, as, indeed, Herodotus 
tells us. We find, too, this design repeated at Salamis. Xerxes evidently 
thought that his fleet at Aphetae could deal with the Greek fleet at 
Artemisium without much difficulty, and there is reason to believe he was 
not far wrong. That last day’s fighting must have ended in something much 
more like a defeat than we might suppose from Herodotus’ story, and the 
absence of any mention of any opposition on the part of Themistocles to the 
plan of retreating from Artemisium is somewhat significant. It was one 
thing to face the immensely superior numbers of the Persian fleet in the 
narrow strait of Salamis, less than a mile broad: it was another to face that 
fleet in the broad northern bend of the Euripus where there was plenty of 
sea room. 

That the landing of troops behind Thermopylae in case of the failure of 
a direct attack may have been a secondary object, is, of course, possible, or 
even probable, and had not the discovery and successful use of the path of 
Hydarnes rendered this unnecessary, we may suspect that the main fleet at 
Aphetae would have been employed, after the loss of the squadron of 200, in 
an attempt to effect such a landing by forcing the strait. 

As far as can be seen from Herodotus’ narrative, Xerxes’ strategy after 
his arrival in Malis seems to have been :— 

(1) To defer attack on the pass until his own fleet should have arrived 
within the channel to occupy the attention of the Greek fleet. 

(2) To then attempt a direct attack on the pass. 

(3) To take measures for the capture of the whole Greek fleet. 


ARTEMISIUM. 229 


(4) To provide for the contingency of failure of direct’ attack on 
Thermopylae in two ways :— 

(a) By giving orders to the main fleet to force the strait and land troops 
in rear of the pass.! 

(Ὁ) By giving orders to the squadron of 200 to land troops in rear of the 
pass. 

This paper has not been written out of any spirit of conservatism. 
Anyone who, like myself, heartily accepts such historical reconstructions as 
Mr. Macan’s ‘Marathon’ or Professor Bury’s ‘ Aristides at Salamis’ can 
hardly be suspected of such a tendency. But after studying this part of 
Herodotus’ history, it seems to me that this section of his narrative does not 
demand anything of the nature of a forced explanation, still less calls for 
practical rejection, for to this some of the proposed reconstructions amount 
whether the writers intend it or not. That the narrative is defective in 
chronology, is, of course, quite plain, but calculations made from the bare 
statements in it, result, when the chronological defect is eradicated, in 
singular accord. So at least it seems to me. I should very much like to 
know how it seems to others who are acquainted with the scene of events. 


G. B. Grunpy. 


1 Cf. τὸ ἀπὸ Ξέρξεω δειμαίνοντες, viii. 15. 


230 THE ACCOUNT OF SALAMIS IN HERODOTUS. 


THE ACCOUNT OF SALAMIS IN HERODOTUS. 


It is, I think, impossible to read Professor Goodwin’s article on ‘Salamis’ 
in the Journal of the Archacological Institute of America, 1882—83, without 
arriving at the conclusion that he has made out a very strong case for his main 
thesis, viz., that the plan of the battle was wholly different from that which 
has been constructed by modern historians, who misinterpret, as I suppose 
Professor Goodwin would hold, the account of Herodotus. I confess to cordial 
adherence to the main proposition contained in the article, but I find great 
difficulty in understanding the argument by which he endeavours to reconcile 
his view with the account given by Herodotus. 

That there is some defect in Herodotus’ account is clear. At first reading 
it seems to consist in an absence of information as to the movements of the 
fleets in the battle itself. 

My impression is, however, that Herodotus had at his disposal informa- 
tion with regard to those movements, but misunderstood it. 

It will be necessary, in order to explain exactly what I mean, to go over 
much of the ground which Professor Goodwin traverses, and indeed to make 
use of some of his arguments. 

It is generally agreed, in fact the evidence is unanimous on this point, 
that the Persians drew up their fleet in some way so as to block the eastern 
end of the Salamis strait, though the way in which they did this is disputed. 
But the main points in dispute are :— 

(1) As to the locality of the part of the other end of the strait which 
they blocked so as to prevent the Greek fleet from escaping. 

Viz., whether it was the narrow portion of the eastern strait at the point 
where it enters the Bay of Eleusis, or whether it was the strait between 
Salamis island and the Megarid coast. 

(2) As to the position of the Persian fleet, especially at daybreak, on the 
morning of the battle. 

The scheme of the battle given in nearly all, if not all, modern histories 
of Greece, represents the Persian fleet as drawn up on the morning of the 
battle along the Attic coast from the narrows at the entrance of the Bay of 
Eleusis almost to the mouth of Piraeus harbour, while the Greek fleet is 
opposite, extending from a point some way north of the Island of St. George 
almost to the end of Kynosura (v. Grote, etc.) 

I notice that this scheme has been adhered to in histories of Greece 


THE ACCOUNT OF SALAMIS IN HERODOTUS. 231 


which are either new or have been re-edited since Professor Goodwin’s article 
was published. 

The objections to it which Professor Goodwin urged seem to me 80 strong 
that I am surprised that the scheme is still adhered to by great authorities on 
Greek history. The reason for this adherence I have not seen stated in print, 
but I can only suppose that those who hold to the old view reject wholly the 
version of Diodorus, where it differs from that of Herodotus, and would hold 
that the latter is not contradicted in any essential respect by the, for historical 
purposes, imperfect account of Aeschylus. Professor Goodwin lays down the 
canon that on any detail he does mention, Aeschylus is the authority to be 
followed, because he was an eye-witness. He further seeks to reconcile 
Herodotus’ account with that of Aeschylus, with the result that he reproduces 
a history of the battle which is in nearly all essential respects that of 
Diodorus. 

It is plain, of course, that the ‘ eye-witness’ argument may be carried 
too far, since it is possible, if not probable, that the accounts of Herodotus and 
Diodorus were drawn from the records of eye-witnesses. 

The thesis which I propose to put forward is that we have in the tale of 
Salamis one of the rare cases in which Diodorus has either obtained better 
information or made better use of his information than Herodotus. I believe 
Professor Goodwin might possibly agree to this. But I would urge that 
those who have adopted the ‘old’ scheme of the battle have rightly 
interpreted Herodotus’ view, and that the mistake, if any, is Herodotus’, 
_ not theirs. 

In this, I believe, Professor Goodwin would disagree with me. 

The arguments against the old scheme, of which the most convincing 
have been already stated by Professor Goodwin, are :— 

Since the passage between Attica and Psyttaleia is 1,300 yards wide ; 

And that between Aegaleos and Salamis 1,500 yards; 

And between Aegaleos and St. George Island 1,200 yards ; 

ae. the whole channel is very narrow ; 

(2) How could the Persian movement of cutting off be accomplished so 
secretly that the Greeks got no wind of it? (H. viii. 78, Plut. Them. 12, 
Arist. 8.) 

How could the Persians have slipped along the other side of the narrow 
strait in the night unperceived? ‘Tradition says, moreover, that it was a 
moonlight night. 

(Ὁ) Can we believe that the Greek fleet was allowed to form quietly in 
line of battle at the other side of this narrow strait, in the very face of the 
Persian fleet only a few hundred yards distant ? 

Surely the Persian fleet would, being eager to capture the Greek fleet, 
have seized the ships while the crews were preparing to embark, 

(c) Aeschylus, an eye-witness, testifies that it was only after the Greeks 
had rowed forward from their first position that they were fairly seen by the 
Persians (Aesch, Pers. 400). 

(d) Aeschylus, Pers, 441-464, H. viii. 76, 95, Plut. Arist. 9 concur in the 


232 THE ACCOUNT OF SALAMIS IN HERODOTUS. 


statement that Xerxes landed a body of Persians on Psyttaleia because he 
thought that it would be a central point of the sea fight. 

Such are Professor Goodwin’s objections to the old scheme. To the last 
I would add that Herodotus expressly describes the measures taken with 
regard to Psyttaleia as being synchronous with those for blocking the straits 
(viii. 76). 

Of these objections :— ~ 

(a) is strong as being Herodotus’ own evidence, and it is on Herodotus 
that the old scheme must rely. The passages quoted from Plutarch are, how- 
ever, manifestly from the Herodotean source. 

Objections (6), (6), (d@) seem to me unanswerable. As I read the narrative, 
the old scheme of Grote and others cannot stand in face of them. 

Experience has convinced me of the fact that Herodotus is a most 
difficult and dangerous author to criticise. At the same time, in those 
parts of his Greek history which I have had occasion to examine minutely,— 
some on the actual scene of events,—I have never come across any statement 
of fact which could be suspected to be the pure invention of the author. His 
mistakes, in so far as can be judged, arise almost wholly from: 

(1) Misreading of sources, 

(2) Use of defective or mistaken sources, 
not from the invention of imaginary facts. His painful conscientiousness 
seems to be genuine, not fictitious. But, eminently unmilitary himself, he 
was peculiarly liable to misunderstand the information at his disposal with 
regard to military matters, and this, as it seems to me is exactly what has 
happened with regard to his account of Salamis, and in the following way :— 

It is, of course, a commonplace of criticism to say that Herodotus gives 
us no account of the general movements or manceuvres of the two fleets on 
the actual day of battle, save that he mentions that the Aeginetan vessels fell 
on the Phoenician ships which the Athenians put to flight. What I may 
call the enunciation of my proposition is this :— 

This failure of information in this part of his narrative is due to the fact 
that he had already in the previous part of it used up his information on this 
point. 

He antedated a movement made on the night preceding the battle to the 
previous afternoon, and further antedated the movements in the battle itself to 
the night preceding the battle. 

I will now attempt to prove this proposition. Unfortunately I do not 
see my way to doing so without going into the detail of the description of the 
fighting. 

Apparently on the day but one before the battle (cf. H. viii. 64) 
Themistocles at the meeting of commanders urged the importance of fighting 
in the strait (cf. H. viii. 60, D. xi. 17). His idea was, of course, that in the 
narrow seaway the Greek fleet would not be outflanked, and the superior 
numbers of the Persians would not be of avail. It is noticeable (1) that his 
argument is dependent on the narrowness of the possible front of the fighting 
line, (2) that unanimous evidence of historians points to the fact that the 


THE ACCOUNT OF SALAMIS IN HERODOTUS. 233 


event showed it to be a sound argument. But, if the fleets were ranged on 
either side of the strait in the actual battle, and not across it, it is somewhat 
difficult to see why so much success should be attributed to the design. 


Day preceding the battle. 


Ship despatched to Aegina to fetch the Aeacidae (H. viii. 64). 

Persian fleet at Phaleron (H. viii. 66—T. 12). 

Persian fleet, so says Herodotus, puts out towards Salamis and quietly 
forms line of battle. It is too late to fight that day (H. viii. 70), 

This movement, then, presumably took place in the late afternoon. 

Here I think Herodotus’ mistake begins. He represents this movement 
as made before Xerxes received Themistocles’ message, i.e. not causally con- 
nected with it at all. But both Aeschylus and Diodorus almost certainly 
describe the same movement as having been made after Themistocles’ 
message had been received and in consequence of it. 

Cf. Aesch. Pers, 374-83 describing the embarkation of the Persians with 
a view to (368-9) ranging the ships in three lines so as to guard the exits and 
the ‘roaring friths’ and (370-8) sending ships by a circuit round the Island 
of Ajax to cut off the Greek retreat. 

Cf. also Diod. xi. 17. 

In other words neither Aeschylus nor Diodorus has any mention of a 
movement of the Persian fleet from Phaleron until after Themistocles’ message 
was received. 

What Herodotus describes and mistimes is really the movement which 
the Persians made at night to block the eastern strait. 

After the receipt of Themistocles’ message the Persian fleet did on the 
night before the battle put out, and these measures were taken :— 

(1) Psyttaleia was occupied (H. viii. 76, Aesch. Pers. 449, and apparently 
Plut. Avist. 8) 

because Xerxes expected evidently that it would be an important 
position to hold during the battle (v. H. and A. P. ad loc. cit.). 

Professor Goodwin thinks, as indeed appears probable, that it must have 
been near the centre of the Persian lines of battle as at first arranged. 

(2) The strait was blocked on the East (P. Them. 12, A. P. 368-373, 

(3) The strait was also blocked on the West} H. viii. 76, Diod. xi. 17. 

With regard to (2), the consideration suggested by the occupation of 
Psyttaleia and the fact that the measure was carried out unknown to the 
Greeks, might suggest that the Persian line was extended from behind Kyno- 
sura, South of Psyttaleia to the Attic coast near Piraeus harbour. 

As regards (3), Diodorus says expressly that the Egyptian contingent 
was sent to block the strait between Salamis and the Megarid (xi. 17). 

This is a curious triangular concord at this point in the history. 

Diodorus says that the Egyptian contingent was sent. 

Plutarch speaks of 200 ships sent off by night. 

Herodotus tells us that the Egyptian contingent numbered 200. 

The assertion of Diodorus, if it stood alone, might not be held to be very 


234 THE ACCOUNT OF SALAMIS IN HERODOTUS. 


convincing, but Aeschylus practically says the same thing, viz., that Xerxes sent 
ships by a circuit round the Island of Ajax to cut off the Greek retreat. 

Professor Goodwin would apparently argue that Herodotus’ description of 
the movement really implies, if rightly interpreted, the same thing. Now 
what Herodotus does say is this (vili. 76), ἐπειδὴ ἐγίνοντο μέσαι νύκτες, 
ἀνῆγον μὲν τὸ am’ ἑσπέρης κέρας κυκλούμενοι πρὸς THY Σαλαμῖνα, ἀνῆγον δὲ 
οἱ ἀμφὶ τὴν Κέον καὶ τὴν Κυνόσουραν τεταγμένοι, κατεῖχόν τε μέχρι 
Μουνυχίης πάντα τὸν πορθμὸν τῇσι νηυσί. The earlier part of the passage 
evidently refers to the blocking of the strait on the west. On the general 
question of meaning, I do not think that this can mean anything else but 
that the west wing, as he calls it, moved through the strait, not round 
Salamis, to block the west end of the strait at the point where it enters the 
Bay of Eleusis, z.c. between Aegaleos and Salamis island. This, indeed, is 
the natural interpretation, which those who follow what I have called the 
‘old’ scheme of the battle put upon the words. 

But I venture to think very strongly that Herodotus is describing in this 
passage, (though he, of course, was not aware of the fact,) the movements in 
the actual battle. We have seen that he has ascribed to the previous after- 
noon a movement which Aeschylus and Diodorus say took place at night, and 
he is now ascribing to the night a movement which was really made in the 
morrow-morning’s battle. He has antedated his information, and hence he 
can tell us practically nothing of the general movements in the fight, for he 
had already used up all the information he had with regard to the move- 
ments of the two fleets. 

T shall have, of course, to recur to this point, when we come to discuss 
the actual manueevring in the battle. 

The movements in the night were made quietly, in order that the enemy 
might not get knowledge of them (H. viii. 76). 

They took up the whole night (H. and A. P.). 

This tells in favour of the movement round Salamis island to the 
west strait between the island and the Megarid. 

The Greeks were unaware of the movements until Aristides came from 
Aegina to inform them of them (H. viii. 79, Plut. 7.12, A. 8). Aristides 
further told them that he had had great difficulty in getting through the 
blockading squadron (H. viii. 81). It would be mere guesswork to surmise 
how he got through. 


Day of the battle. 


When the day dawned the position of the fleets seems to have been :— 

The Greek fleet close to Salamis town, probably in bay north of it; the 
Persian fleet in a line across the strait almost due east and west, with 
Psyttaleia near the centre. 

These positions are to be conjectured from the following facts :— 

(a) The Greek position, from Diodorus’ statement that, after embarking, 
the Greeks sailed out and occupied the strait between Salamis and the 
Herakleion (D. xi. 18). Plutarch tells us that the Herakleion was where the 


THE ACCOUNT OF SALAMIS IN HERODOTUS. 235 


Island of Salamis is separated from the main land by a narrow passage. It 
must therefore have been on Aegaleos opposite Salamis town. 

(Ὁ) The Persian position is defined by very strong evidence : 

(1) Respecting the occupation of Psyttaleia already quoted ; 

(2) (And most markedly) by the statements of Aeschylus and Diodorus. 

A. P, 415 says that the Persian ships fell foul of one another when they 
came into the narrows. 

D. xi. 18 says that the Persians in their advance at first retained their 
order, having plenty of sea room, but when they came to the strait, they were 
compelled to withdraw some ships from the line, and fel! into much confusion. 

Their position at dawn must then have been in the broad part of the 
strait, just before the narrows begin. It will be seen that there is a most 
marked diminution in breadth so soon as Kynosura is rounded. I say above 
‘just before the narrows begin,’ because the evidence of Aeschylus and Hero- 
dotus shows that the two fleets came in sight of one another very soon after 
they began to move (cf. A P. 400, H. viii. 84). 

It was after dawn when the Greeks embarked (H. viii. 83 ad init.). 

When we come to the question of the positions of the various con- 
tingents in the two fleets Aeschylus unfortunately does not aid us. 

Herodotus and Diodorus are in agreement as to: 

Medised Greeks on Persian L. wing (H. viii. 85, D. xi. 17) ; 

Phoenicians on Persian R. wing (H. viii. 85, D. xi. 17). 

Diodorus further tells us : 

Cyprians with Phoenicians on R. wing (D. xi. 19). 

Cilicians, Pamphylians, Lycians next them (D. xi. 19). 

Curiously enough the two authorities differ with regard to the few 
details they give of the Greek array. 

Both agree that Athenians were on Greek L. wing (H. viii. 85, D. xi. 18). 

But the Lacedaemonians according to Herodotus (viii. 85) were on the 
R. wing, but according to Diodorus (xi. 18) on the left with Athenians. 

Aeginetans and Megareans according to Diodorus were on the R. wing 
(xi. 18). 

It is difficult to say whether the evidence on the point where the 
authorities are in conflict, viz., as to the composition of the Greek right, 
inclines to the side of Herodotus or Diodorus. I shall give reasons for 
believing that the account of Herodotus is more probably the right one. 


The Movements of the Fleets in the battle. 


The Persian fleect.—The information which we do get as to the advance 
of the Persian fleet and its manceuvring is wholly in accord with what seems to 
me to be almost certainly defined as its position at dawn. 

Aeschylus (P. 368-9) tells us that it took up its original position in three 
lines. 

Describing its appearance as it advanced into the narrow part of the 
strait, he speaks of it coming on in a ῥεῦμα, which can only refer to some 
formation in column, or something resembling a column. 


236 THE ACCOUNT OF SALAMIS IN HERODOTUS. 


Diodorus supplies the connecting link between the two formations when 
he says that the Persians when they came into the strait were compelled to 
withdraw some ships from the line (ΧΙ. 18). 

If the chart of the strait at this point be examined it will be seen that 
after passing Psyttaleia and Kynosura it not only narrows, but turns west- 
ward at right angles. The Persian fleet had consequently to accomplish a 
most difficult manceuvre of a double kind, viz. : 

(a) To reduce their front. 

(Ὁ) To execute a wheeling movement to the left, of which their extreme 
left wing would form the pivot. 

What seems to have taken place is this; their right, and possibly their 
centre having reduced their front passed through the strait east of Psyttaleia 
in some sort of column formation; then wheeled to the left to turn the corner 
of the strait, while their left wing marked time, as it were, in the strait west 
of Psyttaleia. The latter would be hidden from the Greek fleet by the some- 
what lofty rocky promontory of Kynosura. But the right wing passing east of 
Psyttaleia would almost immediately come into sight, and would present to the 
Greeks that appearance of a ῥεῦμα, which the eye-witness Aeschylus describes. 


The Greek fleet. 


Meanwhile the Greek fleet had moved. It formed line in the first instance 
in the strait between Salamis and the Herakleion, so Diodorus tells us (xi. 18). 
From that position it advanced along the strait, and soon after starting, came 
in sight of the Persian (A. P. 400). Needless to say that this detail, given by 
Aeschylus, is singularly in disaccord with the ‘old’ scheme. 

We now come to the difficult question as to the position of the fleets 
when contact took place. 

Aeschylus gives a most important detail bearing on this point, when he 
says (A. P.401) that the Greek right wing led the advance and the remainder 
came behind. If we consider what this implies, and further take into con- 
sideration another fact mentioned by Aeschylus (A. P. 411) and supported by 
Herodotus (viii. 84, ad init.) to whit, that a Greek (1.6. Athenian) ship began 
the battle by attacking a Phoenician, we see that the Persian right, 1.6. that 
part of their fleet which had wheeled on the outside had got in advance of the 
rest of their line, 1.6. that the two fleets were in a kind of échelon formation 
when contact took place, not in line direct across the strait, which would 
imply positions running north and south, but slantwise in positions running 
from north-west to south-east nearly. In order to make clear what I mean, I 
append three small sketch maps of the straits, showing (1) original position, 
(2) advance, (3) contact, of the two fleets. 

It is, I believe, this position of the fleets at the point of contact which 
Herodotus describes in vili. 76, and viii. 85. 

First, with respect to viii. 76. 

Herodotus had already ascribed the Persian movement from Phaleron to 
the position at Psyttaleia to the afternoon of the day preceding the battle, 
orior to the receipt of Themistocles’ message by Xerxes. 


THE ACCOUNT OF SALAMIS IN HERODOTUS. 237 


This, we have seen, was a mistake. That movement was made, as 
Aeschylus and Diodorus show clearly, subsequent to the receipt of the message, 
and in the night. 

What is the first immediate consequence of his mistake? He had 
separated with respect to time the Persians’ movement to the position at 
Psyttaleia from their movement to block the western end of the straits, 
whereas these two movements were synchronous, 

Now let us consider what his position as an historian would have been 
after making this mistake. 

He would be quite aware of the notorious fact that a movement was 
made in the night to block this western issue, and was made in consequence 
of Themistocles’ message. 


1 ORIGINAL POSITION 


mt AEGALEU® 


Y 


-HERACLEUM 


59 Ζ 


ι ὌΠ" ὕ 


He would naturally suppose that the second movement indicated in his 
sources of information was this movement, whereas it was really the movement 
in the actual battle itself. 

The description of the movement in viii. 76 is very closely applicable to 
what we have seen from other evidence must have been the movement in the 
battle. He Bays: ἀνῆγον μὲν τὸ ἀπ’ ἑσπέρης κέρας κυκλούμενοι πρὸς τὴν 
Σαλαμῖνα, a ἀνῆγον δὲ οἱ ἀμφὶ τὴν Κέον τε καὶ τὴν Κυνόσουραν τεταγμένοι, 
κατεῖχόν τε μέχρι Μουνυχίης πάντα τὸν πορθμὸν τῇσι νηυσί. 

In the first place we find out from chap. 85 what he meant by the west 
wing, viz., κατὰ μὲν δὴ ᾿Αθηναίους ἐτετάχατο Φοίνικες (οὗτοι γὰρ εἶχον τὸ 
πρὸς ᾿Ελευσῖνός τε καὶ ἑσπέρης κέρας)" κατὰ δὲ Λακεδαιμονίους Ἴωνες" οὗτοι 
δ᾽ εἶχον τὸ πρὸς τὴν ἠῶ τε καὶ τὸν Πειραιέα. 

It sems to me to be fairly clear that he supposed the wheeling movement 

H.S.—VOL, XVII. 8 


238 THE ACCOUNT OF SALAMIS IN HERODOTUS. 


of the right wing (the Phoenicians) which brought that wing as we have seen 
in front of the rest of the line, which movement was evidently accurately 
described in his source of information (cf. especially κυκλούμενοι πρὸς τὴν 
Σαλαμῖνα), to be a movement through the strait to block up the narrows north 
of Salamis town, near the Bay of Eleusis. The remaining words, ἀνῆγον δὲ 
οἱ ἀμφὶ τὴν Kéov te καὶ τὴν Κυνόσουραν τεταγμένοι, are taken also, no 
doubt, from his source of information and refer to the movement of the left 
Persian wing in the battle. 

Of course Herodotus misinterprets the meaning in consequence of the 
mistake he has made, and adds the words which follow κατεῖχόν τε, etc. He 
has to bring this latter body of ships in touch with those which he has in 
imagination moved right up the strait. 


2 ADVANCE 


-HERACLEUM 


SMILES 


The τὸ ἀπ᾽ ἑσπέρης κέρας of ch. 76 is no doubt of the same origin as the 
τὸ πρὸς ᾿Ελευσῖνός te καὶ ἑσπέρης κέρας of ch. 85, and the latter is used in 
describing the position in actual battle. Strict geography might take excep- 
tion to the description of this wing as the west wing, though when the battle 
began it did apparently lie north-west or thereabouts of the other wing, but 
the distinction between the two wings in ch. 85 as πρὸς ’EXevoivos and πρὸς 
τὸν Πειραιέα is, as will be seen, correct and good. 

Before I close I should like to say one word as to the battle itself, and 
the question of the conflicting evidence as to the position of the Aeginetans 
and Lacedaemonians in the fighting line. ‘The Aeginetans come in for the 
highest praise in Herodotus’ account. That they would not have got the 
praise from him unless they deserved it in some notorious way, we may be 
sure. The philo-Athenian historian was not likely to commend them without 


THE ACCOUNT OF SALAMIS IN HERODOTUS. 239 


cause. But Herodotus also mentions a detail about them in the battle which 
he is extremely unlikely to have invented, namely, that they fell on the 
Phoenician ships which fled before the Athenians (vil. 91). I think we may 
fairly suspect from Herodotus’ language that the Aeginetans were credited 
with dealing the decisive blow in the battle, though the Athenians had 
apparently the hardest fight (H. viii. 93). But this detail about the 
Aeginetans falling on the Phoenician ships makes it highly probable, if 
not certain, that they were close to the Athenians in the line, probably 
in the centre or left-centre, ic. not on the right, as Diodorus says, and 
we may, I think, conjecture that the decisive action of the battle was the 
breaking of the Persian line at the centre by the Aeginetans, after 
which the latter were able to fall on the flank of the Phoenicians, the 


3.CONTACT 


-HERACLEUM 


Wily 
ὡς 
~ Wi 


Ss) 


CYNOSURA 


Persian right wing, whom the Greeks regarded, as may be seen from various 
hints in the accounts of the battle, as the really formidable element in the 
Persian fleet. 

It is possible that the actual fighting may have gone in accordance 
with the original plan of attack of the Greek commanders, with such 
modifications as the confusion into which the Persian fleet fell in the 
course of executing their difficult mancuvre of necessity introduced 
into it. Of that confusion the Greeks apparently took full advantage 
but still the crushing of the Persian centre, probably consisting of the 
poorest material in their fleet, by what was looked upon, if Diodorus be 
right, as, after the Athenians, the most capable portion of the Greek fleet, 


to be followed by an attack on the flank of the powerful Persian right 
5.2 


240 THE ACCOUNT OF SALAMIS IN HERODOTUS. 


wing, may have been in outline the original design of Eurybiades and his 
colleagues. 

It is not necessary, perhaps, for me to acknowledge further the extent to 
which I am indebted to Professor Goodwin’s article, since it will be fully 
appreciated by those who are interested in this side of Greek history, to whom 
certainly that article will be well known. 

G. B. GRUNDY. 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 241 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS. 
Parr IV, 
APOLLO. 


RECENT literature on this Hymn is almost limited to the notes of 
R. Peppmiller, Philologus, 1884, p. 196 8ῳ., 1894, p. 2538 8ᾳ., and H. Pomtow, 
Neue Jahrb. f. Phil., 1886, p. 176, and the articles of A. Kirchhoff, 
Sitzungsberichte der preuss, Akad, xlii. 1893, and A. W. Verrall in this Journal 
vol. xiv. pp. 1 sgg. (1894). For Apollo we have the account by Roscher in his 
Lexicon ; Mr. Farnell (Cults of Greek States) has not yet treated him. 

Want of illustration and of positive information upon the topics with 
which the Hymn deals, is the chief stumbling block to its interpretation. 
We are practically entirely ignorant, so far as other sources are concerned, at 
these places : the geographical names Εὐρεσίαι 32, Αὐτοκάνη 35, Aicayén 40, 
Λέκτος 217, ᾿Αρήνη ’Apyudén Αἶἷπυ 422, 423; the nature of Eilithyia’s 
necklace 103; the recitations at the Delian festival 156 sg., Apollo’s ‘brides’ 
208 sg., the observances connected with chariots at Onchestus 230 8ῳ., the 
epithets of Apollo πύθιος 373, δέλφειος 496; the part taken by Cretans in 
the Delphic worship 393 sg. It is the more disappointing that the newly 
found Delphic inscriptions, so far as they have been published, contribute 
nothing to the elucidation of these points. The fragments of Hymns to 
Apollo, whatever perturbation they may have caused in the theory of Greek 
music, are singularly barren as literary documents. 

This condition of ignorance has brought the usual result, that the Higher 
Criticism has marked the document for its own. Even the usually judicious 
Ruhnken divided the Hymn into two. I venture to think that consideration 
tends to show that even where the full import of the context is unrealisable, 
the grammatical sense presented by the tradition is clear, and that therefore 
the text may vindicate its soundness. When the darkness that surrounds 
the subject-matter of documents is deep, a prudent editor will, pending the 
arrival of better lights, at least guard the wording and the order of the texts 
for which he is responsible. 

In three places in the poem the text has literally disintegrated, at 
59, 152, 211; the first two of these singular corruptions have been fairly 
satisfactorily healed. Several lacunas, but of small extent, appear necessary. 


18. ὑπ᾽ ᾿Ινωποῖο ῥεέθροις. Reiz and A. Matthiae substituted ἐπ᾽, the 
necessity of which with Ilgen I doubt. As Ilgen remarks, the Inopus is con- 


242 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 


ceived as a mountain torrent (vv. 17, 26), and Leto might be said to be 
‘under’ its waters as it fell steeply. Or ὑπὸ may have the more general 
sense of ‘near, about,’ as in Apollonius ii. 794 ὄφρ᾽ ἐβάλοντο | οὖρα βαθυρ- 
pelovtos ὑφ᾽ εἱαμεναῖς Ὕπίοιο. Φ 87 ἐπὶ Σατνιόεντι ; ἐπὶ Strabo, ὑπὸ 


all MSS. 


20. νόμος βεβλήαται ὠδῆς. Barnes removed the singular, which was 
kept by Maittaire (Miscellanea Graecorum aliquot Seriptorum Carmina, 1722, 
p. 166): cf. Aratus 817 καὶ μᾶλλον μελανεῦσα, καὶ εἰ ῥηγνύατο μᾶλλον, 
where Maass quotes y 438 θεὰ κεχαροίατ᾽ ἰδοῦσα, as several MSS. have it for 
κεχάροιτο ἰδοῦσα; A 660 one MS. has βεβλήαται for βέβληται μὲν ὁ 
Τυδείδης. To keep the singular νόμος here would imply a strong view upon 
the unfamiliarity of the author with the epic dialect, but the principle of the 
preservation of linguistic anomalies presented by MSS. is one to which I 
incline. Cf. κατενήνοθεν with plural, Dem. 279, é in the plural Aphr. 267. 
Whether νόμος should be kept, or altered with Barnes into νομός, may be 
doubted. Βάλλειν νόμον is in any case an unusual phrase; βάλλειν must be 
taken, I suppose, in the sense of ‘lay, found, and in this sense may suit 
better with νόμος ‘custom’ or ‘strain’ than with νομὸς ‘range’ or ‘course.’ 
Also some weight perhaps should be given to the unvarying accentuation of 
the MSS. Hes. Theog. 66 μέλποντας πάντων Te νόμους, one MS. has νομούς. 
The conjectures πεπλήχαται (Matthiae), μεμέληται ἀοιδῆς (Hermann), νόμοι 
μεμβλήατ᾽ ἀοιδῆς (Nitzsch) do not assist. 


26. πρὸς κύνθος ὄρος. On the united authority of the MSS. and of Steph. 
Byz. (sv. παρ᾽ ᾿Αντιμάχῳ ἐν πρώτῃ Θηβαΐδος. ὁ οἰκήτωρ κύνθιος" Kai 
θηλυκῶς καὶ οὐδετέρως) who can hardly refer to any passage but ours, I 
retain the neuter, notwithstanding the gen. Κύνθου v. 141. Barnesis the last 


editor, D’Arnaud, quoted by Ilgen, the last critic, who has not departed from 
the MSS. | 


29 sg. With Hermann and Baumeister it must be felt that the connection 
of the enumeration of places, vv. 30-44, is uncertain. If, as is usually the 
case, we print a comma at the end of 29, the places are introduced as those 
over which Apollo rules; but when we get to the end of the list we find 
they are regions over which Leto wandered. Unless we are to suppose that 
Apollo’s dominion coincided with the spgts through which his mother when 
big with him wandered, either a sign of interrogation, as Gemoll, or a full 
stop, as in the Oxford text, must be put after 29; the slight abruptness finds 
many parallels in the Hymns. 


32. αἰγαί τ᾽ εἰρεσίαι te. Πειρεσίαι Ruhnken, It is admitted that no 
connection is known between Piresiae and Apollo, and as we have Iresiae 
standing in the texts of Livy xxxii. 13 it seems safe to leave Ecpeodau here. 
It is true that the Livian Iresiae and Piresiae must have been in the same 
neighbourhood, and Leake (Northern Greece, iv. 493) wished to simplify the 
matter by abolishing Iresiae. But is it even certain that our Iresiae is the 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 243 


same as the Livian? For the name cf. the deme Εἰρασίδαι. Two other 
unknown names preserved in this catalogue are Aleayén and Αὐτοκάνη. It 
is a pity that Strabo did not extend his studies on B to this document. 


35. αὐτοκάνης ὄρος αἰπύ. Αὐτοκάνη is not found; it does not follow 
however that we need the conjectures ἀντικάνη, ἀκροκάνη, αἰγοκάνη, which 
are equally non-existent. Κάνη or Κάναι is the name of a considerable mass 
of mountain opposite the south point of Lesbos, mentioned often by Strabo 
in his account of Asia Minor and described p. 615. The name applied to a 
town also, and (according to Stephanus s. v.) to a lake ; the district in general 
was called ἡ Καναία. Hence (at Ilgen’s suggestion) I take it that αὐτοκάνη 
may mean the centre of the geographical name κάνη, ‘Heart of Κάνη, i.e. 
the original peak of which Strabo says αὐτὸ xa’ αὑτὸ ἱκανῶς συνέσταλται, 
προσνεύει δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ Αἰγαῖον πέλαγος, although no parallel use of αὐτο- 
seems to be preserved. Αἰσαγέη v. 40 is still unidentified. 


46. εἴ τίς cou γαιέων υἱεῖ θέλοι οἰκία θέσθαι. Oi which is generally 
read, is now found to be the emendation of H, and is made probable by 
ἑκηβόλον in 45. At the same time Apollo is addressed immediately before 
this parenthesis begins, v. 25, as σε, and afterwards v. 120, and therefore σοι 
may not be impossible here. 


53. ἄλλος δ᾽ οὔτις σεῖό ποθ᾽ ἅψεται οὐδέ ce λίσσει. Mr. T. L. Agar 
(Classical Review, Nov. 1896,) has removed the scales from our eyes, and 
with the help of the unknown writer of S, seen οὐδέ σε λήσει in the end of 
the line. Thus Ernesti’s τίσει, Kirchhoff’s ἐσελάσσει and my ἐσδύσει retire 
into their proper limbo. Τίσει had no graphical possibility, and it is singular 
that it should have occupied the field for a century; Kirchhoff’s contribution 
is curiously inappropriate to an island like Ithaca οὐχ ἱππήλατος (or Zacyn- 
thus, of which Simonides fr. 15 ἱπποτροφία yap ob Ζακύνθῳ): my own effort 
rested on the graphical support given by p 276 δύσεο δὲ μνηστῆρας, λίσσεο 
‘J marg.,” E 811 δέδυκεν, λέλυκεν ‘L. For the effects produced by the 
simplest case of itacism cf. Hes. Opp. 2, δεῦτε δὴ ἐννέπετε, δεῦτε δί᾽ ἐννέπετε. 


79. ἀλλ᾽ εἴ μοι τλαίης γε θεὰ μέγαν ὅρκον ὀμόσσαι 
ἐνθάδε μιν πρῶτον τεύξειν περικαλλέα νηόν 
ἔμμεναι ἀνθρώπων χρηστήριον, αὐτὰρ ἔπειτα 
πάντας ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπους ἐπειὴ πολυώνυμος ἔσται. 


How Gemoll can say ‘der Sinn iiasst nichts zu wiinschen tibrig’ passes 
comprehension. Leto was not to include in her oath (nor does she actually 
84 sq.) that Apollo should proceed to other men after building a temple at 
Delos, she was to engage that he should build such a temple at Delos; after 
which says Delos with a sigh, let him continue his favours, ἐπειὴ πολυώ- 
νυμος ἔσται. No possible compression can get this into the passage: supply 
rather, with Hermann, such a verse as τευξάσθω νηούς τε καὶ ἄλσεα δεν- 
δρήεντα, which fell out from its identity with 76. Cf. 35-40, 371-4, 505-8, 
where similar endings have had this effect at four lines distance. The phrase 


244 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 


is repeated, vv. 148, 221, 245, so that one more instance need not give 
offence. Pomtow’s objections (NV. Jahrb. f. Phil., 1887, p. 176, sg.) to Her- 
mann’s notion of the contents of the lacuna seem unfounded, and his sugges- 
tion that 81 is not genuine gratuitous; the same epithet applies to Pepp- 
miiller’s bracketing of 81, 82 (J. ὁ. p. 198). 


103. μέγαν ὅρμον | χρυσείοισι λίνοισιν ἐερμένον, ἐννεάπηχυν. Whether 
any work of art resembling this necklace ever existed in rerum natura at any 
period of Greek art is for archaeologists to settle: the commentator need 
have no difficulty in translating the words as they stand: ‘a great necklace, 
nine cubits long, set with golden threads.. The Greek will bear the inter- 
pretation either of gold wire, or of tassels of thread or string gilded or strung 
with gold thread; the latter seems the more likely, if we consider some of the 
objects to which χρύσεος is applied in Homer: thus @ 42 horses’ manes, 
® 44, N 26 a whip, E 727 reins, T 382, X 383 plumes of Achilles’ helmet. 
In all these cases material cannot be implied, but decoration. We get closer 
to the context in the Scutwm Herculis 224, ἀμφὶ δὲ μιν κίβισις θέε θαῦμα 
ἰδέσθαι | apyupén: θύσανοι δὲ κατῃωρεῦντο φαεινοὶ | χρύσειοι, of the golden 
tufts or tassels round Perseus’ bag. Further to anyone who objected that no 
such objects are known from excavations (if indeed tassels and such like can 
survive) I would answer that this necklace and most of the other objects I 
have quoted are the work of Gods, and may therefore possess unusual refine- 
ments of art. When we find in some Mycenae a necklace nine yards long, 
we may expect to find one ‘set with golden threads, a wonder to behold.’ 
The alterations besides being uncalled for, are all more or less improbable. 
Barnes’ χρύσεον ἠλέκτροισιν ἐερμένον is graphically impossible (and Gemoll’s 
palaeographical observations merely illusory) ; λέθοισιν (Matthiae and Pepp- 
miiller) is commonplace and can never have been corrupted into the rarer 
word λίνοισιν ; γλήνεσσιν like most of Bergk’s conjectures is brilliant but 
scatterbrained. 

᾿Ἑερμένον (Barnes) for ἐεργμένον is a very proper correction on the 
analogy of Εἰ 89 σ 296. 

Matthiae, in his Animadversions and edition, Franke, and Burckhardt in 
a dissertation quoted by Gemoll, keep the reading λίνοισιν. 


116. τὴν τότε δὴ τόκος εἷλε should be restored from Ilgen’s most needless 
alteration δὴ τότε τὴν. The amount of emphasis conveyed by the position of 
τὴν 18 quite in place. 


133. ὡς εἰπών ἐβίβασκεν ἀπὸ χθονὸς εὐρυοδείης. ᾿Επὶ Matthiae, which 
of course gives an easy sense. I am inclined to think however that ἀπὸ may 
without violence be given a pregnant sense, ‘he began to walk [getting up] 
from the ground,’ where up to this time he had been lying. E13 τὼ μὲν ἀφ᾽ 
ἵπποιιν, ὁ δ᾽ ἀπὸ χθονὸς ὥρνυτο πεζός is somewhat parallel, in so far as it 
shows how ἀπὸ may be used out of its strictly literal sense. So Hermes as 
soon as he was born, οὐκέτι δηρὸν ἔκειτο---ἀλλ᾽ Sy’ ἀναΐξας κιτλ. (Herm, 
21, 22). 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 245 


"142. ἄλλοτε δ᾽ αὖ νήσους τε καὶ ἀνέρας ἠχάσκαζες. Ilgen, Peppmiiller and 
Tyrrell seem right in denying that ἠλασκάζειν can take a simple accusative ; 
av therefore must be altered to dv; cf. B 198 ὃν δ᾽ ad δήμον, ὃν δ᾽ ἂν Eust. 
Here the ν fell out before νήσους, and v was added to make metre. It is 
unnecessary to alter ἀνέρας, as has been proposed: νήσους τε καὶ ἀνέρας is a 
Hendiadys for the ‘inhabited islands, in contrast to Delos, For a similar 
omission of ἂν cf. Dem. 7. 


152. of τότ᾽ ἐπάντια σεῖο τ᾽ idoves ἀθρόοι elev etc. codd. Martin’s 
brilliant ὃς for οἱ is made necessary by ἴδοιτο and τέρψαιτο of 153. Οἱ no 
doubt came in after ἐπαντιάσει᾽ had decomposed, in order to give an apparent 
subject to εἶεν, the only verb then left. 356 ὃς τῇγ᾽ ἀντιάσειε. The corrup- 
tion has the marks of being very early. Conversely Herod. i. 124 ἀντῆσαι 
for ἀντία σεῦ. 


160. The apodosis starts here, as Gemoll rightly says. The πάντων 
ἀνθρώπων φωναί are of course the various dialects, which in strongly 
decentralized countries assume to their speakers the dignity of languages. 
The case of Gorgo and Praxinoa is in point. In modern Italy recitations in 
different dialects may now and then be heard. Κρεμβαλιαστύς or βαμβα- 
λιαστύς is, as Gemoll sensibly decides, the accompaniment. The /forestieri at 
this great pilgrim centre hear their own speech and their own music. Pepp- 
miiller’s alteration of αὐτὴ ἑκάστη in 163 misses the point sadly. Matthiae 
in his Animadversions appears to realise the scene, but in his edition, with 
the inexplicable violence to which the subjective critic is chronically liable, 
cuts out all three lines, the most graphic and racy in the Hymn. A study of 
the arrangements at Rome or Einsiedeln would convince commentators that 
there is nothing ‘inept’ in making the pious feel at home. 


166 sq. ἐμεῖο δὲ καὶ μετόπισθε 
fs yee / 4 > / > , 
μνήσασθ᾽ ὁππότε κέν τις ἐπιχθονίων ἀνθρώπων 
ἐνθάδ᾽ ἀνείρηται ξεῖνος ταλαπείριος ἐλθών' 
Φ “ / δ᾽ Ν > \ “ὃ > ὃ la] ἣν 
ὦ κοῦραι, τίς δ᾽ ὕμμιν ἀνὴρ ἥδιστος ἀοιδῶν κ.τ(λ. 


I quote here, since I do not find it in any commentary, the remarkable 
fragment of Hesiod. No. 227 :— 


ἐν Δήλῳ τότε πρῶτον ἐγὼ καὶ Ὅμηρος ἀοιδοί 
μέλπομεν, ἐν νεαροῖς ὕμνοις ῥάψαντες ἀοιδήν, 
Φοῖβον ᾿Απόλλωνα, χρυσάορον, ὃν τέκε Λητώ. 


The coincidence of subject and place is so marked that one can hardly 
imagine that the fragment and the Hymn are without connection with one 
another. 


171. ὑμεῖς δ᾽ εὖ μάλα πᾶσαι ὑποκρίνασθε ἀφήμως. ἀφήμως 
Thucydidis codd. antiquiores, εὐφήμως deteriores, ἀφ᾽ ἡμέων Mx: ἡμῶν 
Aristides ii. p. 589: ὑμέων, ὑμῶν p. I should like to withdraw my note on 
this line, vol. xv. p. 310. I think now that ἀφήμως, the reading of the older 


246 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 


MSS. of Thucydides is literally correct, and that we do not even require the 
rough breathing of Bergk’s ἁφήμως, Griech. Literaturgeschichte i. p, 750 π. 
‘einstimmig (ὑποκρίνασθαι ἀφήμως oder besser d¢7juws).’ Compound words 
consisting of a primitive+ in the sense of the primitive are not unfrequent, 
see Kiihner-Blass ὃ 339 δ, e.g. ἄπεδος ‘flat’ from πέδον, Herod. i. 110, 
ἄβρομοι αὐίαχοι ‘noisy’ from βρόμος, ἰαχή N 41, and especially I 404 οὐδ᾽ 
ὅσα λάινος οὐδὸς ἀφήτορος ἐντὸς ἐέργει, Where the usual derivation was from 
ἀφίημι, but Aristarchus glossed the word by ὁμοφήτορος, and this derivation 
is approved of by Prellwitz. There is, I think, no need to refer to ἅμα either 
in origin or in sense, and if ἀφήτωρ means ‘the speaker, ἀφήμους will mean 
‘clearly’ or ‘loudly, not ‘unanimously,’ as the scholiasts on Thucydides 
render, acknowledging the word but misinterpreting it, ἡσύχα, ἀθρόως. I 
read therefore with Bergk ὑποκρίνασθαι ἀφήμως, recommending myself to the 
mercy of the etymologists. ; 

Assuming ἀφήμως, the reading of the oldest MSS., to be the original, 
the corruptions are easily accounted for: on the one hand, ἀφήμως retained as 
a single word fell into εὐφήμως by the most usual process of graphical 
corruption ; on the other, ἀφημως, the preposition separating, naturally gave 
rise to the conjectures ἀφ᾽ ἡμέων or ἡμῶν. In the editions, ἀφ᾽ ἡμέων 
starting as the x reading from Demetrius Chalcondyles, lasted down to 
Ruhnken, and was translated by Barnes ‘responderitis a nobis. Ruhnken 
took from the younger MSS. of Thucydides the reading εὐφήμως, palpably 
the worst of any. a may explain ev, but not ev a. Normann, in his edition 
of two speeches of Aristides, Upsala, 1687, and after him Bergk, defended 
ἀφήμως. 

178. Keep the present ἀριστεύουσιν ; ‘whose songs have the greatest 
fame after,’ 6. after he has sung them once. He has fame within his 
lifetime, his songs are more demanded than those of others (e.g. the Hesiod 
of the fragment). Μετόπισθε 166 is used of time during the poet's life, and 
πωλεῖται, τέρπεσθε, οἰκεῖ are all present. ᾿Αριστεύσουσιν (Barnes) would 
invest the Delian maidens with prophesy in addition to their other 
accomplishments. 

The criticisms of Ruhnken, Ilgen, and Matthiae upon the excellent word 
ἀριστεύουσιν are typical of that age (‘Deinde quale istud est, ἀριστεύουσιν 
ἀοιδαί. Tua te lingua prodit,o bone. Digna haec sunt Nonni aetate, non 
Homeri.’). Hermann vindicated the word. The lines which, even as late as 
Bergk, have been thought unworthy of the poet, are surely original and most 
characteristic of the professional bard. 


185. ἄμβροτα εἵματ᾽ ἔχων τεθυωδέα. There would be no objection to 
θυώδεα, on which Pierson’s εὐωδέα is no improvement (in its favour may be 
brought ε 264 θυώδεα, edwdea Plut. de vitando an, al. 831 ἢ), Ap. Rhod. 
iv. 1155 éavods εὐώδεας), but that it involves the awkwardness of τε fourth 
in the sentence. Barnes’ usually accepted τεθυωμένα may therefore stand, 


M 
and we must suppose that the participle, written as usual τεθυω with an 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 247 
indeterminate scrawl to indicate omission, was at an early period misdeciphered 
Δ 
τεθυω, i.e. τε θυωδέα. 


204-6. Peppmiiller’s (Philologus, 1894, p. 256) discussion of these lines, 
which lands him in either the alteration of θυμὸν into υἱὸν (!) or the trans- 
position of 206 before 205, is a striking instance of the results of 
overfamiliarity with a document in a foreign language. 


207 sq. This passage seems as far off as ever from salvation. The only 
opinion I can express is that as all the lines with the exception of 211 make . 
a bare sense as they stand the text should be left untampered with. The 
various suggestions that have been made can be refuted one by one, even 
where they do not mutually destroy each other. I will merely notice the 
frivolity of Gemoll’s ἀναμνήσω or ἐπιμνήσω for ἐνὶ μνηστῇσιν; no one will 
believe that the omission of γένος (211) in yis a proof that it was interpolated 
into the other MSS. Schneidewin’s ἢ ὡς φόρβαντα for ἡ ἅμα φόρβαντι is now 
given up, and my own assertion (vol. xv. p. 276) that τρίοπος 218 is genitive 
is as uncertain. The passage waits, and may do so to eternity, for an 
interpreter, 


218. λέκτον +’ ἠμαθόεντα. Baumeister’s Λάκμον and the earlier 
conjecture Aedxoy are unconvincing and therefore to be rejected. There may 
have been a Λέκτος in Europe as there was in Asia, and the name lost, ep. 
Aicayén and the other names p. 2. , The only geographical ‘corrections 
that seem indispensable are ’Evijjvas in this line and Ἕλος τ᾽ ἔφαλον v. 410, 
both due to Matthiae. 


227. οὐδ dpa πω τότε γ᾽ ἦσαν ἀταρπιτοὶ οὐδὲ κέλευθοι 
Θήβης ἂμ πεδίον πυρηφόρον ἀλλ᾽ ἔχεν ὕλην. 

TAxn for ὕλην is Barnes’ best conjecture. The accusative comes from the 
tendency of scribes to be influenced by the nearest apparent construction ; 
similar cases are N 104 οὐδ᾽ ἔπι χάρμη, where the suggestion of the preposi- 
tion has been irresistible to ‘H’ Ven.,,, ,, M,, which give χαρμήν and to 
L, M, Vat.,, Ven.A BC, which give χάρμῃ; $ 177 τρὶς δὲ μεθῆκε Bin; 
many MSS. βίη and Bekker needlessly Bins. A 174 σέο δ᾽ ὀστέα ricer 
ἄρουρα ; ἄρουραν B. M. Pap. 136. 


230 sq. The custom at Onchestus. My rendering of this passage is as 
follows: ‘there the new-tamed horse breathes again, tired though he be with 
dragging a fair car, and the driver good though he be leaps to ground from the 
chariot and walks the road; meanwhile the horses rattle empty cars and 
have lost their lords. Now if the chariot be broke in the planted grove, they 
groom their horses, but the chariot they lean up [against a wall or the temple] 
and leave there, for so is it the custom from the beginning; they make their 
prayer to the king, but the chariot is the god’s portion to keep,’ I think 
that this is intelligible in itself, and it involves only Cobet’s alteration of 
dynow into ἀγῇσιν. The current interpretation of the passage down to 


248 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 


Baumeister followed an account given to A. Matthiae by Bottiger. Gemoll 
exhibited disbelief in this account, and Peppmiiller in an interesting note has 
reviewed the whole situation (Philologus, 1894, pp. 257-260). He rightly 
remarks that the interpretations of Béttiger and of Preller are incorrect 
in several vital points, and that the passages quoted from Pausanias do not 
refer to the local custom in question. They are however none the less 
extremely interesting and pertinent, as illustrating the terrifying effect upon 
horses attributed to Poseidon in particular places. So in the hippodrome at 
Olympia (p. 504) there was on one side, in a sort of cutting, κατὰ τὴν διέξοδον 
τὴν διὰ τοῦ χώματος, ‘ the fear of horses’ 6 ταράξιππος.ς At this point τοὺς 
ἵππους φόβος τε αὐτίκα ἰσχυρὸς ἀπ᾽ οὐδεμιᾶς προφάσεως φανερᾶς καὶ ἀπὸ 
τοῦ φόβου λαμβάνει ταραχή; the chariots as a rule are broken, and the 
drivers hurt.: There were other ταράξιπποι in Greece, at the Isthmus and 
at Nemea; and a certain suspicion attached to the hippodrome of Apollo at 
Delphi (p. 893). Pausanias believes the divinity at the bottom of these 
various manifestations to be Ποσειδῶν Ἵππιος : a celebrated case of his 
action is that of Hippolytus. 

In our passage Peppmiiller objects to the slight alteration ἀγῇσιν, 
although it has the undeniable analogy of Pausanias’ ta τε δὴ ἅρματα 
καταγνύουσιν ὡς ἐπίπαν, and reads app’ ἀγάγωσιν. This is open to more 
than one objection; the translation must be ‘if they bring the chariot into 
the grove’; but ἐν ἄλσει δενδρήεντε cannot be used to express motion after 
dryeew—seeing which Peppmiiller would connect ἐν ἄλσει Sevdpyjevte with the 
next line; this however is forbidden by μέν, which plainly marks the 
beginning of the apodosis. Secondly, the sense of ἀγάγωσι is very fiat. 
The young horse is left to himself, and the question is how he will behave ; 
will he get safe past the temple, or will the influence of ταράξιππος be too 
strong and will he bolt and smash the chariot among the sacred trees? 
‘Bring the chariot to the grove’ could only have a meaning if we suppose the 
horse liable to turn tail. Also the horse and his driver were already ἐν ἄλσει; 
the road doubtless ran past the temple, and the driver will have got down 
where the precinct began. There is therefore no question of the horse 
‘finding his way to the goal,’ and becoming ἄφετος. Far from that it is 
implied that his master in any case kept him. 

I conceive the statement not to refer to any special festival or ἀγών, but 
to have been the ordinary rule of the road in these parts. The God of Horses 
was offended at wheeled traffic that passed his home; but he gave travellers 
so much grace that their cattle were allowed a chance, without guidance. If 
the horse withstood his influence, well; if he bolted and wrecked the chariot, 
the traveller compounded by leaving the broken carriage—of which it is to be 
presumed the priests undertook the repair and eventual sale at second-hand. 
This very interesting use died out with the decay of Onchestus, of which in 
Pausanias’ time (p. 76) there were left the ruins of the town, the temple and 
the grove: Strabo (p. 411) saw the temple, but thought the poets had 
invented the grove. Lastly no particular stress is to be laid upon νεοδμής, as 
if only young horses underwent the ordeal. Rather it was only in the case of 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 249 


a veoduns πῶλος that his owner felt the anxiety; old hacks’ nerves were 
beyond the reach even of an Earthshaker, Leake, Northern (reece, 11. p. 213 
describes the site of Onchestus, on a low ridge. 


’ i ᾽ 
260. ἠμὲν ὅσοι Ἰ]ελοπόννησον πίειραν ἔχουσιν, 
»Ο» “« > ’ \ > / \ / 
nd ὅσοι Εὐρώπην τε καὶ ἀμφιρύτους κατὰ νήσους. 


That the name Εὐρώπη, like ᾿Ασέα and ᾿Ελλάς, extended its original 
connotation, is suggested by the ancient authorities (Steph. Byz. and the 
Etym. Magnum, who point to Macedonia) and by modern geographers 
(e.g. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, i. p. 89). To gut the document, 
and substitute the impossible ἤπειρον written by Reiz on the margin of his 
edition, is unworthy of a responsible editor. 


299. κτιστοῖσιν λάεσσι. It seems impossible to apply κτέζειν to the 
materials out of which the temple is made—‘fabricatis lapidibus’ as Barnes 
translates. Ernesti’s ἕεστοῖσιν is too far from the letters of κτιστοῖσι, and 
the other epic epithet ῥυτοῖσι is farther still. Perhaps τυκτοῖσι ‘ wrought,’ 
comparing ὃ 627, p 169 206, ν 306 ν.]., τυκτὰν μάρμαρον Theocr. xxii. 210. 
The stages of the corruption are TYKTOICIN, TIKTOICIN by itacism, 
TIICTOICIN(K = IC), (IK)TICTOICIN to make a word. 


331. ὡς εἰποῦσ᾽ ἀπόνοσφι θεῶν κίε χωομένη περ. 


Barnes’ κῆρ for mep has been accepted from his time till Gemoll’s, but 
the non-adversative force of περ, though rare, can hardly be denied in these 
places :-— 


a 315. μή p’ ἔτι viv κατέρυκε λιλαιόμενόν περ ὁδοῖο' 
p 12. ἐμὲ δ᾽ οὔπως ἐστιν ἅπαντας 
ἀνθρώπους ἀνέχεσθαι ἔχοντά περ ἄλγεα θυμῷ" 
ib. 47. μῆτερ ἐμὴ μή μοι γόον ὄρνυθι μηδέ μοι ἧτορ 
ἐν στήθεσσιν ὄρινε φυγόντί περ αἰπὺν ὄλεθρον" 
and it may well be absent from Γ 200 
οὗτος δ᾽ αὖ Λαερτιάδης, πολύμητις ᾿Οδυσσεύς 
ὃς τράφη ἐν δήμῳ ᾿Ιθάκης κραναῆς περ ἐούσης. 
The amount of emphasis in περ in these instances very fairly suits our 
line: ‘ she left the god, angry as she was.’ 


340. ὡὼς dpa φωνήσασ᾽ ἵμασε χθόνα χειρὶ παχείῃ. 


Mr. Platt in a recent number of the Journal of Philology prefers ἔλασε, on 
the precedent of 333, to ἵμασε. Certainly graphically the words are not far off 
as in minuscule μ᾿ produces, not unfrequently, AA: N 372 ἐλλάσιν οὐκ ἐθέλοντα 
six or seven MSS. give ἔμασιν or ἵμασιν for ἐλλάσιν. However ἵμασε is 
forcible, of Hera’s rage, and is supported by I 568 πολλὰ δὲ καὶ γαῖαν 
πολυφόρβην χερσὶν ἀλοία, an exact parallel: and of Zeus scourging the earth 


250 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 


or his enemies B 782 ὅτε τ᾽ ἀμφὶ τυφωέι γαῖαν ἱμάσσῃ, Hes. Theog. 857 
πληγῆσιν ἱμάσσας. 


361. λεῖπε δὲ θυμὸν 
φοινὸν ἀποπνείουσ᾽" 


The incredibly bad substitutions for this fine phrase repay study. 
Gemoll, who collects them, justly decides that the text is sound. The 
unusual λεῖπε δὲ θυμὸν is defended by the passage Pind. Pyth. 111, 180 first 
brought by Matthiac, and by the usual tendency to regard these human 
physical phenomena (death, etc.) from two alternate points of view, as the 
man becomes object or subject. 

380. προρέειν καλλίρροον ὕδωρ. Φ 366 προρέειν and προχέειν are 
variants, and we have προχέειν alone ® 219 and here 241, but the cognate 
accusative after προρέειν seems made out, and is certainly the more difficult 
construction, 


382. 7 καὶ ἐπὶ ῥίον ὦὧσεν ἄναξ ἑκάεργος ᾿Απόλλων 
meTpains προχυτῇσιν, ἀπέκρυψεν δὲ ῥέεθρα. 


This fall of rocks has buried more than one critic; Ruhnken altered 3838 
to metpains προχοῇσιν, the latter word not a very violent change (Ion of 
Chios fr. ii. 8 προχύταισιν ἐν ἀργυρέοις, as quoted by Ath. 463 B προχοαῖσιν) 
but hopeless as to sense; a Dutchman may be excused unfamiliarity with 
mountain phenomena, but Gemoll is no better, who thinks that the change of 
ῥίον into ῥόον makes all straight. 

The dative, cause of all this mischief, is not governed by ἐπὶ---ὦὧσεν, but 
is of circumstance: ‘he pushed a rock over, with a shower of stones,’ pro- 
fusis lapidibus. Another ignored dat. of circumstance is at Hes. Scuwt. 288 οἵ 
γε μὲν ἤμων | αἰχμῇς ὀξείῃσι κορυνιόωντα πέτηλα : commentators, ancient 
and modern have had doubts about reaping grain with spears, and Paley 
brings in ἅρπῃς to do duty: the ears, however, ‘bristle with sharp spears, 1.6. 
their stalks, as Burns has it. 

Apollo’s Bergsturz followed the usual laws of such things ; first the heavy 
crag detached itself, then a shower of stones and earth followed, and 
effectually filled the river. Travellers (see Bursian, Geog. von Griechenland, 1. 
p. 284) have identified the spring and the mountain behind it, wooded below 
but ending in sharp rocks, but they do not say if any appearance suggests a 
catastrophe—another local legend lost except for this Hymn. Other descrip- 
tions of falling stones and the damage done by them may be read in Scwt. 
374 sq. and 437 80. 


408. κραιπνὸς δὲ Νότος κατόπισθεν ἔγειρε | νῆα Oonv. Ruhnken’s 
érrevye is usually accepted for ἔγειρε, but passages like the following suggest 
that the text may stand: Herod. vii. 49 ἐγειρομένου χειμῶνος, Ap. Rhod. 1. 
1159 ἐγρομένοιο σάλου ζαχρηέσιν αὔραις, iii. 295 of flame, Anth. Pal. vi. 21 
πρασιὴν διψεῦσαν ἐγείρειν. Quintus ix. 271 of a wave, 6 τ᾽ ἐξ ἀνέμοιο 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 25) 


διεγρομένου φορέηται. ‘he ship had been running under canvas; now the 
wind strengthened and ‘ woke’ it into a quicker course. 


417. εἰς oldu’ ἅλιον πολυΐχθυον ἀμφὶς dpovoet. 


Pierson’s αὖθις is not as violent a conjecture as might appear at first 
sight (αμφις, agus, αὐφις, αυθις) but I keep ἀμφὶς in the sense of ‘apart, 
away’ or more shortly ‘out.’ Examples with a genitive are given in the 
Lex. Hom., p. 108b; it is but a step to the absolute use, for which the nearest 
parallels in this sense are w 218 ἠέ κεν ἀγνοιῇσι πολὺν χρόνον ἀμφὶς ἐόντα, 
y 486 0184 σεῖον ζυγὸν ἀμφὶς ἔχοντες, Ap. Rhod. iii. 1069 μνώεο---οὔνομα 
Μηδείης" ὡς δ᾽ adr’ ἐγὼ ἀμφὶς ἐόντος | μνήσομαι, oracle ap. Herod. i. 85 τὸ 
δέ σοι πολὺ λώιον ἀμφὶς | ἔμμεναι. 


422. In handling this geographical passage, Gemoll, with much judg- 
ment, decides that in default of further knowledge the text is to be left 
unaltered. The passage partly coincides with B 591 sg. and 0 294 sg. Strabo 
348 sq. pointedly ignores the Hymn, though he quotes v. 425 (but with 
καλλιρέεθρον and p. 447 πετρήεσσαν instead of καὶ παρὰ Δύμην) as from the 
Odyssey. In view of the abundant extra lines that papyrus is adding to the 
Homeric poems, it is perfectly probable that Strabo found this verse in his 
copies. 

488. νῆα δ᾽ ἔπειτα θοὴν ἐπὶ (ἐπ᾿ M) ἠπείρου ἐρύσασθε. 

Mr. Agar’s θοὴν av’ ἐπ᾽ ἠπείρου to save the hiatus is neat and corre- 

sponding to the wording of 506. 


491. Ilgen’s δ᾽ after πῦρ is unnecessary if we make a comma at θαλάσσης 
and take the two participles with 490; the conclusion then comes with 
natural weight at εὔχεσθαι δὴ ἔπειτα. 


521. Pierson altered ἔμελλεν and τετιμένος into the plural—most need- 
lessly, for while both temple (479, 483) and priests (485) are to enjoy honour, 
the MSS. may be allowed to turn the scale here in favour of the former, 


529. οὔτε τρυγηφόρος ἥδε γ᾽ ἐπήρατος οὔτ᾽ εὐλείμων is certainly harsh, 
but the construction (‘this land is not desirable as corn-producing nor as 
fair-pastured ’) of adjectives qualifying adjectives in amply covered by ν 246 
αἰγίβοτος δ᾽ ἀγαθὴ καὶ BovBoros, where no other translation is possible but 
‘it is good as goat-feeding and as ox-feeding. The conjectures, most of them 
incredible, are collected by Gemoll: Peppmiiller (/.c. p. 275) in an evil hour 
added aid γ᾽ for ἥδε γ᾽! 


538. νηὸν δὲ προφύλαχθε, δέδεχθε δὲ φῦλ᾽ ἀνθρώπων, 
ἐνθάδ᾽ ἀγειρομένων καὶ ἐμὴν ἰθύν τε μάλιστα. 
ἠέ τι τηύσιον ἔπος ἔσσεται, ἠέ τι ἔργον. 
Various attempts have been made to complete the construction of 539. 
Ἰθύν seems too good a word to be given up: it is used tropically in Homer, 
Z 79, ὃ 434 πᾶσαν én’ ἰθύν and π᾿ 304 σύ τ᾽ ἐγώ τε γυναικῶν γνώομεν ἰθύν, 


252 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 


the ‘inclination, bent’ of the women. Here it is peculiarly appropriate to 
the will or guidance of the God, the straight path made plain through the 
oracles of Loxias. The expressions ἐθείῃσι δίκῃσι, δίκην ἰθύντατα εἴποι, 
δίκῃ δ᾽ ἴθυνε θέμιστας are analogous. The word should therefore be kept, 
and here I find myself in agreement with Peppmiiller. I cannot, however, 
accept his parenthesis (δέδεχθε δὲ φῦλα ἀνθρώπων, ἐνθάδ᾽ ἀγειρομένωνλ) : 
rather a lacuna must be made, to contain a verb to govern ἐθύν, a transition 
to the threat of 540, the construction of which as it stands is abrupt, and a 
singular to antecede σὺ---φύλαξαι of 544, I can think of nothing better 
than δείκνυσθε θνητοῖσι, σὺ δὲ φρεσὶ δέξο θέμιστα. Homoeoteleuton of some 
sort naturally is wanted. 


HERMES, 


Critical work on the Hymn to Hermes during the last ten years consists 
for the most part of the labours of one man, Arthur Ludwich. Articles by 
him are to be found in the Rheinisches Museum for 1888, ’89, and ’90, and the 
Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Philologie, 1886, ’87,’88, and ’89, and their results are 
collected in the extremely useful edition of the hymn, Regimontii, 1890. 
Homer owes more to Professor Ludwich than perhaps to anyone else of his 
generation, and it is well that this debt should be put on record at a moment 
when he has lately been the victim of a gratuitous impertinence, not, we may 
be glad to think, on the part of an Englishman.} 

I have also to refer to notes by R. Peppmiiller, Newe Jahrb., 1887, pp. 
201, 805; Herwerden, Rhein. Mus., 1888, p. 73 sg. The myth is well treated 
by Gemoll, and in Roscher’s exhaustive article in his Lewicon. 

The Hymn is admittedly the most difficult of the collection: and this 
not so much on account of its subject, for the story was often treated in 
literature, e.g. by Alcaeus, and accounts corroborative in the main, though 
divergent in detail, remain in Apollodorus, Antoninus Liberalis, Ovid, and 
Pausanias, as from its language and style. The view that the hymn is late 
is generally abandoned: we have rather a specimen of early, half simple, half 
ironic, epos: the style, though admirable narrative on the whole, is in places 
apparently intentionally riddling and dark; absence of cognate literature for 
comparison has produced unusual corruption; the continuity of sense is 
broken in several places, and a large number of voces nihili remain to baffle 
the reader. The attem,‘s of the learned upon them have been more than 
usually unsuccessful. They belong, or seem to belong to the desperate 
category of difficulty, where either there is no corruption and it is our 
knowledge that is at fault, or the corruption is but a step removed from the 
tradition—a step which is beyond our skill to make. I hope closer study of 
these documents may make it plain that violent conjectures do not win 
acceptance, and that the right method is, either that of new interpretation of 


1 I referto P. C. Molhuysen, DetribusHomeri 1896. Mr. Mulvany, Classical Review, June 
Odysseae codicibus antiquissimis. Lugd. Bat. 1897, has overrated this performance. 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 253 


the existing word-forms, or of corrections that approach the type of Mr. 
Agar’s palmary οὐδέ σε λήσει for οὐδέ σε λίσσει, Apoll. 53. 

Lacunas seem necessary at 91, 409, 415, 526, 568, and these expressions 
are either corrupted or still uncertain: ἀναπηλήσας 41, αὐτοτροπήσας 86, 
τὸ σὸν αὐτοῦ 93, περῆν 133, ἤ σε λαβόντα μεταξὺ 159, τιτύσκεαι 163, 
βουλεύων 167, the whole line 188, ἄγρης: elveréov τε 242, ὀφρύσι 
ῥιπτάζειν 279, 282 sq., εὐμυλίη 325, ὅδ᾽ ἐκτός 346, κραίνων 427 and elsewhere, 
μέμηλας 437, θυμὸν ἐπαίνει 457, ἡγεμονεύσω 461, σήματ᾽ ἐπεὶ 509. 

With the higher criticism of the Hymn I have not to do, There is 
however, one peculiarity of the story which must strike every attentive 
reader, the variations in the different accounts of Hermes’ journey with the 
oxen from Pieria to Pylos and Apollo’s search after him, The difficulty is 
real, but I entirely agree with Franke, Gemoll (p. 187 and note on 211), and 
Ludwich ‘ Angebliche Widerspruche im hom. Hermeshymnus’ Neue Jahrb., 
1887, p. 321 sg. that the inconsistency is original and native to the poem, 
It is satisfactory to find literary criticism at length becoming historical and 
taking account of conditions and standards other than those of its own time. 
Tyrrell, 1.0. p. 42 sg. has fallen into a misapprehension with regard to Hermes’ 
descent from Pieria which it is unnecessary to examine in detail. There was, 
of course, only one journey. 

The integrity of the document apart, the geographical outlook of the 
writer is curious; he is very vague as to continental Greece, and evidently 
thought Pieria was connected with Onchestus by a sandy road along the sea. 
This vagueness contrasts with the accuracy of the author of the Hymn to 
Apollo, who gets Apollo’s journey from Euboea to Delphi marked out with 
great correctness. It would be an easy guess that the writer of the Hymn to 
Hermes was a Peloponnesian; the reference to the skin surviving outside 
the cave at Pylos (v. 125) implies connection with the Alpheus country. 
Bergk (Griech. Lit., i. p. 766 n.), upon the same evidence thinks the author 
was an Ionian; so differently do things present themselves to different 


people. 


6. ἄντρον ἔσω ναίουσα παλίσκιον. With Ludwich I restore this, the 
MS. reading. "ἄντρου or ἄντρῳ is needless; xviii. 6 ἄντρῳ ναιετάουσα 
παλισκίῳ has no binding force, and ἔσω is absolute and parenthetic; 
‘inhabiting the cave, within’; cf. 49 ap εἴσω κίε δῶμα, H 13 δῦναι δόμον 
ἀίδος εἴσω, @ 549 κνίσην δ᾽ ἐκ πεδίου ἄνεμοι φέρον οὐρανὸν εἴσω, and other 
passages; Ψ 23 νέεσθαι | αὗτις ἔσω μέγαρον, where the variant μεγάρων 
arises from the same misapprehension, Theocr. Hpigr., 3. 5, ἄντρον ἔσω ° 
στείχοντες. The use being parenthetic can accommodate itself as well to 
rest as to motion: Ilgen brings some exx. of the former sense. 


15. πυληδόκον. Certainly not ‘ porter, as Ebeling, Lez. Hom., and the 
older commentaries, since Hermes never appears in so sedentary a function ; 
but =‘thief’ as Matthiae suggests and Baumeister decides; ef. ὁδοιδόκος and 
(in a different sense) πολεμαδόκος. 

H.S.—VOL. XVII. T 


254 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 


32. πόθεν τόδε καλὸν ἄθυρμα | αἰόλον ὄστρακον ἐσσὶ χέλυς ὄρεσι 
ζώουσα. Tyrrell’s brilliant and humorous ἕσσο must command universal 
acceptance. When τόδε καλὸν ἄθυρμα, αἰόλον ὄστρακον become accusatives, 
the difficulties of construction and punctuation, which had endlessly 
embarrassed the commentators, vanish. 


41. ἔνθ᾽ ἀναπηλήσας γλυφάνῳ πολιοῖο σιδήρου 
αἰῶν᾽ ἐξετόρησεν ὀρεσκῴοιο χελώνης 


In » 


Αἰῶν᾽ literally ‘marrow’ is by a natural semi-comic metaphor ‘ flesh,’ 
which is to the tortoise’s shell what marrow is to the spine: in the sense of 
‘life’ αἰῶν᾽ could not in this sort of poetry be joined with a concrete word 
like ἐξετόρησεν. If then v. 42 expresses the process of clearing the flesh out 
of the shell, we should expect v. 41 to contain the act of killing ; ἀναπηλήσας 
however has resisted all the interpretation and conjectures of the learned. The 
latter, many of them evidently impossible, may be seen ap. Ludwich: Barnes’ 
ἀναπηδήσας is not bad, if the action be unnecessarily violent: Hermann’s 
ἀναπιλήσας is the best and perhaps may satisfy. ᾿Αναπιλεῖν must mean to 
squeeze, and denotes I suppose choking, a possible method no doubt of 
executing the job, though now-a-days we hear more of cutting off the heads 
of tortoises. Πιλεῖν occurs in epos Ap. Rhod. iv. 678 πιληθεῖσα. 


44, ἀνέρος ὅντε θαμιναὶ ἐπιστρωφῶσι μέριμναι. Ruhnken kept @apivai, 
quoting μεσημβρινός, ὀπωρινός, ὀρθινός as instances of ambiguous quantity, 
Blass-Kiihner, Awsfiihrl. Gramm. § '75, 9, Lobeck Pathol. p. 200 sg. Choero- 
boscus in Cramer An. Oz. ii. p. 180 quoted by Lobeck J. ὁ. p. 188 recognises a 
form θαμεινός, and I can bring the derivative of ὑδατ- which in Hipp. 4ér. 
c. 15, 19 is written ὑδατειναί, and has ¢ necessarily long in Matro 79. This 
evidence would incline me, rather than accept Barnes’ θαμειαί (the loss of 
which I cannot account for), to leave θαμῖναί. 


48. πειρήνας διὰ νῶτα διὰ ῥινοῖο χελώνης. Whether we can have πειραίνω 
in the sense οὗ πείρω is a question I would not decide; in any case Matthiae’s 
τετρήνας may be justified by Herod. ii. 11 συντετραίνοντας v. 1. συμπεραίνον- 
ras. Of the words that follow, διὰ puvoto are unanimously considered corrupt: 
κραταιρίνοιο, λιθορίνοιο, ταλαρίνοιο are proposed, but pace Mr. Sikes (Classical 
Review, 1894, April) and Mr. Tyrrell, they do not convince. Why should 
these elegant adjectives have broken up into διὰ ῥινοῖοῖ To my mind 
the second διὰ has driven out another preposition that originally occupied the 
. place of the first; this phenomenon,—where two prepositions occur in the 
same line and one expels the other—may be seen K 54 ῥίμφα θέων παρὰ 
νῆας" ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐπὶ Νέστορα δῖον: for mapa ‘ACHS’ read ἐπὶ; 141 1/60 οὕτω 
κατὰ νῆας ἀνὰ στρατὸν οἷοι ἀλᾶσθε, κατὰ νῆα κατὰ στρατὸν ‘L’; 298 ἂμ 
φόνον, ἂν νέκυας διά 7 ἔντεα καὶ μέλαν αἷμα, ἀνά τ’ ἔντεα Eust. Κατὰ and 
διὰ are exchanged simply Ν 388, σ 341, and for the sequence κατὰ---διὰ οἴ, ἡ 
40 ἐρχόμενον κατὰ ἄστυ διὰ σφέας, Ap. Rho.d, iv. 1002, κατὰ στόμα καὶ διὰ 
πέτρας. Here, of the two, διὰ with ῥινοῖο is clearly the more appropriate 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: TV. 255 


(Hes. Opp. 515 καί τε διὰ pivod βοὸς ἔρχεται): I would therefore write 
meipnvas κατὰ νῶτα διὰ ῥινοῖο χελώνης ‘at, or on, the back, through the 


shell.’ 


58, dv πάρος ὡρίξεσκον ἑταιρείῃ φιλότητι. “Ov πάρος is untranslat- 
able, nor do I see how to explain its corruption from ὡς πώρος the correction 
of I’, nor Clarke’s οὗ πάρος, the sense of which also is poor. A bolder critic 
than I might think of ὁππόσ᾽ dp’. 


79. σάνδαλα δ᾽ αὐτίκ' ἔριψεν ἐπὶ ψαμάθοις ἁλίῃσιν 
ἄφραστ᾽ ἠδ᾽ ἀνόητα διέπλεκε θαύματα ἔργα 
συμμίσγων κ.τ.λ. 


Vv. 79 and 80 have evidently to be brought into grammatical connection, 
and this is most neatly done by Dr. Postgate’s puplv. I had thought of 
making ὄφρ᾽ dot’ (ic. ἀϊστά) out of ἄφραστ᾽, but this word is evidently 
sound and not to be disturbed. "Epayev which Gemoll and others liked, 
never helped. 


83 sg. ᾿Αβλαβέως must mean securely, so as not to come undone and 
trip (βλάπτειν) him. Metaphorically Theognis 1153 εἴη μοι πλουτεῦντι 
κακῶν ἀπάτερθε μεριμνέων | Swe aBraBéws, μηδὲν ἔχοντι κακόν, ‘ without 
a check.’ ᾿Αλεείνων 85 may stand if it can mean avoiding (the toil of) way- 
faring, 1.6. helping him to walk through the sand, but the variants on 361 
lend probability to Windisch’s ἀλεγύνων, ‘preparing. Old τ᾽ ἐπειγόμενος 86 
agrees with this, ‘being, as he was, in haste’ utpote qui festinaret. Tyrrell’s 
αὐτοπορήσας for αὐτοτροπήσας or αὐτοπρεπὴς ὡς though not certain is 
better than the monsters collected in Ludwich’s note, (vol. xv. p. 270). 


88. The other accounts of the myth do not mention Onchestus: 
Antoninus Liberalis gives as the scene the rocks called βάττου σκοπιαί on 
Mt. Maenalus in Arcadia. Bergk’s notion that Onchestus was chosen because 
it was half-way between Pieria and Pylos is too ‘modern:’ it would be 
more to the point to notice that Onchestus wason a rising ground. Really, 
we have as in the hymn to Apollo another lost local legend, and it is curious 
that in both hymns the story attaches itself to the same village. 


90. ὦ γέρον, ὅς Te φυτὰ σκάπτεις ἐπικαμπύλος ὦμους, 
ἢ πολυοινήσεις εὖτ᾽ ἂν τάδε πάντα φέρῃσι. 
καί τε ἰδὼν μὴ ἰδὼν εἶναι καὶ κωφὸς ἀκούσας, 
καὶ σιγᾶν, ὅτε μή τι καταβλάπτῃ τὸ σὸν αὐτοῦ. 

A most enigmatical passage, perhaps intentionally so. The absence of 
construction in 92 makes the lacuna between 91 and 92, started by Groddeck, 
indispensable ; and the absence of this line or lines in its turn makes the 
meaning of 93 doubtful. The purport seems to be twofold: (1) an imper- 
tinence : ‘you will have plenty to drink when these vines bear.’ (2) A hint 
to be blind, deaf, and dumb, as to Hermes and the oxen. Gemoll is perfectly 


right in seeing no threat nor entreaty in Hermes’ language; the whole is 
7 2 


256 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 


ironic. The lacuna might be supplied by a line to this effect, 7 (or ὡς) 
μέλλεις μάλα παῦρα νοῆσαι ἐνὶ φρεσὶ σῆσι, (which I offer as a mere stop 
gap): homoeoteleuton is thus set up, and a construction supplied for 92. 

What are we to make of 93? The context will run: ‘you will some 
day be full of wine, and are like seeing not to see, and hearing to be deaf, and 
to hold your peace except when Καταβλάπτῃ may be either active 
or passive; τὸ σὸν αὐτοῦ may be either nom. or acc. It has often been taken 
to mean ‘your own interests,’ and there is no difficulty in the combination of 
possessive pronoun and genitive, cf. Z 446 ἐμοὶ αὐτοῦ, 490 τὰ σ᾽ αὐτῆς ἔργα, 
and the neuter easily stands for ‘interest, concern’: cf. @ 211 ἕο δ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
πάντα κολούει, Θ 430 τὰ ἃ φρονέων Dion. Chalcus fr. i. 5 τὸ σὸν εὖ θέμενος 
Eur. Her. Fur. 507 τὸ δ᾽ αὑτοῦ σπουδάσας. Still the phrase is harsh, as 
Gemoll says, and also no question of the old man’s good or ill enters into the 
Homeric story; in the later account he was punished, but in the hymn all 
parties go scot free. 

After several years reflection, the passage seems to me to turn entirely 
upon the vineyard and the taunt Hermes gets out of it: ‘when these vines 
bear, won’t you be full of wine! you won’t see what you see, you won't hear 
what you hear: you'll hold your tongue except Except when the 
wine has some similar effect on his speech, 1.6. except when his tongue is 
loosened and he blabs. How is this to be got out of καταβλάπτῃ τὸ σὸν 
αὐτοῦ! I offer τόσον ad τοῦ for consideration: lit. ‘except when you are 
hindered as much in that too,’ sc. τοῦ σιγᾶν. Exx. of βλάπτειν c. gen. are 
supplied by the Lexx. Cf. generally Aesch. P. V. 196 δίδαξον ἡμᾶς, εἴ τι 
μὴ βλάπτῃ λόγῳ, and for the language of 92, 7b. 463 of πρῶτα μὲν βλέποντες 
ἔβλεπον μάτην, | κλύοντες οὐκ ἤκουον. 


94. φὰς συνέσευε for φασὶν ἔσευε is the simple and convincing correction 
of Demetrius Chalcondyles, and needs no tinkering. Now that he was on 
hard ground, he drove his herd head-forward and ‘together,’ not straggling as 
before. 


103. ἀδμῆτες δ᾽ ἵκανον ἐς αὔλιον ὑψιμέλαθρον. 


᾿Ακμῆτες Ilgen, but we have no reason to suppose that cows driven first 
backwards through wet sand, and then forwards across hills and ravines and 
plains all one night would be ‘unwearied.’ In a weak moment I conjectured 
ἄκμηνοι, since Hermes promptly feeds them (105), but I must not fall into 
the habits I denounce. ᾿Αδμῆτες seems to correspond to ἄξζυγες in Ant. Lib. 
23, 3 εἶτα δ᾽ ἀπελαύνει πόρτιας δώδεκα Kal ἑκατὸν Bods ἄζυγας καὶ ταῦρον. 
‘All unyoked they came’: the epithet gives an idea of the value of the 
theft. Certainly the adjective in this place is rather harsh, but cf. ἄφθιυτοι 
ἠγερέθοντο 326. 


109. δάφνης ἀγλαὸν ὄξον ἑλὼν ἐπέλεψε σιδήρῳ 
ἄρμενον ἐν παλάμῃ, ἄμπνυτο δὲ θερμὸς ἀύϊτμή. 


Cf. vol. xv. p. 285, 6. On again considering the passage, I think a 
lacuna between 109 and 110 absolutely necessary. Besides that it is hardly 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 257 


conceivable that in an aetiological account of the origin of fire the essential 
act of friction should be omitted, the word ἄρμενον can only apply to the 
‘recipient’: it is not necessary in order to prune a branch to hold it ‘firmly 
fixed’ in one’s palm: such an action on the contrary is peculiarly appropriate 
to the στορεύς. ’Emédewe over which difficulties have been made, is to trim, 
prune, point: the Lexx. recognise the force of é:—‘to a point, cut down,’ 
in ἐπικόπτειν, ἐπιτέμνειν. ᾿Απέλεψε as Herwerden and possibly others 
prefer, would mean ‘cut off’ the tree; but this is already given in ἑλών. 


116. τόφρα δ᾽ ὑποβρυχίας ἕλικας Bods εἷλκε Ovpate. 


Ὑποβρυχίας is still uncertain; but as the Lexx. give two verbs, 
ὑποβρυχάομαι and ὑποβρύχω meaning ‘to roar or bellow a little, there 
seems no reason to deny the existence of an adjective in the same sense, Or, 
having regard to the humorous style of the hymn, it might be thought that 
the cows in the dark cavern were called ‘drowned, i.e. ‘hidden away.’ In 
any case an alteration like ἐριβρύχους is not to be thought of. 


124, ῥινοὺς δ᾽ ἐξετάνυσσε καταστυφέλῳ ἐνὶ πέτρῃ 
ὡς ἔτι νῦν τὰ μέτασσα πολυχρόνιοι πεφύασι 
δηρὸν δὴ μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἄκριτον. 


The only cognate form to μέτασσα is the feminine, « 221 χωρὶς μὲν 
πρόγοναι χωρὶς δὲ μέτασσαι. I see no reason why μέτασσα may not be the 
neut. pl. used adverbially—‘in the intervening time’; a record of such a use 
is preserved in Cramer, An. Oz., i. p. 280, quoted by Lobeck, Pathol., p. 148, 
ὥσπερ παρὰ τὴν ἐπὶ γίνεται ἔπισσα---οὕτω καὶ παρὰ τὴν μετὰ μέτασσα 
[not μέτασσαι]. Baumeister inserted μέταξε, but the fact that μέταξε has 
given place to μεταξύ (a gloss) Hes. Opp. 394 is no argument for its corrup- 
tion into μέτασσα, a word that must have seemed and did seem nonsense to 
the scribes. “Axptov about which Gemoll doubts, naturally means ‘boundless, 
endless’ and here is adverbial: so 577 ἄκριτον ἠπεροπεύει, Pan xix. 26 
καταμίσγεται ἄκριτα, and very similarly @ 505 τοὶ δ᾽ ἄκριτα πόλλ᾽ 
ἀγόρευον. The expression denotes simple belief: ‘a long, an endless time 
after these things.’ 

As to the facts, the view first expressed by J. P. D’Orville (Jowrnal 
of Philology, xxv. p. 254) and then by O. Miiller (Hyperbor-Rom. Studien, 
p. 310, quoted by Baumeister) seems nearly certain, that the writer of 
the Hymn saw what professed to be these skins, preserved or shewn by 
priests; the commentators speak of caves, at Pylos or in Arcadia, where the 
natural conformation of the rock in some way resembled skins. This miracle 
I must confess seems harder of belief than the conservation of the actual 
hides: but relics in general were abundant in the ancient world; D’Orville 
quotes Ovid Met. viii. 29, and I have noticed the skin of Marsyas Herod. vii. 
26, the Alban sow preserved in brine Varror. r. ii. 4. 18, and Eur. Her. Fur., 416 
τὰ κλεινὰ δ᾽ Ελλὰς ἔλαβε βαρβάρου κόρας | Λάφυρα καὶ σώξεται Μυκήναις, 
and many more instances no doubt can be produced. 


258 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 


132. ἀλλ᾽ οὐδ᾽ ὥς οἱ ἐπείθετο θυμὸς ἀγήνωρ 
καί τε μάλ᾽ ἱμείροντι περῆν ἱερῆς κατὰ δειρῆς. 

To me as to Gemoll περῆν is incomprehensible; certainly περάω cannot 
mean ‘send down,’ and περαίνω seems out of the question: possibly ἱμείροντί 
περ εἶν᾽ ἱερῆς κατὰ δειρῆς. Καθίέημι is quite in place, Ὡ 642 λαυκανίης 
καθέηκα, cf. for the expression T 209 πρὶν δ᾽ οὔ πως ἂν ἐμοί γε φίλον κατὰ 
λαιμὸν ἰείη | οὐ πόσις οὐδὲ βρῶσις. I am aware that καί τε μάλ᾽ 
ἱμείροντί περ εἶν᾽ ἱερῆς involves diaeresis after the third foot and elision of az ; 
if the former objection be fatal perhaps παρεῖν᾽ might stand, ‘admit,’ though 
it is almost burlesque; cf. below 152, and Ge. xxx. 8 περ ἐστι πάρεστι Pp. 
But I prefer my first suggestion. Ludwich’s πιεῖν is not very suitable 
to an ὁσίη κρεάων. 


136. ἐπὶ δὲ ξύλα κάγκαν᾽ ἀείρας; Ilgen needlessly altered ἀείρας into 
ἀγείρας. Hermes we may suppose threw the hands and feet upon the 
embers of his old fire in the κατούδαιος βόθρος ; he then piled more wood 
upon the top, and consumed everything in the heart of the fire. v. 113 
ἐπέθηκεν, and for the general use of ἀεέρω I 214 Σ 615 a 141 ¢ 120. The 
writers neither of this nor of the other hymns object to the assonance 
ἀνάειρε ἀείρας. 


147. Αὔρῃ ὀπωρινῇ ἐναλίγκιος, ἠύτ᾽ ὀμίχλη, ‘like a draught in autumn’ 
is a comparison that comes home to anyone living in a cave or a chalet, but 
there is surely no justification for a mythologist (like Roscher) to see in it a 
proof of Hermes’ original function as God of Wind; cf. £ 20 of a dream ἡ δ᾽ 
ἀνέμου ὡς πνοιὴ ἐπέσσυτο δέμνια κούρης : ὃ 802 a spirit makes an entry very 
like Hermes’—és θάλαμον δ᾽ εἰσῆλθε παρὰ κληῖδος ἵμαντα. Quintus iv. 111 
αὔρῃ ὑπηώῃ ἐναλίγκιος. 


152. λαῖφος ἀθύρων ‘playing with the clothes’ may seem a singular 
phrase, but it is undoubtedly defended by the passive ἀθυρομένη ‘being 
played’ ν. 485, and other accusatives from Pindar and the Anthology may be 
seen in the Lexx. 


159. ἢ σὲ λαβόντα (φέροντα M) μεταξὺ «.7.r. In the Oxford text 
Matthiae’s λαθόντα was adopted as a stop-gap, but it belongs to the class of 
unmotived corruptions, and the right remedy for the line seems quite 
uncertain. Neither Ludwich’s Xdovra μάλ᾽ ὀξὺ nor the lacuna proposed vol. 
xv. p. 287 are convincing; and φέροντα also must be accounted for in any 
conjecture that is to hold water. 


160. Ruhnken’s τάλαν is only ingenious; πάλιν ‘get you back the way 
you came’ is perfectly in point. 


163. τί με ταῦτα τιτύσκεαι. In meaning τιτύσκεαι might well stand : 
to aim is a metaphor easily transferable to words; ταῦτα also as.a cognate acc. 
is possible, but the accusative we is a stumbling block. Before accepting 
Pierson’s δεδίσκεαι one would wish to see instances of the exchange of δ and τ, 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 259 


167. βουλεύων ἐμὲ καὶ σὲ. βουκολέων (Ludwich) or βουκολέειν 
(Gemoll) is exceedingly ingenious and graphically not too far off. 


187. ἔνθα γέροντα 
κνώδαλον εὗρε νέμοντα παρὲξ ὁδοῦ ἕρκος ἀλωῆς. 


Κνώδαλον is usually held to be corrupt, but the conjectures (τρόχμαλον, 
νώδαλον "κώδαλον, etc.) are unsatisfactory, and the passage falls into such 
hopeless confusion without this object to νέμοντα, that perhaps we may allow 
the well-known lines Aesch. !Prom. 462 to save the word. Prometheus 
says :— 


κἄζευξα πρῶτος ἐν ζυγοῖσι κνώδαλα 
ζεύγλαισι δουλεύοντα σώμασίν θ᾽ ὅπως 
θνητοῖς μεγίστων διάδοχοι μοχθημάτων 
γένοινθ᾽, ὑφ᾽ ἅρμα τ’ ἤγαγον φιληνίους 
ἵππους. 


Horses then being excluded, κνώδαλα in Prometheus’ mouth must imply 
oxen and mules, and given the humorous style of the Hymn, one may 
without much violence take κνώδαλον, literally ‘ beast,’ to mean here ‘ox.’ 
"Epos ἀλωῆς is metaphorical, not literal—‘ prop of the vineyard ’—of the 
ox who ploughs between the vines, and draws the grapes and the fodder. 
Translate ‘there he found an old man grazing his ox, the stay of his vineyard, 
on the edge of the road.’ Gemoll’s grammar and agriculture are equally 
strange. 


226. αἰνὰ μὲν ἔνθεν ὁδοῖο τὰ δ᾽ aivorep’ ἔνθεν ὁδοῖο. 


With Franke and Ludwich, Newe Jahrb., 1887, p. 327, n. 15, I quite agree 
that Hermes’ footprints only are intended. The cows Apollo has noticed, v. 
220, and recognised them: the other spoor baffles him, and he expresses a 
naif astonishment ‘wonderful here, and more wonderful there’; Hermes 
‘waddled,’ ἐπιστροφάδην δ᾽ ἐβάδιξεν 210, partly because the cows straggled, 
partly because his peculiar foot-coverings made him flounder. Cf. 357. 


231. Gemoll suggests that the ‘delightful smell’ came from Maia’s fire, 
as that in ε from Calypso’s. This, however, is too ‘literary’; the ancients 
had noses for natural smells, and the fragrance of the Alp is intended here. 
Martial, iii. 65, 4, gramina quod redolent quae modo carpsit ovis. 


239. The transposition ἀνεείλε᾽ for ἀλέεινεν is simple and probable; 
ἀνεείλε᾽, a8 Dr. Postgate pointed out te me, is more correct than ἀνεείλει 
(Lohsee) ; it also represents more exactly the letters of ἀλέεινεν, and this is of 
importance when a metathesis is in question, 


242. ἄγρης" elveréov τε χέλυν ὑπὸ μασχάλῃ εἶχεν. 


Martin’s ἐγρήσσων for aypns εἰν is probable; P 660 for ἐγρήσσοντες 
Ly, M,, Vat.,, have dy-, A551 there seems no variant, v53 ἀγρήσσοντα ‘P. 


260 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 


’Ereds also isa word that has a tendency to dissolve, cf. the variants T 255. 
Read therefore with Martin and Hermann 


ἐγρήσσων ἐτεὸν δὲ χέλυν K.T.X. 


which is a little simpler than ἐτεόν γε" χέλυν δ᾽. Hipponax 89 ἑρμῆ μάκαρ 
καθ᾽ ὕπνον οἶδας ἐγρήσσειν is in point and seems to have escaped the com- 
mentators.. In the line before, it is Barnes, not Hermann, that deserves the 
credit of the excellent conjecture $7, half-confirmed afterwards by y’s 6%. 
Ludwich’s objection, WV. J., 1887, p. 325, n. 10, that in a hundred similar cases 
ὡς, not $7, is used would have weight if the MSS. 6) and δή did not point 
strongly to the rarer word, another instance of which may now be drawn 
from the new fragments of Callimachus’ Hecale (see Ellis, Journal of Philology, 
xxiv. p. 158): in the same fragments φηλητής (spelled φιλητής) occurs. 


258. ὑπὸ yain 
ἐρρήσεις ὀλίγοισι μετ᾽ ἀνδράσιν ἡγεμονεύων. 

Hermes’ subjects have been called by different critics λυγροῖσιν, ἀλυτροῖ- 
σιν, δολίοισιν, ὀλοοῖσιν, φθιμένοισιν (!) “ ψυδνοῖσιν vel potius ψυδροῖσιν (olim 
φήλοισιν vel λιροῖσιν)᾽ (!!). I quote Ludwich’s note, omitting the names of 
the authors of these pearls of learning. 

Mr. Tyrrell, and Boissonade quoted by Franke, defend ὀλέγοισιν, which 
has much point. Hermes will go to Tartarus and.be king among men of his 
own size, 1.6. other bad babies. It is to be presumed that ancient ideas of the 


next world kept a place for children among the ‘ matres atque viri, heroes 
and girls, 


272. βουσὶ per’ ἀγραύλοισι. It is certainly a small step from -σὶ per’ 
to -σὶν ἐπ᾽, yet I think that the MS. reading gives as good a sense as 
Schneidewin’s conjecture. To have passed through the door with oxen is 
even a greater feat for an infant than to have gone out after them, and it is 


the former that Apollo accuses Hermes of when he examines Maia’s house- 
hold stores. 


279. ὀφρύσι ῥιπτάζεσκεν. There is no quotation to support ῥιπτάζειν 
in any connection with the eyes, but it occurs absolutely, in the middle or 
active in Hippocrates of tossing in bed, of patients unable to sleep (e.g. Acut. 
ii. 18), and a substantive ῥιπτασμός exists in the same sense. Therefore, 
since the MSS. give ὀφρύσι, it seems as well to preserve the intransitive use 
here also. Hermann preferred the acc. ὀφρῦς ; the alterations of the excellent 
word ῥιπτάζεσκεν do not need enumerating. 


280. ἅλιον τὸν μῦθον ἀκούων. On ὡς which M ὦ; give instead of τὸν 
and p gives together with τὸν, see vol. xv. p. 304. Tyrrell defends the tradi- 
tion, but ἅλιον predicative is certainly hard, ‘for naught.’ The occurrence of 
ὡς in so many MSS. suggests that it may after all not be a gloss, and that 
emendation should take account of it. ᾿Ακούων is sound, the attempts upon 


it are unsuccessful: Stadtmiiller, who decidedly has not la main heureuse, 
thought of ὑλακτῶν. 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 261 


282. ὦ πέπον, ἠπεροπευτά, δολοφραδές, ἣ σε μάλ᾽ οἴω 
πολλάκις ἀντιτοροῦντα δόμους εὖ ναιετάοντας 
ἔννυχον οὐχ ἕνα μοῦνον ἐπ᾽ οὔδεϊ φῶτα καθίσσαι. 


It is to be wished that a better parallel than Theoer. i. 51 ἀκράτιστον 
ἐπὶ ξηροῖσι καθίζειν (especially as in modern texts the conjecture ἀκρατισμὸν 
or ἀκρατισμὼ is generally printed) could be brought to ἐπ᾽ οὔδεϊ καθίσσαι. 
To ‘seat a man upon the floor’ is an odd expression for to rob; besides that 
oeas the words run may be either subject or object to the verb. A somewhat 
similar odd phrase is ἐπ᾽ ἀκινήτοισι καθίζειν Hes. Opp. 750. The 
Paroemiographi do not help. 


315. ὁ μὲν νημερτέα φωνήν 
οὐκ ἀδίκως ἐπὶ βουσὶν ἐλάξυτο κύδιμον “Ἑρμῆν. 


The alterations of φωνήν into φωνῇ, φωνεῖν, φωνῶν are unacceptable ; 
they belong to the class of petty, unmotived, and therefore unconvincing 
changes. If φωνῶν or φωνεῖν had originally stood, there is no probability of 
it being altered by any reader into -ήν. After Hermann’s brilliant correction 
of φωνῆς into φωρῆς 136, based upon the variation φωνήν, φωρήν 385, the 
same emendation is obvious here (and Windisch already had attempted 
g@pa). The sense will,then be ‘he was attempting to convict Hermes of 
clear theft in the matter of oxen,’ a good Attic construction (ἑλεῖν twa τι) 
which Matthiae seems to have contemplated here. If it be thought too 
forensic my only other suggestion is to return to φωνήν with a lacuna con- 
taining ἑείς or an equivalent word. Οὐκ ἀδέκως, if prosy is sound, ‘ not 
without justice,’ as opposed to Hermes’ ‘arts and crafty words,’ 


325. εὐμυλίη (εὐμιλίη M) δ᾽ ἔχ᾽ Ὄλυμπον ἀγάννιφον. The older con- 
jectures endeavoured to produce a word somewhat resembling εὐμυλίέη ; so 
Heyne’s αἱμυλίη accepted by Ilgen but rejected by Matthiae, Hermann’s 
εὐμελίη or ἐμμελίη, Franke’s εὐελέη. The later attempts desert the letters of 
the MSS. and may well be left unquoted. I will have the courage to inter- 
pret. Hes. Opp. 529 of animals in a storm, καὶ τότε δὴ κεραοὶ καὶ νήκεροι 
ὑληκοῖται | λυγρὸν μυλιόωντες ἀνὰ δρία βησσήεντα | φεύγουσιν. Μυλιεόωντες 
was a rare word and variously interpreted, and Crates indeed read μαλκιόωντες. 
However, the second of the explanations of Proclus seems correct, τὰ χείλη 
κινοῦντες ὑπὸ τῆς ψυχρότητος, chattering from cold ; cf. μοιμύλλω and μύλλω 
which Prellwitz connects with the simple form μύω. When we consider the 
close connection between the vocabulary of the four greater Hymns and 
Hesiod (brought out by Fietkau, De carminum Hesiodeorwm atque hymnorum 
quatuor magnorum vocabulis non homericis, Reg., 1866), perhaps εὐμυλέη may 
express the action exactly opposite to λυγρῶς μυλιοῦν, ‘a pleasant buzz or hum.’ 
The sense (much the same as D’Orville’s στωμυλέη, Journ. Phil. xxv. p. 255) 
would suit the easy style of this Hymn, ‘a pleasant hum possessed Olympus’; 
the gods were exchanging morning salutations, μετὰ χρυσόθρονον 7d. Right 
or wrong, I think this attempt at interpretation better than inventing another 


262 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 


word of the measure οὖ -- and with much timidity I submit it to the 
etymologists. 

326. ΓΑφθιτοι is difficult as a predicate, but finds a parallel in ἀδμῆτες 
δ᾽ ἵκανον v. 103. Groddeck’s ἀθρόοι certainly is quite inadmissible ; the later 
conjectures ὥθετοι, ayy θεοὶ, and Tyrrell’s ἄφθονοι do not, I am afraid, help 
matters. Probably, as Gemoll suggests, ἀθάνατοι is used as a complete 
substantive, qualified by ἄφθιετοι : ‘the Immortals gathered, deathless.’ 


a \ \ \ > > \ fal 
344. τῇσιν μὲν yap βουσὶν ἐς ἀσφοδελὸν λειμῶνα 
> ‘ / 2’ , ? / le 
ἀντία βήματ᾽ ἔχουσα κόνις ἀνέφαινε μέλαινα. 


I see no difficulty in the dative βουσὶν: ‘in the case of the oxen the 
sand, which held them, showed the foot-prints facing the meadow. ᾿Αντίος 
with ἐς is unexampled ; p 333 τὸν κατέθηκε φέρων πρὸς τηλεμάχοιο τράπεζαν] 
ἀντίον is obviously different. One may, I suppose, translate ‘facing 
towards. “Eyouca must mean ‘took and kept. The sentence is as the 
commentators say, awkward; but the antithesis to αὐτὸς δ᾽ οὗτος was the 
cause of its contortion. 


346. αὐτὸς δ᾽ οὗτος ὅδ᾽ ἐκτὸς ἀμήχανος. 

Ὅδ᾽ ἐκτὸς is completely dark. Barnes thought ἐκτός might mean 
‘supra modum’ and Ruhnken gave effect to this interpretation by writing 
éEoy’. The modern conjectures ὀπηδός, ὄλεθρος, ὁδαῖος, etc. are evident stop- 
gaps. Formally Hermann’s ἄϊκτος is still the best, as it makes a good parallel 
to ἀμήχανος, but the sense is poor. ‘O δεκτός and ὅδ᾽ ἑκτός do not promise, 
Can ὁ ἐκτός mean the ‘outsider, stranger, one who is not yet admitted into 
Olympus, according to a sense given by the Lexx. not earlier than Plato? 
Αὐτὸς δ᾽ οὗτος is certainly sound; Apollo’s rage rises in stages: ‘the cows 
have their footsteps the wrong way about, but this, this very ἐκτός here ν᾽ 


849. ὡς εἴ τις ἀραιῇσι δρυσὶ βαίνοι. Δρυσὶ is simple instrumental 
dative, like ποσσὶν and χερσὶν in 346 and 347, ‘as if one walked with trees, 
instead of feet. Solon xi. 5 ἀλώπεκος ἴχνεσι βαίνει, M 207 πέτετο πνοιῇς 
ἀνέμοιο. The conjectures σὺν (Gemoll) ἐν (Herwerden) are needless. 


357. διαπυρπαλάμησεν and 361 ὠμόργαξε are two of Ilgen’s best 
contributions, the former a joining together of διὰ πῦρ παλάμησεν given by 
M (as I should have noticed in Part II.), the latter for the vox nihili ὠμάρ- 
tate. Ludwich, indeed, alone of editors keeps the latter, but his χέρσῳ 
explain who can, 


409 sg. It is impossible not to feel that a certain quantity of matter has 
perished in this context; verbal alteration does not suffice to restore (1) the 
construction and (2) the sense. Under the former head the fem. plur. ταὶ 
410 cannot possibly follow δεσμὰ ἄγνου, even κατὰ σύνεσιν : ἐγκρύψαι 416 
wants an object, and no word can be supplied out of the preceding lines. (2) 
The motive of ‘twisting the chains’ 409 is entirely unexplained, and also 
‘chains’ are not made of agnus castus. Something intervened between 409 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 263 


and 410; the chains were perhaps changed into shoots of willow. Again in 
415 Hermes ‘flashes fire, but in the same sentence 416 he is ‘soothing’ 
Apollo. In short the scene is not stated; we have six lines left from a much 
longer passage. We may think we see what the action may have been, but 
no literature could have left it originally in such obscurity. I therefore leave 
the language as it stands (and every word seems sound), and suppose with 
Baum. two lacunae of unknown size after 409 and 415. 

I conjecture, from the surviving fragments, the course of events to have 
been this. Apollo, irritated at seeing the skins, and inferring that two cows 
were lost from his herd, began to ‘twist strong chains’ in his hands (for 
Hermes, naturally, not for the unoffending cows), They by magic, ἑρμέω 
βουλῇσι κλεψίφρονος, fell off Hermes, or fell to the ground before they could 
be put on him, and turned into shoots of willow, took root in the ground, and 
in a moment (αἶψα) grew up and made a bower or pergola over all the cows, 
at which Apollo, with reason, θαύμασεν ἀθρήσας. Hermes’ next action, to 
‘look askance at the ground, his eyes glancing fire’ is certainly inexplicable : 
his desire ‘to hide’ can only refer either to the skins or to the fat and flesh 
which was stored inside the cave. Lastly, one or the other gap must have 
contained a mention of the lyre, which is referred to without definite intro- 
duction in 417. Πῦρ in 415 is rightly restored by Lohsee and Ludwich for 
Martin’s πύκν᾽ : cf. Hes. Theog., 827 (quoted by Clarke) and Quintus, viii. 28. 
‘Pela te καὶ πάσησιν 412 is well defended by Gemoll with Hes, Theog., 87. 


426. γηρύετ᾽ ἀμβολάδην, ἐρατὴ δέ οἱ ἕσπετο φωνή, 
κραίνων ἀθανάτους τε θεοὺς καὶ γαῖαν ἐρεμνήν. 


Hesych. κραίνειν' τιμᾶν may perhaps establish the meaning ‘celebrate,’ 
‘tell’ which is definitely maintained by Maurophrydes (Kuhn’s Zeitschr., vii. 
346 84., quoted in the Lex. Hom.) here, 531 and 559. Let etymologists pro- 
nounce. The conjectures (e.g. κλείων) are unconvincing and Stadtmiiller’s 
οὐρανόν (adopted by Ludwich) one of the worst that has disfigured a text. 
Ἐρατὴ---φωνή is generally recognised to be parenthetical; parentheses are 
frequent, ¢.9. : 


A 429, οἱ δ᾽ ἄλλοι ἀκὴν ἴσαν, οὐδέ κε φαίης 
/ \ “ Μ ya? 40 iP) / 
τόσσον λαὸν ἕπεσθαι ἔχοντ᾽ ἐν στήθεσιν αὐδήν, 
σιγῇ δειδιότες σημάντορας. 


Herm. 175. 


436. Μηχανιῶτα is analogous to σπαργανιῶτα 310, χαριδῶτα Herm. 
Xviil. 12, εἰραφιῶτα Dion. i. 2,17, 20 Πὰν σκοπιῆτα, Anth. Pal., vi. 34, 5, 
109, 7, λοφιῆτα 79, 1, ὑλειῶτα 106, 1. I see no objection to πονεύμενε 
‘labourer, industrious.’ Apollo as throughout is ironical, and congratulates 
Hermes on the variety of his accomplishments: ‘butcher, trickster, workman, 
minstrel.’ 

Δαιτὸς ἑταίρῃ (Ludwich)is ingenious, but the God may be said to be present 
where his invention is used or at what he inspires ; πονεύμενε δαιτὸς Eraipy 


264 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 


in combination is intolerably prosaic. Cf. Hipponax i. ἔβωσε Mains παῖδα 
Κυλλήνης πάλμυν | ‘Epp κυνάγχα, Μῃονιστὶ Κανδαῦλα | φωρῶν ἑταῖρε. 


437. πεντήκοντα βοῶν ἀντάξια ταῦτα μέμηλας. I can do nothing with 
μέμηλας ; there is no ex. of μέλομαι c. ace. nor in fact of the 2 perf. except in 
the third person. Μεμηλώς (Ludwich) does not ease the construction, μέμηλε 
(Eberhard) lacks sense, and this verb is really not wanted at all; μεμελέτηκας 
or μέμολπας is the sense; Lohsee’s μέλη σά is too desperately ingenious. 
Gemoll has added to the enormity of Stadtmiiller’s ἀνέφηνας by putting it 
in his text. Are there, or are there not, principles of emendation ? 


447, τίς τέχνη, τίς μοῦσα aunyavéwy μελεδώνων ; 


The ‘muse of hopeless cares’ passed muster till Schneidewin, who made 
the prosy and inaccurate alteration ἀμήχανε σῶν μελεδώνων. Hermes’ cares 
were material, and confined to admission among the Olympians. For the 
construction I may quote Franke who shows often excellent judgment: ‘est 
genitivus ut dicitur objecti: cantus contra sollicitudines et curas. ᾿Αμηχανέων 
is not from the unheard of ἀμηχανής, but is gen. fem. from ἀμήχανος; I 
may refer to a list of compound adjectives of three terminations, vol. xv. p. 
261. The word itself is greatly in point, cf. 434 ἔρος ἀμήχανος, Theocr. xiv. 
52 apnyavéovtos ἔρωτος : μελεδῶνας occurs Apoll. 532. Herwerden’s and 
Gemoll’s conjectures, which would destroy the general predication of Hermes’ 
art, will not bear repeating. The sentiment is that of Hes. Theog. 55 (the 
Muses) λησμοσύνην τε κακῶν ἄμπαυμά τε μερμηράων., and the well-known 
lines, Cypria fr. 10 οἶνόν τοι Μενέλαε θεοὶ ποίησαν ἄριστον | θνητοῖς ἀνθρώ- 
ποισιν ἀποσκεδάσαι μελεδώνας. 


453. ἀλλ᾽ οὔπω τί μοι ὧδε μετὰ φρεσὶν ἄλλο μέλησεν 
οἷα νέων θαλίης ἐνδέξια ἔργα πέλονται. 


Θεῶν (Herwerden, Gemoll) is excessively weak for νέων ; the comparison 
is the same as in 55 ἠύτε κοῦροι | ἡβηταὶ θαλίῃσι παραιβόλα κερτομέουσιν. 
Nor is τοῖα (Ludwich) necessary: construe οὔπω μοι ἄλλο TL ὧδε μέλησεν 
ἐκείνων ola θαλίῃς νέων, ἐνδέξια ἔργα, πέλονται (as Matthiae). 


450, 7. νῦν δ᾽ ἐπεὶ οὖν ὀλίγος περ ἐὼν κλυτὰ μήδεα οἶδας 
ἷζε πέπον καὶ θυμὸν ἐπαίνεε πρεσβυτέροισι. 


That M alone preserves these two lines is nothing against. their genuine- 
ness, as indeed has been recognised since Ruhnken’s time: but M’s character 
for uncorrected corruption would admit mistakes in tradition and allow of 
bolder remedies. That some corruption has happened is obvious. 

To take the words in order. {fe is usually accepted, though as Gemoll 
notices, there is no motive for Apollo ordering Hermes to sit down and as a 
matter of fact he does not do so. The first word of a verse is peculiarly 
exposed to corruption, and for instances of loss or addition of initial, cf. Z 185 
δύμεναι, ἔμμεναι ‘Li, 208 Ἴσανδρον, Πείσανδρον Strabo, Hes. Theog. 970, 
᾿Ιασίῳ, ᾿Ασέω and ᾿Ασσίω, Theognis, 477 δείξω, ἥξω and ἥκω, Hippocr. Vet. 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 265 


Med. 22 πίη, ein, in. » Schneidewin tried εἶκε, but this evades the problem ; 
three years ago in the Academy, Sept., 1894, I proposed δῖξε πέπον καὶ θυμὸν 
ἐγεῖραι πρεσβυτέροισιν, 1.6. ‘think twice before’; ἐγεῖραι is a fair uncial 
permutation for ἐπαίνει, but the construction of 8/f@ is always with #, and 
καὶ also is difficult. The accepted method is Ruhnken’s μῦθον for θυμόν, 
but (1) metatheses should be avoided except under the clearest proof; the 
only place in the Hymns where a metathesis seems necessary is v. 256, 
Ilgen’s λαβών for βαλών. (2) μῦθον ἐπαινεῖν, approve or agree to a speech, 
is an odd phrase for general humility; and again, how does sitting come in 7 
(3) the dative in such a construction is unintelligible. Other attempts, to be 
seen in Ludwich’s note, hardly need mention. After much reflection I 
incline to think the sentence springs out of Hermes’ musical accomplishments; 
‘since at your young age you are so clever, use your gifts for the general 
good’; ἦξε will then be of the bard, at the table in Olympia. ‘Sit, and 
the spirit in your elders, The missing word must be an equivalent of 
‘comfort,’ and what but faivey? And this I now see was Schneidewin’s view. 
He read ἴαινε, but the synizesis ἐπέαινε does not seem impossible (Monro, Hom. 
Grammar, ὃ 378 and for the elision of -c cf. wep’ ἐἰγνύος Herm. 152, περεβάλοντο 
Aesch. Ag. 1144, περεσκήνωσεν Ewmen. 637 and schol.), and the rarity of the 
word together with the metrical license will have given ἐπαίνει. 

460. τόδε κρανάϊον ἀκόντιον. That some adjective from x«pdvoy or 
xpaveca is intended I do not doubt; the usual form is xpaveivoy, which Ilgen 
restored. Cf. δορυκράνου λόγχης ἰσχὺς Aesch. Persae, 151. For omission or 
insertion of v cf. the forms of ἐλατιονίδη Apoll. 210; for the quantity 
Kpaveivoy One may perhaps compare θαμιναὶ v. 44. 


460. 


4 \ b] , 
ἢ μὲν ἐγώ oe 
\ ’ ; / ΔΝ e 4 
κυδρὸν ἐν ἀθανάτοισι καὶ ὄλβιον ἡγεμονεύσω 
΄ ϑι 2 \ aA eee / > > / 
δώσω T ἀγλαὰ δῶρα Kal és τέλος οὐκ ἀπατήσω. 


For ἡγεμονεύσω which is enigmatical Mr. Tyrrell suggests ἡγεμόν᾽ εἵσω, 
Mr. Agar ἡγεμόν᾽ ἕσσω. This close coincidence cannot but have weight. No 
advantage results from transposing ἡγεμονεύσω and οὐκ ἀπατήσω, as Ludwich 
after Waardenburg prints. 


471, καὶ τιμὰς σέ γέ φασι δαήμεναι ἐκ Διὸς ὀμφῆς 
μαντείας θ᾽ ἑκάεργε Διὸς παρὰ θέσφατα πάντα. 


This is the punctuation and reading of the MSS., which at Gemoll’s 
suggestion (in his note, for in his text he goes with the majority) I have 
restored. Usually, following Matthiae a colon is put after τιμάς, ye is changed 
into δὲ, and θ᾽ after μαντείας is suppressed. The documentary reading, 
however, gives τιμαί and μάντειαι as two gifts of Zeus to Apollo, and this 
corresponds to the division 531 sg. The accent on παρὰ is best retracted. 


473. τῶν [y, καὶ Map] viv αὐτὸς ἔγωγε παῖδ᾽ ἀφνειὸν δεδάηκα. 


A line unmetrical and most mysterious. The older critics omitted γε to 
help the metre and took ἀφνειὸν often of money ; others tried to turn it into 


266 THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 


something resembling αἰφνίδιος. Hermann’s πανομῴφαῖον (too good), for a 
long time won acceptance. I think most scholars will now admit that τῶν--- 
ἀφνειόν, ‘rich in which’ is sound; but how to deal with até’? I still admire 
the amazing ingenuity of Tyrrell’s wed’ ἀφνειῶν, but after much consideration, 
I think the simplest expedient is to write ἐγώ oe παῖ ἀφνειόν. The ὃ was 
inserted to avoid the apparent hiatus. This is a phenomenon of wide 
occurrence and that shews itself under very different forms: one or two cases 
are collected vol. xv. p. 275, here I may add E 4 δαῖε οἱ, date δ᾽ of T 194 δῶρα 
ἐμῆς, δῶρα δ᾽ ἐμῆς. Lats might be thought precocious in Hermes’ mouth, but 
he calls Apollo κοῦρε 490, and he may have thought like Aristophanes παῖδα 
yap κἂν ἢ γέρων | καλεῖν δίκαιον ὅστις ἂν πληγὰς λάβῃ ( Wasps, 1297). 


479. Gemoll’s ἐπιστάμενος for ἐπισταμένως is very neat, and gives a 
good sense. ᾿Επισταμένην (Barnes) is very bad, and ought not to have been 
adopted so generally. The accusative would never have corrupted into the 
adverb. I agree with Gemoll that the passage 478-480 is sound: Ludwich’s 
transposition of εὐμόλπει and εὔκηλος does not assist. 


485. peta συνηθείησιν ἀθυρομένη μαλακῇσιν. An affected way of 
describing a musical instrument, but the sense is plain: ‘easily played by 
gentle practice,’ the harp will respond to the executant who takes the trouble 
to ‘learn its ways,’ to ‘painful labour’ ἐργασίη δυήπαθος it refuses itself, 
Franke is right with his interpretation conswetudines molles pro consuetudine 
molliter tangendi fides. ᾿Αθυρομένη is nothing but passive. 


497. Ἑρμῇ δ᾽ ἐγγυάλιξεν ἔχων μάστιγα φαεινήν. χων naturally 
offends, but Matthiae’s generally accepted ἔχειν belongs to the category of 
unmotived corruptions, like φωνῶν for φωνήν v. 315. If ἔχειν had been 
original, who consciously or unconsciously would have changed it to ἔχων 7 
Martin’s ἑκών is better, but I venture to write ἑλών, permutation between 
which and ἔχων is graphical, and frequent in Homeric MSS. Δ. E 136 H 
197 (ἑκών) A 488 Ψ 219 Ω 735 a 95 ε 387. 


509. I can make nothing of σήματ᾽ ἐπεὶ. The sense is so complete 
without it that no clue is given to its possible meaning. If it were joined 
with ὡς ἔτι καὶ νῦν a verb would be wanted, but ὡς ἔτι καὶ νῦν (v. 125 ὡς 
ἔτι νῦν) ‘as still now’ requires φιλεῖ and seems a simple expression like 
δηρὸν δὴ μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἄκριτον v.126. If σήματ᾽ belongs to 509 and means 
‘as a token’ it must at least be dative, and its position makes such a sense 
very doubtful. 


526 sq. The transition to direct oration is quite intolerable, ἐκ requires a 
verb, τέλειον is senseless with σύμβολον, lastly the pronoun ce is required. 
So many conditions can only be fulfilled by a lacuna, which might have con- 
tained such a line as αἰετὸν ἧκε πατήρ' ὁ δ᾽ ἐπώμοσεν ἢ σε μάλ᾽ οἷον. Zeus 
to approve of the compact let fly the τελειότατος πετεηνῶν, at sight of which 
Apollo made oath, 


THE TEXT OF THE HOMERIC HYMNS: IV. 267 


558, Schneidewin’s correction ἄλλοτε ἄλλῃ for ἄλλοτ᾽ ἐπ᾿ ἄλλῃ is 
justified by Hes. Opp., 713, where for ἄλλοτε ἄλλον various MSS. give 
ἄλλοτε τ᾽ ἄλλον, ἄλλοτ᾽ ἐς ἄλλον. Desire to avoid hiatus produced 
alike ἐπ᾽, τ᾽ and és. Some other examples are given in Rzach’s note 


ad loe. 


568. The construction here is absolutely broken; one or two lines are 
wanted to pave the way to the orat. obliqua and provide a principal verb for 
ἀνάσσειν. They may, as Gemoll says, have contained a reference to Zeus and 
have run thus: 


ὡς ἔφατ᾽ - οὐρανόθεν δὲ πατὴρ Ζεὺς αὐτὸς ἔπεσσιν 
θῆκε τέλος + πᾶσιν δ᾽ ὁ μὲν οἰωνοῖσι κέλευσε. 


T. W. ALLEN. 


268 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSITA. 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 


Most of the following inscriptions were copied on a tour through the 
country of the Rhyndacus and Macestus in the autumn of 1894. A few were 
added on a hasty visit to Balukiser and Balia in September 1896. I have ar- 
ranged them geographically in a zigzag line, from Brusa westwards to Cyzicus, 
then south-eastwards to Tavshanli and the plain of Simav, and then westwards 
again by Balat, Kebsud, Balukiser, and Balia to the Aesepus. For the 
precise position of the several places, and for topographical details, I may 
refer to a paper by Mr. H. M. Anthony and myself published in the Journal 
of the Royal Geographical Society, February and March 1897. Prof. W. C. 
Ἐς, Anderson, who accompanied me on both journeys, has kindly allowed me 
to compare his readings of the inscriptions with mine, and in one instance I 
have adopted his copy in preference to my own. I have not repeated any 
inscriptions which I have found to be already published, unless I believed 
that I could make material additions or corrections. Many of the following 
inscriptions will appear to be of little or no importance, but in Asia Minor 
much light may be thrown on the ethnology, religion, and civilization of a 
district by mere nomenclature and spelling. The work of Prof. W. M. Ramsay 
has shown how much may be learnt from the epitaphs and dedications of 
semi-barbarous peasants. Several of these inscriptions, however, are of some 
interest, for example No. 27 for political history, Nos. 13 and 67 for historical 
geography, and Nos. 48 and 64 for the religion of the country. 


1. Tachtali, a village about three hours west of Brusa: in the Church of 
Hagios Theodoros. Ornate marble stele with gable and spirally fluted columns, 
2 feet high, 1 foot 10 inches broad. Letters about 1 inch. 


AT A®HTYXH 
᾿Αγαθῇ τύχῃ. 

ΘΡΕΠΤΗΡᾺ Θρεπτῆρα μουσῶν καὶ λόγων κοσμήτορα 
MOYCUIN Kopvodtov οὕτω Φέρμος ἀντημείψατο. 
KAIAOPUIN 

5 KOCMHTOPA The metrical form of the inscription is 

meant as a compliment to Cornutus, from 

KOPNOYTON whom Firmus learnt the art of writing 
OYTU verses. 
ΦΙΡΜΟΓ 


ANTHMEIYATO 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSTA. 269 


2. Tachtali: under a stair outside the Church of Hagios Theodoros, 
Block of coarse marble broken at both ends. Letters about 24 inches, 


¥XANCOITTA εἸὐχάν σοι π[αῖδας καὶ 1 
AIAWNTTAIA π]͵αίδων παΐῖδ[ας 


3. Tachtali: in the floor of the bath. Marble slab, about 24 feet long, 
broken below. Letters about 2 inches. 


+ TIC TOC CEPA ἜἪ Πιστὸς θερά- 
πων εν θα δε πων Θ(εο 0] ἐνθάδε 
KA TAK 4 WANMICO κατάκ[ιται] ᾿Ιωάννης 


ETTIC KoTHGQHOEIC ᾿Επισκόπης. Μηθεὶς 
του τὸν 


4. Akcheler, near the eastern shore of the lake of Apollonia: in a 
lane to the west of the village. Rough boulder. Letters about 24 inches, 
rudely inscribed. 

tn GW) P 
AIADEPON 
TECTONK 
OTA 


Apparently a boundary stone. The character of the writing resembles 
that of another boundary stone, built into the wall of the mosque. See Le 
Bas No. 1095. 


5. Apollonia (ad Rhyndacum): outside the wall, not far from the 
bridge. Fragment of marble column. Letters about 2 inches. 


ΚΑΙΛΙΟΣ Καΐλιος 
LTEKOYNAL Σεκοῦνδος 
ΟΡΗΤΩΡ ὁ ῥήτωρ. 


6. Apollonia: in a wall just inside the gate. Marble block, broken to 
right. Letters 1} inch. 


ΜΑΙ witAAM! Μαϊ[γ]νῶλλα[ν φιλό- 
ΞΟΦΟΝΜΑΓΝ -σοφον Μάγν[ου 
b/AOLOPVOYO’ φιλοσόφου bu[ya- 
TEPAMANIC -τέρα, Μηνίο[ν φιλο- 
-- τοντν ὅ -σόφ]ου γυναῖκα. 


H.S.— VOL. XVII. U 


270 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 


7. Apollonia: (a) in a wall near the gate. Large rough block. 
Letters about 3 inches, rudely inscribed. 


TTP W TOC 


(b) Forming a step to a shop on the other side of the street. Similar 
block, similarly inscribed. 
TEXEIAI 


8. Apollonia: in a stair leading down to the shore. Round marble 
pillar, broken below. Letters about ? inch. 


AT A@HITYXHI ᾿Αγαθῆι τύχηι. 

TAICANOAICTHC ταῖς avoais τῆς 
ΘΕΟΥ θεοῦ 
€IMIANOCOAKT//// ‘E[p]ucavos ὁ ᾿Ακτ[ίου 
5 ZHCACATIEAUKEN 5 ζήσας ἀπέδωκεν 

€YXAPICTHPION εὐχαριστήριον 
TAWTAKAITONBW Ta ὦτα Kal τὸν Bo- 
MONETTIIEPEIAC -μὸν ἐπὶ ἱερείας 
TIPOC/////////THC [τῆς δεῖνος] 


dvoais apparently for ἀνωγαῖς the y being softened to y, as often in modern 
Greek. 


9. Apollonia: ina house. Marble stele, broken above and at both sides, 
Beneath the inscription is a panel (74 x 7 inches) containing a relief of a lady, 
seated to right, holding a child in her lap, while a maid facing her presents a 
basket. Letters } inch. 


A ATTON 
ANAPOY AZKAH 
XAIPE 


10. Apollonia: in a house. Rough marble fragment, broken above and at 
both sides. Above the inscription are carved the talons of an eagle in high 
relief. 

ONTAGHHGOE  « gan τῆς Θεί..... εὖ- 


ΧΗΝ -χῆν. 


11. Apollonia. Copy communicated by a dealer in Brusa. Stone 
described as a square base, with mouldings above and below, broken to left. 


ΑΓΑΘΗΙ TYXHI ᾿Αγαθῆι τύχηι. 

AYTOKPATOPI Αὐτοκράτορι 
ΣΑΡΙΑΔΡΙΑΝΟΙ Καί]σαρι ᾿Αδριαν[ὦ }ν 
ΜΠΙΩΙΣΩΤΗΡ ᾿Ολυ]μπέωι σωτῆρϊἰ: 


ΙΚΚΑΑΙΚΤΙΣΤΗ καὶ κτίστηἰι. 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 271 


The titles σωτὴρ καὶ κτίστης were often given to Hadrian by grateful 
communities. Compare 6... Perrot, La Galatic, No. 59, and Le Bas, No. 
1721a. 

The great inscription built into the walls of Apollonia (Hamilton, No. 
304, Le Bas, No. 1068), is a testimony to the munificent patronage of 
Hadrian, 


12, Ulubad (Lopadium): in the café. Fragment of marble block, 
broken on all sides. Letters about 1 inch. 


AKAIIEPHZAMENUNKAIN, 
NTATQANIZBAL TANEYTE 
AIIEPOMNHMONIIEZEANTAAI 
TEL TATAKAILE TPATUII: 
ΤΊ λ 
καὶ ἱερ[ευ]σάμενον καὶ ν[εωποι- 
-noalyta τῶν Σ[ε]βαστῶν εὖ τε [καὶ καλ- 
-ῶς κ]αὶ ἱερομνημον[ἤσαντα δὶΪς ev- 
-πρε]πέστατα καὶ στρατηγήσαντα 


Doubtless from Cyzicus, like other stones at Ulubad. See Cichorius, 
Sitzungsb. der Berl. Akad. 1889, p. 367. 


13. Mikhalich: built into the corner of the Ulujami mosque, rather 
high up. Published by Cichorius, Ath, Mitth. xiv. p. 248. My copy presents 
such curious differences that I give both versions side by side. 


Dr, Cichorius. My copy. 
ETINOTONAY (a) €TANOTONAV 
NAIM ον Ἄπολις νὰ μιον ἅπολις 
έ 6 (Ὁ) On the other face of the same stone. 
PA TA © 
δ - 
ΠΩ Δ 


Dr. Cichorius’ suggestion that MTTOAIC stands for Μιλητόπολις is 
extremely probable, but if my reading is correct, and it is confirmed by Dr. 
Cichorius’ own reading in (Ὁ), we have to restore Με(ιλητό)πολις, cf. 
Μειλάτης, Aristides, Or. xxv. p. 499 (Dindorf). 

can scarcely mean anything but ὅρος. 
The initials below I would interpret as Πο(ιμανηνῶν) and Με(ιλατῶν). 
Stones travel far over the plains of Mysia, as Dr. Cichorius knows. He 
“has not identified Miletopolis with Mikhalich simply on the evidence of this 
inscription, but other people have done so. The identification is probable 
υ 


272 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSTA. 


enough on other grounds (although I cannot convince myself that Melde near 
Kirmasti is an altogether improbable site for the Milatian town), but the fact 
that a boundary stone, which once delimited the very wide territories of 
Poemanenum and Miletopolis, is found built into a mosque at Mikhalich, 
is obviously insufficient proof of it. Poemanenum seems to have lain far to 
the west. Probably Miletopolis and Poemanenum enlarged their borders at 
the expense of the decayed Cyzicus. Perhaps the first two lines of the 
inscription may be read as ἐπὶ νότον Δυνδέμου (1.6. Δινδύμου) Μειλητόπολις. 
But until the readings have been verified interpretations are premature. 


14. Mikhalich: built into the wall of a mosque, high up. Fragment of 
marble block. Letters about 1 inch. Published, less completely, by 
Cichorius, Ath. Mlitth. xiv. p. 248. 


=ZTPATO +) SP OTpATO sa 
INOPANOYMHTPOANPOYASKAI Μηνοφάνου Μητροδώρου ᾿Ασκλ[ηπιαδου 
\IPE XAIPE ΧΙ! χ]αῖρε. χαῖρε. χαῖρε. 
ΡΥΚΗΝΝΕΚΎΕΣΣΙΝΚΕ νεκύεσσιν 
‘TATPIAQAEXETEIS θυ]γατρὶ δωδε[ κ]ετεῖ 
QNHIENEZTEOPHN ἤιεν ἐς τέφρην 
QNNEKYONTIPOYK τ]ῶν νεκύων 
ΛΔΡΘΕΝΟΣΕΥΓΕΝΕ π]αρθένος εὐγενέϊτης 
ΟΦΡΑΜΕΤΑΥΘΙ ὄφρα μεταῦθι[ς 
~OMENON 


The verses are too fragmentary for restoration. 


15. Mikhalich: in the pavement in front of the door of the Garibche 
mosque. Fragment of stone block, broken to left. Large letters. 


A 
KAI 
ZINOT eres rete ἐὰν δέ τις 
ΤΟΛΜΗ τολμήσ[ῃ ἕτερον θεῖναι δώ- 
Σ ΕΙΤΩΦΙ -σει τῷ φίσ[κῳ δηνάρια---. 


16. Mikhalich: in the same place as the preceding. Similar stone. 


Similar letters. 
pounder εἰ N 
A-FEHETEPONI 


KI AYTIOXOZEZTAIT 
XIAZEKAHMATI 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 


bo 
~I 
ws 


ie AXb)s €repov .... 
. ὕποχος ἔσται τ[ῷ τῆς τυμβωρυ- 
-χίας ἐ[γ]κλήματι 


17. Yenije Keui, between Mikhalich and Panderma: in the pavement 
in front of a house. Fragment of a marble sepulchral relief of the Funeral 
Feast type. Letters (below the relief) about 3 inch, almost effaced. 


MENEKPA ΠΕΡΜΟ Μενεκρά[τε]ι ᾿ Ερμο[τίμου 


18. Omar Keui, on the verge of the plateau above Panderma: in the 
cemetery above the village. Milestone of coarse marble, much weathered. 


DONN DDNN 
CONSTANT LVALENTINANVS 
VICTORI ETFLVALENS 
VIC TORES SIMPEIAVGG 


ETFLCONS M Η 


CONSTANTIOET 
CONSTANTIN B ETNOBILL 
OBIN COeCTAN 


MH 


ΜΠ 


There seems to have been a third inscription on the same stone, but only 
faint traces of it remain. We made out an isolated CAKES, but nothing 
more, by the light we had. 

The inscriptions are probably to be restored as :— 


(1) D(ominis) n(ostris) (3) D(ominis) n(ostris) 
ΕἸ. Constant[ino Fl. Valentin[iJanus 
victori [ac et Fl. Valens 
[triumfatori] s[e]mpe[r] Aug. = victores s[e]mpe[r] Augg. 
et ΕἸ. Cons[tantino et M. ἡ. 

ΕἸ.] Constantio et 

F].] Constanti n[o]b[b. ac (2) et nobil. [Caes.] 

flJo[re ]n[tiss. Caes(aribus) Co[n]stan[tio 
Mi. ἡ. 
VIII. 


I suppose that the fourth line of (1) has been worked into (3) with the 
substitution of. victores for triwmfatori, and take (2) to be a later addition to 
(1) with reference to Constantius Gallus. 


274 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 


The caput viae must be Cyzicus, which is quite ten miles from Omar 
Keui, so the stone has been carried. The stone probably belongs to the road 
from Cyzicus to Pergamum via the Macestus valley and Hadrianutherae. 
Other milestones probably to be referred to this same road have been found 
at Debleki, some miles to the south of Omar Keui, and at Chamandra, on the 
left bank of the Macestus, three hours above Mikhalich, 6.1.1. iii. 7179-80 
and 463-5. 


19. Aksakal, about fifteen miles from Panderma on the Susurlu road : 
in the fountain. Marble block, 1 foot 10 inches x 2 feet 2 inches. The 
inscription is over a much damaged relief, in which there is a serpent coiled 
about a tree. Letters inch. There was more both before and after these 
lines, but illegible. 


KAIZYIEQTTAPOAEITAXAPOIZOTITOYTO 
TOKOINONEITTAZEMOIXAIPEINENEKEN 
EYZEBIH> 


a 4 5 nr ΄ ee lal \ , 
καὶ ov [γ]ε, ὦ παροδεῖτα, χάροις, ὅτι τοῦτο TO κοινόν 
εἶπας ἐμοὶ χαίρειν, ἕνεκεν evoeBins. 


20. Panderma: outside the Church of the Trinity. Marble relief, bust 
of a lady, with inscription below. 


YTTOMNHMA “Ὑπόμνημα. 
“TITIMIA- AYPHAIA-W Σε]πτιμίᾳ Αὐρηλίᾳ ’Q- 
ΞΛΙΜΗ: ΜΑΡΙΚΟΓ -ΟΥ̓ΑΗΙ -φ]ελίμῃ Μάρκος Οὐαϊλέρι- 


ΤΡΟΦΙΜΟΓΤΗΓΛΥΚΎΤΑ -ος] Τρόφιμος τῇ γλυκυτά[τῃ 
YNBIWZHCACHETHME 5 σ]υνβίῳ ζησάσῃ ἔτη μ' ε΄ 
IEIAC PIN μυ]είας [χάϊ]ριν. 


21. Panderma: in a wall outside the Church of the Trinity. Small 
marble sepulchral relief of the funeral feast type, broken to left. 


NEQNTPODIMHEQE 


OYTOYFAYKQNOEIr YNH 
XAIPE 
ἜΝ ΡΝ ΔΝ. . . « Τροφίμη Σωσ- 
-ιβίου θυγάτηρ. . . 2Jov τοῦ Γλύκωνος γυνὴ 
χαῖρε. 


I give Mr. Anderson’s copy, which seems to be more complete than 
my own. 


22. Panderma: in a wall outside the Church of the Trinity. Small 
marble sepulchral relief, broken above, with two panels: (a) upper panel, 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 275 


funeral feast ; (6) lower panel, man riding, followed by a boy who holds the 
horse’s tail. Letters 1 inch. 


<!tVIOKAITIATEPIQN 
XAIPE 


ὁ δεῖνα Διονυ]σίο[υ] ὁ καὶ Πατερίων 


χαῖρε. 


23. Hammamli Keui, above Cyzicus: in the steps at the door of the 
mosque. Marble base. Letters 1} inch, 


EYDHMOY Εὐφήμου 
ΤΟΥΜΕΙΔΙΟΥ τοῦ Μειδίου. 


24, Edinjik: ἴῃ ἃ yard, Round marble cippus, Letters 11 to 1 inch. 


YTOMNHMA Ὑπόμνημα. 
NYNPEPQTOLOKAINIKANOP Νυνφερωτὸς ὁ καὶ Νεικάνωρ 
ΝΜΙΙΚΟΠΟΛΕΙ HENEIKHZAZAPENL Νεικοπολείτης νεική[σ]ας "Apews 


ΝΕΙΚΑΣΕΩ ΔΕΑΠΟΚΕΙΜΑΙ͂ΤΡΟ νείκας ve’ ὧδε ἀποκεῖμαι. Τρο[φίμη 
EYNBIOLEKTANIAIQNMEIALXAP ὅ σύνβιος ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων μνείας χάρ[ιν. 
ΤΙΣΔΑΝΑΔΙΚΗΣΗ ΤΟΝΒΩΜΟΝ τίς δ᾽ ἂν ἀδικήσῃ τὸν βωμὸν 
ANE ELEIE TANTTOAINXP δώσει εἰς THY πόλιν χρ[ήματα. 

XAIPE ETTAPOAEITAI χαίρετε παροδεῖται. 


25. Edinjik: an inscription published (΄.1.6(. 11. 3678; by Hamilton, 
Researches, vol. ii. No. 306; and best by Lolling, Ath. Mitt. ix. p.19. The 
marble block on which it is written has been bored through, and now forms 
the mouthpiece of a well. 

Lolling’s interpretation runs :— 


πολ]͵]λάκις [τε τειμηθεὶς πρ]οβλ[ηθέντων 
πολλ]ῶν ἄλλαις τε τει[μα]1}ς] κ[ αὶ 
μ]υσταρχίαις πολλαῖς. 


My copy, which shows rather more than Lolling’s, confirms his interpre- 
tation in all but two points. (1) I doubt whether there is room for the te in 
the first line, and suspect that it may have crept in from the second. (2) I 
read the end of the first line as Y . OBA, which is inconsistent with Lolling’s 
restoration. Considerations of space are also against it. Hamilton read the 
last letter as A. I would suggest [τειμηθεὶς] ὑ[π]|ὸ AlacliAé]wv x.7.r. The 
inscription belongs to Cyzicus, and the βασιλεῖς at Cyzicus seem to be sacred 
officials of the μύσται. See for example C.Z.G. ii. 8663, with Boeckh’s notes. 


276 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 


26. Chepne, near the north-west corner of lake Manias: near the well. 
Small marble cone with a disc-like top, standing about two feet out of the 
ground. Letters 1} inch, very irregular. 

+ WPOOECIA 
YAPEWNEI! 
-AIWSTITAZIC 
OEWZOSOV 
A PEAT IC 
ὡρο[θ]εσία is plain, and the second word may be Ὕδρέων, but I can make 
nothing of the rest. f 

27. Eski Manias: in the south wall of the castle, rather high up. 
Large marble block, upside down. Published, but from incomplete copies, 
by Dorigny, Rev. Arch. xxxiv. p. 106, and by Mordtmann, Ath. Mitth. xv. 


p. 156. 
OIENTHIASIAIAHMOIKA////AEOW// 


KAIOIKATANAPAKEKPIMENOIENTHITIP//// 
POMAIOYEOIAIAIKAITQNAAAQNOIEIPE// 
MENOIMETEXEINTONZEQTHPIQN KAI 
5 MOYKIEIQN δ)ιᾶΈετιμησαν 
APOETPATONAOPKAAINNOZANAPAALAOONTE 
NOMENONKAIAIENENKANTATIIZTEIKAIAPETH 
KAIA////AIOZYNHKAIEYSEBEIAIKAITIEPITOXON 
ZYNDEPONTOSTHNTTAEISTI//NEISENHNED ME 
‘10 NONETTOYAHNKAITIOAAAKAIMELr AAATIEPITIO// 
HEANTATOIZKOINOIZ TOYZ YNEAPIOYTIPATMA 
ZINTQANITPOZSAOZANKAIMNHMHNAIQONIOI 
. ANHIKONTOQNAPETH//////////////IKAIEYNOIAS 
THZEEZEAYTOY 
Οἱ ἐν τῆι ᾿Ασίαν δῆμοι κα[ὶ τ]ὰ ἔθν[η 
καὶ οἱ Kat’ ἄνδρα κεκριμένοι ἐν τῆι πρ[ὸς 
“Ῥωμαίους φιλίαι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οἱ εἰρη- 
-μένοι μετέχειν τῶν Σωτηρίων καὶ 
Μουκιείων ἐτίμησαν 
“Ἡ]ρόστρατον Δορκαλίωνος ἄνδρα ἀγα[θ]ὸν γε- 
-νόμενον καὶ διενένκαντα πίστει καὶ ἀρετῆ[ι 
καὶ δ[ικ]αιοσύνη[ι] καὶ εὐσεβείαι καὶ περὶ ταῦ κο[ι]ν[οῦ 
συνφέροντος τὴν πλείστ[η]ν εἰσενηνεγμέ- 
10 -νον σπουδὴν καὶ πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα περίπο[ι- 
τήσαντα τοῖς κοινοῖς τοῦ συνεδρίου πράγμα- 
-σιν τῶν πρὸς δόξαν καὶ μνήμην αἰώνιοϊν 
ἀνηκόντων ἀρετῆΪς ἕνεκεν] καὶ εὐνοίας 
τῆς εἰ ἐς] ἑαυτούϊς. 


or 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 277 


The first five lines, which form the heading, are rather shorter than the 
rest. There is not space for Dr. Mordtmann’s addition καὶ ai πόλεις to the 
first line. In line 6 Dorigny and A. D. Mordtmann were no doubt right in 
reading the first letter as ἢ, In line 8 I am inclined to trust my copy for 
the combination of Ὑ and K, for which there is a reason in the lack of space. 
Owing to the position of the stone or the light upon it there is some difficulty 
in detecting the letter |, a fact which I noticed at the time of copying and 
find confirmed by a comparison of the three versions, 

The Μουκέίεια are the festival in honour of the famous Q. Mucius Scaevola, 
governor of Asia about 98 B.c. Cp. Cicero, im Verr. Act 11. 11. 21 51, 
Mithridates in Asia..... Mucia non sustulit. 

It is, I think, probable that Herostratus was the agent sent by Brutus to 
Macedonia (Plutarch, Brut. 24, εἰς Μακεδονίαν ἔπεμψεν ᾿ΗἩρόστρατον οἰκειού- 
μενος τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν ἐκεῖ στρατοπέδων), and the inscription may date from the 
spring of 42 B.c. when Brutus was in Asia organizing the province in his 
interest and equipping a fleet at Cyzicus, (2b. 28). 

I have elsewhere given reasons for rejecting the idea that Poemanenum 
was at Eski Manias, and for believing that the inscribed stones there have 
been brought from Cyzicus. 

The mention in an inscription which is evidently of pre-Augustan date of 
a συνέδριον representing the communities and associations in Asia is of some 
interest as bearing on the origins of the κοινὸν τῆς ᾿Ασίας. In the somewhat 
vague and loose expressions περὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ συνφέροντος τὴν πλείστην 
εἰσενηνεγμένον σπουδὴν and πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα περιποιήσαντα τοῖς κοινοῖς 
τοῦ συνεδρίου πράγμασιν, there is nothing to invalidate the view so lucidly 
set forth by Dr. Brandis in the new edition of Pauly’s Real-encyclopddie, pp. 
1556-7, that, before Augustus, meetings of representatives of the whole pro- 
vince were merely occasional, to transact a particular piece of business which 
happened to turn up and seemed to require common action. Yet to my 
mind the set formulae of the heading (which recur in other inscriptions), the 
πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα ascribed to Herostratus, the comprehensive τοῖς κοινοῖς 
πράγμασιν, and the familiar reference to τὸ συνέδριον, suggest that the 
sessions of the assembly were no longer extraordinary, but habitual, if not 
regular, and its business was already enlarged beyond special occasions to 
current affairs of general interest. 

On other points it is enough to refer to the comments of M. Dorigny and 
Dr. Mordtmann, and to the parallels quoted by Dr. Brandis. 


28. Kassaba Kirmasti. An inscription published in Le Bas and 
Waddington No. 1764 a, by Perrot, La Galatie No. 63, and by Cichorius, Ath. 
Mitth. XIV. p. 251. 


Λεωνίδης κὲ ΓΑμίμ]ιον οἱ γοναιεῖς ᾿Αλεξάνδρῳ 

τέκνῳ καταθυμίῳ μνήμης χάριν: (leaf) 

ὃς ἂν τὴν στήλην ἀφανίσει ἢ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ γε- 

-γλυμ[μ]ένα ἢ μετάρῃ αὐτὴν, αὐτὸν ἐξώλη καὶ γέ- ᾿ 
-νος αὐτοῦ. 


278 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSTIA 


The Γ in γοναιεῖς is still legible although the stone is damaged. 
Cichorius is perhaps right in explaining this strange form as a mistake of the 
stonecutter’s, who wrote ΑἹ and then corrected it by adding ΕἸ, or possibly 
(I think) doubled the N into ΝΑΙ. Cichorius has done good service in getting 
rid of the place-name ‘Oeonaea,’ into which Waddington was betrayed by 
Vernouillet’s copy, and has corrected some other errors. But he has introduced 
some fresh ones of his own. He has substituted @ for Q throughout. In 
line 2 he has changed μνήμης into μνείας. In line 3 he has omitted the final 
re, And he has tacked line 5 on to line 4. 

The grammatical constructions of the imprecation are not elegant. With 
the second clause we have to understand γενέσθαι. 

The sketch of the stone with its two reliefs given by Perrot is fairly 
good, I have compared it with a photograph and find that the only impor- 
tant omission is a wreath in the right hand of the seated figure facing to right 
in the upper panel. 


29. Kestelek: in the yard of the old konak. Thick marble slab, forming 
the lowest step to a wooden stair. Letters 3 inch. Above the inscription is 
a panel 164 inches long, 10? broad, containing a relief. A male deity stands 
en face wrapped about the waist in a himation. He holds a spear in his left 
hand, a patera in his right. | Opposed to him is an eagle on an altar, in front 
of which a servant sacrifices an ox, while another behind it bears a tray 
of offerings. Behind the eagle stands a male figure in an attitude of adoration. 
Only the ends of the lines of the inscription are legible. 


KANQKAIFO 

ENIAZIAAI 
PPOYZTPATH 
ΑΣΤΗΣΕΙΣ 


90. Kestelek: in the yard of a house. Marble stele broken below. 
The inscription is between two reliefs; the upper is a funeral feast of man 
and wife carved in a square panel surmounted by a gable, in which is an altar, 
and flanked by fluted Ionic columns; the lower, under a round arch, is broken 
away, but traces of two heads remain. On the top of the arch is a small 
male figure carrying a big goblet, at each side is a small female figure. 
These figures interrupt the inscription, which is irregularly engraved over an 
earlier epitaph imperfectly erased. The upper panel measures 1 foot 5 
inches high, and 1 foot 7 inches broad including the columns. Letters 
1 inch. 

AAAAOYTATHP OTAKIAIOZ 


Elder AZKAA A.NHP Younger 
Girl. Boy. AAAAS Girl. 
AEKMOS CNAIZ 


The names seem to refer to the figures. Adda is the wife at the foot of 
the couch, Oraxddvos ἀνὴρ Λάλας her husband reclining, θυγάτηρ "Ασκλα 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSTA. 279 


seems to be the left hand figure over the arch, Γναὶς the right hand figure, 
and Aéxpos the boy with the goblet. 


31. Narlinar: beside a fountain in the village. Fragment of marble 
block with moulding above, broken on both sides and below. Letters 
1 inch. 


YTATPIAI Τῇ ἑαυτο]ῦ πατρίδι 
GPEREDRO! ‘orth... Jos ᾿ΕΓχ]έφρο[νος 
a ee νοὶ Ἰίτης , 
ΓΑΙΒΑΙΟΜ 
ΥΕΣΟΥ 
IKAIENO 
ΓΕΜΑΙΡΙῚ 
ΙσΣστιαδα α 
THMEP 
(EMT 
\PRIKI 
AUK. 


an 


32. Beyje: in the pavement of the main street. Marble slab, broken 
above and to right. Letters about 1 inch. 


Mas ae 

TWEA*1 τῷ; ἑαυτ[ῆς συνβίῳ 1 

MAKPOBIWO¥ MaxpoBip.... 

THINXAPINEXOMEN τὴν χάριν ἐχομέν[η 1 

ὙΠΕΡΠΟΛΛΙΙΓΤΕΙΜ ὑπὲρ πολλῆς τειμ[ῆς, 
MNEMECXAPIN μνήμης χάριν. 


33. Tavshanli: in the Armenian cemetery. Marble sepulchral stele of 
the door type. The door is between fluted pilasters surmounted by an arch 
and gable. In the tympanum of the arch is an eagle, in the gable above, a 
floral pattern. The door has six panels. In the left uppermost panel is a 
tablet, in the right a wreath and a keyhole; the middle panels are filled with 
a geometrical design, a circle in a lozenge; the bottom panels represent 
gratings. The inscription runs round the face of the arch. Letters } inch. 


AAMOZENOSTIAIAEYTHZEEAYTQIZQN 
Aapokevos παιδευτὴς ἑαυτῶι ζῶν. 


The writing tablet doubtless refers*to Damoxenus’ profession, — 
The prevalence of the door type of tombstones on the upper Rhyndacus 


280 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 


and its rarity to the west of this region indicate a difference in beliefs about 
the dead, and this difference of belief probably indicates a difference in 
population. The dividing line is marked by the rock Tomb at Delikli Tash 
about two hours west of Tavshanli, the westernmost of the great Phrygian 
tombs, And the Delikli Tash tomb is itself a testimony to the antiquity of 
the type in the locality. The plains of the upper Rhyndacus belong 
geographically to the Phrygian country to the east. They are cut off from 
the Mysian country to the west by the rugged district enclosed between the 
Rhyndacus and the Macestus. 

The great number of tombstones of this type at Tavshanli and Moimul 
naturally leads one to suspect the neighbourhood of some important ancient 
city, but I am not convinced that the stones may not have been brought 
from Aezani, where the same type prevails. 


34. Tavshanli: in the Armenian cemetery. Pillar of coarse marble. 
In the top, which is cut square, is an arched niche with fluted pilasters, 
containing a relief of a male figure standing en face, with long hair, and a 
staff in his left hand. The first inscription is poorly cut below the niche. 
Beneath it is an ornate capital of late type, and on the shaft below is the 
second inscription. Letters inch and 1 inch respectively. (a) is broken to 
right, (Ὁ) to left. 


(a) YTEPTHS OYKY 
CW THPIACAOYKIO 
AIOYITAPAAAA XPHCT 
ATEAl = [APOZHNWEY. 


“Ὑπὲρ τῆϊς τ]οῦ κυ[ρίου 1 
σωτηρίας Λουκίου [. .. 

-δίου Ἰ]αρδαλᾶ χρηστο[ῦ 
ἀ[π]έϊδωκεν] 'Ιαροζήνω εὐχ[ὴν 


KAITOY Avi CANECTHCE καὶ τοῦ! ..... Ἰς ἀνέστησεν. 
(0) HNOTENOYC ... Z]nvoyévous 
ENOYC ... ylevous 


35. Tavshanli: built into a fountain in the bazaar. Marble tombstone 
of the door type, with the inscription on one of the panels. Letters about 
1 inch. 


EB=PMHAPTEM “E(rous) B’E'p’ μη(νὸς) ᾿Αρτεμ- 
EICIOYZK.ACKAHTTIA -εἰσίου On’. ᾿Ασκληπιά- 
AHCKAITIMOOEOLCKAI -δης καὶ Τιμόθεος Kai 
AEKMIOCAIODANTOLKA Δέκ[εμ]ος Διόφαντος κα- 
ΙΕΥΝΟΙΓΤΑΤΙΩΜΗΤΡ -ἰ Εὔνοις Τατίῳ Μητρ- 
ΟΔΩΡΟΥΜΝΗΓ. -οδώρου μνή[ μη]ς 


ΕΝΕΚΕΝ ἕνεκεν. 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSTA. 381 


The stone-cutter has shifted the circumflexes over the numerals, one 
letter to the left, transposed ἐμ in Δέκεμος, and omitted μὴ in μνήμης. 

Assuming that the Sullan era is used, and that the mouth Artemisios 
corresponds to February (see Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. i. 
p. 204), the date is Feb. 27th, Α.}. 78. 


36. Tavshanli. Marble stele of the door type, now converted into a 
fountain. Inscription round the arch. Letters 1 inch. 
TIPEIMOCKAITATEIGNMHTPO IIpetuos καὶ Ἱ᾿Γατείων Mnrpo- 
III L/MNHMHC>////P1N -δώρωι] μνήμης [χά]ριν. 
97. Tavshanli: built into a fountain in the bazaar. Marble architrave 
or lintel, broken at both ends. Letters about 2 inches. 
IKAICFENETHP .. ALYIEIE//ECK - 
καὶ yeveThple κ]αὶ υἱεῖ. 


Probably Christian. _ 


38. Moimul. Stele of the door type, with double gable. Published by 
Perrot, Za Galatie, etc., No. 68. 


Left arch. MIOPHCTATIWFYNAIKICWIA 
Right archh MNHMHCXAPINKAIEIAIOYW 


MéOpns Τατίω γυναικὶ Σωίᾳ 
μνήμης χάριν καὶ εἰδίο ὑῴ. 


Perrot has TATNO for TATIW, COIA for CWIA, and |W for YW, 
39. Emed: in the east cemetery above the town. Square limestone 


block, a little chipped at both sides near the top. Letters about 1 inch 
Beneath the inscription is a wreath. 


OYOCKMOYEMH ΜΊόψος κὲ Mois Mn- 
ΖΖΏΩἧΩῪὝἯΝΙΚΗ -κιο]νίκῃ 
PAYKYTATH γλυκυτάτγ. 


40. Emed: in the east cemetery. Square limestone base. Letters 
rather over 1 inch. 


¥TIEPLTOMA ὑπὲρ στομά- 
XO¥E¥XHN -you εὐχήν. 


282 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 


Beneath the inscription is a much damaged relief of a female figure en 
face holding a long torch in each hand, a familiar type of Hecate or Artemis. 
It appears from the following inscription that vows were paid at Emed to a 
deity whose name begins with A. Combining the two pieces of evidence we 
may infer that the dedications are to Artemis, Doubtless the names of the 
deity and the dedicator appeared elsewhere on this monument. 

The inscription evidently records a medicinal cure. Now at the lower 
end of the town of Emed there is a copious hot spring of very high tempera- 
ture, slightly impregnated with sulphur. It is natural to suppose that the 
cure was effected by the medicinal properties of this spring, which must 
therefore have been sacred to Artemis. An exact parallel is to be found in 
the hot springs on the Aesepus, to which the orator Aristides resorts in a 
similar case, These springs were sacred to Artemis Thermaea, and Mr. W. M. 
Ramsay has very plausibly conjectured that the place at which they were 
situated is to be identified with the Artemea of Hierocles. See Aristides; 
11.1.. iv., Dind. vol. i. p. 508, and Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. p. 154. 


41. Emed: in the east cemetery. Square block of coarse marble, broken 
at the upper corners. 


MNO ANH//////// ᾿Αριστ]οφάνηϊΪς κὲ An- 
/I//ATPLOCA//////// -μ]ήτριος ᾿Α[ρτέμιδι 
€YXHN εὐχήν. 


Compare the preceding inscription. 


42. Emed: in the east cemetery. Square block of coarse marble. 
Beneath is a mutilated something in relief. Letters 1 inch. 


AAMACKTASIA Aapas κὲ Ταθια- 
ΝΗ(ςΓςΥΕΙΩῶΩΤΡΟΦΙ -νὴ«ς; νεΐἱῷῴῷ Τροφί- 
M@QMNHMHCXAP -μῳ μνήμης χάρ- 

ΙΝ τιν. 


The ς added to Ταθιανὴ seems to be a mistake of the stonecutter. 


43. Emed: in the east cemetery. Limestone stele of the door type, 
inscribed round the arch. Letters 1} inch and # inch. 


AWCIMOLCKTPODIMOCM////////A 
//////|/[AKEAQHMNHMHCX APIN 


Δώσιμος κὲ Τρόφιμος M... a 
ἀδελφῇ μνήμης χάριν, 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 283 
44. Kmed: in the east cemetery. Square block of coarse marble 
Letters 1 inch. 
TPODIMACEDELIQ 


MNHMHCXAPIN 
Τροφιμᾶς ᾿φεσίῳ 
μνήμης χάριν. 


45, Emed: in the east cemetery. Square block of coarse marble. 
Letters 1 inch, 


ATOAAW ᾿Απολλω- 
NI AIG, -νίδ[ ns 
MENE Meve 
MAXW -μάχῳ 
ΠΑΤΡΙΆ ὅ πατρὶ μ- 
NHMHC -νήμης 
ΧΑΡΙΝ χάριν. 


40. Emed: in the east cemetery. Square block. Letters 11 inch. 


TEKNATIATPI Τέκνα πατρὶ 
KAIOEGTIAAHN καὶ θεῷ τιμήν. 


47. Near a hot spring with baths not far from Yenije keui, south-west 
of Emed. Limestone stele of the door type, broken above. The inscription 
runs round the arch, and in the tympanum are carved a basket, a mirror, and 
acomb. Letters 1 inch, rudely cut. 


Left of the arch. Light of the arch. 
PIOUS ee a en. gy ΜῊΝ SORT PUL 
Paadscos Mai. δὲ aseunlt- ᾿ἰοϑαύνονπι ρα ψή ans gape. 


48, Assarlar: built into the side of a fountain. Letters 1 inch. 


\¥NIANIK¥NTIAN - ΚἸΊυντιανὴ Κυντιαν[οῦ 
¥TIEPTEKEWCANEHE ὑπὲρ Téxews ἀνέθηκε 
ΓΑΕΚΑΤΑΚΑΙΜΑΝΙΤΟΝ τ] “Exata καὶ Mavi τὸν 
/IEATWHAIANOL v]iéa τῷ LLacavos. 


This inscription is an important addition to our scanty knowledge of the 
religious beliefs of North Phrygia. M. Paul Perdrizet in a recent article on 
Men (Bull. corr. hell. xx., 1896, pp. 55-106), can only quote one little dedica- 
tion to Men (Mnvi εὐχήν) from North Phrygia. He gives, however, an 
excellent photographic reproduction of the well known relief in the Imperial 


284 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 


Museum at Constantinople, which is almost certainly to be referred to this 
same district. It bears the inscription”“Aayuov τὸν ἑαυτῆς σύνβιον Taevov 
κατεειέρωσεν Σωτήρῃ ᾿κάτῃ" «.7.r.,and on it Men is represented standing 
side by side with the triple Hecate. This relief and inscription together 
form a useful commentary on our text. A still closer parallel for the con- 
secration of the child to Hecate is furnished by an inscription of Cotiainm 
(C.1.G, 3827 4, Le Bas and Waddington 805) Σωτεέρῃ[ς] “Exarn [Τρόφι]μος 
Ke "Addn Δημοσθένη τὸν ἑαυτῶν υἱὸν τει[μη]θέντα ὑπὸ Σωτείρης ‘Exarns 
κατειέρωσαν. Σώτειρα is at once the Goddess of birth and of death. 
She appears also as Hecate triformis on coins of Apamea (Head, Hist. 
Num. p. 558). 

Men is often found associated with a Goddess, especially with Artemis 
Anaitis. They are one of the numerous pairs, Goddess and God, so common 
in Asia Minor. Their names vary, even in the same place, but their persona- 
lities remain fundamentally the same. It is likely enough that the Hecate 
of our inscription is one with the Goddess at Emed on the other side of the 
valley, to whom we saw reason for giving the name of Artemis, and perhaps 
Men is not to be distinguished from Apollo whose festival in the grove is 
mentioned in another inscription, of public and official character, at Assarlar 
(6.1.6. 3847 b, Le Bas and Waddington 1011). It may be noted that the 
coin-types of Tiberiopolis usually refer to the worship of Artemis (Head, Hist. 
Num. p. 570). 

The relation between the God and the Goddess is variously, but in- 
differently, conceived, now as male and female, for the words husband and 
wife, father and daughter, cannot be appropriately applied, now as mother and 
son. How was it conceived at Assarlar? Ramsay has very plausibly placed 
Tiberiopolis at or near Assarlar (Hist. Geogr. pp. 146-7), and has brought into 
connection with this identification the inscription, now at Egriguz a little 
down the river, in which mention is made of the ὁμοβώμιοι θεοὶ Σεβαστοί. 
The imperial mother and son, Livia and Tiberius, took the place, Ramsay 
argues, of the divine mother and son. (See 6... 3847 m, Le Bas and 
Waddington 1021, and compare several inscriptions of Aezani.) This conjec- 
ture is confirmed by our inscription. Hecate is probably regarded as the 
mother of Men, for express mention is made of his father Paean. 

The words τῴ Ilasavos come in rather awkwardly at the end. They 
seem to be an afterthought, added perhaps by a different hand, for the 
straight-barred A is here changed for A, We may compare the way in which 
Bevvet Σοηνῶν is added at the end of an inscription of Altyntash (CLG. 
3857 1, cp. Ramsay, Hist. Geogr., pp. 144-5). The form of appellation Μὴν ὁ 
Παιᾶνος is, to say the least of it, rarely applied to deities. Is it intended to 
distinguish this Men from others? or to justify his invocation in childbirth as 
the son of the Deliverer? I can find no other reference to the parentage of 
Men, although Manes, whom Ramsay (rightly, I believe) regards as the 
original Men, was the father of Acmon and Doias, the eponyms of Acmonia 
and Doiantos Pedion (Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. 11. pp. 
625-6, with the references there given), Paean is no doubt, as Mr. Ramsay 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 285 


first suggested to me, a Hellenizing name for the native Sabazios. He was 
doubtless also known as Asclepios, who appears on the coins. Asclepios Soter 
and Hecate or Artemis Soteira would be the God and the Goddess, Men the 
Son, who is not ultimately distinct from his father. The nomenclature 
of the district is mostly derived from Asclepios, Meter, Artemis, Men, and 
Apollo, 

On the whole subject of the religious conceptions prevalent in Asia 
Minor see especially Ramsay’s Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. I have 
followed Ramsay with confidence rather than Roscher or Perdrizet, whose 
traditional methods seem to me wholly inapplicable to Anatolian mythology, 
whereas what small experience I possess entirely supports Ramsay’s principles 
of interpretation. 


49. Assarlar. Gable of a stele of the door type. The inscription runs 
round the arch as usual. It is broken at both ends. In the field of the 
gable is carved a pair of dolphins. 


CHETVAAIOCCY//////// \PQMNHM 
X//// \PIN 


«σῆς Τύλλιος συ[ντρ]όφῳ μνήμ[ης 
χάριν. 


50. Assarlar: near the mosque. Square limestone stele, with vine 
branches carved in the side panels. Published in Le Bas and Waddington, 
vol. i. No. 1012. 

The number of the date as published is CNTF, but Waddington notes 
that Le Bas’s manuscript has ΝΕ. My copy has CNE. 

There are two more lines after ᾿Αχιυλλεῖ :-— 


ἈΠ AAW μ[νή]μης 
II/IITIN χάρι]ν. 


51. Near the north-east shore of the lake of Simav: in a fountain by 
the wayside. Limestone stele of the door type. In the panels, besides a 
mirror and other objects, there is a little stele carved, which bears inscription 
(Ὁ). Letters 1} inch. 


(a) YMTTIANOCAAEZANAPWAAE | 
KCABEINIANHENATPIMNEIACXAPIN 


᾿Ολ]υμπιανὸς ᾿Αλεξάνδρῳ ἀδελφῷ 
κὲ Σαβεινιανῇ [θυγ]ατρὶ μνείας χάριν. 
H.S.—VOL. XVII. x 


286 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSTA. 


(b) KMAPKI xe Μαρκι- 
ANWA -av@ ἀ- 
AEA -δελ- 
ΦΟΥΥ -φοῦ υ- 
IWMN -ἰῷ μν- 
ΕΙΑΝ -είαν. 


52. Near the north-east shore of the lake οἵ Simav: in a fountain by 
the wayside. Limestone stele of the door type, with two doors under two 
wreaths, and in the tympanum a basket. Letters about 1 inch. 


AZKAHTTEIAAHCE YNEKEIMNH 
MHEXAPIN 


᾿Ασκληπειάδης γυνεκεὶ μνή- 
-μης χάριν. 


53. Saujilar: in the north wall of the old mosque to the east of the 
village. Marble stele with gabled top and pilasters, between which is a 
garland. Letters about ? inch. 


ETOYEPMRMTIANHMOYAIOIZYNHOEIS 
PIAOIETIMHE ANAIOLENH 
Hi//-YPOY 
τους ρ΄ μ΄], w[n](vos) Πανήμου 8'¢, οἱ συνήθεις 
φίλοι ἐτίμησαν Διογένη 
οὐνύφου. 


There are traces of a small H over the Μ of μηνός. 


Assuming the use of the Sullan era the date will be a.p. 58. 


54, Sdujilar: in a hedge on the south side of the village. Limestone 
stele, square, with acroteria. Letters about 14 inches. 


AYPIEPOKAHC ST: Αὐρ. Ἱεροκλῆς γ' 
BACCIANOC ΤῺ Βασσιανὸς τῷ 
CAYKY TATQATTAT PI yAUKUTUT@ πατρὶ 
AY PIEPOKAEI€ Ta AP Αὐρ. “Ἱεροκλεῖ [8] τῷ ap- 
ΧΙΑΤΡΩΓΥΝΚΑΙΤΗ 5 -χιάτρῳ σὺν καὶ τῇ 


ΑΔΕΛΦΗΑΥΡΒΑΓΓΗ ἀδελφῇ Αὐρ. Βάσσῃ 
MEIALE XAPIN μνείας «“ς;» χάριν. 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 2387 


In line 4 there can be no doubt that β΄ ought to be read. Aur. 
Hierocles III. must be the son of Aur. Hierocles II. On the use of Aurelius 
as praenomen see Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, vol. ii. pp. 388-9. 
By ἀρχίατρος we probably have in this connection to understand the public 
officer of health for the district. See Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Hncycl. 

The inscriptions at Saujilar are probably to be referred to the neigh- 
bouring Ancyra rather than to Synaos, which is farther off. 


55, Saujilar: in the wall of the cemetery. Limestone sfe/e. Letters 
about 1 inch, rudely inscribed. 


ETOCTNZM 

HNOCAPTE 
Willie TOVYEKT | -μεισί]ου [ 1κ΄,.. 

4AAIAYPHCYNECIC .. . Adpn. Σύνεσις 

APKAPTEPIWEAIACIN A[v]p. Καρτερίῳ ε[ἐ]δί[ῳ] σ[υ]ν- 

Biw ANH -βίῳ μνή- 

MHC +A ht -μης χάρι- 

Ν -Ψ. 


"Ε το[υ]ς τίν΄ μ- 
-ηνὸς ᾿Αρτε- 


Assuming the Sullan era the date would be the spring of Α.0, 273. 


56. Siujilar: in the wall of the cemetery. Marble stele with pediment. 
Letters 1} inches. 


AAEZANAPAAAE ᾿Αλεξάνδρα 'AXe- 
=ANAPSITIATPI -ξάνδρῳ πατρὶ 
ΜΕΙΑΝ μνείαν. 


57. Siiujilar: in the wall of the cemetery. Square limestone stele, 
broken below and on both sides, Letters 1} inches. 


CA ἼΣ Ε K Md A 9A | Ta τέκνα Ai- 
©) Co (dl | TTA ii fo -θωνι sage 
Mel | A ("ol CY μνίαν. 


288 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 


58. Baddelu, west of the lake of Simav: in the wall of a house. Small 
marble stele with gabled top. Letters 1 inch. 


ΔΗΜΟΣΘΕΝΗΣ Δημοσθένης 
ZYNMHTPAAAEA σὺν Μητρᾷ ἀδελ- 
ΦΩΑΜΜΙΆΜΗΤΡΙ -φῷ ᾿Αμμίᾳ μητρί. 


ὅθ. Baddelu: in the wall of a house. Marble stele with gabled top. 
Below the inscription are carved a basket, a mirror, a vine, and a pruning: 
hook. Letters 1inch. The first line is on the lintel above the panel. 


[///AZIANEAWAE Mlatia νέα ὧδε 
KAAAKEIMAIEYN καδάκειμαι [σ]ύ[μ- 
MOIPOCTEKNW -μοιρος τέκνῳ. 
ZWCLIMOCFAYKYTA Ζώσιμος γλυκυτά- 

9 ΤΗΓΥΝΑΙΚΙΚΑΙΤΕΚΝ ὅ -τῃ γυναικὶ καὶ τέκνῳ 
MANIACXAPIN μνίας χάριν. 


60. Assar keui, south-west of the lake οἵ Simav: built into the corner 
of a house. Marble block with moulding to right. Possibly incomplete 
above. Letters about 1 inch, but irregular. 


~-AHMENGE ᾿ΕἸλήμενοϊς 1 
ΕΝΑΘΑΝΑΤ ἐν ἀθανάτ- 
ΟΙΓΚΑΤΑΚΕ τοις κατάκε- 
ITAITOY TO -ttat. Τούτῳ 
AQPONEAOK 5 δῶρον ἔδωκ- 
ESEOCBO -ε θεὸς βο- 
H®EINTHE -ηθεῖν τῇ ἐ- 
AYTOYTTA -αυτοῦ Tra- 
ΤΡΙΔΙ -τρίδι. 


An interesting Christian inscription. One would like to know in what 
ways this ‘gift of helpfulness’ was exercised: probably Deo dante dedit. 


61. Assar keui: in a wall. The top of a gabled stele. Letters 14 inch. 


AHMOZOQENHEKAEOMAXC//// Δημοσθένης Κλεομάχζου. 


62. Yemishli: in the wall of the roadside cemetery. Marble stele with 
gable. Letters about ξ inch, much worn, 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 289 


MAN TELACATO//ATIATPI 
AMANELACXAPIN 


. tea [Ἰ]σαγόρᾳ πατρὶ 
μνείας χάριν. 


63. Yemishli: in the wall of the roadside cemetery. Gabled marble 
stele on which are carved a comb, a wreath, and a mirror. 


EPMHEryY “Ἕρμης γυ[ναικὶ 
Ν] 111] 


64. Tash keui, about midway between Simav and Balat: in a field 
half a mile below the village to the south-west. Square marble base with 
moulding above and below. The inscription is framed in a~panel of incised 
lines. Letters } inch. 


AIIMANAHHKN Aut Πανδήμῳ 
EYXHNAAMAL εὐχὴν Δάμας 
ΑΠΠΑΓΥΝΑΚΜ ᾿Αππᾶ σὺν ’Ap- 
MIQTHI¥NALIL -μίῳ τῇ γυναι- 
KIEKTQNIAIQN 5 -κὶ ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων 
ΔΝΕΓΤΉΗΓΕΝ ἀνέστησεν. 


The title Πάνδημος is given to Zeus elsewhere, 6.9. at Synnada (Head, 
Hist. Num. p. 569). It doubtless expresses in each case the religious aspect 
of the political unity of the community. Now Tash keui obviously lies in. 
the district of Abrettene (Strabo, 574, 576). We may therefore identify this 
Zeus Pandemos with the Zeus Abrettenos to whom the robber chieftain Cleon 
was priest in the time of Strabo. It is possible that Tash keui was a main 
centre of his worship, for there are traces of a considerable sanctuary in the 
field in which the stone lies, down in the river valley below the village. 


65. Tash keui: in the same field. Marble base, 2 feet square. Letters 
14 inch. 
OA¥MTTIOAQ 
RQI 
AAEZ ANARO¥ 
HRQI 


Ὀλυμπιοδώ- 
-ρωι 
᾿Αλεξάνδρου 
ἥρωι. 


290 INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 


66. Russiler: in the street, near the west end of the village. Square 
marble stele, broken to right. Letters 14 inch. 


EATIICEICTI// Ἔλπις Eiot[p- 
|ANS2CYNBI//// -ιανῷ auvBil 
CAYK////F A//// γλυκ[υ͵τάϊτῳ 
MNHMHCX//// μνήμης χίά- 

ΡΙΝ -ριν. 


67. Balat: at the Church of S. Demetrius. Square limestone base, 
broken below. Letters 14 inch. The first liné is on the moulding above. 


ATAQHI THXHI ᾿Αγαθῆι τύχηι. 
HBOYAEFKAIOAIH Ἢ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆ- 
MOZAAPIANEQKE -μος ᾿Αδριανέων ἐ- 
ΤΕΙΜΙΣΕΝΚΑΣΑΤΟΡ -τείμησεν K[A]. Σατορ- 
NEINANOYTATEPA -νεῖναν θυγατέρα 
ΤΙΚΛΑΥΛΟΥΠΕΣΣΙΑΝΟΥ Τρ χα δῆ δεσσιανοῦ, 


CYNAIKAFIOYA:AIAIA γυναῖκα I". Tour. Δίλια- 
NOY KAEANAPO -νοῦ Κλεάνδρου 


8.4 6 8 


The stone may have been brought from Hadriani (Beyje), although the 
distance is considerable. Both the forms, AAPIANEQN and AAPIANQN, 
appear on the coins (Head, Hist. Num. p. 455). On the other hand there is 
some difficulty in believing that a heavy block (and that not a marble one) 
was transported about 40 miles over bad roads and mountainous country. 
Ancient remains exist at Balat (notably the great sarcophagus figured in 
Le Bas), but the name to be assigned to the ancient town is uncertain. 
Ramsay suggests Neo Caesarea (Hist. Geogr. p. 181). Did the territory of 
Hadriani once extend to Balat, and was the bishopric of Neo Caesarea carved 
out of it? Or is it possible that there was after all an Adriania, the Adraneia 
of certain of the Notitiae, distinct from Hadriani? This question is discussed 
by Ramsay, Hist. Geogr. pp. 160-1, and the possibility gives a certain interest 
to our inscription. 


68. Balat: in the court of the priest’s house, opposite to the Church of 
S. Demetrius. Square limestone base. Letters 1} inch. 


MAYPHAIQKPITS M. Αὐρηλίῳ Κρίτω- 
ΝΙ ΤΘΑΓΑΘΩΚΑΙ -νι τῷ ἀγαθῷ καὶ 
ΑΣΥΝΚΡΙΤΩΘΡΕ ἀσυνκρίτῳ θρέ- 
YANTIOIATTEAEY -ψαντι οἱ ἀπελεύ- 
ΘΕΡΟΙΑΥΡΗΛΙΟΙΦΙ -θεροι Αὐρήλιοι Φι- 
ΛΗΜΩΝΚΑΙΠΡΑΞΖΙ τλήμων καὶ IIpaki- 


ΑΣΖΩΝΤΙ ας ζῶντ 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 291 


69. Kebsul; outside the iosque, in the street. Large marble base 
Letters 1} inch. 


MAI ZHONAMEIAIKIO 
CKTANE MOIPHAPFIKAY 
“QNTIA@IHZAYAMEN 
NOAAAMOANENOEL 
AOYXOULIOILIAY REX 
ONAITEINTIAIAE EPO 
NEAAOPOICEIAEOE 
EICFNONAITON Mo 
BIONQTTAPOAFI TAM 
MENMOIEXMAAOZO 
OCOYNOMAMEIAIACE - 
= AEQEOYCANAYCAK 
MAQANATOICIM EIMI 
ΟΓΓΟΥΓΓΑΡΦΙΛΕΟΥΓ 
NEOIONCKOYEINATIAI 
ree 


> ᾽ Ν > Ν / / 

Soe e PPS μ᾽ αἰξηὸν ἀμειλικ[ τ]ὸς κτάνε Μοίρη 

Μ a ͵ὔ Φ / / 

ἄρ[τ]. κλυ[τ]ῶν Παφίης ἁψάμεν[ο]ν θαλάμων' 
υτέμθεσ οἹῖδ' ovy ootoroe!s 1.1.0 2) Sip παρα ΠΣ Ἰς 

fod AL οἱ Ὁ. λιπεῖν παῖδ᾽ ἕτερον μελάθροις. 
Εἰ δὲ θέζλ]εις γνῶναι τὸν ἐμὸ[ν] βιον, ὦ παροδεῖτα, 
ἦν μέν μοι τέχνη λαοξόος, οὔνομα Μειδίας, 
3 \ \ De f Ass , ΄ 
ἐς] δὲ θεοὺς ἀνέλυσα κ[α]ὶ ἀθανάτοισι μέτειμι, 
ὅσσους γὰρ φιλέουσι νέοι [θ]νήσκου[ σιν ἅπα[νἾτες. 


ce 


Hamilton’s copy, from which this inscription has been published 
(Researches, vol. ii. No. 325, and Le Bas and Waddington, vol. 111. No. 1771 
B.), is imperfect, but it was the stonecutter, not Hamilton (as Waddington 
naturally assumed), who omitted a line. All that survives of this lost line is 
AYFPEXON. The beginning of the first line may have been on another 
stone placed on the top of this one. 

The inscription on the side of the same stone is fairly well rendered by 
Hamilton, and Le Bas and Waddington. My copy has the following variants. 
Inline 2, APTIMEIC < ; in line 4, add Ε at the beginning, and y in ἑαυτοῖϊς ; 
in line 5, read χάρειν for χάριν ; in line 8, add Ε at the beginning; in line 10, 
read IC for E.C, és for εἰς. 

The last line of our inscription is a familiar Greek sentiment, perhaps 
best known in the form Ὃν yap θεοὶ φιλοῦσιν ἀποθνήσκει νέος. 


292 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 


70. Kebsud: built into the west wall of the mosque, rather high up. 


Whitewashed stone. The right edge covered by the roof. Letters about 
2 inches. 
€YAr Εὐάγ[ης 
CWTHP Σωτήρ[ι- 
+OCENVI -yos Ev[n- 
ΘΙ cyt -θίῳ συ[ν- 
τροφω -τρόφῳ 
πρῶτο πρωτοΐ κ- 
WM MT -ωμ[ή]τίῃ 
CYNTOIC σὺν τοῖς [ἐ- 
AIOICAY -δίοις αὐ[τ- 
WTEKN -@ τέκν[οι- 
CHMNHA -ς μνή[μη- 
CEAFTA -ς χάρι[ν 
GrPAYA ἔγραψα. 


Hamilton’s copy, from which this inscription has been published in his 
Researches, vol, ii. No. 327, and in Le Bas and Waddington, 111. No. 1772, 


appears to have been defective in several points, but supplies many of the 
letters missing at the ends of the lines. 


71. Balukiser: in the abutment of a bridge on the Susurlu road about 


five miles out of Balukiser, not far from the village of Eshibaji. 
block, 1 foot 8 inches long, broken to right. 


waterworn. 


TIKAA 


ATH 


Blue marble 
Letters 14 inch, well cut but 


a *e, ὧν 7 ἃ 


MAT 
KAAVAIO//MENANAPOV 
KAAVAIOLCAOMITIOL//////= 
ANSE YIQTHNEZZAPANEK 
ΙΔΙΩΝΣΠΟΙΗΓΣΝ 


Κλαυδίο[υ] Μενάνδρου [υἱῷ 
Κλαύδιος Δομέτιος. ... 
ἀνεψίῳ τὴν ἐ[ξ]έδραν ἐκ [τῶν 
ἰδίων ἐποίησεν. 

= is used for Ε throughout. += for = in ἐξέδραν is a mistake of the 
stone-cutter’s. This inscription and the next, which also refers to an architec- 


tural work, are probably derived from the site of Hadrianutherae, which ought 
to lie somewhere in the great plain of Balukiser. 


72. Balukiser: built into a mill close by the same bridge. 
architrave block, 7 feet long, 1 foot 2 inches broad. Letters 1 inch. 


TAIOZKAAOYEIZIOZLAIOYYIOZOPATIAZEIARNEKTRNIAIRNANEOHKENTOETIZT) 


Marble 


4 
Γάιος Καλουείσιος, Τ᾿αίου υἱὸς, “Opatias, Εἵλων ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων ἀνέθηκεν τὸ ἐπιστύλιον. 


INSCRIPTIONS FROM MYSIA. 293 


73. Balia Maden: formerly in a Turkish fountain, recently in the house 
of the late director of the mines. Small marble relief of a male figure, half 
face to left, with an altar in front of him. The inscription is below the 
relief. Letters 4 inch, much worn. 


FAAAIQNOCOEY Γαλλίωνος Θεύ- 
AA//\OCAIIYPAM//////// -δα[μ]ος Aud Κραμ[ψηνῷ 


Ζεὺς Κραμψηνὸς appears in another inscription of Balia, which has been 
published by Kontoleon, Ath. Mitth. xiv. p. 90, by Anastasiades in the 
“Αρμονία of Smyrna, quoted Bull. corr. hell. xviii. p. 541, but most correctly 
by Fabricius, Sitzwngsber. der Berlin. Akad., 1894, p. 903. I copied the 
inscription also, and can confirm the reading KPAMYHNQ, wkich Fabricius 
rejected for KPAMYHNQ. My copy is supported by Prof. Anderson’s, and as 
we had the stone specially cleaned, we are not likely to have made a mistake. 
It may be added here that I read the first letter of the second line as E not Σ, 
and made out the M of Δέκμου, and the A= of Ποπλικίας. 


74, Yenije, on a western affluent of the Aesepus, north of Assar kale : 
in a garden. Marble slab, with gable top and reliefs of sacrificial scenes above 
the inscription, 4 feet 2 inches high, 1 foot 5 inches broad. Letters 1 inch. 
Copied in failing light. 


HI/EKAIAIOZATIAIOSIEPEY//// 
MLL WEYXANSTH///// {T/T 


ἐνὸς Καίλιος ᾿Ατέλιος ἱερεὺϊς .... 
ee ΤῸ, ῳ εὐχ[ὴν] ἀν[έ]στησεν .. .. 


J. ARTHUR R. Munro. 


294 CEANEUS AND THE CENTAURS: A VASE AT HARROW. 


CAENEUS AND THE CENTAURS: A VASE AT HARROW. 


[Prare ΜΠ | 


THE vase that is here published, by the kind permission of the authorities 
of the Harrow School Museum, is the gem of the collection of antiquities 
presented to that Museum by Sir Gardner Wilkinson; it is described by Mr. 
Cecil Torr as No. 50 in his catalogue. It had been repainted and restored in 
such a way as to suggest that it had been through the hands of an Italian 
dealer ; and this conjecture as to its provenance is confirmed by the fact that 
a tracing of the design exists in the apparat of the German Institute at 
Rome; the vase comes from Vitorchiano and had been seen in the possession 
of Depoletti: the tracing was communicated by Gerhard. Dr. Wernicke 
describes the vase from this tracing in the Archacologische Zeitung, 1885, p. 
262; but it is clear that the tracing was not accurate enough to give him any 
adequate notion of the beauty and character of the drawing; though he 
notices the extraordinary foreshortening of the Centaur on the right, he 
suggests that the design is a variant derived from a vase signed by 
Polygnotus at Brussels, a suggestion that could not have been made by any one 
who had seen the vase or a good drawing of it; the style, as we shall see, 
points unmistakably to an earlier and finer stage in the history of vase- 
painting. All the most important vases of the Harrow Museum have recently 
been cleaned by the skilful hands of Mr. Sharp, of the British Museum ; 
the scientific value of the collection has thus been enhanced, and our 
vase, in particular, has improved greatly in appearance. Only a few insigni- 
ficant details have disappeared with the restorer’s work, while the thorough 
tests to which the vase has been submitted enable us to be confident that all 
that is now left is due to the original painter—an assurance the more 
necessary in view of the remarkable character of some of the drawing. The 
design is faithfully reproduced in the drawing by Mr. Anderson, from which 
Pl. VJ. has been made. 

The vase is of the shape commonly known as a kelebe, or crater with 
columnar handles (vaso a colonnette); its height is 194 inches, its diameter 
(including handles) 19 inches. The main lines of the figures are shown by 
outlines of the same black varnish as is used for the field ; in addition to these 


a TA NUL 


πηι U κυ 


ΕἾ 
be 
ie - ‘ | 
dae | ~ ἢ Billing ἱ 
7, ᾿ ν-- 25 ἈΔΔι 
" <a = ᾿ ‘Ne e a 
LER eae , gm weg 
Tite Bs y “4 
᾿ ἐκ SS WY wy j “ 
γι. ἵν ftv i Vf. 
ma WW Sy i / 
τ DW 4 7 ' 


CAENEUS AND THE CENTAURS: A VASE AT HARROW, 295 


there are lighter inner markings in light brown,' and the same light brown 
pigment is used, as is shown in the plate, to render the hair of both Caeneus 
and the Centaurs, and the tawny fur on the panther skins which they wear. 
There are also purple retouches, to render the leaves of the branches carried 
by the Centaurs. 

The main design is contained in panels; that on the obverse of the vase, 
which is by far the finest in execution, represents the contest of Caeneus and 
the Centaurs; the panel is bordered on each side by a row of palmettes, 
alternating to right and to left, in black figured technique on a red strip left 
for the purpose; the panel on the reverse contains merely a careless and 
conventional design of satyrs and a maenad ; this panel is framed on each side 
by an ivy wreath. Above the panels is a row of framed bars; below them a 
purple band running round the vase ; rays ascend from the base. Outside the 
rim is an ivy wreath, and on its horizontal top is a row of lotus with 


ΠΝ" 


Bee 777 
soba Madd be ᾿ ΨΨ ΝΥΝ 


interlacing stalks and petals, with a large palmette and volutes over each 
handle. On the bottom is an incised inscription (graffito), A4|A; and there 
are four drilled holes in the bottom and four more opposite them inside the 
bottom rim; these look as if they were to hold rivets, but the vase shows no 
sign of having been broken. 

The design on the reverse need not detain us very long. It represents a 
draped maenad, who holds in her hand an object pointed at both ends 
—perhaps a branch—seized by two nude satyrs, one of whom holds a thyrsus ; 
they are baldheaded, and have horses’ or asses’ ears; they are infibulated. 
The drawing is of the ordinary and careless style often found even in the best 
period, and calls for no further attention. 


1 These lighter markings have to a great the destruction of the surface when the vase 
extent disappeared, owing chiefly, no doubt, to —_ was repainted. 


296 CAENEUS AND THE CENTAURS: A VASE AT HARROW. 


The drawing of the principal scene, on the other hand, is of quite extra- 
ordinary boldness and vigour. In order to appreciate this, one has only to 
compare it with the rendering of the same scene on other vases, for 
instance that in the British Museum (Catalogue, vol. iii. E. 473). 

A little to the right of the centre is Caeneus, still upright, but buried to 
the waist in the earth, σχίσας ὀρθῷ ποδὶ γᾶν, as Pindar has it. His 
body is seen from the front, and his head is seen in profile turned 
to his right; he Jeans to his left, so as to gain room for his sword arm, with 
which he stabs the Centaur above him in the human abdomen. The blow 
has not gone home, for the blade runs almost parallel to the Centaur’s body, 
only the point being imbedded in his flesh; the stroke is evidently borne 
back by the onward rush of the monster. On his left arm Caeneus holds his 
shield, seen about three-quarter face; it rests on the ground, but does not 
sink into it, as in some other examples of the scene; its device, in black- 
figured technique, is a running Centaur to the left, with a branch raised in 
both hands over his head—a design full of go and spirit. Caeneus wears a 
Corinthian helmet, and a breast-plate with a star as ornament on the 
shoulder-piece, and pteryges hanging from its waist, which look as if made 
of pleated linen. The Centaur wounded by Caeneus advances towards him 
from the left, and also slightly forward, so that his body is slightly fore- 
shortened; he supports on his shoulder with both hands a mass of rock with 
which he is about to overwhelm the hero; he wears a panther skin, knotted 
_ round his neck by its fore-paws, and hanging down his back, the tail, with a 
twisted knot in it, being visible beneath his equine body. He places his 
fore-legs on Caeneus’ shoulders, as if to force him yet farther into the ground. 
He is bald, and his mask-like face, with shaggy hair, shapeless eyes, and snub 
nose, is in marked contrast to the fine features of his two comrades; like 
them, he has horses’ ears! No blood is now visible from his wound; what 
was visible before cleaning was due merely to the hand of the restorer, and 
certainly did not exist in the original design. The Centaur behind him, 
on the left of the design, is seen in profile; the end of his body is 
cut off by the border of the panel; he wears a panther skin in the same 
way as the middle Centaur. His chest is turned to front the spectator, as in 
most drawings and reliefs of Centaurs from the finest period, and with both 
hands he holds over his head a pine tree, which he is about to dash down 
trunk foremost on to Caeneus. But for his equine ear and shaggy head, the 
type of his face has nothing bestial about it, but has dignity combined with 
its fierceness; it is the face of a baldheaded man of middle age. The head is 
turned slightly beyond the profile, so that the outline of the further brow 
stands out against the background,—a peculiarity noticeable in the case of 
the other Centaurs also. 

The third Centaur, on the right, is the most remarkable figure on this 
vase, and among the most remarkable figures in all Greek vase-painting. 
The remarkable foreshortening of his equine body would alone suffice to 


1 The top of his ear has been lost in a small fracture of the surface. 


CAENEUS AND THE CENTAURS: A VASE AT HARROW. 297 


distinguish the design, though it can be paralleled elsewhere!; yet even if it 
is open to criticism in perspective, the very difficult position is attempted with 
boldness and skill. But the type and expression of his face are not so easy 
to match; his bent brow, aquiline nose, and masses of overhanging hair, 
together with the way his head is turned back over his shoulder, combine to 
enhance the brutal fierceness of his expression; and the bold outline of his 
shoulder-blades emphasises the violence with which he dashes down his pine- 
branch on to the hero. 

When we come to consider the style and the period of this design, we 
can have no hesitation as to the. position we must assign to it. Such work 
can only be found in the later productions of the cycle of Euphronius, and 
especially among those assigned by Dr. Hartwig to Onesimus.2 The mag- 
nificent Centaur Cylix, Hartwig, Pl. lix, lx, has many points of resemblance 
with our vase, especially in the vigour of the drawing and the boldness of 
the foreshortening, 6.9. in the fallen Centaur on the inside. For the fore- 
shortening on our vase we shall, however, see nearer analogies—some of them 
at least within the same cycle of Euphronius; we must first notice other 
points of style which confirm our attribution of this vase to an artist 
closely connected with Euphronius. The drawing of the eye is a safe 
indication of period; on our vase it is neither full face nor profile, but drawn 
in that compromise which is characteristic of the age and school; the inner 
ends are left open, and even slightly diverge, so as to give the effect of 
eyelashes, while the pupil, indicated by a dot and a circle round it, is 
placed so far towards the inner corner as to give a very near approach to 
a true profile drawing. The only exception is in the case of the eye of the 
middle Centaur, which has an unnatural and almost fishy appearance, adding 
to the repulsiveness of his mask-like face. I do not know of any exact 
parallel to this, but the intention of the artist is obvious. The mouths have 
not the outlines of the lips inserted, but are drawn in a freer manner. The 
variety in the treatment of the hair also is just what we should expect at 
this period; sometimes it is in black masses, sometimes drawn with delicate 
detail in individual tresses, the effect being enhanced by an addition of brown 
pigment; a treatment of which the value had been learnt by the vase- 
painters of this school from their practice in painting the beautiful vases 
with white ground that are among their finest productions. The contrast 
between the crisp and curly locks of Caeneus and the lank thin tresses of his 
monstrous adversaries is admirably worked out; and even the Centaurs are 
differentiated among themselves by variety of treatment, from the masses of 
unkempt hair of the Centaur on the right to the thin and straggling locks 
of the one in the middle. The types of face are differentiated with even more 
subtlety ; there is hardly more contrast between the delicate and conventional 
Greek profile of Caeneus and the strongly marked features of the Centaurs, 


1 See below. course no opinion is expressed as to the correct- 
2 The name is a convenient one for the iden- 688 of his restored name, 
tification of this set of vases; in using it, of 


298 CAENEUS AND THE CENTAURS: A VASE AT HARROW. 


than there is between the different types of these Centaurs themselves. The 
one to the left is hardly inhuman, only of heavy and somewhat truculent 
type ; the middle one has the conventional snub-nosed satyric mask, while the 
one on the right is characterised with a brutal vigour hardly to be surpassed 
or even matched among the extant products of Greek art. But the tendency 
to the choice of quaint and individual types, of which this is so striking an 
example, may easily be paralleled among the works of Euphronius and his 
colleagues. The foreshortening of this Ceutaur’s body, which we have already 
noticed as the most remarkable piece of drawing, finds its nearest parallel in 
an early work of Euphronius (Hartwig, Pl. X.). In his text. p. 108, n. 1, 
Dr. Hartwig mentions other examples of similar foreshortening, either in 
horses or Centaurs; to these may be added a Centaur on a vase from Rome 
(Annali, 1860, Pl. A), which belongs to a decidedly later date than the Harrow 
vase, and a very similar foreshortening of a dog! (Gerhard, Avwserl. Vasenb. 
Pl. CCLXVII.), which is on a vase of style decidedly earlier, and is perhaps 
the earliest example of an experiment in drawing that finds its best known 
if least pleasing repetition in the famous horse of the Issus mosaic.* Most 
of these horses are even to the raising of the tail in exactly the same 
position ; and they seem to be a series of attempts to adopt and improve on 
a bold invention in drawing ; but we cannot say to whom this invention is to 
be assigned, unless it be, perhaps, to Euphronius himself in his younger 
days. It is interesting to note that the main error of drawing in this fore- 
shortened figure consists in a tendency to draw the two hind legs diverging, as 
if seen from the side. Thus it corresponds exactly to the conventional per- 
spective of early art, by which an object seen from the front often has its two 
sides represented as extending away from the front on either hand.* 

The type of the group of Caeneus and the Centaurs, known to us both 
on vases and reliefs, has been derived by Loeschcke* fromm the conventional 
group of the man between two horses which is familiar from the earliest days 
of Greek art, and can be traced back to still earlier sources. In the Harrow 
vase, which may perhaps claim to be the finest of all the repetitions of the 
subject, it concerns us most to note the deviations by which the painter has 
improved the scene; by the addition of the third Centaur, and the fore- 
shortening of the one behind Caeneus, he has escaped entirely from that 
conventional and over-symmetrical grouping which we still see even in the 
western frieze of the Theseum. Whether the vase-painter originated these 
changes in the design it is hard to say; but the vigour and originality of his 
drawing make us inclined to assign to him the excellence of the composition 
as well. It was of course a tempting hypothesis to associate this fine design 
with the paintings of Lapiths and Centaurs with which the artist Micon 
decorated the Theseum ; and such a suggestion was confirmed by the presence 
of the same scene on the sculptured frieze of the temple which we now call 


''This comparison was suggested to me by 3 See Murray, J.7/S. ii. 318 and PL. xv, 


Mr. J. ©. Hoppin. 4 Bonner Studien, p. 252. 
2 Baumeister, Tal. xxi. 


CAENEUS AND THE CENTAURS: A VASE AT HARROW. 299 


by that name; but even if we overrule the objections that have been brought 
against the identification of the building, we cannot of course, with our present 
knowledge of the chronology of Greek vase-painting, admit the possibility of 
any such connexion; for the Harrow vase must be earlier by nearly a genera- 
tion than the paintings of Micon in the Theseum. Nevertheless it may show 
us the vigour and the variety of the types on which the painter could draw 
for his subject. 


1. 


The legend of Caeneus is one of the most imteresting in Greek 
mythology; while it is difficult to explain in some details, it contains 
elements which connect it unmistakably with those primitive and popular 
rites that underlie so many mythological stories. But the legend has been 
so thoroughly recast in the workshop of poetical fiction that its original 
character has been obscured. Let us first take the tale as it has been pre- 
served to us in literature and note the features that are either inexplicable in 
themselves or inconsistent with other parts of the story or with artistic repre- 
sentations; for it is from these intractable details, still cropping up through 
the smooth and even narrative with which the poetical mythologist has 
endeavoured to overlay them, that we can infer the true form of the myth. 

Caeneus figures from Homer down among the leaders of the Lapiths in 
their great battle with the Centaurs at the wedding feast of Pirithous.?2 He 
rashly pursued them in their flight; they turned on him, and, finding him 
invulnerable to their weapons, overwhelmed him by piling pine-trees and 
rocks over him. He was crushed by the weight, but emerged from the heap 
in the form of a tawny bird. Such is an outline of the story as given by 
Ovid. There are other features about the tale that only complicate it, while 
some do not harmonise with this version. One is, that Caeneus was at first a 
woman, who was beloved by Poseidon, and that the god granted her wish that 
she should become a man and invulnerable; another, that, in the shades 
below, he was changed into a woman. It is curious that Ovid, who frequently 
refers to the first change, seems to know nothing of the second; while Virgil 
says only ‘vir quondam, nunc femina, Caenis.’ It looks as if the essential 
thing in the tradition from which the tales of the Latin poets are ultimately 
derived was merely the change of sex, but the relation of this change to the 
story was doubtful. 

Then there is the tale of his going straight through the earth to the 
realms below, when he was buried by the Centaurs—a tale associated with 
the interesting words of Pindar, σχίσας ὀρθῷ ποδὶ γᾶν. We have seen how 


1 Throughout this mythological discussion I * The most important passages are: Homer, 
am indebted to valuable hints given me by Mr. 7], i. 264 and Scholia ; Hesiod, Asp. Her, 179 ; 
J. G. Frazer. At the same time I cannot hold Pindar, p, 168; Apoll. Rhod. i. 57; Verg. Aen. 
him responsible for the application I have made νὶ. 448 ; Ovid. Met. 12, 489; Hyginus, p. 14; 
of them, though I am glad to be able to quote Orph. Argonaut. 168. 

is general approval of iny conclusions. 


300 CAENEUS AND THE CENTAURS: A VASE AT HARROW. 


this expression fits in exactly with the type of the scene as usually depicted 
on Greek vases and reliefs; while that type is by no means a natural way of 
rendering the fight as it is recorded in literature. It must however be added 
that the words of Pindar, though they coincide so remarkably with the scene 
on the vase, do not offer any satisfactory explanation of it. They rather 
seem to point to a common origin, from which both the literary and the 
artistic tradition were derived, but which neither the literary nor the artistic 
tradition understands. Another fact that may help us in tracing the origin 
of the tradition, though it has no organic connexion with the story in its 
accepted form, is that Caeneus’ father is called Elatos, and that he himself is 
called Elateius and Phyllaeus. 

It will help us in an attempt to trace the origin of the tale of the 
burying of Caeneus, if we arrange the points we have to consider in a 
tabular form, and then discuss them in turn. 

(1) The tale is associated, apparently from the earliest times, with the 
battle of the Centaurs and Lapiths. 

(2) Caeneus is associated with the pine-tree by his parentage (Ἔλατος), 
and is buried in or by means of pine trees (ἐλάταις) and stones. 

(3) He is buried upright, or goes upright into the ground; he is always 
represented in art as standing upright, and buried to the waist. 

(4) He undergoes a change of sex. 

(5) He undergoes resurrection in the form of a bird, or else goes down 
alive among the dead. 

The love of Poseidon and the invulnerability of Caeneus may be passed 
over for the present; they may well be invented to explain the later form of 
the legend; the intervention of Poseidon is readily suggested by his appear- 
ance as a giver of magical gifts in the early form of the tale of Peleus 
and Pelion. 

(1) The myth of the Centaurs and Lapiths has always been a puzzle to 
mythologists, but Mannhardt’s explanation ! is as simple as it is convincing, 
Its novelty, as he himself points out, lies not so much in the actual pheno- 
menon with which it associates the myth, as in the aspect under which the 
phenomena are viewed, his great advantage over his predecessors resulting 
from his substitution of the comparative and inductive method for imagin- 
ation and theory. Others had suggested that the Centaurs were imperson- 
ations of natural phenomena, such as storms or torrents. Mannhardt regards 
them ‘as spirits of the forest or the mountain, to whose action these phenomena 
were assigned.’ Abstract generalisation and personification are highly improb- 
able in the period to which the origin of the myth must be assigned; while 
a belief in wild creatures of the woods is universally prevalent in Europe 
among peoples still in a primitive stage of thought. Such a belief is found, 
for example, among the Russian peasants, who believe that ‘the devastation 
wrought by hurricanes is the result of a battle between the spirits of the 
woods, battles in which the combatants hurl tree-trunks of a century’s growth 


1 Ant. Wald- und Feldkulte, 


CAENEUS AND THE CENTAURS: A VASE AT HARROW. 301 


and rocks of four thousand pounds’ weight at one another, over a distance of 
a hundred versts.’' The stones and pine trees that are always the weapons of 
the Centaurs both in literature and in art here find their exact counterpart. 

The ethical tendency of later Greek mythology has transformed and 
obscured the story of the combat of the Centaurs and Lapiths. The fact of 
a combat may have suggested a difference in character between the com- 
batants ; the tendency to take sides in relating a fight is irresistible; and as 
a result the Lapiths who fight against the wild and bestial Centaurs first won 
credit for their prowess in meeting such a foe 


κάρτιστοι μὲν ἔσαν Kal καρτίστοις ἐμάχοντο, 


and then came to be adopted in a way as the champions of humanity and 
civilisation, until in the age of the Persian wars the battle of Lapiths and 
Centaurs came to be a favourite type of the great struggle between Hellene 
and Barbarian. But we have only to examine the myth to see that it must 
have travelled very far from its original significance. The Lapiths are no 
Greek people, but are closely akin to the Centaurs—a kinship that is all the 
better attested because its exact manner is variously related. The devastation 
of storms is wrought by the contest of the wood-spirits, not against human 
antagonists, but against others of their own kind. It is made out with great 
probability by Mannhardt that Centaurs and Lapiths are in their origin but 
two different forms of the same wild men of the woods; only in the one case 
the anthropomorphic tendency has had more scope than in the other. Or it 
would perhaps be more correct to say that the wild men of the woods were 
originally thought of merely as rugged and hairy monsters; in the case of 
the Lapiths they. have come to lose everything inhuman except their super- 
human strength ; while in the case of the Centaurs their bestial characteris- 
tics have assumed a very peculiar form. The Centaur with which we are 
familiar in Greek art is by no means identical with the shaggy brutes of 
Homer and Hesiod, which, as Mannhardt points out, have nothing whatever 
distinctively equine about them. The appropriateness of the form of a 
horse, or of association with a horse, to spirits that ride the storm, is both 
obvious in itself and attested by innumerable instances from folk-lore, but 
the peculiar form taken by this association in the earliest Greek Centaurs, 
which are merely men with a horse’s body and hind quarters growing out of 
their back, is probably due either to some accidental combination or to some 
too literal interpretation of a metaphor used by an early poet; it really has 
no more to do with the origin of the Centaur than has the late and more 
artistic combination of man and horse that we see in the sculpture and 
painting of the fifth century. 

We may then adopt Mannhardt’s explanation of the Centaurs and 
Lapiths, and regard them but as two different developments of the same 
original conception—of the wood-spirits whose combats left their traces 


1 Op. cit. p. 96. 
ne VOL. XVI. ¥ 


302 CAENEUS AND THE CENTAURS: A VASE AT HARROW. 


behind them in pine-trunks and rocks hurled by storms about the slopes of 
Pelion. 

(2) A close association with various trees is naturally enough to be 
expected of wood-spirits, whether such relationship be so definitely realised 
as to cause them to be regarded as the children of tree spirits (Dryads, &c.) 
or not. In some cases the fact is definitely stated ; thus Pholos is the son of 
Melea (the Dryad of the ash) ; Dryalus who is called Πευκείδης and Elatus are 
names that speak for themselves. So Caeneus also is called Elateius (the 
pine-tree man) and Phyllaeus (the leaf-man). By later mythologists his father 
is called Elatus ; it seems likely that the epithet Elateius, which could just as 
well come from ’EXarn (pine) may have existed before the name coined to 
explain it. The use of pine-trees to overwhelm the Lapith hero demands of 
necessity no further explanation, since the pine-tree is the recognised weapon 
of the Centaurs; but, in view of other indications, it is worth while to note 
that the pine-tree had a peculiar sanctity in Greece, especially in cases which 
seem to point to a ritual of human sacrifice. Thus Attis wounded himself 
and died under a pine-tree; Pentheus was set up in a pine-tree, stoned, 
dragged down, and torn to pieces by the Theban maenads!; and the robber 
Sinis, the pine-bender, slew his victims by fastening them to two pine-trees 
and was himself slain in the same manner by Theseus. It is possible then 
that the appearance of the pine-trees in this case may have some significance 
beyond their ordinary use as weapons by the Centaurs. 

The stones thrown at Caeneus are even more significant. We have just 
noticed how this feature occurs also in the tale of Pentheus; at Troezen a 
festival called the stone-throwing (λεθοβόλια) was held in honour of Damia 
and Auxesia,? and the legend went that these two maidens had been stoned 
todeath. Mr. Frazer writes: “It is practically certain that Damia and Auxesia 
were spirits of vegetation and growth. Their images are said to have been made 
of the sacred olive wood of Athens in order to restore to the land of Epidaurus 
the fertility which it had temporarily lost, and the making of the images had 
the desired effect.2 Their names, too, point in the same direction. Now battles 
more or less serious, conducted in the fields with stones as weapons seem to 
have been regarded as a means of promoting fertility in many parts of the 
world. Why they should have been so regarded is more than I can say at 
present, but the fact seems to be undoubted. For European examples, see 
Mannhardt, Bawmkultus, pp. 548-552. In my note on Paus. II. 32. 2, I quote 
more examples, of which I will mention one or two. Among the Khonds of 
Orissa, who sacrificed human victims and buried their flesh in the fields to 
fertilise them, a wild battle was fought with stones and mud just before the 
flesh was buried in the ground (S. Macpherson, Memorials of Service in India, 
p. 129). In Tonga an essential ceremony to procure a good crop of yams was 
a battle between the islanders, one half of the island against the other half. 


1 See Bather, J.H.S. xiv. 251. batim from a letter of Mr. Frazer. 
2 Paus. II. 32 2. A good deal of this 3 Herod. v. 82-87. 
evidence about stone-throwing is quoted ver- 


CAENEUS AND THE CENTAURS: A VASE AT HARROW. 303 


The fight was obstinate and lasted for hours (see Maurice, 7'onga Islands, 2, 
p. 207). In Gilgit an elaborate sham-fight marked the time for pruning the 
vines and the first budding of the apricot-trees (Biddulph, 7'ribes of the 
Hindoo Koosh, p. 102). These battles of stones, associated in myth with 
victims who were slain by stoning, seem in every case to be regarded as con- 
ducive to the fertility of fields or trees. In the case of Caeneus, who is 
buried with stones in such a battle, the association with a pine-tree is already 
otherwise attested. It is an obvious inference that his stoning and burial is 
regarded as conducive to the growth and fertility of the tree with which he 15 
associated. 

(3) We now come to the most curious part of the whole myth, a part that 
perhaps may show its real origin. Both in the literary evidence and in the 
artistic representations we have noticed a fact that is inconsistent with the 
rest of the story. When describing how Caeneus is slain by the Centaurs, 
smitten with green pine-branches, Pindar adds that he cleft the earth with 
unbended knee ; and this is just how he is represented in art, buried to the 
waist but upright. Now this is not the position in which anyone would be 
buried ‘who was overwhelmed by the mass.of unwieldy missiles hurled at 
him in the confusion of combat. It is hardly too much to say that such a 
manner of burial implies a deliberate and intentional act, and that its 
interpolation in the battle-scene is more or less accidental,! while the 
invulnerability of Caeneus is a mere invention to explain it. Now it is not 
easy to say why either Centaurs or Lapiths should bury one of their own 
number in this strange way; but there is another explanation which suggests 
itself. The Centaurs or Lapiths, as we have seen, are wood-spirits, 
whose life is closely bound up with the pine forests in which they live; and 
it is a very common thing for divinities or superhuman beings to have tales 
told about them which are merely derived from the ritual practised by men 
in relation to the function or phenomena with which such divinities are 
associated. One has only to recall the way in which the wanderings of 
Demeter are related in imitation of the wanderings of the mystae at Eleusis, 
or the tale of Lycaon’s slaying his son to feast the gods is coined in imitation 
of the cannibal sacrifice οἵ Mt. Lycaeus. If we apply a similar solution to 
this problem, we should naturally look for the rite from which the myth is 
derived among those customs that are associated with tree or wood-spirits or 
divinities on which the growth of vegetation is dependent. We have already 
noticed examples in which the pine-tree, doubtless as containing such a spirit, 
was associated with human sacrifice in Greece; and the analogy of popular 
customs throughout Europe leads us to see in such sacrifices, real or symbolical, 
a mystic connexion between the life of the man and the life of the tree.” 
That Caeneus was a man in this condition is implied both by his epithets and 
by the company in which we find him. That he should be stoned to death is 


1 Compare however the practice of the Khonds, coincidence due to a similar contamination of 
quoted above, in which the burial of the victim _ two distinct rites. 
is associated with a battle. But this may be a 2 See Frazer, Golden Bough, passim. 
Y 2 


304 CAENEUS AND THE CENTAURS: A VASE AT HARROW. 


in accordance with a common custom in such cases; we need only remember, 
once more, the tale of Pentheus. And in Russia, for example, the burial of 
Jarilo! (the spring) is associated with practices like the setting up of a tree 
which contains the successor of the victim. Perhaps however this burial to 
the waist may have a more exact significance ; it is a practice best known in 
witchcraft like that of Horace’s Canidia,? or fanaticism like that of the 
Suffering Ivan at Kief or the Russian devotees who even yet follow his 
example. But it may go back to ἃ notion that by planting the man who 
represented the tree-spirit as if he were himself a tree, the growth of the tree 
would be assured.* I only give this conjecture, as it was suggested to me by 
Mr. Frazer, with all possible reserve. The chief justification for it lies in the 
fact that it exactly meets the required conditions, and explains what is other- 
wise inexplicable in the traditional form of the myth. 

(4) Caeneus’ change of sex is significant, since a change of sex, or a 
disguise of sex, is an extremely common feature in popular customs that are 
connected with the tree-spirit. I need only quote again the case of Pentheus, 
who was disguised as a woman before he was set up in the pine-tree whence 
he was dragged to his death. There is no need here for us to seek an 
explanation of a fact which has hitherto baffled mythologists ; but the 
existence of this peculiarity in Caeneus is a striking confirmation of the view 
that he too is to be regarded as representing the tree-spirit. 

(5) Resurrection, real or simulated, is another very common 
feature in the rites so often quoted. Resurrection in the form of 
a bird is not indeed known to me in any clear example, though the 
tale of the Phoenix suggests itself, and the practice of liberating an eagle 
from an emperor’s funeral pyre is well known. Perhaps this fact may make 
us suspect the form of the resurrection, which is recorded only by Ovid, but 
it is hardly likely to have been an entire invention, and the resurrection in 
some form must have existed in the early myth. This is confirmed by the 
fact that according to Pindar and Apollonius Rhodius Caeneus seems to 
have gone down alive among the dead, 


ζωόν τ᾽ ἐν φθιμένοισι μολεῖν ὕπο κεύθεα γαίης 


Orph. Argon. l.c. 


Finally, we may find yet another independent proof that we are right 
in regarding the tale of Caeneus as a survival from the primitive rites 
connected with the tree-spirit that are familiar wherever the may-pole is set 


1 Mannhardt, W.F.K. p. 265. 

2 Epod. v. 32. 

3 Burial in these cases was up to the arm-pits 
or to the shoulders. The motive is recorded to 
be in one case to produce pining, in the other 
the mortification of the flesh ; but in both cases 
the practice is probably earlier than its explana- 
tion. 

4 A curious analogy is offered by the crop of 


watriors who come up when Jason sows the 
dragon’s teeth, Ap. Rhod. iii. 1374, &. Many 
of them are slain while still buried to the waist, 
like Caeneus ; and the first comparison, which 
may well be traditional, is to ‘ pine-trees or oaks, 
that are hurled down by the blasts of the storm.’ 
If this is only a coincidence, it is a very curious 
one, 


CAENEUS AND THE CENTAURS: A VASE AT HARROW. 305 


up. For one more fact is recorded about him which has no rational 
connexion with the rest of the tale, but which is easily explained on this 
supposition. In the Scholia to the Iliad! it is said that he πήξας ἀκόντιον 
ἐν τῷ μεσαιτάτῳ τῆς ἀγορᾶς θεὸν τοῦτο προσέταξεν ἀριθμεῖν. What can 
this mean but that he set up ἃ may-pole on the village green, thereby 
proving, if further proof be needed, the true nature of the tales that were 
told about him ? 
ERNEST GARDNER. 


1 Schol. A on A 264, 


306 VOTIVE RELIEFS IN THE ACROPOLIS MUSEUM. 


VOTIVE RELIEFS IN THE ACROPOLIS MUSEUM. 
[PLates VII, VIII.] 


THE Terra-cotta reliefs which form the subject of the present article 
have been for some years one of the minor attractions of the Acropolis 
Museum, and I am indebted for permission to publish them to the kindness of 
the Ephor General M. Cavvadias, and of the Ephors, MM. Stais and 
Castriotis, The latter as superintendent of the Museum most obligingly 
put at my disposal all the information in his possession and afforded me every 
facility for photographing the tablets. No single tablet in the collection is 
perfect and of the 73 fragments! which comprise it, the great majority came 
to light during the systematic excavations of the Acropolis which were carried 
on from 1885-1890; they were all found at some depth below the surface and 
as far as could be learnt, to the north, the east and the south-east of the 
Parthenon. The rest have been in the Museum since 1863 ; these were all found 
on or near the surface and it is possible that others were carried away by visitors 
and are now hidden in private collections. The publication of the Museum 
fragments may lead to their identification and the completion of some of the 
tablets whose design cannot at present be determined. 

As already stated no complete tablet has been preserved, but a sufficient 
variety of fragments exists to show that they were of uniform size, clay and 
technique, about 22 centimetres long by 16 wide and 1 thick, bordered top 
and bottom by a rim projecting } a centimetre beyond the background, from 
which the relief rises to a height not exceeding 14 centimetres. They are 
pierced by three holes, usually one in each of the upper corners and another 
in the centre of the lower edge. The clay is very hard and fine, of a pale red 
colour which on fracture shows brighter red streaks ; the firing is well done 
and very few of the fragments have any trace of the warping common in the 
reliefs from Epizephyrian Locri. The tablets are all covered with a layer of 
white lime-wash as a basis for the colour used, pale blue for the background, 
bright red, green (?) black, brown and yellow for the different portions of the 
relief. The border, the outside edge and, in one case, the back were painted 
crimson red, so that the general effect must have been brilliant in the 
extreme ; the colouring, however, though vivid, was much more carefully 
done than is usual in terra cotta work, and we do not find that the green 


1 Reg. Nos, 1318-1391. 


VOTIVE RELIEFS IN THE ACROPOLIS MUSEUM. 307 


border of an aegis is continued on to a red robe or that the red of the chariot 
wheels has trespassed on to a blue background. 

In style the designs are archaic, but it is an archaism due more to 
conservatism than to want of skill. Those who have studied the cases of 
terra-cotta figures in the Acropolis Museum or Dr Winter’s account of them * 
will remember that they are distinguished by the same fineness of clay, 
perfection of firing and precision of colouring. Another technical 
peculiarity which they share with the tablets is the use of lines of pale grey 
colour to sketch in that portion of the design which is not rendered in relief. 
The statuettes and the tablets must therefore come from one and the same 
locality, and the reasons which caused Dr. Winter to describe the statuettes 
as of local, ὁ... Athenian, origin derive fresh force from the evidence supplied 
by the tablets. In subject as in technique the latter are extremely local. 
All the designs, save three, one of which is too fragmentary for interpretation, 
refer to various conceptions of Athena as Ergané, Polias, Archegetis or 
Promachos, nor is this to be wondered at. It is impossible to separate 
Athena from her chosen city; the one idea includes the other. In other states 
she was worshipped as one of the divinities; in Athens she was the divinity, 
her reputation and cultus increased in proportion as the reputation and power 
of the city grew, her nature underwent the same transformation as did the 
nature of the state; originally she was a goddess of agriculture, the goddess 
to whom the earliest corn sowing and the fields? were dedicated, but as the 
leader of an ambitious race, fighting its way to power, she became a goddess 
of war. The complete transformation of a divinity to suit the character of 
a particular set of worshippers is not uncommon in Greek mythology, witness 
the warlike Aphrodite of Sparta, but the development of Athena proceeds on 
logical lines. The central point of the conception is mind or rather 
intelligence, the practical mind which turns matter to the best account and 
subdues brute force, therefore not only every art but every craft however 
humble was under her protection; as Athena Ergané she invented the flute, 
she helped to build the Argo, she wove wondrous garments for herself 
and Hera, she taught the Rhodian artists te people the island with 
statues which seemed to live and breathe; as Archegetis or Polias, by her 
wise counsel she protected the fortunes of the state and if necessary armed 
herself in its defence. The conception of Athena as a goddess of wisdom 
does not come within our province ; it is a later one which arose when Athens, 
no longer paramount in the political counsels of Greece, sought and obtained a 
wider and less disputed sway in the intellectual world. 

We have therefore two distinct sides to her character, the peaceful and 
the warlike, and the latter assumed undue prominence because the existence 
of a Greek state depended on its fighting power—therefore tle popular idea 
of Athena Polias was of a combative goddess, though originally her function 
was both peace and war. Eustathius*® describes thellian palladion thus: 


1 Arch. Anzeiger, 1893, pp. 140-148. 3 Eustath. on Z 91, p. 627, 
2 Suidas, s.v. Procharisteria. 


308 VOTIVE RELIEFS IN THE ACROPOLIS MUSEUM. 


διοπετὲς μὲν εἶναι, στέμμα τε ἔχειν καὶ ἠλακάτην, ἐν δὲ TH κεφαλῇ πῖλον 
(πόλον) καὶ δόρυ ἐν τῇ δεξιᾷ. Apollodorus gives much the same description 
of it, τῇ μὲν δεξιᾷ δόρυ διῃρμένον ἔχον, τῇ δὲ ἑτέρᾳ ἠλακάτην καὶ ἄτρακτον. 
It is under this form that it appears on late silver coins of Novum Ilion? 
Again the Athena Polias of Erythrae,? an archaic wooden statue ascribed to 
Endoios, had a distaff in either hand; in the liad, though Athena mainly 
appears as an active partizan of the Greeks and therefore in her warlike 
character, attention is also drawn to her skill in womanly arts* which are 
again insisted on in the Homeric Hymn ‘H δέ τε παρθενικὰς ἁπαλόχροας 
ἐν μεγάροισιν | ἀγλαὰ ἔργ᾽ ἐδίδαξεν, ἐπὶ φρεσὶ θεῖσα ἑκάστῃ. Later on the 
two conceptions were somewhat sharply sundered; the arts of peace were 
allotted to Athena Ergané who took a lower position and was worshipped only 
by craftsmen, for Plutarch ® in contrasting the worshippers of Athena Ergané 
who work with their hands, with those of Athena Polias who use their 
brains quotes from Sophocles : 7 
πᾶς ὁ χειρῶναξ λεὼς 
οἱ τὴν Διὸς γοργῶπιν ᾿Εργάνην...... 
PA, cts satel d 19s eh: προστρέπεσθε... 


At the period to which our reliefs belong (the end of the sixth century 
and beginning of the fifth) the difference had not been emphasized and in 
this indistinctness of thought it seems to me that we should seek the solution 
of the problem as to whether Athena Ergané had a special temple on the 
Acropolis or not. I do not think she had. Pausanias states® that the 
Athenians boasted of having been the first to worship her, and inscriptions to 
her have been found on the Acropolis, to the north, south and west of the Par- 
thenon, among them a grave inscription ® wherein the relatives of one Euanthé 
state that they have dedicated ‘a painted tablet in the precinct of Pallas 
the laborious’ (εἰκόνα μὲν γραπτάν...θήκαμεν ἐργοπόνου Iladdaébos ἐν τεμένει), 
but there is no reason why this description should not be applied to Athena 
Polias. Most of the inscriptions to Athena Ergané are set up by the relations 
of women whose special interest in the Polias was obviously the peplos woven 
for her, and to whom she might well be ἐργοπόνος, as the robe was begun at 
the feast of Athena Ergané under the supervision of her priestess and of the 
Errephorae ; therefore offerings to Ergané might well be placed in the Polias 
temple and the latter goddess be described as ἐργοπόνος. 

The reliefs fall naturally into two main divisions: (44) those which- 
represent Athena, and those (B) which, so far as we can tell, represented some 
other personage. The latter division whieh only includes 3 fragments 
out of a total of 73, is figured under numbers 8, 9, 10. 


1 Apoll. iii. 12, 3. 5 iii. in Venerem, lines 14-15. 
2 Brit. Mus. Cat. Coins of Troas, Plate XI. 6 Praec. de ret. ger. 5. 

3-7. 7 Soph. Frag. Dindorf 724. 
3 Paus. vii. 5, 9. 8 Paus. i. 24, 3. 


v. 735; xiv. 178. 9 C.I.A. ii. 1830. 


VOTIVE RELIEFS IN THE ACROPOLIS MUSEUM. 309 


Division A, Representations of Athena, contains four clearly marked 
types :-— 

(1) Athena Ergané, a seated figure spinning (Fig. 1 and Plate VII. 1). 

(2) Athena Polias, seated, unarmed in gala array (Fig. 2 and Plate VII. 2). 

(3) Athena Polias, seated armed but not combative (Fig. 3). 

(4) Athena Promachos. (Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7 and Plate VIII, 1, 2). 


SS 


INS 
St 


4%, 


Of the two aspects under which the reliefs represent Athena, armed and 
unarmed, seated and standing, the unarmed seated type is the more attractive 
and gives rise to several interesting problems. One type of it is shown in 
Fig. 1 and Plate VIJ.1.1 A young girl dressed in the ordinary house costume, an 


1 Two examples. the old wall’ in the forecourt of the museum. 
(1) Reg. No. 1827 ; length 0°19 cent. x 0°16. All the drawings in the text have been skil- 
Traces of black on chair. See Plate. fully put together by Mr. F. Anderson from my 
(2) 1880; length 0°22 x 0°16. Draperyincised. photographs. The left hand in Fig. 1 is re- 
Traces of red on footstool, kerchief, and rim, stored from a vase-painting. 
and of blue on background. Found 1886 ‘near 


310 VOTIVE RELIEFS IN THE ACROPOLIS MUSEUM. 


Tonic chiton of fine material, her hair concealed by a handkerchief, seated, in 
a somewhat inelegant attitude on a long bench, her feet resting on a foot-stool. 
Two examples exist, the less perfect of which is represented on Plate VII. 
as it supplies the key to the action; the peculiar turn of the right hand and 
the spindle seen below it show that the girl is spinning; the left hand is 
missing but the raised forearm is in the position required for holding a distaff 
(cf. Steph. C.R. 1863. Plate II. 17). Given the locality of the find, and the 
special circumstances which connect Athena Ergané with spinning and 
especially with the manufacture of the peplos, there seems little doubt that 
the tablet represents her in the likeness of one of the ἐργαστῖναι, a young 
girl spinning in the women’s chamber and therefore represented in indoor 
costume and an easy attitude which form a piquant contrast to the prim 
position and elaborate costume shown in the second type (Fig. 2). The 
strong resemblance to the ‘Peitho’ of the Parthenon frieze is of course 
evident, but the attribute of the spindle seems to allow no room for doubt as 
to the person depicted. The dedication may have been made either by a 
young girl or perhaps it was the gift of her relations who, like Euanthé’s 
friends, offered an εἰκόνα γραπτάν in memory of her, not of course a portrait 
as these tablets were made by the dozen. . 

An interesting point in connexion with this figure is the possible light it 
throws on the subject of the ‘catagusa’! statue. It is now generally admitted 
that κατάγειν means ‘to draw out the thread,’ and Forster (Phil. Supp. Bd. 
IV. pp. 720, 21) has already made the suggestion that the ‘catagusa’ might 
prove to be a representation of Athena Ergané; therefore in our relief 
we may have an indication of the main lines of the subject. The ‘ catagusa’ 
was of course a statue in the round, but its novelty is as likely to have 
consisted in the adaptation of the ‘motif’ of a relief as in an original 
conception. 

Fig. 2 gives another representation of Athena? in a dignified somewhat 
hieratic pose, corresponding to her elaborate gala costume. In her right hand 
she holds a bowl, the left is tightly clasped over some object which was not 
indicated in relief and has therefore disappeared. The treatment of the face 
(Plate VII. 2) shows less of archaism than the preceding and there is a dignity 
and nobility about the figure which, to compare the infinitely small with the 
infinitely great, recalls the Parthenon frieze and is shared by one other head 
in this collection (Fig. 3). There is no direct evidence to prove that this 
figure is an Athena at all, still less an Athena Polias, but the very absence of 
any distinctive attribute is in favour of the attribution, and the obvious 
connexion between Figs. 1 and 2 helps to strengthen it. An Athena Polias 
seated in much the same attitude and costume and holding a dish in her 
outstretched right hand is shown on an Etrurian hydria where the goddess is 


1 Pliny, Nat. Hist, xxxiv. ‘Praxiteles fecit Reg. No. 1838 (PI. ix. 2). Upper part of relief 
item catagusam.’ For κατάγειν in this sense see 0'15x0'16. Stephané red, background blue. 
Plat. Soph. p. 226°, Pollux, vii. 29, &c. See Hair and chiton incised. Traces of burning. 
also Forster, loc. cit. p. 719. Reg. No. 1387; 0°14x0°15. Slight traces 

* Two examples : of blue on background and of red on chair. 


ATHENIAN VOTIVE RELIEFS 


J.H.S VOL. XVII. (1897), PL. Vil. 


wach 


ἥ 


we. 


ATHENIAN VOTIVE RELIEFS. 


J. H. S. VOL. 


XVil. (1897), PL. Vill. 


a 


VOTIVE RELIEFS IN THE ACROPOLIS MUSEUM. 311 


identified by her helmet, spear and snake.! Further, an inscription * found 
to the west of the Parthenon recounts how the Boulé was approached by the 
fathers of the maidens who span the wool for the peplos of Athena Polias, 
with the request that as they had fulfilled all their duties creditably and 
accompanied the procession, they might now offer a silver phialé, value 100 
drachmas, to the goddess as a mark of piety to her and goodwill to the 
Demos. This inscription is assigned by MM. Kohler and Foucart to 98-97 B.c., 


Z\tr rrr 
({ ζζ WHE" 
γ 


but the custom of the dedication of a silver dish by the ἐργαστῖναι can 
hardly have been instituted for the first time at that date, and under like 
circumstances this tablet would be an especially appropriate offering. 

Only three small fragments ° exist of a tablet which shows the goddess 


1 Gerh. A.V. iv. 242, 1. This vase has dis- 3 Reg. No. 1321; 0°10x0°9. Background 


appeared and has apparently not been seen since __ blue, hair red. 
the publication by Gerhard. It is not in Berlin. No. 1318; 0°4x0°2. 
3 0.1.4... 477. Completed 8.0. Η. vol. xiii. No. 1855; 0°6 long x 0°2. 


pp. 170, 1, No. 6. 


312 VOTIVE RELIEFS IN THE ACROPOLIS MUSEUM. 


accoutred with helmet, aegis, and gorgoneion (Fig. 3), but her elaborately- 
dressed hair and fine Ionic tunic prove that she is the victorious Polias 
enjoying the blessings of peace for which she fought. The scale on which the 
helmet and head are given show that the figure was a seated one,and we may 
restore the design by placing a spear in one hand and an owl either in the 
field or in the left hand (cf. Gerh. Trinkschalen wu. Geftisse, Pl. XIII., 1.) 

The most popular representation of the goddess was as Athena Promachos 
in her war chariot (Figs. 4,5,6, Plate VIII.,1,2). The design is common on black 
figured vases, but its peculiarity here lies in the absence of the horses, which 
are left to the imagination, though the goddess’ right hand is outstretched to 
hold the reins, and rests on the front rail. Two variations of the design 
exist; in one, the goddess with a spear in her right hand is mounting the 
chariot,! in the other, she has already mounted and holds a shield or a 


Fie. 3: 


spear on her left arm.” The face, probably for religious reasons, is more 
emphatically archaic than in any of the reliefs already discussed, with a thick 
nose, prominent eyes and chin. One fragment (Fig. 5) shows heavy features 
and coarsely incised locks of hair, and further differs from the others in having 
no owl in the field.* The owl was adopted as Athena’s crest probably because 


1 Fifteen large fragments, of which the most 0°'18x0.8. 


important are: Reg. No. 1333. Plate viii., Reg. No. 1322; zigzag pattern in grey lines 
Fig. 1. 0°22x0°16. on the aegis. 
Background blue, chariot and robe red, aegis 2 Two specimens : 
black border. Reg. No. 1334. Plate viii. 2. 0°15 x 0°16. 
Casque of helmet black, crest red, lips red. Reg. 1340. Fig. 4. 0°10x0°9. 
Owl yellow-brown, details in black. 3 Reg. No. 1336; 0°12 x 0°14. 
Reg. No. 1835 ; 0°22 x 16. Colouring asin*. Relief 14 cent. high. 


Reg. No. 1341, showing left side of tablet; 


VOTIVE RELIEFS IN THE ACROPOLIS MUSEUM. 313 


it abounded on the Acropolis, for otherwise it was a bird of evil omen,' but 
under her protection it flourished so much that γλαῦκα εἰς ᾿Αθήνας was 
the Greek equivalent of ‘ taking coals to Newcastle. * Attention may be drawn 
to the care with which the bird is represented; the feathers are first incised 
in the clay, and then carefully picked out in black; in fact, one of the most 
striking points about these little reliefs is the care expended on details, the 
most perfect specimen being shown in Fig 6, where the scales of the aegis are 
outlined in black and coloured alternately red and blue, the inside of the aegis 
green, the robe red and the chariot rail black. 


i; 
a 


wz 


Fic. 4. 


The main interest of the Promachos design centres in Athena’s accoutre- 
ments, helmet, aegis, and shield. The helmet is of the high-crested Attic 
type, the shield also Attic, the aegis cloak-like in form and edged with a 
double wavy line which does duty for a snake border, (the elaborate scale 
aegis [Fig. 6] has a nearly straight edge), the gorgoneion does not appear on 
it at all, though the seated Athena (Fig. 3) has one. The aegis in this 


1 Ael, de Nat. Anim. x. 37. * Schol, ad Arist. Hqwites, 1102. 


314 VOTIVE RELIEFS IN THE ACROPOLIS MUSEUM. 


form is that worn in all archaic representations of her, and much more 
closely resembles the Homeric conception of it than the scale gorget of later 


Fic. 5. 


art. Curiously enough, the tradition as to the aegis is extremely confused and 
uncertain. Homer states that she received it from her father Zeus, ac- 


cording to Euripides! it was the skin of Gorgo, and according to a still later 
tradition ? it was the skin of the Titan, Pallas, whom she slew. Probably,® 


1 Jon 1000, and a gem in the Brit. Mus.: 3 Fora discussion of this question see Reichel, 
Murray, Handbook of Arch. Pl. XII. 9. Homerische Waffen, pp. 65-72. 
* Apoll. i. 6, 2. 


VOTIVE RELIEFS IN THE ACROPOLIS MUSEUM. 315 


it and the lion skin of Heracles were the sole survivals of a time when the 
only thing available for protective armour was a skin, worn as a cloak in time 
of peace, and brought round over the left arm in battle ἐν προβολῆ An 
unsuccessful attempt to represent the tufts of hair on the skin may be the 
basis of the scales, for the fleece on an early Rhodian pinax? is rendered by 
a series of triangular lines which are not unlike rough scales, but the main 


Frc. 7. 


reason for them arises from the combination of the aegis and the gorgoneion., 
This took place when the general acceptance of the Argive version of the 
Medusa story (according to which Perseus was inspired by Athena to slay the 
Gorgon), led to the Gorgon’s head becoming as essential an attribute of the 
goddess as was the aegis. At a very early stage we find that the fringes of 


Fic. 8. 


the aegis had developed into writhing serpents, either mechanically, or to 
increase its terrifying power; but when the gorgoneion was transferred to it 
from the shield where Athena first placed it,’ this power centred in it and the 
Medusa legend with its snakes dominated the conception. The archaic 


1 Gerh. A.V. ii. 127. 8 Apoll. ii. 4, 3, 7. 
2 B.M. First Vase Room, Case A, No. A 750. 


316 VOTIVE RELIEFS IN THE ACROPOLIS MUSEUM. 


Tonian (2.¢e., Attic) Gorgon type is that shown in Fig. 7, broad, full, and fleshy, 
with little or no trace of snakes, the lines of the mouth are horizontal but 
the eye teeth do not show and few of the steps have been taken by which a 
simple mask grew into the snake-wreathed horror of later times. 

It will thus be seen that the design is consistently archaic in all its 
details: where the gorgoneion appears at all it is on the shield, and that only 
in 2 fragments out of 40, while the shield on Plate VIII. has none at all. It 
therefore belongs to the archaic Athena type reconstructed by Studniczka, 
and assigned by him to the 6th century. 

I have no suggestion to make for the restoration or interpretation of the 
fragments shown in Fig. 8.8 

The draped male figure, standing by a bench‘ of which a portion is 
shown in Fig. 9 can be completed by the help of Fig. 94, a tablet seen by 


Stackelberg and published in his Graeber der Hellenen (Plate LVI. 4). Both 
he and Overbeck (Kunstmythologie III. p. 68) interpret the figure as Apollo, 
and there is a striking resemblance in the treatment of the hair to the 
colossal Apollo head of the West Pediment at Olympia, but as the same 
treatment is shown by a head of Hades in two terra-cotta reliefs from Locri, 
now in the British Museum, the evidence in favour of this identification is 
not conclusive. The hind, in Fig. 9A, is an unusual attribute for Apollo, but 
I cannot vouch for this detail as I have not succeeded in tracing the tablet. 


1 Two examples : 3 No. 1391. 

Reg. No. 1367 ; 0:10 x 0°7. Shield black, rim Feet of draped figure moving to left ; 0°11 x 0°7. 
red. Found 1886. 4 No. 1389. 

Reg. No. 1372; 0°8x0°7. Gorgon’s eyes out- Draped figure standing against a bench; 
lined in black. 0°10x 0°11. Pink in folds of drapery. 


2 Studniczka, Ath. Mitth. xi. 185. 


VOTIVE RELIEFS IN THE ACROPOLIS MUSEUM. 317 


The Heracles relief! (Fig. 10) has already been published and discussed 
by Dr. Reisch, and is only included here to complete the series, I differ, 


Vie 9a. 


Fie. 10. 


however, from him in regarding it as an offering to Heracles, and think that 
like the other tablets, it was offered to Athena. Ample evidence of the 


1 Reg. No. 1323; 0°12 x 0°9. τῆς ᾿Ακροπόλεως. Reisch, Ath. Mitth. 1887. 
Hair incised: Found in 1886. παρὰ τείχου 


ΗΝ, -ΨῸ , XVIT, Z 


318 VOTIVE RELIEFS IN THE ACROPOLIS MUSEUM. 


custom of dedicating to one divinity the image of another is afforded by the 
temple favissae. 

In describing these tablets I have said little about their artistic charm ; 
though photography does not reveal it, they have all the graceful precision of 
line and somewhat prim beauty, which finds its highest expression in the sculp- 
tures of the Treasury of the Athenians at Delphi, and I, therefore, assign them 
on stylistic grounds, to the end of the 6th and the beginning of the 5th 
century, a conclusion which is strengthened by Dr. Reisch’s attribution of the 
Heracles-cum-lion schema to the end of the 6th century, and by the consist- 
ently archaic treatment of Athena’s panoply in Fig. 4. They certaiuly 
afford interesting evidence of the high artistic level of the age, for the potter 
was a craftsman who followed, but did not guide, the public taste, and they 
also serve to illustrate the varied aspects under which the Athenians regarded 
her to whom they prayed 


Παλλὰς Tpitoyéver’, ἄνασσ᾽ ᾿Αθηνᾶ, 
v / , Ν / 
ὄρθου τήνδε πόλιν TE Kal πολίτας 
ἄτερ ἀλγέων καὶ στάσεων 
καὶ θανάτων ἀώρων σύ τε καὶ πατήρ. 
C. A. Hutton. 


ON THE TUMULUS OF CHOBAN TEPEH IN THE TROAD, 319 


ON THE TUMULUS OF CHOBAN TEPEH IN THE TROAD. 


I DERIVE the materials of the present paper from some memoranda which 
I find amongst my archaeological notes and which relate to certain explora- 
tions to which I was not a party, made so long ago as 1887. I have thought 
that the particulars then obtained may be deemed sufficiently interesting 
to deserve a record in the history of Trojan archaeological discovery. 

The subject is one of the four small tumuli dotted about and near 
the hill of Balh-Dagh, the crest of which according to the now exploded 
theory of Le Chevalier (1785) was supposed to represent the Pergamos of 
Troy. Ih a memoir contributed to the Jowrnal of the Archacological Institute 
of 1864, I proved that the site in question was no other than that of the 
ancient city of Gergis. In the same paper I gave an account of the results of 
the excavation of one of the group of three tumuli on Balli-Dagh, the so- 
named Tomb of Priam. The other two, namely Le Chevalier’s Tomb of 
Hector, and an unnamed hillock, were excavated respectively by Sir John 
Lubbock (about 1878) and Dr. Schliemann (1882) without result. The 
present relates to the fourth mound on the road between the villages of 
Bournarbashi and Arablar (as shown in the published maps), which goes by 
the name of Choban Tepeh (Shepherd’s hillock) and the Tomb of Paris, 
according to Rancklin (1799). This tumulus was secretly excavated at night 
by some workmen under the direction of a Turkish village priest, in the usual 
hope of finding treasure, and the enclosed tomb was rifled on the 6/7th 
March, 1887. Some valuable and interesting objects were in effect found, 
with others of archaeological interest as affording still further proof of the 
non-identity of Balli-Dagh with ancient Troy. The Turkish authorities, 
having got wind of the matter, imprisoned the priest, and took possession of 
the objects found, which they forwarded to the Imperial Museum at Constan- 
tinople. I had the opportunity of seeing the articles at the Government 
House before they were sent on. 


They consisted of the following :— 


A solid golden chaplet with thin oak leaves and small acorns on long 
vibrating stems. 

Three golden fillets, with embossed pattern. 

A number of fine strips of gold. 

Fragments of sprigs of myrtle, with stems in lead and bronze leaves and 
berries gilt, 

A bronze speculum—plain, 

| Ζ 2 


320 ON THE TUMULUS OF CHOBAN TEPEH IN THE TROAD. 


A small bronze patera. 
An alabastron of alabaster. 
Some iron nails. 


The above were found in the tomb resting on the solid rock near the 
centre of the tumulus. I lost no time in visiting the place and the results of 
my examination are best shown in the accompanying diagrams of the tumulus 
and tomb. An open trench intersected the mound to the surface level of the 
tomb, of which one of the covering slabs had been broken in effecting entrance. 
The position of the tomb in the tumulus is more towards the east which is 
the longitudinal direction. 

The dimensions of the tumulus are :— 


Diameter at the base, about 130 feet, 
Height above the level of the slope, about 20 feet ; 


Section of 
TUMULUS 
of 
CHOBAN TEPEH 


Section of 
TOMB 


Frank Calvert 


of the tomb :— 
ft. in. 
Interior length of chamber . αἴ .1|8: 
Breadth ¥ ᾿ ἦν τολδας att % & 
Height Ἢ δ writ wads doid&- 
Thickness of masonry ..... 10. 


I have only to add that the masonry of site iets is of well dressed 
stones fitted closely together, without cement, and the roof formed of five 
slabs. The material is from an ancient quarry on the banks of the Scamander 
at the foot of the hills. It is not of the same formation as the rock on which 
the tumulus stands, but is a peculiar one, composed of the débris from the 
heights on the side of the rivers Scamander and Thymbrius, which have 
been indurated by the coulées of trachyte flowing over them in the valleys of 
these rivers. The stone is of good quality and easily dressed. 


FRANK CALVERT, 
DARDANELLES, 25TH November, 1897. 


PL. Xl. 


\‘1897) 


J. H.S. VOL. Xvi. 


ἜΝΞΗΙν LY 


QV3SH LIVYLHYOd τ 


Bees, tt 


nee aw a“ Ῥ ὌΝ Je 
ν᾿: δῦ ς 
at "6 iY secnaelee eatin” πὰ 
τ' “4 ᾿ ἐν re 
a SF wall ἔμ ΤῊ gat ΜΝ 
es «| 85" ὃν» a Te a - 
he 4 aL ᾿ ae , be 
be i> P a 
ur Ya Gee 
f μ " ΚΝ 
+ oe "» “ 
’ δ, Ἢ 
> 7 q \ ‘e 
. ! 
é ay 
ae, 7 
Py y ὃ Yi, 
. uw 
/* 


4h. it LA ἣ ms 


A THRACIAN PORTRAIT. 321 


A THRACIAN PORTRAIT:! 
[PLATE ΧΙ] 


WHEN I first saw this head,? I was at once struck by its marked 
individuality : if any portrait could be recognized from a coin, it seemed to be 
this, for features so personal the poorest engraver could scarcely conceal. 
My hopes were realized, as a comparison of the accompanying photographs 
with the coin*® reproduced beneath will I hope prove. 


In both we see the same treatment of the hair in front, the same 
fashion of wearing it behind: the long upper lip, the nose with its curiously 
distended nostrils—the marble preserving just enough to make the agreement 
certain—the long ears, the deep lines on the cheek, the shape of jaw and 
forehead, the prominent Adam’s apple; these too are common to both. In 
one point only is a slight difference noticeable: the eyes of the bust are rather 
small, those of the coin decidedly large, but this is precisely the feature which 
an artist in little would naturally exaggerate. And any doubts, which I at 
first had, were finally dispelled by the existence of two inscriptions at Athens, 
completely bearing out the numismatic evidence. 

The coin bears the legends— 


(Obv.) ΒΑΣΙΛΕῪΣ KOTYS 
(Rev.) BASIAEQE ΡΑΙΣΙΚΟΥΠΟΡΙΔΟΣ or PAIZKOYTIOPENS. 


11 am indebted to Dr. Imhoof-Blumer for 2 Cavvadias, Catalogue, 581; of Pentelic 
his kindness in sending me a cast of the coin marble; found in A‘hens in 1887, 
here reproduced, to Mr. Warwick Wroth for a 3 Imhoof-Blumer, Portrdtképfe etc. Taf. 
similar courtesy, and to Mr. Charles Clark for 2, 17. 
having photographed the Athenian head. 


322 A THRACIAN PORTRAIT. 


But, apart from this, the almost Bacchic wildness of the locks above the 
forehead and the square face—curiously reminding me of the Franconian 
type as drawn by Holbein, Strigel, Diirer, and others—would point unmis- 
takably to a barbaric origin: no one could for a moment think our subject 
was either Greek or Roman. The lines of forehead, cheek, and mouth lend 
an expression of nervous determination to the character, but, though strong and 
decided, he would not scruple also to commit acts of treachery when they 
served his interests, a vigorous but shifty man, if we may so interpret a 
sinister look about the eyes and the thin lips. A wreath represents perhaps 
royal pretensions, and the tightly drawn flesh, the crowsfeet round the eyes 
and the fulness under the chin point to a possibly early maturity. Whomever 
this head portrays, it is a real contribution to ethnography, for in a free 
unstereotyped fashion it gives us clearly all the features which historians 
attribute to the Thracian character, and combines them in a physical setting 
which no guess-work could have recovered.!' Too often, as in the crude 
provincial work from Adam-Klissi, our ethnographical documents are of an 
inferior order: this work however has real artistic merit, like in kind to the 
Pergamene ‘Galatians, and like them it aids us somewhat. in unravelling a 
very obscure history—a history so obscure indeed, that despite the coin it is 
difficult to find out who is the person here portrayed. 
The Athenian inscriptions above referred to, are as follows :—* 


(1) BAZIAEA PASKOYTIOPIN KOTYOE 
APETHS ENEKEN THE ΕΙΣ EATON. 
ANTIFNQTOS EMOIHEEN 


O ΔΗΜΟΣ 
BAZIAEA KOYTYN ΒΑΣΙΛΕΟΣ 
PAIZKOYTIOPIAOS YON APETHS 
ENEKEN KAI EYNOIAS THE ΕΙΣ AYTON 
ANTIFNQTOS ΕΠΟΙΗΣΕΝ. 


(2) 


Unfortunately both coin and inscriptions have been the subject of much 
controversy, but one or two facts may be laid down which will lessen the 
ground of dispute. Almost all numismatists agree that the coin belongs to 
the Augustan period : as to the relation between its two legends, there is less 
unanimity, but the most reasonable view seems to be that of von Sallet 3— 


1 It is interesting to contrast it with another 
Thracian head, the Capitoline portrait of the 
Emperor Maximin, the face of aman who like 


2 C.I.A. iii. 1, 552 ; ib. 555. Loewy, 1.4.B., 
314, 315. This writer has criticised his pre- 
decessors exhaustively, and so I have tried not 


Kotys had come into not unfriendly contact 
with a high civilization, yet had by no means 
lost his barbarism. The differences between the 
two are as instructive as the points of resem- 
blance, 


to repeat arguments of his, to which I have 
nothing to add. 

8 Beschreibung der Antiken Miinzen (Berlin), 
i, 334, 3365. 


A THRACIAN PORTRAIT. 323 


Rhaskouporis (rev.) is the son of Kotys (obv.) and possibly his associate in the 
royalty. 

Secondly, although Mommsen does otherwise, few will hesitate to 
connect the two inscriptions: in spite of slight differences in spelling, the 
artist’s name is sufficient to justify this. And the character of the letters 
and the form of words used again point to the Augustan period. 

In order, therefore, to discover the subject of our head, we must find a 
king named Kotys, of the Augustan age, both son and father of kings named 
Rhaskouporis. 

Several reconstructions of Thracian history have been offered, but as I 
am unable to accept any of them completely, it will be necessary once more to 
enter this labyrinth, following, however, only those paths which have any 
bearing upon our quest. 

During the half century previous to the death of Caesar we have 
evidence of a powerful Odrysian dynasty. In B.c.70,aking named Sadala (1) 
was reigning :” in 48 another Sadala (2) or Sadales was sent by his father 
Kotys (1) then king of Thrace to assist Pompeius. This man was pardoned 
at Pharsala, and, after succeeding his father about the same time, died child- 
less in 42, leaving his dominions to Rome. Thereupon Brutus overran this 
part of Thrace and was vigorously supported in his campaign by a Sapaian 
dynast, named Rhaskouporis‘ (1). 

Further, Appian® tells the story of a certain Polemokratia, the widow 
of a murdered Thracian kinglet, who fled with her children to Brutus 
and was placed by him at Kyzikos. And there is extant an inscription 
from a monument erected by a certain Kotys to his parents Sadales and 
Polemokratia.® 

Mommsen’ has combined these three facts: impugning Dion’s truthful- 
uess, he argues that Sadales (2) did not die childless, that he was the husband 
of Appian’s Polemokratia, and that the Kotys of the Bizye inscription is their 
child, and identical also with a king of that name whom we know from other 
sources to have reigned later. This later Kotys (2) is known to have had a 
son Rhaskouporis (2), and two brothers Rhoimetalkes (1) and Rhaskouporis 
(3) all afterwards kings of Thrace. Mommsen’s pedigree therefore connects 
this dynasty with the previous Odrysian line; but at the cost of denying 
Dion’s account, and of assuming the existence of an unknown dynasty to 
whom the Athenian inscriptions may be assigned. Further objections 
to this theory will be pointed out in the version of Thracian history which I 
suggest, a version which at least brings all authorities literary and epigraphi- 
cal into complete harmony. 


1 For the form ἑατόν, cf. Homolle, B.C.H., 3 Dion. Cassius, xli., 51, 63. 
viii. p. 188, and contrast with Loewy, 1. 6.8. 4 ib. xlvii., 25. 
316. 5 Appian, iv., 75. 


2 Cic. Verr. ii. 1, 24. The figures in 6 Rangabé, <Antiquités Helléniques, ii, No. 
brackets after the king’s names are inserted for 1236 ; from Bizye. 
the convenience of the present paper, and do not 7 Mommsen, Ephem. Epigraph, ii. (1875), 
correspond with any others. p. 253. seq. 


324 A THRACIAN PORTRAIT. 


King Kotys of the Bizye inscription, I identify with the father of Sadala 
(2): the repetition of the name Polemokratia is not at all unlikely, and this date 
suits the character of the letters.1 With the death of his son, the Odrysian 
dynasty I believe came to an end, as Dion says. The second Polemokratia is 
described simply as the widow of a Thracian kinglet, whose name the writer 
does not know: possibly it was Koson,? but this ignorance and the title 
βασιλίσκος would both be strange, if the murdered man were really an 
Odrysian dynast as well-known as Sadales (2). 

After the death of Sadala (2) two Sapaian princes rose into prominence, 
the brothers Rhaskouporis (1) and Rhaskos.2 In 48 the former sent only 200 
horsemen to assist Pompeius, in 42 he helped Cassius with 3000 and his 
brother brought the same complement to Caesar: after the “ Liberators’ ” 
defeat, Rhaskouporis was pardoned on his brother's intercession. The forces 
which these two princes could summon, show that they had extended their 
power, presumably over the land once ruled by the Odrysians, and this 
extension must have been the result of the previous campaign of Brutus, the 
protector, according to Mommsen, of the Odrysian heir. 

This Rhaskouporis (1) I believe to be the father of Kotys (2), therefore 
also of Rhoimetalkes (1) and Rhaskouporis (2), for the following reasons. 
First, Strabo, a contemporary authority, describes Kotys (3) the son of 
Rhoimetalkes (1) as a Sapaian: therefore it is natural to identify him with a 
Sapaian, not an Odrysian house. 

Secondly, this dynasty was very unpopular with the Odrysian tribe.® 

Thirdly, so far as I know, the name Rhaskouporis occurs nowhere among 
the Odrysian kings: in the later dynasty it is frequent while the name Sadala 
is unknown, 

And lastly, this version discovers for us the object of our quest as set by 
coin and inscriptions—a king Kotys of the Augustan age, at once son 
and father of kings named Rhaskouporis. Of this king we know further, 
that he died before 17 B.c. leaving his kingdom to his son who was then a 
. Ininor.® 

When we turn to ask what actions earned for this king a statue from the 
people of Athens, we must rest content with the vague words of the inscrip- 
tion. Between Thrace and Athens there were numerous bonds of connexion. 
Ovid’ addressing a later and more interesting Kotys, nephew of our subject, 
refers to his descent from Eumolpos, a legendary tie which reversed the 
historic sequence of events. What civilization had reached Thrace seems 
to have come mainly from Athens or from Athenian colonies,’ and two later 
Thracian kings held civic dignities in Athens.® 

Kotys and Rhaskouporis were perhaps Phil-Hellene princes, like 


1 Cf. Loewy, loc. cit. his theory. 


2 Brit. Mus. Catalogue of Coins, Thrace, 5 Tacitus, Ann. iii. 88. 

p. 208. § Dion. liv. 20, 34. 
3 Cf. reff. above. 1 iin ,ex.) Ponto, 11, 1X. 11.52; 1,9. 
4 Strabo, xii. 3, 29. p. 556. Mommsen 8 Dumont, Mélanges, pp. 201,202. 


wishes to change this text in accordance with 9 C.I.A. iii. 114, 1077, 1284. 


A THRACIAN PORTRAIT. 325 


Ariobarzanes II. and III. of Kappadokia,! who restored somewhat of the 
damage inflicted upon Athens in the Mithridatic and later wars, doing what 
the kings of Egypt and Pergamon had previously done more splendidly. Or 
perhaps as Antonius was very popular in Athens and the Thracian kings at 
first sided with him, there may have been a connexion in this way, but further 
speculation cannot in the present state of our knowledge lead to any profit- 
able result, for no historian has chronicled a single act of king Kotys. His 
coins, which usually represent a more youthful type, are not uncommon, so we 
may assume for him some material importance, and our portrait indeed 
represents a character worthy to act a small part in the world struggles of 
the Romans, though one not likely to lessen the difficulties of his masters. 
The coins issued by his successor Rhoimetalkes are those of a Roman vassal. 
Kotys and his son therefore seem to have failed at last to maintain their 
independence against greater hostile tribes, and his dynasty to have won 
restoration only by accepting the suzerainty of Rome. 

The artist Antignotos has signed a third portrait-basis at Athens :? unfor- 
tunately only the first name MAPKON has been preserved. Pliny? says that 
he made ‘luctatores perixyomenum tyrannicidasque supra dictos,’ but at 
present none of these have been identified: it is possible that the ‘tyranni- 
cides’ were not as is usually supposed Harmodios and Aristogeiton, but 
Brutus and Cassius, whose statues were placed by the Athenians near the old 
ones. From a study of the Kotys head, we can readily believe that 
Antignotos was one of the first sculptors of the day and would probably 
receive such a commission. 

Under the influence of Augustus, a new spirit pervaded portrait-sculpture 
at this time, a return to a more abstract and typical art, a tendency to sub- 
ordinate details to an ideal likeness. If Antignotos was at all touched by this 
current, this work shows that he knew how on occasion to find escape, for 
though vivid and full of vigorous thought, it is executed throughout 
with equal care and individuality. In its truthful modelling of details 
it recalls several Hellenistic works, following at some considerable interval 
the ‘Antiochos Soter’ and the ‘Barberini Faun. The slight marking on 
the eyebrows I am inclined to attribute to a later hand: they are 
neither like the raised eyebrows on the works above mentioned, nor 
like the plain treatment of ordinary Augustan heads. The slightly opened 
lips again might be more easily paralleled on heads before than 
after Augustus. The names of the other works of Antignotos—the 
‘Wrestlers’ pointing to Rhodes, the Perixyomenus yet further to Lysippos— 
corroborate the position which these technical details suggest. Comparing 
this portrait with the finer and warmer flesh-treatment of the Rhodians or 
the Pergamenes, or again with the liquid softness of Antonine art, we are 
conscious of a certain dryness, but it would be rash to attribute this to Roman 


1 Vitruvius, v. ix. i., 6.71.6. i. 357 shows 2 Loewy, 316. 
that they were honoured in the same way. Cf. 8 H.N. xxxiv. 86. 
also Hertzberg, Geschichte. i. p. 436. 4 Dion. xlvii. 20. 


326 A THRACIAN PORTRAIT. 


influence, and we shall be safer in seeing in Antignotos an artist trained in the 
normal traditions of Hellenistic sculpture. 
J. ΝΥ. Crowroor. 


P.S.—Since the above was written, the head in question has been 
published by Arndt (Nos. 348, 344). He adds a note. “Kopf cines unbe- 
kannten alten Griechen........ Im Haar ein Kranz von Oel (7) bliittern ; 
danach ein Priester? Ein herrliches griechisches Original, ausserordentlich 
fein in Arbeit und Ausdruck, wohl aus der spiiteren Diadochenzeit.” The 
period to which he assigns it I may regard perhaps as a corroboration of the 


stylistic influence traced above, 
H Beh als 


J. Η. 5. Χν!!. (1897), PL. ΙΧ. 


PRIMITIVE CRETAN PRISM-SEALS OF STEATITE. 


» " eo 


as 
Pot 
> ι ᾿Ν 


mn ives!) wee μι 


9 


᾿ ἢ δὴ 
» * ᾿ 
μόνης... 
Ν ι 3 4 
= — 
4: Ὁ 


ΣΝ 


τ 


ἀντ ai 
A VERA AS POMC AR. Δ 


@9ITAST® 30 2)A22-wecina HATARS. 


ἐμάς πο, ἜΧΩΝ 


vy q ae ΩΝ 


ἜΣ 


= ᾿ 


" ial yMegthia 
ἐ ᾿ "ΙΝ 
Ll + Wane vos ἀν» 
Orig ost, a 
we 


Oa 


¥ 


J. H. 8. XVII. (1897), PL. X. 


PRIMITIVE CRETAN PRISM-SEALS OF STEATITE. 


Π 7 | ; ἢ J ; 
τὰ . ν» 


el 
wast) tee κε Be. 
ᾳ paps, , 


— 
ue ee, ᾿ 
᾿ ν» ᾿ | + - 

ΓΔ * Π δ ͵ Pe a 
iors, ek ie Act a 
Vets ω a a 8 Ὗ 
‘> 5 Cpe Reon 
Vie 
ἔν, νεῖν 
Ὕ 
ma," 
Ι 7 ws i 
4 7 bal »- 
γ ᾿ 3 ae VEN 
τ " ἫΝ 
a 7" é Ῥ.- “ats 1 
ty we 
7 4 ae Ν᾽ 
μὰ ὧν 
4 
" 
Ὶ ee oe 
Ah V4 
sh 
. ‘ ἊΝ »» Ἶ ἰ 
τ (Ms ,, 
. “- " , 
“«" ἠ ay 
7 fs 
᾿ οὐ 
a ie . 
δΣ.- ἊΨ» fn ῃ 
Φῷ 4 
oe 
e = νά 
‘ a ’ oun ᾽ =] i 
ese τὴ ἃ, ‘ a): » ᾿ 
ners δ « ve 5 oe 
¥ a rT *) 4 [2 
ἈΠ ΑΚ τὰ 
+ 
. 


ἢ" Ἂν: ; 
cic : ‘ Ἢ ἣ 
219% MATRA SVMS τς 


Ὁ ZJALe-' 


ITF) TAITe 


FURTHER DISCOVERIES OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 327 


FURTHER DISCOVERIES OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT: 
WITH LIBYAN AND PROTO-EGYPTIAN COMPARISONS. 


[Puates IX, X.]. 


Part I.—FurtTHER DISCOVERIES OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 
§ 1. Introductory. 


In a former communication ! attention was called to an indigenous system 
of writing in Crete, the earlier stages of which go back, not only far beyond 
the date of the first introduction of the Phoenician alphabet among the Greeks, 
but to a period considerably anterior to the most ancient monumental record of 
the Semitic letters. 

From the evidence of ancient Cretan seals it was possible to demonstrate 
the existence of a form of pictographic writing from its simplest beginnings to 
a more conventional and abbreviated stage. Side by side with this a variety 
of data supplied by seals, vases, and inscribed stones, showed the further 
existence of a linear system of writing, connected with the other and 
presenting some striking comparisons on the one hand with certain characters 
found by Professor Petrie in Egypt and by Mr. Bliss at Lachish ; 
on the other hand with the syllabic script of Cyprus and some Anatolian 
regions. It was further pointed out that in some instances Cretan linear 
characters displayed a remarkable correspondence with Phoenician and early 
Greek letter forms. 

It was, moreover, possible to show from the evidence of finds like that of 
Hagios Onuphrios and from the imitation of certain characteristic ornamental | 
motives, that the more purely pictorial class of the Cretan seals went back at 
least as far as the period of the Twelfth Dynasty in Egypt, and to the first 
half of the third Millennium before our era. I have since been able to accumu- 
late further proofs of a very early contact between Crete and Egypt, going 
back to a considerably earlier period than that of the Twelfth Dynasty. 

Although, however, various decorative motives in this primitive class of 
Cretan seals were due to Egyptian influence, it nevertheless appeared that 


1 Primitive Pictographs and a Prac-Phoenician cated to the Hellenic Society in November 
Script from Crete, &c. J.H.S. vol. xiv. 1894 p. 1896. The second part containing the proto. 
270 seqqg. ; and, London, Quaritch, 1895. The Egyptian and Libyan parallels has been added 
first part of the present paper was communi- _ since that date, 


328 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


the representations as a whole were of indigenous character,—the later 
conventionalised pictographs showing perhaps a greater affinity to the 
‘Hittite’ characters of Anatolia and Northern Syria than to the Egyptian. 

Two further visits to Crete in the springs of 1895 and 18961 have 
enabled me to add to the material previously collected, and my most recent 
investigations in the island have resulted in the discovery of one monument 
of capital importance. I was also able to ascertain the existence of a geo- 
logical phenomenon which goes far to explain how it was that this island 
became at such a very early date a centre of the glyptic art, and was thus 
able to produce the engraved designs on seals which eventually gave rise, by 
a gradual evolution, to a conventional system of writing. This was the 
existence, throughout a considerable tract of south-eastern Crete, of rich 
beds of steatite or soapstone, a soft and, in some of its phases, attractive 
material, of which all the earlier engraved stones and seals found in the island 
are composed. Following up a clue given me by Dr. Hazzidakis, the 
President of the Syllogos of Candia, I found plentiful beds of steatite of a 
translucent greenish hue, in the valley of the Sarakina stream, about half- 
an-hour below the site of the ancient Malla; and [ subsequently obtained 
information of the existence of equally prolific deposits on the coast at the 
Kakon Oros, a little east of Arvi, and in the range that separates Kastelliana 
from Sudzuro, in the territory, that is, of the ancient Priansos. 

In dealing with the new materials bearing on the Cretan script it will 
be convenient to begin with the earliest class of seal-stones, presenting designs 
and characters of a linear kind; to pass thence to the seals on which, though still 
early in execution, designs are seen of a more definitely pictographic style, and 
from these to their direct offshoot, the Eteocretan seal-stones with a more conven- 
tionalized pictographic writing. New examples of the fully developed linear 
system of writing on seals and other objects will next be passed in review, 
including the most important object of this class as yet brought to light, 
namely, a steatite Libation Table presenting part of an inscription. 

Attention will finally be called to a prism-seal from Karnak, revealing a 
connexion between Crete and the Nile Valley at an extremely early period, 
and to the far-reaching results of this early intercourse on the prehistoric 
arts of the Aegean world. 


§ 2. Primitive Prism-Seal with Linear Characters and Figures. 


The remarkable seal-stone seen in Fig. 1 was first observed and described 
by the Italian archaeologist, Dr. A. Taramelli, who found it in the possession 
of an inhabitant of the village of Kalokhorio in the Pedeada province. It 
has now been acquired for the Museum of the Syllogos at Candia. 

From its superior size, its somewhat irregular shape, and the rude 
character of the designs, it claims a very early place in the series of Cretan 


+ A short account of my journey in 1896 appeared in the Academy, June 13, 20, July 4, 
and 18 of that year. 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 329 


bead-seals, and from its exceptional character I have preferred to place it in 
a separate class. It is of yellowish-brown steatite, and, like the other seals, 


ΧΑ 
- OO! alma 
we: 


Fic. 1.—RupE THREE-SIDED SEAL OF STEATITE FROM KALOKHORIO. [7]. 
(a, section: ὃ, ὁ, d, sides. ) 


perforated through its axis. Its irregular three-sided section places it in the 
same category as a perforated triangular steatite with rude linear engraving 


330 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


from central Crete, already described in my preceding paper (‘ Pictographs,’ 
&c., Fig. 17). These examples point to the conclusion that the trilateral 
bead-seals originate from more or less natural triangular splinters of steatite 
which, with the surface somewhat smoothed and engraved in the simplest 
linear fashion, were adapted for wearing by being bored through their axis. 

The character of the designs in the present instance bears a great resem- 
blance to those of certain engraved objects from the Hagios Onupliios deposit 
at Phaestos,! the early elements of which as is shown by the Egyptian evidence 
go back at least to the first half of the Third Millennium, p.c. The rude 
male figure with outstretched hands on the first side of the Kalokhorio seal 
recalls a figure on a terra cotta cylinder from that deposit.2 On the other 
hand, the animal—for so it must be interpreted—in the lower part of the 
ficld on the second facet presents a distinct parallelism with that on the 
Phaestos whorl.2 Some of the signs or characters also show a certain 
resemblance to those on tle whorl. 

The conclusion to which both the Phaestos whorl and the Kalokhorio 
seal point is that the linear characters of the Cretan and Aegean scripts go 
back to a very early period and may be rather derived from the primitive 
school of engraving in which the objects are indicated by mere lines,—like the 
first drawings of a child ona slate—than from the more developed pictographic 
style. The conventionalised script derived from this more advanced style 
must therefore in the main be regarded as parallel with the linear characters 
rather than as their immediate source.* 

It must still be observed that in some cases both systems—the linear 
and the more pictographic—show a close approximation and certain common 
elements. Purely pictographic and linear characters are, as has been 
already pointed out,’ occasionally found upon the same stone. On an 
early steatite seal of the four-sided class (‘ Pictographs, &c., Fig. 36), 
we see a rude figure of a man on one side and on the other three well- 
pronounced linear characters. This seal, both from its style and material, 
belongs to an earlier date than what I have called the conventionalised picto- 
graphic class, and illustrates the fact that linear signs had already been 
evolved from linear drawings in this primitive period. The same conclusion 
may be deduced from other examples (Cf. ‘ Pictographs,’ &c., Figs. 29, 30). 


1 See Cretan Pictographs and Prae-Phoenician 
Script with an account of a Sepulchral deposit of 
Hagios Onuphrios near Phestos. London: 
B. Quaritch ; New York: G. P. Putnams, 1895, 
p. 105 segq. 

2 Op. cit. p. 107, Fig. 81b. 

3 Op. cit. p. 15, (284) Fig. 11a. 

4 On the relation of the Cretan Pictographs 
to the linear characters, more will be found 
below, p. 358 seqq. 

5 ‘Pictographs’ &c. p. 32[J.H.S. xiv. p. 301). 

* I have called attention to this point in my 
‘ Pictographs’ &e. p. 95 [J.H.S. xiv p. 364]: 
‘ In instituting the comparisons (on Table 17), 


the pictographic signs have been taken from the 
somewhat advanced types represented on the 
Mycenaean seal-stones of Eastern Crete, but 
inasmuch as the linear forms...go back to a very 
early date it would not be literally true to say 
that they are derived from pictographs in the 
stage represented by, these Eteocretan seals. 
The actual prototypes of the linear forms 
would probably have been pictographs of a 
ruder ‘ graffito’ and almost linear type them- 
selves, such as we find on some of the most 
archaic Cretan stones and on the whorls of the 
earliest settlements of Hissarlik.’ 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 331 


Yet the community existing between this purely linear and the later 
pictographic class is well illustrated by the appearance on the very seals 
above referred to of linear forms of the gate symbol which is also one of the 
most frequent on the more pictorial class, It is probable that both systems 
reacted on one another, 


§ 3. Karly Pictographie Prism-Seals, 


The fresh examples of this class figured on Plates [X., X. are all of steatite 
three-sided and perforated through their axis. 

Nos. 1—5! refer apparently to an owner of flocks and herds. Asin other 
examples he is seen either standing (PI. IX. Nos. 1, 2) with round-bottomed 
pots suspended from a pole before him, or either seated or standing and holding 
a high-spouted vessel (Pl. 1X. Nos. 3, 4) in one case with another before him. 
No, 5 is unfortunately somewhat fractured, but the object held by the seated 
figure is more like a drinking-horn. 

In three instances (Nos. 1, 3 and 4), the human figure, which must be 
taken to represent the owner of the seal, is followed on another face of 
the seal by a goat. In No. 2 its second face contains an imperfect 
delineation of three human figures? The third face shows a greater variety 
of symbols—on No. 1 a spider, on No. 3 an uncertain animal, probably a dog, 
on Nos, 2 and 4 a star or sun with revolving rays, on No. 5 perhaps a four- 
petalled flower. 

The vase-holding seated figure on No, θα shows a general resemblance 
to those of the above group. It is however to be observed that the vase in 
front of him stands upside down. On the next face of the seal are further 
seen four round-bottomed pots, two as if slung on either side of a central 
pole, and all together contained in a quatrefoil compartment. The possibility 
suggests itself that we have here the signet of a potter, and that the vessels 
hung up in the enclosed space illustrate some primitive method of baking 
pottery. The third face of this stone represents a scene of the chase in 
which a hound springs from the side at the hind leg of a running deer. 
This is an interesting anticipation of a scheme that occurs on lentoid gems 
of the Mycenaean period.‘ 

On No. 75 we see a standing male figure, the head of aram or mouftlon ° 
and four globules or pellets. The same number of pellets is found on other 
seals and agrees with the duodecimal numeration which seems to have been 
in vogue in the island at a very early date.’ 


1 No. 1. from Gonias, Pedeada; No. 2. flying in the same way at the hind-leg of a wild 
Lasethi; No. 3. Koprana, Lasethi; No. 4. _ bull. 


near Gortyna; No. 5. Spelia near Lamndn, 5 From Milato. 

Siteia. δ On a Mycenaean gem recently found at 
2 Of. Cretan Pictographs, p. 75, Fig. 69(J.W.S. Kastri near Turloti in E. Crete there is what 

xiv. p. 344). appears to be a representation of a moufflon. 
3 From Mallia, Pedeada, in the Museum of This animal is no longer found in the island, 

he Syllogos at Candia. 7 Cf. Cretan Pictographs, &c., pp. 73, 74; 


4 Upon one in my collection a dog is seen (J. H.S. xiv. pp. 342, 343). 


332 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


No. 8} shows two male figures in reversed positions, followed by a goat 
and two fish. On a Cretan gem in the Berlin Museum, two men are followed 
by three fish, a group which also occurs on No. 16 below. 

No. 9 from eastern Crete exhibits on the first facet three serrated bars, 
recalling the later spray and tree symbols, (‘ Pictographs’ No. 58, 59). 
This is followed on successive faces by a horned animal,—deer or goat,—and a 
hipppocampus, apparently the hippocampus guttulatus or brevirostris of 
the Mediterranean, which in a modified form seems to have supplied many 
sea monsters to later Greek art.2 Two hippocampi are also seen on the 
transitional Cretan stone, Fig. 46 below, now in the Copenhagen Museum. In 
Crete this marine animal was specially chosen as a symbol by the inhabitants 
of Itanos at the easternmost corner of the island, where two confronted 
hippocampi form the principal types on the reverse of its Fifth Century 
coins. 

On No. 10, from Mallia near Chersonésos, the serrated bar appears between 
two heads of what seem to be short-horned goats. These symbols are 
followed by three goats’ heads of the same kind, but two hornless. On the 
third side appears another version of the floral design. Variations of the 
same figure will be seen on No. 13 headed by the §-shaped double animal 
already familiar on these early seals. (See ‘ Pictographs’ Figs. 62, 63). 

On Nos. 11,‘ 12, and 14, the two latter found at Mallia between Cherso- 
nésos and the site of the Cretan Miletos, we see rude delineations of pigs, in the 
second instance a group of three. The pig is also found on a three-sided 
seal of the later class (‘ Pictographs, &c. Fig. 24. ¢). The other three 
animals on No. 12 must be regarded as uncertain. The long-legged, long- 
necked birds repeated on No. 14, as well as on a Cretan seal in the 
Copenhagen Museum® recall an example on another early seal stone, 
(‘ Pictographs’ ἄς. Fig. 64 a.). In the case of the latter stone 
the suggestion has been made that the bird may represent an ostrich, once 
more attesting the early commercial relations between the Aegean island and 
the African Coast. It is remarkable that both Nos. 11 and 12, and 14, 
show the same succession of pigs and long-legged birds. We have here 
another instance on the early seal stones of the grouping together of symbols 
in a parallel sequence, which shows, if any proof were still needed, that 
these figures were not chosen at haphazard, and that the collective group 
on the different sides of the stone has a connected and cumulative 
meaning. 

The third design on No. 14 seems to be a spider very naturalistically 


Keller, Tier- und Pflanzenbilder auf Miinzen 
und Gemmen, p. 73 and Taf. viii, 39; xii. 34, 


1 From Milato. 
2 Cretan Pictographs, &ec., p. 70, Fig. 59 


{J.H.S. xiv. p. 339]. 

3 Salinas, Ripostiglio di monete antiche di 
argento (Rome 1888 p. 7), regards one of these 
as the prototype of the so-called sea serpent 
(pistrix) seen on so many Sicilian and Magna- 
Grecian coins. Cf. Imhoof- Blumer und 


35 ; xiii. 18. 

4 Bought at Athens by Mr. J. L. Myres and 
presented by him to the Ashmolean Museum. 
The seal is clearly of Cretan fabric. 

5 T have to thank Dr. Blinkenberg and the 
Director for an impression, 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 333 


rendered in profile! The spider has been already seen as viewed from above, 
on No. 1 and it recurs on No. 15 so that it seems to have been a favourite 
Cretan symbol. We shall find it again on two stones representing the more 
conventionalised stage of the ‘ pictographic’ script.? 

The frequency of the spider on these seals is specially remarkable when 
itis remembered that this insect is conspicuous by its absence on the engraved 
stones, and coin-types of the classical period of Greece, though other insects 
such as the ant, the bee, or the cicada are common enough. In Greek 
mythology the spider appears in the legend of Arachné as the representative 
of Lydian textile art, and with that old Anatolian race this insect evidently 
typified the spinning industry. The undoubted affinities between the earlier 
indigenous elements of Crete and those of Western Asia Minor makes the 
prominence of the spider in its primitive pictographs the more suggestive, and 
we may infer that here, too, the insect as a symbol indicates the possession of 
looms. In this connexion it is worth while recalling the fact that the three 
seals representing spiders, of which the provenience is exactly known, come 
from that part of the island in which the Cretan Miletos, now the village of 
Milato, the reputed mother-city of the better-known Carian and Ionian 
homonym, was, from Homeric times onwards the chief civic centre.‘ The 
localization of the myth of Arachné at the once Lydian and Maeonian 
Kolophén, and the occurrence of the spider signets in the mother-country of 
the not distant Milesians are, perhaps, not altogether accidental coincidences. 

It will be shown in a succeeding section® that the spider,—probably with 
the same significance,—recurs on a primitive class of Egyptian cylinders and 
on Libyan seal-stones. On the stone No. 15 the spider is coupled with a 
floral emblem resembling that on No. 5, and the solar or stellar disk with 
revolving rays. The former association recalls the fact that, on one of the 
conventionalised pictographic seals referred to,® the spider and a similar 
quasi-floral design succeed one another at the end of one line and the 
beginning of another. 

The two birds on No. 16, from Mokhos, Pedeada,’ are shorter-legged and 
apparently of a different kind from those described above. They somewhat 
recall the bird on aseal previously described (‘ Pictographs,’ &c., Fig. 65a) from 
central Crete, in which I ventured to trace a resemblance to a cock. The 
group of three fishes also recurs on another early seal (‘Pictographs, &c., 
Fig. 59c). The design on the third face of No. 16 is a four-handled vase, a 
type which is also seen on No. 110. 

On another three-sided seal, not figured in the Plates, from Kavuse in 


1 It is probable that the two objectsonaCretan _—classischen Alterthums. 
gemin the Berlin Museum (‘ Pictographs’ &c. 4 The seals Nos. 14 and 15, were from 
Fig. 59b.), described by me loc. cit. as ‘polyp- Mallia the site of an ancient settlement on the 


like,’ are alsc intended to represent spiders. north-east coast, a little to the west of Milato. 
2 See below, p.335, Fig. 5b and p. 336, No. 1 came from Goniais in the hill-country 
Fig. 60. above. 


3 No single representation of a spider occurs 5 See below p. 364, Fig. 29 and p. 368, Fig. 32. 
n Imhoof-Blumer und Keller, Tier- und 8 See below, p. 336 Fig. θα, ὃ. 
Pflanzenbilder auf Miinzen und Gemmen des 7 In the Museum of the Syllogos at Candia. 


H,S.— VOL, XVII, AA 


334 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


eastern Crete,! the disk with revolving rays, seen on Nos. 2, 4 and 15, occurs in 
a variant form. It is accompanied on the other faces of the stone by the figure 
of a rude animal and a goat. The rayed disk is also found in juxtaposition 
with a goat’s head on a seal of the later class (‘ Pictographs,’ &c., Fig. 5980). 
In connexion with the goat it has already appeared in No. 4 above. 


Fic. 3.—YELLOW STEATITE, ELUNDA (Otous). [83]. 


§ 4. Later Seals with Conventionalised Pictographs. 
Class A. Transitional (in soft stone). 


The three following seals, Figs. 2,3 and 4, which stand in a very close 
relation to one another, though in many respects fitting on to the 
preceding class, show an elongated form more characteristic of the later 
series with the advanced pictographic script, and of the time when hard 
stone such as cornelian or chalcedony had begun to supersede steatite for such 
purposes. This is particularly the case with Fig. 3 where the group of three 
. high-spouted vases corresponds with that on a prism-shaped seal already 
published (‘ Pictographs,’ &c., Fig. 21). This seal, though also of steatite and 
of primitive execution, is there, nevertheless, classed with the later pictographic 
group, owing to the appearance on the second face of the stone of two of the 
most characteristic signs belonging to that series. Both it and the present 
seal may, in fact, be regarded as transitional in type. 

Fig. 2, found at Mallia, between Chersonesos and the site of the Cretan 
Miletos (Milato), and Fig. 3, found at Eluda, or Elunda, the site of the ancient 
Olous, show on the first face in the order here given, a ship, and in the second 
respectively, a single vase and a group of three vases. The third place is filled 


1 Seen by me there in 1893, 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 335 


on Fig. 2 by an animal, on Fig. 3 by a group of comb- and rake-like objects, 
the arrangement of which, however, is of decorative origin. 

The ship on Fig. 2 is remarkable from the fact that the mast is only 
connected by ropes with the forepart of the ship. The other vessel (Fig. 3) 
has, as usual in all early Cretan seals and gems representing ships, ropes 
attached to the mast on either side. The discovery of this seal on the site of 
Olous is interesting, as conveying a hint of the very early maritime enterprise 
of that port,—now the land-locked lagoon of Spinalunga,—whose sheltered 
waters must have afforded every facility for primitive navigation. 


Fig. 4.—STEATITE, CRETE. (COPENHAGEN MusEum.) [#]. 


With these two maritime signets may be grouped Fig. 4, a Cretan 
specimen in the Copenhagen collection,! also of steatite, and belonging to the 
same transitional class. It exhibits on its first face an instrument, perhaps 
an arbelon for cutting leather, which is of :frequent occurrence in the later 
series. It is here placed between two trumpet-like scrolls, also found on some 


later seals.2 There follow on the two other faces a pair of hippocampi and two 
S-like scrolls, 


Fic. 5.—STEATITE PrisM-SEAL, FROM IMPRESSIONS OBTAINED AT CANDIA. [f]. 


The dull white steatite seal, Fig. 5, taken from an impression obtained at 
Candia, is a typical example of the earliest of the more advanced pictographic 
class. The soft stone of its material, and the style of its engraving, place it, 

however, very near the transitional seals, Figs. 2, 3 and 4, with which it is 
here grouped. 


Peres a es lg, BE eee See 


1 Impressions of this seal and that figured on 2 See below, p. 342, Fig. 11 and p. 843 
Plate X. No. 18 were due to the kindnessof Dr. Fig. 13. 
Chr. Blinkenberg. 
AA2 


336 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


The collocation of the gate and bent leg symbols occurs on three other 
seals (‘ Pictographs, Figs. 220, 25a, and 34)b,—the gate somewhat variant 
in the latter case), We have here, therefore, another proof that the grouping 
of these pictographic characters was not arbitrary but that they were combined 
according to a definite system in order to give expression to ideas. 

This repeated combination of the bent leg and gate makes it prob- 
able that the 1shaped sign coupled with the gate in the group of linear 
characters on the early seal (‘ Pictographs, Fig. 36d) is the linearised 
equivalent of the bent leg. The spider of the following facet has been already 
noted on Nos. 1, 14 and 15 of the early series as probably connected with the 
spinning industry. The animal is perhaps a wolf; witness the appearance of 
the wolf's head among the more abbreviated pictographs,! of which a fresh 
example is given below.? It is possible, however, that in all cases we have todo 
with a dog of wolf-like breed. At the present day the dogs in parts of the 
Balkan peninsula are hardly distinguishable from wolves in their external 
aspect. 


Fic. 6.—Four-sIDED SEAL FROM SITEIA, [3]. 


Class B. Seals with fully-developed conventionalised pictographs. (Hard stone). 


Fig. 6, a perforated quadrangular stone from Siteia, is a pictographic seal 
of considerable interest. The seated figure with which the first line (as given 
above) begins, recalls the same subject on so many of the seals of the earlier 
class, and establishes a new link of connexion with them. The spider at the 
beginning of line ὃ and the quatrefoil of line ὁ also recur on the earlier series, 
The second sign of line ὃ may be regarded as a variant of the ‘arbelon’ 


1 See ‘Pictographs,’ ete, p. 41 [υἱ. 7. δ. xiv. p. 310, No. 43]. 
* See below, p. 3438, 


OF CRETAN 'AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 337 


symbol (‘ Pictographs,’ No. 16), while the third is certainly the adze (No. 22). 
The other types are already well ascertained, namely, the gate,! double axe,? 
mallet,’ spiral,* and mountain-symbol.® 

Fig. 7 represents a white steatite seal found in Crete and now preserved 
in the Central Museum at Athens, It resembles in every way the stone seals 
of this class. An imperfect figure of this seal was given as far back as 
1872 by Dumont in his Inscriptions Céramiques de la Grece.® Dumont—who 
erroneously described its material as ivory—compared it to the gladiatorial 
tesserae, and explained the ship as an allusion to the naval sham-fights of 
the amphitheatre. The fourth face of the seal he allowed to be enigmatic, but 
in the reduplicated symbols of line 3,—similar to that above identified with the 
plough,—he saw pairs of wrestlers, and in the goat’s head an aplustre. The 
comparative materials now collected will at least have served to set at rest some 
of these speculations. They illustrate the difficulty, which all archaeologists 
must experience, in interpreting isolated objects of an unprecedented type. 


Fic. 7,— WHITE STEATITE SEAL, CRETE. (CENTRAL Museum, ATHENS.) [#]. 


The two broader sides of this seal seem to stand by themselves; to 
judge by the bird and ship, they are somewhat more pictorial in character 
than the others. Both in these and the others we notice that the position in 
which the same sign is placed is capable of variation. The spray or tree- 
symbol occurs with its central stem running upwards in ὦ and downwards in 
ὁ. The plough-like symbol in ὁ faces two ways. The instrument at the 


1 ¢ Pictographs,’ No. 25. 6 Pp. 415, 416. No attempt was made to 


2 Ib. No. 10. represent face a. Iam indebted to Professor 
3 7b. No. 18. Halbherr for this reference and to Dr. Stais and 
4 Ib. Nos. 69, 70. Μ. Gilliéron for a cast of the object in question. 


5 Ib. No. 66. 


338 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


right end of ὁ and d is seen in reversed positions. Most of the signs are 
placed as if to be looked at horizontally, but the two animals’ heads—the 
second character from the right end of face c, and the fourth from the left 
end of line d—and the mountain sign in ¢, are placed as if the column 
was to be read vertically. Their relative positions seem to indicate 
that line ὁ is to be read from left to right, and d from right to left— 
another instance of the bouwstrophedon arrangement already noted in 
other cases. 

The ship on face ὃ recalls a somewhat similar example on a four sided 
chalcedony seal from Crete (now in the Berlin Museum), figured in ‘Picto- 
graphs,’ &c., No. 34. Here as there it may betoken that the seal belonged 
to a merchant who traded over-sea. The characteristic ends, like an 
open beak, and the double rudder recur on lentoid gems of Mycenaean date 
from Crete. 

Several of the signs represented on the present seal are already familiar on 
the Cretan seal-stones. Thus we find the arrow-head and shaft (‘ Pictographs,’ 
No. 186.), the ‘arbelon’ (7b. 16), the mallet (2b. 18), an instrument of a 
similar kind, but with a triangular handle, the ‘plough’ already seen on the 
seal Fig. 6 above, and another indeterminate object (4 from the left end of 
line d), also paralleled by the second symbol on the same seal. The ship, 
already noticed (‘ Pictographs,’ No. 32) the tree-symbol (7b. No. 58), the crosses, 
plain and knobbed, the goats’ head (2b. No. 35), the ‘deer-horns’ (1b. No. 38) 
the figure like an imperfect caduceus (1b. No. 71), all recur here. In other 
cases we have variants of known forms, thus the zigzag (3 of 1. 2) seems to be 
the same as ‘ Pictographs, No. 75 with a terminal flourish, the cross-legged 
bird may be regarded as an alternative form of No. 47, and the animal’s head 
(No. 4 of 1. d) may be identified with the ass’s head of the above-cited 
seal (Fig. 62). 

Six of the signs here represented, however, occur apparently for the 
first time. These will be considered separately on pp. 339, 340 below. 

A noteworthy feature of this seal is the frequent repetition of the symbols 
in the same line. Thus in line 6 we have the tree-symbol occurring 
twice separately and in a group of four. In line ὁ the plough-sign appears 
six times, divided into three groups of two each by that which seems to 
signify mountains or, more generally, land. In line d the arrow occurs three 
times. 

The same characteristic has already to a certain extent been exemplified 
by other Cretan seals. Thus the vase symbol occurs three times in succes- 
sion on the stone engraved in ‘ Pictographs,’ Fig. 21 and again in Figure 36 
above. The cross pommée begins and ends another line of a seal (tb. 
Fig. 34d) and the S symbol is twice repeated in the same way (id 
Fig. 2la and 23c). 

In ancient Egyptian the plural was sometimes formed by repeating a 
hieroglyph of either the ideographic or alphabetic class, three times, and 
reduplications of signs are also frequent. Such repetitions are, however, 
especially characteristic of the Hittite inscriptions. In the first line, for 


OF CRETAN ‘AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 339 


instance, of the Hamath Inscriptions, Nos. 1 and 2,1 we find one sign repeated 
four times in two successive groups of two, and another forming a group of 
three. 

It is worth remarking that the beginning of line d of the present seal, 
which from the direction of the goat’s head may be taken to read from right 
to left, contains the same symbols as those of the last line of the quadrangular 
stone seal from Siteia (Fig. 6 above), though the arrangement is somewhat 
different and the goat’s head is here substituted for the Ssymbol. In both 
groups as will be seen from the comparative figures below Fig. 8, we find the 
oblong instrument with triangular handle, the plough (in the present case 
twice repeated), and the ‘ mountain,’ or ‘land’ sign. It is highly improbable 
that this parallel grouping is accidental. 


Bo 


ΓΤῚ 


ANNSi 


Fig. 8.—CoMPARATIVE Groups ΟΕ SYMBOLS FROM Fias. 6 AND 7. 


The following is a detailed list of the conventionalised symbols that occur 
on the two last-mentioned seals (Figs. 6, 7) for the first time, including the 
spider already seen on Fig. 50. For convenience of reference the numbers 
follow on to the list of pictographs? in my former work, 


83. 


a δ 
84. Apparently an ass’s head. Compare the charac- 
teristic Hittite sign 4 (Wright, Zmpire of 
the Hittites, Plates gga VIII, IX., X., ΧΙ, 
and XIX. 5, Jerabis). 455 
85. The Spider. Cf. p. 338 above, and for Libyan and 
85. Proto-Egyptian parallels, pp. 364, 368 below. 


85d is from Fig. 50 above. 


1 Wright, Emp. of the Hittites, Platei, H. 1 and H. II. 
2 Pp. [802] 33-[315] 46. 


340 


86. 


87. 


88. 


89. 


90. 


91. 


‘palace’ or ‘altar. We 
character in the Cretan 


FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


Compare the floral designs on the earlier series of 
prism-seals. 


I have placed this sign in the above position as it 
— seems to represent the primitive form of plough, in 


which the pole and the share-beam were in one piece, 
the handle only being attached. 


(No. 4 of Fig. 7a). Seems to represent a woman’s 
breasts. Compare the Egyptian sign ye Mna.=a 


nurse, &c. 


-- (No. 8 of Fig. 7a). Apparently ἃ gourd. 


may possibly be compared. 


(No. 2 of Fig. 7d). A kind of crook. The Egyptian | 5 


N 


A 


Ὃ 


(No. 5 of Fig. 74). The sign is here placed with the pro- 
jections uppermost since some other symbols in this line— 
notably the familiar instrument No. 11, and that at the end 
—are in a reverse position to that in which they are usually 
found. Placed as above, this character is identical with the 
Egyptian =ha, ah, the meaning of which is a 

have here therefore a clear example of a 

series directly borrowed from the Egyptian. 


(No. 6, 10 and 18 of Fig. 7d). It resembles the stem-less 
Mycenaean type of arrow-head, here shown without the shaft. 


(No. 7 of Fig. 7d). Possibly a mirror; the more oval 


figure at the end of line a is apparently only a variant of 
this. 


Fig. 9a and ὦ, a white agate with translucent veins, from Gortyna, 
belongs to a class already signalised in my former communication ! as seal- 
stones with a single engraved face and with their upper part convoluted. 


* Pictographs’ &., p. 19 [288], Fig. 21 and p. 29 [298], Fig. 38. 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SORIPT. 341 


The lower part of its field is occupied by a conventionalised lion’s head 
full face, with a kind of fleur-de-lys, more probably an abbreviated palm-tree ἢ 
rising above it. Above this—which may, perhaps, be regarded as a badge 
of a more personal character—are two symbols, a kind of extended N, and 
what appears to be a species of polyp. 


ψ 


I 


σι: 


Fic. 9.—CoNVOLUTED AGATE SEAL-STONE FROM GORTYNA. [3]. 


This conjunction, again, is of great interest, since the same two symbols 
occur in juxtaposition and attached to one another by a kind of network on 
the four-sided seal stone (‘ Pictographs,’ &c., Fig. 34d). This network, or cross- 


a b 


Fic. 10.—CoMPARATIVE GrRouUPS OF SYMBOLS. 


hatching, is frequently found as an adjunct of Cretan symbols. It does not 
seem to have an independent value, being, sometimes, a merely ornamental 
fill-up, covering the whole background of the seal as in Fig. 11, to be described 
below.2 Occasionally however it seems to mark off one symbol from others 


Compare op. cit. p. 43 [312] No. 5and the suggests the palmettes seen behind conven- 
Hittite fleur-de-lys symbol from MHamath  tionalised lions on one of the shields from the 
(Wright, Empire of the Hittites, Pl. iv., Idaean Cave, Halbherr and Orsi Antichita dell’ 

os ii. 2and 8). Inthe presentcase however  Antro di Zeus, Atlas Tay. ii. 
its conjunction with the lion’s head 2 P. 342 ; of. too, ‘ Pictographs,’ &o, Fig. 33a. 


342 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


of a group,! or, as in the above instance, to bring two into a connexion 
separate from the rest. 

The ‘ polyp,’ sign seems to have played an important part in the Cretan 
series. We shall find it in connexion with linear characters in the important 
monument to be described below.? 


§ 5. Stgnet-shaped Stones with Conventionalised Pictographs and Other Figures. 


In the course of recent explorations in the Eparchies of Siteia, Girapetra 
and Mirabello, I came across examples of a wholly new class of Cretan seal- 
stones, in shape very much like modern seals, cut out of jasper and cornelian ὅ 
(Figs. 11, 12, 13, 16,17). Though of smaller size, their essentially modern 
form shows a certain parallelism with some Hittite and Syrian types, amongst 
which, as in the case of the silver seal from Bor, metal forms also occur. 

These Anatolian types are inferior, both in form and material, to the 
Cretan. They are thicker and heavier, and instead of the jasper and cornelian, 
are formed of haematite,—which gives them a very metallic appearance,—and 
of light-coloured steatites. Examples have been found both at Tyre and at 
Sidon,‘ and one of a similar form was obtained at Palaeokastro on the Laconian 
coast.° 

The signet) shape of these Cretan stones and the analogy that they 
present with Hittite seals, is of special value as showing that the symbols 
engraved on them had a direct personal significance. 

The designs themselves are both pictorial and ornamental and of the 
conventionalised pictographic type. 


Fig. 11.—GREEN JASPER SIGNET, STO DAso. [3]. 


The seals, Figs. 11, 12, must be included in the true pictographic class. 
Fig. lla and ὁ, of green jasper, was found in a prehistoric phrourion called 


1 Cf. Op. cit. Fig. 840, where the central sign ὅς. No. 88, p. 10 and Taf. 8. See below. 
is thus marked off, 4 These are in my own collection. That 
2. See p. 359, Fig. 27. from Tyre shows a ‘hatted’ Sphinx boldly cut 


® Since this was written, a similar example, 
also from Crete, has been published by Dr. 
Furtwangler in his description of the engraved 
stones in the Berlin Autiquarium, Beschreibung 


in a style somewhat recalling the coarser 
Melian work. 

5 In the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. See 
‘ Pictographs,’ &., p. 74. [J.H.S. xiv. p. 848.] 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 348 


’Std Daso in the upland glen of ᾿βύὰ Limnia, visited by me on the way from 
Xero to the site of Ampelos, The symbols consist of the ‘ polyp, the goat’s 
head, a coil very like the figure 6, and the mallet, of which all recur on other 
seal-groups, the 6-shaped scroll answering to the trumpet on Fig. 4 above. 


Fic. 12.—Rep CorngeLian SicNer From KEDRIE NEAR GIRAPETRA (HigrapyTna). [{]. 


Fig. 124 and ὃ was found at. Kedrie, above Girapetra, an ancient 
site, abounding in Mycenaean remains, probably answering to the 
ancient Larisa, which stood in the neighbourhood of Hierapytna. The 
seal is of red cornelian and of exquisite work, though the top is slightly 
broken. The quatrefoil and moulding is most delicately wrought, and the 
intaglio on.the face of the seal is finely engraved. The subject is specially 
interesting as representing the wolf’s head with protruding tongue, a symbol 
equally characteristic of the Cretan and the Hittite series, standing alone 
within an ornamental border. It follows that this symbol could represent 
some object or idea by itself, without copulation with any other sign. 


Fic. 18.—GREEN JASPER SIGNET FROM SITE OF PRAEsOS. [4]. 


On a green jasper signet of the same class from the site of Praesos 
(Fig. 13) three coils resembling the third symbol on Fig. 11, are symmetrically 
grouped, and the design must be regarded as of decorative origin, whether or 
not the three coils had afterwards acquired a more definite meaning. The 
design, in fact, goes back to a triple scroll which already occurs on a very 
early class of Cretan button-seals of dark steatite, on others of which distinct 
imitations of Twelfth Dynasty scarab decoration are visible.’ An example of 
this class with a triple coil from central Crete is given in Fig. 14, A still 
further link in the chain is supplied by Fig. 15, a seal of brown steatite, which 
has been placed among the Assyrian specimens in the Louvre, but the Cretan 


1 The seals ¢., 9. and ἢ. Fig. 49 in ‘ Pictographs’ &c., p. 58 [J.H.S. xiv. p, 827] belong to 
this class. 


344 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


origin of which may be regarded as highly probable. It shows the same 
kind of trefoil scroll as that of the button-seal, but in a more developed form. 
It has at the same time acquired a stem and taken the characteristic signet 


ἧι -.-:..- (3 
ὃ 


Fic. 14.—STEATITE BUTTON-SEAL: CENTRAL CRETE. [1]. 


shape. It would thus appear probable that the very ancient sub-conical type ot 
Cretan bead-seals,—perhaps under the influence of Anatolian example,— 
gradually developed into the signet proper. The specimen represented in 


a b 
Fic, 15.—STEATITE SicnNeT, Louvre. [4]. 


Fig. 15 shows that this evolution was‘already effected in the prae-Mycenaean 
period. The three scrolls of the Mycenaean signet, given in Fig. 13, will thus 
be seen to preserve arecord of its remote ancestry on Cretan soil. 


Fig. 16.—YELLOW CORNELIAN SIGNET FROM Kuapra. [3]. 


A good example of the pictorial style is afforded by a yellow cornelian 
signet from Khadra, in Siteia (Fig. 16). It represents two wild goats 
browsing on a rocky peak, and is of great importance as supplying from its 
artistic style a chronological equation for the pictographic seals of the same class. 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 345 


The purely naturalistic treatment of the design distinguishes it alike from the 
rude representations of the geometrical class and the conventionalism of the 
orientalising school of engraving, illustrated by the ‘Melian’ gems. The intaglio 
on the other hand lacks the boldness of the earlier Mycenaean art and must. be 
placed somewhat late amongst objects of that category. The interlacing scroll 
work round the centre of the stem of the seal shows a certain approximation 
to the guilloche ornament frequent on Cretan pithoi from the eighth century 
onwards, though the more oval form here seen still bears a closer affinity to 
some Egyptian scarab-borders of the Eighteenth Dynasty.! On a jasper seal 
of the same type from Goulds (Fig. 17) is seen a lion of conventional pose, the 
head of which, except for the absence of the fleur-de-lys, bears a great family 
likeness to the lion’s head on the convoluted seal, Fig. 9, described above,— 
an interesting indication of the synchronism of these two types of seal. 


Fic, 17.—JaspER ΒΊΟΝΕΤ, Gounls. [8]. 


A similar figure of a lion also occurs on a triangular prism-seal of the 
elongated class in the British Museum. Like the others it was found in 
Crete, and the designs on all three faces are in the same, curiously mannered 
style.2 It may be regarded as one of the latest representatives of its class, 
which is thus seen also to have overlapped the ‘signet-shaped stones’ with 
which we are dealing. 

A broken crystal signet, with a lion of a conventional type, allied to the 
above, was also observed by me m the village of Mallia, and a certain 
approximation to the later class known as ‘Melian’ is unmistak- 
able in these types. This is further borne out by a Cretan signet 
stone of the same kind in the Berlin Museum.’ It is of yellow jasper and 
bears two dolphins with spiny backs, the general character of which betrays 
distinct affinities with certain Melian types. The pellets surrounded by dots, 
which occupy the central space between the dolphins on this seal, are also 
suggestive of a somewhat late date. A similar dotted rosette is seen in the 
field of an archaic scaraboid in the British Museum.‘ 


1 #.g. Scarab of the Princess Nefrura (6. 
1500 B.c.), Petrie, History of Egypt during the 
Seventeenth and Eighteenth Dynasties, p. 78 
Fig. 39. 

2 B.M. Catalogue of Gems, No. 99. It is 
thus described, p. 45: ‘Triangular prism with 
ounded ends (a) Lion to 1. Chiefly executed 
by means of circles and semi-circles (Ὁ) Goat 
lying down to /: tree(?) and circles in field. (c) 


Deer with large horns lying down tol; circle 
in field. Green Jasper. Crete.’ 

3 Furtwangler, Beschreibung der geschnittenen 
Steine im Antiquarium, No. 88, p. 10 and 
Taf. 3. 

4 B.M. Catalogue of Gems, Pl. B. 113 
Ῥ. 47. ‘Deer standing to/., looking back and 
suckling young ; branch in field and pattern of 
drilled holes above, Hematite. Egypt,’ 


346 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


There are, it will be seen, strong indications that the Cretan class of 
signet-shaped intaglios continued in use to the later Mycenaean period in the 
island, and coincides in the main with the whole duration of what may be 
called ‘the Early Hard-Stone Period’ of Aegean glyptic art. That period, 
which answers to the period of Mycenaean art in its widest extent, was 
characterised by the use of harder materials, such as cornelian, jasper, 
crystal, and amethyst for engraved seals and gems. The more primitive 
artists of the preceding age had confined themselves to the soft steatite, and 
in the time of diminished technical skill, characterised by the Melian class 
of ‘island stones’, which succeeded the close of the Mycenaean period, the 
engravers relapsed into the use of the same soft material. The ability to 
work harder stones may have survived somewhat longer in Crete,’ but the 
general tendency of the evidence precludes us from bringing down even the 
latest examples of this Cretan class of signets beyond the eighth or ninth 
century before our era. The earlier and bolder types go back considerably 
before that date. 


§ 6. Seals and other Objects with Linear Signs. 


The lentoid bead of dark steatite, Fig. 18, was found on the site of Knésos. 
It seems to be an early representative of its class, otherwise so frequent among 
Mycenaean gems, The engraving here is of a linear kind, and is very different 
from the bold cutting usual on gems of that period, and the dark steatite of 
which it is composed, though not unknown among the Mycenaean intaglios 
of Crete, is more generally associated with primitive work. 


Fic. 18.—LentTorp BEAD oF Dark STEATITE, KNosos. [3]. 


In the centre is a kind of dart or arrow symbol with a lozenge-shaped 
butt, and on either side of this, two branches or sprays. These vegetable 
motives with a star between recur on another dark steatite lentoid gem of the 
same character from central Crete,2 on the other side of which are two more 


1 An octagonal signet of simple conical form fact that in Crete too during the succeeding 
and of green steatite from Crete in the Berlin period there was a return to the softer material. 
Museum, (Beschreibung &c. No. 81, p. 9 and 2 In my collection. 

Taf.. 2.) representing a Sphinx, exemplifies the 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 347 


sprays of a different shape. A double spray also occurs on an early lentoid 
gem of light green steatite from Amorgos.' All three gems agree in the 
early character of the design and material, though the latter is more deeply 
cut. They belong in fact to a well-marked though hitherto unrecognised 
class of prae-Mycenaean or proto-Mycenaean lentoid gems in soft stone. 

The early character of the present gem lends a special interest to the 
two linear signs which appear outside the spray on either side of its margin, 
and which are almost identical with the Cypriote signs A =/o and [6 =e. 


Fia. 194a.—BLack STEATITE Wnhort, Knosos. [?]. 


Fia. 192. 


The black steatite whorl, Fig. 19a, was also found on the site of Knésos. 
The monogrammatic characters (Fig. 19d) on its upper circumference have in 
some respect such a comparatively modern aspect that they might be thought 
to be a recent addition. A minute examination with a strong lens reveals 
the fact, however, that the edges of the incisions are slightly worn and that in 
fact they belong to the same date as the whorl itself,—probably the latest 
prae-Mycenaean period. The characters themselves, moreover, find some 
close analogies among certain primitive signs found in Crete and else- 
where. This may be seen from the comparative forms given on Fig. 20. 
Of these a is from the vase handle found at Mycenae,? 6 from the early 
Cretan pot found at Prodromos Botzano, ὁ is a proto-Egyptian sign from 
Naqada,‘ d, a form of S on the Minaeo-Sabaean inscriptions of Southern 
Arabia which go back to about 1500 B.c.® 

The monogrammatic sign reproduced in Fig, 21—long-stemmed like 
the central character of Fig. 18—was engraved on a sherd of pottery, picked 


1 In my collection. 3 Pictographs, etc., p. 10 [279], Fig. 56. 

3 Tsountas Μυκήναι, p. 214, Figs. 3; Tsountas 4 Petrie, Nagada, Pl. LIV., No. 262. 
and Manatt, The Mycenaean Age, p. 269, Figs. 1, 6 Fritz Hommel, Sid-Arabische Chresto- 
138, 139, mathie. 


348 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


up on the height of Keraton, one of the loftiest among the ‘Cyclopean’ strong- 
holds of Crete.1_ The sherd on which this graffito occurs is of a reddish and some- 


Fic. 20.—CoMPARATIVE EXAMPLES OF MONOGRAMMATIC SIGNs. 


what micaceous clay of the same character as that of hundreds of plain fragments 
of vases, which from their association here with portions of painted Mycenaean 


Fic. 21.—LINEAR CHARACTER ON SHERD FROM KERATON. 


larnakes seem to represent a local fabric of that period. There was no trace 
of any later Hellenic occupation of this primitive stronghold, which from 


Fic. 22.—YELLow STEATITE SEAL, KALAMAFEA. [3]. 


a height of about 2000 feet, commands a large part of the southern coast of 
the island, from Girapetra to the spurs of Ida. 


1 See Academy, July 18, 1896 (p. 54 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 349 


The seal Fig. 22, was found in a primitive akropolis above the village of 
Kalamafka in south eastern Crete, where I obtained it in April, 1896. It is 
even more purely natural in its formation than the rude three-sided stone 
already mentioned in Fig. 1. It is simply an almost unworked finger-end of 
steatite which seems to have been thought handy for sealing purposes, and the 
end of which has been cut flat and engraved with three characters one over the 
other. Of these the top one, a plain oval and the lowest, perhaps intended to 
represent a pair of curving horns, are new to the Cretan series. The central sign 
somewhat resembles the ‘polyp’ symbol, not infrequent in the pictographic 
series (see above p. 343), but the two upper tails are here more elongated. In 
its more usual form, it occurs with linear characters on the libation-table 
from the Diktaean Cave to be described below.! The horned symbol which 


occupies the lowest place on this signet somewhat resembles the Egyptian 
hieroglyph ap. 


§ 7. Inscribed Vase from Cerrgo. 


The island of Cerigo,the ancient Kythera, may be regarded as a stepping- 
stone between Crete and the Peloponnesian mainland. Professor Sayce 
informs me that a prism seal with a variety of conventionalised pictographic 


Fic. 24,—CHARACTERS ENGRAVED ON VASE FROM CERIGO. 


symbols has been recently found in the island, apparently in company 
with a lentoid gem of the ordinary Mycenaean type. I have not however 
been able to obtain an impression of the seal. 

Thanks to the kindness of Dr. Stais and of its proprietor, M. Spiridion 
Stais, Deputy for that island, 1 am able to give a representation of a small 
marble vase (Fig. 23), also found in Cerigo, containing three characters (Fig. 


1 See p. 352. 
H.S.—VOL. XVII. ΒΒ 


350 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


24) the two latter of which at any rate are of the linear class. The material 
employed and the simple form of the vase, seem to show that it belongs to 
the latest prae-Mycenaean or ‘ Amorgian’ period.! 


Of the signs represented, the second greatly resembles the Egyptian ® 


Sep = times (Vices). The third sign has been regarded in the first part of 
this work? as a form of the eye-symbol. It may also be compared with the 


hieroglyph ©) signifying the solar disk. 


The first sign, is of a more remarkable character, and has the appearance 
of a truncated obelisk standing on a base, with another slab resting on its 
summit. Obelisk-like figures are found among Egyptian hieroglyphics* but 
in this case the slab above and below suggests an altar, or perhaps, an 
aniconic image, analogous to that representing the Paphian goddess. 


§ 8. Inscribed Libation Table from the Diktaean Cave. 


Hitherto, with the exception of some more or less isolated signs on the 
gypsum blocks of the prehistoric building at Knésos, the evidence of the early 
Cretan Script has been confined to seal stones and graffiti on vases. I am 
now able to call attention to a monument of a different class, bearing what 
appears to be a prehistoric dedication in well-cut characters belonging to the 
linear type of the Cretan writing. 

The scene of this discovery was the great cave on the steep of Mount 
Lasethi, above the village of Psychro, which must certainly be identified with 
the Diktaion Antron of the Lyttian traditions. It lies, in fact, only four and 
a half hours distant from the site of Lyttos, with which it was connected 
over a low mountain pass by what appears to have been a very ancient road- 
line. This cave, according to the Lyttian legend preserved by Hesiod,‘ was the 
birthplace of Zeus, and the votive relics discovered in extraordinary 
abundance attest, in fact, the existence there of a cult identical with that of 
the Cave of Zeus on Mount Ida. . 

The ancient remains of the Psychro Cave were, for the first time, explored 
in 1886, by the Italian archaeologist, Professor Halbherr, in company with 
Dr. Hazzidakis, President of the Syllogos of Candia. In their work on the 


1 The inscription is given in Tsountas and 3 The ideograph haz is a rounded stele on a 
Manatt, The Mycenaean Age, p. 279, but the base; ἐχῆ, an obelisk also on a base. 
first sign is there imperfectly rendered, the upper 4 Theogonia v. 477 seqq. (Rhea has taken 
slab above the truncated obelisk, of which dis- counsel with her parents Ouranos and Gaia) : 


tinct traces are visible, having been omitted. πέμψαν δ᾽ és Λύκτον, Κρήτης és πίονα δῆμον, 
The vase is there described as being of a familiar ὁππότ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὁπλότατον παίδων ἤμελλε τεκέσθαι, 
‘*Tsland” form, from which 1 infer that Dr. Ζῆνα μέγαν: τὸν μὲν of ἐδέξατο Γαῖα πελώρη 
Tsountas also refers it to the earlier Aegean Κρήτῃ ἐν εὐρείῃ τραφέμεν ἀτιταλλέμεναί τε. 
period. Fig. 24 was executed, with the aid ot ἔνθα μιν ἵκτο φέρουσα θοὴν διὰ νύκτα μέλαιναν 
photography, by Mr. F. Anderson from the cast πρώτην és Δίκτην' κρύψεν δέ ἑ χερσὶ λαβοῦσα 
supplied me by Dr. Stais. ἄντρῳ ἐν ἠλιβάτῳ, ζαθέης ὑπὸ κεύθεσι γαίης 
2 ‘Pictographs’ &c., p. 34 [J.H.S. xiv: Αἰγαίῳ ἐν ipet, πεπυκασμένῳ ὑλήεντι. 


p. 303). 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 351 


Idaean Cave, Halbherr and Orsi describe the results of some excavations near 
the mouth of the Cave and also various relics discovered there by the peasants 
in the course of ‘ tumultuary’ diggings.! In 1894, during my travels in that 
part of Crete, although unable at that time to visit the spot, 1 procured 
from the peasants many additional objects in the shape of bronze arms, votive 
and otherwise, and small figures of men and animals. In the following year 
I was able to visit the Cave in company with Mr, J. L. Myres, and to secure 
further materials illustrating the character of its deposits. At the time of 
our visit in 1895, it being the holiday-time of the Greek Easter, a large 
part of the male inhabitants of the village were engaged in grubbing in the 
interstices of the boulders. The huge masses of fallen rock with which 
almost the whole of the vast entrance hall of the Cave is strewn, preclude 
anything like systematic excavation on a large scale within the Cave except 
at an enormous expense. Here and there, however, a few square metres of less 
encumbered soil enabled us, at least, to gauge the character of the deposits. 

Among the excavators was a youth who, shortly before my return to the 
Cave in April, 1896, and in anticipation of it, dug down to its rock floor 
in a comparatively unencumbered part at the lowest level of the vast 
entrance hall. On my arrival he showed me several clay bulls and figures of 
the usual Mycenaean class obtained through his dig, together with several plain 
terra-cotta cups to be presently referred to, As a matter of comparatively 
minor importance, he informed me that he and a friend, who had helped him 
in the excavation, had found at the bottom of the hole a ‘broken stone, with 
writing. It may readily be imagined that I lost no time in securing the 
stone and also in ascertaining on the spot the exact circumstances of its 
position. The stone proved to be a dark steatite fragment of a low table 
exhibiting cup-shaped hollows with raised rims, similar to those of the stone 
libation tables of ancient Egypt. The form of the table had been oblong 
with four short legs and a central stem. It had originally possessed three 
cups, the central one somewhat larger than the other two, but the part of 
the stone containing the left-most of these was broken away. Its most 
remarkable feature, however, was part of an inscription clearly cut along the 
upper margin of the table in the prae-Phoenician script of Crete. 

A view of the remaining portion, as well as of the whole table restored 
in outline, will be seen in Figs. 25a, ὃ and c. 

I at once made arrangements to continue the excavation at the spot 
where the inscribed object was found, partly to ascertain if the remaining 
fragment of the stone table was discoverable, partly to gain an accurate idea 
of the deposit from beneath which the part now brought to light had been 
extracted. 

The inscribed block lay at the point indicated in the sketch plan 
(Fig. 26) of the great entrance hall or ‘Atrium’ of the cave near its inner 
wall and on the rock floor, at this point about two metres below the existing 
surface of the ground. I dug out a space of about sixteen square metres all 


1 Antichita dell antro di Zeus Ideo, p. 216 seqq. 
BB 2 


(‘our]yno ur pasoyser 5908} todd Q) 
ΤΠ “HAVO NVHVLIHIG FHL WOUA TIAV], NOILVAT] GaaIMosN[—‘vez “1 


<= 


(‘aUT]}NO UT par04seyy) 
[Ὁ] “HAVO NvavixIq woud aTavy, NOILVGIT 10 MAGIA LNOU™I—"9GZ “org 


ΡΥ. 


va 


Be A 


Fic. 25c.—UNDER-SIDE OF LIBATION TABLE FROM DIKTAEAN CAVE. 


(Restored in outline. ) 


FURTHER DISCOVERIES OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 355 


round down to the rock which in most places lay somewhat over two metres 
below the surface. No trace of the remaining portion of the stone was to be 
found, but about 1} metres down, we found a continuous layer containing 
what appeared to be a sacrificial deposit of bones, horns and ceramic objects, 
imbedded in ashes and charcoal. The bones were of deer, oxen, and goats, 
the horn of an agrimi or wild goat found in this stratum being about 
a foot and a half in length. Amongst the ceramic relics was a small 
clay figure of an ox of a rude character, common among the late Mycenaean 
remains of Crete, and of which a small deposit had been found in the same 
ash-layer nearer the inner wal] of the cave. There was also the head of 


ie + auntie Ἦ >. GY 5 
w OZ. 
«ἀρ, 


ΝῊ ! 


ye “yh 
", “ aD Gif! 


ss 


HV R orl ας g ἤ 
SS Ae ea ie Ὕ , 
HL <= ren i NE aE ra Mi, 


AN ha flay ba A 
"" Qi 
my 1 D WIDTH OF MOUTH OF CAVE ABOUT 23 METRES wil sy 


SKETCH PLAN OF ATRIUM 
OF CAVE OF PSYCHRO [DIKTAAN CAvE] 


Fic. 26. 


another ox of superior fabric, and fragments of two rough clay pipkins with 
flat bottoms, and handles sticking out like projecting fingers of clay. But the 
most characteristic vessels were small cups of plain reddish clay of a type 
found in the votive deposit in the Idaean Cave and in Cretan beehive tombs of 
the Mycenaean period. Of these I extracted over a score and almost all 
without a break, some arranged in ‘ nests’ inside one another, a circumstance 
which sufficiently demonstrates that the stratum in which they lay had 
remained undisturbed since the time of their deposit. Two bronze oxen of 
rude fabric also occurred in the same layer. 

The fact that the remaining part of the steatite libation-table was found 


356 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


beneath this well-defined sacrificial stratum is of considerable chronological 
importance. This becomes the more evident when we come to survey the 
votive deposits of the Psychro Cave taken as a whole. Remains of the 
historic period are curiously rare. I was able to observe a plain proto- 
Corinthian aryballos and one or two fragments of glazed black Hellenic ware 
in a superficial layer, and, in 1895, was shown a terra-cotta griffin’s head 
apparently from a tripod bowl, and a small trunk-like block of white marble 
with a tail of a snake coiled round it, belonging to a later cult, whether of 
Asklepios or of some local hero it is difficult to say. I further obtained a 
very remarkable bronze openwork figure of a huntsman carrying a wild-goat, 
analogous, though in a superior style, to that referred to by Milchhoefer,’ and 
now in the Louvre, representing two huntsmen with a similar animal. A few 
specimens of Cretan geometrical ware contemporaneous with that of the 
‘Dipylon’ period in Greece also occurred and a fibula? with coils in its bow 
and a small square catch-plate, showing similar affinities. 

But the great bulk of the relics found in the Diktaean Cave go back to 
the prehistoric period—and a large proportion of these may be described as 
‘Late Mycenaean.’ A characteristic sword handle of that period found here 
(also common to Southern Italy) greatly resembled types represented in the 
bronze hoards discovered in the later houses of Mycenae. Certain double- 
axes, knives, adzes, and dagger-blades from the Psychro deposit bear the same 
affinities, while the bronze knives with slightly curving blades? also occur in 
Mycenaean tholos tombs of the island and as imported objects in the later 
Italian Terremare. The coarser bronze figurines of men and animals approach 
those of the earliest deposits of Olympia, and of the Italo-Hallstatt Province, 
while other specimens obtained by me show a purer Mycenaean spirit. Amongst 
these may be enumerated flounced female figures and a small statuette of a 
man wearing the Mycenaean loin-cloth and showing a method of knotting the 
hair and two long locks behind very similar to that seen in the case of the 
men on the Vapheio gold cups. | 

Nor were there wanting retics ofa still earlier period. Among these may 
be mentioned a fragment of a large dark brown vase with a goat rudely 
moulded in high relief, recalling some Cypriote ceramic products of 
the Copper and early Bronze Age. A small bronze dagger of quasi- 
triangular form, and short swords of very simple fabric seemed also to be 
distinctly prae-Mycenaean in character. A broken basin of dark steatite,* 
somewhat -heavily made, also probably belongs to the same early period. The 
fact that the fragment of the inscribed table lay below a well defined and 
apparently undisturbed sacrificial layer of Mycenaean date makes it possible, 
so far as the actual conditions of its discovery are concerned, that it too may 
belong to the earlier cultural stratum represented in the Psychro relics. The 


1 Anfange der Kunst p. 169 Fig. 65. obtained by myself are in the Ashmolean 


2 Halbherr and Orsi, Antro di Zeus, &c., 1 Museum. A similar knife was procured by me 
Τὰν. xiii. 6. from a tholos tomb at Kamares on the 


8 Compare for example Halbherr and Orsi, southern slopes of Mt. Ida. 
op. cit. I Tay. xiii. 8. Other specimens 4 ‘Pictographs’ &c. p. 122, Fig. 121. 


OF CRETAN: AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 357 


character of the libation-table itself is at least not inconsistent with such a 
possibility. To judge by the abundance of small terracotta cups, it looks as 
if the later votaries of the cave preferred to set their libations in these more 
portable receptacles. 

The use, indeed, of steatite vessels, certainly survived in Crete into 
Mycenaean times, but, as I have elsewhere shown, the most flourishing period 
of the fabric of such objects in the island goes back to the time when ceramic 
arts had been less perfected. A series of examples demonstrates the fact that 
at a very early period Egyptian vases in hard stone were imitated by Cretan 
artificers in their native steatite, and the absolute correspondence with some 
Twelfth Dynasty models, including the imitation of the returning spiral orna- 
ment then rife,1 shows that many of these Cretan stone vessels go back to the 
first half of the Third Millennium before our era. A special centre of the 
discovery of these early steatite vases is Arvi, a very ancient sanctuary of 
Zeus on the southern coast, and here examples were found in a tomb con- 
taining a clay suspension vase of early Aegean bucchero belonging to the 
period of the cist-graves of Amorgos or even of the Second City of Troy. 
Curiously enough, my recent journey led to the acquisition on this site, 
together with other vases of the same material, of an example of a steatite 
libation-table affording a very close parallel to that of the Diktaean Cave. 
It was of greyish hue, somewhat smaller than the other, and with only 
a single cup-shaped hollow, as before, with a raised rim. It had four 
short feet, but no central stem. This relic, at the time of my visit, had 
recently come to light at a knoll called Tartari, a little below the monastery 
which still keeps up the sanctity of the spot. 

The early associations of other stone vases from this site and its 
neighbourhood, in which the imitation of Egyptian old empire models is 
clearly discernible, make the general correspondence of the libation-tables from 
Arvi and Psychto with Egyptian prototypes of early date the more suggestive. 
The characteristic features of the whole, the small portable table with cup- 
shaped hollows having their rim raised above the flat surface of the table, are 
here faithfully reproduced. It further appears that stone libation-tables of 
this kind were specially in vogue during the Twelfth Dynasty, and it is to that 
period that their imitation in Crete must remount. Professor Sayce informs 
me that a Twelfth Dynasty libation-table, which in form is simply an 
enlarged repetition of that from the Diktaean Cave, was discovered last year 
at Lisht by Messrs. Gautier and Jéquier and is now in the Gizeh Museum. 

In the case of the libation table from Arvi the small proove which 
uate the peper surface of the slab near the margin is sigs continued 


type in Pare stone, and with a similar cover, 
now in the collection of Dr. Julius Naue at 
Munich. It is also found on Egyptian cylinders 


1 The MAT. ite ornament in Twelfth 
Dynasty Egypt was not confined to scarabs. A 
dark bucchero vase found in Egypt, of a type 


characteristic of that and the succeeding Thir- 
teenth Dynasty is surrounded by a decoration 
of this kind inlaid with white gypsum. The 
returning-spiral ornament recurs on a Cretan 
steatite vase, resembling a Twelfth Dynasty 


and is imitated on primitive Hgean examples 
from Amorgos. The imita.ion of similar orna- 
ment on similar objects is a strong proof of the 
common origin of both. 


358 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


round three sides. The fact that it is omitted on the fourth side seems to 
show that it was here set back against some other object. A groove in a 
similar position is observable on the remaining portion of the Diktaean Table ; 
and in the restoration indicated in Fig. 25a it, too, has, on the analogy of 
the Arvi example, been omitted on the back side. It is probable that the 
Diktaean Libation Table was also set back against a flat surface, perhaps in 
this case the wall of the cave itself, close to which it was found. 

The threefold receptacle of the Diktaean Table suggests some interesting 
analogies with a ritual usage which goes back to the earliest religious 
stratum of Greece. In the case of such primitive worship as that of the 
Shades of the Departed, and again in that of the Nymphs, a triple libation 
was frequently offered. According to the old Arcadian rite (specially sig- 
nificant in a Cretan connexion,) recorded in the Odyssey, the offering to the 
Dead before the Falls of Styx was of this kind?: 


Πρῶτα μελικρήτῳ, μετέπειτα δὲ ἡδέϊ οἴνῳ 

Τὸ τρίτον αὖθ᾽ ὕδατι. 
The heroic and chthonic character of the primitive Zeus-worship of Crete 
makes it probable that a similar usage may here also have obtained, and in the 
very cave where according to the legend the infant Zeus has been fed by the 
Nymphs with ‘mingled milk and honey,’? the offering of the μελίκρητα 
would have been specially appropriate. We are, indeed expressly told that 
the ritual performed in honour of the Cretan Zeus set forth the miraculous 
preservation of the infant and his nourishment by Amalthea and Melissa.’ 


§ 9. The Inscription. 


It is time however to turn to the inscription itself. If the position of 
the punctuations can be taken as a guide, the characters run from left to 
right. It is possible, however, that, as in the later Libyan alphabets,‘ these 
full-stop-like marks had themselves the value of letters. 


The first character, though imperfectly preserved, is obviously the same 
as No, 3, and presents an elongated variety of what I have called the four- 
barred gate symbol. This occurs both on the linear and the pictographic ser‘es. 
As connected with a linear group it appears on an early white steatite seal-stone 
from Praesos, ‘ Pictographs, etc., Fig. 36d, p. 28 [296]. On the pictographic 
series it is twice coupled with the bent leg, and, as already noted above, it is 
linked on the linear group referred to with a 7-like sign which may well be 
the linearised equivalent of the leg symbol. The ‘door’ or ‘ gate’ symbol 
has already been compared with the Boeotian E with four parallel bars,° 
which points in turn to an older form of the Semitic Cheth with four bars 
instead of three. (See Table 1.) 


1 Od. x. 519, 520. 5 *Pictographs’ &c. p. 92 [J.H.S. xiv. 
2 Cf. Diod. v. 70. p. 261] and cf. Table III. No. 3 p, 95 [ 5. δ 
3 Lactantius, De falsa Religione, 21, 22. xiv. p. 365]. 


+ See below p. 386. 


OF CRETAN: AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 359 


The second sign is altogether new. The Ὑ contained in it reminds 
us of Pictograph No. 54 and allied linear forms, but its combination 
with the arch suggests a comparison with the Egyptian hieroglyph repre- 
senting a vault of a roof supported by a column,!—especially the first 
example given in my comparative Table (I.) in which the capital of the 
column has a threefold division. 

Among the meanings given for the Egyptian sign are hall, (seh), assembly, 
or festival (kb); to meditate or consider (wa-wa), science, wisdom, and incense 
(sent). 


{ 


teed 


) 


i 


ΓΦ, Υ Lets 


Fic. 27.—INSCRIPTION ΟΝ DIKTAEAN Ἐπ} TABLE. 


The fourth and fifth signs are identical with that referred to above 
as the ‘polyp’ symbol, common among the Cretan pictographic signs 
and also apparently seen in a slightly variant form on the early linear seal, 
Fig. 22, above. (See Table I.) The reduplication of this character finds a 
parallel on a seal of the conventionalised pictographic class, Pictographs, etc, 
p. 30 (ὦ... xiv. p. 299), Fig. 39, where it appears at the end of one line and 
the beginning of another. 


The sixth sign must certainly be completed as 2, This form occurs 

in the conventionalised pictographic series (Pictographs, No. 69, and cf. 70, 

78), being found once more on line 4 of the four-sided seal described 

above (Fig. 6d). I have already compared it with the Egyptian hieroglyph 

a coil of thread, signifying ‘to reel.’ In the Cypriote syllabary ? = pe. 
(See Table 1.) 


The seventh character is too imperfect to admit of probable restoration. 


The remaining portion of the eighth letter is curiously grouped with 
the last of the series. It looks like the upper part of the Semitic Resh. 
The ninth character, which lies apparently on its back above the preceding, 
has a greater affinity with a Beth. 

In the present state of our enquiry it would not be safe to go beyond 
general comparisons. Nor shall I, at least, attempt an interpretation which 


1 No. 1 is taken from Birch’s edition of No. 2 is from De Rougé Chrestomathie Egyp- 
Bunsen Egypt's Place in Universal History  tienne PI. xiii. 36 p. 105. 
Vol. 1 p. 541 No. 578 and cf. p. 542 No. 582. 


360 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


could hardly fail to be premature. The great value of the present group of 
characters consists in the fact that it is impossible to doubt that we have 


SIGNS 
FROM DICTAAN 


1 AND3.2. 4 ANDS AND 6 OF LIBATION TABLE 
CAVE WITH PARALLEL FORMS. 


LIBATION 
TABLE 


NEAR ON SEAL 


etre 


CRETAN 
PICTOGRAPAS 


TOGRAPHS 
ON SEALS 


EGYPTIAN CRETAN PIC- |] CRETAN LI- 


HIEROGLYPHS 
FESTIVAL ETCy 


SIGNS FOR HALL 


LIBYAN 


SYLLABARY | LETTERS 


x 
wn 


CYPRIOTE ] 


SEMITIC 
LETTERS 


Fu 
ae yz 
ω ΕΞ 
22 #2 

ω 
Oe 5 
a fe Kx 
we Ww Pee 
a : 


TABLE I, 


here to do with a formal inscription. For.the first time we have to deal with 
a series of signs of alphabetical form,—though probably in part at least of 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 361 


syllabic force,—not merely of a personal nature like those engraved on seals 
or scratched on vases, but, as far as can be gathered from their association, 
in the strictest sense of the word monumental. These letters, clearly cut 
and accompanied even by what has the appearance of a regular punc- 
tuation, on a stone Table of Offerings, brought to light in the earliest 
stratum of a sanctuary of remote antiquity, must in all ‘probability be 
regarded as part of a formal dedication. 

The correspondence observable with known symbols of the early Cretan 
script, both linear and pictographic, shows that the present inscription 
belongs to the same series as those of the seals and vases. But the inserip- 
tion itself must on the whole be classed with the more linear group, and the 
balance of evidence shows that the linear type of writing in Crete belongs in 
the main to what may be called the ‘Early Soft-Stone Period’ of seal- 
engraving, which preceded the Mycenaean Age when harder materials like 
cornelian and chalcedony were successfully attacked. 

In the three instances that I was able to cite in my former work 
in which characters of this linear class appear on three- or four-sided bead 
seals, they are all of the ‘soft-stone’ class, and all display ornaments or 
figures similar to those of the most archaic type of pictographic seals, in the 
decorative designs of which Twelfth Dynasty models are clearly traceable. 
The three-sided stone given there in Fig. 36 with rude linear signs and figures, 
certainly stands near the beginning of its class, and the inscribed whorl found 
in the Hagios Onuphrios deposit, engraved in the same primitive manner, 
also belongs, as the associated relics show, to the same early period. Of the 
examples cited in the course of the present paper, the rude steatite seal from 
Kalamafka has every appearance of primitive workmanship, and the inscribed 
vase from Cerigo has already been referred to the prae-Mycenaean period of 
Aegean culture. 

On the other hand, the comparisons instituted between certain 
characters on the libation table, with some of those of the conventionalised 
pictographic class, such as the ‘polyp’ sign, the four-barred gate, and 
the @ seem to bring down its date to a period approaching that of this 
later class which has proved Mycenaean affinities. This might take us to 
the beginning of the Second Millennium B.c., a date which would be still 
reconcileable with the fact that the Table itself is apparently based on 
a somewhat earlier Egyptian model. The converging lines of chronological 
induction at our disposal make it on the whole unsafe to attribute this 
monument to a later time. 

If, as would thus appear probable, this monument goes back to about 
2000 B.c. the antiquity of the pra-Phcenician system of writing in Crete 
receives a new and remarkable illustration. Brief and incomplete as it is, the 
Psychro inscription stands alone among the written records of our Continent, 
It is not only separated longo intervallo from the most ancient examples of 
Greek writing, but it distances by at least a thousand years the earliest 
specimens of the Semitic alphabet as seen on the Baal Lebanon bowls and 
the Moabite stone. 


362 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


ParT I].—Proro-Ea@yptiaAN AND LIBYAN COMPARISONS. 


δ΄. Early Prism-seal of Steatite Jrom Karnak. 


In connexion with the Early Cretan remains described in the pre- 
ceding sections I am able to cite a remarkable piece of evidence pointing 
to the existence in the Nile Valley or its borderlands at a very early 
Pharaonic date, if not of actual settlers from Crete, at any rate of a ‘ Libyan’ 
population closely allied to the primitive Cretans in the most distinctive 
property of early culture. This is a triangular bead-seal of black steatite 
(Fig. 28) obtained some years since, with other small relics from Karnak, by 
the late Mr. Greville Chester, and presented by him to the Ashmolean 
Museum. Though somewhat larger in size, it reproduces the characteristic 
form of the triangular Cretan bead-seals as well as the material of their 
earliest class. 


Fie, 28.—PRISM-SEAL OF Buack STEATITE FROM KARNAK. [8]. 
a, section: b, ς, d sides. 


Among the signs which appear on the three sides, the bee or hornet, the 
scorpion with upturned tail (twice repeated), and the beetle, are common to 
the Egyptian hieroglyphic series, the others are variant or foreign forms. 

As so often on the early Cretan seals we have at the head of what may 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPY. 363 


be taken to be the initial column, a rude human tigure—in this case 
standing and apparently holding up a crocodile by its tail. In the next 
column is a seated animal with uplifted paw. Beneath this is a figure in a 
violent attitude, as if in the act of running. ‘The body and limbs are those 
of ἃ man, but the head, which is turned back, is that of an animal. It has 


two long slightly curving horns as of some kind of goat ov ox. On the third 
face of the seal appears another monstrous form—the linked forequarters 
of a pair of ibexes. 

The form of the Cretan prism-seals had suggested to me from the 


first a certain parallelism with the oriental cylinders. I went, indeed, so far 
as to observe that they might in some sort be described as ‘ threc-sided 
eylinders. That these trilateral seals are in Crete itself the direct 
descendants of the rude perforated splinters of steatite which characterise 
the most primitive stage of the glyptic art in the island is a natural 
supposition.1 But the elongated type with large central perforation? shows 
such an approximation to the cylinder that some influence from that type of 
signet might reasonably be suspected. The rude irregular form of the 
original’ bored splinter has been as it were crystallised into a geometrical 
shape in conformity with the early Egyptian and Oriental cylinder-seal. In 
Crete itself, however, there seems to have been no sufficient opportunity 
for such influence. Rude and distant imitations of the early cylinder type 
have indeed been found at Hissarlik and in Amorgos, but not a single 
specimen of the primitive cylinder has as yet been discovered in Crete. 

The occurrence, however, of the prism-type of bead-seal in Egypt suggests 
that the more primitive ‘ wedge-seal ’ may have been modified by the cylinder 
type on Egyptian soil itself by a population having both an Agean and 
a Nilotic range. For we now know that the earliest form of signet among the 
dynastic Egyptians themselves was not the scarab but the cylinder. The re- 
markable royal tombs, explored by M. Amélineau at Abydos,and by M.de Morgan 
at Naqada, though they contained not asingle scarab, produced a series of clay 
cones used as stoppers of vases, exhibiting impressions from cylinders. The 
crowning discovery of Dr. Borchardt, who has identified the royal tomb 
excavated by M. de Morgan at Naqada with that of the first Egyptian 
monarch, shows that the signet of Menes himself was a cylinder. 

Some of the cylinders of this earliest dynastic period have been actually 
preserved to us. On one of white stone in the Ashmolean Museum Professor 
Sayce has recently deciphered the name of Atota, a grandson of Menes, while 
on another of green steatite, found in an early tomb excavated by Mr. Quibell 
at El Kab, he has recognised the name of King Khaires of the Second 
Dynasty. Some of these early cylinders are of copper,’ and it is perhaps 
owing to the influence of this type that from about the Fourth to the Sixth 


1 See above, p. 330. class, 

2 A good example of this Cretan type with 3 A specimen of this class, also from a tomb, 
abnormally large perforation is seen in Picto- excavated by Mr. Quibell at El Kab, and now 
graphs, &c., Fig. 36, p. 28 [297]. This seal; in the Ashmolean Museum, apparently bears the 
with linear characters, belongs to a very carly name of Men-Kau-ra of the Fourth Dynasty. 


364 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


Dynasty the stone cylinders show an abnormally large perforation. In the 
time of the Twelfth Dynasty an ivory tube was inserted into this perforation, 
and shortly after that period the cylinder type of signet in Egypt was finally 


Fic. 31.—Ciay CYLINDER IN ΟἼΖΕΗ MusEuM. AFTER DE Morcan. 


superseded by the scarab, a form apparently unknown under the earliest 


dynasties. 
The Egyptian cylinders above referred to are the true fabric of the 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 365 


Pharaonic race and bear regular hieroglyphic inscriptions. But, side by side 
with these, from the earliest dynastic period, there existed another class of 
cylinders exhibiting signs of a more pictorial character, which, though contain- 
ing Egyptian elements, are by no means of the orthodox Egyptian class. 
These cylinders seem for the most part to be formed of black steatite 
similar to that of the Karnak prism, and the figures with which they are 
engraved show most striking correspondences with those on this Cretan 
type of seal. 

The closeness of this affinity will be sufficiently illustrated by the 
examples of this class of cylinder given in Figs. 29,1 30,2 31.3 The standing 
figure apparently holding up a crocodile by the tail on the first face of the 
prism receives a double illustration in Fig. 31. The running figure with a 
man’s body and the head of a horned animal, Fig. 280, repeats the movement of 
the running human figure on Fig. 29. If in the former case we have a kind 
of Minotaur, we find here the figure of a man with a hare’s head. The 
scorpion with upturned tail reappears in Fig. 31, the beetle on Fig. 29, the 
bee on all three cylinders. The two-headed goat finds a close analogy in the 
linked forequarters of the oxen on Fig. 30, and further parallels in the double 
lion and lion-ibex of a cylinder impression from the tomb of Menes to be 
referred to below. 

It is obvious that both prism and cylinder represent the same traditions 
and are of the same contemporary fabric. A closely-allied work is also to be 
seen in the impression of a cylinder on a clay cone found by M. de Morgan in 
the tomb of Menes at Naqada.t The special group with which we are con- 
cerned seems, however, to belong to a somewhat later date, though containing 
very early traditions. From its exceptionally large perforation and certain 
peculiarities of technique, Professor Petrie inclines to refer the cylinder in his 
possession (Fig. 29), to the time of Pepi 11., of the Sixth Dynasty, for 
whose reign he assigns the approximate dates, 3443—3348 B.c. The close 
resemblance observable between this and the Karnak seal both in the material, 
which is the same black steatite, the size of the perforation, and the character 
and style of the figures, shows that it must, approximately at least, be regarded 
as contemporary with the Petrie cylinder. It thus appears that—if we 
accept the chronology of Professor Petrie—the Karnak prism-seal was 
executed about 3400 B.c. and that the prototypes of the primitive Cretan 
class must go back to that remote epoch. 

We can have no hesitation in dealing with the above cylinders and 
the Karnak prism as a homogeneous group, and the interesting question 
arises,—T'o what racial element does it belong? It represents, as we have 
seen, together with certain types common to the historic Egyptians, other 
forms of extraneous origin. 


1 This cylinder is in Professor Petrie’s collec- 8 Clay cylinder in the Gizeh Museum, from 
tion, to whose kind permission the present re- De Morgan’s Recherches swr les Origines de 
production is due. It is of black steatite, with  U#gypte (ii.) Fig. 857, p. 257. 
an exceptionally large perforation. 4 Origines de V Egypte (ii.) Fig. 560, p. 169. 

2 From Lajard, Culte de Mithra, Pl. xiii. 8, 

H.S.—VOL XVI. Gc 


366 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


Among these is a curious bow-legged figure which occurs on all the 
examples of cylinders given above. On Fig. 29 we see it with both hands 
raised, on Fig. 30 leading a cynocephalus, on Fig. 31 it is four times repeated. 

This figure is of great interest. The characteristic form of the lower 
limbs shows that we have in fact to deal with the same grotesque personage 
who so often makes his appearance in a secondary position on Babylonian 
cylinders.! Allied, and perhaps derivative, figures may be seen in the pygmy 
or ‘embryonic’ form of Ptah-Socharis-Osiris and its offshoot the Phoenician 
Pataecus,? but there can be no question that the type scen on these early 
cylinders is the direct reflection of that which appears at a very early 
date upon those of Chaldaea. The horned man of the Karnak prism may itself 
be due to a composite and distant reminiscence of Gilgames and Eabani. 

The true cylinder types of dynastic Egypt, as we now know them from 
the First Dynasty onwards, show, from the first, purely normal representations 
of contemporary hieroglyphic forms. They reproduce a system of signs 
already fully evolved by at least as early a date as the time of Menes. 
Though the cylinder form itself is oriental, and though some few hieroglyphs 
may go back to the same common origin as the Chaldaean, there is no sign of 
direct borrowing of Asiatic types. On the group, however, with which we are 
immediately concerned, we are here confronted with a figure taken direct from 
the cylinders of Babylonia. In the naked male figure, indeed, between two 
crocodiles on Fig. 31, we find the actual adaptation of a familiar Baby- 
lonian scheme—the hero between two bulls or lions, sometimes held in a 
reverse position. 

We see thus upon the present series evidence of borrowing both from 
Asiatic and dynastic Egyptian sources—the latter naturally preponderating, — 
while at the same time both classes of borrowed elements are reproduced with 
a certain barbaric fantasy, and combined with other features which are neither 
Pharaonic nor Chaldaean. . 

To what Nilotic population, then, are these hybrid works to be ascribed ? 
The answer to this inquiry will probably be found in the evidence supplied 
from other quarters of the partial survival in the Nile Valley of the earlier 


* It appears in diminutive dimensions in the we are dealing, but the legs in this case are not 


inter-spaces between the principal figures on a 
series of Babylonian cylinders. At times it is 
associated with the small image of a nude 
female divinity, apparently Sala, a form of Istar. 
(Menant, Collection De Clereg, Pl. xxiii. 231, 
Pl. xxvii. 277; Lajard, Culte de Mithra, PI. 
xxxix. 5, Pl. xl. 9). For Sala, see Nikolsky, 
Rev. Arch. 1891, ii. p. 41, who cites a cylinder 
on which this name accompanies the nude female 
type. In this case Sala-Istar is coupled with a 
nude male divinity, also of diminutive size, and 
identified by the inscription with Ram4nu, the 
Syrian Rimmon. The arms of this male figure, 
crossed on the breast, resemble those of the pre- 
valent Chaldean version of the type with which 


bow-legged. The fact however that the bow- 
legged type is repeatedly associated with the 
nude Goddess, and like it occasionally appears 
on a kind of base of the same form, makes it 
probable that the diminutive and grotesque 
male figure was regarded as a satellite of the 
small female figure. This male figure occurs on 
cylinders of extremely archaic type (cf. es- 
pecially Lajard, Culte de Mithra, Pl. xl. 9). 
Above it is not unfrequently seen the combined 
symbol of Sin and Samas, and sometimes a 
crescent or a star. (Menant, Coll. De Clercq, 
Pl. xiv. 123). 
? A parallel but variant type is seen in Bes, 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 367 


indigenous stock which was in possession of the land at the time of the first 
coming of the Pharaonic conquerors from the South-East. This earlier 
population, of which something more will be said in the succeeding pages, has 
been with great probability identified by Professor Wiedemann and others 
with the ancient Libyan race. In a large number of the tombs excavated 
at Naqada and elsewhere, we must, in view of the most recent discoveries, 
recognise the remains of this pre-historic race in Egypt. 

To a certain extent the whole later civilisation of historic Egypt was 
influenced by this pre-existing indigenous element, the assimilation of 
which was only the work of centuries. In the case of the present group of 
cylinders, the traces of the traditional ‘Libyan’ art seem to be especially 
strong. The form of the human figures may be compared with the rude 
sketches on some of the prehistoric pots of Naqada.!' The scorpions with 
upturned tails, the crocodiles, the ibexes, the long-legged birds, probably 
ostriches,? are all plentifully represented. The semi-processional arrange- 
ment of the animals on the cylinder impression from the tomb of Menes 
recalls the zones of animals on the prehistoric ivory handle from Sohaj,3 
and the gold-plated knife in the Gizeh Museum.* A further parallel is 
afforded by the two-headed animals of the cylinders and prism-seal. These 
combinations recall one of the special features of this proto-Egyptian art, as 
illustrated by the slate palettes and ivory combs, which repeatedly take the 
shape of double birds ® and, at times, of ibexes.? On a proto-Egyptian slate 
tablet? a double bull is seen in association with bow-men whose hair, divided 
into separate plaits and adorned with two plumes, recalls later, Libyan, 
fashions. 

These comparisons seem to show that the class of cylinders with which 
we are at present concerned, and with them the Karnak cylinder, were the 
work of some more or less independent Libyan elements which still survived 
in the Nile Valley, or had perhaps partially re-intruded themselves there, as 
late as the Sixth Dynasty. The traces of Asiatic influence, such as the 
Pataecus-like figure on these signets, point to a race who had intimate 
relations with the traditional enemies of the Pharaohs on the Syrian side. 

If this conclusion is correct, and we have here the handiwork of a 
Libyan population, the prism seal of Karnak, though as yet an isolated 
phenomenon, may prove to be of capital importance in its relation to the 
early bead-seals of Crete, and in a more general sense to the origin of the 
primitive Cretan and Aegean culture. For, as will be seen from the com- 
parisons given below, the points of resemblance are by no means confined 
to the three-sided form of the seal itself, Taking this and the allied 


1 Compare the vases, Petrie, Nagada Pl. % Petrie, Nagada, Pl. Ixxviii. In the Pitt 
xxxv. 7 and De Morgan, Origines de’ Egypte i. _ Rivers collection. 
Pl. iii. 48. 4 De Morgan, Origines, &c., i. p. 115, Fig. 

2 Cf. the cylinder impression from the tomb 136, and ii. Pl. v. 
of Menes, De Morgan, Origines de I’ Egypte, ii. 5 Cf. Petrie, op. cit. Pl. xlix. Fig. 62 seqq. 
Fig. 560, p. 169, where a similar lonyg-legged 6 Jb. Pl. xlvii. Fig. 11. 
bird occurs, 7 In the British Museum No. 27090, 

coazZ 


368 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


cylinders as a homogeneous group, a whole series of interesting and con- 
clusive parallels can be established between the figures that they contain 
and certain distinctive types of the primitive Cretan cycle. This correspond- 
ence, moreover, extends to some of the characteristic designs on gems of the 
Mycenaean period. 

The bird, probably an ostrich, that occurs among the animals on the 
impression of a cylinder of the indigenous class found in the tomb of Menes 
seems to be the forerunner of the long-legged race seen on the Cretan bead- 
seals. In the one series we find the ibex, in the other the wild goat. The 
scorpion with upturned tail, which is seen already on the prehistoric pottery 
of Egypt, and is so characteristic a feature on the Karnak prism and the 
allied group of cylinders, is also one of the most frequently represented 
objects on the early three-sided steatite seals from Crete. The spider 
on the Petrie cylinder is of special interest in view of the fact, that while on 
the one hand it is unknown amongst Egyptian and Chaldean representations, 
it is now seen to take a prominent place among the Cretan pictographs. 


Fic. 32.—ANoIENT LipyAN BEAD-SEAL OF STEATITE FROM NEAR CONSTANTINE (CIRTA). 


But the spider itself as a symbol on ancient signets also appears in an 
undoubtedly Libyan connexion. In the collection of antiquities formed by 
Captain Farge, Director of the Bureau Arabe at Constantine, the ancient 
Cirta, once the capital of the Numidian kings, I observed a bead-seal of 
brown steatite found near that place, a sketch of which, made with the owner’s 
kind permission, is reproduced in Fig. 32. It represents a spider of the 
Tarantula class, not unlike that on the early cylinder, and the bead-seal on 
which this object appears seems, both from its form and material, to belong 
to a relatively early date. This hemispherical type of bead-seal belongs in 
Greece to the Geometrical Period and to the ninth and tenth centuries B.c.1 

On Table II. will be seen a further series of comparisons between certain 
characteristic schemes and subjects of the ‘Egypto-Libyan’ group—if such 


1 Examples of this form have been found at quariwm (Berlin), No. 70. Similar types of 
Olympia. Cf. Furtwingler, Olympia, p..188, bead-seal have been found on the site of the 
and Beschreibung der geschnittenen Steineim Anti- Heraion at Argos and in Anatolia, 


369 


OF CRETAN. AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 


—_—_—— es ES 
LL - 


fw @) 3.139} WOUS W39 ΟΙΟΙΝ3Ὶ NO ΘΝ ΒΟ3 NV3VN 
"το: ἼΑΝΝ ONY ΝΥ 138 Alyy] 


HLIM G3¥¥dWOD S¥3QNITAD 
Se tases “OaI TY ONG, werwd WWNYYH NO 


>@08>'> S3IdALIVWINY ONY NYWNH 
wvisgnin TD 31e8vi 


SoSQON™M 8 avaag 
ge = a σεν GlOLNaT NVoVNaDAWe 118 WLiNBAS 
σν3θ ΟΙοιν31 ΞΝνϑη ιν SModouny 


8 GVa8 CIOLN3] NW3WN3DAWANO 
ΟΥ38Β S101N34 
NY YNID AW ΝΟ ΝΥ ΣΥΝ ΣΘΑΙ. a 
Sivas wsidd 
ΝΥ1399 ΑἸῊν3 34λ. νν.3Ἐ 420 
) | ) Ὕν39 WSlud NO 
2YOHM 
φολφϑνη 


᾿Αιἰϑυνλα,οῖ vovowN % 
NOISS 3ugw υ JONINAD 


WIGNITAD WWiagan3_ 


naz/2}w3am Ἕ WSiud FA 

a ἔς 

Views Ne 984 AYN Y YO BIONNAD, NYILdADZ, . AD, NVILdAD3, 
WSI8d WYNUYy : ; ‘ , 


370 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


a term be allowable—and others on the primitive seals of Crete and on some 
Mycenaean gems. It will be noticed that the rude square-shouldered human 
figure that occupies the first column of the Karnak prism-seal shows a great 
family likeness to the primitive figures which stand in the same position on 
the analogous class of Cretan signets. The figures with bowed arms, seen 
on the cylinder, Fig. 31, correspond with another Cretan type. The running 
figure on the Petrie cylinder, the scheme of which is repeated by the horned 
man on the Karnak prism, bears a striking resemblance to that on the 
steatite bead-seal of Cretan type published in my former work on the 
Pictographs.! 

The contorted schemes illustrated by the hare-headed human figure on 
Fig 29, and still more by the tumbler on Fig. 30, also find analogies among 
the Cretan designs. A certain common element may be detected between 
the first-mentioned and the attitude of the rude horned man on the Phaestos 
whorl. The tumbler—which except that on the cylinder he is seen naked, 
corresponds with an Egyptian ideograph ?—presents a design admirably fitted 
for the circular field of the lentoid class of gems. If we may be allowed to 
assume—in the absence of direct evidence—that the tradition of this type 
was perpetuated through the intervening period by ‘ Egypto-Libyan ’ art, 
we should be able to trace to this source a scheme applied by the Mycenaean 
engravers of Crete to representations of the Minotaur. The close conformity 
of arrangement will be seen by a glance at the annexed diagram. 

But the most interesting of all the parallels supplied by the Karnak 
prism is the first appearance of the ‘Minotaur’ itself. The type of the 
horned human figure, though in a different pose, is seen on one of the 
earliest examples of Cretan engraving, the whorl, namely, from the prehistoric 
deposit of Hagios Onuphrios, near the site of Phaestos. In Mycenaean 
Crete the type is frequent, but in this case it is of different composition. We 
no longer see a human body and bull’s head, but the whole forequarters from 
the waist up are here bovine. It is in fact one of a parallel series of Cretan 
representations of this period, in which the lower part of a man is coupled 
with the upper part of a wild goat, or a lion, or a flounced female figure 
terminates above in a flying eagle* In Greek art, as is well known, the 
monster reappears with human arms and body and only the head of a bull. 

So far as the horned man is concerned it looks as if through all these 
corporeal variations we had still to do with essentially the same fabulous 
form, and the later Cretan version as seen on the coins of Knésos may thus 


1 Fig. 53. 

2 xtb=to tumble. 

8 On the Cretan lentoid gem in the British 
Museum (Cat. No. 76, Pl. A.) published by 
Milchhofer (Anfange der Kunst, p. 78, Fig. 50) 
the foreparts of a goat and bull are both at- 
tached to the lower part of a man. Separate 
figures of a goat-man and a lion-man are in my 
own collection. Milchhofer himself (loc. cit.) 
expresses his opinion that the Minotaur type 


did not originate from a mere arbitrary con- 
junction of this kind, due to the caprice of an 
engraver, or, as in the case of the Chimaera, to 
a misunderstanding of gem perspective by 
later copyists. The antiquity of the horned 
man type in Crete seems also to show that the 
Mycenaean engravers in this case simply gave 
a new expression to an already existing idea. 
4. On some unpublished gems from Crete. 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 371 
be regarded as a reversion to the type which precedes the Mycenaean. 
Whether the whole myth is of iconographic origin or with what oriental 
elements it possibly connects itself, need not be discussed here. But if the 
connexion between the primitive type of the Karnak cylinder and the 
insular examples holds good, we may here have caught a glimpse of the 
Minotaur on his way to Crete as early as the fourth Millennium before 
our era. 

Another interesting point of agreement between the early prism and 
cylinders from Egypt and the Mycenaean cycle is supplied by the two-headed 
animals, The conformity with the two-headed terminations of the prehistoric 
slate palettes of Naqada and the double bull on the proto-Egyptian tablet 
has already been noted. A certain analogy to these monstrous forms on 
the early cylinders of the non-Pharaonic inhabitants of the Nile Valley, is 
also supplied by the composite animal forms of the still earlier Chaldaean 
cylinders, due to the coalescing of two crossed animals. As a rule, however, 
these Chaldaean forms differ from the ‘ Egypto-Libyan’ class, since in their 
case the upper part of a single body is attached to two hind-quarters.! 

The examples before us, on the contrary, show two fore-quarters united— 
in one case of two lions, in another of a lion and ibex, in a third of two goats 
or ibexes, while in the lower part of the more complicated design on Fig. 30 
the forequarters of two bulls are seen to coalesce. 

On the more primitive class of Cretan seals we find certain designs, such 
as that seen on Pl. X. No. 18, with two foreparts of animals in reversed position. 
A still closer analogy is shown by some Mycenaean types, of which two 
examples are given in Table 11. The first is a double goat on a lentoid 
bead of dark steatite found on the Akropolis at Athens,? the other is a 
double ox on a similar bead of green serpentine from Sybrita in Crete® 
curiously recalling that on the slate tablet referred to above. The 
existence of such animal ligatures‘ may have assisted the evolution of the 
Chimaera from the misinterpreted perspective of the Mycenaean gem type, 
representing a goat behind the back of a lion.® It is at any rate a remark- 
able coincidence that the coupling of the lion and the ibex should already 
occur on a primitive cylinder of the age of Menes. : 

The reappearance—per saltwmn—upon Mycenaean intaglios of the figures 
of conjoined animals that characterise these early cylinders and prisms, taken 
in connexion with the other correspondences already indicated, is a fact of 
great suggestiveness, We may well suspect that the missing links in the 


1 Compare the cylinder figured in Menant, 
Glyptique Orientale, vol. i. pp. 60, 61, Figs. 26, 
27, 28. In Fig. 29 however the upper part of 
two coalesced goats terminates in two heads and 
forequarters. This type might form the starting- 
point for the ‘ Egypto-Libyan’ form. 

2 Now in the Central Museum at Athens. 

3 In my collection. 

4 Double-headed animals as pendants or 


ornaments are also frequent in the Late 
Bronze and Early Iron Age, perhaps spread 
through Mycenaean influences. (See especially 
8. Reinach, Sculpture en Europe, p. 118 δεᾳᾳ.). 

6 See Milchhofer, Anfdnge der Kunst, pp. 82, 
88 and Fig. 53. The type is placed for com- 
parison on Table II. Another lentoid: bead of 
steatite with the same type was observed by me 
at Xero in Eastern Crete. 


372 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


pedigree will eventually reveal themselves whenever the early archaeological 
strata of the Libyan borderlands of Egypt come to be investigated. The 
lentoid type of bead itself comes from the Egyptian side. It was fashionable 
in the days of the Twelfth Dynasty, and from the occurrence of this form 
among the relics from the royal tombs of Abydos it would appear to have 
been already in use in the days of the first Pharaohs. 


§ 2. Crete the Meeting-point of Thraco-Phrygian and Libyan Elements. 


It will be seen that the new evidence supplied by the Karnak prism 
and the inscribed Libation Table from the Diktaean Cave leads us in the 
same direction. In both cases we find the clearest indication of a very early 
connexion between Crete and the Nile Valley. In my account of the 
Hagios Onuphrios deposit, evidence has already been given that a form of 
Cretan stone vase shows a close correspondence with an Egyptian type 
belonging to the Fourth Dynasty. The Karnak prism indicates that as early 
as the Sixth Dynasty, and at a date which cannot be brought down much 
later than 3,500 B.c., the typical Cretan form of the seal was in use by 
a probably Libyan population in the Nile Valley. The Libation Table, on 
the other hand, brings home to us for the first time the fact that by the time 
of the Twelfth Dynasty the Cretans were so far affected by Egyptian in- 
fluence as not only to have received—as we know from other evidence—a series 
of decorative motives from that source, but to have adopted, apparently for 
similar use, an article of Egyptian cult. 

The imitation of the characteristic scarab decoration of that period on 
the Cretan seal-stones of the prae-Mycenaean class has, I venture to think, 
been proved to demonstration! Such imitation, moreover, proves even more 
than the sporadic discovery of the Twelfth Dynasty scarabs themselves in the 
island, for primitive peoples are not antiquarian revivalists, and content 
themselves with copying the contemporary fashions of their more civilised 
neighbours. 

But the occurrence of the inscribed Libation Table of Twelfth 
Dynasty type in the prehistoric stratum of a Cretan votive cave must be 
considered to indicate something more than the borrowing of external forms. 
The adoption, in this case, for indigenous purposes of cult, of the early Egyptian 
form of libation table shows truly an intimacy of religious contact for which 
the other evidences of Egyptian influence, striking as they are, could hardly 
prepare us. The phenomenon opens up whole vistas of new possibilities as 
to the primitive relations of Crete with the Nile Valley, and the con- 
formity here brought to light is of such a kind as almost to necessitate the 
invocation of Libyan intermediaries. Such a degree of influence, not on the 
externals only of articles of use or ornament, but on a fundamental object of 
primitive cult, can hardly be due to mere mercantile relations. It points 
surely to the presence among the inhabitants of Crete of an element which 


1 To the comparative examples in Pictographs, &c., p. 58 [827], Fig. 49, I can now add others 
equally cogent. 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 373 


had experienced a prolonged land contact with Egypt—to an element 
astride the Libyan sea, with one foot on the Aigean island and the other 
on the African shore. 

That the Libyans had largely imbibed the religious teachings of Egypt 
appears from a variety of indications. This is even shown by their personal 
names, in the composition of which are found the Egyptian appellations 
of the Sun- and Moon-Gods—Ra and Ah—and possibly of Isis and Hathor.! 
The opposite process is seen in the Egyptian adoption of the Libyan 
divinities Neit and Set. 

The strong Egypto-Libyan ingredients in the primitive Cretan culture— 
pointing,.as they do, to the possibility of early settlement from that side— 
may some day indeed supply the clue to more than one characteristic feature 
in the insular religion and mythology. In my earlier communication stress 
has already been laid on the impossibility of explaining the deep-seated com- 
munity between some of these and Semitic types by the comparatively late 
Phoenician contact. Such parallel appearances, for instance, as Minos and 
Moses—both divine legislators, receiving the law ‘mouth to mouth’ in 
repeated visits to the God of the Mountain,—point to very early derivation 
from a common source. 

But the Libyan element was itself well qualified to supply certain links 
of connexion with the Semitic world as well as the Egyptian. Evidences of 
a religious contribution from this side, quite apart from that derived from 
the Phoenician settlements on the North African Coast, are indeed supplied 
by some of the indigenous Libyan inscriptions, which contain the names of 
three Nabataean divinities.2 The early ‘Egypto-Libyan’ cylinders referred 
to in the preceding section show not only the influence of the oriental form 
of signet, but are accompanied by the Pataecus-like figure which on the 
Babylonian cylinders appears as the satellite of the nude figure of Sala- 
Istar, and apparently as a representative of the typically Syrian God, Ramanu 
or Rimmon. The direct relation in which these, ex hypothesi, Libyan signets 
stand to the Cretan prisms has been sufficiently illustrated; and we may 
therefore trace in them the further links of a chain of primitive intercourse 
with the Semitic world. 

But over and above these archaeological evidences, it must be borne in 
mind that the Libyan dialects themselves, as illustrated by their surviving 
members in Algeria, Morocco, and Sahara, stand in a close relation to the 
Semitic family.2 In their grammar, and, to a certain extent, in their 
vocabulary,—and notably in such rudimentary elements as the numerals and 


1 Halévy, Etudes berbéres, p. 122. 

2 Halévy, loc. cit. 

* For the modern Libyan languages see es- 
pecially Venture de Paradis, Dictionnaire ber- 
bére and the Dictionnaire frangais-berbére (gener- 
ally known as Brosselard from the name of one 
of its chief collaborateurs) Paris, 1844. A. 
Hanoteau, Essai de Grammaire Kabyle (Paris, 
1858) and Essai de Grammaire Tamachek (Paris, 


1860). ᾿ Barth, Travels in North and Central 
Africa. v. 565 segg. H. Stanhope Freeman, 
Grammatical Sketch of the Temahug or Towarek 
Language. (Ghat Dialect), (London, 1862), 
Prof. F. W. Newman, Notes on the Libyan Lan- 
guages, (R. Asiat. Soc., July, 1880) Libyan 
Vocabulary, (London, 1882) and Kabail Vocab- 
ulary (London, 1887). 


374 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


personal pronouns,—they show a decided affinity not only with Coptic and 
Amharic, but with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Assyrian. They are in fact sub- 
Semitic.? 

It must yet be borne in mind that from another point of view the early 
archaeological remains of Crete bring it like the other Mgean islands into 
close relation with the western coastlands of Asia Minor, the mainland of 
Greece, and even the Danubian basin. The marble ‘idols’ of the Cretan 
deposits, like that of Phaestos, belong to precisely the same class as that of 
the other igean islands and of the first and second cities of Troy. The primi- 
tive clay hanging vessels and the most rudimentary incised figures on Cretan 
whorls and seal-stones also find their nearest analogy in the earliest strata 
of Hissarlik. So, too—to turn to the remains of Mycenaean date—the megaron 
of the Cretan Goulas preserves with only slight modifications the ground- 
plan of the far earlier prototypes that occur in the second city of Ilios.? 
All this is quite in keeping with the well-marked group of early traditions 
and pre-Hellenic place-names implying the existence of a strong Phrygian 
element in the primitive population. Sufficient evidence of this connexion 
is supplied by names like Pergamon and Ida, and by many characteristic 
features of the Cretan religion in which the Mother Goddess Rhea, the 
Idaean Daktyls, the Kuretes and Korybantes with their orgiastic dances, all 
reappear. 

While, therefore, we must admit the great infusion of Egypto-Libyan 
elements in primitive Cretan culture, we must at the same time never lose 
sight of that other side of its early traditions and remains which implies the 
presence here of members of the great Thraco-Phrygian race. If, as seems 
to be a natural conclusion from the intensive character of the Old Empire 
influence in the island, there were Libyan settlements here at a remote date, 
these may have either been gradually merged in an earlier population of 
European stock, or may have continued to coexist with it, just as at a later 
date Eteokretes, Dorians, Achaians, and Pelasgians lived side by side. 

The evidence which makes Crete the meeting-place of Thraco-Phrygian 
and Egypto-Libyan elements fits in with a parallel series of indications 
supplied by ancient tradition and corroborated by Egyptian records. In 
these we see the ‘ Trojans’ and their neighbours engaged at a very early date 
on the African side. The ease with which the Libyan princes during the 
Nineteenth Dynasty allied themselves with the maritime races of the 
fEgean shores reveals a very intimate connexion between the two, and the 
abiding tradition of the Maxyes,—perhaps the most civilised of the Libyan 
tribes,—that they were of Trojan origin, may point to some still recognised 
blood-relationship. So too the Trojan band of Antenor appear among the 


1 The expression is Prof. F. W. Newman’s. 
Others, like Renan, have preferred to apply the 
term ‘ Hamitic’—a distinction, perhaps, with- 

. out a difference. 

2 See my article, Goulds, the City of Zeus 

(Annual of the British School at Athens, 1895- 


1896), p. 188. 
3 Cf. Hoeck, Kreta, i. 109 segg., 148, 208 
seqg., &c., Milchhoefer, Anfinge der Kunst 
129. 
4 Herodotus, iv. 191: φασὶ δὲ οὗτοι εἶναι τῶν 
ἐκ Τροίης ἀνδρῶν. é 


OF CRETAN: AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 375 


pre-Hellenic settlers in Cyrene, reminding us of legends which made 
Teucer land in Crete and Aineas found the Cretan Pergamon.? Elymos, the 
son of Anchises, the Eponymos of the Elymian inhabitants of Western Sicily,’ 
bears a name almost identical with that of a Libyan prince;* his people 
themselves had touched on the Libyan coast δ before continuing their course 
to Lilybaeon® and Eryx. Aineas, on the same Sicilian journey, tarries at 
Carthage, and his intercourse with Dido is the more important that we have 
here the female form of the most characteristic and at the same time the 
most ancient of Libyan personal names.’ 

Closely connected with these phenomena are some striking correspond- 
ences between the tribal and geographical names in the North African 
coastlands with those of the Greek and Thraco-Illyrian peninsula. The 
Numidian Μυκῆνοι are very suggestive. The legend of the Argonauts 
brought Jason from Iolkos to the Triton’s lake. The Maxyes of that very 
region claimed, as we have already seen, a ‘ Trojan’ descent, and the names 
of other bordering tribes point clearly to European kinship. If there were 
Thessalian Magnétes in Crete, there were Dolopes beyond the land of the 
Lotus-Eaters, whose neighbours again, the Eropoei, have a Boeotian and 
Illyrian ring. The foundation sagas of Cyrene, in all their variant forms, 
show that the Greek settlers recognised a very close pre-existing connexion 
between Crete and the opposite Libyan coast. How far-reaching was the scope 
of early Cretan enterprise may be gathered from the fact that the traditions 
of ‘Minoan’ settlement extend from Gaza to the Sicilian Herakleia. 

The first colonists from Thera have to find a pilot from the Eteocretan 
district, a purple-shell fisher, namely, of Itanos,? whose legendary name, 
Korobios, has been compared with Korybas.!° The first Battos was held to 


1 Pindar, Pyth. v. 82-88, and Schol. Pind. 
Pyth. v. 108. Cf. Studniczka, Kyrene, pp. 129, 
130. There was an ᾿Αντηνοριδῶν λόφος between 
Cyrene and the sea. 

3 Virg. den. iii. 133, cf. Serv. adloc. Virgil 
makes the Trojans come from Crete. 

3 It is worth recalling that in Sicily as in 
Crete the archaeological evidence also points 
to an early ‘Trojan’ influence. A clay ‘idol,’ 
certain remarkable bone ornaments and several 
forms of clay vessels found by Prof. Orsi in 
‘aeneolithic’ rock-tombs of the province of 
Syracuse are identical with those from the early 
strata of Hissarlik. (Orsi, La necropoli Sicula 
di Castelluccio, Bull. di Paletn. 1892, &c. p. 1, 
seqg. Cf. Patroni, Anthropologie, 1897, pp. 134, 
139, 140.) 

* Diodorus, xx. 17 records of Agathoclés, 
Ἔλυμαν τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Λιβύων εἰς συμμαχίαν 
προσελάβετο. See my note in Freeman’s Sicily, 
vol. iv. p. 419. 

δ Thucydides vi. 2. 

6 The spring Lilybaion, from which the town 
was named, seems to contain the Libyan word 


for water=lily, according to Hésychios (s.v.). 
The word for ‘ water’ in use among the existing 
Libyan dialects—Kabyle, Shilha, and Tuareg— 
is however aman. 

7 The name is not only frequent in the Libyan 
sepulchral inscriptions, but under the form Didi 
appears as that of the father of the Libyan Prince 
Marmaiou, who headed the great attack of Euro- 
pean and West Asiatic confederates on the Egypt 
of Menephtah. Another Didi, perhaps the son 
of Marmaiou (Maspero, Hist. Anc. des peuples 
d’ Orient. p. 266) fought against Ramses III. 

8 Compare Oropus and the Illyrian Aeropus. 
The points of comparison between the early 
tribal and geographical names of North Africa 
and Italy are, perhaps, still more numerous. 
Compare for instance the Ausenses and Ausones, 
the river-name <Ausere (perhaps Wed Neffetia) 
and the Auser, Uthina, and Vedinum (Udine), 
Salassii, and Salassit. The Libyan connexion 
with Spain is still more conspicuous. 

® Herod. iv. 150 seqq. 

 §tudniczka, Kyrene, p. 129; 


376 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


be a grandson of a King of Axos,! and the nymph Kyréné herself was carried 
by Apollo to Crete* before she reached the land that was to bear her name. 
These more or less mythical traditions were not simply called into being to 
account for the fact that a third of the settlers in Cyrene were of Cretan 
stock. They imply that an earlier connexion than that established 
under Theraean leadership existed between Crete and Barka, and the 
fact that the pilot was chosen from that easternmost Cretan region, 
which, as we know from the Praesos inscription, retained its non-hellenic 
speech to the sixth century before our era, has perhaps ἃ special 
significance. 

The race affinities subsisting between the early Cretan population 
and the ‘Trojan’ settlers in Barka and elsewhere may well have had a 
reflex action on the island. The Agean settlers on the North African coast 
may have become partly fused with the Libyan indigenes. The story of 
Dido and Mneas is, indeed, the poetic record of such a blending of the 
Thraco-Phrygian and native elements, just as at a later date the Greek 
colonists of Cyrene blended with their ‘ yellow-haired’ Libyan neighbours.‘ 
The fortune of war may from time to time have obliged some of these 
already half-acclimatised Aigean settlers to return to their older seats on 
the northern shores of the Libyan sea. In the same way the traditions of 
Danaos and Mgyptos—though these rather concern Rhodes and Argos— 
seem to point to a similar return wave of a European (or Anatolian) 
population from the Delta. 

The ebb and flow of these early tides of Hgean enterprise and migration 
may have contributed towards the diffusion of Egypto-Libyan elements in 
primitive Crete. But there is every reason to infer an impulse of a more 
direct kind from the Nile Valley and its borderlands. In the forgathering 
of the Thraco-Phrygian and Libyan races there is no reason to suppose that 
the passive réle was always on the Libyan side. On the contrary, in the 
earliest historic records of this connexion between the mainland borderers of 
Egypt and the Agean peoples, it is Libyan princes, with distinctively Libyan 
names, who take the lead in the Confederacy. The enterprise of Marmaiou, 
the son of Didi, against the Egypt of Menephtah seems to have had its 
counterpart in the West. The companion and charioteer of Héraklés, whose 
Hellenized appellation, Iolaos,> covers the name of a Libyan divinity, finds his 


1 Herod. iv. 154. 

2 Libyka of Agroitas, Fr. ἢ. Gr, iv. 294. 
See Studniczka, op. cit.. p. 127. 

3 Herod. iv. 161. 


as Ἰόλαος in the Greek transcription. Halévy 
however supposes that the connexion of Ialaou 
and Iolaos the son of Herakles is a mere coin- 
cidence. ‘Les grecs, ayant entendu prononcer 


* An interesting reference to the social inter- 
course between the Theraean colonists and the 
earlier Libyan inhabitants of Cyrene is found 
in Kallimachos, Hymn 2, 86: ὠρχήσαντο μετὰ 
ξανθῇσι Λιβύσσαις. 

5 Halévy, Etudes berbéres, p. 157, where the 
form Jalaow of a bilingual inscription appears 


en Libye le nom Jala, Jalaou, ont été naturelle- 
ment portés & y voir une de leurs divinités qui 
avait un nom semblable.’ But this does not 
explain the specially Libyan connexion of Iolaos 
even in Greek legend. The double ‘coincidence’ 
is rather too improbable. 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 377 


special sphere of action in Sardinia. Perhaps we may even detect a still 
further stage of Libyan colonisation in the name of Massalia.! 

These echoes of more distant enterprise make it the more probable that 
Crete, where the records of a primitive intercourse with the Nile Valley are.so 
unmistakable, should have been betimes the goal of Libyan settlement. There 
were doubtless successive waves of migration in this direction, the impulse 
to which may have occasionally been the triumph of Egyptian arms over the 
Libyan tribes bordering on the Delta. In particular, the special relation in 
which the early Cretan remains have been shown to stand to the typical 
products of the Twelfth Dynasty period may be not unconnected with the 
Libyan triumphs of Amenemhat I. An abiding tradition of a historic 
᾿ς episode of this kind, as well as of the fusing of Libyan and Cretan elements, 
may indeed be traced in a legend preserved by Diodoros. Ammon, expelled 
from Libya, settles in Crete, and marries Krété, the daughter of one of the 
Kuretes.? That a certain community of type between Cretans and Libyans 
was really recognised, appears from the ethnic classification of Polemd6n, 
the physiognomist, who divides the Libyans—he is not here speaking of 
Cyrenaean Greeks—into two classes: Negroes (Αἰθίοπες) and Cretans.3 


ὃ 8. Proto-Egyptian or Egypto-Iibyan Comparisons. 


The Egypto-Libyan connexions of prehistoric Crete invest any attempt 
to trace affinities with its early script on that side with a certain degree of 
ὦ priort probability. But this is heightened by the fact that the signs them- 
selves are found in the case of the Libation Table, of the stone vases, and of 
the prism seals engraved on objects the prototypes of which seem to be on the 
one hand of Old Empire Egyptian, on the other of ‘ Libyan’ origin. So far 
as the pictographic class of Cretan signs is concerned, although its general 
independence is clear, the influence of certain Egyptian hieroglyphic forms is 
unmistakable, and examples of this have been already referred to in my 
previous paper.‘ Fresh parallels of the kind may perhaps be detected in the 
two-horned symbol of Fig. 20 and still more clearly in the fringed or ‘door’ 
symbol on the seal Fig. 7d answering to the Egyptian sign for ‘ palace’ or altar.5 
The second character on the Libation Table has also been cited as a probable 
example of this indebtedness. 


1 Compare the Massyli and Massaesyli of 
the province of Carthage. Mas in the modern 
Berber dialects still means ‘son’ or ‘ descen- 
dant’ (Tissot, Afrique Romaine, i. p. 446); 
hence the frequency of this element in Libyan 
tribal and personal names. 

2 Diod. Hist. iii. ὁ. 71. 

8 Of μὲν Λίβυες Αἰθίοψιν ὅμοιοι, of δ᾽ εἰσὶ 
Κρῆτες. Polemon, Physiognom. lib. i. (in 
Scriptt. Physiognomici Veteres, ed. J. G. F. 
Franzius, Altenburg, 1780, p. 184). Polemon 


who was personally acquainted with Cyrenaean 
Greeks, could not have embraced them under the 
—to a Greek—barbarous designation of 
‘Libyans.’ Had he done so moreover, he 
would in this passage have committed the 
further absurdity of confounding the blonde, 
European-like Libyan element with Negroes ! 

* E.g. the adze (Pictographs, &c., No. 22), 
the saw (ἐδ. No. 23), the spouted vase (ib. No, 
28), and the coil (2b. No. 69). 

5 See above, p. 340, 


378 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


But if we have here a derivative form of an Egyptian sign which in its 
primary sense of ‘ hall’ was connected with festivals and gatherings, we have 
just such an element as the Libyan borderers of the Egyptians may have 
borrowed but which the indigenous Cretans would hardly have sought so far 
afield. In other words the imitation of such a sign is on all fours with the 
imitation of Twelfth Dynasty decorative designs and of the form of the 
Libation Table itself which, as already observed, would most naturally have 
effected itself among a population actually bordering the Nile Valley. 

The signs found on the ‘Libyan’ pottery of Naqada afford an interesting 
parallel to this phenomenon. There too, side by side with exclusively native 
symbols, others of which it may at least be said that they are common to the 
Egyptian hieroglyphic series occasionally appear.1 Among these may be noted 
a kind of vase (an), the water sign (mw), the signs for the king of Upper 
and Lower Egypt. 

The field for comparison on the Egyptian side has been greatly enlarged 
by recent discoveries. In Table I. of my first work on the Cretan ‘ Picto- 
graphs’ the parallelism between the Aegean linear signs and these found by 
Mr. Petrie at Kahun and Gurob has been already set forth.2 But these signs, 
occurring on sherds and other objects for the most part of Twelfth Dynasty 
date, can now no longer be explained as the work of Aegean foreigners in 
Egypt. The further discoveries at Naqada and Abydos show that they fit on 
to an indigenous class which makes its appearance in the Nile Valley before 
the time of the first Egyptian Dynasties. 

In the early stratum of the sanctuary of Min at Koptos, Professor Petrie 
had already discovered colossal statues of the God engraved with primitive 
hieroglyphs together with figures of animals all of which from their archaic 
style he ascribed to the prehistoric age of Egypt. Animal forms, lions and 
hawks of precisely identical types occurred in the cemeteries excavated by 
him and Mr. Quibell at Naqada and Ballas on the opposite bank of the Nile 
which revealed the existence of a hitherto unknown form of early culture in 
Egypt. The weight of local evidence however at that time inclined Mr. 
Petrie to assign the Naqada relics to a period posterior to the Fourth 
Dynasty though in any case earlier than the Twelfth. 

Yet the difficulties in the way of such an explanation were from the first 
unsurmountable. How, for instance, explain the fact that among the contents 
of nearly 3,000 graves, no single scarab nor any familiar ornament of Egyptian 
fabric was discovered? If the remains unearthed at Naqada were to be 
simply ascribed to a sporadic settlement made by successful invaders of 
Pharaonic Egypt during the period between the Fourth and the Twelfth 
Dynasty, how was it possible that they should contain no scrap of the vast 
stores of plunder accumulated by such ‘ Spoilers of the Egyptians’ ? 


1 See below, pp. 383, 384 Libyan Goddess, Neit, was probably the Libyan 
® Petrie, Nagada, Pl. 111. Nos. 55, 74, 75, 76. crown generally, since its value bat corresponds 
The sign for the crown of Lower Egypt is in with the Libyan word for king, preserved, as 
relief. Mr. Petrie points out (op. cit. p. 64) that | Herodotos records, in the Greek Battos. 
this, which was the characteristic crown of the 3. Pictographs, &c., p. 80 [349]. 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 379 


But these settlements are not sporadic. The evidence of their wide 
diffusion in the Nile Valley is rapidly accumulating and a wholly new light 
has been thrown on their date and ethnic relations by the discovery by M. 
Amélineau at Abydos of tombs belonging to the first two Dynasties and 
at Nagqada itself by M. de Morgan of the royal tomb, now identified with 
that of Menes, the founder of the Egyptian dynasties. The culture first 
brought to light at Ballas and Naqada now stands before us in its true 
relation to that associated with the earliest monuments of Pharaonic Egypt.' 
In part, no doubt it overlaps these earliest dynastic relics, but in the main it 
belongs to the true prehistoric age and to the indigenous stock which held 
the Nile Valley before the conquering race of ‘copper-smiths’ poured into it 
from the Red Sea littoral. It is at most survivals of the older form of culture 
such as we see it at Naqada that we find associated with the remains of the 
First and Second Dynasties.* 

As to the character of the autochthonous race of Egypt, there seems to 
be good reason for accepting the view that they are to be identified with the 
people of the Oases—the Tahennu or Tamahu, a race of Libyan stock who in 
early times extended as far as the Nubian borders of Egypt. Members of 
this white-skinned race—so European in its affinities—still formed a distinct 
part of the Egyptian population as late as the fourth Dynasty though 
reduced to the position of helots* We may provisionally apply the term 
‘ Egypto-Libyan’ or ‘ proto-Egyptian’ to this early indigenous population of 
the Nile Valley. 

It is probable that the influences brought to bear in an intensive form by 
the Pharaonic conquest, were already beginning to operate on the primitive 
population of the Nile Valley long before the time of Menes. The native race 
had no doubt attained great proficiency in the fabric of stone vases at a 
period when there is no trace of actual contact with the dynastic Egyptians. 


1k. Amélineau, Les Nowvelles Fouilles 
@ Abydos (1895-1896), Angers, 1896, 1.68 Now- 
velles Fowilles d’ Abydos (1896-1897), Paris, 
1897: De Morgan, Recherches sur les Origines 
de U Egypte (Paris, 1896), p. 76 seqgg. The 
Abydos and Naqada finds and the views ex- 
pressed by M. de Morgan, M. Maspero, and Mr. 
Petrie on the civilisation to which they 
belong, are discussed by M. Salomon Reinach, 
Le préhistorique en Egypte d’apres de récentes 
publications, Anthropologie, 1897, p. 327 seqq. 
Thanks to the kindness of M. Amélineau, I 
have been able to inspect the greater part of 
the objects obtained by him during his two 
campaigns and thus to express an independent 
opinion on the bearing of these discoveries. 
The appearance of the second volume of M. 
de Morgan’s Origines with the account of the 
royal tomb, and the essays contained in it by 
Professor Wiedemann and Μ, Jéquier have 


greatly strengthened the argument. 

2 The contents of an intact tomb excavated 
by Mr. Quibell at E] Kab and presented to the 
Ashmolean Museum by the ‘ Egyptian Research 
Fund’ are specially important in this connexion. 
The tomb itself was dated by a cylinder bearing 
the name of King Khaires of the Second Dynasty, 
and in it, side by side with relics of the ‘Pha- 
raonic’ class, were painted vases representing a 
late development of ‘Naqada’ types. 

3 See Wiedemann, Question de l'origine du 
peuple Egyptien in De Morgan, Origines de 
U’Egypte, ii. p. 219 seqy. It will be seen that, 
though divergent on some other points, Pro- 
fessors Petrie, Maspero, and Wiedemann are 
agreed in attributing the culture of Naqada to 
a people of Libyan stock. 

4 78. p. 221. Cf. De Morgan, Origines, &c., 
i. p. 197 they are depicted with flat heads and 
red beard. 


380 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


It has however been pointed out by Dr. Schweinfurth,! that the porphyritic 
and crystalline materials of which a large proportion of these vases consist 
must have been derived from the eastern parts of Nubia or even further 
afield. 

But in the main this prehistoric culture of Egypt, like the race itself, has 
a Mediterranean range.2 It even shows some distinct points of sympathy 
with primitive Aegean culture. The obsidian knives* take us to Santorin and 
recall the very ancient relations between Thera and the Libyan coast. The 
early use of stone vases is equally characteristic of both areas. The primitive 
‘idols’ of the Proto-Egyptians in some respects point to a similar relation- 
ship. The tattooed female figure from Naqada‘ which illustrates a practice 
foreign to historic Egypt, but universal among the Libyans down to their 
Berber descendants of to-day, finds its counterpart on the Aegean side. A 
primitive marble image of a squatting female found near Sparta, has its bare 
arms engraved with square and zigzag decorations,° recalling the tattoo-marks 
seen on the arms of Thracian women on Greek fifth-century vases. In 
certain bronze needles with steatite handles found in the prae-Mycenaean 
tombs of Amorgos, where various colouring materials also occur, Dr. 
Blinkenberg has recognised the actual tattooing instruments of the early 
Aegean population.” A rude Egypto-Libyan clay figure from the pre-historic 
cemetery of Gebel-el-Tarif’ though differing from the primitive marble 
‘idols’ of the Aegean islands in its bent knees® and arms held close to the 
side, yet shows a remarkable resemblance to them in its general shape, while 
in its recurved flat topped head it reproduces one of their most characteristic 
features (see Fig. 33). 

The steatopygous female figures of clay and limestone from the Proto- 
Egyptian graves, while also betraying a close analogy with certain types of 
prehistoric Greece and Thrace, are almost the exact counterparts of the primi- 


1 De Vorigine des Egyptiens et sur quelques-uns 
de leurs usages remontants ἃ lage de la pierre 
(Extrait du Bulletin de la Société Khédiviale de 
Géographie, iv. Série No. 12 (1897), p. 16 seqgq. 
Dr. Schweinfurth points out that the materials 
of many of these vases point to the crystalline 
region east of the Upper Nile, and shows that 
something of this early industry still survives 
among the Bishareen and Ababdehs. The 
crystal bowls from Abydos are the most remark- 
able of all. 

2 See especially Petrie, Nagada, p. 62 seqq. 

3 Actual vases of obsidian were found in the 
tomb of Menes (De Morgan, Origines, &c., 11. 
p. 180, Figs. 625-627). Obsidian, however, is 
also found in Armenia (op. cit. p. 174). 

4 Petrie, Nagada. 

5 Dr. Wolters (Mitth. d. Arch. Inst. in Athen. 
1892, p. 52 segg.), who considered that the en- 
graving simply indicated painting. But Dr. 
Blinkenberg, Praemykeniske Oldsager, p. 42 
seqq. (Antiquités prémycéniennes, p, 46 seqq.), 


has demonstrated the much greater probability 
that we have here to do with tattoo-marks. In 
the red streaks on the forehead and beneath the 
eyes of a large head from Amorgos (Wolters, 
l.c. p. 46) I have ventured to see the bloody 
nail-marksof amourner. Dr. Blinkenberg, how- 
ever (Joc. cit.), regards these also as tattoo-marks 

6 Schéne, Museo Bocchi, No. 167, Pl. 3, 2; 
Blinkenberg, op. cit. p. 48. 

7 Op. cit. p. 44. One of these instruments, 
found with marble ‘idols’ in a tomb at 
Amorgos, is in the Ashmolean Museum. 

8 De Morgan, Origines, &c.. vol. i. p. 151, 
Fig. 373; reproduced vol. ii. p. 54, Fig. 111. 
I am indebted to M. de Morgan’s work for the 
representation given in Fig. 33. 

® A slight bending of the knee is however 
visible in a marble figure from Phaestos ; (see my 
Sepulchral Deposit of Hagios Onuphrios near 
Phaestos, in Cretan Pictographs, &c. (Quaritch} 
1895), p. 126, Fig. 129. 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 381 


tive Maltese figures! in the same materials, which reproduce moreover the 
curious side-squatting attitude This connexion with Malta fits in well, as 
Mr. Petrie has noticed, with the Libyan hypothesis, and another interesting 
parallel may be adduced which points in the same direction. 

The exquisite flint implements of the ‘ proto-Egyptian’ tombs display in 
their most characteristic refinement, the chipping of a surface previously 
ground, an analogy with Spanish and even Irish Neolithic fabrics. This 
point of agreement with the extreme West may of course be an accidental 
coincidence, but the reappearance of the highly characteristic flint rings of 
Naqada and Abydos in a more westerly African region has an unmistakable 


Fic. 33.—ProTo-EGypriaAN CLAY FIGURE, Fic. 34.—MARBLE ‘IpoL,’ AMORGOs. 


GEBEL-EL-TARIF. AFTER DE MORGAN. 


significance. Flint rings of the same type recur in a series of Neolithic 
stations extending trom the province of Constantine by the Wed Rir (Oued 
Rir) towards the central Sahara? Once more we are led in a Libyan direc- 


1 See op. cit. p. 129; Petrie, Nagada, pp. him while making the artesian wells in the Wed 
13, 34. Rir. These, together with exquisitely worked 
31 ascertained this fact during a journey, in flint arrow-heads and other implements, were 
the spring of 1897, to the Constantine borders found embedded in layers of broken ostrich-eggs. 
of Sahara. My thanks are specially due to The flint rings are not mentioned in M. Jus 


Captain Farge, of the Bureau Arabe at Constan- 
tine, and to the engineer, M. Jus, at Batna, who 
had found flint rings, such as those described 
above, in the Neolithic settlements explored by 


H.S.— VOL. XVII. 


earlier report on these discoveries, Stations pré- 
historiques de V Owed Rir. (Rev. d’ Ethnographie, 
1887). The stations extend beyond Wargla. 


DD 


382 FURTHER DISCOVERTES 


tion. The non-Egyptian practice of burying the dead in a contracted posture 
also recalls that of the Nasamones as described by Herodotus and reappears 
in the Dolmens of Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.! The actual dismemberment 
of the dead body, practised by the Proto-Egyptians, has been compared with 
Diodoros’ account of the Balearic islanders who pounded together the limbs 
and body of the deceased so as to fit them into their funeral jars.? 

It is probable that when the prehistoric remains of Barka come to be 
unearthed, the same habit of using stone vessels, which is so characteristic of 
the Proto-Egyptians on the one side and of the Cretans and Aigean islanders 
on the other, will be found to receive a wider Libyan illustration. On the 
further shores of the Syrtes the use of large stone vessels of very primitive 
aspect is still a native characteristic. During a recent journey through 
southern Tunisia, I had myself occasion to observe a primitive form of stone 
water-vessel identical with a type of at least Mycenaean antiquity of which 
I had previously seen several examples above or near cisterns in the great 
prehistoric city of Goulas in Crete.? It is needless, after what has been 
written in the previous section and in the account of the Phaestos Deposit, 
to dwell on the striking parallels presented by the primitive stone vessels 
of Crete and the Agean islands with those of the early inhabitants of the 
Nile valley. 

The same Mediterranean range of affinities is perceptible in the charac- 
teristic red-faced pottery of the Proto-Egyptians, which as being most pro- 
lific in the early linear signs has a special bearing on the present subject. 
Similar forms of red-faced pottery have been observed by Captain Lyons in 
the Western Oasis of Dakhlah.* Elsewhere it finds its nearest parallels in the 
Copper Age cemeteries of Cyprus and the early strata of Hissarlik and of 
the prehistoric sites of the Greek islands and mainland. In the Libyan 
region proper it fits on to the red-faced pottery of the Tunisian and Algerian 
Dolmens and, like the steatopygous figures, reappears at Malta.® 

These affinities of the early red-faced pottery of Naqada have an impor- 
tant bearing on the origin of the linear signs which appear engraved upon 
them, and tend to show that they belong to the non-Pharaonic, indigenous 
element of the Nile Valley. The culture with which they are connected 
has, as we have seen, a Mediterranean, especially a North African, range. In 
contrast to this, the most primitive hieroglyphs, such as those on the colossal 


1 Cf. Bertholon, Exploration Anthropologique οἵ these—the conical cavity and ear-like ledge- 
de la Khoumirie, p. 66; Carton, Lw Nécropole handles are identical with those of the Cretan 


de Bulla Regia Bull. Arch. 1890), ete. vessels (see Goulds, the City of Zeus, in the 
5 Diod. v. 18. Cf. Wiedemann (in De Annual iof the British School at Athens, 1895- 
Morgan, Origines, &c., ii. p. 221). 1896, pp. 189, 190. For the general form of 


3 Below the akropolis site of Takrouna was a the Libyan vessels, compare Fig. 11. The ears 
broken limestone vessel of this kind not far are seen better in Fig. 12. 
from the village well. In the garden of the 4 Cf, Petrie, Nagada, p. 63. 
neighbouring village of Dar-el-Bey was placed ° An interesting triple vase of similar ware 
another of the same kind, and probably from and primitive fabric is preserved in the Museum: 
the same locality. The characteristic features at Valetta. 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT 383 


Mins trom Koptos, show forms of marine shells and saw-fish, derived 
Professor Petrie has pointed out, from the Red Sea.! 

The linear characters found on the Proto-Egyptian pottery at Naqada 
recur to a considerable extent on pottery found in tombs of the earliest 
dynastic period at Abydos, side by side with true hieroglyphic forms. At 
Abydos there is perceptible a certain reaction of linear indigenous signs on 
the more elaborate and pictorial characters of the Pharaonic people. Thus 
in several cases the linear forms here are simply Egyptian hieroglyphs very 
rudely scrawled. 

In the examples—taken from rude vessels of the Abydos tombs—given 
in Fig. 35, there can be no doubt as to the hieroglyphic derivation of some of 
the characters such as the beetle (kheper) and the ka sign. There is 
therefore a presumption that the other signs grouped with them may be 
also linear sketches of true Egyptian forms, though it might puzzle an 


as 


SIGNS ON CLAY VESSELS, FROM ROYAL TOMBS 
OF ABYDOS. EXCAVATED BY M.AMELINEAU. 


Fie. 35. 


Egyptologist to identify certain of these. It is however noteworthy that 
while the hieroglyphic inscriptions in these early tombs occur on objects of 
higher artistic execution, and of exotic materials, such as the vases of 
crystalline and porphyritic rocks, the simpler signs are found on rude clay 
vessels made for humbler domestic use. 

This reduction of the more elaborate hieroglyphic forms to simple linear 
signs, which at Abydos is quite unmistakable, finds a certain amount of 
analogy on the still earlier indigenous vessels of Naqada,? and suggests some 
curious questions. We now know that by the time of Menes the highly 
developed hieroglyphic script of the dynastic Egyptians had taken firm root 
in the country. But a large proportion of the hieroglyphic signs—the lotus- 


1 History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to rude linear ka-sign, Petrie, Nagada, Pl. lv, 
the Fifteenth Dynasty, pp. 13, 14. No. 319. 
2 A clear instance of this may be seen in the 


DD2 


384 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


sprays and river-craft, the water-birds, fishes, crocodiles, and other character- 
istic animals, already by the time of the First Dynasty become convention- 
alised types,—are of indigenous Nilotic origin. It follows then that many of 
the elements of hieroglyphic writing had been growing upon the banks of the 
Nile long before the time of the first historic dynasty. If the race that 
brought these pictorial elements to maturity is to be regarded as distinct 
from the old inhabitants of the land, whose remains have now been recog- 


T A.B. EE. ΠῚ 
PROTO-EGYPTIAN OR EGYPTO-LIBYAN CRETAN AND AEGEAN 
SIGN-GROUPS SIGN-GROUPS’ 


nised at Naqada and elsewhere, it must at least have been brought into very 
early contact with them. Hence there is a possibility that the beginning of 
hieroglyphic script reacted on the linear native signs at a much more remote 
date than that of Menes. And the hieroglyphic figures themselves—how 
far may they not simply represent the coming to life of still earlier linear 
types? The same inquiry meets us in Crete.! 


1 See below, pp. 394, 395. 


OF CRETAN' AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 385 


There can be no doubt that the linear signs at Abydos on the whole 
belong to the same indigenous family as those from the pre-historic graves of 
Nagada. The correspondence, in form and arrangement, must be regarded as 
conclusive. In both cases these primitive signs may have been used for a 
limited purpose—often perhaps to indicate the contents of the vessels—but 
it will also be seen that some of the most characteristic recur among the 
ensigns found on the early painted pottery. 

Both at Naqada and Abydos, characters of more pictographic aspect— 
and in some cases identical with Egyptian hieroglyphic forms—are at times 
coupled with the linear signs. Several of the groups of linear signs are 
found accompanied by one of this more pictographic class—an interesting 
point of correspondence with early Cretan and ‘Aegean’ usage. ‘This is 
illustrated by some examples! on Table III., where specimens of proto- 
Egyptian and Aegean sign-groups are placed side by side for comparison. 

Thus in the first group the frequent y-like character of the Naqada 
series is headed by a vase like that which forms the Egyptian hieroglyphic 
an, standing for a tributary. In the second group two geometrical signs are 
preceded by a figure resembling the bowl or basket=neb, a lord. A third 
group which appears on two pots from Abydos, shows a more or less pictorial 
fish accompanied by a linear square. The fish is of frequent occurrence 
among the Cretan pictographs. 

Taken as a whole, the two series of proto-Egyptian or Egypto-Libyan 
and Aegean sign-groups as seen in Table III. present a remarkable parallelism. 
It is true that there is no combination of signs which absolutely corresponds 
in the two classes. But the general arrangement is strikingly similar, and 
of thirty-two proto-Egyptian characters represented nearly a third show a 
close resemblance to forms that occur in the parallel series of Cretan and 
Aegean sign-groups. 

A comparison of the individual signs of the two classes will be found in 
the first and second columns of Table IV. which are to a certain extent 
supplementary to those given in Table I. of my former work.? Due allow- 
ance being made for the selective process requisite for such a tabulation, it 
must nevertheless be allowed that the amount of parallelism in the two 
groups is very considerable. 


§ 4. Comparisons with the Libyan and Tuareg Alphabets. 


It is time to recall the existence on the Libyan side, at a considerably 
later date than the remains with which we have been dealing, of a very 
remarkable indigenous script which enables us to supplement these comparisons. 


1 In representing the Naqada signs I have Kahun and Gurob, and were then described as 
eliminated tentative scratches due to want of ‘Aegean Signs found in Egypt.’ In view of 
skill in the engraver, and adhered to the the new evidence, especially that of Naqada, 
essential outlines. this description must be definitely abandoned. 

2 The Egyptian forms there given were taken In Table iv. they are called ‘ Egypto-Libyan 
from the pottery discovered by Mr, Petrieat or proto-Egyptian’ signs, 


FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


386 


Tie Ἐ7 


" 
w%Zoam 


1oxr 

zo 2 = ~ 

ο ~ : 

ΕΞ] ὃ Φ & >| = | 
=5 IDX] ΟΙΘΘ᾽ e~ |— 

c 

oO 

az 


LIBYAN IN 


Gi Ue ΟἹ: 


Sak 

021 SL | IO: air] τ 8 }Ξ EFC HEE) 
5000 τ ὃς = z = : a Ρ» 
π Ε- Ξ ly = — ΞΕ Ἐπ | 
ΤΙΝ HE] Pe Bical se. 
ΤΠ O@ Pe) | ἘΦ Ξ ὦ < £833 
SK IEIO JOOP HTS |S) s| ὁ Co 22 

| __8 ajw“a] sl 8} | AN νὰ 3 
223 r πρ ἢ a] ΞΙ ἃ 
Ἢ : = ep = εἰ = 
ΗΕ he) πῇ ΒΞ | aS =| πῇ ἘΣ 
ΞΕ AL εν] ΓΕ] σΣ 
£335 Ἵ ¥ * 1 Fy} = 2 = x “ Ἑ ὼ 
ἐπε 3423) Sia edt NIK: ΞῈ -Ξ By εἰ Σ 
LSB τ γῇ S| ge ΕΠ: τ" >) FB) + De 


CRETAN 
AND 
AEGEAN 


rebel bal alee co "ἢ ἘΠΙ 
ΗΒΡΕΠΕΒΗΞΞΠΒΗΝΒΙΞ 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT 387 


The later Libyans possessed an independent system of writing which had 
taken such a strong hold on their national life that it maintained itself intact 
side by side with the intrusive systems of the Carthaginian, the Roman, and 
even of the Arab conquerors, and survives to this day essentially unchanged 
in the alphabet known as the ‘Tifinagh, of the Tuaregs, a Berber race of 
Sahara. The first known example of this Libyan script, the bilingual 
inscription of Thugga! containing a Phoenician as well as a native text, 
was discovered as early as 1631; the archaeological exploration of Roman 
Africa, for which the world is so deeply indebted to French enterprise, has 
now accumulated a whole series of Libyan inscriptions and among them some 
of the bilingual class, Carthaginian, Greek, and Latin. The diffusion of these 
Libyan records is very wide, extending at least sporadically as far as Sinai in 
one direction, and the Canary Islands in the other. The great mass of them, 
however, have naturally been found within the limits of the best explored 
region of Roman Africa, in eastern Algeria, otherwise known as the Province 
of Constantine, and now, since the French occupation, in many parts of the 
Regency of Tunis. The form of script thus revealed is quite distinct from 
the Phoenician and Latin forms with which it is at times associated, and 
would therefore seem to have been an independent Libyan possession before 
the days when the North African population was seriously influenced by the 
Carthaginian or the Roman types of culture. The earliest approximately 
dateable inscription of this class appears to be that of Thugga, which has 
been referred to the third or fourth century B.c., but the probability that 
much earlier examples will ultimately be discovered is heightened by the fact 
that the more easterly region where on general grounds its source is most 
likely to lie, is at present practically sealed to observation. That this script 
also held its own side by side with that of the Greek colonists in the region 
of Barka, is shown by an inscription in a cave at Derna, a district bordering 
on Cyrene. We have thus evidence of the existence on the part of the 
North African coast nearest to Crete of an ancient and independent Libyan 
script, which had struck such deep roots in African soil that the whole 
prestige of European and Asiatic conquest, of higher civilizations, and even of 
Mahometan fanaticism, has failed entirely to eradicate it. 

The survival among the modern Tuaregs of this old Libyan form of 
writing is a phenomenon of great retrospective utility. The ‘Tifinagh’ or 


1 Cf. Gesenius, Monwmenta Phoeniciae, Tab. 
xlviii. De Saulcy, Observations sur V Alphabet 
Tifinag, Journ. As. 1849, p. 247 seqg. Judas, 

_ Etudes Phéniciens, Pl. xxxi. The inscription 
fixed into the fagade of a Mausoleum of a 
Libyan Prince, remained in situ at Dougga till 
1842, when the British Consul-General at Tunis, 
Th. Read, ruined the whole wall of the monu- 
ment in order to obtain possession of it. At 
his death it was sold, and it is now in the 
British Museum. See P. Gauckler/’ Archéologie 
dela Tunisie, p. 18 seqq. 

2 Faidherbe, Inscriptions Numidiques, Paris, 


1870. Halévy, Etudes berbéres, Jowrnal Asiatique, 
1874 (Ser. vii. Τὶ iii. p. 73-203 ; T. iv. p. 369- 
416); Letourneaux, Du déchiffrement des In- 
scriptions Libyco-Berbéres (Fourth Interna- 
tional Congress of Orientalists, Florence, 1878), 
vol. i. p. 57 segg. ; and the papers in the Recueil 
des Notices et Mémoires de la Société Archéolo- 
gique de la Province de Constantine, notably those 
by Dr. A. Judas (T. xiii. p. 69 segg. T. xiv. p. 
298 seqq.) Dr. V. Rebout (T. xvii. p. 55segq., Pl. 
I.—XII. ; T. xix. p. 211 segg., Pl. VI.—XIV.). 

8 Some of these may now be seen in the 
Museum of the Bardo, 


388 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


Tuareg alphabet which was first noted by the English traveller Oudney? in 
the Oasis of Ghat, has preserved almost intact? the great majority of the old 
letter-forms together with their values. This evidence added to that already 
supplied by the bilingual inscriptions, enables us to ascertain with certainty 
the sounds of most of the original Libyan letters. At the same time 
the long survival* of this ancient script among the tribes of Sahara, affords 
additional proof of the deep root taken by it in North African soil. 

The correspondence between the old Libyan script and the Tifinagh is 
not confined to the form and value of the letters. It also extends to the 
arrangement, which on the Libyan inscriptions is almost indifferently in 
vertical or horizontal columns. Oudney in his account of the Tuareg writing 
remarked a similar peculiarity.° 

The great simplicity of the Libyan script and the extent to which it is 
made up of mere reduplications of straight lines arranged alternately upright 
or lengthwise has suggested the theory that it is of purely artificial origin.® 
That an artificial element may exist in it is always possible, yet in other 
respects affinities can be traced with a much wider and geographically 
connected group of alphabets and the balance of probability greatly inclines 
towards the simplification of more complicated forms as against the spontaneous 
invention of a perfected system. 

One or two isolated comparisons may be found between Libyan and 
Phoenician letters.’ A somewhat greater community may be traced between 
certain Libyan characters and those of the Minaeo-Sabaean alphabet of South 
Arabia, which have partly survived in the Himyaritic and Ethiopian. This 
Sabaean script is now known to be of great antiquity and its existence is alone 


1 See Travels and Discoveries in Northern 
Africa in 1822, 1823, and 1824 by Major 


stone in places they frequent, the Tuarick char- 
acters are hewn out. It matters nothing 


Denham, F.R.S., Captain Clapperton and the 
late Dr. Oudney, London, John Murray, 1826, 
Vol. I. pp. xlvi., xlvii., Ixxxvii., lxxxviii. 

* For the Tuareg or Berber Script and 
comparisons with the ancient Libyan see 
especially De Saulcy, Observations sur l’ Alpha- 
bet Tifinag, Journ, Asiat. 1849, p. 247 seqgg. ; 
A. Hanoteau, Essai de Grammaire de la Langue 
Tamachek, p. 3 seqgg. Letourneaux, JVth 
Congress of Orientalists, Vol. I. p. 57 seqq. 
Judas, De 0 Ecriture Libyco-Berbere, Rev. Arch. 
N.S. vi. 1862. Tissot, Province Romaine 
@ Afrique, I. p. 517 seqq. 

8 An exception is found in ©, ΕἸ, equivalent 
to B in the old script, but now representing S. 

4 The Tifinagh script is known to be still in 
use in the Ahaggar range of Sahara. It seems 
to have been also current within recent times in 
Morocco. M. Tissot was informed that MSS. 
of the Koran in the Berber alphabet existed in 
the Rif Mountains. Tissot, Province Romaine 
@ Afrique 1. 527. 

5 Op. cit. I. p. 


Ixxxvii, ‘On almost every 


whether the letters are written from right to 
left, or vice versa, or written horizontally.’ As 
this last position is meant to be different from 
the others it is obvious that ‘horizontally,’ is 
here a slip for ‘vertically’ or in upright 
columns. 

8 Meltzer, Geschichte der Karthager, I. p. 438 
n. 26, in view of the ‘strong geometrical con- 
structive character’ of the Libyan alphabet 
suggests that it was a creation of Massinissa, in 
furtherance of his national Numidian policy. 
But it appears to go back at any rate consider- 
ably before his date. 

7 As for instance the forms of the A, I,§ 
and Τὶ 

8 Dr. Isaac Taylor, 7'he Alphabet (18838), Vol. 
I.. p. 153 observes that ‘in many respects the 
Libyan agrees curiously with the South Semitic 
Alphabets.’ 

Dr. Judas De  Beriture Libyco-Berbére. Revue 
Archéologique, N.S. VI. (1862) p. 167, compares 
Himyaritic and Ethiopian forms, 


OF CRETAN: AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 389 


sufficient to place the problem of the origin of the North Semitic or Phoe- 
nician group in a wholly new light. These somewhat distant affinities may 
be found to have a value of their own whenever the mutual relationships of 
the earliest scripts of south-western Asia and the east Mediterranean basin 
come to be satisfactorily elucidated. 

But it is on Libyan ground itself that still closer materials for 
comparison may now be found. Wide as is the gulf of time that separates 
the earliest monuments of the class now under consideration from the 

‘inscribed vases of Naqada and Abydos their general character corre- 

sponds in a remarkable degree with that of these earlier Egypto-Libyan 
or Proto-Egyptian signs. In the later Libyan and Berber, a process of 
selection and differentiation has reduced their number and adapted simple 
linear characters of this primitive type to the needs of a regular alphabet. 
But the third column Table IV. in which the later Libyan, including a few 
Tuareg forms, are set beside the signs of Naqada and Abydos shows sufficient 
degree of correspondence with the earlier Egypto-Libyan forms to warrant the 
supposition that they may have been derived from a very ancient 
source. The fact moreover that throughout the course of over two thousand 
years, the Berber letters have remained practically unchanged, removes the 
improbability of their having retained their shape for a much longer period. 

These linear forms indeed consist of simple geometrical figures which, 
unlike the more complicated pictorial class, were little susceptible of modi- 
fication. A cross, a circle or crescent, a line and its multiples, a square or two 
or three sides of it, two parallel lines crossed or joined, a zigzag, a triangle 
with crossed ends are distinguishing marks of such simplicity that they 
have little or nothing superfluous to throw off. It is however these simple 
linear forms that we already find on Egypto-Libyan vases at a date as 
early certainly, as the first appearance of Egyptian hieroglyphs. 

The slight variation of form among the Libyan signs and letters at very 
remote periods suggests the further possibility of instituting a fruitful 
comparison between the later group of these and the Cretan and Mgean char- 
acters. In Table IV. the latter are compared with the Libyan script as seen 
on the gravestones of the native race in Carthaginian and Roman Africa, one 
or two variant examples of letters from the Tifinagh of the modern Tuaregs 
being also introduced. In the case of the slightly more elaborate forms the 
possibility of a certain degree of simplification must not be excluded, and, for 
this reason, conjectural comparisons like Nos. 8, 9, and 10, have been 
tentatively inserted in the Table. It must also be borne in mind that in the 
case of the Libyan forms a difference in the position of the letter counts for 
little. Apart from the fact that the Libyan characters are arranged 
indifferently in vertical and horizontal columns it also appears that the 
individual letters are habitually placed upright in the script of one African 
district and recumbent in another, so that they may be turned either way 
about for purposes of comparison. This variability of arrangement, which is, 
as has been already noticed, an Egypto-Libyan tradition, is shared, it will 
also be recalled, by the Cretan script. Upon the seal-stones the characters 


390 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


are there found in upright columns! as well as in a horizontal order, and in 
some cases the lines apparently follow one another in boustrophedon fashion, 
alternately from right to left and left to right. 

Oudney and his fellow-traveller, when their attention was first directed 
to the Tuareg letters, were at once struck with their European aspect. ‘We 
imagined,’ he writes, ‘that we could trace some resemblance to the letters of 
Europe, and conjectured that they had been hewn out by some European 
traveller at no very distant period.* In the same way Mr. Petrie first 
described the ‘ Egypto-Libyan ’ signs at Kahun and Gurob as ‘ Aegean,’ and 
M. Amélineau writes of ‘Greek inscriptions’ on the rude pottery from the Royal 
Tombs of Abydos. The early script of Crete has produced a similar im- 
pression. On first inspecting the characters on the Diktaean Table I found it 
hard myself not to believe that I had before me some archaic form of classical 
Greek writing, and the signs on the Phaestos whorl were considered by more 
than one archaeologist who had seen them to be Byzantine ! 

The comparisons above instituted between the early Cretan and Aegean 
characters and those of Kahun, Naqada, and Abydos on the one hand, and of 
the Libyan alphabet and the modern Tifinagh on the other, show a very real 
amount of correspondence. Not only do certain simple linear signs of the 
same class appear in use at a very remote date among the primitive inhabi- 
tants of the Nile Valley, but there, as in the Aegean area, they occasionally 
appear grouped in a way which indicates their application as a form of 
writing. At a later date we find a selected series of similar signs used 
throughout a vast West-African region with alphabetic values. The Naqada 
and Abydos characters moreover show another striking point of parallelism 
with those of prehistoric Crete. There too groups are found in which the 
linear signs are headed or supplemented by others of a more pictorial 
class resembling Egyptian hieroglyphics. 

These correspondences become the more significant when taken in 
connexion with the other indications cited above of a very early and direct 
inter-relation between Crete, the Nile Valley, and the opposite Libyan 
coasts. The conclusion to which they seem to point is that the Cretan and 
Aegean linear script must in a certain sense be regarded as a branch of a 
very ancient stock having a wide North-African extension. 


1 E.g. Pictographs &c., Figs. 21b, 24b, 25b, cases the arrangement is still more irregular, 
30b, 806, and Fig. 32a, Ὁ, c, d, and inthe recalling that of Hittite inscriptions. 
present series Figs. 5a, 9b, and 22. Jn other 2 Op. eit. Vol. I. p. xlvi. 


OF CRETAN' AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 391 


Part III.—Conc.upiIna ORSERVATIONS. 


The vast antiquity which the discoveries at Naqada and Abydos now 
enable us to attribute to the use of linear signs among the primitive population 
of the Nile Valley makes it no longer admissible to assume that they were 
introduced there from the Aegean side. When already at an earlier date 
than that of the first Egyptian dynasty, we find ‘alphabetic’ signs 
already grouped in such a way as to suggest a definite system of writing, we 
have some warrant for inferring that the proto-Egyptians were ahead of the 
Aegean peoples in the evolution of their linear script. On the other hand 
the very ancient relations which have been shown to have subsisted between 
Crete and the Egypto-Libyan world would lead us to expect that the early 
script of the island like its stone vases and various ornamental motives may 
have been influenced, and partly derived, from that quarter. 

That the Cretan linear forms were wholly of exotic origin it is impossible 
to believe. Simple as these signs are, and early as they appear, we are 
entitled by all analogy to suppose that the linear characters are themselves 
only the worn survivals of a primitive system of picture-writing, in which, 
like the first drawings of a child on a slate, various objects are indicated by 
a series of lines. And that this rudest form of pictography was practised on 
European soil there is abundant evidence. A good instance has already been 
pointed out in the rude horned animal or ‘ Minotaur’ which appears in linear 
strokes on one side of the Phaestos whorl, while on the other is seen the head 
alone. The clay whorls from the early strata of Hissarlik, the contents of 
which, as already noticed, afford some very close parallels to the primitive 
Cretan remains, supply a series of similar examples. A linear figure of a 
quadruped, for instance, is reduced by successive stages of degradation to 
one horizontal, and four or even three dependent lines! Identical examples 
are to be seen on the whorls and pottery of Broos in Transylvania and 
elsewhere in the Danubian regions, and very close parallels to the Trojan 
linear figures may be found as far afield as the sculptured rocks of Andalusia.2 
In the ‘ Maraviglie’ and the still better examples, more recently discovered 


1 Compare the figures on the whorls repre- 
sented in Schliemann’s Jlios Nos. 1867, 1879 
1886, 1908 and 1912. The ornamental charac- 
ter of the zones on the Hissarlik whorls and the 
constantly occurring repetitions of what are 
really only variants of the same figure all round 
the whorl make it difficult to recognise in those 
of the primitive class any definite ‘inscriptions.’ 
Nevertheless the analogy which Professors 
Gomperz, Haug and Sayce have pointed out 
between certain Trojan signs and those of the 
Cypriote and Anatolian syllabaries can hardly 


be gainsaid. 

* Examples of these inscribed figures on the 
‘Piedra Escrité’ near Fuencaliente are given by 
Don Manuel Géngora y Martinez, Antigiledades 
prehistoricas de Andalucia, pp. 65—67. The 
same reduction of the quadruped to 4 lines is 
perceptible. The Andalusian signs afford a 
very close comparison with those of the ‘ Writ- 
ten Stones’ (‘Hadjra Mektouba'), described 
by M. Flamand, in the south of the Oran Pro- 
vince of Algeria, Anthropologie, 1897, p. 285 seqq. 


392 FURTHER DISCOVERIES 


at Fontanalba in the Maritime Alps,! as well as in the linear figures on pre- 
historic stone monuments such as those of Brittany, Ireland and Scandinavia, 
we find analogous designs. It is in fact evident, without going back to 
the still earlier and very remarkable signs painted on the pebbles of the Mas 
d’Azil grotto,” that there exist throughout a wide European area the records 
of a primitive usage of linear picture-writing which already in prehistoric 
times showed a tendency to Simplify itself into abbreviated linear signs. 


‘Nondum flumineas Memphis contexere byblos 
Noverat: et saxis tantum volucresque feraeque 
Sculptaque servabant magicas animalia linguas.” 


But these general considerations are quite compatible with the view that 
the early linear script of Crete and the Aegean coastlands stands in a 
specially close relation to that of the Egypto-Libyan group. The existence of a 
primitive European stock of rude pictographs and their simplified derivatives 
need not be called in question. But there are many indications that in Crete 
at any rate the beginnings of writing like the beginnings of many other arts 
were influenced from the Nile Valley or its borderlands. In the case of the 
more pictorial class of Cretan characters this influence can be proved to 
demonstration. 

It is on the face of it difficult to explain the appearance in a small and 
isolated area like Crete of a system of writing so fully developed as to present 
linear forms that have practically remained unchanged to modern times. 
Comparisons have already been instituted in my former communication 
between many of these and the characters of the Cypriote and Anatolian 
syllabaries and even with the letters of the Semitic alphabet. But to whatever 
extent the converse may be true, it is impossible to derive the older forms 
seen in Crete and some other parts of the Aegean world from the systems 
which first show themselves on the Syrian and Canaanite coastlands at an 
apparently later date. In saying this, however, it is not meant to exclude the 
probability that a branch of the same great family of primitive linear signs 
which have left their traces throughout such a wide North African region may 
have spread over Canaan at a very early date. The Lachish signs, so closely 
related to those of Kahun as well as to certain Aegean forms, seem to be an 
indication of this. On the Asiatic side, however, these primitive linear 
characters, if they existed there at a date as early as that of some of the 
Cretan signs, were overlaid and obscured by the spread of the cuneiform 
system which, as we know from the Tell-el-Amarna tablets, was the current 
form of writing throughout Syria and Palestine in the fifteenth century B.c. 
It is not till five centuries later that a more perfectly equipped form of linear 
writing, the Phoenician alphabet, was able as it were to shake off the 


? See Mr. C. Bicknell’s communication to the go back to the early Bronze Age (see my obser- 
Society of Antiquaries, Dec. 9, 1897; Athen- vations Athenaeum, loc. cit.) 
aeum Dec. 18. These figures as is shown by 2 See M. D’Acy’s account of these discoveries, 
the appearance of the halberd with three rivets 3 Lucan, Pharsalia, III. 220. 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 393 


Assyrian yoke. It was the superior development of this, aided by the 
commercial enterprise of its possessors, that enabled it to oust, in part perhaps 
to assimilate, the more primitive and imperfect forms of writing existing on 
the Aegean shores. 

The general results of the fresh materials that my recent journeys have 
enabled me to add to those already published may be summed up in a few 
words. The evidence that in early times, and long before our first records of 
the Phoenician alphabet, the art of writing was known to the Cretans 
receives striking corroboration. The view is also confirmed that we have to 
deal with two distinct yet inter-related systems, one pictographic in its 
character the other more purely linear. The generally indigenous character 
of the pictographic system emerges the more clearly from the occurrence of 
fresh examples illustrating the evolution of the conventionalised symbols 
from purely pictorial prototypes which occur on the more primitive class of seals. 
Thus we find the seated figure of a man, the disk with revolving rays, the 
spider, and a floral design common to the earlier and the later seals. 

New evidence is also forthcoming of similar collocations of the later picto- 
graphs on different stones, such as the \\-shaped symbol and the ‘ polyp,’ the 
bent leg and gate,—collocations, which, like others already signalised, are 
specially valuable as showing that we have not to deal with the random insertion 
of chance figures but with a methodical graphic system. The discovery of a 
new class of pictographic seals of a form which could not have been used as 
an ornament, but is on the contrary that of a typical signet and closely 
akin to inscribed Hittite types, is also a valuable indication of the purpose- 
fulness of these groups of symbols. 

The most recent discoveries fully corroborate the view, already expressed 
by me, that the later pictographic seals of the conventionalised class are 
mainly confined to eastern Crete, though a few like the convoluted bead-seal 
from Gortyna belong to the central area. The suggestion is thus confirmed 
that this quasi-hieroglyphic class which comes down to the borders of the 
historic period was the special property of the Eteocretan stock. Elsewhere 
in the Aegean area, as to a certain extent in Crete itself, the linear char- 
acters still continued in use, and they seem to have had a closer relation to 
the dominant elements of the Mycenaean world on the Peloponnesian side. 
In a more general sense, however, the name ‘Mycenaean’ must be equally 
applied to the peculiarly Cretan group of pictographic signs. 

The linear system on the other hand, though it also overlaps the other, 
goes back to a very remote period. It seems to have reacted on the picto- 
graphic class, and to have been partly incorporated in it, but in this case, 
unlike the other, the proofs of evolution on Cretan soil from pictorial 
originals are not always so clear. The rude linear figures of men and animals 
on the very earliest class of seals partially indicate indeed an indigenous 
source: and in the Phaestos whorl we see the head of what is a rude linear 
animal on one side, becoming on the other a detached symbol. But the 
impression derived from the new materials supplied by the Psychro Libation 
Table. is that this linear script had at a very early date attained a maturity 


394 FURTHER DISCOV ERTIES 


of form and a systematic application which secius to imply a long antecedent 
evolution, and is best explained by the influence of an older civilisation such 
as that of the Nile Valley. The Libyan clement may, as suggested in the 
preceding sections, ultimately supply the link of connexion and explain how a 
more advanced system was brought to bear on the ruder family of Cretan and 
Aegean linear signs. 

The evidence that has here been put together is in part indeed of such 
a nature as to place the very early relations between Crete and Egypt beyond 
the range of controversy. We have not only to deal with borrowings of 
Twelfth Dynasty decorative designs, of types of stone vases peculiar to the 
Old Empire, and even in the case of the libation tables of articles of cult. 
The Karnak prism seal shows the most typical form of Cretan seal in use 
among a probably Libyan population in the Nile Valley as early as the Sixth 
Dynasty, while the allied group of cylinders brings a whole series of Cretan 
and Aegean types into connexion with the same primitive element. Finally, 
the linear signs themselves, and a whole series of early fabrics tend to show 
that a close relation existed between the indigenous population of the Nile 
Valley and those of Crete and the Aegean Islands at a period so remote that 
it goes back beyond the earliest historic dynasty. 

That the linear or quasi-alphabetic signs, whether of primitive Egypt or 
of the Aegean area, were in the main ultimately derived from the rudely 
scratched line pictures belonging to the infancy of art can hardly be doubted. 
This consideration helps to explain the intimate relation in which Cretan 
linear signs stand to the later and more pictorial characters. For certain 
purposes fuller and more literal representation was still adhered to in the 
linear series, and a pictograph pure and simple appears at the head of linear 
signs in which the prototypes are no longer so easily recognisable. It has 
been noted that both in the Naqada and Abydos groups the same com- 
bination of the two kinds of character is found as on the early Cretan 
prism-seals. 

But this partial survival of the practice of pictorial representation in 
place of linear ‘shorthand’ was as nothing to the wholesale revival of the 
pictographic style which took place in Crete during the Mycenaean period. 
This revival corresponds in the island with a renewed period of intensive 
Egyptian influence under the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties, so 
clearly marked in the borrowing of decorative and other designs. It is not 
unreasonable therefore to believe that it was this Egyptian influence which 
here, as in the neighbouring Hittite regions, promoted a reaction orn a 
more pictorial style of script. 

The linear figures assume a more realistic aspect in keeping with an age 
in which the engraver’s art and the artistic sense were more highly developed. 
On older stones like the Phaestos whorl? or the Arvi pendant? we see a mere. 
outline representation of a horned head like the Phoenician aleph. The 
symbol now takes a fuller form and clothes itself as it were with flesh and 


1 Pictographs, &c. p. 15 [284] Fig. 11b. 2 Jb. p. 17 [286] Fig. 16. 


OF CRETAN AND AEGEAN SCRIPT. 395 


bluod. A mere circle completes itself asa human eye. The upright and 
cross lines that seem to have stood for a tree take again a more vegetable 
shape. In this way we may obtain from the more advanced representations 
of certain objects a retrospective light on the meaning of an original linear 
form. At the same time a whole series of new symbols, a few of them direct 
borrowings from Egyptian or Hittite sources, is introduced, of which no 
prototypes can be found in the earlier linear series. The repertory becomes 
larger; more complicated, but also more expressive. 

From the alphabetic point of view indeed this process must be regarded 
as in the main reactionary, though thoroughly characteristic of the in- 
fluences predominant in dynastic Egypt. However imperfectly applied as yet 
to the purposes of a formal script, the old linear forms,—such as we see them 
both in the primitive Aegean strata and in prehistoric Egypt,—were those 
that ultimately triumphed in the Phoenician letters. The primitive engraver 
who had made an ox’s head with an angle and cross strokes or a tree with an 
upright and three horizontal lines was nearer the beginnings of alphabetic 
writing than the artistically trained Egyptian whose picture-sign informs us 
of the genus and species." 


ARTHUR J. EVANS. 


1 On this, as on the former occasion, 1 materials and institute comparisons. To those 
have refrained from any attempt to interpret who care to embark on more ingenious specula- 
either the linear or the pictographic script. It tions Dr. Kluge’s work Die Schrift der Mykenier 
has seemed to me that in the present stage of may afford food for reflection but hardly for 
the enquiry the main object should be to collect | encourageinent. 


396 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I, 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. 


[PLatTe XII.] 


DurinG the summer of 1897 I had the opportunity of making extensive 
exploration in Phrygia, and the following paper gives, as a first instalment, 
an account of the more important results of the season’s work there. I have 
given a map (Plate Χ11) based on the Ottoman Railway Survey to illustrate 
the watercourses of the Laodiceian district, but I regret that a map to show 
the new sites has had to be deferred. At the outset I must make acknow- 
ledgment of the valuable help I have received from Prof. W. M. Ramsay, who 
has kindly sent me some criticisms and suggestions. For the numerous 
references to his volumes on Phrygia no apology is necessary. Every student 
of its history must use his brilliant pages as the basis of his study; and the 
work of the explorer in the districts which they cover must naturally be to. 
endeavour to amplify the information, and to confirm or correct the views, 
which he finds there. 

Few parts of Phrygia have been so frequently traversed as the Lycos 
valley with the adjacent Carian and Lydian frontiers: yet anyone who 
studies this district will be astonished at the number of unsolved problems 
which it presents. To begin with the Carian borderland and go round the 
valley of the Lycos, the first problem that confronts us is the site of 


KIDRAMOS, 


a city without annals, but important enough to possess a coinage of its own, 
at least from the time of Augustus to that of Julia Maesa. A review of the 
evidence for its situation will be found in Prof. Ramsay’s Cit. & Bish. of 
Phrygia, i. p. 184.1 His conclusion is that ‘it is to be looked for . . . between 
Antioch on the west,and Attouda or Karoura on the east, perhaps somewhere 
opposite Ortakche, on a spur of the hills that fringe the valley.’ In accordance 
with this view, which seemed very probable, I searched the district carefully. 
We were exploring the right bank of the Maeander to see if any site could be 
found there for DALDIS, and after an unsuccessful search? we intended to cross 


1 This work will be referred to as CB. The place Daldis in the Hermos valley near Hiero- 
other abbreviations need no explanation. caesareia (CB. i. p. 179). See also Buresch, 

2 Although exploration can hardly ever claim  Reisebericht in Ber. der Kgl. Sachs. Ges. ἃ. 
to be final, this will be regarded asanindication Wiss, (Leipsic), 1894, p. 91: and cp. M. Imhoof- 
in favour of the alternative view which would Blumer in Rev. Suisse, 1897, p. 211 f. 


J.H.S. νοι. XVII. (1897) @ 


n= 


MAP OF THE 


DISTRICT “OR ΟΕ 
Based on the Railway Survey. 


\ 
᾿ OR Ὁ 
ST ἡ» ALS ald) 
> OF 
“¢ a et eRe — Tches 
SS δας πος πόδε “Ὁ 
: -S=0F Boe 0 
cot OL, SH SBRENGSSOP 28-10 
6 gi ἃ ὩΙῸΝ iPuk= υω a 
th oe, α J SS == fy? Kizil Kak 
Net et “9: SSS τς 
hal ΣΩ͂Ν ΣΞ fey ae to” Zz “ass at 2a 
40d i o% 46 τὰ ὦ Kodya Ba ἤ τ: a, Dia » Ve . 
ἢ os) ὑψ' Se — Ρ ‘~ (Gp » erekeut Va Ag 
Εν ΤῈ 433 Εν ἵ iY Sivri 
Kalek Laci Se. “ Hm MN See i,5 Pgh 
alekeu uajalt > 95 2 Feat, ἡ Pr 
“fl GRudjal eS Ae Bride yee? fis ne SAY chiftlik 3336 
q i HA Gerekeus i πο. Ἂν 
.} xe : co OSS ie Ἔν 
Γ᾿ ΨΥ, 2%. : eu ' " 
ie πε Re "tile Ve ra 
ae ewes ἢ »Ἥ sot, ad gk N 
ne ΤῈ PCR 7 “ἢ ae, + Menteshe 
i τὰ Κ᾿ ee Ὁ αι 
ΟὟ ΣΝ ΐ sent eae 
* Mills Jem Ἂν» τ. ἃ 
ὋΣ τῷ , 
bce SEE of | IM: ; 
Py ae τἀ ἀν... 1600 Bed of Ry, δ ᾿ 
' ape >> nya 3 Ϊ 
ψο εκ Ἀγ τ αὐ ραν, / 
Of Like lt | ES 5 
TANG See ae 
es\&." « FS. 
ΩΣ 3 PS 
Jit Wer es hw 
ye SE ἘΠ ~ Ἐπ # ἱ 
eke A In htt γι ΟΝ TRUE 
Ke 5 , we 
ἜΣ ἐκ 2640 Μὸν 
Pas, o NAW APSR  Tohukur 
a. ~ 
ee τ cA 1:3: ον σα 
ΤΡ 
Δ “πο 
~ 
δέρεη, ἐδ Α oe, Nena 3700 i ἃ ean 
= . . @ Springs ΟῚ ἃ 
᾿ eho Sat,5 Soriova He) 
‘Shae Pe Shes Pe πιο Μ Gulub 
‘ 1S Ἂ 8 ting Aq 
a . hy Ὁ ᾿ ps 5% ἢ 
ey, ῳ τὶ k ᾿ 
δα ἃ 9 Εν Aes 
Wey ὸ © -«- , Yurei/ 
310. Ὑ fal * Yataghan . 
Merengue ὃ = Kuyujak 
es ¢ 
ο Ο 
τὶ Ρ: 
; ο 
Scale of ο 1 2 3 4€ng. Miles 
; (bet ttt eed THEMISONION ase 
] Heights wn feet above sea level. Kara-eyuk Bazar σ᾽ 


τ ᾿ 5 CORNER αν ομμ νοι 
ἜΣ ΒΞ ete τος: pie ee een Pon 
' ἸΉΤ 0 ἩΧ et 
[HDIQOAL FO WI rele ν" 

evry you \eA sds we Weel, Ne 


te 
- 


1 
κ Ae he hus ya oh 


bah 


᾿ ae 
bhe vein had! ὙΠ fees * 
; Mn at the ides inble | 


᾿ mAs Mealy avin 
heelerredt ies i i eye 


i 
a Nieto y Tater eu + tah Gp copes 


Δ, ΨΥ ΔΝ 


ἜΗΝ ν᾽ ich eet 
ap τ 


ΐ workvol the ΧΡΊ ΚΣ Ὁ] he CameTi CRs ὑοῦ 
- hha potar Το asiggllh tly en 

wis hy tie πηάξᾳειτοιι ελμὰ ἐφ᾽ ν 1 
Hew ὃ τ. ny yee bx γς ἐμὰ ΚΝ ΤῊ 

"ὦ δ) wash iio Bayle oT Cm! nia? εὖ ἜΝ “ἢ ΡΝ tiews: 

idee ay Ratxwt walt 3 Aah ἡ} Figg ἢ ‘a the Αι πο ip 

vohaah ἡ ᾧ ) Τὸ apie λὶῷ ue i 5 horde anhd ᾿ 


ver boy νῷ i #4, Ligh ine ᾿ δ Stat Welw 7 Ν ἡ we [ὁ Lhe sito 


ae ng 
wes he : eyo "" ᾽ ou 


» make δου ᾿ς δι ge Laut? rom thy Oo 
F we \eaet tiv wee MO ἢ cies an, Ν᾿ ᾿ 7 
| d ete on yh mi ἐτι: \¢ ela ᾧ γον, Α͂ ett τῷ 


| cya ABA WOES ἐν, RSE PO οι 

) ’ Al beds ma ¢ pon, at sch Kare ifn ὉΠ the ' 

een he © née, ga 5 εν bile thst [raion Ata alle ® 

nth eile VP Dia μ᾿ ve probable, 1 searched 

i ἢ [Ἢ } ‘@ wi Ἂν νὴ . hole Lye VMucun ter te 

| » fara 4 LBs, vs ὅν. an anaes) δ 

0 φιι ᾿ ᾿ 

' ᾿ “orgies aft Ν ἈΝ γον σαν σὸς 

ial id rhA auth itl bo balhyret we ὦ CH σὰ pally Dalle 
shox eblrwr'ert'gata tors wh pays ὧν, omentee (ΟὟ. LB ATER 

σ' λϑνοος ἰν κα νϑυνογν < ῳ herGe peewee ὦ in Der dae ; 

«te be Pee), Chlp WIS ἣν fy "εῦνν Spi oon ie. ty), FSPa pe Bhs ood ep ἯΙ 

te ντωι! af ἡμενου οδροῦνο glewsge ἡ νην μῳχῖς υυἱϑμάνν ia Re Sotn, 2007, ΚΙ’ ἘΠ © 


᾿ Meet AT eee ew 6.0. et 
®S ‘epee duane Α heel) eee κὸν ἢ ἶ a Apes 
ae eae —~ sd ere 


"Tey } . ὃ 
mG ὦ... 7 . De ἘΝ 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. 397 


the river beside Ortakche and explore the spurs of Tchibuk Dagh, which 
here come down almost to the water’s edge. Finding the wooden bridge 
broken, and unable to ford the river, we were forced to go down the right 
bank nearly as far as Antiocheia to find a bridge. Here there is a wide and 
fertile plain narrowing a little at the village Yamalak and then widening 
again, as one goes eastward, up to the slopes of Tchibuk Dagh nearly as far as 
Ortakche on the opposite side. Crossing this plain we reached the ¢ch iftlik 
Budjak keui which lies high up the hill side, about 500 ft. above the Maeander 
valley} and three miles or so from the river, hidden from the view of the 
traveller in the plain. The village was seen to be full of ancient stones, and 
the desired site was found a short distance to the south on level ground 
running out from the hillside and looking down to the valley, about 100 ft. 
lower than the village. The remains on the site are all late: we noted what 
seemed to be the line of fortifications on west and south-west, two ends of a 
low arched way built of small stones with cement rising a little above the 
level of the ground (late Roman or Byzantine work), the lower part of a 
sarcophagus hewn out of the natural rock, foundations on the hill-side, and 
nearer the village the foundations of a Byzantine chapel, etc. A short 
distance below the village there has recently been excavated a rectangular 
chamber built of fine marble blocks and roofed over with flat stones cramped 
together (as we were informed) with lead. It was probably a tomb. 

Only one inscription was found. It is built into the wall of the 
mosque. 


ἢ ΖΡ ΟΔΉΜΟΣΞΕΤΊΛΗΞΣῳ 

ΑΙΣ ΤΑΙΞΣΜΕΙΓῚΣ T AISKAIKFY 

ΔΙΣ ΤΑΙ ΤΙ ΜΑΙ ATIOAANNI YY 

ΘΗΝΑΙΌΡΟΥΤΙ Ἀττι αν ANAPAAY 

ΘΟΝΜΆΑΙΦΙΛΟΙΠΑ ΤΡΙΝΓ ENOMEY 

KAIAGAT ENOY STIAZSHAPETHW 
NHNOX OTA 


ἡ βουλ]ὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος ἐτέίμησ[αν 
maa jas ταῖς μεγίσταις καὶ κ[αλ- 
λ]ίσταις τιμαῖς ᾿Απολλώνι[ον ᾿Α- 
θηναγόρου Παπίαν ἄνδρα ἀγα- 

5 θὸν καὶ φιλόπατριν γενόμενον 
καὶ διὰ γένους πάσῃ ἀρετῇϊ διε- 
νηνοχότα. 


It is perfectly safe to assign the name Kidramos to this site. Prof. 
Ramsay’s inference, as will be seen, hit the mark remarkably well. He has 
brought out the fact (CB. i. p. 166) that the city belongs to a small numis- 
matic group, of which Attouda, situated on the other side of the hill, is 
another member. In this connection it is worth remarking that of a few coins 
which I saw there, those which were not Byzantine were coins of Attouda. 


: Heights astininted by aneroid (except in the Map, PI. ΧΙ]... i 
H.S.—-VOL. XVII. E E 


398 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. 


KAROURA. 


Continuing along the southern side of the Maeander, we crossed Tchibuk 
Dagh en route for the famous hot springs. On the sides of the hill there are 
traces of later ancient life (e.g. several tombs opened by the villagers in search 
of gold) and remains of an old paved path leading up to a site which was 
perhaps a Byzantine refuge, 1,000 feet above Budjak keui. On the level 
summit of the ridge, where there is a Yuruk yaila 1,800 ft. above the valley, 
we left the path to Attouda (Assar, reckoned four hours from Kidramos), here 
a good and easy road, and descended towards the springs, north-east of Tekke 
keui. This spot is one mass of springs which have formed an enormous 
marsh, emitting evil sulphurous vapours ; towards the western end there are 
two conspicuous sources, whence boiling water bubbles up and sends off 
steam: and between the marsh and the old ruined bridge over the Maeander, 
near the river bed (ὑπὲρ τοῦ χείλους, Strabo p. 578), we saw several dried up 
springs. ΑἹ] around the soil is white with the lime deposit. There can be 
no reasonable doubt that KAROURA was situated here (CB. i. pp. 2, 170, 
Strabo 578, 580).1 In an old overgrown Turkish cemetery near the village 
Kab-agatch there is an extraordinary number of column drums (some with 
dowel holes), varying in diameter, though several are of equal sizes. These 
heavy stones would not be carried far: they must have come from beside the 
hot springs and perhaps belonged to a temple of the god at Karoura. No 
other evidence bearing on the question was discovered. 


ATTOUDA. 


The village Assar occupies part of the site of Attouda. Approaching 
the village from Gumuldjak (between Karoura and Khas keui) and keeping 
along the banks of the Assar Tchai, we came after one hour to the foot of a 
steep hill, up which there winds in fine curves an old paved road,? which may 
be old Turkish, but is more probably the remains of an ancient road from the 
valley of the Maeander and Lycos. This plateau is divided from the hill on 
which the village stands by the deep cafion of the Assar stream. The village 
itself occupies a fine site (fully 1,600 ft. above the Lycos valley), surrounded 
by deep ravines on all sides except the south-west, where the ground slopes 
gently down to a wide depression which merges again into the hills beyond. 
It is full of ancient remains of all kinds, built into walls or lying about 
serving no purpose, and it stands upon what was clearly the acropolis of the 
ancient city. On the top of this acropolis, above the roofs of the houses 
which climb up the slope, the natives have recently excavated a large square 
cistern, arching slightly towards the top, of the ordinary Byzantine type. 


1 Prof. G. Radet, in the map attached to Hn  Serai keui, where no remains exist. On the 
Phrygie (1895), gives up his former identifi- recent growth of Serai keui CB. p. 164, 168. 
cation of Karoura and Kydrara, and now places 2 Traces of pavement were also seen quite 
Karoura here, while still leaving Kydrara at near Gumuldjak. 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. 399 


Some new inscriptions ! were recovered ; there are probably many more to be 
found, but the villagers were very suspicious and obstinate. 

The only inscription which fixes the site is given in 0.1.4. 3950 from an 
imperfect copy of Sherard, in which Franz detected the name ’Arrovdéwy. 
It deserves to be repeated. 


2. Lying before the mosque enclosure : 


ATAOH TYXH ᾿Αγαθῇ Τύχῃ. 

Μ ΑῪΡ ΑὙΔΙ © NE TT! M. Avp. Λύδιον ἐπί- 
TPOTIONLCEBAL TWN τροπον Σεβαστῶν 

HROY AHKAIOAHMOL ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ δῆμος 
SLT O YAEWNTON ᾿ΑἸττουδέων τὸν 


EYEPTE ΤῊΝ αὑτῶ]ν εὐεργέτην. 

In the last line there seems to be no room for [ἑαυτῶ]ν. The inscription 
probably dates ca. 162-180 a.p. (cp. CB. ii. No. 235), in which case the 
emperors would be M. Aurelius and L. Verus or Aurelius and Commodus. 


M. Aur. Lydius proc. Augg. was probably a freedman of M. Aurelius. His 
duties would be to superintend the /iscus (CB. i. p. 71). 


3. Ina garden, very small letters engraved on the narrow end of a 
rectangular block : 


Jp E OVE TIMINS AD E PMOFENH XAPIY 


ETTAIN QUITTPOEAPIAI ΚΡΥΣΩΙΣ TEGAN 
EIKONIFPATITHEIKONIXAAKH vec \ 


PPETHZEENEKENKAIE YNOIAS ve 
YHETIPOS TOYEINEOYS 


Οἱ] Νέοι ἐτέμ[η]σαν ‘Eppoyévn χάριτι, 
ἐπαίνωι, προεδρίαι, χρυσῶι στεφάϊΪνωι, 
εἰκόνι γραπτῇ, εἰκόνι χαλκῇ, 
ἀ]ρετῆς ἕνεκεν καὶ εὐνοίας 
τῆς πρὸς τοὺς Νέους. 
Προεδρία granted by the Neoi can refer, of course, only to their own 
meetings. 


4. Ibid., a small tablet: 
3 OAHMOC Ὁ δῆμος 


ΤΕΙΜΗΓΕΝ ἐτείμησεν 
τὸ PION KAAY Τιβέριον Krav- 
AION BHPYANIA διον Βηρυλλια- 
NON-A ANAPA 5 vov, ἄνδρα 
K AAONKAI ATA καλὸν Kab aya- 
OONAPETHCE θὸν ἀρετῆς ἕ- 

ΚΕΝ (ve)xev. 


1 Inser. of Attouda, C./.@. 8949 ff. ; Le Bas- pp. 238-9; CB. i. p. 181-38. 
Wadd. 743; B.C.H. 1887, pp. 348 f. and 1890, 
EE 2 


400 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. 


5. Built into the wall of a house, upside down : 


YTATITIATPIAI 
PAS TOSTY XIKOY 
2 T1 SAIABIOYKTA 
YNTTAN ΤΙΤΩΠΕ 
“<MOEKTANIAI 
~S\ENZYN 


SS 


TH γλυκ])υτάτῃ πατρίδι 
Αὐρ. "Adlpactos Τυχικοῦ 
ἀγωνοθ]έτης διὰ βίου κὲ τα- 
μίας, σ]ὺν παντὶ τῷ πε- 

5 ριόντι κόσ]μῳ ἐκ τῶν ἐἰδί- 
ων -ἀνέθηκ]εν συν- 
ὀλως]. 


Adrastos, son of Tychikos, may be the person mentioned in CB. u. No. 
71, restoring [’A]épdo[tov Τυχικ]οῦ for [Λοκρί]ου. The name Adrastos is 
known to be common at Aphrodisias, and occurs at Trapezopolis: it was no 
doubt very common at Attouda which worshipped Μήτηρ" Αδραστος. 


6. In the wall of a house: 


ἡ βο[ υ]λὴ 
ἐτείμησαϊ[ν (sic) 
᾿Απολλώνι[ον ᾿Ασ 1- 
κάντου. 


7. In the cemetery wall; the first part was engraved on a separate 
stone: 

[ἡ γερουσία (or ἡ βουλὴ) ἐτείμησεν τὸν δεῖνα) 
ταῖς μεγίσταις καὶ 
καλλίσταις τειμαῖς, 
ΝΜ \ ἈΝ 9 ’ 
ἄνδρα καλὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν 
γενόμενον περὶ τὴν πο- 

ὅ λειτήαν ἐπί τε ταῖς τῶ[ν 
προγόνων αὐτοῦ [εὐ- 
δοξίαις ἐπί τε tails χρεί- 

ἃ Ν Ἁ Ν \ 
ais ἃς κατὰ τὸΪ καλὸν Kal 
/ > 
μεγαλό[φρον ἐν παν- 
10 τὶ καιρῷ τ[ῇ γερουσίᾳ (or βουλῇ) ὑπέσ- 

χετο ane 
TOS ocr φῦ Sth τσ, les 


Before leaving Attouda, we should note the fact that to the south of the 
modern village, separated from it by a ravine, there is a high conical hill 
whose summit is crowned by a Tiirbe (the tomb of a local saint, as we may 
say). This T%irbe,as Prof. Ramsay has pointed out in other cases, preserves 


the sanctity attaching to the old town, the seat of the worship of Men 
Karou.! 


Δ At Apameia there is a Tiirbe on the hill above the town, to which the natives go up to 
pray when they want rain. 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: 1. 401 


TRAPEZOPOLIS. 


Another important problem in the topography of the Lycos valley is the 
exact situation of Trapezopolis, which is assigned by the evidence to this 
district. The arguments are stated, with the author’s usual acumen, in CB. i. 
p. 171 f. He infers that ‘Trapezopolis lay north of Mt. Salbakos near the 
frontier between Caria and Phrygia and west of Laodiceia in such a position 
that, when the Phrygian frontier was moved a little further west, Trapezopolis 
came to be in Phrygia, not in Caria’ (p. 171): that it was conterminous with 
Attouda’: and consequently that it was probably near Kadi keui and 
‘corresponding to it, though perhaps not on the actual site’ (pp. 165, 172),— 
a judicious proviso which is merely the application of a general rule proved 
by all experience. Exploration has confirmed each of these inferences, 
and justified the order of Hierocles. The ruins of the city were 
discovered on a plateau north east of Kadi keui and about an hour and 
a quarter south-east of the railway station at Serai keui,’ just where the 
higher spurs of Baba Dagh (Salbakos) merge into the curiously-shaped 
alluvial hills of the Lycos valley. 

The east side of the plateau forms one bank of the cafion called Gebe 
Deressi,t through which flows the streain Dondjali Tchai (the small river 
nearest Sara keui on the east), and the west side is bounded by a similar 
ravine; on the south the slope is short and easy but steeper again on the 
irregularly shaped north side. The eastern and western sides, composed 
as they are of horizontal strata of clay, dipping perpendicularly down, have 
fallen away to some extent, carrying stones and foundations with them: at 
the river side, 400 or 500 feet below, we saw numerous large blocks of marble, 
and on the top one could see the foundations stopping abruptly at the edge. 

The site, which still retains the latter half of the name in the form ‘ Bolo,’ 
conspicuously justifies by its shape the title ‘Table-City, ® especially when 
one gets a view of it from the side of Baba Dagh (Mt. Salbakos). A search 
over the plateau, which is now turned into cornfields, revealed numerous 
remains of all kinds.6 The foundations of the aqueduct, which brought 
a supply of water down from Mt. Salbakos, can be easily traced for a consider- 
able distance, and lying about we saw some of the stone pipes, which are of 
exactly the same form as those that are found in such quantities, largely 


1 An interpretation of a coin (described p. name which occurs elsewhere, and seems to be 


166), which will be seen to be justified. 

2 The rule is stated ¢g. p. 168 πη. 1. M. 
Radet places Trapezopolis at Kadi keui, but 
without any proviso. At Kadi keui we did not 
see the slightest trace of an old settlement. 
In this district between Tchibuk Dagh and 
Laodiceia he crowds together a host of towns, 
several of them on sites where there is no 
vestige of ancient remains. 
method. 

3 The name is so given by the Railway Com- 
pany, but it is always pronounced Sara keui, a 


This is wrong’ 


the correct form here. 

4 This was given me as the right form of the 
word : I was corrected when I used the form 
Djebe. 

5 The suggestion that the name was probably 
significant is thrown out in CB. i. p. 172. 

8 The nearest village is Seine keui at the foot 
of the Dere by the river side. It contains no 
remains: it would be very difficult to transport 
heavy blocks down the steep side of the caiion, 
but even those blocks which have fallen down 
have not been carried away. 


402 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. 


in situ, at Laodiceia. It is possible that a semi-circular recess in the northern 
side contained a theatre: there are a considerable number of blocks there, and 
clear traces of building. On the east slope, standing out from the hill side, 
just below the level of the plateau (but mostly beyond the actual site, 
ze. towards north), we found an enormous number of low archways built of flat 
stones cemented together, and closed by a wall at the back, the sides and ends 
being often pierced with window-shaped openings. These perhaps served as 
foundations for buildings. There are two similar ones on the plateau at the 
western side, almost the same as we saw at Kidramos. 

Two inscriptions only were found on the site, but a search through fields 
of full-grown barley is rather difficult, and others may be discovered. Neither 
of them gives the city name, but the identification is certain. 


8. Engraved on a large block (length 97 cm., breadth 773, thickness 57); 
most of the inscription was underground : 


“Ὁ ΔῊ Sroeatcit 
ὦ ΝΔΕΔΟΜΕΝΟΝΤΙῚ 
METI M E. ΛΗ T-NYTIOTOYMETI > 
YM TV OKPAT OPO MAIS APOS TiAl 
5 | WiiOYAAPIANOY ZEIWAS ΤΟΥ ΑΙ Ke 
Mi YK TTIONAAMANKAT YAAE INO 
MWONASTAP XI-IN K TIS THNKAIE 
LEP LE a tal labile Gis ii G2 Ao. 


“LINANAS TASIN TIOIH2AM:NI> 
10 WiWf\EMOS1A FIX ΠΟΛΕΩΣΔΙΕ TIME ALTCY 
TITOYPAAOY | OYMAZIMOYAY ΣΙΟΥ 
TTPQTAPXONOZ ΤΙΣ TOAEQSTOA 


ἡ βουλὴ κα]ὶ ὁ δῆμος [ἐτείμη- 
σαν τ]ὸν δεδομένον τῇ [πόλ- 
ει] ἐπιμελητὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ μεγίστου 
Αὐτοκράτορος K[a]icapos II. Αἰ[λ- 
ὅ ἤου ᾿Αδριανοῦ Σε[βα]στοῦ Μάρκον 

ΟἸὔλπιον Δάμαν Κατυλλεῖνον, 
tlov ᾿Ασιάρχην, κτέστην καὶ εἰ ὑ- 
ε]ργέτην τῆς πόλεως" 
τὴν ἀνάστασιν ποιησαμένης 

10 δημοσίᾳ τῆς πόλεως bu’ ἐπιμελητοῦ 
Τίτου Φλαουίου Μαξίμου Λυσίου 
πρωτάρχοντος τῆς πόλεως τὸ δεύ- 

τερον. 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: 1. 403 


A comparison of this inscription with the coinage of Trapezopolis 
furnishes the final and conclusive demonstration that Bolo is the site of that 
city. Mr. Head publishes a coin of the city (Catalogue of Caria, p. 177), 
struck in the imperial period but without the head of an emperor: it reads 
on obverse BOYAH TPATIEZOTIOAITQN, and on reverse AIA T DA MA 
AYCIOY. The Lysias of the inscription and the Lysias of the coin must be 
one and the same person. Lysias was raised to the civitas under the Flavian 
dynasty, while M. Ulpius Damas Catullinus probably received it from Trajan. 
Catullinus is appointed by the emperor ἐπιμελητὴς (curator) of the city. 
The question arises, what were his duties? It seems clear that ἐπιμελητὴς 
is merely an alternative for the common term λογιστής, the whole expression 
being a rendering of curator rei publicae Trapezopolitarum, an imperial official 
sent to look after the finances of the city. We have, then, at Trapezopolis a 
further example of the incompetency of the municipal governments. On 
this whole question see CB. ii. pp. 369 f., 376, etc. As the inscription belongs 
to the first half of the second century, Catullinus was probably not a citizen 
of Trapezopolis.? The title κτίστης implies, as usual, merely that he had 
obtained advantages for the city. 

Lysias is first Archon for the second time. It is possible that the chief 
board of magistrates in Trapezopolis bore the name archons and not strategoi. 
Now on the coins of Trapezopolis archons are several times mentioned ; but 
no coins are as yet published that mention strategoi. , 


9. 


ὁ δῆμος 
ἐτείμησεν Γάϊον "Αττί[εον 


OAHMO® 
E TEIMH ZENIAIONAT 
TILT OY YIONKAAPON 
E TIAPX ONEYEPTETHN 

ΚΑΙΣΩ TH PAKAI TAT Ps 
NATH 2 ΠΌΛΕΙΣ 


Τίτου υἱὸν Κλᾶρον 


ἔπαρχον, εὐεργέτην 
καὶ σωτῆρα καὶ πάτρ[ω- 
να τῆς πόλεως. 


C. Attius T. 7. Clarus praef. belongs to a Roman family, and was doubt- 
less a Roman officer who had had the opportunity of rendering some service 


1 Cod. Iust. i. 54, 3: Curator rei publicae qui 
Graeco vocabulo logisla nuncupatur, ᾿Ἐπιμελητὴς 
(τῆς wéAews) is the natural rendering of cwrator 
(ret publicae), and the adoption of λογιστὴς 
was probably due to the fact that ἐπιμελητὴς 
had almost become specialised in the sense of 
curator operis (as, for example, in 1. 10 of this 
inscr. ) 

2 He may have been a Trallian, brother of 


Claudianus Damas (his Latin name being pro- 
bably M. Ulpius Damas Claudianus) who left a 
large bequest to Tralleis to found games in the 
reign of Antoninus Pius: see Pappaconstan- 
tinos Τράλλεις, Nos. 80 and 81. The two 
brothers in that case were probably sons of 
a Trallian named Damas. Antoninus Pius sent a 
native of Aizanoi as curator to Aphrodisias 
(C.1.@. 8884, 2741). 


404 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. 


to Trapezopolis. He was perhaps praefectus fabrwm in attendance on a high 
Roman official and possessing influence with him, or supposed by the 
Trapezopolitans to possess it. 


THE RIVERS OF LAODICEIA. 


The identification of the site of Trapezopolis leads us on to the vexed 
question of the Laodiceian rivers. The discovery of the city renders 
untenable Prof. Ramsay’s earlier assignation of the river names (CB. 1. 
p- 35 f.) and proves that he was right in recurring to the evidence of Pliny 
(‘ Corrections, p. 785f.). I shall try to show that his later suggestion is 
the correct view. The first essential in any scientific discussion of this 
question is evidently to know the course of the various streams or to have a 
correct map to show it; the opinions of a critic cannot be of much value if he 
is in ignorance about the rivers on which the whole controversy turns. 
Kiepert’s large-scale map of Westliches Klein Asien is absolutely untrustworthy 
here: it shows several rivers which do not exist, and makes the important 
river Tchukur Su (called also Geuk Bunar Su) flow in an impossible direction. 
M. Radet’s map goes even further astray: he retains Kiepert’s mistake about 
Geuk Bunar and commits the additional error of making Bash Bunar Tchai 
(which he names Geuk Bunar) flow direct into the Lycos—which suits a 
theory, but not facts! Prof. Ramsay’s map gives Geuk Bunar Su rightly, and 
though it does not show Bash Bunar Tchai, he has a correct knowledge of its 
course (p. 785, n. 1). 

We must first indicate the course of the rivers which concern us here. 
(1) Gumush Tchai, which passes Laodiceia on the west side, is known by 
everyone, and it is therefore unnecessary to describe it. (2) Bash Bunar 
Tchai,” which flows by the ruins on the east side, has its source in a number 
of copious springs at Denizli. The water, however, is diverted for irrigation 
purposes, and very little of it is carried away by the stream. It is therefore 
a mere insignificant brook, with no claim to be called a river. In ancient 
times it was undoubtedly the same. We must suppose that there was always 
a settlement of some kind in the fine, well-watered plain of Denizli:? as 
Prof. Ramsay says of Eumeneia, ‘such a fine situation must have been 
occupied from time immemorial; the bountiful fountains would attract the 
peasantry of a primitive time’ (CB. ii. p. 354). After the foundation of 
Laodiceia, it was doubtless one of the villages in its territory. The Bash 
Bunar Tchai, then, was always the little brook it is today: and what water 
it brought down was almost certainly used up in the city. Be it noted that 


1 He himself says ‘La carte hydrographique (Pl. XII.) the stream ought to be represented 
de ce district reste ἃ faire. Toutes les cartes by a much lighter line. 
existantes fourmillent d’erreurs,’ (Rev. des Univ. 3M. Radet justly remarks (Rev. Univ. Midi 
du Midi, 1896, p. 22, n. 2). p. 22) that ‘le site de Dénizly, l’un des plus 
* It is sometimes called Bashli Tchai, but frais, des plus enchanteurs qui soient dans la 
Bash Bunar Tchai is clearly right, ‘the stream _péninsule, n’a certainement jamais (i.e. before 
that flows from the Head Source,” In the map 514 B,c.) été inoccupé.’ 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: T. 405 


it does not fall into the Lycos, but slinks away to join the Geuk Bunar Su: 
at its junction it is hardly visible,a few shrubs being sufficient to conceal it. 
(3) Geuk Bunar Su, which has generally been identified with the R. Kadmos 
(probably incorrectly, see infra), is a fine, rapid river, quite as important and 
conspicuous as the Lycos. It rises in the hills on the south of Tchukur Ova, 
flows in a deep gorge between Mt. Kadmos (Khonas Dagh) and Mt. Salbakos 
(Baba Dagh), past Geuk Bunar [Kara Gidl], the copious fountains which form 
a duden (κατάβοθρον) on the left bank of the river, and passing Ak Khan (the 
old Seljuk building on its left bank) falls into the Lycos above its junction 
with Gumush Tchai. In its upper reaches it is called Tchukur Su, in its 
middle course Geuk Bunar Su, and after passing through Baghirsak Dere, 
Emir Sultan Tchai. (See Pl. XII.) 

Now the Laodiceian rivers were the Lycos, Asopos and Kapros. There 
is a general agreement that the Asopos is to be identified with Gumush 
Tchai. Which is the Kapros? The Bash Bunar [Bashli] Tchai, say some 
critics, amongst whom is M. Radet (whose map represents the stream as 
flowing direct into the Lycos).1_ They point to the evidence of Pliny (v. 105, 
ce. 29), Inposita est (Laodiceia) Lyco flumini, latera adluentibus Asopo et Capro, 
and as the Bash Bunar Tchai flows by the line of fortifications, they regard 
the identification as obvious. But there is other evidence to deal with. 
Strabo (p. 578), speaking of Laodiceia,? says ἐνταῦθα δὲ καὶ ὁ Κάπρος καὶ ὁ 
Λύκος συμβάλλει τῷ Μαιάνδρῳ ποταμῷ, ποταμὸς εὐμεγέθης, ad’ οὗ καὶ ἡ 
πρὸς τῷ Λύκῳ Λαοδίκεια λέγεται. The correct meaning of this sentence has 
been suggested by Dr. Partsch (Berl. Phil. Woch., 1896, p. 466) in the words 
‘ Auch fiir Strabo bilden Kapros und Lykos zusammen nur einen Fuss,’ and 
explained by Prof. Ramsay (p. 785-6) ‘Kapros and Lycos, two streams, join 
the Maeander in a common channel, forming together a large stream, which 
is called Lycos and on which Laodiceia is situated ’—a meaning which would 
be very well expressed by the term Λυκόκαπρος, which occurs frequently in 
the account of the miracle performed by St. Michael at Khonas.? This 
evidently forms an insuperable objection to the identification of Kapros with 
Bash Bunar Tchai. M. Radet ‘readily regards the expression καὶ ὁ Κάπρος 
καὶ ὁ Λύκος as the equivalent pure and simple of the term Λυκόκαπρος᾽ but 
his reason is that the Kapros and Lycos ‘mingle their waters before 
Laodiceia.’ The reason is untrue, and the objection therefore remains in its 
full force. (2) Moreover, how can the advocates of this view explain the coin 
(described CB. p. 35) representing, in the usual way, the chief rivers of the 
city, ΚΑΠΡΟΣ and AYKO=? Why is it that the Kapros is always named 
alongside of the Lycos as the other chief river of Laodiceia (e.g. by this coin, 
Strabo, Cinnamus and the term Avxoxampos)? The tiny Bash Bunar Tchai 
is the most insignificant of the streams, and it is inconceivable that it should 
have been selected for such special prominence (instead of the Asopos, for 


1 Revue des Univ. du Midi, 1896, pp. 20-22 ; 3 Quoted by M. Radet, J.c.: see Bonnet, Narr. 
map in En Phrygie. de miraculoa Michaelo archangelo Chonis patrato 

2 Strabo’s authority is especially high here, (Paris, 1890). It belongs to the eighth or ninth 
where he was probably an eye-witness. century ( Church in R, E, ο. xix,), 


406 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. 


example). (3) On this view, what stream can be found for the ELEINOs ? 
The χῶρος ᾿Ελεινοκαπρία was probably so named because its territory lay 
between the Eleinos and Kapros (or because these rivers flowed through it’). 
Cp. CB. 1. p. 86. Where can it be placed ? 

I believe that Prof. Ramsay’s provisional suggestion (‘ Corrections’ pp. 
785-6), which assigns the name to the Geuk Bunar Su, is the correct view. 
It explains every one of the difficulties just stated. Pliny’s expression (/atera 
adluentibus) is by no means inconsistent with this view. If we take it in the 
most literal sense, it may be interpreted in the way Prof. Ramsay suggests, 
viz. that the suburbs of the city extended to the Geuk Bunar Tchai or near 
it (p. 785 n.). There is nothing improbable in this. On the contrary, there 
is every probability that Laodiceia extended well out beyond the walls 
towards the east. Remains can be traced nearly up to the Geuk Bunar 
water: perhaps these are only relics of the tombs lining the great road to the 
east, but it is not impossible that they represent buildings.” Laodiceia was 
originally a small town and its fortifications enclose only a small space ; but 
it grew great and rich under the Roman rule (Strabo p. 578), and must have 
extended far beyond the walls. Excavations may yet reveal that the Geuk 
Bunar Su actually washed the edge of Laodiceia. At the same time it must 
be pointed out that there is no necessity to take latera adluentibus in an 
absolutely literal sense. It is a vivid expression used quite commonly in 
modern writers to mean merely that a river is close to a city: and this is 
what Cinnamus actually says, ἔστι δέ τις ἄγχιστα Λύκου καὶ Κάπρου 
τῶν Φρυγίων ποταμῶν κειμένη πόλις ὄνομα Λαοδίκη (1. 2, p. 5 ed. Bonn, 
quoted by M. Radet). 

On this view it is easy to understand Strabo, the term Λυκόκαπρος, and 
the selection of the Kapros alongside of the Lycos as the two chief rivers of 
Laodiceia. Eleinokapria may be placed between Geuk Bunar Su and the 
stream which flows past Dere keui. The stone mentioning the Eleinokaprian 
canton, which now stands near the Kaive at Budjali, has probably not been 
carried. In Turkey, stones are ‘carried only when they are wanted for 
some purpose; but this stone stands by itself on open ground and may quite 
probably be in its original position. Prof. Ramsay, when encumbered by his 
original error about the Kapros, was forced to suppose that the stone had 
been carried: but he now welcomes the view that the stone is in its original 
position. In that case the stream at Dere keui is probably the Eleinos,3 and 
Budjali Kaive may very well be the exact representative of the ancient 
meeting-place of the χῶρος ’EXevvoxarpitov.* . 


But is not Geuk Bunar the R. Kapmos? It has been so identified, but 


1 As Waddington explains it (No. 1693a): 
wne des dewx rivieres qui traversaient le territoire 
de Laodicée 8᾽ appelait le Caprus, et le nom du 
village en est dérivé. 

2 This is reported to me by W.M.R. 

3 The stream called Kale Tchai is a mere 
torrent-bed, which never flows except during 


heavy rains. 

4 Waddington (on 1693a) identifies Eleino- 
kapria with Budjali, 1.6. the village (tchi/tlik), 
on the left bank of the Dere keui stream, in the 
corner between it and the Lycos. The Kaive 
stands close to the Railway, a very short dis- 
tance E. of the Station, 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. 407 


without evidence. The Kadmos is probably the river that comes down from 
Khonas, joining the Lycos at Colossae, after irrigating the gardens and vine- 
yards below the village. Hamilton calls it ‘a copious stream,’ ‘a considerable 
stream’: he names it Bunar Bashi Su and says its source is a copious spring 
at the foot of the mountain near Khonas (i. pp. 509, 513). One branch comes 
down from the village, but the-water is mostly used up there: this part at 
least is called Dere Tchai. Lower down we found it flowing with a copious 
stream, and on enquiry it was explained that the water came from a bwnar. 
I understood that the spring was in, or close to, the channel of the river and 
unfortunately did not return to examine it. But Hamilton’s account is 
probably correct. 

The Kadmos was identified with the Geuk Bunar, on the ground that 
‘Strabo describes a duden in the former, and there is a duden in the latter’ 
(CB. p. 785; see A. H. Smith in J.H.S. 1887, p. 224-5). But Strabo’s words 
refer to the Lycos, not to the Kadmos!: ὑπέρκειται δὲ τῆς πόλεως ὄρος 
Κάδμος [Khonas Dagh], ἐξ οὗ καὶ ὁ Λύκος ῥεῖ καὶ ἄλλος ὁμώνυμος τῷ ὄρει. 


3 
w 
ξς 
3 
“(ὦ 
3 
a 
be 


τὸ πλέον δ᾽ οὗτος ὑπὸ γῆς ῥυεὶς εἶτ᾽ ἀνακύψας συνέπεσεν εἰς ταὐτὸ τοῖς 
ἄλλοις ποταμοῖς, K.T.A. Οὗτος refers to the Lycos, which Mr. Smith admits 
to be a possible interpretation: the rule that ἐκεῖνος... οὗτος =ille...hic is 
not absolute even in the best writers. Moreover, Strabo’s description would 
not apply to the Geuk Bunar: the river does not disappear, the duden is a 
separate phenomenon on the left bank.?_ This is shown by the accompanying 
section. The water flows from the pond N in a shallow channel to form 
another pond M, which has no visible outlet.* 


1 This was pointed out to me by Prof. Ramsay 
himself after I had been making a fruitless 
search for another duden, being unable to accept 
the identification of Kapros with Bash Bunar 
Tchai, I had not a copy of Strabo with me. 

2 Hence it is not quite accurate to say that 
‘the disappearance actually takes place at Kara 
Gél as well as on the Lycus’ (J.H.S. l.c.). I 
did not hear the water from the duden ‘ flowing 


from the side of the deep gorge and falling down 
to the bed of the river’; I thought the noise 
was merely the roar of the river, but the fact 
may be as stated, for the water must issue 
somewhere. 

3 For this section I am indebted to the kind- 
ness of Mr. 8S. Watkins of the Ottoman 
Railway. 


408 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: 1. 


Prof. Ramsay takes our view of the duden in CZ. p. 210, placing it on 
the course of the Lycos, not of the Kadmos; and it is apparently a slip that 
leads him on pp. 36 and 786 to accept the other opinion that there was a 
duden on the Kadmos. 


I give here a few inscriptions of Laodiceia.! 

10. Karak-Ova. 
November, 1896. 

HAT ΠῚ 

ΛΝ BO¥ 


Marble base, now used as ἃ dibek tash: copied in 


ἡ ᾿Ατ[τ]αλὶς [φυ- 
λὴ τῶν βου- 


wy MB TON λευτῶν' 
ΠΡΟΝΌΟΜΣΑΜΕΝΟΥΤΗΣ προνο[η]σαμένου τῆς 
ANAL re τ τοαρνι ἀναστάσεως Λογγεί- 
NOY vou τρίς, 
ἐκ να nee Hild ΣΦῪ τοῦ μῶν a τῆς φυ- 
6, λῆ!ς. 


We have here the name of a new tribe. Ina Seleucid city the name 
Attalis represents a foundation subsequent to the extension of Pergamenian 
influence in 190 Bc. In CB. p. 34 ἢ Prof. Ramsay inferred from the 
occurrence of Thracian and Epirote names, such as Seitalkas and Molossos, 
at Laodiceia that ‘a settlement of Thracian mercenaries had been made 
in the Lycos valley to counterbalance the colonists of Laodiceia, who were 
attached to the Seleucid kings’; but he wrongly supposed that the Per- 
gamenian settlement was made only at Tripolis, and that some of these 
settlers migrated afterwards to Laodiceia. It is now clear that the Attalidae 
did not restrict themselves to the planting of new cities over against the old 
Seleucid colonies (such as Tripolis, Dionysopolis, Eumeneia &c., CB. pp. 
193, 199 f., 258, &c.), but actually introduced into the Seleucid foundations 
bodies of new citizens likely to be faithful to themselves. 

The inscription shows that the constitution of the Boule was exactly of 
the ordinary Greek type. It is earlier than CB. No. 7 (= Ath. Mitth., 1891, 
p. 146), where the Boule is still organized on the Greek system. πρυτάνεις 
and ἐξετασταὶ are mentioned in the early inscription published in Ath. Mitth. 
1895, p. 207 f., and also in Inser. in Brit. Mus. iii. No. 421 where, as Mr. Hicks 
points out, the Prytaneis change from time to time and enjoy σέτησις ἐν 


πρυτανείῳ in the regular way; while the judicial system is also of the 


1“In® CB. No, δ ΞΟ 8949), “the 
fragments of which I copied hurriedly, 
read Ait Μεγίστωι Σωτῆρι, and [Δομιτιαν] oo | 
(with Prof. Ramsay), which exactly fills the 
erasure: the next μεγίστῳ has no iota adscript. 
The inscription is engraved on architrave blocks 
below the triglyphs and above it there was a 
Latin inser. of which one fragment remains, 
DEDI CANT ESFEX (carved on the metopes) 1.6, 


dedicante Sex[to...... pro consule]. The 
stones, which have suffered somewhat since they 
were copied, now lie at the south-east extremity 
of the ruins beside the Bash Bunar Tchai. It 
is possible, therefore, that they belonged to the 
Syrian Gateway, but they cannot have been part 
of the Ephesian gate, as Prof. Ramsay supposes 
(from the inaccurate accounts given about them). 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: 1. 409 


ordinary Greek type. Increase of evidence tends to show that the constitution 
of Graeco-Phrygian cities like Laodiceia was closely after the usual Greek 
model. 


11. A metrical epitaph, which I was told about early in the summer, 
but could get no chance of copying tll late autumn, gives the only example 
we have of the use of Doric at Laodiceia. We should expect to find a 
mixture of Doric in cities where Macedonian colonists were settled: but 
it is unsafe to draw any such conclusion from an epigram of this kind. 
When this paper was almost finished, the third part of Ath. Mitth. (for 1897) 
appeared, and I find myself forestalled in the publication of this epigram 
(see p. 358, No. 8) and some other inscriptions, e.g. Nos. 1, 4 and 6 (which I 
copied in the autumn of 1896). I therefore omit these from this paper, 
giving only some necessary corrections. The ecpigram is rightly restored, 
except the last two lines. The epigraphic text of the last line is 


OYAAXIAAEYEAEQS TF!!'7919////ALOETIAOS, 


and I restore both 


"Addo μὲν ᾿Επέγονος μνᾶμα ζωιοῖς διασώζει, 
οὐδ᾽ ᾿Αχιλλεὺς δ᾽ ἔφυγεν μοῖραν ἁ]χλὶ Θέτιδος. 


The type used in Ath, Mitth. gives no idea of the lettering, which is 
not good. 

In No. 4 1. 2 I read SQSIHEAYTALI, tc. Τάρσος, ζῇ, ἑαυτῶι &e., 
(where M. Weber reads an unintelligible X1M); inl. 4 KAQAIQI as required, 
and in the last line IQSIN. 


12. No. 6 adds something to our knowledge of the Laodiceian festivals 
but we cannot be quite sure of the restorations. M. Weber has not noticed a 
fragment lying beside the block and fitting to line 8 (which indecd increases 
the difficulty of restoring line 9). The fragment reads 


8 | TH //// 
TiK1//// 
10 | MAYP//// 


There is only a slight space between | and AZAN, hardly room for more than 
one letter. I estimated that after line 6 there was a possible space for about 
8 letters. 

We may attempt a provisional restoration thus :— 


yl Deep tier se 
-rov Παπε[ιριανόν, πατέρα 
καὶ θεῖον κα[ὶ ἀδελφὸν συγ- 


1 Inl. 6(end)Iread ΟΣ TC///, 1. 8 NIE, appeared to be nothing inscribed below the 


1. 10 PODS, 1. 11 PEN//MATI///;. there middle of this last word. 


410 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA I. 


κλητικοῦ' Kai [ἀρχιερέα 
5 καὶ ἀγωνοθέτην [τῆς τρίτης ? 
πενταετηρίδος τ[ῶν μεγά- 
lov ἀγώνων Δίων κ[αὶ ᾿Ισολυμ- (or τῶν Ὀλυμ-) 
πίων ἱερῶν εἰσελα[στικῶν 
π͵]ᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην 
10 Μ. ‘Aip? 
θ]ρέμμα ἈΥΜΙ͂Νν ἀνέθ. 
ηκεν 1] 


L. 6. The Δεῖα Σεβαστὰ οἰκουμενικὰ is already known: we now see that it 
was a four-yearly festival. Another Laodiceian festival was the ᾿Αντιόχεια 
founded by Antiochus II. (261-246 B.c.) and celebrated every year (Znscr. 
Brit. Mus. iii. 421).2 Lines 7-9 seem to give an additional one called 
[Ολύμ]πια (or Ἴσολ-) ἱερὰ εἰσελαστικὰ οἰκουμενικὰ: in 1. 9 we want some- 
thing like the εἰσελ. εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην of C.I.G. 2932. Games called 
Ὀλύμπια Ἡράκλεια ᾿Αδράστηα are found at Attouda. On εἰσελαστικὰ 
see Hicks, Hphesos No. 607 and C.L.G. iii. 5804, where Franz says such 
games were called vulgo ἀγῶνες ἱεροί πενταετηρικοί. On οἰκουμενικὰ 


Hicks l.c. No. 505. 


13. I add an improved copy of an interesting fragment imperfectly 
given by Dr. Judeich in Ath. Mitth., 1890, p. 258, leaving it for the present 
without any attempt at restoration. It clearly refers to a vain contention 
περὶ πρωτίων between those ‘ brought up in the new faith’ and those of the 
old (ἡ ματ[α]ία φιλονικεί[α7), and gives an admonition (the nature of which 
is not clear) to put an end to it. The inser. is repeated in CB. no. 410. 


arm ME O@Y ME 
MMII (ACTINECEICINKAINH AO ZHTPE 
Wil! \T OY TOYE COL XP HNEPITT PW TTIW N 
Tae GAIKATAAYET WEAN THNAM@ICBHTH 
VON TOL HMAGAMIRDINON ΠΕ AMIN μὰ} 
Wire WON, EE NV SY HEC AY MH δ. αι 
i! IN Oy ol Oy, GICAIn POKATAPXETUDLAN δι 
IMJOPMMMENOYLLCEMNOTEPOYLTAPEAY TY 
IINOYCINTOYL MPOLAZIAN TIMHCEIMHZ 
W/E [PAINOIN TO vac 


ARE aR We Sipe 6G 2 AN oh Bs 


11 had restored μεγάλ]ων, and Ath. Mitth. 1895, p. 207, should be restored [ἐν τοῖς συν- 
shows an A where my copy has a vacant space. τελουμένοις κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ἀγῶσιν ἐν [τοῖς ᾿Αντιο 
* L. 16 of inscription published Ath. Mitth. χείοις. .1, by comparison with Br. Af. 421. 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. 411 


HIERAPOLIS AND ITS VILLAGES. 


14. The following important psephisma was found near Tchindere keui, a 
village high up on the plateau above Hierapolis, overhanging the Maeander 
eafion. It was said by one of the natives (who gave it as a tradition) to 
have come from a site SSW. from Geuzlar (Thiounta), where we saw some 
remains. The tradition is probably trustworthy.!. The slab is unfortunately 
broken at the top and two sides: it is much worn, and could not be read 
except by placing the stone athwart the sunlight. The restorations are 
intended to indicate what appears to be the general sense. 


AOY TOY ὃ ΝΕΩΤΈΡΟΥΜΙΕΙΟΣ AEKAT 

( IEPATIONE | TO.N THBOYAH ETT! ΤΩΝΑΡΧΑΡΈΣΙΩΙ, 

HWE NINE NET ANENTAIZKOMAIS ΠΟΙΕΙΣΘΛΙΕΠΊΔΙΡ 

5 (ONAYTOIZTIAP EXE INIMONON 2 YAAKAIAXY PAKAIMON 


ΛΈΝΧΘΕΝΤΑΤΙ ἘΠΟΙΗΚΕΝΑΙ ΠΡΟΣΤΕΙΜΟΥΟΝΟΜΆΤΙΕΗΙΣΑΙ 
ENAIAY ΤΟΝΟΣΑΑΝΕΛΈΝΧΘΗΕΙΛΗ ΤΦΩ 2 ΠΑΡΑΤΙΝΟΣΑΤΙ 
WE ΛΈΝΧΘΕΝΤΑΣ TIAPAPYARKA> MHAAMBANEINTAD ΠΆΡΑΤ 
10) RETR PSM apy \9.\KON TAD. Σ TEPANOY NTIAPA\ 
@APFYPI ONHTIZ AANKOMHROYAHOH 2 TEPANN ZAI ΠΑΡᾺ 
“TAMH@ENT EINE ZOAIEIAEM TONY TIENANT IQS ITOH? 
ἸΟΛΛΩΝΟΣΑΜΑΘΗΜΑΤΆΟΝΤΟΣ TOY TOY TOYYH9I MAT 
ETTEXONTOD 


~~ 


( 


λοι ον 
᾿Επὶ στρατηγοῦ Θεοφ 1]έλου τοῦ β΄ νεωτέρου, μ[η]νὸς δεκάτου... 
ἔδοξε τῶν Π]εραπολειτῶν τῇ βουλῇ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχα[ι]ρεσιῶν[ τοὺς παρα- 
φύλακας 
κατὰ vou ἴ]ον ἀπ᾽ ἑαυτῶν ἐν ταῖς κώμαις ποιεῖσθαι ἐπιδημίαν ὡς μὴ 
5 προσῆκ]ον αὐτοῖς παρέχειν ἢ μόνον ξύλα καὶ ἄχυρα καὶ μον[ήν, ἄλλο δὲ 
μηδὲν 
μηδενὶ ἄλλῳ ᾧ ἄν ποτε τρόπῳ' ἐὰν δέ τις παρὰ ταῦτα ποιήσῃ ἤ ἐϊπι- 
χειρήσῃ πλέον 
λαβεῖν, τὸν ἐϊλενχθέντα πεποιηκέναι προστείμου ὀνόματι εἰσ[άγειν... 
καὶ 
κατατιθ]έναι αὐτὸν ὅσα ἂν ἐλενχθῇ εἰληπφὼς παρά τινος ἀτίμως, πρὸς 
δὲ τού- 
1 Of the value of such statements, which are zwverldssig, a striking proof will be given under 
often dismissed (c.g. by Von Diest) as stets wn- MEROS, 


412 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. 


τοις τοὺς] ἐλενχθέντας παραφύλακας μὴ λαμβάνειν τὰς παρὰ Th[s κώμης 
τιμάς: ἐὰν δὲ 


10 Eup Bay TAS. nominee fe ἢ κωμάρχ[ας] ἄκοντας στεφανοῦν παραφ[ύλακα, 
ἀποδοῦναι 
αὐτὸν τὸ] ἀργύριον᾽ ἥ τις δ᾽ ἂν κώμη βουληθῇ στεφανῶσαι παρα[φύλακα, 
δεῖν 
\ A ae ' ee ERK , Ν e , ΄ 
πρὸς ταῦ]τα μηθὲν 1 τείνεσθαι" εἰ δὲ μή, τὸν ὑπεναντίως ποιήσαντα 
ἕξειν 


τὰ ᾿Απ]όλλωνος ἀναθήματα, ὄντος τούτου τοῦ ψηφίσματος κυρίου 
καὶ] ἐπέχοντος. 


Notes.—L. 2. There seems to be a gap between AOY and TOY, though 
the copy exaggerates it slightly : νεωτέρου is equivalent to τοῦ A’, ‘ Theophilos, 
son of Theophilos, i.e. Theophilos the younger” L. 4-5. ‘The para- 
phylakes must live at their own expense in the villages, since the villagers 
are not required to supply them with anything but merely wood etc.’ L. 10. 
The letters before HK QM are far from certain: the impression seems to show 
something like what is given. 

For ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρχαιρεσιῶν in 3 cp. ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαιρεσίαις (CLG. 2693 
c and d); and expressions like ἀρχαιρεσιακῆς ἐκκλησίας (J..S. 1895, p. 118). 
The title ἡγεμόνες which occurs at Melokome (CB, no. 64 = J.H.S. 1887, 
p. 399) is apparently not equivalent to κωμάρχαι. 


This inscription (which is one of the copies of the decree set up publicly 
in all the κῶμαι) throws some light on the relation of Hierapolis to its 
subject villages, a point which is discussed in CB. pp. 123-5. It is there 
argued from the failure of any allusions to self-government among the 
inscriptions of Mossyna and Thiounta,’ the two ancient κῶμαι near Geuzlar 
on the plateau behind Hierapolis, and from the fact that Hierapolis and 
Dionysopolis were probably conterminous, that these two villages, and doubt- 
less others (see p. 141), were subject to Hierapolis. The author proceeds to 
indicate the probable relations of the metropolis to the subject κῶμαι and 
remarks (p. 125) that a παραφύλαξ mentioned at Thiounta (inscr. 31) was 
most likely an official whose authority emanated from Hierapolis, rather than 
a mere Thiountene officer. Our inscription shows that Hierapolis appointed 
a set of παραφύλακες for its villages.2 These officials were undoubtedly 
‘heads of police’ charged with the maintenance of order in the territory of 
the ruling city. The police were styled παραφυλακῖται or φυλακῖται (the 
two names being probably equivalent), and they were perhaps a Pergamenian 
institution (CB. p. 258, Frankel, Inschr. Perg. 249). About the constitution 
of these police forces our knowledge is scanty: but they were employed in 


1 Cp. especially No. 29. each xwun. These παραφύλακες are also men- 
2 The expression in CB. p. 125, might suggest _ tioned in the mutilated decree found at Develer 
that a single paraphylax was appointed for the and published by Hogarth in J.H.S, 1887, 
whole Hierapolitan territory: that, however, p. 892 (no. 21). 
was not the case: there was probably one for 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGTIA: I. 413 


hunting down and keeping in custody brigands, Christians, and other 
disturbers of the peace. 

Officials of the subject villages must be carefully distinguished from 
officials of the ruling city or metropolis (here Hierapolis): this distinction is 
always clearly brought out in the Egyptian documents, which are our best 
authority for the relation of a metropolis to its κῶμαι. It is natural that the 
charge of order in the territory as a whole should be vested in officials 
appointed by the metropolis: and it is satisfactory to find documentary 
confirmation of Prof. Ramsay’s conjecture to that effect, a conjecture founded 
mainly on the consideration of natural suitability. 

The Paraphylakes were in a position of power, and could make illegal 
requisitions upon the villagers or extort honours from them against their 
will (Il. 5, 10). This decree enacts pains and penalties with a view to the 
prevention of such abuses: the Paraphylakes are required to live at their own 
expense, and the articles they are authorized to demand from the villagers 
are strictly defined. 

On the whole subject, see Prof. O. Hirschfeld in Berlin. Akad. Sitzungsber. 
1891, pp. 845—877, 1892, pp. 815—824, 1893, 421—441; Frankel, Jnschr. 
Perg. No. 249: CB. p. 68, 258 ff., 307 f. (where bodies of παραφυλακῖται are 
stationed in villages). 


CHRYSORHOAS 


In speaking of the Lycos valley, Strabo refers to τὸ πολύτρητον τῆς 
χώρας καὶ τὸ εὔσειστον: An interesting phenomenon, not mentioned by 
any traveller, is related by Prof. Ramsay about the stream Chrysorhoas, the 
most important of the rock-forming cascades which flow over the cliffs at 
Hierapolis. He says (p. 86, . 2),‘My friend Mr. Walker told me that its 
waters, after tumbling over the cliffs, flow for a short distance south through 
the plain until they reach a hole in the ground into which they disappear, 
etc. An investigation of this point showed that the statement was quite 
true, but a few years ago the phenomenon disappeared owing (as the natives 
also said) to the gradual choking up of the underground passage by incrusta- 
tion. The hole where it vanished can be seen and easily identified from the 
deposit formed at the sides. I was assured, however, that after its under- 
ground course it reappeared down in the plain near the village Kutchuk 
Shamli where it formed a marsh, at least in winter, when the water was not 
used to irrigate the fields. Now the stream flows above ground and is 
carried down in the same direction. 


1 Earthquakes still occur in the valley: a rather violent one took place during one of my 
visits to Laodiceia. 


H.S.—VOL, XVII. ae 


414 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I 


ANAVA—SANAOS. 


“Avava, the town passed by Xerxes on his way from Kelainai to Colossai 
beside the salt lake of the same name (Herod. vii. 30), has been identified by 
Prof. Ramsay with the later Sanaos1 (through the stricter form Sanavos) and 
placed at the village Sari-Kavak on the edge of the northern hills overlooking 
Adji Tuz Gidl, ‘ Bitter Salt Lake ’ (Amer. Jour. Arch., 1888, p. 275, CB. p. 230, 
218). M. Radet, disagreeing with this view, separates the two names, and 
leaving Anava at Sarikavak places Sanaos at Tchardak, on the western end 
of Lake Anava. The following inscription proves the correctness of the 
former view. It is engraved on a sarcophagus cut out of the rock in a 
necropolis between the middle and western quarters (mahalla) of the village: 
the stone is much weather-worn, and the first part is quite illegible. 


15. 


TY NBIOY MT OKA ΜΡ ΠΡ ΗΠ 7} ᾿ΗΤΠΉ Η Ή:;ΓΤΟΛΜΉ TAS ATIOA@ FEIMOIEPSTAT | 
TAMI@ATIK AZ XBOKT@ TANAHN@NAHM QI 2 ΤΕΙΜΑΣ TOY ZE 3: Mili CWAUN 
ATIKAZ’B$ Z @NTEZAEE TEAZZANEAYTOIZ TON @NIONOIKOM νας 


-“ A A \ 
[ot δεῖνες κατεσκεύασαν TO μνημεῖον ἑαυτοῖς καὶ 


ἑτέρῳ δὲ obder! ἐξέσται τεθῆναι. χωρὶς τῆς] 
- συνβίου al τοί) 0) καὶ [τῶν τέκνων (3) ἐπεὶ ὁ] τολμήσας ἀποδώσει [τ]ῷ 
ἱερωτάτῳ 
ταμείῳ Atixas% ,Bd' κὲ τῷ Σαναηνῶν δήμῳ ἐ ἐς τειμὰς τοῦ Σεβ. 
᾿Ατικὰς ,(βφ΄. ζῶντες δὲ ἐτέλέσαν ἑαυτοῖς τὸν ἐώνιον οἶκοῖν. 


In this and the following inscription the fine is to be paid in Attic 
drachmae? as at Apameia (CB. ii. No. 321, quoting also Thyatira); this 
suggests a connection with Apameia, and is a further indication that Sanaos 
was subject to that city (see CB. p. 280, ii. p. 428, etc.). 

On αἰώνιος οἶκος, see a paper in the forthcoming Annual of the British 
School at Athens for 1897. 


16. Ona similar sarcophagus near the former. 


τὸ ee τ id Oe GS Per (OT NEAY M&K AI ΤΗΓΥΝΒΙ 

᾿ς DIQIEINOYAENI AEE ZEMTAIETEPONTINA 

ponies, IETIEIOTOIONOR ITOAPHC AC ATTOAME EITTPOCT EIMOYEILTOIEP@TATON TAME! 
ΠΤ ἘΞ ACTTENTARICAIAIAC <3 


a eee eee 


1 Σαναός Strabo p. 576, Xdvaos Hierocles, Zavls reading due to the notches in the stone for ‘BS, 
Ptolem. v. 2, 26, Zuvads or Xwads Notitiae, as in next line, but probably it is used to denote 
? ᾿Ατικὰς )ξ seems curious : it is possibly a mis- δραχμάς. 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: T. 415 


[ὁ δεῖνα κατεσκεύασε τὸ 7 Clee ζῶν éav[td] καὶ τῇ συνβίϊῳ αὐτοῦ 
οὐδενὶ δὲ ἐξέσται ἕ ἕτερόν τίνα 
τὐδεθοΊαϊ, ὁ ἐπεὶ ὁ dase DG τι vin wifes ἀποδ[ώἼ]σει προστείμου els τὸ ἱερώ- 
τατον ταμεῖ- 
ον ᾿ΑἸτικὰς πεντακισχιλίας. 


Some other inscriptions of Sanaos will be given in Part II. 


BRIA. 


The city Bria was placed by Prof. Radet and Prof. Ramsay, independently 
of each other, at the modern village of Burgas.1. M. Radet judges from the 
order of Hierocles, the importance of the modern village, and from its name 
which ‘semble n’étre qu’une adaptation Turque de l’ancien.’ Prof. Ramsay 
goes further and shows in an admirable commentary on inscription 218 (see 
also p. 577) the etymological affinities of the word Bria and how the name 
Burgas arose from the form Berga: but he is careful again to add the qualifi- 
cation that though the name remains, the exact site may not be at the 
modern village; for no remains have been found there, and it is the exception, 
not the rule, to find modern villages exactly on ancient sites. Towards the 
end of the summer I passed through this district and found the old site about 
a mile and three-quarters north-west of Burgas on the left of the road to 
Tatar keui. It is situated in the open plain in the midst of acorn-producing 
(palamit) trees and is hardly visible, and certainly not noticeable, from the 
road. Such a defenceless situation was of the Pergamenian type (Hist. Geogr. 
Ῥ. 86), which looked to commercial rather than to military considerations. 
With this accords the Thracian name Bria, for it is known that Thracian 
colonists were often settled in Pergamenian foundations. We may therefore 
safely infer that the city was founded after 190 8.6. 

There is very little to be seen now on the site. The most conspicuous 
part of the ruins is what we may best describe by saying that it looks like an 
extensive square-shaped entrenchment, banked right round, the general 
surface being raised above the ground level to the height of several 
feet. About two yards or so from the outer edge a low narrow 
ridge runs round, evidently concealing the foundations of a wall, the 
blocks of which appear here and there in situ. This then was the fortified part 
of the city: and the natives have appropriately given it the name hendek, ice. 
‘dyke’ or ‘trench.’ The buildings, however, extended over a large extent of 
ground especially towards the south-west. Here several big rectangular 
blocks may still be seen on the surface and the villagers of Tatar keui have 
recently laid bare some foundations formed of fine blocks with some cemented 
work: at this spot were found the stones bearing the inscriptions given 


1 Radet, En Phrygie, p. 112; Ramsay, CB. i. p. 248-4. 
-FF2 


416 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. . 


below. At the inner base of the narrow ridge (where the fortifications seem 
to have been) they dug up a large Byzantine column with a late inscription 
on it together with some other inscriptions which they broke into fragments 
to put into the foundations of their new mosque.} 

The question arises, what has become of all the surface stones? Burgas 
seems to possess none, though some are almost certainly concealed in the walls 
of the mosques,? and Tatar keui is built of mud. They must have been carried 
to greater distances (perhaps to Sivasli and neighbouring villages). 

The following are the only inscriptions which we can certainly assign 
to Bria. 


17 In the unfinished mosque at Tatar keui: 


AILKAIZEBA Διὶ καὶ Σεβασ- 


TALKAIZ API τῷ Καίσαρι 
EY =ENOZAZKAH Εὔξενος ᾿Ασκλη- 
HbA ΔΟΥΧΘΙΕ ΕΣ: πιάδου ὁ ἱερεύς. 


Euxenos was priest in the Imperial cultus, the worship of the Emperor 
being associated, in the usual way, with that of the native deity Zeus. 


18. iid, In two fragments: in the epigraphic text they are placed 
together 


‘O βωμὸς]καὶ ἡ Kat’ av- 
τοῦ σορὸ]ς M. Αὐρ. © 
Διογέν ?]ous ᾿Αθη- 

νοδώρου ? Bou Ξ]ανοῦ,3 εὐ- 
δοξοτάτου β]ουλευτοῦ 
φυλῆς β' 1 π]άσας ἀρχὰς 
καὶ λειτουρ]γίας τῇ πα- 
τρίδι τελέσ]αντος ἐκ προ- 


γόνων, στε]φανηφόρου, 


1 It seems probable however that No. 19 declarations of the natives, who were kindly 
came from this spot. disposed) three previous expeditions found 
2 Continuous heavy rain prevented a proper _ nothing. 
examination of the village, but (apart from the 3 Perhaps a name like ’A@nvodwpiavod. 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA;: I. 417 


In 1, 1 the expression κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ is unusual! but we may compare an 
inscription of Laodiceia (Ath. Mitth., 1895, p. 209) where we have πλάτοι δύο, 
εἷς ἔνγαιος καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ ὑπέργειος. In 1. 8, the expression ἐκ προγόνων 
(like ἱερεὺς διὰ γένους, etc.) means merely that members of his family had 
often undertaken these offices: the ἀρχαὶ were by this time as much burdens 
(munera) as the λειτουργίαι. On στεφανηφόρος see CB. i. p. 56 ἢ 

The date is shown by the name M. Aur. to be the latter half of the 
second, or the first half of the third, century of our era. 


19, Jbid. A late Byzantine inscription on a rectangular block: the 
spelling is atrocious, but it shows the modern pronunciation. 


tELOHOGNAH( YKOAOMH C46 TONG OM 
K€AH AOTON KE ¥ FOXOPAdH N TOA ΚΙ, 
ANAAYCE TON AOPOMOY HN T Milil. 
THNEKAHCHANH( TH NHMEP A Nii 
HNQEXHTHNAH KHNM E TQT fill, 


APOMON Ἔ 
+éyo ᾿Ηοάνης (Ἰωάννης) ὑκοδομήσας τὸν (ν)αόν 
Ke Δηδοτον DATA TOUA LYSTHIATHA 
ἀνάλυσε τὸν λόγο(ν) μου Ava (1.¢. ἵνα) τ 
τὴν ἐκλησήαν ἧς τὴν ἡμέραν. . .. 
ἥνα ἔχῃ τὴν δήκην μετὰ τ[ὸν ἐπιχθόνιον 
δρόμον 


Owing to limitations of space and of time, I must conclude this paper 
by giving the more important of the results attained in the north-west of 


Phrygia. 


THE IMPERIAL ESTATE OF TEMBRION. 


20. At the village Yapuldjan, close to Altyn Tash and the site of Soa, I 
copied the following inscription, which gives important evidence, both topo- 
graphical and historical, regarding the large Imperial Estate on the Tembrogios 
(Tembris). 


2 An exact parallel occurs at Hierapolis (J. H.S. 1885, p. 346, No 75). 


418 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: 1. 


ATAQH 


1M?“ CARL MH: ὌΠ LULL OU SR il (IMU (Cre (WAU 
PEADIDYMUMNXY IU C ENERUAY PROCOM/ULE US PEBSRECTAFIDEEORUM QUAEY 
QUIDINIURIOfECERATURAD (O({ICITUDINEMSUAMREUO CA AIT ΧΑ 


win Sis 


----> 


AYTOKPATOPIK-CAPIM lOYAWN OIAITITINEYCEBEIEYTYX EICEBK 
5 |PIAITITINETIIPANECTATWKCAPIAEHLI CTIA PAAYPHAIOYELKAEY 
NOYTWNNAPATOYHNWNITAPOIKWNKITEWPLWNTWNY MET EPA 
Sheu ea eee NKATAPYTIANTOTTINNAIATOY 
CTPATIHTOY* TIANTWNENToICMAKAPINTATOICYMWN KAIPOILEYE EBEL 
TIOTATOIT WNITWTTOTE BACIAEWNHPEMON KAI FAAHNONTON BION AIA T# 
10 |NFPIACKAIACEIC MWNTTE AY MENKNMONO] EME | LAAAGT PIATINE 1% 
KAIPWNIACXONTECTINAE FNIK ET Egy ENT POLATOMENE XE 
HEWCENTOY ΤΟΙ ψ' *XWRONYMETEP ONZCMENIEPNTA WM 
MOLOAOK AHOLOIKATA$ EYPONTZCKTEINOMENOITHY METEPAC 
C EIOME@AAETIAPATOA ACTON KTIAPATI PALCOME @AYTIEKEIN WNG 
15 -| CIONOPAE WME EIOIPAPTY i XANONTELKMITETTAPACT PATE ! 
BOMENAAAGTPIATNYMTEPHNMAKAPINTATWN KAI PANN Y 
TOATITT ANWNKAIMATTAPAAIMTTANONTELTACAEW$ OPoYLy 
MINTAIK AYNACTAITWNITPOYXONTINK = ATHNTOA|N 
MET EPo! ETI El CEB<OMENOIK KATAAIMTITANONTELTACAE: 
20 |EPTHNMACA$ICTANTELK TOY CAPOT PAL BROAN 
AOMENAAYTOICTIAPATPACCOYCINKCYNAINEIO* 
OY TOYAAIKEIC@AIA] ACEIOMENOYE TTE PI W NATIA 
CEBACTEM PE OOCOMOTETHNETIAPXON AIE I TT EY 
NOLKOTIHCTIEPIT OY THNEKEINd ΘΗ LOYH 97) 
ENTETADMENA QUAE(IR MOCONPLEXIESTIY 
QUIDAAITOP ERAMNEDMATIUIS QUERELLYy 
ETT EIAHOYNOYAE NO} EAOMMINERTAYTH ΓΤ 14 
BHKENAEMMACKATATHNALPOIKIANTAMIO$E 1/7 
TTENMSAINOIZTENT INNKCY NTTATOY NT ANIMAL I 
30 “YTIOT AN KCAPIANNOYTATY XONTA AWMEIEL 
KECOAIKTAX HW PIAEPHMOYCAIKWANS 
CK OY TIAPAWIM ML. ONKKTOIKOYN ἢ 
AY NAMENAYIMIIT AY T VE 


OMAR MY YEO ἡ 


ς᾽ “Ὁ 


᾿Αγαθῇ Τύχῃ 
Imp. Caes. M. [Iul. PJhilfippus Pius Felix Aug.] et [M. Iul. Philippu]s 
nfo}bi{ljissimus Caes. M. Au[r....... Ap- 
peae ? Didymum M generum pro consule . . , perspecta fide eorum quae 
[seribit Eglectus .. . 
quia iniuriose geratur, ad sollicitudinem suam revoca(n)t. 


on 


2 


10 


15 


20 


25 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: T. 419 


Αὐτοκράτορι Κέσαρι M. ᾿Ιουλίῳ Φιλίππῳ Εὐσεβεῖ Εὐτυχεῖ Σεβ(αστῷ) 
κ[ὲ Μ. ᾿Ιουλέῳ 


Φιλίππῳ ἐπιφανεστάτῳ Κέσαρι δέησις παρὰ Αὐρηλίου ᾿Ἐγκλέκ- 
[Tov .... ta- 
n lal ’ fal , \ al A ξ΄ / / 
νοῦ τῶν Apayounvay παροίκων κὲ γεωργῶν τῶν ὑμετέρων, [δημοσίᾳ 
δαπ- 
ἄνῃ δήμου κοινο(ῦ) Μο(ξ)εανῶν  Σοηνῶν τῶν κατὰ Φρυγίαν τόπων, διὰ 
ΠΟ Fa, ΣΝ 
,, ΄ > - 4 ig a “ ᾽ / 
στρατιώτου. Ἰ]άντων ἐν τοῖς μακαριωτάτοις ὑμῶν καιροῖς, εὐσεβέσ[τατοι 
κὲ ἀλυ- 
’ lal / / »Μ \ \ ‘ , 
πότατοι τῶν πώποτε βασιλέων, ἤρεμον καὶ γαληνὸν τὸν βίον διαγ[ο- 
μένων, πο- 
, \ “Ὁ / / € “ , / a J 
vnpias κὲ διασεισμῶν πε[π]αυμένων, μόνοι ἡμεῖς ἀλλότρια τ[ῶ]ν ε[ὑ- 
τυχεστάτων 
καιρῶν πάσχοντες τήνδε τὴν ἱκετείαν ὑμεῖν προσάγομεν, ἐχέϊγγυοι 
ἐνθυμ- 


ἤσεως ἐν τούτοις: χωρίον ὑμέτερόν [ἐΐσμεν ἱερώτατον κέ, ὅταν ἢ σεισ- 

μὸς ὁλόκληρος, οἱ καταφεύγοντες κὲ γεινόμενοι τῆς ὑμετέρας [προστα- 
σίας" δια- 

σειόμεθα δὲ παρὰ τὸ ἄλογον κὲ παραπρασσόμεθα ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων ο[ὺς μὴ 
ἀδικεῖν τὸν πλη- 


σίον ὀφίλει' μεσόγειοι γὰρ τυνχάνοντες κὲ μ[ή]τε παρὰ yan) OL 
μηδενί, πάσ- 

χομεν ἀλλότρια τῶν ὑμετέρων μακαριωτάτων καιρῶν [ἐπεὶ οἱ ἐνοι- 
κοῦντες ' 

τὸ ᾿Αππιανῶν κλίμα παραλιμπάνοντες τὰς λεωφόρους ὁδοὺς γίνονται 
στρα- 

τ]ιῶται κὲ δυνάσται τῶν προὐχόντων κ[ατ]ὰ τὴν πόλιν [ἡμῶν, γείτονες 
δὲ ἡ- 

μέτεροι ἐπεισε[ρ]χόμενοι KE καταλιμπάνοντες τὰς λε[ωφόρους.. κὲ τῶν 

ἔργων ἡμᾶς ἀφίσταντες κὲ τοὺς ἀροτῆρας βοᾶν [πειρώμενοιϊ τὰ μὴ 
ὀφει- 

λόμενα αὐτοῖς παραπράσσουσιν κὲ συνβαίνει οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ τοι- 

ovtov ἀδικεῖσθαι δι(α)σειομένους περὶ ὧν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πρόσταξιν 
ἐποιήσω, : 

Σεβαστὲ Μέγεθος, ὁπότε τὴν ἔπαρχον διεῖπε[ς ἐξουσίαν ΤΟΝ 

vos κὲ ὅπως περὶ τούτων ἐκεινήθη σοῦ ἡ θεία κέλευσις ἐν ταῖς Sénrots 

ἐντεταγμένη: Quae li[b]e[r]o (or li[b]e[ll]o ?) conplexi esti[s . . . 


-quid, agit operam ne d{iuJti(n)is querell[is ...... 
᾿Ἐπειδὴ οὖν οὐδὲν ὄφελος ἡμεῖν ἐκ ταύτης τῆς ταραχῆς γείνεται, 
συνβέ- 
βηκεν δὲ ἡμᾶς κατὰ τὴν ἀγροικίαν τὰ μὴ ὀφει[λόμενα παραπράσσεσ- 
θαι, ἐ- 


1 Better (Τ)οτεανῶν, see infra. 


420 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. 


πενβαινόϊν]των τινῶν Ke συνπατούντων ἡμᾶς [παρὰ τὸ δίκαιον (or 
ἄλογον), ἐπειδὴ 
30 07 ὑπὸ τῶν Κεσαριανῶν οὐ τὰ τυχόντα δι[ασ]είεσ[θαι δεῖ οὐδὲ πάσ- 
χεσθαι 
Wego: ἐμ -κεσθαι κὲ τὰ χώρια ἐρημοῦσί(θ)αι KE... 
ye he feast! ς κὲ ov παρὰ τ[ῶν ἔν]δον κατοικούντων... 


Notes.—The centre of the stone (as I estimated it) is shown by the 
dotted line at top and foot. This makes a possible space for eleven or twelve 
letters after 1.1. L. 2, the second letter may be F; before GENERUM the 
stone seemed to show two letters (possibly L1), not U (but perhaps merely bad 
engraving for U). L. 5, mapa seems to denote that Enclektos drew up the 
document for the commune: perhaps he was the headman (magister, προάγων, 
κωμάρχης in J.H.S., 1887 p. 498). If so, διὰ would denote the person who 
presented the appeal. L.7, Μοτεανῶν may possibly be a variant form, but the 
T seemed different from the other letters T, and it is perhaps a miscut (like 
ὀφ'λει in 15, AIC. in 22, and probably others). 1.10 /in., read probably TWN 
asin 16. Τ, 15,can otpard[pyns] mean ‘a governor with a force at his dis- 
posal’ (like στρατηγὸς ὕπατος for procos.)? L. 18 init., we want a word for 
‘marauders’: perhaps στρατιῶται may bear such a meaning (‘they have 
become foragers’: cp. στρατιωτικῶς ‘ brutally’). L. 23, διεῖπες from διέπω 
‘directed the proconsulship of the province’ or simply ἔπαρχον διεῖπες ‘ were 
arranging the affairs of the prov. L. 24, émws=‘when. L 26, the stone 
has TIUIS, which is clearly another miscut for TINIS or TIUS. The inscrip- 
tion was carelessly engraved. 

Later consideration makes it seem more probable that in AAOTEANWN 
(1. 7) it is the A, not the T, that is miscut. The lapidary cut KOINOMA 
for KOINOYT. We thus get the form Τοτεανῶν, 1.6. the people of Tottoia,! 
the ancient name of the village Besh Karish Eyuk, about five miles S. of 
Altyn Tash (see J.H.S. 1887 p. 513). This is exactly what is wanted. The 
suggestion is due to Prof. Ramsay. 


The date is 244-246 A.D.: in the latter year the younger Philip assumed 
the title Augustus. 

The sense of the Latin heading is not clear. Perhaps the reply was sent 
through Didymus M—gener, the proconsul, who would forward it to the 
procurator. LI. 2-3, ‘having examined the truth of what Enclektos writes 
. . . because (Appia ?) conducts itself (geratur=se gerat) wrongfully,” they ? 
take the matter under their care.’ 

In the Greek part, though the restorations are often uncertain, the 
general sense is fairly clear. The coloni on the estate (χωρίον) appeal to the 
Emperor as their lord to put a stop to the violent conduct (twmultwosum vel 
iniuriosum adversus colonos Caesaris, Dig. i. 19) of the inhabitants of the Appian 
district who have ceased to confine themselves to the high roads and have 


? The name occurs with one T or with two indifferently (cp. Hist. Geog. p. 240 &c.). 
* Iniuriose is the technical term (Dig. i. 19), 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA; I. 421 


taken to marauding on the estate, making themselves masters of Soa, inter- 
rupting agricultural work and blackmailing the coloni, in defiance of the 
Emperor's edict issued at the time of the appointment of the provincial 
governor and inserted in the archives of the town (7), ete. After the appeal 
there was added, no doubt, the imperial reply. The whole correspondence 
was set up publicly at the expense of the coloni under the superintendence of 
the ‘headman’ (as in the African analogies C.J.LZ. viii. 10570, Comptes Rendus 
de Vv Académie des Inscr. 1897, p. 146 ff.). 

Important topographical questions are decided by this inscription. The 
estate referred to is that called in later times Tembrion or Tembre, because 
the river Tembrogios or Tembris (Porsuk Su) flowed through it. The exist- 
ence of an estate was detected here and the name Tembrion assigned to it in 
Hist. Geogr. p. 177-8 (see also CB. ii. p. 615). This view has now received 
complete confirmation. Our inscription makes it clear that the people of 
Soa (near Altyn Tash) and part at least of the Moxeanoi! were coloni on the 
domain. From this we should infer that the estate extended south to the 
borders of the territory of Alia (Islam keui)—a conclusion already reached by 
Prof. Ramsay (CB. p. 615, No. 527) from an inscription found at Gumulu, a 
village between Alia and Siokharax (Otourak), by MM. Legrand and Chamonard 
(B.C_H. 1893 p. 272). The northern limit is given by a boundary stone 
(6.1.1. Suppl. 7004), standing on a low ridge running out from the western 
hills and narrowing the plain opposite the villages Haidarlar and Nuh-éren: 
this stone probably marked off the estate from the territories of Apia and 
Aizanoi (cp. Hist. Geogr. p. 178), which perhaps met here. The estate there- 
fore included the whole valley of the upper Porsuk Su. Now, just as in other 
cases (6.9. Augustopolis), there must have been a bishopric for this vast 
stretch of country, and we are therefore compelled to agree with the view 
expressed in Hist. Geogr. p. 146, which assigns to this district the name 
Εὐδοκίας given by Hierocles between Appia and Aizanoi. Soa was perhaps 
the ecclesiastical centre. The name ’Apayounvoi is new. 

The historical importance of the inscription lies in the fact that it 
supplies a fresh piece of evidence as to the status of the coloni on an Imperial 
estate in the third century. Previous to the fourth century, the colont whom 
we meet in literature and in law are free tenants, occupying holdings under a 
lease (= conductores); in the fourth century, the status of the colonus as 
defined by public law is altogether altered: he is still free, but his tenure is 
permanent and hereditary, he is ‘bound to the soil.’ This change has been 
traced by Prof. Pelham, in his clear and incisive style, to the influence of the 
regulations prevailing in the Imperial domains since Hadrian’s time: these 


1 This agrees with the situation assigned to 
the Moxeanoi in CB. ii. p. 631 f.—a situation 
indeed already confirmed by epigraphic evidence 
(No. 615). I should now, however, prefer to 
say ‘the people of Soa and of Tottoia’; but 
the suggestion was received too late to be incor- 
porated in the text. The change does not, 


H.S.—VOL. XVII. 


however, affect what is said about the boundaries 
of the estate. 

21 heard that Gumulu and Hassan keui are 
villages near the Devrent (on the eastern side) 
between Otourak and Islam keui: but I have 
not seen them. ι 


GG 


422 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. 


were recognised to be advantageous and were merely stereotyped by the 
legislation of the fourth century.1. We know that the Imperial estates were 
reorganised by Hadrian?: and the status of the coloni under this reorganisa- 
tion (at least in Africa and on the Milyadic estates) was essentially that 
prescribed by the law of the fourth century (Pelham /.c. pp. 11-17%). Further, 
Prof. Pelham has shown that, although ‘we know nothing of the regulations 
by which the Caesars finally bound their own coloni to the soil, economic and 
political reasons (as well as the attractions offered to the colon?) all operated 
in this direction. This view is confirmed by our inscription, which gives 
similar evidence for the estate of Tembrion in 244-246 a.p. The coloni are 
clearly bound to the soil: they describe themselves as Caesar’s husbandmen, 
some of them at least having been planted on the estate by their Imperial 
lords (πάροικοι  κὲ γεωργοὶ οἱ ὑμέτεροι, ἀροτῆρες, ἄγροικοι, Keoapsavoé), to 
whom they ‘flee for refuge, placing themselves under his protection’ when 
there is a general upheaval of law and order (1. 18). Compare the 
expressions used by the dwellers on the Saltus Burunitanus in Africa sixty 
years earlier (180-183 A.D.), homines rustici tenues manum nostrarum operis 
victum tolerantes, or rustici tut vernulae et alumni saltum tuorum (CLL. viii., 
10570, col. ii., 20 and 28). 

No mention is made of the conductores: that is natural, for the complaint 
is against blackmailing by outsiders. But what has become of the procurator 
whose duty it was to protect the ‘men of Caesar’ (1. 30)? He may have 
been mentioned, for the inscription is incomplete; but perhaps the force 
of παραφυλακῖται at his command was insufficient to cope with the 
marauders. 

MEROS. 


In Hist. Geogr. p. 144 (quoting J.H.S. 1887, p. 498, No. Ixvi.) Meros® 
was placed at Kumbet, where there are considerable remains, especially on 
the acropolis.© The evidence consisted only of the order in Hierocles, and the 
fact that it was the boundary between the Opsikian and Anatolic Themes. 
The identification was generally accepted by critics, including Prof. Kiepert 
and M. Radet. During an expedition to the country of the Praipenisseis in 
the beginning of September, I passed the village of Elmaly in the hilly 
country north-north-east from Altyn Tash (at or near which was the site of 
Soa), and copied there the following inscription. 


1 The Imperial Domains and the Colonate,  Rendus del’ Acad. des Inscr. 1897 p. 146 ff. 


London, 1890. 3 The organisation of Milyadic Estates is also 
3 Proved for Africa by inscriptions, especially described CB. i. p. 281 ff. 

C.I.L. viii. 10570 (discussed by Mommsen, 4 πάροικοι, sojourners, resident foreigners, as 

Hermes xv. 1880, p. 385 ff.) and for the Mily- in C.1.G. 1625, 45; 1631 ; 2906, &c. 

adic or Killanian Estates in Asia Minor by 5 Mijpos in Hierocles and the Notitt., Mnpds 


Ramsay (CB. i. p. 284). The lex Hadriana in Not. Basilii and Not. Leonis (ed. Gelzer) and 
undoubtedly applied to all the other estates. Const. Porphyr. de Thematibus i. pp. 14 and 25. 
Prof. Pelham points out (p. 18) that the idea 6 Κι. the Lion Tomb and Palace described 
of the new system originated with Vespasian by Prof, Ramsay in his Study of Phryg. Art 
and Trajan, and this is confirmed by the (J.H.S. 1889, p. 176 ff.). 

African inscription recently published in Comptes 


A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: I. 423 


ATAOFRITY XE 
KOPNHAIANCA 
AQNEINAN 
CEBACTHN 
FHMEIPFINGN 
ΚΑ O 1K IA 


᾿Αγαθῇ Τύχη. 
Κορνηλίαν Σα- 


λωνεῖναν 


Σεβαστὴν 
ἡ Μειρηνῶν 


κατοικία. 


The inscription was evidently carried, along with a few other stones 
(including a richly ornamented sarcophagus now used as a fountain trough), 
and after copying it, I asked the circle of onlookers whence it came. The 
answer was: ‘It has been here a long time but we have heard from our 
fathers that it was brought from Malatia, while this other stone [an inscribed 
Byzantine column] came from Kara Agatch Oren.’ At the moment I did 
not recognise Meros as the town named in our inscription and as I had 
already heard that there were ruins at this place Malatia, I was eager to 
know what surprise was in store there. When we reached the spot, it was 
soon seen to be an ancient site. It lies between Doghan Arslan and Gerriz, 
half an hour from the latter, and in recent years a colony from Gerriz has 
built a village beside the old town. The ruins, which run out ftom the base 
of an oval-shaped hill, the acropolis no doubt of the old city, are mostly 
characterless ; but we were told that formerly there were many marbles there, 
most of which have been carried off by natives of the district to Kutaya 
(Kotiaion) 1\—twenty-five, they said, were taken away by mosque-builders 
from that city six or seven years ago—while the German Railway (which 
passes through the narrow plain) had destroyed great numbers ‘ written and — 
unwritten’: we ourselves saw the proof of their vandal depredations in the 
heaps of marble chips lying beside the foundations of a large building. In 
default of evidence, I determined to assign the name ἡ Μειρηνῶν κατοικία to 
this site: but, fortunately, our search resulted in the discovery of the fol- 
lowing inscription, which puts the identification with Meros? beyond doubt 
and proves the trustworthiness of the statement of the villagers of Elmaly.* 

22. Ona rectangular block standing amongst the ruins: inscription 
much worn, but decipherable with certainty in favourable sunlight. 


1 At Kara Agatch Oren (sPoRE), north-east 
of Altyn Tash, we were likewise told that many 
stones had been taken thence to Kutaya. 

2 The form Miros occurs in 536 A.D. (Labbe, 
viii. p. 974). 

3 I do not mean that all Turkish statements 

re true, but the traveller can distinguish. If 


e.g. one is visiting a frequented district, and 
were to ask whether a well-known inscription, 
in the possession of a villager, had been copied 
before, your friend (in expectation of bakshish) 
would of course answer ‘No.’ But when there 
is no motive for deception, there is less reason 
to disbelieve. 


424 A SUMMER IN PHRYGIA: 1. 


— eee 


! 


in en ] 
ATAOH TY KH ᾿Αγαθῇ Τύχῃ. 


d OTHE ho 4Oi  Ὁ NI Dr. “Orr:pov τὸν 
AIlACKMHTEMON Υ, διασημ(ότατον) ἡγεμόνα 
HMEIPENGONTTIOA ly ἡ Μειρηνῶν πόλις 
TON EYEPFET HN τὸν εὐεργέτην 
KAICGOT FIPATFICETTAP καὶ σωτῆρ[ α] τῆς ἐπαρ- 
OP oe χίου. 


ALIN KV WMV. & NTT E PI 


ΕἸ. Optimus is called perfectissimus pracses provinciae, and the inscription 
therefore probably dates after the reorganisation of Diocletian (it might, 
however, be shortly before Dioclet., cp. Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 11. p. 230,.n. 2). 
ἡ ἐπάρχειος occurs B.C.H. vii. p. 17, No. 3; so C.I.G. 6627 where ἐπαρχείου 
is wrongly taken as neuter. 

Meros here calls itself πόλιες, and in the former inscription (dating shortly 
after the middle of III. Cent. after Christ) κατοικία. What sense does the latter 
term bear here? We cannot think of a military colony settled by the Greek 
kings. That is, no doubt, the most common meaning of κατοικία: but the 
term is also used to denote a settlement of the citizens of any given city living 
in an outlying part ofits territory and managing their own internal affairs.1_ _In 
the Imperial times it comes to mean merely a village (κώμη). This is probably 
the sense it bears here. Meros was most likely a village of the Praipenisseis, 
which was raised to the rank of a bishopric (before the time of Hierocles, ca. 
530 A.D.) in accordance with the usual Byzantine policy. It may possibly have 
been a κατοικία subject to Kotiaion (or even Prymnessos)*: but this is less prob- 
able. Even in the tenth century it is called ἃ κωμόπολις by Constant. Porphyr. 

The situation now assigned to Meros is about thirteen miles nearly due 
west of Kumbet. The question remains, what was the ancient name of this 
village? A village Pontanos (or —a) is proved for this neighbourhood in 
Hist. Geogr. p. 435, but it seems too unimportant to represent Kumbet. 
Unfortunately my visit there preceded the discovery of Meros, and as I 
accepted the generally received identification, and was at the time more 
specially interested in the Phrygian monuments, I did not make a careful 
search in the village. Two inscriptions of Kumbet relating to Epinikos, a 
native of the town who rose to high office in the Imperial service, and is 
known from literary sources, have just been published, by Prof. Mommsen 
from Prof. Ramsay’s copies in Hermes, 1897, p. 660 ff. Another inscription 
is published by Prof. Ramsay in J.H.S. 1887 p. 498. 

J. G. C. ANDERSON. 


1 See, forexample, CB. p.583and Nos. 498,499. 3 Not of Nakoleia, whose territory could 
? As M.Radet says, Rev. Univ. Midi, 1896, p.6. hardly extend to the west side of the mountains. 


RULES 


OF THE 


Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. 


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


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


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


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


2. The Society shall consist of a President, Vice-Presidents, a Council, 
a Treasurer, one or more Secretaries, and Ordinary Members. All officers 
of 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. 
b 


x 


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. All cheques shall 
be signed by the Treasurer and countersigned by the Secretary. 


6. In the absence of the Treasurer the Council may direct that 
cheques may be signed by two members of Council and countersigned 
by the 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. 


g. 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. 


το. 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 


χὶ 


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. 


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 summoned to the Annual 
Meeting by notice issued at least one month before it is held. 


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


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


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


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 candidates 
so proposed: no such election to be valid unless the candidate receives 


the votes of the majority qf those present. 
62 


XI 


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 
compounded for by a payment of £15 15s., entitling compounders to be 
Members of the Society for life, without further payment. All Members 


elected on or after January 1, 1894, shall pay on election an entrance fec 
of one guinea. 


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 thereot 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 I ; 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 the 
Members present shall concur in a resolution for the expulsion of such 
Member of the Society, the President shall submit the same for con- 
firmation at a General Meeting of the Society specially summoned for 
this purpose, and if the decision of the Council be confirmed by a 
majority at the General Meeting, notice shall be given to that effect to 


the Member in question, who shall thereupon cease to be a Member of 
the Society. 


30. The Council shall have power to nominate British or Foreign 


Honorary Members. The number of British Honorary Members shall 
not exceed ten. 


31. Ladies shall be eligible as Ordinary Members of the Society, and 


when elected shall be entitled to the same privileges as other Ordinary 
Members. 


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


xiii 


RULES FOR THE USE OF THE LIBRARY 


AT 22, ALBEMARLE STREET. 


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 and Assistant-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, Assistant 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, except on Christmas Day, Good Friday, and on Bank 
Holidays, the Library be accessible to Members on all week days from 
eleven A.M. to six P.M. (Saturdays, 11 A.M. to 2 P.M.), when either the 
Assistant-Librarian, or in her absence some responsible person, shall be in 
attendance. Until further notice, however, the Library shall be closed for 
the vacation from July 20 to August 31 (inclusive). 


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. 
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 may reclaim it. 


“xiv 


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

(6) All books are due for return to the Library before the summer 
vacation. 


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 transmission. 
(4) New books within one month of their coming into the 
Library. 
X. That new books may be borrowed for one week only, if they have 
been more than one month and less than three months in the Library. 


XI. 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 week after application 
has been made by the Librarian for its return, and if a book is lost the 
borrower be bound to replace it. 


The Library Committee. 
PROF. PERCY GARDNER. 
Miss JANE HARRISON, LL.D. 
ΜΕ. WALTER LEAF, Litt.D. 
MR. GEORGE MACMILLAN (fon. Sec.). 
Mr. ERNEST MYERS. 
REv. W. G. RUTHERFORD, LL.D. 
Mrs. 5: ARTHUR STRONG, LL.D. 
Mr. ARTHUR HAMILTON SMITH. (Hon. Librarian). 
Sir E. MAUNDE THOMPSON, K.C.B., D.C.L. 
Mr. TALFOURD ELY. 


Assistant Librarian, MISS FANNY JOHNSON, to whom, at 22, Albemarle 
Street, applications for books may be addressed. 


SESSION 1897—1898. 

General Meetings will be held in the Rooms of the Royal Asiatic 
Society, 22, Albemarle Street, London, W., for the reading of Papers and 
for Discussion, at 5 P.M. on the following days :— 

1897. 
Thursday, November 4th. 
18098. 
Thursday, February 17th. 
Thursday, April 2151. 
Thursday, June 23rd (Annual). 
The Council will meet at 4.30 p.m. on each of the above days. 


THE SOCIETY FOR.THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES 
OFFICERS AND COUNCIL FOR 1897—1808, 


President. 
PROFESSOR ΚΕ. C. JEBB, Litt.D., D.C.L., LL.D., M.P. 


Vice-Presidents. 


PROF. 5. H. BUTCHER, Lirtt.D., LL.D. 

PROF. INGRAM BYWATER. 

REV. PROF. LEWIS CAMPBELL. 

MR. SIDNEY COLVIN. 

PROF. PERCY GARDNER, Lirtt.D. 

MR. D. B. MONRO, Provost of Oriel College, Oxford. 
MR. A. S. MURRAY, LL.D. 


PROF. H. F. PELHAM, President of Trinity College, 
Oxford. 


MR. F.C. PENROSE, F.R.S. 
PROF. W. M. RAMSAY, D.C.L. 
MR, J. E. SANDYS, Lirtt.D. 
REV. PROF. A. H. SAYCE, LL.D. 


SIR E. MAUNDE THOMPSON, K.C.B., D.C.L. 
REV. H. F. TOZER. 
PROF. ΚΟΥ. TYRRELL, Litt.D., D.C.L. 


Council. 


PROF. W. Ο. F. ANDERSON. 
REV. A. G. BATHER. 

MR. H. G. DAKYNS. 

MR. LOUIS DYER. 

MR. TALFOURD ELY. 

MR. ARTHUR J. EVANS. 

LADY EVANS. 

PROF. ERNEST A. GARDNER. 
MR. B. P. GRENFELL. 

MISS JANE HARRISON, LL.D. 
‘MR. J. W. HEADLAM. 

MR. G, F. HILL. 

MR. D. G. HOGARTH. 
SIRHENRYH. HOWORTH, K.C.I.E., M.P., F.R.S. 
MR. H.STUART JONES. 

MR. F. G. KENYON. 

MR. WALTER LEAF, Lirtt.D. 


MR. WILLIAM LORING. 

REV. PROF. JOSEPH MAYOR. 
MR. J. A. R. MUNRO. 

PROF. G. G. A. MURRAY. 
MR. ERNEST MYERS. 

MR. J. L. MYRES. 

MR. R. A. NEIL. 

MISS EMILY PENROSE. 

MR. G. H. RENDALL, Lirtt.D. 
PROF. WILLIAM RIDGEWAY. 
MR. R. W. SCHULTZ. 

MR. CECIL SMITH, LL.D. 
MR.A. HAMILTON SMITH. 
MRS, 5. ARTHUR STRONG, LL.D. 
MR. H. B. WALTERS. 

REV. W. WAYTE. 


Hon. Treasurer. 
MR. DOUGLAS W. FRESHFIELD. 


Hon. Secretary. 
MR. GEORGE A. MACMILLAN, ST. MARTIN'S STREET, W.C. 


Assistant Secretary. 
MR. W. RISELEY. 


Hon. Librarian. 
MR. ARTHUR H. SMITH. 


Assistant Librarian. 
MISS FANNY JOHNSON. 


Acting Editorial Committee. 


PROF, ERNEST GARDNER. | 


MR. WALTER LEAF. | 


MR. A. H. SMITH. 


Consultative Editorial Committee. 
PROFESSOR JEBB | PROFESSOR BYWATER | SIRE. MAUNDE THOMPSON | MR. SIDNEYCOLVIN 
and Mr. D. G. HOGARTH (ex officio), as Director of the British School at Athens. 


Auditors for 1897-98. 


MR. ARTHUR J. BUTLER. 


MR. STEPHEN SPRING-RICE, C.B. 


Bankers. 
MESSRS. ROBARTS, LUBBOCK & CO., 15, LOMBARD STREET. 


CAMBRIDGE BRANCH 


OF 


THE SOCIETY, FOR*#P?HE, PROMOTION 
OF HELEERNIG:ST UDIES: 


OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE FOR 1897-1898. 


Chairman. 
PROV, ΓΕΒ birt. 5 ΟΣ lls... ΜΕΡ: 


Vice-Chairman. 
Mr. J. E. SANDys, LitT.D. 


Committee. 


Mr. J. G. FRAZER. | Mr. E. ἘΣ SIKEs. 

Pror. ERNEST A. GARDNER. Mr. ARTHUR TILLEY. 

Mr. Henry JAckson, LitT.D. | Mr. A. W. VERRALL, {τὺ} Ὁ). 
Mr. M. R. James, LitT.D. | Mr. C. WALDSTEIN, LiTT.D. 


Pror. W. RIDGEWAY. 


Hon. Secretarp. 


Mr. ARTHUR BARNARD COOK, TRINITY COLLEGE. 


XVll 


HONORARY MEMBERS. 


HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE HELLENES, 4 M. le Secretaire du Koi des 
Hellenes, Athens, Greece. 

Sir Alfred Biliotti, K.C.B., 4.8... Consul for Crete. 

Prof. D. Comparetti, /stituto di Studii Superior, Fiorence. 

M. Alexander Contostavlos, Athens 

Mr. George Dennis c/o Lloyds Bank, Limited, 16, S¢ James's Street, S.W. 

Prof. Wilhelm Dorpfeld, Ph.D., Director of the German Archeological Institute, Athens. 

Monsieur P. Foucart, 13, Rue de Tournon, Paris, 

Prof. Furtwangler, 

Monsieur J. Gennadius, 21, Hyde Park Place, W. 

His Excellency Hamdy Bey, Keeper of the Museum of Antiquities, Constantinople. 

Prof. W. Helbig, Villa Lante, Rome. 

Monsieur Homolle, Director of the French School, Athens. 

Monsieur P. Kavvadias, Ephor-General of Antiquities, Athens, Greece. 

Prof. A. Kirchhoff, The University, Berlin. 

Prof. U. Kohler, Zhe University, Berlin. 

Prof. 5. A. Kumanudes, 7he University, Athens. 

Mr. Charles Merlin, 19, Ladbroke Grove, VW’. 

Prof. A. Michaelis, Uuzversity, Strassburg. 

Prof. E. Petersen, /mstituto Archeologico Germanico, Monte Tarpeo, Rome. 


LIST OF MEMBERS. 


* Original Members. Ὑ Life Members. 
The other Members have been elected by the Council since the Inaugural Meeting. 


Abbott, Evelyn, Balliol College, Oxford. 
*Abercromby, Lord, 14, Grosvenor Street, W. 
+ Abercrombie, Dr. John, 23, Upper Wimpole Street, W. 
Abram, Edward, 1, Middle Temple Lane, E.C. 
*Acland, Sir H. W., Bart., K.C.B., M.D., F.R.S., Broad Street, Oxford. 
Adam, James, Emmanuel Colleye, Cambridge. 
Adams, Miss Mary G., 43, Campden Hill Square, Kensington, W. 
Agnew, Philip L., 11, Devonshire Terrace, Hyde Park, W. 
Ainger, A.C., Eton College, Windsor. 
Ainger, Rev. Canon, Master's House, The Temple, E.C. 
+Ainslie, R. St. John, Zhe School, Sedbergh. 
Alford, Rev. B. H., St. Luke's Vicarage, Nutford Place, W. 
Alford, ΚΕ. G., Queen Anne’s Mansions, S.W. 
Allbutt, Professor T. Clifford, M.D., F.R.S., Chaucer Road, Cambridge. 
Amherst, Lord, Didlington Hall, Brandon, Suffolk. 
Anderson, J. C. G., 166, Union Street, Aberdeen. 
Anderson, J. R., Latrbeck, Keswick. 
Anderson, Prof. W. C. F.(Council), Férth College, Sheffield. 
Anderton, Basil, Public Library, Newcastle-on- Tyne. 
*Antrobus, Rev. Frederick, 71 Oratory, S.W. 
Apostolides, S., 24, Montpelier Road, Brighton. 
Archer-Hind, R. D., Trinity College, Cambridge. 
tArkwright, W., ddbury House, Newbury. 
Awdry, Herbert, Wellington College, Berks. 
Bagley, Mrs. John, Washington Avenue, Detroit, Michigan. 
Bailey, J. C., 118, Ashley Gardens, S.W. 
Baker, F. B., The College, Great Malvern. 
Baker, H. T., Mew College, Oxford. 
Baker, Rev. William, D.D., Merchant Taylors’ School, E.C. 
*Balfour, Right Hon. A. J., M.P., 4, Carlton Gardens, S.W. 
*Balfour, Right Hon. G. W., M.P., 24, Addison Road, W. 


xvill 


Ball, Sidney, St. John’s College, Oxford. 
Barclay, James W., M.P., 5, Clarendon Place, Hyde Park Gardens, W. 
+Barlow, Miss Annie E. F., Greenthorne, Edgworth, Bolton. 
Barlow, Mrs., 10, Wimpole Street, W. 
Barnewall, Sir Reginald A., Bart., 23, Cliveden Place, Eaton Square, S.W. 
Barnsley, Sidney H., Pembury, near Cirencester. 
Barran, J. N., Weetwood, Leeds. 
Bather, Rev. Arthur George (Council), 8, Kingsgate Street, Winchester. 
Bayfield, Rev. M. A., Eastbourne College, Eastbourne. 
Beare, Prof.-J. Isaac, 9, Trinity College, Dublin. 
+ Beaumont, Somerset, Shere, near Guildford. 
Beebee, M. J. L., New Travellers Club, 97, Piccadilly, W. 
ft Benn, Alfred W.,70, Via Cavour, Florence. 
Bennett, 5. A., Audley House, Richmond, Surrey. 
Benson, E. F., King’s College, Cambridge. 
Bent, Mrs. Theodore, 13, Great Cumberland Place, W. 
Bevan, E. R., 14, Beaumont Street, Oxford. 
Bickford-Smith, R. A. H., 45, North Bailey, Darlington. 
ft Bikelas, Demetrius, 50, Rue de Varenne, Paris. 
Blomfield, Sir A. W., A.R.A., 6, Montagu Place, Montagu Square, W.C. 
Blomfield, Mrs. Massie, Port House, Alexandria, Egypt. 
Blore, Rev. Dr., St. Stephen’s, Canterbury. 
Blumenfeld, Ralph Drew, 64, Cheyne Court, Chelsea, S. W. 
Bodington, Prof. N., Principal of the Yorkshire College, Leeds. 
Bond, Sir Edward, K.C.B., LL.D., 64, Princes Square, Bayswater, W. 
Bond, Edward, M.P., Elm Bank, Hampstead, N.W. 
Bosanquet, Rev. F. C. T., The Hermitage, Uplyme, Devon. 
Bosanquet, R. Carr, Rock Hall, Alnwick, Northumberland. 
Bosdari, Count Allessandro di, 20, Grosvenor Square, W. 
Bougatsos, Christos Ch., Alexandria, Egyft. 
Bousfield, William, 20, Hyde Park Gate, S.W. 
Boyd, Rev. Henry, D.D., Principal of Hertford College, Oxford. 
Boys, Rev. H. A., North Cadbury Rectory, Bath. 
Bramley, Rev. H. R., The Precentory, Lincoln. 
Bramwell, Miss, 73, Chester Square, S.W. 
Branteghem, A. van, 28, Rue des Buisson, Bruxelles. 
Brinton, Hubert, Eton College, Windsor. 
Broadbent, H., Eton College, Windsor. 
*Brodie, E. H., H.M.I.S., Grasendale, Malvern. 
Brooke, Rev. A. E., King’s College, Cambridge. 
Brooke, Rev. Stopford A., 1 Manchester Square, W. 
Brooks, E. W., 28, Great Ormond Street, W.C. 
Brooksbank, Mrs., Leigh Place, Godstone. 
Brown, Horace T., F.R.S., 52, Mevern Square, South Kensington, S.W. 
Brown, Prof. G. Baldwin, The University, Edinburgh. 
*Browning, Oscar, King’s College, Cambridge. 
*Bryce, The Right Hon. James, D.C.L., M.P., 54, Portland Place, W. 
Buller, Lady Audrey, 29, Bruton Street, W. 
Bulwer, Sir Henry, K.C.B., 11, South Street, Park Lane, W. 
Burnet, Prof. J., 1, Alexandra Place, St. Andrews, N.B. 
Burton, Sir F. W., 43, Argyll Road, Kensington, W. 
Bury, Prof. J. B., Tvinzty College, Dublin. 
Burge, Hubert M. University College, Oxford. 
Burgh, W. de, University Extension College, Reading. 
Burrows, Prof. Ronald, University College, Cardiff. 
Butcher, Prof. 5. H., Litt.D., LL.D. (V.P.), The University, Edinburgh. 
f Bute, The Marquis of, K.T., St. John’s Lodge, Regent's Park, N.W. 
Butler, Arthur J., Wood End, Weybridge. 
*Butler, The Rev. H. M., D.D., Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Buxton, F. W., 42, Grosvenor Gardens, S.W. 
Buxton, Mrs. Alfred W., 32, Great Cumberland Place, W. 
Bywater, Prof. Ingram (V.P.), 93, Onslow Square, S.W. 


xix 


+Bywater, Mrs., 93, Onslow Square, S.W. 
Calvert, Rev. Thomas, 121, Hopton Road, Streatham, S.W. 


tCalvocoressi, L. M., Messrs. Ralli Bros., Mellor’s Buildings, Exchange Street East, 
Liverpool. 


Cameron, Dr. James, Registrar of the University, Capetown. 
Campbell, Rev. Prof. Lewis (V.P.), 35, Kensington Court Mansions, W. 
Campbell, Mrs. Lewis, 35, Kensington Court Mansions, W. 
Capes, Rev. W. W., Bramshott, Liphook, Hants, 
Carapdnos, Constantin, Député, Athens. 
Carey, Miss, 13, Colosseum Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W. 
*Carlisle, A. D., Hatleybury College, Hertford. 
Carlisle, Miss Helen, Houndhill, Marchington, Stafford. 
+Carr, Rev. A., St. Sebastian’s Vicarage, Wokingham. 
+ Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson, Castlecraig, Dolphinton, N.B. 
Carter, Prof. Frank, McGill University, Montreal. 
Carthew, Miss, 15a Palace Gardens, W. 
Cartwright, T. B. 
Case, Miss Janet, 5 Windmill Hill, Hampstead, S,W. 
Cates, Arthur, 12, York Terrace, Regent’s Park, N.W. 
Cave, Lawrence T., 13, Lowndes Square, S.W. 
Chambers, C. Gore, Hertford House, De Parry’s Avenue, Bedford. 
Chambers, Charles D., The Steps, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire. 
Chance, Frederick, 51, Prince’s Gate, S.W. 
Chavasse, A. S., Kempsey, Worcestershire. 
+ Chawner, G., King’s College, Cambridge. 
+Chawner, W., Master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. 
Cheetham, J. C. M., Zyford Park, Bourton-on-the- Water, R.S.O., Gloucestershire. 
Cheetham, J. Frederick, Eastwood, Staleybridge. 
*Christie, R. C., Ribsden, Bagshot, Surrey. 
Christian, J. Henry, 18, Devonshire Place, Portland Place, W. 
Christian, Rev. G., Redgate, Uppingham. 
Churchill, E. L., Eton College, Windsor. 
Clark, Charles R.R., c/o EZ. P. Warren, Esg., 18, Cowley Street, Westminster, S.W. 
+Clark-Maxwell, Rev. W. Gilchrist, Clundury Vicarage, Aston-on-Clem, Salop. 
Clarke, Joseph Thacher, 3, College Road, Harrow, N.W. 
+Clauson, A. C., 12, Park Place Villas, Paddington, W. 
Clarke, Somers, 22, Whitehall Court, SW 
Clay, C. F., 38, Great Ormond Street, W.C. 
Clerke, Miss Agnes, 68, Redcliffe Square, S.W. 
Cobbold, Felix T., Zhe Lodge, Felixstowe, Suffolk. 
*Cobham, C. Delaval, H.2.M. Commissioner, Larnaca, Cyprus. 
Colby, Rev. Dr., 12, Hillsborough Terrace, Ilfracombe. 
Cole, A. C., 64, Portland Place, W. 
Colfox, William, Westmead, Bridport. 
Colvin, Sidney (V.P.), British Museum, W.C. 
Collins, Miss F. H., 3, Bramham Gardens, South Kensington, S.W. 
Collins, J. Churton, 51, Worfolk Square, W. 
Colvill, Miss Helen H., Overdale, Shortlands, Kent. 
Compton, Rev. W. C., The College, Dover. 
Connul, B. M., Zhe Yorkshire College, Leeds. 
*Constantinides, Prof. M., Coundouriotes Street, Munychia, Petraeus, Athens. 
Conybeare, F. C., 13, Norham Gardens, Oxford. 
Conway, Sir W. M., The Red House, 21, Hornton Street, W. 
Cook, Arthur Barnard, Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Cookson, C., Magdalen College, Oxford. 
Cookson, Sir C. A., C.B., H.B.M. Consul, Alexandria. 
Cordery, J. G., C.S.1., 63, Goldington Road, Bedford. 
Corbet, His Honour Eustace K., Matrve Court of Appeal, Cairo, 
Corgialegno, M., 21, Pembridge Gardens, W. 
Courtney, W. L., 53, Belsize Park, N.W. 
Courtenay, Miss, 34, Brompton Square, S.W, 


XX 


Cowper, The Right Hon. Earl, K.G., Panshanger, Hertford. 
Craik, George Lillie, 2, West Halkin Street, S.W. 
Crawley, C., 3, Regent Street, S.W. 
Crewdson, Wilson, 7he Barons, Reigate. 
Crooke, W., Westleigh, Arterberry Road, Wimbledon, S.W. 
tCrossman, C. S., The College, Winchester. 
Crowfoot, J. W.,, Bzshop’s Hostel, Lincoln. 
Cruikshank, Rev. A. H., The College, Winchester. 
Cust, H. J. C., Ellesmere, Salop. 
Cust, Lionel, 9, Bryanston Square, W. 
Cust, Miss Anna Maria, 63, E/m Park Gardens, Fulham Roaa, S.W. 
Cust, Miss Beatrice, 13, Eccleston Square, S.W. 
Dabis, Miss, Holloway College, Egham, Surrey. 
Dakyns, H. G. (Council), Higher Coombe, ypewenie Surrey. 
Danson, J. T., F.S.A., Grasmere, R.S.O. 
David, W., 8, Hyde Pane Terrace, W. 
David, Hew. W. H., Kelly College, Tavistock. 
Davidson, H. O. D., Harrow, N.W. 
t Davies, G. A., Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Davies, Rev. Gerald S., Charterhouse, Godalming. 
Deibel, Dr., care of Messrs. Asher, Beriin. 
Delamarre, Jules, 4, /passe Royer-Collard, Paris. , 
De Saumarez, Lord, Shrubland Park, Coddenham, Suffolk. 
Dickson Miss Isabel A., Dumnichen House, Forfar. 
Dill, Prof. S., Montpelier, Malone Road, Belfast. 
Dobson, Miss, 77, Harcourt Terrace, Redcliffe Square, S.W. 
Donaldson, James, LL.D., Principal of The University, St. Andrews, 
Donaldson, Rev. S. A., Eton College, Windsor. 
Dragoumis, M. Etienne, Athens, Greece. 
Draper, W. H., 52, Doughty Street, W.C. 
Drisler, Prof. Henry, 48, West 46th Street, New York City, U.S.A. 
Drummond, Allan, 7, Eanismore Gardens, S. VW. 
Duchataux, M. V., 12, Rue de l’Echauderie, ἃ Reims. 
Duckworth, H. T. F., Merton College, Oxford. 
Duhn, Prof. von, University, Heidelberg. 
Duke, Roger, 8, Neville Terrace, Onslow Gardens, S.W. 
fDunham, Miss, 37, Hast Thirty-Sixth Street, New York. 
Dunlap, Miss Mabel Gordon, 425, 721 Street, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. 
Durham, The Right Rev. The Lord Bishop of, Auckland Castle, Bishop Auckland. 
Dyer, Louis (Council), Sunbury Lodge, Banbury Road, Oxford. 
Earl, Mrs. A. G., Ferox Hall, Tonbridge. 
Earp, F. R., King’s College, Cambridge. 
Edwards, G. M., Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge. 
Egerton, Mrs. Hugh, 11, 7216 Street, Chelsea, S.W. 
tEgerton, Sir Edwin H., K.C.B., H.B.M. Minister, British Legation, Athens, Greece. 
Egerton, Miss M., Whitwich Hali, York. 
Eld, Rev. F. J., Polstead Rectory, Colchester. 
TEllis, Prof. Robinson, 7vinity College, Oxford. 
Elwell, Levi H., Amherst College, Amherst, Mass. 
Ely, Talfourd (Council), 73, Parliament Hill Road, Hampstead, N.W. 
Emens, Edgar A., Syracuse University, New York. 
Erichsen, Miss Nelly, Woodlands, Elmbourne Road, Upper Tooting, S.W. 
Eumorfopoulo, A.,1, Kensington Park Gardens, W. 
Evans, A. J. (Council), Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. 
Evans, Sir John, K.C.B., D.C.L., F.R.S., Mash Mills, Hemel Hembstead. 
t Evans, Lady (Council), Mash Mills, Hemel Hempstead. 
Eve, H. W., 37, Gordon Square, W.C. 
Ewart, Miss Mary A., 68, Albert Hall Mansions, S.W. 
Fanshawe, Reginald, 37, Pembroke Road, Clifton. 
Farnell, L. R., Exeter College, Oxford. 
Farrar, Rev. Canon A. S., Durham. 


XX 


Farrow, Frederic R., 2, Mew Court, Carey Street, W.C. 

Farside, William, 7horpe Hall, Robin Hood's Bay, Yorkshire. 

*Fearon, Rev. W. A., D.D., The College, Winchester. 

Fenning, W. D., Hazleybury College, Hertford. 

Field, Rev. T., Radley College, Abingdon. 

Firminger, W. K., Merton College, Oxford 
Fisher, H. A. L., New College, Oxford. 

Fisher, Miss Edith S., 21, Chapel Street, Belgrave Square, S.W. 

{ Fitzmaurice, Lady Edmond, 2, Green Street, Grosvenor Square, W. 
Fitz-Patrick, Di T., 30, Sussex Gardens, Hyde Park, W. 
Flather, J. H., 52 Bateman Street, Cambridge. 

Flower, Wickham, O/d Swan House, Chelsea Embankment, S.W. 

tForbes, ΝΥ. H., Balliol College, Oxford. 

Ford, His Excellency the Right Hon. Sir Francis Clare, G.C.B.,G.C.M.G., H.B.M. 
Ambassador, British Embassy, Rome. 

Forster, Miss Frances, 46, E/m Park Road, S.W. 

Fowler, Harold N., Ph.D., Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. 

*Fowler, Rev. Professor, President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. 
Fowler, W. Warde, Lincoln College, Oxford. 

Franklin, T. M., St. Hilary, Cowbridge, S. Wales. 

Frazer, J. G., Trinity College, Cambridge. 

Freeman, C. E., Parkhouse, Southborough, Tunbridge Wells. 

Freeman, W. George, Lee Street, Plumstead. 

*Freshfield, Douglas W. (Hon. Treasurer), 1, Azv/ie Gardens,Campden Hill, W. 
tFreshfield, Edwin, LL.D., 5, Bank Bailes: Ee. 

Freston, Henry W., PAPER. Prestwich, Lancashire. 

Bry. ἢ.» ΕΑ ΗΝ Leigh Wood, Clifton. 

Fry, Right Hon. Sir Edward, Fazland House, Failand, near Bristol. 

Fullerton, W. Morton, Rue Vignon,Paris. 

+Furley, J. S., 10, College Street, Winchester. 

Furneaux, L. R., Rossall School, Fleetwood. 
Furneaux, Rev. W. M., Refton Hall, Burton-on-Trent. 

tGardner, Prof. Ernest A. (Council), Radnor Cottage, Sandgate. 

*+Gardner, Prof. Percy, Litt.D. (V.P.), 12, Canterbury Road, Oxford. 
Gardner, Miss Alice, 7216 Old Hall, Newnham College, Cambridge. 
Gardner, Samuel, Oakhurst, Harrow-on-the-Hill. 

Gardner, W. Amory, Groton, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 

Garnett, Mrs. Terrell, 3, Queen Anne's Gate, S.W. 

Geddes, Sir W. D., Principal of the University, Aberdeen. 

Geikie, Sir Archibald, F.R.S., 10, Chester Terrace, Regents Park, N.W. 
Gibbs, F. W., Q.C., C.B., 38, Cornwall Gardens, South Kensington, S.W. 
Gibson, Mrs. Margaret D., Castle-brae, Chesterton Road Cambridge. 

Giles, P., Emmanuel College, Cambridge. 

Gilkes, A. H., The College, Dulwich, S.E. 

Gilliat, Rev. E., Harrow, N.W. 

Glazebrook, Rev. M. G., Clifton College, Bristol. 

Godden, Miss Gertrude M., Ridgfeld, Wimbledon. 

Gonino, Miss G., 90, Warwick Street, Warwick Square, S.W. 

Goodhart, A. M., Eton College, Windsor. 

Goodrich, Prof. F. S., Albion College, Albion, Michigan, U.S.A. 

Goodwin, Prof. W. W., D.C.L., Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A, 
Gow, James, Litt.D., High School, Nottingham. 
Gower, Lord Ronald, 27, 7rebovir Road, Earl’s Court, S.W. 
Granger, F. S., Untversity College, Nottingham. 
Graves, A. S., Felsted School, Essex. 

Gray, Rev. H. B., Bradfield College, Berks. 
Green, Mrs. J. R., 14, Kensington Square, W. 
Grenfell, B. P. (Council), Queen’s College, Oxford. 
Greenwell, Rev. Canon, F.R.S., Durham. 

Griffith, G., Harrow, N.W. 

Griffith,Miss Mary E., 4, Bramham Gardens, S.W. 

Grundy, George Beardoe, 27, St. Maryaret’s Road, Oxford. 


XXll 


Gurney, Miss Amelia, 69, Eanismore Gardens, S.W. 
Hadow, W. H., Worcester College, Oxford. 
Haigh, A. E., 2, Crick Road, Oxford. 
Hales, Rev. C. T., Aysgarth School, Newton-le-Willows, R.S.O. Yorks. 
Hall-Dare, Francis, 10, Bury Street, St. James’s, S.W. 
Hall, Rev. F.H., Oriel College, Oxford. 
Hall, Miss S. E., 37, York Street Chambers, Bryanston Square W. 
Hall, Harry Reginald, 13, Chalcot Gardens, N.W. 
Hall, Rev. F. J., Morthaw Place, Potter’s Rar, Herts. 
Hall, F, W., Westminster School, Dean’s Yard, Westminster, S.W. 
Hallam, G. H., Zhe Park, Harrow, N.W. 
t Hammond, B. E., Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Hardie, Prof. W. Ross, Zhe University, Edinburgh. 
Hardinge, Miss. 
Hardwich, J. M., 55, South Street, Durham. 
Harrison, Miss F. Bayford, Suffolk House, Weybridge. 
Lh σας Miss J. E., LL.D. (Council), 37, Barkston Gardens, Earl's Court, 


Harrower, Prof. John, The University, Aberdeen. 
Hartshorne, B. F., 41, E/m Park Gardens, Chelsea, S.W. 
Haslam, S., The School, Uppingham. 
Haussoullier, Β., 8, Rue Sainte-Cécile, Paris. 

+ Haverfield, F. J., Christ Church, Oxford. 
Hawes, Miss E. P., 89, Oxford Terrace, W. 

tHay, C. A., 127, Harley Street, W. 
Hay, A. T., The College, Brighton. 

tHaynes, Miss Lucy, 7, Thornton Hill, Wimbledon. 
Hayter, Angelo G. K., 74, Adelaide Road, N.W. 
Headlam, Rev. A. C., Welwyn Vicarage, Herts. 
Headlam, C. E. S., Trinity Hall, Cambridge. 
Headlam, J. W. (Council), 6, E/don Road, Kensington, W. 
Headlam, W. G., King’s College, Cambridge. 
Heard, Rev. W. A., Fettes College, Edinburgh. 

tHeathcote, W. E., Round Coppice, Ivor Heath, Uxbridge. 
Heberden, C. B., Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford. 
Hedgcock, Mrs. Harrison, 21, Caversham Road, N.W. 
Hereford, The Lord Bishop of, The Palace, Hereford. 
Herschell, The Right Hon. Lord, 46, Grosvenor Gardens, S.W. 
Heyer, G., The College, Weymouth. 
Hicks, Rev. E. L., 21, Leaf Sguare, Pendleton, Manchester. 
Higgins, Alfred, 16, King Street, Portman Square, W. 
Hill, George F. (Council), British Museum, W.C. 

Hill, Arthur, British Vice-Consul, Athens, Greece. 
Hobhouse, Rev. Walter, Zhe School House, Durham. 
Hodgson, F. C., Education Department, Whitehall, S.W. 

Tt Hodgson, J. Stewart, 1, Audley Square, W. 
Hogarth, David G. (Council), British Archeological School, Athens. 
Holiday, Henry, Oak Tree House, Branch Hill, Hampstead, N.W. 
Holland, Miss Emily, 27, Homefield Road, Wimbledon. 
Hopgood, Harold B., 17, Whitehall Place, S.W. 
Hopkinson, J. H., University College, Oxford. 
Hoppin, J. C., c/o 7. 5. Morgan & Co., 22, Old Broad Street, E.C. 
Housley, Samuel J., Gynsdal, Waterloo Road, Epsom. 
Hornby, Rev. J. J., D.D., Provost of Eton College, Windsor. 

t+ Hort, Arthur F., Adoyne, Harrow. 
Howorth, Sir,Henry H., K.C.1.E., M.P. (Council), 30, Collingham Place, S.W. 
Huddart, Rev. G. A. W., Kirkiington Rectory, Bedale, Yorks 
Hiigel, Baron Friedrich von, 4, Holford Road, Hampstead, N.W. 
Hughes, Rev. W. Hawker, Jesus College, Oxford. 
Hughes, Miss C., 22, Albemarle Street, W. 
Hulse, Miss Caroline Μ, 


XX1l 


Humphreys, Robert Henry, Royal Societies Club, 63, St. James Street, S. W. 
Hunt, A. S., Queen’s College, Oxford. 
Hutton, Miss Ὁ. A., 18, Cheyne Court, Chelsea, S. W. 
Huyshe, Wentworth, ‘ Dazly Graphic’ Office, Milford Lane, Strand, W.C. 
Image, Selwyn, 6, Southampton Street, Bloomsbury, W.C. 
lonides, Alex. A., 1, Holland Park, |W. 
Ionides, Luke A., 47, Marloes Road, Kensington, W. 
Jackson, Henry, Litt.D., Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Jackson, Miss Rose, Longdene, Haslemere. 
Jackson, Rev. Blomfield, 29. Mecklenburgh Square, W.C. 
Jackson, Rev. W. W., Rector of Exeter College, Oxford. 
James, A. C., Eton College, Windsor. 
*James, The Rev. H.A., D.D., School House, Rugby. 
James, Lionel, St. Peter's College, Radley, Abingdon. 
James, M. R., Litt.D., Aznug’s College, Cambridge. 
James, Rev. S. R., The College, Malvern. 
Jannaris, A. N., Ph.D., The University, St. Andrews, N.B. 
Jeans, Rev. G. E., Shorwell, Newport, Isle of Wight. 


*Jebb, Prof. R. C., D.C.L., LL.D., Litt.D., M.P. (President), Springheld, Newnham, 
Cambridge. 


Jenkin, Miss M. L., Carfax, King Charles’ Road, Surbiton. 
Jenkinson, F.J.H., Zrinzty College, Cambridge. 
Jenner, Miss Lucy A., 39, Adadtson Road, Kensington, W. 
Jevons, F. B., The Castle, Durham. 
Jex-Blake, Miss, Girton College, Cambridge. 
Jobling, G. C., 5, Park Villas, Cheltenham. 
Jones, H. Stuart (Council), 7rznzty College, Oxford. 
Karo, George, 19, Ptazza del Carmine, Firenza, Italy. 
Keep, R. P., Ph.D., Free Academy, Norwich, Conn., U.S.A. 
Keene, Prof. Charles H., 11, Dyke Parade, Cork. 
Kelly, Charles Arthur, 30, Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, S.W. 
Keltie, J. S., Glendevon House, Compayne Gardens, Hampstead, N.W. 
Kennedy, Rev. John, Grammar School, Aldenham, Elstree, Herts. 
Kenyon, F. G. (Council), Brztish Museum, W.C. 
Ker, Prof. W. P., 95, Gower Street, W.C. 
Kerr, Prof. Alexander, M/adison, Wisconsin, U.S.A. 
Keser, Dr. J., 11, Harley Street, Cavendish Square, W. 
Kieffer, Prof. John B., 232, Lancaster Avenue, Lancaster, Pa., U.S.A. 
King, J. E., Grammar School, Manchester. 
King, Rev. J. R., St. Peter’s Vicarage, Oxford. 
King, Mrs. Wilson, 19, Highfield Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham. 
Kirwan, Miss Evelyn, 1, Richmond Gardens, Bournemouth. 
Knowles, James, Queen Anne’s Lodge, St. James Park, S.W. 
Krohn, H. A., 103, Cannon Street, E.C. 
Lambros, Spiridion, Athens, 
Lang, Andrew, LL.D., 1, Marloes Rd., Kensington, W. 
*Lang, Sir R. Hamilton, K.C.M.G., The Ottoman Bank, Constantinople. 
Lathbury, Miss, 19, Lingfield Road, Wimbledon, S.W. 
Lautour, Miss de, 85, Harcourt Terrace, Redcliffe Square, S.W. 
Lawford, Frederick le Breton, 65, Fitzjohns Avenue, Hampstead, N.W. 
Lawrence, Sir Edwin, Bart., M.P., 13, Carlton House Terrace, S.W. 
Leaf, Mrs. C. J., Beechwood, Tunbridge Wells. 
Leaf, Herbert, Zhe Green, Marlborough. 
ft Leaf, Walter, Litt. D., (Council), 6, Sussex Place, Recon: Park, N.W. 
Legge, Miss, 3, Ked/e Riad: Oxford. 
Lecky, Mrs., 38, Onslow Gardens, S.W. 
Leeper, Alexander, Warden of Trinity College, Melbourne. 
Leichtenstein, Moritz, 46, Aurzol Road, West Kensington, W. 
Leigh, Rev. A. Austen, Provost of Kimg’s College, Cambridge. 
Leigh, W. Austen, 2, Vorfolk Crescent, Hyde Park, W. 
Lethbridge, Sir Roper, 36, Victoria Street, S.W. 
Lewis, Harry, 5, Argyll Road, Kensington, W. 


XX1V 


t+ Lewis, Mrs. 5. S., Castle-brae, Chesterton Road, Cambridge. 

t+ Lewis, Prof. T. Hayter, 12, Kensington Gardens Square,W, 
Lewis-Poole, D., Royal Societies Club, 63, St, James? Street, S.W. 

*Leycester, Mrs. Rafe, 6, Cheyne Walk, S.W. 
Liddell, Very Rev. H. G., D.D., The Wood House, Ascot, Berks. 
Lindley, Miss Julia, 10, A¢dbrook Terrace, Shooter's Hill Ra, S.E. 
Lindley, William, 10, Kzdbrook Terrace, Shooter’s Hill Και, S.E. 
Lingen, The Right Hon. Lord, K.C.B.,13, Wetherby Gardens, S.W. 
Lingen, Lady, 13, Wetherby Gardens, S.W. 

Lister, Hon. Reginald, British Embassy, Constantinople. 

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

Lloyd, Miss A.M., Caythorpe Hall, Grantham. 

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

London, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of, The Palace’ Fulham, S.W. 

tLock, Rev. W., Keble College, Oxford. 

Lockyer, Sir Norman, K.C.B., F.R.S., 16, Pen-y-Wern Road, South Kensington, S.W. 
Long, Prof. Albert Limerick, Robert College, Constantinople. 

ft Loring, William (Council), 2, Hare Court, Temple, E.C. 

*Lubbock, The Right Hon. Sir John, Bart., M.P., High Elms, Hayes, Kent. 
Luce, Rev. E., 9, Royal Crescent, Brighton. 

Ludlow, T. W., Cottage Lawn, Yonkers, New York. 
Lupton, J. M., The College, Marlborough. 

Lupton, Miss M., 7 Zarl’s Terrace, Kensington, W. 
Luxmoore, H. E., Eton College, Windsor. 

Lyttelton, Hon. and Rev. E., Hazleybury College, Hertfori. 

Lythgoe, A. M., 15, Warland Buildings, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A. 
Macan, R. W., University College, Oxford. 

McAnally, H. W. W., War Office, Pall Mall, S.W. 

McDaniel, J. H., Hobart College, Geneva, N.Y. 

Macdonald, Miss Louisa, Women’s College, Sydney University, Sydney, N.S.W. 
Macdonell, W. R., LL.D., Coleat, Bycullah Park, Enfield. 

MacEwen, Rev. Alex. Robertson, 25, Woodside Place, Glasgow. 
Macgillivray, J. Pittendrigh, Ravelstow Elms, Murrayfield, Edinburgh. 
McKechney, Mrs. W. C., 3, Berkeley Place, Wimbledon, S.W. 
Mackennal, Miss E. M., Beechwood, Bowdon, Cheshire. 

Mackenzie, Duncan, British School, Athens. 

MacLehose, James J., 61, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow. 

Macmillan, Mrs. Alexander, Bramshott Chase, Shottermill, Surrey. 

*Macmillan, George A. (Hon. Sec.), 29, Bedford St., Covent Garden, W.C. 
Macmillan, Mrs. George A., 19, Earls’ Terrace, Kensington, W. 

+Macnaghten, Hugh, Eton College, Windsor. 

Macnaghten, The Right Hon. Lord, 3, New Square, Lincoln’s Inn, W.C. 
McPherson, Miss Florence, Bank House, Maghull, Liverpool. 

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

*Mahaffy, Rev. Prof. J. P., D.D., D.C.L., Trinity College, Dublin. . 
Maidstone, The Viscountess, Hurstmonceaux Place, Hailsham, Sussex. 
Manning, Percy, New College, Oxford. 

Mano, Constantin, Balliol College, Oxford. 
Manos, Grégoire, Greek Legation, Vienna. 
Marchant, E. C., St. Paul’s School, West Kensington, W. 

+ Marindin, G. E., Broomfield, Frensham, Farnham, 

+ Marquand, Prof. Allan, Princeton College, New Fersey. 
Marshall, R., 31, Zhe Waldrons, Croydon. 

Marshall, T., Highfield, Chapel Allerton, Leeds. 
Martin, Charles B., The College, Oberlin, Ohio, U.S.A. 

+ Martin, R, B., M.P., το, Hzl/ Street, W. 

+ Martyn, Edward, 7i/lyra Castle, Ardrahan, County Galway. 
Mason, H.C. F., Hatleybury College, Hertford. 

Matheson, P. E., Mew College, Oxford. 
Mavrogordato, Pandeli, South Sea louse, Threadneedle St., E.C. 
Maynard, H. L., Junior School, Westward Ho, N. Devon. 


XXV 


Mayor, Rev. Prof. Joseph B. (Council), Queensgate House, Kingston Hill, Surrey. 
Mayor, R. G., Education Department, Whitehall, S.W. 
Merry, Rev. W. W., Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford. 
Milliet, P., 95, Boulevard St. Michel, Paris. 
Millington, Miss M. V., 27, Morland Square, W. 
Milne, J. Grafton, Mansfield House, Canning Town, E. 
Milner, His Excellency Sir Alfred, G.C.B., Government House, Capetown, 5, Africa 
Minet, Miss Julia, 18, Sussex Sguare, Hyde Park, W. 
Minns, E. H., Pembroke College, Cambridge. 
Mitchell, C. W., 195, Queen’s Gate, S.W. 
tMocatta, F. D., 9, Connaught Place, Edgware Road, W. 
Moline, Miss J. R., 172, Church Street, Stoke Newington, N. 
Monk, C. J., M.P., 5, Buckingham Gate, S.W. 
Monson, His Excellency the Right Hon. Sir E. J., G.C.B,, G.C.M.G., H.}.M, 
Ambassador, Parts. 
Monro, D.B. (V.P.), Provost of Oriel College, Oxford. 
Morgan, Miss Sarah,c/o Miss Colville, Overdale, Shortlands, Kent. 
Morice, Rev. F. D., 10 Azl/morton Road, Rugby. 
*Morley, The Right Hon. the Earl of, 31, Princes Gardens, S.W 
Morris, J. E., Zhe Grammar School, Bedford. 
Morrison, F. A. C., Jesus College, Cambridge. 
t Morshead, E. 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. C. B., 14, Nerham Road, Oxford. 
tT Mount, J. T., Eton College, Windsor. 
Mudie, Mrs., Budleigh, Maresfield Gardens, Hampstead, ΜΟΙ. 
Munro, J. A. R. (Council), Lzzcoln College, Oxford. 
Murray, A. S., LL.D. (V.P.), British Museum, W.C. 
Murray, Prof. G. G. A. (Council), 5, The University, Glasgow. 
*+Mycrs, Ernest(Council), Brackenside, Chislehurst. 
tMyres, J. Linton (Council), Christ Church, Oxford. 
Naef, Conrad J., The Admiralty, S.W. 
Neil, R. A. (Council), Pemdroke College, Cambridge. 
Newman, W.L., Pittville Lawn, Cheltenham. 
Nicholson, Sir Charles,Bart., The Grange, Totteridge, Herts. 
O’Connor, Arthur, M.P., 5, Essex Court, Temple, E.C. 
Ohnefalsch-Richter, Dr. Max, 14, Wharfedale Street, Earl’s-Court, S.W. 
Ommanney, Admiral Sir Erasmus K., 29, Connaught Square, W. 
Ormiston, Miss F. M., Girls’ High School, Leeds. 
t+ Oxford, The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of, Cuddesdon Palace, Wheatley, Oxon. 
Page, T. E., Charterhouse, Godalming. 
Pallis, Alexander, Zatoz, Sefton Park, Liverpool. 
Parker, Francis W., Cook County Normal School, Englewood, /ll., U.S.A. 
tParry, Rev. O. H., 5, Salem Hill, Sunderland. 
Parry, Rev. R. St. J., 7vintty College, Cambridge. 
Paton, James Morton, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn., U.S.A. 
Paton, W. R., British Pos Office, Smyrna. 
Pears, Edwin, 2, Rue de la Bangue, Constantinople. 
Peckover, Miss Alexandrina, Bank House, Wisbech. 
Peel, Hon. S. C., The Lodge, Sandy, Beds. 
Peers, C. R., Harrow Weald Vicarage, Stanmore, Middlesex. 
Peile, John, Litt.D., Master of Christ’s College, Cambridge. 
Pelham, Hon. Mrs. Arthur, Woorcroft, Monmouth. 
Pelham, Professor H. F. (V.P.), President of Trinity College, Oxford. 
Pember, E. H., Q.C., Vicars Hill, near Lymington, Hants. 
*Penrose, F. C., F.R.S.,(V.P.), Colebyfield, Wimbledon, S.W. 
Penrose, Miss Emily (Council), Royal Holloway College, Egham. 
*t Percival, F. W., 2, Southwick Place, Hyde Park Square, W. 
Perry, Prof. E. D., Columbia University, New York City, U.S.A. 
Philips, Mrs. Herbert, Sutton Oaks, Macclesfield. 


Xxvl 


Pickard, Miss Esther M., Overdale, Settle, Yorkshire. 
Pirie, Miss A. A., Sunnybank House, Old Aberdeen. 
Pirie, Miss Emily, Cozntesswell House, Aberdeenshire. 
f Platt, Prof. Arthur, 23, Powys Sguare, WW’. 
Pollock, Sir Frederick, Bart., 48, Great Cumberland Place, W. 
+Pond, Prof. C. A. M., University College, Auckland, New Zealand. 
Port, Dr. H., 48, /zusbury Square, E.C. 
Porter, Miss Sarah, Farmington, Connecticut, U.S.A. 
+Postgate, Prof. J. P., 77znzty College, Cambridge. 
Powell, Sir F. S., Bart., M.P., 1, Cambridge Square, Hyde Park, W, 
Powell, John U., S¢. Fohn’s College, Oxford. 
Poynter, Sir Edward J., P.R.A., 28, Albert Gate, S.W. 
Pretor, A., St. Catherine's Ci ollege, Cambridge. 
Prickard, A. O., New College, Oxford, 
Proctor, R. G. C., British Museum, W.C, 
Prothero, Prof. G. W., The University, Edinburgh. 
¢ Pryor, Francis R., Woodfeld, Hatfield, Herts. 
Psychari, A., 25, Boulevard des Capucines, Paris. 
Radcliffe, W. W., Fonthill, East Grinstead, Sussex. 
Radford, Dr. W. T., S¢dmouth. 
tRaleigh, Miss Katherine A., Zerrick House, Tring. 
*Ralli, Pandeli, 17, Belgrave Square, S.W. 
+ Ralli, Mrs. Stephen A., 32, Park Lane, VW’, 
f Ramsay, Prof. W. M. D.C.L. (V.P.), The University, Aberdeen. 
Rawlins, F. H., Eton College, Windsor. : 
Rawnsley, W. F., Parkhill, Lyndhurst, Hants. 
Reece, Miss Dora, 26, Bullingham Mansion, Pitt Street, Kensington, W. 
Reid, J. S., Litt.D., Cazus College, Cambridge. 
fReinach, Salomon, 31, Awe de Berlin, Paris. 
Rendall, Rev. F., 82, Phzlbeach Gardens, S.W. 
+Rendall, G. H., Litt.D. (Council), Charterhouse, Godalming. 
Renieri, M. Mario, A¢hens. 
Richards, Rev. G. C., British School, Athens. 
Richards, F., Azvugswood School, Bath. 
Richards, H., Wadham College, Oxford. 
Richmond, Sir W. B., K.C.B., R.A., Bevor Lodge, West End, Hammersmith, W. 
Ridgeway, Prof. W. (Council), Fen Ditton, Cambridge. 
Ridley, Sir Edward, 48, Lennox Gardens, S.W. 
Rigg, Herbert A., 12, Stanhope Place, Hyde Park, W. 
Robb, Mrs., 46, Rutland Gate, S.W. 
Robins, Miss Julia, 95, Mount Vernon Street, Boston, Mass., U.S.A. 
Roberts, Rev. E.S., Catus College, Cambridge. 
Roberts, Professor W. Rhys, Unversity College of North Wales, Bangor. 
Roberts, Herbert F., 836, Mew York Life Buildings, Kansas City Mi. U.S.A. 
Robertson, Charles, Redfern, Colinton Road, Edinburgh. 
Robertson, Rev. Archibald, A7zuzg’s College, Strand, W.C. 
Robinson, T. P. G., Ashfield, Rothsay Place, Bedford. 
Rochester, The Right Reyv.the Lord Bishop of, Bishop’s House, Kennington ParkRoaa,S.E. 
Rogers, Major-General, 14, St. Margaret’s Road, St. Leonards-on-Sea. 
Rome, W., Oxford Lodge, Wimbledon Common, S.W. 
1 Rosebery, The Right Hon. the Earl of, K.G., 38, Berkeley Square, W. 
Rotton, J. F., 3, Boltons, West Brompton, S.W. 
Roundell, C. S., 16, Curzon Street, W. 
Rous, Lieut.-Colonel, Worstead House, Norwich. 
ftRouse, W. H. D., 4, Bilton Road, Rugby, 
Rubie, Rev. Alfred E., Zhe Royal Naval School, Eltham, S.E. 
Runtz, Ernest, 22, Moorgate Street, E.C. 
Rushbrooke, W. G., 13, Cathcart Hizil, Highgate, N. 
Rutherford, Rev. W. Gunion, LL.D. 19, Dean’s Vard, Westminster, S.W. 
Rylands, W. H., 6, Holland Park Terrace, W. 


TRyle, Rev. Prof. H. E. D.D., Prestdent of Queens’ Col 
‘ } “olle , 
Samuel, Mrs. Sylvester, 80, Onslow Gardens, S.W. ge, Cambridge. 


XXvil 


Samuelson, Sir B., Bart., 56, Princes Gate, S. Kensington, S.W. 
Sandbach, Miss R., 16, Draycott Place, Cadogan Gardens, S.W. 
Sandwith, T. B., C.B., 29, Bramham Gardens, Earl’s Court, SAW. 
tSandys, J. E., Litt.D.(V.P.), St. John’s College, Cambridge. 
tSandys, Mrs., AZerton House, Cambridge. 
tSavage-Armstrong, Prof. G. F’., Queen’s College, Cork. 
t*Sayce, Rev. Prof. A. H., LL.D. (V.P.), 23, Chepstow Villas, Bayswater, W. 
tScaramanga, A. P., 18, Barkston Gardens, S. Kensington, δ. ΗΖ, 
Schilizzi, John S., 6, Cromwe// Houses, S. Kensington, SW. 
Schultz, R. Weir (Council), 6, .Wandeville Place, W. 
Schuster, Ernest, 12, Harrington Gardens, S. W. 
Scot-Skirving, E., Zhe College, Cheltenham. 
Scouloudi, Stephanos, A¢hens, Greece. 
Scull, Miss Sara A., 1100, MZ. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
Seaman, Owen, Zower House, West Hill, Putney, S.W. 
Seebohm, Hugh, 714 Hermitage, Hitchin. 
t Selwyn, Rev. E. C., School House, Uppingham. 
ft Sendall, Sir Walter J., K.C.M.G., Colonial Office, S.W. 
Seymour, Prof. Thomas D., Vale College, Newhaven, U.S.A. 
Shadwell, C. L., Ortel College, Oxford. 
Sharkey, J. A., Chrtst’s College, Cambridge. 
Sharpe, Miss, Harold House, Lansdowne Road, W. 
Shewan, Alexander, c/o AZessrs. IV’. Watson and Co., 27, Leadenhall Street, E.C. 
Shuckburgh, E. S., Granchester, Cambridge. 
Sidgwick, Arthur, Corpus Christi College, Oxford. 
Sidgwick, Prof. Henry, Litt.D., 7yiutty College, Cambridge. 
Sikes, Edward Ernest, .52, John's College, Cambridge. 
Simpson, H. B., 3, South Street, Park Lane, W. 
Sinclair, Captain H. Μ. R.E., Junior United Service Club, S.W. 
*Skrine, H. D., Claverton Manor, Bath. 
*Skrine, Rev. J. H., 7véntty College, Glenalmond, Perthshire. 
Smedley, J. F., 15, Loudon Road, Tonbridge. 
Smith, A. Hamilton (Council), 121, Bedford Court Mansions, Bedford Avenue, W.C. 
Smith, Cecil, LL.D.(Council), British Museum, W.C. 
Smith, Eustace S.,62, Banner Road, Victoria Park, E. 
Smith, H. Babington, C.S.1., Stokeleigh, Queen’s Road, Weybridge. 
tSmith, Prof. Goldwin, The Grange, Toronto, Canada. 
Smith, Prof. T. Roger, 7, Gordon Street, Gordon Square, W.C. 
Smith, R. Elsey, 7, Gordon Street, Gordon Square, W.C. 
Smith, Reginald J., Q.C., 11, Hyde Park Street, W. 
Smith, W. G., 5.2. John’s College, Oxford. 
Smith, F. E. J., 2, Tanfield Court, Inner Temple, E.C. 
Smith, J. A., Balliol College, Oxford. 
TSnow, T. C., St. Fohn’s College, Oxford. 
tSomerset, Arthur, Castle Goring, Worthing. 
Sonnenschein, Prof. E. A., Greenfield Cottage, Harborne, Birmingham. 
tSouthwell, The Right Rev. the Bishop of, Thurgarton Priory, Southwell. 
Spiers, Phené, Carlton Chambers, 12, Regent Street, W. 
Spooner, Rev. W. A., New College, Oxford. 
Spring-Rice, S. E., C.B., 1, Bryanston Place, Bryanston Square, W. 
Stannus, Hugh, 61, Larkhall Rise, Clapham, S.W. 
Stanton, Charles H., Field Place, Stroud, Gloucestershire. 
Statham, H. Heathcote, 40, Gower Street, W.C. 
Stawell, Miss Melian, Newnham College, Cambridge. 
Steele, Dr., 33, Via S. Gallo, Florence. 
Sterrett, J. R. Sitlington, Amhurst College, Amhurst, Mass., U.S.A. 
Stevenson, Miss E. C., 13, Randolph Crescent, Edinéurgh. 
Stewart, Prof. J. A., Christ Church, Oxford. 
Stillman, W. J., 50, Via S. Basilio, Rome. 
Stillwell, James, 1, Victoria Park, Dover. 
Stogdon, J., Harrow, N.W. 


XXVIll 


Stokes, Miss Margaret, Carriy Brene, Lowth, co. Dublin. 
Stone, E. W., Eton College, Windsor. 
Stone, Rev. E. D., Hillingdon, Uxbridge. 
Strachan-Davidson, J. L., Balliol College, Oxford. 
Stretton, Gilbert W., The College, Dulwich, S.E. 
Strong, Prof. S. Arthur. 
Strong, Mrs. S. Arthur, LL.D. (Council). 
Sturgis, Julian R.. Elvington, Eyethorne, Dover. 
Sturgis, Russell, 307, East 17th Street, New York. 
Sullivan, John, Reform Club, Pall Mall, S.W. 
Surr, Watson, 57, O/d Broad Street, E.C. 
Swanwick, Miss Anna, 23, Cumberland Terrace, N. W. 
Tait, C. J., Cathedral Yard, Exeter. 
+ Tait, C. W. A., Clifton College, Bristol. 
Tancock, Rev. C. C., Leck, Kirkby Lonsdale. 
Tarbell, Prof. F. B., University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill., U.S.A. 
Tarring, C. J., Chief Justice of Grenada, West Indies. 
Tarn, W. W., 13,-Vorfolk Square, Hyde Park, W. 
Tatton, R. G., Passmore Edwards Settlement, Tavistock Place, W.C, 
| Taylor, Rev. Charles, D.D., Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge. 
Thomas, Rev. T. LI., Jesus Colleye, Oxford. 
*Thompson, Sir E. M., K.C.B., D.C.L. (V.P.), British Museum, W.C. 
Thompson, E. S., Christ's College, Cambridge. 
Thompson, F. E., The Cottage, Preshute, Marlborough. 
Thompson, Henry F. H., 35, Wimpole Street, W. 
Thompson, J. Eyre, 8, Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn, W.C. 
Thursfield, J. R., Fryth, Great Berkhamstead. 
Tilley, Arthur, King’s College, Cambridge. 
Tottenham, H. R., St. John’s College, Cambridge. 
*+Tozer, Rev. H. F. (V.P.), 18, Norham Gardens, Oxford. 
tTruell, H. P., F.R.C.S., Cloumannon, Ashford, Co. Wicklow. 
Tubbs, Prof. H. A., University College, Auckland, New Zealand. 
*+Tuckett, F. F., Frenchay, near Bristol. 
Tuckerman, Mrs. Mary F., 12, Jacopo da Diacceto, Florence. 
Tudeer, Dr. Emil, Helsingfors, Finland. 
{Turnbull, Mrs. Peveril, Sandy-Brook Hall, Ashbourne. 
Tylor, Prof, E. B., D.C.L., F.R.S., The Museum House, Oxford. 
Tyrrell, Prof. R. Y., Litt.D., D.C.L. (V.P.), Trinity College, Dublin. 
*Tyrwhitt, Rev. R. St. J., Ketilby, Oxford. 
Underhill, G. E., Magdalen College, Oxford. 
Unwin, T. Fisher, 10, Hereford Square, S.W. 
Upcott, L. E., The College, Marlborough. 
*Valetta, J. N., 16, Durham Terrace, Westbourne Park, W. 
tValieri, Octavius, 2, Kensington Park Gardens, W 
Vanderbyl, Mrs. Philip, 51, Porchester Terrace, W. 
Vardy, Rev. A. R., King Edwards School, Birmingham. 
t Vaughan, E. L., Eton College, Windsor. 
Venning, Miss Rosamond, 8, Balcombe Street, Dorset Square, N.W, 
Verrall, A. W., Litt.D., Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Verrall, Mrs. A. W., Selwyn Gardens, Cambridge. 
Vickers, Rev. W. V., Knowle Grange, Sidmouth. 
Vincent, Sir Edgar, K.C.M.G., Esher Place, Surrey. 
tVlasto, T. A., Bouevaine, Sefton Park, Liverpool. 
+ Wackernagel, Prof. Jacob, Steinenberg, 5, Bale. 
t Wagner, Henry, 13, Half Moon Street, W. 
t Waldstein, Prof. Charles, Ph.D., Litt.D., King’s College, Cambridge. 
Walford, Mrs. Neville, 1, Ashburn Place, S.W. 


Walker, Rev. F. A., D.D., Dun Mallard, Shootup Hill, B 
Walters, Henry Besuchara : 2 Hill, Brondesbury, N.W, 


p (Council), British Museum, W.C. 

Walters, W. C. Flamstead, 3, Selby Road, Anerley, S.E. 

t Wantage, Lord, K.C.B., V.C., 2, Carlton Gardens, S.W. 
Ward, John, F.S.A., Lenoxvale, Belfast. : 


ΧΧΙΧ 


Ward, T. H., 25, Grosvenor Place, S. W. 
Warr, Prof. G. C., 16, Earl's Terrace, Kensington, W. 
Warre, Rev. Edmond, D.D., Eton College, Windsor. 
Warren, Col. G. E. Falkland C.M.G., 57, Cornwall Road, Westbourne Park, W. 
Warren, T. H., President of Magdalen College, Oxford. 
Warren, E. P., Lewes House, Lewes, Sussex. 
Waterhouse, Edwin, Fe/demore, near Dorking. 
Waterhouse, Miss M. E., 59, Edge Lane, Liverpool. 
Way, Rev. J. P., Zhe Hall, Rossall, Fleetwood. 
Wayte, Rev. W.(Council), 6, Onslow Square, S.W. 
ft Weber, F. P., M.D., 19, Harley Street, W. 
Weber, Herman, M.D., 10, Grosvenor Street, W. 
Wedd, N., Xing’s College, Cambridge. 
Weekes, G. A., Stdney Sussex College, Cambridge. 
Weir, Miss Edith, 4, Frognal, Hampstead, N.W. 
t Welldon, Rev. J. E. C., The School, Harrow, N.W. 
Weld-Blundell, Herbert, 7, Par& Place, St. James's, S.W. 
Wells, J., Wadham College, Oxford. 
Westlake, Prof. J., LL.D., Zhe River House, Chelsea Embankment, S.W, 
Westcott, Rev. F. B., School House, Sherborne. 
Wheeler, James R., Ph.D., Columbia College, New York City, U.S.A. 
t White, A. Cromwell, 3, Harcourt Buildings, Temple. 
White, Mrs. Andrew, c/o Prof. White, Cornell University, Ithaca, U.S.A. 
White, Prof.J. W., Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. 
White, J. N., Rockland, Waterford. 
White, John Forbes, LL.D., Craigstay, Dundee. 
Whitehead, R. R., Box 144, Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A. 
Whitehouse, F. Cope, 8, Cleveland Row, St. Fames’, S.W. 
Wickham, The Very Rev. E. C., The Deanery, Lincoln. 
Wilkins, Rev. George, 36, 7rinzty College, Dublin. 
Wilkins, Prof. A. S., LL.D., Litt.D., The Owens College, Manchester. 
Williamson, J. W., Lzmasol, Cyprus. 
Willson, S. B. Wynn, St. John’s College, Cambridge. 
Wilson, Donald, Wavertree, Beverley Road, Hull. 
Wilson, H. C. B., New College, Oxford. 
Wilson, Harry, 447, Oxford Street, W. 
Windley, Rev. H. C., St. Colomba’s, Sunderland. 
Winkworth, Mrs., Holly Lodge, Campden Hill, W. 
Wiseman, Rev. Henry John, C/z/ton College, Bristol. 
Wither, H. S. 
Wood, Rev. W.S., Ufford Rectory, Stamford. 
Woodhouse, W. J., Sedbergh, Yorkshire. 
+ Woods, Rev. H. G., President of Trinity College, Oxford. 
+Wren, Walter, 7, Pow7s Sguare, W. 
Wright, Sir R. S., 14, St. James's Place, S.W. 
tWright, W. Aldis, Vice-Master, Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Wright, Prof., John Henry, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A. 
+ Wyndham, Rev. Francis M., St. Mary of the Angels, Westmoreland Road, Bayswater,W. 
+Wyse, W., Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Yates, Rev. S. A. Thompson, 43, Phzliimore Gardens, W. 
Yorke, V. W., Forthampton Court, Tewkesbury. 
*Young, Rev. Canon E. M., Rothbury, Northumberland. 
tT Yule, Miss Amy F., Zarradale House, Ross-shire, Scotland. 


XXX 


LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS TO THE JOURNAL OF HELLENIC 
SU TTES: 


The University Library, Aderdeen. 
The University College of Wales, Aderystwith. 
The Amherst College Library, Amherst, Mass. 
The Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass., U.S.A. 
The Peabody Institute, Baltimore, U.S.A. 
The Johns Hopkins Library, Baltemore. 
The Enoch Pratt Library, Baltimore. 
The Royal Museum Library, Berlin. 
The Royal Library, Berlin. 
The Central Free Library, Ratcliffe Place, Lirmingham (J. D. Mullins, Esq.) 
The Mason Science College, Lirmingham. 
The Public Library, Boston, U.S.A. 
The Boston Atheneum, Boston, U.S.A. 
The University Library, Breslau. 
The University College of South Wales, (γώ. 
The Library of Clifton College, C//ton, Bristo/. 
The University Library, California. 
The Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A. 
ft The University Library, Caméiridge. 
The Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
The Library of St. John’s College, Cambriage. 
The Library of King’s College, Caméridge. 
The Fitzwilliam Archaeological Museum, Cambridge. 
The Girton College Library, Cambridge. 
The University of Chicago Press, Chzcago, Illinois. 
The Lewis Institute, Chicago, [/linots. 
The University Library, Christiania, Norway. 
The Library of Canterbury College, Christchurch, N.Z. 
The Public Library, Crzcznnatz, U.S.A. 
The Adelbert College, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. 
The University of Colorado, U.S.A. 
The University Library of State of Missouri, Ce/umbia, Missouri, U.S.A. 
The Public Library, De¢rozt. 
The Royal Museum of Casts, Dresden. 
The Library of Trinity College, Dudlin. 
The National Library of Ireland, Dudlin. 
The King’s Inns Library, Dudiin. 
The Royal Irish Academy, Dudlin. 
The University College, Dundee. 
The Durham Cathedral Library, Durham. 
tThe Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh. 
The University Library, Erlangen. 
The University Library, Frecburg im Baden, Germany. 
The Philologische Seminar, Gzessen. 
The University Library, Glasgow. 
The Ducal Library, Gotha (Dr. W. Pertsch). 
The University Library, Gottingen. 
The Royal University Library, Gretfswala. 
The Dartmouth College Library, Hanover, U.S.A. 
The University Library, Heédelberg (Dr. Zangmeister). 
The School Library, Harrow, NV. W. 
The Cornell University Library, /thaca, A. Y. 
The University Library, Jena. 
The Royal and University Library, Kénigsberg. 
The University of Kansas, Lawrence, U.S.A. 
The Leeds Library, Commercial Street, Leeds. 
The Public Library, Leeds. 
The Bibliothéque Universitaire, 3, Rue des Fleurs, Lille, Nora. 
The Free Library, Liverpool. 
The University College, Zzverfool. 
+The British Museum, W.C. 
The Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Brztish Museum, W.C. 
The Library of University College, London. 
The Athenaeum Club, Pal/ Mall, London, S.U. 
The Burlington Fine Arts Club, Savile Row, London, W. 
The Library of St. Paul’s School, Kensington, W. 
The London Library. St. James’s Sguare, London, S.W. 
The Reform Club, Pad/ Mall, London, S.W. 
The Royal Institution, Albemarle Street, W. 


XXXi 


The Library, Westminster School. S.W. 
The Oxford and Cambridge Club, Pall Mall, c/o Messrs. Harrison & Sons, 59, Pall Mall. 
The Foreign Architectural Book Society (T. H. Watson, Esq.),9, Nottingham Place, W, 
The Sion College Library, Victoria Embankment, EC 
The College Library, Dulwich, S.E. 
The City Library, Lowel/, Mass., U.S.A. 
The Bibliothéque Universitaire, Pa/azs Saint Pierre, Lyons, 
The Library of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, U.S.A. (E. Εν Riley, Esq.). 
The Whitworth Institute, J/anchester. 
The Chetham’s Library, Hunts Rank, Manchester. 
The Grammar School, Manchester. 
The Royal University Library, A/ardurg. 
The Public Library, A/e/éourne, Victoria (c/o Messrs. Melville, Mullen ἃ Co.). 
The Library of the University of Milan, A/7/an. 
The McGill University Library, Montreal (C. H. Gould, Esq.) 
The K6nigliche Paulinische Bibliothek, /umster, 1.11. 
The Royal Library, A/unich. 
The Archeological Seminary, Munich. 
The University of Nebraska, Vebraska, U.S.A. 
The Forbes Library, Morthampton, U.S.A. 
The University Library, A/zinster. 
The Free Public Library, Vewark, New Jersey. 
The Newberry Library, Vewderry, U.S.A. 
The Library of Yale College, Vewaven. 
The Free Public Library, Jersey Czty, New Jersey, U.S.A. 
The Astor Library, Mew York. 
The New York State Library, A/bany, New York. 
The Library of Columbia University, Wew York. 
The Hamilton College Library, C/inton, New York. 
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vew York. 
The Library of the College of the City of New York, New Yor. 
The Sachs Collegiate Institute, Vew York. 
Tt The Bodleian Library, Oxford. 
The Library of All Souls College, Oxford. 
The Library of Worcester College, Oxford. 
The Library of Balliol] College, Oxford. 
The Library of Christchurch, Ox/ord. 
The Library of Exeter College, Oxford. 
The Library of St. John’s College, Oxford. 
The Library of New College, Oxford 
The Library of Oriel College, Oxford. 
The Library of Queen’s College, Oxford. 
The Library of Trinity College, O2/ord. 
The Library of University College, Oxford. 
The Union Society, Oxford. 
The University Galleries, Oxford. 
The Bibliothéque de l’Institut de France, δ 725. 
The Bibliothéque de I’ Université de France, Parts. 
The Bibliothéque des Musées Nationaux, Parvs. 
The Bibliothéque Nationale de Paris, Pars. 
The Ecole Normale Supérieur, Paris. 
The Library Company, PAzladelphia. é' 
The Library of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A. 
The Vassar Library, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. 
The Archaeological Seminary, Zhe University, Prague (Dr. Wilhelm Klein). 
The Bibliothéque de l’Université, Rennes. 
The Library of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, U.S.A. 
The American School of Classical Studies, Xume, /taly. 
The Rossall Library, Rossall, Fleetwood (the Rev. W. H. E. Worship). 
The School Reading Room, Rugby, care of Mr. A. J. Lawrence. 
The St Louis Mercantile Library, Sz. Louis, U.S.A. " 
The Royal Library, Stockho/m (Messrs. Samson & Wallin). 
The Archaeological Museum, 7he University, Strassburg (per Prof. Michaelis). 
The Imperial University and National Library, Strassburg. 
The Free Library, Sydney, New South Wales. 
The University Library, Syracuse, New York. 
The University Library, Zovonto. 
The Library of the University of Illinois, Urdana, [llinoi?s. 
The Boys’ Library, Eton College, Wznasor. 
The Library of Eton College, Windsor. 
The Public Library, Winterthur, (Dr. Imhoof. Blumer). 
The Free Library, Worcester, Mass., U.S.A. 
The Williams Collegé Library, W7//iamstown, Mass., U.S.A. 


t Libraries claiming copies under the Copyright Act. 


ΧΧΧΙΙ 


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


American Journal of Archeology (Professor J. M. Paton, Middleton, Connecticut, 
U.S.A.) 


Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique (published by the French School at A¢hens). 

Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma (Prof. Gatti, Museo 
Capitolino, Rome). 

Ephemeris Archaiologike, Athens. 

Siam sete of German Imperial Archaeological Institute, Corneliusstrasse No. 2 II. 

erlin. 

Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 9, Conduzt Street, W. 

Mélanges d’Histoire et d’Archéologie, published by the French School at Rome. 

Mittheilungen of the German Imperial Archaeological Institute at Athens. 

Mittheilungen of the German Imperial Archaeological Institute at Rome. 

Mittheilungen and Abhandlungen of the Archaeolog. Epigraphisches Seminar of the 
University of Vienna. 

Mnemosyne (care of Mr. E. J. Brill), Leiden, Holland. 

Numismatic Chronicle, 22, A/éemarle Street. 

Philologus. Zeitschrift fiir das klassische Altertum (cave of Dietrich’sche Verlags- 
Buchhandlung, Gottingen). 

Praktika of the Athenian Archaeological Society. 

Proceedings of the Hellenic Philological Syllogos, Constantinople. 

Publications of the Imperial Archaeological Commission, S¢. Petersburg. 

Revue Archéologique, Parzs (per M. Georges Perrot, 45, rue d’ Ulm). 

Revue des Etudes Grecques, Publication Trimestrielle de l’Association pour |’En- 
couragement des Etudes Grecques en France, Parts. 

Transactions of the American School, Athens. 

Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society and Journal of Philology, 


SESSION 1896-97. 


THE First General Meeting was held at 22, Albemarle Street, on 
November 2nd, 1896, Professor L. Campbell, V.P., in the chair. 

Mr. A. J. Evans read a paper ‘On Further Discoveries of the Early Cretan 
Script.’ The additional materials described had been collected by the 
author during his recent researches in the island, and fully corroborated the 
evidence first brought forward by him two years since of the existence in 
Crete in prehistoric times of two interrelated systems of writing, one picto- 
graphic, the other linear. A fresh series of early seals was described, 
showing the evolution of purely pictorial types into a conventionalized 
pictographic script of Mycenaean date, having points of resemblance with 
the Hittite. Very primitive examples of seals with linear characters were 
also illustrated, and it was pointed out that this linear class in Crete, which 
presented some curious resemblances to Greek and Phoenician letters, went 
back, on the whole, to a distinctly earlier period than the conventionalized 
pictographic class, and might be largely described as pre-Mycenaean. 
Hitherto the evidence had mainly rested on seals and graffiti on vases. 
Mr. Evans was now able to describe the discovery in the Cave of Psychro— 
the ‘Diktaion Antron’ of Zeus—beneath a votive and sacrificial stratum of 
Mycenaean date, of part of a libation table of steatite, imitated from a 
twelfth dynasty Egyptian model, bearing the remaining half of what seemed 
to be a dedication in Cretan linear characters. The inscription consisted of 
nine letters with two punctuations, and was of the highest importance as 
showing that this pre-Phoenician script was applied to monumental as well 
as personal objects. The Egyptian affinities of the libation table itself 
fitted in with other signs of intimate connexion between Crete and the 
Egypt of the twelfth dynasty supplied by the decorative designs of sealstone 
and steatite vases. Here, however, in the imitation of an object of cult they 
had proof of a community so deep-lying that it could hardly have been due 
to mere commercial intercourse. It pointed to continuous land-contact in 
the population so influenced, and the probability became great that this and 
other vestiges of the influences of the old empire of Egypt in Crete were 
due to Libyan settlements in the island. If so, the beginnings of the Cretan 
linear script, which also seemed to show Egyptian influences, might be 
ultimately found in Tripoli. A remarkable parallelism was, in fact, shown 
between the Cretan signs and the early Libyan alphabets. Converging 
lines of evidence showed that the inscribed libation table from the Dictaean 


4 


XXXiV 


cave could not be brought down later than about 2000 B.C. (/.H.S. vol. xvii. 
p. 327). Mr. Hogarth, Sir J. Evans, Prof. Ridgeway, and others took part 
in the discussion which followed. 


The Second General Meeting was held at 22, Albemarle Street, on 
February 15th, 1897, Mr. Talfourd Ely, in the chair. 

Prof. P. Gardner read two papers: (1) ‘Ona Stone Tripod at Oxford.’ 
The tripod was given to All Souls’ College by A. Lefroy in 1771. It was 
found at Corinth. It consists of a basis intended for the support of a 
large basin, probably meant to hold lustral water. There is a central 
column, around which stand back to back three draped female figures, each 
on a recumbent lion, and holding in one hand the tail of the lion. Froma 
comparison with a very similar tripod of which fragments were found at 
Olympia, it appears that this was a fixed type for vessels of the class. The 
date of the Oxford tripod was fixed by Prof. Gardner, from considerations 
of style, as the earlier half of the fifth century (/.4.S. vol. xvi. p. 275). A 
discussion followed, in which Prof. Waldstein, Prof. E. Gardner, and Miss 
Harrison took part. (2) ‘On the Mantinean Basis. This basis, bearing 
reliefs by a pupil of Praxiteles, was submitted by Prof. Gardner to a close 
examination. He maintained: (4) That the phrase in which Pausanias 
describes the basis should be read Μοῦσα καὶ Μαρσύας αὐλῶν, and must be 
regarded as referring only to one slab of the reliefs, which represents the 
conflict of Apollo and Marsyas. (ὁ) That the three slabs which we possess 
were the whole of the relief. We need not suppose a slab to have been 
lost, and it is quite possible that six Muses rather than nine were repre- 
sented. The group of Apollo and Marsyas would be in the midst, three 
Muses on each side as spectators, the whole occupying the front of the 
pedestals. (c) That the figures of Apollo, Leto, and Artemis which stood 
on the pedestal were not arranged as a group, but stood side by side, as 
they appear in the Praxitelean group copied on a late coin of Megara 
(7.1.5. vol. xvi. p. 280). In the discussion which followed, Prof. Waldstein 
argued that the proposed arrangement of the slabs was too asymmetrical 
for Greek art, and dwelt upon the difficulty of departing from the number 
of nine Muses, which was supported both by monumental and literary 
evidence. The practice of vase painters in varying the number was to be 
explained by artistic convenience, without regard to mythological considera- 
tions. Prof. Waldstein preferred to adhere to the arrangement of the slabs 
which he had himself publicly advocated, and which assumed that they had 
originally been four in number. Prof. E. Gardner, though pointing out 
some difficulties in detail, was on the whole inclined to accept the rearrange- 
ment proposed by Prof. Percy Gardner. 


The Third General Meeting was held at 22, Albemarle Street, on 
April” 12th, “1897, Mr. FOC; Penrose, ΡΟ in’ tne ehait: 

Miss Harrison read a paper on the Danaides. She contended that the 
origin of the Danaid myth had been misunderstood, especially as regards 


XXXV 


the supposed punishment of the water-carrying in leaky vessels. This was 
really no punishment at all, but simply the carrying on in Hades of their 
upper-world function as well-nymphs ; the pztios the Danaides had to fill 
was bored only at the bottom, as shown on ancient monuments, and it was 
a well cistern. The labour of well-filling was endless from the beginning, 
because Argos was πολυδίψιον. The idea of water-carrying in Hades as a 
penalty for the ἀμύητοι was also, she contended, not a mere later moralizing 
addition, but inherent in the primitive Danaid myth, and the leaky vessels 
pointed to an ‘ordeal by the sieve, such as was undergone, according to 
Pliny, by the vestal virgin Tuccia (‘ Nat. Hist., xxviii. 2, 3). The forty-nine 
guilty Danaides would fail in the ordeal and be proved as ἀμύητοι in the 
rites of Demeter Thesmophoros. Referring to Prof. Ridgeway’s recent 
paper in the He/lentc Journal on the Pelasgian origin of the ‘ objects called 
Mycenaean, Miss Harrison expressed her view that though the Olympian 
gods would be found, on analysis, to be part Hellenic, part Pelasgian, the 
remaining denizens of Hades would prove, like the Danaides, to be of 
Pelasgian origin. 

Prof. Ernest Gardner read some notes on a vase in the museum at 
Chicago, which seemed to him to represent the myth of Athamas. 

The paper announced by Prof. Gardner, on a vase in the museum at 
Harrow, was postponed to a subsequent meeting. 


The Annual Meeting was held at 22, Albemarle Street, on July 5th, 
1897, Prof. Jebb, M.P., President, in the chair. 

The Hon. Secretary read the following report on behalf of the Council:— 

The Session just ended presents no very striking features, but the 
work of the Society has been quietly and effectively carried on. 

Two Parts of the Journal have appeared as usual, and the contents 
speak for themselves. There has, however, been a change of Editorship 
to which reference should here be made. Professor Percy Gardner, 
who has borne the chief burden of Editorship ever since the Journal was 
started, has found it necessary to retire from its active management, 
though he will remain a member of the Consultative Committee. It 
would be difficult to exaggerate the value of the services rendered to the 
Society by Professor Gardner during the seventeen years of his close 
connection with the Journal. Until five years ago, when the present 
Editorial Committee was constituted, the main duties of Editorship, corre- 
spondence, choice of papers, reading of proofs, were performed by Professor 
Gardner single handed. And even since Mr. Leaf and Mr. Arthur 
Smith were associated with him in the work, a full share of labour and 
responsibility has naturally fallen to the colleague whom long experience 
and wide knowledge have so eminently qualified to form a sound 
judgment on the matter in hand. Professor Gardner will carry with 
him in his retirement from these arduous duties the warm thanks of all 
members of the Society, and not least of those on the Council who best 
know how devoted his service has been, 

ad 2 


XXXVi 


Before leaving the ‘subject of the Journal, it may be added that an 
Index is in preparation to Volumes IX.—XVI. inclusive, and to the 
Supplementary Papers. 

The Society has suffered some serious losses by death during the past 
year, and especially during the last few months. Among those who have 
passed away may be mentioned Archbishop Benson ; Sir Wollaston Franks, 
who recently madea valuable gift to the Library ; Dr. Hubert Holden, 
who had for years been an active member of the Council and latterly a 
Vice-President, and had also filled the office of Hon. Librarian ; Mr. John 
B. Martin, who had most efficiently filled the office of Treasurer since 
1888 ; and quite recently Mr. J. Theodore Bent, who had been a member 
of Council for many years, and whose death at a comparatively early 
age leaves a serious blank in the ranks of archaeological explorers. 

The Council are glad to be able to announce that Mr. Douglas Fresh- 
field kindly consented to act as Treasurer after Mr. Martin’s death, and 
he is to-day formally nominated to the office. Mr. Stephen Spring Rice 
has consented to take Mr. Freshfield’s place as one of the Auditors. 

It will be remembered that last year a change was made in the arrange- 
ments for the Library, Miss Johnson being appointed Assistant Librarian. 
The new arrangements have worked very well, and the Library is now 
in better order than ever before. Two months ago, however, Miss Johnson 
represented to the Council that she found it impossible, for the modest 
salary which the Society is in a position to pay, to give her whole time to 
the work. The question was very carefully considered by the Library 
Committee, and they recommended that in order, if possible, to retain 
Miss Johnson’s services, her hours of attendance should be reduced. 
These recommendations were accepted by the Council, and Miss Johnson 
consented to retain her post on the understanding that she is to attend 
from 2.30 to 5, on every day but Saturday. This arrangement is under- 
stood to be provisional, but the Council hope that it will on the whole be 
found convenient to members. With so small a Library, the Society can 
hardly hope to retain the exclusive services of an efficient librarian. Due 
provision being made for the custody of the books, the attendance of a 
librarian for a stated period on five days in the week (the usual holidays 
excepted) seems likely to serve all practical purposes. 

It may be of interest to record that about seventy members have in the 
course of the year made use of the Library, either on the spot, or by 
borrowing books or lantern slides. During the lecture season the slides 
were in constant demand, so that this privilege of membership is evidently 
appreciated. A new Catalogue is about to be issued, including numerous 
recent additions [see p. liii.]. If members have slides to present, it would 
be an advantage if they could offer them before this Catalogue is printed. 
Additions would be most welcome in the department of views of architec- 
tural details (other than the Parthenon) and of sculpture. Of donations 
made to the Library in response to the appeal issued last year special 
mention is due to that received from the late Sir Wollaston Franks, who 


XXXVii 


presented twenty volumes of the Numismatic Chronicle, Falkener’s Ephesus 
and the Temple of Diana, and Winckelmann’s Monumenti Antichi Inediti. 
The Society has also acquired by purchase or exchange the following 
among other valuable works—the facsimile recently made in Florence of 
the Laurentian codex of Aeschylus, the two volumes of Collignon’s Histoire 
de la Sculpture grecque, the official record of the German Excavations at 
Olympia, and 7he Mycenaean Age by Tsountas and Manatt. 

In the course of the Session, the annual grant of £100 to the British 
School at Athens has been renewed for a further period of three years. 
Although the School is on a more satisfactory financial basis than during 
the first nine years of its existence, it can still not afford to dispense with 
this grant in aid from the Hellenic Society, and the Council feel that there 
is no object to which the funds of the Society could more properly be 
devoted. Not only is the School the one institution which gives facilities 
to British students for original research on Greek soil, but the Society 
receives an adequate return for its subscription in the valuable articles 
contributed by members of the School to the Journal of Hellenic Studies. 
Members will be glad to learn that in spite of untoward circumstances in 
Greece the School has had a satisfactory season. The number of students 
has been considerably above the average, and it has been found possible 
to continue both in Athens and in Melos the excavations which were begun 
last year and of which some account has already appeared in the Journal. 
The results of the further work upon the site of Kynosarges, and in 
Melos, will as usual be reported to the Annual Meeting of Subscribers in 
July, but some preliminary information will be communicated to the 
Society to-day by the Director of the School. 

The only other grants made by the Council during the past Session 
have been the sum of £50 to Mr. W. R. Paton in aid of some proposed 
explorations in Asia Minor, and of £30 to Mr. W. J. Woodhouse, for 
additional illustrations in a forthcoming work on Aetolia. Unfortunately 
the unsettled state of things in the East has prevented Mr. Paton from 
doing much at present in fulfilment of his object, but it is hoped that there 
may be some results to record in next year’s Report. The grant to 
Mr. Woodhouse is a somewhat new departure, such help from the 
Society’s funds having hitherto been given rather towards the collection 
of new material than to its publication when collected, except where such 
publication has been undertaken by the Society itself. Mr. Woodhouse’s 
researches in Aetolia were carried out while he was a student of the 
British School at Athens. The volume in which the results are recorded 
is to be published by the Delegates of the Clarendon Press, but they did 
not see their way to provide all the illustrations the author thought 
necessary. The Council were then approached with the suggestion that 
they should make a grant for additional illustrations, and after careful 
inquiry by a Committee the case was held to come within the scope of 
the Society’s work, and the grant was authorised. 

Three General Meetings have as usual been held during the Session 


XXXVili 


at which papers have been read by Mr. Arthur Evans, Professor Percy 
Gardner, Miss Harrison, and Professor Ernest Gardner. The meetings 
have been well attended, and have as a rule been followed by good 
discussions, It having been pointed out that the fact of these meetings 
being held on Monday prevented schoolmasters from attending them, the 
Council have decided to revert to Thursday, the day on which meetings 
were held in the earlier years of the Society’s existence. It is believed 
that this day will be more convenient to a majority of members. 

The Treasurer’s Accounts show the financial position of the Society 
to be satisfactory. Ordinary receipts during the year were £815 against 
£915 during the financial year 1895-96. The receipts from Subscriptions, 
including arrears, amount to 4623, against 4655. Life Compositions 
amount to #15, against £63, and receipts from Libraries and for the 
purchase of back volumes £127, against £116. The receipts for loan of 
Lantern Slides amount to 45, against 47, but other items of ordinary 
income show no change. 

The ordinary expenditure for the year amounts to £617, against £621. 
Payments for Rent 480, Insurance £15, Salaries £52, and. Stationery, &c. 
#29, are practically the same as in the preceding year, but the cost of 
purchases for the Library shows £94 against £39. The cost of the 
Journal, Vol. XVI., has amounted to £345, against £394. The grants, 
as mentioned above, to the British School at Athens, to Mr. Paton and 
to Mr. Woodhouse, amounted to £180. The balance carried forward at 
the close of the year under review amounted to £360, against 4340 
at the end of the previous financial year. 

Since the entrance fee was imposed in January, 1894, about 490 have 
been received from this source, a very substantial addition to the Society’s 
income. : 

Twenty-six new members have been elected during the year, while 
twenty-one have been lost by death or resignation. This shows a net 
increase of five, and brings the total number of members to 778. 

Six new Libraries have joined the list of Subscribers, which now 
amounts to 133; or with the five Public Libraries to 138. 

On the whole the Council feel that the Society, if not making any 
definite advance, is at least holding its own, and continues to do useful 
work. As stated earlier in the Report the losses by death of prominent 
members of Council have been during the last few months unusually 
severe, but other good men have been found to take their places, and the 
Council have no fear that the work of the Society in the future will be 
less efficient than in the past. The responsibility of management 
necessarily rests with the Council, and there is happily no sign that this 
body has lost the confidence of the members at large. But members 
should bear in mind that without their support at meetings and otherwise 
the Council would lack the needful stimulus and encouragement to 
further effort, and that in particular it rests mainly with the members at 
large to see that a due supply of candidates is forthcoming to fill up 


ΧΧΧΙΧ 


the inevitable gaps in the ranks, so that the Society, if it cannot extend 
its operations, may at least maintain them in undiminished efficiency. 


The adoption of the Report was moved by the Chairman, who alluded to 
the recent discovery of papyri in Egypt, including some MSS. of 
Bacchylides. Prof. Jebb also expressed the sympathy of the Society with 
the present unhappy condition of Greece. The adoption of the Report 
was seconded by Sir John Evans, and carried unanimously. 

The former President and Vice-Presidents were re-elected, the name of 
Prof. W. M. Ramsay being added to the latter. Prof. W. C. F. Anderson, 
the Rev. A. G. Bather, Mr. B. P. Grenfell, and Principal G. H. Rendall were 
elected to vacancies on the Council. 

Mr. Cecil Smith, Director of the British School at Athens, gave a very 
interesting account of recent archaeological work in Greece, and especially 
of the excavations carried on by the British School on the site of 
Kynosarges in Athens, and at Phyllakopi in the island of Melos, where 
extensive remains had been found of an important pre-historic city. 

The proceedings closed with the usual vote of thanks to the Auditors 


and to the Chairman. 


PROCEEDINGS OF THE CAMBRIDGE BRANCH OF 
ΤΕ ΤΠ ΠΡ. 


SESSION 1806--7. 


On Saturday, December 5th, 1806, ἃ meeting was held at the Chairman’s 
house. 

Prof. Ridgeway read a paper on ‘ The Trident of Poseidon,’ in which he 
controverted the view put forward by Mr. H. B. Walters (/.H.S. vol. xiii. p. 
13 ff.) that it was a development from a lotus-headed sceptre. He main- 
tained that Poseidon was a fisherman’s god, and was therefore equipped as 
a fisherman with the ordinary fishspear, or glaive. Other sea deities such 
as Triton and perhaps Palaemon were similarly furnished ; a semipiscine 
deity on the coins of Itanus in Crete is armed with a trident with which he 
is going to strike something beneath; Taras the eponymous of the 
Tarentines, a population living largely by fishing, is seen on coins striking 
at a fish with his trident. Aeschylus describes the trident as the ‘ fish- 
smiting engine’ of Poseidon. Τριοδοντία, ‘ fishing with a trident, is one of 
the recognized forms of seafishing in Plato’s Sophist and is also mentioned 
by Pollux. Both τρίαινα and τριόδους are used of the Trident of Poseidon, 
though τρίαινα is the word most commonly employed for it. 

The fishspear with two or more prongs is one of the most universally 
distributed implements. In New Guinea and Polynesia they are made of 
as many as six pieces of barbed wood tied together. It is the common 
eelspear with five prongs of the Fens; the eelspear of Ireland is a trident ; 
such a spear is used for taking flat fish off the east coast of Scotland; a 
two-pronged spear is used for capturing lobsters on the coast of Devon. 
The trident is commonly employed at this very hour in the Mediterranean, 
as it was in Pliny’s time, who tells us in two passages that it was used for 
catching tunnies. Old Dictys, the kind fisherman of Seriphos, who found 
Danae and Perseus, was armed with his trident and net. When a fishing 
population went to war, they used their fishing gear for weapons, as rustics 
used their scythes, pitchforks, and bills. So Pittacus of Mitylene, when he 
challenged to single encounter the Athenian captain, entangled the latter 
in his fishing net and despatched him with his trident. The Roman gladiator 
called ‘retiarius’ was only a fisherman armed with a net and trident, for he 
said to his opponent, ‘non te peto, piscem peto; quid me fugis, o Galle?’ 
His opponent wore a fish in the front of his helmet. When then we find 
Poseidon using his trident as a lance even on horseback (see the coins of 


ΧΙ 


Potidaea) he is only doing what was the regular practice among the 
maritime populations of the Mediterranean. 

(The subject will be treated at full length in Prof. Ridgeway’s forthcoming 
Early Age of Greece.) 

Dr. Postgate exhibited two terra-cotta figures representing actors from 
the comic stage. 


On Saturday, February 27th, 1897, a mecting was held at the Vice- 
Chairman’s house, 

Mr. Adam read a paper ‘On some archaeological difficulties in Plato’s 
Republic’ The passages discussed were (1) iii. 398A ἀποπέμποιέν Te... 
στέψαντες, (2) iii. 399C (the παναρμόνιον), (3) iv. 439E παρὰ τῷ δημίῳ, (4) iv: 
427C ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀμφαλοῦ καθήμενος. On the first of these passages he 
endeavoured to show that the current interpretation is right, as against the 
explanations offered by Ast and Mr. G. B. Hussey in the Proceedings of the 
Am. Philological Ass. Vol. 22 (1891) p. xliii. In discussing iii. 399C, 
Mr. Adam reviewed the evidence for the view that παναρμόνιον denotes a 
musical instrument, and argued that the word was always used to signify a 
certain form of musical composition, a sort of Panharmonic mode, in fact. 
On iv. 439E the reading of the manuscripts was defended against the 
conjectures of Valckenaer and Hemsterhuis. Leontius probably entered 
the city by the Μελιτίδες πύλαι, which were within a stone’s throw of the 
Barathrum. The executioner was standing by the dead bodies which he 
was about to throw into the pit. See Milchhofer Schrzftquellen etc. pp. i.-ii. 
Mr. Adam complained of Herwerden’s rashness in bracketing ἐν μέσῳ in 
ily. 427C, and expressed a doubt whether Herwerden knew what the 
ὀμφαλός really was. Plato is thinking of representations of Apollo in 
Greek art, for he is constantly depicted as seated on the ὀμφαλός. See 
Imhoof-Blumer and Professor Percy Gardner in ἢ H.S. viii. p. 18 and 
Middleton 2d. ix. 308, with Eur. Jon 5-6. Mr. Adam, however, professed 
himself unable to explain why Apollo should be seated on the ὀμφαλός 
when he prophesies. If the priestess sat there when delivering her oracles, 
it would be natural enough to identify her with the god, but we know that 
she sat on the tripod. Is it possible to suppose that she did occasionally 
occupy the ὀμφαλός, or that the tripod was fixed on the ὀμφαλός on some 
occasions? Pindar’s χρυσέων Διὸς αἰητῶν πάρεδρος (Pyth. 4, 4) might 
be adduced in support ‘of either view, for the eagles flanked the ὀμφαλός. 
No stress was laid on this conjecture. 

Mr. A. B. Cook exhibited an impression from an early gold signet-ring, 
now in the Brit. Mus., representing a man with a wolf's head and tail 
stabbing a lion; the intaglio comes from the recent excavations in Cyprus 
and possibly illustrates a primitive wolf-cult. 


On Tuesday, May 18th, 1897, a meeting was held at the Secretary’s 


house. 
Dr. Postgate read a paper on ‘Cerberus and other polycephalous 


xlii 


monsters, in which he argued that the serious discrepancy in the number of 
heads attributed to Cerberus was to be explained by supposing that, when 
the dog was described as hundred-headed, etc., the reference was to the 
snake-heads which encircled his single, double or triple neck; while his 
heads proper were never conccived of as exceeding three in number. The 
same reference was to be seen in the hundred arms of the Giants, the 
multitudinous heads of Hydra, the fifty heads of Scylla, etc. The legend 
about the imitation of the νόμος πολυκέφαλος by Athene (Pindar), with 
many other references and expressions in Greek and Latin writers, derives 
new light from the observation that many-headedness imports snaky 
character or personality. 


ΟΡ ‘L6g1 φηη yzbz 
‘AOIN-ONINdS NAHdALS ‘aaanspeal “UuOFT ‘(TAIAHSAYA “M SVTONOG 
NTILAGI NHOL MAHLUVS ‘e170 γι puy pure ‘yoo βιϑ 84 pur sJaYyoNOA ay} YI 11 pareduoo ‘juNodoe 51|} pourMEXa aAvYy 9A 


- --ο---- ---Ο--αἈ--- 
a I! ost 1% EL 6x GSEH ΚΡ τὰ τ L6gi ‘Kew 1515 ‘srayueg ye souryeg ΟἹ, 
-πἰκπππ = 
& αἱ onney 
fe) fe) ¢ <n eRe ene scans, Teer ee eee eee ee eeeeee seyoD “e 
ζ δὲ ἕξ oss αὺ ον ϑυώμου πονοῦν ος sisyurg ye aourleg “cc ae Ὁ ‘bsq Sqstaqry "ΔΑ “ΠΟΠΒΌΟΩ Areiqr] “ee 
Se, |) nn MEE Sy slg tae junosdy jeuimof jo souvjeg ‘‘ ΘΕᾺ Treseeeeeeeeceoses ἈΒΘΡΠΘ ΠΑΘΊΒΥΣΙ jouvoy ** 
o Oo ogr — ᾿ ΟΙ 61 τ΄ 
© Ὁ oor “"""" suayyy 18 JooyNS ysnug 91, ¢ 9 z Seeececscees L6g1 “ kew 
O 0 OG wre ttsensenessstecesctenceees uojieg Ἢ "ΔΑ ς 9 ς OS ae SORT ty *AO N—"jU99 jod € 
O O OF  crrteresssseseseseseeees Qsnoypoo AA “f “AK wieysutyj0N jo uorjeiodi05 ςς ςς 
--ϑΊΖάθαο “cc g ς 61 seeebeoee L6g1 2 judy 
NE SSS SME oy, iene τς yurg sad ‘uorsstuu0s) “Ὁ Ste 61 Ὁ μα 6} ΠΘΟΩΙ  Ἴ90---90ης 090 
€-v 6z Sunuug Aipung pur ‘ase}sog ‘Arauorje}g “ἢ τοῦ $€ sayeqy πος MON UO ΞΡΌΘΡΙΔΙΩ “ 
6 £ 6 ainjwin J pue syoog—junosoy Areiqry ‘* 9 ΟἹ QgzI ie? 
7 28 4 9 O10 “ soUINJOA YOvg puvsivauy “Ὁ “ 
0 0 Of 3 Ὁ L6g1 ‘key γ515 0 0 gzi “" L6gI—9g6gr ‘suonduosqns Aresqry ** 
0} 1vah auo ‘Aivjamag εν. “Ὁ is “S| «CF 8. 989 ; 
re) oI ze ah weet eee eee L6g1 “(ἘΠῚ ys1f re) v v eee eee eee ee eeeee slvolly ςς ςς 
ΟἹ reat 900 ‘ueeiqry “yssy ‘sarees “" Onamwsn *"*"2" “" suonduosqns 911 big < 
© 0 SE —_—s_—_——CCiCids ttt t RSH ERE EEE eteleweten etter eens Qouvinsuy « ΟΙ6 919 ** L6g1—96g1 ‘suonduosqns ΘΙΘΑΌΙΘΙΝΙ ςς 
οο og ΠΤ 96g1 ὍΘΕ 0} teak auo uo kg II ΟῚ οες τ ρον OHO “(ἘΠῚ 515 ye aoureg oL 
pay ps F Zier Sept? 
“LNNODDV HSVO 
L 9 ovbF ; L 9 οὗν 
fe) ¢ ς ΠΡ ΞΞΞΦΞΞΞΦΦΦΦΦΠῆΠΠ ῸῸ uorlj}e[sueL “e ce 
L v τεῦ RR eee ee eee eee we eee eneee ee re jodeg “ce “ce 
oO gI τε ΟΞ Saucy pue Surmviq ce ‘ec 
I II 06 tee Saye[g “ce ce 
II 6 1lz (ase bv 6 SPE Berea meee e sees areesneee yunos0y 1580 0} ‘g0ueleq ee 
ae -18ὴ — Surjuug 11 pue Ἵ ‘sig ἿΛΧ TOA Aq | € Li ἢ ** g6g1 ὍΣ aunf 0} ‘S6g1 ‘1 ΔΠπ| Ἴξαχπο [10 saeg ΟἹ, 
ps 


*L6g1 ‘AWIX ISIE OQNIGNA NVAA AHL ΟἹ LNNODOV «SAIGALS OINATTIAH AO TVNUNOL AHL,, 


A comparison with the receipts and expenditure of the last ten years _ 


is furnished by the following tables :— 


ANALYSIS OF ANNUAL ΚΕΓΕΙΡΤΟ FOR 


Subscriptions) yes τούτο greene τι ὁ] 
A PRORESH 2.3. προ ΕΣ Cxes < Shas 
Life Compositions ............... 
Libraries and Back Vols. 
Dividends: -3#hso.d.cechrwceses 
Special Receipts ...... ......0000. 

Laurentian MS. 


Mr. D. G. Hogarth (Alex- 
andria Grant Refunded) 


Loan of Lantern Slides ... 
ἘΠ ΟΠ... τε ce εν, 


Royalty on Sales of Photo- 
PTRDNS oo τὰν ΟΕ sce 


Donations—J. Vansittart, Esq. 


E. H. Egerton, Esq.2....5 
Library, Mrs. Cohen ...... 
W. Arkwright, Esq. 


Balance from preceding year ... 


THE YEARS ENDING :— 


188s. | 1 895. 
ἄν ων: £ ee L 5 
539 | 545 585 | 554! "564. 671 | 678 | 
41 | 32 89. : 256i | tae] ‘oaahe ma 
79| 47 79 | 126] 95 79 50 
119 122 118 | 233 161 186 122 
50} oy38 B5C ris? απ 891 ates lees 
53 31 37 

4 4 4 2 
5 5 | 2 2 I | 
100 | 
5 ! | 
; | 

861 gto 898 976 «878 1,034 910 
489 | 255 150 F255.) 29% | 259) 20am 

1,350 | 1,165 1,049 |1,231 1, 117 | 1,293 


3: τὴ 31) Mey 3 May, 31 May, 3: May, 31 May, (3 May, 31 M: ay. 31 sone : May, 
Ϊ 1891. 92. 1803 : | 


& & 
645 | 617 
9 4. 
63 15 
117 126 
43. | 43} 
30 ΒᾺΝ 
7 5: 
a 
I 
| 
915 816 | 
169 | 340 | 


1,124 E 084 | 1,156 


ANALYSIS OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEARS ENDING :— 


31: Mays 31 May, 31: τ 31 Μαν,18 31 may, 31: May, 31 May,| 31 May, 80 sor 31 Bay, 
| 1889. jo. | 1891. | 1892. 37 1894. 1895. 897. 
| sai PN ; ἐς Ξε εν 
3 & & & 4 & Ae x 
Rents dc tice nae otacteeneanncstees | 15 30 | 30 50 ΣΙ 80 80 80 
INSUMANCE: ........Ὁλύν ον ΟἿΣ εἶ τον τος 3 5 | Il II II ri | ag 15 15 
Galanviesi., 5683... τὸ eves ensceans canoes 46 39 39 | 44 49 49 49 47 52 
Library τ Ξ νι τς, ΟΞ ὡς 41 15 | 16 8 41 75 : 96 39 94 
Stationery, Printing,and Postage 54 61 62 41 71 49 49 46 29 
Cost of Journal (less sales)...... 583 |} *873 440 |. 610 | 532] 475 | 441 | 394] 346 
Grants 2 0 wike.c.0v.c'60 0.900.000 00 dlep θυ»... 9 350 100 150 Ϊ 125 100 185 225 100 180 
IMYASEMENtS) cee τορι τ tae eee 46 | 100 158 | 
EgyptExplorationFund—t1, 100 
copies of Mr. Hogarth’s Report 23 
LoapgRepaid  ........2.4%.2..>.. 
Photo Enlargements, Albums, 
Lantern Slides, &c. 18 4 .| 
SundFies: νὰ... ἕο δι, cys 3 : 
I ,095 1,123 : 794. 992 | 858 1,079) 955 | 744 796 
Balance sca ceceasccr ease tress ore 255 42 255 239 | 259 214 169 | 340] 360 
1,350 | 1,165 1,049 | 1,231 [1,117 | 1,293 | 1,124 | 1,084 | 1,156 


* Includes cost of reprinting of Vols. IV. and V. (= £437) less the amount received from sales. 
1 The grant of £100 to the School at Athens has been paid since the accounts were made up: see Cash Account. 


LIST OF 
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS 


ADDED TO THE 


LIBRARY OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE 
PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES 


1897. 


Anderson (W. C. F.). Journey from Mount Athos to the Hebrus. 
8vo. Sheffield. 1897. (Presented.) 

Antiquités du Bosphore Cimmérien. See Reinach (S.) 

Apostolides (B.). Essai sur |’Hellénisme Egyptien, et ses Rapports 
avec |’Hellénisme classique et 1|’Hellénisme moderne. Vol. I. 1. 
8vo. Paris. 1898. (Presented.) 

Aristotle. Politics. Revised text, with introduction, analysis, and 
commentary. By F. Susemihl and R. Ὁ. Hicks. Books I-V. 
8vo. London. 1894. (Presented.) 

Aristotle. Constitution of Athens. Ed. F. G. Kenyon. See British 
Museum. 

Arrian. Anabasis. Ed. Καὶ. Abicht. 8vo. Leipzig. 1871. (Presented.) 

Bacchylides. Poems. Ed. F.G. Kenyon. 8vo. 1897. 

Beloch (J.). Griechische Geschichte. Vol. II. 8vo. Strasburg. 
1897. 

Beulé (C. E.). L’Acropole d’Athénes. 8vo. Paris. 1862. (Pre- 
sented.) 

Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Catalogue of Casts. Pt. III. Greek 
and Roman Sculpture, By E. Robinson. Revised Edition. 8vo. 
Boston. 1896. (Presented.) 


British Museum PuBLicaTIONs. 


The following works have been presented by the Trustees of the 
British Museum. (The Library also contains several Museum 
publications, which have been already reported.) 


Department of Coins and Medals. 


Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum. 8vo, 
Italy. By R.S. Poole. 1873. 


xlvi 


Tauric Chersonese...Thrace, &c. By B. V. Head and P. Gardner. 
1877. 
Seleucid Kings of Syria. By P. Gardner. 1878. 
Macedonia. By B. V. Head. 1879. 
Thessaly to Aetolia. By P. Gardner. 1883. 
Ptolemaic Kings of Egypt. By R.S. Poole. 1883. 
Central Greece. By B. V. Head. 1884. 
Crete and the Aegean Islands. By W. Wroth. 1886. 
Attica, Megaris, Aegina. By B. V. Head. 1888. 
Lycia, Pisidia, and Pamphylia. By G. F. Hill. 1897. 
Caria, Cos, Rhodes, &c. By B. V. Head. 1897. 
Catalogue of Indian Coins, Greek and Scythic Kings of Bactria 
and India. By P. Gardner and R.S8. Poole. 8vo. 1886. 
Guide to the Principal Coins of the Ancients from circ. B.c. 700 
to a.D. 1, with 70 plates. By B. V. Head. 8vo. 1889. 
Guide to the Principal Coins of the Ancients from cire. B.c. 700 
to a.D. 1. (Pamphlet.) Fourth Edition. 8vo. 1895. 
Roman Medallions. By H. A. Grueber and R. 8. Poole. 4to. 
1874. 


Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities. 


Catalogue of Engraved Gems. By A. H. Smith. 8vo. 1888. 
Catalogue of Greek and Etruscan Vases. 2 Vols. 8vo, 1851-70. 
Collection of Ancient Greek Inscriptions. 
I. Attica. By E. L. Hicks. 1874. 
II. Greece, etc. By C. T. Newton. 1883. 
ΠῚ. Priene, Iasos, and Ephesus. By Εἰ. L. Hicks. 1890. 
IV. 1. Knidos, Halikarnassos, and Branchidae. By G. Hirschfeld. 
1893. 
Description of the Collection of Ancient Marbles. Parts I.-XI. 
4to. 1812-1861. 
Description of the Collection of Ancient Terracottas. By Taylor 
Combe. 4to. 1810. 
Guide to the Mausoleum Room. 8vo. 1886. 
White Athenian Vases. By A. S. Murray and A. H. Smith. Folio. 
1896. 


Department of Manuscripts. 


Aristotle. Constitution of Athens. Ed. F. G. Kenyon. ὅνο. 
1892. 

Catalogue of Ancient Manuscripts. Part I., Greek. Part II., 
Latin. Folio. 1881-4. 

Catalogue of Greek Papyri with Texts. Ed. F. G. Kenyon. 
4to. 1893. 

Classical Texts from the Papyri, including the newly-discovered 
Poems of Herodas. Ed. F.G. Kenyon. 4to. 1891. 

Description of the Greek Papyri. Part I. 4to. London, 1839, 

Greek Papyri. Facsimiles. Folio. London, 1893, 


xl vii 


Department of Printed Books. 
Excerpts from the General Catalogue of Printed Books— 


Aeschylus, 1883. Horatius. 1885. 
Aesop. 1883. Ptolemaeus. 1895. 
Aristotle. 1885. Virgil. 1882. 
Homer. 1890. 


Broéndsted (P. O.). Reisen u. Untersuchungen in Griechenland. 4to. 
Paris. 1826. 

Burlington Fine Arts Club. Catalogue of Objects of Greek Ceramic 
Art exhibited in 1888. 4to. London. 1888. 

Cesnola (L. P. di). Cyprus. Its Ancient Cities, Tombs and Temples. 
8vo. London. 1877. 

Chipiez (C.). See Perrot (G.). 

Collignon (M.). Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque. 2 Vols. 4to. 
Paris. 1892-1897. 

Conze (A.). Melische Thongefiisse. Folio. Leipsic. 1862. 

Curtius (E.) and J. A. Kaupert. Karten von Attika, IX.1. 4to 
Berlin. 1897. 

Curtius (E.) and F. Adler (edd.). Olympia. See Olympia. 

Curtius (E.). Historische u. Philologische Aufsitze zu seinem 70" 
Geburtstage gewidmet. 8vo. Berlin. 1884. Presented.) 
Daremberg (Ch.) and K. Saglio. . Dictionnaire des Antiquités Grecques 
et Romaines d’aprés les Textes et les Monuments, 23 and 24 

(—Jmage). 4to, Paris. 1897. 

Dilettanti Society. Unedited Antiquities of Attica, comprising the 
Architectural Remains of Eleusis, Rhamnus, Sunium and Thoricus. 
Second Edition. Folio. London, 1833. 

Dilettanti Society. Specimens of Antient Sculpture. 2 Vols. Folio. 
London. 1809-1835. 

Doerpfeld (W.) and E. Reisch. Das Griechische Theater. Beitrige 
zur Geschichte des Dionysos-Theaters in Athen u. anderer 
Griechischer Theater. 4to. Athens and Leipsic. 1896. 

Englefield Vases, drawn and engraved by H. Moses. 4to. London. 
1848. 

Fleming and Tibbins. English and French, and French and English 
Dictionary. 2 vols. 4to. Paris. 1845-1846. 

Froehner (W.). La Collection Tyszkiewicz. Plates XXXIII.-XL. 
Folio, Munich. 1897. 

Furtwaengler (A.). Intermezzi. Kunstgeschichtliche Studien. 4to. 
Leipsic. 1896. 

Gaertringen (Hiller v.). Die Archaische Kultur der Insel Thera. 
8vo. Berlin. 1897. (Presented.) 

Gardner (E. A.). A Handbook of Greek Sculpture. 2 Parts. London. 
1896-1897. 

Gardner (P.). Sculptured Tombs of Hellas. 8vo. London. 1896. 

Gori (A. F.). Museum Florentinum. See Reinach (S.), Pierres 


gravées, 


xl viii 


Harrison (J. ἘΝ) and D. 5. MacColl. Greek Vase Paintings. Folio. 
London. 1894. 

Helbig (W.). Das Homerische Epos aus den Denkmilern erliutert. 
8vo. Leipsic. 1884. (Presented.) 

Hermann (K. F.). Lehrbuch ἃ. griechischen Antiquititen. Vol. I. 
Sixth Edition. Vol. II. Sixth Edition. 8vo. Heidelberg. 1889 
and 1892. 

Herodotus. Ed. K. Abicht. 2 vols. Third Edition. 8vo. Leipsic. 
1874-1883. (Presented.) 

Hill (G. F.). Sources for Greek History between the Persian and 
Peloponnesian Wars. 8vo. Oxford. 1897. (Presented.) 
Homer. Opera et Reliquiae. Ed. D. B. Monro. 12mo. Oxford. 1896. 

(Presented.) 

Hope (T.). Costume of the Ancients. 2 vols. 8vo. London. 
1841. (Presented.) 

Hultsch (F.). Griechische ἃ. Rémische Metrologie. 8vo. Berlin. 
1862. (Presented.) 

Index in Tragicos Graecos. 2 vols. 4to. Cambridge. 1880, (Pre- 
sented.) 

Inwood (H. W.). Erechtheion at Athens. Folio. London. 1831. 

Jahn (0.). Die Ficoronische Cista. 4to. Leipsic. 1852. 

Jahn (0.). Uber Darstellungen d. Handwerks ἃ. Handelsverkehrs 
auf antiken Wandgemilden. 8vo. Leipsic. 1868. 

Jannaris (A. N.). Historical Greek Grammar. 8vo. London. 
1897. 

Kavvadias (P.). Athens, National Museum. Τλύπτα τοῦ ’EO. ’Apy. 
Μουσείου κατάλογος περιγράφικος. 8vo. Athens. 1890-1892. 
King (C. W.). Antique Gems, their origin, uses and value as 
interpreters of ancient history and ... . art. Second Edition. 

Royal 8vo. London. 1866. 

King (C. W.). Handbook of Engraved Gems. 8vo. London. 1866. 

King (C. W.). Natural History of Precious Stones and Gems, and 
of the Precious Metals. 8vo. London. 1865. 

Klein (W.). Praxiteles. ὅνο. Leipsic. 1898. 

La Chau et Le Blond. Pierres gravées du... Due d’Orléans. See 
Reinach (8.). 

La Ville de Mirmont (H. de). Le Navire Argo et la Science Nautique 
d’Apollonios de Rhodes. 8vo. Paris. 1895. (Presented.) 
Lévesque de Gravelle. Recueil de Pierres gravées. See Reinach (S.). 
Liddell (H. G.) and R. Scott. Greek-English Lexicon. 4to. Oxford. 

1897. 

Louvre Museum. Catalogue des Vases antiques. I. Les Origines by 
E. Pottier. 8vo. Paris. 1896. 

Louvre Museum. Vases antiques du Louvre. Salles A—-E. by E. 
Pottier. 4to. Paris. 1897. 

Louvre Museum. Catalogue sommaire des Marbres antiques by E. 
Michon. 8vo. Paris. 1895. 

Mariette (P. I.). Traité des Pierres gravées. See Reinach (8,). 

Marlborough Gems. See Reinach (8.). 


xlix 


Millin (A. L.).  Peintures des Vases antiques. See Reinach (S.). 

Millin (A. L.).  Pierres gravées inédites. See Reinach (8.). 

Millingen (J.). Peintures antiques de Vases Grees tirées de diverses 
Collections. Folio. Rome. 1813. 

Millingen (J.), Peintures antiques de Vases Grees., See Reinach (8.). 

Mueller (1. v.). Handbuch des klasaischen Altertumswissenschaft. 
Vols. I1f.3; V.2; VI. Atlas. ὅνο, ete. Munich. 1897. 

Murray (A.8.). Handbook of Greek Archeology. 8vo. London. 1892. 

Nicole (I.). Le Laboureur de Ménandre. 8vo. Geneva. 1898. 

Olympia. Die Ergebnisse der von dem deutschen Reich veranstalteten 
Ausgrabung. Edd. E. Curtius and F. Adler. 

Textb. I. Topographie und Geschichte. 4to. Berlin. 1897. 

Textb. 11. Tafelb. I., 11. Die Bau-denkmaeler. 4to and folio. 
1892-6. 

Textb. III. Tafelb. 111. Bildwerke in Stein und Thon. 4to 
and folio. 1894-7. 

Textb. IV. Tafelb. ΓΝ. Die Bronzen. 4to and folio. 1890. 

Textb. V. Die Inschriften. 4to. 1896. 

Portfolio of Maps and Plans. Large folio. 1897. 

Overbeck (J.). Die Antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte d. bil- 
denden Kiinste bei den Griechen. 8vo. Leipsic. 1868. 

Oxford. Ashmolean Museum. Catalogue of Greek Vases, by P. 
Gardner. 4to. Oxford. 1893. 

Pausanias. Description of Greece. Translated, with a Commentary, 
by J.G. Frazer. 6 Vols. 8vo. 1898. 

Penrose (F. C.). On the Results of an Examination of the Orienta- 
tions of a Number of Greek Temples. Supplement, (Pamphlet). 
4to. London. 1897. (Presented.) 

Perrot (G.) and R. de Lasteyrie. Fondation Piot. Monuments et 
Mémoires publiés par l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles- 
lettres. Vol. IV. 1. 4to. Paris. 1897. 

Perrot (G.) and Ὁ, Chipiez. Histoire de l’Art dans ]’Antiquité. Vol. 
VII. fase. 346-8. 

Perry (W.C.). Greek and Roman Sculpture. 8vo. London. 1882. 

Plutarch. Moralia. Ed. G. N. Bernardakis. Vol. VII. 8vo. Leipsic. 
1896. 

Ramsay (W. M.). Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. Vol. I. Pt. 2. 
West and Central Phrygia. 8vo. Oxford. 1897. (Presented.) 

Reinach (S,). Bibliothéque des Monuments figurés Grecs et Romains. 
II. Peintures de Vases antiques recueillies par Millin (1808) et 

Millingen (1813). 4to. Paris. 1891. 
T1I. Antiquités du Bosphore Cimmérien (1854). 4to. Paris. 


1892. 
IV. Pierres gravées des Collections Marlborough, ete.  4to. 
Paris. 1895. 


Reinach (S.). Répertoire de la Statuaire, I. Clarac de Poche. &8vo. 
Paris. 1897. 

Robert (K.). Marathonschlacht in der Poikile u. weiteres iiber 
Polygnot. 4to. Halle-a-S. 1895. (Presented.) 


l 


Roscher (W. H.).  Ausfiihrliches Lexicon d. Griechischen  u. 
Roémischen Mythologie, Nos. 34-36 (—Myton). 8vo. Leipsic. 
1897. 

Schildt (A.). Giebelgruppen v. Aegina. 8vo. Leipsic. 1895. 

Schliemann (H.). Mycenae. 8vo. London. 1878. 

Schliemann (H.). Tiryns. 8vo. London. 1886. 

Sellers (E.) and K. Jex-Blake. The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the 
History of Art. 8vo. London. 1896. 

Stosch (P. von). Gemmae antiquae celatae. See Reinach (S.). 

Torr (C.). Interpretation of Greek Music. (Pamphlet.) Oxford. 1896. 
(Presented.) 

Treu (G.). Hermes mit dem Dionysosknaben. Folio. Berlin, 1878. 

Tsountas (C. T.) and J. Irving Manatt. Mycenaean Age. ὅνο. 
London. 1897. 

Tyszkiewicz Collection. See Froehner. 

Vienna, Austrian Museum. Sammlung der antiken Vasen u. Terra- 
cotten. Katalog τι. historische Einleitung von K. Masner. 4to. 
Vienna. 1892. 

Vienna. Choix des Pierres graveés. By Eckhel. See Reinach (S.). 

Woodhouse (W. J.). AXtolia, its Geography, Topography and Anti- 
quities. Royal 8vo. Oxford. 1897. (Presented.) 

Wordsworth (C.). Greece, Pictorial, Descriptive and Historical. 
New Edition. Revised, with Illustrations and a History of the 
Characteristics of Greek Art, by G. Scharf. 4to. London. 
1859. (Presented.) 

Xenophon. Translated by H. G. Dakyns. Vols. II., III.  8vo. 
London. 1892 and 1897. (Presented.) 

Yarborough Collection. Catalogue of Antiquities in the collection of 
the Earl of Yarborough at Brocklesby Park. By A. H. Smith. 
8vo. London. 1897. (Presented.) 


A LIST OF THE PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS IN 
THE SOCIETY’S LIBRARY, Dec. 31, 1897. 


American Journal of Archaeology. I—XI. 3. (1896.) 

American Journal of Philology. XIV.—XVIII. 1. (1897.) 

Annali dell’ Instituto Archeologico. LII.—LVII. (1885.) End. 

Annuaire de |’ Association des Etudes Grecques. XV.—XXI. (1887.) 

End. 

Annuaire de la Société Francaise de Numismatique. 1896. 9, 10. 

Annual of the British School at Athens. I.—II. 1895—1896. 

Antike Denkmaeler des Archaeologischen Instituts. I.—II. 2. 

Archaeological Institute of America. Reports I.—X VII. (1880—96.) 
Papers of Institute; American Series. I.—V.; Classical Series. 
I.; Papers of American School at Athens. I.—V. 

Archaeologische Zeitung. XXXVJIJT.—XLIII, (1885.) End. 


li 


Athenaion. I.—X. (1881.) End. 

Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift. XI., XVII. (1897. 

Berliner Studien. I.—XI. (1890.) 

Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. I.—XXI. 8, (1897.) 

Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale. XXYV. 2, 3. 
(1897.) 

Bullettino dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica. 1880—1885, 
End. 

Bursian’s Jahresbericht iiber die Fortschritte d. classischen Alter- 
tumswissenschaft. I.—XXV. (1897.) 

Byzantinische Zeitschrift. I.—VI. (1897.) 

Cambridge Philological Society. Transactions I.—III. (1893); 
Proceedings I.—XLII. (1896.) 

Classical Review. I.—XI. (1897.) 

Commission Impériale Archéologique. 
Compte Rendu. 1878—9 and 1882—8; Atlas 1878—1888; 
Russian continuation viz.: ‘ Materials,” Nos. 4—20 (1890—96) 
and “ Reports ’’ for 1889—1894 (1892—1896). For General Index, 
1859—1881, see Reinach’s Bibl. des Monuments, III., p. 145. 

Deltion of the Historical and Ethnographical Society of Greece. 
I.—V. 18. (1896.) 

Egypt Exploration Fund, Reports. 1895, 1896. 

Ephemeris Archaiologike. Third Series. 1884—1897. 2. 

Goteborgs Hogskolas Arsskrift. 1895, 1896. 

Hellenikos Philologikos Syllogos (of Constantinople). IV.—xXVI. 
(1871—1885.) XX.—XXV. (1891—1895.) 

Hermes. XXVII.—XXXII. (1897.) 

Institute (Royal) of British Architects. Proceedings, N.S. I1.—IX. 
(V. Imperf.) (1886—1893). Transactions, 1880—1892. Journal, 
3rd Series. I.—V.1. (1898.) 

Jahrbuch d. Kais. Deutsch. Arch. Inst. I.—XII. 3. (1897.) 

Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology. 1854—1857. 

Journal of Hellenic Studies. I.—XVII.1. (1897.) (Two copies.) 

Journal of Philology. J.—XXV. (1897.) 

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. XII.—XIV. (1883.) 

Mélanges d’Archéologie et d'Histoire. I—XVII. (1897.) 

Mittheilungen d. Kais. Deutsch. Arch. Instituts. Athenische Abth. 
I.—XXII. 3. (1897.) 

- Mittheilungen d. Kais. Deutsch. Arch. Instituts. Rémische Abth, 
I.—XII, 2. . (1897.) 

Mittheilungen (Arch.-Epigr.) aus Oesterreich-Ungarn. XVII.—XIX, 
(1897.) 

Mnemosyne. I.—XXV. (1897.) 

Monumenti Inediti dell’ Instituto Archeologico. XI. pl. 13—XII. 
(1885.) End. 

Monuments Grecs. I.—IIJ. 22, (1895.) 

Neue Philologische Rundschau. XII.—XVII. (1897.) 

Numismatic Chronicle. Ist Series. 1836 and 1848—54.° New 
Series, Vols. I.—XX. Third Series. I.—XVII. (1897.) 

δ 2 


ΠῚ 


Parnassos (Philologikos Syllogos). Vols, I.—V., VI.—X. (Iimperf.), 
and XI., XII. (1888). Epeteris I. 1897. 

Philistor. I.—IV. (1863.) 

Philologus, Neue Folge. 47—56. (1897.) 

Praktika of the Athenian Archaeological Society. 1873—187. 

Revue Archéologique. 2nd Series. I.—XXXIII., XLI., XLIIT.— 
XLIV. (XXXIV., XLII. imperf.). 3rd Series. I.—XXXI. 
(1897.\ (III. imperf.). 

Revue de Bibliographie Analytique. 1840, 1841. 

Revue des Etudes Grecques. I.—X. (1897.) 

Revue de Philologie. XX., XXI. (1897:) 

Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie. XULVII.—-LII. (1897. 

Wochenschrift fiir Klassische Philologie. XI.—-XIV. (1897.) 


LOAN COLLECTION OF LANTERN SLIDES. 


THE collection, here catalogued, of lantern slides illustrative of the subjects 
coming within the purview of the Society, has been formed, by the kind- 
ness of members and others, and by purchase, for the purpose of loans to 
members under the following conditions. Members of the Teachers’ Guild 
are also admitted to the same privileges in return for a corresponding 
concession (see below p. Ixxviii.). The control of the collection is vested in 
the Library Committee. 


bo 


REGULATIONS FOR USE OF SLIDES. 


The slides shall be lent only to members of the Society or members 
of the Teachers’ Guild desiring to use them for the purposes of 
demonstration. 


Those members who have presented slides to the Society shall have a 
right to the free loan of two slides for every slide thus presented. 


For the loan of slides beyond this number, and for loans to members 
who have not presented slides, a charge of 3d. for each slide shall be 
made. 


All applications must be made to the Assistant Librarian, Hellenic Society, 
at 22 Albemarle Street. If desired, slides will be packed and forwarded 
to any address within the United Kingdom at the risk and cost of the 
borrowers. 


The sum of half-a-crown must be paid for any slide broken while at the 
risk of the borrowers. 


The slides may be kept for a period not exceeding fourteen days. If for 
exceptional reasons it is required to keep them fora longer period, special 
application must’ be made to the Library Committee. Slides required 
at a particular date may be booked for not more than three months in 
advance, on payment of the fee of 3d. per slide for the loan (except in 
the case of those who have presented slides as already provided). 


If the Slides are returned within three days the charge will be reduced 
from 3d. per slide to 2d. 


31 December, 1897. 


liv 


CATALOGUE OF SLIDES. 


THE Magic Lantern slides in the Society’s collection are catalogued in 
the fullowing order, the letters prefixed being those which distinguish the 
various serles :— 


TOPOGRAPHY. 


Athens. 

Attica. 

Northern Greece. 
Peloponnese. 
Islands, etc. 
Cyprus. 


Ao Ob Pp 


Each of the above sections is sub-divided as follows :— 
(a) Maps and Plans, (b) General Views, (c) Architectural Views and 
Details, (4) Byzantine Buildings &c. 


P. THe PARTHENON. 


S. ScuLprure, including Reliefs, Terracottas, etc. 


Ὁ 


. Archaic period. Reliefs and Statues. 
b. Fine and Later periods. Reliefs. 
c. Fine and Later periods. Statues and works in the round. 


ν. VAsEs: 


a. Prehistoric, Mycenaean and other early wares. 

b. Black-figured Vases, arranged according to subjects. 

c. Red-figured Vases, and other later wares, arranged according to 
subjects. 


Ia. INSCRIPTIONS, 
M. MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS. 


a. Mycenaean and early periods. 
Ὁ. Later periods. 


lv 


The slides in the topographical classes are mainly from negatives taken 
by members of the Hellenic Society. A few have been taken, by permission 
from the photographs of the German Archeological Institute. 

Those in classes P and § are for the most part taken from the originals, 
but in some cases from engravings, etc. In the case of sculpture, slides 
marked with * have been taken by photographic methods from the originals ; 
if marked { they have been derived from casts. If not thus distinguished 
they have been taken from drawings and engravings. 

In class V, most. of the slides are derived from published illustrations. 
Where there is ἃ choice of publications, reference is made by preference to 
that which was used for making the slide, except when it is difficult of access. 


The following is a list of the principal contractions employed :— 
'OA.M. Mittheilungen des Arch. Inst. Athenische Abtheilung. 


A.Z. Archiologische Zeitung. 
B.C.H. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique. 
B.D), Baumeister, Denkmdler. 


B.M. British Museum. 

Conze. Conze, Die Attischen Grabrelie/s. 

Gardner. E. A. Gardner, 4 Handbook of Greck Sculpture. 
G.A.V. Gerhard, Auserlesene Vasenbilder. 

Eb. Overbeck, Gallerie Heroischer Bildwerke. 

J.H.S. Journal of Hellenic Studies. 

Jahrbuch. Jahrbuch des K. Deutschen Arch. Instituts. 

MI. onumenti inediti dell’ Inst. Arch. 

Mich. Michaelis, Der Parthenon. 

Myce. Schliemann, Mycene. 

P. Prisse d’Avennes, Hist. de l Art Egyptien, 1863. 
R.& C. Rayet and Collignon, Hist. de la Céramique grecque. 
Schuch. Schuchhardt, Schliemann’s Excavations (Eng. Tr.). 
W.V. Wiener Vorlegeblatter. 


&25> Members ordering slides are requested to be careful to quote the class 
letters (Aa, etc.) as well as the numbers. 


TOPOGRAPHY. 
Athens—Maps and Plans. 


Aa 1. Plan of Athens. 
2. Plan of Acropolis. 
aA ᾿ (Harrison and Verrall, p. 343). 
. Sections __,, (Jahn and Michaelis). 
. Plan of Propylaea. 
» 4, Dionysiac Theatre. 


o> Or "αὶ OO 


Abl. 
2. 


τ Sod ee 


8. 

9. 
10. 
at. 
19. 
12a. 
13. 
14, 
15. 
16. 


bo 


lvi 
Atheus—Generul Views. 


Athens and the Piraeus. 
Athens from Pnyx. Panorama No. 1. 
ἣν Ἶ + », 2(Odeum of Herodes). 


» τῷ “ » 9 (Acropolis). 
»» + i , 4 (Lycabettus). 
» » > » ὃ (Theseum). 


3 _ + ΠΟ 
Acropolis from E. 

» and Olympieum from S.E. 

»  toEK. and SE. 

» and Theseum from N.W. 

» from S.W. 

᾿ » ».W., with Frankish Tower. 

. » road Κα. of Zappeion. 

is » foot of Areopagus. 

: » Lycabettus. 

τ » Church of Bombardier. 

» and Theseum from Railway. 


. Acropolis Restored. 


Propylaea and Cave of Pan from N. 


. Theseum from Prison of Socrates. 


» and Modern Town. 


. Areopagus from Gate of Acropolis. 


a and Grotto of Eumenides. 


” 


. Olympieum from Acropolis. 
> Payx, 
. Street of Tombs. 


ΕΣ) 


. Observatory. 

. Callirrhoe. 

. Colonus and the Cephisus. 

.- Demeter Euchloos. 

. Mount Hymettus from road to Observatory. 


5 ς » American School. 
»  Pentelicus. 


. Salamis and Psyttalea over Piraeus. 
. Tatoi from Acropolis. 


Athens— Architecture, etc. 


(See also the Parthenon.) 


. Acropolis, W. front, entrance. 


τε W. front, from the approach. 


» 


” 


᾽) 


. Nike Apte 


” 


lvil 


. Acropolis, Bastion of Odysseus. 
S. side (Turkish period), A.J/, ii. pl. 2. 


Walls, with Old Columns. 


. Propylaea, W. front. 


N.W. Hall (Pinacotheca). 


S.E. Hall (unfinished). 
N.E. Hall (unfinished). 
from top of Parthenon. 
Pyrrhus Inscription. 
ros from N.E. 


. Ge Karpophoros Inscription, 


. Theseum. 


. Asclepieum. 
from E. 


᾽ν) 


}) 


. Erechtheum from N.W. 


and Parthenon from N.W, 


and Old Temple from top of Parthenon. 


and part of Old Temple from §, 
N. Porch. 


N. Door. 


Portico of Caryatides. 


” 


3) 


Excavation on Ν. side. 
(Stuart and Revett). 
Ornaments. 


2) 
. Theatre of Dionysus. 


2) 


᾽) 


front view. 

from Acropolis. 

from 8.W. 

from N.E. 

with the Two Temples. 
Auditorium from E. 

Stage from E. 

Stage of Phaedrus from EK, 
Remains of Stages. 

Stage with Old Orchestra, 
Altar. 

Priest's Chair. 


. Monument of Thrasyllus (present state). 


(Stuart and Revett). 


Boundary Stone. 


lviii 


Ac49, Asclepieum Retaining Wall of Theatre. 
50. - Gate of Well. 
51. " Interior of Well-House (from sketches). 
52. Monument of Lysicrates. 
53. Tower of the Winds. 
54. Basilica of Hadrian, W. end. 
55. ε δ᾽ 
ὅθ. Pnyx, Bema. 
57. Corinthian Capital. 
58. Altar of Dionysus (in Limnae?) A.M. xxi., pl. 9, fig. 1 
Πρ πὰ α View. 
60. Ancient Greek Wine-Press. 


»”» 


Athens—Byzantine. 


Ad 1. Small Metropolis, S. side. 
ag hen a from S.E. 


3. Asomaton Monastery from British School. 
4. 5. Theodore. 


Ba. Attica—Maps and Plans—none. 
Attica—General Views. 


Bb1. Piraeus Panorama 1. 


2. 22) ” 2. 
3. Pore » 3. 
4. Aegina from Old Phalerum, — 


5. Bay of Phalerum. 

6. Eetionea. 

7. Zea, Piraeus and Salamis. 

8. Straits of Salamis. 

9. Eleusis and Salamis. 

10. Marathon, from N.E., with Pentelicus. 


11. oe the Mound: 
Lg. = from Vrana. 
13. ” from the Mound. 
14. - from the S. road. 


15. Phyle, Fortress Walls. 
16.  ,, View over Attica to S. 


1%. §,,° Power: 

18.  ,, Entrance. 

19. Icaria, Dionyso, the Cave. 
20. ,,  Rapendosa Cave. 


21. ,, Cliff, View towards Marathon. 


lix 
Attica—Architecture, cle. 


Be 1. Eleusis, Sekos from N.W. angle looking E. 
a § Sekos from N.W. looking 5.10, 


3 » » » >) is 

4, a " Be: 

Ὡς ᾿ " Substructure. 

6 » * View to S.E. 

i, , Precincts of Pluto from N. 

8. δ ᾿ ΟΝ ὭΣ 

9. » Details of Appius Pulcher’s Gate and Capital. 
10. Icaria, Ruined Church. 
ae... Ἢ » pulled down. 


12. ,,  Acroterion from Byzantine Church. 
13. Sunium from N.E. 


Attica—Byzantine. 
Bd 1. Church of Omorphi. 


Northern Greece—Maps and Plans. 


Ca. Map of Greece. 


Northern Greece—General Views. 


Cb 1. Delphi. 

2. τ 
3. Delphi from Cirrhean Plain. 
4, Cirrhean Plain from Delphi. 
5. Delphi. Phaedriadae showing Temple. 
6. From Delphi looking E. 
7. Plain of Boeotia from Kokla (Plataea). 
8. Plataea from N. 
9. Scironian Cliffs. 

10. Euripus from N. 


Northern Greece—Architecture. 


Cc 1. Portico of Athenians. 


Northern Greece—Byzantine. 


Cd 1. Meteora, Monastery of Barlaam. 
2: " ἊΝ » Metamorphosis. 
3. St. Luke, Stiris and Parnassus. 
4. Megara, the Easter Dance. 
5 


Ix 


Peloponnese—Maps and Plans. 


Dal. Plan of Mycenae (Schuchhardt), 
2. ,,_ ,, Tiryns (Schliemann), 


3. Megaron of Tiryns (Schuchhardt). 


4+. Homeric House, Plan (P. Gardner), 

5. Epidaurus, Plan of Hieron. 

6. τ: » » Lheatre. 

Peloponnese—General Views. 
Db 1. Corinth. 

2. a Canal. 

3. Acro-Corinthus, Old Fortifications. 

4, View from. 

5. Nauplia, General View. 

6. " View of, from Tiryns. 

Ἑ i Harbour and Island. 

8. Mycene, General View. 

9. Epidaurus, Distant View of Theatre. 
10. Olympia, before Excavation, from a Print. 
11. ᾿ View with Cladeus. 

12. a Panorama 1. 

13. a - 2. 

14, 3 5 3. 

15. Megalopolis, Mound from N.W. 

16. Ἢ Theatre from W. wing. 
τὰ - Looking across Scena. 
18. * Excavations. 

19. sf At Work. 

20. ᾿ Wheeling away Earth. 
21. 5 A Barrow Load. 

22. Ἢ Our Street. 

23. ‘a Priests. 

24. τ Peasant Women. 

25 Market Place. 

26. Greek Ploughs. 

97. ᾿ Washerwomen, 

28. Holiday Dress of Workmen, 
29. Asea ἢ rancovrysi), Site of Acropolis. 
| ae » Distant View. 

a: . ‘ Walls of Acropolis. 
32. ‘ Acropolis. 

33. Hysiac (Achladocampo). 

34. ,» Bit of Wall. 

35. Mantinea, river Ophidi, near. 


Ixi 


Db36. Sparta Taygetus, S. View. 


37. A N. View. 
38. Gytheam from Steamer. 
39. Langada Pass, View from Summit. 
40. oe ἣ ᾿ 5 δ. Mt. Rindomuo. 
41. Patras. 
42 » another View. 
43. Vostitza, View in. 
44. a Currant Factory. 
45. = View. 
46. δ: Xs 
Peloponnese—Architecture, ete. 
De 1. Corinth. 
2. Mycene, from Treasury of Atreus. 
3. ss Wall. 
4. ᾿ Lion Gate. 
6." bs ¥ another View. 
6, ‘3 Postern Gate and N. Wall. 
7. Pa Gallery leading down to Well in N. Wall. 
8. r Stone Circle. 
9. τ Ms Ε 
10. : Walls of Palace. 
bl. 5 Palace Staircase. 
12. 3 Treasury of Atreus. 
13. i Dromos of Treasury of Atreus. 
14. » Interior of if ἢ 
15. 4 Restoration of Capital ἔνα, Treasury of Atreus. (Puchstein, 
Das Ionische Cap., tig. 42.) 
16. ds Profiles of Capitals (Middleton, J.7/.S., vii., p. 163). 
ἘΣ Mrs. Schliemann’s Treasury. 
18. Tixyne from W. 
19. , Great Portal on E. side. 
20. » N. Tower of E. Gate. 
21. » Ramp to E. Entrance. 
22. ,, ‘Sally Port and Staircase in W. Wall. 
23. » N. Wall and Postern. 
24. » Ν᾿. Gallery. 
25. , E. Gallery. 
26. Restoration of Hall. 
27. Hpidaurna Theatre. 
28. ss 4 from E. 
29. . ᾿ κι a 
90, ἡ Fs 3 Stage. 
51 i » Orchestra and W, Parodus, 
32, 3 Capital from Tholos, 


Ixii 


Dc33. Epidaurus Cyclopean Bridge near. 
34. Olympia, Temple of Hera. 


35. Ἢ 7 ” 

36. - ns , and Cronos Hill. 
37. > Ne » from Gymnasium. 
38. ἐ " Zeus from Heraeum. 
39. ἣν es » Restored. 

40. Bassae, Temple from S.E. 

41, z - “ΟΝ. 

42, 3 τὸ N. end. 

43. ᾿ - Κ᾽ end: 

44, ὡς » from N.W. 

48. Ὲ ᾿ » YH 

46. " 6 Interior. 

47. Υ another View. 


48. Lycosura, Temple of Despoena. 
49. Ithome, Walls of Epaminondas. 


Peloponnese—Byzantine, 


Dd 1. Mistra, Church of “ Zoddochos Pege.” 
2. Ithome, Catholicon Monastery. 


Islands, ete—Maps and Plans. 


Ea 1. Map of Troas (Schliemann Troja). 
2. Plan of Hissarlik (E. Mayer, after Dorpfeld). 


Islands, ete.—General Views. 


Eb 1. Delos, Mt. Cynthus from Lake. 
2. Delos, Lake of Leto. 
3. Ithaca from Cephalonia. 
4. Hissarlik from Plain. 


Islands, etc.—Architecture. 


Ec 1. Delos, Ruins of Temple of Apollo. 

. Delos, Cynthian Cave Temple from Roman House. 

. Delos, J Ὰ M near View. 

Η Precinct of Isis. 

. Aegina, Temple of Athena from below. 

᾿ be >. » hear View. 

. Paestum, Temple of Posidon. 

» » ‘5 from 8.W. 

᾿ " 5 » ».E., Basilica behind, 


DOTA oP ὦ pH 


10. 
11. 
12. 


Fa 1. 


xiii 


Pergamum, Reconstruction of Acropolis. 
» " Great Altar. 
Corfu, Restoration of Capital of Xenfares (Puchstein, Das Ionische Cap., 
fig. 29.) 


Islands ete. Byzantine. 


Cyprus—Map. 
Map of Cyprus. 


Cyprus— Views. 


. Village of Suskiu and Valley N.E. of Kuklia (Old Paphos). 
. Valley W. of Kuklia. 

. The Village Mosque, Kuklia. 

. Threshing Floor, Kuklia. 

. Village of Kulklia. 

. Pay-Day, Kuklia. 

. Gorge near Aschelia. 

. Summit of Mt. Troddos, and Summer Encampment. 
. View from above Village of Amargetti. 

. A Street in Nicosia. 

. Episcopi from W. . 

. Parapedhia and Cyprus Company’s Wine Factory. 

. Curium, Acropolis and Site of Excavations, 1895, 


_ Workmen, 1893. 
a Staff and Workmen, 1895. 


Cyprus—Architecture. 


. Monoliths by the Sea, Old Paphos. 
. Old Paphos, S.W. Angle Blocks; S. Wing or Tomb of Cinyras, 


Temple of Aphrodite. 
¥ Part of S. Wing. Κὶ 
» S. Wing from 8. Porch. 
7 Digging in 5. Wing. 
s Central Court ; Breakfast. 
sf Clearing S. Porch. 
ἐς S. Porch, W. End. 
- S. Porch, S.E. Angle. 
᾿ S. Porch from §.E. Angle. 
f N. Wall, W. End. 
Cesnola’s N.W. Angle Block. 
δὲ S. Chamber from E. 
Inscribed Pedestal. 
E. Entrance from N. 
From House, E. Part. 


μι Θ Ὁ οὦὐ -1ὺ ι ιΚ WN μὰ 


tpt 


Ixiv 
Cyprius—Byzantine and Gothic. 
. Nikosia, St. Sophia. 


τ = Interior. 
é Desecrated Church. 


. Leondari Vouno, Crusaders’ Fortress from 8. 
. Famagusta, Cathedral. 


another View. 
Front. 

E. End. 

S. Side. 
Chantry Door. 


SE: Wicholae ΘΙ Catia Limasol. 

. Colossi, Castle of Knights Templars. 

. Bellapais, the Cloister. 

. Aschelia, Carved Wooden Church Screen. 


τ Baldachin. 
- Pulpit. 
> Rood, ete. 


THE PARTHENON. 
The Building. 


. Parthenon from N.E. 

. Parthenon from N.W. 

. Parthenon from §.E. 

. Parthenon. Interior, looking West. 
. Parthenon. Plan. 

. Parthenon. Sectional view of Εἰ. end restored (Niemann). 
. Diagram, shewing positions of sculptures. 
. Substructure, E. end of S. side. 

. Steps on N. side, shewing curvature. 

. Capital of column (B.M.). 

. Unfinished drums. 


Athene Parthenos. 


. The Varvakeion copy.* Side view. 
» ™* Front view (Gardner, fig. 52). 
The ΕΠ copy + (Gardner, fig. 53). 
. Head of Parthenos on Athenian coin. 


The Metopes. 


. Metope.* Centaur and Lapith, Mich. 111. 2, B.M. 305. 
noe” ᾿ ἢ , Mich. in. 3, B.M. 806. 
” μὰ 7) 7) 2} Mich. ill. 4, B.M. 307, 


Ixv 


P19. Metope.* Centaur and Lapith Mich. iii, 7, B.M. 810. 
20. me ‘ is » Mich. iii, 26, B.M. 315. 
21. ΤΥ Ἢ ᾿ » Mich. iii, 27, Β.Μ. 316, 
22. mu - is » Mich. iii. 28, B.M, 317. 
28: ta of” sa J i, Mich. iv. 32, B.M. 321. 


The East Pediment. 


24, East Pediment. Carrey’s drawing. 


a A b South end (View in Elgin Room), 

an Ἢ (Carrey’ s drawing). 

W's, if North oad (View in Elgin Room). 

ae <i » » (Carrey’s drawing). 

2; 4, ν᾽, 1% yf aod, avi pl, 8. 

a i Ἰ Horses of Helios, Theseus.* 

ak Ὁ ᾿ Three Fates.* 

32. ‘5 Selene + and horse.* 

33. Birth of Athene, on Madrid Puteal. (Schneider, Geburt dev Athena 
pl. 1). 


. The West Pediment. 
34. West Pediment. (Carrey’s drawing). 


35. ,» North end (View in Elgin Room). 
36. sa, 2 North end and centre (Carrey’s drawing, facsimile) 
τς, ᾿ South end (Carrey’s drawing, facsimile). 
pe. | 2) J Llissos.* 
_ a Ὁ Cecrops and daughter.t 
40. , . Central Fragments (A. J. xvi. pl. 8). 
The Frieze 


41. Diagram shewing order of Panathenaic procession. 
42. East frieze. Hermes to Ares.* Mich. xiv. 24-27, 
ae ε Zeus, Hera and Iris.* Mich. xiv. 28-31. 


4. ε Head of Iris.t 

45. ᾿ς, 7 Central group,* Mich. xiv. 32-35. 

46. , 7 Athene and Hephaestos.* Mich. xiv. 36, 37. 

ἈΠ. — 53 Poseidon, Dionysos, Demeter.t Mich. xiv. 38-40. 


48, rf Aphrodite, Eros, Elders.* + Mich. xiv. 41-46. 
49. Αἱ pe Maidens.+ Mich. xiv. 49-56. 

50. North frieze. Cattle.f Mich. xii. 3-6. 

aa 7 Sheep.t Mich. xii. 8-12. 


bz. ls * Pitcher Carriers.+ Mich. xii. 13, 16-19. 
ae a Chariot group.*+ Mich. xii. 45-47. 
| - Chariot group.t Mich. xii. 54-58. 


55. ys } Horsemen.* Mich. xiii. 110-114. 


Ixvi 


P56. North frieze. Horsemen.* Mich. xiii. 115-118. 


57. 


< ᾽ Youths and horses,* Mich. xiii. 180-134. 


58. West frieze. Horsemen.* Mich. ix. 2, 3. 


59. 
60. 
61. 
62. 
63. 


- "μὰ 
oo tb = 


DO ἢ -τ' δὴ Ob ὡϑ de 


es 2 Horseman. Youth.f Mich. ix. 11, 12. 

iF + Horse and man.t Mich. ix. 15. 

wn Horse. Youths.t Mich. ix. 22-24. 

Γ Ἂ * Photographed in situ. 

Γ ᾿ = ie sabes (Inferior to last.) 


SCULPTURE.— Archaic. 


. Phrygian Lion Tomb. J.H.S8. ix. p. 368. 
. Spartan Stelé. Helbig, Hom. Epos,’ p. 217. 
. Selinus. Metope* from first Temple. Perseus and Medusa. 
. Head of Triton.* Acropolis. 
. Typhon.* Pedimental figure. Acropolis. 
* 


’ ” 


. Statue of Chares. Branchidae. B.M. 14. 
. Hera of Samos,f Niké of Archermos,} and dedication of Nikandra.t+ 
. Figure dedicated by Nikandra.* 

* 


2) 


. Archaic female figure* from the Acropolis. 

. Niké of Archermos.* 

. Bronze Head.* Acropolis. E. A. Gardner, fig. 43. 
14. 


Figure carrying calf.* Acropolis. 


. Head of ‘Antenor’ figure.t Head of Harmodius,t Jahvo. ii. pl 10. 
. Archaic female statue* (with fruit). Acropolis. Rhomaides, pl. 9. 


ἊΣ: τ᾿ ss (Acropolis). Gardner, fig. 28. 

iy » ™ Acropolis (two views). Rhomaides, pls. 7. 8. 
» » »» ‘ = 19 (back view). 

»» 5, , ™* Acropolis. 

»» ᾿ » ™* Acropolis. 

»» fs » ™ (upper half). Acropolis. 


. Archaic female heads.* Acropolis. 
. Archaic female figure on pedestal, with inscr. of Antenor. Acropolis, 


Jahrb. ii. p. 141. 


3. Head of archaic female figure* (two views). Acropolis. Gardner, 


fig. 31. 
27. Head of Ephebos.* Acropolis. 
28, Spartan Relief.t A.M, i. pl. 22. 
29. 55 " A.M. ii. pl. 20. 
30. " Me J.ELS, v. p. 123. 
31. + 


2. Harpy Tomb, West Side.* B.M. 9+. 1. 


Apollo of Tenea.* 
. Bronze Chorus.* Olympia, Bronzen, pl. 16. 

. Bronze statuette* from Ligourio. Gardner, fig. 39, 

. Aristogiton.* Naples. 4 

. Harmodios and Aristogiton.* Naples. Gardner, fig. 35. 

. Dying Warrior.* Εἰ. Pediment, Aegina. Gardner, fig. 42. 

. Figure bending forward.* E. Pediment, Aegina. Gardner, fig. 41. 
. Central group.* W. Pediment, Aegina. Gardner, fig. 40. 

. The Naxian Colossus.* 


Ixvii 


. Harpy Tomb, North Side.* B.M. 94. 2, 


» South Side.* BM. 94. 4, 


; Πρ οϊαυ Relief. 

. Stelé of Aristion,* Stelé of Alxenor.* 

. Steld of Aristion.* 

. Stelé of Alxenor.* 

. Warrior’s Stelé, etc.: from Ikaria.* 

. Selinus. Metope* from second Temple. Europa on Bull. 
. Selinus. Metope from later Temple. Zeus and Hera. 

. Apollo Ptoos.* 


» "(= 42). 


Youthful male figure from Sanctuary of Apollo Ptoos.* 


” ” ” ”» ” » (= 44). 


SCULPTURE.—Reliefs of Fine and Later periods. [See also the section on 


Sb 1. 


the Parthenon]. 


Temple of Zeus, Olympia. Metope.* Heracles and Bull. Gardner, fig. 48. 
a ᾿ ” Metope.* Heracles and Atlas. Gardner, fig. 49. 


ss ᾿ Mi Athene* from Metope of Heracles and Augean 
Stable. 
" # feos Head of Athene* from Metope of Heracles and Lion. 
᾿ Μὴ ἐν Metope.* Heracles and Geryon. 
τ tas” Gs »  ™ Heracles and Augean Stable. 
»» ἪΡ »  ™ Heracles and Eurystheus. 
+9 ἜΤΙ ,» ™ Heracles and Mares of Diomede. 
»  ™ Heracles and Cerberus. 


. Temple at Phigaleia. Metopes* and frieze*. B.M. 
. Temple of Niké Apteros. Frieze.* ΒΜ. 


Balustrade. Victories with Bull.* 
Victory loosing sandal.+ 


» ” ” 


. Attic Grave Relief * of tes, mer fig. 93. 


* Conze i. pl. 78. 

* of Pamphile and Demetria. Conze i. pl. 110. 

᾿ » “of Mynnion. Conze ii. pl. 176. 

* Man and Woman. 

* Hegilla and Philagros. Conze i. pl. 105. 

* Girl with doll, bird, and dog. Conze pl. 157, 


f2 


Ixvili 


21. Attic Marble Lekythos* of Aristonike. Conze ii. no, 456. 
. Attic Grave Relief * of Menekrateia and Meneas. Conze i. pl. 50. 


ε ἢ ,  ™of Ariphrades. Conze pl. 139. 
} , » ἢ of Phaidimos. Conze ii. pl. 187. 
3 ‘ i Sof Nake. 
" Ἧ »  *“ofSelino. Conze i. pl. 76. 
=. sy »  ™*of Mys and Meles. Brueckner, Griech. Grabrel. 
p. 12, L. 
τῇ τ »  *of Aristomache. Conze ii. pl. 15+. 
* of Corallion. Conze i. pl. 98. 


: me Marble Lekythos * of Nikostrate. Conze i. pl. 90. 

. Attic Grave Relief * from the Tlissos. Conze ii, pl. 211, no. 1055. 

2. Mourning Figure from Tomb. Sabouwroff Coll., pl. 15. 

. Monument of Knights Slain at Corinth. Curtius, Atlas von Athen, p. 3. 
. Attic Grave Relief * of Aristion (a youth) 4.2. 1871, p. 23, no. 50. 


. Fragment of Relief * at Delphi. Nude Athlete (?). 


. Votive Relief to Asclepios.* Annali 1873 pl. MN. 


» ” ” ” Ἐπ ΟΣ ΠΩ, pl. 9. 
» » " ᾿ PAM, We pl. Le. 
” ” 2) ” μὴ A.M. li. pl. 14. 

* 
”» ” 2) ” τ A.M. li, pl. 16. 
” » ” ” Ξ (=58.) 
” » » “5 A.M. ii. pl. 15. 

ἘΠῚ} 
: Votive Relief to Pan ond Nymphs.* Sabowrof Coll., pl. 28. 

»» stan” Ὁ is dedicated by Archandros. A.M. 
v. pl. 7. 


. Eleusis Relief.* Demeter, Persephone, Triptolemos. Gardner, fig. 71. 


tenia πι 


; Attic Relief. Girl dancing.* Heydemann, Verhiillte Tdnzerin, p. 9. 


no. 8 2. 


. Attic Relief. Girl dancing.* Rev. Arch. N.S. 1867, pl. 2. 
. Asclepios from Epidauros.* Gardner, fig. 95. 

. ‘Mourning Athene.’ Relief. Gardner, fig. 70. 

. Friezes * of Nereid Monument. Two Nereids.* 

2. Nereid Monument. Slab from large frieze.* 

. Mausoleum frieze. Amazons.* Gardner, fig. 91. 

. Temple of Diana, Ephesos, Sculptured drum. Alcestis.* 
. North side of Alexander Sarcophagus.* Gardner, fig. 106. 
. Pergamene frieze.* Zeus. Gardner, fig. 114. 


» » 7 Restored cast. Zeus. 

” » ™ Athene, Victory, Giant. Gardner, fig. 115. 
:; » + Restored cast. Athene, Victory, Giant, Ge. 
+ Giant next staircase. 


»” ” 


Sb81. 
82. 
83. 


84. 


85. 
86. 
87. 
88. 
89. 
90. 
91. 
92. 
93. 
94, 


Ixix 


Pergamene-frieze.t Giant. 
4 » + Restored cast. Hecate, Aries, Artemis. 
᾿ ΜΕ 4 » selene, Helios. 
af nor At Mf Parthenos, Bootes, Nyx (Goddess 
with snake-entwined vase). 
»  t Restored cast. Phoibe, Asteria, 
Dionysos and Icarios.* Terracotta panel. 2.M. Terracottas, pl. 25. 
Dionysos visiting Icarios.* B.M. 
Bacchante with kid.* B.M. 
Bacchic Thiasos.* B.M. 
Hellenistic Relief. Walls and vine. (Schreiber, pl. 41.) 
Bacchus in mystic basket.* Terracotta panel. B.M. 
Apotheosis of Homer.* B.M. 
Indo-Greek Relief from Malakand Pass. 


” ” ” ” ” 


SCULPTURE.—Statues, Busts, etc., of Fine and Later periods. [See also the 


Se 


—_— 
MH SODN ADB ot γα 


section on the Parthenon]. 


. Marsyas * of Myron. Lateran. Gardner, fig. 51. 
. Bronze Marsyas* of Myron. B.M. 


Discobolos * of Myron. B.M. 250. 


. Diadumenos* of Vaison. B.M. Gardner, fig. 75. 
. Temple of Zeus. Olympia. Pediments restored. 


EK. Pediment.* 

E. Pediment. Aged Seer.* 
τ. 4 W. Pediment. Central figure.* 

A W. Pediment. View in Museum. 


”» ” ” ” 


» 3) ᾽) ” 


᾽) ; 


. Head of Asklepios* from Melos. Β.Μ. 550. 
. Caryatid from Erechtheion. Β.Μ. 407. 

12. 
. Bronze head of Aphrodite.* B.M. 
. Fragments* from Epidauros. 

. Hermes* of Praxiteles. 

. Hermes* of Praxiteles. 

. Head of Aphrodite.* 

. Satyr* from Lamia. 

. Ideal male head. 

. Head of ‘ Eubuleus’ from Eleusis, 

. Satyr of Praxiteles. 

. Hermes of Andros. 


Dionysos * from Monument of Thrasyllos. B.M. 432. 


23. Statue of C. Ofellius* at Delos. 


. Silenos with young Dionysos.* 

. Bust of laughing Satyr.* 

. Bronze bust, young Satyr.* 

. Aphrodite of Melos.* Gardner, fig. 119. 
. Boreas group Akroterion.* Delos. 

. Aphrodite* from Epidauros. 


. Julius Caesar.* B.M. Gardner, fig. 129. 
. Hecate. Arch.-Epigr. Mitt. v. pl. 1. 
. Athene* from Epidauros, 


Ixx 


. Head of Eros* from Paphos; side view. J.H.S. ix. pl. 10. 
. Mausolos.* B.M. Gardner, fig. 90. 

. Artemisia.* ΒΜ, 

. Demeter* of Cnidos. B.M. 

. Persephone* trom Cnidos. B.M. 

. Head of Alexander.* B.M. 

. Girl fastening chiton. 

. Terracotta head* from Paphos. 

. Fragments of sculpture* from Paphos. 

. ‘Dying Gladiator.’* 

. Head of Gaul.* BM. 

. ‘Paetus and Arria.’* 

2. Fallen Giant* and Amazon* (Attalian offering). 
. Laocoon.* Gardner, fig. 116. 

. Head of Apollo Giustiniani.* B.M. 

. The Farnese Bull.* 

wPan* 

. Artemis of Versailles. Gardner, fig. 121. 

. Young Pan* of M. Cossutius Cerdo, B.M. 


vot =, 48), 


3) 3) ” ” 


VASES.—Prehistoric, Mycenaean, etc. 


. Hissarlik Vases. B.D. 2008, 2023. 
. Mycenacan Vases from Islands. B.D. 2062, 2067. 
. Mycenaean ‘false amphora.’ 


Mycenaean Vases. Calymnos and Carpathos. J.H.S. pl. 83. 


. Warrior Vase, Mycenae, rev. Schuch. fig. 284. 


obv. Schuch. fig. 285. 
rev. ἘΞ 


2) 3) }) 


” 


. Dipylon Vase fragment, Tiryns. Schuch. fig. 131. 

. Attic Amphora, 7th cent. Warriors, etc. b.D. 2079. 

. Dipylon Vase. A. Ζ. 1885, pl. 8. 

. Dipylon Amphora. Funeral processions. B.D. 2071. 


: ᾿ i B.D. 2071(=11). 


. Melian vase subject. Two warriors in combat. B.D, 2086. 
. Melian Vase(=13). 

. Melian Vase. Apollo and Artemis. &. & C. p. 53. 

16. 
. Male head from Archaic Vase. (Helbig, Hom. Epos.’ fig. 74.) 
. Aristonothos Vase. ἢ. dJ. ix. 4. 

19. 
20. 


Bearded head from Melian Vase. B.D. 240. 


Amphora of Polemarchos. Naweratis 1. pl. 4. 
Vase from Aegina. ᾿ Harpies, etc. -4.Z. 1882, pi. 9. 
Heracles and Geryon. J.H.8. v. p. 176, 


” ” > 


22, Fragments from Naucratis, Naueratis i. pl, 5, 


Ixxi 


Va23. Heracles and Nessos. Gorgons. A./). 57, 
24. Rhodian plate. Menclaos, Hector, Euphorbos. (B.M.) 
25. Vase of Arcesilaus, Silphium weighing. ἢ, & C. fig. 43. 
26. Corinthian votive tablets. Antihe Denkmaeler, pl. 6. 
27. Proto-Corinthian (Macmillan) lekythos. 07.11.5. xi. pl. 2. 


VASES.—Black-figured, 


Deities. 
Vb 1. Panathenaic Amphora. Burgon. B.M. B130. 
2. εἶ Leyden. Wt. & C. fig. 62. 


3. Sacrifice to Athene. 1, & C. pl. 7. 
4. Athene and Bull at Altar. G.A.V. 242. 
5. Poseidon and Athene. Amasis Amphora. 7), & C. fig. 56. 
6. Dionysos, Ariadne, Citharist. 
7. Triptolemos, bearded. 
Heracles. 
8. Lekythos. Cheiron, Hermes and Infant Heracles. 4.Z. 1876, pl. 17. 
9. Heracles and Hydra, B.D. 724. 
10. 7 bringing up Cerberus. B.D. 730. 
1: 3 drawing wine of Pholos. B.D. 726. 
12. : binding Cretan bull. B.D. 727. 
13. Heracles and Triton. Κ & C. fig. 57. 
14. Heracles and Geryon of Exekias. G.A.V. 107. 
15. Apotheosis of Heracles. 1, ἀ C. pl. 8. 


Theseus. 
16, Theseus, Minotaur, Ariadne and Chorus. (raz. A7ch, 1884 pl., 1. 
The Francois Vase, ete. 


17. Francois Vase. General view. Rev. B.D. pl. 74. 


18. " Bs Ε “ Obv. B.D. pl. 74. 
19. -: ¥ Calydonian Boar. 

20. » τ Friezes (small). W.V. 1888, pl. 2. 
21); ¥ 4 Peleus, Cheiron, etc. 

22) Ἂ f, Hermes, Zeus, Muses. 

23: e = Muses, Hera. 

24. Γ ᾿ Apollo, Fountain. 

95. aa τ Rhodia, Thetis. 

26. Ἧ ἐ- Thetis, Hermes, Athene. 

27. a x Troilos. 

28. " cs Antenor, Priam. 

29. : a Priam, Hector. 


30. . ᾿ Troilos Band. (=24 to 29.) 


31. Amphora. Berlin, 1655. Amphiaraos, Chariot race, W.V,1889, pl. 10, 
32. Procession of Musicians. 


Vb33. 


- oo Or 


Ixxii 


Cyrenian Vases. [Cadmos? Prometheus? Troilos, Heracles and 
Pholos.] .A.Z. 1881, pl. 12. 


The Trojan Cycles. 


. Atalanta and Peleus wrestling. B.D. 158. 

. Peleus, Thetis and Cheiron, Ajax. G.A.V. 227. 

}. Achilles brought to Cheiron. Heracles and Lion. 

. Peleus, Achilles and Cheiron. B.M. B620. J.H.S. 1. pl. 2. 
. Judgment of Paris. Cf. J.H.S. vii. p. 202. 


» os G.A.V.172. 


. Hermes leading Goddesses. G.A.V. 173. 
. Judgment of Paris. 4.2. 1882, pl. 11. 
2. Achilles and Penthesileia. Memnon and Aethiopians. B.M. B209. 


G.A.V. 207. 


3. Achilles and Memnon. Achilles and Penthesileia. 
. Achilles and Penthesileia. Dionysos and Oinopion. Vase of Exekias 


B.M. B210. G.A.V. 206. 


. Achilles, Polyxena, Troilos. B.M. B3824. 


” ” ” 


᾿ς Three heroes. 


. Achilles and Memnon. #.BZ. pl. 22, 1. 

. Hector and Andromache. ἢ. dJ. 1855, pl. 20. 

. Dragging of Hector. H.B. pl. 19, fig. 6. 

. Shade of Achilles. Tomb of Patroclos. G.A.V. 198. 
. Death of Astyanax. B.D. 797. 


” 25 ” ΓΞ 52). 


. Ajax and Cassandra.  J.H.S. pl. 40. 
. Aeneas and Anchises. #.D. 32. 


” »” a) (= 5b). 


The Odyssey. 


. Odysseus leaving Cave. J.HLS. iv. p. 263. 


” ” ” (=57). 


. Companions of Odysseus with Rams. J.H.S. iv. p. 261. 


VASES.—Red-figured, ete. 


Deities. 


. Assembly of Gods. By Sosias, Ext. of Ve 48. Miiller-Wieseler, 


no. 210. 


. Aphrodite on the Goose. Py Euphronios (?). BM. D2. 
. Birth of Athene. B.M. E410. 


. Athene seated with owl. By Duris. Gerhard, Trinksch. wu. Gef. pl. 


13 (but cf. 4.Ζ. 1875, p. 88). 


. Athene and Hephaestos, Fragment from Acropolis. 
. Athene receiving Erichthonics. 2741. x., pl. 39. 
. Dionysiac dance, Aryballos, Sabowroff Coll., pl. δῦ 


Ixxiii 


. Dance of Bacchantes, Term and Altar of Dionysos, by Hieron. 


R. & C. fig. 80. 


. Pluto and Persephone. Overbeck, Awnstmyth. Atlas. pl. 18, fig. 11. 

. Return of Persephone. Strube-Brunn, Bilderkreis von Eleusis, pl. 3. 

. Mission of Triptolemos. By Hieron. B.M. E140. ALCL. ix. pl. 43. 
. Mission of Triptolemos., 

. The Underworld. Tarentine Vase at Karlsruhe. A.Z. 1843, pl. 11. 

. The Underworld. Vase from Altamura, £.D. 2042 A. 

. Ixion on Wheel. W.V. Ser. H, pl. 5. 

. Gigantomachia, by Aristophanes. Gerhard, Z’rinksch αι. Gef. pl. 2, 3. 
. The making of Pandora. B.M. D4. 

. Rhyton. Eos and Kephalos. Compte Rendu (St. Petersburg), 1872 


pl. 4. 


. Eos and Kephalos. Stars, Helios, B.M. E466. 
. Eos and Tithonos. By Mieron. ALT, 1]. pl. 48. 


» =20. (Internal subject only.) 
Heracles, 


. Alemene on pyre, by Python. B.M. F149, J.H.S. xi. pl. 6. 
. Infant Heracles with snakes. Amphitryon, Athene, Alemene. 271]. 


xi., pl. 43. 2. 


. Heracles and Nemean Lion. Munich Amphora. £&.D. 723. 
. Heracles and Eurystheus, by Euphronios. Klein, Huphr.? p. 89. 
. Heracles and Kyknos, Diomede and Aeneas. B.M. E73. Journ. of 


Philol. vii. pl. B. 


5. Heracles and Antaios, by Euphronios. Klein, Huphr.? p. 118. 
. Apollo and Heracles contending for tripod, by Andocides. Gerhard, 


Trinksch. αι. Gef. pl. 19. 


Theseus. 


. Aegeus and Themis. G.A.V. 327. 
. Theseus and Aithra. Odysseus, Diomede, and Palladion. Conversation. 


By Hieron. ᾿ ἃ]. vi. pl. 22. 


. Theseus and Kerkyon, by Euthymides. Annali, 1870, pl. O. 

. Labours of Theseus, by Chachrylion. 

. Labours of Theseus, by Duris. B.M. E48. G.A.V. 234. 

. Theseus, Athene, and Amphitrite, by Euphronios. Klein, HZuphr. 


p. 182. 
The Trojan Cycles, 


. Peleus wrestling with Thetis. Kylix of Peithinos. Gerhard, 7'rink- 


schalen, pl. 9. 


. Peleus and Thetis, from Camiros. B.M. E424. 

. Peleus and Thetis. Nereids. B.M. E73. Jowrn. of Philol. vii. pl. A. 
. Peleus and Thetis. Poseidow. Nereus, by Duris. W.V. Ser. vii. 2. 
. Peleus, Thetis, and Cheiron. HB. pl. 8, fig. 6. 

. Judgment of Paris by Hieron, JV.V. Ser. B, 5. 

. Judgment of Paris. Toilet of goddesses. M.dZ. iv. pl. 8, 


Ixxiv 


. Judgment of Paris (late). ΙΓ΄ Κ΄. Ser. A, pl. 10, 3. 
. Judginent of Paris. Sabouroff Coll. pl. 61. 


» = 59 (subject only). 


. Judgment of Paris. Sabowroff Coll. 

2. Paris and Helen. Compte Rendu, 1861, pl. 5, fig. 1. 

. Leading away of Helen, by Hieron. W.V. Ser. A, pl. 5. 

. Ajax, Teucer, and Telamon. B.D. 743. 

. Achilles and Briseis. J.H.S. pl. 3. 

. Achilles and Briseis of Euxitheos. G.A.V.187. B.M. E 258. 


” (= 66). 


. Achilles and Diomede, by Euphronios. Klein, Huphr.? p, 241. 


Patroclos bandaged by Achilles. (Int. of Ve 1). By Sosias. Miiller- 
Wieseler I. no. 210. 
εν ἘΞ. 


. The taking of Briseis, by Hieron. B.D. 776. 
. Parting of Hector and Andromache. 


” (= 72). 


. Odysseus in tent of Achilles. B.D. 781. Hypnos and Thanatos. 
. Embassy to Achilles. .4.Z. 1881, pl. 8. 

. Odysseus, Diomedes, Dolon. B.M.F 157. 1.8. pl. 17, fig. 4. 

. Murder of Rhesos. W.V. Ser. C, pl. 3, fig. 2. 

. Thetis and Hephaestos. Gerhard, 7rinkschalen, pl. 9. 

. Nereids bringing armour. Heydemann, Nerezden. 

. Nereids with arms of Achilles. JfdJ. iii. pl. 20. 


Nereids with arms of Achilles. 1.8. pl. 17, fig. 1. 


2. Walls of Troy. Achilles and Hector, Priam, Hecuba, Athene. G.A.V. 


203. 


. Combat of Diomedes and Aeneas. B.M. E 78. Journ. of Philol. vii. B. 


(Part of Ve 34). 


. Trojan farewell scene. Priam and Hector. G.A.V. 189. 

. Ajax (?) and Hector separated. H.B. pl. 15, fig. 4. 

. Hypnos and Thanatos with body. MdZ. vi. pl. 21. 

. Warriors arming, by Duris. £B.D. 2207. 

. Trojans arming. (Ext. of Vc. 98). Klein, Zuphr.? 215. 

. Achilles, Nestor and Iris. W.V. Ser. D. ἃ. Miiller-Wieseler, no. 207. 
. Achilles and Hector in combat. G.A.V. 202. 

. Sacrifice of Trojans at pyre of Patroclos. M.dJ. ix. pl. 32. 

2. Hermes and Achilles. G.A.V. 200. 

. Priam in the tent of Achilles. B.D. 791. 

. Achilles at dinner. Body of Hector. 216]. viii. pl. 27. 

. Priam as suppliant to Achilles. G.A.V. 197. 

}. Redemption of Hector. 714]. v. pl. 11. 

. Achilles and Penthesileia. 

. Achilles and Troilos. By Euphronios. Klein, Huphr.? p. 220. (Cf. 


Ve 88, 99.) 
Achilles seizing Troilos. By Euphronios, Klein, Zuphr? p. 214, 
(Ext. of Ve, 98.) 


Ixxv 


Vc100. Eos and Thetis before Zeus. H.B. pl. 20, fig. 10. 


101. 


102. 


103. 


104. 
105. 


106. 
107. 


108, 


109. 


110. 


Prt. 


112. 


120. 
121: 
122. 
123. 
124. 


125. 
126. 


127. 


128. 
129. 


130. 


131. 


132. 
133. 
134. 
135. 


136. 


137. 


Tai; 
8. 


Mal. 


2, 


Memnon and Achilles, Hector and Achilles. B.M. E 468, G.A.V. 
204. 

Weighing the souls. 1.8. pl. 22, fig. 9. 

Kos and Memnon, by Duris. W.V. vi. pl. 7. 

Winged beings with a corpse, by Pamphaios. B.M. E 12. 

Odysseus and Diomedes with Palladion, by Hieron. 21]. vi. pl. 22. 

The Trojan Horse. G.A.V. 229, 230. 

Iliupersis by Brygos. W.V. Ser, B. viii. 4. 

Tliupersis at Naples. Miiller-Wieseler, no. 202. 

Tliupersis. B.M. F 100, 

Orestes slaying Aegisthos. H.B. pl. 28, fig. 10. 


᾽ν » ᾽ 


The Odyssey. 


Odysseus and Companions tied to rams, 7.1.8. iv. fig. 3a (facing 
p. 252). 
Scenes of Daily Life, ete. 


Ships by Nicosthenes. J.H.S. pl. 49. 

Marriage procession. Stackelberg, Gracber, pl. 42. 

Revellers. By Euphronios. Burlington Fine Arts Coll. no. 8. 

School scenes, by Duris. 1. & C. fig. 72. 

Athletes practising (Panaitios Kalos). Klein, Huphr?, p. 284. 

Discobolos (Panaitios Kalos). Klein, Huphr*. p. 285. 

Athletes practising (jumping etc.) 4.2. 1884, pl. 16. 

Athlete hurling spear. 

Youths with horses. A.Z. 1885, pl. 11, 

Horsemen (“rothemis Kaios), by Euphronios and Diotimos. 

Alcaeus and Sappho. Mus. Ital. 11. pl. 4. 

Dionysiac Chorus. B.D. 422. 

Tricoupi Kylix. Youth pouring libation. J.H.S.x. pl. 1. 

Three figures and shade, at a tomb. Athenian lekythos. “ὦ, & C. fig. 87. 

White Lekythos. Deposition of a woman, by Hypnos and Thanatos. 
Dumont and Chaplain, i. pl. 27. 

White Lekythi. Charon and his boat. Antike Denkm. pl. 23. 

Charon and girl, Lekythos. Antike Denkm. pl. 23. (fig. 3 only.) 


INSCRIPTIONS. 


3-7. Inscriptions from Epidaurus. 
Heading of treaty between Samos and Athens, with relief of Hera 
and Athene.* C.J.A. iv. ii. no. 1b, Collignon 11. fig. 56. 


MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS (Mycenacan and Early Periods). 


Tiryns fresco. Bull hunt. B.D. 1901. 
Gold Intaglio. Female figures. Schliemann, Mycenae, fig, 550, 


Ixxvi 


. Gold Intaglio. Schhemann, A/ycenae, figs. 354, 335. 

. Gold mask. Schliemann, Mycenae, fig. 474. 

. Two-handled cup with birds (Mycen: 10). Schuch. fig, 240. 

. Dagger blade. Lion hunt. Schuch. fig. 227. 

. Dagger blades. Horses, Ducks, and C: fig! Schuch. figs. 270, 271. 
. Fragment of silver bowl (Mycenae). Defence of a walled city. 


Ephimeris, 1891, pl. 2, fig. 2 


. Gold cups (Vaphio). Bulls. Hphemeris, 1889, pl. 9. 
10. 
1: 
12. 
19. 
14. 
15. 
10. 


Axehead. Ephemeris, 1889, pl. 8. 

Bronze razor. B.D. 238. 

Gold cup (Aegina). B.M. J.H.S. xiii. p. 196. 
Gold pendant (Aegina). B.M. J.H.S. xiii. p. 197. 
Gold pendant (Aegina). B.M. J.H.S. xiii. p. 201. 
“Homeric Warrior, fully armed.” Side view. 
“Homeric Warrior, fully armed.” Front view. 


Slides 17-48 are a collection of Mycenaean and cognate Egyptian 


17. 
18. 
69: 
20. 
21. 
22. 
23. 
24. 
5. Spirals and lotus, Egyptian. P. 85. 


subjects formed by Prof. W. M. F. Petrie. 


Tell el Amarna, spirals on columns. Petrie, Zell el Amarna, pl. x. 
head see = bull, fresco. * cS δ ΗΠ: 
sakes calf ks i in ΝΣ 
ΕΝ ᾿ bull and lion, fresco. Unpublished. 

τ ‘ canal, fresco. Unpublished. 


Gein Aahhotep and Mycenaean. Orig. and Schuch. fig. 186. 
Neferhotep ceiling, spade spiral. P. 81. 
Spirals, Egyptian. P. 83. 


iy P86; 


27. Cat fresco, Egyptian. Brit. Mus. no. 170. 


29. Cat dagger, Mycenae, 2 slides. A.M. vii. 8. 


. Disc of Sarobina (Berlin). From photo. 

. Gold cup with rosettes. Schliemann, Mycenae, fig. 344. 
. Fluted cup. Schliemann, Mycenae, fig. 342. 

. Silver vase of Kefti (Rekhmara). P. 100. 

. Wavy band dise. Schuch. fig. 189. 

. Spiral disc. Schuch. fig. 191. 

. Diadem, three rows. Schuch. fig. 158. 

. Diadem (half only), large bosses. Schuch. fig. 149. 

. Spirals from gold breastplate. Schuch, fig. 256. 

. Nubian pots with spirals (photo). 

. Nubian vase with boat 
. Scarabs and Cretan stones (Evans). J.H.S. xiv. p. 327. 
. Phoenician patern. Perrot and Chip. iii. 546. 

. Orchomenos ceiling. Collignon, fig. 19. 

. Tiryns alabaster frieze. Collignon, fig. 26. 

5. Octopod dise. Schuch. fig. 190. 

}. Boeotian gold band. “Ep ’Apy. 1892, pl. 12. 


”» 


Ixxvii 


Ma47. Spirals, Mycenaean stele. Schuch. fig. 146. 


48 


49. 
50. 


51. 
52. 
53. 


Cow’s head. Schliemann, Mycenae, tig. 327. 


Phoenician bowl (Amathus). Siege. Helbig, Hom. Epos, pl. 1. 

Phoenician bowl. Combats with gryphons and lions. Clermont- 
Ganneau, L’Imag. Phén. pl. 4. 

Phoenician bowl. (-Ξ 0). 

Phoenician bowl (Praeneste). Egyptian subjects. J/.dJ, x. pl. 32, fig. 1. 

Shield of Achilles, restored (Murray). 


. Figure from cuirass. Helbig, Hom. Epos, no. 48. 
. Priam redeeming Hector (Olympian bronze), Au/s. L. Curtius gewidm. 


pl. 4. 


. Bronze statuettes. Warriors. B.D, 2190-1. 
. Painted tablet. Armed Warrior (Acropolis). 
. Athene with spoils of Gorgon. Intaglio (Cyprus). Murray, Handbook , 


pl. facing p. 152, fig. 9. 


. Terracotta plaque. Funeral Procession. Rayet, Monuments, pl. 75. 


MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS.—Later Periods. 


. Relief, with votive wreath. 

. Votive relief. Surgical Instruments (Epidauros). 

. Votive relief. Ears. (Epidauros). 

. Incised mirror. Corinthos and Leucas. /J.H.S. ix. p. 62. 

. Head of Athene. Silver coin of Athens, fifth cent. B.c. 

. Contest of sAthene and Poseidon. Bronze coin of Athens. J.H.S, 


pl. 75, Z xiv. 


. Athene with shield and thunderbolt. Bronze coin of Athens. J.H.S. 


pl. 75, AA xiv. 


. Head of Apollo. Gold stater of Philip 11. of Macedon. 
. Triptolemos in snake-chariot. Bronze coin of Eleusis. J.H.S. pl. 77, 


EE xx. 


. Aphrodite with shield, and Eros. Bronze coin of Corinth. JJLS, 


pl. 53, αὶ exxi. 


. Aphrodite in temple. Bronze coin of Corinth, JH.S. pl. 58, 


G ecxxvi. 


2. Roman medallion. Arrival of Asclepius at Ins, Tiberina. 
. Roman coins, showing temple of Aphrodite at Paphos. 

. Diagram, shewing Doric Chiton. B.D. 419. 

. Model oxhead (modern) in a garden, as a charm. 

. Bradfield. Greek Theatre. 

. Bradfield. Scene in the Agamemnon. 


Ixxvili 


LOAN COLLECTION OF THE TEACHERS’ GUILD. 


Arrangements have been made by which members of the ‘Hellenic 
Society are enabled to borrow the slides in the collection of the Teachers’ 
Guild. 

The slides are lent for one night at 1d. each, 10d. a dozen. 

All orders respecting this collection’ should be sent to Messrs. G. Philip 
and Son, 32, Fleet Street, E.C. 

The full catalogue may be consulted at, or borrowed from, 22, Albemarle 
Street, and the slides can be seen at Messrs. Philip and Son’s. 

The collection is classified as follows :— 


iiviii. Maps and Plans... τὰ oh toe ae sas 61 slides. 
xi. Views. Oriental i as me ie τῶν ἀν. 
eh 0m, εν Asia Minor... a oa He nee ΟΣ 
Kills, 55 Northern Greece aan = Le of deer BD i, as 
XV. Ὁ; The Islands... ¥ [Ω de at es 
| αν ὦ»; Attica (outside ‘Aahiens) Je ee ans BEV. gs 
EVI Peloponnese ... ie ἊΣ ΝΣ dae 59: Ὁ Ὁ 
UH. ἡ τε Western Greece ay suf a. 16 fg. α΄ 
4 ον Italy and Sicily MY baa ταὶ PKs 
xxi. Prehistoric Greece. Homer and Μηδ δ ἐν if 45. δ, 
xxil. Persia and the Persian Wars ... ἐδ 8 Ds py ae 
xxiii. Athens. Topography .. shit 52) δὲ 
XXIV. 95 History ἐπὶ ἘΠΕ, coins, ete), 9... 
xxv. Greek Portraits.. 33 96 τς 
xxvi. Coins (taken τ the most ae! As the ienfid in 
Duruy’s History of Greece).. a. ὖο SEZ OF 
xxvii. Social Life (scenes of ΠΣ life, on medial som rae 29. Sh 
xxviil. Arts and Manufactures.. eee or or wed οι. 
xxix. Warfare... bof Po» ἢ, κα oh ΝΣ 4 


χχχὶ. Sculpture. (A complete series of the subjects in Prof. 
EK. A. Gardner’s Handbook of Sculpture. The 
reference numbers are the same as those of the 

figures in the handbook) ... i. We je, OOSE 

xxxii. Religion and Mythology ἽΝ δ 99 
xxxill, Greek Drama. (The ancient theatre; ἀρ scenes from 
Greek plays—Antigone, Agamemnon at Bradfield, 

Ion at Cambridge, Frogs at Oxford.) ay ms 43 


THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM LIB 


GETTY CENTER LIBRARY 


wut 


0098 3615 


Saree 


Pee 


ἜΞΩ 
ὝΕΣ 
Ὁ τ ούτς 


srt ~ 
eS 


2529. 


᾿ 7 , vor ὅ oes τς 
ἊΣ : : a : “ 
2256 π 2) vy τ ; , , ΣΤ: 
Jon x : : ᾿ : ; 
"4 mw, ¢ δ + “« >. 


wy 


G os 


δ᾽ 


vos 


ΠΩΣ 
τς 


τ, 


Zi 
, 


IR} 
a 
=a) 


a 


peed 

Lavenncdt ao) r ΠΣ ae ye 
β : 4 7 < Δ Aon naiei dade giatrghest 

ae ae ΖΟΣ ΄ ?