a'
»f
i?<*<'<J^i
THE JOURNAL
OK
HELLENIC STUDIES
THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES
THE JOURNAL
OF
HELLENIC STUDIES
VOLUME XXV. 11905)
KRAUS REPRINT
Nendeln/Liechtenstein
1972
Reprinted by permission of
THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES
KRAUS REPRINT
A Division of
KRAUS-THOMSON ORGANIZATION LIMITED
Nendeln/LieAlenslein
1972
Printed in Germany
Lessingdruckerei Wiesbaden
CONTENTS.
Kales of the Society
List of Officers and Members
Proceeding's of tlic Society, 1904-1905
Financial Statement
Additions to the Library
Accessions to the Catalogue of Slides
Notice to Contributors
Olympian Treasuries
(ieneral
ix
XV
xxxix
H
Ivi
Ixii
Ixvii
Dyer (L.) ..
EUGAU (C. C.)
O
and Treasnriofi in
Fayum I'oitraits
294
Foat(F. \V. G.)
FORSTEU (E. S.) .
Gaudineu (E. N.)
Gahdneh (P.)
Hall (H. U.)
Hasluck (F. W.)
HocARTii (D. G.), U. L. LouiMEU and C. (J. Edoak
[Plates V-Vll.]
tlie Dating of the
[Plate XlIK] 22&
'IVade and Sampi 338
A Fragment of the ' Edictuni l)iocleti,-ini ' . 260
Wrestling I., TL [Plates XI., XII.] . 14, 263
Vases added to tiie Aslimnlean Museum, II,
[Plates I.-IV.]
The Apoxyomeiios of Ly.sippus
•The Two Labyrinths [Plate XIV.] ...'
Inscriptions from the Cyzicono District, 1904 ...
Naukrati.s 1903
65
234
320
56
Mc'Dowall(K. a.)
Ramsay (W.M.)
Six (J.)
Tarn (W. W.)
Tod (M.N.)
Wace (A. J. B.)
Wells (J.)
Notices of Books
Index of Subjects
Greek Index
List of Books Noticed
105
157
163
1
Heracles and the Apples of the Hespoi ides
Topography and Epigraphy of Nova Isanra
The Pediments of the Maussolleuni
The Greek Warship 137,204
Notes and Inscriptions from South- Western
Messenia 32
Hellenistic Royal Portraits [Plates VIII.-X.]. . . 86
Some Points as to the Chronology of the Reign
of Cleomenes 1 193
181,366
373
381
38?
CONTENTS
LIST OF PLATES.
T. Hydria and Oenochoe in tlie Ashmolean Muj^euni.
ir., III. Lekythi in the Ashmolean Museum.
IV. Pyxis in the Ashmolean Museum.
V.-VII. Pottery from Naukratis.
VIII. Busts of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus (I) and Seleucus I.
IX. Busts of Antiochus VI. and an Unknown GIreek.
X. Attalid and Seleucid Coins.
XI. Bronze Groups in the British Museum.
XII. Black-figured Amphorae at Munich.
XIII. Portraits from the Fayum.
XIV. Egyptian and Cretan Square Pillars.
(lON'l'KN'I'S.
ST OF ILI.USTUATIONS IN THE TEXT.
L'olossal Seated Figure from the Mavisaolloiuii 2
Sjuth Pediment of 'Sarcophagus of Alex indcr' froin 8i<lon... 3
Panther from the Maussolleum 4
Colossal Ram from the Maussolleum 5
Suggested Elevation of the Maussolleum 7
' Sarcophagus of the Mourners ' from Sidon 10
Suggested Section and Plan of the Maussolleum 11
Stele from Colouides 47
R.F. Krater (Hermes and Argos) in the Ashmolean Museum 65
11. F. Bell Krater (Warriors) „ „ ,, 66
„ „ „ (reverse) ., , , 67
R.F. Hydria (Domostic S.'Pne) ,. ., ., 68
R.F. Lekythos ( ,, „ ) ,, , ,. 70
R.F. Gutti „ „ „ 72,73
Attic Polychrome Lekythi (Sepulchral) in the Ashmolean Museum ... 73-76
Late r.f. Pelike (Aphrodite at Bath) ,, ., ,, .. 77
Rever.se of late r.f. Pelike .. , ,■ 78
Pyxis with Women and Erotes ,. ,, ,, 79
Porcelain Vase ,, ,, ,, 81
Porcelain Fragments from Naukratis (Brit. Mus.) 82
Detail of Ashmolean Porcelain Vase 84
Head of Antiochus VI. in the Museo delle Torme 97
Plan of Part of Naukratis 113
Inscriptions from Naukratis 116
Unpainted Pottery from Naukratis 124-126
Relief with Man Walking, from Naukratis 127
Baubo Figure ,, „ 128
Small Limestone Head ,, ,, 130
Plaster Model of Egyptian Head from Naukratis 130
Terracotta Fragments „ „ 132
Mould for Female Figure „ „ 133
Cast from Mould for Negro's Head ,, „ 133
Limestone Comb „ „ 135
Group of Venetian Triremes a zenzite (from Woodcut) 138
Portion of Venetian Bireme a zenzile ( „ „ ) 138
Part of the Capitoline Basis with Labours of Heracles 158
Broi^ze Statuette of Heracles 160
The (so-called) Lenormant Relief 211
Forms of Earring in Fayum Portraits 230
CONTENTS
Foot of Apoxyomenoa
Agias
Waist of Apoxyomenos
„ Agias
Head of Agias
,, Apoxyomenos
Azara Head of Alexander
Coin of Lysimachus ...
Head of Alexander in the British Museum
Panathenaic Amphora with Wrestlers (B.M.
Theseus and Cercyon (r.f. Kylix, B.M.) . .
Wrestlers from Amphiaraus Amphora (Beil
„ r.f. Kylix (B.M.)
» M M (Paris)
Herakles and Lion (b.f. Amphora, B.M.)...
Wrestlers from b.f. Amphora (B.M.)
in)
r.f.
(Berlin)
Wrestling Types on Coins in B.M
Herakles and Lion (b.f. Oinochoe, B.M.) . .
Wrestlers from r.f, Krater (Oxford)
',, „ b.f. Amphora (B.M.)
Peleus and Atalanta (b.f. Amphora, Munich) ..
Herakles and Lion (b.f. Amphora, B.M.)
„ Antaeus (b.f. Amphora, Munich)
Lion (r.f. Kylix, B.M.)
Wrestlers from r.f. Kylix (B.M.)
Theseus and Cercyon (r.f. Kylix, Florence)
Herakles and Antaeus (b.f. Amphora, B.M.) ..
Herakles and Antaeus (b.f. Amphora, Munich)
Theseus and Cercyon (r.f. Kylikes, B.M.)
Metope of Theseum
B.F. Amphora in Museo Gregoriano
Bronze with Wrestlers (St. Petersburg)
,, „ (Constantinople)
The Treasuries at Olympia
Eleventh Dynasty Wall, Deir-el-Bahari
Portico of the North Gate at Knossos
Temple of the Sphinx at Giza
I'AO.E
237
237
238
238
241
242
251
253
254
263
264
267
268
268
269
270
270
271
273
274
275
275
276
276
278
279
281
283
284
285
286
288
290
291
294
332
334
335
RULES
>oriftn for tlje ||ramottoii of ^cllcnit Stutitcs.
r. The objects of tin's Society shall be as follows: —
1. To advance the study of Greek language, literature, and art, and
to illustrate the history of the Greek race in the ancient, Byzantine,
and Neo-Hellenic periods, by the publication of memoirs and unedited
documents or monuments in a Journal to be issued periodically.
II. To collect drawings, facsimiles, transcripts, plans, and photographs
of Greek inscriptions, MSS., works of art, ancient sites and remains, and
with this view to invite travellers to communicate to the Society notes
or sketches of archaeological and topographical interest.
III. To organise means by which members of the Society may have
increased faciUties for visiting ancient sites and pursuing archaeological
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 ofificers
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. Ip the absence of the Treasurer
the Council or Committee shall appoint one of their Members to preside.
b
4- The funds and otlicr propci ty 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 the)- 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.
9. Three Members of the Council, provided not more than one of
the three present be a permanent officer of the Society, shall be a
quorum.
10. All questions before the Council shall be determined by a
majority of votes. The Chairman to have a casting vote.
11. The Council shall prepare an Annual Report, to be submitted
to the Annual Meeting of the Society.
12. The Secretary shall give notice in writing to each Member of
the Council of the ordinary days of meeting of the Council, and shall
have authority to summon a Special and Extraordinary Meeting of the
Council on a requisition signed by at least four Members of the Council.
13. Two Auditors, not being Members of the Council, shall be
elected by the Society in each year.
14. A General Meeting of the Society shall be held in London in
June of each year, when the Reports of the Council and of the Auditors
shall be read, the Council, Officers, and Auditors for the ensuing year
elected, and any other business recommended by the Council discussed
and determined. Meetings of the Society for the reading of papers
may be held at such times as the Council may fix, due notice being
given to Members.
15. The President, Vice-Presidents, Treasurer, Secretaries, and
Council shall be elected by the Members of the Society at the Annual
Meeting.
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 vote^ of the majority of those present.
b 2
25- Tiie 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 single payment of £iS iS-*"-. entitling compounders
to be Members of the Society for life, without further payment. All
Members elected on or after January i, 1905, shall pay on election an
entrance fee of two guineas.
26. The payment of the Annual Subscription, or of the Life
Composition, entitles each Member to receive a copy of the ordinary
publications of the Society.
27. When any Member of the Society shall be six months in arrear
of his Annual Subscription, the Secretary or Treasurer shall remind him
of the arrears due, and in case of non-payment thereof within six months
after date of such notice, such defaulting Member shall cease to be a
Member of the Society, unless the Council make an order to the contrary.
28. Members intending to leave the Society must send a formal
notice of resignation to the Secretary on or before January 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 east 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 AI.HEMARLE 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.
n. That the custody and arrangement of the Library be in the hands
of the Hon. Librarian and Librarian, subject to the control of the
Committee, and in accordance with Regulations drawn up by the said
Committee and approved by the Council.
in. That all books, periodicals, plans, photographs, &c., be received
by the Hon. Librarian, 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 13ank
Holidays, the Library be accessible to Members on all week days fron)
eleven A.M. to six P.M. (Saturdays, il A.M. to 2 P.M.), when either the
L>ibrarian, or in his 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 tiie following conditions :—
(i) 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: —
(i) 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.
All expenses of carriage to and fro shall be borne by the
borrower.
(6) All books arc 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 : —
(i) Unbound books.
(2) Detached plates, plans, photographs, and the like.
(3) Hooks 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.
XL 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
boi rower be bound to replace it.
The Libraty Committee.
I\Ir. J. G. C. ANi)Ek.S0N.
Prof. W. C. F. Anderson.
Mr. Talfourd P^ly, D.Lit.
Prof. Ernest A. Gardner.
Mr. F. G. KENVON^D.Litt.
Mr. George Macmillan, D.Litt. [Hon. Sec).
Mr. Arthur Hamilton Smith {Hon. Librarian).
Mrs. S. Arthur Strong, LL.D.
Applications for books and letters relating to the Photographic
Collections, and Lantern Slides, should be addressed to the Librarian
(Mr. J. ff. Baker-Penoyre), at 22 Albemarle Street, W.
THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF HELLENIC STUDIES.
OFFICERS AND COUNCIL FOR 1905 — 1906.
President
SIR RICHARD C. JEHI!. I.itt.P., D.C.I... I.T.P., O.M., M.I'
Vice-Presidents
MR. S. H. BUTCHER, Litt.D., LL.D., D.Litt.
TROK. INC.RAM BYWATER, Litt.D., LL.D
REV. PROF. LEWIS CAMPBELL, LL.D., D.Litt
MR. SIDNEY COLVIN.
MR. ARTHUR J. EVANS, F.R.S. D.Litt.. LL.D.
PROF. ERNEST GARDNER.
PROF. PERCY GARDNER, Litt.D.
MR. WALTER LEAF, Litt.D., D.Litt.
PROF. H. F. PELHAM, LL.D., President of Trinity
College, Oxford.
PROF. W. M. RAMSAY, D.C.L , LL.D., Litt.D.
MR. J. E. SANDYS, Litt.D.
REV. PROF. A. H. SAYCE, LL.D.
MR. CECIL SMITH. LL.D.
PROF. R. Y. TYRRELL, Litt.D., D.C.L., LL.D.
PROF. CHARLES WALDSTEIN, Litt D., Ph.D.,
L.H.D.
Council.
PROF. W. C F.ANDERSON.
REV. A. G. BATHER.
MR. R. CARR BOSANQUET.
PROF. J. B. BURY, LL.D., Litt.D., D.Lht.
MR. H. G. DAKYNS.
.MR. LOUIS DYER.
MR.TALFOURD ELY, D.Litt.
LADY EVANS.
MR. L. R. FARNELL, D.Litt.
MR. B. P. GRENFELL, Litt.D., D.Litt.
MISS JANE HARRISON. LL.D., D.Litt.
MR. G. F. HILL.
MR. D. G. HOGARTH.
MR. A. S. HUNT, D.Litt.
MR. F. G KENYON, D Litt.
MR. WILLIAM LORING.
MR. GEORGE MACDONALD.
MR. G. E. MARINDIN.
MR. R. J. G. MAYOR,
MR. G.G. A. MURRAY.
MR. ERNEST MYERS.
MISS EMILY PENROSE.
REV. G. C. RICHARDS.
PROF. WILLIAM RIDGEWAY.
MR. E. E. SIKES.
MR. A. HAMILTONSMITH.
MRS. S. ARTHUR STRONG, LL.D.
MR. F. E. 1 HOMPSON.
MR. M. N. TOD.
MR. H. B. WALTERS.
Hon. Treasurer.
MR. DOUGLAS W. FRESHFIELD.
Hon. Secretary.
.\IR. GEORGE A. M ACM ILLAN, D.Litt., ST. MARTIN'S STREET, W.C
Hon. Librarian.
MR. ARTHUR H. SMITH.
Secretary and Librarian.
MR. J. f[. BAKER-PENOYRE, 22 ALBEMARl E STREET, W.
Assistant Treasurer.
MR. GEORGE GARNETT.
Acting Editorial Committee.
PROF. ERNEST GARDNER. | MR. G. F. HIIL. | M R. F. G. KENYCN.
Consultative Editorial Committee.
SIR RICHARD C. JEBB | PROFESSOR BYWATER |MR. SIDNEY COLVIN | PROFESSOR PERCY
GARDNER, and MR. R. CARR BOSANQUET (ex officio as
Director of the British School at Athens).
Auditors for 1905-1906.
.^^K. ARTHUR J. BUTLER. ] MR. GEORGE I.ILLIE CRA!K.
Bankers.
MESSRS. ROBARTS, LUBBOCK & CO.. 15 LOMBARD STREET.
CAMBRIDGE BRANCH
OF
THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION
OF HELLENIC STUDIES.
Ofkickks and Commhtf.k fok 1905 1906
Cljairmaii.
•Sir Richard C. Jkdh, Litt.D., D.C.L., LL.D,, O.M., M.l'
JJicc-CT^aivnuiu.
Mr. J. E. Sandys, Litt.D.
Commttiff.
Mr. J. G. Fkazkk, LL.D.
I'ROK. KRNEsr A. Gardner.
Mk. IlKNRy Jackson, Litt.D.
I'ROF. W. K I DC, i:\VAY.
Mr. E. E. Sikes.
Mr. Arthur Tii.i.ey.
Mr. a. W. Verrait., Lnr. D.
Prof. C. Wai.dstein, Ln r.D.
|)ou. ^rcrelnvj).
Mr. Arthur Bernard Cook, Qukf.ns' College.
HONORARY MEMBERS.
HIS MAJESTY THE KING OV THE H ELLENES, (j J/, /e Secr^taue dii Roi des
Hellenes^ Athens.
Hofrath Dr. Ericdrich August (^tto I5cnndorf, K. K. Ostcrr. Archaeologisches Institute
Vienna.
Sir Alfred IJiliotti, K.C.H.
Prof. Friedrich Blass, The Universi/y, Halle, Germany.
I'rof. Maxime Collignon, The Sorbonne, Paris, France.
Prof. D. Comparetti, Istituto di Studii Superiori, Florence.
M. Alexander Contostavlos, Athens.
Prof. A. Conze, Kaiserl. Deutsches Archaeol(\<;ischcs Institut, Cornelius-str., 2, II.
Berlin.
Prof. Hermann Diels, The University, Ikrliit, dertnany.
Prof. Wiliielni Dorpfeld, Ph.D, D.C.L., Kaiserl. Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut,
Athens.
Monsieur L'Abbe Duchesne, Ecole Fran<^aise, Rome.
Monsieur P. Foucart, 13, Rue de Tournon, Paris.
Prof. Adolf Furtvviingler, The University, Munich.
Monsieur J. Gennadius, D.C.L., 14, de Vere Gardens, Kensington.
Prof. IJ. L. Gildersleeve, /<7/;//j- Hopkins University, Baltimore, U.S.A.
Prof. Theodor Gomperz, 4/2 Plosslgasse 4, Vienna, Austria.
Prof. W. W. Goodwin, Cambridge, A/ass., U.S.A.
Prof. Fedcrico Halbhcrr, Via Arenula, 21, Rome.
His Excellency Hamdy Bey, Keeper of the Museum of Antiguities, Constantinople.
Monsieur Joseph W-A.z-L\di-a!^\, Keeper of the National Museum, Candia, Crete.
Prof. W. Helbig, Villa Lante, Rome.
Monsieur Homolle, Mus^e du Louvre, Paris.
Dr. F. Imhoof-Blumer, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Monsieur P. Kavvadias, Ephor-Gencral of Antiquities, Athens.
Prof. A. Kirchhoff, The University, Berlin.
Prof. Georg Loeschcke, The University, Bonn, Germany.
Prof. A. Michaelis, The University, Strassbutg.
Signor Paolo Orsi, Director of the Archaeological Museum, Syracuse, Sicily.
M. Georges Pcrrot, 25, (2uai Conti, Paris.
Prof. E. Petersen, Friedrichsruher Strasse 13, Berlin.
Prof. Rufus B. Richardson, Woodstock, Conn., U.S.A.
Prof. Carl Robert, The University, Halle, Germany.
Prof. T. D. Seymour, Yale University, Newhaven, Conn., U.S.A.
M. Valerios Stais, Natioiial Museum, Athens, Greece.
M. Ch. Tsountas, National Museum, Athens, Greece.
M. Henri Weil, 16, Rue Adolphe Yvon, Paris, France.
Prof. Ulrich v. Wilamowitz-M Ollendorff, The University, Berlin.
Dr. Adolf Wilhelni, A'. K. Osterr. Archaeologisches Institut, Athens, Greece.
Prof. John Williams White, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.
LIST OF MEMBERS.
* Original Members. t Life Members. % Life Members, Honoris Causa.
The other Members have been elected by the Council since the Inaugural Meeting.
tAbbot, Edwin H., i, Fallen Street, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.
Abbott, G. F., cio * The Statesman^ Calcutta, India.
tAbercrombie, Dr. John, 23, Upper Wimpole Street, IV.
Adam, James, Litt.D., Emmanuel College, Cambridge.
Adams, Miss Mary G.,
tAinsIie, R. St. John, 3, Haldon Terrace, Dawlish, South Devon.
Alford, Rev. B. H., 51, Gloucester Gardens, W.
Alingtoii, Rev. C. A., Eton Col/ei^e, Winifsor.
Allbutt, Professor T. Clifford, M.D., F.K.S., Chancer Road, Cainhrith^c.
Allcroft, A. Hadrian, 2, Talbot Road, Baysivater, W.
Allen, J. B., clo Bank of Montreal, 23, Abchurch Lane, E.C.
Allen, T. W., Queen's College, Oxford.
Alma-Tadcma, Sir Laurence, R.A., 34, Grove End Road, St. fohn's Wood, ,V. If.
Amherst, Lord, Didlington Hall, Brandon, Suffolk.
tAnderson, J. G. C, Christ Church, Oxford.
Anderson, J. R., Lairbeck, Keswick.
Anderson, W. C. F. (Council), Hcrmifs Hill, Bitrchficld, Mortimer, R.S.O.
Anderson, Yarborough, 50, Pall Mall, S.W.
Anderton, Basil, Public Library, Newcastle-on-Tync.
Andrews, Prof. Newton Lloyd, Colgate University, Hamilton, N. Y., U.S.A.
Angus, C. F., Trinity Hall, Cambridge.
Anson, Sir Wm. R., Bart., M.P., D.C.L,, Warden of All Souls' College, Oxford.
Anstruther, Miss, Nine Oaks, Hook Heath, Woking.
t Arkwright, W., Adbury House, Newbury.
Arthur, Missj 19, Bryaiiston Mansions, W.
Asquith, Raymond, All Souls' College, Oxford.
Asquith,W. W., Clifton College, Bristol.
Avebury, The Right Hon. Lord, High Elms, Down, Kent.
Awdry, Miss F., 3, Clifton Road, Winchester.
Awdry, Herbert, Wellington College, Berks.
Bailey, Cyril, Balliol College, Oxford.
Bailey, J. C, 20, Egerton Gardens, S. W.
Baker, H. T., 3, Temple Gardens, E.C.
Baker-Penoyre, J. ff. (Secretary & Librarian), 8, King's Bench Walk, Inner Temple, E.C .
Baker- Penoyre, Rev. Slade, Edenholme, Cheltenham.
*Balfour, Right Hon. A. J., M.P., 10, Downing Street, S. W.
*Balfour, Right Hon. G. W., M.P., Board of Trade, Whitehall, S.W.
Ball, Sidney, St. John's College, Oxford.
Barclay, Edwyn, Uric Lodge, Wimbledon.
Barker, E. Phillips, 10, Redcliffe Road, Nottingham.
t Barlow, Miss Annie E. F., Greenthorne, Edgworth, Bolton.
Barlow, Lady, 10, Wimpole Street, W.
Barnsley, Sidney H., Pinbury, near Cirencester.
Barran, J. N., Weetwood, Leeds.
Bather, Rev. Arthur George (Council), Sunnyside, Winchester.
Battle, Professor William James, Austin, Texas.
Beare, Prof. John I., 9, Trinity College, Dublin.
t Beaumont, Somerset, Shere, near Guildford.
Bell, H. I., British Museum, W.C.
Bell, Miss Gertrude, 95, Sloane Street, S. W.
tBenecke, P. V. M., Magdalen College, Oxford.
tBenn, Alfred W., // Ciliegio, San Gervasio, Florence.
Bennett, S. A., Hill House, Eweline, Wallingford.
Benson, Frank Sherman, 214, Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A.
Benson, R. H., 16, South Street, Park Lane, W.
Bent, Mrs. Theodore, 13, Great Cumberland Place, W.
fBernays, A. E., 3, Priory Road, Kew, Surrey.
Bertram, Anton, Nassau, Bahamas.
Bevan, E. R., Banwell Abbey, Sojnerset.
Bickford-Smith, R. A. H., 29, Ladbroke Grove, W.
Bienkowski, Prof. P. von, Basstowa, 5, Krakau.
Biggs, Rev. R. C. Davey, D.D , St. John's College, Oxford.
Bigham, F. T., 27, Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, S. W.
tBikelas, Demetrius, LL.D., Athens, Greece.
Billson, Charles J., The Wayside, Oadby, Leicester.
XIX
f IJissin;^, Dr. von, I.copoldstrassc, 54, Miiihlicn.
IJhicklccIge, Miss Katherine, 21, Gambier Terrace, IJvcrpiwI.
BI;ikiston, C. H., Eton Collei^e, Windsor.
IJIiint, A. W. F., Exeter Colle,^e, Oxford.
r.odin^noii, Trof. N., Principal of the University of Leeds, Leeds.
liond, Kdward, M. P., Elm Bank, Hampstead, A'.//'.
IJootli, Miss Harriet, 46, Ullett Road, Seflon Park, Liverpool.
]5osan(,[uct, R. Carr (Council), British School of Archivoloi^j, Athens.
JJousticld, William, 20, Hyde Park Gate, S. // '.
J5oyd, Miss Harriet A., Smith Collei^e, Nortluunpton, Mass., U.S.A.
Hoyd, Rev. Henry, D.D., Principal of Hertford College, Oxford.
Hoys, Rev. H. A., North Cadbiny Rectory, Bath.
I>ramlcy, Rev. H. R., Nettleham Eicld, Lincoln.
liramwcll. Miss, 73, Chester Sqitare, S.lf^.
])ri;^htnian, Rev. V. E., J/agdalen College, Oxford.
Urinton, Hubert, Llton College, ]Vinilsor.
Briscoe, Miss, Neach Hill, Sliifnal.
Hroadbcnt, 11., Eton College, Windsor.
Brooke, Rev. A. E., Kiiig's College, Cambridge.
Brooke, Rev. Stopford A., i, Manchester Sqmue, //'.
Brooks, E. W., 28, Great Orniond Street, W.C.
Brooksbank, Mrs., Leigh Place, Godstone,
Broun, A. C. B., New College, O.xford.
Brown, Adani, Netherby, Galashiels.
Brown, Horace T., F.R.S., 52, Nevcrn Square, South Kensington, S.W.
.flhown, James, Netherby, Galashiels, N.B.
Brown, I'rof. (}. Baldwin, The University, Edinburgh.
Brown, S. R., Epsom College, Surrey.
Browne, Rev. Henry, University College, Dublin.
*Bryce, The Right Hon. James, D.C.L., Litt.D., M.P., 54, Portland Place, W.
Bull, Rev. Herbert, Wellington House, Westgate-on-Sea.
Buls, M. Ch., 40, Rue du Beau-Site, Bruxelles.
Burdon, Rev. Rowland John, The Vicarage, Arundel, Sussex.
Burge, Rev. Hubert M.. The College, Winchester.
tBurnaby, R. B., Trinity College, Glenahnond, Perth.
Burnet, Prof. J., i, Alexandra Place, St. Andre7cs, N.B.
Burrows, Prof. Ronald, University College, Cardiff.
Burton Brown, Mrs., 19, Argyll Road, Kensington, //'.
Bury, Prof. J. B., LL.U. Litt.D., D.Litt. (Council), Kings College, Cambridge.
Butcher, S. H., Litt.D., LL.D., D.Litt. (V.P.), 6, Tavistock Square, W.C.
Butler, Arthur J., Wood End, Weybridgc.
Butler, H. E., Ne7v College, O.xford,
*Butler, The Very Rev. H. M., D.D., Master of Trinity College, Cambridi^e.
Buxton, F. W., 42, Grosvenor Gardens, S. W.
Buxton, Mrs. Alfred W., 32, Great Cumberland Place, W.
Buxton, Miss Victoria A., Warlies, Waltham Abbey.
By water, Prof. Ingram, Litt.D., D. Litt. (V.P.), 93, Onslow Square, S.W.
t By water, Mrs., 93, Onslow Square, S. W.
Callander, Prof. T., Queen's University, Kingston, Canada,
tCalvocoressi, L. M., Messrs. Ra/li Bros., Mellor's Bdgs., Exchange St. East, Liverpool.
Cambridge, A. W. Pickard, 22, .SV. Margaret's Road, Oxford.
Cambridge, W. A. Pickard, The College, Winchester.
♦Campbell, Rev. Prof. Lewis, D.Litt., LL.D. (V.P.), S. Andrea, Alassio, Ligure, Italy.
Campbell, Mrs. Lewis, S. Andrea, Alassio, Ligure, Italy.
Capes, Rev. Canon W. W., The Close, Hereford.
Carapdnos, Constantin, Depute, Athens.
Carey, Miss, c/o T. Brooksbank, Esq., Belford Lodge, 5, St.fohris Road, Putney, S. W.
♦Carlisle, .\. D., Haileybury College, Hertford.
Carlisle, Miss Helen, Hou/idhi//, M,inhingtou, Stafford.
tCarmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson, Casllccraig, Doiphinton, N.B.
Carpenter, Rev. J. Estlin, 109, Banbury Road, Oxford.
tCarr, Rev. A., Addi/iq/on Vicarage, Croydon.
fCarr, H. Wildon, 109, Marine Parade, Brighton.
Cart, Henry, 49, Albut Court, Kensingtott Gore, IV.
Carter, Frank, Asiidcnc, Winchester.
Carter, Reginald, Rector of Edinburgh Academy, Edinburgh.
fCarthew, Miss, 15a, Kensingtott Palace Gardens, W.
Case, Miss Janet, 5, Windmill Hill, Hampstead, N. W.
Case, Prof. T., President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.
Caton, Richard, M.D., Holly Lea, Livingstone Drive South, Liverpool.
Cattley, T. F., Eton College, Windsor.
Chambers, B. E. C, Grayswood Hill, Haslemerc, Surrey.
Chambers, C. Gore, Hertford House, de Parys Avenue, Bedford.
Chambers, Charles D., The University, Birmingham.
Chambers, Edmund Kirchener, 9, Lansdowne Crescent, W.
Chance, Frederick, 30, Lennox Gardens, S. W.
Chapman, Rev. James, Southlands, Battersea, S. W.
Chapman, R. W., Oriel College, Oxford.
Chavasse, A. ^.,Elmthorpe, Cowley, near Oxford.
tChawner, G., Kin^^s College, Cambridge.
tChawner, W., Master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge.
Cheetham, J. Frederick, Eastwood, Staleybridge.
Cheetham, J. M. Q., Eyford Park, Bourion-o7i-the Water, R.S.O., Gloucestershire.
Childers, Mrs. Erskine, 13, Embankment Gardens, Chelsea, S.W.
Chitty, Rev. George J., Eton College, Windsor.
Cholmeley, Professor R. J., Rhodes University College, Grahamstown, S. Africa.
Christian, J. Henry.
Christian, Rev. G., Redgate, Uppingham.
Christie, John, Henleighs, Kingston Hill.
Christie, A. H., The Bungalow, Ewell, Surrey.
Christie-Miller, S. R.. 21, St. James's Place, W.
Churchill, E. L., Eton College, Windsor.
Clark, A.
Clark, Charles R. R., ro, Cheyne Row, Chelsea, S. W.
Clark, J. W., Scroope House, Catnbridge.
Clarlc, R. M., Dens tone College, Staffordshire.
tClark-Maxwell, Rev. W. Gilchrist, Clunbury Vicarage, Ashton-on-Cleni, Salo/>.
Clarke, Somers, 48, Albert Court, Kensington Gore, S. W^.
tClauson, A. C, Hawkshcad House, Hatfield, Herts.
Clay, C. F., 51, Tavistock Square, W.C.
Clerke, Miss Agnes, 68, Redcliffe Square, S. W..
Clulow, G., 51, Belsize Avenue, Hampstead, N. IV.
Cobbold, Feli.K T., The Lodge, EWixstowe, Siffolk.
*Cobham, C. Delaval, C.M.G., H.B.M. Commissioner, Larnaca, Cyprus.
Cockerell, S. Pepys, 35, Phillimore Gardens, Kensifigton, W.
Cohen, Herman, i. Lower Terrace, Frognal, N. W.
Cole, A. C, 64, Portland Place, W.
Collin?, Miss ¥. H., 3, Bramham Gardens, South Kensington, S. W.
*Colvin, Sidney (V.P.), British Museum, W.C.
Compton, Rev. W. C, The College, Dover. ■
Connal, B. M., The Yorkshire College, Leeds.
Conway, Sir W. M., The Red House, 21, Hornton Street, W.
Conybeare, F. C, 13, Norham Gardens, Oxford.
Cook, Arthur Bernard, (2ueens' Collci^e, Cambridge.
Cook, E. T., I, Gordon Place, Tavistock Square, W.C.
Cooke, Rev. A. H., Aldenham School, Elstree, Herts.
■Cooke, Richard, The Croft^ Det/iiit;, Muiditoiic.
Cookson, C, Maj^dalen Collei^e, Oxford.
Cookson, Sir C. A., K.C.M.G., 96, Clwync Walk, S.I I'.
Cooper, Rev. James, D.D., J'/w Uiii7crsHy, Ulnsi^ow.
Corbet, His Honour Eustace K., C.M.G., Native Court of Appeal, Cairo.
Corbett, Miss Margery, Woodi^ate, Dancliill, Sus.se.x-.
Cor^nalegno, M., 53, Mount Street, Ikrkeley Square, li'.
Corley, Ferrand E., St. John's Collet^e, Oxford.
Cornford, F. M., Trinity Col/ej^e, Cambridi^e.
Covvper, H. Swainson, High House, Haw/cshead, Lancashire.
Crace, J. F., 15, Gloucester Place, IV.
Craik, George Lillie, 2, IVest Halkin Street, S. IV.
Crcwdson, Miss G., Hoviewood, Woburn Sands, R.S.O.,Beds.
Crewdson, Wilson, Queen Anne's Mansions, S. W.
Croft, George C, 5, Green Street, Parle Lane, IV.
Cromer, H.E. the Earl of, Cairo, Egypt.
Cronin, Rev. H. S., Trinity Hall, Cambridge.
Crooke, W., Langton House, Charlton Kins;s, Cheltenham.
fCrossman, C. Stafford, 67, Porchester Terrace, \V.
Crowfoot, J. W., Khartum, Soudan.
Cunliffe, R. J., 121, West George Street, Glasgow.
Cust, Lionel, Oliphant House, The Crescent, Windsor.
Cust, Miss Anna Maria, 63, Elm Park Gai-dens, Fulham Road, S. W.
Cust, Miss Beatrice, 13, Eccleston Square, S.W.
Dakyns, Geo. D., Grammar School, ^h)rpeth.
Dakyns, H. G. (Council), Higher Coombe, Haslemere, Surrey.
Dalton, Rev. Herbert A., The School House, Felsted, Essex.
Daniel, A. M., 14, Royal Crescent, Scarborough.
Daniel, Mrs. A. M., 14, Royal Crescent, Scarborough.
Daniel, Rev. C. H., Provost, Worcester College, Oxford.
Danson, F. C, B., Liverpool and London Chambers, Liverpool.
David, Rev. A. A., Clifton College, Bristol.
Davidson, H. O. D., Harrow, N. W.
Davidson, Miss A. M. Campbell, 62, Ridgmount Gardens, Gower Street, W.C.
tDavies, Prof. G. A., University College, Liverpool.
Davies, Rev. Gerald S., Charterhouse, Godalming.
Davies, Theodore Llewelyn, 14, Barton Street, S.W.
Dawes, Miss E. A. S., M.A., D.Litt., Heathlands, Weyhridge, Surrey.
Dawkins, R. McG., c\o H. Orfeur, Esq., Guelea, Ellington Road, Ramsgate.
Dawkins, Sir Clinton, K.C.B., 22, Old Broad Street, E.C.
Dawson, Rev. A. P., School House, Kibworth, Leicester.
Dayton, Captain E. Winthrop, 763, Fifth Avenue, New York, U.S.A.
De Burgh, W. G., University College, Reading.
+ De Filippi, Madame, 167, Via Urbano, Rome.
fDe Gex, R. O., Clifton College, Bristol.
De Saumarez, Lord, Shrubland Park, Coddetiham, Suffolk.
Devonshire, His Grace the Duke of, K.G., Devonshire House, Piccadilly, J1 ,
Dickins, G., Ne7u College, Oxford.
Dickson, Miss Isabel A., 69, Beaufort Mansions, Beaufort Street, S. W.
Dill, Prof. S., Montpelier, Malone Road, Belfast.
Dobson, Miss, c\o Miss E. M. de Lantour, 43, Warwick Road, Earl's Court, S. IV.
Donaldson, James, LL.D., Principal of the University, St. Andrews.
Donaldson, Rev. S. A., Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge.
D'Ooge, Prof. Martin L., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.A.
Douglas-Pennant, the Hon. Alice, Mortimer House, Halkin Street, S. li\
Draper, W. H., 13, Hammersmith Terrace, W.
t Droop, J. P., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Drummond, Allan, 7. Ennismore Gardens, S.JV.
Dryhiirst, A. R., n, Doivnshire Hill, Hainpstead, N.IV.
Duchataux, M. V., 12, Rtie de rEchaiidcrie, Reims.
Duff, Right Hon. Sir Mountstuart Grant, G.C.S.I., 1 1, Chelsea Embankmcnl, S. II .
Duff, Prof. J. Wight, Armstroni^ Collci^e, Ne7Vcastle-on-Tyiie.
Diihn, Prof, von, Utiivcrsity, Heidelbcri^.
Dii Pontet, C. A. A., Timstall House, Harnna-on-i/ie-Hill.
Duke, Roger, 9, Pelham Creseent, S.W.
Durning- Lawrence, Sir Edwin, Bart., M.P., 13, Carllon House Terrace, S.W.
Dyer, Louis (Council), Sunbury Lodge, Banbury Road, Oxford.
Dyson, Reginald, Oakwood, Kirkburton, Huddersfield.
I<:arp, F. R., The Warren, Upper Warlmgham, Surrey.
i:dgar, C. C, Turf Club, Cairo.
Edmonds, J. Maxwell, The School, Repton, Burton-on-Trenf.
Edwards, G. M., Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge.
Edwards, Thos. John, 4, Holland Park, W.
tEgerton, H.E. Sir Edwin H., G.C.B., H.R..U. Ambassador, British Embassy, Rome.
Egerton, Mrs. Hugh, 11, Tite Street, Chelsea, S.W.
Eld, Rev. Francis J., Polstead Rectory, Colchester.
fElliot, Sir Francis E. H., K.C.M.G., i¥.5.J/. Minister, British Legation, Athens, Greece.
Ellis, Prof. Robinson, Tritiity College, Oxford.
Elwell, Levi H., Amherst College, Amherst, Mass., U.S.A.
Ely, Talfourd, D.Lit. (Council), 3, Hove Park Gardens, Hove, Brighton.
Eumorfopoulos, N., 33, Gloucester Square, Hyde Park, W.
Evans, A. J., LL.D , D.Litt., F.R.S. (V.P.), Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
Evans, F. Gwynne, The Vale House, Stamford.
Evans, Sir John, K.C.B., D.C.L., F.R.S., Nash Mills, Hemel Hempstead.
fEvans, Lady (Council), Nash Mills, Hemel Hempstead.
Evans, Richardson, i, Camp Vie7v, Wimbledon.
Eve, H. W., 37, Gordon Square, W.C.
Ewart, Miss Mary A., 68, Albert Hall Mansions, S. W.
Exeter, The Right Rev. The Lord Bishop of, D.D., The Palace, Exetet.
Fairbairn, Rev. A. M., D.Litt., Mansfield College, Crford.
Fairclough, Prof. H. R., Stanford University, Cal., U.S.A.
Fanshawe, Reginald, 7, Keble Road, O.xford.
Farnell, L. R., D.Litt. (Council), Exeter College, Oxford.
Farside, William, Thorpe Hall, Robin Hootfs Bay, Yorkshire.
Fe^'an, Miss E. S., Eoxlydiate House, Redditch.
Felkin F. W., University College School, Gower Street, W.C.
Fenning, Rev. W. D., Haileybtiry College, Hertford.
Field, Rev. T., D.D., Radley College, Abingdon.
Finlay, The Right Hon. Sir Robert, K.C., M.P., 31, Phillimore Gardefis,Kensington, W.
Firth, C. M., Knowle, Ashburton, Devon.
Fisher, H. A. L., New College, Oxford.
Flather, J. H., 90, Hills Road, Cambridge.
Fletcher, F., The College, Marlborough.
Fletcher, F., Brenzett, Banister Road, Southampton .
Fletcher, H. M., 10, Lincoln^ s Lnn Fields, W.C.
Fletcher, Banister F., 29, New Bridge Street, Ludgatc Circus, E.C.
Floyd, G. A., Knowle Cottage, Tonbridge.
Foat, F. W. G., D.Litt., City of London School, Victoria Embankment, E.C.
tForbe?, W. H., Balliol College Oxford.
Ford, Rev. Lionel, Repton Hall, Burton-on- Trent.
Forster, E. M., West Hackhurst, Abinger Hammer, Dorking.
Forster, E. S., Woodhill, Croivthortie, Berks.
Fotheringham, J. K., Magdalen College, Oxford.
Fowler, Harold N., Ph.D.. Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.
Fowler, W. Warde, Lincoln College, Oxford.
Frazer, J. G., LL.D., D.Litt., D.C.L., Trinity College, Cambride;e.
Freeman, W. (JcDigc, 163, PatL-dalc Road, Plumstead.
*lreslifiel(l, I)ou',rlas \V. (Hon. Treasurer), i, Airlie Gardens, Campdcn Hill, IV.
tFrcshfield, Kdwin, LL.D., 31, Old Jewry, E. C.
Frost, K. T., Moorsidc, Boi'ey Tracey, S. Devon.
Yx\, Right Hon. .Sir Edward, D.C.L., Faihind House, Failand, Jiear Bristol.
Fry, F. J., Crieket St. Thomas, Chard.
Vx)-, Rev. T. C, D.D., The School, Great Berkhampstead.
tFurlcy, J. S., Chcrnocke House, Winchester.
Fiirneaux, L. R., Rossall School, Fleetwood.
Fiirncss, Miss S. M. M., 2, Mycenae Road, Blackheath, S.E.
Fyfe, Theodore, 4, Grafs Inn Square, W.C.
Jyfc, W. H., Merlon Collei^re, Oxford.
fiaj^c, Mrs. H. Calvin, 4, Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
dardincr, Y.. Norman, Epsom College, Surrey.
Gardner, Miss Alice, The Old Hall, Newnhani College, Cambridi^e.
+ Gardner, Prof. Ernest A. (V.F.), ladivorth, Surrey.
+*JGardner, Prof. Percy, Litt.D. (V.P.), 12, Canterbury Road, O.v/ord.
Gardner, Samuel, Oakhurst, Harrow-on-the-Hill .
Gardner, W. Amory, Groton, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
(jarnett, Mrs. Terrell, 3, (lueen Anne's Gate, S. W.
Garrod, H. W., Merton College, Oxford.
tGaselee, S., King's College, Cambridge.
Gaskell, Miss K., 77ie Uplands, Great Shelf ord, Cambridge.
GatlitT, Hamilton, il, Eaton Square, S.W.
(ieikie. Sir Archibald, F.R.S., Sc.D., D.C.L., 10, Chester Terrace, Regent's Park, N.W.
.tGcnner, Y.., Jesus College, O.xjdrd.
+Gerrans, H. T., 20, St. John's Street, Oxford.
Gibson, George, 2, Stirlifig Afansions, Canfield Gardens, Hampstcad, N. W.
Gibson, Mrs. Margaret D., Castle-brae, Chesterton Road, Cambridi^e.
Giles, P., Emma'iuel College, Cambridge.
Giikcs, A. H., The College, Dulwich, S.E.
Gillespie, C. M., i 5, Regent's Park A^'cnue, Hyde Park, Leeds.
Giveen, Rev. R. L., 66, Myddelton Square, Clerkenwell, E.C.
Glover, Miss Helen, c\o The Manager, London and County Bank, Victoria Street, S.W.
Godden, Miss Gertrude M., Ridgfield, Wimbledon.
(iodley, A. D., 4, Crick Road, Oxford.
Goodhart, A. M., Eton College, Windsor.
Goodison, Mrs., i, Beach Lawn, Waterloo, Liverpool.
Goodspeed, Edgar J., The University, Chicago, U.S.A.
Gosford, The Countess of, 22, Mansfield Street, Cavendish Square, W.
Gow, Rev. James, Litt.D., 19, Dean's Yard, IVestminster, S.W.
Gower, Lord Ronald, Hammerfeld, /'enshurst, Kent.
Granger, F. S., University College, Nottingham.
Graves, A, S., St. Martin's, Cambridge.
Gray, Rev. H. 15., Bradfe Id College, Berks.
Green, G. Buckland, 35, St. Bernard's Crescent Edinburs^h.
Green, Mrs. J. R., 36, Grosvenor Road, S.W.
Greene, C. H., The School, Great Berkhampstead.
Greene, Herbert W., Magdalen College, Oxford.
Greenwell, Rev. W., F.R.S., Durham.
(werifell, B. P., Litt.D., D.Litt. (Council), Queen's College, Oxford.
Griffith, F. LI., Riversvale, Ashton-under-Lyne.
Griffith, Miss Mary E., 4, Bramham Gardens, S.W.
Grundy, George IJeardoe, D.Litt., 27, St. Margaret's Road, O.vfotd.
Gurney, Rev. Gerald, Little Colstrope, llambleden, Henley-on- Thames.
Gurney, Miss Amelia, 69, Ennismore Gardens, S.W.
tGutch, Clement, King's College, CambT^dge.
Hadow, W. H., Worcester College, Oxford.
Haigh, A. K., 4, Nor ham Gardens, Oxford.
Haines, C. R., Mcadhurst, Upphiiihaw .
Hall, Rev. F. H., Oriel Colhsre, Oxford.
Hall, Rev. F. J., Northaiu Place, Potter's luir, Herts.
Hall, F. W., St. foluis Collejre, Oxford.
Hall Harry Reginald, British Miiseiwi, W.C.
Hall', Miss S. E., lo, Gardnor Mansions, Church Ro7u, Hamfistead.
l\a\\?im,G.U., The Park, Harrow, N.IV.
Halsbury, The Right Hon. the Earl of, 4, Ennismore Gardens, S.ll .
tHammond, B. E., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Hardie, Prof. W. Ross, The University, Edinburgh.
Harding, G. V., Pent%vyn, near Monmouth.
Hardy, F. A., Scot House, Kinnear Road, Edinburgh.
Harper, Miss Barbara, Queen's College, 43, //^^^Aj ^'^^'^^A »^
Harris, H. B., 37, Kensington Square, IV.
Harris, Prof. William Fenwick, 8, Mercer Circle, Cambridge, Mass., V.S.A.
tHarrison, Ernest, Trinity College, Cambridge. ^ , • ,
tHarrison, Miss J. E., LL.D., D.Litt. (Council), Newnham College CambrnU^e.
Harrison', Miss L., Elleray, Linnet Lane, Liverpool.
narrower, Prof. John, The University, Aberdeen.
Hart, J. H. A., St. John's College, Cambridge.
Hartley, Rev. R., The Mount, Oxford.
Hasluck, F. W., The Wilderness, Southgate, N.
Hauser,'Dr. Friedrich, Piazza Sforsa-Cesarini \\, Rome, Italy.
Hausso'uUier, B., 8, Rue Sainte-Cecile, Paris.
tHaverfield, F. J., LL.D., Christ Church, Oxford
Hawes, C. H., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Hawes, Miss E. P., 13, Sussex Gardens, IV.
+ Hay, C. A., 127, Harley Street, IV.
Hayter, Angelo G. K., 4, Eorest Rise, Walthamstow, Essex.
Head, Barclay Vincent, D.C.L., D.Litt., British Museum, W.C.
Head' John Alban, 6, Clarence Terrace, N. W.
Headlam, Rev. A. C, D.D., King's College, London.
Headbm, C. E. S., 4, Smith Square, Westminster, S. W.
Headlam, J. W., cjo Mrs. Headlam, i, St. Marys Road, Wimbledon.
Headlam', W. G., King's College, Cambfidge.
Heard, Rev. W. A., Fettes College, Edinburgh.
+Heathcote, W. E., Clevehurst, Stoke Poges, near Slough.
Heberden, C. B., Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford.
Hedgcock, Mrs. Harrison, 21, Caversham Road, N.W.
Helbert, Lionel H., West Downs, Winchester.
Henderson, Arthur E., 16, Warmington Road, North Dulwich, S.E.
Henderson, Bernard W., Exeter College, Oxford.
Henderson, Rev. P. A. Wright, D.D., Warden of Wadham College, Oxford
Hendy, F. 't. R., School-house, Bro7nsgrove, Worcestershire.
Henty,'Mrs. Douglas, Westgate, Chichester.
Hereford, The Lord Bishop of, The Palace, Hereford.
tHertz, Miss Henriette, The Poplars, 20, Avenue Road, N. W.
Hewitt, J. F., Holton Cottage, Oxford.
Heyer, G., King's College School, Wimbledon, S. W.
Hill, George Y. (Council), British Museum, W.C.
Hill', Miss Mary V., Sandecotes School, Parkstone, Dorset.
Hill'ard, Rev. A. E., St. Pauls School, West Kensington, W.
Hirst, Miss Gertrude, Ruswarp, Whitby, Yorks.
Hodgkin, Thomas, D.C.L., Litt.D., Barmoor Castle, Beal, Northumberland
Hodgson, F. C, Abbotsford Villa, Twickenham.
Ho<Tarth,' David G. (Council), Chapel Meadozu, Forest Row, Sussex.
Hogarth', Miss M. L, The Red House, Westleton, Suff'olk.
fHolborn, J. IJ. S., 42, Dalmcny Road, Upper Tootini^, S.IV.
Holding, Miss Grace E., 70, IVeliineiidoia Road, Hither Green, Kent.
Holland, Miss Emily, 24, Honiejield Road, Wimbledon.
Hopkinson, J. H., Warden of Huline Hall, Plyniotith GroTC, Manehester.
Hoppin, J. C, Coiertlandi, Pom/ret Centre, Conn., U.S.A.
Hornby, Rev. J. J., I). I)., Provost of Eton Collejfe, Windsor.
tHort, Sir Arthur F., Bart., Garlands, Harnnv.
Hose, H. F., Didwich College, Ihilwich, S.E.
Hoste, Miss M. R., St. Augustine's, Blackivater Road, Eastbourne.
House, H. H., The College, Malvern.
Hovv,-W. W., Merton College, Oxford.
HoNvorth, Sir Henry H., K.C.I. E., F.R.S., 30, Collifighani Place, S.W.
Huddart, Rev. G. A. W., Kirklington Rectory, Bedale, Yorks.
Huddilston, J. H., Ph.D., The University of Maine, Orono, Maine, U.S.A.
Hiigel, Baron Friedrich von, 13, Vicarage Gate, Kensington, W.
Hunt, A. S., D.Litt. (Council), Queen^s College, Oxford.
Hutchinson, Sir J. T., Chief Justice of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Hutchinson, Miss W. M. L., Moor Hurst, Tenison Avenue, Cambridge.
Hutton, Miss C. A., 49, Drayton Gardens, S.W.
Hyslop, Rev. A. R. F., Warden of Trinity College, Glenalmond, Perth, N.B.
Jackson, Henry, Litt.D., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Jackson, Mrs. F. H., 74, Rutland Gate, S.W.
Jackson, T. W., 8, Bradmore Road, Oxford.
Jackson, Rev. W. W., Rector of Exeter College, Oxfotd.
*James, The Rev. H. A., D.D., School House, Rugby.
James, H. R., Bankipore, India.
James, Lionel, St. Peter's College, Radley, Abingdon.
James, Montague Rhodes, Litt.D., Provost of King'' s College, Cambridge.
Janvier, Mrs. Thomas A., clo Brown, Shipley and Co., 123, Pall Mall, S. W.
Jasonidy, O. ]ohn,Blondet Street, Limassol, Cyprus.
Jeans, Rev. G. E., Shorwell, Newport, Isle of Wight.
*Jebb, Sir Richard C, D.C.L., LL.D., Litt.D., O.M., M.P. (President), Springfield,
Newnham, Cambridge.
Jenkins, Miss Nora, Thortuald, I.oschwitz bei Dresden, Germany.
Jenkinson, F. J. H., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Jenner, Miss Lucy A., 25, Warivick Gardens, Kensington, W.
Jevons, F. B., D.Litt., The Castle, Durham.
Jex-Blake, Miss, Girton College, Cambridge.
Joachim, Miss M., 8, Broadway Builditigs, Reading.
Johnson, Miss Lorna, Woodleigh, Altrincham.
Jonas, Maurice, 9, Bedford Square, W.C.
^Jones, H. Stuart, Glatt-y-Mor, Saund^rsfoot, Pembrokeshire.
+Jones, Ronald P., 208, Coleherne Court, South Kensington.
Jones, W. H. S., The Perse School, Cambridge.
Jones, William, 65, High Street, Berwick-on-Tweed.
Joseph, H. W. B., New College, Oxford.
Judge, Max, 7, Pall Mall, S.W.
Karo, George, Akademisches Kunstmuseum, Bonn am Rhein.
Keene, Prof. Charles H., University Club, Dublin.
Keith, A. Berricdale, Colonial Office, Downing Street, S. W.
Kelly, Charles Arthur, 30, Cheyne Walk, Chelsea, S.W.
Keltie, J. S., LL.D., 15, Neville Court, Abbey Road, N.W.
Kennedy, J., 12, Frognal Lane, Finchley Road, N.W.
Kensington, Miss Frances, 145, Gloucester Terrace, Hyde Park, M\
Kenyon, F. G., D.Litt. (Council), British Museum, W.C.
Ker, Prof. W. P., 95, Gower Street, W.C.
Kerr, Prof. Alexander, Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Keser, Dr. J., Colatal, Chemin Vinet, Lausanne,
Kcttlcwcll, Rev. P. W. H., I, Albert Road, Clifton, Bristol.
Kieffer, Prof. John B., Cflllet^c Avenue, Lancaster, Pa., U.S.A.
King, J. E., Grammar School, Bedford.
King, Rev. Canon J. R., St. Peter's Vicarage, Oxford.
tKing, Mrs. Wilson, 19, Hii^hfiehi Road, Edghaston, Birmim^ham.
King, W. F., 3, Corrennic Drive, Edinburi^h.
Knowlcs, Sir James, K.C.V.O., Queen Anfie's Lodi^e, St. James' Park, S. IV.
Kohler, Olivia C, 39, Kin^^swood Avenue, Queeti's Park, IV.
Lane, Mrs. Charles T., Dangstein, Petersfield.
Lang, Andrew, LL.D., D.Litt., i, Marlocs Road, Kensington, IV.
*Lang, Sir R. Hamilton, K.C.M.G., 7'//e Grove, Dedham, Essex.
Langdon-Uavies, B. N., Copthill, Burt^/i Heath, Surrey.
Langton, Neville, 62, Harley Street, IV.
tLansdowne, The Most Hon. the Marquess of, K.G., G.C.S.I., G.C.LE., G.C.M.G.,
Bo wood, Calne, H7/ts.
Lantour, Miss de, 178, EarPs Court Road, S.IV.
Lathbury, Miss, 19, Lin infield Road, Wimbledon, S.W.
La Touche, C. D., 53, Raglan Road, Dublin.
Lawson, L. M., University Club, Eifth Avenue and Eifty fourth Street, Netv ]'ork, U.S.A.
Leaf, Herbert, The Green, Marlborough.
tJLeaf, Walter, Liit.D., D.Litt. (V.P.),"6, Sussex Place, Regent's Park, N.W.
Lccky, Mrs., 38, Onslow Gardens, S. IV.
Leeper, Alexander, IVarden of Trinity College, Melbourne.
Lee-Warner, Miss Evelyn, Lynwode, Godalming.
Lcgge, 1'% 6, Gray's Inn Square, IV.C.
Leigh, W. Austen, Hartficld, Roehampton, S. W.
Lewis, Harry R., 5, Argyll Road, Kensington, \V.
Lewis, Miss M. B., 42, Shrewsbury Road, Oxton, Birkenhead.
f Lewis, Mrs. S. S., Castle-brae, Chesterton Road, Cambridge.
Leycestcr, Mrs. Rafe, 6, Cheyne Walk, S. IV.
Lindley, Miss Julia, 74, Shootet^s Hill Road, Blackheath, S.E.
Lingen, The Right Hon. Lord, K.C.15., 13, Wetherby Gardens, S.W.
Lingen, Lady, 13, WetJicrby Gardens, .S.W.
Lister, Hon. Reginald, British Embassy, Rome, Italy.
Livmgstonc, R. W., Christ Church, Oxford.
Lloyd, Miss A. lAL, Caythorpe Hall, Grantham.
f Lock, Rev. W., D.D., Warden of Keble College, O.xford.
tLoeb, James, 37, East 38th Street, Ne7v York.
t Longman, Miss Mary, 27, Norfolk Square, Hyde Park, IV.
Lorimer, Miss H. L., Sovterville College, Oxford.
tLoring, William (Council), Allerton House, Grotes Buildim^s, Blackheath, S.E.
Lucas, Bernard J., Southdown, Bramber, Sussex.
Lumsden, Miss, 10, ^S7. Thomas Mansions, Westmitister.
Lunn, Henry S., M.I)., Oldfeld House, Harrow-on-the-Hill.
Lunn, W. Holds worth, 5, Endsleigh Gardens, N.W.
Lyttelton, Hon. and Rev. E., Etoti College, Windsor.
*i\Lacan, R. W., Unii'ersity College, O.xford.
McAnally, \\. W. W., War Office, Pall Mall, S.W.
McArthur, A. G., 28, Linden Gardens, W.
McClymont, Rev. J. A., D.D., 5, Queen's Gardens, Aberdeen.
Macdonald, George, LL.D. (Council), 17, Learmouth Gardens, Edinburgh.
Macdonald, Miss Louisa, Women's College, Sydney University, Sydney, A^.S W.
Macdonell, W. R., LL.D., Bridgefeld Bridge of Don, Aberdeenshire.
McDougall, Miss Eleanor, Westfield College, Hampstead, N.W.
McDowall, Miss Katherine Ada, \66, Holland Road, Kensington, W.
MacEwen, Rev. Prof. Alex. Robertson, 5, Doune Terrace, Edinburgh.
Mclntyre, P. S., The University, St. A?idrews.
Maclver, D. Randall, Wolverton House, Clifton, Bristol.
Mackenzie, Duncan, i8, Via del Maschcrino, Rome.
Mackenzie, R. J., 12, Great Stuart Street, Edinburgh.
McKerrow, Miss, St. Leonard's School, St. Andrews, Fife, N.B.
MacLchose, James J., 61, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow.
Macmillan, Mrs. Alexander, 32, Grosvenor Road, S.W.
+*Macmilian, George A., D.Litt. (Hon. Sec), St. Martin's Street, W.C.
Macmillan, Mrs. George A., 27, Queen's Gate Gardens, S.W.
Macmillan, Maurice, 52, Cadogan Place, S. IV.
tMacniillan, W. E. F., 27, Queen's Gate Gardens, S.IV.
tMacnaghten, Hugh, Eton College, Windsor.
Macnaghten, The Right Hon. Lord, 198, Queen's Gate, S.IV.
f Magrath, Rev. J. R., Provost of Queen's College, Oxford.
*Mahaffy. Rev. J. P.. D.U., D.C.L., C.V.O., Trinity College, Dublin.
Mair, Prof. A. W., The University, Edinburgh.
tMalim, F. B. Marlborough College, Wilts.
Mallet, P. W., 25, Highbury New Park, N.
Manatt, Prof. Irving, Proxun U/iiversity, Providence, R.I.. U.S.A.
tMarindin, G. E. (Council), Hanimondswood, Frensham, Farnham.
tMarquand, Prof. Allan, Princeton College, Nezu fersey, U.S.A.
Marsh, E., 3, Gray's Inn Place, W.C.
Marshall, Miss, Far Cross, Woore, Newcastle, Staffs.
Marshall, Frederick, British Mu<;eum, W.C.
Marshall, John, Lewes House, Lewes.
Marshall, J. H., Benniore, Simla, India.
Marshall, Prof. J. W., University College of Wales, Aberystxvyth.
Marshall, R., 31, The Waldrons, Croydon.
Marshall, T., Highfiehi, Chapel Allerton, Leeds.
Martin, Charles B., The College, Oberlin, Ohio, U.S.A.
tMartin, R. B., M.P., 10, HiirStreet, W.
tMartyn, Edward, Tillyra Castle, Ardrahan, County Galway.
Massy, Lieut.-Colonel P. H. H., H.M. V. Consulate, Mersina, Asia Minor.
Matheson, P. E., New College, Oxford.
Mavrogordato, J., Exeter College, Oxford.
Mavrogordato, J. M., 62, Westbourne Terrace, Hyde Park, W.
Mavrogordato, Pandeli A., 74, Westbourne Terrace, Hyde Park, W.
Mayor, H. B., Clifton College, Bristol.
Mayor, Rev. Prof. Joseph B., Queensgate House, Kingston Hill, Surrey.
Mayor, R. J. G. (Council), Board of Education, Whitehall, S.W.
Measures, A. E., King Edward VL School, Birmingham.
Merk, F. H., Christ's Hospital, West Horsham.
Merry, Rev. W. W., Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford.
Methuen, A. M. S., New Place, Haslemere.
tMiers, Prof. H. A., F.R.S., Magdalen College, Oxford.
Michel, Prof. Ch., 42, Avenue Blonden, Liege, Belgiuut.
Miller, William, 2, Via San Martino al Macao, Rome, Haly.
Milliet, P., 95, Boulevard St. Michel, Paris.
Millingen, Prof. Alexander van, Robert College, Constantinople.
Millington, Miss M. V., 47, Peak Hill, Sydenham, S.E.
Milne, J. Grafton, Duncroft, Linden Gardens, Leatherhead, Surrey.
Milner, Viscount, G.C.B., Brook's Club, St. James Street, S.W.
Minet, Miss Julia, 18, Sussex Square, Hyde Park, W.
Minns, Ellis H., Pembroke College, Cambridge.
Minturn, Miss E. T., 14, Chelsea Embankment, S.W.
Mitchell, Mrs. C. W.,Jesmond Towers, Netvcastleon-Tyne.
Moline, Miss I. P., 172, Church Street, Stoke Ne<vington, N.
+Mond, Mrs. Frida, The Poplars, 20, Avenue Road, Regent's Park, N. IV.
Monson, Right Hon. Sir E. J., G.C.B., G.C.M.G , Richmond Park.
c 2
Morgan, Prof. Morris H., Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.
Morgan, Miss, 64, Scarsdale Villas, Koisington, IV.
*MorIey, The Right Hon. the Earl of, 31, Prime's Gardens, S.IV.
tMorshead, E. D. A., 29, Trinity Square, Sout/nvark, S.E.
Moss, The Rev. H. W., The School House, Shreiusbury.
Mount, Rev. C. B., 14, Norhani Road, Oxford.
Moxon, Miss E. A. R., All Saints' Vicarage, Clayton-le-Moors, Accrington.
Moxon, Rev. T. Allen, 106, Goldsmith Street, Nottingliam.
Mozley, H. W., The White House, Haslemcre.
tMunro, J. A. R., Lincoln College, Oxford.
Murray, G. G. A. (Council), 131, Banbury Road, Oxford.
Musson, Miss Caroline, 29, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield.
t*Myers, Ernest (Council), Brackenside, Chislehurst.
tMyres, J. Linton, Christ Church, Oxford.
tNairn, Rev. J. Arbuthnot, Merchant Taylors School, E.C.
Nash, Mrs. Vaughan, 42, Well Walk, Hampstead.
Newbolt, Henry, 23, EarVs Terrace, Kensington, W.
Newman, W. L., Litt.D., D.Litt., Pittville Lawn, Cheltenham.
Newton, The Lord, 6, Belgrave Square, S. W.
Nichols, Morton C, Metropolitan Club, Fifth Avettue, New York, U.S.A.
Noack, Prof. Ferdinand, Feldstrasse 140, Kiel.
Northampton, The Most Hon. the Marquis of, 51, Lennox Gardens, S.W.
Oakesmith, John, D.Litt., 6, Kneller Villas, Whitton Hamlet, Hounsloxv.
Odgers, Rev. J. Edwin, D.D., 145, Woodstock Road, Oxford.
Ogilvy, Miss Alison, 12, Prince Edward's Mansions, Pembridge Square, W.
Oppe, A. P., 20, Chelsea Embankment Gardens, S. W.
Orpen, Rev. T, H., Ivy Cottage, Little Shelf ord, Cambridge.
Owen, A. S., 3, Montague Lawn, Cheltenham.
Owen, Rev. E. C. Everard, The Knoll, Harrow-on-ihe-Hill.
Page, T. E., Charterhouse, Godalming.
Pallis, Alexander, Tatoi, Aigburgh Drive, Liverpool.
Palmer, Rev. J., Balliol College, Oxford.
Parker, Miss M. E., Princess Helena College, Ealing, W.
t Parry, Rev. O. H., Inglehope, Crattmer Road, Cambridge.
Parry, Rev. R. St. J., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Paton, James Morton, Wesleyan University, Middleto7vn, Conn., U.S.A.
Paton, W. R., Mai soft Catnus, Place Marc, Viroflay, Seine-et-Oise, France.
Paton, J. Lewis, Grammar School, Manchester.
Payne-Smith, Rev. W. H., Moultrie Road, Rugby.
Pears, Edwin, 2, Rue de la Banque, Constantinople.
Peckover, Alexander, LL.D., Wisbech, Cambs.
fPeckover, Miss Alexandrina, Bank House, Wisbech.
Peers, C. R., 96, Grosvenor Road, S. W.
Peilc, John, Litt.D., Master of Christ's College, Cambridge.
Peile, Rev. J. F,, University College, Oxford.
Pelham, Hon. Mrs. Arthur, 15, Duke Street, Manchester Square, W.
Pelham, Professor H. F. (V.P.), President of Trinity College, Oxford.
Pember, E. H., K.C., Vicar's Hill, near Lymington, Hants.
Penrose, Miss Emily (Council), Royal Holloway College, Englefield Green, S.O., Surrey.
*tPercival, F. W., i, Chesham Street, S.W.
Perkins, O. T., Wellington College, Berks.
Perry, Prof. Edward Delavan, Columbia University, New York City, U.S.A.
Pesel, Miss Laura, Oak House, Bradford.
Petrocokino, Ambrose, Thames Cottage, Pangbourne.
Philips, Mrs. Herbert, Sutton Oaks, Macclesfield.
Phillimore, Prof. J. S., The University, Glasgow.
Philpot, Hamlet S., The County School, Baltimore., Maryland, U.S.A.
Picard, George, 2 h's, Ri/c licnoiivi/h', Paris.
Pipe, Miss Hannah E., Limpsfield, Surrey.
I'innecky, A. B., The Orchard, Haihford, Somerset.
Plater, Rev. Charles, S.J., .S7. Mar/s Hall, Stoiiyhurst, Blackhion.
tPlatt, Prof. Arthur, 5, Chester Terrace, N.\\\
Pogson-Smith, W. G., St. John's College, Oxford.
Pollard, A. 'P., City of London School, Victoria Embankment, F..C.
Pollock, Sir P^rederick, Hart., 21, Hyde Park Place, \V.
f Pope, Mrs. G. H., 60, Banbury Road, Oxford.
Pope, Rev. J. O. Fallon, S.J., Pope's Hall, Oxford.
Porter, Mrs., 11, West Cromwell Road, S. IV.
fPostgate, Prof. J. P., Litt.D., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Powell, Sir F. S., Bart., M.P., i, Cambridge Square, Hyde Park, IV.
Powell, John U., St. John's College, Oxford.
Poynter, Sir Edward J., Bart., Litt.D., D.C.L., P.R.A., S8, Knightslridgc, S.IV.
Preece, Sir William H., Gothic Lodge, Wimbledon Common, S. JV.
Pretor, A., 2, Camden Place, IVyke, IVeymouth.
Price, Miss Mabel, Charlton, Headington, O.xford.
Prickard, A. O., Holly motmt, Pleet R.S.O., Hants.
Proctor, Mrs. A., The Lodge, Waltham Cross.
Prothero, Henry, 13, Promenade, Cheltenham.
tPryor, Francis R., Woodfield, Hatfield, Herts.
Quaritch, Miss, 34, Belsize Grove, Hampstead, N.W.
Quibell, Mrs. Annie A., Gizeh Museum, Egypt.
•f Rackham, H., 4, Grange Terrace, Cambridge.
Radcliffe, .W. W., Fonthill, East Grinstead, Sussex.
Raleigh, Sir Thomas, C.S.I., D.C.L., All Souls College, Oxford.
tRaleigh, Miss Katherine A., Longlane Farm, Ickenham, Uxbridge.
*RalIi, Pandeli, 17, Belgrave Square, S.JV.
tRalli, Mrs. Stephen A., St. Catherine's Lodge, Hove, Sussex.
Ramsay, A. B., Eton College, Windsor.
Ramsay, Prof. G. G., LL.D., Litt.D., The University, Glasgotu.
tRamsay, Prof. W. M., D.C.L., Litt.D. (V.P.), The University, Aberdeen.
Ransome, Miss C. L., z\\2, Jefferson Avenue, Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Rawlins, F. H., Eton College, Windsor.
Rawnsley, W. F., The Manor House, Shamley Green, Guildford.
Reade, Essex E.
Reece, Miss Dora, 26, Bullingham Mansion, Pitt Street, Kensington, W.
Reid, Prof. J. S., Litt.D., Caius College, Cambridge.
i'Reinach, Salomon, 31, Rue de Berlin, Paris.
+Rendall, Rev. G. H., Litt.D., Charterhouse, Godalming.
fRendall, Montague, The College, Winchester.
Rennie, W., The University, Glasgow.
Richards, Miss A. G. M., 23, Corbett Road, Cardiff.
Richards, Rev. G. C. (Council), Oriel College, Oxford.
Richards, F., Kitigswood School, Bath.
Richards, H. P., Wadham College, Oxford.
Richmond, O. L., 64, Corjiwall Gardens, S. W.
Richmond, Sir W. B., K.C.B., D.C.L., R.A., Bevor Lodge, West End, Hammersmith, W,
Rider, Miss B. C, 23, Afercer's Road, Tufnell Park, N.
Ridgeway, Prof. W. (Council), P'en Ditton, Cambridge.
Ridley, Sir Edward, 48, Lennox Gardens, S. W.
Rigg, Herbert A., 13, Queen's Gate Place, S.W.
Riley, W.' E., County Hall, Spring Gardens, S. JV.
Robb, Mrs., 46, Rutland Gate, S. IV.
Roberts, Rev. E. S., Master of Caius College, Cambridge.
Roberts, J. Slingsby, 3, Powis Villas, Brighton.
Roberts, Principal T. F., Sherborne House, Aberystwyth.
Roberts, Pi ofessor \V. Rhys, The University, Leeds.
Robertson, Miss Hilda, 57, Harritti^ton Gardens, IV.
Robinson, Charles Newton, \\, Joint Street, May/air, IV.
Robinson, Edward, Director of Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Mass.^ U.S.A.
Robinson, G. G., Hill Side, Godalming.
Robinson, T. P. G., Ashfield, Rothsay Place, Bedford.
Robinson, W. S., Courtfield, West Hill, Putney Heath.
Rodd, Sir Rennell, K.C.M.G., 17, Stratford Place, IV.
Rogers, Benjamin Bickley, Eastwood, Stratvberry Hill, Twickenham.
Rome, W., Creeksea Place, Burnham-on-Crouch.
tRosebery, The Right Hon. the Earl of K.G., 38, Berkeley Square, IV.
Rosenorn-Lehn, The Baroness, Palazzo Bindangoli, Assisi, Italy.
Ross, W. U., Oriel College, Oxford.
Rotton, Sir J. F., Lockwood, Frith Hill, Godalming, Surrey.
Rous, Lieut. -Colonel, Wor stead House, Norwich.
+Rouse, W. H. D., Litt.D., 16, Brookside, Cambridge.
Koutledge, Miss, Little Colstrope, Hambleden, Henley-on-Thames.
Ruben, Paul, 39, Lcxhani Gardens, Kensington, IV.
Rubie, Rev. Alfred E., The Royal Naval School, Eltham, S.E.
Rijcker, Miss S. C, 4, Vanbrugh Terrace, Blackheath, S.E.
Riicker, Principal Sir A. W., D.Sc, F.R.S., 19, Gledhotu Gardens, S. Kensington, S. IV.
Runtz, Ernest, 11, Walbrook, E.C.
Rustafjaell, R. de, i, Dotun Street, Piccadilly, W.
Rutherford, Rev. W. Gunion, LL.D., Little Hallands, Bishopstone, Lewes.
Sachs, Mrs. Gustave, 26, Marlborough Hill, N.IV.
Salisbury, F. S., Hulme Grammar School, Manchester.
Sampson, Rev. C. H., Brazenose College, Oxford.
Samuel, Miss Edith Sylvester, 80, Onsloiv Gardens, S.IV.
Sanborn, F. B., Concord, Mass., U.S.A.
Sanderson, F. W., The School, Oundle, Northamptonshire.
tSandys, J. E., Litt.D. (V.P.), St. John's College, Cambridge.
fSandys, Mrs., Merton House, Catnbridi^e.
Sawyer, Rev. H. A. P., School House, St. Bees, Cumberland.
t*Sayce, Rev. Prof. A. H., LL.D. (V.P.), 8, Chalmers Crescent, Edinburgh.
fScaramanga, A. P., 18, Barkston Gardens, Kensington, S.IV.
Schultz, R. Weir, 6, Mandeville Place, W.
Schuster, Ernest, 12, Harrington Gardens, S.W.
Scouloudi, Stephanos, Athens, Greece.
Scull, Miss Sarah A., Smethport, McKean Co., Pa., U.S.A.
Seager, Richard B., cjo Mrs. G. B. McCabe, Concord, Mass., U.S.A.
Seeker, W. H., Chapelt horpe Hall, Wakefield.
Secbohm, Hugh, The Hermitage, Hit chin.
Seltman, E. J., Kinghoe, Great Berkhamsted, Herts.
fSelwyn, Rev. E. C, D.D., School House, Uppingham.
Shadwell, C. L., D.C.L., Provost of Oriel College, Oxford.
Sharkey, J. A., Christ's College, Cambridge.
Sharpe, Miss Catharine, Stoneycroft, Elstrec, Herts.
Shawyer, J. A., Cliftofi College, Bristol.
-Sheppard, J . T., King's College, Cambridge.
Sherwell, John W., Sadlers' Hall, Cheapside, E.C.
Shewan, Alexander, Seehof, St. Andre7vs, P^fe.
Shipley, H. S., St. Helen's Cottage, Coalville, Leicester.
Shove, Miss E., 25, St. Mark's Crescent, Regent's Park, N.W.
Shuckburgh, E. S., Litt.D., Granchester, Cambridge.
Sidgwick, Arthur, Corpus Christi College, O.xford.
Sikes, Edward Ernest (Council), St. John's College, Cambridge.
Silcox, Miss, High School for Girls, West Duhvich, S.E.
Sills, H. 11., Bourton, West Road, Cambridge.
Simpson, Percy, Sf. OIutc's Grammar School^ Tower Briiii^c, S.E.
Simpson, Professor, 3, Briimwick Place, Regent's Park, N. IV.
f Sing, J. M., .v. Edward's School, Oxford.
*Skrine, Rev. J. H., Itchen Stoke Rectory, Alrcsford, Hants.
Slater, E. V., Eton College, Windsor.
Slater, Howard, IVaihi, Province of Auckland, Nezv Zealand.
Sloane, Miss Eleanor, 13, IVelford Road, Leicester. ,
+ JSmith, A. Hamilton (Council), 22, Endsleigh Street, IV.C.
Smith, A. L. F., All Souls College, Oxford.
Smith, Cecil, LL.D. (V.P.), \2>,Earrs Terrace, Kensington, W.
Smith, Rev. E. F., 160, Banbury Road, Oxford.
tSmith, Prof. Goldwin, The Grange, Toronto, Canada.
Smith, H. A., Hazelwood, The Park, Cheltenham.
Smith, H. Babington, C.B., C.S.I., 29, Hyde Park Gate, S.W.
Smith, Nowell, New Collate, Oxford.
Smith, R. Elsey, Rosegarth, IValden Road, Horsell, Woking.
Smith, Reginald J., K.C., 11, Hyde Park Street, IV.
Smith, S. C. Kaines, 12 Unwiit Mansions, Queen's Club Gardens, West Kensington^ W.
Smith-Pearse, Rev. T. N. H., 77/1? College, Epsom.
+Sno\v, T. C, St-fohn's College, Oxford.
tSomerset, Arthur, Castle Goring, Worthing.
Sonnenschein, Prof. E. A., 7, Barnsley Road, Birmingham.
Souter, Prof. Alex., 24, Chalfont Road, Oxford.
Sowels, F., The Rookery, Thetford, Norfolk.
Spiers, R. Phen^, 21, Bernard Street, Russell Square, W.C.
Spilsbury, A. J., City of London School, Victoria Embankment, E.C.
Spooner, Rev. W. A., Warden of Nezu College, Oxford.
Stanford, C. Thomas, 3, Ennismore Gardens, S. W.
Stannus, Hugh, 24, York House, Highbury Crescent, N.
Stanton, Charles H., Field Place, Stroud, Gloucestershire.
Statham, H. Heathcote, 40, Gower Street, W.C.
tStawell, Miss F. Melian, 44, Westbourne Park Villas, W.
Steel, Charles G., Barby Road, Rugby.
Steel-Maitland, A. D., Sauchieburn, Stirling, N.B.
Steele, D., 23, Homer Street, Athens.
Steele, Dr., 2, Via Pico delta Mirandola, Florence.
Stephenson, Rev. F., Southwood House, Cheltenham.
Stevenson, Miss E. F., Eliham Court, Eltham, Kent.
Stevenson, F. S., M.P., 5, Ennismore Gardens, S.W.
Stewart, Mrs. H. F., The Malting House, Cambridge.
Stewart, Prof. J. A., Christ Church, Oxford.
Stogdon, Rev. Edgar, Harrow, N. W.
Stogdon, J., Harrow, N. W.
Stone, Rev. E. D., Abingdon.
Stone, E. W., Eton College, Windsor.
Storey-Maskelyne, N. H. W., F.R.S., Basset Down House, Wroughton, Swindon.
Storr, Rev. Vernon F., Bramshott Rectory, Liphook, Hants.
Strachan-Davidson, J. L., Balliol College, Oxford.
Stretton, Gilbert W., The College, Dulwich, S.E.
Strong, Mrs. S. Arthur, LL.D. (Council), 23, Grosvenor Road, S.W.
Struthers, John, C.B., Dover House, Whitehall, S. W.
Sturgis, Russell, 307, East 17 th Street, New York.
Surr, Watson, 57, Old Broad Street, E.C.
Sutton, Leonard, Hillside, Reading.
tTait, C. W. A., 79, Colinton Road, Edinburgh.
Tancock, Rev. C. C, D.D., The School House, Tonbridge.
Tarbell, Prof. F. B., Uniz'ersity of Chicago, Chicago, III., U.S.A.
Tarn, W. W., 2, New Square, Lincoln's Inn, W.C.
Tathani, H. F. W., Kton Col/c_^c\ W'iinhor.
Tatton, R. G., 60, Leinstcr Square, //'.
Tayler, Miss Margaret, Royal Ho/loway Co/h^v, ]\i^hai)i.
+TayIor, Re\-. Charles, D.D., Master of St. John's Col/ei^e, Cai>i/>n'((^e.
Temple, W., 8, Kel>le Road, Oxford.
Thackeray, H. St. John, Board of Education, WliitcJuxU, SAW
Thoipas, W. H., The Ness, l\onian Road, Linthorpe, Middlesinn-oui^h.
tThompson, Miss Anna Boynton, Thayer Academy, South liraintree, Mass. U.S.A.
Thompson, F. E. (Council), 16, Primrose Hill Road, N. //'.
Thompson, Sir Herbert, IJart., 9, Kensi?i>^ton Pari; Gardens, W.
Thomson, A. Douglas, Litt.D., Greystotiebauk, Dumfries.
Tiddy, R. J. E., St. John's Colleffe, Oxford.
Tilley, Arthur, A'iftif's College, Cambridge.
tTod, Marcus N. (Council), Sans Soiici, The Park, Highgate, N.
*tTozer, Rev. H. F., 18, Norham Gat-dens, Oxford.
tTruell, H. P., F.R.C.S., Clonmannon, Ashford, Co. Wicklow.
*tTuckett, F. F., Frenchay, near Bristol.
Tudeer, Dr. Emil, Helsingfors, Finland.
tTurnbull, Mrs. I'everil, Sandy-Brook Hall, Ashbourne.
Tyler, C. H., Rossall School, Flcetiuood.
Tylor, Prof. E. B., D.C.L., F.R.S., The Museum House, Oxford.
Tyrrell, Prof. R. Y., Litt.D., D.C.L., LL.D. (V.P.), Trinity College, Dublin.
Underhill, G. E., Magdalen College, Oxford.
Upcott, Rev. A. VV., Christ's Hospital, IVest Horsham.
Upcott, L. E. The College, Marlborough.
Ure, Percy N., University College, Cardiff.
tValieri, Octavius, 2, Kensingtoti Park Gardens, IV.
tVaughan, E. L., Eton College, Windsor.
Vaughan, W. W., Gigglcswick School, Settle, Yorks.
Verrall, A. W., Litt.D., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Verrall, Mrs. A. W., Selwyn Gardens, Cambridge.
♦Vincent, Sir Edgar, K.C.M.G., M.P., Esher Place, Surrey.
■fViti de Marco, Marchesadi, Palazzo Orsini, Monte Savello, Rome.
Vlasto, Michel P , 12, Alice des Capucins, Marseilles.
tVlasto, T. A., Boue7'aine, Sefton Park, Liverpool.
Wace, A. J. B., Cah'crton House, Stony Stratford.
•fWackernagel, Prof Jacob, The University, Gbttingen, Germany.
Wade, Armigel de V., The Croft House, Henfield, Sussex.
Wade, Charles St. Clair, Tuffs College, Mass., U.S.A.
t Wagner, Henry, 13, Half Moon Street, W.
tWaldstein, Prof. Charles, Ph.D., Litt.D., L.H.D. (V.P.), King's College, Cambridi^e.
Walford, Mrs. Neville, Sortridge, Horrabridge, South Devon.
Walker, Miss D. L., Regent Lodge, Headingley, Leeds.
Walker, Rev. E. M., Queen's College, Oxford.
Walker, Rev. F. A., D.D., Dun Mallard, Shootup Hill, Brondesbury, N.W.
Walters, Henry Beauchamp (Council), British Museum, W.C.
Walters, Prof W. C. Flamstead, 3, Douglas House, Maida Hill West, W.
Ward, Arnold S., 25, Grosvetwr Place, S. W.
♦Ward, A. W., Litt.D., Master of Peterhouse, Cambridge.
Ward, John, F.S.A., L^enoxvale, Belfast.
Ward, T. H., 25, Grosvenor Place, S.W.
Warner, Rev. Wni., 2, Crick Read, Oxford.
Warr, Mrs., 16, Earl's Terrace, Kensint^ton, W.
tWarre, Rev. Edmond, D.D., C.B., Finchhampstead, Hants.
Warren, E, P., Le7oes House, Lewes, Sussex.
Warren, Mrs. Fiske, 8, Motint I'ernon Place, Boston, U.S.A.
Warren, T. H., President of Magdalen College, Oxford.
Walerfield, Rev. R., Montpellier L.odge, Cheltenham.
Watcrhoiise, lulwin, Fe Lie in ore, near Dorlcini:;.
Watcrhouse, Miss M. E., 59, Ed-j^c L(iiu\ Ln'crpool.
Watson, Mrs., Burnopficld, Co. Durham.
Watson, W. J., 6, Victoria Terrace, Inverficss.
*\Vay, Rev. J. P., D.D., The Hall, Rossall, Fleetwood.
Wcljb, C. C. J., Mai^dalen College, Oxford.
fWclier, F. W, M.D., 19, Harley .Street, IV.
Weber, Sir Hcrniann, M.I)., 10, Grosvenor Street, W.
Webster, Erwin Wentworth, Wadham College, Oxford.
Wedd, N., Kiriifs Colletfe, Ca;>il?ridi;r.
Weld-Blundell," Herbert, Broo/:'s Club, St. James Street, S.W.
fWelldon, The Right Rev. Bishop, Little Cloisters, Westminster, S.IV.
Wells, C. M., Eton College, Windsor.
Wells, J., Wadham College, O.xford.
Wells, R. Douglas, 171, (2ueeft's Gate, S.IV.
Westlake, Prof. J., LL.D., The River House, Chelsea Embankment, S.W.
Wharton, Rear-Admiral Sir William J. L., K.C.B., F.R.S., Florys, Princes Road,
Wimbledo7i Park.
Whately, A. P., 4, Southwick Crescent, Hyde Park, W.
Wheeler, Benjamin Ide, President of the University of California, Berkeley Cal., U.S.A.
Wheeler, Prof. James R., Ph.D., Columbia College, New York City, U.S.A
Whibley, Leonard, Pembroke College, Cambridge.
White, Hon. Mrs. A. D., Cornell University, Ithaca, U.S.A.
White, J. N., Rockland, Waterford.
White, Miss R. E., Newnham College, Cambridge.
t Whitehead, R. R., Woodstock, Ulster Co., N.Y., U.S.A.
Whitelaw, Robt., The School, Rugby.
Whitworth, A. W., Eton College, Windsor.
Wickham, The Very Rev. E. C, The Deanery, Lincoln.
Wilkins, Rev. George, 36, Trinity College, Dublin.
Wilkinson, Herbert, 10, Orme Square, IV.
Williams, A. Moray, Bedales School, Petersfeld, Hants.
Williams, T. Hudson, University College, Bangor.
Willis, J. Armine, 6, Marloes Road, Kensifigton, W.
Wilson, Captain H. C. B., Crofton Hall, Crofton, near Wakefield.
Wilson, Miss, Laleham, Eastboutne.
•fWinchester, the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of, D.D., Farnham Castle, Surrey.
Windley, Rev. H. C, St. Chad's, Bensham, Gateshead on-Tyne.
Winkworth, Mrs., Holly Lodge, Campden Hill, W.
Wiseman, Rev. Henry John, Scrivelby Rectory, Horncastle.
Wood, Rev. W. S., Ufford Rectory, Stamford.
Woodhouse, Prof. W. J., The University, Sydney, N.S. W.
■(•Woods, Rev. H. G., D.D., Master's House, Temple, E.C.
Woodward, A. M., Magdaleti College, Oxford.
Woodward, Prof. W. H., University College, Li7>erpool.
Wright, F. A., Mill Hill School, Mill Hill, N. W.
Wright, Prof. John Henry, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.
f Wright, W. Aldis, Vice-Master, Trinity College, Cambridge.
t Wyndham, Rev. Francis M., Si. Mary of the Angels, Westmoreland Road, Bayswater, W.
j"Wyse, W., Halford, Shipston-on-Stour.
Yeames, A. H. S., British Museum, W.C.
Yorke, V. W., 9, Upper Brook Street, W.
Young, Sir George, Charity Commission, Whitehall, S. W.
Young, William Stewart, 20, Montagu Square, W.
fYule, Miss Amy F., Tarradale House, Ross-shire, Scotland.
Zimmern, A. E., New College, Oxford.
LIST OF LIBRARIES SUBSCRIBING FOR THE JOURNAL OF
HELLENIC STUDIES.
t Libraries claiming (Ofries under the Copyright Act.
GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
Aberdeen, The University Library.
Aberystwith, The University College of Wales.
Bedford, Bedford Arts Club.
Birmingham, The Central Free Library, Rafcllffe Place, Birmingham (A. Capel Shaw,
Esq.).
„ The University of Birmingham.
Clifton, The Library of Clifton College, Clifton, Bristol.
Cambridge, The Fitzwilliam Archaeological Museum.
,, The Girton College Library.
„ The Library of King's College.
,, The Library of St. John's College.
„ The Library of Trinity College.
„ The Library of Trinity Hall.
t ,, The University Library.
Cardiff, The University College of South Wales, Cardiff.
Charterhouse, The Library of Charterhouse School, Godalming.
Dublin, The King's Inns Library.
„ The National Library of Ireland.
„ The Royal Irish Academy.
t „ The Library of Trinity College.
Dundee, The University College.
Durham, The Cathedral Library.
tEdinburgh, The Advocates' Library.
„ The Sellar and Goodhart Library, Uttiversity, Edinburgh.
Eton, The College Library, Eton College, Windsor.
,, The Boys' Library, Eton College, Windsor.
Glasgow, The University Library.
Harrow, The School Library, Harrow, N. W.
Holloway, The Royal Holloway College, Egham, Surrey.
Hull, The Hull Public Libraries.
Leeds, The Leeds Library, Commercial Street, Leeds.
„ The Public Library.
Liverpool, The Free Library.
London, The Society of Antiquaries, Burlins^ton House, W.
The Athenaeum Club, Pall Mall, S. W.
+ „ The British Museum, W.C.
., The Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, W.C.
„ The Burlington Fiije Arts Club, Savile Row, W.
„ The Foreign Architectural Book ^oz\^i^,z(i, Bedford Square, W.C. (R. Seldert
Wornum, Esq.).
,, The London Library, St. fames' s Square, S. W.
„ The Oxford and Cambridge Club, c/o Messrs. Harrison and Sons, 59, Pal!
Mall, W.
„ The Reform Club, Pall Mall, S. W.
„ The Royal Institution, Albemarle Street ^ W.
„ The Sion College Library, Victoria Embankment, E.C.
„ The Library of St. Paul's School, West Kensington, W.
„ The Library, Westminster School, S. W.
Manchester, The Chetham's Library, Hunts Bank, Manchester.
„ The Grammar School.
„ The John Rylands Library.
Manchester, Victoria University.
The Whitworth Institute.
Oxford, The Library of .All Souls College.
I" ,, The Bodleian Library.
„ The Library of Christ Church.
„ The Junior Library Corpus Christi Colle^^c.
,, The Library of Exeter College.
„ The Library of Keble College.
„ The Library of Lincoln College.
,, Tlie Library of New College.
,, The Library of Oriel College.
„ The Library of Oueen's College.
,, The Library of St. John's College.
„ The Library of Trinity College.
„ The University Galleries.
„ The Union Society.
„ The Library of Worcester College.
„ Meyrick Library, Jesus College.
Reading", The Library of L'niversity College, Kouiini;;.
St. Andrews, The University Library, .S7. Amircws, N.D.
COLONIAL
Adelaide, The LJniversity Library, Adelaide, S. Australia.
Christchurch, The Library of Canterbury College, C/irisfchunh, N.Z.
Melbourne, The Public Libr-ary, MeUwnnic, Victoria (c/o Messrs Melville, Mullen
and Co.).
Sydney, The Public Library, Sydney, Ne7v South Wales.
Toronto, The University Library, Toronto.
UNITED STATES OE AMERICA.
Albany, The New York State Library, Albany, New York, U.S.A.
Allegheny, The Carnegie Free Library, Allegheny, Pa., U.S.A.
Amherst, The Amherst College Library, Amherst, Mass., U.S.A.
Berkeley, The University Library, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.
Baltimore, The Enoch Pratt Library, Baltimore, U.S.A.
,, The Peabody Institute, Baltimore, U.S.A.
Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, U.S.A.
„ The Public Library, Boston, U.S.A.
Brooklyn, The Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, Brooklyn, U.S.A.
Brunswick, The Bowdoin College Library, Brunswick, Maine, U.S.A.
Bryn Mawr, The Bryn Mawr College Library, Bryn Matur, Pa., U.S.A.
Chicago, The Lewis Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
„ The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Cincinnati, The Public Library, Cincinnati, U.S.A.
,, The University Library, Cincinnati, U.S.A.
Clinton, The Hamilton College Library, Clinton, New York, U.S.A.
Colorado, The University of Colorado, Colorado, U.S.A.
Detroit, The Public Library, Detroit, U.S.A.
Emmitsburg, The Library of St. Mary's College, Emmitsburg, Maryland, U.S.A.
Hanover, The Dartmouth College Library, Hanover, U.S.A.
Harvard, The Harvard College Library, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.
Illinois, The Library of the University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.
Iowa, The State University of Iowa, Iowa, U.S.A.
Ithaca, The Cornell University Library, Ithaca, Nctf York, U.S.A.
Jersey City, The Free Public Library, /^vj^j City, New Jersey, U.S.A.
Kansas, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, U.S.A.
Los Angeles, The Public Library, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
Lowell, The City Library, Lo7vclI, Mass., U.S.A.
Middleton, The Library of the Wesleyan University, Middleton, Cotm., U.S.A.
Missouri, The University Library of State of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.
Mount Holyoake, The Mount Holyoake College, South Hadlcy, Mass., U.S.A.
New York, The Library of the College of the City of New York, New York, U.S.A.
„ The Library of Columbia University, Ne7u York, U S.A.
„ The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, U.S.A.
„ The Public Library, New York, U.S.A.
Ohio, The Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio, U.S.A.
Philadelphia, The Library Company, Philadelphia, U.S.A.
„ The Library of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.
Pittsburg, The Carnegie Library, Pittsburg, Pa., U.S.A.
Poughkeepsie, The Vassar Library, Poughkeepsie, New York, U.S.A.
Rhode Island, The Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, U.S.A.
Sacramento, The California State Library, Sacramento, California, U.S.A.
Stanford, The Stanford University Library, California, U.S.A.
Syracuse, The University Library, Syracuse, New York, U.S.A.
Washington, The Library of Congress, Washington, U.S.A.
Williamstown, The Williams College Library, Williamstown, Mass., U.S.A.
Worcester, The Free Library, Worcester, Mass., U.S.A.
Yale, The Library of Yale University, Newhaven, U.S.A.
A USTRIA-HUNGAR Y.
Budapest, Antikencabinet des Ungar. National-Museums, Budapest, Hungary.
Prague, Archaolog.-epigraphisches Seminar, Universitdt, Prag, Bohemia (Dr. Wilhelm
Klein).
„ Universitats-Bibliothek, Prag, Bohemia.
BELGIUM.
Brussels, La Biblioth^que Publique, Palais du Cinquantenaire, Bruxelles, Belgium.
DENMARK.
Copenhagen, Det Store Kongelike Bibliothek, Copenhagen, Denmark.
FRANCE.
Lille, La Biblioth^que de I'Universite de Lille, 3, Rue fean Bart, Lille.
Lyon, La Bibliothique Universitaire, Palais St. Pierre, Lyon.
Nancy, I'lnstitut d'Archeologie, I'Universite, Nancy.
Paris, La Biblioth^que de I'lnstitut de France, Paris.
„ La Biblioth^que de I'Universite de Paris, Paris.
„ La Biblioth^que des Musees Nationaux, Alusees du Louvre, Paris.
„ La Biblioth^que Nationale, Rue de Richelieu, Paris.
„ La Biblioth^que de rEcole Normale Supdrieure, 45, Rue cCUlm, Paris.
GERMAN Y.
Berlin, Konigliche Bibliothek, Berlin.
„ Bibliothek der Koniglichen Museen, Berlin.
Breslau, Konigliche und Universttats-Bibliothek, Breslau.
Dresden, Konigliche Skulpturensammlung, Dresden.
Erlangen, Universitats-Bibliothek, Erlangen.
Freiburg, Universitats-Bibliothek, Freiburg i. Br. Baden (Prof. Steup).
Giessen, Philologisches Seminar, Giessen.
Gbttingen, Universitats-Bibliothek, G'ottingen.
Greifswald, Universitats-Bibliothek, Grcifsiuald.
Halle, Universitats-Bibliothek, Halle.
Heidelberg, Universitats-Bibliothek, Heidelberg.
Jena, Univcrsitiits-lJihiiotlick, Jciia.
Kiel, Munz-uiKl Kunstsanimluii}^ der Universitiit, Kiel.
Konig'sberg, Konigl. und Univcrsitals-Bibliothck, Kbnii^sbcrg.
Marburg', Univcrsitats-Bibliothek, Mdrimrt;.
Munster, Konigliche I'aulinische Hibliothek, Miinstcr i. IV.
Munich, Konigl. Hof und Staatsbibliothek, yl//>«Mr«.
Strassburg, Kunstarchiiolog. Institut der Universitiit, Sirassbitrg {Vio^. Michaelis).
„ Universitats-und Landes-Bibliothek, Strassburg.
Tubingen, Universitats-Biljliothek, Tlibhigen., VViirtemberg.
Wurzburg, Kunstgeschichtliches Museum der Universitat, Wiirzburg, Bavaria.
GREECE.
Athens, The American School of Classical Studies, Athens.
JTAL Y.
Rome, The American School of Classical Studies, 5, Via Vicenza, Rome,
Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale, Torifio, Italy.
NOR IVA V.
Christiania, Universitats-Bibliothek, C/zristiania, Noriuay.
SWEDEN.
Stockholm, Kongl. Biblioteket, Stockholm., Sweden.
Uppsala, Kungl. Universitetets Bibliotek, Uppsala., Sweden.
SWITZERLAND.
Freiburg, UniversitJits- Bibliothek, Freiburg, Switzerlaiid.
Lausanne, L'Association de Lectures Philologiques, Rue Valentin 44, Lausa/ine
(Ur. H. Meylan-Faure).
Winterthur, La Biblioth^que Publique, Winterthur., Switzerland {T>r. Imhoof-Blumer).
LIST OF JOURNALS, &c., RECEIXED IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
JOURNAL OF HELLENIC STUDIES.
American Journal of Archaeology (Miss Mary H. Buckingham, Wcllcsley Hills,
Mass., U.S.A.).
American Journal of Philology (Library of the Johns Hopkins University, ^^^/Z/w^r,?,
Maryland, U.S.A.).
Analecta Bollandiana, Societd des Bollandistes, 14, Ri/e dcs Ursulincs, Briixellcs.
Annales du Service des Antiquites de I'Egypte, Cairo.
Annual of the British School at Athens.
Archiv fijr Religionswissenschaft (B. G. Teubner, Lcipsic).
Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique (published by the French School at Alhens).
BuUettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma (Prof. Gatti, Museo
Capitolino, Rome).
Byzantinische Zeitschrift (Prof. Dr. K. Krumbacher, Amalicnstrasse, 77, Munchen,
Germany).
Ephemeris Archaiologike, Athens.
Jahrbuch des kais. deutsch. Archaol. Instituts, Corneliusstrasse No. 2, IL, Berlin.
Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archaologischen Institutes, Tiirkenstrasse 4, Vicmm.
Journal of the Anthropological Institute, Hanoi'er Square.
Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 9, Conduit Street, W.
Journal International d'Archeologie Numismatique (M. J. N. Svoronos, Musee
National, Athens).
Melanges d'Histoire et d'Archeologie, published by the French School at Rome.
Mittheilungen des kais. deutsch. Archaol. Instituts, Athens.
Mittheilungen des kais. deutsch /Vrchaol. Instituts, Rome.
Mnemosyne (c/o Mr. E. J. Brill), Leiden, Holland.
Neue Jahrbiicher (c/o Dr. J. Ilberg), Waldstrasse 56, Leipzig.
Notizie degli Scavi, R. Accademia dei Lincei, Rome.
Numismatic Chronicle, 22, Albemarle Street.
Philologus. Zeitschrift fiJr das klassische Altertum (c/o Dietrich'sche Verlags-
BuchhandUmg, Gottingen).
Praktika of the Athenian Archaeological Society, Athens.
Proceedings of the Hellenic Philological Syllogos, Constantinople.
Publications of the Imperial Archaeological Commission, St. Petersburg.
Revue Archeologique,i, Rue Cassini, 14'""', Paris.
Revue des Etudes Grecques, Publication Trimestrielle de I'Association pour I'En-
couragement des Etudes Grecques en France, Paris.
Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie (Professor Dr. F. Biicheler, Schumannstrasse, Bonn-
am-Rhein, Germany).
Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society and Journal of Philology.
Wochenschrift fiir Klassische Philologie (Dr. Maas, Mohlstrasse, 19, Miinchen,
Germany).
SESSION 1904-1905.
The First General Meeting of the Society was held on November ist,
when Dr. Arthur Evans gave an account of the last season's work at
Knossos, the Provost of Oriel being in the chair.
Dr. Evans said that on the palace site itself this year's excavations
had thrown much new light on the stratigraphy of the successive
" Minoan " constructions dating from the close of the Neolithic period
onwards. In the west wing of the later palace the original plan could
now be clearly distinguished from the existing scheme, which was shown
to be the result of subsequent remodelling. Fresh stone repositories
belonging to. its first period — like those found in 1903 containing the
faience figures and snake goddess, but less rich in relics — were found to
extend north of the others beneath the later stepped portico which here
descends to the central court. A whole line of earlier gypsum walling
facing this court could finally be made out, a little within the later wall.
This original facade was seen to have been partly incorporated in the later
constructions, and partly to have been broken through by them. The
west wall of the palace itself and the adjoining magazines belonged to the
original work, but the entrances to the magazines were found to have been
altered. Originally they were provided with comparatively narrow doors
appropriate to the valuable contents of the cists along their floors. Later,
the entrances were widened, the cists reduced to mere shallow cavities, and
the whole fitted out for the reception of huge oil jars. From the super-
ficial deposit of some of these cists belonging to the second period of the
later palace were brought out a variety of painted stucco fragments which
had fallen here from a N.W. hall above. Among these were illustrations
of the bull ring, together with other frescoes, slightly larger than the
"miniature" paintings found in 1900, showing part of the fagade of
another shrine, with the " fetish " double-axes stuck into its columns.
Dr. Evans also exhibited a scheme devised by him for the arrangement of
the scattered fragments of the earlier-discovered miniature frescoes as part
of connected designs. Two panels were thus reproduced by M. Gillieron
under his direction, one showing a small temple and halls on either side,
xl
with ladies seated or standing in the foreground and throngs of men
behind. The other depicted walled enclosures with trees and similar
spectators overlooking a court where gaily-dressed women were engaged in
a mazy dance. Fresh interesting fragments had also been detected of the
painted reliefs exhibiting parts of a male figure, with a fleur-de-lis crown,,
and these permitted the restoration of the entire figure of what was not
improbably one of the priest-kings of Knossos. The centre of the crown
was found to be adorned with peacocks' plumes. A clay sealing of still
earlier date supplied what appeared to be an actual portrait of a Minoan
dynast associated with his son, but in this case the head was crownless.
A section cut beneath the pavement of the west court had laid bare
remarkably complete evidence as to the stratification and comparative
chronology of the characteristic stages of Minoan culture that preceded
the construction of the later palace. The foundation of the later palace
was shown to have been posterior to the great " Middle Minoan " age of
polychrome pottery. Its second period, as appeared from Egyptian
associations, did not come down later than about 1500 B.C., but there were
now traceable six distinct periods of culture that separated the initial
stage of the later palace from the latest Neolithic deposit. Below this
again the Neolithic stratum, which was itself superposed on the virgin
rock, attained a depth of from six to eight metres. On the western
borders of the palace the total depth of the human deposit was from
twelve to fourteen metres. A Minoan paved way was opened out leading
directly west from the " theatral area " discovered last year. Near this^
towards the close of the present excavations, had come to light what
appeared to be remains of the Royal arsenal. A large hoard of clay
documents was found here relating to chariots and arms, and near one of
these — enumerating a lot of over 800 arrows — lay the remains of two
officially-sealed chests containing the bronze-headed arrows themselves.
A principal work of the year was the exploration of an extensive cemetery
dating from the last days of the palace and the immediately succeeding
period. Over a hundred tombs were opened, containing bronze vessels,
arms, jewellery, and other typically " Mycenaean " remains. Of still
greater interest was the discovery of what appears to have been a Royal
mausoleum occupying a commanding point overlooking land and sea. It
was built on a different plan from those of Mycensan Greece, the
principal chamber being square with a keeled roof. Most of the metal
objects had been abstracted in ancient times, but magnificent vases in the
later palace style were found, together with Egyptian alabastra of the
beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty.
Plans of the mausoleum by Mr. Theodore Fyfe were exhibited.
The Second General Meeting, at which Mr. S. H. Butcher took the
chair, was held on February 21st, when Mr. W. W. Tarn read a paper on
the limits of the Greek Warship problem, which appears in this volume.
xli
The paper, which was h'stcned to with great attention, evoked a
remarkably good discussion. Among the speakers were Mr. W. C. F.
Anderson, Mr. H. Awdry, Professor Ernest Gardner, Mr. G. F. Hill,
Mr. H. Stannus, and Mr. H. H. Statham.
The Third General Meeting was held on May 9th. At this meeting
Professor Percy Gardner read a paper on the Apoxyomenos and Lysippos,
Professor C. Waldstein taking the chair. The main contention of
Professor Gardner's paper was that the well-known Apoxyomenos of
the Vatican cannot, in the light of recent discoveries, especially that of the
Agias statue at Delphi, be regarded as a trustworthy indication of the
style of Lysippos. In the discussion which followed. Dr. Waldstein and
Professor Ernest Gardner took part. Arrangements have been made for
other papers dealing with the Masters of the fourth century during the
next session, so that we may e.xpcct further light on the problems
discussed by Professor Gardner in this valuable paper.
The Annual General Meeting was held at Burlington House, on
June 27th, the President, Sir Richard Jebb, M.P., occupying the chair.
The Hon. Secretary (Mr. George Macmillan) read the following report
on behalf of the Council : —
The Session for 1904-5 has been distinguished by two noteworthy
events, one intimately connected with the history of the Society and one
forming a landmark in the general progress of archaeological research.
Of the meeting held on July 5th, 1904, to celebrate the twenty-fifth
anniversary of the foundation of the Society, a full account has already
appeared. In the last volume of the JOURNAL are verbatim reports of the
President's retrospective address, and of the speeches delivered by the
distinguished visitors who were present for the occasion. It only
remains for the Council, on behalf of the Society, once more to
emphasise the pleasure it gave to them to learn from the addresses
of the American delegates, from the series of telegrams from the leading
foreign archaeologists, and from the expressions of goodwill offered by the
former Minister for Greece in London, the cordial estimation in which
our Society is held by the Greek community, by our confreres on the
Continent, and by our kinsmen in America.
The Council next desires to tender to H.R.H. the Crown Prince of
Greece, President of the recent Archaeological Congress at Athens, to
Dr. P. Kavvadias, Ephor-General of Antiquities in Greece and long an
honorary member of our Society, and to the Greek nation at large, their
sincere felicitations on the success of that important international
gathering. The President and Hon. Secretary were chosen as the Society's
Delegates to the Congress, but Sir Richard Jebb was unavoidably
prevented by his Parliamentary duties from attending. Mr. Macmillan
d
xlii
ound on reaching Athens that an Address of congratulation was being
presented by most of the Delegates and he accordingly, in consultation
with other members of Council who were members of the Congress, drew
up such an Address in the name of the Society and presented it at the
opening meeting. The following members of Council, besides reading
papers, took an active part in the Congress as Presidents or Vice-
Presidents of Sections : Dr. Arthur Evans, Prof. Percy Gardner, Mr. Cecil
Smith, and Professor Waldstein. Papers were read also by Mr. Louis
Dyer and Miss Harrison.
In addition to the Commemorative gathering of July, the Society has
held its usual quartcrl)^ meetings for the reading of papers and discussion.
In November, Dr. Arthur Evans laid before us the results of his excava-
tions at Knossos during the previous season, describing in particular the
Mausoleum of Minoan times then discovered. In February, Mr. W. W. Tarn
read a paper, which led to an interesting discussion, on the Greek War-
ship, and in May, Professor Percy Gardner read a paper on the Apoxyomcnos
in its relation to Ljsippus in the light of the more recently discovered
Agias of Delphi.
In accordance with a \"ote of the Council, an Address, written on behalf
of the Society by Sir Richard Jebb, has been sent to Professor Adolf
Michaelis, Director of the Institute of Art and Archaeology at Strassburg,
on the occasion of the celebrations attending his seventieth birthday, which
fell on June 22. It was felt that this compliment was especially due from
English archaeologists to the author of Ancient lilai-bles in Great Britain,
and one of the original honorar}- members of this Socictj'. By the death,
mentioned in last year's report, of Professor Ulrich Kohler, Professor of
Ancient History in the University of Berlin, and at the time of the
Society's foundation Director of the German Archaeological Institute at
Athens, the Society has lost one of its original honorary members. As
this )'ear has been signalised by the Archaeological Congress at Athens
the Council propose to invite H.R.H. the Crown Prince of Greece, as
President of the Archaeological Society of Athens, to do the Society the
honour of accepting the vacant place in the list of honorary members. It
was also recently decided in recognition of his long services to the Societ)'
to create the honorar)- Secretary, Mr. George Macmillan, a life member
honoris causa.
The Council has again granted the sum of iJ^ioo to the Cretan
Exploration P^und, and Mr, Arthur Evans has pursued with his usual
vigour and success his investigations on the site of Knossos. Though his
work this season was unfortunately hampered by lack of adequate fund;-
he has further elucidated the plan of the Queen's apartments in the Palace
by the discovery of additional portions of the colonnaded staircase. He
has also, in following up the line of the ancient Minoan roadway on the
west side of the Palace, come (ju an imj)ortant^building which was evidentl)-
xliii
its objective. It remains to be seen whether funds will be forthcoming to
explore the building thoroughly.
The usual grants have been made of ;^ioo to the British School at
Athens and £2^ to the School at Rome, and in connection with the latter
it may be mentioned that the Council recently authorised the President
and Honorary Secretary to sign in the name of the Society a memorial to
the Treasury in favour of a grant of ;^500 a year to the School from
public funds. The sum of £2$ has been granted to Professor W. M.
Ramsay for research in Asia Minor, and ;^io to Mr. Hogarth for
exploration in Cyrene.
T/ie Library.
In last year's Report the attention of members was drawn to the increasing
difficulty, owing to the limited accommodation at Albemarle Street, of
keeping the Society's Library on a plan readily intelligible to students and
visitors. That difficulty the Council has been able, in a measure, to
obviate by the acquisition of a small adjoining room, with the result that
the subject order of the books remains undisturbed, and the accom-
modation for students is somewhat improved. Another small improve-
ment is that the system of classifying and binding the forty volumes of
archaeological tracts from the Library of the late Dr. Overbeck has been
extended to the hitherto scattered pamphlets and smaller monographs. A
subject catalogue of all the pamphlets will shortly be ready for use in the
Library.
The records show that 375 visits were paid to the Library in the course of
the year, as against 338 for the year 1903-4, and 250 for the year 1902-3.
In addition to the books consulted in the Library 401 volumes were
borrowed, the figures for the preceding years being 312 and 211. The
Librarian believes that many members are still unaware that they are at
liberty to order and receive books by post.
97 books (122 volumes) have been added to the Library. Among
accessions of special interest are : —
The completion of the Corpus Inscriptionum Atticaruin ; Collignon
(M.) and Couve (L.), Catalogue des Vases peints du Musee National
d'Athenes ; Burlington Fine Arts Club, Exhibition of Ancient Greek
Art; Rayet (O.), Monnments de r Art Antique; Wood (R.), The
Ruins of Palmyra and Baalbec, and the supplementary volume to
Stuart (J.) and Revett (N.), Antiquities of Athens.
The thanks of the Society are due to the Delegates of the University
Presses at Oxford, Cambridge, and Chicago, and the Trustees of the
British Museum, for gifts of books to the Library. The following authors
have presented copies of their works :— Mr. F. S. Benson, Rev. H. Browne,
d 2
xliv
Mr. S. H. Butcher, M. P. Foucart, Professor Percy Gardner, Dr. A. van
Millingen, Mr. J. G. Milne, Signer P. Orsi, Herr E. Petersen, and Mr.
Hermann Smith. Miscellaneous gifts of books have been received from
Mr. J. M. Edmonds, Mr. F. W. Hasluck, Mr. G. F. Hill, and the Librarian.
The following publishers have presented books: — Messrs. Barth, Frowde,
Hachette, Laurens, Leroux, Longman, Macmillan, Murray, Seeman,
Unwin, and Weidmann.
The Collection of Negatives, Slides, and Photographs.
The complete catalogue of lantern slides promised in the Council's
report of last year appeared in the second part of the JOURNAL for 1904.
As was then explained, the 1,700 slides, now catalogued for the first time
on a single scientific system, serve also as an index of the Society's far
larger resources in the collection of negatives. Photographic prints of
these are kept to facilitate the choice of members wishing to purchase or
hire slides or photographs.
Miscellaneous additions, catalogued on the same system as in the original
catalogue, will in future be found in the last part of each volume of the
Journal, and it is further hoped to add substantial sections from time to
time, notably a section on epigraphy and one embracing a more compre-
hensive treatment of the lesser arts. Through the kindness of members of
the Argonaut cruise, further important additions in the topographical series
are expected. Copies of the original catalogue and of the special lists of
slides for elementary lectures may still be had.
In the course of the year 787 slides and 366 photographs were sold to
members, and the large number of 3,053 slides were lent on hire, more
than double the number lent last year. It is satisfactory to be able to
note that the considerable expense of reorganising and improving this
department, and of replacing where necessary a large number of negatives
removed from the collections, has already been nearly recovered by the use
members make of the materials collected and arranged for them.
The Council desire to take this opportunity of thanking Mr. J. L. Myres,
who retired from the office of Hon. Keeper of the Photographic
Collections in the course of the year, for his great services to this
department of the Society's work.
Finance.
Turning to the always important subject of the Society's finances, it
will be within the recollection of members that at the last Annual Meeting
it was decided, having regard to the increased advantages now offered to
members and to the consequent increase of expenditure, to raise the
Entrance Fee from one to two guineas. The new arrangement did not
take effect till the beginning of the current year, and it is perhaps too early
xlv
to form an opinion on the effect this change will have on the Society's
financial position. It is, however, quite safe to say that private members
can do the Society no better service than by making its aim and claim
known in suitable quarters. If the efforts made in this direction by a few
of our members were shared by the general body, the Society's numbers and
efficiency might be very largely increased.
The financial position of the Society has necessarily occupied the
attention of the Council more than usual during the past session. The
statement recently circulated to members showed, that the outlay on
administration and on the primary objects of the Society, such as the
Journal and the Library, now works out at about iSs. 6d. a year for each
member, leaving therefore a very small margin for grants or for any
unforeseen expenditure. The question of raising the annual subscription
was considered, but put aside as inexpedient. It was then proposed, and
provisionally decided by the Council to recommend, that the Fee for Life
Composition should be raised from fifteen to twenty guineas. On more
mature consideration, however, the Council have decided not to make this
recommendation, at any rate for the present. All the more important is it
that their recent proposal for an Endoiviiient Fund, to which members
might contribute either by donation or bequest, should receive liberal support.
It should perhaps be explained that the object of this proposal was not to
increase the number of Life Compositions, but to offer to Life Members
and Annual Subscribers alike an opportunity of helping the Society at a
critical period. A few long-standing subscribers have answered the appeal
by compounding. Having regard to their previously paid annual sub-
scriptions the Council have gratefully accepted their action, but wish to
make it quite clear that their intention in issuing the Endowment Fund
Appeal was to solicit donations or bequests from the general body of
members. If every member felt able to make a small donation of a guinea
or upwards, a sufficient sum would be raised to enable the Society to cover
its outstanding liabilities, which as the accounts Will shew are just now
exceptionally heavy, and to leave a substantial nucleus which might be
increased from time to time by further donations or bequests. The Council
earnestly commend this suggestion to all members, and trust that the
response may be both prompt and general. So far, though the appeal was
issued in April, not more than ten members have responded, beyond the
few already mentioned who have sent in Life Compositions.
It was stated in last year's Report that the Society's accounts would in
future be presented in a different form, which would show more clearly its
actual financial position. The accounts now submitted are the fulfilment
of this promise. It will be seen that separate accounts are given of each
department of the Society's work, including such special undertakings as
the publications of the Aristophanes Facsimile and the volume on
Phylakopi. Taking these accounts in order, the two numbers of the
Journal which have been paid for during the year cost, including distribu-
xlvi
tion, £6i8, while the receipts from sales and advertisements amount to i^ 140,
showing a net cost of ^^478. The cost of reprinting Volume XXIII.,
amounting to ^121, has also been met during the year. The outstanding
account against the Phylakopi volume has been reduced from ^^296 to
;{J'244 by the sale of 52 copies. In spite however of special efforts made to
push the sale, only two copies of the Aristophanes Facsimile have been
sold during the year, which is a very disappointing result. The American
Archaeological Institute has made a further payment during the year to
cover its share of the cost of production.
The Lantern Slides account shows a slight loss of jC^ on the year's
working, but this department maybe regarded as being on a self-supporting
basis. The outlay on the Library has amounted to ^loi, a considerable
excess over the annual grant of £ys made by the Council. This is in a
measure due to arrears of binding, but it is evident that economy must be
exercised in this as in some other departments. The grants made during
the year, as recorded earlier in this Report, amount to £260. Unless a
considerable improvement takes place in the Society's financial position,
it may be necessary to reduce for a (cw years the amount spent on
exploration and excavation.
Turning now to the Account of Income and Expenditure, it will be seen
that an actual loss of iJ^26o is shown on the year's working, and this in
spite of the fact that, owing to the unusual increase in the number of
members, the entrance fees have brought in no less than ^133. The total
receipts from ordinary revenue amount to ^1,168. The expenditure,
including grants. Library, and the balance (m the JOURNAL (including
/"121 for the rei)rint of Vol. XXII.), amounts to i^ 1,450. The salaries
amount now to £16$. The rent also is increased, and will in future
amount to i?iOO per annum. The charge for stationery, postage, sundry
printing and other miscellaneous expenses amounts to ^^^140. The cost of
printing and distributing the History of the Society and the Proceedings
at last year's Anniversary Meeting, amounting to ;^33, will not recur.
Life Subscriptions to the amount of £g4 have been received during the
year, but although it has been necessary to spend this sum it does not
properly belong to revenue. It is intended in future to bring into the
Revenue account the Composition Fees of Life Members who have died
during the year, and the item £4^ ^s. in respect of three such members
comes into the present account.
The Balance Sheet gives what is believed to be a true statement of the
Society's financial position. On the one side are shown actual debts
payable (including all outstanding liabilities to the end of the financial
year), amounting to ;^394. A certain proportion (£S3S) of the subscrip-
tions received for 1905 is carried forward as a liability to meet the expenses
of the seven months from June i — the end of the financial year — to
January 1, when the new subscriptions come in. The item ;^ 1,699 for Life
Compositions represents the sum actually received from Life Members
xlvii
who still survive. It is open to question whether this sum is strictly
speaking a liability, for under no probable circumstances could its repay-
ment be claimed. Nevertheless, it certainly carries an obligation to supply
the Journal to these members during their lifetime, or so long as the
Society continues. On the other side of the account stand the cash in hand,
i^200, debts receivable, /i"i3i, the present value of the investments, i^ 1,263",
the estimated value of the stock of publications and of the Library, ;^ 1,065.
In forecasting the revenue up to December 31, something may be allowed
for arrears of subscriptions (the amount actually due is ^149), and for
entrance fees and subscriptions which may come in from new members,
but as these items are uncertain they cannot appear in the accounts until
th3y are actually received. From May 31, when the accounts were made
up, ^23 has come in from arrears, and ;^20 from new members.
Conclusion.
Among members lost by death during the year, special mention should
be made of the Bishop of Southwell, Dr. Thomas Fowler, President of
Corpus College, Oxford, Admiral Sir Erasmus Ommaney, the Rev.
Augustus Austen-Leigh, Provost of King's College, Cambridge, Canon
Adam Farrar of Durham, and Mr. F. D. Mocatta, long a generous supporter
of this as of many other learned Societies.
During the year, 118 new members have been elected, while 30 have
been lost by death or resignation. The number of members at present on
the list is 926, and there are in addition 162 subscribing Libraries and 40
honorary members.
It seems clear from this Report that as regards both the efficiency and
the scope of its work, the session 1904-5 shews a marked improvement in
the Society's position. The serious state of its finances has been dwelt
upon at some length, and constitutes a strong argument for increasing its
numbers and raising further funds. With such additional support, both
the thoroughness and the scale of its efforts might be extended to the
better fulfilment of the Society's aim, the advancement of Hellenic study.
In moving the adoption of the Report the President said — As the aim
of our Society is to promote Hellenic studies in the most comprehensive
sense, our Annual Meeting is an occasion on which it is natural to consider
what has been achieved in the field of these studies during the past twelve
months, though the survey must necessarily be very brief and incomplete.
With regard to the past year, it may perhaps be said that the Congress at
Athens has been the most signal incident. Of that I shall not attempt to
speak : it has been very fully recorded, and would, indeed, claim large
discourse. For similar reasons, I shall not speak of Crete ; the Society
may hope to hear about that from Mr. Arthur Evans himself. But it may
be useful to give a few brief notes about the work, mostly of a less
conspicuous kind, which has been going on in various parts of the Greek-
lands. At Oropus the Greeks have resumed excavations on the site of the
Amphiareion, where various buildings have been discovered, including
lodgings for visitors to the shrine. At Sunium the town wall and other
buildings have been cleared. At Epidaurus a new stoa of considerable
length has been discovered. An interesting account of the altar of Zeus
on Mount Lycaeus has now been published in the EpJievieris Archaiologike.
The altar was a mound of ashes of great size, which stood on the very
summit of the mountain. In its neighbourhood were found some bases of
later date and other remains of building, as well as some votive figures.
Passing from the mainland of Greece to the islands, we may note the
excavations conducted for the Belgian government at Carthaea on the
south-east coast of Ceos. Carthaea, it may be remembered, was the town
where Simonidcs, a native of lulis in the same island, held in his youth the
post of chorodidascalus in the local choregeion, before he was invited b}'
the Peisistratidae, about 527 B.C., to perform similar functions at Athens.
The Belgian exploration has resulted in determining the position of the
principal buildings at Carthaea, including a prytaneion. About sixty in-
scriptions have also been found, the more important of which relate to the
reigns of the first two Ptolemies. At Delos, the French school continued
their excavations in the early autumn of 1904. Much of the debris which
had encumbered the site was cleared away. The new discoveries included
the site of a hieron of Diony.sus, and some archaic statues of Apollo.
Some early pottery was also found, a noteworthy fact, since at Delos old
ceramic work had hitherto been conspicuous by its absence. Another
interesting discovery was a sculptor's shop in the agora, as well as some
other houses, so that now it is possible to form some idea of the aspect of
a street in Delos. Several inscriptions of the Hellenistic period were also
brought to light. The little island of los, best known in antiquity as the
legendary place of Homer's death and burial, has also been visited by the
Belgian archaeologists who have found there a temple and other remains.
Much interest has attached to the German excavations in Cos, on the site
of the Asclepieion, which are not yet quite complete, but have been
provisionally published in the Archaeologischc Anzeiger for 1905, part J.
Dr. Herzog has found three terraces, the highest of which was occupied by
the temple and its porticoes ; on the lowest there was a sacred agora.
Further light has been thrown on the internal arrangements of the great
temple of Asclepios. A later building of the Hellenistic period has also
been found, with the bases of the statues which were ranged around one of
its rooms. A large number of inscriptions has been obtained, about a
hundred in all. One of these is a decree, of the fifth century B.C., declaring
it unlawful to cut down cypress-trees in the sacred precinct. Among those
of a later period, one dates from a time soon after the abortive attack of
the Gauls on Delphi in 279 B.C., and alludes to the cpiphancia of Apollo to
xlix
protect his sanctuary. Another, of about 200 r..C., refers to a newly-
instituted festival of Artemis under the title of Hyacinthotrophos.
Another preserves the beginning of a letter from King Antiochus to the
people of Cos, recommending to them his physician Apollonophanes. In
Rhodes, the Danish excavations at Lindos have yielded some inscriptions
of considerable historical value, especially for the history of art. Among
these is a list of the eponymous priests of Athena Lindia from 170 V>.C.
The nature of the buildings on the acropolis of Lindos has also been
elucidated.
While good work has thus been proceeding among the islands, much
has also been done at various points on the western coasts of Asia Minor.
At Pergamon, progress has been made in clearing the youths' Gymnasium,
and the interesting Hellenistic house to which the Hermes of Alcamenes
probably belonged. At Ephesus the further researches on the site of the
temple, conducted on behalf of the British Museum by Mr. Hogarth, have
yielded some valuable results. The Austrians also have continued their
work on that site. The reliefs which they found last year at the library have
been put together at Vienna, and prove to represent the Emperors Marcus
Aurelius, Lucius Verus, and Commodus. At Smyrna the Aphrodision
has been explored, with the result of discovering reliefs of the Hellenistic
and Roman periods. But perhaps no excavations during the past jxar are
of greater importance than those which the Germans have been conducting
at Miletus. I am indebted to Professor Ernest Gardner for an opportunity
of reading the latest report on this work, recently drawn up by Dr. Theodor
VViegand. Here it must suffice briefly to notice one or two of the principal
results. A remarkable sanctuary of Apollo Delphinios has been in-
vestigated. The sacred precinct consisted of a large rectangular enclosure,
surrounded by porticoes. But no temple stood on the ground thus enclosed.
The central object was a colossal tripod-stand. East of this there was a
deep circular basin of marble, about two metres in diameter. West of it were
the remains of two crescent-shaped exedrae, facing each other. West of
these again was a large rectangular altar of archaic character, with a
smaller round altar, also archaic, close to it at the middle of its east side.
This round altar was to Hecate. In the south-west corner were three
round altars, of date not later than the fifth century B.C. ; one of these was
for Zeus Soter, another for Artemis ; the third bears no inscription. Stone
tablets, about 2h metres high, let into the walls of the porticoes surrounding
the temenos, give lists of the eponymous officials of Miletus, the
aesuninctae who were entitled stephanepJiori. Two of the lists, which
are consecutive, give the series without a break from the year
523 15.C. down to 260 B.C. A third list belongs to the middle of the
second century B.C. Three others, which again are consecutive, comprise
the period from about 89 B.C. to A.D. 20. In all, we have the eponymi for
434 years. These records afford, it seems, some scanty, but still
valuable data for the constitutional history of Miletus. Some famous
1
names occur here and there, such as those of " Alexander, son of PhiHp,"
and "King Mithridates." As Dr. Wiegand observes, these h'sts will be
of especial value as aids to the chronology of other documents connected
with Miletus.
In the province of Greek literature and palaeography, the past year
has produced no event of signal importance. But it may be well to
mention a work which, though it appeared in the spring of 1904, was not,
I think, jioticed at our last annual meeting, when the history of our
Society during the last five and twenty years naturally had the foremost
claim on attention. I refer to the commentary of Didymus on Demos-
thenes, edited from a papyrus by an honorary member of this Society,
Professor Diels of Berlin, in conjunction with Dr. Schubart. A notable
feature of it is the series of long citations from Philochorus, whose
work seems to have served in some sort as an anaual register. The
Oxyrhynchiis fragment of Pindar, published in June, 1904, may also be
included in this survey. It has the interest of confirming the remark of
Dionysius, that the style of Pindar's partheneia was simpler and easier than
that which is found in his odes or fragments of other classes.
Since our last annual meeting, the Society has lost several members,
some of them distinguished in various walks of life, and all sympathetic
friends of the studies which our Society seeks to promote. The names
thus removed from our roll are those of the late Dr. Ridding, Bishop of
of Southwell ; Admiral Sir E. K. Ommanney ; the Rev. Dr. Thomas
Fowler, President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford ; the Rev. Augustus
Austen Leigh, Provost of King's College, Cambridge ; the Rev. Dr. A. S.
Farrar, Canon of Durham ; Mr. F. D. Mocatta ; and Miss E. C. Stevenson.
The adoption of the Report, having been seconded by Dr. D. Bikelas,
was carried unanimously.
The former President and Vice-Presidents were re-elected, and
Mr. M. N. Tod was elected to a vacant place on the Council.
After a vote of thanks to the Auditors of the Society's accounts,
Messrs. A. J. Butler and George L. Craik, proposed by Dr. Arbuthnot
Nairn and seconded by Mr. H. H. Statham, the proceedings terminated.
A comparison with the receipts and expenditure of the last ten years
is furnished by the following tables : —
ANALYSIS OP^ ANNUAL RECEIPTS FOR THE YEARS ENDING :—
Subscriptions. Current
Arrears
Life Compositions
Libraries
Entrance Fees
Dividends
ICndowment Fund
" Excavations at Thylakopi,"
sales
"Facsimile Codex Venetus,"
sales (less expenses)
31 May,
31 May,
31 May,
31 May,
^i May,
31 May,
31 May,
1896.
1897.
1898.
1899.
1900.
1901.
1902.
{.
£.
645
617
613
598
634
636
628
9
4
13
18
9
10
13
63
IS
32
63
78
78
117
126
118
122
...
163
33
179
45
185
52
43
43
43
43
43
42
42
877
805
787
813
945
990
998
31 May
1903.
646
13
94
202
50
42
131 May
I >904-
672
205
126
147
100
42
131 May,
1905-
£.
709
76
94
154
133
49
30
52
93
998 1,047 ')292 1,390
ANALYSIS OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURE FOR THE YEARS ENDING
Rent
Insurance
Salaries
Library
Cost of Catalogue
Sundry Printing, Postage, and
Stationery, etc.
Printing and Postage, History
of Society ...
Printing and Postage, Pro-
ceedings at Anniversary
Lantern Slides Account
Photographs Account
Cost of Journal (less sales)
Cost" of Journal, Reprint of
Vol. XXIII
Grants
Facsimile of the Codex Venetus
of Aristophanes
" Excavations at Phylakopi "...
Commission and Postage per
Bank
EgyptExplorationFund — i, 100
copies of Mr. Hogarth's Report
31 May, 31 May. 31 May, 31 May, 31 May, 31 May, 31 May,i3i May, 31 May, 31 May,
1896. 1897. ; 1898. 1899. 1900. 1901. 1902. , 1903- I 1904. I 1905.
i.
80
15
47
39
46
394
80
15
52
94
29
80
80
346
180
15
15
50
60
93
6[
45
32
24
... 1
ifi
26 '
80
15
60
73
13
I
390
80
15
60
74
61
29
IS
382
80
15
60
82
41
17
367
125
150
23
744 796 948 960 890 916 I 865 1,432
£.
80
15
69
72
35
454
250
210
156
£.
88
18
£
So
16
89 165
50 100
55 •••
137 147
24
10
2
5"
225
30
140
1.335
5*
51'
122
260
1.450
* Expenses (less sales).
lii
e» O
vO ■^
SO -t
M —
o
C^
NN
"-)
u
>>
«j
c<i
o
.;« c
rn
u-i rt
o —
t)
ON.-
'i-
.S " ■"
e c
s?
£ c 2 "^
1.2^^ g 2^
J3 U^ .2
° OiS
^
N^
- ri O O -
r}- M o^ O ^
H
Z
^
O
u
u
<
•^
p^
:coun
for
-
o
< t
"-^
Ui
3
<
U
J
o
J-"
.^
H^
o
ncial
froi
sof
tion
o
^ 0
<
Fina
Result
Dati
ublica
rt
"o
CL,
s
y^
U
;z
o
t/3
H
■ 5
<
■^
>
"o
<
u
X
a
"H
o
c
C/J
CS
n
o
M
0)
o
>
^^<
u
o o c
N
s:;
liii
< t
e -
■ri o p
■^ Ci =-^
■ s
•^
•^
O — -tS
o .5
tui 'u J"
_c« <J
C C/3
° 4) d rt
IJ — CL, >
S'S"
^
-
< I
■*
S?
6
bl)
c o
o
•v;
•-H
'00
o
^
^■u'i °.2
-" c _, j; tj
"-
^
N
C/D
Column
Fina
Resul
Da
Public:
May 3
"-^
M
(S
Tf
S:j
S?
^ 3
tn
uT
3
3
Q.
c
C
Q,
I"'
w
01
O 3 1- v_. •-
c — •— o cj
. - o
W ^
m
\o - o o
"~^ ■* CiO O LT)
s?
M
o 6
-r •=•:;; c
u
is?
(ij .S:
c^--;3
2 .S wj
b/j u c
O t« -S
. o "S. c
— ;s -C II "C
Oa Pi cu
ti
(S
1/1
V
■V
•«
75
O)
O
_
O ri
0\
O
si
>i vO vO O
•^ o o ^»o
■^ « o o
Q U
M
•>3 - "
CL, M
liv
u-i 00 >o fo T^
S?
V
P
i 1i
o c ^ -r
1/1
s
in
n
a
o
a^
a
D
p
rt
^
in
CJ
>
■^ «
c -a
"«' o "
S?
c XI -
•c (i c^
.S «<
S « "
c c
3 3
o o
o o
u u
< <
K i2 C
p rt ^
3 ^
,5 c
« a ij y o —
o ^ ^ W [i, pq
'(^ aj C ^
o "-=• o c
^ ij « 2
o <^ e o :;
r ) I, (L> U
C K
< 00
«■) >o r^ 00 fo
« •<*• vo -jO O
00 O vO
3 H
w 1-3 ■<
in o oo
O oo m N
Htl
O
M
m 0^ LO
O O "-> vO
VO
■"l-
On 1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
c
c
o
o
5 m m On
3 ro ON
O
.2 'y
c c V c
3
'c
^ •£
o ^
'^ ^ :
a .2
" C rt
e
fl ^ e i*-
uj .— e«
•^ 5 X) ;z
u m
a
Q
Iv
o •-
O ro
N 1-
5
'■O
o 00 o
V .^ !> o
'■J
< P^
° '5
■Jn 2
U
■¥. ^
w
^
o
<^
o
tjO
C/J
in
:ri
^o
C
s
■^
rn
^O
^
iz;
;^ _0 4i
O O
to O
o O
<->«-< (LI
2 p^
^?
S?
B
i)
<
>i
o
1-
o
*5
1)
■n
^
c
m
c
.■^
t3
XI
<j
C
J2
11
hJ
o
^
J
*
u
t^
u.
f
K
■s
71
Tl
w
<u
Oi
c <
ij o
in (J
w ^
Ivi
THIRD LIST OF
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS
ADDED TO THE
LIBRARY OF THE SOCIETY
SINCE THE PUBLICATION OF THE CATALOGUE.
1904—1905.
Aldenhoven (F.) Itineraire descriptif de I'Attique et du Pelo-
ponnese. 8vo. Athens. 1841.
Athens. Catalogue des Vases points du Musee National d'Athtnes.
By M. Collignon and L. Couve. 2 vols. Text and Plates.
Svo. and 4to. Paris. 1902-4.
AuterOChe (C. d') A Journey into Siberia. 4to. 1770.
Barker (W. B.) Lares and Penates, or Cilicia and its Governors.
Bvo. 1853.
Beaufort (F.) Karamania, or a brief description of the South Coast
of Asia Minor. 8vo. 1818.
Benson (F. S) Ancient Greek Coins IIL Parts XL— XIV.
Sicily. 1903-4.
Berlin, Royal Museums. Beschreibung der geschnittenen Steine
im Antiquarium. By A. Furtwaengler.
4to. Berlin. 1896.
Blaquiere (E.) The Greek Revolution ; its origin and progress.
8vo. London. 1824.
Breton (E.) Athenes . . . suivie d'un voyage dans le Peloponnese.
8vo. Paris. 1862.
British Museum.
Department of Coins and Medals.
Cyprus. By G. F. Hill. 1904.
Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities.
Catalogue of the Terracottas. By H. B. Walters.
Svo. 1 903.
Catalogue of Sculpture. Vol. IIL By A. H. Smith.
8vo. 1904.
Ivii
Browne (H.) Handbook of Homeric Study. 8vo. 1905.
Burlington Fine Arts Club. Exhibition of Ancient Greek Art.
4to. 1904.
Burnet (J.) Early Greek Philosophy. 8vo. 1892.
Burrow (E. I.) The Elgin marbles. 8vo. 1837.
Butcher (S. H.) Some aspects of the Greek genius. 8vo. 1904.
Harvard Lectures on Greek subjects. 8vo. 1904.
Carlisle, The Earl of. Diary in Turkish and Greek Waters.
8vo. 1855.
Chandler (R.) Travels in Asia Minor. 4to. Oxford. 1775.
Chishull(E.) Antiquitates Asiaticae. Fol. 1728.
Clapp (E. B.) Hiatus in Greek Melic Poetry. [Univ. Californ.
Public. Class. Phil. 1,1.]
8vo. Berkeley, U.S.A. 1904.
Clark (W. G.) Peloponnesus ; notes of study and travel.
8vo. 1858.
Collig-non (M.) Lysippe. 8vo. Paris.
Catalogue des Vases peints. See Athens.
Couve (L.) Catalogue des Vases peints. See Athens.
Crace (J. D.) Plaster Decoration. [J.R.I.B.A. XI. 10.]
4to. 1904.
Crum (W. E.) The Osireion at Abydos. See Murray (M.A.).
Currelly (C. T.) Ehnasya. See Petrie.
Curzon (R.) Visits to Monasteries in the Levant. 8vo. 1849.
Armenia. 8vo. 1854.
Dareste (R.) Hecueil des Inscriptions Juridiques Grecques Vol. I.;
2nd. Series, Pts. 2, 3. 8vo. Paris, 1904.
DeiSSmann (G. A.) Bible Studies. Translated by A. Grieve.
8vo. 1903.
Detlefsen (D.) Editor. See Plinius (C.) Secundus.
Disney (J.) Museum Disneianutn : a description of a collection . . .
in the possession of John Disney. Fol. 1849.
Dittenbergfer (W.) Editor. See Inscriptiones.
Egypt Exploration Fund.
Memoirs. XXVI. Ehnasya. See Petrie.
Egypt Research Account.
Vol. IX. The Osireion at Abydos. See Murray
(M.A.).
Eitrem (S.) Die Phaiaken-episode in der Odyssee. [Videnskabs-
Selskabots Skrifter. 11. Historisk-filosofisk Klasse. 1904.
No. 2.] 8vo. Christiania. 1904.
Euripides. Fabulae II. Ed. G. Murray. [Script. Class. Bibl.
OxoD.] 8vo. Oxford. 1904.
FairclOUgh (H. R.) Editor. See Terentius.
Falkener (E.) A Description of some important Theatres and other
remains in Crete. 8vo. 1854.
Fellows (C.) A Journal written during an excursion in Asia Minor.
8vo. 1839.
8vo.
1905.
4to.
1807.
Fol.
1904.
Fol.
1905.
45-3.
[Niimis-
8vo.
1904.
K'iii
Fletcher (B. and B. F.) A History of Architecture.
8vo. 1905.
(B. F.) Arcliitecture : its place in a liberal education.
8vo. 1905.
Foucart (P.) Le culte de Dionysos en Attique, (Mc'moires de
I'Acad. des Inscript. XXXVII.] 4to. Pari.s. 1904.
Furtwaengfler (A.) Beschreibung der geschnittenen Steine im
Antiquariuin. See Berlin, Royal Museums.
Gardner (E. A.) Introduction to Greek Epigraphy. See Roberts.
Gardner (P.) A Grammar of Greek Art.
Gell (W.) Geography and Antiquities of Ithaca.
Gifford (E. H.) Editor. See Plato.
Gildersleeve (B. L.) Editor. See Pindar.
Godden (G. M.) Greek Horseman.ship.
The Woodcutter.
Grieve (A.) Bible Studies. See Deis^^mann.
Griffith (F. LI.) Ehnasya. See Petrie.
Grueber (H. A.) Roman bronze coinage from B.C.
matic Chronicle, Fourth series, Vol. IV.]
Harrison (J. E.) Translator. See Paris (P.).
Hill (G, F.) Catalogue of Greek Coins in Brit. Mus. Cyprus. See
British Museum.
Illustrations of School Classics. 8vo. 1903.
Notes on Roman gold bars from Egypt. [Proc. S.A.L. 2 S.
XX. 90.] 8vo. 1904.
Homolle (Th.) Fouilles de Delphes. Tome V (2). Plates only.
4to. Paris. 1905.
Inscriptiones Graecae. Orientis Graeci inscriptiones Selectae.
Ed. W. Dittenberger. Vol. II. 8vo. Leipsic. 1905.
Irvine (W.) Letters on Sicily. 8vo. 1813.
Jebb (R. C.) Bacchylides. [Proceedings of Brit. Acad, Vol. I.]
8vo. 1905.
La Borde (A. de.) Voyage pittoresque et historique de I'Espagne.
Fol. Paris. 1813.
Lampakis (G.) Memoire sur les Antiquites Chrdtiennes de la Grece.
4to. Paris. 1902.
Leroy. Ruins of Athens, with Remains and other valuable
Antiquities in Greece. 1759.
Lucas (P.) Voyage du Sieur Paul Lucas . . . dans la Gr^ce, I'Asie
Mineure, la Macedoine, et I'Afrique. 2 vols.
8vo. Paris. 1714.
Voyage du Sieur Paul Lucas . . . dans la Turquie, I'Asie,
Sourie, Palestine, Haute et Basse Egypte, etc. 3 vols.
8vo. Paris. 1724.
McClymont (J. A.) The New Testament and its writers.
Bvo. 1893.
Mahaffy (J. P.) The Progress of Hellenism in Alexander's Empire.
8vo. 1905.
lix
Markham (A. H.) Budrum Castle. [Trans, of the Quatnor Coronati
I^(Hlge.] 8vo. 1904.
Marquand (A.) The farade of the temple of Apollo near Miletus.
[Records of the Past. IV. 1.] 4to. 1905.
Meng"e (R.) Troja und die Troas. [Gymnasial-Bibliothek, 1.]
8vo. Giitersloh. 1905.
Millingen (A. Van) Byzantine Constantinople, the walls of the
city and adjoining historical sites. 8vo. 1899.
Milne (J. G.) The Oslreion at Abydos. See Murray (M.A.).
Mirmont (H. de la Ville de) Le navire Argo et la science
nauti(j[ue d'Apollonios de Rhodes. [Rev. Internat. de
I'Enseignement.] 8vo. Paris. 1905.
Mueller (K. F.) Der Leichenwagen Alexanders des Grossen. [Bei-
trjige zur Kunstgeschichte. XXXI.] 8vo. Leipzig. 1905.
Murray (G. G.) The 'Trojan Women' of Euripides. [Independent
Review.) 8vo. 1905.
Editor. See Euripides.
(J.) Publisher. Small Classical Atlas. Ed. G. B. Grundy,
Fol. 1904.
(M. A.) The Osireion at Abydos. [Eg. Research Account.
9th publication] with sections by J. G. Milne and W. E.
Crum. 4to. 1903.
Neale (F. A.) Eight years in Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor.
8vo. 1851.
Nutting* (H. C.) Studies in the Si-clause. [Univ. Californ., Class.
Phil. I, 2.] 8vo. Berkeley, California. 1905.
Olivier (G. A.) Travels in the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, and Persia.
2 vols. 4to. 1801.
Ormonde (Marquis of) An Autumn in Sicily.
4to. Dublin. 1850.
Orsi (P.) Necropoli e Stazioni Sicule di Transizione. [Bull, di
Paletnolog. Italian. 1902.] 8vo. 1903.
Paris (P.) Essai sur I'Art et I'lndustrie de I'Espagne primitive.
2 vols. 8vo. Paris. 1903-4.
Manual of Ancient Sculpture. Trsl. by J. E. Harrison.
8vo. 1890.
PerPOt (G.) Praxit^le. 8vo. Paris.
Petersen (E.) Ein Werk des Panainos. 8vo. Leipsic. 1905.
Petrie (W. M. Flinders) Ehnasya— with chapters by F. LI. Griffith
and C. T. Currelly. 4to. 1905.
Phillimore (J. S.) Editor. See Statius.
Pindar. The Olympian and Pythian Odes. Ed. B. L. Gildersleeve.
8vo. 1893.
Plato. Euthydemus. Ed. E. H. Gifford. 8vo. Oxford. 1905.
The Myths. Ed. J. A. Stewart. 8vo. 1905.
Plinius (C.) Secundus. Naturalis Historia II, 242— VI. Ed. D.
Detlefsen. [Quellen und Forsch. zur alten Gesch. und
Geog. Heft 9.] 8vo Berlin. 1904.
e 2
Pohl(R.) De Graecorum medicis publicis. 8vo. Berlin. 1905.
Potter (J.) Archaeologia Graeca : or the Ant^iquities of Greece.
2 vols. 8vo. 1728.
PottieP (E.) Douris et les peintres de Vases Grecs. 8vo. Paris.
Ransom (C. L.) Studies in ancient furniture. Couches and Beds of
the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans.
4to. Chicago. 1905.
Rayet (0.) Monuments de I'arfc antique. 2 vols.
Fol. Paris. 1884.
Reinach (S.) Repertoire de la Statuaire, Tome III. . . . avec les
index des trois tomes. 8vo. Paris. 1904.
Roberts (E. S.) and Gardner (E. A.) Introduction to Greek
Epigraphy. Part II. Inscriptions of Attica.
8vo. Cambridge. 1905.
Rutherford (W. G.) A chapter in the history of annotations.
[Scholia Aristophanica, Vol. III.] 8vo. 1905.
Sandys (J. E.) A History of Classical Scholarship. 8vo. 1903,
Sestini (D.) . Viaggio per la penisola di Cizico, etc. 2 vols.
8vo. Livorno. 1785.
Smith (A. H.) Catalogue of Sculpture in the Brit. Mus. See
British Museum.
Smith (V. A.) The early history of India . . . including the
invasion of Alexander the Great. 8vo. Oxford. 1904.
Spallangcani (L.) Travels in the two Sicilies. 4 vols.
8vo. 1798.
Spiers (R. P.) The Palace at Knossos, Crete. 4to. 1903.
Statius (P. Papinius). Silvae. Ed. J. S. Phillimore.
8vo. Oxford. 1905.
Steup (J.) Editor. See Thucydides.
Stewart. (J. A.) Editor. See Plato.
Stuart (J.) and Revett (N.) Antiquities of Athens and other places
in Greece, Sicily, etc., supplementary to the Antiquities of
Athens by J. S. and N. R. Fol. 1830.
The Antiquities of Athens. 8vo. 1841.
Studniczka (F.) Tropaeum Trajani. [Abh, d. K. S. Gesellsch. d.
Wissensch.,phil.-hist. Kl. XXII. IV.]
8vo. Leipsic. 1904.
Svoronos (J. N.) Das Athener National-Museum, phototypische
Wiedergabe seiner Schaetze. 3, 4.
4to. Athens. 1905.
TerentiUS (P.) Afer. Andtia. Ed. H. R. Fairclough.
8vo. Boston and Chicago. 1905.
Thucydides. Book VI. Ed. J. Classen. 3rd edition edited by
J. Steup. 8vo. Berlin. 1905.
Tournefort (P. de) A voyage into the Levant. 3 vols,
8vo. 1741.
Waldstein (C.) Determining a sculptor. [Illustrated London New.=.]
Fol. 1903.
Ixi
Walpole (R.) Travels in various countries in the East; being a
continuation of Memoirs relating to European and Asiatic
Turkey. 4to. 1820.
Walters (H. B.) Catalogue of Terracottas in the British Museum.
See British Museum.
History of Ancient Pottery. 2 vol?. 8vo. 1905.
Wheeler (B. I.) The whence and whither of the paodern science of
language. [Univ. Californ., Class. Phil. I. 3,]
8vo. Berkeley, California. 1905.
Whibley (L.) A companion to Greek studies. 8vo. 1905.
Wood (R.) The ruins of Palmyra and Balbec. Fol. 1827.
COLLECTION OF NEGATIVES, PHOTOGRAPHS, AND LANTERN SLIDES.
FIRST LIST OF
ACCESSIONS TO THE CATALOGUE OF SLIDES
(PUBLISHED IN VOL. XXIV. OF THE JOURNAL OF HELLENIC STUDIED)
Members desi ling infoinialion respecting this ilepartineut of the Society's work are requested to
apply to the LinRARiAN, Hellenic Society, 22 Albemarle Street, W.
Copies of this Accession List may be had, price od.
TOPOGRAPHY, ARCHITECTURE, AND EXCAVATIONS.
ASIA MINOR.
7329 Map of Aegean basin. (Grundy, Atlas, pi. 11.)
7375 Ephesus, restoration of the temple of Artemis. (B. M. Cat. of Sculpture, II fig. 9.)
5587 ,, theatre, the substructure of the stage.
3209 ,, ,, the proscenium.
3212 ,, ,, continuation of the proceeding.
7327 Mykale. plan of the battle. (Grundy, ^CZas pi. 13e.
5444 Payava (Lycia), Lycian Sarcophagus (drawing by Scharf).
6230 Triglift (Bithynia), colonnade of mosque with Byzantine capitals.
5963 Troy, 6th city, blocked gate leading to well.
3336 Constantinople, View of Hippodrome shewing the Plataean tripod.
CRETE.
7381 Cnossus, General view from E., 1905.
7362 ,, Stepiml theatral area (5.5.y4. ix. fig. 69).
7383 ,, Magazines with j9?<Aoi.
7882 ,, Region of the Hall of the double axes from the tower.
Ixiii
334 Cnossus Miiioaii paved way lookiiipj towanla lliuatral an;a. {B.6'.A. x, p. 46, fig. 15.)
7392 Gortyiia, Temple of Tythiaii Apollo.
7388 Kagia Triada, General view of site from E.N.E.
7389 ,, ,, N. E. angle of later palace from N.
7390 ,, ,, Stair to upper Hoor to S. of ' Men's Megaron ' from \V.
7391 ,, ,, ' Men's Megaron ' from E.
7076 Palaikastro, the plain from the sea.
7086 ,, main street l)loclc A on right.
7087 ,, entrance of later jialace in block A.
6016 ,, larnax burials.
6015
6020
7095(6)
7099 ,, Fragments of libation table with Miiioan inscription.
7096 ,, Inscription to Dictaean Zeus.
7385 Phaestus, ' Piazza occideutale inferiore ' from W.
7384 ,, ' Corte centrale' from S.
7386 ,, Room in palace.
7387 ,, Table of offerings [?]
AEGEAN ISLANDS.
7374 Delos, Bird's-eye view of precinct restored (outline drawing).
5547 ,, Statue-base shewing inscription (another view of 4639).
5557 Patmos, the monastery interior of ' the cave of the Apocalypse.'
7319 Samos, detail of the basis of a column of the Heraion.
NORTHERN AND CENTRAL GREECE.
5461 Map of Greece (Frazer, Pausanias, Map 1).
5469 „ Boeotia( ,, ,, ,, 9).
5470 ,, Phocis ( ,, „ ,, 10).
6305 Delphi, view of the whole site as if from across the gorge. (Williams, Views in Greece.)
4435 Oeniadae, polygonal wall and arch.
7325 Plataea, plan of the battlefield. (Grundy, Atlas, pi. 13 f.)
6304 ,, the plain. (Williams, Vieivs in Greece.)
7328 Thermopylae, plan of the pass (Grundy, Atlas, pi. 13c).
ATHENS.
4687 Parthenon. Architectural details, drums shewing method of superimposition.
4685 Erechtheum, corner capital of N. Porch.
4686 ,, lacunaria, detail of.
4568 Olympieum, abacus of fallen capital.
ATTICA.
5462 Map of Attica (Frazer, Pausania^, pi. 2).
4588 Eleusis, niches in the sacred way near Daphni.
6303 ,, and part of Salamis. (Williams, Views in Greece.)
7326 Marathon, plan of (Grundy, Atlas, pi. 13b).
6302 ,-, the plain. (Williams, Views in Greece.)
Ixiv
PELOPONNESUS.
5463 Map of Argolis. (Fra/cer, Pauscmias, Maj) 3.)
54G4 ,, Laconia. ,, ,, ,, 4.
7251 ,, ,, another rendering.
5465 ,, Messenia. (Frazer, Prr?fW'?(/".<, Map 5.)
5466 " ,, Elis. ,, ,, ,, 6.
5467 M Achaia. ,, ,, ,, 7.
5468 ,, Arcadia. ,, ,, ,,8.
6301 Corinth, view acrcss the isthmus of. (Williams, Views in (in
6204 Epidauru.s Limera, detail of tower.
6214 Monemvasia, Church of Panagia Cretice.
7184 Olympia, temple of Zeus, restoration of interior.
6205 Zarax, general view of harliour.
6211 ,, walls.
6212 ,, vaulted passage in Acropolis walls.
MAGNA GRAECIA
5936 Agrigentum, temple of Zeus, fallen figure of Atlas.
6321 Segesta, near view of the unfinished temple.
7,
fig-
1.)
9,
12,
"
2.)
3.)
PREHELLENIC ANTIQUITIES.
3801 Vases. Cnossus, early incised ware.
6331 ,, ,, Middle Minoan, vase with lily design. (B.S A. x p
6332 ,, ,, ,, ,, painted stone jar. ( ,, ,,
6333 ,, ,, T> ;i knobbed pithos. ( ,, ,,
3825 Frescoes. Cnossus, Fragments illustrating the dress of women.
3819 ,, ,, Headless tribute l)earers.
7360 Modelling, etc. A snake goddess, 2 views. [B.S.A. ix. fig. 54.)
7361 ,, A votary, 2 views. {B.S.A. ix. fig. 56.)
3520 Gold cup with rosettes. (Schliemann, Tt/j/ccnrtc, fig. 344.)
1042 Design of the ceiling at Orchomenos. (CoUignon, fig. 9.)
7359 Faience flying fish from Cnossus. {B.S.A. ix. fig, 46.)
7363 Faience wild goat in relief, Cnossus. {B.S.A. ix. pi. 3.)
3885 Clay tablets with linear'script from the original .
7099 Fragment of libation table, Palaikaslro, with Minoan inscription.
Vases of Geometric Period.
3797 'Dipylon' vase from Thebes. A warship. {J.H.S. xix. pi. 8.)
)/ases of the Orientalising Period.
363 Attica. Early Attic (?) the Gorgons, Athena and Perseus. {Arch. Zeit. 1882, pi. 9.
3550 ,, „ ,, „ „ ,, ,, ,, 10.
Ixv
SCULPTURE.
* denotes tliat tlic iiliotogiaiih is taken diiect from the original or from an adequate photo-
grajiliie reproduction.
t denotes tliat the photograpli is from a cast.
Where, for any reason, the i)hotograph is from a drawing or engraving the fact is noted in the
text.
EARLY RELIEFS.
6221 Angelona (Laconia), Bearded worshipper before altar.'
6326 Athens, head of a discoliolos.* (Ath. Nat. Mus. )
6337 Selinus, head of dying giant from metope of temple of Hera.*
7532 Sparta, funerary relief of seated figures.* (Cf. Ca>. of Sparta Muscxm, No. 32.)
SCULPTURE FROM OLYMPIA.
6325 Metope. Heracles and Stymphalian Birds. Figure of Athena. * Louvre.
6312 W. Pediment. Tor.so of a Lapith woman.*
6315 Nike of Paeonius,* profile.
PRAXITELEAN.
6314 Hermes of Praxiteles, another view of the head.''
6311 ,, ,, foot of the statue.*
1347 Cnidian Aphrodite. The Berlin head,* full face.
3792 Apollo Sauroktonos* Vatican.
7399 Hermes Belvedere,* head of the.
7395 Aphrodite of Aries.*
6323 Apollino.* Florence.
MISCELLANEOUS.
6313 Selinus. Metope from later temple. Actaeon and Artemis.*
6328 Atalanta from Tegea, head.* (B.C.H. 1901, pi. 4.)
6329 ,, ,, ,, torso.* {B.C.H. 1901, pi. 6.)
6330 ,, ,, ,, head and torso photographed together on the same scale.
5445 The Mausoleum, reconstruction of the order. (B. M. Cat. of Sculpt, ii. pi. 15.)
5439 Nike of Samothrace and galley, outline drawing. (Rayet, Monuvients.)
4279 The Lansdowne Heracles.*
7529 Votive relief to Asclepius.* {Cat. of Sparta Mus. No. 29.)
7396 ' Dying Gladiator,'* Back view of.
7397 ,, ,, * Head of.
6318 The Attalid dedications. Two fallen warriors.
7398 Aphrodite of Melos,* Head of.
5997 Heracles from Cythera,* Farnese type. (Svoronos, Ath. Nat. Mus. pi. 11. 1.)
6316 Psyche.* Nai>les.
6324 Young Satyr asleep* (the ' Barberini Faun').
5996 Head of crouching boy from Cythera.* (Svoronos, Ath. Nat. Mus. pi. 12. la.)
5499 Unknown Hellenistic portrait from Delphi.* {Delphcs, iv. pi. 73.)
6092 Orestes and Electrat with ephebust by Stephanus. (Cf. J.H.S. xxiv. p. 132, tig. 2.)
7396 Group of wrestlers. * F'lorence.
6093 Aeschylus.* Florence. {J.H.S. xxiv. pi. 2a.)
BRONZES.
7231 Statuettes. Three male figures of very early type.* Ath. Nat. Mus.
6327 Apollo Piombino.*
7237«, b Statuettes. Nude male and draped female figures of fine style.* Ath. Nat. Mus.
72436 Taras on Dolphin,* Ath. Nat. Mus.
Ixvi
6338 The 'Idolino.' * Louvre.
6322 The ' Praying Boy ' * of IJerliu.
5995 Draped female figure from Cythera.* (Svoroiios, Atli. Nat. M\i,s. \)\. G.)
6317 The Chimaera.* Floreuce.
7366 Heads of Hermes of Cythera and Hermes of Praxiteles compared.
7367 i, •« unhelmeted head from Tegea compared.
7368 ,, M Hagias of Lysippus compared.
5993 Portrait head from Cythera,* 2 views. (Svoronos, Alh. Nat. Mus. \A. 3.)
5994 Restoration of whole figure of above. [Id. pi. 1.)
TERRACOTTAS.
7369 Diadumenos of Polycleitus.t
6132 Three heads from Cyprus.*
COINS.
6998 Argos, M. (B.M. Cat. Peloponncsm, pi. 28, 19.)
7400 Elis, M. 5th century head of Olympian Zeus. (Cf. B.M. Cat. Peloponnesus, pi. 12, 10.)
3549 Ptolemy Soter, JR. coins of the regency for Ale.Kauder IV. (Cf. B.M. Cat. Ptolemies, pi. 1.)
MISCELLANEA.
(a) General.
5472 Lead bal teres. B.M. (/.ZT.^'. xxiv. p. 182, fig. 2.)
7247 Painted lacunar of Nereid Monument. B.M.
1082 Mantineian theatre ticket. {Journ. Intcrnat. d'archiol. num. iii. pi. 10, 1, la.)
7184 Olympia, temple of Zeus, restoration of interior.
{b) Illustration to the Greek Warship problem. {SeeJ.H.S. xxv. pp. 137-156.)
5458 Assyrian warship. B.M. (Dar. et Sagl. fig. 5263.)
3797 Dipylon vase, a warship. {J.H.S. xix. pi. 8.)
3454 Relief,* a warship. Acrop. Mus.
5439 Nike of Samothrace and galley, outline drawing. Oiayet, Monuments.)
5440 Detail of relief of Paris and Oenone. Palazzo Spada.
3796 Pompeian wall painting. Roman sea fight. (Baumeister, fig. 1697.)
5459 Relief, prow of a Roman galley. (Dar. et Sagl. fig. 5278.)
3795 Relief, Trajan's column. "Warships. (Baumeister, fig. 1685.)
5438 Drawing of relief with galley Dal Pozzo album. B. M.
3798 Woodcut, 3 Venetian galleys. Jacopo de' Barbari. B.M.
3799 Venetian woodcut, Rowers in galley. B.M.
INSCRIPTIONS.
PrcfaJtory Notice. — In pursuance of a promise in the original catalogue a series of some fifty
slides is in preparation suitable for an introductory course on Greek Epigraphy. In a subject
diflScult of classification it has been found best to limit this series at the outset to one
mainly illustrative of the study of the forms of the Greek alphabets, their differences and
developments. Care, however, is being taken to include among the illustrations a fair
proportion of inscriptions of well known historical interest. The arrangement followed will be
approximately that adopted in E. S. Roberts' Introduction to Greek Epigraphy, but the illustra-
tions where possible will be taken from originals or facsimiles. It is hoped that this series will
be available next session.
JOURNAL OF HKLLENIC STUDIES.
•1-1 AiiitKAiARi.K St., \V.
Xov. 3/vZ, liK>3.
NOTICE TO CONTRIBUTORS.
The Council of the Hellenic Society having decided that it is desirable
for a common system of transliteration of Greek word.« to be adopted in
the JouriKil of Hellenic Studies, the following scheme has been drawn up
by the Acting Editorial Committee in conjunction with the Consultative
Editorial Committee, and has received the approval of the Council.
In consideration of the literary traditions of English scholarship, the
scheme is of the nature of a compromise, and in most cases considerable
latitude of usage is to be allowed.
(1) All Greek proper names should be transliterated into the Latin
alphabet according to the practice of educated Romans of the Augustan age.
Thus K should^be represented by c, the vowels and diphthongs v, ai, oi, ov
by 1/, ae, oe, and n respectively, final -09 and -ou by -^cs and -um, and -po<;
by -er.
But in the case of the diphthong ei, it is felt that ci is more suitable
than e or i, although in names like Laudicea, Alexandria,
where they are consecrated by usage, e ori should be preserved
also words ending in -eiov must be represented by -eum.
A certain amount of discretion must be allowed in using the
0 terminations, especially where the Latin usage itself varies
or prefers the 0 form, as Delos. Similarly Latin usage should
be followed as far as possible in -e and -a terminations,
e.g., Friene, Smyrna. In some of the more obscure names
ending in -po?, as Aeaypo^;, -er should be avoided, as likely
to lead to confusion. The Greek form -001 is to be preferred
to -0 for names like Dio7i, Hieron, except in a name so common
as Apollo, where it would be pedantic.
Names which have acquired a definite English form, such as
Coi'inth, Athens, should of course not be otherwise represented.
It is hardly necessary to point out that forms like Hercules,
Mercury, Mineiia, should not be used for Heracles, Heiinics, and
Athena.
(2) Although names of the gods should be transliterated in the same
way as other proper names, names of personifications and epithets such as
Nike, Homonoia, Hyalcinthios, should fall under ij 4.
(8) In no case should accents, especially the circumflex, be written over
vowels to show quantity.
(4) In the case of Greek words other than proper names, used as names
of personifications or technical terms, the Greek form should be transliterated
letter for letter, k being used for k, ch for 'x^, but y and u being substituted
for V and ov, which are misleading in English, e.g., Nike, ajMxt/omcnos.
diadumenos, rhyton.
This rule should not be rigidly enforced in the case of Greek
words in common English use, such as aegis, syniposiu/it. It
is also necessary to preserve the use of oic for ov in a
certain number of words in which it has become almost
universal, such as bonle, gcronsia.
(5) The Acting Editorial Committee are authorised to correct all
MSS. and proofs in accordance with this scheme, except in the case of a
special protest from a contributor. All contributors, therefore, who object
on principle to the system approved by the Council, are requested to inform
the Editors of the fact when forwarding contributions to the Journal.
In addition to the above system of transliteration, contributors to the
Jmtrnal of Hellenic Studies are requested, so far as possible, to adhere to the
following conventions : —
Qiiotations from Ancient and Modern Authorities.
Names of authors should not be underlined ; titles of books, articles,
periodicals, or other collective publications should be underlined (for italics).
If the title of an article is quoted as well as the publication in which it is
contained, the latter should be bracketed. Thus :
Six, Jahrh. xviii. 1903, p. 34,
or-
Six, Protogenes {Jahrh. xviii. 1903), p. 34.
But as a rule the shorter form of citation is to be preferred.
The number of the edition, when necessary, should be indicated by a
small figure above the line ; e.g. Dittenb. Syll} 123.
Ixix
Titles of Periodical <uid Colkdivc Fahlications.
The following abbreviations are suggested, as already in more or less
general use. In other eases, no abbreviation which is not readily identified
should be employed.
.4.-E..)/. = Arcb;it)l()^n.^ch-epi;.;raplii.sc]ic; Mittlieilungeii.
Ann. (I. /. =Annali dell' Instituto.
Arch. .4;/i. = Arcli;iolo;j;i.sclier Anzeit^'er (I'eililatt zuni .Talirl)n<;]i).
Arch /?e//. = Arcluiologische Zeitvuig.
Ath. J/i«/i. = Mittlieilungen lies Deutsclien Arch. Inst., Atlienische Abtlieilunt^.
Raiimeister=Bauineister, Denkmaler des klassischen Altertums.
R (-'.//. = Bulletin de Ciirrespondance Hell^ni(ine.
Jierl. ra.s'. = Fart\vangler, Beschreibnng der Vasensaninilung zu Berlin.
B.}r. Ihonzes = Bv\t\s\i Museuin Catalo<.,Hie of Bronzes.
Zf..lA.C'.=: British Museum Catalogue of Greek Coins.
/y..!/. /hsc?-. =Greek Inscriptions in the British Museuin.
Ji.}f. ras('s = British Museum Catalogue of Vases, 1893, etc.
iy.iS.i4. = Annual of the British School at Athens.
Bull. d. /. = Bullettino dell' Instituto.
Busolt = Busolt, Griechische Geschichte.
C. /.(?. = Corpus Inscriptioniim Graecarum.
C/.L. = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.
CI. /?ct?. = Classical Review.
CR. Acad. ///scr. = Comptes Rendus de I'Academie des Inscriptions.
Dar.-Sagl. = Daremberg-Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquites.
Dittenb. 0. Tx. /. = Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae.
Dittenb. %?/. = Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum.
'E^. ' Apx. =^E(f}rjfi(p\s 'Ap)(aio\oyiKi'].
G. D.I. =CoUitz, Sammlung der Griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften.
Gerh. .^4 . F. = Gerhard, Auserlesene Vasenbilder.
(r.G./l. = Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen.
Head, //.iV. = Head, Historia Numorum.
/.(?.= [nscriptiones Graecae.^
I..G.A. =R'6h\, Inscriptiones Graecae anticjuissimae.
/a^?-Z^. — Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts.
./a/i/-e.sA. = Jahreshefte des Oesterreichischen Archaologischen Institutes.
.7. ^.^S'.^ Journal of Hellenic Studies.
Le Bas-Wadd. = Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage Archeologique.
Michel = Michel, Recueil d'Inscriptions grecques.
.\fon. d. I. = Monumenti dell' Instituto.
MuUer-Wies. = Miiller-Wieseler, Denkmaler der alten Kunst.
.\[us. J/a;iZes = Collection of Ancient Marbles in the British Museum.
Xeue Jahrb. Id. A Z^ =:Neue Jahrbiicher fiir das klassische Allertum.
Neue Jahrb. Phil. = ^ene Jahrbiicher fiir Philologie.
1 The attentiou of contributors is called to the fact that the titles of the volumes of the secoi d
issue of the Corpus of Greek Inscriptions, published by the Prussian Academy, have now been
changed, as follows : —
I.G. I. = Inscr. Atticae anno Eu udis vetustiores.
,, II. = ,, ,, aetatis quae est inter Euclann. et Augusti tempora.
,, III. = ,, ,, aetatis Romanae.
,, IV. = ,, Argolidis.
,, VII. = ,, Megaridis et Boeotiae.
,, IX. = ,, Graeciae Septeutrionalis.
,, XII, = ,, insul. Maris Aegaei pvaeter Delum.
,, XIV. = ,, Italiae et Siciliae.
Ixx
Nit'Sc = Niese, Gescliiclitc iler ^'riecliisclien u. niakcdonisclien Staateii.
Num. CAr. = Numismatic Chronicle.
Num. Zfi/. = Numismatisclie Zeitschrift.
Pauly-Wissowa = Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Eiicyclopadie der classisclien Altertumswisscn-
schaf't.
PAi/o;. = Pliilolo^ais.
Ramsay, C /A = liamsay, Cities and Bislioprics of Phrygia.
Bev. Arch. — B.tivwe Arclu''ologi(iue.
Her. Et. ^r'r.= Revue des fitudes Grecques.
Rev. A^Mw.=Revue Numisniati(iue.
Rer. Philol. = 'Revi\e de Philologie.
R/>. .lAfs. = Rlieinisches Museum.
Rom. J/i<//}. = Mittheilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Institute, Romisclie Alttlieil-
ung.
Roscher = Reseller, Lexicon der Mythologie.
jr./l..lA = Tituli Asiae Minoris.
Z.f. A''. = Zeitschrift fiir Numismatik.
Transliteration of Inscriptions.
[ ] Square brackets to indicate additions, i.e. a lacuna filled by conjecture.
( ) Curved brackets to indicate alterations, i.e. (1) the resolution of an
abbreviation or symbol ; (2) letters misrepresented by the engraver ;
(3) letters wrongly omitted by the engraver ; (4) mistakes of the
copyist.
< > Angular brackets to indicate omissions, i.e. to enclose superfluous
letters appearing on the original.
. . Dots to represent an unfilled lacuna when the exact number of missing
letters is known.
Dashes for the same purpose, when the number of missing letters is
not known.
Uncertain letters should have dots under them.
Where the original has iota adscript, it should be reproduced in that form ;
otherwise it should be supplied as subscript.
The aspirate, if it appears in the original, should be represented by a
special sign, ^ .
Quotations from MSS. and Literary Texts.
The same conventions should be employed for this purpose as for inscrip-
tions, with the following important exceptions : —
( ) Curved brackets to indicate only the resolution of an abbreviation or
symbol.
[[ ]] Double square brackets to enclose superfluous letters appearing on the
original.
< > Angular brackets to enclose letters supplying an omission in the
original.
The Editors desire to impress upon contributors the necessity of clearly
and accurately indicating accents and breathings, as the neglect of this
precaution adds very considerably to the cost of production of the Journal
THE PEDIMENTS OF THE MAUSSOLLEUM.
Some years ago I ventured on a reconstruction of the Maussolleum, that
was based on the principle of not overlooking the sculptured fragments in a
monument of which the great renown was due, according to Vitruvius, to the
work of the sculptors who were employed in its decoration : quorum artis
eminens excellentia coegit ad septem spedaculorum eius opcris pervemre famam}
That it was never published is owing to the uncertainty I felt about the
measures of the remaining architectural fragments, which I had not the
means to control.
Now since F. Adler published his monograph on the Maussolleum,^
which only came to my notice a short time ago, I may venture to indicate in
how far I think his reconstruction, which in many respects does not differ from
what I supposed, ought to be corrected in accordance with our texts and
principally with the extant sculptural fragments.
Several of these, mostly it is true in very poor condition and difficult of
access, are omitted in every reconstruction, or find a place which hardly
provides them with any direct relation to the monument and which is without
analogy in Greek architecture,
A basis with a horseman is certainly not unknown in the history of
Greek art, and even a venatio occurs now and then as an isolated work, but
these are usually separate monuments, for which a place is provided as well
as may be in an often already overcrowded locality, not intrinsic parts of a
well-planned scheme, as they might be in a modern construction.
The consequence of this is, that the fragment of the horseman has been
quadrupled first and has even grown out into eight prancing warriors in the
reconstructions of Fergusson and Adler ; but on the other hand I miss in
every one of them the boar and the ram, which appeal much less to the
imagination.
A thorough publication of all the sculptured fragments of the Maussol-
leum, that are not in relief, is sorely wanted. As some of them are in an
extremely mutilated condition a photographic reproduction would not do for
all. The draped fragments Nos. 1048-1050 and 1061-1065 and the helmet,
No, 1050, would certainly want a very conscientious draughtsman, working
^ Vitruv. vii. 1. 12. - Das Mausoleum dcr Ualikarnass, Berlin, 1900.
H,S. — VOL. XXV. B
2 J. SIX
uiuler the constant control of :in archaeologist. Most of the lieads, and
the fragments of the animals, would allow of a photographic reproduction if
it could be obtained.
But I do not think that it is absolutely necessary to wait till some
English scholar will undertake this difficult but promising task, to draw some
of the conclusions that may be deduced from the existence of these frag-
ments, several of which could not find a better place than amongst pedi-
mental sculptures.
Fig. 1.— Coloss.\l .Skated Figure fv.om the MArssoLi-EtiM.
The different size too of the diverse figures, varying from the colossal to
life size, indicates such an employment, and may help to distribute each
fragment to its relative place, nearer to the centre or the extreme corners of
the composition. The colossal seated male figure, No. 1047 (Fig. 1), for
example, would fit into or near the middle of a pediment and the helmet
with the mask would suit the corner.
The colossal equestrian torso indeed would find its natural place in the
centre of a pedimental composition. Analogies are not wanting. Of the
T}IE PKDTMKNTS OF THE 1MAU8SOLLEUM. 3
Heroon of Xatithos, the so-called Nereid Mionument, the left half only of the
west pediment remains, but this shows just enough of the forelegs of a
prancing horse to allow with absolute certitude the reconstruction of a
horseman as principal figure in the centre of the composition. Of greater
import still is the south pediment of the so-called sarcophagus of Alexander,
where a horseman in Persian garments occupies the exact centre of the com-
position (Fig. 2). The likeness to the Maussolleum fragment is so close, that
iJUEtucuyyyi
wm?*»nB',;V'§ -:_r-u,g«.«p
^imv
Fiii. 2.— 'Sarcoihagis of A(,exander,' from Sidon' ; South PEDrjiEXT.
(Frmn Uanuly Bey and Rclnach.)
with exception of the position of the right leg the torso seems the exact
counterpart of this figure. As a helmet standing on the ground recurs in
this same composition and the fragment No. 10G4 is supposed to have worn
a cuirass, one would be inclined to think of a battle scene for this pediment.
This however would hardly account for numerous other fragments that may
not be neglected. First of all No, 1095, the anterior half of a panther (Fig. 3),
broken off behind the shoulder.^ The animal springs up with a movement
that affords a close analogy to the panthers hunted in the basement-frieze of
the sarcophagus of mourners. — I have not seen the hindquarters and a paw
mentioned by Sir Charles Newton as corresponding in scale.* — There are half
of the snout and both the feet of the forelegs of a wild boar at bay, which
seem to allow of a reconstruction according to the south as well as to the
north side of this frieze. Again there are fragments, which I have not seen,
of a hound : part of the head, an arm, and a paw, mentioned by Sir Charles
Newton.^ Nor can I give any further detail about the head of a lioness,
presented by the British Government to the Imperial Museum at Constanti-
nople ^ or ' part of the hindquarters of this or another lioness ' found in the
excavations/
The presence of two or three or even more different wild animals io
^ This animal has grown rather too large in
my reconstruction by a mistake of the draughts-
man.
* Halicarnassus, Cnidus, and Branchidae, ii.
p. 233.
» I. c. 231.
8 /. c. 232.
7 /. c. 234.
B 2
4 J. SIX
the same hunting-scene is not improbable. The bas-relief of the short
south side of th(! sarcophagus of ' Alexander ' has only a panther, but the
west side combines a lion and a stag ; and the frieze of the sarcophagus of
mourners, already mentioned, contains one bear, two Avi Id boars, four panthers
and five stags, not to mention the deail game that is hard to identify.
Fi<:. 3. — PANriti;n fkom ihk Mal'.ssoi.leum.
I would therefore suggest that MaussoUos himself, in the dress of a
Persian Satrap, may have held, on a prancing horse, the middle of the
pediment, attacking a lioness, supported on both sides by half armed
attendants, hunting a panther and a wild boar. The fallen helmet may have
belonged to the corpse of a victim of this perilous chase.
There are even more remnants of animals amongst the Maussolleum
sculptures than those already named : the body of a colossal ram, No. 1097
(Fig. 4), a foot and part of the hind leg of which were also found ; the head,
forehand, and right hind leg of a boar No. 1096, 1-3, hardly exceeding life-
size ; and the large hoof of a bull, which I saw amongst the remains in the
vaults of the British Museum and which is mentioned by Newton as possibly
the hoof of an ox.'^ The ram and the boar are not in violent action : they
either stand still or move slowly. It is of course only a suggestion, but the
combination of boar, ram, and bull reminds me of the Roman suovetaurilin
and makes me think that that pediment, which must have held the colossal
seated figure, may have represented an ofU'ering scene with precisely these
animals.
As nothing, as far as I am aware, is known about Carian rites, this
THE PEDIMENTS OF THE MAUSSOLLEUM. 5
must of course remain a mere conjecture, but that such a scene would not
be inappropriate to a Hereon is shown by that of Xanthos, where an
offering scene occurs in the lesser frieze.
I do not wish to lay much stress on the important place taken by the
victims in the Partlienon frieze, which, though in the strictest sense, taken
as a whole, an offering scene, is of quite a different character. On the
other hand I would press the analogy of three contemporary pictures. We
know little or nothing about the meaning of the famous sacrifice of bulls by
Pausias, but, rather than some mythic or heroic subject, I would expect a
political picture akin to Euphranor's work in the Stoa Basileios at Athens,
Of Aristolaos too, the son of Pausias, a sacrifice of bulls is mentioned, and I
cannot help thinking that all the figures mentioned by Pliny :^ Epameinondas,
Pericles, Media, Virtue, Theseus, and the image of the Attic Demos, must
i'K;. 4.— Colossal Kam fi;ijm the MAissiu.i.Kr.M.
have belonged to one single composition, the centre of which was the houni
immolatio. Further, Apelles is known from Herondas (iv. 59 f.) to have
painted the sacrifice of a bull for the Asklepieion of Kos, probably. Later
Roman reliefs, as that of the Ara Fads, the altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus,®
or the triumphal arch at Susa, may perhaps retain some distant reminiscence
of these earlier compositions.
At all events the boar and the ram are not intended to be seen close at hand.
The ram gains immensely in the reduction of our figure and would certainly,
at the height of the pediment, have rendered admirably in marble its woolly
fleece. Thus seen it seems not unworthy of Skopas. I will not say too
much of the style of the colossal seated figure, our Fig. 1, as I have not had
the occasion to compare it thoroughly with the Atalanta from Tegea {B.C.H.
•8 Ned. Hist. XXXV. 137. ^ rmtwiiiigler, Intermezzi, p. 36, d.
G J. HIX
xxi. 1J)()1, PI. VI.), but I feel sure tliat there is nothing, at least in the
treatment of tlie drapery, that would be in the way of our theory. The
same holds good as to the Maenad in which Prof Treu has recognized the
most famous work of Skopas.^** The strong lines that mark the folds of
our torso speak even more clearly in that work.
To which of the pediments the ditferent heads and torsos may have
belonged, it is hard to guess. The only presumption that pi-esents itself is
that, at all events, the female heads can hardly come from the hunting-scene,
and Avill therefore belong to the east pediment, that of Skopas, Tlieir style,
as far as I see, affords no objection. No. 1051 is already described as 'in
the manner of Skopas ' by Mr, A. H. Smith in his Catalogue,
I feel less sure about No. 1057, a male head, wearing the Jci/rhasia , hut SiS
this headdress is much worn in the hunting-scenes I should be inclined to
assign it to the west pediment, that of Leochares.
I am perfectly aware of the objections that have been made to the theory
of Prof. Loeschcke,^^ who seeks to find a reminiscence of the venatio Alcxandri
at Delphi (part of which, according to Plutarch,^^ was by Leochares), in a
relief froui Messene, but I do not think them of cardinal importance. Nor
does it escape me that this work, the other part of which was said to be by
Lysipj)os, was not erected by Krateros himself, but by his son Krateros whom
he left an infant when Ijg died in 321.'^ But I think the extraordinary
affinity of the horseman in this relief with the torso of the MaussoUeum goes
a good way to demonstrate that Prof. Loeschcke was on the right scent and
that we are not wronnf in ascribinj; the equestrian fraorment to Leochares.^*
At least Lucian, who makes the shade of Maussollos say : to 8e /xeyia-Top,
OTC ev AXiKapvacTCTQi fjLvijfia 7rafifxeye0€<i e^<y iiTLKeifievov, 't]\iKov ovk dWo^
ve/cp6(i, dXX ovBe ovtco<; eV KaXXo<i ^^ecrKtjfih'ov, 'iir ir u> v /cal dvhpuiv e? to
iiKpi^earaTov eiKaa/nevMv XiOov rov KaWiarov oioi> ouBe vewv evpoi ri^ dv
paScM<i, would hardly have spoken thus of the (juadriga and the small
figures only if tiie rcall}- first rate sculptures had stood around the monu-
ment instead of forming an intrinsic part.
I have thus far abstained from the <juestion whether a reconstruction
of tlie Maus-soUeum would allow of the introduction of pediments in the archi-
tecture, though tiiey are suggested, as has been observed, by the hrcvins a
frontibiis of Pliny. They are lacking in all projects of restoration which I
have seen, save in tliat of Mr. Oldlield,^^ and I cannot invoke him to my
aid as his pediments are too small to contain the groups I propcjse, and ns
I could never accept the plan of his work. Adlcr, I think, has said all that
is wanted to disprove his ingenious proposal.
But there is nothing which hinders us from introducing two pediments
'" Milanrjcs I'crroi, j). 317. tiiidiiig a replica of the rcnatio in Mr. Evans'
" Jiihrb. iii, (1888), p. 189. intaglio. Tlie wonls of I'ltitarch : rov ^aaiKiws
Alex. 40. T(j5 XiovTi (TvvtffToiiTos cxcludi' a fiiUcu
^^ IJJ.Jl. xxi. (18&7), J.. i->98; Tanl king.
IV-nlrizet, J.H.S. xix. (1899), y. 273. i'' Juhdeoloiria, liv. (189ri\ \>. 273.
" M. rcniiizet must .siiiely lie wroiif,' in
^- '^■^.m mAi^.^m^^,:A -:^-HJ)^
i=^
FlO. :>. — SUGGKSTKD ELEVATION OF TiiK MaUSSOLLEUM.
8 J. SIX
in Adler's reconstruction, if we may be allowed to elevate the attica, which
he rightly assumes, by some feet (Fig. 5). This would only, I think, be to the
advantage of the building, if compared with antique analogies. We ought then
to make it 15 ft. high,^^ so that with the 24 steps of the pyramid, that are
about 22^ ft., the height equal to the pteron of 25 cubits, that is 37i ft.,
would be obtained.
I would further suggest on the top of this pyramid a basis, the meta of
Pliny, of 22| ft., carrying the quadriga with the statues ^'^ of 12^ ft. or of
25 ft, and 10 ft. without them. Thus only 30 ft. out of the 140 ft. would
remain for the solid basement, which I hold is an enormous advantage over
most of the proposed reconstructions, as it would bring the sculptured frieze
nearer to the eye of the spectator.
If we add to the suggested measures of 30 ft. for the basement and
37 1 ft. for the pteron, \1\ ft. for the pediments, with a tympanum of 10 ft.
high, we find 80 ft. to the top of the pediment, the exact measure given by
Hyginus as that of the MaussoUeum. The cypher of Vibius Sequester of
180 ft. is then a contamination of the values given by Pliny and Hyginus, and
this looks more likely than the double error accepted by Adler.
And that of a building like the MaussoUeum the height should be men-
tioned without the surmounting spire is no wonder. Who would think of
recording the total height of a Gothic church, with aspire on the cross vault,
like that of Haarlem or Alkmaar, without including the tower expressly,
as Baedeker does, just as well as Pliny? About the palace at Amsterdam,
the ancient townhouse, which allows of a closer comparison, Baedeker
expresses himself in this guise : ' It measures 33 metres high and the
cupola ... is 51 metres.'
As to the high measures I have accepted for the basis of the quadriga,
I feel sure that they are corroborated on all sides, notwithstanding
that I failed to find a form pleasing to the eye in following the suggested
restoration of the Lion-tomb. My arguments are first the words of Pliny
who speaks of a metae cacumen, then the comparison of analogies as the
Lion-tomb at Cnidus, but especially the later large works that show
influence of the MaussoUeum, as the tomb of Hadrian and the Tropaeura of
Trajan at Adam-klissi. Pullan's restoration of the Lion-tomb and that of
the Mausoleum of Hadrian by Hiilsen after Borgatti ^® are more or less hypo-
thetical, and thus open to criticism. The most convincing parallel, however,
is the Tropaeum Trajani, as it has been drawn by Prof. Reichhold after
the reconstruction of Prof. Niemann, corrected by Prof. Furtwiingler ^^ in a
way that has been accepted by Prof. Benndorf.^" The support of the trophy
'^ When speaking of feet I mean Greek feet rather than on the peribolos wall,
of 0-328 nv, not English. i* Horn. Milth. vi. (1891), 138.
" The statues, if not in the qua'lriga, '" Das Tropaion von Adamklissi und pro-
may have either stood in the cella, or in the vincial-Riimische Knnst, Abhandhingen dcr k.
east pe<liment or even perhaps on the long hayr. Akademie der Wiss. I. CI. xxii. Bd.
sides against the attica, above each column a iii. Abt. Miinchen, 1903, PI. I.
statue. I doubt very much whether the lions "^ Jahrcsh. vi. (1903), p. 249, Fig. 132.
could have stood there, as Adler makes them.
THE PEDIMENTS OF THE MAUSSOLLEUM. 9
there is at least a fourth part of the whole monument, with the trophy
as restored it certainly is more than half of the entire height.
Returning to the earlier analogies, it seems worth while to compare the
proportions of the Lion-tomb, as restored by Pullan, with those of the
Maussolleum. I have to that effect reduced the measures of this monument
to a modulus of j^jy.
Maussolleum. Lion-tomb.
Quadriea 10' „ 12i'\o^ lion c. 13 \ „„
Meta r 25' ^' 22^' / "^'^ c. 26 / "^^
Pteron 37^' 37^' j c. 47 J '^
Basement 30 30 c. 26
140 140
The greatest divergency is in the proportion of the columns and order to
the pyramid and this of course is a result of the smaller plan, that requires a
lower attica and less steps to let the meta rise out above the order when seen
from a short distance.
I feel, however, serious doubts about the usual interpretation of the word
meta here. The form designated as meta is always conic, as in the meta suclans,
a pile of wood, a hayrick, a sugar-loaf, a trained boxtree, a cypress, the
shadow of the earth, or a hill, as in these words of Livy : ^^ Ipse collis est in
modum metae, in acutum cacumen a /undo satis kito fastigatus, that seem to
illustrate the text of Pliny.^
As this shape would never do for the basis of a quadriga I suspect Pliny
once more wrongly translated a Greek word. This must of course have been
a-TJ/iia, which means goal as well as tomh. The idea of the architect will have
been to combine the three elements of a heroon, a pyramid, and a tomb into
one single new form.
We have found till now only the facts about the sculpture and the inter-
pretation of Pliny's words pleading for pediments, and we ought to look out
for analogies. We might of course find these in the heroon of Xanthos (the
so-called Nereid-monument) as well as in the Pisidian tombs of Tib. CI.
Agrippina Aurelia Ge and Aurelia Artemis ^^ if the pyramid and meta were
not lacking there as well as the attica. On the other hand the existing
monuments, that with the pyramid combine an attica, show no trace of
pediments. It is precisely the combination of pediments and attica that we
must look for. There is but one monument of Greek art of this period that
shows a similar combination, that is the sarcophagus of the mourners (Fig. 6),
where the unexplained parapet suggests the influence of a work showing the
disposition we propose, as well in this astounding peculiarity as in the basement
that supports the whole and makes it akin, not to the ancient temples, but to
the group of sepulchres, the most glorious of which is the Maussolleum.
Moreover, the combination of pediments and attica is not rare in Roman
2' xxxvii. 27. ^ HeJierdey uud Wilbarg, Jahresh. iii.
■•" Forcellini, i.v. meta. (1900), 117.
10
J. SIX
architecture, especially in the triumphal arches, of which that of Tiberius at
Orange is the most splendid example. If we knew the prototype of the
Roman triumphal arch, which, as Dr. Paul Graef^'* suggests, ought to be
sought in the gates or porches and the tetrapylon of the Hellenic city, 1 have
no doubt we should find more material there, as the propylaea of the Acropolis
at Athens show already the embryonic beginning in the superposition of the
pediments.
Flu. 6. — 'SaKCOPHAGUS of the M0(.'RNKI;s,' FI.OM SlDON.
I have expressed the measures of my reconstruction in Greek feet
instead of giving the values as calculated by Adler in metres, and I think the
following specification of Greek feet reduced to metres will show, by
comparison with the figures of Adler, the difference to be .so small that it
may be neglected. I will add another consideration. Tlie figures expressed
in feet show fractions. Some of these will disappear when reduced to cubits,
but all of them cannot be reduced to cubits any more than the whole sum of
140 feet. Still it is easy enough to obt;un whole numbers if we are allowed
to accept a modulus of 2^' and I have introduced in the Hrst column this
experiment.
Greek feet.
Quadriga
Mela . .
4
10
Pyramid.
Attica. .
9
6
Pteron
If)
Uasement
12
Modulus of 2J'.
I
56
15
15
12
56
10 \ lUh
25/"' l22i
22i
15
37 i
30
140
Metres
Measures of Adlei
in metres.
3-28) ,
f 410
4-05
8-20 i
\7 38
7-38
7-44
4-92
12-30
12-27 (11-50)
9-84
45-92
^* Baumci&ter, i.v. Triumph- and Jilu-cnbof/en, j). 1872.
THE PEDIMENTS OF THE MAUSSOLLEUM.
4-
11
•i 2
12 J. STX
I should even like to ventilate the question, if it is really impossihle that
the height of the pteron siiould be so divided, that 7.^' would fall to the
order and 30' to the columns. That would make for these 9*84 m. instead of
the calculated height of 969 and for the order 246 instead of the measured
2'58. The introduction at this place of the frieze of charioteers, wliich I
would still prefer,^^ would only bring with it a reduction of 002 and would
leave a difference of 0*10 and I do not insist.
I find a remarkable confirmation of my reconstruction in the proportions
I have unwittingly come to. The height of the main building of 80' falls into
two large sections : the basement of 30' and the superstructure of 50' ; that
is to say they stand in the relation known as the sedio aurea}^ The same
division recurs if we look to the whole construction, where we again find the
sectio aurea in the pyramid and meta that rise 50' above ]the 80' of the main
building and bring the entire work that bears the quadriga to 130'. So that
the real standard of this work would be the heigVit of the quadriga of 10'
whereof the modulus we found would be the quarter. ^^^ It is hardly chance
that would lead to proportions so generally admired in architecture.
I cannot abandon this subject without proposing one more problem.
Adler deals rather cavalierly with the patet ah austro et septemtrione
sexagenos ternos pedes of Pliny and his correction of this measure, written in
full letters in the manuscripts, into 89 feet is altogether arbitrary. Adler
calculates the distance from the axis of one column to the other at
3"34 m. If we again substitute for this value the nearest in Greek feet we
obtain 10' (3"28) which makes hardly any difference and is as we have seen
the standard measure of the whole monument. Thus 63' would nearly corre-
spond to 7 columns with the 6 intercolumnia, the column having a largest
diameter of 1*14, nearly 3A'. May we not be allowed to take this for the
length of the cella ? The front sides that were shorter, according to Pliny's
hrevius a frontibus, ought then to have been only 43'. The nine columns
in front would take from axis to axis 80' (equal to the height of the pedi-
ment top) and the eleven columns on the long sides 100'. This would bring
us to a sum of 360'. Ten feet from these axial lines to the outside of the
basement on all sides, would make the sum of 440' named by Pliny for the
circuit (Fig. 7).
^ The chariot race may of course have whole multiplied by the smaller. This never
occupied the long sides, and the fronts may can be expressed in whole numbers, but is
have held some other subject that would be approached by the following series: 1:2 =
better adapted, as the preparations for the race 2 : S = 3 : 5 — 5 : 8=8 : 13 = 13 : 21 = 21 : 34 = 34
and the crowning of the victor. Still the 55 = 55 : 89 = 89 : 144 etc., wherein each fourth
archaistic relief, with Apollo, Artemis, an I number is the sum of the preceding first and
Leto, in the Villa Albani, the Berlin Museum second. It i« evident that figures from 3-13
and the Louvre (Schreiber, die Hellenistischen are in use here, not the higher scries from 34
Rdiefbildor, xxxiv, xxxv, and xxxvi) have a till 144. Which shows once more that not
chariot race as well on the front as on the single feet, but the standard of 10 ft. is in
side of the temple seen in the background. use here.
^^ I remind my readers that the sectio aurea ^^ This is what the Greek author failed to
divides a length in such a way that the see who thought he was very cK^ver in reducing
quadrate of the larger part is ecjual to the tlie 37V of the pteron into 25 cubits.
THE PEDIMENTS OF THE MAU8S0LLEUM. 13
This means, however, that the basement would measure 120' by 100', i.e.
39-36 X 32-80 m. instead of 3891 x 3309 m. (127 X 108 English feet) as
given by Adler. But as lie must needs have his measures from the rather
untrustworthy plan of Pullan, this small difference of 0'45 m, and 0-29 can
hardly be of any importance.
The plan would certainly gain by the proposed disposition in loftiness.
Strong cella-walls perhaps 13' thick, would leave a chamber of 37' X 17',
and bear the bulk of the weight of the pyramid, the meta, and quadriga, and
a wider pteron would better permit the approach by a flight of stairs.^
The form proposed is akin to the pseudodipteros, which Vitruvius ^ tells
us was first used by Hermogenes as an odostylon, as we know in the temple
of Artemis at Magnesia. But this is certainly no objection. The Maus-
solleum is enneastylon and then Vitruvius is speaking at this place about
the temple and would not have introduced a sepulchre in this context. It is
further known that the pretended innovation must have been only in detail
or in the marble construction, as the type occurs as early as the temple G
at Selinus, of course with a wooden roof. So rather than an objection the
work of Hermogenes provides a parallel to the plan proposed for the
MaussoUeum.
The large distance which has to be covered over the pteron is no insur-
mountable difficulty and we may accept in principle a solution akin to that
proposed by Pullan. (PI. XXL fig. 1.)
As to the bulk of the pyramid I would propose to cover those parts,
that must have been hollow to lessen the weight, by overlapping stones,
building a false arch.
Be this however as it may, the loftier the construction looks, and the
weightier the pyramid appears to the eye the better it suits the words of
Martial ^o
Aere nee vacuo pendcniia mausolea
Laudibus immodicis Cares ad asira ferant.
J. Six.
Amsterdam.
-^ Mr. van Baleii, ^.ho has drawn my plans through the attica.
lor MIL', lias indicated the stairs in the basement ** iii. ii. 8. *• Epigramm. i. 1.
wiili dotted lines in the horizontal section
WRESTLING.
I.
A. — The Nature of ike Evidence.
The popularity of wrestling among the Greeks is proved by the
constant use of metaphors from this sport and by the frequency with which
scenes from the wrestling ring appear, not only in athletic literature and art
but also in mythological subjects. Despite the changes in the spirit of
Greek athletics caused by the growth of professionalism, which affected
wrestling and boxing more perhaps than any other sport, the popularity ot
wrestling whether as a pastime or as a spectacle remained unabated. On early
black-figured vases Heracles is constantly represented employing the regular
holds and tricks of the palaestra not only against the giant Antaeus, but against-
monsters such as Achelous or the Triton, or even against the Nemean lion,,
and centuries later we find Ovid and Lucan describing these scenes in
language borrowed in every detail from the same source.
Hence the evidence at our disposal is more abundant and more varied
than in the case of any other sport, and its interpretation is proportionately
difficult. An obvious difificLdty lies in the wide diversity of the evidence as-
to time and place. Tiie majority of the monuments are not later than the
fourth century B.C., but geographically they extend from Smyrna and Alexandria
to Rome and Etruria, while the scattered records of literature, extend from
Homer and Pindar to Quintus Sinyrnaeus and Nonnus, the bulk of the descrip-
tive evidence being found in the Greek and Roman writers of the Empire.
We might have expected that evidence so varied would reflect the local varia-
tions in style which we know to have existed,^ and the changes which so long
a period must have introduced, and that it would be impossible to come to.
satisfactory conclusions. But though we must constantly bear in mind the
possibility of such variations, we shall find that the difficulty is more apparent
than real, and that the agreement in the evidence is extraordinary. This result,
may be due partly to the close connexion of athletics with religion, which
doubtless tended to preserve unchanged the traditional laws governing the great
athletic festivals, and partly to the conservatism of artistic types, and to the
imitative character of later art and literature, as a consequence of which the
descriptions of Roman poets probably reflect the earlier traditions of Greece
more closely than the practices of their own day and country. The chief
' Krause, Gyin. dcr Hell., j). 428.
\VllESTi;iN(}. 15
change which wc can observe is tlie increasing [)opuhirity of the pankratioii
and its methods as o})posed to the more skilful and less brutal methods of
true wrestling.
A more real difficulty is found in the technical vocabulary of Greek
wrestling, which was as strange and varied as that of our own day. Many of
the terms explain themselves ; otiiers, especially ihose connected with the
names of places and persons, defy interpretation. We have some hints as to
the styles in favour at Sparta and Argos, but ' the Thessalian chip,' 'the
Sicilian style,' ' the chip of Phrynichus,' are as unintelligible to us as ' the
half-nelson,' oi-^- 'Cumberland and Westmorland,' will be to archaeologists of
future ages. Almost as puzzling and yet more tantalising on account of the
apparent simplicity is the technical use of common words such as ^dXXoy
and its compounds. Scholiasts and lexicographers afford tis little assistance
in these cases, the only explanation they often vouchsafe for wrestling terms
being e^airaTuv, and we can only conjecture their meaning by careful com-
parison of the few passages in which they occur.
In the present paper I propose to consider the conditions and general
principles of Greek wrestling, reserving for my next article the discussion of
the various attitudes, grips, and throws adopted by the Greek wrestler. For
our knowledge of the latter we are chiefly indebted to the vase-painter ; at
present we are concerned for the most part with literary evidence.
B. — The Oxi/rhyiichus Pa/pyrus (oid the Teaching of Wrestling.
The most important recent contribution to our knowledge ot Greek
wrestling is the papyrus of the second century AD. published by Messrs.
Gronfell and Hunt.- It contains instructions for a wrestling lesson, and
throws an interesting light on the methods of Greek training. The various
holds and throws appear to have been taught as a kind of drill to one or
more pairs of wrestlers. Two interesting parallels are quoted by the editors,
a curious passage from the Asinns of Lucian illustrating the erotic sym-
plegma^ and an epigram from the Anth. Pal. XII. 20C consisting of a dialogue
between the instructor and the pupil.
The passage from Lucian contains a multitude of wrestling metaphors
but being mostly connected with the ground wrestling of the pankration
they do not concern us at present. The epigram is very instructive ; the
Hrst couplet contains the trainer's orders
•^v TOVTCo (f)(i)vfj(i, TO fieaov Xafie kuI KaTaK\iva<;
^evyvve koI 7rp(oaa<; irpocrTreae kul KaTe-)(^e.
The pupil who is apparently younger than his opponent protests that this is
too difficult
- Ox. Pap. iii. 466. K\ivoKa.\i) ; Martial xiv. 201, Suetonius Domit.
■' Lucian, As. e. 9. Cp. Aristoph. Pax 895, 22. In all these cases the metfti>liors arc from
Av. 442, and the expressions avaK\ivoiriKTi, the piinkintion rather than from true wrestling..
16 E. NORMAN GARDINER
oxj <f>pov€€i<;, Ai6(f)auTe, /zoXt? hvvafxat yap eycoye
ravra Troielv TraiScov h' i) TrdXt] ea6' krepa.
And the trainer replies by telling Cyris, the other pupil, to pretend to be in
difficulties and allow his opponent to make his attack, offering only a passive
resistance.
o'^^ov KOL fxeve, Kvpi, koI €/ii^dWovTO<; dvaa'^ov
irpwTov avfi/jL€\erdu r) fxeKerdv /xadira).
Two points deserve notice here. The system of training was progressive,
there were special rules for boys and men. Secondly, in this method of
teaching the stronger and more experienced must help the weaker. irpwTov
avfifieXcTav r) /xeXerdv /xaderco. This principle of cooperation in antagonistic
exercises is a fundamental principle of the remarkable system of training in
Japan known as jiu-jitsu. It is arranged beforehand which of the opponents
is to win, and the other offers just enough resistance to benefit his adversary
to the utmost.*
C. — Heats: the Bye.
Competitions in wrestling, boxing, and the pankration were conducted
by the Greeks in the same manner as a modern tournament. Lucian's
description of the method of drawing lots for the ties at Olympia is well
known ^ Lots marked in pairs with the letters of the alphabet in succession
and corresponding to the number of the competitors were thrown into a
silver helmet sacred to that purpose from which each competitor in turn
drew a letter. In case of an odd number there was only one lot marked with
the last letter used. Thus with an entry of seven there would be two A's,
two B's, two r's, but only one A, the drawer of which was the bye or
€(f>€Spo<i. After each round there was a fresh draw conducted in the
same way.
The number of competitors varied. Sometimes a famous athlete would
be allowed a walk-over, in which case he was said to win aKovneL Dromeus
of Mantinea won such a victory in the pankration in 01. 75, for the first time
on record, says Pausanias.^ In an inscription at Olympia^ enumerating the
victories of the Diagoridae of Rhodes, Dorieus is mentioned as victorious ttv^
uKovLTel. A well-known epigram on Milo ^ describes a similar victory, but
such cases were rare, and the evidence shows that as a rule there were from
five to twelve entries, requiring therefore three or four rounds. Thus Pindar
describes the pankratiast Alcimedon ^ and the wrestler Aristomenes ^^ as each
of them victorious over four rivals, that is, in four rounds. Lucian in the
passage referred to above mentions from four to twelve competitors, and the
* H.J. Y{a.ncock, Japanese Physical Training, " Anth. Pal. xi. 316.
passim. ^ 01. viii. 90, iv rirpaaiv itaihusv aireOriKaTo
* Hermotim. 40. fviois | v6(jtov fx^iffro*'.
" Paii3. vi. 11, 4. '" Pyth. viii. 81, rtTpaai 5' ffiwerfs v\f/6efv
^ Jnschri/t. v. Olynip. v. 153. (rwndrsaffi.
WRESTLING. 17
evidence of various Olympic inscriptions agrees witli such an estimate. A
fourth century inscription on Xenocles'^ speaks of him as
aTTTr/? ixovvoTTCiXdv reaaapa aoofMad' eXoot'.
dTTT?;? appears to be 0(]uivalent to t/TTTctJ?/- and yu.oi/i/o7ra\r7<? '^ is used
in contrast to tlie pankratiast of tlie wrestler pure and simple, to whom -it
would be an especial distinction never to have been thrown in any round
or any bout.
A later inscription on the boxer Philippus ^* tells us that he
ricraapas eudeia TralSaf eK\ive /x,a')(a.
Lastly a long epigram on Ariston,^^ who won the pankration in 01. 207,
tells us that there were seven competitors
eiTTa yap €k iralhoiv iraXcifia^ fiouof ovK aveiravaa
and that Ariston himself was victor in three rounds
Tpi'iTcra KciT avTLiraKoiv aOXa Koveiadfievo^.
Ariston claims it as a special merit that he never had the advantage of a
bye, but was dvitfyeSpo'i
ov yap iv evTV^crj K\rjpov arecfyoi; dW' e^eS/oet'r;?
Ytw/9t? (Xtt' 'AX(f)€iov Kal Ato? rja-Traa-djJirjv.
A competitor who had drawn a bye must have had a great advantage in the
next round over a less fortunate rival and the crown must often have
depended on the luck of the lot. It is to such an accident that Pindar refers
at the close of the Sixth Nemean ode when he says that Alcimidas and his
brother were deprived of two Olympic crowns by the KXdpo<i TrpoTrer?;?.
The importance of the bye is yet more clearly demonstrated by an inscrip-
tion of the reign of Trajan in honour of Ti. Claudius Rufus of Smyrna.^® It
describes how having undergone a strict course of training under the eyes of
the Hellanodikai he gave an exhibition in the gariies worthy of Olympian
Zeus, and of his own training and reputation. For though dve^ehpo<; he
conquered the most formidable opponents in the pankration, and in the final
tie, though matched against one who had drawn a bye {i<f>e8p€iav XeXoyxora),
he kept up the struggle till nightfall and made it a draw. The Eleans in
consequence passed a special decree allowing him to erect a statue with an
inscription commemorating this drawn match which was as honourable as a
victory : t^? lepd^; fjv fiovo^f aV alcovof dvhpoiv iiroLrja-ev. The expression
T) lepd appears to have been used for a dead heat or a drawn match because,
in such cases, the crowns were dedicated to the god, a practice further
" Inschrift. v. Olymp., 164. Anth. Pal. App. i. 102 and Bacchylides xii. 8.
'^ Cp. ib. 183. Similarly in Phlegon's list of '* Inschr. v. Olymp. 174.
Olympic victors for 01. 177, 'IfflSwpoi 'AAe^ i' lb. 225,226.
avSpevs iroA.Tji' liirTaiTOS irepioSov. "* lb. 54.
^^ Cp. Paus. vi. 4, 6, epigram on Cliilon =
H.S. — VOL, XXV. C
18 E. NORMAN GARDINER
illustrated by another inscription, unfortunately much mutilated, detailing-
the arrangements for the games of Sebaste at Naples,
6<ra d' av rcov a6\r)ixdr(i3v tprjixa rj lepa ytyverai}^
On Panathenaic and other vases representing boxing and wrestling
competitions a third atldete is generally present, who is usually described as
an €(f)€Spo<i. I venture to doubt whether he is correctly so described. The
very frequency of this addition suggests that the vase painter thus indicates
the general character of the competition as a tournament rather than the
presence of an actual €<f)eSpos.
D. — The Skamma and Various Details as to the Wrestlers.
The wrestling ground was called the skamma, a term which, as has beeU'
explained in a previous article, denotes a place dug up, levelled, and sanded sa
as to atford a smooth and soft surface. ^'^ In the palaestra the skamma
occupied the open space in the centre, and for actual competitions a similar
space must have been provided in the stadium, probably in the semicircular
a(f)€vB6p7] where such existed. In Heroic times wrestlers and boxers wore a
loin-cloth or irepi^w^ia}'^ which appears occasionally on black-figured vases,^*
but all clothing appears to have been discarded before the fifth century.
Sometimes indeed we see wrestlers provided with caps protecting the ears,
a/i^ftJTiSe?,^^ but their use was apparently confined to boys and to practice
and was not allowed in open competitions. For similar reasons wrestlers
always wore their hair short.-- Before wrestling they not only oiled their
bodies but rubbed them with sand, a service which Lucian describes them as
performing for one another.^^ The object of this process, on which Lucian
waxes eloquent, was partly to harden the skin and check the perspiration,
partly to enable the opponents to obtain a firm liold of one another.^*
E. — The Differences hetvxcn Wrestling and the Pankration.
In the Greek athletic festivals wrestling, besides being a separate event
in the progi-amme, formed part of the pentathlon. As far as we know the
wrestling in both cases was governed by the same rules. But wrestling was
also one of the elements in the pankration, and in order to decide whether
any particular scene or description belongs to wrestling proper or to the
^^ lb. 56, I. 17. Other instances of this Kiause, p. 517, n. 20.
jihrase and a full discussion of it will be found '-'^ Philostratus, Im. ii. 32 ; Eurip. Bcicchac,
in the notes on inscrijjtion 54 by Dittenberger 455 ; Plut. Arat. ii. 3, 6.
and Purgold. '-» Cp. Ovid, Md. ix. 35 ; Statius, Thcb.
'« J.H.S. 1904, p. 73. vi. 847.
'* Horn. 11. xxiii. 683, 700 ; Time. i. 6. -'■ Anacharsis 2, 28, 29 ; Plut. Sijwj). iv. a[
'" E.g. Mus. Greg. xvii. 1, a ; v. Schercr, Dc niv yap itaKatoyruv iirifio\al nal f'A{«ij K^vioproU'
Olymjiionicarum staluis, p. 20. hiovrai.
*^ PanaetiuB kylix. Arch. Zcit. 1878, 11 ;
WRESTLING. 19
]»aiik ration it is iin{)ortaiit to realise clearly the distinction between the
two events.
The first and fundamental difference is that the wrestler merely sought
to throw his opponent, victory being decided by the best of three or five
bouts, whereas the pankratiast's object was by any lawfid means to force
his adversary to acknowledge himself defeated, and for this ])urpose one bout
only was necessary, This distinction enables us to decide at once tJiat the
descriptions of Ovid, Lucian, Statins, and Heliodorus refer not to wrestling
proper but to the pankration, which appealed so much more to the debased
taste of the Roman populace.
A throw not being sufficient in the pankration, the struggle was
continued on the ground, and we find a distinction made between opOrj
TrdXi], the very name of which proclaims the necessity of keeping on the feet,
and ground wrestling, called by the Greeks kuXicti^ or aXivhriai^, which was
confined to the pankration. I hope to show that in the former it was
essential to keep on the feet and that a wrestler who touched the ground
with his knee or any part of his body except the feet was considered thrown.
Hence, whenever we see the struggle continued on the ground, we may feel
sure that the pankration and not true wrestling is represented.
Moreover, hitting and kicking were allowed to the paukratiast, and
these provide an additional test for distinguishing him from the wrestler who,
as has been already noticed, is therefore described as /jLovo7rdXr](i. Probably we
may place in the same category seizing an opponent by the legs, but even
without this we have sufficient tests.
The distinction between the pankration and wrestling on the one hand
and boxing on the other is nowhere more clearly stated than in Theocritus
xxiv. 110
oaoa h' diro aKcXeoov iBpoaTp6(f)Ot, 'Apy66ev dvBp€<i
aXXdXov<i cr(f)dXXovTi TraXalafxaaLv, ocraa re trvKrat
heivol iv l/j,dvTe(T(Tiv, a r et? yalav TrpoireaovTef:
Trd/uLfia^oi i^evpovTo cro(f)icrfiaTa crvfx<popa Te')(ya.
The t'/Lta? or boxing thong is the characteristic of the boxer, ground wrestling
of the pankratiast, the throw of the wrestler.
In this connexion it is worth while to recall the fact that wrestling, at
all events in the early days before it was corrupted by professionalism, was
free from all suggestion of that brutality which has often brought such
discredit on one of the noblest of sports. Tradition represented Palaestra ^^
the daughter of Hermes as the inventor of the art, and Theseus to whom the
rules of wrestling were ascribed is said to have learnt them from Athena
herself 2*^ Grace and skill Avere of far more account than mere strength,^^ and
-^ Philostratus, Im. ii. 32. lace applauded him : ' aWa av >€ kakSh koX
-'' Paus. i. 39, 3 ; Schol. Piudar, Ncm. v. 49. ovx ^s ixpV" iirolr](Tas '6vtp ixpV" HfJ^ftfov ye-
■^ Cp. Pindar, 0/. viii. 19 ; ix. 91, 110 ; Isth. viaOai- ou y^p hv inTiffaav ovtoi rexfiKSv at
vi. 20, a.n.(S. passim ; Anth. Flan. iii. 2, App. SpoffavTa ti.' Eurymenes who won a victory at
86. Aelian, Far. ^I'sC ii. 4, tells us of a trainer Olynipia in 472 B.C. (v. Ox. Papyri II. 222)
who punished a pupil merely because the popu- was trained at Samos by Pythagoras, and
C 2
20 E. N OHM AN GAKDINKR
the wrestling matches of Tlieseus and Heracles with Cercyon and Antaeus
are but one of the many forms in which the Greeks imaged forth the triumph
of civilisation over barbarism.
F, — Distinctive Features of Greclc Wrestling. The Fall.
The two essential points which distinguish one style of wrestling from
another are the definition of a fair throw and the nature of the holds allowed.
In most modern styles, including the so-called Graeco-Roman, a man is con-
sidered thrown only when both shoulders, or a shoulder and a hip, are touching
the ground at the same time, but in the Cumberland and Westmorland style
he is thrown if he touches the ground with any part of the body. It has
generally been asserted that in Greece the only throw^ recognised was a throw
on the back.^^ But this idea seems to be due to the tendency to ascribe to
the ancients the practices of modern athletics, a mistake facilitated in this
case by the misleading use uf the expression Graeco-Roman.
The principal evidence for the view that a clean throw on the back was
recjuired is a passage from the Su.pjylices of Aeschylus, 1. 90, where the chorus
dwelling on the inscrutability and inftillibility of the ordinances of Zeus
exclaims
TTiTTTd S' d(T(f)aXe<i ovh' eVt vcotm
Kopv(f>a Ai09 el Kpavdfj nrpa'yfxa riXeiov.
' The perfect deed ordained by the brow of Zeus falls ' — to use a colloquial
expression — ' on its feet, not on its back.' This meaning of da(f)aXe<; agrees
perfectly with the common use of the verb acfxiWco as a wrestling term, and
the whole expression is obviously intelligible to anyone who has seen a
wrestler after being swung round and round by his opponent land safely on
his feet. At the same time it is dangerous to draw definite conclusions as to
the laws of Greek wrestling from such a passage : for the metaphor, applicable
as it is to wrestling proper, is equally applicable to the rough and tumble of
the pankration or of actual warfare, where the combatant who is thrown
heavily on his back is completely at the mercy of his opponent. But even if
we grant the connexion of the passage with wrestling proper, it certainly
does not prove that the throw on the back was the only throw that counted ; it
proves at the most that such a throw was a fair throw, which no one has ever
denied. By a curious oversight Paley, who in his note on the lines definitely
lays down the law that victory consisted in three clean throws, i.e. in the
though small of stature, thanks to the ao<pia to?s AaKfSaifj.oviwv iraKri, fila Kparto),
of Pythagoras, defeated many mighty oppon- Anth. Plan. I. 1.
ents, Diog. Laert. viii. 1. 12. On the other ^nAVlvLtuxch, Apophthegm. Lac. Var. 21 (2ZZ^),
hand Damagetas in an epigram puts into the tells us thiit tlie Spartans allowed no trainers for
mouth of a S^iartan youth the typically Spartan wrestling, 'Iva /j.^ rfx^V^ oAA' apfTrjs rj <pi\oTifi.ia
boast that he owed his victory to brute force, '^ivr\rai.
not to skill 28 Smith, Did. Ant. s.v. 'lucta.'
Ktlvoi T(xvi.(vTts- iydi yt /xtv us dirtoiKf
WRESTLING. 21
julvcrsiiry being iaiil on liis, back tbroe times,' and Mr. Tucker who follows
Palev, supply the evidence for their own refutation. ' If a wrestler fell on
the knee,' they say, ' it was no defeat,' and in support of this they quote the
ytf/amcmiion 1. C)'^ sqq. and the Pcrsae 1. 1)14.
The passage from the A (/nmcmnon,-^ proves nothing. TTaXalafiara is no
doubt originally an athletic term, but its metaphorical use to denote any form
of struggle is so obvious and so frequent that often it almost ceases to be a
metaphor. In the present passage the metaphor of the palaestra is dropped
immediitely and passes into the language of actual warfare. The words
'yuvajo'i Koiuaia-iv epeiBo/xei^ou — the words for which the commentators quote
the passage — though singularly inappropriate to any form of wrestling but
ground wrestling, exactly express the attitude of the warrior as we see him
represented in the Aeginetan marbles and on many a vase, kneeling down to
receive the charge of the enemy, or beaten on to his knees in the melee. The
picture is completed by the words BiaKvaio/j,€i/r]<; Kct/j-aKos. ' The snapping
asunder of the spear '^'^ is a detail which can have no possible connexion
with wrestling.
The passage referred to from the Pcrsae is far more to the point, but it
absolutely contradicts the conclusion in proof of which it is quoted. The
chorus lamenting the downfall of Persia cry
'Aaia be '^6u)v, ^aaiXev yaia<;,
alvcoq, alvu}<i eVt fyovv KeKXirai.
Here there can be no doubt that the metaphor is taken from wrestling,
nor can there be any doubt that the words express a decisive fall, the very
opposite of that described by TrlirreL da4>a\e<i. The whole context, and the
twice repeated alvu^'i leave no doubt of the completeness of the defeat. The
very same metaphor is used by Herodotus ^^ in describing the catastrophe
which befel the Chiaus. The gods, he says, had already sent two disasters
upon them by way of warning, nera he tuvtu rj vav/xa^itj viroXa^ova-a e?
<y6vv TTjv TToXiv eftaXe. The only possible conclusion from these passages is
that a wrestler who fell on his knee was thereby defeated.
Mr. Tucker goes further than Paley and asserts that even a throw on the
shoidder did not count, quoting in support of this statement the passage from
the Equitcs of Aristophanes where the chorus, describing the dogged tenacity
of the men of the older generation who had made Athens great, say
et he TTOV ireaoiev eV tov w/jlov iv f^dxV '^'■^^
TovT d7reyln']cravT av, elr' rjpvovvTo fii) "TreirTeoKevat
dXXd hieiraXaiov (1. 571).
ou'to) S' 'A-rpf(M)s iraiSas 6 Kpelaawv '" I have adopted the old interpretation of
eV ^ Wilivhpcf trffxTTfi HeViov this expression, wliich seems to me so obvioasly
Zfvs, TToKvavopos afjupl yvvaiKhs appropriate to the context as to admit of no
iroWa TraAaiCT/uaTo Ka\ yvio^apri doubt. If, however, Dr. Verrall's suggestion is
yovaros Koviaia-ti' ipfihofiivov correct, that the snapping of the shaft is part
diaKvaiofjL(vi}s t' (v irporeKfiuis of the marriage ceremony, the passage ha.s no
KcifiaKos 0-f]a-(t)v ^ayaotcriv connexion at all with wrestling,
TpcDiTi 6' 6jjioijo%. ^^ vi. 27.
22 E. NORMAN GAUDINER
Once more Mr. Tucker's illustration is fatal to his theory. If tlie throw on
the shoulder was not a fair throw, the force of the passage is lost. The
point is that these old Athenians, however clearly they were thrown, would
never admit a defeat, but would wipe off the dust and go on wrestling, as
though they had not been thrown at all. They wiped off the dust solely to
hide the evidence of their defeat : if a fall on the shoulder did not count
there was no defeat, and therefore no need for hiding the evidence.
The conclusions which we have drawn from Aeschylus and Aristophanes
are confirmed by th(^ epigrammatists who speak impartially of falls on the
back, the shoulders, the hip, and the knee. And their evidence is especially
valuable because the wrestling expressions are used by them literally, not
metaphoiically.
For a fall on the back we have the epigiam of Philippuson Damostratus,
Antii. Flan. iii. 25
oi) kut' evyvpov TrdXrjv
•»|rayti/zo<f TrecrovTO^ voirov ovk eacbpuyKrev.
The epigram ascribed to Alcaeus on Cleitomachus who won a triple
victory in the pankration, in boxing and in wrestling, tells us that he never
fell on his shoulders, in language which recalls that of Aristophanes
TO rplrov OVK eKovicrcrev eVw/i/Sa? dXXa 7ra\aLaa<;
d'rrTW'i Tov<i rpiaaoi)^ laOfioOti' elXe irovov^.
Anth. Pal. ix. 588.
Little weight can be attached to the epigram ^"' which relates how Milo
advancing to receive the crown fell on his hip {oiKicrdev eV la')(^iov), where-
upon the people cried out not to cr javu a man who had fallen without an
adversary, but the epigram on the same athlete assigned to Simonides '"
gives considerable support to our contention as to falling on the knee.
Mt\(i)i/09 ToS' ayaXfia KaXov fcaXov, o<; irore Tlcaij
eTTTUKt viKi]<ja<i i<i yovar ovk 'i-rreaev.
The conclusion to which the literary evidence has led us is supported by the
evidence of the monuments. If the only fair throw Avas the throw on the
back, we should at least expect to find some representation of it. As it is,
there is as far as I know not a single vase, bronze, gem, or coin on which
such a throw is depicted. The only possible exceptions are a B.F. hydria in
Munich ^^ representing the struggle between Heracles and Antaeus, and a
small bronze of rather doubtful antiquity figured by Montfaucon.''^ But
inasmuch as in both cases the struggle is still continuing, it is clear that tiie
scene belongs to the pankration rather than to wrestling. On the other
hand we have definite evidence as to the fall on the knee in a series of
bronzes which appear to be imitations of some well-known Hellenistic
** Anth. I'al. xi. 316. '■'■'" Moiitrtuicoii, Ant. Expl. iii. lt)6, 2
" Anth. J'lan. iii. 24. Ik-inach, lUpertoirc dc la Statimirc, ii. |i. f><3.S.
^ Arch. Zeit. 1878, x.
WRKSTLING. 23
^roup.^" They represent a wrestler wlio has fallen on one knee, while his
victorious opponent stands over him, with one hand pressing down his
neck and with the other forcing back his arm. We shall have to deal
more fully with these bronzes elsewhere : for the present it is enough to
notice that the standing wrestler has completed his throw and that there is
no suggestion of any further attack or action on his part. His opponent has
fallen on his knee, and is defeated.
A possible objection to the view put forward is suggested by a throw
commonly represented on red-figured vases and in Etruscan wall-paintings
apparently imitated from them. It is possibly the throw described by Lucian
as et«? vylro<i dva^aardaaL-^'' and is known to modern wrestling as ' the flying
mare.' The victor throw-s his opponent clean over his head, but, as he does
this, he is sometimes represented as sinking on one knee or on both. If the
rule of ' first down to lose ' were strictly observed, the wrestler who sinks on
his knee should lose the fall. Three explanations are possible. The artist
may have taken a liberty with his subject for artistic reasons in order to
shorten the group and so make it more suitable to the space at his disposal.
Such a motive certainly suggests itself in the case of the B.M. kylix E 94
where the wrestler is sinking on both knees, and the same type is repeated
with less reason in an Etruscan wall-painting. A more probable explanation
to mv mind is that the laws of wrestling, which were evidently very elaborate,
allowed such a movement in this particular throw, possibly from motives of
humanity in order to lessen the severity of the fall. This idea receives some
support from the attitude of the trainer, who when present appears anxious
to check any unnecessary violence. A third explanation is suggested by the
Baltimore kylix published by Hartwig, Meisterschnl. PI. LXIV., which shows
on one side two wrestlers obtaining a grip, and on the other the completion
of the fall in question. The fallen wrestler is on his back with his legs still
in the air, while his opponent kneels over him with his right hand on his
mouth and his left raised to strike. This detail proves the scene to belong to
the pankration and suggests that this fact may also account for the kneeling
position. All the throws of opOrj TrdXr] were allowed in the pankration, and
this particular throw, involving as it does a heavy fall on the back, may well
have been a favourite with the pankratiast as it is to-day with the Japanese
wrestler.
G. — Wrcstllnff in Homer.
It is unfortunate that we have only one description of a genuine wrestling
match of any value, the description in the Iliad, Quintus Smyrnaeus and
Nonnus merely imitate and enlarge upon Homer, introducing modifications
^ B.M. Bronzes 853; Stephani, C.R. 1867, Etruscan wall-paintings, Dennis, Cities and
PI. I.; Jnhrb. 1898, p. 173 ; Reinach, loc. cit. Cemeteries of Etruria, ii. p. 323 (= Krause,'
^ Anucharsis 24. For vase-paintings repre- op. cit. xii. b, 39 e) ; 327, 7 (Uori, Mus. Etr.
scnting this throw i'. Hartwig, J/('i'.s<f/-sc7M(V/', iii. 84-87); 333 (= Dar.-Sagl. 4624); 343
XV. b, and- Fig. 20 a, b (= B.M. v. 94) ; for (= Krause, xii. J, 39 6, Mus. Chius. cxxvi.).
24 E. NORMAN GARDTNER
mostly borrowed from the pankration, while the late date of these writers
makes their evidence less valuable even than that of the Roman poets.^^
But the descriptions of the latter, and with these we may class that in the
Adhiopica ^^ of Heliodorus, belong without exception to the pankration type
where ground wrestling plays an important part and the fight is always to a
finish.
The match between Odysseus and Ajax, as described in the Iliad/" is a
genuine example of opdi^ TrdXi]. No time was wasted in the preliminaries.
Girding themselves they advanced ' into the midst ot the ring and clasped each
the other in his arms with stalwart hands like gable rafters of a lofty house.'
The attitude fjimiliar to us from the monuments is identical with that
adopted by Westmorland and Cumberland wrestlers in the present day.
Then came a struggle for a closer grip. ' And their backs creaked gripped
firmly (eXKOfieva (TTep€0)<i) under the vigorous hands, and sweat ran down it)
streams, and frequent weals along their ribs and shoulders sprang up, red
with blood j*^ while ever they strove amain for victory.' But when after
much striving neither could gain an advantage, and the spectators grew
impatient, Ajax suggested an expedient
i] fi' aucieip' rj iyw ere.
There is here no suggestion of any trick on the part of Ajax, he merely
proposes that each should in turn allow the other to obtain a fair grip and
try to throw him by lifting him off the ground.^'^ There is no suggestion of
unfairness, but such a contest does give an advantage to the heavier man.
Odysseus, however, was equal to the occasion and as Ajax lifted him, not
forgetful of his art, he struck him behind the knee with his foot and so
brought him to the ground, falling heavily ujiou him. *^ Clearly, if any one
won the fall, it was Odysseus. The chip used by Odysseus is that known to
modern wre.stlers as ' the outside click,' a variety of the backheel invaluable
as a defensive move to the light-weight wrestler. ' The most expert light-
weight,' says Mr. Armstrong, ' would have no earthly chance with a moderate
heavy-weight were it not for the outside click, which should be plied directly
he feels himself leaving his mother soil.'** The particular form of this chip
where the stroke is made as high up as the knee is known as ' hamming.'
^ Ovid, Met. ix. 32 sq.; Lucan, Phars. iv. *'^ Pausamas viii. 40 describes a similar ai-
612 sq ; Statius, Thcb. vi. 831 i^q. rangement in boxing, Creuges and Danioxenus
^ P. 433 sq. agreeing to strike one another in turn without
** xxiii. 707-739. The quotations arc from guarding themselves. This was called a KKtfxa^.
the translation of the Iliad by Messrs. Lang, *^ *ns eliroDv ai'ddpc i6\ov 5' oii A'^fltr' 'OSva-
Leaf, and Myers. fftvs-
*^ A fragment of a red-figured kylix in Berlin, k6\1/' uitiOfv Kw\r]ira rvx<»>v, viriKvat Se
No. 2276, reproduced by Hartwig, Meistcrschal. yvla
12, though representing the pankration, kclZ 5' i^dLK" ilo-iriaw iid li ariietaTtv
gives a realistic illustration of these words. 'O^vaafvs
figure to the right is not only bleeding Ka-Kireat. 725-728.
copiously at the nose, but also bears on his back ** Wrestling (All England Series), p. 8.
the marks of his opponent's fingers.
WHKSTI.INCJ. 25
Next came Odysseus' turn : lie tried to lift Ajax and moved ' him a
little from the ground, but lifted him not, so he crooked his knee within the
othei's (eV 8e yovv yDufiyfrev) and both fell to the ground nigh to each other
and were soiled with dust.' Eustathius in liis note on tlie passage says that
they fell sideways, TrcirTovaiv TrXdyioi, and he describes the chip as fxera-
TrXacrfiov or TrapaKarayayyrjv, technicalities which appear to correspond to
the ' hank ' or ' inside click ' of to-day. The fall must certainly have been
inconcUisive, it was what is known in Cumberland as a 'dog fall,' and no
amount of ingenuity can assign the victory to Ajax.
At this point Achilles put an end to the contest and awarded to eacli
vvr^'stler an equal prize. Futile efforts have been made to justify tliis verdict
by affirming that Odysseus won the first, and Ajax the second round. As we
have seen, in the latter neither could claim the advantage, while in the
former whatever advantage was gained belonged to Odysseus, who fell on the
top of his opponent. But if Odysseus had won one fall, and Ajax had won
neither, it is difficult to understand the justice of dividing the honours, and
Odysseus surely was the last man to yield such a point. The explanation is
simple : neither bout Avas conclusive, for neither wrestler kept his feet in
either, and the inference is that when both wrestlers fell, no fall could be
scored. Whether this principle held good in historical times there is no
evidence to determine.'*^ The principle is not unknown to modern wrestling,
and the Homeric account establishes some slight presumption in its favour.
Possibly it may be implied by Pindar's use of the adjective aTTTcw? in
describing the ' swift and sudden shock ' by which Epharmostus threw his
opponents.*^
H. — Quintus Smyrnacus and Nonnus.
The wrestling matches described by Quintus Smyrnaeus and Nonnus need
not detain us long. In the former,*^ the opponents are Ajax and Tydides.
In the first bout Ajax obtains a firm grip on Tydides and tries to crush him
or bend him backwards (d^ai) but the latter by a combination of strength
and skill slips the grip, and obtaining the lower hold lifts Ajax off the ground,
getting his shoulder underneath, and at the same time twisting his foot
round his opponent's leg ' on the other side,' he brings him to the ground and
sits upon hira. Tydides is clearly the winner.
In the second round there is a long and tedious struggle for a grip,
Tydides trying to obtain a hold round Ajax' thighs. Ajax after vainly
endeavouring to force him to the ground obtains a grip round his waist and
turns him over heavily in a style which is associated in art especially with
*' Nothing can be inferred from Pindar, Pyth. edition of the Pythian Odes quotes in support
viii. 81, TfTpaai 5' ^/iirertj vyf/66fv awfxaTffffft. of his translation, ^/iir/irT€ii' has its usual mean-
There is no authority for translating (fnctrfs ing 'to attack.'
' fell uppermost upon.' Here and in Aeschylus, *^ 01. ix. 91.
Agamemnon 1174, which Dr. Fennell in his " iv. 215 sq.
26 E. NORMAN GARDINER
Theseus.*^ At this point as in the Iliad, Achilles declares the match a draw
and divides the prizes.
In Nonnus,^^ Aristaeus is opposed to Aeacus. The first round follows
closely the Homeric model. Aristaeus tries to lift and swing Aeacus, who
clicks his left knee with his heel and so throws him backwards. But the
second bout diverges widely from Homer. Aeacus tries to lift Aristaeus, but
failing to do so he springs suddenly round him and jumps upon his back,
twisting his legs round his stomach and knotting his hand round his neck so
that he cannot speak. The officials interfere to save him from death ; ' for,'
says Nonnus, ' there was no law such as later generations long ago devised by
which the vanquished could give a sign of his defeat by turning down his
thumb.' Here we have passed away from wrestling into the region of the
pankration and the gladiatorial shows, and the particular trick described is,
as I hope to show when dealing with the pankration, that known as kXc/llu-
Ki(rfi6<i.
These descriptions, though affording interesting illustrations of various
grips, throw little light on the principles of 6p9ij TraKrj. The only point on
which they have any bearing is whether the rpia iraKaia fiara were three
falls or three bouts, whether the wrestler had to win the best of five bouts
or of three. Homer's description is in favour of three bouts ; Quintus and
Nonnus corroborate Homer, but, as they are obviously imitating Homer, their
testimony has no independent value. Most of the passages referring to the
Tpiayfi6<; ^*' admit of either interpretation. But the following line from a
fragment of Sophocles 678 clearly implies three falls
Tiv' ov TraXalnva e? rpi? eKJSdWet, deoiv ;
So too ApoUodorus'''^ describing the fight between Heracles and Eryx
says that the former rplf Trepcyevofievo'i Kara rrjv irdXrjv cLTreKTeive. With this
agree the words of Seneca — luctator ter abjectus perdidit palmam — the defini-
tion of Tpia-^^^drfvai, by Suidas as rp\<i Treaetv, the metaphorical use of Tpid^eiv
and its cognates and especially their application to the pentathlon. So,
though it is unwise to dogmatise upon a detail so liable to vary with time
and place, I believe that three falls were necessary to secure victory, or the
best of five bouts.
I. — Legholds not allowed.
We come now to the much more difficult question of what grips were
allowed. In particular were legholds allowed, and was tripping allowed ?
The conclusions to which I have come are that in true wrestlinsf no holds
** E.g. the Metope from the Theseum. ' tri 5e M rb rpirov Kara^aXiev ilxnrtp wdKatafjia
■" Dionys. xxxvii. 553-601. wpfia rhv vfaviffKov.' The inaccuracy does not
'" The evidence on this point is collected in affect the argument as the passage still implies
my article on the Pentathlon, vol. xxiii. p. 63 three falls, Cleinias having been already twice
of this Joiirnal. The quotation from I'lato, thrown in the argument.
Euthydcmus 277c, is inaccurate. It should be '■^ ii. 5, 10, 10.
WRESTLING. 27
were allowed below the waist and that various forms of tripping were
allowed, thongli I doubt whether it was employed so freely as in some modern
sciiools.
By far the most important passage dealing with the first question occurs
in Plato Lc(f. vii. 79Ga, h. Sj)eaking of the style of wrestling wliich he
woidd encourage in his idi^al state he says : koI Bi] rd ye Kara irdXrjv a /xev
'Ai'Taio'i 7] K^epKucov ev re'yi'aii; kavTOiv avveaTi^aravTO <f)L\oveiKLa<; a^prjaTOV
-^(ipiv y 7rvy/J.t]v 'K7reio<; i) "AfivKo<i, ovSev ;;^pj;crt/xa eiri toXc/jlov KOLvwviav
ovra, ovK ii^ia Xoyo) Koa^ielv to, Be dir' 6pd^]<i TrdX7]<i, dir' au-^evcov koX
■y^eipwv Kal nrXevpoiv i^eiXijaeaxi fierd (fjiXoveiKta^ re Kal KaTuaTaaecof
htairoi'ovjxeva €vaxVf^ovo<i pd)/j,'q<; re Kal vyceiat €P€Ka, tuvt et<? TravTU ovra
Xpycri/xa ov TrapeTeov. Plato, who was himself an athlete, is here contrasting
tiie methods of opdt] TrdXr}, which was an exercise of skill practised in a spirit
of honourable rivalry and promoting the healthy and harmonious develop-
ment of the body, with the more brutal methods elaborated by bullies such
as Cercyon and Antaeus for mere personal vainglory and love of strife. His
language leaves no doubt that he is really thinking of the pankration which
he elsewhere expressly excludes from his state.-^^ The pankratiast, like the
bully, sought by all means in his power to reduce his opponent to helpless-
ness and to force him to acknowledge defeat, and the result in both cases was
not infrequently fatal. Plato then contrasting wrestling with the pankration
defines the former as consisting in the disentangling of neck and hands and
sides. These are precisely the holds which we see constantly represented in
art, and we may note in passing the accuracy of the description, for the
wrestler's art is shown even more in his ability to escape from a grip than in
his skill in fixing one.
Plato in this passage makes no mention of legholds, but the scholiast
commenting on it tells us that Theseus invented rriv diro ^etpMv irdXrjv, and
Cercyon Tr]v utto aKeXwv. Now inasmucli as the wrestling of Cercyon and
Antaeus is contrasted with opOrj trdXi) and is therefore connected with the
ground wrestling of the pankration, we are justified in also connecting with
the latter the phrase rrjv diro aKeXwv.
The meaning of this phrase is, however, ambiguous ; it may denote either
legholds, or the use of the legs in tripping. Eustathius clearly understood
it in the latter sense, for in his note on the Iliad already referred to^^ he says
of the first bout in which Odysseus struck with his foot the back of Ajax'
knee Trpwro? he, (fyaaiv, Kepxvayv evpe rr)v roiavrrjv TraXaiaTiK-qv /xrj^avrjv
Kal KaXelrai lyvvtov v(f)aipe(Tc<i. Evidently tiie scholia.st to Plato and
Eustathius drew their information from a common source, or one of them
took it from the other. But there seems some reason for supposing that
Eustathius has mistaken the meaning of tt}v avro (XKeXoiv TrdXijv and lyvvcov
" Leg. 834 A. The verdict of the foHvth sport, like boxing also it degenerated into
century should not unduly prejudice us against brutality under the influence of specialisation
the pankration. Originally an exercise of skill and professionalism,
like boxing and conducted in the true spirit of *' 1327, 8 ii.
28 K. NORMAN GARDINER
v(f)acp€(ri<;. A writer describing the methods of Antaeus and Cercyon would
naturally have in his mind the conventional representations of these giants
in art. The discussion of these mythological types- must be postponed for
the present ; it is sufficient here to note that Antaeus is commonly repre-
sented either actually seizing or trying to seize Heracles by the ankle, and
Cercyon when lifted off his feet by Theseus frequently appears to be catching
at the hero's legs.^* This trick is generally described as to eXKeiv, though
there is as far as I know no authority for thus narrowing down the meaning
of eXKCLv except a wrong reading in a passage of Lucian's Dialog. Deorutn
vii. 3, where we read ^^^e? he TrpoKaXecrd/xevo'i top "Epwra KareTraXaicrev
€v0v<i ovK olh' oTTcof v(pe\a)if TO) TToSe. The old reading for which there
seems to be no authority was v(f>i\KQ)v tq) TroSe, the new and correct reading
v(f)e\(ov brings us back to v(^alpe<Ti<;. Even so the passage is ambiguous and
might denote equally well a leghold or tripping, but the evidence of the
vases seems to me to prove conclusively that ' leg wrestling' traditionally
associated with Cercyon was not tripping but seizing the opponent by the leg.
With the mythological scenes we may compare certain Panathenaic
vases ^^ where one of the opponents is represented as having caught the
other by the leg and lifting him up seems on the point of overthrowing him.
His opponent has his arm raised as if about to strike him with his fist, a fact
which proves that the scene represents, not as is commonly stated wrestling,
but the pankration. The same motive occurs in a long series of the Pam-
phylian coins of Aspendus, and occasionally upon gems, and the trick might be
described as lyvvcov v^alpea-i<i with quite as much propriety as that employed
by Odysseus. In some of these scenes it seems as if one of the pair was
endeavouring to kick the other in the stomach,^^ and that the latter has
seized his foot in the air. Kicking was certainly allowed in the pankration,
and is alluded to by Theocritus xxii. 66 as one of the distinctions between
the pankration and boxing. Amycus, who is put by Plato in the same claes
as Antaeus and Cercyon, challenges Polydeuces, who asks
7rvyfid^o<i rj kuI iroacrl Oevoiv aKe\o<;, ofifMara 8' opdd ;
Galen, too, in his amusing vision of an Olympic festival in which the
animals wrest all the crowns from man, assigns the prize for boxing to the
bull, that for the pankration to the donkey who \d^ ttoBI el ^ovXerai ipiaa^
avrov Tov ari^avov otaerai. {Tiporpein. iirl ri')(ya'i, 36.)
Here then we have two practices — catching an opponent's leg and
kicking — which certainly belong to the pankration and are far more suitable
to the character of Cercyon than the trick employed by Odysseus. Kicking
" The vase-paintings representing these two the stomach, \aKTi(6fievop is rhv yaarepa ; cp.
subjects are collected by Klein, Eii,phr onion, Aristoph. Eq. 273, 454, 7a(rTpi'^'«ij'. Pollux, iii.
pj). 122 and 193. 150, includes in his list of terms connected
" M. d. I. i. 22, 86 and 106 (I have failed to with the pankration, Aa| ivaWtaBai, an expres-
discover where these vases are now) ; amphora sion very descriptive of the left hand pankra-
in Lamberg collection, J. U.S. i. PI. VI. tiast in the Lamberg amphora.
'* Luv-ian, Anacharsis 9, refers to kicking in
WRESTLINCJ. 29
we know was not jiUowcd in wrestling; leghoUls are only represented or
described ^'^ in connexion with the pankration, and from the omission of any
mention of them by Plato we may infer that they were not allowed in opdrj
TrdXij. Tliis view is confirmed by the practical coiisideration of the riskiness
of such a trick in a style of wrestling in which it was essential to keep on
the feet opOocndhriv, and in which the man who touched the ground even
with his knee lost. The wrestler who stoops low enough to seize his
opponent's foot is certain to be forced on to his knees if he misses his grip,
and according to Statins such a fate actually befel Tydeus in his match with
Agylleus
fictnuKjue in colla minatus
crura subit : coeptis non evaluere potiri
frustratae brevitate manus : venit arduus ilie
desuper, oppiessumcpie ingentis mole ruinae
condidit. — -Thch. vi. 870.
Fortunately for Tydeus the match was fought under the rules of the
pankration.
L. — Trij)ping.
We have seen how important a part tiipping played in the Homeric
wrestling match. After Homer we have little evidence beyond the frequent
metaphorical use of v-rroaKeXc^eiv^^ until we come to Lucian. In the first
chapter of the Anacharsis describing the athletes in the palaestra he says
ol jxev irepLirXeKofxevoi viroaKeXlt^ovaiv, and again in chapter 24 iroXefiio)
dvSpl b TOLovTo<; av^irXaKe\<; KUTappc^frei re ddaaov V7ro(rKeXiaa<i koI
Karaireacou elaerai &>? paara i^avlaraaOai. In the Oxyrhynchus wrestling
papyrus one of the instructions is au /9aXe iroha, words which seem
to denote some movement of the foot for the purpose of tripping
au adversary. Lastly, Philostratus, Gym. 35, describing the physical
qualities of tlie wrestler, asserts that the ^ov^(ove<i must be evaTpa(f>€i<;, for
so they aie avvBrjaai ikuvoI irdv oirep dv rj TrdXr) Trapahihtp kuI avvSeOepTC^;
dvidaovai fidXXov rj dvidtrovrai. The words ' oVep dv rj irdXr) irapahihtp '
confine the expression to such clicks as are allowed in true wrestling,
excluding the more complicated grips with the legs possible in ground
wrestling.
This evidence though somewhat scanty is sufficient to prove that tripping
was practised by the Greeks, though probably not to the same extent as in
some modern styles. This conclusion is supported by the monuments; for
though tripping is as far as I know never represented by the vase painter, it
*'' Thus in Ovid, Mel. ix. 37 ; Lucau, Phars. kration.
iv. 612 ; Statins, loc. cit. Lucian, Anacharsis 1, *" Plato, Euihydcm. 278 b ; Demosthenes 273.
describes how one youth dpd/uevoj rhv 'irfpov tK ayKvpiaai is used by the couiic poets in the same
TOif OKfKolv aiprJKfv fis rh iia<t>os, but the con- way, Ari->toph. Eq. 262 ; Eupolis, Ta{. 6.
text proves that he is speaking of the pan-
30 E. NORMAN GARDINER
is clearly implied in the group of bronzes mentioned above. ^'^ In tiie.se
bronzes the way in which the victor's left foot is twisted round his opponent's
clearly shows that he must have employed this loot in twisting him off his
balance.
The moment shown in these bronzes, as has been already stated, is
one of rest : the standing wrestler has thrown his opponent, and the
victory is won. If, however, he were to continue the attack he would fall on
his opponent in precisely the attitude represented in the famous Uffizi
group of wrestlers. This group belongs to the pankration and not to true
wrestling, and I should not have mentioned it here, were it not that the
contrary is stated in a most interesting article by Hans Lucas which appeared
in last year's Jahrhuch,^^ with much of which I fully agree. Comparing the
marble with the wrestling groups in a Roman mosaic from Tusculum,^^ he
concludes that the artist of the mosaic had in his mind the marble group, and
that the right arm of the victor, which in the restoration is raised with clenched
fist as if for striking, is wrongly restored ' because the scene belongs manifestly
not to the pankration but to wrestling, where striking was not allowed,' and
he therefore suggests that he is rather preparing to seize his fallen opponent
by the neck in order to strangle him in the manner represented in the
mosaic. With the correctness of the restoration I am not concerned here.
I will confine myself to two remarks. In the first place the scene does
not manifestly belong to true wrestling. It has been shown that the
wrestler's object was to throw his oppouent, and that there is no proof that
he had to throw him on his back or force him to acknowledge defeat. In
the Uffizi group the undermost wrestler is manifestly down and yet the
struggle still continues. Hence it belongs to the pankration. Another
equally unfounded statement sometimes urged against the actual restoration
of the group is that in the pankration hitting was not allowed when the
opponents were on the ground. This is a gratuitous assumption, and is quite
contrary to the evidence of the vases. Secondly, supposing that the restor-
ation is wrong and that the motive of the group is to a.'^yeiv, I submit that
this form of strangling is utterly incompatible with tiue wrestling inasmuch
as its object is not to throw the opponent, but to incapacitate him. There-
fore the Uffizi group still belongs to the pankration, as does the corresponding
group in the mosaic.
M. — Conclusion.
It may be convenient to sum up the conclusions at which we have
ai rived : —
1. If a wrestler was thrown on his knee, hip, back, or shoulder, it was a
fair fall.
5» P. 23 n, 36, «' iV. d. J. vi. vii. 82, Schreiber, Atlas xxiii.
«» P. 127 sqq. 10.
WRESTLING. 31
2. If both wrestlers fell together, nothing was counted.
3. Three falls or the best of five bouts were necessary to secure victory.
4. No hokls were allowed below the waist.
5. Tripping with the feet was allowed.
These general laws may have been, and indeed were probably modified
at different times and different places. We know for example that tlie
Sicilians had rules of their own.^- But the general agreement of the
evidence seems to show that at all events in the great athletic festival*
wrestling was conducted on the above principles.
E. Norman Gaiidineu.
{To he continued.)
*"'- Acliiin, Var. Hist. xi. 1 : 'OptKaSfios ■na.\r]s (yivtro vofioOiTr\s, kuO' iavThf firn'ur]aas rov
SiKcA^f Tp6itov KaKovfjuvov.
NOTES AND INSCRIPTIONS FROM SOUTH-WESTERN
MESSENIA.
I. — -Introdndion.
The following notes and inscriptions represent part of the results of a
journey made in the spring of 1904, supplemented and revised on a second
visit paid to the same district in the fcdlowing November. One inscription
from Korone, a fragment of the ' Edictuiii Diochtiani,' I have already
published (J.H.S. 1904, p. 195 foil.). I have attempted to state as briefly as
possible the fresh topographical evidence collected on my tour, avoiding
as far as possible any mere repetition of the descriptions and discussions of
previous writers.
The literature dealing with this part of Greece is not extensive. I give
here a list in chronological order of the more important works in whicl) its
geography and antiquities are discussed, and append to each the abbreviated
title which I shall use for purposes of reference.
1. Pausanias iv. 34, 35.
2. W. M. Leake, Travels in the Morea, i. 428-448: London, 1830.^
[Leake.]
3. A. Blouet, JExpSdition Scientijiqne de MorSe, i. 9-18 and Plates 8-17:
Paris, 1831. [Blouet.]
4. E. P. Boblaye, Bfchcrches Giographiqncs sur les Ruincs de la Mordr,
111-113: Paris, 1835. [Boblaye.]
5. Bory de St. Vincent, Exfedition Scientijiqne de Moree. Section des
Sciences Physiques. Relation. Paris, 1836. [Bory.]
6. W. M. Leake, Feloponnesiaca, 195-197: London, 1846. [Leake,
Feloponnesiaca.]
7. E. Curtius, Peloponnesos, ii. 165-172, 195-196: Gotha, 1852.
[Curtius.]
8. C. Bursian, Geographic von Griechenland, ii. 172-175 : Leipzig, 1868.
[Bursian.]
9. J. G. Frazer, Pausaniass Description of Greece, iii. 445-456 : London,
1898. [Frazer.]
^ Leake's JIforea was not published until 1830, taken twenty-five years previously, in 1805 and
though the journeys to which it relates were 1806.
NOTES AND INSCRIPTIONS FROM S.-W. MESSENIA. 33
For the geology of tlie district, Philippsoii, Deo' Pdoponncs, p. 355-377,
should be consulted. A full bibliograpiiy is given at the end of this work
(p. (511-610).
It is a pleasant duty to take this opportunity of expressing my warm
thanks to those who, either by their generous hospitality or by the un-
grudging way in which they placed at my disposal their knowledge of locj^l
anticjuities, contributed largely to the pleasure and success of my tour;
especial mention is due to Mr. P. Torolopoulos, demarch of Methone,
Mr. C. Bebonis of Korone, Messis. P. and N. KJappas of Kandianika, and
Dr. D. Marcopoalos of Petalidhi.
II. — Methone.
Pausanias (iv. 35) tells us that Methone lay on the site of the Homeric
ITi/Sacro?, and that it derived its name either from Methone, a daughter of
Oeneus, or from the ^6d(ov \i6o<; which protected its harbour. It was given
by the Spartans to the Nauplians who had been driven from their home for
their philo-Laconian sympathies by Damocratidas of Argos, and remained
undisturbed even on the restoration of the Messenians by Epaminondaa.
Subsequently it was desolated by a band of Illyrian corsairs, who, under
pretence of trade, enticed to their ships and kidnapped a large number of its
inhabitants. It was made a free city by Trajan. To these facts we may add
the abortive attempt of the Athenians to gain possession of Methone at the
outset of the Peloponnesian War — an attempt in the frustration of which
Brasidas won his first laurels (Thuc. ii. 25) — and its siege and capture by
Agrippa shortly before the battle of Actium (Dio Cass. L. 11, 3 ; Strabo viii.
4. 3). The only temples mentioned by Pausanias are those of Athena
Anemotis, 'the wind-stiller,' founded by Diomedes, and of Artemis: that
which most attracted the traveller's notice was a well of bituminous water,
which leads him into a long excursus on remarkable wells and springs.
The modern town lies wholly outside and to the N. of the Venetian
fortress, which is now uninhabited and is rapidly falling into ruin : it is
situated on the southernmost spur of the long ridge of "Aytot: NiKoXao*; ^
which runs due N. from here and terminates above Pylos. The eastern wall
of the fortress is built in part on ancient foundations, and considerable
remains are left of the ancient mole running parallel to this wall from the
rock which may be identified ^ as the MoOcov \i0ot of Pausanias : this is
joined to the maiidand by a ruined bridge, and on it rises an octagonal tower,
originally built to protect the harbour but subsequently used as a lantern
and a prison. A mole built in 1895-0 runs eastward from the landing-place
(Blouet, PI. 15. fig. II. E) through the extremity of the ancient jetty, thus
completely cutting off" the old harbour, which is too shallow to be of any use :
to the N. of this mole sailing boats can approach close to the fortress, but the
■^ Perhaps the ancient To/jLtvs (Thuc. iv. ^ Blouet, p. 12 ; [-eako, p. 430,
118. 4 ; Stej.h. Byz. s.v.}.
H.S. — VOL. XXV.
34 MARCUH NIEDUHR TO J)
coasting steamers whicli call at Methonc in the summer season have to
anchor out in the bay. In tlie ruined chapel of 'A7t'a '^o(j>La* within the
fortress are eight small columns of white marble, one of shell conglomerate,
a fluted Ionic column of black limestone, and a much damaged Ionic capital
of white marble.'' On the top of a Byzantine capital with an ornament in
relief on the two short sides is a late inscrij)tion (No. 1, below), the first
which has been found at Methone. From the E. the fortress and town are
approached by a bridge which rests on ancient foundations (CJurtius, p. 170).
Tliough scanty, this evidence seems to warrant our placing the ancient
Methone on the site of the medieval fortress, and also, perhaps, of the
modern town (see esp. Blouet, p. 12).
Three other sites in the neighbourhood call for a few words of
comment :
(1) Gell {Itinerary of the Morea, p. 54) ^ays : ' E. of Modon, about 2,700
paces from the city, is a place called Palaia Mothone, where are the vestiges
of a city, with a citadel, and a few marbles. It is difficult to determine the
date of the ruins.' The spot in (piestion is about If iniles N.E."' of tlie
modern town and lies in the valley of the upper Methone River and on the
northern slope of the low ridge which forms the left bank of the river valley.
The site still bears the name UaXaia Medcovr], and a large ruined church
near by as well as the cpiautity of stones everywhere in evidence seems to
indicate that there was once a village here. But thei-e are now no vestiges of
anti({uity to be seen, the walls which were pointed out to me as such being
medieval. I was sliown Pausanias' 'bituminous well,' but my informants
admitted that the water is perfectly sweet ami clear! I think it is not
impossible thai at some time previous to the building of the fortress at
Modon, the inhabitants, finding themselves too easy and accessible a prey to
coisairs, may have migrated inland to this less exposed and better watered
site, carrying with tliem the name of their town : in this case ' Old Methone '
would be opposed to the new town of Modon.
(2) The members of the 'Expedition de Moree ' found on the shore and
neighbouring hills, 2 kms. E.^ ot Motion, many Roman ruins, proving the
existence there of baths and factories of coarse pottery, as well as a small
temple situated on an eminence above the sea (Boblaye, p. 113). Here also
I failed to discover traces of antiquity. In about the position indicated,
where the hills rise to the E. of the plain of Methone, stood the old chapel
of " A<yio<i 'HX.ta? on a low clitf above the shore. But about fifteen years ago
the encroachment of the sea caused a landslip which carried away half of
the chapel, the remainder of which lies wholly in luins: it has been replaced
by a new church on the eminence to the N., about a hundred yards from
the sea.
* Blouet, I'l. 14, Figs. I, II. ** Gell's loose use of the term East has led
'•" The two capitals from Coron figund by Frazer to conl'use this site with that referred to
IJlouet (Fl. 17, Figs. II, III) now lie bcsiiie the by Boblaye (see below).
N. door of the cliurch of VltTafx.6p<p(iiais in the ^ Bobhiye's '2 kilometres i Voucsl de la villi'
fortress at Modon. is obviously an error.
NOTES AND INSCRIPTIONS FROM S.-W. MESSENIA.
35
(*i) Leake (p. 42!)) refers ttj the place called "Ayio^i 'Opov(j)pio<i, 1 1 miles N.
of the town, ' ail excavation in the rock, which, since it ceased to be a Hellenic
sepulchre, has been a chajiel or hermitage, as appears by the remains of some
Greek paintings.' In fact, there is here a series of caverns or grottos, partly
natural and j)artly artificial : tiie loof of the largest of these is supported by
pillars of the living rock, and in front of it are a number of graves cut out
of the rock. In the principal grotto the frescoes are still discernible, though
almost obliterated by the smoke of shef)her(ls' fires. Around the western and
northern walls are niches with rock-cut tombs, and similar graves have been
hollowed out in the floor. Above these caverns, and also further S. on the
slope of the hill towards Methone, are very extensive rock-cuttings, perhaps
the quarries of the ancient city.
Into the vicissitudes of Modon's eventful history in medieval and modern
times I cannot here enter: but one important correction must be made.
Blouet (p. 11) sa3's that ' les reniparts de Modon avaient ete eleves, en 1514,
jiar ordre du senat venitien,' and j)ublishes the following inscription : ' D.O.M.
Methonem communiri vallis moenus* et propugna(cu)lis terra marique mandant
Scnatus Antonio Lanrctano Pv'o(viso)ri G(e)n{er)ali Aniu)(v\\)in in /Wo^Jonneso,
qui Uditi opens curain siistinms aiJ vrhis ei rcgm lutamen fortiora mnnimenta
crcxit ct dausit anno Salatis MDXIV.' This inscription, engraved on a block
of dark grey nuirble, is now lying partly buried among the ruins of the church
of ' Ayia "Eoipia (see above) : the portion of it which I read is printed in
italics. The date, however, on the stone is MDCCXIV, not MDXIV. In
1408 J\loilon was captured from the Venetians by Bajazet II and remained
in Turkish hands until 1(385, when it was recovered for the Republic by
Morosini.-' In 1714 the Venetians strengthened the defences of the fortress,
as is witne.^sed by the above-cpioted inscription and by a second one on a
white marble tablet let into the northern wall above the moat,^"
ANTONII LAVRETANI
EQV : GNLIS : ARM : IN PELOPONE
REGIMINE ET CVRA
ANNO MDCCXIV
'Antonii Lauretani Equ(itis) G(e)n(era)lis Arm(orum) in Pelopone(so) regi-
mine et cura anno MDCCXIV.'
^ Probably M(EN^% i.e. moeii(ib)us.
^ The following in.sciiption belongs to this
period : the slab on which it is cut, biokrn
in two and defaced with plaster, is now im-
mured above a house door in Methoiie : ' A.ii.
MDCLXXXViiii die xv | August! [M] V. | Hoc
sacellum, dicat[um B](eat)ae Virgiui Mariae de |
Salute Prot(e)c(t)r(i)ci no[strae, constjructum
fuit II ad a[ng]endam niilita[ri]umdevoctione(ni)
ex I jnssu ill(ustrissi)mi et cxc(ellentissi)mi
P[aul]i ? Donati Provisor(i)s | Extr(aordinar)ii
liuius civ[itatis,] ho(minis ?) praestantisf3i)mi |
et vigiiant(i)s(si)mi, et ad [p]oster(itatis) niemo-
riani.'
'" Just below the relief of a winged lion •
shown at tlii! extreme left of Blouet's engraving
(PI. 12, Fig. !).
D 2
36 MARCUS NJEliUllll TOD
But these etfoits were in vain, for in 171') tlie Turks once more seizeil
Motion, which they held down to tlie time of the Greek Revohition, wlien it
was captured by the French umler Ueneial Maison in 1828.
III.— Koroue (Coron)}^
The town of Korone lies on the northern slope of the spur on which
rises tlie famous medieval fortress of Coron ^"^ : to the E. there runs out into
the Gulf a small headland, called Ai^aSui, the ilat top of which is under
cultivation but uninhabited. Within the fortress walls are still a number of
inhabited houses, though the greater part of the area is occupied by gardens
and Bmall fields. The walls and towers were built more solidly than those of
Modon, but the depredations made in the search for building stones have
been severe.
Boblaye (p. 112) speaks of u Roman tower and ruins inside the city,
while the headland already referred to has a number of cisterns and the
remains of walls and a staircase of Roman date, along with an immense
accumulation of sherds. Marble fragments are very frecjuent in the fortress
walls, and I was able to copy several inscriptions hitherto unpublished. One
of these seems to point to a cult of Asclepius (No. 2), and in connexion with
this may be mentioned a small bearded head (ht. "115 ra.) of white marble,
found an the sea shore immediately S.E. of the fortress, which seems to
represent either Zeus or Asclepius. The workmanship is. rough, but not bad :
heavy locks of hair fall over the forehead and down the sides of the head;
the lips are slightly parted so as just to show the teeth between them. A
large base within the citadel once bore a statue of Septimius Severus erected
in 194 or 195 a.D. (No. 3), while a fragment of white marble contains a few
items of the Edict of Diocletian in a Greek version {J.H.S. xxiv. p. 195 foil.).
There are reports of inscriptions and marbles found at a spot (deaif; ZdyKu)
to tlie 8. of the fortress, showing that the shores of the Bay of Memi were
inhabited in antiquity : unfortunately only two of these were forthcoming
on my visit, both very late and fragmentary (Nos. 4, 5). Immediately
beyond the fortress on the W, lies the eminence called Tabouri or Bourgos,^^
in which are many tombs cut in the rock, a rock-cut cistern and traces of
an ancient or medieval road. To the N.W,, about three-quarters of a mile
from the town, many tombs have been found : one of these,^^ opened about
thirty years ago, contained 'a skeleton with the hands folded on the breast,
on which lay a lump of unworked bronze' ; on one wrist was a gold bracelet,
" To avoid confusion as far as possible, I 1685 see Coioiielli, Description dc la Mor^e,
wiite the ancient Knpwvri (mod. Petalidhi) p. 30 foil.
Coroiu, the modeiji Kopuyt) (Coron) Korone. ^^ This name seems to be a survival of the
Matters are still further complicated by the Italian Burgo (see Coronelli'g plans) : the term
fact that the modern deme, whijh has Petalidhi Purgo given to this hill-toji by Leake (p. 436)
as it« capital, is also cnlkJ Kopdvit. and Frazer (p. 449) is unknown.
" For plans of the fortress and an account of "At the dian Uavayiraa, ir*pKptptia 'Ayiov
its history down to the capture liy Morosini in ^irinrirpiov.
NOTKS AND INSClUPTroN.S FROM S. W. MESSKNTA. :?7
al'terwaids nieltdl down into a rin^ still worn by tlie Hndcr, wliile above the
head was the epitaph (No. 6), proving the interment to belong to the second
or third century A.D. and to bo that of a priestess. A little way to the north
of" tliis spot is a chapel of "A7to9 ^rjfxijrpio^, })resuiual)ly the same where
Pouqiieville ( Voj/nrjc dc la (ir^ce, vi. p. 00) found a fragmentary Greek
inscription and two Venetian epitaphs: the chapel is now ftlastered and
wiiitewashed, and no trace of inscriptions remains. A large fragment of a
white marble statue and a torso (ht. •30) now preserved in tlie STj/jbap-yelov
were found on the beach below the N. wall of tlie fortress, and have almost
certainly fallen down from the height above, whicli in anticpiity was doubt-
less the acropolis.
All these indications point to a city of considerable size and importance
as having occupied this site in antiiputy, and we may safely follow Boblaye
(p. 112), Leake {Pchponno^iaca, p. 105), Curtius (p. 107), Bursian (p, 174),
anil Frazer (p. 449) in identifying it with Asine, a town which in ancient
times gave its name to the CJulf as (Joron has done during and since the
Middle Ages. This agrees with the data given by the Tahuht Feutingeviana
(15 miles from Modon. 80 from Messene), and with Pausanias' statement
of its distance (40 stades) from Colonides, which we shall see reason to place
at Kastelia-Vounaria, The only difHculty is that caused by Pausanias'
remark that it is 40 stades distant from Acritas : this led Leake (p. 448)
to place Asine about halfway between Coron and Cape Gallo, which lie
about 80 stades apart : later, however, as we have seen, he discarded this
view, and all who have traversed the coast south of Coron are unanimous
that no traces of a Hellenic settlement are to be found on it. It seems
probable that by Acritas Pausanias means "Ayiofi ^r]/jL7]Tpio<;, tlie highest
point of the mountain (1607 feet) of whicli Cape Gallo is the southernmost
spur. Bory's identification of Asine with the site on the W. coast of the
peninsula where the French expedition discovered considerable Roman
remains (Bory, p. 316: see Blouet, p. 15 and Plate 10) does not require
refutation.
The Asinaeans, Pausanias tells us, were Dryopes who originally lived
in the neighbourhood of Parnassus: they subsequently inhabited Asine in
the Argolid, whence they were driven by the Argives, and received from
the Lacedaemonians a home on the Messenian Gulf; probably the ancient
name of the town was Rhium (Curtius, p. 108). They had a temple of
Apollo and a sanctuary and ancient image of his son Dryops. When Asine
received the name Corone and what caused the migration of the Coronaeans
to this new home we cannot tell. Hierocles (047, 10) still distinguishes
between Koptovia and 'Ac-iurj, but in the thirteenth century the change has
been made, and Asine is replaced by Korone.
IV. — Kastclia- Vounaria.
There is evidence that the coast N. of Asine was inhabited in antiquity.
A little distance to the N. of the hamlet of 'Ayia Tpid^a the path crosses
38 MARCUS NIEBUHR TOD
ami lias destroyed the ed<^e of a mosaic Hoor, said to have a p.itteni (kutc
ayeSta) on it and to he composcul of tinscntc ef ten colours: those which I
saw in the small exposed surface were white, light red, and dark red.
Close by is a tomb built of large, roughly-cut slabs: the largest measureil
1".") X '0 X '18 metres, and is said to have been even longer when found, but
to have been subse(piently broken. In the church of ''A7to<? liaa/A.e<o? at
Ko/xTTot 1 was shown an ornate stele of hard white limestone with an e})itaph
(No. 7) aiid a smaller uninsci-ibetl one with acroteria ; both of these were
i'ound in the ruins of a chapel near the village.
Close to the sea shoie some five miles N. of Korone are two striking
eminences. The southern (jne is the highei-, and rises to a sharp rocky peak
crowned with a chapel of "A7. 'HX/a?: that on the N. is less steep, has a
flatter top, near which stands a chapel of ''A7. 'liodvvfj'i, and is locally known
as YovXa or VovKe. On the western, or landward, side of these hills lies
the village of Kastelia, and, somewhat S.W. of it, Vounaria. In I8.S6 a
severe earth(juake wrecked the former, and a considerable pro})ortion of its
inhabitants moved down to the plain immetliately to the N, and there,
close to the sea shore in a more convenient and better watered position,
founded the village of Kandianika or, to give it its official title, New
Korone. Half a mile further N. runs the river of "A7. 'Avhpia<;, with a
handet of the same name slightly beyond it on the shore. This serves as
a port for Longa, the capital of the deme, which lies well up on the hill-side
to the N.W.
Leake refers (p. 43<S) to Kastelia as an ancient site, but did not himself
visit it: Robiaye (p. HI) speaks of various fragments of architecture and
sculpture as found ' sur le sommet de la colline de Kastelia.' I was shown
a gravestone from the seaward sitle of 'A7. 'HXt'a? (No. 8), and discovered
in the earth at the eastern foot of Vov\a a flat, circular ' looni-weight ' of
reddish clay (diani. "ll m.) pierced with two holes near the edge, and a
fragment of a catalogue of ciiluhi (No. 9). This seemed to have fallen from
above in one of the small landslips which frecpiently take place there, since
the hill is c(Mnposed of earth and the sea appears to be rapidly encroaching
on it. Another inscribed fragment, probably belonging to the same stele,
had been found at the same spot a few days previously, but had in the
meantime been washed away by the waves. On the S.E. slope of "A7, 'HXm?
ancient tombs have been found. I saw one or two va.ses which came from
this spot, and a terracotta representing a woman carried on the back of
a silenus.
The remains of late Roman or medieval buildings are considerable. On
the N.E. slope of Goula are the ruins of a tower built of stones and mortar
with large ashlar blocks at the (]uoins. Higher up is the mouth of a passage
with plastered walls running into the hill : twenty years ago, I was toUl, it
could be followed by a man walking upright for ten or twenty metres, but it
has now fallen in and is blocked with earth and stones. On the top is a
tower, about ten yards sipiare, now entirely ruined, and just below is a vaulted
chamber, originally consisting of two stories: its roof, which is on the groun<l
NOTKS AND INSCKIITIONS FJUJM S.-W. MESSENTA. 39
level, is pierced with a skylight, and there is an entrance facing the sea,
hidden and protected by a small forecourt.
Pansanias' account of his rt)nte from Connie (Petalidiii) to Asine (Coron)
is in outline as follows : 'E« Kopwvij^; Be ax? 6yBoy']Koi/Ta aTa8i'ov<i TrpoeXdovrt
'ATToWewi/o? iariv iepou Trpbt daXda-crr] (.St ij 7) . . . t^ Kopcovaitoi/ Be TroXei
€(tt]v o/xopo<i KoKcoinBe^ . . . Keirai Be to iroXiafxa al ¥i.o\o)viBe<; e-Trl vy^yjiXou
fiiKpov diro daXciacryj'i (slj fS) . . . Ketrat Be iirl 6a\d(Tar) [AtrtV?;] . . . araBloiv
Be TeaaapuKOVTci icmv eK K-oXooviBcou e's avTrjv 6B6<; (^ 12). In this
narrative; we miss all reference to the distance separating the Apollo temple
from Colonides : we may fairly conclude that they were not far apart, a
supposition borne out by the fact that Asine is really about 120 stades from
(^)rone, the sum of the distances, as given by Pausanias, from (^orone to the
Apollo sanctuary and from Colonides to Asine. Again, the bountlary is
mentioned in such a way that we must suppose the sanctuary to have been
within the territory of Corone, but close to that of Colonides. Now most
topographers (Leake, p. 445, Blouet, p. 15, Bory, p. 826, the French Map
of 1852, and the Austrian Staff Map of 1S85) have placed CJolonides at
Korone (Coron), which is inadmissible as robbing us of the sole possible site
for the important town of Asine, and removing Colonides about forty stades
from tiie Apollo sanctuary, which is by these topographers placed at or above
Kastelia. Boblaye's view (p. 112) that Colonides lay near the W. coast of
the peninsula at Grizi may also be dismissed as violating the data of the
problem. We are left (Frazer, p. 440) with two theories, that of Leake
{Pcloponacsiaca, p. 196) and Bursian (p. 178) which places Colonides at or
above Knstelia and the Apollo sanctuary a little further N., perhaps near the
river of "A7. 'AvBpea^, and that of Curtius(p, 167), who retains the site above
Kastelia for Apollo ^^ and sets Colonides near it but a little further inland.
Of these two I accept the former, especially as I was told of ' houses with
TTiOdpia ' and squared blocks of marble found in two adjacent fields near the
left bank of the "A7. 'AvBpea<; river, which may well have been in ancient
times the boundary between Corone and Colonides, as to day it divides
the denies of AiTreia and KoXeoi't'Se?. It is true that the distance from
Petalidiii is less than eighty stades, but we may notice that PcUisanias
expressly qualifies the number by a (09, and if Heberdey ^^ is right in
supposing that Pausanias sailed along this coast rather than traversed it on
land, such a mistake is all the more intelligible. Colonides would then be
just about the required forty stades from Asine and would be well described
as ' on a height a little way from the sea ' : these are just the two points that
most strike the traveller who approaches from the north, the rapid rise from
the plain of Kandianika to the villages of Kastelia and Vounaria, and the fact
'^ 111 liis map of Messenia, liowever, Curtius bis Kastelia' for ' Drei Viertel wegs von Coron
iias followed a suggestion of Moblaj'c, ami has bis Kastelia.'
placed the Ajiollo temjile considerably N. of '" Die Rcisai dcs Pausanias (Vienna, 1894),
Kastelia. In his note No. 41 (p. 195) we should p. 65 toll,
of course read 'Drei Viertel weus von Petalidi
40 MARCUS NIEBUHR TOJ)
that between them and the sea lie the eminences of "A7. 'HXta<? an(r'A7.
'IwaV/zr/?, so that to reach the shore the inhabitants must descend into the
plain to the N. of" the villages. But I admit that this explanation has
difficulties which can best, perhaps only, be settled by an appeal to the
excavator's spade.
\\ — l\inWlhi.
"All modern travellers have agreed in placing Corone at the modern
village of Petalidhi. Pausanias speaks of it as lying ev Se^ia rov JJa/xio-ov
TT/oos OaXdcrar) re kiI vtto tm opec rfi "Wadla ^" (iv. 34. 4), which must be the
modern Mt. Lykodhimo (3140 ft.). On the road thither from the mouth of
the Pamisus is a place on the shore, not yet identified, sacred to Ino, who
here emerged from the sea as the goddess Leucothea. Near it is the mouth
of the Bias, but we have no means of determining which of the rivers of this
coast — the River of Jori,^** Typhlos, Veli'ka, Skariiis and Jane — bore this
name.^'' Corone was held to occupy the site of the Homeric Alireui, and when
the Messenians were restored by Epaminondas it was founded by Epimelides
of Coronea in Boeotia, who called the place after his native city. His tomb
was shown to Pausanias, who also saw at (Jorone a temple of Artemis ' Child-
Rearer,' Dionysus and Asclepius, as well as statues of these two last deities,
Zeus Soter and Athena.
Ancient remains are here comparatively numerous,''^*' though subjected
even to-day to sad depredation in the search for building material. The
acropolis rises immediately S. of the present village. On the E. and S.P] it
falls rapidly, almost precipitously, down to a ravine in which runs a small
stream, but on the W. it is united by a saddle with the foothills of Lykodhimo.
At this spot, known as Hopre?, two tombs liad been discovered side by side
a few days befoie my arrival : they were formed of large slabs of limestone,
but I was unable to see any of the objects which had been found in them.
There are clear indications of the presence of other tombs in the immediate
neighbourhood. On the southern and western sides of the acropolis are
considerable remains of the foundation-courses of a Hellenic wall, doubtless
'' This leading seems preferable to the vtt\> sucli statcineiit in Leake, who, liowever, erro-
rs dpd Tr)fJ-a0'ia. of some MSS. an<l tlie earlier neously says tliat the Velika 'flows into the
eHitors, and to the tt) 'H/xaOi^ proposed liy Franz sea a littk^ to the southward of Petalidhi ' (loc.
and followed by Kiepert. cit.). Curiius himself at first {Bull. d. I. 1841,
" Nr^o/jfi'/ca, Nrfopeii/co TTOTci/ii, so called from p. 43) wrote that tlu^ Velika 'senza dultbio e
tlie village of Hr^ipt on its left bank: Leake I'antico Hias, ' but afterwards (Pe/«;wo?i?(f.sos, ii.
(p. 396) and Hlouet (p. 18) write this name p. 164) suggested that 'der Hias ist vielieicht
'V^n^iopi (Djidj'iri, Gigiori). der heutigo Djane, ' an opinion shared by FrazeV
'« Blouet (p. 18) identifies it with the (Map V).
NrCopfi'/ca, b\it without giving his grounds : so '-'" The fullest descriptions are tiiose of Bory
also I'omiueville (J^oyage, vi. p. 55). Curtius (p. 332 foil.), ("urtius {Hull. d. 1. 1841, p. 43
(p. 19.^)) speaks of Leake (p. 396) as seeing in the full.) and Welcker {Tagchuch, i. ]>. 233 foil.).
Velika the ancient Bias ; but I cannot find any
NOTES AND INSCKll'TIONS FliOM S \V. MESSP:NTA.
41
belonging to the fourth eentuiy n.c. Various nuuble fragments lie about,
and in one field is the lowest coursi; of a wall of ashlar masonry, while in
another are some rock-cuttings, iij)|»iuently for a small theatre-like building,
perhaps a ^ovXevryjpiov or a small theatre. On the N.VV. slope are several
Roman brick buildings ; one with two cxcdrae was perhaps a bath. I saw
nothing of the sculptures described by previous travellers, l)ut a large marble
head from this acropolis is now in the house of Mr. C. Bebonis at Korone, and
in Petalidhi I saw a stele (lit. ^(J m.) with a relief of a female figure standing
full-face: the upper part, and with it doubtless the inscription, is lost, but
the relief is complete.
The second field of discovery is the fertile plain which lies to the N.
and N.W. of the Acropolis, and is partly occupied by the northern portion of
Petalidhi. This seems to have been the main site of (Jorone in Rouuin times,
when convenience rather than security became the first consideration. Here
various foundations and architectural fragments have been found. One spot
is called Aof rpo or Aovrpd from the remains of a Roman bath ; another has
the name <I>6/)o<?, a survival of the Italian /oro and perhaps indirectly of the
\a\X\\\ forum. Several white niarble sarcophagi have also come to light here
(Ourtius, i^it//. d. Inst. 1 84-], p. 44 foil. ; Le Bas-Waddington, J/wi. Fi(j. 1*1.
!)n, 100), and an inscribed herm (No. 11). I was also shown a small sepulchral
relief of white marble and the base of a statuette, both found in the northern
part of the village : the latter perhaps represented Ganymede and the eagle,
though only a human foot and ankle and the talons of a bird are now left.
VI. — Inscrij^lions.
1. In the ruined church of 'Ajlu So(f)La in the fortress of Methone
(Modon). Block of white marble, originally a stele, converted later into a
Byzantine capital. Height 76 m. ; breadth •54 m, ; thickness •21 m. ; height
of letters •025 m. The inscription ends '32 in, from the foot of the stone.
10
NA Al JCnOYAA
Y P(jL)MAia)NriOYAct)IAm
OJCPOJMAItONYIOCnA
i ; OONTHCnOAeCOCKAICTPA
•irOCTHCAAMnPOTATHCAP
iv:;cuNnoAe(jL)CKAiAroL)NoeeT"c
ACTeiOJNKAINeMeiOJN
n rYMNAClAPXOCIOYBKAlKno
Y APMOCIOYBKAIKMOYCAIOY
N CrYMNACIAPXOYKAinPOC
iA I OYKAinATPOCTHCnOAetOC
KAI0ICYNAP2ANT€C
42 MAllCUS NIEIUHR TOD
[7U/x](//a)[o-t]a(p)[;j^]o? V- 'lov\. A
[te/7e]i/[9] ? 'Vo)/jLai(ou P. 'Iou\. *l^i\i7r-
-[lepe ?]&)9 ' V(t)/iiai(op u/'o?, ttu-
{tP)o)v t/}? TToXfO)? A-ai. arpa-
o [t]^70<? tT/? XajjL'rrporarii'i 'Ap-
(y)eiQ)v TToXe&xf /fat dycovoderrji;
[S€i3]aaTeL(ov Kal Ne/meLwi',
[v]7r[o\'yv/jbvacriap-^o'; 'lov/3. KatK. Ylo-
[X]u[;)(;]ap/io<? 'lov/3. KacK. Movaaiov
lU [ft'o]? yvfivaaidp-^ov Kal vpoa-
(T)aTOi' Kal irarpo'i t/}? TroXeo)?
/cat oi avvdp^avTe^.
Tiie letters are late in form and careless in execution, wliile the
damaged state of the s\nface of the stone makes the reading difficult in
many places and impossible in some parts of the left margin.
This is probably the last part of an inscription on a statue base, of which
the opening lines, containing the name of the person honoured, are now lost.
The statue is erected by the gymnasiarch, the under-gymnasiarcli, and the
colleagues of the man commemorated. The gymnasiarch seemingly holds
the office of lepev<; 'Pw/xacwv, a title which I cannot find elsewhere, and
occupies a position of distinction. The under-gymnasiarch, luventius
Caecilius Polycharmus, was probably a young man at the opening of his
public career, and no titles are added to his name. The reference to Argos
makes it seem that the inscription really belongs to that city rather than to
Methone.
2. On a fragment of white marble built upside down into the
south wall of the ruined church of 'Ayia Socf^ca in the fortress of Korone
(Coron).
ANHZASKAAniA/.
- - [(f)]dvj]<; ('A)cr«:A.(a)7rteo[t].
The letters are small and well formed, but the surface of the stone is
much damaged.
3. In the fortress of Korone (Coron). On a base of bluish marble.
Height "GS m. ; breadth '65 m. ; thickness not exactly ascertainable, as the
stone is partly buried in the ground. The heights of the letters ('OS-'OSO m.)
and the distances between the lines are very variable, but a great effort has
been made to secure uniformity of letters in each separate line by means of
ruled lines at top and bottom.
NOTES AND INSCRIPTIONS FROM S.-W. MESSENEA. 43
AYTOKPATOPAKAi
i CAPAAOYKIONCE
IITIMIONCEOYHPON
nEPTlNAK/CCEBACToN
5 HnOAICTONANEiKH
I TONEni4)AABIOY
I CAiei/ AAOnCTOY
KAirPAMMATEOC
AIAIOY9/ INIAOY
AvTOKpdropa Kat'-
aapa Aovklov Se-
TTTLp.lOV ^eOvPjpOV
YlepripaK^a) "^e^acrrou
5 1) TToXtf rou uveiKrj-
2taidi\8a) XoyiaTov
Kai 'ypa/j,p,aT€o<i
AlXiov <t> . . ivlhov.
The Eiiipeior Lucius Septiaiius Severus reigned from 193 to 211 A.D.,
when he died at York. The absence of the titles Arabicus Adiabenicus,
which he assumed in the summer of 195 (CHnton, Fasti Romani i, p. 196),
proves that the present inscription falls within the first two years of his
reign. Of. the legend on coins of 198 and 194 A.D. (Eckhel vii, 166-171),
[m2h Cue. L. Sej). Scv. Pert. Aug., of which the title in the inscription is
an exact translation.
The name "SaiOiBwi is an uncommon one. In Le Bas-Foucart 319
(Messene) a certain T//S. KX. '^aidc'8a(; KaiXtavo<; 6 dp'^iepev'i {rwv
Xe/Saarcop) Bid /3iou koX ' EX\aSdp^y]<i is mentioned as defraying the cost
of a statue of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius in 139 A.D. His stemma is as
follows :
Tib. Claudius P^ontiims (1)
Tib. CI. Saethidii Caeliaiius (2) Tib. CI. Froiitiiius Niceratus (3)
I
Tib. CI. Saetliida Cethegus Frontinus (4)
(1) Consul suffectuK (year unknown) : ? Julian. Dig. iv. 2. 18.
(2) Le Bas-Foucart 319 (Messene;, quoted above ; Foucart proposes to restore the
name in C.l.(i. 139G (Sparta): C.l.L. iii. 495 (Me»sene, 164 A.D.) : C.I.L.
\. 1123 (Abellinum, on the boundary between Samnium and Campania).
IIi.s cursHu honoriiHi, Bor^hesi, iEurres vdwpUtes iii. 199 note.
(3) C.I.G. 1133 (Argos), 1327 (Sparta) : C.l.L. iii. 495 (Messene), x. 1122, 1124
(Abellinum).
(4) C.l.L. X. 1124 (Abellinum), vi. 1(;440 (Rome).
Foucart supposes that Tib. Claudius Frontinus married a Messenian
lady of the rich and influential family of the 'S.aiOi'Bai (see below), ami thus
44 MARCUS NIKnUHK TOD
;u-C(»iint.s for the presence of his two sons at Messcne, and for the cogiionieii
borne by liis elder son and one of his grandsons. Perhaps a second member
of the same family mariied a Roman of the Flavian (jpms. The name
1a(6i8as, which is found only in the inscriptions above cited, should prob-
ably be restored in Pausanias iv. 32 5^ 2 * * * Be efxavrov irpea^vrepov ovra
€vpi(TKov, <yevoniv(i) he ol ^pij/jLaaiv ovk dSuuaTw Ti/xal irapa Meaarivi'wv
uTTiipxovaiP lire ^]po)i. elal Be tmv Mecra-rjviMV oi tc5 At^/Sa XPVf^^-Ta P-^t'
yeve&Oai woWa eXeyov, ov p,evTot iovtov ye elvai top eireipyaap-evov rfj
a-Tt]Xrf, irpoyovov Be Kal 6pa>vvp,ov avBpa Tto AWlBo,. AlOiBav Be top irpo-
repov yyrja-aadaL TOi? Mecr(rrjviot.<; (fyaaiv, k.t.X. Hitzig and Bliimner,
following a conjecture of Foucart, restore "^atdcBa, 1,aidiBav throughout
this passage, the name AWi8a<i being unknown.-^
The Greek word XoytaT)]^;-^ corresponds to the Latin carator reipahlicac
or civitatis (Gordian Cod. lust. i. 54, 3 curator revpnhlicac qui gracco vocahuh
logisiii nuncupatur), and is the title given to an imperial officer appointed to
superintend the financial administration of one or more cities, or, more rarely,
of a province. The date at which the office was instituted is a matter of
debate, but it would seem that, save for one or two exceptional cases, the
first emperor who attempted in this way to reform the financial mal-
administration of the Italian cities, the civitates liberae and the towns of the
Senatorial provinces was Trajan. The Xoytarai seem to have been generally
appointed for a term of years, and often held this title in conjunction with
others, or else a single XoyiaTi]<; undertook the financial oversight of a group
of neighbouring communities. Their competence was very wide, extending
even beyond the supreme control of all that affected the financial condition
of the cities over which they were set: 'wherever necessary they had the
right and the duty of interference and of enforcing the will of the sovereign
whose delegates they were' (Liebenam, I'hilol. Ivi. 315).
In Greece itself we find Xoyiaral at Athens {I.G. iii. 1, No. 10 6
KpdTL(Tro<i 'npea^evTT}<i {^ainoiv Kal dvTiaTpuTrjyo^i] Kal XoyicrTrjt Tf;? naTpiBo^
TjpMv), Epidaurus etc. (I.G. iii. 1, 677 Xoytcrr^? Kara 7re[pioBov . . .] 'Evrt-
BavploL<i, y>.aipo\yevai . . .] Kopwvevcrt, &r}^aioi^), Troezen (I.G. iv. 796
Teipr]del<i XoyicrTea viro tT;? ^aaiXeia^ eh BeKaerlav), and Sparta {G.I.G.
1399) : cf. I.G. iii. 1, G31 VTraro<;, irp^a^evTij'i Kal dvTiaTpdTriyo<; t(ov
^e^aaTWp, Xoyiarijs xal e7ravopd(OTr)<; tmv eXex>depwv iroXeoiv. Of the
islands of the Aegean we find XoyiaTat in Andros {I.G. xii. fasc. 5, pars 1,
No. 758) and Rhodes (I.G. xii. fasc. 1, 83?). In Asia Minor they are found
at Aphrodisias (C.l.G. 2741 (?), 2790, 2791), Bithynia (C.I.G. 4033, 4034
7rep,(f)0€i<; et? Beidwlav Biopdayrri'^ Kal Xoyiarrj<i vr.o deov ' ABpiavov),
•' Fiazer retains the name Aethidas, and "^ The Latin term logisla is found as a re-
([uotes (note ad loc, vol. iii. p. 434) Leake, translation of the Greek, and therefore only in
Morca, \. 383 foil. ' Li the village of Mnvromati refeience to those who held the office in CJreek
I find an inscription in which occurs the name conmiuuities : e.g. we have in C.I.L. ii. 4114
of Aethidas,' etc. There is no doubt, however, the same person referred to as curator civitatis
that Leake misread the inscription {C.I.G. 1318, Tmnensium (in Apidia) and as logista civitatis
Le Has-Foucavt 319). splendidis.iimar. Nicomedcnsium.
NOTES ANJ) INSCIUPTIONS FJIOM S.-\V. MKSSENIA. 45
Cyziciis (C.I.O. 27H2 Xo7to-T»/<f fx.€Ta viraTiKov'i Bodiit rfj'i Kv^ckijvmu
TToXewO, Ei)l»esns {OJ.a. 2077, 2987 b, Le Bas-Waddington 147 <^ C.l.L. ii.
41 1+, Orclli 708), Eunienoiii (C.l.d. 8880 €y\oyi<TT€V(Ta<;), Magnesia ad
Macandnnn {O.J.(J. 2012 XoyiaT6vouTo<i Kpiairov Wnidpxov), Nicaea [C.I.G.
TAI^Ti^K C.l.L. V. 4S41), Nico.nedia {G.l.G. 3771, 3773, C.l.L. ii. 4114,
V. 4341, vi. 14f!8, Orelli 708), (Hdyessus and Synnada in Phrygia (Head, llht.
..Xkiii. \). o()l, 560), Smyrna (IMiilostratus, VUac sophidarmn i. 19), and Tralles
{C.I.G. 2020 6 virepraTo^ \oyi(TTTj<i kuI /ctiVt?;? tj}? irarplho';) : n\ one
cape {C.LG. 3407) we find a group of cities under one XoyiaT^<i — Xoytarrji;
'EeXevKeia'i n€iepia<i kui 'AXe^avSpeiat kut "Xaaov Koi 'Vwacrov Koi tP/? rdv
Tpaiavwv TroXeo)^ koX TpoTr^jtricov koX Tij'i KoXtoveia^. The office also occurs
in Egypt {C.I.G. 5U85, 5000, 8610, Oxyrhyuchns Papyri T. 42, 52, 53, 66,
83-87, Acta S. Didymi ct Thcodorac 304 A.D. ad 28 April) and Syria {C.l.L.
X. 6006 ; ? C.I.G. add. 4662 b).
For further details regarding tlie curatores civitatinm and Xoyiarai see
Honzen, Ann. d. I. 1851, 5 foil. ; Degner, Quaestionis de curatorc rei piiblicae
pars prim; HaWe 1883; Mommsen, E6m. Sfaatsrrchf-^ ii. 2. 857, 861, 1082;
Marqnardt, y/ow. Stantsverivallung^ i. 162 foil.; Dar.-Sagl. i. 2. 1610 foil.;
Ramsay, Citus and Bisho2)rics of Phrygia, ch. x § 0 ; Liebenam, Philol. Ivi.
1807, 200 foil.; Pauly-Wissowa, s.v. cnratorea iv. 2. 1800 foil.
The phrase Xoyi(TTevovTo<i rov Stti^o? occurs in I.G. xii. 5. 758, C.I.G.
1300, 2012, 3771, 3773, and eVl rov helvo^ Trpea-^evTov koI avTia-Tparijyov
rtu ^e^acrov kuI tov S€ivo<i rov Xafnrpordrov Xoyiarov in C.LG. 3747,
3748.
4. Oft a block of Mvhite marble, of which the left margin is pre.served.
Found in the soutliern part of the modern town of Koione, and now in a
house close to the chapel of Uapayia 'EXeijarpia. Height '54 m. ; breadth
•2 m. ; thickness '13; breadth of written surface '12 m. The stone seems to
have been at some time converted into a Byzantine capital.
ro^lOCAKYA
MNACIAPX
I IMAIKAR
I AEI
r{d)'io<i ' AKv\[€ivo<i vel sim. - - - yv]\fiva<riap-)(^lo<; - - -
The inscription begins '265 m. from the top of the stone : the letters are
late in form and careless in execution.
5. On a marble fragment in a field S. of the fortress of Korone. Height
•2 ra. ; breadth -17 m. ; thickness -315 m. Parts of the top and left edges are
preserved. The surff^ce is almost entirely destroyed, and the reading of
several of the letters is uncertain. Height of letters ca. "015 m. ; sliglit
ajyices.
46 MARCUS NIEBUHR TOD
O^
NCIT
nPHTO
OICE'*' I'O L. 3 TrpcoTo - -, L. 5 ? [K]otvov,
5 OINOY L. 8 /xexp<.
\WiEAr
ONAIKIM
I'lEXPir
6. On a fragment of a Cidutiiclhi of bluish marble with slight indications
of fluting. Found about f mile N.W. of the fortress of Korone (Oeaa
UavayiTaa Trepc(f)epeia<; ' Ay lov AijfiyjTpiou).
APXiAa 'Apxi8cb
XPYZinnoY Xpua-LTTTrov
I E P E I A lepeta [8ia]
rcKi'^vT jei'ov<i
The letters, which are irregularly formed and have prominent apices,
date probably from the 2nd century A.D.
The name 'Ap;^'^^ does not, so far as I am aware, occur elsewhere.
For the term iepev<;, lepeta Bia yevov^ cf. Collitz-Bechtel 4656 (Messen#j ;
T.a. xii. 2, 102, 116, (Mytilene); I.G. xii. 3, 4i)4, 516, 522 I., 865 (Thera).
A further example from Thera is afforded by the famous Testamentuni
Epictetae {I.G. xii. 3, 330 lines 58 foil.), rav 8e lepareiav rav Mouc^a^' koI
TMv 't]p(oioov i^eTO) 6 Tc79 dvyarp6<i fiov vio^i ' AvBpay6pa<;' el Se Tt ku irddrj
ovTO<i, ae\ 6 7rpea^vTaT0<i eV Tov yevov^ rou 'ETrtreXeta?. At Gythion a
similar family tenure of the priesthood of Apollo is granted to Philemon and
Theoxenus (Collitz-Bechtel, Sammlnng 4567 1. 23 foil.) : elvat avrov<i Upelt
TOV 'AttoXXwi^o? Kol iyyovov'i avrSiv ael 8ia ^lov koX elvai avTol<; ra
Tifjiia KOL (f)iXdi'0po)7ra iravra ocra koL rol<i dWoi^ lepevaiv rul'i Kara yevo<i
vTrapx^i K.T.X. Maeandrius of Samos, to take an earlier instance, in offering
to lay down the tyranny stipulates as one condition (Herodotus iii. 142)
ipooavvqv . . . aipeupai uvtm re /xoc Kal Totat an' e/xev alel yivop-ivoiat tov
Ato? ToO 'EXevdeplov, while Telines of Gela executed a successful coiqj eV (Z
T€ 01 airoyovoL avTov ipo(f)dvTaL roiv deSiv ecrovrai (Herodotus vii. 153). See
also C.I.G. 2655 (Halicarnassus) with Boeckh's notes. The priestly families
of Athens are discussed in Toeptfer, Att. Gencalogie, Bossier, De gentibus ct
familiis Atticae sacerdotalibus, Martha, Les Sacerdoces AtMniens, etc. In
'F,(f)r]fi. 'Ap^aioX. 1892, p. 24 (Amyclaeum) 8td yevov<; and Kara yevo^ occur
side by side with the same meaning. Cf. C.I.G. 1353, 1355.
7. Found in a ruined chapel near the village of K6/mttoi in the deme
Colonides, and now preserved in the church of "Ayto? Bao-t'Xeio?. On an
ornate stele of white limestone with pediment and acroteria. Height
■82 m. ; breadth "45 m. ; thickness about '065 m.
NOTES AND INSCRIPTIONS FROM S -W. MESSENIA.
47
ONAIION MVPTIi XAIPETtj
ONAZIHN MYPTIZ XAIPETE
^Ovaa-icov, Muprf9, X^^P^t^'
The letters are clearly and carefully inscribed, and belong to the first or
second century B.C. The whole stele is in an excellent state of preservation.
The name 'Ovaalwv oecurs at Sparta (C/.(t. 1368), Berenice in Cyrenaica
{C.I.G. 5361), Aegosthena {T.G. vii. 209), Paros {I.G. xii. 5, pars 1, 232) and
Rhodes (/.G^. xii. 1, 18).
The gender of the name Muprt? is doubtful. It was borne by two
Argives (Demosthenes xviii. § 365, p. 324, Polybius xviii. 14, Harpocrat. s.v. ;
Theophrastus ap. Athenaeus vi. 254d), and alsob}' the celebrated lyric poetess
of Anthedon, the instructress and rival of Pindar. It occurs in I.G. ii. 3993,
3994, iii. 3291 (Attica), iv. 149 (Aegina), and xii. 1, 620 [?] (Rhodes), but in
none of these cases is there any means of determining the gender.
8. Found on the eastern slope of the hill called "Ayco<; 'H\t'a9 above
Kastelia. On a thin stone tablet ; length '20 m. ; breadth 20 m. ; thick-
ness "02 m.
evnAoiA
XAipe
ILijirXoia, | ^^^P^'
To the left of 1. 2 a leaf is incised, and below the inscription is a twig with
four leaves. The letters are boldly and clearly, if somewhat irregularly,
engraved.
The name is a fairly common one : it occurs in Athens {I.G. iii. 61a iii.
B ii. ; 1280a), Rhodes {IG. xii. I. 071), Rome (I.G. xiv. 1607«; C.I.G. 6406),
Lycia (C.I.G. 4299), etc. (C.I.G. 7309, 8514). EvirXov^i also occurs frequently,
and EvTr\oio<i (I.G. xiv. 1930) and EvirXotcov (I.G. vii. 3468) are each found
48
MARCUS NIEBUHU TOD
once. KinrXoia was a well known epithet of the Cnidian Aphrodite (Pausanias i.
1.3; ('./.(/. 4448. Of. Farnell, CnUs of the Greek .States ii. 680).
9. Found on tlie sea shore at the foot of the hill known as TovXa
above Kastelia. On a fragment of a white limestone stele, of which portions
of tiie upper, right and left hand edges are preserved. Height "lOo m. ;
breadth 27 ni.
EnirPAMMATEorEYME
r YM N A S I A ?xor^
.PATEolToYHENlAAA
■"^NAIlAPXoYA E A EH I jx
.KIAAA E'I'HBci-
vl XPHXIMIAA
4>IAANo^
API2T1>S%/
'Etti ypafifxareoi; Kvfi€i^[iSa ?]
yvfivaaidpy^ov Se
- - QKp<'neo<i Tov "Sevuiha
[^uTTO'yv^fivaaiiip-^ov Be Aeftw-
5 [t'O? Tov 'A]XKidBa. 'E<f)rj^oi-
9 Xprjai/xiBa
9 ^{\(ovo<;
'Apia-Ti^ov
(?) AioaK[opiSa ?]
The letters are well and clearly incised, ar\d seem to belong to the second
century B.C.
In the first line we must restore F,v/x€u[iBa] or Evfiiv[ov^] : the space is
insufficient for Evfiev[(oi/o<;] (I.G. iv. 1485, 1. 93), and the name Eu/te'i/to?,
borne by the celebrated rhetor- of Autun, is not found till the third or fourth
century A.D. It is not possible to restore the first name in 1. 3. : either two
or three letters precede the -oKpaTcoi;, but Bechtel-Fick {Griech. Peraoncnna-
men, p. 173-5) give no fewer than twenty-seven names which fulfil this
condition. In 1. 9 AiocrK[ovpi8a] might \)e the true reading: the names
AioaKopo^ (.see Pape-Benseler, and add I.G. iii. 1160,1192, 1202, 1267 0,
NOTES AND INSCRIPTIONS FROM S.-W. MESSENIA.
49
Aio(TK6pLo<i (Suidas s.v.) and AioaKopa'i {C.I.G. 1495) also occur, but are very
rare. Of the remaining names mentioned in the inscription Hevidha<i occurs
at Corinth {T.G. iv. 3o2), wliile 'B,evidhr)<i is the name of two Corintliians
{(•f. Pape-Benseler, Wdrtcrhvch) : Ae^Lcou is found only in I.G. vii. 299 '^ and
Cicero in Verr. act. ii. lib. ;"), cap. 42 (where the better supported reading is
Dexo), and as a title bestowed upon Sophocles after his death (Etym. Magn.
S.V.): 'AX/ftaSa? appears to be unknown, though 'AXKcSa<; {I.G. xii. 1. 922) and
'A\Kid8r)<; (f.G. xiv. 5) occur : 'Kpiari'xp'i is found atThespiae {I.G. vii. 1742)
and Hyettus (ibid. 2810), and 'Apia-Tix^^, 'ApLcra-Tixn ^t Tanagra {ibid. 799,
800) : XprjaifiiSa'i I cannot find elsewhere, though the name appeal's in the
form Xpr]i/j,l8a<; in an inscription of Oetylus.
A discussion of the office of the v7royufiva<Tcap)(^o<i by M. Glotz will
be found in Dar.-Sagl. vol. ii. pt. 2, p. 1679 s.v. Gymnasiarchia, together with
a list of the places where the title occurs. To that list must now be
added Argos (?) (No. 1 above) and Troezen {I.G. iv. 753 add. p. 381), while
for Thera24 there is the further evidence of I.G. xii. 3, 338, 339, 342, 391a,
392a, [395], 517, and for Pergamum that of Inschr. von Fergamon 256, 323,
467, 468.
The ypa/jLfjLareu'i of line 1 is probably the ypafifiareix: i(f>r]^(i)v rather
than an eponymous magistrate : in the latter case we should expect the
formula iirl ypafx/xaTeo'i EiVfjLep[i8a], yv/xvacnap^^^ovvTO^; - - oKpareof k.t.\.
10. Found near the village of Remoustapha in the deme Aiireia. On
a stele of hard white limestone, of which the upper part is lost. Height
•26 m. : breadth -28 m.
)2M
I Aetiska"oeittap^
tMloYZoayrroTASlooiNAPMo:
tlV7lEPAl2.TAZAAMATP020H PHTf^^
AOojNAPMOSTPIAKAITAMEPAI KAITANA'
^AAlMAEl^lTYX ri^AeiAEfcAAOOIMAl'MO
LTPIA>ion,,,,TiAPT"MNOMOMri ^J^"0|n^4^/^^^[
U^APNoMEiA'fOTEl ^AT^^^J^iEPA^TAXA
lATpozroiAE 6IAYloi"'PA=^ANTEZTOE"IXi
fMICrJTANOOlNAPM >3z:tpiana"o^ont^Tai<-
^ITANAEPilTPA I^TAY TAi ! f P A^/Ml T E 2 E M
.ITAA ANAloiNAtJAN^'> Ef J Tn_ yoiB I A\I01 Y"o
TONNAONTAS. AAMATPo£
2* According to Lolling's copy : Leonardos
(vol. cil. add. p. 744) reads AtpKoiyos.
2* For Thera M. Glotz quotes C.I.G. 2461 :
this should read 2466 (=/.(?. xii. 3, 392 a).
H.S. VOL. XXV.
By a curious coincidence, however, C.I.G. 2461
as restored by Hiller von Gaertringen in I.G.
xii. 3, 517 does mention the viroyvfiyaffiapxos.
50 MARCUS NIEBUHK TOD
- - [ev]{K)ocrfiiap ?
SecTTVOv €pyfrei S -^
el {8)i Ti^ fca TToel Trap t[ov v6]-
[/xov ^a\ixLovadu) viro ra<i dotvapfioa\rpl\-
5 [a<f] ^^ lepac<i Td<i Aa/xarpo?, (9)r]pi'jTQ) [8e]
a doLvapixoarpia kul raX lepal Kal tciv «[X-]-
Xdv a imrv)^(tiaa, ei 8e ku a Ooivapfxo-
arpia irodnji Trap rov vofiov Tivd ttolTjv i) aLti]-
ra irapvofxel cnroTeicrdTQ) }^(\ i€pd<; to.^ ^["]"
10 fiaTpo<i, rot Be ^iSvtoi 7rpd^avTe<i to iiri^d-
fXLOV rdv doivapfioaTpiav dnoSovTO) tul de-
wi' rdv he prjrpav ravrav ypd-^aure^ ev
ardXav \i6lvav dvOevroi roi ^iBvioi viro
rov vaov rd<i Adfiarpo<;.
The letters are small, but carefully engraved, and point to the latter
part of the third or the first half of the second century B.C. as the date of the
inscription. The forms of the AlOIi are earlier than those of the Andania
mysteiy-inscription {ca. 91 B.C.), where they appear as AZOlOj. The letters
GOnn are considerably smaller than the rest: of this dwarfing of U
I know no other example.
We have here the close of a document regulating the observance of the
sacrt'd feast {Belirvov 1. 2) at a Deraeter temple of the existence of which we
first loarn from the present inscription. All infringement of the rules is to
bo punished by a fine of 200 drachmas, which are to go into the sacred
treasury. The thoinarvivstria passes sentence, which she also executes in
conjunction with the lepal and anyone else who happens to be present : if,
however, she is privy to the offence or is herself the offender, the exaction of
the fine devolves upon the ^iSvioi, who are also entrusted with the duty of
having a copy of the ordinance engraved in stone and set up below the
temple of Demeter.
L. 1 We may perhaps restore [eu](K)oa/jLiav : cf. the Andania inscription
already referred to (Collitz-Bechtel 4089), 1. 89, where a chapter
is entitled dKoafiovfrcov.
L. 2 Aelirvov cf. loc. cit. 1. 95 lepov SetTrvov.
'lip-kjrel Dor. future of epirfo. The word is frequently used
in a ceremonial sense, e.g. C.I.G. 2554 1. 77 ; 255G 1. 33, 35, 3S :
I.G. iv. 951 1. 79, SO.
L. 4 Soivap/xoarpia, 'the mistress of tlie banquet.' The word occurs
el.sewhere only in C.I.G. 1435, 143G, 1439, 1440, 1451 [ = ColIitz-
Bechtel 4522] i'-^ Collitz-Bechtel 4089 1. 32; and in an unpub-
lished ijiscription from Kalyvia Sochas (near Sparta). In the
first two cases it is .sj^elt 6uvap/x6arpia (cf. ('^)uvap^o<; I.G. vii.
-•' .Mtistei's restoration Ooivapin6orpiat' ds at the end of 1. 4 are pcrfeetlj- plain on the
|Aa|u]ias iiiUJit 1»; ahandoned, a.s the h-tteis AP stone.
NOTKS AND rXSC'RIPTIONS FROM S. W. MKSSHNIA. 51
101)8, 2721, etc.), in the last it appears as aetvapfioa-Tprjar'' It
may be shown, I think, with considerable probability that the
title occurs only in connection with the worship of Denieter and
Cora, The unpublished inscription referred to is a dedication to
these goddesses ; in Collitz-Bechtel 4089 the reference is ex-
pressly to d dotvapfMoaTpia d et? AdfiaTpo<i, and our prcsejit
inscription plainly refers to the Deineter cult. This leaves us
with C.I.G. 1435, 1430, 1439, 1440, 1451. Now
(1) C.r.G. 1435, 1430, 1439 occur in a group of inscriptions
copied by Fourniont ' ^tw %K\al3ox<^pi(fi in troqdo (1438, 2)ro2)e
templum) ApoUinis,' and consisting o{ C.I.G. 1402, 1407, 1434-39,
1443.'-'' That these were nil found together is confirmed by
their homogeneous character : all are honorary inscriptions on
the bases of statues, and of the nine statues seven were certainly,
all probably, those of women. Since, then, three of these (1402,
1439, 1443) have been rediscovered at Kalyvia we are naturally
led to see in Fourmont's ' templum Apollinis ' the church of
' Ayta So(f>ia at Kalyvia, or some site close by from which its
stones were taken. But the late Dr. von Prott adduced strong
reasons ^^ for identifying this site with the 'EXeva-ivtov referred to
by Pausanias (iii. 20, 7). He speaks of ' Weihungeu an Demeter
und Kora ' (presumably the unpublished inscription above cited
and C.I.G. 1434), 'die einmal ausdriicklich als 'EXevarivcai
bezeichnet werden ' (Tsountas, 'E0. 'Apx- 1892 p. 20 No. 9).
The probability seems to me to gain strength from the fact
above noticed that seven of the nine inscriptions from the site
copied by Fourinont — and, we may add, two of the three added
by Tsountas, loc. cit. — are certainly in honour of women.
(2) C.I.G. 1440 was found by Fourmont ' arw Bt'r^a.'
Where this is I do not know, but it is noteworthy that the
inscription from 1. 5 to 1. 18 reproduces word for word one
found at Kalyvia (Tsountas, loc. cit. p. 25 No. 8), and the two
must therefore refer to the same woman, KXavhla Aa/jLoaOeveia
UparoXdov,^^^ who is expressly referred to as Upeia Ko/ja?.
(3) C.I.G. 1451 was copied by Fourmont 'StoJ S/cXa/io^w/at'o)
2}ro2oc templum Ongae.' It also is now at Kalyvia. The refer-
-•' For the representation of fl by (t in Laco- AE2AME
nian inscriptions cf. aueariKe (CoUitz-Heclitel A r» m a rr
4500), otV( = e€d.', j7>/(;. 4444, 1. . '•.I ), and various MAR
names with initial 2«i-, 2i- (= &fo-), e.g. 2ei- OY^
iUi757/r, SeiTfinoj, 2i5e/cTay, ^'nro/jLiros, cfc. Per- [irpoo-] 1 56{ajU€'[j'oif rh ayd]\\u>fj.a no(ir\lou) - - ■]
lia[is to a false analogy is due the et of aeivap- {t)ov {a)[v5p6s].
fiSffrpria. -* .-Ifhcn. MiU.al. xxix. 1904, p. 7 foil.
-^ In C I.G. 1443 one line lias been oniittfil : -" The | V., V. in Tsountas' first line is certainly,
after 1. 5 \vi^ should r. ad I tlsink, to he restored [KAai/ Ao]^orT[fJe'i eiai'l
npaToA.cioi/].
E 2
52 MARCUS NTEBUHR TOD
ence to a ft? -ra.'i dea^ evae^eia leads ns a priori to connect tlic
woman named in it witli the cult of Denictcr and Cora.
Since we have tlms connected the title of 6oLvapfi6<npLa
Avith the worship of these two goddesses, we may argue inversely
that since the term is found in four (C.I.G. 1435, 1430, 1439
and the unpublished text) or possibly five ( ? G.I. (J. 1451)
inscriptions from Kalyvia and must be restored in a sixth
(Tsountas, 'E</). ' ^~px• 1^02, p. 25, No. 8), the source from which
those stones were derived is very probably the '^X^vaiviov.
L. 5. X is a modification of h, the usual sign for drachma in Attic ^^
inscriptions: it recurs at Cnidus {Brit. Mus. No. Dccxcv) and
Thera {l.G. xii. 3. 327 1. 14 corrigenda). At Lindus the sign [_
is found {Brit. Mus. ccclviii), and ^ at Pergamum {Inschr. von
Pcrrf. 374 D 7) : this latter sign usually denotes the dcnariiis,
which was equal in value to 1^ Asiatic drachmas, and is so used
in the inscription cited (B 22, 25, C 13, D 5, 9).
6r]pr]T(o = 6r}paeT(o, the contraction of a + e = 77 being Doric
(Boisacq, Diolectcs Doric7is p. 64 foil.): ' nachjagcn {vcrfolgen)'
For this explanation I am indebted to Prof. U. von Wilamowitz.
Gf. .the term ' pursuer ' in Scotch law. There is no room on the
stone for the 0>]p7JT(o[aav] which we would expect.
L. 6. We must probably write lepai rather than lepac, and identify
these officials with the lepac of the Andania inscription {cf.
Le Bas-Foucart, Explic. No. 326a, p. 168) : they are sharply
distinguished from the priestesses {Upeai), as the lepoc from
the lepelf;.
From the use of the feminine tuv dWdv a CTriTv^^coaa we
may conclude that only women were admitted to the sacred
banquet : cf. Collitz-Bechtel 4495 1. 10, dpcrr]<; 8e ovSel^;
TrapecTTai. Freiherr Hiller von Gartringen has suggested to me
that the occasion may have been a Thesmophorietifcst. Cf.
Aristoph. Thesmophor. 1150, ov ^rj dvSpdaiv ov defxirov claopdv
opyia a€/j,i'd deaiv, and ibid. G55 foil.
L. 8. Tlodtrji, =7rpoarif}: I do not know a parallel for this use of the
active of Trpoa-irj/ni, though in the middle it often = 'allow,'
' approve.'
L. 10. JiiSvioi. The title occurs elsewhere only at Sparta to denote the
five annual officers who acted as overseers of the youths. It is
written ^iSeoi or ^iBvot in Laconian inscriptions, ^iBraioL in
Pausanias (iii. 11, 2; 12, 4), ^eiSioi, in Anccd. Oxon. ii. 290,
Suidas, Eustath. and Phavorinus, and ^eiStaiot in Fourmont's
spurious inscriptions. The spelling here used, ^ihvioi, does not
^ It is also found in Thera {J.O. xii. 3, 327, 1. 144). In papyri various signs are used,
NOTES AND INSCRIPTIONS FROM S.-W. MESSENIA. 53
elsewhere occur, but is etyniologically tlie correct one, the word
being connected with IBvloi i.e. FiSvloi, ' witnesses.' The
digainnia is here, as often in Laconian inscriptions, represented by
yS ; cf. Miillensicfen, Be tit. Lacon. dialedo p. 47 [177] foil.
L. VI. 'Ei/. This is the first certain instance of iv = et? in Doric. 'A
Jhrrnsiicm usn alienum.' (Van Herwerden, Zr.': Dialect, s.v.).
'Er i<^6hiov was read, though somewhat doubtfully, by Foucart
(Le Bas-Foucart 157rt 1. 50), but rejected by ^iyXowas. {B.G.H.
LS04, p. 143). Meister restored e[j/] rov alcova (Collitz-
Bechtel 45G0 1. 4), but afterwards altered tliis to e[<i] rov
alSiva (il). Nachioort, p. 14G). The present instance, however,
admits of no doubt.
11. In Petalidhi on a white marble herm found to the north of the
village, now preserved in the courtyard of the house of Bacrt'Xeio? V.
MoAra/to?. Breadth '30 m. ; thickness "225 m, ; height (without head)
183 m. Published in minuscules only by W. Kolbe, Sitzh. d. Bed. Akad.
1905, p. 53.
AAeMereixioec
CAHAPArAAON
lPONl^CL)Ml-lC^Ec
CHNHHYNOIC
KYAeCINI-irAAl
CeNYIONAPlCTOJ
NOCMeCCHNlOY
HAePAieiNHC
ArUTACC-TAPTHV
HAAXeNeKIATe
pu)N4>AMe AeeA
AANeccireNOYC
phallus
MerAKYAocAPe
coAieKieAi <
OCKOYPUNeK
TeKAIHPAkAe
OYC
TONHPAKAeiAl-N
APMONeiKON
HnOAIC
Ahe fx,e T€i)(^i6ea\cra Trap' dyXaovl Ipov ^Idcofir]^
5 Mea\a7']V7j ^uvol<;\\ KuSea-iv i^y\di\(r€v
vibv 'ApLaT(ovo<; M^ecra-rivioi'l rjS' cpaTeipt]^\
54 MARCUS NIEBUHR TOD
10 ' AjyrjTaf;, %'irdprriv\\ r) Xd-^ev €(k) (7r)aT€<po}v'
(f)a/jL€[v] (8)€ 'FjVXdveaai yivov<;\ fiiya kvBo^ dp€\<r(6)ai
15 €/c T€ Ai\\oaKovp(av €k\ re koI 'V{paK\i\ov<i.\
20 TOP '\\paK\elh'))v\ ' Apixoi>eLKov\\ t) 7r6\i<;.
The letters are large (average lieiglit O'io in. in the epigram, 1)2 m. in the
subscription) and, though irregular, show signs of careful engraving. They
belong most probably to the second century A.D.
' This wall-girt Messene, hard by Ithome's glorious sanctuary, with public
honours glorified me the son of Messenian Aristou and lovely Ageta, whose
ancestral home was Sparta : and we toll the Greeks that we have won great
honour of race both from the Dioscuri and also from Heracles'
Tne name of the man commemorated, beiug unsuited to elegiac verse,
was added in an iambic senarius : the same expedient is resorted to in Kaibel,
Epiijr. [/)•((£€. 751, SSC). The reference to Messene and tlie absence of any
mention of Corone make it highly probable that the stone was originally
set uj) at Messene. A Publius Aelius Harmonious was honoured by the
Messenians with a statue erected at Olympia (Collitz-Bechtel 4G59), and the
name is frecpiently found at Sparta, usually with the names Tiberius Claudius
prefixed (Collitz-Bechtel 4481 ; Le Bas-Foucart 173a, 176 ; C.I.G. 1249
col. iv, 12G0, 1846; Sparta Cat. No. 432). A Claudia Ageta is found at
Amyclae {Biit. Mns. t'Xi.ii.) and Memmia Ageta at Sparta (Collitz-Bechtel
4470). The claim to be descended from Heracles and the Dioscuri often
finds expression in Laconian inscriptions, i\()., Le Bas-Foucart 174, 245;
0.1.(1. 1353, 1355 ; 'E0. 'i\.px- 1892 p. 24. Tn two cases descent is traced
fiom the Dioscuri alone (Le Bas-Foucart 245/> : B.G.H. xxi p. 209), in oue
from Poseidon {C.l.a. 1374).
12. Petalidhi (Coione), in the house of Dr. D. Marcopoulos. Upper
part of a stele of hard white limestone. Height "5 m. ; breadth ■43 m.;
thickness 1 m. The insciiptioii begins "28 m. from the top of the stone.
ATAenN ATAeOKAHZ
AAMAPXOZ EniTENHZ
NiKnN KAEHN
EniTEAHZ AYZIAAMOZ
5 nOAHN
APMOAIOZ
'A.'ydOdiv ' AyadoKXii^;
Ad/j.apxo<; 'E7ri7eV>79
Nf/fOJi' KXewf
'E7r<Te\?;<> AvaiBap.o'i
5 lloXcoi'
'Ap/j.6Bto%
NOTKS AND rNSCKIFTroNS FROM S -W. MKSSENIA. 55
Tlie letters are well and carefully formed : the hastac are thickened consider-
ably at the ends, terminating in rudimentary apices. Tiie character of the
writing and tiie absence of Roman names seem to j)oint to the first half of
the second century B.C. as the date of the inscription.
13. Petalidhi (Corone), built into the wall of the house of A. Kovto^o-
hi-iixiirp6-jTov\o<i. Large limestone slab : height "GS m. ; breadth 'oS m. ;
thickness 1 m. The inscription has been published by Koumanoudes
{'Ad^vatov iv. p. 104), Petrides (Ilapi/ao-o-o? v. p. 907), and Meister (Collitz-
Bechtel 40S3). I repeat it here because the only copy that has appeared in
uncials, that of Petrides, is rightly characterised by Meister as '.sehr
niangelhaft.'
ATAGAITYXAI
EniTPAMMATEOI THNZYNEAPaNNIKATOPDY
TOYA OkAEIAAETOYIAEOr OHKOZTOYKAl EN ATO .'
EnEI/N\NAKAH0EI
W.'yaddi Tv^ai.
Etti ypa/xfiaTeo'; tmv avvehpwv ^LKa(y)6pov
Tou A[i]oK\€i8a fcTou? Be 6y[S]oriKocrTov Kol ivarov,
inel dvaK\7]6€l[<i
The letters are careless and irregular : those of 1. 1 are somewhat larger thnn
those of the succeeding lines. The inscription was never completed.
M. follows K. in reading Nt/faropo? in 1. 1, but the name is suspicious
and P. rightly gives Y as the last letter of the line. Whether the fifth letter
of the name is really a T written by an error for T or a F which resembles T
owing to a damage of the stone, I cannot decide.
The inscription is dated in ' the eighty-ninth year.' It is uncertain
whether the era is reckoned from the defeat of Andriscus (148 B.C.), from
the destruction of Corinth (146 B c), or from the organization of the province
of Achaia (145 B.C.) : see Foucart's note on Le Bas-Foucart llGa and
Meister's on Collitz-Bechtel 4689 1. 10. In any case this inscription belongs
to about the year 57 B.C.
Marcus Niebuhr Tod.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE CYZICENE DISTRICT, 1904.
1. At Pan'Jerma : small base, broken, '08 m. across, letters 01.
HP AK A El ah: 'RpaK\€iBij<i
hPAKAEI 'HpuKXei-
AOYGEH oov Oeo)
oABitovn 6\^i<p vir-
A - A I [ep ..... .]
2. Small fragment of cippiis, diam. '11, letters "02.
jAbIL ^f«5] oX^up
ITOZAONTEI ? K6ip]to<: Aovyet[vo^
lOYflPArMAlrY ]iov '^■payp.aTev-
^ t -* s t]^9 . . . •
3. Pediment (0*24 broad) with radiated bust of long-haired god :
below (letters '015):
TYXh 'Aya0fj]TvxV
4 Altar with relief of bucranium, letters "Olo.
IIG ABIU) A]u 6X^10)
AICA
ARLP
5. Broken stele (O'lo broad) with relief of Zeus standing, eagle on
ground r., letters '015.
TTAAOYAM 'AjxTaXou
For the type of relief cf. J.H.S. xxiv. 22.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE CYZICENE DISTRICT, 1904. 57
G. Block 0-35 X 0*23, used later for capital, letters irregular, about -03.
_l \ A]t[l o]\[yQi'&) ?
C H K O Y (x) B €t]a-i7/c6(v)&) ? ^[tu-
»JkONYnePIA fiop virep {€)a[v-
TOYKAIBIO^ rov Kal ^lov
AlieKNC '<^]«t TiKP(o[v
^ I T IC^oX T[oi)V KCOfjLr)T(OV ?
ElatjKoo'i may perhaps be used as an equivalent for the coinmon
€7n]Koo<i : the illiterate spelling ela}]Kovo<i is j)aralleled by arovdv for arodv
in Ramsay, C.B. i. (Gl).
7. Slab used later for base of two columns, letters distinct and well cut
•03-04.
"AGHITYXH- 'K\yad9)L Ti^x^t
P H A I A N A ' 'A v]pr]\ia Na< [/3t
nIHITA" a]vr,'> . ■ .
HIMOh
ITHNir ^TWI/ TO)
fvjYZP Atoji-uo-ft) ?
Nos. 1-7 and a corner of a stele with relief of a bull's head are said
to have been brought from a village near Gonen.
"OX/Sto? is an uncommon epithet of Zeus (cf Latyschev i. 24>,J.H.S. xi. 22G
(Ciliciaj, G.I.G. 2017 = Atk. Mitth. vi. 264 (Gallipoli)), and may be compared
with nXouo-io<?, Pausi. iii. 19. 7. It appears not to be necessarily connected
either with Olbia (cf J.H.S., xxiii. 37) or with Olba in Cilicia.
8. Funeral stele with relief of parting '30 x '24, letters 01.
inilXHONH^I Zwrixn 'Ov'>^al[(iov,
XAIP X«'P[^
I was shewn at Panderma a copy of a stone at Ermeni Keui, reading
aietpe4)Hs I iprio
9. Mahmun Keui, near Panderma: side of sarcophagus 170 x -60,
letters "06.
YHOMNHMA^
ATTINACMHNO<t>IAOYOKATeCKeY
ACeNeAYTWKAITHCYNBIWAYPHAIA
AMIN
*ATTtm(?) M»;ro^i'Xou o KareaKev-
aa€v eavTw kuI rfj avvfiiat AvprjXia
'Afi{fi)i(j)
58 F. W. HASLUCK
10. Rest-liouse near Debleki, on tlie chaussee, one liour from Pandemia :
Funeral banquet stele, three persons, "75 x "50, letters •025.
MII<l<HAnOAAOct)A MiKxr} 'AiroWoifxi-
NOY XAIPE vov, x^^^tpe.
A sketch of tliis stone is published in Black and White, Feb. 1.3, 1897,
p. 207.
Of the inscription copied by Munro at Aksakal (J. U.S. xvii. 274 (I'J)),
I made out, above the couplet published, LHL^^HOIZ XAIPE. The relief
is of the horseman-type common in Thrace, with which the serpent and tree
is here, as frequently, joined ; it has been defaced intentionally.
11. Aboulliond : fragment with mouldings, 0'29 x 0"19, letters 0-03.
(|)IAOK"i I (i)l\0KT7][Tri<i.
An uninscribed stele with relief of Apollo Citharoedus — the figure is
0'53 high and headless —is built into a house on the hill of H. Georgios, and
deserves mention on account of its divergence from the ' Sauroctonos ' type
represented on coins as the cultus image of Apollonia.
The inscription of Aboulliond published J.H.S. xxiv. 26. 17 should read
KAITOYZT for KAHOYZT.
12. Kermasti, house-wall of Soteris : broken bancjuet stele, letters
about 02.
KATOMAPE XAIPE
We were told at Kermasti of a male statue found at Kavak Keui, and
sent to the Impeiial Museum, with the inscription 'ApreytitSo? ('Apre/xtCTto? ?)
ypa/jLfiaTev^ tm S/jfiM : it is evidently from Miletopolis (Melde), where
unofficial excavation is bringing to light a great deal of late Roman
architectural detail and sculpture : coins of Miletopolis are extremely
common in Kermasti, whence also comes a definitely Miletopolitan inscription
{B.C.K XXV. 327. (6)).
A copy of an inscription 'Oreoveix; (i.e. 'Erewi/eu?) Kvapearfp /j,vr]/j,r)<}
X^^pi-v was also shewn us.
13. At Susurlu I was shewn a small stele (0'46 X 027) of rough work,
representing
Tree and altar. Apollo in
Worshipper leading sheep, long robe
holding lyre 1.
and patera r.
The inscription (letters '015) is much worn and I could only decipher
onn(?)aaoz
Similar stelae from the district are enumerated in J.H.S. xxii. 87.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE CYZICENE DISTRICT," 1904. 59
Balukiser: altar 0-82x0 35,
14. Meiuloina (Mendokhora), near
letters Of).
NACHNTYXI
KHTHCYNBin
KAlKPICc|)0
[<AlONHClM(
TATEKNAN
HMNHCXA
PIN
Na'crtof Tv^i-
Koi K.pia{7r(i))
Kul 'Ovrj<Tl/Jl.[Q)
TO. TCKVa (!) fi[v-
piv
15. Balukisor, in the street: altar 001 X 055, letters O-i.
AOHNAlZTPO(t)n 'ASijvaU Tpo(f)(f}
lAlARHMATHKAl iSia nyfiuTTJ kuI
AMMAETOYZZKr 'Afi/xa, erov^ aKj'
16. In cemetery north of the town, rough granite ditto 092 x 041,
letters irregular, about •04.
TYXI-ieP Tvxv'^p-
MOYANNI fxov'Avvi-
'^TAYK'^NI ■ (p TXvKcovi-
AN'^OPetAN avM Bpeyjrav-
IMNHMHC TJt nvrjfirj^
X A P I N %"P"^
Villages in and about the Karadere valley .
17. Ilidja: marble block 0'G8 x 028, in mosque wall, letters "02.
IM-ITPOA^I Mr}rp6Ba}p[ufi
■EXWAEH T€xvn'? Be IT . . .
ElKOZTO^MZ^ eUoa-Tov fie . . .
HPnAEETO<t)OC r/p7ra( o-)e to (f)6o[v€pov
/\ riAPOAEIT/ Trapobelra
KAIZYNEK Kal (TV, veK[p6<; Trep ioivl
KtPOY(t)RTO
A AA^
18. As.sar Alan, at the moscjue : altar 103 X 0*59, letters '03.
YROMNHMA^
AlsElKHTOYEYH^
POYOKATZZKEYAIEN
EAYTQKAIH"YNAI
KIZQTIQ^
"TiTOfivrifia
^ AveiKrjTov (tov) Fivrjfie-
pov o KareaKevaaiv
eavTO) Kal Tij yvvai-
kI ZcOTlO)
60 F. W. IIASLUCK
19. lb. in mosque wall high up: fragment of sarcopliagus, letters (1+,
right edge complete.
AC . W^
N . IKICIT..IIAP^
OYMTICIuKAITH
iNAKAITOICriAIAIOICAY . . . /cat rot? TratS/oi? au- . . .
e...Y...XeiONUJAeKA toO ?] w Se Kal
CI . CBAHOIINAIOeAHCei . . . ai[o]^ ^\r]dPivaL OeXrjaet
^A<t) . . . . {Brjv.) B(f>,
A much "worn stele with relief of sacrifice to Zeus is built into the same
mosque.
20. Boghaz Keui : fragment of small stele, with relief of bust, letters "015.
PHNH Mr)Tpl 'ApSet^prjv^
MHTPOA'' MrjTpoSaypo^i
NEO . KAN a]ve6[i]]Kav
P|~ 'x^a]pL[arr]piov
The name of the goddess is a purely conjectural restoration based on
J.H.S. xxii. 190. (1).
21. Yeni Keui (left bank of Tarsius, below Hodja Bunar) : large
oblong block with moulding 130 X 065, much broken, worn, and scratched,
letters 03.
HIK
OirPAcj)
EKAinAEO)
AXAPHCAAIE ? 7rapoBelT]a %a/3>;? . . .
EiriACEYCEPIIILL etVa? €U(T€^ci]<; €[veK€v
TOOANEINAAE to Oaveiv dXe[yeivov
AYCAAEA4)0II:0M ^ rj]8u<: dBe\(f>ol<i . .
(j)O.NEINAAAAnPINHA (f)0[o]u€lv, dXXa irplv )]X[iKia^
KA.IONECONnPOTEPOl ««[*' ry]ove(ov 'Trp6T€po[<; ?
Both extremities of 1. 7, and the beginning of 1. 9, are doubtful.
The Hodja Bunar inscription J.H.S. xxiv. 28. (28) should probably read
i7nr[ap;(€&) rt)? Kv^i]Kov rather than i7nr[cip])(^ov.
22. Alexa (on the left bank of the Karadere, below Suleimanly) : small
stele with pediment Ol-o x 025, and relief of horseman riding r. towards tree,
letters 02.
nOTAMHENBEIAn UorafiM 'Ev/SecXo)
EPENNIOSKPISnOZ 'Epevvio<; Kpl<nro<;
EYXHN evxrjt'.
INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE CYZICENE DISTRICT, 1904. 61
This inscription, found close clown by the bed of the river, is paralleled
by CI.G. 3700 (seen by Pococke at Pandemia), and identifies the river
"E/x7ry]\o<; of Anna Coninena xiv. 5 definitely with the Kara-dere ; similar
dedications to an unnamed river are to bo found in J.II.S. xix. 76, (31), (32),
and B.C.H. xxv. 328, (7)-(15), inclusive : a neighbouring cult of Aesepus is
mentioned by Aristides (i. 570, l>ind.). "Kfi^iXo'^ occurs as a man's name in
J.H.S. xxiv. 33, (49), and EMBIAA, from 'Efi^cXci<;, is perhaps the solution
of Fabricius' EM-PI X A from the neighbouring village of Ilidja {Sitzb. Berl.
Ahid. 1894, 919).
23. ih. Banquet stele 073 x 0-41, letters 012.
ZOTYZ K6tu9 ?
M . NEL . '^SMIKKH Mei/e/3to9 ? MIkkt].
24. Gonen : M. Spiridion Bonsignor's copy of the inscription mentioned
in J.H.S. xxiv. 29, runs as follows :
YHOMNHMA
lKHct)OPOYTOYMOCXIOYO
CBNAYTWZWKAnirYNAlKl
rAYKCJNIAIIANABTIC . . K
XXAni(ja)pnpcXXH-LN5oN
CEIHDOAEI . B(t)KAlYIEYOi
T<^THCTYNBtOPYXIACEYO
OKTAMOYLEYN . EBA . NT
moipatoaionAAnha . or
OYXHOinAPAAOYCTAEAAAO<t)T
cn)N , . XON"EPANNEKHct)OPOEO
KAAAOCAKAIETICnClcaOOr
c;>NrAPITXEP<n>X . . HAa
TTTOfivrifia
N]t/C770o/Jou Tov Moa-')(tov o [Kare-
(TKeva\aev eauTM ^S)v /cat t^ 'yvi^aiKi
. . . TXvK(ovi8t, eav Se Ti<i veKpa
aXka eTTiOrjcrr] ? tj crvK-qar) ?
8&)]cret rfi ttoXci {Srju.) /3<f), koX VTrev0v\vo<i
earai] tcS t^9 TUfi^aipv^ca<; eyKKi^ixari
The stone is a stele with pediment and relief of two busts above the
inscription : its dimensions are 1*28 x 0"05 x 015.
25. ih. : fragment in wall of Hotel Bonsignor, letters '035.
IBOYAHSK yjrr)(f)i(rpiaTjc ^ovXrj^ K[al
TH"^ rPO BrjfjLov^ tt;? [XafijirpolrdTr}^
YIIKHNHN K]v^iKr]vd)v [TToXeo)'!
Illilllllllllllll
62
F. W. HASLUCK
26. ib.: slab in fountain near tlie old mosque, l"lox072, letters
•02-015,
DMNHMA
OVn^'^'^'^YOeKlHCAMHNAC . . . YKOINHAIOY
^c^ ^^NevoPHCA
'T7r]6fiv7]/j,a
. , ov HottKlov 0 €K{T)r)crd/j,'r]v Ao[vKio]v K.o{p)vrfKiov
27. Bigha-shehr, outside Ulu Jami : altar with moulding, 072x0 40,
letters "04.
:ebizoeo<^iao
KATEZKEYASEMc
bwvion:ebia0eo
3|AA0YrATPIlAIA
-M-CXAPINEIAETi
.AKEINH-HAl'
Elt^TANElWXB
The name Sebes occurs in Nonnus xxviii. 29.
%€/3c<i &€0(f)l\o[u
KarecTKevaa-ev to[v
(f)iXa Ovyarpl ISia
fj,v]rjfxr]<; ■^dpiv el Se Tf[?
fie^raKeivija-r), Sco-
cr]et TcG rafxeiw (8r}v.) y3,.
The following inscriptions are gleaned from the MS. journal of Dr. Covel
in the British Museum.
(a) Cyzicus (Add. MS. 22914, p. 8).
YHOMNHMA
AYXNIAOZHAEY
0HPOMENHSOKAT
TEZKEYASENAY
THO lOY
AlOS tlOS
'TTTOfXvrj/jLa
Av^vi8o<i ^Xey-
6(e)p{(i))fiivrj<i 6 Kar-
-tCr^ea-Kevacrev av-
rfi 'O[«Ta/3i09 ?] 'lou-
Mihallitch (Add. MS. 22912, p. 2G3)
(&)
(«)
AYPX* APISTIAOY
OKATESKEYAZEN
(jJlAEZTATHrYNA
ZYN4)EP0YZHK
NHMA^
AENTIANOY
OYKBEiBIAZTEP
NHZEKXAPITOZ
AYZANIOY^
['TTTO/AI'r^/Aa]
Avp. 'ApiariSov
0 KarecTKevaaev {rfi
cfiiXeaTarr] yvva^iKl
%vv(f)epoua-T) /([al
V7r6/ji]i'r]/j.a
. . ? Ova^XevTiapov
, . . . ov Ke B€i/3ia<i Tep-
? TTOLJjaai TO<i l}]av<7avLuu
INSCRIPTIONS mOM THE CYZICENE DISTRICT, 190 4. 03
{d) Brusa, in the btitli (Add. MS. 22012, p. 250).
VnOMNHMA
AEYNElKOYKAITHCeYNOCAYTOYKeiCON
nAlAiaJNAYTHNTOICAeAOinOIC
TOAM
Ke(|)ICKCjJY . . . tOTOY
"Tirofiirqfia
A. YjVV€IKOV KoX Tt)<? (<TVV€UI>0V) UVTOU K€ TO)U
7rai8i(ou avTMv toI<; Se \onrol<; [ cnrayopevay
ft 8i Ti<? ] ToA,/i[ry cret, Scoaet Te5 tepcS
ra^ieitp hrjv. ^<f>, ?] k€ (f)i<TKai
The designation of tlie monument as virofivr^fia betrays its Cyzicene
origin : Cyriac {B.C.H. xiv, 540) notices that stones were brought from
Cyzicus to Brnsa for building purposes. Carelessness of lapidary or copyist is
to blame for the confusion in 1. 1. The inscr. is published in a mangled form
by Lucas (1719, vol. i. p. :300, No. 13).
F. W. Hasluck.
[The following inscription (from Add. MS. 22912, p. 25), though not
from tiie district of Cyzicus, is accounted of sufficient interest for insertion
here as locating a small Byzantine site.]
Tuzla : church of the two Theodores.
AYP • HPAKAICrAIOYOlKCON Avp. 'Hpa^Xt? Valov, oUwv
€N€MnOPI0L)KAA0JArP(jL)Ke ev e/xTropio) KaXm 'AypM, xe
HTOYTOYrYNHAYPANTO) V tovtov jvi^t) Avp. 'Ai^tm-
NINAenOHCOMCNeAYTOlC viva ^iroi](Top,€v eavroU
ZHNTEC Ke4)P0N0YNT€C ^wfre? Ke (ftpovoiivre^
CTHAAHNMNHMHN€AYT(jl)N (ttijXXtjv fivi^firjv iavrcov
ZCJNTCUNKA TOJNTOJN i^dyvrwv, Ka[T€Xov'\T(ov tmv
KAHPONO YflOAAOlC KK-qpovol^ixwv avTo]v 'jro\\ol<;
€TeClNAYT(jJ . . . YC;AZlMAe ereatv avrw [i^o]vala{v el) he
TlCerePOC eniBOYAeY t^? eVepo? [ToX/zr;o-t] iirt^ovXev-
CAITAYTHTHTIMHAOYNAI aai, TavTr){v) Tr)(v) tijul^{v) Souvai,
TCjJTAMeiCOAPrYPOYAITPACI tw TUfieifo dpyvpov XiTpa^ t-
KAITOYTOerPAS' AAI ATOJNTINCx)N fcal tovto eypayjra Sia tmv rivoiv
KAKOYPri ACITICAANTOAAAHCI KUKovpyia^- (eYi Ti'i h' av ro\ix}]aL,
MGTeAGHAYTONO06OC fiereXefj avrov 6 Beo^.
XePeieriA X^'per*: Tra-
POAIT€ poZne.
64 INSCRIPTIONS FROM THE CYZICENE DISTRICT, 1904.
The efiTTopiov KaXo? 'A7/J09 is mentioned in Niceph. Pair. (51, Theofhan.
G09, AcU. SS. June 28, p. 840 : cf. Ramsay, KG. pp. 184-5.
The spelling and style are characteristically illiterate throughout: the
double appeal to earthly and heavenly powers against possible desecrators of
the tomb is couched in rather unusual terms : cf J. U.S. xxiii. 84 (34).
For the fine in pounds of silver we may compare B.C.K. xii. 11)9, 11
(Ghemlek) and note; pounds of gold are mentioned in similar inscriptions of
Philippopolis {Heuzey 49) and Cyzicus {Syll. Const, vi. 173, 10) : cf. also
C.I.G. 3640 (Constantinople).
F. W. H.
Note. — While the above was in the press, several of the inscriptions
mentioned have been edited by Dr. Wiegand in his valuable paper on Mysia
{Ath. Mitth. 1904, 254 ff.).
VASES ADDED TO THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM.
Part II.
[Plates I.— IV.]
I CONTINUE the catalogue of the vases recently acquired by the Ashmo-
lean Museum, the first part of which catalogue appeared in this Journal
vol. xxiv. pp. 293-316. As before, the numbers given to the vases are those
which they bear in the slip-catalogue of the Museum.
527. R.-f. Krater : the handles joining the body to the mouth.
H. U\ in.
Decoration on neck, leaves (black) with stalks interlaced.
Obverse. Hermes to r. bearded, wearing chlamys and hat (behind neck),
with drawn sword rushing on Argos, also bearded, naked, whose arms and
legs are covered with eyes, and who kneels to r. Wreaths of both figures
in red.
H.S. — VOL. XXV. fc'
6G
PERCY CJAKDNICH
Reverse. Youth, clad in liimation, loaning on staff.
For the subject, comparo Rosclier, vol. ii. pp. 277-0; Ann. d. 1. 18(55,
150; Mon. (L /. ii. 59. A full list ot" ninety vases in Jnlrrh. liMi.S, p. \VJ.
With our vase, cf. PI. II. ihid.
528. Krater from Capua. Subject, the seizun^ of Oreithyia by Boreas.
Published in J.H.S. 1898, PI. VI. p. 180.
529. Bell Krater. Late style; drawing poor. H. 16 in.
Decoration, laurel wreath round mouth : under handles, elaborate
palmetto.
Obverse. Two groups of warriors. On the left a youth seated on an
altar or cippus, a sword slung round his body ; his hand is held by a bearded
')29 ; OliVKi:sE
n«an ; behind him, a youth holding spear, clad in petasus chlamys and boots.
On the right a dignified male figure clad in Iiimation, wearing fillet, leaning
on staff, a«ldre?ses a seated youth who wears a sword. Hung up in back-
\ASi:s ADDED TO TJIK A8HMOLEAN MUSEUM. 67
ground, spear, shield, ;iiicl lieluiet ; another shickl below. Both the shields
;uh)rne(l with wreatlis.
Iicversc. Two youths, and one bearded man and a youth, in conversation.
I liave been unable to determine the subject of the obverse. The three
youths seem to be returned from some expedition, the seated figure on the
left appears to bo ill or wounded.^ There is a superficial likeness betweeji
529 ; Reveusk
this scene and some of those (e.g. Amcr. Journ. Archaeol. 1899, p. o78), which
are supposed to depict the healing of Telephus ; but the likeness is not
close.
530. Small hydria of the middle of the fifth century. H. 11 in. (PI. I.)
Above design, line of palmettes; below, maeanders.
The blinding of Thamyris. In the midst of a field sits Thamyris clad
in chiton and Thracian boots; his eyes are closed, and the lyre falls from his
outstretched hand. To the left is his mother Argiope, who tears her hair; to
the right a Muse holding a lyre. The lestorations are indicated by
Mr. Anderson in dotted lines.
This vase is described in the Anzeiger of the Jahrhuch for 1902, p. 86,
by Herr Zahn, who however describes Argiope as a Thracian woman. The
marks upon her wrist doubtless, as Zahn suggests, indicate tattooing, which
^ The appearance of a wound in the leg in the engiaving results only from injury to the
surface of the vase..
F 2
68
PERCY GARDNER
would indeed be more suitable in a Thracian woniiui tlian in the nymph
Argiope. Such tattooing is found in the case of the Thracian women on
Orpheus vases.^ Nevertheless the grief seems better suited to the mother
of the bard. A vase from Vulci gives a representation of Thamyris contend-
ing with the Muses ; but the present vase is I think unique in giving us
the disastrous result of the encounter. In the Hades of Polygnotus •' at
Delphi, however, there was a kindred representation : ' Thamyris is seated near
Pelias, his eyes destroyed, his whole appearance very dejected; there is much
hair on his head, and an ample beard; a lyre is cast down by his feet witii
shattered frame and broken strings.' Some points here, the blindness, the
dejection, the cast-down lyre, the abundant hair, correspond ; the difference
as legards the beard is probably one of date, our vase being somewhat later
than the time of Polygnotus ; the broken strings are a detail which the vase-
painter would be likely to omit. I do not, however, suppose that the vase-
painter has been influenced by the group of Polygnotus ; probably he followed
an artistic tradition, the memorials of which have perished.
531. Small hydria. H. 10 in.
Above, architectural pattern ; below, maeanders.
5:31
A lady seated on a chair to r., hoMiii!^' tillrt ( while). Ik't'ure and l)eliind
- Mm,. .1. I. ii. 2:;. ■' I'aii.-^. .\, yo, .■>,
VASES ADDED TO THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM. G9
lier, two attendants ; the one behind bears a niin-or, a spindle (white), and a
basket; the one before a wreatli (white) and a dish.
(Jiven by Mr. Fortnnni.
A plensing gioup representing a (h)niestic interior, but conventional.
533 Re(i-figured oenochoe : vnontli trefoil, H. ,7 in.
Above design, line of palniettes; below, architectural pattern.
Nike, NIKH, clad in long chiton flying r. ; she holds in her hands a
fillet, another is in her hair : before her a great tripod on a basis.
From Nola. Elite Ceramogr. i. Pi. XCI. Cabinet Pourtal^s, PI. VI.,
PourtaUs Catalogue, No. 194. Old field Collection.
This excjuisite little vase is probably a record of a choragic victory at
Athens. It is in the most perfect preservation, and of good style.
ir)o\'. Oenochoe of the latter part of the fifth century. H. 8^ in. (PI. I.)
Palniettes above, niaeanders below.
A S;ityr advancing to r. excitedly towards a Nymph, naked, who
reclines asleep on a rock over which ivy twines, and which is covered by a
panther's skin and drapery ; she is crowned with ivy and holds thyrsus-
Above is the inscription TPAPrilAIA.
This is a marvellous piece of drawing, copied by Mr. Anderson with his
usual skill and fidelity. The head of the Satyr, with loose hair and beard,
is remarkable ; also the anatomy of both figures. Unfortunately the face of
the nymph is injuied.
The interest of the vase, however, resides wholly in the execution ; we
need not seek any recondite explanation of the figures, which stand for an
ordinary satyr and nymph. The name Tragoedia, added to the latter, is
merely fanciful : we are accustomed in vases of this period, especially those
of the Meidias class, to find fanciful names added to the male, and
especially to the female, figures. No doubt there is an appropriateness in
the name as applied to a nymph of the troop of Dionysus ; and ivy-wreath
and thyrsus go very well with the name. But it would be a mistake to
suppose that the vase-painter really intended a representation of the muse
of Tragedy.
It is natural to compare the Athenian relief found in the Peiraeus,* on
which appears a young male figure reclining, with a woman clad in a nebris
seated at his feet, and three actors standing by. On the ground of the inscrip-
tions, which however are certainly later than the relief, it has been sugge.sted
that the two chief figures are Dionysus and Paideia. But the inscriptions
may be neglected ; and if the relief is, as would appear, of votive character,
we are almost obliged to see in the divine beings to whom the actors
record their gratitude Dionysus and Tragoedia. In this case then we seem
* Ath. Mitth. 1882, PI. XIV. p. 389, Robert.
70
PERCY GARDNER
to find a purposeful impersoriatiou of the spirit of tragedy in a nymph of
the Dionysiac circle. But even so, the motive on our vase is so well
known and so inappropriate to ;i i)ersonage like Tragoedia, that we must
rather regard the nympli as an ordinary Maenad.
537 ; OBvr.iisK 537 ; Rkverse
535. Lekythos: fine early style. Red palmettos. H. 25^ in. (PI. LI.)
Apollo (APU) laureate, clad in liimation ; holds patera and lyre; meets
Artemis (APTE) clad in chiton and himation, who holds ocnochoe and bow ;
a ipiiver at her shoulder, a doe walking beside her.
VASES ADDED TO THE ASHMOEEAN MUSEUM 71
Fioiii Ocla.
Fine aiul (ligniHt'il types of the two (icitics. The figure ;iii(l especiiiUy
the heul of Apollo bear so close a likeness to the Apollo ou tlie obverse of
No. 5i24 (J. U.S. 1904, p. JU2) that tlie two vases must come from the same
workshop, ami were probably painted by the same hand.
530. Lekythos : fine style. Black palmettes. H. 12.i in. (PK 11.)
Sacrificial scene. A draped woman, a band in her hair, carrying a patera,
and a youth with drapery girt round his waist, carrying meat on a spit and
tripod inverted.
Unmeaning letters in the field.
From Oela,
537. Small Lekythos without stand : latter part of the fifth century.
H. 71 in.
Decoration of elaborate palmettes.
Obverse, A lady fully draped seated on a chair, her hair loose, in her
1. hnnd a mirror ; behind, alabastron suspended. Above E.
Bevcrsc. Maid-servant advancing with fillet and box. Above OEANO.
(The legends are lost in the engravings.) This vase is very delicate in form
and beautiful in drawing. The name Theano is doubtless fanciful; it was a
common name at Athens.
538. Small round lekythos : late r.-f. style. H. 4 in.
Two hornless deer lying down, one on each side of a tree.
Found in a sfrave at Kertch, together with vases Nos. 541 and 542 and
the armour and ornaments published by Mr. Ernest Gardner in J.H.S. v. 62,
Pis. XLVI. and XLVIl. The vases were no doubt imported from Athens.
Found and presented to the University of Oxford by Dr. Siemens.
539. R.-f. guttus: handle fixed to spout. Fine, not severe, style.
Diam. 3;| in.
Obverse. Satyr running r., holds in r. club, on 1. arm skin of beast.
Reverse. Fox caught in spring trap, which is baited with ox-foot.
Pourlalts Catalogue, p. 100, No. 181, PI. XXIX. Schreiber's Atlas,
Pi. 80, 3. Oldfield Collection.
The representation of the reverse is decidedly interesting, shewing that
the Greeks used iron spring traps, probably armed with teeth. The two
sides lay flat on the ground with the bait between them; when an animal
touched the spring they closed on it. Such a trap, used in recent times, is
preserved in the Ashmolean Museum.
72 PEUCY CJAUDNKK
540. K.-f. guttus : fiuo, not severe. ])iani. o',' in.
r-io
Obverse. Winged male figure kneeling r. playing with astragali.
Reverse. Hornless dappled deer 1. Old field Collection.
541. R.-f. guttus: fine, not severe. Diain. 3;^ in.
.541
Obverse. Satyr squatting, tilting amphora from his shoulder, to fill
drinking-horn.
Revoke. Satyr crawling on the ground, holding out drinking-horn.
VASES ADDED TO THE ASH MOLE AN MUSEUM.
542. I^.-f. qnttiis : tine, nut severe. Diani. 3.! in.
Ohcersc. Dog lumiing.
Bcrcrsc. Hare ileeinLf.
73
542
Nos. 541 and 542 were found in a tomb at Kertch by Dr. Siemens, and
presented by him to the University of Oxford. See No. 538.
>44
74
PERCY GAllDNEU
^ifticjio/i/c/ifomc Ichythi, Nop. 543-1).
543. ])esign, woniiin carrying the corpse of a chikl in a coffin.
Published in J.H.S. xv. p. 328.
544. On shoulder, black palmettes. H. 11^ in.
Sepulchral stele surmounted by palmette. On one side, a male Hgurc
mourning, wrapped in himation (yellow) ; a boy clad in red mounts the steps
of the stele ; above, a flying ghost.
Cerameicus, Athens, 1893.
5J6a
545. H. 14 in. (PI. III.)
On shoulder, black palmettes. Sepulchral stele raised on steps : on one
side, a woman in brown garment, bringing a toilet-vase and an alabastron ;
on the other side, a young man in red himation.
From Laurium, 189G.
VASKS ADDED TO THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM.
75
gr^^i?^!!^^^ :
'^W^
It
54f5/>
540. Designs in red and black.
On shoulder, palmettes. H. 10 in.
Sepulchral stele: on one side, a youth wearing pileus and chlamys
547
76
PP:UCY GAllDNIOK
holding spears; on the otlier a woman bringing offLiinos; ab(;VO a small
ghost, and a bag suspended.
De Janze Catalogue, No. 13:}. OldHchl Oollection.
547. On shoulder, black rays. H. 8] in.
Charon in his boat amid reeds (garment red); he holds in his right
hand a pole, and stretches out his left towards a small ghost, who flies to
him with arms extended.
Painted in monochrome. Athens, 1S!)9.
548. On shoulder, red palmcttes. H. 14'^ in.
'.48
Woman advancing to right, clad in red chiton and black over-dress ; she
holds out a box. In Ihe field a fragmentary inscription.
Vase shattered and in parts repainted.
549. On shoulder, red palmettes. H. 10 in. (PI. III.)
Woman seated on chair (brown). Her garment seems originally to have
been red, but the colour is now gone. She holds in both hands a wreath
untied. Behind her a pillar (a house) ; in front a duck, above an oenochoe
and KAAO^ AIXAt-
VASES ADDED TO THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM.
77
See J.H.S. xvi. p. 167 : where Mr. Bosanquet assigns to the vase a date
of about B.C. 465.
550. Late r.-f. pehke (so-called). H. 14^ in. Yellow and white paint.
Elaborate palmette patterns on neck and under handles. Below
designs, maeanders.
Obverse. Aphrodite r. at bath which stands on pillar; she pours oil on
550 ; OiiVKKSE
her 1. hand iroui alabastron ; behind, her clothes on a table. Facing lier,
female figure holding a metal crown, her over-dress curiously arranged like a
78 PERCY GAHDNKU
wing, and spotted. An attendant seated to r. by water-pot, another in field I.
Above, Eios seated, holding wreatli and brancii, also a ball.
Reverse. Lady draped, seated 1. on chest; she extends her r. hand
towards a youth who stands before her, wearing chlamj's, holding wreath and
staff. Behind the hidy, female attendant 1. ; above her, Eros holding a tray.
In foreground, ball and pebbles. From the Basilicata. Bengnot Collection,
No. 8; Pourtalh Catalogue, No. 250. Oldfield Collection.
This vase is a good example of the painting of the Hellenistic age. The
scene on the obverse is on the border between mythology and genre.
Aphrodite is identified by the crown which her companion holds. Such a
crown is worn by the beautiful seated Aphrodite in the painting of the
Transtiberine Villa which is a copy of a painting of the fourth century;''
550 ; Revkp.sk
also by the standing Aphrodite of the Casa dei Dioscini at Pompeii.*^
Though descended from tlie early ]iolos of the queen goddesses, it is in form
curiously like a modern royal crown. The garment of the figure who faces
Aphrodite is apparently arranged so as to resemble the wing of a buttertiy ;
and one is strongly tempted to see in this figure, who is evidently no mere
attendant, Psyche, who at this period was beginning to come into fashion. In
that case we should have a new and interesting grouping of the three,
Aphrodite, Eros, and Psyche.
Yet in fact this bath of Aphrodite represents a further advance in the
course started by Praxiteles with his Cnidian Aphrodite, and is a scene of
genre. Another such scene, but this time on a purely human level,
appears on the reverse of the vase, which represents the greeting of a youth
^ Mon. d. I. xii. 21, Compare tlie remarks '• Helbig, U'andgcmdlde, No. 295, Mus.
of Mail in Annali, 1885, p. 311. Borb. viii. 34.
VASKS ADDED TO Till-: ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM. 79
and a girl. It is lii.L;lily |)n)bal)lo that such vases as tliis were made for
presents cither to the women of the family, or more piol)al)ly to lietaerae.
The .same is true of tiie followin;;' two vases.
')51. Pyxis adorned with white and gold : early fourth century. Dia-
meter, 8 inches ; height lU inches. (PI. IV.)
On the cover seven femnle fioures, ladies and mn id-servants, holding
wreaths and jewels; two figures of Eros in white and gold conversing witli
them; the ]>lace is a grove of shrubs. The knob of the cover was in metal ;
it has disappeared.
.t51 ; CovEit
Round the vase, thirteen similar women, and two figures of Eros ;
flowers (gilt) rise from the ground.
It should be observed that on the plate the subject, which is produced
by the very useful method discovered by Mr. A. H. Smith, is divided in
two for convenience; and thus a group of two female figures appears twice
over.
552. Late r.-f kylix. Diam. 8i in.
Exterior : under each handle three palmettes.
Obverse. Draped woman seated 1. on chair, her knees grasped by a naked
Eros ; on either side a standing female attendant.
80 PERCY GARDNER
Reverse. Similar group : the attendants extend their r. hands : orna-
ments in white.
Interior. In a circle of inaeander pattern : draped woman seated r. on
chair; Eros kneels on one knee at her feet, and holds her dress; behind Eros,
column, and oval object hanging : ornaments in white.
Stackelberg, Ordber der Hellenen, PI. XXXI. Pourtales Cat. No. 153.
Oldfield Collection.
Vase of Phoenician porcelain.
I take this opportunity to publish a remarkable vase of greenish
porcelain, which came to the Ashmolean Museum as part of the Chambers
Hall Collection many years ago. (Fig. 1.)
Vase without handles : H. 7 in.
Round mouth, rope -pattern.
On neck —
(1) Festoons of small leaves, suspended by tie at intervals.
(2) Line of waves, inverted.
(3) Horned winged lions walking 1. alternating with chess-board
squares.
(4) Rope-pattern.
On body —
(1) lUIUI, etc. (architectural pattern).
(2) Rope-pattern.
(3) Rosettes of many petals.
(4) Double rope-pattern.
(5) Horned winged lions walking 1. alternating with squares of geometric
patterns, triglyph-like.
(6) Rope-pattern.
(7) Lotus plants with flowers and buds, growing on mounds ; between
them, ducks flying 1, ; one flying r.
(8) Wave-pattern.
(9) Pattern resembling scales.
Fabric of fine thin clay, beautifully made, and covered with a greenish
enamel, which is no longer smooth. Some of the lines of decoration are in
relief, some (the upper two in particular) impressed into the surface. This
vase has long been a source of perplexity to Mr. Evans and myself. The
provenience was fixed, since Mr. Hall's vases came from Italy, but the place
J. H. S. VOL. XXV. M905I. PL. I.
.■).■}• I
ry-M
HYDRIA AND OENOCHOE IN THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM.
J. H. S. VOL. XXV. 0905). PL. II.
53o
53G
LEKYTHI IN THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM.
J. H. S. VOL. XXV. (1905). PL. II
549
oiiiM^£ii.i.ASyi^^
.)4.")
LEKYTHI IN THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM.
J, H. S. VOL XXV. (1905). PL. IV.
VASES ADDED TO THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM.
81
of its luanufticture and the date were not easy to determine. Some
indication alike of date and source was found when compnrisou was made of
two fragments foimd at Naukratis, and presented to the British Museum by
Fig. 1.
the Egypt Exploration Fund. By the kindness of the keeper of Greek and
Koman Antiquities, Mr. Cecil Smith, I am allowed to figure these fragments,
drawn by Mr. Anderson : —
(1) Fragment on which is a line of winged lions separated by pahoettes:
H.S. — VOL. XXV. o
82
PERCY GAKDNKll
above, festoon of leaves imjnrssrd,'' iunl wave-patteni : below, i()pc-i>attern.
(Fig. 2.)
(1) Fragment on which is an ivy-wreath iuqircssed. (Fig. 8.)
The fabric and shape of these fragments correspond exactly with our
vase. Besides them, there came from Naukratis to the British Museum
fragments of coarser glazed ware, in particular the bottom of a vase adorned
with a line of ducks and crosses, and a line of lotus."^ As to the date of the
last mentioned fragment I should not like to pronounce. But I am of
opinion that the Ashmolean vase, and the two corresponding fragments in
the Biitish Museum, belong to the early age of Naukratis. Ware with
green-blue glaze of the hame general type occurred in the Polledrara find, in
the excavations at Cameirus,'' at Samos ^^ and elsewhere. Nine of the
Cameirus vases are figured by M. de Longperier in his M'usee NcqioUon III.
Fio. 2.
Fig. 3.
PI. XLIX. (XXIX.). They are lekythi and alabastra of various types ;
some adorned with lines of animals (lion, bull, antelope), some with impressed
decoration (lotus). M. de Longperier observes that two such alabastra were
found at Athens, one of which is now at Leyden and one at Amiens. No. (J
of Longperier's plate bears two cartouches, in each of which is * le prenom de
Psammitik II qui devint le nom de son successeur Ouaphres (Apries, xxvi*-'
dynastie).' The same cartouche occurs on an enamelled vase in the shape of
a helmeted head from Corinth.^^ In regard to these vases the source is a
matter of dispute. That they are copied from Egyptian models is quite
clear. But it is not decided whether the copying was done by Greeks at
^ This fiagnient is A. 1240 in the (ini-
publishcii) Catnloyxte of Vases in the Briti.sk
Muscuvi (vol. i.).
" A. 1241 B. M. Cat.
* Of tlicsc three are repeated in Perrnt au'l
Chipies, Art in Phoenicia and Cyprus ii, PI. V.
'" ISoelilau, Ans louischen Nckio/>olcn, ]>.
1*31.
" IJoehlau, I.e.
VASKS ADDKI) TO THE ASHMOLKAN MUSEUM. 83
Nniikrutis, or ])y I'liocnicijiris at Tyre and Sidou. The Naukratis theory has
|»riha|).s tlie must nuineious supporters; but 1 incline to tlie view of Boehlau,
that the wliole class of vases is Phoenician, and that they came to Greece as
vehicles of the tine oils and })erfunies of Arabia.
When I say that these vases are of the same general type as the
AshiHolean vess 'I, I do not overlook the marked differences between tlui two
kinds of ware. The Ashmolean vase has nothing to do vvith perfumes. Its
delicate moulding and careful ornamentation are very diifeient from the
careless work of the ordinary Phoenician alabastra. In these respects the
nearest parallels to our vase are the round Egyptian alabastra of the seventh
and sixth centuries, many examples of which have been found at Polledrara,^^
at Cameirus ^'' and elsewhere. A notable feature in the decoration of our vase
is that it is produced by two quite different processes. Some of the lines of
decoration seem to be produced by working away the background and sparing
the figures; others by working on the figures and leaving the background
untouched.
The devices on the vase run in bands which are closely parallel to the
decoration of the bronze bowls brought by Layard from Nimroud,^* and now
generally supposed to be Phoenician, Besides this arrangement in bands,
there are common to the two classes of ware other features, such as great
neatness of fabric, a combination of Egyptian and Assyrian elements, a
monotonous repetition of the same decorative forms. Neatness of work
combined with monotony and poverty of design mark Phoenician work in the
sixth century ; Greek work at that time is at once less masterly in execution,
and far more original and promising in design.
Our vase, however, shews some distinctive elements, which may help us
to fix its nationality. The line of lotus-plants and ducks is Egyptian beyond
mistake. The horned (sometimes) and winged lion, or lion-headed griffin
(Fig, 4), comes from another source. His history, which has been sketched by
Prof Furtwangler in Roscher'.^, Lexikon^^ is very instructive. His earlier form,
probably originating at Babylon, is that of a monster with lion's head, but eagle's
wings, claws, and tail. This type meets us in earlier Persian art. But in
somewhat later representations, the hind-legs and tail ceased to be those of
an eagle and became those of a lion, while the head often retained the goat's
horns which had sometimes appeared on the earlier type. At what time
this transformation took place it is difficult to ascertain with precision.
Furtwangler thinks it was about the middle of the fifth century. We find
the later form on a Persian cylinder ^*^; and it is frequent on the coins of
^'' See Micali, Mun. Incd. vii. 4, 5. etc.
13 One of these vases found at Cameirus has ^^ Vol. i. p. 1775. It would be almost as
on the edge an Egyptian hieroglyphic insciip- correct to call the monster on our vase a
tion. A figure of a dolphin in enamel from Chimaera, as it has a lion's head, a goat's
the same site bears, however, the Greek name of horns, and a long raised tail,
Pythes, indicating that Greeks as well as i" Lajard, Mithra, PL LIV. A. 13 ; Richter,
Phoenicians copied Egy})tian enamels. Kypros, PI. LXXVII. 5,
1* Perrot et Chipiez ii. Figs. 208, '209, 215,
G 2
84
PERCY GARDNER
Panticapaeum (fourth century) ; while on a chalcedony from Kertch, in the
Ashmolean Museum, and a coin of Lycia, both of the early fifth century/^ the
monster's hind legs are still aquiline. In archaistic reliefs, such as that on a
circular base of the British Museum,^^ or the throne of the priest of Dionysus
in the Theatre at Athens, lion-griffins are sometimes represented fighting
with persons in Persian dress, or in other oriental connexion.
Until an example is produced in Greek art of the archaic period, in
which the lion-griffin is represented with four leonine legs and a leonine tail,
it must be very risky to suppose that our vase is of early Greek fabric, or
that it originated at Naiikratis, Rather, as I have already observed it is
decidedly like the Phoenician bronze bowls, which combine, as does our
vessel, Egyptian and Babylonic elements. The line of festoons also does not
seem a possible decoration in Greek archaic art, I am therefore disposed to
think that the Ashmolean vase is a Phoenician work of the later sixth or
earlier fifth century, imported into Italy, That such vases should have been
impoi-ted into Naukratis also is by no means surprising.
Fir;. 4. — (Detail of Ashmolean Vase.)
We are bound, however, to take into account a vase of similar porcelain
formerly in the Sabouroff Collection, and published in the Sdbouroff Catalogue,
Pi. LXX. This vase is in the form of a Greek kantharos, and a close
imitation of a metal original ; its decoration consists of a line of garlands,
one of waves, and one of an architectural pattern, all three of which
appear on the Ashmolean vase. It may, however, be noted that the ties of
the garlands are much more developed in the Sabouroff vase. This latter
was found at Tanagra in the same tomb with a porcelain figure of Eros riding
on a duck, which is now in the British Museum. Prof Furtwiingler ^" is
" Gardner, Types of Greek Coins iv. 41 :
J.If.S. Atlas, P). XLVII. 8.
" Cut. Scnlplitrc iii. No. 2512, cf. B.C.IT.
V. ri. I.
'•• Text to Sabouroff Collection, PI. LXX.
p. -.i.
VASES ADDKD TO THE ASHMOLEAN MUSEUM. 85
disposed to caiisider botli tlioso works as products of Alexandria in the
Hellenistic age. And this opini(>n seems a reasonable one.
I do not consider it impossible, however, that the Ashmolean vase may
date from the sixth or fifth century B.v. and be of Phoenician work, while
the Sabouroft' vase may be of a time two hundred years later, and of Greek
work. The forms of the vases are very different ; and though both shew an
imitation of Egyptian work, they may be imitations by different races. We
cannot assign a period to simple decorative designs so easily as we can to
works of a more characteristic kind ; and it is notable that the lines of
decoration on the Ashmolean vase which are most distinctive, and give us
the best clue to date, the ducks and the winged lions, do not appear on the
Sabouroff example.
My view would therefore be that vases of this kind are usually Phoeni-
cian, and range over a considerable period of time. The Greek attempts at
this kind of ware, such as the dolphin of Pythes and the Sabouroff kantharos,
are exceptional.
I ouo-ht, however, to add that the editors of the BritUh Museum
Catalogue of Vases, Mr. Cecil Smith and Mr. Walters, are disposed to assign
a later date, not earlier than the age of Alexander, to the Ashmolean Vase,
and the British Museum fragments. We must wait for further evidence
before we can decide for one of these views or the other.
P. Gaudneh.
HELLENISTIC ROYAL PORTRAITS.
[Plates VIIL— X]
This ])aper does not pretend to be the result of original research, but to
be rather a conipilation of the various identifications of bronze or marble
porti-ait heads 1 as kings of the greTit dynasties of the Hellenistic period,
that different archaeologists have proposed from time to time. In the course
of my study of the evolution of later Greek art, I proceeded from studying
the series of coins of the Hellenistic dynasties to examine the portraits
identified by means of the coins. I hoped by that method to obtain surer
gi-ound for the succession of styles in the period. But there is so much
uncertainty and often complete contradiction as regards the identification of
the portraits, that so far a study of the portraits has yielded little. Many of
the heads identified as kings are not kings at all. In fact there exists too
gi'eat a tendency to believe that every fine individual portrait must be that
of a king or some other great man. Private portraits must have been even
more plentiful than royal portraits, and as works of art would stand an equal
cliance of preservation. It is however very tempting to seize on a slight
likeness and identify a nameless portrait as a king. I have attempted to be
moderate : the only new identification proposed is that of a head in the
Museo delle Terme, hitherto known as a Hellenistic prince, as Antiochus VI.
In criticising the identifications proposed by others the profile of the
head has been compared as closely as possible with the coin portrait. And
according to the degree of likeness or imlikeness between the two, the identi-
fication has been accepted or rejected. Though this method usually leads to
a sceptical conclusion, I am fully aware of the difficulty and danger of
attempting to identify a life-size portrait in the round with a miniature
profile in relief on a coin. I willingly acknowledge my indebtedness to the
scholars whose conclusions I discuss so cavalierly. There are collected in the
following lists ordy the identifications concerned with the four great dynasties,
the Antigonid, the Seleucid, the Ptolemaic, and the Attalid. The royal
houses of Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Pontus have been disregarded for the
' I liave purposely omitted all reference to portraits on gems, since tliey have jieculiar
difficulties of their own.
iii:i.li-:nistk' t.oyal poutraits. 87
|»reseiit, tlKni'^li ;i Wwv licail in the Loiivrc has with some reason been called
Mithiiihitrs Kii|iat()i-.- I'ynhus and Lysiniachiis have been inchi(h'(l merely
for the sake <tt' cross reference. The main object has been to sliew the
unsatisfactory nature of most of the identifications hitherto proposed, and to
attem))t to provich^ a basis tor further investiL^ation/'
ANTKiONii) Dynasty.
A. — Demetrius Poliorketes.
(1) Marble bust from Hercnlaneum. Naples, Inv. 0149. Coni-
paretti, De Petra, x.\. ;^. Arndt, 353, 354. Wolters, Jidm. Mitfh.
1S89, p. 37.
(2) Bron/.e statuette, Naples, Inv. 5026. Arndt, 355, 356.
Jiihrhnt]) d. Sauni}) linden d. ((llcrli. Kaisrrhansi's, 1884, p. 52.
(3) Bronze statuette, Parma. E. V. 73. Six, Ediii. Mitfh. 1903,
p. 216. Schreiber, Stiidieii ii. d. Bild. Alexanders, p. 125. R. 2, as
Alexander.
(4) Marble head, Vatican. Sala dei Busti, 338. Helbig-, 255.
Six, iiom. Mitth. 1903, p. 211, figs. 2, 3 as Alexander Ammon ; ibid.
1889, p. 196. 1. Arndt, 489, 490.
(5) Marble head, Lateran. Benndorf, Schone, 236. Arndt, 351,
352. Graf, Bursians Jahrcsherinhte, ex. (1901), iii. p. 136. Schreiber,
Studicn ii. d. Bild. Alcvanders, p. 88, 26.
(6) Louvre. Marble head. No. 457. See Ptolemaic Dynasty,
Soter I. 1.
Of these five portraits the second and third are too small to have any
iconographic value, since they are merely reduced copies. The head in the
Lateran (5), though it is clearly derived from a good original, is a very poor
copy, and is very hard and spiritless. Still it clearly represents the same
person as the beautiful Vatican head (4), which is certainly Greek Mrork of
the late fourth century. These compared with the coin portraits appear to
correspond almost exactly ; most noticeable indeed is the peculiar formation
of the brow over the outer corner of the eye. Therefore it seems reasonably
certain that in these two heads we have a portrait of Demetrius. The
-Winter, Jahrhuch 1894, PI 8. W. de Miss McDovvall, who has read part of my MS.,
Villefosse, Cat. Sovim. 2321. to Mr. Wroth, Mr. Macdonald, and Mr. G. F.
3 I would refer througiiout to Avndt- Hill. I have also profited much from dis-
Bruckmann's Gr. ic. Eiim. Portrdts (cited cussing various points with other archaeologists,
as Arndt), and Imhoof-Hlumer's Porlrdlkopje at home and abroad. I am also under great
hell. n. hi'lleniaierter Vi'dker. I wish also to iihli;:;atii>ns to Dr. Dressel for }iermission to
express my thanks for assistance received to jiublish tlie Fox tetradraclim.
88 ALAN J. r.. WAGE
Naples bust (I) on tlic other liaml has some likeness to the coin portraits, but,
is much younger, and in workmanship it is not very good. However it is
possible to assume it to be a youthful and idealized portrait of Demetrius,
executed in the last years of the fourth century by a second-rate artist.
yl". — Pyrrlius.
See Seleucus 1. '2.
A''. — Lysimachus.
See Ptolemy Soter 8.
/>'.— Philip \.
See Perseus 1 and 2.
6'. —Perseus.
(1) Marble head in British Museum ; from Hadrian's Villa.
Newton, Guide to Graccu-Roman Sculptures, p. 48, No. 129. Museum
Marhlcs,\\. 23, Brnnn-Bruckmann, 80. Hill, Num. Ghr., 1896, p. 35,
PI. IV. Petersen, Bom. Mitth., 1895, p. 135, as a Gaul's head. Brit.
Mus. Sculpture Cat. iii. 1860. Replicas in Vatican, Sala dei Busti,
310, Helbig,- 245, and in Louvre, H. de Villefosse, Gett. Soviin., 32.
Newton calls attention to the likeness between this head and the
portraits of Perseus and his father Philip V.
(2) Bronze statue, Museo delle Terme. Helbig,'- 1114. Hill
(luc. eit.) says Studniczka identifies it as Perseus. Helbig {Ant. Denh.
i. 5) has also identified it as Philip V. Arndt, 358, 359. Six, Rom.
Mitth., 1898, p. 77.
(3) Small marble bust, Naples, Egyptian section, 1(»37 (now with
other busts) Arndt, 347, 348. Six, By>iii. Mitth., 1898, i>. 74.
Of these portraits the first is almost certainly not a royal portrait as
there is no fillet round the head : further it shews no indiviilual character-
istics. It is a Roman copy of the imperial peiiod after a Greek original of
the early second century B.C. Its style resembles, as stated by Petersen and
Furlwiingler,^ Perganiene work. The Terme bronze (2) has also been called
Philip V and Alexander Balas (see below) : Helbig rightly says it bears only
a slight resemblance to the coin i)ortraits of any of the three kings. On
the other hand the Naples bust (3) in spite of the severe damage it has
suflered agrees with the coin portraits, and is almost certainly a good realistic
bust of Perseu.s.
■» Arcli. .laz. 1891, p. 141.
HELLENISTIC ROYAL PORTRAITS. 89
IL
Attajjd Dynasty.
A. — Pliiletaerus.
Marble liust in Naples, luv. GI48, from Herculaneum. Arndt,
107, 108. Coinparetti, Do Petra, xxi. 2. Gercke, Jloiiner Studien, p.
139. Furtwiingler {MaMcrpircrs,, 321.1) says the lower part of the
face is unlike the coin portrait, and sui^gests that it mny be Philip IL
of Macedonia.
There is no fillet round the head to indicate royal rank, but Philetaerus
was never Batr/Xeu?. So if it were a contemporary portrait no fillet would
be expected : but in a post-mortem portrait Philetaerus as a deified
ancestor would wear a fillet as on the coins of his successors.'" Philetaerus
ruled from 283 lo 263 B.C., and this heiid hardly seems to belong to the
first half of the third century. Tlierein, in my opinion, lies the chief
difficulty in identifying it as Philetaerus.
iA— Attains I.
Marble bust, Naples, Inv. GUI, Pi. IX. 2. Arndt, 109, 110:
Petersen, Rom. Mitlh., 189"), p. 135 : called Aratus, Bernoulli, Gr.
Ikonographie, ii. p. 153. Gerhard, Ne((i)ds ant. lUldwcrke, 379.
This head bears little resemblance to tlie coin portiaits*' of Attains ;
it has no fillet, which Attalus ns liao-tXeu9 would certainly wear. On
clitse examination it appears to be a portrait, somewhat idealized (perhaps of
a Roman general), executed by a good Greek artist in the first century
!!.C. In certain details it shews a stylistic kinship to the ' Borghese
Waiiior.'
C. — Apollonis.
Marble bust, Berlin, Pergamon Museum. Fuhrcr durch d. Pcrg.
Mus. p. 43.
This identification is only a conjecture. The head from the diadem and
veil should represent a goddess or queen : and because it seems to be rather
individual in treatment, it is suggested it is Apollonis. There is no other
evidence for the identification. Most probably it is a goddess.
' Seo the Plates in Imlioof-BIumer, l)ie " Sec the Appendix lelow.
Miin-.cn d. Dynastic von Pcryamon.
90 ALAN J. \). WAGE
III.
Ptolemaic Dynasty
yl.— Soter I.
(1) Marble head, Louvre, H. dc Villefosse, Cat. Sovmi. 840.
Wolters, R«ni. Mitth., 188!), PI. IN. p. 33. Sclireiber, Stiidien it. d
Bild. Ak.mndcr^, 1<)8-!). ' Eiii riclitiges Portriit.'
(2) Marble head, Thera. Hiller von Giirttingen, Thera i. Pi. 21.
(3) Bronze bust, Naples, Inv., 5590. Six, Enm. Mitth., 1894,
fig. 1, p. 103, as Lysinmchus. Rossbach, JSeue Jahrh. Id. Alt.., 1890,
p. 53. Comparetti, De Petra, ix. 3. Arndt, 01, 02, as Philip 11,
Schreiber, Stiidien il. d. Bild. Alexanders, p. 88, p. 198-9. ' So
fiilschlich Rossbach.'
(4) Bronze bust, Naples, Inv. 5590. Visconti, Iconographie
Grecque, iii. p. 289. See Seleucid Dynasty, Seleucus I. 1.
(5) Marble bust, Naples, Inv. G158. See Seleucid Dynasty,
Antiochus IV. Arndt, 97, 98.
(6) Marble bust, Museo Torlonia. Visconti, Musco Torlonia in
fototipia, PI. XI. 43. See Arndt, text to 97.
Of all these portraits the second is the only one that seems to me to
bear, in spite of the damage it has suffered, any great and striking likeness
to the coins. It is probably a genuine portrait of Soter : and the essential
characteristics of its style, the exaggeration of prominent features to deify
the individual, are those of the early third century. The third portrait
is possibly, as determined by Six, Lysimachus : the fourth is almost
without doubt a fine portrait of Seleucus Nicator. The fifth is neither
Soter I., nor does it, as stated by Arndt, seem to represent the same
person as the sixth. On the other hand the sixth, so far as it is possible to
judge without seeing the original, is a replica of the first. This head, repre-
sented by these two replicas (1 and 6), is possibly a portrait of Soter in
middle life; but when the profile is compared with the coin portraits the
likeness does not seem satisfactory.
B. — Berenike.
(1) Bronze bust, Naples, Inv. 5598. Comparetti, De Petra, vi.
p. 266, No. 30. Arndt 99, 100. Bernoulli, Rom. Tkonographie, I.
p. 235. Vi.sconti, Iconographie Grecque, pi. 52, 6, 7. Six, JRom. Mitth.,
1804, p. 117. Man, Bioll. d. I., 1880, p. 125. Mommsen, Arch. Zeit,
1880, p. 32. Schreiber, Studien it. d. Bild. Alexanders, 108, 10.
^ A hemi in the British Museum, 1741, is Ptolemaic portrait. Mr. A. H. Smitli in liis
called a Ptolemaic portrait. It wears a lillet ; recently published third volume of the sculp-
but it is iconographically useless, even if it is a tare catalogue calls it a Heracles {'!) herm.
HELLENISTIC ItOYAL POPvTllAlTS. 91
r,ro}i'.i (VErrnlanu I. :)!>. CO. Ilossbacli, Ncnc Jahrh. Id. Alt., LS!J1),
}). 57, 1, as Cl('()|)ntr.i wife of Ptolt'iny V., Kpipliaues.
It. is generally adiuitlcd tliat this hust camiot roprosent Bereniko,
though Scliroiher has recently supportcij this vit;w. It has also been nanie(l
Ptolemy Apion (Bron:i (VErcoldiid), Aulus (Jahinius (Coniparetti), a Hellen-
istic prince (Anidt), and the Lady of the Hercuhmeum villa (Six). Aimlt
believes the head to be male; Six and Bernoulli consider it female. It is in
all probability a male head, and only the hair makes it appear at first siglit
female. As rightly deternuncd by Six, not only the loose locks round the
forehead, but also the whoh; upper part of the head with the fillet are
restored. But the fine curls incised on the forehead, and the close-lying
corkscrew curls behind the ears, which are original, prove the head to be
after an African original. I have elsewhere** called this head a Graeco-
Egyptian portrait. There is no reason however for supposing this style of
hair-dressing to have been peculiar to Egypt : heads with the hair similarly
arranged have been found in Africa.'' There is no clue whatsoever to
the identity of the person here represented. And even if it were known
for certain that the Herctdaneum dUettnntc collected these heads as por-
traits rather than as works of art, only plausible conjectures might be
made.
(2) Basalt head, Vienna. Von Schneider, Album d. Ant. Samm-
lung, 6. xiii. 1. Schreiber, op. cit. lac. eit.
Both von Schneider and Schreiber think this head represents the same
person as the Naples bionze. This seems doubtful, since the latter is prob-
ably male, while the Vienna head is certainly female. It is good Graeco-
Egyptian work, but it is hard to say if it agrees with the coin portrait, since
that is found only in conjunction with and behind the head of Soter I.
Probably the head belongs rather to the second century.
C. — Philadelphus.
(1) Bronze bust, Naple.s. Inv. 5600, PL VIII. 1. Comparetti, De
Petra, ix. 4. Arndt. 93, 04, Six, Rom. Mitth., 1903, p. 217. Rossbach,
Neue Jahrh. U. Alt., 1899, p. 50.
Six, since he does not mention Rossbach's previous identification, must
have arrived at his conclusions independently. This in itself is perhaps
some ground for accepting the identification, that two archaeologists working
separately have arrived at the same conclusion. But I must confess that
when the head is compared to the coin portraits, the identification does not
seem convincing. Further, from its style, the head seems to me to belong to
the later third century.
» B.S.A., 1902-3, i>. 226, 4.
'* e.g. litit. Mas. Sculptxre Cat. iii. ]773, from Cartilage.
92 ALAN J. J}. WAGE
(2) Head, Sicglin collection, Stuttgart. Unpublished ; said by
Schreiber to resemble the Naples bust, and a small head at Ny Cailsberg
(Arndt, 350 c. d). Schreiber, Stndien li. d. llild. AUxandcra, 129, 12.
D. — Euergetes I.
Marble head, Museo delle Terme (^formerly in Museo Kirch-
eriano). Mariani and Vaglieri, Giiida, p. 42, No. 30.
My friend, Dr. Pfuhl, suggested to me that this head was a portrait of
Euergetes I. With that view I ventured to disagree, arguing that hoxn its
style it belonged rather to the second than to the third century. Jf it must
be a Ptolemy it has far moie likeness to the portraits of Philometor: but the
fact that there is no fillet seems to be against identifying it as a royal
portrait.
D". — Berenike, wife of Euergetes I.
(1) Head in green basalt, Amherst Coll., Didlington Hall.
From Berenike. Lady Amherst, Sketch of Egyptian History, p. 189,
PI. I.
Since the important parts of the face, nose, mouth and chin, have been
broken off there seems to be no ground for the identification : and owing to
the damage done to the head a comparison with the head on the coins is
impossible. From its style the head appears to be a copy of the early
imperial period of a brouice original probably of the third century B.C.
(2) Bronze head from Herculaneum. Naples, Inv. 5599. Com-
paretti, De Petra, .x. 3. Reinach, T6tes Idc'ales on ld4alisees, '2.'2,Q.
Bronrd d'Ercolano, I. 63. Rossbach, Neue Jahrh Id, Alt., p. 57, 1, as
Arsinoe. Friederichs-Wolters, 1603.
There is no reason why this iiead should be called Btrenike. It is
probably only due to the same desire for naming heads, which has led
to the archaic Apollo bust from Herculaneum being labelled Speusippus.
Nor is there any real reason for identifying it as Arsinoe : it has hardly any
likeness to her coin portraits. The head is perhaps a portrait ; but in any
case it is not earlier than the finst century B.C., though it shews kin;>hip as
regards treatment with heads similar to an Apollo in the Capitol.^*' Reinach
suggests that it is an Artemis after Leochares, connecting it v/ith the Diana
of Versailles.
E. — Philopator and Arsinoe.
(1) See Watzinger, Das Relief v. Archclaos. Brit. Mvs. Cat.
Scidfture iii. 2191.
(2) Marble head. Amherst Coll , Didlington Hall.
'" Helbig,- 443.
FIELLENISTIC ROYAL PORTRAITS. 93
This head is called Arsinoe without any sufficient reason, and it does not
bear the slightest resemblance to the coins. From its style it appears to be
a copy of about the first century A.D. of an earlier original. The original,
to judge by the degree of development of the morow^^xm in the cheeks and
eyes, would have belonged to the middle of the third century B.C.
(3) See Bereiiike, D^. 2.
F. — Epiphanes.
Bronze bust, Naples, In v. 5588. Rossbach. Neue Jahrh. kl.
Alt. 1899 PI. I. 4-. Comparetti, De Petra, ix. 2.
There is no fillet round the head, and it seems exceediugly improbable
that it is a royal portrait at all.
F'^. — Cleopatra (I.). See Berenike, B. \.
G^.— Cleopatra (VI.).
(1) Marble head, Alexandria. Botti, Catalogue du Mus^e Grico-
Romain, Salle xvi. 301.
This head was found in the eastern harbour of Alexandria, and the whole
surface is badly eroded by the action of salt water. When seen in profile, it
has considerable likeness to the portrait of Cleopatra on her coins. It may
therefore be a portrait of her, but owing to its condition it has little artistic
value, and a definite decision as to the likeness is almost impossible.
(2) Marble head, British Museum, 1873 (bought from Castellani),
Gat. iii. PI. XXI.
This head has been called Cleopatra chiefly because of the great
likeness shewn by the profile, especially the nose, to the coin portraits.
There is however no diadem ; and the curious arrangement of the hair
suggests Roman fashions of the second century A.D. It may be a late
Roman attempt to copy an earlier portrait of Cleopatra. But its provenance
is Roman ; and the workmanship, notably the hard realism of the keen, dry
features, is also Roman. Therefore the balance of evidence seems to be
against its being a Greek portrait.^^
IV.
Seleucid Dynasty.
A. — Seleucus I.
(Ij Bronze bust, Naples, In v. 5590, PI. VIII. 2. Comparetti, De
Petra, PI. X. 1; Arndt, 101, 102. Ni^conii, Iconoyra;phie Grecq^ui iii.
p. 289, as Soter I. Wolters, liim. Mitth. 1889, p. 32. Rossbach, Neue
Jahrh. kl. Alt. 1899, p. 53, as Soter I.
" For other lieads called Cleopatra, see Bernoulli, Riiin. Ikon. I. p. 212.
94 A LAN .1. i;. WACE
(2) Miirblo bust, Na])les, Iiiv. iiloO. Aiiidt. 887, 888. Com-
paretti, De Petra, xx. 5. Six, Jlu/u. Mi///i. ISDI, p. -27!), as Pynhiis.
Helbig, Mi'huKjcfi tVArrli. <i, <r lllsl. 1<S!)8, p. 877, acci'])ts it as I'ynhus,
and couiparcs with it a head in tlic Jacobsen collection, which has no
fillet (No. 10S2, Arndt 88!), 340). Rossbach, Ncue Jahrh. kl.^Alt.
181)9, }). 58, as Seleucus I.
(3) Maible head, Mviseo delle Ternu'. Mariani and Vaglieri
Guida, p. 22, IS, Helbig,-^ 1080.
(4) Bronze statuette, Naples, Inv. 5020. Viscoriti, IcomxjTaJia
Greta ii. p. 80, pi. 8. See Demetrius Poliorketes 2.
(5) Marble head, Erbach. Authes, Cut. 17. Arndt 497, 498.
Visconti, kuno/jr. Bow. IT. p. 90. Six. Mom. Mitth. 1898, p. 6(5, PI. III.
Of these five heads, the Naples bronze (1) is almost without doubt an
authentic portrait of Seleucus : in all features it agrees exactly with the coin
portraits. In style and execution it is superior to the other royal portraits
from Herculaneum both in bronze and in marble. Wolters finds considerable
likeness in details between it and the Apoxyomeiios. At all events the
original of the Herculaneum bust was by one of the first artists of the late
fourth century. The second head has only a most superficial likeness to the
portrait on the coins, even that shewing Seleucus helmeted.^"^ Till any
better identification can be proved, it is fairly safe to accept Six's views and
call it Pyrrhus. Of the two remaining portraits the fourth has been dis-
cussed elsewhere ; and the third I have included here because of its super-
ficial likeness to the second, though it represents an older man and is very
badly damaged. The fifth head is probably not a portrait, but a Roman
attempt at the ideal founded on the type of an Ares.^^
B. — Antiochus I.
(1) Marble bust, Munich. Furtwiingler, Beschreibung, No. 309.
Wolters, Arcli. Zeit. 1884, PI. 12. Bernoulli, Bom. Ikonoyraphie, i.
p. 84. Brunn, Glyptothek.^ 172 (who does not accept Wolters'
identification).
(2) Marble bust, Vatican, Sala dei Busti 275. Helbig,- 219.
Arndt, 105, 106. Bernoulli, Bum. IkonograpJde, ii. p. 30. Griif,
Jahrh., 1902, p. 72, PI. 3. Milani, BGm. Milth. 189J, p. 318. Visconti,
Mils. Pio-Clem., vi. 40. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics, i. 56. Hill,
Jahresh., ii. (1899), p. 246. Schreiber, Stiuiien ii. d. Bild. Alexanders,
273, 1, ' Nach Grafs sicherer Deutung.' Six. Bom. Mitth. 1903,
p. 215, 'Grafs Resultate sicher falsch sind.'
In my opinion neither of these heads is a portrait of Antiochus I. The
Munich bust (1) has no fillet, and both Brunn and Furtwangler agree in
1- V. B.M.C. Sclcucifs, PI. I. 11. Mariani, Vaglieri, Giiida, p. 22, 21. Helbig,
^' Cf. a head in the Miiseo delle Terine. 1032.
HELLENISTIC IIOYAL PORTRAITS. 1)5
calliiit; it RoiiKui work of the later Republican period. Besides it has little
or no resemblance to the coin portraits. The Vatican head (2) also has
only a slight and superficial resemblance to Antiochus as represented on his
coins. In spite of the ivy wreath under the diadem I am unable to believe
that the head represents a Hellenistic prince as a veo? Aiowao'i. In spite of
Hill's disbelief I am more inclined to agree with the opinion that we have
here represented a priest of the cult of the imperial house/^ as shewn by the
medallion on the diadem. The bust of a priest from Ephesus should in
particular be compared with this.^'' The head on the medallion is too
defaced to admit of identification, but this proves nothing either way. Even
if it is a veoq Aiowaoq, it is not Antiochus I. since he was worshipped as
'AvTto-)(ofi 'AttoXXwv 'Zcorrjp}'^ Visconti's and Milani's identification of the
head as an aged Augustus is, as Hill says, without any real ground.
Mr. Stuart Jones has suggested to me that this head represents a priest of
the cult of one of the later Diadochi. This is very probable, and would
satisfy all its peculiarities.
0. — Antiochus II.
(1) Bronze bust, Naples, Inv. 5594; Brunn-Bruckmann, 3G5.
Comparetti, De Petra, x. 2. Rossbach, Neue Jahrb. Id. Alt. PI. I. 3,
p. 55. Furbwjingler, Masteiyicccs, 296, oh.
(2) Bronze statuette, Naples, Inv. 126170. Not. degli Scavi,
1901, p. 300 (Perseus, good Roman work). Hauser, Phil. Woch. 1903,
p. 157, as Antiochus VIII. Schreiber, Studien ii. d. Bild. Alexanders,
p. 279 sqq. See Antiochus VIII.
Of these two portraits the second will be discussed below, and the first
is called in Baedeker's Southern Italy ' Youthful Heracles.' This designation
is the more correct. One point I feel is certain, and that is that it is no royal
portrait at all. It is an ideal athlete type of rather late date : in other words
it is an adaptation of the Roman period after Greek work of the later fourth
or third century. The features when seen en face have considerable likeness
to the ' Hermes ' of Antikythera.^'' In style and execution however it is
.much inferior.
D. — Laodice.
Marble head, Constantinople. Joubin, Gat. Somm. 51. Ross-
bach, Phil. Woch. 190], p. 1179. Pev. Arch. 1888, p. 84, PI. XV.
From Cyme.
'* Of course not a priest of Cuesar \vorsl»ij) ^^ My friend, Mr. A. M. Daniel, tells nie
under the Antonines. See the quotation Ironi that he arrived at exactly the same conclusion,
Conybeare in Hanisay, loc. cit. after studying lliis bronze independently in
'•■■ Jnhrct:h loc. cit. Fig. 131, and PI. 8. Naples. Cf. Waldstein, III. London Xctc.s,
i« C.I.G. 4458. 1903, June 6th, No. 21.
96 ALAN J. B. WAGE
This identification does not seem to me at all satisfactory, neither does
that of the following bust as Seleucus II. In fact both heads seem to me
to belong to the early Imperial period, to which period Joubin has assigned
them.
E. — Seleucus 11.
Marble head, Constantinople. Joubin, Gat. Somm. 82. Ross-
bach, Phil. Woch. 1901, p. 1179. Rev. Arch. 1888, p. 84, PI. XV.
From Cyme.
F. — Antiochus III.
Marble bust, Louvre. H. de Villefosse, Cat. Somm. 1204
Arndt, 103, 104. Bernoulli, Rom. Ikonographie I. p, 160. No. 32.
CoUignon, Hist. Sculpt. Grccquc, II. p. 597.
This bust was formerly called Caesar, but is now almost universally
admitted to be a fine portrait of Antiochus III. When compared with the
coin portraits, which vary considerably in details, the likeness between them
is indeed striking, and admits of little or no doubt. However from its style
and material (Carrara marble) it cannot be an original, but merely a good
Roman copy.
G. — Antiochus IV.
Marble bust, Naples, In v. 6158, as Soter I. Arndt 97, 98.
Comparetti xxi. 4. Rossbach, Neue Jahrh. kl. Alt. 1899, p. 56.
This bust is clearly a royal portrait : this is proved by the fillet. The
strong individual characteristics of the features are striking. Arndt imagines
it to be Soter I. (see Ptolemaic Dynasty A. 5) : Rossbach identifies it as
Antiochus IV. Neither of these identifications is satisfactory. The fact
that it has been identified as Soter I. and Antiochus IV., who were, to judge
by their coin portraits, tot illy unlike one another, is in itself evidence that
we have still to find a convincing identification. From its style it belongs to
the first half of the second century.
//. — Demetrius I.
Marble herm, Naples, Inv. 0164. Rossbach, Neue Jahrh. Id.
Alt. 1899, p. 57, PI. II. 6. Comparetti, De Petra, xxi. 3. Furt-
wiingler. Masterpieces, p. 234, Fig. 95.
This head is certainly not a royal portrait. From its style it belongs to
the fifth century and from the rendering of the hair to the Polycleitan
School. Furtwangler identifies it as a Heracles after Polycleitus and gives a
list of several replicas.
/. — Alexander Balas.
Bronze statue, Museo delle Terme. Helbig,^ 1114. Rossbach,
Jahrh. 1891, p. 69, v. Perseus, 2.
J. H. S VOL. XXV. (1905). PL. VIII.
'■^i»»^
J. H. S. VOL XXV. (1905). PL. IX.
W
D
X
O
g
(-
z
<
J. H. S. VOL. XXV. 0905). PL. X
ATTALID AND SELEUCID COINS.
HELLENISTIC ROYAL PORTRAITS.
97
There is not the slightest likeness between the coin-portiait of
Alexander and the profile of the head of this statue. There is also no reason,
save that the figure stands in the supposed attitude of Lysippus' ' Alexander
with tlie spear,' for identifying it as a royal portrait. On the contrary it
Fig. 1. — Hkad of Axtiochu-s VI. ix the Mu^eo iikllk Tki;me.
seems to be a Roman adaptation of an athlete statue of the third
century B.C.
J. — Antiochus VI.
Marble head, Museo delle Terme. PL IX. 1. and Fig. 1. Helbig^
1160. Mariani and Vaglieri, Guida, p. 84. 10.
Helbig suggests that this is a portrait of a Hellenistic prince as a vko%
AL6vvao<i. This head has two prominent characteristics, thick, curly, satyr-
like hair, and a youthful, chubby, laughing countenance. These are also
present in the coin portraits of the young Antiochus VL with whose features
the individual lines of this head agree, and wiio was called Ai,6vu<to<;, and
was the first Seleucid to have that inscribed as a title on his coinage. It is
not surprising to find a portrait of Antiochus VI. in Rome. It is known that
Tryphon on his usurpation after murdering Antiochus sent to Rome a golden
H.S. — VOL. XXV. H
98 ALAN J. B. WAGE
Nike to win recognition. But tlie cautious Seiuite while accepting the gift
entered as the donor the murdered Antiochus VI. ^^
K. — Antiochus VII.
Marble head, Jacobsen collection. Arndt 578-580. Schreiber,
StAidien it. d. Bild. Alexanders, p. 28U, note to p. 1 36.
There is in my opinion no likeness between this head and the ])ortrait of
Antiochus on his coins. Schreiber gives no arguments to support his conjec-
tme ; and in any case it is more than doubtful that it is a royal portrait
at all.
/..—Antiochus VIII.
(1) Bronze statuette, Naples, Inv. 12617U. Nutizic dcgli Scavi,
lUOl, p. 300 (as Perseus, good Roman work). Hauser, Fhil. Woch.
11)03, p. 157. Schreiber, Stndicn it. d. Bild. Alexanders, p. 272, as
Antiochus II.
(2) Marble statue, Munich. Furtwtingler, Bcsehreihnng 298,
Sclireibei-, Stadien u. d. Bild. Alexanders, pp. 82, 275.
'J'lie Naples bronze is clearly a portrait ; but though there is a fillet
lound the head, it is in a very unusual position round the crown and also has
chin stjaps. Conseciuently I am more inclined to believe it an athlete statue
as Heiiiies with his head bound with thongs like the head in the Capitoline
Museum.''' Further the piofile has hardly any likeness to the coin-portraits
«»f Antiochus.
Scineiber's identification of the Alexander Rondanini (2) as Antiochus
VIII. is, to say the least, startling. Even if it be not Alexander, the statue
from its style is clearly derived from a late fourth or early third century
original. Besides the Alexandroid rendering of the face is in direct contrast
to the naturalistic coin-portrait of Antiochus : and between the profile of the
iiead and the coin-portrait 1 fail to see any resemblance.
Alan J. B. Wace.
APPENDICES.
I. — A Portrait of Attalus I.
In the Journal International d'ArcMologie Numismatique, 1903,^° I
published a Pergamene tetradrachm (PI. X. 5) with a reverse of Imhoof-
Blumer Group IV-V, but having on the obverse a head entirely unlike the
'•^ V. Ikvan, House if Sclaicus, II. 231. -'» V. 140, I']. VII.
'" Helhig '^ 426. Brunn-Bruckmann, 527.
HELLENISTIC ROYAL PORTRAITS. 99
Pliiletaeriis portrait. This head I conjectin-ed lo be a portrait of Attains I.
Mr. Warwick Wroth however, in a brief notice of my papor,^^ stated that
lie believed the head not to be Attains, but a variety of the Philetaerus
head and to be similar to a coin in the British Museum (PI. X. 5).^- He was
willing to admit that the head of Philetaerus might however have been
varied to suit the portrait of the reigning king. Mr. Wroth has since seen
the 'Attains' head coin, and compared it with the British Museum coin
mentioned. He now, after seeing the coin itself, is of opinion that the head
is of unusually fine style and no doubt differs a good deal from the ordinary
'Philetaerus' head. This will be evident on a comparison of the heads
on the plate (PI. X. 1. 4. 3. 2. 7. 8). The series of Philetaerus heads preserve
throughout the same characteristic features. The neck is thick and puffy ;
the eye is small, and overhung by a heavy brow ; the cheeks are loose and
flat, and the jaw is heavy ; the lips are thick and projecting. These features
are clearly traceable in the British Museum coin. But in the ' Attains ' head
we find on the contrary a large, open eye set deep and looking upward under
a strongly modelled brow. The cheeks are hard, the neck is thinner, the lips
are diawn in tightly, and the jaw is less prominent. And in contrast to the
jovial and sensual but cunning face of Philetaerus, the expression is one
of intense, determined energy.
The coinage of the Pergamene dynasts is noted for its uniformity of
type ; this has been considered due to political and commercial reasons. And
when Eumenes II. coined in his own name with his own portrait he changed
the reverse type.^^ Should Attains I. then have changed the reverse type,
when coining with his own head ? Eumenes I. substituted for the Seleucus
head the Philetaerus portrait. Attalus I. altered the reverse type ; the
shield and inscription changed places and Athena was made bo hold a
wreath over the latter. And also on one coin of his, the Fox tetradrachm
at Berlin (PI. X. 3), the shield and inscription are both behind Athena.
Further Philetaerus on the later coins wears a laurel wreath instead of
the simple fillet. I suggested before that Attalus coined with his own
head towards the end of his reign. Imhoof-Blumer remarked that con-
sidering the length of his reign the coinage of Attalus I. was small.
Dr. Gabler tries to rectify this : he suggests that Eumenes I. coined only
with the Seleucus head, and assigns Imhoof-Blumer's second and third groups
to Attalus 1.2^ This seems to me untenable. Soon after his accession
Eumenes I. was at war with his uncle's suzerain Antiochus I., whom he
defeated at Sardis.^^ Antiochus I. died soon after, and Pergamura became
independent. It is not reasonable to suppose that Eumenes after defeating
the Seleucid king in person should have continued to coin with the head
2' CI. Rev., 1903, p. 475. 1903, p. 118. Cf. Kornemann, Beitr. z. alt.
'^^ B.M.G. Mysia, Fergamum, No. 36. Geschichte I. p. 89 on the deification of the
^^ B.M.G. Mysia, Pergamum, 81. It is usu- Attalids.
ally supposed to have been coined at Syros, '^* Gabler, Erythrd, p. 52.
but I see no reason why it should not have been ^' Strabo, xiii. 4,
struck in Pergamum. Cf. Von .Fritze, Z. f. N.
H 2
100 ALAN J. B. WAGE
of the founder of that line. I would then propose a new arrangement
thus : —
Imhoof. Group I. Philetaerus.
Group II. Eumenes I.
Group III. (Philetaerus head with laurel wreath.) Attains I. after
GaUic victories, after 240 B.C.
Fox tetrad rachm. Attalus I., circa 230 B.C.
Group IV. (Altered reverse.) Attalus I., after final defeat of
Antiochus Hierax, circa 228 B.C.
Group IV-V. (Grapes.) Attalus I. after 214 B.C. Defeat of
Achaeus.
' Attalus ' liead. Attalus I. after 201 B.C.
By this arrangement the 'Attalus' head falls into place at the end of
Attains' reign. Apart from it there are at least four changes in the type
during Attains' reign. Further it is not the obvei'se that matters so much
as the reverse.'*! The Attalid dynasty preserved right through its coinage a
reverse directly depemlent on the type used by Lysimachus. And coins of
Lysimachus continued to be struck for purely commercial reasons by
Ephesus, Byzantium, and other cities till the second century B.C. It was
not unusual for a ruler who wished to coin in his own name and head to
begin with a compromise. This was done by Diodotus of Bactria, who coined
with his own head, and the reverse and name of his master Antiochus 11.^'^
And vicever&d KwiiocAiw?, I. coined with his father's head ; ^^ and the majority
of the Ptolemaic coins bear on the obverse the head of Soter I., the founder
of the dynasty. The use of the Philetaerus head is exactly paralleled by
that of the portrait of Soter I., for not all the Ptolemaic kings coined with
their own portraits. Similarly I believe that Attalus I., when he felt strong
enough to stand alone, began to coin with his own portrait, still keeping
the same reverse for commercial reasons, and preferred to leave the in-
scription cJ)IAETAIPOY foi" political reasons as indicating no change of
policy tovvjirds the Asiatic cities : though perhaps his uncle's name as
Lysimachus' treasurer had a commercial value in Asia. Eumenes If.
returned to the Philetaerus head type, because he had his reputation to
make, and his realm was in danger from Antiochus III. But he eventu-
ally coined with his own portrait, and a new reverse. Attalus II. foV
similar reasons preserved the old type. But some day we shall also have
a portrait of him perhaps ; and it would not be surprising if gold coins of
Pergarnum were to be found.^'
^ Cf. the Apollo on the Omphalos type of "^'^ The gem in Paris (Coll. Luynes, 154,
the Seleucids, and the Ptolemaic eagle. The Furtwangler, Gemmen, PI. 33, 11), which I
Phoenician cities even under the Selencids previously tried to identify as Attalus, is
still struck with an eagle reverse obviously for perhaps judging by the coin a portrait of him.
commercial reasons. But there are changes in the getting of the eye
'" B.M.C. Selnicids, V\. V. 7. and mouth; and the omission of tlie fillet is
=8 ,/,//. <5. 1903, p. 110. hard to explain The British Museum
HELLENISTIC ROYAL PORTRAITS.
101
Since the above was written I have had the opportunity of discussing
the points raised with Dr. von Fritze. He beHeves the Attahis head to be
the best portrait of Philetaerus, and does not agree with my proposed re-
division of the Pergamene series, but admits that the Attains head coin was
struck towards the end of the reign of Attahis I. To him I owe my knowledge
of the Modena replica of the Attains head (PI. X. 6) whose obverse is from
the same die as my coin. He also informs me there 'is another tetradrachm
of the Fox type at Florence, both obverse and reverse being from the same
dies as the Berlin specimen.
IL — Seleucus, Son of Antiochus I.
Mr. Macdonald has suggested that an unknown head on two Seleucid
coins -^^ inscribed BASIAEHZ ANTIOXOY, that from their style and the
border of dots belong to the reign of Antiochus L or his successor, is a
portrait of Seleucus the eldest son of that king.^^ The obverses of these
coins are from the same die, and therefore by the same artist. We have
' Philetaerus' gem which Furtwiingler said was
similar in style to the Paris gem, ami perhaps
by the same artist, is a forgery. So no assist-
ance towards the identification of the coin
portrai is to be obtained from gems. Ct'.
Jov,rn. Int. Arch. Nam. 1903, p. 146, PI.
VII. 9, 10. Furtwiingler, Gcvimen, PI. 33, 10.
^ J.H.S. 1903, PI. I. 6. 7, p 110. I
would refer throughout to this paper by Jlr.
Macdonald, Bevan's House of Seleucus, and
U. Wilcken's articles on the Antiochi in Pauly-
Wissowa.
•*^ The head on thee coins has been identified
by Dr. von Friize as a portrait of Antiochus
Hierax ( Trojn und llion, p. 503). This is
shewn by Mr. Macdonald {J.H.S. 1903, p. 110)
to be an impossible identification, and he gives
us another portrait of Hierax after proving that
the head usually called Hierax is Antiochus II.
{J.H.S. 1903, PI. II. 1. 3. 4). I feel myself
unable to accept this head as a portrait of
Hierax, for the simple reason that there is no
difference in the features between it and the
heads proved by Mr. Macdonald to be Antio-
chus II. No other supposed portrait of Hierax
stands any real test : and yet it is acknow-
ledged that coins must have been struck for
Hierax, if only to pay for troops and supplies
during his wars against his brother Seleucus II.
and Attains I. The solution seems to me to
be simple : no coins were struck with Hierux'
own portrait. Mr. Macdonald has shewn
{J.H. S. 1903, p. 114) that Hierax' supporters, his
mother Laodice and her friends, coined with
the head of his father Antiochus II. It aeems
unnecessary in explain a rather younger-look-
ing h.-ad of this king, strack after his death, by
urging that because it is young it must be
Hierax, especially since his paity caused it to
be struck. Hieiax when his father died was
about 10 (Beloch, Gr. Gcschichle III.^p. 454),
and must then have been entirely under his
mother's control ; this would account for his
not coining with his own head when his
brother had been driven from Asia Minor
after the battle of Ancyra. From 242 to
228 during his struggle with his brother
and Attalus he was from 14 to 27 : and as
he grew older his party's power decreased.
He died a fugitive in Thrace before 226
about the age of 28. Hierax probably drew
most of his supplies from coinage struck by
cities that helped him, such as Alexandria
Troas. It is reasonable to believe that these
cities in view of Hierax' uncertain position
would not have risked their own existence by
displeasing the rightful king by coining with
his usurping brother's portrait. To continue to
strike with the head of Antiochus II. could not
displease either brother, whichever even'.ually
proved victor. That these cities in the Troad
were but half-hearted supporters of Hierax is
proved by their subsequent steadfast loyalty to
Attalus (Polybius v. 78). The only evidence
that Hierax was made viceroy in Asia Minor by
Seleucus II. is Justinus (xxvii. 2. 6). He is
not, however, mentioned in the cuneiform
inscriptions as such.
102 ALAN J. B. WAGE
to deal then with one die only. On a close comparison of this iiead with
Mr. Macdonald's standard portrait of Antiochus 11.,''- tlie features appear
the same. We have not two different persons, but two portraits of (»nc
person. The features do not vary ; only the method of treating them is
ditterent. The eyes in both heads are deep set, but look out straight
forward from large sockets. The line of each nose curves out to a point :
the lips are thick and project : and in each case the line of the jaw sweeps
round to a tirni chin. But the treatment of the young king's head
differs. The standard portrait is that of a lean, energetic, but sulky-look-
ing youth not yet fully developed. The other head is that of a chubby,
disagreeable child somewhat idealized. But even if this identification is
not accepted, there are still grave reasons for refusing to acknowledge it as
the liead of Seleucus. The coins as shewn by Mi-. Macdonald were struck
in the Troad. Seleucus was associated with his father, and was viceroy in
Babylonia as Antiochus I. had been before him. His father's lule as
viceroy had been only over the lands east of the Euphrates.-'^ There is
every reason to suppose that Antiochus I. imitated his father, and made his
son viceroy only as regards territories east of the Euphrates. If Seleucus'
writ did not run west of that river, why should his head appear on coins
struck in the Troad ? ^^ In the Branchidae inscription^^ which is now taken
to refer to tSeleucus I. and Antiochus I.,-**^ both Bao-tXet? are mentioned in the
heading, but it is Seleucus alone who writes the letter. Similarly a rescript
to Erythrae ^'' dealing with contributions for the Galatian war is written by
Antiochus I. alone. Antiochus the young son of Antiochus III, wiote a
letter to the citizens of Magnesia ad Maeandrum in his own name.-'^ But
in this letter he makes special mention of his father, and remarks on
TO TT/JO"? €/j,€ ^|r7](f)la/xa. And further the letter is inscribed on the same
pillar as and below a letter of his father replying to a similar letter and an
eniba.ssy of the Magncsians about tiie festival of Artemis Leucoplnyene.
The Sigean inscription,^'-^ which is in honour of a physician for his
loyalty towards the ^aaiXeU Antiochus and Seleucus, and for his successful
treatment of Antiochus, probably, as Wilcken suggests, refers to
Antiochus I, and his son. But it is no evidence that Seleucus had any
authority in the Troad. Nor does the decree^" of the Ionic Confederation
addressed ToZv re ^aaiXevcri 'Avtco^o) Kal 'Avtco^^^m koI ttj ^acriXiaar]
'^TparovUrj prove that the junior ^aat\€v<i had authority outside of his own
special territories. To judge by the coin inscriptions, Antiochus I., when
acting as his father's viceroy in Babylonia, was not full /3acrtXeu9. The coins
« J.H.S. 1903, I'l. I. 3, 1). 108. Vf. also 36 ^ Wilcken in Pauly-Wissowa s.n. Aiitio-
PL I. 10. chus.'-' Haussoullier, Rev. Pkilol. 1898, p. 121,
» App. Syr. 62. 1900, j>. 2.56.
*• Mr. Macdonald suggests a possible answer ^~ Hicks,! 164.
to this, op. cit. p. Ill, 38 Kern, Inschrifl. v. Magnesia a. M. 18, 19.
^ C.I.O. 2852 = Ditteubergei-,' Syll. 170, ^» Hicks,' 165, Dittenb. Syll.^ 157.
Hicka, 176, *(■ Michel, 486,
HELLENISTIC ROYAL PORTRAITS. 103
are inscribed ANTIOXOY ZEAEYKOY BASIAEHZ/^ Antioclms, son of
king Seleucus. That this traiishition is correct is proved by the inscriptions
which in every case use the phiral, /Sao-t\et<r. And Pliny ^■^ mentions Ikmo-
dainas Scleuci el Antiochi regnm dux : this is clearly a translation of Atffio-
8d/xa<; XeXevKov koX AvtioXov ^aaiXeuiv arpuTrjyo'i. The right of coinage
was far more of a royal prerogative than mere titles on honorary inscriptions.
Antioclms seems to have coined under license from his father. There tire
coins extant however struck in the types of Seleucus L*^ bearing a different
inscription BAZIAEaZ ZEAEYKOY ANTIOXOY (PI X. 9). These coins"
are ail of Indian provenance ; they are of Bactrian fabric, and were all struck
at the same mint, probably Dionysopolis or Nysa, Six " rightly attributed
these to Seleucus the son of Antiochus I. Seleucus made himself full ^aai\€v<i,
and coined in his own name, styling himself son of Antiochus merely for fonn's
sake, before declaring himself fully independent. These coins explain why
Antiochus decreed his eldest son's death, John of Antioch says *" on
'AvTLOxov . . . u/b? "EiXevKOf Kat ' Avrto')(o<i 6 eVtKX^/^et? de6<i' aW' o fiev
SiXevKo<i, eiri^ovXeveiv vTroTTrevde\<i t(o irarpi, KaraKTeiverai. Trogus **'
merely mentions Ut in Syria rex Antiochus cognomine Sotcr, altero Jilio occUo,
altera regc nuncupato, decesserit. We now have a fairly clear idea of the
nature of Seleucus' crime. He not only meditated but had actually begun
to carry out a plot to rebel against his father. When this occurred is
uncertain. Our authorities for dating this event would be the cuneiform
tablets from Babylon. And these, even if rightly read, contradict one
another. They give us the following list of kings for the reign of
Antiochus I. :
Seleucid Era. 37. Antiochus and Seleucus.'*"
88. Antiochus and Seleucus.^'^
39. Antiochus and Antiochus.*^
43. Antiochus and Seleucus.**^
40. Antiochus and Antiochus his son."*^
47. Antiochus, the great king, and Antiochus."**
49. Antiochus and Seleucus.**
Lehmann,^'' however, has recently shewn that the heading for the year
39 should read Antiochus and Seleucus. We must then assume that Seleucus
met the fate he deserved in 268-267 B.C., as the heading for the year 43
« Gardner, Num. Chr. 1880, p. 189. Six, *' Zeitschr. f. Assyriologie, vii. p. 226.
do. 1898, p. 226. •*' do. viii. p. 108. For year 59 one tablet
*2 Nat. Hist. vi. 18. gives as king Antiochus, but another tablet of
•*' Obv. Bearded Zeus laurel wreathed. Rev. the same year gives as king Seleucus : and in
Athena driving quadriga of elephants. year 59 Antiochus II. was sole king.
•" Six, Num. Chr., loc. cit. Cf. Gardner, •** Schrader, Keilinschrift. Bibliothek iii. 2,
loc. cit. p. 136.
■*« F.H.G. iv. 538, 55. ^^ Lehniann, Beilr. z. alt. GeschichU, 1903,
** Prol. xxvi. Malalas says Seleucus died p. 526, 1.
young, p. 205.
104 HELLENISTIC ROYAL PORTRAITS.
dates from Adar (= March 268). Since Autiochus' marriage with Stratonike
took place about 294-293, Seleucus, if he was born as early as 292, was 17
in 275. Unfortunately, however, there are no tablets for the earlier years of
Antiochus' reign, so we cannot say whether tliis was Seleucus' first year as
viceroy or not. Perhaps he was not of age till 275. His younger brother
Antiochus, who was 40 when he died in 246, was therefore 20 when made
viceroy about 266. His immediate promotion shews lie was of age. Also
Ptolemy Epiphanes, who was betrothed to Cleopaira, dau. liter of Anti-
ochus III., about 198, did not marry her till 193, when he w;is about 18.^*
Very possibly Seleucus' appointment as viceroy was part of Antiochus*
preparations for the first Syrian war, which was already begun in 274,
though in late autumn 275 there was still peace.^'-^ In connexion with this
war to secure an alliance between Magas and Antiochus, Apame, the latter's
daughter, was married to Magas not later than 274. Apame's daughter,
Berenike, was of marriageable age when Magas died (258-250), therefore
Apame was probably at least 16 in 274.'''^ If she was older than Seleucus,
l>e would have been barely 16 when made viceroy in 275 : this seems hardly
probable, though it is possible. Antiochus III. made his son viceroy when
only 12, and Antiochus, son of Antiochus IV., was only 3 when declared
viceroy. Still in spite of the fragmentary nature of the history of the
period, we have been enabled to patch together enough to give us a passing
glimpse of the character of Seleucus, who fell a victim to his own unfortunate
ambition, as might have been expected from a grandson of Demetrius
Poliorketes.
A. J. B. W.
^' Mahatty, Eipp. of P(olc7nie'i, y. 306. (I. 249) mentions Stratonike first. All the
*- Lehmann, o}>. cit, ]). 498 sqq. dates as regaids Stratonike's marriage and
'•'^ Her sister Stratonike married Demetrius II. divorce and her husband's biith are conjec-
of Macedonia: there is no reason to suppose turnl. Cf. lieloch, (Jr. Gcschichfc III."'^, p. 93,
with Wilcken (Pauly-Wissowa s.n. Apame 3) sqq.
that Apame was the younger because Eusebius
NAUKRATIS, 1903.
In tlie spring of 1903 I was enabled by a grant from the Craven Fund
of the University of Oxford to return to the site of Naukratis. Having left
certain parts of the Mounds unexplored in 1899^ because they were either too
high, or too sodden with the infiltration of water, I intended to attack them
whenever the schalJi diggers should have removed the unproductive upper
layers, and a season of low Nile level had occurred. The results of this
campaign, the last, I expect, that will be undertaken at Naukratis, I embjdy
in the following Report, discussing at the same time certain points on which
new light can be thrown from other sources.
A. — The Site.
The identification of the site of Naukratis, so brilliantly made by
Mr. Petrie, has never been questioned. All scholars agree, moreover, with
his contention that Naukratis lay to west, not east, of the Great or ' Agatho-
daemon ' Nile of Ptolemy. Mr. Petrie, however, maintained that the town
did not lie actually on that river, but on a derived Canal. His grounds were
these. (1) Herodotus (ii. 97) says that during the Inundation there was water
passage from Naukratis to Memphis under the Pyramids: but that the usual
way lay by the apex of the Delta {i.e. by the river itself) : (2) Strabo (xvii.
23), after mentioning tlie Nitriote Nome in the course of a geographical
survey, which proceeded from north to south, says TrXrja-iov Be koI ivravBa
7r6\i<i Mei^eXao? ev apicnepa he ev T(f> AeXra eirl fiev to3 Trorafim Nau/c/aart?.
This statement, said Mr. Petrie, in that it placed the town on the left bank
of the river, was the result of a confusion in Strabo's mind. For, in fact,
Naukratis was on the right of the Canopic Nile as one ascends. Strabo
should have said on the left of a derived Canal.
In this interpretation of his authorities, the arguments for which failed
at the time to convince his colleague, Mr. Griffith,'^ Mr. Petrie seems to have
' See 5.5'./4. vol. V. pp. 26 ff. Naukratis on the East of the river, not
* Nauk. ii. p. 83. I do not agree with Mr. supposing 'Delta' as used by Strabo to mean
Griffith's argument either, though I come to only the land between the rivers : and the fact
his conclusion. I see no reason for placing that Ptolemy [mt the Nome of Naukratis on
106 D. a. HOGARTH, H. L. LORIMEK, AND C. C. EIKJAR
been wrong. Herodotus in expressly stating that the route via the Pyramids
existed only in Inumhition time, and that the usual route was by the river,
supplies no ground for assuming the existence of a canal. Nor does Strabo. In
the passage quoted above, the latter, I have no doubt, meant by iv dpiarepa,
to left, not of the river, but of the Nitriote Nome and Mcnelaus, to which ho had
just conducted his reader.s. From that digression into the western desert he
returns eastward (i.e. to the left hand) to the Delta (by which he probably
understood, as we do now, not only the area between the Niles, but the whole
fan of irrigated land) and clearly states that Naiikratis lay on the River. To
the ordinary authorities, which support him in this, may be added the Coptic
recital oii the Martpxiom of the Blessed Bjnmttchus, edited and tran.slated by
F. Rossi,^ wherein the Saint is brought to ' the place called Naukratis and
there remained on the river.' On the great stela of Nectanebo discovered
upon the site of Naukratis in 1890 (published by G. Maspero and commented
on later by Messrs. Erman and Wilcken *) it is enacted that the stone be set
up in Naukratis on the hank of the Ann, {'nw) stream, i.e., without doubt, on
the bank of the Great River.
B. — History.
(1) Foundation.
The question whether Naukratis existed before the settlement of
Greeks there by Amasis (circa 570 B.C.) is still open : but a new aspect has
been given to it by facts not sufficiently considered in the original contro-
versy between Messrs. Petrie and Gardner on the one hand^ and G. Hirschfeld
on the other,'^ or in the resumd of M. Mallet.^ Attention was drawn
repeatedly in B.S.A. vol. v.^, as a result of the excavations of 1899, to the
distinctively Egyptian character of the southern half of the Mounds ; and
among other inferences, the suggestion was once more made'-* that there was a
distinct Egyptian town on the site wdiich existed before 570 B.C. The
first part of this suggestion found almost immediate support through the
discovery of the stela of Nectanebo, already mentioned (it came to light
almost in the centre of the southern area called by Mr. Petrie ' The Great
Temenos ') ; for this speaks of the place under an Egyptian name, Fi-emro^^
adding ' called Naukratis.' But an inscription of the fourth century has,
the East does not justify Mr. Griffith in saying Cat. : Zeitsch. fur Agypt. Sprachc 38, part 2,
that although Ptolemy expressly stated the p. 127.
town was on the west, he was really picturing ^ See esp. the former's letter to the Academy,
it to himself as on the east! It is worth July 16, 1887; and the latter's remarks on p.
notice that, in the Revenue Papyrus of Phil- 71, and elsewhere of iVa^A:. ii.
adelphus, there is no Naukratite Nome, but " Rh. Mus. 43, p. 209.
Naukratis itself is attached to the Saitic, '^ Mim. Misnion du Cairc, I'i'di.
evidently as a place not in the Nome, but near * See esp. pp. 45-48.
it. (SoiTTjs avv Nau/cp{£T«i. ) ' It was made in Smith's Diet. Gcog. s.v. and
^ Pap. Copti del Museo Torincsc in Mem. R. was repeated by Mallet, op. cit. p. 150.
Accad. Scienze Torino, 2nd Ser., vol. xxxviii. i" Erman, I.e., but according to Maspro,
pp. 271-298. Pa-meraiti.
^ C. R. Acad. Inscr. 1899 : Cairo Museum
NAUKRATIS, 1903. 107
of course, but little bearing on the second part of the suggestion, viz. that
such a town existed in the sixth, seventh, or earlier centuries.
The excavations of 1903, however, wliile fully confirming the distinction
of the site into a northern Greek (juarter and a southern Egyptian quarter,
also tended to support a suggestion first made by Mr. Petrie,^^ that the south
part of tlie site was the earliest occupied. The thick burnt bottom stratum,
which Mr. Petrie dated before all other human remains on the site, was
found wherever we sank pits between Mr. Petrie's ' Scarab Factory ' and his
' (Jreat Temenos,' but nowhere either north or south of this area. In a series
of pits, wliich I pushed southward from the southern eilge of the central
excavated area up to and even within the southern limit of the ' Great
Temenos ' area, the basal mud occurred at an average depth of 5 feet.
Upon it, varying from one to two feet in thickness, lay this burnt stratum
of charcoal and ash, containing no sherds but rougii ' kitchen ' ware in which
I fail to detect any necessarily Greek character : while the two undisturbed
feet of deposit superincumbent contained a little painted white-faced
Naukratite pottery (.such as that which lies in the bottom stratuni on the
north) and black-figured sherds, and abundance of fragments of figurines and
amulets in the same glazed ' sandy ware ' as that described by Mi'. Petrie
(Nmik. i. p. 14). The uppermost stratum was naturally a hotchpotch of
disturbed stuff, among which, however, occurred only a very small amount of
Greek sherds. This region has been the scene of a conflagration, which
devastated but a small area, and may either have been accidental or kindled
with intent to effect a certain clearance.
The glazed ' sandy ware ' objects, which are the rarest of finds at the
north end of the Mounds, but on the south the most frequent, at whatever
point a pit is sunk, occurred with these scraps of the earliest painted Naukra-
tite vases, but also at a lower level than the latter were ever found. The
beginning of the fabric must therefore be dated before that of the local
painted pottery of Greek manufacture. It had been a flourishing industry
for some time before the latter began, but it flourished in the south of the
site only.
To show how the classes of remains differ at the two ends of the site,
I quote from my day book that on May 1st and 2nd, while digging exclusively
in the southern quarter, Mr. Edgar and I found five Egyptian bronze figurines :
fragments of three faience bowls with incised patterns and hieroglyphics : two
atone figurines, Egyptian style : one alabastron : seventy-three glazed sandy
ware Egyptian cult figurines or amulets : and seven painted Greek sherds.
Whereas in the three weeks during which we dug out the north end, and
there found so much Greek painted ware that after wholesale rejection we
had to pack nearly a thousand specimens, we came across no Egyptian
bronzes ; no incised faience ; and under twenty objects, all told, in glazed
' sandy ware.'
It is not necessary to insist further on this distinction between the north
" Nauk. i. p. 21, but somewhat unaccountably coiiti-adicted by Mf. Garduer, Nauk. ii. p. 34.
108 D. G. HOGARTH, H. L. LORIMER, AND C. C. EDGAR
and south towns, between Pi-emro and Naukratis. It was sufficiently set forth
in B.S.A. v., and indeed was indicated in the Memoirs of Messrs. Petrie and
Gardner themselves. But, if it be conceded also (as seems inevitable) that
the Egyptian end of the site was the earliest inhabited, then the arguments
of those gentlemen, claiming an earlier date than 570 for the Greek settle-
ment, on the ground that there is evidence of prior settlement on the site
itself, lose their cogency : for that evidence refers, not to the Greek, but to
the Egyptian town. I need only call further attention to Mr. Edgar's
argument, stated in B.S.A. v. p. 49, that the glazed 'sandy ware,' if not
Egyptian, was probably a Phoenician and certainly not a Greek fabric — an
argument which has not been assailed.
Although, however, the Egyptian town was the earlier, the contention
that Greeks were settled on some part of the site before 570 is not disposed
of, if it can be supported on grounds independent of the earlier remains in
the southern Mound. The literary argument stands where Hirschfeld,
Gardner, and Mallet left it, except for this fact — that if there were a previous
Egyptian town, Herodotus' phrase in regard to Amasis' settlement, toI<tl
airiKvevfievoicfL €<; A'tyvirrov eScoKe NavKpariv ttoXiv evoiKrjcrai, becomes
intelligible, without assuming the previous presence of Greeks (cf. Nauk. i.
p. 4 and ii, p. 71). The epigraphic argument of Mr. Gardner has not been
re-asserted during the past five years against the destructive criticism of
Mr. Edgar (B.S.A. v. p. 52), and has not received any support from the
inscribed sherds found in either of the later excavations.
On the whole, however, though agreeing with Hirschfeld that the state-
ment of Strabo (p. 801), owing to his use of the word ypovw, may refer to
so long a space of time as to be quite reconcileable with the Herodotean date,
I see no adequate reason for rejecting the previous presence ot Milesians on
a small part of the site later devoted to a general Foreign Concession.
There is some, if very little, independent positive evidence for it (of an
inferential sort) in the statement which Jerome repeated from Castor, and in
the tale of Polycharmos, cited by Athenaeus (xv. 18); while there is no
direct evidence proving a negative.
(2) Vicissitudes.
(a) Mr. Petrie's argument that the town suffered a great general
disaster early in the sixth century (which he ascribed to the troubles
attendant on the succession of Amasis) was based on (1) the existence of the
burnt bottom stratum, (2) the sudden cessation of the scarab manufacture at
the opening of the reign of Amasis. It is greatly weakened by our
observation (which nothing in his own excavation-notes contradicts) that
the burnt stratum is limited to a small area ; and by Mr. Edgar's probable
suggestion that the scarab manufactory, being a Phoenician affair, ceased
(if indeed it did cease) ^^ on the concession of a part of the site to the Greeks
^^ The argument from the absence of Amasis' one : for Necho's name is equally wanting,
cartouches is, as Mallet showed, a very Aveak
NAUKRATIS, 1903. 109
by Amasis. For this concession may reasonably be supposed to have excluded
other foreigners. On the whole, therefore, it is unnecessary to assume any
more cataclysmal event at tiiis period than the disturbance of other aliens
by the Greeks settled under the terms of Amasis' concession, which I still
regard as a measure of compulsion and restriction rather than favour.
(b) The argument stated in B.S.A. v. p. 36 that there was no subsequent
interruption of Naukratite prosperity was not supported by the observations
made in 1903. Mr. Gardner, who judged, from the state in which he
found votive objects distributed round the southern Aphrodite Shrine, that
' some calamity befell the city ' (during the Persian invasion under Cambyses)
seems to have been right, although other causes might have led to the
breaking and casting forth of dedicated vessels. There is clear evidence that
the structures in the Northern Temenos, which I name the Hellenion, were
restored practically from the foundation in the first half of the fifth century.
(See below, p. 114.) The first explorers argued from their failure to
find good red-figured pottery. This negative observation has been weakened
by the sherds unearthed in 1899, and still more in 1903. Red-figured ware
of several pel iods and of all qualities, including the very finest, occurred in
the northern Temenos ; as also did the later varieties of black-figured ware.
But imported red-figured ware of the early period of severe style was, in
fact, found very rarely; and this fact points to an interval of commercial
stagnation having taken place in the first half of the fifth century before the
visit of Herodotus.
(c) A general Ptolemaic restoration, involving the rebuilding of the
northern shrines on artificial mounds of sand, heaped over their ancient sites,
is certain. But, as was said in B.S.A. v. p. 37, this may be supposed to have
been due not to the city having fallen to ruin, and much less to its having
lain in ruin for any length of time, but simply to the well known Ptolemaic
policy of renovating, almost refounding, cities and shrines thi'oughout Egypt
as a justification of the new Dynasty. This, as before suggested, had to be
done at Naukratis in a thoroughgoing way, probably owing to rising damp.
As will be stated more in detail when we come to speak of the Hellenion, a
belt of unproductive sand was found to overlie remains ranging from the
first half of the sixth to the latter half of the fourth centuries, many of
which, notably those of an architectural nature, had obviously been bedded
down to receive the sand. Above this belt were found the pavements and
walls of a connected series of chambers, in which nothing pre-Ptolemaic
occurred.
(3) Extinction.
The disappearance of Naukratis has certainly been dated by Mr. Petrie
too early. His argument that, after a period of revived prosperity under the
Ptolemies, the city decayed rapidly under the Empire, is probably stated too
strongly. The decay was only relative. A community, which could produce
men of letters and philosophers in the third century A.D., was still vigorous;
110 D. G. HOGARTH, H. L. LORIMER, AND C. C. EDGAR
and that it was by no means so extinct as Mr. Petrie maintained, by tlie end
of that century, is amply proved by tlie inchision of Naukratis in lists of
important towns and bishoprics of much later date, e.g. the Greek lists of
Hicrocles (early 6th cent.), and Leo and the Coptic List of Episcopal Sees,
published (from two MSS.) by M, Amelineau as fourth appendix to his
Giiographie de VEgi)j)t6 a V ijpoquc Coptc.^'^ It is mentioned in the stories of
two Coptic martyrdoms,^'* and a merchant of the place plays a part in
Heliodorus' Aethiojnca, written late in the fourth century. The name does
not occur, however, in any of the later Coptic Scalae (see Ajjpendircs to
Amelineaii ojj. cit.), and we may therefore infer that Naukratis had lap.sed
by about the tenth century to a village, or rather to a group of villages, of
which Nekrash, Gayif, and Nebirch survive.
C. — TOPOGIIAPHY.
(1) 7'he Hellcniun.
Whatever the date of the first settlement by Greeks, no one has ever
ascribed the foundation of the He/lcnion by the nine cities of Asia to an
earlier period than 570. The only qviestion concerns its position on the site
and its identification with existing remains. It may incidentally be remarked
that Mr. Petrie, in his original publication, constantly assumed two things in
regard to it which the text of Herodotus does not warrant, (1) that it was
called the Prt^i-Hellenion ; (2) that tlie market, presided over by the same
nine cities, was held in its Temenos.
Mr. Petrie located the Hellenion in an area at the south end of the site,,
which he called the * Great Temenos,' and drew certain historical inferences
from the remains there observed, which were accepted by Mr. E. A, Gardner,
and by scholars generally up to 1899. In that year, as the main result of my
first campaign on the site, I advanced the view that the Hellenion had
nothing to do with the ' Great Temenos ' at all, but was to be found in
another Temenos at the north end of the Mounds — in the Greek quarter, in
fact, not the Egyptian {B.S.A. v. pp. 42 ff.). In 1903, I was able (thanks to
an unusually dry season) to continue the exploration of the northern Temenos,.
as far as the extreme limits of uncultivated land : but before the results are
described a word must be said about the rival site, the ' Great Temenos.'
(a) The ' Great Temenos.'
One of my principal objects in returning to the site of Naukratis in
1903 was to probe for foundation-deposits which might show under what
Pharaoh was built the immense Wall, described and mapped by Mr. Petrie
as surrounding his ' Great Temenos.' In the event I spent a week searching
for its north-west corner, the only one whose position on Mr. Petrie's plan lay
clear of cultivation or houses. I may say at once that not only did I never
succeed in finding that corner, but — a most unlooked-for result — I never
" Cf. also ibid. \\ 271 '* v. supra, p. 106, and Am^lineau p. 271.
NAUKllATIS, 1903. Ill
found any clear evidence of tlie existence of a Great Wall of any kind. As
Mr. Petiie's benchmarks were no longer recognizable, and his plan had been
somewhat roughly made, I could not lay down on my own chart the position
of the invisible corner with any precision ; and I had to make wide casts
for it from various sides. I first tried to liit the outer face of the north
wall of his ' Temenos' by a series of pits pushed up from the north : then I
tried to get the inner faces both of that wall and the western wall by a
similar method from within the ' Temenos ' : then I tried for the outward
face of the western wall, beginning far outside the possible area on the west,
and advancing eastwards. In this way I have no manner of doubt that I
completely traversed in several places the lines on which both the north and
west walls ought to have been. But I never found any solid mass of brick-
work of one-fourth the dimension ascribed by Mr. Petrie to his ' Great Wall.'
What I did find was a much ruined complex of buildings, the lower of which
were made of bricks of the dimensions recorded by Mr. Petrie in his Temenos
Wall ; while the upper, surviving as one upstanding block in the very centre
of the line in which the north wall of the Temeno.s was to be looked for,
showed beneath their lowest courses a belt of earth containing pottery
(including a few bits of Greek wares) not earlier than the fifth century B.C.
The broadest wall actually lighted upon in these trials was one running
north and south, measuring sixteen feet across : it formed the west side
of a grouj) of chambers, which had the character of a dwelling house. On
every occasion on which I found a wall, chambers eventually opened on either
hand of it, before a quarter of the requisite solid breadth had been revealed.
Since the cemetery mound on the south-west, wliich Mr. Petrie believed
to be a surviving part of the Wall, was still there to guide me, it is not possible
that I can have missed altogether the line of both the west and north walls
of the Temenos as plotted by Mr. Petrie. Nor can it be supposed, in view of
the antiquity which Mr. Petrie claimed for his Temenos Wall, that I was
digging below its original site, and opening out chambers antecedent to its
foundation. Therefore, with all diffidence (for it is almost impossible in such
a case to prove an absolute negative), I must state my conviction that
(for once) Mr. Petrie was mistaken in the nature of certain masses of
construction, which exist on three sides of the area called by him the
' Great Temenos ' ; and that these represent not a solid wall of brickwork,
but an aggregate of honse remains, piled up round a lower area, wherein
lay the Egyptian temples and public buildings, of which one contained the
Nectanebo Sti la, and another was excavated by Mr. Petrie himself and regarded
as a Greek fort. This area was, in fact, the central area of the town, Pi-emro.
I make this suggestion with the better assurance since it does not appear
from Mr. Petrie's own narrative that lie ever tested the nature of these masses
of construction by systematic digging. He seems (p. 24) to have relied
mainly on the statement of local Arabs that there had been within their
memory mounds on three sides of this area, as high as that surviving mound
on the south-west, which he did not excavate for fear of disturbing modern
graves. These other mounds, he says, were already reduced in 1884 to the
112 D. G. HOGARTH, H. L. LORIMER, AND C. C. EDGAR
general level. As for the iiigh moiiuJ on the south-west, still surviving, this
also appears to me, who have often examined it, not to be a solid mass of
brickwork at all, but a nucleus of chambers, such . as that I found on the
north-west. Mr. Petrie may have been deceived by the outcrop on its inner
face of some continuous house- wall, now removed. In a word, I venture to
assert not only that there is nothing answering to the Helleuion in this part
of the mounds, but no Great Temenos at all. Probably there existed here
small precincts of Egyptian deities (to one of which the Ptolemaic pylon
explored by Mr. Petrie gave access), surrounded by a high ring of mud-brick
houses.
I trust it will not seem presumptuous if I say that at the time and
under the circumstances in which a greater digger than myself explored
this area, such a mistake as I have supposed was well nigh inevitable.
Indeed the mistake (if such it was) was acquiesced in by all Mr. Petrie's
coadjutors and by myself in 1899. Although I had then every reason to
transfer the Hellenion from this area, its superficial resemblance to a Temenos
made me accept it without question as one great enclosure. In 1884, the
deposit was much deeper over all the area. To follow the faces of the
supposed enclosure walls could only have been done at great expenditure of
time and money : to cut a test trench across or sink a pit upon the surface
was probably to be confirmed in error : for the former was as likely as not to
hit a broad wall which would continue along the axis of the trench ; the
latter to descend on to solid brickwork. Starting with the presumption
that a great Temenos, other than those he had found in the north centre,
must exist on the site, and having no reason to distrust a southern situation
for this, Mr. Petrie could hardly help finding it in the vast southern quadri-
lateral hollow.
(b) The Northern Tancnos.
The first part of the campaign of 1903 was devoted to the rival site on
the north, the Temenos which I discovered in 1899, and identified with the
Hellenion, because of its locality, the great size of its outer walls, and the
occurrence within it of dedications not only to various individual gods, but
to the 0eot twj/ 'FjWrjixov, not commemorated elsewhere on the site. The
second exploration confirmed the conclusions of the first in three important
respects. (1) I laid bare remains of the east wall of this Temenos, finding
it to be of a breadth comparable to that already found on the west. (2) I
again found dedications to the 'Gods of the Greeks,' and others in in-
dividual honour of Aphrodite, and (for the first time) Artemis. (3) I showed
that the series of small chambers, opened- in 1899, was continued eastward
right across the Temenos by others belonging to the same periods, and
similarly containing remains of dedicated pottery, the formulae on which
seemed to indicate that distinct groups of chambers were devoted to distinct
deities.
The excavations of 1899 had been suspended in their eastward course on
the parallel bounding the horizontal series of squares IV (II on the 1899
NAUKllATIS, 1903. 113
plan) on tlie east; and beyond that line, two or three trials only had been
Fio. 1.— Plan.
made whrch showed fragments of wall to exist (marked 54-55; 37 on the Plan,
H.S. — VOL. XXV. I
114 D. (I. HOCiAUTH, H. L. LOIILMKU, AND C. C. ElHiAU
Fig. 1). In 1903 I took that line'' as the left Hank limit of an advance
from south to north. It was useless, however, to begin this advance from
any points nearer the south wall of the Tenienos than those lyiiiy <ni the
parallel dividing the vertical series of S(juaies F and E; for the area in the
interval had been scooped out by seJxrUnn during the past four years below
the original surface of the basal niutl. Nor indeed were any but i.s(jla,t('(l
patches of deposit left in the E and D stjuares.
The men on the extreme right Hank of my lino found themselves at
once upon a broad wall, running north and south, the east face of which
could not be clearly determined. A bread tli of at least 25 feet was
established, but this is by no means the whole dimension. This was
un<|uestionabIy the eastern wall of the Temcnos or Temple; for bey om I it
(as proved by repeated trials) dedicated sherds were not found, and the
deposit seemed to contain only remains of houses. This wall, being based
on the mud, belongs to the first construction. Its bricks are 14 inches long,
an<l from 7 to 51 inches broad. To the same period belong all the very
scanty remains of walls found up to the parallel dividing K and D. Every
later structure has been'*' cleared away by Hchakhin, and heaps of their
r(;fuse lie on tlie mud, from which some terracotta moulds and several bits
of dedicated pottery, including the 'Herodotus' base (Inscr. No. (J), were
recovered. In a small patch of undisturbed deposit, just west of 66, wei'e
found the fragments of the Horsemen Vase (PI. V. 1) at a height of 10
inches ;d)()\e tiie b.isal mud.
The fragnuintary range of chambeis, next encountered on the north,
w.iN embediled in (U>ep(!i- patches of deposit, and the spaces 57, 59, 61, 64,
65, ai'e all, in tlicii existing disposition, to be ascribed to the same period
as the e.ulier j)art of tlu; Aphrodite Shrine, which was uncovered to west of
tliein ill J. SOD, i.( . ilui earlier ])art of the fifth century. For a uniform
interval of dej>osit occurs under the lowest courses of their walls, averaging
two feet in thickness and containing great quantity of sherds of early local
and imported black-figured wai-es. Not till well above their foundation
levels did red-figured ware occur, and then in fair abundance; e.g. the addi-
tional fragments of the ' "^Tija-ixopou' kylix (p. 120) were found in the
south doorway of 64 just above the bedded blocks there shown on the plan,
which probably underlay a lost threshold stone.
This lowest stratum of deposit and the structural change which took
j)lace immediattdy alter the latest period that it represents were seen best
in chamber 63, which in its actual form, like all the range in which it occuis
(10, 56, 58, 60, 63, 62), belongs to the Ptolemaic leconstruction. Here.
after clearing the actual chamber, whose walls were preserved to a heightj of
'•' 111 the lack of siirvivin<^ l)eiii.liiiiai'<s of well, wliicli luul Imh^ii k-ft in a depression, was
1899, tiie lilled-in well, marked 35 "" tlic now elevatetl in a .small irioiind.
plan, served for a j^uide tn my Cornier bearinj^.s. '" Kxcept one fragment of concrete paving
So mueli had tiie area all ahout it been worked 2 It. above the mud level, which belongs to the
over again by .'ichuUihi, that the moiitli of this first r(M (instruction.
NAUKRATTS, 1903. 115
about three feet, uihI tindiiiL,^ in it r(Ml-tiguie(l ware ranging tVom the Graeco-
Roinaii peiiotl hack to the tliinl ctMitury r..('., fragments of Hellenistic terra-
cottas and half a plaster antetix mask, we had (as in 1S99) to hack through
some feet'^ of unproductive muddy sand, into which the foundation courses
of the Ptolemaic walls were sunk two feet. Under this a stratum of s([uared
stones emerged, so carefully bedded d(»wu as to look like a pavement, but
showing no signs of footwear. Among these were two large fragments of
rough stone gutters : several stones concave on one side, which looked like
parts of a well-mouth ; and the small stela, shown in Fig. 8. This was
bedded down face upwards among, and flush with, the other blocks. In
treatment it is exactly parallel to the * Warrior Relief,' found hard by in
1(S99 {B.S.A. V. Plate IX. and p. (55), and, like it, was possibly a painted
gravestone. Its mixed P^gyptian and Greek style is interesting. Lying
immediately under this bedding of stones was an Athenian silver didrachm
of the archaic style of the early fifth century, and at precisely their level,
but at a spot where the stone stratum failed, was found a terracotta
representing the Infixnt Herakles. Some good red-figured fragments aLso
occurred, at the same level. These stones proved to overlie two feet of early
deposit like that observed to south of them — full of early local wares of
many varieties, including several white-faced scraps with traces of painted
dedications.
We were able both here and in 62 to clear the surface of the b;isal
mud thoroughly, before too much water filtered in : but in 60 and 58
this could not be so satisfactorily done. In 58, however, we succeeded in
uncovering a patch of pavement of thin concrete, laid within two inches of
the basal mud, and 5 feet 10 inches below the well marked floor level of the
Ptolemaic restoration. On the Ptolemaic floor ^^ of chamber 10 was nuich
fallen wall-plaster of brilliant blue.
The chamber last named, in which were found several Aphrodite dedica-
tions and (beneath the Ptolemaic floor) small terracotta heads of the type
discovered so abundantly hard by on the west, seems to have belonged to tin?
Aphrodite Shrine to west of it. The only intelligible dedications (besides
those to ' Gods of the Greeks ' which occurred in 57 and 63), found in the
eastern chambers, were two (in 63 and 62, both in the lower stratum)
showing parts of the name Artemis {Inscr. No. 8 and another not figured).
From so small a number it would be unsafe to name this group the Artemis
Shrine, more especially as one terracotta and two heads seem rather to
indicate an ascription to Herakles, dedications to whom were found not far
off" in 1899 (B.S.A. v. p. 32 and Liscr. Nos. 3, 33, 84).
This eastern part of the buildings within the Temenos is continuous,
with the western, and, like it, has been entirely reconstructed in the early
Ptolemaic period by builders who first heaped a mound of sand over bedded-
down remains of earlier structures, belonging to the early fifth century.
^" This sanily stiatuiu varies t'loiii 7 to 2 ** Made of a concrete of lime, pounded
feet in thickness at different points. brick, and pebbles. It was J of an inch thick.
I 2
116 D. G. HOGARTH, H. L. LOlilMER, AND C. C. EDGAR
These last had been erected upon remains of still earlier buildings, coeval
with the first settlement of Greeks on this northern part of the site, a few
traces of whose walls and pavements alone survive. The whole mass of
remains belongs to an edifice, contained through all restorations within the
same great enclosure walls, and apparently devoted to the worship of several
individual gods and the ' Gods of the Greeks ' as a whole. This it cannot
be doubtful was the Hellenion which Herodotus saw, and in which possibly
he dedicated the vase whose base, bearing his name, came to light in 1903
{Inscr. No. 6).
D. — Inscriptions (from the Hellenion site unless otherwise stated).
' J^ '"^ fy4>ant° ^^ 0
N ' n A ;
H P O O » ^-V^ ' X / 17. * ^'
it
^-^^
1 |;>
f^^^;;_. __j i\ L^ oi^'oj- j,:,Ti-
'> "H 17 r ^v^ <^ ^^^,.,..
^^<>^^ ^, • r ' c^ ^
C( -^ rAX'f'^
^' '') ' "H-...^ ^
VT/ \ %
Fk;. 2.
Fig. 'J. No. 1. Tot9 0(e)ot9 [twi/ 'EaX?;'-
i^(wi/ HN[
fi€ dliieOrjKev.
2. . . . di/e]^e ^eof[9 twi' 'EXXj^Vtwi/.
o 0€ol<; T(ov 'EXXj/VJcoi;.
4 6€0l<i TMV 'E]X\r;V(i)I'.
5. 0601? Toii/ 'E\X7;i/]&)t' 'HpoSo[To<f ? (Not from
Hellenion.)
6. 'H[/0o]8oTOU.
NAUKKATIS, 1903. 117
7. . . . rj<i"\\pr][i] : from untouched earth immediately
S.W. of Mr. Petrie's ' Heraeum.'
H dved7]K]€v 'ApTe[fj,i8i ? The order of the words
strongly favours the restoration of the name as
Artemis.
9. 'A(l)po]8iTrj[i].
10. 'X4>po8t]Tri[i]:
11. 'A(f)[poScT7]t.
12 9 'A<p[po8LTr]t.
13. 'A(^/3o[S/T?7t.
14. ' A(l)po8]iTrj[i]
15. 'Hpa«:[A,]'^(t)TO<? 'A^[poSt]T77[i].
16. TeXeacov PoSto? 'A(f)po[SLT')]t.
17. Z6t)tX,o[<f] p,' dvedrjKc. (Painted.)
18 Mi]Xri(Tto{v). (Not from Hellenion.)
19 MiXT}]a-co{v) 6[eols k.t.X. ?
20 09 'KKaT[aiov.
21. ?
22 evva di'€drj[K€.
Women's dedications are very rare.
23. EveeTo{u).
24. ?
25. ?
26. Ar]]p,r)Tpio(v).
27 Na]L'/C|Oa[Tt'T779 ? (Not from Hellenion.)
28 ''Epp,o{v) ip,[€ dvedrjKev. (Painted.)
29. Tip,o[KpdTT]<i ? (Not from Hellenion.)
30. Ev(f>ilvT0(v).
31. 'Epfi6/3io^.
32. K(i)/j.alo<:. (Only known as a surname of Apollo.)
33. nvOfolv. (Not from Hellenion.)
'Ayt]anr7ro[<;.
Ha^to? ?
34. ? Eu]87/;At'77 k[ ' Aer}]vair)[i] ?
35. Complete. AuKptot 6' ? cf. iWiwA-. ii. No. 819.
36. ?
37. ?
38. Cypriote, mo-ta-to- 1 Cf. B.S.A. v. No. 114 and Nauh.
ii. No. 864.
39. ? <I)<u/<:]ai€U9. Cf. iWiitA;. i. No. 666. (Not from
Hellenion.) On a fragment of h.f. kylix in finest
style.
40. 'M'\vTLX\rivaio<i. (Not from Hellenion.)
This is a selection, mainly from the Hellenion site, where dedicated
118 D. G. HOGARTH, H. L. l.OKIMKK, AND C. C. EDGAR
sliords have most significance. About forty other inscribed slierds were
I'ound, many of them being scraps with only a letter or two. These it is not
worth wiiile to publish ; but I may mention that four, obtained fiom children
who raked over the ind)bish hea])s in the centre of the site about the
Temenos of Apollo, contained part of dedications to that god. An amphora
neck with a single Phoenician character, S/ii/i, ])ainted on it was found in
the Hellenion. Two fragments of inscribed marble were brought to me.
They read :
(a) Wliite marble, extreme h'ngth -152. (J>) Coarse marble, broken on all sides.
Lettering of third century 1!.('.
L.///////////h<A 4Nr
ANArPA(j)HN NEIN
TONTAMIANT
////////////" -^
An ostrakoii was sold me on the site, but I suspect it was importe»l
i'rom elsewhere. It is broken on all sides. It reads :
eypeoNH
AeNOBAABeCTW
PYMBeKA
oNTen
D. G. H
U. — POI'TKKY.
{Jy^ Miss H. L. Jjoriuicr.)
[Platks V.-VIL]
The excavations recently conducted at Naukratis have yielded nothing
in the way of ])ottery that is, strictly speaking, new : considering the
immense quantities of sherds found in the course of the earlier diggings, it
would have been surprising if they had. None the less the fresh finds
deserve mention, and that on several grounds. Recent discoveries in other
([uarters have shed light on the origin of some of the fabrics in question ;
and though these results are generally known, it is worth wlule to resume
tlieni in an account of what seems likely to be the last excavation of Naukratis.
The discovery of late Attic r.f. ware in relatively large quantities, and the
con.sequent possibility of dating with some precision the instructive gap '\\\
the series of Attic imports, are new facts, and have their bearing on the
political history of the town. Finally, some few of the fragments are of
sufficient beauty or interest to deserve publication on their own merits.
NAl'KliATIS, 190.?. 119
Tlif lirst steps tuwarils dividing out tlie manifold fabrics of Naukiatis
a'nong tlic various elements of its population wore taken by Dr. Boeblau in
liis book Alls fimiscJicu nnd Italisc/iev, N(l:riij)olcii. Tlie ' Rhotlian ' waro of
Naukiatis he claims on convincing grounds for Miletus, dividing it into an
earlier style which does not employ incised lines, and a later, which combines
incised with uninciscd zones of decoration. The excavations in Samos which
form the starting point of his treatise have put beyond all doubt the Samian
oiigin of the Fikellura fabric abundantly found at Naukratis and elsewhere.
Of tlu; mixed multitude, therefore, that inhabited the Graeco-Egyptian town,
Milesians and Samians have come by their own. Simultaneously with the
appearance of Dr. Boehlau's book Dr. Zahn published ^ a couple of vase
fragments from Klazomenai and pointed out tlieir close resemblance to the
later type of pottery from Tell Defenneh. Diimmler^ had already drawn
attention to the affinity of this latter fabric with the Klazomenian Sarcophagi,
which are in all probability of somewhat later date: Zahn's sherds, which he
considers to be contemporaneous with the Defenneh ware, supply several
fresh points of contact. Among the most important characteristics common
to the two styles are: — (1) the practice of painting in white immediately on
the clay ground, and then surrounding the white wash with a brown outline,
at least where precision of form was desired, as in the case of the human
face, (2) the rendering of inner markings by the same brown paint on white
and by incised lines on black paint, ('3) tlie frequent use of rows of white
dots, generally between two incised lines, by way of ornament, (4) the form
of the horses and their ornamental harness. The Klazomenian fragments
also belonged to a vessel, or vessels, of the hydria type common at Tell
Defenneh.
It may, therefore, be regarded as fairly certain that the Defenneh ware is
Klazomenian, probably imported, as Zahn holds, from the mother city. The
first excavations at Naukratis yielded some fragments of this ware, but so few
that both Professor Petrie and Dilmmler regarded them as imports from
Tell Defenneh, then generally taken to be the home of the fabric. Numerous
sherds were obtained in the last diggings, and must be connected with the
Klazomenian element resident in Naukratis. But as they agree minutely
with the Defenneh ware, it is more probable that they too were imported
than manufactured locally. Tt is true that not more than one or two frag-
ments from Naukratis exhibit the elaborate technique of the best Defenneh
ware, with its curious combination of ■ outline, silhouette, and incising.
B 102. 28 in the British Museum, on which are preserved parts of the figures
of a hoplite and archer, is the best example of this style, which is only
employed for careful and highly finished work. The large majority are of
the inferior type also abundantly represented at Tell Defenneh, which has
abandoned the painted outline and employs white more sparingly, incises
inner markings on black and white paint alike, and not infrequently makes
an incised outline round the entire silhouette. It retains, however, the
Ath. Mitth. 1898, p. 38. ■■* Jal'.rb. 1895, p. 35.
120 D. G. HOGARTH, H. L. LORIMER, AND C. C. EDGAR
ornamental rows of white dots, the horse-trappings and saddle-cloths, and the
type of male head with the great spreading beard characteristic of the more
elaborate vases. No distinction can be drawn between the Naukratite and
Defehneh specimens of this ware.^ The clay is grayish, as is also the case
with Zahn's Klazomenian fragments, differing from the warm reddish colour
of the best Defenneh vases.
Several of the fragments now in the Ashmolean Museum come from the
shauiders of hydriae, and shew the method of construction in an interesting
way. The neck, which joins the shoulder at an angle, was made in a separate
piece and inserted in the body, the junction being covered by a clay fillet
which was afterwards painted red. The same process was used in the case
of the fragment in the British Museum 128. 1, which comes from Tell
Defenneh and belongs to the inferior class of ware : the larger and finer
Defenneh vases were made all in one piece, and the clay fillet which is
characteristic of the whole series is merely ornamental.
How much farther the process of parcelling out the motley fabrics of
Naukratis among her equally motley population may in the future be carried,
it is of course impossible to predict.
Among the Attic b. f. fragments pieces of good early style are not
wanting: ware of the Kleinmeister type however predominates, as in the case
of the first excavations. But the trade relations of Athens and Naukratis,
which must have lasted through a considerable period, were suddenly broken
off. The total number of r. f. fragments of the severe period which the site
of the latter town has yielded is exceedingly small, and those belonging to
the Epictetic circle do not number mgre than two or three. Of those of
severe style in the Ashmolean several seem to belong to a single vessel, the
* %Tr}alxopov ' kylix in the style of Douris, a fragment of which was published
in the Annual of the British School, vol. v. One of the more recently found
pieces fits on *o this fragment, which is therefore reproduced with this addition
(PL VI. 5). Late r. f. ware on the other hand is abundant : there are some fine
pieces, but most of it is of very inferior quality. Pieces of the still later
stamped black ware were also found.
The event which broke off intercourse between Athens and Naukratis
towards the end of the b. f. period, but before the new style had appeared,
can have been no other than the invasion of Egypt by Kambyses ; and the
subsequent troubles of Athens herself may well have prevented the resump-
tion of relations until the best days of the severe period were over.
The most interesting of the new fragments is that reproduced on Plate
V. 1. It appears to be the wide funnel-shaped mouth of a bowl similar to
Nos. I and 3 on Plate X of Naukratis, Pt. I, and is light and thin for its
size. The clay was first covered with black glaze, and the field was then
divided into panels by vertical lines of white and red paint enclosing a white
zigzag line and dots. In each panel was painted in white the figure of a
' Eadt'a statement (Ion. Vasenmalerei, p. 13) that iacised outlines do not occur on the
Defenneh ware is incorrect.
NAUKRATIS, 1903. 121
man on horseback armed with a spear. The inner markings were put in
with red paint and the whole background was washed over witli the same
colour : but to avoid coming in contact with the very absorbent white, the
artist left a broad black margin round the figures. Groups of white dots
were painted on tlie red background, and under the horses there are remains
of a vegetable ornament, also in white. The division of the field vertically in
the geometric manner is exceptional at Naukratis. Tliis piece, both by the
colouring employed and by the lightness of the fabric, recalls across an
interval of many centuries the * Kamares ' ware of Crete, as does also, with
curious fidelity, the polychrome internal ornament of the commonest early
native painted ware of Naukratis. The resemblances may be accidental, but
they are noteworthy when the singularity of the Cretan fabric is considered.
Of the remaining fragments the most noteworthy are the following : —
Plate VI. 1 : fragment covered with cream glaze : head in purple paint :
inner markings given by reserved lines so fine as almost to produce the etfect
of incising. The head wears a close-fitting cap surmounted by a snake : a
cloth hangs from the cap behind. On the famous Caeretan hydria at Vienna
(Furtwaengler und Reichhold, Vasenmalerei, PI. LI) Busiris wears a very similar
cap, undoubtedly intended, as Furtwaengler points out, to represent the
uraeus head-dress of an Egyptian king. The present instance is a more
faithful representation, for it preserves the hanging cloth, which is omitted
on the hydria. This fragment may well belong to a scene from the Busiris
m3'th. The way in which the cloth flies out behind suggests that the figure
was in violent action.
Plate VI. 2. Fragment of unglazed clay : two figures and part of a third
forming a procession. The first (fragmentary) carries a thyrsus with a ribbon
attached ; the second, a vase and wreath ; the third, a thyrsus and what seems
to be a wreath. The two complete figures also wear wreaths.
Plate V. 2. Shoulder of hydria of Defenneh type : three male heads.
Plate V. 3. Fragment of a flat plate decorated with zones of animals.
The only complete animal resembles a jackal, and is represented in the act
of turning, with a degree of realism very unusual in so conventional a scheme
of ornament.
Plate VI. 3. Ware of Defenneh type. Satyr of Ionic type, playing
double flute.
Plate VII. 1. Fragment found in the Hellenion : hawk perched on top
of column or corner of building. Cf. Tunis, Part II., PI. XXV. 1.
Plate VII. 2. Severe r. f. style : head of Dionysus, wreathed and slightly
III
X
bearded : leopard on shoulder. In the field £ {i.e. some such name as
S
["AXje^t?) and vine leaf.
122 1). (J. IIOCJAHTH, H. L. LORIMKK, AND C. C. EDGAR
Plate VII. 3, 4, 5. Severe r. f. style: the first two in all probability
belong to the 'XTrja-i-^opov' kylix (cf. Fig. G infr.) and the third closely
resembles them both in style and in the thickness of the clay.
Plate VII. (5. A beautiful specimen of fine r. f. style : warrior with spear :
inscription lOAEO^: palmetto ornament.
Plate VI. 4. Fragment of a white kylix in the style of Eiij)hronios,
represents the combat of Herakles and Apollo over the tripod. Portions of
this kylix were found in the earlier diggings and are now in the British
Museum (v. Hartwig, lleisterschalen, PI. L). The new fragment was bought on
the site by Dr. von Bissiug (to whom thanks are due for a drawing from
which the illustration in the text was made) and presented by him to the
Museum at Munich; the British Museum has since ac(]uired it by exchange.
Plate VI. 5. The ^ XTrjac'x^opov' fragment with the addition f)f the new
pieces.
H. L. L.
F. — Actual State of the Site.
I HAVE implied that I consider the site of Naukratis to be now
exhausted. This statement refers to the uncultivated part of it, the
' Mounds ' proper, all whose superficial rubbish heaps I have had raked over
repeatedly. There also I have cleared out all ancient wells I could find ;
but in 11)03 I got nothing from any of these, beside rough pottery, except
a seated phallic terracotta, headless, and two stone horses and a stone
' sphinx ' figure. The original town undoubtedly extended slightly to north
and east of the limits of the actual Kui7i, and I do not say that in the
course of agricultural operations objects may not yet come to light, just as
did the Nectanebo stela in 1899. Bat in this small extent of irrigated land
very little can be expected to have survived. As for the Kuni itself, I have
satisfied myself that the deep temple areas are now all explored, and the
shallower mounds to north-east, south-east, and west contain domestic
remains very scanty in quantity and poor in quality. I also sank trial
pits in both the hamlets which adjoin the site on the north. That
immediately contiguous with the north-west corner of the Mounds seems to
be built on an empty stratum of muddy sand some twelve feet thick : and
so also, in spite of Mr. Gardner's observations {Naul: ii. p. 11), did I find the
second hamlet to be (er-Rashowan). My pits on the edges of its mound went
down into masses of broken pottery and rubbish of all sorts, evidently ancient
refuse heaps : my pits in its central part penetrated the same muddy sand as
in the other hamlet without revealing the vestige of a burial. Both this
mound and that on which the hamlet south of it stands seem to me to be
remains of the same old canal or river embankment, which crops up again
under another hamlet further to north-west. I strongly suspect that the Nile
flowed in antiquity past Nekrash and down the east face of Kum Gayif,
crossing the eastern part of the area supposed to be a great Temenos by
Mr. Petrie, wherein, near the bank, stood the Nectanebo stela. Thereafter it
NAUKRATIS, I'JU.J. 123
swe})t round tlic; iioitluun oiul of the luouiuls, past tho Hellcnion and hetwecn
the two nearest nortliem hamlets, and so went away north-westward, leaving
on its ri^'ht bank tlic iiiodeni Kzbet er-Rashowan.
D. G. H.
G. — MiNoii Antu^uities.
{By C. 0. Edyar.)
Mr. Hogarth's last brief campaign at Knm Gayif was as fruitful as the
former excavations in small antiquities of various kinds, corresponding to the
variety of nationalities iu the ancient town. Many of them were found in
the trenches and wells — in which case they could mostly be dated approxi-
mately by external evidence — but the greater part, as usual, came from the
small private hoards of the se/>«A:A- diggers. The painted vase-fragments
have been studied by Miss Lorimer. I shall add a few remarks on some of
the other objects, more especially on those which were taken as toll by the
Cairo Museum and whicli I can describe from direct observation,
1. — UQipainted Pottery.
In Tanis, Vol. ii. Pis. 33-36, Mr. Petrie has published a large number
of vases from the Stratopeda, partly Greek, partly Egyptian, and partly
hybrid. The jjottery illustrated below is of the same mixed character.
Fig. 3 shows a group of more or less complete vases from a well which
Mr. Hogarth excavated in 1899. The two short-necked amphorae in the
back row belong to a type which is characteristic of the Phoenician sphere
of influence. It was in vessels of this form that the wine of Phoenicia
was imported into Egypt, and that the water of the Nile travelled out in
turn into the desert : outco 6 €7ri(()oiT4(ov Kepafio^ kuI e^aip€6/u,€vo<i ev Alyvirrqt
iirl TOP iraXaiov KOfil^erat e? Xvpnjv. Some of those which are found in
Egypt have Phoenician inscriptions on them. The one to the left in the
illustration has three large letters painted in red on one side, but in this
case they are Greek. The four larger jugs in the second row are typically
Egyptian : note the rude Bes-head on one of the middle ones. The two
smaller jugs are more Greek in style, though a similar form is found else-
where in Egypt (e.y. Cairo Mus., Cat. G6n., No. 3031). As regards the date
of this group it should be noted that the well in whicli they were found
was faced with bricks, whereas the wells containing archaic Greek pottery
were lined with large cylindrical tiles (much like the Mycenaean well at
Phylakopi). FreiheiT von Bissing, one of the few archaeologists who have
studied the whole history of Egyptian pottery, tells me that in his opinion
the native vases in the above group are not earlier than Cambyses, and
124 D. G. HOGARTH, H. L. L0RIMP:K, AND C. C. EDGAR
Fig. 3.
J H S. VOL XXV <1905) PL V
POTTERY FROM
/^^
J. H. S VOL XXV. (1905). PL. VI
POTTERY FROM NAUKRATIS.
J. H S VOL. XXV. 0905'. PL. VII.
00
I-
<
cc
<
z
o
u.
>-
cc
Hi
h
H
o
Q.
NAUKRATIS, 1903.
125
probably not later than Alexander. The form of the large amphora points
to the same period.
The contents of another well, excavated in 1903, are shown under
Fig. 4. Nos. 1 and 3 are native types. Nos. 4 and 6 are typically Greek,
but are made of ordinary Egyptian clay without any decoration. No, 5
is a black-glazed Greek vase. No. 7 on the other hand has a polished red
surface. This well also seems not to have belonged to the pre-Persian town.
It probably dates from the fifth century.
The next group, Fig. 5, comprises a few entire pots which were found
in the neighbourhood of the supposed north-west corner of the Great
Temenos wall (see Mr. Hogartli's article, p. 110 f.). They may range
from the seventh to the fifth century, but most of them are probably
nearer the earlier limit : the few painted fragments which were got
from the same trenches belonged to this period. They are made of
ordinary red Egyptian clay, except No. 2, which is of light-coloured ware
and is decorated with brown zones round the shoulder : this, as I learn
from von Bissing, is a later Saitic type of vase. Nos. 1 and 3 may be
compared with Tanis, ii. PI. XXXV, Nos. 41 and 43. A vessel similar to
No. 4 was found by Mr. Petrie at a level corresponding to the first half of
the fifth century {Nauhratis, i. p. 22). No. 5 has an inward -projecting rim,
a ledge-handle on the inside, and a round hole, the purpose of which is not
clear, on the opposite side rather low down (cf. Nauhr. i. p. 42 and Tanis, ii.
PI. XXXIV. No. 26). All these vessels are Egyptian. The large amphora
(Fig. 6) on the other hand is a foreign type and was probably not made in
126 D. G. HOGARTH, H. L. LOKIMER, AND C. C. EDGAR
Egypt. The liandles are flat. There are remains of letters on the slioulder in
broad red lines, apparently Greek. This is another specimen of the vessels in
which wine was imported into Egypt from the Aegean and the Oi'ient. A
third type, common in Cyprus as well as at Naukratis, will be found Hgured
in Tanis, ii. PI. XXXIII. No. 6.
9
Fi(i. 6. (Scale 2 : 11.)
Vui. 7. (Scale 2 : 11.)
The two vases shown in Fig. 7 come from the neighbourhood of the
Hellcnion. The aslvs, which has a ring-foot, is made of light-coloured clay.
The other is of ordinary Egyptian ware : it has a flat top with a small hole
in the middle, and tapei'S to a pointed base.
2. — Scu/ptvyre.
The little relief figured below (Fig. 8) was the largest piece of scidpture
found in the last excavation. It is a rectangular block of limestone, 32 x 28 cm.,
with roughly flattened back. Its original destination is uncertain. What-
ever it may have been intended for, it had afterwards been taken and used
in the construction of what was probably a small shrine in the Hellenion.
The few vase-fragments found below the floor of this building were all early,
none being later than the sixth century ; those above the floor included some
pieces of red -figured Attic ware.
In one respect the work is akin to Egyptian art. Fat men with walking-
staffs were a favourite subject in Egypt, the most famous being the so-called
Sheikh el Belcd in the Cairo Museum. On the other hand the style is not
at all Egyptian : the pose is archaic Greek and the body is rendered in
comparatively correct profile. As the surface is worn a good deal, especially
about the head, the details are rather obscure. He seems to have worn a
short garment, but it is difficult to make out.
NAUKKATIS, 19().i.
127
Tlie figure is in low ll;it relief with loiiiuled edgcjs. Another limestone
relief from Naukratis riipresenting a warrior with sliield and spear, which
was found in 189!> and which, like tiie present work, seems to have been
used in the construction of a shrine in the Hellenion, is still flatter and has
much sharper, S(|uare-cut ed<ies.' I thought at the time that it was a finished
work of })eculiar st}de, but this seems to me now less probable. The nearest
parallel that I know of is a relief of a wingetl Egyptian goddess — equally
flat and with still sharper edges — which was found along with some models
and moulds from a sculptor's ateliei' at Memphis, and is in all probability an
unfinished study.- Possibly the warrior relief is the same sort of thing.
Among the minor stone objects which are characteristic of the site, one
of the most common is a representation of a naked woman lying on a bed,
perfectly stifif and straight, with a child at right angles to her feet. The
child is sometimes omitted. The woman usually lies on her left side with
her left arm across her waist, sometimes on her back with her arms by
her sides. The coiffure is always Egyptian, and indeed the whole figure is
Egyptian work of a low class. Mattress and pillow are sometimes indicated,
but more often left to the imagination. For specimens of the different
varieties I refer the reader to Naukr. i. PI. 19 and B.S.A. vol. v. PI. XIV,
' B.S.A.vo[.v. PI. IX. and temples one finds iini>erfectly finisl»ed
-' In tlie Cairo Mustnnn : Catalojve General, reliefs of similar appearance, e.g. in the mas-
No, 33413. Here and there in Egyptian tombs taba of Ptiihliotep at Hakkara.
128 D. G. HOGARTH, H. L. LORIMER, AND C. C. EDGAR
Mr. Hogai'th's excavation produced the usual crop of these figures, some of
which were found by him in the trenches.
Statuettes of the same type, some of them much more elaborately
sculptured than the Naukratite examples, are fairly common in Egypt.
Several are said to have been found in tombs, and it was perhaps for the
requirements of the dead that the type was first invented. To place a
statuette of this sort in the tomb of a dead relative was symbolic of pro-
viding him with a wife for the other world — a less barbarous form of
piety than killing his widow. The marble idols which are found so frequently
in the cist-tombs of the Cyclades are good examples of the same practice.
With regard to the Egyptian statuettes M. Mallet, together with M. Maspero,*
has proposed a further explanation. As in Egypt the dead man was identified
with Osiris, the appropriate consort for him would be a corresponding em-
bodiment of Isis. M. Mallet thinks therefore that these small naked
figures represented Isis rather than a mere human being. A point in favour
of tliis view is that one or two of them wear the uraeus-circlet appropriate
to queens and goddesses. The whole subject, however, needs closer study
on the part of Egyptologists. One would like more evidence and information
about their use as burial offerings.
One finds at Naukratis another class of naked female figures, carved in
exactly the same style as the above-mentioned : a specimen from the recent
excavation is shown in the accfompanying
illustration (Fig. 8a ; see also Naukr. i. PI.
XIX.). These figures are usually known by
the name of Baubo. Baubo, according t«>
the Orphic hymn, was the hostess of
Demeter at Eleusis, and tried to amuse her
guest by the same sort of ge-'^ture which
the women of Egypt are said to have used
on their way to the great festival at Bou-
bastis.* M. Mallet believes that the lime-
stone statuettes really refer to this legend,
and that the type was introduced into Egypt
by the Greeks of Naukratis. But it is very
doubtful whether there is any connexion
between the Naukratite figures and this
particular Greek myth. More probably the 'Baubos' had the same general
significance as the other group of female figures, expressed in a still cruder
image. We cannot say whether they (or the other type either) were used
as burial offerings, as the necropolis of the period to which they belong
has not yet been discovered. But as so many specimens of both types
Fig. 8a.
' Mallet, Lcs premier/t etablissements ; Mas-
pero. Guide to Ca>ru Mus. (Eng. ed.), |>. 296.
Jnst lately there has come into the Museum
from Memiihis a figure of this sort holding a
small Apis against her bosom.
* Herodotus ii. 60, oA 5« avaavpovrai aviara-
Htvai. There are many Graeco-Egyptian terra-
cottas in which this action is represented, but
the figures which are commonly identified with
Baubo are undraped.
NAUKRATI8, 1903. 129
have been found scattered about the town (apparently not on the sacred
sites), they at least seem to have been in request among the living inhabi-
tants. It is very possible that they were regarded as charms, as indeed
they are at the present day.
Except in a very few cases Mr. Petrie found no evidence for the dating
of these statuettes. They seemed to him to belong to the sixth, fifth, and
fourth centuries : one extremely rude figure he assigned to the end of the
fifth. The recent excavations have thrown a little more light on this point.
The ' Baubo ' figured above was found in undisturbed ground near the
supposed N.W. corner of the 'Great Temenos' in a distinctly early patch,
most of its 'contents that could be dated belonging to the sixth century. In
a neighbouring trench one or two of the 'child-birth' figures were obtained
amid similar deposit. They may have gone on being manufactured for a
long time without undergoing much change in style, but at any rate there
is little doubt that they were common and popular in the sixth century B.C.
In M. Mallet's opinion the ' child-birth ' figures are in all probability Greek
imitations of Egyptian types. It is possible that the individual work-
men may have been Greek, or partly Greek, by birth. But however rude
the style may be, it remains essentially Egyptian : several of the ' child-
birth' statuettes from other parts of Egypt are rendered with an equal
degree of carelessness, and one finds a similar type of head on some other
minor Egyptian works. The ' Baubos ' too are of the same character.
The small ' horsemen,' of which sufficient specimens have been already
published {NauJcr. i. PI. 19 and B.S.A. vol. v. PI. XIV),* were no doubt made
in the same workshops as the female figures. Mr. Petrie found one at
Defenneh which he dated to the seventh century {Tanis, ii. p. 71): there
is at least good reason for putting it before the middle of the sixth. One
of those from Naukratis has a Greek inscription on one side which is
probably a good deal later than this {B.S.A. vol. v. PI. IV, No. 58), but no
doubt the manufacture of them lasted over a long period. The type in
this case is certainly a foreign one. It is to be compared with the terracotta
cavaliers of the archaic period, especially those from Cyprus. There are
in Cairo certain terracottas from the neighbourhood of Boubastis represent-
ing mounted warriors with sharp-crested headgear and Asiatic beards.^ There
is also in the same Museum a small four-horse chariot in limestone, done in
exactly the same style as the Naukratite horsemen, and very possibly a
Naukratite work : here again we are reminded of those Cypriote and
Phoenician terracottas in which the same subject is represented. I may
also call attention to another work of similar foreign character, a little
limestone group of a bearded man and a youth reclining at table : it comes
•* The riders are not always so incongruously pokrates. I regard them rather as local, semi-
small as on the published examples. OnGraeco- Egyptian reproductions of an imported type,
Egyptian terracottas the child Hari>okrates is like the charioteer mentioned in the text,
ottcii represented on horseback, but 1 do not ^ I have lately seen fragments of exactly
think the small Naukratite cavaliers, were in- similar figures at Kum Gayif, and the same
tended, at least origina'ly, as images of Har- type occurs at Memphis and Bouto.
H.S. — VOL. XXV.
K
1:^0
1). G. H()(JA11TH, H. L. LOIMMKU, AND C. C. KIMiAK
from Sais arul lias been j)ul)lishe(l by M. Daiessy in the Anmdcfi du Service,
vol. ii. PI. IT. The small head published below, ¥\\f. 9, is sui)erior in style
to the works just cited and is probably an imported object from Cyprus :
it has been })art of a limestone statuette. It would be interesting' to collect
all the traces of Cypriote and Phoenician activity in Egypt. Certainly
\\\o. part played by Cyprus in the development of Naukratis was very
important.
Another group of limestone objects, very characteristic of Naukratis,
consists of small phallic figures. These are probably in great part of the
same age as the preceding types. A terracotta specimen was obtained along
with the archaic hor.semeu from Boubastis mentioned above. They are often
represented playing on some musical instrument, and some of them wear
the side-lock of childhood." There is no reason for thinking that the type
Fi(.. 10. {Scale 3 : 4).
was introduced into Naukratis from Greece. The style, such as it is, is
Egyptian. In Leemann's Acy. Monuinaiten., vol. i. PI. XVIII., ilhistrations
are given of a number of phallic figurines of which No. 14G6 is very like
the Naukratis group which I speak of The site, however, has produced
" III this connexion it is worth noting that
many of the hiti-r terr.-ieottii images of Hiiipo-
ktates have a [iliallic cliaiacter. Tiie intrusion
of thi.s clement into the cult of the chihl-god
has not yet liecn traced or ex2)liiinc(l.
The Naukiatite li<;un's arc to some extent
illu.'^triitive of a ]>ass;»;^c in Herodotus, ii. 4^ :
avr\ 5f (pa\\'j)i> 6.KKa aipt farl 4^fvpr]/xffa, oaov
Te rrrixvaia ayaKfiara vfvp6(Tiraara, to. irfpt-
(popeovat Kara Kiujxa'i •yvvaiKts, vtvov rh alSoiov,
oil 7roA.A^ TKjj tKaaaov fhv toC 6.\Kov ffd/xaTOS-
•KporiyiiTai 5e ouAjs, ot 5e tirovrat afiZovaai rhv
Atovvaoi. 'flK^e is a large terracotta of
Egyjitiaii style in the Cairo Museum (belonging
to a grou[) mentioned later on) which represents
a ))rocession of tliis sort : the chiet personage
holds a musical instrument and his phallus is
supported hy four women.
NAUKRATIS. IDO.}. 131
a great quantity ot" iiuleceiit statuettos of various ages and in various
materials.
Fig. lU is a small plaster model of an Egyptian king's liead which I
picked up on a visit t(^ Naukratis in 1901. Similar models are common
enough in Egypt, and several others have been found at Kum Gayif.^ This
one, however, is particularly interesting. Unlikt^ most of the others it shows
the upper part of the royal hood with the uraeus in front. While the face
is practically finished, the ears and uraeus are merely roughed out. It is
evidently a cast, made in a single, open-backed mouhl ; and tlie state of the
unfinished parts shows that it has been taken from one of those soft lime-
stone models which one sees in Egyptian collections, and which usually
have incised scjuares and measurements on the flat surfaces. I have tried
to show in another place ** that, notwithstanding the common opinion cham-
pioned by M. Penot, these squares are simply an application of the Egyptian
canon of proportions, or rather of the later canon which came into use in
the Saitic period. According to a credible tradition some of the early Ionian
sculptors studied this canon in Egypt and introduced a similar method of
work into the Aegean. One cannot say, however, whether it was in Naukratis
itself that they saw the system employed by Egyptian workmen, for the
plaster models found there are perhaps all later than their time.
3. — Terracottas and Moulds.
The last excavation produced nothing so good as the group of female
busts which were found in 1899 in the neighbourhood of the shrine of
Aphrodite in the Hellenion. Of the ordinary archaic Greek types we obtained
almost nothing except a fragment of a female figure holding a dove against her
bosom in her left hand. Some interesting though far from beautiful frag-
ments were found in one of the trenches near the north side of the ' Great
Temenos.' On the evidence of stratification — especially of some Greek
pottery which was found close by — they n-^y be dated to the sixth century B.C.
Tiiree of these fragments (from three difft >nt figures) are reproduced below
(Fig. 11). They belong to rather large sta 'ettes of coarse fabric, made solid,
with flat backs. The largest piece is part of a naked female figure. The
head is remarkable for the way in which the lips are stuck on, while another
head from the same find has the hair represented by small impressed circles.
The latter peculiarity I have noticed on several terracottas from Memphis
and Boubastis which are likewise made solid, but whether these have any
direct connexion with the present group I cannot as yet say for certain.
Some of them are distinctly Egyptian, and it need not be supposed that the
Naukratis fragments are Greek work.
From the Hellenion area came some fragments of a fairly large figure of
good Greek style representing the infant Herakles strangling the serpents.
^ Naukratis, i. PI. 17, No. 2. An 'archaic models,
liead of liard limestoKe' lepioduced in Naulcr. * Rcciicil ih Traaux, fbi-thcoining luiiubcr.
ii. PI. 17, 1^0. 13, looks like anotlicr of tliese
K 2
132 D. G. HOGARTH, H. L. LORIMER, ANJ> C. C. EDGAR
We obtained the usual number of Hellenistic female heads like those of the
Tanagra statuettes. Many of these were certainly made in Egypt, as could be
seen from the clay, and, no doubt there was a manufactory of them in
Naukratis itself. The Satyr on the wine-skin in the Cairo Museum— one of.
the very finest of Hellenistic terracottas— is said by M. Maspero to have been
found near Kurn Gayif ^ and is very probably therefore a Naiikratite work.
As regards the later types, the ordinary statuettes of the Roman period, it is
sufficient to say that they are as plentiful in Naukratis as in other Egyptian
towns. The only one I need mention is a fragment of an irrigation scene
representing a man working the Archimedean screw. ^"^
Fi.;. 11.
That terracottas were made at Naukratis is proved beyond doubt by the
moulds which Mr. Hogarth found there. They came from the top rubbish at
the N.E. end of the site. One of the best of them, now in Cairo, is reproduced
in Fig. 12. Like all the others it is made of ordinary Egyptian terracottai.
The outside is roughly smoothed down. The right side of the mould is broken.
As can be seen from the photograph, the subject is a female figure of Hellen-
istic style (like some of those from Tanagra) with a mantle draped across the
front of her body. Head and hands have been made separately : the face
at least would probably be done in a mould. The back was, no doubt, more
or less plain, perhaps a mere rough wall made by hand. The edges of the
mould are quite sharp : it is evidently not part of a piece-mould.
" Guide to the Cairo Museum, 1903, p. 354.
"* For a complete example of tliis type see
BuUciiu de la Soc. arch, d' Alexandric, No. 7
p. 44.
NAUKRATIS, 1903.
133
In material aiicl tcclinitiue Fig. 1:^ belongs to
the onliuary type ot moukl used in Greek countries
for the fabrication of terracottas. There are many
simihir specimens from Greece, Asia Minor, an<l
Sicily, ami a few otiiers froni Kgypt. Where this
type of mould was used, if a figure had to be ma»le
in several sections, each section was pressed in a
single separate mould, and the parts were afterwards
joined together by hand. But most of the moulds
for terracottas found in Egypt are of a different type
from this.^^ They are piece-moulds, usually of two
parts, and the edges of the sections ar3 titte«l to-
gether by mortises and tenons : probably the two
parts of the terracotta were first attached to each
other by the two sections of the mould being pressed
together, the junction being afterwards completed by
hand. Another peculiarity is that they are for the
most part made of plaster instead of terracotta. The
ordinary Graeco-Egyptian terracottas of the Roman
period were made in moulds of this form, whether ot clny or of plaster. At
Fig. 12.
Tig. 13.
" Catalogue General du Mas. du Cairc : Greek Mo^tlds, \i. xiii ; rcrzcickniss der Aeg. Alter-
tiiiiier (Berlin), p. 373.
134 J), (i. HOGAUTJl, li. \.. LolilMKli, ANJ) C. C. EIM^All
wliat (Lite the typo was introduced wo cannot say, but it seems probable
that the ordinary Greek type, sucli as we find at Naukratis, was still in
common use in the Hellenistic period. '-
The best of the other moulds t'onnd by Mr. lioLjarth was a large negro's
face, now in the Ashmolean Museum : Fig. Ill represents a cast from it.
It had broader edges than Fig. 12, but was not part of a piece-mould proper.
Another complete specimen, left in ( 'airo, consisted of the front part of a
bull's head with a sort of rosette abovi; tlie forehead. In techni(]ue it is
similar to Fig. 12.
4. — Miscr/latii'oiis OJij'aiH.
Very little bronzo was found in the last campaign. The best piece;, very
good of its kind, was a small Egyptian tigun; of Bes })laying the lyre : it is
now in Cairo. The scarabs were chiefly of the local blue-glazed faience, and
terracotta moulds for shaping the backs of them were still to be picked up in
abundance from the lubbish heaps near the scarab factory. One ot the
trenches at the South end of the site produced a great (piantity of small
faience objects of the Saitic period, but they were much injured by the
dampness of the soil and comparatively few were worth keeping. Most of them
were small figurines of well-known types — s«nvs, Thoueris, the god Shu, etc.
No doubt they were made in the local factory. Among the faience objects
from other parts of the site I may mention a fragment representing the
forepart of a lion witli o|)cn mouth ; the tongue had been coloured red; the
ears were of tjie schematic Egyptian type. Parts of little figures like Nnvlcr. i.
PI. 2, Nos 10, 17 were also found. New Year bottles with necks in the form
of lotus and papyrus wei'e represented by numerous fragments.^"' I also
noticed one or two fragmentary specimens of hedgehog-vases.^^ Mr. Petrie
considers that tlie lactory hail passed into Greek hands before the accession
of Amasis. No doubt a fabiic in such a place as Naukratis would be
specially subject to foreign infiuence, and it is very possible that some of the
strangers, vvliether Ionian or Cypriote or Phoenician, took up the manufacture.
But if so, they must for tlie most part have confined themselves to repro-
(hicing the Egyptian types, for after all the number of faience objects of
un-Egy[)tian appearance found at Naukratis is very small compared with those
that are entirely Egyptian. I am referring of course to the early period only.
Of later genuinely Greek work in the same material a great many fragments
have been discovei-ed on the site, as for instance pieces of vases with female
figures in relief: it is very probable that there was a fabric there in the
Ptolemaic period. The finest Greek work in blue glaze that I know of is a
'- Peiiiice, Jakresfuftr, 1904, p. 1.54, gives otluT way ;il)0!it. I hope to lotuni to tlie ijues-
some iutero.stin{» iiifoiiniitioii and sii^^f^cstioiis tions about the bronzes some otlu-r tiiiu!.
about tl)e sort of iiiouhis used ill ni:ikiiii( (iic(tk '' Cf. Ijissiu^', Fdi/oini/i/ds.^c (Cairo C'ata-
bronzes. It is very possible tliat tlic methods log\ie), ]i. xv,
of tlie coropl<tilac were in various centres in- '"* (T. op. i-it. |i. xxv.
Huenccd by those of the bronze-casters or the
NAUKKATIS, 1D0:{. 135
lie;ul tVoui N;uikr;itis in the British Museuni, the portrait of a Ptolemaic
(lueen {Nankr. ii. IM. 17, No. 11).
The small object Hgured below (Fii,'. 14) seeni.s to be a fC* "^i
comb of limestone with a liandh; in the form of a human
head. It came from the sihdJJiln and was presumably
found on the site. It has an odd resemblance to certain
combs and pin-heads of bone, ivory, and stone from the
prehistoric finds in upper Egypt (cf. N((q(t<hi mu/ J)(i//((fi,
PI. LIX).
^
Vu:. II.
o. — Conduaions.
The antiquities of which I have given the above desultory description
do not by themselves tlirow any new light on the early liistory of Naukratis.
The Hnds at the South end of the site consisted for the most part of
Egyptian material, such as faience objects and native pottery (see Mr.
Hogarth's remarks above, p. 107). Several fragments of imported amphorae
like Fig. 4 vyere found, but of painted Gieek pottery there was scarcely
anything. This confirms our previous belief that in early times the South
end was the more Egyptian part of the town. It is also a minor argument
against the view that the 'Great Temenos' is to be identified with the
Hellenion.
The area at the North end, where we have placed the Hellenion, chiefly
on the ground of so many inscriptions to the 'Gods of the Hellenes' having
been found there, has now been tested to the bottom level wherever it was
practicable. The antiquities from this area are almost all Greek, including a
great deal of sixth century pottery.
Professor Petrie's work at Naukratis proved beyond doubt that the site
was inhabited long before the time of Amasis. But even in the seventh
century the town was not a purely Greek settlement. It was at least partly
Egyptian. Native artisans worked and lived there. That the Cypriotes had
a footing in the place from a very early period is almost certain. The
engraved tridacna shells, which are found scattered along the routes of
Phoenician trade and of which so many specimens come from Naukratis,
indicate that the Phoenicians too had a direct or indirect connexion with the
town : it may have been at one period a port of call for Phoenician ships.
Unless the testimony of Herodotus is entirely baseless (which probably
no one will maintain), the town sutfered a great reorganization and extension
under Amasis. According to Herodotus it was that king who gave the Greek
traders sites for building altars and temene, of which the largest was the
Hellenion. The main questions still in dispute (from the archaeological
point of view) are whether any of the temples were founded before the time
of Amasis and whether the antiquities from them, particularly the inscribed-
and painted pottery, are in part earlier than 570 B.C. Endt, lonische
Vascnmakrei, p. 68, adopting the conclusions of Hirschfeld without question-
136 NAUKUATIS, 1903.
ing, accepts this late date for the Naukratite pottery.^'* Wlien writing of" the
finds from the 1809 excavation I expressed a somewhat similar opinion
(B.S.A. vol. v). The excavations of Boehlau in Samos have shown that some
early Ionian types were still popular in the second half of the sixth century.
Still, if the dates which are generally accepted by archaeologists about early
Greek pottery are right, it seems very doubtful whether all the fragments
from the Naukratis temples can be as late as 570. As the literary evidence
is not in itself decisive, there is at least a probability that some of the
temples, especially that of the Milesian Apollo, date from the earlier days of
the town. But most likely the Hellenion was a later foundation : its situ-
ation is less central and the finds from it are less archaic. One may rea.son-
ably suppose that this, the largest and most famous of the Greek temene,
was built when the town was resettled by Amasis and that from this period
dates the importance of the nine combined states, — of one of which, it must
be remembered, Herodotus was a citizen.
C. C. E.
Cairo, 1904.
'* The si»iiic paragrajih contains some curious iufonuatioii about tlie founding of Da]>hnau
(p. 69).
THE GREEK WARSHIP.
I.
The controversy as to the arrangement of the oars in ancient warships
has been, in one aspect and with the due exceptions, a controversy between
the scholars and the sailors, in which, while the sailors cannot well be wrong
on their own ground, the same impossibility hardly applies to their opponents.
When the practical seaman points out that superposed banks of oars, in the
accepted ^ sense, are a frank impossibility, it is hardly a conclusive reply to
tell him that his acquaintance with the authorities leaves something to be
desired. It follows, that for anyone who, like the present writer, is convinced
that the sailors are right, the real interest of the question is this : does the
evidence compel me, or even invite me, to believe in a practical impossibility ?
' By ' the accepted theory ' in this paper 1
mean the group of solutions (they are legion)
which, though differing in details of arrange-
ment, agree in this, that a trireme had three
banks of oars at a substantial interval one over
the other, a (juinquereme ftve, a dekeres ten,
and so forth, eacli oar rowed by one man and
the lowest bank fairly near the water. (I do
not include Bauer, or so much of Assmann as
relates to breit-polyereis. ) All these solutions
rest on a common basis and fall together
if that be destroyed. The most important
current expression of this theory, beside Mr.
Torr's, is Assnmnn's hoch-polyeres theory (art.
Seewescn in Baumeister and several papers,
notably Jahrb. 1889, p. 91, Zar Kenntniss der
Antiken Schiffe), followed by Droysen,
Orie^hische Kriegsaltertiimer in Hermann's
Lehrbuch ; Luebeck, Das Seetvesin der
Griechen und Homer, 2 vols. 1890 ; and
Schmidt, Ueber griechische Dreireiher, 1899 ;
to judge by Luebeck's article bircmis, it will
be adopted in the new Pauly-Wissowa. Bauer's
theory {Griechische Kriegsaltertiimer in Miiller's
Handb. d. klass. Alt.'Wiss., 1893, and several
papers), that a trireme had a very slight
interval between tlic banks and that ships
larger than triremes never had more than three
banks but employed more than one man to an
oar, is quite a se])arate matter. Important
is Admiral Fincati's Le Trircmi, 1881 ; a
trireme had three oars to one bench, like a
Venetian galley a zenzile. I unfortunately
only know this book in Serre's translation, at
the end of Vol. 1 of his Marines de la guerre,
1885 and 1891, from which I cite it. I cannot
classify Admiral Serre ; though accepted, I
believe, in France, his views seem to bear little
relation to the evidence. Weber's book Die
Losung dcs Trierenrdtsels, published 1896, but
written much earlier, with many blunders
and mistranslations, contains ideas. A trireme
had three men to an oar, a quinquereme five,
etc. Accepted by Speck, Handelsgeschichtr^
1900. Weber has no mono]K>ly in mistrans*
lations. The best exposition of the accepted
theory prior to Assmaun is probably that of
Cartault, La Triire Athinienne, 1881. I
understand he afterwards agreed with Bauer.
While this paper was in the press two important
articles appeared : one by Mr. Torr in Dar.-
Sagl. s. v. navis, which seems to state his version
of the accepted theory more definitely than vraa
done in Ancient Ships ; the other by Mr. A. B.
Cook in Whibley's Companion to Greek Studies,
who favours the Venetian theory, but not very
decidedly. References to Torr in this paper are
to Ancient Ships unless otherwise stated.
138 ^V. \V. TAUN
If it does, the fact obviously has a very real bearing on the (luestion of the
(lecrreeof credibility to bo attached to ancient history generally; and this
Via. 1.— Giunu' (iF Vkskiian TriiikmivS a Zf.nzilk.
From a woo.l-cut in the British Museinn. (hite<l 1500, l>y .fiicopo (h'' ISarhari. (Laredo vi.w <.l
Vi'iiice, Mitchell Clloctioii, 1895. 1. 22. 1195.)
seems to me to be the true importance of what has become known as the
' trireme-problem.' The object of this paper is simply to examine evidence,
/Fj/^i/f-r-rr
Fir:. 2.— S.MALL Portion ok a Venetian Biueme a Zenzile, showing the Aurangement
OK THE Rowers.
From a vvood-cut in the British Mu.seum, late fifteenth eentury (1866. 7. 14. 48*). This appears
to be a state galley, and is at rest, with the crew sitting in her.
and to try to ascertain primarily what quinqueremes and triremes were not,
with a view to clearing the ground : the period to be considered ends in
THE (JIIEEK WARSHIP. \VJ
effect with Actiiim,"- wliich closes an epoch in naval warfare. Tlie positive
conclusion appears to be that the Oreek system was analogous to tlic
Venetian, i.e. that a trireme was in the nature of a trireme a zenzile, and
tliat the large ships of the last three centuries B.(!. were galleys a scaloccio,^
Apart from the Athenian lists, which are conclusive for what they state,
tlie evidence falls mainly into three classes; (1) historians and inscription!},
(2) scholiasts and k'xicographers, (3) monuments. Class (1) varies in weight
but includes all the best evidence. Class (2) has no independent value at
all; at best it can only be used to illustrate Class (1). Where they disagree
Class (1) must prevail. Probably Mr. Torr is right in saying that Class (2) can
be neglected altogether. In Class (3) every item must be taken on its own
merits ; one may be of great value, another wortliless. This class rc(piires
a more thorough going criticism than it has ever received or than I am
competent to give.* Many supporters of the accepted theory are inconsistent ;
they may begin, like Assmann, by saying that (Mass (2) is not trustworthy ;
they always end by relying upon it. This paper is intended to be based
primarily on C^lass (1). For (obvious reasons I have had to consider Class (2)
to a certain extent; I have never relied on it myself and I do not consiiler
it evidence.
The following propositions seem to represent the facts ot the ease.'
./. — The terms thranite, zugite, thalamite, have nothing to do with tiie
horizontal rows (or banks) of oars. The rowers w^ere in three divisions,
or squads, thranites astern, zugites amidships, thalamites in the bows. Tliis
applies to triremes and the larger polyereis.''
/>'. — The terms TpiKpoTo<i BtKpoTof and fxov6Kporo<i refer primarily to
these S(juads.
G. — There is no evidence of any kind, good or bad, for the dogma that,
among Greeks and Romans, at all times and in all places, one man rowed one
oar ; but there is good evidence (1) that in the triremes of the Peloponnesian
war one man rowed one oar and (2) that the same applies to the Athenian
<juadriremes and (juinqueremes of the fourth century.
I). — There is sonje evidence (1) that in the first century B.C. more than
one man sometimes rowed one oar and (2) that the larger polyereis were too
- I have liad to notice the boats on Trajan's one can never say liow far the artist may have
column, and one or two otlicr matters, an<l, of sacriliccd truth of th-tail to artistic considcra-
course, writers of later date. tions. It will be considered under E.
^ A trireme a zenzile was one in which three ' However little one wishes to dogmatise,
men sat on one bench on the .same level, one a one cannot always be writing in the jioteiitial
little astern of the other, each rowing one oar, mood and expressing every shade of proiier
the three oars issuing through one opening side leservation.
by side, and giving the ajipearance of a bundle " By ' the larger polyereis ' in this paper I
of three oars (sec Figs. 1 and 2). In the galley generally mean ([uadriremes to dekeieis both
a scaloe.cio several men rowed each oar. inclusive, nothing over a dekeres being heard
* The monumental evidence is often over- of in action,
rated. Even in the case of the best monuments,
140 W. W. TARN
low in tlie water, too light, and of too simple an arrangement, to admit of the
accepted theory being applicable to them.
E. — There is no good evidence, and very little bad, that can be made
to refer to the accepted theory. There is none that necessitates, or even
invites, this theory.
It remains to consider the evidence for these propositions,^ and the
•conclusions to be drawn from them ; and, finally, to consider the Athenian
trireme.
• A.
Polyaen. 5, 43. ' Calliades, overtaken by a swifter ship, kept using his
steerage frequently, according as (the pursuer) tried to ram now from one
side and now from the other, so that the pursuer, striking his steerage with
her catheads, might not be able to ram by reason of her ram being over
against his first {i.e., sternmost) thranite oars.'^ That is to say, as the boat
behind made her shot, Calliades put on his steerage ; the ram missed his
stern and slid past it toward, pointing at, his sternmost oars, while the cat-
head struck his stern, and of course too high to do much harm ; this checked
the pursuer's way for the moment, and while she was straightening herself
for another shot Calliades would gain a little on his new tack. The oars the
ram pointed at were the first or endmost thranite oars. On the accepted
theory they would have been the first or endmost oars of all three classes.
The thranite oars therefore were in a group at the stern.
Polyaen. 3, 11, 14. Chabrias prepared a second set of steering oars for
rough weather which he put out through the irape^eipea ia beside the
thranite oars (kuto, To.'i 0paviTL8a<: K(07ra<;). His avowed object was to
prevent the steering oars leaving the water as the ship's stern lifted, and
of course the oars that they were put out beside can only have been the
sternmost oars. The thranite oars then are the sternmost oars. On
Assmann's theory no sense can be given to the words ' the thranite oars '
at all ;^ for as he supposes that the thranite oars were rowed through the
^ .^ is very old as an opinion. B and a good can prove anything. No one who ha.s seen a
deal of D (2) are new, I think. C (1) is bumping race, and watched the cox of the boat
given correctly by Bauer. D (1) is primarily in front washingofT the nose of the boat behind
Weber. In referring in this paper to Bauer's with his steerage, will have any difficulty in
arrangement I mean his iirrangement con- construing the passage. I quote Polyacnus
sidered physically, i.e., as a slight interval only throughout from Woelfflin-Melber. He made
between the rows, apart from questions like considerable use of Ephorus ; but according to
the meaning of thranite or itape^tipfala. Melber, Ueber den Quellen unci der Wert dcr
* T^ tV ifjL$oKi)v (Ivai Kara, ras vpwras Stratetjemcnsammlung Polydns, (1885), the pas-
Bpaviriias Kw-Kas. The only writer known to sages most material to this i)aper (5, 43; 3, 11,
me who cites this passage is Brcusing, Die 7 and 12 and 13 ; 5, 22, 2) are derived from
Losung des Trierenrdtscls, 1889 ; and as he some earlier work on naval tactics.
could not understand it at all, he said that the * Assmanu has to translate it (Baunieistcr,
words from t# r^v ifi^oKiiv to the end must be 1616) ' neben den hinterstcn Thranitenriemen,'
a gloss. If one may discard everything as a which is not in the Greek,
gloss that does not suit one's own theory, one
THE GREEK WARSHIP.
HI
Trape^eipeaia and the others through portholes below, if the steering oars
were put through the 'rrape^eipeaia they could not be beside any oars but
thranite oars, and the words are redundant and meaningless. The neces-
sary sense is ' beside the sternniost oars.' ^^
Polyb. 16, 3 (battle of Chios). Philip's dekeres rams a trihemiolia ^^ in
the middle of the hull under the tliranite ' thole.' ^'^ On the accepted theory
this can only mean ' between the thranite and zugite banks.' The difficulty
is twofold : (1) historians never (I think) mention the height at which a ship
is struck : their references are always longitudinal, so to speak. They distin-
guish between blows v<f)aXa and e^aXa ; otherwise they appear to assume, as
all monuments (and all reason) shows, that the ram, if not submerged, was
near the waterline ; (2) even if tlie trihemioHa were lower than a trireme, the
dekeres, if I am right as to its height, (see under D), cannot have had its ram
placed as high as the ' zugite ' bank ; while if the accepted theory be true,
then, even if the trihemiolia were as high as a trireme, the far taller dekeres
must have cut her right down with the stem and could not be said to ram her
' under ' anything. — The passage is of course not conclusive.^^
'" This passage, unlike tlie former, is not
evidence against anyone but those who accept
Assmann's view (based on the monuments) of
tlic irapf^tipfala as an outrigger or ' oar-box '
(Riemen-kasten) ; however, as it is conchisive
that Assmann is right ou this point, tliis is not
very material. Chabrias' new steering oars
weie not where the old ones were. The new
ones were through the itapt^fiptaia ; therefore,
tlie old ones were not. But the old ones were
in the usual place on the stem of the ship,
as shewn by tlieir lifting clear of the water ;
therefore the old view, that by irapt^fipfaia is
meant the stern (and bow) of the shij) beyond
tlie oarage, is untenable. The same conclusion
is supported by Peripl. Pont. Eux. 3, the waves
coining in not only through the oar-holes but
over the irapt^apfaiat (where tiie reference must
be to a higher point, not a different point) ;
and by the frecpient references to ships losing
part of their irapt^fipfaia in action (Thiic. 7, 34
is a good instance). But the absolutely
decisive passage is Polyaen. 3, 11, 13 ; Chabrias
stretches skins over the Trap(l(ip«ria of each
Hide of the ship (vwfp rifv irapf^etpca-iav tKaripov
Tolxov) and nails them to the deck above, thus
making a <l>payna which prevented the waves
washing in and . the oarsmen looking out.
Cliabrias here improvised a cataphract. Ass-
niann never reall}' proved his own theory of the
irapf^tipfaia ; at the same time there is nothing
ill Buresch's attack on it, Die Ergebnisae der
ncuercn Furschung iibcr die alien Tricrcn
(IVoch. fiir khisn. I'hil. 1891, No. 1).
" In a Khodian inscription of the first
half of the first century B.C. (I.G. xii. fasc. i.
No. 43) trihemioliai aic contrasted with cata-
phracts, and again triremes with aphracts ;
suggesting that the trihemiolia was then a
smaller or less important ship than a trireme.
The form Tpii)pi\ft.ioK'ia (Ath. 203 d) suggests
that Photius is right iu calling it a trireme ; if
so, it was a light trireme evolved from a
hemtolia (as to which see n. 22), as the trireme
from the pentekontor. The suggestion that it
means a ship of 2^ banks is the merest guess-
work.
'" /fOToe nfffoy rh kvtos uirh rhv dpaviTr,v
(TKa\fi6v. Cited by Weber.
^^ As I shall often have to refer to the battle
of Chios, I should note that some writers {e.g.
Belooh, Bcvolkerung, and Ihne) doubt the-
accuracy of Polybius' version, obviously diawn
from Rhodian sources, that it was a defeat for
Philip. But even if so, this cannot affect the
details of .single events, which are jjrecisely
given ; for even if the Rhodians wrote up an
account of the battle for the honour of Rhodes,
and Theophiliscus, tliey would take all the
more care to put in details that either diil
happen or might, consistently with nautical
probability, have happened. The account of
this battle is hardly affected by Polybius'
suppos-ed inaccuracies as to the first Punic war,
for which his sources were far diffeient. One
cannot go into the case for Polybius in
a note ; but I would point out (1) that,
as to the numbers, no one, I think, has.
yet examined the nun.bers in the sea-fights,
generally up to Actium, and the only examina-
142
W. W. TAKN
Is there any counter-evidence, i.e., evidence for tlie view that thranite
refers to the men in the highest row or bank of a trireme, zugite to those in
the nii(ldle row or bank, thahunite to those in the lowest, however the rows
were arranged ? All that I have ever seen cited belongs (except Pollux) to
Class (2) and is given below ^* ; I know of no other.''' I have collected these
passages so that it may be seen at a glance that all of them (except the first
half of Schol. Frogs 1074 and one from Eustathius and that from Pollux)
represent one statement only, namely, that given in tiic latter half of Schol.
Frogs 1 (374.
If the latter half of this Scholion on Frogs 1074 is all one sentence,
what it says is 'The rd^L<i which is Kcira) is the thalamites, that which is
fiea-Tj is the zugites, that which is dvM is the thranites. Therefore, the
thranite is astern, the zugite in the middle, the thalamite toward the prow.'
Everyone (except Weber) has omitted the ovv. Now if ovv means ' tlierefore,'
it follows of course that by avco the Scholiast means 'astern' and not
' above ' — the consequeiice of sitting avco is that you sit astern — and by kutw
he means ' in the bows ' and not ■ below.' ^" Any supporter of the accepted
tion for part of the jjeriod that 1 know of —
Kioniayer, Die Entwickeliing der rbni. Flottc
vom Scerdxiherkricgc dcs Foinpcius his zum
Schlacht von Actium (Philol. 1897), p. 426—
accepts the great numbers recorded for the war
with Sextus Ponipey ; (2) that to l)ring in tlie
population question (Beloch, Serre) is .surely to
explain obscumm per ohscurius ; (3) that the real
exaggeration is not in the separate accounts of
battles, which generally mention ' ships ' or
' cataphracts,' but in the summing-up chapter
(1, 63), where Polybius has used irfVTripeis
when he ouglit to have said warships, as
appears lioth from the separate accounts and
from the cnlumna rostrata (C.I.L. 1, 195) ; and
(4) that Ihne's objection {Horn. Geseh."^ 2, 47)
that the Romans liad ships before the first
Punic war, neglects the obvious explanation
that Polybius or his authority means no more
in speaking of the creation of the Roman fleet
than we might in speaking of the creation of
the German fleet — a first serious bid for .sea-
j)Ower. See also n. 91.
^^ Schol. Frogs 1074 t^ QahifxaKi- rip Kwirri-
\aTOVVTl iv Tcf KUTW M«V*' '''''* TpJTJpoCs" Ttfi
BaKa/xaKf oi OaAa/xaKis 6\iyov eKa/j-pavoy /xKrOhv
Sta rh KO\ol3a7s XP')"'^*' Kuiirats napd. ray &\Aas
I r Ta|€tr TtJv ipeTuiv '6ti fiaWou ^ffav iyyhs
Tov i/SoTOS. II fjaav 5e Tpus rd^eis rSiv epfroov
Kal 7} fi-fv Ka.ru) OaKa/urai, r} St ^effTj ^vytrai, r)
Se ivo) QpavlTai. 0pavirr)S oiiv 6 irphs rrjv npi/xuav,
(uyirris 6 fif(Tos, OaKafiios b irphs Trji* irpcjipaf.
(I cite down to || from Rutherford's cd. of the
scholia (1896) ; ho does not give the latter half,
which is therefore not in the codex liavcvnas.
1 cite it from the codex Vcnetus. In the
former half, according to tiie facsimile published
by the Hellenic Society, cod. Vcn. omits T-)
Schol. Ach. 162 raiv epeTrivTtnv ot fi(V &v(ii
tpfTTovTes Opavlrai Keyovrai, ol 8e /xeffoi (^vy7rai,
ol S( Karoi 0a\a/j.tot. Hesych. Opav'nris 6 irphs
rr)v Ttpvfxvav, ^vyirrfs h fifcros, 0a\d,fj,i.os 6 irphs tjj
Trpc^pa. (so Suidas and Zonaras). Hesych. 6aKa-
/XLOS ep(T7]i- & KaTcoTOLTw ip((T(Tct)V iv rf, vr]i daKa-
fxws \tyeTat, 6 5e fxiaos ^vyioi, 6 5e avieTUTOS
Opav'iTTis. 0a\ifMiai Kcoirai- ol KartoTaTw Kal oi
ravrriv ^xovrts ttjc xwpav 0a\aixioi Xtyovrai.
Suidas. Opoj'iTTjs \fws- Ttivyap eptTr6vr(tiv ol fxiv
&VW dpavlTat Aeyovrai, oi Si ufffot ^vy'irai, olSt Karw
0a\d.fiioL- Etym. Mat;;. OaAa/xiSwi Ku>iraf o Karci-
raros eperris 0a\d/j.ios Xiyirai, b 8e fxeaos ^vyios, 6
if avairaros Opai-lrris. Eustath. 1818, 52 txtiSe,
ipricriv (Pausanias), ovtos (thranite) rr^v Sfoi
(Spav, TT/c SevTfnav (^vyios, r^v rpirr]!' floAciyUior.
640, 11 0a\afurai koI 0a\d.fiaKis ipirai ol vwh
Tovs 0pavlras. Lastly Pollux 1, 87 KaKo'iro S' h.v
Kol 0a.\afios ov ol 0a\dfxioi (ptTTOvar to Se fxicra
Tjjs viiiis C^yo-, ov ol ^vyf.oi Ka0Tjvrar rh 5e itep\ rh
Kariarptu^JLa 0pa.vos, ov ol 0pav7Tai. — There is
another .scholion on Frogs 1074, given by
Zuretti, Scolii al. Pluto edalle Rane d' Aristofane
dal codicc Vencto 472 e dal codicc Cremonense
12229, I,, 6, 28 : rpels rd^eis ?i(Tav iv tt) Tpi-l)pfr
oi /jLiV nrpSnoi Bpavlrai KaXovjjLivoi, oi 5e Sfinepoi
^vylrai, oi 5e Tpiroi daXdfxaKes. Read witii
Eustath. 1818, 52, this illustrates the use of
npcoTos as sternmost in Polyaen. 5, 43 above.
^•' Unless it be Ar. Mech. 4, discussed
under F.
'" That duw and Karw mean ' astern ' anil
TilE GREEK WARSHIP U3
theory must say tlicii either tliat ovi^ here means, not ' therefore,' but
something indeterminate, such as ' well, tlien ; ' or else that the sentence is
two separate scholia, combined in an unintelligent manner. Either is
possible, though neither can be shewn to bu correct ; but in any case it is
certain that this scholion and the similar passages depend on the meaning of
civw and kutw.
Pollux 1, S7 is different, and suits my view at least as well as the
accepted theory, even if Pollux be referring only to triremes, which we have
no right to assume.
Remains Eustath. ()40, 11. If this is not (as I think it is) Eustathius'
own misunderstanding of kutw, then the {question arising is, are we to follow
on the one hand Eustathius, or on the other Polyaenus (twice") and (in effect)
Arrian (see 7>) ? The answer admits of no possible doubt.
What it then comes to is this. In order to say that the terms thranite,
zugite, and thalamite refer to longitudinal rows or banks one over the other,
we must take the latter portion of the Scholion on Frogs 1074, .say it is
evidence, translate it in a way that, at best, cannot be shown to be correct,
and use the result, with the (possible) help of Eustathius, to overrule two
passages in Polyaenus, })ossibly one in Polybius and (in effect) Arrian (see B);
and having done this, we land after all in the difficulty in which everyone is
landed by the fact that all the higher values, as shewn by that inconvenient
tesserakonteres, only possessed the same three classes of oarsmen.^" I may
add that my view explains that thorn in the side of the accepted theory, the
greater number of the thranite oars as compared with the zugite and
thalamite oars, which the Athenian lists rentier certain.
B.
The terms that correspond to the division of the rowers on a warship into
squads are TplKporo<i, SiKporof, and fxovoKpoTO'i, which are usually referred
to the (triple) beat of the three banks of a trireme, the (double) beat of the
* in the bows' has often been asserted but that Philopator had such a barge (tlie 0a\a-
never proved. I believe it is correct, but my fxriyos of Ath. 204 d. seq.). If any one will
reason for thinking so is given in B ; it lias read Athenaeus consecutively he will see that
nothing to do with the Schol on Frogs 1074. he puts side by side three monsters of three
If it be correct, all the &vw ;ind Karcc ])assagcs different types ; the Tfo-ffepaicorTTjpijs (long ship),
given in the note arc disposed of conclusively. the 6a\atxriy6s {voTafiiov ir\o7ov), and Hiero's
''■ This forced Assmann to explain e.g. a de- ship (round ship). The height of the tessera-
keres as constituted by three .superposed triads, konteres, on which rests the 'Mississippi
each triad con.sisting (in superposition) of a steamer' theory, is given to the top of the
thranite, zu^iie, and thalamite ; with a lonely aKpoarAAtov, which {jacc Liddell and Scott) is
thalamite on tlie top. The Tf(rcrtpaKovTr)prjs not the gunwale, see Toir, 68. Those who
is legimate evidence so far as it goes. Since treat S'nrpwpos as afKphpwpos have forgotten the
the in.soription about the TpiaKovri)pvs was old Calais-Douvres ; and the twin hull was only
found, no one can snp])ose it to be a bad joke the logical outcome of the common practice of
of Callixenns' : and the idea that it was a kind lashing two ships together to get a steady
of flat-bottomed river barge (Assmann, Dro^-sen, platform.
Torr) seems to me to be disi>osed of by the fact
lU W. W. TARN
two banks of a bireme, and the (single) beat of the one bank of a fiovrjprjf.
There is no evidence for this whatever, and if it were true one ought to find
TtTpa/et/cpoTo? and so forth, forms that never occur. The conventional
explanation of their non-occurrence, given by Graser and repeated by Cartault
and Luebeclj, viz., that the larger polyereis did not appear to an dbseo'ver from
the side to have more than a triple beat, is futile ; why did any ship, from
<Ae sirfc, appear to have more than a single beat ? ^* The words must apply
to some arrangement which was threefold and no more ; and it can hardly be
a coincidence that precisely the same point arises over the words thranite,
zugite, and thalamite.
The important passage is Arr, Anah. 6, 5, 2,^" generally cited, together
with a note that BiKpoTO^ = Bii]prj<;, to shew how near to the water was the
lower bank of a bireme. The explanation is unfortunate, as Alexander had
no biremes with him. Indeed they were not in use in his time. No one
seems to have considered this preliminary point.
To take things in order. Arr. Anah. 5. 8, Alexander carries his ships
over from the Indus to the Hydaspes, triakontors in three sections, the smaller
boats in two. 6, 1. He builds on the Hydaspes many triakontors and
hemioliai, also horse-transports and other transports. 6, 2. The fleet that
started down the Hydaspes, according to Ptolemy, consisted of eighty tria-
kontors, together with horse-transports, cercuri, and river boats, some being
native boats, and some newly built. 6, 5, 2. (At the junction of the Hydaspes and
the Acesines) the cargo boats {arpoyyvXa) came through the rapids safely ; but
the warships (/xa>cpai) suffered, as they were lower in the water, and those
of them that were SiKporoi had their kuto) oars not much above the water;
and two were lost. 6, 14. He builds more ships in the land of the Malli.
6, 15, 1. He receives some more triakontors and some cargo boats {a-rpoyyvXa).
6, 15, 4. He refits. 6, 18, 3. On his expedition from Patala to the sea he takes
the swiftest of the hemioliai, all the triakontors, and some cercuri. 6, 18, 4.
The waves get up and he loses some triakontors. Arr. Ind. 19. On the
Hydaspes, Alexander had about 800 vessels, both warships (p-aKpai) and
cargo boats {a-rpoyyvKa) and horse-transports and food-transports. 23. Near-
chus loses two warships (fiaxpai) and a cercurus, in a storm. 31. Nearchus
(requiring a good ship for special service) sends a triakontor — the island
story. No other writer adds anything.^^
Two things come out strongly from this: (1) the important warships
were the triakontors ; (2) the only warships were the triakontors and hemio-
liai, for Arrian does not count a cercurus ^^ as fiuKpa (Ind. 23). The warships
'* If there Was a visible triple beat on any Kwir-qpTi kuI trxf^ias.
view, what becomes of the stock comparison '^' For cercurus see ToiT «.?;. ; a type equally
with the wings of a bird ? suited for warfare or commerce, but always
^^ offat re SiKporoi avruv {i.e. rwv fiaKpaiv reckoned among the small craft of a fleet ; lie
vfwv) ras Kirw Kuiras ovk iir\ iroAu K^w ^x"""''" has a lot of evidence. Weber's idea that a
rov lidaTos. cercurus was a trireme is a mere mistraiislatioiii
-'* Curtius, Diodorus, and Justin are silent. of App. run. 121.
Plutarch {Alex. 63) says he built iTop0fi(la
THE GREEK WARSHIP.
145
then that were BcKpoToc were either triakontors or hemioliai. But whatever
SiKpoTo<; means, it is certain that a hemioiia was not SUpoTo^.^^^ The ships
that were hiKpoToi then were triakontors, i.e., fiovrjpeiii of fifteen oars aside.
Consequently, SUpoToii does not primarily mean a bireme, whatever the
lexicographers say, and does not therefore refer to the double beat of a
bireme's two banks of oars, supposing it to have had such.
If then 8iKpoTo<; does not mean ' double-beating,' ^^ it can only mean
' double-beaten.' Now avyKeKpoTrjfievoi is the common term for a trained
crew, ' beaten together,' or ' welded together ' — (we sometimes say grcntnd
together); hUporo<i therefore means 'double-welded,' a ship whose crew is
trained in, or falls into, two squads.^^
Now we can get at the meaning of avw and Kara). A triakontor had
two squads of rowers, and, though single-banked, the oars were distinguished
as those Kara) from those sometiiing else, presumably dv(D. In relation to the
oarage, therefore, Arareo and ai/o) mean fore and aft ; ^^ and this is confirmed
by the usage of Kara and dvd}^ This explains the Schol. on Frogs 1074, in
^- App. Mith. 92 the pirates originally
{irpiuTov) used inyoparoues and hemioliai, later
((iTa) SiKpSrots and triremes, i.e., when they
organised themselves. This is conclusive ; and
overrules Hesych. riuio\ia- i) SIkpotos vavs,
where the definite article makes nonsense any-
how. I want to make this clear, because the
accepted explanation of r]fiio\ia is a ship with
1 J banks. Thera is not a shred of evidence for
this ; it rests on the fact that fifj.i6\tos means
1^. 1 might say that hemioiia means a ship of
IJ squads, which has at least the support of
Photius s.v. o5 rh r)ixi6\iov /xipos \pt\hv ^ptruv
earl irphs rh an' avrov ^ax«fO«'- The certain
thing is that it was a pirate ship (Arr. Anah.
3, 2, 4, App Mdh. 92, Phot, s.v.), and a typical
one (Theoplir. Char. 25, 1), and could be classed
with the little myoparones, which were certainly
single banked (evidence Toir 119) ; it was a
favourite for surprises (Diod. 19, 6f>, Polyaeu.
4, 7, 4) ; and the latter passage also shews it
was small, tlie object of Demetrius being to dis-
play the minimum of force. Pirates, whose
heads depended on their speed, would not go in
for fancy arrangements of oars.
2^ The word occurs in the active sense once,
in a chorus (Eur. /. T. 407), hiKp6roi<Ti Kwnais,
of the Argo, (a traditional single-banked ship,
Ap. Khod. 1, 394 scq.), where ii refers to the
beat of the oars on either side of the ship.
This shews that in Euripides' time it cannot
have been a technical term for the beat of two
banks on the same side of the ship.
^* The same causes which compelled the
Venetians to divide the crew of a trireme into
H.S. — VOL. XXV.
3 squads and work as a rule in relays (Fincati
p. 167) would have comiielled the Gieeks also
to do this. Part of a crew did row alone,
(Thuc. 3, 49 ; Polyaen. 5, 22, 4 ; Xen. Hell. 6,
2, 29) ; but these passages do not shew which
part. If, however, when not in action, one
squad only rowed at a time, as at Venice, it
is explained how the Athenian horse-trans-
ports, with 60 oars only, kept np with
triremes.
^" i.e., when used as technical terms ; for
Thuc. 7, 65 (the Syracusans covered with hidis
ras irpeppai Kal rfjs vea)s 6.vti>) might refer to the
upper works of the ship. As to ovk inl iroAu
(^0) Uxov'^O'^ ToO vSaros, the forward oars would
of course suffer most in the bad water. But
it may be that these triakontors, built for a
river, were even lower in the water than "usual,
and anyhow they would be heavily laden.
Some were lost going down from Patala
^* * In the Odyssey xara is the regular
word for motion inwards, avd for motion out-
wards ; ' Mr. J. L. Myres, J. H.S. xx. p. 140
sq. For later Greek, Mr. A. P. Oppe, J. H.S.
xxiv. p. 225 sq. Mr. G. F. Hill kindly
furnished me with these references. If the
ship was generally entered from the stern, this
would explain why koltcd should be foreaid &vu>
aft ; and at Athens anyhow she would be
entered from the stern, if launched bow first ;
see Prof. E. A. Gardner, Ancient Athens, p.
553. This is also borne out by the ordinary
term for ' to come forward,' ava^ipdv r^v
Ktairrjv, which shows that avd is motion toward
the stern.
146
W. W. TARN
the sense re<iuired by the natural reading of the Greek,-^ and all the other
evidence of Class (2) cited n. 14, except periiaps the one passage in Eustathius,
which, as we have seen, must be treated as overruled. The conclusion reached
under section A is thus strongly supported.
It is of course also possible that in some ships the forward s(piad sat, or
once sat, rather lower on the whole than the after squad.'^** If this were so,
the thranite oars would on the whole be rather the longest ; and if the
Athenian trireme resembled the Venetian triremes in Fig. 1, this may per-
haps explain the statement in the Athenian lists that of some condemned
thranite oars ten were serviceable for the zugites.=^*' Once kuto) had come
to mean ' forward,' the term would remain, even if in historical times the
difference was slight, or even non-existent; how many centuries have passed
since ' forecastle ' or ' starboard ' had any real meaning ?
But to return to hUpoTo<^. When Hesychius says that a Sii/p?;? vai)^
was also called hUpoTO^:, is he wrong? Or is the more accurate Pollux
(1,82) wrong in treating Snjpt]^ and BlKpoTo<i as separate ships ? I think
both are right. I will assume here for a moment the result arrived at in
section iJ, tliat (subject to the meaning of Si'/c/ooto?) there is no evidence for
the use of biremes until well on in the first century B.C. ; the question then
is, is there any passage in which hUpoTo<i must mean a bireme ? T think
there can be no doubt that it means something different from and larger than
a fioin)pT]'i, but smaller than a trireme, in App. Mith. 92 (see n. 22) ; and
it will be fairest therefore to assume that to Appian generally hUporo<;
-'' IiiciiU'iilally, tins may suggest that Scliol.
Frogs 1074 rcpicscnts a ^i,'eimiiie tradition, i.e.,
one descciulfd from a time when men knew
the tccliiiiial moaning of koltw ; for of course I
do not sujiiiose that llie Sclioliast knew this,
any more than Eustathius, and all that I can
attempt to shew is what tlie word meant to
Anian, or rather to Ptolemy.
•^ Bauer, Neue Fhilol. Jiandschai' 1895, \k
"265, 'in Schriig vom llinterschitf zum Vorscliill
al)fallender Linio augeordneten Kuderpforten,'
which may well be riglit. It is clearly shewn
ill tlie Venetian triremes in Kig. 1. See Aescli.
Agam. 1617, and n. 80.
^'•' Tlie inelination of the Trope|ei^€(Tio to
the long axis of the ship (n. 118) would
furnish another expl.uiation. The longest oars
of the tesserakonteres were thranite oars, as
the reference to tlie lead shows (Ath. 203 f) ;
but as we have no idea how she was arranged,
it is useless either suggesting exjdanations of
this or drawing deductions from it as to
triremes. All her thranite oars were not of
the same leiigili.
*' C.I. A. vol. 2 part 2, 791 1. r.6 —
Spavnihwv ruuruv airo((>alvft 6 hoKi/j-affrrji (vylas
A. If the number of the epavinSfs that were
aSoKi/uoi were extant, we might have something
to go on as to the lelative lengths ; for as
iii.o.'<t oars go at the leather, or point of
contact, then if only a fei<> could be used as
^vyiai we should know that any theoiy (like
Assmann's explanation of the Lenormant relief)
which made the zugite oars less than two-thirds
of the length of the thranite, was, on this
ground alone, untenable. The higher ]tay of
the thranites ])robably had notliing to do with
the Iciitjtli of the oar, (that is a Scholiast's
guess), but was merely one sign of the greater
con.'dderation they enjoyed ; and the primary
reason no doubt (apart from r.ny question of their
more jtrobably being burgesses) was that it
depended hugely on them, as the stern oars,
whether the boat was ' together ' and kept
her [lace. Great importajice was attached to
the manning of th(^ stern benches in a mediaeval
galley, as Jurien de la Graviere shews. The
Athenian lists do not really prove anything at
all as to the relative length of the oars, as we
do not know why those ten were condemned ;
and we have no right to make them mean that
all thranite oars were longer than all zugite
oars, still less that they were much longer.
THK CJKEKK WAKSIIIR 147
meatis biremc, wliieh (incidentally) takes us back to the first Mitliriilatic war
(MUh. 17). How then came a word, which at the end of the fourth century
was applied to a trinkontor, to mean a bireme ?
The first standard warship was the pentekontor, invented in 704 jj.c,,-*'
from which was afterwards evolved the trireme. By the time of Demosthenes
the pentekontor was no longer in regular use;" shewing that the trireme c\id
its work and did it better. But the lighter triakontor was in full use
throughout the fourth century '■' ; anil by the end of this century we find
frequent mention of another light ship of a different type, the first ^* of
many borrowings from pirates, the hemiolia,^'^ from which perhaps wfis
again evolved a sort of light or abnormal trireme, the trihemiolia.^*' The
hemiolia nnd triakontor, however, run side by side as light warships, shewing
that neither could do the other's work ; presumably the speedier hemiolia
could not ram. Philip V. introduced another light pirate ship, the Illyrian
lembos,-*'' which combined with great speed the power of ramming, and
obviously effected something like a revolution in naval warfare (battle of
Chios, 201 ]}.C.). The last mention, I think, of the triakontor in history is in
the treaty between Rome and Antiochus III., 188 B.C."'® The lembos then,
doing the triakontor's work and doing it butter, presumably tended to drive
out the triakontor ; and perhaps we shall not be far wrong if we guess that
some one thereupon took a leaf out of Pliilip's book,^^ 'double-banked' his
triakontors, and so evolved the bireme,^° which would still he as much a
vav<; ScKpoTo^i as the original triakontor had been, possessing two squads
only. As the triakontor vanished, the term StKporos remained adhering
(without ambiguity) to the bireme ; and probably by the time that Appiau
^^ See Kroker, Die Dipylon-va^cn {Jahrb. fleet of leniboi being almost a new thing (5, 109,
1886), wiih whose account (p. 106 sc^.) of the <rx«5bi/ wpiros rtSi' eV Mo/ceSoyf 9 j3a<riAea»') and as
first evolution of the warship I agree, as to his tactics at the battle of Chios being new.
against Pernice'a criticism in Ath. Mitth. 17 We may conclude that if he was not actually
(1892), p. 306. the first to introduce the Illyrian lembos he
^- It does not occur in the Athenian lists, was the first to perceive its possibilities and to
and plays no part in battles again. I do not use it in a fleet action.
mean it was not built at all ; Jlithridates c.r/. ^* Polyb. 21, 45 yuTj/cexj exeVa; ■ir\r)v i Kara-
had a few, and see Polyb. 1, 20, 14 (the <ppd.KTwv yinjSe -rptaKovTaKwitov 6x«Ta) i\avv6-
Italiot states), 25, 7, 1 (Egypt). n^vov k.t.a. Livy 38, 38 has run the two
^^ Athenian lists ; Arriau I.e. and 7, 19 ; together (neve plures quam decern naves
I'olyaen. 3, 9, 63 ; etc. actuarias nulla (juarum plus quam triginta
'■' If indeed the triakontor was not origin- reniis agatur habcto), while App. Syr. 39
ally a pirate, Thuc. 4, 9. mentions cataphracts only.
"'•'"' See n. 22. as See post, n. 94 as to Philip's ' lembi
•'" Seen. 11. biremes,' and 'double-banking.'
"*^ Demetrius had lemboi at the siege of ■*" Precisely the 'galeotta' of Furtenbach.
Rhodes (Diod. 20, 85), but we do not hear of No doubt someone experimented with biremes
them in action (if Diodorus be correct neither before triremes were invented. But these ex-
he nor I'tolemy put fxovrjpeis into line at periments remained without eff"ect (witness
Salamis), and so cannot say if they were the the silence of Herodotus, Thucydides, and the
Illyrian lemboi or not. I'olyb. 1, 53, 9, and 3, Athenian lists, and indeed of all writers prior-
46, 5 (Hannibal crossing the Rhone) add to Caesar) and have nothing to do with the
nothing, and earlier mentions of lemboi refer t) biremes known to history, which apjiear first
ship's boats. Polybius is clear as to Philip's in the 1st century n.c. See under A'.
L 2
148
W. W. TARN
and Arrian wrote the fact that tlie woni had once applied to a triakontor had
really been forgotten, and would have been lost, had not Arrian fortunately
simply copied down Ptolemy. The above exi)lanation is of course guesswork,
but (I think) reasonable and consistent guesswork.'**
As to fiovoKporo^ and rpiKporof. These words, unlike bUpoTo^, really
were ambiguous, and therefore little used. Many ships wore fiovoKpo-
Tot-^not divided into squads; and apart from Xen. Hell. 2, 1, 18,^- the word
is found only once.^^ Similarly, rpUporo'^ would apply, not only to triremes,
but to all the larger polyereis ; the word occurs thrice only, in Aristeides,
Niketas, and Clement of Alexandria ; they throw no light on its meaning.
C.
I have failed to trace either the genesis of, or any scrap of evidence that
will support, the dogma that among Greeks and Romans, at all times and in
all places, one man rowed one oar — a dogma that is responsible for three
quarters of the nonsense written about the larger polyereis. Many writers
are content to refer to the evidence as ' well-known,' generally a sign that
there is not any ; as given by Assmann and Luebeck, the proofs are
Thuc. 2, 93 ; Polyaen. 3, 9, 68 ; Leo Tactica 19, 8 ; all the monuments.
Thuc. 2, 93** is conclusive evidence for this, and for this only, that in
■•1 It may be objected that the birenie of
Octavian's time was a ' Liburnian.' Biremes
are mentioned in history earlier than Libur-
nians, which is all I require ; but it is as well
to be clear about the Liburnian. In origin, it
was another of the light swift pirate-craft
of the Adriatic (App. III. 3), if indeed it was
not the lembos under another name ; and the
fact that under the Empire the Liburnian
was built, first as a bireme (App. III. 3, Lncan
3, 534— note Lucan's 'crevisse,' it had gr.ivn)
and later as a trireme, etc. (Veget. 4, 37),
which nobody doubts, only shews that there
were biremes of two different builds running
parallel, the Liburnian birenie evolved from a
Liburnian and the dicrotos bireme evolved from
a triakontor (just as earlier there were the
trireme and the trihemiolia) ; see C'.I.L. 5, 1956
which mentions a ' bicrota ' called Mars and a
'Liburna' called Clupeus. When Appiau
{III. 3) says that in his time light hiKpora were
called Liburnians he shews, either that the two
builds had l)ecome confounded, or (more
probably) that he was ignorant of the process
by which the t'lKporos bireme had been evolved,
and that for him ^UpoTov was simply ' bireme.'
*' This passage is a good instance of one
which explains equally well on any theory and
is useless to cite. Other good instances are
Polyaen. 5, 22, 4 and the drowning thalamites
of App. h.c. 5, 107.
*'^ Strabo 7, 325. a.v(6r)K( Ka7<xap r^v
5(Kavatav aKpoOlviov, airh fiovoKpSrov /U«XP'
Seniipous. He uses the word to mark the fact
that the trophy began, not only witha^oi'^pTjs,
but with the smallest kind of /xov/iprjs.
'** \a06vTa ruiv vavruiv (KaaTov rrjv KuirriP
K.T.\. Bauer alone has put this correctly. As
regards triremes, the passage is conclusive as
against Weber (three men to an oar) who has
to mistranslate it, and Serre (tliree banks, but
in action only the top bank rowed by three
men to an oar), for then Brasidas would not
have troubled to take the other oars with him
on a mere raid. The large number of oars for
a trireme given in the Athenian lists also
certain!}' presupposes one man to an oar.
Weber has to say a trireme carried two spare
sets, which (apart from the question of weight)
is improbable, seeing that the account of battle
after battle assumes that a ship with a crippled
rapffis is out of action. The spare oar question
is not, however, easy ; see e.g. the Hippia
(C.I. A. vol, 2 part 2, 802 c. 6) which is said to
have a ra^jihs 5<$/ci;uoj (not, however, (VtsA^j
5($/ciyuos) though five oars are broken. Probably
Assman's solution is the best (reviewing
Schmidt in Bcrl. Phil. Woch. 1900. No. 43) ;
the irtpivt(f oars were deck sweeps, carried for
use in a ship left crippled. I may add that,
THE GHEEK WARSHIP. 149
the triremes of the Greek states at the time of the Peloponnesian war one
man rowed one oar. One is ashamed to have to state anything so
elementary.
Polyaen, 3, 9, 63 refers expHcitly to triakontors and to no other ships ;
and Leo Tact. 19, 8 refers explicitly to the Byzantine dromones of Leo's own
time and to no other ships. Neither passage has the least bearing on the
question : as Luebeck at least saw.
As to the monuments. It sounds well to say that no monument shews
more than one man to an oar, provided that the hearer be not actjuainted
with the scantiness, the inadequacy, and the obscurity of the monumental
evidence. As every monument that shews rowers is called a bireme or a
trireme, this obviously has no bearing on the question of the larger polyereis,
of which we are not supposed to possess any representation at all.*^
But although there is not one bit of evidence for this dogma, which
should long ago have been relegated to the limbo of things forgotten, there
is evidence from the Athenian lists which proves that, at Athens in the
time of Demosthenes, the oars of a trireme could form part of the rappo^ of a
quadrireme and the oars of a quadrireme part of the rappo'i of a quin-
quereme : *^ Bockh called attention to this. Now quadriremes are common
enough in the later lists, and remained in use at any rate for some time, for
there were 30 Athenian quadriremes in Demetrius' fleet at Salamis(006 B.C.),
and as they were posted on the left wing, on which Demetrius had massed
his strength, they were presumably good efficient ships. We therefore get
to this, that toward the end of the fourth century an Athenian quadrireme
had one man to one oar, and similar quinqueremes were being experimented
with.-*^ But though not in use at Athens, quinqueremes had been known
and used at Syracuse since Dionysius I. ; *^ and therefore perhaps we may, or
ought to, say generally of the quadriremes and quinqueremes of the fourth
century B.C. that they had one man to one oar and were, in fact, enlarged
from, and similar to, triremes,*^ as shewn by the transference of equipment
generally {<TK€vr)) from one to the other at Athens. However, beyond the
fact that the Athenian quadriremes were efficient, all the evidence we possess
that throws any light on the nature of any of the larger polyereis is later
than the fourth century,'^*' or rather is not earlier than the building by
witli a irope|eip€<n'o halt carried away, no spare iir]\ rtrpiipri /caffeo-TTjKfVoi [to 5* (tk(v]v o<pei\tt
oars but deck sweeps would (on tlie view I take (here follow the avvTpi4ipapxot) ffKevri fxo"<ri
of a trireme) have been of much use. Possibly ^v\[iva ivTfKrj]. . . - There is another passage
however a trireme rowed 25 groups of 3 oars to the same effect, and the filling up of the
each side, and carried some half dozen spare lacunae is quite certain. Incidentally, this
oars of each class. disposes of every reconstruction of a trireme
*5 And if we had, it would be a cataphract, which cannot be expanded into a quinquereme.
and so could not shew any rowers. " Rarely mentioned, and only in the last
« C.I. A. vol. 2 part 2, 812 a 35 : o£[to]jtV extant list.
fjiiv r(Tp-f}p7j airoS(S[aiK]fv to, 6( (TKtvri 6<pei\(i ''* Diod. 14, 41.
5.^ rh [inl] TTfCT^pr, Karaaraevrai. The (tkivv *^ Here we undoubtedly meet Assmaun's
here include the tojJ^cJj which had been breitpolyereis.
previously mentioned. 812 c 143 seq. 'HSeTa. *" I shall find it convenient to talk of ships
.... [ov]roi T^v rpivpv a.noS4Su>[Kfi' 8io rb of the fourth century, prior to Antigonus' fleet.
150 W. W. TARN
Antigomis and Demetrius of the fleet whieli afterwards fought victoriously at
Salaniis. Meanwhile there is no evidence for any ship larger than a
hexeres ^^ prior to this fleet of Antigonus' ; and I fancy that even the
mention of hexereis is probably an anticipation of events.
D.
Taking the battle of Salamis (306 B.C.) for the moment as a convenient
mark of time, what evidence can we get as to the larger polyereis later than
this battle ? So far as we have gone, we are at liberty to suppose more than
one man to one oar in the larger polyereis in the last three centuries B.C.,
subject to this, that, as in a fourth century 7rei>Ti]pr)(; one man rowed one oar,
we must not suppose that the same word at a later time had a different
meaning unless evidence appears to that effect. I give in this section such
evidence as I know of as to the larger polyereis in the last three centuries
B.C., the effect of it being to make it probable that they were galleys a
scaloccio of some kind with more than one man to an oar, and to make it, I
think, reasonably certain that the accepted theory is quite at variance with
the facts.^'^
(a) Some men in some ships stood at the oar, and were therefore rowing
oars a scaloccio. It was the chief merit of Weber's book to call attention to
the passage in Appian that proves this. When the sea got up (he says),
Salvidienus' inexperienced crews could neither keep their feet nor ' come
forward.'^-* Note that Appian is not caring about informing the reader
whether they stood or sat ; he merely uses ecrrwre? as an illustration, by the
way, of how bad the tide was ; he refers to it as to a well-known thing.
Such a reference can hardly ever be anything but correct. Unfortunately, the
simply as .sliips of the fourth century. It will correi't version (from Aristobuhis).
not create any confusion. For our j)ur])ose the ■''- Many writers have assumed, on the ground
third century begins with Salaniis. of jiractical necessity, that in tlie larger
^' Aeliaii F.H. 6, 12: Diouysius II. had a polyereis more than one man rowed one oar;
fleet of 400 shijis, hexereis and quincjuercnies ; but that is another matter. Serre and Weber
this is of course imi)ossible, and it must mean try to shew that Ap. Rhod. 1, 396 means two
'including hexereis and <|uin({ueremes ' ; see men to an oar; but there is no I'onndation
Diod. 16, 19. Even so, the statement as to whatever for this. The passage, a straight-
hexereis is extremely improbable, seeing that forward one, had already been correctly ex-
Alexander never had anything larger than a plained by Oartault. — Possibly the Deles ship
qninquerenic. Very j)0ssibly Dionysius II. of Pans. 1, 29, 1 would be in point, if one
had built one hexeres on the fourth century knew what the passage meant ; but I cannot
sy.stein (whatever it was), as a 'royal ship.' translate it, and Krazer's translation 'decked
The statement of Pliny N.ff. 7, 56, that for nine banks of oars ' conveys no meaning to
Alexander invented tlie dekeres, is valueless ; me. I'ausanias liad of course heard of higher
see Lncbeck 1, 17 n. 6 and Droysen 27*2 n. 3, values, and therefore the .ship was abnormal in
who give the evidence as to Alexander's fleets. some way; vi/t^ffoi'To does not mean 'larger
It is precisely what u-ouhl get stated about than ' but ' more curious than.'
Alexander, and is on a level with Curt. 10, 1, 19, '* fc.c. 4, 85 (battle between Sextus Pompey
the 700 heptereis carried over in .sections to the and Salvidienus) ; oUrf iarurti ^t&aius virh
Euphrates ; this last is refuted, were refutation ariOdai, oirf raj Hu>*as (n avaffptiv Swi'
necessary, by Arr. Aiinb. 7, 19, who gives the ntvot.
THE GREEK WARSHIP. 151
size of Salvi(iienus' ships is not stated, though they are said to be larger and
heavier than those of Sextiis : we must therefore consider the alternatives,
taking two things as fixed points, vi^., that for serious work no man ever
stood at an oar if he could possibly sit, and that five men to one oar cannot
all sit through the stroke.
First, can the ships in question be merely triremes ?
Fincati gives an account of the Venetian zenzile triremes, three men on
a bench rowing three oars ; extremely long oars, with leaded handles ; he
gives the lengths as 82, 30^, and 29 feet, and proves these extraordinary
figures from Venetian arsenal-lists. Obviously, with such oars the stroke
must have been a slow one ; and Fincati states (p. 167) that they rowed a
stroke called monta e casca, rise and fall.''* Were then the ships of
Salvidienus in question triremes, rowing the stroke called rise and
fall?
This can I think be disproved. The oars of a trireme, whatever their
exact length, were certainly very short compared to the Venetian, perhaps
not more than half the length ; ^^ and there would be no point in rowing so
cumbersome a stroke, for with the shorter oars the crew of a trireme could
certainly have rowed sitting. That they did row sitting is clear from this,
that on occasion they could row a really fast stroke,^" which would not be
possible except sitting. And if they ever could and did row sitting they
would certainly do so when it was rough. What applies to triremes applies
a fortiori to smaller ships.
Suppose then that Salvidienus' ships were quinqueremes on the model
of the fourth century Athenian quinquereme. Then, taking two other fixed
points, viz., that three of the ordines were identical with those of a trireme,
and the oars in the other two only slightly longer,^^ we again get the fact
that the men could have, and therefore would have, rowed sitting, or at most
in the case of the longer oars with some such slight lift from the seat as
some men are apt to give in the first stroke of a race. This might conceiv-
*■* 'Vogue dans latiuulle la force sur I'aviroii oars in a trireme 3.3 m. outboard,
est produitn presqne tout entiere par le poids ^^ There are of course a great many refer-
du ranieur, qui, monte debout sur la pedague ences to spurting, and the common name for it,
ou sur le banc qui precede, so jette eu arriferc, ^o0(aC«i«', implies a fast enough stroke to make
et, tirant h. lui .son aviron, va tomber assis sur a good deal of splashing. The celebrated feat
son proprebanc' The lead may have been u.sed of an Athenian trireme, which swung round a
to meet the difficulty of the oars being of merchantman and rammed her pursuer (Thuc.
different proportionate lengths inboard. How 2, 91) implies a quick lively stroke and a power
this was met in a Greek trireme does not of backing water on one side only quickly and
appear ; the only actual reference to lead is forcibly. And the fact that a crew could only
with regard to the thranite oars of the Tea-crepa- last a short time in action (e.g., Polyaen. 3, 10, 12,
K(jvri}pr}s. Diod. 13, 77, Frontinus 2, 5, 47) conclusively
^^ The length of the -ireplvtcfi oars, 4.4 m., is implies a fast stroke. Chabrias, training rowers
the only one actually known, but this .supplies for a trireme, trained them sitting ; Polyaen.
a kind of limit. Schmidt has an interesting 3, 11, 7 : and cf. Aristophanes' reference to.
attempt to work out the measurement from the ' that which fought at Salamis.'
data as to the Athos canal in Herodotus and " See n. 110.
Demetrius. of Skepsis j he makes the longest
152 W. W. TARN
ably satisfy tlie passage in Lucan Phars. 3, 543, ' in transtra cadunt et rem is
pectora pulsant,' but it will not satisfy Appian's kcnoiTe<i.
If then the ships were quinqueremes or higher values differing from
the quinqueremes of the fourth century — and no other alternative now
remains — the only reasonably probable explanation of Appian is that enough
men rowed one oar for some at least to be on their feet some part of the
stroke — if not throughout it — i.e., five men to an oar.-^'^ I regret the conclusion,
as it involves saying that 7revT7]prj(; ineant one thing in the fourth century
and another in the first ; but we have seeji that this was certainly the case
with StKpoTos, and we shall find other reasons for supposing it to be correct.
Incidentally, Appian is conclusive, I think, against a theory such as that a
quinquereme was a three-banked ship with oars rowed by 2, 2, and 1 men
respectively ; for 2 men can sit to any oar.
(b) The larger polyereis were not only of very shallow draught,'^'' but
low in the water also. The shallow draught is now generally admitted ;
the lowness in the water (a necessary consequence, by *the way), requires
consideration.
Polyb. 2, 10. The Illyrians, fighting with the Achaeans, lashed their
lemboi together by fours and let the Achaeans ram. As soon as an Achaean
ship was held fast by its ram the Illyrians leapt on her deck (€Trnrr]8(ovTe<}
eVi ra KaraarpoDixaTo) and in this manner captured four quadriremes and
sunk a quinquereme. The quinquereme then was but little higher than the
small light lemboi.^'^
Polyb. 16, 4 (battle of Chios again). It would have gone hard with the
Macedonians had they not stationed lemboi an^.ong their cataphracts : as
soon as the battle became a melee, and the Rhodians could no longer
manoeuvre, the lemboi attacked them, even meeting them bow to bow :
this the Rhodians met in a workman-like way.^'^ I shall come to thi.s
•"'8 There is a fine picture of a nKnliaeval ]>. 428 ii. 2] it would be the largest he had, and
quinquereme, with 5 men to an oar, on PI. VII. lie had (luin(iuereines) runs ashore and the king
of Furtenbacli's Architcdura Naxalis, 1629; and his crew rf«^OTr-<eri (airex'^p'jo-t) ; Philip tows
with a huge outrigger, and the oarsmen on her off uninjured (Polyb. 16, 6 and 7). Dio-
their feet. A good description of such a quiu- dorns 20, 47, Demetrius sails to Cyprus and
quereme in Bigge, Der Kampf um Candia in draws his ships ashore and surrounds them with
den Jakren 1667-1669 (Kriegsgeschichtliche a palisade and ditch; he had heptereis and
Einzelschriftcn, Heft 26, 1899), p. 130 : the hexereis, and no preparation made for drawing
men worked in thice relays, as in a trireme. I them up. Fronlinus 1, 5, 6, Duilius' shipg
owe the reference to the.se writers to the kind- (quinqueremes anyhow) cross a boom at Syra-
ness of Mr. W. C. F. Anderson. For the cuse. Ath. 204 c, the dock of the tesserakon-
scaloccio galleys generally, see Admiral Jurien teres was only four cubits deep. Livy 30, 25
de la Graviere, Lex demurs jours de la viarine a is not again.st this ; the quinquereme there was
mines, 1885 ; the different strokes in use (none damaged because driven ashore at full speed.
rowed sitting) are described p. 231 seq., the "" Leinbos small and cannot have had more
best of commentaries on Appian and on Lucan, than one bank : Livy 34, 35, and evidence col-
Phars. 3, 543. lected by Torr s.v.
'" Quinqueremes run ashore and the crews '"' ffiirntr6i'ru>v ainols raiv Kifi^uiv irort ^tv
depart, Polyb. 1, 51 ; 3, 96 ; etc. Attains' eis roi/j raptrovs . . . iroTe Si TraAi^ ds ras
royal flagship at the battle of Chios (size not ■np<fpas . . ., Kara. 5t ras avnirpcfpovs (rvftind-
given, but following the usual Hellenistic irfts eiroiow (the Rhodians) n TfX''iK6v.
practice [see too Beloch, Gr. Gesch. iii. pt. 2,
THE GREEK WARSHIP. 153
presently. Polybius is speaking here of the Rhodian wing. The Rhodians
and Attahis together had in action three triremes, nine trihemioliai,
and sixty-five cataphracts, by which larger ships than triremes are here
meant ; and 16, 5, shews plainly that the Rhodian ships attacked by the
lemboi were, or included, (piinqueremes. A lembos then could meet a
quin(|uereme bows on, and the two must therefore have been of approximately
equal height. On the accepted theory it would be like a destroyer trying to
ram a cruiser bow to bow.
Caesar h.g., 3, 14, The sterns of the ships of the Veneti (which were
real ships, not galleys, though shallow bottomed) were higher than the tops
of the turres on Caesar's galleys. The size of Caesar's galleys is not given,
but as they carried turres they cannot have been small ones.
Plut. Ant. 67. Eurykles in a Liburnian pursues Antony, then on Cleo-
patra's flagship, converses with him, and threatens him with a spear. Plutarch
evidently conceived of the heights as not unequal, especially as Eurykles
then attacks the second Egyptian flagship and spins it round like a top
(Trepuppofi^rjae). Add perhaps Diod, 20, 50 (battle of Salamis in Cyprus) :
those on deck spear their enemies in the water ; and Val. Max. 1, 8, b, 11 : a
rower, engaged in baling out a Tyrian hexeres, was swept overboard by a
wave. As they had no pumps,^'^ he must have been baling from the deck
with a bucket; presumably she was very shallow.
Now as to the evidence generally quoted for the height of the larger
polyereis, viz. : Livy 30, 25, Cic. Verr. 2, 5, 34, Orosius 6, 19, Dio Cass. 50, 33 ;
(I know of no other ; no one, I think, has thought it advisable to cite Vergil
on Actium).
Livy 30, 25. Three Carthaginian quadriremes attack a Roman quin-
quereme ; she was too speedy to ram, and the men in their armour could not
board her as she was the taller ship.^^ The height here is of course only
relative to a quadrireme ; and as you could board a quinquereme from a
lembos you could of course do so from a quadrireme. Unless the point is
the word armati, the most probable explanation is, that she had her turres on
board.^* Anyhow, the passage afibrds no evidence for the supposed con-
siderable actual height of a quinquereme.
Cic. Verr. 2, 5, 34. Cleomenes ran away from the pirates, and the
*^ One of the wonders of Micro's ship was and lighter than Agrippa's ; and the point of
the water-screw invented for her by Archimedes, Sextns' ejngram (108), that he had been
Ath. 208 f. storming forts, not fighting ships, was
®^ Sed neque rostro ferire celeritate subter- Agrippa's turres. He gave orders tj TrpoffOrjiTfiv
labentein poterant neque transilire armati ex 4s rh ruv vtuv Si^os, and by the height of the
humilioribus in altiorem naveni. ships turres are clearly referred to, for at
** First mention of turres, battle of Chios Naulochos all his ships carried turres, and
(201 B.C.) Polyb. 16, 3, -nvpyovxov (unless could only be distinguished from Agrippa's by
itvpaovx<^v be the correct reading). The best the war-paint (121). This seems to shew that
commentary on Livy here is the battles of altiorem is quite satisfied by tunes. The
Mylae and Naulochos in App. h.c. 5. At accounts of Actium shew the difficulty of
Mylae, though some of Sextus' ships carried boarding ships carrying turres.
towers, the}' were on the whole much lower
154 W. W. TARN
'pleader's case is to magnify liis force so as to emphasise his cowardice. His
quadrireme, the only navis constrata in the squadron, would, if he had
joined battle, have appeared as big as a town among the pirates' myo-
parones. There is of course nothing in this bit of rhetoric about urbis instar
the moment the context is read.
Orosius 6, 19^^ and Dio C. 50, 33. The Orosius passage was taken by
Assmann to prove that the height of a dekeres (dekereis being the largest
ships in Antony's fleet) was 10 feet. What Orosius says is that Antony's
"dekereis were actually 10 feet high; which is quite another thing.
Antony's ships created the impression of being the largest ever seen,
as appears in every account of the battle ; according to Dio Cass. 50, 23,
Antony, being aware that Octavian bad crushed Sextus Pompey by
sheer size and weight,*''^ resolved so to crush Octavian, and outbuilt him ; a
good deal of the speech put into Antony's mouth before the battle by Dio
(50, 18) is taken up with boasting of the size and height of his ships and
their towers, on the disadvantages of which Octavian in his turn
expatiates (50, 28). If these monster dekereis were 10 feet high, what was
the height of an ordinary dekeres, and how low in the water was an
ordinary quinquereme ? Supposing Orosius to be correct, a sentence more
decisive against the accepted theory was never written. Then Dio 50, 33 ;
when the fleet was broken up, and each of Antony's ships was sur-
rounded, it was like forts or islands being besieged — a consistent part of the
picture, but implying nothing further as to height; the reference in relx^a-i
is to the turres,*"^ to which also Orosius' measurement might possibly refer.
(c) A warship, of shallow draught and low freeboard, very long, was
light and crank.^^ Livy 3G, 44; two of Polyxenidas' ships attack Livius' flag-
ship ; he wishes to throw grapnels, and bids his men steady their ship for
the encounter by keeping their oars in the water.^® Any rowing man will
see at once what kind of a ' ship' this implies. Plut. Ant. 67, before cited :
a Liburnian spins the Egyptian flagship"'' round like a top. Demetrius'
heptereis are drawn ashore anywhere ; and Archimedes' grapnel could lift a
** Classis Anton ii centum septuagintanavium "^ Whether Sextus in fact ever spoke of
fuit quantum numero cede)is tantum magni- ^elxo^^.axr|(yal■ or not, it became a common-
tudine praecellens. Naiti decem pedum place ; see T^ixo/xax^a in Plut. Ant. 66.
altitudine a mari aberant. •* Polyaen. 3, 11, 13 (if the rowers sprang
"* Battles of Mylae and Naulochos in up in a hurry they might upset the ship),
App. h.c. 5 ; and see n. 64 ; Dio Cass. 48, 47, presumably refers to a trireme ; nor do I lay
4 and 49, 1, 2 : the evidence is overwhelming stress on Lucan, Phars. '6, 665 : if she took in
that for a few years there was a great race in drowning men she might turn ovi-r.
building ; not only as regards height, but *" quum inferrentur, demittere in aquam
more especially in weight and thickness, see remos ab utroque latere remiges stabiliendae
Plut. AnL 65, 66. I do not know why it is navis causa jussit. Apj). Syr. 22, gives 3
•believed that Octavian had only light ships at Syrian shii)S, not 2, and says that it was they
Actium. He had the fleet with which he had who tried to grapple Livius.
crushed Sextus ; up to hexereis, Florus 2, 21 "" Size not given, but the flagship of any
(4, 11). Plut. Ant. 62 is responsible for the Hellenistic monarch was always the largest
other view ; probably adopted to rub in the obtainable,
moral.
THE GREEK WARSHTP. 155
•quinquereine half out of the water. An. Aii((b. 7, 9, Alexander has
quinqueremes carried in section.s innw the Mediterranean to the
Euphrate.s.
(d) The arrangement of a (luinqueretue was simple ; there was none of
the complexity of structure that five superposed banks would involve.'^^
At the battle of Chios the Rhodians met in a workmanlike manner the lemboi
which rammed them bow to bow : they sunk their own rams under water,
and so, while struck above the waterlinc tliemselves, they struck their
«nemy beneath it."- Polybius is explicit that they did this during the fight;
besides, they cannot have gone into battle with their hidls weighted down,
as it is stated that at the beginning of the action their pace enabled
them to row round their opponents. The only way a ship can lower its
whole freeboard during action is by taking in water, as was done e.g. by the
Huascar when bombarding Callao ; this is out of the question, as quin-
queremes cannot have had double bottoms, and also had no pumps. They
lowered their rams then by shifting ballast forward, either live '^'^ or dead ; '^*
whence it follows that the system of oars was such that, with the bow
■depressed and the stern raised, the ship could still be rowed enough to
keep her stem on to a speedy enemy. How this could be done in a boat
having five superposed banks is incomprehensible ; and any one who thinks
that it could ought to work it out and demonstrate it. It implies some
system in which, on tiie spur of the moment, changes of level and angle can
be met; and this certainly implies among other things that all the oars were
a reasonable height above the normal waterlitie, a state of facts demanded
also, not only by common sense, but by the evidence that exists of changes
in the waterline.^^ On the accepted theory, the lowest portholes forward of
71 This is pre.supposed by the pace at which oidinaty floating boom at full speed may be
a fleet could be built; for which there is expected to 'jump' it without doing herself
plenty of evidence (no doubt sometimes any serious injury.
■exaggerated) beside the first Punic war. ^4 ^f j^„.. Anab. 2, 19. If this be so, it
Elaborate arrangements for building were not implies that the ballast was easily got at
required ; Dio Cass. 48, 49, Octavian built ships clurii;g action.
iv TToo-j) Tp itaf)aea\a(T(rla}'lra\ia ; and no doubt "* Those who speak of a row of portholes of
the building of the Argo in Ap. Rhod. 1, 363 10 inches (25 m.) (Assmann) or any such height
seq. is copied from current Egyptian practice. above the (normal) waterline cannot really have
'"'^ n. 61 (continues) avTo\ ntv yap (nirpifpa to. thought what this would mean. Leaving
CKd<prj irotovvTes (^d.\ovs eAa^jSofoi' ras TrAriyds, practical considerations aside, the waterline
To7s Se 7roA.€(Uioi$ v<pa\a to rpai/^oTo 5iS6vTfs was no more a constant quantity then than
ii$ove^rovs iffKeiaCov tos irA»,7(ij. now. Polyb. 1, 60-62, the Carthaginian ships
" Like a modern racing yacht. See were niucli hampered by being loaded down
Frontinus 1, 5, 6; Duilius, to get his ships with corn an(| stores which Hanno had trusted
(including presumably quinqueremes) over tl»e to put ashore before engaging. Diod. 20, 49
boom at Syracuse, shifts the troops aft, tlius and 83, Demetrius mounts on the prows of his
raising his bows, and goes at the boom at ships great catapults {rovs rptffirtedfiovs rSiv
full speed, shifting the troops forward again o^vfitKwv), and of course ballasted the sterns
at tiie critical moment. If this be true, a accordingly. So Duilins' corvi. App. b.c. by
ship with bow raised and stern depressed, i.e. 121, Scxtus Pompey's men throw over the
with every angle altered, could still get on a turres when escajiing, Sihewing tlmt they liad
good deal of jiace. It has, I understand, been been too low in the water. See too an appendix
demon.strated that a torpedo boat rushing an to Kromayer's article in Philol. for 1897, before
156
THE GREEK WARSHIP.
these Rhodian ships must have gone under water. This passage, in my
opinion, certainly requires these (|uin(|ueremes to have been scaloccio galleys
of 5 men to an oar, with the oars a reasonable height above the (normal)
waterline.
(e) Finally there is Livy 28, 30J'' Caught in some eddies, a Roman
quinquereme nevertheless held her way better than the Carthaginian tri-
remes, and was more manageable ; and Livy's second reason no doubt is
right ; there was more poiver behind the oars, and the fact that she was
normally slower than the triremes had become immaterial. A greater
number of one man oars would not have helped in the eddies relatively to
the triremes ; the required meaning is more power to each oar. She must
then have been a scaloccio galley.
W. W. Tarn.
cited, on the gi-eat numbers of troops that
could be carried at a pincli. — I do not give
cases, like Marcellus' sanibucae l)efore Syra-
cuse, where the ships were not in action :
though Marcellus' quinqueremes could still be
rowed : Polyb. 8, 4(6).
"" Quinqueremis Romana, seu pondere tena-
cior, seu pluribus remonini ordinibus scindenti-
bus vortices, quum facilius regeretur, duas
triremes suppressit, etc. (For ordines remorum
see under E). A little before, Livy had said
she was slower than a trireme. Fincati p. 158 :
according to Nicolo Surian (1583) a ([uadrirenie
a scaloccio could beat a trireme a scaloccio but
not a trireme a zenzile. It is just possible that
these triremes were a scaloccio (n. 120) and
owed their pace to the greater skill of the
Carthaginians ; but I think most improbable.
{To be continued.)
HERACLES AND THE APPLES OF THE HESPERIDES : A
NEW TYPE.
Of all types of Heracles in Greek art, that with the apples of the
Hesperides is perhaps the most familiar. Yet in the archaic period it
scarcely occurs/ and even in the fifth century, though the scene is often
represented among the Labours,^ when accessory figures are consequently
present, there are few examples of the hero holding the apples in free sculp-
ture.^ With the fourth century, however, the subject becomes common, for
it is to Lysippus and his followers that we owe the type of the Wearied
Heracles holding the apples, which has given rise to the popular conception.
That this became the stock representation to the ancient world as to the
modern we learn from Suidas* : kuI ypd(f)ov(Tt hopav \eovro<i (fiopovvTU, koI
poiraXov ^epovra, Kai 76 firfXa KparovvTa. The earliest representation of
the type, best known from the Heracles Farnese, appears to be on a tetra-
drachm of Alexander,^ and there can be little doubt that its origin is due to
Lysippus. The replica in the Pitti*' bears the inscription AYZIfinOY-
EPrON. Moreover, the numerous copies we possess and the frequent
appearance of the type on late coins imply an original of great celebrity. We
know that works of Lysippus were more vahied than those of any other
sculptor, and the dramatic and pathetic character of the figure exhibits the
tendency of art at the beginning of the Hellenistic age. Finally, the
original stood in Corinth.'' which was the centre of the Sicyonian school.^
A certain heaviness of build and emphasis of muscular form characterize even
the best and simplest replicas,^ and descriptions of the colossal seated figure
of the hero, one of the most famous works of the sculptor, lay stress on
similar features. ^°
' Oulj' on two b.f. lecythi, (a) Braun, Zwolf almost certainly that referred to by Pausanias,
Basrcl. vignette to taf. XI. ; (b) Benndorf, Gr. (ii. 3, 2).
u. sic. Vnsenhildcr, taf. 42, 1. ^ How favourite a subject it was with Sicy-
^ See Furtwangler, ap. Roscher, Lexikon, p. onian sculptors may be inferred from the fact
2227. that we have records of three Heracles statues
•' A fine exam])le, Myronic in style, is pub- and a group of the Labours by Lysippus, be-
lished in Denkmdler, 569-70. sides that under consideration. His son Euthy-
^ K.v. 'UpaKKrii. crates made a similar stiitue at Delphi (Overbeck,
5 Num. Chr. 1883, p. 9. Schr. Qti. 1468-77 ; PHn. N.H. xxxiv. 66).
" Amelung, Fuhrer, p. 134, where the " Those in the Uffizi (Amelung, op. cit. p. 31)
genuineness of the inscription is conclusively and tlie Louvre {Rev. Arch. 1895, PI. XIII.),
maintained. which, however, lack the exaggeration of the
'' H.M.C. Corinth, PI. XXII. 5, Num. better-known Farnese example.
i'omm. ou Pans. PI. F ciii. The statue is "* See Overbeck, Schr. Qu. 1468-72.
158
K. A. Mc DOW ALL
Lysippus then popularized tlie type of Heracles with the apples, but he
did not create it. As we iiave seen, it appears in some fifth century works,
and in one or two belcmging to the early fourtli century,'^ but in all the
apples were accessories. Certain reUefs, however, suggest the possibility of
the existence of another type in which they were more prominent. By far
the most important of these works, and the only one which calls for discus-
sion in detail, is the Capitoline Basis,^'- one side of which is liere repro-
duced (Fig. 1).
An archaizing work of a late Greek sculptor,^'' the Basis is of consider-
able importance as reproducing early typcH far more nearly allied to sculpture
Fi<;. 1. (From the Capitoline Basis.)
in the round than to ordinary relief work, notably in the unimportance of the
accessories and the prominence of the hero, whose figure stands out strongly
from the background. In the scene of the gardens of the Hesperides he
appears facing the spectator, and resting his weight on the left leg, with
his head turned towards the right hand, which is upraised to pluck the
apples. More sculptural in type perhaps than any other on the Basis, the
figure at once suggests the possibility that works in the round may have
" For pre-Lysippic types of the fourtli cen-
tury, see Roscher, Lcxikon, pp. 2164-5, to
which should be added Amelung, Miis. Chiar.
PI. LX XXVII. 'n\Q Beardless Herakles with
the aj)ples does not come within the s{;ope of
this paper.
'* Badly reyjroduced in Visconti, Miis. Pio-
Cleiii. iv. PI. h II. -III. ; there are careful
wood-cuts in Righetti ii. 274-5, which are
reproduced in Sonderahdruek d. Denkmdlrr,
569-70, a jiublication which I owe to the
courtesy of Dr. Arndt, who considers sculji-
turul tyjies to underlie the figures on the Basis.
For the jiresent illustration, the first photo-
graphic rei)roduction to be published, I am
indebted to Mr. A. J. B. Wace of the British
School in Rome. The Basis is placed in a very-
bad light, which made it difficult to obtain a
satisfactory negative, so that it has been neces-
sary to strengthen the photograph.
'■' The marble is Greek, described in the
official catalogue as Pentelic.
ILERACLES AND TJIE APPLES OF THE HESPERIDES. 159
existed in which the same motive was adopted, the tree being, of course,
omitted. Yet among over 400 figures of Heracles given in M. Reinach's
Statues Antiques only one, the Heracles Aibani, restored as holding a bowl,^'*
can from tlie position of the right arm ^'' be connected with this holding of
the apples. This will be discussed later, so wo can now turn to the coin types.
Here again one figure only can belong to the tyj)e,a statue reproduced on tw,o
coins of Corinth,^" both representing tiie same work, a figure of Heracles
standing in an attitude of repose and holding on liis left arm his club and lion
skin. The riglit band is raised, but owing to the poor condition of both coins
the motive is obscure and has remained unexplained. The bow is unsuited
to a figure at rest; the bow placed in the hand of the Aibani Heracles has
no authority,^^ and the wreath held in his upraised liand by the young
Heracles on the coins of certain Greek kings of India ^^ does not suit here,
as the arm is not sufficiently bent towards the head, nor is the motive,
though appropriate to the youthful Praxitelean type of these coins, convinc-
ing in connection with the bearded Corinthian figure. If, however, we
restore the right hand of the latter with the apples, we get a dignified and
ade({uate motive, with the auTupxeia of all Greek sculpture of a good
period ; it has nothing of the reliance for effect on the external pathos of
weariness whicli belongs to the conception of the Lysippic Heracles. On
one of the coins the figure is grouped with the Armed Aphrodite of Corinth,^''^
on the other with her and the Poseidon of Cenchreae ; -<* therefore, ' as two of
the deities in this group are copied from statues, there is a presumption that
the third is also.'-^ That the original was a work of note is clear from its.
recurrence on the coins in connection with two of the most famous works in
Corinth. The pose is unquestionably Polycleitan, both in the position of
the legs and the balance of the composition, and, poor as the coins are, there
is in the figure a marked absence of the massiveness of build and somewhat
theatrical lassitude characteristic of the Lysij)pic and later conceptions.''^
A bronze statuette in my possession (Fig. 2) here reproduced on the
scale of the original, further illustrates the type.-^
The statuette was, it is stated, found by the late Mr. Sandwith in
Cyprus, and included in the sale of his collection, when it was bought by the
'■• Tliore is a replica of this work in the -" id. F civ.
Vatican, of which only the torso remains {Afas. '^' id. pp. 17, 26.
Chiar. PI. LXXIV. No. 581). -'■ It is worthy of remark that the conception
'■'' The common type of HeracK^s brandishing of Heracles as a small man — fj.op<pai> fipaxvs —
in his right hand cluh or bow does not call for was known to Pindar {Islhm. iii. 90), so that
consideration lierc. It is (juite nnmistakcable, colossal size would seem to have been a later
and usually goes with violent action on tiie development parallel with that of increased
part of the figure. muscular force. Philostratns {Gym. 35) defin-
'" Num. Co'iivm. F civ, FF xiii. itely reverts to tlie older and less exaggerated
'^ A drinking vessel is never held on a level ideal, as contrasted witli the ultra- Lysippic-
with the head by a standing Heracles, but type dear to Roman amateurs,
belongs to the seated or reclining type and to -' The figure leans somewhat too much to the-
the Bilm.c of debased art. right in the cut, which throws out the balance •
^^ R.M C. Baclria, PI. VJ. &c. of the composition.
'^ Num. i.'onim. PL FF xiii.
160
K. A. McDOWALL
dealer from whom I procured it. Though of Graeco-Roman date, the work
is unusually good -* and despite the loss of the right hand and the lower
part of both legs, well preserved. The hero stands on the left leg, with the
right slightly bent ; his head, covered with short close locks (not the con-
ventional Heracles curls), is turned towards the missing right hand, which
was raised. The eyes are in shadow and the face is carefully modelled, but
there is of pathos not a trace. The treatment of the body is unusually fine
for the class of work, with no exaggeration either of pose or muscle ; the
FlO. 2.— BltONZK SlATU ML of HlMACLKa.
modelling is schematic rather than realistic, and is marked by unobtru-
sive care for the general effect rather than by the anatomical emphasis
of detail characteristic of post-Lysippic work.^^ The lionskin and club on
the left arm are finished with great care, but they are genuine attributes,
not the mere decorative accessories frequent in later types. A comparison
2* This is especially true of the details, such
as the locks of the lion's mane and the fingers
of the left hand.
-5 It is true that the statuette is not unlike
tlic Agias, but in that figure Lysippus was
working on definitely traditional lines : its
Polycleitan affinities are marked (Mahler,
Polyklct u. seive Schule, p. 151). Moi'eover,
the Agias, as an athletic work, would belong
to the earlier part of Lysippus' career. His
artistic activity ranging from c. 368 (when
Troilus won his second victory) to c. 312 (the
portrait of Seleucus I. as Boo-jAeuj), we can
understand the difference between the Agias
and the Hellenistic treatment of the Heracles
Farnese, which corresponds with the Lysippus
of literary tradition.
HERACLES AND THE APPLES OF THE HESPERIDES. 161
-with the coins shows a luinute corresponcieuce between the two,'-'^ and suggests
that the Corinthian statue, a famous work as we have seen, was copied in
the bronze, just as the Lysippic Heracles of the Farnese type is reproduced
in various statuettes. That the object held in the right hand was small
may be inferred from the absence of any trace of it on the coins, so that,
even without the evidence of the Capitoline Basis, the apples would be an
obvious restoration. The modelling of the right arm -of the statuette makes
it certain that the hand held nothing which involved a i^train, consequently
the apples are again appropriate.
The pose of the statue suggests Polycleitan work, and the character of
the statuette, despite the later influence visible in the head, confirms this
view. The schematic treatment of the body with its simple and well
marked lines, the powerful hip-sockets, the modelling of the back with its
strong inward curve above the glutei and the depression in their sides, are,
like the pose and rhythmic n\ovement of the legs, purely Polycleitan.
We have in a statue in the Chiaramonti Museum-'' an interesting example
of a Bearded Heracles of this school,^^ certainly post-Polycleitan, but
strongly influenced by the master's work. It is of especial interest in
connection with the statuette as it also combines a Polycleitan body with
a head of fourth century type. The likeness here is indeed close : there is
the same treatment of the hair and beard in short wavy locks, the same
broad nose and eyes set wide apart, the same absence of pathos — a sure
indication of pre-Lysippic work in connection with the subject.^^ Two other
Polycleitan works are of importance, from the fact that their pose is very
similar to that of the statuette, though, both being youthful figures, minute
comparison is impossible. In the Westmacott Athlete,^*' Furtwangier's
' Kyniskos,'^^ and in the youthful Heracles of the Arundel Marbles, in the
Ashmolean Museum,-"^'^ the raised right arm occasions a play of muscle and a
bal incing of the figure closely resembling that in our statuette, but it is
interesting to find that the latter lacks the weak points of the statues, the
exaggerated line down the middle of the body and the over-heavy hip-
sockets,'^^ while all their strictly Polycleitan points recur in the bronze.
26 The only diffi-reiices are that ou tlie coins are of the youthful, beardless type, and both
the lionskin is flung over the. shoulder (where- thoBC known to be his, the head recently found
as in the statuette it han^^s from the upper arm) at Tegea and the statue represented on coins of
and the Stand- and Spicl-bein are reversed. Sicyon, were the same.
But die-cutters are notoriously careless in ^^ Mahler, op. cit. p. 44, with list of replicas,
matters of detail, of which one of the coins in *' Meisterio. p. 457.
question offers an instance. On Num. Comm. ^2 j jj^ye to thank Professor Gardner for
KP XIII the Armed Aphrodite holds her shield calling my attention to this interesting work
to the left, while on a whole series of others (No. 33 in the Ashmolean, MichacUs, No. 39).
she holds it to the right (F civ, G cxxii- The cut in Clarac (PI. 790 No. 1970 A) is
cxxvi). misleading, as it gives Guelfi's restorations, now
*^ Amelung, op. cit. PI. LII. removed.
2« Furtwangler, Mcisterw. p. 519 ; Mahler, '' The soft treatment of the abdomen in the
op. cit. p. 144. youthful figures is non-Polycleitan, but natur-
-9 It is a curious fact that all the Heracles ally does not occur in the statuette, which
statues which have been attributed to Scopas represents a more advanced age. The Arundel
H.S. — VOL. XXV. M
162 HERACLES AND THE APPLES OF THE HESPERIDES.
The conclusion then would seem to be that we have in the statuette a
copy of a Heracles of the later Polycleitan school erected at Corinth, hold-
ing aloft the apples of the Hesperides, a motive found in the Capitoline
Basis, which appears to reproduce fifth century types. The same motive
may give us the clue to the restoration of the Heracles Albani, a post-
Praxitclean adaptation of an earlier conception,^^ when the instinct of the
sculptor was no longer satisfied with a sitnple representation of the hero
bearing the apples, but must add an elaborate fillet — the sign of victory —
to complete his meaning, reduce the club to a plaything, and turn the lion-
skin into an effective piece of drapery. In the statuette there is none of
this dramatic appeal to the spectator, and, small as it is, there is in it
something of the dignity of tlie original. Its provenance cannot be dwelt
upon, as its presence in Cyprus must have b.3en the result of accident,
but type and school are alike interesting, and its positive merit is consider-
able, its relative merit great, when compared with the mass of Graeco-Roman
bronzes. Other works may well exist which would, if published, further
illustrate this suggested form of the myth of Heracles and the golden apples :
the justification of the present paper must lie in drawing attention to the
type, in the publication of a bronze which throws light on what must have
been one of the great statues of Corinth, and in an accurate reproduction
of part of a work so important and so neglected as the Capitoline Basis.
K. A. McDowALL.
Heracles, like tlie athlete, ])i'obal)ly held a India.
wreath, a motive used, as we have seen, for the ^* Furtwiiiigier, Mi iskru: y. ^>7^.
youthful type on coins of the Greek kings of
TOPOGRAPHY AND EPIGRAPHY OF NOVA ISAURA.^
If any confirmation were required of the evidence supplied by the first
inscription publislied in the J.H.S. 1904, as to the ancient name of Dorla, it
would be found in the Roman accounts of the siege of Isaura by Servilius
Isauricus. Frontinus, iii, 7, 1, says that Servilius compelled the city to
surrender from thirst, fluminc ex quo hostes aqnahantur averso. Now there are
very few cases in which such an operation is possible. Three conditions must
be fulfilled : (1) the city must be dependent for its water almost entirely on
a river flowing through it or close to the wall ; (2) there must be open
ground on the opposite side of the river towards which the water can be
diverted ; (3) the operation must not be on so great a scale as to be beyond
the power of an army such as Servilius had with liim, a comparatively small
and rather lightly equipped force, able to cross the Taurus from Cilicia, and
operate on the northern flanks of the mountains. Tarsus, for example, in
ancient times fulfilled at least two of those conditions: the river flowed
through the city and could be diverted without very serious difficulty by
an operation which was quite within the power of a Roman army. But,
on the other hand, there is every probability that Tarsus was sufficiently
supplied with water from wells to enable it to hold out against a siege, as the
soil yields water everywhere at an easily reached level below the surface, so
that the loss of the river-water would indeed be inconvenient, but not decisive
in a military view. It is impossible that a large city like Tarsus could be
supplied solely from the river, because the river- water would necessarily
become to some degree polluted in its course through the city. The wells must
have been in permanent use within the city. Again at Dinorna, where Prof.
Sterrett placed Nova Isaura, the city was not dependent on a river, for the
obvious reason that neither of the streams there is capable of supplying it
with water. They were both quite dry when I passed through the place in
1890; and at no time during the summer can they ever carry much water.
I believe that they are almost dry great part of the year. The city at
Dinorna, like Tarsus, was undoubtedly dependent more on wells than on
a river.
1 This paper was intended to follow the one was crowded out. The numbering of the in-
by Miss Ramsay on The Early Christian Art of sciiptions is continued from that paper.
Nova Isaura, J.H.S., 1904, p. 260 ff., but
M 2
164 W. M. RAMSAY
But at Doiia all the conditions are fulfilled. The ancient town of Isaura
was situated on the high ground on the right side of the stream (which flows
here north, and slightly east ; not north-west, as Kiepert has it), and extended
at least down to the river bank. On the left, or west side of the stream,
opposite the city, an isolated hill rises in the midst of the valley. It would
be an easy operation for Roman soldiers, accustomed to the use of the spade,
to divert the river a few hundred yards above the city and make it flow on
the opposite or western side of the isolated hill, entirely out of reach from the
city. In its present and normal course the river would touch Isaura only
for a short distance, and was thus less liable to pollution. It flows through-
out the year with a good supply of water for the city. The city for the most
part lay on the broad ridge east of the river, which slopes back very gently
towards the last eastern ridge of the Isaurian mountains. The surface of this
ridge must lie high above the level of the subterranean waters. Wells would
here require to be deep, and could not be quickly made.
Further, Sallust in a fragment of the Histories mentions that Servilius
occupied a mountain within javelin-throw of the city (montem ex quo in
forum oppidi tdi coniecius erat occitpavit sacrum Matri Magnixc)? This ' mons '
is evidently the isolated hill on the left bank of the stream. From this hill
the lower part of the city could be reached by javelins ; and it is quite
natural and probable that the forum (assuming that this conjecture is to be
adopted) may have been in that part of the city. The hill rises from the
left bank of the little river, and we understand that the city wall bordered
the right bank.
The holy hill of Cybele, the Great Mother, therefore, was outside of the
city ; and was in all probability employed in Anatolian, non-Hellenic fashion
as a cemetery. The dead returned to the mighty mother who bore them, as
the Lydian chiefs, the sons of the Gygaean Lake, were buried on its shore,
according to Homer ; and it has been repeatedly shown that this idea is
peculiarly and almost universally characteristic of native Anatolian religion.^
The way from the gate of the city, crossing the stream by a bridge at the
same place where the modern bridge stands, and ascending the hill to the
temple, was bordered, doubtless, by a line of graves the whole way ; and thus
the Greek fashion was united with the Anatolian; but besides that, it is
probable that the whole hill around the temple was full of graves.
The Temple of the Great Mother, where. on certain days she came to
feast, was replaced by the Church, parts of which can still be seen amid
the houses on the summit : it was impossible for us to tell how far the walls
of the Church might still be traced, as careful exploration amid the houses-
was not within our power. It is unfortunate that the modern village is for
^ The MS. reading is fxigam opptdi. Forum and uncertain, et in co crcdehatur epulari dicbus
is Hauler's emendation. Mommsen suggested certis dea, etc.
iuga. The last may be right : iugum would ' See e.g. remarks by the present writer in
suit the single broad ridge on which the city B.C.H. 1898, p. 236; Citic/t and Bisk, of
stood bettor than iuga, but the plural may be Phrygia, i. pp. 100 f., 361, 367, etc.
applicable. The sequel of the text is mutilated
TOPOGRAPHY AND EPIGRAPHY OF NOVA ISAURA. 165
the most part built om the hill, covering up the most interesting ruins. Even
as things are, there can be little doubt that £100 or £200 spent in excava-
tion would reveal many of the ancient grave-monuments. The account given
by the inhabitants unanimously is that in the open spaces between the houses
the upper surface of soil, about four or five feet deep, covers over a mass
of cut stones. The tomb of the Bishop Theophilus, No. 2, was evidently
a monument of large size ; and perhaps several, or even many, of
the component stones were inscribed (No. 58 may belong to this
monument).
Beside the great church on the top of the Hill of Cybele, there were of
course others in the city. One of these doubtless stood on the site of the
present mosque, close to the bridge on the left bank of the stream. It has
been rebuilt, and the walls are full of tombstones ; I imagine that nearly all
of them are Christian, and that the city was entirely Christian in the fourth
century. While the outer walls of the mosque seem to be rebuilt, the inner
door is probably pre-Turkish. The stones of which it is composed are dove-
tailed (if the word may be used, where the form is so completely altered) in
a very intricate style, which I take to be Byzantine. In the vestibule of the
mosque, under the thick modern coating of white-washed mud-plaster, where
this has partially scaled off, there appears an older coating of stucco, moulded
in elaborate pattern, which I take to be Seljuk or early Turkish. Photo-
graphs of this pattern proved unsuccessful.
The situation of Nova Isaura, as now determined, illuminates the true
character of the campaign of Servilius. Thinking of the enterprise as a
mountain-campaign, I always found it a quite remarkable and hardly credible
achievement at that period. Now an easier line of march is indicated as
the probable one.
It was possible to advance on the Isaurian country from a basis in Roman
possession either directly from the south coast, or from the Province of
Cilicia, or from the Province of Asia. The first of these three routes may be
set aside as improbable : the country was too difficult for an army, and offered
too many opportunities to the natives to attack and destroy the invader
in positions where not a blow could be struck or a weapon hurled in reply.
The least difficult road would go round by Laranda, and thus would fall into
the second route.
The second route would traverse the Cilician Gates, and pass through
Cybistra, Laranda, Ilistra, and Derbe. Now Servilius, as Sallust says,
captured another city, before he came to Isaura Nova; and if he had
advanced from that side, the former must have been Derbe. No allusion
to Isaura Palaia would in that case be contained in the fragments of Sallust
that we possess.
The third route was from the Roman province Asia by the valley of the
Maeander. Strabo, p. 568, mentions that Servilius captured both Isaura
Palaia and Isaura Nova. Cicero, de Lege Agr. ii. 50, says that he added the
ager Oroandicus to the Roman territory : this must be the territory of the
tribe Orondeis, north-west from the Isaurian country and near Lake Karalis
ICG W. ^]. RAMSAY
(Bey-Shelier Lake).'' 'fliis might suggest that the line of advance was from
the Asian side by Apameia, A[)ollonia, and Pisidian Antioch ; and in tliat
case the city which was captured immediately before Isaura Nova would
probably be Isaura Palaia, But Sallust's description of the capture of that
city through want of water does not suit well with the situation of Isaura
Palaia (as Professor Sterrett has rightly pointed out, Wolfe Expedition,
P- 151).
Accordingly the probability is that Servilius advanced from the eastern
side by Laianda and Derbe, capturing the latter by thirst, which is entirely
natural in its situation, thereafter advancing to Nova Isaura, only six or
seven miles to the west. Thus he gradually penetrated the Isaurian country
and proceeded to reduce also the Orondcis, before he returned to Cilicia
(])robably through Pajipa and Iconium). He did not advance further to the
north-west, because beyond Pappa he would soon come to the territory of
Pisidian Antioch, which at this time was autonomous (Strabo, p. 577). Tlie
campaign, as thus pictured, suits with the fact that Servilius (as both Orosius
and Eutropius say) ranked as administrator of the Province of Cilicia at this
time.
It is also evident that Nova Isaura was founded (or grew to importance),
because the site was in the nearest part of the Isaurian land to the open
plain of Lycaonia and the great routes of communication that pass across it.
Palaia Isaura always had been, and continued to be, the great fortress of the
Isaurian territory. Nova Isaura in its delightful and convenient situation
grew under the Roman rule from a village (as Strabo, p. 568, calls it) to be a
bishopric. It struggled to maintain its rank as a city and bishopric inde-
pendent of Palaia Isaura; and Basil of Caesareia favoured its claims; but it
was forced to sink back into dependence, and an imperial decree (probably
passed by Zeno about a.d. 474 and confirmed by Justinian) recognized and
confirmed its dependence. This topic is discussed in an article on Lycaonia
{Oest. Jahresh. 1904 Bh. p. 77 f.).
The teriitory of Nova Isaura included, besides a tract of hill-country
wholly unknown, the land of the modern villages, Dinek, Dinek-Serai, and
Alkaran or Algeran. Dinek lies almost due west of Dorla, about two or three
miles distant. Dinek-Serai is north-west of Dorla, and two miles north of
Dinek, on the high south bank of Tcharshamba-Su, with a good bridge.
Alkaran lies nearly due north of Dorla, almost eight kilometres distant.
Seven kilometres north-north-east of Alkaran is another bridge over Tschar-
shamba-Su, called Baltcha-Assar. Here a village of Roumelian refugees was
built in 1902. This bridge lay outside Isaurian territory, in the open Lycao-
nian plain ; and everything here is different in kind and period. To show
how different are the remains of an ordinary Lycaonian village of the plain
from those of Isaura Nova, I add at the end the series of inscriptions from
Baltcha-Assar. They belong to the fifth or following century.
The reason why the art and writing of Nova Isaura came to an end
* See Fisidia and the Lycaonian Frontier, § 9, § 22, B.S.A., 1904, pp. 254, 266.
TOPOGRAPHY AND EPIGRAPHY OF NOVA I8AURA. 1G7
about 400 to 450 a.d. is obscure. We must connect its fate with that of
Korna, also a bishopric until shortly after 381. ]5oth towns have a similar
situation; ,both were important under the Roman Empire; both ceased
to be bishoprics during the fifth century. The culture and art of Nova
Isaura ceased along with its independent rank.
39. — Dorla. R. 1901. Letters worn, faint, and hard to read.
TDNnACl4)IAoN tov iraat (f)lXov
KeHAYEHH /ce ijhveirri
iYXHNTBKE ■fvx>lvT[€'i.]Ke
KAIAIOJnAPAEVT «a[T ?a]t(yya ?
ENTIMOOCEC eWt/^eo? e[ . . . .
TEC A NT T[r;]o-ai'T[a
yfrvxvv, which is here used in the sense of a man, person, is construed as
masculine. I sought vainly for this interesting inscription in 1904 : the stone
Avas reported to be destroyed. It seems to be c(miplete, and 1. 4 seems to
hide the name of the deceased, while his office is described in 11. 5, 6. The
epithets irdai </>/Xo9 and r^hveirrj^ are given to bishops in Nos. 2, 3, 4 ; but
i['iri(XK0Tr7]]aavTa does not suit the traces here well ; and ivTifxox; implies a
lower office, see No. 4. The inscription is one of the latest, with square D
in one case at least ; and the epithets formerly applied to bishops have here
perhaps degenerated so as to suit a lower ecclesiastical office. The stone is
perhaps of the fifth or sixth century.
40.— Alkaran : in the south cemetery. R. 1904: in three parts, one of
which has not been found.
XHPLJN0P'4)ANWI;
TTUPUN/purocC,
TTPeCBYTdsOCTUNI'-,,
MAT UN /
A
Yqpoiv 6p(f)av(t)\v ^ vo)v raXat-
ircoptov apoiy6<i, [name of deceased, and perhaps his father
7r|oeo-/SuTe[p]os" twv {[epoiv dvaXco — (or XPV')
/jbdrcov
fi{vi]fiv^) [x(«P*»')
We found the left-hand fragment of this stone first. The unusual
interest of the inscription was evident ; and, in the hope that the other parts
might be discovered, we sent to the village for implements, and proceeded to
•dig round the grave and to examine every scrap of stone of the same colour.
After a time the central fragment was found ; but the rest remains unknown.
168 W. M. RAMSAY
Except for tlie name of the deceased, however, the run of the text is apparent.
The stone stood on the grave of a presbyter, probably of Isaura Nova ; he is
defined as having the duty of superintending the church expenditure. Prof.
Cumont suggested Trpay/uLaTCdv ; but probably eVt would be needed with tiiat
word, whereas avakwixdrwv can be better used without eiri I sent the inscrip-
tion to him as soon as I found it, and our restorations of line 3 were made
independently. The restoration of line 1 is due to Prof. Cumont. Prof. A. Souter,
to whom also I sent the text, suggested independently [kui rakai] in line 1 ;
and this may be right, as the other restoration is too long, if the garland was
exactly in the middle of the stone. But the garland may have been a little
to the left and then there would be room for [^hwv raXat], which is on the
whole preferable as a reading.
The first lines give the character of the deceased presbyter as a Christian ;
the third defines his duty as an official, and shows that in this region, as early
as the middle of the fourth century (the probable date of this inscription, see
41, note on line 7), the presbyters in a city had special kinds of duty assigned
to them. This suggests that the clergy were already separated as a distinct
order from the laity, which accords with the inference drawn from the use
of Ufjev^ and a/3;)^te/3eu<f in the note on No. 41, line 2. If the Acta of S.
Theodotus of Ancyra be authentic, the separation of the two classes was not
complete in a rustic part of Galatia about A.D. 300 ; but North Galatia was
beyond doubt less advanced in development than Lycaouia at this period, fn
the Byzantine time, however, Galatia and the nortliern regions of the central
plateau advanced rapidly in importance, while Lycaonia retrograded.'^
Prof. Cumont compares with the remarkable title in line 3 the phrase
used in the Apostolic Constitutions, ii. 35 : SiotKi-jTy)^ twv Trpayfidrcov
€KK\r]aLaaTiKo!)V.
The use of the garland in this rude form on tombstones of Isaura Nova
seems to be a characteristic of fourth century work, and especially about
350 or later; see Nos. 19, 22, 26. In No. 2 we have an earlier and better
form, and in Nos. 3, 4, an intermediate form.
41. Dinek-Serai. R. 1901 : engraved on a stone in the common
Phrygian form of a sepulchrid altar. The stone has been split down the
middle : the left half (a) is built into the wall which surrounds a small
garden, and the right half (b) forms part of the pavement beside the door of
the house within this garden. The letters are difficult to read, being very
faint ; and the position of part (b) is such that it is impossible to get a close
view of the letters except upside down. I had only taken a first hurried
copy of the two parts,^ when the owner, who had already been paid too
liberally, refused to permit further work, unless I gave him ten pounds. As
* See Ilidor. Geogr. of Asia Minor, p. 74 f., a piece of the same gravestone as (//), and made
Jrch. Jahreshrfte, 1904, Beib. pp. 91, 105. a first copy of it. When I proposed to return
6 I was copying part (6), and had not finished, to (h) the owner interfered ; and to save long
when my men told me they had found part (a). delay and bargaining or force, I desisted.
I went to see it, found it was (as they suspected)
TOPOGRAPHY AND EPIGRAPHY OF NOVA I8AURA. 169
the inscription seemed to be a mere mctriccal epitaph of the usual valueless
kind, I was loath to bargain with him, all the more so, as he would have
been hard to deal with. If, however, the partial restoration here given is
correct, the epitaph is an important Christian document of the fourth century,
and ought to be recopied. It is to be found at oue of the most western or
south-western houses in the village. In the circumstances I cannot guarantee'
that the size of the gap between the two fragments is accurately indicated
in every line. In 1. 8 there is no gap, as H is divided. Many of the
suggested restorations are quite uncertain.
€N€na)rTAPI0NTl4) //0€XAIP€N
//epeveNAPo
eNoice A€MoixArpeA// onPoceAO
€eCCIMA0OJNAeCA(j)C//JCOTINeCTCjJPA
5 TCPOCM TPIOONXHr/ZCONenAPlKlTOC
KPATIHCOAlAKONO//CeC0AOC HO
HCGHCAYPocenAPxi/ViceniAeKToc ao
ANIOYOAIAACKAAOCh//HI©eOICIN KAIC04)0C
crciAiAcno ocenAeT/ZoniCTOc-HreMociNz
10 AClAeMYPIA(t)YAA KA// MNHC0eiC4)IAOTHTOCeM
H co(t)iHCTe ^cnc icu// MoicreNAXcoNA ecu
NnAAIXAI|-0JNAHMeT//ePHC(|)IAIHC*eMNHMeNOC
AnAnANTA^THNC //AANHN(J)IAA AeAcfjON
on THN //HAe4)IAHNMAMMeiN
15 //HNeNKPATIHCOlKONOMONC
//M MHCivXAPINOePAneNA
//oceNYMNoiCATeHceNAnoc<j)ei
// AAATAKAAAIIACOYClKAieCCGMeN
eXnTiSa Trjvh' ?] iveirw irapiovTi (f)[t\oiai t ?]e -^aipeiv.
ev TauTai<i ? i]ep€vev apo[vpai^ ?
eVJeecrcrt fxadoiv he aa(f)a)<; OTt Necrrtup
5 Kclrat. I 7rp€o-/9u]Tepo9 yu,[e]Tpt'&)j/ ')^r]p(ov i'irap\^co'y]6<;
evda I hi €v]KpaTiri<; 6 Bid/covo<; eadX6<; [u]7ro[(TTdq
Iletcr I i8iK ?]^9 6rjaavpo<; e7ra/3^t[r7]<? e7rtA£«T0<?,
8o[i}\o9 ? I Tlava l^aviov 6 SiBdaKaXof: rfideoiaiv
Kul ao<f)6<; \ €7r\€T0 iriaTO^
10 rjyefxoa-tv ^[ \ cru/j,7r l]dai, Se p,vpia <f)vXa.
Kal ixvrjadel'; (f>iX6Tr]T0<i ififj<; | Ke8v l]r]<; <ro(f>ir)<; re
e]fxol arevd-yayv *A[i8]o9 [ | Jy irdXi ;^at'[/j]«i)r
r)/x€T€pt](; <f)cXiT]<i [iJL]€fivrjfj,€VO'i I awa ndvra
Tr]v (T€fii>r]v <f)LXd8€X(f)0i' [ I ]o7r[ ]Tr}v
15 vi^]^ i>^[^]'n^ M.a/xfi€tv [ j
170 W. M. HAMS AY
^rjv evKpaTcr)(i olkovo/xov \
^[vn]fir]'; ■)(^ciptv o[9] p Jo? iv vfjLvoi<;
Te//9 or T[p]r]a€v
fiv7J]fiaTa KaWidaovcri Kal €a(TOfiev[oicn irvdecrOai ?]
The epitaph opens with an apostrophe to tlie passer-by : tliis is an
archaic fashion, and wouhl not be likely to persist after the fourth century.
In the note on line 7 it is shown that the probable restoration implies a date
earlier than 372.
Then follows a description of the deceased, who was a priest in the
land of Isaura, a presbyter, helper of poor widows, having also been deacon,
select treasurer of the Pisidian Province, teacher to the youth, wise, etc.
His dear wife, well-remembered, survived him : her name was Mammeis, a
name of the earlier type.^ Some others united with her to make a beautiful
tomb for posterity to ask about. One of these others became an oUovofioq
for the same reason as Nestor was made a deacon, on account of his self-
restraint and continence.
1. A metrical variation of the prose formula, eX.7r/9 toi<; TrapohelraLq
-yaipetv, or ■^(alpeiv rol<i 7rapoheLTai<i or irapLovTiv. The length of the gap
betvveen the two pans of this line is uncertain : according to my copy there
appear to be only one or two letters lost ; but a fresh copy, more careful than
my first hasty, unrevised, and merely provisional copy, is much needed. In
the circumstances I could not easily estimate the gaps.
1. — This is the first line at the top of the stone, separated from the rest
by moulding.
2. [^i\epevev is a probable restoration. The terms Upev'i and dp^i€p€u>i
were used by the Lycaonian Christians in such a way as to imply that the
distinction between clergy and laity was familial- when this class of inscrip-
tions was engi'aved (probably the fourth century). On dpy^tepev<; in
Lycaonian Christian usage, see the writer's note in Oesterr. Jahresheftc, 1808,
Heiblatt, p. 95. lepeix; and Upeueiv as Christian occur often, see Ath. Mitth.
1888, p. 236, No. 7 (where I failed to perceive that the description of the
father as simply tepeu? must be taken as showing that he was a Christian
priest), Cronin in J.H.S. 1002, p. 362.
4. — The inscription seems to have be^un by giving a line to each
hexameter (as in No. 1); but soon it was found that some lines were not
filled by the hexameter; and the word Keirat from the fifth hexameter
seems to have been added at the end of 4. The A after NiaTcop is probably
falsely copied : it should be only / , the symbol marking the end of the
hexameter (as in lines 11, 13). This is one of the faults which would
certainly have been corrected, if revision of the rough copy had been
possible.
5. — The correction e7rap[ft)7]o<? seems certain. The copy shows T
7 J.H.S. 1904, p. 290 f.
T()r()(;l{.\I'HV AND KIMC I! AIM! V oV NOVA ISATHA. 171
iiuwdcd ai^^iiiist the idcciMliiiL;' | in such a way as to make f probable.
'I'lius the line is a more inetrical variant of the prose expression in No. 40 ;
and it may be rej^ardetl as almost certain that the prose formula is older, and
that the metrical form took its origin shortly after (just as the epitaph of
Avircius Marcellusof Hicropolis Phrvgiae was within a few years imitated by
Ale.xander ''). Probably No. 40 and Xo. 41 behjng to the same half century,
and were engraved on tin' graves of two presbyters of the church of Isaura
Nova. The name Neo-reop is too short for the gap in No. 40, line 2; and a
different name containing <S to 10 letters is needed there.
(). — [e7]/cpaTn;? for ey/cpareia^; is prcjbably to be read here, as in line 15.
In the fourth century the word has probably no reference to the Enkratite
heres}-; nor has it any extreme sense, as Nestor was evidently married. In
an inscription of Laodiceia Katakokaumene, a certain Orestina is described
as evKparevaafievr],'^ which term there must be much the same as irapdivo'i in
several L}caonian Christian inscriptions.
7. — The name of the Eparrhia is nid'ortunately lust. The word must
have been either AvKaopiKi^j^; (an improbable form), or ^laavpiKrj'i, or
]Jei(TiSiKtj<;, or Ta\aTiKij<i. The first two are excluded by metrical reasons, as
the village poet who composed this epitaph seems to have a better idea of
metre (his worst fault is oIkovo/jlov I. 1."), which nmst be scanned either
^ ^ or more probably ^ ^). The last is excluded by the date : Isaura
Nova cannot have belonged t(j Prov. Galatia later than 297, if so long as
that.^'^ In all probability it was in the Tres Eparchiae from the second
century onwards. There remains only ITtcrtSt/c/}?, which might here quite
reasonably be scanned as a choiiambus for metrical convenience. Now
Pisidia Provincia included Iconium and Lystra from c. 297 to c. 372 A.D. ;
and though we should hardly have expected Dorla to be included in that
province, yet this restoration if correct would prove that it was, and the
connexion is quite possible. Hence probably this epitaph was composed
before 372, while it certainly cannot be much older than that date.
10. — ^[etVot? re] seems unsuitable.
19. — The final tag is common in such epitaphs of Central Asia Minor.
42.— Dorla. R. 1001.
MAMACKeAHMHTPlOC€KOC Ma/ia? Ke ArjfiTjTpio^ €k6(t-
MHCANCAAANTONnPeCBY firjaav laSdv rov Trpea^vrepop
TePON
" CB. ii. i>. 720 H. of Dr. Saba Dianiantides into the fal.se form
9 At/t. Mitth. xiii. 1888, p. '272. Prof. Ster- Orestis instead of Orestine.
rett wrongly assigns it to Konia {EpiyrajjJi •" Isaura Palaia was included in the Tres
Journey, No. 217). He did not see the stone. Eparchiae from c. 137 onwards. Iconium and
I copied it in Ladik in 1882. Sterrett's No. probably Lystra were in Prov. Galatia until
217 and No. 216 are engraved side by side on about 297 ; but probably Isaura Nova went with
one stone : he has been misled by the bad copy Derbe and Isaura Palaia in the Tres Eparchiae.
172 W. M. RAMSAY
43.— Euren near Dinek. R. 1901.
ADMNDCDMDADrHTHCEKDC Ao/zr^o? o^oXoyrjTr)^ eKoa-
MHCENCEPEIAIONTDNAHEA(t)DN tirjaev tepdXtov rov ah€\(\)6v.
The letters are late in style: the inscription cannot be earlier than the
fifth century. Dinek seems to have been a village of the territory of Nova
Isaura.
44. — Dinek. R. 1901. Fountain. Late letters, rude and faint.'
NEOnTDAEMDCIE//// NeoTrroXe/io? t€[/3eu9 Bai/? rr]v
rVNAlKAKAIDYPTANX//// 'yvvalKa kuI Ovp T[^]y [fLtjTipa ?
Relief : horseman.
AKKANTHNt k€ ^'Akkqv ttjv €[avTov
The term lepeix; here may denote a Christian priest ; the inscription is
probably too late for a pagan priest to mention his office. On t€peu9 in
Christian inscriptions of Lycaonia, cf Mr. Cronin in J.H.S. 1902, p. 362.
45. — Alkaran. R. 1901, 1904. On round cippus in cemetery north-
west of the village.
MNHMHCXAPIN I^v7]fi7]^ x^P^^
KONCONOC Kovcovo'i
////////ICtZ [7rpo]iaTa[fi€uov]
fivtjfirji; x^-piv seems to be here a translation of in memm'iam at the
beginning of Latin epigraphs and not used after the fashion of the usual
Greek formula which comes always at the end of the epitaph. Konon is one
of the official Proistamenoi whom Basil, Epist. 100, advised Amphilochius to
appoint in the small towns dependent on Isaura Palaia, before a new bishop
was appointed in that city.^^ It is not improbable that Konon may have been
appointed by Amphilochius in the village or town whose remains are seen
on the left of the road to Baltcha-Assar-Keupreu, near the bridge. This
dating would suit the lettering, which is midway in style between the usual
Isauran forms and the late letters of No. 43 or 44,
46. — Dorla. In the mosque. R. 1904.
\AYAIAeKOCMHCeNAii0AA K]\avhia iKoafirjaev A[y/j.] 0a\-
AINTONANAPAAYTHCOIKO .^aiv rov civSpa avri]^ oUo-
OMONeNT€lMONMNHMHC v]6^lov evreifiov fivijfir]^
XAPIN X^pi-^
If the restoration Avp. is right (as seems highly probable), the epitaph
can hardly be later than the fourth century, and might very well belong to
the third.
" See Oest. Jahresh. 1904, Bcib. p. 77 ff.
TOPOGRAPHY AND EPIGRAPHY OF NOVA ISAURA. 173
47. — Dorla. R. 1904. 'Nar)<i eKoa/Mrjlae]^ ElovXiov. Underneath is an
incised garland. The first name may possibly have lost some letters at the
beginning (e.g. ['A0r)]va)j<i) ; but this is improbable. Naes (i.e., Nais) would
be a Hellenized form of the native name Nas or Enas, see Cit. and Bish. i.
p. 269, No. 91.
48. — Dorla. R. 1904. Two miles south-east fi-om the village. ISidvva
NaX7;/itos'. Underneath is ornament, pair of rosettes between columns, no
pediment above the columns.
49. — Dorla. In western cemetery : R. 1904. Complete on right, and
top.
////\AHPO 6 K]\r)po-
l//^YTOyA v6ijbo<i a]uTOv 'A-
////eNTOAHN fia<i kut'] ivrokrjv
IIINlOlllliy avTo]v To[v] Tvlfi^ov fl. X-
50. — Dorla, R. 1904. [^ helva eKocrJfirjaev t6[v av]Bpa a[vT]fj(i Aov-
yeivov [/u..] x-
51. — Dorla. R. 1904. \v[p]r][Xia ?] eKoa/xrjaeu to[i^] (i8s\(f)0v NeV-
ropa.
52. — Dorla. R. 1904. Avp. A[v](tiv67] t) koL Marpwva ^\. Xeiaafioou
yuvrj.
The name Flavins, abbreviated like a praenomen, is characteristic rather
of the age of Constantine than of the Flavian dynasty 69-96 A.D.
53. — Dorla. R. 1904. TvWia AdSa MaKpi[v]dv dvydx'qp fi. X- Swas-
tika under the inscription.
54. — Dorla : Stele in the mosque wall: H. 1890.
(t)ANAAC€KOCMHCeNTON ^av[a]\\l'\^ eKoafirjaev top
AAEA(|)0NT//AM0N dSe\(t)hv T[i]afiov
^avaXi<; seems to be a Grecized form of OvapaXi(i or Bai/aXt?, No. 69,
a common Isaurian name.
55.-Dorla. R. I90I.
r AI loVA OCOYAAHCekOCMHCe
IOYAIAAONriNIATHNAAeA(j)HNAYTOY
. Tai . 'Iov\[t]o<> OvdXrj<i eKoa-fxrjae
'lovXia Aopyivia ttjp dB€\<f>T}v aurov.
Valens is a name which might spread either from imperial dynastic
reasons in the second half of the fourth century or from non-dynastic causes
174 W. M. RAMSAY
as a common Roman name with military associations at any time. C. Julius
might be in use at an early and a late time. In the fourth century the name
Julius revived in use owing to dynastic ca\ises. The whole name C Julius
Valens is inore likely to be of the late fourth century style. His daughter
Julia Longinia is put ungrammatically in the nominative (cf. No. 56).
56.— Dorla. R. 1901, 1904.
////v^NreiNOCXAAKeYC MIm////' A]ovyecvo<; xa'^'<:ev^ /^[vVM'i
nACI(j)IAON X I Trdai (fiiXov. IxV^lP''^
No letters seem to have been lost at the beginning of line 2. Probably
we should read irda-i t^lXov, an awkward epithet of the buried person
(compare the false construction in No. 55) rather than Ylaa-l^Ckov as the
name of the buried person. The extremely rude indication by incised lines
of a smith holding tongs over an anvil was evidently cut after death as an
indication of the occupation of the deceased. On the other hand the more
elaborate and skilful ornamentation of most of the tombstones was done
by trained artisans in the shop, before the stone was sold. The simple
nominative of the deceased's name occurs also in Nos. 63, 65, 66, etc. The
words at the end of the lines were added as an afterthought by a different
hand, and were apparently never completed.
57.— Dorla. R. 1001.
TTAniACeKOCMHCeNTHN TlaTrm? iKoa/xy^aev ti)v
niNATPAN irlvaTpav.
irlvarpa was probably a native word, indicating some relationship, like
the obscure irdrpa (perhaps ftither's sister), often used in Phrygian inscrip-
tions, C.B. ii. p. 394.
58. — Dorla. R. 1904. Large stone beside No. 2, perhaps belonging ta
the same hereon (but more probably part of a neighbouring grave) : broken
right and left.
nAnAcoACCK IlaTra? 'Oa? 2«[
TOYTUUNTHNAAC T0VT03V rrjv dB€[X(f)t]v
^ X A H'V.] %a.
The rare word in inscriptions aSe\(/>6T?79 might also be restored in 1. 2.
It occurs also in a fourth century Phrygian Christian inscription, published in
C.B. ii. p. 720. 'Oa? is a variant of Ba?.
There seems to be a list of names, which does not suit the restoration
dBe\(f)r]v very well.. Possibly, in 1. 1 €]K[6(T/j,r]cr€v should be restored (instead
of "Z/c as beginning of a personal name).
59. — Dorla. R. 1904. On fragment of entablature, broken right and
left : letters small, crowded, and worn.
TOPOGRAPHY AND EPIGRAPHY OF NOVA ISAURA. 175
01 AONiA iihnP€KAANANl ^IHCAN
AKAIAN lANii KaaNO YTATeP ATO YTCrO YA A
This inscription was engraved on the hereon of Rekla. In line 1 the
end is . . . .]i]v 'VeKXav (u>[eaT]y](Tai>. In 1. 2 another set of persons, probably,
did honour to 'Pfc']/cX[aJi^ Ovyinepa rov Te^^ovXa, The lettering of this
inscription is ditierent in character from the other inscriptions of Dorla, and
the nionunient also was of a different form. It probably belongs to the
second or even the first century after Christ.
GO.— Dinek. R. 1901. In the mosque.
TG NeiTAlA
nHPTIcANTA
AMcjjOTepAeprA
TryjpTiaav to.
dfX(f)6T€pa epya
This restoration may confidently be j)referred to the other possible
suggestion that the name may be Te[v]velTai or Te[i]v€lTai (of which Dinek
would be a modern form, with k suffixed to give a Turkish appearance).
Artisans trained in stone cutting and carving are mentioned in No. 15, also
in the district of Isauria immediately south of Nova Isaura (Sterrett Wolfe
E.ipcd. pp. 23, 41, 49), and in an unpublished inscription copied by Mr. T,
Callander in 19(14.
()1.— ]3uila. R. 1901.
MACOKA€KOCMHC€ NMOY//// MaaoKa iK6aixT]aevMov[vav
AKATONrAMBPONAY THC ]aKd tov yafi^pbv avri]^
(J 2.— Dorla. R. 1901.
KAniToNeKOCMHC//// KairiTcov iK6a-firja-[€v
NGN lilillllllllHIII N A A I Hi I II ^6v[vav koL Ova\vaXLv
G3.— Dorla. R. 1901.
POAOKAHC 'VoZoK\rj<;.
HAA€A4)HAIAN|-//// V uheX^r) Aiav7Jl Alavfjl [cKocrfirjaevl
There is no space for the reading [tJjJ aSeX^^, so that probably PoSoacX^?
was the deceased, and his sister made the tomb (or else rj aSeX^?; is ungram-
matically used for accusative, cf. Nos. 55, 56).
G4.— Dorla. R. 1901.
////KeiTAIMAYPHAIOC €p6d8e] fceiTat M. AvpijXio^
////MN MHX AP Z7;i/&)i/ ?] fiv[->j]nr} (!) x^pb^
Zrjvtov is restored exempli gratia. The engraver omitted C after H
in 2. The common formula ivddBe Kelrai (or KaTti/eeirai) seems to have
176 W. M. RAMSAY
come into use in the fourth century all over the Greek-speaking provinces. It
was probably imitated from the Latin hie iacet ; and if so spread eastwards
from an origin in Italy, or South Gaul, to Asia Minor. It occurs rarely in
Nova Isaura (No. 19), and the examples are on other grounds recognizable
as among the latest monuments of the place.
65.— Dorla. R. 1901.
////HNCON OYAACNTOC Zy^vwv OvdXevro^.
See No. 55.
66.— Dorla. R. 1901.
////MOYAC ma 21 llllfiova^ M6,^i[fiav or -^la
The first name may be TXafiova<: or Ki8pa/jLova<i or 'OTrpafxovaf or
Ovavy8a/j,ovafi (see Cronin, No. 75) or Ovpafjt,fiova<;.
67. — Alkaran. R. 1901 : border round stone and garland, under inscr.
IN/ ////////KOCKAinAniAC "lv[8a]Ko^ kuI IlaTrt'a?
n A T I ////A N V. //// r A Y K Y T A Ua['7n]av[<p] r^XvKvrd-
MNHMHCXA9iN tw fiv7]fir)(; x^P^^
68.— Dinek-Serai, in the bridge. R. 1901.
nAnnACBd^CIAICCHAAeA irdiT'ira'i BacriXia-aT] d8e'^[(f)fj
69.— Dinek-Serai, in the bridge. R. 1901.
CN AeiH \YACjJPOCeNAN0P(jL)
nOIClAlKAhON ^ ZHCANTAOAnAN
KATeXflKOAnOIClAABOYCA c^ ON
OYANAAlCTeiMHCeN ^ CH ^^ OYTA
THPreroNY//// a ^ cthaahkaimoych
KAAHnoeeOYCAOANONTA
iv[0d]8e [7]'} [ttoA,] uStwpo? ev dv9po)Trot,cn hiKaiov
^r]aavTa Ylairdv KaTe^ei koXttoictl Xa/3ovaa,
ov OvavaX\<; recfitjaev, irj dvydrrjp rye<yovv[ia,
(TTj'jXXr} KoX fiova-T) KaXfi, nrodeovcra davovra.
70. — Dinek-Serai, in the mosque. R. 1901. Rude letters.
A0HNICUNTU ' A]d7)vi(ov r[fi
CYBIBIOJMOY (rv^i/3i(p fiov
MNHMHCXA fivrjfirjq x'^'
PIN piv
(Tv^i^io) is either an error of engraver or a local rude pronunciation of
(rvfiBi(p with /9 for fi, and a slight vowel separating the two /3.
TOPOGRAPHY AND EPIGRAPHY OF NOVA ISAURA. 177
71. — Dinek-Serai, mosque. R. 11)01.
NECTOJPEKDCM NeVra)/) eKoarfilrj-
CENTHNTAYKVIA aev rrjv ^Xvkvtcl-
THNMHTEPA "^Vv H-v^epa
The name Nestor is common in this district, Nos._40, 4<1.
72.— Alkaran. R. 1904. Rude letters.
NAPKICCD: NdpKL<Tao<i
KAEChElKliJ KX€ov€tK(p
rVNAlKAAEA jvvaiKaSiX-
ct>lijrAYKYTA (p(p yXvKVTu-
TUMX Tw ^.X-
Terms for relationship are numerous in Asia Minor (cp. No. 57),
showing that the family ties were carefully attended to.
73.— Alkaran. R. 1904.
AAr€THC0e Aa7eT779 0e-
OAOJPArYNAI oBMparyvvai-
KIIAIAMNH kI IBia fivi]-
MHCXAPIN M'i X'^P^^
The first two letters are uncertain, and the name may be 'AXy€Tri<; ;
but Aayera^i occurs on coins of Philadelphia (see Head, B.M.C. Lydia,
p. Ixxxvi).
74._Alkaran. R. 1904.
KVP C Kup[o]9
eKOCMH iic6<Tfir)-'
CeNTON (TevTov
AAeA(t)ON ahek<\>ov
YTOY a\vTov
\XiAN0N 'A]\t[a]i/oi/
MX ^^■X•
75.— Alkaran. R. 1904. Complete on right; probably very little, if
anything, lost on left : probably no second line.
cecAnePNOY
H.S. — VOL. XXV. N
178 W. M. RAMSAY
76. — Euren near Dinek. K. 1001. Tliis and the next were on two
similar stones of great size.
KACTCOPCkOCMHCeNCAClN Kdarayp eKoafi-qacv ^daiv
MNHMHC XAPIN fivij/j-ij^i -^dpiv
77.— Euren near Dinek. R. 1901. See No. 7G.
TATACKOCMHCeNTONrFATePAY Tara eKoa/jirja-ev tov Trarepa {a)v[Tt]<i
CACeiNMNHMHC Sdaeiv fiv7Jfir}<;
^ X ^ X'
7s.— Dinek. R. 1901. In a fountain.
AYR ilOKONAACANC//// Avp. [Tp]oK6vBa^ dve[aTr]-
C€TOMrAYKYTATONY//// oe Top, yXvKVTUTov v[iov
AOM€T IN Aofihiv
A Mi^Cw?) [x«(pti^)]
TOyu. for TOV, couipare dveaT-t^aep, No. 3.').
Aop,€Tiv = Aop-eTiov, a very common contraction.
79.— Dinek. R. 1901.
MAMMHCEKOCMHCENTATAN Mdp^firj^ €K6afir]aev TdTav
KAIZ0HNTHNAA€A4)HN ical Zoi-jv tijv dSeXcfjrjv.
80.— Dinek. R. 1901.
POY(i>OC//// 'Pov(f)0<; [iKoa-fxrjae Aovyel- ^.
NONTC//// voi^ ro]v vlovl
M N H M h//// i"'^'//"^?]? v'ip''V
Ml. — Baltcha-Assar-Keupreu. R. 1901. Tiie stones in this bridge have
no resemblance to those of Dorla ; and have evidently been brought from
some village of the open plain, perhaps from the ancient site a few minutes
south of the bridge. They are quite in the style of the ordinary Lycaonian
village inscriptions.
NeCTCiJPMANO 'Niaroyp Mdv6-
AMHTP MX a /j,7jTp[c] p,. X-
The letters are very rude and late.
<S2. — Baltcha-Assar-Keupreu. R. 1901. Letters rude and late.
TATieiCnAYAOJA TutuU UavXfo d[B-
eA4)(jL)rAYKYTA €\(f>a} yXvKVTd-
TOJXAlP€IN TM xaipeiu
TOPOGRAPHY AND EPIGRAPHY OF NOVA ISAURA.
179
The formula with x^'peti- is noteworthy. I do not remember it else-
where.
83. — Balteha-Assar-Keupreu. R. 1001.
rFAneiCGeiH IlaTret? @et»7
MHTPITAYKY M-^P^ jXvkv-
AlPeiN TiiTT} x]a^peiv
0€LT) is either the name or an epithet of the mother, equivalent to the
' departed and deified.'
84.— Balteha-Assar-Keupreu, R. 1901. Contains the same formula,
Xaipeiv, but with the genitive . . . et>;<f [dv'ya]Tp6<i instead of the dative.
This is the best in style and lettering, and the earliest of all the stones on
this site.
- - \
■XX 1 C
^E 1 H C
rpoc
^
^
£rt!RiHHi>t
1
85. — Balteha-Assar-Keupreu. R. 1901.
+
KONn
TATI|H
MNHM
fivrjfir]
fivrjfirj usually comes first in these late village stones of Lycaonia.
86.— Baltcha-Assar village. R. 1904.
KAMATAANCCTH
CeNKVPON>-^NH>aHC
XAPIN
K^a/xdra dviarr)-
crev li^vpov fivq/nrji;
N 2
180 TOPOGRAPHY AND EPIGRAPHY OF NOVA IS AURA.
87. — Baltcha-Assar-Keupreu. R. 1901.
INAAKOCKAm "IvSuKo^i Kairt-
nP^OYCirAY (T)p(€)<f)ov(Ti y\v-
-K J KVT]d[T[oi<; "X^alpeiv ?
Either twi/o? or rot? was omitted before rpt(f)ovai, as the gap is too
small to contain both. TT by apparent slip for T is certain oa the stone, and
€ is omitted (unless some other word than Tpe(f)ova(, is intended). The P
is extremely rude in shape.
W. M. Ramsay.
NOTICES OF BOOKS.
Harvard Lectures on Greek Subjects. By S. H. Butcher, Pp. vJii + 266.
London : Macmillan & Co., 1904. 7s. net.
The six lectures of which this volume is composed fall into tliree groups : two lectures in
which the spirit of Greece is contrasted with the contemporary but diverse spirits of Israel
and Phoenicia, two which treat of the character of Greek literature under the headings of
' The Greek Love of Knowledge ' and ' Art and Inspiration in Greek Poetry,' and two
which describe Greek literary criticism in the spheres of verse and prose. The treatment
may seem at times rather desultory, and no theories of special novelty are advanced ; but
the merit of the volume lies in its interpretation of the Greek spirit by one who has very
few living equals in his appreciation of it. It is good both for those who are but slightly
acquainted with Greek culture and for those who are immersed in the details of it to go
back from time to time to the consideration of the spirit which informs it and which
makes it valuable (or rather invaluable) to our modern world ; and there are few better
volumes than this for such a purpose.
The Speeches of Isaeus, with critical and explanatory notes. By W. Wvse. Pp.
lxiv + 735. Cambridge: University Press, 1904. 18s.net.
This edition of Isaeus, which has been long in preparation, is on a very complete scale. It
contains a critical introduction (pp. i-lxiv), text with Latin critical notes (pp. 1-174),
commentary (pp. 175-723), and indices (pp. 725-735). The introduction includes an
elaborate study of the Barney MS. (Codex Crippsianus), which is the main authority
for the text of Isaeus. Mr. Wyse has made a special study of Athenian law, and his com-
mentary will be one of the leading authorities on this subject for a long time to come. Its
use fur this purpose, independently of its use as a commentary upon Isaeus, is facilitated
by the index of subjects. Mr. Wyse, it may be observed, does »ot accept every word of
Isaeus as an incontrovertible authority on legal questions. He recognises, what is often
forgotten, that Isaeus was an advocate, not the author of a treatise on common law ; and
his duty to his client must not infrequently have required him to disguise or misrepresent
the true interpretation of the law. His statements must consequently be accepted cautiously,
as ex parte statements, and with due consideration of the circumstances under which they
were made.
Greek Thinkers : a History of Ancient Philosophy. By Thkodor Gomperz.
Vols, ii and iii. Translated by G. G. Berry. Pp. xii + 397, vii+386. London:
John Murray, 1905. 14s, net each vol.
The second and third volumes of Prof. Gomperz's great work, which are now made available
in English, deal solely with Socrates, the early Socratics, and Plato. After two intro-
182 NOTICES OF BOOKS
ductory chapters, the life, teachinj^, ami death of Socrates occupy pp. 45-118 of vol. ii.
Successive chapters (pp. 119-245) deal with Xenophon, the Cynics, the Megarians (includ-
ing the Elian and Eretrian schools) and the Cyrenaics. Plato occupies the rest of the
volume and 272 pages of the third, the rest of which contains notes and an index to both
volumes.
In regard to the chronology of the dialogues, Prof. Goiuperz adopts the conclusions
arrived at long ago on linguistic and stylistic grounds ))y Campbell — conclusions which
Iiad been wholly ignored l)oth in England and on the continent imtil they were discovered
and endorsed a few years ago by Gomperz himself and Lutoslawski. Each dialogue is
described and discussed at length ; and this part of the work will be of great value to
Platonic students in England. Indeed the same may be said of it as a whole. Those who
make a special study of CJreek philosophy will of course be bound to make themselves
acquainted with it ; but, written as it is in good literary style, with profound knowledge
of the subject, and with a wide outlook over modern, as well as ancient, philosophy and
history, it is admirably qualified to take the place for younger'students of the sul)ject whicJi
Mi>mmsen does in the sjihere of Roman history. Prof. GomperzV ac(^Uitintaiue with
English literature and thought, which appears in many allusions and comparisons through-
out the work, will aid in commending it to English readers. The translation is sound and
competent, and it is only comparatively seldom that the fact that it is a translation forces
itself on the reader's notice.
Demetrius on Style : the Greek te.xt of Demetrius de Elocutume. Edited after the
Paris manuscript, with introduction, translation, facsimiles, etc. By W. Rhy.s
lloiiEUTs, Litt.D. Pp. .\iii + 328. 2 Plates. Cambridge : University Press, 1902.
Dr. llliys Roberts hiis completed his trilogy of eilitions of the masterpieces (Aristotle
excepted) of Greek literary criticism by an elaborate edition of the De Elonitione, on the
siime lines as his previous works on Longiniis and Dionysius. The Introduction, dealing
with the study of prose style anumg the Greeks, is rather sketchy ; and the discussion of
the authorship of the treatise, while stating fairly the various identifications that have been
]»roposed, goes no further than com hiding that the author was not Demetrius Phalereus,
butanoihei' i)erson with the same first name, who lived in the trrst century A. D., or possildy
the first century B.C. The text is based on a new collation of the Paris MS. (Bibl. Nat.
1741, of the tenth or eleventh century), of which two specimen facsimiles are given. The
commentaiy. (pp. 212-202) is followed by a glossary of technical terms (pp. 263-30!)) a
bibliography and indices.
Didymes— Fotiilles de 1895 at 1896. Par E. Pontukmoli and B. Haussoulliek.
Pp. viii.+212, 20 plates, 02 cuts in te.xt. Paris : Ernest Leroux, 1903.
This handsome volume brings our knowledge of the temple at L>idyma up to date, but
cannot be reckoned as a final ptiblication, while so much of the temple still remains buried
l»eneath the tower crowned by the windmill and beneath various houses. In the intro-
dnction, the authors do full justice to earlier travellers and excavators, both English and
French. In the first book is a description of the temple as laid bare by excavation,
especially of the east or principal facade, the clearing of which was the chief result of
the recent excavations. The second book gives the history of the various periods of
construction, from its l>eginning in 332 B.r. : it is based upon a series of inscriptions
which give exceptionally full information upon the matter. The ornate and ex(|uisitely
carved l>ases of the east front seem not to have been placed in situ until the middle of the
second century B.C., a date which is, however, more or less conjectural, and which may
perhaps appear improbable to some architects, considerijig the quality of the work. The
NOTICES OF BOOKS 183
capitals with their carved lieads, sliowin^', as the antliors suj^gest, Pergamene influence, fit
in well with such a date for the completion of this part. The third hook deals with the
architectural and artistic character of the temple, and its place in the development of
Ionic architecture. The authors see in it the influence of Ephesus and of the Mausoleum,
and trace its influence on later temples. The fourth hook deals with miscellaneous frag-
ments of sculpture and architecture, including some archaic pieces of considerahle interest.
The whole is illustrated with admirable photographs, which help the reader to realise the
beauty and the magnificence of the temple, especially of the richly decorated column bases
of its eastern face.
Burlington Fine Arts Club. Exhibition of Ancient Greek Art. Pp. xxxii +
'2(35. 112 plates. London : printed for the Burlington Fine Arts Club. 1904. [To
Subscribers £^ 4s.]
This work is a sumptuous reissue of the catalogue of the noted Exhibition of ancient Greek
Art, which was held at the Burlington Fine Arts Club in the summer of 1903. The
catalogue was in the nuiin the work of Mrs. S. A. Strong, though special sections were con-
tributed by Mr. G. F. Hill (select coins), Mr. Arthur Evans (gems in liis own collection),
Mr. C. Newton Robinson (gems), Mr. H. Wallis (objects in glass), and Prof. Furtwaengler
<gems). It has been revised, and supplemented with addenda, and re-issued with
ample margins in folio form, in order that the plates might be of suflicient size.
Certain groups of ol)jects remain unillustrated for various reasons, but the great majority
of the works in the exhibition are here published with photogravure or collotype plates.
Das Relief des Archelaos von Priene. By C. Watzinger. Pp. 25. Two plates
and nine illustrations. [63rd Berlin Winckelmansprogramm.] Berlin : Reimer. 1903.
5 m.
An examination of the types of the Muses on the relief of the Apotheosis of Homer.
After a suggestion, by Amelung, they are assigned to Philiscus of Rhodes, and are com-
pared with the corresponding types in statuary, and also more particularly with the figures
on the base froiy Halicarnassos, in the British Museum. The artist, Archelaos of Priene
is assigned to the Rholian school, and the mountain on the relief is the Atabyrion of Rhodes.
The date of the work is about 'nO n.c, for Ptolemy Philopator and Arsinoe are repre-
sented as Chronos and Oikoumi-ne, and their married life lay between 217 and 205 B.C.
The relief was dedicated l)y the poet, whose statue and agonistic tripod ;ire seen in the
middle tier. He was either ApoUonius of Rhodes, or some poet of his school.
Essai sur I'Art et I'Industrie de I'Espagne Primitive. By Pierre Paris,
2 vols. Pp. XV + 357 -1-327. 23 plates, and 787 illustrations in text. Paris: Leroux,
1903.
The author has attempted to give a connected view of the scattered and inaccessible
materials on which an estimate of the art of the Iberians must be based. In each branch
of art he shows that a few objects have been simply imported fioni Greece, and the East of
the Mediterranean. More frequently the objects found are native productions. Some are
frankly barbarian and indigenous, but many give clear indications that the influence of
Greece and the East was felt by the Iberian craftsmen. These influences can be traced
from the Mycenaean period onwards to Roman times. Considerable space is devoted to a
<li3cussion of the sculptures of Cerro de los Santos, where the question is made more
complex by the presence of many recent forgeries. The famous bust of ' the Lady of Elche '
184 NOTICES OF BOOKS
is shown to be less isolated than it first appeared to be, and is assigned to an Iberian
artist, with Greek training, and is dated about 440 B.C.
Histoire de I'Art dans rAntiquit6. By G. Perrot and Ch. Chipiez. Tome viii.
La (irece Archaique. La Sculpture. By G. Perrot. Pp. xv + 75G. 14 plates and
363 illustrations. Paris : Hachette, 1903. 30 f.
The volume opens with an etched portrait of Prof. Perrot, and a memoir of M. Chipiez,
whose long collaboration has been terminated by death. It deals in the first instance with
civil, military, and sepulchral architecture, that of the early temple having been already
discussed in vol. vii. The greater part of the book is devoted to the rise of Greek sculp-
ture in the archaic period, which is interpreted as the interval between the 1st Olympiad
and the Battle of Salamis. A discussion of the general conditions of early sculpture is
followed by chapters on the Ionian schools of Asia Minor and the islands ; the Dorian
schools of the Peloponnesus, Sicily, Magna Graecia, and central Greece ; and on the early
school of Attica, principally as revealed by the excavations on the Athenian Acropolis.
British Museum. Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman
Antiquities. Vol. III. By A. H. Smith. Pp. xii + 481. 29 (half tone) plates and
76 illustrations in Text. London : Trustees of the British Museum, 1904. Vs. 6d.
This is the last volume of the Catalogue of Greek and iRoman Sculptures in the British
Museum. Vol. I having been devoted to the earlier periods, and Vol. II to the principal
campaigns of excavation by which the collection has been enriched. Vol. Ill deals with the
residue. These are for the most part of the later Greek and Graeco-Roman schools. They
are grouped as statues and busts arranged by their subjects ; uncertain ideal heads ; por-
traits, Greek and Roman ; torsos, fragments, animals ; later Greek and Graeco-Roman
reliefs, votive, decorative, and sepulchral ; decorative and architectural objects, such as
altars, vases, candelabra, and the like. Modern forgeries and casts are briefly described.
Comparative tables for tracing objects from the older official publications and a general
index to the three volumes complete the work.
Repertoire de la Statuaire Grecque at Romaine. Tome III. 2640 statues
antiques. By Salomon Reinach. Pp. xv -1-371. 2640 illustrations in the text. Paris:
Leroux, 1904. 5 f.
This volume completes, for the present, M. Reinach's ' Repertoire.' He has now supplied,
at a nominal cost, a visual index to some 13,645 works of sculpture. The illustrations are
rough, but they are in most cases sufficient to determine whether there is need for further
reference. The book is valuable (1) as an index of sculptural types, (2) as a guide to
the standard publications of objects, (3) as a clue (by means of a special index) to the-
literature dealing with particular collections.
A Companion to Greek Studies. By Leonard Whibley, M.A. Edited for the
Syndics of the University Press. 8vo. Pp. xxx-l-672. With 141 illustrations and
five maps. Cambridge : at the University Press, 1905. ISs.
The scheme of this work entails eight main headings, distributed as follows : — I. Geography,
Fauna, and Flora. II. History and Chronology. III. Literature, Philosophy, and
NOTICES OF HOOKS 185
Science. IV. Art, subdivided into Architecture ; Prehistoric Arcliaeology and Sculpture ;
Painting ; Vases and Terracotta.'* ; Gems ; Music. V. Mythology and Religion. VI. Public
Antiquities, including Constitutions and Law, Finance, Slavery, Money, Ships, etc. VII.
Private Antiquities : Daily life, Food, Amusements, etc., Houses, Dress, Books, Education.
VIII. Criticism and Interpretation, including Palaeography, Metre, and History of
Scholarship. Sir Richard Jebb contributes the Literature section. Dr. Jackson tlie
Philosophy, Drs. Sandys, Verrall, and others, Section VIII, and the Art section is share^J
by Profs. Waldstein, E. Gardner, Ridgeway, and Messrs. Earp and A. H. Smith. Other
scholars of equal repute, not exclusively Cantabs, contribute to the sections for which their
special knowledge has fitted them. Admitting the natural preference for Cambridge men,
there is little fault to be found with the names selected. Indices of Greek names, words,
and phrases, and of modern writers and scholars complete the volume, and select biblio-
graphies are appended to each section. On the whole, it is a well-meant but somewhat
amljitious attempt to supply the needs of candidates for the Classical Tripos, Part I ; but
some of the sections are so dry and meagre as to be almost unreadable.
In selecting a few small points for criticism we shall confine ourselves almost entirely
to Section IV. Here after a few preliminary pages on pre-historic Greece, Dr. Waldstein
gives in 35 pages a fairly adequate summary of the history of Greek sculpture, although
the recent discoveries in Crete are hardly adequately dealt with. His chronology is some-
times a little puzzling, as for instance on p. 229 where the Geometrical period is dated
1100-900 B.C., whereas on p. 233 it is said to last down to the seventh century ; also the
period of Oriental influence surely lasts later than 900-750 B.C. The results from Crete
make it at least doubtful that the Argolid is the original home of Mycenaean art, and
they also furnish a more notaVde instance of evidence for early dating than the results
from the Heraenm (p. 229). The temple at Aegina we now know to be dedicated to
Artemis Aphaia, not Athena (p. 241).
Mr. Earp gives a fairly interesting account of that unsatisfactory subject, Greek paint-
ing, and Mr. A. H. Smith is sound and intelligible on the subject of vases. But how can
terracottas be treated of in one page ? They had better liave been omitted ; or at all events
a photograph of some typical Tanagra figures substituted for the Tarentine mould of Fig.
41. We do not think that the spelling cylix is in accordance with the Hellenic Society's
rules, as claimed in the Preface ; and the specimens of vases selected for illustration are
poor and unrepresentative, although something is to be said for choosing specimens from
the Fitzwilliam Museum. In Section VI the article on Coins is also very inadequately
illustrated by the line-blocks, and Prof. Gardner's monograph on Types of Greek Coins
should have been added to the bibliography.
Griechische Geschichte. Von Julius Beloch. Dritter Band. Die Griechische
Weltherrschaft. Zweite Abteilung. Mit sechs Karten, Pp. xvi -1-576. Strassburg :
K. J. Triibner, 1904. 10 m. 50.
With this volume Dr. Beloch, for the time being, brings his Greek History to a con-
clusion. He observes, it is true, that something still remains to be done — to trace the
course of events which transformed the Hellenes into Byzantines. But we gather that the
fulfillment of this task is likely to be long postponed. The present volume does not aim
at giving a connected narrative of events. It is intended to supplement the First Part
of the Third Volume by a detailed discussion of several questions of difficulty and import-
ance. These include the sources for the history of the period and the modern literature
connected with it, the various calendars — Macedonian, Babylonian, and Egyptian — and
several chronological points, particularly those relating to the numerous royal houses.
Of the other sections the most interesting is that devoted to the principal literary figures
of the period and to the leaders of the different schools of philosophy. The volume is,
perhaps necessarily, somewhat polemical in tone, but it gives evidence of a most thorough
186 NOTICES OF BOOKS
and independent criticism of all sources of information. A very pleasin;,' feature of the
work is furnished by the historical maps. The aid of colours is here employed to depict
the extent, at the most important epochs, of the ever-shifting boundaries of the various
kingdoms.
The Early History of India from 600 b.c. to the Midiammadan Conquest, including
the invasion of Alexander the Great. By Vincent A. Smith. Pp. 389, with nine
photographic plates and six maps and plans. Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1904,
Only that part of this work which touches upon Greek History calls for notice in this
place. The Indian campaign of Alexander is examined from the standpoint of a historian
of India, who views it as a passing episode in the long course of Indian history. The
judgment pronounced by him is that there is no trace of any permanent inHuence left by
Alexander's invasion upon the development of India. The greater part of the section
devoted to the invasion is, as might be expected, occupied by the discussion of the numerous
topographical difficulties. It must be confessed that the succession of sesquipedalian
Indian names is somev/hat bewildering to tlie average reader ; but those who desire to
follow as accurately as possible the romantic marcli of Alexander will find all the avail-
able evidence carefully collected. In particular, the results of modern geographical research
are fully utilized. The later Greek invasions of India by Antiochos the Great, Demetrios,
Eukratides, and Menander, seem to have left just as little jierinanent effect upon the
civilization of India as did that of Alexander.
Die Inschriften von Sicilien u. Abu-Simbel. Bearb. von 0. Hoffman. [H.
CoUitz u. F. Bechtel. Sammlung der Griechi&chen Dialekt-Inschriften. Ill Bd.
2 Hiilfte, 4 Heft.] Pp. 223-289. Gottingen : Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1904.
Tliis part of the G.D.I, contains some 73 inscriptions from Sicily as well as the graffiti from
Abu-Simbe!. As a certain number of the inscriptions from Sicily have already been published
in earlier parts under the mother-cities, this collection is not properly representative of the
epigraphy of the island, even from the dialectic point of view. Thus under Selinus we
have only one inscription, and that not the famous one from the ruins of the Temple
of Apollo, with a dedication to various deities {G.D.I. 3046); Syracuse provides three,
among which we do not find the helmet dedicated by Hiero at Olympia {G.D.I. 3228).
The disadvantage of this arrangement, in view of the scantiness of our knowledge of
Sicilian dialects, is acknowledged by the editor ; but he has done his best to remedy this
defect by cross-references. For the coin-legends he has as a rule been content to refer to
Holm.
Recueil des Inscriptions Juridiques Grecques. By R. Dareste, B. Haussoul-
UER, Th. Reinach. Pp. iii-f- 179-389. 2« Serie. Fasc. II and III. Paris: Leroux,
1904.
The present part completes the second series of this invaluable collection. It contains, among
other documents, the regulations of the Delphic phratry of the Labyadae, the statutes of the
Athenian phratry of the Demotionidae, certain Cretan texts (including the Gortynian
decree on the circulation of bronze money), the Mytilenaean decree relating to the return
of exiles, a long series of acts of enfranchisement, and the list from Dyme of persons con-
demned to death for sacrilege and forgery. The laws from Olympia are omitted because
of the difficulties presented by the interpretation of the Elean dialect. It is to be hoped
that this is not the last of the series, and that the editors will see their way to publishing
supplements from time to time. A fuller index would have much increased the usefulness
of the work.
NOTICES OF HOOKS 187
Les Monnaies Antiques de I'ltalie. Par A. Sambok. Tome I. Fasc. 3 (Campanie).
Pp. 126. With 115 (Juts in the Te.vt, and a Pliotographic Plate. Paris : Bureaux du
'Musee.' 1904. (5 f.
We have aj^'ain to commend warmly the regularity with which the instalments of M.
Sambon's work are appearing. This section covers tlie last portion of the coins of Ciiniae
as well as the whole of those of Naples. The Nea})olitan series is interesting, and its rich-
ness will be realised if we mention tliat Sambon enumerates about 450 distinct varieties.
Attention is drawn to the evidence of {^rowing Samnite influence as indicated by the inscrip-
tions and the style of the coins, and conclusions as to the political vicissitudes of the city
generally are drawn from varieties in the types. A stienuous endeavour is made to
secure precision in tlie chronological attribution of the various series. The main featui'e
of novelty in Sambon's arrangement is that the pieces with the head of Athena are regarded
not as earlier than, but as contempoianeous with, those which have the head of a nymph as
type. It is not easy to judge from tlie woodcuts and ])iocess-blocks how far that conten-
tion can be made good. A more liberal supply of proper photographic illustrations would
have been helj^ful in this respect. But tlie views expressed on general points continue to
be, as a rule, sane and cautious.
Recueil General des Monnaies Grecques d'Asie Mineure. Commence par
feu W. H. Waddington. Continue et complete par E. Bahki.on et Tu. Reixach.
Tome Premier. Premier Fascicule. Pp. 210. 4to. With 28 Photographic Plates.
Paris : E. Leroux, 1904. 40 f.
When Waddington died, the widespread regret occasioned by the loss that Greek archaeo-
logy had sustained was intensified by tiie knowledge that what he had meant to be the crown-
ing work of liis life was .«till unfinished. For many years lie had been collecting nu\terials
for a complete corpus of the coins of Asia Minor, an undertaking for which he was equipped
in an almost unicjue fashion. After his death his splendid cabinet passed into the possession
of the French nation, while his widow handed over the whole of his voluminous notes to
the Academie des Inscriptions et Belles- Lettros. Under the auspices of that learned body
his great book is to be comi)leted, the task of editing having been entrusted to the two
most distinguished of living French numismatists. MM. Babelon and Reinach evidently
realise to the full the .seriousness of the responsibility which this pious duty entails. At
least three years of labour have been bestowed on the opening section.
There is no introduction and no formal preface. These are reserved for the conclusion
of the first volume. It is, therefore, impossiWe to be certain how far the general lines were
laid down by Waddington, and how far they may have been modified by the editors. But
it is noticeable that in some important respects they differ from the plan followed in the
only instalment of the Berlin eorpm of Greek coins that has yet been published. There
is no attempt made to give an exhaustive list of known specimens. Nor is there much
reference to different dies. Indeed, the underlying idea of the whole rather precludes such
laborious thoroughness of method. The object kept in view has been to recover, as it were,
the archetype of each distinct issue. This must have frequently involved the careful com-
parison of many individual coins. The professional numismatist cannot but regret that
the traces of tlie preliminary work have been so completely obliterated. But it must be
frankly atlmitted that there is a gain in clearness and simplicity of statement which will
be welcome to the general student. The list of pieces struck at each mint is headed by a
succinct note, embodying the results of the most recent geographical and historical
research. Much pains has been bestowed on the chronological arrangement, and on such
details as the precise forms of the monograms that occur. More information as to the
exact, way in which the letters of the inscriptions are placed upon the coins would sometimes
luive been useful. And the absence of any indication of the weight of the bronze pieces
188 NOTICES OF BOOKS
is a really serious defect. It is earnestly to be hoped that, before the next section is issued,
the editors will reconsider this part of their policy. A special word of praise is claimed
by the plates, which are exceedingly well executed. The coins have been admirably
selected, and the gallery of types they present is calculated_to furnish material for fruitful
study. The portraits of the Pontic kings are of particular interest. But there is much
else that is only a degree less attractive.
A Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum : Cyprus. By G. F.
Hill. Pp. cxliv+ 120. With one .map, a table of the Cypriote Syllabary and twenty-
six Plates. London, 1904.
The twenty-fourth volume of the British Museum series deals with one of the most obscure
and difficult classes of Greek coins. The proper reading of the legends is in many cases
doubtful. Even where it is certain, we are apt to be brought to a standstill by sheer lack
of any historical background. In the.se circumstances the duty of numismatists is clear —
to ascertain the real facts and to put them on record with the nearest possible approach to
accuracy. This task Mr. Hill has discharged admirably. While refraining from specula-
tion, he has gathered together in his Introduction all the material that has a relevant
bearing on the money of ancient Cyprus. No aspect of the questions involved is allowed to
pass without full and business-like discussion. The British Museum is exceptionally rich
in the issues of the Cyprian mints, and the different specimens are described with a
thoroughness that leaves nothing to be desired, the great pains bestowed on the identifica-
tion of dies being specially worthy of mention. No fewer than nine of the twenty-six
plates are devoted to coins in other cabinets. The general result is a book which may be
said to lay a solid foundation for a complete corpus of Cyprian money, and which is a
real credit to British scholarship. The weights of all coins, including bronze imperial
pieces, are given. A general index is also introduced, a concession to which ^the valuable
collection of miscellaneous material was fully entitled. It may be hoped that these innov-
ations .are destined to become permanent features of this fine series of Catalogues. The
plates are very well executed.
Td vo(i,{o-|iaTa tov Kpdrovs twv IlToXtjiaUv. By J. N. SvoRONOS. Pts. I., II., and III.
Pp. xii + 255-f-324. With numerous illustrations in the Text, and 64 Photographic
Plates. Folio. Athens, 1904. 100 f.
Doctus, Jupiter, et laboriosus! Part I. contains an elaborate introduction, including a
historical sketch of each reign. Part II. is a catalogue of more than 1900 distinct varieties,
with lists of the weights and whereabouts of all specimens known to the author. No pains
have been spared to make these lists as complete as possible. Part III. comprises the
photographic plates, which may be pronounced fairly successful, especially in view of the
fact that the casts have been collected from many quarters, and must have been the work
of many hands. The printing and general appearance of the book are admirable, and do
infinite credit to the enlightened patriotism that has supplied the funds necessary to secure
publication.
It is safe to say that Dr. Svoronos's corpus marks an epoch in the study of Ptolemaic
numismatics. The difficulties of attribution and arrangement that beset this series are
well known. Poole's classification (the real groundwork of which was never other than a
little mysterious) has held the field for more ihan twenty years. It must now be aband-
oned as inadequate to support the mass of material that is here brought together. In its
place Svoronos provides a brand new scaffolding of the most complete and extensive kind.
Whether it is destined to a longer life than its predecessor, is a question that time alone
NOTICES OF BOOKS 189
can answer. But even tlie most siuij^uine may well feel apprehensive wlien he notes how
quickly some of the author's own opinions have been chanf^ed. The order adopted in the
Plates occasionally indicates a very diffen-nt view from that followed in the Catalogue,
while the Catalogue in its turn has to Hubmit to chastisement and correction at the hands
of the Introduction. Dr. Svoronos is always learned and always ingenious, and he has
put into this book a vast amount of honest hard work. His views must inevitably com-
mand attention and consideration. But it may be doubted whether the Ptolemaic series
will finally yield up its secrets until it has been made the subject of an even more minute
and systematic study. Dies, for example, are hardly mentioned at all.
A supplementary part (Part IV.) is promised for the immediatefuture. Besides additional
material, it will contain a summary in French of the whole work for the benefit of scholars
who do not read modern Greek easily. Those who do business in the great waters of
Ptolemaic n.etrology are also promised a full and comprehensive discussion of vexed ques-
tions. Let us hope that the essay will be more of the nature of a chart than of a lighthouse.
In the meantime, the weights recorded in the body of the Catalogiie afford abundant food
for reflection. This is but one of several features that render the book indispensable to
all students of the history of the Greek monarchy in Egypt, and that must win for its
author the gratitude of numismatists everywhere.
Asia Minor. [Murray's Handy Classical Maps.] Edited by J. G. C. Anderson.
London : John Murray, 1903. Cloth, 2s. ; paper, Is. net.
Murray's Small Classical Atlas. Edited by G. B. Grundy. London : John Murray,
1904. 6s.
So much of the material for Mr. Anderson's new map of Asia Minor has been published
in this Journal, that a notice of its publication seems to be called for. It is an entirely
new map, embodying the results of the travels of Mr. Anderson himself, Prof. Ramsay,
and various other scholars. The scale is 1 : 2,500,000, and no less than 14 contours of
altitude are indicated by different colours, ranging from sea-level to the top of Mount
Argaeus, the one spot which is over 12,000 feet. The result is a good conspectus of the
physical features of the country ; while the information as to roads and sites marks a
great advance in the cartography of the region. A full index accompanies the map.
The Small Classical Atla^f, edited by Mr. Grundy, is the outcome of the series of
Classical Maps, to which Mr. Anderson's Asm Minor belongs, but is independent of it. It
employs the same system of coloured contours, and makes a special point of legibility in
printing. Its defect is, that since a large number of coloured printings is incomi)utible
with tlie low price at which the atlas is issued, the intervals between the contours are
considerable, and a deceptive appearance of equality in surface is produced. Thus in the
case of Asia Minor the fourteen shades of Mr. Anderson's map are replaced by four, and
the highest and lowest of these are of rare occurrence ; so that the whole country has an
unduly uniform appearance. Nevertheless the atlas (which contains fourteen maps and an
index) will be found really useful ; and special mention should be made of the plans of
Athens and Rome, and the fourteen principal battlefields from Troy to Actium. Mr.
Grundy appears to hold still to his former views as to the topography of Pylos.
The following, among others, have also been received : —
Plato. Euthydemus : with revised text, introduction (51 pp.), notes, and indices
(81 pp.). By E. H. GiFFORD. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1905. 3s. 6d. (A very
complete edition for the use of University students and the higher forms of Public
Schools.)
190 NOTICES OF BOOKS
Some Aspects of the Greek Genius. By S. H. Butcher. Pp. vi + 324. London :
Macinillan & Co., 1904. 7s. net. (A third edition of tliis well-known and stimulat-
ing work.)
Bacchylides. By R. C. Jebb. [Proc. of the British Academy, vol. i.] Pp. 18.
London : Frowde, 1905. Is. net.
Ancient Greek Coins. By F. S. Benson. Vol. iii. Parts xi-xiv. Pp. 45. 4 Plates.
Privately Printed. 1903-4.
Euripidis Fabulae. Recogn. G. Murray. IL [Scriptorum Class. Bibl. Oxon.]
Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1904.
Catalogue of the Printed Books and Manuscripts forming the Library of F.
D. Mocatta. By R. A. Rye. London : Harrison, 1904.
Byzantine Constantinople, the Walls of tlie City and adjoining Historical Sites. By
A. VAN MiLLINGEN. 1899.
Illustrations of School Classics. By G. F. Hill. London : Macmillan & Co., 1903.
Notes on Roman Gold Bars from Egypt. By G. F. Hill. [Proc. Soc. of Ant.
2 Ser. XX.] London, 1904.
Necropoli e Stazioni Sicule di Transizione. By P. Orsi. [Bull, di Paletn. ItaU
1902.] Parma : Battel, 1903.
The Osireion at Abydos. By M. A. Murray, with sections by J. G. Milne and W.
E. Crum. [Egypt. Research Account, 9th Publ.] London : Quaritch, 1903.
SOME POINTS AS TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE REIGN OF
CLEOMENES I.
The two dates which I wish briefly to discuss are those of the Argive
Expedition and of the Atheno-Plataean alliance: they are of cardinal
importance for the history of Greek politics in an important but very obscure
period. The two questions may be considered as independent, and it is
possible to adopt the earlier date for one event, and not for the other (as
E. Meyer does), but in my judgment the two events are connected, and the
date assigned to the one carries with it the date of the other.
First then as to the date of the attack on Argos and the battle of
Sepeia. Before the time of Grote this was always placed circ. 520 B.C. on
the strength of the passage of Pausanias (iii. 4), ' when Cleomenes came to
the throne, he at once invaded the Argolid ' ; his accession is usually placed
about 520, and as this date is generally accepted, it is needless to give the
reasons for it here. The date of Pausanias is in itself worth very little. It
is true that he has information as to the Argive campaign which is not in
Herodotus, and which may be derived from some local chronicler ; but this
information is given in an earlier book (ii. 20), while in iii. 4 he is mainly
following Herodotus. It may be noticed, however, that he certainly is
supplementing Herodotus from some other source {e.g. the name of the grove
of Eleusis, ' Orgas'),^ and it is not unnatural to suppose that he had reason
for giving a date for the expedition of Cleomenes, which differs from that which
at first sight seems to be given by Herodotus ; Wernicke ^ writes ' perverse
eum (Cleomenem) initio regni sui id fecisse (Pausanias) dicit,' but it may
well have come from some chronological table (such as the Parian
Chronicle).
Another explanation of the date in Pausanias that has been given is
that we have here an instance of the well-known chronological rule which
dates an event, known to have happened in a certain period, in \\\e first year
of that period, e.g. the invasion of England by the Saxons was put in 449 a.d.,^
1 Pausanias also ])Uts the number of the slain however, may be merely mistakes, due te-
at 5000 (Hdt. vii. 148 gives 6000), and his Pausanias writing from memory
account of the treatment of Aegina differs 2 jjg pausaniaestudiis Herodoti, p. 13 : thisis.
materially from that in Hdt. vi. 50 sq. These, a very unconvincing piece of Quellenkritik.
U.S. — VOL. XXV. O
194 J. WELLS
because that was supposed to be the first year of Marcianus ((juoruni tempore
Anofli a Brettouibus accersiti Britauuiairi adieruut, Bede v. 24 and Phimnier's
o
note ii. p. 27).
It l»as also been suggested that Pausanias n)ay have had a confused
remembrance in his mind of the curious statement of Herodotus that
' Cleomenes reigned no very long time ' (v. 48). But it is needless to
speculate further ; were the statement of Pausanias the only reason for the
earlier date, no one would think it worth while to discuss it. I only submit
that, if the earlier date be found on the whole to suit here the narrative of
Herodotus (vi. 70 scq.), the date of Pausanias adds some slight confirmation
to our inference.
That Herodotus puts the invasion of Argos nr(xr the end, and not at the
beginning, of the reign of Cleomenes, has practically been agreed since the
time of Grote (iv. p. 247) : it is sufficient to refer to Busolt (ii.^ o6l),
Belocli (i. 341)), and E. Meyer (G. dcs A. iii. 319) in Germany, and to Macan
(Herodotus a<f loc.) and Bury {Bcitrdgc zur A. G. 1902) among British
scholars : Abbott leaves the question open in his Appendix (i. 448), and
gives no date in his narrative. Only Curtius, I believe, of modern
authorities supports the earlier date, and even he in his notes (i.^ GG9) seems
to suppose theni were tioo Argive campaigns, a compromise that will satisly
no one.
The passage of Herodotus usually quoted as decisive is vii. 148-9, in
which the Argives plead that they cannot take part in the resistance to the
Persians in 480, because ' they had lately {vefoarl) lost 0,000 citizens slain
by Cleomenes and the Lacedaemonians, and therefore must (cap. 149) have 'a
30 ye;iis' truce ' in which ' their children may grow to man's estate.' This
passagi', howevei-, jtroves nothing; it is obvious to every reader of Herodotus,
it was obvious to Herodotus himself (though he was certainly not an enemy
of Argos), that the Ai-gives here were not giving the real reason for theii-
inactivit). In fact. Herodotus (ix. 12) records that in the very next year
the Argives h;id 'undertaken to ])rev('nt the Spartan from going forth ' (to
resist Mardonius). This hardly looks like a depopulated country; but we
will take later the positive proofs from Herodotus that Argos between 490 and
470 was in the very reverse of a crushed condition.
A second passage quoted is Herodotus v. 49 : Aristagoras urges the
Spartan king to attack the Persians, and ' to put off fighting against the
Messenians, his evenly matched foes, and Arcailians and Argives'; this, says
Mr. Macan, ' would have been rather beside the mark ' if the Argives had
just been ciiished. To me the passage seems to favour the other side, if it
be worth anything ; the Messenians had been undoubtedly crushed ; the
Arcadians had be(m reduce<l to a dependent condition ; is it not natural to
su})pose that the Argives are in the same category '( But such allusions of
course leally prove nothing, even if we could suppose — which of course we
cannot — that Herodotus is accurately recording what Aristagoras said (and
not writing from the point of view of his own day).
There remains the third — and to my mind only serious — argument from
CHRONOLOGY OF THE liEION OF CLEOMENKS I. 195
Herodotus against tin; early date, i.e. the oracle (|uoteil in vi. 77, and in })art
in vi. 19, in which the fate of Miletus and the late of Argos are joined
together. Now I admit at once that if this passage stood alone, we should
naturally consider that the two events referred to must have been about the
same time, and that therefore the defeat of Argos falls in the first decade of
the fifth century. But if sufficient evidence can be given for the earlier
date from other parts of Heroilotus, then the evidence of the oracle can
hardly be thought in itself to outweigh probability and the balance of
evidence.
For in the first place the whole attitude of scholars to this oracle is most
•uncertain : some {e.g. Busolt ut supra) consider it a prediction post vvcntum ;
others like Bury {nt supra) build up on the strength of it elaborate theories,
e.g. that Aristayoras had appealed to Argos (as well as to Atiiens and Sparta)
for help, and that the treasures of Croesus were never given to Delphi at
all, but had been feloniously transferred from Branchidae to Delphi: to this
latter theory he only refers without adopting it.'* The former theory — that
Aristagoras visited Argos, and that Delphi was consulted about the propriety
of sending help — may be true, but the silence of Herodotus is a strong
argument against it.
The most probable explanation of the oracle is to be found in tiie story
of Telesilla; if this be true in the main (I must refer to Macan ad loc. for
the strong reasons which can be adduced for this view), then the oracle is a
riddling Q,cco\\nt post eventum of what had happened. If on the other hand,
the oracle be genuine (either as a whole or in part), and was really given to
the Argives (Herodotus himself says the Milesians were not present), its general
meaning is so obscure that it proves nothing. The oracle of Delphi might
well, between 530 and 520 B.C., have vented its spite against Miletus * by
interpolating into an Argive oracle a warning which the position of affairs
in Ionia at the time rendered likely of fulfilment.
And it is worth noticing that, in other oracles beside this, the attitude
of the Delphic Oracle to Miletus was the reverse of friendly : that city
and its Italian partner Sybaris are assailed in tones of prophetic reviling.
This fact would render easier the belief that the oracle so far forgot itself as
to abuse a city unconcerned in the consultation of the moment.
But this is only a suggestion ; and I should also have thought that the
double nature of the oracle is in itself a most suspicious circumstance. It
would be hard, I think, to quote a real parallel to it.
In any case the obscurity of the oracle is a slight argument for the earlier
date ; Herodotus is far better informed about what happens in the fifth
century than he is about the events of even the last quarter of the sixth
century; it is sufficient to compare his accounts of the second and the third
Aeginetan Wars.
^ This theory is C. Niebuhi's. For the argii- trate and accentuate a problem,' itonry obscures
meats for it, I can only refer to Mr. Bury's it.
pages : lo me it seems not worth discussing ; so * Cf. Tjouche-Lcclerc([, Ilistuiredc la Divina-
far from 'such divination' serving 'to illus- tion, iii. pp. 129-130.
o 2
196 J. WELL8
Let us now turn to the evidence in Herodotus wliich seems to show
that the Argive defeat was early in the reign of Cleomcnes V, not at the end
of it.
The first passage, wliich is entirely neglected by Grote, is vi. 02 ;
Herodotus describes how 1000 volunteers went from Argos to help Aegina
in the third Aeginetan War; it must be noted too that they went against
the wish of the state, which had good cause to complain of Aegina for
lending ships to Cleomenes. Now the date of this war is uncertain ; but it
cannot be later than 485, and may be earlier than 4!)(). (Jan we suppose that
a state depopulated of its warriors would in less than 10 years, perhaps in
five, be sending out 1000 warriors in a quarrel that did not concern it ?
I have already referred to the position of Argos and its apparent strength
in the Persian war; but what followed? At some period between 475 and
405, Argos was able once more to dispute the hegemony of the Lacedae-
monians in the Peloponnese : I refer of course to the battle of Tegea (Hdt.
ix. 35). This renewal of the age-long struggle between Argos and the
Lacedaemonians is more probable after fifty years than after twenty-five. It
may be objected that, according to my own theory, the struggle was renewed
in the preceding centuiy after only one generation, for the war ' of the 300 '
(Hdt. i. 82 .s*^.) was about 550, and the battle of Sepeia about 520. But the
cases are not parallel : there is no evidence that the defeat of Argos in the
middle of the sixth century was carried out with tlie awful thoroughness of
the Avork of Cleomenes. And there is a further point to be considered.
Herodotus tells us with considerable precision of the results of the Argive
defeat at Sepeia (vi. 83) ; so depopulated was the city that the SovXoi
became masters of it ' till the sons of the slain grew up,' a period f<jr which
we must allow something like twenty years ; then followed a war in which
'the slaves' were 'driven out' to Tiryns ; then a period of reconciliation.
{apOfiia),^ and then the final war which lasted ' a considerable time,' and ia
which the Argives 'with difficulty' con(;|uered. If we place this victory and
the capture of Tiryns (with Busolt) about 472-1, it would certainly seem
that the twenty-four years between tiiis and 495 are much too few for the
recovery of Argos; I admit that on the other hand the fifty years since
520 seems a rather needlessly long time for recovery; but the difficulty of
excess of time is only an apparent difficulty.
There is another class of evidence bearing on the date of the recovery of
' The weakness of Argos in tlie fifth century Argos, tliough hei-self strong enough to reassert
has been inferred from the independence of her authority completely over her Perioikid
Mycenae and Tiryns : tliat the two towns were states, dares not do so till an ojiportunity occurs
independent, is shown by the fact that they when the Lacedaemonians cannot interfere. It
took part in the Persian war on tlie patriotic is during this period that Mycenae and
side. It do(;s not necessarily follow, however, Tiryns seek to assert their independence by
that we must nssiime the later date (circ. 495) joining the Griieks against the common foe ; to
for the defeat of Sepeia. If this took place about compare small things with great, their policy
520, the first generation (520-490) would be would be the same as that of Cavour joining the
occupied with the recovery of Argos ; then Allied Powers in the Crimean War, in order to.
follows this period of ' reconciliation ' in wliich bring Sardinia to the front.
CHRONOLOGY OF THE REIGN OF CLEOMENES I. 197
Ai-f^os. which must be iust referred to — I mean the evidence as to its school
of sculpture. Ageladas the Argive was the most famous sculptor of his day
in Greece, and in his school were trained Myron, Pheidias, and Polycleitus ;
the usual ilate for his ' floruit ' is from 500 to 460 " ; this seems required by
the fact that he is credited with trophies which must be subsequent to 468
and 460 respectively (Pausanias x. 10. 3; iv. 38. 3); if this be correct/it
seems to require us to assign Cleomenes' victory to the earliest possible date :
a depopulated and distracted city could hardly be the home of a flourishing
school of art.
To sum up then this part of my argument r the earlier date for
Cleomenes' expedition is supported by the fact that Argos was strong again
by 475, that she had abundance of warriors at least ten and perhaps fifteen
years earlier, and that at least thirty years must be allowed for the terrible
social changes which followed her defeat by Cleomenes.
I have still a good deal more to say as to the probability of the earlier
date, but it had better be said after I have discussed the reason for accepting
or rejecting the date given by Thucydides for the Atheno-Plataean alliance.
As everyone knows, he puts this (iii. 68) in the ninety-third year before the
capture of Plataea, i.e. in 519 ; but since Grote's argument against this date,
it has been usually given up, and one ten years later adopted ; it is indeed
quite easy to conjecture that the text (cf. Busolt ii. 399 n. 4, v. Macan ad loc.)
of Thucydides has become corrupt in its figures. Of the modern historians
quoted above, Meyer (ii. 780) still prefers the old date, following the sound
principle of ' when in doubt, trust Thucydides ' ; and Beloch (i. 340), without
pronouncing definitely, rejects Grote's arguments; the majority, however,
here also reject the old date and accept the new one.
What then were the grounds of the great English historian for leaving
the authority of Thucydides, a thing which, as he says, he was very unwilling
to do ? They are four :
(1) We cannot explain the presence of King Cleomenes in the neigh-
bourhood of Plataea in 519 ; in 509 it is easy, as he was then busy with the
settlement of Athens,
(2) Had the alliance been made in 519, the name of Hippias must have
occurred in the story ; for he then was ruler of Athens.
(3) The narrative of Herodotus (vi. 108) represents the Plataean alliance
as offered to Athens on the suggestion of Cleomenes, and further that this
suggestion was due to a desire to embroil Athens and Thebes. Yet Herodotus
represents the Peisistratidae as friends of the Lacedaemonians (v. 63).
« This date is accepted witliout question by gested by the dates of the three Olympic
Professor Waldstein in his gieat book on the victories commemorated by Ageladas (which
Argive Heraeum ; Pausauias attributes to fall between 520 and 507) ; but these may have
Ageladas works commemorating a Tarcntine been put up some time after the event. The
victory of about 468 (x. 10. 3), and a Messenian whole question is discussed by Frazer (Pausanias,
victory not earlier than 460 (iv. 33. 3) ; others iii. 438-9), who inclines to decide for the earlier
{e.j. Busolt, ii. 2. 561) aute-datehis 'floruit' to date on the ground of a recently discovered
520-480, i.e. make it precede the defeat of inscription ; his argument does not seem very
Argos by Cleomenes. This earlier date is sug- convincing.
19.S J. WELLS
(4) Herodotus tells us (v. 78) that the Athenians under the tyrants
wen^ unenterprising and cowardly ; how then can we credit them with
courageously helping Plataea, and with the brilliant victory over Boeotia,
described by Herodotus (vi. lUS) as following the alliance ?
Let us examine these arguments in d(*tail.
(1) The first sounds }»lau^ible, but does it really prove anything ? Wo
do not know why Cleonusncs should have been near Plataea in 519, But
why should we? ])o we know where he was in 518 or 517 or in any year
down to 510 ?
One thing, however, avc do know, which may enable us to r/ucsfi why the
Spartan king should have been in the north of the Peloponnese in 519, i.e. it
seems to have been in this decade that the Peloponnesian Confederacy was
being organized. This league certainly is fully developed about 509 (v. 91),
and its development must have taken some time. Surely then we have
some authority for sirpposing that Cleomenes may have been in the neigh-
bourhood of l^lataea at the time in question.
And 1 cannot help thinking that we may have a more definite trace
still in Herodotus' own narrative elsewhere. In v. 68 he tells us tliat the
ant i -Dorian arrangements of Cleisthenes at Sicyon lasted ' while Cleisthenes
was tyrant and wlieri he was dead also for sixty years.' Now Cleisthenes
died alx)ut 560 (the date is uncertain), and this would give about 500 for the
date of the revival of Dorian institutions at Sicyon ; but this date does not fit
in with our general knowledge of the period, and we may perhaps suppose
that Herodotus' informants (whom he imperfectly understood) reckoned 'the
sixty years' from tin- date of the establishment of the new tribal names; this
must almost certainly have been in the decade following 585 and Cleisthenes*
great triumjth in the first Sacred War. In that case the Dorian reaction at
Sicyon would bi; about 520, and would coincide with the victorious activity
of Cleomenes. This ])oint, iKnvever, cannot be pressed.
So much for Crete's first argument.
His second argument involves, it must be said, an entire misconception
of the nature of Herodotus' narrative. Without accepting all, or half, that
has been written on ' Quellenkritik,' it yet remains true that a ^considerable
advance has been made in our methods of studying Greek Instory since
Grote's time, by a careful attention to the authorities which underlie tlie
narrative of H(;rodotus. He was dependent for his facts on his informants;
lie cheeked them by his general principles of evi<lence ; but he had not, for the
sixth century at all events, a chronological scheme sufficiently fixed to enable
him to co-ordinate his different traditions. Hence Herodotus writing tlu;
story of the Plataean alliance from the month of a patriotic Athenian would
naturally hear nothing of Hippias in 519, although Hippias was ruling
Athens at the time ; and it Avould never occur to Heroth^tus hinjself to add
the name of the tyrant, although he had received (and recorded elsewhere)
evidence to show that the dij>lon)atic activity of the Pe:sistratidae was
widely spread over Northern Greece and the Aegean.
The same argument disposes of Grote's fourth point. No one now
CHRONOLOGY OF THE llETGN OF CLEOMENES T. 199
would bo likely to take literally Herodotus' words in v. 7<S ; the Atlieiiiaiis of
the Peisistratid time wen^ iu)t of the same heroic breed as tiie MapaOco-
vond-^ai; — that was wiiat Herodotus meant to say, and in that sense we
understand him — but they were already a people with imperial instincts and
(piite ready to welcome an alliance which opened to them the passes of
Cithaeron.
There remains Grotc's third argument, which I believe is generally
considered the most important, i.e. that the Peisistratidae were ' especially
friendly' to the Lacedaemonians, and that therefore Lacedaemonian diplomacy
was not likely to try to embroil thtsm in Boeotia. Beloch {ut supra), although
he tends to accept Thucydides' date, is contemptuous of Herodotus' argument,
and talks about ' borrowings from the relations of the fifth century.' Neitiier
Herodotus nor Beloch can give any absolutely certain information as to
motives ; but I would rather trust the inferences of the most widely travelled
Greek of the fifth century B.C. than the theories of a professor in his study at
the latter end of the nineteenth century A.D. But this is a question of taste.
Let us look at the facts. There is, I suppose, no doubt that the whole
policy of Cleomenes was to extend the influence of his countrymen in the
Peloponnese and in Central Greece : by this policy all his acts and his
refusals to act (which are quite as significant) can be explained. There is
also no doubt that the power of the Peisistratidae, based as it was on alliances
more or less formal with Argos, Eretria, Thebes, Thcssaly, ALacedon, and some
of the Aegean islands, was a most serious, it might be said, an insuperable
obstacle to his success. What more likely then than that the Lacedaemonians
endeavoured diplomatically to undermine^ their 'very dear friends,' the
Peisistratidae, before they attacked them. More must be said in a moment
as to the continuous policy that runs all through the reign of Cleomenes ; but
there are one or two further ])oints which must be made here, which especially
concern our special point, the date of 519 for the Atheno-Plataean alliance.
A curious coincidence of language has been pointed out by Meyer {ut siq^ra) :
Cleomenes (Hdt. v. 74), when invading Attica after his expulsion (about
508) found ' Oenoe and Hysiae,' 'the border denies of Attica,' an extension
of frontier, which Herodotus (in vi. 108) says was the result of the victorious
issue of the war that followed the Atheno-Plataean alliance ; but this, though
interesting, is certainly not decisive. But it may fairly be asked — which
date suits better the adoption of Plataea as an ally — 519, when Athens was
apparently in the height of her power, or 509, when she had just passed
through a revolution, was torn by faction at home, and had bitterly ex-
asperated the Lacedaemonians and their king? We know that at the later
date, 509, one party was prepared to purchase allies even at the price of
degrading s\ibmission to the Great King (v. 73). Would the state then have
deliberately gone out of her way to provoke an old ally? But in 519 the
alienation of Thebes is not unnatural ; the old tyrant had done his best to
^ Their jtolicy is an exact anticipation of time of the revolt of Thasos 50 years later.
tlieir policy towards their Athenian alhes at the
200 J. WELLS
keep on good terms with all his neighbours. The young tyrant was for a
spirited foreign policy and the extension of Athenian influence. The policy
of Peisistratus would have been wiser than that of Hippias, but — even apart
from "probability — modern analogies might make us doubt whether young
rulers are always wiser than their predecessors.
To sum up then the arguments for the early date, 519, for the Atheno-
Plataean alliance :
(1) It rests on the express statement of Thucydides.
(2) It suits the condition of things in Athens much better than the
later date.
(3) And the motives suggested by Herodotus for the Lacedaemonian
part in it are in accordance with all the traditions of their policy, and I hope
to show in accordance with their actions in this very decade.
For now we must turn to discuss the chronology of Cleomenes' acts from
the positive side, and show how, if we adopt the earlier date 520 for the
attack on Argos and 519 for the Atheno-Plataean alliance, a more consistent
scheme can be obtained for his character and actions than in any other way.
It is generally assumed, as has been said, that he ascended the throne about
520. Would he have been likely to take decisive action at once ?
So far Lacedaemonian policy had moved forward resistlessly from success
to success ; the century from 750 to 650 (to assume the traditional dates) had
given her the mastery over the south of the Peloponnese ; the century from
650 to 550 had, after a long struggle, culminated in making her paramount in
Arcadia. The close of this period had seen Argos decisively thrust back from
the border region (perhaps for the first time, perhaps when trying to undo
former defeats). The time was now ripe for another step in advance ; were
Argos out of the way, the Peloponnese could be formally united under
Lacedaemonian r]<yeixovia. That this was so the circumstances of the next
ten years proved ; it is probable that the young king saw it, and resolved to
strike at once. And he had private reasons for doing so ; his succession to
the throne was not a popular one ; if anything is clear from the narrative of
Herodotus, it is that Dorieus and Leonidas had a strong party in Sparta
(v. 42) from whom Herodotus derived much of his information. It is surely
then in accordance with probability that Cleomenes should have Avished to
show at once that he was a genuine son of Anaxandrides and to silence
murmurers by a brilliant success.
Probability then — apart from other evidence — would lead us to put the
Argive expedition early ; and the sequel confirms this. It has been suggested,
almost with certainty, that the decade from 520 to 510 saw the establishment
of the Lacedaemonian Confederacy ; but even apart from this, it seems to
me impossible to reconcile the certain facts as to Cleomenes in the first half
of his reign with the existence of a strong Argos. We know that in 510
and the following years, the Lacedaemonians interfered, or sought to
interfere five times in the affairs of Athens. Is it possible that this could
have been done so freely with a strong Argos threatening their flank all the
time ? Argos was certainly friendly to the Peisistratidae (of. Hdt. v. 94).
CHRONOLOGY OF THE REIGN OF CLEOMENEH I. 201
Why were not some of her GOOO warriors engaged either in the defence of
Attica (as the Tliessalians were) or in making a diversion in the Peloponnese?
But if we assume the date of 520 for the victory of Sepeia and the crushing of
Argos, all becomes clear : Cleomenes has a free hand in the Peloponnese and uses
it to organize the Confederacy ; and meantime he prepares for the next move
forward by sowing trouble for Athens at home. Modern diplomacy gives us
good instances of how a policy of blood and iron does not disdain to use
intrigue to prepare its way, and to isolate its enemies.
So far then from thinking that the attempt at estranging Athens and
Thebes in 519 needs explanation, I should liave thought that the date
justifies itself. The policy was a preparing of the way for the direct attack
on Athens which was to come in 510. But it will be objected at once that
the attack of 510 is said by Herodotus to have been due only to the Delphic
Oracle, corrupted it is true, by Alcmaeonid gold and marble, but none the
less obeyed implicitly by Cleomenes and his people. Now I confess that
I do not like departing from the statements of Herodotus, but it is
necessary not to overlook several obvious points.
(1) The whole business happened more than thirty years before he was
born, and he was therefore completely dependent on his informants.
(2) These informants were certainly Lacedaemonians and Delphians in
this part of his narrative, and perhaps Alcmaeonids also.
(3) And what they told him was the truth, but not the whole truth. It
•was quite true that the ordinary Lacedaemonians heard with wearisome
iteration 'Athens must be delivered.'
The only detail omitted was that this message was dictated as much by
Lacedaemonian policy as by Alcmaeonid intrigue. What happened was
surely this; the old policy of putting down tyrants and putting up ohgarchies
(i-rriryjSeiai roU AaKeBaifiovioi<;) had pretty well attained completion in the
Peloponnese.
Cleomenes thought he saw an opportunity of carrying it out in
Central Greece as well. But the ordinary Spartan did not see so far ahead
as the king, and therefore a little religious pressure was applied to encourage
him. It will hardly be said that we are doing Cleomenes an injustice in
suggesting that he knew how to work an oracle ; it is surely more probable
that, where intrigue was concerned, he was one of the deceivers, not one of
the deceived.
The story of Herodotus is three parts true and the fourth part is sup-
pressed, because it was no one's interest to tell it. Cleomenes made a
mistake, for he could not foresee that Athenian democracy was ready to come
forth when the pressure of the rvpawi^ was removed ; he was the ablest
statesman in Greece, but a man of ' blood and iron ' was constitutionally
incapable of estimating the power of the Solonian ideas, which had been
working for three quarters of a century in Athens. When he found that he
had cast out tyranny only to let in a still worse enemy to Lacedaemonian
T)j€fiovia, he conveniently suppressed his mistake. And it was not likely the
Alcmaeonidae would reveal it; there were too many shady pages in the
•202 J. WELLS
liistory of tiiat great family for tlieiii to bo eager to tell the world in the fifth
century tliat their patriotic hostility to Cleomenes had begun in sharing with
liitn a not very creditable intrigue.
If then this version of the facts can be trusted, we have for the first lialf
of the reign of Cleomenes a brilliant success, followed by wide and permanent
results in the Peloponnese, and a brilliant failure, which simply showed how
easily the best laid plans go astray.
The character of the rest of the reign of Cleomenes is very different.
The failure at Athens and the quarrel with Demaratus, who constantly
thwarted his plans, seem to liave changed his character and certainly
rendered Inm unpopidar; this I think may fairly be assumed from Herodotus'
accounts of his latter days; we shall hardly believe that he was suffering from
the wrath of Demeter, as the Athenians said (vi. 75), or of Apollo, as the
Greeks generally said (ib.), or of the hero Argos (ib.), as the Argives said.
We shall be more inclined to believe that he suffered from intemperance,
though it is more likely that this was the cause of the story that the Scythians
visited Sparta (vi. 84) than the lesult of that visit. It seems difficult to
think that Cleomenes would have been credited with madness and intemper-
ance for nothing. Those who put his greatest success in the last period of
his reign ought to account for the unfavourable tradition that certainly
prevailed as to him in Herodotus' clay. It is easy to explain, if ten years of
success were followed by twenty years of failure ; it is difficult to reconcile
with the activity successfully maintained to the last, which is postulated by
the late date for the Argive expedition. Perhaps even the strange statement
of Herodotus in v. 48 may be partially explained in this way. It is very odd
to say of a king who reigned at least thirty years that he ' reigned no very
long time ' ; as Macan has well pointed out (ad loc), Herodotus may have
been thinking for the moment only of the fact that the brother of Cleomenes
succeeded him : the historian was never very strong in chronology. But
Herodotus' mistake is the easier if the brilliant part of the reign of Cleomenes
was concentrated in the first twelve years.
It may be said that I am neglecting the events of the very end of his
reign, the deposition of Demaratus, the crushing of Aegina, the exile, the
flight to Thessaly, the intrigue in Arcadia ; but these shows of vigour would
confirm rather than refute the gloomy opinions held at Sparta of the latter
part of the great king's reign. His feverish activity was disastrous to his
country, or would have been called so in the next generation : he strengthened
the hereditary foe by weakening Aegina, he was the cause of the first of that
long succession of royal banishments which shed a gloom over Sparta in the
fifth century, and he showed the weakness of Lacedaemonian hegemony by
anticipating (vi. 74) the most serious blow which it was to suffer from the
great Epaminondas more than a century later. ' Better,' a Spartan would
have said, ' any amount of sloth than such activity as that of Cleomenes in
the last short period of his life.'
I have not attempted to discuss the chronology of these last years,
because it seems to me the data are (juite insufficient. It certainly appears.
CnitONOLOGY OF THE REIGN OF CLEOMENES T. 203
tliat. sonic of these final acts of Cleoinencs must be subsc(|uent to Maratlioii,
and it is most natural to put his death about 488. But, as I have said, there
is no real evidence on the point ; and in any case it does not matter.
Clconiencs' activity at the beginning of his reign had been the determining
force in Greece ; all agree tliat he was th(i final organizer of Lacedaemonian
^ye/xoiaa and the (involuntary) creator of the Athenian democracy. His
later acts have no results ; the old order of things had changed, and new
problems had to be faced by new actors.
To sum u[) my ])oints then ; it seems :
(1) That the early dating of the successes of Cleomenes suits all the
passages in Herodotus — except the mysterious oracle.
And it enables us to accept the direct statement of Tliucydides.
(2) What is to my mind as important, it suits the whole tone of
Herodotus' narrative as to Cleomenes.
(3) It is in accordance with all probability. Cleomenes is one of those
meteor-like princes whose reign begins witii success, and ends with gloom.
He is like Francis I, of France or Charles XII. of Sweden. But I confess
I am unable to find a parallel for him if he crowned the last years of his
long reign with his most brilliant success, and yet, in spite of it, died under
a cloud of obloquy.
(This paper was read in substance before the Oxford Philological Society
in May, 10U4. I have tried to incorporate certain points wliich were raised
in the discussion which followed.)
J. Wells.
THE GREEK WARSHIP.
{Continued from page 156.)
II.
E.
The evidence considered under D makes it, I think, impossible that the
accepted theory can be true as regards the larger polyereis of the first three
centuries B.C., which clearly were galleys a scaloccio of some sort. If what
is put forward under A be true, the reason why the accepted theory was
invented ^' and has been so largely believed disappears. Nevertheless, there
is still room for evidence that will support the accepted theory as to triremes
generally, the quadriremes and quinqueremes of the fourth century, and the
biremes of the first ; and the theory may be true, even if the words thranite,
zugite, and thalamite do refer to another arrangement.
For a trireme, said Cartault, the evidence is overwhelming. Unfor-
tunately he omitted to mention what it was, and with the best will in the
world I have been unable to discover it. Assmann (1610) relied solely on
the monuments. Luebeck however gives Schol. on Aelian's Taclica, Schol.
on Frogs 1074 (see under A\ Arr. Anah. 6, 5, 2 (see under B), Pollux 1, 87
(see under ^), diudi Frogs 1074. Let me add Livy 33, 30, Aesch. .^^am. 1617,
Luc. Phars. 3, 529 scq.
The Scholion on Aelian'^^ (which I do not consider evidence) would be
quite well satisfied by a galley, whether one a zenzile or one a scaloccio, in
which the rows of rowers, taken as parallel^ to the long axis of the ship, should
rise somewhat from the side of the ship toward the long axis. The phrase
' exstructi remigis' of Luc. Phars. 3, 530'^ may well refer to the same thing;
^^ According to Luebeck, its first modern Annotation.
supporter was Scaligcr, relying on Soliol. "^ Validaeque triremes
Frogs, 1074. But it existed wlien De Baif ' Quasque quater surgens exstructi leniigis
wrote in 1536. ordo
^' T) fiovf}pris Kol Si-fipris Koi i<p(^ris Kara tovs Commovet,
arlxovs TOVS Kori rh Si|/oj iir' a\\i}\0Ls. Should Celsior at cunctis Bruti praetoria pupjiis
anyone think I am unfair to the scholiasts, I Verberibus senis agitur niolemque pro-
would now refer to the chapters entitled ' The fundo
explaining of obsolete words ' and ' The ex- Invehit et summis longe petit acquora
plaining of matters of fact' in Dr. Rutherford's remis.
recent volume A Chapter in the Bistort/ of
THE GREEK WARSHIP. 205
while the ' suminis...reinis ' of line 5,^7, translated of course as ' thrauite '
oars, really answers to celsior two lines earlier; Brutus' hexeres was higher
than the other sliips and its oars were (necessarily) the highest and longest
in the fleet. Again. IGl?**^ n)ay only mean that the thalamite scjuad were,
or had once been, somewhat nearer the water than the zugite squad, as is
probable enough ; unless veprepa be a m(>re convention. Frogs 1074,^^^
taken literally, is of course dead against every version of the accepted theory,
except Graser's : it no more suits Assmann than it does Bauer, Fincati, or
Weber; moreover that ^aX<//xa^ = ^a\a/AtT»7«» is mere Scholiast's guesswork.
It is undoubtedly a bit of slang; Fincati refers to a similar expression in the
Venetian dialect, and probably a professor of argot could parallel it in every
language.
There remains Livy, 33, 30.^'^ Bauer (p. 462) and Weber have recognised
the truth of the old view that the larger polyereis were named from rows of
rowers; but the use of ordines remoruni (or versus remorum) recjuires
clearing up. It is obvious that, on any theory, it was a matter of indifiference
in a trireme, with one man to one oar, whether one said ordines remorum or
ordines remigum. The Romans seem to have inclined to ordines remorum,
the Greeks to a-Tol^ot, epertov. When the galleys a scaloccio came in,
ordines remorum ceased to be correct, but people went on using it ; instances
of such ' survivals ' are common enough in English. This is strongly borne
out by a passage in Florus, which has not been cited : 2, 21 (4, 11) Antony's^
ships at Actium had a senis in novenos remorum ordines, Octavian's a binis
remigum in senos ordines. They were of course built on the same system ; it
was indifferent which phrase was used.^^ Ordines remorum then means only
' rows,' like ordines.
The only two phrases in all this that are of much use to an upholder of
the accepted theory are Lucan's exstructi remigis and the Scholion on
Aelian. One cannot build a theory on one epithet in a poet, and both phrases
are, I think, easily explicable ; but in case anyone should suggest that I find
it convenient to say that the Scholion on Aelian (whatever it may mean) is
not evidence, I would point out that, if I may cite scholia, there is one on
Thuc. 7, 40, 5 which almost settles the question.^*
*** ov toDto (pttivfis vtpTfpa 7rpo(T7)^«»'os ^ Qnani sexdecim versus remorum agebant.
KiiTTTi, KparovvTicv Twv ^itl ("JV 5op<Js ; A translation of fKHaiStK-fipris in the correspond-
We have hero a reference to a ship in which ing passage in Polybius.
the zugite was the most important person, and ^ This may help to explain Lucan's ' senis-
so not a trireme ; and as it is too early for a verberibus' (n. 79) which refers to one hexeres
bireme, it bears out section B ; it was a ^lov-hpris only, and should on the accepted theory be
5»*cpoTos. The importance of the zugite here sex verberibus, if it were to refer to the beat of
came from his being the stem oar ; see n. 30. the six banks. It means ' with sixfold strokes '
Is it not possible however that the contrast 'strokes worked (or made) by six (men)
is between oarsmen and fighting men, with a apiece.' Lucan's qnadriremes liavc not four
play upon Sop6s ? ordines, but a fourfold ordo.
81 irpoffirapSfTv «j rh (rrd/ua t# flaAa^oKi. ** Thuc. 7, 40, 5 the Syraoisans in boats is
Anyone inclined to take this literally should rovs rapffovs virovlwroyrts ritv ■woXttxiuv vtSiv.
read Jurien de la Graviere's remarks in La Schol. vitoZv6tJ.*voi vvh rovs rapoovs. If the
Marine des Jnciens. schol. be right, as Bauer supposed, the accepted
206
\V. W. TARN
Now as to the moiunuents. Breusiiig was the first to call for a
thorough-going criticism. How badly it was (and is) wanteil anyone can sec
who will refer to the astounding cases of misuse given by Mr. Torr in his
preface (p. ix) : and these are by no means the only instances.^''
Omitting coins and Trajan's column, we are supposed to have about
15 representations of birernes, 3 of triremes, and none of larger ships. Of
the 'triremes,' only one really matters, the so-called Lenormant relief in the
Acropolis Museum at Athens (possibly fourth century ).*^*' The ' bireines '
fall into two groups, one belonging to the seventh and sixth centuries, the
other to Hellenistic and Roman times. The most important of the latter
group are the prow from Samothrace, in the Louvre (the only monument we
can check by written evidence) ; the ship from the Temple of Fortune
at Praeneste, in the Vatican Museum ; and the Palazzo Spada and Ludovisi
ships.
I do not count the river boats on Trajan's column. If any one cites them
in proof of superposed banks, I may also cite them as proof that the upper
oars were rowed over, or through, a fretwork railing, the lower without port-
lioles ; that the rowers used their oars like Canadian canoe paddles,®^ had
theory is in a had way, of course. But the
schol. must be wrong. The same phrase iu Dio
Cass. 50, 32, 8 clearly means driving the ship
across the oars so as to break them ; he
adds Kal ras Kwiras avvapaaaovTis ; and warships
could not go under. Cf. Polyb. 16, 4, 10
ffjLirivrSvTwv is tovs rapaovs.
^^ See Bauer 367 n. 1 on the so-called Malay
birenie. See also two startling sections of tri-
remes in Kopecky, Die Attischen Trieren(lS90)
plates 21 and 22, which he calls 'sehr be-
achtenswerthe Abbildungen alter Schifl'e,'
from Rondelet. 'Die erste (fig. 21) ist der
Abdrnck einer Medaille ' etc. On turning up
Rondelet (1820) I found, of. course, they were
Kondelet's own sections, the most worthless of
guesswork ; of fig. 21 Rondelet does not even
pretend to figure, or refer to, any original, but
merely labels it ' after a medal.'
*® The two triremes in the Naples Museum,
figs. 1676 and 1691 in Baumeister, tlie first
from Pompeii and the other from Puteoli, are,
I think, of no great value, as the top oars
could hardly reach the water ; but the way
the oars are laid in threes, one actually upon
the other, can be meant for nothing but
three oars to a bench all issuing in a sheaf
from one opening. The spirited Isis-temple
ships, the only ones that give any idea of
the general look of an ancient warship, are
of no value for the 'problem.' I have not
seen any representation of the Ulubad ' bi-
reme ' ; but according to B.C.H. 12, 190 the
oars (14 in number) are in groups of two, side
by side. If not a moneres, it would seem to
add little to what can be learnt from the
Palazzo Spada ship. Two recent discoveries,
the ship on a metope of the Treasury of the
Sicyoniaus at Delphi (see Assmann in Jahrb.
190.^, p. 32), and a graffito on the wall of a
tomb near Anfushi bay in Egypt, to which
Mr. G. F. Hill kindly referred me (Dr. G.
Botti in Bull, de la Soc. Archtol. d'Alcxandric
(1902) p. 13 seq. and Admiral BloniReld ib.
p. 37), «lo not bear on the problem of tlie oars ;
though the latter ship (called late Ptolemaic)
is interesting as showing a further development
of the navis ignifera used by the Rhodians in
190 li.c.
*' Every oarsman will sympathise with
Arenhold, Die hisforische Entwicklung dcr
Sehiffbtypcn (1891), when he says bluntly that
every monument on which the oars ' ganz steil
in's Wasser tauchen ' is self-condemned. I
would like to say the same of every similar
reconstruction, and of every monument whicli
shews an oarsman grasping the oar from under-
neath and with no possibility of getting his
feet against anytliing. Mr. G. C. V. Holmes,
Ancient and Modern Ships (1900), suggests
that the monuments shew that the art of row-
ing was not understood till the Liburnian came
ill. But some mediaeval pictures also shew
the oars at an absurd angle ; e.g., C. A. Levi,
Navi Venete, pis. 28 and 31 ; and it seems incredi-
ble that any people sliould row for centuries
without discovering the proper angle for the
oar to make with the water.
TllK GREEK WARSHIP. 207
one hand amler tlie handle, and sat bolt upright at the end of the stroke,
and that a bireme had only eight oars aside, and a long list of other
absurdities. The oars of the ' trireme,' in particular, are just plastered on
anyhow ; and it is an open boat. ' The design ' says Mr. Torr ' makes little
|)retensions to accuracy.' It is high time that it vanished from the text
books.
And I need hardly say that I do not count dal Pozzo's sketch, interesting
as it is ; for it is not known from what it is taken. ^^
The prow from Samothrace. Assmann has been much praised for
calling this a bireme. But, apart from the question whether the holes seen
in the monument are really portholes,**^ if one assumes, as certainly Assmann
does, and I think every one else, that the monument celebrates Demetrius'
victory at Salamis, certain consequences seem to follow as matter of history,
which must be considered.
In Alexander's lifetime (piintjueremes were the highest value in use.^"
Somewhere between his death and the first Punic war the change of system
that introduced tiie scaloccio galley (see section D) must have taken place : ''^
and as the higher values undoubtedly took their origin as fighting machines
from the time when Antigonus the One-eyed resolved to build a fleet and
command the sea (Diod. 19, 58 and 62), we shall not be far Avrong in assum-
ing that the change of system originated at the same time (though this is
not perhaps very material), both alike being due to the inventive mechanical
genius that made Demetrius famous as the Besieger of Cities. Demetrius
with the new fleet, including seven heptereis and ten liexereis,-'- beside smaller
values, sailed for Cyprus, and met Ptolemy, who (naturally) had nothing
larger than quinqueremes, at Salamis. Demetrius massed his strength,
including all his heptereis and hexereis, on his left wing, which he led in
person on a hepteres ; and the picture given by Diodorus of Demetrius in
** Graser published it {Arch. Zcit. 1874 that thi; Carthaginians had got the new system
vol. 32, p. 71). It is now in the British and the Romans had not. Polybius does not
Museum (Dept. of Gr. and Koni. Antiij.) It is say that they copied a stranded quincpiereme ;
certainly not a drawing of the Lenormant relief. he says (1, 20, 15) that they built their whole
**" Two slits in the irapt|fip6<n'a, on which fleet [i.e. quinqueremes and triremes) on the
Kins, Das Iludcrn bei den Altai (1896), has model of a stranded cataphrad. lime's criti-
based what appears to be an attractive theory cism (lloni. Gcach.- 2, 49), that they had
•of the ^LfKirXovs. I have not seen his book. Syracusan models to hand, is beside the point.
Torr follows Graser in saying the holes are for We, for instance, had many English models
ropes for an anchor : but if so they should be to hand in the Napoleonii; war; yet I have
further forward. If they are not portholes, read that we often coiiied the lines of Fiencii
this hepteres had seven men to an oar, as the prizes.
fiioimincnt shews that no oars could be rowed "' According to Diod. 19, 62, three ennereis
anywhere except through, or resting on, the and ten dekereis were built. This may be an
3rap«|€ip€(Tio. anticipation ; anyhow, they did not go into
"" Witli a possible reservation in favour of action. I'lutarch gives no details of size,
one or moie hexereis in Sicily, n. 51. Beloch, Gr. Gcsch. iii. 1, 159 n. 1, defends
"' I'olyliius has been so abused for saying Diodorus' account, as against Niese, and .says
that the Romans had no experience of building it is the best picture of a sea-fight of the time
<iuinqueremes and required a Carthaginian that we possess. This seems to overlook the
mwlel, that I ftel the utmost diilidence in battle of Chios just a century later,
suggesting that the basis of the story is merely
208 W. W. TARN
action on the stern of his big ship, rejoicing in the battle, witli liis three
armour-bearers fallen round him, is not only entirely in character with all
that we know of Demetrius, but is the sort of picture that becomes
traditional and gets handed down correctly. He gained a crushing victory,
due to his own big ships which he had led in person (his other wing was
defeated) ; and we might know, even if Diodorus had not expressly said so,
that Demetrius, being such as he was, could not help sending the biggest
ship he had to carry the news to his father. The impression the big ships
made in the Hellenistic world was great ; Demetrius built bigger and bigger;
Lysimachus tried to rival him;**^ in mere size the Ptolemies soon went far
ahead of all competitors. And in the face of this, how can the prow of
Samothrace represent anything but Demetrius' hepteres, any more than a
monument of Trafalgar could represent any ship but the Victory ? And if
this prow be a hepteres, the accepted theory goes by the board at once as
regards heptereis.
Assmann's selection of a bireme to explain this monument seems most
unfortunate. He calls it the ' swift Aviso ' sent to carry the news. Bufc
Diodorus (20, 53) says a hepteres (t?)i/ /j,eyLarr}v vavv) was sent : and one
cannot advance by throwing over even Diodorus without good reason and
taking to guesswork. If it is to be a bireme, one must begin by showing
that it has nothing to do with the battle of Salamis. But the real point is
that there is no evidence for the use of biremes at all till far later. I may
well have missed some inscriptions ; but subject to this, I believe that StTjprf^
hardly occurs in Greek at all, and not before Pollux (second century a.D.) ;
biremis is not found in Latin literature before Caesar and Cicero, or referring
to an earlier period than theirs^*; 8cKporo<; has already been dealt with,^^ and
only takes us back to the Mithridatic wars.
There is then no reason for calling the prow of SamothracS a bireme.
Its elucidation as such is a good instance of a method which seems to me a
wrong one.
The Dipylon 'biremes' have been explained as a first attempt at
perspective,^ and this may be true; but they may also be due simply to the
"^ Lysimachus' great okteves, the Xfoyro- going up stream and to get more power the
(pipos, is said to have distinguished itself in the oars had been double-banked for the occasion,
sea-fight between Ptolemy Kcraunos and Double-bank, ' to provide . . . with two rowers
Antigonus Gonatas ; Memnon 13= F. H. G. 3, for each oar' ; see Murray's Diet. s.v. I wish
oSi, Th f^aipfTov ll<pfpfv. The change of system to thank my friend Mr. Colin Campbell for
obviously came in before this ship was built, calling my attention to this word, which he
whatever Memnon's de-scription exactly means. tells me is still in use, and which aptly explains
^* Livy 24, 40 (nuntiantes, Philippum this puzzling passage. As to Pliny 7, 56, see
primum Apolloniam tentasse, lembis biremibus Ai)pendix.
centum viginti flumine adverse subvectum) is ^* See n. 40.
an apparent instance to the contrary. Hut we ** Pernice, Geometrische Vase mii SMffdar-
know all about these lembi, which Philip stcUuiuj {Jahrb. 1900, p. 92), on the ship
had built on the Illyrian model (Polyb. 5, 109) published by the late Dr. A. S. Murray, J.H.S.
and which fought so well at the battle of Chios; 1899 (vol. 19), 198. I gather that in 1900
and they were certainly not biremes (n. 60). Pernice no longer held the view he had taken
The explanation is flumine adverse ; they were in 1892 as to the fragments of dijiylon-ships,
THE GREEK WARSHIP. 209
desire of a very crude artist to show two sets of oars because he knew that f\
ship had a set on each side."^ It is difficult to see how any one ever took
such a ship as that in J.H.S. 1899, PI. VIIL, for a birenie of two superposed
banks; for even an artist of the Dipylon period maybe supposed to have
known that oars should be able to reach the water and not stop short in mid-
air. And if, as Pernice, Helbig, nnd von Wilamowitz have supposed, these
Dipylon ships are Athenian, how came Athens to return for a couple of
centuries to the more humble ships of a single bank ? A question often
asked and never answered. Assmann avoids it by calling the Dipylon ships
Phoenician.
There are three Assyrian reliefs from the palace of Sennacherib, one in
the British Museum, and two figured but not brought home by Layard, of
which one has no ram. These shew oars in two rows, at no great interval of
height, arranged in a zigzag thus *.■.*.•,, the lower oars in the intervals
of the upper one.s. The same thing is shewn on two ships on an Athenian
B.-F. vase of about 500 B.C. {B.M. Vases, b. 436), and possibly in the ship on
an Etruscan B.-F. vase {BJf. Vases, ii. 60), though this latter is of little value
for the arrangement of the oars. None of these ships can be biremes, which
are unknown to every writer before Caesar, The silence of Thucydides, who
gives a sort of history of shipbuilding, is most material.
The Praenestine ' bireme.' According to Assmann, this relief belongs
to the time of Augustus ; according to Torr, to about 50 A.D. It shews two
superposed banks with a very small interval between them ; perhaps it would
be more correct to say it shews the arrangement •.'.*.•.. The higher
bank issues from the outside of, the lower from the under part of, the
irape^eipea-la. The distance between the banks is too small for the accepted
theory, to which it gives no support ; but if it is in fact a bireme, then it
may support Bauer's theory for hiremes of the early cmijire. Whether it really
is a bireme seems to me, I confess, very doubtful. Biremes were undoubtedly
light and swift ; but, allowing that in this relief, if to scale, the oars would
be longer and the men smaller, it remains anything but a light or speedy-
looking ship; compare it with the Isis-temple ships, for instance. Then it
carries a turris. We do not know that a birenie never carried a tovvei',
certainly; but we do not know that it did ; I think the smallest ship referred
to with a turris is Eudamus' quadrireme at Side (Livy '6l, 24), and after all
one can only argue from the facts that are known.
rig3. 5 and 6 in his article in Ath. Milth. 17. upper rowers.
Assmann claims to have refuted Pernice, (Arch. "'' It is well known that almost all beginners
Anz. 1901, p. 98) ; and his point, that the will try to draw, not what they see, but what
Dipylon chariots shew one horse beyond and not they know to be tliere. A case exactly in point
over the other, is a fair one. But he does not appears to me to be the idea of some savages,
(apparently) deal with the three things that that a drawing in profile represents half a man
seem conclusive, viz. :— (1) the .supposed upper only. This would meet Assmann's point about
deck has no supports ; (2) the supposed upper the chariots. It is easy to shew the further
oars are cut off short on reaching the (supposed horse beyond the other, but very difficult thus
lower) deck, i.e., fall on the other side of it ; and to shew the further oarsmen.
(3) the steersman is lower than the supposed
H.S. — VOL, XXV. P
210 W. W. TARN
The Palazzo Spada and Ludovisi reliefs."** These are Roman copies of
the same Hellenistic original, of unknown date. The arrangement resembles
that in Fig. 2, ante, and the original may have been a bireme ; but it may
just as well have had several men to an oar. And the two copies do not
ao-ree. If it was a bireme, then Luebeck's definition in Pauly-Wissowa is
wrong, for its oars form one line in the water and not two.
Now as to the 'bireme' ([uestion generally. If the holes in the prow
of Samothrace are portholes, and supposing that the Praenestine ship is
not a biremis at all, but a largo admiral-ship, as is possible — note the laurel-
wreath — we get a breit-polyeres system in which two oars appear at une(jual
levels, a hepteres, e.g., being rowed by three and four men to the oars respec-
tively; again as at Venice.'"' This seems to me rpiite possible, and would
<!xplain the fact that every monument that we possess which shews or appears
to shew any form of superposition (except the two ships at Naples, Trajan's
column, and the ]3ipy]on vases) never shews anything but two rows arranged
thus •.*.*,*.; and we may perha})s imagine, founding ourselves on
the Assyrian reliefs and the black-figure vases mentioned before, that such
an arrangement of two rows has nothing whatever to do either with banks
or ordines or the terms ending in -ijpij'i, but is merely an arrangement of old
standing in the P^astern Mediterranean, applicable in many forms. As we
possess very many references to triremes, (piadriremes, and (juinqueremes,
and (omitting inscriptions of the Empire) very few indeed to bii'emes, to call
noaily eveiy monument a bireme is a historical absurdity. I would suggest
that fiom early times there were two arrangements; in one the oars issued
from the shij) in a straight, in the other in a zigzag, line ; from the former
was (lcvelo]>ed the trireme ; the latter, perhaps in abeyance in the 5th and
4th centuries, was again utilised, perhaj)s with modifications, for some of the
larger ])olyereis of Hellenistic and Roman times. This seems at any rate
worth coHsideration.^^*^ We have to explain Demetrius' hekkaidekeres somehow
and two oars of eight men apiece would be more feasible than one of six-
teen ^^\ As to what the zigzag arrangement precisely means, I have no
theory ; what is and is not mechanically possible in the way of alternation
must be left to others to say. I n)erely note the lines on which it would
"* ydircibcr, die Ifcllcnin/iachc llcUcfblldcr, that in iiiediiieval times more than ten men
I'ls. 10 1111(1 23'' vc.si>cctively. See the two to an oar were ever known. It is possil)le
togothor in ])ar.-Sagl. s, V. navis. that tlie iicrforinance of Demetrius' liekkai-
•''•' For such a hcjitcrcs at Venice, Fiiirati, dekeres, whicli so pleascil riutarcli's authority,
J). 196. It docs not liowever appear if the oars (Dnii. 43 rh rdxos koI rh tpyov a.^iudfaT6Tepoy
in the Venetian ship were at unequal levels. rov /xeyfOovs), wna only a 'contractor's trial'
'"" Tiiough I do not accc])t Jiaucr's hyjjo- with a picked crew and very favourahle con-
thesis of the larger polyereis, I thoroughly ditions. Yet Philadelphos' extraordinary fleet
agree with his conclusion ;' [Meiiicr Hy[)()tliese (Ath. 203d) cannot have been merely for
ziifolgc] ist es unmiiglich, den Ty[)ii.s eincs shew; thougli the account may be exaggerated,
Srhilles nach der Zahl der auf ciner Dar.stel- as Beloch supposes. Livy's translation of
lung sichtbarcn Ruderreihen zii bestinunen ' (KKaiStK-nprts (n. 82) seems to dispose of the
U'- 463). otlierwise attractive view that the higher terms
'"' Nothing larger than a dekeres is known were arliitrary and merely denoted so much
to have gone into action ; nor does it a])pear extra tonnage.
«
l> ti
212 W. W. TARN
ajipear that the ' bireme ' problem must be solved, if due regard be paid
to the evidence ; and I rather think that the bireme is the key to
the Avhole matter. For instance, I know of no evidence that the oars
of any ship ever formed two distinct lines in the water, let alone more
than two.i'^'i '
There remains the so-called Lenormant relief, (Fig. 3), which has (un-
fortunately) caught the popular imagination as the one remaining repre-
sentation of a trireme, largely owing no doubt to the inaccurate repre-
sentations originally published. As soon as accurate plates were available, the
idea tliat Y and Z were the oars of the two lower banks was seen to be
untenable in its original form, which took both Y and Z across the timber
EE and made A A the portholes of the lowest bank ZZ.^*^- Assmann
accordingly, while still calling Y and Z the 'zugite' and ' thalamitc ' oars,
has to place their ports below or under E E, (there is no sign of such ports in
the relief itself), and to treat the design in effect as an abnormal trireme,
with a very long ' thranite ' bank and two stunted lower banks of almost
efjual length ; and this explanation has been largely accepted.
If we take the relief as it now is, and if it is to be a trireme, no
explanation but Assmann's is possible, as I think will appear from the
subjoined letter ^"^ from Mr. R. Carr Bosanquet, who, in reply to some
questions of mine, kindly examined the original for me, not knowing for
what purpose I required it done. As to the matter of paint, or low relief,
now lost, this is of course a double-edged weapon ; and I submit that it is
indisputable, either that we must take the relief as we find it, or that we
must say that it is too worn to draw any deductions from, one way or the
other. The raised lumps A A cannot of course be portholes, as Assmann
saw.
Granted, however, that, if this relief is to be a trireme, Assmann's
explanation is, on the facts before ns, the only possible one, it is not easy to
take it seriously. Why are we entitled to invent portholes, when the relief
^"'^ One of Wd'cr's points i.s the single liuf 'I think Ton's drawing (which I liavi?
in the water. examined since looking at the stone) exaggor-
^''- Even as late as 1896 Eins is said to have atcs the disturbed surface of the water ; there is
taken Y, and Ilaack (whose iiaper I liave also a raised lump where X meets the water in the
not seen) Y and Z, across Eli. Since this case of oarsmen 1, 3, 4. No such lump in the
went to press, I see that the older view is still case of Y and Z ; but this must not be pressed.'
taken by Torr in Dar.-Sagl, and by Jlr. E. All these points come out clearly on a cast in
Conyl)eare, Trirnncs, 1904. the Inner Temple Library, which also shews
Wi i jJq sign of Y and Z crossing ova- the another point referred to by Mr. Carr Bosan-
transver.se pieces. The surface is much quet, and not appearing in Fig. 3, viz., that
weathered and perished, and they may have X seems to pass over F in the case of oar.smen
done so in very low relief, now lost— or even in 3, 6, and 8, as well as 1. The raised lump in
paint; no doubt the thing was made far more the water round X, as compared with the
intelligible by the colouring (of which naturally smoothness where Y and Z meet it, is most
no trace remains, but it must have been there). distinct in this cast. The figure in Baumei^,t( r,
AAA are rounded knobs projecting vertically reproduced by Luebeck. is from a ca^st in
above the transverse strip E, but with their Berlin, but is (admittedly) much touchnl up
faces in the same plane as the face of E.' . . . and ' completed.'
THE GREEK WARSHIP. 213
does not shew them, and when there is no evidence, monumental or other-
wise, for portholes ^^^ low down on the ship's side in a polyeres ? How,
if Ave are to invent them, can they be placed 10 inches, or even a
foot,^"-'^ above the normal waterline, where the least sea would prevent
the oarsmen from clearing the water, and where a slight roll, or some
change in the waterline,^"*' would send them under water altogether ? And
how, if we do place them there, could the oars be got* in and out quickly in
the Face of the enemy, as was done ? ^''^ And why, if this be an Athenian
trireme, has it no irape^eipeata, which is well attested by Thucydides for
the fifth century and Polyaenus for the fourth ? And why are Y and
Z to be distinguished from the precisely similar streak (not lettered)
running parallel to the upper part of Y, which cannot by any possibility
be an oar ?
Neither are we justified in supposing this to be an abnormal trireme.
There probably was another type, the trihemiolia ; ^^'^ but short of eluci-
dating this relief as a trihemiolia, should anyone care to, we are bound
to suppose that triremes, at one and the same time, were all of one type as
regards the arrangement of the oars.^'^'' Fifth century : Thuc. 2, 93 ; Brasidas
led over the Isthmus crews from the fleet of the allies, furnished by a
number of different states ; they all brought their oars, confident that these
would fit the Megarian triremes at Nisaea ; and they did. Fourth century :
for Athens alone the lists are conclusive. For Athens and Sparta, excerpta
Polyaeni 40, 2, Iphicrates deceives the Laconisers of Chios by sailing in Koafiw
AaKcovtKco : had there been a ditiference in oarage he could not have hidden
1"^ Even Mr. Tori's storehouse of quotations were such ; the only passage is Zonaras, who
fails here. Herod. 5, 33 (which I shall come shews his ignorance by saying that the affKu-
to presently) is certainly not such evidence. /aara were fastened to the oars, the Athenian
Pollux' Tpiifiara is quite satisfied by openings lists shewing that they were fastened to the
in the iiap6|eip«(n'a ; and none other apfiear on trireme. Pollux 1, 8S rb irphs aiirf rcji (tkuKu^
the Praenestine and Palazzo Spada shii)S, and Sepfjia HffKu/jLa is more likely to be correct. But
perhaps I may add on the prow of Samothrace. I suppose that the notion that the most intelli-
(The portholes arc however low on the Delphi gent people in the world first 'honeycombed'
ship, which is a moneres ; but the gunwale the sides of their triremes with holes larger
is low also). daKafila is not connected with than a man's head, and then covered the holes
thalamite, technically, and does not mean the with leather bags t<;^ keep out the water, will
thalamite ports, but any port (Ar. Ach. 553) or die very hard. Why some of the text book
any opening (Ar. Peace, 1232). writers believe that the oars were put out from
105 'porr^ p 45^ ^yj,o takes AAA as the the inside, blades first, instead of having the
thalamite portholes, about one foot above the handles passed in from outside, is to me a
water, but points out the difficulty of squeezing puzzle. It also seems to me to be a grave
in the rowers. question whether oars could be rowed at all
1"* See section D (d), and n. 75. through the sides of a boat as light as a trireme
'"^ Polyaen. 5, 22, 2. Note that the oars without pulling her to pieces in a short time.
were not merely drawn inboard, but taken '* See n. 11.
right out. The same manoeuvre in Polyaen. ^'" I do not mean more than 'at the same
1, 47, 1 ; 3, 11, 3; excerpta Polyaeni 57, 9. time.' "We cannot for instance prove that
This is obviously dead against the portholes the arrangement of the fourth century was
being covered with leather bags, the only alleged that of the first. See however under F. Some
support for which is the Praenestine ship. writers assume a new arrangement of oars to
There is no proof that the Athenian affKcifnara explain each monument.
214 W. W. TARN
it, but must have betrayed himself at once. So exc. Pol. 58, 3. And as a
general maxim of warfare, the same in exc. Pol. 57, 1. We do hear of
considerable differences between the models of different states, both as to
triremes and quinqueremes, but always in one respect only, weight or
stoutness ; a difference of oarage is never hinted at.
But the real objection to Assmann's view is, that it demands (judging
by eye) an upper bank of oars that shall bo more than twice the length
of the two lower banks. Such a ship is impossible ; for if one thing be
more certain than another, it is that oars of different lengths, where the
difference bears more than a certain proportion to the length, cannot be
rowed together, by one man to an oar, so as to be of any real use or turn out
an efficient ship. That they might be rowed together in a certain way for
a short time I do not deny; but the huge increase in the ratio of dead weight
to power would at once put an end to all idea of speed or efficiency. ^'°
The Lenormant relief is, in fact, a moneres, and a simple one, as Bauer
has always said ; ^^^ and Y and Z are part of the hull.
F.
I trust I have now made probable the five propositions with which I
started. The deductions from them — remembering that we have to do with
reasonable probabilities only and not certainties — are, first, that a quinque-
remc of tlie last three centuries jj.c. was a comparatively light galley of five
men tn an oar; secondly, that the ships from hexereis to dekereis may have
been siinilai- galleys of so many men to an oar, or may have been some other
f(jrni of sealoccio gallc}, r.;/., one rowing two sets of oars in the arrangement
*.*.'.•.; and thirdly, that Roman biremes may well have been nothing
but dou])lc -banked monereis, perhaps modified a little ; this last however is
mere o})inion.
It is however pretty clear on the evidence that the accepted tlieory
"" 1 am lioiiiul to iclcr to tliis conhnvcisy, (lisiiroiioitionatc increase in dead wcij^ht.
on wliieli so mncli lias been written in Scliniidt licrc alviOKl takes up tlie jiositiun
(iirniany, and wliii-li lias produced the greatest that, if practical oarsmanship forbids his
gem of the whole trireme-liteiaturc, the deductions, so mucli the worse for j)ractical
theor}' tliat the ' thalamites ' may have taken oarsmanship: the ' thranites ' had 'crhchJkh
4 strokes and the '/ugites' 2 to the 'thranites' laiigere Kiemcii. . . . Uni dieseu Schluss
1, hccnusf a pianist can play in three-time kommen wir nun einmal nicht heium, wir
with oin- liand and four-time with the other. niogen uns drehcii und weuden, wic wir
Given moic than a certain proportionate wollen. Die namhaft vcrsc/tiedcn langcn
dilfeienec in length, it is matter of mathe- Kicmen, also audi nllr ilo-c Konscqucuzcn, sind
matical denionstiation, us well as practical feststelicndc 'J'hatsaohe ' (p. 17 ; italics mine),
knowledge, that the oars cannot l)e rowed Once more, whatever thranite means, there is
together by one man to each oar so that each no evidence of any sort that the thianite oars
oar sliould do its best and each man pull his were mucli longer than the others.
weight, i.e., his own and his share of the ship's ; '" Bauer remained of the same opinion after
and therefore cacli added bank after the lirst examining the original ; see his review of
nieaiis a relative loss in power, owing to the Schmidt in N^euc Phil, llundnchau, 1900 p. 301.
THE GREEK WARSHIP. 215
cannot ai)[)Iy to any of the above ; but the question of the trireme, Greek
and Roman, and of the quadriremes and quinqueremes of the fourth century,
is still open.
Herod. 7, 30 : Xerxes' bridge over the Hellespont was laid on triremes
and pentekontors. Tliey were therefore of approximately equal iieight ; and
this seems to me very strong against the accepted theory, as regards Phoe-
nician and Ionian triremes of 480 B.C.
Assuming the similar low elevation of an Athenian trireme, which is
also a necessary consetiuence of its shallow draught, there remain only two
theories, those of Bauer and Fincati respectivel}-. To adopt Bauer's, one
has to say, first, that the Praenestine ship is a bireme, and, secondly,
that one can argue from a Roman bireme of the time of Octavian to a
Greek trireme of the time of Pericles. Both these views are feasible
enough, and I think therefore that Bauer's theory must remain a possible
one. But for my part I do feel a great difficulty in arguing from a
given monument to a ship of four centuries earlier. It is a question of
individual opinion, no doubt; a rowing galley has only limited possibilities of
develo})ment, and the great pace at which ancient fleets were built, indubit-
able even if exaggerated in detail, may well point to stereotyped models ;
but if I am right as to biremes not being in use till the first century B.C., I
do not feel that they can have much bearing on the Athenian trireme. If
this should be correct, the direct evidence for Bauer's view of the Athenian
trireme has gone. Moreover I do not think Bauer claims that his view will
explain the fourth century (juadriremes and quin([uerenies, which must be
explained ; and it may be that Fincati's will.^^'^
Was a trireme then in the nature of a zenzile galley, with three men on
a bench ?
Galen, dc usn part. 1, 24. Why are the fingers of diffei-ent lengths and
the middle one the longest ? In order that when they close round an object
the ends may come equal. 8o in triremes ^'■' the ends of the oars all fall
even {i.e., make one line in the water) though the oars are not of e(|ual length \
for there too [;i.c., in the trireme as well as the hand) the jxeaai are made the
longest (note that he refers to the oars and not only to the inboard portions)
for the same reason. These last words can only mean ' in order that the ends
of the oars may form one straight line like the ends of the fingers.' Now
if any oars were the longest, considered as a group, it was the thranite oars,
^^- Fincati seems clear tliat no zenzilc galleys Athenian lists do not really prove that the
larger than triremes were in use at Venice ; oars of a trireme weie used for a (;iuadrireme.
but it is generally asserted, on Panteia's ''' Kuddirep ol/xai Khv rais Tptrtpfai to. irepaTo.
authority, that quinijuerenies a zenzile were riv kwituv els Xaov i^iKvetTat, Kairoi y' ovk
used. In Panteni's time tlie zenzile galley was Xffwv kvavrcav ovrwv- koX yap ovv KaKti ray
only a memory. A thing might however be fxeaas fitylaras antpyd'^ovrai Sta rriv aiiriiv
feasible with the shorter Athenian oars that alriav. — irfpara cannot of course refer to the
was not so with the Venetian. How many handles, which did not, and could not,
difficulties would be avoided if one could only come eis taov on any conceivable theory, except
agree with Beloch {Gr. Gesch. 2, 470) that the Graser's.
216 W. W. TARN
and not those amidships (zugite). /meauL then is not ziigite (probably it"
lie had meant zugite he wouhi have said zugite) ; and tlie /xeaat, had^^'*^ to
be longest so as to get all the ends level, neaai then are the oars of the
horizontal row or ordo nearest to the middle line of the ship drawn from stem
to stern, and the trireme known to Galen was a breit-polyeres, probably in
the natnre of a zenzile galley ;^^''' for the oars, if the ordines were dis-
tinguished by their position relative to the long axis of the ship, must have
been all on a level, or thereabouts.
Now arises the cjuestion, is Galen an independent authority or is he
using or referring to Aristotle {Mcc/i. 4) ? ^^^ First, let us assume that he is
•using Aristotle.
As the text stands, Aristotle begins by saying (1) that the jxeaoveoi do
most work ; (2) that the fulcrum of the oar-lever is the thole. (2) is of course
wrong in fact ; if then (1) was right in fact, the fxea-oveoi must in fact have
had the longest oars ; and, if the passage is to agree with Galen, as explained
above, the fxeaoveoi must also have had more oar inboard than the others, and
so Aristotle says : iv fiiar] he rfj vrj'l irXelarov ri]<i K(07rrj<i evT6<i eartv. So
far all is plain sailing. Then come the following words, explaining /ueo-77 ;
Kol <yap r) vav<; Tuvrrj evpvTarrj iarlv, (oare irXelov iir^ afxtjiOTepa eVSe^etr-
6ai fxepo^ Tjy? KcoTrrjii eKarepov rot-y^ov €vt6<; elvac rr;? vecof,, i.e., /Jiiaj) means
amidships, and the whole passage, as a source for Galen, becomes nonsense.
The rest of the chapter (allowing for the mistake as to the fulcrum) is
excellent sense and suits Galen very well. If then Galen was using this
■chapter, he was iising a text in which the words kul yap t) vau<;, etc., did not
occur, and I may therefore strike out these words as a gloss. But perhaps
these words do suit Galen, and it is only my explanation of Galen that is
wrong ? This, I think, is forbidden by (ialen's words, Sm rrjv avrrjv alriav.
Suppose now that Galen was not using or referring to Aristotle. He is
then an independent authority ; but one must attempt to construe the more
important Aristotle on the basis of the words kuI yap 1) vav<i, etc., forming
part of the text. The passage refers to the inboard length of the oars iv
/jiecrr] rfj viqi. vrjt here is either confined to a moneres or not. If it is, as is
often assumed, then the passage construes well enough, but has no bearing
whatever on the accepted theory, or my theory, or any other theory. But if
vrjt refers to, or includes, a trireme (as it obviously must), then, (if the words
Kal yap 77 vav<i, etc., be included) ^eaj] means amidships, fiea-oveot mean what
I call zugites, and my zugites do more work than my thranites : and as this
''* This (the word aiVio) is conclusive "^ The explanation is substantially Fincati's,
against /isVoi here meaning amidships, what- though he does not apply it to Galen. He
ever theory we adopt as to the trireme ; for the says they had two zenzile triremes at Venice,
oars amidships would not have to be the in me of which the oars formed one even line
longest to make the ends come level ; indeed in the water. To the same effect is Aristot.
if they were the longest the ends would nut dc part. anim. 4, 10 — the handle of the
come level. It seems t'(pially conclusive against Kwirt) fjna-ivfwi traverses a greater space.
Conybeare's view that fx((Tat means tlie middle ^'^ The chapti-r is too long to cite in a
of three superposed Ijanks. note.
THE GREEK WARSHIP. 217
will not do, the passage must be taken to shew that the term ' ziigites '
means a row or orJo, and not a squad ; this is of course against me.^^^
Assuming then for a moment that it does shew that the zugites were an ordo
(and it does not matter now whether we take tlie accepted theory, or Bauer's,
or Fincati's, they all agreeing that the zugites were an ordo), we land in a
very grave difficulty over the Trape^eipecria. This must of course have fornied
a straight line parallel (more or less) to the long axis of tlie ship, and not a
curved line following the ship's side, one object being to give the oars all
along approximately equal leverage throughout each ordo ; ^'^ and if so, the
oars amidships of any ordo could not be longer inboard (i.e., from the aKa\fi6(;)
than the others of the same ordo in atiy ship, such as a trireme, which
carried a Trape^eipeaia, the <jKa\p.oi being of course in the Trape^ecpecria.
If then this is well founded, fiearj cannot mean amidships, and therefore
IJiecroveoL must have the same meaning as in Galen, ^^^'' and I may omit the
words Kal yap t) vav^, etc., as a gloss added by some one who was
ignorant of the •jrape^etpecria and was thinking of a ship with a curved
side. If this be done, Aristotle means what Galen means. I do not then
myself think that Aristotle is against me : but I hope I have stated the
difficulty fairly.
I need only refer to two other passages. Polyaen, 3, 11, 7; Chabrias,
training some new men, took out the triremes' oars, and placing, on the
beach great logs (^v\a jxaKpa), so that the men sat one by one {wcrre i(f)'
€va KadrjaOai), thus taught them. I think the natural meaning is that in
the trireme they did not sit e0' eva (else why be at pains to mention that
they so sat on the beach ?), but iirl some other number, i.e., eirl rpeU, three
on a bench ; but I cannot press this. Herod. 5, 33. If a trireme was a
zenzile galley, with the three oars issuing side by side from one opening, we
can explain what Skylax' head was put through. The idea of a porthole
for one oar larger than a man's head is not only unlikely in itself,^^^^ but flatly
contradicted by every published monument known to me that shews portholes :
and Herodotus does not speak of the man's head as being near the water,
as many seem to assume.
The evidence then, for what it is worth, though terribly scanty and
unsatisfactory, does lend colour to the idea that, as regards triremes, Fincati
is, in the main outlines, right : ^^^ and we come round once more to the
'''■ The argument under B, C, D, and E is toward the long axis of the ship, must liavc
independent of the meaning of 'zugite.' been somewhat broader at the bow end than
"** This was the object of the telaro in the amidsliips ; and tliis agrees well with Thuc. 4,
mediaeval galley, and of the first importance, 12, where Brasidas falls wounded and swoon-
as Jurien de la (iravifere |)oint3 out. It gave lug on to the Trop<{*ipf<ria and does not roll off^
the boat, seen from above, the look of a "*'' I take yt.((T6v(oi. to be a technical term ;
parallelogram witli two projecting ends ; see something like vogue-avante.
the frontispiece and pi. 7 in Furtenbach, also ""'' Even Assmann now doubts it ; Jarhb.
the rearmost trireme in Fig. 1, ante. If I am 1905, p. 89.
right, then the vapf^nptffia itself, though possi- ^^^ Fincati could at least claim that his boat
illy inclining (as from stern to bow) somewhat would go : acsording to a writer in the
•21.S W. W. TARN
conclusion to which we have been tending thronghout this paper, that the
course of development in the Aegean was very similar to that which took
place later in the Adriatic.'-" Differences in detail, of course, there must
have been ; ^^^ but the conclusion as a whole does not seem to be in conflict
with common sense.
One thing however seems to me to be abundantly clear : no evidence
has yet been put forward that compels, or even seriously invites, us to believe
in the accepted theory : and it is to be remembered that the burden of proof
is on those who uphold that theory.
W. W. Tarn.
APPENDIX.
I have received from Mr. Cecil Torr a number of crilical notes on both parts of the
above article, and l>y the courtesy of Mr. Torr and of the editors of this Journal it has
been arranged that tlie substance of them shall be here puldished, Avith my replies.
Mr. Torr's remarks are given verbatim as far as possilde, in inverted ctimmas.
p. 139, If the rowers were in three divisions, ' how did they get their names 1 I conceive
that the thalamites sat in tiie thalunios, or hold ; the zugites sat on tlie zuga, or beams,
which formed the upper limit of the hold ; and ihe thranites sat on thrani, or
thranyes, which were seats above the beams.' There is I think no evidence for
these thrani ; and as to thranites, I should adopt Prof. Ridgeway's suggestion
{Class. Her. 1895, p. 166), and derive the term from Oprivvs, the elevated step or
platform at the sferu on which stood the helmsman. As to thalamites, when an open
boat first began to he partly decked, there would be a thalamos or cabin in the bows ;
hence the name. In Timaeos ap. Ath. 2, .37d dtiXaiini are the cal)ins of a merchant
ship ; and I know of no passage where the word simply means * hold.' Pollux
1, 87 says tliat the f8a(pos ttjs vfws was called aci'tov Kal ydo-T-pa k«1 d^cpi^rjTpiov, and
that in the part where the thalamites sat it was also called 6ii\afios.
Academy, 1883 p. 219, it attained the great triremes on both sy.stems are said to have been
speed oF 9 miles an hour, i.e., neirly three- built. But even were this so, tlie scaloccia
([uarters of the ]iaee of an average University trireme (if I anr right as to Galen's meaning)
crew from Putney to Moitlake. Unfortunately was not the one tliat survived in the Aegean.
I have never seen any details of what the boat At Venice, tiie galleys a scaloccio killed the
exactly was. trireme a zenzile.
'-'* So far as we have gone, there has been ^-^ The length of the oars, for instance. It
nothing to lead one to distinguish the Roman might be attractive guesswork that the bencli
trireme from the Greek. It is however just rose a little from the .ship's side inboard and
possible that in Polyb. 1, 20, 15, we have a that the oars had separate portholes very close
reference to a trireme a scaloceio ; the Romans, together ; this would much resemble Bauer's
he says, built their whole fleet (ipiincpieremci theory, I think, and miglit be a useful subject
and triremes) to a Cartiiaginian model ; and if, for experiment. It has been suggested by
as suggested in this paper, the quinquoremes Mr. Cook, whose citation of the rpiffKoAyuoi
had 5 men to an oar, these Roman triremes j/aej of Aesch. iV?s,, 679, for the zenzile trireme
via)/ have had 3. Tliis would only accord still is most happy, as a reference to Fig. 2 (ante)
further with what happened at Venice, where will shew.
THE CJKEEK WARSHIP. 219
]>]K 140, 141. rolyaeii. o, 43 ami 3, 11, 14; I'olyli. KJ, 3. ' The Atliciiiau tiireiiies had
sixty-two oars in the thianite (or highest) bank, tifty-four oars in the zugite (or
middle) bank, and tirty-four in the thahiuiite (or lowest) bank. Consequently, the
thranite bank of oars was longer than either the zugite or the thalamite bank.
And tliis would naturally be the laso, for all three banks would start from abaft the
cathead?, and the tliraiiite (nr highest) bank could extend further back toward the
stern than the other two banks, owing to the .sharpness of the run in ancient shij)s.'
The three passages in (]uestion refer 'to the part of the stern to whicii the thranite
bank extended.' The numbers 62, 54, and 54, aie the highest of various numbers
given fur triremes by the Athenian lists; but it does not follow that all these oars
were in use at once. However, if Mr. Torr could shew that Calliades' ship was
an Athenian trireme, and thata trireme liad three superposed banks, hisexplanation
miglit do for Polyaen. 5, 43. It cannot apply to t!ie triheiiiiol'ui in Polyb. 16, 3,
which was rammed Kma fiianv to kvtos \ and Polyaen. 3, 11, 14 dejiends on the
meaning of irnpf^fiptain ; see post.
p. 140. ' In rendering Polyaen. 5, 43, the word 7rr;S(iXto«/ is taken three times to mean
" steerage "' and once to mean " stern.'' It really means " .steering-oar." The phrase
TO nr]8dXiov (crxnCf is translated " kept using his steerage.'' It means "kept lifting
his steering-oar out <>f the water," i.e. ceasing to use it for s-teering.' ' Stern '
does not occur in my rendering of Polyaeuus, but in my own account of what
hapjjened, and is not meant for a translation of nTjSdXiop. There is no instance, I
think, of ax(iC<i> meaning ' to lift.' It means ' to cut ' ; and when it is used in the phrase
Kbonqv o-^'iffii', ' to stop rowing,' the meaning is that the oar is (naturally) dropped
ilat on the water, so that the edge of the blade cuts through the surface ; this was
known to the Scholiast on t'loii(I.'< 107 a-xfia-ai yap Sd kgI u>a-irtp hiaa-Tt'iKni koi
biaaxlp-ai to v^oop tijv K<i)TTT)v, thougli he is mistaken in adding (piaaovaav. From
this meaning again are derived two others {imo fieracpopas Tav (pfaa-ovTuyv) ; simply
' to stop,' and simply ' to drop ' (Xen. Kjia. 3, 5). «V;(a^e tu iTi]hd\iov is then ' he
kept dropping his steering-oar into the water,' i.e. making use of it ; and this is the
only rendering of the passage that makes sense, for Calliades must have turned his
own ship now to one side and now to the other in order to avoid the enemy KaS"
oTToTfpov tw (fifiiiKKfiv p.(Woi. No doubt it was a technical term.
[I. 141. Note 10. '"The new steering-oars were througli the nape^eipfcr'ui : therefore, the
old ones were not." This does not follow. Polyaenus says diu r^? napf^dpfaiai
KdTu Tus 6pavLTi8as KcDTras. He is specifying a point in the Trapf^fipeaia further
forward than the position of the old steering-oars, namely, the point to which the
thranite oars extejided. Then as to Trnpf^dpfo-Uu in Pcr'ipl. Font. Ku.r. 3, "the
reference vmut be to a Ju'tjJur point, not a diff'rreiit point," i.e. from kutii tus Kanat.
Of course, it is a higher point, because the ships were higher out of water at the
ends {napa^tipea-iai) than in the middle (koth tiis KwTray). But, unless it is a
dilferent point, the passage is meaningless. Then, Thucydides vii. 34 is made to
mean exactly the reverse of what it does mean. The shijis met the others bow to
bow {dvTiirputpni) autl were danuiged in tlie parts next the bow (nape^fipfo-iai). It
is unfair to Thucydides to make him say tliat the ships met bow to 1)0W and thereby
damaged themselves amidships. "But the absolutely decisive passage is Polyaenus,
iii. 11, 13. Chabrias stretches skins over the Trape^fipta-ia of each side of the ship
and nails them to the deck above, thus making a (^pay/xa which prevented the waves
washing in and the oarsmen looking out." If the sea had been abeam, he would
only have put the skins along the windward side of the ship. As he put them on
earh side of the sliip, it must have been a head sea or a following sea ; and, as one
of his objects was to prevent the rowers seeing the approaching waves, it must have
been a following sea, for the rowers faceil aft. In fact, there was a following sea in
whicli his ship was likely to be pooped, and he protected her at the stern
(jrapf^dptaia).' 1 think there is no passoge in which napt^dpfala must mean
220 W. W. TARN
stem or bow, and cannot mean an outrigger or some analogous structure. I grant
that Perii>l. Pont. Eiix. 3 can be taken either way ; and that Polyaen. 3, 11, 14 is
not quite conclusive ; though if 7rapf|eipfo-ia be the stern, why is it mentioned
at all? And how is bid to be construed? Did Chabrias cut a hole in the
timbers of the poop? {Anr. Ships fig. 36 illustrates how he put out his new
steering-oars, I think.) Thuc. 7, 34 states that no Athenian ship sank, but
seven became tmXot, dvapjjaye'KTai ras napf^€ipe(Tiai. It is incredible that none
sank if their bows were torn open. Two triremes ramming bow to bow would
rarely meet stempost to stempost with accuracy ; the stems would slide each
past the other, and carry away the forepart of the opponents' outrigger, which
extended most of the ship's length. (I said nothing aboixt 'amidships.') This
was why the Syracusans strengthened their eVcoTiSf $■, i.e. the forward ends of the
outriggers. Cf. the distinction between dvappfj^at, rqp nape^etpeaiav and dvappfj^ai
Trjv npcopav in Pollux 1, 124. Polyaen. 3, 11, 13 is decisive that the irapf^dpfcrla-
was something extending along each side of the ship so far as the rowers extended.
Chabrias stretched skins iVep Tr]v napf^fiptaiav eKarfpov toi}(ov (which in silver
Greek can only, I submit, mean the napf^fipeaia of each side of the ship), and
nailing them to the deck a])Ove made a c})pnyp.a npos tch napt^ttpfa-ias (plural),
which (among other things) prevented the men getting wet and prevented them
seeing the waves, ovx opcovrts 8iu ttjv tov (j)pdyp.aTos npoa-dfcrtv. No arrangement on
the stem could possibly have this effect, apart from the reference to cataphracts in
<\>pdyfxa ; and Chabrias could not possibly have carried out his idea at sea, with a
crew so nervous that he was afraid of their upsetting the boat. The old interpre-
tation of napt^fipfaia as stern or bow is in fact a guess of the scholiast on
Thucydides from the look of the word, to nape^ Tqs dpfo-ias.
Mr. Torr then refers to Dr. Assmann's view of the irapt^fipeala, which I have
adopted, as being based on a misinterpretation of the prow of Samothrace, the
projections on which (as in Ancient Ship.'<) he calls cat-heads, comparing a coin of
Cios (Anc. Ships f\<^. 23). 1 have nothing to add to what I have^said on this
monument. But if one can prove the outrigger from the texts, it lends much
support to Dr. Assmann's view that what the monument shews is an outrigger.
pp. 142, 143. 'I am not concerned with evidence of class (2). But Pollux 1, 87, shews by
his mention of ddXapos, C^yd, and KaTd(TTp(op.a that he supposed the banks of rowers
to be superposed.' The most that can be claimed for Pollux is, that he can l)e
read to suit either theory, like many other passages. But he does not refer to
triremes only ; he is speaking generally ; and for three centuries the standard
warship had been the quimptereme. As to there being three classes <>nl//, Mr. Torr
says * The men in the highest bank of the tesserakonteres were called thranites, as
was to be expected ; but nothing whatever is known about the names for the men
in the other banks in the tesserakonteres, or any other ships of higher rank than
triremes.' -One cannot disprove this ; but we have no right to confine Pollux 1, 87
and 119 to triremes, and most recent writers have taken the simple view, that in all
ships there were only three classes. It is a pity that the text of Polyb. 2G, 7, 10 is
corrupt.
pp. 143, 144. 'The forms " r€rpnKt(cporof and so forth" may not occur, but their
equivalents do. Aelius Aristeides, Rhodiacu p. 341 St/cpoVous Ka\ rpiKporovs Ka\ els
inrd Koi els evuia (rToi)(ovs.' (irrd. (TToix'ivsis septem ordines, which we know (from
Livy and Eutropius) would be the translation of enrrjprjs ; it is not iTnaKiKpnTos.
In the second century a.d. BixpoToi were probably biremes; and rpcKporovs is used
here for 'triremes' because the writer has just used rpt)7peif for 'warships.' A
professional rhetorician like Aristeides could not write rptrjptis vnfjpxfv ISflv,
Siffpfis Ka'i TpLrjpfis Kal (Is enrr^peis Ka\ (vvTjpeis, which is what he means ; he has done
all he can to vary the sound, that is all.
pp. 144, 145. App. ^fiih. 12. ' There is nothing there to shew that the term diKporos
THE GKKKK "NVARSKTR 221
excludes lieiniolin. I conceive tliat fiiV/^oroj iuchules liemiolia as well as tlie triu-
bireme aiul tlu> birouie of the Lilmrnian tyi)e. Appian's statement is that the
pirates ^'ave up usinj; niyoparones, and took to usin;^ 6iK/>orot of other sorts besides
the heniioliui, and also triremes.' Then follows the explanation of heniiulia as a
two banked ship t,'iven in Aitcienf S/iips, for which there is no evidence. As this
is important, I (juote Appian (Mendelssohn). nfipnTus . . . o1 to fteu irpwrov oXlyon
(TKacfxtri Koi fiiKpois oia XtjcttuI TtfpnrXiovTfs fXvnovv^ w? hi o noKfpos ffirjKvvfTO,
TrXt'offf ty'iyvovTo Ka\ vavai /izeyaXoif fTrtTrX^oi'. . . . avri Trjs yiji (KapnovvTo ti)v
6a\n<r<Tav, pvonapacn iTpuiTov kui fjpio'Xtaii, (ira diKpoTOis Kai rpirjpfai Kara ptprj
iTtpnv\(ovTts. To the man who wrote this, i^puikia and biKporos are mutually
exclusive terms ; and Mr. Torr's explanation is forbidden by the Greek.
pp. 144, 14o. Arr. Anah. 6, 5, 2. 'The context shews that these h'lKpoTni were hemioliai.
By making the statement refer to triakontors, instead <jf hemioliai, the author has to
shew that kcit-co does not mean lower ; and he does not seem to me to shew it.'
Once it is established from Appian that the heniiolia is not fiiKporor, the meaning of
KiiTfti follows with almost mathematical precision.
p. 146. Mr. Torr claims 8ir)pt]s and diKporos in Pollux 1, 82 as synonyms. It is not very
important ; but no doubt by the second century a.d. they were practically
synonyms.
p. 150. App. b.c. 4, 85. 'Some shi]>s got into the whirlpool at Scylla, and the crews were
upset, not being used to it. It seems forcing the translation to say that the men
were knocked off their legs rather than off their seats.' 1 submit that ovTt
(CTTWTf s /Sf^uiwf cannot possibly refer to sitting.
p. 154. 'Oros. 0, 19 is quoted as if he were contrasting Antony's dekereis with other
dekereis, whereas he is contrasting them with the ships in Octavian's fleet which
were all smaller than dekereis.' Very possibly this is right ; but it does not affect
the other evidence for the size of Antony's ships. They must have resembled
galeasses.
Note 80. 'See Anc. Ships p. 57, n. 131 ' which states that ^vyo*' iu At/am. 1G18 is some
bench at the stern.
p. 205. 'Florusii. 21 (iv. 11) uses remorum and remigum indifferently, because there
was one man to one oar.'
p. 206. ' The Trajan column trireme cannot Ije ignored. It is not true that the oars " are
just plastered on anyhow." They are clearly intended to be arranged in qiihicmicem
which is the natural developemeut of the zigzag •.*,*.•. that
you mention in the biremes.' But what the monument slieivs is not a quincunx at
all, but , • • ^ ; and is not that 'anyhow' i
p. 207. The prow of Samothrace. ' Your argument for the hepteres, which you develoi>
at so much length, does not seem to have very much foundation. How can one
assume that it has anything to do with Demetrius' victory at Salamis ? And why
should Nike be travelling about on one of Demetrius' ships rather than her own ?
Her ship was a familiar thing before that date ; see Ecviie Arch. 26 (1895) p. 161.'
Mr. Torr's article in the Beviie Arch, gives two figures of Nike, one on, and
one hovering over, the prow of a ship ; but there is nothing to suggest that the
ship is Nike's own ship. Is there any other evidence '? As to the Nike of
Samothrace, Demetrius' well-known coins shew that she was set up to commem-
orate some victory of his by sea, and we know of no other but Salamis ; had there
been any other of importance, Plutarch would hardly have passed it over.
Note 94. ' I conceive that these lembi were narrow enough to have the oars sculled in
pairs.' No doubt biremis can mean a sculling boat ; but had Philip two complete
fleets of lembi ? Or did he put sculling boats into line against the Rhodian
quinqueremes at Chios ?
•J 2 2 W. W. TARN
1). 20!). Tlie Dipylon ship J. U.S. 189!), PI. 8. ' I doubt if it is a bireme. I ain in lavoiu'
of its bein^f a ship of a single bank with Tre/jtVfw oars rowed from the KardaTpufia.'
. I by no means exclude the idea that (say) a state ship might have been thus
rowed; I believe there is a case at Venice, and possibly Antigonos' rpui/i/iecoy was
.something of the kind. IJut in the case of this l)i2)ylon ship the explanation does
not seem to meet any of the three ditiiculties given in n. 9().
p. 209. As to biremes being unknown to every writer before Caesar. ' Damastes (apiul
Plin. vii. 50 (57), 207) attributes the invention of l)iremes to the Erythraeans ; and
Damastes was a contemporary of Herodotus. Also in the catalogue of the ships
Jl. 2 509, 510 there is a pretty clear allusion to biremes.' Tlie allusion in the
Iliad is merely to ships with 120 men each. As to Pliny. It is not a case of
Damastes apiid Plinium, but of an assertion of Pliny's own, even supposing
Damastes of Sigeum to be meant ; and Pliny's list is quite untrustworthy.
' Biremem Damastes Erythraeos fecisse : triremem Thucydides Aminoclem
Corinthium (our Thucydides says nothing of the sort, see 1, 13, 2 ; it is Pliny's own
interpretation of him) ; (juinqueremem Mnesigiton Salaminios (directly contradicted
by the circumstantial account in Diodorus) ; ab ea (hexeres) ad decemremem
Mnesigiton Alexandrum Magnum (almost certainly untrue, see note 51). In the
face of this kind of thing, Pliny's statement as to Damastes is of very slight value.
No doubt a bireme was experimented with before a trireme ; my point is that it
never came into use at all in early times, while Mr. Torr thinks it did, and was
driven out by the trireme. Then why no reference to it l
1). 209. ' If Sennacherib's ships are not biremes, what are they?' 1 do not know. But
if the peutekontor was leally not invented till 704 n.c, they cannot be lon<j ships
at all. I think they are round ships (see figs. 10 and 11 iwAnc. Sliipx) beginning
to be adapted for fighting ; two have rams, one has none.
Mr. Torr does not comment on the difficulty I have felt and expressed over
the bireme question generally.
' Lenormant relief. I have no doubt at all about the accuracy of what you call
the older view. "Tlie raii^ed lumps A A cannot of course be portholes." They
presumably are portholes with da-zcto/xara. "And Y and Z are part of the hull."
Similar reasoning would make X part of the hull ; which it certainly is not. Why
should not Y and Z cross E E (the lower waling piece) just as much as X crosses
D I) and E E (the two waling pieces) and F F (the gunwale) ? If the relief disproves
one, it disproves the other.
' I presume you admit that X are oars rowed against tholes on the gunwale F F,
and that D D and E E are the waling pieces. Then one gets the ports (with
arricco/iora) of the third bank just where one expects to find them, namely between
the two waling pieces and vertically below the tholes of the first bank. One would
expect to find the ports of the second bank between the upper waling piece and the
gunwale. The difficulty of course is that the oars of the second bank (Y) seem to
go right up to the lower side of the gunwale. Now there is a double set of supports
under the gunwale, one running down to the upper waling piece and the other
running down to the lower waling piece. One explanation is that the sculptor was
rather careless, and continued the oars (Y) as far as the gunwale in the same way
as these supports. Another explanation is that these su2)ports imply that the
gunwale projected a little way over the side of the ship, and thus hid the
portholes.
'I think my diagrani, D. and S., fig. 5275, helps one to understand this relief.'
1 submit that this is reconstruction, not explanation ; precisely as fig. 5275 in
Dar.-Sagl. is. The monument shews that X crosses D D, E E, and F F, and does not
shew that Y and Z cross E E : that is the point. One cannot reconstruct a relief on
the footing that it has to shew three banks, and then use it as evidence that there
ivere three bank.s.
THE GREEK WARSHIP. 223
Note 107. Tolyaen. 5, '22, 2 is not conclusive tliat the oars conld be got out quickly.
Diotimos would bcyin getting liis oars out ns soon as the enemy saw his hulls, say
five miles off. The stratagem would answer only so long as his ships were hull
down. But the passage seems to me to shew that the oars could not have been
passed in from the outside, as you suggest. Pollux, 1 think, is wrong ; the thing
that he mentions was called Tponos or TponioTijij and kutttjttjp, not liaKuna.'
Diotimos must have lot the enemy come close up, or he could have got back to
harbour ; but I have ouiitted the words ' is conclusive ' from the note. But the
jiractiad diliiculty of gt'ttiug out the oars at all, whether IVom inside or otherwise,
in a trireme arranged on the accepted theory is to my mind prohibitive. Whether
Pollux here be right or wrong (I think he is right), there is no real evidence for the
current view of the tla-Kafxa. Its use was to lessen friction.
II. 107. 'The latter part of this note seems to rest on a misconception. The portholes
did not serve as rowlocks. The oars were rowed against tholes.' By all means.
My difficulty, i.e. the strain on the ship's timber-s, remains (she was very lightly
built) ; and I should like an expert opinion. I am thinking of the way a racing
eight strains in spite of every precaution.
p. 215. Ilerod 7, 3G. ' Probably the bridge had longer supports where the supports rested
on peutekontors than where they restcvl on triremes.' Perhaps. The bridge was
laid on great cables. No doubt it may be possible to get round the question of
height as regards a trireme ; it is with the quinqnereme that it becomes so
foimidable.
]>. 215. Galen. Mr. Torr is inclined to think that he is referring to one Her of the
trireme's oars only and also to the aspect of the oars inside the ship. The word
aiTia I think forbids this, as I have shewn (u. 114). It also assumes that there u-i're
tiers, wliich is rather tlie point at issue.
]). 216. As to Aristotle. I do not reproduce Mi\ Torr's criticism because (given his
premisses) everyone will agree. If there was no such thing as an outrigger, and if
Galen is not using Aristotle, (these are his premisses), then fxeaoueot are the men
amidships, and Aristotle is against my view under A. But if either of these
premisses be false, my argument holds. Anyhow Mr. Torr does not claim that
Aristotle supports the theory of superposed banks, for he says 'Aristotle is stating
a general proposition, i.e. he refers to any tier of oars (it does not matter whether
the ship had one or more).'
p. 217. Polyaen. 3. 11, 7 iff)' tva. ' I take this to mean that each pair of rowers (port
and starboard) sat on the same piece of timber, instead of sitting on separate seats.
(!f. Leo, Tnctica 8 and Ap. Rhod. 1, 395, 3'JG (pioted in Anc. S^iijyx, notes 46 and
110.' Neither of these passages refers to triremes, and I doubt if the above
explains f0' tva ; but I have said that I cannot press the passage.
Finally, Mr. Torr considers it hazardous to say that something which existed
in the mediaeval type existed in the ancient type unless one can shew that it existed
also in the intermediate or B^'ziutine type. But I claim neither continuity of
tradition nor identity ; only analogy.
Mr. Torr sums up as follows : —
' As to your propositions.
A. I do not see that you have any evidence at all for the assertion, " thranites astern,
xugites amidships, thalamites in the bows." Your evidence is only that the thranites were
furthest astern. And there is quite another explanation of that, namely, that tlie thranite
bank, wiiich hail sixty-two oars, reached further aft than the zugite and thalamite bank.s,
which had oidy fifty-four.
li. To establish this translation of the terms rpUpoTos, etc., you would have to show
that h'lKpoTos and TjfjuoXia are mutually exclusive in App. Mith. 92, and that Kara does not
mean lower in Arr. Anub. vi. 5, 2.
224 THE GREEK WARSHIP.
C Of course, there is a danffer in generalizing from a limited number of instances ;
but, I think, people were aware of that already.
D. I cannot find anything in your paper to support D (1), and hardly anything in
support of ]J (2). Of course, D (2) is really a question for a naval architect ; and I fancy
he would decline to express an opinion without more data than can be given him.
E. This is supposed to be dealt with in Part II., but I /lo not see that you have
really tackled the question.'
W. W. Tarn.
ON THE DATING (^F THK FAYUM P0KTRAIT8.
[Platk XIIL]
When the nuuuiny-porbiaits tVoni Rubayyat and Hawara were first
brought ti) Europe, amid the general interest which they aroused there was
a wide diversity of opinion as to their age. Georg Ebers, wdio had an
enthusiastic admiration for them, tried hard to prove that the series began
in the second century B.C. and that the best specimens belonged to the
Ptolemaic period.^ Th. Schreiber may be mentioned as another distin-
guished authority who took the same view.- On the other hand many arch-
aeologists maintained that the portraits were all Roman work, dating for the
most part from the second century A.D. Mr. Petrie in particular brought
forward definite evidence to show that they range from about 130 A.D. to
about 2.50 i\.D., and he also divided them into successive groups.-' There is
still much uncertainty on the subject, as I have had occasion to notice of late.
To those who are in doubt about it the following brief paper, which is based
on a study of the Cairo collection,^ may be of some little help. I regret
that I do not know much of the material in Europe at first hand.
Graeco-Egyptian mummies are sometimes furnished with painted
portraits and sonietinios with modelled masks made of various materials,
canvas, cartonnage, plaster, and wood. These are the two main kinds of
mummy-decoration, though each may be subdivided into various classes. The
realistic masks, with some exceptions, are not difficulty to date.^ Many of
them belong to the first century A.D. ; they continue to be very common right
through the second ; some of tiie best and most naturalistic were made in the
first half of the third century ; and the custom did not entirely die out till
' Ebers, Hellenistischc Portrdts aus dcni Egijpticn, vol. i. PI. XX.XII. ; Recucil de
Fajjum. Travaux, vol. 17, PI. III. ; Lady Meux Collcc-
- Buedekci's Egypt: introductory chapter on <tou. Pis. XXVII. and XXVII. a; Burlington
Alexandrian art. Fuie Arts Exh., 1895, PI. XI. ; Annales da
' Hawara, Biahmu, and Arnnoc. Mit?te Giiimct, xxvi.. Pis. XXI.-XXIV. ;
* The numbers and plates cited below are those Arch. Anz. 1898, p. 55 IT. (where they are
of the catalogue, which will shortly be published. correctly dated). The Graf collection is well
'' For good individual specimens see M\t,sie known. There is also a fine series in Cairo.
H.S. — VOL. XXV. Q
226 C. C. EDGAU
long afterwarcls." It lias souietiuies been tUought that the masks in question
precede the panel portraits as a class.'^ Tiie opposite view has also been
put forward, that is to say, that the masks are later than the portraits.^ I may
as well say in advance that neither of these two theories is tenable. It is
(|uite certain that the two series, masks and panels, are to a large extent con-
temporary. In some places the one sort of decoration was fashionable, in
other places the other. The panel portraits are particularly common in the
Fayum, though they are also found elsewhere. Most of the masks on the
other hand come from the cemeteries farther south.'* Several sites have
yielded both masks and portraits, c.^. Antinooi)olis. The two types flourished
in different centres, but not necessarily at different peiiods.
The external evidence for determining the dates of tin- portraits is
scanty. They have not been found in any cemetery which is purely
Ptolemaic. Those from Antinoopolis are presumably not earlier than'
Hadrian, as it was he who founde<l the Greek settlement there. At Hibeh
Messrs. (Jrenfell and Hunt found a papyins of the reign of Trajan and the
mummy of a woman with panel portiait in two contiguous graves.*" An
inscription of the time of Marcus Auielius is .said to have come from the
same find as two Hawara portraits whiih are now in Cairo.** The tomb-
stone of Aline in Berlin dates her death to the year 10 (of some Emperor's
reign '- without doubt). The munnuy-tickets, some of which come from the
same cemeteries as the portraits, belong for the most part to the second and
third centuries, though they also reach back to the lirst.*'' It is only very
rarely, however, that the tickets and the paintings have been found together,**
and we have no right to assume that the range of the one series is coincident
with that of the other.*'' The inscriptions which one finds on the mimimies
themselves, with the characteristic EYS^YX I, point decidedly to the Roman
])ei iod.*'"' Certain portraits in the Louvre used to be identified with men\bers
of the family of Pollins Soter, wlm was archon at Thebes in the time of
" Vov :iii exainiile «)1 tlie latest style see ]>. 195 ul' the haiiie Guide it is said l)y mistake
Annales du Muscc Giiimct, vol. xxx. 3, \i. 152. that soim of the jxiiiitecl portraits were found
An interesting detail may be pointed out on at Dimch witli an inscription of the icign of
tliesc late heads. The shading on the. clieeks Claudius : what was really found with it was a
and chin is rendere i by large disis of :i darker group of portrait-statuettes {Guide, p. S52).
rod than the rest of the fare— exactly the same '- As is acknowledged by Ebors, p. 10.
method as was used by the ancient Egyptian '* It is sometimes said that none is known
artists in the tomb of the wife of Ranises II. to be earlier than the 2nd century (Zcilschrift
' liecucil de TravaK.r, vol. 17, j). HI (Bis- fur Acg. Sprachc, xxxii. p. 36). Hut Bouriaiit
sing). mentions one from Sohag dated to the 1st year
* Budge, Lad 1/ Me H.r Collection, p. 355; Guide of Vespasian {liecucil, 1889, p. 143).
to \st and 2nd Kg. Rooms, p. 79. '* At Akhmin C. Schmidt found a grave
" In Aegypliaca, p. 104, C. Schmidt says containing both tickets and portraits, the
that nil the plaster masks come from Tunah, latter of inferior style, Zcilschri/t, xxxiv.
but in reality Tunah is only one of the various pp. 80-81. See also Arch. Anz., 1889, p. 2.
sites where they have been found. ' ' I do not mean that as a matter of fact
'" Eg. Expl. Fund Report, 1902 3, p. 2. tliey are not for the most part contemporary.
" Giiide to Cairo Museum, 1903, pp. 347- '" Eui^wx*' is* the ordinary word of farewell
348. The inscrijition wns seen by M. Greliaul on the funeral inscriptions of Itoman Egypt,
but was not a(<{uired by the Museum. On though the older x^'^f* >^ ^tso tbuml.
ON THE DATING OF THE FAYUM PORTRAITS. 227
Hjulrian, but Wilckeii has rightly cast doubt on the identification.^' On the
whole, however, the external evidence shows that at least some of the'
portraits date from the second century A.D., and this has been gener-
ally admitted even by tiiose who claim that the best of them are
Ptolemaic.
Mr. Petrie's account of the portraits is the one which is best worth
examining for our present purpose. The date which he proposes for the
beginning of the series is 130 A.D. It is got at in this way. The first
group of mummies at Hawara in which Greek influence preponderates
consists of those with gilded bust-pieces made of stuccoed canvas and cartou-
iiage. They may be divided into two classes, — (I) those in which the front
of the head is rendered naturalistically while the bust is decorated with the
conventional Egyptian subjects ; (2) those which have the bust modelled in
the Greek style and the arms represented.^^ The first type is assumed to be
earlier than the second, which shows an advance in realism and which is
mainly usctl for women. Now one of the earlier class bears the name
TITOS c|)AAYrioZ AHMHTPloS (Titus Flavins Demetrius) which accord-
ing to Petric proves that he was born later than the accession of Vespasian.
He therefore assigns the armless busts to about 50-120 A.D. and the busts
with arms to 100-130 A.D., admitting that there may be some overlapping
between the two groups as most specimens of the second type belong to
women. After a few experiments these later busts are succeeded by the
painted portraits, examples of both being found in the same tomb. Thus the
beginning of the portraits may be placed at about 130 A.D., and they may be
regarded as signs of a revival of Hellenistic art caused by the visit of
Hadrian.'''
This classification is neat and definite, but I do not think it is
correct. One of the gilded busts in Cairo, belonging to a woman called
Sambathion,-" has the hair dressed in a peculiar fashion which is char-
acteristic of the Claudian age and of it only.^^ The other busts with arms
have so many points in common with this one that they cannot be separated
by any long interval, nor is there any reason for thinking that the mask of
Sambathion is the earliest of the series. Mr. Petrie's date, 110-130 A.D., is
far too late. As for Titus Flavins Demetrius, he was in all probability a,
Greek whu had acquired the citizenship under Vespasian, and he may have
died quite early in the Flavian age. It is a reasonable inference too
(v. supra) that the armless type of bust was used much longer for men
than for women. Looking at the plaster busts from other sites one finds the
men represented with conventional wig-ends hanging over their shoulders
'" Arch. Anz. i. p. 6. from the same muminy is published in Milne,.
•' Examples of i)otli types reproduced in Grk. Iiiscr. p. 132, No. 33017.
Hawara, PL IX. '^^ Waved to each side with a bunch of curls
" This idea is repeated by Milne, Hist, of above each temple and a fringe of tiny round
Eij. p. 56, and C. Schmidt, Aegyptiaca, p. 105. ringleti, rquiid the forehead. See Bernoulli's
See also Archaeologia liv. p. 363. remarks on this point, JiiJin. IconographiCy
'^ Found by H. Bru£^sch in 1892, A lead seal vol. ii. 2, p. 180.
Q 2
228 ^- ^- EDGAR
to at least the middle of tlie second century A.D., while the women's luair
and drapery are modelled realistically. A comparison of these plaster
portraits from Middle Egypt, of which there is now such a fine series, strongly
confirms the conclusion that the gilded Hawara busts belong to the first
century.2' Thus, if we accept Petrie's view that the paintings succeed the
busts (at Hawara) in a chronological sequence, it follows that many of the
fornler may or rather must be much earlier than the time of Hadrian. And
from the fact that specimens of both have in more than one case been found
in the same orave,--^ it appears very probable that the two series overlapped
to some extent.
It is clear tiien that the panel portraits were in common use in the
second century, but the view that the series does not begin till the reign of
Hadrian does not rest on sound evidence. For further information we must
turn to the paintings themselves. It was argued long ago that the portraits
of bearded men could not be earlier than Hadrian as it was not until his
time that beards came into fashion.-* I think that this view contains a
kernel of truth, though the argument is sometimes stated too unreservedly.
It is not true that from the time of Alexander to that of Hadrian the
Oreeks in Egypt never wore beards.-^ On Ptolemaic tombstones the men
are often bearded. One or two portrait statues which are generally thought
to be much earlier than Hadrian have short beardSj^*^- and on a few of the
first century masks a slight growth of hair is indicated on the face.-" But
there are many of the male heads about which there can be no (piestion.
They not only are bearded, but they have the curly luxuriant hair which is
so distinctly characteristic of the Antonine period: 2*^ it is impossible to
suppose them to be earlier. In contrast with these we find a group of men's
heads with clean-shaven faces and rather short smooth hair like Roman por-
traits before the time of Hadrian.-'^ Some may of course liave been painted in
his reip-n, but on the whole (as we have given up the theory that the series begins
about 1:30 A D.) we may call these the pre-Hadrianic class : I shall not attempt
here to distinguish between them. Some of the curly-headed group may be as
late as the reign of Septimius Severus. One in particular (PI. XIII. 2), which
has the hair above the forehead divided into three conspicuous locks just like
the Imperial portraits, is certainly to bo assigned to this period.''^ There are
-^ 1 have not seen a sufficient number of '-''' Jlaaara, p. 16 ; also on the Mi.hlie J'lgypt
them to viiitiuc an oiiinion as to how long a masks, ».(/. Cairo, No. 33162, PI. XXIII.: in
period they cover. some such cases, however, what is represented is
-•' Ehers, p. 9 ; Petrie, JIawara, p. 17. probably the stubbly chin of a man who did
-■* Heydemann, Sitzungsbericht der Kyi. not shave every day.
Sachs. Gcs. der IVisscnsch. 1888, p. 308. I do -** Cairo, No. 33252, PI. XL. is an excellent
not know this article except at second hand, example. The same type occurs on Antonine
from the references to it in other writers. grave-reliefs, r. Milne, Grk. hiscr. PI. VIII.
-* Cf. Sclircibir, Bilihiiss Alexanders, p. 137. No. 9250. It is different from the aff"cctedly
For the Ptolemaic tombstones sec Atk. Mill. disordered hair on certain Hellenistic coin-
xxvi. p. 280 ff. l)ortraits.
•8 E.rj. Rccurll, vol. 18, p. 140 (Bi.s-sing). ^^ E.g. Hawnra, PI. X. 10 ; Cairo, No.
Kee also the Ptolemaic anthropoid coffin in 33255, PI. XLI. { = No. 1 on PI. XIII.).
Faijnm Tuicns, PI. XI. (I)), 19. ■"• Cairo, No. 33261, PI. XLII.
ON THE DATINC; OF THE FAYUM PORTRAITS. 229
.some other male heads which are later still. One or two I think may be
dated to tlie age of Caracalla, while on others we find the close-cropped hair
and beard which is a characteristic trait of the succeeding period. A certain
example in Cairo, No. .S3250, might almost pass for a portrait of Severus
Alexander. Evidently then the practice of decorating mummies with
portraits painted on wood lasted till well on in the third century.
Something more definite about the earlier part of the series may be
learned from the details of the women's portraits. Ebers asks how it is, if
the male heads reflect tiic current Imperial fashion, that the female heads
are not similarly influenced. The cjuestion is intended as an argument against
the view that the portraits of bearded men are later than Trajan, but the
assumption which it contains is not well grounded. In many cases the
women's portraits follow tlie same fashions as the Roman court. The tendency
is very strikingly exemplified by the modelled masks : here we have a
complete series from about the middle of the first century to the beginning
of the third. But there are also good instances among the paintings. In
particular there is a group of portraits characterized by a thick arch of small
curls over the forehead, while the back hair is coiled up behind, usually
rather high up, and transfixed by a large pin.^' It is exactly the arrange-
ment which one finds on Roman portraits of the Flavian age: cf. for instance
Bernoulli, Rom. Icon. vol. ii. 2, Pis. XIII. ff. and Miinzt., ii. 13. There is no other
period to which this group of paintings can be assigned. The same peculiar
coiffure is likewise found on several of the plaster masks together with other
indications of a comparatively early date.^- These portraits then take us
back to the last quarter of the first century. Nor, I think, are they the
earliest group of all. There are a few others which have the hair dressed in
the Claudian fashion : that is to say, it is parted in the middle, waved to each
side and more or less curly round the forehead. PI. XIII. 4 ( = Cairo
No. 33265) is an example of this type. The Roman fashions of the second
century are also represented among the painted portraits. For instance the
high elaborate coiffure of Cairo No, 33222 shows that it was painted in the
period of Trajan or Hadrian,-'^ while Graf No. 15 is distinctly of the later half
of the same century and is to be compared with the portraits of Lucilla and
Crispina. There are several other styles of hair-dressing on the painted heads
for which one can find more or less close parallels among Roman portraits of
the first and second centuries, but the above examples are sufficient for our
present purpose.
Another thing which is of some use for deterniming the age of the
portraits is the women's jewellery, Mr. Petrie has used this criterion. He
notes in particular that the three main types of earrings which one finds on
•" E.'j. Graf No. 8 ; Hauara, I'l. X. more obvious and striking.
X(.. 12; Cairo 33223 and 33237 ( = 1*1. XIII. ^- E.g. Cairo Xo. 33181, I'l. XXV, I liave
3). Kbers (p. 64) compares tlie coiirures on seen others in the dealers' shops,
certain old Egyptian and I'ypiiote heads, but "^ Guide 1903, p. 356. There are several
neglects the Koman analogy which is much parallels among the plaster masks.
i>30 C. C. EDO All
the portraits are (l)tlie ball-earriiig Fig. \, <',/>, (2) the ho(jp-earriiig Fig. 1, c,
(3) the bar-earring Fig. 1, i/-f. He assumes these types to be roughly
consecutive, assigning (1) to the tirst lialf of the second century, (2) to the
second half, and (3) to tlie first lialf of the third. 'J'hus the fine portrait,
PI. XIII. 3, which we hav(i seen good reason foi' phicing in the Fhivian period,
would according to this classiticati>»n belong to the latest grouj). But Mr.
Petric's division is far too precise. Now that w(> have so many well-dated
masks it is easier to follow tlu^ histoiy of the jewidlcry. -ludging then
from the masks alone we tind that the ball-earring was a common type
in the first century but becomes much less popular in the second. The
lioop-earrings Avere also very fashionable dniing at least a great part of
the first century and continue to be (piite common till past the middle of the
second. The third type is so much rarei" than the other two on the masks
which I have seen that I do not venture to draw any definite conclusion
about the range of its po})ularity. But the; fact that earrings o\l this foiin
have been found <it Pompeii''^ shows that it also was known in the first
6i^
d r /
I'll;. I.- FdlJMs OK K.VItlMNC.
century A.I). It is oidy natural then that it should a))})ear on several uf
the ])ortraits wdiicli we assigned to the Flavian age. All three types in fact
are much earlier than Petiie supposes and they do not follow each other
with mechanical regularity. Nevertheless as a secondaiy means of dating
and classitying the portraits the jewellery is of great value if used with
caution^''; and theie is now plenty of material for comparative stud}', —
earrings, necklaces, bracelets, nud diadems.
The conclusion to which the foregoing arguments lead is that the
portraits range from the ( Uaudian age to the second ^piarter of the third
century. There may be some speciinens both earlier and later than those
which I liave discussed above, though I doubt if the series will be found to
■extend beyond these limits. It is noteworthy that the modelled masks of
predominantly Greek style occupy much the same ])eriod.-'" In the case of the
^* See Monaco, Mnni'f. National, IM. (.'XI. FoliH'.si<s, as I K'.ini froiii lliis rufeiPiice, lias
Sclirciber, Alex. Torculik, \k 305. Tlie <^v\\- .^liowii tliat the ^oKl oruaini^iits of tlic woiiicii
«'ial tyjtc, a cross-har with tliii^e i)i'iiilaiit8, is t)eloii«; to tlie aj^e of Si^ptiiiiiiis Scvenis. I
of course (|iiite caily. ])iosiinie he docs not iin'au all of them.
'' An article hy Folnesics on tliis .suhjcct, ■"' I do not refer to tigures like Z'itsc/* ;•(///?«>•
which 1 have not had an oi>portunity of reading, Ac<i. Sprache, vol. 41, }). 10, Fig. 8, nor do I
is mentioned liy AVickholf, Jioiaan Art, ]>. 160. include the late Deir el-Bahari type.
ON THE DATlN(i OF TJIE FAYU.M POUTRAITS. 231
masks there was a giatlual change IVoin the Egyptian to the Greek style,
and even in the soconil century many of the laces bear signs of their
Egyptian descent. Thi; later ones are more free and naturalistic than the
earlier groups/'' JUit the paintings from the first show an entire
freedom from Egyptian influence, even when the rest of the figure is
covered with the usual mythological scenes. The masks in fact derive from
Egyptian, the panels from (Ircek art. Not long after the naturalistic style
had been adopted in the modelling of the busts, tlie idea arose, probably in
the Fayum, of introducing a painted portrait in place of the mask.
Some of the early portraits, perhaps the earliest uf all, were on cloth,-"*
and sometimes too the rest of the figure was painted on the outer wrapping
uf the mummy."'" This particular style of decoration survived into Byzantine
times.^" But the panel portraits soon came into regular use, to the exclusion
in some places of all other forms of mummy-decoration. While the ea,rly
masks are tentative essays in an alien art, the style of the paintings from
the very begimiing is free ami finished and entirely Greek. These rapidly
painted panels, no doubt for the most part mere commissions from the
undertaker,'^ are products of a highly developed art, put to an incongruous
use. We may be sure that the style of which they furnish so many fine
examples was no sudtlen innovation in Egypt. Wickhoft", indeed, who dates
them to the age of Septimius Severus and argues that the whole
group falls within one short period, claims them as illustrations of the
refiex action of Roman art on the Greek East.^"^ But the series can be
traced back to a time when this so-called Ronum art was only coming
into existence in Rome itself. It is not in Rome but in Hellenized Egy\)t
that the origin of the style is to be looked for. Ebers was essentially
right in calling the portraits Hellenistic.
Ebers, however, did not mean merely that they were to be classed as
Hellenistic from the aesthetic point of view. He held that the series actually
began in the second century B.C., that the best of them were painted in the
Ptolemaic period, and though he admits that some belong to the second century
after Christ, he speaks of these as inferior works. But the reasons which he
gives for his opinion are singularly feeble. He says in general terms that the
style is too good and too realistic to be Roman, — which is merely prejudice.
Wickhoff on the other hand, though mistaken about their date, compares
'•^ Similarlj' some of the most Greek in style Triee Catalogue, No. 49, Annalcs du Mas.
of the grave-reliefs from the Delta cemeteries Gunnel xxx. 2, I'l. I.
l)eloiig to the latter half of the second century : ^' An interesting panel found l>y Grenfell
tin; order of development is not desfuibed and Hunt in the Fayum has memoranda on
correctly in my catalog>ie of the Cairo sculp- the back concerning the features of the person to
ture, p. xiv. lie portrayed (somewhere in the Cairo Museum ;
=»■'* Ilawara, ]). 17 ; Cairo Nos. 33214, 33268 ; Jounvd d'catrtc, No. 34253). In many cases
Berlin catalogue, p. 351. the paintings arc no doubt far from lieing
^° Even when the head is painted on an faithful likenesses, tliough they do not degen-
inserted panel, e.g. Cairo No. ;J3217. erate into conventional types as the masks tend
•"' E.g. Cairo No. 33282, PI. XLVIII. For to do.
other examjiles from various periods see Hilton *- lloman AH, p. 160.
•232 C. a EDGAK
them very happily with Roman portraits ot" the first century A.D. In the:
next place it is proved by ancient records, as Ebers says, that the Greeks in
Egypt had adopted the custom of mummifying their dead by the second
century B.C. But that by itself is no clue to the age of the portraits.
All the evidence goes to show that Greek mummies were at first decorated
entirely in the Egyptian manner.^^ For instance there is nothing Greek
about the mummy of Theodorion in Cairo except the name and the inscrip-
tion on the coffin.** Again, there are among the portraits certain heads
with what is apparently a hanging tuft of hair on the right side. This has
been identified, perhaps rightly, with the Egyptian side-lock. There would
be nothing remarkable about it if the persons represented were children.
But Ebers claims that one or two of them are grown-up men,*^ and the only
adults who wear the side-lock on Egyptian monuments are the princes of the
royal family. So he elaborates a theory that these portraits may represent
young men of good family who either were sons of the king's a-uyyevel'i or
had been pages at the Alexandrian court, ISaalXeioL 7rai8€<;, and who may
therefore have .been permitted to wear the side-lock to a comparatively
advanced age. This is offered as a serious argument that the portraits are
Ptolemaic ! Lastly, Ebers points to certain portraits of young men wearing
mantles of hyacinth-coloured purple and jewelled bands which are supposed
to be sword-belts and which in three cases out of four are hung over the
right shoulder.**"' He argues that these paintings must be Ptolemaic, for in
Roman times nobody except the Emperor was allowed to wear purple of this
particular shade and the Roman custom, unlike the Greek, was to wear the
sword-belt over the left shoulder. The latter statement is an error. On
Roman monuments one often sees the belt fastened over the right shoulder
and sometimes over the left.*' There was certainly no fi.xed custom through-
out the Empire. As regards tlic other point, the women's dresses on the
panel portraits are usually of purple, varying from lilac to dark violet, and in
some cases the men wear a purple cloak.*^ If anyone will take the trouble
to pick out the portraits (and also the plaster busts) *^ on which the drapery
is of the dark hyacinthine shade, he will not discover a single one with
any distinctively Ptolemaic trait, but he will find several which it is
** For inCoMiiatiou about I'tok'inaic ceiiie- case a yiil wears it on the left wide (Cairo-,
teries in the Fiiyiim see especially Grenfcll, No. 33216).
Hunt, Hogarth, Fayuui Tovns, and B.C.H. •»" Nos. 4, 5, 6, 22. No. 5 wears the Iielt
XXV. p. 380 (!'. (ivcr the kit shoulder : see also Burlington Finr
** Guide 1903, p. 364. Arts Exhibition 1895, I'l. 9.
••■■' Graf, Nos. 7 and 60. The latter he says *' See fur instance the article haltnis in
rejiresents a man at least 20 years old. But Daremlierg and Saj;lio.
there is a j)ortrait in Cairo of exactly the same ■*■• Purple drapery is mucli ranr on the
type on a well-preserved mummy, the length jilaster busts. I'robalily it was a convention
of wliich, including the wrappings, is little among the painters, like the grey l)ackg)()un(l.
more than 1 metre (No. 33227, PI. XXXV) ! TIjc diirerences in the deptli uf the purple arc-
No. 7 too is clearly not an adult. All the largely tlie cfiect of dilferent liglit and shade,
heads that I know of with this bunch at the *'•> E.g. Cairo No. 33155.
side are sinij'ly portraits of children. In one
ON THE DATINCJ OF THE FAYUM PORTRAITS. 233
impossible to attributo to any periotl except the first and second centuries
A.D.^*^ That being so, it is needless to inquire further wliether this really was
tile TiTiperial purple and what exactly was the scope of the law. Perhaps
the other archaeologists who share the opinion of Ebers rely on some better
arguments which have not come to my knowledge, but at present the
ijuestion seems to me to stand thus. The external evidence, though not^ so
conclusive as one would like, gives no support to the theory that the best
portraits are Ptolemaic, but is altogether against it. Again, the internal
details of the portraits themselves, while they contain nothing that is
distinctively Ptolemaic, prove that a large part of the series (including much
of the best work) is certainly of the Roman age. And if we look closely
into those specimens which in themselves seem to bear no decisive indicati(»u
of date, we find so many points of connexion with the undoubtedly Ronuui
ones, they fall so naturally into place among the others, that we are forced
to pronounce the whole series to be Roman.
C. C. Edgah.
Cairo.
" This is true oven of the four portraits selected I>v Eliers. No. 6 for iii-stance is cleaily
an Antonine work.
THE APOXYOMENOS OF LYSIPPUS.
In the HcUciiic Journal for 1!)03, while publishing some heads of Apollu,
I took occasion to exi)ress my doubts as to the expediency of hereafter taking;
the Apoxyomenos as the norm of the works (jf Lysippus. These views, how-
ever, were not expressed in any detail, and occurring at the end of a paper
devoted to other matters, have not attractetl much attention from archaeolo-
gists. The subject is of great importance, since if my contention be justified,
much of the history of Greek sculpture in the fourth century will have to be
reconsidered. Being still convinced of the justice of the view which I took
two years ago, I feel bound to bring it forward in more detail and with a
fuller statement of reasons.
Our knowledge of many of the sculptors of the fourth century, Praxiteles,
Scopas, Bryaxis, Timotheus, and others, has been enormously enlarged
during the last thirty years through our discovery of works proved by
documentary evidence to have been either actually executed by them, or at
least made under their direction. But in the case of Lysippus no such
discovery was made until the very important identification of the Agias
at Delphi as a copy of a statue by this master.
Hitherto we had been content to take the Apoxyomenos as the best
indication of Lysippic style ; and apparently few archaeologists realized how
slender was the evidence on which its assignment to Lysippus was based.
That assignment took place many years ago, when archaeological method
was lax ; and it has not been subjected to sufficiently searching criticism. The
only documentary evidence for it is to be found in the words of Pliny. Pliny
mentions that one of the best known statues of Lysippus was an athlete
scraping himself with a strigil, destringens sc. And he tells us how Lysippus
introduced into sculpture a new canon of proportions, capita minora faciendo
(piam antiqui, corpora graciliora siccioraque, per quae proceritas signorum
major videretur. The first of the.se statements does not greatly help us,
as the motive of the strigil is rather common in Greek sculpture. It is the
second statement which has impressed archaeologists. And certainly, any-
one comparing the Apo.xyomenos with the athletes of Polycleitus will see that
in it the head is smaller, the body slighter and more sinewy, the apparent
height greater. But these features, though especially belonging to Lysippus
and his school, do not appertain to them exclusively. For example, the
fighting warriors of the Mausoleum frieze possess these characteristics in as
THE ATOXVOMKNOS OK I.YSIPPUS. 235
marked a iloj,Mi(' ns the Apoxyomeiios. Aiul no one attiibutes the Mausoleum
frieze to Lysipitus. It would seem then desirable nut to treat the attribution
of the A})oxyomeno.s to Lysi[)))iis as a settled question, but to consider it
afresh, and in a bioa<lei- light. So J)r. Klein ' writes, ' a mon; thorough-going
ti(>atnient of Lysippus in a monograph may gieatly advantage us; and the
time for it seems to have now arrived.'
1.- — TJic ^h/ii's (iiiil till' yi/)(iii/(i/iicii'i.'<.
The opportunity for reconsideration is offered us by the discovery at
Delphi of the group dedicated by Daochos, one figure of which is now known
to be a copy of a brojize statue by Lysippus representing Agias or Hagias,
a noted athlete of the fifth century, and so a more or less ideal athletic type
of that master. It is quite certain that it will be necessary in future to take
tlu^ Agias, and probably other statues of the group, into account in speak-
ing of the work of Lysippus. And here we come to a ditViculty. For until
M. Homolle and his colleagues have fully ])ublished and commented upon
the wdiole series of these statues wc cannot treat of them in detail. We can
but break ground ibi- discussion.-
I must, however, say a few words as to the claim of tlie Agias to be
thoroughly Lysippic. T need not repeat the inscriptional evidence which
shews that it is probably a conteniporary version in marble of a bronze set
up in Thessaly.'^ That this replica wa.s nuxde by tlie master himself is most
unlikely; he was pre-eminently a worker in bronze, not in marble. But there
would be little })oint in setting up at Delphi a duplicate of the Thessalian
group, unless it were a close imitation of it ; and at all events it is a work of
the time and the school of Lysippus. It has claims to repiesent his style,
which, if not conclusive, aie far more weighty than those belonging to any
otlier extant figure.
M. Homolle sums up the case for regarding the statue at Delphi as a
replica of the bronze of Pharsalus as follows,^ ' Le fait (the omission of
})roper support to the marble figure) martjue avec (juel respect du modele
la copie avait du etre faite, ct (|u'on avait cherche a en faire une repro-
duction fidele, a en garder I'aspect, le rythme, et le style, au prix memo
de difficultes, voire d'une imprudence technique. II prouve (jue la copie
merite notre confiance, qu'elle a une valeur documentaire, c^u'elle pent,
dans la mesure ou cela est possible, tenir lieu de I'original.' This statement
is, perhaps, a little too positive; but yet we are obliged to attribute high
documentary value to the Agias statue.
(-asts of the Agias and of the Apoxyomenos have stood side by siih-
in the Ashmolean gallery of casts for years. I liave frequently studieil
' Gesckichte (h r (irieeh. Kunst, ii. 273. forms Agias and Hagias swiu equally covrcct.
-There is a iireliininary .liscussion ol' the ^ See B.C. I/. *23, ji. 422: Premier, A'm
group in the 7>.''.^. vol. 23, with Tlates. The dclphischcs U'eikgcsch'nk, 1900.
Agias is rcpeateil in this Journal, 23, 129. The '' /.c. \\. 444.
236 P. (!Aur)M:i;
them, alone and in comiiany witli pupils ami colleagues. And I liave
reached the decided opinion that if the Agias is at all trustworthy as a
copy of a Lysippic bronze, then the Apoxyomenos cannot, as it stands, he
Lysippic. When placed side by side, the two figures not only differ in
work and in style, but they differ so innrkedly that they must belong to
different authors and to different periods.'"' This view, however, is one U*
which archaeologists at present are not inclined, and I must set it forth with
proper grounds and reasons.
Tiiere was one event in the history of Greek sculpture which over-
shadows in importance all others. This event is the application to sculpture
of the results of anatomical study. Prof Lange has some excellent observa-
tions on this subject.'' Before the Hellenistic age, the Greeks 'knew the
naked body, as one knows one's- native tongue. But no one had a clear
conception of the causes of what took place ; men knew not what it was that
took place beneath the skin, and produced the undulations of surface.
Modern science will not by any means allow that such an empirical
knowledge of surface deserves the name of science. But what in the view of
science is a low degree of development, must from the artistic point of view
be regarded as not merely adequate, but in fact ns far better and more
successful than knowledge tecimically scientific' Lange proceeds to point
out that it was first at the Museum of Alexandria, about h.c. 300, that
human anatomy was seriously studied by such masters as Herophilus and
Erasistratus. It was said in later times of Herophilus that he dissected
GOO corpses. A historian of anatomy writes ' The special branch of
anatomy which at this peiiod was founded, and advanced with rapid
steps, was myology (study of muscle), which had hitherto been unknown:
it was now cultivated to such a degree that most of the muscles were known
to the physicians of the school of Alexandria.' "
This growing knowledge of anatomy soon reacted on the art of
sculpture, with the final results which arc obvious to us in such works as the
Fighter of Agasias in the Louvre, or the Laocoon. These works are far
indeed from the sim[ lioity of the early Greek sculptor, who was content to
see what offered itself to the eye. They are learned works, of great
technical perfection, whicli have almost the appearance of anatomical models.
The elastic skin no longer hides the working of the muscles beneath, but
they are exhibited in nil their connexions and ramifications in a state of
tension.
The introduction of the study of anatomy, then, is the great dividing-
event in the history of ancient sculpture. Of course many works made after
B.C. 300 are not especially anatomical, proceeding on earlier lines. But it
* Dr. Ameluiig in Iii.s Calalogue of Ihc rati- statues side by &iile.
can Sculpture {\). 87), says that the Agias « Die mcnschliche Gcstalt in dcr Qtscliichtc
figure 'offers the closest analogies in style to der Kunst, ii. Tlieil, p. 39.
the Apoxyomenos.' I cannot think that so ' Lanth, Histoirc dc V Anatomic, 1815,
good a judge would have made so extraordinary p. 118.
a statement it' he had seen casts of the two
THE APOXYOMENOS OF LY81PPU.S.
237
may fairly be said to be impossible that a work of the periotl before 300
should shew clear traces of anatomical study. If so, no statue of this
tendency can be a faithfid copy of a work of Lysippus.
If, then, we considtM' the two statues M-hich have mosl direct claim to he
Lysippic, the Aqias and the Apoxyomenos, we shall at once see that the
Fn;. ].~FuOL' of Apoxyomenos.
Agias is on the earlier side of this great dividing line, and the Apoxyomenos
on the later side. The conclusion seems to me obvious and inevitable, that
the Agias and not the Apo.xyomenos is a trustworthy guide to Lysippic
style.
Fig. 'J.— Foot of Agias
Ex 2^cdc Herculem. Let anyone carefully compare the foot of the
Apoxyomenos (Fig. 1)** with the feet of statues belonging in origin to the
fourth century, the Hermes of Praxiteles or other Praxitelean statues, the
Meleager of the Vatican, the Agias (Fig. 2).^ He will find it to be quite of
* From €i cast.
238 P. GARDNER
another type, long, lean, sinewy, all skin aiul bone and tendon, without flesh
to soften the transition. Then let the same foot be compared with that of
the Fighter of Agasias : the two will be found to belong to the same class,
though the Agasias statue is somewhat more extieme. And what is true of
the foot is true of all parts of the body. Sir Charles Newton, who was in
the habit of examining Greek statues with some of the best judges, besides
being a skilled judge himself, used to say of the Apoxyomenos that it was a
man skinned; and that is certainly the impression which its learned and
elaborate technique leaves on the student.
I must not, however, be supposed to say that the Apoxyomenos is a
purely naturalistic work. On the contrary it contains two elements not easy
to reconcile, a striving to embody academic rule or tradition and an attempt
at anatomic correctness. To the first of these elements archaeologists have
done justice : it has been recognized that the statue represents a distinctive
Fid. 3.— WaIM- KK .'VrnXViiMKNus.
school, and is intended to embody a canon of proportions. And archaeo-
logists have been quite right in identifying its school as that of Argos and
Sicyon, Among other details the remarkable emphasis laid on the muscle
just above the knee, which Michaelis has pointed out as a mark of the school
of Polycleitus, confirms this view. But the second element is not less
prominent. I would cite the treatment of two parts of the body in
particular, as examples.
On the front of the left thigh of the Apoxyomenos there is a triangular
depression between the muscles called tensor fasciae and sartorius (Fig. 3)."
There is also a marked division between the gemelli muscles in the calf of
the right leg at bottom. I have not found these points, which are anatomic-
ally correct, thus noticed in works of the fifth or fourth centuries. Both arc
* From a cast.
THE APOXYOiMENOS OF LY8IPPU.S.
239
notable in the Aj^asias ligtire. No doubt a minute observation of a model
with highly developed muscles and no fat might enable any sculptor to
observe these points: I have seen photographs from the living body in
which both are clear. But Greek sculptors, even in the fourth century,
preferred to cover the working of the muscles with a layer of flesh. In such
emphasis on exact points of muscular structure as we find in the Ajwxyo-
menos, we may notice a dift'crent spirit, and the influence of anatomic stutl}-,
of myology. Again, in the side above the hip we may notice a treatment of
the obliquus externus muscle ([uite different from that of the Agias (Fig. 4).^*
Indeed wc may say that the way in which the upper part of the body is
joined to the hips is quite different from anything to which we are accustomed
in fourth century statues : the result being to give the body a swing and a
motion which are very notable.
Fk;. 4. — Waist kf Af;i.vs.
Of the influence of an anatomical school, as well as of the swing and
motion in the Apoxyomenos, the Agias shews no trace.
While the general proportions of the two figures as regards length of
lines are not dissimilar, the Apoxyome!\os being the slighter of the two, in
the treatment of surface and of muscle the two statues differ fundamentally.
We find in fact between the Agias and the Apoxyomenos exactly the
development of which Lange, in the passage already cited, has written.
The man who made the Agias, like Praxiteles and other fourth century
sculptors, copied what was visible on the surface of male bodies not
exceptionally trained, but exceptionally beautiful. The man who made
the Apoxyomenos, though he was academic in style, yet knew what lies
beneath the surface of the body ; and this knowledge in some cases,
though not in all, guided his hand, perhaps without his recognizing
the fact.
"' From a cast-
240 P. GAKDNER
I am aware that this is dangerous ground whereon to dogniati/ce.
In Greek sculpture, in spite of its general regularity, there are abnormal
phenomena here and there. Occasionally, at all periotls, we may find
striking bits of naturalism scarcely consistent with their surroundings.
For example, in the National Museum at Athens, there is an archaic
male fignre,^^ the work of the knees and shins of which is wonderfully
<letailed. In the middle of the fourtli century it is possible t<> find
figures which have a certain anatomical appearance. The most remark-
able instances known to me are some of the men and some of the
horses in the Amazon frieze of the Mausoleum.^- But these figures,
tliough the muscles and veins are very prominent, do not seem to mc U>
be so correct in detail as to indicate any anatomic.d study: the opi)ositc
is rather true of them.
We must, however, see whethei- there is any extant evidence to be
gained from statues, as to the treatment of limb and muscle by Lysippus.
It has been not uncommon to find such evidence in a statue of the icsting
Herakles in the Pitti Gallery at Florence,^-' on the basis of which is the
inscription Avo-ittttov epyov. It has sometimes been assumed that the
inscription guarantees this work as an exact copy of a Herakles of Lysippus.
This, liovvever, would certainly not be a legitimate assumption, were the
antiquity of the inscription beyond dispute, which it is not. And as the
head upon the statue is a portrait of Commodus,^* the notion that we have
an exact copy is evidently fanciful. The statue belongs to a large class, of
which the best known example is the Herakles Farnese at Naples, made by
the sculptor Glycon. These figures differ among themselves in* a marked
degree in work and style, and there is none but internal evidence as to
which is nearest to Lysippus. I should grant as a probability, though not
as a certainty, that Lysippus made a Herakles in this attitude; but in fact,
as has been more than once pointed out, the attitude goes back beyond
Lysippus to the fifth century.^'' None of the copies throws any light on the
detailed treatment of surface by Lysippus. The Herakles who has
strongest claim to a Lysippic character is the young Herakles in the
Lansdowne Gallery, the close likeness of which both in pose and detail to
the Agias has already been pointed out in this journal,^'' and is obvious to
everyone who compares casts or good photographs of the two. Yet of
course Lysippus did not confine himself to one type of Herakles; and he
probably represented the hero, as he did Alexander, at various periods of
" 'E<^. 'Apx- 1902, ri. III. The pliotograph Furtw;ingler in Roscher's Lcxikon, i. p. 2173 ;
is not so taken as to bring out the points Jahrhuch des Inst., Anzeiger 1894, p. 25. Next
above mentioned. to the inscription cited above, the best evidence
1- See especially Brunn, Dcnkmdlcr, PI. for a Tiysippic statue of this type is found in a
XCVIII, 100. sma'l copy of it on a coin of Alexander the
^3 Amelung, Fiihrer dttrch die Antikm in Great, probably struck at Sicyon : JVum. Chr.
Florcnz; Brunn, Dcnkmdlcr, PI. CCLXXXIV. 1883, PI. I. 5.
'* This fact, strangely enough, is not noted '" Vol. 23, p. 129. .So M. Hoinolle in
by Amelung. B.C.H. 23, 456.
" Mahler, Polyklct und seine S'rhulr. p. 1 16 ;
J. H. S VOL XXV. (1905). PL. XIII.
3 4
PORTRAITS FROM THE FAYUM.
THE APOXYOMENOS OF LYSIPPU.S.
241
life. Of the bearded heads of Herakles, the finest is that in the British
Museum,^^ and it may in essentials go back to a Lysippic original. The
boarded statues of the standing Herakles, figured by Mahler in the work
already cited (pages 145 and 147), are probably nearer to the style of
Lysippus than is the statue of Glycon.
We possess, in the reliefs which adorned the basis of the statue, of
Pulydamas at Olympia by Lysippus,^^ what ought to be very valuable
Fii;. 5. — Head of Agias.
material for determining his style. These reliefs, though not of course by
the Master himself, belong to his school. The reliefs from Mantinea, which
in a similar way represent the school of Praxiteles, no doubt are of great
value in the consideration of the work of Praxiteles. But unfortunately the
1^ Ancient Marbles, i. 11, cf. the Steiiihauser '^ Olympia, iii. PI. LV. 1 3, cf. text, p. 209.
]iiad, Mon. d. I. viii. 54. (Treu).
H.S. — VOL. XXV. K
24:
P. GARDNER
Pulydamas reliefs are so greatly damaged, that they are almost worthless for
any such purpose, Dr. Treu ventures on the observation that the legs of
Pulydamas in the central relief, which represents him carrying on his
shoulders a vanquished antagonist, are thin and sinewy. The figure of the
seated Persian king is majestic and dignified. Further than this we are
scarcely able to go.
It would thus seem that the definite evidence for the treatment of the
human body by Lysippus, outside the monument of Daochus, is but slight.
Vic. 6. — Head of Ai'oxydmkno.s.
Turning from the body to the head of the Agias and the Apoxyomenos,
we reach similar results. The head of the Agias (Fig. 5) ^^ is strangely
formed, with low forehead and small occiput ; but in the treatment of
forehead, eye, and mouth, one may trace some resemblance to the Tegean
heads, a resemblance which seems to shew, at all events, contem-
poraneousness. And it is by no means inconsistent with what Plutarch tells
us as to the success of Lysippus in representing the manly and leonine air «>f
Alexander. To this subject we must presently return. The hair of thu
statue does not, it must be confessed, shew much of the distinction and
»» Fouilks de Delphcs, PI. LXI V
THE APOXYOMENOS OF LYSIPPUH. 243
expressiveness which belong to the hair of some Lysippic heads. It is in
fact only sketched out. But we must remember two things: first, that a
very simple form of hair is appropriate to a pancratiast, and second, that in
the copying of bronze in marble scarcely any part of the figure would suffer
so much as the hair.
For a more precise and detailed description of this head, the reader must
turn to the paper of M. Homolle,-'' who, in concluding, speaks of "' les
difTcrences profondes qui existent entre la tete d'Agias et celle de
TApoxyomenos, et ((ui, au milieu de beaucoup d'autres ressemblances,
pourraient faire husiter sur la commune origine des deux reuvres.' I
think that anyone who compares our figures, 5 and 6, will agree with tliis.
It is a curious proof how the attribution of the Apoxyomenos to
Lysippus has blinded the eyes of archaeologists, that the head of that
statue (Fig. 6) -^ has been taken as an index of his representations of the
male head. This head is in fact of early Hellenistic type, and its want of
expression stands in marked contradiction to what Plutarch tells us about
Lysippus. From the testimony of ancient writers we learn that the works of
Lysippus were of a stormy, expressive, and idealizing character. But we
throw all this testimony aside, because we are determined to judge Lysippus
by the Apoxyomenos. It has indeed become quite the custom to speak of
Lysippus as in style somewhat superficial and inexpressive. These phrases
may apply to the author of the Apoxyomenos. But to apply them to
Lysippus is to run counter to the most definite statements of ancient
writers.
We owe to the wide knowledge of Professor Furtwiingler the observation
that the head of the Apoxyomenos is the earliest young head in which the
marked furrow in the forehead, usual in works of the fourth century, is
replaced by a wrinkle." It is true that in the heads of the Olympian
pediments and the Parthenon metopes the horizontal wrinkle is quite
usual; but this is very different, quite superficial; the wrinkle of the
Apoxyomenos strikes one as something new and something decidedly post-
Praxitelean.
II. — The Bate of Lysippus.
Probably some archaeologists may be disposed to allow a consider-
able difference in date between the Agias and the Apoxyomenos, but may
yet hold that both may go back to Lysippus, the one statue representing the
work of his' youth, the other of his maturity or old age. In order to meet
this objection, I must consider what is really the date of Lysippus. Canina
saw no great difficulty in attributing the Apoxyomenos even to the time
of Polycleitus. But the perception of its true period and character has
gradually dawned on archaeologists. And the result has been a curious one :
it has been a gradual pushing of Lysippus from his proper place in the
•-" B.C.ff. xxiii, p. 453-6. --' Masterpieas, \\ 304.
-^ Fioni a cast.
U 2
244 P. GARDNER
history of Greek art. Archaeologists could not separate him from the
Apoxyomenos, and so had to bring him down to a later and later period.
Thus there has arisen an increasing tendency to consider Lysippns as a
far younger contemporary of Scopas and Praxiteles. Recently it has become
not unusual to make his period the latter half of the fourth century ; while
Scopas and Praxiteles are placed in the middle of that century. When
however we try to throw into perspective the evidence on which this view
is based, discriminating between what is really trustworthy and what has
little value, we shall find that it does not really support the current view.
To begin with Scopas. His date can only be fixed by that of the
Mausoleum, about B.C. 350, and that of the later temple of Ephesiis, during
the earlier life-time of Alexander the Great. His work on the temple of
Athena at Tegea has usually been placed much earlier than the time of
the Mausoleum, The old temple was destroyed about B.C. 394, and it is
presumed that it was shortly afterwards rebuilt under the direction of
•Scopas. But for the time of this rebuilding there is no documentary or
inscriptional evidence, and if we go by the evidence of the remains them-
.selves, a later date than B.C. 390 would suo^gest itself. M. Mendel iu the
Bulletin"^ observes that though the architectural decoration of the temple
recalls that of the Erechtheium it is decidedly later, find resembles rather
that of the great temples of Asia of the middle of the fourth century',
or even of the Sarcophagus of Alexander. In regard to the sculpture also,
it is not easy to place it forty years earlier than that of the Mausoleum.
It would naturally suggest itself that the new temple at Tegea wais built
just at the time, about 370-300 B.C., when so much temple building was
going on in Peloponnesus, at Messene, Megalopolis, and other places. It
would thus seem probable that the sculptural career of Scopas did not begin
so early as is usually supposed. To the main argument of the present
paper, this is a question of very small importance ; but it is worth while
in passing to (juestion the view which makes Scopas precede Lysippus by a
generation.
The date of Pliny for Prn.ntcks, B.C. 364, is perhaps that of the
Aphrodite of Cnidus. Pliny's date for his sons, not a trustworthy date, as
their names do not come first in the list, is B.C. 296, the same date as that
of the sons of Lysippus, M. S. Reinach gives the Hermes with the child
Dionysus to B.C. 363, Prof Furtwangler to B.C. 343. We have in fact little
evidence for the date of Praxiteles beyond the statement of Pliny, and the
internal evidence of extant statues. The most recent writer on Praxiteles,
M. Perrot, thinks that he was born about B.C. 390.
LysippusWaie in Pliny is simply taken from ihe Jlor nit of Alexander the
Great. It is B.C. 328. This may possibly be the date of a noted portrait of
Alexander by Lysippus, though as Alexander was then campaigning in Bactria,
no j)ortrait of him, in the strict sense of the word, could be made at that time.
We are however told that Lysippus made many statues of Alexander from
2' B.C.H. IDOl, p. 255.
Till-: APOXYOMENOS OF LYSIPPUS. 245
lii.s boyhood onwards, wliicli will take us back to the middle of the century.
The connexion of the name of Lysippus in the well-known story with that
ot" Euponipus the painter seems to take us further back still. Eupompus
belongs to the latter part of the fifth and the early part of the fourth
century; and if Lysippus even in his youth was contemporary with
Eupompus, he cannot have been born much later than B.C. 400. However,
of course not much serious weisfht can be attached to these anecdotes about
sculptors.-^ More important is the date given us by the Lysippic portrait
of Troilus mentioned by Pausanias.-'' Pausanias tells us that Troilus while
Hellanodikes won two victories, one with grown horses and one with colts, in
01. 102, B.C. 372; and that Lysippus executed his statue. The lower part
of the base of this statue, on which the artist's name probably appeared, has
been lost ; but the epigram is still extant in which Troilus says that he
won with iTTTTot d6Xo(f)6po(, and then e(^e^rf<i with Xinrot. This has been
construed as meaning that Troilus was victorious in B.C. 372 and then again
in the next Olympiad, B.C. 368. But Pausanias says distinctly that both
victories were won in a year, and i<f)€^T}<: seems to me to bear that interpreta-
tion, and that interpretation only. It is clear then that the two victories of
Troilus were both won in B.C. 372. And the lettering of the epigram furnishes
satisfactory proof that the statue was erected at once. Mr. M. N. Tod, whom
I have consulted on the epigraphic point, observes that the forms of the
letters, taken with the use of O for O Y, would seem to give a date somewhere
between B.C. 400 and 360. The forms indeed are much like those of the
inscription in Loewy, No. 102, in regard to which Loewy remarks, 'Schrift-
charakter und Orthographic (0=0Y) der ersten Zeit uach Euklid.' Thus
there is no reason for rejecting the natural view, that the statue of Troilus
was set up soon after B.C. 372.
The contrary has been maintained by high authority ; but the reason
probably is the difficulty of assigning so early a date to a work of Lysippus,
and this reason falls away if we divide the sculptor from the Apoxyomenos.
It would seem then that Lysippus was at work quite as early as Praxiteles,
and very possibly as early as Scopas. He was strictly their contemporary.
On the other hand, he would certainly seem to have outlived thera,«ince he
wurked for Alexander and his generals, while we do not hear that Scopas
and Praxiteles undertook commissions for these. His latest works take us
down at all events to B.C. 320. At that time he may well have been about
70 ; and the lives of Titian and Michael Augelo and Watts prove that a laan
may do remarkable work at that age.
There is some evidence for work by Lysippus at a later date than
B.<.". 320. And if he were born, as seems probable, about B.C. 390, he may
well have accepted commissions, to be executed mainly by his pupils, for
several years after 320. But at the same time we may observe that the
proofs that this was the case are of a flimsy character.
^* The story mentioned seems to he vouched tales of the kind,
for by Duris who is almost a contemporary ; it -^ vi. 1,4: of. Loewy, Inschr. griech. Bild-
stands therefore on a better basis than most hauer, p. 76.
24 G P. GARDNER
The great bronze group at Delphi by Leocharcs and Lysippus uhicli
represented the lion hunt of Alexander and Craterus has become more of a
reality to us since the base of it with the inscription has been discovered at
Delphi.-'^ This inscription states that the work was vowed by Craterus and
<ledicated by his son. Craterus fell in battle in ]5.C. 321. Tiie most uatur;d
and simple supposition is that the work by Leochares and Lysii)pus was
already begun but not completed wJien (/raterus was slain.
As to the other inscribed base by Lysippus,-^ Loewy lias shewn so many
ambiguities to inhere in its dating, that we need not here discuss it.
Pausanias-'^ tells us of a certain Cheilon, to whom on account of his
gallant death in a battle, a statue was set up at Olympia by the Achaeans.
This statue was by Lysippus, and from this fact Pausanias infers that Cheilon
must have fallen either at Chaeroneia (b.c. 838) or before Lamia (b.c. 822).
Pausanias judges justly: these were the two occasions during the life-
time of Lysippus, when the Achaeans took part in an important war. And
both of these dates full within his working-time, as I would hx it.
Mention must however be made of one or two items of evidence which
seem to indicate a later date. There is the well-known inscription copied in
the Vatican by Pietro Sabino,-'' ^eXef/co? /3aai\€v>i, Avcmnro^ tTrolei, which
has been supposed to shew that Lysippus made a portrait of Seleucus after
lie had taken the kingly title in B.C. 300. But we liave only to suppose that
the word ^aai\ev<i was (naturally enough) added by the Roman copyist, to
destroy the special bearing of this inscription. That Lysippus should have,
<>ither before or after the death of Alexander, made a portrait of his trusted
officer Seleucus, as of Craterus and many others, is likely enough. As to
the story in Athenaeus which connects the name of Lysippus with the
foundation of Cassandreia in B.C. 316, it need not be taken seriously.
There is thus no serious evidence for works of Lysippus of a later date
than about B.C. 320. It is convenient in histories of sculpture to place him
in a later chapter than Praxiteles and Scopas. But he seems during all the
earlier part of his life to have been strictly their contemporary : very probably
all were born early in the fourth century, though Scopas miglit have been
born in the fifth. On the other hand it can scarcely be doubted that
Lysippus outlived the other two. The number of his works, and his
connexion with the generals of Alexander, prove this. Yet this fact is not
of great importance in legard to his style. For it is very unusual for a great
artist seriously to alter his method of working in his old age. By B.C. 340
or thereabouts he would have fully formed his style ; and after that so busily
active a man would scarcely change it.
It is the more important to point out the contemporaneity of the three
great masters of the fourth century, because it has of late become something
of a fashion to insist on the influence of Scopas on Lysippus. Such influence
''• Homolle in B.C.H. xxi. p. 598. *« vi. 4, 6.
'" Loewy, Inschr. (jricch. Bildhaucr, No. 93. "^ Loewy, No. 487.
Plutarcli, Alex. 40.
THE APOXYOMENOS OF LY81PPUS. 247
there would luituially be : t;ieat contemporary artists usually exercise
some influence on one another, whether in the way of attraction or repulsion.
That there were points of strong likeness between the two sculptors is
becoming more and more evident ; but we arc as yet scarcely in a position to
say which was the leading spirit. And if, as is likely, Scopas influenced
Lysippus, it is also likely that Lysippus in turn influenced Scopas.
If then the range of Lysippus' works stretches from B.C. 372 to 320, it
cannot be maintained that the Agias statue represents his earliest work.
For in that case, when the group of Daochos was executed, in r.C. 339-331,""
lie was decidedly <wcr fifty years of age. He can hardly, after that, have so
far changed his stylo as to produce a statue so different from the Agias as is
the Apoxyomenos. After sixty, very few painters or sculptors have radically
altered their style ; and in the case of Lysippus we must not, without good
grounds, assume such a ciiange.
It will be observed that the position which I am criticising is the view
that the Apoxyomenos, though confessedly a work of the Roman age, and a
copy in marble of an original in bronze, yet faithfully reproduces a lost work
of Lysippus, and may be considered in all its details as the type of his style.
It is however evidently possible to hold a somewhat different view,-'^ that
the Roman copyist, while preserving the general type and attitude of the
Lysippic statue, has in some degree modernized the anatomy. In support of
this theory, there has been cited a torso at Athens^- of a figure in the same
attitude as the Apoxyomenos, but treated in a much simpler and drier
style. This might very well be taken, and in fact has been taken, to prove
that the most striking features of the Apoxyomenos are due to some artist o
the Neo-Attic School, some such master as Glycon or Cleomenes. I must at
once allow that those who adopt this view are thereby shielded from such
parts of the preceding orgument as have reference to the detailed and
anatomic character of the surface of the Apoxyomenos. My polemic has
been directed against taking the Apoxyomenos, as it stands, as an index of the
style of Lysippus. This is what has been commonly done by archaeologists;
and it is against this that I appeal. If it be held that the statue, as it stands,
only bears the same relation to a bronze oiiginal by Lysippus as the Herakles
of Glycon bears to a possible Lysippic Herakles, then we have a view which
is much more reasonable, and much more defensible.
At the same time, it appears that there are still some features in the
Apoxyomenos for which this theory does not well account. It is not only the
surface of the Apoxyomenos which is later in character than the age of
Alexander, but also the whole build of the figure and its composition. On
this subject Prof. Loewy has some good remarks. He observes that the author
of the Apoxyomenos (^wliom he naturally calls Lysippus) was the flrst of
3e This is the daU' at which Preuncr arrives 338-334 ; B.C. If. xxiii. p. 440.
(Ei)i Delplnsches Wcihgcschcnk, p. 12) after =" This view has been taken by U. Koehler,
careful investigation. M. Homolle ventures Ath. Mitlh. 19,11, \y bl and others.
to determine the date still more precisely to ^- Ath. Milth. 1877, PI. IV.
248 P. GARDNER
Greek sculptors to compose works really in three dimensions. ' In the
naturalistic rounding of his figure, many aspects pass undistinguishably into
one another; he exercises in the front view full freedom of foresliortening, not
only of the trunk, which bends in various directions, but of the whole figure,
arms and legs stretching boldly into the void. With this, complete success is
secured in dealing with the round.'" But this freedom from the use of only two
planes certainly does not belong to the contemporaries of Lysippus ; and it
seems clear that it is a mark of the age of expansion after Alexander the Great.
And this feature cannot, like the peculiarities of the surfice, be abstracted
from the statue, which is full of ease and motion, one aspect of it fitting in with
another. I am therefore much more inclined to think that the statue, as it
stands, is a fairl}' correct reproduction of a Greek original of a time somewhat
later than Lysippus. Of this view I will say more in the final section.
III. — Ancient Critics on Lysipims.
I must briefly speak of the statements of ancient writers in regard to
the style of Lysippus.^* Such statements are usually of a very superficial
character ; but we cannot neglect them, more especially as Lysippus lived
just before the rise of the literary school of Alexandria, and was naturally
the subject of much criticism.
I have already touched on the chief of these statements, that Lysippus
introduced changes into the recognized proportions of the human body.
This assertion is doubtless based on fact. But other assertions, and more
especially such as seem to imply that Lysippus was a naturalistic sculptor,
require a further and a more sceptical investigation. For example we have
the assertion of Quintilian ' Ad veritatem Lysippum ac Praxitelem accessisse
optiine affirmant.' We cannot believe Quintilian if he means by this
that Lysippus was a realist in the modern sense of the word, closer to
unimproved nature. In Quintilian, Praxiteles is coupled with Lysippus,
and how little of a realist Praxiteles was, we all know. Of cour.se
through the whole history of ancient art down to its decline there went a
careful study of nature, so that in some respects sculpture may be said to
have moved nearer to life. But there were other tendencies, quite as strong,
which preserved its ideal character. It is probable that great sculptors never
fully realize how much of themselves and of current ideas they put into their
works. Often idealists are quite convinced that they are only following nature :
what they add to nature they add unconsciously, and because they cannot
help it.
On the whole, the ancient testimony as to Lysippus establishes his ideal
character. The man who represented Alexander to his own satisfaction, and
laid stress upon his leonine and manly air would not be a realist. A Crom-
well might tell a painter to copy his scars and wrinkles; but Alexander was
"* Loewy, Die Natunviedcrgabe, p. 49 ; so •'* These are all to be foiuul in Overberk'.s
also Klein, (Jcschichte ii. p. 348. Schi-iftquellcn, pp. 287 and foil.
THE APOXYOMENOS OF LYSIPPUS. 249
of (juite anotlicr type, and the main object of his ambition was to rise above
the ordinary liuman level.
There is a story that Lysippus was induced by a saying of the painter
Euponipus to take nature rather than any master as his guide. But to
this story, as I have already observed, little value attaches. In fact the oppo-
site tendency, the academic, is insisted on by better authority. Cicero says
that Lysippus spoke of the Doryphoros as his master, and Pliny says that he
paid great attention to the theory of proportion.
Pliny also records that Lysippus excelled ' capilJum expriniendo.' Now
of all parts of the body the hair least admits of naturalistic treatment, since
its forms are constantly varying, and anything but plastic. But on the other
hand the hair can be used to give character and expression to a head. Li
portraits of the early Hellenistic age of philosophers and the like, the hair
and beard are treated Avith great skill, and used to give character. Probably
Lysippus excelled in this matter, which had been neglected by his prede-
cessors and even his contemporaries. The hair is a very noteworthy feature
in such heads as the Zeus of Otricoli, the bearded Herakles of the
British Museum, and the Poseidon of the Lateran, all of which may be more
or less Lysippic. In porf^raits of Alexander, as we shall see in the next
section, the hair is usually treated with expression. On the other hand the
hair of the Apoxyomenos, though worked out with some care, is decidedly
wanting in character and expressiveness.
Another statement of Pliny is that Lysippus shewed great vigour in
detail : ' argutiae custoditae in minumis quoque rebus.' But argutiae does
not in the least imply jninute accuracy or naturalism in the rendering of
detail : it implies animation or vividness throughout, much the same thing as
Propertius means when he speaks of the ' animosa signa ' of Lysippus,
Animation seems to have been as striking a feature in Lysippus' statues as in
those of his contemporary Scopas.
Finally we have in Pliny the reported statement of Lysippus himself,
that his predecessors depicted men quales essent, while he depicted them
quales viderentur esse. Few passages have lent themselves to more
discussion than this. Some archaeologists have regarded it as an affirmation
of the impressionist character of Lysippic art ; some as a statement of his
allowance for perspective ; some as a declaration of his idealism. It would
take too much space if I endeavoured to discuss this passage in detail ; I will
only briefly indicate my own view, which is that the passage must not be
considered in isolation, but in connexion with other art-criticisms of Greek
writers. We may fairly trace back most of these to some germ in the Poetics
of Aristotle, who may be said to have set criticism going, and who formulated
those phrases about ethos and pathos, idealism and naturalism, which formed
the stock in trade of lesser men. In the Poetics^'-' Sophocles is made to
say that he represented men otoy? Set iroielv, while Euripides represented
them oloi elaiv. Here it can scarcely be doubted that Sophocles is meant to
Compare the paj^r of Trof. Kekule in the Jahrbuch, 1893, pp. 39-61.
t>50 P. (lAllJ)NEIl
contrast liis own ideality with the comparative lealisui ot Euripides. I am
disposed to think that under the Plinian phrase, (piales viderentur esse, there
hirks some Greek expression to tlie effect that Lysippus also was an idealist.
The words otoi/<? eocKev elvai have been snggesti'd as the phrase which Pliny
has misrendered, and the suggestion is at all events ingenious. At the same
time the view that he claimed to have introduced more perspective into sculpture
has much in its favour. In any case, to escape from an interminable
discussion, I think it clear that whatever Lysippus may assert in regard to
his own style, he at all events declares that it differs from that of his
predecessors, in that he does not represent men just as they stand. Whether
his improvement consisted in introducing a better canon of proportions, or in
treating details in a more characteristic way, it is less easy to say. But he
certainly disclaims realism.
In the interpretation then of statements of ancient writers, as in the
([uestion of date, the attribution of the Apoxyomcnos to Lysippus has
been a misleading light, and interfered with their natural rendering.
Archaeologists have found an affirmation of the naturalism of Lysippus
in passages which do not bear that meaning.
IV. — Lijsi'ppus and ^ilcxniKlcr.
We now reach my next contention, which is, that the whole ([uestion of
the portraiture of Alexander the Great has been confused, and drawn, so to
speak, out of focus, by the inference of the Apoxyonienos, We have had two
great monographs upon the portraits of Alexander, by Koepp and by
Schreiber,*' both containing much learning and written with ability, which
have for this reason fallen short of success. The still more recent work of
Bernoulli, on the other hand, being less dominated by a theory, avoids most
of the mistaken conclusions into which this ignis fatuus has led many able
archaeologists. The whole history of this investigation is an illustration of the
.danger of piling fresh theories upon a theory which is at the time accepted,
but is liable to be called in question. The only safe ground for a theory
is positive or documentary evidence ; and if it is allowable and necessary
sometimes to admit as working hypotheses views which have only a moderate
<legree of probability, it is essential that their doubtful character should be
always kept in mind, and that no attempt should be made to use them
as supports for further speculative constructions. One is reminded of what
has sometimes happened in English building. The Norman builder has
sometimes built a low wall on a small but sufficient foundation. A
subsequent builder has sometimes raised the height of the wall without
examining that foundation, and as a result the whole has collapsed.
A current misconception, piled upon the top of those already mentioned,
■*" F. Koepp, Ueber das Bildniss Alexanders Bernoulli, Die crhaltcnen Darstellungcn Alex-
dcs grossen, 1892 : T. Schreiber, Stiulicn ucber aiiders dcs (jrosscn, 1905.
das Bildniss Alexanders des grossen, 1903 : J.
Tin: APOXYOMENOS OF LYSII>PUS.
51
])rocee(l.s fumi ;i suppijscj likeness between the lie;ul of Llie Apoxyomcuos
and tlic Azara head of" Ah'xander in thi; Louvre to deduce the conclusion
that this Azara head is Lysippic, and in I'act preserves for us a copy of one
of the most noted of the Lysippic ])ortraits of Alexander, the Alexander with
the spear. To begin with, the likeness between tlie two heads is but
superficial, and is no safe basis for a theory.-''' And further it seems to me
extraordinary that anyone who has read the passage in Plutarch as to
Lysippus' ])ortraits of Alexander can find a copy of one of them in so
Fl'i. 7. — AZAKA Hf.AI) of ALF.XANnKl;.
miserable and characterless a work of art as the Azara portrait. ' Lysippus
alone,' says Plutarch, ' incorporated the character of Alexander in bronze and
gave liis body its indwelling valour : others, wishing to render the bend of
his neck, and the melting look of his eyes, failed to preserve what in him
was manly and leonine.' Plutarch further says that Lysippus represented
'" Bernoulli observes that tlie points of iicss. Die crludtencn Darslcllungcn Alexanders,
ditlereiice :ue more notable than those of like- \\ 24, cf. Figs. 6 (above) and 7.
252 r. (JAliDNKK
Alexander as gazing up towards the sky with proud and presumptuous air.
What of all this is there iu the dull Azara portrait ? (Fig. 7).-'^
But it has been maintained that we have a definite reason foi-
connecting the Azara head with Lysippus because it resembles the head of
a small bronze figure which may reasonably be regarded as a reduction of
Lysippus' Alexander with the spear. •''■* This bronze is figured by Schreiber.^^
It comes from Egypt. I would readily allow that this statuette may well be
a reminiscence of one of the Lysippic portraits of Alexander ; but it is not
legitimate in such a case to assume that it is a close copy of the statue.
And I agree with Bernoulli that the minuteness of the head of the statuette,
and the oxidation which it has undergone, make it a very unsound basis for
any theory. What is quite clear is that the Azara head could not be placed
upon any such statue as Plutarch describes without incongruity.
I venture to think that the whole question of the portraiture of
Alexander has been placed on a false basis through what may be termed a
mistake in psychology. Archaeologists have been misled by the tendencies
of modern art, and have not clearly seen how much there is in ancient
portraiture of idea and belief, in proportion to visible fact. They underrate
the extreme idealism of fourth century art. The attempt to recover the
actual traits of the Macedonian hero, as they might appear in a photograph,
is a hopeless quest. No one at the time looked at Alexander with the cold
and critical eyes of science. All that we can hope to recover is the mental,
rather than the visual, images which those about Alexander formed of him.
Different sculptors, we are told, formed different types of the hero, each
doubtless according to the formed style of his art. Foremost afnong them
stood Leochares and Lysippus. Alexander preferred the Lysippic rendering
of himself because he discerned in the art of Lysippus a kinship to his own
manly and ardent nature. Some of the sculptural types of Alexander we
may hope to identify amid the numerous extant statues and statuettes which
are more or less intended to represent the great king. We can throw them
into classes. But we shall scarcely be able to say how nearly they resemble
the hero whom they portray.
In fact in portraiture, as in the representation of limb and muscle, the
turning point came about the year B.C. 300. Every one who is accustomed
to dealing with Greek coins knows that we do not find on them strongly
marked and naturalistic portraits until the third century. In sculpture the
same thing holds. The break comes between such a portrait as that of
Sophocles of the time of Lycurgus (B.C. 337—323) with its noble ideality,
and such a portrait as that of Demosthenes of the time of Polyeuctus
(B.C. 280), which combines this idealism with a closer approach to fact and
history.
1 do not think that we can yet venture to select one among the many
portraits of Alexander which have come down to us as definitely Lysippic ;
"« Fi-oin a cast. hide et Osir. 24.
='» This statue is mentioned by Plutarch, De *" PI. VI. of his work.
THE APOXYOMENOS OF LYSIPPUS. 253
but the direction in which we should look is not towards the Azara head,'*^
but rather towards the portrait on the coins of Lysimachus (Fig. 8),*- and
the head of Alexander in the British Museum (Fig. 9). These have indeed
no kinship with the head of the Apoxyonienos ; but they liave a sort of
cousiuship to the head of Agias, and they correspond far better with the
words of Plutarch.
We may put the matter broadly thus : the coins of Lysimachus give
us the traditional portrait of Alexander as his younger contemporaries
thought of him. And this popular conception would certainly be embodied
in the portraits of Lysippus. There is a strong likeness between the coins
and the British Museum head ; but none between them and the Azara head.
It follows that the British Museum head is nearer to Lysippus; and it
conforms to the passage of Plutarch. At first sight it strikes one as Scopaic,
that is to say, like the Tegea heads ; but taking the head of Agias as
Lysippic, we may find in it in some respects, notably in the form of the eyes.
Fig. 8.— Coin of Lysimachus. .Eularged )
a still nearer likeness to the British Museum type. I cannot but regard the
theory of Koepp and Schreiber that the Azara head is a naturalistic portrait
of Alexander by Lysippus as a most unfortunate one. The Azara head has
some appearance of naturalism. Even Bernoulli thinks it naturalistic. In
my opinion the poorness of the work, the restorations (nose), and the want
of symmetry between the two sides of the head, give it an appearance of
naturalism which a closer examination scarcely justifies. If however it be
an exact portrait of Alexander, it is of Alexander at the very end of his life.
It is in the last degree unlikely that the aged Lysippus would have made a
journey to Babylon to make a fresh portrait of the king. Kings like to go
down to posterity at their best and not at their worst.
^' So liernoulli, Die erhaltencn Darstellungcn des Lysippos erhalten sein soli.'
Alexanders, p. 25 'Will es mir niclit recht in ■•- Fioiu a cast. The coin is in the British
«len Sinn, ilass uns in dem Paiiser Hermenbild- Museum,
niss der Kopftypus des beriihmtestcn Wcrkea
254
P. GAKDNEK
And it may be observed in this connexion tli.at the portraits by
Lysippus of which we know^ anything were of tlie boldest and least
naturalistic type. The i)ortrait of Agias represents a man who had been dead
for about a century. The Lysippic portrait of Pulydamas was posthumous.
In the group of the horsemen who fell at the Granicus set up at Dium
Lysippus, according to Pliny, ' imagines summa omnium similitudine ex-
pressit ' ; but no one has suggested that Lysippus saw and copied the dead
bodies, and how else could he get exact likenesses ? The phrase of Pliny
Fk.. 9.— Hkai) in iirr. I!i:irisn Misr.vM.
only shews that the Roman critics like many moderns could not discern
between life-likeness in a portrait and a close adherence to the original.
M. Collignon has some good remarks on the supposition that Lysippus
was a naturalist in portraiture. ' Peut-il etre considere comme I'initiateur de
revolution qui se manifeste avec tant de force dans Fart hellenisticpie, et
introduit dans le portrait un si curieux accent de verite ? II serait imprudent
THE APOXYOMENO.S OF LYSIPPUS. 255
de I'affinner. An IV*" siecle, le portrait rraliste n'oxiste pas encore.'^-' Tliis
must bo taken as a revision of tlic opinion which M. ('olliguon expressed
some years ago : ** ' Cetait une nouveauti' de rompre avec rid<!'al de
perfection du Y'-' si^clc, et (i'abandonner le culte de la beaute conventionelle
pour se rapprocher de la veritc particuliere. Cost surtout dans les traits du
visage que Lysippe exprime le cliaractere individuel.' In this change of vie>w
other archaeologists may well follow M. CoUignon.
V. — Conclusions.
My position then is that a determination to regard the Apoxyomenos
as the model of Lysippic work, and the notion that Lysippus must have been
a realist, have acted perniciously in pushing Lysippus out of his proper place
in the history of Greek sculpture, both as regards his date and his st}'le, and
that the time has come for a fresh study of the whole question. Such fresh
btudy would probably have led to no trustworthy result, apart from the
discovery of the Agias, which gives us just the inscriptionul evidence which
we w^anted, and enables us to start on a more trustworthy road than that
which has hitherto been trodden.
Taking the Apoxyomenos as it stands, I would maintain the view that it
fairly represents, not of course the later Hellenistic age, but the period after
B.C. 300, when the knowledge of anatomy was fast coming in.*^ And
although I deny any close connexion with Lysippus, I would certainly not call
in question its ultimate derivation from the bronze school of Sicyon, of which
Lysippus was the most noted member.
What is academic in the Apoxyomenos, the careful proportions, the
occasional conventions, connect it with the school of Sicyon, while the
anatomic knowledge and the boldness of perspective indicate the third
century, and mark the road which ends in the Borghese fighter and the
hanging Marsyas.
But while disputing any close connexion between Ljsippus and the
Apoxyomenos, I do not deny that in some respects archaeologists have formed
a satisfactory view of the position of this Master in the history of sculpture.
It is of course right to contra.st the slender proportions which Lysippus
introduced with the sturdier and less graceful outlines of the statues of
Polycleitus. And it is quite right to consider Lysippus as in a broad sense
the author of those manly and nude standing types of the gods which come
in about the middle of the fourth century, such as the British Museum
statuette of Zeus from Paramythia,*^ and the statue in the Lateran which
represents Poseidon standing with his foot resting on the prow of a ship.*"
He may also be fairly regarded as responsible for the heads of Helios which
■•' Lysippe, p. 92. inenos or the Herakles of Glycon and the tona-
** Text to Rayet's Monuments dr I'avt cottas of Smyrna of the third century. Lysippe,
antique. No. 55. p. 123.
•** M. Collignon calls attention to tlie close *^ B.M. Bronzes, PI. VI. No. 274.
likeness between such works as the A|»oxyo- *" Hrunu's Dcnlmiiler, PI. CCXLIII.
2:)Cy p. (!A1{1)NKR
reseinble Alexander, and tor the later type of Zeus head, which appears in a
mannered and extreme form in the mask from Otrieoli.^^ No doubt in our
museums there are many other works which a careful search would discover,
and which we could now, by the evidence of the Agias, attribute to the school
of L3"sippus. As the Master worked only in bronze, it is most unlikely that
any of his actual works will be recovered, or even any marble copy which we
can implicitly trust.
I do not at present propose to follow up the clue given to tis by the
Agias, or to endeavour to select among extant statues those which have
the best claim to be by the author of this portrait. I have already
suggested*'' that it is impossible to divide the Lansdowne Herakles from
the Agias ; and to that view I certainly adhere. But I shall not go further
in this matter. The conjectural attribution of extant statues to great
masters of the fifth and fourth centuries has been carried of late years
far beyond the bounds of prudence and moderation ; and although it is
a far safer task to attribute statues to Lysippus than to almost unknown
masters like Strongylion or Phradmon, yet it is a ta.sk which can well
wait.
It has been much the custom among archaeologists, and still more
among art-critics without archaeological training, to speak of the age of
Lysippus, the fourth century B.C., as a time of softness and decadence.
No doubt decay and corruption set in at Athens in that century, with
the decay of political energy and religious belief. And in the works of
Praxiteles, for all their consummate beauty and technical mastery, Ave
may note the beginnings of a decadence. But in the sculptures* of Scopas,
so far as they are known to us, there breathes a remarkable force and
ardour. And Lysippus was pre-eminently a manly and spirited artist.
While Athens was entering on the path of decay, the policy and the
victories of Epaminondas had given a fresh lease of life to the people of
Peloponnesus. Great cities, Mcssene and Megalopolis, arose with their
public buildings and their temples. And many of the other cities, such
as Mautinea and Aegium, became more populous and powerful. It would
be absurd to speak of any decadence in Peloponnesus at this time. Rather,
the loosening of the Spartan yoke had made the towns rise in a generation
to a far higher level of culture and power. These external conditions are
reflected, as is often the case, in the activity of the greatest Peloponnesian
artists — Euphranor, Nikias, Apelles, -Damophon, and most notably
Lysippus. It might almost have been called a new branch of the tree
of Hellenic art, which suddenly flowered and bore fruit. And from it
fresh shoots were transplante<i into the vast empire which was founded
beyond the sea by Alexander.
But the real expansion of Hellas came, not in the days of Lysippus,
but in the time of his school. And in regard to this I must add a few
words.
■*8 Wolters, Bausteinc, p. 594. •»■' J.H.S. 1903, \\ 129.
THE AP0XY0MP:N0S of LYSIPPUS. 257
Lysistratus, the brother of Lysijjpus, is said by Pliny to have been
the first to take plaster casts from the face, from which he made wax
moulds. He is also said to have aimed at realism in portraits. Surely,
if this is told us of Lysistratus, we arc justified in supposing that it
does not apply to his far more celebrated brother. Lysistratus was
probably a younger brother, with less strongly fixed notions of style.
But even in his case we can scarcely suppose such a knowledge of
anatomy as is displayed in the Apoxyomenos. It was the skin, not that
which lies beneath, that he seems to have studied. It is likely enough
that in the next generation, the school of Lysippus, carrying on the
tendeiicies of Lysistratus, would profit by the anatomical studies of
Alexandria. There are other respects in which they would almost
certainly move with the general stream of art. Their perspective would
become freer, and the last traces of the two-plane restrictions would
disappear.
It seems to me that the path thus laid down would lead the followers of
Lysippus to such a work as the Apoxyomenos. And there are other works of
a not dissimilar character, which have already by some writers been attributed
to the school of Lysippus.
If we look round our Galleries in order to find parallels, it will not be
easy to find any nearer than the so-called Jason of Munich ^*^ and the
Louvre,'*^ which is really a Hermes fastening his sandal, and the seated Ares
of the Ludovisi gallery. I have not been able minutely to examine the
details of these works ; but in all, the boldness of attitude, the length of
limb, and the freedom from the two-plane convention is conspicuous. The
Ares statue in particular furnishes an interesting parallel to the Apoxyomenos.
Some thirty years ago it was usual to regard it as a copy of an Ares of
Scopas. In 1885 Dr. Wolters, an excellent judge, had observed the affinities
of the two statues both in style and in head ,'5'" and had naturally attributed
the Ares to the school of Lysippus. Overbeck observed in 1894,^=* ' in
recent years many writers have set forth considerations which leave no
doubt that we have to do with a work made in the Hellenistic age under
the influence of the art of Lysippus.' In particular the little figure
of Eros, which is associated with this Ares, is of unmistakable Hellenistic
type.
It is observable that the proposal of the present paper is to treat the
Apoxyomenos as the Ares Ludovisi has been treated by a general consensus
of archaeologists : to deny its right immediately to represent a great master,
but to leave it as representing the later development of a fourth century
school.
It is a decidedly later stage of such tendencies which is represented by
such statues as the wonderful fighter of Agasias in the Louvre. I have
'» Clarac v. 814, 2048. *' Gesehichtp der griech. Plastik, Ed. 4,
51 Brunn and Arndt, Dcnkmdler, PI. LXVII. ii. 17.
^^ Baustiline, p. 452.
H.S. — VOL, XXV. S
258 P. GARDNER
already observed how in details, notably in the shape of the foot, this figure
carries iurther the peculiarities of the Apoxyomenos. But we have to do here
with a work of Asiatic origin and eclectic style.
The road wliieh leads to the statue of Agasias would seem to have been
[)ur.-^u('(l by Lysistratus, and probably by the sons or pupils of Lysippus, but
scarcely by himself. We may perhaps find a hint of this in Pliny's state-
ment that Euthycrates rather attained to the condantid of his father than to
his cleganiia, and preferred the anstemyri genus to the juriondiim. The i)hrases
are not easy to interpret ; but we may judge that Euthycrates was deficient
in the charm which was conspicuous in the works of Lysippus, and made
up for it I)}- hard study. The works of Euthycrates are of the same
kind as those of Lysippus, Alexander, a Herakles, horsemen, quadrigas, and
the like. Another son or pupil, for Pliny does not distinguish them, Boedas,
made an dt/urans, a figure which some have seen in the ' Praying Boy' of
Beiliu, which does, in fact, seem to belong to this school."'^ A tliird pupil
Daii)])us, was so far as we know exclusively a sculptor of athletes ; we hear
of several of his works, among othei'S of a statue called the Pcriyyomcnos.
Is it jtos.sible that our statue, which we call the Apoxyomenos, is really a
copy ot this? The Plinian date of Daippus, 01. 121 (u.c. 290; would be
rather early for the statue, but by no means impossible. It is not, as we
have alre;idy seen, by any means purely naturalistic ; in some points it
connects itself with the fourth century, as in others with the schools of
Hellenistic ait.
What would be tln' difference between an Apoxyomenos and a
Perixyomenos '. J have made in(|uiry of eminent Greek scholars on this
point, ])ut they have nothing definite to say. The Apoxyomenos should be a
man scraping away the sand like a skin, the Perixyomenos a man scraping
himself all round. As the ll(^man amateurs applied the names to two well-
known statuc^s, one woidd think that there must have been in action or
attitude of these statues something to justify the two })repositions, Trept- and
diro-. However that ])e, it seems clear that the word perixyomenos would
well suit the extant figure. At the same time, it must be observed that this
attribution is merely .suggestive and conjectuial, and cannot serve as a basis
for an} further theories.
As this paper has been rather long and intricate, it may be well here
briefly to sum up the conclusions which it reaches. We started from the
position that the Agias and the Apoxyomenos cannot both reflect the style of
Lysippus; and we saw good reason to think that it is the Agias which has
by far the best claim to this position, the Apoxyomenos shewing clear marks
of the style of the age succeeding Alexander the Great. We next observed
■'^ Prof. Locwy has iii.sisted on likenesses, Apoxyomenos and the 'Playing IJoy,' Rijm.
both of i>o.se and of type of head, between the Mitth. Pis. XVI. -XVII.
THE AP0XY0MEN08 OF LYSIPPUS. 259
that the assiunoil conncxiou of this latter work with Lysippus had had tlie
offect, first of placing Lysippus at too late a date in the history of Greek
sculpture; antl second, of confusing the question of the portraiture of
Alexander. Finally, it appeared that the Apoxyonienos is probahly a copy,
not of a work of Lysippus himself, but of one of his pupils, or someone
belonging to his school, who worked in the third century.
P. Gardner.
s 2
A FRAGMENT OF THE 'EDICTUM DIOCLETJANI.'
During a journey in the spring of last year along the east coast of the
Messenian Gulf I took an impression of a fragment of a Latin inscription
built into the north wall of the Church of Hagios Taxiarches in the village
of Oetylus.
The fragment is of white marble and is broken on every side. It
measures -47 m. in height and '21 m. in width. The letters measure 013 ni.
PROU€
STUM
CA€F€
sussu^;
5 TIbUSADS
iqUISINGU
GGTIAMPO
S NTCONSe
iCc.; ceNTeNS
10 AUARITIAeMOD
S ICOMMUNIS
6DIAMeTIAMlPS
ANDGMPRO
MC0MPULIT6XP
15 DIFFICILesiTTOT
T€MSP€CrALIAR
€LAR1ITJSTI0R
CONSTITU
L = b S = q
[abundantiam rebus] prove[nire. Et quibus semper]
[studium est in que]stum [trahere etiam beneficia]
[divina ac publi]cae fe[licitatis affluentiam]
[stringere rur]susqu(e) [anni sterilitate de]
5 [seminum iac]tibus adq[ue institorum officiis]
[nundinar]i; qui sing(u)[li maximis divitiis]
[diffluentes, qua]e etiam p(o)[putos adfatim ex pi-]
A FRAGMENT OF THE 'EDICTUM DIOCLETIAN!.' 261
[ere potuis](s)[e]Mt, cor}se[ctentur peciilia et]
[lacenitr](i)c(e)[s] centens[iinas persequantur ;]
10 [eorum] avaritiae uiO(l[um statui, provinci-]
[ales no](s)[tr]i, communis [hiimanitatis ratio per-]
[suadet. S]ed iam etiam ips[as causas, qnarum]
[necessitas t]andem pro[icere nos diu prolatam]
[patientiajm compulit, ex(p)[licarc debemus ut,]
15 [quamvis] tlifficile sit tot[o orbe avaritiam]
[saevienjtem speciali ar[gumento vel facto]
[potius rev]elari, iustior [tamen intelligatur]
[remedii] constitu[tio, cum intemperatissimi]
etc.
It forms a fragment of the well-known ' Hdictum Diocletiani de pixtiis
rerum venaliiim,' a bi-lingual inscription in Latin and Greek, promulgated in
*]01 A.D., portions of which have been discovered in various parts of the Greek
world as well as in Egypt. Two such fragments have been already published
in this Journal, one by Mr. W. Loring from Megalopolis {J.H.S. vol. xi. (1890)
pp 229 fif.), and another from Corone, on the side of the Messenian Gulf
opposite to Oetylus, by Mr. M. N. Tod (J.H.S. vol xxiv. (1904) pp. 195 ff.).
The standard work on this inscription is Mommsen-Bliimner, Der
Maximal-tarif des Diocletian (Berlin, 1893). For the Bibliography of
recently discovered portions of the Edict I would refer to Mr. Tod's article.
The fragment before us is already known, and forms part of the Intro-
duction to the decree (Mommsen-Bliimner, op. cit. pp. 7-8, 11. 23-29). The
greater part of the passage in which it occurs is covered by the fragment
from Stratonicea (Eski Hissar) in Caria, the largest portion of the Edict yet
discovered.^ Portions of it are also found in the Egyptian fragment,- and in
the fragment from Plataea.^
The lines, as would naturally be expected, are of different lengths in the
different copies. In the Oetylus fragment they are scarcely half the length
of those in the other copies. In correctness the inscription before us
contrasts favourably with the only other copy from Greece proper, that from
Plataea, which is full of verbal inaccuracies.
Two other Laconian sites besides Oetylus have yielded fragments of the
Edictnm Diocletiani. At Gytheion Foucart in 1868 discovered a fragment
of the Greek version,* while a Latin fragment was found on the same site by
Mr. A. N. Skias in 1892.^ Secondly at Geronthrae (Geraki) five Greek
fragments were found by Le Bas and a sixth by Purgold.^
' C.I.L. iii. pp. 804-811: Leake, Transac- ^ C.I.L. iii. p. I9\i : Papers of the American
lions of the Royal Society of Literature, 1827, School at Athens, v. (1892) pp. 233-244.
pp. 181-204. It was first discovered by * C.I.L. iii. p. 823.
Sherard, British Consul at Smyrna, 1702-1718. * Ath. Mitth. xvii. (1892) p. 156 ff: C.I.L.
2 C.I.L. iii. pp. 802, 803: a facsimile of a iii. p. 1915.
liortion of it is given by Hiibner, ^.cc?npi?(i script ^ Le Bas- Foucart, nos. 229-232: C.I.L. iii.
/•pigr. Za<.- (Berlin, 1885). 816-819 and 1925.
262 A F'RAGMENT OF THE ' EDTCTUM DIOCLETIANI.'
While Gytheion wns naturally chosen as the most important town on
the Laconian Gulf and Geronthrae as the most central city of P]astern
Laconia, Oetylus was doubtless chosen because of its central position on the
west coast of the Mcssenian Gulf The very fact, however, that it was so
chosen points to the conclusion that it was still a place of some importance
in the fourth century A.D. This is interestinp^ in view of the fact that its
name dates back to the Homeric age/ and has persisted without change to
the present day.^
In conclusion I wish to thank Mr. F. flavertield for kindly sending me a
conjectural arrangement of the text.
EdWAUD S. FoilSTER.
^ It is mctilioiK'il in the Catalo.^iio of tlic * On the To])Ogi'apliy ami Antiquities of
Sliips (II. ii. 585). Oetylus, see B.S.A. vol. x. p. 160.
WRESTLING.
{Continued from p. 31.)
II.
[Plates XL, XIL]
A. — Prcliminavij Positions, and Various Wrestling Terms.
The attitude adopted by the Greek wrestler before taking liokl, as
described by Heliodorus/ and fre([uently represented in art, was very similar
to that in use at the present day. Taking a firm stand with his feet some-
what apart and knees slightly bent, rounding (yvpcocraf;) his back and
Fig. 1. — Panathknaic AivirHOUA. B. M. B 603.
shoulders, his neck advanced but pressed down into his shoulder blades, and
his waist drawn in {a-tprjKcoa-as), he tried to avoid giving any opening {\a/37j)
himself, while his outstretched hands were ready to seize any opportunity
offered by his opponent.
1 Aethiop. X. 31 ; cp. Ovid Met. ix. 33,
Lucan Phars. iv. 617, Stat. Thcb. vi. 850. The
position is shown in an Attic grave relief of
Agacles, Schieiber Atlas xxi. 1 ; in vase-paint-
ings, Panof ka Bildcr und Lcben i. 7, Arch. Zeit.
1878. 11 ; anil above all in the two well known
bronzes at Naples, formerly described as disko--
boloi, but really representing wrestling boys
ready for the contest.
264
E. NORMAN GARDINER
Various metliods of attack are enumerated by Plutarch. Symj). ii. 4.
fi6vov<; Se Toiff naXaia-Ta'; 6p(o/J.ev dWi]\ov<i dyKaXi^ofievov; koX TrepiXafi-
fidvovra<i kuI tu TrXeliTTa twv d'ywviafidruiv efx^oXai, Trapefi^oXai,
avardaet,^, irapadeaei'i a-vvdyovaiv avrov'i kuI dpafiiyvvvTai dXXijXoi^;. 1 hese
terms, arranged in contrasted pairs, denote the various positions and move-
ments of wrestlers before they take hold. <TvaTaai<i denotes the position
frequently depicted on vases (Figs. 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, PI. XII. c), where the
opponents stand square to one another and prepare to take hold somewhat in
the style of Westmorland and Cumberland wrestlers, 'leaning against each
other like gable rafters of a house,' - or ' butting against each other with
their foreheads like rams,'^ or 'resting their heads on each other's
Fio. 2.— Thesku.s and Cekcyon. R.-F. Kylix. B.M. E 84,
shoulders.' * In the position described as Trapddeaif the wrestler instead of
facing his opponent squarely turns sideways to him in order to obtain a hold
from the side rather than from the front. The attitude and the consequent
hold we shall find represented especially in the pictures of Theseus and
2 Homer //. xxiii. 712.
' Liician Anacharsis 1. M. de Ridder, Dar.-
Sagl. s.v. liuta, takes Lucian's words seriously
and draws a thrilling picture ol n. ' butting-
match ' ! ' L'une des manoeuvres favorites ' he
says 'etait Ic heurt des fronts I'un contre
I'autre, et les deux tetos une fois en contacte la
{)esde graduelle de la premiere sur la seconde.'
Hence he concludes ' I'adversaire le moins
resistant se trouvait rapidement renverse sur le
dos,' What would Lucian have said to such a
comment on his words !
•» Philostrat. Vit. Soph. p. 225 i noKf/xuv
■irpoari\df r^ Aiovvaio) kuI avrtptiaas rhv Sifiov
uicnrep oi rrjs (TraStaias iri\ris ifi0i0(i(ovrfs K.r,\.
ffraSialos here is evidently used in the sense of,
perhaps in mistake for, ffraSa'ios, and means
not, as Martin Faber says, ' belonging to the
stadium' but *U['right.' Kor the position v.
Noel des Vergers, L'£lrune xxxvii.
WRESTLING. 265
Cercyon (Fig. 2), and it is clearly indicated in the Oxyrliynchus papyrus^ the
lirst intelligible order of which is Trapada to fiiaov kuI ex K€(f)a\i]<i Be^ia
irXe^ov. 'Tnrn your body sideways to your opponent and grip him by the
head with your right hand.'
A similar distinction exists between ijx^oXt] and Trapefi^oX-q, terms
which denote movements rather than positions. In wrestling ^dWw and its
compounds seem always to express some movement of attack either with arm
or leg. For example, in the papyrus we find viro^aXe rrjv Se^cdu of an arm
movement, and ^dXe iroha of a leg movement. In the epigram quoted in
my last article "^ eV/^aWo) appears to be used of a direct attack where one
wrestler seizes tlie other by the body and tries to force him backwards, and
the same word is used in Lucian's Asinus '' in a context which perhaps
suggests a leg movement. The chip described in the last lines of the
papyrus seems very much like the modern ' hank,' in which one wrestler trips
the other by hooking his leg round the inside of his opponent's leg, au /SaXe
TToSa'ai) SidXa/Se- crv e7rt/3a<? dvuKXa' crv 7rpoaTa<; dvdveve. The move-
ments of the two pupils whom we will for convenience call A and B are as
follows: — A advances his leg to trip B; B seizes A round the waist; A
throwing his weight upon B tries to force him backwards; B resists by
leaning forward with all his weight. If we can compare this passage with
the following description of the hank, there can be no doubt of the correct-
ness of our interpretation. ' Immediately the hold is taken, the wrestler
clicks his opponent's right leg with his left and pulls him backwards,
generally falling on him with his weight. The only way to stop the hank is
to lean forward, obtain a better hold, and hitch the aggressor over.'^
1{ ifjb^oXrj means an attack from the front, nrapefi^oX'q means an attack
from the side. In Lucian's Ocypus it clearly denotes a leg movement.
Ocypus, who is suffering from gout but will not acknowledge it, among
various excuses for his lameness says
ovKovv iraXaitov to? deXoiv Trapefi^oXriv
jSdXelv iirXri'yrfv — 1. 60.
' I hurt my foot trying the Trapep,/3oXrj.' On the analogy of ifi^oXr] this
should mean the back-heel, a method of tripping an opponent by placing the
foot behind his heel from the outside.
Another compound, Bia^dXXco, which will be discussed later, appears to
denote throwing the leg or arm across an opponent, and Trpocr^oXt] according
to Hesychius was a general term expressing tcov ddXrjTcov rj <rvva(f>r) kuI rj
XaTO^r] KOl Tf opfMtj.
Before we proceed to discuss in detail the various holds and throws it
will be convenient to notice briefly certain common terms which occur
constantly in wrestling descriptions but are of too general use to be
considered technical terms. For the most part they explain themselves.
^ Ox. Pap. iii. 466. 0<i\\( koI triptxt.
" P. 15 of this vol. Aiith. Pal. xii. 206. » Mr. Walter Armstrong, Wrestling [kW Eng-
^ C. 10 ij &nna a(f>iyyf tlr' ivaxAao-os i/j.- land Series), p. 48.
'J60 K. NOIJMAN CARDINKH
SiK'li words are eXKeiv, wdelv, (rrpecfxziv, Xvyi^eir, dy^^eii', airoirin'yeiv,
dvarpeTreiv. "EX/cety is used of wrestlers who liavini^ (obtained a grip try to
tighten it by drawing their opponents towards tiien), a niovenient wliich is so
essential to all 'upright wrestling' that e\Kr]86v fid'^eadat is used as a
synonym for TraXaietv.'^ For the technical use of to eXKCiv to denote
seizing the opponent's foot there is as I have already shown no evidence. ^*^
Similarly to^ew merely denotes the opposite process of throwing one's weight
upon an opponent in order to make him lose his balance backwards, and
denotes nothing which is not alhnved in modern wrestling, arpecfietv is used
technically in the phrase ehpav arpe^etv}^ but otherwise means simply ' to turn
round ' and is used of twisting an opponent round, twisting Ids arm back or
turning oneself round. Xvyi^eiv is a general term for to twist or wrench.
ayxeiv and cnroirvtyeLv denote practices which belong rather to the
pankration than to true wrestling, throttling or squeezing the breath out of
an opponent being more useful for forcing him to acknowledge defeat than
for throwing him. ctvaTpeTreiv again means merely to upset, and there is no
evidence for assigning it to any particular throw.
There are of course many purely technical terms and their interpretation
is often very difficult. It seems better therefore to start by examining the
evidence of the monuments, explaining as far as possible by this means tlie
various technicalities as they occur. A convenient classification is suggested
by Plato's definition of opdrj irdXti as consisting cnr av'x^evcov kuI x^eipcoi' kuI
irXevpMv i^€iXi]a€0)<;}'' I propose to take the various holds in this order
and in connexion with them to consider where possible the throws to which
they lead.
B. — Hand- and Annholds.
In endeavouring to obtain a hold, wrestlers continually seize one another
by the wrist. This action, which is probably denoted by hpda-a-etv}'^ is fre-
quently represented on vases and coins. Often it is a purely defensive
movement, to prevent an opponent from obtaining a neck- or body hold .^^
And so we sometimes see a pair of wrestlers each holding the other by the
wrist. ^^ Such symmetrical arrangements appealed to the less ambitious vase
painter, and are therefore frequent on vases of the Panathenaic type.
Sometimes one wrestler holds both his opponent's wrists.^'' M. de Ridder
gives a highly imaginative account of such a grip : ' line simple pression
® Hesiod oKrirt's 302, ot 5' ^f«£xo«""o iru| re naX in the Vorlcgehldtter ]890-l, iv. 3 where the
€A.Krj5oV ; cp. Pind. Ncm. iv. 154. left-hand wrestler seizes with Ins right hand
'" P. 28 of this volume. the left wrist of his opponent who is stooping
" V. infra p. 287. down as if to seize him round the waist.
12 Leg. 796a. '* Mon. d. I. ii. 24 ; M-us. Greg. II. xvi. 2. a ;
'^ Pollux cites it as a wrestling term. Cp. Munich 495 (PI. XII. c).
Theocrit. xxv. 145. "* Mon. d.I. xi. 25, an Etruscan wall-painting
^* A good illustration of this may be seen in from the Tomba degli Auguri ; Gerh. A. V. 271,
an amphora of Nicosthenes at Vienna published r. -f. kylix in Brus.sels.
WRESTLING.
267
exorcoe siir les bras les courbait en arri^re et ainciiait sans resistance possible
la chute du corps.' This grip was of course merely momentary, and often
only defensive ; it could be broken at any moment; and the wrestler must
have been indeed a novice wlio succumbed so easily to this ' simple pression.'
A more effective hold was obtained by seizing an opponent's arm with both
hands, one hand seizing the wrist, the other gripping liim at the elbow, or
under the armpit (P'igs. 3, 7, 9).^'' This seems to have been a very favourite
hold, if we niay judge from the frequency with which it is represented ; and
it led to one very effective fall, of which we have also many illustrations.
Rapidly turning his back on his 0})ponent, the wrestler draws his arm over
h:s shoulder, using it as a lever by which to throw liim clean over his head.
The throw, well known in modern wrestling as ' the flying mare,' is probably
what Lucian describes as et? v^|ro<; ava^acndaai. As has been already
¥\(i. 3. — Ami'HIaraus Ampjioiia. Beulin. (From Mon. d. J. x. 45.)
mentioned,^^ at the moment of executing it, the wrestler stoops forward,
sinking sometimes on one knee, or both. On an Etruscan wall-painting^*
we see the beginning of the throw. The prospective victor strides forward
having swung his opponent off his feet, with his right hand he still grasps
his wrist, his left hand he lias transferred from his arm to the neck, in order
to complete the throw. In another wall-painting,^*' the victor has sunk on
both knees, having turned his opponent upside down. The same crouching
attitude is seen on a kylix in the British Museum, E 1)4 (Fig. 4), but the
defeated wrestler is here not so high. In these two cases, the stoop of the
legs seems likely to have been exaggerated for artistic reasons to diminish
the height of the group. In other examples I fancy it denotes the
pankration, or practice for the pankration. Certainly this is true of the
'' Mon. d. T. X. 4, Amphiaraus vase ; Micali
Mon. xli. ; B.M. Vasrs B 48, 191, 295 ;
coins of Aspcndus. Cp. Armstrong Wrestling,
p. 56.
'8 p. 23 of this volume.
'" Dar.-Sagl. 4624 = Dennis Cities and Ceme-
tcrien of Etruria ii. 333.
''"* Dennis op. cit. ii. 343 = Krause \n.b, 396.
268
E. NORMAN GAHDlNEll
Baltimore kylix, publishod by Hartwi^, PI. LXIV., and probably also of the
two groups of the kylix from the Bibliotheque Natioijale, also published by
him, Pis. XV. 2 and XVI. In the interior (Fig. 5), the victor is kneeling on
Vui. 4.— R.-F. Kyux. 15. M. E 94,
his right knee ; ^^ he has let go with his right hand, and his opponent, left
unsupported, is about to fall helplessly on his back. On the exterior we
have the same scene slightly more advanced. The vase is unfortunately
damaged ; but enough is left to show us the wonderfully life-like vigour of
Fig. 5. R.-F. Kylix. Paris. (After Hartwig, Mdslersclial. xv. 2.)
the drawing, and to make us regret that few vase painters attempted so
difficult a subject.
It is interesting to find this same motive occurring on a British Museum
2' Cp. Dennis op. cU. 323( = Krause \ii.b, 39ft), 327.
WRESTLING.
269
amphora B 193 (Fig. 6), representing tlie struggle between Heracles and tlie
Nemean lion." That the types of the palaestra should be borrowed to
represent his struggle with Antaeus is natural ; but the persistency of the
same types in his figlit with the Nenican lion is so remarkable a proof of the
influence of the palaestra on art, that I may be pardoned for introducing into
this article frecjucnt ilhisti-ations of tiiis contest. The result of the throw is
seen on a black-figured vase reproduced by Gerhard, A.V. 94, where the lion
is lying on its back, and Heracles holding it down with one hand, proceeds
to finish it off with his club.-^ This conclusion naturally suggests the
pankration, and proves clearly that a throw which thus put the man thrown
at the mercy of his opponent must have been as useful to the pankratiast as
Fig. 6.— B.-F. Amphora. B.M. 15193.
to the wrestler. In the present day ' the flying mare ' is a favourite throw ^
not only in systems which require a clean throw on the back, but also in
those which allow ground wrestling.
Returning to the hold which leads to this throw, we find several methods
of meeting it represented. On the Amphiaraus vase-* (Fig. 3) Peleus has
seized with both hands the left arm of Hippalcimus and the latter in reply
grips Peleus under the right arm-pit with his disengaged right hand. The
result is to weaken Peleus' grip and to prevent him from turning round and
hoisting Hippalcimus over his shoulder. This scene is repeated on a hydria
representing the contest of Peleus and Thetis,'^^ and on the neck of a black-
Mr. Norton in the American Journal of may be compared with a relief on a votive
Archaeology, 1896, p. 10 suggest.s that the
artist borrowed this idea from the representa-
tion of Heracles and the Erymanthian boar, on
the cup of Eurystheus. It would perhaps be
more correct to say that the type in both cases
is suggested by the palaestra scheme.
^ Similarly the scene on the Baltimore kylix
tablet from the Acropolis published in the Ath.
Millh. 1887, PI. III. representing the lion lying
huddled uj) on its back with Heracles bending
over it. The motives are identical.
2^ Mon.d.I. X. 4. 5.
^' Micali, Mon. xli.
270
K. NORMAN GAKDINEK
figured B.M. amphora, B 21)5 (Fig. 7), we see a similar defence when the
attack is made on the right arm.-*' A BerHn amphora by Andokides-'
(Fig. 8) shows another style of counter. Tiie wrestler to the left grasps his
opponent's left wrist, but the latter by running quickly forwani has rendered
PiP, 7 __1>.-F. AMi'iioitA. B.M. 15 '29r). (Alter Muscr lUaciis.)
useless the right hand whicli should have gripped his up[)er arm and passing
his own right hand behind his adversary's back grasps his right arm just
below the elbow. On a B.M. pelike, B 191, the wrestler attacked replies
by placing his disengaged hand on his opponent's neck.-*^ In all tliese
Fio. 8.— R.-F. Ami'Hoiia. r.iiiiLi.v. {V\o\\\ American Journal oj Arrhacology.)
eases the object seems to be to prevent the opponent from turning round or
to weaken his grip. The latter object is noticeable on the coins of Aspendus,'-''
^^ Musee Blacas ii. ^Krause xii. 34.
27 Bcrl. Fas. 2159 ; Gerhard Trinkschalc I.
XX. ; American Journal of Archaeology, 1896,
p. 11.
=8 Cp. Bull. Nap. Nouv. Sir. V. x. ; Berl.
rrt.s'. 3985.
■■*» B.M.C. XT/ciapp. 95-101, 248, cxix. ; cp.
Head, ff.N. p. 582, where the in.scription
EAVi'A MENETVC which occurs on one
of these coins is discussed. The interpreta-
tion of these words as i\^as (the wriggler),
fj.ever6s (the stayer) is attractive, but Mr. G. F.
Hill to whom I am indebted for the illustra-
tions from the coins in the B.M. tells me that
the nanus are probably those of a magistrate
or magistrates.
WliKSTUNU.
271
^vll(■l•e tlie left-liand wrestler is represented grasping with both liiinds liis
opjjonent's left arm, while the latter with his right liand grasps his right
wrisl or his left upjier arm. On the coin selected for illustration we may
lemark the manner in which the right-hand wresthn's wrist hangs helplessly
down as if rendered jjowerless hy the grip. Perhaps the (;lreeks like the
•lapane.se may have stndied the art of so gri[)ping a limb as to render, it
useless, but such tricks belonged rather to the pankration than to true
wrestling. Thus we hear of a Sicilian wrestler, Leontiscus, who overcame his
Fk;. 1'. — Wkesmj.N'; 'I'vrKs o.n Coin.s in B. M.
«, h, r. A.s[HiiiluN fifth and fourth ■ cut my.
(/. llcrack'a in Lucania fmiith <■< iitm v.
(',/. Syrac'iiso cora 400 i;. e.
'I. Ah'xandria, Antoninus Pius.
oi)|)onents by .seizing and breaking their fingers and .so forcing them to the
ground.""' He was not, says Pausanias, an adept at throwing his adversary
and his ladies resembled those of Sostratns, the })ankratiast of Sicyon, who
had thereby gained the soubriquet of Aerochersites. From tlie words of
Pausanias we may conclude that such practices were exceptional and were
not considered appropriate to the art of wrestling, the object of which was to
throw the opj)onent.^^
'" Paus. vi. 4. 2 /col 70^ rhv AfovriaKoy Kara- =*' Oak-ii do.sciibes tl»c art of wrestling as
ffaKuv ovK fTtlaraffOai rovs iraKaiovras, viKav 5( /cajSjSaAtK^.
aOrhv KXwfTU rovs SaKTvXovs,
272 E. NORMAN GARDINER
0. — Ncckholds, Tpa)(^r]Xiafx6<;.
The neck is an obvious and effective place by which to seize an opponent
and strength of neck is essential to a wrestler.^'^ Pindar in a much disputed
passage of the seventh Nemean ode speaks of the wrestler's av^^va Kat
adivo<i ahlavrov and Xenoplion describing the thorough training of the
Spartans says that they exercise alike legs and hands and neck.^'^ In the
^g'ta'^fs of Aristophanes Demos tells the sausage-seller to grease his neck that
he may be able to escape from Cleon's grip.^* The technical word for ob-
taining a neckhold was Tpa)(^y]\i^eiv,^^ which has also acquired the more
general meanings of ' to wrestle ' or ' to throw.' Neckholds must have been
frequently employed in the ground wrestling of the pankration, but chiefly
as a means of strangling an opponent, and the more expressive terms dy)(^eiu
and aTTOTTViyeiv were used for this operation, while rpa^^rjXc^eiu was confined
to upright wrestling, the object of which was to throw the opponent.'^"
This is evident from a passage in Lucian's Lexiphancs, c. 5, where describing
the athletes practising he says : 6 jxiv Tt<i uKpo^eLpia/xa), 6 Be Tpa'^rjXtcrp.oi
KoX opdfi TrdXrj e^prjro. Here dKpo-)(€tpt(T/x6'i and rpa^rj\L(Tix6<; are contrasted
as typical respectively of the pankratiast and the wrestler. Further a story
told by Plutarch proves that the object of T(oa;Y^X(o-/i69 was to throw the
opponent : iv '^eipa'^ca •TrepiKpovovTo<; rov 7rpocrTpa-^r)\i^ovTO<i kul kutu-
airoiVTOfi €7rl rrjv 'yrjv eireiSr] to3 acofiari eXelirero 6 Trpocnreacoi' eSaKe rbv
^pw^ioi/a Kat o €T€po<; eiire, AuKvei^, m AuKOiv, (ocnrep ai <yvi>alK€<;' ov fieu
ovv, enrev arepo^, aX\ Mmrep oi \eovT€<i.'
This story is well illustrated and may even have been suggested by the
representations in art of Heracles wrestling with the Nemean lion. On many
black-figured vases ^^ we see the lion standing upright on its hind legs and
wrestling with Heracles, who with his left hand grasps the animal round the
neck and seizes its lower jaw, and with his right seizes its upper jaw. The
lion has tried to break Heracles' grip round its neck by using its teeth, and
the hero by seizing and forcing open its jaws prevents it from biting. In
this and other varieties of the standing type Heracles is usually described as
strangling the lion. The description appears to me hardly accurate. With
the possible exception of the type where Heracles has the lion's head in
chancery, he is not in a position in which he can strangle the animal, but is
32 Philostiat. Gym. 35. rpaxv^K*^" "«' Karap^tLrreiv irphs rh iSapos.
3* Lac. Rep. v. 9. 3? Apophthegm. Lac. 234 D, 44. In liis life of
3^ 1. 491 ^la&oXii and htafiaWtiv in this Alcibiades c. 2 he tells the same story of him.
passage and in lines 262, 496 must clearly ev ytip r^ ira\ai(iv vt((oviJ.fi>os virip rov /x^
denote some sort of neckhold. neaeiv avayayiov irphs rh ffTofia ra afifxara rov
'* Cleostratus of Rhodes according to Africa- Tcif^ovvros oUs re ^v Statpayttv ras x«'^P«^-
nns won his victories in this way : rpox'jA.i'Co"' Biting was forbidden both in wrestling and in
atrfKcifiBavt. For a more general use of the the [lankration, but was allowed by the Spartans
word, cp. Plato Am.at. 132c, d, Plut. Anion. 33. in the latter.
3» Cp. Philo irepl ovfipwv 163, iraKaifffjiaffi 38 g g p.M. Vases B 232, 233, 621 ; Gerh.
iro\urp6irois ku\ TroAi//ujjx«i'ois avx^vi^ovris iK- A. V. 74, 93, 256.
H S VOL XXV. (1905). PL. XI.
s
D
iiJ
CO
^..^
D
c
S
■o
'H
X
CO
~
h-
DC
<
03
<■■,
UJ
I
1-
?
z
f»
^^
-£
(0
^
Q.
«<
D
■r
O
-.
cc
1
o
-^
tu
N
z
o
cc
oa
WRESTLING.
273
merely wrestling with it and trying to throw it to the ground, the attitudes
and grips being borrowed directly from the wrestling ring.^*^ Having thrown
the lion he can either strangle it or use his sword or club. That his object
is to throw the lion is clear from a B.M. oinochoe, B 621,**' (Fig. 10).
Here we see Heracles with his left arm round the lion's neck and his right
hand seizing its jaw, at the same time turning round and twisting the lion
off its feet. If in imagination we continue the action; Heracles and the lion
will fall together in the position represented on a relief from Lamptrae pjib-
lished in the Ath. Mitth. 1887, PI. III. which shows Heracles strangling
the lion on the groimd.
The monuments exhibit several varieties of neckhold. Sometimes a
Fig. 10.— B.-F. OiNOdion. B.M. B 621.
wrestler seizes his opponent's wrist with one hand, and his neck with the other.
The best example of this occurs on a red-figured krater in the Ashmolean
(Fig. 11). The wrestler so attacked defends himself by seizing the other under
the left arm-pit with his left hand. An interesting feature of this vase is the
figure of winged Victory seated upon a pillar watching the conte.'^t. The
same method of attack and defence occurs on an Etruscan mirror represent-
ing the contest of Peleus and Atalanta.*^ A different method of defence is
seen on the B.M. amphora, B 295 (Fig. 12) the wrestler on the left with
his left hand grasping his opponent's right arm, the arm which is seizing
'^^ Einil Reisch well describes such a type as
' ein Ringkanipfinotiv der Palastia eingefiihrt,'
or as a ' Kunstgviff der bp9)) itoAt/,' Ath. Mitth.
xii. 1887, p: 119 sq.
H.S. — VOL. XXV.
*" The vase is unsigned, but Mr, H. B.
Walters tells me that it is undoubtedly the
work of Nicosthenes.
« Gerh. FArusk. Spiegel 224, Dar.-Sagl, 592.
T
•274
E. NORMAN GARDINER
his neck. We may notice that he grasps it at one of the weakest points,
just below the elbow. A third means of defence is to seize the opponent's
neck.*- M. tie Ridder would add yet another, viz., grasping the opponent's
thigh, but there is little evidence for such a view. On the B.M. kylix E U4
which he quotes, as on other vases showing the beginnings of a wrestling
match, the wrestlers hold their hands to the front and slightly below the
waist ; but so do wrestlers of the present day in the Graeco-Roraan style
where no hold is allowed below the waist.
This type seems to be particularly connected with the match between
Peleus and Atalanta, which we must remember was a genuine wrestling
match, and took place at the funeral games of Pelias. A most interesting
11. — R. -F. KuAiKii. OxFuui). (Fioni CiUalogiie of Atihiiiolean Museum, PI. XIV.)
representation of it is on a B.-F. amphora at Munich (Fig, 13).*=^ Peleus has
aj)})arently tried to seize Atalanta's right arm with both hands but the latter
movin"- forward .seizes him by the back of the neck very much in the style of
a modern wrestler. To the left stands the familiar umpire with his
forked rod.
The same motive is frequently employed in the case of the Nemean lion,
Heracles having Iws left arm round the animal's neck and with his right hand
grasping its left paw (Fig. 14).^* Two other varieties of neckhold aie also
t'uniishcd by this context. A St. Petersburg bronze*'' represents an infant
*'- Kiau^t' xii. 43.
" Jalin r.S4. (Jcrli.
J.r. 177.
^^ E.i,'. 7iJf. Vnsr'i 11 234 ; 0. il.. J. 7'. 192.
■" Mult. 4. I. vi. vii. ()".>, 2a.
WRESTLING.
■2io
Heracles an<l tlie lion firmly clasping one another like two Cumberland wrestlers
and a kylix ot" Ergobinius in Berlin ''*' shows us Heracles with both hands
Fig. 12.— B.-F. Amphora. B.M. B 295. (After Musee Blacas.)
clasped round the lion's neck. On a Munich amphora (Fig. 15)^^ the hero
employs tlie latter grip again.st Antaeus, who sinking od one knee grabs
Fio. 13.— Pkleus and At.vlama. B.-F. Amphora. Munich. (After Gerhard .-/. /'.)
vainly at his conqueror's foot. The interlocking of the hands is noticeable as
being the same as that commonly employed by our Westmorland and-
^s Gerh. J.V. 238, cp. B.M. J'ascs B 232, ^^ J^lui 3 ; Gcili. A.P\ lU.
233, 621. ■
276
E. NORMAN GARDINER
Cumberland wrestlers; the hands are turned so that the palms face one
another and the fingers are hooked together. The vase further illustrates
Fig. 14.— B.-F. Amphora. B.M. B 234.
the tendency whicli I have already remarked in art to represent Heracles
and Theseus employing the holds of the wrestler rather than of the
Fio, 15.— B.-F. Amphoka. Munich. (After Gerhard, A.K.)
pankratiast. Here again if we suppose Heracles to complete the throw,
both will fall together in the position shown on various vases which represent
WRESTLING. 277
the straggle on the ground^'* A curious variety of neckhoJd occurs on a psykter
of Euthymides depicting Theseus and Cercyon/'' Theseus having somehow
clasped his arms over Cercyon's left shoulder and under his right arm-pit has
him completely at his mercy and swings him off his feet. How he obtained
such a hold is not clear; we can only suppose that Cercyon after his usual
style rushed at Theseus with his head down as he does on the Euphrojiios
kylix^° where Theseus has doubled his head up under his arm. But these
two vases are exceptions to the usual treatment of the scene which will be
discussed later.
Perhaps we should mention here another lion type where Heracles grips
the lion with his right arm over and his left under its neck. At first sight it
appears that Heracles is really strangling the brute, but a comparison of the
varieties of the type convinces me that we have here merely a variation of a
familiar bodyhold which will be discussed below and that Heracles is really
lifting the animal off its feet in order to swing it to the ground. Indeed a
b.-f. amphora in Vienna ^^ actually represents him in the act of swinging
the lion. Such a lift, which would be impossible in the case of a human
adversary, is rendered practicable only by the size and weight of the lion's
neck and head, and I therefore class it with the bodyholds to be described
in the next section. The type is distinguished by the fact that the lion's back
is always more or less rounded, and the group is therefore particularly suitable
for the circular spaces of coins. On a coin of Heraclea in Lucania (Fig. 9) we see
Heracles on the point of swinging the lion, in the B.M. bronze 672 (PI. XI. a),
he has obtained the grip but is still stooping slightly. To obtain the grip it is
necessary of course to stoop and this position is clearly shown on the B.M.
kylix E 1(>4 (Fig. 16) and still more so on the beautiful little gold coins of
Syracuse (Fig. 9e, /), where Heracles is represented sometimes on one knee
sometimes on both as he lifts the animal off its feet. A small bronze
ornament from the Farges collection, published by Reinach,^^ shows Heracles
standing sideways to the lion preparing with this same grip to heave him
over. In some later monuments he certainly does appear to be strangling
the lion,^^ but a consideration of the whole series seems to prove that the
original motive is that of lifting and swinging the lion and is borrowed
directly from wrestling and that the strangling is a later addition borrowed
from a totally distinct type.
Of the throws to which the grips described above lead we have but little
evidence. Doubtless tripping with the legs was freely employed with these
holds but the only possible illustration of such a practice is the group
of bronzes to be described below where the hold is obtained from behind.^
There can be no doubt also that the movement already noticed as eSpav
*" R.-f. krater of Euphronius, Kleiu Euphron- ^^ Riperloirc de la Statuaire 249 ; Coll. Farges
his p. 118 A, r.-f. kylix J.H.S. x. PI I. 170. a.
*" Ann. d. I. 1870, O, Kleiu op. cit. p. 205 ; ^'^ E.g. a relief in Campana, Anliche Opere in
Schreiber Atlas xxiv. 10. Plastica xxii^
5» Klein op. cit. p. 194. «* Pp. 29cC 291, Figs. 25, 26.
51 Laboi-do i. 93.
278
E. NORMAN CARDlNKi;
<TTpe(})€iv, or turning the back to the opponent, was also emi)loye(l so as to
twist his neck and so twist hini off his feet.^'"' This movement we have seen
depicted in the lion group (Fig. 10); it is more fully shown on a Panathenaic
vase published in Man. d. I. i. 22, tlic whereabouts of which I have
Fi(;. 16. — R.-F. Kym.k. B.M. E 104. (Yvom W\.\rYa.y's Designs from Greek Vases in B.M.)
unfortunately failed to discover. The drawing is far from satisfactory but it
seems to represent a sort of cross-buttock with a neckhold.
The British Museum has an Etruscan bronze representing Peleus
wrestling with Atalanta, each holding the other's neck.^" The figures are
both arranged sideways so as to face the spectator. The type is not
uncommon on the lids of Etruscan lebetes, but the wrestling scheme is so
symmetrical, and so manifestly adapted to the practical requirements of a
handle that it is useless for our present purpose.
D , — Bodylio Ids .
As in the case of neckholds, so here we find the preliminary stage
represented where the wrestlers have one hand round each other's backs, and
are trying with the other to complete their hold. Sometimes as on a red-
figured kylix ^^ published by Noel des Vergers their other hands are dis-
^' Philostratus Gym. 35 speak-s of the
wrestler's neck KafiTrSfifvov koX aTpffiKov/xfvoy
»» B.M. Bronzes 748 ; cp. ib. 639, 744, 746 ;
Babelon Bronzes dtt Cabinet dcs Medailles 935 ;
Catalogue Forman Collection 141, an interesting
variety, tlie two wrestlers with crossed arms
grasping each other by the forearnu
*^ VMrurie xxxvii.
WRESTLING.
279
(■iig;iL?(Hl, Humctimos ;v.s on the 13. M. Panatlionaic vase B G03 (Fig. 1) one
wrestler grasps the other's wrist. In both cases the wrestlers stand S(|uare to
one another in the position of avcnaat^ whieli is excellently described by
Ovid in his account of the struggle between Hercules and Achelous.
In(]ue statu stctinuis, certi non cedere : eratque
Cum pede pes junctus, totoque ego pectore pronus
Et digitos digitis, ct fronteni fronte premebam. — Met. ix. 43.
The sideways position or TrapdOeaK; with a bodyhold is seen on the
Theseus kylix in the British Museum K84 (Fig. 2). Cercyon rushes forward as
if by sheer bulk to bear down Theseus, but the latter, moving to the right to
avoid the onset, slips his left arm round Cercyon's body just under the right
arm-pit. The hold is not completed, but Cercyon ' mole ruit sua,' and
Theseus will surely hasten his fall by some click with the left leg, perhaps by
hooking his left leg round Cercyon's right and with a turn to the left throwing
him backwards, or else by throwing him across his thigh. A very similar
group representing Heracles wrestling with Antaeus occurs on the frieze of
the theatre at Delphi.^^ We may further compare the quaintly drawn scene
on the neck of a Nicosthenes amphora at Vienna.-'"''^ There are two wrestling
Fig. 17.— R.-F. Kylix. B.M. E 95.
groups on this vase. In the first one of the wrestlers is stooping down as if
to seize his opponent round the waist, but the other frustrates his attempt by
seizing his left wrist and forcing his neck down. In the second group one
wrestler has secured a firm hold round the other's body, and lifting him to the
left prepares to swing him to the ground.
Another B.M. kylix E 95 (Fig. 17) shows a most interesting grip. The
wrestler to the left has grasped his opponent with his right hand under the
right arm-pit, and turning him sideways has somehow succeeded in passing
his left arm round his back, thus rendering useless bis opponent's right arm,
which hangs idly in front of his body. He seems to have obtained this grip
by seizing his opponent's right arm with both hands, the wrist with his left,
the upper arm with his right. By sharply pulling the arm towards him he
must have turned him sideways and then releasing the grip of his left hand
he was enabled to take the fresh hold round his back. The next stage
according to the description in the catalogue will be that represented in.
*" Homolle Fouilles de Delphcs iv. 76.
69 Vienna 232 ForlcgebldUer, 1890-1, iv. 3.
280 E. NORMAN GARDINER
E 94 i (Fig. 4). This can hardly be correct : this throw, which wo have
described above, follows directly from the armliold with both hands and so
does the position we are discussing, but it is a totally distinct development
of the original hold, not an intermediate position, and the throw must have
been completed by some form of tripping. Unfortunately the lower part of
the figures is wanting and it is idle to attempt a more definite explanation.
A very eflfective bodyhold is obtained by seizing the opponent round
the waist with both hands : he can then be lifted off his feet and swung to
the ground. The hold may be obtained from the front, from behind, or from
the side, and all three varieties occur constantly on the monuments. There
are various technical terms for such holds, TrepiTiOevai, SiaKafx^dveiv,
fieao^epheiv, /x€ao(f>ep8-r]v, and the effectiveness of the grip is proved by the
proverbial use of the expression fxeaov e)(eivS''^ fxecro^epheiv ^^ and its cognate
forms are known only from lexicographers and are explained by Hesychius as
fieaoXa^elv. irepiTidevaL and ScaXafi^dveip °" both occur in the Oxyrhynchus
papyrus and the context enables us to distinguish them. Both passages have
been noticed above,^^ In the opening lines a wrestler is instructed to take
a sideways position to the left and with his right arm seize his opponent by
the head. The latter receives the order av nrepide'i. He is to grip his
adversary by the body, passing his right arm across his back and his left arm
under his stomach. These movements are clearly represented on the
Theseus and Cercyon vases, save that Cercyon has lost his neckhold and his
liand has slipped down on to the shoulders of Theseus (Figs. 21, 22). They
are shown still more clearly because at an earlier stage on a black-figured
amphora from Berlin, for a drawing of which I am indebted to Dr. Zahn.^*
TrepiTidevai. will mean then to encircle an opponent's waist by passing one
arm across his back and the other under his stomach. StaXafx^dvetv as is
clear from the passage in the papyrus must mean to seize a person by the
waist by placing one arm round each side so as to clasp hands behind his
back, or, if the hold is taken from behind, before his stomach. This explana-
tion agrees with the first of the two meanings given in Bekker's Anecdota,
3G. 3 Bia\a/3€iv Svo aiiixalvei to eKarepcaOev nvo'i Xa^eadai Kal to et? 8vo rj
irXeova Sia^Mpiaai rj SieXeiu. Similarly in Aristophanes Ucclcs. 1090 the
scholiast explains BcaXe\T)/jt,/j,evov as /xiaov elXruMfxivov.
The bodyhold from the front is difficult to obtain, but extremely
effective. It was the hold by which Hackenschmidt, the^ winter before last,
won his sensational victory over Madrali. Cercyon is sometimes represented
attempting to obtain this hold in a clumsy barbarous fashion. Putting his
head down he rushes blindly at Theseus with the result that tiie latter
obtains a irdXaia-fia d(f)VKTov. The Euplironius kylix and the Euthymides
psykter have been mentioned above.^^ The same result is depicted on the
«« Aiistopli. Eq. 387, Aeharn. 571. «^ Bcrl. Vas. 1716. The irapidtais is most
*' Hesycliius, Photius. marked in this groni). A second group on the
*' Cp. Plut. Anton. 33. .same vase is of tlic ordinar3- armhold type.
•8 i» 265. 85 p. 277.
WRESTLING.
2«1
Chaclirylion kylix ut Florence (Fig. 18)*'^ where Theseus instead of obtaining
a neckhold has forced Cercyon's liead down and with both arms clasped
under his stomach can easily heave him over. With this hold we may
compare the hold of Heracles round the lion's neck, as shown on a coin of
Heraclea (Fig. dd), or better still, on the B.M. kylix E 104 (Fig. 16). Another
danger of attempting [such a hold clumsily is illustrated by the two groups
given in PI. XU.,a, b, from a b.-f amphora at Munich,"^ the drawings of which
have been kindly supplied to me by Professor Furtwiingler. In both cases
we see a bearded athlete rushiuf^- blindly on to seize the other by the waist.
The upper group is merely preliminary : in the lower group his opponent,
prevented from obtaining the hold for the heave by the grip on his right
wrist, seems to be leaning all his weight upon him with the object of forcing
Fig. 18. — Theseits and Ckucyon. K. -F. Kylix. Florence.
(After Harrison and Maccoll, PI. X )
him to the ground. This fate actually befalls Antaeus as he catches at the
leg of [Heracles, and a black-figured vase shows him fallen, with Heracles
pressing him down upon the ground with one hand and striking at him with
the other.*'^ Antaeus and Cercyon both pay the penalty for their clumsiness.
On the Berlin amphora reproduced above (Fig. 8) we see the same hold
succe.ssfully»secured. A young wrestler has seized by the waist and lifted off
his feet a bearded athlete who vainly endeavours to break his hold.
More frequently we see the hold obtained from behind. For the
"* Harrison andMaeCoU, Greek I'ase Painting,
PI. X. Kleiii p. 194rf. To tlicsc may perliajis be
added a fragment of ii vase in the Louvre very
simil.ir in style to the Euphronius vase wiiich
Wernicke considers to rejircsent Theseus and
Apollo. The former has his right arm round
his opponent's neck while Apollo with Ids left
strives t'> break the grip. Jahrb. 1892, p. 209.
'■■ ,Tahn 1336.
«s Naples 2519, Millingen, PI. XXX F, Klem
loc. cit.
•282
E. NORMAN (JAIM)INKK
illustration in PI. XII. c. from a b.-f. amphora in Munich,'''' I am
again indebted to the; kindness of Professor Furt\v;in<fh;r. The stiffness and
lifelessncss of tlie group is cliaracteristic of this type on tlie vases, a cha-
racteristic which is the raoie remarkabUi by contrast with the vigorous
representation of the same type on coins and gems. We may notice however
that the wrestler lifted off the ground lias in defence hooked his right foot
round his opponent's leg. Similar scenes occur on a small amphora at
Naples/^ and on a l)lack-figured Berlin amphora reproduced very in-
adequately by Krause/^ a drawing of which I have received from Dr. Zahn.
It represents a fat-bellied bearded wrestler lifting a youth who in an
ineffectual manner strives to loosen liis grip. In this and in the Munich
vase the hands are locked in the manner already noticeil.
This lifting type is particularly associated with the struggle between
Heracles and Antaeus, though, as Prof. Furtwiingler '-^ has shown, in this
connexion it does not occur in archaic art, nor as far as I know does it occur
on the red-figured vases. It must however have been contemporary with
the latter, as we find the scene represented on the coins of Tarentum as early
as the fourth century. From this time onwards the lifting of Antaeus
occurs repeatedly in bronzes and statues, and especially on coins and gems.
Yet even here we find little evidence for the later version of the story recorded
by the scholiast to Plato,^-^ and by Roman poets,'* that Antaeus being the
son of earth derived fresh strength from his mother every time he touched
the earth, and that Heracles therefore lifted him from earth and squeezed
him to death. There are a few late monuments which may have been
influenced by this form of the story, and Philostratus '•' gives a detailed
description of the scene ; but these are the exceptions and there can be no
doubt that in the majority of cases, as Prof. Furtwangler says, Heracles lifts
Antaeus not to crush him, but to throw him. Usually Heracles lifts Antaeus
to his right, and the whole attitude denotes that he intends to hurl him
with all his force to his left. Even in the late realistic monuments where
Antaeus is represented with an expression of intense agony, the attitude of
Heracles is preserved, and though the agony might denote the squeezing to
death the attitude of Heracles is neither necessary nor appropriate to such a
process. Indeed I have a cutting from a dail}^ paper representing Madrali in the
grip of Hackenschmidt which for expression of pain far surpasses any representa-
tion of Antaeus. It seems likely therefore that the story of Heracles lifting
Antaeus from the ground and squeezing him to death, of which there is no
evidence in early literature or art, was a late invention suggested by the
regular artistic type. This view is confirmed by the persistence of this
artistic type on coins ; for nowhere is the action of throwing more clearly
«» Jalin 495.
^" Bull. Nap. Nouv. Ser. v. 10.
" xiib, iOb, Bcrl. Fas. 1853.
^^ Roschers.v. Herakles.
73 Ley. 796 a.
7* Lucan Pharsalia iv. 612 sq.
''■' Im. ii. 21, yet even here the wrestling
tradition survives in the concluding words
where I'liilostratus describes Hermes coming to
crown Heracles on ahr^ KaKws vitoKpivirai rijv
WUESTLINIJ.
283
(l(MK)tc(l than on some of the lato coins of'tlic Empire, an example of" which is
iriven in Fii;. !)."'' We are jiistifiivl therel'ore in connecting all monuments
of tliis type (liiuctly with the wiestlintif- school. In examining other types of
the Antaeus story we shall find that they are all borrowed from the palaestia,
in archaic art sometimes from the paid<rati()n, in later art generally from
true wrestling.
The bodyhold from the side is also well illustrated by the Antaeus and
Cercyon groups. In the tirst place we see Antaeus seizing, or trying to seize,
Heracles by the foot. Such a movement is excessively dangerous and
re(|uires the greatest agility for success, and Heracles takes advantage of the
opening as has been pointed out either to force his adversary to the ground,
or more frequently to seize him by the waist as he stoops down, in the same
manner as Theseus seizes Cercyon. We may distinguish two varieties of this
type. In the tirst Heracles passes both arms round Antaeus, clasping his
hands under his stomach '^ (Fig. 10); m the second he has passed one arm
Fig. 19. — HEiiAcr.Ks and Antaeus. B.-F. Amphora. B.M. B 222.
round him and with the other grasps the hand with which Antaeus strives
to defend himself ^^ (Fig. 20). In both cases the object seems tQ be the
same, to lift Antaeus off the ground and throw him heavily. Mr. Cecil Smith
in volume xxii, of this journaF*-' appears to me to have misinterpreted
this type. ' The hero,' he says, ' locks his arms around the neck or chest of
his adversary, and with head also pressing against the other's shoulders
squeezes him to death : it is this type (adaptable also for the contest with the
Nemean lion) which distinguishes the Antaeus contest from all others.'
' The same type,' he adds, ' came to be used for the contest of Theseus with
Cercyon.' Against this view I submit that there is no literary evidence for
the ' squeezing' process until a much later date, and further that the position
is not a natural or effective one for the purpose. Plato, as has been shown,
quotes Antaeus and Cercyon as types of the pankratiast.^'' The scholiast to
'■« B.M.C. Coins of Tarcntum 376, Alexan-
dria Troas 10£4, 1479, Nicaea 113, Tarsus 184 ;
Furtwiiiiijler Aiit. Gem. xxvii. 15, xliii. 67, 68 ;
Reinacli ll^pertoirc dc la Staluairc i. 472. 6,
477. 6, ii. 233. 6, 539. 3, iii. 155. 6. ,
" B.M. Vases b 222, 596 ; Gerh. A.V. 113.
78 Gerh. A.V. 70; Jahu 1107.
7'J P. 43.
*" Leg. 796 A, c|). siipra p. 27.
284
E. NORMAN GARDINER
Plato, wlio tells us that Heracles dpdixevo<; tov 'AvtuIov fiejewpov dfj,/iiaai
K\daa<i uTreKTeive says of Cercyon that Theseus avrov dpd/j,€t^o<i eppi-yp-ev et?
yf]v Kol direKT6ivev. Now if we find the same type used in art for the two
contests it is reasonable to infer that the same motive explains them both.
Therefore either Heracles and Theseus are both represented as squeezing
their opponents to death, or they both throw them to the ground and so slay
them. But no one has suggested that Theseus squeezed Cercyon to death :
the evidence of the monuments and of literature is conclusive against such
an idea. Unless therefore we are prepared to say that in precisely similar
attitudes Heracles squeezes Antaeus to death, and Theseus lifts Cercyon in
order to throw him, we must conclude that they are both lifting their
opponents, and the same conclusion holds good of the representations of
Heracles and the Nemean lion described in the last section. More
Fig. 20. B.-F. Amphora? Munich. (After Gerhard A.V. 70.)
commonly however in the latter contest Heracles stoops down or kneels,
forcing the lion's head to the ground and strangling it with his left arm or
both firmly clasped round its neck. We return therefore to Prof Furt-
wangler's conclusion that Heracles lifts Antaeus, not in order to crush him,
but to throw him, and the same type taken directly from the wrestling-
school is used with Antaeus, the Nemean lion, and Cercyon. Similarly we
shall find that the types for Heracles' contest with Achelous and the sea
monster are derived from the pankration. We may say indeed that for
every contest in which weapons were not used the Greek artist found his
natural, or indeed his only models in the palaestra.
In the case of Cercyon there is fortunately no possible doubt as to the
object of the grip which we are discussing. On the British Museum kylikes
E 36, 48 (Figs. 21, 22) and on a Bologna kylix ^^ we see Theseus actually
Mils. Ital. iii. 260 ; Klein I.e. e.g. li.
WRESTLING.
285
lifting Cercyon oil" his feet. On E 48 the latter endeavours to save himself
by seizing Theseus round the waist, on the other two vases he clasps him
round the back with the left nrm, Avhile with his right hand he either
Fig. 21. — Theseus and Ceucyon. R.-F. Kylix. B.M. E 48.
reaches for the ground or grabs at the foot of Theseus. Had we no other
evidence we should have no doubt that the movement here depicted is
identical with 'the heave' of modern wrestling, so popular in the West of
England. Apparently ' the heave' was no less popular with the Athenians
Fig. 22.— Theseus and Ceucyon. R -F. Kyux. B.M. E 36.
and is therefore closely associated by the vnse painters with the contests of
Theseus who was the first, they claimed, to make wrestling an art. Fortun-
ately we have a far more important monument to confirm our view. A metope
286
E. NORMAN GARDINER
from the Theseum shows us tlie very moment when Theseus having lifted
Cercyon off his feet is turning him over, or giving him ' the heave ' (Fig. 23).
Here too as on the vases, Cercyon endeavours to save himself, his right arm
clasped round Theseus, his left vainly catching at the ground or at Theseus'
leg. A yet later movement is given by a well known bronze statuette in the
Louvre,^^ the victor having turned his opponent completely over, and on a late
relief from the same museum representing the genii of sport*' the defeated
Fig. 23. — Metoi'E of Theseum. (From I'lof. F. Gaidai;i's Greek Scwlptarc. )
genius is seen slipping through the other's aims headforemost on to the
ground.
The motive of the Cercyon vases is reproduced as a purely palaestra
scene on a red-figured kylix belonging to Mrs. Hall exhibited at the
Burlington Fine Arts Club in lOOS.*^* Between a pillar and an official we
see two wrestlers, the left hand one grasping the other round the back,
pressing his head down and preparing to heave him. To this we may add
the group on the Berlin amphora 1716 already referred to. Finally we find
the heave and the hold necessary for it clearly described by Quintus
Smyrnaeus and Nonnus, of whose descriptions I have given a brief abstract on
p. 25 of this volume.
E. — Tkc Cross-huUocJc.
The different holds which we have been discussing must certainly have
been combined with various movements of the body or the legs. Some of
these have been already mentioned incidentally, but it may be useful briefly
to sum up the evidence on these points. Wc have seen thnt certain holds
^- Clarac 802, 2014 ; Schreiber yltlas xxiv.
83 Clatad 187, 455.
8^ CatalugucWi. 64.
WUK.STLIN(}. 287
coulil be taken from the front, from the side, or from behind. In the latter
case a wrestler mnst either force his opponent to shift his position or shift his
own position. The Greek term for twisting an o})ponent ronnd so as to turn his
back or his side was /nera^t^u^eiv. Plato, in the Jmws 795 c, speaking of
tlie nece.ssity of developing both sides of the body equally, illustrates his
point from the trained boxer or pankratiast who ovk citto fj,ev upiareQcov
aSvpaToi; ecni fidyeaOai '^(oXaivet Be kol i(j)e\Kerai irXrjfjifxeXojv onrrorav avrov
fi€Ta^i/3iil^a)i' ejrl 6drepa dpayKu^rj hiairouelv. The monuments have been
already illustrated (Fig. 17, and PI. XII. c). So in the fight between Heracles
and Achelous, Ovitl describes the former as breaking away from the other's
grip
ImpiHSumque manu
Protinus avertit, tergoque onerosus inhaesit. — Met. ix. 53.
Again, a wrestler may attain the same result by springing round himself
— /xeTa/SuLveiv. Thus in the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus we read : —
CTU avrov /J€Ta^d<; irXe^ov,
and the corresponding order to the other pupil is fiera^akov — ' turn round.'
The use of the preposition fierd, recalls the ' afterplay ' of Cornish wrestling.
A more technical word for the same movement is ehpav aTpe^eiv, which is
used much in the same way as our 'buttock' and 'cross-buttock.' This,
according to Theocritus, xxiv. Ill, was a favourite throw of the Argive
wrestlers,
oacra S' diro aKekewv khpoarpo^oi ^ApyoOev d,vBpe<;
d\Xi']Xov<i a(^dXXovai 7raXaiap,aaip.
Theophrastes, Char. 27, describing the person who wishes to be thought a
well educated and accomplished gentleman, tells us that he affected iraXaloiv
ev TOO ^aXaveUp rnvKva ttjv ehpav arpicfyeiv. There has been some doubt
whether e^pav (7Tpi(j)eiv means to turn oneself round, or one's opponent ; but
Theophrastus leaves no excuse for any doubt. We can picture this athletic
fraud strutting about the bath and cross-buttocking imaginary opponents, just
as his modern counterpart delights to bowl imaginary balls, or with his
walking stick wings imaginary birds. Whether the Argive throw was the
buttock or the cross-buttock, we cannot say : the addition of the words
d-nb a/ceXeoyv suggests the latter throw, in which the legs are brought more
into play.
These movements may be illustrated by a black-figured vase in the
Museo Gregoriano,^^ with a frieze of athletic scenes (Fig. 24). The accom-
panying illustration is from a photograph obtained for me by Mr. T. Ashby,
of the British School of Rome, with the consent of Dr. Bartolommeo
Nogara, Director of the Museum. The wrestler to the left has obtained a
hold round the other's waist, either from behind or in front, but the latter by
leaning his weight forward and seizing his arms has frustrated his attempts
"^ xvii. Lr.
288
E. NORMAN (JAllDINER
at lifting him, and is himself in the position of advantage. Somewhat
similar appears to have been the motive of a wrestling group on a metope of
the treasury of the Athenians at Delphi,^'' representing the exploits of
Theseus, except that both the figures are here more upright. The left hand
figure has seized the other by the waist ; his opponent, as far as we can judge
from the fragment, leans forward seizing him by the neck with his left arm.
A still better example of a cross-buttock is afforded by an unpublished
bronze acquired by the British Museum in 1900 (PI. Xl. b.).^'' It represents a
Fic. 24. — B.-T. AMriiujiA ix Tin: MrsKo (il:E(;^>i:[AXl
contest between a thick-set bearded man and a powerfully made youth, and
though of crude and coarse workmanship, -is so full of vigour and life, that it
is probably a copy of some good original. The bearded man has his back
turned to his opponent, and is twisting^ him off his feet by means of a most
curious arm-lock. With his right hand he holds his opponent's right arm,
forcing it back acrcss his own right thigh, while he has slipped his left arm
under the other's left arm-pit, and gripped his neck, thus rendering the
imprisoned arm absolutely useless, and obtaining a powerful leverage similar
8* Fouilles do Delphcs iv. 46, 47.
*^ On case C in the bronze-ioom. Height
5J in. provenance unknown, date uncertain,
but Mr. Walters info-rms me it is certainly not
earlier tlian the first century A.n.
J H S VOL. XXV. 0905). PL XII.
BLACK-FIGURED AMPHORAE AT MUNICH.
WRESTLING. 289
to that of our half-Nelson, by means of which lie twists hiiu to the right, and
forces hhn to the grouml. The position may have been reached in the
following way : the victor seizes his opponent's right arm and by a quick
jerk turns him to the right (^era^i^d^ei), at tlie same time moving himself
to the left, so as to be behind iiim. Ho then immediately slips his left hand
under his left arm-pit, so as to seize his neck and force it down. By a curious
coincidence, another copy of this most interesting group has been published
tl)is year in the sale catalogue of the Philip collection in Paris.^^ The Paris
group is of finer workmanship, described in the catalogue as 'bon style Greco-
Romain,' and is in much better preservation, but the motive is identical, and
there can be no doubt that they are copies of the same original. They have
also some points of resemblance with a bronze published in the .sale catalogue
of the Forman collection.^'' Here too we have two athletes of a powerful
type, one bearded, the other beardless, and the arm-lock is very similar, as
far as I can judge from the illustration ; but the position of the body is
rather that represented in Fig. 25, except that in the Forman group the
beardless wrestler has not yet fallen on his knee. Perhaps the Forman
bronze represents a later moment than the British Museum group, the
moment when the cross-buttock has been completed, and the defeated
wrestler is in the act of falling. Or else we must suppose that the artist has
attetnpted to combine two well known originals, for I cannot believe that the
bronzes represented in PI. XI.&.,Figs. 25. 2G are all derived from but one original.
The powerful build, crisp hair, and short beard of the standing athlete in
these groups are characteristic of the Farnese Heracles, and the two wrestlers
are therefore identified with Heracles and Antaeus.^*' If the identification is
correct, it is an additional proof of my contention that the contest between
Heracles and Antaeus is a genuine wrestling m;itch, in which, as long as they
are on their feet, 'squeezing' or 'strangling' finds no part.
F. — Tripping.
We have already seen that the general term for tripping is vvocrKeXi^eii/,
that ifi^oXrj and irape/x^oXT] denote special forms of tripping, i^i^oXrj the
hank, irape/jL^oXr] the back-heel. By analogy Sia^oXy] if used of a leg move-
ment might mean ' the outside stroke.' Finally Eustathius uses the terms
fieTUTrXaa/JLO'; and TrapaKaTayoyyrj to describe the chip by which Odysseus
threw Ajax, apparently ' the inside click ' or ' hank.' ^^ The monuments aflford
us very little direct illustration of these tricks. M. de Ridder quotes a bronze
mirror on which are engraved two Cupids wrestling.^^ One of them has
seized the other from behind and is lifting him otF his feet, but the latter by
hooking his left foot round his opponent's left leg prevents him from swinging
him. A similar trick seems to be suggested in the vases shown in Fig. 8, and
^ Collection P. Philip Paris, 1905, No. 484. group in the Louvre, No. 361.
"9 London, 1899, No. 95. " P. "25 of this volume.
9" We may add to them the much mutilated »- Stephani, C.B. 1869, PI. I. 29, p. 144.
H.S. VOL. XXV. U
290
K. NORMAN GARDINER
PI. XII. c. The poverty of this evidence is remarkable when we contrast the
endless varieties of tripping depicted in p]gyptian art."*' Inulepicting the com-
plicated scenes of snch sports as wrestling and boxing, tlie Greek vase painter
seldom departed from a few conventional types. More conclusive is the
indirect evidence of a group of bronzes, representing a wrestler falk'u on the
ground sup})orting himself on his left arm, while over him stands his victor
Avith his left foot still twisted round his, and his right foot behind only just
touching the ground. So far all the bionzes agree, but in the treatment of
Fig. 25. — liRoxzK. St. Petersiuiu;. (After Stepliani, (.'.71. )
the arms there are tvv^o varieties. In the St. Petersburg bronze ^^ (Fig. 2-5)
the victor forces the other's head down with his left and with his
right presses the other's right arm back in the same way as in the B.M.
bronze described above (PI. XL h.). In the Constantinople group ''^ (Fig. 2())
he liolds his opponent's neck with his right hand, while with his left he has
twisted backwards his right arm and shoulder. In both cases he appears to-
have made his attnck from behind— the after play. In the first CMse he
** There aie 340 wiestliiifj groups in tlie
tonil>s of Belli Ilas.san (Airharolog. Siii-vei/ of
Egypt, flcni HassanW. IMs. V. XV.). Separated
as tliey are liy nearly 2000 years from the
monuments wliieh \vc are consideriiiir, it is
obvious that they liave no oonncxion with
Grt'ck wrestling in liistoiical iinie.s, though they
are often u.scd in text-hooks to illustrate it
Should Cretan exploration bring to light a
.series of Minoan wrestling gronjis, the compari-
son wo\ild he of very ditl'erent value.
»* St.'phani, C.U. 1867, i. 1, 5.
"i* Jahrh. 1898, Pi. XI. Other examjdes of
the group are at Florence (Rcinach ICipcrloirc
dr la Stafuairc ii. 538. 5), in the Hritish
Museum 853 (of somewhat doubtful anti(iuity),
in the Louvre 361 {Jnhrb. 1901, p. 51), at
Lyons, in the Dimitriou Collection at Athens.
Sehreihor Arch. Am. 1899, 133 notices another
from Kgypt in the Sieglin (lollection. The
Florence and li. M. specimens agree with that in
Constantinople. The Louvre group is too nnich
miUilated for certainty.
WRESTLING.
291
seizes liis opponent's right hand with his own right, placing his left hand on
his neck and at the same time hooking his left leg round his opponent's left ;
then pressing liis neck forwards lie forces his right arm backwards, using it
as a lever to twist him off his feet. The other as he falls instinctively puts
out liis left hand to save himself, and so falls with left hand and right knee
to the ground. In the Constantinople type the victor seizes his opponent's
right hand with his own left, and pulls it across his back, at the .same
time forcing his head forwards and downwards with his right hand, and
twisting his left leg round the other's left leg. The fall is still more inevitable
than in the first case. Besides the interesting examples of arm-locks and of
tripping which these groups afford, we must again call attention to the fact
that in all of them the wrestling is over, and there is nothing to suggest
that the defeated wrestler must be thrown on his back.^ He has fallen on
his knee, and that is sufficient.
A special interest attaches to these groups when we compare them with
the much disputed lines in the Equites of Aristophanes 2G1-2G3.
Kuv Tiv avTMV yuM<; aTrpdyfxov ovra Kai Ke'yrjvora
Karayayuiv ix X.€ppovt]crov Sca^aXiov ayKVpiaat
etr' airoarpe-^a'i rbv ayfiov avrov iveKo\rj^a<Ta<i.
"^ Cp. p. 23 of this volume. So Fiirster
Jahrb. 1898, p. 181 ' Die (rvfiirKoK-fi ist voriiber,'
Init when hf goes on to say ' es ist zum a.Kpo-
Xfipio'M'^s gtkonimen,' I cannot understand
what he supposes to be the meaning of axpo-'
Xfipi(r/J.6s. It is a term used of the preliminjuy
stages of l)oxing, and the pankration.
U2
292 E. NORMAN GARDINEK
Prof. Maliafty ingeniously explains the whole passage as an elaborate
metaphor taken from the picking of figs, but wliereas it seems unlikely that
so simple an operation should need so many technical terms, the obvious
appropriateness of every term to wrestling, and the constant reference to
tricks of wrestling through the whole scene convince me that the primary
reference at all events is to Avrestling. A comparison with lines 491, 49(5
suggests that Suif^dkdw denotes throwing the arm across a person's neck.
For ayKvpiaa^ the scholiast gives two explanations: 1. dyKvpia/xa, a hook
for pulling down figs. 2. dyKvpLaa<;= viToaKe\i(Ta<;. There is no necessary
inconsistency between the two ideas, and Aristophanes may well have
intended to suggest both ; but if one is to be excluded, it is certainly not the
wrestlin"'. d'yKvplcrai, 'to hook,' is an obvious synonym for vrroaKeXi^eiv
and is included by Pollux in his list of wrestling terms.'^" Wrestling terms,
especially those denoting tripping, are in most languages used metaphoricall}'
to express cheating, and in Demosthenes we find the combination of the two
metaphors, uTroaKeXt^eiv koI cruKocfiavTe'li'P^ d'TroaTpi-^a<^ rov oifxov needs
no explanation ; Prof. Mahatfy for the purposes of his tiieory alters w/,tof to
uiiiov. The first and obvious meaning of all three terms then is in connex-
ion with wrestling, and they denote three movements, seizing an opponent's
neck, hooking his leg, twisting back his shoulder. Now these are the
identical movements which are implied in the Constantinople and similar
bronzes. Further, we must note that the attack is made from behind. This
is the usual form of attack with boys playing tricks on one another, or
hooligans assaulting innocent passers-by. The gilded youth of Athens as we
know from the orators freely indulged in such horse-play, an excellent
example of whicli occurs in Demosthenes in Cononcm?^ Pie describes how^
Conon and his suns set upon Ariston,and after stripping him inroaK6\iaavTe<;
Koi p(i^avT€<i et<? TOP ^op^opov ovtco SiedrjKav evaWo/xevoc k.t.X. In this
passage v7rocTKe\i'aavTe<i pd^avTe<s and evaWofievot ^^^ are words familiar in
the palaestra ; naturally the young bloods of Athens made use of the
knowledge they had gained therefrom in assaulting those against whom they
had a grudge. We see now how appropriate this language is in Aristophanes.
The chorus are taunting Cleon with getting hold of simple old gentlemen
from the country and fleecing them, ' Whenever you find such an one you
fetch him home from the Chersonnese, and as the old gentleman is walking
along unsuspectingly, you suddenly throw your arm across his neck, hook his
leg, and pulling his shoulder back, throw him to the ground.' Such is the
meaning which one would expect for the last word, but its actual meaning is
obscure, and I cannot help fancying that Aristophanes has after his usual
manner concluded with a humorous variation.
"^ Cp. Bekkei's Aji. 81. 4, 327. 10 Kafiipas thenes, of Simon and Eratosthenes in Lysias,
rht> ^(JSa, (rx^iju.* 5e iffrl ■ttaKaiarpiK6v. and of Demarchus in Aeschines.
•* De Corona 138, cp. Plato Euthydemus ^'"' ^a.aaeiv = io dash down, cp. LXX. Isaiah
278 B. ix. 11, Eupolis To{. 6 aynvpicas ?^^a{«»'. For
•* C. 8. Bekker in his Charicles quotes the Ao{ iviWiaOai v. Pollux iii. 150.
examples of Euergiis and Meidias in Demos-
WRE8TLING. 293
Siiidas explains the word as eVt koXoi^ jSalvetv and adds Ko\a he rj
ya<TT)']p. He furtlier states that iveKo\rj^aaa<i is used for irpoaeKpovaa';.
This account agrees fairly with the scholiast's derivation of KoXerpdw in the
N^dics 522. Here again Aristophanes is using the language, perliaps the
slang, of the palaestra, and KoXerpav apparently means to jump on an
opponent's stomach when he is down, an unmanly proceeding of which
Aristophanes protests he was never guilty. The scholiast explains the words
variously as Kara koXov Tinrreiv, KaraTraTelv, ivdXXeadai rfj KotXia koI
TVTTTeiv 649 TTjv yaaTepa. The scholiast to the Equites also explains iveKo-
XriJBaaa^ as Kara-rreirccKaii connecting it with aKoXo<i which means, he says,
-v/r(u/io9, a most improbable derivation. The meaning 'to swallow' could of
course be easily derived from koXov, the stomach, and all the evidence points
to its connexion with this word. I should suggest then that it means ' to hit
or kick in the stomach.' Such an action though not allowed in true wrestlino'
was permitted in the pankration, and was doubtless as familiar to the school-
boys and roughs of Athens as to those of the present day, and so Aristo-
phanes appropriately concludes the tale of Cleon's knaveries with ' you hit
him in the stomach.' ^^^ If we look at the bronzes, we can see how easily the
victor could kick his fallen opponent in the stomach with his right foot or
hit him with his right hand.
The correspondence between the bronzes and Aristophanes' description
need cause us no surprise. Most authorities regard the bronzes as of Alex-
andrian origin, copied from somie well known Hellenistic group.^''^ 'Yhe
number of replicas which we possess is evidence of the popularity of the
original statue and not merely of the statue but of the wrestling trick which
deserved to be so commemorated. Forster identifies the victor in the Con-
stantinople bronze with Hermes, the patron of wrestling. If the identifica-
tion is correct, especially if the original statue represented Hermes, it is
additional evidence of the popularity of the 7rdXaLcr/xa. The original statue
may have been Hellenistic, but the TrdXaLa/xa which it represented need not
be so limited in date. It was probably as familiar at Athens in the time of
Aristophanes as it was at Alexandria under the Seleucidae, and we need not
wonder that a trick so well known not only in the wrestling-ring, but in the
streets should have furnished Aristophanes with a metaphor to expresfs the
trickery of Cleon, and at a later period should have Been the motive of a
notable work of art.
E. Norman Gardiner.
^»> So in the passage quoted from Demos- i»2 Forster Jahrb. 1898, p. 178, 1901, pp.
thenes, Conon and his sons after throwing 49-51 ; Perdrizet Eev. Arch. 1903, pp. 396-7.
Ariston in the mud proceed to jump upon him.
(To he continued.)
OLYMPIAN TREASURIES AND TREASURIES IN GENERAL.
Proceeding along the terrace of the treasuries, Pausanias devotes the
nineteenth chapter of his second book on Elis to passing in review the whole
row of them, naming each according to the Hellenic community by which it
was built and dedicated. First he notes the Sicyonians' treasury, then the
'Carthaginians" (Syracusans'). At this point begins a confusion in his text
which culminates in the startling declaration that the third and fourth
The Kemains in situ of thk Elkvkn TiiKAsuiuEs
seen by Pausanias at Olynipia on tlie Terrace at the foot of Mt. Cronius.
A = Altai'. Figures preceded by (+) denote metres of height above 0 = level of the stylobate of
the Temiile of Zeu.s. Other figures denote hoiizontal metres ; written between two
buildings, they give interval separating them ; written inside ground-plans, they represent
dimensions.
treasuries are a dedication of the Epidamnians, a notable fact which he imme-
diately denies by •speaking of one and only one Epidamnians' treasury.
After this he remarks, that the Sybarites also built a treasury next to that
of the Byzantines. This is disconcerting as he mentions the Byzantines'
treasury nowhere else either before or afterwards. Next to the Sybarites'
treasury, lie then says, was that of the Libyans of Gyrene, in which he saw
statues of Roman emperors. The Selinuntines, he proceeds to note, huilt a
OLYMPIAN TREASURIES. 295
ircdsiiri/ to Olympian Zens before Selinus was destroyed by tlie Carthagin-
ians ; then he touches upon the treasury of the Metapontines as next to
tliat of the Selinuntines. Finally he mentions the Megarians' and the
Geloans' treasuries. Answering to these treasuries ten in number, unless we
count the two attributed to the Epidamnians, twelve distinct foundations
have been unearthed side by side on the stepped terrace skirting the
southern foot-slope of Mt. Cronius. One of these however, No. VIII, count-
ing eastward as is the established and convenient rule,' is neither of the
size nor of the solidity required for a treasury.^ The little that can be
made out from the remains of what is usually miscalled the eighth treasury
confirms the idea that it was no treasury of the Cyrenaeans or of any other
community but a very ancient altar, perhaps an ash-altar. Its anticjuity is
proved not so clearly by the archaic features of its remains as by the high
level at which its foundations were laid. Finally, since it must, if a treasury
at all, be the Cyrenaeans' treasury, it is significant that the one fact recorded
by Pausanias of the Cyrenaeans' treasury cannot easily be connected with No.
VIII, which, if it had an interior at all, was absurdly small to contain statues
of Roman emperors. Its outside dimensions are 442 by 5'78 metres, the
longer measurement being in part due to its hypothetical restoration as a
treasury. Nos. I-VII and IX-XII, the eleven foundations remaining, repre-
sent the ten treasuries connected by Pausanias with ten different communi-
ties which he names. The eleventh foundation cannot have belonged, as in
our text of Pausanias, to the Epidamnians, nor is it reasonable to read in the
Byzantines for its founders. Its founders were some Hellenic people unknown
because their name has fallen out by a confusion of the scribes.- Really
1 Sec A II p. 48, where Dr. Duvpfeld is their data, and led them (a) to make sure, in
doubtful, and A I, pp. 75 f., wliere he spite of evidence to the contrary, that No. VIII
clearly proves the foundations aud walls in this was a treasury and not an altar, and (b) to
case to have been too slight to allow of more persuade themselves, on what Dr. Dbrpfeld lately
than an outside veneer apydied to a solid core, — assured me was not certain evidenc, that Paus-
that presumably of an altar. Remains on the aulas could never have had sight of Nos. U
spot exhibit traces of heavy stucco coatings, and III. Thus, by suppressing these two among
and remains of a stucco moulding running about the eleven t/i .si7w, and by mistaking No. VIII
the base of this altar as about that of many for a treasury, they made out that Pausanias
others on the site. Dr. Diirpfeld suggests that saw only ten treasuries, the names of which he
this may be the altar of Ge, mentioned by gives, I, IV-XII. This whole scheme breaks
Pausanias (VI xiv 10) just after his notice of down through the establishment of two facts
the altar of Heracles lying west of the western- (a.) that there is no convincing reason for sup-
most treasury (I). A^. 5.— References to A= posing that a road up Mt. Cronius was carried
Objmpia, Texihand. over II and III before Pausanias saw the
'•^ Bockh emended the fifth paragraph in terrace and the treasuries,— on the contrary
Pausanias VI xix before the German excavations there is every reason to make us sure the road
at Olympia shewed that there were eleven treas- up to the summit was always where it now is,
uries. Hence he connected the mention of the on the north side, the south side being too
Byzantines' treasury, — absolutely required by steep, — (b) that Pausanias saw and actually
the opening of paragrapli seven, — with the mentions eleven and not ten treasuries, although
fourth treasury, knowing that both the third and the name of one of them has fallen out of our-
the fourtli could }iot he given to the Epidam- text, which has also lost the words, — toward the
nians. Bockh's emendation prevented the ex- end of • VI xix 5, — in which he first mentions
cavators from an unbiassed consideration of the Byzantines' treasury. See A I pp. 7.5 f.
29G LOUIS DYER
tliore is uncertainty as to whether tlie missing name shoukl be connected
with III or IV, but the probabilities favour our considering IV to have been
the Epi(Uiinnians' treasury. We are however certain of the names of I and
II, and also of those of IX— XII. Nos. V— VII remain, and there is little
doubt that to them apply, in due succession, the three names on Pausanias'
list remaining, Byzantines,, Sybarites, and Cyrenaeans. The only doubt arises
from" the parenthetical way in whicli the Byzantines' treasury (V) is mentioned.
Probably, as Dr. Dijrpfeld suggests, some mention of the Byzantines' has
fallen out, — just before this parenthetical allusion, — at the end of paragraph
6. It is the less difficult indeed to take this view, — which involves the falling
out, at the beginning of the same paragraph, of the name to be connected with
III^ — because not only 5 but paragraph 4 preceding it is in some confusion
textually.
Such being the condition of our text in two of the fourteen paragraphs
concerning the treasuries, it is a relief to know that, without any recourse
to Pausanias whatever, we can name and identify Nos. I and XL Upon the
recovered fragments of the architrave of XI is inscribed Me'yapeov, while
'S.eKvoviov is similarly cut on a stone of the eastern anta of I. Furthermore,
XII, the Geloans' treasury, mentioned last by Pausanias and unmistakably
located, is further identified by his quoting the inscription which he read
upon it; while its remains, found in the walls of the Byzantine fort, clearly
stamp it, — quite apart from anything in Pausanias, — as of Sicilian and
Geloan construction. Two of the remaining nine, Nos. IX and X, the
Metapontines' and the Selinuntines', can be identified by recourse to
Pausanias without reference to the corruptions in his text, and without even
deciding that No. VIII cannot be regarded as having been a treasury. If
the conclusions '* about VIII are admitted, then there is no doubt or difficulty
in identifying VII with the Cyrenaeans', VI with the Sybarites', and V with
the Byzantines' treasury. Either III or IV, probably the latter, must
be the Epidamnians', the name of III having been lost out of the text of
paragraph 5. Finally the disorder of the text in the preceding paragraph 4
is not so complete as to leave any doubt that II is the Syracusans' ' Cartha-
ginian ' treasury.
For determining the dates of the several treasuries there are five methods
of proof: (1) direct information given by Pausanias or another, (2) expert
evidence as to the date of ascertained architectural features, (3) a comparison
of differences in the levels at which were laid the foundations in situ, the
presumption being that the earliest were laid on the highest or the lowest
points of the ground available,* (4) a general consideration of agreements and
* The wording of Pausanias V'l xix 7 ex- pointedly coupling VI and VII at the beginning
eludes the notion of any altar or building of a sentence. His next sentence begins
between IX and X, whose walls in fact all but 'S,iKf\ttiTas be l.tKivowTlous, and there is just
touch in their foundations, justifying our author's room at the intervening full stop for an altar
irpoafX'hs i while he says of VI, the Sybarites', like No. VJII.
and VII, the Cyrenaeans' treasury : irphs Se r<fi * The facts about differences of level must
"ZvfiapiTwv !^i&vwv iarl ruv iv Kvpifvp Or\(ravp6s, not be pressed too far. Foundations at a mean
OLYMPIAN TREASURIES. 297
(lili'eiences of aligniueiit, (5) a scrutiny of the ver_y unequal interspaces separat-
ing till' foundations iji sila, the presumption being that, given treasuries
A, B, C, D, E built side by side, if the interspaces BC and CD, being equal,
are also so much narrower than AB==DE as to allow of it, then C was built
later than A, B, I), and K, and crowded in between B and I). Finally, since
novelty and variety jjlayed their part in securing to the Olympia their hold
upon constant national resort to which the founding of treasuries bears
witness, traditional dates for the introduction of new athletic events may be
taken into account.
The highest grouml upon the terrace is occupied by the foundations of
the altar, No. VIII, and by those of No. Vll,^ the Cyrenaeans' treasury. The
lowest level lies on the extreme eastern verge of the terrace overhanging the
Stadium, and is occupied by the Geloans' treasury, No. XII. The means of
dating this fabric by evidence derived from style and workmanship have been
vastly increased through the recovery of its shattered superstructure from the
walls of the Byzantine fort. As a whole the building of the Geloans belongs
to two periods : the earlier and principal part, built apparently like the
Cnidians' Delphian treasury as a single chamber facing east and west, was
aligned on the south side to the conjectural south front of No. VIII, the only
structure found on the terrace by the Geloan builders. As between VIII,
the ancient ash-altar, and XII, the Geloans' treasury chamber, VIII, — being
on the highest level, chosen with reference to the primitive altar service of
the sacred grove,— must have been the earlier foundation." Had the highest
level been still open to their choice, the Geloans might indeed have preferred
it as affording equal command of the Stadium and of the Altis. Architec-
tural forms and characteristic decorations favour dating the original treasury-
chauiber of XII very late in the seventh century,— this is the testimony of
architectural forms, — or very early in the sixth century B.C., — this is the testi-
mony of characteristic decorations. Gela was founded about 090 B.C. and is
the earliest of Sicilian colonies to figure conspicuously at Olympia. About
100 years before the recorded chariot victory, — won by the Geloan Pantares,
son of Menecrates, somewhere between 01. 07 and 01. 70 (512-500 B.C.),— the
original treasury-chamber of XII was built. Its southward -facing porch pre-
sumably commemorates Pantares' victory, and was possibly patched upon the
old treasury-chamber along with the three surrounding steps shewn in situ, by
his sons Cleander and Hippocrates, tyrants of Gela from 505 B.C. to 491 B.C.
level, higher than the lowest and lower than the the terrace, there would scarcely be reason to-
highest should not be grouped together chrono- restore VII as a 'treasury.' See A II p. 48.
logically on that ground. But see Dr. Dorpfeld « The antiquity of VIII is proved (1) by its
A II. pp. 206 f. occupying the highest level, (2) by the variation
5 The foundations of No. VII are mere of spacing between it and No. IX on the east
trenches 0 3 m. deep filled in with sand and and No. VII on the west. The eastern part of
gravel. Small segments of walls still standing the foundations of VIII is of marly limestone^
in. situ shew a settling of 0-016 m. In fact its later western part is of poros. No clamps
these flimsy foundations are so primitive and so appear, but on some of the limestone blocks are
insignificant that, without their neighbours left the bosses used in lifting them. A II p. 48.
and the general statement of Pausanias about
^98 LOUIS DYER
Architectural remains date tlie building of tliis porch at the end of the
sixth century or the beginning of the fifth century just as clearly as similar
evidence dates the original treasury-chamber at the end of the seventh or
the beginning of the sixth century B.C. But Nos. IX, X. and XI adjacent,
and for that matter VII lying just beyond the altar (VIII), must have been
built before Oleander's Porch, for they are aligned not to the front columns of
this addition, but to the south side of the unaltered Geloan treasury-cliamber
beyond which Oleander's porch projects several yards southward. Accordingly,
the date (505-491 B.C.) of the Geloans' porch gives a terminus ante quern
to help our attempt at dating VII, IX, X, and XI.
With this tenninus ante quem in mind, let us examine the plentiful
remains of XI, recovered along with similar relics of XII from the east and
west Avalh of the Byzantine fort. Here the evidence is clear. Workmanship,
architecture, decoration, and sculpture all point to a time earlier than the
fifth century B.C., agreeing with the terminus ante quem. As to a more
definite date, we may conjecture the Megarians' foundation either to have coin-
cided with the heyday of Megarian colonization, — 675 B.C. (Oyzicus), 674 B.C.
(Ohalcedon), 6G2 B.C. (Selymbria), 657 and 628 B.C. (Byzantium), — or to have
formed part of the ambitious architectural enterprises of the Megarian tyrant
Theagenes, carried out all of them presumably in the last quarter of the seventh
century B.C. On the whole the date of Theagenes seems the likelier of the
two, and thus XI is dated not far from the end of the seventh century B.C.
— later than the Geloans' treasury-chamber, but not necessarily earlier than
No. X, which is also later than XII. No. X, the Metapontines' treasury,
strongly resembles No. XII in its ground plan, to which that of No. XI offers
a striking contrast as far as the relations of length to breadth are concerned.
Moreover, if we suppose the site free with IX and XI not yet built and the
Metapontines free to choose any site between XII and VIII, the location of X
is easily explicable. X occupies ground as nearly half way between XII and
VIII as the natural configuration of the terrace permitted. In order to
secure higher ground, an interval of about 14 yards was left toward XII,
and this reduced the interval toward VIII to 10 yards more or less. The
most casual glance at a plan of this end of the terrace shews that IX was
crowded in after the building of X ; and XI, the Megarians' house, was
obviously planned to suit the narrow space available toward the east after X
was founded. How else can its quite new proportions of length to breadth be
accounted for ? No. IX, then, was undoubtedly of later foundation than X, and
almost as certainly later than the Megarians' (XI), whose site, if unoccupied,
would assuredly have been preferred. As Selinus was destroyed in 409 B.C.
IX must have been built before that year. The material of its foundations, —
hard limestone with shells, quite distinct from the poros of the Temple of
Zeus, — is identical with that of its superstructure, and the workmanship of its
superstructure, found on the site of the Prytaneum, dates it as of the sixth
<;entury B.C. It is likely therefore that the Selinuntines' treasury, founded
after the Megarians', was built shortly before the end of the sixth century,
while the Mesrarians' house still excited the emulation of Selinuntines
OLYMPIAN TREASURIES. 299
remembering that Hyblacan Megara from which they sprang was a Megarian
colony, and not unmindful of the Hellenic credit achieved by Metapontum
and Gela through their lavish expenditure of time and pains upon the
building of Olympian houses. Keen emulation among flourishing young
colonies must, I am confident, have played a large partJ If we look now to
No. VII, the Cjrenaeans' treasury, — the last of those to which applies our
terminus ante quern (505-491 B.C.), — its remains are so scanty and so
shattered that we are forced to fall back upon the equal interspacing of
Nos. V, VI, VII, and VIII,^ and to argue on that ground that V, VI,
and VII must have been of approximately even date. Sybaris, however,
was destroyed in 510 B.C., and No. VI, — the Sybarites' treasury, — must
be dated accordingly. This gives us again, but with greater precision for
V, VI, and VII, the terminus ante qtiem which applies to VII, IX, X, and
XL If a more precise date than before 510 B.C. for V, VI, and VII were
required, the circumstance that XII certainly, and X most probably were
founded not far from 600 B.C., and the fact that Sybaris, founded in 720 B C,
achieved its greatest prosperity with surprising rapidity,^ would favour a date
not far from the middle of the sixth century for all three of them (V, VI,
and VII) ; the more so because Dr. Dorpfeld's expert evidence touching the
architectui'e of No. IX, the Selinuntines' treasury, dates it as belonging to
'ungefaehr die zweite Haelfte des sechsten Jahrhundcrts.' Now the Selinuntines
v.'ould hardly have chosen to crowd their house against that of the Meta-
pontines and against the altar (VIII), unless V,^*^ VI, and VII had already
preoccupied the space west of VIII — this argument favours the dating of
V, VI, and VII shortly before the year 550 B.C.
Nos. I to IV still remain undated. I, when first discovered, was dated
480-477 B.C. ; Dr. Diirpfeld however inclines to date it at least a generation
later, because of an ' astragal ' along the top of its frieze, which must, he
suggests, have been imitated from the Parthenon. Would builders capable
of borrowing so good a point have been content with the other details of
No. I ? These are all recovered because their scattered fragments, being of
Sicyonian stone, have been identified. Their archaisms are glaring in the
new light of Dr. Wiegand's studies of Athenian poros buildings. The
Parthenon ' astragal ' may derive from No. 1, which, with all its archaisms, can
hardly date much later than 480-470 B.C. As for II, the ' Carthaginian
treasury' of the Syracusans, Pausanias dates it just after 480-79 B.C. and the
battle of Himera. The fact that the earliest treasuries were crowded on to the
" No one familiar with this plienonienon, ^" Insiiectiou of the remains of V yiold
exhibitetl in many forms l)y the rival cities few data. Its foundations on the south have
which sprang up in the Mississippi Valley completely disappeared. Its width is greater
between 1820 and 1890, will ever underrate its than that of any other treasury except the
energizing effectiveness. Geloans'. Like the Geloans' (XII) it had six
8 The interval on either side of VII is 2-8 m. ; columns in front. Curtius has pointed out that
that between VI and V is 2 m. ; that between the Byzantines' treasury is likely to have been
V and IV is 13 m. founded before 513 B.C., the date of Darius'
" Strabo p. 263 : roaoinov 8' euTuxia 5j^- Scythian campaign, after which the Byzantines
vfyKtv 7) TrdAis avrrj rh ■na\aihv &ffTt . . . were hampered.
300 LOUTS DYER
eastern end of the terrace and the last built were towards the west would
invalidate Dr. Dorpfeld's argument (A II p. 207) that II was early because
of its level, even if its level varied strikingly from that of I, IV, V, VI, IX,
X, and XI, which it does not. A glance at the plan of the terrace suggests
that No. I may very probably have been built shortly after No. II, for it is
separated from it by a convenient interval, is aligned to it on the south, and
has its east side parallel to the opposite side of II. Turning now to Nos. Ill
and IV, we remember that one of these, probably the one earliest built, was a
dedication of the Epidamnians. No. IV.,like Nos. XII. and I, is of a material
unique on the site, and probably imported. White limestone splinters found
near its foundations help to identify its superstructure, whose scattered
relics have been identified solely by their material. Called upon by the then
accepted, and still prevalent view which ignores Nos. II and III, to identify
these white limestone remains with the second (Syracusan) treasury of
Pausanias, Dr. Dorpfeld, A II p. 46, pronounced them far too archaic for a
building commemorative of the victory of Himera, and fixed their date as
toward the middle of the sixth century B.C. This date does not ill sort with
the regrettably vague indication or hint given by Thucydides as to the time
when Epidamnus, not yet distracted by factions, was most prosperous.^^ Having
dated V, the eastern neighbour of IV, at about 550 B.C., note that, whereas
two metres intervene between V and VI, only one and three-tenths metre
intervene between V and IV. This implies that IV was crowded in after
V was built, and agrees with the date shortly after B.C. 550, attached
by experts to the architectural remains of IV. No. Ill remains. It was
certainly crowded in after II and IV were built, and may be conjecturally
made out as of about the same date with I, which was also built after II, i.e.
after 480-79 B.C. To sum up results, the order in which presumably the
twelve foundations in situ on the terrace of the treasuries were successively
laid is : VIII, XII, X, XI, VII, VI, V, IX, IV, II, III, and I. All excepting
only I, II, and III were certainly founded in the sixth century. I, as we
know, in some sense takes the place of a much earlier dedication,^'^
and II was founded in commemoration of the victory at Himera. Only I
and XI, among all these locally planned and dedicated houses, are the gifts of
Hellenic communities of Greece proper, eight of them certainly, and quite
possibly also a ninth,— No. Ill, of unknown origin, — were built by colonists.
^1 Epidamnus was fouuded in 625 B.C. After ing there as the tawny .sandstone of I abounds
its foundation, says Thucydides, as time went at Sicyon, then IV might be named the Epi-
on (■irpoe\96vTOi 5e rov xpoi'ov, I xxiv 3) it damnians' treasury with more confidence,
became a flourishing place {fieya\ri). Allowing '^ Proofs of this as indicated by Ernst
three generations for this growth, we have ca. Curlius are chiefly a priori, but there is also
525 B.C. for the foundation of IV, if IV was (1) Pausanias' statement that Myron founded I,
tiie Epidamnians' house. The only circnm- obviously built long after Myron's day, and
stantial evidence that is lacking is in regard to (2) the fact that tiles cleaily belonging to an
the wliite limestone used in building IV. archaic b-ailding were found among the broken
Nothing of the kind has been found at Syra- stones on which are bedded the foundations-
cuse. If a thorough search on tiie site of of I.
Epidamnus were to shew this limestone abound-
OLYMPIAN TREASURIES. 301
Dining tlic seventh and sixtli centuries the manngenient at Olympia so
varied and nuiltipHed new events in the games as to reinforce their rehgious
Appeal in a manner ])eculiarly attractive to colonists, and so the era
of treasuries chiefly colonial is a notable chapter in the iiistory of the
consolidation of a truly j)an-Hellenic cousciousness. Tlie Geloans' founda-
tion came when various new events for boys had been introduced. In jhe
^ast Byzantium, Prusias, and Apollonia, in the west Massilia were new
colonies then, and new also was the Delphian treasury of Cypselus.
About ihe time when this treasury was rebaptized (in 5(S1 B.C.) and called
the treasury of the Corinthians, came the Metapontines', the Megarians', the
Cyrenaeans', the Sybarites' and the Byzantines' Olympian houses. These,
with the Selinuvitines' and the Epidamnians' foundations, finally fixed upon
Olympian treasuries their association with broader and more inclusive con-
-ceptions of religious service, — such as were contemporaneously manifested at
Athens under Pisistratus. Of all this more anon. The last point here to
be made is that the victory of all Greece against the barbarians having been
commemorated by the Syracusans' Carthaginian treasury, closely followed
by the dedication of III and I, there was no further call for the founding of
new treasuries.
Tt'casurics in General.
The term drjaavpoi was on the whole a misnomer, and its unquestioned
■currency has given rise to misapprehensions both in antiquity and in later
days, — misapprehensions only to be removed by getting at the buildings
themselves and their contents. Herodotus understood their uses in an old-
time sense which had already suffered much modification when he wrote.^^
Strabo's definition, if rightly emphasized, is sufficiently comprehensive to
cover all the senses, earlier and later. He attributes in part the greatness
of Delphi to its drjcravpol 0&9 Kal BP]ju,oi Kai hvvdcnai KareaKevaaav, elf
•ou? Kal -^prj/uLaTa averidevTO KadtepfOfieva Kal epja ruiv dpiarcov
Srificoupycoif (p. 419). But in this definition the word Kadtepcofieva requires
great emphasis, and the word Swda-Tui must be blotted out, if we wish the
description to apply to the Olympian treasuries founded after the Geloans'
tieasury-chamber was built. Call such buildings drjcravpoi with Herodotus
and Pausanias, use with the expert antiquarian Polenio one word, drjaavpoi,
at Delphi, and another, vaoi, at Olympia ; or take from Delian and Delphian
inscriptions the sacral term oiko<;, two things hold of all treasuries like the
Olympian ones: (1) they are built for the worship of a god, (2) they stand
for the glory not of any one dynast, but of every member of some one Greek
Demos.^* Far wider of the mark than Strabo's is Baehr's definition founded
" See i 14, where he says the Corinthians' ians' Delphian treasury. Contrast however
treasury at Delphi was properly Cypselus', and iii 57 on tlie Siphnians' Delphian treasury.
iv 162, where he speaks of the censer of 1* This makes it absurd to class either the
Euelthon of Cypriote Salamis iu the Corinth- Leouidaeum or the Philippenm among eriffavpuL
302 LOUTS DYER
on Herodotus and innocently intended as a translation of Strabo : Aedicidae
sive ccllae in DelpJdco tcmplo. The last four words are added by way of being
precise.^^ W. J. Fisher sought precision in another extreme. Full of what
at that time were called Agamemnon's Mycenaean treasury and the
Orchomenos treasury, he sought the Olympian treasuries of Pausanias not
only as he should outside of any temple, but also as he should not outside
of the Altis itself on the slope of Mt. Cronius. His search was rewarded by
the discovery of a brick-kiln which had the undoubted merit of being
circular.^" Botticher,^^ renouncing all hope of precision at a time when
neither Delos, nor Olympia, nor yet Delphi had been excavated, distinguishes
between treasuries erected in connexion with tree-worship, — this class
although more ancient than temples includes the Olympian treasuries, — and
treasuries erected near Hellenic temples. Finally he enumerates twelve
Olympian treasuries, the first being the Heraeum and the twelfth the
Philippeum, neither of which is ever spoken of as a treasury by ancient
writers. Such in fact was the confusion about Olympian treasuries that it
has not been dispelled even by the final appeal to the spade until now, when
both Olympia and Delphi have been thoroughly excavated. Herodotus,
Strabo, Athenaeus, Pausanias, and Plutarch though often occupied with the
Pisatan and Parnassian treasuries have not a word about the communal
houses (treasuries) at Delos, the first discovered buildings of this class. So
little could be made out at Delos that discovery was doomed to wait long
upon understanding.^'^ It has not even now been possible to identify at
Delos any one of the several buildings whose foundations shew them to be
treasuries after tlie Olympian and Delphian pattern. All these communal
houses are special cases of the tcmphim in antis, each consisting of a small
rectangular chamber fronted by a shallow porch and having no 67ria668ofio<{.
There is, then, no doubt remaining as to what a treasury or communal house
was ; but only three of the Delphian treasuries are identified and named
beyond a peradventure, so that the eleven Olympian buildings on the
terrace take their place, along with the Sicyonians', the Thebans' and the
Athenians' Delphic treasuries as the monuments with which we are chiefiy
concerned. Foundations alone yield little more than the typical plan just
described and based alike upon remains at Delos, Delphi, and Olympia.^^
" Note on Hdt. i 14 (ISftS). iiig three, two were probably the AvSicuv and
1" See Botticher's Olympia p. 225, on Fisher's tlie ArjAicij;' oJkoi of the inventories. These last
visit to Olympia in 1853. supply no name for a fifth treasury, since the
17 Tcktonik pp. 434-454 ; Bmimmltus pp. irdpivos oIkos, frequently mentioned, is identi-
156-162. fied witli a large square building quite away
i* The foundations of six small buildings from the group of the communal houses
were found at Delos before anything of the clustering around the Letoon and the temple of
kind was turned up elsewhere. Of these one Apollo.
was presumably the temple of Eilithyia men- '» The Olympian treasuries, V and XII, vary
tioned in the inventories. The five others were from the tcmplitm in antis, XII having a south
'treasuries.' Of these the two largest were porch with six columns and no antac, V being
probably the 'AvSpiwy and the No|ico«' oTkoi a regular Doric hexa-style building. For the
(treasuries) of the inventories. Of the remain- absent oTnadoSofios see below p. 307.
OLYMPIAN TREASURIES. 303
Mncli more than this is fortunately known of tlie Megarians', the Geloans'
and the Sicyonians' liouses at Olympia and at Delphi of the Athenians'
house and of one the name of which is in dispute, but which I hope anon
to shew was the Siphnians' not the Cnidians'. These five very com-
pletely recovered monuments constitute one of the most interesting groups.
of Hellenic buildings of a sacral character now open to our study.
Pausanias throws some light on the uses, religious and other, to which
these treasuries or communal houses were put, in giving some of the motives
and occasions for their foundation. The most obvious motive, one which can
never have been wholly absent, was sheer piety toward the god of the
sanctuary. Pausanias (X xi 5) credits the men of Thracian Potidaea with
this motive at Del[)hi. To it might attach some vague idea of atonement
for previous neglect, such as lurks perhaps in the record of the Siphnians at
Delphi (X xi 2), or some impulse of Hellenic thanksgiving for victory such
as prompted the Athenians at Delphi (X xi 5), or the Syracusans in building
their ' Carthaginian treasury ' at Olympia. In the later day of Greek
particularism, a more parochial patriotism prompted Brasidas and the
Acanthians to build their Delphian house with spoils from the Athenians,
whose catastrophe at Syracuse was commemorated at the same sanctuary by
the Syracusans' Delphic treasury. The Spartan disaster at Leuctra was
similarly represented, again at Delphi, by the Thebans' treasury ; but no
communal house at Olympia, — unless we can make something out of
Pausanias' statement about the Megarians' treasury (VI xix 13), — was built
with means derived from the spoliation of one Greek town by another.
Finally Pausanias recognizes in connexion with the Cnidians' house at Delplii
the possible impulse for display which might prompt a pious community at a
season of prosperity to figure at Delphi as the wealthy founders of an ornate
treasury.2o Herodotus suggests by unmistakable implication the same
motive for the building of the Siphnians' house at Delphi (iii 57), nor can it
be doubted that the Geloans at Olympia congratulated themselves upon the
splendours of their gorgeously decorated Olympian treasury-chamber. The
sumptuous house by which the Cnidians advertised their prosperity to the
frecjuenters of Delplii was, if I am right, nothing more nor less than the
famous Lesche, glorified by the earliest and most renowned compositions of
Polygnotus. As to the beauties of tiie Siphnians' treasury at Delphi, which
so impressed Pausanias and Herodotus, seeing is believing. Otherwise such
a jewel of a building could not be credited to "so early a period.
The inferences to be drawn from this review are two : (a) that, when-
ever a treasury was founded, two deeply underlying currents of enthusiasm
and loyalty met and took on a visible shape, — loyalty to the service of the
god, enthusiasm for the glory of the state. The choice of a far-off' site
testifies to some quickening of religious e.xperience, and the diflSculties over-
come in detail are eloquent of some thrilling and uplifting home crisis. To
build anything at Delphi or Olympia was not easy in days wlien transportation
-" X xi 5 : KyiJious 5i ovk olSa ti fitl vIkv rivl fj (S iviSftliv cuSaiyuorias {fKoSonvdavro.
304 LOUIS DYER
was so difficult. The pains of planning and fashionint,^ a treasury like the
Oeloans', built at a time when the arts were still in their swaddling clothes,
are more easily described than realized. Clearly, the Athenians and the
Syracusans building their treasuries at Delphi and Olympia were in the
throes of a new national birth, and yielded to the same characteristically
complex impulses that have fixed upon the Feast of the Annunciation as the
Independence Day of Modern Greece. The second inference is (h) (hat
wealth lavishly, ostentatiously even, bestowed upon a Delphian or Olympian
0)]cravp6'i of the kind in (juestion, — a communal house, that is to say, — did not
take the form of sumptuous and costly gilts, stored in that house as a strong
tox.^^ The expenditures of the Geloan-;, the Siphnians, and the Cnidians
respectively were upon the house itself, and had little or nothing to do with
anything treasured in it for safe-keeping.
In the light of this last inference a puzzHng paradox of Pausanias
touching the Sicyonians' treasury at Delphi becomes easier to understand.
Having mentioned that fabric, he goes on to say : ■^prjuara 8e ovre evravOa
XhoL<; av ovT€ iv aXk(p rwv drja-avpMv. His meaning may perhaps be thus
paraphrased : Since this is a 6i]aavp6<; one would naturally expect it to
contain treasure (%/07;yLtaTa), but as a matter of fact neither this nor any other
of the houses called treasuries contained ^pij^ara. Treasuries, that is
to say, are so called because there are no treasures there. -"^ Pausanias means
at all events to distinguish the meaning of drjaavpo^ as applied to communal
houses from its usual meaning as attached to buildings or strong-boxes for
the safe-keeping of valuables. The Orjaavpo^i of King Croesus was such a
6r](7avpo<^v\dKiov}^ However, Pausanias can hardly have had Just such a
secular ^T^o-ai/po? in mind, but rather the consecrated ^7;o-ai'pot = ^^^craLipo-
<f)v\dKta attached to temples or built within precincts, — used, all of thorn, for
nothing but the storage of %pr;/u.aTa, i.e. specie or its equivalent. Such was
the 6r](Tavp6<; at Oropus of which we have details suggesting -* a mammoth
stone 'poor-box' like one just discovered in the south-eastern porch-corner of
the old temple at Corinth. From Eleusis^^ we have minute record of sums
taken from treasuries belongiog respectively to Demeter and Persephone.
Lyces, who opened them, gets his fee and then Lycurgus provides for an
expiatory sacrifice {dpear-qpiav diia-ai) for the technical sacrilege involved.
These Eleusinian treasuries were probably independent stone structures or
treasure-vaults built somewhere within the precincts, but can hardly have
borne even the most remote resemblance to a Delphian or an Olympian
communal house.^^ Instances might be multiplied from inscriptions shewing
'^' See Hdt. iii 57 ad fin. Pausanias. Contrast Strabo's account of Orj-
^■^ Pausanias often uses the word xp'hf^aTa for aavpovs carried off from Delphi by the Tecto-
what we sometimes call treasure. sages and consisting apparently of ingots of gold
23 Hdt. (vi 125, ii 150, vii 190) uses BriaavpSs and silver (IV p. 188).
for any sort of treasury or treasure-box : see ix "^ Ditt. 589, 411-402 n.c, or 386-377 n.c.
106, where it has the sense of safe or strong-box. ^s d^^^ 537^ n. 302-309, or 329-8 B.c.
Cf. Suidas, s.v. er]<Tavp6s. ' Aiririavhs SvKa re ^ Ditt. 653, 11. 90-96 : where are given
TToWa Kcd fftrov (Toifxa^tro, koX 6 j) a av p u<p v- details inspired from Eleusis and providing for
xiKiov. This last = dri<ravp6s in Herodotus and the building of a treasury sacred to Persephone.
OLYMPIAN TREASURIES.
305
the habitual use of 6y](ravp6<; — 6r]aavpo<f)v\dKiov in all official records.^^ We
shall, then, only conform to strict sacral terminology in discarding the term
6r}aavp6^, and in using henceforward for the communal foundations at Delphi,
Delos, and Olympia the Delian sacral term communal house, oiko<;, as used in
the Delian inventories.^^
Money-box or strong-box treasuries attached to temples or built near>by
have, then, little or nothing in common with the miniature temples under
discussion. Small though these were, their size forbids the notion of a mere
strong-box, and the time, pains, and treasure lavished upon their construction
put it (juite out of court. They certainly contained no deposits of specie,
and we hear of no precautions or prescribed arrangements for opening and
closing them.2^ They were kept under lock and key like other temples and
depended for their inviolability upon the same unwritten laws that protected
temples. Like temples, they were closed at night, and Athenaeus (XIII
p. 606), where he records episodes illustrating the effect of various paintings
and statues on several animals and certain clodhoppers, culminates with the
tale of Cleisophus of Selymbria ^^ in the temple of Samos as recorded by
Alexis and Philemon,^^ and caps the climax with the adventure of ' one of the
theors'inthe communal house of the Spinatai^^ at Delphi. Abnormally
Minute regulations about the keys and their
custody are entered into.
-^ See Ditt. 629, where seven men are put in
charge of an' Olbian Oriaavpds and sums to be
deposited by worshippers sacrificing are enu-
merated (third century). Sec also a Pergamene
inscription (566, 12), and a Halicarnassian
inscription (601, 30).
'•^^ In these Qr)aavp6s applies strictl}' and
solely to various 67\<Tavpo<pv\d.Kia. or strong-
boxes within the precinct and in one case inside
a temple. For ' treasuries ' such as Pausanias
saw on the Olympian terrace, the invariable
word used is oIkos.
^ For formalities, not unlike those observed
at Eleusis though simpler, see J.G. I, 1570.
^ Selymbria was founded in 662 b.c. by the
Megarians a little before they founded Byzan-
tium (657 B.C.), and ceased to be on the high-
road of any lucrative trade as soon as Byzantium
on the east (42 miles distant) and Perinthus on
the west (22 miles distant) were founded. The
presence of Selymbrians in the temple of Samos,
the metropolis of Perinthus, was doubtless in
the natural course of events, when Perinthus
shot ahead of Selymbria as apparently it did
long before the end of the Peloponnesian war.
Indeed Selymbrians had a fierce life of it in the
face of their constant exposure during more
than 2000 years to raiders from Thrace, who
made it very difficult for them to maintain
their hold on Hellenic traditions and culture.
Xenophon's. friend, Clearchus, spoiling for a
H.S. — VOL, XXV.
fight at the close of the Peloponnesian war,
went out with a squadron to attack the
Thracians ii-ntp Xtppovfiaov koI TlfpivOov, as
Xenophon has it {Anab. II vi 2), describing
the district of Selymbria. The very name of
Selymbria is Thracian and not Greek. The
readiness of the Thracians to raid Selymbria is
well illustrated by Plutarch's account of the
proceedings of Alcibiades after the battle of
Cyzicus (410 B.C.), when one of his chief motives
for giving easy terms to Selymbria was fear
that his Thracian contingent would get out of
hand (Alcib. 30, of. Xen. ffell. I i 21).
Selymbria throve, while fighting with Thracians
or Macedonians was the order of the day, but
sank under Philip of Macedonia only to emerge
as an outpost for the defence of Constantinople
in Byzantine days. When Anastasius I was
hard pressed by the Bulgarians in 507 a.d., he
built a wall from Selymbria nearly 30 miles across
Thrace to Delkon on the Euxine. The last
memorable siege of Selymbria was that by the
Genoese against whom it was stoutly defended
by Manuel Phakrase Cantacuzene in 1341 a.d.
*^ Philemon was born about 359 B.C., his
death was about 262 B.C. Alexis was his senior
by about twelve years.
*^ Spina in the valley of the Po seems, like
Selymbria, to have been out of touch with the
main current of Hellenic culture, in spite of
the comparatively ancient legend of its Hellenic
foundation by Diomedes, and of a certain early
prosperity witnessed to (a) by the Delphian
X
306 LOUIS DYER
excited by tlie vision of statues these Graeco-baibarians ^nt tbeinselves locked
up overnight, — Cleisopiius in the Saniian tenipk^, the Spinatan delegate in the
Spinatan house. Both Avere iVoni semi-barbarized surroundings and un-
accustomed to the naturalistic perfections of Greek sculpture. Athenaeus
goes on to say that the delegate was detected and that the Deljihians con-
sulted the oracle as to punishing him. The reason for letting him off given
by the oracle stamps the anectlote as an unsavoury fiction, but nevertheless
its value for the present argument remains unimpaired. There may be no
actual facts behind it, excepting only that it was sufficiently well invented t(i
be current at Delphi. In a word it embodies certain accepted customs into
which it weaves familiar Rabelaisian strands. Its settin*'', which is trenuiiie,
alone concerns this argument. Take the two stories as combined. Dors not
Athenaeus, by grouping them together, witli the Spinatan incident at the
close, clearly imply that the desecration of a Del])hian communal house
presented itself in the same light with the desecration of a world-renowned
temple like the Samian Heraeum ? This means that Polemo's word va6<;,
used for the Olympian communal houses, was basetl upon conceptions current
at Delphi as well as at (_)lynipia. If now we take the Spinatan episode alone,
does not the selection of an official theor imply as a matter of course certain
special rights of access to the treasury of S|)ina for each Spinatan delegate ?
Other arguments are not lacking to establish the justification of Polemo
in identifying communal houses with temples. The orientation of the oldest
Olympian treasury (XII) is that of a temple. Convenience and the relative
position of the terrace dictated a southward frontage for all the other houses,
and finally necessitated a change of front for that of the Geloans. At Delos
antl at Delphi all the treasuries sc(;m to have been oriented with reference
to the sacred way. The strongest argument however always remains the
familiar one that each house is in plan a miniature temple, and this becomes
practically irresistible at Olympia when due weight has been given to a
recorded and very noticeable detail in the foundations of the Sicyonians'
house (I), which reappears, though less clearly, in the foundations of the
Megarians' house (XI). 'There is' says Dr. Dorpfeld, A II p. 41, speak-
ing of No. J, ' a broadening of the foundations which is totally inexplic-
able. Can it not be a mere dislocation, you might ask. Certainly not,
since the stones at this south-eastern corner are where they were originally
treasury of the Spinatae, and (b) by the name Spina's obscurity all ordinary maps of the
Spincliciim ostium borne by the southern district of the Lingones assure us for it appears
mouth of the Po tltroughout antiquity and long on none of them. Strabo's accou 't (v. p. '2141))
after the day when Spina had seen its harbour exhausts all the facts known : yuero^u Si Bov-
silted up and itself transformed into an Tpiov ttjs 'Pooi/eVfjjs ■7r6Kiona kuI t) 'S,v7i'a, vvv
obscure inland town. The mouth at Ravenna fitv Kiifxiov wiXai 5< 'EWrivls iroAis (vSo^os.
was artificially made by the Augusta fossa. 6r)aavphs yovv iv A(\<po7s 2irif7jTa>j' SdKvurat,
North of this was the Eridanum ostium, named k al rdAAo iaropfirai n f pi avr Hi v is
for the short tributary Rhenus, but also named 6 aXaa a o k par-qa ikvr u v. (paal 5'e «al firl
the ' Spineticum ostium,' say a Pliny, ' ab urbe eaKirrp virdp^ai, vvv 5' darly iv fjnaoyaia rh
Spina quae fuit jtixta praevahns, ut Dclphicis x^P^o" "'*?' (vtv^Kovra rrjs OoAaTTTjs araSiov^
creditum est thesauris, condita a Diomcde.' Of oirexov.
OLYMPIAN TREASURIES. 307
laid. No doubt on this point is possible. The idea that here is the founda-
tion of an altar belonging to the treasury has been suggested, but such
a sup])osition has not a leg to stand on.' I venture to hope that some
support for this supposition has been found, and that Dr. Dorpfeld may alter
his mind in case he does me the honour of reading this paper. Perhaps he
may allow the eastward splaying of the foundations of the portico of No. XI
to suggest a similar altar there. Then we may note that space forbids any
but a south altar for Nos. IX, X, V, IV, III, and II, and let this in part
explain why all the treasuries hugged the northern verge of the terrace.
We may further note that, for all we know to the contrary, VI and VII
may have had eastern or south-eastern altars. Altars adjacent agree well
with the general temple-seeming plan of these communal houses. Even
without pressing the analogy of the temple, I'ausanias' account of the house
of Oenomaus (V. xiv. 7) encourages the idea of an adjacent altar of Zeus
'KpK€lo<;. Here let it be noted however that there would not have been room at
Olympia for an opisthodomos, supposing even that feature of the full-blown
temple had been desired. For the striking resemblance of the temple and
the communal house, Strabo is a capital witness. In his casual glance at
the precinct of Samian Hera, he hits off admirably the contrast between
the treasuries and the colossal proportions of the Heraeum there, — proportions
which amazed Herodotus,^^ — by calling the ' treasuries ' near by vaiaKoc,^ as
who should say pocket-temples. The almost comic disproportion between
such puny sentry-box structures and the mammoth Heraeum at Samos was
fortunately reproduced neither at Olympia, — where the archaic Heraeum
was of comparatively moderate size and of exceptionally modest height,
while the 'treasuries' were lifted above its level by the height of the
terrace on which they were built, — nor was there any such incongruity at
Delos, where two smaller temples stood by the largest — though by no means
large — temple in the precinct, and insensibly prepared the eye for the still
smaller treasuries stationed beyond it.
Grounds have been thus far presented for consideration, sufficient I
conceive to distinguish communal houses from 0i]aavpoL = 6r]aaupo(f)v\dKia,
and to shew that communal houses presented themselves to the mind's eye
of the ancients as temples of a sort. ICvidence is now in order to shew what
distinguished the.se communal houses from temples pure and simple, and to
establish for the delegates of any city-state which had founded a treasury
some special privileges of customary access and habitual resort. Obviously
their size distinguished all such communal houses from temples near by and
far away. This contrast was made complete by the absence in communal
houses of anything like a cultus-image. Moreover, each of these houses,
^^ iii GO : vjjhs ixiyiaros rwv tSfxei/. Hero- pews fieyas, t>s vvv irivaKo6i]K-n icrri, X<*'pi* '« ^oG
dotus goes out of liis way to descant upon the ir\i]Qovi rwv fvravOa KHfnivoiv iiiva.Kwv, iWar
Samian Heraeum as one of tiie three 'biggest irivaKod?]Kai koI va'taKot nvis elffi nxijpfis riav
things in the world,' .ill of them at Samos. apxa(oi>v Ttx"''"'.
See p. 637 : rb 'Hpalov apxaiov Uphv Kal
X 2
308 LOUIS DYER
although seriously ^^ dedicated to the god of its precinct, was primarily
thought of as pertaining to the citizens of the dedicating community.
Accordingly the full technical designation of the Andrians' Delian house was
oLKo<i ov dvedr}aav {^dvedeaav) oVKvhpioL, the name of the god being taken
as a matter of course. On the Athenians' house at Delphi was written
olKo<i * Adj]i>aiti)v. The single word Meyapecov stands on the architrave
of the Megarians' Olympian house, while 'ZeKvwviwv is inscribed on one of
the antae of the Sicyonians' house on the same terrace. Plutarch opens his
life of Lysander by saying that the Acanthians' treasury at Delphi bears the
inscription Bpaa-c8a<i koI 'AKuvdioc air ^ KQr]vaia)v, and the last words in
Pausanias' chapter on the Olympian treasuries record that he saw engraved
on the Geloans' treasury words to the effect that the treasury and the
statues inside were the Geloans' dvdOrjfia. ' But,' he adds, ' the statues are
no longer there.' This would be perfectly matched by the inscription found
at Delphi : t6v Orjaavpov rovSe koI rdydX/xaTa, if only the initial wortl had
been recovered. M. Homolle now conjectures for it the name KvlSioi,,
although, when he held that the communal house on one of whose steps it
was apparently engraved, was the Siphnians', he would have conjectured
Thus we see that a communal house, unlike a temple, required to be
labelled, as it were, and that the essential word used was always the name of
the dedicating community. No individual's name could permanently attach
itself to a house of this kind, since Plutarch in the same breath tells of "the
inscription 'Bpaac8a<; Kal 'AKdvdcoi, and speaks of the building so inscribed
as the treasury of the Acanthians. Herodotus also protests quite in vain
that the Delphian treasury of the Corinthians ought properly to be called
the treasury of Cypselus, since Cypselus was its founder (i 14). Again
Pausanias is demonstrably in a confusion of mind when he says that the
Sicyonians' house seen by him on the Olympian terrace was dedicated by
Myron, the Sicyonian tyrant who won the chariot race in 648 B.C. Its
foundations as visible are especially strengthened to bear the enormous weight
of Myron's ddXa/noi which weighed, Pausanias tells us, 50 talents, or 13 tons
according to Dr. Dorpfeld's estimate. An inscription, seen by Pausanias on
the smaller of the two, said they were dedicated by Myron and the S^/io? of
the Sicyonians. Whatever this may imply about a former Sicyonian house
at Olympia the one which we know was ear-marked as the Sicyonians' and
not Myron's.
The houses under consideration, then, being temples of a sort, and
dedicated to the god, were nevertheless unique in proclaiming a sort of right
of joint ownership inherent in the dedicating community. This right carried
with it certain responsibilities, — charges laid upon the founders for the
solidity of the fabric. M. Homolle has found, on the high retaining wall upon
which was built the Cnidians' communal house, commonly known as the
"* Pausanias VI xix 1: iw\ rairris tvs Af\(po7s 'EWiivuv nvts iir oiriff av t ^ 'An 6 \-
Kpr)ir7S6s tlffiif 01 Oriaavpol, KaBa Si} Kal tv \ o> v i drjaavpovs.
OLYMPIAN TREASURIES. 309
Cnidians' Lesche, a marble slab,-''' bearing the inscription : KviSicov 6 8dfio<;
TO avaXa^iixa ' AiroXkwvi, in characters of the third century B.C. Now Poly-
gnotus painted the newly erected Lesche not later, but probably earlier than
467 B.C., the date of Simonides' death.^^ And so the Cnidiar)s charged
themselves with building at no slight expense a retaining wall to solidify the
foundations of their house 200 years after they originally built and dedicated
it. We know that the Sicyonians, supposed not without good reason to have
built'one of the earliest of Olympian houses, planned in Sicyon their second
communal house, quarried, fashioned, and lettered so far as necessary its every
stone at Sicyon, and finally laid its foundations in or near 450 B.C. at Olympia,
taking pains to strengthen it to support the OdXa/xoi dedicated by their
forefathers 200 years before. We are forced to admit that similar pains were
taken by the Geloans ca. 610 B.C. when they built their treasury-chamber, and
again 100 years later when they set steps around it and added on its porch.
It is clear then that the Cnidians, the Sicyonians, and the Geloans continu-
ously rose to their full responsibilities for the maintenance of their respective
communal houses. The same may be asserted with some probability of the
Andrians and their Delian house.
It is not, I submit, humanly conceivable that such responsibilities
shouldered during such extended periods of time should have failed to imply
and involve con-esponding privileges, — privileges best indicated one would
think by the intimations of joint ownership engraved as we have seen on the
fronts of so many of the monuments under discussion.
But now arises the question as to why the foundation of communal
houses so actively pushed forward at Olympia during the seventh and sixth
centuries B.C. suddenly and completely ceased there after the Persian wars
were well over. Before this question can receive its detailed answer, various
minutiae, chiefly historical, require attention. Long before the awakening of
pan-Hellenic consciousness among Greeks, Olympia and Delphi occupied the
popular imagination as places constantly resorted to with costly gifts by the
potentates of the earth, Greek and barbarian indiscriminately. This was
particularly true of Delphi and of Delos ; Olympia was hardly connected with
non-Hellenic benefactors. Such discrimination as there came to be made
between Hellenic and barbarian gifts must have grown up one would suppose
in connexion with their bestowal for safe-keeping. This in turn must hang
together with the springing up of local treasuries at Delphi and elsewhere.
Delos, — directly accessible from Asia by the sea, — yields the only instance of
a non-Hellenic treasury, in the Delian o2Ko<i AvSmv. Great as were the
Delphian privileges of Croesus and the Lydians (Hdt. i. 54) there was never
at Delphi an oIko<; AvSmv. At Olympia the barbarian appears never to have
received any analogous recognition of any kind. Barring the single exception,
3« See Frazer's Pausanias, V, pp. 357 ff. p. 447) while in Sicily. This is possible but
''' See H. Brunn, Oesehichte der Grieehischen rather forces the situation. It seems more
Kunstler, ii, pp. 11 f., where it is observed that likely that Simonides wrote the lines at Delphi,
Simonides may have written the lines quoted and saw the paintings there before his departure
by Plutarch, De Defedu Oraculorum (ch. xlvi, for Sicily in 477 B.C. or earlier.
310 LOUIS DYER
then, of the Lydians' house at Delos the privilege of building and dedicating
a communal house at Delphi, Delos, or Olympia was exercised solely by
Greeks; but only at Olympia were non-Greeks completely out of court, so to
speak, from the very beginning, — only at Olympia was the new-Greece of the
era of colonial expansion overwhelmingly preponderant in the matter of
founding communal houses. At first however the founders were not
Hellenic 8f]/xoi, not communities, but potentates or tyrants. Myron of Sicyon
and Cypselus of Corinth, who should perhaps be placed a little before Myron,
were among these early builders of treasuries, when treasuries bad not yet
developed into communal houses. The fact that Cypsebis of Corinth built
a Delphian treasury which was afterwards appropriated by the people is
established on the most solid of evidence, and upon this fact, as commented
on by Herodotus, Plutarch, and Pausanias, chiefly depends our knowledge
of a transformation in the use of the buildings under discussion which
deserves to be recognized and viewed in all its bearings; the more so
because this new fact may clear away many ob.scurities still hanging about
the various designations, alike in technical and in current speech, by which
these monuments were known to the ancients.
The name Orjaaupo';, which in the main should be associated with the
communal houses at Delphi, and not with those of Olympia and Delos, per-
petuates the lingering idea of a sort of individual and personal ownership.
Until it was formally appropriated by the Corinthians, the ('orinthiau
treasury at Delphi was not the Corinthians' treasury, but the treasury of
Cypselus. This last jjecame the communal house of the Corinthian S/}/ii09,
only after the Delphians, upon formal summons from the Corinthians, rebap-
tized it. This reba}>tism was not a mere question of name, but in vol veil a new
use under an altered and broader religious ideal more or less democratic. To
designate a building used in this way by a community, we have the sacral
term oIko<; as employed consistently in Delian inventories.^^ The Delian
6r]cravp6f; was, as we have seen, a money-box pure and simple, oIato? being
the invariable term for a communal house. If now we turn to Aristotle's
Politics, we find him using the word oIko<; in just the sense of the Delian
inscriptions. He gives, in sketching the progress of democracy as a counsel
of democratic policy made perfect, the nmltiplication of tribes and ])hratries
and the collecting together of many private sacra into a few private centres,
which he calls oIkoi:^^ Precisely what Aristotle had in mind may, I conceive,
be gathered from an inscription '**' which Michel dates about 300 B.c.^^ It
was found on a slab of bluish marble built into a house in Chios, and relates
to the affairs of the Chian (f>paTpca of the Clytidae. Originally aristocratic
^ Hesychius, confusiTig together the mean- iSiuv Upuv awaKriov fU o\iya koI Koivd.
ings of both words, jet vaguely recognizes the ■"' Ditt. 571, Michel, Recucil cC Inscriptions
Delian sacral tenn oJkos = Or)(ravp6s where he Orccqucs, 997.
says : 0r)aaup6s- tis ayaXniruv koX xpW^''^'^*' ^ *' Dittenberger describes its characters as :
itpwv a.ir66taiv oIkos. ' Littcrae volgares dispositae ffTo»x'j5(J»',' while
^^ VI, p. 1319b 11. 19 ir. : tpvXal rt ykp Michel places the inscription towartls the end
trtpa: irotr)Tfai irXtiovs kbI fparpiat, Kal rk ru>t> of the fourth centuv}', li u.
OLYMPIAN TREASURIES. 311
only, tlii.s pliialry enrolled luunbler members who finally rebelled against the
customary housing of the Upd in the oIkIuc or private dwellings of certain
members. This inscription provides by decree for building a consecrated
communal /louse i)i the preci7ict of the Clytids {oIkov refieviov) and for the
transference thither of the common lepd from private dwellings.^- A clause
reciting the religious grounds of this decision then follows: 'Whereas sacri-
fices made have proved favourable to building and to the transference
of the connnon sacra to the communal house.' Then follows a recital of
the sacrifice : ' The Clytidae voted [on a given day] to sacrifice as to whether
their sacra, now in private houses, mu?,t be transferred to the communal
house which they have built in obedience to prophetic command simply as
hcretofcrc on the day of the sacrifice ; or whether they must be permanently
deposited in the communal house, — and the sacrijicc pronounced in favour of
the latter course.'' Then follows a mandatory decree requiring surrender,
sanctionetl by a fine of 1,000 drachmas forfeited to Zeus Patroos, and by
legal excommunication, ending with provision for a record on a stela to be
placed at the entrance of the new olKo<i.
Although the term Orjaavpo'i, surviving from the time of Cypselus, pre-
vailed at Delphi, M. Homolle's inscription from the Delphian treasury of the
Athenians ^^ implies recognition even at Delphi of the inconvenience practic-
ally resulting from ambiguity in the use of the current Delphian term. The
same recourse to oi«os for Delphian treasuries a})pears in the Plutarchian
De Pythiae Oraculis,^^ where the well-worn theme of the curse of Moline and
the exclusion of the Eleans from the Isthmian games is taken up contro-
versially in connexion with the episode of the rebaptizing of the treasury of
Cypselus to suit the Corinthians. This drawn battle of the antiquarians of
antiquity shews incidentally in the Plutarchian text that the professional
Delphian guides found the term olKa less confusing for their own very
practical proceedings than the popularly current term Orjaavpo^. It serves
also to bring out what a large place in the popular imagination was filled by
tales of the munificence of Cypselus at Delphi and Olympia, Above all it
furnishes new evidence tending to shew that such currency as the term oIko^
= 6ricravp6<i eventually gained at Delphi has to do with a very real altera-
tion in the status of all treasuries so-called. These under a democratic dis-
pensation throughout Hellas became communal houses in which each
member of the founding community had his share, at least sentimentally, and
really, if ever he appeared at Delphi or Olympia.
The characteristically Olympian term vao^ = Orjaavpo^ = oiko<; remains to
be finally considered. A certain, although a limited currency for it is
*'^ [if Twi] rffitvfi [toiv K]\vTiBa!i' [o]t«oi/ decree is cited where occur the words 6r]ffavphs
Ttjxiviov iephv ol[Ko\hofiLi]aaaQa.i koX ret Upa, to. ndKewi.
Koiva [^k] twv iStvTiKwi' oIkwv els rhv Ko[iy]hv ** Cc. XII,. XIII, and XIV init. But note
oIkov dvfyKfiv. that in the middle of c. XIV Philinus reverts
■'• 5.6'./r. xvii (1893), p. 612, The words o?«os to the term BrjcravpSs for the same 'treasury'
'Adrjfalwv are cited as occurring in an Athenian of the Corinthians, which everywhere else in the
deciee inscribed upon the treasury. Another dialogue is called the oIkos Kopiv6la>v.
312 LOUIS DYER
vouched for not only by Strabo's term vataKoi,, already enlarged upon, but
also by Pliny's use of the Latin equivalent of vao^i (aedes) for OrjaavpS^ in a
passage to be discussed anon. But the great authority for its use at Olympia
is Polemo as circumstantially quoted by Athenaeus. Note that the Dcliau
inventories could not, if only for the sake of clearness, use this Olympian
term vtto'i. For along with the contents of their oIkoc, they register those
of at" least three temples {vaoi), (a) the Artemision, (b) the temple of Apollo,
and (c) the temple of the seven statues (i/ew? ov to, eTrra). Even as it is,
there is some confusion in the inventories between temples and communal
houses at Delos. That Polemo, an acknowledged expert in regard to
treasuries,*^ regarded i/ao? as an especially Olympian term seems likely from
his using drjaavpot; oi the Delphian house of the Spinatai in a passage already
discussed, whereas he speaks of the Metapontines' and the Byzantines'
Olyminaii treasuries as vao^ ^eraTTovrivoyv and vao'^ ^vi^avrcvtov}^ That he
uses just this and no other term quite advisedly on this occasion is shewn by
the end of the very passage in question. After a list of notable things stored
in the ' temple ' of the Metapontines, followed by a similar list for the
Olympian ' temple ' of the Byzantines, Polemo's final clause begins : eV he tm
vaw T>]<i ''Hpa? TcS iraXato). The Heraeum, that is, and the treasuries east
of it, are all designated by the term va6<i.
Dismiss now the further discussion of various names for communal
houses, and glance at the information as to what the communal houses
contained to be derived from the passage just considered. Polemo mentions
nothing in the Metapontines' va6<; except a number of silver vessels such as
would be in use for the ceremonial observances at Olympia in which
Metapontine theors as such would inevitably take part. The same is true
of the Byzantine inventory that follows. Some weight may, I think, attach
to the fact that this quotation is given as continuous. Although Athenaeus
introduces it in a discussion of queer-shaped cups and would have cut out
the mention of other things had many such been there, no such curtailment
has apparently been necessary. One notable item in the Heraeum is the
golden Kparrjp characterized as Kvprjvaiwv dvddrjfia. Why was this not
deposited in the Cyrenaeans' house on the terrace near by ? From this a-nd
other evidence the suspicion arises that, apart from such silver plate as was
necessary for ritual purposes, local gifts of especial value would be stored in
tlie Heraeum, — a far safer place and a surer treasury than any one of the
eleven communal houses on the whole terrace. It is indeed easy to over-
state the local character of the local treasuries. Herodotus *'^ speaks of six
golden mixing bowls {Kpr)Tr)pe<i) dedicated by Gyges at Delphi, and stored in
the 'treasury' of the Corinthians, where was also the magnificent censer
dedicated by Euelthou of Cypriote Salamis. He relates that the bricks of
** Plutarch, Symposiac. V ii : toTs 8* FIoAe- ■*" See Athenaeus 480a ; the wliole passage
fjLwvos Tov 'A9r]valov wfp\ rS>v iv Af\<po7s drj- comes appaiently from the 'EWaSiKhs \6yos,
ffavpwv oljxai '6ti ito\\o7s vnuv ivTvyx'^''^^^ regarded by some as an epitome of a more
iiriixfXfs iart, koI xph ■'roXvfxadovs /col ov pva-rd- extended work of Polemo.
fovTos iv rols 'E.K\riviKOis irpdyfiaaiv ivSpiis. *^ i 14 and 50 ; iv 162.
OLYMPIAN TREASURIES. 313
gold sent by Croesus were stored in tlie cella of Apollo's temple. When
the cella was burned, the ofolden lion that had stood on these bricks beinor
damaged was stored in the Corinthians' treasury near by, but apparently the
gold bricks were not put there. Pausanias mentions a box-wood stntue of
Apollo overlaid with gold, — an offering of the Epizephyrian Locrians, but
stored in the Sicyonians' treasury, — and notices that the Eleans have removed
the cedar-wood Hesperides executed by Theocles, sou of Hegylus, from tlie
Epidamnians' treasury to the Heraeum. Likewise he reports that the Athena
from a group in the Megarians' treasury had been removed to the Heraeum.
A community having its communal house at Olympia or Delphi did not
as a matter of course deposit all its offerings there. Whatever disposal was
made at the outset was plainly subject to alteration by the Eleans and
the Delphians, on whom rested all responsibility. These facts confirm an
impression, already borne out by evidence of other kinds, that the primary
imj)ortance to a community of its communal house at Olympia or Delphi
was as a head([uarters and a ritual rendezvous, — a place where certain needful
utensils ^* were stored in readiness for usC*^ by the official delegates. Not
every ap^t^etupo? could command Nicias' wealth,^*^ nor could Athens even
depend always upon having a spendthrift Alcibiades, determined to win
power by magnificence at Olympia or Delphi.^^
All these conclusions are circumstantially confirmed by the Delian
inventories. The contents of the 'AvBpioiv o2ko<; are there inventoried
during a series of ^ears. Under Charilas (B.C. 269) it is a storehouse
simply, containing Secr/Aoj)? /neydXouii . , . 6/3e\co-Kov<i ^aX/^-oi)? . . . aat^aXrov.
In the earlier inventory of Sosisthenes (279 B.C.) it is not mentioned. In
B.C. 250 it contains much plate, the list of which is followed by mention of
tiniber.-''' In 180 B.C. ivory and an accumulation of tin labels appear along
with plate.''^ The Andrians' house may have been built at the time of the
revival of the Delia in B.C. 476, possibly earlier, and can hardly have stood
empty until the iepoiroiol used it as a storehouse and deposited plate there.
We may then surmise that it always contained the plate and other ritual
appurtenances of the Andrians, for which possibly the Iepoiroiol, were not
accountable, and which they, therefore, do not mention. Among the pieces
••* Lest it be maintained that articles of plate, pian Prytaneium, unless they simply brought
once dedicated within the precincts, were in- them along from home. In any case it is a
variably regarded as withdrawn from further striking fact that there is no trace or record of
use, consider the loan made to the Segestans of such a thing at Olympia as an Arcadian treasury
<ptd\as T6 Ka\ olvoxoas from the temple of of any denomination.
Aphrodite at Eryx, Th. vi 46, 3. ^" Plutarch, Nicias iii.
*" Such sacred vessels abounded in the Par- ^^ Ol yap''E\\7ives KalinrfpSvvafiiv nfiC(io rifiiv
thenon, but those for deputations abroad were t^v iroKtv ivSiJuaav r^ ifi^ Siair pt tr d rrjs
probably kppt in the Pojnpei urn (Pans. I ii, 4) '0\v /xir I as 6 1 w p ia s, Th. vi 16, 2.
o'lKoSofirina is TtapaffKeviiv riov •Kofxitwy, — *' ^vKa Spviva, KtSpiva, irreXf'iva.
words which might apply to any one of the ^'^ d^ivov 6\Kh f'-vai AAAAPIII . . • ^Ae-
Olympian or Delphian treasuries. It seems ^„^^„^ ^^„- A A A 1 1 . . A^^«»^os CKvriXai
not unlikely that Olympian delegates from the , ,
'home counties '(Arcadia and Elis) would find ^^" • '^'"^'^'^JP"" •^'c^raXa,. Inventory of
similar vessels stored for their use in the Olym- Demades, 11. 165-170.
314 LOUIS DYER
of silver plate which they do specify, sometimes giving the donor's name,
certainly not one''^ is attributed to an Andrian donor.''' The intricate
history of the v€od<; ov to, eirTci, and the existence under Athenian manage-
ment of a communal hoiise at Delos for the Delians, certainly favour the
view that some foothold upon the sacred precinct, some home-plot or
building, was very convenient and almost essential for those called upon
to perform, in the name of a community, definite ritual acts. Thus the
conclusion is justified that the communal houses at Olympia and elsewhere
lost in a great measure their characteristic function as drjaavpocfivXaKca
when they became communal houses, instead of belonging to individual
magnates like Cypselus and Myron. Then they ceased to house anything
that might more safely be kept elsewhere, and their only constant
store consisted of ritual appurtenances, chiefly plate, needed for use by their
local theors. This transformation in their normal use tended to accentuate
the points which they had in common with temples, points somewhat
insistently dwelt upon in this account.
Just here may rightly be discussed the reasons for thinking that the
so-called Lcsche of the Cnidians at Delphi was a treasury, the treasury
of the Cnidians mentioned, but not located, except by negative implication,
in Pausanias, This author clearly locates the Sicyonians' treasury (X xi 1),
now recognized as represented by foundations just adjoining and below the
debatable site. He then names Cnidian statues, and says that the Siphnians
also built a treasury (X xi 2) for reasons which he analyses. Next he
mentions Liparaean statues, and digresses into some account of the Liparaeans
as colonists from Cnidus (X xi 3-4). After this comes his mention of the
Thebans' and the Athenians' treasuries, coupled with an analysis of their
respective motives in founding, and of the sources from which the required
moneys were derived. After this, and nowhere before, the treasury of the
Cnidians occurs to our author, who says he is at a loss to make out whether
the Cnidians founded it to glorify some victory, or from a desire to make a
** Asclepiades of Chios figuies twice with (a) the vfu>s ov to Itttci CMrtvaiuv vfws), (h) the
the itSKis twv K((iuiv, Antipater of Gyrene, Arteniision, (c) the x^^'^^^V"^' (^) ^^^^ temple
Timocrates, son of Antij^onus, Antigonus and of Eilithyia. The ArjXioov oIkoz ami the
Stratonice, as well as one Medeias, tu)v iy vi\aov. tia^iwv oIkos figure on the inventories as mere
If the community of Cos could have its <pia\ai storehouses. This need not however have
stored in the Andrians' house, why not the interfered with their use by the home deputa-
Andrians? tions at the lime of the festival. Considering
'^ See M. Homolle Comptcs des Hiiropcs that the Athenians came in 478 B.C., not as
Deliens (B.G.H. 1882). OHerings were put politically supreme, but as Amphictyons, and
on the same footing with other treasury preempted the vabs ov to. kitTo. (which they
assets, — this might account for the absence re-named the 'Mrtvaiwv vuLs) for their yearly
of any mention of hypothetical Andrian offerings, an anomalous position in their own
plate which would not appropriately figure as home-sanctuary was created for the Delians.
offerings, since it was stored for use by the This is no doubt indicated by the mention
Andrians, — and accounted for by the Uponoiol in inscriptions of the j\ri\iwv oIkos, used by
as bestowed (A) in the temple of Apollo (AijAfeBi/ the Delians for a Po^npcium, but only, be it
vfiis or oIkos), and (B) in other buildings some- remarked, while the Athenians had charge of
times fewer, but never more than four in number: the sanctuary.
OLYMPIAN TREASURIES. 315
sliow.^'' II" the rule applied with success at Olympia is strictly followed, — if
that is we take the order in which Pausanias mentions these treasuries to be
the order in which lie or any visitor would come upon them, then the
Cnidians' treasury must bo higher up, and that of the Siphnians lower down
tlinu the Tiiebans' and the Athenians'. This forces us to assign the remains
next above the Sicyonian foundations to the Siphnians' treasury, for the
trorgeousness of which, as vouched for by Herodotus, there is indeed no site
left, if we disregard our well-tested rule, and oust the Siphnians to make
room for the Cnidians out of their turn. Moreover, everything about the
treasury belonging to these debatable foundations, as restored, speaks of
Ionic, not of Doric taste and style, while the Cnidians were Dorians, But now
the ([ucstion arises : Where according to our rule for interpreting Pausanias
can the Cnidians' treasury have been ? Immediately above the Thebans' and
the Athenians' treasuries unquestionably. Unfortunately there is no space
available, for the temple of Apollo immediately adjoins them on the north,
antl foundations older than the Cnidians' treasury can have been occupy the
other side,— the side where is the Theban treasury, — of the sacred way.
Indeed this side is for the most part too precipitous to allow of the founding
of any building there. Above, and east of the temple of Apollo, lies the so-
called Lesche of the Cnidians, answering fully, if any building of antiquity
did, to Pausanias' notion of a fabric reared e<? iiriSei^iv. It was, in fact,
from the moment of its erection the show building of the whole Delphian
precinct.
Now in what terms does Pausanias iiame this building whose current
name of Lesche, as understood by Mr. Frazer to mean a ' Club-house,' covers
the notion of the communal house {dr]aavp6<i) as a rendezvous with such fatal
completeness as to exclude the equally essential idea that a treasury was a
temple of some sort ? Pausanias does not call it a Lesche (Xicrxn)> ^^t
mentions it as ocKrj/xa ^pa^a<i e-)(^ov tmu UoXvyvcaTov, avddrjfia /xev KuiBlcop
(X XXV 1). What can be the nature of a chamber thus formally consecrated
within his precinct to Apollo ? Must it not be a 6r]aavp6<;, i.e. not a club-
house or rendezvous only but also a temple in some sort ? The sense attach-
ing to the word o'Uyjfia in a justly celebrated passage of the eighth Book of
Herodotus ^'^ certainly forces this meaning upon 0LKr]/.La when we find dvudtjfia
in apposition with it and know that the fabric thus described was within the
sacred precincts of Delphian Apollo. Such a consecrated chamber would be
only the more appropriately used as a iep6<; oIko^ or a Tefxivio<i oZ«o9 for the
assembly of members of the community dedicating it, if like the one in hand
it was adorned with the most perfect paintings of Polygnotus.
So far had my argument progressed in the attempt to identify the
^'' X ix 5 : oi if 07]ffavpo\ &v0a'iuv avh fpyou Mardoiiius (viii 144) : first among »i>AAa Koi
Tuv fs ■noKffj.ov Kol 'AOjfvaiw waavrtas :' KviSiovs fxtya\a SiawwAwovTo staoding between Athen-
5t uvK oUa ti iirl yUji rifl ^ *is iviifi^n' <fKoSo- ians and adhesion to Per»ia,— even supposing
nr}(TavTo. them eager for it, — are rwv Btuy rk iya\'
^^ 1 1 ocLurs in tlie solemn message entrusted fiar a kuI raoiK-iinara iiiw*Mpi\aixiva rt koI
by tlie Athenians to Alexander for delivery to avyKtxv^t'^iy'^-
316 LOUIS DYER
so-called Lesche of the Cnidians with the treasury of the Cnidians, when I
chanced to turn up in Hnrpocration the well-known account of Polygnotus,
consisting of a ^juotation fiom Lycurgus iv tm Trepl t>}? iepeia<i. There I
Avas astonished to observe that in the story of how Polygnotus obtained
Athenian citizenship ' because he painted for nothing the Stoa Poikile,' or, ' as
others have it, the pictures ii> to5 drjaavpai kul iv tco avaKet(p,' all editors and
commentators agree, — with no shadow of MS. authority to support them, —
in rejecting the MS. reading 6i]aavp(p and in substituting either iv rw
Srjo-eiq) or eV to3 077a-e&)9 te/jaJ. But this emendation, irrespective of any views
about the Lesche at Delphi, has aVvkward results to which Brunn and others
have not given heed. Indeed they seem pleased to give Polygnotus credit
for work in the Theseum categorically attributed by Pausanias to Micou and
Micon alone. The}' are also called upon to explain away or circumvent the
following words used by Pliny of Polygnotus ; hie ct Dclphis aedem innxit
(xxxv 35). Mr. Frazer however is too straightforward to undertake this, and
the same is true of Miss Sellers (Mrs. Strong) in her commentary on Pliny.
' Pliny,' says Mr. Frazer, ' mentions the paintings of Polygnotus at Delphi, but
seems to suppose they were in a temple.' ^^ On the other hand, Witschl says
of Polygnotus' paintings in the Lesche : ' At Delphi where, as above supposed '
(in a preceding account of Polygnotus' paintings in the Lesche) ' he did his
first work,^^ Polygnotus also painted the temple '''' upon which Aristoclides
also did some work.'^'^ But Pliny, having said (xxxv 31) that Aristoclides
frescoed the temple of Apollo at Delphi, cannot conceivably have meant
the same frescoes in the same temple, when he goes on to say (xxxv 35)
that Polygnotus painted a temple at Delphi. He can only have *been using
aedem in the sense in which Pausanias uses otKtjfxa, avdOr^fxa twv YLvihlwv to
designate the communal house or treasury commonly called the Lesche at
Delphi. Thus it appears that the unassisted labours of Micon in the
Athenian Theseum are credited to Polygnotus, whom we must suppose Micon
merely to have assisted, solely because we cannot allow Lycurgus to have
spoken of the paintings at Delphi by Polygnotus as he did, when he said they
were iv tm drjaavprn.^^ The Lesche ' of the Cnidians ' must not be confused,
®* Frazei's Pausanias V, p. 350. {b) ws erepot, tot eV tu> Oriaavp^ (the Del]iliiaii
^^ In Fa.\\\y'a Heal-Encydopacdie (1848), s.v, 'Lesche') ko) t^ avaKeici) (the temple of the
Polygnotus. Dioscuri, Gardner's Athens pp. 97 and 393).
'•'* Witschl here refers to Pliny xxxv 35 : Hie Ev£n these erfpoi, who were doubtless nuuldle-
et Delphis aedem pinxit, the allusion being to headed gossips, were dimly conscious that
the jiaintings of Polygnotus in the Cnidians' painting gratis for the Cnidians would hardly
treasury, nicknamed Lesche. earn the gift of citizenship from the Athenians,
"^ Witschl here cites Pliny xxxv 31 : Aristo- and threw in the paintings in the temple of the
elides qui pinxit aedem Apollinis Delphis, the Dioscuri at Athens, working Polygnotus rather
allusion being to the main temple at Delplii. hard even for such a high honour. Or again
** Lycurgiis, as quoted by Harpocration, they may merely have mentioned the Deli)hian
evidently gathers up, without sifting them, two ' Lesche ' by an incoherent trick of short- hand
conflicting rumours explaining why Athenian speech, as the place where Polygnotus won his
citizenship was conferred on Polygnotus : (a) spurs, — the reputation on the strength of
4irti r^v noiKiKriv aro^v (the Stoa Eleutherios, which he got the chance of painting the temple
see Gardner's Athens pp. 389 f. ) typa^t npo'iKu, of tha Dioscuri.
OLYMPIAN TREASURIES. 317
tliat is, with a treasury ; rather than do this we must deprive the Siphnians
of their treasury, giving it to the Cnidians who are thus endowed with a
treasury and a Lesche as well at Delphi, — an unparalleled instance of liberality
and piety for a people of such comparatively secondary importance and
resources. Again, although nothing could be simpler and more straightfor-
ward than Pliny's statement that Aristoclides painted the temple of Apollo
at Delphi, while Polygnotus painted a temple at Delphi, — using here aedes oi
the Cnidians' Delphic treasury just as Polemo usesj^ao? of the Metapontines'
and the Byzantines' Olympian treasuries, — Witschl insists that the two
places decorated (the acdeiii and the aedem Apollinis) are one and the same.
This is indeed applying in Polygnotus' favour the principle that to him that
hath shall be given and from him that hath not shall be taken away even
that which he hath: for Micon and Aristoclides "^ are each deprived of the
credit for their only unassisted work, of which mention has been preserved.
Such a proceeding is plainly inadmissible, and therefore there is no choice
but to respect the texts that have come down to us both in Pliny and in
Harpocration. The sole recorded work of Polygnotus at Delphi was done in
the treasury p/r excellence, namely the Lesche of the Cnidians so called. No
other treasury could be so designated when painting was the theme in hand,
for the Lesche is the treasury adorned with paintings ; we know of no other.
But this treasury, like all its mates, w^as a consecrated building so near in its
use and estimation to a temple that Pliny only used a designation current
among careful writers of Greek, when he called it a temple.
I have left until now the last clause (the he clause) in Pausanias' general
account of the Cnidians' consecrated chamber. He characterizes the chamber
as dvdOrjfia fxh KviSltov, but proceeds to say by way of antithesis, KaXdrai
8e vTTo AeX-^coi/ Aeaxv- According to him then it was not the Lesche of the
Cnidians, hut the Lesche of the Deljjhians. Moreover, he plainly regards this
Delphian nickname of Lesche as requiring explanation and even extenuation
in view of the sacredness of the fabric, for he immediately gives, as an
attenuating circumstance, the Delphians' reason. They called it Lesche
because from of old they met there and discussed not only solemn
questions of moment, but also all sorts of mythological niceties.*^* For
the full meaning of Pausanias' explanation however we have fortunately
neither far to seek, nor are we dependent upon imaginative conjecture.
Just such a Delphian holiday of talk about matters serious and more
especially concerning all manner of mythological inventions is held in
the Delphians' Lesche, — the Cnidians' communal house — by the interlocutors
in Plutarch's De Defectu Oraculorum. Let me then close by offering the
stage setting of this masterpiece of latter-day Hellenic literature as the
fullest justification alike of my contention that the Lesche of the Cnidians
"' It IS noticeable that Brunn, who does not Apollo at Delphi,
commit himself expressly to Witschl's wresting ** X xxxv 1 : 3t« ivravBa. avvtivm rh ap-
of Pliny's words in favour of Polygnotus, x"'"" '''^ '''* <rirov9ai6T(pa SieKfyovro Ka\ oiroao
nevertheless suppresses all mention of the ftv$<iiii.
paintings by Aristoclides in the temple of
318 LOUIS DYER
is another name for the Cnidiaiis' treasury at Delphi, and of the detinitiou
of a treasury as a holy meeting-place or headquarters for those occupied with
ritual service,— a sort of tem})le.
In the year S3 A.D., and on the eve of the Pythian festival, Lamprias
and his nompnny at tiie entrance of the Delphian precinct stumble on a
meeting, — likened to that of the fabulous birds on the 6fi(f)a\6'i, — between
Demetrius from Britain, and (.leombrotus from the shrine of Zeiis Amnion.
These two join Lamprias and his friends, and all walk in a body up the
sacred way talking as they go. In the desultory course of talk, Lamprias
asks Cleombrotus of the oracle he has just visited. Was it also silenced,
or did it still give answers? Cleombrotus hesitates, and Demetrius helps
him out by raising the general (piestion about all oracles, especially about
Boeotian oracles. Meanwhile, journeying up the sacred way, they had
reached the portals of the Lcsche of tlic Cnidicms, which they entered.
Friends were sitting there rather bored and sleepy, and Demetrius said :
' You had better be glad to see us, glad too of our subject of talk
stumbled upon by the way. It is a2)propriafc to this ^j/atf, and in fact
concerns everybody, since it involves the god. So do not begin with
wry faces or give way to contentiousness.' So saying, he and his friends
found seats, and he gave them all the ([uestion about the oracles. Up
started then Didymus the Cynic, in high dudgeon against shameless
ways of wicked men, who abused oracles parading the badness of their
hearts in guilty questions. ' No wonder oracles are dumb,' he cried,
banging his stick twice or thrice upon the floor, ' the wonder is they
have ever spoken.' He was going on, but Heracleon plucked at his
gown, and Lamprias, being a particular friend, expostulated : ' Do olscrvc
the festival truce, keep the peace vnth your enemy Hibman De\yravity! Didymus
said not another word hut waller d straight out a7id away.
Ammonius, shocked by this episode, criticized Didymus and his logic,
adding optimistically that more Greeks in the past had required more
oracles. Quite enough were left for a sadly diminished population.
Dissent followed, and talk of providence and how to use oracles aright.
Heracleon, who had been the foremost in suppressing the departed cynic,
finally said, addressing Philip d. propos of Cleombrotus' ingenious notion
that not gods but Baifioveq had charge of oracles : ' Philip, now that loe
are well rid of profane and uninitiated fellows and their crude notions about
the gods, let us walk warily and not be let in by the discussion for silly and
exorbitant admissions.' Cleombrotus opened his eyes at this, and pulling
himself together told the tale he had heard from Aemilianus, who was
neither silly nor exorbitant, but the son of his old schoolmaster, — the
wonderful tale of a voice sounding at eventide over the sea and bidding
men in a passing ship to bear on the tidings that the Great Pan was dead.
Demetrius in his turn now rose to the level of due seriousness with his
tale of mysterious islands full of ghosts. But Cleombrotus inclines to
(piiz, and invents a wise man from the far east who has informed him
that the gods are departed to other worlds, of which there are many.
OLYMPIAN TREASURIES. 319
Heracleon, consistently serious, deniurs, antl Cleoinbrotus is gently snubbed.
Demetrius then declares that they have iiad ((uite enough of /jlvOoi.
Accordingly, (Chapters xxxiv-xxxvii, which follow, soar into abstruse
mathematical disciissions of the j)Iurality of worlds. The original argument
is then resumed, and Lam])rias is pressed for his recent experiences at
licbadeia. ' You have hearers who are at leisure,' says Ammonius,
' a-iuious to traek down the truth and eager for light. No breath of
jealousy or contentiousness stirs among ns, we are tolerant you see and
sympathetic ; pray then let us hear you.' Then follows a final justifica-
tion of oracles with an ex})lanation of their latter-day silence, which
expands into a wider tlieme, — the opposition between religion and science.
This last topic is however approached by means of an illustration from
the painter's art, which causes the whole assembly to turn attentive
eyes to the paintings of Polygnotus by which they were surrounded.
Thus definitively does the writer of the dialogue contrive at its end,
as when it began, to advertise to his readers the fact that the speakers
were in a temple and within a sacred precinct. The temple was the
consecrated chamber or communal house dedicated by the Cnidians — the
Cnidians' treasury at Delphi.
Louis Dyer.
THE TWO LABYRINTHS.
[Plate XIV.]
<f)aal Se Tive<i koX top ^acSaXov et? AcyvTrrov TrapajSoKovTa, kuI
^av/xdcrapTa tt]v iv Tot<; €pyoi<; re-^vrjv, KaraaKevdaai tm ^acnXevovrt Trj<;
Kpr]Trf^ MivcoL Xa^vpivdov o/j,olov tc3 kut^ Myvrrrov.
DioD. Sic. i. 61.
Perhaps the most salient feature of the recent development of know-
ledge in regard to prehistoric Greece is the peculiar connexion which has
been shewn (chiefly by the discoveries of Dr. Arthur Evans) to have existed
between the oldest Greek culture and the ancient civilization of Egypt.
As far back as the time of the Hyksos and the Xllth Dynasty the
connexion is certain. We now know that during the XVIIIth Dynasty
(seventeenth to fifteenth century B.C.) Egypt maintained regular relations
with the Cretan Mycenaeans of the great period of Knossos and Phaistos :
the ' Late Minoan ' period of Evans. This much the incontrovertible
evidence of the Egyptian tomb-paintings at Thebes has told us, to say
nothing of the numerous pieces of minor evidence from both Greece and
Ewypt. The corroborative evidence of the alabastron-lid of the Hyksos king
Khian, and the figure of the Egyptian Abnub (who certainly lived during
the Hyksos period), which have been found at Knossos, take us two centuries
or more further back ; and tiie remarkable parallels between the Cretan seal-
designs and the Egyptian scarab-designs of the XHIth Dynasty, which Dr.
Evans was the first to point out, shew us that the connexion was older than
the days of the Hyksos. The Egyptological literary evidence on the subject
indicates that the Egyptians had dealings. (often of an unfriendly kind) with
the seafaring peoples of the Mediterranean certainly as early as the Xllth
Dynasty (Middle Kingdom), possibly as early as the Vlth. But now we are
pursuing the voyage of discovery into remote and little known seas, so that
progress must be slow and cautious, and careful soundings must constantly
be taken. The Egyptian literary evidence of knowledge of the Northerners
{Ha-nehu) under the Old Kingdom (up to about the twenty-fifth century B.C.)
is of the scantiest and vaguest character, and can be made to mean almost
anything the investigator wishes. The archaeological evidence is also very
scanty, but, such as it is, it must be said that it is not vague, and that such
J. H. S VOL, XXV 09O5). PL XIV.
EGYPTIAN AND CRETAN SQUARE PILLARS.
THE TWO LAHYRTNTHS. 321
bits of eviileiice ;i.s the finding of a very priniitive Egyptian stone vase and a
fragment of a Illnl-IVtli Dynasty diorite bowl at Knossos and the remark-
able analogy of the ligiit-blue Knossian glazed faience to the similar faience
of tlic earliest Egyptian dynasties/ make it impossible to deny off-hand that
any connexion between Greece and Egypt existed before the Xllth Dynasty.
For the Xllth Dynasty it is certain, however we may stpiare the apparent
contemporaneity of the primitive Amorgian cist-grave period in Crctr. and
the Xllth Dynasty^ with the e(|ually .apparent contemporaneity of the
'Middle Minoan ' (Kamares) period in the same island with the same
dynasty.^ For the earlier period the evidence of the faience is striking. In
p]gypt the light-blue faience is characteristic only of the early dynasties, and
of the XXVIth, the Saite age of the seventh to sixth centuries B.C., whose
potters archaizeil in this matter of glaze just as their sculptors archaized in
the style of their reliefs. In Crete it is characteristic of the early Minoan
period. This is certainly, when taken in conjunction with the other evidence,
in favour of the contention that the connexion between Crete and Egypt went
back further than the time of the Xllth Dynasty. Of course the preference
for the light-blue glaze may h?ive lasted in Crete when it had died out in
Egypt; but the diorite fragment and the primitive vase from Knossos, which
were imported Egyptian objects, not copies of Egyptian technique, are
witnesses for a connexion under the earliest dynasties. It cannot be main-
tained that these two objects were imported a thousand years after the time
of their manufactuie. The ancients did not collect antique ' curios,' at any
rate not till the time of the Saites in Egypt, and the Romans in Europe. It
catmot be conceived that to a Keftian of the time of the XVlIIth Dynasty
Egyptian objects of the days of the Third and Fourth Dynasties would
have been of the slightest interest, any more than they would have been to
an Egyptian of the same period. Dr. Evans and Prof. Petrie also connect
' Sec Evans, B.S.A. ix. p. 62 f. ' Kahun ' with the Xllth Dynasty town of
^ Evans, Pic/ographs, p. 105 ff. These Agios Het-hetep-Senusret seems extremely probable,
Onoiiphrios scarabs cannot be earlier than the but when the polychrome fragments were found
Xllth Dynasty. If tiiey are Tiot Xllth Dynasty, their discoverer was by no means convinced of
they can only be early XVIJIth. And this their early date. OnjP- 43 oi Kahun he says:
would ac^ree still le.es with the probable date ' As they (the fragments of foreign pottery
of objects with which they were found. We can found at Kahun) were none of them on the
hardly assume that not merely in the islands, floors of the chambers, or in unequivocally
but in Crete itself, and within a stone's throw early positions, they may be later intrusions
of Phaistos, there existed at the same time as and dropped by chance passers, and some are
the fully developed Minoan civilization a tribe almost certainly late.' Cf. also p. 31. It was
which retained the culture of the sub-Neolithic in view of this uncertainty expressed by Prof,
period. Petrie that four years ago I classed the Kahun
* Petrie, Illahnn, PI. I. Dr. Mackenzie says evidence as weak {Oldest Civilization, p. 67).
{Phylnkopi, ]>. 261) that the polychrome But our present certainty that the polychrome
(Kamares) vrare from Crete found in Egypt is ware was in use in Crete at a date long
' assigned by Flinders Petrie in view of all the anterior to the Great Palace period (Third
evidence to about 2500 Kc. ' In view of the Phylakopi), which was contemporary with the
evidence from Crete it is true that the contem- XVillth Dynasty, shews that Prof. Petrie's.
poraneily of the Kamares ware found at doui>ts were probably not justified.
H.S. — VOL. XXV, Y
322 H. R. HALL
certain bowls and vases of black pottery fuuud at Abydos and dating to an
even more remote period (Dyns. I.-TL) with the late Neolithic black pottery
of Knossos ■* ; but here we seem to be dealing with stuff less markedly charac-
terized than light-blue glazed pottery, and the stone bowls and vases of the
Old Kingdom, which are unmistakable. Prof. Petrie further maintained''
that in the boats de[)icted upon the Egyptian vases of the praedynastic period
we ought to sec the actual sea-going galleys in which the primeval commerce
of the Mediterranean was carried from Egypt to Greece and vice versa, but it
must be said that this conclusion is by no means probable or in the least
justified by the appearance of the boats in question : they are quite evidently
but ordinary Nile-boats, the praehistoric ancestors of the dahabiyasand felukas
of to-ilay. They have deck-shelters just like the model funerary boats of the
Middle Kingdom tombs, and they carry women on board, and on one vase a
woman is depicted wailing, with her hands above her head : it may well be
that they actually represent the ferry-boats of the dead. They carry purely
Egyptian emblems. Now we know of the Egyptians that they were never
seafarers : they disliked the sea, and they held the seafaring inhabitants of
the Delta-coast in abomination; it was never the Egyptians who went to
Crete in the early days or later. Just as the Milesians came to the Nile-
mouths in the eighth century, so the Keftians had come to Egypt in the
sixteenth, and the Ha-nebu in the old time before them ; but as far as we
know, no Egyptian ever returned the compliment, unless driven from the
Palestinian coast by stress of wind and waves.** So that if we ever find Egyptian
representations of the ships that took the stone vases of the early dynasties
to Crete we shall see that they were neither Egyptian nor carried Egyptian
emblems. And as for the oars of the praehistoric boats, the Nile-boats had
many oars. Finally, these boats are represented amid ostriches, oryxes,
mountains, and palm-trees: that is to say they are sailing on the Nile, with
the desert-hills and their denizens on either hand.
But, although we do not know what the ships were like in which this early
commerce between Egypt and Europe was carried on, we have enough evidence
to shew that this commerce had existed for centuries before the ' Palace '
period in Crete, when the Keftians brought gifts to the court of Hatshepsu
and Thothmes III at Thebes. When Dr. Evans publishes Knossos in full
we shall find all this evidence marshalled in order, and with the distinction
fully marked between the evidence which points to a mere general sea-
connexion and culture-exchange between Egypt and Crete, and that which
seems to indicate something more, possibly an ultimate common origin for
the Egyptian and Aegean civilizations. Meanwhile, further corroborative
evidence may be sought, and one point which seems to bring certain
* Petrie, Abijdos ii. p. 38. Civilization, p. 321). But he was ca.st away
* Egypt and Early Europe (Travs. li. Soc. on Cyprus only and the ship he sailed in wa.s
Lit. xix. p. 61). Phoenician. There were no Egyptian nier-
' Like Ueuuainen, the Egyptian envoy to chant-ships on the ' Great Green' sea
rhoenicia in the eleventh century (Oldest
THE TWO LABYRINTHS. 323
architectural itleas of the Minoans into connexion with certain similar
ideas of the Xllth Dynasty Egyptians may be wortli raising.
This point arises in connexion witli the probable resemblance of the
Egyptian and Cretan Labyrinths. That the great palace discovered and
excavated by Dr. Evans at Knossos is the Cretan Labyrinth of the ancients
is generally admitted. Generally accepted, also, is Mayer's brilliant sugges-
tion with regard to the word Aa^vpivdo^;, that it is the same as the Carian
Ad^pavvSa, which is probably \d^pv<; ' Double Axe,' plus the Asianic
termination -v8a, which is the same as the Greek -v6o<; (of K6pii/0o^, for
example), claimed by Kretschmer in his epoch-making Einleiturig in die
Gcschichtc der griechischen Sprache as one proof of the existence of a prae-
Aryan and specifically ' kleinasiatisch ' element in Greek place-names. In
view of the fact of the constant recurrence of the double-axe sign at
Knossos, this explanation was adopted by Dr. Evans.'' It has commended
itself to all except those who dislike the idea of a prae-Aryan population
and speech on the sacred ' Aryan ' soil of Hellas. To those, however, who
have no particular prejudices in favour of the ' Indo-Europeans ' or their
group of languages, the supposition that the * Minoan ' originators of Greek
civilization were not Indo-Europeans, and did not speak any form of the
Greek language, but an 'Asianic' idiom akin to those of the Lycians and
Carians, seems not only a probability, but a far more interesting probability
than the other. The barbarian Scyths, the unintelligent Persians, were
pure Aryans. The originators of human culture in Egypt and Meso-
potamia were the non-Aryan non-Semitic Nilotes and Sumerians. In India
it is possible that a Dravidian civilization existed before the coming of
the primitive Aryans, and that the later culture of India was strongly
influenced by the traditions of the conquered civilization. We know
that the Semitic culture of Mesopotamia was almost wholly of non-
Semitic (Sumerian) origin ; the conquerors imposed their language on
the conquered, but wrote it in the writing which had been invented by the
latter. The theory which would regard the Mycenaean culture as of non-
Aryan origin, and the later civilization of Greece as a blend of the ideas
of the conquered 'Mycenaeans' with those of the conquering Indo-
Europeans from the north, who imposed their Aryan language on the
conquered, has therefore analogies in its favour. It seems to be rendered
necessary by various considerations. The ethnologists ^ have shewn us that
the dark dolichocephalic Mediterranean peoples, whether they be Italians,
Greeks, or Egyptians, form a race by themselves, in complexion and skull-
form radically ditifering from the fair brachycephalic ' Alpine ' peoples of
Central Europe, who have the best right to be regarded as the original
speakers of ' Indo-European.' Kretschmer " has pointed out that many Greek
place-names are evidence of a language-stratum in Greece which is related to
the ancient languages of Caria and Lycia, which he believes to be non- Aryan.
^ Mijcfiuican Tree and Pillar-Cult {J.H.S. * Sorgi, Mediterranean Race.
xxi.) p. 109, n. 6. '■> Kretschmer, op. cit.
y2
324 H. R. HALL
This belief will probably be sharetl by those philologists who know somethit)g
of noii-Ary;m as well as of Aryan tongues. And it agrees witli the demands
of the ethnologists, who find the main stock of the Greek race dolichocephalic
and dark, that is to say, non- Alpine. The tall, fair-coniplexioned, red-
headed people who formed tlie upper stratum of the old Hellenes, and were
probably dying out about the time that the Greek became the ' Graeculus
esuriens,' were the Alpine conquerors who im[)osed their Aryan tongue on
the old Mediterranean Greek stock, which has survived them. Further,
Greek tradition agrees with this view : the Pelasgi were the Dravidians of
Greece as far as their relations with the later concjuerors were concerned.
The conclusion that they were also the Sumerians of Greece, that the pre-
historic civilization of Greece, to which her later Aryanized culture owed sa
much, was the product of non-Aryan 'Asianic' Mediterraneans (akin
racially to the ancient Egyptians among others), who were probably the
' Pelaso-i ' of legend, is at least justified by analogy, and agrees with the demands
of 8ergi and Krotsclnner from the view-points of ethnology and philology.
The less cultured but more energetic Aryans, cou)ing from the Alpine regions
with their iron weapons (as Prof. Ridgeway said),overthrew the ancient civiliza-
tion of the Mtiditerraneans, and in the time of barbarism which ensued (dated
by archaeological disjcovery accurately to the twelfth to ninth centuries B.c.)^
imposed their language on the conquered, but at the same time drank in the
knowledo^e of their more developed culture, with the result that in the eighth
century Greek civilization was re-born altered and transformed by the new
racial element in the land. It is thus that we see nothing strange in the idea
that in the sixteenth century B.C., when the Minoan civilization was at its
height, a language was spoken in Greece as different from Aryan Greek as
ancient Egyptian was (and quite possibly more akin to the latter than to
the former). Nor need we wonder if the Cretan hieroglyphs, when they are
read, prove to express a language of the Asianic non-Aryan type, in no way
related to Greek except in so far as words of the old language were adopted
into the speech of the Aryan conquerors. Probably there are many such
originally non-Aryan words in Greek. ^'^
1" In articles in B.S.J, viii. p. 125 fF. and tlie prae-Helienic language-stratum in Greece-
X. ji. 115 ff. Mr. K. S. Coiiway supposes that (the existence of this Mr. Conway fully ad-
tlie Kteocretan tongue, as shewn on the ' noiiios,' niits) rest chiefly on the apparently nou Aryan
' barxe,' and ' neikar ' inscriptions from Praesos, character of Lycian (in conjunction with the
is Indo-European, and suggests that an Indo- ethnological evidence), yet their critic admits
European language was spoken by the Minoans. tiiat he knows nothing about that language.
In elfect his article is an apology for Aryanism On his pp. 154, 155 Mr. Conway does not
in respect of the 'Minoans' and so indirectly disjirove Kretschnier's theory with regard to-
for the Aryan character of Minoan civilization. the non-Aryan origin of the Greek words in.
Tiiis goes against all the archaeological -v6(o^) : he merely says he has ' never been able
evidence, which gives a non-Aryan impression to see any ground' for accepting it. The only
of the Minoans. Mr. Conway does not answer is that others have been able to see
believe in Kretschnier's theory that the Asianic many grounds for doing so. Mr. Conway notes,
languages were non-Aryan ; but at the same as a most interesting fact that the -v0- words
time says 'I know nothing about Lycian.' (otlier than place-names) snch as i'A/un/s, ■n-fi'pii's.
The aiguments for the uon-Arvan character of 06\vi'do!, Kr)pii6os, oKv^doi, fpifiivOos, -rtpt^iv-
Till-: TWO LAIJYRINTILS.
325
The worI Liibyrintli then we may regard with Mayer as a praehistorie
form, itself dating Irom Minoan times, and meaning ' Place of the Double
Axe' in the Asianic tongue of tlic Minoan Cretans; and we may with
Dr. Evans regard the Knossian palace, the chief ' Place of the Double Axe '
in Crete, as the Cretan Labyrinth.*' ^Vhy was the Egyptian Labyrinth
0OS, A.f^ii'Sos, aSdfx.iv9os, aipivdtof, Kopvvdos,
aiyifOos, avii "ill! earthy uf tlie soil; tlioy le-
inesent exactly tlie tyjie of words wliicli come
into langunge fioiii the sjx'ich of the louutiy-
inau, adiscriptus glcbae.' They up', as he says,
the words that the Achaean warriors le.irnt
' I'rom their Mycenaean servants and tenants'
after the conquest. But they are for liiin of
Indo-European origin. Were this so, we sliould
expect these words of the peasants to resemble
words of the same signilication in other Aryan
tongues. If Mr. Conway can shew us that they
i!o he will have proved a i>oint in favour of his
view. Meanwhile, one may lie jiardoned for
believing that these arc examples of non-Aryan
words in Greek. Kripiudos, ipf^ivQos, aXyivQos
may be instances of Indo-European words with
the -vO termination added, though in the ca.sc
of the two last the Indo-Eurt)})ean origin of
epi^- and aXy- seems open to question.
" In J. U.S. xxi. (ii.) pp. 268-274 Mr. W.
H. D. House makes a vigorous attack on these
conclusions. Since (in a footnote to p. 268) he
has mentioned me personally as having ado|ited
them, perhaps I may be allowed the license of a
somewhat lengthy note in which to comment
upon some of his arguments. Vigorous criticisms
of this kind are both useful and salutary, but
they lose much of their force when they do not
take account of all the evidence, (i) Mr. Rouse
says that 'no attempt is made to analyse the
word Labyrinth, to explain the ending, to ex-
plain the metathesis of v which is unexampled.'
This must have been written without due regard
to Kretschmcr's work, although a reference to
it was given by Mr. Evans. Why the meta-
thesis of u should be important when we are
dealing in the case of \afivpivdos with a prae-
Hellenic word surviving in Greek, and in the
cases of \d0pvs and Ad^pawSa with C'Mri.iu
words more or less imperfectly transcribed in
Greek characters in comparatively modern times,
is not apparent. The diflerence is remarkably
slight ; and those, who from a certain know-
ledge of Semitic tongues have learnt the true
unimportance of vowels in the construction of
words, will not be able to see that whether the
word is written \afivpiv0os or \a0pvv6os makes
much odds : the important things are the A.-j3-p
and the v6-.oy v5-, and their collocation in this
particular instance when taken in conjunction
with the fact that botii at Knossos and at
Labriunda the double-axe occurs and is the
symbol of a god. (ii) Mr. Rouse does not
believe that the double-axe was s[)ecially
venerated at Kno.ssos or by the Minoans
generally, lie makes merry over the idea of
'Greeks' venerating a symbol at all: 'the
Greeks,' he writes, 'would be as likely to
worship a trident or a bunch of grapes as to
worship a pair ol top-boots ; and to regard
these things as symbolically sacred would be to
worsliip them. Savages may make a fetish of a
collar-stud or a knife, but there is no reason to
doubt that such exaggerated .superstition was
alien to the Greek intellect. Isolated indica-
tions of the ruder superstition cannot outweigh
the general tendency of t^reek worship towards
sanity and away from symbolism.' The 'iso-
lated indications ' are ({uite sufficient to give
Mr. Rouse's case away. The fact is that theie
was in (Jreece as much umierlying barbarism as
anywhere else : even the 'Aryan' Greeks were
savages once. 15ut, ajiart from this, Mr. IJouse
begs the question when he assumes that the
Greeks who built Knossos were those idealized
paragons who would have turned with graceful
loathing from the commission of so iinintel-
lectual an act as the veneration of a double-axe
as the symbol of the divine power. It seems
most probable that the Minoans were not
' Greeks ' in Mr. Rouse's sense at all, but a
non-Aryan race with religious ideas akin to
those of the Egy{itians or the Canaanites ; of
their religious ideas many traces survived in
the religions of later" Greece and Asia Minor.
All arguments against the worship of the
double-axe by the Minoans which are based on
the supposition that their mental type was
identical with that of the later Greeks are
beside the maik. The fact that the double-axe
teas actually venerated by the Minoans is shewn
by (among other things) the discovery of a
scene of its being worshipi)ed, on a sarcophagus
from Agia Triada. This being so. Dr. Evans's
conclusion that it was the emblem of a god,
who is the same as the god of Labrauuda, is
evidently entirely justified. The Carian god
was identified with Zeus : the great god of
Crete was Zeus. The double-axe god of tlie
326
II. K. HALL
called by the same name ^ The old explanation, due to Brucf.sch but
afterwards abandoned by him, was that the word was originally Egyptian,
hc'\up;^Iio-]>n'-ro-h(n<'i,' which might mean ' Templo-mouth-caiial,' and that
the Knossian Labyrinth derived its name from the Egyptian one. lio-hcnct
('Canal-mouth') or *L(i.-henc, as it would have been pronounced in the
dialect of the Fayyum, is certainly the original form of the name of ]llahun
Labyrintli was the later Zt'us Kictagencs, just
as tlie (Imiblc-axe god ot Labiaunda was tlic
Karian Zeus, (iii) Mr. Rouse (iocs not believe
that the doublc-axc had any particular con-
nexion with Knossos or that the Knossian
palace lias any si)ecial claim to the title of
'House of the Double-Axe': other signs
besides the axe occur on its walls, the signs
were all possibly never intended to be .seen,
liaving been covered with plaster, and the double-
axe occurs at I'haistos and at other places as
well as at Knossos : there ought therefore to be
' Houses of the Double-Axe ' and ' Labyrinths'
too. Other signs certainly occur at Knossos :
but the continued excavations shew thit the
double-axe i>< the commonest, and from the way
in which it is insiribcd it seems to have a
special sigiiifiraiico there which the others have
not. Tliat the .sigus were in many cases
oiigiually coNered up with plaster or gypsum
slabs is very jirobalile, but this woidd not allect
the argument. 'I'liey must have licen intended
to mean somctiiiiig, or I hey would not have
been cut on the lilocks at all. It seems to mc
(as I ]i<.inl('d out in Nature, Nov, 20, 190'2)
very jiiobable that the sign was cut on these
blocks as an intimation to the ipiarrymen or
masons as to the destination of the Idocks in
HUestion — they were iiitended lor the ' House of
the Double-Axe ' — just as in Egyi)t blocks in-
teiuled for the temple called ' House of Millions
of Years, 'or (at Deir el-lJahari) Nrfer-renjmt,
' Meautiful of Years,' would have the signs
I j -1 1 01 what not painted on each as an
intimation to the masons. This may well be
one of the many small points in which Minoan
j)ractice resembled the I'.gyptian. Hut I do not
quite gather irom Dr. Evans's report on the
exc.ivation.s for the year 1901 {U.S.A. vii.
1>. 112) whether he considers that the fine
limestone wall at the western end of the
' Megaron of Double-Axes,' on whicli the
double-axe is most in eviTlencc, was ever masked
by gyi)sum-slabs or plaster at all. In B.S.A.
viii. i>. 66, in dealing with the distatt' signs on
another similar wall, he inclines to the vit^w
that they had been covered with plaster, as
at I'haistos. The jiillar illustrated in Mycenaean
Tree and Pillar-CaUis (Fig. 5) and other
gy]isuiu jiillars and door-jambs which are
inscribed with the double-axe sign were surely,
however, never covered up by facing-slabs
or jilaster any more than were the gypsum
j)avements. As regards Mr. Rouse's denial of
the exclusive claim of Knossos to be a ' jdace of
the Double-Axe,' certainly Phaistos, for in-
stance, may just as well have had its shrine
with the emblem of the common god of the
Cretans as any other Cretan city or palace, and
this may have been called its lahru.umla or
labyrinth, its 'pi ice of the Double- Axe.' But
the Labyrinth of the Greeks was 'in the
Cnossian territory ' ; Minos, the king who
owned the Minotaur (Dr. Evans compares tln!
liiill- frescoes of Knossos), was king of Knossos :
Knossos was traditionally the chief city of the
island and the centre of the Jlinoan thalas-
socracy, therefore it was probably also the (diief
centre of tlie worship of the Ood of the Double-
Axe, Zens Kretagenes, wherefore Dr. Evans is
again justified in regarding it as the 'Place of
the Double-Axe' kot' «|oxV. the Labyrinth
par r.rccl/.eucr. That theie may also have been
confusions with the TJortynian cave, which
may have been called the ' Labyrinth ' on
account of its many windings, and become
regarded as the true Labyrinth of the Minotaur,
is possible. Mr. Rouse quotes from Strabo
(viii. 369) a catacomb near Nauplia which was
called 'the Labyrinth,' so tliat the name was
evidently generally used in late times for
labyrinthine caves, just as it might be now.
Mr. Rouse says that the Knossian jialace is
neither mazy nor labyrinthine, but I for one
have found it satisfy all reasonable demands in
this respect: there is much more at Knossos
than ' fine o])en comtyards and straight cor-
ridors,' as a glance at the plan will shew. A
point on which Mr. Rouse seems, however, to
have some justification for his criticism is in
respect of tlu^ pillars of the Pillar-Rooms. He
denies their sacred character : that may pass,
though most of us will think Dr. Evans is right
on the point ; but his contention that they did
not stand free, but, whether also cult-objects
or not, in every case performed an architectural
function in upholding the roof, seems extremely
probable.
THi: TWO LAIJYRTNTHS. :V27
{(l-Laltun), close by ;it the opening' of the liawara Canal into the Balir
Vusuf, but ' Eo-per-ro-hcncl ' is a purely hypothetical form, which is not
known to have existed, and in any case would have been pronounced by the
people of the district ^Elpi-la-hcnc, which is not mucli like; Aa^vpivdo<;,
while Lahraunda is.
Prof. Spiegelberg, regarding the Egyptian as the original Labyrinth,
from which the Greek one took its name, suggested that it was derived from
the Graecized Egyptian royal name Ad/3apt,<i, given by Manetho in this
dynasty, the original of which he considers to have been the praenomen of the
builder of the Egyptian Labyrinth, King Amenemhat III, f J^^ ^/^ ^ J
Kc-maat-Rd}''- Dr. Evans, not questioning the Egyptological identification,
but at the same time believing that the word was of ' Greek ' prae- Aryan
origin, suggested that ' it is quite natural to suppose that the Greeks,
having taken over the word Aa/3upiudo^ applied by the earlier race to tiie
Cretan building, shoidd by a kind of VolJc^dy Dialogic transfer the term to the
temple of " Labaris." ' ^^ This seems very probable. But it is to be noted
that in the actual list of kings Labaris is the equivalent, not of Amenemhat
III, who is Ammeres, but of his predecessor Usertsen or Senusret IIL
Manetho makes Senusret the builder of the Labyrinth, not Amenemhat,
Nevertheless it is more than probable that ' Labaris ' and its variant
' Lamaris ' are intended for the thrune-name of Amenemhat, the real builder
of the Labyrinth : phonetically the name agrees with Ne-maat-Rd absolutely : ^*
the placing of him in the position of Senusret III is due to a confusion with
the throne-name of the latter (sec hcJow, p. 330). It is quite possible that
the likeness of the name caused Manetho to take away the great building
from its rightful owner in his list, Ammeres, to give it to his predecessor,
whose name, as Manetho thought it to be, so closely resembled Xa^vpivdo^.
And no doubt others also believed that the name of the Egyptian Labyrinth
was connected with that of the King Labaris or Lamaris.
It is most probable that in reality it received its name merely on
account of a supposed resemblance to the original Labyrinth in Crete, and
that a popular etymology assisted the identification. This resemblance may
have been striking.
The position of the Egyptian Labyrinth at Hawara, close to the opening
of the FayyCim, its character, and date, have been well known since the
investigations of Lepsius ^^ and Petrie.^*^ Little or nothing remains of it
now, but in the old days it had been the theme of wondering comment by
Greek visitors to Egypt. Herodotus makes much of it, and so do Diodorus,
Strabo, and Pliny. It finally disappeared in Roman times : the brick chambers
which Lepsius thought were its foundations are those of a late Roman village
'■^ Orientalistische Littcraburzcihmg, Dec. pronounced *j.Vi?;i?nrtrt'' (Babylonian form iVim-
1900, pp. 447-449. murtya), and the interchange of n with I ia
1* J.H.S. xxi. 109, n. 6. usual : cf. e.g. nas tongue ; Coptic las.
^* Nc-m(iat-l\d would liave ht-en pronounced '^ Dcnkmadcr, i. 47, 78 ; Text ii. p. 11 ff,
something like *Nemari'', as Ncb-maat-Rd, the '" Hawaia, Biahmu, and Arsinoe, p. 4 ff.
praenomen of Amenhetej) III, was, we know,
;52S H. H. HAI.L
which was built on its ruins. The oxtuntantl position of the oiigimil building
were made out by Lepsius, and a restoration of the plan has been attempted
by Prof. Petrie from the scanty evidence as to its construction given by the
Greek and Roman writers. It was a great temple,^'^ with magnificent pillared
halls, side-chambers, and outbuildings, erected by the greatest pharaoh
of the Twelfth Dynasty, Amenemhat III (circa 2200 B.C.), immediately in
front of his pyramid at Hawara : there is no doubt that it was the funerar}
temple of the pyramid, erected by the king for the due performance of the
funeral rites after his death. But unlike the temi)les of previous kings of
the Dynasty at Lisht or J^ashur, tlie pyramid-temple of Amenemhat III was
of enormous size and splendour. That it was a temple was not generally
realized by the (Jreek visitors to it. Strabo knew that the king who built
it, whom he calls Maindes or Imandes, was buried not in the Labyrinth,
as Diodorus says, but in the pyramid, and that the halls of the Labyrinth
had been built for some sort of religious purpose.^^ For most of the other
writers it was the king's tomb itself: Diodorus calls it the sepulchre of
Mendes or Marros, the copyists of Manetho that of Lamaris, Labaris, or
Lachares. Pliny ij notes Lyceas as saying that it was the tomb of Moiris,
and Demoteles as saying that it was the 'palace' of king Moteris. The
various forms of the name of the king who built it are interesting, and can
mostly be traced back to that of its actual builder. Even Pliny's
' Petesouchis or Tithoes' is evidently Amenemhat III : the name Pdcsonchis
being ' He who is given by Sebek,' the crocodile-god of the Fayyum, the
land of the lake Moeris for which Amenemhat did so much. Lyceas, as
quoted by Pliny, actually ascribes the building of the Labyrinth to king
Moiris the lake-maker. The name Moiris is probably the word Mer-ucr,
'Great Lake' (the king being a sort of eponymous hero of the lake), con-
fused with the actual praenomen of the king f ^^^^ ^^ ~^ j, which, as the
form Molrris shews, was in the late period read Madt-n-Iid {*Maferi''), as well
as (properly) Ne-madt-Rd}^ Diodorus's name, Marros, is evidently Ma-Rd or
Ma-n-Rd uncontamlnated by mcr-ucr, and as a matter of fact he separates
the Maker of the Lake from the Builder of the Labyrinth, calling the former
Moiris. Herodotus evidently knew of the king Moiris, but forgets to insei t
him in his historical sketcli, speaking merely of the lake as ' called that of
'' Its size may be judged from Trof. I'etrie's 50: ' On suKstantivc compounds formed with
remark (loc. cit. p. 5) that ' all of the temples adjectival /wwva.' Ne-mnat-Rd would mean
on the east of Thel)es [all Kaniak and Luxor, "^''^ -^
that is] and one of the largest on the west 'Possessing the justice of Ka,' like jj ^
bank [the Kamesseum] might be placed ^^^^;.^^„ ^^^^^^^ . . possessing Doubles-' Mnnt-
together on the one area of the ruins at „./>,-, ,vould mean ^ Justice of Ra' simply. It
Hawaia. ,, i 1 1 ^v, ^ 4.1,
IS more than probable that the name was 111
xvn. 1. 37. n.iro.fiaea. hi <paai -rhs avXks j^j^,^. ^j,^^^ ^f^^,, ^^^,1 Maat-n-Ra or simply
roffav-ras, ot< To^^ .'o/x'-i's t6os ^^ iK.la, avuip- ^^f^^^.j^^, 'Justice of Ra' [* Ma-RV, nippos,
X^oOai i^ivras ap^arlvlr^v ^.,Tk tQ>v oU.iwv ^^,^^^^ ^^ ^^jj ^^ ^e-maal-Rd, 'Possessing
i^pw,' Kal itpuu^u, Ovaias r, Ka\ SLKUioSoaias ^tpl ^j.^ j^j^^jg^ ^f rj^. (.^,„i„,.j^ Jid/^api,,
rwr f.,ylaTu>y x<ip^y- Ac{u«p,s).
'" Cf. Griffith, Ag. Zcits. xxxiv. (1896) pp. 49,
THE TWO LABYRINTHS. 329
Moiris,' ami ussigniug the Labyrinth to liis ' Dodckaichy,' tlie seini-indu-
poiulcnt princes under the Ethiopians and Assyrians. He seems then to
liave been unaware of any connexion between the buihler of tlie Labyrintli
and the Moiris who created tlie hike. Is Diotlorus swayed by the authority
of Herodotus when he, too, assigns them to two different kings ? He was
awan; tliat Herodotus was in error in assigning the Labyrintli to the
Dodekarchy, but makes the king Mendes -^ or Marros who built it a
totally difterent person from Moiris. His information v»as evidently correct,
since Marros is a form of the praenomen of the real builder, but, being mis-
led by Herodotus, he did not identify Marros with Moiris. Manetho might
have been suspected of a similar exaggerated respect for the authority of
the classic Herodotus,-^ for he appears at first sight to have attributed the
Labyrinth to Senusret (Usertsen) HI, the predecessor of Amenemhat who
built the lake. But this is only apparent : in all probability, as we shall see,
he stated both the name of Amenemhat and the fact that he built the
Labyrinth very plainly : it is his copyists who have garbled him here as else-
where. Manetho's name for the Labyrinth-builder is, as we have seen, Lamar is
or lMh((ris : a third form, Lachares, is also given by the copyists. The lake is
not ascribed to this king. According to the order of the kings, he ought to
be, not Amenemhat III, but his predecessor, Senusret III, the Manethonian
representative of Amenemhat III being Ammcres. It has therefore been
generally supposed that Manetho had simply erred in attributing the
building of the Labyrinth to Senusret (Usertsen) III. Prof. Spiegelberg,
however, following Unger, has preferred -to suppose that Lamiuis is really
the representative of Amenemhat HI, owing to the similarity ol' his name to
the praenomen of that king {see above, p. 327). Ammeres and Ammenemes,
his successors, therefore must, if Spiegelberg's view be accepted, both =
Amenendiat IV, since ■fSkemiophrisrf (read Skenophris), the third from Lamaris,
is evidently the queen Sebekneferu-Ra (pronounced * Skenofrcri^). It seems,
however, that although Lamaris = Ne-maat-Ra (Amenemhat III), it is un-
necessary to suppose that Senusret III is unrepresented in the Manethonian
list or that Ammeres as well as Ammenemes = Amenemhat IV. A way out
of the difficulty is shewn us by the variant form of the name Lamaris which
is also given us, namely Lachares. Now the praenomen of Senusret III is
Kha-KaiL-Rd (*Khakari^), and Prof. Petrie has pointed out- that XaxapV'i is
probably a corruption of this, the mistake of X, for -^^ being easy. Since the
Manethonian list of the kings exactly tallies with that of the monuments on
the supposition that Lachares = Senusret III, w^e may agree that Prof. Petrie
-'" Mendes is a contused iuterfiolatiou like of this name is the later king Ncsi-ba-nch-dad
that of the name of the pliamoh Shcshonk (pron. *Nsvindidi'\) of the Tanite XXIst
(Shisliak of the XXIInd Dynasty) into the list Dynasty.
of Xllth Dynasty kings as 'Sesongosis,' '-• On the probable influence of the Hero-
instead of the true name Sesostris (Senusret 1). dotean authority on later writers see J. U.S.
iStnibo's name for the king, Mcdndca or xxiv. ' Nitokris-Khodopis.'
hnaiides, is the .same : he calls Memnon '^- Hist. Eg. i. p. 178.
(Amenhctep III) also Smandcs. The original
330 H. R. HALL
is li^^lit, iiiul that Mauetho wrote the name of Seimsrct 111 Xa^^^ap?;? oi-
XaKapr)<;. Why then is he also called Aafxap^; or Aa^api<;, which is the
iKune of Amencnihat Til, and given the building of the Labyrinth, which
was Amenendiat's work ? The solution is tliat Manctho's original list gave
after Sesostris II {Senusrct II) : — Khakhares [Klui-lcan-Rd Senusret III),
Laniaris (Ne-maaf-Rd), o<? top ev Wpcevotrr) \a^vpiv6ov kavrw r(i(f>ou
KareaKevaaev, who was also called Ainnieres {Aincnoahat III), followed by
Ammenemes (Amcncmhat IV) and Skenophris {Sehek-nefcrii-rd). The
double name of the king Avho built the Labyrinth confused the co{)yists,
and when the barbarous-sounding Xa)(^ap7]<i had become corrupted or ((juite
possibly) emended into Aa-)(apr)(;, it was an obvious way out of the difficulty
to suppose that Aa^^apr?? was the same person as Adfiapc^, the builder of the
Labyrinth, Ammeres being a separate king. Thus Seuusiet III ap{)eared
to be the builder of the Labyrinth according to Manetho. We see, however,
that in reality Manetho knew perfectly well that Amenemhat III was the
builder of it, and mentioned both his praenomen (in a more accurate form
thnn that current in his day) and his nomen. The latter he may very well
have given originally as ' Ammenemes, called also Merres, Marros ' (or some such
form); this the later copyists combined and compressed into Ammcrcs. The
influence of a popular etymology, based on the name Aa/^apt? or Ad/jiapfi,
in definitely fixing the name ' Labyrinth ' on the temple at Hawara, has
already been noticed. May the form Aa/Sapt? be itself a result of the
conferring of the name Labyrinth on the temple of Lamaris ?
Strabo describes the position of the building very accurately ; in his and
Pliny's time its ruins appear to have been still remarkable, though the latter
notices its increasing destruction by the ravages of the surrounding people,
who found in it the usual convenient quarry of ready cut and polished stone
which every Egyptian temple has been to the later inhabitants of its vicinity.--^
He also notes that ' one person, and one only, has made some slight repairs
to the Labyrinth ; this was Chaeremon, an eunuch of King Necthebis, who>
lived five hundred years before the time of Alexander the Great.' The only
-^"gypt'i''^ii kings with a name resembling ' Necthebis ' are Nekht-her-hebet
and Nekhtnebf of the XXXth Dynasty, the last native rulers of Egypt, wht>
lived only half-a-century before Alexander. The mention, however, of
Alexander in connexion with ' Necthebis' makes it very probable that there
has been some confusion as far as the date is concerned, and that slight
repairs to the Labyrinth were really attempted by some Asiatic Greek
chamberlain of Nekht-her-hebet's (Necthebis = *NeJcht-hehe), Avho as a Greek
would feel the same interest in the world-renowned Egyptian Labyrinth
as his fellow-countrymen. In Herodotus's time the vaults had been used to
bury the sacred crocodiles in.
Both Pliny and Strabo remark the wonderful polished stonework of the
place, and the former notices a thing which surprised him, namely that at the
'■^3 The neighbouring pyramid of Usertsen II at lllahun was raided for stone as early as the
time of Ramses II.
TlIK TWO LABYRINTHS. 331
criMaiicc it w;is constructed of Parian marble, while the rest was of syenite.
This ' Parian marble ' is interesting. It was of course not really Parian
marble, but evidently some kind of local crystalline marble or quartz-veined
limestone; Lepsius, during his investigation, discovered what are undoubtedly
remaiiis of the actual marble mentioned by Pliny, in the ' grossen Saiilen-
tronimeln unddie miichtigen Architrav- oder Mauerstiicke . . . aus einem sehr
harten marmorartigen Kalkstein, der zuweilen Quarzadern hat iind offers
ziemlich grau wird, im Ganzen aber von schiiner weissen Qualitiit ist (das
marmor Pariunr dcs Plinius).' This use of fine and bright white stone seems
characteristic of this particular period of Egyptian history : shining white
(puutzite was much used then, as for instance by the same king Amenemhat III
for his twin colossi on the ' pyramids ' of Biahmu, which are described by
Herodotus (ii. 149). It may well be that this beautiful material was also
used in the construction of the Labyrinth. Pliny notes that all the Labyrinths
of the ancient world, of Lemnos and of Italy, as well as of Crete and Egypt,
were covered with arched roofs of polished stone. It is easily comprehensible
that to those Avho first compared their mazes of corridors, courts, and stair-
ways, and had seen the shining white limestone portals and walls of the one
and seen or heard traditions of the glittering gypsum floors, walls, and pillars
of the other,-* the temple of Hawara and the Knossian Labyrinth may have
seemed by no means unlike. There is no need then to seek for any far-
fetched Egyptian derivations for the word ' Labyrinth.' This and the other
labyrinths were so called on account of their real or supposed resemblance to
the original Labyrinth, the ' Place of the Double Axe,' at Knossos.
The actual resemblance must not be pressed : one was a funerary temple,
the other, though it may have partaken to some extent of the character of a
temple of the God of the Double Axe, was primarily a royal palace,-^ and no
doubt there was a radical difference of plan and purpose between them ; but
the superficial resemblance, the resemblance of the materials and general
appearance of both, was enough to make the Greeks give the one the name
of the other.
This resemblance of outward appearance is extremely interesting, in
view of the probable nearly contemporary date of the two buildings. The
Egyptian Labyrinth may have been older, but we do not know that it was
so very much older than the Greek one, in which have been found Egyptian
-■' I am as-suiniu*; that uww.h of tlie plaster Ter^prjKe /u*'xp' '^<»" 'f«*' Vh^^ ^'ow, i- 61), but
coating of the stiiccouil j,'\ I'S"'" walls which wcie tlie tradition of its characteristics had evidently
uncovered had disappeared in antiquity as now. survived and, since the site was always kept
But not all the gypsum blocks were covered up clear of later buildings {B.S.A. x. p. 51), bits
with stucco, apparently. Many of the fine of the ]ialace may have Iteeu seen from time
filling-slabs cannot have been, nor can most of to time. Diodorus's statement is a curious
the pillars ; while the gypsum pavements were reversal of the actual facts. Now it is the
certainly never plastered. It is tiuc that Egyptian labyrinth which has totally disap-
Diodorus speaks of the Cretan labyrinth having peared, while the Cretan one has been discovered
wholly disappeared (aW h nev KuraT^v Kp/jTi?" and proves to be comparatively well preserved.
ri((>av[(re-n rtxiws, tUf ivvdarov rtvhs koto- '^^ The Minoan King may also have been high-
aKa.\f/avros (Xrt rov xpo>"^v roipyov Kv^rivanifov priest of the Pelasgian Zeus of the Double Axe.
o hi Kur' MyvitTov aKfpaiov t^v oAtji' »coTO(T»(*«;r)«'
332 H. n. HALL
relics which ore not more than a couple of" centuries later than the time of
Amenemhat III. We may not without reason compare the Egyptian use
of the white ' Marmor Parinni ' and quartzite in iiis reign with the nearly
contemporary use of white selenite (crystalline gypsum) by the Minoans.
■Gypsum itself occurs in Egypt on a Xllth Dynasty site : I found several
fragments, which looked as if they had been worked, last year close to the
southern pyramid of Dashur. They possibly came from its temple. And
in the excavation of the funerary temple of Mentuhetep III, of the XI th
Dynasty, last year, were found two fragments of actual thin facing-slabs of
polished white crystalline marble, of a kind which Mr. Somers Clarke informs
me is found near the Thebaid ; these I believe to be, from the position in
which they were found, parts of the Xlth Dynasty fabric, and not of latei-
ilate. In them we have a precise parallel to the gypsum facing-slabs of
Knossos.
This contemporary use of shining white stone in architecture in Crete
and Egypt seems to me to be more than a mere coincidence, and to point to
a connexion in this matter as in others. "The idea probably came to Crete
from Xllth Dynasty Egypt : the Egyptian instances are, if anything,
earlier, not later, than the Cret;in ; the fashion is not seen in any later
period in Egypt, so far as is known, so that Crete probably did not give it to
Egypt.
This resemblance makes it conceivable that other apparent similarities
between details of Minoan architecture and that of Egypt under the Middle
Kingdom are more than mere coincidences. The finest stonework, as
regards blocks of white limestone for walls, in Egypt is that of the Middle
Kingdom. The newly-discovered facing walls (Fig. 1) of the Northern Court
THE TWO LABYRINTHS. 33;>
of tlic Tenij)k; of Morituhetep III at Deir el-Bahari, already meutioned, are
tlie chief specimens of this splendid Middle Kmpii-e stonework in Egypt.
The somewhat later remains of masonry at Dashur are another instance of
this work. The masonry of the XVIIlth Dynasty in the Great Temple
at Deir ol-Bahari, which has hitherto been considered good, is quite poor
in comparison with that of the Mentuhetep temple. Otlun" fine limestone
walls in Egypt are so rare, owing to the depredations of later stone-hunters,
who have used ancient limestone buildings as (juarries from the days of
Ramses II. to those of Abbas II., that the great Temple of Deir el-Bahari
must be taken as the chief specimen of limestone masonry later than the
Middle Kingdom. The XlXth Dynasty work at Abydos is good, but the
blocks are small and irregularly fitted, as in the XVIIlth Dynasty Deir el-
Bahari temple. It is the size, regular laying, and fine jointing of the Middle
Kingdom blocks that are so remarkable. When the Xlth Dynasty walls at
Deir el-Bahari were found, those who had seen all three were immediately
struck with the outward resemblance of the first not only to the Dashur
walls, but also to the best masonry at Knossos, especially that of the North
Gate. When we remember that they are nearly contemporary, the similarity
of the sizing and spacing of the blocks in the Egyptian and Cretan masonry
in question becomes suggestive. Of course the Egyptian masonry of the
Mentuhetep temple of Dashur, and probably of the Hawaia Labyrinth also,
is better than that of Knossos, but the resemblance remains, especially when
we take into consideration another fact : the collocation in both cases of
square pillars with the fine masonry. This third resemblance may be purely
accidental, but it is interesting when taken in connexion witii the above.
Very characteristic of Minoan architecture is the use of the simple square
pillar. We see it in the Portico (Fig. 2) '^^ of the North Gate at Knossos,
the resemblance of whose walls to the stonework of the Egyptian Middle
Kingdom we have already noticed ; in the Northern Building at Knossos,^^
which had two very perfect pillars of this type in one room (PI. XIV. 2);.
and in the pi liar- rooms of Phylakopi/^^Zakro,^^ and Palaikastro.^^ References
to other examples at Knossos and Phylakopi are given in Phylakojn, p. 261,
note 1. 'All the Cnossian pillar-rooms,' sa3's Dr. Mackenzie {loc. cit.), ' belong
in construction to the first great period of the palace; and the occurrence
of such pillars on other Cretan sites goes to show that by this time they had
become a regular fashion based probably on a long previous history. The
cumulative evidence from Crete is sufficient warrant for assigning the
Melian pillar-houses to the same general era and to the same Aegean style
of architecture.' At Phylakopi they belong to the Second City : that is to-
say they were a feature of Aegean architecture in the early Minoan
period, not so very long after the time of the Xllth Dynasty.
Now square pillars were probably a feature of Egyptian architecture
-" L'.S.A. viii. Fig. 3. "'■> B.S.A. vii. 131.
'-^ ib. p. 6 ; ix. PI. IV. 4. 3" ib. viii. 316.
'■'8 Phylakopi, Figs, 8. 9.
334
M. ]\. JIALL
I'
^% .
^'^ ' 1
iff! ^Sfejl
THE TWO l.AliYJUNTlLS.
335
ill all a*»-es, but it is noticeable that some of the be^it s|)eciinens we have
are of the peiiod of the Middle Empire. PL XIV. 1 and Fig. 3 shew
pillars of tliis type from the lower colonnade of the Mentuhctep temple
at Deir el-Bahari (which was probably imitated by the builders of the
colonnades of the later Hatshepsu temple in the same place), and the
well-known Temple of the Sphin.x at Giza, which is very probably a work
of the end of the Xllth Dynasty. The resemblance of the JVlentuhctep
pillars in PI. XIV. 1 to those of the Northern House at Knossos (PI. XIV. 2),
may be merely fortuitous, but it is at any rate striking. The construction
Fiu. 3. — TEMvr.E OF ihk Srmxx at G5z.v.
is the same. In several instances at Deir el-Bahari the lowest portion of
a pillar is in one piece with tiie pavement block on which it stands, as in
the Knossian example. The size is also about the same in both cases.
The photograph of the Temple of the Sphinx (Fig. 3) shews the Xllth
Dynasty combination of square pillars with splendid wall-masonry on a grand
scale. This instance is especially interesting, since it seems highly probabh;
that this temple was the work of Anieneinhat III, the king who built the
Egyptian Labyrinth,-*^ and it may well be that the Labyrinth was built
in much the same simple but grandiose style. This is very possible, since
''^ That some considerable work was done at
Giza under tlie Xlltli Dynasty which involved
the destruction of more ancient buildings there
is proved by the fact that fragments of a lintel
and walls bearing the name of Kliafra (whose
statues were found thrown down a well of the
Sphinx Temple) were used in the construction
of the southern pyramid of Lisht. And a
theory has lately been put forward which argues
that the face of the Great Sphinx is a portrait
of Amenemhat IH. This king was extremely
fond of sphinx making, and it is well known
that the strange sphinxes found at Tanis,
which used to be considered to belong to the
33G H. K. HALL
it is noticeable that none of the ancient writers who refer to it seem to speak
of the walls of the Egyptian Labyrinth as decorated with anything much in
the way of inscriptions.^- and this nnnsual absence of inscriptions is one of
the most striking features of the Temple of the Sphinx and of the little
temple of Kasr cs-Sagha, near the northern shore of Lake Moeris, which is
probably of Middle Empire date, and may well be also the work of
Amenemhat III. The resemblance between the two Labyrinths which so
struck the old observers as to induce them to give the name of the original
Labyrinth, the old 'Place of the Double Axe/ to the Egyptian building of
Moeris, may then not have been confined to complexity of plan and to portals
and roofs of shining stone, but have extended to the combination of fine
masonry and square pillars ; the uninscribed masonry, so different from the
richly-hieroglyphed walls of the later Egyptian temples which tliey saw
elsewhere, may also have reminded Greek visitors of the simple and
unadorned stonework of Greece.
At all events it is curious to find that the presumed ancient resemblance
of the Egyptian Xllth Dynasty Labyrinth to that of Minoan Crete (since the
one took its name from the other), is more or less borne out by an actual
superficial resemblance of some of the architecture of the Xlth and Xllth
Egyptian Dynasties (of which we know little more than the examples
to which I have referred above) to characteristic features of the probably
nearly contemporary architecture of Minoan Greece. Superficial resemblances
were no doubt enough to attract the attention of the old Greek visitors
to Egypt, as well as of the modern archaeologist who is not at the same
time an architect ; but the resemblances in question seen", to me very
probably more than superficial. Their actual contemporaneity, which is
known to us but was not known to Herodotus and his contemporaries, seems
to me to be a cogent argument in favour of this view. If an architect
is disposed to dismiss them forthwith as no more than skin-deep, he should
remember this fact, that the early Minoan architects were either actually
contemporaries wiLh or but little posterior to the Egyptian architects of the
Hawara Labyrinth, the Temple of the Sphinx, and the Xlth Dynasty
colonnades and walls at Deir el-Bahari, and suspend his judgment. Diodorus
may well have been near the truth when he said that Daedalus came to
Egypt, admired the Labyrinth, and built one like it for Minos.^^ Just as
Hyksos period, have now been proved by which led him fo insist on an entire absence of
M. Golenishtcliev to be undoubtedly the woik inscriptions from the walls of the temples which
of Amenemhat IIL It is by no means im- he built, as well as to strike out an uncon-
possible that not only the Labyrinth, but also ventional and peculiar line in his sphinxes.
Kasr es-Sagha, the Temple of the Sphinx, ^■^ Few fragments of inscriptions have been
and even the Great Sphinx itself, are all the found, but enough to shew that the Labyrinth
work of this great king. His sphinxes at was not so entirely uninscribed as the Temple
Tanis, his conception of the Labyrinth, as well of the Sphinx. In comparison with the
as his work in connexion with Lake Moeris, Ptolemaic and Roman temples, however, it
shew that he was a man of original mind, and probably seemed simple and unadorned,
it may be that ho had some puritanical ideas of *• Cf. Plin. N.H xxxvi. 75.
his own on matters pertaining to religious art,
THE TWO LABYRINTHS. 337
tlie prehistoric Aegeaiis resembled the early Egyptians in their love of fine
stonework in the small matter of bowls and vases, so may they also have
resembled them in their love of fine stonework in the large matter of building.
And the resemblance which the Greek visitors traced between the two
Labyrinths may not have been so very wide of the mark after all. How far
this resemblance is to be traced to Egyptian influence in Greece remains
(loubtfuh At any rate we know that this influence existed earlier than the
time -of the Xllth Dynasty. How far resemblances of this kind are
to be traced to ' influence ' rather than to the closer connexion of a common
origin of the two civilizations is a point which probably will not be settled
for many years to come. It is now evident that the prehistoric civilization
of Greece had a very close connexion with that of Egypt, and that the
Egyptian archaeologist must have much to say in the discussion of it. If
ancient Egyptian civilization was oriental, that of prehistoric Greece was
oriental also : its religion seems Canaanitish, its language was probably not
Indo-European, its writing is hieroglyphic and resembles Egyptian hieratic
scratched on Babylonian clay tablets, and if its art seems unorientally free
and even beautiful in comparison with that of Egypt, the fact is that it seems
so only to those who do not know that Egyptian art was neither so fettered
nor so ugly as the superstition of the schools would have it. That there is,
notwithstanding, something ' Hellenic ' in Minoan or Mycenaean art is un-
doubted. If we were to suppose that the prehistoric Greek and the
Egyptian civilizations had a common origin back in the darkness of the
Age of Stone, that they were twin cultures of the same Mediterranean stock,
the one having developed, however, amid the diverse isles and changing seas
and skies of the Aegean, the other on the monotonous banks of the Nile, we
can see how the northern culture would naturally shew greater freedom and
variety, often running ott' into mere bizarrerie, but as often exhibiting some-
thing of that spirit which we, knowing it in the renascent Aryanized civiliza-
tion of the later day, call ' Greek.'
H. R. Hall.
H.S. — VOL. XXV.
TSADE AND SAM PI.
In iny contribution on the ' Sematogrfq)hi/ of Greek Payyri ' (J.ff.S.
xxii, 1902) I included the Ptolemaic symbol T or <TN = 900 among those
of whose origin no satisfactory explanation could be offered (p. 188);
although on p. 14«5 I identified the symbol with the later minuscule symbol
'sampi' "TN or 'T^==900, and pointed out the improbability of any asso-
ciation of the latter with either Pi or San-Sigma, whether in forms or
arithmetical values. For the rest, as I said, ' we must wait until we are in
possession of ante-Ptolemaic documents, or of some facts yet to be supplied
by epigraphy/
Tliis paper is the report of a more thorough survey of the field of Greek
and general archaeology on all the questions and problems mvolved in the
explanation of the sign. These are in the best sense trivial, lying at the
crossing of the ways of not a few important theories, to which the foremost
scholars have recently devoted much investigation — the composition and
history of the Greek alphabet, particularly as regards its application for
numeration, the enigmatical Tsade, the mutual relations of the ancient
alphabets, the antiquity of S. Semitic (Arabian), Minaeaa, and Sabaean
inscriptions, and the place of the Phoenician alphabet in the history of
primitive Hellas.^
It has been frequently remarked to me as a commonplace by well-informed
epigiaphists that since the labours of Kirchhoff nothing important has been
done in the Greek alphabetology. It would further be disingenuous on the
part of an English writer having access to the admirable unprejudiced and
balanced epitome of the position of the study in 1892 by Dr. Wm. Larfeld
in Miiller's Handhuch (pp. 494-53G, etc.), were he to publish as original
matter any survey of the subject. There is practically nothing new to
be said.
But although no new evidence is at present forthcoming, so much
ingenious theory has been lavished vipon the fascinating puzzles of the
' Tlic investi'i^ation has been made as part of Head, Dr. Kenyon, and other f^outlenien of the
the work of the departrnent under Prof. Britisli Mu.stuni, Prof. Conway and Mr. Witton
Ernest Gardner at University College, London, (to all of whom tlie tlianks of the writer are
with whom the present writer has liad the ad- due) — so that the rtstam' here ollered is some-
vanta<,'e i>f discussing tlie epigraphio and other thing more than a statement of the writer's
evidence— as also with Mr. G. ¥. Hill, Dr. own findings.
TSADE AND SAMPI. 339
subject, thai ([iiestion-begging terms and forms of expression are insinuating
themselves which may soon become a hindrance in the path of the serious
student. To such, a severe re-statement of the present condition of our
knowledge derived from documents by legitimate processes may be of real
service. By confining myself to the history of ^ and T I hope to render
such a service in reganl to the important questions above alluded to.
It may be at once said that accnrding to the prevalent views the Greek
sign of numeration 7* = 900 would have the following life-history, viz.
that it is the sign which is found on inscriptions and in the earliest hand-
written documents (commonly rounded, sometimes shaped T) and in the
later manuscripts in the form '^, and there called Sampi, its numerical
value being still 900 ; that this early square sign T is the same which
occurs on a few monuments with the sound-value o- or o-cr ; that this is
identical with M, the Semitic Tsade ; that this Semitic letter is the repre-
sentative in Semitic alphabets of the Egyptian ' snake ' = ts '^*=^.
This is all highly desirable, if true, as it satisfies several very
reasonable hypotheses, and proves for this sign a life-history of at least five
thousand years, from the formation of the hieroglyphic alphabet to the
written and printed (classical) Greek of the present day.
Further it would be explained that as a numerical sign it has been in
use from tlie ninth century B.C. ; that having been disused in the final fixing
of the early Greek alphabet, it was taken up again when the alphabet was
applie.d to notation of numerical values, though not restored to its place ;
that thus it has come about that while in the parallel Hebrew system rj
= Tsade = 90, in the Greek T = Tsade = 900, being placed last at the end of
the completed Greek alphabet ending with omega.
Now — how much of this is demonstrable, and how much is purely
hypothetical ?
The results of the present investigation may be summarily given as
follows : —
The occurrence, shape, and numerical value of 1^ = 900 in the papyri are
beyond debate, though the sign is not very common ; still rarer is the square-
form T, yet this also may be accepted as a proved variant of <TS. The early
minuscule jjl has passed without challenge as a direct descendant of T ; and
the slow conversion in mediaeval MSS. into the best-known form '^ is a
fact in palaeography which is not disputed.
But the name Sampi, which first appears in the second half of the
seventeenth century, is a double misnomer. For, as the noted statement of
Herodotus indeed asserts, San is to be associated with Sigma, and not with
Tsade, to which n>, if a sibilant letter-form at all, must be referred ; while
with Pi, in spite of the late accidental similarity, 'T) has nothing at all to
do. The double stroke within the curve does not make its appearance till'
quite late, rarely before the end of the ninth century.
Wliat of the theory that this sign is identical in origin with the
z 2
340 F. W. G. FOAT
alphabetic letter of the same shape T which occurs in indisputable readings
only iu four proper names (two of persons, two of places) found on an
inscription of Asia Minor and a group of coins from one Thracian town, of
the fifth, fourth, and third centuries B.C. ? The theory has been accepted by
some very eminent epigraphists, and is supported by the general opinion of
writers on these subjects. Yet the form of T and the fact that it is a
substitute for a or aa in the words mentioned are indeed the only quite
certain facts which are known about it ; its date is sure enough, but its
exact meaning is less sure, from the circumstance that the certain readings
occur not in ordinary (ilreek words but in names whose origin is in one case
{M.€tTr)/j,^pLa) conjecturally Greek, in one case {' AXiKapvaacrof;) not Greek at
all, while both person-names (OaTaTto? and nawaaat^;) suggest an
' Anatolian ' origin ; and in the Thracian group the letter is used in associa-
tions which suggest the possibility at least of local influence, while there is
evidence of racial intercourse to explain the reappearance over-sea. Its
sound is most probably a sharp sibilant, though it may be partly a dental and
conceivably a mere variant of Tau ; its origin may possibly be local (Thracian),
either as a survival of a barbarian sign (to represent a local sound) or a
modifi^cation of a Greek letter ; the oft-repeated reference to a Phoenician
origin or general Greek use having nothing to support it.
Next, the identification of rn, 'p as a special form of M, the well-attested
sibilant of many very early Greek alphabets, though passing current on the
confident opinion of some authorities, has nothing more to attest it than this
authority. As will presently be shown, there are some facts which stand
ready to corroborate such an identification and make it very satisfactory,
could the direct evidence be first adduced, but the direct evidence is quite
insufficient at the present time. Nothing that we know of the Greek M
points to a form like T, and Semitic correlates ' of similar shape and sound-
value are too late and too far away to be adduced alone.
So important, however, is the possibility that M =T, 'p, that it is quite
worth while to examine the rest of the chain, of which this is the important
link. For if f is M, then it is the surviving descendant of Tsade, the letter
eighteenth in the Hebrew alphabet, whose existing representative in the
Semitic languages is of the well-attested type |-v (the Phoenician form).
That M = 1"^ there is no reasonable doubt, although there is not epigraphic or
other positive proof. But the further assumption, that this [^ of the Semitic
writing is identical with or directly derived from the hieroglyphic ^^, has
had as many vehement opponents, during the modern period of scientific
palaeography, as it has had warm supporters. All that can be said is that
some relation between the Egyptian and the Semitic alphabets is too
evident to be set aside, though the nature of the relation, whether in regard
to the chronology or to the history or to the detailed morphology, cannot yet
be demonstrated.
Such as Ethiojc'c forms.
TSADE AND SAMPI. 341
Very similar is the ret«ult of attempts which liave been made to explain
completely the place of T as a numeral. The date of the adoption of the
Ionian alphabet as a system of notation has been assigned by the latest
authorities {e.g. MuUer's Handhuch) to a time not later than 800 B.C., but the
evidence is not strongly conclusive, and it is possible to make out a very
good case for a much later date {e.g. Kcil, in Hermes 29, for about 500 B.C.).
This increases the obvious difficulty which in any case exists of understanding
how it came about that T, if it was a by-form of Tsade, and if it was
re-adopted, after disuse, for the lacking sign of the notation-system, was not
restored to its place in the alphabet, and why the by-form T was lulopted
rather than the universal M- Direct epigraphic attestation must be
demanded, and that is not adduciblc, sufficient for the complete demonstra-
tion which the case requires. That a sign ^ or T existed as a numeral
from the earliest times of Greek writing, may be taken as likely, and that it
was placed at the end of the Ionic alphabet for purposes of numeration, but
that this is the lost Tsade is by no means to be accepted yet by any student
who wishes to proceed by epigraphic facts.
Indeed it must be admitted, however reluctantly, by every candid
investigator, that the evidence which has been adduced for innumerable
theories is very meagre in quantity, and has been used for many a circulus
in prohando, concerning that enigma of epigraphy, the history of Tsade. As
for the numeral (V\, there is not much evidence for its reference with Tsade at
all, the known types of which it does not markedly suggest in general shape;
while it has not its well-known place in the alphabet, and has not the
numerical value which that letter possesses in the Hebrew alphabet
notation-system, apparently cognate with, or directly borrowed from, the
Greek.
The residuum of proof which is actually forthcoming is shown in detail
in the follov/ing pages. An attempt at a reconstructive conclusion is added
at the end.
We have to examine seriatim the epigraphic or historic evidence for
the following : —
1. For the existence and form of the sign = 900 in earliest papyri,
2. For the existence and epigraphic form of m the sibilant.
3. For the identification of the two foregoing.
4. For the identification of T^ or rn and epigraphic M-
5. For the identification of M and the Phoenician h-.
6. For the reference of all these to ]) the Egyptian Ts.
7. For the attribution of the Greek alphabetic notation to Ionian colonies
in the ninth century.
8. For the explanation that fn the sibilant was selected for the required
sign = 900, with an examination of the Hebrew system, especially in its
dive-rgence at Tsade from the Greek values.
342 F. W. G. FOAT
1). For the identity of <TN with the later ^.
10. For the name Sam pi.
To put it graphically we have to test each link of the hypotheticni
palaeographic chain : —
'^=|^=(Tsadc) M = (sibilant) T= (000) T-rUOO)m = ^.
What dociinientary cv'ulencc cc'ists of the nsn of '\ or T=900 in ihr corUfsi
j)ap!iTi '. What exactly is i/.s s/iojic '.
I liave examined in original or facsimile, or through the tcstinion}' of
printed records, all the available papyri (and ostraka) of the collections in
the British Museum, the Louvre, the Ashmolean, and the IJodleian ; the
Viennese Kainer colK'ction, the Hoidclbt'rg collection; the Flinders Petrie,
Oxyrhynchus, Tebtunis, Fayum, and other papyri ; besides smaller groups of
special interest.
Ti\e result, nunierically, is not large, as regards T*. It amounts to a
total of ///■/// undoubted •' readings, in which the sipiare form T makes oidy
twelve per cent. Less than ten are of Roman ])eriod, the majority Ptolemaic ;
and I have not recorded the Byzantine. As to shape the f(jllowing examples
are typical :
B.M. Pap. XV. (frag. 8), 1. 2. Second century U.c.
woTe ewai 7\a'Voi] = \ tal., 978 dr., 2 ob. (Kenyon).
B.I\L Pap. XV. (frag. 8). Second century u.c.
acT(o(viov) ava p . . . kO BT '^^^ ^'^^
The B? = 2000 (Ken.).
There is a tendency strongly marked towards sharpening of the curve,
making in many cases an apex, of the type ^f*.
Wilcken quotes a form /p but probably the initial tick is a ligature.
Concerning tlie sciuare-form T, it is more difficult to say what is typical.
It is perhaps better to give my list as complete as possible. The Jicvenuc
Papynts in the Bodleian collection has the symbol of this shape (col. 71).
Mr. E. W. B. Nicholson, Bodley's Librarian, kindly sends me tliis exact copy :
Bev. Paj). Col. 71..
» A miniber of miitilateil readings I have set aside as doubtful <'ven tliough tho eoiito.\t
mak«' tlie meaning clear.
T8ADE AND SAISIPT. 343
There is in llio papyrus no doubt of tlie intention of tlie scribe to make
a ' S(|uan^ ' top, but the same elaborate boldness of the hand as is to be seen in
the Pap. I'ar. 54 makes one still liositate to decide that this is the simpler
normal form as compared with 'p.
I venture to select, as perhaps typical of this stpiare form, the instances
which follow, which I have taken from the Paris Papyrus 54, but I offer
them with the remark that the liand inclines to be ornamental, adorning
letters with little cross-strokes, which may be partly the explanation of the
very bold liook-like addition to the cross-bar. Still, as Dr. Kenyon observes,
when all allowance has been made, it is an undoubtedly good instance :
Pap. Par. 54 redo. Atlas of Notices et Extraits, vol. xviii,
A papyrus from the batch from Memphis concerning the twins, middle
second century ]!.C'.
In col. 2 : —
tr ^- /t/aTTxa B h*^ od.
Repeated in a copy which makes part of col. 8 : —
Kol jSaTTTa B h C^ ed.
Fanciful ornaments : —
% ^>^
Another : —
\otaK K€ ' A/uiova/j,oi iyfiayrja
Bh';;:)|.ed.
Wilcken, on an occurrence of T or j in Ashmoleau pap. B. 27, says it
is not Tie = 315 as edd., but Tte = 915,
Pap. Par. 55, 1, 88, apparently mid. second century B.C. Witkowski
reads \-T^, while earlier ed. i-eads \Ti'.
(Prodromus grammaticae papyrorum graecarum aetatis Lagidarum, in
the llozpramj Akadetnii Umiejetnosci Ser. ii, Tom. xi. Cracow 1898.)
Wessely in the papyri he was reviewing in 1883 mentions /|\ = 900 as
occurring once.
The sign also occurs in the Naukratis fragments, as in Inscrr.from
Naiilratis, E. A. Gardner 188G, Plate XXXII. No. 27 where /^ occurs
and XXXIV. No. 404 which is an equally bold j 1 ; cp. also No. 647. But
these axe both quite isolated signs, so that either of
or result from a mutilated combination of
Nothing of any positive value as evidence can be found in these excellent
facsimiles.
This small list of half a dozen is quite sufficient to establish the existence'
of T as a square-topped form, commencing with T ; but whether this is the
normal or 'p it is impossible to decide. T may just as well be an ornamented
them may be inverted,
several signs or letters.
344 F. W. G. FOAT
form of T, as T a rounding of T, though Blass docitles for tlie latter (MuUer's
Handh. i. p. 307, 1892). Rounding is admitted by the normal process ou
papyrus (cp. < with ^ (drachmae) 7: with !^ and % (talent) = with ^
(2 obols)). But then in this case there was tlie need to distinguish by a
clear form a special symbol. The origin of T may be, as Dr. Kenyon in an
ohiter dictum has suggested, an arbitrary development from ^ = 90, and there
is nothing against the round form as the original. In point of date there
seems to be nothing in favour of either : they ni ay be said to appear side by
side throughout the papyri ; and a remark of Galen's (xvii. i. 525) seems to say
that the two forms were regarded as alternative in his day (second century
A.D.) : 6 Tov ir 'ypdfi^aro'i '^apaKrrjp e)((i>v opdiav fiiaqv 'ypafi^rjv, ct)? evioL
ypu(f)ov<Tc TOV Twv evaKoaiwv yapaKTr]pa. But of course, he may be thinking
of the cursive tt, which was round.
I conclude that both T and T* arc wcll-estahlished forms,'^ contemiwrary in
the whole pa2)yrus period, and alternative in use ; the question of the normal
being still in abeyance.
What occmrcnces of T the eingraphie sibilant and its shape?
The Halicarnassian inscr. Brit. Mus. No. 886 ^ (LG.A. 500) (assigned
doubtfully to the middle of the fifth century B.C.) has the words ' AXi-
Kapva'V[eo3]v, 'OaTaTto?, n[a]i'uaTi09. Of these three, the lacuna after
the T makes a little more doubtful the reading of the first both as regards
the form of the letter (which is mutilated) and as regards its exact value ;
the second is supported by no other evidence ; and the third depends upon
a comparison with a Tlavva't'ti'i as a common enough name (see a somewhat
later Halicarnassian inscr. B.C.H. 4, 205 ff., 525 ff.). It must, even with
reluctance, be admitted that there is here no epigraphic evidence which can
be relied upon to prove a value for T.
The shape is exactly T -shape, of the same size as other letters, and
plainly distinguishable from forms of T (Tau) which stand around it.
OATATIG^ is a particularly good reading as regards clearness of
inscription.
The next word, the fourth on our list and the first oidinary Greek word
in which the presence of T is even alleged, occurs in an inscription of Teos,
on the Ionian mainland. It runs as follows : hi'^ono r) X^yi^ocro r) Xrjlara^ viro-
Uxoiro elhdi^ iK yi)^ THCTHIHS : H///A A ATHC : 4)EP0NT At : H///a«oj;
^ovXevoi irepl T • • {I.G.A. 497 B, 22, 23). For epigraphic purposes at
least, this is but slender support to T. Tiie editor of the I.G.A. (Roehl)
* For this sign with rtno<Acr mca'u'njr, note 'P Grenfell, Hunt, ami Siuyly, Tehtunis Papp.,
occurring on a group oC four or five ostraka all I'l. I., London 1902, note in index 'p — -"-(rixeij) :
temp. Domitian whiuli "VVilcken (Ontrnka i. (Pap. 5. 153).
p. 96) thinks proceeded from one bureau. He ^ The stone stands at present near the
notes that it occurs with pro[)er names and may entrance to the Reading I'oom.
mean ni(»f(is) a name which is common. Again
TSADE AND SAMPI. 345
prints AAATH^ ill fainter type, and certainly one editor gives in Ids
facsimile a bold T where some would read the T.
The suggestion that we should read Sa\aTrj(; = 3a\aaar}<; belongs
rather to the class of clever emendational conjectures — such as have so often
been justified at a later time. If -!^oXaT>;<? is here to be read, it is important
to note that there is another" occurrence of the word in the inscription
(A and B together, 40 lines) and there we have K AT| AOAAAIC AN.
Whether this is to be taken to su[)port the reading ^a\aa-ar)(;, or as evidence
against it, will depend upon one's point of view, and on that alone. It is
worthy of remark that no other word containing ZZ or its equivalent occurs
in the inscription. The date is put by Prof. Larfeld as ? 476 B.C.
Besides these two fifth century inscrr. showing T there are the
Mesambrian coins (from Mesambria, a Megarian colony on the Pontic) of the
latter half of the fifth and the fourth century B.C. These read
META,
ME^A,
^^ A(MBPIANaN).
The dialect of the place is Doric, but Ionic influence might reasonably
be postulated ; as also might intercourse between this Thracian colony and
the Carian Halicarnassus where the above-mentioned inscriptions showing
(?) T are found.
As these Mesambrian coins furnish the principal part of the evidence, it
is necessary to examine them in detail. I have seen ten or twelve coins at
the British Museum (and had the advantage of discussing them with
Dr. Head and other gentlemen in the department) which exhibit the reading
META or (between the spokes of a wheel)
in the clearest possible form. These coins are of the fifth, fourth, and third
centuries B.C. — the proportion of uses of Z or C instead of the older T
increasing with time, until only Z (or C) is used on imperial coins.
The Berlin catalogue exhibits (Bcschrcibung dcr Antilxn Mnnzen, Bd. I.)
about fifteen coins showing META on most of them in linear order, on three
or four in wheel-arrangement.
There is no attempt to date, but a facsimile of a wheel-META is of
exactly the same type as a B.M. coin, dated of the fourth century B.C. It is
noteworthy that side by side with this coin the i)6'scA?-ciV?m^ classifies a reading
" There is a third in Roehl's readivcj of 1. 15, but tlie letters are not legible in the inscr.
34 G F. W. G. FOAT
MEZA,so tlmt it is likely tliat tlie two forms MEZA and META can be
found side hy side in tlie whole period.
The shapes incline to m , three etpial perpendiculars witii cross-bar; on
the line and of equal altitude with f)ther letters.
Thus it appears that there are extant at least twcntij-Jlvc (ivigindl ocucr-
rcnci'S in inscription or iinprcssion of T or m, contemporaneous within the
tirnits 600-200 B.C., h^it rcjnrscntinff imli/ two small areas of j^rovoiance,
one in Thrace and one in Caria. Its sound-value is cither cr, or a local
substitute for a (perhaps a dental), or crcr. It occurs in names oulu, and
one of these a quite foreign word/ if not both.
The question of the exact sound-value nuist be reganled as undecided,
but the following positions on both sides may be accepted :
For the value a: (1) MEZA and META are ecpiivalent on the group
of coins ([uoted, (2) the o-o--interpretation of the Halicarnassian group is
poorly attested as compared with the MEZA-group, by about 4 instances
to 25.
For the value acr : (1) fxea- alternates witli fxeaa- (e.f/. in the adjective
fiiao^), so that MB'VA(fx^pia) may be a variant = Meo-o-a^ySp/a, (2) 'WiKap-
vaT{eco)v, 'AXiKapvaaaecov 'OaTaTio?, YiavvdT co<; are used in the same
inscription : (3) these occur in separate words, which restores the balance
as against META. where only this one name can be adduced.
For the valuer: (1) Tan is a common Greek variant of Sigma. (2)
There is nothing to deny the interpretations MeTa/x/Spia,^ Oaraxio?, etc.
(3j The suggested reading [•^]aXa[T]i]<; — S aXaaarjt; whose epigraphic
slightness we have seen above, involves also a philoloyical question. Why
should not [-^jaA-aT?;? be \^^a\arr]<i ? For the occurrence of t in Doric
of the same region note ^ApTa/xiTio<i Ahrens iJial. 2553. The point
has been submitted to Prof. Conway, who kindly writes an opinion Avhich
favouis Mr. Witton's view of a dental value for T ; and with this opinion
Prof. E. A. Gardnei' concurs ; so that there is no improbability in this alternative
explanation.
The various interpretations which give intermediate values such as
ts have been discussed elsewhere, but there is a suggestion which woukl
reconcile two minor facts which seems not yet to have been made. On
the one hand, there is the fact that Byzantium, neighbour of Mesambria.
used a (Corinthian ?) form ^ ox P as the first letter (on coins) of the name ;
and on the other, this curious T on the Mesambrian coins ; and it is an
obvious inference that if Byzantium used something looking like a Pi for
the corresponding voiced labial Beta, Mesambria may have had something
looking like a Tau for a sound which, as many theories agree in maintain-
ing, was probably partly made of, or was similar to, a dental sound. And
local modification of sound-values,'-^ represented in a modified letter form,
is not unknown to the numismatist. Prof. Gardner, however, thinks the
^ Prof. Percy Gardner argues for Me.seinl Ilia as * So Pape, Jf^ortcrbticli, s.i-. Mf(rriix0pia.
= Midday. '■• Tliis ^p or p- may lie (Mr. Hill suj^'gcsts)
TSADE AND SAMPI. :U7
analogy weakened by tlio fact that 15yzaiitiiini was ]\le<^arian and so vp is
more natuially referable to (.^oriutbian lT.
What is the bistory of Meseinbria/" on tlu^ Pontine coast of Thrace, and
on the slopes of the Haenuis M., ruid in ))aiticular of its name? Strabo
says (vii. .'U!)) that it was a colony of the Megarians, and that it was
formerly called Meve/Spia (olou MeW vroX-t?) ; tliat the termination -bria
is in the Thracian tongue ' a town,' in support of wiiicb he cites the nantes
SrjXv^pia, IloXTVo^pia. We need not notice his dcMivation from MeVa
nor that of Stephanus of Byzantium d-rro MeXaov, but the statement of the
latter (whose native home by the way was not ten Roman miles from
Mesembria) is interesting, viz. that the earlier MeXcrrj/x^pi'a . . . Sia tu
eix^oivorepov XeycTai Meai]fi^pia, because it goes along with the statement
of Strabo to show that there was always something uncertain about the
j)ronunciation of the third element in the word (later Z and T); and
that something suggested to a Greek / or ii as part of the sound ; and
this is j)erhaps coming as near as local (mis ?-) pronunciation would
permit to tbe native sound. These li(piids are botb dental, and so also is
t which in shape T suggests.^^ Melsambria, Mensambria, Metsambria,
Menambria, Mesambria are all nearer togetber in daily pronunciation tban
the eye will easily credit, and just such varieties of transliteration of native
sound have always been given by geographers, in despair of deciding
between the unconscious addition and ])eculiarities of dialects and indi-
viduals (cp. the historic dispute Pekin v. Peking).
This, it may be replied, would certainly lead us to a local explanation
of T, were it not for the Halicarnassian insciiption witb its 3 (or 4)
occurrences of T. What had the two places in common, whicli migbt
suggest a transference of the sign by ordinary intercourse? The answer
is supplied by Strabo {loc. cit.) in tbe remark that Apollonia, just across
tbe bay, was a colony of Miletus {MiXrja-icoi/ airoiKo^) ; as was also another
town in the immediate neighbourhood, Odessus^- (mod. Varna); and tbat
tbe city of Istrus farther up tbe same coast was ]\1tX7;cr/<wi/ /cr/cr/ia. Even
if direct intercourse cannot be postulated between the barbour of
iui actual modification of ir to reineseiit the Gainnia-value at all, that is it comes to be a
surd labial corresponding to Bj just as in new letter as in BACIAEP'C \fia.<Ti\fvs) on
Indian coins of Goiido]>liares we get coins of Kadphises II.
rONAOCpEPPOY Herodotus Vliffafjifipir, (iv. 93); and see (vii.
^NAOcBEPPO 108) another town on the Aegean coast of
Thrace.
" I'apLi {Ha ltd a (irk rl>. K.r.) actuall}' sajs:
which seems etjually to inijily a palatalized auf Miin^en MeTaftflpiotoi, but 1 think this is a
tbrm of Gamma (passing through the inter- misreading of META for META.
mediate consonaut-y into the pure vocalic Y '- «V r^ fifTa^i/ Si SiaaT-nnan ry aith KaKKa-
sound, as in gestern = yesterday) ; and here ti5oj els 'AiroWwciW hiC<^i>ri re ianv, ^j kot«-
too the modified Gan)ma >p }>assing into Y itoStj itoXv nepos vjrh aeiafiHv, Ka\ Kpowu'i koX
conies at last to taltc the place of a Upsiloi;, ^Olrjaa&s, Mi\riaiuv &voikos, kki tiavXoxos,
even in situations whertr there was never a Meirrififiptavaii' irohixfiov. — Strait, vii. 31i».
YNAOct)EPPOY
348 F. W. G. FOAT
Mesembria itself and Miletus, in any case people in towns on the same coast
and line of trade were going and coming. The support which the Hali-
carnassian inscription may have given to a theory of Phoenician or other
Hemitic origin for T rests on nothing now, not even the desperate challenge
of a tenable alternative. Here we have one, far stronger than the Tsade
theories which have been advanced (examined on p. 351 et sqq.).
In sum, the letter T appears on the coins of a Thracian toion, wJiich was
in close association with neighbouring colonics of Mildus, in ivhose neighbour-
hood are found the only other occurrences of the letter. The evidence is somewhat
in favour of an explanation of local Thracian origin and of transference by
intercourse to Caria (and perhaps to the ecpially neighbouring Lydian
Teos).
What reasons erist for the identification of' the two foregoing forms ?
The identification of the episemon T, T with the epigraphic sibilant (?)
T now derives its chief support from the relation which existed between the
districts of Miletus and of Mesembria, co-operating as it does with the
arguments which have fixed on Miletus as the place where the Greek
numeration-alphabet was invented, and so (piesumably though not
demonstrably) the birth-place of T, 900. See Kirchhotf, Studicn zur
Geschichte des Griechischen Alphabets. It is true that the Halicarnassian
inscription is Doric, but Ionic influences have been shown to be at
work.
The Achaean abecediirium from Metapontum, cited by Kirchhofif, has,
if the tables in the Handbnch are correct, at the end of the row a sign -|- ;
while no M ( = sibilant) appears. The Miletus numeral alphabet corresponds
in arrangement with this, though the final sign is, according to the tables,
possibly shaped T. But on examination Prof. E. A. Gardner observes that
the tables are completed by Larfeld (and others) simply in deference to the
theory, and that they conse(|uently have no weight at all as evidence. We
have here an instance of the eirculus in investigando which has filled the
handbooks with not a little useless reckauffi.
As, therefore, the Miletus numeration-alphabet does not, as it stands,
conclude with T, we can only say that it is possible that the missing symbol
was T and that possibly it ivas the same as' the letter T nf the Halicarnassian
inscription.
What epigraphic or other evidence exists for the identification of rn
with M (Tsade) ?
T the sibilant of the Halicarnassian (and ? Tean) inscription and of
the Mesambrian coins was welcomed by Clermont-Ganneau and other
authorities as a new link in the slender chain of epigraphic facts concerning
TSADE AND SAMPI. 349
Tsaile. This lead lias been generally followed by the learned world ^■' so
that T would be a variant of M, the presumptive Tsade of the Greek
alphabet.
But a glance at the two forms is sufficient to ensure the postpone-
ment at least of any decision on the part of the trained epigraphist.
Nothing that experience brings to mind suggests such a conversion as
this presupposes. It involves a type T becoming, or being cognate
with V; and though stranger things have been proved, yet it is only because
they have been proved that they are accepted. Epigraphic probability is
against it : there is no prima facie case. Moreover the first obvious con-
sideration is unhelpful, viz. that if M and T are derived from or even
cognate with |-v, then there must be some relation demonstrable between
the forms. Now, f^ may conceivably have come from |^, though not very
obviously ; but that a symmetrical form like T should come from such an
asymmetrical form as l-v is universally (in all its variations) is hard to
believe on the mere evidence of the forms.
What is wanted is full documentary evidence by which M can be
traced in a number of intermediate steps to some [ancestor of T. This is
not forthcoming. The best thing which can be produced is an analogous
instance of the development of the presumptive original j'v. This comes
from the Sabaean and other monuments of Southern Arabia.^^
Here we have
'^ rb r^
These are probably of the sixth century B.C. or later, and in the
Ethiopic Tsadai of the fourth century of our era we have
^»-t O A
We should thus get, as a suggestion, a possible genealogical relation :
(Tsnde) (? Hierogl. ^ [lior. '_/)
North Semitic South Semitic
Syriac |-y, \A" )^ (?)
Greek Greek S. Arabian a-ul FJhiopic
^ T ;!> rf.
But it is purely hypothetical at present.
'^ See Larfeld, Griech. Epigr. 1901 in Mnller's genealogy, viz. :
Handhnch i. pp. 505, 510 sqq. and Kirchhoff, ^ ka pp ^-^ <->. / — ^
St.udicnzur Geschichtcycs Gr. Alph. Giitersloh, • ' ' I ' '-^ /(-^
1887, pp. 168 sqq. See also Bergk, Griech. ^* Cp. for the rounding perhaps p of the
Littcraturgesch. i. 189» for definite reasons Chaldean Alphabet. Se; D. H. Miiller, Epi-
'igainst M=T. I. Tuylor, The Alphabet i. graphische Dcnkmiiler arts Arahien ; and the
1'. 93, etc., • unhesitatingly abides by this Tables of Semitic Alphabets.
350 F. W. G. FOAT
Winckler and others following him endeavoured a few years ago to
prove great antiquity for the 8. Arabian and in particular the Minaean
inscriptions. Had this been established it would have been important in
the M=T or Tsade-question, because it would have given us a form of
sibilant as old as the Mesa-stone \-^, and presenting the type r^ which does
show similarity epigraphically admissible to the T sibilant.
The vigorous attack made on Winckler's theories ^^ by the experts of
the Egyptian and Assyrian department of the British Museum ^'^ have
conclusively disproved ^^ the tempting assumptions therein made. It is
clear that nothing can be maintained concerning a S. Arabian empire under
Minaean kings, nor can the existing inscriptions be held to be older than
the reign of Cambyses ; they are perhaps of the fourth century B.C.
Had Winckler's contention for a very ancient date of the S. Arabian
Sabaean and Minaean inscriptions been maintained, these similarities would
have had more significance. It would not have been impossible then to
regard i) as a possible ancestor of T, as it is now. We can only say that
if intermediate Hods could be found, the S. Semitic ^ mvjht -prove to he a
cognate ofT and so identify it through Tsade with m }^
What is the established lolace and value of M, the old Greek sibilant, and its
relation tvith a Greek numeration system. ?
It is an important fact that a letter (not Rho) is found in primitive
Greek alphabets, in the eighteenth place, following Pi, where Rho now
stands.
The abecedarium found at Formello, perhaps of the sixth century B.C.,
contains the following :
(values) ...0 7rM<^pa-T
which corresponds, save for the presence of M, with the modern Latin order
OPQRST, and omitting M and S with the Greek order oirpa-T.
Next, the abecedarium from Veii reads
.. I K L y^/^ ffl o P M ? P ^ T
— L K \ fl V f OTrMC^pCTT....
!■' Followed by Dr. Glaser, and stated by '^ They have not been answered, though
Trof. .Sayce : Tke Higher Criticism and the Dr. Winckler dealt again with the matter in
Monuments, O.xford, 1893. the Hihbrrt Journal in 1904.
'* Sec articles by Mr. R. C. Thompson, and ^^ In the Samaritan and Rabbiniq alphabets
Mr. H. R. Hall in Nattire, Scj.t. 25, 1902, and the form of capital ^ is /Ti (J [)=90. This
June 26, 1902 respectively. Epitome of the is of course very remote from ancient Greek
results by Dr. Budge iu.his Iliat. of Egypt, letter-forms ; but it shows once more a striking
vol. vi. Intro. analogy for the development of l'^.
TSADE AND 8AMPI. 351
and tliose of Metapontum and Corintli (Roberts, i. j). 19) liavo no M in this place
(between tt and Q) but have it between Rho and Tau, in the usual place of
Sigma.
The alphabet of an inscription found at Mantinea (Fougeres, B. IG,
oGD f. n. 1, Taf, 11), quoted in Bursian, Siqrplhd. 87, Larfeld's Art. p. 193) is
as follows :
A C^E.nF OlKA:)fMOo-
r V\ R 1 T V CD v'/ %
But the sign between P and R, Larfeld says {loc. cit.), is 'ssade = ss.'
He adds that \a is the sign already known ^^ as Ssade in the abecedaiium of
Caere.-o
Thus it appears that between Pi and Rho there was originally a place
reserved for a letter which cannot be identified with any form of Sigma, but
which has a sibilant or partly-sibilant value.
Side by side with this fact stands another, that ^ is eighteenth in the
Hebrew alphabet — ^j being the letter corres])ondent to the Mesa inscription
1^ — and there holds the numerical value which the missing M would have
had in the Greek alphabetic notation (a value taken by the next in order,
viz. 9).
The Hebrew records do not ascend higher than the second century B.C.,
while the Greek abecedaria must have an antiquity sufficient to account for
their being unfamiliar to the inventors of tlie Greek system — placed by one
theor}^ as far back as 800 B.C. and by none later than 450 B.C.
Still it is almost on these facts alone that the theory rests that y^, Tsade,
may be assigned a definite place in ' Phoenician '-Semitic alphabets; and that
M is in any case to be associated with the value 900. This is a small enough
basis for a theory which exists chiefly because of the natural antipathy to
leave T =900 unexplained.^^
Is the last too bold an assertion ? It can be defended.
For what other reason has Tsade, as such, ever been associated with the
Greek alphabet numeration ? It cannot be answered that Tsade was the
only missing letter required to complete the parallel with the Hebrew or
'" 'Alls del- Alpliabetreihe von Ciire (vgl. ibid. y. Ill {Q. V&wW, AUilalische Forschunqcn
nifine Giiech. Epigrapliik S. 505) bekannten iii. ' Die Veneter und ihre SchiiftJenkmaler,
Zeichen fiir Ssade.' Leipzig, 1891, p. 186).
-'*' Deecke says (Bursian, Jahrcsb. Supplbd. 21 ^phe oft-quoted saying of Herodotus i. 139
o- o-\ T-> 1- • 1 \7 • i. 1 has been, oddly enough, brought in to sui)i>ort
87 p. 2/): Das pranestinische Y 1st auclv ^„ , , . 1 ... 1 • i
^ A various Tsade theoiies ; whereas it plainly
venetisch, karapaniscli, Sabelliseh — kai>enat- says that San and Sigma are equivalents,
iscli t><3, eine Art s (etwa ss' ? s. etr. atia^scs). and tliis agrees with the facts whicli directly
But this seems rather to be {, cp. the obi associate Sigma with Shin. Why not tlien
Italian inscription in the Necropolis of Estc accept this plainer meaning? San is very
(near Venice): a, e, v, z, h = III i, k, 1, m, improbably Tsade, while it most probably is
n, s — > <, o, !>, s, r, s, t, 11, ip, x- Bursian, Shin.
352 F. W. G. FOAT
other Semitic alphabets. No, for T ( = 900) does not occur in that part of
the numeration alphabet : it comes if at all among tlie supplementary signs
Y 4) X S' n, and it must come, even then, after the last of them, for the
Milesian numeration alphabet could have had it in that place only, and that
only on the assumption of a missing sign. It cannot bo urged that it is
more scientific to discover an older letter in a new form than to have
recourse to the theory of an arbitrary invention ; for the only safe
suggestion concerning c|) X S^ at least is that they are such inventions — and
why not T too ?
It cannot be urged on the ground that T bears a striking resemblance
to T the sibilant ; for X = x, or y^ bears an equal resemblance to the form of
Semitic Tau, for instance. On the other hand, the absence of the sibilant
from the eighteenth place certainly does not suggest its re-appearance after
Omega ; for, prima facie why should the antiquarian knowledge of the
inventors have just sufficed them to recall the sibilant and \ei not have gone
far enough to give it its right place, according to the abecedaria, seeing
especially that it did suffice to give both C^oppa and Waw their own places
(and the Hebrew values) ?
The meagre conclusion is that M is the letter which corresponds to Tsade,
and that it is not yet to he identified with the rare, T.
It may be necessary to reply to the challenge to account fur M and T
as rival forms of the sibilant = Tsade. This is not difficult, if we abide by
the proved facts. M has overwhelming claim to stand as the accepted
candidate for the position. Its areas of provenance are shown even by any
table of Greek letter forms to be twentij times as numerous as tbose of T ;
while in the number of its individual occurrences in Greek inscriptions M
must outnumber T by many hundreds. It is only the difficulty of
accounting for the sibilant T (supposing always that it is a sibilant = trcr
and not a variant of a corresponding dental, and so perhaps a variant of
T = t) which has led to its being seriously brought forward as derived from
Tsade. For myself, I have never seen the need to doubt the well-known
statement of Herodotus that *S'rt?i = Sigma, or to suppose that San is Tsade.
It does not come within the scope of this investigation to consider the very
large question of the inter-relations of Sigma, San, Tsade, and Shin ; but it is
quite obvious that if San = Sigma be left alone as representing Semitic
Shin ; then M is naturally Tsade ; and T is nowhere. It would be a very
great relief from many complications if T had not to be considered, and on
the residuum of actual proof it has no claim at all to consideration side by
side with Z and M, which are, what T is not yet shown to be, Greek letters
in common use.
TSADK AND SAMPI. 353^
7s it proved that the Phoenician — was the Semitic alphabet adopted in Hella.fi ?
And how does this affect the conclusion. tA =\^? And what of m .?
The net result of combined historical and epigraphic research seems to
be this :
(1) Tradition speaks plainly, though not exclusively, of the Phoenicians
as the givers of the alphabet.
(2) Popular current opinion believed in ^oiviKrjta.
(3) Old Canaanitish and old Hebrew inscriptions use alphabets showing
close affinity witli the Greek.
(•i) The evidence of Greek inscriptions points in some cases clearly
toward Phoenician types.
The nature of this affinity is far from proved. The ancient belief in
direct descent is much weakened in modern days. Even a cognate relation
is denied by some theoi'ies. At most a common Semitic origin may be
postulated for Hebrew, Moabite, and Greek.
A really judicial estimate is rendered difficult by the unconscious pre-
judices which prevail : one of these is the assumption that a language whose
signs can be found to fit into the Greek alphabetic order must also have used
the same alphabet ; whereas it may very well be the case that the two sets
are only similar because the sounds were similar, especially when, as in the
present case, an alphabet exists on one side only, and the application of the
signs from the other side thereto shows very considerable discrepancies and
lacunae which cannot be accounted for.-^
The residuum here is given by Larfeld when he says^^ (^Handbuch,
p. 495): the Phoenico-Hebraico-Greeh alphabet {sounds and signs) which from,
Semitic lands spread into all the peo2}les of our civilization, the turning-point
in whose culture-history is marked by its arrival, is to.be traced back to one
^' The statement that ' the Phoenicians ' -^ The Hebrew names are not necessarily the
invented our alphabet is inexact. Phoenician Semitic names any more than the numerical
is, according to Kautzsch's Gcsenius' Hebreio values are Semitic. A pctitio principii seems
Grammar, strictly only a branch of the Middle to me to lie in th«^ repeated argument one
Semitic or Canaanitish, which itself is only meets from the place of Tsade and other letters,
one of three great branches using this alphabet. There is no ' place ' of a missing Greek letter
Similarly vague is the statement that the known, except by the assum[ition that the
Greek alphabet is derived from 'the Phoenician ' Hebrew alphabet order was also the Semitic,
(see for example Kirchhoff Shul. zur Gcsch. dcs Once gain the point that |^^ was eighteenth
Gr. Alphab. 1887, p. 168). Perhaps even the in an assumed Semitic alphabet, such as
Greek signs go back to others ' in some respect Phoenician or that of the Moabite stone, and
earlier in form . . . than any extant monument ' one has immediately a (perhaps false) premise
(E. A. Gardner, The Early Ionic Alphabet, for many deductions about M in Greek.
1886, p. 15 ; and see passim for uses of the '-* Quoting from Henrich's Gr. Epigr. pp.
term). • 361-375.
H.S. — VOL. XXV. A A
354 F. W. (J. FOAT
time and to one home, irhich, wherever it may be foimd to lie, is near
Egypty-
The ej)igraphic facts for this conchision arc incontestable :
(1) The Mesa- inscription (ninth century) from Moab can be read by the
help of the Greek (? ninth century) and the Hebrew alphabets
(Siloam inscr. ninth century; coins from second century B C.
See n. 29).
(2) The tables of alphabets from all Semitic lands sliow unmistakeable
parallels. See P. Bei'ger, Hist, de rEcriturc, dans VAntiquite,
1891 ; I. Taylor, The. AIx>h(d)d.
But the statement does not hold good of every particular case ; some
letters are (piite unexplained, may be non-Semitic, or may be inventions.
What then of M ? /s it idcntienl with the Semitic |^ ?
Tlie ct^nspectus subjoined of the forms of |-^ in Semitic lands shows how
reasonahlc is the view that the letter whieh hceanie |'v in tlte Semitic became M i7i
the (I'reek (dphahet.
Nothing more can be said, as the forms nowhere give M and no inter-
mediate links are found.
As nothing but ocular demonstration can be convincing liere, and that
only if extended over a large field, I here present a conspectus of all those
forms which are assigned by authorities in oriental and general alphabetology
to the representatives of the Hebrew ^j, Tsade, or the Phoenician j-v. This
letter appears throughout to be of one type, viz. a composite letter made of a
vertical-*' with a hook of some sort on the I'ight-hand side (only). See for
instance Lidzbarski's tables in the Ephemcris filr Seviitischc Epigraphilc i/ii,
1901, where lie studies the character in old, middle, and new Phoenician, in
Aiamaoan, Nabntaean, Palmyrene, square Hebrew, and other groups, and
finds it always of this type.
P. Berger in his Hist, de I'Eerititre dans V Antiq. 1891, gives a complete
conspect\is of alphabets in which the forms of Ssade are given as under:
In Soutli Semitic Alphabets.
Himyarite
B r^
Ethiopian
/^x
Ghez
A
Safa
)
Berber
53s;
26 Every year briiifjs flesh contirmatioii. See -" In some forms lliis lirst slroko inclines
article on ' Arehaeological discoveries in Cri t'- considerably.
*nd Egypt,' Katun; July 9th, 1903.
TSADE AND SAMPI, ;i55
Fn Aravutcan Ali^hahrU.
Archaic r
Papyrus ^
Scpjare Hebrew ^
Palinyrene ^
Nabatacan p
pjstrant;helo ^
Syriac 3
Others i^ao;
In Hchrcio Alphabets.
Alesa (000 h.c.) J^
Siloam (TOO B.C.) ^
Temple coins ^
Samaritan (developed about third century A.D.) -^
Hebrew ii,
In Phoenician Aiphahets.
Archaic \^ K"
Sidonian "^
Punic xj "^
Tr.insition T
Neo-Piinic |^
Hebrew ^j
These lists are incomplete as to variety of forms shown, but they serve
foi- a first glance which shows us that while they generally justify belief in
/v\=i-v, only in South Semitic alphabets do we find any development
analogous with such a form as T. The Samaritan of course would be very
analogous, but its late date makes it useless in the present comparison.
As I have maintained on another page, Sabaean and other Arabian
alphabets are extant only in monuments for which a date sufficiently early
for our purpose cannot be claimed ; so that unfortunately nothing is at
present to be inferred from the apparent analogy to which I point between
T and S. Arabian forms of Tsade. The contrast, however, between this
analogy here and the total absence of any suggestion of analogy in the
North Semitic forms is so striking that it deserves to be well established for
so much as it may be worth at least. And Lidzbarski gives {Ephcnieris fur
Sanitischc Epigraphik, vol. ii. pt. i. 1903) this large collection of the Arabian
forms :
!i rfi /f^ rS I-''-'"''
Al/ II Y
^ B' -
N ^ 4=t
A A 2
;{5G 1^- W. G. FOAT
Curiously enougli, a sign which does really resemble iTi oi- T is the letter
pj (77) which appears as /[\ ami ^ (often) !
Still the Sabaean ^J is iiot very divergent, and tiiis makes more
remarkable the total divergence of the North Semitic forms, which
Lidzbarski gives in the full tables in the companion volume to Die Schrift
der Nord-Semitischen Inschriften in the Handliurk ilcr Nord-Scmitischcn
Epigrapliih for 1898 as under :
Phoenician .
\\\
\'^ t u \ \ \
Arainmon.
rrrr rrrr
Square Hebrew.
Old Hehreiv and Samaritan.
K H
(The last is of the sixth century a.d.)
It will immediately be noted that the North Arabian forms diverge
markedly from the Sabaean and others of South Arabia. Lidzbarski in
the Ephenieris (loc. cit.) p. 33 protests rightly against the attempt to identify
the two types «^ and 0, misplaced ingenuity having led some one to argue
for ><^ as intermediate between the two ! !
North Semitic and North Arabian forms being equally impossible as
ancestors of T, there remains only the supposition that the Sabaean rfi, in one
remote corner of the Semitic world, ivas a local form, as m was in
another.
What is the historical relation between the Greek alphabetic numeration system
and the parallel Hebrew system ?-
Whatever may be the ultimate conclusion of archaeology concerning the
relation between the Greek alphabet and the Phoenician, this question only
indirectly affects the question of the numerical system. For the Phoenician
numeration of the monuments is quite different, non-alphabetic, and only
TSADE AND SAMPI.
357
resembles Greek, Egyptian, Latin, and other systems in inclininir generally
to the decimal -'' basis. The Phoenician system which we know is the ancestor
neither of the later Greek nor of the later Hebrew systems.
I have collected from the Corpus Inscriptionuvi Semiticarum and
elsewhere a number of illustrations (of which the following may be
mentioned) to satisfy myself that the Phoenician system was really different
C.I.S. i. p. 31 n.; 165 Tab. xxxvii. 1. 6 ; i. Nos. 7, 10, 11, 12, 21 (Tabb. iii, v,
xi, V, vii, resp.). They are of the third or fourth century B.C. and are
sufficient to show that the scheme was this :
I. II
III
III
III
III =1, 2, ... . 9
IIU = 10 .... 19
XV ... . /v^x»-'^^ = 20 .... 8028
III III 111-^/./.^^^ (i.e. 9 f 10+20-1-20+20+20) = 99.
And this is sufficiently inconsistent with any Latin or Greek system to
make any relation improbable.
On the other hand the Hebrew numeration system is, for the first
seventeen letters at least, strictly parallel, and for the remaining five (of the
Hebrew) differing by one place only; and it is a commonplace of the
Hebrew grammars that this was the (later) method of numbering in
antiquity. This system was as follows :
n
"I
n
(a)
(/3)
(7)
(5)
(^)
(^)
(0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
D
V
D
(0
(«)
(X)
(/^)
(I)
(o)
(tt)
(?M)
100
200
300
400
5001
600
700
800
900
P
n
(9)
(p)
(t)
made up by
combining
the foregoing.
But what is the meaning and value of the parallel ? The statement
that this was the later system refers to the notation used in the inscrip-
tions and MSS in the ordinary Hebrew square character. Now the
upward limit of the sources for this character is not easier than the begin-
ning of the second century B.C., only rare instances carrying us into the
prae-Christian era. An inscription of 176 B.C. is mentioned by Kautzsch
in Gesenius Hebrew Gram. (1898) p. 24 as one of the earliest. I subjoin
a note ^^ from the latest edition which embodies perhaps the most current
opinion in oriental circles.
Semitic; so also Old Italic Alphabets. That
in default of special arithmetical figures the
con.sonants were also used as numerical sagns.
The earliest traces of this usage are, howcTCT,
first found on the Maccabean coins [i.e. of John
Hyrcanus and his successors, from 135 B.C.].
But I note that this is no more than judgment
'" Bursian, Jahresb. Supplbd. 87.
28 //N = 100 is doubtful.
■•» To thi.s effect : that both the order and
names of the letters, together with their
numerical values have passed over from the
Phoenicians to the Greeks in whose language
the letter^ A— T are borrowed from the old
358 F. W. G. FOAT
The matter then stands thus: neither tlic (Ireek nor the (nearly)
parallel Hebrew system was the same as the Piioenician ; there is no
proof of tiie employment of the Hebrew before the middle of the second
century B.C. at the very earliest, so that tlic Hebrew may (piite possibly
have been an adaptation of the current Greek system to the e.xistini,^
Hebrew alpha]>et.
IVhat is the point of agrceiiient yd reached hij Oriental SeJwlars an to the
ajfinity between the Semitic and the Efjyptian alphalets?
M. Lidzbarski writinjjj in 1901 on Ihr Urspruuf^ dcr nord- and sild-
semitischen Schrift (in Aphemeris filr Semitische Upiyraphik) expresses the
opinion that the Phoenician alphabet was an imitation of the Egyptian, the
invention of a man of Canaan, who knew of the existence of the Egyptian
writing, but who did not know sufficient to copy it directly, and was driven
to rely upon his memory and his inventiveness. But, as he nrges in
another place. Die Schrift dcr nordsemitisclien Inschrifteii. in Handhuch der
nordsemitischoi Kjiif/raphik 1898, the mere fact of similarity between the
Phoenician and the Mesopotamia!), or betv/een the Phoenician and the
Egyptian alphabet systems is quite insufficient grovuid for arguments as to
origin. And as for hypothetic sources these are many (see e.f/. A. J.
Evans rrim. Pictograplis and a 2}'>'<^e- Phoenician script from Crete and the
Peloponnrsus in J.H.S. xiv. p. 270 ff.). Delitzsch's attempt to establish
by new arguments (published in 1S97) a Babylonian origin is, in Lidzbarski's
opinion, as a])oitive ns the rest.
In 1902 the Council of the Society of Biblical Archaeology asked the
leading Egyptologists of England and America for their opinion on this
question of affinity between the Egyptian and Semitic languages. The
result w;is the collection of the mo.^t varied o|)inions which may be thus
classified :
(1) that there is the closest affinity
(2) that there is no affinity
(3) that there is derivation of alphabetic forms without affinity between
the languages
(4) that there were many borrowings without any affinity.
bydcfault, there being very little of Old Hebrew to mo in l!t03 the following stateinent whidi
at all. Tlie remains are^ in fact : may lie taken as tlie view at present aecrediteil :
(1) The Mesa stone, 9th it.c. 'As the Greeks received the Semitic alphabet,
(2) The Siloam-inscriptioii, perhaps 8th n.c. already in a (ixed order, and are found already
(3) Twenty .seal-.stones, some pre-exiiic but using it for numerical fmrposes at Irc.st by 800
bearing little except jwoper names. ii.o. it is probable that the Semites also u=.ed it
(4) The Maccabean coins, late 2nd B.C. numerically before them.' As this contribution
Dr. .Lionel Barnett of the Oriental Depart- strives to show, every one of these statements is
ment of the British Museum kindly remitted at jiresent hypothetical.
TSADE AND SAM PI.
359
The conclusion may be saitl to be. tliat while tiiere is suHicient resem-
blance to justify a suggestion of affinity, affinity in not proi-ed, and direct
descent (of I'hoenician fiom l*]gyptian) is maintainable as a hypothesis oidy
for the a])iiabetic/or7?».s, if at all.
Upon what is hascd the c.rpht nation of the coinplcincntdrij letters of the
Greek alpliahet, and of the ailoptimi (f'V = Tsade to complete the list for the
2)i'.r2)oses of numeration ?
Kirchhofif declared in 1(S77, in the preface to the third edition of his
studies on the history of the Ortek alphabet, that the time had not yet come "*'*
for the writing of such a history. The excavations and labours of the thirty
years which have passed since that utterance have brought ns not much
nearer to the necessary material.
The arrangement of the alphabet for purposes of numeration was made
after the inclusion of Y Cp X i' fl, for these all receive numerical values.
Before therefore it can be asserted that the sixth ' complementary ' was
added in such and such a way, it is necessary to know what the foregoing
five themselves were.
What is known -^^ of Y ({) X t H ?
First that they occur all together, or with one omission, in a few
groups of the seventh, sixth, and fifth centuries B.C. using alphabets of Asia
Minor, viz. :
(1) in the Naukratis group ^"- (650-520 B.C.) with four clear and three
doubtful instances of (|) ; seven good instances of X, and a large
number of omeoras.
^ Lenoiniant died without having had the
assistance of fome monuments whioli iiave
since made possible such advance as has been
made ; so that his conclusions must reluctantly
be put aside as out of date. The MeSa stone
is not considered in his article on the origin
and formation of the Greek alphabet, in 1873.
This was discovered by Clerinont-Ganneau in
1870 and published by him in 1873 in the
Revue Archeologiqiic.
■*' Apart from this, much value in an investi-
gation so intricate must be attached to sound
theory, so that a brief bibliography of the
topic for the last twenty years may be
welcome :
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Homerischc Unter-
suchungen, pp. '288 tf. 1884.
E. A. Gardner, ' The Early Ionic AIphal)et,'
J.H.S. 1886.
Kirchhotf, Sludian zur Geschlchte dcs Gricch-
ischcn A I pi),. 1887.
E. Szaiito, 'ZurGesch. des griech. Alph.' in
the Mittlieilungen (Athens), 1890.
E. Kidinka, ' Eine Doiotische Alphabetvase,'
in Ath. MiUh. 1892.
W. Larfeld, in section Greek Epigr. of Von
Miil>r's Handbuch, 1891.
W. Schmid, 'Zur. Gesch. d. griech. Alph.'
in rhilulogitx, 1893.
P. Kretsthmer, ' Die Sekundaren Zeichcu
des griech. Alph.' in Ath. Mitth. 1896.
M. L. Earle, 'Supplementary signs of the
Gk. Alph.' in Am. J. Arch. 1903.
The last named reviews all the foregoing and
adds his own views. He makes a valuable
classical reference to Aristotle Metaph. 1093 a
with Syrianus, Schol. Arist. Mrlaph. p. 9406
(the arguments of Archinus in commending to
the Athenians the introduction of the Ionic,
alphabet).
^- E. A. Gardner, Inscriptions from Xaii-
kratis, 1884-5.
360 F- W. G. FOAT
(2) in the Teos inscr. seventh B.C.
(3) in the Abu-Sinibel inscr.
(4) in the sixth century Amorgos inscr.
(5) in the fifth or sixth century Halicarnassus inscr. (here alH(^
perhaps T = o-cr).
■ (6) in a fifth century inscr. of Tarentum.
If we count all the inscriptions of the seventh, sixth, and fifth centuries
which have H, though not all the other four at the same time (several omit
one only), we then can add ten inscriptions from Asia Minor, eight from the
westerly isles of the Aegean, and a sixth century inscription from Laconia.
Other inscriptions corroborate, though they omit 0. It can thus be said
tliat more than twenty-three inscriptions prove the existence of Y, (|), X, S', H
in the Greek alphabet between 650 B.C. a7id 450 B.C., ttoo of these (not the oldest)
liaving also T.^^
Now Kirchhoff has maintained that the alpliabetic notation involving
the completion of the alphabet was in use at latest in 800 B.C., and that this
was first in Miletus, but the arguments of B, Keil (in Hermes, vol. 29,
pp. 248-280) in favour of a later date (550-425 B.C.) and a Dorian origin in
Halicarnassus are weighty enough to prevent the statement that the earlier
date is proved. It is only fair to say that Kirchhoff' s authority is very high
and this date has been passed with universal consent. I can only say
that I cannot find tlie proof of it on epigraphic facts of independent re-
liahility.
From the datum above emphasized, which is the only indisputable
epigraphic fact concerning the origin of these letters as a group, the dis-
cussion has proceeded in a very earnest manner to the explanation of their
origin and entrance into the Greek alphabet.
In the Revae Archeulogique, 1884, B^ Haussouilier re-publishes the con-
clusions of the discoverer of the Mesa stone, Clermont-Ganneau, concerning
the complementary characters of the Greek alphabet, Y (J) X S' H.^* M.
Haussouilier there makes this remark: 'il faut s'habituer a les considerer
[the epigraphic forms] sous toutes leurs faces, a les decomposer, tourner et
retourner (comme faisaient les anciens eux-m ernes, les Argiens par exemple
qui couchaient la h au lieu de la laisser droit i).' This observation is
fundamentally unsound and misleading.
It is not true in general that one letter was made out of another in the
old alphabets by simply turning it on its side or inverting it. Alterations of
position do occur, but either the change is made very gradually and un-
consciously ; or else the apparent inversion is the result of some external cause,
e.g. when the direction of the writing is altered, the letters all turn round.
In particular, M. Haussouilier here chooses an unfortunate illustration, for iff
If we accept [a]aAaT»)J (see above). MiHinges Oraux, Pari.s, 1884, pp. 415-460.
Originally put by Ckrniont-Ganneau in
TSADE AND SAMPI. 361
is not necessarily I turned over, since a more complex form existed, viz. [fl
(in the throe Ktruscan abecedaria)/'''* which suggests eciually well h and i.
The results of Clermont-Ganneau's attempts to explain Y <|) X S' H are
simply these : that (he suggests) Y preserving the Semitic form was relegated
to the end of the alphabet. F ( = E docked of one cross-bar) taking its place
above ; that t Avas made by lengthening the vertical stroke of Y ; that, <(>
( = phi) is simply a new application of 9 ( = 9oppa); similarly that X
is another application of the Semitic X = tau ; that H is the Phoenician O
left open =*^; that the whole of this was done upon two principles (1) con-
tiguity, (2) antiquity of the adopted form, i.e. the neighbouring letters were
chosen, and of them the oldest forms then known.
In this brief form the statements, I fear, are not very clear, and do not
treat quite fairly the very careful consideration which Clermont-Ganneau
gave to the complexity of the problem. For suggestiveness and ingenuity
these explanations are as good as any. They are quoted as an example of
the stage at which the investigation stands in numberless paragraphs and
articles which have been devoted to the subject.
Not one of these explanations can be proved, and competing theories
have quite as good a right to consideration, as for example Deecke's, which
would refer the whole group to the Cypriote syllabaria. The newer ex-
planations have the advantage of making use of the later discoveries, as for
instance this Cypriote origin uses the excavations of Prof. Flinders Petrie at
Naukratis, an Egyptian colony of Miletus. While a question is still open, it
is important to bring into the field of discussion every possible theory for
which a good case can be made out.
Nothing useful has been added to the careful and very full summary
which Larfeld gives in Miiller's Handbuch, pp. 515-521, and the net result is
that the group Y (|) X S' H is 2^'i'ohahly an adaptation made hy the Gredcs
themselves of some signs of imknoivn origin «s- a7i addition to the Semitic alphabet
which they first used.
Such being the uncertainty which covers the question of Y (p X T H,
themselves well attested letters, what profitable argument can be maintained
concerning the origin of T, which does not occur in any list of numerals con-
taining the supplementary signs ?
There is, therefore, no direct evidence, cpigraphic or other, of the
inclusion of a sign for 900 of the shape T, with the supplementary signs of
the Greek alphabet used for numerical purposes : that it belongs to them is
an inference from the later use of T = 900, and from the fact that one more
sign would have completed the supplementary list for this special purpose.
The utmost that can be proved then is that for 900 the Greeks apparently
adopted a form T which was also, in a restricted employments"^ used as a
sibilant letter T. The principal arguments are summarized under the
next head.
^^ See Miiller's Handbuch, vol. i. pp. 505-511. did not pass into Greek.
*" Sad6 he does not explain, as perhajjs it *^ As shown above^ pp. 344 f.
362 F. W. G. FOAT
i:c-
What is the yrcse.n.t state of learned opiniun pointini/ to Lite supposed sele
Hon, hy the inventor of the Greek numeration-alphabet, of the letter T, to
stand as the sign required for dOO? And how is the Hebrew divergences^ in
the order of the numerals at this point to be explained ?
Larfeld's conclusion {Grieeh. Epigr. p. 544) ai^^iin :t Koil's {Hermes vol. 29,
pp. 249 ff.) places tlie birthplace of the Ciieek alphabet-notation at Ionian
Miletus, not later than 800 B.C. Keil holils that the birthplace was in the
Dorian Curia, probably the town of Haliearnassus, at a date not later than
450 B.C., and not earlier than a century before that date.
Larfeld's arguments which summarize the opinions of scholars may be
condensed as follows, as regards Tsade in particular.
The Milesian alphabet in the ninth century B.C. contained 26 letters in
the following order :
iK\,/Uil'^07r(^
An addition of one more made possible an arrangement into three groups
of nine each, which then could be systematically employed on a decimal
principle, viz. :
a ^ . . ^ = 1 , 2 '.)
I «... 9 = 10, 20 90
pa... t = 100, 200 . . . 900.
Now it happened (so the argument runs) that just recently— as the
Naukiatis inscription of 650 which uses only ^^ = crcr shows — the Greek
alphabet had dropped T = aa from its place, viz. 18th, so that it was chosen
for the sign, being placed at the end of the line, with the value 900. In
pages 149 sqq. Larfeld thoroughly considers the subordinate questions
suggested by the retention of Vau and C^oppa in their own place, as ngainst
the displacement of T (Tsade ^^) ; and rejects (p. 150) the obvious objection
that T may not be Tsado at all, but a sign invented or borrowed from a
neighbouring barbaric alphabet ; as for instance the suggestion that all the
complementary letters were borrowed from the Cypriote syllabaries
(E. A. Gardner, J.H.S. vii. (1886), pp. 223 sq., developing the hypothesis of
Deecke). Larfield points out what has been urged as to the bearings of the
tiiree abecedaria (Chalcidian of the Campagna ^^) found at Veii Caere and
Sena (p. 505) and considers it highly improbable that they could have been
alphabets in actual use at the lime — antiquities then ! The subsequent
history of the alphabet-notation of Miletus he thinks followed that of
■*" In the Hebrew order ^f = 90. Sikyoii even in the liftli.
3» Tsadc, Larfeld says, p. 149, was a living *" So Kirchhoff, .S/wrf. z. G. d. g. A. pp. 134
letter in Corinth still in the sixth cciitur}', at sq.
Melos in the second half of the sixth, and nt
TSADE AND SAMPI. .'}G3
tlio alphabet ot sumul-repiesenting letters, gradually spreailiug tliruugli
Ionic lands, and slowly, after centuries of strife witli the current alphabets,
also throticfh the rest of the Greek world — even in conservative Athens,
being received in 403 B.C. — and at last, as the Milesian alphabet displaced
the other surviving alphabets, the numeration system triumphed with it
over all the Greek world, at about the close of the prae-Christian era.
This is no doubt an unprejudiced summary of the main balance of
the arguments for the iiiclusion of T among the numerals. But it is
evident from the non-agreement conceniing the essential particulars (the
actual elements of the Milesian sound-alphabet, the date and birthplace of
the n\imeration system, the origin of the complementary characters) that the
summary embodies nothing more than the expectations of trained minds,
perfectly ac(iuaintetl with the fields of archaeology in which tlicse (piestions
lie. This is much. The regrettable circumstance is that by constant
re-statement these theories of general soundness have been taken as proved
in detail.
The knowledge based upon epigraphic and historical facts is limited to
this : the ituist complcf'- ni(}iie7'<(tion-a/2')hahet existing in the remoter ecnturies
Comes from Miletus; it has not the sign for 900 T which is fotmd in 2)a2)yri
with that value ; there is a rare sibilant (?) T whose shape is identical wit%
that of thr r^nsevion T^T*.
There are a few minor facts which are at least very curious. One such
is that the Arabic kha = 600 (? = X;;^) and Arabic za = 900 (? Sade).
But, as Lidzbarski^^ remarks, this is like bringing 'A7ro\\ft)v into
comparison with Napoleon.
Coptic has taken since the Christian era the numeral Sampi in the form
QJ, value sh, = 900 (Tattam Egyptian gram. 18G5).
Of much more weight than either of these is the fact that the Hebrew
alphabetic numeration is exactly parallel with the Greek for the first
seventeen characters, i.e. to the letter preceding ^j and the missing M ; and
that after this point is passed the Hebrew values are each one step removed
below the Greek values, the difference being due to the presence or
absence of ^ in the two systems respectively.
It is impossible to omit an enquiry into the meaning of this singular
divergence. The simplest explanation is that the Greek lost M while the
Hebrew retained ^ ; so that when the Hebrew adopted or imitated the
existing Greek system (there is no inscription with these numbers in Hebrew
before the Hyrcanus coins of 135 B.C.) it inevitably departed from its model
at this point. If this is true — and there is nothing to show that the
Hebrew system is either original or ancient — then it leaves the Greek
system still to be explained independently. This independence of the two
systems (except as regards the method) seems the more likely from the fact
that the Hebrew, having no ' supplementary ' letters after T> ended its
*' In criiicisni of (Juudermann's (worthless) Die Zahlzeiehen in Epkcnuris fiir Scmit.
Epigraph . \>. 106.
364 F. W. G. FOAT
numeration system with tliat number, and made up the deficiency as regard;>
oOO, 000, 700, 800, and 900 in another way.
At present the only facts estabhshed seem to point to a date as early as
the ninth century B.C. for the invention of the Greek system, and of the
Hebrew system five or six centuries later. But rival theories exist which
bring the former much lower down, and there is nothing against the
assumption that the Hebrew system was used somewhat earlier, so that all
the dates may possibly converge upon the latter part of the fifth century B.C.
shortly before the time when Athens adopted the Milesian alphabet. It was
a time of great activity of intercourse among the Greeks, Semites, and
Egyptian races.
Believing in the possibility of a common origin, in t^me at least, for the
Hebrew and *he Greek alphabetic numeration systems, I have tried to find
anything that might be offered as proof, but have found nothing, so far.
Why is 'T\ called Scaiqn ?
The result of some further search is that I have nothing to add to my
remarks in my ' Sematography of Greek Papyri,' J.H.S. xxii. (1902) pp. 144,
145 ; and above, pp. 338-9.
In addition to the improbability of any real relation of '^ either with
San or with Pi, there is the obvious objection that the name Sampi is very late,
' in the second half of the seventeenth century,' says Keil {Hermes, 29, p. 267).
One may, without fear of contradiction, make the simple statement 'that it is a
fanciful explanation, showing a little superficial acquaintance with Greek
letter-forms, though San had passed out of existence centuries before '^
appeared, and with ir either as letter or as numeral the symbol could never
have had anything to do.
What evidence is there of the passing of T into '^ ?
The question is asked here simply to supply the last of the links in the
lono- chain, which we have thus examined one by one, but I do not think it
profitable to make laborious proof of that which everybody knows. One
point, however, is worth note, viz. that instances of 'T^s with two legs, can be
found earlier than the ninth century, the date usually given in the text-
books. It certainly occurs on earlier ostraka (See Viereck on ' Die Ostraka
des Berliner Museums' in Arch, fill' Fapfschg I. iii./iv. 1901, p. 453 sqq.) as
^ side by side with T and t.
« » « «
My own conclusion from the sum of the arguments is that the Ionic
alphabet has been shown, not yet by rigid demonstration but by reliable
deduction, to be Semitic in origin, and related with Phoenician, either by
TSADE AND SAMPI. 365
direct derivation or as cognate ; and that sufficient proof" has been forth-
coming of some distant reUition between these Semitic alpiiabet-forms and
tiiose of the Egy])tian alphabets, though affinity between the languaycs is
improbable. These Semitic elements of the Ionic alphabet were then
extended by the arbitrary additions of Y <|) X S^ H, hardly earlier tlian the
seventh century i?.c., to complete the representation of spoken Greek ; and
this completed alphabet was applied to numeration in the sixth century B.C.,
as a spontaneous invention in Ionian Miletus, or a neighbouring town, perhaps
Halicarnassus. Either at tliis time, or at some time before the Ptolemaic
papyrus period, another arbitrarily selected sign was added, to represent
900 ; but whether this was an adaptation of one of the other Greek letters
(possibly <\ = 90), or was the rare sibilant T appearing independently in the
same vicinity, the evidence is not yet sufficient to decide ; these two,
however, are the only probable alternatives. Then, I think, about the fourth
century B.C. the Hebrew alphabet was similarly applied, in Hebrew writing,
for numeration, but without any borrowings of extraneous forms or direct
copying of the Greek system in details — the j^rinciple was accepted as an
improvement on the old 'Phoenician' method, just as it was accepted in
the Greek world as an improvement on the earlier acrophonic.
Further, I think that the evidence goes to show that the letter which
corresponds to the Semitic ^ (Tsade) is the Greek /v\, and not T, though
this may at some future time be found to be a cogitate descendant from a
different Semitic stem. It follows as a corollary from these conclusions that
Tsade, as generally known to us, is not the same as T or T found for 900
on papyri ; and that (p is quite as probably the normal, as that it is a
rounded form of T, Lastly 'p = 900 is the same as the minuscule i|I and
the later ' Sampi ' C^.
This and no more is in my opinion to be deduced from the existing data.
F. W. G. FoAT.
Note. — As this article is being passed for press, Prof. E. A. Gardner
calls my attention to the use of T = 900 in an inscription of the second
century B.C. from Magnesia (Kern, Inschr. von Magn. 100; Ditt. Syll} ii. 552,
1. 83). This is apparently the earliest lapidary instance.
NOTICES OF BOOKS.
The Myths of Plato. Translnted with Introductory tiiid other oliservations l)y J. A.
Stewakt, White's Professor of Moral Pliilosophy in tlie University of Oxford.
F[). xii + 532. London : Macniilliin & Co., lOO.'i.
The principle which lies at the root of Prof. Stewart's philosophy, and whicli animates
his exposition of Plato's thought in the pre:;ent volume, is the conviction tliat there is a
truth higlier than the truths attainable by science and reason, and cognisable by a higher
faculty, which he calls Transcendental Feeling. This Transcendental Feeling is defined
as 'at once the solemn sense of Timeless Being — of "That which was, and is, and ever
shall be " overshadowing us — and the conviction that Life is good ' ; and ' in Transcendental
Feeling, manifested normally as Faith in the Value of Life, and ecstatically as sense of
Timeless Being, and not in Thought proceeding by way of speculative construction, that
Consciousness comes nearest to the object of Metaphysics, Ultimate Reality.' Thus Poetry,
which is the embodiment of Transcendental Feeling, gives us from time to time glimpses
of a truth which we feel to be higher and truer than any of the 'facts' of whicli science
can assure us. In Plato these higher glimpses are embodied in the Myths, which conse-
([uently contain the kernel of the Platonic philosophy. As Kant's Ideas of Reason repre-
sent aspirations and ideals which cannot be made the objects of .speculative science, but a
faith ill whicli is essential to the regulation of our conduct, so Plato's myths regulate
Transcendental Feeling for the service of conduct by representing certain faiths or pre-
suppositions which are inseparable from intelligent human life, and associating them with
the constitution of the Cosmos.
In pursuance of this l)elief, which is most lucidly set forth in the Introduction and
illustrated by copi^ius (quotations from poetry and folklore, Prof. Stewart gives a text and
translation of all the Platonic Myths (the ' Timaeus ' is abbreviated and the 'Critias' only
summarised), with comments on the principal thoughts suggested by them. His main
thesis will be accepted or rejected according as the reailer's taste leans towards Philosophy
or Poetry ; but few can fail to appreciate the thoughtful, poetic, outlook upon existence
which his book reveals, or the fine sense of great literature — especially Dante — with
which it is illustrated. It is an oiiginal, individual, imconventional work, which will be
read with pleasure by scholars and philosophers in this country.
Thukydides. Erklart von J. Classen, Bd. vi. (bk. vi.) : dritle AuHage, bearbeitet von
J. Steup. \_Saininl\m'j (jriechischer iind lateinischer Schrifti^leller, mit deutschen
Aninerkwujen.'] Pp. iv-|-295. 2 maps. Berlin: Weidmann, 1905. 3m.
This new volume of the new edition of Classens well-known work does not need more
notice than is required to call attention to its existence. Not much use is made of such
new material as has appeared since Classen's time. Hiide's edition is mentioned, but not
approved ; that of Stuart Jones does not seem to be mentioned ; in the episode of the
NOTICES OF BOOKS 367
I'isistratidae tlic evidence of the 'ASqviuwp IloXtrfia is mentioned only to bo rejected wherever
it diflers from Thucydides. Two small maps, of Sicily and the sief^e of Syracuse, are pre-
Hxed. English schoolmasters mi^dit well make use of the book for comparison with (but
not necessarily in substitution for) the editions pulilished in this country.
The Flinders Petrie Papyri. Witli Transcriptions, Commentaries, and Index.
[Part III.] By thi- Kev. J. P. Mahaffy, 1).1)., and Prof. J. Gilbart Smyly (Royal
Irish Academy, Cunningham Memoirs, No. xi., Dublin, 1005). Pp. xx + 389. Seven
autotypes. £2 2s. net.
The third part of the Flinderii Fetrie l\ipi/ri is the result of many years' toil on the ))art
of Prof. Smyly in revising the texts originally edited by Prof. Mahatfy, and in working
over the mass of fragments which the latter had left untouched. In this way the old
texts have been improved and sometimes enlarged, and many new <locuments have been
added to them. The fragment on the Third Syrian War of Ptolemy III is shown to be ];ro-
bably a jiroclamation or narrative issued by the king himself ; otherwise no literary or
quasi-literary text appears in this volume. On the other hand there is a greiit (puintity of
legal, official, and business documents, and a good deal of light is thrown vn the adminis-
tration of Egypt, and especially of the military colony settled in the Fayum, in the third
century u.c. The form of publication is cumbrous, esjiecially for so stout a volume as this,
and for practical purposes it woubl have been more convenient to have had all the texts,
old and new, printed in full in a less luxurious style, instead of having long .series of
corrected readings of the earlier parts ; but no doubt the possibility of using the generous
financial aid of the Royal Irish Academy if it appeared as a 'Cunningham Memoir' was
a decisive consideration. Dr. Mahaffy contributes an introductory paper, which is devoted
to a damaging reply to Prof. Revillout's criticisms.
C. Plinius Secundus, Nat. Hist. II. 242— VI. Edited by D. i)ETi,KFSEN [Qiwllen vnd
Forschuntjen zur alten Gcschichte luid Geoi/rajihlc, Heft. 9]. Pp. xvii-|-282. Berlin :
Weidmann, 1904. 8 m.
This is a critical edition, with apparatus on a large scale, of that part of the Naturalis
Jl'stnrid which relates to geography. Prof. Detlefseu has collected critical materials for
the whole of the work, to a much larger e.xtent than could be utilised in the edition issued
by him in 1866-73 ; and as he sees no possibility of the publication of a com2)lete ediiio
inaior, he takes advantage of the Quellen und ForschiiiKjen series to publish a portion of the
text with the full apparatus at his command. The conclusions with regard to the textual
criticism of Pliny derivable from this section of the work will naturally be of value for the
study of the whole. Systematic use has been made of the excerpts from the Nat. Hist.
incorporated in Solinus, Martianus Capella, Bede, and the treatise de vienmra orbis of
the Irishman Dicuil .
History of Ancient Pottery, (ireek, Etruscan, and Roman. By H. B. Walters.
Based on the work of ISamuel BirCh. 2 vols. Pp. xxxvi-|-504, xiv + 588. With 300
illustrations, including 8 coloured plates. London: Murray, 1905. 8vo. £3 3s.
The basis on which this important book is constructed had become so much damaged by
time, that it was necessary practically to rebuild it from the foundations. It is true that
not very much has been added to the first quarter of tlie book, dealing with intn)ductory
and technical matters. But, for the rest, the work must be regarded as an independent
368 NOTICES OF BOOKS
production. It iniglit not, indeed, liave been iiudertaken on so extensive a scale liad
not Bircli's book already existed ; but otherwise there is little left of the ori^nnal save
certain traces — occasionallj'- ((uaint enough — perceptible in style or method. The author
has wisely drawn the limits of his subject somewhat narrower, omitting the pottery of the
East and of the Northern barbarians. He has thus obtained space for the sections which
bulk more largely in the new than in the old book. Tiiis is notably the case with the art
of vase painting, its history and treatment of subjects ; it is in this, of course, that most
advance has been made of late. And we now have an admirable summary of recent
research in the history and classification of Roman terracotta-work and pottery. This
sectiim (nearly a quarter of the book) will make it necessary to every student of llomano-
British antiquities. Perhaps the whole work would have gained in some ways had the
author boldly cut out of his scheme the whole of such preek and Roman terracotta- work
as is not pottery, strictly speaking. This would have left room for the fuller treatment of
two points which we may notice. The earliest pottery from Greek sites, especially those
recently excavated, is not, we think, accorded the space which it deserves. In particular,
of the extraordinary richness and artistic value of the ceramic remains from Crete little
idea can be gathered from the brief section devoted to them. The author may, however,
plead an excuse : although these remains, in bulk and beauty, must rank before those
produced by any other prehistoric site, we cannot yet be sure of liaving found the right
perspective in which to view them. Better, therefore, not to risk putting on record, in a
general handbook, an erroneous theory as to the place of these antiquities in the history of
pottery. Secondly, the author has hardly attempted to deal with Greek vases from the
aesthetic point of view, either as regards their place in art generally, or in relation to other
schools of decorative pottery. Yet this, outside the archaeologist's study, is surely the one
important thing about Greek vase-forms and vase-painting. These deficiencies are, however,
mere specks on a fine piece of work, which has entailed an enormous amount of labour
gliidly bestowed, and will be gratefully a])preciated by every student and teacher. A good
bibliography and index accompany the volumes, and the illustrations are as good as can be
obtained bv means of half-tone and line-blocks.
Douris et les Peintres de Vases Grecs [l-es Grands Artistes]. Bar Edmond
PoTTiER. Paris : Librairie Renouard. Pp. 128. 25 illustrations. [190o.]
M. Pottier's contribution to the French series of " Great Artists " is a model for those who
attempt to popularise archaeology. Its aim is to show how a better idea of the spirit of
Greek painting may be gained from a study of a single vase-painter's work than from any
amount of literary description or later monuments, although the vase-painter does not
necessarily reflect any individual painter's genius. He selects Douris on account of the
number of his vases preserved, all of which we know that he actually painted himself.
Introductory sections deal with the social condition of Athenian vase-painters, the
conditions under which they worked, and their technical equipment. Then the vases of
Douris are discusseil in detail, according to the different classes of subjects depicted,
followed by an artistic estimate of his work. There is a useful bibliography, and the photo-
graphic illustrations are uniformly excellent.
Les Monnaies Antiques de I'ltalie. Tome I. Fasc. iv. (Les Samnites-Campau-
iens.) By A. Sambon. Pp. 5(5 With 29 cuts in the text and a photographic plate.
Paris : Bureaux du ' Musee '. 1905. 5 f.
The present instalment of this meritorious work is considerably shorter than any of its
predecessors. The series with which it deals are, however, exceptionally interesting, more
particularly those of Hyria and Phistelia. The author does not startle us with any novel
NOTICES OF liOOKvS ?,6d
tlieories. But lii.s statements of fact are careful, and liis own jiulyinent, wlieu there is
need to exercise it, is sober and cautious. Is it liojjeless to appeal once more for additional
pluito^rrapliic illustrations ?
A Grammar of Greek Art. P>y Pkkcy Gardnku. Pp. xii + 2()7. 87 illustrations.
London and New York : Macmillan and Macmillan Co., 190.5. 7s. lid.
This is an attempt to explain ' what are the main principles of Greek art and what are its
relations to literature,' intended ' principally for men of classical trainin-,', and particularly
for classical teachers in schools.' It contains chapters on the General Cliaracter of Greek
Art ; Ancient Critics on Art ; Architecture ; Sculpture ; Vases ; Literature and Painting ;
the Life History of a Myth, and similar subjects. There is probably no other book which
fulfils ihe pur[)()se in the same way witli so much lucidity and directness, yet breadth of
lian(llin<;. It does not give to any great extent the sort of information which is found in text-
books of archaeology ; rather it seeks to clothe such dead bones with something approaching
to signiticant life. It is a genial protest against the unintelligent use of second-hand
archaeology by teachers, couched in the form of a guide to the understanding of archaeo-
logical data, and of an incitement to training, as apart from mere book-knowledge. Not
only teacher.^, but .specialists will find it worth studying ; for it serves to correct^he
mistaken perspective which every specialist is liable to adopt, and the author's remarks
are always thoughtful and, backed by experience, often illuminating.
Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae. Supplementum Sylloges Inscriptionnm
Graecarum. Edidit W. Dittenberoer. Vol.11. Pp. vii+750. Leipzig : Hirzel,
1905.
The fir.st volume of this remarkable work was published in 1903 ; the second and conclud-
ing volume is already before us. We have in it 289 inscriptions relating to the various
Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. An Appendix gives 50 important^inscription*
discovered since the collection was first put into shape. These are not so exciting, except
to .specialists in Hellenistic history, as the brilliant procession which finished up the
second edition of the Si/llogc But among them are some which have hitherto been printed
not at all or only in part : 762 [from Cibyra : alliance with Rome, probably soon after 188
B.C.], 763 [from Miletus : letter of Eumenes II to the Ionian koi.v6u], 765 [from Priene :
honours to Sotas for services against the Galatae in the famous ifivasion]. Then follow
addenda and corrigenda, and the invaluable series of indices which we expect and get from
this editor : among them an index of the places from which the inscriptions come. The
book as a whole is a]>solutely indispensable to the historical student, whether or not he has
access to the innumerable and unwieldy publications from which the inscriptions are
collected ; for nowhere else will he find a commentary to compare with this for sobriety of
judgment and critical acumen.
The Progress of Hellenism in Alexander's Empire. By J. P. Mahaffy. Pp-,
vi-l-154. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1905.
This is the publication in book form of a course of lectures delivered by Dr. Mahaffy in the-
summer of 1904 at the University of Chicago. The treatment of the subject is to a great
extent popular in character, but Dr. Mahaffy is so thoroughly at home with all that relate.*
to this period of hi.story that tli,e result is instructive even for the specialist. The opening
chapter seeks to show that Xenophon is to be regarded as the precursor of Hcllenisn,.
H.S. — VOL. XXV. B B
370 NOTICES OF BOOKS
Tliis view is doubtless true in !=i> fur as Xenoplion, who for a Greek was a iiiucli-lravelletl
man, had imbibed many i nil nonces forei<^n to Greec; jjroper. Other chapters deal witli
Hellenism in Macedonia, l'',L;y])1 and Syria, and the tinal cliapter estimates tlie influence nf
Hellenism upon Christianity. J)r. Mahally's entliusiasm occasionally leads him t<>
exaggerate the merits of Hellenism, r.ii. in art. Fine as tliey are, the Nike of Samothracc
and the Aphrodite of Melos are nut without features which point to a period of decline.
The stvle of the lectures is, as we should expect, re fresh iuLjly vigorous, and the trenchant
allusions to modern political and social (luestions atld piquancy to a work which sliould go
far to convert any wlio still cling to the belief that thvek History ends with (Jhaeroneia.
De Graecorum Medicis Publicis. Scripsit U. Vow,. Pp. 8G. lierliu : Keimer,
1905.
This dissertation contains a full and conscientious discussion of j)ractically nil that is known
and has been conjectured aliout public physicians in (ireecefnjm the earliest down to llomau
times. It is, of course, often ditlicult to decide whether certain physicians mentioned in
history actually held public olHce ; an instance worth considering is tlie "iKpo's IqTjWi Acron
of -Ngrigentum. Among other things, the author points out the original distinction and
ultimate coalescence of the true medical art and tlie art of tlie priests of Asklepios. He
discusses fully the evidence of inscriptions and papyri, and even the solitary instance of
an <J/);(tur/>()s- named on a (Jreek coin (Statilius Attains of lleraclea Salbice) has not
cscaiied liiui.
*^* Far other boof.s received, xee List of Aarxsions to tlic Lihrnrij.
INDEX TO VOLUMM XXV
INDEX TO VOLUME XXY.
I.-INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
AitECEDARiA : of Metapontum, 348, 351 ;
Forinello find Veii, 350, 362 ; Corinth,
351
Abnuli, E,Lrypti;in, figure of, 320
Abonlliond, (Cyzicene di.str.) inscr. from, 58
Acanthians' treasury at Delplii, 303, 308
Acritas, site, 37
Aeacus : see Arislaeus
Aeginetan War, the third, 19(5
Aeschylus, Agam. 63 .w/., 21 ; Persae 914
.svZ., 21
Agasias, B'ighter of, 236, 238
Agias of Ly.sippuf^, 234 f. ; liead of, 241 f.
Agylleus : ^ee Tydeus
Aipeia (Messenia), 40
Ajax : wrestling match with Tydides, 25 :
see aUo Odysseus
Aksakal (Cyzicene distr.) inscr.. 58
Alexa (Cyzicene distr.) inscrs., 60 f.
Alexander Balas, portrait of, 88, 96
Alexander the Great : portiaits of, 244, 250
f. ; Alexander Rondanini, 99 ; lion-hunt
of, 246 ; tetradraclim with Farnese
Heracles, 157 ; his sliips in India, 144
Alexandria: study of anatomy at, 236;
marble liead of'Cleo])atra VL (1) at, 93 ;
coin of, with Heracles and Antaeus, 271
Algeran : .see Alkaran
Alkaran, near Isaura Nova, 166 ; inscrs.,
167, 172, 176, 177
Alpliabet, the Greek : supplementary signs
in 338 If. ; origin of, 353 f.
Amasis and Naucratis, 108, 135
Amenemhat IH., builder of the Labyrinth,
327 f.
Amherst Collection, portrait heads in, 92
Anuneres : sec Anienemliat III.
Anatomical study and Greek sculpture, 236
Andokides, amphora with wrestlers (Berlin),
270
Andriaiis' treasury nt Delos, 308. 309, 313
Animal sculptures of the Mausoleun), 3 f.
Antaeus, wrestling of, 27 f. : see also Heracles
Antholmjia Pal ix. 588, 22 ; xii. 206, 15 f.
Anthohxjid Plan. iii. 24, 22 ; iii. 25, 22
Antigonid Dynasty, portraits of, 87 f.
Antinoopolis, mummy-poi traits from, 226
Antiochus I., portraits of, 94 ; coinage 102 f.
Antiochus II., portraits o^', 95, 102
Antiochus III., portrait of, 96
Antiochus IV. (l), portrait of, 96
Antiochus VI., portrait of, 97
Antiochus VII.(?), portrait of, 98
Antiochus VIII., portraits of, 98
Antiochus Hicrax, coinage of, 101 n.
Aphrodite : bathing, r.f. pelike, Oxford, 77 ;
dedications at Naucratis, 112, 115, 17
Apollo : temple of, at Asine, 37 ; dedications
from Naucratis, 118 ; Ciiharoedus relief
from Cyzicene district 58 ; with Artemis
on r.f. lekythos, Oxford, 70 : see also
Heracles
Apollonis (]), portrait of, 89
Apoxvomenos of Lysippus, 234 ff. ; head of,
242 f.
Arabia, anti([uity of inscrs. from, 350
Aratus, portrait of, 89
Archimedean screw, terracotta shewing, 132
Ares Ludovisi, 257 ^
Argiope on r.f. hydria, 67
Argos, Cleonienes I. and, 193 f.
Argos and Hermes (r.f. krater), 65
Aristaeus and Aeacus, wrestling of, 26
Aristocieides, liis paintings at Delphi, 317
Aristophanes : /v/., 231 f., 291 ; JJq. 571 f.,
21 ; J{an. 1074'Schol. 142
Aristotb, Merh. 4, 216
Arrian Amih. V. 8— VI. 18, 144
Arsinoe(?), portraits of, 29 f.
Artemis : temple at Methone, 33 ; dedica-
tions from Naucratis, 112, 115, 117. See
also Apollo
Asine (Messenia), site, 37
Asklepios, cult at Korone, 36
Aspendus, coins with wrestlers, 270 f.
Assar Alan (Cyzicene distr.), inscr., 59 f.
a74
INDEX TO VOLUME XXV.
Astraj^alizoii, wiiij^ed ligure, 72
Atiilanta : see IVleus
Atliena Anemotis, temple at Methone, Xi
Atlieiiians' treasury at Delphi, 302 i'., 304,
311
Athens, antifjuities at : torso reseinliliiiLi:
Apoxyoineiios, 247 ; Lenormant relief (if
ship, 20(5 f , 222
Athens : date of alliance willi Plataea, 197
f. ; vases from, at Oxford, 74, 7(J
Athlete, Lysippic type of, 234 f.
Attalid Dynasty, portraits of, 8!), !)8 f.
Att ilns I., i)ortrails of, 8;), 98 f.
Attic pottery: from Naucratis, 120 f. ; at
Oxford — see Oxford
Attica and pediments combined, 9 f.
An<^ustus, sn])posed portrait of, 95
Axe : Arc Double-axe
Azara head of Alexander, 251 f.
B
15ai.tcha-Assar near Isaura Nova, 16(J ;
inscr., 178, 179, 180
lialtimore Museum : kylix with wrestlers,
23
IJalukiser (Cyzicene distr.) inscrs., 59
liaubo fi^'ures from Naucratis, 128
lieards on Graeco-Egvptian portraits, 228
Berenice (?) portrait of, 90 f.
Berenice (?), wife of Euergetes I., portraits
of, 92
Berlin Museum : Portrait of Apollonis (?)
89 ; Amjdiiaraus amphora, 267 ; amphora
by Andokides with wrestlers, 270 ; coin
of Allalu'-: I., 99
Bes ])laying lyre, l)ron/.(' fiom Naucratis,
134
Bigha-shehr (Cyzicene distr.) inscr., 62
Bireme : ace Waiship
Boar from the Mau.sobuin, 4 f.
Boats on early Eu'vptian pottery, 322
]',oedas, Praying Boy of, 2.^)8
Boghaz Keui (Cyzicene distr.) inscr., GO
Bourgos (near Korone), remains at, 36
Brasidas and the Acanthians' treasury at
Delphi, .303, 308
Biiti.sh Museum, antiquities in :
Alexander, liead ol, 253 f.
Cleopatra VI (?;, head of, 93
Heracles, bearded head, 241
Perseus of Macedon (?), head from
Hadi'ian's Villa, 88
Scul])tures from Mausoleum : colo.s.'^al
seatinl figure. 2 ; panther, 4 ; ram, 5
Bron/.es : wrestler.^, 288 ; Heracles and
lion. 277 ; PXru.scan Peleus and
Atalanta, 278
Vases : CMazomenian "ware from Nau-
cratis, 119; Naucratis kylix with con-
test for Iripod, 122 ; porcelain vases
from Naucratis, 80 ff. ; b. f. vases
(B 193), 269 ; (B 222), 283 ; (P. 234),
276 ; (B 295), 270, 275 ; (B 621;, 273 ;
Panatli. amphora (B 603), 263, 279 ;
r. f. kvlikes : (E 36), 285 ; (E 48), 285 ;
(K 84), 264, 279; (E 94), 23, 268;
(E 95), 279 ; (E 104), 278
Coins with wrestling scenes, 271
Claze head of Ptolemaic Queen from Nau-
cnitis, 135
In-cription from Halicarnassus (886),
344 f.
Venetian woodcuts .'shewing ships, 138
MSS. Add., 22912, 22914, with (ik. inscr.,
(;2 f.
Bronzes from Naucratis, 134
Brusa, inscr., 63
Bull's head with rosette, mould from Nau-
cratis, 134
Byes in wrestling, 16 f.
Bvzantiues' treasury at Olympia, 294 If.,
'301, 312
Byzantium : form of (6, 346
C (see (ilfto K)
Caesar, Julu's : (h' hello GaU. iii. 14, 153 ;
supposed ])ortrait of, 96
Cairo ^Iiiseum : objects from Naucratis,
123 ff. ; mummy portraits from the
Fayum, 2'^5 f.
Calliades, naval tactics of, 140, 219
Capitoline Basis with Labours of Heracles,
158 ^
Capua, kratei- from, at Oxford, ()6
'Carthaginian' treasury at Olvmpia, 294,
296,299,301,303
Cercyon, wrestling of : see. Theseus
(yhabrias, naval tactics of, 140
(Jharon on lekythos, Oxford, 76
('lieih)n, Lysij)])us' portrait of, 246
Ciiild-birth tiguies from Naucrati.s, 127 f.
Chios ; battle of, 141, 152, 155 ; oIkos of the
Clytiilae, at, 310 f.
Cicero Vere. 2. v. 34, 153
(!lazonienian ware from Tcdl Defenneh and
Naucrati.-;, 119
Oleander of (Jela and the Celoaii treasury at
Olympia, 297 f.
Cleisophus of iSelynibria, story of, 305
CleouKMies 1., chronology of, 193 f.
Cleopatra (?), wife of Ptolemy V. portrait of,
91
(Jleoi)atra VI., portraits of, 93
Clytidae of Chios, sacral bouse of, 310 f.
Cnidians : their treasury at Delphi, 297,
303 f. ; the Lesche, 309, 314 ff.
Cnossus : relations with Egypt, 320 If. ;
labvrinth of, 320 If. ; use of square pillars
at, 333 f.
Coins: of Pergamene Kings, 98 f . ; with
wrestling scenes, 271
Colonides (Mes.'^enia) site of, 39
Cond) of limestone fiom Naucratis, 135
Commodus, stitue of renting Heracles with
head of (Pitti Galleryj, 240
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
375
('ominunal liouses (so-calleil treasuries) at
Olyinpia, etc., ;?02 ff.
('DiistantiiKiple : ' Sarcoplia^us of Alex-
ander', South Peiliinent, 3 ; ' Sarcoplia<^'us
of tlie Mourners ', 10 ; bronze wrestlers
291 ; marble lieads : (51) !)5 ; (82), <)(J
Copenliaj^'en : xee Jacobsen Collection
Corintli, coins witli Heracles resting', 15!)
Corinthians' treasury at Delphi, 301, 308,
310, 311
Coron : site, 36 f. ; inscrs., 42 f.
Corone (Petalidlii), 36 n., 40
Cove], inscrs. from his journal, (32 f.
Craterus, Alexander's lion-hunt vowed by,
24G
C'rete, Labyrinth of, 320 ff ; relations with
Kgypt, i/y(V/.
( 'rown of Aphrodite, 78
Cybele, temple at Isaura Nova, 164
Cypriote : inscriptions from Naucratis, 117 ;
origin of com})!enientary letter, 361 f.
Cyprus, relations with Naucratis, 130
Cvpselus, his treasury at Delphi, 301, 308,
310 f.
Cvrenaeans' treasury at Olympia 2i)4 ft".,
'29!), 301
Cyzicus : inscr. from, 62; inscrs. from
district of, 56 If.
D
Daipi'Us, Perixyomenos of, 258
Damastes on the invention of biremes, 222
Daoc.hop, his dedication at Delphi, 235 f.
1 'ebleki (Cyzicene distr.) inscr., 58
Deer, hornless, on r.f. j^uttus, Oxford, 72 ;
on r.f. lekythos, ibid 71
Deir-el-Bahari, use of white marble at, 332
Dekeres : see Warship
Delos, treasuries at, 301 ff., 308 f.
Delphi, group dedicated l)y Daochos at,
235 f. ; Theseus metope from treasury of
Athenians, 288 ; Treasuries at, 297 ft'.
Demeter, temple mentioned in inscr. from
Kenioustapha (Messenia), 50
Demetrius I. of Syria, supposed portrait of,
i)6
Demetrius Poliorketes, portraits of, 87 f ;
his ships at Salamis, 207 f., 221
Demetrius, T. Fl., mummy-portrait of, 227
Didlington Hall : see Amherst Collection
Dinek near Isanra Nova, 166 ; inscrs. 172,
175, 178
Dinek-Serai near Isaura Nova, 166, inscrs.
168 f., 176, 177
Dinorna not Isaura Nova, 163
Diocletian's Edict, fragment from Oetylus,
260 f.
Dion Cassius, 1. 33, 154
Dionysus, head of, on pot-sherd from Nau-
cratis, 121
DipyJon ships, 208 f., 222
Dog hunting hare, r.f. guttus, Oxford, 73
Domestic scenes: on r.f. hydria, Oxford,
68 ; on r.f. lekythos, Oxford, 71 ; on
polychrome lekythos, Oxford, 76
Dorhi : nee Isaura Nova
Doubh'-axe at Cnossus, 323 If. ; worship
of, 325 n.
Dove, female figure with, Naucratite terra-
cotta, 131
Drachma, signs for, 52
Dress on Graeco- Egyptian mummy-portraits,
232
Dryops, image of, at Asine, 37
Ducks on porcelain vase, Oxford, 83
E
Earrings in Graeco- Egyptian nuiuimy-
])ortraits, 2.30
Edictum Diocleiiani, fragment from Oetylus,
260 f.
Egyptian : antiquities from Naucratis,
107 f. ; element in Naucratis, 135 ; ele-
ments in ornament on porcelain vase at
Oxford, 83 ; bead with uiaeus on vase-
fragment from Naucratis, 121 ; king's
head (plaster) from Naucratis, 131 ;
mummy-portraits, 225 f. ; relations with
terete, 320 if. ; Eg. and Semitic alphabets,
relation of, 358 f.
Eleusia, treasuries at, 304
Empelos, R., 61
Enbeih)s, R., dedication to, 60
Epidamnians' treasury at Olvnipia, 294 ft'.,
300 f.,
Erasistratus, his anatomical studies, 236
Erbach, marble head (Seleucus I. ?), 94
Ermeni Keui (Cyzicene distr.), inscr. from,
57
Eros and women on vases at Oxford, 78 f.
Eteocretan tongue, 324 n.
Eumenes I., coinage of, 99
I^umenes II., coin with his portrait, 99
Eupompus and Lysippus, 245
Euren near Isaura Nova, inscrs., 172, 178
Euthycrates, sculptor, 258
Euthymides, psykter with Theseus and
Cercyon, 277
r
Faience objects : from Naucratis, 134 ;
Egyptian and Cretan, 321
Farges Collection : bronze ornament with
Heracles and lion, 277
Fayum, date of portraits from, 225 f.
Fines in pounds of silver or gold, 64
Florence :
Museo Archeologico : Chaclirylion kylix
(Theseus), 281
Pitti Gallery : Herakles resting, 157,
240
Urtizi : coin of Attains I., 101
Fox in trap, r.f. guttus, Oxford, 71
Funeral banquet on stelae from Cyzicene
distr., 58, 01
^76
INDEX TO VOLUME XXV.
G
Gabiniu.s(?), Aulas, portrait of, 91
Galen, (hi (/sit pirt., i. 24, 215
Garlund on tombstones of Nova Isaiira, 1G8
Gela, r.f. lekythoi from, at Oxford, 71
Geloans' treasury at Olvmpia, 295 f., 301,
303 f., 308 f.
Giza, temple of the Sphinx, 335
Glycon, Heracles of, 240
GondophareSjY^ on coins of, 347 n.
(ionen (Cyzicene distr.) inscr;?., 61 f.
Goula (Messenia), remains at, 38
Graeco-Egyi)liMn mummy-portraits, 225 f.
Gypsum used in (Juossian building, 331 f. ;
in Egypt, 332
H
Haotas, see Agias
Hagios Onouphrios, near Modon, 35
Hair : dressing of, on Giaeco- Egyptian
nuunmy-portraits, 228 f. ; treatment of,
in Greek sculpture, 249
Hall, Mrs., r.f. kylix with wrestlers
belonging to, 28(5
Ha-neliu (Northerner.s), Egyptian rela-
tions with, 320
Hare, dog hunting, r.f. guttus, Oxford, 73
Harpocrates, phallic figures of, 130 n.
Hawara : date of miimmv-portraits from,
225 f. ; labyrinth at, 327
Hawk on column, on put-sherd from Nau-
cratis, 121
Heats in wrestling, IC f.
Hebrew system of numeration, 356 f.
Hekkaidekeres of Demetrius, 210
Heliodorus on wrestling, 263
Hellenion at Naucratis, 110, 112 f.
Hellenistic lloyal Portraits, 86 f.
Hemiolia, 144 "f., 221
Heptereisof ]J(;metriu8 Poliorketes, 207 f.
Hera, dedication to, Naucratis, 1 17
Heraclea in Lucania, coins with Heracles
and lion, 271, 277, 281
Heracles: Figures of: Albani, 159, 162;
Farnese, 240 ; Lansdowne,240 ; inf:int,
from Naucratis (terracottxv), 115, 131 :
with Apples of Hespericles, bron/.e
statuette, 157 f.
Head of, bearded, in B.M., 241
Labours of, on (Jiipitoline Basi.s, 158 f.
With Antaeus, wrestling types, 22, 275,
279, 281 If., 289
With Apollo, contest for tripod, on kylix-
fragment from Naucratis, 122
With lion, wrestling types, 269, 272ff.,
284
Heraeum of Samos, 307
Herculanenni, marble bust of king from,
87 ; marble bust of Philetaerus (?), 89
Hercules : .see Heracles
Hermes : fastening his sandal (Munich and
Louvre), 257 ; with Argos (Oxford, r.f.
k rater), 65
Herodotus : inscr. with name of, from
Naucratis, 114, 116 ; his account of Cleo-
mencs L, 193 f. ; of the Atheno-Plataean
alliance, 198
Herophilus, his study of anatomy, 236
Hesperides, Heracles and tlie apples of,
157 f.
Hexeres, 150
nip])alciinus : sec Peleu:?
Hodja Bunar (Cyzicene distr.) inscr., 60
Homer, wrestling in (xxiii. 707 f.), 23 f.
Horsemen figures from Naucratis, 129
Hunting-scene of the MausoU'um, 3 f.
Hydriae froui Naucratis, mode of construc-
ti(m, 120
I
Ilidja (Cyzicene distr.) inscr., 59
Tllyrian ships : see Lembos.
Lnandes : sec Maindes
Isaura Nova, topography and epigrajihy,
163 f.
Isis and child, statuettes from Egyptian
sites, 128
Jackal on vase-fragment from Naucratis,
121
Jacobsen collection : portrait of Antiochus
VII. (0, 98
Japanese aiul Greek wrestling, 16
Jewellery in Graeco-Egyptian mummy-
portraits, 230
Jiu-jitsu and Greek wrestling, IG
K {see also C)
Kalos Agros, near Cyzicus, 64
Karaderc valley (Cyzicene distr.) inscrs., 59
Kasr-es-Sagha (L. Moeris), temple at, 336
Kastelia-Vounaria, 37 f.
Kerniasti (Cyzicene distr.) in=cr., 58
Kertch, r.f. gutti from Oxford, 73
Khian, Hyksos king, 320
King, Egyptian, plaster head of, from
Nauci'atis, 131
Kings, i)ortraits of Hellenistic, 86 f.
Korone (Messenia^, modern town, 36 f. : see
also Coron
Kyniskos, 161
Labauis, Egyptian king, 327 f.
Labraunda — Labyrinth, 323 f.
Labyrinths of Cret(! and Egypt, 320 ff. ;
meaning of the word, 323 f.
Lacedaemonian Confederacy, organization of,
at end of 6th century, 198, 200
Lachares, Egyptian king, 328 f.
Lamaris : see Labaris
Lansdowne Herakles, 240
INDEX OF SUI5JK(TS.
377
Laocoon, anatomy of, ^3()
Laodice (?), ])()itiait of, 95
Liuiiium, lekylliDS i'roiii, at Oxi'onl, 74
Lt'j,'li()l<ls not allowed in wrostlinif, ii() f.
Lekvtlii in Asjnnolcan Mnsenin : r.l'., 70 f. ;
IKilyclironie, 74 f.
Li'iiilio.-i, Illyrian, 147, 152
lA'iiorniant relief of ship, 'JOG, 21 1 1'., 222
Li'i)c1ku\-s : eqnesliian torso liy, from Maus-
olcnm, (i ; Alexander s lion-lmnt liy, 240
Leontijcus I he wrestler, 271
Lesehe at Delphi, 303, 317
Liliurnian <,'alleys, 148 n.
Tiiliyans of Cyrene : see (!yrenaeans
Lion :
iiorned and wini,'ed : on porcelain vase,
Oxford, 80 f. ;"in art, 83 f.
Nemean : sec Heracles
Livy, xxviii. 30, 15G ; xxx. 25, 153
Lots, drawin<^ of, for wrestling, 1(5
Lotus-ornament (>n jiorcelain vase, Oxford, 83
Louvre : sre Paris
Lucian : .Isinus 9, 15 f. ; Dial. Deor. vii. 3,
28
•Ludovisi : Ares, 257 ; relief with ship, 210
Lydians' treasury at Deles, 309 f.
Lysimacluis, portrait of, 88, 90 ; head of
Alexander on liis coins, 253
Lysippus and his works, 234 ff. ; his
Heracdes of Farnese type, 157
Lysistralus, brother of Lysippus, 257
M
IMcDOWALL, Miss: statuette of Heracles be-
longing to, 159 If.
Mahmun Keui (Cyzicene distr.), inscr. from,
57
MaVndes, Egyptian liing, 328
Man with walking-sticlf, relief from Nau-
cratis, 127
Marros, Egy])tian king, 32S f.
Mask-portraits on Graeco-Egyptian mum-
mies, 225 f.
Masonry, Egyptian, of fine period compared
with Cretan, 332 f.
Mausoleum : pediments of, 1 ff. ; restoration,
() If. ; various sculptures from, 3 If. ; style
of fighting warriors, 234 f. ; anatomy of
men and horses, 240 ; work of Scopas at,
244
Megarians' tieasurv at Olvmjiia, 295 f.,
298,301,303,308
Mendes, Egyptian king, 328 f.
Mendokliora (Mendoura), Cyzicene district,
inscr. from, 59
Meutuhetep IIL, temple of, at Deir-el-
Baluiri, 332 f.
Mesa inscr., alphabet of, 354 f.
Mesambria, T on coins of, 345 f.
Messenia, S. W., Notes and Inscriptions
from, 32 ff.
Met a = (T^/xa, 9
Metapontines' treasury at Olvmpia, 295 f.,
298,301,312
Melhone, site, history and inscriptions, 33 f.,
41 f.
Micon's paintings in the Theseum, 310
Mih.iilitcli (Cyzicene distr.) inscrs., G2
.Milesian : ware; I'rom Naucratis, 119 ; origin
of (ireek alphabet-m)tations, 302
Miletojiolis, antiiiuities from, 58
Minaean inscrs., date of, 350
Minoan civilization, relations witlr Egypt,
320 If.
Modena. coin of Attains I., 101
Modon, 34 If.
Mollis, Egyptian king, 328 f.
Moteris, Egyptian king, 328
Mothone : see Metlione
Moulds fronr Naucratis, 131
Mummy-portraits from Fay urn, date of,
225 f.
Munich : Hermes fastening sandal, 257 ;
statue (298), 98 ; bust (309), 94 ; b. f.
amphorae : (Peleus and Atalanla), 275 ;
(Heracles and Antaeus), 270, 284 ;
(wrestlers) 281, 282 ; b.f/hydria (Hera-
cles and Antaeus), 22
Mycenaean culture probably non-Aryan,
323 f.
Myron of Sicyon, 308, 310
N
Naples, antiquities at :
Bu,sts, marble: (0141) 89; (0148) 89;
(0149) 87 ; (6150) 94 ; (0158) 90, 90 ;
(Egypt, section 1037) 88
Ihists and heads, bronze : (5588) 93 ;
(5590) 90, 93 ; (5594) 95 ; (5590) 90 ;
(5598) 90 f. ; (5599) 92 ; (5000) 91 f.
Hera(des Farnese, 240
Herm, marble (0104) 90
Statuettes, bi-onze : (502fi) 94 ; (120170)
95, 98
Naucrati.*, excavations of 1903, 105 f. ; site,
105 f., 122 ; history, 100 f., 135 f. ; topo-
grapliy, 110 f ; inscriptions, 110 f. ;
pottery, painted, 118 f. ; unpainted, 123 f. ;
sculpture, 120 f. ; terracottas and moulds,
131 f. ; miscellaneous objects, 134 f. ;
fragments of porcelain vases from, 80 f. :
sign for 900 in inscrs. from, 343
Nectancbo, stela of, from Naucratis, 100
Necthebis, Egyptian king, 330
Negro's head, mould for, from Naucratis,
134
Nemean lion : see Heracles
Nike on r. f. oinochoe, O.xford, 03
Nile-boats on early Egyptian vases, 322
Nola, r. f. oinochoe from, Oxford, 09
Nonnus, wrestling in (xxx vii. 553 f.), 20
Nova Isauia, topography and epigrapiiy,
103 f.
Numeration, signs of, in Greek and other
alphabets, 338 If.
Nymph (Jpaytfhla) and Satyr on r. f.
oinochoe, Oxford, 09
378
INDEX TO VOLUME XXV.
O
Oars : see Warships
Odysseus and Ajax, wrestling match of, 24
Oetylns, t'ragnieiit of Diocletian's edict from,
2(iO f.
Ofl'erin<,'-scene of the Mnusoleum, 4 f.
Olympia : basis of Piilydamas, 241 f . ;
treasuries at, 291 f.
Oracle, Delphic, relerring to Miletus and
Ar{,'os, 1!)5
Ornaments on porcelain vase at Oxford, 80 f.
Oropus, dijaavpos at, 304
Orosius vi. 19, 154
Oxford, Ashnioleaii Museum :
Aruniiel Heracles, ](;i
Mould for ]Se;^a'o's head from Naucratis,
134
Vases : r.f. G5-73, 77-80, 274 ; Attic pioly-
chrome lekythi, 74-7() ; vase of Phoeni-
cian porcelain, 80 rt". ; pottery from
Naucratis, 119 f.
Oxyrhynchiis Pap. iii. 4()6 on \vrestlin<,', 1,3 f.
Palaestra : see Wrestling
Palaia Mothone, 34
Palaikastro, use of square i)illars at, 333
Pandemia (Cyzicene distr.), inscrs , 56 f.
Pankration and Wrestling, 18 f., 27, 30
Pantares of Gela, 297
Panther from the Mausoleum, 3
Papyri, evidence of, as to sign for 900, 342 f.
' Parian marble ' used in Egyptian labyrinth,
331 f.
Paris :
Bibliotheque Nationale :
lif. kylix (wrestlers), 268
Louvre :
FiLthter of Agasias, 236, 238
Hermes fastening sandal, 257
Portraits : Azara Alexander, 251 f. ;
Antiochus III. (1204), 96 ; Kings
(32),-88; (457) 87 ; (849)90
Prow of Samothrace, 207 f.
Parma, bronze statuette, 87
Pausanias : on Argive expedition of Cleo-
menes (III. 4), 193 f. ; name Saithidas
restored (in iv. 32. 2) 44 ; on Treasuries
at Delphi and Olympia, 294 ff.
Pedasos, 33
Pedirnental compositions, 3 ff.
Peisistratidae, relations with Lacedaenio-
mians, 199
Pelasgi non -Aryans, 324
Peleus : wrestling with Hippalcimus, 269 ;
with Atalanta, 274 f., 278
Peloponnesus in the time of Cleomenes I.,
193 f.
Pentekontor, 147
Penteres, 150 f.
Pergamene coins, 98 f.
Perixyomenos of Daippus, 258
Perseus of Macedon, portraits of, 88
Pelalidhi (Messenia), remains at, 40 ; inscrs.»
53 f.
Phallic figures from Naucratis, 130
Pharsalus, statue of Agias by Lysippus at,
235
Philetaerus, portraits of, 89, 99
Philip II. (0, i)Ortrait of, !)()
Philip v., portrait of, 88
Philip Collection : bronze wrestlers, 289
Phoenician : vase of porcelain, at Oxford,
80 f. ; ])orcelain fragments from Naucra-
tis in Brit. Mus., 81 f. ; pottery from
Naucratis, 123 f, ; origin of (Jreek alpha-
bet, 353 f.
Phylako[ii, use of scjuare ])illars at, 333
Pillars : sifuure, use of in Egyjjtian, Cretan,
and other buililing, 333 f. ; supposed
.«acred, at Cno.ssus, 326 n.
Plataean alliance with Athens, date of,
197 f.
Plato on wrestling {f.e;/. vii. 796 a, n), 27
Pliny (m the invention of bireme.«, 222 ; on
Lysippus, 234 f., 249
Plutarch: Antati. 67, 153; de def. ontc..
setting of, 317 f.
Polemo on treasuries, 301, 312
Polyaenus : (iii. 11. 14), 140, 219 ; (v. 43),
140, 219.
Polybius : (ii. 10), 152 ; (xvi. 3), 141, 219 ;
(xvi. 4), 152
Polycleitus : anatomy in his school. 238 ;
influence on Lysippus, 159 f.
Polyeres : sre Warship
Polvgnotus, his paintings in the Lesche at
Delphi, 303, 309, 315 f. ; supposed work
in the Theseum, 316
Porcelain vases at Oxford and in Brit. Mus.,
80 f.
Portholes in ancient .ships, 155 f., 210
Portraits : of Alexander the Great, 250 f. ;
on Graeco-Egyptian mummies, 225 f. ;
Hellenistic Eoyal, 86 f.
Pottery: of Nauciatis, 107, 109, 118 f., 123 f.;
Egyptian and Cretan, 321 f. : see olso
Vases
Praeneste, ship of, 209
Praxiteles, anatomy of his statue'', 237 ; date
of, 244
Presl)yteis in fourth century, 168
Priest, bust of, 95
Ptolemaic Dynasty, portraits of, 90 f.
Ptolemy I., portraits of, 90
Ptolemy II. Philadelphus, portraits of, 91
Ptolemy V. Epiphanes (?), portrait of, 93
Ptolemy Apion (/), portrait of, 91
Pulydanias basis at Olympia, 241 f.
Pyrrhus, portrait of, 88, 94
Q
QuADRiREME : See War.shi])
Quartzite iraed in Egyptian buildings, 33I1
Quiuquereme : see Warship
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
379
(jiiiiitilian <in ljysij)j)iis, 248
Qiiintii-^ SiiiyiiiatMis, \vTC'-.tling in (iv. 215 f.),
25
R
Ham from the: Miiusok-um, 4 I",
licmoiistapliu (Mfssenia), inscr. from, 49
' Uhddian ' ware of Niiucratis, 119
Ronio :
Museo Capitolino : Basis with Labours of
Heracles, 158
Museo Laterano : Marble head of kin^',
87
Museo delle Terine : bronze Hellenistic
statue, 88, 90 f. ; liead of Antiochus
VI., 97 ; other portrait-lieads, 92, 94,
97
Museo Torlonia : marble bust of Ptolemy
I. (?), 90
Palazzo Spada : relicl with ships, 210
Vatican :
Sala dei Busti : portrait-heads (275),
94 ; (310), 88 ; (338), 87
Museo Chiaramouti : bearded Heracles,
161
Museo Gre^'oriano : b.f. amphora with
athletic scenes, 288
Rowing : see Warsliip
Royal Portraits, Hidlenistic, 80 f.
Ruliayyat, luummy-portraits from, 225 f.
Sabaean inscrs., date of, 350
SabourolT Collection, porcelain vase, 84
Sacrificial scene on r.f. lekythos, Oxford, 71
St. Petersburg, bronze wrestlers, 290
Saithidas, Fi., his family, 43
Salamis (Cyprus), battle of, 30() li.c. : 149 f.,
207 f.
Sambathiou, mask-portrait of, at Cairo, 227
Samiau ware from Naucratis, 119
Samothrace, prow from, 207 f., 221
Sampi and Tsade, .■?38 f.
San and Sigma, 339
Sandwilh Collection, statuette of Heracles
from, 159 f.
Sandy ware from Naucratis, 107 f.
Satyrs : drinking (r.f. guttus, Oxford), 72 ;
hunting fox (r.f. guttus, Oxford), 71 ;
playing flute (vase fragment from
Naucratis, 121 ; on wine-skin (terra-
cotta, Cairo Mu.seum), 132 ; witli Nymph
(r.f. oinoclioo, Oxford), 09
Scaloccio, rowing <i, 150, 204 f.
Scarabs from Naucratis), 134
Scojjas : sculpture from the Mausoleum,
5 f. ; his .late, 244
Selenite : fiee (iy])!?um
Seleucid Dynasty, portraits of, 93 f., 101 f.
Seleucus I., portraits of, 90, 93 f., by Ly-
sippus, 24C)
Seleucus II. (/) marble portrait-head, 96
Seleucus, son of Antiochus I., 101 f.
Seliiiuntines' treasury at Olynipia, 294 If.,
298 f., 301
Selynd)ria, history of, 305 n.
Senusret III. and the Labyrinth, 327 f.
Sepeia, battle of, 193 f.
Sepulchral scenes on lekythi at Oxford, 74 fi".
Servilius I.'sauricus, siege of Isaura, 1(53 f.
Severus, Sei)t., inscr. to, from Methone,«43
Sicyon, Dorian reaction at, 198
Sicyonians' treasury at Olympia, 294, 296,
299, 303, 30K f. ;at Delphi, 302 f.
Sidon : ' Sarcophagus of Alexander,' 3 ;
' Sarcojiliagus of the Mourners,' 10
Sieglin collection, j)ortrait-head, 92
Siphnians' treasury at Delphi, 303 f., 315
Skamnia, 18
Sostratus of Sicyon, wrestler, 271
Sparta under Cleoim-nes I., 193 f.
Spina, history of, 305 n.
Spinatai, treasury of, at Delphi, 305 f.
Statuettes, terracotta, from Naucratis, 131
Stuttgart ; see Sieglin collection
Snsurlu (Cyzicene distr.) inscr. 58
Sybaiites' treasury at Olympia, 294, 296,
299, 301
Syracusan.s' treasury at Delphi, 303 f. ; at
■ Olympia 294, 29(i, 299 f., 303 f.
SyiMcuse, coins with Heraklesand lion, 271,
'277
T
Taijoi5ki (near Kor.nie), remains at, 36
Tattooing, 67 f.
Tegea, work of Scopas at, 244
Tell Defenneh ware, 119
Tcmenos, the supposed Great, at Naucratis,
UOf. ; the Northern, 112 f.
Teo.s, inscr. from with form T, 344
Terracottas from Naucratis, 1.31
Thalamites, 139 if., 204 f., 218 f.
Thainyris, blinding of, r. f. hydria, Oxford,
67 '
Theagenes of Megara and the Megarian
treasury at Olympia, 298
Theano, on r. f. lekythos, Oxford, 71
Thebans' treasury at Delphi, 302 f.
Thera, marble head of Ptolemy Soter I. (I),
90
Theseum ; supposed paintings by Polygnotus
in, 316 ; metope with Theseus and (Jer-
cyon, 286
Theseus and (!ercyon : 27 f., 264, 277 ff.
Thranites, 139 If., 204 f., 218 f.
Thucvdides on the Atheno-Plataean alliance,
197 f.
Tiryns and Argos in the fiftli century, 196
Tragedy, name given to nymph on r. f.
oenochoe, 69
Trajan's Column, boats on, 206, 221
Trap, spring, 71
Treasuries at Olym})ia anrl elsewhere, 294 f.
Triakontor : 144 f., 147 f.
Trihenii.dia, 141, 213
380
INDEX TO VOLUME XXV.
Trippiiit,' in wrestling, 2i) f.
Trireme : see W;irslii[)
Troilus, portrait of, bv Lvsippiis, 245
Tsa(]e and Sanipi, 338 f. '
Tuzla (Cyzicene distr.) in per., (33
Tydeus, his wrestling with Agylleu<, 20
Tydides : ses Ajax
U
UsERTSEN III., Labyrinth ascribed to, 327,
329
Walking-stick, relief of man witli. frdm
Nancratis, 127
Warriors : relief from Nancratis, 127 ;
gnmps on r.f. bell-krater, Oxfnid, (if!
Warship, the (Ireek, 137 ff., 204 ff.
Westmacott Athlete, 161
Women and child, stone figures from Nan-
cratis, 127
Wrestling, Greek, 14 ff., 263 If.
Vases in Ashmolean Museum, 65 If. ; sfc
((I so Pottery
Venetian galleys, 138 ff., 150 f. ; iuscr. at
Modan, 35
Vienna, basalt head of woman at, '.)l
Vounaria, 38 f.
W
Wace, a. J. B., coin of Attains I. belong-
in'' to, 99
Yeni Kelt (Cyzicene distr.) inscr., 60
Zakho, u.se of square pillars at, 333
Zc)r:ile, rowing <i, 151
Zeus : with eagle at feet, relief at Pandemia,
56 ; sacrilice to, relief at Assar Alan,
()0 ; (icrrjKnni, 57 ; oXfSios, 56 f.
Ziigites, 139 If., 204 f., 218 f.
IL-GrtEEK INDEX.
dyKvi.>i<rai, '2'.)'!
(iSfX(/)(irr;v, 174
iiKovird, IG
(iKi)())(fii>l.<Tfi(iS, "272
["AX l](^Li oil pot-slicnl from Niuicratip, 121
' AXiKdpvaTf'wv, 344
(iXiv8r]fTii ill wrestling, 19
'AA/ciiii^ttf, 49
<j/i0a)rt8fj of wrestler.*, 18
«i'(i = motion outwtmls, 145
uvaiSaaTiiirai as I'^oy, 23
(iva(f>ff)(li' 7r)i> KOinrjv, 145 n.
'Av^ftprji'f], MrjTTjfj, 00
dv((f)f8f)i)Si 17
/ii'Q) = astern, 142 f., 145 f.
'AttX = 'AttoAXwi/ on r.f. lekythos, 70
anTTjs, 17
ajrrojs, 25
'Api(TTi.)(os, 49
"A/)7-f(/nt£-) on r.f. lekythos, 70
Apx'So) te/jfta (Korone), 46
dpxupfvs, Christian, in Lycaonia, 170
l3aX\(iv in wre-stling, 2G5
BavaXis Isanrian name, 173, 176
^fi'Sint, 52
^iBviot, 52
■vfi/ouy, Ifpevs Ski, 46
■yui'otKaSfXt^os', 177
Ae^ldiv, 49
Stn/3«XXai/, wrestling term, 265, 292
8inj3oXi7, wrestling term, 289
^uAan^dudv, wrestling term, 280
Siqprji, 208
dUpoTos, 139, 143 f., 220 f.
Aio(TKoupi6ay rtnil similar names, 48
8tiTp(i}pos, 143 n.
dpi'iaa-fiv in wrestling, 206
(yKi)\ri^d(Tai, 293
eiV"!" <TTpe(})(iv, wrestling term, 266, 287
flcrfiKooi, Zfi'f, 57
t'Xxfti/, wrestling term. 28
eX^f/Sof, wrestling term, 266
'EXXtiviov, 6fo\ T<ov, at Naucratis, 112, 116
"K^StXos. 61
(pQoXi), 265, 289
"EfXTTTjXos, river, 61
(v = fis in Doric, 53
"Ei'SftAoj rroTo^fif, 60
fp\j/€l Dor. future of e'/JTrw, 50
KvnXoiti and similar names, 47
fipf8pos ill wrestling, 16 f.
rjSi^fTTijy, ei)ithet of bi.shop, 167
'HpoSoToy, dedications by, at Naucratis, 116.
0aXdp.a^, 205
^nXn;x>jy()$-, 143 n.
daXdTi]!, snpjiosed form, 345
Bfavco on r.f. lekythos, Oxford, 71
drjpt]ra) = 6r)pa(TU>, 52
f»jfraupoi = treasuries at Olympia and else-
where, 301
BrjanvpofpvXnKinv, 304
doivapfioj-rpia, 50
dpiivLTififs Kanni, 146 n.
dvvapfii'xTTpta, 50
If pa, 17 = dead heat, 17
iepai of Deineter, 52
Upfvs, Christian, in Lycaonia, 170, 172
ipds of boxer, 19
'loXfos on pot-sherd from Naucratis, 122
KaXof 'A-ypo'f, fpndpiov, 64
<caTd = motion inwards, 145 n.
Kara) = forward, 142 f., 145 f.
kvXktis in wrestling, 19
Kco/xaioy, 117
A«i3puy, 323 f.
XoyKrTfvdv, 45
XoyioT77j = curator reipnblicae, 44
Mn/xpfir, 169
MfX(TT]p.j^pin, 347
fi((rd<(oi. 216 f , 223
fit<To(f>fp5(i.i', 280
fxfTiilinivdv. wrestling term, 287
p.(Tn0dXX(iv, wrestling term, 287
peTaf-ii^dCd", wrestling term, 287, 289-
fD-TaTiXaa-fjLos, w'estling term, 25, 289
META on coins of Mesambria, 345
M6da,v Xidos, 33
pnioKpoTos, 139, 143 1.
IxovondXr/i, p.ovpondXr)t, 17, 19
Mi'prtf, 47
3!S:
INDEX TO VOLUlMK X\V.
^(iijs, Tsaurian name, 173
1/(101 = treasuries, 301, 311 F.
-v8a, words in, 323 f.
-i/^ov, words in, 323 f.
Ni'xrj on r.f. oinoclioe, Oxl'orJ, 09
SfVLiidas, 49
'Odf^ Mas, 174
OATATIOS, 344 f.
oiKof = ' treasury,' 301, 308, 310 11.
OlKOi Tf/ifVtOf, 31 1
oXiiios, d(6s, Ztvs, 50
OvacTioiv, 47
6f)6i] TTiiXri, 19
OvnvaXii, Isaurian name, 173, 175
TTfiXniV/xtiTn, 26
n(i\t], of>6i\, 19
WavxjaVios, 344
7r(tj)d6f(ns, 204, 279
irapaKarayojyt] 25, 289
7rapffil:io\rj, 205, 289
napf$fii)((Tla, 140 f., 217, 219
7rd(7-i (piXoi, epitliet of dead, 107
TrfpiCiAifia of wrestlers, 18
TT(pi.Ti6ivai, wrestling term, 280
7r;76uXioi/, 219
nivarpa, Isaurian term of relationship, 174
nodirji — Trpoa-ifj, 52
TTptcrjivTfpos Tu>v l\(pu)v dvaKa)\p.iiTU)v, 107 I.
TT/joio-ra/xej/or of Cliristian Church, 172
poOia^dv, 151 n.
' Pw/iin'coi', lepevi, 42
^at^ifids, *X. his family, 43
^ijiii Beoc^t'Xov, 02
(TdvdppocTTp'qa^ 51
ao-, supposed si<^rn tor, 340 I'.
' ^TT}(Ti)(opnv' kylix from Naucratis, 114,120
a vliijiloi -^ avp.f'iia), 178
o-i'o-rdo-ts in wrestliuL,', 2()4, 279
o-(/)(iXXeii/ in wrestling, 20
a';((if(ii', 219
Tfo-afpciKovTi'ipjjs, 143 n.
T/)(iywiSi'a, on r.f. oinochoe, 09
Tpa)(^t]\uTp,i')S, 272
Tpiuyp.6i;, etc., 20
TpuiKovTtiprji, 1 43 n,
TpiT]pTj^iioXi(i, 141 n.
rplKpoTOi, 139, 143 f., 220 f.
vTToyvpfacrtapxoi, 49
vTTO(TK(\iC(iv, 29, 289, 292
v(f)aip(ais, 28
v<p(Xe'ii', 28
^dKiXi's-, Isaurian name, 173
XpTjcnpiSni, 49
^^X"? = person
"P on coins of Byzantium and Ciondophares,
340 f.
M, sibilant, relation with T, 348f. ; with
Semitic \-^, 354 f.
T significance of, 338 If.
ff liistory of, 338 ff.
*^ history of, 338 ff.
K — drachma, 52
L = drachma, 52
III.-BOOKS NOTICED.
Amler.soii (J. G. C), Map of Asia Minor,
189
Balieldii (E ), see Wuddingtou
Beloch (J.), (iriechiachc Gesclnchtc, iii. 2,
IBfi
Britisli Museum, Catalofiue of Scitliifnrp, iii.
184
Catal()</iie of Greek doins: C'l/prus,
188
Burlington Fine Arts Cluli, Exh'ibithni of
Ancient Greek Art, 183
Butclier (S.), Harvard Lecture)^, 181
Cliipiez (Cli.), aee Per rot
Classen (J.), see Thucydides
Dareste (R.) and others, Recue'd des Inscrip-
tions Jur'niiques, ii, iii, 186
Demetrius .-m St>/lc, ed. lloberts, 182
Detlefsen (G.), see J^linius
Dittenberger (W.), Oriontis Graeci Inscrip-
tiones Se/ecttic, ii, 369
(iardner (!'.), Grammar of Greek Art, 309
Gomperz (Tli.), Greek T/iinkers, 181
Grundy ((i. B.), Sman Chissiral Atlas, 189
liausMiulIier (H.), see Dareste ; Pontrenioli
Hill (G. F.), Jhilisli Museum C'atolof/ite nf
Goins of Ci/prits, 188
Hoffmann (O. ), In^clirlften von Sicilien ti.
Ahv-Simhel, 186
Isaeus, Sjieeclics, eil. Wyse, 181
Mahaily (J. P.), rn.ijrcss of Hellenism, 369 :
see al.-o Petrie J'ii/>//ri
Paris (P.), I'Art et f Industrie de I l-JsjuK/iie
Primitire, 183
Perrot (G.) and Chipiez (Ch.), Hixtolrv, de
I'Art, viii, 184
Petr/e Pajnjri, ed. Maliafiy and Smyly, 367
Plato, the Mi/ths, ed. Stewart, 366
Plinius Secun<lus, ii. 242 — vi.,ed. Detlefsen,
367
Pohl (R.), J)e Graecorum }fedicis Pnhlicis,
370
Pontrenioli (E.) et Hanssoullier, Didi/mes,
182
Pettier (E.), Doitris, 368
llobei ts (W. Rhys), see Demetrius
ReiiiMch (S.), liepivtoire de la Statuuire, 184
Reinach (Th.), see Dareste ; Waddington
Sambon (A.), Monnaies Antiques de V Italic,
i. 3, 187 ; i. 4, 368
Smith (A. H.), British Museum Caialo'jne of
Hcnlptitre, iii. 184
Smith (V. A.), EarUi llistury of India, 186
Smyly (J. (jf.), see Petrie Papi/ri
Stewart (J. A.), see Plato
Svoronos (J. N.), No/iiV/inra tov Kpuroiiy toiv
n.ToXffiaioai', 188
Thucydides, vi. ed. Classen, 366
Waddington (W. H.), Uecueil (irncral de
Monnaies Grecqnes, ed. Babelon et Keinach,
i. 187
Walters (II. 15.), J/islon/ ,f Ancient Putlcni,
367
Walzinger (C.), Das Relief des Anhclaos
Vim Priene, 183
Wliildey (L.), Cunipanhin to Grerl. Stndies,
184
Wyse (W.), see Isaeus
GETTY CENTER LIBRARY
THE J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM LIBRARY ^^^ g 3 1979
3 3125 00452 2948