Skip to main content

Full text of "The Journal of Hellenic studies"

See other formats


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