Skip to main content

Full text of "The Journal of Hellenic studies"

See other formats







Till-: SOCIKTV |-()|; llli: I-KoMoI ion ol' IIKLMONIC sIL'IUKS 







Reprinted by permission of 


A Division of 


Nendeln/ Liechtenstein 


Printed in Germany 
Lessingdruckcrei Wiesbaden 


Rules of the Society 

List of Officers and Member;; 
Proceedings of the Society, l'J(l7-l'J0b 

Financial Statement 

Additions to the Library 

Accessions to the Catalogue of Slides 

Notice to Contributors 

Heazley (J. D.) 

Bkll(H. L) .. 
Hunuows (K.) ... 
Dawkins (R. M.) 

t» >> 
Dodd(C. H.) ... 
Droop (J. P.) ... 
DVKK (L.) 

KvELYN-WuiTK (H. G.) 

(Jahdnek (E. a.) 

GnuNDV (G. H.) 

Hogarth (D. G.) 
.Mak.shali, (F. H.) 
Mknakdos (S.) ... 
Miller (W.) 
Milne (J. G.) ... 
1'etrie (VV. I\L Flinders) 

S.MITH (C.) 

Three New V:vses in the Ashmolean Museum 

(Plates XXX.-XXXir.) 313 

The Aphrodito Papyri 97 

Pylos and Sphacteria 148 

Archaeology in Greece — a Correction 153 

Archaeology in Greece, 1907-1908 311> 

The Samians at Zancle-Messana (Plate XXVI.) 56 

Two Cyrenaic Kylikes 175 
Tlie Olympian Theatron and the Hattle of 

Olympia 250 

Tlie Throne of Zeus at Olympia 49 

A Statue from an Attic Tomb (Plates XX VIL- 

XXIX.) \:\6 

The Population and Policy of Sparta in the 

Fifth Century 77 

The A I chaic Artemisia 338 

AGraeco-Roman IJronze Lamp(Plate XXXIIl.) 274 

Where did Aphrodite find the I'.ody of A-lonis f 133 

The Marquisate of Boudonitza 234 

Relics of Graeco-Egyptian Schools 121 

The Structure of Herodotus, Book II. ... . , 275 
Recent Additions to the Parthenon Sculptures 

(Plate XXV.) Jfi 




1.x iv 




Strong (Mrs. S. A.) 


Tarn(W. W.) 

Underhill (G. E.) 

Van Buren (A. W.) 

Wage (A. J. B.) 

Woodward (A. M.) 

Notices of Books 

Index of Subjects 

Greek Index 

List of Books Noticed 

Antiques in the Collection of Sir Frederick 
Cook, Bart. (Plates I.-XXIV.) 

Lost Fragments of the Iphigeneia Group at 


The Fleet of Xerxes 

Theopompus (or Cratippus), Hellenica 

Inscriptions from Asia Minor, Cyprus, and the 

Topography of Pelion and Magnesia — Addenda 

Some Unpublished Attic Inscriptions 







ijsT or PL.\ri:s. 

1. Cook (Jollect ion : Archuic lleiitl. Pheidian Atliunu. 

II. „ „ Maiuad. Stele of Timarelc. 

III. „ ,, Statue of Apollo. 

IV. „ „ „ „ (Lead). 

V. „ „ Statue of Herakles. Statuettt- of Zeus. 

VI. „ „ Torso of Satyr. Male 'i'orso. 

VII.. VIII. ,, „ Venus Mazarin. 

l.\. ,, ,, Dionysos and Seilenus. Torso of .Vplirodit*. 

Aphrodite and Dolphin. 

X. „ „ Aphrodite Washinj: lier Foot. Crouching Aphro- 

dite. Aphrodite Tying her Sandal. 

XI. „ „ Roman Lady as Hygieia. Draped Female Torso. 

XII. „ „ Stelai of Phila, of Epiktesi.s, and of Archipinss. 

XIII. „ ,, Stele from Sicily. Nymph holding Shell. 

XIV. „ „ Statuette of Senecio. Boy with Go )se. Boy 

with Box. 

XV. „ ,, Erotes at Play. Seilenos supported by Sj\tyr. 

XVI. „ ,, Dionysiac Relief. 

XVII. „ „ Marble Vase with Frieze. 

XVI II. „ , Roman Portrait Busts. 

XIX. ,, ,, Sarcophagus Fragment. Sarcophagus in Athens. 

XX. „ ., Sarcophagi with Hunt of Calydonian Boar and 

Battle of Greeks and Amazons. 

XXI. ,, ., Sarcophagi. 

XXII. „ ,, Eros and Pan Vintaging. 

XXIII. „ „ Two Inscribed Stelai. 

XXIV. Head of a Girl (Collection of ^Ir. C. Newton-Robinson). 
XXV. Recent Additions to the Parthenon Sculptures. 


XXN'l. Coins of llhegium :iii<l Zaricle-Messana. 

XXVU.-XXIX. Statue of ^rourning Woman from Trenthaui. 

XXX. B.-F. Pelike in tlie A.shniolean Museum. 

XXXI. K.-K. Kratei- 

XXXI i. R.-F. Bell-Kn.tei ,. 

XXXIII. Graeco-Romaii Lamp in the Collection of Mr. 
T. Whitcombe Greene. 



Antiques in the Collection of Sir Frederick Cook, Bart. 






















Archaistic Kernale Heiul on h roiiiliyry of Sanijiis 

Female Head from Epho.scs (Vienna) 

Double Terminal Bust of Dionysus and Alexander or Hermes 

Draped Female Fi^MUf from an A^ia Minor Stele 

Cliild with ( (Vienna) ... 

Boy with Urn 

Augustan Pilaster 

Roman Boy (Antonine Period) 

Imago Clipeata (Period of Caracallus) 

Nereids riding on Se.i -panthers 

10. Erotes—Fra^-ments from a Sarcophagus 

Head of Athlete (Archaic Style) 

Male Torso 

1 )raped Torso 

Fragment of a ilelief — imitation Attic 

Seated Man 

Shrine of Kybele 

Torso of an Ana/Hiuoinent .. 

Hermes and Nymph 

Hermes Propylaios of Alcamenes (!) 

. Archaistic Bust of Diony.sus 

Double Bust of Dionysus an I .\riadne 

Head of a Roman (virt 

. Tragic Mask. Misk of Soilenos 

Dancing Satyr on reverse of Mask of Seileiio-. 

Roman Ash Ohe^t, with Forged Inscripti'in 

Heracles and Hydra (IVrracottH relief ) 












. 31 











. .. 3!) 






The Throne of Zeus at Olynipia. 

1. Coin of Klis (F''lorence) 

2, 3. Coins of Klis (lierlin) 



A Statue from an Attic Tomb. 

1. Bust from Kheiieia 

2. The ' Matron of Herculaiieuti..' .. 


Lost Fragments of the Iphig-eneia Group. 

Fragments, from a photograph taki'u in IHSG 

Two Cyrenaic Kylikes. 

Irt. Kylix in the Fitzwilli.ini 31useuui 

16. ,, ,, NatioDitl Museum, Alliens 

2a, 26. Decoration of Kylikes 

3. Interior of kylix in Nat. Mus., Athens 

4. Foot-forms of kylikes 



Inscriptions from Asia Minor, etc. 

1, Altar at Makri 

2, Inscribed block at Side 

3, Inscribed Fragments in American School at Home 


Tlie Marquisate of Boudonitza. 

1. Boudonitza: the Castle from tlie West 

2. „ „ ,, 

3. ,, the Keep iind the Hellenic Gateway ... 

4. „ the Hellenic Gateway 




BAKT., AT i)<)r(;iri'\ iiorsK. hiciimond. 

[I'l.ATKS I. - XXI \'. I 

Thk iiKiiHiiiuiital work ot I'rufessor Michadis, Ancient Mitrhlen iu Great 
Britain, must always remain the basis ot'any study ainon^f Kn^Hish collections 
of antiques. IJut since its publication in 1H82 not a tew collections lia\«' 
changed hands, others have been dispersed, while otheis, more t'urtunate, 
have been enlarged; in these various processes much that was unkn()wn even 
to Michaelis has conte to light, and he himself soon su])plemented his great 
work by two important pa])ers piinied in this .lournaj in I'S'S4 and 1.SH5. lie 
prefaced the first of these supjilcmeiitaiy pajiers with tlie Injl.iwing words: 

' I cannot help lliinkini; thai there iiuist he in (Jreat Britain a j^ooil ih-al of hiihlen 
treasure . . . whicli would ])erhap3 easier come to lij^ht if theri; were a place expressly 
destined to receive such communications ... I have tlieiefore ventured to i)ropo8e to the 
Editors to open in this Journal a corner for storing up such supplements ... As a first 
instalment, I here otfer some notes whiih may l)ej^in the series . . . May other lovers .md 
students ol the Classic art, especially in (Jreat I'ritain, follow my example.' 

Curiously enough, save foi- a tew jiapers which have appeared at long 
and irregidar intervals,' this wish of the great Strassburg Professor h;i.s 
remained nrduifiiied. It still remains a national reproach that our English 

' Till' t'cilldwing is a list ol' ihesc papers. 
Journal of Hcllcnir Sltuh'cs : Vul. V. Snpp. I. 
r.HHiiii Hall and Aiiti<iuarian Kemiiins in the Mn- 
scuiimt Ediiiliurgh. — Vol. VI. A. Mn iiakms. 
Anciont Marl)le.s in (Jreat llritain. Siipp. II. 
(1) llaniilfon I'ahwu' ; (2) Ililiinf^don C'onit, 
Miildlesex ; (3) Castle Howard, Yorksliirc : 
(4) Inre Hlundell Hall : (;'<) H. Atkin.son, Lon 
don ; (6) Sundonie Castle ; (7) West I'ark. 
Hants; (8) The Corinthian I'uleal.— Vol. VII. 
C. WAi.nsTKiN. Collection <>i Sir Charles 
Nichi>lson, The (inuiqc, 't'otteridgc, Herts. 
— Vol. XI. E. L. HicK.s. Museum 1(1 the Leeds 
rhilosophical Society. (Chielly inscriptions.) 
—Vol. XIV. E. SKM.ri:s. Creek Head in the 
ro.ssc.<!sion of T. Hum].hry Ward. (I'late V.) 
— Vol. XVIII. E. A. OAunM-.K. Head in th.' 
IVssession of Philip Nelson, M.B. i IMate Xl.^ 

tr S. — VOL. XXVIIi. 

— Vol. XIX. v.. A. Cakonki:. Head from the 
l>isiiey Collection in the 1'os.sos.sion of I'hilip, M.B. (Fhitel.)-VoL XX. C. K..r.KKr. 
Roman Sarcophagi at'Clieveden. (Plates VII. 
.XII.)-- Vol. XXI. A. Krriw.vNta.Ki:. Ancient 
Siid)>tnres at Chatsworth House. — \'ol. XXIII. 
Mks. S. Airriirn Sthono. Thveo Scnljitincd 
Stelai in the Posse.ssinu of Lord Newton at 
Lyme Park. (Plates XL, XIL)-Vol. XXV. 
(1905), p. If)?. K. Mcl)oWAl.r. (Mrs. Esdaile). 
Hronze Statuette in the writer's 

— Vol. XXVI. Mits. S. AuTiiun Stkon<;. 
Statue of a Roy Loaning on a Pillar in the 
Nelson Collection. (Since gone to Munich.) 
(Plates I. XI.)— Vol. XXVII. J.SrRZYC.oWSKI. 
A S.Tieophagus of the Siilaniara Tvpi' in the 
C.".k Collection. (Plates V., Xll.t 



collections have till recently been explored almost wholly by foreign schulars. 
After Michaelis came Professor Furtwjingler, who, in his Masterpieces of 
(irech Sculpture, made known works in private collections which have since 
become famous, such as the Petworth Athlete, the Landsowne Heracles, and 
the Leconfield Aphrodite, that great original attributed to Praxiteles 
himself, not to speak of a number of statues and busts of less importance. 
Other results of Furtwangler's researches among English private col- 
lections are given in the first part of his great work on copies, Statuen- 
copien im AUerthnm, which, unfortunately for science, remains unfinished, 
and also in the paper which he wTote upon the antiques at Chatsworth 
{J.H.S. 1900). 

These surveys of the English collections bore fruit in 1903, in the 
Exhibition of Greek Art organized by the Burlington Fine Arts Club. This 
event was a welcome sign of a reawakening interest on the part of the 
English themselves — owners and public alike — in the treasures of antique 
art in the country. Since then, at any rate, a more intelligent care has been 
bestowed on antiques, which are now once more valued almost as highly as 
pictures. When Professor Michaelis revisits the scene of his earlier labours 
he will find matters much improved. The names of owners are by no 
means yet ' inscribed in letters of gold on the roll of donors to the British 
Museum,' but better still has been done. In many places trained curators 
are in charge of the collections, in place of the housekeepers at whose hands 
Professor Michaelis suffered so much, and the antiques are being rearranged, 
catalogued,- and made more generally accessible to both students and public, 
Avithout for that being dissociated from their historic surroundings. 

The large Catalogue issued at the close of the 1903 Exhibition had 
marked a new departure, in that every single object described was also 
illustrated. The time has now come to apply the same principle to indi- 
vidual collections and to issue catalogues in which a complete series of 
illustrations, based on photographs, shall be given! The present paper on 
the well-known Cook collection at Richmond which was so largely repre- 
.sented in the Exhibition of 1903 is an attempt to show how this might be 
carried out under the auspices of the Hellenic Society. Sir Frederick 
Cook, in con.senting to the publication of his antiques in this Journal,, 
generously undertook to help the Society by defraying the photographic 
expenses and by contributing towards the cost of the numerous plates. 
It is my belief that many, if not all, owners of collections might be 
willing thus to follow Sir Frederick's lead and to meet the Society half- 
way in the proposed scheme for issuing at frequent intervals illustrated 
monographs similar in character to the present. I may add that a set 
«jf the photographs upon which the illustrations are based will in due course 
be accessible at the Library of the Hellenic Society. It is hoped that in 
this manner illustrated monographs such as are now proposed might fulfil a 

■^ Ml-. Arthur Smith's catalogues of the collections at Lansdownc House, Woburn Ahbey. 
and Brocklesby, are cases in jtoint. 

I'l'.. 1. — All' IIAl.sTH KkM \1,K IIk.AD OS A rulil'llYKY 

MrsT OK Smiaims. (S) 

li'.. 7. — Imai;o C'lipkaia. v31»/ 
)'i-riod of" Canioallii*. 

I'l':. -21. — IIeai" oi A <;ilii. (6_' 

Ki' . li — K.iMAN Boy. (38) 
Antoiiiiio IV-riod. 

» 2 


double object, — as scientihc contributions to the Jminud of Hellenic I'^tifdics, 
and as illustrated registei-s of i^hotographs, somewhat on the plan of the 
Kinzelaufnahmen so ably edited by Dr. Paul Arndt. Such catalogue.^, 
moreover, can also become of the utmost value for that State registration of 
works of art in private collections which has lately been so persistently 
advocated. It has been suggested before that a well-established Society like 
the Hellenic should take the first steps towards securing registration of works 
of antique art in private hands. 

The collection of pictures gathered together at Dought}- House, 
Richmond, is justly esteemed one of the finest and most important in 
England. Where so many original masterpieces of the Renaissance and 
modern times must claim the first interest the antiques .scattered about 
among them have in great me;vsure been overlooked by any but professional 
archaeologists. Yet these antiques form a group of considerable interest. 
' The Richmond collection,' wntes Michaelis, ' was formed from purchases in 
Italy, France and England, partly from old collectitms and at sales, partly 
from the results of the latest excavations, so that the cabinet, though not 
large-, is various.' {Ancient Marhles, Preface, p. 177.) 

The collection is certainly representative, its works ranging from the 
eai'ly fifth centur}' n.c. to Roman portraits and sarcophagi of the third 
Century A.l)., yet its mani strength may be said to reside in the numerous 
and well-preserved examples of Hellenistic works and works from Asia Minor. 
Foremost among these are the stelai of Archippos, Phila, and Epiktesis (Nos. 
21-28) and the great Graeco-Syrian sarcophagus — perhaps the most impoitant 
of all the antiques at Richmond — published in the last volume of this 
Jonrnal by Professor Strzygowski,-* who took it as starting point for new 
researches into the origin and character of late Graeco- Asiatic art. 

The history of the collection and of its acquisition by Sir Francis Cook, 
first baroni't and father of the present owner, has been fully told by Michaelis, 
who has also given a very complete; account of each work of art previous to 
its coming into the Richmond collection. On all these points, therefore, I 
shall limit myself to the briefest indications and refer to the abundant 
documentary evidence collected by Michaelis. 

A few works of art are now described which were not at Richmond whcm 
the Ancient Marbles was compiled. The most remarkable of these is doubt- 
less the Apollo (No. 5), considered ])y Furtwangler to be a copy of an 
original by Euphranor, while Dr. Waldstein, guided mainly by the beauty of 
the head, actually thought it an original by Praxiteles. 

The objects noted by Michaelis as being at Cintra in Portugal, when^ 
Sir Frederick Cook is Viscomte de Monserrat, remain there. They were 
catalogued by Dr. W. Gurlitt in the Archacologischc Zcitiuuj, 18(j8, pp. 84- ff. 
The beautiful collection of bmnzes (Michaelis, Richmond, Nos. 19-89), 
together with the gems, passed at the death of Sir Francis to his second son, 

» 'A Sarcophagus of tlic Si<laiiiiira Tvi"- in llu Ci'llicticii of Sir Fjrilcrick Cook at IJicliiiiond,' 
J.H.S. 1907, \\ 99. 

'INK COOK coi.u:! rioN 5 

the liitr Ml. \\ yiHlhiiiii C'oi)k,aii<l aif iiou the piupii t v <>lMr>. \\ \ mlliaiii 
(look of" S, Cadogiin Scjuarc These broii/cs and gfins which figured largel\ in 
th«' Hiirlingtoii Fine Arts ( 'hih K.xhihil loii uf 1!)();V are tinw heing catalomied 
hy Mr. Cecil H. Smith. 

I have attempted Id make the catalogue mure instnicti\e .nul inter- 
esting by grouping the objects int<» periods. In a final section I have placed 
objects j)recise (late nr artistic provenance is difficult to disc<»ver. 

My thanks on behalf of the Society aie due to Sir I'Vederjck Cook for 
the liberal support alieady alluded to. T ha\e, tnono\fr, received a.ssistance 
in special points from Mrs. Esdaile, Mr. A. H. Smith, ])r. Amelung, 
Di-. Robert, and above all, from l*rofess<»r Michaelis, who, with a kindness that 
has deeply touched me, has read the proofs of this article and generously 
given me the advantage of his immense e.xperience and .special kmjwledge. 
That he should have undertaken this labour, when he is not yet completely 
restored to health, is a welcome sign of his unHagging interest in the English 

I only regret that I have; not done bitd r justice to many of Professor 
Michaelis's suggestions. Hut this article, begun in 11)03 and then laid aside 
for four years, has had to be hurrii'dly finished, that not too long an interval 
shoidd divide it from Professor Strzygowski s paper on the (Jraeco-Syrian 
Saivophagus in this same collection. 

§ 1. — Arc/i'ilr. First Jf<<//' </ Fifl/t Cealnrii ll.C. 

1 ( = Michaelis 53). Female Head. Anti<|ue replica <if a Pejopou- 
n«sian work of about 480 4(j() u.r. { I'late 1.) 

Total he iff lU : 24 cm. L'utjt/, ,ii' tare : IS iin. Ji-s('))-of : nose, nimitli, ami 
iliiii ; the inoilrrn luist lias lately luen riiinjvr.l. JU-plici'<: I,aiis«lo\vnc House, Mich. 

Fio. A. 

53 = /?./■'. i4.C. Cat. Ni). 11 p. 12; Vati. an .Miis. C'hianinionti xv, 363 = Amcluiig Vat. 
I'at. i. i>. 549 ; Vienun (from Eiihesiis, svv von Solinci<ler, Ausatfllumj von Fnudstiicken 

6 MK8. 8. A. STRONG 

(111,1 EpJicsos, 1902, [.. 0, Xc>. 4 ; cf. Wacf iaJ.If.S. xxiii, l!t03, \>. 343, Fi^. 12 = heiv 
Fig. A); Madrid (Koepp, Piooi MHth. 1886, p. 201); Villa All.ani (Koepp, op. cif. : 
the head is on a column in the garden ; it will shoitly ajipear in Aindt's Eln~cJauf- 
nahmen). Exhibited, Huilington Fine Arts Club, 1903 (see Cat. Greek Art, \k 10, 
No. 7 and Plate VII.). 

The hair is rolled back from the temples into a massive ball-like knot 
at the nape. The long oval, the strongly marked chin and high skull are 
strikingly individual. The large prominent eyes lie in one plane, as in 
archaic wurks. The expression is almost sullen. This replica loses consid- 
erably from the absence of the neck, which was long and well shaped (cf 
especially the Ephesus example). The general character recalls works of the 
Argive school such as the Ligorio bronze in Berlin (in which Furtwiingler * 
recognizes an original of the school of the Argive Hagelaidas) and the 
bronze head of a boy, also in Berlin (Furtwiingler, Mcisteriocrhc , Taf 32, 
pp. 675 foil.). Helbig on the other hand, in discussing the Chiaramonti 
replica (Filhrer, No. 86) detects an affinity with the Olympia sculptures.^ 
The large number of replicas shews that the original was celebrated. Other 
heads closely akin in character are at Copenhagen (Arndt. Gly2'>t. dc Ky 
Carlshcrg, Plates XXXI, XXXII, Fig. 29, and p. 49), in the Museo 
Torlonia (Arndt, op. cit Figs. 21, 22), and in the British Museum (Cat. 1794). 
Finally a statue in the Mu.seum of Candia (phot. Maraghiannis) with head 
very similar to the type under discussion affords a clear notion of what the 
figure was like to which the Richmond head belonged (Mariani, Ballet. 
Comun. 1897, p. 183 ; cf Amelung, Museums of Rome, p. 260). 

§ 2. — The Pheidinn Period. 
a ( = Michaelis 50). Helmeted Head of Athena. (Plate I.) 

Total heiijht: 0'43 ( ;.;. Lcngtli of face : 0"18 cm. Restored: front of the face, 
including nose, mouth, chin, and nearly the whole of both eyes, and a jiiecc of hair on 
the left side. The curls that fall over the neck to the front are broken, as well as the 
hair that flowed over the back from under the helmet. The helmet has lost the 
sphinx that formed the crest, and the griffins on either side arc broken. Literature : 
B.F.A.C. Cat. p. 257, No. 61. Replicas: (1) the head of the Hope Athena at 
Deepdene (Mich. Deepdene, No. 39 ; Furtwiingler, Masterpieces, pi>. 75 fT. ; 
Joubin in Monuments et Mimoires, iii. 1896, PI. II, i)p. 27 tf. ; Clarac-Reinach, 
227, 3) ; (2) tlic head, known only from a cast at Dres(hn, Masterpieces, Fig. 25 a, 
Fig. 28. 

In spite of the many restorations and mutilations and of the bad 
condition of what surface remains, the head still bears witness to the 
giandeur of the original type, which has justly been referred to Pheidias 
by Furtwangler {lac. cit.). Michaelis overlooked the fact that this was a 
replica of the head of the Athena represented by the Hoj)e statue, which differs 
in sundry particulars from the similar ' Athena Farnesc,' in Naples (Clarac- 
Kfinach, 226, 7 ; Maslerpirrcs, Fig. 26). The body of the griffins is sketched 

* 50tli Winckelmaniisjirogramiii ' Eine Argiv- * Wace, also, was reminded by the Eplusu-, 

i^i lie Bronze,' |ip. 125 fl. head of the llesperid of the Olympia metojie. 


ill iclu't oil thr lii'liiK-t, instead ot .standing,' out in (In- niuti«l ;ls in tlic 
F.iincM- statut'. 'I'lif I yt'liils of tin- H«>|>t' ty|>«' ;irf nmrc delicate, tin- <ival nt 
the tact' longer and nioic ittjtuMl. Fiirtwan^lir was pcrHiiaclcd that wliili- 
the Hi»iK' ty|u- nii^ht l»e lel'eiied to I'heidias hiniselt, the FarneM- Athena 
was the creation of his |iii|iil Ak-auienes. Without venturing on so hold an 
attribution or so decisive a distinction, we yet feel that the ditVercnces 
between the two types are not merely such as a copyist might intiiMJiice, but 
are the outi-oiue of the artist's own in<li\ itjiial teelini^s. 

§ \l— A/fir. The Sannd Hnlf of Fifth Century. 

3 ( = Michaelis 10). Stele of Timarete. ( Plate II.) 

Ueiijhl : ir82 < m. LiUraluie : Conze, (Jricchische Grabrrliefs, 882 and Taf. 
CLXXlil. ; li.F.A.C. Cat. 31, luul IM. XVI. ; lor the ins-r. C.I.<ir. 700J. Marbh : 
IViitelic. lireakaijes : the akioteria. The slal) itself has t)eeu l>roker» right aciOM, 
just l)eh>\v till- girl's hta<i, and mended again ; llie binl '.s head and the dr«|Kry on the 
lowii part of the childs liody have been rubbed and lierome ratlier indistiiK t. Fontier 
owiu-r: The clieniist Dodd. E.xliibited, B.F.A.C. iu 1903. 

The stele terminates in a pediment that projects somewhat beyond the 
relief itself. The bottom of the stele has been lett rough for insertion into a 
plinth. The beautiful design with its fine sense of space and composition 
retpiires no explanation. Timarete, a girl who has died untinuly, shews a 
bird to a little child crouching in front of her. The spirit and techni(pie 
recall the finer Attic stelai of the period of the Parthenon frieze. In spite 
of the damages noteil above, the preservation is good. As often in reliefs 
of this period, the chihl is absurdly small in proportii>n to the principal 

4 ( = Michaelis 11 ). Maenad with the Tympanon. (Plate II.) 

Height: 054 cm. Marble: Pentelic. Breakages: the ulief, wtiioh Inlong^ to n 
circular liasis, adorntd with .several aimilar Hgures, hn.s In-eii cut away close to the 
figure. Ji'plicm : see Hausei, Die Aen-Attiichen lielie/s, \>. 7, f. 1 (reverw of 
Amphora of Sosil)ins in the Louvre), 4 (Amelung, I'at. Cat. Mua. Chiarani. 182), 6, 8 
(Madrid, see Winter, [>Oth fyinrkclmaniisprii'/Kimm), 9. Lileratme: Hiinser, ^. fi7. 
p. 13, No. 12; li.F.A.C. Cnt. p. If., No. 1(5, an<l ThU.- XVI. Exhibited. li.F.A.C. 

The Bacchante, who holds the tympanon in her left hand ready to strike 
it with her right, is one of a well known group of types (Hauser's Type 27) 
that occur repeatedly on the reliefs of the New^ Attic school. In the present 
instance the pose of the head, the movement of body antl drapery, are 
rendere<l with a force and distinction of line not always found in thii class of 
reliefs, where the types ()f earlier Attic art were too often repeated 
mechanically for mere ornamental puqioses. The extraordinary elegance 
i>f the forms, the grand rushing movement, the sweeping curves of the lines, 
the clinging transparent draj)eries, shew that the original belonged to the 
.school which jirodut-ed the famous Nike of Paioiiios at Olympia and kindred 


works (Aiiielung, Museums, p. 22, p. 95, p. 214). The beautiful figure onee 
formed jjart of a large composition comprising probably -as many as eight 
Maenads grouped, it may be, round Dionysus and Ariadne. (Sec Winter, 
loc. cit. p. 112 f ; Anvelung, Museums, p. 214.) An imitation, on a much 
smaller scale, of part of the original design seems preserved on the lovely 
round altar in Lansdowne House (Hauser, p. 11, No. 12; Michaeli.s, L. H., 
No. 58), from which, however, the figure now under di.scussion is absent. The 
.series to which the present figure belonged was evidently on a much reduced 
.scale, less than half the height, for instance, of the magnificent Maenad 
Chimairophonos from a similar cycle, in the Palazzo dei Conservatori {height, 
1 m. 42, Amelung, Museums, Fig. ll(i). Along the basis juns a delicate 
astragalos moulding. 

§ 4. — Schools of the Fourth Century B.C. 
6 {not in Michaelis). Statue of Apollo. (Plates III. and IV.) 

Height : 1 m. 74. llestorations : part of tiiuik jiiid quiver (part antique) ; right 
liand with arrow and left forearm ; the anti(pie liead lias been broken and set on again. 
Jleplicaft : see Furtwiingler, Maslrrpieces, \>. 354, note 4. Literature : Furtwiingler, 
loc. cit.'^ Former eolis. : Shugl)oroiigli and Stowe. From the word.s 'Stowe' and 
' Antinous ' inscribed in gilt letters on the modern base, it appears that the statue 
was once in the Stowe collection ; it is probably identical with tlie 'Antinous' (Stove 
Cut. by H. R. Fostei', p. 26")) 'a very tine specimen of antique sculpture' purchased 
at the Stowe .sale by a Mr. J. Browne of University Str." " 

This statue was first noted and described by Furtwiingler (50th 
Winelcehnannsprogrdiiim, p. 152, note f)2, cf Masterpieces I.e.) and connected 
by him with an original of the fourth century n.c. which, in contrast to the 
innovations of the Praxitelean and Scopasian schools, preserves or revives 
characteristics of old Argive art. In spite of the rounded modelling which 
clearly proclaims the manner of the fourth century, the great breadth of the 
shoulders as compared with the waist recalls the archaic ' canon ' familiarly 
connected with the name of Hagelaida.s. Moreover, Furtwiingler identifies 
the artist of the original with Euphranor, a native of Corinth, who seems to 

" C Waldstein proposes to recognize in tliis (.sec Michaeli.s, Anc. Marbles, p. 126) the Apollo 

Apollo a work of the Praxitelean school (sec found its way to Stowe. The statue in the 

Illustrated London Ncus, .July, 1903). Shugborough collection with which it should 

" Prof. Michaelis writes to me quoting a probably be identified is, as Prof. Michaelis 

letter from the late Dr. A. S. Muiiay informing points out to me, the 'Adonis' [Anc. Marbles, 

him of 'a marlde statue of an Apollo sold at p. 70, n. 174) — but in the Stowe Coll. it 

(."liristic's, 23 February, 1883, with a head received, as the modern lettering shows, the 

much like that of Antinous, and restored in name of Antinous. This Stowe Antinous was, 

srveial places ; it was formerly in the Shug- according to Foster's catalogue, purchased by a 

liorough collection, afteiwards in the possession Mr. J. Browne, from whose posse.ssion it must 

of Mr. Angersttin, with which [sic] it was sold then have passed into that of Mr. W. Anger- 

and was bought by Mr. Cook at Richmond.' stein. In Christie's Catalogue of the Angerstein 

This is evidently the Apollo catalogued aljovc sale it figures as ' an antique statue of Apollo, 

We must therefore suppose that at the disi»crsal on statuary marble pedestal. From Sto'irrJ' 

of the Shugborough collection soon after 1802 (liOt 204, purchased for £194 6s.) 

THK COOK ColJ.KC'l h».\ ;> 

li;i\r work<<l iiiaiiily in Atluiis, jiiid mi^'lit t ln'rtt'..H' \v<ll (•(.uibiiic Ai;,'i\i 
cliaractiiist ii's w it li tlir Attic iiianinr. Hf fluiu i>ln(| altoiit 'M>2 \n . The 
suhjt'ct is kiiiiwii to hv Apullu IVdiii tin- att lihutt-s In tlit- n-plica at 
I^ansdowiic Hdiisr," for instance (Micliarlis, L. H. '.i2), wliich is one '<{' 
till- most conipk'tc, Apollo wears a laiiitl wreath which, though il may !»'• 
the cojivist's addition, shews that the ori^dnal was believed to be an A})ol|o. 
In the present n-plica. a small part of the <piiver is anticpie. The b.>t 
known of the many rej)Iicas is the oK'gant but lifoless statuf, perhaps <jf the 
Hadrianic period, in the (lnhimttn ihllc Mnsrlicre of the Vatican (N^'. 4 l."{. 
Amelimg, Mi'srinns p. OH: Fnitwanglei-, nj). rit. Fig. lo.'i). 

6 ( = -Michaelis :i '). Statue of Heracles. ( Plato V.) 

Total h'iy/it : 1 '28 ; //. nj pedestal : ()9 tin. ] Unto rat ioivt, Ac : u piece in the 
niidtilc of tlw club. 'I'ln- licaii, the r. arm IVom the cIl,>ow, ami [mrt of the le;i8 .ue 
liioken 1ml aulii|iie. lieplkc^ : Palazzi) Sijuna, MatzDuhn, i. 118. Former >oll. : 
Lord Stratford dc Kedditre (17«rt 1880), identical with the statue sold at Oiiisti^'K 
in 1878 tor i,'l 10." Proxmancr : Constanlinojile J.itirature ■ H. V. Hmlwig, Hn'dlnt 
init don FuUhorn, y. 52. 

Heracles is rej)resented bearded and weais a uicath of broad leaves tied 
together at the back with a fillet, the ends of which are seen on either 
shoulder. 'rh»> lion skin is thrown over his left arm, which holds a cornncojiidr : 
the r. hand icsts on the club. The weight is borne ])y the r. leg; the I. leg is 
place(l forward at ease. The pose recalls a whole series of statues of the 
Attic School, of which the Lansdowne Heracles (Furtwiingler, .]f(tfitn'j)i<rrs. 
Fig. 125) is one of the best known. The soft forms of the present statue and 
the sinuous line of the torso suggest an Attic original of the ftmrth certtury, 
while the crisp hair and the deep-set eyes recall Scopa.s. For a kindre<l type 
from the Praxitelean School .see Mtxsterpica'fi, Fig. 145. The actual statue 
before us is of late probably Komati e.vecution ; the detail of the fruit and 
the .somewhat sen.sational treatment of the lion skin are probably due to the 
copyist. For Heracles with the horn of ])lenty, which he carries as early as 
on a votive )-elief of the foiii-tli centur\- from Thebes, see Fmtwiinglc r "/'. 

7 ( = Michaelis 5\ Statuette of Zeus or Asklepios. (Plate V.) 

Hiiyhl . 0-70 cm. Marbh : Italian ]U>:t>,ratio,is : neck, ri;;ht aim with 
should' 1, thunderbolt, pedestal with both feet and omphalos, fingers of left IirikI, an.l 
jiatchcs in the drapery. The head seems antique, but is of a different marble and do«s 
not belong to tho statue. The moilius is in great part modern. Former coUertioit : 
Fran/ Pulszkv. 

" 111 the diuiii>^-rooin, unfortunati ly still un- 'oriiui npiae ; the lion's skin on the tnmk of a 

published, e.xcept for Chirac ^ =(laia(;Heinach, tree at lii.s bide, 4 ft. 3 in. h. This tifjuie 

241 1 1). wliich is in line condition, represent"! a new 

" See Christie's Sal: Catalogue, June 29, and intere.stin;; ty|« of Hercules (from Con- 

1878, p. 8, Lot 50 c: 'An Antique Statue of stanlinople). This description and the height 

Heicule.s, th.' head wnathed with vino leaves, place the idenfitv with the Cook statue b. youd 

holding a club in his rinht liand, in his left a doubt. 

10 MH8. S. A. STRONG 

The hand is planted on the hip in a manner familiar from statues of 
Asklepios, of. Clarac-Reinach 500, 3 (Wilton House) and the examples in 
Jiepertnire ii, 32-30. The nobility of the pose and the throw of the drapery 
make the interpretation of Zeus possible. The modins, however, cannot be 
taken to indicate a Zeus Sarapis, since the head is foreign to the statue. 

8 {not . in Michaelis). Porphyry Bust of Sarapis, after Bryaxis. 
(Fig. 1. p. 3.) 

Height : about '20 cm. Replicas : the 33 leiilica.s of this type are eiiuniciated liy 
Anielung, Jlcv. Archial. 1903, ii. \>\k 189-194. 

The execution of the bust in porphyry seems to point to an Egyptian 
origin, and in effect it is an exact replica of the up})er portion of the cele- 
brated type of Sarapis known from so many examples, and referred with 
almost absolute certainty to the famous cultus statue of the Sarapeum at 
Alexandria, executed by the Attic sculptor Bryaxis, a contemporary of 
Scopas (Robert, art. Bri/axis in Pauly-Wissowa). The best known of these 
images is the bust in the Sala dei Busti of the Vatican (No. 298 : Amelung, 
Museums p. 91). The famous bust in the Sala Rotonda (No. 549) is a 
somewhat later variant (Amelung, luc. cit. p. 194). The god, who was seated, 
was clad in a chiton which just fell over the right shoulder, leaving the arm 
bare ; over the lower part of the body was thrown a heavy himation which 
was brought round across the back and fell over the left shoulder. The 
Sarapis of Bryaxis is the subject of an admirable paper by Amelung 
referred to above. To Dr. Amelung also I owe the identification of the 
present bust. 

A graceful female (?) head of archaistic type (8a) has been curiously 
adjusted by a modern restorer to this bust of a male god. 

9 ( = Michaelis 42). Torso of a Satyr. (Plate VI.) 

Height : about "60 cm. Marble : Greek. Breakages : the chest has flaked away. 
Replicas : Clarac-Keinach, 395, 1 anl 3. 

This is a fragment of a replica of the famous Satyr of the Tribuna of the 
Urtizi, beating time with his foot on the Kpovrre^iov or wooden double sole. 
From a Maenad on the lid of the Casali Sarcophagus (now in the Ny Carlsberg 
Museum at Copenhagen ; Baumeister, Denkmiiler, i. p. 442, fig. 492), who uses 
the Kpovire^iov and at the same time plays the double tlute, it would seem 
that the Satyr should be restored with the double flute and not, as in the 
Uttizi example, with castanets (see Amelung, Fuhrer durch die Anliken 
ill Florenz, p. 44). The original, which is not impossibly the example in 
tht- Uffizi, belongs to about the middle of the third century n.c. 

10 ( = Michaelis 43). Male Torso, r Plate VI.) 

Height: 0-39. Marble: Greek. 

(Jn the left shoulder are traces of a taenia (0, of hair (/). or of a skin {!). 
Possibly a Heracles (tentatively suggested by Michaelis). The right arm was 


luurivd, tile li'tt L'\lt'inli'<l .111(1 >"iii.what laisrd to us[ on a pillar or ntlnr 
object. Tin- niulivc jxtints to llir fuuitli »«iitur\, Imt tin- hard cxaggcmtt'd 

ri'iuifiiii^f ot t ill' nmsclfs is cliaradcristif of a lati r date. 

11 ( = Michaclis 2). Statue of Aphrodite. \'< iius Msi/ariii.' 

IMatis VII. ciiid VIII.) 

Total hiiijhl; 1 in. 80 ciii. lUsloralious and hriuknijts . Imll the knot ol hair, 
pieiih of each hrcast, part of tlip (loI[>liin'a tuil, arc rentured. The heail mid the rij^ht 
arm hohiing the drapery arc limkeii, hut bchxif^ to the HtatiU'. In the hick nie the 
traces of gun-.shots which .struck the statue during the Hcvulutioii wlien the lia|.|iy 
'jirccaution had heeii taken to turn the face of the go<l(lc88 to the wall." The Mtaluc it 
otherwise in ndniirHble preservation. Three marks on the hack of the dolphin hhew 
that an Eros probahly stood here. Marble : fine so-called Parian. Former ownern : 
Coll. Mazarin, Moiis. dc licaujon (on the modern history of the statue consult 
Michiirlis). Jieplica : the nearest is Clarac-Reinach, 3'25, <5. 

There aie immerou.s statues of a similar tyiie (sec JJciiiuulli, Aj>hiu(fite, 
jiji. 248 ft".), but noiif that can be exactly called a replica. All thesi- .st4itues 
with their slightly varying iiiotivi' evidently (K-rivc from the Ciiidian A]»hro<1it<' 
ot I'raxiteles, to which a new character is imparted by letting the drapery 
partially enfold the lower part of the body. The movement of the h.'ft arm 
and of the hand that grasps the drapery in front of the body is closely 
imitated from the nude statue: the other arm, which in the Cnidian statue 
would be lowered to drop the drapery on the vase, is somewhat raised and 
holds the other end of the drapery away from the body. It should be noted 
that the action of the arms of the Cnidian statue is "reversed in the present 
<'xamj)le, as it is in the greater number of the standing Aphnxlites of this 
type. the Capitojinc, the Mcdicean, etc. 

Lsitely the attem])t has been made by S. Keinach to trace the similar 
statue of the Vatican Belvedere dedicated by Sallustia (Amelung, Vai. Cut. 
ii, p. 112, 42) back to a bronze Aphrodite by Praxiteles which, according to 
Pliny, xxxiv. (iO, had stood in front of the Tc>n])li(iit Ftlicifalis (AVr. Ardi. 
11K)4, pp. ,S7«) f and Fig. 1), but Amelung (I.e.) has shewn what are the 
<ibjcctions to this theory. 

la ( = Michaelis 6;. Sniall group of Dionysus Supporting Himself on 

Seilenus. (I'late IX.) 

Hiiyhl : 070 ciii. Murblc: Gicek. liestoralions . light ami of Dionysus (some 
of the broken parts may l>o antique); his feet ; the pedestal (only a small iwiit is 
antiiiue) ; the noses of both figures. Replicas : Windsor, vol. .\xvii. fol. 28, No. '22 
(so Miehaelis). Former col I'dions: Grimani, Fejt'rvary and Franz I'ulszky. Literature: 
ClaracKeinach, 130, 1 ; Annali, 1S.S4, p. 81. (It has escaped both Reinach and 
Michaclis that the CSrimani-FejiMvary group and the Richmond e.vumple arc identical.) 
L. Milaiii ' Diony.sos di Prassitele ' in Museo di Anliihitu Clas.sica, iii. ISl'O, p. IxS. 

This type of group was formerly named ' Socrates and Alcibiadcs.' 
u faxourite name for similar groups since the time of the Kenaissiincc.'" 

The curious composition is a \ariant of groups of Dionysus and a Satyr such 

'" Andreas Fulvius, y<H//(/io7a/<.'< i/)t/(i (ir>27) Alciluidfni amj)h.iniil,s ^noti I'V I'rote.vsor 
fol. XXXV, already mentions a Sitcratis stalna Miehaelis ) 

12 MRS. S. A. STI10N(i 

;is the colossal Lud(jvisi group (Helbig, Fuhro, <S80), the Chiaranionti group 
(Holbig, 112; Amelung, Cat. 588) or the group in the Uffizi (Auieluiig, 
Fdhrcr, 140)" which derive from a Dionysus of the Praxitelean school, with 
his right hand brought over his head and his left arm suppijrted on the 
trunk of a tree (c/. the Praxitelean Apollo Lykeios). Seilenus, whose head is 
nt' the- usual bearded type with snub nose, is completely clothed in the 
^iTwu xopralo^!, the shaggy coat of skins regularly worn by the Papposeilenus 
of the Satyric drama. Cp. the group in Athens of Seilenus with the child 
Dionysus in Arndt-Bruckmann, Einzelaufnahmen, No. G4.S. 

13 ( =Michaelis 4). Torso of Aphrodite. (Plate IX.) 

Height: 0-31 cin. Marble: Island, "la bfatitiful traiispaieiit quality. r,-i>\-i ,tanrr: 

The godde.'^s was apparently represented with her right arm raised to 
her head, and the left arm lowered, but the motive is not clear. Copy of a 
fourth century type. Insignificant workmanship; the absence of proportion 
between the small upper body, the heavy hi])s and long thighs h;is been 
f'ommented on by Michaelis. 

14 (= Michaelis 41). Statuette of Aphrodite. (Plate IX.) 

Ihitiht: 092 cm. Hcstoraiiuns kiuI hiralinjr.s ; heail, tiiigcrs of li^ht Iiaiul, tlie 
fi'ct, and the pedestal, with the greater part of the tiolpliin ; the legs are mended {Kft 
knee new). The right arm has been broken off and put on again ; the lirst and fourth 
lingers of the hand are broken ; the loft fonaiin wliich, acroiding to Michaelis, 
belonged to the .statue, has disappeared. 

The statue is insignificant both in type and workmanship. It is one of 
many variants which derive more or remotely from the Capitoline and 
Medicean statues (cf. the 53 ex.imples of Aphiodite with the dolphin enu- 
mei-ated by Rernoidli, Aphrodite, pp. 229 234). 

15 (= Michaelis 47). Double Bust of Dionysus and Alexander. ( 

(Fig. 2.) 

I Idyll I : 0'2:] cm. Marble: Greek. Jlcsloratioiis : tip of the nuse of Dionysus; 
the otlwr restorations referred to by Michailis havi' been taken away. Piorcna,ncc : 

This term must, 1 think, be identical with (and not merely similar 
to, as was suggested by Michaelis) the one published by Gerhard, ^i)Uihx 
Jiildircy, Plate CCCXVIII (Te.xt, p. 408: ' Dionysos und Ares; dieser mit 
Fliigelhelm, jener mit tliessendem Bart und Weinbekninzung. In Rom 
gezeichnet'). The leaves of the wreath are not oak (Michaelis), but vine; 
the horns, however, seem to be ab.sent in this example, but the reproduction 
in (Jerhard is so poor that it is difficult to tell whether they actually exi.sted 
in the- bust or are merely a fancy of the draughtsman. 

lately M. 8. Reinach^^ has interpreted the (Jerhard herm as a double 
bust of Diony.sus and Alexander, from the likeness of th(^ beardless head to 

" Cf. also G. (.'ultrera, ,SVtj/</t sh//' ,//•/(; AV/cu- '-' /leenc .tixh,:oloiji'pir. 1906, ii. jip. 1 If. 

istk-fi, i. p. 8.3 If. 



tlif biaiihtul |M.rliail ut Alixaiidf r in the Datlari cullrclit.n at ("aiiu Hixt 
(Icscrilxd 1»\ ( ). Kiiliriisolm.'' A>~tlif Datlari lii-ad, however, hjis tin- liorn.s of 
AiiiiiiDii <tii the lu'liiut, M. Kfiiiacli Miriiiist'd that the (hauj^htsmaii who (hi \v 
thf (jfihaid (loiihlr l)ust had l)y a iiiisiiiidfr^taiKhti^' turned the honi.s inln 
wings. In presenei- ot the Kiehniond e\aiii|>l»' and <»t its photograph ie 
leproihution we must admit that thi- dianght.snian was corrert, but .us 
the heardK'ss h«'ad unniiNtakal)ly itsciMhh's the jmrl raits of Ah-xaiider, 
M. Keinaeh is |iii»l»al>Iy riLjhl in hi> altemat ive suggestion th.U the wings — 

Kic. 2. — Dofiii.K Tr.iiMiNAr. liisr of Diunvsi s and Ai kxaniikr ni; Hkk.mkh. (15> 

which lejilace the Aiuninn liorns sj ajtpropriate t<i Ale.\an(h'r — aix- a 
niodifieation due to the ancient copyists. 

The Dattari and Richnmnd 'Alexanders' liave in cnnuuDii the great 
bn'adth nf face, the inipressi\-ely modelled brow and deeply sunk eyes. It is 
not certain, however, that the sculptor of" what we may venture to cull the 
(Jerhard-Richmond head intended to give a portrait of" the king; from his 
substituting the wings of Hermes tor the horns of Ammon on the helmet it 
is \ery possible that he consciously transformed the portrait into an image of 
Hermes.i* The helmet is worn over a leather cap with bioad cheek-pieces, 
aj)paii'ntly made of leather thongs sewn together. 

'•' Arcliacol. Anzcigcr, 1905, i>. 07. lakcu of this iiitcreslin^' bust ; I Imiu-, how- 

" To my regret, insufficient i>lKitogia|iIi!) \vi>rc ever, to jinMish it (igaiu in difTc-rent uspects. 


The head of Dionysus goes back to a fine original created in the 
Scopasian or Lysippean schools. 

It is true also that the beardless head seems in Gerhard to have the 
nose intact : but from its outline this nose must be modern, while the 
breakage and the rusty iron pin shew plainly that a modern nose has been 
removed from the Richmond example. On the coupling of Alexander nith 
Dionysus or'the 'Libyan Bacchus,' see S. Reinach, op. cit. p. 0. 

^ 5. — Greek Art in Asia Minor and Helleiiistic Art. 

16 ( = Michaelis 40). Statue of Aphrodite crouching in the bath 
attended by Eros. (Plate X.) 

Height: l"15cm. Length of face : 019 cm. Restored: liglit arm and left hand 
with wrist ; the left foot (which the restorer has iirelevantly covered with a sandal, 
thoifgh the goddess is bathing) ; toes of the right foot. Nearlj* the whole of the swan 
(the neck only is'antique). The left leg of the Eros was once restored, but is now lost ; 
the wings are modern, but their attachments are antique. The head is much damaged 
by exposure to the weather. The pedest:d is modern. Marble : coarse Parian. 
Literalure: Cavaceppi, Raccolta, vol. ii. No. GO: Claiac, 627, 14, 11 =Clarae-Reinach, 
338; Bernoulli, p. 316, No. 10; Welcker, Kunstmr.seum, p. 61. Ueplicas: list of the 
26 examples cited by Bernoulli has been much increased, cf. Klem, Pra.i:itelcs, pp. 270 IT. 
Though the type is one of the commonest, exact replicas are rare. The Richmond 
example seems to repeat in every det»il the torso from Vicnne, in the Louvre. Former 
owners : the sculptor, Bartolommeo Cavaceppi, Lord Anson (George, Baron Anson, thi- 
admiral, 1697-1762) at Shugborough Hall in .Staffordshire. 

A coarse but not ineffective copy of an Aphrodite executed about the 
middle of the third century B.C. by Doidalsas, a native of Bithynia. The 
best of the numerous replicas seems to be the well known one in the Louvre, 
though the head and both arms are lost. To the two main types of the crouch- 
ing Aphrodite, with the variants noted by Bernoulli {Aphrodite, pp. 314 ff.), 
must be added a third with both arms raised to the head, a motive which by 
disclosing the breast recalls the Argive schools of the fifth century. The 
only satisfactory example known to me of this type with the upraised arms 
is the statue now at Windsor in the collection of H.M. the King, which I 
hope shortly to publish in this journal [Michaelis, Osborne, No. 5 ; Reinach, 
Repertoire ii. 371]. The more usual type, represented by the present statue, 
recalls a favourite motive of the Lysippean school by which one of the arms 
is brought across the breast, as for instance in the Apoxyomenos.^^ Cf. Lowy, 
Lysipp und seine Stelhcng, p. 29. The lack of restraint in the treatment 
of the nude both in this and in the Paris example points to a Graeco- Asiatic 
rather than to a purely Greek school (cf. also G. Cultrera, Saggi sull' arte 
JEllenistlca e Greco-Romana)^^ while the number of replicas and more or les.9 
exact imitations postulates a renowned original. Now when Pliny (xxxvi. 34) 
is enumerating the statues in the Temple of Jupiter adjoining the Porticus 

'* So too in the Medicean Aphrodite, wliich Jni>cr. 1905, p. 623). 
Mahler ha-s lately trawl back to the school of '« Amelung, Museums, j). 96, excellently 

Lysippus (Comptcs Reiulns <lc VAccuUviie de* analyses the type. 

lilK C*()()K (.'(Jl.LlXTJON 15 

Oftiuiiif, lie im-iiiiuiis llnt'f statues of Aj»lirt)(Jitt'. The Hrst af these was l>y 
Philiskos. The other two Pliny (U'seribes as follows : Vi/icron Imantejn scst: 
Ihnihdsas stnnttiu rolijihannus. In th«' imiiie I )ae(lalsas given by the best 
codex M. Th. Reinach has jtstutely recognized, on thi- evidence of inscriptions, 
the Bithynian Doidalsas '^ who Honrished in the third century B.C. (see Robert 
art. ' l)oi(hils:is ' in Paidy-Wissowa). It is therefore more than probable that 
the original of our replic;is, which moreover appears on the C(jinage both of 
IJithynia and of Amisus in Pontus, is that of the Bithynian Doidalsaa (see S. 
Reinach in Pro Alesia, Nov. -Dec. 10(Mi, p (i9). This collection also possesses, 
as we shall sec, ». copy of the third Ajihrodite noted l)y Plinv in the .same 

17 (7^r)^ in Michael is). Statuette of Aphrodite. ( Plate X.) 

HeiylU : 35 'iii., incliuliiig i>e(U'8tal. lUst orations : both iiniis and both le;,'s 
witli tlie urn ami the di-ajicry ; tlie head has Itcen broken off and a new piece of 
neck iusfitcd on the left side ; but the head is antique and belongs to the body. 
Replicas : Bernoulli, Aphrodite, i)p. 3*29-338 ; Reinach, Repertoire, i. 327, 334, 339 ; ii. 
347 349, 804, 806 ; iii, 107, 256. 257. Exact replicaa, however, are rare', but the same 
motive runs throuf^h the whole series. Exhibiled, B.F.A.C., 1903 (Cat. p. 15 
No. 17). 

The motive has been explained as Aphrodite unloosening with her right 
hand the sandal of her left raised foot. The type must have been one of the 
most popular in antiquity; Bernoulli in 1873 gave a list of 3G statues 
and statuettes with simikir pose ; in 1887 M. S. Reinach brought the number 
up to 70 {Nicropole de Myrina, text to PI. V) and made further additions in 
his Repertoire (/. c). In a nuiiiber of the bronze replicas, where the feet are 
generally preserved, the sandal is frequently absent,^"* and the goddess 
is apparently imagined as standing in the water and washing her heel. In 
the marble statues, which have mostly lost legs and feet, it is difficult to tell 
whether this motive or that of the sandal was intended. In the present 
instance the roundness of the forms points to an original of a later date, in 
the manner of the Asia Minor or Alexandrian schools. There is much to 
commend M. S. Reinach's identification of this type as the ' standing ' 
Aphrodite of Polycharmos mentioned by Pliny, xxxvi. 34, as being, 
together with the Aphro<iite of Doidalsas, in the Temple of Jupiter adjoining 
the Porticus Octaviae. But, as noted above under No. l(j, in discussing the 
Aphrodite of Doidalsas, the Plinian passage is a much vexed one. The words 
stantem Pulycharmas are vague and un.satisfactory,, as M. Reinach 
points out, to qualify the statue of Polycharmus as ' standing ' is inadequate, 
if not * incomprehensible,' since the majority of statues of Aphrodite are of 
a standing type. Therefore several editors of Pliny felt compelled to assume a 
lacuna between stanteiu and Pubjcharmns,^'" which Reinach now proposes to 
fill up with the words jtede in iino ; this Aphrodite ' standing on one foot ' would 

•' GazcUe des Beaux ArU, 1897, i. p. 314. (No. 280). 

'" For instaiiic the two examples in the Hiit. '* S. Reinach, 'La \Yniu d'Alesia ' in Pio 

Miw. from Patraa (No. 282) and I'araniythia Alesia, Nov. Dec 1905, pp. 66 ff. 


then be the faiuous original uf the numerous replicas noted above-. If we 
may further suppose with Reinaeh that Polycharmns. whose namr- does not 
oecur outside the Plinian ])assa((e, was, like l^oidalsas, an Asiatic, his 
authorship of the type in question becomes probable. 

18 (not in Michaelis). Statuette of Aphrodite. (Plate X.) 

Total heiglU : 74 cm. Rest oral i uns : tlie licinl and all the cxlrciiiities, witli tlie 
pedestal and l>ase, only tlu' torso being anti<iue. 

Insignificant replica df the same type as the preceding. 

19 ( = Michaelis ()2). Draped Female Statue. (Plate XI.) 

Hiight : l'3r)cni. Marble: (Jieek. (f) Eestond ions ami lirca/aujes : tlir statue is 
let into a modern i>lintli ; the light foot, i)('rliai)s worked out of a separate piece of 
marble, is missing ; the head and both the arms (originally worked out of a dillt rent 
piece of marble) are lost ; the folds of the himation are a good deal elujipcd and \\ orn 
in places. 

The pose is at once elegant and dignified. The weight uf the figmc is 
throwiion to the left foot, and the right leg is placed sonu'what to the side 
and at ease, thus imparting a trailing grace to the figure and throwing the 
luavy foUls that fall between the feet into rich curving lines. The left arm, 
niiw lost, held one end of the cloak against the hip. Th*' right arm appears 
ti> have been extended, probably so as U> rest on a sceptre : the back of the 
statue is left curiousl} lough and unfinished, so that the figure must have 
been placed within a niche. The transparent (h-aj)ery scarcely veils the 
elegant and slender forms. The manner in which the himation- is caught 
round the neck into a band is characteristic of Pergamene sculpture {r.f/. the 
Eos and numerous female figures on the great frieze of the giants from 
Pei-gamon); so too is the mannei- in which the vertical folds of this garment 
shew beneath the diagonal folds of the himation. The high girding, close 
under the breast, and the way in which the folds at the u])per edge of the 
himation are gathered into a heavy roll recall the Asiatic schools. 1 incline 
to regard the statue, which has considerable charm and freshness, as an 
original dating from the latter half of the third century J?.c. Though we 
must admit with Michaelis that ' the e.xecutioji is by no means very fine,' the 
statue has none of the dryness of a copy. 

20 (//"/ in Michaelis). Statue of Hygieia. (Plate XI.) 

If'iijJif; 1 ni. 71. Maihlr.: Greek IJrca/ca/jrs : tlie left foreaiin. J'rorr,iii,ire : 
I'ijrto cl'Anzio. Fornirr miwr : V\\. NewtoiiKobinson, Ksq. lAinntun' : Keinaeh, 
li^prrloire., iii, 91. 

The technical treatment, the individuality of the somewhat heavv 
features, the fringed veil thrown over the head, shew that we have here the 
portrait perhaps of a priestess, in the character of Hygieia. The left arm 
with the snake womid romid it and holding the patera is a common motive 
in statues of Hygieia (cf. Jlr/icdoirc. I.r.) The high girding and the throw of 
the drapery suggest an affim'ty with works like the ' Themis ' by Kaikosthenes, 

rill': COOK CO 1. 1. 1, 1 ri<(N i7 

IoIIIhI ill IvIlilllimiN ill Al t KM ( Alllfll^, .V"/ Uk-. f 'n/. -liili . KiIII.hIi, /.'.y». ,7"//r. 

ii. 2^4, 4). SiK li tv|)fs iltiivi- fVnm ••hissical )ii<.« It-Is, Imt tluy an- <lr\ and 
;nail<iiiic ill ti'flin^, ami f..iisc.|ii. Ill K •iitliciili i.' dati'. liny \\<u- ailaiilid 
fu |Mirlrail.s ol ))iiist<s>-rs .111(1 lain lo |»oiiiail-~ <<{' Huinaii lailiis, far dnwn 
into tln' Koiiiaii |)iiiii(|. I'lcil. .Micjiatlis |M»iiil^ uiii to mi iliat the liifiiii 
serins coiiiiccti d s| \ lis! ically Willi tin- scrirv .if Icinali' slatm-s tiuin Asia- 
Miiin)-, Mijcc 111 ill.' Animli'l cnllccl iiiii. and ii-.w at ()\^iiid ( .Mii'|ia« lis ()\fMri| 

21 ( = Miiliai lis 07 . Funeral Stele of Archippos. (I'lat. \II.) 

Ilriijhi : r.'il till. : finiihs/ hf<iillh : i,\i ■ m. Murhlc : ytiiowisli nicy. lUnhni-l . 
iiosf ami tlif si't'iiiul liii;,'!'!' of tlir ii;,'lit liaiid ; tli<' l>i;^ tot- of the JoU lnut is lnokL-ii. 
U/nn/uir: Mnsco Crimaiii, |.]. J?; IS.F.A.C. Cut. no. .'it; .-iii.l i'lat.- XXXIX. ; 
.Inhrhurli ilnt Arcli. IiLsl. \\. Id.'i, |.. .',.'», Ki;;. lO.i. I'lnvciiancr : Sliiyiii:i (•). 
Fonmr rii/fo-lion : I'ala/.zo (;riniaiii-S|.r»;,'.), c. Erhihil'il : liiiiiiii'.'l.ui Km. .\it-< 
Clnl., ]'.tO;i. 

/\rilii|»|>iis, Haiiki'd I»y I \\<i s.'i vaiil- ..t diiniiiiiliw! stature wli.i lean up 
a;;aiiis( tile pillais whicli foiin llic null.', is i-cprcsLMitcd as bt'ai-dlc.s.s and 
wears ehitim, cloak, aii<l sandals. Willi his liglit hand he tuiichcs the wreath 
which has |ir.'suiiial)l\' hcii hesiowiil ii|i.>ii him lor civic .services. The 
inscri|it ion which is dist i ihiitcd Ixtwi.ii th. laurel wreath heneath the 
jiedini. lit and the architia\i- runs: o ^P/fios- " Ap^nnrou Ai(oj>o<i {(' \.i|. ii. 
• 5224). ( )n a tall se|mlchral column ..!' ili.' Ionic order in the l)ack<,n-oiiiid 
sLjiikIs a .sepulchral urn with i^rac.tul handles. This .stele, toi^'ether with 
No. 22, belongs to a well-known class of sepulchral nionunients Ironi the 
south of Asia Minor and the neighhoiiring islands, which have lately been 
exhaustively discus.scd by Ernst I'f'uhl (' Das Beiwerk aid" den ostgriechisclu ii 
(jlrabreliets ' in Jdhrlnnh </c.<t An/i. IhsIUhIs, xx. 1!K).'3. pp. 47-JHI and 
pp. 12:i — 1 ").")). The arch iti'ctural features are fairly constant. A low b.isis 
with top and bottom mouldings supports th(; actual niche which is formed 
by t\v.) columns and an architiave. AIiom- this runs a broad band variously 
adorned with a wi'eath and one or two rosettes. Above this again comes the 
pedinu-nt. I'fuhl sees in this type of sepulchral monument a combination of 
the i>ai'aKo<i or shrine of an earliir period with the high rosi^ttc stele of which 
there are numerous exanijiles. The inn and columns shew that hi-re, as 
invariably in these Asia Minor sti'lai. the dead is imagined to be standing 
near to, or actually within ("sec No. 22), his own so])ulchral monument. 

22 ( = Michaelis OH). Funeral Stele of Phila. (IM-iteXll.) 

J/cii/lil : l"-17ciii. ; InnuUh: 0»!:j cin. Marble: same ;ts 21. I'rovenaurf : banic 
mill from the sumo collccti.iii as No. "Jl. Literature : rfuhl loc. cit. p. 129, No. 25. 
Iit-irription : f'.I.(;. v..l. ii. 3253. 

This stele is almost the exact coiinti-rpart of the sU-ie of Archippos: in 

the pediment, in.stead of a shield, is a cpiatrefoil rosette and the architmve 

has no dentils. I'hila, a figure evidently itiHuenced by a Praxitclean motive, 

sits compK'tely wiapjied in her veil, her right foot resting on a footstool, her 

if.s. — vol,, xxviii. C 

18 MK8. S. A. STRONG 

left leg drawn back. In front of her a little maiden holds a large open casket, 
at her side a still smaller maiden holds a distaff. As Archippos stands by 
his sepulchral column and urn, so IMiila sits within her own sepulchral 
chamber, indicated by a wall with a shelf upon which stands an opni 
trijitychon. Excellent example of an Asia Minor stele. 

23 ( = Michaelis (i9). Funeral Stele of Epiktesis. (Plate XII.) 

Jleight : 1"07 cm. ; grectcsl breadth : 065 cm. Marble: (ireek. Collection : suiiic 
as two preceding numbers. Jascription : C.I.O. vol. i. 669. 

The stele, though its architecture differs from that of 21 and 22, 
evidently belongs to the same class of monument. 

Epiktesis, who stands fronting the spectator, with the usual little maiden 
holding the jewel-case at her side, is draped in a manner that at once recalls 
the central figure on the slab with three Muses standing of the Mantinean 
basis (J.H.S. 1907, p. Ill, Fig. 9; cf. also the exquisite figure from an Attic 
stele, Athens, Cent. Mus., 1005, brought within the same Praxitekvan series 
by Amelung, Basis dcs Praxiteles aus Mantinea, p. 40, Fig. 23). This 
adherence to Praxitelean models is specially characteristic of art in the 
nearer Graeco-Orient, and has lately been shewn by Strzygowski to persist 
right down to the period of the Sidamara Sarcophagi (J. U.S. loc. cit. p. 112). 
Rough, summary work, especially in the drapery. 

24 ( = Michaelis 70). Fragment of an Asia Minor Stele. (Fig. II) 

Height : 0'47 cm. Provenance : Asia Minor (?) or the Greek Islands (?). 

A draped figure standing in the attitude of Epiktesis on No. 23. 

25 ( = Michaelis 70). Fragment of Sepulchral Relief. (Plate XIII.) 

Height : 47 cm. ; greatest breadth : 67 cm. Marble : Greek. Breakage : the 
top of the stele with the head ol the figure and two-thirds of the right side have 
been broken awa}'. Prorenance : Sicily. 

A woman stands again in a Praxitelean attitude which is closely imitated 
from the prototyi)e of such figures as the ' Matron from Herculaneum ' 
(J.H.S. 1907, p. 112, Fig. 110 — the resemblance was already noted by 
Michaelis). At her side, the attendant maiden, holding a fan in her left 
hand, and a basket in her right, is carved in very low relief. Though the 
stele is said to have come from Sicily, the style points in this case also to 
Asia Minor. 

26 ( = Michaelis 2^). Low er half of Statue of Nymph holding Shell. 
(Plate XIII.) 

Height: D'OO cm. Marble: Greek. 

The nymph who held the shell in front of her with both hands, sup- 
porting it lightly on the knot into which her drapery is gathered, belongs to a 
familiar class of figures (see Reinach, li('p. ii. 405) though it cannot be claimed 
as the replica of an}' one of them. It comes nearest to the statue in the 


Louvre, Kriii.uli, Fig. 'A (l<>r. rit.)_ but is not idniticil. The <lr;nicr} o| tin- 
pivsLMit ••opyjis (>xecutt'(l with dtconitivi' .skill ami tlir shfll-like arrangcuicnt 

Fio. 3. — DiiAPED Female Figube from an Asia Minor Stele. (21) 

of the folds ha.s meaning and charm. The work, however, ia probably not 
earlier than the Roman period. 

27 {ikA in Michaelis). Boy with Duck or Ooote. (Plate XIV.) 

Height : 51 cm. ; breadth : 58 cm. Marble : Italian fine-grained white marble { Aimlung). 
Provenance : unknown. Restorations: right arm from the ahouldt-i, tip <>f the no«to, a 
{latch on the right ear, middle finger of the left hand : big toe of the left foot ; right 
foot; almost the whole basi-s (Amelung). Literature: Vienna Jahresheft' , vi. 1903. 
p. 230 (R. Herzog, from a communication of Amelung). Heplica.^ : the twelve replicas 
are noted and described by Herzog (loe. cit.).*' 

■■* I incline to think that the Richmond Krnest Gardner ' Statuette repie9eutin>{ a tN>y 

example may be identical either with Herzog and goose' in J.H.S. vi. 1885, p. H, No#. 29 

5 or 6, belonging renpeetively to the sculptor iiml 30. 
Cavaceppr and to the Mari^uis Giugni. See 

c 2 



The motive ni th<' statue has long been laiiiiliar t'ruin the iiuiiirious 
replicas, the best of which seems to \>v the one disoveieil at Ephesus at the 
S.W. angle of the Konian agora .luring the Austrian excavations of the year 
ISOn (Ucrzog;, lor. c it. Taf 8 ; cf. Wace, J.I/.S. xxiii. I!K):i, p. ;U.S, Fig. U, 
Fig. ]{). Hei/ogs attempt to identify this group as th<' boy Avith the 
XnvaXdniryi^. or,-' described by Herondas in the tein})le of Asklejuos 
at Ot)s-"- has nnich in its favour. The subject of a boy with a goose or a 
duck was, it is true, spi-cially })o])ular, and must have been treated with 
variations by numberless artists (E. A. (lardner in J.H.H. vi. 1885, pp. 1 ft:). 
Vet th.- fretpient repetition of the i)resent motive shews that it (h-rives fro)M 
s(.me famous original. whil<> there is surelva special significance in the fact that 

Fk;. b. — Child with (jck^sk. (Vienna.) 

an I'.xci'lJenl and lite-like copy was found at E[)hesus, which is compaiatively 
near (.'os(ci. Herzog, p. 215, n. 1 ). Herzog prefers to see in the group a meic 
(jciirf subject, but 1 incline to interjjret it — in accordance with a suggestion 
already ]mt f)i\vard by S. Reinach (in connexion with the coj»y after Boethos 
of (Jhaleedoii of a boy wrestling with a goos(>, lik(!wise jn'cst-rved in numerous 
replicas-') — as the child Asklej)ios playing with the goose sacred to himself 
liowevei- much the 'boy with the g(jos<! ' may haxc been treated in later 
times merely as a (jcnre subject, it seems more than ])robable that the niotive 
oiiginated in a child Asklepios. In the; R(!naissanc<', likewis(>. the child 

-' For thu x^>'o^<^'^'J?> ^" F^gyp'^i'i" f^peiies ol 
filial!, .sec Heizo^^, up. cit. 

'-- rT)v x'?*'a^<^'''«Ka <»'$ t^ -naihiov ■nvl'yei \ irph 
TU)V iruZwv yovv f1 ti ftrj \idos ToCpyov \ 4pf7s 

-' Ilcvue dc VUiiLvcrsili d<; liruxellcs, vi. 
1901, pp. !' IT. (' L'Knfant a I'oic.') Ucinach, 

iiiilciii, liad piKposed tentatively to identify tlie 
original nf 15(i(thos with the 'haK\T\iTihs -nats ol 
the same artist, known from two nndrical in- 
seriptioMs ; but sec C. Robert (art. Bodhos in 
I'auly-Wissdwa, C04 f. ) against the identifica- 
tion of the Coan group with the boy strangling 
a I'oose. 

'I'lIK COOK Col.l.licrioN lil 

St. .Id!. II with till' laiiili is (liHiculi in (lifV< rciil iatc Ik. in a juir*- tji an 
siihjcct. Tlif iiKtiivc ul the iiii^iiial ^m..iij»s has Ixni well inttrpn-tcd l»y .Jahn. 
l)y Wuitt IS and oilin-s (sec llu- |»ass.i^rc.s i|unt(.M| \\y \{ir/.*\^, nji. ci(. ii. 2.S2). 
Tile (olluwin^ analysis from (»i)»' uf Kmtwan^lcr's larlicHt ni<»n();.(m|)hs ^i/i, 
/>(» ii((us:icficr ami ifir KiKihr mil dcr (ikhs, 1H7G, p. 70) is worth noting': lh<- 
coMiposition shews ;i small hoy, who altt r the manritr of ohildnri sits upon 
till- ground : but ho wants to got up .and is nnublo to do so un;iid«'d ; so he 
stivtchfs out (die anil and looks up cntKatiiig for help; at thi' same time, ju- 
he is so caii-ful to keep his other h.ind tirmly on his favourite goose, it seem^ 
as if someone had wanted U> lake his pjaymati- from him,<in<l thus <Mu.sed the 
litth fellow's exeitement.' The present grouji i.s merely decorative, but otln r 
replicas were doubtless intended tor loiintaiiis, and the goos.- pressed li\ the 
boy spurted water-. 

28 (»'// ill Micliaelis). Sepulchral or Votive Statuette of the 
Boy Senecio. ( Plate XIV.) 

I/.i<j/tl : (i:J cm. MorUr : Gnck. 

The inseri[)tioii on the [ilinth reads: <I>on'< | /tos^ vt\6v e/'cr|opa«f 
"Hel i'€K 10) \i>u fie. It w;i.s doubtless intended fur a senarius, but the scansion 
is spoilt by the intrusion of the name. In spite of the late (ireek characters. 
Senecio, as his name shews, is ;i and the statue, with its rather squari' 
and plump forms, is Roman rather than Cireek in character. Senecio, who a cock to his side ancl holds .i little vjvse in the hand which he rests 
<»n a pillar at his right, seems to derivt; not so much from a (Jreek as from 
Ktruscan models, such as the boy with a bird in the museum at Leyden. 
(Reinach, /^^;fr/t>iVg, ii. 404, where a number of kindred figures arc given.) 
The type, however, which t>€curs in in.iny variants, is a common one, and like 
that of the ' boy with the fox -goose ' probably originated in the .schools of 
the period after Alexander. See the list of examples di-awn uj> by E. (lardner 
in J.II.S. vi. 1H8.5, ' Statuette representing a boy and goose." p. 'A. The eyes 
are incised in the mannei- of the Antonine period ;h;isty supeiHcial work- 

29 ( = Michaelis 4')). Votive Statuette of a Boy. (Pl.-ite XIV.) 

Ileiijhl: 0-47 cm. Marblr: (^n-ck. Hcstored . the tnmk, tlic |.o.l.>stiil ami tlio 
lower piut (if the leg.s ; i>art <il the left arm iiml tiie whole ol the right arm with a 
jwitioii of the hox ; the nose ; the head .suits the movement of tlie hoily ami incsumiiMv 
l)cloiig.s to the statue, luit it li.i.s been lnokcn olF ami ( liimsily n.ndjiisteil hy ineaiiN ol 

In Spite of its bad condition the charm of the silhouette owing to the 
child s and natural pose is considerable. The composition .seems 
deciiledly (ireek ; the subject is difficult to make out, the • deep .scpiare box ' 
thought by Michaelis to contain 'probably articles of jewellery ' (owing t^• 
the presvnce of what may be a ring) sccnis to me r.ither to be connected 



with some cultus ceremony — the little round objects resemble the tops of 
small vessels.-* 

30 (not in Michaelis). 
figure. (Fig. 4.) 

Statue of a Boy holding an Urn. Fountain 

Height : about life-size. Restorations : right leg from below the knee ; i the left 
foot. Itfplicas : Clarac-Reinach 439, 3 from Cavaeeppi (unless indeed this be tlie 
same figure as the present ; Michaelis, however, iilentifies the Cavaeeppi statue witii 
one at St. Anne's Hill, Surrey). 

V\>.. 1. — 1',.,\ Willi Ui;\". CiO) 

The statuette, which is of only slight importance, has been so much 
rubb ed and worked over as to^scem modern. It falls within a familiar series 

•^ For votive statues of diildrcn see especiully Knabe mil dcr Gang, 1*^70; cf. Benndorf, 

O. .lahn, Bcr. d. Sachs. Gcs. d. Wiss. 1848, S. Gricch. u. sicil. VcucnhiULr, 57 f. zu Taf 31 • 

41 (f; Stephani, Compt,.re,idu, 1863, S. 53-56 Paul Baur, Eikithvia, PhiMorfus, Supplemcnt- 

H ; Furtwangler, Der Dornauszirher u. dcr band viii. 484 ff. 


uT foimtaiii Hgurrs, I'.g. \'iiiii"iii, ( ' ( AiikImii^', ^''</'. Nn. 70() = C'larac- 
Kfinaclj,4;]i), 2); Ciiii(lrlal)ii 117, lis Mnmrli ( ;In |,t. FiirtwimgltT, 6 a/. 2:}.'i ; 
Ny C'ailslK'ig KIO.''- 

Tln' type probably ,t,'<M's back to llclifiiist ic liims, and is soiiu'tiiiirH 
louMil ailai>t«-(i to iflii't sculpt iir<' in S.ircopha^rj (sec Anicliiii^, lac. lit.). 

31 {nvt ill>). Fragment of a Hellenistic Relief. (Plate 

Ili-i.jht: 28,111.; Im, tilth: 34 cin. Murblr : Ci.i'k. Cutulition : ..iily tlio ui'i" i 
part of both tij^un-s is |.ic.seive<l ; the bpiinleil liia^l of Sfilcnus au,l his left hiiml 
are imuh imitilateil, the ri;,'ht iinii -which prolntljlv IkM h kantharos ha« h.-n 
broken a\v;iy altoj^ethcr. 

Tlu- ivliof, which shews thi' (Ininkcn Sciicims, half reclining', half 
siipportod by a boyish Satyr, fall« within a well known group of subjects 
representing Dionysus, Heracles, or Seilenus revelling (cf. Schreiber, 
Hrllcnistisehc Belv'fhUdvr, 'M), 42, 43, 45), but I have not found any exact 
nplica. In spite of the mutilation the workmanship appears g(»od and 
careful, and the satyr, treated in back view and straining with all his might 
to support the heavy figure of Sciltiius, is remlered with great truth "f 

^ 0. — Augi'stan Art. 

33 ( = Michaelis 82). Relief Sculptured on Both Faces. (Plate 

Present hciijht : 27 <in. ; hrca<}th : 0-39 cm. 

The relief has at some time been broken info several pieces and put 
together roughly with plaster. Thi- whole top is still nii.ssing. On the 
obverse three nuisks are carved in high relief On the right a mask of 
Didiiysus, with the broad Bacchic initra, lies on a 'low cista half opened ' 
(Michaelis). The mystic cista is here represented as a wicker basket, and 
n-sembles in this particular the liknon or mystic Vannus, the shovel- 
shaj)ed ba.sket of Bacchus, upon which rests the mask of a Satyr in a 
similar Hellenistic relief (Schreiber, HeUoiistischf Kilirfhilikr, Plate lOO). 
Facing this mask of Dionysus is a mask of Heracles wearing the lion 
skin, and with what appears to be anctther lit>n skin roughly indicated 
below. The connexion of Heracles with the stage (see Ftirtwiingler, 
if. Roscher, s.v. Heracles, col. 21!)1) is often emjihasized by representation on 
monuments similar to the present, e.g. on a fragment from a sarcophagus in 
Berlin {Cat. Scicljit.H'u ), but this is the only instance at present known to me 
in which the masks of Dionysus and of Heracles are brought face to face. 
Between the two is the mask of a youthful Satyr with what appears to be a 
roughly indicated nebris below. The short nose, high cheek-bones, and half- 
open mouth are characteristic of the Satyr type; the hea<l ia treated with 
considerable refinement and goes back to some go<xl fourth-century mol*!. 

** Munich 232 ( = Clarac-Reina<h 417, 6) may also be compar^l. 

24 MHS. S. A. ST1K)N(J 

Tlu- sicnc .sculptured in low iclici i>n tlic rcverfie is peculiarly intcrc-stiM^.-'' 
On the left a young Satyr, half kneeling- on the ground, is seen steadying 
with his right hand an ithvi)hallic image of Priapus, while on the right two 
wingfd Erotes an- making great etforts to i-rect a similar much larger image 
whicli they an- raising from the giound. On the left two Erotes are hoisting 
the huge figuif up by means of cables, like masons attempting to raise a 
heaw weight. Each jjuIIs one end of the cable; one, whose up])er part is 
nnfortunately bntken off, ho\iis in tlic air, the othci- ])ushes with both his 
feet against the lower \n\rt of the shaft so as to get it into place. I'hf-} ;ire 
assisted l)y a third Eros on the right, who, with his right foot firndy planted 
against a rock and his left hand against a tree-ti'unk, in ordei- to obtain 
purchase, has his back against tlie image which he thns Jielps to push up. 
This amu.sing scene could not hv noted by Michaelis, as the reverse was wholly covered with [)laster, which I chipped off with excellent 
I'esult. Both sides of the idief are evidently connected, and the whole 
monument has to do with the Satyiic (Jrama and the cult of J)ionysus. 

33 ( =I\Jichaelis ()G). Large Krater adorned with Victories and 

])ancing (Jirls. (IMate XVII.) 

Jfcii/h/. : O^SO cm. ; dioniclir : O'SO <iii. Res'oralioni : fno[ and jnoji'ctiiii; ['iuts 
of the liamlii'.s ; the .suilact- ha.> l>ecn ovfvwuiked, hul tlu- aiithi'iiticity i.s iil^ovi- 
.su.s}ii(ioii. LUcraturc : \\2i\\v,t^\\Kcii-Alt!schc Reliefs, p. !»tj. no. 18. Marhlr : Itali.tu 
witli .^lo}- stripes. 

This iaige vase belongs to' ;i grouj» of works of the New Attic School, 
the most typical example of which is the celebrated Borghese Vase in the 
Lou\re (Clarac-Reinach, 28, Hauser, op. clt. ]>. 84), but the present example 
lacks the nsual elegance of form in this class of vase ; its lower pait, instead 
of the elegant flutings visible on the Horghese Vase, has a somewhat clumsy 
leaf decoration : the handles end on the body of the vase in vine-leaves, 
while under each handle are cro.ssing thyrsi as on the cuj) from Hildesheim 
(Pernice-Winter, iJcr HildcHlifimcr Silbcrfinuf, Plate X.). The two Nikai on 
the fiont of the vase call for no further counnent ; the two dancing figures of 
the revei-se exactly repeat the two figures from a tiiangnlar candelabruju basis 
in the Villa Albani (Helbig, Fii/urr, No. mO).-' The first dancer holds 
on the jialm of her upraised left hand a dish of fruit and with 
hei- right lightly grasps the folds of her scarf. Innnediati^ly behind her 
advances a second dancer, holding her left hand to her head ; the right arm, 
with open hand, is thrown back. I^ike so many of the figures of the New 
Attic reli(!fs, these dancers possibly go back to a fifth centiny type, perha})s 
to the Saltft/ifi's Jjdcucnae of Callitnachus, mentioned by Plinv. (On this 
j)oint sec Furtwiingler, Mcsfcrpicccs, p, 438.) 

The altar of rough stones with thepiled-up fruit and the fiame resembles 
the altar on a slab of the Ara Pacis, and tin- altar above on the right, in the 

■-"' Koi- .1 .similar rclid cawed on hoth CaccN, -'" Now reproduced in Arndts h'lnylcii/. 

sec Mnseo Chuiram. (Amelunf;, (Jnl. lOfi. , nithmni. 

in i; ( '( )( (K ( '( »l,l,i:< 'I'I< IN 


\r\\i'i at \i.Iilia -.1 a Iimik— . w llli 
her cults. 'I'1i(iiil;1i ^tvlc and cnni- 
|K)silinniU(' distinctly An^nistan, this 
purticnlai' example is |»iul)alily a 
rcjilica cxccnti'd at a lad r] date. 
The ('xecutiun seems Uni snmmaiv 
and cDaise tor the l''irst ('enliirv. 

33a. (iin/ in .Michaeli->) Sculp 
tured Pilaster. (Kl^^ •").) 

//,/;//-/: i:?f» .11,. 

'I'lie ele(.(ant ainl stimeuliat 
schematic decniat luii |Miints to the 
August an a_t,fe. 

^ 7. liuilltlil I'(i)'l III it H It . 

34 ( -Michaelis S). Head of 
Young Augustus (ii.c 2.S a.d. 14). 
(riate will.) 

Tolnl luiiihl : ()'4r>cni.; /nnjlli 
of facf : 1 St I in. Mnrhle : coaisi- 
;;raiiii'<l riuiaii. A'c.v/k/yi^id/is: I'atfli 
near llie rij^ht eye ; llie tip of tln' antique, but lnoken ami .set 
uii ; gooil jn'csi'ivation, Ijut nililicil 
ftiul slif^htly wmki'il over in nnuk'ni 
time's. Provciiiincc: TRris. Lilcra- 
fiirc : IJi-ini>ulli, Itiiin. Icon. ii. 1 
\>. ;508. Xo. 19, ami \<. 32u. 

Thi! ))ust, which I have exam- 
ined lepeatedlv, seems tn uw al»i>\e 
suspicion. .Michaelis, who also doe.^ 
not seem to doubt its ^Genuineness. 
questions the old identification a^ 
Caligula.-'*" It seems ob\ iuus, how- 
ever, t hat thi' liki'iu'.ss is to Aut^ust us 
as a yuun^^ man. The i-esemblance 
to hiseuriiiit poitraiture is()b\iuus: 
tor the sliL;lit indications of a mous- 

-* l'ri>ft-S-«i' Miiiiaelis, liowcMi, writes tone 
' tlie pliotograi'li looks very mixlevn ; liavinj^ 
tlio oiiginal Infme mc 1 had no .su.spieion as to 
its aiUlicntieit y,' l>ut I am j^iad that he aocc|>ts 
the iilentifieation as Au,i,'iistns andaiMs 'jilcase 
to ohsei ve the iK-euliaif ivian;;eniiiit el the hair 
above t lie Inrchead. wliicli i^Jcon^lant in all 
his jioi trails." 

Kic. ;'., — AnsUMAN I'u.ASTKi:. ^;s;.;.i. 


tache and of a beard on the chin compare the Augustan portrait called, on 
very doubtful grounds, the youthful Julius Caesar (cast in the Ashmolean at 
Oxford). The expression is more direct and life-like, less idealized, less (heek 
than is usually the case in portraits of Augustus (sec E. Strong, Jxonc/n 
Sculpture, p. 355). The shape of the bust, which is intact, is characteristic of 
the Julio-Claudian period (lb. p. 349). Bernoulli (op. cit. p. 320) calls the 
head ' der schcine Knabenkopf; he seems to have no doubt of its genuine- 
ness, but questions the head being that of Caligula. He compares it with 
the portrait (unknown) on a beautiful cameo in the Brit. Mus. (Bernoulli, 
op. cit. Plate XXXVI, 9). 

35 ( =Michaelis 54). Portrait of a Roman Lady. (Plate XVIII.) 

Length of face: 0'14 cm. Restorations: nose and tlie tliaped bust of colouieil 
marble. Literature : Bernoulli, Bom. Icon. p. 224, Xo. 19. 

Head with closely waved hair, and a short fringe from ear to ear. 
Behind the ears the hair falls on to the neck in two long ringlets. The head, 
in which both Michaelis and Bernoulli see a decided likeness to the so-called 
Antonia of the Louvre (Bernoulli, ii. 1, Plate XI V^.), is certainly the poitrait 
of some lady of the Julio-Claudian house. The broad upper part of the 
face with its high cheek bones and the .sensitive but firm mouth reveal a 
strong individuality. 

36 ( = Michaelis 52). Portrait of a Roman Priestess. (Plate 

Hciijld : 0"92 cm. ; Icwjth efface : 0'18 cm. 

The shape of the bust, which is absolutely intact, is characteristic of the 
Antonine period and first sets in with the portraits of Sabina, wife of Hadrian 
(117-138 A.D.), to whose portraits this head Avith its generalized, slightly 
idealized features, bears a certain di.stant resemblance. The hair is waved 
or crimped in a classical style and confined by a woollen knotted fillet, the 
veil is drawn over the back of the head. The pupils are plastically 

37 ( = Michaelis 63). Bust of Lucius Verus (a.d. 161-169). (Plate 

Total height : 0'68 cm. ; length efface: 9 "21 cm. Marble: Gieck. Prorcnancc: 
Probalintlios, S. of Maratlion (Bernoulli). Former collections and owners: Collections 
Pourtales, Rollin and Feuardeut of Paris. Literature : Bernoulli, R6m. Icon. ii. 2, 
p. 210, No. 50. 

The bust, which reproduces an ordinary type, is absolutely intact, and is 
thus an excellent example of the typical bust shape of the Antonine age. 
The Ejnperor wears a cuirass, of which the shoulder-flap is elegantly decor- 
ated with the figure of a giant, whose legs end in serpents. In the centre 
is the usual head of Medusa, half-covered, however, by the folds of the 
military cloak. The bust was executed as pendant to that of Marcus 
Anreliiis found on the .same spot and now in the Louvre (Bernoulli, ii. 2, 
p. 170, No. .54). 

Tin: ("(M»K OtLLKiTloN 27 

38 ( = Micha.lis It). Portrait of a Roman Boy. Kig. (I, y.'A.) 

I/tH/lit : 0"25<iii. ; Unglh of fme : 10 i-m. Hmtortd : tip nf the nokc. MarhU: 
(Jiirk. rnnrruince : {'} 

Thr ])iij»ils i>J" tlu' r\v uir iiidicittd jilast ically ; this and other char- 
ai tnistios jxtint t<» the Antoiiinc n^v. Ct'. thr hradofa boy of the Antoiiitic 
family. r>trn<iiilli, ii. 2. I'l. L\'., ami thr jiortiaits of thr youu^' Arlins 

\ fills. 

39 f^ Mithailis (>.')). Medallion Portrait of a Roman. (Mni 
I'.iit. A.D.) (Fig. 7, p. 3.) 

IHitmctcr : 049 cm. lie si o rut ions : tlie nose ; almost the wIkiU- of both ears ; ilic 
iin k. Marble : rniiaii. 

The iii('(lallioii, whidi i.s well jiro.sorvrd and from which the head .stan<l.>< 
out almost in the round, is a good e.xanijile of an ' imago clipeata.' The 
jiu|tils, whirh aro indicated plastically l>y a hean-sliaped segment, the 
drawing of the thin lijts, the close curling beard and hair, all recall the 
portraiture of the jteriod of \hv. Severi and more i-specially of Curacalliis 
(211 217 A.D.). It may be (Jreek work nt the time. 

^ 8. — Sarcophagi. 

40 (=Michaelis 72). Fragment of a Sarcophagus with Group 
of Two Erotes. (Antoninc Period.) (Plate XIX.) 

Hciijht : 080 <in. ; Icm/th : 1 02 cm. Marble : IVntelic (?) Proirnance : Greece(t). 

The group ])reserved on this fragment is one repeated with more or less 
variation on a whole serie.s of sarcophagi first commented upon by F. Mat/,, 
Arch. Zcit. 1872, ji. l(i (cf. Strong, Roman Sculpture, p. 2(jG). They may be 
<lated about the j>eriod of Hadrian or the early Antonines (cf. Petersen, 
Annali, 18G0, p. 207). The notion, so repugnant to modem taste, of 
a drunken child, whether nioital or divine, supported by a companion who 
appears variously as winged or wingless, seems- to have been jiarticularly 
popular in th(! period of our sarcophagus. The chief examples are enumerated 
by Matz. The best of these, a .sarcoj)hagus in Athens, is now published for the 
first time on Plate XIX. for comparison with the Cook fragment."-'^ In the 
present fragment, as in the Athens sarcophagus, the child holds in his left 
hand a bunch of grapes, which led Stephani, and after him Petersen, to j)ut 
forward an interpretation which is doubtless the conect (»ne — namely, that .scenes represent the pleasures of future lifi' under the image of Bai-chic 
revelry. The group apj)ears rendered with more delicacy and tenderness 
than usual on the }tlinth of a remarkable portrait of a girl of the early 
Antonine period, belonging to Mr. Newton-Robinson. For the .sake of this 
group, this charming head is now jiublished on Plate X\I\'. Tlie own( r of 

■^* IVof. Rosnnqnot kindly ha'd tlie sarrojihagus iiliotojfT«rhed for this article. 



tliL' liL'ad had suggested that the ' En.tes ' on the plinth might aUiide U> the 
girl having attained the niarriageabh- age, but if the explanation eited above 
be accepted, they simply mean that the girl is dead and that this is her 
memorial bust. 

Often the grouj) seems to be introduced into sarcophagus decoration 
(piite irrelevantly, as here, for instance, where the proportions and the whole 
movement of the group are entirely out of harmony with the Satyr on the 
right, who is much smaller in size and in lower relief. 

41 ( 

Erofces at Play; Fragment from a Sar- 

]\Iichaelis 76). 
(Plate XV.) 

Hfiijht: 0"30 cm. ; lengtli : 0'37 cm. Miicli broken and rcstoii-d on tin- lull. 
A winged Eros on the left lays a l)all on the shoulder of his companion, 
who .seems to crouch beneath the weight. On the right another Eros is 

FlO. S. — yEKi;iF)S RIDING C.V Sr.A-rANTIlKli 


busy carrying a basket of fruit (restored ?). At this point the marble i.> 
bi'oken ofiF. Decorative work of about the period of Hadrian. 

42 ( =]\Iichaelis 50). Fragment from the lid of a Sarcophagus. 

(Eig. 8.) 

Hciyhl : 0-29 cm. ; /nu/th : \-\7 uin. 

The fragment, which comes from the front of a sarcophagus, represents 
Nereids riding on sea-panthers, that face one another heraldically. The 
relief is of a very slight, sketchy character, and reproduces a type popular 
in Alexandrian art. 

43 ( = Michaelis 57;. Sarcophagus Front with the Calydonian 
Boar-Hunt. (Plate XX. ) 

J/cighl : 0-85 cm. ; IcwfUi : 1 ss cm. Marble: Greek (?). Literature : V. RoKit, 
DieAntikcn SarcopUag reliefs, iii. "JfiS and [>. 320. Provenaiicc : Naples. Urcxkagrs : left 
arm ol" wounded man ; iiiiper part of Atalanta's bow ; left hand of Meleagcr ; the speai 
.shaft ; the spear of tlie foremost Dioicurns ; nose and left shoulder of Artemis ; Iut 
right hand ; part of the figun- of (Jiuens lias been sawn olf with a piero of tin 
.sarcophagus on the left side. 

1 hi: ('( M >K (■< »i.i.i:( I loN i.'i> 

I'miiIi 'li' -«iilij«'cl ;iliil llii' irinl.i iiil; .mv \\>II kn..\vii Ikmii a sriirs 
|im1>Ii^Ii<<I 1i\ Iv'iIh It (/<«•.(■//.). Ill ilic .-.iiiK Milca^iT, 1m \vlii.«M- U'lt, slight |\ 
III tli<- l»;i>lsi,n.iuii<l lull iii-arivst llic \><'.\\. i- -.•■ n Atalaiita, sp. ar< thf moii^iir. 
vvli'i I- s.cii i>^sniiin riiiiii liis (MM- I'xiiiiiil Mr|ca;^nT ciihk tlir I )iii«s<iii i 
( ' .iml l'-illii\, <'a<li wcaniii^Mln ».iiiii il im)i, ami iiiiiiif<lial(ly l»tli!inl I lie m 
inaiii is tlif liimticss Aitciiiis. in lli-' allilinh' <•! iIk' Diaiir <1<' \'i'i>>ailli-^. 
( )ii llir r\trfiiic li'fl ' iinloil iiiiatiK iln- pliul u^iapli is in (|.i|) sha«ln\v al 
ilii'- ituiiii is tlif liianliil ()inriis, half <•! w Imsi' tij,Miic, tonrct Iu r with thr ^'af<- 
ti-'iii which hr cintii^fcs. has sawn away, l!i'lwci-n ()in< iis an«l Arli-nii^ 
■ •oincs < )itiis •"•" shttiihhi int,' his (Idiildc a\<' and with his liuuiid straining al tli-- 
leash \\ hicli ( )rcii-< once Inld in his ri^hi hand. I'lftwci-n the legs of Molcagrr 
adinil)l« ,i\c in jdati' nl' llu- hunndut'lin sciii in nt In r cxaniiilcs. AhoM- the 
boar's ii\e a hcardcd man is st-i-n Iniiling a slune. < )n the <\lr<'nii' righi 
-lands a wuiinded mail lniithini; the wmind in his thigh. The land-scape is 
indieated h\ a tri'<' and a nisli-like plant heiieat h the boar;. Atalauta's pn-seiiee 
nt'arcsl thf Ixtar at the death," •-<• to >>peak. imlicatcs the influence <it' 
Kni'ipidt's. She i-> letliiiL;' tl\- the arrow which --lie has just taken t'lom her 
■>lill open <pii\er. Ilei' hair isw.imiI into ele^Mnt lolU aecoi<ling to a fashion 
wliieh eaiiH- into vogne in the lomili eeiiiiii\ (see, for instance, the beanlifnl 
original head in I lie ( !l\|)lo| hek. I''iirl w .nigler. (/"/. 'ilO). This fashion of hair 
and till' rolled drajierv romiil the waist oi-ciir in louiili eeiitiiry type^ ..I 
.\rtemis fef. the WarocipK- Statuette, .Vmeliiir,^'. M n^rn ,ii-<, front isjtieee , here 
lioirowed lor Atalaiita. 

The excellent teeliniipie and aiiimaled loinposition ]i(iint to the period of 
the Antonines — ]ierhaps to the principate of ( 'oinmodus. 'I'lie Calydonian 
hunt is a favourite subject for the decoration of saicophagi. 

44 ( = Mi<ha(lis oS). Sarcophagus Front with Battle of Greeks 
and Amazons. (I'lati XX.) 

Jlci'jhl : 0"8!t <in. : hivjlh : 2'26 cm. Marble: (iie<k. I'rov imncc : Naj>l< -. 
LilrinlHif : 0. Kolait. Dii- Aulil.rn Si'n;iphi'<irclir/s, vol ii. 101 ami p. 126. 

'I'lie -ceiie depicted is familial' from the serie>^ of sarcophagi with ihis 
-iibject re|»rodiice(| li\ jvtbert {/or. rit. . In the centre, Aciiillos supports the 
d\ing form of I'eiit hesileia. ( )n each side, repeated with severe .syniinetry, is 
an animated group of an Ama/on,\vho turns loiuwl with a lively movement ot 
till' whole body to di'feiiil herself against the bearded ( !reek who attivoks h<r 
in the back. In each case tho Amazon is attacked at the .same time fron) the 
front by a younger n'lounted warrior armed with a long speai-. At each angle 
stands a Victory, who, being jilaced ol)liipiely, would, were the sarcophagus 
entire, etVect the transition from the front to the sides. The stylo of tlu' 
workmanship points to the second eentuiy .\.i), perhajis also from the 
principate ol' Comiiiodus, when the suliject of the Amazon- was in great 

\ (i<rue. 

Oil tlic interim liition ol tliis tk'iiio as Orcus, -sec Robert, op, cit. \). 274. 

30 MRS. S. A. .STRONG 

45 ( = Miehaelis 74). Oval Sarcophagus of the Third Century. 
(Plate XXI.) 

If'^ght : 060 cm. ; length: 2'10 cm. Former Colled iou : ColJ. Ligoii, Naples. 
Likr.t arc: Engel, Ktjpros, ii. (1841), p. 632, No. 12; Gerhiird, Arch. Zcilang, 1850, 
PI. 20, 1 ; Robert, Die Antiken Sarcophagrelie/s, vol. iii. 92, and p. 110. 

The middle of the sarcophagus^ is taken up by the figure of the deceased, 
who is shown reclining in a posture borrowed from the sleeping Endymion 
visited by Selene, a common subject of Roman sarcophagi. The close-cropped 
hair rendered by pick-marks on a raised surface in the colouristic manner that 
sets in soon after the beginning of the third century gives us the approximate 
date of the sarcophagus. The Erotes holding torches, who unveil the sleeping 
man, and those who flutter round carrying musical instruments or wreaths, or 
are seen on the ground busy with baskets of fruit, are typical of the art of the 
period. Above on the extreme right an Eros stands by a little table placed 
under a tree,and seems busily engaged making wreaths. The Eros asleep at 
the head of the deceased is probably symbolic of departed life. In the extreme 
left, below the two Erotes with musical instruments, a grotto is indicated from 
which peers forth an animal, which from its long ears must be a hare. At 
either end is a laurel tree, with a lyre suspended in its branches, and 
fruit, flutes, and torches lying beside it. ' Good sculpture, in almost perfect 
preservation.' (M.) 

46 ( = Michaelis 73). Sarcophagus with Bacchic Figures (3rd 
century A.D.). (Plate XXI.) 

Height: 68 cm.; length: I'lO cm. MarhU: Italian {':). Provenance: {'.). 
Former ollafion : Coll. Li'^ori Naples (coinmuuicated to me by Dr. C. Robert). 

The centre of the composition is occupied by a medallion portrait or ' imago 
clipeata ' of the dead man. The frontal position of the bust, the flatness of. 
the planes, the sharp, linear treatment of the folds and the colouristic 
treatment of the hair by means of pick-marks on a raised surface, enable us 
from the portrait alone to date the sarcophagus about the middle of the third 
century a.d. The drapery of the portrait recalls the two magistrates in 
the Conservatori (E. Strong, Earn. Scidpture, PI. 129) and the portrait at 
Chatsworth {ih. PI. 128). The medallion is supported heraldically at each side 
by a Centaur ; each of these Centaurs is one of a pair drawing a chariot. In 
the chariot on the left is Dionysus accompanied by a Maenad blowing the 
flute ; in the chariot on the right is Ariadne leaning on a thyrsus sceptre (?) 
and with her right hand holding the Dionysiac kantharos as if emptying it. 
She is accompanied by a Maenad striking the cymbals ; under the chariot of 
Dionysus, his panther, under that of Ariadne, a small bearded and horned 
Pan. Under the bodies of the Centaurs on the left are two Erotes, one of 
whom opens the mystic Dionysiac wicker cista and discloses the sacred 
snake (cf the cista in Plate XVI). The corresponding Erotes under the body 
of the Centaur on the right are emptying a wineskin into a large vase. 

In the space beneath the medallion a curious group of an Eros, or small 



bn\ , ainl "'I ,1 tiiiN I'aii fiuiiij,' out' ;m<»tluT in tlu' attitiuK' jtrc|t:iratory tu 
wicstliii^'. Tin Ixiys or Kmlts mi tach side of this (•ciitriil ^Toup ai<' ri^Hitly 
iiitt r|tH'ti'<l liy Mitliuilis a>< Miii|iin->. ' N't-ry ;,foo<l .scul|itiiic in excellent 

jiiv~.>i-\.itiun.' (M.) 

47 ( =.Mieliaeli.s 75). Fragment of Sarcophagus with Dionysiac 
revellers, (.'{id cent.) (iMate X\l.) 

Ilriijh/: ^)■•^8 1111.; Icng/li : O'bi .in. Maihle : Italian (')• Fiovnt'inct: (»). 
lireakages : tin; fragment is limkeii away at Ixilli ends ; tlic legs <if tin jiaiitlifis an- 
also brokin away ; tin' left liaud ami jiait of the arm of the Matnail on the left ; pint 
ol the tiTe stem ; i. forearm nml liainl nf the Eros, lower jiart of the face nf the Sat)r 
on the ligiit. 

In the centfe DionNsus is seen reclininfj on a low loiu-whei-led car 
4lia\\ii by two panthers, on the foremost of which rides an Eros holding a 
l\if. In the backgronnd, near the head of the second jianther a Satyr moves 

Fk;. '.'. Fio. 10. 

Ki:oiK.s— Fi;a<;mknts kro.m a Sakcoi-haucs. 
Thinl Century a.h. 

ra})idly torward ; Ijctween him and Diun^'sus is a Maenad wielding a tliyrsus. 
At the feet of Dionysus is seen another Maenad extending her 1. arm towards 
the god and resting her r. hand on the stem of a great vine, which seems to 
mark off the centre of the composition. On the left of the vine is seen a 
fragment of another Satyr who grasps the stem. The relief is so high that 
the figures an; almost detached from the ground ; the hair of the figures, the 
vine- leaves, and other details are worked with the borer and are evidently 
intended to pnxluce a striking impression of ' light and dark ' after the 
maimer of the late third century A.U. The colouristic effect of this little 
iratrment is .idmirable. 


48 ( =Miili;i( lis 77). Eros leaning on Inverted Torch. (Fii;. !>.) 

Jl'i'jhi : II-45 ; hroidll, : l}-It;. 

Kiglit (11(1 (if a sar(;(ipha^us ; the lUDtivc is symbolic ot 'Icatli. Tlif .styh_' 
aii(l t"'cliiii(|iic .111' of the third cciitiiry .\.l'. 

49 ( = .Micliaclis 7'S). Eros Asleep. \v\'^h\. cunur ui' saicopliagus 
lid. (FiiT. lO.J 

Ilri.jfit : 02(5 ; hrnulth : U-23. 

The subject is similar to the in-eccdiiitr, but Kros is shewn hen; sujipoitiiig 
his rii^ht leg on a step or stone. On the- ritrht arc his Ixiw and <piivcr. which 
he has east asi(lc. Woi'k of the third ccnturN- A.D. 

^ !>. — IForJi's of iiiiarlniii d(dc. 
50 ( = .Mi(ha( lis :{j. Eros and Pan Vintaging. Plate XXll.) 

Jfti'j/il: of the ir/tol(i (jrouji : 1 06 'iii. ; i\f tin, JCnix : ISO im. ; of tlic Uiitiifn- 
jiC'l'stal : OUG cm. ; length uf ditto : 0'44 cm.; height of I If Pan: O'oO cm.; of the 
.i/iiallcr Kros : 0"20 cm. Marble : liiic-j^iaiiKMl Greek, rroveniimx: IJagiii di Ko,s(01i, 
near Orossi-to (Deiiiii.s, Etruria, 2ii(l dl. V(jl. ii. p. 225), after that Florence, llcpliettx : 
Whitiliall and Rome, Coll. (liamli. Ijiiia^i isee Mieliaelis, Arch. 1879, p. 172). 
Lilcrdture : liuinach, Repertoire, ii. 71, o, ami 4.''' Condition : the body of the Ei'm 
iiiiKdi injured by action of damp ; tlie vino has been liroken in many places and jm! 
to<;cther ' mosil}' with the aiil of metal pej^s or thin metal pins, which are much 
eaten away and which have i-auscd scrii)U-5 coiio.sion ' (Micha«Oiv). 

Eros, if it be he and not an onbnary mortal child, is represented wing- 
less. He stands tirmly on th(; soles of both feet and stretches up his aims to 
reacli the bunches of grapes from a great vine that hangs over him. From 
behind the vine, a little goat-legged Pan comes forward ;ind touches Eros 
with his right leg. The Pan supjMjrts on his head a basket into which a 
(piite diminutive Eros, this time winged, is depositing a hugt' bunch of 
grapes. The branches and foliage of the vine, which are very intricate, are a 
clever imitation of nature, Ijut it caimot be said that the effect of these 
leaves and fruit cut out in marble is agreeable."'^''' The workmanship of the 
leaves and fruit, however, with the tiny Erotes darting about amid the foliage, 
lecalls work of the Antonine ))eriod, such as the pilaster in the Lateran, 
decorated with vine-leaves and clambering love-gods, first published by 
Wickhoff, Roman Art, PI. XI; Riegl, Spiitromischc Kitnstiuckistrie, p. 71; 
Strong, Roman Sculpture, ]>. 02. In the present group, a^ on the Lateran 
pihtster, alth(jugh the artist is a master of deep cutting and of uncier- 
cutting, he yet scarcely has any modelling, but replaces it by a kind of 
flattened relief which is intended, by contrast with the dark hollows, to call 

■' The group reprodueed, Kcinach, Jit'p. ii. me that similar curious accessories, treated in 

71, 4, is evidently, a.s suggested by M. Rcinach similar style, adorn the prop of a statue of 

himself, the s.ime as our Cook group. Dionysus or a Satyr in the Villa Albani 

^'•^ I'rofcssor Micliaclis kindly points out t" (Helbig, No. 872; ClaracKein.ach, 377, 5). 



rmtli a roloiiristic etVcct. 1 slmuld llu-ivlure incline to dutf this gri>u|> 
ubout the third century A.D, The statues, Roinafh, lUpertoirr, ii, 448, 2, and 
the Hor^diese statue in the Louvn' (Clarac-Kcinach, 142, 6) arc win^c'<l and 
cannot be looketl upon as replicas, though thf motives an- similar. (\imj)an* 
also the Eros playing at ball of the Uftizi, Arndt, Einzelanf. ;i.')l ; Ktiiiiyh, 
Repertoire, ii. 420, 1 : aii<l the torso, ?7/(W. ii. 44H, :i. 

5 1 {ii'if in Michaelis). Head of an Athlete? in the Archaic 
Style. (I'\r. 11.) 

Heiijht : 215 cm. ; length »/ face : 017 cm. Marble: very much <Umaj{pil by 
cx|>osme or jios.sibly by fire ; tbe nose is broken, or rather worn away ; tlic surf.icf of 
tlif marble is entirely <lcstroyeil and the head liius grially .suflered from neglect and 
maltreatment; yet the tyi)e is of considcrablo interest. LiUralure: B.F.A.C. Cat. 
\<. 1», No. 3. E.rlithit,;l, H.F.A.C. 1903. 

Fir.. 11.— ^;-,ij 

The preservation is so bad that it is difficult to decide whether the 
head is an original or a later (Roman ?) copy. The structure of the hcjvd 
is almost .square ; the planes few and very flat ; the eyes^ are kept as nearly 
as possible in the front plane of the face, as in the earliest period. The hair 
is parted down the centre of the head and is curiously rendf^ed by streaked 
ridges. In front the ridges an* closer and imitate sharply-defined waves. A 
long plait of hair encircles the head as in early statues of the so-called 
Apollo type.^- 

" Prof. Michaelis writes: 'The photograph evident that the type belongs to those ancient 

and, perhaps, the condition of the marble do "Ajwllo " heads like that in the Kritish 

allow a certain judgment, but it appeai-s to be Museum {Anc. Marbles, ix. 40, 4=Catal. 150).' 
H.S. — VOL. XXVllI. D 


62 (=Michaelis44). Draped Male Torso. (Fig. 12.) 

Ucijht : 0-84 cm. 
The flatness of the planes an<l the treatment of the dra])eiy seem to shew 
that this is a copy of a fifth century original. The man appears to hold 
a roll in his left hand, whilst his right grasps the end of the cloak 
which falls over the left shoulder. I know no precise replica of the type, 
though similar motives recur, as pointed out by Michaelis, in so-called statues 

Kkj. 1 '2.— Mali: Tokso. (52) 

(it philosophers (<'f. (^larac-Reinach, p. 512, 7, 8) and the Demosthenes <A' 
the Vatican and of Knole. 

53 ( = Michaelis 40). Draped Male Torso. (Fig. 18.) 

Heigh/: O'Tfjciii. Marhir -. Pa\()n;tzz('tto. Bislorni : licad ; tlic logs from btloAV 
till- drapery ; ihc whole of tin- lift haml with the .sheaf of ro in. 

'i'lii' hgui'e is diaped in a mantle in a way that recalls statues of Zeus, 
cf. Xi'. 7. 'I'he riglit hand grasps thi' remains of a short scepi re ; against the 



It-It shoulder .irc tnici-s of ,v ji;iliii-l>ran('li ( iiiisiiii(li'i>,tifKl by the n'.stom- as ;i 
ctjiii-shfiif) ; it is |i.issil)lf, tlit rtt'orf, tliiit wt- liuvc Iktc the V(jtivt' statuf of a 
^pafttV7i]<i iir uiiijiiir, hoMiii^f thi- |iriz" to he coiiftrnd. 

54 ( = Mi(h.irlis 71). Funeral Relief Youth Draped In Cloak, 

(Ki^r. 14.) 

II<i'fhf : 0-2:5 ; hrcn-itli : \7 cm. Marble: Itulian. 

This is ;i slitjlit iiiiitutioii, jircsiim;il)Iy ;iMtii|iic, of an Attic iii(h|<'| of 
al»i)ut the tiiue <if the ParthiiU'ii. 

Fio. 13.— liKAJKi) Ti.K.Mj. (:..!) 

55 {not in Michaelia). Statuette of a Seated Man. (Fig. 15.) 

Height: 26 cm. Rcstond : both feet with tli> iower part of the drajery an<l 
moat of I he basis ; tlie rif^ht jirin from below the elh •" with tlie hand ami the roll. 
Head and neck (not reprodured here) ajipeai to be uuMkiii. The kntx-i are broken and 
somewhat rubl.c.1. Literature : li.F. A.C. Cat. p. 86. N... 86. ExhiiUttl, B F.A.C. IMS. 

The fragment is interesting only as reprodueing a seateil tyin- differing 
from those aln-ady known. The drapery p;usse- mv.i th-' left shoulder, leaving 
the right shoulder and arm hare. 

n '1 

36 MRS. 8. A. STRONG 

56 (no^ in Michaelis^-). Shrine of Cybele. (Fig. 16.) 

This is a very rough insignificant imitation of the familiar image of 
Cybele enthroned, wearing the modius and with the lion lying right 
her lap. Cf Michaelis, Oxford, Ashmoloan, Nos. 86, 131 and 159, also Brit. 
Mus. 783, 784 and Ny Carlsbcrg 237. The figure is carved within a little 
shrine or aedicula {vataKo^). In the right hand are traces of a patera, in 
the left, of the tympanon. 

FlC. 14. — FliACMK.Nl OK A Uf.MEF — IMll ATIO.N ATTIC. (54) 

57 {not in Michaelis). Torso of a Recumbent Female Figure. 

(Fig. 17.) 

Breadth : about 62 cm. 

The fragment, which is of insignificant execution, belongs to the class of 
figure-s'known as dvuTravofievat ; cf Pliny xxxv. 99, and Cultrera, Saggi sull' 
Arte Ellenistica e Oreco-Romana, p. 137. 

bS^not in Michaelis). Group of Hermes and a Nymph. (Fig. 18.) 

The old restorations have been removed. 
*' On the other hand I can nowliere find Michaclii)' No. 7 'Statuette of Cybelo.' 

THK L\)()K C<iL1J:CTI()N 


The two figures sit oii :i ruck, over which is sjin-iul ii (lr.ijnry , ;it th<ir 
feet lies the eaduceus of Hcrmis. Poor workiM.'inshi|). For the motive cl". 

the similar L(i"(»n|)s ( 'huac-Ki in.ich, ;{<»!>, 2: .'571, 1 

Fn;. 15 -Hkatkk Man. .'.:.> Fi<; !»;.— Siikink ok Kyiski.k. ^56) 

60 ( = Michaclis G4). Head of Hermes (?). (Fig. 19.) 

Length of /(ICC : 15. Total hciijht of anlique part: 022. Kestoratioiis : the iinse, 
almost all tin- beard, patclies in the hair. The terminal, which is falsely 
inscribed nKirwv, is modern. 

Apparently a poor hite replica of the Hermes Propylaios of Alcamenes 
whifh was set up on the Acropolis of Athens about 450 B.C.; an inscribed 
replica was found at Pergamon in 1004, see Athen. Mitth. 1904, Plates 18-21 
and pp. 84 f for the list of replicas (Altmann). 

Fn;. 17. — Tou^^o ov an Anapatiomene. (57) 

60 ( = Michaelis 49). Head of Dionysus. (Fig. 19a.) 

Lciigth of face : 017. Reatoralions : tip of nose and the whole bust with the long 
curls on it. 

Poor, late copy of an archaic type. 



61 ( = Michaelis 48). Double Bust of Dionysus and Ariadne' 

(Fig. 20.) 

Height : 0'30. llestoral : nose and mouth of Ariadne ; nose of Dionysos. 

Fli:. ]S. Hr,i:Mi< wi. Nvmi 

The head of Dionysus reproduces an archaic type with tightly-curled 
hair and beard. The work is poor and practically impossible to date. The 

F(r;. IP.— Hekme.'^ PkoPVLAIOs vV 
.AUJAMF.NKS ! (59) 

I'H;. 19a. — Aiu (lAisTic IJu.sT w 
DluNV.SLS. (60) 

full face of the Dionysus head may be seen on PI. XX. No. 44, agninst th(! 
sarcophagus of (Jrceks and Anwizon.s. 



63 ( = Michiu-lis 5')). Head of a Oirl. (V\^. 21, |i. :{. ) 

Length of /ace : 013 cm. Ile^loralioiu : nose and luiht. 
The ^fiil is crowmd with ivy It'.ivcs iuid btrrifs ;is though she wen* ;ui 

Fi<i. 20. — l)i>ri;i,K iJiM' OF iMoNv.srs anp .Xi.iadnk. (til) 

ri\<;ic M\nK. f.'.i M \>K OK .Skilk.m .s. ii4> 

I'l.;. 'l\. 



Ariadiit' or a young female Faun. On the right side of the forehead seems 
to be the trace of a horn. Very insignificant work. 

63, 64 (7iot in Michaelis). Two Masks. (Figs. 21, 22.) 

The mask on the left is of the ordinary tragic type, that on the right is 
a Scilene.sque mask, wearing the mitra with bunches of ivy leaves on either 


side. On the reverse (illustrated in Fig. 22 on a larger scale) is the figure 
dancing Satyr. 

§ 10. — S('2>ulchr(il aliars and reliefs. 
65 ( = Michaelis 80). Sepulchral Urn. (Fig. 23.) 

Hciijht : 42 cm. ; length : 41 cm. 

The decoration of the ordinary type ; at the corners rams' heads with an 
ulive wreath suspended from their horns; below the rams' heads, eagles; in 
the .space between the tablet and the wreath, birds. The tablet had 
jjrobably been left blank in antiquity and now displays a forged modern 
in.scription ; see Muratori, Thes. \). 1319, No. 8: ' Romae in hortis Montal- 
tinis ; e .schedis Ptolomeis.' 


66 ( = Mi(li.ulis Sh Sepulchral Stele of MacriniuB. (IM. XXIII.) 

Jlciyhl : ;nt cm. ; Icnjlh : 37 > in. Jn.<^r, ij,i,nii : h.M. Murrinio Marimmv Jilio \ 
diilcinuino, qui visit an. I m . . . \ Miicriniiui Miuiininun IN' '"V | I'RKT. . . .ffcU. 

Iti till' field above the iiiscriplioM, a child is seen riding a horse nt ftdl 
t,Mllo|»: he has iust pierced with his spear a monster, that issues from a cave 

Fir. 23. I!<>.man Ash <'nrsr, uuii Fuin;Kn Ins<uiition. ((55) 

on the right and at which a dog is barking furiously. Michaelis justly 
remarks on the inajjprojjriateness of the subject to a child who died as the 
inscription informs us at the age of one. 

67 {ml in ^.lichaclis). Sepulchral Relief of Straton. (IMate XXIV.) 

Height : 29 cm. 

The base carries the following inscription arranged in five lines. Thi* 
Held above is simply decorated with three wreaths in relief 

SrpaT&JZ' Kal Euraft'a ol 'l.Tpd{r)(ovo'i 
rav a{j)d\\av virkp rov 7raT/30<? ^TpuTdivo^; 
rov /3 \llp(OTio}(v)o<i, dp)(^<i>t€paT€vaavTO<; 
Kal Ba\fiap^i]aavTO<i Kal '7rpr]yia-T€vaav\T0<i, 
Kara ttoXh' fioi^ap')(^evi>\[Tn^ tov B€ivo<i]. 

See Paton and Hicks, Inscriptions of Cos, No. -ilV, p. 297, where the 
stone is j)ublished with references to previous literature, and dated early in 
the first century B.C. The stone came from Kephalos. Though not 
mentioned by Michaelis in the 'Ancient Marbles,' the inscription was 
published by him in Arch. Zcitung, xxii. p. 59. 


68 ( = Michaelis 13). Large Bowl-shaped Vase of red porphyry. 

Diameter : 1'93. 

This splendid vase comes from the collection of the Duke of Modena. 
N.B. — I have not succeeded in finding Michaelis 51 ' Head of Artemis.' 

§ 1 1 . — Modern Imitations of Ant iques. 

69. The collection further contains nine colossal busts of emperors 
executed in the later Renaissance, or in more modern times in imitation 
of Renaissance works. Six are noted by Michaelis under 03'''. Two, 
the Claudius (mentioned also by Bernoulli, ii. 1, p. 340) and the Vitellius 
(Bernoulli, ii. 2, p. 16, No. 32) are excellent decorative works. 

70. The relief described by Michaelis under No. 12 has been proved 
to be a modern forgery, executed at Naples in the earlier part of the last 
century by the Neapolitan ' falsario ' Monti ; see H. L. Urlichs, Wochcnschrift 
fur Klassische Philologie, 1890, p. 54, where he points out a replica of this relief 
as the work of the same forger. 

§ 12. — Terracottas, Vases, etc. 

The terracottas, vases, and other objects are reserved for future 
discussion. Meanwhile, however, the more important among these may 
be noted here in order to give a more complete impression of the character 
of the collection. I borrow, in the main, my own descriptions in the 
catalogue of the Burlington Fine Arts Club Exhibition, where most of the 
following objects were shewn. 

A. — Terracottas. 

71 (= Michaelis 14). Girl Seated at Her Toilet. 

She is dressed in a thin chiton, with a cloak suspended from her 
shoulders at the back, and thrown over her knees. The rolled coififure often 
appears in heads from the middle of the fourth century. The hair is confined 
by a narrow ribbon ; the arms are raised to the head on the left side, where 
the ends of the ribbon which the girl was tying has been broken off" along 
with the whole of the left hand and the fingers of the right. The kgs 
of the chair are also broken and the head has been broken otf and replaced. 
Delicate workmanship of the fourth century. Exhibited at the Burlington 
Fine Arts Club m 1903 {Cat. p. 83, No. 07 and Plate LXXXV.). 

72. Heracles Slaying the Lernaean Hydra. (Fig. 24.) 

This is one of three slabs with the Labours of Heracles (Michaelis, 15-17). 
They belong to the well-known class of ' Campana reliefs ' which is so 



ina^Miiticently le-jjicsciitcd in tlit- liritisli Mii.seuni and in tlit- Luuviv. Theso 
reliefs come mainly from Rome and its neighboiirhoiKl and may be referred 
roughly to the first century H.c.-A.I). 

Fic. 24 

73. Ten Small Terracotta Masks, among which those of a horned 
river god, of a Seileiuis, and tlu' two masks of archaic (iorgons are of special 
excellence. These masks were used fur the adornment of furniture. 
Exhibited in 190:} at the llurlington Fine Arts CMub {('af. p. 8C, No.s. S!) Of), 
and Plate LXXXVI.). 

}]._ Vases. 

The collection, though somewhat mixed in character, contains the 
following choice examples. 

74. Kylix. HIack figures on red ground. Foot restored. Diameter, 
307 cm. Exteri(jr A and V>: chajiots amid an assemblage of warrioi^s and 

This Kylix was formeily adjusted to a foot bearing the signature 
of the painter Nikosthcnes (Klein, Mejstrr.-ii(/)iah(rcn, j)j). 09, 70). Kecently, 
however, the vase was cleaned at the British Museum and the foot found not 
to belong. Mentioned by Michaelis, p. 73, and Arch. Zcil. 1H74, ]i. (il 
Exhibited in VM)?, at the Burlington Fine Arts Club, Cni. p. 95. No 4 and 
Plate LXXXIX. 


75. Three Hydrias, with black figures on red ground : 73, Dionysus 
and Ariadne in chariot ; on the shoulder, Apollo playing the lyre. TS*^, Athena 
and Heracles in chariot ; on shoidder, combat scene. 73*', Groups of 
bearded horsemen. 

76. Kylix, with deep bowl and offset lip. Design in black and purple 
on red. Diameter, 2r9cm. 

1. Within, elaborate patterned concentric bands: Heracles wrestling 
with Triton. On the exterior of the lip a pattern of alternating palmettes 
and lotus flowers. On the bowl a galloping horseman on each side. Around 
the handles palmettes. Exhibited in 1903 at the Burlington Fine Arts Club, 
Cat. p. 99, No. 14, and Plates LXXXIX., XCII. 

77. Kylix, with red figures on black ground. Diameter, 233cm. 

1. Within a circle adorned with a band of macanders stands a li'ahci/.s 
or judge of the palaistra, wrapped in a long cloak, holding his long staff". 
On the right a shaft, or goal, on a plinth ; to the left a seat with a cushion 
on it. 

A. — Exterior. A young man stands, to right, bending forward with 
both arms extended ; on his left a helmet placed upon a shield. In front of 
him a gynmasiarch holding the two-pronged staff". Behind this figure 
advances, to the left, a nude youth with a shield on his left arm and a 
crested helmet in his right hand. Behind him again a goal. 

B. Similar scene to preceding. A gymnast holding a pole stands 
between two nude youths, each carrying a shield and a helmet. Probably 
both scenes represent the preparation for the armed foot race. 

This fine vase is put together out of many fragments. Exhibited at the 
Burlington Fine Arts Club in 1903 (Cat. p. 100, No. 17, and Plate XCII.). 

78. Calyx-Shaped Krater. Diameter 395 cm. ; height 358 cm. 

A. Triptolemus (to right) seated on his winged car, with his sceptre in 
his left, holding a bunch of wheat-sheaves in his right hand. In front of 
him Demeter with her torch, holding an oinochoc for the parting libation. 
Behind Persephone with a long sceptre. Fine and careful drawing. 

B. Three women conversing. Execution coarser than that of the picture 
on the obverse. 

Below the picture at the height of the handles, a pattern consisting of 
three groups of maeanders alternating with a framed oblique cross. Above, 
under the rim of the vase, a pattern of slanting palmettes. Exhibited in 1903 
at the Burlington Fine Arts Club {Cat. p. 107, No. 41 and Plate XCV.). 

79. Calyx-Shaped Krater. From Magna Craecia. Height 405 cm.; 
diameter 458 cm. 

Red figures on black ground. Latter half of the fifth century. Vigorous 
drawing. Put together out of many fragments, but coujplete Foot, handles,. 

Till': COOK C'oLLKCl'loN 45 

and the rim are entin-ly black ; at tht- tttp u| the jiicturt' a band ol slanting 
paliiM'ttes ; at the bottom a band of ^Moups of three macanders alternating 
with crosses within s(jiiares; when- the handh-s join the vase a |)attern nf 

(fhr. In the t'uiegroiiinl l'i)l\ phemiis (hunk and aslecji ; to the right 
Odysseus wearing pilos and ch)ak holds a Hnbrand, while two of his 
coinjianioiis advance fron> the left bringing other burning firebrands to nmke 
the fire in which to harden the stake of olive wood which three other 
companions are pulling uj) in th(» centre of the picture. (Of. the episo<ie Jis 
told in Odyssey, i.\. 32()-l{28.) At the back of I'olyphemus is a cup of the 
kaulhurua shape and an empty wine-skin {') hanging from the bough of a 
small tree. The presence of the satyrs who are springing forward from the 
right suggests a connexion of this scene with the Satyric drama; and it 
been pointed out that in the 'Kyklops' of Euripides a chorus of satyrs was 
introduced. A noteworthy attempt at perspective appeai-s in the v;ise, the 
figures being dispo.sed in three different i)lanes. 

Rev. Two groups of two young men wrapped in long cloaks and 
engaged in conversation. 

First published and described by F. Winter in Jahrhuch dcs Arcluiol. 
Instituts, 1891, Plate VI. pp. 271-274. For the district which produced 
these, which imitate Attic Kraters of the period between 440 and 
4;i0 B.C., see Furtwangler, Mastei-pieces, p. 109. E.xhibited in 1903 at the 
F.urlington Fine Arts Club {Cat. p. 109, No. 48, and IMate XCVII.). 

80. There are also a few large Apulian vases elaborately decorated 
with figurines, of the so-called type. 

81. There remains to note a remarkable set of objects of the fourth 
century B c, from a tomb at Eski-Saghra in Northern Thrace, opened in 
1879. These objects comprise several fine bronze vessels, pieces of bronze 
armour, and a fine gold breastplate (?) decorated with a sanis of tiny lions' 
heads and stars or rosettes in repousse. Some silver goblets and black ware 
came from the same tomb. The Eski-Saghra e.vcavation and the single 
objects discovered at the time are described and illustrated in a Russian 
monograph {Bulgarian Eoxavation near Eski-Saghra, Saint Petersburg, 1880), 
which together with an English resume of its contents, is placed near the 
■objects from the tomb. 

Eugenie Stro\(;. 


[Plate XXV.] 

Members of the Society will remember that we have been endeavouring 
at the British Museum to make our collection of the Parthenon sculptures 
as complete as may be for purposes of study : our object has been to 
supplement the series of originals in the National Collection with casts of 
the marbles and fragments wherever these are known to exist. With this 
view, when I was last in Athens I went through the whole of that portion of 
the Frieze preserved in the Acropolis Museum, and subsequently Professor 
Boeanquet did the same with the Metopes and Pediments,' Through the 
kind offices of Mr. Cavvadias, the Greek Government had casts made of all 
those which we needed, and generously presented them to the British 
Museum ; so that I think we may say that we now possess a collection in 
which the sculptures of the Parthenon may be for the first time studied with 
reasonable completeness. The only series which is still wanting consists of 
those metopes still in position on the building which, chiefly because of 
their fragmentary condition, have never yet been moulded. The work of 
moulding these will necessarily involve considerable labour and difficulty ; but 
even of these Mr. Cavvadias has promised me that he will have casts made, 
for us as soon as the opportunity occurs. I may add that all the casts for 
which it has not been possible to as.sign the true position are now arranged 
in a room close by the Elgin Room, where they are at any time available for 

The casts of the Frieze fragments reached us in 1905 ; and the first 
result of their acquisition was the addition of no less than 6 different pieces 
rejoined to their ojiginal places in the composition : these are noted in the 
latest edition of the Parthenon Guide, p. l-i9. 

The casts of the Pediment and the Metope fragments arrived last 
Autunm ; and from them, though we have so far obtained the rejoining of only 
two fragments, yet these alone are of sufficient interest to justify the labour 
and cost expended. 

The first concerns the Athena of the VV^est Pediment. It we look at 
Carrey's drawing made in 1G74, it will be noticed that the figure of Athena 
was then fairly complete, with the exception of part of the left leg, and the 
arms; and the head was entirely missing. Until now, what has been 
pre.serve<l to us consisted merely of the torso from the waist upward ; the base 

KKCKNT Al>l)ITluNS To THK I'A K 1 II 1:N( >N .S(T Ll'TL'KKS 17 

«)l the lU'ck was n-oo^Miiscd sdiiu* tiiiu' ago aiiimig the fra)^iiit'iits of the 
A<Toj)oli.s Must'iiiM ami a i-iist is at prrst'iit adjusted to iIk.- marljlf in ihr 
liritish Musciun. Among the casts which ivcfiitly iirrive<l wiis a fragnunt 
giving the bai'k portion of a hrhncteil head, whieh evidently belonged to a 
teinale figure, an<l from its seale could only lie appropriate to u figure in tin- 
cintro of the Pediment. This cast, when it reached us, had already been re- 
joined to the base of tlu- neik of the Athena : the dis(;overy of the attribution 
had therefore already been independently niad«'. It was only after seeing 
Mr. Dawkins' report on Archaeology in (ireece in the; htst volume of the 
Jininud (]). 2M7) that we becami- aware that the join hftfl boon made by 
Dr. Prantl, but I have failed to Hnd any publication of the paper in which 
the discovery is said to Ix- reported. 

Meanwhile, the illustration (IM. XXV. A)shows what is ikjw the aj>pearance 
of our original with the new fragment attached. One effect is to make it certain 
that Cariey's drawing is correct and the pose of the torso a« at present 
mounted in the Elgin Room entirely wrong: the whole needs tilting 
further to the left, so as to bring the two shoulders nearly horizontal. 

About one-third of the head is split off" nearly vertically from the 
crown downwards, and iiom the lower part at the back a triangular wedge is 
broken away, running inwards, but part of the left ear, with the.neck below it, 
is preserved : the entiri' outline of tlu; face below the ears can be traced. The 
helmet is of the foiiii with frontal ridge and vertical neck-piece : a form 
which seems to come into Attic art about 450 B.C. Of the frontal only the 
extremity is preserved in the volute-shaped decoration above the ear. Of 
the neck-piece nothing is indicated on the marble, unless it be a faint 
vertical ridge below the ear : the reason for this is shown by the existence of 
the holes drilled, two in the lobe of the ear and three below; these are 
repeated in the Ciise of the left ear also. They are evidently intended for 
the fastening of some object, probably locks of hair, which passing over the 
side of the nock would have concealed this part of the neck-piece and 
rendered its indication unnecessary.* It is ipiite likely moreover that the 
whole of the helmet may have been further distinguished by the addition of 

It is .somewhat strange that ol all that Carrey shows of this figure 
much should still remain undiscovered, while a part which was already gone 
in 1074 should find its place after more than 200 years. 

The other rejoin is, I believi', entirely new. It concerns the Metope 
No. 27 from the East half of the South side ..f the Parthenon (B.M. Sculpture 
No. 31G). Carrey's drawing gives both the lu'ads, the right leg, and part of the 
right forearm of the Laj)ith,so that it has suffered a good deal since his time. 
Here we have been fortunate in rotixing the head of the Lipith : the actual 
adjustiiU'iit is due to our fttreman of mason.s, W. Pinker, who hits ilone .so 
much useful work ofthis kind on the scul])tures of the I'ait heiion. The head 
as will be seen from the ilhist ion ( PI. \ .\ \'. i!) had an inclination to wan Is tin 

' < r. / . v. Scnli>lit,i, .No 1.'.72. 


left shoulder ; thus, while the left side is fiiirly well preserved, the right side 
has been exposed to the worst of the weathering; it has suffered too from human 
agency — a large part of the surface, including the right ear and the hair 
above and beside it, has been irretrievably damaged. For some purpose, which 
I cannot explain, the whole of this surface has been pitted with holes, to 
make which a circular drill was employed : there must have been more than 
120 such holes made, in regular oblique rows from the top downward. The 
centre of this space has been split away together with the outer edge of the 
ear, and therefore it is difficult to suppose that this treatment of the head 
can represent anything in the design of the original artist. 

For the rest, the surface of the hair seems to have been merely blocked 
out, with perhaps light tool marks to break the smoothness. It appears to 
have been dressed with a roll or plait horizontally above the neck, and a loop 
in front of the ear, in the well known type which is sometimes used for 
ephebi of the first half of the fifth century B.C. The left-hand side is, as I 
have said, in almost perfect preservation ; it shows that the style has some- 
thing of the archaic feeling in the modelling ; while the forms of the face 
generally are round and smooth, the forehead is contracted, and the vertical 
lines over the nose indicate the tenseness of the action. It is interesting to 
find this treatment in a Metope, which for composition and style has generally 
been regarded as one of the finest : it is an additional reason for satisfaction 
in the recovery of the mis.sing head. 

Cecil Smith. 


Tmk title of this paptT may iH)])oar t«)(» wide, since its main object is to 
isLablisli, if possible, the j)osition of the paintings by Panaenus ; bnt dis- 
cnssion of this one point necessarily involves consideration of certain others 
— themselves far i'rom unimportant — and thus a more comprehensive 
designation is needed. It need hardly be said that no thec^ry of recon- 
struction of the Throne as a whole is here attempted. 

It may be convenient to state at the outset the evidence u.sed, and to 
comment generally upon it. In the first place we have the literary evidence, 
the account by Pausanias : careful, detailed, and, in my opinion, the work of 
an cNc-witness. Its great shortcoming is that it leaves undecided thf 

Fr.i. 1 (2: 1). (Flomicc) 

relation of the parts and details to one another. Secondly, there is 
numismatic evidence, which is of high value. Besides the coin which shows 
the head of Zeus, there arc three coins which show the statue as a whole 
(Figs. 1, 2, 3): one from the left front (Fig. 2); the others (Figs. 1 and 3) 
from the left and right sides respectively. These three alone are relevant 
to the present matter. All are coins of Hadrian, and therefore may be 
trusted to give a true copy and not a free reproduction of the original. 
This fact is important as we have no other evidence to systematise the 



account of Pausanias : but at the same time it must be remembered that 
minute detail, relief-work, and the like, cannot be reproduced on so small 
an object as a coin. 

Two views are generally current at the present time as to the position 
of the paintings, (i) Mr. A. S. Murray relegates them to the intercolumnar 
screens of the cella, traces of which have been actually discovered. This 
view, which divorces the paintings from the throne altogether, has been 
accepted in the official publication on the German excavations at Olympia. 
(ii) But Professor E. A. Gardner in a paper on the same subject,^ entirely 
demolishes Mr. Murray's position. I will only add here that the statements 
of Pausanias would be entirely misleading if the screens were placed at some 
distance from the statue. He states that it was impossible to go under 
the Throne by reason of the screens (which Mr. Murray admits were furnished 
with doors) ; but would any modern guide-book to a cathedral say ' it is 
impossible to enter th(! choir because of the screens ' ? I think the parallel is 
a fair one. It is unnecessarj^ to give a detailed account of Professor 
Gardner's theory ; enough that there seem to be grave objections to his 
arrangement of the paintings in frames formed by the intersection of the 
Kavoves; and Kioves- The reconstruction here attempted is in many respects, 
though not altogether, a return to the older theory, e.g., as represented 
by Brunn. 

We may now proceed to examine the parts of the throne which seem to 
bear upon the present inquiry. These are (i) The decoration of the Kav6ve<;, 
(ii) The position of the Kiove<;, (iii) The nature of the ipvfiara. 

I. — The Kav6ve<;. 

Pausanias gives an account of the decoration of the cross-bars, which 
may be summarised as follows : — on the front bar were (originally) eight 
figures ; on the side and back bars was represented a battle of Greeks and 
Amazons. We are told nothing directly as to the material or technique of 
these figures. However, we can confidently assume them to have been of 
gold and ivory. As to technique, we may note that Pausanias calls the 
figures upon the front bar dydXfMaTa, which points to figures in the round and 
not in relief^ This point seems to be borne out by the second and third of the 
Elean coins mentioned (Figs. 2 and 3), which show upon the front cross-bar a 
small upstanding projection, evidently a human figure. Relief work, as has 
been noted, could hardly be shown upon a^coin. Further, the argument may 
perhaps be strengthened by the incidental note of Pausanias that one of the 
eight figures upon the bar had disappeared. Doubtless we are to under- 
stand that it had been stolen. Now a figure in the round, fixed only at 
the feet, might be easily wrenched off by a thief, whereas a relief would be 

* J.H.S. xiv. pp. 233 8qq. figure of Diyops at Asine, which appears to have 

^ But not necessarily (as I am reminded) ; been a relief (see Corolla Numisinatica y. \^&). 
e.g. Pausaniai) uses iyaKixa in speaking of the 

Tin: riiKONE of zkuh at olymtia 


IcsH fjisily ;ui(l (jiiickly (Ictai-lud It may, tli<t\, Ix' (airly (laiiiuMi that there 
is cumulative ovidi'iicc to show that Iht-se i-i^^ht tigurt's at h-just wort- in the 

Soiuf writers allow tliis Miiiih Itiit takf fi»r grauti-d tliat the Auia/oii- 
battle was in nlitt. Unuuj set nis to In- indrHnite on this point. Hut, a 
priori, wc should e.xju'ct a unit'orui tt'chni(|UL' in what was really a cuntiniiou.s 
hand of ti'chniiiuo, jtist as normally a Irir/c would !>•• <»f one t(<hui(ju»'. 
ThtTc are exceptions to this rult\ but they may b<; put down to motives of 
economy, which certainly would not have been considered in the of th«' 
Klean statue. Further, the po(»r effect of reliid'-wt.rk may be gauged from 
the restoration by Quatremere de Quincy. However, the best evi<lence on 
this point is furnished by the first o*" the Elean coins. Careful examination 
of a cast or of a good photographic reproduction of this coin shows 
four (or Jive serrated projections upon the cross-bar.^ Now as the 

eagle upon the sceptre is represented by a small knob, so, it is reasonable to 
suppose these projections represent groups in the battle-scene. 

We may, perhaps, even take a recreative flight into speculation, and 
supposing the number of the projections upon each side-bar to be five, 
assume that we have on each side five groups of two figures each, while the 
back-bar, where presumably the battle would have been hottest, may havt- 
had three groups of three figures each, thus making uj) Pausanias' total of 
twenty-nine. However, this distribution is alike conjectural and inessential. 

We now come to the bearing of this point, which, it is hoped, has been 
substantiated, on the position of the paintings. If these really were figures 
in the round standing upon the cross-bars, it is impo.ssible to suppose there 
were paintings in the spaces above the cross-bars. The. panels would have 
been obscured by the figures ; so that, if the foregoing point has been 
established, the paintings must be placed below the Kav6vt<i. 

' Prof. P. Gardner was kind enough to 
examine the photographic reproiiuction of the 
coin in his ' Type.i of (Jrcek Coins' (PI. XV. 
No. 19) with me, and agreed that the projec- 

tionfl were (liotinctly risible, altliough thoy 
liardly appear in the lialftone ilhistiation hcr<' 
given (Fig. 1). The line reproduction in \\«\- 
ticher's Olympia over emiih.isiden this feature. 

E 2 


II. The KCOV€<i. 

Professor E. Gardner, in the paper already referred to, holds that the 
panels were divided by the intersection of the fcavcov and klcov, on each side. 
If, therefore, we relegate the paintings to the space below the bar, we must 
rearrange the Kiove<;, for in that case the supports would have interrupted both 
the paintings and the sculptures above them. We must ask then whether 
there is any adequate reason for this change. Now it has been often pointed 
out that a throne with eight visible legs would be the reverse of artistic, 
nor would the effect be bettered by making the extra legs (which indeed 
would probably be round, as their name, KLove<;, implies) serve as part of the 
frame-work for the paintings. To this i)urely aesthetic consideration we 
may add direct numismatic evidence. None of the three Elean coins 
shows any sign whatever of a visible support, though they show the cross-bar 
itself clearly enough. The inference therefore is that the ' supports ' were 
actually invisible, and this is perhaps indirectly supported by Pausanias him- 
self, when, after mentioning the existence of the * supports,' he goes on 
innnediately to say that it is impossible to go underneath the Throne. 

Where then, it may be asked, are the Kiove<i to be placed ? In answer 
to this it is j)ertinent to ask where support was most needed. Clearly, not 
at the sides which were comparatively light and adequately supported by the 
legs, but at the point where the real weight lay, the point where the heavy 
torso of Zeus weighed directly upon the seat of the Throne. Here, then, we 
must place the supports according to the following diagram : 

But is it possible to reconcile this with Pausanias' phrase, /xera^v tcov 
TTohwv ? Certainly the most obvious meaning (were there nothing against it) 
\v(juld be ' intermediate between the legs of each side.' However, two other 
inter])retations are possible, one or other of which I believe Pausanias intended, 
(i) When he said /xera^i) rdv Trohaiv, he was using an inexact but approxi- 
mate phrase, meaning that the supports were on a line with the central point 
of each side (fiera^v), but set lack from it. (ii) The supports collectively 
might be said (accepting the arrangement in the diagram) to be between the 
legs also collectively regarded. Perhaps the second is the simpler and better 
of these alternatives. 

Such, then, are the reasons for altering the position of the supports. 

TJI1-; IIIKONK OF /HIS AT ()L^■M1■| \ ',:i 

1 1 1 . — 7/1 f tpvfj.tiTa. 

\Vr liiivc now t(» sliuw how l'aus;uii;is wius able tu sit the hii|>|K)rt.s s<t 
hidden away, and to explain the nature of the barri«Ts. We may jussunie on 
the authority of I'rof'essor (Janhier's j>a|)er, and of the plain meaning <,f 
I'ausiinias, that the .screens formed a part of tlie Throne itself Their j)urpose 
was both to hide the unsightly props from view and to ad<l to the solidity of 
the whole erection. To state the cjuse brieHy, the view here adopted is that 
the screens only to the height of the, which projected, corruce- 
wisc, beyond them. Naturally the coins can give no evidence on this point, 
and we are left to what we can elicit fntm I^iusanias, and to arguments 
from probability and from aesthetic considerations. 

Now Pausania.s uses a notable i)hrase. The barriers he says are Tpovov 
Toi-)(^(i)v TreTToirjfjLepa. As the screens were painted, he cK-arly does not mean 
that thi'y showed courses of ma.sonry, and then* seems to be only one other 
jwssible interpretation of the phrase. The idea of a wall in its sim])lest terms 
is something long and low with ati empty .yn(ce above it. Now, if the .screens 
had filled in each side completely, the lower part of the Throm; would have 
given the appearance of a solid block ; the idea of a wall would be quite 
inappropriate. If this interpretation is correct, we must think of the screens 
as reaching only to the cross-bars, on which stood the figures already ilis- 
cusscd. Behind and above the figures was an open space. 

Against this view of the .screens it may be urged that such an open 
space would defeat the very purpose for which the screens were erected, to 
hide the supports. This objection, however, is not really valid, (i) As the 
visitor stood on the floor of the cclla, his line of vision would be determined 
by the cross-bar and the figures uj)on it, so that in any case he could see 
no more than the bottom of the seat.* It would be impossible to see through 
from side to side, and so be offended by a ' vista of scaffold-like pole.s.' 
(ii) The light of the cclla could not have been bright, and conse<iuently the 
interior of the Throne would have been in practical darkness. Further, 
thi! gleam of the chryselephantine figures upon the cross-bar against the 
darkness within would enhance the blackness of the background, while the 
mere mass of the figures, and the charm of their workmanship would be 
sufficient to arrest the eyes of most visitors. Every great artist is also 
a practical psychologist. We see the same principle in mediaeval archi- 
tecture, where a belfry window is designed to give light to the interior 
without revealing the unsightly framework within. 

How then, it may be asked, did Pau.sanias see the supports if thus 
concealed ? The answer is that Pausanias, like many another curious 
anticpiary, made it his business to look into ct)rners and <lark places, and it 
was, no doubt by so doing that he succeeded in distinguishing the supports. 
And in this connexion we may add yet another considemtion pointing to an 

* Another instance of Pheidias" knowlcdj;e of cf. Furtwanglcr, Maatcrpifccs (Eng. Tiiins.), 
ojiticil law's is supplied by the I.cmnian Atbcn.T : j). 21. 


opening above the cross-bars. There must have been some means of access 
to the interior for purpose of the repairs which, as we know, were from time 
to time necessary. If there had been a door for the purpose, it is un- 
likely that Pausanias would not have mentioned it. The only alternative 
is to accept the theory of a space which was always open, a part of the 
design itself. 

IV. — The Paintings. 

There now remains the task of rearranging the paintings by Panaenus, in 
accordance with the conditions of which the existence has been demonstrated 
above. We have seen that they must find their place below the cross-bar, 
and in this position it is impossible to retain Professor E. Gardner's system, 
ingenious and attractive as it is. But there are independent reasons for 
rejecting the scheme of 'metope' and 'long' panels, (i) Pausanias gives no 
hint of any such arrangement : rather, his description seems to imply that 
the series was single and continuous. The argument from silence has a bad 
odour, but surely this is a case where it might well be used, (ii) If we 
suppose with Professor Gardner that there were two lower figures each con- 
taining a * caryatid ' figure, we are forced to separate figures which obviously 
gain immeasurably by close association. Hellas and Salamis, for example, 
have added significance if brought close together, while Hippodameia and 
Steropc would in all probability be in much more intimate connexion than 
Professor Gardner's arrangement allows, (iii) There is a certain artificiality 
about the scheme we are criticising : it would be clear that paintings, so 
arranged, aimed siniply at disguising masonry-work, whereas I believe a 
certain illusion (to bo explained presently) was aimed at. 

This last objection necessitates a statement and justification of the 
old arrangement wliirh it is here proposed to re-adopt. • In this ^ve have 
three groups on eacli of three sides. 

a. 1. Atlas and Heracles. 

2. Theseus and Peirithous. 

3. Hellas and Salamis. 

y9. 1. Heracles and the Lion. 

2. Ajax and Cassandra. 

3. Hippodameia and Sterope. 

7. L Prometheus and Heracles. 

2. Penthesileia and Achilles. 

3. The Hesperides. 

It might fairly be argued that having seen that the paintings must be 
j)laced below the cross-bar, we are justified in adopting this, the only possible, 
arrangement. Nevertheless, further justification will not be superfluous. 

(i) According to this .scheme we get in panels 1 and 3 of each side, 
a pair of upright figures, at rest or only in gentle action (/3 1 is not neces- 
sarily an exception), while in each panel 2 the action is more intense (in 


the case of a 2 the figiirea would iluubtlesa be in iiniiuated converHation). Ah 
has been aln-ady remarked, we here get a certain illunion which is de.stroye<l 
by Professor Gardner's arrangenu-nt : the painted figures would ;vctually 
appear to be standing or struggling heiuath the thrtme of Zcxis. Hy this 
arrangement we obtain a distinctly ])octic conception, full of religious symbol- 
ism, and such as we might expect to find in the age of l*heidias. Moreover, 
the dark blue of the background woidd in some measure at leiust disguise 
the screens themselves, making the figures appear as though they, like 
the figures upon the cross-bar, were standing out against a background of 

(ii) Again, is it rash to trace a parallelism between the paintings on 
each side? There is an obvious connexion between a 1, /5 1, and 7 1 ; ami 
we might well call this series ' Heraclean.' In the same way the three 
central c ' Hellenic' panels are connected, while the three last panels have 
a sufficient tie in their symbolism, standing respectively for Oreere, Elis, 
and the Mythical world. 

(iii) Another consideration is of some importance. A pair of figures 
only in the space below the cross-bar really leave too much unoccupied 
space, and Greek art of this period shows a horror vaciii as distinct as it is 

(iv) Finally, if we re-ado})t the old arrangement, we get, in addition to 
the considerations already noted, a sort of gradation: the figures nearest the 
rigid perpendiculars of the legs are upright or in gentle motion, with the 
action more free in the centre ; a remote though just parallel is supplied 
by the pediments of the Parthenon. 

Whatever weight these arguments may have, they are not sufficient to 
(nitweigh Pausanias' statement, TeXevrala B^ ev ttj ypatf)?}, k.t.\., if the 
ordinary interpretation of TeXevrala be retained. In criticism of Professor 
Gardner's theory, it is at least curious that Pausanias should single out the 
last 7netq^c to call the ' last j)ainting in the series.' Was not the lower panel 
equally important ? Is it not better to take TeXevrala in the sense of ' last 
scenes ' ^ or ' lastly ' ? In the latter case, but putting a comma after avrijp, we 
get perfectly good sense, and reXevrala will then cover the two final subjects. 
The loose use of ' lastly' might well be paralleled from any piece of modem 

Such then is the evidence for a return to the old theory as to the 
paintings of Panaenus. 

In conclusion, I should like to express my warmest thanks to Professor 

Percy Gardner for much kind criticism and encouragement, to Mr. G. F. 

Hill for several valuable suggestions and corrections, and also to the 

authorities of the Coin Department of the British Museum for furnishing 

me with casts of the relevant coins. 

H. G. Evelyn-White. 

» Since writing the nbove, I notice that Mr. Frazer, in bis translation of the passage {Pau». 
V. 11. 6), adopts this rendering. 

[Plate XXVI.] 

In this article it is proposed to examine the available numismatic evi- 
dence relating to the settlement of Samians at Zancle, and the change of the 
name of the city to Messana, and to suggest possible lines along which a 
reconstruction of the events might proceed. 

It will be well first to review such literary evidence as we possess. The 
earliest such evidence is found in Herodutus. He gives at length the story ^ of 
the Samian settlement. After the battle of Lade, which ruined the cause of 
the revolted lonians, the Samian oligarchs {oX rt exovre^) decided to abandon 
their city and sail away to found a colony elsewhere, rather than stay and 
endure the oppression of Aeaces, their old tyrant, restored under Persian 
influence (e? airoLKtr^v iKirXieiv fMrjBe fievovra<i Mr;8otcrt re koI AluKei 
BovXevecv). Now the men of Zancle in Sicily had sent a general invitation to 
the lonians to come to the West and settle at the Fair Shore (KaXr) 'A/crr/) , 
a Sicel possession on the north coast of Sicily. The Samians accordingly 
decided to accept the invitation. The other lonians preferred home and 
slavery to freedom in a far country, and stayed in their cities. Only the sur- 
vivors of Miletus joined in the migration. The emigrants sailed for the West 
and landed at Locri Epizephyrii. Here they received a message from 
Anaxilas, despot of Rhegium. This ruler was an enemy of Scythes, king - of 
Zancle, and he saw an opportunity of stealing a march upon him. The 
Samians were to be his instruments. He urged them to think no more of the 
Fair Shore (KaX^v 'Akttjv idv xaipei^v), but to appropriate a fine city already 
built, fortified, and stored. Zancle was undefended; Scythes and his army 
were fighting the Sicels. All that the Samians had to do was to step in and 
help themselves. The exiles seem not to have hesitated. They crossed 
immediately to Zancle, and king Scythes returned to find himself shut out 
from his own city. He appealed to his ' ally ' Hippocrates, despot of Gela. 
Hippocrates, however, had his own view of the situation. Scythes had failed 
in his trust and lost tlie city {airo^aXovra ttjv ttoXlv), and he must pay the 

' Hdt. vi. 22 et sqq. the difference of terminology as a reflection ol 

'^ Anaxilaa is rvpavvos, Scythes is fia<rt\fis : a real difference of constitutional status. 

Hippocrates again in the sequel is called Macau (note ad loc), however, regards the 

Tvpavvoi. Elsewhere in the story Scythes is variation as due merely to the nature of the 

called novvapxos, but never rvpavvos. Freeman sources. I incline to the latter view, for 

(Sicily, vol. iL appendix i.) is inclined to regard reasons which will appar in the sequel. 


ponjiltv. He was imprisoned jit lny\. Hippocrates then proceeded to mukc 
u b;ir;,Min with the Samian invaders. They were to keep one half of tlu- 
property witliin the city, handing over tlie otlier lialf, together with all out- 
siile the walls, to Hippocrates. The Zanclaean army outside the walls was 
thrown into chains, and the leaders (tou<? Kopv<^aiov^ avrutv) delivered up tu 
the Samians for execution. Hut the Samian oligarchs had mercy on their 
fellow-oligarchs-' of Zancle, and spared their lives. 

Here we have a circumstantial narrative which has been generally 
accepted ivs historical at least in the main. A reference in a later book has 
caused some trouble. In giving an acco>int of the rise of Gelon, Herodotus* 
refers to a TroXiopKia of Zancle by Hippocrates, in the course of which the 
Zanclaeans were reduced to servitude ihovXoavvi-jv). This has been regarded 
by some as a loose reference to the events described above. But surely, how- 
ever wide a meaning is given to the word TroXiopKia, there was no TroXiopKia 
in this case. We do not even hear of any lighting at all between Hippoi rates 
and the Zanclaeans. The Zanclaeans were indeed reduced to slavery, but the 
impression conveyed by Herodotus' language in this passage can hardly be 
reconciled with the apparent state of atiairs on the occasion under considera- 
tion. But it is noteworthy that the attitude of Hippocrates to Zancle in the 
story of the Samian conquest i^ distinctly that of an overlord to his vassal. 
Scythes has lost a city in which Hippocrates has an interest, and is pimished 
for it. Now this relation would certainly be expresseil by Herodotus, from 
the Zanclaean point of view, as BovXocrvvy]:' It is far more probable there- 
fore that the iroXiopfcia of Zancle and its reduction to BovXaervvi] took place 
some years before the Samian occupation. If this be so, it is strongly in 
favour of the view that Scythes was really a Tupavpof of Zancle set up by a 
despotic overlord, rather than a genuine constitutional /Sao-tXeu?. It is pro- 
bable therefore that this passage (vii. 154) must not be ipioted in connexion 
with the (question under discussion. 

As to the change of name, we have only one passing reference in Hero- 
<lotus." This again occurs in the passage dealing with Gelon, a fact which 
wouUl suggest that this and the last reference cited are due to the same 
source, and that a different source from the one followed in the passage from 
the sixth book, a fact which should make us cautious in attempting to com- 
bine the narratives. Herodotus has here occasion to speak of Cadmus, son of 

' I have us3unie«l tliut these ' coryphaei ' of tempting to oonjeeture that then- was some 

Zancle are olig-.inhs and presumably enemies ot sort of scheming' Jxtwecn oligarchs lunl 

the 'monarch.' If, however. Scythes was n oligarchs, which would put the action ot tlie 

constitutional king ($a(ri\*vs), these men would Siimians in a more favourable light, from the 

jircsunmbly represent a true nobility after the point of view of CJreck morality, 

old pattern. But, as we shall see, there is * Hdt. vii. 154. 

reason to suppose that Scythes was really a * Cf. vi. 22 tA^toi<rl r* Ka\ AUku 6ov\*vni'. 

Tvpavfos. If this be so, it becomes an interest- where the situation is precisely the same as that 

ing question, who invited the Saminns. Hero- hero postulated at Zancle— a city governed by 

ilotus says it WHS the ZayK\a'ioi. So also does a 'tyrant' acting as the vassal of a foreign 

Aristotle {Pol. vi. 3. 1303* 35). Most modern despot, 

historians assume it was their king. It is *"' Hdt. vii 163 1»'>4. 

58 C. H. DODD 

Scythes of Cos. This man laid down the tyranny at Cos, and migrated to 
Sicily, Here, however, the text is] doubtful. Stein, with the MSS. of the 
first class, reads — oix^to e? XtKcXirjv, evda irapa "^afxioip ecr^^e re kuI 
KaTocKYjcre ttoXiv ZdyKXrjv rrjv i<; ^€<T(TJ]vrjv fieTa^aXoiia-av ro ouvofia. With 
this reading Herodotus has commonly been supposed to imply that Cadmus 
arrived in Sicily after the Samian occupation of Zancle, and succeeded to the 
government of the town, whether by an act of ' commendation ' on the part 
of its Samian lords, or by conquest as the agent of Anaxilas.'^ Freeman^, 
however, adopts the reading of MSS. of the second class, /Ltera Xafitcov, and 
makes Cadmus the leader of the Samian immigrants. A further difficulty 
arises about the tense of ixera^aXovcrav. Does it imply that the town had 
already changed its name hefore the arrival of Cadmus, or that the change 
of name synchronized with his accession to power ? Obviously, the passage 
lends itself to almost endless schemes of reconstruction. The whole problem 
of Cadmus and of his relations with Scythes and with the Samians is discussed 
in an exhaustive series of notes on the passage by the most recent editor of 
Herodotus, Dr. Macan, who has kindly permitted me to read the sheets of 
his forthcoming edition of the last triad of the Histories.^ He marks the text 
as suspicious, but inclines to the reading ^era Xa/jLcwp, pointing out at the 
same time that Trapa 'Zafxiwv does not necessarily imply an interval between 
the Samian conquest and the accession of Cadmus : the Samians capture the 
town and then by a vote confer the sovereignty on Cadmus. His own recon- 
struction of the Herodotean evidence identifies Scythes of Zancle with Scythes 
of Cos, the father of Cadmus, and makes the seizure of the town by the 
Samian exiles under the leadership of Cadmus a preconcerted affair. As to 
the meaning of /jLera^akovaav, he rejects the pluperfect sense given to it by 
Stein, inclining towards the view that the aorist marks synchronism, although 
admitting that it is somewhat vague. That such a synchronism is as a matter 
of fact necessary, if Dr. Macau's interpretation of Herodotus' language on the. 
connexion between Cadmus and the Samians is correct, I hope to show in 
considering the numismatic evidence ; but the actual text does not, I think, 
commit Herodotus to any definite temporal indication. The expression ttjv 
e? Mecrcnjvrjv fiera^aXova-av to ovvo/xa seems to me to be quite vague. All 
that it tells us is that Cadmus received the city whose old name was Zancle, 
but which in Herodotus' time was called Messene. The aorist is, in fact, one 
of ' timelessness' and not of ' synchronism.' Thus the only reference in Hero- 
dotus to the change of name is a quite indefinite one, although we may 
assume that he did not think of it as having occurred before the Samian 

^ Stein (e.g.) in his note on Hdt. vii. 164, complex one, but it barely overlaps with the 

holds that Cadmus was sent by Anaxilas to present question, which does not depend for its 

expel the Samians because they had come to answer upon a previous solution of the Cadmus 

terms with Hippocrates. problem, although the conclusions arrived at 

^ Sicily, vol. ii. p. 486. from a consideration of the numismatic evidence 

^ Macan, Hdt. vii.-ix. vol. i. pp. 227-231. on the general question might affect our inter- 

The problem of the relations of Cadmus and pretation of what Herodotus says on the subject 

Scythes is an interesting and an exceedingly of Cadmus. 


.settlement, from tlic fact tlwit lie uses the name Zaiicle throughout tlie narra- 
tive in chapters 22-24 of liook VI. 

So far, tlien, as the narrative of Herochjtiis goes, we should not have 
suspected any connexion at all between the Samian settlemt'nt and tlie 
change of name, if we had had nothing outside of Herodotus to suggest such 
a connexion. 

We turn ne.\t to Thwydidcs. He has a very brief pas.sage'" in the 
Sicilian 'Ap^^aioXoyia dealing with Zancle. Here if anywiiere we may hope 
to obtain from him some fresh light on the ])roblem. After giving an account 
of the foundation of Zancle by Cumae and (Jhalcis, he proceeds to record the 
occupation of the city by ' Samians and other lonians, who, flying from the 
Medes, landed in Sicily.' These Samians, he further tells us, were shortly 
afterwards expelled by Anaxilas'of Rhegium, who settled in the city a 'mixed 
multitude ' {^v^ifieiKroi ai'Opwvoi), and re-named it Messene after his own 
original country. It is eviileut that this account, whether intentionally or 
not, supplements the Herodotean narrative ; and as a matter of fact the 
traditional account of the events in question lias been formed by a union of 
the statements of the two historians. 

The date of the occurrence is to be fixed approximately by the reference 
to Anaxilas in both historians, and by the reference, explicit in Herodi)tus and 
implicit in Thucydides, to the Battle of Lade. The latter is dated beyond 
reasonable doubt in 494 B.C. The limits of the reign of Anaxilas are fixed 
by a pas.sage in Diodorus^^ at 494-47G B.C. Hence the Samian settlement is 
commonly placed shortly after 494, and the expulsion of the Samians at some 
later date before the death of Anaxilas in 47G. 

A further complication is introduced both in the narrative itself, and more 
particularly in the chronology, by a passage in Pauaanias}- At the close of 
his narrative of the Second Messenian War, which he dates to 6G8-7 B.C.,''' 
he proceeds to record the adventures of the Messenian fugitives who escaped 
to Cyllene. The narrative is given in great detail. According to Pausanias 
various proposals were mooted among the Messenians. Some were for settling 
at Zacynthus, others for sailing away to Sardinia. At this juncture of affairs 
we are introduced to Anaxilas, tyrant of Rhegium. He w;i.s, we are told, the 
fourth in descent from Alcidamidas, who had fled to Rhegium after the end 

'" Thuc. vi. 4 §§ 5, 6. TIiP jiassagc, so far as 4>a/3iot koX Inipios ^ovpioi Vi*v*\Kaios. tw\ Si 

it concerns tlip jnesont prnlilom, is as follows : — rovrwv (i.e. in 470-5 n.c. ). . . ir*\tinr\<Tt . . . 

"Xarfpov Zi avroi fiiv (soil, the oii^inal ("hal- 'Ara^iAai 6 'Ptj^iou koX ZiyKKr\s rvpayyos, 

(■idian and Cuniacan colonists) virh 2afi(wy Ka\ iui/aarfvaas frrj OKruKaiSfKa. t^v H ri/pat-ciSa 

^XAwc 'laivuv iKttiitrovaiv, o\ M'^Soui ipfvyovrn iidf^aro MIkvBos, inarfv6('is Eiart aitohovrai 

■KpoatBaKov Zl,tK(\l<f, rovs ti ia^iovt 'ArofiAar rois TiKVOis tov Tt\tVTi\aavroi olfft fiott rijv 

'Pr)yLV<A)V Tvpavvos ov iroXXy Zaifpov iK0a\wv Ka\ r]\tKiay. 
T^v ir6\tv aiirls ^vnfifiKTwv a.vdpuiirwi' oiKiaat '- Piins. iv. 23 §§ 4-10. 

Mf(rffr)yriy iirh ttjs iavrov rh iipxaiov TrarpiSos '•' I'aus. /.<•. §4 'EaAw 5« tj Zlpa teal i w6\*nos 

avTwvSfiaafv. 6 S*tnfpoi AaKfSaifioylaiv teal Mtatrriyluv t«Ao» 

" Died. xi. 48: 'Eir' ipxovTof 8' 'ASt|ktj<ti f(rx«»' 'ABrjyaiois Apxovrot 'AyrtaBivovs, Irtt 

^a'lSwvos, oKvfiirias fiiy ^ix^'J '*Krri wphs ra7s ■Kpwrif> tJjj oySilris rt Kal tiKoarfis i\vnviaios, 

iBio/xriHOvra Kad' i)y iy'iKU ffraZtoy Stauai'Spioj tji* (yUa X/o»ii Aixu-y. 
MuTiArjcaroj, iy 'P«^j? 8' virjjpxoy viraroi Kaiffwy 

60 C. H. DODI) 

of the First Messenian War; ^^ and he now invited his distressed fellow- 
countrymen of the Second War to sail to Sicily, and aid him in reducing 
Zancle, which should be theirs if they agreed. The proposal was accepted. 
The Zanclaeans were defeated by land and sea and fled to sanctuary. Ana.x- 
ilas advised the Messenians to put them to death, but the leaders of the 
immigrants refused. They came to terms with the defeated Zanclaeans, with 
whom they afterwards lived side by side in the old city with a new name — 
the name of the Messenian conquerors.^'' All this happened, we are told, 
in 644-3 B.c.^^ and a memorial of the Messenian occupation still remained 
in the time of Pausanias — the temple of Heracles Manticlus without 
the wall. 

All this is extraordinary stuff. Anaxilas, whose date is well known, is 
moved up nearly 200 years before his time, and made fourth in descent from 
the leader of the original Messenian element at Rhegium. Freeman has 
analysed the story in an appendix to the second volume of his History of 
Sicily.'^'' His conclusions, briefly, are that the details of the story are due to 
a confusion of passages from Herodotus,^* including the story of the Samian 
settlement cited above, and that the account of the Messenian settlement is 
derived from the poet Rhianus, who used very freely his historical data. At 
the same time he is of the opinion that there is * something in it.' It is 
remarkable that Strabo brings Messenians into connexion with Zancle in two 
places. In speaking of the foundation of Rhegium, ^'-^ he quotes Antiochus of 
Syracuse to the effect that the Zanclaeans induced the Chalcidians to settle 
at Rhegium, and goes on to state (whether on the same authority or not is 
not clear) that amonsf the oriojinal settlers of Rhegium were Messenians who 
had been exiled in a party-struggle before the First Messenian War. The 
story is given at length and in detail, and in confirmation Strabo states that 
the rulers ('^y€fi6ve<;) of the Rhegines were of Messenian stock fie^pi 'Ava^iXa. 
In another place -'^ he describes Messana as a colony of the Messenians of the 

" Paus. I.e. § 6 'Ei' roffovrif Se 'Avo^iAas lonians to found a colony in Sardinia, anil v. 

irvpdvvfve fihv 'Prtylov, TtrapTos 5e air6yovos 9iv 106, where Histiaeus proposes the snbjufjation 

'A\K(5a)u/5of ;j.fTWKr](rf St 'AA(ci5a/ii5os e/c Mta- of Sardinia (Freeman, Sicily, vol. ii. p. 486). 
(T'^j'jjs is 'Pifiyiov fxfTo. rriv ' AptffroSrjfxov rov '^ Strabo vi. 16, p. 257 i>s 5' 'Avtiox^s <f>7j<ri, 

0afft\4ws T(\evri]v Ka\ 'ldwfiT)s t^v aKaxriv. ZayKXaiot /ueTfTre'/ii^avTO toi;j Xa\KtSfas /cal 

" I'aus. I.e. § 9 r6pyos Se koI MavTiKKos olKiaTr/v 'AvTi/xvriiTTou (Tvvf(TTr)aav iKflvuiv. i^aav 

iraptjTovvTo 'Ava^lKav fir) (T(pa.s, virh ffvyyivitiv Se ttjs iiroiKlas kuI ol Mttrarjvlwv (pvyaSes Twr 

ai/Spwc ir(irovd6Tas avScrta, 'Sfioia avTovs «s tf neAoirowTJcry Karao'TaaiaaBfi'Tes iiirh roov /xr] 

avBpdirovs "E\Kr)vas avayKdcrai Spacrat. yuera 0ou\ofifV(t)V Sovvat SiKas virip t^j <pOopas tUv 

Tovro 5e fjSij tous ZayK\alovT<na(rav anh irapBfvoiv rris iv Alfivats ytvofxivrii rois Aoks- 

Ttiiif fiw/xitiy /cal tipKOus SJcTfy Kal at' to! irap' Saifj-ofiots, &J koI auTcks i0tdaavTO ir€fi(pd(icras 

iKtlvw \a^6vrfs dfKriirav an<p6Tfpoi /confj- ovofia iirl r^v ifpovpyiav, kuI rovs 4iriPor]dovvras 

St Tp ■ir6K(i fifTfdtaay Mfffarjvr]!' avrl ZdyK\r}s anfKTfivav . . . b 5' 'A'it6K\u)V fKt\(vaf ffT*A- 

KaAeto-dat. \fcr6ai fifra XaXKiSfwf tls rh 'P-/iytou . . , ot 3' 

'* Paus. I.e. § 10 TavTO Si M ttjj oKv/xiridSos uirriKovaai'. Si6]rtp ol rS>v 'Priyivuv r)y(fji6vis 

i-irpaxOv rfif tvdrris <col tJKOffTTJj, %v Xlovti f^fXP'' 'Afa^iKa rov Mfffirrit'ltiii' yivovs ael Kadiar- 

AaKoiv rh Ztvrfpov ivUa, M«Atio5ou Trap' ravro. The last .sentence will come up .ng.niii 

'A6rivaloii Hpxavros. for consideration. 

" Freeman, Sicily, vol. ii. pp. 48-1-488. -" Strabo vi. 2, p. 268 KxtV^o S' iffrlo (scil. 

^' The passages are vi. 22-24 (cited above), r) Mtacrrjuri) Meo-crTjv^au' rHv iv Vlt\uirovvi\a<f), 

I. 170, wlicre liias of Priene coimsels the irap' wv roljuo/xa fi«T^AAo|€ KaXovfiffrj ZdyKXv 



IVlopuimfsi". who fliaugril the uaiiu' lioni Z;iuclt'. Now tlicsu stJiloinenU are 
vague and cDufusiil. The hitter is vitiated by the adilitioii that Zauclc was a 
(•(ilony of Naxos ;-' ami it bears iu» <hite. The loi iiicr is irnjjossible if the 
tr.uhtioiial (hites ot" the foiiiuUilioJi ut Zaticli- and thr First Messeiiiau War be 
rrtaiiied, but Freeman-- has shown cause for thinking' that Antiochus, who 
was probably tlie oiiginal autliority for Sicilian chronology, put the Messcnian 
War later than the traditional date, and that the story in Strabo may be 
.iccepted, if we put the end of the war for the be<jinning. It is probable that 
ihe accounts representid by tln' two passages in Strabo Vw at the root of the 
narrative in Pausanias. 

Pausanias, then, stripped ol the iuipossil)lc elements of his story, may be 
taken to contrailict Thucydides so far as to attribute the change of name to 
immigrants from Messenia in the Peloponnesc, instead of to Anaxilas; and in 
this he may be reganled as receiving conHrniatiou from tin- briefer notice in 
the earlier writer Strabo. It is reniarka])lc that he has nothing to say of the 
Samians ; but the fact that he makes Crataemenes, who in Thucydides*'' is 
one of the original ot'/cto-rai and a Chalcidian,a Samian,-* would seem to indi- 
cate a consciousness on the part of his authority tliat the ])osscssors of Zancle 
at the time of the change of name were partly of Samian extraction.-'". 

So far, and no farther, we arc able to gather information from our literary 
authorities with reference to the problem before us. Various attempts have 
been made to obtain from them a consistent account. Generally the ten- 
dency has been to reconcile Herodotus and Thucydides and throw over 
Pausanixs (ami Strabo) as hoj)eless.-" Freeman, however, has attempted to 
buiUl upon the whole evidence, including Pausanias and Strabo. His theory 
is worked out- in an appendix to his Ilistori/ of Sivih/, on 'Anaxilas and the 
naming of Messana.'-^ Briefly stated, the theory is as follows. The Herodotean 

TTfiSrfpof 610 TTji' (rKoAi<iTT)TO ruiv tSwwv {^ayK\Ol' 
yap (KaKttTo rh (r«J\iof), Na^iaif oiaa irportpov 
KTta^a Twv irphs KoTafTjj'. 

-' Frt'eman, Sicily, vol. i. p. 5S5, lias shown 
llic probable origin of this ciiur. It must be 
adiliil, however, that Dr. A. J. Evans {Xion. 
<'hron. 1896, p. 107) is intlined to believe 
Strabo on this point and to suppose a fusion ot 
I'oitr elements at Zancle, sufjKestinp a connexion 
with the four rectan^'ular protuberances which 
appear on the ' sickle ' in many of the toins. 

-'- Suilij, vol. i. apjiemlix x.\. ]>\<. r>84-5S7. 

'•* Thuc. vi. 4 § 5 ZayxXr) 5( tV fitv ipxh" 
airh Ki'fiT)j TTJi iv 'OniKia XaAKiSiKTJt irnKfws 
,\?;(rT<i»' a<piKOiLtvuv tpKiaOr], vartpov 5* xaX afh 
XaAici'Soi Kol T^f dA\7jf £.vBoias ■KKf)6os ^KBhv 
^vyKUTtviifiavTO rijv 7^»'- Ka\ oiKKXrai ritpivprjs 
«al KpOTai/i«V»}$ iyivovTo oiiT^i, <5 utv aiih Ku^tji, 
ii 5i amh Xa\»c/8oi. 

-'* I'aus. iv. 23 § 7 ZayKXnv It rh fxtv i^ 
apxv^ KariXa^ov AjjffTai, teal iv iprifi<f> ttj 77") 
TfixiffavTfS inov wtp\ rhv Ai^»'fo dpfiTtrrtpttf) wpiy 
Tos Karabpo/xa! Ka\ is rubs «'iriwAout ixp^*'''0' 

rtyffiSvfs 5c ijcrac avrwv Kparaifxtv-qs 2a^iof Kai 
ntptvprit ix \a\KiSos. Utpffipfi 5t vartpoy Kal 
Kparaifiivti Kal 6.\\ovs iirayayiaBai riiv 'V.KKi\- 
vup tiolfv o'lK-hropas. Here Thucydides' 'oetists' 
appear as the original leaders of the 'pirates' 
(for the meaning of the foundation by pirates 
see Freeman, Sicily, vol. i. p. 393). This is a 
very easy misunderstanding, and no doubt 
Thucydides is right. 

^ Strabo of course betrays no sign of any 
such consciousness. He distinctly states that 
up to the time of the change of name by the 
Messenian immigrants the inhabitants were 
Chrtlcidians nf Naxos. 

-"' E.ij. Knwlinson on Hdt. vi. 24 observes: 
'The narrative of Pausanias (iv. 23 § 3) is 
tompletely at variance with the narrative of 
Herodotus, and equally so with the brief notice 
of Thucydiiles. It seems to be a mere mis- 
representation of the events here related.' 
Macan (note ad I.e.) very justly censures this as 
' uncritical.' 

" See Freeman, Sijili/, vol. ii. pi>. 484 491. 

62 C. H. DODD 

narrative of the Samiuu settlement,-^ confirmed by tiie brief notice in 
Thucydides,"^^ and by a passage in the Politics of Aristotle,^^ is to be accepted, 
and dated as soon as possible after the battle of Lade (494 B.C.). The expul- 
sion of the Samians and re-peopling of Messana by Anaxilas is probably to be 
accepted on the authority of Thucydides ; but he is wrong in his account of 
the re-naraing of the city. The real date of the latter is indicated by the 
change from' ZdyKXrj to Mecraijvyj in Diodorus,^^ which takes place between 
the narratives of events in 476 and those in 461 (if Diodorus has his dates 
correct : at any rate they are approximately right). In this latter year Dio- 
dorus records a re-peopling of Messana with mercenaries, etc., from various 
places all over Sicily, ^^ and it is probable that they were joined by a body of 
Messenians from the Third Messenian War, who changed the name of the city. 
Thucydides has confused this settlement of a ' mixed multitude ' with that 
carried out by Anaxilas some twenty years previously. 

This m§y be taken to represent the best t)iat can be done by a criticism 
of the literary evidence ; but it entirely ignores a considerable body of 
numismatic evidence which has recently been made accessible by the thorough 
study of coins from the Sicilian hoards. Freeman in his appendix ^^ merely 
copies the notice of coins of Messana from the Dictionary of Gebgraphy'^^ 
without any apparent consciousness of their importance. As early as 1876 
Professor Percy Gardner had pointed out the discrepancy between the view 
of these events gathered from an exclusive study of the literary sources, 
and that which was suggested by an examination of the coinage.^^ He 
followed up this brief notice in passing with a slightly longer account in an 
article on ' Samos and Samian Coins,' published in the Numismatic Chronicle 
for 1882.^^ Starting from some hints thrown out by Professor Gardner, 
I propose to examine the numismatic evidence in some detail, and to attempt 
a reconstruction of some sort which shall aim at a reconciliation of the 
numismatic and literary evidence.^^ 

It will facilitate matters to give at once a list of representative coins 
which will be the subject of consideration. We have a good series of coins 
of Zancle-Messana, and a less satisfactory series of those of Rhegium. 
There are also some uninscribed coins which must be noticed. The coins 

* Hdt. vii. 22-24. . ' It must be confessed that this story ' (scil. 

** Thuc. vi. 4 §§ 5-6. the ' harmony ' of Hdt. and Thuc. which at 

*• Ar. Pol. vi. 3. 1303*. 35 ZayKKaioi Se that date held the field) ' excites some serious 

ia^ioui flaSf^itifyot ilittiaov ahroi. doubts. It does not seem to account at all for 

^' See Diodorus xi. 48 and 76 (I take the the appearances of Samian types at Rhegium : 

references from Freeman I.e.). the Samians were never masters there. Nor 

^ Diod. xi. 76 : Aj ird\€«j (rxtSbv Jiratrai . . . does it satisfactorily account for the types at 

Ktitvhv l6yiJLa irotrjffdfxfvat . . . rois {e'voij toij 8j3i Messene. For the name Messene was not given 

rat Svvaffrtlas kWoTplas t^j tr6\tts txov<Ti, to the city until, as we are told, the Samians 

KaTotKuv i.-itavrai iv ttj Vlfffffuvla [sc. iirf'Soffai']. were dispossessed, whereas the inscription on the 

'" Freeman, Sicily, vol. ii. pp. 488-489. pieces of Samian type is MESSENION.' 

" Smith, Did. of Class. Oeog. s.v. ' Messana' *• See op. cit. pp. 236-238. 

s.f. ^ It now be added that there is a brief 

^ Article ' Sicilian Studies ' in Numismatic discussion of the question in Mr. G. F. Hill's 

Chronicle for 1876, pp. 6-7. His words are — new book ^Historical Greek Coins,' pp. 29-35. 



lien- given are all imblislicd in M. Ernest Bahelun's Description Historiqtn 
ilcs Monnnies Gnrtjues d Jionuiines:^ I have also referre<l for materials t<> 
Dr. T). \'. Head's Jlistoria Numnrum and Mr. G. F. Hill's Cuim of Sicily, as 
well as to the articles of Professor Percy Gardner already cited, to articles in 
the third, lourth, and fifth volumes of the Zcitschrift fur Nmnismaiik, and 
to Dr. A. J. Evans' Contributions to Sicilian Nxtinismatica in the Nxunismatir 
Chroniclf fur IHllO.^" 

A. Coins of Kheginm}^ 

1. Ohr. V\OV\0^^: human-headed bull. 
Rev. Human-headed bull incuse, 

2. Ohv. Lion's head facin^,'. 
Jiev. HOOaq: calf's head 1. 

3. Oliv. Lion's head facing. 

li(v. MOHnaq : calf's head 1. 

"I /K draclim 87 grains.^' 
j (Aeginetan weight.) 

'j JR draclim 88 grs. 

f (Aeginetan wt.) PI. XXVI. 1. 

\M t-etradrachm 272 grs. 

I (Attic weight.) PI. XXVI. Q. 

4. Ohv. Mule car {drrrivr)) driven r. hy\A\ tetradrachm 272 grs.*" 
bearded charioteer. !• (Attic weight.) 

Rev. V10mD39 : hare running r. J PI. XXVI. 3. 

4a. The same, but inscription l.-r. — PECINON. 

(Many coins of various denominations are found with these types.) 

.5. OlnK Hare running. 

Rev. PEC in circle of dots. 

(3. Obv. Lion's head facing. 

Rev. RECINOS: male figure, seated, 
naked to waist, leaning on staff 
(? deity or Demos); beneath, 
hound, or other symbol : the 
whole in laurel wreath. 

Ai obol. 
■ (Attic weight.) PL XXVI. 4. 

M tetradrachm (also drachm). 
(Attic weight.) 

PL XXVI. 5. 

]i. Coins of Zanclc-Mcssana.*' 

L Obv. >ANK : Dolpliin 1. in 
{hperravov, ^dyKXav). 
Rev. Dolphin in sickle incuse. 

siekle^ji^ drachm 90 grs." 
\ (Aeginetan weight.) 
J PL XXVI. 6. 

■"' E. Babelon : TraiU cUs Monnaies Qrecquis 
el lioinaines, 2'"c jiartie. Description Mistorique, 
torn. i. 

^^Num. Chron. 1896, pj.. 101 »qq. 

«» Babelon, op. cit. nos. 2187-2199; Head, 
op. cit. pp. 91-94. 

♦' HabcloD, op. cit. PI. LXXI. 8. The 
weights of the coins are given ajipiDxiniately 
and on on average, except in cases wliero 
a coin stands alone and demands more exact 


*'» Examples of this coin are also found 
with the addition ou the obverse of a N^kjj 
alK)ve, crowning the mules: cf. thccornsponding 
coins of Mes.sana (F5. 4, 6). 

*^ Bal.elon, Nos. 2200 2215 ; Head, pp 133- 
135, cf. Evans in Num. Chron. 18Pt^, i^i'. 
101 sqq. 

*' 1 his coin is full}* discussed in Ato/i. f 'Arc 



2. Ohv. >ANK\/E: Dolphin 1. in sickle. '\Al drachm 00 grs. 

Rev. Scallop-shell in incuse pattern 
'la. Similar to preceding. 

3. Ohv. Lion's head facing. 

Rev. MESSENION: calf's head 1. 

J (Aeginetan wt.) PI. XXVI. 7 

^M didrachm 116 grs.-^^^ 
t (Attic weight ) 

I M, tetradrachm 270 grs.^^ 

j (Attic weight.) PI. XXVI. 8. 




M, tetradrachm 270 grs.^"" 
(Attic weight.) PI. XXVI. 9. 

4. Ohv. 'A7r7]t--t] driven r. by bearded' 
charioteer : in exergue, laurel 
MESSENION: hare running r. : 
usually hucranium or other 
.symbol in field. 

'Airrivr) etc. as above. 11,1 , n^ 

»^ I- cc A Mi/^M 1 1 u 1 h^^ drachm 07 grs. 

MESSANION: hare and symbol- . .. . , * „, ^^,„ ,^ 

, -^ (Attic weight.) PI. XXVI. 10. 

as above. j o / 

<*). Ohv. Naked deity (? Poseidon or Zeus)' 
advancing r. with 1. arm ex- 
tended, and r. arm raised and 
grasping trident {Ifulmcn); 
across shoulders, chlamys ; in 
front, lofty altar with palmette 
decoration : border of dots. 

>ANKVAION: dolphin 1.; be- 
neath, scallop shell. > 

Dolphin 1. in border of dots. ^ M litra 12 grains. ■"■ 

>AN in border of dots. J 


Ai tetradrachm 26 3 o grs. 
(Attic weight.) PI. XXVI. 1 1 


0. Uninscrihed Coins.^'' 
1. Ol)V. Round shield, on which Hon's scalp^ 

Rev. Prow of samaina in circular de-^ 
pression with ring of dots : 
above ship to 1., A. 

JR tetradrachm 267 grs. 
(Attic weight.) 

**^ l?abelon, op. cit. No. 2209. 

** These coins seem to have been rcf;ardefl 
indifTerently as Aeginetan tridiachnis : there 
are obols of about 14 grains with the same 
types. (iSee Num. Chron. I.e.) 

■•* Examples of tliis coin also occur witli the 
addition on the obverse of a N/ktj crowning the 
mules : cf. the corresponding coins of Rhegium 
A. 4). 1 am indebted to Mr. G. K. Hill, of the 
I'lritish Museum, for calling my attention to a 
remarkable coin recently sold in the Strozzi 
Sale at Rome (see Auction Catalogue No. 1337). 

The coin in question is a small Attic tKri) (wt. 
1 "4(3 gramme), of (juld, bearing the same types 
(witliout the N/ktj on the obverse) and the same 
inscripti(in as No. 4. The occurrence of a gold 
coin ill the West at this period is startling, 
although paralleled by the early gold issue of 
Ciimae in Campania. Tiie coin apj)ears to 
have been regaided as genuine, and fetched 
a sensational price at the sale. 

■*" This coin is fully discussed in Num. 
Chroii. I.e. 

" Babelon, Nos. 2191, 2192 ; Head, p. 134 ;. 


2. The same without A on icvi rst-. .U tetiiulracliiu 2ii7 ;,'rs. 

PI. XXVI. 13. 

To these must he ailded a cniii tjf ( 'rotuiuaii 'y|'<* which will ('oiui- up tor 
consideration : 

JK Obv. Q?0 Tripod and stork. 1 ,, ,- , , ,.,^ 

D HA c f • 4; 1 1 • ''^ diihachiu 1 10 , -rs.'- 

Rcv. DA Same type: in hehl, 111-- ^, ,^'^, 

u K 1 «• J 4 JP^- XXVI. 13. 

cense altar : border ot dots. ) 

We are now in a position to consider these coin.s with a view to assigning 
to them their places in the history of tlie towns with which they are 
connected. The first coins of Zancle and of Rhegium alike are clearly those 
bearing a type on one side, and tiie same ty])e incuse on the other (A. 1, B. 1.). 
They are struck on the Aeginetic system, which was never very extensively 
used in the West, and early died out tiiere, but in style and fabric they are 
closely similar to the very peculiar coins of the Achaean colonies in Magna 
Graecia. These latter were certainly struck before 510 B.C., when Sybaris 
fell. Hence it is not unreasonable to suppose that these earliest issues of 
Zancle and Rhegium were struck about that date. This is the date arrived 
at by Professor Gardner in his Sicilian Studies.*^^ These incuse coins are very 
rare, for both cities. Zancle appears to have early dropped this quasi-Italian 
coinage, substituting the types of dolphin and scallop-shell represented by 
B. 2. Ti)e general style of this latter coin recalls the Syracusan coins attri- 
buted to the end of the sixth century, and having on the reverse a head in 
the midst of an incuse pattern. It woukrnot perhaps be unreasonable to 
.suppose that coins of this type were struck about 500 B.C. in imitation of the 
general style which had previously been in use at Syracuse. With Rhe<'ium 
the case is different. The incuse coins of this city are even rarer than those 
of Zancle, and further, we have no other examples until we come to the 
entirely different types represented by A. 2. The evidence for the early coinage 
of Rhegium is in fact very fragmentary and unsatisfactory. We have 
at present no means of knowing what kind of coins the Rhegines struck 
between the old incuse pieces after the Achaean model and the lion-and-calf 
issues, which are clearly later, and certainly well within the fifth century. 
These coins, with the closely similar types at Zancle, are those which cause 
the trouble. These therefore we will pass by for the present, ami go on to 
the next types which can be identified with reasonable certainty. 

Both at Rhegium and at Zancle we find a series of coins coming in 
distinguished by the types of the dTr/;^?; and hare (A. 4, 4a, 5 ; B. 4, 5). Now 

r.arilner, Samoa and Sninian Coin», Plate I. ^"^ .*>ee Hill, Coim of Sirihj, ji. 71 : British 

N09. 17, 18. The lion's scalp (not head) is Mubi'uni Catalogue, Italy, No. 47. 
'juitc unmistakable. Friedliindcr in Zcitachrifl '" Ntim. Chron. 1876, y. 7. Evans in JV'ni/i. 

j'iir I\i^umi'<inatik iv. p. 17 (luotes from the Chron. 1896 I.e. also dates them to the latter 

Wiczay Catalogue another specimen bearing B half of the si.\th century n.<-. 
on the reverse. 


66 C. H. DODD 

we have the authority of Aristotle ^^ for attributing these types especially to 
Auaxilas, ' tyrant ' of Rhegiiim, who is known to have won the mule-car race 
at Olympia about 480 B.C., and is said to have introduced the hare into Sicily. 
We need have no hesitation therefore in putting down these coins as those of 
Anaxilas, and dating them between about 480 and 476 B.C. 

We have now a roughly fixed terminus 2>ost quern and terminus ante quern 
for the coins with the heads of the lion and the calf (A. 2, 3 ; B. 3). They 
are to be placed somewhere between 500 and 480 B.C. Now the types 
of these coins must at once strongly recall the well-known coins of Samos. 
They are not indeed Samian types, for Samos has a lion's scalp and a bull's 
head, while the types we are here dealing with are a lion's head facing and 
a calfs head. These differences are quite clearly seen on an examination of 
the coins. Still the lion's head does actually occur on some early coins 
attributed with probability to Samos,^^ and at any rate the types are close 
enough to justify the prevalent attribution of these coins to the Samian 
immigrants mentioned by Herodotus and Thucydides. 

But here we encounter difficulties. In the literary sources we found 
nothing that would lead us to expect Samian influence at Rhegium. Yet the 
Samian types appear in identical form at bath cities. Not only so : the 
earliest coins of this type at Rhegium would seem to be earlier than those 
at Messene. There is a Rhegine coin of Samian type (A. 2) belonging to 
the period previous to the change from Aeginetic to Attic weight. There is 
no analogous coin at Zancle. The first appearance of the Attic standard 
here apparently coincides with the introduction of Samian types. This creates 
at least a presumption in favour of an earlier date for the Samio-Rhegine 
coin than for the Samio-Messenian, for it would require a clumsy hypothesis 
to account for the facts on the contrary supposition.''^'* But our literary 

^ Julius Pollux V. 15 (quoted by Freeman, Anaxilas. 

Sicily, vol. ii. p. 488) 'Avaf^Aai b 'P7j7?^os, ^^ See Gardner, Samos and Samian Coins, 

o6ffi\i, &i <priffiv 'ApiffTOTtArjr, t^5 2iKf\ias Tfoos Plate I. Nos. 2 and 3. 

aySvov \aywv, 6 Si tl<Tayay<J!>v rt «ol 6p(\i/as, 6fj.ov ^^"^ The case is even stronger if the coin 

8( Koi 'OXu/iiria viK^iaas oir^vp, t^ vofil(Tfj.ari given above as B. 2a is really Attic. For in 

ruv '9i)ylvu>v fvfTvirwtrtv iLw-fivtiv kuI Kayuiv. that case we have the Attic standard already 

Head {Hist. Num. p. 93) criticises the hare in force at Zancle before the arrival of the 

legend, and shows reason for supposing Saniians. But this coin is a very puzzling one. 

that it is due to a misconception : Anaxilas Babelon puts it dowji as a Euboic didrachm ; 

introduced 'hares' into Sicily in the same but it is about 14 grains short of the pro2)er 

sense that Athens exported ' owls ' and Attic-Euboic weight, and yet from the plate 

Syracuse used Corinthian 'colts.' None the does not look much worn. In any case one 

more on that account is the tradition attributing could hardly base an argument on a solitary 

them to Anaxilas to be neglected : if we accept coin in the fairly numerous series of Zancle- 

Head's version of the story the direct connex- Messana for this period. There is yet another 

ion between Anaxilas and the coins is made diflBcult coin of the Zauclaean series in the 

closer. What seems clear is that the hare Ward Collection [see Greek Coins and their 

appears on the coins as a symbol of the god Parent Cities, by John Ward, with a catalogue 

Pan, who on a later Messsenian coin appears of the author's collection by G. F. Hill, 

caressing the animal. Babelon notes that Pan No. 202]. This coin weighs 146 '3 grains. It 

was especially connected with the mountainous ia very much worn, and might possibly be an 

district of the Pelojwnneae, whence, according Aeginetic didrachm. If so, it is the only one 

to the uniform tradition, came the ancestors of known. But the shortage of weight (nearly 

T 1 1 !•: S A M I A N S A'l Z A N CIA-: M 1 :ss A N A G 7 

autlioiitii-s, si) t'ltr iioiii establisliinj^ Sainiau intlueiKe at Khcgiuin Hrst, 
*|i) lint bring tlif iininigrant.s to that city at all. The message ot 
Anaxilas, accoiiliiig to Heioilotns, reacliea them at Locri, ami they 
apparently sail direct tor Zancle. Again, the first Samian coin on the 
Sicilian siile of the Straits has tlie inscription MESSENION. So far, there- 
fore, from the re-naming of the town being immediately connected with the 
expulsion of the Samians, it would appear to coincide witii their original 
settlement. Two attempts have been made to avoid this conclusion, and to 
<liscover a Zanclaeau coin struck during the Samian domination. 

(i) Dr. Head ■'- seizes on the Poseidon coin (B. (>) as fuUilling the reipiired 
conditions. He i)oints out that the style and fabric of the coin preclude an 
earlier date than 4'J<) h.c, while the name AayxXaicoi' indicates that the coin 
was stfu k before the change of name. Hence he puts it during the 
earlier part of the Samian domination. But it is hard to see what least 
indication there is of Samian influence on the coin. There was indeed 
a temple of Poseidon on the island of Samos, but the cult does not seem 
to have affected the coinage until ijuite late times.'^' On the other hand 
the reverse types are the familiar 'town-arms' of Zancle — the dolphin 
and scallop-shell, — while it is not surprising that a city on the Straits 
should honour Post'idon.''* It would be much more tempting to see in 
this coin a prolongation of the native coinage previous to the Samian 
coiKjuest, and contemporary with the Samio-Rhegine coins of earlier tvpe 
and Aeginetic standard (A. 2). If this could be accepted, the Samian 
occupation would have to be brought considerably later than we should 
otherwise have suspected — in fact as late as possible before 480 B.C. (the 
approximate date of the a7rr;V//-and-hare types). We can, however, get rid of 
this troublesome coin very simply, if we accept Dr. Evans' theory worked out 
in his Contributions to Sicilidn yumismatics.^'^ He regards the style and 
fabric of the coin as indicatinga date about half-way through the fifth centurv. 
The epigiaphy indeed suggests an earlier date, but archaism is so common in 
coin inscriptions that this counts for little. Further, by a comparison of this 
coin with an approximately dated one of Caulonia, he is able to make it 
extremely probable that the Caulonian and Zanclaean coins are contemporary, 
and that in consequence the Poseidon-coin of Zancle must be dated to about 
•440 B.C. — well out of our present period. He attributes the re-appearance of 
the old name to an unrecorded counter-revolution after the fall of the dynasty 
of Anaxilas. There would of course be nothing surprising in such an unre- 
corded counter-revolution, considering the highly charged condition of the 
political atmosphere in Sicily about this period, and the extremely fragmentary 
nature of our evidence for the history of the island in these centuries. Dr. 

34 grains) is excessive. These two coins await ** The figure is almost certainly Poseidon; if, 

e.x|planation. They stand ijuite alone, without, however, it is Zeus, the argument is not atTected, 

apparently, helping at all to explain one for that deity is, so far as our kn.iwledge goes, 

another. an equal irrelevancy on the coins of either city. 

»» Head, Hist. A'wwi. p. 133. » Hum. Chron. 1896, pp. \0i sgq. 

" See Gardner, Samos and Samian Coins. 

F 2 

68 0. H. DODD 

Evans (|Uotes as another relic of this hypothetical counter-revolution the small 
coin given above as B. 6a, which is inscribed >AN and bears the dolphin, but 
does not easily fall into the old Zanclaean series, while it offers parallels with 
Sicilian coins of the middle of the fifth century.'*"" Another possible item of 
confirmatory evidence is given by Mr, Hill, who regards Dr. Evans' theory as 
liighly probable. He calls attention to the Crotoniate '•'^ coin (given as D. above), 
which bears the ordinary types of Croton, with the addition on the obverse of 
the inscription DA. According to analogy, this would indicate an alliance of 
Croton and Zancle (for DA can hardly stand for anything but DANKUAION), 
and Mr. Hill may very likely be right in deducing that the revolutionary party 
who succeeded for a short time in restoring the supremacy of the old 
Zanclaean element at Messana were in alliance with Croton, as the Messanians 
are known to have been allied with Locri — an alliance which is also com- 
memorated by a coin bearing the names of both states.^** 

(ii) The second attempt to save the credit of the literary authorities on 
this point rests upon the uninscribed coins of Attic weight and pure Samian 
types, given above as C. 1 and C. 2. Several of these coins were found in a hoard 
near Messina, and it is contended that they are Zanclaean coins stnick during 
the early part of the Samian domination.'''* It may be observed that even if 
this were established it would not save the situation, for the literary authori- 
ties make the change of name a sequel of the termination of Samian rule, 
while the coins at the very least show that the change took place during the 
Samian domination. But the argument resting upon these coins is a singu- 
larly insecure one. In no science is the argmnenium e silentio less reliable 
than in archaeology, and at best the contention is based only on the absence of 
a name which may have been either Zancle or Messana. But further, these 
coins do not belong to the same series as the known Samio-Messenian or 
Samio-Rhegine types. The fabric is not identical, and the obverse type is a 
lion's scalp (as on the coins of Samos), and not a lion's head (as on the Samian 
issues at Rhegium and Messene). It may be worth while to consider these 
coins in more detail. The hoard found near Messina consisted of several 
specimens of these uninscribed coins, many ordinary Samian types of Rhegium 
and Messene, some twenty archaic tetradrachms of Athens, and four coins of 
Acanthus in Macedonia, No place could be found for the uninscribed speci- 
mens in the series of coins of Samos, since they are of Attic weight, while 
Samos coined on the Phoenician standard, and there seemed some 2^')'ima facie 
evidence for attributing them to the Samian settlers at Rhegium or Zancle. 
The hoard was described by Dr. von Sallet \\i two articles in the Zeiischrift 

"''' Nam. Chron. 1896, i>. 111. was in reality a rc.s'/'jr«<i(;?i of tlie name Messana, 

■''' Coins of Sicily, j). 71 ; Evans, Xum. and not its iirst api)lication ? (See Diod. xi. 48 

airron. 1896, p. 106. and 76.) 

•"^ Is it possible that this temporary revival ■'*" Head (p. 134) attributes the coins to the 

of the old name of Zancle misled Diodorus, or Sicilian city, but without committing himself 

his authority, into placing the change of name on the (luestion of their place in the Zancle- 

at 461, and that the change he had in mind Messana series. 


far NtDniaiiuiti/i-.''" Hi' tlisciissL- 1 tlic ;ittribution of these coins and came to 
the cuiichision that tliey were struck in Sanios for the use of the eini<,'rantf», 
who on their voyage called at Acanthtis and Athens, and so arrived in Sicily 
well pnivitU'd with coins of Attic standard. It was natural enough to suppose 
that the Sannan refugees should have provi<led themselves with money struck 
with native types on the Attic standard, which in its various forms was almost 
ubiipiitous in the West. No city-name could of course be inscribed, as the 
emigrants were uiroXei^ avSpe^. This theory has received pretty wide accept- 
ance. A serious diflKculty, however, is raised by the consideration of the 
style and fabric of the coins, which, although peculiar, approach more nearly 
to Western than to Eastern models. In particular the circular is very 
rare in the East. In conseciuence it has been suggested that, although the 
coins cannot be attributed either to Zancle or to Rhegium, yet they may have 
been, struck in the Wcsf for the emigrants, while they were still without a 
home.*'^ Here, however, another coin comes to our assistance. In con- 
nexion with his (li.scussion of these coins, Dr. von Sallet published another 
coin in the licrlin collection, of somewhat similar fabric and closely similar 
style, the inovcnancc of which was unknown. It bears on the obverse the 
lion's scalp, and on the reverse both the (Samian) bull's head and the prow 
of the ' samaina.''"- There is no inscription. The weight of this coin is 
1283 grammes, and it thus conforms to the Phoenician standard in use at 
Samos. Now in the British Museum '"'■' there is an e.xample closely similar, 
bearing in addition the legend ^A on the reverse, above the ship, 1. Thesi* 
two coins are jjublished by M. Babelon,"^ who discusses them ami arrives at 
the only possible conclusion, that they are Samian coins struck at Samos.''^ 
These coins serve to some extent to bridge the gap between the regular 
Samian issues and these unclaimed coins from the Messina find, and at least 
to diminish the difficulty raised by the question of the fabric. But there is 
another coin which has a more decisive bearing upon the problem. The 
Berlin Miinzkabinett has come into possession of another example of the i.ssue 
of uninscribed coins hitherto known only from the Messina find. This coin, 
which is as yet unpublished, has on the obverse the lion's scalp on a shield, 
and on the reverse the prow of the samaina, exactly as on the specimens 
already known. Unfortunately it is damaged so as to make it uncertain 
whether or not any letter was present on the reverse, but most likely there was 
none. The coin weighs 1721 grammes, and so is of the Attic standard. Now 

* Zeit. fur Ifuvi. iii. pp. 135, 136 ; v. pp. coins. Friedlander's view lias not, I think, 

103 105. l>ecn revived. 

«' Tliis is the view ol' Habeloii : lie prints " Ji.M.C. Ionia, Snnins, No. 30 (wt. 1994 

tlie coins among tliose of Rheginni, and hohls grs.). 

that tliey were coined in the West for the *" Traits, D<scnp(ion Hisloriqnc, vol. i. Nos. 

Samian colonists immediately after their dis- 463, 464. 

embarkation. ** He suggests, however, that thise coins 

'■- Zcit. fiir Num. v. p. 103 : the primary were struck in Samos for the of the 

(ihjcct of this second article was to reply to emigrants of 494 n.c— a theory which has 

Friedliinder, who in an article in vol. iv. singularly little in its favour : see op. ci^ vol. i. 

(l>p. 17 sq.) had maintained a later date for the \<\\ 293-294. 

70 C. H. DODD 

tliiscoiu was found in Egypt, along with a considerable number of coins from 
the Aegean area, including several Athenian coins, and some from Torone, 
Mende, and Acanthus.''"^ This example makes it very difficult to maintain the 
theory that the coins in (juestion belong either to Zancle or to Rhegium, or that 
they were struck in the West at all, for coins of the Western Hellas are in 
Egvpt practically non-existent. It may in fact now be regarded as almost 
certain that this issue belongs to the East, and if to the East, then naturally to 
Samos itself. Tlie most reasonable explanation of the occurrence of such 
coins at Messina would seem to be von Sallet's theory, that the coinage of Attic 
weight and Samiau types without inscription was struck in Samos for the use 
of the emigrants, and carried over by them to their new home in the West. 
But further, some pieces must somehow have passed intocirculation at Samo.s 
before their departure, or, we may suspect, at Athens, where their weight 
would find them ready acceptance. Von Sallet may therefore very likely be 
correct in supposing, as is indeed probable in the nature of things, that the 
voyagers touched at Piraeus on their way out. It is, however, hardly neces- 
sary to take them out of their course to call at Acanthus, as von Sallet did, 
for the occurrence of coins of the Macedonian and Thracian coast-district 
along with those of Athens in the Egyptian, as well as in the Messinian, find, 
would suggest that these coins found currency in the East wherever the Attic 
standard was in force. 

Tliis concludes our examination of the coins. It would appear that 
there is a direct conflict between the literary and the numismatic evidence. 
The evidence of the coins shows clearly Samian influence predominant at 
Rhegium, and probably there earlier than at Zancle, while the literary author- 
ities do not so much as bring the Samians to Rhegium at all. And in the 
second place the appearance of the name Messene absolutely coincides, so far 
as our evidence goes, witli the introduction of Samian types at the Sicilian 
city ; whereas the literary authorities make the re-naming an immediate 
se(|uel oi the expulsion of the Samians. It seems necessary therefore to form 
some hyi)othesis which will bring tlie Samians first to Rhegium, and place 
them there in a position to influence the coinage, and which will also provide 
s<jme explanation of the coincidence of the change of name with the Samian 
.■^tttlement at Zancle. 

In the first place let us consider the position of Anaxilas in 494 B.C., 
when the Samians set sail for the West. It becomes important in this 
roimexion to determine his relation to the former regime at Rhegium.^'" 
We may start with Strabo's statement,''^ already quoted, that the r)y€fi6ve<i of 
Ithegium were of Messenian stock fie-^pi 'Ava^iXa. There are here two 
problems : (\) who were the rjyefxove^; of Rhegium, and (ii) does^e;;^pi 'Ava^iXa 

'•" I have to thank Professor Dressel, Director connexion witli the question in the Appendix 

"I Un- J\<uii;,'liclics Miiuzkabinett at IJcrlin, for on ' Anaxilas and the naming of Messana ' 

kindly showing me tliis coin, together with the {Sicily, vol. ii. pp. 489-91), from which several 

other exanjjdes from the Egyptian lind now in references are here borrowed ; Lut he draws m) 

the Berlin Collection. eonclusioii. 

'' Treemaii has collected ■ ome evidenre in '-^ Strabo vi. 6, p. 257 (quoted on p. 60). 



iiuati that Anaxilas was tlie last i-l (lu* ijytfiov^^, or that he was thf originator 
of" a iR'w iinler, a usurper who abolishi-d the power of the rjy(fiui'€<; '. These 
two probK'ins hang togethrr. The wonl i)y€fiui€<i is a pecuHar one,'''' It may 
of course be (piite gemral in signitication and mean merely ' magistrates' or 
' generals.' On tlie othci- haml, the use of the term seems as if it might imply 
something more definitf. it suggests the powers of a dynast. Now if wu 
iiave a hne of Messenian dynasts at llliegium, and then a Messenian ruler 
named Anaxilas, it looks as if Anaxilas must be one of the line of rulers and 
not the destroyer of an older ri'ifintc. This view woidd appear to derive some 
supp()rt from the statt-nifnt of Pausanias,"'^ that Anaxilas was fouith in dc.scctit 
fioin Alcidamidas. liut Pausanias is hopelessly confused about Anaxilas, and 
not much weigiit can he ^iveii to his statements. Moreover, Anaxilas is 
ri'gularly called a jvpawo^, by Herodotus,"' by Thucydidos,'- by I'ausanias,"^ 
by St ra'uo '* himself, and in general by almost everyone who mentions him. 
The only exception apparently is a scholion on Pindar which styles him 6 roiv 
'Vi]yii'(i3v ^a(ri\ev<i.'' This is hardly sufficient to set against all the evidence 
for calling him a ' tyrant.' l^iit if he was the legitimate successor of a line of 
rulers of his own race and family, it is ditticult to see how he ct)uld be styleil 
Tvpavvos\ unless indeed he ditl as Pheidtm is sometimes said to have done 
at Argos, and extended a power which he held as a constitutional ruler to 
unconstitutional lengths. But the Pheidon story is very doubtful, and one 
can hardly rcdy upon it as a parallel. Further, we have the express statement 
of Aristotle that Anaxilas was an actual ' tyrant ' who overthrew an oligarchy."* 
But what sort of oligarchy was it ? Freeman (juotes from Heracleides a 
statement to the effect that Rhegium was governed previously to Anaxilaa' 

'•'' The word is used by Aiistotli', Pol. v. 4 
1303'' 28 'Ai(i)r*p iipxofxivuiv tiiKaffuadot 8*7 raiv 
roiovTCDV Koi SiaKvtiv rhs ruv rjyffiSfwv Koi 
Swafifywif ardffus. He has been speaking of 
the overthrow of the Syracusau ' Gaiuori,' ii 
landed aristocracy, and may be influenced in 
his choice of the word by the nature of the 
particular case. The phrase ko! Swaniyuv 
appears to explain JiyttxSvuv — 'the hegeinones, 
/.<. the ruling class.' In iii. 17. 1288' 9 on the 
otlier hand, he uses it of the kingly power: a 
people is ^aaiKturhv <pvati when it can endure 
th<' rule of a yivoi {nrtptxov kut' iptrrjy wphi 
vy ( fioy tav noKtriKVv. Cf Cic. <(c Nat. Dcor. 
ii. 11 ' Principaluin autein id dico ([uod Oraeci 
riytnoviav vocant : qiici nihil in quotiue 
genere uec potest nee debet esse praestant ins. ' 
Cicero is speaking of the Stoic doctiine, which 
uses rh r]ytnoyiK6v for rh Kvpiwrarov rrjt ifivxvf- 
Here too, we may quote Hdt. 'a tise of rjytfioylri for 
the powerof the Persian king(vii 2), thefreipient 
use of f)ytn<iy in Greek tragedy for the heroic 
king'^ {e.ij. /\itot iro6^ fiytfiwy 7^1 rfiaSt in O. T. ), 
and possibly the frequent use of riytfioyia for 

the Koman empire (or is this deriveil from tho 
' hegemony ' of Athens and Thebes, inherited by 
I'hilip and Alexander and their successors f). 
On the oth( r hand I'lut. Hum. rh. 13 uses 
r]ytiJi6yaf for the ' patres conscripti ' (one thinks 
of the /3 o (T 1 \ « tt! I' avvtSptoy of id. Pyrrh. 
ch. 19). 

'" Pau.«anias iv. 23 § 6 'AvafiAof irvpiLyytut 

fify 'Priyiov, Ttrapros Si anoyoyos ffv 'A\Kiiafii6ov, 

fjLfTc^KTjfft 8* 'AKKtSafx'iias )k V[*aai)yr]i is 'P^yioy 

fi«Ta T^i* 'Af)iO'To5^/uoi; roC 0ct0iKtti!f TtXivrify ical 

I6wfir]f T^y &K(aitriy. 

'' Hdt. vi. 22-24 pdisim. 

'- Thuc. vi. 4 § 6. 

'■' Pans. I.e. 

''* Strabo, ]>. 2r>6 — laO^ihr . . . fcv 'A»a{iAai A 
Tvpavyot riiy 'Vi\ylyvy iwtT*lxi<f* Toil Tvppriyo7%. 

'* Scholion on Pind. Pyth. i. 98, quoted by 
Freeman, Sicily, vol. ii. p. 490. 

'" Ar. /'(./. V. 12. 1316» 34 <■//. Koi ..'j 
Tvpayy'iSat fitraffdWtt V{ iKiyapx^c^s, iairtp . . . 
iy 'Priyiif *ls t^k 'AyaliKdov Note tliat 

Aristotle in this passage re^\rds .\naiiias an 
one of the .9i>i7i<ni tvrant^. 

72 C. H. DODD 

tyranny by a senate of lOUd chosen out of the wealthiest." This would be a 
genuine ' oligaich3".' On the other liand Strabo's statement seems to imply 
rather an aristocracy of race. This might of course be styled an oligarchy in 
a loose way of speaking. If Strabo is to be accepted, we should conceive of 
Anaxilas as a member of the ruling clan who seized fur himself the whole of 
the power which had previously been divided among a whole group of' 
families, or perhaps a^ a second Cypselus. Possibly there was an interval 
between the Mcssenian aristocracy and Anaxilas' tyranny, filled in b}' an 
oligarchy of wealth. In any case we must certainly conclude that Anaxilas 
overthrew the existing constitution, of whatever sort it was, and .set up 
personal rule. This is confirmed by a statement of Dionysius of Halicarnas.sus 
cited by Freeman "^ to the effect that Anaxilas seized the Acropolis of Rhegium 
— the usual step towards the establishment of a Tvpavvi^. 

Now this being so, Anaxilas must be conceived as being at the beginning 
of his reign™ in conflict with a class whom he had deposed from power — 
probably a group of Messenian families, from whom Anaxilas was himself 
sprung. Accordingly, when the Samians came to the West, seeking for a 
home, Anaxilas was casting about him for any means of establishing his 
power. What more likely than that he should invite the Samian adventurers 
into his city as a support to his ' tyranny ' } Surely it is more probable that 
at this date Anaxilas should be seeking to establish his power at home than 
that he should be already casting his eyes across the Straits. We may 
therefore conjecture, not perhaps too rashly, that the message which reached 
the Samian emigrants at Locri Epizephyrii was an invitation, not to Zancle, 
but to Rhegium, and that it was accepted piomptly. The Rhegines now fall 
under the sway of a sort of coalition — Anaxilas reigning as 'tyrant' under 
Samian protection. The establishment of this new regime is signified by a 
change of coinage. The old civic mint is superseded by a new issue behmging 
to the ruler (a fre(iuent step in the rise of 'tyrannies'), in which the old 
'bull' types yield to new types modelled on the native coinage of the 
invaders. Zancle meanwhile remains under the rule of Scythes (as a semi- 
independent vassal of Hippocrates), and continues to issue native coinage. 
Dr. Evans^** has made it probable from a comparison of the coins of diffeient 
cities contained in a hoard discovered near Messina, that the hoard was 
buried at the time of the Samian conquest of Zancle. Among these coins. 

~ Heracleide.s ap. Fieeiiiaii, .SYf//y, vol. ii. (sec p. 59) is 494 li.c. But we have ii<i nu-iins of 

p. 489 UoXiTflav bf KaTfCTTijcravTo knowing whether this was the date at wliieh ho 

XtAioi yap iravTa StoiKovffiv, alptrol awh rifxrifid- first rose against the 'oligarchy,' or that at which 

rwv v6iJ.ois S( ixp<>>*'ro ro'is Xapiflov tov his power was established. At any rate lie does 

KttToj'oi'ou- irvpavvnaf 5t ahriiiv 'Aua^iKas not seem to have struck any coins before the 

Mf(T(Trivtos. The present StoiKovai is curious, Samians came, and if .so, can hardly have been 

and might possibly imply that this was the secure in power for any length of time. ]5ut, 

constitution at a much later date. as we have already seen, the early numismatic 

"8 Dion. Hal. //y^cif. xix. 4 ap. Freeman, ,SVc/77/, evidence for Rhegium is too fragmentary to 

vol. 11 p. 490. allow any wciglit to the arguvicnhim c sihntio. 

'* The date which is ascertained for the »" Contributmis to Sicilian Numismatics in 

beginning of Anaxilas' reign from Diodorus Num. Chron. 1896, pp. 101 sqq. 

Till': SA.MIANS AT / ANCLK M l>SAN A 73 

are some .lolpliin-aiKl-sc.'illop-^licJl t\ prs (»1' Zand*' (H. '2j absolutoly tVesli 
from tlio mint. AW- may tin ivfoii' fairly assume that tlie native coiuaj^t; of 
Zaiiclc coiitiime«l witliout a break to tlir very eve of tlie Samian occupation. 

Anaxilas' power now steadily gn \v. We read of wais wliieli lie waged 
a' the Ktnisoan.s,'" and no douht there were other undertakings which 
increased the prestige of the monarch of RhegiuMi. It may have been about 
4SS that he felt strong enough ti> reach (jver the Straits to Sicily. At the 
same time it is probable that the 'tyrant' was restive \inder the restraints 
which would doubtless be imposeil upon him by the formidable |K)wer of his 
Samian supporters.*'- Accordingly he seized the opportunity when Scythes, 
the agi'ut of his rival Hippocrates, was absent, to gratify at once liis 
ambition, and his desire to get rid of the Samians. He probably repre- 
sented to them tlu' advantages of having a city of theii' own, and j)ointed out 
the town on the Sicilian side of the Straits as a suitable field for their enter- 
prise. The result was a coujbined expedition of Anaxilas and the Samians 
ending in the occupation of Zancle, as recordeil by Ibrodotus. Hence the 
S.imian coinage at the Sicilian city (B. '.]). 

But it still remains to account for the name MESSENION on coins of the 
Samian occupation. The account of Thucydides derives the name from the 
•Mi'ssenian fatherland of Anaxilas. There is indeed a unanimous agreement 
among the authorities as to the Messenian extraction of the despot ol 
Ilhegium, but for all that, Thucydides' motivation, which even to Freeman 
siiMiuied suspicious, becomes almost incredible when faced by the fact that the 
Samians were quite evidently dominant at Messene when the name was fii*st 
used. We* must therefore attempt to find some other ground for the change 
of name. Our theory here of necessity becomes in the highest degree con- 
structive, for there seems to be somethinfj like a ilead disagreement between 
our ditierent sources of evidence. Pausanias, as we have seen, directly 
attributes the change to Messenian exiles after the Second Messenian War, 
and Strabo also traces it to Messenians from the Peloponnese, but without 
any definite chronological indications. It seems difficult to ignore these 
statements absolutely, and yet, as we have seen, Freeman's theory, h«)wever 
ingenious and plausible, if we look at the literary evidence only, coinpietely 
breaks down when faced with the numismatic datn. Now I suggest as a 

"' Straho, j). 256 'E«5«'x»Tai 5' tvrtv6tv rh native city. Now Sanios belonged to the great 

^KuWatoy, ■wfTpa x*ppoyv<f^Cov(Ta u(/<7/\^. Toe foninicivial league which also incliuled (^Imlci-i 

tadfibv a.n<plSvfiui' Kal Tairnvhv fxoi'O'a, tv anil riiociica (Hdt. v. 99, i. 163, tjHl. witli iv. 

'Aia^(\as 6 Tvpai'vos Twv 'P-qylyu^ iiffTfixifff Tols l.'>2, etc.). Hence the invaders would already 

Tupp-nvoTs. have coninicrcial connexions in the West. 

''- The adoiition of tlic Attic slamiard for the Probaldy thereforp we are to supjiose that their 

Khegine coinage, which brought l{hcgiuin into .seltlenicnt in Rhegiuni led to an exiwinsion of 

line with the great trading cities of the We>t, Rhegine ti-ade, the jirofits of which would 

may fairly be taken a,s a sign of the opening mainly go to the inmiigrauts, with the reault 

up of new commercial relations. This com- that they aci{uircd considerable i>ie8tige in 

menial development would most iirol)ably be their adopted city. On their subsequent settlf- 

in the hands of the Samian settlers. They nieiit at Zancle the Attic stamlnrd was i-roliably 

were 2afiluv ol ti fvoyrfs, that is, no doul>t, introduced simultaneously with the S.tmian 

the lieads of the great mercantile houses in their types (but see note 51rt,\ 

74 C. H. DODl) 

tentative explanation that Pausanias' exiles of the second war may have gone 
like Strabo's exiles of the first (in the passage cited and in part (pioted on 
p. 00^^), to Rhcgium, and not to Zancic. Very possibly indeed these tn-o 
sets of exiles are the same, duplicated through a chronological mis- 
conception. At Rhegium they would strengthen the governing group of 
Messenian families overthrown by Anaxilas. Even after the 'tyranny' was 
established these out-of-work aristocrats would be a thorn in the side of 
the ruler, and we may suspect that the Samian oligarchs who had come to 
help the ' tyrant ' were not without sympathy for the Messenian nobles of 
Rhegium. What then more likely, than that the whole pack of dangerous 
nobles should be sent off to seize and hold an outpost, where they would be 
out of the despot's way, and yet would stand decidedly for Rhegium as against 
the Sicilian powers ? The Messenian element in the colony, especially as it 
would have the peculiar prestige arising from its connexion with the monarch, 
would be considerable enough to give its name to the city ; and no doubt 
Anaxilas himself was the sponsor. On the other hand the Samian coinage 
prevalent at Rhegium naturally formed the model for the reformed coinage of 
the new state. 

It can hardly have been before 480 B.C. that Anaxilas found himself 
strong enough to assert his direct sovereignty at Messene. The Anaxilaan 
types at Rhegium — at any rate those with a retrograde inscription (A. 4) — 
are probably earlier than the similar types at Zancle, but there is no evidence 
for this beyond general likelihood. At Messene it would seem that the 
arrangement did not work satisfactorily for Anaxilas, and he determined to 
establish thoroughly his rule over the new colony. Whether he actually 
expelled the Samians, or only completely broke their power,^^ is doubtful, but 
at any rate there was no more trace of Samian predominance. Anaxilas 
.seems indeed fiom this time to have settled at Messene himself, leaving his 
son Leophron (or Cleophron) to govern Rhegium. In a scholion on 
Pindar *^ he is mentioned as 'tyrant of Messene and Rhegium' (not 
'Rhegium and Messene') at the time of his war with Locri, and another 
schoHast states quite clearly that Anaxilas himself reigned at Messene and. 
his son at Rhegium.®*^ 

Finally we may observe, though it does not bear directly upon the 

■*■' Strabo, p. 257. by Freeman {Sicily, vol. ii. p. 490) — Justin xxi. 

«* The retention of tlie Ionic lonn MES- ^ ' *^'""' Hluginorum tyranni Leophronis bello 

^_.,,_., ... ., ,, , Locicnses prenierentuv . . .' 

SENION with Anaxilas types would perhaps ,« j^^,^^, ^^^ ^ir,^ p^^j^^ ■■ g^ (,^,,^^^^1 ,,y 

tend somewhat in favour of the view that there Freeman I.e.) "Ava^Uas kuI S tovtov -rait 

was still a strong Ionic element in the popula- K\(6<ppi.}v 'Irahlas ovtss Tvpapvoi, & m*'' «" 

tion, whether Samians or survivors of the Mfaar,vr, tt, 1ik(\ik^, 6 5« fV 'Pvyi^ rtji ntpX 

original C'halcidic colonists, unless indeed it is 'Uaxiav. We have here in fact a curious 

due to mere conservatism. parallel to the scheme of Periander recorded in 

^■^ Scholion quoted by Christ on Piiid. Pijih. Hdt. iii. 53, by which Periander was himscdf 

ii. 34: 'Avaf/Ao toD Mffrai^i'rjj koI 'PTj-y/ou ri/poi'- to reign in Corcyra while his son Lycophron 

vov AoKpols Tro\ffxovvTos. The Locrian war is held the sovereignty in tli§mother-cily Cnrinth, 

also referred til by Justin in a passage ipioted thi- original seat of the dynasty. 

T 1 1 !•: S AMI A N S A 1' Z A N ( ' L I : M KSS A N A 7 5 

jiiolilciii |irojM».si'(|, that wlifii llic l\r,iiiiiv '^^''-'^ o\ ci (liidWii ;it lllu'^iiiiii in 
4(il the |)(()|ilf ii'vi'itt'il not til tlie »)l<i bull-coiii;ig«>, but tu the Sainian linn- 
lifutl, witli a limine <iii tlie reverse ])robalily ri'|iicsentii)^ tlie Demos (A. 0). 
l^y this time tlie i>;ulier rOlr of tlie Sainians as siijipurters of the ' tyranny' 
ol' Aiiaxilas IkuI been t'oij^'olttii, ami they were remembered only as tbo 
tyrant's enemies whose coin-types hail bei-n displaced by the symbols of bis 
power. Messene regained the Anaxilaan coinagi', and there is here no abrupt 
change i>r type (it we rxcept the juisumed temporary revival represented by 
the coins numbered B. (i, B. (I'f, and 1).) right down to the overthrow of the 
city about 39(i i'..C'. One notable, though slight, change is the introduction of 
the Doric form MESSANION (B. 5), which, as the old form of Sigma is 
still used, probably came in not long after the time of Anaxilas. It must 
nu-an a growing preponderance of the Dorian element. It was in the Doric 
forn\ Mecrtrai/a that the name passed info Latin, although in the end the 
forms Meo-o-);»'>;, .Mtacrtr);, jirovailed, and gave lise to the modein name 

The above is an attempt to indicate, a jiossible line along which a recon- 
ciliation of the sources might be effected. In the interests of definiteness the 
theory has doubtless been stated with a dogmatism that is hardly justified. 
The available evidence is indeed a precarious foundation on which to build. 
But I have tried to bring out a few facts which I think are necessary deduc- 
tions from that evidence, sucli as it is ; and facts which seem to me in part 
to be in conflict with statements repeated by historians on the autbority of a 
supposed deduction from the literary sources ; and in addition I have 
attempted to show that it might not be impossible to account for these facts 
with some <legree of consistency. It will be well to recapitulate tbese 
points : 

(i) There is a Rhcgine coinage modelled on Samian types, contemporary 
with native types at Zanclc, probably to be dated to the beginning of the 
reign of Anaxilas, say 404—488 B.C. Hence we must assume a period during 
which Anaxilas ruled at Rhegium under Samian protection, while Zancle was 
still in the ' sphere of influence ' of Hippocrates. 

(ii) There is no ground whatever in the numismatic evidence for 
assuming a period of Samian occupation at Zancle previous to the change of 
name, and Samian types certainly do not cease when the name Messene 
appears. Hence the Samian occupation, which is to be put later than the 
traditional date, must have been combined in some way with Messenian 
influence — whether due to a large Messenian element in the party which 
seized Zancle, or merely to Anaxilas' personal prestige — sufficient to change 
the name of Zancle to Messene ; and the idea, derived from literary sources, 
that the re-naming followetl the expulsion of the Samians must be aban- 

(iii) At some date between the change of name and the death of Anax- 
ilas, the authority of the tyrant was tborougldy established at both citie*. 
The Samian coinage disappeaied at Messene for evei , and at Rhegium only to 
be lesunu'd on the establishment of the democracv about 4(il H.c. 


(iv) The settlement of Messene by Anaxilas was permanent. The old 
name was never revived, unless for a very brief period about the middle of 
the fifth century, represented by only three extant coins. The Anaxilas types 
persevere in the coinage with various developments, but without any violen 
change down to the end of the individual existence of Messana about 
396 B.C. (-, jj. DODD. 



It is, pcili;ij)s, soiiuwhat \(iiLiirc.s()inc to ;ittoiii}it lo say iinylhing u|)(iii a 
subject which demands full ticatrneiit from anyone who woidd write a 
History of Greece, and which has, therc;fore, betn discussed at considenibh' 
length by many gnat historians. Still the research of the last twenty years 
has led to such material nindifications of the views which formerly prevailed 
as to the exact signiticance of various important factors in the history of the 
(ireek race, that the learned world has become emancipated from the tyranny 
of stereotyped tradition, and has ceased to regai-d deviation from the 
accustomed views as necessarily fanciful an<l untrue. 

The j)resent writer is therefore encouraged to state his conclusions, 
strange and novel as they may appear at first reading, by the assured feeling 
that they will be addressed to many who will not leject them out of hand by 
reiuson of a* certain strangeness and novelty, but will form a judgment ;us to 
their truth or otherwise on an examination of the premisses and of the 
validity of the logical argunn-nts drawn therefrom. 

There are certain chai)ters in Gieek history, which, in the form in which 
they are commonly presented to the student, convey an impression of 
irrationality — of a story taken from the history of a world in which the 
ordinary laws of cause and effect do not hold good. No one of these 
chapters leaves the student with a more un.sjitisfactory feeling that he has 
not arrived at the truth than that which relates to the position and policy of 
.Sj)arta with reference to external politics. 

Lacedaemon was an enigma to its contemporaries. To that fact may be 
attributed the difficulty which has always existed with regard to its true 
presentment, and tht' very varied judgments which have been formed and 
expressed as to the motives and morale of its policy and actions. 

Sparta's conduct on various occjvsions has been subjected to tlie severest 
criticism not merely in modern but in ancient times; yet a consideration of 
the whole long story of this unique state is apt to leave behind it the feeling 
that its critics have judged it too severely, and have above all blamed it for 
not doing that which was not in its power to do. There is such an extra- 
ordinary consistency in that 'unambitious,' 'vacillating,' 'dilator}-' policy, 
which even her friends and admirers condemned in the fifth century before 
Christ, and passionate critics have condemned in the nineteenth century 

78 G. B. GRUNDY 

after Christ, that a thoughtful student of history may well feel some doubt as 
to whether that policy was dictated by an innate, unintelligent, selfish 
conservatism, or was due to motives of such a compelling character as rigidly 
to condition the relations of Sparta with the outside world. 

The statistics with regard to the population of Ancient Greece, which 
have been collected in Dr. Julius Beloch's work on the population of the 
Ancient World, have a significance which has been recognised but not always 
fully appreciated in relation to the history of some of the Greek States. 
But Dr. Beloch has not said the last word on, the subject. He has failed to 
estimate the importance of the evidence which Greece at the present day 
affords. He tends also to discredit certain statements of numbers, from 
which larger estimates of the population of Greece in ancient times might be 
deduced than would be the case were the calculations founded on certain 
other existent data. The reasons which he gives for the rejection of this 
evidence are by no means conclusive, and betray at times a failure to 
appreciate certain factors in that Greek military history from which these 
data are largely drawn. 

The cultivated, and, indeed, cultivable area in Greece at the present day is 
undoubtedly smaller than it was in the flourishing days of the fifth century. 
Pausanias notices the ruin of the hillside cultivation, of which the traces 
are still apparent in many parts of Greece ; and in a climate such as that 
of the Eastern Mediterranean this form, of cultivation, if once allowed 
to go to ruin, is almost beyond the possibility of reconstitution, owing to the 
soil being washed down into the valleys by the heavy rains of the Autumn 
and Spring. There is perhaps no country in the civilised world which has 
had a more distressful economic history during the last two thousand years. 

Devastation and misgovernment have alike played havoc with the 
productiveness of a land whose cultivable area was, under the most favourable 
circumstances, but a little more than one-fifth of its whole extent. From, 
returns published by the Greek Government in 1893 it appears that the total 
area in Greece which is capable of yielding food products other than cattle 
amounts to only twenty-two per cent, of the whole area of the country ; and 
of this a very large proportion is in the one district of Thessaly. Moreover, 
the area actually cultivated in that year amounted to only fifteen per cent, of 
the surface of Greece. It is also stated — and this is a significant statement 
for our present purpose — that, were that seven per cent, of area, which is the 
difference between those two amounts, under cultivation at the present day, 
the necessity for the import of foreign grain would cease, and this in spite of 
the fact that large areas of land in the Peloponnese which are capable of 
yielding food products are sacrificed to the growth of the currant crop. But 
it is further reckoned that were the 72,000 acres of cornland which at 
present lie fallow in Thessaly brought under cultivation, the deficit of home 
food products would be supplied ; and this acreage is but a fraction of the 
seven per cent, to which reference has been made. It would therefore appear 
that at the present day, in spite of the cultivable area being in all probability 
appreciably smaller than it was in the fifth century before Christ, it would, if 


bruii^'hl iimlcr tiill iviitmn, he cik.ii^Ii aiui t-viu iiion- tliiiii t-iunj^h tu iiiret 
the needs of tin- pivsiiit j)i)j. iun in inspect to food supply. 

When we turn iu the evidi-nce of th«' eirctnnstiinci's jw thcv i-xistcd 
in the fifth cvritiirv we find a state 'of things which contnists strongly 
in eertain iniporlant res|>ec'ts with that existent at the present day. 
The popiilatiuii of the country at that time was hirger, probahfv 
far hirger, than the country coulil supj)ort. All the states from Hoeotia 
southwards seem to ha\c Itecn inoic oi- (h^pendent on foreij^ corn. 
This dependence was of old standing. It had existed in Boeotia, and, if 
in Hoetjtia, almost certainly in the less fertile districts of (Jreece, so early as 
the d.iys of Hesiod.* Aegina and Peloponnese were importing corn from the 
Punt (IS early in the fifth centur\.- Later in the snuu' century Peloiionnese 
was im]jorting coin from Sicily.' The evidence with regard to the import of 
corn into Attica is so wi-ll known that it need not be produced in detail for 
the purposes of this paper. One passage is, however, worthy of .special 
■consideration, it shows the magnitude of the deficiency in the case of 
this particular state. In the middle of the fourth century Attica was 
importing 400,000 medimnoi of corn annually fiom the Pontus alone, and 
800,000 aimually from all parts.-* The passage from which these figures 
are derived seems to assume that this com was intended for consumption 
within Attica itself, and not for re-export. If so, taking 7 medimnoi (and 
this is a liberal computation) as the annual consumption per head, it points 
to the fact that 114,000 of the population of Attica in the middle of the 
fourth century were dependent for food on imported corn, and this at a time 
when the population had \ery considerably decreased from what it had been 
at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War. Taking these broad facts 
drawn from ancient and modern evidence into consideration, it seems 
impossible to accept Dr. Julius Beloch's low estimate of the population of 
Greece in the fifth century. The contrast of circumstances between the 
fifth century and the present day is twofold. The cultivable and cultivated 
area was greater in that century than it is now ; yet this larger area failed 
to meet the needs of the then population, whereas at the present day, were 
the cultivable area all utilised, modern Greece conid supply the wants of its 
present inhabitants. Only one conclusion can be drawn from this, namely 
that the population of Greece in the fifth century was certainly larger, and 
probably considerably larger than at the present «lay. 

The total population of Greece as given in the census list of 1896 is 
2,433,806. Dr. Beloch arrives at the population of Ancient Greece by adding 
together the numbers which he attributes to the individual states. 

He thus estimates a total of 1,579,000, or, including slaves, 2,228.000. 
To discuss the various items in his calculations would in vols e the writing of 
a small volume He shows a marked tendency towaixis the belittlement of 
the ancient data, and suspects exaggeration when- no exaggeration can be 

' Hesiod, U'orkit and Dnys, 11. 42 niul 236. * '1 hue. iii. 8(<. 

- Heiod. vii. 147. * Dem. IXpht \*wrlvi)i', 31, 82. 

80 G. B. GRUNDY 

proved. The result is that he arrives at a sum total which, judged by the 
substantial evidence which the country at present affords, must en* consider- 
ably on the side of under-statement. Anything approaching certainty upon 
this question is impossible, but the geneial, and indeed the particular 
evidence on the question, if treated without prejudice, point to an aggregate 
population in the fifth century at least 33 per cent, larger than the numbei's 
at which Dr. Beloch airives. 

The ancient evidence with regard to the population of Laconia and 
Messenia varies greatly according as to whether the inquiries be dealing 
with the Spartiate, the Perioekid, or the Helot element. 

For the purpose of this paper the important point to determine is the ratio 
which existed between the numbers of those three sections of the inhabitants 
of the Lacedaemonian state. There can be no question that the two first 
elements were small in comparison with the third, and it is further possible 
to arrive at some concktsion as to the maximum numbers which can bo 
attributed to them. Whether these maxima are accurate or not is another 
question. Still it is possible to attain certainty on the point which is all 
important for the present consideration, namely that these numbers did not 
exceed certain limits which may be deduced from the ancient evidence. On 
the question of the numbers of the Helot population the ancient evidence 
affords but little help. The data are almost exclusively military ; and only 
at Plataea in 479 did Sparta put a large body of Helots in the field. The 
unusual numbers on that occasion were probably due to two causes. 
The Greeks knew that they were about to meet a foe which was pecu- 
liarly strong in respect to light-armed troops. Furthermore, the occasion 
was .so critical that Sparta,, like the other states of Greece, thought it 
nece.ssary to make the utmost effort ; and, taking the field with her full 
Spartiate force, did not dare to leave the ungarrisoned capital at the mercy 
of the Helots, 

From the numbers given by Herodotus, namely 5,000 Spartiates, 5,000 
Perioeki, and 35,000 Helots, a ratio of 1 : 1 : 7 might be deduced between the 
elements of the population. 

Dr. Beloch places no reliance on the numbers stated by Herodotus to 
have been present at Plataea ; but a comparison between them and the data 
relating to an earlier and a later period tends to confirm the Herodotean 
estimate in nearly every respect. It is only in relation to some of the 
smaller contingents present at the battle that possible exaggeration may be 
suspected. This 5,000 is the largest number which we find attributed to a 
purely Spartiate force by Greek historians. But the occasion was unique 
and the effort was unique. It is almost certain that the full Spartiate force 
never passed beyond the frontier of Laconia during the fifth century save on 
this occasion. It was necessary to leave a garrison in Sparta when the arm\' 
marched out. At Mantinea in 418 the numbers are either 3,552 or 3,584- 
according to the method of calculation employed, and this in face of serious 
danger. Moreover, the numbers contain '^Kip'nai, BpaalSeioi, and 
Netu^a/ito^et?. At Corinth in 394 Sparta puts G,000 hoplites into the field : 

r<»LI(V <»F SI'AKIA IN Till': I IITIi (llNll ' K ^' SI 

lull \\i- kiiiiw that the Moiac at llii>- liiii<- win- (•()() stiuiij,',' su that thf 
Sjiait iatr (•(»Mtin<^t'iit ttl'six .Morac wmiltl aiiKiinit (>• :{,()()(> uicii, thi- r<-inaiiiil*-r 
ln'ili;,' tiiailf M|> uC a Moia of (i(t() "^KiptTat, and l.SOO Ne^i)6a/xwOKv. 

Their can he littlf <|Mrsti()n that '),()()() n-prcsi-nts the inaxiniiiin of tht- 
S|»artiati' force. It may he a sliglit ovcrstatLMuent of iiuniliers : it is ccitaiMlv 
not an nnderstatcnicnl, — and that is the iinjMiilant point in lefci-ence to the 
ai'ifinnent of this paper. \\y the nnddle of the fourth century th< !■■ had 
lieeii a coiisiderabh' decrease in the nuniKeis of the Spartiates." 

AsMiininL,' tliis '),()()() to represent the al)le-l»o(hC(l nial" popniatioir 
between "JO and oO years of age, it woidd. on a <alculation based on aL,'e 
statistics of modern (ireece, amotmt to 40 j»er cent, of the whole inah- popuhi- 
tion. 'I'his would imply 1*2, ")(>(> male Sjiaif iates, or a total pojiulatioii of 
25,000, inasnnich as the number <it males and females is about the same in 
(ireek lands." For the Perioekid population no satisfactory statistics e.xist. 
The o.OOO at IMatae.i mi|;ht suggest something like an equality with the 
Spaitiate popidation: but it is unlikely that Sjiarta armed the whole of 
the able-boilie(| of this section of the population as a hojilite torce.** 

I'^or the Helots the .So, 000 of Heroflotus is the oidy evidence in ancient 
hi>toiy. Hut her<' again it is inijUdbable that aiu thing like the whole able- 
bodiid Iji'lot pojMilalioii was called out e\cn on this occasion. It is, in liict, 
to the modern census tables that wt- must turn in order to arrive at some 
I'slimate of the ratio betwicn the free and the non-free population of 

The modern population ot the regions included within its ohl Ijoundaries 
is as tollows : 

Mes-niia 18J,280 

LiKunia .. 138,313 

Seiritis . 19,;ni 

(JytliiTii . 12,306 


It has already been shown that any assumjttion that these ntnnbers 
wi'i-e larger than the numbi'rs of those inhabiting this n-gioii in anticpiity 
Would be against the evidence which is availabU'. It is on the contrary 
|)robab|e that Laeonia and Messenia in the fifth century contained not less 
than those 400,000 souls. If so, the pn»p<)rtion of {'n^v to non-free 
popnlati(»n was 1:1.1. If certainly was not nuich smaller than this. 

It is on this fact thai the argument of this pa])er i^ based. (;reek 
historians, though, of, awan- that the Spartiates were largely 

' .\i II. Hi.ll. iv. '2. IG. l'->t I'V fnur to liiid tlir tot.-xl. W'vu- wc to 

" CI. Xeii. Hell. iii. 3. t-'j aii<l 0) whuic tliL- acci-pt these i-atios, the .S|iartiatc i.o|.ulatioii 

Spartiates not l« longing' to tlic 8^oio« arc wouM work out at a inaxiiinnn of 20,000. Hut 

lei'konctl a.s 4.000, wliilo the 8^0101 arc saiil to for the puiposos of tliis i>a|>tr we will as.sunie 

consist only of the King, Kpliors, Senators, tlie larger nuinher, 25,000. 

and ahout 10 otlier.s. " Dr. Heloch, relyinj? cliiefly on ihita tioni 

" Cacs. B.G. X. 3 reckons the warriors of tin- tlie fourth anil later centuries, coiniiutes their 

Helvetii to be 25 per eent. of the whole jiopu- nunilur at 15,000 niale.s, whi( h would imply a 

lation. Dionysin.s i.x. 25 niultiplii.s the ccn-sus population of 30,000 I'erioeki. 

ir.S. — VOL. XXVIII. O 


ontnunibered by the Perioekid and Holot j)o|)nlaiion.s, have not until the last 
few years had at their disposal the means whereby they may realise the 
extraordinarily large ratio which the non-free bore to the free population of 
the countr}'. Furthermore, the economic conditions of life in Greece have not 
been realised by \\Titers, very few indeed of whom have had anything 
resembling an intimate acquaintance with the country. 

I venture to say that this new evidence, when duly weighed and 
evaluated, does not merely present the Spartan state in a new light, but 
gives the clue to that strange and apparently tortuous policy which puzzled 
the contemporary world, and of which later writers, aided by the survey 
of the facts of centuries, have never been able to give a satisfactory 

Nature had rigidly conditioned the part which Sparta should play in 
the life of its time. The external Greek world, seeing Sparta in possession 
of the most effective military force of which it had any experience in the 
fifth century, expected it to play a different and much larger part. The 
Spartiate, living face to face with danger so great that it would have 
been dangerous to confess its magnitude to the outside world, had not in the 
fifth century any illusions as to the nature of the policy which he must 
pursue. The policy of the state had, for him, limitations which the Greeks 
of the other states could not understand, because they could not realise the 
compelling nature of the motives which lay behind them. Sparta could not 
wholly conceal the truth, but she dare not let it all be known ; hence of 
the most important element in the Spartan system Thucydides, a diligent 
enquirer, has to admit Bia Tr}<; 'rroXneia'; to kpvtttov ■^^jvoelro. Alike by 
geographical situation and by her internal institutions she was cut off from 
the outside world. She was situated at the extremity of a peninsula. Her 
sea communications were rendered difficult to the navigators of those da3'^s 
by the capes which projected far on either side of her harbours. Her 
land conununications were scarcely less difficult. A rugged region separated 
her from the interior of the peninsula; and further north another 
rugged region lay across the path to the Isthmus. Moreover, all the roads 
thither save one, and that a circuitous route, were barred by Argos, her rival 
and enemy in Peloponnese. Nature had designed her to lead a life of retire- 
ment in the valley of the Eurotas, a pleasant but secluded spot. Owing to 
her geographical circumstances alone, it would not have been easy for her to 
play the imperial part in the Greece of the fifth century. 

But the Spartiate of the fifth century was heir to institutions which set 
i'ven stricter limits on his activities. How those institutions had originated 
neither he nor those who wrote his history seem to have had any clear idea ; 
but the fact remained that he had to face the problem of governing an<l 
exploiting in servitude a population many times larger than his own. It was 
a fierce, not a docile race which he sought to keep in subjection. He ruled 
by fear, but himself reaped the crop which he sowed. The situation could 
only be met, as it had been met, by the formation of a military community. 
His life had to be sacrificed in order that it might be preserved. He was 


t'ViT oil tlu- .str.iiii, hol»|lll^^ iis it were, a woll l)y the throuL . and hi- kiifw it, 
uikI knew it betti-r than that outside world, which hml only half-^'raisiHKl 
the reality of the situation. ( 'oinpromise was inipossiblo. The system 
of lonir standing,', and it ha<l l)eL,'otteii a nmtiial hitternesH which wouM 
have rendered any alleviation of the system dangerous to those wlio con- 
trolli'd its Working.' When we consider the jiroj>ortion and thi* relations 
existing between the nileis and their serf subjects, when we n-alisc that 
the former innM haxc been out nmnbered by at least ten to one, it becomes Ji 
matter of surprise, not that Sparta did so litth^ in Panhelleiiic politics, but 
that she did so much. Ev«'ry other j)age of Cireek history testifies to her <»wn 
fi'ar of her own situation ; and the evidence from the statistics «)f |)opula- 
tion testifies to the reality of the grounds wh«"reon the fear was ba-se<|. 
Aristotle, who spoke fiom the experit-nee of .several centuries of reconle<| 
history, says: ' Foi- the I'ein'stae in Thes.saly ma<le fre(|uent attacks on 
the Thes.salians, as did the Helots uj)on the Lacedaemonians; indeed, they 
may be di'scribi'd as perj)etually lying in wait to take .'ulvantage (jf their 
msisters' misfortunes.'^'^ The awful tale which Thucydides tells of the treat- 
ment of the two thousand Hidots shortly after the affair of Pylos exein]»li- 
tit>s the extremity of the fear with which the ruling race reganled them." 
I'ut it is mmecessary to quote numerous examples of what is a ec.mmon- 
])lace in (Jrt'ck history. What neither the Greek nor the modern world 
realised, and that which Sparta wished to prevent her contemporaries 
from realising to the full, was the extent of the danger whieh ever 
menaced the ruling minority in the state. The Spartan accepted a life 
of hardness, because he was face to face with a situation whose sternness 
he could not mistake. His ideas were ultimately limited by the confines of 
his own territory, because he had therein enough to occupy his mind. 
He was called narrow-minded and unambitious ; but men who hav*- to guanl 
against destruction every day of their lives have no time for day-dreams 
or large ambitions. Sparta produced in the fifth centur\ but few exceptions 
to her norm ; and men like Pausanias and Lysander were the products of 
periods of panhellenic excitement, men who were carried away by the great- 
ness of the positions in which the action of interests far larger than those 
of the self-centred Spartan state had placed them. But Sparta, with 
eyes intent on dangers near at hand, refused during the fifth century to be 
dazzled by distant splendours. It can hardly be iloubted that she was 
wiser than her more ambitious sons. She tri'ati d their ambitions as crimes 
against the state. 

The essential thesis of this paper is that Spartjin policy is ultimately 
conditioned either directly or indirectly by her home circumstances. These 

* The dilemma i8 stated — {lorhajw under- are harshly tre.ited they are in n state of 

stated— in Aristot. I'ul. II. ix. i>. 45, line 7, conspiracy and bitter ill-will.* 

ed. Bckker: 'What is the ri^ht way of '" Aristot. Pol. II. ix. (Welldon's trans, 

dealing with them f If they are left without lation.) 

restraint, they grow insolent and claim " Thuc. iv. 80. 
equality with their masters ; while, if they 

G 2 

84 G. 15. (JlU^NDY 

(l'»niiiiatc(l her policy and dominated it absolutely, oven if not always 
(linctly. That polic}' may be represented dia^rannnatically by three concen- 
tric circles: the inmost one, her home j)olicy ; the intermediate one, her 
IV'lupoiiutsian policy; the outermost one, hei' policy outside l'cloj»onnese. 
The IV'loponnesian policy is conditioned by her home circumstances, and 
the sauK' is ultimately the case with her extra-l'eloponnt-sian policy: but 
hire the iiiHueiice is indirect, because, until the rise of the Theban power in 
the fourth century, the woild outside Peloponnese could onl\ affect Sparta 
through Pehjponnese itself. 

Of the Pelopunnesian policy of Sparta it is not necessary to spciak at 
any length. It was absolutely determined by the Helot (piestion at home. 
Her neighbour.s, especially the Arcadian cities, had to be ke})t under 
sufficient control to prevent their tampering with that serf-population. 
Hence Arcadia was kept divided. Its two greatest cities, Tcgea and 
Mantinea, were played off against one another, and any attempt at combina- 
tion or even avvoLKicrti6<i within the region was treated as a cnsvs hcUi. Vet 
even here the limitations of the })ower of Sparta are shown. SJie might have 
conquered Arcadia at any time in X\\v fifth centur\ . In one sense this could 
hardl} have failed to save her much trouble and anxiety. But she had not 
any surplus Spartiate population to expend on imj)erialist })olicy. 

Elis was in some respects a more, in some respects a less difficult, 
problem. Its population was, as a rule, contented and unambiti(tus. Its 
land was more fertile than that of most of the Greek states, and it was cut off 
from the I'est (jf Peloponnese by lugged mountainous regions, and from the 
rest of the world by a coast-line which afforded but little shelter to navigators. 
Still it was within easy reach of Messenia, and so Sparta kei)t a watchful eye 
U2)on it. She brought it within the League, and sternly repressed its per- ambiti<.>n to combine with Argos. I'robably the Eleian agriculturalist 
re-^ented tin necessity of iiirnishing contingents to the Peloponnesian 
League aim\' during the seasons of corn and vine harvest. 

The possession of Lepreum too, was a ])ersistent cause of <piarrel between 
the two stati's. Sparta's action in this matter seems to have been dictated 
by a consideration of her all-important interests in Arcadia. 

Achaea was a negligible (piantity,an(l was treated as such. It was cut off 
fioiii the rest of the Pelop(jmiese by the great barrier of Erymanthus, and for 
this reason, and in consecpience of its general wt-akness, could not in any way 
endanger the internal affairs of Lacedaemon. 

The states of the Argolid presented a special j)roblem, or .scries of problems. 
Sparta's pi^licy in relation to Argos illustrates too in a s[)ecial way the 
necessary limitations of her general ])olicy. Argos was hardly less dangerous 
than Arcadia, and more powerful than any single Arcadian city. vShe was 
anxious to win back that hegemony in Pelojjonnese which Sparta had usurped 
from motives of self-preservaticjn. She had a large poi)ulation for a Greek state. 
Her citizens outnumbered the Spaitiates. She was inclined to tamper with the 
Arcadian inties, and, furthermore possessed in the Thyreatic plain a region 
which was in contact with the Helot district of casti'rn Laconia. So Sparta 

Policy ni-'sivvuTA in riii; iiiiii (•l•;\'lll;^' •-'.") 

took th<' jtlaiii tVoiii lirr, iiiitl ult iinutily s<ltl<(| ihc i'Xilf(| Ai'i^iin t;iii> ili.if. 
'riiier tiints ill llu- coiiisc of t he cnit iiry. at S<'|><'i!i. Dipaca, ;iri<l MaiitiiKa, ^ln- 
t.-iM^ht Ai-^'os lessons oil ilii' ilaiii(« T of iiitci fciiiii^' wit li Sparta's iiitinstv in 
Pcl«)]»oniii'si' ; and inorcovrr, as a set poli'v, she playrd of!' Kjtiilanru>< and 
'rrot/fii ai^'ainst. Iut. < )ii the thne occasions above im-ntioned slu- had Aij^os 
in t lie liollow of liei- hand. I'.ut >he lu-itlier wiped her out of existi-nii', nor e\eii 
i^arrisoiH'd the Laiissa. \'et it was manifest ly to her intrrest to hold this impor- 
tant slrate^dc |toiiit. ( )f the five routes to the Isthmus, four, tho>e via t 'aryae 
and the spring's of Lcina, l»y Hysia<-. the I'linus, an<l the ('lima\ routes were 
all coinmaudcd hy Ar^'os. 'I'hf circuitous route hy t he Arca<lian ( )rehoiiieiio.s 
was the only one whii-h Ar^'os did imt command. 

Sparta deinonstiated (hat she eould crush Ar^os if she So wiljetl. It has 
heeii sugi^ested that she refraiued from so dtiing out of dofereuct- to Hellenic 
sentiment, which would have been shocked by the destructi<in of a (Jreek 
state. Tlu're were pii»l)ably more piactical reasons for her foibearance. The 
destruction of Aij^'os' independence would have brought tipoii Sparta more 
ditticulties than advantages. She was the kite which frightened the other 
cities of the Akte to take refuge under the wing of Spart;i. Hut far more 
important than this was the influence which she exerted upon (\jriiithian 
policy. Since at least, the time of I'heidon. Argos ha<l had connexion 
with Aegina, that trade lival which until the time of the siiddi-n gr<»wth of 
Athenian power Corinth most haled and feared. Hence the tra<ling town <A' 
the Isthmus regarded Argos with fear and hostility, and sought in allianci 
with S})arta protection against the ])ossible combination of the two states 
against her. The Hi-st twenty years of tin- fifth century changi-d the circum- 
stances without relieving the situation, as ftxr as Corinth was concerned. For 
I he rivalry of Aegina was substituted the far nion' formidable rivalry of 
Atlu-ns; and Athens, too, .sof)n showed a disposition to make use of Argos. 
Little use .she got of her. She tried to employ her as a cat's paw to get certain 
Peloponnesian chestnuts out of the fire. The cat's paw got badly burnt, but 
the chestnuts remained in the fire; and on one occasion, in 4IH, Athens burnt 
her own fingi-rs. The connexion with Argos was one of the capital blunders 
of Athenian policy in the fifth century. Argos rea})ed advantages and dis- 
advantages from it: Athens disadvantages alone. The reputi-d slow wit of 
Sj)arUi had probably arrived at a more correct estimate of Argos than had the 
imaginative cleverness of Athens. Of course the situation was one which 
contained elements calculated to cause Sparta anxiety, especially in times of 
political .stress ; but it enUiiled one advantage, in that it made Argos more 
formidable to (^trinth than she would have been after the fall 
of Aegina; and, for the n-st, the alliance was not of such a character asw..uld 
preclude SpartJi from forcing Argos to accept a position of neutrality on 
treaty c<»nditions. r>ut above all it kept Corinth more or less in order; and, 
of all the members of the IVlopomnsian tt-am, Corinth had the hardest mouth. 
It was a narrow, wcll-(|efined road along which Sparta sought to drive the 
team, and Corinth at tim<-s sought to drag her yoke-mates along other paths. 
Moreover at times .she succeeded in .so doing; and it is mainly these 

86 G. B. GRUNDY 

iiivergences from the set policy of .Sparta which tend to give it an 
appearance of width such as Sjmrta neither did nor could wish that it should 
pc>ssess. So much for the present with regai-^l to the relation of the two 
states. They are of far more importance in connexion with the extra- 
Peloponnesian than with the Peloponnesian policy of Sparta. 

Sicyon's connexion with the Spartan league was probably more due to 
the fact that it exploited and controlled the internal trade (jf the Pelopon- 
nese, than to anything else. Doubtless Sparta would ha\ e exercised coercion, 
hi\d not interest been sufficient as a factor with a state so situated with 
reference to the allies of Sparta. The case of Megara, though intimately 
bound up with Peloponnesian policy, is, like that of Corinth, more really 
concerned with the relations of Sparta to the world outside Peloponnese. 

The extra-Peloponnesian policy is that element in the matter under 
consideration which presents the greatest difficulties to the student of Greek 
history. It seems at times as if Sparta gave way, even in the fifth century, 
to attacks of imperialism. Even so, the attacks are brief, and the political 
actions of Sparta which may be attributed to them neither form a continuous 
chain of policy, nor even are pursued in themselves for any length of time. 
She stretches out her arm at times, but only to withdraw it both rapidly and 
soon. Sparta had no human capital to expend on such enterprises : what 
she had was fully employed at home and in the neighbourhood of home. 
As far as the government and the people are concerned, the imperial tinge 
of these acts is a false colouring. The action of Sparta outside Peloponnese 
Avas taken absolutely in reference to her position in Peloponnese, and was 
conditioned by it ; and that again was equally absolutely conditioned by the 
situation at home. Spartiates of large ambition did now and then mistake 
or wilfully ignore the true situation, and tried to use the resources of the 
state fur larger, and for the most part, for selfish ends; but their fellow 
countrymen had no mind to <~acrifice their lives at homo for the advancement 
of other people's ambition abroad. Their conservatism was the Conservatism 
of self-preservation. 

But Corinth was the enfant terrible of Spartan foreign politics. It is 
veiy difficult to gauge exactly the grounds of the influence which this state 
exercised in the Spartan league. Intensely commercial, she afforded a 
strange contrast to her uncommercial leader. There can have been little 
community of sentiment between the two. A certain community of interests 
supplied its place. In so far as the interests were common, they were 
I>olitical. Yet political interests were subordinated in the case of Corinth to 
ti-adc interests. As a great commercial state her interests were as world- 
wide as those of Sparta were narrow. 

Though a complete understanding of the relations between Corinth and 
Sparta may be unattainable on the existing evidence, yet there are certain 
factoi-s recognisable which must have played an important part in determin- 
ing them. Corinth was the only state of the League which was potentially 
fincerfvl on the sea. She was probably more wealthy than any other of the 
states, though there is no evidence to show in what way this affected the 


situatiuii. Hut, al)ii\(' ;ill slit- coiiniiiiiKlcii tlu' Isthmus, thi* highway Im th«* 
stall's nt tlu- north, — u highway aluiig which Sparta must have free p!us,s;ige 
miless she wan prepared to allow her interests in PeloponncHe to be 
endangered from the north : fur just jis it was neeessary that sufficient 
Control should be exercist-d in I'eloponnese to prevent interference in 
Spaitan territory, so also it was necessary, thougli in a fainter and more 
distant sense, that control should l)e exercised in Northern (Ireece sufficient 
to prevent interferetice with Peloponnesian interests. Sparta would have 
limited her interests to Laconia and Messenia, ha<i she dared to do so, or at 
the Isthmus, had that been a practical possibility. But the chains of the 
stern necessity laid upon her linked her with regions in which her direct 
interest was hardly perceptible. Her position with respect to her own 
dominions and her own ambitions is; clearly analogous to that of Rome in 
the thii«! and second centuries before Christ. Rome's personal ambition 
w;xs limited by the shores of Italy. It did not even pass the Sicilian 
strait. Italy was her Laconia and Messenia, and the subject Italians were 
her Perioeki and Helots, But she soon found herself under the necessity 
of controlling these lands from which her position in Italy could be 
threatened ; and even then she could not stay her hand ere she had 
brought into subjection an outer circle of territories from which the 
regions surrounding Italy might be endangered. Still Rome could afford 
to incur responsibilities which she disliked, whereas Sparta could not. 

Sparta would have left the states of Northern Greece to go to 
Elysium or Tartarus their own way, if only they had been in the 
impossibility of interfering in Peloponnese. But that was not so ; and 
hence the right of way across the Isthmus was all important to her as a 
land power; and the good will of Corinth had to be maintained by conces- 
sions which involved departures from that rigidly limited policy in which 
alone Sparta had a personal interest. How embarr<v«!sing for Sparta was the 
j)osition which Corinth could, if she would, create, was shown in the wars of 
the early part of the fourth century. 

The position of the Megarid astride the Isthmus rendered it necessary 
for Sparta to exercise a control over that state also. It is evident that she 
regarded its occupation by Athens in the middle years of the fifth century 
with the utmost disquietude. That extraordinary expedition which ended 
at the battle of Tanagra, had doubtless more than one motive; but it is- 
probable that one object at which it aimed was to force Athens by direct 
or indirect means to rela.\ her gni-sp of the northern part of the 

It may be well to say a few words with regard to the general j>olicy of 
Sparta in Northern (Jreece, before proceeding to deal in detail with the 
various occasions on which Sparta displayed activity outside Peloponnese. 
The Tanagra expedition aimed, among other things, at the establishment in 
Boeotia of a power which might threaten and consequently restrict the 
dangerous activities of Athens. Throughout the rest of the century, save for 
a brief period succeeding the peace of Nicijis, this is the policy pursued in 

88 (J. B. GRUNDY 

ami tcnvanls Bocotia. With the Boeotians themselves the fear oi Attic 
aggression was sutticient to make thi-ni wish to maintain relations with 
Sparta, until the time came in the fourth centuiy when Athens ceased to be 
the formidable state ^hich she had been. Then Sparta found she had 
fostered the growth of a power which she could not control. 

But, in the fifth century, at any rate, and esi)ecially in the earlier half 
of it, the influence of Delphi was the factor in North (Jreek politics whieh 
Sparta especially desired to have on her side. Fortunately for her, Deljthi 
was just as much interested in Sparta's support, owing to the claims which 
the Phocians set up to the control of that influential sanctuary. ])ilphi's 
influence, if exerted against Sparta, might have been very dangerous to her 
both inside and outside Peloponnese. 

The relations with Thessaly, though the two states rarely came int<j 
contact, are not unimportant. Sparta evidently feared that she might as 
ally of Athens be troublesome in matters in which Sparta was intereste«l. 
On the whole the fear proved groundless. The Thessalian feudal lords had 
to deal with a problem of a similar nature, though not in so marked a foiin 
jis that which presented itself in Laconia. 

But the thesis of this essay cannot be fully maintained by genc-ralisation 
in (ireek political history, and it is necessary to turn to the detailed records 
of the foreign policy of Sparta during the latter part of the si.Kth and the 
whole of the fifth century, in order to show the influence of her home problem 
on he)" actions abroad. 

About the middle of the sixth century, probably in the years betwt'en 
550 and 546, Croesus, so Herodotus tell us,i- formed an alliance with Sparta. 
He had discovered, we are told, ujxm enquiry, that Sparta and Athens were 
the most powerful of the Greek states. The acceptance of this alliance by 
Si)arta is spoken of in some Oreek histories as a first plunge of Sparta into 
Asiatic politics. The question may, however, be raised whether the action of 
Sparta on this occasion is to be regarded as imi)lying any intention at all to 
incur responsibilities in Asia. Croesus had, doubtless, a special reason for 
seeking the alliance. What Sparta's reasons for accepting it were, we do not 
know. Crot'sus was threatened by danger from Persia. Whether Sparta 
knew this when she joined hands with Croesus is another question. It is 
]»iobable that to her the alliance had no definite intent, for it was probably 
made before the danger from Persia had taken a definite form. But it is 
somewhat gratuitous to sui)pose that the Spartan government intended to 
embroil itself in Asiatic matters. When the critical moment came, Sparta 
showed neither prej)aredness nor even readiness to undertake her part of the 
obligation. There is a tale of a bowl having been .sent to Croesus, which 
never reached him. . There is no mention whatever of any expedition having 
been prepared." W'hy then was the alliance ever made ? To the (Jreeks of 
that day the Lydian power appeared great and, perhaps, threatening. It had 
subdued the Greeks of Asia and was winning infiuence in Greek Eui'ope. 

'2 Hdt. i. 56. '= Hdt. i. 70, 71. 

I'oLlC^' OK SI'AKIA IN I 1 1 !•: KM IH iKNTl'KY S9 

'rii«- li ifiiilslii|» ot ii |i<»\vfi wliidi iiiil;IiI s.iimi- il;iy ln' cxjM'cU'il t<i iiiaki- ilsi-lf 
felt on till' near siflf of the Afgcaii iiiiL,f|il he valualtif to Ji state which wa.s 
iurttd to rxfifisi' a widi- coiiti"! in thai part of the woiM. S|iartii 
(Itnioiistiatcd a^aiii and a^'ain in lh<' mxl (■••nniiy and a half that '-\\f had 
no intiiitioii whatr\<i ol nn<li rtaking rcsjionsihilitit's in Asia. Hn inditlcr- 
vucv to thf fate of the Asiatic (Jitcks appears heartU-ss. She refused to 
^(•n«l thrni a^sistanci' a^Minst ( 'yrns. ('.iitinvn^r herself to expostidations whieh 
that nionarcli treated with contempt. In 4!l!> S she iefnse<l to send aid to 
Ionian lehels. In 47J), after Mycale, she woidd n«)t nndertiike any resjionsi- 
bilities on their behalf if they remained on the Asiatic coast. She apjtears 
as ti^ditin^f tor their IVeedoin in the last years of the I'elopoinjesian War. 
Hut her object is the ruin of Athens, to be attained by bringing abont the 
re\olt of the allies of the Asiatic coast. Those allies welcomed her as a 
lil)erator, but the\ wcie soon disillusioned in a two-fold sense. Lysander 
had no intention ot playing the disinterested part of a pan-hellenie patriot 
oil a limite<l income. He dreamed of a Spartan empire, with the founder ttf 
it. himself, the arbiter of the Hellenic woild. With that end In- jdantoil 
hainiosts and Itoards of contiol in the revolted towns, a regime which soon 
dispelled all dreams of liberty. l>ut the situation was intensely complicated. 
Sparta's p()siti(»n on the Asiatic coast had been attained by financial ai(i from 
IVrsia. 'I'he fleet and the manning of thi- fleet had been dejK'ixh'iit on the 
sums which I'l-rsia had advanced. The ships had to be j)aid for, and Sj)arta 
lacked, as we have seen, the human cajjital. Moreover, that capital had been 
terribly depleted by the long years ot war. Peisia could not be exj)ecte<l to 
supply funds for the ]>rosecution of a policy directly liostile to her interest.s. 
Tlu' former allies of Athins nnist ])ay for their ' liberty.' They woidd have 
to pay tribute to their new niaster. Tj) to the time of the fall of Athens all 
went well with Ly.sander's design.s. But there was at Si)arta a })arty, led by 
King I'ausanias, which clung to the t)ld policy and di.strusted the new. For 
the time it prevailed. I>ut Ly.sander had involved Sparta in ways troin 
which there was no complete tinning. The State had incurred obligations 
tVom which it could not recede. The Ly.sandrian system had created for it 
among the cities of the Aegean ])otential em-mies which would fly at its 
throat if it lelaxi'd its grasp of 4 hem. Moreover, many of its iuHueiitial 
citizens, adherents of Ly.sander, hatl tasted the sweets of despotic ]»ower 
abroad, and were by no means mindeil to ifturn to tht- ob.scurity «>f life 
under the stern K'velling system at home. Amidst the intense excitement 
of the last years of the death stiuggK- with Athens. Sparta had incurred 
obligations, s(jnie ol which she lould not perform, som«' of which she hail to 
try to carry through whether she would or not ; and furthermore it had 
come about that with resj)ect to the latter the will of the sU\ic was diviiled. 
With thi' fourth century dawned an eia which for (ireece itself was in some 
respects better, in many worse, than the prectding age ; but which for 
Sparta was wholly The new designs il.pleted a population which 
had never been more than enotigh to maintain the less ambitious policy of 
the fifth centuiy. 

90 G. B. GRUNDY 

But of the new policy and its results it will be necessaiy to speak at the 
conclusion of this paper. The tale of the last years of the fifth and the 
opening j^ears of the fourth century shows that Sparta had no interests on 
the Asiatic coasts save such as the last years of the fifth century had created 
for her. But those new interests were fatal to her. She might and did 
sacrifice the continental cities of Persia, because she had not the means, 
despite Agesilaos, of maintaining their independence, and because, under 
Persian control, they could not endanger her interests on the European side. 
But she had attained to a new position from which in certain respects she 
could not recede without danger to herself; and thereby she was ultimately 
ruined. It was part of the tragedy of her national life that she was forced 
in the fourth century to depart from that necessarily restricted policy which 
she had pursued in the fifth, and to which we must now return. 

In speaking of Spartan policy on the Asiatic coast of the Aegean, 
no reference has been made to the expedition against Polycrates of 
Samos. The omission has been deliberate. The policy which lay behind 
the incident is of a piece with other examples in the sixth and fifth 
centuries, but has little connexion with Sparta's general attitude towards 
Asiatic affairs and Asiatic Greeks. The tale, as told by Herodotus,^"* 
fails to carry conviction with it. The special motive for ihe expedition 
attributed to the Lacedaemonians is absurdly insufficient to account for 
their action. The substantial element in their story is the part played by 
Corinth. Behind the whole affair there obviously lies some trade dispute, 
which would seem to have arisen out of relations between Samos and 
Corinth's colony and enemy Corcyra. In such a trade dispute Sparta cannot 
conceivably have had any direct interest ; and her action in the matter must 
have been determined by the necessity of maintaining good relations with 
Corinth ; in fact, this is the first recorded of the various instances in 
which that important Peloponnesian state was able to divert Sparta from her 
customary and narrow path of policy. It was necessary for Sparta's safety 
that she should lead in Peloponnese ; but leadership entailed the incurring 
of responsibilities on behalf of those she led, above all on behalf of that 
Peloponnesian power whose position was so embarrassingly strong. 

Even amidst the obscurity which hangs over the history of Greece in 
the sixth centurj, it is possible perhaps to discern the main thread running 
through the apparently tangled skein of the relations between Sparta and 
Athens in the last twenty years of it. Athens under the Peisistratids, in 
consequence mainly of the economic reforms of Solon, had become a. con- 
siderable factor in Hellenic politics. This alone would have attracted 
Sparta's attention to her, inasmuch as a disturbance of the political equilib- 
rium in Middle or Northern Greece would ultimately mean the possibility of 
difficulty in the Peloponnese. Though Sparta's relation with the Peisistratids 
were friendly, the establishment of relations between them and Argos 
would be peculiarly calculated to arouse Spartan apprehension. Thus two 
policies were adopted, both aiming at the curtailment of the growing great- 
ly Hdt. iii. 44. 


in-ss of Atlu'iis. Tilt' Hi-st was . simple ciKiM^'li, n.iiiicly, the elevation of tlie 
)Mi\ver of Hoeotia to an etjuality and livahy with that of Athens. IMataea's 
a|>])<al fui- inoteclinii is refeiied to Athens, in oidci- that that state may 
lieconie enibroik-d wiili Hoeotia. In the last decade of the century Hoe(»tia 
is encouniged to join in an attack on Athens. Tlie policy failed for the time 
being, but it bon- fruit in the next century. 

The second policy must have been, in u .sense, alternative to the tii-st. 
It consisted in an attempt to establish an aristocnicy in Athens, which 
both by sentiment and by its niiuierical weakness would tend to be 
dependent on Sparta. 

It is, of course, the c<usc that we oidy know a certain amount of the truth 
w ith regard to the expulsion of the Peisistratids and the events which followed 
thereon in the course of the succeeding years. No doubt Deljjhi played a part 
in the matter; but no doubt also the increase in Atlunian power and the 
relations with Argos rendered Sparta anxious for a change of r(5giine in 
Attica, especially as that change might be anticipated to result in the 
restoration of the aristocracy of a previous period. Sj)arta misciilculated the 
power of demociacy in the rising state. She tried to rectify her "mistake by 
expeditions to support Isagoras ; and, when those failed, by a continuance of 
that alliance with the aristocratic party which is so marked at the time of 
Marathon. That alliance becomes a traditional policy in the fifth century. 
It comes to the surface at the time of Tanagra, and later in the century at 
the time of the Revolution of the Four Hundred and during the tyranny of 
the Thirty. But its tangible results were little or nothing. Had it borne 
substantial fruit, there might have been no Peloponnesian War. 

The influence of Corinth is shown, too, in these hust twenty years of the 
sixth century. She brings about a temporary reconciliation between Athens 
and Thebes, with reference to the troubles respecting the acceptance by 
Athens of the resjjonsibility for the protection of Plataea. By passive 
resistance she wrecks Cleomenes' expedition to Attica. She protests 
successfully against the proposed restoration of Hippias. And Sparta, the 
great, the powerful Sparta, has to bow to her influence, and dare not punish 
her. Corinth was playing her own game, as she always did, knowing well that 
she w;vs an absolutely necessary factor in Spartan ])olicy. And what was the 
game ? Probably she wanted Athens to be free to develop her rivalry with 
Aegina, and to crush that trade rival of them both. It was a mistake ; but 
it was, at the time, a genuine policy all the same. 

The war of 480-479, while it lasted, set up an abnonnal state of things, 
under which the normal policies of the Greek states had to be laid aside. 
Si>arta was, like the other patriotic states, fighting for her very existence. 
Doubtless her home circumstances tended to influence her plans; but the 
strategic questions as to the defence of Thermopylae, the defence of the 
Isthmus, and fighting at Salamis and Plataea, were ilebated on considerations 
which have nothing to do with Si^arta's position at home or in the 
P< A recent writer**^ has tried to show that Argos' doubtful 
•* Mr. J .\. K Miiiir.) in the J. U.S., 1902. 

92 G. 1). GRUNDY 

attitude htiiui)eiv(l Spartan strategy, and accounted above all lor the UK-agrc- 
ness of the force sent to Thermopylae, and the dilatoriness in the dis- 
patch of troops to Plataea. The argument ceases to be convincing when 
we consider that the avaihible fighting force of Argos • had been wiped 
out by Cleomenes less than half a generation before ; and that a nieie 
tithe of the Peloponnesian hoplitt; army which a])peared at Plataea would 
have sufficed to keep Argos in check. If the Peloponnesians could put 
some 25,000 hoplites into line there, an' we to suppose that they could not 
Sparc more than 8,000 for the defence of Thermopylae ? Was the remainder 
required to watch a state which could never put more than 0,000 men into 
the field, and cannot, on any reasonable calculation, havt; been in a })osition 
at the moment to raise a force of more than half the nuudier :* No doubt 
Sparta had to watch the Helots in 480, and to take them with her in 479, 
but the two facts have little traceable effect on the Greek plau of cam})aign. 
The war of 480 and its preliminaries brought about a great change in 
the policies of the Greek States. The increase in the Athenian fleet had dis- 
illusioned Corinth. For the rest of the century, even including the actual period 
of the Persian War, she is conscious of the dangerous character of Athenian 
rivalry. Except, jjerhaps, during the decade from 446 to 430 she is intensely 
hostile to Athens, and consequently far more dependent on Sparta. Thus 
far Sparta gained. But Athens issued fi-oin that national war with astiongth 
and prestige which excited apprehension in Sparta. The balance of power 
for which Sparta had worked, and for which she continued to work, was upset. 
Henceforth she was profoundly distrustful of Athens, but also profoundly 
distrustful of herself. The situation is a curious and incomprehensible one 
as it appears in the pages of extant history. Some important factor is lacking 
from the historical record. Sparta lives for the greater part of the rest of 
the century in a dilemma of ap})rehension, fearing alike the position of Athens 
and the dangei"s which must be incurred in breaking it down. Wherein lay 
the danger :* If that can be discovered, it will doubth'ss prove to be the 
missing factor in the situation. Sparta believed that the power of Athens 
could be broken, unless Thucydides gives a very misleading picture of the; 
views entertained there in the period iuuuediately ])receding the Pelopon- 
nesian War. She thought that the devastation of Attica must force Athens 
either to fight or submit, and she had no doubt of her capacity to beat 
Athens on land. Yet her participation in the war between 4(50 and 450 
was singularly half-hearted, and Thucydides makes it quite clear that she 
would have ignored the causes of the dispute of the period preceding the 
Peloponnesian War, had Corinth allowed her to do so. In the years succeed- 
ing the Peace of Nieias her reluctance is still more marked. In the case of 
the first of these three .periods the abstention may be accounted for- by the 
earthcpiake and the Helot revolt, if, as implied in the received text of 
Thuc^dides,^'" the latter took ten yeai's to suppress. Moreover, Sparta had 

'" The reference is, of course, to tlic well- Hudr, Uekker and Stuart Jones (Oxford iilitioii) 
known crux in tlie text of Tliuc. 1. 103. In the 5<KaTy is maintained. Steup has restoivd it 



railfij III till- caiiilKii^ii ot 'I'ana^^Ma to liiraU the Lfrip <it Atlu-ns on the 
Mi^arid : and when, alter ( )iiii>|ili\ la. Uueniia ]i;v><se(| into ihi- jHtssfssioii of 
Alheiis. the iii\:i>i<iii 111' Attica liee.iiiii' a iiiattei- (if extieiii'' (htliiMilt\ ami 

In the iliird <-ase the rehiitaiiee iiiii^lit !»•• 'hie til the|t|niiiit iiij,; 
le>iilts 1(1 t he Tell ^ea|•s War, ami te the lael that she cuiild iid longer relv 
I'll the siijn>t>rt ot her disilhisioiied allies, ('oiiiith and 'i'liehes. Still her 
toihearatiee in takiiii^ ofleiice, e\ce|»t when iiiiiiiiiieiii daii|;er in i'elopoiuiese 
threatened her in 4IH, is iinnat ural and eaniiot he satistiictoriK' a(-<-oiiiited t<ir 
cxeejtt on till- assiinijit ion that she leared her |Misitii»n at home; an assuiii)t- 
tioii sii|»|n»rted hy the e\traordinar\ alarm whieh the capture of IMos, and, 
later, the rapture of the Spartiates at Sphacteiia excited in Sparta. ( )iu' 
cause of fear was, otCoiiise, po.ssi hie revolt- anionic the Helots; another w.-us 
tile loss of her citi/eiis. I>ut tin; Sjiaitiatcs captured or killed at Spliactcria 
cannot ha\c amounted to more than 17.") men, the rest of the force bcinj^ 
formed ol IV-iioeki. Loss of picsti^e niay account lor the feeling at first 
excited by this di.saster, hut the ardent desire to ^et bat-k the prisoners can 
only be .ittributefl to the fact that the loss was severe relative to the 
Spartiate population. How lar thai had decreased since Plataea, it is 
impossible to say: but tiial there had been :i decre;ise, and probably a 
coiisidi-rable decrease, is jiractically certain.''' 

The whole attitude of Sparta to imperial Athens up to the time <»f the 
•bsaster in Sicily is best explained by a .sensi- that a direct attack on lu-r wjvs 
one which, even if successful, would impel il the jiosition at home, by rea.soii 
of the losxe>> which would l)e in\t»l\ed in the defeat of a state so powerful. 
And so she sought to shun a war in which even \ ictoiy might bo too dearly 
purchased. Moreover, after 447 Athens was not too Ibrmidable on land, 
and it was-only by land that Sparta's position might bi- imperilled. Athens 
a-- a mo(K-iately powerful land power was not without her us»'s in Sp.aitan 
policy. She- was a factor in maintaining the balance which w;us S]>artas 
political i<leal in North (ireece. Koeotia she had sought to play oti" against 
Attica in ')()(> and at the time of Tanagra. In both cases the policy had for 
the moment been a failure. 15nt from 447 until 421 Boeotia played the 
part which Sparta designed for her. But if Boeotia was useful as a check on 
Athens, the existence of Athens secured the fidelity of Boeotia and Corinth 
to Sj)artan interests. Thus, as far as Sparta lu-rself was concerned, the 
position of artaiis north of the Isthmus in the years succeeding the Thirty 
Years' Peace was at least fiiirly sjitisf actor}. Athins, hard hit in the bust 

to rlasscu'.s text, tliouijh Cla.ssen prefeiieil t€- 
ripTif). IJusnlt and Holm luclVi' tlii.s latter 
reailiiig. I must couli'ss that the languaj,'c of 
Cli. lOo scuras to nic to imply that the sett la- 
ment i>l' the Mcssciiiaiis in Nauiiaktns look 
placi- l>cfoic Me^'aia called in the aid of Allll■n^ 
against t'oiintli. It is mentioned before tiiis 
latter event, and Thucydides, careful in 

clirouoln^'ical detail, gives no hint that he is 
departing from the ehiDiiological order of 
events. Were the matter of first-class iiu]>ort- 
anec in relation to my jiresent subjeet the 
ipiestinn would demand further diseussion. 
Under the eircumstances I need only add that 
1 believe rtTaprif to be the original reading. 
" C'f. note, p. 81. 

94 G. B. GRUNDY 

years of the previous war, showed a disposition to be content with what she 
had got; and Sparta had little real interest in the fortunes of the states of 
the Athenian Empire — states which could not affect the interests of the 
Greeks on the mainland, and which were therefore a negligible quantity to 
her. There were hot heads among her allies who wished to intervene on 
behalf of the revolted Samians in 4-40-439, but the plan was suppressed — 
by Corinth, -so Corinth said — though there is no reason to suppose that 
Sparta showed any enthusiasm for it. 

The reluctance of Sparta to enter upon the Peloponnesian War is, at 
first, most marked. Even Thucydides does not conceal the fact, though he 
is intensely interested in proving his own original theory with regard to the 
causes of the war. It is clear that Sparta saw that the possession or control 
of Corcyra by either Corinth or Athens must inevitably lead to war between 
those powers. She took a bold step on the path of conciliation when she 
sent ambassadors of her own to accompany the Corcyraean embassy to 
Corinth. N'or does Thucydides conceal the difficulty which, even after the 
failure of that embassy, Corinth experienced in getting Sparta to take action. 
That is brought out in the Corinthian speech at the first congress at Sparta. 
Even after that, Sparta professed to be prepared to make peace, if only the 
Megarean decree were revoked. The language of Thucydides^^ implies that 
the questions of Potidaea and Aegina were regarded as capable of settlement, 
perhaps of compromise, if only the decree were wiped out. Pericles, so 
Thucydides says, had no belief that such would be the case. Still Pericles may 
have mistaken the true inclination of Sparta, or have regarded the dispute 
with Corinth as only soluble by war. It seems, even from the evidence of 
Thucydides, that the Megarean decree forced Sparta to take a course which 
she had been peculiarly reluctant to take. The reason may possibly be 
conjectured. She had among her allies various states which were dependent 
upon foreign corn. Megara was peculiarly dependent on this source of supply, 
because she was a manufticturing state with a population far larger than the 
unfruitful Megarid could support. Athens controlled one at least of the 
main sources of supply, the Pontus trade. If Athens were allowed to mete 
out such measure to one of the states of the Peloponnesian League, she 
might adopt the same policy to others. On this point, therefore, there 
could be no compromise : and Sparta's hand was nec'ssarily forced, as, 
no doubt, Pericles had intended that it should be. To Athens with her 
discontented allies a state of war was far safer than a condition of uncertain 

The Peloponnesian War changed the face of Greek politics. Something 
has already been said about the position after the Peace of Nicias. Sparta 
had discovered to her dismay that Athens could not be reduced by land 
warfare only, whereas Athens had threatened Sparta's position at home by 
the occupation of Cythera an<l Pylos. The enormous effect which the .seizure 

18 Thuc. i. 139. 


of t litsc Miiall friiolioiis ut' I^acfdat'iimiDaii Itiritniy Ii.kI on Lac-cdaoinoiiiiin 
jjolilics it.>>L'lf got's far to jinivf that tin* Spartiatr jxtsiliuii at home was far 
iiioiT critical than filhcr Sparta ailinittrd, or (lit-rcr knew ii to \>v. The 
iicglfct which Sparta shuwrd nt the interests of her allies when she CKiisi-iitid 
to the terms of the Peaee of Nicias has been Jiscrihed to mere seltishness of 
disposition. It woiild have been a strangely perverse selfishness to sacrifice 
the support of Coiinth and Hoeotia for any save a compelling motive. And 
the motive is ther»', in the pages of Thiieydifics : — the extreme fear excited 
by the jtositioii at home. That position had first of all to be put to rights: 
the situation in Northern C3ree<-e coidd be dealt with afterwards. And so 
Sparta sjuiit the next few ycai-s feeling about in a blind .sort of way for 
alliances which might restore the situation north of the Isthmus, a piey 
meanwhile to the irritating pin-])ricks of Athenian policy. Once oidy, when 
the danger came terribly near to her, was she moved to action — at Mantinea 
in 41 S; but only to lapse once more into a state of lethargy from which even 
the Sicilian expedition could not her. It is probable that she mistook 
its real intent, until Alcibiades opened her eyes on the matter. She probably 
regarded with satisfaction the diversion of Athenian energies to a distant 
field, and against states whose weal or woe could not ett'ect the situation in 
Laconia. I^ut when she discovered the true nature of the Athenian ambi- 
tions, and recogni.sed that the disaster in Sicily afFonh^I an opportunity for 
ridding Hellas for ever of the threatening ])ower of Athens, she was forced to 
take action. 

Of the Ionian War and its results we have alread}' spoken. It involved 
S])art;i in a situation which she was wholly unfitted to maintain. Vet she 
had to maintain it in part because she could not wholly renounce it without 
running the risk ol" self-destruction. Moreover, she could only nuiintain it 
by mean.? which rapidly exhausted her limited resources, and brought upon 
her the condemnation alike of contemporaries and of after-time. She was 
forced into a policy which made fearful demands upon her already depK'ted 
popidation. It was no longer a policy of spheres of influence; it was a j>olicy 
of diie(;t control of lands outside her own by means of garri.sons. She had 
indeed to modify her policy towards the Helots, because she had to emjtloy 
them mori' hugely in regular hoplite service; but the conspiracy of C'inadun 
shows that they were still a serious danger. It was probably the Spartiate's 
greatest I'lii'mv, Epaminondas, wlio saved the Spartiate from destiiiction. by 
withdrawing Messenia from his control, liut Leuctra and Mantinea are the 
direct setpiel of the Ionian War. 

It is impossible in the limits of a short article to deal in full detail with 
such a large historical question as the policy of Sparta. All that ha-s been 
attempted is to sliow by reference especially to the less obvious factors in the 
history of T.,acedaemon in the fifth centur\- that tliat ])olicy was, from the 
very nature of the circumstances, singularly Hunted, and, in a sense, singularly 
consistent. The contemporary world tended to condemn it, because it ctiuld 
not understand what S]>arta could not affonl to confess, the perilous weakness 



of the situation at hontc. Am rf/s- TroAtreta? to KpvirTOv TjyvoeiTO, — though 
Thucydidcs did not apply tho words to a situation of which he accepted, 
probably, the account current in the (Uvek world generally. Hence far more 
was expected from Sparta than she could possibly perform ; and a great deal 
of condemnation has been pronounced upon her for failing to do in the fifth 
centurv that which brought about her ruin in the fourth. 

CJ. B, Grundy. 


' The following abbieviiUiiuis an- eniploycil in lliis arlii-le : — 

,/r. Pnl. = li. Moritz, Arabic P'lla-orintplni, Cairo, Lcijtzii;. 190.'». 

BGU. = Aciiypli.sihc Urlnindrn nun dot Koeniglichrn Mitscen zu Burlin. 

Becker, Biihdyc = (". II. ]{i-ckcr, licilrngr -.vr Gischirhle AijupUns itntcr drm Islam 

Striisslmrf,', 1902, 1903. 

PSK. — i<l. Piii'iiri Siliott-ltcinhiirdt i., Ilcidelhorg, 1906. 

PAF. = i<l. Arahisrhr Papyri di-H AphrodiUifundes \n ZeiUrhrifl fiir Assijrio- 

loffu \x. 
< rum, iJatnlogne = W. K. CriiMi, Calaloijuc <>/ Coptic MSS. in tht Lritish Museum, L.n.i.n 

Gr. Pnp. ii. = Grciifell ami Hunt, Greek Pn/ii/,i, Second S.rici, Oxford, 1 H97. 

I'KHF. = Papi/rim Krzlnrzog Jiaincr. Fiihrcr dmrh dir Axast.lhtnq, Vienna 

I'KRM. = Millhi ilnnijcn <in.i der Sii,aniUi,i<i d* r Pupyrux Er:hcr:oij Hitiiur. Vii-niia. 

1886 1897. 
A'A'7'. = Corpus Pupi/roruiu luiinrri. KuptLtcfi- T<.iU, /i<uaKtij<;j,U„ wn Joroh 

h'ni/i, ^■ienna, l.S9.'i. 
Wcliliauseii, Ar. Iteich = J. Wtllliauson, Das Arabiichc lUich nnd srin Stnr:, Berlin, 1902. 
Wessely, Prohijoincnn - C. Wesscly, Prolnjoincnn ad Pa/njrorum Uratconiin Xornm CullecHonem 

Edrndam, Vienna, 1883. 

UKF. = id. Studicn zur Palatographie and Papijrtiskmule iii. Gricchisc/ie 

PapyrtLsurkinui n Klcinercn Fonnats, Leinzip, 1904. 
ll'S. = lyUwr Studirn. 

li'lJ. = Denksihriflcn dir KaiKrlichrn Akadcmic dcr ll'ivcnscluifUn vVienn.-i) 

xx.wii. Wivs-wly, Die Pnruter Papyri d>x FumUs von El Fnijih.i. 

'Die remaining abbreviations will ex|dnin tliemselvos. 
H.S. — VOL. XXVIIl. H 

98 H. I. BELL 

\;iluable Papyri Schott-Reinhardt i. cniited by Dr. (now Prof.) C H. Becker. 
The volume consists chiefly of Arabic letters from the Governor, Kurrah b. 
Sharik, to Basilius, sahib of A^uh (i.e. Kom Ishgaii : in the Coptic })apyri 
in the British Museum the name is Jkuw). Besides the Arabic letters, 
however, there are five bilingual (Arabic and Greek) letters addressed 
to various places {x<opla) in the district of the KWfir) of 'A^poSiric, the latter 
being the Greek name of Jkow ; and in an appendix are published twelve 
similar documents preserved in the library at Strassburg. 

Not lung before the publication of Becker's volume there had appeared in 
the Arahic Palaeography of Prof. B. Moritz facsimiles (without transcription) 
of three Arabic letters from Kurrah to Basilius, and a bilingual document 
which may perhaps also belong to the Ajihroditij collection.^ 

Portions then of the Aphrodito collection are at Cairo, Heidelberg, and 
Strassburg, and others may have found their way to other libraries ; but b}- 
far the largest i)ortion, so far as known, was acquired in 1903 by the British 
]\Iuseum. In 1906 some more fragments were acquired, several of which 
were found to belong to documents of the 1903 collection. These B.M. 
papyri are chiefly in Greek and Coptic, but they include a few, very frag- 
mentary, Arabic letters, which were published by Becker along with the 
three Arabic documents of Ar. Pal. in vol. x.\. of the Zeitschrift fiir Assyrio- 
Icgic. With these purely Arabic letters Becker republished the bilingual 
papyri PSli. vii., viii., and ix., of which the missing portions had been dis- 
covered in the British Museum collection. Before this there had appeared, in 
Nnv Pal. Soc. PI. 7G, a facsimile with transcript of one of the Greek letters in 
the Museum ; and five additional facsimiles were included in the atlas to the 
Catalogue of Gvecl- Papyri in the British Musetira, vol. iii. A complete edition 
of the whole Aphrodito collection in the Museum, with the exception of the 
Arabic documents, is now being prepared ; but owing to the very fragmentary 
state of man}' of the papyri the work of sorting and piecing them together 
has been a slow one, and it is not likely that the volume will appear till next 
year. It seems therefore advisable to give some account of the collection, 
so far at least as the Greek documents are concerned ; of the Coptic I am 
not competent to s])eak. 

The collection is of unusual interest and value ; and not only for the 
historian, t<» whom it will furnish an abundance of new material for the 
organization and government of Egjpt under the early Khalifate. Palaeo- 
gi-ai)hically it is of the first importance ; for hitherto our knowledge of Greek 
writing on papyrus has stopped short (with a few insignificant exceptions) at 

- Tliis bilingual document is a receipt lioni which I read ^qctxp . iyB° f {i.e. Sept.-Oct.. 

two officials (not one as Kaiabacek, Vienna a. D. 706), which is inconsistent with the Aiabii 

Oriental Journal xx. p. 143, .states ; see Becker, date as given by Karabacek, Du-l-ka'dah a.H. 

PAF. p. 101) of the barns at Babylon for a 87 = 13 Nov.-ll Dec. a.d. 706. The Arabic 

tax-payment of 6171; artabas of wheat [a'lros, and Greek dates of bilingual papyri at this 

which at this period means wheat as opposed date are generally inconsistent (cf. Becker, 

to barley, not grain generally). The Greek I'SU. p. 28, though the explanation theie .sag- 

I'ortion of the receipt is clear and straight- gested is untenable in view of the evidence "f 

forward except the last line of the main portion, the B.M. papyri). 

Till-; Ai'm:<»i.i i() i-ai-vki 99 

till- (lalf ot tin Ar;il» cttiKiiicsl \>\ K^^pt. Tlif v.iri(iii> hands timtwl in tlu«< 
lar<(i' ('ojli'rtiuii of iloconu'iits carry on our i \ itlrnci- tor inarK a cctitiirx" 
lati'r, an<l st-rvr to hrid^'c ovpr tlu' i^ajt hctwci'ii the cursive ot |»ai»vnis 
and thf niiimsfuk' ot vclltiiii MSS. Tlir main new words which ix'ciir, the 
iiinMii> phrases used in iIk' litters, tlic mistalNts in spelling', and tin- 
gianiniatical ])eculiaritics arc all ot valiii- t'i>r tin- study ol the Greek 
language in its later developments; and to the Arabic and the Coptic 
scholar also even the (Jrt'ek ilocunients furnish much new niaterial. 

The collection falls into two main divisions, h'tters and accounts. The 
letters, all of which are from the ( {overnor, may apiin he divided into twn 
classes, those addressed to ihr head of the district, and those (known as 
ii'T(iyia) addressed to the people •' of the singh- x^P^^ '" '''*' district, tin' 
former being much the more luimt-rous. 

Of the first class, the letters from the ( loveinur to the local ailministnitor, 
there are seventy-five separately numbered documents, besides some colK-ctions 
of small fragments, and the dates preserved rangi- from 25 Di-c. a. I). 708 to 
I .luiie, A.i». 711. During the greater part of this time the (lovernor was 
Kurrah b. Sharlk, and all the dated letters, with two exceptions, though in 
many cases the beginning is lost, may be assigned to him. The two rtfernd 
to, dating from the Governorship of his predeces.sor 'Abd-allah b. Alxl-al- 
Malik ■• have unfortunately both lost the earlier part. 

As regards the form of the lettei"s, it is to be noticed that they are all in 
<ireik only, whereas the similar lettei-s published by Becker are in Arabic 
onl}. It seems probable theri'fore that in ever}' case two copies of the letter 
were sent, one in Cheek and one in Arabic ; the letters being often too long 
for both copies to be conveniently given on the same roll, as was done with 
lettei-s of the second class (erTuyia):' The letters are all in roll-form, written, 
as is ustial with Byzantine documents, across the fibres, the lines being parallel 
to the width of the roll, and they have on the versa, when the begiiming of 
the roll is preservi-d, the address and a minute by a clerk at Aphnxlito 
noting the date of receipt, the name of the courier who brought them, and 
the subject to which they rcfer.^' Several have also at the top minutes in 
(Jreek and sometimes also in Arabic written by the clerk at hradi|uartei-s; 
and at the foot of one or two is a short account relating to the ta.xes dealt 
with in the letter. The majority have been torn in two down the whole 
length ot the roll, and arrived at the Musmm in separate halves: but 

'Or tht- otficiiils (oi &»(<); cl. Hohlwiin, ^ Siniiliir minutes were written on tin- Aial.ic 

.I/((str Bcl'j,- 1905, pp. 191 f., 1906, pp. 40 f. ; letti-rs, t>> jmlgc from PSK ii. Thf s|>aoe there 

liiU Becker, P.S'/i'. p. 114, sho\v.s that till' former left between the name of Kurirtli ami ihit of 

inteiprttation i3 the more probiil)le. BaMliiis in regular in the* Gnek letters also 

* Kurrah intercil Fusla^, the capita], on tlie 'I'he Or. . k minute should prol>a>ily read n^ k8 

.Sid or 13thof Rabi' I. a. H. 90 i='20th or 30tli vvr)^ 8 Ao^tp fftpi p' anou. i.e. noxi»"f> ♦•^X*^ 

Jan. A.I'. 709) ; Becker, PSlt. p. 17. 8ii '^a^l*p B*ptSaplov «r«pJ airov The omiv^ion 

' rSi:. i. and B.M. Inv. No. 1316, though of the iudiction is not usiul, but is i»«i-»llele<l 

they are not duplicates in wording, are probably in the B.M. letters. A eouiier A&ev 'Afnp 

the corresponding Arabic and (Jreek versions of o.inirs in Inv. No. ISfiB. 
the same letter. 

II 2 

100 H. I. HELJ. 

fortunately in many cases both lialves were included in the collection, and 
have been pieced together subsequently ; an<l it may be hoped that the 
missing portions of the remainder will come to light elsewhere. 

The letters afford a good illustration of the extraordinary centralization 
(jf Arab government in Egy))t and the innuense activity of the C'ivil 
Service; for example, there are contained in this single collection no less 
than nine Greek letters written during the month of January, A.D. 710, to 
this one not very important place in Upper Egyj)t, three of them on the r?Oth., 
and each no doubt accompanied by its Arabic connteipart and, in most cases, 
its evrdyiaJ In no case is more than one subject treated in a single letter, 
and if, as on the 80th of January, communications are to be made on several 
subjects, a separate letter is devoted to each. 

The letters are probably all addressed to Basilius, who is described as 
^ioiKriTi]<i (Ay. mhih) of the Kcofii] oi Aphrodito, his district being known as a 
SioLKTjai'i. These are somewhat vague terms, and it is not altogethei- elcai- 
from them what position Basilius held. Becker, in FAF. p. 70, states, on my 
authority, that irayapxiai' appear in B. ^I. Pap. 1841 as identified with 
Xopia, and therefore as ' Unterbezi)ke ' t<^ Ai)hrodito ; and he concludes that 
Basilius is ' l-ein Pagarch, sondern der Chef vieler Pagarchen ' ; ad<ling 
' demnach ist wahrscheinlich, dass BioUyai-i fiir den in anderen 'J'eileii 
Aegyptens noch durchaus iiblichen Terminus vo/xof steht.' I regret to have 
misled him as to the evidence of our papyri: but subsequent evidence, both 
in the Greek and in the Coptic papyri, shows conclusively that Basilius was 
a pagarch ; nor is the evidence of Inv. No. 1841 necessarily to be interpi-eted 
as I at first took it.^ In the Greek documents the principal evidence is 
furnished by the following three passages: — Inv. Xo. 1358, Trapao-zceua^twi/ 
Trapevpedrjvat [creavTov Tr^iarov eTriaKonov Tri<i irayapxio.'i (addressed to 
Basilius); Inv. No. 1857, which concerns t?)? T[a]7<e>t'[cr]r7[9] Std aov 
^»7/u.t[a9] Kul T(ov vTTOvpyMv tt)? SiotKi]cr€(o<i aov is headed {irejpil) ^7j/xta(<;) 
7raj(up)x{ov) (kuIj vTrov{p<ywv) \ Inv. No. 1451 (d), a fragmentary ])rotocol, 
has on the back the minute [+ K(Ofir){<i) ' A](f>poBtro)- x^ipr(r]'i) rw{y) 
B(o)0{€VT(ov) (TiyeWiov (sic) 'Ovvo(f>piov UaeLove airo T{rj<i) av{rr)<i) /ct«;|/A7;(9)] 
6vt((ov) €i(^) t(o) x,^{piov) "^tve TrayapxiiCL'i) ' Aviialov) (kuI) '\7r6X{\(oyo<i) 
€t(9) t(ov) 8r)fji.(6aiov) X6'yo{v) ?;Tot tw{v) (s/V-) Se<a>7r6{Trjv) i)fi(oi> ^X aoviov) 
Bao-fXet'ou (sic) tmv (sic) evhio^oTarov) irdyapxpv +. The evidence <A the 
Coptic papyri is even more decisive, as the following two instances among 
others (kindly given m*; by Mr. W. E. Crum) will show: — Or. ()2]8, 'the 
Kvpi<i Basilius, IXXovarpio^; and pagarch of the village Jkow ' ; Or. (5205, ' the 

^ Sci! below, Ji. 117. , f« Tf/fs] iro^opx'is Ttoiriaavras in -KtpnTuv 

' Tlie pas.sage in question is : — iroiwv Kara- rov Zpov rod (sic) f^fOffitOa. At tiist I took fK 

•ypaipov ovofxaaiai Ka\ [irorptoru/uiar] T<i«' arfX- t^? Tra7apx'<" ■'■^ ''^'cning to the X'«'p'<"' •" wliiili 

Ao/xfi'wv irp[oawiruv o]u n^u aWa Ka\ (Is Troict tlin tuf^itivcs ii.iiPiicntMl to lie: but it may 

Xi^piu: r rj i 5<o[iKT)(o-€a)j) aov] irpoai- djualiy well vul'cr to the S(oi«7j<Tts in neni'iaj. 

(p(<v>yov KoX ri Sta(pfp(t iKaarcf iv t( vtto- luJ'JF. ix. 1. 11 tii<! leading shouM jmiljably 

errafffi k[oI yjjSioij], ypafpwv ioaavroii rij (sir) hi' tK r! oii) l/fxeirfpov) waydpxiov), ?.''. IJasilius. 
Toi < 01) >rf (aic) ffKapl<p<f roiis fvpi(TKOfj.fv[o\us 

riii: .\i'iii;<'i(rn> I'.\i*ni;i loi 

Ki'iJi^ \'^A•^\\^\\^ \>\ (iixl-- Will i\Xni'aTi>i(ts: ;ili<l |i.iL;ai(li <>l .Iknw Mini i|s tiroifctti 
.ili<l TTfS/a'Sev. Ill tl" <'"|>ti<- ita|i\ii r»;isiliii>^ is urur (A\\ii\ ^Jo/«f»;Ti/9. 

UasiJiii^ tlnii wax imdituhtcdly a pagaicli and AphiiKlito a |ia^aich\ ; 
imi i^ till si'coiid |»art ol Jirckcr's stat«in»iit, that A|)liiu<lit(» was a iiiiiiif, 
I luTiti'if iHc-cssaiilv iiicniT.ct ' III o|h. r uiii'ds, i^ it |miIi,i|)s po^'^ihlr that 
at I his peiind -rrayapy^ia and vofios' wnr the saiiif ' I l)<-licv<' this tn ha\i: 
Imi II the case ; l)nt thi' Mippusit imi is sn (•(iiii|ih'trly Dpimsrd to th< arccptrd 
tin III \ ' that it rc(|iiiri-s a sumtu hat Icii'^thy jiistiHcjition. 

I will discuss tiist the cvidciHf ntht r tliaii that uftjic A|»hi<»dit«> I'apyri. 
And tn l)('L,dn with, it nmsl of ((nii-sc he admitted that at an i-arli«i- ]tfri<Ml a 
|iaL;its was untlunhtrdK n«i( ilic saiiif as, lint a std)di\ isii.n <>t, tin- noinc, 
|iinh.d)ly in lact, as W'ilckcn su^gt'sls.'" jv later form of the old ro-napx^a. 
'riiiis in /.VrV. 21 (A.i>. '.\M^) a /irnc/iosifi'ii of the 14th pa^Mis of the 

I |i riiii.|iii|itc iidiiie is iiieiii imird ; in Amli. \'a\i. Il-7(4tli or early .'ith <-ent. ) 
ocriirs ,111 llth jiat^Mis of the f |erae|(o|»olite nome: and in the Kli»rentine 
|ta|»\ii and elsewhere aif many similar instanc«'s. Then- is, jiowever, no 

II jir'ioii iiii|irol)aliilit \ of a liirt her change in organization, and I heliexe the 
e\ idenoe ta\ouis the siipjiositioii there such a chaiii^fe. 

In the Hrst jilace, theic is (\idiiice in the Kaiiier Fiihrcr which, in 
a|i|tearance. is coiicliisix e. In I'EllV. '>.")(» and ').")! occurs ,i ' I'agarch Apa 
K\ros \on lleracleojiolis .Ma^nia ; in .").">;{ and .').')4 the same jicrson is 
descrilicfl as ' I'aif.irch des mirdlicheii Theilos dos hcracl. Xmiins': and in 5')(i, 
'}')!, and .").')!» w c hear oj a p.ii^arch or of ' Pa^archen-Stellvcrtretcr des 
heracl. Gai'ra' : the same persons occurring in 558 as ' ra^'archon-StcllvcTtretfi- 
\n\\ Hera<lcopolis Ma^na.' The evidence, however, thongh strong, is not .so 
conclnsi\c ;is it at first sei-ms, since, as Dr. Wessely kindly iidorms nn-, the 
word i'ofjLu<; does not occur. The readings an': — oo^i, eS", S tov iBoppeci-ov 
aKeX"' HpdKXeoV'i Sia Atttto Kvpn'' /xeyaXoTrp' irayap^ av^ : 5o(i,Tfo iray^ t»;? 
HpaKXeov^ : 'i.)! , \pia\TO(f)]opa) Kai ^eohutpiiKiOi irayap'^p^ WpaKXiov^ '. .)oJ>, 
vfj.ii>\picrTo(fiop(jo\ f')€o8afp(tKi(o Trayap^p'^ l\paK\' : o.lO, 5')l.;ind •).')4 havi' no 
indication o|' the pagaich.\. In .')(il it is to he notici'd that a 8ioiki]T}J<; of 
ll( lacjeopdli.s Magna occurs: probalily this person was .ilso pagarch, in which 
case the papyrus turnishi s ;i to the use oi' ^ioiK))T)j'i in th<' Aphiodito 

As further evidence tor the nie.iiiing ot the word Truyapyo<; I give .i list 
of instances of its occmience and ot that of llu' word -nayapx^a^^ : — 

I'l.M. l*;il'l'. I l.'{. .") (( , vol. i. ji. -IX-l (\.ii. );00), Toj Trav(f<f)i)fiw nuyti'px'i') [*"' '■^"^]« 
TijS \\ii(Tii>()'iTO}v Ktit Ofi>bii(TinvTri>\iT<ot>^- : 1 13, 10. p. •J22 (.\ l>. ()3y G40). r<ji fityn\oni)fnt<rraTto 

» Cf. Milne. Hist, of Egypt uwhr lioimnt '" I.e. p. 299. 

Rule, p. 13 : ' .Vinoiij,' tin- sulionliDate oflici.ils " Tliis list niaki s no claim to br cxliaii-.ti\e, 

the strategoi almost ('luitc ; <f. Wilckin, Inil I trust I have overl<><>kc'l nutliin^' vital. 

Hrrmes, wvii. pj-. 287 tl.) ilisappcjir in the Instniices of the worils usiil absolutely, without 

Uyzftutinc periixl, ami their pla( i' appeals to a phu ciiame or any other useful <lata, are not 

have lieen taken in the Arsiiioite nonie by the noliieil. Where no date is nnntioned it in to 

pagan lis, who \ver>- lU't. howtver, like them, he umterstond that no date is assigned liy the 

ap[>ointeil to the charge of a nome, hut nierelv nlilor. 

to tiiat of a pij;us or division ot a nome." '- Kor Ka\ iiwirtf see \l'D. A|ip. 79- Ixlow. 

102 H. 1. iu:li< 

iraya[p;^a> about 40 letters] Kiaixrji K(ifii[vu)]u nii 'Aixtivoitov pofinv, where tlie jiag.ircli .•^eem- 
to be the chief oflicial of tlie noiiie ; 107."), vol. iii. p. 282 (Arab perioil ?), xP<''a to-rii' 
Ttfit]0[fi]vai Toiis naydpx"^^ ('^atjHTuis (v To'ts Ti'mois ; 1547 (A.D. 5"i3, unpublished), 4>X(aoi)i<o) 
'lot/Xtorco T<a fxfy aKim pen (CTTUTM otto apxovrav k(i\ ^Irfvu \ap.npoTaT(^ <r«p[t]»'iapiw Km naydpxan 
TTJs 'ApraionoXiTuv : — BdU. 304 (period of Arab conquest), nayapxitf) rov dopp{ivoi> 
aKfkovi TuvTTjs Trjs no\(i)r{fias) (Heracleopolis) ; 30") (a.D. ">56), tw (I'So^oTdru a-Tparrj'KdTti 
[xrti nlayupxa) rfji 'Apcrivo'iToyi' Ka\ 0(o8n(Tiov7rn\iT(ov ; 320 (Byz. or Arab period), tw (vd. 
(TTpaTTjXdTTj Knl naydpxtii Tnvrrjs Trjs \\pcni'inT(inuk((t)i Ironi an inhabitant rov 0*i/8a)CTi[o7ro]XiVoi.' 
vtipov ; 366 (Arab period), tw pfyaK(mp(n«TTdT<f n\aydpx(a\ ravTrjs Tfjs *Ap(T. noXfois ; 39(1 
(Arab period), (V5o|ordra) IWovarpiM Ka\7rnydpx[<f] rai^Trjs rrji 'Apa. ndXfU)]^:— WP. p. 109, 
nnyap^ Apaivorjrov (sic) ; App. 197, ]>. 140 (a.U. o84), tw <VS. (T^TpaTr]\dTT) Tj-nydpxu) [ttJs 
'Apa. Kcii tifu8oaiov]no\i.Toi}i> ; Apji. 792, ]). 172 (a.D. 591 j, 7ravev(f)r]po) vn[dT(0 Ka'i] 7raydpx(i> 
■njs Tf [ . . ^Apaivo](i{Twv) (cm Q(o8. : — Wessely, Prolefjomena, p. 13, cx.xi. ^\{aovlu>) Mr;»'[« 
t]« (V6o^or[a'T]ci) (TTpar-qyto (/. (TTpaTT]\dTr]) Ka\ iraydpxoi rrjs 'Apir. n. koi BfoS. (also on ])p. 15, 
17, and 59, and cf. PERF. 474) ; p. 15, D 58, ndlyapxos tIJv 'A[p(T. n. ; p. 70, F 97 (a.D. 
602-609) ^\(aovi(o) Kup/AXo) 7-[a)] (v8o^n[TdT(o (TrpaTrjyto {I. <TTpaTr)\dTT]y\ rtjs Apa. icat 
e[«o5. : — UKF. Ill { = Rei\ Fi/ijpt. iii. p. 175, Pap. vii.), Iipodiov rov nfpili'KiTrTov 
iraydp[x"^'i frt>iii residents of Arsinoe, CDUcerniny a villai^e in tlie Arsinoite nome ; 253 and 
254, 4>X(noi;tos) U(TTr]pios avv O(f^) ndy(np)x{os)., in the first to a jjerson of Bubastus in the 
Arsinoite nome, in the second in connexion witli corii-paynients to r>abylon ; 260, latu 
vhoi) HX«X'^ €TnK',fip(voi) nayapxiidi)^^ 'A/j(r«i/[o]iVou, a statement of the tax-(|Uota due 
from certain persons ; 392, n(iydpx<o Tavrtjs T^[f] 'Apa. ; 421, ep8. waydpxiov) ravTrjs t^[s 
'A]por. ; 448 (a.D. 708-709), fv8]o$. l\\ov{aTpM) kui 7Taydpx(<a) Taii[Tr]s, from a resident of 
the Heracleopolite nome :— Cruni, ('itt(ilo(iue, 398, p. 187 (a.d. 749), *u(cX/ apipa nayapxias 
€pp.ovdf<i>s Km Tpiaiv Kaarpaiv Km Koi/bpoiXarcov Kai Kacrrpn' ptpvioiv (ftic) : — NAT. cxxii. (8th 
cent.),] UAIUOTIJ 1 ] X"""/^' RAIwp^ |n] lAU (Arsinoe) :—ilevilloiit, Acies >;t Coutrats 
ilfx Miisees du liouluq et iht Loucre, 1 ( = Egger, H<;i'. Arch. 23, p. 147, Wes.-ely, /'/oZ^'yo- 
Jiuva, pp. 5, 66), MaptT apipa (vk\' apipa rrji nayapxi-as (R. naTopxias) Eppov6€Os (a.D. 
730) : — I3.M. Or. 4884 '-^ ( = Crum, Catalogue, 425), ' Justinus, pagarch of the city Ermont' 
(Hernionthis) ; 6721 (10(,'' (p\avi<i) aaaX to) <u«cX' o/xip" ano Sioano^ ewr Xarco nayapx>] '■ — 
Berlin iluseum P. 10607,' '<^X aan\ vi° aj38(X\a raift^ apipa ano nayapX bioano'^ etosXorm: — 
Eg. Exp). Fund. Fragm. 7,'^ ' the peyaX^i pagarch loannarios of the city Erniont ' : — 
PET?/"". 564 (a.D. 647), ' Apa Kyros, Pagarchen von Nord-Heracleopolis' ; 586 (a.d. 695), 
'Pagarch des arsinoitischeu Gaucs, Flavins Atias "'' (cf. f/ii'i''. 260 above, a document of 
similar character); 587 (a.d. 699), 'den ursiu(jilischen Pagarchen Flavius Atias ' ; 562 
(7th cent.), ' Der ungenannte Absender will die Stadt verlassen, um einige Districte der 
/'afjavchle zu insi)icireu " : — Oxy. Pap. 133 (a.d. 550), ti]s Koyptji ToKova tov 'O^vpiyxirov 
vtipw, TT(iyapxnvpivri\^s i']7ro rov (hkov rrji vpwv {VSo^cJtt^toj ; 139 (A.D. 612), cino Kwprji 

Kenyon read [koi aTparriy]o} after AVessely's " 'flic same man occurs in WiLki-n, TufcJn 

readings ill Proligonuna, etc., but, according tu luidllcixiiijr. Palacogrnpliie, xix. d, 1. 9. The 

the view of Wileken, i.e., iiicorrcctiy. Sinec tirst letter there is certainly H lathei tliau K, 

the catalngue was ))uMislied another fiagmeiit as in PERM. v. p. 61. 

(••ontiiuioiis with the jn-evious mie) of tliis '■* AV. — ia, but the genitive is regularly used 

paiiyrus lia.s been found. It reads: with ftrtKflpfvos in this sense. 

TToAiTdJv AuprjKioi Oiifi'a<t)pwi v'ios '■' These references to unpublished pajiyii 1 

Ifpffitov Kai Afipaa/x vtos ntyi'ovetd owe to Mr. Criiiii. Or. 6721 (10) and I'erlin 

I ]ott)^ fi'js Oufi'a<ppi7) aiti) 10607 are not very clear ; Dr. Kenyon suggests 

(x^p'ou "Vi^vtuptws TO Apaiv, vofiov that the )ierson referred to was pagarcli ol the 

[i)ixo\oyov/i]fv t| aWrjXtyyvrif (Kovaia whole district Irom Thebes to Latoiiolis. ]): . 

[yvufit] . . . Hunt would take airo TTO^apX d^, avh -naytxp X'^'^^i 

For ^tvtvptus s<c AVessely, Topogin/i/iir ,/,.< ' one of the I'agnn lis. ' 

Faijihn, ).. 164, Cienf. and Hunt, TcH. l;,p. '« In PEllF. .^sS this saiii. man is ■ illed 

ii. i>|>. 410 f. />„,• 

TMK AlMIKohl |(» TAl'Vltl lOl 

'AAdiDU Toi; 'O^i'^. yofLuv n<iyaf)\ov^t vr}t) nufm Ti'it r^»r«pas intfH^ viUn 15. M. I'ap. 77<» 

A.K. •'••"•2), Vol. iii. |i. '27^^, tln6 xui^i^v Kia)fl(«lwv toi iTi'O) Ki/i'(o}n<<XiT>n' i<(.^..i Tnyn^i^oi'^iVi^t 

Alii'iii^r .ill llicsc |);ls.s;ij,'(>. lln'|r is Hot :i sin^'lf «iii<' which iiiiliUlU-s 
stroll)^!}' ;i), thi' \it'\v that irayap^ia was ft|iii\ali rit, to vofi6<;, a?i<l thrn- 
arc several which giv»' stiuii^^ -.iipjMtrt to that view. The evidence >>\ the 
papyri relating to th»' house ot Flavins Apittii. where villages are -"poken o| 
as nayap^ovfievat hv the lanilholder, is imieeil, but on no theory 
would these pasNiges be easy to explain if the verb •nayap^^^iw were taken in 
its sense. It seems probable then that, it implies merely the depenilence 
of the village upon the liouse tif Flavins Apion.'' 

To turn now to the other exideiice: it will be noticed that in ni">t cases 
ii pagarch is descril)ed as pagarcli of a city; but in all i-ascs these cities am 
capitals I t nonies, and the pagarchs are in several casi-s seen in relations with 
inhabitants of villages within the nome ; and this moreover in an orticl.d 
capacity. In two cases, howevei-, WD. p. 109 and IJKF. 2(10 (probalijy als<» in 
PEIiF. 580) the word iruyapxo'i is followed by the phia>e rou ' ApatvoiTov 
(!<>\ I'ofiov); and it seems \ery probable that in the other cases the citv stands 
fur the nome. In the Aphrodito i'apyri Kcofii] \\(^pohnoi certainly inchicK's 
much besides th<' village itself: th<- jtagarchs, as pointed out, have to do with 
inhabitants of the nonu', outside their cities ; such a j)hr; a.s tov ^oppivov 
aKe\ov<: of a iroXi^ or ttoXlt^iu would be ditticult to explain if the words are 
to be taken literally : the use of j'o/io<> with ttoXk in ('oj)tic te.xts as ' in the 
vofio'i of the TToXi'i Ermont ' jtoints in the same direction: and finallv in B.M. 
Pap. Inv. No. 1380 occni' the words tou 'Apaii']oiTov Kai '\\paK\iovq icai 
'O^vpvy^ov, where, as the first name stands fur a nome (sc. vofiov). the two 
last shoulil do so too.'^ Again it seems very improba])le that at this perio<l 
a Muslim, as in L'k'F. 2()(), shoidd l)e the head of a mere pagus. It niay be 
ol)iei"ted that the cases ot a pagarch of half a iroXiTeia, a.s of Heracleoj)olis 
{PEIiF. .")")3, etc.) or Hermopolis (see below, p. 10.')) prove the pagaichy to 
have been .smaller than a nome: l)ut there is nothing improbable in the 
supjMisition that a nome might at times be divided. 

Hut further, the comm<»n identification ot irayapy^ia =: irnyo^ ;uid 
'7rdyap-)(^o<;=pn(i'j)()sitvs luiin^'-^ may well 1)8 doubted. The word Trtiyo^ den's 
not seem to occur in late By/antiui- times, an<l the <piestion niay be raised 
whether the term Trdyap^of; ever did mean the head of a irayo^ ; f-r certainis 
in the larlier pi'riod, when the woi-d irayo'i was used, its otfirial is always 
in papyri called 7rpanr6aiTo<i.-" 

''• Cf. Milue. op. cil. ji. 14. 

'■' Cf. too Wilcken iu 15.-i:ker, I'.'^ll. p. I'J. 

'"•• Wilcken, Hcniua xxvii. y. 299. 

-''• In Isiilonis I'olusiota, lib. ii. ep. !M 
(Migno, Pair. Or. 78, col. .036) occur, however, 
the words ■wi.yapxoi Ka.\o\jvjai -wapi. naiv, ol 
ratv KV/xiy fj rSirwv rifwy lipxoyTfS, where the 
pat^arcli so nis a small lo<al official. In Jus- 
tinian's Kflict \iii. /> Dioir. Arg. (eil. Z.h 

vou Lingeiithal, |>. 11) ot ira>a^x<" '"^ <>< 
iroAiT(i;d/x(fot are incntioiieJ, and the editor 
explains the latter word xs 'curialts eanini 
urbiiini Ai g}'ptia< arum, iiuibus BovKifr i.e. 
curiam habere concessuiu erat ' ; ■/. too Pap. 
LipH. 34, 1. 11, 01 woXiTtvifitvoi TTJt 't.pna{v\ 
it[iK*tts\. This might possil'ly, though n<>t 
necis^^irily, make it appear that thi- jia^:arih hal 
no jniisii'tion over towns whicli lia'l ^ BovX4] -. 

104 H. 1. BELL 

Ewn nil tlu' i»ic-i\istiii_L; e-vidcnce then the rei^Miing tlieory as to the 
\v<ii(l Tra-yap-x^ia seeius te me to it'st n})on very iincertain foundations. The 
e\i(I«'n<e against it is strongly reinforeed by that to be found in the 
Aphrodito Papvri. wliicli I will now proc(ed to summarize. 

I'irst of all, one ]»ieei' of se(!ming evidence must be set aside. As W(- 
ha\i' seen. Basilius, who was a pagarch, is called SioiK^]T}]<i and his district a 
BioiKijai^;. Now in Iu\. No. LHI mention is ma<lc of (f>vy(iSa<; t?)? avcoTepo) 
Xey^eiay]^ hioiKi'^aewq rov 'Apcnvoirov. If SioiKrjaK; were a definite term 
this passage would tend to prove the contention that Tra'yap-xLa = vofjio^: 
but luitortiuiately it, oi' at least BioiKi]Tt]<;, seems to have been usc(] 
loiix'K. Thus in Inw No. I'i4l occui- the words rov re fiel^ova Kai hioiK'i!iri]v 
KOI (j>v\aKa<i avrov (sr. rov -^^copLov), where hioiKrjrrj's seems to be a local 
otticial ; and in Jn\. No. 144(1 ])ayments to the treasury are recorded as made 
in one \car b\- Dioscoius, S<of/c( >;)t( >;?) and biannes. 7ra7(ap)^(o<?), where the 
two trims shoidd be (bstinct. Again in B. M. Or. 5085 a certain Chael son 
ot P<;imo is name<l as 8<ru«:?;T?/9 of rb'^ne, and in H. M. Or. 4<S7'S the same 
iMison recuis as AA."JAiie: but AA^Alie is oqiuAalent to irpoyroKwpijr')]';.-^ 
In the Jeme documents indeed the SioiK^jn']^ regularly api)ears as an 
otticial distinct fi<»m (and ap[)arently inferior to) the (/jjivj: It seems likely 
thru that SioiKr]r7]<; and BioiK)]ai'i in these letters are used in a general sense-, 
a^ resjx'Ctivelv 'administrator" and ■administrative district,' and no argument 
ran be foundecl u])on them. 

Thei'e is, however, other and stronger evicb-nce in the Aphro(lit(» Papyri. 
\u thi" tirst place it is, as remarked by Becker (P>SR. p. 3(i), in the highest 
degree unlikely that the central government would maintain immediately so 
constant a correspondence with the mere head of a pagus. Again, there is 
not in all the Ajthrodito Papyri a single instance of the occurrence of the 
word /'oyLtov, whereas, on the other hand, 7ra7ap;!^t'a seems regularly used as 
the administrative unit : tor e\am]>le in the following passages: — Inv. N<t. 
I8.'i2, diro iroLov xropiov Kai ev ttoiu) tottw kuI iv iroia Trayapp^ta Trpoa-e<f)ev<y€v : 
Inv. No. l:i41, rov BeoO yap avi>€pyovvro<i ov pi] rrapedcroypev f^/c) ev 
klyvTrrh) piav rrayapyj.<^v Kai p6i'i]v et' pi] fc.r.X. : Inv. No. LS44, ;)^^&)piou 
yilovvaxOr] nayapx^a^i 'Avrai'ov Kai 'AttoXXwi^o? : Inv. No. IHTO, et 8e Kai 
ri[i'e<; €upe6a)aiv] iv rfj BioiKijaei aov an' erepoiv 7ra[yapxi(^'' • ll'^- -^<'- 
\'.\X>2, riva<; rr]<; BioLKi][aeai(i crov evpiaKopeivov;)] ev erepai<i 7ra7ap;\;/a-<<>-9.-- 

liut tlie fiovxit iN not lieard of in tlic later 'i.aj.yri, It is not specifically dated by "Wessely, but on 

;in(l it is certain from the evidence j^iven above p. 121, s.r. nfKKcnav, he implies that it is 6tli- 

that the pagarehs had authority ovei- tuuns 8th cent. The mention of paj^i makes it very 

like Arsinoe. Perhaj-s a change was made at improbable that it is later than the 5th. 
about the time of Justiuian's edict (a.d. f>u4). "' Crum, Coj^tic (Jstraca, p. 28, note to No. 

Ibid. Pel. is too early to be any evidence for the 131. I owe these references to Mr. Crnni. It 

latest Byzantine period, but is very likely an is of course possible that Or. 5985 is later tlian 

instance of iriyapxos an = prarpositus pai/i. 4878 and that Chacl had become 5ioi»c7)t^s in the 

Paris Api>. 244 (to which and not to Kain. (Jeo. interval. In Or. 6205 (from Jkow) aA^AIIB 

183 ihe reference shouhl l-e in Tcbt. i'<ij>. ii. ^/netfortpos (Crum). 

[1. 3.')2) .si>ecifies pagi in the Areinoite nonie '-- In Justinian's Kdiet xiii. the Augu.stal .nnd 

(Wessily, ro|K)(/r. (^f.f /Vr(j/l7n. pp. 53, 81. etc.). (Jmes are expressly forbiilden to remove the 

'iiii: \i'Hi:<ii»ii<> l•Al•^l;l 


Mmvuvri til. I.- ;.i. many iiaim- "I pagarclii.-- in.-iit I'.n. .1 m 
|,a|,\ii ;iii<l in |>ra( lirallv iMiy cjvsc tlnsr aft- ((Ttainly tlu- 
iiam.v ..f am 1. Ill ii.'iii' -caiHtaU. Tlic rnllnwiii^' air (liosf at pri-Miit tlis- 
(•M\<n(l: Kjtw/' roT/rof' a/<-t'\oi( s I 'I'l/j/iouTT'lXt ews). 'Aiaaiou Kai ' \ttu\- 
K(,}i'o<: iikI ATToWwrcs- al-.n. , 'T\/rj;\»}v. AvTti'oov. Ilai'o?, Au/fwr, Ha'MTfU). 
KovTU), No f^riilr . Hto^ocr/'ou. 'A\tfa/'8(|jeur I and l,(/<s-. < »ii« <" t\\<'iit 
tlic^f nanus call toi- r«niarK. No i- tilixciiif, and <prcm^ m tin itadly 
Willi. 11 \'.i\> lii\. N>' I l!U I >^iis]i.t| in \i.\\ nl tin- many <'in)i> ul lliat 
lia|>yrii>. ihut it -lands tm llai'o ( = lIrt;'osM. Alcvaiidna was i.l' <-(.iiisr n.\<r 
a niim(-(a| ; l»iit ncilhn was it i \ri in :i imnic and titun a city urcii|tyin^ 
su cMijil i.'iial a |i..sitinii Hi. ar^iiniiiits rail lie drawn. .M.'H"\<T it is imt 
iinlikiK thai ai s..nic time all.i tii. iv\oli in .\.l>. 1)4.") Alexandria nia\ have 
l>cen .ii^aiiizrd dirteifiil l\ .'-' l-'.'i lln- roTirui' o-Aft'Xo? "t H«iiiui|M>lis we may 
cmpar. th. cas.- «•( II. ra(I.M.|(..|i^ iiitnt i..ii.(l al).i\ . . ' Inil it miisl Ix' add.d 
t liat. tli«'iiLrli it ... <ur- willi a iiiimlM I nf |ia^arclii.s i in lii\. Nm. i.')():N')it 
(and il al..iii- i- n.'l jinccd.d lt\ I lie w..rd wayap^ : liciici' it may nul liavt- 
l)c.n a ].aL;ar. Ii\ at all. 'A7^o\\&)^'ov it<|iiirc.s a woid ..t . xplaiiatioM. 'I'lie 
|)lac.' m.aiil i- Ap.. Illicit.. lis MiiK.r, tlif next city t.- iIk- s..iitli ot Hyitsclc.'* 
Wilckrii -• 111- -I1..WI1 that this place was lor a lime lli. .-t a sii»araU' 
iitiiiie. Atl.rward- it disappears as a noine-capilal. ami il has CDinmoiily 
heeii a-siiiind ('.'/. I'aiilv - Wi-s. .wa, -i.r.) t(iha\e lie.n eiie «.! the places in 
the li\p-.lil. 11. 'Inc. ill the-e papyri il somctinies ..eiiirs almie as a 
pai,^•ll•cll\•■. >.imetim.- al.. lit;- with Aiitae.'p..lis, t li.' capilal .-f llieiLXt iieiiie 
t(i that ."t H\p>ele. AiitacDjiiili-, Imwexcf, never ticciirs aloiie. from which 
it apptars* that ATTcWtw/'o? was merely a shorter torm ..t Xvraiuv Kai 
'A7r6\\&)ras\ ihat ill tad wli.ii A p.ijliii. i|iolis ceas.d to l)e a noine-capital 
it was annexed i.. the Anlae.ip..lile iioine and that tlu^ noine was now 
denoted 1)\ a d'-nhl.- name. This siijiposjt ion is continncd l»y the already 
.piolcd Iii\. N... 1:{4-I-. w hei. a siiiolr ^(opiov is nam.d as in the 7ra7apX"^ 
Avratov KOI ' AttuXXcoi'o^; : lor it l\\.> paLjarchies united under one «,fo\erii- 
meiit wi-re inteiideil li\ the phrase, the ^aypi'ov would have been stated 
t(» h. in .'II.-. 11. -I h.itli, ..f That AiroWcovo^; is sonietimes named alone 
i.s jterhaps dii.- I.> tin tad that il had hy n..w become the more important 
place. The last name which calls t..i n inarU \sHeohoa-iov. A Tlu-odosjopolite 

]ia<iiiivlis for iiiiMOiiduct thcinsplvc^, hut arc in 
all vasih t>. 11 f.T tli.' m.itt.i lo tlic central 
govorniiKiit .it Coiistiintin.'i'If. 

•^ Mosi ot ilics" ."0111 ill Iiiv. N.>. 14!'-l 
SI'.- I'dow, |.p. 100 f. It if> .1 ilcM uniiiit iniicli 
(laniagt'.I and writt. n in :in micdiiaitcl hnn.1 ol 
Coptic tvjM and in veiv <"riui>t t« in 
scvernl casrs the nainc^ .'1' i>a;jan'hi(.'N an. I X'^P'" 
are nintiiat.^d or c.>nii|'t. 1 1 any of tli.^e 
obsi-uiu [m.'-.sjifjis sli.'ui.l hciiaftei \i. hi a i«g 
avcli} -nani. is tloarly not a n.'ini'iianu, 
the r.-inark.-. in th»- text \\.>nl.l ivquir.' mo.liti 

'-* (.'1. Kntyihiu^, A.iuulf (in Mign. , Pat,-. 

Hi: 111), ii. .169. <ol. 1119, ami ll.cker'3 
iciiiark>< on tin- |>a.N-n;ii , Ptfilrdg- ii. y. 98. 

'-'■■ It may l.c noted also that the Arabic name, 
Ailiiininain, ni.ans ' the two Shinun,' a» a 
dual r.iini ; if. Ucckci, I'Hl:. p. 21. 

■-'■ Hieroclcs, Synrni. 731, 3 ; Gi-ornius ( ypr. 
767 ; rHrtliiy, Xof. Kitiscojmtiiuni i. 767; Anion, 
llln. l.'.S. 1 ; in the last i-aM- Hyp-eh- is not 
mentioned, an. I Jpollimia ,nin,>ris follows Lyxt. 
Ml. C'nini inform.^ lue that the c\idencc of the 
iiiw retrii rap_\ ri \Ur.(h oml liiuli, doulde 
vol. p. 39 .sho\»^ til. town to W the ntotUin 
K>>m t^tAlit. 

-■• .Inhivjiii I'lipiiiintfoiiKliunij, iv. pp. 1«>3 11. 

106 H. T. HELL 

nnme, near the Arsiiioitc nouK' ;ui<l usually iuonti<»iic<l a» joiiird with it, 
ifs well kiK^wii from the Fa^-uni papyri:"-'^ but the eoutcxt in which the 
present name occurs makes it overwhelmingly ])robab]e th.u it was, like the 
other pagarchies mentioned with it, in the Thel)ai<l. Its position is given by 
the following authorities : — Georg. Cy})r. 760 ft., 'Fiirapx^a H>]/3a(Sos\ 'Avthho 
fiyjrpoTToXL^. 'Kp/xoviroXif;, 0eo8o(7tou7roA,i<>, Kovao<; ( — Kovaai ). Avko) : 
Hierocles, Sjjnecd. 730-731, 'ETrap-^^^ia 0»//3a/So9 rfj<i eyy icrra, vtto i)yefi()va, 
7r6\et9 l'. 'Rp/Movi] ( = 'Eipfiov rj /j,€'ya.\r)),^€oBo(rioinro\i<;, Xvtivoj, 'AKovaaa 
{ =Kov(Tai), AvKMv: Not. Episcap. i. 700- 7().'), 'E7rap;^i'a ^•')r)^aiho<i TrpooTy. 
^AvTivo) fii]Tp67ro\i<i. 'KpfiovTroXi^, HeoSoatovTroXt^;, Kuao<; ( = Kovaai ), 
AvKCD.--^ From these it would appear that it was situated immediately to 
the south ^*' of Hermopolis, and the fact that all the three authorities mention 
also a Theodosiopjlis in the eparchy of Arcadia proves that that in the Thebaiil 
was a distinct place. Now from RKT. ewi. it appears clearly that this 
Theodosiopolis, in Coptic rovtti, Ar. I'aha, was a nome.-*^ 

Thus we see that all these pagarchy-namt.'s, with the exception ot Alex- 
andria and the obscure No, are old nome-names, and the intereiicf seems 
obvious that the ])lace of the nomes had now been taken by })agarchies. This 
conclusion is further strengthened by the Ai'abic evidence. The dioiKi]crt<; of 
Aphrodito is several times alhided to in the letters as i) ;^wpa : •:.f/. Inv. No. 
1336, ov fieXeTac aoc oure jxrjv toI<s tPj^; y^copa^; /jLij CKTeXiaat /xijTe Sovvai Trepa? 
TravToiui epya). Now x^P^ ^^ ^^^*^- ^^I'^^ck original of the Arabic Kara, and 
hum is always used for vop.6<i.^'~ Lastly in IWF. x. 2, Ashkaw = A]»hr'»dito is 
called madhiah ; and madiJiah always denotes an old /j,y]T powoXi.'i:'' 

Taking all the foregoing facts into consideration, the conclusion seems, 
I think, inevitable that the Trayapx^a of th(> late Byzantine and Arabic 
periods was the ecpiivalent of the old vofu.o'i. It may indeed be suggested 
that though it was perhaps the administrative unit it was not really e(|uiva- 
lent to the noine ; that the division int(j nomes had been abandoned and a 
smaller sub-division adopted instead ; but against this sup})osition must be 
adduced the fact of the non-occurrence of pagarchy-names which were not 
also n(Mne-names. That when the re-organization was carried out th«> 
boundaries of the nomes may have been considerably modified is likely 
enough,'^ but it seems most y)robable that the new pagarchies were substan- 
tially and in the main equivalent to the old nomes. 

The conclusion to which the foregoing argument leads is that in 
Kcofir) \\<f>po8iT(o we have the old Aphnxlitopolite nome : and here a fresh 

'■* The liitest rliscussion of the vexed quoition iilace it to tlie north. At any rate it is clear 

of the nature of this Tlieo(losio)iolite nome is that it was near Hermopolis. 
in Grenf. an<l Hunt, Tcbt. Papyri, ii. pp. 363ff, ■'■'' IIKT. cwi., note on 1. 2, PERM. 11/111. 

^ In Not. Dignitatuhi xxviii. 20 an idn p. .59. 
Theodosiaiia is mentioned, but it is not clear ■- fkrkcr, PSR. p. 22. 

what Theodosiopolis is intended. As an aht '■'''• Karabacek, Vi<iuioOr.Jo"iiU'l,xx.Y.\ii, 

Arcadiana- also occurs, it is perhaps the oin' in noti' 2. 
the Thehaid. ■* Tiie arrangumeut ot nouje'; wii< il\v;iys 

•"' But the (.'optic and Arabic authoriti>s liabh- to alteration ; ■ t'. Miharty in A'--'-. /.""^, 

cited by Amelineau, <}^ogr. de VE'/iipte, p. 171, xlv. § 10. 

riii: M'liKohiio I'Ai'Ni;! 


ilifHcuIlN an><'-. Aj»liiM(|itu|i..||s is iiuw ■■ imiv.Tsally i<iriii uiili Itlii ..i 
KtltJi, whiili is situ;ilt(l soiiir t wnit \ -t liift- units to the wjulh of Kuiii IsIij^mii. 
It this idriititicaiion is cuinct, \\r can only tuiichuh' that the hradshijt <>\ th.- 
ii<»nic had Ixtii tiaiislnnMl from Ittu to .Ikow, ami thai with thr trans- 
fcivnci' ihr ialtir had i(<<iv.d tli<- (inck iiaiiu' t'oriiu'riy applied to Iiln. 
hilt it stfiiis \< r\ imich iiioir jn«tbal)lr that tlic acrcpttMl idfiitiHratiou <it 
AphnKJitoiioli- with Iilu is w roii^' : tht- fvidt-mv of th«' Aphrodito Papyri 
srciiis siroiiu riioiigh to oiitwci^di that oii which thr id«'ijtiticatioii ifsts."' 

As ic^Mids th<' siihjicts of ihf jittns, most of thoiii, as is natiiml, dral 
with taxation in soiiu' form oiotlni. Oiir important si'Ction thrrt- is, how- 
ever, which ivlatos to certain fugitives; and though there is unfortunately no 
indication as to the cause of their flight, tlu' letter are mvertheleas of 
consid. lalile interest. An important clue is furnished hy a <locument at Cairo 
(Jr. Pill. 105), of which a portion j.rohably exists at lieidelherg (I'SU. xii.). 
Tlu- portion of this l«'tl<r relating to the fugiti\es is thus tninslat»d by 
lu'cker''" : — ' Hisjim b. ' Omar hat mir schriftlich mitgeteilt, (lass sich Fliicht- 
linirc seines Bezirkes aufdeiii. Ill (lebiet befindeii, und ich hatte doch zuvor 
den Pijifekton geschricbcii, dass sie keinc-n Fliichtling bei sich aiifnehnu'ii 
sollteii. Drum gib ihm, wenn dieser imiii Ihicf /n dir komml, ><inc aut 
dciihiii (irbiet weilenden Fliichtlinge zuriick, und nicht will ich (wied.-r) 
luircii, dass du seine Boton zuriickschickst oder er schnftlicli bei mir iil)er 
dich Klagc fulnt.' The fragnu'iit at Heidelberg has on the a rso ,\ minuti-, 
'[Ober Hisiljm, den Soliii '()[ma]rs, betretfs seiner riiichtigeii (Colon. n).' 
Becker explains the Juiiija (fugitives) as 'die Colonen,die, uni die Bebauung 
des Laiides zu garautieren, an die SchoUe gefesselt werden mussten':^^ and 
he refers to such documents as PLUF. GUI, 002, G81. which show that an 
official ])ass was necessary for any ])easant who <lesired to have his distii<-t. 
'V\u'Si'j(~dii/<i then were ])e}isants who for some lea'-oii had H.d tVom 
knrn or nome and mad(^ their way to the Thebaid ; and as good eultivatoi>. 
Would of cours*' be a valuable ac«piisition lor any h-urn. it is natural that the 
heads of the districts to which they fled should show s.iine lelnctanee to gi\.- 
them up. 

N<»w lor tln' evidence ol the B.M. ]»ai)yri. The earliest dated letter (Inv. 

■^' It Wiis Ibriueily iiU'iitilicil with Tiulita ; 
cf. A. von I'lDkisrl). Kiinncruu'jeii mis Jcyypt 
en uiul Kleituisicii. vol. i. \k 152, Paiily, Heal- 
Encijcl. Oil. 1, Sniitli, Diet, of CUum. (icixjr. 

** The I'viilencc tor Itfu is jjivt n t>y Ihiini- 
chfii, Gcoiji-. dcs alien AiijypUns, y. 162, 
Bnij^scli, Gco^jraphUiln Insiln iften n/fdy. Denl. • 
main; i. jip. 216, 216. ami I'auly-Wissowa, 
s.r Aiihii><litii|K)li.s. Till- only n>al ar^imiciit 
>4«'iins to lio tlic name ('i/</ Aoj. Telm or Dixit 
t'opl. ATBfO — .Iral). Itfu) ; l>ul tli.- foini 
ATK(1> primarily TBCl), C'riun) si-cnis mvi i 
to occur lor ,\iiliriMlit..|<ulis. Imt only lor Ajfl 
lino|H>li.s iKillu); it nmy jirolwlily 1« tni.r.j 
back ton '•MiijeitiM'' "I < 'lMiii|.()l]ioii'~. /'/-'•('//»'■ 

.Hoiis I'S Phmiivits, i. J". •26!<. It shoiil'l 1»- 
ad<l'(l that in soni< uniiuhlisluMl li.M. |>ii|i\ii a 
K(tf>tii 'A^poSiTTit oc tu^ in thi- Antiu-o|f>lil< 
nonir (6tli <ent.>. As in one mention is maili- 
of r^v trtpaiav t^i navoaw6\fuf, the \illaj;f 
\va.s uviiU-ntly on the wtbt liank anJ must 
almost rertainly havt- Itetn our Aphio'lito 
Hence it a|ipe«is that at one tini«- tin Aj'lno 
dilo|»olite nome (.is t-i whieli mv oj. I'lol. 
i. .'i. 47) was unitol to .\nta<-.i|wili>. Tin- 
noiiics in this p.irt I'l" E^yjii wiii- evi.l.-nilv 
Hulijr.t to a great 'Unl ol .ilti-raiion. 
'• P. IF. p. 97. 

-■■* fsj: i«. 4». 

108 H. T. P.KLf. 

Nos. 1882 and 1888, duplieatcs, (•.\cti)t in mu- respect) relating to this subject 
was written on Ghoiach 20, 7th indictioii = 2-") Dec. A.D. 708, and the latest 
on Mesore 7, 9th indicti()n=:81st July A.D. 710. It a]>|)ears from this that the 
fugitives left their homes in the gfivernorship of Kurrah's piedecessor, 
'Abd-allrdi, and probably all the undated letters relating to them are to be 
assigned to the earlier part of Kurrah's term of office. They are regularly 
described as the cfyvydSe^; rod Wpaivohnv, but in Inv. No. 18<S0 two other 
nonies aic named : tou]? (fyvydSa^ r?}? S/o<«/;cre<y9 aov [{ ('itto tov WpaLv^otrov 
Kai 'WpaKXeov; Ka\ 'O^vpvy)^ou. In tlu' earliest of the dated letters, Inv. 
Xos. 1882 and 188;{, mention is made of six-"'' men who are a])pai-ently 
chaiged with the duty of staiching im- fugiti\ts, and Basilius is oi'deicd to 
send to them a clerk who is to accom|iany them to ' the commissioners for 
the fugitives' (ol einKeipievoi, twv (f)vy('t8r>iv) and there draw up a list of the 
fugiti\i'S, specifying the nauu and patronymic of each, the place of his origin, 
and the totto? and pagarchy ti> which he fled. This list is to include both 
those ordered to ])e sent home and those who are to be k'ft ei^da Karepbevov 
iiTi avi'reXei'a ; the last phiase meaning apparently that certain of them weie 
t() be allowod to remain in the pagaichies to which they had fled, bearing 
their share of the public burdens.^" Jn a short memorandum at the foot 
of thv letter is shown the (K-stiiiation of the six men mentioned above. 
Two " are to l)e sent to Salamah 1>. .Iiikhamir in Arcadia, two to Zur'ah 
(?— .MS. Zwpa) b. Al-Wasil in the Thebaid, two to 'Abd-alhlh b. 
Shiiradi in the Xi/xltov.^'- Thf sending of these men is apparently a public 
dyyapei'a <<i compulsory ser\ ice, and the letter shows elearl}' that the 
fugitives were numerous and widely diffused. Apparently the three Arab 
officials just named were the conuaissicaiers referred to in the letter. 

In In\. No. 1888, a K'tter in which f5asiliiis is instructed to come to 
head([uarters, bringing his [»apers with him, \w is ordered to include in these 
a KaTdypa<f)ov of the fugitives in each X'^'^P'oi' <'f^ tl^' 8tocKi](Ti<;. 

In In\. No. 1841 orders are given to draw up a similar KaTdypa(f)op> 
which, in addition to the information demanded in Inv. Nos. 1882-8, is to 
include the jiropertv of the fugitives and also the names, age, and pi'opei'ty 
of all those in the pagarchy guilty ot disobedience to the (Jovernor's 
instructions. Tin- fugitives are to be sent back with their families (cfia/xtjXiai) 
and godds. and KuiTah declares that he has ordered his messenger not to 
leave Aphrodite till all the fugitixcs aic sent, 'fr(»m twent}' yeais and 
onwards ' ((Itto eiKoaaeroiK; Kal w^ej. Thiiats of heavy punishment in case of 

••' In l-;."!2, nine ; in otli( r nspccts the Itttiis tlif nld t'li.ucliies still continueil to exist, ;it 

an- ilu|ili(ates. Icisl lor .-jonio imrjiosos. The names ic(iuiic a 

*" CI", lieckcr, I'Sli. ji. 10: ' Diese <Jtl'ij" wril <>t explanation. The first two are the old 

scheinf'n sich aber doch /iiweilen angcsiedelt zu fiiairliie.s of Arcadia and tlie Thebaid, the latter 

lialicn nnd niiissen dann an ih-r Knninlati\(|Uiiti- either t\ fyyiaTa and ^ Sj-oi combined or the first 

der ncuen Gi incinde nach Kralten teilnchmen alone The Kifxtrov is new. Possildy it rc- 

(hitat i. 77, 12).' |ircMnts the two Aegypti of .lustinian's Edict 

"" In 1332. three in each xiii. In tlie A'o<. DUjnit. xxviii. the authority 

*-' Thesi- names are intcrestin;;, a.s they shou, of the 'Comes limitis Acgypti ' extends aji- 

contrary to what Becker says (PSli. p. 3r>) thai parently nnich further. 


ilisohfdiciu-r iiif a<l<li(l, an<l BaMliiis is told to icail the Irttcr to tlir |n <>|»lc 
ot his 3to</cT;at9, to send copifs ol' it to every \Q)pioi> and to have it |iul)lisliid 
ill thf churches." Finally a reward is ottered to iiif<»riiiei-s. 

liiv. No. l.S4'2 is concerned with a tine to be levied on the whole 
8ioiKt]ai<i : and tlioiiL;;li the tn^'itives are n-'t uieiitioiied. it is verv likely that 
they may he the i-anse. 

In Inv No. l*i7})occnr \\u- rhiw-^isTire*; t\K to>i> Tuyei/Twv ('nroaTf)a<f>i')i'ai\ 
I'nr' avTtj'i {ac. t/}? 8ioiKtj(r€(o(;) €t<i t'Tt'pa[? nayapxia^] and ft Se tcai r[ipt<; 
evpe^Mcrii'] ev rf} BiniK/jaei crov utt' eT^puii' 7ra'y[a]p[-xif7}i>, attain showinL,' that 
a nnniher of pa^archies were concerni-d. 

Inv. No. I.SSO, a Very ine plete letter, adds, ;us ain-adv stated, the 

lleracleopolite and ().\yrhyn<;hit<' pai^aicjiies. and it contains also, in an 
obscuri- context, the name AI-.Mn^dina !>. Selini.who is described in the miinite 
<>n the iwrnd as governor of the j^iyiini (eVi/fet/iifc's) t(ov) 'Ap<Tiroi[Tov]). 

Finally in Inv. X<is. I.SHI + |:{.S2, instiud ions are given as to the piniish- 
ment to be dealt ont to ort'eiideis. The fngitives theniselv(\s, those who have 
given thi'in sheltcr,and the local othcialsare to be fined. rewards areto be otlered 
to informers, and Hasilins is to call together all the local ottieials, rea<l the lett«r 
to tlu'm, and order them to soiul e,,j)ie.s to their x^^P^"- These coriies aie to 
be published in the churches, and l]asiliiis is to proclaim a periiKl (the 
number of days is lost) within which all fugiti\('s must be surrendered. ( )n 
their sui-ron(h'r they ai'e to be fined, sc.iuiged to thi! e.xtent of 
lashes, and ' nailed ' into ^uXofidyyai'u. \)y which apparently is lue.uit s.mie 
kind of a|)paratus for i-ontining the arms and ])erhaps also the neck during 
the march? Then they ai-e to lie sent somewheri-, apparently to Kiirrah. in 
charge of an agent, who is to be connnissioiied to receive an u7r6Bet^t<; <>v 
recei])t for thorn ; similai- receipts are to be given by Basilius to those who 
bring to him fugitives of his own ^tot/t>/crt9 ; and Kurrah concludes by 
aimouncing that he is si-ndiug an agent to search for fugitives, who is to 
subject all persons concerned to similai- penalties to thosi* already mentioned 
in Civse any further fugitives are allowed to enter the SioUrjaiii. 

'i'he other letters on this subject a<ld nothing of importance : but among 
the accounts are two documents which may with great probability be referred 
to the fugitives. The first (Inv. No. 145)4) is the account-book already 
mentioned in connexion with the tpustion of the pagarchies. It has a 
protocol apparently dated in tlu' govoiiorship of Alxl-allah, and consists of a 
list of names with patronymics, ea<h follow. d by the word awo and a ]»lace- 
name with the name of a jtagarchy. Any general heading there may have 
been is lost, but there aie several sub-headings, which furnish a clue to the 
character of the account. They consist of the name of some itroiKiov of 
Aphrodito, followed by the words utto k xpo(i'Q)i>) (Ka't) ai>a) ; and this heading is 
succeeded lower down by a similar one, utto le )(po{io)v) {kui ) kutio. It will be 
nMnembered that Basilius was ordered to seuil a Karuypa^ov of the fugitives, 

*' Of. JiKT. iii. where tlie iiKctiii;; of iiili.i)iilaii(i i»i lie ii. ..l iia-)paipai is 
also to be holil in the cliurch. 

no H. I. HELL 

and that evLiy fugitive diro etKoaaeTovf Ka\ <w8e was to be sent home. The 
similar heading in the present document, together with the fact that no 
amounts in money occur, as would be the case if the persons mentioned were 
tax-payers, suggests very strongly that the document is the KaTdypa(f>ov in 
question, or rather perhaps, as it is in so illiterate a hand, that it is the rough 
list on which the official report of Basilius was based.^^ Probably the 
persons named were' fugitives from other pagarchies discovered in Aphrodito ; 
but it is curious that none of them are described as from Arsinoe. 

The second document (Inv. No. 1503rt) consists of the scanty remains of 
another book. No folio is complete, and there is no complete line, but by 
putting together recto and verso of each fragment we can form an idea of 
what the complete line must have been. The following specimen (fragm. 5) 
will show the character of the account : — 

[et'(<?) T{r]v)] 7rayap)^{iav) 'T'\{ry]\rj<;- 
€1' T(fj) TToXer 

'Itodvuov E/3tT[ 
M«/3«09 TewplyLOV 
AiavvT] Heg-[ 
[et(sM T{r]v)] irayapxitfiv) 'Avraiov (Afai) 'A7roX\&)[ro9' 

Jtaf, 6v{ofjLa) a. 

n]6/9&) {kuI) Mrivd Hacrcvov, 6v{6fiaTa) /3. 
]oy^to<f (Acai) a8eX0o(9) av{Tov), 6v{6fiaTa) /3. 


] {koL) vl{ol) avTov [ 

This may very likely be a list of the fugitives, the numbers placed after 
the names apparently referring to each man's family {^ajxrfKia as in Inv. No. 

All this evidence makes it probable that we have to do with no mere 
local movement, no mere migration of agriculturists from one district to 
another, but a general disturbance and unrest, originating in Middle Egypt, 

** Since tliis was written Mr. Cmm has the pagarch is ordered to 'bring forth ' from 

kindly sent me a translation of a Coptic letter his pagarchy ; and mention is made, as in Inv. 

in the Rylands collection (No. 277 in the No. H94, of ' such of them as have fled away, 

forthcoming catalogue), which still further from fifteen years and under.' [Since this 

increases the probability that the document article was sent to press, Mr. C'rum has 

refers to the fugitives. The letter is in Coptic discovered another fragment of this Coptic 

but in its phraseology strongly resembles the letter, from near the beginning. It reads 'The 

Greek letters of the Aphrodito collection, and men of Peiom {i.e. Fayum) and those of . . . 

is jirobabl}-, like them, from the Governor. It and those of Shmoun and those of KGs.' This 

is addressed to a pagarch, probably of Ash- makes it almost certain that the letter relates 

munaui, and many of the phrases are identical to the same fugitives as the Aphrodito letters ; 

with Greek phrases used in the Aidirodito and it seems to make against the letter being 

letters. It concerns certain 'strangers' whom from Ashmunain. ] 

THK Al'm;i»l>I 1<> I'AI'VHI I I I 

( oiiiiiiiuiiciitiiig itxit ;ilsc. to tilt ThchaiW. and fxtrii(liM>,' u\vr mhiic 
\rai-s. 'i'hcre does not, it is tim-, a|>]nai- to Im- any record of an Hctiial n'\nlt 
(it the Copts so early as this, and indrtd Al-Makrizi *'• expressly staUs that 
the first Coptic revolt took plaer in the year 107 =A.l>. 72') 72()); but then- 
nia\ have been minor <listuibances which have not been r«-conh<l, and it is 
significant that AlMJ-allah, in whose governorship the disturbance began, is 
known ;is an oppri-ssor of the Copts.**' 

r.efore leaving this subjt-ct it may be well to refer to two other (hxii- 
ments. not in the Aphnniito collection, which relate to fugitives. One is PEIiF. 
562 'see above p. 102), in which the writer, apparently a high ofhcial, s]>eaks of 
a former tour of inspection which he had made ' wegen«ler Fliichtlinge.' The 
letter is assigned by the editor to the period of the Arabic compieHt, but as 
fugitives are seen to have been w idily scattered over Upper and Middle 
Egypt in the early years of the eighth century, it i-s possible that it relates 
t(.» the .same period and occasion as the Aphrodito letters. 

The second document referred to is B.M. Pap. 82, published first by 
Forshall {dr. Popiiri in the B.M. xliv.) and afterwards by \Ves.sely {WS. 
188(», p. 212; and Kenyon {C«t(f/offvr, i. p. 2'M)). The analogies of the 
Aphrodito Papyri enable it to be read more completely than wjis done by the 
previous editors and as it is in any case an interesting letter, I publish it 

1 ^' [n]7r€\v(Ta/u€i' tfeX0e[t]/' €('? 'A^'aTc>[Xr;/' ■"* . . . 

2 S€ScoKOT€<; avToU -npodea^ilav nrivui\^i> utto ti)<; a-tjfiepov] 

'^ ['}Mf]/?[«'»]' VT^l'^V' ^'^'^'^ fi{i]v6<i) U(a)v(i>i) € ivS(iKTi6v)o{<i) ha)B€Kc'ni)<i 

[•••'•.••]--.-^ [ yri),] 

4 avTi'i'i Bfi)B€KuTi]'i [i]vS(iKTi6v)o(<;)- oari-i ovv t'7roi/[T]»;a-_>? avToh €fc roiv 

vTrovpy(jj[v toD] 
i3 'Afii[p]a\fji[o]vfivii' " Twv ovtwv ei'ls") t€ ''^ 'XvaToXijv Kal AiyvrrTov 

fiera ri)v hl^iho^ievi-jv^ 
li q.vTol'i trap' I'jficov Trpodecrfiiav tovtov^ KpaTr][cr]t) Kal uTroaTpeyp-r] €/(v) 

t[oi;v o'lKov^ !"] 
7 [ayT&n^]. - WTramjarj eKaarov [ajt-rwi^ yop^iafiara zpia- ovtu) yap 

(6ep.[aTi'<TafjL€i'] ''' 

5 [avToii^ Sojvvai, Kal irpo^ to hi}\oi' eluai tcu 77a uvti aiytX\i(ff 


* In tilt* lraii.^luti()n by I'. IJouriaiif, Mem- '" Ai. Amir-al-Muminhi, 'Commander of 

uiiisdc la Mi.^nion AicIiiolo>iiquc Fninniiac ihi the Faithful,' i.e. the Khulil. 

CVitrr, 189r>, {•■ ''^27. " MS. iir*. This 8«ems to make no s<iiic, 

*^ S. LaiiePocle, £';/."/'< '" '/'« MidiUc A'j-", ami in the Aplircxtito Pni-yii ••/ is the regular 

|i. 2I . ahbreviation for «ij. 

*" K. marks a laiuna lufore ail the liiie>. *■' The dot here (which is in the MS. 1 can 

but in II. 2, 4 6 the beginning i.-., I think, hanlly br a symbol tor ico/, but seems intemled 

eertainly jireservid. as a punelutttion-maik. It is followed by a 

*' See below, \>. llf. blank 8i>aee. 

*■' The toi>b and l>utti'ni-. of the letli r> in '• fl«/iaT<itai is regulBiiy used in thi sanie 

thiM- two words a!> visible. sensi' in tin- Ai>liriHiito I'Hi.yri. 


H. I. BEI.L 

9 ['Apa^itcoU] {Kai)'E\\r)viKol'i ypdfjLfiaaii', €irLT[i]8evT€<i eV aiJTM kui 
rr]v avvt]d[r] yvaxriv ■'* '!] 
10 ['E'ypd(f)i] /u.{y]vo(;) Il]{a)u(vL) e, lv8(iKTi6vo<i) 8ci)B€KaT^]<i. 

This letter evidently relates to certain fugitives, and it', like most >>{' the 
papyri in the volume, it came from the Fayum, it may relate to the very 
fugitives mentioned in the Aphrodito Papyri. The mention of \\vaT0X7j, 
however, makes it appear more pr(»bable that the fugitives were sailors 
requisitioned for the Kovpaov 'Az/aroXr}?, "' who had fled to esca])t.' the service: 
cf. B.M. Inv. No. 1505, (vTrep) Trpocrrlp-ou vavr{o)v) /xa (^vyo^vruyv) roii/ irapa 
Xifopiov) T[.""' 

Another subject (jf frequent occurrence, both in the letters and in the 
accounts, is the naval organization of the early Khalifat*', on which a good 
deal of light is thrown by these papyii. The maintenaiice of the fleet was 
charged upon the inhabitants in three ways: the payment of money for 
specified purposes, the provisi(m of articles o\' various kinds, aufl the supply 
of sailors. It appears that sailors were raised by govermnent requisitions 
from all parts of Egypt, and not only from the coast-towns, as wc might 
expect, and as assumed by v. Kremer.'' The service Avas evidently a com- 
pulsory one, but the sailors re(piisitione<l received wages, and sometimes inst<'ad 
of the sailors themselves an iiTrapyvpLa/jLOi: or money-payment was accei)ted. 
In one letter (Inv. No. 1886) Kurrah writes to the effect that as Basiiius 
had neglected to send the sailors asked for he has been compelled to hire 
them elsewhere, and he therefore orders Basiiius to send the amount of their 
wages; and another interesting document, the Coptic papyrus Or. 6220 (I), 
concerns a refusal by the government to accept dirapyvpia/xo^;. It a])pears 

•'■' The word is trei[ii«Jiit in tlie Aph. Pa|ni., 
denoting an arcount. If used here, it will 
l>robal)ly refer to a list of persons missing, 
placed at the foot of the docuintnt. 

■'''■'' See below, p. 115. 

'"' The text on the ocvfio, taken liy Droysen 
for a glossary of some foieign language, but 
lorreelly e.xphiintd by Wessrly as an acco\inl 
an<l publisheil by him, Ihougli in a ratlur 
unintelligib'e form, in /F,S'. 1887, p- -43, 
receives, like the b-tter, sonn' light from the 
Aplirodito I'iipyri. Crum [CtikihnjKf, p. 310, 
No. t)93) has shown that it contains Co}(tic 
headings l>ut the main portion of the text is 
Oieek, though the plaee-namis are of cours(^ 
Coptii:. It api)ears to be a ^tpiaixds or assign- 
ment of tlie taxation-quotas among various 
estates. As a spr.inien I give lines 2 and :], 
following the Coptic licading : — 

2 ] vo{ixl(Tixara) tfi y'- yriS{lou) Tlafffp"^ vo(fila- 
fxara) y ova{a(s) Xf>if<ro<J)* k . . .■ 
yT]5(lov) Tafpfxoi (uirip) i(v)S{tKTt6vos) y 
vo(ti[iTfj.aTa} S (koI) t{i')S{tKTi6vos) 5 voin'i- 
(Tfiara) blank 

3 ] . . . . yijduov) vlo(v) .stc Mapp (vntp .') i{v)- 
5{iKTi6vos) [y v]o{ij.i<Tij.ara) tj {kuI) i[v)- 
SiiKTiifos) 5 voifxifffiara) f yTjS(iov) 

yirjya voifxia/Liara) tO- \dKK(ov) 

n^oeiT uo^fiiafiara) 0/ (~ r-) x fiiKpov 
TTuiTOftoC ((cal ') yi]S( tov) .... i'o(iii(a- 
fiara) ( . . 
Under the indiclion numbers of 1. ■] ure placed 
ill the following liin'S the entries 6fi(olws) with 
nn .imount in solidi. Wcssoly has frequently 
veail the i"> <4' vofxlfffiaTa, wbicli at this period 
beeonies a men' syndiol, like our imerted 
comma, as o. yri^ stands, not, as explained by 
Wessely, for yrj% 5rjuo<r/aj, but f<ii- yriSiov, a 
word frequently used in tlie accounts of the 
Ajdirodito collection to mean, apparently, a 
smaller land-unit than the tottos. The erosses 
are more probaldy symbols to mark revisi<in 
(similar ones occui' in the accounts of the 
Aphrodito collection) than the sign for uirfp. 
The word at the beginning of 1. 3 may end 
in ayp, l)ut is hardly Siaypa(^Tis). 

•'" Culturiffisch. (les Orirnts imfcr drv CluiJifrn, 
i. p. 248. 

'in I-; \ I'll !;• 'hi h > r \ l•^ i;i 1 1.-, 

llial llic /'"i/ii'itt III All tTToi'/ctor iiihI. I Ajijii •'dito jkikI tliicii^li iIh- |»;ij^.iirli 
\>ii--'\\i\[- tt-rrapyvpiafiwi ill li<ii uf woi kiiMii ordt nd for wmk ut |{.il»\ l.iji. 'I'hc 
|iat;au'h itc.i\ii| the iiinii,\ ,in<l |»aif| it tutli<- ta\-.iflicial at H\|.s( Ir. Wli.n 
Kiinali >"lll(•^s^•Ilg^•l^ ' (lariali I Ih' Sarafcii,' ai i i\ «(|, In- (l.claii <| that <.iil\ ili< 
svoikiiuii th<iii>t'l\cs ruiiM !•«• ac(«|ttt(l ; 'ami \\f ' (it is thf i(fs/t(tHr \\\\t, is 
s|»caUiiit,' Wfiit :iii<l hir* d the alur(-.aid \\urkiii<-n.' Hasilins tlHTcfi»i<-, at 
the lvi|ii.sL i.t till' /"s/niin . ■.i]\\A\i{\ I., th.- tax-.. facial Inf the ntiiill ..| tli. 
iii<'?it\ : and tin- dtictiiiiciit is a rccci|tt fur it IVnni the luslnnii . 

A- i<t,Mi-d^ tlif method (if clnM.siii!^ the saiiiiis it is |(r«»ltal)Ic that thi-« 
was til. -aiii.' a- that t..r the raising- «•! urdinaiv taxes. Tin- imiiiiIhi' i((jni|-e«| 
was stal.d in the ( J.i\ ci nm's lettei' t.. the pajLjaich ; I lie ipiota tor ea<-li 
eTToiKtov ua> ^|iiciHe<l in the evrdytor adilicssed to it ; and tlie eh. .ice of nieii 
\\..uld 111 l.'tt t<. the l..(al ..tticials. There aie indications that the (; 
was made on the basis of a n-oistei-, in ace..fdance with which c.itain |»ei-^..n^ 
were n.ited as liable to service. 

The sailor^ havine eh.. -en. t.h.' next step was to take secnrit\ tor 
their due tnlHIment of the .service. Among the accounts iuc lists of .suil«»rs 
and workm.ii re(|iiisitioned for \arions services; and in .some of these the 
name- an- in each cas. tojlowrd by tin nam.' ..f the sni-etv <i\Ti(f)(oui}Tijf{]. 
The agr.-ements themseUes were probably ajwavs in ('optic; th.- ('optic 
.l.iciniient- include several of this kind.''" 

In atMitii.n to the Kgyptian obtai?ied by this kind of eon-.-ript ion. 
we meet two (.thei- classes ..I persons connected with the fleet, th. 

f.ia)ayapiTiu " and the ^avXoi. {'lie f..inier word is the Ar. Mvlidjiran, 

which oiiginally il. noted th.' Arabs win. ha.l taken part in the Hetnra, or 
Might .M.-cca t." Medina ; but by this time it had come t.. be applied not 
..nly to them lt\it to Arabs w h.. left their homes snbsci|U('ntl\ ; H.gira in lad 
now meant. n..t .//','//'/. l>iit cm ii/ni/inn.'''^ These emigrants wcie the Arabs wh.. 
had settlefl in the militarx colonies established in various parts of the 
Khulitate, such as Kairawan in Africa and Firstat. in H<,'\pt. ( )n the 
..riginal .Miisbm theory th.' wh..l(' of a conipiei.'d eountr\- b.'came th.' 
pi-..perty ..f the concpu'ring army, but this practice, impo.ssible to carrv 
thr..ugh. was soon given up. and the Arab settlers, instead of this huge an. I 
unmanag.abl.' b..oty, received an all. .wane.' lor their suppnrt.''- This was of 
two kinds, th.- pou^i/cc'/'. e\|ilaint'(l by llecker'-' as the Ar. r;>/.. an allowanc 
ill corn from the i inhalu, and the poya. a similar allowance in m«»ne\ fiom th.' 

■ '■•■' 'I'll.' iMfilcii'il li.'t^^inunt ill I'Sli. wi. i- ic.i.l. I'li.' na.liiii,' in .tI! laso is <citaiiii\ 

l>iol>alily from mhIi an .if^icciiiriit. 'I'iic n rso, ^laxuic. and t lu' taut tiiat it <•(■ iii^ .sivii^al time-. 

1. 'i\ slii.ui.l no iloiilit 1.1' na.l ltft.oKo-fha\ ytva- .sotiictiiiies as an ablireviatioii (/aV), show.s 

n(fvi]) ■itaf)^a.) Up-nfjita ^k .... x"P("'W|w»' it .aniiot be a slip of tlic |..n. Mai'Aoi wnul.l 

"'■' Or uwayapiTti : tlir noniMiiili\.- nevii make mtv }{ootl .son. sp. 

...cnr-. "' WilliiaUMii, Ar. 1;, id,, p. IC : llrtki-r, 

;" In Inv. N... 134s (S<w Put. .So.: I'l. 7ii). /'J A', p. >a 

i. 5, iind sevenil other places orciirs a inyktvri- '"- Wi-lllianMH, .Ir. /:eic/i, pp. l!i f. it. 

on- wnr.l fiax*" (f?eii. plur.) 1'iofe.s.soi Kc-ckcr '' I'. IF. p. l»;i. 
lia.s suj.'ireste.l in a letter tliat /jLavKuv siionl.l I." 

If.S. — Vdl,. XXVIII. I 

114 H. I. r>Eij. 

ypvtriKa hjfioaiaS'* Other sup])lies wi'ie however laistd fur th^' Muslims, 
for exain])lL' Hothin^.'^'' It appears froui these papyri that the Mnhajh-u ,i 
were hirgely eiM})l()ye(l in the fleet. 

Jn fiavXoi we have the Ar. mmudli,'''' a word which denotes either 
t'roednien or jieisons of non-Arab race who had enihmct'd Islam. In these 
|ni]»vii it seems often to be used of the former, and we thus get phi-ases like 
A^ov Saeto fiavX' AXepd vi AXaxo-H', where the second name is that of the 
person whose client or frei'dnian the former was. The mcnodll were of course 
employed in various capacities, and were affiliated to Aiabic tribes; audit 
a])j)ears from th»' A])hrodito Pa])yii that some of them served in th<.' 
fleet, the ])rovision of their food and wages ])eing charged u]>on th<! 

Besides sailors, workmen, such as (•ar))enl;ers. unskilled labourers 
(epyiirai), and caulkers (KaXa(f)dTat), were rojuisitioned for naval purposes: 
and mou(!y and supplies in kind wi-re i-egularly called for from Aphrodito. 
Among tht! latter are ropes, cables, wood loi- building, nails, bread, wine, 6^o<i, 
€\fr7}fia, and butter. In one case nine measures of butter are ordered for a 
fleet apparently just setting out. They are to be sent to Alexandria and 
delivertMJ to the Augustal.'^' 

Coming now tt) the disposition of the fleet itself, we find that it was 
regidarly emj)loyed in making raids upon the coasts of the Byzantine Empire. 
These raids, known as Kovpaa, from the Latin airsus,''^ were made yearly, the 
taxes for each Kovpaov being raised in the previous indiction."'' This system 
of peiiodieal raids was, according to Amaii,''^ commenced by ^Vlusa b. Xusair 
in A.i). 704, and it was certaiidy fully established during the governorship of 
'Alxl-allah and Kurrah. 

Th<' word Kovpaov seems to have been transfeire*! from the laid itself to 
the fleet making the raid.'' and wc thus find it use«l with certain place- 
names, showing that the Arable navy was sub-divided into distinct fleets 
with their own organization, probably nnich likt' our Home Fleet, Channel 
Fleet, etc. The fleets which oceur are the following: — Kovpaov Alyvinov, 
KovpcTov ' \^ptKi)<i, Kovpaov ' A i^aToX?)?, and Kovpaov 6aXd<T<Ti]<t. These )iames 
are intensting as they throw incidentally some light on the organization of 
the Khalifate. The fiist two an; the ])rovinces resj)ectively of Africa and 

'•* In JUt'U. aoi, 1. 11 fiuya sir) is iisimI oI '''' Hcnci' nnr oirsair. In Jiiv. No. 1388 tliu 

com ; l>ut ill tin- Ai>hn>ditii INijiyri it iilways jieisons m.ikiii^' a Kovoaov are i-allcl irooKovp- 

iii>'!iiiN the jnoinv-allo\\aiic-c, as o)>|>o.s«'il to the (rapiot. 

iiov(tKuv. '"'•' III I'.iy. ]>. 90 IJecker ij\ii»tes me as stating 

"^ KUfA-iffia, Ar. liiiii'is, I'. IF. v.; el'. l>>ikrr, that Koupaoi' is used also as a (latino-system. Tliis 

Hiilrdgi , ii. jt. 8r». was a misajijirehension on my Jiart, due to sueh 

*' For tli«-in, see Wellhauheii, Ar. J,'ii<-h, i-xjtressions as iw\ irapovffiis iVSiKTidfos t>, Kovp- 

)ij). 4[), 46, 171, et<-.; (Soldzihei, MiUiamiiicdini- aov ht IvIiktiovos 6. 

ikchc Sliidien, pp. 104 II. ; v. Kremcr, h'ul/ni- '" Storiinki di Suilia. i. p. 121. 

qexih. ii. J>i>. ].')l <r. "' Mr. Cruni jioints out that in no case is it 

'•' It is iutori'stin'5 to liiid tiiis ottirial .so late. mnssanj to assume this traiislereiiee : hut it 

This is a later iiistaiiet; than Aiin'lineau, J 7c would he very natural witli sin li an e\)>ressioii 

</'fs(uic, Patrimchi' <l' Alcxmidiit , ]>. I'i; anotlier as Kuvpauv Alyuirrov. 
instant •; is in Crum, Cop'ii- Oslicni, ."520. 1. .'». 


E^ypt. nprrsi-iitiii^r tin- lly/,.uitmr iliinrsrn u\' thf >^.■lnn■ naiiK'^. The ihii<l 
jigiiiii in III! probiibility is the old aiiaroXiKi) BioiKtjai'i '' <>r < )iifiis,' ' i.r s<i 
iiUH'h ol" it ius was nn(l<"r Aral) nilf. It iij))m'iii-s tVom this, takiri tu^'.th< r 
with thf tact that thr i-paichii's still exisUMi,'* that th*- Arabs had nuMlrllcd 
their empire very closely on that of the Hyzaiitinc EmjM-rois, «vcii to tin- 
ictention of such a name as Orirns, which, to tlicm, no 1oii[T(| appi..- 
priate. The Koupaov 6a\dacn)'i is obscure. 

Tht Kiwpaov ol" whii-h wc li< ar most i>> ualuially that of Kgypt. There 
wt-re twu ^M-eat arsenals coiuiected with this, that in " the island of iJabylon,' 
undi-r the control of Abd-al-A'la b. Abi IJakini, an<l that at Clysina on the 
Ret! Sea, under 'Abd-er-Rahmnn b. llyris." ' As to the head.piarters of the 
Kovpaov ot Africa we hear nothin^f in these papyri; those of the Kuvpaov 
A.vaTo\t}<; wen; perhaps at Liiodicea in Syiia, as we hear in an account of 
vavTwv oviofidTbiu) h t!)(<;) vfieirepas) ifci)fi(rj<{) araXeivToyp) €t(<») r{ijv) 
'AvaToXyifi') \ 6)y{(t}) vuvtikou a<(a)T( t'to/') {xal) hpop.o(vapi<tiv) tcovipaov) 
l(v)B(iKTi6i'0'i] ifS (Kai) €^€\d6(vT(oi>) UTTO AaoScKi{a<i) (.Kal) €7rai/eX6 ovTwi') 
eirl (t?;*?) 7rapov{crrf<;) ii>S{i>cTi6v)o(f;) ly. It will be notice<l that sailoi>> 
were re<piisitioned not only for th«' Kovpaov of Egy|»t but for others 
as well. 

Besides the Kovpaov Meets we hear als«i of a Meet (;alled Trapa<pvXaKt) 
TUiv aTOfjLifov, evidently a squadron occupied in guanling the mouths of the 
Nile; and it aj)pears that maw^Ui were employed in this as well as in the 

The letter relating to naval mattei-s which is of most general interest is 
Inv, No. 1347, of which a facsimile was given in the third volume of the 
Catalogihc of (h'cek Papyri, Plate 08. It is a request for information as 
to the vavroiv iv rfj SioiKj'jcrei crov €k rtav i^eXOovrcov e/9 to KOvpaov \(t>piKri<; 
fi€Ta 'Ara vio{v) Pa^e, oivvep uTreaTuXev Mouo"/; uio? Soaanp. The 
reference is to the expedition in A.D. 708-4' against Sicily or Sanlinia by 
'Ata b. Rah', whose fleet, on its return voyage, w;is wrecked otf the African 
coast, the commander being (howned.'" According to the so-called Ibn 
Kutiiibah,'^ Ata wjis despatched by 'Ab<l-al-'Azi/ b. Marwan, the (Jovernor 
of Egypt, against Sardinia, and having })ut in t«j an African }M)rt was for- 
bidden by the (iovernor, Musj'i b. Nusiiir, to ])n)ceed, on the ground that the 
season was too late for safety ; but he disob(>yed the command, with disjis- 
trous results. The present letter seems to show that the despatch of the 
expedition wfis due to Musa himself; but it confirms the stiitement that at 
least part of 'Ata's fleet came from Egypt. 

"- Georg. Cypr. 798ii. tenfrM, CaUnsehandi's Oeogr. und Vcrtr. roH 

" xVul. Dignit. i. 42-48, etc. A(j. in Abhaudl. der K'jL Gesdlsch. dcr 

'* .See above, ]> 108. iritseiuirh. zn tJiUlitojrn, hd. 25. p. 215). 

'' This may be the heaJiiuartei-s '>! the '" Weil, 't'<sch. dir Chali/eti, i. p. 478 ; J. H. 

Kovpaoy 6a\<iffffm, but it is dillifult to see wliat .loiies, Ibn Ab^iel- Hokenix Hitt. of Ut- Coiu/k. 

a laiilinj,' llt'< t coiiKl i\o thor«'. Unilcr the of Spain, pp. 23, 24 ; .\inari, BMioUca Aral>t. 

F.'itiiiiitl Khiilifs the lieuihjuarttn of tli"; R)"*! Sicula, i. pp. 'ITA .'). 

S( a flei't wen- at Aiilh.ib, tnrthrr soutli (Wiis- ^ .Viiiari, /.<*. 

I ic. 

H. J. I'.KLr. 

W'f.rkineii, luoiH'V. and various articles ai-c naturally raised for otlier 
jiiuiiosos than the navy: and anumo- others for the buildings erected so 
l.l.ntifullv bv the Khalif Al-Walid. Our of these, fre(|uent]y niei\tioned, is 
the • niosqur of Jerusalem ' (fxaayiSa 'lepovaoXvfirov), evidently the great 
Aksa mosque, about the foundation of which the tradition is somewhat 
uncertain. The great majority of historians attribute it to the Khalif 'Abd- 
al-Malik (A.l). ()S8 70.">), and the founder's inscription in the building seems 
to U'-.w this out -."'^ but Tbn Al-Athir, who wrote in the first half of the 
thirteenth ceuturv, states that ' El-Walld . . . l)uilt of mos(]nes the mosque of 
Damascus, the mos(|Ue at EI-!\Iadlnah, su|)[»orted on columns, and the Aksa 
nH>s(|Ue.' ••' The testimony of the Aphrodito Papyri is not conclusive, but 
it seem> clear that extensive btiilding was going on (hning the leign of 
Al-\Valid. MnjTr-al-Dln^" states that in this Khalif's reign the east part of 
the mos<|Ue fell, niid had therefore to be ri'paired : but we hear in Inv. No. 
l.')|.") ot the veou KTiaifiaroi;) toO "'' 'Afxtpa\/uov{/xi>iv) 6t(?) ']€pov{(T6\v/jLa).^'' 
It seems likeh thert-fore that if 'Abd-al-Malik nnist, on the evidence of the 
inscription and the majoiity of histmians, be regarded as the foundei- of 
tile mosque, yet it was greatly enlarged by his successor.'^-' 

Another building of which we lu'ai' a good deal is the inos(pU' of 
D.imascus. \\hich all histoi'ians attribute to Al-Walld : and a third is the 
avXi) KTt^o/jiein) r(o \\fi.ipa\/j-ovfiviv €J> tm ^oaaarto TTtipa Trorafiov vtto \aeie 
v'lov (sir)'Avha\a (Inv. No. 1874). As this \'ahya b. Handala is known as 
the buildei- of the mosque at Pustat, which was re-built under Al-WalTd,^^ it 
SI -em- likely that av\i] is here used as moaqiK . 

A-~ with the fleet, so with these mos(pies, the contributions of Aphrodito 
Were of three kinds— money, materials, and workmen. The materials consist 
of building materials, such as co])per-)>lates (^aXAcco/Ltara /cvirpov) and wood, 
and ot ])rovisions for the workmen. Workmen, it should be added, are 
requisilionetl even for mosques outside of Egypt, such as Damascus and 

'" Sec ( '. J. M. De Vogiie, Teniplc ik Ji'ru- 
■'■iih-'iii, yy. 85, 86. Tin- iii.scriiition at incsciit 
liinis the name of tlie 'Abbasid Khalif Al- 
Ma'muii, but the ilate is f,'iven as a. l[. 72, 
the infci-eiice heinj; obvious that Al-.Ma'inuii 
siibstitiiti'il his own name loi' tliat ol' 'Abd-al- 
iMalik, but forgot to alter the 'late; ami tliis 
(■(injectnie is siipiioiteil by tiie aiipeaiancr ol 
the insciijition. 

'•' 0. Le Strange, Palrstdnc under the ^^ox■ 
1 1 inS, \>. ;'57. 

^" Hiftloirc de J&nn^rtleiii el d,' Ht'Iiro7i, tr.insL 
bv H. Sauvaire, ]-. :"2. Mnjir-al-Diii died in 
A.o. 1521. 

'' Or KTiffTov ; till re is no sign iif contiaction 
after ktkt. 

*-' It should however be added that there is 
some doubt as to whether this reallv refers tn 

the nios(|uc. as in one case the word avKrj is 
used as tlif equivalent of the above ex[)ression. 
If av\-n is not the same as fiaayiSa [iiviKJid. 
nii'sqni' tlie retnaiks m the text shoidd be 
modified : a discussion of the rpiestion must be 
rescivcd for tin- vobinie in which these texts 
are imlilished. 

""^ C'f. too Eutychius, 2, 372 (Migne, Patr. 
(If. Ill, (■(.]. 1119), ' Mittens hie [se. Al-AValld) 
llierosolynia temjilum Hierosojj-mitannm ex- 
struxit. atcjue opere albario ornavit,' <te. 

^* r,eekei, FHR. p. 19. 

'*■' C'f. Leontius, fAfc of St. John of Alcivni- 
drin (ed. Oelzer), eh. xx. p. 37, where the 
patriarch sends for the rebuihling of tlie church 
at .ferusalem X'^^ovs A-lyvTrrlovs fpydra^. 'Phis 
was under the Kni]iire. 

TIIK Al'lllluhl !( I I'Al'VHl I 17 

III r..ii(lllt|lli^ tlll^ a-rouiil ut I lie l.lti l> it lii.iy In- u.ll t.. .ii|<l tlial llu-y 

L,'u with tin- Araliic Iftttrs^' to \iinlnMti- ilir 'hiiniri. r of Kiiii-:ih li. Slmnk 
:i.s Govfiiinr, Mtist uf tli<' «arlnr Aialtir liistuiians wroU- mih1«.t tin- 
'Al)ba>i(l Khalifs, with tli.' r.>,iilt that tlir tia<liti..ii has bt-ni aliiM.<,L 
consistently host ill' to tin- Omayyads ami their sulnniliiiat.-s."' Kiinah has 
suttVivd with othns tVuni this t<ii<liury, ami thuii^di in- <lu«'» iini nach <|uit« 
such a depth »tt infamy as thr n-itorioii^ Hajjaj, with uhoin tradition tt-nd^to 
;u>sociatc liini, hr is ni'vn thclcss ivpn'scntrd as oj)|)rrssivf and imli^non^ in 
the extreme This literary tradition Hnds no support in the Aphrodito 
Papyri: on the contrary Knrrah app<'ars in a distinefly favourable *lii(ht. 
Many of the letters are indeed tilled with threats of sunnnary piniishnifnt 
against Basilins and the people of his hioiKijoi^ in the e-veiit of disob«dii-nce 
to the (jiovt-rnor's oixlers ; l)iit this was probably the nsnal tone of the ortieials 
at headtpiarters to the local officials:""^ and as Hasilins continued month 
after month to retain his post, and the rebukes for neglect of duty had to be 
constantly n-newed, Ktnrah's threats can hardly be taken an jnof th In Idtn-. 
Certainly Kurrah iscareftd to safeguai-d the interests of the tax-jmer. Thus 
in Inv. No Kio^i, in giving instructions for a fioipaafio^ or iuisessment, he 
threatens Hasilius and the assessors with punishment eau evpoofiev iravToluv 
■^(opiov /Sapedev {sic) [napa 8vi^]ap,ti> i) Kal iXa(^pwdkv irap o rjv tiKaiov 
€KTayrjvai ; and similar injunctions occur several times. Jn the letter just 
quoted he seems to be finding fault with Hasilius for being too inaccessibh- to 
the com}>laints of the inhabitants, and he says : — ' diroa-xo'^^aaoi' aeavrov toU 
Tf)<; BioiKi](ae(o<i) <tov [ei? to dJKOuaai ra trap' ainoyv Xeyofieva kul Kplvai 
e/ccicTTfo [to BiKaio]u.' 

Leaving now the letti-rs to Basilins, we need not devote much lime to 
the ivTiiyta. The word evrdycov usually means nceiptj^'* but in these- jMpyri 
it is used of the official older for thr raising of a t<ix. These ivrdyia were 
addressed by the Governor to the people of the village concerned and 
contained a speciHcati(jn of the amount of the tax ; and they were enclosed 
with the letter to the pagarch.'"' As aheady s;iid, they were bilingual, the 
Arabic; being written first, and afterwards the Greek. The (Jreek, though 
written at head<piarters, like that of the lettei-s, is in a difi'erent style of 
hand from them. The hand of the letters is a flowing, sloping cui-sive ; 
that of the evrdyia is a compact and regular minuscule, almost identical 
with the early minuscule hand of vellum MSS. and therefore of value 
lor palaeographical purpose s.'^ 'J'he Museum collection includes only five 

■•' Cf. Merker, PSll. j.].. is, 3:. ; I'AF. \\. 90. there, is probably the original meauiii^. 

"' CI'. V. Kivin.r, Cultu,gMch. i. p. HI. '■" UKF. 260 is :\. d.M umcnt of similar 

*" Cr. the pereiniilory tone of IlKT. iii, ad- aL-l.r, '-ut is addressid by a jAgm li to iu- 

dressed probably to tlie of Arsinoe. dividiials. In PERP. 586 however thi- pagaivli 

•^ Cf. CAj. IJ.M. i'ap)). 1051, 7; 1060, 8; »f Aisinoe addrei»»c8 an iyrdytoy to the ' 1!.- 

PEJIF. 146; Or. Pap. ii. 97, 7, 8; 98,5, 7, wohucr von Pantikos.' 

all of till- late Byzantine ]K;ri<Kl. In I'ap. Lips. >" specimens, see PSi:., I'laies Vll., 

fiS, 1. 13 eti-. of the early Hyziintiiie pni-.d the Vlll. and .//•. Pal., PlaU- 101; .1. too 

woid is usi'd in a sense approaching,' that of the Wihken, Ta/cln, xix. d. 
Aplirotlito l'a]>yri, which, as Mitteis shows 

118 H. T. HELL 

ivTayia, all iucuiiinlete'. 'I'lnvc of tlu-iii t<ui)i»ly the missing halves ot 
rFm. ^ii.-ix. 

This article is already so loiif;- that little space remains to speak of 
the accounts ; and indeed the problems connected with them are so many 
and at present so obscure that it would in any case b(^ useless trt deal with 
them in detail here. They are, ho\\e\ei-, not less interesting in many 
respects than the letters and perhaps even more valuable for the light they 
throw on the details of administration. Their difticulty arises from various 
causes: in part from the fragmentary state of many of them, in part from 
the extent to which abbreviation is carried, and in part (and this is perhai)s 
the chief cause) to the novelty of theii- con tents and the fact that accounts are 
inevitably much more summary and disconnected in their phraseolog}' than 
letters. Fortunately the collection included several accounts practically com- 
plete; and these have been of great assistance in sorting and piecing togethei' 
the innumerable fragments: for the papyri arrived at the Museum in terrible 
disorder, hundreds of fragments, large and small, being jumbled t()gether in 
endless confusion. Naturally many fragments are too small to be of any 
value, and others, containing nothing but lists of names, are scarcely worth 
the trouble of piecing together ; but the whole collection has been gone 
through several times, the scattered fragments (»f the more complete 
documents united to the main portions, and all fragments of any interest 
sorted out and if possible pieced together. In some cases it has been possible 
from these disjecta membra to restore the greater part of the original MS.: 
and even where the collected fragments of an account do not fit together, it 
is in manv cases worth while to publish them in full. So far as can be seen 
at present, the volume will contain te.xts of forty-eight (ireek accounts, 
complete oi' fragmentary, varying in length from four or five to over fourteen 
hundred lines: besides which somewhat full descriptions will be given of all 
such fragments as, though not worth ])u])li>liiiig in full, contain anything 
which seems of value. 

W'lXU \erv few exceptions the accounts aie in book-form : and they aie 
wiitti-n in \arious types of the minusculo hand seen in the ii^rdyia. Some 
are e(»ar-tly wi-itten, but as a rule the writing is neat and clear to read, and 
sometiiiii -- 1-- astonishingly regular and elegant. Only a few of the docu- 
ments can be certainly dated, l)ut it seems clear that they all fall within the 
last feu \i ar> of the seventh and the first twenty yi-ars of the eighth 
centiuy \.i) I'heir vahu; is great in luany directions. To the Coptic 
scholar the man\' Coptic names both of persons and places will be of 
gnat interest ; the Arabic names which occur plentifully will furnish, in 
their transliterations, material for estimating the pronunciation and vocaliza- 
tion of Arabic: and a number of new (Jreek words or words used in new 
senses will api)eal to the iexicogi'apher. The chief importance of the 
collection is of course for the historian of Arabic Egypt, to whom it is likely 
to yield a great amount oi information as to the organization of Egypt 
under the early Khalifate, and especially as to the kinds of taxes and the 
metho<l (if their collection. It includes registers relating to the -xpvatfca 

rHK A1'III{(>I>I'K> I'AI'VKI 110 

Sf}fioaia aii<l I iitli(i/(i ^'<ii(iiill\ , to llir jinll aixl laii<l-tii\c-.s, ;iM(i to biai-ofuii or 
I'Xtraoidinaiy taxi's (nijuisitions), fiepiafioi or iussrssim-ntM for tiixation, Iwt.M 
iif sailors and workiiitti, and s|)c(ial accounts. Of the htst the most intiTt'st- 
in^ is In\. Nt>. 144M, an account of the expenses of the (jovernor's household 
and those of the Mi'/idjiiun, which, Ix-sidcs the names of CJreek notaries, ete., 
contains a ^'(kkI many names of Arahs and mnii-dli, with a sjK'ciHcation, in 
the case of the foiiiier, of the fiihes to which they l><donge<l. The tribes 
which occur are the Shuju', th»' Kuraibh and the Ansar."- 

It will he seen that the interest and value of the Aphrodito I'ajiyri are 
^aeat ; indei-d there has probably ne\(r before been discovered so lar^e a 
collection of papyri from any single place, all falling within so short a |Mfri(Ml. 
There an-, as already stated, innumerable difficulties in the explanation of 
the documents, especially the accounts, but it may be hope<I that the »mite<| 
labour of other .scholai>;, both Arabic and (Jreek, will avail to i-lear up nmny 
points which in the forthcoming edition nuist be lett doubtfid. 

In Conclusion I must expiess u\y thanks to Mr. W. K. C'rum for inform- 
ation as to the Coptic papyri and many hints on other j)oints, to Dr. Kenyon 
for advice on various mattei-s, tii Mr. A, CJ. Ellis and Professor Becker for 
assistance in (piestions of Aial)ic history and nomenclature, and to Dr. Hunt, 
who has lead through the pioofs and made several suggestions. 


Sincf the arti( lo was in tyi>e a fi-u modifications and corrections have l>een suggested, 
whicli, for conxenimce, are collected liere : - 

P. 102, note la.— Mr. Crum remarks that these Coptic PHjiyii are all nf the second 
half of the ei;.'hth century. He sugpest.s for nno naynpx ' late pagarch.' 

P. 10.'), note 20. — These Petrie Papyri are al>out contemporary with the Aphrcxlito 
Papyri, and in them 'the vofiot of the noXn of Sheht (Apollinopolis) ' i.« always «) 
named (C'rum). 

P. 100, 11. 14, 15, and notes 30 and 31. — Mr. Crum shows that Krall'.i identifications 
in the passajje referred to are very precarious. The suhject is a complicated one, hut its 
decision is not of great importance to the argument, as it is clear from the Coptic and 
Arabic .sHf/a*' that there was a Theodosiopolis — TOT^UJ — Tahi\ al-Madlnah, which was 
a nome-capital. There were probably two places called TOV2U-), Tah;l, Bfoiotn'oi . 

P. 107, note 30. -The whole .series Tebu — Dl.ot — TBU) as applied to Itfu is very 
possibly a myth. These are the names of Edfu — ApolliMn]p()li>. Dt-kte the .sentence 
beginning,' 'as in one.' The phrase <|Uote<l proves iiothiug. a> it j)nil'ably mean.- not 'the 
Panopolite nome opposite' but 'the portion of the Panopiditc on the opposite side 
to Panopolis.' A number of papyri fronr this K'Ofirj 'A(^po3iVfjf are at Florence ; see 
Vitelli, AuHiiiiiii, ii. pp. 137 f. The evidence of the B. M. papyri and of those at Florence, 
accordinj; to information kindly supplied me by Prof. Vitelli, seems to indicate that the 
village was our Aphrodito. 

^ 1 owe these ideiitiRcatioiis to the kindiKS^ Kuraish and An^u ueit? the t"f< most dintiii 
of Frotessor Becker, to whom I s^cnt i\ tmn- ^'uished of Anih tiil'ec. 
.>-eript of the fraj^iuent.s first discovered. The 


P. 108, note 42.--'AbJ-alluli 1). SliuraTh up]>eais in B.M. Or. 6218 in connexion with 
the nonie of Koeis (Crnni) ; po^siljly, therefore, tlie Xinirov was simply tlie liiirdei' district 
between Arcadia and the Thebaid. 

P. 109, note 43. — Mr. Cruni informs nic tliat the translation of ItKT. iii. .^iven by 
Krall is quite wr<jn<; ; the letter nien-ly asks for information as to palm-trees belonginj^ 
to churclies. 

P. 116, note 82. — The Arabic minute of (jiie of the letters, read since the article was 
in type, slunvs that (iuX)7 = 7K«/^((C, nut mosque. Consei[nently the reference in Inv. No. 
1374 is to a palace Imilt at Fustat for tlie Jvhalif, probably as an official residence for llie 
(Jovernor. Another avXrj was luiilt at Jerusalem. 

H. 1. Hki.l. 

h'KIJCS <)K cHAKCn K( ;N I'll A N S( llooLS. 

In tlif uiiitti- ')f l!M).') li Ml-. ( '. T. Cunvlly aii<l I ii.'.|iiiic<l .i lar;,'.- 
imiiibcr ttf ostmkii fnmi llic dfalris of ].ti\.>i- ami Kaiiiak. aiM«in|^st \\hi«-li 
wnv st"\rial t'xainpji's nf scIim.iI <'\< rcisfs. A tfw ostraka <>t" this class. aii<l 
tablets of a similar kiixl, liavr already l)e<ii ]iMblish»*d : and, by coiMparisMii 
of' with <»iir collection, it is possdjle to ^rather soino fatrts in (• 
with the nu'thods of instruction jjursued in the (!reek schools ot K^ypt. 

The ostraka purchased were said by the dealers to have conie niaiidy 
friini the neighbourhood of Karnak, and to ha\e been found at <lirterent tiine«, 
during the preceding five years. The majtirity ot here publisjied — all from our collection except niunbers II, I\', \'l. IX, X, X\'I. and X\ 11 
— appear, however, to belong to one gr(ju]): they are written on potteiy which 
is discoloured in a rather unusual way. an<l arc very distinct in this respect 
from any other of those bought with them ; while from the general character 
of the writing the texts upon them may with leasonable probability bi- 
regarded as contemporary. It .seems in accordance with the facts to suppi^.si- 
that the finder of (jstraka had chanced on a spot w here a .schoolmaster 
of Thebes had taught his in the open aii- near a rubbish heaji, on 
which material for writing t^xercises might be obtained in )»lenty. To be 
thrown away again as soon as usetl : or jiossibly, if it is more in aicordance 
with educational dignity to imagine the school as held among mon- savoury 
surroundings, we may have here the contents of the waste-ostrak<in-basket 
which were deposited on the after a day's work. The date of this 
group seems, judged by the writing and the character of the pottej-y, to be 
about the middle of the .second century A.D., ami so is ai)proximately the same 
as that of the dated o.strakon ])ublished by Jouguet and Lefebvre to which 
reference is made below. The other ostraka here ])ublished are piobably <>\ 
slightly later date, except No. Ill, which is of the fourth fifth century : No 
X, of the third century ; No. XVI, of the third 'fourth century ; ami Xo. X\'ll. 
of l^tolemaic date, j)iobably early first century \u . 

The most elementiiry in characti'r of all is an alphabet. 

I. ((J. 5). 079 X •0<)4.' 























' The ilimriisioiis givni are tlio i-xtnine iiunibcii in bnu;k<ta ar.' thos*.- pMvisioiiilly 
lieiglit and birailtli, in millimetres. Tlie luvsijjncil to the o.-)liaka an cataL.gne.l. 


Abcccdaria are iiut uncoiiimonly found in (Jreek lands : Imt the ciiri(jiis 
houstrophcdon arrangement adopted in this instance is quite unusual. The 
nearest parallel seems to be in an alphabet found at Sparta cut on a small 
column of blue marble, in which the letters are arranged in six vertical rows 
of four.- The principle may be that enunciated by Quintilian,^ who 
advised that pupils should be taught to recognise the forms of the letters 
apart from their position in a regular order. The hand in which the ostrakon 
is written is a clear and firm one, doubtless that of the teacher. 

Another exann)le is also to be connected with instruction in the 

II. (CJ, 20). OSO X -090. Lower right-hand corner broken away. 

AX I . . CYC 'Ax<[\Xjeiy9 

BiaJNTAinc Bkhv Vaio^ 

AKjJNePCJCZHNOJN I^kov 'Epw<i Zi^voiv 

HPGJNGeCONIOJN 'Wptov ^ewv Iwv 

K AeCONAeOJNMAP(jJN[ KXewj/ Aetwi/ ^lapwv [N . . . . 

2€P2HC0P(f)YC[ Hep^/;? 'Op0(e)u9 [II 

P0y4)0[ Poi/0o[? S T T... 

(J)IAa)| ^i\(o{y X....^....Vl.... 

Here the order of the letters is impressed on the mind of the pupil by a 
catalogue of familiar names. Two similar lists are contained in a papyrus 
from Tebtunis published by Grenfell and Hunt * : the first gives an alpha- 
betical catalogue of trades — dproKOTro^, ^a<f>ev<i, yva(f>ev<;, and so forth : the 
second is slightly more elaborate and furnishes a kind of nursery-story, 

aTToXkvTai fiov [ . . . 

0iaio<i 6 , . 7r\ . . [ 

yevvalo^ o apa<i 

and continuing with short sentences through the alphabet. This ostrakon 
also appears to have been written by the teacher. 

The ne.xt stage in the education of the child was the instruction in 
syllables, or word-building. A good example of this process in its inost 
elementary form is given by an ostrakon from Oxyrhynchus found by 
Grenfell and Hunt in their excavations of the season 1905-6 and now in the 

- H. .1. W. Tillyanl in Annual of British solent contextu uiduntur, retro agant nxrsus et 

School at ,llhens, \ii. p. 47C. iiaria perniutationf turbent. 

■■• yuiiitiliaii Inst. Or. i. 1. 25. Quae causa * B. I'. Grenfell ami A. S. Hunt, TeUiinii 

est praecipientilius, ut etiani, cum satis ad- Papyri, ii. 278. 
fi.xissc eas [meris recti' illo quo [>rimuni scribi 

IMil.lCS (t| CKAKCO KCVrriAN .^CHkoI^^ 123 

Unli-li .Mii-.iiiii. wliiili shows a >oliriii<- «'t tlif< r> u| tli. alplialut carli iii 
till II i-..iiil)iii'<l w itli til.- (litliKiil vKWils. A cniiMdcraljlf part <•}' t he (jstnjkon 
is I,, St. I liaviti- thank th< Miis,>mii a\it hniit ifs t<>r |n-niiisv|uii t.. piiMish 







ZdkZeZHZI 202| 







(111 I. 1 1 PH i> ourivcli'd tn.iii PC) 

This .schi'Uic might ahiiost have mtw*! as a text fur thf {Kifurmaiui- 
(lesciilud by Athciiatus,'' in which a churns sang ' ^fjra a\<l>a /9a, /9»)Ta et /9t. 
(3i)Ta T^ra /S?;. 0i]Ta lo^ra ^J, /JT/Ta ov ^o, ^>)Ta v 0i\ (3i)Ta to ,3(0,' and s(. on 
in aiitistio|)lus thiongh the alphabet : bnt it is slightlv fuller, as it contains 
combinations ot two vtiwols as well as of a consonant anci a vowtl, the latter 
onl\ of which uoiild appear to have bicn included in the song. 

A word-building e.\ei"cisi- of a somewhat similar kind has bi-i-n found at 
Athens' In this ^U^■ scheme is 

ap 0ap yap Sap 
ep ^(p yep Sep 

The tollouiut; ostiakon may ha\c been inteiidid to ser\c for instruction 
in w..i(l-i»uildinu. though the rcsidts can lianlly be regaitled as ,s'itisfact«iry. 

•' Atlicnaius, ii>'6d. ]•■ ^f*. I"'m Giraui. /. Kiiuculnui Atln nicn^.r. 

" (.Miotiil i>y K. J. Fe.inaii. .Schw/s ,./ I/dla'. \: I'.l. 


IV. (G. h)). -200 X -181. Broken ut left bottom conn'r 







X .] . OYC 

t . .J . . . 

CO . . . |c 

The first letter in each line is well wiitten and regular : the t.tilow ing ones 
are cliunsy and in most cases faint. The general a})j>earanre of rhe ostiakon 
suggests that the teacher wrote the initial letters in a oolnnni and directed 
his pupil to complete in each line a word ending in -ov<;. He may have 
intended that the words should l)e simj)ly monosyllabic compound^ of -op<? 
with the initial letter; and though the pupil was beaten by 2^ he got on all 
right with N, 0, and fl. After that, howe-ver, he forsook th^ moiiosyllabie 
principle and completed words of two oi' three syllables. 

A similar method seems t<j have been pursued in another 
Unfortunately the ostrakon is a mere fragment: but enough r<-mains to shcjw 
that the initial letter of each line is in a different hand fiom the later oiu's, 
and is by a m(jre practised wiiter. These letters, howev.i-. aie not in 
alphabetical order. 

V. id. 25). -1 ISx •( 78. Broken on all sides excej.t left. 








KI.I.K s ol' (;KAI;(< » i:(;\ I'l IAN s< H(»(»|.s I •_'.-) 

I',i~-iii„ 'i! t" iM-l nut ioii iji wiitm;;, \M' fl'i ii"l fiiiil any i|«ai iiisUim-.v 

n| uslrak.i ll-t 'I I'l 1 ..|)\ -licH.k |illl|Mfvc s Tile Iiatllli' "I tin lliatrlial Wulll'l 

iiitfifi-ir with Miaii\ i-ii|iu» Ix'iiii; maili- on a ^mi^I«- ostrakori: it i^ nu>if 
likclv that tlif t'-Mc|ii-r wuiiM \viit< <>iii Ins v|M(iiiirii mi mic |)ir(M' .if 
jiut-^luri! anil tin |'ii|iil |irc>(i.(| t-i ii|MiiiI(I(c it i>n ntliii-. 'I'lii-if is, hnwivn , 
(»n»' cvaiiiiil'- whirh -i tiii>- t" lia\i luiii ntih^id li-r |ira(tni ni tlii (iirnialinn 
i>t niMMi i°al> 

\I. (d I 7 I (I'.Mi < <t7ii. 

t fe » * 

'I'll. •If i> a i;.M.«l s|i((iiiMii «it a writiii;; ('Xcic-jsc ..ii |iajiyius in llauara 
|ia|». 24 \vhi«l'< «-li.'\v> i.n tin- i<r/o tlir r«'inaiiis ntscxtii icprtitioiis <»t tin- 


N.-n tilti 'l'\ ndaiifli- t'acics [iimisa Lacariiar| 

in a lai'^i -^jiiaw linu nin-ial lian«l. and i>n tli.' r( rsn scxcii ic|K't it ions, 
a|.|iai''ntl\ in th.- -ami hand, ot 

jiut iiclocins 

lollowcd 1>\ a nniiiK. r ot (loMiisii.'s. 

(•tibi- instaiic's ot r(j»nt<lii.tinns (it a si-ntciici-, |»ifsnnial>ly s.t as a c<i|»y. 
on \va\.d r^iUl.ts Jia\<- Ix.n |iid>lish«(| by Fvohiicr ' and ( !o(t(ls]ic<'(l.'" In the 
toiiiH r lasf. on oin tal»!i t is wntt.n "A^TreXo? vBcop iriovaa Trapa mv 
huTTTOTov uKpdTov avTfo uTToSiScjai Tifv ■^iipiv SittXi)!'' (jxXoTroi'el . whilf 
thi'cM' .ithcr tal>l(t> contain each thii*- t-opics of this iu Mnaln-r charactfrs, 
with soiii-- iii-ois and coiicit ion-, all thifr It.'ini; sit,Mn-d above by M. Aurclius 
'rhcodorn-. >oii of AiKmbion. 'Phe-c .an bi- dati'<l by another tablet of the 
sjinio eoll.ctioi; to ab.iiit 'l^U A.D. ( iixids^u'ed's tablets show opi^fvanis 
siiMilarK colli, d : in .lUc instance 

(o jxi) hit>(OK€V I'j TU^rj K0lfl(OfjL€l'(O 

fidTiji' hpafxelrni kiw I'lrtp AdSav hpnp.]) 
in another 

urn I' TTOioti' Trninjpa y^p^jaTti rt^ XaXfj 
KOI Toi' rrapovTa 7rX)]aioi' /li) XaiOdi'tj 
SnrXii<Tto<; avra> yirerai i) ■Kovi]pla. 

These examples of sentences sit a- copie- show that the teachers in 
i-boo-ine- theiii followed the doetriih' laid down l)\ (j>iiint iliaii ^ that moral 

" \\ . Fi'lm.'i, Tnbl'-tlit if.rri/ics (in iVi'v,. '' lust. (tr. i. 1. .•{fi. ii qui"(iie JKi^us, i|iii a.t 

'/« M'n-'yrille Paris, 1.S67 . iiiiit.ilioncin siiil»cn<li )iroi«.iu iitnr, non otiosjut 

" K. J. Hooilspeed, Grct>: Ii<,,-vuienls i>j y<-tr uolini sentcntias linb.aiit. sr.l lioiicsHnu alii|\nM 

'"or' Hitlrtrifni Sorjil; \'\ }f,hilUh<! Xicol'', |'|'. llliill.n ti-. 

181 -J. 


sentiments should be used tor this purpose. Of the same nature is a vetse 
on one of our ostraka. 

VII. ((i. 7). -0(36 X -098. 

OMHOeNd^AIKWN i fir^dev ahiKav 

OYA€NOCAeiTd<INO ovBevo^; SeiTai vo- 

MOY l^ov 

Here the writer has made two corrections, the 6 of MH0€N having 
been originally written as d< and the A of OYAENOC as 0. These mistakes 
suggest that this is the work of a scholar, either reproducing a copy set by 
his teacher or writing from dictation a piece of moral instruction. A similar 
moral purpose, in a more advanced stage of the course, is found on another 
ostrakon, which appears to give the end of an elementary composition on the 
advantages of virtue. 

VIII. (G. 9). -108 X 106. Broken above. 
A0[ H 
THN0YlONea)[ TTfv eviov€a>[ 
K^^AHNT€K^Skl^ON KuXrjv re kui irov- 
HP<i<AI€KneCHKei rjpa, hieKneaij kci- 
MdZeT^l^n<^NTd*. fxa^erai cnravra 
AI^TCAOYCTeTON ^ta reXov^ re tov 
BION d^NOPCOnOlC ^I'Ov. 'AvOpcoiroK; 

]Ka)N€dN ]K(op€av 

]. lOMENO'CNYMeNl' ]-to/xti;o9 6 Ni;/i€i/t(ov). 

The last two lines and a half are written in a smaller hand : the last is 
presumably the signature of the pupil. The purport of the exercise is 
paralleled in a papyrus published by Grenfell and Hunt,^° which contains a 
little story of a man who slew his father and fled into the desert, where he 
met his punLshment from a lion and a serpent : it was, however, copied by a 
less advanced scholar than the above ostrakon. 

There are several analogous examples on other ostraka and tablets, in 
form more nearly resenibling the last but one of those here edited, inasmuch 
as the sentences are arranged in verse. Such are a group of waxed tablets 
now at Paris published by Weil ^^ and said to have come from Saqqara, on 
which are written, in a late third century cursive with many errors, some 

'" B. P. Grenfell an.l A. S. Hunt, Greek " Melanges Perrot, p. 331. R. Weil, Xou- 

Papyri, Series II. 84. cclles tahletUs Grrcqius pro'.enant d'E(jyp(c. 


ilistifhs ill i.iiiibic I riimtii-s, wlnrcin tlii- ttadifr ;i]i)M-iiis to have ilic(al<il 
iiu»nil sriiliiiitiit.s |»la«"(tl in \hf niuiilli-- i)t iiiyf hi<al |M'rsni)Hgf.s. <)in- ul' thi'Ht- 
may be «jUi)t<'t| as a sjMcimtii ■ 

iKtipus tXtftj' KtiTUTTtiacoi' i'itt' aiOipo<; 
vyjrtjXa fit) KUfina^e, fxi] Trc<TT)'i fxuKpn- 

Of latn ilat*' — ])os.sil)ly sixth CL'iitiiiy — is a collfftioii of hi\aiiii-t«T a|H»- 
jihthfguis till a [Kipyrus at Heidclbi-rg.'-' sucli as an address tioin I'hiK-nix to 
Achilles intended to stay the wrath of the lattei-, in si\ lines: the scholastic 
chanicter of this diKMinient seems to l)e shown by the numerous mistakes and 
connections. A more ambitious etfort of a Theban stu<ient is jursei vod on 
one of Jouguet and Ijcfebvre's ostnika," which is fortiinatelv <lated bv the 
wiiter in the fourth y«';ir of Antoninus Pius: this bi-ai-s an \inhnished 
account, in seven lines of iambic tiimeters, of a tatht-r who brought his son, 
who refuM-d to contribute to his support, before Anacharsis the Scythian for 
judgment: in this exercise there are only three erroiN of spelling. 

An ostrakon, unfortunately very fmgnientary, from oui- collection seems 
t«) show that the moral instruction was extend<'d to include the duties of a 

IX. ((;. 10). i()(ixO0i». Broken on r. and below. 



eiN .... rvNai^iL 

OJA . . OiKcMnf 


TPltONn . oVc 

. dlTie^N . . TP[ 



'- Mchiiuj'.i 2\'t:oli\ \<. 615. 0. Ciii.sius :iii({ '• F.C.ff. 190J, p. -JOl. I*. J.-ngii.t mul <; 

C>. A. (Jerli.inl, Mythologuicln Kpigraiiim- lii LoftOivr.', J)i nx ailrai > tU Tli>bt.%. 
I iiii ,n Ifei'lrffm-ijcr Pupyrtui. 

l-jS .1. (illAFTOX MFLNK 

'J'hc i-ccoursc t<. iii\ tli('l<'*;ic;il cliaiafters, especially Honiciic herni's, 
which is found in sninc of tlie dofunifnts qu()te<l above as exainph's of moral 
instrnetion. nrurs in others which seem to be more of the nature of exercises 
in composition — at anv rate their moral i)urpose is not evidenced bv what 
ivniains of them. One of the lai^v^t ti-a,onients is the followin^t,^ 

X. ((J. 4>. •()!».') X 'I. "i:'.. Broken diagonally across from left. 



|CTOze^ KdT€Aein€Nrd.p 

JojceoePc^nevoH o 




Mera t]>;j' 'A;j^/XA.ero? TeXevT7}i> koi Oav 
arovC) Ka]A.xa'> (> /^avriQ KcXevet Toa 
\\xatot<; fjL]eTa7re/J.yp-(ia0ai <J>fAo/cT?/T- 
tjv eV T>/9] A)]/jivov 6? ei-)(^€P ra tou H- 
paKXeovl*; ru^a- KOTeXenrev yap 
avrov v(f)' u]Sp(jv ireTrXiTyfievov 
Kai ov8a/jL](0(; ^dapairevdiy O- 

avrov KaTa'y\ovai Kat 0epa- 
Trevei avrov yia])^aa)v o 'AaKXr]- 

mov ]^e Kaprepa\ . . 

<l>(\o/fT]»;T/;'?j .... 

The orammar of this e.Kercise is t'vidently shaky, aiid inrthe'third line 
the .^^cholar has blundered over the spelling- uf the name of Philoktetes :>the 
I is wiitton al)ove the line and the second T i^ corrected from C- 

Other smaller fragments show the names of Homeiic her'.'cs but are to<) 
inconiiilete foi- any connected .sense t(» be made out of the remains ui>on 
theui. They mav, however, hv cited. 

I ; i: I , I ( s ( » I' ( i I : A kc ( > k< ; v I'l" i a n >r i i < m > i ,s 

XI. (C. I I l-I-lxOS-l. ('mIiii,!..!, al iM.tlcin ..iilv. 

licc . I 


]AeNOY . ni'0| 


\1I. ((i. S). (KiTxIO:*. r.rukfii ;il)iiv<- ,ui(l nil ritrht. 


d.X . dNONK Ail A0NT| 

Moc . iNOCNe<^NeNn[ 

. dioAenei0€icnope| 

MdXOYC .... A€(^INei[ 


XIII. iC II). ()!tlxO(i2. 1 in. k. 11 on all sides. 

] • CY[ 

]ced. . . . €A0e[ 

] . CdKN . €CT<M[ 
]OCA . . . d. . . \ 

] eTOYC<^[ 

] . €lNeT| 




With thfsc niav I"' c-lassod one ul" Fnihiior's waxed tablets,''' which 
contains the reniains (.la story of Kalehas and Agamemnon. 

An examj>le of a theme dealing with more recent events is given by an 
oHtrakon on which has been written a letter apparently from Alexander to 
the C'arthaginians — more probably a composition of the student than a coi>y 
from any histoiif-al <locun)«-nt. 

XIV. ((J. 2«)). -l.Sox-UO. C..m]) at t-.p only. 

]NAP0CX<^PXHA0N|[ \\\€^a]vhpo^ Kapxv^oin[oc<; 

]AHCeTeKavi<b.YTOI . . . A[ ]X7](r€T€ kul avToi . . . X[ 

'jld<c))YA<^CCONTeCeneiAHf ]<« <f)v\aa<7ovT€<; €7r€iBr}[ 

]TCL)NnenOM(j)<ivCINnP[ It&jj^ TreTroyLt^ao-d^ 7rp[ 

]AOri^^NA€ACL)Ke)kCIN[ ]\oytav BeBwKaaiii 

|. NA€ZAMeNOCK(i\[ ] ■ v B€^afx,evo<; Ka[ 

'|KAHMdx|OYN . I ]K\t-ifiai ovi{ 

jlKHNAIN[ ]iKy]v B' lv[ 

The last five ostiaka may be classed togcih»-'r as bearing specimens of 
I hr rxercisrs described by Quintilian as iiai-rationcs}'' He complaine<l that 
the stagr (if training at which such cxciciscs should be practise*! had been 
usur]ied by the grannnatici. though it })ro])erly belonged to the rhetores ; 
and, as <iui' (»straka clcaily come fmm sch(jols taught by the former class, 
It. would a])])ear that the usurpation had been made in Egypt as well as in 
l\(iuic. Some of the more ambitious (juasi-Iiistorical narrativ('s preserved on 
j)a]iyii may pcihajts represent ili< lomjiositions of more advanced students in 
ihc '-.<-hools of rhetoric. 

A somewhat diti'eicnt side of the instruction, develoj)ed from ' that 
pii \ iously menti(»iied, where the pu})il transcribed apophthegms or epigrams, 
apjieais to have C(msisted in giving selected passages to be written (»ut with 
comments. The f(jll(jwing is a good example : a line and a half of verse 
ibllowed by som*- observations, which fiom their nature may pi-rhaps be 
ascril)ed to the seFiolar rather than i(. the teacher, and then another sentence 
of ]ioetry, apparently <juite unconnected with the previous one. which was 
doubtless e\])ounded in its tuiii. 

XV. (<;. 27.) -pilx-lTo. Ihoken at bottom. 
nAc:^CC(jONOnPOMH0eYC IWacrawv o UpofitjOevi 

. . . A . 0HPICONr€NHOY0€N [Tu\]\[a] Oyjpicov yevi^ ovBev 

r . NcJ^lKOJN : NHTONAIdkTON ywaiKwv • vt) rou Am rov 

'^ W. Kii.hnci. l.r. '•" Jus/. Or. ii. ]. 

HKLk'S OK <;KA1:o> K<i^ I'l IAN S(H( ml.s i ;u 

M6riCT0N€Yr€YP€iniAHe I ^iiyiaiuv ■ ti- y EvpfiTTiht)- >; .- tt'- 

PHK€NTHNrYNcMK€lc^N4) /^»;/<-tr T>ir yii'tiiKtiar :<f,', 

(|)YCINnc^NTCjL)NMeriC 4)vaii' TTtirroM' fityta- 

THTHN . edVNMeNTcXPeni !t//;tvi'. 'Euv ^u- yap i-ni- 


TYXHTlCeYTYINBIOJMO tj-^v tk; fvTV)(^€ii> f3i(o fio- 

XOOJN . [. j . inOAAOONTc^P x^^^ [ ■ • ■ V ttoXXwi/ rap- 

J . NACIC ] ■ I'td's 

'riii'it' arc .several correctiniis in this txercisr : in I. 2 th<- H "frCNH i^ 
alU're<l iVnui fl: in 1. 4 the s»'c<iii(l € «»f eYP€iniAH ha^ bt-en stuuk uut an<l 
nwritti'ii above {]v line : the (^ at the eixj .,1 I. 5 ami the s.e.pud jh at the 
begiiniin^' ot'l. 7 are partly eiased ; ami in I. S x€ "" GYTYXCIN is inserte*! 
above the lint.'. 

Co])ies of })a.s.s<igcs <tt" j^oetry without c«iimiient are l'«.Mn<l lairlv 
fre<[uently: .some of the inniinK-rable Hoinejic tmgnients un ]ia)»yii luav be 
sohtMilboy exercises, and the same origin may bi' more certainly o-scribed to 
the wooden tablets with Ilumeiie "jtiotations. One ostrakon with a line from 
Homei' u])on it has been published,''' and tw<j with jiassages tinm Kuripides — 
respectively Hippolytus (il(i (j24 '" ami Phuenissae 107 llM and I'JS l;}!*.'-^ 

It is niiteworthy that the two latter aie both nf I'tolemaie date, au'l so 
miK-h earlier than most ostraka of the scholastic chtss. Another Ptolemaic 
ostiakon of literary character, which may be a .school exercise, h.i-s been 
e(lite<l by Heinach : '■' it cunt.iins an eiotic dialogue, Couched in prose .if 
]K)etical diction. 

Mathematical ostraka are rare; but there are two in uur collection 
which may be })laee(l under this head. The first is an extremely ill-spelt list 
of oidiiials from first to twelfth in a very iiregular hand. 

X\l (C. 14). OSCxloK. Chippe.l at l)oti,om. 


leK ATH 

'" U. Wil(krn, Giicchischc Ontrnka. 114f'. '» Mclamjai Pirroi, y. JSl. Th. Rcinarh. 

" Id. 1147. Uh ostrukoH liUtrairr tie Thibrf. 

'" }\. R. Hall, CI. lUr. xviii. _'. 

K 2 


Tlie scc(. ii<l T in leiKcMHC is partly urasod. 

The other IS of much earlier date, and seems to he an exercise in weights 
anil niea>nre'^. 

XVII. ((J. 30). 


X 07 








1" c 















The arrangonient of the two toj) lines is nut (juite clear. It would seem 
that (,'ach figure is intended to be one-tenth of the one to the left of it, and 
those in the second line one-fifth of the ones above them : but in reducing 
from talents to drachmae there is a break, 5 talents being followed by 5000 
diachniae, and 1 talent by 1000 drachmae; and the final signs do not 
fall in witli the series, the last in the upper line being 4 chalki, which is 
not one-tenth of three obols, and the last in the lower 2 obols, which is 
neither one-tenth of one drachma nor one-fifth of 8 obols. The vertical 
line gives a regular si'i-ii!S of fractions of the aroura, beginning with ;;V^n(l and 
dividing by two in each line down to -4(j., ,vth. 

Finally it may be worth while to note a fragment of school material of a 
more finished nature than the ostraka. This is part of a well-made limestoiK; 
tablet, 14 mm. in thickness, with a bevelled edge, both faces of which 
are ruled in squares: on one side these measure approximately 12mm. each 
way, on the other, a[)proximately 19 mm. There are traces of writing in 
(Jreek on both sides, unfortunately almost entirely effaced ; but enough 
remains to show that the ruled lines were carefully followed. The only place 
where the writing 'is consecutively preserved seems to read as the end of a 
line — presumably of an iambic trimeter — • 

]toi/ ov crdevei 

J. (Jhakton Milne. 

\\iii:i;k did ai'INioditk i ind tiik i;<)DV '»f adums^ 

In aiii-ifiit ('y|>iu>^ ii'> >>\\r >>>uU[ lia\c hesitated \>> jioiin .nit ihr -jmiI hi 
(picstinTi. 15ui ill the pn-sein day we ha\f iiothiiij,' to giiitle iis exci-pt a hint 

of the t'aiiitiiis Kaiui) Icnopla of Ptolemy Hejihatstioii, a^ y i(l.d hy Photiiis 

in chap. e.\c of' the MyriobiMos. 

The iiiytho<(ia|>hir deals in the seventh Ixtok with the Aeu/ca? Trerpa, 
which had the iiiiraeuluMs |io\ver .if e\iiin^' those who, when attiiete<l with 
love, <lared to juiii|> iVom it. ll was this extreme lemedv that Aj)<>||m 
counselled to Ajihiodite, disconsolate at the death of Adonis: Mera rov 
A8a)i'/5t»? (pacTi ddvarov Trepifp^ofitin] kuI ^i]Tovaa »} ' Xt^pohiry), evpeu avrov 
i)''Apyet TToXei t/)s" Kvirpov tr t'o tov ^piSiov ' XttoWwvo's 'i(p(^ Kai avilXev 

Whereabouts in ('y|iiiis w;iv \\\\^ ttoXk; ".\pyos' ' Xoiie of the ancient 
geographers tells us, and, s.» tar as 1 know, no iiioili rn scholar ha>^ elucidated 
this ])oint. All of them mention 'Ap7o<; among flu- towns in Cyprus not vet 

A shoi't while ago I expic^sed the opinion (in \\0tjru \ol. wiii, p. o-l-'J) 
that this "Ap70f was "Apcro?, and 1 now exjdain the reasons which .ipjtear to 
me sufficient to justify my conjecture. 

The n-ading "Apo-o? for "Apyo? is l)y no means a venturesome one. In 
whatever form of wiiting it was written. APCOC or "A^tro?, Photius, oi-, what 
is moie probable, his copyists could lead the well known name of "A/yyov 
instead of "Apo-o?. which later becanu- <pnte unknown in ( 'hristiaii limes. 
But if the name of the town was really "Apyo'i, Ptolemy would hardl\- have 
added the word voXei, since everyb<tdy knew of oflur towns named '\pyo<;, 
and he would only have said eV "Apyei t»)<» Kv-rrpov. On tiie contrary, for the 
expression eV "Apaei iroXei there was a leason. which we shall see later on. 

Now in ( 'vprus there are two villages called "Apao'i, one in the district 
of" KvXui'iv and tlie other in the district of Mcsjin-a. 

But it is to be feared that many archaeologi'^ts will be di>pose<l to 
repeat the contemptuous phrase, with whic-h Hichard Xeubauer reject«'d the 
conjecture that TtopKot of to-day is the ancient VoXyoi, ' bloss wcil die 
dortige (Jegend bei del- heutigen Pevtilkerung .lorgos heis^t ! ' - But 
Neubaucr, being compelled to offer .some other etymology of the name, found 

' Sn- Mvffoypa^ot. rtlit. A. Wostrnnnim, - Cotnounlalwufx I'Inliilogif ,,i honorcm 

Hiun^wif^aO, 1613, ji. 198. Tlic<»lori Mouxmscnii. lieioliiii, 1877, )■. 678. 


mit Recht in dem heutigen Namen von Altpaphos Kiiklia oder Kukla den 
alten Namen Golgoi*.' 

To this discover}' of the German scholar we may put, in our turn, two 
notes of exclamation. In the 'Xyoav of Athens (No. 176 and in 'Xdr)va, 
vol. xviii, p. 376) I gave the etymology of Kou/cX-m, which was Kov{^)ovK\i.a^ 
and later on I shall attempt to explain how ToX'yoi became in the new 
Cypriot ViopKoi, as it is not irrelevant to the question of "Apo-o?. 

Now, what can "Apo-o? stand for ? As a substantive it is not in use 
to-day, nor was it in mediaeval Greek. Then we must accept the fact that 
the name comes down from ancient times. Furthermore, all those who are 
familiar with modern Greek must have observed that before the consonants 
we pronounce p where the ancient Attics pronounced X, for instance dpfivpof, 
?)pd€, d8€p(f)6<;. Especially in Cyprus, before every consonant \ is pronounced 
as p, for instance 'Ap0avi,Tr]<i, K€(f>a\apKd (viz. KecpaXaXyia), rjpra, 'ApKi^idSrj<i, 
dpfir], 'EpTTiviKT], MipTidBrji;, d8ep(f)6'i. Consequently it is quite easy to infer 
that TiopKoi was ToXyot and that 'Apcro? was dXaof. Dr, Max Ohnefalsch- 
Richter* has really noticed that 'The ancient word a\cro<?, holy grove, has 
survived in the name of the modern village.' 

But I am of opinion that like the Cypriots of to-day their ancestors 
also pronounced not dX(To<; but dp<To<i. Prof. Psichari in a special pamphlet^ 
gives numerous examples of this changing from modern, mediaeval, and also 
ancient Greek. But of this same woni dpcroq we have evidence in the 
Lexicon of Hesychius,^' 

dpcrea- Xeifio)i'e<; <ut dX(r€a>, 

Knowing, as we do, that the Alexandrine grammarian preserved to us several 
ancient Cypriot words, we must accept the conclusion that the Cypriot pro- 
nunciation was from the outset a/jo-o?, which agrees with the etymology from 

Such dXarj, viz. dcfuepcofiiva ^wp/a, afforested' or not,^ were, of course, 
numerous in all Greece, and in some places the name is still living. In Kos 
there is a place Uavayid t "Apaov, and it was there that Rudolph Herzog 
excavated the 'Aa-KXrjvceiov. What the meaning of t' 'Apaov ( = tov dXtrov^) 
was, has been explained in the periodical IlavBcopa (of Athens, v^ol. xvi, 1865, 
p. 138). But Mr. D. A. Mylonas complains in the B,€vo<f}dvT]<; (of Athens, vol. 

" ' Kov0uvK\ia' occurs in the C'lirouielc of 'coiuinclia, eouvoudia 7, 1.' 

Maxoipas (Sutliah*, Bihllotheca mcdii aevi, vol. * Kypios, Bible and Homer, Berlin, 1893, 

ii. Venice, 1873, i>. 384). The French also p. 12, No. IS. 

wrote 'Couvoudes.' In the Churograffia ... ^ Essai . . . sur le changetacnt de \ en it 

dell' isohi di Cipro of Stephen Lusignan, fol. 7, {Extrait des Memoires Orientaux, Paris, 1905) 

1 (Bologna, 1573) where the v is always printed « Editiu minor Mauric. Schniidt, Jenae, 1867, 

u, the word has been misjiriiited CoJuiclia, and p. 234. 

this caused Mr. M. R. J[ames] to suggest (in '^ Georg Curtius, Grund-.iigr dcr Oriech. Ety- 

J.II.S. i.v. 191) that 'if Conuolia is right, it mologie, Leipzig, 1878, p. 356. 

may have some conne.xion with Ko\,viKKo%, a ** Cf. Scholia veicra in Pimlari Carinina, 

rabbit.' The misprinting, however, is con ected edit. Drachniann, Olinn}). in. 31. 
iu the la.>^t folio of Lusignan (without No. 124) 


iii. |). H72) that this i)«rt'fotl\ just conjfctiui' had not bicii t.ik"-n inti» con- 
sideration by the archaeologists who excavate<i there. 

In Cyprus we have the testimony nf Straho (xiv. JJ. '.i. jip. ()S1-HH.'3) tliat 
there was a ^lot a\(TO<i at Ai-sinoe and another at Idaliuin, and it woul<i be 
unreasonable to deny that thf other g^nls also must have had such spotH 
siicred to their cult. We may consequently C(»ncludf that it was in the 
a/j<ro<? of Ept'^tov 'ATToWwt' that Adonis died. 

With this conclusion the whole legend in question, so romantic in itself, 
agrees, aiul so also do the ancient poets. Tli*- poet of Bof«o\i'<T*-os' 
says (v 35) 

01' Tov ' \ha)i>ii' 
iv hpvfiolai <f>i\a<T€ Kai t/' hpvfxolcriv exXavaev ; 

(viz. t'l Kvirpis). Also Hion (^ \Boi>viBo'i 'K7r<T«<^(ov v. (iH) 

fii^KiT tVl B p V fi o i a I TOV ui'ipa pLUpeo, Kvirpt. 

It is obvious that here 8pvfi6<; is equal to a\<ro<f. 

But it is equally evident that the testimony of Ptolemy, that Adonis 
died in a iroXei T/}<f Kvirpov, appears to be against our suggestion. 

Richard Neubauer, in order to show that FoXyoi had ni>t been a ttoXk;, 
observes that Pau.sanias viii. 5. 2 states reo)? Se rj deof irapa KfTr/jt'wf rt/xav 
et;^er' eV ToX'^ol^ KuXovfievu) ■)((iipi(p, and he adds (p. 077) : " Aber audi nicht 
von einer Stadt CJolgoi ' (speaks Pausanias). This argument seeijied so strong 
that in the latest excellent Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Cyprus' we read 
'Cesnola's identification with Athienou is a guess, founded on the modern 
name of the locality Yorgos. Indeed, there is some doubt whether a separate 
city of Golgoi ever existed.' 

Athanasius Sakellarius, the modest Greek scholar, who, guideil by his 
linguistic feeling, had expres.sed man}' years before Cesnola and the ' Franzo- 
sen ' (viz. the Comte de VogUe) the suggestion that ' Vop-yoi ' is ToXyoi (in 
the first edition of his Kvirpiaicd, Athens, IKSo, vol. i. p. 1S7), in the second 
edition (vol. i. p. 195) cited many passages in order to show that the word 
')(Oiplov had also the meaning of a ttoXj? and he adduce<l ra eVt ^paKir; 

It is easy to show that the word yjiDpiov was used with the meaning both 
of uninhabited places and of townships, and is still used as e(|uivalent to 
fcwfiT], as \(i)pa is now equivalent to Tr6Xi<;. But it is much more useful to 
illustrate the evolution of such places, devoted to a deity, lik-- VoXyol and 


I agree that in this passage of Pausanias T6(t><; Be r) ^eo< Tina< il\(i' tV 
VoXyoU KaXovfievo) ^wpt'co the writer means an uninhabited place, but zdax; 
uninhabited, viz. before the Palaepaphos temple was established. ( )f coui-se. that 
is no ])roof that Golgoi remained always uninhabited, but rather the reverse, 
and on the contrary the words of I'tolemy, ev "Xpcret, rroXei rij<; KvTrpou, are 

^ l',y G. F. Hill (Undon. 1904, p. xlv). 


n<. proof th;u"Apo-o9 had always ttoXi'tck;, but rather that in his time it was 
a town. 

This can he proved from other place-names which, like "Aptro?, were 
oiiginally (onniion substantives and then became in some jdaces pi-oper 
names. In Cyprus we have villages Bdcra, Apv/xov, Apvvui, Aefxwva, {'Ayid) 
KtiTra, viz. ^Pjaaa, Spv/xo^, Spvfii'a, Xei/xcov, vd-mq. For (.-very one of these 
names we have ancient testimonies from other Creek countries that they 
had become proper names before the Christian era. 

Strabo ix. 4. 5 Br^crcra* airo yap rou Bpvp,(i}8ov<; covo/xaaraL ofjiO)vvfj.o)<;, 
(oairep kul Nd-rrr] ei> too M7]6v/iii')]<; TreBUp. Well known is also Bdaaac in 
Arcadia. Stephanus Byzantius: Apu/j.ia 7r6X,<9 <I>&)/c<.'8o<f to edviKov Apu- 
fxieix;. Pausanias ii. 85. 8 6vop.a Be eari tm -^oipUp Aet/xcov. 

Now it is important U) examine what was the cause of such afforested 
plaees beioniing settlements. I think that it was a temple of a deity which 
had been built there in accordance with sijme ancient legend. Who was the 
deity of Apv/jLov of Paphos has been shown by two Cypriot inscriptions 
excavated there, and dedicated tm de(p tm vXdrct (Deecke, Kypr. Insch rift tit, 
( Jiittingen, 1S88. p. 18, Nos. 20-20). In the Bpvfx6<i there was an altar of the 
god of vXai, as Hogarth ex])l;iined the e))ithet {Dcvia Cjipria 80), and hpvfi6<i 
after having been inhabited became o Apvfio<;, ;uid then ?} Apv/u,o<;, t?"/? 
Apvfiov. At Apv/xta (jr Apv/j,aia ot Phocis was a tem])le of Arj/j,i]TT]p. 
Pausanias x. lY-i. 11 says A^'jp.i]Tpo<i he Hea/xocpopov Apv/j.aLoi<; (or Apv/xioi^), 
lepov eariv dp-)(^alov koI aydXfia opOov XiOov ireiroirjTai. The expression is 
not precise. It is plain that this dyaX/xa and dp)(^aiov lepov were there 
loefore the hpv^ioi; became Apvp-ia ttoXi^. 

In exactlv the same mannei- "Apo-o? had been dXcro'i dedicated to 
l^pidioq ' A-TToXXoyv, and later on with th<' help of the Adonis legend became 
a ttoXk;, as Ptolemy styles it. 

Equally, Colgoi had been a x^P^^''- d(.'dicated to Aphrodite, perhaps on 
account of a ^oavov found among yoXyoi or ^oX/3oi {'A(f)po8iTr) ev 70X7049 
like 'AcjypoBtT')] ii> Kr]7roi<;), but afterwards, when the cult of Venus extended 
all over the island, the place became a ttoX/?, which was called roA,7ot or 
Topyoi, and its citizens were known as roXyioi. Pliny enumerates it as last 
of the fift(^en Cyprian oppida, existing in his epoch (Nat. Hid. v. 85). 

The population of these iepd x'^pia increased with the honour attributed 
to their deities, or, to sj)eak more concretely, with the success of the 
7ravr]yvp€L<i held there, which were religious as well as commercial. I mean 
that the formation of such settlements in anci(!nt times is comparable to the 
formation in later times of the villages in the proximity of our monasteries 
or country c;hapels, dedicated to .saints. I will give an example. 

JlaXovpKcoTiac^a is the name of an ikon of the Theotokos, which, 
according to tradition, had been found among TraXXoOpe?, viz. iraXiovpoi. In 
honour <jf this ikc^n a nursery had been built at the place and then a village 
was foiined.^^ 

'" lltiov Vifviphov, ToirttvviJUKov rrjs Kinrpov ill ' ABrjva, vol. xviii, Jiji. 382 :i84. 

\\iii;i;i-; hih \ I'll i;< Mtiii: i'inm iiii: r.<>i»v or mxinis? i;: 

III I IiuMMS Sd/iimciios ^'i\f.S Ms :i sli ikill^' (lest ri|tt icii <il lli.- ja-^t Jia^'.ili-, 
wliM <'nrtaTi>t<f>ui>T() to hoyfia row \piariaviav, apy^aiuniTO's Tt (TTeueKoviTn 
Kai TU)v Trmptudiv (Omv kui Trar7)yvp(Mi>. Wlnti ( 'Miistaiil illc the (In at 
|ii<iliil»it«'(| ypdfifjLaat fSatrtXixoU lli«' <<iiit iiMial imi uf I licsc ciistoiMs, Yu/zj'fij- 
fi€i>T€<i Til's Tov irXijOov^ f)OTrf)<i oi veuiKopoi K(u in ifpel^ irpovhoanv tU witp' 
ai'Totv TtfiiioTuTa Af«( TO. ^loireTi'i Ka\ovfi€i>aV 

'I'hils suiiir iif tlu'sc ilnlicati'ij places Wfic (l«.scl t<»|. .stiim \\( ic i-.t|i\ tiliil 
III ( "liiistiaiiit V, wliilf tin' amii iil Trniijyvpti'i I'mil iinicd with tin- aiiciml 
iiaiiits ufthr jilacis III Imiii'iir n| t ill iiiw jclii^'iun. Sdira of ('vjuii^i Ix-caiiic 
a iinniastciv "t llavayia. 

Ill It lii)\\ 111 L,'!' Ml hiiw small wfiT l lu'^i- -Mt I jiiin ills like VoXyot, ov 'A pans- , 
Ml Spi'pos- tliiriiii,^ tliiir jMnspciuiis tiims, wr rammt cstiiiiatc Iroiii tin- 
iiicic live lit ijir Wind ycopi'ov, iiv ttoX/?, "i- i\(ii liuiii the >i|fiK'<' fil tin- 
smciont authors, who never visiteij tliim. We eaii only torm smne idea frmn 
the excavations ami inscriptions.'' We know not hint; from ancient authois 
with re^'ard to a town in Cyprus called llaXaiaTpa, hn\ we know of an 
estate called ' ATraXaiaT pa, iuu\ an inscription, i'.\ca\ati'd near there, meiitiuns 
citizens llaXaiaTpLTa>i {C.lJli. vol. ii. ]>. 441, No. 'id'iT). 

Now, which of the two existing settlements called "\pao\ ol ( 'yprus was 
the 7roX/9 mentioned by Pt(»leniy Hephaestion .' 

The reply is easy. It was that of Mesarea, as is pr.i\id liy the excava- 
tions made there. 

Dr. ^lax ( )hnefal.sch-Kichter (Ki/zucs. ]>ihlc i-nd Homer, \\. 12) says: 
To the N.E. of the village are the remains of a temenos, dedicated to a 
male divin'ity. I investigated the spot in IHH.M. A small bronze votive ox 
and a small bronze group of a man leading an nx to s<icritiee (now in the 
Louvre) had been found here by the ])easants. I discoxcred, among other 
things, fragments of figures representing ( Jeryon, who often in Cyprus appears 
as a companion of Apollo.' 

Unless my judgment is much at taiilt, this Tt'/iezo? was that of 'EpiY^iov 
AttoWwi', iv "Apaei iroXei t>}9 Kvirpov, where Aphrodite found the body ot 

^ipn<; Mej'«p^os'. 

" £K«A7j<rioo-Ti«7)s laropias, l>(»ok ii. i|i. v. ViopKui) two iiisi rjjiiioiis wne lately fouini, the 
Mi;;nc, I'atrol. <;r. vol. 07, \>. i>i[> v.. "nv ou tliv jicdestal of a statue ami the other <>ii 

'- In the villiigf ol Athiciioii (nearest {•> n « olniiin. Tlusc I intend to I'lil'lish shortly. 

[Plates XXVII.-XXIX.] 

The reliefs upon the tombstones of the Attic cemetery of the Ceramicus 
have long been among the most familiar of the products of Greek art, and 
have enjoyed a popularity, even be^yond their artistic merit, because of their 
direct appeal to a common basis of human sentiment — mentem mortalia 
tangunt. The sculptors who made these reliefs did not probably, for the 
most part, enjoy any very exalted position in their profession. The artistic 
quality of the work varies greatly ; while some of it preserves the best 
traditions of the school that made the Parthenon frieze, some is comparatively 
commonplace and mechanical. There is little reason to suppose that any 
of the extant reliefs are from the hands of a distinguished sculptor. We 
know, however, that well known sculptors were sijmetimes employed t>n 
works to be set up over tombs. Pliny expressly says of Praxiteles ' opera 
sunt eius in Ceramico', and Pausanias mentions a statue by Praxiteles of a 
soldier standing beside his horse, set up just outside the Dipylon Gate. 
There is therefore good reason for looking for statues of the highest 
artistic value among those set uj) as monuments over tombs. The reason 
why they have not hitherto attracted the same general interest as the 
reliefs that served the same purpose is partly their much more limited 
number, partly the difficulty of recognising them with certainty. 

It has, of course, long been known to students that such tomb-statues 
were to be found in Greece. There is evidence that all the three most 
fiintiliar types of early Greek sculpture, the nude male standing type 
(commonly called Apollo), the draped female standing type, and the seated 
type, were sometimes used as statues representing the decea.sed and set uj) 
above his tomb. The well known ' Apollo ' of Tenea is said to have .served 
this purpose ; and the feet of a statue of the same type as the draped female 
figures on the Athenian Acropolis were found attached to an inscribed 
basis, which shows that the statue was set up as an image of the deceased 
upon the mound over a tomb at Bourba in Attica, and that it was the work 
of a sculptor named Phaedinius.^ 

The most satisfactory records of statues set up for a similar purpose in 

' Sff /. //. .v. xii. [1. 389; /^(Kriot- 'Af>x. 1390. 



latir times rrlatf t(» a seiics (.f^Toups of tW'i li^un-s, ot a sjn-ciul charactfr 
III each ot tlit'se a riclilv (IihjkhI jt-iiuili- figuir is set up l)cMi»l< a iui(k' iiiali' 
Hgiire ; but thr iiialr fi^ain- in rach case seems to be ideiititieil us HertueH, 
while the female figure is in all probability a portrait — or rather a cotnen- 
tioiial representation of the deeeiused. If this, identitieation be correct — and 
there is, perhaps, no sufficient reason to doubt it — the intention of the artiHt 
seems to be to rej>resent Heiiues Pysehopompus as escorting the iiuuate of the 

1.— I'.' -I I!' V KiiKvn.x. 

toMib on her juurney t(. the other world.- The best known of these groups* 
consists of the Hermes of Andros, a statue well known as a variation on the 
tvpe of the Hermes of Praxiteles, and a woman whose draiMiy is a fine 
example of the stmly of surface and texture that is associated with Praxiteles. 
Her head, which was made in a separate piece, is lo>t ; she is fully draped, 

- It has also been snggisteil that the Hennes cusaion dws not roally i onrfrii us here, *.«« the 

t viiitics a dead man or ■ hiio,' just as the f« male fotnal.- statue rertaiuly npresenti tlie di-cea'^d. 
figun- typifies a dead woman. Sip P. daniini, » Athens, Xutionul .^fi'sntm Cat. 218 and 219. 

Sailpturfd Tombs <>/ IfrUa.% i<. 13S. The dis- 

140 K. A. (;ahi>nek 

with her arms, all but the now lost li^hl hand, fiive'lKped in ihc folds of her 
cloak, which was ol'soniu li^htand diaphanous material. Her right arm was 
bent, so that her hand was in front of her breast, her left hung down by her 
side. It is especially attested in this case that the two statues had been set 
up on a common basis near a tomb. Another similar pair was found at Aegion.^ 
The Hermes is of a different type iiom the Hermes of Andros ; the lady is 
fully draped, in a walking position with the left foot advanced, and with 
both her arms enveloped in her cloak. 

Other instances of richly draped figures set up over the tombs of women 
are known. An interesting example, found at Rheneia, is the unfinished 
figure representing the upper part of a lady with a veil over her head ' 
(Fig. 1); here again the arms are enveloped in the cloak, and the right hand 
holds part of the veil over the head ; the expression of grief or melancholy 
is already clear, th«nigh the statue is only blocked out ; there is little doubt 
that it was intended to be set up over a tomb. There is a curious 
similarity of ty])e about all these statues, all the more conspicuous because of 
their variety of style. We also find the ty})e repeated, with a certain 
amount of variation, in a series of statues which seem to have been meant 
more or less for portrait statues, but which are not known to have been .set 
up c^ver tombs, and in some cases were certainly set up elsewhere. The 
most familiar examples are the two statues from Herculaneum (one of 
which is shown in Fig. 2) now at Dresden,'* and a statue almost exactly 
similar which was found in a ])rivatc house in Delos.'' It is commonly stated 
that statues of this kind represent .some individual lady in the character of a 
Muse; and this view at first sight ap])ears to receive confirmation from the 
figures of the Muses on the Mantinean relief, which arc all variations on the 
type, while one of them resembles very closely one of the Herculaneum 
statues. It is, however, by no means easy to say, apart from attributes, 
whether such a female figure is intended to suggest a Muse or not. The 
differentiation of the Muses into a certain number of clearly defined and 
easily recognisable types is comparatively late ; and the series of Muses 
which we see on the Mantinean relief is n<jt to be distinguished from any 
group of female figures, such as the ' Mourners ' on the Sidon sarcophagus, or 
any set of Tanagra statuettes. 

If we are justified in assigning the design of the Mantinean reliefs to 
Praxiteles, we have a })resumption that the origin of the type must be 
attributed to him also; but here we are on somewhat dangerous ground. It 
is true that the relief was on the basis of a group by Praxiteles, and 
therefore must jtrobably be a work of his school, even if it be not designed 
by himself Pnit in one figure at least, that of Marsyas, the type is borrowed 
from Myron; and it may be suggested that the Muses also follow 
conventionally accepted types. Nor need we l«Jok far for the originals of 

•* Athens, Nat. Mus. Cat. 241 and 242 ; Ath. ''' Jiccuc Arch. 1900, ii. PI. XX. 

Millh. 1878, Pis. 5 and 6. ? B.fJ.H. 189.^, PI. VII. 

' Athens, Nat. Mtis. Cut. 779. 

A STA'ITi: Ii;i)M AN ATTir 'I'oMi: 

I 1 

tlli'SC t\|M-. ullill \\c IciiHliilxi thai llicrr were sets .i| tin .Mmnc.-, mM Mi. Milt 
Hiliculi iii.ulc wllully n|- III jiiUl \>\ (,'r|illis<i(|(itlls. Tin i<- !><, however, a 
certain lefiiieiiu'tit and ele^Miicc ill the tieatniedt ufchajM r\ whieh seems to 
(listill^Mlish these Maiitiljiali Milscx lidiii the w.iik ul ( 'ij)liisc,(|i.t lis, wlio 
ill hi'- I'Jiciir ami Thllll^ sc lll> In lulh.U Vel\ el(i-rl\ th'' ^-ilillih' ali<l 

Fu:. 2.— Tin; 'Maii:"'N <'V Hia;. 

ir ASKIM. 

(li'^nified IMiiihan tradition. V.\<\\ il \s.' ^laiit, li-iw.scr, thai the t\j»e of 
fiL^nro exeiiiplitied by the Mantiiuaii .Mii^es is to l>e assi^'ned in its orit,dn 
t) i'raxiteh's, We have still to eoii-.i,|, r uhetli' r this ty|>e is e.xehisively 

142 E. A. GARDNER 

suitable tiir Mnst-s. Its use in later times fur more ov less generalised 
portrait statues, whethei- set u]i un toinbs or elsewhere, suggests some doubt 
on this point. But the evidence hitherto available has been somewhat 
unsatisfactory ; and therefore a statue which is evidently of fourth century 
workmanship, and which gives us an example in the round earlier than has 
hitherto been known and near to the (original of the type, even if it be not 
that original itself, is of the highest value to us. Such a statue we now 
fortunately possess in that recently acquired by the British Museum from the 
Duke of Sutherland's collection at Trentham (Plates XXVII.-XXIX.)."^ 

The Trentham statue represents a lady advancing slowly, her weight 
thrown on the right leg, and the left dragging behind it; the head is bent, as 
in an attituih- of grief. The effect of the position is greatly enhanced by the 
drapery ; her cloak is drawn across the fr<mt of her body, so as to envelop 
both arms, and hang down behind over the left shoulder ; it is drawn into a 
kind of roll below the neck, and a portion of it is drawn over the head from 
behin<l so as to form a veil. Beneath the cloak the left arm is loweied, the wrist 
pressing a gathered knot of the drapery to the side ; the right arm is bent 
at the elbow, so that the hand is in front of the breast. In most other 
statues in the same position, this hand grasps the edge of the cloak. Here, 
h«»wever, it is turned over, so that the drapery clings close to its back and 
clearly outlines its form. There is a line round the lower edge of the cloak 
showing where a border of some sort was once added in ct)lour. The state of 
preservation of the statue, and the evidence as to its history, call for som<! 
comment. The amount and character of the restoration it has undergone are 
best reserved until we have noticed the vicissitudes through which it has 
passed. When I first saw the statue at Trentham in 190G, it was placed in 
the conservatory : but I understood that it had been moved to that position 
at the suggestion of ]\rr. R. Burn, who appreciated its artistic value. Previously 
it had been set up in the open on the terrace before the, protected 
only by a small circular canopy supported on columns ; and this exposure to 
the sm«jke and acrid air of the district of the potteries has been most 
disastrous. The discoloration has now, indeed, been removed by the 
Mu.seum Workmen; but the granulation of the marble stands out all over the 
surlace of the statue, and nothing of the original finish can now be seen. 
There does not appear to be any exact record of the acquisition of the statue ; 
but there .seems t«» be little doubt that it was accpiired in Italy by the 
second Duke of Sutheiland between 1830 and iS-io. Trentham Hall was 
being rebuilt between those dates, and the Duke was collecting works (jf art 
for the house and grounds during the building operations.^ We have no 
informati<jn as to where it was found ; but the state of the basis supplies 
evidence that it had been used a .second time in the Roman age. The 

*■' This statue has already been imMislie'l liy illustmtion.s show the character of the work. 
Mr. Cecil Sn)itli in the Ihirlhvjtoa .Va<jn-:iiic ^ For this information I am indebted to Mr. 

for Manh, ]90d. Tlie i>lioto;,'ravure accom- Alexander Simjison, whom I wish also to tliank 

Iianyin<^ liis article, h<jii> repeated, gives two for his hcli> during my visit to Trentham to 

rather unsatisfactory asj.ects ; but the other examine the scnliitures. 

A STAriK FKoM AN A ITU' ToMl; 14! 

jiwl'lMll ..I fi;it ^Muliml ^lin"MIl<llllU ill'' 1' ' ' •lll'l '!"• l"itl.p|ll nt" tile .|ni|M/l\, 

;iii<l iii;i(l<' (>r tlic saiiM- lil.i.K m| iiiarl)li' willi llifiii. is tut iii a r<»u^hly «»val 
.slia|if, a}iiiru\iiiialrly l"'ll'>u iiig ill'- r.iiituiii <ittlic -tatin''; this oval \va> 
|iritl»al)ly <irigiiiallv sunk in a si|uar<' jiliiitli, aicoriliii^ {n a ••uiinnoii jinictic«- 
in (Jivfk wr.rk. It is nuu .siiriouiidftl liy a kiml "f marble '(.Mjllar' with 
a (Irhasrd uinuMiiig Mil its «iutsi<l«', and tut away Hat at the }>ju-k. K<>un<l 
tin cil^'c <it' thr toji sinfar.' ut thf ori^'inal basis is an inscrijition, cut in \< ry 
shallow an<l iiaiiuw linis, aii'l ii'>\v jiartially <1< lactd — 


It is ini]K>Ksiblf. in view <»| ihi- ^lylf iA' the stiitiif, to sujtposc that this 
inscription has anything' to ijo with its Hrst eriM-tion. It is evidently an 
e.\an»|)l>- of the appnijuiation in Roman times of an earlier statue for a new 
|>uri»ose. This custom is familiar enough, especially in Cicero's stricture ' <Kii 
falsas insdiptiones statnarum alienannn." '" Examples of it are already known 
from the Ceramicus at Athens, as well as in the fifth century relief from 
Thespiae inscribed in Roman tinus with the inscription 'AjadoxXf} ^aipeV 
It sei-ms jirobabli', however, that Maximina. oi- her survivors, did not merely 
alter the inscription, but cinied the statue away bixlily, and had it set ti]» in 
Italy: <ii- it may have bi-en ]>art of a consignment of statues cairied ort" from 
(Irecceand sold for fresh use in Italian markets. In its new function it 
^eeiiis to ha\e been ^ict u]» against a wall, in such a position that it wo\dd 
only be seen fidiii the tnmt. It, is possible that" a cert^ain amount of 
lestoiation may have taken place at the time of this second use. There is no 
evidence as to the place where the slat ue was originally set up: but style 
an<l subject alike ^^nggest the Athenian Ceramicus. 

It is now necessiry to consider how far the statue as we now have it is 
identical with that originally set up in (ireec«' ; and circumstances make this 
investigation peculiarly difficult in the present instance. Recent weather- 
ing has made it impossible, from a mere examination of the surface, to 
distinguish modern restorations or iiiscriions from ancient ones; and the 
doulde use of the statue in ancient times also offers alternative po.ssibilities 
as to the date of ditfereiit portions. In the first place, the heatl is not 
only made in a separate piece fr«>m the bod\, l)ut is .also in a different marble, 
of coarser grain ; in all jtrobability it is I'aii.ui, while thi- body is Pentelie. 
There are also a good many repaiis in different parts of the bo<iy, especially 
in the front of the breast and in the toMs of the drapery: son)e of them are 
111 tiller, some in coarser grained marble; the veil at the back of the neck is 
.1 modern restoration in plaster. The left hand is .also a restoi-ation, and .i 
r.ithi-r one: it is too large, and sjtoils the eH"ect 'if the outliiK- 
li-oiii several jtoints of view. This hand is certainly not original, though it is 
difficult to s;iv whether it belongs to the Roman or the modern restoix-r. As 

'•' .Mr. t'lril .Smith NUj^gests tliat thin la^is '" K/i. ml. AH. vi 1. 

was iiii;,'iii.illy l:ii;,'i'r, unci Itccii cut «lo\\ii ; " .A'n*. A/"*. ''"'. N" 

l>ut I sec no snllici'iii rviilciicf for tlii**. 

14^ E. A. (iARDNEli 

tu the patches on the body and diaperv, it is moiT dittieult to judL,^:'. Souk^ 
of them, which are of the same marble as the body, may even have made good 
some flaws in the marble in the original finishing. What interests us most, how- 
ever, is clearly the head. From the style it is evident that the head is ancient, 
not a modern restoration ; and its harmonj- in character with the bodv, as 
well as such details as the lines of the veil, shows that it cannot be an ancient 
head of independent origin. It might, indeed, be a part of another almost 
e.xactly similar statue in different material, fitted in either by the Roman or 
the modern restorer ; another possibility. that must be considered is that the 
original head may have been damaged, and have been replaced by a co[)y in 
Parian marble by the Roman restorer. The state of the surf;\ce makes it veiy 
dittieult to judge whether this last is the true explanation ^■- ; but there is 
certainly nothing now visible in the workmanship to compel us to accept it. 
There is nothing unusual in the head of an Attic statue being made of 
a different piece of marble from the body. It is not so common for the head 
to bo of Parian while the body is Pentelic. But the superior quality of th(> 
Parian for rendering the texture of the tlesh was recognised even by Attic 
artists — Praxiteles among them. And of the use of the superior material for 
the head alone a familiar example may be seen in the Demeter of Cnidus. 

If then we find that the head and the body appear to combine in a 
harmonious effect, and that there are no technical reasons against their 
association as parts of the same original statue, we need not hesitate 
to consider them together. The head is covered at the back by the portion 
of the cloak drawn over to form a veil ; the hau' is also bound above the 
forehead by a broad fillet or a a^evZovrj, which spreads in the middle, aiid 
has the hair drawn over it in wavy curls at the sides. The nose and lips are 
in.serted in what seems to be the same marble as the rest of the head ; 
its texture is certainly similar ; but they probably date from the Roman 
restoration, if not more modern. The weathering of the lips, since this 
restoration, has exaggerated the opening of the mouth, so as to give a somewhat 
vacant expression. The shape of the face, the simple and broad modelling, 
the treatment of the eyes, just sufficiently shadowed by the brow but not 
sunk deep below it to gain expression, the wavy hair, are all of them 
characteristic of Attic work of the age succeeding the sculptures of the 
Pai-thenon ; they find their closest analogy in the heads on the best Attic 
tomb-stones, but are represented with more grace and delicacy of work, and 
with a more refined oval of the face than we usually find upon thosi' 
monuments. The work is that prevalent in Athens before the influence of 
tile great masters of the fourth century, Scopas and Praxiteles, was making 
itself felt. The expression of sorrt)wful contemplation is in a great degree 
due to the bent position of the head. 

The treatment of figure and drapi-iy is by no means inconsistent with 
that of the ftice. At first sight it may seem to show some later charaeter- 

'- This was sn-igest.-.l to im- in conversation by Mr. Ccinl Sniitli ; but he lias not mentioned it 
in liis article. 

A STAll i: I l;<>M AN AillC loMI". 145 

istics. Mr. C'foil Smith r.iiM|t,ii-.» ih.- <lr.iji. ly of tin- Aiiliixh l»v Kiitychi«l('s, 
and is thiTcfore iiiclirn'(l to ;ittril»ut<- tlif 'rniitliain *>tatiir to th«" bf^iiining 
of the thinl cinturv. Lik«' th*- Aiitioch. this i\^nw certainly n-wills the 
(•hanictor and stylf <»!' the Tana^ra ^tatiwtt*'^ ; but th< n'scmhlanrc niav be 
othorwise exphiinctl. It i«< j^'cnerally nro^nised that the Tanagra stAtnettes, 
with their ^aaceful poses and subtle anan^'enieiits of dnipery, are insjjiriHl by 
the art of I'nixitt'les, anil that their prototypes may be seen in Hj^nires siieh 
as the Muses on th<' Mantinean Itasjs \o\v the Trenthani «<tatue has 
much in eoinniun with those Musts, and when we eoinpare it with later 
variations on the same type, siieh as the Delian <<r the Hereulanean ladies, 
its earlier and simpler eharaoter is at once obvious. Whether M. Salomon 
Reinach be right or not in associating this Herculanean type with Lysippus, 
it certainly represents a later elaboration, prevalent in the Hellenistic age, of 
a Praxitelean original. With all th<'.se indieations to guide us. we may feel 
some confidence in attributing the Trentham statue to the earlier |virt of the 
fourth century rather than to its clo.«e ; and the character of the head, a.s we 
have seen, clearly indicates the same date. The head is not Praxitelean, but 
pre-Praxitelean. Can we say the same of the drapery t 

At the close of the fifth century we find two main tendencies in the 
Attic treatment of dra])ery. < Mi th.' our hand there is the simple and 
severe style, based on the Phidian ti.idition, whieh is exemplified bv the 
Eirene of Cephisodotus. The tliess is treated in broad .and simple folds, 
btit the outline of one leg is usually .seen through the drapery. On the 
other hand we have the delicate and .somewhat afi'ected style exemplified by 
the Aphrodite of Frejus (Venus Genctrix) and the Balustmde of the Victories, 
with its devices of drapery now elinging to the limbs as if damp, now 
sweeping away from them in temjiestuous and often exaggerated foKl.s. 
This last was frequently imitated in later times, notably in the neo-Attic 
reliefs, but we also see its influenci- in much work done by Attic artists or 
under Attic influence in the late fifth or early fourth centuries — for example, 
the sculptures by Timotheus .it Epi<laurus, or those of the Xereid monu- 
ment in Lycia. When we turn from these two styles of di-apery to that 
of the Tnntham statue, we feel at once that we have before us a new 
and original treatment. The regidar folds of the chiton,'* indeed, which 
show just above the feet, are not unlike those of the Phidi.m tradition, 
and the moulding of the left leg through the drapery also suggests a 
.similar comparison, though thr (io.ik obscures it. But the treatment of 
the cloak itself is eharacteristie. The roll into which the material is 
gathered round the shoulders and below the neck is not cjisy to pamllel 
in earlier work; the upper etlf^o of a cloak is more often turned over in 
a flat fold. A fairly near .malogy may be seen in the way the upper 
edge of the draj)ery is made into a roll roun<l the waist of the Aphnxlitc 
of Arle.s, and this certainly rejnf.sents .1 Praxitelean type, even if we do 

" They arc more regular than they appear in lines being due to damage of lh<- -urKic- . 
til'' i>hotogra]>h, many apparent lin-aks in tlif 



not accfpt Flirt wHUgler's i<lrntiHc;iti.)n ..f this Hgun- :is the inirtrait of 
l*lu\iu'. Ill the giMiL'ial sclu-iiK" (»f the (IniiuTV wo h.ivt' nothing of the 
cross strain in two diftrrent (Jircctions, and th<' somewhat restless eftcct 
that marks the Lysippean or Hellenistic variations. In this respect, as in 
maiiv others, it is ii.arer to the Mantinean Muses and to the Mourning 
Women ot the sarcophagus from Si<l(in. But in the clear in<licatiun of 
the form of the right arm through tJie thin drapery we have a character- 
istic that we do not find in any of these rtgures. On the <»ther hand, the 
way in which this etieet is attained is totally different from what we see 
in the Balustrade of the Victories and in the other works that show the 
same infiuence. It does not cling, as if wet, all round the limb, and then 
Hoat away from it in sweeping folds; but theiv is here the strictest moder- 
ation and harmon\-. above all the most (.'xact observation of the nature of 
tlu; stuff; there is nothing of the seeking after effect at the expense of 
truth. But while the drapery is in the best sense realistic and not con- 
ventional, it also avoids the accidental, and every detail is in harmony 
with the general scheme of the arrangement. Such a treatment at such 
a time, when other tendencies were paramount, seems to imply a high 
degree of originality, and may even incline us to attribute the statue to 
the hand of a master. 

The (piestion whether we can go further than this is a difficult one. 
If we turn to the literary evidence, siigg»'stive comparisons ocenr readily 
enough. We have already noticed that Praxiteles is said to have made 
statues set up over tombs in th<' Attic Ceramicus ; his Mourning Lady 
(Hens matrona) must have been similar in subject and tn-atment to the 
Trentham statue, and we have already been led by a technical similarity to 
ijuote in comparison the statue identirttd by Fiirtwangler as the Phryne of 
Praxiteles — the ti-iumphant courtesan (meretricem gaudentem) which is 
(pioted by Pliny as a counterpart to the 'Mourning Lady.' We must, how- 
ever. rememl)er that it is probable that other sculptors besides Praxiteles 
made such tomb-i>')rtraits ; the fact is recorded of Sthennis, a contemporary 
of Lysip[)us. On the other hand, we do not know of any other Attic artist 
of the re(piire<i date and tendencies, to whom the Trentham statue 
may be assigned. In view (»f the fact that the face does not show any 
distinctively Praxitelean characteristics, it seems safer to assign th(! statue 
to some unkn(jwn master inlK^riting many of the same tendencies from 
which Pnixiteles starte(i, antl a contemi>orary of that master during tiie 
earlier part of his career. If so, we must also admit some influence 
of this unknown sculptor on Praxit<'les himst-lf, as well as on the 
numerous statuis and statuettes that are generally regarded as Praxi- 
ti'lian in typ«'. It is hard to Ix^lieve In- was influenci'<l by Praxiteles, 
since the head of his statue — assuming it to belong — is pre-Praxitelean 
in character. 

If, then, our estimate of the position of tin- Trentham statue in the 
history of art be coriect, it sup[)lies us with valuable information as to 
the origin of a typi' that has been very i)opular in all lati-r art, and that 

A STATl'I-: FItoM AN ATTIC T(».MI'. 147 h.ul ;i uiilf iiitliit'ncf not only in Circect* i\.w\ Kmmi'', Ixit :il.s<' iii 
ni((li;ii\;il sculptiin-. 

It is iift'dlfss to cniiiin-nit"' hitor vari.itioti.s upon tin- t\|»«-. .S«-\t'nil 
have iilrrjuly bocn nu-ntioncil ; and tin- list, to be complctr, woiiM li.ivr 
to l)c ;i v(>r\ \o\i\:, <>ni', lor the t\[if brcanic a f'avourit<' <tn<- in HilleruMtic 
and Roman tinii-s for inoiv or less idralised portraits. Kxaniplcs from 
later art air <pu>t<'d by Prof. Str/,ygo\vski in his artich* on the C<K»k 
Sarcophagus pubiislu-d in tin- last voIuuh.- of this Jmniwl, notably in 
connexion with the figure reprcMJueed in Plate X., whieh he iixsigns t<» 
a Praxitelean origin. One example of the |)ersistence of the ty|K? 
in mediaeval art must sutiice, the two figures in the beautiful 
grouj) of the N'isitation of St. Klizabeth on the Cathedral at Kheims, a 
woik of thirtt'enth-century sculptuie. The figure of the \'irgin in this 
group is a good example of the type which the Trentham statue shows 
us in its earliest f<trm. It may not be easy to trace all the channels 
through which the inHueiice has jiassed ; but it would not be c.tsy t<» 
find a clearer instance of that continuity of artistic de\eIopment which 
may be traced through th<' finest sculpture of all ages. 

E. A. (J.\R[)NKH. 

L 2 


Grateful as we must all be to Mr. Ctnupton and Mr. Awdry for their 
adventurous climb,^ which to my mind has finally settled the path that the 
Messenians took to reach the toot of the g«jrge or gully, we have probably 
been puzzled by .some of their incidental remarks. I feel the less reluctance 
in commenting on them that most of my criticisms would, by their kindness, 
have been embodied in the article itsflf, had I not been absent in Greece at 
the time it was being written. 

In the first place what they call the ' notch ' is what Dr. Grundy and I 
both call the 'hollow.'- The word hollow was kept by Messrs. Lindsay, 
Bosanquet, and Crowfoot,-^ and there is no reason, I understand, for the 
change except inadvertence. It is more serious, however, that the part 
])layed by this hollow in the last struggle of the Spartans is misconceived. 
On p. 277 of the article we read, ' the summit was gained behind the backs 
of the Spartans; the Messenians when they appeared were above them ' ; ' it 
was in the notch that the Messenians gathered their forces before they 
ascended to the sunnnit'; and on p. 281, 'from the notch to the summit, as 
has been shown, the final .scramble of the Messenians would be accomplished 
in a very few minutes ; so that we may conclude that they were sighted on 
the summit within one-and-a-half hour of the time when they offered to the 
Athenian general the prospect of seeing the Spartans outflanked.' All this 
assumes that to c(jmmand the Spartan position it was nece.ssary to get to the 
summit, and that this sunnnit could only be reached by such a climb as the 
Messenians made along the cliff and up the gully. The Spartans are 
imagined as facing west, and lining the walls of the iraXaibv tpf/ia numbered 
AA, BB, in my original plan,^ while the Athenian forces face east. The 
summit on such an hypothe.sis must have been some little distance from the 
walls, as the narrative makes it clear that when they had reached it the 
Messenians did not ipso fadu come to close (juarters with the Spartans.^ 
Mr. Compton and Mr. Awdry have unfortunately not noticed my discussion 
of the problem of the relation of the hollow to the summit," the discovery of 
wall CC, and the photogiaphs and plan of the fort with which Mr. 

' J.//..S'. xxvii. ]■!.. 274-83. •• ///. xvi. ).. lu . 

- E.ij. ib. xvi. \<\K 10, 60. •' Tliu.'. iv. .56. 2. 

* lb. xviii. Y\\. V)^, 154, 157. '' J. U.S. xvi. pp. 60-2, xviii. p. 15.o. 


I.iii<ls;i\ .uhI M r. < imu tiHil sii|i|Mii ted my views' It fin- Sparlaiis hail <>iil\ 
faced west ami d. riMilt«l in. tiling' Imt waiU AA, UH tlie At lniiiaiis wmilil 
uithtiiit a (Iniiltt li.ivr passed luiiiid imith-east tu llic iioitli end i>l tlie hnllftw, 
and scraiiilded ii|i t he .smniiiit. withuiit waitinjj^ lor the elaborate strata^'em 
ot the Messeiiiaii elimh. Theie Would liave heeii nothing' to prevent thein. 
OiK't' on the suiiiinit, too, there would h;i\e i)eeii no chance fur de|a\ or 
parloy. Tlu'V would have been ri^'ht on the toj) of the Sjtartans, and iMU>t 
either ha\t; ton^ht or retired. In |»oint ol fa<'t the Spartans weri' dt-feiidin^ 
wall C'C, which lan alon^ the north of the hollow, as well as walls A A, 
P>l'> ; thcv facfd north as well as west. The Athenians, as Thiicydiijes s.avs,'* 
could not surround them except by the plan the Messeniaii.s carried thntii^h. 
What, then, was the position that the Mes.senians won ' It wjls not the 
suniiuit at all. Tlu-y never ^n)t to that. The ]»osition they won wa.s the top 
of the ^'idly itself. The i»art of the Spartan force that they primarily 
threatened was that di'fendiiiL,^ wall ('(', and the Athenians by whom 
they were sighted were those attacking that wall. They were still 
some way oft", .so that parley was possible. But they had complete control ..f 
thi- situation. One body of the Spartans was already surrounded from 
a point of vantage. If the attack were pres.sed home and this body wen- 
defeated, thi' Athenians would swarm up the hollow, mount the summit, 
and take in the rear the defendeis of the western wall. 

There is a further point in regard to the plan that Messi-s. Coiujiton and 
Awdry iirint on p. 27(j. While adopting my j)osition '' as t<i the slojte at the 
suiith-east corner of Pylos, where the Spartans intended to land and attack 
with engines, they have followed Dr. (Jrundy"^ as to the main line of 
Demosthenes' defence on the south side." Their hypothetical wall runs, as 
his did, from south-east to north-west, and leaves a considerable gap between 
it and the Sikia chamiel. As I have pointed out,'- this is against all th.- 
])robabilities of the ease. All along the shore of the Sikia channel Demos- 
thenes must have built close to the water's edge, where foundations of later 
walls still run to-da\. He carried it inland only at the south-west cornci. 
where it was impossible to build across the jagged rocks. This corner was 
where Brasidas tried to force a landing and Demosthenes led his men outside 
the wall. A glance at Mr. Lindsay's photographs'' will drive my point 

While on the subject of Dr. CJrundy's views, I should like to break a lance 
for him. In an incidental note to his ' Thucydides Mythistoricus,' '* Mr. 
C'ornford has inadvertently put forward as 'new' the view that the two 
entrances to the harbour referiid to bv Thucvdides are, fii-st the Sikia 

■ III. xviii. Fij,'s. 10, 11, pp. 15'2, 154, ami ilistus.sion in tho text of their articlf. 

Plate X. Fig. 9. " J.H.S. xvi. \k 25 ; CI. AVr. xi. pp. 156 7. 

•* Thuc. iv. 35. 4. " CI. licr. xi. p. 3 ; J.I/.H. xviii. p. 149. 

^ J.H.S. xvi. p. 64, iiiiJ riaii p. 57 ; xviii, ".See J.H.S. xviii. I'late VIII. Fi>r-. 4 

pp. 148 9, 350, and I'late VII. Kii,'. 1 VIII. Fig. an.l 5. 

4 ; CI. xi. pp. 2-4. '* 1". 86, n. 'Z. 

'" Though the iK)int does not come uiidei 


'^•hannel, and secuiidly the gap between the west end of the southern sandbar 
and the north-east corner of Sphaeteria. This view, which makes the two 
channels leally two ways of ap))r<tach to an inner harbour, covering the area of 
the ]>resent lagoon, is not new at all. It is not unlike one that I discussed but 
rejected in my first article,''' and exactly the same as that which Dr. Grundy 
biiiught fuiward s(jon aftir the apj>earance of his first article.'*" Further, in 
answer to my criticisms,'' Dr. Cirundy used identically the same arguments 
in defence of it'^ that Mr. C'ornford does. 

In conclusion, I should like to emphasize the fact that Mr. Compton and 
Mr. Awdry have madi- a real discovery. I have for a h^ng time''' looked on 
any hypothesis that involved re-embarkation as a jiis nl/ir, and, when I was 
last at Pylos in 1905, tried myself to find a land loute. None that I could 
see was more than baiely possible, while that described by Mr. Compton and 
Mr. Aw(hy is convincing. 

Ronald M. Buhkows. 

'•■ J. U.S. xvi. !>. 71. '" '-V. Rr. xi. pi>. S, 9. 

'* First as ill! addciuluni to the Ni>fcial ("iiiis '- Jh. p. If.S. For my Initlier answer see 

<( h\< J.H.S. xvi. arti-l.', tlun in CI. 11 r. \\. J. U.S. wiii. j)].. l.'jO-l. 
I'].. \U9-{^. Fur till- .:,'fnn uf it, sec liis plan, ''' CI. Rir. xi. y. 2 ; J. U.S. wiii. p. 1.'55. 

J.H.S. xvi. Flat.- II. TxwA p. l-l. 

].<)ST FHAdMKNTS oF TlIK 1 I'll K .KMCIA CKol'l' Af 

In thr .iii\i i'jd- of ih.- Ai'h. Jxhihrrh^ 1!M);. |.|.. L>24 tl., thf <liM.-uv<Ty 
;ui<l n-cunstrnctiun of a lirc-sizr iiiarM*- j,'ion]». iiuw in tli<' Xv-CarisluTg 
Miiscinii, is bricriy rciitntiMJ ; it, is (Icscrihfd as an oii^Mnal niaiblr \v<.ik, 
ajijU'oxiiuatfly (•<iiitiinjn>iai y with thf Niobids, aixl ivjuvscntinij ArUMiii.s 
s!ibstituting the liiii<l tor Iphigciu-ia. 

The r(>iiii>l<tt' investigation an<l publication of" this Hnc woik havo b«-fn 
lip till now i\tai(ltil by till' <li>appraran<'c of" two important fragnjonts. 
oiiginally fouinl with the lot at Koinf in lss»i, in thr (laidi.ns of Sallnst, on 
tht.' SpithJivfi- Estate. 'ruwar<ls the end of the last centurv these fell into 
the hands vi' Roman dealers, and in spite of mnch si-arching have not so 
far been rediscovered, 'i'hcy were, however, known trom brief writteri niemoi-- 
an<la (supjilemented by oral statements), and in particular from a jihotograph 
taken by Herr Josejih Haa»s at the time of their discovery. This photograph 
is here reproduced. The circular .iltar with the figures of seitsuns which is so 
conspicuous thereon <loes not belong to the gioup, but was at one time in 
the hands <»f a <lealer at Florence. < )n this altar mav be seen, besides <ither 
fragments ol the group, found theiewith or rescued from dealers' han<ls, the 
right foot of the Artemis, in high hunting-boot with crossed straps ; below the 
thick sole are remains of the jdinth. The heel is evidently raised, an<l the 
motive of the foot is therefore similar to that ot the ])iana of Versailles, a 
figure of the same pro])ortions. 

Even more important for the lecoiisti uction is the laige fragment in the 
lower left-hand coiner, of which only half is \isible in the photograph. It 
lepreseiits the back part (»t the hind, slightly under life-size. The letter a 
marks the broad flap-like tail (com]iare the animal in the Versailles group) ; 
It, the broken right hind thigh. The rc^t ol tlu' hind-legs, one fore-leg, as 
well as the neck, head, an<l nnnp, are mostly preserved, the hide l)eing 
admirably reproduced by means of tine chiselling. 

The hea«I> of Artemis .md Iphigeneia do not .ippeai- ever to have com,, 
to light; nevertheless they may have been concealed by the w«irkmen .it the 
time of the oiiginal excavation. ()f the fornu r. the knot of hair, lesembling 
that of the Wrsailles statue, and the ends of the fringed diadem have been 
pre.serverl ; of the Ij»higeneia, the lower lip of the half-opened mouth. 

The object of this preliminary jtublic.ition is to tiraw the alt«'ntion of 
archaeologists to the missing fr.igmeiit«^, with a \iew to a complete restor;ition. 


If anyone should meet with the least traec of these fragments, he is earnestly 
n-quested to connnunicate at cnce with the undersioiied, who is undertakmg 

the reconstruction and publication of this masterpiece, in conjunction with 
the founder and head of the N} -Carlsberg Museum, Dr. Karl Jacobsen. 

F. Studniczka. 

Leipzig, Lcibnizstrassc 11. 

[The above is a free translation of a note by Prof Studniczka in the 
Aichnoloffischer Anzeiger for 1907, which we insert at his request, togetlier 
with a reproduction of the j)hotograph for which he has kindly supplied 
a cliche. — Edd.] 

AKCHAi:()L<)(;\ IN CHKKCK— A ( OIMM:* TK ».\. 

I\ my ;uti(li <iii An liacolo^^y in Cinccc ( I IKXi - 1!)()7 ), {mblihliod in 
vol. xxvii. of this Jnunxil, I in.ulvt-rtfntly inisrcprcsrutfii Dr. Doi-rpfcM's 
views on tlu' relation of (JconK'tric t<t Myccni-an object.- in (Jiocce, and as Ik^ 
has |)()int('(l this out t<i nic, I am anxious to ifctify tlic eiinr ;is soon as 
possibh'. At the bottom of p. 2!)5 I wrote that 'few will follow him 
[l)r, Doerpfeidj in his lexoiutionary view that the '" (Jeuinetri*- " finds at 
Olynipia are pre- and not ])ost-mycenean.' This is not Dr. Doirpfeld's view. 
He has kindly told me that he holds that the ' Geometric ' objects l)elon<; to 
a different sphere from the Mycenean, and thus may be sonu- older than, 
some contemporary with, and some later than, the Mycenean period. It I 
had written that his view is that some of the ' CJeometric' finds at Olympi.i 
go back into the Mycenean and even into the jn'c-niycenean period, ux h.ul 
even written 'some of the "Geometric " finds ' instead of the "Geometric" 
finds* in thi- sentence in tjuestion, I should have presented his theory 
correctly. I have to thank Dr. Doerpfeld for the kind way in which he 
privately pointed out this mistake, and am <^lad to ha\e this opportunity 
to ])ut the matter right. 

I should also add that Zacharo, the site identified (p. '1\^{\) with the 
Homeric Pylos, is siuith and not n<>rth of Samik('tn. 

K. M. D.wvKiN- 


The Rise of the Greek Epic. Dy TiIlisert Murhay. Pp. xii + 28.3. Oxi<.r<l : 
Clarendon ^res^^, 1907. ('.*=. 

The interest and enthusiasm which hrilliant lectures aroused when delivered at 
Harvard and Colnnil)ia Universities will assuredly be felt hy all who read them in book 
fcirm. Mr. Murray, setting out from the axiom that the poetry of the nations represents 
giadually progressive ideas in social ethics, essays to show that, in this respect, the Homeric 
Epics contain ideas not only inconsistent with each other, but to some extent also incon- 
sistent with the times to which they refer, and in which they must, in part at any rate, have 
come into being. From these considerations he deduces that many strata have been 
supei-imposed one on another in the text as we have it, the Hiad, in particular, having been 
a traditional book in the private possession of a certain school of bards, and having been 
altered and added to from time to time, as we know to have been the case with similar 
heroic chronicles in many other literatures. The whole, he sees reason to think, was 
niiKtnii' comparatively late, and greatly expurgated, but by no means perfectly welded or 
rendered flawless from a literary point of view. He shows successfully that many similes, 
for example, aie not appropriate, as they stand, and many incidents are historically 
inconsistent. These represent different passages in the old traditional songs, too popular or 
too fine to be discarded by the later editor, and left standing for the edification of a 
generation which did not read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest, but got its ' Homer' rapidly 
by oral recitation. The original large period which he thinks the lays, as first composed, 
reflected was the epoch of disintegration, subsequent to the collapse of Aegean civilisation. 
In this fell tlie disturbance of the Greek seas by a Semitic expansion, and the great Early 
Migrations of the Hellenes, during which old local associations went int(j the melting-pot 
with much traditional religion and morality. 

The idea is, of course, not new, but Mr. Murray's method is largely so. He goes very far 
to convince his hearers that the Iliad is a 'traditional book,' and his final lecture on that 
subject is a most fascinating piece of reading. We may not always go all lengths with him : 
we may feel that the argument is often dangerously circular, especially where original 
characteristics of the poem are inferreil from their absence in our present text ; we may 
become tmeasily conscious, as we proceed, that Mr. Murray's criteri<m of early, late, and 
revised passages is no more scientific than anyone else's, but, if anything, more subjective 
than ever ; we may suspect a ' neoteristic ' tendency in the author's mind, which leads him to 
favour the theory on which the ink has had least time to dry ; but not only do we succumb to 
the spell of brilliant suggestion and brilliant style, but we feel for the first time that the 
Epics are being treated by a great scholar who is at the same time himself a poet, and we 
are only too ready to sit at his feet and learn all we may. 

The Eumenides of Aeschylus : with an Intioductiun, Commentary, and Tianslation, 
liy A. W. Vehi:all, Litt.D. Pp. Ixi-f 208. Macmillan, 1908. 10s. 

Die Eumeniden des Aischylos. Erklarende Ausgabe. Von Frieurich Bla.'^s. 
Pp.17!). Weidmann, l;»07. 5 m. 

All scholars know Mhat to expect in a new book of Dr. Verrall's upon Aeschylus. This 
edition of the Eumenides is <juite up to the high standard of its predecessors, and shows 

NOTICKS *)V lluoKS 105 

vtry iiiiuli the i^aiiie .|ii.ililii-, bnih t«r <^oo.l aii-l Tt e\ il. It i-i tlie w.-rk of .i Im..- 
scholar, willi an intiiiiati- an<l pinfuiiiid uiiderstaii.liiig of Creek tr.i^ Kvery line of it 
is alive ; dm <liHiculty has been -hiike.l either thruii;;h mere defirenie to authority ••r 
throu^^h sla. kne^j- <.f imagination. Thei^e (jirilitieb give it at on. e a lii^h j-laie, in many 
ways a unii|iie jihice, anion;; modern eominentaries on the Greek classic^. On the othi-r 
hand, the reader will, unlev he ih in some special sense a di-.iple, tind ahundant point* I'l 
di-.igree with in the Look. <>n almost every jmye Dr. Verrall says things whi<h theavera}:e 
scholar will think wrong ; Imt his wrongness often teaches one more than the ri^ihtnenH of 

He -tarl.s Willi an anal}-i- of the -tory as it was lieforo Aeschylus and as Aesihylin 
traiisfoiiiiecl il in order to reatli a satisfactory solution to the moral tan^;le of the 
Choejiliiiroi. Tlie Delphi of Aeschylus is totally different from the real Delphi ; the 
treatment of the Seninai or the Kuiiunides is obscure, but certainly in some way sjKjcial : 
tlie moral jiroblem receives a solution which must be the oii^inal woik of Aeschylus, if 
only for its ' profound unlikeness and superiority to the conimon relij^ioiis 
jTodticts ..f the Greek miml.' It is, acconling to Dr. Verrall, the mystic identity of 
Vengiance and Grace. It does not depend on the chance vote of tlie Areopagite jury ; no 
vote of a juiy can alter eternal laws. Still le.S3 is it dependent on A)»o11o'h famous 
jihysiolo-ical argument in defence of Ore.ste.s, that the child receives life only from the 
father, or with Athena's jironoimcement that she is 'thoroughly on the father's side,' or 
with the v.irious considerations of expediency that are allowed to affect the court. In 
fiict, it is jiot really the ver.lict that matters. What matters is the conciliation of the 
pi.wers of Vengeance, and their transformation int'> powers of Grace. How thi.s is 
effected must in the nature of the case be a mystery ; nothing in the word.s of the jday 
seems to Dr. Verrall to exjdain it. He believes that at a certain point, just after v. b87, 
Atluna's voice ceases to be heard. She is communing with the Furies in silence. During 
this silence they become c.ilm and shew a great awe of her. The niysteiious word has 
been sjioken ! This explanation is very interesting and deserves consideration ; but the 
present writer must confess that to him it is incredible. He thinks not only that the 
-tage-cralt implie.l is of an unexampled soit, but also that Dr. Verrall ens by raising 
metaphysical suVitieties which were not present in the mind of the poet ; anil that 
altogether there is more of primitive pre-Hellenic tradition in the Kvimenides tiian the 
editor quite likes to admit. 

The treatment of the text also is in detail unconvincing, but again very instinctive. 
A< usuil, Dr. Verrall rejects wholesale the critical work of the many generation- of 
scholars who have studied Aeschylus, the ' univeisally accepted conjectures,' the vulg.ile 
text which imposes upon us as if it possessed authority. This is a useful process. Then, 
when he has got rid of all the supeistructure of niclern emendation, he proceed- to use his 
manuscript— practically lie considers only the Medicean— in his own way. He emjdoys 
all his immense ingenuity toextract sense out of passages that seem corrupt ; he sonutiiues 
takes refuge in what .-eeiiis to us the fallacious argument, that a given form 'cannot be 
demonstrated to be impossilde.' Scarcely any conceivable form ever could. The editor's 
task is t<i choose what is most i)robable ani'iug many uncertaintic.«. Again, we cannot 
help thinking that in handling his MS. he ought to alb.w more for errors of mere chance. 
It is not in the least true that all errors in MSS. — ..r in anything else— can be deduceil 
from s]>eciiic ]irocesses of niisunderstiinding. Dr. Verrall conceives of the -cribe> as 
pei.sons who never nodded, however much tiny might mi-interpret through conscientious 
-tiipitlity. This i- the impression left on one from reading articles on textual criticism, 
where the nio-t interesting emendations are collected ; but it is not the impression left by 
MSS. themselve.s. The result in the jueseut case is a text which perhaps d<.K.s more to 
advance our knowledge and to make us think thin any text since Kirchhot1\«, but which in 
il-tlf probjibly contains more wrong readings than the average. 

It is interesting to comjiare this edition with that of the .-ame play by I'das.s, 
]'ublished alter that great scholars death in l'.>07. It contains text, complete s.holia, 
critical note-, and a fall and detailed comment.iiy at the end of the book. I'da.-, though on 


the whole conservative in his treatiueiit of the text, probably accepts fully five conjecture.s 
where Dr. Verrall accepts one. His immense learning,', aided by his general common-sense, 
makes the notes exceedin^^ly valuable, and we think that in many cases Blass successfully 
explains a received view whii h Dr. Verrall treats as impossible. But it is striking to 
notice, not how much the two editors differ in their exiilanations, but what different 
problems they select to explain. Most of the large ([uestions treated by Verrall are hardly 
noticed by Blass, whereas there is in Blass a constant stream of close linguistic comment 
and of erudite illustration which finds no place in Verrall. It is seldom indeed in tin- 
liistory of siholarship that two editions of [i\ classical text so different and both si> 
brilliant can have appeared at the same time. 

The Riddle of the Bacchae, the last stage of Euripides' Religious Views. 
By Gilbert Norwood. Pp. xix + 1S«. Manchester : Univ. of Manchester, 1!»08. 

This clever but, in our judgement, wrongbeaded book applies to the Bacchae the methods and 
theories of Dr. Verrall. Euripides is a sceptic forced by the conditions of his art to perform 
at a sacred festival; that is, as it were, in Church. (A good instance, this, of confusion be- 
tween ancient and extremely modern conceptions of Religion.) He conceals his scepticism 
from the public, but to the elect his plays are meant to be not so much plays as philosophic 
dissertations, in the spirit of Euhemerus, on the origin of religious belief. In the Ikirchae 
his point is to show how the belief in Dionysus as a god may have arisen, without of course 
admitting any miraculous element. Dionysus in the Bacchae is so revolting a character that 
he cannot be divine ; he must be human. (Other students of ancient religion would i)erhaps 
make the ' must ' and the ' cannot ' change places.) His divine power purports to be shown 
by the earthquake which wrecks the palace ; but since no one but Diony.sus himself and his 
worshippers, all of them interested parties, say that the palace is wrecked, and the Second 
Mes.senger for instance makes no remark upon it, it must be assumed that the Palace was not 
wrecked at all. It was a delusion : a delusion into which Dionysus hypnotized the hysterical 
Asiatic women. Dionysus, when analysed, proves to Ije no god, but a professional ' medium ' 
from Asia Minor, morbidly ambitious, daring, and cowardly. Pentheus is a just and patriotic 
prince, and — most readers will be surpri-sed to hear — has much the best of it in his discussions 
with the medium. Tiresias is a mischievous old medicine-man who has been bribed by the 
medium. Every miraculous element in the play is then taken separately and explained 
away ; some are not miraculous at all, some are only reported by insane or credulous 

The main theory seems to us not merely wrong, but utterly disastrous to any adequate 
appreciation of the wonderful beauty of this play. Sympathetic imagination, not the 
acumen of a cross-examiner, is the (quality which Euripides chiefly needs in his readers ; 
hajipily he now often receives it. But as an application of the Verrallian method to a new 
object the book is of value. It is well and vigorously written; it makes an attempt, not 
in our judgement a successful one, but still an attempt, to find a parallel to Euripides' 
supposed method of work in Marlowe's Jew of Malta ; and much of the detail shows close 
observation and good scholarship. 

Les Epigrammes de Callimaque : etude critique et litteraire, accompagnee d'une 
traduction. Par A. Hauvette. Pp.63. Paris : Leroux, 1907. 

Prof. Hauvette prints no text of Callimachus ; his work is therefore to be regarded as a 
companion to, and commentary on, the recent edition by Wilamowitz, to which fre<juent 
reference is made. He defends the authenticity of the epigrams, classifies them by subjects. 

N()ri('i:s oi- i;u()i;s 157 

ti'unslates, and ixplains tliein. Shhh- nf tlit- txplanatioiiH will appear to many reudors a« 
forced and improbable, but in ;;eneral tliis patn]>lilet will be found a useful aid to tin- 
comprehension of poems which -tainl in considerable need of > ominenUiry. 

A Book of Greek Verse I'-v W. Pp. x\iii + 310. Cambridge I'ni- 
ver>ity I're.— , 1!>07. (is. net. 

Mr. Headlain's vcdunu- may lie conlially leiummended to all -chcilari'. It loiitainf .i 
preface on tlie art of tianslalion, translation.-^ to and from (Jieek vense, and a few 
notes. The versions in both kinds are often ipiite admirable, and hWk Mr. Ileadlam .1 
place in the .same class as Sir R. .lebb and Mr. (lilbert Murray. The translations from 
Sappho are not, indeed, wlxdly satisfactory, but the Uanai-frajjiment of Simonides i^ 
perfect, and so .nre several of the smaller jiietes ; and the longer passages (the choruses 
from the StipplireK and EnineiiiilfH of Aeschylus, the Aiitiijone of Sophocles, and the 
tap^iiKfVTpia and OnXvcta of Theocritus) are excellent. The translations into (in-ek 
also rank with the best of their kind ; notably the version of Hugo's Gnitlilieha in Theo- 
critean verse. It is a book written by a scholar for scholars, with that tiiste for great 
literature which is the fine flowt r of sch(darslii]i. 

Fragments d'un Manuscrit de Menandre. Dy (J. Lkkeuvrk. I'p. .\iii + 2:ii. 
Cain., 1!»07. 2.'i f. 

The recovery of .some 1300 lines of Menander must rank as un'juestionably the most 
im]>ortant event in the history of Greek literature^ince the reappearance of liacchyli<les. 
If a complete ])lay had been found, it might easily have even taken the first jdace amoug 
all the discoveries of the present generation. Unfortunately the leaves of the pajivrus 
code.x obtained by M. Lefebvre at Kom Ishgau, in Upper Egypt, are divided between four 
jdays. The play best represented is tlie 'EniTpf'novTfs, of which about half v530 lines) is 
preserved : in addition there are the prologue and 50 lines of the"H/j«f, about 320 lines of the 
nfpiKtipnfxtvrj, and about 340 of the l'a/x(«, besides a few detaclied fragments. The identification 
of the first and last of these three is not certain, but ajipears highly proltable. Much of the 
UfpiKtipoptpT] is seriously and often liojiele-ssly mutilated ; but where the papyrus (the age of 
which remain uncertain until a facsimile is j)ublished) is intact, it appears to be 
e.isily legible. M. Lefelnre's edition (in which he has had considerable jussistance from 
M. Maurice Croi.sct) appeared within two and a half years of the date of his original dis. 
covery, an<l for this promptitude (in the circumstances of the case) scliolars are greatly 
indebted to him. It contains a transcript, restored text, translation, and brief introiluctions 
and notes. The difficulty of preparing it in Egypt, at a distance from libmries, and in the 
midst of official work, must have been great ; and in c(ni8e<[uence many defects are left 
which a more careHil i-evision would have removed. Several obvious emendations or 
supplements are overlooked ; and not a few lines have been left with defective metre. A 
second edition is promised, with a facsimile of the papyrus ; and materials for the revision 
of the text have meanwhile been contributed by many scholars. The most noteworthv of 
these contributions are two articles by Wilamowitz (in the Sitzmif/sherichte of the Berlin 
Academy and in the Xenf Jahrh. Id. All., Bd. xxi) and a pamphlet by Mr. Walter Headlam 
{Resluratiiins </ Memnuler, Cambridge, 1908). In jmrticular, it has been shown bv 
Wilamowitz and Legrand that the leaves containing 11. 342-48G of the IVt/^i'a as published 
in the edilio priiuepx really belong to the UtpiKupopivrj. It may be added that the more 
complete portions of the 'Enirpinavrti and the I'a/ji'a (about .'iOO lines in all) have already 
been reprinted in a very neat little editi'.n by MM. Bodin and Mazon (Paris : Hachette, 
1908), with brief notes. 


More importiiut, however, tlian the details of textual criticism is the ((uestion as to 
the general literary quality of the recovered comedies. They suffer, no doubt, from their 
mutilation, but wherever a complete scene is preserved (and notably in the ^ETiTpfnovTfi) 
it is bright, lively, and natural. The action moves briskly, and the characters arc alive. 
The plots are unpleasing and show little variation in theme, and the verbal wit is not 
especially striking ; but it is easy to imagine that the plays would be amusing and effective 
on the stage. They have a life and spirit which their Roman imitators too often fail to 
reproduce ; and they are not so sententious as the extant quotations might lead one to 
expect. In short, though we are still without sufficient materials for a full and fair 
estimate of Menander, the recovered fragments are not unworthy of his reputation. 

The Oxyrhynchus Pap3n:i. Part V. By B. P. Greni'ell and A. S. Hi nt. Pj). viii + 
342 ; 7 Plates. London : Egypt Exploration Fund, 1907. 25s. 

The fifth volume of the Oj->/rJninchi(s Papyri puts all its predecessors into the shade. It 
contains only five texts, but of these, two are new classical works of considerable size and 
interest, two are unusually long MSS. of known works, and one is theological. The 
last, a single vellum leaf (fourth or fifth century) from an apocryphal Gospel, may be 
left to theologians. The two known classical works are the S>/mposiuin of Plato and 
the Panegiiricus of Isocrates, of each of which approximately half is preserved in papyrus 
rolls of about the second century. The text in both cases is eclectic, as usual in papyri. 
The Plato MS. rarely supports the inferior MSS. or modern conjectures, but it oscillates 
between the better MSS. and has a few good readings peculiar to itself. The Isocrates MS., 
like the British Museum and Marseilles papyri of the same author, agrees with tlie 
Urbinas oftener than with the vulgate, but not by any means invariably, and its peculiar 
readings do not command respect. 

Of the new texts, the first consists of portions of nine Paeans of Pindar, written in two 
hands on the ver^o of a roll which is assigned to about the end of the first century. None 
is perfect ; but about 60 lines of the second paean, 33 of the fourth, 13 of the fifth, 95 of 
the sixth 13 of the eighth, and 36 of the ninth, are either complete or can be approximately 
restored. In general character they resemble the epinician odes, and contain some striking 
passages ; but no doubt their mutilation detracts from their effect. Prof. Blass and Prof. 
Bury have made contributions towards the restoration of the text. The second discovery 
is a historical work, comprising 21 broad columns (some imperfect) written on a verso of a 
land-register of the second century. The editors have succeeded in combining the remains 
into four groups, the relative order of which is somewhat uncertain. If the order finally 
adopted by them is correct, the events recorded belong to the years 396-5 B.C.; if the 
alternative (for which there are considerable external grounds) is correct, the whole falls 
into the year 395. The principal contents are an analysis of the anti-Spartan feeling in 
various states of Cireece, the naval campaigns of Conon, the operations of Agesilaus, and 
tlie Boeoto-Phocian war (including a valuable description of the Boeotian federal 
constitution). There are marked divergences from Xenophon. The style is very plain and 
undistinguished, and the tone impartial. Internal evidence shows that it was written 
between 387 and 346, and perhaps as a continuation of Thucydides ; but the identity of 
the author is very uncertain. Three claimants are considered by the editors — Ephorus, 
Theoponipus, and Cratippus. Blass was in favour of the last, and lUtry is disposed 
to agree with him ; but so little is known of Cratippus that scarcely any positive 
argument in his favour is possible. Meyer and Wilamowitz argue for Theoponipus, 
and the editors, after a very clear and impartial statement of the arguments on either side, 
cast their vote with them. The main difficulty in this identification is the style of the new 
writer, which is totally unlike all that we know of Theoponipus. Since the publication of 
the volume, Prof. De Sanctis, of Turin, after adducing several strong arguments against 
Theopompus, has proposed to identify the work with the'AT^t'y of Androtion ; I'ut here again 

N(»Ti('i:s oi' r.noKs mo 

l>i)sitivi- j^roiintls of iilentilicatinn are scaiily. Pinbalily llic qiioli^ti will have to 8tan<l 
()\ er imtil further discoveries have been iua«le. Mcanwhilt- the wliole volume is n-luiirably 
fditecl, as iisual, and ^iieciiueii facsimile** are j^iven of each MS. 

Papyrus ^ecs. Tnmr i, fisc. i. H\ 1', .loi lii Kr au'l .'. [-K>.yi iei:. Pp. C4. Pari»« : 
Leroux, I'JOT. 

ThisHUiall but hainlsoinilv [irinted fa-i icuhis i- tin.- Iir-t-lr»it> ■-! the lii-titut Papyroloj^inue 
lie rUnivereiti- de Lille, founiled and directed by M. Juu^^uet. It contains iteven non- 
literary di)cument9, with introductinn-- and commentary after the manner now usual except 
,it Berlin. Their interest is mainly for specialists, but fur them the firat text in particidar 
is c)f some impfirtance. It is a description 'with plan) of a plot of (ground with it« irriga- 
tion canals, and incidentally it S(dve> a problem in metrolo^'y whi( h lia> been a puzzle 
since the first publication ol the Petin- Papyri, namely the dimensions of the ¥a(,iiov, a 
measui-e of capacity used espcci illy for mea.surin^ excavations of .soil. It is now .sliown to 
be the cube of two royal cubits. The other te.vts (all of which belon)^ to the thiid century 
n.c.) include a fra;.;ment of a laml-survey, some letter- of a ^niriXiKoi y/>a/i/xaTfi\-, correspond- 
ence relating to ic\r)povxot, or military settlers (giving useful evidence as to the conditioDH 
under which the allotment mi^'ht pass from father to son), orders for advances of seed-corn, 
and petitions of various kinds. It is to be hoped that the Lille Institut will shortly be 
able to complete the volume of which this is the first part, and >iipl>'y it with facsimiles 
and indices. 

The Works of Aristotle. Translated into Enitlish under the Editor.^hiii of S. A. Smith 
(Fellow of IJalliol College) and W. D. Ros-s (Fellow of Oriel College). Part 1 : The 
Parva Naturalia, translated by J. I. Be.vre and G. R. T. Rosh. Part 2 : De Lineis 
luFecabililius, translatetl by H. H. Joachim. O.vfoid : Clarendon Pre-s. 3s. cd. net 
and 2s. 6d. net. 

We notice these as the first two parts of what, it is hoped, will be a complete translation 
of the extant works of Aristotle. The undertaking^ ia the outcome of the desire of the 
late Dr. Jowett, that the proceeds from the sale of hi-, works should be u.scd to promote 
the study of Greek Literature, especially by the publication of new translations and 
editions of (Jreek authors, and that the tninslation of Aristotle .should be proceeded with 
as speedily as possible. The editors would be i,'lad to hear of scholars who are willing to 
cooperate. The Onpitwn, Phyxics, De Cueh; De Aiiinni, Hiblorui Aniindlinm, De Animaliuiu 
<ii iieiatioue, Metiiphfisic<, Endeinxau J\lliic'<, Ithetorn, ami Pnelirs have already been 
airan<'ed for. 

The Palaces of Crete and their Builders. By Anuelo Mosso. Pi<. 348. With 

1H7 illustrations and -2 plans. T. Fisher Unwiu, 1907. 21s. 
The Discoveries in Crete. By Prof. R. M. Birrows. With Illustrations. Reprinted, 

with Addenda on the Setuson's Work of 1907. Pp. xv-(-251. Murray. 1907. 5s. 
La Cr^te Ancienne. Par le Pcre M. J. Lagrange. Pp. ITiS. Illustrated. Paris : 

Gabalda, 1908. 

Dr.'s book is a translation of a description of the Cretan discoveries which is ' chatty * 
enouplj, and occasionally sli^ditly amusinj,', but is not a contribution to scientific literature. 
.\lthough from his own account Dr. Mosso would appear to have taken a considerable 
part in Dr. Pernier's e.vcavations of 11)0(>, he makes no claim to be a Fachimiiin. Only in 
ihe last chapter does he definitely sjieak of ' the conclusions to which I have come ' on 
the subject of the racial affinities of the .Mycenaeans, ami evidently reganls these conclusions 
as original. As a matter of fact, however, these opinions, whether they are right or 


wrong, have always l>een in the air, ainl were first put forward in a systematic theory 
by another writer some seven years ago. Since then all archaeologists have been thoroughly 
familiar with the ideas which Dr. Mosso apparently considers to be novel. 

Dr. Mosso is apt to let his pen run away with him, especially when he is discussing? 
the appearance and costume of the Minoan ladies, to whom he constantly returns with 
gallant but wearisome iteration. Speculations as to Minoan cookery also interest him 

The best thing about the book is the illustrations, which are chiefly good and include 
numerous photographs, some of which have not yet been published in England, notably 
tlie Agia Triada vase shewing a king receiving a warrior, or sending him forth to war. The 
worst thing about the book is its price. A guitiea, even for these good photographs, is a 
heavy price to pay. 

Prof. Burrows's book has been reprinted, with additions. It is evident that its low price 
has in great measure atoned for the lack of sufficient illustrations. We are glad that it 
has been so successful, as there is no doubt that it has supplied the want, much felt among 
university men, schoolmasters, and the large body of those who are interested in Greek 
antiquity, of a succinct and critical description of the results of the archaeological work 
in Crete, which should not be written by one of the actual discoverers, nor by a mere 
summarizer of their views, like Pere Lagrange. Others have thought of supplying this 
want, but had preferred to wait till yet more was known and Mr. Evans had published his 
results in extenso, but Prof. Burrows has thought it best to step in and publish his book 
now, with results that are encouraging to those who believe in the paramount import- 
ance of the work of investigating the older culture of (jreece. After all, there is 
something live and young about ' Minoan ' study, which, properly advertised, would interest 
far wider circles than do the discussions of later Greek sculpture and vase-painting, of 
which 'classical' archaeology seems chiefly to consist. This advertisement has been given 
by :.Prof. Burrows : his liook is a cheap poster which has attracted attention, and has 
probably determined the course of a certain number of guineas into the unhappily none 
too well filled oft'ertory-bag of the Cretan Exploration Fund. 

Of the general trend of Prof. Burrows's criticism we have not space to say more than 
that it is eminently sensible, and quite free from the so-called 'criticism' of those dull 
souls who cannot see that only mt-n with some power of imagination could have understood 
the significance of what they were finding at Troy, at Mycenae, at Knossos, or at Phaestos. 
};y imagination is not meant invention, but the power of visualizing the ancient civilization 
\mder investigation as it probalily wa-», which a trained sense of the probable and imjnob- 
able gives ; it is the greatest gift of an archaeologist, without which he is only fit to keep 
the records and compile the indices of those avIio have it. A good point of Mr. Burrows's 
book, which might well be imitated by other writers, is his full recognition of the part 
which Egyptological knowledge must play in the work of recovering the lost history of 
Heroic Greece. In<liH"erence to the Oriental sources of knowledge, and ignorance of their 
importance, are still displayed by far too many classical scholars, so that Prof. Burrows's 
complete discussion of the views of the Egyj)tologists may open the eyes of some. Perhaps, 
as when in the last addenda (Oct. 1907) he discusses the sex of the body found in the tomlt 
of Queen Tyi, or the possible identification of the Exodus of the Israelites with the 
Expulsion of the Hyksos, he sometimes is too Egyptological, and strays beyond the l)Ounds 
of his subject ; but it is such a novel sensation to find any Greek archaeologist but 
Mr. Arthur Evans able to be interested in Egypt and what Egypt can tell him, that we 
can forgive this little fault. Prof. Burrows's discussion of Egyptian dates is extremely 
good, and should be read witli attention. He points out that the Egyptologists are practic- 
ally all agreed on the date of the Eigliteenth Dynasty, contempcjiary with the Cretan Great 
Palace Period : the discrepancies begin only with the Twelfth Dynasty. And here there 
are many signs that the low date of Prof. Eduard Meyer and the German scholars will 
prevail, and that Prof. Petrie will have to abandon the very high dates lately put 
forward by him. 

The Eastern evidence must be studied by the investigator of prehistoric Greece, which 

Nolle I ;s (>!•' li(M)Ks 1(; 1 

was an Oriental Iniul as it 's a;;ain ti>-ilay. As I'rof. ISimidws wiiU-s on p. I.}') : ' We arv bo 
ai'CiiHltinii'il ti) thinking' uf ('lassical (ircfci- an tin; bulwark uf the Wist a;{ainHt the Kiutt 
that wi- I'or^ct that tliis attiliulc of iiniicrvionHMfss in only n Mhort chaptor of liiHt4)ry. 'I'lie 
political aj,'^ns.sion of IVr.sia meant that for the 180 yt-ars durin;,' which our attention 
is most conciiitralcil on the (Jrci-k Worh! it is tlie frontier fortress »»f Knropc, reHintin^; ami 
not rccfivin),'. That all tliis was chan^cil by the coni|ne8tH of AlexamUfr iH accepted as .» 
commouplaci". (Jrccce did mil ?o much ;,'ive to Kurope a Semitic reli^'ion, iw help the 
Semites to create one ; and the Koin'in-( ireek Kmpire wuh a j^'ood half Oriental. It is our 
classical prejudices tliiit hiuiler us from acceptinj,' as" true for liefore Maratlion what we ilo 
not sjiriuk from after Arluda.' And we have not yet allogtther idiandom-d tlie ' Arvan ' 
.superstitions of the days of Max Muiler, (Jladslone, and <'ox, when evervthiuK that not 
virtuously Aryan was wickedly IMrotmician an.! Semitic. Nowadays between the up|>or 
and nether claims of Mediterraneans an<l Sumerians to have lathered their civilization, 
the Semites seem in danger of bein;,' abolishetl alto;,'ether ! When we say that Minoiiri 
culture was Oriental, it is not meant that it was Semitic. Even the 'Camuinite' type of 
relij^ion is Mediterranean, not Semitic, in orij,'in. 

A'nother j^ood point of I'rof. JJurrovvs's book is his discussion of the noitliern evidence 
from Russia and Servia, which is also e.xtremely important as showing the far northern 
extension of the Aei^ean culture from its Mediterranean slartin;,'-point. I'rof. I'.urrows 
accepts tlii--, the usual view al the juesent time. His criticisms of the theories of Northern 
orij^in, and also of Prof. Doerpleld's Carian theory, are very useful. As in IVre Lagninj^e's 
book, the references ami notes are very full and good. Both these books differ from 
Dr. Mo.sso's in beinj,' scientific works, but Prof. Hurrows's is of course far superifir to that 
of Pire La<,'rangc, in that it is critical and original in treatment. We only deplore the lack 
of illu.stratioiis, which, we suppose, were impossible at the price. 

Pere Lagrange's little book on ancient Crete was published after Dr. Mos^o's, 8o that ho 
is able to utilize some of the latter's conclusions in his final chapter, ' Les Origines.' His 
book is a useful summary of tiie results of the excavations in Crete, which haa this one 
advantage over Prof. Burntws's similar work, that it is well illustrated, though some one or 
two of the drawings by Pere Vincent are rather crude : the coloured reproduction of the 
'Cupbearer,' which acts as front isjiiece, is frankly hideous in colour, and not at all 'like.' 
To French readers Pore Lagninge's book will be of great value, us giving them an idea of 
what has been done in Crete during the last ten years. 

Necessarily there is not much that is original, strictly speaking, in the book, and in 
the one case in which the author does broach a new and oiiginal theory, we fear it is one 
that will not hold water, as when he compares Miiiuan with Proto-Klamite anliijuitie.«, and 
dreams of a possible Klamite conipiest cd' Crete before :iOOO u.t., or at least of a racial 
connexion between Klain and the Aegean (pp. H7, HI). On this point the author does not 
seem to have reviseil his work very carefully ; tliis idea contradicts other pa«sag'js in wliich 
we are given the usual theory of the non-Aryan 'Mediterranean' character of the 
' Minoans.' W they were Mediterraneans, wlio probably aime originally from Africa, 
they can hardly have been Klamites ! 

It may be that Pere Lagrange thinks the 'Mediterraneans' w<'re nearer akin to the 
' Indo-Europeaus' than they really were, Imt the j)ro-Aryan prejudice is one not ea.sily 
shaken off. He emphasizes the ' ' character of Cretan art and culture, ami (up 
to a certain point) ipiite correctly : but European <loes not mean ' indo-E.iMpean,' and for 
the Minoans means in reality i»nly '(ireek ' : Europe was not invented in their day, and, 
while themselves the originators of Greek (' European') civilization, they are, accortling to 
the usual theory to which we have already referred, probably to be traced to Africa. 

In dealing with art and religion Pere Lagrange's work is succinct, well argued, and 
often suggestive. But we doubt not that he much exaggerates the Puppose<l symliolism of 
Mycenaean art, even going .<o far on p. 108 ius to give a qualilied adhesion to the fanla.stic 
ideas rif Houssiy and his 'Theories de la (Jeiiese a Mycene.^.' 

The author shows a little and rather dangerous acc^uaintance with Egyptian lon>. We 
marvel at his .serious quotations of the Naj)oleonic 'Description de I'f^gypte' as a siicntifie 
H.S. — VOL. XXV 11 r. M 


uutlioiity, ami still more at his leprodxiction of one of its pictures (p. 91) which shows a 
lute, styii/ed, ami luoii^'rel headdress of a j,'oddi'ss, with three hawks uhove it, of ahsolntely 
no archaeoloj^'ical authority, and with no possible iipplicahility to the author's ar<,'nnient. 

To Enj^lish readers the hook will be of use as j^iving more illustrations of the Italian 
restilts in an accessible form. The delay of the Italians in publication is re.i;rettable, and 
they cannot be surprised when one of their own countrymen (Or. Mosso) anticipates them 
in publishin-,' the 'King and Warrior' vase from Agia Triada, and Pere Lagrange in giving 
a sketch of the famous sarcophagus from the same ])lace (p. (51). It is very regrettable 
that Prof. Burrows could not obtain leave to publish the vase, if Dr. Mosso was able 
to do so. 

Life in the Homeric Age. 15y Thomas Day Seymouh. Pp. xvi + 704. Illustrated. 
New York : The Macmillan Company, 1907. 17s. 

This hook rejtresents the principal life's work of the late professor T. D. Seymour of Yale. 
In a long introduction he takes note of the Homeric Question in all its l)earings, literary, 
philological, and archaeological, but decides that, for the purpose which he has in view in 
the text, lie must treat the Epics as wholes, one and indivisible. This is reasonable, since 
' Homer,' as it is put now into the hands of students at universities and schools, is a fixeil 
text-book, ami a Comi)anion to Homer must take account of the whole textus receptus. 
lie then proceeds to coordinate and set out all the information to be derived thence as to 
the contemporary life, with comments drawn from Mycenaean discoveries. So far as Homer 
goes, this book supplies an extraordinarily full and comjilete cimcordance, and the 
iirchaeological material is brought into play wherever it is in any way appropriate ; but the 
latter is regarded in an uncritical spirit and without much distinction into locality or 
epoch. In fact, even as ' Mycenaean ' seems to be accepted as an adequate designation for all 
the Aegean remains, so all these are spoken of as though products of one homogeneous 
))eriod. The value of this volume, therefore, lies rather in its jiurely textual reference, in 
its collection of all jiassages bearing on sucli subjects as the Homeric State, Dress, House, 
Food, Proj)erty, Sla\ery, Trade, ( 'rafts, Sea-faring, Agriculture, Fauna, Gods, Religion, 
and War. The book may be summed up as the latest and best example of a rapidly 
disappearing class of llomi^ric commentary. 

The Architecture of Greece and Rome : a Sketch of its Historic Develop- 
ment. P.y William J. Anderson, A.H.I. 15.A., and U. Pheni^: Si'ikrs, F.S.A., 
F. i;. I.IJ.A. Si-coud I'Milion, Uevised and Eidarged by U. Phknio Siikrs. Pp. xxii-f 351). 
25.') Illustrations. London: IJatsfoid, 1907. 

This edition is enlargtd by the addition of about (JO pages of text and 75 new illustrations, 
the most imjMirtant additions being a <Uscri])tioii of the Cretan palaces, and a new restora- 
tion, by the author, of tlu- gre it vaulte<l touib at Mycenae. What is even more satisfactory 
is the careful revisicm which has corrected almost all the errors of detail that impaired the 
value of the first edition. In its new form the book can be recommended without reserve. 
The mw illustrations are most valual)le. 

Die Burgtempel der Athenaia. Von Ki<;i;n' Petkkskn. Pp. 147. Four Illustrations. 
Pcrliii : Weidinann, 11)07. 4 ul 

On such a th.,-me as this it might well seem that there was nothing new to be said ; but 
Professor Pet.-i.sen, by a careful discussion of all the evidence, has reached some new 
results whidi will iiave to be considered in all lulure works on the subject, though some 

N<)TIC;i:s OF IIOOKS 103 

are uncerUiin mid ft-w iirv likdv to lie uiKli-^iiiili'.l. Hi- iiciintiiiiis tluit tlio earlii-l ltiii|>Ii' 
con8i>;te(l of u (loiibK-whriiK' on the silo of the lu-i-miit Kn-chtlu'iiin ; uikI tliat the n-preM-iiliition 
of this shriiii' fcirmed purt of llie s,iiiii' jM-ilinienl as the ^Toiip of ^'imIi willi the apotliro^ih ,>{ 
Henu'h'8. lie n-^^anlf tin' earlie.Mt worship «)f Alh<-iia an aniconic, mipi rwtleil uiMler 
Iloiiierie influeiico lirnt hy the staiulin;^ iiua^'e witli hrainiisheil «pear, whiili hiler < aim' to 
Ite ret^anUMl u-s primitive, ami later by llie sealed type originated hy EndoeiiK. Further 
discussion of llio nature and altinitioA of Kn-clitlieiis asHociatvH liitn and hin deft w-illi a 
• puteul ' and hole in the roof ahuve it niarkiiij^ the falling of a thunderbolt. Finally wo 
have a discussion of the Krechtlieiini itf^elf, and the contents and relationn of its variouH 
parts ; and here also new !ij,'ht is thrown on well-known dilliculties. 

Greek Buildings represented by Fragments in the British Museum. 
(1) Diana's Temple at Ephesus. Uy W. 11. Lktiiaiiv. I'p. 3(J. L<.M.b.n : 
Hatsford, 11)08. 2s. 

This pamphlet is an architect's study of the fra^'inentfl in the IJriLisli Museiini, derived 
from Woo<l'8 excavation of the temple site ut Ephesus. The early tem|ile is li;.;htly dealt 
with, since the evidence of the new excavations wa.s not availal>le. In the discussion 
of the Hellenistic temple the author dissents from Mr. Murray's well-known arraufjemenl, 
which used tlic scjuare .sculptured piers to make liiises for the .sculpttned druni'^, rlsin^; from 
the staircase, and having' their u])per surfaces level with the styloliate. Mr. Lethabv makes 
tlie piers, the drums, and the Ionic bases serve as corrcspondinj^ memljers of the first, second, 
and subsefpieiit rows of columns, as counted from the end. The stone Itcneath the base 
in the British Museum, which Murray re},'arded as part of the stylf)bate, is used here as a 
plinth, similar ]dinths l>ein}^' postulated under each of the three forms of base. 

Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Billedtavler til Kataloget over Antike 
Kunstvaerker. 73 Plate.'*. Copenhagen, U)07. 

Like Arnelung's Vatican Catalo}.;ue, the present work is an attempt to illustrate an entire 
collection by ph()to,;rapliic methods. It consists of about 850 admirably executed half-tone 
blocks, printtd on 73 plates. The letterpress consists only of number, title, ami dimensions 
under each subject. An inscription announces that the work was published on the twenty- 
fifth anniversary of the Mu.seum, Nov. 5, 15)07. Its seventy-three i)late8 ^'ive an impressive 
idea of tlie growth of the collection duriu},' the comparatively brief period of its existence. 

Olympische Forschungen I. Skovgaards Anordnung der Westgiebel- 
gruppe vom Zeustempel. Hyd. Tkki-. [Abhandlungen der Fhilol. -hist. Khuse 
der k. S/ichs. Hes. d. Wissenschaften, xxv.] Pp. 1."), autl three folding plates. 
Leipzig : Teubner, 1907. 2 m. 40 pf. 

Tlie Danish painter Skovgjuird pi\blishuil in 1905 a discus^icm of the arrangement of the 
western pediment of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia. He based him.self on tlie l; 
restoration of Prof. Treu (siibiuitteil as a loose leaf to the forty-fourth congress of 
Philologists at Dresden), but proposed the transposition of the two gioups of combatants 
on each side of the central trio. Instead of Treu's order (K U) that of Skovgiuird runs 
E PQ N o K I, M H .1 KG R. In the present piiper Treu proves, l^y actual exiH;rimeiits made 
within the pediment frame at Dresden, that Sk.i\gajird"s scheme is inailmi.s8ii)le. 

M 2 


Scopas et Praxitele. La Sculpture grecque au IV" si6cle jusqu'au temps 
d' Alexandre. By Maxime Colli(;non. [Les Maitres de I'Ait.] Pp. ]7o, and 
2i Plates. Pari.s : Libraiiie Plon, 1907. 3 f . 50c. 

M. Collii^Hou lia.s iiKule a study, with cliaracteristic delicacy and Hubtlety of criticism, of 
the sculjitors of the lirst three ([iiarters of the fourth century jj.c. After discussion of the 
period of transition from Plieidias to Scopas, two chapters are devoted to Scopas and hi.s 
works ; two chapters to Praxiteles. A chapter is ^iven to the contempoi-aries of Scopas names are known to us, especially to the artists of the Mausoleum. Another 
chapter discrihe.s some of the e.xtanl works, such as the Demetcr of Cnidos, that appear to 
helon*; to the jieriod. The hook is completed with a notice of decorative work done at 
Alliens during the fourth century, and a suinming-u]) of the whole character of the sculpture 
of the time. Jt is supplied with a chronological talde, a sutiicient ])il)liography, and an index, 
and is adequately illustrated. 

The Rendering of Nature in Early Greek Art. V>y E. Loewv. Translated 
by J. i\)THEK(;iLL. pp. xii + 10f>, with 5U Plates. London : Duckworth, 1907. 

The author starts with the psychological thesis tliat the primitive artist does not 
consciously copy natural objects. lie .seeks rather to express the generalized mental image 
which he lelains of an object. This image will always be the one ' which shows the form 
with the i>roperty that differentiates it from other forms, makes it thereby most easily 
distiiiguishal)le, and presents it in the greatest clearness and completeness of its con.stituent 
parts.' Accordingly, it will usually be coincident with the form's greatest expansion^e.r/. 
that of u (piadruped will be a side view. The essay examines liow far this fact conditions 
the earliest forms of art, and how far its effects can be traced, even in works comparatively 
advanci'd, long after the period when the introduction of foreshortening and perspective 
j)rovfS consci(jus x-eproduction of observed objects. 

Examples of Classic Ornament from Greece and Rome. Drawn by Lewis 
Vui.LiAMV. Edited by R. Phene Si'ieu.s. Pp. 4, and 20 Plates, folio. London: 
Patsf(jrd, 1907. 

Lewis Vulliamy (1790-1871) made a tour in the Mediterrauean countries in 1818-21 as 
a travelling student of the lioyal Academy, lie published in 1825 his ' J).xamples of 
Ornamental Sculpture in Architecture,' as a folio work, with copper engravings by Henry 
Moses, of admirable draughtsmanship. A selection of twenty of the original copper plates 
has now been reissued, with the necessary conunentary by Mr. Phene Spiers. The 
ornaments chosen for illustration are mainly variations of the palmette, and the acanthus. 

The Attic Theatre. By A. E. Haigh, M.A. Third Edition, by A. W. Pickakd- 
(.'a-Miuiilxje. pp. xvi + 396, with 35 Illustrations. Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1907. 

In this new edition a thorough revision has been necessitated by the appearance of many 
important contributions to our knowledge of the subject, notably Diirpfeld and lleisch's 
GriechixvlHs Tlieuler and Puchstein's Grier/iur.lie liiifme. These and other recent literature 
have evidently been carefully considered by Mr. Pickard-Candjridge, and have led to 
considerable additions and modifications ; l)ut it i.s to be noted that the editor finds himself 
able, after weighing them all, to retain Ilaigh's tlieory of a low stage in the fifth century. 
As to more obscure technical detiiil.«, such as the probable restoration of the Lycurgan 

NO'll CMS ( •!■' I'.onKS lC,r» 

staj,'f, it is Htill necf's.eary t" R" t<i ollnr liiinkH, eKpeiinlly tin- twn jiiKt citofl. A niininiary 
of the ar^iiiiientH of DorpftM ami I'lulistcin on komic of tlicHp iiintl<r<< W(»ti|il h;ive hem 
welconu', and also a lar^;«*r nunibiT of plans. 

Ausonia, Uivista <lclla Socirta It.iliana ili Ar(lie<ilo;.^ia e Sloria dell' Arte Annn 1. 
MiMVi. Ki>nia : Tip. I'niont' ('.i(!p. Kditriii-, 1!>07. Pp. xiii+'203. t ■^. 
1 1 ^ X !l in.". 15 lir.' to iiiin-nKMnlitTH. 

Tlit^ volume Ix-fore uh is the ( pnl)lish<'d liy the Sociela Ilaliana di Arclieolngia e St<>ria 
deir Arte, which was fonnded at tlie end of 190"). 

'I'hc first lialf of it ronsi.sis of interesting; an<l important original artitlen hy Mime 
of the moct eminent of Italian arrhaeolo^istfl and art critics, ainon^ which may he 
specially mentioned that by Oi-si, on the (np till now) somewhat scanty traces of Mycenaean 
commerce iti the pre-H(dleni<- cemeteries of Sicily; that of ('om]>aretti njM)n an inscription 
from •('iiiii.u- lielon^inj; to the lifth century n.c. and marking the bnriHl-;jri>uh<l of 
the mciid'crs of the Dionysiac diatrnt of the city, and noteworthy a-s hein^ consiileraldy the 
oldcit inscription of the kind ; that of Ikizio, in which he maintains that the statne 
of a youth found in the ruins of the Villa of Nero at Suliiaco, and now in the Musco ihdie 
Terme, is ,i representation of one of the sons of Niohe ; that of Nogara, in re^ranl 
to the so-called ' I'yhlis ' of Tor Marancia— a painting; which does not really belong to the 
series of (Jreek heroines at all, hut was foun<l near the Via Nomentana (cf. Paprrit <>/ thr 
lWU\»h School at Home, iii. 09^ ; that of Toesca on some bronze objects of the Loinltanl 
I)eriod (7th cent, a.d.) found in a tomb at Lucca ; that of Signorina Ciaccio on the last 
period of (Jothic sculpture at Rome ; that of Lanciani, who publishes various new docu- 
ments relating to works of IGtli century artists in Rome ; and that of (jhislanzoni ujmn 
the original ]>osition of the decorative bronze heads (lions, wolves, and .Medus;i) from 
the shijis of the Lake of Nemi, in which lie jiroves that they were arranged along the iipper 
l>art of the bulwark?. 

The rest of the volume is devoted to notices of recent excavations (Crete, Etruria, H<ime 
— the former paper being by rerniur, and dealing in part with his own work at Fliaestos 
and I'rinia), a lengthy critical bibliography arranged by subjects (pp. 125-185), reviews of 
recent piddications and ]>aragraphs of news. The volnme is well got up and freely 
illustrated, and the editor, Prof. Mariani, and the society to wliich it is due may be 
congratulated ujxtn making such a good beginning to we n\ay hope will be a hmg and 
usefid .series of publications. 

Meidiaa et le style fleuri dans la C6ramique Attique, By Georof.s Nicot e. 
(Extrait tlu Tome xx des Meinoires de I'lnstitul National (Jenevois.) Pp. ll'J. 
15 Plates and 43 Cuts. 4to. (Jeneva. 1908. 20 f. 

M. Nicole has done a u.sefid piece of work in devoting a well-ilhistrated monograph to 
the study of the artist Meidias, whom, fallowing M. Pottier, he regards rather as the master 
of an atflifr i\u\x\ as the actual jjainter of the vase Uaring his name, now in the British 
Museum. He collects all the vases which can be assigned to the school, including four 
unsigned hydriae which may fairly be i-egarded as produced by Meidias ami his pupils. 
Hut the very late date which he assigns to this artist (the tirst half of the fourth century) 
seems somewhat open to question ; Furtwiingler places him about 430 4i?0 u.c. A useful 
chapter is devoted to the discussion of point-s of style, and the writer sees in many details 
the influence of the sculptor Ahamenes. 


Catalogue of the Finger Rings in the British Museum, Greek, Etruscan, 
and Roman. Bv F. H. Marshai.i,, IVr.A. ]']>■ li + :^'>S- l'>0 llliistiations in tlic 
Text, 3.') Plates. London : Britisli Museum, 1907. £1 5s. 

Tliis Cjitaliigue differs in one inii)oitant rcs]icLt from any i)revious]y j)ul<lished by the 
antliorities of the British Museum : it inclu(h's not only tlie Greek, Etrrscan, and Roman 
linj^er iin<;s which are to he found in the Dtiiartnieni of (licek and Roman Anti(jiiities, 
hut also those rini^'s which, altliough (ireck and Roman of the classical period, have, i'or 
various ic.isons, been placed in other departments of the .Museum. The advantat,'es of this 
new dejiarture are obvious : it has enabled Mr. F. II. Marsb.dl to deal with the subject as 
a whole, instead of omitting' larj^e groups of liii^s mcnly liecause they were found in 
(Jreat Britain, in Fgypt, or in Assyiia. The resullinn volume lannot fail to be of the 
greatest use, both to thi; student and to the ccdleclor, who will liml in the fifty pages of 
introductoiy matter not only all tluit can be gleaned from ancient authors as to the nses lo 
which rings were ]iut, the way they were worn, the pcojde wlio were entitled to wear them, 
the materials f)f which they wen; made, etc., luit also the lesults of Mr. Marshall's own 
.stufly of these subjects. One of the most valuable sections deals with the diil'ereut typos of 
rings in the collection, Egy])tiati, Mycenaean, Phoenician, (ireek, Etruscan, Graeco-Roman, 
and jiater Ronsan. The types aie fully illustiated, and this se<-tion alone wo\dd make the 
volume indispensable to every collectoi-, for it gives him in a small compass a vast amount 
of hitherto inaccessible information, and should save him from most of the e.vpensive 
])it falls which l>e>et the jjath of the beginner. The Trustees wouhl earn the gratitude of 
the educated ]i\iblic if they woiild reprint in pamphlet form not only the Introduction to 
this particular ( 'atalogue, but those to many others. Much original work is lavished on 
tlieni, but their existence is unknown excejit to tlii' few who have professional occasion to 
consult the (Catalogues of which they form part. 

'i'urning to the (Catalogue itself, we find that the rings are grouped under classes, in 
which they are arranged according to types, a)ul as far as jiossible in chronological order. 
The first group contains gold rings with designs engraved on the gold, a series which starts 
fi-om K-yi>tian and ISIycenaean times, and ends with Late Roman work of the fifth 
4(ntuiy A. I).; tin- n( xt, gold rings with designs in relief, begins with Ionic- and Graeco- 
Etiiiscan work "f the sixth and fifth centuries is.c; it includes some fine Greek .'^pecimen.s, 
and cuds with Late Roman rings, many of which have coins set in the bezel. These arc 
invaluable as giving a feyminus ante tjneiii for the \arious shapes of hooj) and bezel. The 
tliiid ;jrou]) contains gold ringv set with scarabs, engraved stones, pastes, or cameos. The 
fourtii iiiihnles all the rings, mostly of Roman date, in which the inscription hjrnis the 
i)rinii])al feature; these are of various kinds: some are addressed to the recijiient, as 
Dull is (lulti; some have the name of the giver, Svntciira diif, or of the owner, Sahliinu; 
others are prophylactic, as, for instance, a Gnostic legend which contains the frequently 
found jihrase ^Srarru/cn pharnin/cx^ (wrongly spelt) and the 'Names of Power,' Sahaoth, 
Adonai, and Michael. The of the gold rings fall into two groups, those with plain 
inset stones, and the j)lain g(dd rings. The classification is then repeated for rings of silver, 
bronze, iron, gla.«s, stone and other materials, of which the collection contains 631 as 
against 1,000 of the more precious metal. 

In addition lo HJO illustrations in the text, there are 35 excellent plates reproducing 
the more important specimens described. The volume is comjileted by a bibliograj)hy of 
the subject, five full indexes of localities, subjects, inscri[)tions, materials, and the topics 
dealt with in the Introduction. 

The Priests of Asklepios. A new method of dating Athenian Arclions. By W. S. 

FKlKitsoN. [I'uiv. (jf California Pui)lications : Classical Philoh)gy, Vol.1. No. 5, 

pp. 131-173.] Berkeley: The University Press, 190(>. SO-50. 
This jiapcr, from a study of the inscriptions preserving the names of the ]>rie.sts of Asklejiios, 
who were selected in the official order of their tribes (with certain excei)tions which aie 

NOTICKS oi I'.doKS 167 

oxplaiiicil by iiiHtoiical tiivuniHtiinceH), v*<luli]irilieji the ilates «if hoiiic iiiKcri|)lii)iiH (hiicli :i» 
l.d'. ii. S.'J'i ami Aild. 37;U)) ami of ti iiuniluT nf arclioiis, cliiefly of llu- tliinl wntiirv. Tin- 
Jiicaks ill the onK-r of the tnboH of tlie prii-stH, oh also of tin' iirvtiiiiy-M;ciTturii'H, uiv 
.sjitisfaitniily i'X|iIaiiK'iI. 

La Colonne Torse et le decor en h^lice dans I'art antique. Par Vktoii 
('jiArtrr. V\\ ITti, witli Jlo Illu^'lrati(>lls in the Text. I'aris ; Kriie«t Leroiix, 11K)7. 

Tills liook i.s 11 collectinii of exaiiiph's of spiral decoration, more especially .xs it occurs on 
coliiiiins, from the Minoan period to ahoiit 400 A.D. An ajipemlix ileals with some 
e.xaiiiples of a later date. 'I'lie sjiiral has been Mipposed to have a ielif,'ious sij^nifuancc, 
but .M. Chapot, though admittiiiL,' that this is true in the case of the Cieto-Myceiiiean 
spiral cohinm, rightly maintains that in most instances it is »iniply decorative. The 
Greeks nvoiiled this form of colnnin as one which would appear to lack strengih, and 
rc-seived the spiral decoration for small object.s, notably their jewellery. Tiie spiml column 
becomes exceedingly common under the Uoiiian Empire. M. Chapot thinks that the type 
is indigenous in Italy, and not borrowed from the Kust, in this point, then-fore, giving no 
support to Prof. Str/'s theory. The book would be more u.seful if it were furnished 
with an index. 

L'Archeologie Grecque. T.y .Maximk Coluonon. Pp. xi + 394; 218 Illustrations. 

Paris: Picaid, 1907. (Piibliotheijue de rEnseignenient des Peaux-Arts.) 

This second edition of M. Collignon's well-known book ajvpears just twenty-six years after 
the first, and in tlie interval many things have occurred which make it more than a mere 
revision. The results of recent excavations arc naturally more strongly emphasized than 
usual, and the bibliograjdiies have been Itrought up to date. But the old form has been 
kept throughout, and the bonk has not been greatly added to in size, notwith-^tanding 
the mass of new material ami the increased number of illustrations. Attention may be 
called to the immense siiperioiity of the photographic pioces.s, even if the blocks are not 
the be.-t of their kind. Changes have of course been made in the treatment of the 
Mycenaean period, but perhaps most progress has followed from the new light cast 
upon archaic sculpture by the excavations at Athens and Delphi, and in the whole subject 
of vase-painting. Apart from its value as a handbook, the new edition offers an instructive 
retrospect upon the work of the last generation. 

Index of Archaeological Papers, 1665 1890. Edited by c;eorc;k Lairkxce 
CJoMMK. Pp. xii + 'JlO. London: Archibald Constable and Company, Ltd., 1907. 

Mr. Uomme has earned the gratitude of all archaeologists by the publication of this 
admirably and lal>oriously compiled V(dume. Eor the cla-'^sical archaeologist indeed it.s 
value may not be so great as i'or others, but it contains the articles in the lleUeuic Journal 
down to 18'JO, as also those in the S'umixmalic C/irotiiile, Archaruloijia, and other journals 
in which classic^il articles occasionally ajipear. The arrangement is exclusively alphalK'tical 
under authors, ami we are glad to learn that the work will eventually be supplemented 
by a biibject-index covering the same ground. 


Rambles and Studies in Greece, i^y J. P. Mahaffy. Fifth Edition. 
Pp. xii + 439. London : Macniillan and Co., 1907. 

This hook is too well known to readers of the Journal of Hdlenic Sfudirs to need any hut 
the hriefest notice. The new edition is little nioditied, except hy the alteration of a few 
statements tliat are ohviously antiquated, and a few additions — partly in notes— to bring 
in more recent discoveries. As to details, it may l^e noted that the Dr. Heisch associated 
with Prof. Dorpfeld in his book on the theatre is not Dr. Emil Reich, and that the 
workmen who restored the .Daphne mosaics were not (jermaii but Venetian. 

Greece and the Aegean Islands. By P. S. Maudex. Pp. ix + 386. With Maps 
and Illustration^'. London, Boston, and New York : Constable ; Houghton, Mifflin 
& Co., 1907. 12s. 6d. 

Mr. Mardon's book is an account of a hasty scamper, for the most part through the regions 
of Greece and the Aegean most accessible to ihe unenterprising traveller. The writer 
makes no pretence of scholarship or literary finish and gives no information of value 
that cannot be obtained from ordinary sources. 

Guide to Greece, the Archipelago, Constantinople, the Coasts ot Asia 
Minor, Crete, and Cyprus. (Macmillan's Guides.) Pp. 1 + 217; 13 IMaps and 
23 Plans. London, Macniillan. 9s. 

This is the third edition of the ' Eastern Mediterranean' guide. Half the volume is 
occupied by the section on Greece, where the main tourist-routes are described, and a 
further quarter is given up to Constantinople. New features are the brief descriptions of 
Salonica and Athos. Part i. (Greece) has been revised by Mrs. Ernest Gardner, and Asia 
Minor by Mr. D. G. Hogarth. Dr. Evans and Professor van A.illingen have checked the 
descriptions of Cnossos and Constantinople respectively. A handy book of this size — 
no other single volume covers the same ground — is of course designed primarily for 
tourists (particularly 'conducted' and archaeological tourists) in Aegean waters and for 
yachtsmen, to wliomare devoted nineteen pages of notes on the anchorages and sport of the 
coasts described. The archaeological side is treated in great detail. Professor E. Gardner 
contributes a sketch of the History of Greek Art, plans of the more important sites 
(including Cnossos and Sparta) are generously distributed, and the contents of museums 
are described at some length ; we note, however, that the growing collection at Brusa— a 
Inanch of the Imperial Museum — is not mentioned. The index is not very satisfactory, 
and some statements, sucli as those about the disaster to Nea Moni in Chios, and the 
present state of Corone, seem to require correction. 

Murray's Handbook for Egypt and the Sudan. Eleventh Edition. Edited by 
H. R. Hall. Pp. [170] + 613. 58 maps and plans. London : Stanford, 1907. 

This guide-book, of old established reputation, has been ' revised, largely rewritten, and 
augmented' under the ca[.able editorship of Mr. H. R. Hall of the Britisli Museum, 
himself a successful explorer in Egypt. The archaeological interest of the Nile valley is 
insisted upon, but, naturally, Greek and Roman remains occupy but a minor place. 
Hellenists will turn to the sketch of the Ptolemaic and Roman periods in the introductory 
matter, and find it very brief indeed— too brief, to our thinking, seeing that we know far 
more of these periods than of any others, largely owing to recent discoveries of papyri. 

NOTICKS OK r.ooKS 109 

Alfxiiiidiiii is viTv aiU<niiitfly In-iitcd, li<.\vfv«T, exc«i>t perlmic* in n-nanl to il8 M«i»fiiiii, 
the U'Cnimt »f whiclj in lianlly up t<> ilatc The'H colIiMlimi, for iiisUmce, \h imt 
ii recent aciiuisition, coiinmred with nthers, l>iit was almost the ori(;inal nm Umih of the 
Mu«ieiini. A new and praisewortliy feature is the notice of the (irneco-Uomnn hiten of iJie 
north central Delta, alM)iit whicli Mr. Hall known all the latest ihta. Ah for Nauknitif«, 
a tlouht, snrely needh-ss, is expre8>ed as Ut tlie correctnesH of Prof. Petrie'g identification. 
It would have l>een well to warn touristH that there i« practically nothing to we on the Kil«- 
now. Of other places, intenstinj,' to classical scholars, /•.</. the Fayuni, Knhniunr-n, Ai-Min<x', 
Antinoopolis, Coptos, and Syene, a vi-ry ^;oo^l account is i^iven : Imt, in the tii-st caM-, 
the ease and the attractiveness of the excursion are rather ohscured by depreciation of the 
hotel acconiniodation at Medina, and insiyteiicc on difficulties of transp(»rt, which, so far 
as we know, arc liy no means the rule. The Ifotcd Kariin i" considerahly hetler than 
what is usually undersloixl hy a 'TJivek locanda.' This (,'uiile-ltook went to pr<^s, 
appai-ently, in .luly, ami in certain matters, »■ 7. the resinnatinn of Lord Cromer, the di'<- 
covery of the Tii tomb, ami the explorations at Der-el-Bahari, is well up to date. In othern, 
and unfortunately here and there in very important respects, f.;/. hotel accomm<Klation and 
nu-ans of transit, it is not. For example, m. menlion of the milway to the (treat Oasis 
occurs, though it is marked on a maji ; yet it was in building' a year a^'o or more. The 
two latest and best hotels at Alexandria are not named, and there are no indications of the 
comparative (jualily of the rest, though they differ widely. At Cairo, on the other hand, 
certain hotels are starred ; but why this <lislinction is withheld from Shepheanl's and 
},'iven to the New Continental, denied to the Semiramis and acconleil to the An),'lfterre, 
we know not. The Kamleh railway has lonj; been extended beyond San Stefano, and 
there has been, for a year, a second hotel at Khartoum. These are minor blemishes, 
however, in a vastly improved i^-nide, the arihaeolo^'y of which is particularly souinl. 

A Report ©n the Antiquities of Lower Nubia. \-y A. K. P. Weioall (Egyptian 
Department of Anti<iuities). Pp. xii-|-14:i, with 'J t Plates. Oxford: Cniversity 
Press, 1907. 

This fine vidume has been compiled, at the request of the Director (Jeneral of the Egyptian 
Department of Antiquities, by the chief Inspector for Upper Egypt, a British archaeologist, 
who received part of his training from Profes.^or Flinders Petrie. For the j)urpo.se8 of his 
survey lie spent eight weeks in Nubia in the winter l90()-7, and this Report sums up the 
observations made then and on previous visits. It is ccmfessedly a rapid piece of work 
designed to call attention to the different classes of rennins between the First and Sc-cond 
Cataracts, but not to provide an exhaustive record of them. The special reason ft.r this 
survey was, of course, the imperding submergence of a great jiart of the lower Nubian 
banks by the projected extension of the Nile reservoir. The Egyptian Government intenils 
first to explore thoroughly all the territory about to be Hooded (extending as high aa 
Maharaka), and needed to know the extent and kind of the remains with which it must 
deal. Mr. Weigall's preliminary survey rs, however, valuable not only to his government, 
but to all scholars. So well trained an archaeologi.<^t, whose attention had, moreover, been 
directed especially to the 'pan-grave' culture of the lower valley, couhl not travcfbc Nubia 
without discovering a good deal thai was new— in particular several Gn-ek ijroji'' ""d 
remains of the Roman occui)ation and of the small native kingdoms, from that of Ergamenes 
onwards. Nor, in view of the rapidity with which destructivi- agencies have workeil of 
late in Nubia, can we be other than thankful for a reconl of what was existent in the 
beginning of HK)7. Mr. Weigall's Report will be largely superpodwl by the systematic 
exploration to be directed by Dr. Reisner an<l Captain Lyons ; but the chapter of accidents 
is eo voluminous in Egypt that we are very ghid to have as full a reconl as this to go on with. 


Ancient Italy. V>y Ettohe Pais. Translated from the Italiuii l)y C. Dknsmouk 
Curtis. Pp. xiv + 441, with 11 Plates and 11 Illustrations. Chicago : The University 
of Cliiciif^o Press ; London : T. Fisher Unwin, 1908. 

This is a volume of twenty-six essays upon historical and topographical problems con- 
nected with Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia in ancient times. They give evidence of an immense 
amount of learning and original research, and are calculated to stimulate all students of 
ancient history, though the probability or improbability of most of the conclusictns arrived 
at must inevitably be left to the decision of specialists. The points raised in some of the 
more important of these essays may be briedy indicated. Such is the (piostion as to the 
origin of the Ausonians, and the extent of Italy inhabited by them. Professor Pais finds 
indication from literary allusions and survivals of place names that they were spread over 
the whole of Southern Italy, and that a large proportion of them at least came from 
Epirus. Another essay deals with the sites of various cities (such as Morganlina) on the 
Heraean jjlateau in the south-east corner f)f Sicily. In this connexion an interesting 
archaic Greek relief, found in 1837 near S. Mauro above Gela, is illustrated for the first 
time. It represents a frieze of dancing satyrs above two sphinxes placed back to back. 
The position of the Assinarus, which witnessed the final overtlirow of the invading 
Athenian army in 413 B.C., is also discussed ; the identifications suggested by previous 
authorities are rejected, and the river is held to be the same as the modern Tellaro. 
Perhaps the most importjint of all the essays is that which seeks to show how largely the 
Greek cities of Sicily influenced the early history of Rome. Many incidents, such as the 
first secessicm of the plebs, are held to be simple repetiticms of events in Siceliot history. 
The tribunes of the plebs are regarded as eij^uivalent to the vpoaTciTai rov Bfifiov of the 
Greek cities in Sicily. However much we may be inclined to doubt some of the ' dupli- 
cations ' averred, we may feel confident that Syracuse, from the victory of Hieron at Cumae 
in 474 B.C. to the fall of Dionysios II. in 357 B.C., exercised a far greater influence on 
Rome than is usually supposed. Her artistic influence on Etruria was certainly consider- 
able. The final e.ssay discusses the date of the Historical Geography of Strabo, and an 
attempt is made to show from internal evidence that the work was written at some time 
previous to 7 B.C. in a literary centre (Rome or Alexandria), and that it was subsequently 
revised ha.stily about 18 a.d., when Strabo, then about eighty years old, was living in 
retirement in Asia Minor. The translation of the book from the Italian appears to have 
been well done. 

The Silver Age of the Greek World. By John Pentland Mahaffy. Pp. vii -1-482. 
Chicago and London : Fisher Unwin, 190G. 

This interesting, if somewhat rambling book, is intended to replace the author's Greek 
World nmler Homan Sway. The condition of the Greeks under Roman rule is justly 
regarded as an unhealthy one. It is true that they were treated with a scornful indulgence, 
but they were never considered the equals of the Romans, or given opportunity to exercise 
the higher functions of citizenship. Deprived of political responsibility, the Greeks 
showed but too frequently that moral weakness which, even in their best period, is 
sometimes noticeable. The interesting chapter on the Hellenism of Cicero and his friends 
denum.strates how little real respect even the philhellenes among the Romans had for the 
Greek character. The most inspiring i)roducts of Greek thought in this period are to be 
found in the stern practical philosojdiy of the Stoics, and the high, if rather mystical, 
ideals of revived Pylhagoreanism. The extracts from Strabo and Dio Chrysostoni given 
in the book are welcome, in view of the fact that these authors are not so widely read as 
they deserve to be. The rhetorician shows that the Greek cities of Asia Minor were in a 
flourishing condition towards the end of the first century a.d. One or two remarks may 
be made regarding points of detail. Dio Chrysostoni severely upbraids the Rhodians for 
their cheap way of honouring distinguished persons by inscribing their names on statues 

N()'l'l("i;s OK HOOKS 171 

wliiili liMil iiolliin;,' In d" wiili tlicm. 'I'his pr.icticr \h |)er)iu|m illuKliulcd liy a Htiittu- 
ivfciilly ;m|uiie(l l)y ll"' Mrilisli Miik-iuh, ami piililiMliciI in the jueHi-iit nuiiilx-r (if tliJM 
Jouninl. HiTi- tlic iiaiii(> I'. Miiiiiiniiu Srjlili Clfiiinilis lia.s hoen iiim ril>o(l on the Imse of 
a stntue of a woman, whiili tin- l)f«t iiulhoritics ;uihi;^n to the fourth century ii.c. To the 
instances of llie title of fii'wiii>\t>i ^'iven In thief magistrates of towns (p. IIU, n. 1) may Ik? 
ailtletl some from Kos (c.r/. I'alon ami Micks, '.)1 ami 12.*^). A protest bIiouM l>e rnmie 
a;;ainst the i-an-less j)roof nadin^', whiih leaves the Iniok ilisli^iireil hy nunieroiiH nns- 
Hpellin;,'s and errors. 'Die result is somewhat ciiiioiis in certain instuncec, e.g. on p. IfSii, 
where we are told of 'a Sicilian handil whom Straho |iiihlicly executed ul Home,' innl 
on p. 21)2, where it is staled that certain (Jreek jirose novelH are puhlislied in a mliniin 
called the Li>re-'/'ale. W'rilns. A featurt! of the b(H)k worthy of special commendation 
is the fre(jiicnt introduction of apt illustrations from modern life. 

Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar. I'y T Ki< i; Hoi m is 
rp. \vi + 7<;i. Oxfonl : Clarendon I'ns^, I'JOT. 

In prehistoric I'ritain there is little tierived imme<liately from the Hellenic world, an<l 
it is significant that in the index to this most compn-hensive work there are hut thiee 
references to tii-eeks and (Jreek letters, all of secondary importar.ce. Though the Druids 
iised Greek characters in oflicial documents and private correspondence, it was mainly from 
Italy that our early civilisation was derived, and the reader will find almost everything 
hut Hellenic lore in thin admirahlo volume. There are, however, certain piohlem^ in 
I'ritish arcliaeolo^'v which may eventually be solved hy reference to the early i ivilisatinn 
of Clreece and the Mediterranean islands ; and in view of the Achaean controversy it may 
lie of interest to state the jiosition taken up hy Mr. Holmes with repaid to the Cells. The 
earliest Celtic invasion of Biitain took place six or seven centuries before the Christian 
era, and the invaders weie (ioidels, sjieakin^' an Aryan dialect represented in modern 
times by Krse, Manx, and Highland CJaelic. They were tall in stature and either 
mesnticephalic or dolichocephalic, thus contrasting with the Alpine or (Jrenelle race (alto 
represented in Britain), which was chaiacterised by a round head, short stature, and dark 
complexion. The hitter jicople were of Neolithic descent in Gaul, and formed the 
substratum of tlie papulation of Gallia Celtica, the Celtic language lieing introduced there 
about the eighth century It.c. by a dominant race from the ea^^t. The Celts jimperly so 
called were a till stalwart jieoplc with fair or red hair, ajiparently not far removed from what 
is generally considered the Germanic type ; and in this view Mr. Holmes is in substantial 
agreement with Prof. Ridgeway, who writes thus : 'a body of tall fair-haired immigrants 
came into Greece from the Danubian ami Alpine regions somewhere about laOO u.c, and 
this ])eopIe, known to us as Achaeans, were part of the great fair-haired race of I'pper 
Europe termed by the ancients the Keltoi, and now commonly described as Teutonic. 
This people brought with them the use of iron, they burned their dead instead of burying 
them as did the aborigines, they had garments of a dilferent kind, which they fastened 
with brooches, and they brought with them a peculiar form of ornament, which is 
commonly termed geometric or Dipylon.' 

The services rendered to British archaeology by Dr. Arthur Evans and other 
Hellenists arc fully ajipreciated, and should inspire others to develop the connexion 
between Ancient Britain an«l the Mediterranean. Several pages are devoted to the 
derivation of our first coinage from Greek types, liut Mr. Holmes omits to mention an 
interesting point with regard to the British substitute for coinn. The iron liars mentioned 
by Caesar as a form of currency and found in the central area of southern England find 
an analogue in (Jreecc itself. Prof. Waldslein has jiublished the discoveiy of a bundle of 
iron bars on the site of the Heracuni at Argo.s, which he very rejuMinably identifies as the 
' obelisks ' offered to Hera liv Pheidon on his introduction of a coinage ; and it has yet to be 
i'xjtlained why this peculiar form of currency should have been adopted nowhere but in 


Greece and Britain. It is from nnalogies of this kiml that fiirtlier. information maybe 
expected with regard to prehistoric Britain ; and the classical scliolar hiis only to rt'ad the 
present volume to be well posted in matters that can be made plain on)}' by additional 
liLrht from the wonderful civilisations of the South. 

The Cities of St. Paul : their Influence on his Life and Thought. By Sir 
W. M. Ramsay. Pp. xv + 452. With 18 Plates and other Illustraticms. London: 
Hodder and Stoughton, 1907. 

Accounts of cities and countries connected with St. Paul are, too often, apt to read like 
eloquent expansions of the Dictionary of Classical C4eograpliy. Prof. Ramsay's dcscrijitions 
are of a very different order, based on minute personal research, yet always vivid and 
9nf];gestive and singularly informing to the student of ancient city-communities. 

In the present volume five cities are dealt witli in detail, namely Tarsus, the Pisidian 
Antioch, Icunium, Derbe, and Lystra ; all cities of Eastern Asia Minor which offer, even 
apart from their connexion with St. Paul, an instructive 'study in amalgamation ' between 
European and Eastern races. At Tarsus, for instance, the harmony of (Jreek and Asiatic 
was particularly noticeable. 

An admirably written introductory chapter sketches in bold outlines the position of 
Paulinism in the Graeco-Roman world. Paul is regarded as a shaping force in history and 
not only in religion. A hater of idolatry — the chief characteristic of Pagan religion— he is 
yet a lover of old Hellenic freedom and ready to discern even in Paganism a certain 
perception of divine truth. If there could be no truce with the popular cultus of the 
divine Augustus and his successors, the Imperial scheme of things could still be viewed 
with equanimity as fnrnisliing the high political idea of a world-province — a unity which 
Paulinistic Christianity might hope to vitalize — a great field in which the universal religion 
of Christ might be sown with promise. 

Dei agricultura estis. The Mediterranean world was decaying and degenerate : all 
was fluid and chanijing and there were infinite opportunities of growth and development. 
Like the author of the Fourth Eclogue (on which an interesting commentary is offered), 
Paul places the Golden Age not in the past but in the future. The fairest hope came from 
the more easily christianized provinces of the East ; but when, at length, Constantine 
threw in his lot with Christianity, it was too late for the social and moral resuscitation of 
the ancient Empire of the West. 

The illustrations from photographs and drawings are interesting and unhackneyed, and 
numerous coins (of which much use is made in the text) are reproduced, drawn on an 
enlarged scale. This method of eidargement, if not always desirable in a purely 
numismatic treatise, has much to commend it. In another edition the author will, we 
hope, add an index. 

Adonis, Attis, Osiris. By J. G. Frazer. [Part IV. of 'The Golden Bough.'] 
Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged. Pp. xix + 452. Macmillan, 1907. 10s. 

The second edition of this book, which supersedes the first after a year's interval, contains 
much new matter : notably a chapter on ' Sacred Men and Women,' a section on ' Influence 
of Mother Kin on Religion,' and three appendices. But the whole of the work shows signs 
of a careful revision, many references being added where the actual text is untouched. 
The new chapter deserves careful attention (pp. 50-8.3) ; among interesting suggestion.s 
we may note Mr. Frnzer's ex])lanation of the burial of young children at Gezer, who 
have been considered to be sacrificial victims. Mr. Frazer believes that they were buried 
by their parents in the sanctuary with the hope that they might be reincarnated. In 
discussing the influence of Mother Kin on Religion, the author adopts a middle position : he 

N(>tk;ks ok hooks 17;j 

rightly icjrctH tin- exlri'ine lliooi y lliat 'uikUt a i-y-lfiii of Motlu-r Kin tlic wiiiiicn riilf tin- 
iiifii ami M't up ^iiiMcMsi-H for tln-m to vvi)r^lii|i,' r«;iii;ukiii;,' tlial mipIi a view Hcarccly 
ilestTvi'S llif si-iioii.s attL-iitii)ii wliirh it apiMMrK tn liavt; icicivnl. On llic nihtT liaii'l, he 
tliiiik-^ tliut Mother Kin is favoiiral»li- to llie ^lowlli of ^{odiUrKws. 

Ill lln! AiiiiL-mliccs we may cspi-cially noticL- tin: »Ii.sciii>.sion on the Hi^nificancc of 
cliililrt-n ollivint^' pareiit.s in ritual. It ih usual to explain the clioicu of Hiich chihlixMi a.s 
«l«ic to iilras of jHtlliition from death. Mr. Fra/.cr HUj^tic^Us that n child of livin;{ pan-nlx 
was orij^inally ]>referred as bein^ cimIowimI with a hij^luT ih-j^Mi-f of vitality than an orphan. 
Tin* vitality of a sacrcil ministrr would In; impoitant, whither to « nsuru the fertility of 
till- iTt'pH or to avert ilaii:.,'er of death and nihi-r i .liamitie.s. 

Philosophy and Popular Morals in Ancient Greece. I'.y Auciuuai.h K. l)<»nll^, 
.liiiir. I'p- \i4-2H2. litiiidoii : Sinipkin, Marshall & Co.; and Duhlin : K<lw. 
l'.)n.>i..iil.y, I'JOT. 

Mr. Dolihss little hook is a sound and u.sefnl summary c)f the data relatinj^ to his subject ; 
ulthoiii^h a really .sitisfaetoiy treatment of it w<iuld require somewhat wider ac<iiiuiniiiiuf 
with the literaliiie than the author .xecms to possess. 

'J'/ie JiilloiriiKj li()(i/,s ]i(tri' (ihti hrtit rcfilrvil : — 

Ai;.\u (T. L.). lli)nierica : Emendations and Klucidations of tin- O.Iyssfy. Pp. .\i 4-440. 
O.xford : Clui"end()U Press. 

Cauv (K.). Victoriua and (\m1cx r of Aii.slupliancs. [Tiaii-. Aimr. Philolo;,'. Sue] 

Pp- -Ki- Harvanl Univ., I'.tOT. 
(l.\UliIK.\.s (( }. K). Kpiatt Ti/i iinii I'n-. ■ Ma)/;(uVoe llXiiT(i)i'iKiji 'KKfioirtajs. Pji. ~'2. Athens : 

Sakillarios, 1908. 

1Iki,i.k.\i.s (K. 15. U.). The Kpi.uiam and its ^Mcatest M;u<ter, Mailial. [Univ. of Coloratlo 
Stiidie,>», V.d. IV'., No. 1.] Colorado, l«H)(i. 

Hkiiodotcs. The Seventh, Kiulilh, and Ninth j'.ooks. \\'iili liitroclm tion, Text, Ajiparatus, 
Commentary, Aiipeiidins, Iiidin-, .M.i]is. I5y K. W. Macan. Vol. I., Part. I. 
Pp. t+3r)(). Part II. Pp. :i.-.7 h:$|. \nl. II. Pp. x+4(;:i. Witli (i .Map>. London, 
New Vork, and Toronto : Maciiiillan and .Macmillan Co., .'JOs. net. 

Hewitt (.1. F.). Primitive Tiaditioual HiMory. V.d. I. Pp. .\xviii + 44H; Vol. II. 
Pp. v. + lOiM. Willi 4 Phil. s. Lniidnii : Park, r, 1 '.(07. 

lIoi'K.MANN (().). Die Makedoiiiii, ihie Spiaehc imd ihi \'oik>tinini. Pp. 284. (5ottinj,'en : 
V'andenlioetk u. Kuprecht, P.MJtJ, 8 m. 

HocJAUTH (I). G.). British Musnim l-'xcavations at Kjdnsus : the Archaic Artemisia. With 
Chapters by C. H. Smith, A. II. Suiith, P.. V. llea.l, an.l A. E. Hendei-son. •> Vol.-.. 
Text: Pp. X +344, with 52 Plates and 10! 1 lliisinitinii>. Atlas: 18 Plates. Lon<Ioii : 
British Museum, 1908. 50s. 

Jame.s (M. K.). a desciiptive Cataloj^'iie u{ the MSS. in the Library i>f Trinity Hall. 
Pp. viii + 4(i. Cambrid«^e : Univei-sily Pn-.s.-^, I'.K)7. 

JONKS (H. Stl'aht). The lloman Empire, ii.c. 29 a. D. 47(i. Pp. xxiii + 47G ; .');} Illustratitms 
and Map. London : Unwin, 1908. fis. 

Lethahy (W. 11.). (Jicek Building's repreniited by fra^'inmts in the Briti.-h Mu.>i<-um. 
II. The Tomb of Maii.solus. Pp. 37-70; Kij^s. 30-57. London: BaL-fonl, 190H. 2,-;. net. 

Pke-scott (II. W.). Some phases of the relation of Thought to Verse in Piautlis. Pp. 2<i2. 
Berkeley: California L'niv. Pre.'i.s, 1907. 


Rkich (E.). General History of the Western Nations from 5000 u.c. to 1900 a.d. Anti(iui(y 
Vol. I. Pp. XX vi + 485. Vol. II. Pp. x + 479. London : Macmillan, 1908. 15."^. 

. Atlas Antiquus. 48 Maps with Text. London : Macmillan, 1907. 10s. 

RiDGE\v.\Y (W.). Who were the R«)mans ? [Pi-oc. Brit. Acid. Vol. III.] Pp. 44. 
Oxford : University Press, 1907. 2s. 6d. 

Salinas (A.). Due Teste di Rilievi Funebri Attici rinvenuto in Sicilia [Miscell. di 
ArcheoL di Storia e di Filologia]. 

Sand.\rs (H.). Pre-Roman Votive Offerings from Uespenaperios, Sierra Mt)rena, Spain. 
[Archaeologia, Vol. LX.] Pp. 24+14. With Plates and lUnstrations. London: 
Nichols, 1906, 

White (J. W.). Enoplic Metre in Greek Comedy. Chicago, 1907. 

Wood (Mary H.). Plato's Psychology in its Bearing on the Development of Will. Pp. 63. 
Oxford : University Press, 1907. 2s. 6d. 

Wroth (W.). Catalogue of the Imperial Byzantine Coins in the British Museum. 2 Vols. 
Pp. cxii + 687. With 79 Plates. London: British Museum, 1908. £2 15s. 

I{|«1I\KI> Ci.AV AM) Sons, Limttkd. 


'I' wo CViniNAIC K\ I.IKKS. 

Thk iiitiiiisic iiitciist i»r the two {'yri'ti.iic kylikcs, which I ;iiii now 
nhic to [nihlish owiiiL; to t'lc kiiithn-ss of tlu; authorities of the N.itional 
Museum at Athens and ot the Fit/,williani Musenni at Cambridge, \s imt 
\ei\- j^Mvat, hut the desire to complete so far ;is is ])ossih|e the list of" the 
extant vases of this class is sutticieiit ajM)lop^y for making them known. 

The Fit/william kylix (Fig. \n) is said to have been found near Corinth 
and hence, though a very poor specimen of the Oyrenaic stvle. has some 
interest as coming from (Jreek soil. 



'Jlie dimi-nsions are: Ht. •10(j m. ; diam. 195 m. x UK) m. : ht. <if 
foot (WD m. 

The clay is the usual hai<l variety, in colour light brown with a slightly 
J link tinge. 

The decoration is very simj)Ie. The black of the inside is only relieved 
by a line on the lip, another below the lip, three circles lower down, and a 
circle and a dot at the centre, all reserved in the colour of the clay. The 
decoration of the outside is shewn in Fig. 2a, where the hatched lines 
represent purj)le ; the characteristic creamy slip, consideral)ly fraye<l, covers 
the lower part of the cup between the outer purple bands. 

There are here neither lotus buds nor pomegranates, but the thin niys 
lising fioni the foot and the double row of leaves between the handles are 
patterns }is characteristic of the Cyrenaic style a.s is the partial use of slip. 



The simplicity and carelessness of the ornament, especially to be noted in 
the rude travesty of a palmette on either side of the handles, the splash of 
paint which takes the place of a lotus flower below them, the irregularity of 
the ray pattern, and the absence of a branch between the rows of leaves, 
place the vase in Dugas' fourth class, the class of decadence.^ This is 
confirmed not only by the unusual thickness of the clay (OOG m. at the rim), 
but also by the proportions between the height of the bowl and the foot 
(1"7:1), and between the diameter and the height of the bowl (29 :1). 
This shows a lowness of foot and a depth of bowl characteristic according to 
Dugas of the fourth class.^ 

The Cyrenaic kylix in the National Museum at Athens (Fig. Ih), for 
permission to publish which I have particularly to thank Dr. Stais, the 
Ephor of the Museum, was seen by Thiersch at a dealer's shop in Athens m 
1901.^ Unfortunately there is no knowledge of where it was found. 

Fir,. ]/,. 

The dimonsion.s are: Ht. ■122 m.; diam. 183 ui. x '192 m. ; ht. of 
foot •052 m. 

The outside decoration (Fig. 2h) bears a resemblance to that of 
the Cas.sel kylix.* The otfset rim is painted black but for a bare line where 
the characteristic pinkish clay is contrasted with the creamy slip covering 
the rest of th(3 bowl. I know of no other Cyrenaic Vase with a crescent 
pattern resembling that on ' Fikollura' ware except that at Cassel. 

On the inner side of the rim are two lines reserved in the natural 
colour of the clay. The centre of the bowl has a man's head on a white 
gi'ound framed by two purple and three thin brown circles (Fig. 3). He 
wears a purple band across his hair, the outline of which is undulated to 
indicate curls. The profile is very finely drawn, but the artist has been 

' DugaB, Rev. Arch. 1907, Tom. ix. p. -^06. 

* Dogas, loc. cit. p. 407. 

3 Acgina, p. 457 ; Dugas, Rev. Arch. 1907, 

Tom. X. p. 58, No. 87. 
* Arch. An-. U93, p. 189. 



careless ovtT tlu' incisiMiis nKiikin^' iln- curls on the I'drfh.ail and tin- cat. 
Till? iiDticf in tlu- invfiit<)ry <»{ tin- Mnsfuiii .su^gt-sts that an MlliiMpian 
is inteiuled, but I do not know if this can hv upheld. 

Kio. 2a. 

The breakage unfortunately makes it uncertain whether the hair wa.s 
here also worn long in the fa.shion shown on other vases of the class, but this 
is, 1 think, indicated by the incised liiu' rippling ])ack from the ear.^ 

The shaven lips and the beard clearly follow the tiLshion in vogue 
on most C'Vrenaic vases. But as this head is i>n a much larger scale than 

' Cf. the figure of Arcesilaa, the seated rigure the kylix in the Lourr*. Stadbiczka, Kyrene 

oil the Muniih kvlix, ami the figure of Zeus on Figs. 1, 3, 7. 

N 2 



any other (.11 a vase of this class it is not unniasonablc to take it as a 
critciion of what that fashion really was. 

It is now clear that the beard was merely kept lathci- short on the 
chc.ks and tiiinined neatly to a point. I think, indeed, that Studniczka's " 
«lcsciij)tion of the Boreades on the ('yrenc kylix as ha\iiifr ' Huvptisch 

Fio. 3. 

stilisirte Barte' is as misleading as Mausers' comparison of them with th.^ 
openwork bronze plaque from Crete published by Milchhoefer« 

There is not much difficulty in giving this vase its place in the Dumas' 
classihcation. The goo.l profile, indeed, brings to mind the third group but 

" Studiiiuzka, Kifrcnc, p. 17. 
'' Hansel, Jahrexh. x. p. H. 

^ Alilehhoefer, 
. 169. 

Annali, 1880 T; Anfdnjr, 


llic caiclcssiH ^s slicWM not milv in tin- iiK-ismns marking the iiiiU, tin- n<rk, 
and thi' riir, which is [)ait icnlarly i^ioss in a diawiti^ <>n su larj^i- a scah- a- 
this, lint also in the httiis |tatltrn «m the ontsidi', ('oinhiin's with thi- 
la/.inrss hctiavcMl hv the «'X(M'ssivc use ul lilaik in thi- intcrinr, and thi- 
riidciu'ss (if the handh- jtahnt'tlvs, to jint th<' vase in the tourth ^'ron|». 

A>> in the case of the Kit/williani vase the thickiu-ss of the chiy ( OOd m. 
at the lini) talli("> with this, as do thf coniiiaiativ c slioitncss of the foot, 
and(h'|tlh of the l)owl ; for the piopoilion ht-twi-cn thf h<Mght of th<- howl 
ami that of th.' foot is l',]-i : 1, and that hctwccn the dianirtir and the Inii^ht 
of tlu- Im.wI L>(il : 1. 

lioth tht'sc vases shew a pccnliaiity in the foot ( Fi^'. 4), namely a hand 
reserved in the natural elay just l)elow the eushi(»n on which the howl le^ts. 
This Itand is moulded into thre«' oi- four rinL,^s in low relief. 

Fk;. 1. 

Among the Cyretiaic sherds found at the excavation of the Heraeum oi 
Argos,'' which I may add to the very complete catalogue given by Diigjus, 
are ten broken kylix steins which also show this peculiarity. Kight of 
these, it is true, can only be assigned to the class by the characteristic clay 
but two retain sufficient of the inside of the bowl to make the attribution 
certain. The .same trait occurs on a Cyrenaic kylix stem found in Samos,*** 
and the stent of the Ciissel kylix shows a .somewhat similar decoration. 

In view then of the com])arjUively late date of our two kylikes it is, I 
think, rea.sonable to look on these ridges" as the exprt'ssion in a degenerate 
period of the taste for a decorated stem, to which witness is borne at an 
earlier date by the painted purple rings which are found in the .same ])lace on 
the stem of the Arcesilas vase. 

J. P. l)i«)(.i'. 

' T/ii- Argive Hcraeiim, ii. ji. 173. " Tin- Hcidolberg kylix, ndiiiitledly a Ute 

'" Ri'liliiti, Aus ioni.scluH iiuil iLiliidien exiiiii|'lr, shows such ritl^. 3. 
Anrojwlcii, p. 126, Taf. x. 3. 


'rm: liillow iii(( iiiscript ioiis, with the rxccptioii of No. 7, wcif ciijjicil 
iliiriiii;' tin- cniisr (if Mr. Allison V. Ai'inour's yacht ' Utuvviina ' in tlic Eastcni 
.Midiliiraii.aii in tlu- spiiii^- of 1 lK)-4-. Tlic coinint,^ was done ]»y Mr. 1). (J. 
Ho^^ulh,of Ma^flalm College, ().\f(»i-(l, Mr. Kicthaid XortfUi, Dircctoi- ot iIh- 
Anil Srliool of Classical Stmlics in Iconic, and myself: ami in 
iirrnaiint; tin- inatiTial for ]iiil)licat imi T ha\i' hail the bcni'fit otMi'. Jloi^aith'si 
ail\ii-canil assi^tanro. 'Ihr insi-ri|it ions Xos. 1 ami 25, as well as the thiee 
xtclao troni l.,arnaea nieiitioiieil umlei- Xo. lH), are now at tho Anieiieaii: 
Sehoo] in Homo; X'). 21 is in Ameiica.' 

Asi.\ MiNoH. 


A stele ol whiir maihle jiiuehasei] in I'mlrnm, and now at tho Aniei-ii-an 
Schodj in Kome. Thi' )»art ])i-esi'i\ cd measnres ()4(i X O'."}-'} X 0()7 iii. 
I.itii r< ()•()()!) m hi,t,di. Ihokeii R. lowei- corner. Read h\- A. \V. Van Dnren. 




'Ajti'/zouv ti'e'pfi)/' vrpov if Xft^Treas- ixeo Kona^ 
Mo</3w/' €vkXo}<ttoi^ I'tjfiacni', '.\rTio)^€' 
y]a'ia he ae ^(iva tov ofi(oi>vfio}' viea iraTpi 
Tvyjrei' vttu ^o(j)€pol^ KtuOeai Be^afiei'a' 

' f.Mi. A. K. Ilousiiiaii is 1" \>v thiUikfil lor Mi;^;^(stioii.s liave liuou niiulc iilsu liy tin- IMii.n^ 
a i.viMcii <>l tliL- imtriial tiiitiiphs. I'citaiii "•! tlif ./o/'/zj^^/.— I».(i. II.] 



5 Tr\(tTpa 6 ' XifTiuX^to TraXaiaTpiTav at t6i> dKpo[i' 
fxvper tTi, ^aOttor evrpucpe •yvpvna itov' 
Tolui' at' Kreinaas' Aiiwuato^i a!i'erui> t\pyov^ 
^iiXov ti'i t^i'dTtil'^ ('lyaffos' iK(f)fpt\rai. 

A |»'Ti[o^09 'A/'TJoyoi'. 

L. 1. Ct. Anihul. I'td. '^YY- "iOO : Kt'if.iui t\ av\p,r]pov<; Kai ii\ap.-rr(n<i 
"AiSos" €vv<i<;. 

Ij. 2. ( 't. Anlhvl. pill. vi. 2S4- : i^vKXaicnuv hi yuraiKow | in) 

li. A Tvy\r€v, lapifidc s tii'ir lui' /cpuv/^tj' ' 

L. Ji. ( "t. AulhvL I'll/. i.\. 242 : (")rt<Tt'ft)r tt'Tpo<f>o<; ar/ia\(ov. 

L. 7. Mr. Iliiusiiijin sn^^n'st.s epyov, iciiiaikiiii,' that, epyov fuXoi- 

(K(f)^p€Tai = t'^ e. i*. (btptrai. '.<'. ' wins j^loiy fioiii tin- <lfc«l.' 

T(liititi>iiis { Maki 1 ). 

A small riimid altar in llir Imusr ol K. I'auliili s. lua<l bv K- N«»rt<>n. 

ViiT. 1 

ri';. 1. 

Horseman, iiKti'utctf, 

(jdllojiing to rif//tt. 

Kantha ro.^, hctnrcii 

hrit .sryy)f/.7.s'. 





()l l](Tt(f)6pOV 'VjpfMoXvKOl' 

Tor tauTov «J8eX<^oi' 

182 A. W. VAN BUREN 

This altar is of considerable interest in its relation to primitive heio- 
worship and its survival at a late period. The deceased was worshipjjed as 
hero, and on this monument is represented in both human and serpent foirn, 
the serpent regularly being considered the embodiment of a chthonic divinit}-. 
The representation of two serpents may be due to considerations of symuietry 
or convention, or to a certain vagueness in the mind of the dedicant. 

For the hero as serpent, see Miss J. E. Harrison, Prolegomena to the 
Study of Greek llcligion, pp. 32G-332 ; note especially the altar illustrated 
there on p. 331, after A. Conze, Rcise in dor Inscl Lesbos, PI. IV. Fig. o, 
cf p. 11. See also Gruppe, Gr. Mythol. u. Rellgionsgesch. pp. 807 ff. 

For the conception of the dead as chthonic divinities, cf, in addition to 
Miss Harrison, op. cit., deal's KaTa^6ovioi<i kol to?? yovevaiv C.I.G. 4439 
( = Dessau Inscr. Led. Sel. 8870); 6eol<; KaTa-^dovc'oi<i kol rjpwcnv Ihioi'i '(/>. 
Heberdey u. Wilhelm, Rcisen in Kilikien, p. 33, n. 79, quoted by Dessau /.<•. 
(both these inscriptions are from Cilicia) ; and for corresponding Italic 
expressions, cf dels inferum parentum, C.LL. i. 1241 = x. 4255 = Ritschl 
PLME. ZZXr/A = Dessau, Inscr. Lat. Sel. 7999, with Dessau's note. Also, 
in general, Roscher, Lexicon, s.v. Hcros: Rohde, Psj/che, ii. p}). 348 ff. 


On a stone in the wall of a house below the western group of gni\ cs. 
Read by D. G. Hogarth and R. Norton, from a tissue-paper rubbing, 


MONHCei . . OYAeMH {rumplctc) 

Ke€nerPAtA////CTe€ANB . 


[ E-yco rj helva ku-^ 
T[€]tcr/f[euacra virep ifiov 
fiovq^, €[t€p]ov Be fii]- 
BeuG^ TTjv ovaav irpo e- 
TT) p,a' direvavTi too K€[p- 
5 afieiou, TjvTiva Ka/xdpa[v 

Ke iTriypayjra, [m](tt€, idv j3\ov- 
Xevaofie, rivd ttotc tmv e/i[w- 
i> €TC l^(oari<i fiov Olvai Tii'a. 



Kt Be T/V /ifTrt TtlVTU TuXfir/- 

T(i Ti)i> t'fj.T]i' TtXtfTr/i', Bioar- 
e<)v irpucTTifiov - - - 

Th»' iiisiriptidii is illitcrutf as ivgjinls 

sju'llin^' {k€ = Kal 1. (J ; ^ovXevcrofic = /SovXevcriofiai I. 7 ; 6ivai = Bi^vat 
]. cS ; ToXfirjai auu^e Kt ei'ddyp-e = ToXfit)a€i uvol^ai Kai evOdyjrai 1. !') ; 

viicahulary (xafiupa ij/. cnbiculum I. ')); and 

syntax (Trpo eT»; fia' ' I. 3, cf. Mttschion 114: fTrpo 0X470? T)fiepa<;, «jU(>tr<l 
ap. Sitphoclt's, (7/i'. //<*.>'. nf Rom.and Ih/z. Pcri/xfs, s.v. irpoli ; .lohannts Moscluis 
«y». Migiio, Patrol, (ir. vol. H7, 'iOHoc: Trpo err; ftVoatSJo, and the iiHxltrn 
(^rt'ck idiniu ; the irrcgidar ^n-n. absol. ex/ ^(o(tj]<; p.ov 1. H; and the rt'diindant 
Tit-a 1. «). 

()m a small cippiis in a wall just E. of the city gntr. Copii-d I. 
]). (;. Ho.'arth and R. Norton. 





K N CH) M O N 


H M H C E N E 


ZoatKOi; 7 0) i[Si](i) re K I'd) fj.6i>\co<v> p.i><€>t']fiT]<; erel/cei'. 

ZocrcK6<i seC'Mis best taki'ii tur Zi(i3aiKu>i, a jxrlrctly po.ssiblc foiiii, 
although it docs not occur elsewhere. Both Zu)ac/xo<; and Z<i)Titc6<; occur. 

The tragiiicnts of an inscription <»n a building near the shore, publislu-d 
C./.G. 421)7 and (partly) by Binndorf and Ni«-iMann, Rciscn in Li/kicti u. k'urieri, 
p. 117. We found fragments 1 and 7 ; also 2 and 5, which we n*ad thus : 



- [Thi'se words cannot be rcgiirded as i-crtain, should l>e left to be inferred from tlic •ub.s«-qiiciit 

having been read only from a t issue- paptr clause. But I cannot suggest any hcttei re 

mbbin;,'. It is very atransjo that the ilatc storation. — D.O.H.l 
shouM be given so precisely, iiml tliat Kaudpav 

184 A. W. VAN BUREN 

We found also this fragment : 





On a small rectangular block of stone N.E. of the theatre, between the 
wall and the river ; it has probably fallen from the wall. Copied by 
D. G. Hogarth and R. Norton. 

IMBPAIMIIIAZC "ln^paijjLKi'Adao- 

NOSTOYIMBPA ro? toO 'IyLt/Q/9a[i- 

MIOZ2AN0IOZ fjLLo^ Bdvdio^ 

lEPAZAMENOZ i€pacrdfX€vo<^ 
5 riATPWOYOEO 5 Trarpcoov d€o[u 

2AN0OYTONAN Bdv6ov tov <\v- 

APIANTA^YNTH hpu'ivra avv t*} 

BACIEKTWNIAI ^dat €k tcov IBl[o)v. 

Cf. the similar Xanthian inscriptions C.IJI. 4275. adil. 4269 c. 

L. 1. The root of the name "l/j,^pai/xi(; occurs in a number of })roper 
names from western Asia Minor and vicinity ; cf Pape-Benseler s.v. 
"Ipi^papLoq, 'Ifi^pdaio-i, l/i/Sporo-o?, "\/ji^pco<i, "l/j-^po^;.-^ 

L. 4. lepaadfxevo^' from i€pdop,ai = lepeveiv or lepareveiv. Beside these 
Xanthian inscriptions, the word occurs in many others, as in one from Delos, 
B.a.H. vi. (1882), p. 20, 1. 158 ; p. 33, 11. 43, 44, 45 ; cp. also Dittenberger, 
Or. Gr. Inscr. Set. Index viii. s.v. 

The inscription ['p,]av6io)v rj ^ovXi] k.t.X. in honour of Q Veianius 
Tlejjolemus, published by Cagnat, Lisa: Gr. Bom. iii. G28, 'ex schedis 
Instituti archaeologici Vindobonensis.' This was read by D. (i. Hogarth, 
during a previous visit to the site, Apr. 17, 1897. It is on a slab of white 
marble, on the upper slope of the river bank, broken at the bottom, and 
worn on the left ; fine lettering. Hogarth's reading varies as fcjllows from 
that published by Cagnat : 

Iota adscriphtm is never indicated. L. 3, iail. j KAI. L. 4, TAHnOAE|//ON. 
L. 11, init. no letter is visible before AZTC^N. L. 12, init. i ////e////7/7/AIKAT. 
L12, EGNEl]. L. IG, I////AITETEIM. L. J(j, ROAAA | //IZ. L. 17,ym. 

'■' A\so''Efi0pofj.os (Pcterscii and von Lusclian, Iteisen In Lykicn, ii. p. 106), and the Lycian 
j,'.i.itiv<;.s +t><3ppOM A+ and +XP?'VtA^+ (B.M.C. Lyda, y- x.xxvii f.). 

INSCKII'I'IONS I'Mtn.M ASIA MINoH, ("Vl'l'.rs, KTC. 185 

I'll 1 111(11 III. 


( )ii .1 l)it)kin lilnck, |)rcsmii;il>lv :i liii^iiiriit of ;i st.ihu- l);isc. KimiI by 
H N.-it..,,. 

^ ElMOCEPMArC !£wT]f</xos' 'V.ptuiy6[pov'\n0- 

IMINOEOTEP jm\t^lll• Heorepl 

'I0N4)IAC ''I""' <lii\o\aropyia<i 

AIMNH f 1"' M»";[m»7v €V€K€v. 

\j. I. Tlir iiaiin' [^](oTn/ios^ occiiis in (\I.(!. 4.S2I e\ 'ApT€ifio<;, another 
|iossiliility, ill C.lJl. \'.V1\ <l. IJoLh these iiiseiipt ions were foiiiid in the 
s.uiir jiiirt ol' Lyt'iii :vs the Chiiiiaeni. 

["\p0pa\ipii\ ef. 'lp.^paip,ii;, No. li supra, and imte there. 

li. 2. HeoTe/j[ - - - - : the ri-storatioii is iiiiet rtain. Tlie only name 
known lo iiie l>e<riiiiiiiiL,' in ^-•)€orep- is HeoTeppo^ ; HtoTty^Troy also iiiii,'ht he 

Sll^^ested : hut IllcHe lett(TS are needed to till the spaee. l*erha|ts mie 
iiilL,fhl r( ail HtoTt7j[/x.i8'>u, or (-)toTt73[7r('8oi/. 

Ill the wall of a ehureh. riihlishid l>y J^*' IJas 1340, with some 
variants. Kead by ]) (i. lioLjarth. We ean give more exact ri'adiiii^s than 
Le Has ill the folluwiiiL; instances. 

Oniiiiii has the l..iiii H. I-. 1. \nAPA. ].. "i. JTAOONYn. L. 7. 

L. 7. One would have expeiitd i^ohnicrai { = sjuud ) ] eiaoS. elsewhere 
= ii>//irl. An error of the stone-cutter is |tos.sil)|«>. 


retf-rson, /.V/.sry, p. 142. We read YENYBATHOY. 


On a rectanL,Milai block of stmie over •4.")0 ni. high. I.,etters abmit 
•O.S,'') ():W high. Copied by H. Norton ; a sipiee/.e was also usid. rublislud 
C.I.d. 43.S(), 'ex schedis Midleri Heautbrtianis.' Our reading i^ more < xact 
in siimc respects, altln)ugh some of the letters reconled in ('./.(/. are no 
longer visible. ( hir reading: 

186 A. W. VAN BUREN 



AAPIAN IIEBA 'ASpiavo) Se/3a[o-Tw 

riATPiriATPIAO Trnrpl 7rarpi8o[<; 
5 OAYMfllT^Z^TH o oXufiTrio) acoTrJlpi 

OYKOIMOYVn t]ov Koafxov vTr[ep 

HZEniBAIE^Z t]^9 eVfySaVew? 

AYTOYAKAAISE?^ aurov ' AKaXia-ico[v 

HBOYAHKAIOAH^ ^ ^ovX^ Kal 6 8iip,[o<;. 

Date, 120 a.d. or a few years later; for Hadrian's visit, see Pauly- 
Wissowa, i. 509 f. ; for the epithet 6Xvfi7no<;, o.c. i. 500, 5. 

L. 8. A k M I Z E 55 , t' l.G. ; A K A A I Z E ^ was given by E. A. ( Jardner, from 
Cockerell's papers, in J.H.S. vi. (1885), p. 343. Berard, who apparently had 
not seen Gardner's article, stated in IJ.O.H. xvi. (1892), p. 442, that he was 
unable to find the stone at Phaselis, but conjectured 'AK[a\]ca-ecov. Our 
reading confirms Cockerell's copy and Berard's conjecture, 


The inscription commemorating Hadrian's visit in 129 a.d. (see note on 
No. 11), published C.J.U. 4337, 'ex schcniis Miilleri Beaufortianis,' with 
corrections iii. add. j). 1157 ; and, with further corrections, by Berard, B.C.H. 
xvi (1892), p. 442; and, following him, by Cagnat, Inscr. Gr. Rom. iii. 757 
(where C. fails to indicate that 11. 1-3 are restored). Total height of the 
stone, at least "420 m. Letters 040 m. high. Read from a squeeze. Our 
reading differs from Berard's as follows : 

L. 4 (of C.'s numbering), the r. and bottom hastae of A are visible 
before 0. L. 6, the r. hasta of M is visible before OY. L. 8, the reading 
KopfSJAAAE^N is certain; before the A, the two upper hastae of A are 
visible ; Berard's AAAEHN is obviously a misprint, as he has [Kopv]haWe(tiv 
in his transcription and commentary. 


On a broken rectangular block of stone. Copied by D. G. Hogarth. 
Published, with variants, in C.I.G. 4335, ' ex schedis Mullen Beaufortianis,' 
and after C.I.G. by Cagnat, Inscr. Gr. Horn. iii. 759. Our reading: 




////YMni^l . '^Illllill YM^ANTOI^ OZMO 

5 //////////. M I P I / llllllllllllllllllllllllll^.llll 




[ A VTOKptiropi Kaiiapi | 
6eov 'Ipai'ii'ov Il[<//j^t/c loi) f/lfT),] dtu[u K(p\o[u\a vlu)i'\u)i, 
'Vpai\a\tu)L \^ptai'(i)i [ it/:J« Jcr[ t ]'<», t'ip^it[p(i fj.\tyiaT(i}i, 
hrjfji[ap\xttcPi<{ €^ovai[a<; to /9', Jt'(7r]aT(a)j to y9' T[io]i 6f[(oi 
o\\ufnTi(i)i, [tTcoTPiiJi Tov a]ufj.7rafTo\'i K]i)ap.o[v 
') Kal T»}v 7r]«[T]^i[^(>s' ri/s ] t[o)i' <l>ao »/\ttTja»[i', 

T(v)[i/\Bapi<: AioT€i[p,<)V, yvvi}] (8)e V(a)tov AiKivi'ov 
y\t'tpf(uv vt\()v] [^ou(f)\(i'i'(H' II |tTp(t«) fi'<a]/'o( G), ayopai'- 
\ o/ioi'ttos" ------ I 

Dale, I IS A. I>., if the al)(i\(.' rrsliuatioii is concct ; hut I."}! \.\k {( '.Id'. 
■iMM/i) scfiiis a iimic natural datf fur tin' <ifct inn ot siiih an ins" ri|il inn at. 


( )n tlx' hill ahii\c ihf thtatn-; hr-.kiii nn thi' iii,'ht. Ii«ail liv 
K Norton. 

A YTOKPATCOPK AlC A XinoKptnoip Ka'iaa\p, dioii' \hpiavuv 

YIOCOEOYTP * vl6<;, Oeuu Tp{aiai'ov HapdiKov vi- 

WNOCOEOY o)ro9, Oeov (Ne/joua tyyovo'i. Ti- 

3CA'' t]o9 Ar|\<os" ' ABpiai'O^ ' .\iT(oi>(l- 

[I'O'i ^e/SatJTO'; k.t.X.] 
Date. l:}.s Kil a.d. 

The inscription piihji.shcd, with minor variants, by C'agnat, Insrr. (,',. 
Ji'iDii. iii. 7()1, 'ex .schedi.s Instituti archaeologici X'indohoncnsis.' On th«.' 
hill ahovc the tlieatre. Read hy D. (J. Hogarth, as I'ojlows : 

AY ... I ATOPAKAIZAPA Av[TOKp]dTopa Kaiaapa 


ANTnNEINONZEBAITON ' AvTcoveh'OP i^e/5a<TT0j' 

EYZEBH VluaefSf) 

5 ////^////////////////////////////// 5 [<l>a]a\rj\eiTi>, 7, ^ovXij 

Kai o 6//^o?.] 

Date, l.'W^Kil A.I). 


The doiihle in.scription ol' tlu' Voconii Sa.xai' published hy H» raid, 
H.C H. xiv (1890), pp. 04.S ft'., and, aftei' him, by C'agnat, Inscr. (//•. lunn. iii. 
7(i:i, and Des.s;iu, Inscr. Lat. Sd. H82.S. Copied by I). G. Httgarth and 
A W. Van Buren, and also road from a squeeze. We were unable to rea<l all 
the letters seen by H<'rard, especially at the extreme right. ( )ur readings 
ditt'er from Berard's in the following instances: 

Sigma always has tho form Z in the loft-hand inscription, and C in the 
right-hand one. In the right-hand inscription, 1. 1. the fourth and following 

188 A. W. VAN BUREN 

letters after KOYOKHNION are OYYION. L. 3, the TH of (rrparr^r^Sv 

forms a ligature. L. 5, BEIGYNIAC. L. 7, OYAEPIA {sic). L. 8, 

TIEBOYPTEINHC {sic). L. 8, AYTOIC ; this reading bears on the cursus 
honorum of C. Voconius Saxa Fidus. 


The inscription published, with considerable variants, in C.I.G. 4332, 
after Beaumont, and, following C.I.G., by Cagnat, Inscr. Gr. Rom. iii. 764 
C.I.G. iii. add. p. 1156 gives the reading of Barth from Rhein. Mus. vii. 
(1850), p. 252, No. 6. Barth could read only comparatively few letters in 
each line, and used the expression ' folgende sehr unleserlichc auf einer in 
hochst ungliicklicher Stellung im Gebiische liegenden gut gearbeiteten 
Basis.' It is on a rectangular block of stone on the road from the harbour 
towards the theatre ; the top, with most of the first five lines, is broken off 
Read by D. G. Hogarth and R. Norton, using Norton's co\^\ and a squeeze. 


////I'^NAI . IOY//OA////A 

TiniANi\K' - . . 

MiAu . . TENv. . . . NONKAT . . 

5 3T0YTA"MAi -^t 













<l^a]ai)\€iTci)v 7) t^ovXrj teai 6 BfifJiO<; 

llTu\tfxa]iui' 61 [s" t]ou [ IlT]o\[e/i. ja( I't/u 
<^l* a a i]\€ I \t(t ji>), ai\Sp,[a Ka\oi' 
Kal][ uy)a[Oui'] y)ei'u[fX€]voi> K[ai rov 
.') TT/j] aiyToi/ T</[7]/i.a[To<f Tr)[s' 7rJo\tov, 

'fat /^f'KxV* "^o^ [■^l'/''^ ^'"V''' l"JPX*" 
epevaai'TU t/}s" 7r/3o«-a^(>;]7e[T- 

<8os" T»}s" TToXeov t'eas" [A ](?»/»'[ a]v 
H> I lo\]i[a]8o«» Ka\ Ttou [0e]o)i' ^ef^aa- 

Tiov, Trp\v\Tavev(javTa (^iXoTtt- 

/xo)>i, vTTO(pvX(i^ai>Ta tov Avkl[q))i/ 

eOvovs (1)^ Kad' kKuan^v apxh^' 

TiT€ip.i]ad(ai) avrov utto t/}? 
1') TToXeov, TToWa Kai fieyd- 

Xa 7rape<T^y]fjL€[v]ov tP] TraTpi[Bi 

ep TO) T?]<i (^)(0))'i avTou y^povw, 

fCai fXiTO, T1]V T6\eUT?y[l'] 

al(i>viou<; ho)pea<i Kara\X€Xoi- 
20 7r]6T[a] tt) TrarpiEi el's' re [d]vad/]p.[aTa 

Afjat [^Jeojpta? Kai Biavop,a*{, dp€T[i}]<i 

e[v]€K€v Tf}<i elt avTo[v<;]- ttjp Be tov 

<'ivSpidi'To<; di'daTuacp eTTonjaaTo , 

M]6Vi'»/<ro"[a] 7/ Kai 'VepTta [ 

25 ^>acr7;]\eiTt9, ('}) Oeia Kai KXi]pop6fiO'i avTov, [kuOoo^ 

o] llToXepaio^ BieTd^aTO. 



lieliiiul the basilica ; on the hem of the hiiuatioii of" a teinale statu. •. in 
lather small letters. Copied by R. Norton. 


M6o-^o9 Moa-^ov 6 Kai KdXXnnro'; ^vpahevf. 

Cf. the artist's (?) inscription Moaxof O.l.G. 6970; and the nutiieal 
<'pitaph from Piraeus, I.(t. in. 1360, beginning ^vvua8ev<i Btpd-noip ' \iroX- 
Xwi'io^ ipddBe M6<T)(0V. 



On a marble block over the gate at the north cornt^r of the theatre; 
published, with variants, after Beaufort, in C.I.G. 4360, cf. add. p. 1 H)4 , and 
Cagnat, Inscr. Gr. Rom. iii. 807. 

190 A. W. VAN liUREN 

EniANGYriATOY eirl avdvirdrov 

TIBEPIOYKAAAIOY Tc^eptou K\a(u)8tou 


Date, after 135 a.d., according to Frosopogr. Tinjh Rom. s.v. Ti. ClaviHus 
Bi\th]ynicus, q.v. 


A large marble base, having figures, etc., carved on the sides. On the 
front, two draped male figures with an omphalos brtween them ; a tree on 
the left and a tree (?) on the right. On the left side, four dancing figures ; 
similar figures on the right side ; on the back, two bigae. Length of side 
1-24 m. ; of back 2-45. a, b, copied by R. Norton ; c, by D. G. Hogarth ; 
d, by A. W. Van Buren, from a photograph and a rubbing. 

(a) On the left side (this inscription is chipped on the right). 


{h) (Jn the band across the omphalos. 

(f) On the front. 

. nrOhfiKll .... hOiAE"; K . . . I . . Al . Y ^u^i J 














I Nx'IMI'lh •%> I |;(tM \>|.\ MIN(»l;. <'^•]Ml^s. \AC I :• I 

{</) ( )|l til.- I l^llt s|<|.- (I Ills llixl l|il Kill !•> 1 lll|i|M .1 nil the li;,'llt ) 



— //J' »ptT//;' ayvui)(i, irepKTKe-n^e)! ufX(f>if:ia\ou[(Ta 
(tiSol, fii:i\i\t6i> Tf Kal aiveroi' tpyov uvvaTni 
Trai'Ti vuCov i3\^i6t\w crv r' a\ev\ao Tocrcrja 6iulaiv 
<wx\ a{B)ei' o(tt)i t [e^e/'Jro Tre pt(f)pahiro'i (tv Te'(\)e'TrT[av.' 

le/3a WvBia. 


- -]o«» 2Cfc'\eu/iO<f Kdi y\<ipKO>i Avp)j\to<i y.t\€VKtai'0^ [1(i)Ti]K0<; 'leTpaKU'ea-; a 
vio^ jSovXevTai rov I3(o/j.ui> KaTarTKevdcrnvT^^ kcii y^pvacoaavTe*; ai'tOecrai> 
<TVi> T7/ /Sciaei, dytorof; dyo/xa'ov to rpLTor tepov oiKovfxiviKnv Laoirvdiov 
5 Xcoi'iov ^KiXupiov eiai\(i<niKov t/? c'nraactr t>ii> OLKovfXtin]v dyeovnOeTovr- 
T(oi> /j.€Ta h^ifjLiovpyinv ()verTiai>ov \\n/j.7r(oi'iai'ou KXav^iarov ^loyti'ov^ 


Ka\ AvpyjXiov ^i(f)i\t(irov ^i(f)i\<)V Ittttikov- a\vrap\(>ivTo^ X^k^uv 

.\(Kii'ri<)U ViTiaiuu vtov '[\ti(1}uv ^l^tXoho^ov. 

L vO\ 
Ov (TTiXirralii eaOfjcn KeKaa-fxevo^ eTSta T(i^['i^ 
^j/T^TO?, KaOapPj 5t" v6(o TrepiXufiireai al[yXi)' 
Kal ae Oun riovai kgi eKTeXeuvatv t't'\8<u[p, 
oTTt K€i' <\p>j(J€o ao(f)I'i (f)peri ficTpta elo(o[<{. 

(r), line 1. The line is too incniniilctc f<i iii.ik<' a ifstuiation in tiill 
jHissiltlr. ()ii<' inay cnnject urc 

* |Kf>liiiatiiiiis 111 If luiiihly iliu \<< Mr. H<iiiMinii. — I > <;. ||. ) 
U.S. — vol.. XXVllI. 

192 A. W. VAN HUREN 

8. la-oTTvdtov cf. 'IcroXi;/x7r<o9, 'Icrore/ieo?. Sec Dittenberger, Sijlloge, 
2n(l Lfl., Indices, s. vr. The meaning is made clear by, c.(/. Dittenberger, 
/S'?///., 2n(l I'll., 20G. Hi. rb/x fiev /xovo-ikov 'lao7r]v6iou, rov Se yvfivtKov Kal 
linrLKOv Yaovefxeov Tal<; re ■t)\iKiai<i «-[at ral^ rifxal^ ; iV?. 20G. 25 : in'. 2G0. 
22 rt. Kal Tol<i viKijcraaiv \a\K[L]B[€cov r]6v dycova tovtov ht,h6\vai ra laa 
aSXa, ocra-Trep («-)[al] To[i9 tJo. Ilu^/a viK^^aaaiv \ €« TOi) vofiov Ka6t]K€[i] 
BiSo(TO[ai]. Ct". also the C(jin of Ancyra in Head, Historia Xnmornm, j). 029, 
with the inscription ATnd'e?) ICODYOIA. Note also in this connexion 
the omphalos in the relict" on the front of our stone. 

L. 4. olKOUfieviKov = elaeXaaTiKov etV a-naaav rrjv olKovfievqv 1. 5. 
Cf. ^'./.<T. 2932 (Tralles), 11. 4 ff. twv [L\ep\wv elp^aeXaa-TiKoyv \ [ei]? rr^v 
oiKovfj.€ut]v I [Ilv]Sco)p . . . ayo}v\[(t}]v, 3426 (Philadelphia), 11. 9 ff. 
viKt]\cra'i aycoi'ai; iepov<; [elae^\Xa(TTiKOVi Jiy. 

L. ~j. dycouoOcTovvlTcoi' ixera Syjficovpyiav I do not know of this 
exprossi(»n occuning elsewhere. For Byjfi. at Side, cf. No. 21 and note there. 

L. 7. a\vrap^ovvTo<i- apparently an important office at Side; cf. Panly- 
Wis.sowa, ti.v. ^ A\vTt'tp)^y]<i. 

These games at Side arc, I believe, not mentioned elsewhere on stones 
or in literature; but they an- refi'i-i«'d to on coins of Side b}^ th«i words 

lepoc, nvoioc, myctikoc, oaymhia oiKovMeN ., oikoymcnikoc 

(Head J[(s/. Xicni., p. ')>>' ).' Apul/'i is a freipient coin-type. 

[The era, from •vliicji the numerals heading tt^xts a and d are reckoned, 
is |inssil)|y that ot' Hadrian's visit to Asia (129 A.]).). The names in text c 
imply a dat.' towards tho end of thi' second century at earliest; and therefore 
one ramiot reckon fiom the Cilician ]iro\incial era ^74 A.D.X still less from 
the ("laudian provincial oi-g;inisation. Unforttniately neither coins nor 
in>ciipticin< ..l' I'ampliyha iiifoi-m us about local eras. — D.CJ.H.] 


( )n a slab of marble purchased by Mr. C. 1). <Jurtis, and now in 

[ ; -] 

AHMtS^P ]8r}fitovp[y7](ravT- 

vKAinAZA:^ a] koi irda-a'; [dpy^af: 

3AEiTEY TT^dkenevlcrd^evov 

MTOIZnA Ka]i rol'i ira^ialv 

"YPEOYZ dpy^vpiov^ \aTe<f>dv- 

■ENAYTf^ ovf;'] iv avT<ti[ 

L. 1. hiifji. cf Pauly-Wissuwa iv. 2858 tt'., esp. 28G1. 32 ff. The office 
was aheady known as existing in Side, V.I.H. 4.S47. 

•■ Stc H.M.C. L}jri„ „,ni J'um/>l,ijlia,, same .oiii), 117 ((Jallieiius; instiiption lEPOC 

No. 98 (Viileriaii). (;.i;nes arc alluded to also ..« />--r , .^ ^ ^ i ^. .n, -r^^, i »,/->-> 

inNo>.87(..uliar:mll.;AHloisonthe.sauu. MVCTIKOC | CIAH|TnN | NEO- 

coin), SfM-Tulia .Mamiii.ica), "(1 (.Maxiiniuus), 97 ^0 PHN), 118 (Calli.iiii.s), 121 (Saloniiia). 
(Viilcriaii ].), 101 (Oaliicmis ; Atlnua is on flie 



Marble block in the yiinl (if .'i house, jnob.iiily complete on all sides 
though Worn at the odi^is. The text is, however, obviously not conij)li'tc on 
thp right, the last portion having b»»ii cut f>n anothir bloek. Fig. 2. 


X.-. -22. 

S]epoi;et'\/o? Ka[l 'P]ovT€i\[La rj yvv>] €K twv 
Ihidiv KaTaaK€V(icrai>T€<; [t}}v aTtjXrjv ? Kal di- 
VT€^ e^aidev t^? €7ravi[(TTa^€vri<; aopov 
avv Ttti jScofiu) Kal a<; e7roi[»7cr6 eopTa<j ? ttoli']- 
cr€i<i €iV evoixidv Tal<; T/l[<r 'Poi^Te<Xta? B- 
ov\ai<; €i> rfj t»}<? uvaaT(i[cre(i)<; haTrdvrj ? 

[For the number of letters lost in each linr on the right there is no 
guide except the very probable restoration of line 1. The last legible 
character in 1. 8 is certainly i"(", and the last in 1. 4 is a hastn which, if 
not iot<(, could be part only o( eta, 7nii, nn, pi, or rho. The oblique line, 
apparently joining the two Iiasfnr m the ph<»tograph and making a nu after 
<Tro-, is deceptive. On an \intou<-hed print it appears as a flaw in the stone 
<»ntinuing up into the line above. For the phrase Troielv toprtjp see 
Thuc. ii. 15. 

Since 1. 3 ends on the stone with iofa, the restoration of the s»'quel, 
given above, is almost unavoidaldr. A sarcophagtis raised up on a high 
pedestal (/3atTt<?) must be in (piestion. I suggest (ttjjXtjv in 1. 2 because 
this text is actually cut on a slab, not mi a sarcojihagus. For the 
of the second singular of the future in the final injunction rp. our No. 3. 
— D.G.H.] 

<) 2 

194 A. W. \'AN I'.LMIEN 


()ii a roiioli stone sot in a wall. Thi- sccmukI line is entirely i'ra>^<'(i. 
Cti])ie(l hy K. Xui'ton. 

1 1 nil 1 1 l-l! HI! [ ] 


eneOHKCN eiridnKev 

5 CYMOYN 5 'S.ufxovi' 


AAAMAIC 'A\a/ii(a)i'i 


( )n a nuiil)le slal), '505 ni. lung- by IS ni. hi<.;h, broken at the (.'nd. At 

the 1. end is carved a basket-like object. Co])ie(l by H. Xoi'ton. 

I MEN A 0^-0 fca]] €i>So^o[<; 

h. (Hhpinfj acTiiHH fin hit>i],-(t ('.)) 


l'erhai)s u should be read a €vho^o\^<i ; cf. the inscription in Lanckoroiisky, 
Sldtflf /)')ii2>Ii///l<ii>i I', risidkns i. LSIj, No lOS. 


Seven I'ragnients of a slab of white marble; •Ol:i-01(i ni. thick ; the 
lari^'t;st is '1 SO ni. hjng' ; height of letters •();]0 ni. : the /niiti/'iii of the letters is 
partially preser\e(l. Now in the Aniei'ican School in Rome, liaving- been 
(htnati'd by Mr. A. V. Armour. (No. 12;iof the School's inventory.) None of 
the fragments join, and none of the words can be made out. Fig. .'i. 

On a slab near the sea. Letters are 0"l 1 ni. high. 


( )n upright slaljs S.W. of the theatre, in the Stitct of ('obnnns. 

a. h. 


HA An A 4)A;rA 




A Ti r s' 
'inhahly a tra^Miiciit of a ili'dicat ion to Trajan, Ne/jouja vlov. 

C)ii a marble slab. 






4) A A A 1 N i^ 1 E M A 

-JAffs' (f>poi'TtcrTrj<; tT/i; dyicoTiiT- 

?;<>] 7rpu)T)]^ (Tvuay coy i^is earyji' evr- 

i/^a)]?, Kai nifeTrXyjpaxra tt]v fiapfiapcoaiv utto 

Tov] dfjL/3(opo<{ foj? Tov alfiua, Kal eapn^^a 

xa]? hvo €TTTap.v^ov^ Kal to. Bvo kiovok^- 

(j>a\a, Li'h{iKTio}vo<;) le' fjLt){vo^) h' . 

196 A. W. VAN BUREN 

Eyo, ' - ' Ids, archisyiuigogiu (J) sanctissi- 
mac] primae synagogue fui f el ici- 
te]r, et jJcr/eci solum marmoreum ah 
amhone usque ad sigma, et polivi 
5 duas luccrnas septenarias et duo capita 
columnarum, indictionc XV mense IV. 

L. 1. - - - -]itt?' There is so little of the inscription lost on the left 
that this must be the end of a (Jewish ?) name, rather than of 7roXXa/ct?, 
BeKUKi^;, or the like.*' 

(f>povTiaTi]'i' cf. Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri i. No. Iviii. ; 
I.G. xiv. 715 (Naples) ; id. 759 (Naples), 11. 3, 8, 22, o <f>pr]Tapxo<; ?} ol 
XaXKoXoyoL rj 6 <j>povrt,<n-q<i rj ol Si,o[c] | Krjral rj dWo<; tl<; t^<? ^prirpia<i rr)^ 
' ApiaTaicov kt\. I can find no exact parallel for the use of the word in 
connexion with a synagogue ; but cf. C.I.G. iv. 190 (Aegina), (a) SeoBoopov \ 
veco[K]{6pov }') (f>povTt^ovT(o'i) ktX. ; (6) ©eoStupo? dp^^io-yi^ [(£70)709 (f)]povTiaa<i 
€7 7] reaa-apa | i^ defieXiov ttjv <TVva'y[Q)'yT)vJ olKo86/u,y]cra kt\., which makes 
it not unlikely that the <f>povTi(TTr](; of our inscription = apxi'0'vvdyo)<yo<:. 

TT}<i dyc(OTdTT]<; 7rp(oTrj<; avvay(oyrj<:' this method of distinguishing two 
or more synagogues as ' first,' ' second,' etc., seems to be unknow^n elsewhere. 
Nowack, Lehrhuch der heir. Archdol. ii, p. 86, Anm, 2, speaks of the use of 
emblems (the vine-branch, etc.) for this purpose ; one of his examples is 
quite doubtful; see S. Reinach's article in B.C.H. x. (1886), p. 329, where 
other methods of designating synagogues are also enumerated. 

L. 4. By a/jL^(i)v must be meant the reading-desk and platform, ^rjfia. 
I know of no other instance of the use of the word dfi^cov in connexion with 
synagogues ; it is not used of the ^fj/ia, suggestus, pulpitum, of the Christian 
church until the fourth century. [Prof H. Hirschfeld says that it is used 
for ' pulpit ' in Syriac. — D.G.H.] 

L. 4. crcfifia- a recognized Byzantine variant for alyfia. A portico 
shaped like the letter sigma is meant, cf. C.I.G. 8623 (Bostra), iKrladr} 
eK defieXiojv to rpUoyxov alyfia, and the note there, * aiy/xa pm'ticum 
denotat in littcrae C fmnnami curvatam! I am unable to consult Du Cange, 
Const. Christ, lib. ii. p. 112, referred to in C.I.G. For the designation, cf. 
also C.I.L. vi. 10284 ( = Dessau 7947), dualus in gamma porlicihus; C.IL. 
vi. 11913, porticus coheren[tes in ga]mma nndis productis, where silmma 
seems a possible restoration. If the form C is meant, al/xfia would probably 
be another way of .saying diiac in gamma 2J0iiicus. 

The al/xfxa must be the portico at the front (entrance) of the synagogue. 
S. Reinach, B.C.H. x. (1886), 327 ff., and Bev. des Etudes Jtiives, xii. 236 ff, 
shows that the Greco-Jewish synagogue consisted of the synagogue proper — a 
roofed building — and, in front of it, a court, open to the sky, and generally 
surrounded by colonnades. If, as is natural to assume, the dfi^oyp stood 

* [Nevertheless I believe we have here the here ; it was probably cut on an upper block. 
end of a numeral: the name ouglit to liavi- D. G.H.] 
occupied a larger space than was available 


noar thu back cud of the synac;i)gMc, the phras.' <l7ro rov afif3ojt'o<; f.09 too 
a'lfi^a is tMjuivalent to the entire length of the synagogue. 

L. 5. The seven-branched candlesticks, as furnishings of synagogues, 
were known before. 

The purpose of the hvo KiovoK€<^a\a may perhaps be explained by 
specialists in Hebrew anti(juities.' 

L. G. The year ami month ot the indict ion are given, but not the 
number of the indiction itself. This is the usual form. As the origin of 
this method of chronology cannot be placed earlier than the time of 
Constantine, this gives a terminus a quo for this inscription. 

This inscription is of considerable interest as throwing light on the 
Jewish community at Side and their synagogue. It gives the following 
items of information : 

(1) There were at least two synagogues at Side or in the vicinity (T17? 
ay. vpfOTri'; avi'.). 

(2) The epithet dyicoTUTy} was used. 

(3) In the First Synagogue there was an official styled (f>povTi<TT^<;. 

(4) This building had a marble pavement (fiapfi<ipco(Ti<;) ; it must there- 
fore have been a structure of some dignity. 

(5) It had apparently near one end a reading-desk (afi^wv), and 

(6) at the other a portico shaped like the letter sigma. 

(7) It contained two seven-branched candle-sticks, and 

(8) two KiovoKe<f)a\a. 

(9) We may infer from the above that the Jews of Side were numerous 
and well-to-do. 

In general, our knowledge as to synagogues, their organization and 
furniture, in early Christian times is not extensive. See Nowack, Lihrbiuh 
dcr Iicbr. Archaeologie, ii. (Freiburg u. Leipzig, 1894), pp. 83 ff., and Keil's 
Mamial of Bibl. Archaeology, tr. Christie, ed. Crombie (Edinburgh), 1887, i. 
pp. 201 ff. 


Larnaca (near Citium). 


At the house of K. Karemphylaki. On a columnar stele of the well- 
known local type.** Copied by A. W. Van Buren. Lettering irregular. 

' [Had these two K.oKo«>aAa anything to do C), 13 (which has X PHCTH not XPHCT€), 

witli Solomon's Jachin and Boat with their ^^^ ^^ ^^^^ purchased from K. Karemphylaki 

pomegranate capitals? See I. Kings vu. If., 21 : ,_y ^j^ Armour, and presented by him to the 

II. Chrou. ni. 15, 17.— D.G.H.] American Scliool in Rome. There are also a 

- Similar stelae are published or described _^^^^,^^ ^^^ ^^^^j,^^ ^j^,^^ j„ ^^^ Imj^rial 

by Cecoaldi, Rev. Arcluol. ser. u. 27 (18/4), ottoman Museum in Constantinople and in th.- 

pp. 79 ff. ; 29 (1875). p. 24, note 3, pp. 95 ff. ; ji.jropolitan Museum of Fine Arts in New 

and by Perdrizet, in B.C.H. xx (1896), pp. york 
343 f. Peidrizet's Nos. 11 (which ha.s C not 


A4)P0Aei 'AcfypoBel- 

CAXPHCTH aa ')(pr}(TTT) 

X A I P e X^ti/ae. 

Ct. B.C.H. 20 (189G), j). 844, No. 20, 'At^pohiala \ xPWrh | xafpe. A 
name 'Acf>po8eLaa or ' A^pohiaa is not found elsewhere ; here it may be the 
stone-cutter's mistake (or 'A(f)poB€i(Tia. 

Pajihos Nuca. 


On a fragment of a marble architrave, circ. ToO m. long, lately excavated 
in the yard of the house of K. loannis Hadjipapagiorgi. Copied by 
R. Nditun. 



]«at r<a vita avrou M. Av[pT]Xi.(p 

(lydl^X/jLUTa koX Ta9 avohov; Ka\Te(TKeva(Tev ' 

Date, 196-211 a.d. 


Cut on a step in the native rock at the back of the house of K. loannis 
Hadjipapagiorgi. The P is 01 (i m. high. 



On a block in the wall of the new church. 




A red granite slab, -91 x 95 m. broken to left, serving for a step before 
the guest-room of the camp ; lettering, -1.5 m. high, much defaced. 


It is possible that this belongs to the same inscription as the fragments 
C.f.L. iii. 12. They apjjarcntly had to do with an aqueduct. 


( )n ;i riic/.c (tviT tho (lii.pi- iit'a inml). 

AMMOJMoY .\fj,^u)\iov 


\j. 1. ' A /uLficoXlov for 'A fifi(i)viov ^ 

\. '2 UvOaTo^ ' ju't-fiiriii ' to)- UvOdpeTo^ ' 

ff. .ibov*' the (luor, /'. at the I. ot the door «if' a tuinh. 

3AHN0Y o\i]vov. 


A Kai F.yXoyy) t[ov] Auvkci. 



r III ", Av(To\7]vou is a ])cculiar 

A naine ; but 1 have no other 

t^uggestion as to th" nading. 






Over the r. corner of the cornice nt' the <iiH.i- ot" a tomb. Copied by 
H. Norton. 

AlOAOTO A<o£oTo[«?. 

200 A. W. VAN BUREN 


On the 1. of the door of a tomb. 


le/oa II- 




? 'Apt'- 





0? eV- 



L. 1. Tlapiva for Wapiavd. 
L. 3. ' ApiavTo<i for ' Apiavdo<i. 


In the necropolis W. of the harbour. On a panel ('65 X "34 m. ) above 

the door of a rock-cut tomb. Very roughly and irregularly cut. Copied by 
R. Norton. 

MYPLuflT Mvpoi IIt- 

OACMAIO oXefxaio- 

YANr^iH v'A(fji)vvj]- ? 

I^CeTWN 0}<i €TCOP 

ir ty. 


Above the door of a tomb. Letters are about "ll m. square. Copied by 
R. Norton. 

PAPIA Uairca. 

Over the door of a tomb ; much weathered. 


N A Anon//// 





On a jiaiicl ovi-r tin- door of ii tmiil). TIuto an- tniCL's of four lines. 





The above in.scriptions from ApoUonia can hardly be those referred to by 
LttruMiU' in licv. ArcJUol. v. (1848); speaking of a letter from M. Vattier do 
Hnurville, who was travelling in the Cyrenaica, he .say.s : ' Dautres 
inscriptions, trouvees a Sousset ol Hannnam a I'ouest d'Apollonie. sent 
informe.'^, et ne contieniU'Mt ijue des noms pn)j>res alteres.' 

A \V. \'a.V Bl'KKN. 


Two extreme views obtain as ti) the mnnbers of this Meet. Many 
modern writers- have imaffectedly accepted, sometimes with conviction, the 
1,207 (or 1,327) triremes of Herodotus. In sharpest contrast, we have 
Prof. Hans Delbriick's estimate of not over 300 triremes for Xerxes' 
Heet at the outset, or anyhow at Artemisium.-^ Delbriick discards all 
Herodotus' numbers as equally worthless, and sets out to deduce the true 
figure from criticism of the naval battles and of probabilities ; it leads 
to the result that at Salamis the Persians Avere actually outnumbennl, 
which is the point that really matters. Several intermediate views have 
also been put forward ; Dr. H. Welzhofer * and Prof. J. Beloch ■' have taken 
the figure as 1,207 ships, not warships, Welzhofer putting the warships 
at something over 400 ; Prof J. B. Bury '' and Dr. J. A. R. Munro '^ have 
suggested 800 triremes at the outset; while Dr. E. Meyer '^ gives GOO-800 
to start with, not all triremes, and 400-500 at Salamis, the fieet being 
brought up by transports, etc. to the popular figure of 1,000. Naturally, most 
of these figures are guesses from the probabilities of the case ; but Dr. Munro 
has recognised the crucial fact of the four divisions of the fieet. 

I hope it is not inconsistent to believe that Herodotus was sincerely 
anxious to tell the truth, and at the same time to sympathise with Delbriick's 

' [Dr. R. W. Macan's Herodotus, Books VII.- curious to see how Kaasc's really learned painph- 

IX., \va.s only i)ublishefl after this paper was let ignores Delbriick and Meyer, and still talks 

already in the editors' hands. I have seen no of the Greeks not being heavily outnumbered 

reason to make any substantial alterations be- at Salamis, only by some 300 ships ! In fact, 

yond the addition of a few notes, distinguished the authentic jlccts of as many as 300 in au- 

by sipiare brackets; but I must apologise for tiqiiity can almost be numbered on one hand, 

the brief notice of Dr. Macan's theory of Sala- [Dr. Macau gives 1,200, divided (arbitrarily) 

mis, a full discussion of wliicli would occupy into three squadrons of 400 each, but suspects 

much space.] there may be some exaggeration.] 

'^ Busolt, Gr. Gcsch. ii.^ 672, n. 4, 'glaub- ^ Gesch. d. Kriegskunst, vol. i. p. 70: cf. pp. 

lich'; A. Hauvette, Herodotc, 313; Th. NUl- 76, 78. 

deke, Aufsdtzc zur persischcn Geschichte, 44; * Ziir Grsch. d. Pcrscrkriegc{Ncuc Jahrbikhcr 

A. Bauer in Jahrcsh. vol. iv. (1901), p. 94, fiir PhilologiciuidPddayogik, Mo, I892,i>.'i58). 

very emphatic ; Dr. G. B. Grundy, The Great * Gricch. Gesch. i. 368. 

Persian War, 219, 'no solid grounds for doubt- '' Hist, of Greece, i.- 287. 

ing it'; H. Riinse, Die Schlacht hei Salamis '' J. U.S. xxii. (1902), pp. 294, 300. 

(1904); to name only the most recent. It is '* Gcsch. d. Altrrthiuns, iii. § 217. 

rill. I i.i;i:t (»I' \i:ii\i-:s uu.i 

iiictliiMl ( )ii the latter |n.iiit Iimu i-x cj-, caiiiiot liclji Icclin^ that 
l)r|l»iii(k V luo fhajiti IS (III till Persian lleet are aiimii^' liis It-.-ust happy 
crtorts. His ealciilatinns appear In he Ijased mi t un assuiii])li<tiih : (tiif, that 
XcMXcs iiiay lia\e heeii i^'iiDiaiit <>[ 'rhiiiiistoch-s' shipbuilding', which I Hiid 
iniTeihhle : the other (implied, imt e\presseil), that one trireme wivs .xs jr,„K| 
us another, irrespecti\e of tiatioiiality, whieh surely all na\al history to dati- 
ivfuti's. Xi'vcrtlu'less, it is a L,'ieat thiuLj that someone shoidd have taken 
the IVrsiiin Heet seriously. As to Herodotus, ^nantin^' (.us everyone now 
giants) his sincerity, the only assumption which we recpiin- to make is that 
among his patchwork of sources tluic was at least one which did know the 
real strength of tlu- Persians, sunly im jiarticular myster}'. I start tiien 
from the point that, while a lleet of 1,207 triremes is (to me) incredible and 
al)«<iiril still We are not justified in jettis(»ning all Herodotus' luimbers and 
taking to giiesswoik unless and until we have made every effort to extract 
stiise from tht-m. As I do not like to patch th»' fifth-<-entury evidence with 
that of the fourth,"' I do not jiictpose to use l)iod(trus-Kph(»rus us argmiient, 
though I eaiuiot help it if the argument itself brings us round to DiocJorus. 

This paper, by a different method from that of Delbruck, arrives at a 
somewhat similai result: in the main battle of Salamis, as fought, the 
Persians were probably outnumbered. I hope 1 mid not for the 
investigation of tigiii'es in ^^^ 1 and S: it seems to me that one must first 
settle on a nniiierieal b.isis (so fir as possible) bi'fon- one can fi-iiii clear i<le,is 
about aii\' war w halexcr. 

^ 1. — 7'/n Aiiinliirs. 

We ]) three formal totals for the Persian fleet. 

{a) 1,000, Ae.schylu.s, iV/.s. :U1 -:i. Some have doubtid whether Aesehy- 
lus doi's nut mean 1,207; but the messenger is surely clear enough. ' 'I'he 
numl)er of ships that Xer.xts led was 1,000: that 1 know,' otSa— a thing 
that could be seen, counted : 'and there wi-re 207 surpassing swift ; thus says 
report. \0709 — a thing that could not be seen or counted, but had to Ik- told. 
I take the distinction betwi-en ol8a and X0709 to be conclusi\c that the 207 '" 
were included in the 1,000, as the Schol. aif /or. understood. 

(/') 1,207, Herud. : the number of the I'ersian fleet at Doriscus, without, 
be it noted, the ships of Abydos. 'riu- relation of this numbei- to that of 
Ai'sdnlus, and its source, will be considered l.itei. 

((•) 1,.S27, Herod.; the number of the Persian fleet at Theriiie, arri\ed 
at by .iddiiig 120 ships fimn tlir Hellenes of Thrace and the contiguous 

•' I ;i>->uiiic iIkU I'ldt. U. von Wil.iiiiowilz '" I ilo not kiinv wliat tlii> 2m7 iiir.nis. Oiic 

Moclli ikIihII' hxs MifFuiently sliown that tin- i-> I'niniliu in tlu< later Atliuni.iii n.-tvy witli 

iicrount of Salamis in thr Pirsm- nf Tiniolluos shijis nikniRMl as fir'«t rl;Ls.s, i^aiptroi ; Imt Im 

is nicivly a .st-a- tight at liugi' of Tiniotluo:." >'\vn a iK-et in laijjo part ni-wly Imilt, '2U7 rucIi i-< a 

time, whiiteviM iimcrtions may ultiniati-ly 1 • iiiijlily iniiiii>l'abK- nnnilx 1 : ■ 1 n •;_'. 
niaile in intcriiiftatiim of ili-tail.s. 

204 W. W. TARN 

islands' to 1,207. It docs not appear what has happened to the ships of 

Now Herodotus has a stereotyped figure for a Persian fleet, 600 ; so on 
Darius' Scythian expedition, 4, 87 ; so at Lade, 6, 9 ; so under Datis and Arta- 
phernes, 6, 94, This figure reappears again in the fifth-century Atthidographer 
Phanodemus as the number of the Persian fleet at the Eurymedon.^^ It has 
often been pointed out that the Persian loss in the two storms, 400 + 200, 
looks like an attempt to reduce their fleet of 1,207 to 600.^- I believe it was 
so meant ; only it does not work, for the number before the storm was not 
1,207 but 1,327. Herodotus has forgotten all about the 1,327 ; it is then no 
real number ; the addition ©f 120 to the 1,207 is just a misunderstanding of 
his own, and has nothing to do with his sources. No source gave 1,327 ; on 
the contrary, his attempt to reduce 1,207 to 600 shows that these are the two 
numbers between which he has got confused, and that the extra 120 has 
nothing to do with the case at all. If so, there was a second source, or group 
of sources, that gave Xerxes not 1,207 ships but 600. From the fleet of 
Xerxes this number 600 became transferred to other and less famous 
Persian fleets. 

We can now begin from the two points fixed by Herodotus. The first 
is that the Persian fleet which was at Doriscus was commanded by four 
admirals ; it was therefore in four divisions ; ^^ for there is no hint of the 
four admirals being other than equal in authority. Two of the admirals 
were sons of Darius ; of these, Ariabignes commanded the lonians and 
Carians. Achaemenes the Egyptians. The other two, Megabazos and 
Prexaspes,^* men otherwise imknown, commanded ' the rest.' That is to say, 
on Herodotus' figures the two brothers of Xerxes commanded 370 ships, the 
two commoners 837 ; a sufficient absurdity. But the commands of Ariabignes 
and Achaemenes give the other fixed point ; the divisions were territorial. Now 
it is obvious that, on any territorial arrangement, the third admiral must have 
commanded the Phoenicians ; that they were the most important part of the 

^' Pint. Cimon, 12. Plataea and Thespiae ; if we reckon them at 

" Several writers— <■. jr. Bnsolt, ii.^ 694, n. 6 ; 8,000-10,000, the latter being one half of their 

Welzhofer, Die Sceschlacht hei Salamis (Hint. total levy at Delium (see Beloch, Gricch. Axifgc- 

Taschcnhmh, 1892, p. 48) ; Meyer, G. d. A. iii. bote ii. in Klio, vi. 1906, p. 35), and add an- 

§ 217 ; Munro, I.e. p. 299 ; C, F. Lehinann- other 2,000 for the Malians, Dorians, Locrians, 

Hanpt, Klio, vol. ii. (1892), p. 338, n. 2 ; [and and islanders, then H.'s statement is sobriety 

Macan on H. 8, 66]— accuse Herodotus of raising itself, provided that (as regards the fleet) he is 

his figure for the fleet again after the storm to reckoning the loss in fighting men only and 

its original strength by supposing that reinforce- not in rowers, i.e. the loss as it affected the 

ments from the islands, etc., balanced the losses. Persian army, of which the Persian marines 

Fortunately, he never said anything so foolish. formed part. 

What he does say (8, 66) is that Xerxes' men, >3 Aeschylus gives as total 1,000 shij.s, and 

both those that marched overland and those later on a division of 250 [Pcrs. 323) ; it looks 

who came on shij.board, were as numerous at as if we had another allusion here to the four 

Phalemm as before Thermopylae ; for the losses divisions. 

of incn in the storms, at Artemisium, and at '* If Megabazos' father be the Megabates of 

Thermoiiylae, were balanced by reinforcements. II. 5, 32, he was a collateral of the royal 

There is not a word ixhont shipn. The Boeotians It does not appear if Prexaspes was related to 

turned out TrovtrrpaTia, except the men of the well-known Prcxasi)es of Cambyses' reign. 

Tin; ii,i:kt of XKKXKS 205 

H<(t <|u;ilit,it ivciv is on rvory ]»a:,'f "f t hr st'uy,' ' a |i'.iiit Hcr(xl<>tii.s 
iijiivoly brink's out hv ^ivintr thi-in the lar^i'st <-ontiii^'riit o| any pfopK'. 
This leaves for the fourth admiral two se|Kinite ^'roups of ships, Keparated by 
the lono-C'arian grou]), vi/.. : (1 ) those of Cyprus, Cilicin, Pamphylia, Lycia, 
'VM), and (2) those of Aeolis and the Hellespont, KiO. That one adininij 
c'onnnanded botli groups is, on a territorial arrangement, out of the question. 
The total Persian Heet therefore Wiis not in t >ui- divisions but in five, viz.: 
(1) Egyj)t; (2) Phoenicia; (.S) (\]irus, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia ; (4) Ionia 
an<l C'aria, including of course the 'Dorians of Asia'; (5) Aeolis and the 
Hellespont, or rather everything north of the northern b(Mm<lary of the Ionian 
fleet, whatever that was. I shall refer to each of the five gnmps ;us ' Meets,' 
and shall call (3), (-i). and (5) the central, Ionian, and northern fleets n-spec- 
tively. Probiibly lach of the five was in fact a separate Heet wfth a .seiKxrate 
organisation. Heiodotus' national numbers are worthless, as often noticed.'" 

'J'herc wore only four Heets at Dori.scus. The fifth then, if eujployed at all, 
joinid al'^er the expedition left Dori.scus. Now Herod<jtus stiys that the ships 
of Al)ydos were not at Doriseus, they were guarding the bridges. The only 
ol)ject of this was in case a Greek Hying squadron should appear; and in 
that event the ships of Abydos alone would have been of little use. The 
fieet then that was not at Doriseus was the northern Heet, left to guard the 
bridges, its own waters. Now Hero<l(»tus says that Xerxes was joine<l later 
by those 120 ships from ' the Hellenes of Thrace and the contiguous islands.' 
Everyone has seen that had not the remotest chance of supplying 120 
ships, if indeed they could supply any at all.'' We have .seen too that these 
ships were some sort of a misunderstanding on the j)art of Herodotus, which 
he promptly forgi-tsall about again, when reducing the 1,207 of his first source 
to the 600 of his second. This 120 then does not come from the siime source 
as the 1,207, i.e. from the source which exaggerates ; ami it may therefore be 
a correct figure. There is (jnly one thing that it can represent; it is meant 
for the northern fieet, which (and which alone) joined Xerxes after he had 
left Doriscus,^^ no doubt j)icking u]) on the way its contingents, if any, from 
towns west of Doriseus. The name of its admiral is unknown. 

■'' Oiiu cif oiif's iliffii-ultii-s is tin.- " l)io(loru.s lias an extraonlin.iry tiguro liere. 

of ' I'lioiiiiiiaii ' for a IVrsiuii flei t ;;fnt'i-ally. His total for the first four fleets corrfSjHin<Js 

Sfo, c.;/., for Hiiodotus, tin- iin>ctc<liii/,'s of that witli that of Herodotus, thoii;,'h he makes the 

fletl after Lade; for Thncydiile.s, 1, 100 (the Ionian fleet 20 larger, the ciiitnil 20 .smaller, 

Eurymedon campaign). than does the latter. Kut Aeolis and the Helles- 

"* The total of the Ionian and northern pont do not eorresjtond ; H. gives 160 for the 

fleets is 360, i.e. the 353 of Lade in mund two, Diodorus J .'0. 1). then t.icks the snriilns 

figures. Most of the e.vaggeration falls on the on to tlie islands. I draw no dedurtions from 

(less known) Asiatic contingents. (Dr. .Maean this: but see ^ 9. I see, however, little to 

treats H.'s navy-list as .sul.stantially torreit, warmnt the conjecture of A. v..n .Miss, Untcr. 

I>ut has no n»w reasons.] stKliuwjiu nbcr Ephorox (llhi iu Mus. 1906, vol. 

'" Hauvette, Hiruduir 314, justly i«.inta out 61, i.p. :J60, 3(»9), that Kphorus In re used, in 

that the cxi^jiise of juivisioning the army addition t^i Hero. lotus, a ;su|.p.ised) navy list of have precluded the towns of Thrace and Ctesias giving a total of 1.000 .ships, and 

Ciiahidicc from doing much else. They also nuently smaller separate <ontingenls. .Sec also 

furnished land troops. n. 117. 

206 W. W. TARN 

Now if" we ha\e five territoriul Heots, which in Hciodutus' sec-diid .s(»iiicc 
total 600; jukI if unc of these Heets is 120 strong, a number which at any 
rate does not come from the first source ; then the second source })r(>babl3 
presupposed the following : the Persian fleet Avas organised in five fleets 
of 120 ships each, totalling GOO. I think we shall see cverj- reason for 
believing this to be correct. 600 would be the 2i"pc'i' strength on a general 
mobilisation: but in 480 B.C., if ever, the fleets were at paper strength. A 
fleet of 600 triremes would, I suppose, be (juite unmanageable in fact;''' but 
five separate Heets of 120 each would not. 

^ 2. — The Corivpositwii of the Flicfs. 

Before proceeding to examine Herodotus' record in the light of the ab((\e 
supposition, it may be useful to analyse the composition of the tleets a little 

The sea-coast of the Persian empire was not all acquired in one way. 
Egypt, Ionia, Caria, were eon(|Uered by force. Cilicia treated with Cyrus as 
an independent state, and came in on favourable terms at a time when 
S^X'unesis' co-operation was vital.-*^' Phoenicia also came in of her own free 
will: on what terms we do not know, but the ac(juisition of the Phoenician 
fleet without fighting for it was so tremendous again to Persia that the terms 
for Phoenicia nnist ha\e been good ones. It is probable enough that both 
Phoenicia and Cilicia would bargain for a fixed limit to their military (or i-ather 
na\al) service. Now Herodotus says (-S, 10) of Camb3'ses Tra? eV (I^oiiukcov 
i]prriro 6 vavriKO'i arpaT6<; : all his navy depended on, or 'was hung upon,' 
the Phoenicians. This does not mean that he had only Phoenician ships : 
he had Cilician, Cyprian (3, 19), and Ionian as well. It means that the 
Phoi.'uicians were the principal ])art of the organisation : that the rest weie 
organised round or upon them. If then Xerxes' navy was organised in Heels 
of 120, and organised upon the Phoenicians, the number would seem to be 
due to this, that 120 was the agreed limit of Phoenician naval service. 1 
shall return to the (piestion of why 120 (v^ <S). The actual organisation dt 
the Heet as it app<'ars under Xerxes nuist be due to Darius, and be connected 
with his general organisation of the em]>ire, involving doubtless the abolition 
of the old 'sea-province' of Cyrus.-' 

'" No other i^owor ill .iiitiiniity c-vci- i-olU-ctcd tln' civil \v;us tiie tlcets, nckouiiii,' in i|iiiii 

a fleet of 600 w.iisliiips. Oi-t:iviaii iii;iy have iiucrenu.s and Libuiiiiaiia, came out at almiit 

ciintrollerl 500, [laitly lionowcd from Antony, tlic average power nf a fleet of trireme.s ol tlie 

and organised a.>i two di.stinet fleets in dilferent same total, we must rank the total sca-j>o\\er of 

.seas, at the lieginning of the cami>aign the early part of the fifth century extraordin- 

whieli ended with Nauloclios. In yeai-, arilj' high. It seems ]ios.sible, however, that 

30 li.f ., there were ahout 1,000 sliips in the zenith of Mediterranean sea-power wonhl 

commi.vsion \v. the whole Mediterranean. In have to be placed about 260-250 i!.<' 
480, apart from tho (Jreek anil Per.'-iau fleets, -" Sec J. V. Pni.sek, Gcsch. drr Mnhr mn! 

totalling together almost 1,000, we have those I'crscr, i. 215. 

of Corcyra, Carthage, Syracuse, Ktruria, Mar- -' See Prasek, op. cil. 223, 239. If the 

seilles. If we take Kromayer's view, that in Phoenician terms were as I suggest, 120 pen 

Till; 1 li:i:t ok xkkxks 


N'l'U il' the I'liiiciiifiaiis wtn- the kiinil of the ll<(!t, ;in<l iU WrvL 
inattiial,--' why (alluwiiiLj lliat Acliaciiiciit"' ui nfffssily (■iiiiiiiiaiiil(-<l thr sliips 
of liis satrapy "') <li»l Xt r\<s" iitlni- lnulhcr Ariiibi^iu-s cniiiinariil tlw loniaiis, 
wliilf tin- I'luniiiciaiis wcir tiinltr an adinirul of less iiii|>()rtaiicc f The 
aiiswcT is imL difHcnlt. 'I'Ih- n-al atiiiiiral oi llii' l'h(K-ni<'iaMs \v;ih tho Kiii^ 
himself. Xorxcs, whih- cuiiiiiiaiiikT-iii-chii-f of the whole Heel,'-* was in 
])iirti(Mil:ir admiral of ihe I'hoeniciiins, pr«-cisely tus a nxxlern u<lmiral in i-i>m- 
mand of a Meet will in partieular (*onnnand the battleship s)|nadion. With 
the I'hiK'iiieian tlei-t was Xerxes' own lla^'sliip, the Siduniaii >(iilli'y <»n whieh 
lie emhaiked to review {\ui Heel at Doriaciis, and to see Tempi-, and on which, 
says Herodotus (7, 12>S), he always did cmhark ; and his plejisiire when the 
Si<loniaiis won the race at the re^'atta (5, 44), otherwise nii-anin^less, be<omes 
natural enough when we n-alise that they were his own personal command, 
liut as his duties with the land army, the superior service throughout 
antiquity, prevented him from actually sailing with his Heet, the I'hoenieians 
were in fact under the orders of one who, in theory, Ciin only have been 
Xerxes' second in command in the Phoenician Heet; while to the lonians 
was given a commander of the highest ]»ossible consecjueiice, in view of the 
jealousy between their tlect and the I'hoeiiiciaii which a|»pears so clearly at 

The IVrsian admirals were not really admirals, as wi- undei-stand it. 
They were generals ot maiints, ot toO vavjiKOV (nparov aTpaTijyui, 
Commanding tlu' land truops on board ; a fact which comes out most clearly 
at Mycale (^ (J). An ancient sea-fight took a double form, according its 
whether the ship herself, or her e])ibatac, were for the moment the weapon 
in use. As regards the shi}) herself, Artemisia (H. 8, G7) expressed a candid 
but nvsh opinion that the central and Egyptian fleets were of no use, a remark 

tekoiitors must liiivc bet'ii the furce iiniteni- 
jilated. Doubtless llie ixtciisiou of tlie mcaii- 
iug of tlit'sc terms, however wordeil, so as 
to ajiply to tiiieims, woulil be one of those 
measures of reorgani.siitinn wliicli earueil for 
Dariu.s his nickniimc 6 Hairi)\ot. We ean see 
that the division l)etwr(n the iiortlieru ami 
Ionian fleets must corresjiond to that between 
tlie satrapies of Da.skyhion and Sardis, whatever 
it was. 

^ That the drceks dcdieated I' tri- 
remes afler Hnlaniis is conclusive as to l/icir 

• ■•** I nican, if he had a military command at 
all. (K;;yi>t sent no land troops.) I am not 
expre.ssiiif.; an opinion on tlie eontroverjiy 
wlicther, in the ordinary way, the sairajis had 
the military rommand. 

-■• The Creeks of a later lime were mueli |>er- 
plexcd over the Persian connnand, and fi It it 
necessary to manufiMture a sin^jle adminl for 
the fleet : so Megabates (Diod. 11. 12). i.trha|« 
meant for the father of Megaba/.os : and I'iu- 

tanh's Arianienes {T/inii. 14). who npixars to 
be a oonllalion of Ariabifjnes and Aehaenieiies. 
See «in these names Marfjuart, Untfisuc/iuntjrn 
zur (,',sch. von Kmn (I'hilol. 54), 499-502. It 
i.s haidly worth mentioning that t'tesia.s lias the 
same eri-or. 

** A fine fielil for speiulalion can l>e opened 
uy if one treats the jealousy as really existing 
between Phoenicians and Vartamt, and K"'"K 
back to the 'daik a^es ' wlun they may have 
fought over the itlics of Minoan sett-|M)\vcr. 
We find tho Phooniei.m eiicumnavigation of 
Africa matched by that of Wi-sti-rn Asia under 
the Carian Sky lax ; and now we have another 
Catiaii, lleraclid<'s of Mylasa (see § 4), tea«.-h- 
ing men how to meet tho I'hoenician diee- 
plus. Naturally, the duel betwi-en Phmnicia 
and Theniistorles ended in tho latter ac(]uiiing 
a Caiian mother (I'lut. Thnn. 1); and there 
may Imj a lot of other material of the sort to l>o 
collected. Doubtless the I'hoenician version of 
Salamis dealt very faithfully witit the Crclo- 
(Jarian Artemisia. 



perhaps reflecting the temper of the Ionian fleet, which no doubt thought 
itself as good as the Phoenician. As to the Egyptian fleet, prior to the 
Ionian revolt, we know that Apries fought with the Tyrians and that 
Amasis conquered Cyprus ; but we do not know how far their fleets were 
manned by mercenaries. Of the central fleet, we only know that the 
Lycians, centuries before, had had a fine reputation as ' pirate^,' ^^ and that 
the Cilicians were, at a later date, to astonish Rome with what they could 
do in that line ; while the Cypriotes were either Phoenician or Greek, good 
fighting stock. And, after all, the Phoenician reputation itself, prior to the 
fifth century, has to be taken on trust. We maj^ suppose that the ships of 
the central and Egyptian fleets were not quite up to the standard of the 
other two ; further than this we need hardly go. As to epibatae, all the 
fleets but the Egyptian carried, either solely or principally, Persians, Medes, 
and Sacae, and were therefore on a level.^^ The Egyptian carried, either 
solely or principally, native marines, hardly perhaps of Persian fighting 
quality, but with the great advantage of a heavy armament. If we reckon 
Caria with the Greeks, then as regards rowers two of the fleets were Greek, 
two Asiatic, one (the central) thoroughly mixed. The strength of the fleet 
lay in speed,^^ seamanship, and courage ; its weakness, in the divided 
command and in the root fact that the bow had no chance against the spear 

2« Mr. H. R. Hall, The Oldest Civilisation of 
Greece, 88 ; Prof. F. Hommel, Grundriss d. 
Geog. u. Gesch. d. alten Orients, i. 57, 58. 

^ [As Dr. Macan thinks there were native 
epibatae throughout the fleet, I must give my 
reasons for this statement. The navy-list (7, 96) 
says that all the marines were Persians, Medes 
and Sacae. Persian epibatae on a Sidonian ship 
(7,181 compared with 8, D2). This is again borne 
out by 8,130 ; see p. 226 post. But 7, 184 (the 
chapter of the great exaggerations) refers to 
native as well as Persian, etc. epibatae. One 
might discard this as an obvious mean* of 
working up a large figure ; but we hear of 
Egyptian epibatae (9, 32), heavy-armed troojis 
(7, 89). To my mind, two sets of epibatae on 
one ship are impossible ; the ships of this epoch 
did not carry, probably could not carry, many 
epibatae. I can only conclude that four fleets 
carried Persians, etc., and the Egyptian fleet 
natives. I do not say that the four fleets 
carried no native epibatae ; but if they did, 
these were few and unimportant. Ou the 
contrary, the Egyptian marines were a sub- 
stantial body, or Mardonius would hardly have 
landed them : ergo, there can have been little 
or no room for Persian marines in the Egyptian 
fleet. It will be seen, I hope, that this fits the 
stoiy extremely well.] Now thirty epibatae to 
each trireme is too high. Meyer properly cuts 
down tlie rowers to 150, and twenty is amj)le 

for the epibatae ; the Greek ships, if we like to 
follow Plutarch, carried eighteen, but the 
regular Athenian number later was ten. Four 
hundred and eighty ships at twenty epibatae 
each = 9, 600 men, or with officers say a round 
10,000. I cannot help suspecting that the 
total Persian army on mobilisation was not 
360,000 in six corps of 60,000, but 60,000 in 
six corps of 10,000, one complete corps being 
assigned to the fleet. [Dr. Macan does not see 
why H. should give the armament of each of 
the nations that contributed to the fleet unless 
they sent epibatae. But on the analogy of any 
other fleet, e.g. the Roman, the rowers must 
have had their arms with them ; and this is 
expressly stated of the Samians, 9, 99.] 

^ H. 8, 10. The Greek ships were heavy by 
comparison, 8, 60. Plutarch {Them. 14) says 
the Persian ships were tall, with lofty poops, 
compared with the Greek ships, which were much 
lower in the water. It is a pity that theories 
have been built on this,'for it is mere moralising, 
likehissimilar statenieutabout Actium ; the just 
cause must have the smaller ships. The galleys 
on the fourth-century coins of Sidon and Aradus 
are not in the least like Plutarch's description ; 
and his reference to Ariamenes fighting Sia-ntp 
airh Teixovs shows that what he has in his mind 
is not the fifth century at all, but the T€ixo/uax'« 
of the first century. 


except under its own <<>ii(liti<tiis. It w.ih therefore vital for the Heet to have 
plenty of sea-room and never to Iw compelled to dose against its will 
(H. 8, (iO), to have fne play for the archer and the ram; unluckily tor itsilf. 
it was to meet an antagonist of genius who soon ma8t<Te(i this fact. 

The shij)s wer»' all triremes. Aeschylus in 472 U.c. could never have made 
the I'eisiaiis wail for the thre«'tholed shi]»s that ha«l betrayed them, 
TpiaKaXfioi pa€<; dva€<;, had it been Now the ships lost by 
Mardonius at Athos in 4J>2 were all or chieHy pentekontors, jls is shown })V 
H. reckoning seventy men lost to each, his reckoning el.sewhere for a j>ente- 
kontor being I'ighty (7, 184). No doubt there were some triremes before 480, 
but not many : the point of Darius' jireparations fur three years was, that he 
was 'scrapping' his pentekontors and building triremes. The pentekontors, 
with a few old triremes, were utilised for the bridges over the Hellespont ; 
chieHy the former, as Herodotus talks of the gaps left in ' the pentekontors.'-"^ 
One of the really noteworthy points is that triremes did the scouting for 
both sides, as appears by the engagement of scouts off the Magnesian coast. 
The Persians therefore had nit light craft, and certainly they had no 
pentekontors, for the bridges must have absorbed every pentekontor in Asia. 
The ^i,000 ' triakontors, pentekontors, cercuri, and horse transports ' of 
Herodotus 7, 97, which by 7, 184 have grown to 3,000 pentekontors, with 
crews calculated accordingly, are all a mere legend, sprung no doubt from 
the supply ships. 

No figures in antiquity are so hard to check as those of naval transport or 
supply. Fortunately we possess trustworthy figures for one well-equipped 
fifth-century expedition, the first Athenian to Syracuse ; and they come 
t)ut at about one supply or service vessel to each warship.*® I do not 
see how one is to give to the finely-equipped fieot of Xerxes less than one 
supply vessel to every two triremes, perhaps rather more. In this case we 
at once get the popular or Aeschylean total of 1,000 for the whole armada."* 

In conclusion, I note two detailed figures. (1) Paphos sent twelve ships. 
If this is correct, Cyprus sent a good half of the central fleet. This may be 
right ; for the Cilician contribution must have been, for the reasons given 
above, a small one, and, to judge by the coinage, Pamphylia can only have 
had two towns important enough to send ships, Aspendus and Side. 
Phaselis in Lycia may have sent a substantial contingent, from the galley on 
its coins and Lycia's old reputation for piracy. (2) Artemisia brought five 
ships. This startling figure is given as the contingent, not only of 
Halicarna.ssus, but of the important islands of Cos and Calymna, which were 
wealthy enough. ^"^ Itaj)pears to me to preclude absolutely any higher figures 

'•'* [Macan reads twv ■wtvrriKoyTipui' Kai be true of Xerxca' fleet also. 

7pir}pia>y, but thi.s last word is merely an ^' If we like to assign eigbtj to each fleet, wo 

emendation. It is not very material.] get, not only Aeachylus' 1,000, but the 200 shijis 

*• Thuc. 6, 42 ; 134 trirenies ami two i>ei S(iuadr«in so common in H. and Jaltr 

pentekontors to 131 supply and service sliips ; writers. 

many volunteer merchantmen also aecomjMinied ^' B.M.C. Caria, Introduction, 
the fleet for the sake of trading. Tlii.s lii&t mav 

P 2 

210 W. W. TAllN 

than those which I have taken for the fleet. That Haliearnassus, Cos, 
Calynma, and Nisyros conUi have sent more than five ships seems clear; and 
])rohal)ly Ionia and Caria, even allowing for damage done in the Ionian 
levolt, eoidd have sent more than 120 : this seems to bear ont what is above 
stated, that then- was a limit depending on something else, i.r. Phoenicia. 

§ 8. — Tlie Storm. 

I will now briefly go through the story of the expedition after it left 

At Thernie (7, 124) the marines were camped 'by the Axios, at Therme, 
and at the cities between ; ' the fleets were therefore at separate stations, and 
moving independently. After leaving Thernie, the story goes that the whole 
fleet .sailed from Therme to the strand ' which is between the city Casthanaea 
and C Sepias' (Dr. Grundy calls it 120 miles), in one day; the strand not 
being large, they anchored in eight lines ; in the storm ships were wrecked, 
some at Ipni in Pelion, some on the strand, some on C. Sepias, some at the 
city Meliboea, some at Casthanaea. After the storm the Greeks capture fifteen 
shi})s under Sandoces. The Phoenician, Egyptian, Ionian, and central fleets 
all appear again in the story ; of the northern fleet we hear no more. 
These are the main points; and I cannot find that the story told in H. 7, 
188-195 has ever been properly analysed. 

The first thing necessary is to get some clear idea of that part of the 
coast-line ^^ which stretches from the mouth of the Peneus to Kato Georgi 
(commonly called C. Sepias) opposite Skiathos, and which is roughly divided 
into three sections by the capes of Kissabo (Ossa) and Pori (Pelion). 
Meliboea is Than;itu ; epigraphic evidence fortunately renders this certain. 
According to the Admiralty chart (No. 1,085) there is a long stretch of 
beach here. Casthanaea was ' identified ' by Mr. H. F. Tozer ^* and 
Georgiades '^•' with some ruins on the cliffs below Keramidhi ; but Georgiades 
adduces no evidence beyond that of Herodotus, while the reason which Tozer 
gives, viz. that Casthanaea is ' the only town besides Meliboea mentioned by 
Strabo as being on this side of Pelion,' is a mistake ; Strabo merely says 
that Casthanaea was ' under Pelion,'^'' and it may as well be Zagora,^^ or 

^^ Of tlic ancient writers, Strabo 9, 443 is possible on the reduced scale to indicate tlic, 

best, though he C()iii])lains that he could not get littli' beaches in the manner done in the chart 

infiirniation. The modern authorities are given it.sclf. 

by Mr. A. J. H. Wace in JJLS. 26 (1906), '"^ l!,:searchcs in the Highlands of Turkey, 

\i. 143, Tlic Topography of Pelion and Mwjnesia ; ii. 104. 

and I am niueU indebted to hira for furtiier ''" &( a a a\la, first edition (1880), pp. 213, 

information as to this •coastdine, and some 218. I regret that I have been unable to sec 

u-rtreiiccs, which he most kindly sent nie in the second edition, so my ipiotations must stand 

rejijy to some questions. Tlie accoTiipanying subject to correction. 

niaji has been drawn by Mr. F. Anderson fiom •"' KaaOavaias ku)/j.t]s virh rcji TlriKicf) KfifMfvris. 

Admiralty chart no. 1,085, reduced to \ scale, •''' Mr. Tozer slates that the learned men of 

with sonic alterations in the way of names for Zagora claimed that that place was Casthanaea, 

which I am resi)onsil)le. It has not been and sujiported their claim 'by the abundance 

iiii; I'LKiir (»r xkkxks 


I'vc'ii (lie jiurt ii( llif l.illfi-, Kli'iiillii, wliicli is ilir iiiily villa^^r now iicliially 
nil I lie slmrc, smitll nl T^.-il^^cM. A'^ ZaL("i;i, :irci»r<lillLJ tu tin- A<liiiir:tltv 
cliail, lies li^rlil uinli 1 llic liit,'liisl |M)iiit uf I't-lioii, T).:}!!! tct-t, wink- 
Kcratiiidlii is I'ar In tli< n<>rlli iitiil<t' <iiitlyin;( s|tni-s oi tlit- iinMiiitaiii. tunw of 
which arc uvir "2.772 I'd, il sctin-; (ih\ ioiis that Za;.;oia ht'sl suits St lahu'.s 
(h'siTi|)li<iii : Itiit the actual |>t»sil lon (.1 ("aslhaiiaca «'aii niily he si'tth<l hy 
fpil^raphic «'vi(h'iicc. As to ('. Sepias, I he ..rthiiai\ \ ieu is that it was the 
heel oi .Mai(Mesia, Kalo ( Jeoii^M, iip|iovitr Sisialhos. Mr. Wace has atteiujiterl 

Mouth qfPeneus 
afcsi (Flat coast Jrom htre northward) 


CKissaws (Ossa) 
iJiA (Lonff deachj 

'^v^ V^t'^Kframidhi (Casthanaea V 





uresL^Myrae — 

Weme trios 



ro sliow that it was ( '. I'ori, but I cannot (eel convincetl \\\ his arguments ; -'^ 
I will, liowevtT, <-onsi(ler l»olh alternatives. 

of chestnut trees in noi^li)inurlioi>c], wliilo 
tlicif arc noiio noar Kcrainiilhi." Acroiding to 
fJeor^iadi's, Za^ora is tlie> inijiortaiit place 
ill the iu'i;;hl)i>urli(>o(t. 

^ J.U.H. 26, U«. It t'. Sepias had Iweii 
Kato Gioii;!, why did not tlie IVi-sians put to 
sea and run round the eorncr, out of the wind ? 
I fancy tliat with a gale l)lo\ving on shore thi.s 

would be easier said than done with galloyN; 
however, I hojie this pa|ter will answtr 
the question ; the fleets were strung nut in 
defarlimrnts at least jlm far north as Thanatu 
(Melil>oea). Tliis leaves only a |ia«sago frnni 
Apoljonius KhoiJiiis, an unsatisfactory passage 
(si-e (teorgiades) in an unsatisfactory gio;;raplier, 
and it is onlv a deduction at tliat. The 

212 W. W. TARN 

Now ns to the strand where the Persian fleet is said to have anchored 
before the storm. 

If Casthanaea be Keramidhi and C. Sepias be C. Fori, we have between 
the two a coast of rugged cUfFs, where no strand is or ever could have been,^* 
and the whole story of this strand is a myth. 

If, however, Casthanaea be either Keramidhi or else Zagora (or Khorefto) 
and C. Sepias be Kato Georgi, the Admiralty chart shows a beach at 
Khorefto, a place which Mr. Wace tells me does a good trade ; but from the 
chart this beach cannot be very large, and, moreover, can hardly be described 
as between Casthanaea and C. Sepias, if (as I suppose) Casthanaea be Zagora 
or Khorefto. Going down the coast, we find a small beach at the Granicha 
river, and a bay at H. Athanasius. Mr. Wace tells me that the latter, which 
he has visited, would not, he thinks, hold more than seventy-five large caiques 
with comfort ; and that the Granicha beach looks no bigger ; that there is a 
small sandy beach at H. Georghios (round the corner from the cape), used by 
sponge fishers, and a small harbour below Zangaradhes called Kapa^oaraaia. 
Georgiades mentions another little harbour at Kissos. 

This then is a coast of rocks and cliffs from Keramidhi to Kato Georgi, 
broken here and there by a small beach or a small anchorage. There is no 
locality that can represent a strand at which the whole Persian fleet can have 
anchored.*** Mr. Wace tells me that the sea has gained on the land at Kato 
Georgi and is thought to have done so at Keramidhi ; and it is, I suppose, 
just conceivable that 2,000 years ago there may have been a large beach, now 
submerged ; but nothing probably could determine this except a geological 
survey expressly made with this object in view, and it is clear that, having 
regard to the nature of the coast, the burden of proof would be on anyone 
who should assert that the ' Sepiad strand ' ever existed. 

The topograph}^ then lends no support to Herodotus' narrative. 

We can now, however, see that that writer's account combines two 
irreconcilable stories ; stories, I may add, that would be equally irreconcil- 
able were the ' strand ' located somewhere under water to-morrow. One is 
that, when the storm broke, the Persian fleet as a whole was huddled together 

natural view is certainly that of Bursian, Geog. C. Poii and Keramidhi (see Bursian, I.e. i.i99) ; 

ron Grieehcnland i. 99 ; C. Fori is Strabo's so the argument is at least double-edged. It 

Ipni, T6irov rpaxvv Ta>v irfpi rb n^Aiov. If we will be seen that Mr. Wace's premises, which I 

make Peri, Sepias, and Ipni, Veneto fully accept, seem to me to necessitate a very 

(Georgiades), then the heel of Magnesia is left different conclusion. 

nameless both by H. and Strabo, which .seems ^^ I did not know when I came to this con- 
unlikely. Mr. Wace proposes Myrae ; but elusion that Georgiades {I.e. p. 213) had said 
surely M(^ziferes' identification of Myrae with the same thing twenty-eight years ago. He 
Mouresi is, in the absence of inscriptions, thought that the Persian fleet was strung out 
sufficiently probable. • at all the little harbours below Zagora, Kissos, 
** Mr. Ware states {I.e. 147) that north of etc. It is strange that no one has followed up 
Kato Georgi at least as far as Zagora there is no this very just conclusion. [Dr. Macan says 
beach at all to accommodate a fleet, and uses this that the alyiahSs is defined in H. 7, 188, 2 as 
as an argument for Sepias being 0. Pori. But, 'extending from Kasthanaia to Sepias.' Can 
whereas there are some little beaches south of fitra^v bear this meaning ? Anyhow the 
C. Pori, there is absolutely nothing between ai7ioA.(^s is conceived as small, 7, 188, 5 and 15.1 


*J 1 3 

irpoKpoaaai*^ close inahon*. a |H»Hition in which a N.E. ^alc must \m\v Bt-nt 
every ship that pot wrecked .straight on to the beach. Hut thm follows the 
statenifnt that wri'cks came ashore at a number of places from Mi-liboea to 
C. Sepias, two of which, at least (Meliboea and C'a-sthanaea), were N.N.W, of 
the supposed ' strand ' on any theory, and Meliboea p«'rhaps some considerable 
distance N.N.W. A N.E. gale caimot carry wreckagr in a N.N.W. direction ; 
even Boretus the Preserver could not blow both ways at once. Of these two 
conflicting accounts, the second implies, either that a fleet wjis wncked out 
at sea, or that different detaclneeiits were wrecked in different places, or 

1 take it to be clear that the Persian fleet did not all sail together as a 
whole.*'- The five fieets sailed separately, at least, with scouts thrown out far 
in front; possibly the supply ships were all under convoy of the rearmost 
divisions; but more probably with their own fleets. Whether therefore the 
stt)rm broke on them afloat or ashore, I regard it as pretty certain that they 
were caught in different places. The storm got up in the viorniny, after 
giving the usual warning, which doubtless plenty of the sea-captains under- 
stood.*^ The triremes would be got ashore wherever they were at anchor, 
strung out along the little beaches, at Khorefto, at Meliboea; possibly many 
were not yet pivst the flat coast at the mouth of the l'eneu.s. But in the 
absence of harbours the supply ships must have suffered ; and their wrecks 
came ashore at a number of different places. All this is quite consistent. 

To turn now to the other story. It is simply a poetical invention. 
The fleet together moves from Therme to somewhere near C Sepias in one 
day (7, 183), perhaps 120 miles. Dr. Grundy has defended this; but it 
seems a wild impcssibility." To credit it would amount to believing that, 

^' Aristarchus ad //. H 34 explains this as 
KKttiaKTuihv yfyfaiKKXififfai, Hart dfarponlit 
<paiyfa6ai, which Dr. Leaf explains as en 
ichclon, each projecting somewhat beyond the 
other, like the steps of a staircase I take this 
to mean that, in Aiistarchus' opinion, the 
stems of row two would be between the prows 
of row one, and so on, to save as much space as 
possible. Homer is certainly describing some 
method of getting more ships ashore than the 
shore wouhl hold in the ordinary way, as the 
context shows. This too seems wliat lle.sychius 
niea)is by ^iraAATjXoi. Stein, however (H. 7, 188), 
explains ■wp6Kpo(raai as ]iarallel files ot ships, 
eight deep, each (ilc perjicnilicular to the line 
of coast. I prefer Aristan bus myself, as 
Stein's explanation would hardly iruicase the 
number ol ships ashore ; but if I am right in 
what follows, it is not very material. 

** This follows from their dispositions at 
Therme. But even the first Athenian (•.\j>edi- 
tion to Syracuse, 136 warships and about as 
many supply ships, sailed in three separate 

■" Herod. 7, 188, /{ aldplrts r* «ra! yT)t*fi[i)t 
TTJj OaKioajis ^fvdffrii : Medit. Pilol, vol. 4, 
1900, under ' winds ' , the north win^l blows 
with much force, even in summer. Summer 
gales are almost always precedi-d by calms with 
a dark ai>pearance round the horizon. 

** drcal Pcrs. War. p. 32/, n. We have 
little real evidence of the pace of triremes : 
and even so, single bhip voyages are 
no evidence for a fleet, tied to its slowest 
member, and moving at an economical rate, i.e. 
using its rowers in relays of one-third at a time. 
Bauer has frequently and justly ]>ointed this 
out. We rarely know the con<litions of any 
recorded voyage, or even if the sails were being 
Used. A lot of such evidence as exists is given 
by Droysen in Hermann's Lfhrhuch, ii.^ 2, '■iO'2 ; 
the best is Xen. Nell. i. 1, 13 (on which Bauer 
relies in his account of Salamis), Alcibiades with 
eighty six ships, going fifty kilom., lakes all 
niglit in late autumn and up to iptaroi'. some 
eighteen hours. Xeuophon was at lrii.xt a 
practical man, who knew what a trireme meant. 
In allowing for twelve hours' rowing, we must 

•21 4: 


tlinnigh a hm^r siuniner day, a Heet of triroiMCS, laiDc ducks and all, ccjiild, at 
their ' ('CoiK)inical rate-,' maintain some ton miles an hour, that is, pivtty nearly 
the economical rate of a fleet of modern battleshi|)s. Three days would be 
neai-er the mark ; it may be hcic that the difference of two days between the 
journals of Artemisium and Thermopylae comes in. If (»nly one (hiy really 
elapsed before the storm, then the l)ulk of the Heet was certainly not south 
of Meliboea. 

Next, the Meet arrived at a beach too small for it. What docs a fleet 
do when it <,^ets to a beach too small for it? The author (I do not mean 
Herodotus) does not know ; he thi'rel'ore tui'nsto thefountain-headof all wisdom, 
and finds in //. E 84^'' that the (Greeks in a similar predicament drew their fleet 
ashori- in an arrangement called irpoKpoaaai, while under the sterns of the 
row furthest inland they built a wall because of the Trojans. Our poet, 
however, must needs improve on Homer; he makes the Persian fleet anchoi- 
in the foi'uiation called irpoKpoaaai, an impossible feat if Aristarchus' 
e\])Ianation of the word be correct, and I doubt if Stein makes things much 
better ; on»! need scarcely remark that ships at anchor in line, trirtnnes or 
othei', must ha\e room to swing and room to turn. Our poet has not troubled 
about this. The eight rows might perhaps show that he h;>s some idea of four 
fleets or divisions, each in double line ; but Iw does not reflect, when he comes 
to the storm, that a line of (say) si.xty ti'iremes at anchor off a beach implies a 
length of beach that would suffice for several times that number of ships in a 
line ashore, with theii- oars unshi])ped. 

Lastly, as Homer has a wall, he must have a wall; and the crews 
accordingly (7, lUl), ('■'' hi/pothrsi a great many thousand men, all armed, 
build a epKo<i*'' of wreckage to keep off — whom ? Shall we say with our 
poet, the (medising) Thessalians ? or a few ' wreckers ' fn^m some village on 
the hills '^ 

All that we know then for certain is that a storm, big or little, broke on 
the fleets strung out ; and that we hear no more of the northern fleet.*" JUi-go, 
the northern fleet was at sea, and perished. And if so, it was the northern 
fleet that was sent round Euboea.''*^ I need not attempt to add to the 

rcTiicniber that nmcli time would be lost over 
launching the fleet, dinner, anchoring,', or 
draw inf( aslioie again. 

*■' Stein justly remarks, 'Die ganze Stelle ist 
unter dcm Vorliilde von II. | 33 if. gescliricbcn,' 
but unfortunately goe.s on to say tliat H. 
interprets Homer. 

•»« W.lzbof.T, Neuc Jahrb. f. Phil, mid Pad., 
145, ji. 6<i0, rightly discredits this ep«os. Is it 
perhaps a real reminiscence of using wreckage 
to make a breakwater ? 

*' Themistocles' exfdicit appeal to tln' lonians 
and Carians (8, 19 and 22) quite ])recludes the 
idea that any other large body of Greeks was 
still with the fleet. Neither is it possible that 
the northern fleet never sailed at all, but 

remained at the Hellespont ; the story jne- 
.sujiposcs that the bridges were not guarded, and 
it does not appear (as it would have to) either 
at Mycale (where the nuuiber of Persian 
(jrpaTi\yoi is conclusive : sec post) or after. 
Neither can it be hidden under the teim 
' lonians ' ; for el.sewlieie H. is precise : 4, 89, 
the Scythian expedition, rb vavriKhv ^yov 
"'la'ce'j re koI Alo\(fs Ka'i 'EWriirtrSv-not ; 6, 98, 
Datis to Eretria ay6fj.fvos koI "Iwvas ical 

••^ It is certain that the Persians, after elabor- 
ately organising their ileet, would not proceed 
to disorganise it by picking out the ships to go 
round Euboea 'from all the shij)s'(8, 7). A 
definite squadron, accustomed to work together, 

Till': rr.KKT ov xkkxks sm 

ic!V<nns ijivcii Iiy I'rot. limy," wliicli 1 lully ;iccf|)t, (<»i sriidiii^' oft" thesi- ships 
lioiii suiiii-wht'ii' iKtitli of Ski:i(li'is. \\'li«-t III!' they Well- all wiickid in 
tin- liist sturm '" or wlictlici sonic <^ni lunnil, imIIi(<I in llir HulNtws, iuid wdf 
wii-cki'il in a iitw storm from tin- S. \\., is u matlrr on wliicli, as Mtyt-r 
sa\s, crilainlN caiinol Ix- attained. TIk}' iiivi r ajipt-ar a^^'ain. 

I |iioi|iiiMss:iys that h"- ktirw several ver-.ion> of the J'orsian hisses in the 
storm, the smallest making' it 400 apait from tin- 200 ships sent round Kuhoea. 
Forlnnatily he hiis preserved indi<' ilioiis ot a veiy diH'erent story. In this, 
the i' after the storm merely lannehtd " the ships ' (7, l}K{), not. ius we 
shoidd e.\pi-et, the ren)nanfs ot them; and the (Jreeks, who had expected 
(7, 1!>2) to find the Persian fleet sadly diminished, are amazed when they 
see what ^'ood ))lit;ht the barbarians are really in.' Then- is no trace at 
Artemisium of the I'eisiaiis hein;,^ «'ither disorganised or di'inoralised, and 
they had no time to jxit thin^js lit^ht. We have ^'ot to suppose that the loss, 
ajiart from the northern fleet, was small, and fell ehi.tlv on tln' supply 
vessels; but there was suinr loss of tiiremes, as shown by the Persians 
' nnnd)erint,' ' their fleet .it Aphetae. 

\Vt> may a.ssit,Mi the luavy stitiin-loss with eonfidenee to the .same 
poetical source that we have already commente<l on; and I have no 
hesitation in also ascril)ing to the same source the of eleven out of 
twelve I'aphian shij)s in 7, 1!)."), which must brlouLf to a version that ^'ave a 
very heavx-'storni-loss. The (piestion of the fifteen shi[>s under Sandoces, 
h\ parch of Cyme (7, I!>4), is mor<' difficult. tmi' to-rparyjyee ''Bco/<i)<;, 
savs Herodotus. l*jlsewlicre he keeps the term crT/jaT>;709 for the admirals. J 
la\- no stress on this ; but even if we sui)|)ose that Cyme was included in the 
Ionian atid not in the northern Meet, and that conseipwntly it is conct-ivable 
that Sandoces had under his ordeis a dynast of Caria (Aiidolis). it is 
absolutely impossible on any ^nound that he can have coinmatidi'd a dynast 
from I'aphos in C'xprus. We might that were stoim- 
tossed ships, separated from theii- Meets, of which Sandoces had di' j'arfn 
taken command ; but with a X.K. gale, blowing on sJi'D'c, this is impo.ssible- 
Neither is it likely that the main fleet, with the Greeks so, would 
have left Sandoces to collect along the coast and bring in any shij»s 
left behind to repair slight damages, which would be making a present 
of them to the Greeks. A ship of Cyme too should have been with the 

wiKs sent. It meant sometliing, I su)>i), even (1907), 29, treats the whole stoiiii-iuci<ient 

to liriiig 120 sliips to anchor without colli.sioii.s : n.s a (iujilicate of the fctorm tliat lioitroycJ 

.see Time, (i, 42 on the anclior ilrill of tlic Atlie- Manlonius' ships at Atlio.s in 492. If 1 am 

nians before sailing for, {uiTafif wffJTtp light aliout the Meets, this is impossiUle. I 

(fif\\of6pnif7<T8ai. . . ol (rrpaTtiyol iwofftvavTo. note that the Mediterranean Pilot, in its 

*' U.S.A. ii. 83. In liis histoiy, I'lDf. Hury Athens table (the nearest), gives an average of 

sends these ships off from Ajihetae. Has he three days' gale for August, more tliun for any 

ubundoned his earlier view [which Di'. Maean month but J.inuaryand Kcbruary. [Dr. Macim 

Iins adopted] ? treats the two storms as certainly one, lasting 

•'■^ IJiiry in U.S.A. ii. and Munro, I.e. i>. 310. for three days.] 
Note that in 8, 66 II. knows only of 'the ^' II. 8, 4 :/»»! awroiffi »api ftfifav ra »p^>/iaTa 

storm ' ; lie must have Iiad two versions nt rwv fiapBipwy dx'/Saiff l| uis aurol Karti6tctoy. 
least before him. D. Mulder, Klio, vol. 7 

216 W. W. TARN 

northern fleet ; though it is always possible that one or two stragglers from 
that fleet got back [or that (as Dr. Macan suggests) Sandoces was not on a 
ship of Cyme at all]. Possibly the Greeks captured fifteen ships somehow ; 
but the details I look on as quite untrustworthy, and as belonging to the same 
source as the loss of the eleven Paphian vessels. 

The fleet was ' numbered ' at Aphetae, which I take to mean that the 
ships from the islands, which had now joined, were told off to their squadrons. 
We see this clearly from the story of the Samothracian ship at Salamis, 
which fought in the Ionian fleet, but as epibatae carried Samothracian 
uKovTKnai, not Persians (8, 90). She was therefore no part of the Ionian 
fleet as originally organised ; and it is indeed the whole point of the story 
that the Ionian good name was saved by the exploit of a ship which had 
nothing to do with Ionia. The same appears in the case of the ships of 
Naxos, Lemnos, and Tenos that deserted to the Greeks ; had they carried 
Persian epibatae they could not have gone over, a point on which Themistocles 
had no delusions when he realised that 'strong necessity' might prevent the 
lonians from deserting.^- I cannot help thinking that the seventeen vijatayTai 
of H. 7, 95, a figure and a contingent quite out of place where it occurs, 
represent the island reinforcements, but it is not very material. 

If we take it then that the Persians lost 120 ships in the northern fleet, 
with perhaps fifteen captured and three wrecked on Myrmex, received a dozen 
or .so reinforcements and lost a few in the storm, say twenty or thirty, I think 
we may put it this way : that at Aphetae they cannot well have had over 
450, and may of course have had a great many less. But I think that 450 
as a highest possible is safe to work with : it will appear presently Avhy I 
want to consider the outside possible figure. 

§ 4. — Artcmismm. 

The Greek fleet the first day was 268 triremes (three lost scouting) and nine 
pentekontors. We have got to explain how it came about that the Greeks 
had rather the best of it against the superior Persian numbers. 

One explanation has been suggested by Prof Wilcken ^'^ in publishing 
the recently discovered fragment of Sosylos, viz., that this was the 
occasion on which Heraclidesof Mylasa so brilliantly countered the Phoenician 
diecplus. F. Ruehl ''•* has objected to this, that, if so, the total silence of 
Herodotus, who must have known of Scylax's narrative, is very extraordinary ; 
and he suggests that Heraclides' feat belongs to some (unknown) battle of 
Artemisium in the Ionian revolt. To which Wilcken •''•'' replies that, if so. 

*'- H. 8, 22 : f 1 . . . W avayKairis fifCoyus with the battle off Cyprus in H.' 5, 112, in 

KaTf(fvxOf fl lixfTf oLTrlffraaBat. wliich the lonians defeated the Phoenicinns, 

r.:i jf,;j-mi;>i 41 (1906j, p. 103. for there must be something behind H.'s state- 

^* Fhilol. 61, p. 352 nient tliat that day the lonians were 'at the top 

" HermcK 42 (1907), ji. 512. lUit for tlic of tlieir form,' &Kpoi ytv6fx«voi. Having h'arnt 

name Artemisium, it would fit in well enough how to meet the diecplus, they then, before 

Tin: M.KKl' ol XERXES 217 

the sili'iict' of Hir(>(|i)tiis is still cvi ry bit as »-.\traonliiiary, an<l that siicli a 
victory can hardly hi' titled in with HtTcnlotus' account ot the Ionian revolt. I 
may remark, perhaps, that though, if the story cornea from Seylax, we are 
in a difficulty either way, still there is no certainty that it does; Sosyhts 
does not profess to be citing Seylax, neithi^r d<K!s he suggest that the MaHsilian 
knew anything about Heradides ; he may be (juoting some commonplace 
book (»f naval tactics, in which the niaiKeiivre was of more imj»ortance than 
its correct at tribution, the sort of book that we possess at fourth hand in 
the nasal jtortions of Polyaenus. And it does not do to forget that Polybius 
called Sosylos a mere chatten-r. While reserving the possibility of Wilcken 
proving to be right, I do not see how we can use Sosylos for Artemisium till 
a good deal more light has bicn thrown on the matter, attractive as it would 
be to do so. 

Putting Sosylos aside, I believe that Ephorus hit on the key to what 
liaj)ptn(d when In- described the Persians as i.ssuing from different 
anchorages. Their four fleets were, as usual, at separate stations. The 
(Jreeks waited till late afternoon, and then attacked one of the fleets, 
the idea l»eing to do what harm they could bi-fore the rest came up in 
support.'"* Hence the late afternoon, to give the Persian fleet, when 
combined, little time for operations. It was no ireipa ; the strategical 
position compelled the Greeks to attack ; they were only holding Thermo- 
pylae to enable the fleet, their best [arm, to strike a severe blow, if so it 
might be.*" The scheme answered pretty well ; and on the other fleets 
coming up the Clreeks managed to hold on till daik without receiving too 
nuich damixge, retreating in convex line with their j)rows to the enemy and 
occasionally charging them.-''* The shij)s they took must have been taken 
hc/orc their retirement. From the reference to the capture of Philaon's ship 
we may 8up])ose that the central fleet was the one they attacked ; probably 
it lay nearest to the Greek position.''" 

The next day the Greeks put out still later, attacked the central fleet 

Lade, try to practise it themselves. — But though ■** By no meaus the same as the Corinthian 

there were many Artcmisiunis and Dianiuins nil tactics aj^ainst Phormio in the gulf of Corinth, 

about the Mediterranean, I cannot find one in The line would probably become an arc, as they 

these particular waters, or nearer than the one would be overlapj>ed. 
in Caria which Kuehl gives. '* [Dr. Maoan's view is, that when the 

''^ Welzhofer (I.e.), in his excellent study of Persians rounded C. Sepias the Greeks were 

Artemisium, came to much the same conclusion : holding the Oreos channel, in case the enemy 

the Greeks overwhelmed a jortion of the Persian should try to force it; the Gieeks did not 

fleet before the rest came up. P'{)horus perhap.s attack the main Persian fleet as it made for 

had the same idea, but Diodorus docs not Aphetae, but managed to cut off the rear-guard 

actually say so, though he comes rather near it : under Handoces, capturing according to the 

11, 12, Toiv 8« 0ap0dp<iiy iK ■noKXiiiv Kifiivuv Asianic version fifteen ships, according to the 

avayofitfcev (before we have iK woK\a>y xal Greek thirty ; this was the first daj- of 

StfaTTjKdrwy Ai^tf'fCDi'), rh fiif irpinov oi Artemisium. This is a wide departure from the 

w«pl rhv 9tfnaroK\ia hitairapyiivoit to7j Utpaan tradition ; nor do I see how ships of I'aphos and 

(TvtJi-KKtK6pitvoi KoWhs fitv vavs Karilvaav k.t.K. of Caria could really be in one squadron. But I 

*^ This now seems a fixed point ; Th. have already dealt with the Sandoces story, and 

Lenschau, Jahrcsb. iiber yr. Oesch. 1904, p. 195. cannot think that it has anytliing to do with 

[Macan ii. 261 and 270.] the first day of the battle of Artemisium.] 



again shortly before (laik, and sank some of the Cilician shi]»s. Thci-c was 
no time for the others to come nj). ])i()(l()riis, who has possibly here got 
hold of a genuine bit of the lost Phoonician tradition,'"^ makes Artcmisium a 
two days' fight only ; to the Phoenicians it was. The (j!i(>('ks had this day 
been reinforc<Hl b\' fifty-three ships which ha<l been guarding the Euripus.''' 
I have felt much difficulty ovei- these tifty-thre(^ ships, because the muuber 
will not fit in with any possible s(piadron-aii-aiigement,"'- and of coui-se the 
200 Athenian ships had a definite s(piadron-arrangenient : 1 conclude, 
however, that the story implies an Atheiuan s(piadron of fifty ships, and three 
others, not necessarily Athenian, sent to act as scouts. 

It was evident that this sort of thing C(juld ncjt go on : the Persian 
Heet, against Persian ])olicy (which was to stiike with their best arm, the 
army), received definite orders to attack. The (!ieek num!)cis were now 
well over ')00, the Persians not nuich over 400 at the very outside ; the 
lattej" attacked in full force, and the Greeks got a very rough handling. No 
doubt it was a hard-fought day, and the Peisians too suffered: but that it 
was a Persian victory there can be no doubt whatever. The real j)i-oof of 
this is the effect on the mind of Themistocles. He, who had jireviously 
been content that battle sh(juld be given in open water, now saw that it was 
life and death to the Cireeks that the next fight should be fought in wateis 
where the Persians could not manoeuvre and had to come to close quailei-s ; 
and he risked everything, his fair name included, to bring tins about. 
Peside this, no other argument matters. Delbriick, for instance. lays stress 
on the Persian failure to pursue : but is there a single case in ancient 
history of a pursuit ivally pressed where the beaten fiect had a line of retreat 
and was not forced ashore ? Rowers ai-e not I'ligines; also we do not know 
how far the Persian supply was disorganised by the storm, and we do know 
that it was their invariable policy that army and Heet should move strictly 
'pari 2^nssu. 

More to the point would be a cpiery, why the Persian Heet, if really 
superior in numbers, did not do more damage than it did. The answer is to 
be sought in limitations to which I referred abo\e. (liwn etpial 
ct)urage, a lighter fleet that dare not either board or ram ])row to })row could 
not make very rapid progress, one would think, whatever its skill."'' Herodotus' 

*• I.e. that oil both days the Sidoniaiis .lid 
best. See § 9. 

«i 15m y in U.S.A. ii. 83. 

"- A cousideiation quite ncghcted by tho-sc 
writers who sucin to look on cviTy number as 
suspect unless it be a surd. Given a town with 
a laige fleet, this was bound, when at pajier 
strength, to be an easily subdivided or round 
number. How far subdivision went we do 
not know : but there is an interesting story 
in Polyaenus iii. 4, 2 of Phorniio manoeuvring 
a fleet in small squadrons of five ships each 
(irti/TOfato) as units ; which shows (whether 
true of Phormio or not) that at a later time the 

writers of the ordinary books on naval tartics 
were familiar with the idea of handling a fleet in 
small .sub-squadrons. 

''•' The glamour of Thucydides must notbliiKl 
us to the fact that those tactics of miuneuvrc 
which wc associate with Phormio and the fleets 
of Pericleiin Athens were always a failure in the 
long run. The jiower that adopted more 
lobust methods of fighting, refusing to consider 
the sea as the monoi)oly of established skill and 
sea-power, invariably won. So the Athens of 
4S0 beat the Persians ; so Syracuse beat the 
Athens of 413 ; .so Rome beat Carthage. 



i( rcnnti' 1(1 tin- IC^'\ ptimis as doing ln-st on this day may he ju'rfV'ctly correct ; 
(li«ii- Inavy-arnicd niaiiiit's were not coiniM-llcd (o avoid a Tre^ofiaxia. «t« wen- 
the l'< Tsian arclnTs. And 'riuinistoclcs had th«' genius to gntsp the IVi^ian 
liniilalions i\>r future um . 

( )nr htst j)oint on the thin I day <•! Arltiiiisiiini. It'sonR- 400 trinini-.s on «»nc 
side u til- ivally i-ngagt-d wilh over MOO on the other, then this Ijir and 
away the greatest sea-tight, as r«'gards nund)ers of ships, ever f«jught in the 
ancit-nt worhl. Taking a trireme as about 5 m. wide, witli oars li'.i m. out- 
lii.ard (.Schmidt's calculation), we have a total hreadth of about 12.', yaids, 
'I'he rather common reckoning <tf 100 trire)nes in line abreast to a mile gives 
each vessel about 17A yards, which seems to me far too little, as it gives no 
possibility of turning; however, on this figure, and in doubh.' lino, the Pei-sian 
line of battle was at least two miles long ; perhajis it was much longer. Two 
consequences follow, of importance when we C(jme to consider the souices. 
Kven in the absences of smoke, a man at one end of the line can have had 
little idea of what was happening to the bulk of the H»'et ; and, as a fact, the 
battle must have broken up into several independent actions. We see this 
ha])pening clearly, to much smaller fleets, both at Ecnomus (Polybius) and at 
Salamis in (y'yprus (Dicjdorus) ; most clcarl}- of all at Chios (Polybius), which 
w;us really two separate battles. 

§ 0. — SuiiDuis. 

The fij-st thing is the (Jreeknuntbers. The 310 triremes of Aeschylus 
cannot well be wrong ; he must have known the numbers of the fleet he fought 
in. Apart from Aeschylus, we can see that the 380 triremes of Herodotus an- 
wrong for Sala)iii:i, as he ])resupposes that the larger contingents, Athens. 
Corinth, ^legara, were in the same force as at Artemisium, which is absurd. 
I take it that Herodotus' figures are campaign totals, the sum total of the 
individual ships of each state commi.ssioncd during the summer of 480 n.c.''* 

*^ -Miuli of lliu ciiticibm of these figures is 
ratlicr pcrvci'sc. Hclorh's coiuleniiiation of 
tlieni as round numbers, 180 Atl)., 200 the nst, 
hits been .sullicicntly met by Hauvcttr iJlirodoU, 
391 3), wh(» pointed out, first that H.'."* figure 
is uot 380 but 37S plus two deserters (n-rtlly 
374 + 6 de.serter.s, i.e. four Naxians ineludod), 
and secondly tliat we cannot neglect the jiente- 
kontois. 1 hope I have said enough already 
about round figures (n. 62) ; and no dcmbt 
Tiiemistoeles' aim was a fleet roughly equal in 
power to the rest of Greece. Moie elal)orate is 
the criticism of U. Adam, dr Ilcrvdoti rnlionc 
hustorica, which I cite because Delbruck seemed 
to tliink tliere was something in it {(r. d. 
A'/t<y.v/lu)ij(<, i. 12). By omiUiuy the twenty 
.ships lent to the Chalcidians — or rather miinned 

by Athenian kleruchs— Adam makes Athen.t 
furnish half tlie fleet, the otiier states half, 
irtc/i<(/in^ the deserters; ne.xt hy umUting two 
of the deserters, he makes the Peloponnese 
fuiniuh half of the latter half ; and so on, 
ending in complete incoherence. This is 
supjiosed to prove that H. invented his figures 
on a scheme. Wc can all prove anything with 
any set of figures if we may juggle witii them 
like this. I regret I have not been able to sic 
I*iird, Studies in Iferodottis,' wUo, I believe, 
holds that many of H.'s figures are mere 
calcidalions. If any reader will for a year or 
two keej) count of the curious coincidences met 
with in tlie figures that he comes across in daily 
life, he will become very fchy of njecting figures 
as 'duplicates' or 'schemes.' 

220 W. W. TARN 

I accept that emendation of the lacuna which gives Aegina forty-two 

I take the Artemisium figures as coiTect : 325 triremes (of which 200 were 
Athenian and 1 a Lemnian deserter) and 9 pentekontors. It is obvious 
that Athens, Corinth, and Megara were bound to send their full fleets ; and 
the fact that the remaining northern state, Aegina (which was equally 
interested in' sending its full contingent), is represented as not doing so adds 
considerably to one's sense of Herodotus' veracity. 200 is correct for Athens ; 
100 built under Themistocles' law, and the other 100 made up of pre-existing 
ships and the later building mentioned by Herodotus.^^ The 20 lent to Chalcis 
were presumably manned by Athenian settlers. Meyer has shown that Athens 
could at this time have easily manned 180 triremes, allowing to each 150 
rowers, 14 hoplites, and 4 archers ; •'^ no doubt, too, the usual methods 
of manning the fleet were suspended, as before Arginusae,*^ and all men of 
military age, including the zeugites, had to serve if and so far as required. 
I may add that plenty of boys under 18 can pull an oar well enough. 

No severely damaged ships could be repaired between Artemisium and 
Salamis. The reinforcements received were as follows, according to Herodotus : 
Lacedaemon 6, Sicyon 3, Epidaurus 2, Hermione 3, Ambracia 7, Leucas 3, 
Aegina 24 (assuming 12 Aeginetan to fill the lacuna between the total of 
378 and the addition of the several contingents), Cythnos 1, Croton 1, and 
4 Naxian and 1 Tenian deserters ; total 55 triremes ; and 7 pentekontors 
against 9 at Artemisium, Locri with 7 having medised in the interval. 
Taking triremes only, 310 at Salamis less 55 reinforcements = 255, the total 
remaining after Artemisium. Total before Artemisium 325. Losses at Ar- 
temisium therefore 70 triremes, which is the difference between the Salamis 
total of Aeschylus and the campaign total of Herodotus. This may well be 
about correct. With losses proportionate to contingents, the Athenian loss 
would have been 43; but perhaps Pindar ^^ is evidence that Athens bore the 
brunt of the fighting, and if so her loss could not well be under 50. We 
may perhaps say that Athens, including Chalcis, furnished some 150 ships at 
Salamis, nearly half the fleet.^*' 

We cannot well put the Persian loss at Artemisium lower than the 
Greek. If we call it also 70 (+), then, taking the highest possible figure 
before the battle as 450, we get somewhere about 380 (±) as a highest 

*' [Dr. Macan conjectures for Aegina 42 + 18 nine crrpaT-nyol commanded twenty ships, the 

on guard at home = 60, which one would like to remaining vessels, which should have . been 

believe.] Aiistides' command, going to Chalcis. 

^ 7, 144 ; sec W. Kolbe, de Ath. re navali ®^ G. d. A. iii. 358 ; Forschungcn ii. 183. 

{Philol. 58, 1899), p. 509, etc. I may add that *"* Xen. Hell. i. G, 24. 

200 would be four times the number (50) *^ Ap. Plut. Them. 8 = de gloria Ath. §7 = 

furnished by the naucraries (with the Paralos de Ilerod. malig. 34. Cf. H. 8, 18. 
andSalaminia) ; this squadron of fifty iipj)ear3 in "" I look on the 110 of Ctesias, wliic-li IJeloch 

H. 6,89. If I'rof. Bury be right about Aristides adopted, as absolutely worthless. It occurs, 

being crTparriyos at this time, with the command moreover, in a context where Ctesias is trying to 

ashore (67. Ret>. x. 414), it is tempting to belittle Athens. 
supiiose that at Artemisiiirn each of the other 


possible for the Pi-rsiiin tlttts iis they eiitertd IMmlciuiii. Now Herodotus 
(8, 13) 8U}'S of the htorm, that it was sent by divine jKJWer to etjualiso 
the two Hoets; this afterwanls got turned^' into a statement that at Salainis 
they Wire equal. It looks vrry much as if Herodotus' better source gave 
him a number for the I'eisians at l'h;derum, and that numb«;r not far «>ft" the 
Greek toUil as he conceived it ; and as if therefore one were right in working 
on the highest possible Persian number. But of course H80 (±) mai/ be very 
eonsidcrably too high. 

Hapj)ily I need not go into the vast literature relating to the topography 
of Salamis and the |)osiLions of the Heels ; for it really bids fair to secure a 
dt'Hnite residt.'- There seems a pretty general agreement now that the old 
view of Leake and Grote, which Busolt adopted, viz., that the Persian fleet 
sailed in liy night and took up a position along the Attic coast, is not only 
indefensible in itself, moon or no moon, but is not even Herodotus ; and that 
what happened, as deduc«'d from Aeschylus and confirmed by Herodotus, wjia 
that the Persians sent sliips overnight to^block the Megara channel, and that 
at dawn the rest of their fleet was drawn uj) from Cynosura to Munychia, 
outside {i.e. S. of) Psyttaleia. There is fortunately no need to support this 
conclusion by (pioting later writers, though it does in fact agree with the 
deductions drawn by Ephorus. In order to get at what happened, I assume 
this result to be correct. 

First, what ships were sent round Salamis ? As the lonians and 
Phoenicians were in the main battle, the choice lies l^etween the central and 
Egyptian fleets.'^ We can, I think, see that it was the latter, though not 
because Ephorus says so. Of the four Persian admirals, Ariabignes was 
killed in the battle, and Prexaspes and Megabates superseded after it ; '* but 
Achaemenes was not superseded, as far as we know, for he was still satrap of 
Egypt at the time of Inarus' revolt (H. 3, 12; 7, 7). This can have had 
nothing to do with his being Xerxes' brother: that ruler was not over-tender 
of his brethren, as the story of Masistes show.s. It is that for some reason 
a distinction was drawn between the Egyptian and the other fleets: the 
former was not included in the disgrace of the defeat."^ 

When were the Egyptians sent off? Here' comes in the really grave 
difficulty of the circumnavigation theory. Dr. Bauer, who supported the old 

^' E.g. in Plutarch, Them. 15: rots fiap^dpois " Aeschylus' reference to the mflin Persian 

i^iffovufvoi Th wKfidos. battle as Iv orolxois rpiaiv imports tliat three 

^^ References since Meyer: Raase, o/). ci/.,with of the fleets were there; cT&rxoi. not 'lines," 

full bibliography; V. Cauer reviewing Raase but 'divisions', as Prof. Hnry (Hist, i.* 301) 

in M'och. fiir klas.i. Phil. 1905, no. 36 (a sub- has taken it. 

stantive contribution) ; Prof. W. W. Goodwin, ''* See under Mycale, poxt. 

Battle of Salamis (Harvard Studies in Class. " If Aeschylus bears on the questimi at nil 

Philol. vol. 17, 1906), p. 75, very full and (see Goodwin, I.e., p. 93) he only proves that 

giving anew exj>lanation, aftei Lieut. Rlicdiades the Egyptians were in notion somewheie. 

of the Greek navy, of the lonu dcsperatxts rh Mardonius' speech (H. 8, 100) proves nothing 

■wphi 'F.Xfvfflvos Tt Ku\ ia-Ktpris Ktpai, which at all ; if it did, it would jTove that the Ionian 
Cauer thinks cannot be made sense of on auij . fleet wasi not in action. At best it is mere 

view. rhetoric. 

222 W. W. TARN 

view, brought forward the objection ^" against the circumnavigation of 
Salaniis that, if the ships sent were not sent till after the receii)t of 
Themistocles' message, there was no time for them to get round to Leros 
(Nera), and that if they merely reached the bay of Trupika their presence 
there would not have been sufficient. According to him, it is 53-5 kilom. 
from Piraeus round to Leros ; and he relics on Xenophon's account of 
Alcibiades with 86 ships taking some 18 hours to do 50 kilom.'^ I feel the 
full force of this objection. So does Raase, who ccmsequently halts the ships 
at the bay of Trupika. But I think Munro has shown that on the day of 
Salamis the Corinthians fought with the Egyptians;^** and if so, the latter 
were more probably at Leros, for it is very unlikely that the Corinthians 
could get to the bay of Trupika, fight, and return eV e^epyaafievoi^J^ 
Anyhow, we must at least have a theory which will suit either event and not 
preclude the possibility of the Egyptian Heet blocking the strait at Leros. 

We have, therefore to count on the possibility of the Egyptians being 
sent off the preceding afternoon, before the arrival of Themistocles' message. 
But nothing, I suppose, is clearer now than that, but for Themistocles' 
message, there would have been no fight at all. Why then were they sent off? 

I would suggest that what happened was somewhat as follows. 

The Persian council of war was divided. One party, appearing in the tra- 
dition as Demaratusand Artemisia,^" wished to ignore the Greek Heet and sail 
for the Isthmus, obviously the correct strategy. The other, represented in the 
tradition by the Phoenician kings and other naval leaders, wished to attack 
the enemies' fleet. The Phoenician leaders, who were really loyal to Persia, 
are hardly likely to have given such advice ; they knew the disadvantages of 
a fight in the narrows; no. doubt what they did was to profess a general 
readiness to fight the King's enemies at any time and anywhere. 

'* Jahrcsh. 4 (1901), \i. 101. Repeated Bcrl. contemporary would liave seen the absurdity nf 

Phil. JVoch. 190f', ]). 158. luiiniiig down the Phoenicians, liowevcr Imti-'d. 

" Already commented on, n. 44. Another i.s tlie amazing '(luotation' from 

"* Favourably received: Lenschau, I.e.; H. Aeschylus: Sti^airo; fir; <5 vavriKhs arparhs 

Kallenberg, Herodol, in Jahrcsb. d. Philol. KaKoiOfls rhv it((ov iTpoaiy)\i\ay)rai = I'crs. 7-8, 

Vcrcina in Berlin, 1904, ]). 248. vavriKh^ arparos KaKcodfls ire^bv CoXtae arpcxrov. 

'•^ No doubt the point reached by the Corin- (I have not seen this ' (juotation' noticed [not 

thians was the temple of Athene Skiras ; but even by Dr. Macau], though I'lut. dc malvj. 

v.-c do not know where it stood. Raase, I.e., H. 38 has some curious observations.) As H. 

p. 33, has a u.seful list of the writers who think was not really likely to make his heroine quote 

that the 'Egyptians' must have gone past the best known, and least true, line of the 

Trupika to Leros. Penae, we must suppose that Aeschylus him- 

"" Demaiatus' advice (II. 7, 236). given, be self was (luoting a well-known .saying; and as 

it noted, after Thevniojiylac, must belong here, no one can have coined a so remote from 

i.e. after Artemisium. I take Artemisia's fa(!ts after the battle of Plataea, it may well 

speech at the council (H. 8, 68) to mean the have been a prophecy, traditionally .attributed 

same thing. Parts of this speech must be to Artemisia, though reflecting little credit on 

genuine (so Wclzhofer and Meyer) ; or, if not her jmlgment. It is true that the Sclioiiast on 

Artcmi.'-ia's own, must at least represent the Pcrs. 728 interprets trt^hv arparov as the troops 

opinion of Halicarnassus. One sign of accniacy on Psyttaleia ; but tin; contexts are quite char 

is the belittling of the central and Fgyj)tian to show that neither Aesch. nor II meant this 

fleets, but not of that of tln' traditional enemy for a moment, 
of the Asiatic Greeks, the Phoenicians ; for a 

'iiii; ii.i:i;'i" ok xkkxks 

'-»•_»; J 

I'lil'iii iiii;itil\ lur tli«' licit , XciMs, ur his sijitV. took liiilf iin-iisurfs only."' 
Till' aiiiiN Milt olV tiiuiinl llir ImIIiiiiiis (H. H, 71 i: and mie Hcft, the 
K<,'\ |tl iaii, was .st'iit to tiini tlir I'dupoiiiifsian (ItlciiccH by occupying' a 
liariiiMii III tile liitiidly Ar^olid.^- I)(iiil)tjis.s tin* K^yptians wcrt' s«-l«'ctcd 
l)(i-aiisc lli<ir licavy-aniifd inariiits iiii;^dit l>«' more iisil'id lor a hnish jusliori', 
u inn iiiiMi|ipiiilrd hy ravalry, than Persian arrhcrs. Possihiy ((mi Achat'iiicncs 
really opposed the scheme (II. 7. ■2;{(»): and it would therefore appeal to 
a despot's sense of hiiiiioiir t<» select his coinitiand to carry it out. It was 
ealculated that oil tile news tln' (Jreek tieet Would break up, and the i'ersians 
could piek tlieiii up in detail: oi it not. then that the main fleet could hold 
the (Ireeks in position long enoui;h to give the Egyptians a' sutficient start. 
( »ii the alteinoon before the battle, therefore, the Egyptians started; and the 
rest of the Persian flet't made its dciiionstiat ion in force, to hold the attention 

<.f the Creeks.^' 

The passing of the l'jgv|»tians was ot course iiported to the (Iirck 
admirals at Salamis It might imaii oiic ot two things, acc<trding jus their 
objective was the Argolid or Leios. Hut tlie mere possibility of the former 
mised (as the Persians intended) commotion in the minds of the 
Peloponnesian leaders : when Herodotus (H, 74j says they feared for tin- and wanted to go home, hi- is literally correct. Tiieniistocles 
therefore, on the fateful night, had to solve not one problem, biit two. ile 
had of course to induce the Persians to Hght; but he also had to prevent the 
Pelopunnesians from going ofi" to defend their homes, precisely as Herodotus 
.says. His message to Xerxes must have sounded to the King iis follows: 
'The Peloponnesians are going home; the Athenians are ready to niedise;'''' 
block the straits and attack, and you can end the war in a blaze of spec- 
tacular glory.' Xerxes fell to the bait; a swift ship, or fire-signal.s, diverted 
the Egyptians; and at the critical moment Aristides, chased by them thidugh 
the bay of Trupika,*^'' was able to report to the council at Salamis that it was 
too late for anyone to go home. 

The Persian Heet therefore, as it put out again in the darkness, must 
have expected anything rather than a battle. This seems to me to be the 
crucial point of the whole thing. The only possible explanation of that 
fleet fighting at all where and how it did is that Xerxes was completely 
taken in by Themistocle.s. The Persians must have expected a more or less 
complete Athenian surrender, and the mopping up t)f a few scattered 
detachments; and, .says Aeschylus flryly. 'they were disajipointeil of their 

''' Du Seiii, Uisluin de In marine, i. 110, 
sugj^cstcd tile Persian ;n tioii at Salaniis 
iiiiLst liave Ixeii tlic re.siilt of a cdinproniise. 

"-■ Tim iniiici|>ai aiguinciil used by Delbrii' k 
ami Meyer to sliow tlial the I'dsians wcro not 
.stronger, nr aiiprccialily stronger, than tlie 
(Jreclvs at Salamis, is that, if so, they 
liavc divided their fleet and sent part to tlic 
Argolid. Hut supitose they <lid ? 

"* I need not recapitulate the .shifts to which 
H.S.— VOL. X.Wlll. 

ililleieiit writers have been put to act'ount for 
the Persians drawing out their fleet tlie day 
before the battle. Of course Aeschylus docs 
not nientiuD it ; but he is writing drama, not a 

»' Munro, p. 331. 

^' So Kaaso. The argiuuents seem irresistil>le. 
It explains why the Tcnian deserter, which of 
course ruine the other way, wa.s re<juircd to 
conlirni truthful Aristide.s. 

224 W. W. TARN 

expectation.'^® It was not their numbers that hampered them — that is a 
Greek legend — but lack of sea-room. They had put themselves in a 
position where they could be, and were, brought to close quarters whether 
they would or no ; Themistocles had won the battle before a blow was struck. 

As to the battle. Herodotus is clearly right on three points : on the 
Persian right were the Phoenicians, Xerxes' command ; on the Greek right 
the Spartans, Eurybiades' ; and as Athens and Sparta could not be together, 
the Athenians formed the Greek left. We may therefore believe Herodotus, 
that the lonians formed the Persian left. The other Dorians who were 
present, including Aegina, were of course with Sparta. Herodotus conceives 
of both lines as in two divisions only ; no definite centre is mentioned on 
either side. The lonians broke first (H. 8, 90), though the Phoenician 
accusation of treachery is groundless : strong necessity, as Themistocles 
called the Persian troops on board (H. 8,. 22), saw to that. The battle 
then was decided by the Aeginetans breaking the Ionian line — hence their 
prize for valour — and taking the Phoenicians, who had perhaps successfully 
resisted the Athenian attack, in flank.^^ Athens may well have felt that to 
her had fallen the harder and less showy task ; hence the later stories 
(not in Herodotus) which show jealousy of Aegina. The Phoenicians 
probably felt the same ; they had held the Athenians, while the lonians 
had broken before the Dorians. We have also got to remember that 
the Phoenician tradition is lost, that we have only the account of their 
bitter enemies, and that it is only the fair-mindedness of Herodotus 
6 <f>c\o^dp^apo<; which enables us to do any justice at all to that silent 
race. The discredited story of Xerxes beheading the Phoenician captains is 
absurd ; a revolt in Phoenicia was the last thing that he could afford at the 
time ; while the story of the lonians being saved by the exploit of a 
Sainothracian .ship, which did not really belong to the Ionian flec't at all,^* is 
part of the same impossible legend. If this last incident took place at all, 
it happened; like Artemisia's exploit, at the latter stage of the battle, when 
it had become, as Themistocles desired, a mere meUc. 

And the central fieet ? It is not once mentioned. Whether, if the 
Persians entered in one column between Psyttaleia and Attica, it formed 
the tail of the column and never got into the bay ; or whether, if the 
Persians entered in two columns, one on either side of Psyttaleia, it formed 
the centre and was crowded out, much as Hauvette supposed; or whether 
it was deliberately held in reserve, ol oirtade Terayfievoi of H. 8, 89, as is 
perhaps most likely, seeing that the Persians did not really expect a fight 
and that the waters were narrow : it is at any rate reasonably clear that it 
took no part in the battle.**'** If then the highest possible total for the 

** Pcrs. 392, yvu)ij.ijs a-noapaXflaiv. ^ See p. 216. 

^ See Bury, Hint, i.* 302. [If tli rer.siaus ^^ Maidonius' speech is no evidt-nee, a.s I 

were roughly on the line AiKaleos-P.syttaleia or have pointed out above. All lleiodotu.s' de- 

Aigaho.sCynosnra (see n. 92), this would bring tails refer to two fleets only, the Ionian and 

the Aeginetans acro-^s their line of retreat, and Phoenician ; and the fact that after the battle 
account for the story in H. 8, 91.] 


four rtTsiiin fU'fts at Phalmiiii !>.• .'{HO ( ± ), ami .illowin^' tin- ccritnil Ht-et 
had siirttTtMl most at Artt'iiiisiiim, tlu' total of" the two ri-rsian flrcts actually 
in action in the main battir cannot have exc«.M'(hM| 200 and may well havj* 
hfcn less. K\rn then if wc allow that Ailt'iniantns had a f«'sv ships 
with iiim bcsidi's the ('oiMitliian.s, say somr oO all told, the (Jn-flvs liad soiim' 
2(iO in the main hattlc ; th<y therefore in the actual fighting thonaighly out- 
nuujbered their enemy. It appears therefore that on the point that matters 
we have come round, by a very different path, to a view rather similar to 
that of Delbriick. It also appears why I have tried to work with the 
highest possible Pereian nunibers. 

Adeimantus, however, unlike the Athenians, really may have lought 
against od<ls, even supjiosing that the Egyptians' orders were merely to hold 
a line on the defensive and let no one pass. No wonder that Corinth hated 
Athens, especially as the accusation that Adeimantus would liave run away 
if he could may, as we have set'ii, have cont.iiiied just that amount of truth 
that makes a lie peculiarly bitter. It was hardly his faiilt if his heroism 
wjus partly due to circumstance. 

The Persians, then, with a probable slight numerical superiority, contrived, 
by using half measures and by changing their plans at the bidding of 
Themistocles, to have a numerical inferiority at the decisive p<jint, employed 
under conditions the worst ])ossible for themselves. Had generalship is 
hardly a strong enough term to use in such a connexion. To Aeschylus, 
the only explanation Wiis a madness sent from heaven. The opinion of 
Themistocles on the point is not recorded."*' 

One question remains, to my mind the worst of all the problems 
connected with Salamis, yet generally taken for granted : the Persians on 
Psyttaleia. If the Persians expected a hard fight, then, having regard to the 
constant desire of an ancient fleet to fight with its back to its land troops, 
one can see some sense in men being landed there ; but the Persians did not 
expect such a fight — till it began. What men were they ? Aeschylus 
speaks of them in terms that might fit the Persian general staff, at least. 
This no doubt is pure poetry. They were not land troops ; the army had 
started for the Isthmus h-fm-e Themistocles' message came, and could never 
have been recalled in time." Herodotus merely says, that on receipt of that 

the Greeks, who seem never to have hft the •" In spite of his wonls in H. 8, 109 (spoken 

straits, expeoted Xerxes to attack again Tjjffj for a pur|osi'), we might once well have 

■Ktpifovariai yjivffi shows that jHirt of the Persian doubted whether he himself did not consider a 

Heet had imt been engaged, as he lotilil not attac k live Themistocles more Useful than any Muml)cr 

again merely with the 8(iuadrons that had just of dead fipwtt. Yet we hare lived to sie th.i 

been badly defeated. It is po.ssiMo that the merit of another Salamis ascribed no less to the 

central fleet helped to the fugitives, dead than to the living: rescript of the 

8. 89; but by that time the real battle was Emjieror of Japan after Tsu-.shima. 'Theresnlt 

over. Even if we reckon in the central fleet, is due in a large nieafluie to the In-nign spiritjj 

the Persian total, which cannot have exceeded of our ancesturs as well as," etc. — fipaxn aviini 

280, would be barely superior to the fJreck total x""^'- 

at The best, and may well have been very con- " I am a.s8uming that the Persian land 

siderablv inferior to it. forces were strictly liinit«->l in numlH-r. 



incssa^^c the Persian admirals disciubarked (diTe^i/BaaavTo) on Psyttalcia 
'many o( the Persians,' i.e. of the marines. Again {H, 180) he says that in 
the spring of 479 nutst of the Persian and Median marines wen; on board tlif 
fleet;-'- i.e. some were not. The inference is, that it was part of the marines 
Avho were hmded and killed on l^syttaleia. Yet it is incredible that an 
attacking fleet should have denuded itself of part of its chief weapon. The 
only explanation I can see is that the central fleet, held in reserve, and seeing 
that (contrary to expectation) it was ind<'ed going to be a battle, landed part 
of its marines after the fighting hcgcm. In some way the central fleet was 
connected with the general Persian failure, as we know by the supersession 
of its admiral. But the whole thing is so difficult that one is sorely tempted 
lo believe that it is all a mistake of our anti-Themistoclean tradition, and 
that the only contributi(jn made that day by the just Aristides to the cause 
(jf Greek freedom was the butchery of a few shipwrecked crews. 

The Persian loss cannot be estimated. It was enough to make the 
Persians resolve not to tempt fate again on the incomprehensible sea : but 
not ^'ery great, as the Greeks expected another attack."'-' 

"■- [Dr. Macan thinks that H. only meant 
that the majority of the marines were rorsians 
and Mcdes, and tliat an allusion to the orif^inal 
Medo-Pcrsian epihatae ' would be far-fetched.' 
Why' It would be a natural enough allusion 
for any source which regarded the fleet as an 
organised force and not as a mob.] 

"' [Di. Macau's theory of Salaniis is, very 
briefly, as follows : Tlie Persians, on the day 
before the battle, decide to Idockade the Greeks 
in the bay of Salamis ; they therefore send the 
Egyptians round to the Megara channel, the 
main fleet to the Psyttaleia end (this avoids 
the time diflicnlty for the Egyptians, and also 
accounts for the Pelo[ionnesians wanting to go 
home, 8, 74, when they heard of the Egyptians 
jiassing, tliongh Dr. Macan does not notice 
eithi.r point ; it also accounts for the Persian 
fleet diawing out the day before tlic battle). 
On receipt of Themistocles' message they alter 
their lirst plan and sail in not ex])ecting any 
battle (it will l>e seen that I agree with both 
these jioints). On the morning the Persians 
sail in in cnlumn of tliiee lines (iv (notxots 
rpiaiv) between Psyttaleia and the mainland ; 
the Athenians take the head of the column in 
flank and bnak it, deciding the action. The 
Persians on Psyttaleia^ were either landed 
(luring tlie action, or else belong to the first 
(abaniloncd) plan and were me:int to invade 
Salaniis. — Wliile there is much to be said for 
this, I adliere to what I have written above, on 
the few ])oints where I differ. (1) Dr. Macan 
admits that tlie Persians, if they meant to fight 
(tirst ]ilan), were bound t<> try to get the 

Greeks into open water ; whj' then blockade 
them ! A blockade would have given Tiicmis- 
tocles just what he wanted : the Peisians could 
not have avoided close ipiarters. (2) Even if 
Thenustocles' message readied, not Xerxes 
(Aes(di.), but tlie admirals (H.), it is clear that 
tlie lattei' could not change the wliole jdan 
without consulting their commandcr-in-cliief, 
as tlie army and fleet were co-opeiating ; the 
fleet then must liave been back at Plialerum 
when the message arrived in the early ]>art of 
the night, and jmt out (afresh) that night, as 
Aeseh. says. Coiisecprently, the movement of 
the fleet on the day before was a demonstration 
only ; and what becomes of the Idoitkade ? 
(o) Dr. Macan hns to treat the objective of the 
army as the Megara channel, to co-operate witli 
the Egyptians. But, after all, H. says the 
Isthmus ; let us keep what of tradition we can. 
(4) The battle must, I think, have been 
fought in line; Dr. Macan (ii. 315-C) cannot 
explain the Aeginetan No doubt the 
Persians entered in column, either one column 
or two ; but (sujijiosing now with Dr. Macan 
that it was one column) tliey could never liave 
been caught in column by a fleet coining across 
from Salamis, when a mere half-turn by each 
ship would have brought them into line abreast 
facing theenemy ; and wc cannot press Aeschylus' 
(xv/xa to prove the contrary. Two hundred 
triremes in column of two lines, 100 in each line, 
would cover about a mile from end to end ; tlie 
wdiole column would be in the bay in six to seven 
minutes, or even less (Fincati's trireme diil 
nine niih^s an hour, and the Phoenicians miglit 

TIIK Vl.KKV (»l .\Ki:.\i;s 


^ (). — Mycalr. 

AllcT Siil.iiiiis, llir K^'\|»t Mil tlict h;itnlt(l iivri- its iii;iiitii> ti» .Maidoniiis 
(H. !>, .S2) . -111(1 went liiiiiif." In t In- spring' of 47!», what icniaiiicd ''•• (.1 thi- 
other three thets \v;us at Suiiios, under three new admirals, Mardnntes, 
Aitavntt's, Ithaniitres ; as oidy Ariabit^nes is recorded to have been kille<l, 
We set- that tlu' adiiiiials of {.\\v central and I'hi'eiueian fie. !>- had iieeti 
siipersiiled. 'I'i^Manes was at Mycah- with land troops. The I'ersian 
coniniantlers decided not to H^dit at sea: they therefore sent home the 
Phoenicians,'"' and no douht the central fleet also, thou^di this is not 
expri'sslv mentioned. iJnt the crTpaT»/7ot of these two Meets disembark«'d tht' 
Tersian marines before sending oti" the sliips, and kept them with 'I'igranc-s;"^ 
this illustrates very clearly the fact that the Persian 'admiral ' of a fleet was 
really oidy the gt-neral in command of the division of Persian troops acting 
as eirifSajai on that tleet."^ The Ionian Heet could not be .sent honte, the 
crews being disaftected ; neithei- coidd it face the ( Jroek Hect of 110 ships: 
its numbers by now must have been considerably less than 110. The ships 
were therefore drawn ashcjre ; and in the ensuing land battle we find all four 
Persian cnparTj'yoi, i.r. the three admiials conunatHling the marines of the 

do Ucltcr than that for a slioit di.'^taucc) ; l>y 
the time the Creeks had ^ot under way, 
lii'sitated, Imcked water, and linally attacked, 
the enemy niiyht liavc formed lim- alireast, 
rouf^hly on the line Aigah'os-l'syttakia. No 
doubt, however, there was some confiisicm. 
(5) I'syttaleia. We might .sui>|iose that the 
olijecf of tiie 'liiockade' was to throw a 
rorps, beiiiiid ami under shelter of the main 
I'ersian fleet, across into Salamis. ca|>turc tlie 
Greek from tlie hind side, and leave tlie 
Greek Heet in the air. Hut the tradition con- 
tains no hint of anything so exciting ; and, if 
this were tlie plan, irhy land the troo])s on 
r.syttalcia i] 

"♦ This follows from the fact that itsadmiial 
Aehaemeiies, who whs not siqierseded, was not 
at Sanios (H. 8, 130), or at Myeale, or with 

•'^ H. gives :}OO.shijis. This figure is <if ; 
like Maidoniu.s' loss at Athos, it is .so obviously 
one half of the whole. 

'^ H. 9, 96. It has been pointed ont by 
A. von I)oma.szewski, Britrdijc zur Gesch. d. 
Persfrkricgc (Nnic Hciddbcnjcr Jahrliichrr, 
1891), i>. 187, that H. docs not exj.ressly aiy 
that the rhoenicians went homr, and he hns an 
attractive theory that the bulk of the I'ersian 
fleet, after S.tlamis, returned to the North 
Aejrean to ''uard Mardonius' communications. 

I am afraid that the presence of three admirals 
at Myeale disjioses of this view ; no fleet could 
keep the .sea without its marines. Moreover, 
Leotyc hides could not po.ssibly have sailed for 
Sainos with a strong I'ei-sian fhet, uiiojiiiosed, 
on his flank and rear ; Hiid wi' can liaidly sup- 
])ose that the (ireeks had a sdoud fleet at sea, 
plus the army at I'lataea. 

^ This follows, as to the riioenieian fleet 
anyhow, from the arpaTtf^os remaining after 
the ships Were sent off. 

'"^ llenci- the fleet is a (jT^aTo'i and its camp 
a aTpar6irfSov (\{. 7, 124, etc.). One is reminded 
of the fleets of the Roman Kinpire. Unfortu- 
nately we have no infoimation as to the rela- 
tions, on a Persian ship, of the trierarch to the 
cominander of the marines, that terrible ciux 
of the later Roman fleet. Art<niisia appears as 
mistress in her own shiii : yet, though the 
marines were few conipare<l with on a 
Roman vessel, they were of an alien and dominant 
race. One would like to know bow Darius 
.solveil the problem. The fact that Achacmciiea, 
after landing his Kgyptian marines, took his 
fleet home, may show that his intsiiion differed 
somewhat from that of the other arparriyof, 
and that ho as a satrap was not merely a general 
of marines. I5ut it might also mean that he 
shipped Persian troops in their place, with a 
view to possilile dlsjifrection in Kgypt. 

228 W. W. TAJilS 

Ionian, c(!ntral, and Phoenician fleets, and Tigrancs/*'-^ It is hardly worth 
reinaiking that Leotychidcs must have kn<nvn, before he sailed for Mycale 
-with 1 10 ships, that all the Persian fleets but one had been sent home. 

§ l.—Othrr Haftlcx. 

It seems then that the numbers adojthd in this pajx'r fit in well with 
Herodotus' narrative. If they be eoirect, we can sec that the Hgure of (iOO 
I'ersian warshijis for the Scythian expedition,'"" I^adc, and Marathon is men- 
transfcicnce : also that the various attem])ts made l-o deduce the Persian 
army at Marathon fiom the nuudx-r of slii[)s are waste jiapc'i-. We ciii 
also, wilhouf going into the (pu-stions coniiecte'd with the Ionian icxolt, 
uiider>laiid better tw(t obscure statcnu'iits in Herodotus' account. Hecataeiis' 
ad\ici' 1() the louians to get eonniiand of the sea becomes practical; had 
they seeui-e(| all of ( hoek blood thi-}- would have had ;d)out two and a half of 
the fi\e fleets (counting the (.arians as with IIk'iu), and the temple treasures 
of Didynia woidd have done the icst. And the nervousiU'ss of the I'eisian 
eomm.-inders ])efore Lade is base(l on the fact that they wercj very liki'ly 
outntimhered ; they had the Phoi-nician, Egyptian, and centi-al fleets, /.(■.;}()() 
less their pre\ious losses, and with the (y])i-iotes still untrustworthy, possibly 
much less than :^()0 effective ships ; the (Ji-e<^ks, who had manned (>very craft 
that would float, should have had .SOO anyhow. 

The battle of the Eui-ymedon, t<»o, falls into its pro])ei- ])lace. The 
success of ('imou's operations consisted in this, that he succeeded in ])reveut- 
ing the junction of the Phoenician and cential fleets, ca]»turing the latter, 
100 (±j si long, at the Eurynu'don, and the Phoenician (80 ships) in Cyprus 
latei-."" Thucydides' flgure, 200 ' Phoenician,' i.e. Persian, ships, then refei-s 
to the c(iiiiji(i/i/ii, the 100 of all later writers to the actual day of the double 
battle. These nundjers alone ought to i)e conclusive against the po))ular 
exaggeration of the lunnbeis of Xerxes' fleet. 

^ 8. — T/ii' l)irisii>iiul Niuiihcrs. 

The (piestion, liowever, remains, icliy 120 '. As we do not that 
Daiius took (iOO as a likel}' mnnber, cut his coast-line into Ave sections, and 
di\ide(l (iOO ])\ fi\e, we must conclude that. (iOO grew up round a nucleus (*fa 

'•'•' Takinj< tin- 1 U) (In^efc .sliijis at l.'iO lowers sonic 12,000 aimed ami ilisaircctcd Ionian low- 

and 18 inaiims, tlii'y couM land sninc 18,()0() ii.s. Tin- extreme weakness of their iiosilion is 

troo)p-> of all Mirls. It \vc take cacli of llic a|i|iai(nt. 

three I'lisian fleets at .say 80 .ships (tliey can '"" Ilamettc, I.e. 195, has shown that II. did 

liardiv have lieen .stronger by now) we j;et, at vat ijet his fif^iirc licre from Darius' slelai on 

20 marines per sjiip, 4,81)0 lr()i>|).s, or say 1,000, the |'>os|ihi)ni.s. 

for some were not tlicre (H. H, 130). 'i'i^ranes '"' See Meyer's reconstrnctiim ol' the narrative 

had what remained id' liis army corps, perhaps of ('aIli^tilenes of Olynthus in hi.s Forsrltuwioi, 

orij;inally 10,000 (n. '27; not 60,000, as II. ii. p|i. \ S'q., Die Schlachl (ini Euriiinolun. 
says), and th'> I'ei-ians were encundierel hy 


'J 29 

fl-rt ot \'H) fiiiiiishcd l)y a disti ict, i.l muj^'lilv oiH'-tiltli <»f the puwcr dI llir 
wliuir, ill tliis case iiii»|i»iil)tr(lly riiDciiifiii. That is to .say, thi; imiimIht that 
I'luunicia t-iiga^id to liiniish was r('ck<»ru<l on tlic s<-xag«siinal arxl not on tin- 
(Ucinial syst»iii, and was obviously two divisions of sixty sliijis i-.uU. The 
coins aj)|)i'ar to show that the st'xat^csiiiial system only ohtaitu-d a partial 
footiiiL,' 111 IMiMi iii(i;i, notwithstanding; its gras|» ii|hiii Wcstrrn Asia 
^rnt'ially ; '"-' and it may l>c that, as some have snp|>osc<l, the <'n^:i^rriiniit> 
of IMiotiiiii.i to ( 'yrii.^ iiK'ivly repeated hei- torniei- engagements to iSahylon. 
ill' this a-^ it may, the hypothesis of a I'hoenieian naval organisjition in 
divisions of sixty can he checked. Foi' then- was aiiotlnr jiavy which inherited 
the tactics'"' and traditions of that of its mother-land ; and if this hyjiothesis 
lie correct. We oii^dit to find that the Carthaginian navy w;us organised upon 
a .sexagesimal .system. \\'<' <!<•. 

We get at Cartilage the following .set of figures:'"' Alalia r>4-2 u.r. 
{■>() shij.s: 4.S0 n.c, -JOO ( too high); 40!) n.c (10; 400 li... I JO ; 
against l)ionysius I. and again against Tinioleon, 200. In Sll 10 n.c., 
against Agathocjes, ]'M) (Diod. 1{), lOO, 2;: sent to Rome as a helj) against 
I'yrrhus either 120 (.liistin IS, 1, 2) or l:{0 ( Val. Max. 'A, 7, 10); 27H n.c, 
probably i:}0;»"' at the opi'uing of the first I'unic war, i:}0 (Polyb. I,2:{). 
I have. I hopt', shown that in the wars with Rome 200 ships meant a supreme 
Carthaginian effort. 

Now in 4S0 !'..('. a battle fleet did its own scouting (above, p. 209). Rut 
by 2(i() !'..(. a fleet was accom|)anied by regular .scouts. The Romans, who 
Were- eopying Carthage, used jeinlti for this ])urpose ; ^"^ whether the 
Carthaginians u.sed lembi or triremes or what not is immaterial so long as 
they did use .scouts. We see then that the Carthaginian navy works out 
as follows. In 542 l$.c. and 409 H.c. it consisted of one divisi(»n of OO ; in 
40() n.c. of two such divisions; in ;U1 B.C. its two divisions had become 
(j5 ships apiece, i.e. GO ships of the line plus 5 scouts (Justin omits the 
scouts) and so remained till after the shock of Mylae. In time of great 
stress a third division was mobilised. The figures of 200 ships in the 
fourth century niiijht be round figures; but for the Punic wars they are exact, 
the third division consisting of 70 ships, i.e. GO jilus 5 scouts plus an extra 
5 shi[)s, either fleet scouts or reserve ships. We have an express mention ol 
this third division in Rolybius (1, 5-i, 2); after Drepana, where Adherl>al 
had probably something under 123 ships (two weak divisions), Carthalo 
reinforced him with 70 ships. I may also refer to Polybius' account of 
Ecnomus, where the Carthaginian fleet is in three divisions, against the four 
divisions of the Roman. ^"^ 

'"■- For recent tli.scnssioiis of this .system seo 
F. K. (Jiiizil ill k'lio, vol. i. \>i>. 849 380, and 
C". 1'. I..liiiiiimi-Iliiui)t in ditto, ji].. 381-400. 

'"^ So.sylos ia at least evidence for this niiuh, 
when, in relVriiii;,' to tlie Cartlia^inian navy, 
which hi; knew, he says that tho Phoenicians 
always do so and so. 

'"^ I am iiidclited Ikio to tiic chapter on the 

Carthaginian navy in Meltzer, Oeseh. d. Kar- 
thtigrr, vol. ii. ; and for what follows I refer once 
for all to my i-ajMr in J. US. xxvii. (1907), 48. 

'"* Tiiis is onl}' a combination (Meltzer, ii. 
234), liut a pood one. 

"»« I'olyb. 1, 53, 9. 

"^ My couclnsion {J. II. H. xxvii. 57), that the 
(snccessful) "diject of Koine in tho fii-st I'linic 

230 W. W. TARN 

In the second Punic war, the Carthaginian figures are at first irregular and 
small, Carthage undertaking raids with small squadrons only ; but in 215 they 
mobilised their two divisions, given as sixty each (Livy, as not infrequently, 
omitting the scouts), consequent upon the intervention of Philip in the 
war; and they again and for the last time, in 212, mobilised two divisions, 
given as 180, in a vain effort to save Syracuse (Liv. 25, 27). (The fleet of 
Spain was separate.) After this, the figures represent what they cunld, not 
what they would. 

We are, I think, entitled to look upon it as a fact, that the division of 
sixty ships of the line formed the basis of the Carthaginian naval organi- 
sation ; and it can hardly be a coincidence that a similar arrangement of the 
Persian fleet, arrived at merely by following out Herodotus, is supported by 
Carthaginian figures partly expressly given in the tradition and partly 
arrived at merely by following out Polybius without a thought of such a thing 
as the sexagesimal system.^**** 

§ 9. — Sources. 

It remains to consider, very briefly,some points about the sources. We have 
traced a thread of what looks like accurate information running through Herod- 
otus' narrative of the Persian fleet. The number 120 for the northern fleet, 
the number 600 for the whole, the four admirals at Doriscus, Xerxes' personal 
command of the Phoenicians, the separation of the several fleets at Thermc 
and on the voyage down the Magnesian coast, the storm falling on them so 
separated, the loss of the northern fleet, the small storm-damage otherwise, 
the late attack on the first two days of Artemisium, the Persian demonstra- 
tion the day before Salamis, the number of Artemisia's squadron, the Persian 
number at Salamis (this last doubtful) — these are some of the points we 
have seen reason to think accurate, apart from matters such as the general 
arrangements at Salamis, which I omit as having been fully thrashed out by 

war was to keep afloat a fleet of 20 40 ships Roman division was 50 ships of the line. The 

more tlian Cartilage, ouglit to he expressed dif- two standing fleets from 214 to 206 were, 

ferently. They aimed at maintaining four Sicily 100, Adriatic 50. In 208 two additional 

divisions to the Carthaginian thioe. These special squadrons of 50 quintjueremi's each 

divisions were not necessarily of the same were formed for Italy and Sardinia. After 206 

.strength as the Carthaginian, but there is little Rome laid up sliifis fast, and the figures fall, 

evidence for the strength of a Roman division ^Va^ against Thilip (196) : 100 tcctae, 50 apertae 

in the first Punic war, and possibly it was not (jirobably allies), and lenibi (Liv. 32, 21). 

constant. Against Antiochus, first 100, then 50, iiuinfiuc- 

^'"* In case anyone should think the \vholc remes ordered ; not all built ; at sea in 191, one 

(jucstion of these divisions fanciful, I ajipend a division (50) under Livius, with a half-division 

few figures from the Roman navy, taken from (25) taken over from Atilius, and allies (I.iv. 

the mass of material in Livy, I'olybins, and 36, 41). Against Perseus, 50 quinquereircs 

Ajijiian. From 218 to 214 a Roman division ordered (Liv. 42, 27). Against Caith:ige in tlic 

(as in the iirst Punic war) fluctuatcil between last war (App. Lib. 75), 50 quiiuiueremes, and 

60, 55, and 5U. In 214 Rome answered the allies. A complete analysis of tlie srcouil Punic 

Carthaginian mobilisation of 215 with a dettree war is really conclusive. Livy omits the .scouts 

for a (standing) fleet of 150 qiuiHiucremes in from the divisions, or gives tliem sejiarately, as 

home waters (Livy 24, 9), and henceforth the being generally .'dlies. 


otlu'is. ( )ii tlic othir h.iiid, \vc h.ivc fcpiiinl two stories that stand (tii a 
(liffi'irnt. tooting'; lUe iminln'r 1,207 Wm tlir I'lrsiiiii trirciin.-s, with the ••<tii- 
ciniiitaiits <»t" this nuiiihrr, such .us a hca\ v st<»nii-loss and the overcrowding *A 
the I't-rsiaii ships at Sahiinis ; and the story of the Sepiad strand, with its 
accompanying incich-nts, also itichiding a heavy stortn-htss. 

Now this l;ust is pure poetry. It the ditticnUy ot" (hite can l)e overcome, 
one would be inclined to.ussign it to Choerilns of Saiuos,'"" thouj,di I have not the 
tpialiHcations for determining this; the fact that Ht-nnlotus iti this connexion 
gives tlu' story of Horeas and (Jreilhyia, which 'occurred also in Choerihis,"'^ 
is strong, sus Miilder poijited out. 1 have already given my rea.sons for 
thinking that thi' story of the Sepiad strand, whether from Choerilus <ir some 
otiier poet, is ultimately taken from Homer. 

The figure 1,207 does not, I think, come fnan any deHnite source at all : 
certainly it must be a Creek figure, and would hardly come from Dionysius (»f 
Miletus'" or any other Asiatic Greek, who must have known the facts. I 
taki' the genesis of this number to have been somewhat as tbllows. ^I'he 
original tt)t;il at Athens for Xerxes' armada wjus the round 1,000, incUuling 
triremes both ordinary and Ta^^lat and supply ships ; this was accurate 
enough. The next step was \ ,{)W) wdvshiys, including Ta;^e£at ""' (Aeschylus), 
but excluding supply ; then 1,000 warships, excluding the 207 Ta-)(^elai,= 1,207 
warships ( Herodotus). Meanwhile supply, separated trom the wai-ships, grew at 
])leasure, and is still fluid in Herodotus, as we see by the 3,000 ' triakontors, 
])entekontors, cercuri, and horse transports' of 7, 97, which in 7, 184 become 
.'i.OOO pentekontors, with crews calculated accordingly. All this is the mere 
talk, oi- selT-glorification, of the man in the street at Athens. 

To turn now to Herodotus' more accurate information. No doubt a good 
deal of this — the numbers 120 and GOO, Xerxes' command and organisjition 
generally, the arrangements before Salamis — was known to and may well be 
di'rived from either Demaratos or more probably Megabyzos."^ But tliis 
cannot apply to that part of the story of the fleet that lies between its 
departure from Therme and its arrival at Phalerum ; for here army 
and tieet were separated throughout. Consequently we get the striking, 
but 1 think unnoticed, phenomenon that at Salamis we are (more or less) in 
the Persian councils, while at Artcmisium we are not ; *^* we do not knt»w 
what the Persian headquarters were about in that three days' fighting. 
Herodotus' informant, then, Jis to the voyage down the Magnesian coast, 
and Artemisium, wiis not in the councils of the leaders; but the voyage 
shows clearly that he was with the fleet. As the details of the meU'e 
at Salamis are all given from the point of \iew of the Ionian fleet; and 

'"* Sec D. MuM<r in Klio, 7, 29, already for these inenns o»n hai-dly yierhaps be .•wrer- 

cited. taiiud. It luay relate to something else ami 

"" Frag. .'» in Kinkel, Epic, dracc. froijtncnUi. have got transferred. 

Also ChocriliLs in /'((u/)/- /ri.v.voitYf (Hethe) "^ Mr. J. Wells, The Persian Friends of 

'" As ('. F. Ltlunann-llaii|.t in Kim, -j, /A rotfo^M (/.//. .V. x.wii. 1907, p. 37). 

338, n. 2. "* The s)iefclics (if Demarntns and Achae- 

"'■' What Aeschylus" unlikely )i;,'nre of 207 nienes lielong nftrr the Imttle. 

232 W. W. TARN 

as the precise information as to the munber of Artemisia's ships, and 
her conduct, can only have been of interest to, or derived from, Hali- 
carnassians ; it is easiest to su])pose that Herodotus' ultimate source for the 
actions of the Persian fleet between Therme and Phalerum was not merely 
Ionian, but was someone in the Halicarnassian squadron, perhaps on 
Artemisia's own ship.^^^ And this is not rendeicd unlikely by his very 
scanty information as to Artemisium. Artemisia says that she f(junht 
bravely in this battle (and wo may grant that if the lady was in acticjn at 
all the adverb is superfluous); but the Ionian fleet may (as we have seen) 
have only got into action very late on the first day: on the second day it 
probably was not engaged at all ; while as to the great battle of the third 
day, I have already tried to show that no one shij) could have known much 
of what was going on except in its own immediate neighbourhood. Herodotus 
may well have despaired of any attempt to describe the third day, when he 
laments that he could not even get information about the confined flght at 

One word as to Diodorus. It seems to me unlikely that anyone, who 
tries to understand the naval operations of 4<S0 B.C., should accept the 
ordinary view that the Diodorus-Ephorus narrative is a mere working up of, or 
deduction from, that of Herodotus (1 refer to the naval portions oidy).^^'' The 
fact is, that, with much rubbish, Diodorus (or Ephorus) is in some important 
respects the more understanding of the two ; and on one uiatter, the 
Egyptians at Salamis, the world has been forced to come round to what he 
says. The best instance is the first day of Artemisium ; here, although on 
the question who attacked Herodotus is right and Diodorus is wrong, still on 
the actual fight Diodorus writes clear sense (though not the whole sense), while 
Herodotus is conscientiously groping about. Now it is perfectly^^ossiYV^ to deduce 
Diodorus' account of this day from that of Herodotus and from general tactical 
and other considerations, except on one point, viz., the upicrTeta of the 
Sidonians on both days of the battle ; and this last may be a mere guess in 
the dark, based on the general reputation of the Sidonians in Herodotus. All 
this is 2^ossilile : still, the common .sense of the matter is, that Diodorus on the 
first day of Artemisium, and perhaps elsewhere, may represent, however 
imperfectly, a better tradition than that of Herodotus. And if the information 
of Herodotus here (where not Greek) be Halicarnassian, or otherwise drawn 
from the Ionian fleet, a better tradition could, as I have already hinted, 
be derived ultimately from one source only, the version preserved by tht' 
Phoenicians. Have we here, in Ephorus, some echo from that association of 
Athens and Phoenicia which culminated in a Phoenician fleet under Conon 

"* The information may have only reached iroirhv uiroroiai' irrx'nKfvai. /xoi Soku, with ilhi.s- 

H. at second or third hand, of It need trations. This is jiared away by Schwartz in 

not, either, liave been exchisively Ilalicarnas- PuKh/- Jl'issmra s.v. Ejihoros {\\. i. 11). But 1 

sian ; he has some Saniian details about Salamis, think wv may aj^rer with A. von Mess, I.e. 

which, however, Miihler (Z.c.) attributes also to p. 406, that tlie (piesticn of Ejiliorus' sources 

Choerilus. for this i)ciio<l is more comjtlex than is usually 

•"' Cf. Polyb. 12, 2.')', of Epliorus, tv ro7s suiiposed. 
TTo\e/xiKo7s Twv /j-fv KUTO. QixKaTjav ipyjiv s'ttI 

Tin: iLKirr or xkijxks 


icslonn^' the Li»ii<4 \\'all> nt its nsiuliilr ri\;il ■' I).- tins ;ls it may, it li.-us a 
vi'iy dctiiiiti' IxariiiLj nil tin- iiii|)i)i-taiit fail tliat |)iu(|unis (|n«-s ^ivi- I *J0 as 
tlir mimhcr ol the imrt li<i n tlrcl."' Wlidlii r Mpliiiriis is likrly t<t have 
(lc<lii<('(l this limine liniii I li ludcit ns, as i> i|..iic m this |»aj)ir, I must Icavt- to 
my n-aiU'i-s t<» answer. 

W W. T\HS. 

"' It is always |Hi.s8il>l<- that iIk- huiiiImi ol liir;il |i.itri<itiiiii, nilo|it('<l tliat tnulition. 1'liis 
till' iiDrllii-ni llci-t WIS prescrvi'il ill tilt' tia<lili(iii<> would i'V)>iiiii: his milii-al iliver(;i-ii(o fiotn 
olCvnir. ami tliat Kplionis, with his known Ilrioih'ius omt tin- (>«/• licit. 


Of all the feudal lordships, founded in Xoi-theiii (Jreecc at the time of 
the Prankish Conquest, the most important and the most enduring;- was the 
I^Ianpiisate of Boudonitza. Like the Venieri and the Viari in the two islands 
of Cerigo and Cerigotto at the extreme south, the lords of Boudonitza were 
Marquesses in the literal sense of the term — wardens of the Greek Marches — 
and they maintained their responsible position on the outskirts of the Duchy 
of Athens until after the establishment of the Turks in Thessaly. Apart, 
too, from its historic importance, the ]\Iarquisate of Boudonitza possesses 
the romantic glamour which is shed over a famous classical site by the 
chivalry of tliC middle ages. What stranger accident could there have been 
than that which made two noble Italian families the successive guardians of 
the historic pass which is for ever associated with the death of Leonidas 1 

Among the adventurers who accompanied Boniface of IMontferrat, the 
new King of Salonika, on his march into Greece in the autumn of 1204, was 
Guido Pallavicini, the youngest son of a nobleman from near Parma who had 
gone to the East because at home every common man could hale hiu) before 
the courts.^ This was the vigorous personality who, in the eyes of his 
conquering chief, seemed peculiarly suited to watch over the pass of 
Thermopylae, whence the Greek archon, Leon 8gour<)s, had fled at the mere 
sight of the Latins in their coats of mail. Accordingly, he invested him with 
the fief of Boudonitza, and ere long, on the Hellenic substructures of Pharygae, 
rose the imposing fortress of the Italian Marquesses. 

The site was achnirably chosen, and is, indeed, one of the finest in 
Greece. The village of Boudonitza, Bodonitza, or Mendenitza, as it is now 
called, lies at a distance of three and a half hours on horseback from the 
baths of Thermopylae and nearly an hour and a half from the top of the pass 
which leads across the mountains to Dafli at the foot of Parnassos. The 
castle, which is visible for more than an hour as we approach from Thermo- 
pylae, stands on a hill which bars the valley and occupies a truly commanding 
position (Figs. 1 and 2). The Warden of the Marches, in the Frankish times, 
could watch from its battlements the blue Maliac Gulf with the even then 
important town of Stylida, th(; landing-place for Zetounion, or Lamia ; his 
eye could traverse the channel up to, and beyond, the entrance to the Gulf 

' Littn, Le famiglic celcbri ilaliaiie, vol. v. I'latc XIV. 

'IHM .MAK<.)r ISA'li: i»| |;iH DONIT/A 


(if Aliiiiio, :is the (iiilr 1)1 N'tilu Wits tlirii caili-d; iii tin- *li.slaii(-c li<- cuiiltl 
<l(siTV t\V(» (>r tlic Noillimi SjKnadrs — Skiatlius .-iml SkitjHlus — at first in the 

Km. 1. -liinixixnv.A : The C'astlk Kt;oM tmf: Wk>t. 
(From II rhotop-ai>h hy Mrs. Miller.; 

hands ot the IViciidl}' (Jhisi, thou rcconiiucnd by the hoslih' Hyzaiitiiic fiMxcs. 
The iinvthcinniost of the three Lonibai'd baronies of Kuboea with the brit^dit 

Kn.. 2 - Moi KOMI/ ^ : Thk C'\>ri.r h:um niF. K\.^^. 
(From a rhotiigrijih hy Mrs. Milli-r. ) 

streak wliich marks the Itath- nl Aedepsos. and thi- little island uf I'anaia, «»r 
Canaia, IxlwiH'ii Kiiltoea an<l the mainland, whii-h was une of the la-^t 

236 W. MILLER 

remnants of Italian rule in this part of GreecL", lay outstretched before him ; 
and no pirate craft could come up the Atalante channel without his 
knowledge. Landwards, the view is bounded by vast masses of mountains, 
but the danger was not yet from that quarter, while a rocky gorge, the bed 
of a dry torrent, isolates one side of the castle. Such was the site where, for 
more than two centuries, the Marquesses of Boudonitza watched, as 
advanced sentinels, first of ' new France ' and then of Christendom. 

The extent of the Marquisate cannot be exactly defined. In the early 
years after the Conquest we find the first Manpiess part-owner of Lamia ;"' 
his territory extended down to the sea, upon which later on his succes.sors 
had considerable commercial transactions, and the harbour from which they 
obtained their supplies would seem to have been simply called the skala of 
Boudonitza.^ The Pallavicini's southern frontier marched with the Athenian 
sciyneurie ; but their feudal relations were not with Athens, but with 
Achaia. Whether or no we accept the story of the ' Chronicle of the Morca,' 
that Boniface of Montferrat conferred the suzerainty of Boudonitza upon 
Guillaume de Champlitte, or the more probable story of the elder Sanudo, 
that the Emperor Baldwin II. gave it to Geofifroy II. de Villehardouin,* 
it is certain that later on the Marquess was one of the twelve peers of 
Achaia,""' and in 1278 Charles I. of Naples, in his capacity of Prince of Achaia, 
accordingly notified the appointment of a bailie of the principality to the 
Marchioness of that day.^ It was only during the Catalan period that the 
Marquess came to be reckoned as a feudatory of Athens." Within his 
dominions was situated a Roman Catholic episcopal see — that of Thermo- 
pylae, dependent upon the metropolitan see of Athens. At first the bishop 
resided at the town which boi-e that name ; on its destruction, however, 
during those troublous times, the bishop and canons built an oratory at 
Boudonitza. Even there, however, the pirates penetrated and killed the 
bishop, whereupon in 1209 the then occupant of the see, the third of the 
series, begged Innocent III. to allow him to move to the abbey of 
' Communio ' — perhaps a monaster}- founded by one of the Comneni — 
within the same district.** Towards the close of the fourteenth century, the 
bishop was commonly known by the title of ' Boudonitza,' because he resided 
there, and his see was then one of the four within the confines of the 
Athenian Duchy.^ 

Guido, first Marquess of Boudonitza, the ' Marchesopoulo,' as his Greek 
subjects called him, played a very important part in both the political and 

' EpislOlae Innocentil HI. (ed. Baluze), ii. Saiiudo, Ixtoria del Regno di Romania, apnd 

477. Hopf, op. ciL, 100. 

■* FonUs Re.r)im Ausii-iacarum, Abt. II., xiv. ' Caiiciaui, Barbarorum Lcejcs Antiqaac, iii. 

201, 213, 218, 222. 507 ; Muntaiier, Cronaca, ch. 261. 

■* t6 XpoyiKov Toil yiopiuis, 11. 1559, 3187; Lc •" Arehivio storico italiano, Ser. IV., i. 433. 

Livre de la Conq^icsle, 102 ; Libro de Inn Fccho^, ^ Rubio y Llacli, Los Aaiarros ch Grecia, 

25, 26 ; Cronaca di Morea, aptid Hojif, Chro- 482. 

niqucs gHco-romancs, 424 ; Dorotheos of Mo- ^ Epistulac Innoemtii III., ii. 265. 

ncmvasia, Bi&Kiov '\ffTnpiK6v (ed. 1814), 461 ; '•• Rubio y Llucli, op. cit. 481. 

THK MAH(,>ri>AI K ">l I'.' >r I »()N IT/A 237 

I'ccltsiiisticiil hislniy of his tiiiif- tlu' j);irt wlinh wi- sliiMild Imve 
rx|>»'ct«'(l rrniii fi man of his hiwlt'ss (lisjxisitioii. Thf ' Chronifh* ' above 
(|iii)t('(l n|>rtsciit^ him lis pn'stjil at the siege of Corinth. He arnl liis brother, 
whosf name may have been Uul)ino, were amon^ th»,' h-adcrs of th<* 
Loinbaid rrbrllidn against thr I^jitin Ktuju-ror Ht-nry in 1209; h«' obstin- 
ately refused to attend th.' first I'arliament of Ravenika in May of that year; 
an<l, leavintr his easth- undtlended, h*; retreatecl with thr still n-calcitrant 
rebels behind the stntnpr walls of th<' Kadmeia at Thebes. This incident 
jirociwvd for Huiiddnit/.a the honour of its only Imperial visit; for the 
Emperor Henry lay theic one evening — a certain Wednesday — on his way U) 
Thebes, and thence rode, as the present writer has ridden, through the 
closurf, or pass, which leads over the mountains and down t(» Dadi and the 
Hoi'otian plain — then, as now, the shortest route from Houdonitza to the 
Boeotian capital,'"' and at that time the site of a church of our I^ady S. Marin 
tie Ciusurio, the property of the a])bot and canons of the I^)rd's Temple. 
Like most of his fellow-nobles, the Manjuess was not over-respectful of the 
rights and property of the Church to which he belonged. If he granted 
the strong position of Lamia to the Tiinplars, he secularised property 
belonging to his bishop and dis])laved a marke(l unwillingness to j)ay tithes. 
We find him, however, with his fellows, signing the concordat which was 
diawn up to regulate the relations between Church and State at the second 
I'arliament of Ravenika in May, 1210." 

As one of the leading nol)les of the Litin kingdom of Salonika, (Juido 
contiinied to be associated with its fortunes. Li 1221 we find him acting as 
bailie for the Regent Margaret during the minority of the young King 
Demetrius, in whose name he ratified a convention with the clergy respecting 
the ])roperty of the Church.'- His territory became the refuge of the 
Cathtjlic Archbishop of Larissa, upon whom the bishopric of Thermopylae 
was temj)orarily c()nfeire(l by Honorius III., when the (ireeks of Epirus drove 
him from his see. And when the ephemeral kingdom had fallen before 
them, the same Pope, in 1224, ordered («e(;tfroy 11. de Villehardouin 
of Achaia, Othon de la Roche (jf Athens, and the three Lombard barons 
of Euboea to aid in rlefending the castle of Boudtiiiitza. and rejoiced 
that 1,300 Irypcrpcri had been subscribed by the prelates and clergy for its 
defence, so that it could be lield by ' (»., lord of the aforesaid castle,' till the 
arrival of the Mar< William of Montferrat.'^ (Juido was still living on 
May 2, 1237, when he made his will. Soon after that date he probably died ; 
Hopf ^* stated in his genealogy, without citing any authority, that he was 
killed by the (ireeks. He had sur\ived most of his fellow-Crusaders; and, 

" Cainls apud Hmlioii, IlMoirc ihs Con- i. 492. 

qnCl'^, 449; Henri ile Viileiuiciims upwl " Rcgrstn Honorii III., ii. 96, 167, 207, 

Budioii, Kc.herchcs cl Matiriaux, ii. 203, 333. 

205-6. '* Chroniques grico-rvinnnts, 478 ; anil nyiud 

" Eftistola-'. Innoccntii III., ii. 261 2, 264, Ersch unil (Jniber, AVijcmeine Eneyklop^idif, 

477, 835-7 ; Honorii III. Opera, iv. 414. Ixxxv. 276. 

'- Riiyiialihis, Annalcs Ecclrsiastici(eA. 1747), 

238 W. MILLER 

in conseciiicnce of the (Jreck rccoiKjiu-st of Thcssaly, hi« Maniuisatc was 
now, with the thnibtfiil exception of Laiissa, the ^>\' the 
Frankisli fiefs, the veritable ' March' of Latin Hellas. 

(Jui<lo had niarrienl a Burgundian lady named Sibylle, possibly a 
daughter of the house of Cicon, lately established in Greece, and therc'fore a 
cousin of Guy de la Roche of Athens. By her he had two daughters and a 
son, Ubertino, who succeeded him as second Manpicss. Despite the feudal 
tie which should have bound him to the Prince of Achaia, and which he 
boldly repudiated, LTbertino assisted his cousin, the 'Great Lord ' of Athens, 
in the fratricidal war between those jirominent Frankish rulers, which cul- 
minated in the defeat of the Athenians at the battle of Kaiydi in 125,S, whoe 
the Marquess was present, and whence he accompanied Guy de la Rochi' in 
his retreat to Thebes. In the following year, howevei-, he obeyed the 
t>umm(^ns of the Prince of Achaia to take ])art in the fatal can«paign in aid 
of the despot Michael II. of Epiros against the (Jreck Emperor of Xicaea, which 
ended on the plain of Pelagonia ; and in 1208, when the Pi-ince. after his 
return from his Greek prison, made war against the Greeks of the newly 
established Byzantine province in the IVIorea, the Manjuess of Boudonitza 
■was once more sunnnoned to his aid.^' The revival of Greek power in 
Euboea at this period, and the frecjuent acts of piracy in the Atalante 
channel were of considerable detriment to the people of Boudonitza, whose 
food supplies were at times intercepted by the corsairs.^** But the Marquess 
Ubertino profited by the will of his sister Mabilia, who had married Azzo VII. 
d'Este of Ferrara, and bequeathed to her brother in 1264 her property near 

After the death of Ubertino, the Marquisate, like so many Frankish 
banniies, fell into the hands of a woman. The new Marchioness of 
Boudonitza was his second sister, Isabella, who is included in the above- 
mentioned circular note, addressed to all the great magnates of Achaia by 
Charles I. of Anjou, the new Prince, and notifying to them the appointment 
of Galeran d'lvry as the Angevin vicar-general in the principality. On that 
occasion, the absence of the Marchioness was one of the reasons alleged by 
Archbishop Benedict of l^atras, in the name of those presentat (}larentza,for the 
refusal of homage to the new bailie. ^"^ So important was the nosition of the 
Marquisate as one of the twelve peerages of Achaia. 

The Marchioness Isabella died without children : and, accordingly, 
in 12H6, a disputed succession arosi' between her husband, a Fi-ank settled 
in the East, and the nearest male representative of the Pallavicini family, 
her cousin Tounnaso, grandson of the first Marquess's brother, Rubino. The 
dispute was referred to Guillaume de la Roche, Duke of Athens, in his 
capacity of bailie of Achaia, before the feudal court of which a question 

1-' Th XpoviKhu rod Mopeo^s, 11. 319(5-3201, xiv. 201, 213, 218, 222. 
329o-t5, 4G13 ; Le Livre de hi Cunqncslc, 119, '^ Litta, I.e. 

160; Cronaca di Morra, 438 9 ; Lihro de los '** T^ XpoviKhv rov Moptws, 1. 7915; Lc 

Feclios 56 75. Liirc dc la Conquesle, 260. 

1^ Follies Rcrxiiii Auslriacaruvi, AM. II., 

iiii. M \i;<,»ris \i i; oi i;< ii' |m .mi/.\ jny 

icl:itiiiL,Mu I !(. Ill loll 1 1 /.a uniiM |.;^',ill\ .(.m.'. 'r<.iMiii:is<', lioWiViT, s(ttk<l llir 
iiiJittcr by si'i/.iii^f tlif ca-tlr, ami ih.i niily iiiaiiilaiin<| liimsrlt tlni.-. l)iii 
t rarisiiiitlcd tin- Mari|Misatr In his snii. Allnrtif '■' 

Till' lirtli M iii|iifss is iiii'Mlioiii'il as aiiioiiL,' lliosc siiiiiiikhiciI I.\ riiilip 
lit' Savoy, I'l iiicc of Ai'liaia to llic (;iiiioiis I'ailiaiiiiMt nul tuiiniaim-iu oii tin- 
Istliiiiiis of ( "(uiiitli ill lln' spriiiL; of !:{(►.'). aiit| a«^ liavini^' Ikcm on<- of tin- 
iiiiiL,'ii:iti's who olicyifj th'- call of l'|iili|»'s naiiiisakc aii<l .sin-crsv, ,r, l'jiili|» 
of Taiaiito, ill I'M)'.'" l''oiir years later he fell, at ijje ^reat battle of tin- 
Ke|»liiss()s, tiL^hliiii,' •li^Miiisi the Catalans lieiieatli tin- lion banner of Walter ot 
r>iienne,-' who Ity hi>. will a few ilavs h.-fiie hail lie.|Ueathe.| |(»0 /n/jxrjn ri 
to t he (•liiirch of l5oinlotiit/.a.-" 

The Mari|iiisate, alone of ihf l'"iankish teiiiioiies north o| the Jsthmns, 
eseajied coiiiiiiest li\ the ( 'atalaiis. llioiii^h, as at Athens, ;i uiilow aiiil her 
child Were alone left to tleft'iid it. Allu'rlo had married a rich Kiihoe.ui 
heiress. M.iii.i ilalle ( '.uceri. a scion of the Lombard family which hail conn- 
tfoni \'eroiia at the time ot the ('oni|iiesi. \',\ this mairiai.(e he had become 
a lie\an-Ii. or own<r of one-sixth of that threat island, and i.s so otti<ially 
describeil in the N'eiietiaii list of (Ireek rulers. I'lion his death, in aocorij- 
anco with the rules of succession laid down in the /!,„,/,■ nf tlir CiiMnmiy of lln 
Kiiipiyc of Uoiiiiinia , the .Mari|iiisate wasdixided in ei|nal shares between his 
widow and his infant daiii,diter, ( Iiii(lielm,i. .Maria did not. Jioue\er, Io||m 
remain nnconsojeil : indrcd. politic.-il ions counselled an imim diate 
iiiari-iaL(e with someone powi rlnl eiioiieh to |notect her own and hei- child's 
interests from the Cat.ilans of Alliens. Hitherto the Waideiis of the 
Northei-n .Maich nnl\- needed to think of the (Ireek enemies in liont, for 
all the territory behind them, wlure iJoudonitza was most easily .assailable, 
had been in the hands of I'^Kiichiiieii and friends, .\bire fortunate ili.m nio^i 
ot'the hi^di-boin d.inies of l"'iaiiki^h (lieece. the widowi^d .M.irchioness 
avoided the fate of accept ini( one ot lur husband s conipierors as his siicei-ssor. 
Being thus free to choose, she selectid as her spouse Andrea (.'ornaro. .a 
Venotiiin of good familv, a great personage in Crete, and l!aron of Skaijtanto. 
( 'ornaro thus, in 1.'! I 2, received, by \iitueot his marriage, his wife's nioieiy 
of iloudonit/a,-' while her daughter coiiferreil the remaining half, by hei 
sul)se(pient union with U.iitolomineo Zaccaria. iijtoii ,i nieiiibei- ot that 
I'anioiis (ieiioese race, which already owind ('bios and .about to e-t.d»lisli 
a dynastv in the Moiea.-' 

Cornaro now came to reside in Kuboe.i, where self-interest as well as 
patriotism le(l him to oppose the claims ot Allonso F.idiiipie, the new 
viceroy of the Catalan Duehy of Athens. His opposition and (,lie natural 
aml)ition of l^idriijue biought down. liowe\er. upon the .Maripii«-ate tin- 

'* lli>i>r, npnd I'.iscli uipl (!ml>er, .lll'iciiirinr -' Jl-.i'. IJO; \la\'\, Clironif/urs fj^-v-ftuiaiux, 

J-Jiicvk/opddif, Ixxxv. 321. Tlif i>ii.i;iiMl il.i.ii- 177 ; Saiiml", oji. >ii. IS.'i. 

ninit liiis now l.ccii ii'iiil. reil illt'nil)!.; Iiy tlir --' D'Ail'ois iL- Juhainvillr, Vi,>i<t.j. /kiIOj- 

,1 mill. ijiiifj/iiipic (((HIS /(• iJrjMtrlevicnl de V Anln . .J:)?. 

-" A. Lirn- ,!■ In ('n././ncslc. tO'. : Lil^io d> -' Sainiilo, /.f. 

/«s Fi:l,o<, 11 I. ■' Anhiriii V>n'to. xx. S7, 89. 

M.S. vol. X.Will. K 

240 W. MILLER 

horrors of a Catalan invasion, and it was perhaps on this occasion that 
Bartolonnneo Zstccaria was carried off as a captive and sent to a Sicilian 
prison, whence he was only released at the intervention of Pope John XXII. 
It was fortunate for the inhabitants of Boudonitza that Venice included 
Cornaro in the truce which she made with the Catalans in 1319.^^ Four 
years later he followed his wife to the grave, and her daughter was 
thenceforth sole Marchioness. 

Guglielma Pallavicini was a true descendant of the first ]\Larquess. Of 
all the rulers of. Boudonitza, with his exception, she was the most self-willed, 
and she might be included in that by no means small number of strong- 
minded, unscrupulous, and jjassionate women, whom Frankish Greece 
produced and whom classic Greece might have envied as subjects for her 
tragic stage. On the death of her Genoese husband, she considered that 
both the proximity of Boudonitza to the Venetian colony of Negroponte and 
her long-standing claims to the castle of Larmena in that island required 
that she should marry a Venetian, especially as the decision of her claim 
and even her right to reside in the island depended upon the Venetian bailie. 
Accordingly, she begged the Republic to give her one of its nobles as her 
consort, and promised dutifully to accept whomsoever the Senate might 
choose. The choice fell upon Niccolo Giorgio, or Zorzi, to give him the 
Venetian form of the name, who belonged to a distinguished ftimily which had 
given a Doge to the Republic and had recently assisted joung Walter of 
Brienne in his abortive campaign to recover his father's lost duchy from the 
Catalans. A Venetian galley escorted him in 1335 to the haven of 
Boudonitza, and a Marquess, the founder of a new line, once more ruled over 
the castle of the Pallavicini.^*' 

At first there was no cause to regret the alliance. If the Catalans, now 
established at Neopatras and I^amia, within a few hours of Boudonitza, 
occupied several villages of the adjacent Marquisate, despite the recommen- 
dations of Venice, Niccolo I. came to terms with them, probably by agreeing 
to pay that annual tribute of four fully equipped horses to the Vicar-General 
of the Duchy of Athens, which we find constituting the feudal bond between 
that state and Boudonitza in the time of his son.'^" He espoused, too, the 
Euboean claims of his wife ; but ^' enice, which had an eye upon the strong 
castle of Larmena, diplomaticall}- referred the legal question to the bailie of 
Achaia, of which both Euboea and Boudonitza were technically still reckoned 
as dependencies. The bailie, in the name of the suzeraine Princess of 
Achaia, Catherine of ^'al(»is, decided against Guglielma, and the purchase of 
Larmena by Venice ended her hoj)es. Furious at her disappointment, the 
Marchioness accused her \'enetian husband of cowardice and of bias towards 
his native city, while more domestic reasons increased her indignation. Her 
consort was a widower, while she had had a daughter by her first marriage, and 

** Rayualdus, op. cU. v. 95 ; Thoiuaa, Dipio- (See Aiiiieiidi.x.) 
malariuiii Fcneto-Levanlinnvi, i. 120-1. 27 Rubiii y Lliicli, I.e.; Curita, Anahs dc la 

26 Archirio Venelo, I.e.; Misti, xvi. t. 97 t". C'lronn dc Arcujon, ii. f. &3V. 


mIic HiispL'fti'd him ()f fjiVDiirin^' Ins own utV^piin^ at th<' cxjMMise of her chihl, 
Marullii, in whose name she hud deposited a hir^e sum of m<»ney at the 
Venetian l)ank in Ne^Mojmntf. To complete the family tragedy playrd 
within the walls of Hoiidonitza there was only now lacking a sinister ally of 
the angry wife. lie, too, was forthcoming in the person of Manfredo 
Pallavicini, th<' relative, business adviser, and perhaps paramour, of the 
Marehioiu'ss. As one of the old conqueror's stock, he doubtless regarded 
the Venetian husband as an interloper who had first obtaine<l the family 
honours and then betrayed his trust. At last a crisi.s arrived. I'allavicini 
insulted the Marquess, his feudal superior; the latter threw him into prison, 
whereupon thei)risoner attempted the life of his lord. As a peer of Achaia, 
the Maniuess enjoyed the right of inHicting capital punishment. He now 
exercised it : Pallavicini was executed, and the a.ssemblecl burgesses of 
Boudonitza, if we nmy believe the Venetian version, appntved the act, saying 
that it was better that a vassal should die rather than inHict an injury on 
his lord. 

The secpiel showed, however, that Ouglielma was not appe.asfd. She 
might have given a.ssent with her lips to what the burgesses had .said. But 
she worked upon their feelings of devotion to her ftimily, which had ruled so 
long over them ; they rose against the foreign Marquess at their L'ldy's 
instigation ; and Niccolo was forced to flee across to Negroponte, leaving his 
little son Francesco and all his property behind him. Thence he proceeded to 
N'enice, and laid his case before the Senate. That body warmly espoused his 
cause, and ordered the Marchioness to receive him back to his former honour- 
able position, or to deliver up his property. In the event of her refusal, the 
bailie of Negroponte was instructed to break off all communication between 
Boudonitza and that island and to sequestrate her daughters money still 
lying in the Euboean bank. In order to isolate her still further, letters were 
to be sent to the Catalans of Athens, requesting them not to interfere 
between husband and wife. As the Marchioness remained obdurate, Venice 
made a last effort for an amicable settlement, begging the Catalan leaders, 
Queen Joanna I. of Naples, as the head of the house of Anjou, to which the 
])rincii»alitv of Achaia belonged, and the Dauphin Hund)ert II. of \'ienne, 
then commanding the Papal fleet against the Turks, to use their influence 
on behalf of her citizen. When this failed, the bailie carried out his 
instructions, confiscated the funds deposited in the bank, and paid Niccolo 
out of them the value of his property. Neither the loss of her daughter's 
money nor the spiritual weapons of Pope Clement VI. could move the 
obstinate I^jvdy of Boudonitza, and in her local bishop, Nitardus of Thermo- 
pylae, she could easily Hnd an adviser who dissuaded her from forgiveness.'^ 
So Niccolo never returned to Boudonitza; he served the Republic as rnvoy t«» 
the Servian T.sar, Dushan, and jus one of the Doge's Councillor-", and died at 
N'enice in i:ir)4. After his death, the Marchioness at once admitted their 

" Misti, xvii. f. 71 ; xviii. f. 10; xx. If. 157 63, \*)2V:, 103 (st-c ApjH-ndix) ; Prwlelli, Cci/*- 
t"., 40 ; xxiii. ff. 26, 30 t"., 46 t" ; xxiv. .^3 f., mcmnnnli. ii. \i. lf>3. 

R 2 

■2 12 ^V. .MILLKIJ 

only son, FraiK-csco, the ' .March* -sotto,' as he was calk'd, now a youtli of 
seventeen, to rule with her. and, as the Catalans were once more threateniii'; 
her land, made oveitures to the Kei)id)lie. The lattei', ^dad to know that a 
Venetian citizen was once more rulin_t( as Marcjuess at Koudonitza, included 
him and his mother in its treaties with Athens, and when (Juglielma dii<l. 
in 1358, after a lonf,^ and varied career, her son received back the conliscat<'d 
property of his kite half-sistei-.-'' 

The peaceful reign of Francesco was a great conti-ast to the stormy career 
of his mother. His Catalan neighbouis, divided by the jealousies of rival 
chiefs, had no longer the eneigy for fresh conquests. The establishment of a 
Servian kingdom in Thessaly only atTected the ]\Iarquess in so far as it 
enabled him to bestow his daughter's hand upon a Servian princelet.-"' 
The Turkish peril, which was destined to swallow up the IVIanpusate in the 
next generation, was, howevci", already threatening Catalans, Serbs, and 
Italians alike, and accordingly Francesco (;!iorgio was one of the magnates of 
(Jreece whom Pope (Jregory XI. invited to the Congress on the Eastein 
(piestion, which was summoned to meet at Thebes"'^ on October 1, \:\1:L 
IJut when the Athenian duchy, of which he was a tributary, was distracted 
by a disputed succession between ]\Iaria, (^uecn of Sicily, and Pedro IV. 
of Aragon, the Venetian Marquess, chafing at his vassalage and thinking, the moment was favourable for severing his connexion with the Catalans, 
declared for the Queen. He was, in fact, the most important member of the 
minority which was in her favour, for we aic told that ' he had a very fine 
estate,' and we know that he had enriche(l himself by mercantile ventures. 
Accordingly he assisted the Navarrese (Jompany in its attack upon the 
duchy, so that Pedro IV. wrote in l^Sl to the Venetian bailie of Negroponte, 
begging him to prevent his fellow-countryman at l^oudonitza from helping 
the King's enemies. As the Manjuess had pro])erty in the island, lie had 
<nven hostages to fortune. Thc^ victojy <»!' the Aragonesc party closed the 
incident, and the generous p(^licy of the \ ictors was doubtless extended to 
him. But in 13<S8 the final overthrow of tlie (Altaian rule by Nerio 
Acciajuoli made the IMarquisate independent of the Duchy of Athens.'- In 
feudal lists — such as that of l-SOl — the Manpiess continued to figure as one 
of the temporal jieers of Achaia,-" but his i-eal position was that of a ' citizen 
an<l friend" of Venice, to whom he now looke<l for help in trouble. 

Francesco may have lived to s(.'e this realisation of his hopes, for he 
seems to have die*! alxjut 1388, leaving the Marcpiisate to his eldei- son, 
( Jiaconio, under the regency <if his widow Euphrosyne, a daughter ot \hv 
tamous insular family of Sonmiaripa, which still survives in the Cyclades.-'* 

-" Minimni iita spiitautid hislorium Shivoruiu ii. 882. 
,uc,-i'iioiialut,ii, iii. 1(50; I'l-cik-lli, Com, m hi- ■" ]lul)i() y Llncli, 17). ('(7. 430, 4S2 ; ( 'iiiit.s. 

urutli. ii. 1^1 ; Misti, xxvii. f. ;J ; xxviii. f. 28. /.<•.; Jli.sli, xxxiv. f. SS t". 

•'' Orliiiii. ]lrijno '/'-ijli ,Sl'(i-i\ 271. ^' (.'/ironiiiKca 'irrco-roviams, 230. 

•" IJiiyiial.Ius, i>p. cil. vii. 221 ; Jaiiiia, ^' Mi^ti. xli. f. 58. 

Hisloirr ijCiiiralr. ilea roijdiuiiCK ilc Clujprr, (t.i:., 

Till". MAIKjriSA'I'K OF IK )!' I >< ►N ITZA -Jl.'J 

iSiit tli<- \i>mi^ Mai-<|ii('ss soDii r<iMti(l that li<- lia<l niily cxcliiiiigcil \u> triluitt- 
\i> tlu' ("atalaii \'i(ai-( Miicial tor a trihiilc ti» tin- Sultan. \V«' an- not told 
tin- fxact mninciil at uliich liaja/.rt I. iniiMtsrd tlii.s jiayuicnt, Imt there can 
l)i' littli' (litiibt that lJiniil<'iiit/a tir>t lncauir trihiitai \ tn the Turks in thf 
c.iMipaiLjii nf l'VX\ 4, when the 'I'huntierholt ' lell upon northern (Jnece, 
when thr .Manpiess's Servian brother-in-law was driven from Pharsala and 
|)oMi()k"'i, when L;iiiii;i and .Neupatras were .surrendered, wln-n the eounty of 
Salona, t'oundi'd at the same time as Hnudonit/a, ceased to «-.xist. ( )n the way 
to Salona, the Sultan's army must have |)as.sed within lour hours of 
I'oiidonit/.a, and we surmise that it was spared, eitlier because the sejuson 
was Ml latt — Salona fell in Febiiiary, 1:^1)4 — or because the cjustle was so 
^-troUi,', or because its loid was a N'eiietian. This respite was prolonj^ed by 
the fall of Baja/et at Aui^'ora and the fiatricidal struggle between his sons, 
while thr Manpu'ss was careful to have himself includecj in the treaties of 
14()."i, 14()'S, .and I4()M ln-tween the Sultan Suleiman and W-nici-: a special 
clause in the first of tlicsf instruments released him from all obligation.s 
except which he had iiieuiicd towanls the Sidtan's father Haj.i/.et.'''' 
Still, excn in Suleyman's time, such was his sense of insecurity, that he (»bt-iiined 
li;i\.- iVoiii \'(nice to send his pea-sants and cattle (>\er to the strong Gusthr of 
K.irvstov in l^ubo( I, of which his brother Xiccolo had become the les.see.'"'' He 
tin'uretl. too, in the tre.ity of 140."), which the Ri'public concluded with 
Antonio ]. Acciajuoli, the new rulei- of Athens, and might thus consider 
himself as .safe from attack on the south. " Indeed, he was anxious to enlarge 
his i'(»sponsibilities, for hi' was one of those who bid for the two N'enetian 
i-l.nids of Teiios .md MvkoUos, when the\' wen- ])ut uj> to auction in the 
toll,, wing year. In this offer, however, he failed.-'^ 

The death of Suleyman and the accession of his brother Musa in 1410 
^ealod the fite of the .Marcpiess. Early in the spring a very large Turkish 
.iiiiiy appeared before the old castle. J^oudonit/.a was strong, and its|U(ss a rcsoluti' man, so that for a l<»ng tiuje the siege was in \ain. 
(Ji.ieonio." says the \'en«ti.(u document composed by his .son, ' preferred, like 
the high-minded and true C'hiistian that he was, to die rather than surrender 
the place.' Hut tlieie was treaclieiy within the civstle walls: beti-ayi-d by 
one of his servants, the M.mpiess fell, like another Leonidivs, bra vi-ly defending 
the medi.ieval Thermop\ lae against the new Persian invasion. Kven then, 
his sons, ' following in their father's footsteps,' held the castle some time 
longer in the hope that \'enice would ri-member her distant children in their 
<listress. The Senate did, indeed, order the Captain of the IJulfto make 
iuipiiries whether Boudonit/.a still resisted and in that case to .sen<l succour 
to its gallant defenders — the cautious Ciovernmtjnt aihled — 'with jis little 
ex])ense as possilile." Hut befoii- the w.itchnien on the kee|) could descr} the 

'■'■'' and I'lcilelli, Dipluhiatiirin»i *" rredi-lli, Couvtitmoriali. iii p. 810 (^iven 

I'mclo-LcraiUinum, ii. 292; Rente dc l'<hintt in full by Ljiminos, 'E-y^pa^a iivaipt(>6n*ya tit 

Inliil, iv. 295, 302. tV fitaaanviK^v ioropiav t«»' "AStji'^k 399). 

'" S;'(tlia.s, MfTifiua 'EAAtjfixn* 'laropias, ii. '' Siitha.**, »p. fit. ii. 14.'>. 


244 W. MILLER 

Captain sailing up the Atalante channel, all was over; both food and 
auiinunition had given out and the Zorzi were constrained to surrender, on 
condition that their liv6s and property were spared. The Turks broke their 
promises, deprived their prisoners of their goods, expelled them from the 
home of their ancestors, and dragged young Niccolo to the Sultan's Court at 

Considerable confusion prevails in this last act of the history of 
Boudonitza, owing to the fact that the two leading personages, the brother and 
eldest son of the late Marquess, bore the same name of Niccolo. Hopf has 
accordingly adopted two different versions in his three accounts of these events. 
On a review of the documentary evidence, it would seem that the brother, 
the Baron of Karystos, was not at Boudonitza during the siege, and that, on 
the capture of his nephew, he proclaimed himself Marquess. Venice 
recognised his title, and instructed her envoy to Musa to include him in her 
treaty with the Sultan and to procure at the .same time the release of the 
late Marquess's son. Accordingly, in the peace of 1411, Musa promised, for 
love of Venice and seeing that he passed as a Venetian, to harass him no 
more, on condition that he paid the tribute established. Not only so, but 
the Marquess's ships and merchandise were allowed to enter the Turkish 
dominions on payment of a fixed duty.**' Thus temporarily restored, the 
Marquisate remained in the possession of the uncle, from whom the nephew, 
even after his release, either could not, or cared not to claim it. He 
withdrew to Venice, and, many years later, received, as the reward of his 
father's heroic defence of Boudonitza, the post of chdtelain of Pteleon, near 
the mouth of the Gulf of Volo, the last Venetian outpost on the mainland of 
North-Eastern Greece — a position which he held for eight years.*^ 

Meanwhile, his uncle, the Marquess, had lost all but his barren title. 
Though the Turks had evacuated Boudonitza, and the castle had been 
repaired, he felt so insecure that he sent his bishop as an emissary to Venice, 
begging for aid in the event of a fresh Turkish invasion and for permission 
to transport back to Boudonitza the serfs whom he had sent across to 
Karystos a few years before.*'^ His fears proved to be well founded. In vain 
the Republic gave orders that he should be included in her treaty with the 
new Sultan, Mohammed I. On June 20, 1414, a large Turkish army attacked 
and took the castle, and with it many prisoners, the Marquess, so it woidd 
seem, among them — for in the following year we find his wife, an adopted 
daughter of the Duke of Athens, appealing to Venice to obtain his release 
from his Turkish dungeon.*^ He recovered his freedom, but not his Mar- 
quisate. In the treaty of 1416, Boudonitza was, indeed, actually assigned to 

'* llcvuc dr. VOricnl latin, vi. 119 ; Hiithas, op. rit. 430-1. 
oji. cU. iii. 131 ; Monumcnta spcc/antia his- ■*'- .*>;itlia.s, op. cit. ii. 270-1. 

toricvn Slaroriim, ix. 90-91 ; Jlisti, xlviii. t\'. ^^ .Samulo and Navagero, npud Miinitori 

143,148. S./i.r. xxii. 890, xxiii. 1080; Cionaca di 

*' Jieiiic dc I'Orienl latin, iv. 513 ; Thomas Ainaileo Valier (Cod. Cicogua, N. 297), ii. f. 

and Pr.'delli, op. cit. 203. 259 ; J!<m<: di I'Oricnt latin, iv. 546. 

■" ll'inc de VOricat latin vi. 119; Siillias, 


•J 45 

him in rmirii fnr the nsunl trihutf; but niiu' y*'"" later we fin<l W-nict* still 
vainly i'ii<l«')iV(mriii^' tn ohUiin its n'stitution.** He coiitinue<l. hwwevtr, In 
hold the title »>t" .Mai(| of Houdonitza with the ca-stle of Karystos. which 
(iescended to his son, the ' MareheHotto,' and his son's son,*'^ till thf Turkish 
con(|uest of Euboea in 1470 put an end to Venetian rule over that great 
island. Thenee the last titular Manpiess ut Hoiidonitza, after governing 
Ijepanto, retired to N'enice, wlnixf the Zor/.i canH- and wh<.'re they are still 
largely represented. 

Of the eastle, where tor two hundred years Pallavicini and Zorzi held 
sway, nnieh has survived the two Turkish sieges and th«' silent ravages of 
five renturies. Originally there must have been a triple enclosure, lor 

Fic. :J.-- HoH'OMiv. V : liir kKr.i- \m« iin' t;ATK\vvv. 
^Fioni :» Pliot-.ijraiili Itj' Misa (Jniy., 

.several .sijuare towers of the thinl and lowest wall are still standing in the 
village antl outside it. Of the second enceinte the most noticeable fnigment 
is a large tower in ruins, while the inn»'rmost wall is strengthened by three 
more. In the centre of this last enclosure are thir imposing remains e)f the large 
s(piare donjon (Fig. :{), and adjoining this is the most interesting feature of the 
castle — the great Hellenic gateway ( Fig. 4). which connects one jKirtion of this 
enclosure with the other, and which liuehon has described .so inaccurately.**' 

«• Sanudo ami Navuj^ero.TftiV/rm, sxii. 911. I.izioti. tlocnmcntala ^ulln $U>rut di k'arv^fvt Hr. 
xxiii. 1081 ; Rviic de I'OrUiU Inlin, v 196. Sar-lnpnu. 91 5). 

■•» SiithM, op. cit. iii. 429-30 ; Hopt. t)n$-T. •^ l.n Grict contintnUilr tl la Mor&. 2?«i. 



It is not 'composed of six stonos,' but of three hu((e blocks, nor do ' the two 
upper stones meet at an acute an^le ' ; a sin^de hcjrizontal block forms the t(»p. 
F>ueh(.n omits to mention the Byzantine decoration in brick above this gate- 
way. Of the brick conduit which he mentions I could find no trace, but the 
two cisterns remain. The large building near them is presumal)ly the church of which he speaks; but the window which he found 
there no longer exist.s.. Possibly, when the new church in the village was 
erected, the builders took materials from the chai)el in the castle for its 
construction. At any rate, that very modern and commonplace (■(lificc 

Fi(.. 4. — Uoi liuMiz-A. — 'liiK Hr.i.i.KKic KatkwaV. 
(From u I'hotiigvapli liy Miss Oi.iy.) 

eonlain> several fragmi-nts of ancient work. Thus, the stone threshold of the 
west iloor bears thiee ;iige roses, while on the doorway itself are two st;irs ; 
and the north door "is profusely clecorated with a, two curious creatures 
like grittins, two circles containing triangles, and a leaf; above this door is a 
cross, e.ieh arm of which forms a smaller cross. As usually ha])})ens in the 
Frankish castles of Greece — with the exception of (Jeraki — there are no 
coats of ai-ms at Boudonitza, unless this com]iosite cross is an allusion to the 
'three,' said to ha\e been oric,dnall\ borne bv one branch of the 


l'iill;i\ iciiii. Till' ' iiH(li;ic\;il m-jiI ' ill tin- jni.s.s«'sMi<»ii (if ji local fiimily <liilrs 
fioiii thf ni^ii ot ()tli(t! Tlif M.injiirssrs Unvr Irft hfluiid thtin iicithcT their 
|Miitraits — like the I'alatiiif ( 'uiiiits nf ('t-plialoiiiii of llir si-coiid (lyutsty — 
ii"i- any coins — like the Ficiich haroiis of Salona, to whom they hear the 
Mian-st rcsciiihlaiicc. One of thi-ir line, h(»\vi\er, the Marquess All>eit<». 
H),'iires ill M. Kaii*(abi's'.s play, The iJiuJuis of Atliena, and their ciistle and 
theii- otUiines stoiiny li\«- fill uoi the Ica^t pictnn-sijtie page of that 
i-oniancr whii-h French ami Italian adviiituri is wrote with their swords in 
the classic sites ot" Hellas. 



1. ■{.!."» niK w I .1 \M \i:i.i. 

C.ipt.i. (^►ii'xl \ ii iitiliilis Si-i Ni(.i>l.iii.s ( Icdii^io, cum sua f.iiiiili.i it leviltus .iiiK-siis 
jiiissit iiv cum giilc'is iiostris uiiitmis. Kt (.nmmittatui ( '.niitanco, «|u<kI eum ci>inluiat 
Ni'_'ri«|ii'ntum, et si jiutorit cum faiL'ic tlcpuui .id 15uiiilciii/.am, sine sinistio aruiatc facial 
iiiclc >icut li vidcliitur. — < )miics dc |iaitc. 

Misti, xvi. f. '.17 t . 


].".4."» i>iK •_'! .n i.ri. 

Cipta. Ciiiii (Iciiiiin.icin ducalis ex dcliito tciicatm suus ci\cs in corum iuriliu.s i-t 
Imnorilius cum justicia conscrv.iiv ct domiiuis Nicolaus (Jcoigio, Marcliin Huiulaiiicif. sii 
iniuiiatus ut suitis, ot Maiclii<>natu su<i |iiT cius uxoivm iii<U'l)itc' umlcstatus, ct di^iuiu 
sit. sul)\ci)iio cideiii in ci> i|Uc>d umi lioiiuic dumiiiacioiiis chukkIc hcri ]>i>test, idec» visji ct 
cxamiuata pctitionc ipsiiis marcliionis, d m.itur.i ct diligcnti dcliltciati<»iic prclialiit.i, 
coiisulunt coiicorditci- viri imliilcs, doiuini. Ik-ucdictus dc IMulinoct I'.iii'^iaciu.s>i ; 
i|Ut>d coiiimitt.itui- cdiisiliaiiii itiim Nigri>|)(iutum, i|Und |ii>sti|uam illuc apjilicucrit vadat 
ad domiiiam Marchisaiiam, uxnicm dicti domini Niccilay jnn aud>.ixat(irc. ex|Miiiend<. 
oidem, (|Uum<>d(i iam diu ipsam ad diimiiiacioncm misit suos procuratorcs ct andMixatoi-cs 
])cti'ns .sil>i per domiiiacioncm dc uim iii)l>ilium suoium pro inarito pinvidcri, et miIciin 
•Inminacin suis licncjilacitis coiiiplaccic. consciisit (|II(kI ipse dtimiiius NicolHus cuius 
civis suus ad cam iict. (|Ucm ipsa domiua rcfeptjnuli>, ostentlit id habere niultum nd 
lionum. Kt (|Uitni.'.n) oh line semper Ducale Dominium pmmtum et fHvorHliilem sc 
exliil)uit ad omnia (|ue suam ct suorum slew em respiccrent et augumentuni, tieuguas 
iiuamplurimas cnntiniiandu ct oppoitiina ali.i f;icictidn. Sed cum impcnime per relaci 
micm ipsius domini Nicolay viii sui att ducalis mayniticcntie audicnciam sit deductus dc 
morte cuiusdam Pallavcsini innpinatus casus occui-sus (pii mortuus fuit in culpa suh, sicut 
postmiidum extitit manifestum, <|uia dum ipse Marchio coram munihus liurgeiisilius 
congicgatis, dc velle et consensu dicte <li>minc exponcret rei geste seiicm, al> ijwis liatmif 
in responsum ipUKl ipse I'alavcsin digimm pennm luemt projitor foliani suam, et melius 
erat, <|Uod ijise, <pii vaxnllus erat mortuus fuis.set (|uain dicto suo doniinu iniuriam 
ali<|Uam intuli.sset, i|U<kI ecciam ips^i doinina in ]iruNcncia dictorum l>urgcnHiuiii ratiticavit. 
I nde considcratis prcdictis vdlit .imorc dominij, i|>.sum dominum Nicolaum Imnoii 
]iri.stino jcstitucie, (piod si feccrit. t|uamipiam sit iustum ct honestum nottis phuimum 
complacchit, it ciimus suis comodis stricius oldig.iti. Wrmii si dicta domina duliifaret 

248 W. MILLER 

de recipiendo ipsum dicat et exponat ambaxator prefatus, quod tirmiter dominacio hanc 
rem super se assumpsit et taliter imposuit civi suo ([uod iiiinime poterit dubitare. (^ue 
omnia si dicta domina acetabit bene quidem, si vero non contentaretur et ipsum recipere 
non vellet, procuret habere et obtinere omnia bona dicti Marchionis cpie secum scripta 
portet antedictus ambaxator et si ipsa ea bona dare neglexerit, dicat quod ))ona sua et 
suorum ubicuuKjue intromitti faciemus, et protestetur cum notario, ([uem secum teneatur 
ducere, quod tantani iniuriam, quam dominacio suam propriam reputat, non poterit 
sustinere, sed 4)rovidebit de remediis opportunis sicuti honori suo et indenitati sui civis 
viderit convenii'e, firmiter tenens quod sicut semper dominacio ad sui conservacionem et 
suorum exhibuit se promtam favorabilem et benignam, sic in omnibus reperiet ipsam 
inutatam, agi-avando factum cum hijs et alijs verlns, ut viderit convenire. Et rediens 
Nigropontum omnia, que gexerit, fecerit et habuerit, studeat velociter dominacioni per 
suas literas denotare. Verum si dictus consiliarius iturus tardaret ire ad regimen suum, 
(juod baiuUus et consiliarij Nigropontis determinent (juis consiliariorum de inde ad 
complendum predicta ire debebit. 

Et scribatur baiuUo et consiliarijs Nigropontis, quod si habebunt post redditum dicti 
ambaxatoris, (juod ipsa domina stet dura nee vellit ipsum doiuinum Nicolaum recipere, 
quod possiiit ^i eis videbitur facere et ordinare tjuod homines Bondanicie non veniant 
Nigropontum et quod homines Nigropontis non vadant Bonduniciam. 

Item prefati baiullus et consiliarij sequestracionem factam de ali(jua pecunie (pianti- 
ttvte (|ue pecunia est damiselle Marulle filie dicte domine tirniam tenere debeant, donee 
predicta fuorint reformata, pacificata .vel diffinita, vel donee aliud sil)i mandaretur de 

Et scril)antur litere illis de la coinpagna, (pias domimis bayuUus et consiliarij 
preseiitent vel presentari fatiant, cum eis videbitur, rogando dictos de compagna, ([uod 
cum aliijue discordie venerint inter virum no})ilem dominuni J*»icolam Georgio et eius 
uxorem Marchisanam se in aliijuo facto dicte domine intromittere non vellint (pujd 
posset civi nostro contrariare ad veniendum ad suain intentionem. 

De non 14— Non sinceri 13.--Alij de parte. 

Misti, xxiii. f. 2(5. 


134.5 IHE V AllJlSTI. 

Capta. Quod respondeatur domine Marchisane Bondinicie ad suas litteras subs- 
tinendo ins civis nostri Niccjlai Georgio, cum illis verbis (jue videbuntur se<iuendo id 
quod captuiu fuit pridie in hoc consilio in favorem civis nostri. 

Misti, xxiii. f. M) t". 


1^J4() 1>IE XXIV .lAM'ARII. 

Capta. <^uod scri])atur nostro Baiulo et Consiliariis Nigropontis (juod Ser Moretus 
Gradonico consiliarius, vel alius sicut videbitur Baiulo et Consiliariis, in nostrum anibaxa- 
tiaem ire del)eat ad dominam Marchionissam Bondenicie, et sibi exponat })ro parte nostra 
qu<Hl atteiitii honesta et rationabili requisitione nostra (piam sibi fieri fecimus jier viruufc 
Nobilem Johannem Justiniano nostrum consiliarium Nigroponti, (juem ad eam propterea 
in no.strum amliaxatorem transmisimus super reformaticme scandali orti inter ipsam et 
virum nol)ilem Nicolaum (ieorgio eius virum in reccmciliatione ipsius cum dicto viro suo : 
Et intellecta responsione ijuam super premissis fecit nostro ambaxatori predicto gravamur 
et turbanun- sicut merito possumus et debenms, de modo (juem ipwim servavit et servat 
erga dictum virum suum. Nam sibi plene poterat et del)el)at sufticere remissio et 
rec<inciliatio cum [eo ?] facta coram nobis per dictum eius virum, secundum nostrum 
mandatum, et nuncio suo in nostra presencia constitute) de onuii offensa et iniuria sibi 
facia, et debebat esse certa ipiod (juicNpiid idem Marchio in nostra presencia et ex nostro 


iiiiindato ])iiiiiiittebat ctitrtiiHlitcr iil)N)rvHKtii-. Kt i|ii<m1 volt-iitcH ipiixJ liona <Ii«|M>hitii> 
(licti viii Kiii ot |iacit'iu'iii luiHtrK lii- (HiitH iiiiuriH factn civi ixtHtro Hii)i pleiiiim iiiii<>teHi-Ht 
(lelil)eraviiiiuH itenito mi eiiiii iiiittcrc i|mum in noHtruiii aiiibHiatorein rcI if(|uiriii(hiiii c-t 
iDganduin i|Main i(U(>d (k-hc-at recoiiciliaru cum dicUi vir<> hud et uum ruci]iere ad hoixiri-in 
et Ktatuiii in <|Ui) erat antviiuani indc rucederet, nam i|iianiviN hoc- nit Kibi dcliitmii ct 
convt'nint pro honore i-t Itono kuo, tanii-n erit gratiaNinnini inonti noKtrc et ad riinscnH- 
cionuni i|mius niarchioniHae et Ntioruni avidiiis ixm diHii<iiu-t et circa )ioc alia dicat i|Ue pro 
l»ono facto viderit ojijMtrluna. 

Si vero dicta iiiarcliioni.Hwi id facere recuaaret nee \ellet condeacendeie n"slJo 
intentioni et re(|iiisifioni jiredicte, dictiiM Ser Moretiis asaignet terniinuin dicte Marcliion- 
iNse iinius nieiisiH infia (jueni delieat c(^^l|)IeviH*^e cum eftectu noatram re<iuiMtionem 
jiremissam. Et silii cX])reNse dicat, i|Uod elajmo dicfo termino nulla alia re<|uihitione aihi 
facta, cum non intendamua dicto civi noatro in tanto kuo iure deticere, faciemuh intromitti 
perKonus et buna auorum et sua ul)icumi|ue in forcio ntmtro jioterunt reiK^rire. F't ultra 
hoc j)rovidel>iniu8 in dicto facto de omnibua favoribua et remediiB, <jue pro bono et 
conservacione dicti civis nostri videbiuiua opportuna. Kt ai jiropter preuiiHaa dicta 
MarchionissH ip8um recipere et reintegrare voluerit bene (|uidem ain autem scribatur 
dicto baiulo et conailiariis (piod elajiso teiiiiino dicti menais et ipwv marchioniKha preinisf-a 
facere recusante mittant ad nos j)er cambium sine alitpio pericubj yj)er])era nctomillia 
i|uin({uaginta vel circa ipie sunt apud Thomam Lip]iomanum et Nicolaum de (iandulfo, 
<|ua pecunia Yoneciaa veniente disponetur et providebitur de ipsa sicut domination! 
videbitur esae iustum. 

Capta. Item i|uod acribatur domino Delphino Vihennensi et illia de Compagna in 
favorem dicti civis nostri etreconnnendando ei iura et iusticiam ipsiua in ilia foiuia et cum 
illis verbis ipie dominaciuni pro bon<» facti utilia et neceasaria videbuntur. 

Non sinceri In — Non 1'-'.- De parte 57. 

Misti, xxiii. f. 4«; t". 



Capta. Quod posaint acribi litterc domino Pajm et ali<|uibus Cardinalibus in recom- 
mendacione iuris domini Nicolai (jieorgio marchionis Hondinicie nostri civis in forma 
inferius anotata. 

Domino Pape. 

Sanctiasime pater j)ro civibus meis contra Deum et iusticiam aggravatis, Sanctit«ti 
Vestre supplicationes meas ])orrigo cum reverentia sjieciali : I'mle cum nobilis vir 
Nicolaus (ieorgio Marchio Hondinicie hononbilis civis mens, iam duodecim aiinis matri- 
monii iura contraserit cum domina Marchionissa Hondinicie jiredicte et cum en atfectii'ne 
maritali permanserit habens ex ea iilium legijitimum, <iui est annorum undecinj, ipsa 
domina Marchi<missa in preiudicium anime sue, Dei tirnore jtostposito ipsum virum suum 
recusal recipere, et castrum Bondinicie et alia bona spectantia eidem suo vim tenet 
iniuste et indebite occuj)ata in grave daunmm civis mci predicti et Dei iniuriam mani- 
festnm precipientis, ut ipios Dcus conunixit Iiomo non separet : I'nde Sanctitati Vestre 
humiliter sujtplico (|Uatenus C'lrmentie Vestre placeat dictum civem meuui liabt-ie in suo 
iure favoral)iliter c<)mmendatum, ut dicta dnmina eum tan<|uam \irum leuiitimuni 
recipiat cL aflectione maritali pertractet sicut iura Dei jtrecipiunt, at<|Ue volunt, ct salus 
animarum etiam id exposcit. Cum ipse civis mens sit paratus ex sua p.ute ipsani 
dominam pro uxore legiptima tractare pacitice et habere. 

Misti, wiv. f. ♦'.;». 

Xute. — The 'Misti' are cited throughout froui the originals at Venice; I hkve 
corrected the dates to the nuxlern style. 

W M. 


*,* NuTF.. — This articlf was placed in the hands of the Editors b}- the authur slioitly before his 
untimely and deejily-regretted death. They feel that the best tribute whieh they eau pay 
to his memory is to print the essay with only the most necessary modifications, such as 
they suppose he would have himself desired to make. Their thanks are due to Mr. E. Norman 
(iardiner, who, having at Mr. Dyer's own request ar;reed to write certain additional notes 
(here distinguished by his initials), ha.s further undertaken to prepare the MS. for press 
and to read the proofs. The note on ayiiv, which the author would probably have developed 
into a separate article, has been transferred to a nun\- convenient position in an Appendix , 
— Ei.D. J.H.S. 

OxCE only — sfven years after the battle ot Lcuetra— there was actual 
fightino- within the sacred precinct, the Altis, of OlyiDpia, — in the 104th 
Olympiad (364 k.c). From time innnmoreial, before and since that year, 
the inhabitants of Elis, as Puiybius (i\. 78) phra.sed it 200 years later, 
' enjoyed on account of the Ol^iupian games' sd uni<ju(' and privileged a 
dispensation that Olynjpia and the whole of Elis was a Holy Land, and 
feared no ravages of war. The Eleans, b\- tin- same token, were ideally 
conceived of as living consecrated lives {lepov ^lov), and enjoyed immunity 
from battle and sudden death. Li his account of the one and only battle of 
Olympia, Xenophon — writing after hv had lived for twenty-three }cars^ 
within an afternoon's stroll of the Olympian Altis — alludes in passing to the 
dearpov, by way of explaining just where the fighting took place.*''^ Although 

' Xenophon lived in retirement at Scillus 
from just after the battle of Coroneia (394 u.c. ) 
to just after the battle of Leuctra (:>71 r..C'. ). 
The clo-siiig years of his life were spent at 
Corinth. When first he settleil upon his Scil- 
luutine domain, the new Dromos at Olympia 
ha<l liecn in use for ratliei' less than sixty j"ears. 
Si)cctatois presumably forsook the stepped ter- 
race in order to witness contests in the Dromos 
at the eighty-third celebration of the Olympia 
(B.C. 44Sj lour years before the probable date of 
Xenophon's birth (n.c. 444). It is accordingly 
natural — if the local Olympian application of 
diarpov was finally driven out of currency by 
the multiplication in Oreece of stone theatres — 
that Xenophon should have remembered what 
Plutarch, Pausanias, and others of the first 
two centuries \.\>. could never liave heard of — 
au obsolescenl but perfectly clear api>lication of 

the word diarpov, chiefly current before full- 
fledged stone theatres had come to plaj' a con- 
si)iciious jiart in dreek civic and religious life. 
Pausiiiuas' silence is most significant since his 
account of the Olympian Altis is the most care- 
fully and siu-cessfidly minute of all his to])0- 
graphical delineations. Tiie 01\'m]iian guides 
vitli whom he conversed, the Peloponnesian 
antiquaries whom he consulted (VII. xviii., 
YIII. xxiv.), and the autliois referred to by him 
in his two books on Elis (Anaximenes, VI. 
xviii. 2; Androtion, ib. viii. 6 f . ; Aristarehus, 
V. XX. 4 f ; Philistus, ib. xxiii. 6; Theopom- 
pus, VI. xviii. 5 ; Thucydides, ib. xix. 3), all 
of them failed to suggest to him the idea that 
there was or had been a theatre at Olympia. 

P" I have lecentl}' conu' across another late 
leference t<i a Oiarpov nt 01ymi)ia in .Tohann. 
Chiysostom, Dr Kom. Mulat. \>. 851, ovx Spare 

'IIIK <il.^ \ll'l AN IHKArKoN 

tliciT f\i>Is iio utlitT iiurit mil w li.iti\ el- III a t^iarpov ni ()I\iii|m;i Xi ii..ji||..ii > 
imiiv;illc(| liiiiiiliaiity willi tlit> ^it^• liilly jiistitiiil the rxpfctatioii, win n 
<)l\iii|ii;i ^lioiilil l»f fXCUvattMl, itiiiiiiiis uf a titiiilii' similar to those rlHcwhrif 
ill ( Jicccr woiiM ajipcar. lint, ali'T llu' iiiosi t lioioii^'li search in all ihr 
annals of aicliacojuirv, no vest iir,.s nl" siieh a timilri have anywln r«' appeareij. 
Klensis, hai(ll\- •^ecoijij in iin|ioitanee to ()lynij»ia, others a siniilai unci ev«Mi 
mole |(iijile\in;^' |)M/./lf. Allhoii^fh inseii|»tions loinul on that sitf sjMak of a 
t^eaTfjoi'. no traces of any (/irtifn ha\e hreii tliscovered, and nothing; of tlu- 
kind was sei-n tin le hy I'ansanias. Ami al HIeiisis, as at Olynipia, there is 
no sile adjoinint; the precinct where such a theatre nii^ht jilaiisiblv he 
located. The nieaiiint,' of ^tarpoj' in KIciisinian inscriptions'- is doiihtfiil, 
hut can hardly difVer very materially IVom that of dcijrpov in the welKknown 
(but, I Ncntiirc to think, iini\(isall\- misc<)ncoive<h passa^'e of Hiiodotns'. 

Toi'S 'OAuuwlO^•l)i/J adKrjTat f'n ^liiJny tov OfiTfiou 
i(TTwras iv >if (TTju/Spia fitcr), Kaddirtp iv KauiVy 
T^ (TKcififiaTt. llrie Oiarpov is ll>i'<l of tlh' 
Slailiiini or the pliue wliuic atlilitcs (iinijicttHl. 
Till- atlilit's wlm c<iiit<ste<l at iiiiiMay wiic tin- 
l)n\ei-i ami wri-stlois. If tin- ai;;imniit in tliis 
jtiijicr is CKiii'rt aii<l tin- Biarfiov 'if I'ansanias 
ilcnntis til"' tiiangulai spact; ((iiitaiiutl licwecn 
llu; freasuiy tiiraic ami tlic C'nlonnailrs, tliis 
passii^f j^ivcs sonii' supjiort Id my sii^jgfstion 
tliiit tlipsc ivciits continueil to be lii-lil in this 
sjiai'L- .IS lung as tlir Icstival ixistiil, aii'l were 
ni\ri ti.Mi^rcncil to the Stailinni. It is Iml 
r.iir t(i .I'lil iliat tiir j>a.ssiigc wunM ripially wi-ll 
suit Dr. l)i>i|ilflirs view that th<; flfarpoj' is thi- 
Staiiiiim.— K.X.i;.] 

-' Dr. Di.rpfrl.l (i)/. Tut ii. l>. 79) aigu.s IV 

/.'''. ii. 17'>,*ToD (TTaSiov ku'i tov diarpov tov 
TlavaQ-qvaiKov, that ill the lourth ci'iitiiry i:.c. 
Sfailia wrie sulHlivitlcil into two |>ait'., '1) the 
(TTatiov kot' f^oxvi', ami ("2) tip' siinonmliiig .■»<■- 
I'oninioilatioii for speet^itoin, calleil the Ofarpoi'. 
Tills view is aflojiteil hy Di-. I'hilios (./. .1/. x\. 
l«. '2C)i5\ in eoneilioii ol' his original aii-onnt ol 
an I'.iiiisinian iiiscri[itii)n {Ih'/f. Si/ll. ii. 'i-iS ; 
llieks iiml Hill, J/i.sf. /n.irr. li!|) containing th>' 
words To Biarfiov rh ini tov (TraSiov. That the 
wonl Btarpnv in hoth these inseripfions inust 
ami iloe.; refer to places lor speitatois in tin- 
I'an.itheiiaii' Stailinni ami the .Stadinniat Klensis 
lespeitivcly is liear. Tliis, however, was simply 
heeanse Biarpov was at this time still a loiii- 
jiaratively \aj;ne term, not yet the teehnic:»IIy 
lixeil ilcsignation for .stone theatres, whieh had 
not yet eonir into proininenee and were only 
jnst Imilding. When tlnsi- were bnilt and eon- 
sl.mtly nsi'd ihronghout (!reiip, the term Biarpw 
eeascd to lie enrrcnt for any p.irt of a .stadinin 
or for places like tlie Olympian terrace or eolon- 
nadcs. llefoie their advent Biarpov applied to 
any >•"<••/</' "-I'/i* however sh.ipcd, c.<j. (1) to th'' 

seating of the I'.inatlienaic Stadium at .VthiiiH, 
(2) to the s-eating of the Klensiiiian Stadium, 
(:5) to tin- terrace of the Olympian treasuries 
hefoie 450 u.e., ( J) to that terrace, supph mi tited 
after 450 it.c. hy its sonthward extension, the 
I'ainted Colonnade, and the Front Colonnade of 
the Sonth-eastern Mnilding. .Inst sm li another 
sjiidntoiiuhi was that of the S|v»rtan Agoia 
froni wlii'h Demaratns dejiarfe 1 in highdndgeon 
('•a. 485 n.c.) according to Heiodotns (vi. 67). 
Excavations yel to he made may enlighten ns 
further as to the exact ft|iplieation of HenidotUi.' 
word Bii\Tpov in this passage, bnt eVen now wu 
know (i<) from Puusanias III. xi. 3 that the 
most conspiiiious monument there to l«e seen 
was the Persian Colonnade, (t) from Tlnn yjidcs 
that there woe no KaravKtuai wo\vt*\us in 
Sparta at the beginning of the Peloponmsian It is obvious therefore tliat !'a:isaniis is 
'hedging' when, having diseiil«d the Persian 
Colonnade as aith Kaipvpw itoir\Bt1aav tuv Mtj- 
StKuv, he straightway adds : ava xp^^ov it avriji- 
♦ J fif-yfBos To vvv Kol is Koafiov riv ■wa^ofTa 
fi.fTaBf0\VKtt(Tii'. The glyptic ccentiieities and 
ilalioritioiis of the Persian Colonnade were 
plainly of much later origin tiian the times 
Just alter the Persi.m wars. Thus the Birirpov, 
fioin which Dennidtns so abruptly withdrew, 
ccitiiinly conipiised in its plainest and most 
piimitive dimensions what afterwaids was im- 
proved into the sp.iciotis .ind somewhat gro- 
tesijuc fabric seen and deseribed by 

^ Ildt. vi. 1)7 : ^aav ^iv hi\ -jvfivofo.thiai- But- 
fxfi'ov 8f TOV ^rjuapTiTov, i AfurexiS?)! . . . /»! 
ytKuTi T» Kai \drrB]i tlptirTa rhf ^itnapriroy, 
(iKOiuf Ti tti] To ipxttv fitrk rh /SairiAtedv. 6 8i 
aKyncrat Tif iwnpiMiTyjuart tjwf ipds avrht ftif 
afi(poTip-j;v fjSt) w*irnpfiaBai- tJjv ^(Vtoi iw*ipai- 
TTjffie ToiiT»j»' afij*!!" Aavf Sai/iofi'uiirt f) fivpitit 
KaKOTtjTot ') tivplrtt tviai/^oflrif. Tavra Si ffvat 
Ka\ KaraKa\i'\),autrn( fjiff ix rov Btr\rpov i% to 



There the recently deposed Deniaratus, while witnessing the festal dances of 
the Spartan Gyninopaidiai in the Dancing-plnce ()^op6<;), which was another 
name fur the dyopd,* received from KingLeotychidesa taunting message, and, 
after an ominously threatening rejoinder, veiled his head and went his way 
e« Tov d€t]Tpov €? ra icovTov ocKia. Here derjrpov cannot mean a stone 
theatre, because we know there was none such anywhere in Sparta until 
many generations after the beginning of the Peloponnesian warS' This 

euvTov oUta . . . Herodotus uses Berirpov twice 
(vi. 21 and 67). In 21 it has the meaning of 
I'aiis. VIII. i. 4, 01 0(aTal. 

* Pans. III. xi. 9 : ZnapTiirais Si e'irl rrjs 
ayopas TluOafcis rt eariv ' KTr6K\uvos Koi 'Aprt- 
/x(5os Kai AriTovs aydKfxara. Xophi St ovtos 6 
ToTTos Ka\f'iTai TTcis, '6ti eV Tojs yufivoTraiSiais, — 
(opTTj S( eX Tis 4\A7j /col al yvfivonaiSiai Sia 
(Tiroi)5r)j AaKfSaifjLOviois tlrriv, — if ravrats ovv ol 
i(f>r\^oi. xopovs IffTciffi T<p "AttSWwvi. Plutarch's 
aUusion (A<jesilaus 29) to tlie yvfxvoiraiSiai as 
liekl tV T(f dfirpw, cannot i)Os.sibly apply to the 
episode of Deniaratus, which, if not historical, is 
assuredly ben trorato, and certainly belongs 
somewhere about 485 n.c. Plutarch, in this 
passage, is obviously expatiating currcnte calamo, 
after his genial wont, upon Xcnophon's contem- 
porary account of how news of defeat at Leuctra 
came to the Spartan ei)hors on the last day of 
the gymnopaidiai tov avSpiKOv xopov ^fSov uvrm 
(Hell. VI. iv. 16). Xenophon says nothing 
about the theatre, and means obviously that 
the}' were still performing in the ayopd. ; but 
Plutarch, who cared little about topographical 
ininuiifc:, paraphrases by saying they were iv 
T<j! dfdrpcf. Doubtless Plutarch had seen or 
heard of the Spartan theatre. A still more 
striking instance of Plutarch's superiority to 
topographical minutiae is found in his anecdote 
about the ovation to Themistocies in the Olym- 
pian stadium {Themist. 17, irap(\Q6uros [Oe- 
HiaroKXiovs] th fh araSiov) at a time when 
there was no stadium or running-ground at 
Olympia. On this point Pausanias (VIII. i. 4) 
would naturally be more trustworthy, and 
accordingly, where he alludes in passing to the 
aiiocryjdial story of the Olympian ovation to 
Tliemistocli-s, he sa^'s simply Qifj-iaroKKfov? is 
Ti/uTjf iiraviarri rh iv 'OKv/ la diarpov, meaning 
by dfarpov simply and solely, as Dr. Frazcr has 
(lointod out (Pausanias iii, p. 637 n.), ol Ofarai. 
P)Ut this whole anecdote about Tiicmistocles at 
Olympia is of late iuvcution, and entirely 
apocryphal : (1) liecause the festival at which 
it must have taken place would almost certainly 
be the 76th (476 B.C.), which came just after 
the organization of the first Athenian Con- 
feilc-racy at Dehis — a consummation not popular 

in the Peloponnesus ; (2) because Herodotus, 
the only contemporar}' authoiity as to the 
triumphal progress of Themistocies, knows 
nothing about it. In fact Herodotus (viii. 124), 
after detailing the honours paid to Themistocies 
at Sparta, ends with a guard of honour whiclj- 
accompanied him to Tcgea on his ivay back to 
Athens, whereas the Plutarchian story implies 
that he went from 8[)arta to Olympia, in which 
case he would have been escorted not to Tegea, 
but up the valley of the Eurotas to the head- 
waters of the Alpheius ; (3) Neither Thucydides 
(i. 74) nor Diodorus (xi. 27) knows anything 
about the ovation to Themistocies at Olympia, 
although they are quoted along with Hdt. viii. 
123 f., as vouching for this figment of latter-day 
enthusiasm by Dr. Westermann, iu ¥ai\\]y'sEeal- 
encyclopddie, s. v. Themistocies. How the tale of 
Themistocies at Olympia came to be invented is 
shewn by Pausanias' mention of it (VIII. 50. 3) 
as an illustration of the ovation to Philopoemen 
at Nemea. Pausanias does not vouch for its 
truth, since he introduces it with nvvOavofiai, 
' I understand.' The common source from 
which Plutarch aiul Pausanias derived it was 
presumably popular report. It was a tale 
l)opularly invented as a pendant to the historical 
cpisoile of Philopoemen at Nemea. Such talcs 
invented themselves among Greeks. 

' That there can have been no stone theatre 
at Sparta at the beginning of the Peloponnesian 
war is clear from Thucydidcs'( I. x. 2) descriiition 
of the insignificance of S[»artau monuments 
at that time odrt ^vvoiKiadfla-qs Tr6\(wi 
of/T« lfpo7i Kal KaracTKevals TroKvTe\f<Ti 
XpTjffa/xsvTj.t, Kara icui/xas Se T(p iraKaif rris 
'E\Ao5oj TpoTTCf) oiKiffBda-qs. The date of 
the S[>artan stone theatre has l)een determined 
by excavation as of the first or second century 
u.c. (U.S.A. xii. i>p. 405 f.). No traces of a 
theatre of Hellenic or Hellenistic construction 
have been found, so that the notion that the 
word diijTpov in Hdt. vi. 67, can mean a stone 
theatre which existed at the time of the Persian 
wars, is completely exploded, along with the 
parallel notion that the Spartan gymnopaidiai 
were celebrated either in part or as a whole in 
the stone theatre. 



passage thereft)R' illustrates the primitiNr and comparatively iiideterniinate 
use of Oearpov to designate any j)lace of vatitagf, howcvi-r sha|K'(i (»r built, 
coniniandiiig an altar," which atforticd roMni for spictators of dances, dramatic 
performances, or sacrifices. 

Not only was there at Olympia iin >Loiir structure of semi-circular tiers 
of seats built at any time early or lati-, but there was nothing there until 
about 450 H.c. that could be called either a running-ground {hp6fu><;) or a 
full-fledged stadium. The Olympian Stadium— in the final and completed 
shape which aloni' deserves that nanu- — <lates from Macedonian times after 
Chaeroneia. Even then there was no ])rovision for seats. The sjH.*ctators 
there, apparently, witnessed athletic events, standing the while im slopes, tiiore 
or grassy, that surrounded a (piadrilateral running-ground (S/30^09), 
sloping away from it at a convenient giadient, and lunning parallel to its 
sides and ends.' 

Dr. Bornnann (01. Text ii. Fig. 28) represents the bivs<- of the southern 
slope as so far extended that the new and steeper slope measured 40 metres 
from the running-ground up to its top, the old spectatoi-s' field having 
measured 80 metres, i.e. the breadth of the running-field adjacent. The new 
area was of "idOOO sijuaic metres, jind on the southern slojie alone nearly 

■ Nut till the fouitli century B.C., if oven by 
tlmt time, was Greek .social life ot any kind so 
I'iir flivorced from litiial olisorvanie as to admit 
ut provision for onlookers in jilicis where there 
was no altar. Indeed the ancient altar of 
Artemis Orfhia at Sparta, as latelj- e.xc.ivateil 
<R. Hosanijuet in B.S.A. xii. i>}.. 303-319) ad- 
mirably illustrates the traditional centring of 
night-seeing crowds around nltars of inimemorial 
worship. It was not until the leign of 
Caracal la (crt. 214 a.u.) that a stone theatre — 
not to he confused with the larger one discussed 
in the jirevious note mentioned hy PausaniasIII. 
xiv. i, Athenaeus iv. 139 e, and Lnciaii, 
Anachdrsit 38, liut not \iy Herodotus vi. 67 — 
encircled thisaltai of immemorial service, where 
was focussed a 'continuous cult of tlic goddess 
. . . for at least 1200 ycai-s ' (R. Jl. Dawkins, 
Proceedings of the Classical Association 1007, 
p. 81). What exactly was the i«rovisiou for 
spectators before Canicalla's time is not yet 
kniiww {B.S. A. xii. p. 310). There eerlainly 
was no stone theatre of Hellenie or of Hellenistit 
«late either iiere or in the afopa where the 
g3-mnopHidiai were celebrated (rnus. III. xi. 9) 
and frequented hy crowds of strangers (Xen. 
Mem. I. ii. 61). Plutarch is quite alone in the 
eironeous statement — see the proceiling noti — 
that this festival was held iv r<f Oiarpt^.- 
{AyotiUmt 29). When tliere was a proper 
stone theatre at Sjiartu — in Impeiial days, 
various performamcs. none ol tliem loniieeled 

with thegyninopnidini, took ]ilace there, such as 
are alluded to by Athenaeus (iv. p. J39e)andl>y 
I.ucian, Anachuxsis 38. 

[I'rofes-sor E A. (ianluer points out to me an 
excellent illustration <A pr<»vision for 8|>ecta- 
tors round an altar at Oropus. Close to the 
Aniphiaraum is an altai and above it is a 
miniature theatre consisting of some semi- 
circular tiers of steps. At Eleusis too there 
are not only steps all round the sekos itsc If but 
the steps extend outside it along the face of the 
rock and there iire othei steps lower down 
conmianding the sacriril way. When wi 
remeiiiber that the theatre projter centred round 
the altar of the orchestra, we ar.' surely justified 
in attaching a religious meaning to the word 
Biarpov, and in using the word of the |>rovi.sion 
for spectators at Oropus, Eleusis, Sptita, and 
Olympia. A fui ther indication of the religious 
association of Biarpov may perha|>e be found 
in the use of the cognate words Bimpia. and 
B*upol of the representatives" sent liy cities to 
the great festivals. — E. N.G.] 

' Even in this, its improved and extended 
condition after tlie little of Chaeroneia (S38 
H.c), the Olympian Stadi\im entirely lacked the 
ciirved, theatre like end — ff^ffJ^rii -which is 
to day the most useful |>ortion of the rehabili- 
tated Panathenaio Stadium nt Athens, and »«.>• 
a characteristic featuio of several Greek 8la<Iia 



■iO.OOO spectators couM stand — fully 10,000 iiioiv than were |»n<sil)iy 
accommodated before the enlar^a'meiit. 

At its best, then, when, in the days of Philip and Alc.xandfi-, the spar-cs 
overlooking the <piadrilatcnil I'linninL^-.^roiiiid had been mounded up and 
extended for the eonvenieiu-c of spectators, the Olympian Stadium was 
anything rather than what would now be callod ' vp to dtiti! IJctun' 
Chaeroneia it was indeed a primitive affaii-. Between the years 4o() \\,v. 
and 388 B.C. there was (1) the i^unnin^-ni-ound f'ui- actual contests, and 
(2) a field for spectators south of it wliere onlookers could staml.^ Liki' 
the running-ground north of it, this field had an area of an acre and a half, 
more or less. It was also, like the running-ground north of it,'* not fir from 

^ It has been not uiiuiitiiiiilly siiggrstcil tliat 
bfiiclics of wood must have been iirovidcd fur 
siiectatois at Olyiiijiia, but tho tact icniaius 
that, except iu tlie Palaestra, wJiicli was not 
liuilt befuie Macedonian times, au<l luesumably 
iu the Gymnasium, wliicli was tiuilt still later, 
arran^'euients for sitting are ever\ wliere eoii- 
spieuous by their absence at Olymiiia. TIk 
liardshi[is of travel in early days ctfeetually 
prohibited from attendance the old and infirm, 
and the young would not scruple to lie down on 
thi- ground when tired. Certainly no traces 
ap{)ear of any normal contrivances for seating 
spectators, whether in the Stadium or else- 
where. There was clearly no chance to sit down 
in the Eleusinian Telcstcrion. Woishiiipers 
appear to have sat as little in witnessing 
Olympian Games as in viewing Kleusinian 
mysteries. Athletic training and clothes that 
hnmpered the limbs far less than those of the 
present day appear to have made continuous 
standing far easier for the frei|uentcrs of the 
Olympia than we imagine. Socrates and his 
contemporaries were inured to a life iu the 
stieets and porches of Athens which was ihc 
very reverse of sedentary. Hence Ahibiades' 
after-dinner story of Socrates at I'otidaea 
(I'lato, Syiap. 220). He began one morning to 
think about something and continue(l till noon 
from the break of <hiy. After supper iu tlir 
evening, certain lonians slept out in ordci' to 
see him at it all night. There he stood till the 
following morning, when, with the return of 
light, he olfered his ]irayer to the sun, and went 
his way. Probably Ahibiadcs' tale, like other 
after-dinner stories, is not to be taken too 
literally, and Socrates did not stand contin- 
uously for twenty-four lioiu'S. Hut after all the 
point of the anecdote is sadly blaiit(Ml unless 
one realizes that Alcibiades and the lonians did 
not wonder at his stamling for so long :i time — 
what really amazed them was that he was 
rivelted by thought about sometliiiig he could 
not resolve, ami wouhl not give the puzzle up. 

[Sitling was regarded as a slavish habit. In 
Xenoiihou's "ccunoiuica.i x. 10, Isclionia(dios tells 
his wife not to sit ilown like aslavc, but to standi 
over her slaves Wkr a master direi-ting and 
roriecting them, and to walk round the house 
to see what is waut'd. Again in the Mciii)- 
riiliili<(\\\. 13. 5 Xenophon tells us tha t an 
.Vthcniau walks in five or six days as far is 
fiom Athens to Olympia. — E.iS.G.J 

•' 'l"he western end of the running-ground was 
so much lower than the eastern end that an 
imlcpeiclent • source of water-snjiply for the 
latter was rcciuired (Hi. Tcrt ii. 174 h). The 
water supjily of the northern and eastern sides 
of the Altis and of the western half of the 
Dromos derived, before the ini]iiovi'nuMits of 
Herodi s Atticus, fioui a tank north of the 
nort li- .vestern angle of the llcraeum. An open 
conduit started from there and then skirtcl the 
north side of the lleraciim and the bottom step 
of the t( rrace until it reached the way down 
into the running-ground. Theie it branched 
(1) into a major cmduit which went along the 
northern retaining wall (supplantd by the 
northern sup[iort of tlu: barrel-arch in itonnui 
days) down into the Stadium, and (2) a minor 
conduit whi(di turned southward, crossing the 
way into the Stadium overhead, i.t. above a 
hy])othetical postern gate which then led east- 
ward into the Dromos. See tJraebcr {"/. 
Tr.,/. ii. p. 171), D.upfeld (01. Tct i. p. 77), 
and liorrmann {nj. TcH ii. p. 77). This 
overhead conimuiiication appears to have been 
sui>planted — probably at tln^ time of the 
Macedonian extension of the Stadium, demoli- 
tion of the first Colonnade of Echo, and recon- 
struction of it further west — by an underground 
conduit, which, however, did not work will, 
'fhus till' earlier overheail water-su)iply con- 
nected with the runnel discovered along tin- 
hack wall of the first Colonnade of Echo, where 
its course slanted from an altitude at the 
northern end, corresponding to that of the 
postern gate, to a much lower level near the 

iiii: ui.vMiM AN riii:Ai'i(<)N •_•:,.•> 

I«v.|. its gmdii'iit l)«-iiit,' .ilx.ui I : |:{. Kx.i.-ily what ch.u lur i> ili. r^ 

ni;.y have hwu on the tlin-r uih.r sides ..f th.- i|ii;uliil:if«Tal Drom.o is riul 
kimwii, except, that thne was iiKuheir s.i iiiii<-ii spai-e as in the soiuheiii 
fi> III jiisl mt'Mtiimt'd. \)\-. IImiiih inn has .•«.( iinated that al).iiit I'O OOO spec- 
tatois could view Iroiii these vaiiuns fields adjaceiii the athhlii- events of 
this viTV |>iiiiiiti\e arena.'" rriniifive th.iMLjh it was, this was the only arena 
known to Xeiioph. Ill, anil to this he applies the name Apo/zov. It will accord- 
.iiL^ly he eonveinent to reserve his own term Droinostor the riinnini,'-L,'idiind, 
which Xeiiophon knew, ami to restrict the practieallv e.piivalent t<nii 
Stadium strictly to the j)er('r<-iei| and .xi. ml.d arena of .ir 
!alei date," 

MiiithiTii 111(1 of till! Coloiiimilr. where trapes of 
it Iiavp hceii disiovcrcil {Ol. I'f. \\. w<. |i). The 
liyi'i'fhetical j)ostern <{ato was jni'suiiialily 
suiipiTsseil at the time nf the Maifdoiiiaii 
extension, ami .sii|i|)laiite(I by some uiiilergrdiiinl 
iiiiidiiit eoiiiiccteil with the open runnel, still 
visiMu III nifii, along tiio hottoni step of the 
icronstnicteil (western) (.'oloimade of Keho. It 
is iiii|iortant to heai- in niiml tiiat those two 
siieces«ive .schemes of w.-itrr-snpply for the two 
•••uccessive Colonnades of Keho hnth connected 
at the terrace of the trcasviries with the open 
rnnnel which ran along the footstep of tiie 
.stejiped teriace. The major londnit aliove 
mentioned as leading down into the Stadium, 
distributed water into a series of sliallow basons 
set at intervals of cie. !.'» metres around the 
western half of the running-ground. 

'" A lowdying stretch of gionnd. ([u.idii 
lateral and all but rectangular, the Olympian 
lunning-tield lay ra. 7\ m. below the mean level 
of the terrace of the treasuries, and fn. 3,\ m. 
lielow the stylobates of the two great Temples. 
Its boundary lines figured what might be called 
I parallelogram with entasis, since its breadth at 
I he east end was 29 /Om. (but 30 70 m. at a jioiiit 
lying 12 7? m. west of the eastern starting 
lines, 29 60 at the western starting lines ami 
•2XC0 at the western end, next the Aliis). It 
extended from ihe eastern extremity of the 
terrace and treasuries 212 odd metres northeast, 
ward, skirting the foot of Mt. t'ronius. Its 
breadth was 29 odd metres. It is not known 
what changes were made in the runningdield 
jiropcr when the spaces adjoining it for the use 
of onlookers were cut down and moulded up 
(Pans. VI. XX. 8) in Macedonian times ; but the 
Olympian Stadium certainly was anything 
rather than a araSiov avroipvts like that at 
Laodiceia on the Lycus. Hcfore the Kleans 
built what they called the Painted Colonnade — 
the name of ' Colonnade of Kcho.'cimveiitionally 
given to the later colonnade built further west 


in -Macedonian times and rebuilt in Kuman 
limes is. j.ioperly, the I'is.itan name applied 
successively to both (Pans. V. xxi. 7) -unit 
fenced out the wliolc region of tlie Drunios iVoni 
the Altis, there were prrsnmably in that tigioa 
S( veral centres of specilically Pisatan observance. 
I)ini suggestions of these local cults,,. 
shrines would naturally iHinleron the sit<of tin* 
vaiiishcl tiibe centre of the Pis.itans, survive in 
Pausanias' mention ol Demetcr Chainyne and 
I he Pisatan king Chamynns, and of his locatiou 
of the sanctuary of this chthonic . uh in the 
DiMinosi VI. xxi. i.). Demeteis priestess Iia<i a 
seat of honour in theStarliuin (I'aiis. VI. x.\. 9), 
a pc.uliarly signilicant (act in view of the 
otiierwise peiomplory exclusion of wnmen. I'aus. 
V. vi. 7), ns well as in the naming of thr 
Cijunnade of Kcho (cf. Pans. II. xxxv. 10, 
\'. xxi. 7 and Oil. xi. 632-«!:{.'. . For ilie 
remains of the gorgeous shrine of IVnieter 
Chamyiie of whi. h Regilla. wife of H-rodes 
Atli<us. was jiriestess sec Of. T- H i. p. 946. 
They were used by the btiildeis ..i the (.irly 
Olympian Kasiliia. 

" Dr. liorrniann (0/. r...^ ii. p. «iS dates the 
1 niaigement approxiinateiy in the ;iii>l.lU- .if the 
(iivt century ii.c. or a tritle later— an astound- 
ingly late cl.ite, in view in) of tlie cMwdx 
which resurted to Olympia and must have 
le.jnired additional room, and (/' ..f the fact 
ill It the liist cenfuiy li.e. was liy no means .•» 
brilliant epoi h for the Olympian games, as in 
made pliin by the fact that rHympia was 
|ilniider.d liy SulU, and by the general hcl|>leMi- 
ne^s tliat chanicterized Givek lircnmstnncos in 
this jieiioil. Thee is evi-n a tale representing 
that .Sulla summoned all tlie adult competitors 
at Olympia to giace his triumph at K.ime in 
81-SO ii.r, ..o that Epaenetus of Argo», winni-r 
ill the boys' running race is the only tootdrd 
victor at Olympia for the 17jlh olymj.ia.l (cp. 
K.irster"s S'ifijrr etc., Africanus .ind .Apj-ian li.h. 
fii: i. «»0). Be that as it may, Dr. Bomnnnii 



Where then stood the spectators, and where took place the contests prior 
to 450 B.C. ? Go back to the prehistoric time when there was no building on 
the Altis — only the Grove and the mounded Barrow of Pelops with the 
chief altar just north of it. At that time, if games there were, these are 
likely to have taken place north of the altar— on the site afterwards covered 
by the Heraeum — and may have been viewed from that southwestern foot- 
spur of Mt. Cronius, which in the seventh century A.D. overwhelmed the 
Heraeum. In the first quarter of the fifth century B.C. this same spur of 
Mt. Cronius shewed nine low and shallow steps ^'^ running parallel and close 

aigxies that the constantly rising level of the 
runnin^'-tield— always a let-optacle for the sur- 
face water of the Altis (which was not far from 
12 feet above it) by reason of the gentle down- 
ward slope which began as far west as the 
Metroum— enforced alterations of an extensive 
character and not'confined to the rnnning-ground. 
He dates from about 50 R.c. an elaborate 
scheme which was carried out completely within 
a generation of that date. This scheme 
compiised : I. the building of a new Echo 
Colonnade, west of tho old one ; II. the 
extension of the western slojie of the stadium so 
as to cover the sjiacc [irevionsly occupied by the 
old colonnade henceforward dismantled ; 1)1 the 
tunnelling of the hitherto open way leading 
down to the running-ground ; IV. the con- 
.struction of a monumental gateway in front of 

III. Dr. Borrmann convincingly argues that 

IV. must have l>een built about 175 years before 
the 226th Olympiad, when the two Zanes 
flanking it on either side were set u]) (Pans. V. 
xxi. 15), i.e. ca. 50 B.C. He argues not quite so 
convincingly that III. the tunnel, and II. the 
westward extensic^n of the stadium slope, must 
have been jiart of one and the same scheme, 
because the amount and weight of earth 
requireil to mound up the western .slojie to the 
toj) of its new retaining wall (6^ metres high) 
required a tunnel, if there was to be direct 
access from the Altis to the running-ground. 
Tlie tunnel being according to his view of 
Roman dati', it follows then that the extensiou 
of the sloiie was also a \mt of tlie Roman 
scheme, to which, then, the building of the new 
colonnade nmst also be added, since it cannot be 
separated from the extension which dismantled 
the earliei- colonnade. There are, however, 
three serious objections to conceiving items 
I. -IV. as each and all of Roman date, and 
these are met by concluding that IV. and III., 
the (iate and the Tunnel are of Roman date, 
while I. and II., the rebuilding of the colonnade 
further west and the extension of the slope, are 
of the Macedonian era {ca. 330 B.C.) after 
t:hn< roiieia. The first objection is that the sill 

of IV. is laid so high that its foundations extend 
over those of I. in such a mannei- as to preclude 
theii' forming part of one consistent scheme of 
improvements. The second is that in the walls 
of II. have been found — notably in the northern 
wall of the tunnelled way — the materials 
forming the retaining walls of an earlier passage- 
way running to about the height of the spring 
of the Roman barrel-arch, which may well have 
served from the date of the Macedonian exten- 
sion to the building of the Roman Gate (I.) and 
Tunnel (II.) as a means of direct access to the 
lunning-ground. Along the southern retaining 
wall of this earlier pas.sage-way ran also a stone 
benidi, remains of which were found in- situ. 
The third objection is that Dr. Dorj)feld has 
jtointed out several detailed features, which the 
new Colonnade of Echo has in common with the 
rhili])peum, and the date of the Philippeum is 
unquestionably ca. 330 ii.c. These features arc : 
(1) the elaborate and workmanlike treatment of 
the steps and of the stylobate ; (2) the use for 
tht' steps of coarse-grained white marble, i>oros 
being used for other j)arts ; (3) the use for the 

steps of I 1 -jfhaped clamps, while the drums 

of the columns and the blocks of the stylobate 
are fastened together with thick wooden dowels 
(01. Text ii. 786). The numerous architectural 
fragments of Roman workmanship belonging to 
the site of the Macedonian Colonnade nmst 
therefore be attributed to extensive Roman 
repairs, while the western or second Colonnade 
of Echo must be dated as contemporaneous 
with the Philiiqieuni, and with the extension of 
the western slop.e of the primitive Dromos, 
which made it into a full-fledged Stadium. 

'* This very notable flight of .steps occupies 
practi(!ally the whole of the north side of the 
Altis, 180 m. in extent. Only the Prytaneum 
with its shrine of Hestia intervenes between the 
w(!st end of this lavishly broad flight of very 
shallow steps and the later western wall of the 
Altis. It is hard to believe that these steps 
were thus extended merely as a convenient 
means of aj)proaching the several treasuries and 
.■< an especially safe retaining wall to the north 


tu tin- nttitlicru coldiuiiidt' of tin- HiTuruiii luid dcsi^iu*! jcirtly to protect it 
<ioiM just thf catjustroplu; that was destiiii-d Hually to o\»r\vh»liii it, and 
partly to provide aecomiiiodatioti for 8jK*ctati»r>i. TheHC niiu- steps were 
built coiitiiiiiously with th»tse which ran alon^ the whoK- castwanl stretch of 
the loii^ terrace of the eleven trejwuries so called. When the Hemeuni 
;iiid the shrine of H<'.stia just north of it were newly built, the altar <»f 
prehistoric observance spoken of above, being crowded in between the new 
Heraeuni and the old-world liarrow of PelopH, fell into neglect, an«l the 
great Ash Altar of daily sacrifice located just east of the barrow usur|)ed its 
more ancient importance. The building of the Heraeum may thus be 
supposed to have crowdi'd spt^ctators and athletes alike to the east, where 
the latter had a new 'A'ytav east of the Great Ash AlUir, the former a new 
OiaTfjov or spccfaforinin overlooking it on the site where later were built 
the eleven Olympian treasuries. 

Such was the posture of affairs when, — as the most tangible indiaition 
that the C)lympian games attracted more than the provincial resort of 
Pi.satis, Arcadia, Triphylia, Messenia, and Elis — the CJeloans came from the 
far west about the year 610 B.C. and built the curious Old-Geloans' ark 
n-modelled a century later into .something more like the other treasuries so 
called. Ten of these sprang up alongside of the ancient ark of (tela in the 
course of the sixth and the first quarter of the fifth century B.C. Pausanias, 
describing this by no means eti'ective crowd of Communal or Chapels 
huddled together in a monot(mous row — more like one side of a suburban 
street than anything else of to-day — says : tfure is in the Altis a teii'ace 
'(/c/jf/Trt'f) wodc of poros stone; back of it and north of the Heraeum extends 
Mt. Cronius . . . on this terrace are the Treasuries, just as at Delphi soyne of the 
Greeks have made Treasuries of Apollo. His words just as at Delphi Ka6a 
■Si) Ka\ iv AeX0oK require much (jualification, to supply which is eixsy. now 
that both Olympia anil Delphi have been so thoroughly excavate<i. 
Pausanias, without a.sserting it, leaves us to imagine that the location of 
treasuries at Olympia and Delphi respectively is similar. A.s a matter of 
fact there is almost every possible contrast in that respect between the two 
sanctuaries. There is also a striking contrast as to the dates at which 
Olympian and Delphian treasuries were founded. At Delphi treasuries 
perche*! hen- and there and were .scattered, often singly, along the steep. 

(if lli( Hiiacuiii. UndiT the Roman enijierors the finish ' whero filth was tttn-wn fnun thr 

lordly flights of steps ami royal uppioachcs of slaughter of load bellowing oxen which Achill<'« 

various kinds were nHiUi|ilicd in Greek lands, slew in lionoar of ratrocliis,' Iliad xxiii. 775. 

but those terrace-steps are too shallow to make The chariot race belween Oenomaus an<l Pelops 

a fine elFect. The iioint .seems to have been to was from the altar of Poseidon at the Isthmus 

have "js many as po.'-sible, that .si»>ctati)i-8 mijjht to Olympia. The torch-i-ace of course was 

peich on them in as ^reat a numU r us pos-sible. always ended at an altar. Finally the tndi- 

[Variou-i traditions connect games with altars. tional connexion of the races at Olympia with 

In funeral games the altar or the funeral j«yrc the altar is proved by the account preserved by 

was the natural place for the finish of a race. I'hiiostratos of the origin of the vario\is laces. 

In the Iliad the footrace must have fini.shed at Gum. viii.- x. - E.N.O.] 
a place of sacrifice : for Ajax slipped just before 

s -1 

95S LOUIS i)yp:ii 

They occupied eveiy ledge available from which some segment of the Sarn'l 
Processional way was visible. At Olympia the eleven treasuries wof 
huddled together in a row, as if nothing preoccupied their builders so mu>h 
as to find and occupy some few stjuare feet of ground from which to view 
advantageously the treeless arena, the Homeric 'Aywv, at the castein foot ot 
the Great Ash Altar. At least three of the Delphian 'treasuries' — the 
Cnidians' Lesche, The .Treasury of Brasidas and tlu; Acanthians, and the 
Thebans' Treasury — were dedicated long after th»; dedication of treasuries at 
()lymj)ia had entirely ceased. There must have been reasons peculiar to 
Olvmpia which dictated the crowding together in one long line of all the 
Olympian treasuries ever dedicated, and also especial and local reasons to 
accinmt for the sudden and entire cessation of new dedications after the end 
of the first quarter of the fifth century l$.c. Even when all available space 
on the terrace was occupied, sites could certainly hav(! heen found elsewhere 
and treasuiies would have been dedicated elsewhere on the Altis, had not 
a great crisis supervened in the management of the Festival — the assum}>tion 
by the Eleans of the sole presidency of the (James and the inauguration of 
})lans for new buildings and dispositions for sight-seers effectually super- 
seding^-' the old /((issez-fairc policy of which the dedication of treasuries or 
Cunnnunal Houses had been the outcome. If, at ()lymj)ia as at Delphi, one 
of the chief objects, if not the only aim, in dedicating a treasury had been to 
secuic a view of sacrifices and processions, the location on the terrace of the 
eight treasuries last built — built that is to say before the great crisis just 
alluded to — could hardly be accounted for. Only tht- three treasuries tii'>t 
dedicated — the (Jeloans' (xii. (JIO B.C.), the Metapontines' (x. 590 !'..«'.), and 
the JMegarians' (xi. 590-(S5 U.c.) — occupy sites chosen on their merits and 
suitable for solid foundations. The next three — the Cyrenaeans' Cvii.). the 
Sybai-ites' (vi.), and the Byzantines' (v.) built about 550 ];.<•. west of the 
Altar (viii.) — stand upon a subsoil so insecure that, when (about 530 l^.C.) the appeared upon the scene, they felt com])elled to crowd their 
(^)mnulnal House (ix.) into the last available spac(^ east of the altar. Wliy 
then did not they build elsewhere ? Why were the four treasuries subse- 
(pjently dedicated (iv., iii., ii., and i.) built on the western extremity of the 
terrace and not elsewhere ? How account for the ])ains submitted to by the 
Si(;yoniaiis in laying th<' foundations of their treasury — westernmost of all — 
to which alone its eom})arative stability is due !* Alike the solidity of the 
Sicyonians' ti'easury (i.), the dilapidation of the six treasuries just east, of it, 
and the cramped jjosition of the Selinuntines' House, betoken one and the 

'^ It looks indeed .-is if tlie interest so lonj^ Atlieniiiiis of tlieir ' M;uatlioiii;iii ' ( nlonuadr 

maintained liy lenioti- eftinmunities in tlieir at l)(li)lii. 'J'liis last indeeil, wlntliir dutid 

several ' treasuries ' at Olympia Iiad died down with M. Homolie {ea. 610 K.c.) m with Di-. 

after the laying out of the Dronios and tlie Kohler (490 IJ.C, ef. Hdt. vi. 92) "i wiili Messrs. 

litiilding of the (earlier Colonnade of Echo— an Jiaussonllier, lli(;ks, and Dittenlx rL;< r (460- 

undoubtedly jiuhlie-.spirited measure of tlie 4.'iS n.e. ) may have suggested iln ir ('olnimade 

Eleaiis, aiiali>gous no doubt, in the motives of K<lio to the Kleaiis. 
whieh )iroinjitx'd it, to tlu' building by the 

I'm: (tl.VMlMAN 'I'UKATK'iN 


>,iiii.- canliiial lad. Kitilt, all i-t tlniii, hctnn- tin- Kli-aiis seized uiuliviilrd 
(.•Kiitfol ami plaiiMcd t he rarlicr ( 'nininiadt' <»f Kchu and tin- Droinos. t\\r lucatioii 
ct'cach and all tlirsc hdiisfs, us well ;i.s tlit-ir <Taiii|)»'d and iin^airdy gr«»uj»iiij^', 
tilU <>i \h<- time whrii I'isa shared roiitnil with Klis, and no .spi-cially dt'\ ised 
artiia ("or alhiif ic cvmls was dicnu-d rr<|uisitc. Running, wrestling, huxin^r, 
javelin ami discus throwinj^ — all rontcsts in lacl not iccjuirin^ the Hippo- 
(liuiue ur its ]iriiiiitivi' L'(|uivali'nt — took place east of" the (Jreat Ash Altai' in 
thi- ancient Wy(oi', and were witnessed from the terrace of th«' treasuries, the 
eail\" ^t'ar/joi' of t he Olympian Altis. Each treasury built theic was, su tu 
speak, a privileged |M)int of vantage, and its j)orch was a sort of Royal Bo.v 
from which those dedicating it cotild view not only jirocessions and 
sacrifices at all times and as long as the Olympia lasteil," hut also before 
4')n n.r. all ^iicli athletic events as after 450 H.C were transferred to the 

The sudden and entire cos.sation at ()I\iii))ia ot the building and 
<ledication of new treasuries has, however, quite as much to do with the 
Eleans' first Colonnade of Echo and front Colonnade of the Hellaninlicaeum 
as with their scheme fm- a l)rom(»s. The oidy possible sites for new 

" Tlimi^^li till- tiiiiicc n-inniiu-il iit jill times 
a rhdici- jMi-iitioii wliciicf sacritiet's ami ino- 
(•i-.jiniis Wire vicwi'il, it W!v.s not, iiftcr ir»0 ii.c, 
tlif only line. Siif<;i('Hte<l u<i doubt l>y tliu 
ai jnmininiiitiDiis for s|iectiitor.s rn-ciitly luoviileil 
at Elousis ill tiii.' Tflcstcrion, ami at I)tl[ilii by 
till Atliiiiians" colonnade, tin- Eicans' liixt 
<'i'lonnaile of Eflio ami tlic fionf Colonnadr of 
til'- .soutii-tasteni building; wire prolmbly 
|i!:inneil within a •ffm-nition of the nuniorable 
ran-H.'lli nil- 01yni|ii:iu of 476 n.c. Tlie lirst 
Colonnadr of Eilio \va.s ready in 448 n.c. and 
cciinnianilcil a view of .««urifiees on tlie Oreat 
Asli Altar nearly as well as the tcrraee and tlie 
lii'irhes of its sevenil Treasuries. That the 
Teiraie was a centre for einwds on the Altis is 
I'loved for times even later than Pausanias' 
visit to 01yni[iia by two facts: (1) Tiic con- 
stnutiou of the monumeut miscalled the 
' Exedra' of Herodes Atticus on that poitinn of 
tlie Terrace just east cf tlie Heraium. It 
cinnot iMoperly be called an Exedni, since no 
human bein^' ever sat there, and the statues 
which adorm d this mammoth r.r rota offerinj,' 
were all standing. No doubt it .served as 
a mon>imiiital facade or grandiose terminus ol 
the generou-H latter-day system of water suiu'ly. 
lint it would have been absuidly im onxrunus, 
standing is it does beside the ancient Herneum, 
if there had not been a ceremonial justilication 
lor it, harmonizing to the inner eye at least its 
garish i)retentiousness with the religious obser- 
vance to which were dedicated alike the 
trcasuiies vast of it and the tenqde west of it. 

This ideal justilit ation was to Im- found in the 
fart that it contnined iijiwaids of twenty two 
life-size statues of speitatoi-s — eight or more 
members of the Im|><-rial family and fourteen of 
the houses of the luous founder and of Hegilla 
his wife. These tiguits stood looking out over 
the Altar and viewing processions. Hy this 
ej- roto on the terrace all fiequenting woi-shii>i>ers 
were leminded of the jxiiniiunt interest felt in 
Olymjiiaii observance by the great [leoide of the 
earth. That Herodes built his generous tanks 
on a site fre<)>ienteil by crowds is further jiroved 
by (2) an episode in Lmian's De Moric 
Periijrini six. ud fin. Peregrinus i-«iled at tlie 
elfeininacy i>romoted by the lu.\urioiis water- 
supply of Herodes, and was conse<iuently 
niobU'd 'whilf in the act of benefitting by it ' 
{ifia nivaiv rov Ziaroi) says Lucian. Indeeil it 
was only by hnstily taking sanctuary at the 
Creat Ash Allar near by, that the peiverse 
cvnie got olf alive —iit\ -rhv Ai'a Kara^i'ywt' 6 
ytwaloi tLpt ih ^li| airo9a>*7f. 

" [As I j>oiiit out ill a Inter note, there is no 
evidence to prove that events like wrestling and 
boxing were e\er trnnsferred to the I)ronios, oi 
even to the Stadium. C'p. J. U.S. xxiii. p. 57, 
n. 13. Martin Kubei's arguments to prove that 
they were tninsfeited [I'hiloloqua I,. 495) are 
all inconclusive, and I incline more and more 
to the opinion that they had not l«een irnnsfencd 
when Xeno]ihon wrote the Helhnica and 
prol)ablv wei^ never transfirit-d. V. »«;>. n. la. 
-E.N.b ) 



treasuries, which might have been located within eyeshot of processions ancF 
sacrifices, were preempted by the all-embracing Elean projects. These 
resolute administrators provided in their colonnades for the general Hellenic 
public, against whose prior claims no individual state hankering after a site 
for a new treasury could expect to prevail. 

The dedication of Olympian Treasuries ceased at the end of the first 
quarter of the fifth century B.C., because,— though none of them were yet 
built, — the Dromos, the first Colonnade of Echo, and the front Colonnade of 
the Hellanodicaeum were then projected. Meanwhile the ancient Homeric 
"kfytav^^ in front of the treasuries continued in use. Certainly this old arena 
was used at that great Pan-Hellenic celebration of the Olympia which took 
place in 47G B.C., — the opening year of the 76th Olympiad— just after Ther- 
mopylae, Artemisium, Plataea, and Mycalo. This 76th celebration was the 
Olympiad of Olympiads, and marks for Olympia the intensest moment of 
Pan-Hellenic fervour. It came just the year after the formation of the 
Athenian Confederacy at Delos, — a consolidation made necessary by the still 
menacing power of Persia, but not one at which all Greeks could rejoice as one 
man. Not at Delos therefore but at Olympia was held the universal 
festival of rejoicing after the invaders were gone. The volleys of glorification 
which greeted the victors in these absolutely unique and ideally Pan-Hellenic 

'" Tlie lists ill the triaiij^ular treeless plain 
east of the Great Ash Altar at Olympia and 
commanded by the terrace and the ' treasuries ' 
were at the toot of the barrow of I'elui>s, just as 
the aywu where Achilles held the games of 
II. xxiii. was at the foot of tlie barrow of 
Patroclus (II. xxiii. 255-258, 619), and the 
Pylian analogue and prototype of the Olympia 
is described {lb. 630-643) by Nestor in his 
reminiscences of the funeral games of Ama- 
rynceus at Huprasium. Throughout the 
Twenty-third Iliad, where it occurs eleven 
times, the wordd7cii' means not a contest but an 
arena, the place or the lists of the games (vv. 273, 
448, 451, 495, 507, 617, 654, 696, 799, 847, and 
886). In the same sense exactly a.ywv applies 
to the arena of the Phaeacian games in Od. viii. 
200, 238, and 380, and xxiv. 86. Exactly what 
the word means in Od. viii. 259 depends upon 
whether kywva or kyiivas is read. Four MSS. 
there read hywva, and if their reading is adojited, 
the word has the same sense of arena attaching 
to it in the veiy next line (260) as well as in 
the fifteen cases above cited. In //. vii. 298 
and xviii. 376 kyuv still means a place, the 
templum or rtfifvos of the gods — a sense in 
wliich it would be applicable to the Olympian 
arena in question. Thus in nineteen Homeric iiyuf means a place and not a contest, nor 
is the racuniny of coiitat known to the Iliad or 
the Oilysscy. Twice and twii:e oiil}* (II. xxiv. 1 

and xxiii. 258) it means the pooi>lc assembled! 
for the games, and it probably has this sense 
also in Od. viii. 260, if ayHvas is read in place 
of aywva. The only remaining examples of the 
word in Homer occur in the Iliad (xv. 428,. 
xvi. 239 and 500, xix. 42, and xx. 33). In 
these five places ay!i>v vtSiv means an assemblage 
of ships. Hesiod only used ayu>v four times 
{Th. 91 and 435, Scid. 204 and 312), every where- 
in the sense of an arena. It is therefore plain 
enough that Homer and Hesiod had no know- 
ledge of aywv in the sense of contest but used it 
ill the sense of lists or arena for contests. How 
firmly the Homeric associations clung to the 
word dyoii' even when it came to be used of suits 
in the law courts is shewn by the metaphors of 
the arena involved in some of the most common- 
place of current idioms: cf. Lycurgus i. 117 
ip7\fxov rhv kywva iiaavra, see also the elaborate 
metaphor in ib. 47, cf. Lycurgus i. 10 us toV5< 
•rhv kyiiiva Kariarr)v, also i6. ii. 104, 105 and 121 
with Dinaichus i. 109. Two cases where a^tcj' 
has the sense of contest, like the Homeric 
in6\oi, occur in the Homeric Hymns (vi. 19 and 
Ii. Apoll. 150). ''kSKa appears to have the 
meaning of the Homeric iiywv in PI. Riivs 868 a: 
iicoflapToi iiv ayopiv re KOt a6Ka «ol to 6.\\a 
ifpa fxialvri and ib. 935 B : jutjScIj roioxnov 
<p6iy^r]rai firilfiioTf /nTjSfV, f*rii' ai iv &6\ois fxTji' 
(V ayopa ^1^ ^•' SiKaaTripi(i> /i»}5' eV ^v\\6y(f>- 



()iyiiij)iii Wfif Ufvcr piirulK'li-d ciLlui bi-t"ur»' or iifter 47() H.c. Duih I'mdiir 
ami iiiiochylitli's hyiiiiK'<l in Odts tiufxct'llftl by eitht-r |x>tt on any nthcr 
oc'CJision that year's victory, won for his ownrr Hiero of Syracuse by the gootl 
horse Phcrenicns. Vyin^ in s|ilrii(|oiir with this his first Olvnipian (hh- in 
Pindar's second, composi-d like his third in eeU-bration of the chariot -victory 
uf 'I'heron the A^rigcntine, won in this sanie year, AHopichns, an Orcho- 
nieniun yonth, victor this year in the l»oys' foot-nu'e is the thcMiie ot' Pindar's 
last Olympian, while his tenth and eleventh ()lynij)ians celebrate the 
triumph, — also in these games of 47(5 B.C., — of a l>oy boxer trum I^oiris in 
the fir west, Agesidamiis, son of Archestratns. Just six, one less than half, 
of Pindar's ( )lympians thus deal with victories won at this celebration of 
celebrations during which for a brief motnont all (Jreeks stoiwl together in 
tht! ]>resence of Zeus ;us members of one Pan-Hellenic coHMMunion. It is 
above all in these six Odes that Pindar's intimate atl'ection for the aetnal site 
and soil of the Olympian Altis finds fullest expreasion.*'' 

It is from one of the six Odes that may be derived, I think, the absolute* 
certainty that in 47(> M.c, athletic events were fought out in the 'Ayoii/ east of 
the great Ash Altar of Zeus, a full view of which was commande<l at that time 
only from the terrace of the treasuries, which indeed had lately })een stejiiKMl 
for the convenience of spectator. There, — jxissibly on one of the nine steps 
of the terrace — Pindar finally alights, ending Jis follows his tenth Olympian 
Ode: 'Whensoever, Agt'sidamus, a man who has compasse<l deeds of honour 
must go unsung to Hades' homestead, that man with vain breath over his 
toil wins thereby but fleeting joy. But around thee the sweet expressive 
lyre and mellifluous pipe shed charm. The Pierian daughters of Zeus foster 
thy wide-flung fame, while I, with zeal like theirs fervently fold in my 
embrace the Locrians' famous clan, bedewing with honey a commonwealth of 
stalwart men. I glorify Archestratus' son n-hoin I saw prevail iny hii thf 
vigour of his ami hesvle the Oli/mpuui Altar ^'^ in that memovahlc hour {Keivov 

'" Iiidt'cd II ((imparison at larj(<'she\\snnthing 
in his local alliusionsto Nenieaand tlu' Isthmus, 
or even in his niarvtlloii.s flash-lij^ht iiictiues of 
Delphi and thf I'arna.ssu.s, which ln-tokens a 
local uttachnicnt at all comiiai-able to that 
which he felt for eveiy inch of the piecinct of 
Olympian Zeus atOlynipia. This is constuntly 
evinced not only throughout each and all of his 
Olynijiians, but liis Pythian, Neinean, and 
Isthmian Odes abound in frciuent glancus at 
Olynipia and its Premier Lists. 

'" In twoother Olympian Odes l'inil'irdcscril>es 
more or less dcHnitdy the actual moment of 
victory (a) in O. i. '21 Micro's horse Pherenicus 
is spoken of 3t« wap' '\K<pii(f av-ro iiuas, ' when 
he darte<l on near the .\li>hcius,' wapi having ii 
sense just less vague than 'in the domain of 
Alpheius' ; (h) in 0. viii. 17 f. Zens made an 
01\nn)irtn victor of (OrJKiy 'OKvunovlxay) Alci- 
medon, the boy wrestler, wekp Kpofov \6<p(p. 

In neitlier of these cases, whcji compareil with 
that of .\gesidaniU8, is tlie event so distin<;ily 
represented ns actually in progress. Nor itt the 
localization at all coni]>urable with that uf 
Agesiilamus actually seen at i definite time 
winning in a definite place. This vision of 
.Archestratus" son alongside the Olympian altar 
is unique. Elsewhere Pindar merely lo.ali/.ea 
victories at DlijinpUi, resorting to various 
circumlocutions in order to avoid monotonous 
re|>etition. (a) Pherenicus daited on vaf' 
'AK<liti^ (O. i. 21), (b) Peljtps in his grave is 
resting by the comnes of Alpli' ins, 'AX^4ioi> 
w6p<() Khidtlt (lb. 92), r) Zcus lules the 
Olympian sanctuary (Hot OAi/^vou). the chief 
of games and the couises of .VIpheius, a*0Kmf 
Tf Kopv^av itipo» t' 'K\p*iuii (''. ii. 13 f. ), 
[■I) Diagora.s is i-rownetl vof*' 'AA^tjy and *«pA 
KaffTaAii, at Olympia and at Delphi, (r) Praxi- lirought the olive i-rown iir' 'AA^fioT 


Kara xpofov), comely his frame and dowered with such Hush of dawning 
prime as erst from Ganymedes fended off grim death by favour of the (jod- 
dess Cyprus-born.' Patriotism wide enough to embrace all Greeks dictated 
the elusive argument of this tenth Olympian Ode, a subtly conceived lyric by 
means of which Pindar contrives as it were to extend the right hand of Pan- 
Hellenic fellowship to the remotely dwelling and unfamiliar Bruttian Colonists 
of Epizephyrian Locris, first championed in the Olympian arena by the 
redoubtable Euthymus winner of the boxing match in 484 B.C., — eight years 
before. At the end of this Ode, which I have just attempted to translate, 
Pindar folds in his embrace ' tJie Locrums' favioiis clan, hedcwiug vntli liomy a 
coiUDiomcealfh of stalic/frt men' : but at its beginning, he hints that he has 
barely heard of them : ' do ye read vie oi(t,' he says to the man in the street, so 
to speak, ' thai Olympian vioiors name, — the son of Archest rut us, — 
where it is in'it in my mind, I forgot I ivas otving him a s'wet song.' 'J'heu 
begin.s one of those genial mystifications about the price of his praise, in 
which l^indar's humorous vein so abounds. He beseeches the Muse, 
daughter of Zeus, and 'KXuOeia, Candour, to keep him straight and fend off 
reproach for broken troth. Far-off to-morrow took him at unawares — foimd 
him bankru}it through arrears of debt. Only payment with usur}- can clear 
his honest name. ' Lool' how the hrcaldng wave shall dash the seething shingle 
dov:n cmd how we too will 'p^'V down a genermts acconnting of grace for our 
friend and his lindred.' This humorous pretext of bankruptcy serves the 
poet's turn, for it carries his audience with him to the unfamiliar home of 
Agesidanuis. There dwells Truth,— not Candour, 'AXddcia, such as Pindar 
has a])pealed to in acknowledging his bankruptcy, but plain dealing, i\T/3t'/<:fia, 
who makes bankruptcy unthinkable. 'Heracles himself was once worstcl in 
ciivdjaf uifh the Locrian Cycnus' the poet instantly adds, by way of linking 
Locris ti) the traditions of ()lym[)ia, and of hinting at the same time that 
3'oung Agesidamus has not always come off victor as now. This last point is 
driven home straightway. 'Agesidamus won cd last, let him thanJc Has, his 

{N. vi. *J1). five iKuplirastic imiitions precinc-t of Mt. Cionius. These ten passngcs 

of Olyinpia as on the Aljilieius, can lie matLluMl I'indai'.s ciiciuulocutioii.s for tliu 

with the five periiihiases in which Mt. Cionius Olympiiin site, excepting where lie designates 

is alUuldl to. Undoubtedly tlie far seen and it a.s the aliodc of Oenoman.s and Pcloiis 

l>erfectly conical silhouette of Mt. Cronins (U. v. 9 f. ), or wliere it is identified with Pisa 

played it.s part in focussing just at Olynipia and (0. xiv. 22 if.). 

nowhere else in the valley the primitive [The Alpheius and Mt. Cronius formed the 

observances of the grove sanctuary, (a) Pindar natural boundaries of the Tffitvos at Olympia 

is come to the side of the sunlit Cronius trap as opposed to the artificial boundaries of the 

(vSti(\ov fAdaiv Kp6viov {(>. i. Ill), (i) Ejihar- Altis or grove, cp. Pindar 0. xi. 43-51. 

mostos and his revelling conirades lead off the Pau.sanias tells us that women were not allowed 

victor's strain Kpdvtov itup ux^ov {0. ix. 3f.), to (;rosa the Alpheius during the Olympia 

(f) Aristagoiiis would have won glory -napk (v. P. 7). Siinilaily at K]>idaurus, though there 

KaaraXla and trap' fhhtvhpt^ oxOtf Kpdfov, at seems to have been a holy of holies, the whole 

Delphi and at Olympia (K. xi. 25), {>') Zeus valley including the stadium and theatre was 

made Alcimi don victorirop Kp({»'ouA<$f(iD(6'. viii. sacred. What were the Eastern and Western 

17), ['■) Alcimidas and Polytimidas lost two boundaries at Olympia, is uncertain : the 

Olympian crowns through the 'random lot' Western boundary certainly extended up to and 

Kpovlov nap Tffxit'fi (A"", vi. 10.^. If.), at the beyond the Ciadeus, Xcn. 7A'(7. vii. 4. — E.N. G.] 


iifiimr. Witinnit toil j'tW indirii ckh i''ui (he i/halin .-^s "J rufcji/ tu he it liyht 
at tlie foiifroiil of the life of ni/iiivi mcnfs.' 

Here tlu' Ht'/itTts" tIjLsIl (luUll llpiill (.III |»<Mt, tllr ( )|(llli;illr(s (,r Zill> 

ri\L't hi> mind iii>on tlir 'Aycor tfa/peTov, tlif I'riiitur Aiina l;ii<l out In 
IK'iiiclt^ iitar the (»l<l-\vctil(l I);iirit\v of I'l-lops in \Ur Olyiiipiiiii Alti>. 
I'liidarir ( 'oiiiiiHiitators of ii-criit days, with tin- notahlr «'xci'|)tiuii oi 
I'll itf SSI >i- ( JildiTsliMvc, have nut |)frcci\rd- that iUis t^uiptTo*; uyo)i> fr)Uii(h-d 
!Kar thf tond) of I'ldojis, and dfscrihcd l)y Pindar as enilnacing six altaiM, 
l3(Ofi(oi> e^upidfiof, must hr a ji/arr, uiid can (>nl\ signily a contest by imjilica- 
tiun. Just s(» in English wc imply fighting wlim we speak of the lifts or thr 
/iili/ (»t' honour. Heri', and in right othir <<juall\- chai- (•;'s, Pindar uses th<- 
Word (170)1', as '■' Homer hahitually and Hesiod always used it hefore him, and 
Ac-sehyliis, Sophocles, and Kuripides occasionally used it alter him, to 
designate the arena of contest. Pindai- means ijuite unambiguously the 
place near the altai- of Zeus in the ()lympian Altis at which he stands gazing 
when the ode now in progress ends from tin ()i\iiij)ian Oiarpov of the 7()th 
and earlier Olympiads. 

Ki'turning to the poet whose mind ha.>, )»\ inspiration of the Ordinances 
ot Zeus, ri\ettcd itself upon the rrimier Lids of OKinpia, and their 
inauguration by Heracles, we find his fancy expatiating first of all »jn the 
legendary struggle of Heracles with those uncanny Siamese-twins of ()ld- 
Elean folk-lore, the Molionids. Their final overthrow at Cleonae made room 
for his foundation of tlu' ()l}iiipian arena. Ne.xt he enters with enthusiasm 
intii all the minutiae of the Heraclean luiindation itself. Heiacles, he avers, 
with his marshalled hosts from Pisa, nutisuiril off the ronsei' ratal grove for /(is 
sovereign fit the r, nnd having set hovuiln ri/ marls oronnti the Altis, he laid it off, 
in a tlear spaee, irhi/e the plain roinid about he appointed for comfort of 
feasting. The fates stood over him when he proceeded to found the games, 
and Time was on his right hand. Oeonus of Midea won the Stadium race, 
Eehenuisi.f Tegea the Wrestling Kout, Doryclus of Tiryns the Boxing match. 
In the (Miariot-race, Samus the Mantiiiean was victorious, Phrastor and 
Nikeus in the .lavelin thiow and the Hurling of the stone, and the landed 
fellotcshi/> tf v'lir gave ]>eals if thmulcrous applause . . . then upon t lie fall if 
eventide gleantnl forth the graeious Irightncss of the Moon's full shining face. — 
aet'Sero Be ttciv refievo^, — ichile all the hallowed ranges rang vith gladsonn 
Songs, familiar in our hymns fir vietors of to-dag. With stniins oui- 
poet brings us at last into the veiy midst of the Altis. Then he adds a 
woril about his own procrastination, and flu' pealing triumph of Ins song, 
likened to those heroic hymns that thrilled the (Iro\c on foundi'r's day, is 
hushed whili- lu- stands m, where we have seen him — giizing at 
Agesidamus winning at the Altar's side. 

Imperialism, — if that hardworktd word may l>e rudily pressed for 
archaeological duty, — is writ large in all the si.\ lyrics of I'indar commemor- 
ating, along with \ ictoi's and victories in the 7(ith ( )lympiad, the uni\i'r.sal 

'■' Sci' A|'\. 


Pan-Hellenic glorification of the great triumph ovt-r invading Persia, It is 
therefore, I venture to think, no mere chance that five of these Odes 
magnify victors from the antipodes, so to speak, Hiero of Syracuse, Theron of 
Acragas, and the plucky boy Agesidamus, from Locris in the West. Agesi- 
damus was the only one of the three who- could possibly feel himself a 
stranger. It was therefore peculiarly fitting that the Ode celebrating 
Agesidamus should, above all the others, abound in intimate details of the 
Sanctuary, and thus as it were confer upon its hero the freedom of the Altis. 
The splendour of Pindaric song was, in fact, but the lyrical expression of 
what, for lack of a word more suitable, we must term Pan-Hellenic imperi- 
alism, — a universally prevalent impulse prompting for that brief hour all 
Greeks, while the thrill of remembered perils was yet upon them, to serry 
their ranks. Consolidation, organization were the watchwords of the hour. 
At Delos a confederation offensive and defensive had just been formed. At 
Olympia the newly-organized state of Elis was called to a similar work. 
Shamed on the stricken field of Plataea, — where they arrived too late — the 
villagers of Hollow Elis resolved to set their house in order and while the 
Athenians were busy at Delos, these Eleans organized their scattered village- 
centres into a city-state. This done, they determined to manage the Olympia 
without the countrified Pisatans, to extend the duration of the Games, and 
to increase the number of the Hellanodicae — ^managors — from two to nine. 
But their new programme of organized efficiency went further. The Terrace 
of the treasuries, which had been but newly stepped for the greater safety of 
the more recently and precariously footed treasuries, and also for the better 
accommodation of the steadily swelling crowd of onlookers, was obviously 

A careful consideration of the dates attaching to improvements carried 
out, and buildings erected at Olympia after 476 B.C., forces one, I think, to 
recognize that the Eleans— perhaps with advice from competent frecpienters 
of the 76th festival — projected a vast and thoroughgoing scheme of improve- 
ments — which included six main items."^'' Taken in the order in which they 

-•' There is sufficient evidence for dating there was a scvtiifnld echo, it supplied tlie 
the construction of the Colonnade of Echo Eleans with a good reason for the popular al- 
late in the first half of the fifth century tcrnative for their official designation, and 
B.C., and the building of the Hidlanodioaeuni covered the awkward fact that vaiious chthonic 
early in the last half of the same century. Of shrines in this neiglibourhond liad been sup- 
the front colonnade of the last-named building pressed when the Promos was laid out after the 
few remains were iilentified, l)ut fortunately Imilding of the great temple of OlympiaH Zeus 
enough to arrive at the apjiroximate date just (see above, notes 7 and 9). The name Colon- 
mentioned. For the name of the Colonnade of nade of Echo was evidently applied ei[ually 
Echo, Fausauias is our authority. Speaking of to the earlier and the later colonnade. The 
the reconstructed (later) colonnade he says building of the great temple of Zeus would 
(V. xxi. 17) trph TTis noiKi\r)s (TToos Ka\ovfj.(vrjs naturally harmonize with the sujipression of 
. . . flal 5' ot rrfu aroav TavTt)v koX 'HxoCs ovo- more primitive chthonic observances, and the 
fj.diou(Ti, and then mentions the sevenfold echo. fact that the earlier colonnade was built either 
This suggests that tlie Eleans (;alled it the just after or during the closing years of the 
Painted Colonnade, while the Pisatans persisted Imilding of Mbon's temple (468-456 n.c.) is 
in calling it the C'oloi:nade of Echo. Since clearly demonstrated, (n) Stones plainly derived 



were canit*«l uiit in the teeth ut an intense <ipjH)8ition otfcre*! by the 
Pisataiis, who ninuiiu'il viMapers even to the last ditch, these six ittins were: 
(1) A new South win^', ealled the UpueSpia and njeant as business .jtuirlerH 
for the nine HeUanodicae, which the Kh-ans added to the Council-House 
between 47(1 and 474 H.c. : (2) Th» building' (4UM 45<)) of Libon's Temple of 
Zeus, only be^Min after a life and death stni>,'gle with Pisji : (M) The running 
up (cff. 45(j-4r)"2) of an eivsteni wall for the Altis, primarily designed as part 
— the back wall that is— of the Hi-st (.'oloiniade of Kcho. whence spi-clators 
could view sacrifices at the (ireat Ash AlUxr and processions between the two 
great temples, not to s])eak of any athletic events which from time to time 
might still be contested in the ancient arena, now HU{)erseded for such uses 
by (4) Xenophon's Dromos. This was laid out either simultaneously with the 
Painted Colonnade or, immediately afterwards (451-450): (5) The laying out 
of the Hip|x)dronK' with the a<f)€cn<i of ('leoetas (cc. 450 Rc): (0) The long 
front Colonnade of the Hellanodicaeum, which was built after 450 B.C., as a 
dwelling house for the newly increased board of HellamMlicac or mar)agera. 
Its front Colonnadi' formed a southwanl continuation of the Painted Colon- 
nade, and attorded a view of the formal distribution of crowns to the victors, 
which took place just opposite in the easteni or front end of Libon's Temple.^^ 
The Eleans' two projected Colonnades — an enormous amplificjiti'Hi cif the ujd 

from the demolition in Mn.-edoniau times of the 

earlier colonnade shew marks of I ^ -sliaped 

clamps as contrasted with the 1 -shai)ed 

clanijis used in fitstcning together stones of the 
stylohatc of the later colonnade, (b) Cast-off 
triglyplis made for the great temple and then 
rejected were found in tiie bottom course of the 
south-eastern foundations of the earlier colon- 
nade. These were used for the water-course 
(see alx)ve, p. 254, n. 9). The same l>ack wall 
also yielded fragments of drums made for 
Libon's tcmplf. The whoh of this water- 
coui-se must have been built after the Terrace 
of the Trea-suries was stepped (ca. 478-77 Uf. 
or a trifle earlier), since it hugs the lowest 
of the terrace steps from the north-west corner 
of the Heraeum to the entrance of the 
Dromos, where it bifurcates. In fact cast- 
off triglyphs from the temple also apjiear 
in the runnel at the foot of the terrace 
step. The date of this water supply in fact 
g\ves & trrvuHHS post qiU7)i both for ti.e laying 
out of the Dromos and for the building of the 
earlier colonnade. Thetireat Temple must have 
been practically completed before these improve- 
ments were made. Here is not the jilacc for the 
intricate and voluminous argument* which quit^ 
definitely determine the date of Libon's build- 
ing as B.C. 468-456. That date being accepted, 
the stones which Lilton's buildere rejected be- 
come the top and corner-fcton • of Olympian 
chronology. They fix the date of the earlier 

Colonnade of Echo and determine the time 
when Xenophon's Dromos was laid out, at. 
450 B.I'. The sonth wing of the Council Hou e 
alone remains to be dated. Its architectural 
details, when compared with Libon's Doric, arc 
so unmistakably earlier us to maki- it impera- 
tive to suppose an appreciable interval of time 
between the two. This necessity is accentuated 
by similar detailed comjiarisons with the Doric 
of the Sicyoiiians' and Megarians' ' treasuries ' 
(see my ' DeUiils of the Olympian Treasuiies,' 
J.H..S. vol. xxvi. p. 81, u. 112). The south 
wing must therefore be very definitely <late<l 
ten years more or less before Libon's temple. 
The more so because it is now plain (see my 
'Olympian Council House and Council,' Har- 
vard Sliidie.<i, vol. xxvi.) that the Eleaus were 
straining every nerve in n isofial war' during 
that interval. 

'^"^ [The jilace of the distribution of crowns in 
a jNjint which I never discussed with .Mr. Dyer. 
)lie in Qiinestiours Aijvnisticae »tatea that 
the crowns wei-e preseDte<l immediately after 
eH<li event. This fiew is accepted liy Rol>erta 
and in the article on Olympia in Dar.-i?ag. The 
evidence is hardly sufticient to enable us to 
•lecide the ]K)int. Hut if the crowna wen* 
pi^sented immediately after each i vent they 
must have l>een pi-esented at the sjMjt where the 
event took place, i e. in Pindai's time by the 
altar of Zeus, in later limes in the Stadium for 
.ill events which took place theie. — K.N.C] 


Olympian ^Jiarpov of the Treasuries and one which stretched away from its 
eastern end at right angles — extend practically along the whole east side of 
the Altis southward as far as the Council-House beyond. Meanwhile the 
projected Dromos provided the amplest accommodation — such as it was — for 
onlooking bystanders at the athletic contests — banished henceforward 
presumably from the old 'Aywi/ where Oeonus of Midea, Echemus of Tegea, 
and Doryclus of Tiryns won their crowns, on founder's day. 

Remembering that this Homeric dycov, and with it something of the 
simplicity of Homeric funeral games, clung to the Olympia as long they were 
governed jointly by village-dwelling Pisatans and Eleans, and that the old 
arena was in use until about 450 K.C. turn now to the details of Xenophon's 
description of the battle of Olympia in 3G4 B.C. In that summer the 
Arcadians and the Pisatans laid violent hands on Olympia. The 'Arcadians,' 
says Xenophon (VII. iv.), ' not dreaming of attack, went on with their 
conduct of the festival assisted by the Pisatans. The chariot-racing was over, 
as well as those events of the Pentathlon that require the use of the Dromos,' 
— TO, SpofjLiKa Tou UevrdOXov, words which may, however, mean The runniufj 
that fowled j^cc'^f of the Pentathlon. 'Then the Dromos was vacated,' says 
Xenophon, 'and those still competing entered upon the urestling-bout 
between it and the great altar.' Where, let it be asked, were now those who 
had stood in the Dromos outside witnessing the four first events of the 
Pentathlon ? Obviously they had followed the Pentathletes and were either 
on the stepped terrace or on the steps of the Painted Colonnade. The 
wrestling-bout of the 104th Olympiad certainly took place where Pindar saw 
Agesidamus winning the Boxing match of the 76th Olympiad — ^oj/xov irap 
^OXufjLTrcov, alongside the great altar and in front of the stepped terrace.^^ 

' At this moment,' sa3's Xenophon — meaning the moment while the 
wrestlers were grappling, and the onlookers were standing on the steps 
of the terrace and Colonnade — ' the Eleans in battle array were in the 
precinct.' Then followed tighting at the Cladeus in which the Arcadians 
were routed. ' When the Eleans had carried victorious pursuit ' — here I again 
translate Xenophon's actual words — ' into the space between the Council- 
House, the Shrine of Hestia and t\u' Searpov' {Si^ectatorium , let us call it) 
' adjoining these buildings respecti\ely — tov irpo'i tuvtu Trpoa-rJKovTo*; dedrpov 
— they were exposed to a shower of mi.ssiles from the Colonnades, the 

'^ [It is iini>os.sible to ascertain fioin Xeno- Even after the laying out of the Spofios the 
phon's language whctiier the transference of the triangular siiace before the altar must liave been 
wrestling tu the space near the altar was ordtn- far more convenient than the racecourse lor 
ary or exce[itional. Hut from this very doubt events like boxing, wrestling, and the pankra- 
we may feel sure that the holding of the wrest- tion, and my own view is that these events 
ling by the altar was not unprecedented, or continued to be held there at least down to the 
Xenophon must have vouchsafed his readers time of the furthei- improvements in the stadium, 
more explanation. Either it was the usual if not afterwards. This view gives addition. d 
custom or a rcveision to an oldt-r custom which importance to the colonnades as places corn- 
existed almost within living memory before the manding a view not only of the sacrilices and 
pernianent Sp6fjLos was made ca. 450. Certainly ]irocessions, but also of some of the ganiej. — 
it must have been the custom in Pindar's time. E.N.G.] 

rm; ol^miman thkaikon -.m;? 

( ', jiiid tlic (iiciit 'r.iiiplc. AikI, iIkmi^'Ii they iiiaiiitaiiird tin- 
r..iMl):it, and l)tirt' back their i>|(|i.iMrnt.s towjud tin- altar, their losses wiie 
heavy, and Stnitolas hiin-ill. e.i|iiaiii i.t the AOi). was shiin. At this jinietiire 
they drew «>rt" to their eiiraiii)iiiient. In >|ti!e uf this, the Areadian-^ 
an<l their friends were su ner\<iMv .ihi.iit the next day's H^ditin^ that they did 
n.. an eye (hirini; the ni^ht, hut ..cnipied t hi-nisc'lves in pidlin^' to 
|iieci-s thi'ir elaborately euiistrneird .|ii:irter- ami making' a stockade ot tin- 
niateiials. When the Khans ad\an<<d the n. \t day, and sawastont ramitart 

• •oiirrontin,L,Mheiii, ami the inols o| {\\,- t.)ii|il.> stron^riy manned, the\ went 
home ai^ain." Thiis i-nded the in^dorioMsly-fanioiis battle of ( )|yiii)tia so as Ut 
Verify someone's <'/'/7(/' (//V^///>< that inadieek battle, one armv alwa\s run> 
away, and somct imes Imtli. 

And heie should i'n<l this dis<-iissioii, were it not advis.ibic to sji\ 
a word or two of the uidy two aecounts of the Olympian Ht'arpo/' 
now prevailing — Pnifessor Fra/er's { I'ld'.-nnilds, iii. j»j). (J.SG f. ), and Dr. 
])«'.riifeld's {()/., ii. |). 7!>). Though agreeing with Professor Fra/.ei- 
ex.ictly in oui- translation of all and eveiy other word in the passage of 
Xeiiophou just i-ead, wo, Mr. E. Norman ( Jardini-r --' and the wiiter, join i.ssue 
with him in his translation of dearpov as Theatie, if, as he jdainlv thinks, a 
•-tone semi-eircular fabri(! of the usual kind must in that case be sujiposed to 
have been before Xenojjhon's eye. That being insisted on, I for our shouM 
boldly coin the ti'rm Sjnrldfaiiinn to designate the place at ()lvmj)ia, where 
spectators from time innneniorial had congregated, and wiiere tlnv actually 
weic congregated at the inoiiient of .\enophi>n's narrative. Professor Fmzi-r 
is not, however, in the hast (fegree positive in dealing with this whole 

• piestion — his main dif^culty being one fully shared by Mr. (Jardiixr and the 
jireseiit writer, /.(. the wholly unconvincing account of the Olympian i^kmpov 
ingeniously offered by Dr. J )oipfeld.-:' Demanding, as the only abernative then 
before him, a stone Theatre of the usual kind, and that bt'ing sternly refused 
by the site as known, he souiewhat hesitatingly denies \vhat everyone 
achnits, that the Council-House is where it ceiiainly is, and .suggests that it 
may po.ssibly lie still unexcavateil somewhere to the north-west of the Shiine 
of Hestia, with the eipially uue.xcavated Theatic soniewliere near b\ 
(l\iiimnia>i, iii. jip. iVM\ t. ). This solutiou. if .solution it can be ealh-d, 
nid'ortnnately withdraws from c<.mprehension the whole of the 

- At tlic iiieiliii;,' i.f tla- lltllciii-' .Sucji-jy. I'l- ii-. .1 c.l tlia lai iimrc i-liiborutc arnin^iiiieiits 

Kcl.niary IStli, 1!)08, wlii-ri- llic- .sul'staiitivc in tin- Aitis ciilici of tlic .stci.N of tlic Treiwury 

jioiiits of tliis I'lippr \vt re reml t>y inc, it was Tirnuc .ilonc, orof the .stc|>H luid tliecoloniiiulc. 

made quite clear the i on. Insjons hcie juv- e;|>e.ially as these coiiimaiuh-«l a view of the 

rented lia<l lieen iiidejieiideiitly .11 rived at on altar, lli.s contention thut the 8te|i.s are too 

other grounds of jiroof hy Mr. E. Xornian narrow to have been usi-d for spect.itoi-s to bit 

( Gardiner, who jjave his aii^unient at tliat sainc or even stand upon can be readily disprovetl by 

•'"■"•liiiK- (Xpcrinient. The steps are 25 cm. in ilepth. 

'-' [If Dr. Dorj.rild is ri;;ht in his rcadeix will be able to find Btaiivasc-s in 

that Of'aTpoi' couM be lise.l of the arrangements their own houses tlie ste|w of which aie no 

lor s|>ectator.s in the .stadium which at Olympia greater or even less in depth: t.rjKitu crfd^. — 

had neither a semi-circular ending nor stone E.N.(;.] 
•siats, it follows 1/ /or^iori that the word c.'uld 


detailed account of the battle of Olyinpia. Dr. Dorpfeld on the other hand 
understands the whole of the battle as we do, but entirely at Xenopht>n's 
expense. He requires us to believe that in bounding the battle-tield, 
Xenophon was momentarily bereft of his usual common-sense, bereft also of 
his habitual gift of simple, lucid, and consistent diction. Dr. Dorpfeld's 
explanation of the word diarpov as meaning in this context that western part 
of the Dromos meant to be occupied by spectators which adjoined the trian- 
gular treeless area at the foot of the altar, implicates Xenophon 's established 
reputation in two very serious particulars. Are we to suppose, when 
Xenophon has just told us that the wrestling took place not in the Dromos, 
but in the space between it and the Altar, he will immediately relate how 
the pursuing Eleans entered that same space, noiv described as between the 
Council-House, the Shrine of Hestia, and that western part of the Dromos 
(meant to be occupied by spectators though actually vacant of them) which 
adjoined — ravra ? In this explanation the meaning of ravra hangs hope- 
lessly in mid-air. Also Xenophon, if Dr. Dorpfeld's meaning for Oearpov tvas 
his, would have said that the wrestling took place not ' between the Dromos 
and the altar' but between the diarpov and the altar. Moreover, as Mr. 
Gardiner has suggested, it is absolutely incredible that Xenophon while in 
his senses, should have neglected to mention, in bounding the battle-field, the 
long Colonnade of Echo which stared both him and his pursuing Eleans in 
the face, and loomed up along the whole eastern side of the field throughout 
the battle. Could Xenophon or any one else think to gain in clearness by 
overleaping this Colonnade and talking about an embankment which it 
completely masked ? 

Louis Dyeh. 


ON THE MEANING OF ay6yv, aywvtos. etc. 

(1) In interpreting Pindar, the prevalent explanation of his word uyu>v has most 
unhistorically derived from the later and post-Homeric meaning attached to that word in 
the dramatists. Thus not only have numei-ous Pindaric passjiges been misunderstood 
where dycoi/ is used after the Homeric manner, to designate not a contest, but the arena 
of a contest, but also the same has happened to numerous passages where Pindar uses 
uywv meaning a contest but also the arena of the contest, the two ideas being inextricably 
combined. These last — when the example of the Homeric poems is borne in mind — can 
be most conveniently translated ])y arena or lids. When all the passages thus indicated 
have been subtracted, the remaining ones, where ayiiv not only means content, but als(» is 
best translated by contest, are surprisingly few. The general soundness of this view is 
borne out hy Pindar's use of the adjective ayavioi. 

I. The fi)llowing are all the i)laces in Pindar where ayu)v clearly means arena or listn 
and cannot, howsoever translated, be understood as meaning contest, {a) 0. vi. 79 : os 
[Hermes] dyo)vas fxti p.oipuv t' htdXoiv. (b) 0. xi. 24 f. : dycova S' f^aipfTOv dt'itrai dtfiirts 
2>p(Tov. {() P. i. 44 f. : fXTTOfjLai firj ^(^aXKoirdpaou ukovO' oxreir' dycavos ^aXdv e^co. (d) P. ix. 
114 : ecTTaafv "yri/j anavra )(npttv tv ripytacnv (ivtik dywi/os. (e) P. xi. 11-17 : frrTanvXoiai 
Offffais II xdpiv dycbui t( Kippai || f'p rw QpacrvSaios tpunafv icrriav \\ rpirov e'nl (TTtfpnvov 


77(ir/ja>uj' (ia'Kuv, \\ iv a<^vtnii% (i/j«t (kikti Ili'XnAii viKuiv . . . (/) A. ii. !!• 24 : wnpit fnir t^i- 
^iifiiUTJ II(i^f(i(7<j> T«tr<T(i^Jif «^ ««7'Xfc)i' HKdl" ««il/il^n»'- |! fiXXii Ko/jif^ici)!/ I'wo (P^riif «V iaXnv 
llfXiirrof nvXnit \\ oitro) arKfHivtus 7^i^fiiv ij^r)- imii b' iv Sifiitf, th fl' oiitf)! /i<i<r(T(»i/ I'lfudnoVf || 
iiioy .iya>f( . . . (;/) N. iv. 17 '-il : KXrwvaioi' t' nrr' nyifor Oftfiof arttfuivuf rr</j^aKri en] 
AiTTd/iri*' fiioivinuv an 'Adayay, Htjliais r' iv iitrairvKoit \ ovvtK Afitpirfnttvot dyXaov rafu'i 
Ttfiiov '\ K(ifl/i»Ioi viv OIK iitKovrts I'vBtat fiiyvvov. (h) I. i. IH f. : tv t ai0Xoiat 6iyiiv 
■nXtiCTTusv i\yij)v<i>v \\ «tnl T/iiTr(iA*iT(rii' fKoafitjirov ^-uov. (j) J. viii. ItT) <i8 : «'ir#4 w* |' 'AXk<i0i>oi' 
t" (iyu)*" (Til' '"I'x? 11 *'•' Km^ii'/iw t« Tr/)if tdtKrn ffitrrir. \N itii tlu-Mc nine |tHHMHgrH Hhniild he 
ilii.sM'il tliivo otIieiN wlit'if tiyuivttii in tlii' ndjuctive durivL-d from liywv, in tlie wnHo (if 
«((>'»i<« nr linl.t : /. iv. K : tv t' uywvtutr (uT'Xrutri noBtivov KXios Jnpa^nv. Fr. \. 1 (4) ; rn/iiVii 
Tf ao(\)(>\ i! Mixoav fiywu'un' t* d<^X<oi< ; nnd jiiThiips also <>. xi. <>.'l : uyoifioi' «V irifa tiynt 
<,>yu> KnfffXil)^. Also H tt'iith ifisi- wIrto Piiidm' ineaiis aieiKt hiuI imt rimli'Ht by nyw*/ imiht 
l>c added in i>. vii. 84 ((iywfi'i- r' tvvofioi Boiwruu) if \vu heed KuHtnthius' cuiniiient «»n 
11. xxiv. 1 (whore ayu>v iiieanH uMembly) wliich runs hh foUowH : ayoiv M koi yiv tu nXfjOot. 
■na^ui ^€ B iiwToIv ayitiv ran naXauui i) iiyopa. ofitp Ka\ ayo/xifO/iot o ay*»va/j;^>;r, «c(ii nau' 
:\t(Txi'Xoi <\yil>vini Sfo't oi dyopnioi. One of KiiHtatliiiiH' otyniologieN Irtc given is imt onlv 
amusing liut also instnictive as implying that dyu)v means primarily n jilme : ^ napa Trjy Ci 
4rrtf)r](Tiv Ka'i rijv yaviav iiydiv, o'lovt'i Tt'rrroi KVKXi)T(f)r]t^ yujviav oik «;^ci)»', kqi Aia roiTO fvpvs. 

II. There are four j)asHfiges where Pindar uses <iyii)v in the sense of (umemlihi fcf. 
11. xxiv. 1): N. X. 52, (». iii. .'Mi, P. x. ;t<», and F/ . xi. 'Jl'H (Christ) =-213 (Hergk) : 
Tt^<|i«'»'a)t' aya)Ka)i' 7r/j()</)n(nv (cf . Plut. An .leui »it yereiidit rfgjtHlAirn i. and /)f mdl. unint. xxiii. 
{In the first two pa.s.siiges the meaning of /m/.s is e*|ually applicable. - E N.G.] 

III. There are three p;i.sHages where Pindar oyciv so di.stinctly in the sense 
(unknown to Homer) of content that it would be forcing matters to translate it nifnn : 
O. viii. 7<> rtnd ix. W ; P. xii. 24. 

IV. There remain eight pas.sages where it is not very ea-sy to say whetlier dyap 
means ((leiut or content because it means cioite.'<t in the arentt. Here the most satisfactory 
rendering is Krena or li.its, beaiuse these words so often definitely cover the idea both of 
the contest and of its arena: (t. i. 8: 'Even so shall we name no lists' (contests are 
referred to just befijre as i'(dXa) ; P. viii. 78 f. : iv Mtyapon d' f\tii yipat, |; pv)(<o t iv 
hlapa6(iivoi, "Hpat t ayatv ini)(0)piov |[ viKan Tpi<T<ra'ti, S> 'picrrofirvts, iafiaatrat tpyu. P. xi. 
4<)-61 : where 'OXvunitf dyiavuv jioXv<pnT<i>v tu^^ov 6ohv dxrlva means, with the line 
preceding, 'Anciently in the chariot race they won the swift halo of glorious victory on 
the far-famed lists at ()lymj)ia ' ; N. ii. .'i 5: where KaraiioXhv itpoiv nyoivav means the 

* foundation of victory in the sacred li.sts ' ; A', iii. <>4 t)7 : where aio K dyatv means 

* thine too are the lists'; N. iv. 87, vi. (il, and x. '22 f. In this last {dyi^v tih 
)(^(iXKfnt Ij Bcip.ov orpvvfi nor'i fiovBvaiav "Wpm dt$Xu>v t( Kp'icriv) mention of the 'lists of the 
brazen shield ' is followed by that of ' the issue of contests,' so closely and so jxiintediy 
that a l<)cal sense f<)r dyu)v is jiractically neces.sary. 

Thus every where Pindar'^ the word dyuiv with tiie exception of three comes 
under the dispensation of Homeiic usage, whereaH the meaning i)revalent in the 
dramatists is recognized only three times by our Boeotian p<x't. Doubtless the Boeotian 
use of fiy<u»' for dyopn influenced Pindai's adhesion to Homeric precedent. 

This is confirmed l>y Pausanias' evidence (IX. xvii. 2i that Pindar dedicated 
near the teinj)le of Artemis Eucleia at Tlieltes (cf. Jebb on >'<»/»/(. O.P. Ull ) a statue of 
Hermes dyopaim. Since Pindar nowhere uses the word dyopaioi, but once mentions 
Hermes ivityu)viot {P. ii. 10) and once Hermes dyuvtor (/. i. tt(»), and twice de.scril»eK 
Hermes as presiding (»ver the uyoivar (A', x. 51, <K vi. 79), it is (piite cleAr (<r that 
this Hermes stAtue is to the god of the dywv, and (/< that the old Boeotian 
identitication of dyu>v and dyopd ajjpealed to its de<licator. What Pindar conceived 
jHtetically and piously the nature of the dyipd to be, can further be gathered from 
/. vii. 26 where the p.nKdpu>v nynpai are alluded to (cf. 0. xiii. 6), and from P. v. 87 (here 
ny.)/jn st^iiids for the place of ritual processions, where was iv irpxttLvo'it the tomb 
•of Battus-Aristtiteles, just as Peh»i>s was liuried in the forefront of the Olympian nycuf) 
Jis well is from A', iii. \A (l>' n-dX u'<^aro" (iyo^ini') from which pnssAge Rauchen"<tein and 


Kayser have endcivvouved to cxi)unge the word clyopc'iv in spite of thtj AISS. and Sdiolia 
(cf. also Fi: iv. 53 (Bergk), 74 (Christ)). In addition to tlieso four jjIhcos wlu-rt- Pindar 
idealizes the ayopii, he once (P. iv. 85) refers to it in a more conventional and prosaic 
vein, but this is only a periiduastic way he adopts for fixing the time of day for Jason's 
appearance (nyo/ia 7rXr;^oj'rof ("i)^X()u = 7r\r]dnv(Tr]i dyopus Note finally that in X. iii. 14, 
untampered with l)y text reformers, dyo/Ki = riytoi', /.<■. the iiri-)in where the Paiieration 
Avas fought out. 

(2) As to the use of ({ywi/ by Aeschylus, the word occurs only eight times in his 
extant plays and thus appears to be less conspicuous in liis vocabulary than in Pindar's. 
All of the four meanings found in Pindar are also found in Aeschylus. 

T. The prevalent Homeric meaning of arena or lists appears once only, but very 
clearly in Aijatn. 1348 If. — a i)assage where unfortunately little else is clear. Whether 
you read there with conseivative editors, dyiov viKyjs naXaius, or, with those willing to 
emend viKrjt to vf'iKrji, dyiov pfiKTjs TruXiuds-, in all cases the inefi'ective tautology '>f 

(lycoy , vanishes, if the meaning of mnt^st is thrown into the shade and that of <//>/(./ 

or liMs is allowed to assert itself. Furthermore as a result of tins locative uieanin'4 
attached to dy^v, the dramatic ))oint of the line next following is made dear. ' Tlie lists 
of victory long deferred ' (<iyu>i> o<^' oik dcPfxiuTiaros TidXai} give point to the er^' (TTdimi of 
Clytemnestra's next line, '' ecrrriKn 8' 'ivff fTraia €n f^ftf^yaafxn'ois.' If it were allowable to 
extract with Dr. Verrall from the combined effect upon the ear of ndXai an<l naXcuds a 
punning reference to wrestling, which would of course l)e helped by the associations of 
dyoiv, then the whole passage would be cleared up by insisting on the Homeric a)id 
Pindaric meaning for dyojv, and could be translated : 

These lists [ long since schemed to wrestle in 
Triumphantly, have come, though late, at last ; 
I stand even where I stabbed, my work is done. 

II. The secondary meaning of Homer and Pindar is also founil for dywv but oidy 
once) in Aeschylus A(i(ini. 81*>, where kouovs dywviis QivTa tv iravrjyviHL \ ,ivv\(viTuyi(nB.i 
evidently calls for the meaning (jf (i^semhlij. 

III. Aeschylus, like Pindar, yields three jiassages > Pi'isur 407, hhum'u. ri47 and 714 
where dyi^v unhomerically means cunffsf, tlie locative implication liaviiiLC all Imt 
completely evaporated. 

IV. The three remaining cases of dyoiv in Aeschylus, like the last eight in Pindar, 
recjuire for it the meaning of roiiffsf. In thr lists, and are also l)est translated by ./;<•;(<» or 
lists, since these words imply the contest (|uite as definitely as the word dydn'. Tlie 
passages are (1) Chofpli. 713-71<», where ^ic{ii)8r]XiiTnta iv dywaiv mean lists trtu-,'- thf sicuril 

not the discus or the javelin for the glory of victory) Is irii-bli'd for destruction. Hermes 
)(^dwiit^ and vvx^us is according invoked instead of Hermes (vaytovim ; (2) Ctux-ijli. 575 f. 
wliere ^tcprj-fx'ifjiws t'yo>i'a<; has practically the same implications just noted in 1 '. In lioth 
cases these implications are in keeping with plentiful passages throughout the (Jioifihui".' 
and the K>iinfjiid<'s where the tragic vengeance which Orestes has in hand is represented 
as an athletic event for which he reijuires training such as that for the arena isee 
<:hiiiph. 3:W f. ; Enm. 551 1 ; ('hnpj'h. 44<»). The third passage l)eing from the 
Enuifiiides (874 f.) has this same athletic ' atmosphere,' and dp(i<f)nTi)i nyajj/fs- means much 
the same thing as rtycovfr ^KpoSrjXrjToi or ^i(Pn(f)<'>i>ni . Hut perhai)s the most instructive 
passfiges in Aeschylus for the vuiderstanding of the full sense attached by him to the 
word dyatv are his five mentions of the nyoJnot Ceiii (A<j(i)n. 41>fi, Zeus, Ajjollo, and 
Hermes ; Snjipl. 185, 238, 327, and 350, Zeus, Poseidon. Apollo, and Hermes). In 
spite <jf the attempt of Dr. Verrall (seethe hitter's note on Aijuni. 4iK> = 5l8i to make 
out that a'yoii'ioi 6(oi in the Sujijiliants certainly, and in the Afnonemnoit jaobably, means 
f/fW-s in asaemhlij and is derived from the very rare sect)ndary meaning of dya^v as an 
iisnemblii, it is demonstrable that Aeschylus attaches to riycoVioy jtractically the same 


iiiciiiiing iittuchfd t<t it by Pindar, picMulimj oeer the $acred arena, which in ruimt cahcN in 
idfiitiail witli tlie uyn^ni (yf. Srhol. in Piml. 1*. ii. 10 : tvay^Piot it o 'Kp/iijv dx rCtv (iycJfwv 
Tr(Vifrr<irr;i. Tljus jiyoinor ineaiit to AcsoliyluH ivi U> Pindar tho HAint* thin;^ aH tvayutno\, 
:ind w)it'ii Afscliylus iipostrophizts HlTiul-h »vm fVaywii* Muiar kuI ^liif 'V.fjfia {Fi. tnrtrt. 
."W"; his moaning is not KviJ)stfintiiiny nther than Pimljir's when he dcH^rihcH Alciinidaii, 
tlif AfgilH'tan hoy-wrestler us jrair ('»aya>V(o( (S. vi. i;{t, itnd the h<k1 tlius ajniHtrophi/AMl '\n 
the self s.une Hermes aynfutioi to whom Pindar dedicated a statue at Theln-'s. How 
ideally eonceived w;is Aescliylus' Zeus a-yo^jaior may he gathered froM> t'tnn. 5>.*{1 ff. where 
Athena i>roclaims aloud that tho strife as to who shall confer most henefits inauguratc-d 
as the cunsunnnation of the ages is the triunqth of Zeus nyopalut : dXX' iKparrftr* Ztiit 
liyoftmof viKu 8' tiya&uiV ?pif rjfitTf'pa fiir'i jroi^o'r. That the epithet ayopaiot Uar here the 
force of (vayaivioi and imjilies a contrast hetween the fraternal emulation of the areiui, 
and the ('/rXF/o-Tfir KOKtov (ttiktu mentioned in the line next following (niffi' «TrrX»;«rToi/ Katioy 
litjniir' (V TToXfi (TTtiniv Tci8" tnf\.\iiyt.iH ,'ifjtfnii>) is self-evident, since the Eumenides give 
their solemn pledge in response to Athena's proclamation that Zeus dyopnior has prevailed 
at last. Since the tlitticidty raised hy Dr. Verrall (note on -l;/<i»/i. 4!»'.» = 51H) concerning 
the uyaivini Ban of the Supplices alone gives plausil)ility to the contention that the d-yuKtot 
Sfol of Aijitm. 440 are not the gods of the athletic dywv or arena, the only i|Ue.stion 
remaining is whether Dr. Verrall and Wecklein are right in assuming that xtuvo^i^pla 
.Siijipl. 219) of the Siipfiliiis is not in an ayopd [ = dyw'i'], Itut in a lonely place near the 
sea. Three facts must he recognised at the out.set ; (1) Argos lies on rising grourul not 
more than two miles from the sea ; 2) at Sparta (Plut. LyioyiM vi.) and various 
Thes.s;ilian towns (Ari.stot. Pnl. vii. 11, 2, and Xen. (.'ijrop. I, ii. 3) there were two dyopal, 
one (eXfvdf'pa ayopii) for meetings of the people, another for more usual tnitticking. Now, 
since a similar arrangement existed at Cyzicus ( 'M'u — aVS^jcta dyop<i, Theophrast. 
<'hiii. 2, and Menander cited Ity Pollux, x. 18 — yvi>aiKtia dyopti) which like Argos 
{SniijA. <»27) was a ntXayla TrdXir, it is no violent inference to conclude that Aeschylus 
knew of two dynpai at Argo.s — one where wa.s the joint altar of Zeu.s, Poseidon, .\jm>11o, 
and Hermes, resorted tti hy Danaus and his suj>pliant daughters — the yvvniKtia dyopd — 
and the other the (\(vB(pa dynpd in which King Pela.sgus convened the people and 
ohtaiiied their consent to harhouring the Suppliants; (3) the whole .tcemirin of the 
Su]iplices, jirol)ably the earliest drama e.xtant, is extremely vague and cannot fairly l>e 
criticized with any .sort of strictness. All this being granted, the fact that the 
Sup])liants are no sooner in a jmsition at the altar than the king of the land appears to 
i|uestion them, certainly favours their )>cing in the dyopd rather than in a lonely place hy 
the sea. That Danaus sees the shiji from a point near the altar oH'ers not the slightest 
dilKculty. Nothing hut the dyopd can be implie<l by line 'M',) addressed tt» the king by 
the Suppliants : oiSnO av npvpvav nnXtcos o>b' f'trrtpfifi^v. Indeed the absunlity of having 
the npvpvtj iru\(o>i — whether the reference be to the gods or to their common altar- in a 
lonely place by the sea is too obvious to re<|uire further comment. Here was the place 
where all strangers in distress placed sujijiliant boughs (cf. vv. 2:57 f. ). It must have 
been in tho (lyo^jri. The only ground for doubting is removed when we c<mceive, on the 
strength of reasonable evidence, that tliore was another and a sejwirate dyopd where the 
king ccmvened tjjo people. The play as it stands roiiuires this, but it also re<|uires that 
the altar of the fVoyw'i/iot Gfol should be anywhere rather than in 'a lonely jilace ' -in fact 
that it should be on the dyopd ywaiKfia in the n6\is of Argos. Th'it K'ing tirmly 
established, there is no further call for the wildly improbable suggestion that Pindar 
meant one thing and Aeschylus (juite another by the dyiovtoi $toi. Above all we are 
re.scued from the extremely uncomfortable nece.ssity of spinning out rea.sons for 
Aeschylus' chimerical distinction between the Hermes tvaywviot of Fr. .'587. who must 
be the god of the arena, and the fiyoiiiof Hermes of Supplices 185 (cf. 2ir)), 2.'W, .S27, '-^t^K 
and of A<iitm. 4!M; (cf. odl). 

(3) Sophocles employs the word dyoiv in sixteen places and his extant works yield 
examples of each of tlie three found in Pindar and in Aeschylus. 

H.S. VOL. XXV in. T 


I. The Homeric meaning of arena or lists is perfectly clear in Electra 680 ff. : 

KonffJinoixTiv npos ravra koi to nav (f>pd(T<M). 
Kfivos yap iKBcbv ts to KXeivov 'EXXuSoj 
np6cr\Tiix' dycova, A(\(f)t.Kav adXav \aptv. 

Here, at the beginning of the famous description of Orestes' death in a chariot-race at 
the Pythian games, the son of Agamemnon is described as ' entering the brilliant arena of 
Hellas far the sake of Delphian contests.' Again in Trachin. 503-506, 'dXX' tni Tavb' 
ftKoiTiP II Tiva dfi<f)iyvoi Kori^av nph ydfiuv ||rtVfs 7ra/i*rXjj«ra ndyKOviTaT (^rjKBov a(6\' uyiovav' 
the combination aiffka dy<ovav makes the meaning of dymvcov perfectly unambiguous. 

II. The secondary Homeric meaning of assemhlxj is found in two Sophoclean 
fragments : 68 (Athen. 466 b.) and 675 (Stob. 45, 11). 

III. The latter-day meaning of contest attaches to dytSv in seven cases : O.C. 587, 
1080, 1082, and 1148 ; Aj. 936 and 1240 ; M. 699. 

IV. Five cases remain parallel to the three last cited in the preceding note on 
Aeschylus and the eight last cited in the note on dyap in Pindar. Here dyav means both 
the contest and its arena, but here as in the Pindaric and Aeschylean cases in point, 
the most conveniently effective translation is invariably arena or lists : (a) Track. 20 : 
hs {sc. the son of Zeus and Alcmena) tli dya>va tw8( avfintaoiv fidxqs \\ iKKvtrai p.f, delivers 
me by grappling tvith this creature in the lists ; (6) ib. 159 : noWovs nyavas f'^idv, going 
forth to enter many lists; (c) Electra 1440 f.: 'KaOpaiov as upov(rf) \\ npos diKas dyava., 
hurling onivard to the covert lists of justice ; (d) Aj. 1163 : earai fieydXris fpitos tis aywV, 
there will be lists of huge contention ; (e) Electra 1492 f . : x^po's ^f' "f*" o^i"' rdxti. Xoyooi' yap 
oil II viiv €(mv &y<iv, \\ dWa o-^f ^v^^y ^rtpt, Orestes requires Aegisthus to be in the right 
place before he slays him, as is shewn by his answer to 1493 f. (rt 5' is b6p.ovs ayas fit:. 
etc.) which is (1496 f.): 

fiTI Td<T<Tf xiipfi. S' fvBanep KaTeicrapes 
naTfpa tov dfiov, as &v iv Tavr<o Bdvrjs. 

(4) The frequent occurrence of the word dyav in the extant plays and fragments of ~ 
Euripides bears speaking testimony to the frequency with which allusions to the great 
national games were made in the common speech of the poet's contemporaries, and also 
to his notorious affectation of the speech of everyday life : hence the great preponderance 
of passages where dyav has completely lost its archaic meaning of arena or lists and 
means, as in everyday speech, simply contest. 

I. But there are six cases where it means arena or lists, as follows: (a) Orestes 
1291 f . : a>cfylfa(r0€ wv afxtivov \\ dXX' ai fitv fv6ab\ a'l d' (K(l<r' tXtcrcrcre. (6) Ib. 1342 f . : 
W (Is dyoiva itijp', *yei> 8' T]yr)(TOjxai, acoTTjpias yap Ttpfi (\(t.s fjixlv yiovr}. (c) Phoenissae 1361 f. : 
fCTTTjaav *X^6»^' (s fifaov p.fTai\p.iov || las (Is dySyva fiovopaxoi' t d\Kr]v bopos (Athenaeus, 
p. 164 e, quotes the ' skit ' on this passage perpetrated by Aristophanes in his Phoenissae 

as follows : 

'Ef Olbinov b( nai8(, hirrrvxa) Kopa, 
"A.prjs KaTi<TKr)y\t (s t( p.ovop.dxov TrdXijy 
dywva viiv farda-iv. 

Part of the fun here undoubtedly is derived from the archaic meaning of dymv (arena) 
which would strike the public as affected in Euripides, although it belonged as a matter 
of course to Pindar, Aeschylus, and Sophocles) ; (d) Alcestis 1103, (fxC \\ tW (^ dywvos 
TTjvbf p.r] 'Xa0(s TTOTf ; (e) Andro7nache 724 f. : d 8' dnfiv iopos \\ toIs YnapTiaTois bo^a, Ka\ 
fidxT^s dyoiv ; (f) Electra 883 f. : fjKds yap ovk dxpdov (KnXtSpov bpapcov || dyu)v' ts oXkovs 
dXXa noXfpiuv KTaputv ■ Aiyto-^oj'. 

II. Since there is no case where Euripides uses dyeov in the secondary Homeric 
sense of assembly, it is well to recall Photius s.v. dy<Sva : Tr)v avvayayrjp- ovt<os 
'Apia-To<pdpr}s. This proves that the Homeric secondary meaning was not entirely obsolete 
in the days of Euripides and Aristophanes. Indeed Aristophanes emulated the everyday 
diction of Euripides, as he confesses himself (Fr. 397 from Schol. in Plat. Apul. p. 330 : 


)(pmftat ytip niToi ((ftrja'i) Tin< aro^aTof ry ar^nyyiX^ i, roit ¥ovt h' (iyof)aiovt fjTroy f) acivor 
TTotoS). Thus it appears that Kuiipiilt-H might liave u»*ed f ya'> = nfHtinhly, though no caso 
of it has Hurvivt'd. 

III. There aro ol cases where dyijjv nieaiiH colitcHt, aa followa : Her. 229; (2-10) 
OreatfB Xi:i, 491, 847, H«ll, HH8, 1124 ; 1223, 1244, and 1M7 ; (11-16) Ph,xn. 258, 787, 
867, 1(K>0, i:W(), 1487; (\7U*) Med. 23:>, 'XW, 4(« ; r2<)-21) Hipjxd. 49«, 1016; (22-2«) 
Ale. 489, 504. 648, 1026, and 1141 ; (27-28) Avdrom. 2'SA, .T28 ; (29-;^5) Siijjpl. 71, 316, 
427, 665, 706, 764, and 814 ; (36-37) LA. 1003, 1254 ; (38) Hhetvt 196; (39-41) Ueracl. 

116, 161. 992 : (42-43) HtUnn 339, 849 ; (44-46) Im 857, 939 ; (46-47) Herd. Fur. 789, 
1189 ; (48 49) Elect. 695, 751 ; (50) Fr. Antiopf 189 (Stob. 82, 2) ; (61) Troodei 363. 

IV. Se\en cases remain, parallel to tlie last five enumerattd in the preceding note 
on Sophocles, to the last three cited in the note on Aeachjlus. and to the last eight of 
the note on Pindar's use of dyoiv. These passagea are : ('i) Fh(/en. 688 ; (b) lb. 937 ; 
(c) lb. 1233 ; (rf) Here. Fnr. 811 (cf. Aeach. Choeph. 647 f.) ; («-/) Fr. 68 (Stob. 8. 12). 

L. D. 

•p '7 

[Plate XXXIII.] 

The beautiful bronze lamp, of which two views are here given, was 
recently acquired by Mr. T. Whitcombe Greene in Frankfort-on-Main. It is 
146 mm. long, 76 mm. high, and is said to have been found in Switzerland. 

The lamp is in the form of a boat, the raised bow of which contains the 
hole for the oil. There are two projecting nozzles on each side of the boat, 
pierced with holes for the insertion of wicks. Their position suggests that 
they are intended to represent the rowlocks. A border of small circles with 
centre-dots is engraved round the top margin of the l^mp; five waves are 
incised on each side of the bow, and another wave at its point. Three pairs 
of engraved lines run under the boat, one pair along the line of the keel, and 
one on each side. Within a shallow depression at the stern end of the boat 
is a nude figure of the infant Heracles in a half-reclining attitude, with his 
right leg slightly drawn up. He is strangling the two serpents sent, as the 
story goes, by Hera to attack the new-born infant. He grasps them tightly 
by the necks, and their bodies pass in a series of sinuous windings in front 
and behind him respectively. The lamp was clearly a hanging lamp, once 
suspended by means of chains attached to the end-loops formed by the 
windings of the serpents. It was originally silver-plated ; for considerable 
traces of the silver can still be observed. 

The representation of Heracles strangling the serpents in a boat seems 
to be a new one. The boat finds no place in the legend, but was probably 
adopted by the artist because it was a favourite shape with lamp-makers. A 
terracotta lamp in the British Museum closely resembles the present one in 
form, though it has three nozzles on each side and a flat bottom to enable it 
to stand. The Theocritean version of the serpent-strangling described 
Heracles as sleeping in the shield of Amphitryon, while Pindar does not 
mention the cradle at all.^ The position of the figure on the lamp is pretty 
closely paralleled by several extant statues or statuettes. Among these may 
be mentioned a bronze group in the British Museum,'-^ which perhaps 
ornamented the top of a cista ; several marble statues ; ^ and a marble relief 
from Athens of the Roman period, where Heracles is represented in a posture 
very similar to that of the figure in the present lamp.* 

F. H. Marshall. 

' riiular, Kon. i. 50 fft; Theocr. xxiv. vaiious ancient monuments representing Hera- 

'^ Cat. of Bronzes, 1243. cli-s straiif,'liiig tlie serpents, see J.II.S. xvi. 

'•> Cliirac, PI. 301, No. 1953, and Pis. 781, 782. (1896), pp. 145 if. ; Arch. Zeit. 1868, pp. 33 ff. ; 

■* Annali ihW Inst. 1863, Tav. Q. 2. For the Athli. Mittli. 1878, p. 267. 


It has lung bci-u lecogiiised that the E|;yj)tian histitrv given hy Herod- 
otus is confused ; but it is scarcely known that a single transposition will 
bring it into order. Before W(» assume that his intorniation Wius wrong, \\>- 
may at least consider how far it is likely that either the author or an early 
transcriber had made an accidental transposition of the rolls of manuscript. 

From well known Egyptian history we can see that the correct order in 
Herodotus shoidd be as follows: 

— sect. 09, account of Egypt and Menes. Dymusty I. 
124-1S6, the pyramid kings. Dynasty IV-VI. 
100-123, 3.S0 kings. Dynasty VI-XXV. 
137- Sabacon. Dynasty XXV. 

The inversion therefore is that 100-128 is interchanged with 124-13ti. This 
is the more likely as the catch words are the same. 

The section 100 begins, fiera Be tovtov KureXeyov . . . 
„ section 124- begins, fieTo, he tovtov jSaaiXevaama . . . 
„ section 137 begins, fiera he tovtov ^aaiXevaai . . . are not exactly at the beginning of the present sections 124-137, 
but at the beginnings of the subjects where division is likely in the rolls. 
This transposition was suggesti'd in 189H by B. A]>ostoli(Ks in L'lfeff-'nisiiic 
Ilyyjdicn. Now if this hypothesis be taken, we should find that the lengths 
of the rolls required to agree with it ought to be appioximately regular. 
For a unit we will use the lines in Sayce's Herodotus i.-iii. From sections 

1-99 there are 1338 or 6 x 223 lines. 
124-130 „ 207 „ 

100-123 „ 44G or 2x223 „ 

137-end „ GOH or 3x223 „ 

These divisions are so nearly commensurate that it is clear how one roll 
contiiining 124-136 might be slijjped in after two other rolls containing 
100-123. Thus the lengths of rolls ;is indicated by this hyiwthesis agree 
with the probability of such a trans|x)sition. as indicated by known history. 
But we reach thus the conclusion that there was in at lejist two 
instances a division of sid)iects between rolls which were approximately 
commensurate. This would only occur in the original writing, or in a 


drastic editing. How far can we trace any such divisions in the other parts 
of this book ? It seems that we can observe the following breaks in the 

Rolls a, /9, 7, 1-45, to worship of Herakles, 677 lines . . 3 x 226. 

Roll h, 46-63, worship of animals to festivals 223. 

Roll e, 64-83, religious purity to divination 218. 

Roll r, 84-99, medicine to Menes 220. 

Roll t, 124-136, pyramid kings 207^ 

Roll »;, 100-115, Sesostris and Proteus ........ 222. 

Roll e, 116-123, Helen and Rhampsinitus tales .... 224. 

Roll t, 137-150, Sabacon to Lake Moeris ...... 236. 

Roll K, 151-163, Psammitichos to Apries' war .... 207. 

Roll \, 164-end, castes to end 225. 

Even the end of the book is no better as a natural division than some 
of the divisions of rolls noticed here. Cambyses already comes in ii. 181, and 
there is a continuity of Egyptian affairs on to iii. 29. The Persian inter- 
ference starts book iii., but that is quite equalled by such divisions as between 
rolls r-f, f-r;, 6-i, l-k. 

We conclude then that Herodotus here formally worked up to a uniform 
size of roll consciously ; just as a modern writer will try to fit each break of 
his subject to the pages of foolscap, if the writing is to be permanently read 
in that form. Further, the division into twelve rolls, has somewhat of the 
same feeling about it as the division into nine books, named after the Muses. 

It should, however, be said that this even division does not appear in 
other books. Book I. seems to consist of 14 rolls and a piece ; containing 
220, 233, 217, 222, 219, 220, 217, 219, 225, 217, 219, 219, 217, 213, and 82 
lines, the rolls beginning with sections 1, 18, 34, 53, 67, 79, 91, 105, 119, 
133, 152, 169, 185, 196, and 210. Book III. seems to consist of 10 rolls and a 
piece ; containing 223, 227, 226, 221, 214, 219, 217, 219, 222, 220, and 107 lines, 
the rolls beginning with sections 1, 15, 30, 44, 60, 72, 85, 104, 121, 136, 
and 154. Thus it does not seem that the books each consist of an even 
number of uniform rolls. Only in Book II. the transposition of a roll points 
out the size of the average roll, and the fact that 12 such rolls composed the 

W. M. Flinders Petrie. 


'Since the discovery of the 'A6i]vaia)u IloXireia in 1890,' the learned 
editors of the Oxyrhynrhns papyri tell uh, 'Egypt has not pro<hiced any 
historical papyrus at all comparable in importance to these portions of a lost 
Greek hist(»rian, obviously of the first rank, dealing in minute detail with 
the events of the Greek world in the years 39G and 395 B.C.' Drs. Grenfell 
and Hunt are indeed to be congratulated first on having made so great a 
discovery — a piece of luck which their long and arduous labours, systematic- 
ally and scientifically conducted, have so richly deserved — and secondly they 
are still more to be congratulated on the success with which thry have 
pieced together and deciphered the text and illumined their inteq)retAtion 
with clearly written and closely argued introduction and notes. They have 
not contented themselves, as they well might have done,, merely with 
arranging and deciphering the text — a work demanding the greatest {)atience 
and the most exact scholarship — but they have boldly tackled, and with 
great acumen, the difficult question of the authorship of the work and many 
historical problems raised both by the tragmentary nature of the text itself 
and by comparison of its statements with those of other extant authorities. 

This historical work is written on the verso of an official document 
giving a land survey apparently of some portion of the Arsinoite nome. Its 
date may be assigned to the second century a.d. It is written in two hands 
and in the extant fragments some twenty-one columns can be di.Htinguished. 
The first hand is responsible for cols, i.-iv., vi. 27-xxi. and almost all the 
fragments; the second hand is responsible only for cols. v. 1-vi. 27, with 
fragment 3 and perhaps 16. In order not to prejudge the question of 
authorship the editors call the work P. The papyrus, as discovered, is in four 
sections, separated by gaps of imcertain size, A containing cols, i.-iv., B ools. 
v.-viii., C cols. ix. and x., and I) cols, xi.-xxi. The editors put D last from 
clear internal evidence. The remains of C are so scanty that the subject 
with which it dealt cannot be determined. Ho the only reason for putting 
it before D is the character of the handwriting on the rfdo side ot the 
papyrus, but 'its relation to the other sections,' the editors tell us, 'is 
wholly uncertain.' Whether A should come before B, or B before A is 


open to question. To put B first involves only one chani^e of hand, vi/. at 
vi. 27; but for historical reasons the editors prefer tht'ir own anangt nicnt, 
although it involves two changes of hand, citing as a paralli-l the MS. of thf 
Aristotelian 'Adrjvaicov HoXtTeia. This arrangement in itself seems lo me 
much more satisfactory than the other alternative; but the hislorieal 
arguments by which the editors justify it are at least open to (piestion. 
They are (p. 115) mainly three : (1) that the eVo? oyBoov of iii. 10 must b<' 
reckone-d from the archonship of Euclides 403 2, 'a most natural and 
reasonable year to select for the commencement of a fresh epoch' and not 
from the archonship of Micon 402/1 in which 'no incident of particular note 
took place,' and that therefore this eighth year must he 8!)6 ]?.c. ; (2) that as 
in XV. 83 Cheiricrates is said to have succeeded Pollis in 395 as Sjiartan 
vavapy^o';, iii. 21 must have recorded (the passage is fragmentary) the ai rival 
of this Pollis the year before, i.e. 300 ; and (3) that their view that ' A 
concerns 396 has the advantage of allowing more time for the change ^ of 
policy on the part of the moderate democrats at Athens with regard to a war 
with Sparta.' 

The editors' argument therefore is that A precedes B because A 
relates to 396 and B to 395. Now the hyp<jthesis which commends itsell' 
to the present writer, viz. that the eVo? oySoov is 395 (and not 39(i) is 
said on p. 209 to have for its direct consequence that B should precede A 
and not follow it. This the editors regard as so impnjbable that they 
describe it as not worth reviewing in detail. But does this consequence 
necessarily follow ? 

To take the arguments in order: (1) though of course it is quite ])ussible 
that eTo<; oyBoov may refer to a definite epoch or event on the analogy of 
Polybius i. G. 1 — eTo<f fj-ev ovv eveiaTijKec /xeTO, Trjv iv Aly6<; 7roTafiol<; 
vav^a-x^iav ivveuKaiheKarov, jrpb Be t^9 ev AevKTpoa /ua;^'?'? kKKatheKaTov, ev 
(L XaKehai^iovLOL k.t.X., it is equally possible that it may refer to the subject 
matter of the treatise on the analogy of Thuc3'dides, c.f/. iv. 51 6 -^f^ei/xoiv 
irekevra koX e^Sofiov eVof tco 7ro\e'/ ereXevTU raJSe ov ^)cvKv8iBi]<i ^vveypa- 
yjrev. rov h' eTriyiyvo/jLevou 6ipov<; k.t.\. — a ])ossibilit3' faxoured too by the 
occurrence of the dative t^ fiev . . . governed apparently by iveicrTrj'cei. In the 
latter case we have to determine accurately the subject matter of the treatise, 
and of this more hereafter. In the former case we have to find an event of 
sufficient importance in the spring of 403 on the editors' hypothesis (or of 
402 on mine), to .serve as a chronological epoch. I .say advisedly the spring ' 
and not the summer : for not only do Thucydides and Xenophon always use 
such phrases as rov iirLyiyvofievov 6epou^, tov i'movTO'i dipov^ in the sense of 
the opening of the campaigning season, but the other similar marks of time 
in P itself (xi. 34 tovtov tov 6epov<;, xx. S tov irpoTcpov 6epov<i, xxi. 7 x^i-f^^^' 
1/09, 34 ei? TO eap, 35 tov iiriovTa p^et/ioji'a) obviously imply thi' same 

1 i. 16. (2) beC.'uisc the iiaits of oSe, rjSf. roSf .seem 

^ In iii. 9 I would supi)!}' in tlii" laciiii.i iiuver to lie uscil in V, (H at any i it'' not in 

ividvTos (or Tovrov) St tov Bfpovs (1) on tlie .suL'li ti'ni]ioral plirascj. 
analojty of Thucydides and Xenophon and 


iiiilitaiy rcfinMCu. Tlu- idilui-s^ rcfir us to the archi)n.slii|) df Euclidi-s: hut 
u^ainst this there is the objectiuii that thou;,'li the expulsiun (»t" the Thirty 
seems to have taken phice about Februar)' 403, tlic archonship of Euclitles 
cuMuol have bi'gun till the avap-^^la was over, i.e. October 40)]. In fact then- 
is no known epooh-uiakin^ event in the s])rin^ of 40.'i any more than there is 
in the s|)ring of 402. Moreover the text hits rfi ^iv - - -, and not /x€t«', and 
so favoui-s, as aheady said, the subject-matter alternative. 

(2) The weakness of their .sec(»nd argument based on the (orderly 
succession of the Spartan admirals is admitted by the editors them.selveH. 
The they propose on p. 21Ii is as follows: :iOH 7 (autumn) Pharax, 
.'iDT (autumn) to '.\\)(i (autumn) unknown; .'iUO (autumn) to 8(».j (summer) 
I'oUis; 895 (summer to winter) Cheiricrates ; 31)4 (winter) Pistinder. The 
' irrefjularities connected with the Spartan vavap-^^^ia' iwc known* only too 
well, and it makes this list but little more irregular to iussume, as I do, that 
Pollis entered on his office in the spring of 395 and was succeeded by 
Cheiricrates in the sunniu-r of the .same year (cf iii. 21, xv. 33). 

(3) The third argument, the more gradual conversion of the moderate 
democrats at Athi-ns, who just before the opening of the Ito? 6'yhoov 
pievailcd '" on the bt)/jLo<i to disown the expedition of Demaenetus, to the 
war policy of the extreme democrats has not much to commend it in itself. 
For not only an' we told'' that for a long time previously the extreme 
democrats had been eager rijv ttoXlv' <€K7ro\t/jLU)aai:>, but the definite 
allusion in ii. 3 to the alliance between the Ijoeotians, Thebans, Argivcs, and 
Corinthians, which was l)rought about in .Inly or August 395, seems to 
much ol' iti? point, if the? author is there treating of the events of 300 and not 
of 395, In fact it needed the (ittuttj^ oi Ismenias and his colleagues to 
convert the Thebans and other Boeotians — and that with some suddenness — 
to their own war policy, and the innuediate result of this convereion was the 
alliance between Thebes and Athens. 

If, however, the year 396 be abandoned, what can be said in favour of 
identifying the €to<; oySoov with 395 ? 

The strongest argument is the order of events in Diodorus" narrative 
(xiv. 79-Sl) which — through whatevi'r channels — is admittedly dependent 
ultimately on P for many of its details. Its chronological erroi-s are 
obvious: thus it puts under the s;ime year 390/5 Agesilaus' thn-e campaigns 
in Asia and makes'' out Pharax tt> be blockading Conon at Rhodes at the same 
time that he was commanding (under the transparent alias Pharacidsis) the 
Spartan contingent si'iit to help Dionysius the elder in Sicily. But though 
his chronology is sadly at fault, the order of events in three chaptei-s 
agrees strangely well with the order of events in P. Whether the naval war 
between Sparta and Persia bi-gan in 397 or 390 is not of much nioment. 

^ CI. ].. 208. * ii. 1. 10 : xiv. II. 

■* Cf. i>|>. '208, 210 and my iiitioiluction to ' i. 36. 

Xeiioiilioii, Iliilcnuii, i>i>. 1 — Iv. * xi. 16-21. 

■• i. 21. " Cf. xiv. 63 7«). 


The admiral Pharax certainly co-operatecP'' with Dercylidas in 397, and 
Conon," who at first seems to have had only a small fleet — 40 ships 
according to Diodorus — may very well have been blockaded at Caunus first by 
Pharax in the autumn of 397 and then in 396 and the very early part of 
395 by his successors, if we are to interpret literally Isocrates' rhetorical 
statement ^^ rpia /j,€v err) [^a<riXev<;] TrepielBe to vavtiKov . . viro Tpiijpoyv 
€KaTov ^ovcov '7ro\iopKovp,€voi; though Diodorus' statement of his relief by 
Artaphernes and Pharnabazus implies a much shorter blockade. At any rate 
the Spartans were not seriously alarmed for their mastery at sea till they 
heard ^^ in the spring of 396 of a large fleet being fitted out in Phoenicia. 
The arrival of these Phoenician reinforcements is the first point in common 
between P ^* and Diodorus, who puts it after the revolt of Rhodes from the 
Spartans. Diodorus states the bare fact of the revolt without details. 
Androtion, on whose story Pausanias ^^ seems to cast some doubt, says that 
it was due to Conon, who instigated the democrats to revolt. P shows that 
there were two stages in the process : the expulsion of the Spartans and 
reception of Conon was followed by a family domination of the Diagoreii. 
P's account of the first stage is lost ; but in col. xi. he gives full details of 
the assassination of the Diagoreii and the democratical revolution in the 
summer of 395. If then we follow Diodorus' order of events, we may 
presume that P's account of the first stage must have occurred under the 
seventh year of his history, viz. before col. i. Col. iv. is almost completely 
lost. But cols, v.-vi. — recounting the spring campaign of Agesilaus in 395, 
his great victory over Tissaphernes due to the ambush of Xenocles, and his 
return march when the omens proved unfavourable — are very adequately 
summarized by Diodorus in ch. 80, §§ 1-5. Similarly §§6 and 7 summarize 
cols. vii. and viii., dealing with the supersession and execution of Tissaphernes 
by Tithraustes ; and § 8 must have done the same with what followed in P, 
but is now lost : for col. xviii. 38 alludes to the agreement between Agesilaus 
and Tithraustes, which forms the subject of this section of Diodorus. 
Again, col. xi. 1-34, the next decipherable portion of the papyrus, treats of 
the democratic revolution of Rhodes, which Diodorus, as already pointed out, 
omits as of no particular importance ; but cols. xi. 34-xv. 32, which relate at 
great length the Boeotian intrigues with the Phocians in order to make 
Sparta declare Avar, are summarized by Diodorus in the first three lines of 
ch. 81, while the rest of this chapter goes on to events outside the extant 
fragments of the papyrus, omitting altogether Conon's success in quelling a 
serious mutiny ^^ in his fleet at Caunus and Agesilaus' autumn campaign 
of 395. 

"^ Cf. Xen. Hell. iii. 2. 12. editors' note ad loc. 

^' Conon entered the Persian kind's service '- Paneg. 142. 

at the beginning of 397 or a little earlier (cf. " Xen. Hell. iii. 4. 2. 

Diod. xiv. 39 ; Ctesias, 631). "Whether he >* Col. iii. 23. 

was commander-in-chief or nominally subject " vi. 7. 6. 

to a Persian commander, is peiliaps rendered "' Justin (vi. 2. 11) alone of extant authori- 

doubtful by the papynis iii. 11. Cf. the ties alludes to this mutiny. 


Hence it appt-are that all the events, related apjMirently in their strict 
chronological onler by P, are Humniarized in the same order by DiodoruH in 
xiv. 7!>. H-81, except thr uiiimpurtant incident of Deinaenetus. which occurred 
juHt before the opening of the cto? SyBoov. Now in Diodonis nothing 
occiirH between the arrival *^ of the Pho<'nician reinf«jrceinent« and AgeHilaun' 
spring campaign of 395, It seems, therefore, a fair infennce to suppitjc that 
in P no events of importance were relateil between the arrival of the 
Phoenician reinforcemenUs in iii. 24 and Agesilaus' spring campaign of 395 
in cols, v.-vi. In other words cols v.-vi. follow imnxcdiately on ooIb. i. iv. On 
this hypothesis then, Diodorus' order of events adheres closely to the 
chronological arrangement of P. 

On the other hand the editors' hypothesis (p. 117) that the ^to? Byhoov 
of iii. 10 is 39G (1) reduces the assumed chnmological arrangement of P to 
utter confusion ; and (2) not only makes Diodorus abandon the order of 
events in P, but gratuitously assumes a further error in his chronology. For 
though they interpret the Ito? 075001' as 390, they think it likely that the 
disj)atch of Agesilaus to Asia and the early part of his campaign were 
described before col. i. (not, as they might be expected to say, in the assumed 
lost columns between iv. and v. dealing on their hypothesis with 396) ; and 
they assume that P narrated the arrival of the Phoenician reinforcements^** 
(which they date in the summer of 39G) before the revolt of Rhodes, and n<jt 
((Jtcr it as Diodorus relates. The revolt itself, they assume, must have been 
narrated in the gap between cols. viii. and xi. Irj other words Diodorus' 
.summary misdates the arrival of the Phoenician reinforcements to 395 and 
abandons P's order of events altogether. 

Again, the controversial pa.ssage (ii. 1-35) on the cause of the war 
against Sparta in my view points to the 6x09 6'yhoop being 395. For in the 
first place the iraXaL Sva^euco'; cx^f-v of line 6 implies that the interval 
between the taking of the Persian gold and the conclusion of the alliances 
between the Boeotians and the nWau iroXei^ at irpoeiprifjepai wa.s only a 
short one. Secondly the plausibility of the theory of P's opponents [aina 
'yLvecr$]ai to, Trap' CKeivou xPHf^"''^^ ^" must have dep'nded upon the short 
interval between the two events. And thirdly Xt'nophon's mistake (iii. 5. 1) 
in representing Tithraustes instead of Pharnabazus as the sender of 
Timocrates is most easily explained, if the mission occurred only a few weeks 
before the opening of the summer campaign of 395. Indeed the editors 
themselves admit '•^'^ that the reference in irpociprmivai. -n-oXft? (ii. 4 and 32) 
seems to be to a not very distant passage, and it is possible that the 
description of Timocrates' mission in the main narrative (x;curre<l shortly 
before col. i. Moreover the present participle nopBovvro^ in the passage "' of 

'" It is Jioticeable that l><)th Ili'l..cli ii. 149 »" P. 204. 

und Meyer put the ariivHl ol tlu- riii>eiii<iiui "' rnlyaciius i. 4P. 3. Kir-v ♦•^•-•fla^V 

fleet ill the Kpring of 396. <rv^l^iux^^* ' Kyr\e,\iou r))¥ 'Ktiav woptovyrat 

'" iii. 23. Iirtiat rhy nipav* Xpvrioy wi)ii^mi rolilriuaywyo'it 

^" L'f. tlie S|)iirtail iiccusution a^'uinst I^- ruy voKih>y ttjj tXAiJoi, »t KaB6mi wtiaovei 

menias, Xen. Hell. v. '2. 35. rat rmrpltus Jn^tptif rtv w^hi AMKtiaiuoylovi 


Polyaenus, who alone of other authorities speaks of Pharnabazus and not 
Tithranstes as causing the gold to be sent, favours the year 395. According 
to him Agesilaus is already in Asia and Pharnabazus wishes to get him out. 
The gold is sent, the Corinthian war breaks out, and Agesilaus is consequently 
recalled. But the editors' date, the spring of 390, actually precedes Agesilaus' 
arrival in Asia, and so makes Polyaenus' story quite pointless. 

Taken as a whole therefore the evidence seems to me much to favour 
395 as the €To<f oySoov of P. The only serious argument to the contrary is 
the short period — only a few weeks — of Pollis' vavapx^a. Still, any one who 
has tried to establish a chronological .system on the list of Spartan admirals 
knows on what a foundation of sand he is building, and in the absence of any 
definite information as to the fate of Pollis the easiest way out of the many 
difficulties involved appears to be to curtail the period of his command. 
With this exception the events which we can decipher in P seem to fall into 
natural chronological sequence on the 395 hypothesis. Before the fragment 
begins we must assume P to have treated of the revolt of Rhodes and the 
mission of Timocrates in the first three months of 395. Then in cols, i-iii, 9, 
circ. March, comes the incident of Demaenetus : cols, iii.-iv. 42. 9, c. April, the 
naval war and the arrival of the Phoenician fleet: cols, v.-viii., c. April, the 
land war, with Agesilaus' march towards Sardis. 

The problem of the eVo? oyBoov raises, as has been said already, the 
question of the .scope of P's history, and the internal evidence for settling it 
is very scanty. Taking this eighth year to be 395, we may safely assume 
that it included the chronicle of the seven years between 402 and 395, but, 
as the editors -2 say, if its elaborate scale be taken into account, there is 
nothing to suggest that it went further than the battle of Cnidus in 394.--' 
There is, therefore, a good deal to be .said for Meyer's suggestion for filling 
the lacuna in iii. 10 with ttj jxev [tojv AuKeSaifJioviwv ap^f) oiyyefxovca, which 
would imply that it was a history of the S})artan naval empire ; or, as so 
much emphasis seems to be laid on the optnations of Conon in the naval 
war, including the minute description of the adventures ot the Athenian 
Demaenetus (i. 1-25, ii. 35-iii. 9), it may rather have been a history of the 
gradual recovery of the Athenian naval power. The editors prove -^ that 
the author wrote after 387 and before 34G, indeed, Mr. Walker, they tell us, 
is prepared to say even before 356 on the ground that a reference to the 
Sacred War would be expected in xiv, 25 sqq., if it had actually begun. 

irSKfiMou. 01 fj.(v SeKaaBfi/Tfs iirdaav kclI avviaTt) ajuiaiontly fc-ll : posterity may liavc felt that 

ir6Kffios KoptvdtaKos- oi 5e SirapTinTai tov he treateil tlie history of eij^ht or nine years in 

'AyriffiKaov 4k ttis 'halas avfKaKfffavTo. too h)ng and toiHous a fasliion to be worth 

'^ P. 122. readinj,', cf. ivfr. j.. 290. 

^ A sliglit argiuneiit in favour of a very "-* Pp. 122, 134. 

short [teriod is the o!>livioii into wliich I' 

TlIKoi'O.MriS ()U iKAlIi'l'LS;, IIKLLKM* A 283 

lint within tht'sf r.ither wide limits tlitTi- are absolutely no «l.ita fur (k- 
tfrnniiinp its (crtninus ad quern. Can the (trininus a tjKa l)r ni(iru exactly 
tixid ? ( )ii iii\- tiititry it is H\»«l aJreiidy to 402, but the editors, arguinj,' 
liuiii a i-i t'cniicc in ii. 27 to a jinNious description ot an incident of n.c. 
HI, think it jnuhahl. thd I's history ' cttniprisi'd that portion of the 
I'eloponnesian War whith TluK-ydides <lid not live to narrate.' In the 
jiassa^'e leferred to 1' is n-countin^' three exploits of the Corinthian 
Tiniolans Kara tuv TroXefiov tov i^eKeXeiKov: (1) he sjieked cert^iin islands 
in the Athenian Knijiire (<\ 412); (2j he van<piished the Athenian 
admiral Sichins (-•, 411); (.5) he caused t-lie revolt of Thasus from Athens 
(c. 411 end). Of the secoml exphjit alone P remarks loarrep eipTjKci ttov 
xal Trporepor. Now whether this little victory over Sichins happened before 
or after the time when Thucydides' narrative breaks oH" in the autumn of 41 1, 
is pure guess-work. Uiit P makes no such remark about the revolt of Tha.s<ts. 
an event of some importance, about which Thucydides himself in viii. ()4 
narrates the preliminary stage; so that if P really continued Thucydides' 
narrative, we should expect to find here a similar reference to his own earlier 
passage. Furthermore in the three other allusions to the Decelean Wai 
xiii. 16, and 30 and xvi, 5 we find no such reference. The j)assages in xiii. 
record the hmg supremacy <»f the aristocratic party at Thebes and the 
em-ichnu'ut of the Thebans through their ])urchasc of the Athenian spoils 
at Deceli-a. It is diMiculL to suppose that if P really continued Thucydides' 
narrative — fond of digressions as he shows himself to be- -he would nowhere 
have found occasion to deal with these subjects in his story of the last seven 
years of the war. Still more difficult is it to account for the omission of any 
reference to his previous work in the last of these passages (xvi, 5) where he 
illustrates the customary ill-payment of the Persian king's troops by what 
happened Kara tov Ae/eeXeiKoi^ iroXep-ov, lemarking 7roX\a'/cK av 
KareXiidyjaav at twi' avp,/j.<ixo)v Tpnjp€i<i ei p-ij hia Ttju Kvpov irpoOvpiav. 
Sui'ely an author .so interested in naval operations as P, if he had really 
continued the narrative of Thucydides, must already have dealt with the 
bad payment of the Peloponnesian fleet by the Pei-sian king and his s<itraps 
in its proper place, and in the present passage woidd have inserted a 
reference to his previous account. 

In my opinion therefore the natural inference from this series of 
l)assages taken together is that P him.self had written no continuous history 
of the Decelean war from 411 t»» 404, but had dealt with Timolaus' victory 
over Sichins in some earlier digression, e.(]. in the jmssage referred to in the 
irpoeipyjpivai TroXet? (ii. 4. .S2), where he must have mentioned Timolaus in 
connexion with the Corinthian feeling against Sj»arta. 

If these arguments be acce])ted we must that P's history beg-an 
with the year 40.S or 402 antl went on in annalistic fa.shion to 394 {'( priori 
its most probable terminus) or, may be, to 3H7 or 37.Sor any date not later than 
;)56. This result has, as we shall see, a distinct bearing on our next 
(luestion. ' 



Who was P ? 

For the solution of this problem the editors with some light-heartedness 
lay down two conditions : ' The primary condition,' they tell us,^^ ' which must 
be satisfied with regard to the authorship of P's work is that the historian 
whose clainis are put forward wrote a continuation of Thucydides on a 
very elaborate scale.' Their second condition is that he must be one of the 
known historians of the middle of the fourth century B.C. To ' take refuge in 
complete agnosticism,' they say,^*' ' is most unsatisfactory, for admittedly P 
was a historian of much importance who has largely influenced later tradition, 
and since his work survived far into the second century (a.D.) his name at 
any rate must be known.' Now the known historians living at the time 
required are Crafcippus, Clidemus, Androtion, Ephorus, and Theopompus -^ — 
or, to be exhaustive, Anaximenes and perhaps Herodicus must be included. 
Of these HSrodicus may be at once dismissed. Aristotle {Rhet. ii. 23. 29) 
quotes a pun of his on the name of the sophist Thrasymachus, apparently 
his contemporary, and a scholion on the passage simply states 'A6rivaio<i 
ia-TopiK6<; Tt<?. Nothing more is known. Clidemus or Clitodemus, the oldest 
of the Atthidae, judged by his scanty fragments, does not- seem to have 
treated of any events later than the Athenian expedition against Sicily. 
Ephorus, in whose favour a priori one would expect much could be said, 
seems to be justly ruled out^^ by the editors; first, because he wrote a 
universal history and therefore can hardly have described with very great 
minuteness the period covered by P ; secondly, because P's order of arrange- 
ment is chronological, while Ephorus' order was logical ; and thirdly, because 
the characteristics of P differ in almost all respects from the known charac- 
teristics of Ephorus. Anaximenes, also a writer of universal history, for this 
same reason need not detain us. 

Of the remaining three the claims of Theopompus are advocated by the 
editors, supported by Professors von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff and Meyer ; 
of Cratippus by the late Professor Blass, Professor Bury, and Mr. Walker; 
and of Androtion by Professor de Sanctis. 

Of these the positive evidence is rather in favour of Androtion : for we 
know from fr. 17^^ that he dealt with the capture and death of Hagnias, 
which is recorded by P, col, i. 30 ; and Pausanias (vi. 7. 6) tells us that he 
also dealt with the revolt of Rhodes from the Lacedaemonians and the death 
of Dorieus, the son of Diagoras. P, who in col. xi. relates the assassina- 
tion of his kinsmen at Rhodes, must certainly have done the same. But 
on the other side it seems impossible to gainsay the negative arguments 
based on the scope, the scale, and the date of Androtion, which are stated 
by Mr. Walker in the May number of the Classical Review. 

" P. 127. * tovrov [i.e. Hagniaa] koX tovs irufiirpta-- 

*' P. 139. /8«i;T(Jkj ai/Tov (pTia-lv 'AvSporiaiy Iv trf/jiirTtf) ttji 

^ E. M. Walker, Clasa. Rev. xxii. p. 88. 'KrMos koI *i\6xopos, ii iaKwadv t« Ka\ 

^ Pp. 126, 127. iitieavov iiirh AaKtSatixov(wv. 


We are Irft then with 'rh»'<»j)(»iujms and ( 'ratijtjiiis. A» to TlicojMiijipuH, 
while the positive evidence i.s hut scanty, the negative evidi-nce uceiuH ti> Imi 
overwhelming. Hen- it will t)c sufficient to Kiminiarire the full and liuict 
statement ^'^ of the arguments, for and against, of thf editors themHi-lvcn, 
who after holding the scales with more than judicial iiniMirtiality, finally 
declare in favour of Theo])ompu8. On behalf of his claims their arguments 
are the following. (1 The(»|xtmpnH began h\» Jfellfnira where Thiicydides 
left off, and ended with the battle of C'nidus in 3<.H : V, they think, did the 
same. (2) The scale and subject matter of the fragments of Theoj>ompuH, 
books X. and XI. (as a matter of fact there are only two extant fragments 
definitely a.ssigned to these books, one of six lines assigned to the tenth, the 
other of thirteen lines assigned to the eleventh book), tend to show that all 
the extant fragments of P, if Theojtompus were the author, may very well 
have been included in B<x)k X. (The next six arguments the CMiitors have 
adopted from Meyer.) (3) Theo]>ompus' 'combination of aristocratic leanings 
with a sincere desire for truth ' corresponds to the attitude adopted by P, 
especially in his account of parties at Athens. (4) The extant fragments of 
the Hellenica — at least when they happen to be on^linary narrative and not 
rhetorical passages — are not dissimilar in style to P. (5) Theop«)m{»us, 
like P, was extremely prone to digressions. ((!) The lucidity, careful col- 
lection of materials, wide range of subjects, deep insight into causes, and 
power of psychological analysis attributed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus to 
Theoporapus, are to be found also in P. (7) Theop<:)m|)us' works were serious 
histories like that of P, and no mere rhetorical exercises. (8) Poly bins' 
censure on Theopompus' want of knowledge in describing battles accords 
with the suspiciously conventional character of the accounts of the two 
ambuscades in P v. 59 and xix. 22. The editors attach weight to the first 
five of these arguments and also to certain linguistic coincidences between 
P and the fragments of Theopompus — viz. rxfyy^dviiv with a particij)le in 
place of a simple verb, napo^vi'tii', ■ywplov . . . icarecr Ktvaw ^livwv xaXi)^^ 
but lay most emphasis on the use of the verb xardpai in the sense ot 
eXdelv (P xviii. 39, Theop. fr. 327), and Kap-rracrevf, meaning a man of 

In passing we may remark that argument (1) stands or falls with the 
question of P having continued Thucydides' narrative. If he did not — as 
I have argued above — then mdit quaestio. As to (4), of the nineteen or 
twenty extant fragments of Theopompus' Hellenica only three contain more 
than three consecutive lines ; and of these three one is only five, another is 
six, and the third is thirteen lines long. The three indeed are all straight- 
forward narrative, but none of them are long enough or characteristic enough 
to serve as a basis for an argiiment either one way or the other. The real 
difficulty is not that these fragments are as unrhetorical '* as the narrative of 
P, but that the ancient critics mark no distinction of style between the 
Hellenica and the undoubtedly rhetorical Philijijnca. This at least is 

="" ?]>. 127-139. *' Cf. d.' Sanctis. I.e. p. t. 


evidenced by the famous passage of Porphyry^- comparing him and 
Xenophon, which, long as it is, is worth quoting in full : Kayu), <^r)a\v 6 
lSiKa<y6pa<;, Tot<i 'EXX.')]i/i,KOL<i ei^rvy^dvcov avTov (Theopompus) re koX rov 
'E,€vo<f)covTo<i, TToWa Tou 'B<evo(f)covTO<; avTov ixeraTidevra Karei\r](^a, kol rb 
hecvov on iirl rb ^elpov, ra yovv irepl Tr)<i ^apvaj3dl^ov 7rpb<i 'AytjacXaov 
(TVvoBov St' ^ A7roWo(f>dvov(i tov K.v^iKrjvov Koi Td<i dfi(f)olv 7rpo9 dXX.t'}Xov<; 
€vcr7r6vBov<i BiaXi^ei^ a? eV rfj Terdprr) p,€vo(f)(Ji)v dveypa-yfre irdvv ^apteVrto? 
Kal TrpeTTOvTOx; dficfyolv eh rrjv evheKdrr^v twv 'RWtjvikcov fxeTadei<i 6 %e6- 
TTOfiiro'; dpyd re Kal aKivrjra TrcTroirjKe koI airpaKja' \6yov yap Zvvap.Lv 
KOI hid TT]V kXotttjv e^epyacTiav iiu./3dXK€iv Kal eTriSelKwadat ajrovSa^cov 
/3paSv<i Kal fieWcov Kal dva^aWop.ev(p colko}^ (paiverai Kal rb 6/iiyfrvxov 
Kal ivepybv rb Sevo(f)(i)VTo<i hia(l>deipwv. From this passage it seems to 
follow that Theopompus at any rate inserted speeches in his Hellenica 
whether rhetorical or not — whereas perhaps the most marked feature of 
P's style is the absence of speeches in passages where they might well be 
expected, e.g. i. 14, ii. 1-35, xv, 7 (cf Xen. Hell. iii. 5. 7-16, where the causes of 
the alliance between Athens and the Boeotians in 395 are put into the mouth 
of the Theban orator). Moreover Theopompus, as a young man, gained the 
prize offered by Queen Artemisia for a funeral oration in honour of her 
husband Mausolus (c. 352 B.C.), a fact which shows— if the date of his birth 
be rightly placed about 376 — that he developed his rhetorical powers at an 
early age. The linguistic coincidences again are not so very remarkable : 
even the rare use of Kardpai can be paralleled from elscAvhere, and Stephanus 
of Byzantium quotes Kaprraaei^; and not Kapiracrea (xvi. 37) as used by 
Theopompus in his tenth ^^ book (alluding probably to the tenth book of the 
Philippica). The other arguments do not seem to call for comment here, 
they are so fully dealt with by the editors themselves. 

Now, however, let us summarize on the other side the negative evidence 
collected^* by the editors, which, they admit, shows 'the existence of a 
number of weighty objections to the identification of P with Theopompus.' 

(1) The most important and the most insuperable is the chronological 
difficulty, xiv. 25-37 proves that P wrote his history before the end of the 
Sacred War in 346, which resulted in the destruction of the Phocians. 
Indeed Mr. Walker's inference is almost irresistible that P must have written 
before the beginning of the war in 356, arguing that a reference to the 
Sacred War would be expected in this passage if it had actually begun. 
Now if any reliance can be placed on the accepted chronology of Theo- 
pompus' life, his authorship of our fragment is, with the earlier date, out of 
the question, and with the later date very improbable. For 376 ^^ is accepted 
as the date of his birth, and we know that he lived in Egypt under Ptolemy 
Soter (323-285 B.C.) and may even have survived the year 300. But even 

^ ap. Euseb. Pracp. Evang. x. 3, p. 465. to omit ^iXnrniKwv after the number of tlio 

^' It is perhajis noticeable th:it Steiihaiais in book, 
liis nine other citations from definite books of ^■* Pp. 131 stjq. 

the Helhnica adds the word 'EWriviKwv, but '^ Photius, Cod. 176. 

in quoting from the Philijjpica seems fiequently 

■IHKol'o.MIM S (OU (KAIII'IMM. 1 1 KI.I.KM C A l'n? 

with ihf later (l.itr ;{4-(l it is ditliciilt iiiuii|,'li tu >>ij|)|M.sf tliat Tli.'opoinjMis 
liiul rornpK'tfd tin- Itiiih houk of Ins 11,11, in,(t liffuii- thf iigr «»f .'iO, if it with th( yi-ar 4-1 1 aii<l wtn- a work as <I«-Uiilf(l atid ilahorate an that 
of F. (2) A^Miii. if I'l.rphuvs accusation is tnu! — ht- i.s none too n-iiablo 
an aiith»)rity as his imstakc-s al)t)iit the plagiarisms of KphoiUM in the 
immediate eonlext shuw — that 'riieupompiis plagiarized fiuin Xemtphon, 
since the latter cannot have published his Jlell>nica much before ;{'><;. it 
seeniH natural to assign a ct)nsiderably later date to 'rheopompiis* Hrlliinca. 
(.*i) Tiie same conclusion seems to follow from I'liitareh's ^'' ns«,' in his Li/r of 
Aijisihtiis of both Xenophon and Thenpoinpiis as his authorities. For 
Flutareh'H accttunt-'" of the eampai^Mi of .■{'.I') against TiHsaph.-rnes is entirely 
indi'petident of \\ who, as we have seen, is fcjlluwed by lJio(h»rus. More<»ver, 
if, Jis most inodirns bilievi-, Diodorus' fourteenth book is based c;lii<,'Hv on 
Kphorus, and Kphorus in his turn is basi-d on P, it is much easier to suppose 
that V was some ulder historian and lujt identical with Theopom)>us, \slio 
was Kphorus' fellow pupil and long tjiitlived him. (-i) The editors admit 
that P's account of Agesilaiis does not accord at all well with wiiat is known 
of tlu' tn*atment of liini by Theopoinpus. To Theopompus the Sparttm 
king was*" fieyiaTu<; o/xo\oyoiifj.ii'(o<; Kai twi' totc ^uivriov tTri<f)cii>taTii7o>,, 
but P ' shows no tendency to illustrate the personal character of Agesilaus 
nor any enthusiasm over his achievements' In fact he speaks^" more 
warmly of ( 'oiion his arch-enemy. (;")) While P in xxi. 11 calls the 
Paphlagonian king ri'»;'s\ the name is given as Hi/v m fr. l[)H of Theopompus, 
which appears as Thuys in Nepos (/><?/. 2), who is here following Theopompus. 
However, too much weight must not be laid on this discrepancy, because, 
as Meyer points out. the papyrus is specially weak in the spelling of proper 
names. (G) Finally,*" P's style betrays a complete absence of almost all 
the characteristics which the descriptions of ancient critics, especially 
Dionysiiis of Malicarna.ssus, wcTuld lead us to expect to find in a fragment of 
Theopompus. In fjict the editors are here reduced to postulating — without 
a ])article of positive evidence in their favour — a youthful and bald style 
totally unlike the rhetorical vehemence by which alone Theopompus was 
known to the ancients, anil in which he certainly wrote as early svs 852 B.C., 
when he was victorious against his old master Isocrates in gaining 
Artemisia's prize. 

But the editors themselves admit the cumulative force of all this 
negative evidence, and are well aware that most of the positive arguments 
that they have marshalled together are vulnerable in many points. ( )n 

^ Mr. Walker (A'/ic, viii. |i. 364) in liiscu.s.s- single inunt of contact with I', (in- 'the two 

ing tlic rel.ation of (o) I'aiisanias. Tolyaeniis writers whose nse of 'riifO|>oni|>iis Ims bten 

and Justin, und (/>) Nepos iiinl I'lutarcti to 1' most generally adinittcd.' 

arrives at th»t nniarkable result lliat llic tliree •" /..<•. 10. 

torinur, who exhibit af^rt-enn-nt with 1*, are the " Pint. I.e. 10. 

writers giMieruily ' siipjioscd to he dejieiident on •* Cf. esp. xviii. 32. 

Kphorus ami iiiilepemient of Theopompus ' ; *" if. p. 137. 
while the two hitler, who tail to exhibit a 


288 a. E. LNDEHiiILL 

what tlu-n d«> they n-lv tor thrir final ■" idt'iititicatioii of P with Theoponipus ^ 
On the (lirt'Ct evidoncr of Kapiraaevs^ and Karapat. But of these the first, 
as we have seen, is not. abov<' suspicion : tor the balance of probability is 
in favour of StephauMs tjuotinc^ from \\\(\ J'hillppica and not the Hellenica, 
and the srctnid coincidence, the editors confess, by itself would not be very 
remarkable. I*]ven if we add to those the love of digressions and the 
aristocratical sentiments connnon to I' and 'J'heopompus, the only common 
characteristics which the (M-itics have not as yet called in tjuestion, the 
case is made but little moi-e plausible. At the bottom of the whole 
i)rocess of ari^umentation the wish is father to the thought. I' is 
obviously a reliable historian. He wrote his work about the nuddle 
of the fourth centniv !{.<'. His version of the events of .S9,5 H.c. reap- 
[tears in l)io<lorus (fi. <S it.c. ). He was known and read in Kgyjit in the 
second centurv A.i>. H(! must tlu'refon; haver been a writer known to fame, 
and the only writei" known to us, who at all fulfils these conditi(jns, is 
'i'heoj)omj)Us. All the arguments against his being Theo])ompus, howtn'er 
strong, must therefore be minimised one by one, and their cumulative force 
be finally ignore<|. 

I5ut does (Jratip})us stand the test l)ette!- ? Shadowy ])er.sonage as he is 
— there ar^' oidy four ri'leicnces to liim in ancient literature -yet he has, as 
compaicd with ''rheo))ou\ptis four points in his favour, his date, his dislike of 
sjieeches, his Athenian citi/.enship, and as a conse(pienc(i of his date, his inde- 
peiKlince of Xeiiophon. Mr. K. M. Walker in the cairrent number of A'/i" 
has dealt with these points so fully and clearly that 1 need do little mure 
than summarize his arguments. As to his date, he is described by 
l)ion>sius of Halicarnassus as avvaKixaaa<; with Thucydides, but from 
Hhitinch's list of the subjects of which he treated he must certainly ha\ e 
outlixed the battle of ('nidus in \Vd-\ H.c, and the usage of the term 
avi'UKfi('i^tii' is so loose that he may wi'll ha\t' survived for st'vei'al year- 
the ch.itiges in the IJoeotiau Constitution alluded to in 1' .\i. -ST — xii.UI. which 
took place about oS?. Such a (hitt; for tlu' composition of P — .*}<S0-.'>7(> — not 
omK liiirmoni/es vei'v well with his avoidance ot hiatus, which the 
I'll iiri/if/iciis of Isocratc's jtrovcs to ha\f l)een in fasjiiou as early as ,'^S(I, but 
accounts both foi- his absolute iinh-pendence of Xenophons Helkiitra, wIikIi 
cannot have bi'cn pul»lishe(| l)efon,' *U)0, and foi" the apparent use ot Ins 
iiariati\e b\- I'^phorus. who <-ert.aiidv lived to see the accession of Alexander 
the(iie;it. ('latippus' dislike of spceclus tollows from the story alxmt him 
related b\ |)ion\siiis of Halicarnassus (cit. Thur. hi). The absence of 
speeches in P nia\ of course bi' a mattei- of accident, but it is certain that a 
more rlietoiic;i| writer woidd have put his account'- of the causes of the 
('oi'inthian war mlo the mouth ot .some Thirban orator, just as Xeiiophon b\ 
no means a rhetorician, has (h)ne in the Jlellcnica (iii. 5. <S-15). 

Thai Cialippus was an Athenian may justly be intein-d from the 
passage in Plutaich (</< d'/c/: A//ii')i. I. p. ^}45), wheii' he is ranked — appai- 

*' r. 1 ij. *- t'oi-,. i. -ji ii. ;{'.. xiv. 10 !•;. cr. w. ii 14. 

'l'lli:<)I'<»MIMS ((>!{ (KA ril'IM'.S). HKI.I.KNK'A '2K[t 

clillv ill (IiidiiiiIki^jimI nidii lici wnii Til lir y«llilfs :iii( I \ "•iin|tli'iii a>, iicuiliii;; 
(he ^rciit .icIlirVriiiriils ul' Atlniiiaii shiLrsiilcil iiri<l ^•■iicrals. Su, Im., I* si'i-nf 
|i) show a iii<ir«> iiitiiiiatr a(-(|iiairitaM('i- willi Allii'iiiaii than uith r>oruliaii m 
(•\(ii Sjiaiiaii atVaiis. In cdls. i. I '25, ii. .'if) iii. !> h'- «iil<'is inln ininiili- 
(litails almiit I he iiliiiilpoitaiil fxprdit IdII of 1 )(iiiut'lU'Lils ; m cdU. i '2'}- \\ 
I and ii. 10 I !■ \\<- |iri»tc.s.scs full knuwlrd^c o( the inutivi's id thr Athi-nian 
di'inocriits ; and in t<>|, \iii. 15 lO hi; ^ivrs riiri»)us piirticuliir.s alxiiit thi- 
t"Mriiishin«^ of Attic housi-s. Aloi»'(»vt'r, jis alrc-uly noticed, his account ol" the 
c\|ih)it.s t»r the Athenian C'oiion seems to be fuUer and more tMjthiisiastic 
than that of the cainpai^fiis of the Spartan Agesilans. 

St) far then there are certainly fewer ditticulties to he ov»-rconie in 
idi'iitifying 1* with C'ratippus than with Theopompus. The oidy r< al 
ditliculty — hesi(h's the al)sence of positive evidence — is the subject of 
C'ratippus' history. IMutareh (/.'.) represents him as dealing with to irep't 
' KWj'jaTTOVTOi' 'AXki^cuSou fcavieufiara xal ra npo^ j.\€a/3ou ^pacrvWou 
ical Ti)v VTTO Hj;pCT^t'j^ou9 Ti]<i oXiyap^ias KaraXvaiv Kat, HpaavfSovXov Ka'i 
"Ap^iTTTTov Kal Tov<; I'lTTo ^\>vXf)s' ifiho^i'jKovT a Kara Tf)\' ^TrapTiarMt/ 
}'iyep.ovi'a<; di>i(TTafi(vov<; kuI Kordira TraXiv €p.f3i^ti^ovTa T<ts' ' \6ijva'^ ei<; 
T»;i' OtiXimav, to which we must add from his \'il. X. Unit. ii. I. p S.'M- 
something about the mutilation of the Hermae, whicdi. sis Mr. W'alkei- 
suggests, may have been iilatid in cnnnexjon with Alcii>iades' return from 
exile. Dionysius (/.»•.) also seems to speak of his having aimetl in some- sense 
or other to C(»mplete the work of Thucydides — to. TrapaXeKpOevTa iin avrov 
(Thucydidcs) (Twayaycov. Evidently then his work included jis many events 
before 402 H.c. as after. Now if it be a ' ])rimary condition with regard to 
the authorship of P's work that the historian whose claims are put forward 
wrote a continuation of Thucydides,' all this is an additional argument in 
favour of Cratippus. If on the other hand, as I have argued above,** 
the internal evidence is on the whole against V having narrated any events 
prior to 402, except by way of digression, then Plutarch's account of the 
contents of Cratippus' work is a strong argumeni against his being 
identified with P. As against Theopompus Mr. Walker .seems to me to have 
made out his case in favour of C'ratippus. But a dispa.ssionate treatment of 
the contents of the papyrus apart from any a ^^/i"/-/ consi<lerations seems to 
me equally decisive against both hypotheses. 

Androtion, Ej)horus, Theopompus, CVatippus, being excbide<| there 
seems to be no historian left whose claims can be advocat*'"! for identifii-ation 
with P. So we find cturselves fjxce t(» face with that un.H;ilisfactt)ry 
agnosticism which the editors** ju.stly deprecate on ihe groiiml that P wa.s 
obviously 'a historian of much importance who has largely infhienced later 
tradition,' and that 'since his work survived far into the second century 
[a.D.], his name at any rate must be known.' The statement is exceedingly 
plausible, but the history of literary survivals is a strange chapter of 
accidents — almost as cajiricious as the di.scovery of papyri. ("ratipi)us 

« i> -28:3. ** •'• l^'-*- 

U 2 


himself, as Mr. Walker points out, amounts almost to a negative instance. 
Thougli read by Dionysius and by Plutarch (H. 80 A.i).)and ranked by the 
latter with Thucvdides and Xenophon, not a line of him survives, not even a 
word of" his is quoted by any ancient grammarian. Mr. Walker cites 
Hieronymus of Cardia as a parallel case, and much the same might be said 
of Antiochus of Syracuse, of whom only some fifteen fragments are left. To 
this it may indeed be objected that at least their names are known. 
This of course is true, but they come perilously near to the vanishing point, 
and in the case of P there is a fairly good reason why P should have gone 
bevond it. From the scale of the fragment it seems to be a fair inference 
that the whole work included the history of a few years only — perhaps 
only nine— and those not of any very surpassing interest. The style of his 
treatment, though clear and straight-forward, it must be confessed, is dull 
and monotonous. Then a few years later Ephorus seems to have skimmed 
the cream off his work and presented in his universal history a narrative of 
this period on a scale and in a style more acceptable to the average Greek 
reader. The fate of P therefore was the same a^ that of many of the prede- 
cessors of Herodotus. Though the ba.sis of many succeeding histories, his 
own was itself forgotten and neglected, but as the papyrus bears witness, 
never altogether lost. Who he was we shall never know for certain, till 
some definite quotation ^^ bearing his name is discovered elsewhere. Till then 
many of us must, I fear, content ourselves with that agnosticism which the 
h^arned editors deprecate as so unsatisfactory ; at any rate it is less unsatis- 
factory than belief without sufficient evidence. 

(i. E. Undehhill. 


For many of the arguments in this article I must aeknf)\vle(lge iny indebtedness to 
the folltjwing : — 

Times. Literary Supplement, Feb. 20, 11)08. 
Professor Busolt, Hermes, xliii. Part 2. 

Professor de Sanctis, L'Attide di Androzione e u)i F<ipiro di Oxi/rlnincJiDs. 
Mr. E. M. Walker, Classical Rerieir, May, 1908, Klio, viii. p. .'}5(i sqq. Much to my 
regret m}' own article was nearly finished before the latter essay appeared. 

*■' Dr. U "Wilckeii(^c/)Hcs, \liii. pp. 477 ■'•77. ), that I cannot consiiierDr. Wilcken'ssuggestioji 

following up a .suggestion of Dr. Witiniowitz, as very plausible, and fully concur with the 

jirnpcses to fill the lacuna in vi. 45 with h[f judgment expressed in the editors' note on the 

IT a p a T r) V MeffwyiSu pf-MV diro Kf\at]vwv passiigf. 'We attach little weight to the 

and regard.s it as the passage mentioned by general resemblance between vi. 44 vii. 4 and 

Strabo xiii. t!29. Hut the words irapa. Tr)v Strabo's allu^'ion to Theopompus as an argument 

.Mf<Tai7(5a contain fifteen lelter.-i, where the for the iilrntificution of the lattir autlmr 

editors think that there is only room for ten, so with I*.' 

Tin: ol.YMl'IAN TIIKATKON 271 

iiiiimin;!,' attnihiil tn it by I'iiuliir, pieji'ul'nuj orer the aacretl (irrnti, which is cnhoH in 
iileiiticjil witli tlu' uyo,>(l !yi. SchuL in Piml. /'. ii. Id : t'wnymfiut it 1, 'K^j/i»;v <l>i r«li»< ayoifuv 
Tr/*i.,j-T(iTr;i-. Thus nyaiwor iiieiiut to Arschyliis HH t.i Pijuliir the Hftiiie thilij^ «« ivuy<^vio\, 
iiiul wlieii AfHcliylus n|i<»stri)iihi/.c'.s Hiiiiii-s aw •'wiyoiitf Mcn'dt xit ^ to t 'K^>i<'i (/•'/. turrrt. 
'.W~ I his iiioiininy is not NuhstJintially ntluT thiiii Tindiirs when he tlcKcriheH AIcinii»l»ui, 
the Aeninetan hoy- wrestler iis woit «^«-ywViof LV. vi. i:{), and the k<k1 thuK ap<>Htrojihiz«<l in 
the self s.inie liernies (iyn/xiior to whom Pindar dedicated n Htntue at Thul>eH. How 
ideally ennceived was Aeschylus' /eus dy«/jnu.r nmy he gathered from Eum. U'M ff. where 
Athena proelaiius aloud timt the strife as to who shall confer most benefits inauj^urated 
IS the consummation of the ai;es is the triumph of /eus riyopaior : dAX' tKfKiTtjfTi Ztis 
liyofiatoi- viKii 6' dyufiiiv Jpn ij^itripti biii nninot. That the epithet uyopahis lias here the 
force of eVfiyoIwof and implies a contrast hetween the fraternal emulation of the arena, 
and the iin\f]<TTiii KaKil)i> irniirti mentioned in the line next follovvinj^ [nivb' iittAjjotov KaKCji> 
pi]i:i>T ii> TToXti ari'iniv rn^' t'TT*ix»fi<ii lipifitiv) is self-evident, since the Kumenules give 
their solenni j)ledj,'e in response to Athena's ]iroclamation that Zeus dynpalor ha8 ]irevailed 
at last. .Since the dithc\ilty raised liy Dr. Verrall (note on A[inm. 4!>'J = 518) concerning 
the dyfivini Stoi of the Supplices alone gives plausibility to the contention that the uyuVtot 
fitoi of .l;/rjm. 44!> are not the gods of the athletic dyuv or arena, the only <|Uesti<>n 
remaining is whether Dr. Verrall and W'ecklein are right in assuming that Ki>ivo,'iwfiia 
iSiijipl. 219) of the Suft/ilins is not in an elyofui [ = dywV], but in a lonely place near the 
sea. Three facts must be recogni.sed at the outset ; (1) Argos lies (*n rising grouiul not 
more than two miles from the .sea; 2) at Sparta (Plut. //i/m/v/tM vi.) and varicjus 
Thess;ilian towns (Ari.stot. Pol. vii. 11, 2, and Xen. Citinp. I. ii. ;i) there were two dyopat, 
one (tXfvdf'ixi dyo/ni) for meetings of the peoj)le, another for more usual trafficking. Now, 
since a similar arrangement existed at ("yzicus (C'./.(r'. lUi^u — di/8p«ca dyopd, Theophrast. 
(%ti. 2, and Menander cited by Polluc, x. 18—yvvaiKfia dyopd) which like Argos 
(Siiiipl. ii'27) was a niXayia TrdXir, it is no violent inference to conclude that Aeschylus 
knew of two dyo/)ot at Argos — one where was the joint altar of Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, 
antl Hermes, resorted to liy Danaus and his sujtpliant daughters — the ywaiKtia dyopd^- 
and the other the tXtiOfpn dyopd in which King Pelasgus convened the peoj)le and 
obtained their con.sent to harlxiuring the Suppliants ; {'A) the whole srennrio of the 
Supplices, probably the earliest drama extant, is extremely vague and cannot fairly l>e 
criticized with any .sort of .strictness. All this being granted, the fact that the 
Suppliants are no sooner in a position at the altar than the king of the land appears to 
ipiestion them, certiiinly favours their being in the dyopd rather than in a lonely place by 
the sea. That Danaus sees the ship from a point near the altar offers not the slight«8t 
dilliculty. Nothing but the dyopd can )»e im])lied )>y line 'XV,) addressed to the king liy 
the Supjjliants : al^'iv av irpCpvnv TtiWfun LiK fcrrrp/xti^i'. Indeed the absurdity of having 
the npvpvi] ni'iXfcii — whether the reference be to tlie gotls or to their counnon altar in a 
lonely i)lace by the sea is too obvious to rcijuire further comment. Here was the place 
where all strangers in distress placed suppliant boughs (cf. vv. 2."{7f. ). It must have 
been in the dyopd. The oidy ground for doubting is removed when we cr)nceive, on the 
strength of reasonable evidence, that there was another and a separate dyopd where the 
king convened the people. The play as it stands rei|uire3 this, but it also re<iuires that 
the altar of the (vnyoivioi fftni .should be anywhere rather than in ' a hmely place ' — in fact 
that it should be on the dyop.'j yvvniKtld in the 7rdX«f of Argos. Th»t )>eing Hrmly 
established, there is no further call for the wildly improbable suggestion that Pindar 
meant one thing and Aeschylus ipiite another by the dyojwoi fitoi Above all we are 
rescued from the extremely uncomfortable necessity of spinning out reasons for 
.\eschylus' chimerical distinction between the Hermes tvayuvtot of Fr. .'i87, who must 
be the god of the arena, and the (iywjtoy Hermes of Supplices IHo (cf. 216), 2.'W, IV27, ■'i.'>0, 
and of A(iiim. 41M) (cf. aOl). 

(."i) Sophocles employs the word dyoj';' in sixteen places and his extant works yield 
examples of each of the three found in Pin<lar and in Aeschylus. 

H.S. VOL. XXV in. T 


I. The Homeric meaning of arena or lists is perfectly clear in Electra 680 ff. : 

KaTTffi'noiJ.rjv irpos ravra Koi to irav (jipavw. 
Kf'ivos yap (KS(ov ti to Kkfiiiov 'EXXuSor 
rrpoaxrifi ayatva, A(\(PikS)v adXav x^piv. 

Here, at the beginning of the famous description of Orestes' death in a chariot-race at 
the Pythian games, the son of Agamemnon is described as ' entering the brilliant arena of 
Hellas for the sake of Delphian contests.' Again in Trachin. 503-506, 'dXX' tVi ravfi' 
ftKoiTiv II rlvfs dn(t>iyvoi Kort^av npo ydp.<ov \\Tivts ndpn'KrjKTa ndyKOviTciT' f^rjXdov a(6\' dyiovav,' 
the combination atffXa ayavap makes the meaning of dyavav perfectly unambiguous. 

II. The secondary Homeric meaning of assembly is found in two Sophoclean 
fragments : 68 (Athen. 466 b.) and 675 (Stob. 45, 11). 

III. The latter-day meaning of contest attaches to aywv in seven cases : O.C. 587, 
1080, 1082, and 1148 ; Aj. 936 and 1240 ; El. 699. 

IV. Five cases remain parallel to the three last cited in the preceding note on 
Aeschylus and the eight last cited in the note on dyw'i/ in Pindar. Here dyw'i' means both 
the contest and its arena, but here as in the Pindaric and Aeschylean cases in point, 
the most conveniently effective translation is invariably arena or lists : (a) Trach. 20 : 
ts (sc. the son of Zeus and Alcmena) ds dywva rwfie avfintacov pdxrjs \\ (KkvfTai fit, delivers 
me by grappling ioith this creature in the lists ; (b) ib. 159 : noWovs nyavas i^iav, going 
forth to enter many lists; (c) Electra 1440 f.: Xadpaiov wr opovaiiW irpos Slkos dyciva. 
hurling omvard to the covert lists of justice ; (d) Aj. 1163 : tarai pfydXrjs (pi86s nr dy<oi>, 
there will he lists of hiige contention ; {e) Electra 1492 f . : x^P"'? av ticro) avv Tdxfi- \6yu>v yap 
oi) II vvv 'nrriv dytiv, \\ dWa tr^f ^I'X^f ^*P'' Orestes requires Aegisthus to be in the right 
place before he slays him, as is shewn by his answer to 1493 f. (ri 6' is dofiovs ay€is fit;. 
etc.) which is (1495 f.): 

p,fj Tda<Tf X'^'P** ^' fvBanfp KaTticravts 
iraripa tov dp.6v, its &v (v Tavrat BdvrjS. 

(4) The frequent occurrence of the word dya>v in the extant plays and fragments of " 
E'oripides bears speaking testimony to the frequency w^th which allusions to the great 
national games were made in the common speech of the poet's contemporaries, and also 
to his notorious affectation of the speech of everyday life : hence the great preponderance 
of passages where dywv has completely lost its archaic meaning of arena or lists and 
means, as in everyday speech, simply contest. 

I. But there are six cases where it means arena or lists, as follows : (a) Orestes 
1291 f . : (TKt'^aaOi wv ay.(ivov j| dXX' at piv (v6ab\ al 8' €K€i<r' eXtVo-cre. (6) lb. 1342 f . : 
16' (Is dyuva dfip', iyu> 8' fjyrja-opai, a<0TT]pias yap ripp f^ets rjp'iv povrf. (c) Phoenissae 1361 f. : 
tarqaav i\66vT is piaov pfTaixpiov \\ cos (Is dyoava povopdxov t d\Kr]v hopos (Athenaeus, 
p. 154 e, quotes the ' skit ' on this passage perpetrated by Aristophanes in his Phoenissae 

as follows : 

'Ef OlbiTTOv 8f iralSe, 8i7rrvx« Kopo), 
"ApTjs KOTfcricTji^r' (s T( povopdxov ndXris 
aywva vvv icrrdfTiv. 

Part of the fun here undoubtedly is derived from the archaic meaning of ayotv (arena) 
which would strike the public as affected in Euripides, although it belonged as a matter 
of course to Pindar, Aeschylus, and Sophocles) ; (d) Alcestis 1103, <^(v \\ dd' (^ dywvos 
TT)v8( pfj 'Xa/3tf noT( ; (e) Andromache 724 f . : d 8' dnfiv iopos || ro'is JlnapriaTais So^a, jcal 
pdxTjs dyojv ; (/) Electra 883 f. : f)K(ls yap ovk uxp««oc €Kn\(Bpov dpapwv \\ dyav' (s oikovs 
dWd noXipiuv KTayuiv ',\ AiyiaBop. 

II. Since there is no case where Euripides uses dy«ii> in the secondary Homeric 
sense of assembly, it is well to recall Photius s.v. dyava : Tr}v avvaymyrjv oCtus 
'Api-(TTo(f>dvT]s. This proves that the Homeric secondary meaning was not entirely obsolete 
in the days of Euripides and Aristophanes. Indeed Aristophanes emulated the everyday 
diction of Euripides, as he confesses himself (Fr. 397 from Schol. in Plat. Apol. p. 330 : 


)(ptafiiu y«ip (iiToi {(f)r)a\) mi' (ito^htih ri^ irr^jo-y-yi Ay ,, roit fnis fi dyoiiiiiovt fjTTny f) n'lPOf 
n-oioi). ThuH it a|)i)eRrH that Kuripidt-s might \\h\v uhed r'y*'V = HKHiiiihly, though no ca«o 
of it has ntirvived. 

III. There are ol caseH »hen« iiyoiv nicHtiH cmiteHt, ah folloWH : Jlrr. 229; (2-10) 
Oreitfn :a-l, 4«>1, H47, 8r.l, HHH, 1124 ; V22:\, 1244, and hW? : (11- Irt) i'/iooi. 2t>S, 7H7, 
807, KHiO. l.'UO, 14H7 ; (17- 1») 3/»(/. 2Xt, IVM, 4()M ; (2i» 21) //i/ip/./. 45W, lOUJ ; '22 26) 
.4ir. 48S», 504, 048, l()2«i, ami 1141 ; (27-28) Ainlrom. 2'M, :V28 ; (29-H5) .S'n^p/. 71, 318, 
427, 665, 7(m, 764. anil 814 ; (36 37) /.^. 1003, 1264 ; (38) lihe»u$ 1U6 ; (39-41) Heracl. 
116, 161, »1»2 : (42-43) lltUnn 339, 849 ; (44-46) Ion 867, 939 ; (46-47) Herri. Fur. 789, 
1189 ; (48-49) Elect. 6116, 751 ; (50) Fr. Antiopi' 189 (Stoh. 82, 2) ; (51) Tn^idei 363. 

IV. Se^en cases remain, parallel to the laat five enunierattd in the preceding note 
on Sophocles, to the last three cited in the note on Aeschylus, and to the la«t eight of 
the note on Pindar's use of aya>v. These passages are : (n) I'hofn. 588 ; (/<) U>. 937 ; 
(c) Ih. 123.3 ; {d) Here. Fur. 811 (cf. Aesch. Choeph. 547 f.) ; (?-/) Fr. 68 (Stob. 8, 12). 

L. D. 

T 2 

[Plate XXXIII.] 

The beautiful bronze lamp, of which two views are here given, was 
recently acquiied by Mr. T. Whitconibe Greene in Frankfort-on-Main. It is 
146 mm. long, 76 mm. high, and is said to have been found in Switzerland. 

The lamj) is in the form of a boat, the raised bow of which contains the 
hole for the oil. There are two projecting nozzles on each side of the boat, 
pierced with holes for the insertion of wicks. Their position suggests that 
they are intended to represent the rowlocks. A border of small circles with 
centre-dots is engraved round the top margin of the Uxmp; five waves arc 
incised on each side of the bow, and another wave at its point. Three pairs 
of engraved lines run under the boat, one pair along the line of the keel, and 
one on each side. Within a shallow depression at the stern end of the boat 
is a nude figure of the infant Heracles in a half-reclining attitude, with his 
right leg slightly drawn up. He is strangling the two serpents sent, as the 
story goes, by Hera to attack the new-born infant. He grasps them tightly 
by the necks, and their bodies pass in a series of sinuous windings in front 
and behind him respectively. The lamp was clearly a hanging lamp, once 
suspended by means of chains attached to the end-loops formed by the 
windino-s of the serpents. It was originally silver-plated ; for considerable 
traces of the silver can still be observed. 

The representation of Heracles strangling the serpents in a boat seems 
to be a new one. The boat finds no place in the legend, but was probably 
adopted by the artist because it was a favourite shape with lamp-makers. A 
terracotta lamp in the British Museum closely resembles the present one in 
form, though it has three nozzles on each side and a flat bottom to enable it 
to stand. The Theocritean version of the serpent-strangling described 
Heracles as sleeping in the shield of Amphitryon, while Pindar does not 
mention the cradle at all.^ The position of the figure on the lamp is pretty 
closely paralleled by several extant statues or statuettes. Among these may 
be mentioned a bronze group in the British Museum,^ which perhaps 
ornamented the top of a cista ; several marble statues ; ^ and a marble relief 
from Athens of the Roman period, where Heracles is represented in a posture 
very similar to that of the figure in the present lamp.* 

F, H. Marshall. 

^ riiidar, Acin. i. 50 ff?; Thcocr. xxiv. various ancient monuments representing Hera- 

■■' Cat. of Bronzes, 1243. cles stiaiif^'liiig tlie serpents, see J.H.S. xvi. 

^ Clarac, PI. 301, No. 1953, and Pis. 781, 782. (1896), pp. 145 fF. ; Arch. Zcit. 1868, pp. 33 ff. ; 

■» Annali ikir Inst. 1863, Tav. Q. 2. For tliu Athh. Mitth. 1878, p. 267. 

TlllJtro.Ml'ls ,()K C'llATIl'l'LS;. IIKI.LKNKA i.'83 

liiit witliin tlusf riitluT widf limits tlu-rc are iibsolntL-Iy no tlaia lur do- 
ttriiiiiiiiig its (mil inns ad qufin. Can tlu- (fnninus a tjiio bt- niure cxnctly 
Hxrd ? On my tht't)ry it is fixed already to 402, but the editors, arguing 
from a nfiTcnco in ii. "27 to a |ir(vions description of an incident of n.<'. 
Ul, think it jtrobabK- tlitt I's history ' coni|»ristd that portion of the 
l'c'lojtonn«'sian War wiiicji 'rimcyflidcs diij not live to narrate.' In the 
passa^'c referred to 1' is icciaintin^' three exploits of the Corinthian 
Timolaus Kara rur 7Tu\€fxoi> t6i> AeKeXeiKov: (1) he sjicked certain islands 
in the Athenian Kmpire (r. 412); (2) he vaiKpiishcd the Athenian 
admiral Sichiiis (<•. 411); {'A) lie caused t+ie rcvt»lt of Thasos from Athens 
(c. 411 viu\). Of the s«con<l exploit alone P remarks axnrep fiprjKci ttov 
fcai irpoTepov. Now whether this little \ ict(Hy over Sichius happene<l before 
or after the time when Thucydides' narrative breaks off in the autumn of 41 1, 
is j)ure guess-work. Kut P makes no such remark about the revolt of Th.usos, 
an event of some importance, alxmt which Thucydides himself in viii. 04 
narrates the preliminary stage; s(j that if P really continued Thucydides' 
narrative, we should expect to find here a similar reference to his own earlier 
passage. Furthermore in the three other allusions to the Decclean Wai 
xiii. 16, and 80 and xvi, 5 we find no such refereiuv. The passjiges in xiii. 
record the \^*r\^ supremacy of the aristocratic ])arty at Thebes and the 
eiirichtneut of the Thebans through their purchase of the Athenian spoils 
at Decelea. It is diHicult to suppose that if P really continued Thucydides' 
narrative — fond of digressions as he shows himself to be- -he would nowhere 
have found occasion to deal with these subjects in his story of the last seven 
years of tht war. Still more difficult is it to account for the omission of any 
reference to his previous work in the last of these passages (xvi. 5) where he 
illustrates the customary ill-])aymeiit of the Persian king's troops by what 
happened Kara rov AeKeXeiKoi' TroXt p.oi>, remarking 7roXXdKi<i av 
KaTe\v6)](Tav ai tcoj' (Tv/J.p.<ix(^v rpnjpei^ el pij Bia ri]v \\.vpov Trpo6vp.iav. 
Surely an author so interesti'(l in naval o^jerations as P, if he had really 
<-ontinued the narrative of Thucydides, must already have dealt with the 
bad payment of the Peloponnesian fleet by the Persian king and his sitraj)s 
in its proper ])]ace. and in the present passage would have inserted a 
reference to his previous account. 

In my opinion therefore the natural inference from this seri»s of 
passages taken together is that P himself had written no continuous history 
of the Decelean war from 411 to 404, but had dealt with Timolaus' vict(»ry 
<ner Sichius in some earlier digression, e.g. in the jwissage referred to in the 
Trpoeipij/xerai TroXft? (ii. 4. 1^2), where he must have mentioned Timolaus in 
C(jnnexion with the Corinthian feeling against Sjtarta. 

If these arguments be accepted we must sup]>ose that P's history begiin 
with tile year 4().S or 402 and went on in annalistic fashion to 394 (" priori 
its most j)robable terminus) or, may be, to :]H7 or .'i7.S or any date not later than 
• ''56. This result has, as we shall see, a distinct bearing on our next 
(juestion. • 



Who was P ? 

For the solution of this problem the editors with some light-heartedness 
lay down two conditions: ' The primary condition,' they tell us,^^ ' which must 
be satisfied with regard to the authorship of P's work is that the historian 
whose clain;s are put forward wrote a continuation of Thucydides on a 
very elaborate scale.' Their second condition is that he must be one of the 
known historians of the middle of the fourth century B.C. To ' take refuge in 
complete agnosticism,' they say,^*' ' is most unsatisfactory, for admittedly P 
was a historian of much importance who has largely influenced later tradition, 
and since his work survived far into the second century (a.d.) his name at 
any rate must be known.' Now the known historians living at the time 
required are Cratippus, Clidemus, Androtion, Ephorus, and Theopompus -"^ — 
or, to be exhaustive, Anaximenes and perhaps Herodicus must be included. 
Of these HSrodicus may be at once dismissed. Aristotle (Ehet. ii. 23. 29) 
quotes a pun of his on the name of the sophist Thrasymachus, apparently 
his contemporary, and a scholion on the passage simply states 'Adr)vato<i 
ia-Topi/c6<i Ti<;. Nothing more is known. Clidemus or Clitodemus, the oldest 
of the Atthidae, judged by his scanty fragments, does not- seem to have 
treated of any events later than the Athenian expedition against Sicily. 
Ephorus, in whose favour a priori one would expect much could be said, 
seems to be justly ruled out '^^ by the editors ; first, because he wrote a 
universal history and therefore can hardly have described with very great 
minuteness the period covered by P ; secondly, because P's order of arrange- 
ment is chronological, while Ephorus' order was logical ; and thirdly, because 
the characteristics of P differ in almost all respects from the known charac- 
teristics of Ephorus. Anaximenes, also a writer of universal history, for this 
same reason need not detain us. 

Of the remaining three the claims of Theopompus are advocated by the 
editors, supported by Professors von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff and Meyer ; 
of Cratippus by the late Professor Blass, Professor Bury, and Mr. Walker ; 
and of Androtion by Professor de Sanctis. 

Of these the positive evidence is rather in favour of Androtion : for we 
know from fr. 17 ^^ that he dealt with the capture and death of Hagnias, 
which is recorded by P, col. i. 30 ; and Pausanias (vi. 7. 6) tells us that he 
also dealt with the revolt of Rhodes from the Lacedaemonians and the death 
of Dorieus, the son of Diagoras. P, who in col. xi. relates the assassina- 
tion of his kinsmen at Rhodes, must certainly have done the same. But 
on the other side it seems impossible to gainsay the negative arguments 
based on the scope, the scale, and the date of Androtion, which are stated 
by Mr. Walker in the May number of the Classical Review. 

^ P. 127. * ToJ/TOf [i.e. Hagniaa] koX tovs <Tu^irp«r- 

*' P. 139. fitvriis avTou (prjaly 'AvSporiaiy iv ■Ktixirrtf) t^j 

^ E. M. Walker, Class. Rev. xxii. p. 88. 'KTdlios koX *i\6xopos, ws iaKwady rt Kal 

Pp. 126, 127. ittidayov virh \aKtZai^iov(wv. 


We are left then with Ther>poiuj)u» and Cmtippus. A« to TheopoijipuH, 
while the positive evidenot* in but seaiity, the negiitive ( vidtiic*- ncenis t<> bo 
ovt'rwhrliniiig. Here it will b<' suftiricnt to huininarize the full and lucid 
statement*" of thf urgunients, for and against, of the editors themselves, 
who after holding tht> scales with more than judicial imjMirtialitt, finally 
declare in favour of Tlu-opompus. On bt-half of his claims their arguments 
are the following. (1) Theopompua began his Hrllenira where Thucydides 
left ofiF, and ended with the battle of Cnidus in 894: V, they think, did the 
same. (2) The .scale and subject matter of the fragments of TheojK)iiij)UH, 
books X. and XL (as a matter of fact there are only two extant fragments 
definitely a.ssigned to these books, one of six lines a.ssigned to the tenth, the 
other of thirteen lines assigned to the eleventh book), tend to show that all 
the extant fragments of P, if Theopompus were the author, may very well 
have been included in Book X. (The next six arguments the editors have 
adoj)ted from Meyer.) (3) Theopompus' 'combination of aristocratic leanings 
with a sincere desire for truth' corresponds to the attitude adopted by P, 
especially in his account of parties at Athens. (4) The extant fragments of 
the Hellenics — at least when they happen to be ordinary narrative and not 
rhetorical passages — are not dissimilar in style to P. (5) The<^»pompu9, 
like P, was extremely prone to digre-ssions. (6) The lucidity, careful col- 
lection of materials, wide range of subjects, deep insight into causes, and 
power of psychological analysis attributed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus to 
Theopompus, are to be found also in P. (7) Theopompus' works were serious 
histories like that of P, and no mere rhetorical exercises. (8) Polybius' 
censure on Theopompus' want of knowledge in describing battles accords 
with the suspiciously conventional character of the accounts of the two 
ambuscades in P v. 59 and xix. 22. The editors attach weight to the first 
five of these arguments and also to certain linguistic coincidences between 
P and the fragments of Theopompus — viz. Tiry^dveii> with a participle in 
place of a simple verb, napo^vi/eii', ywpiov . . . xarea Ktvav ^ivtav xaXSt^^ 
but lay most emphasis on the use of the verb Karapai in the sen-se ot 
eXdelv (P xviii. 39, Theop. fr. 327), and Koptrao-eu?, meaning a man of 

In passing we may remark that argument (1) stands or falls with the 
question of P having continued Thucydides' narrative. If he did not — a.«» 
I have argued above — then aidit quaestio. As to (4), of the niiieteen or 
twenty extant fragments of Theopompus' Hellenica only three contain more 
than three consecutive lines; and of three one is only five, another is 
six, and the third is thirteen lines long. The three indeed are all straight- 
forward narrative, but none of them are long enough or characteristic enough 
to serve as a basis for an argument either one way or the other. The real 
difficulty is not that these fragments are as unrhetorical '' as the narrative of 
P, but that the ancient critics mark no distinction of style between the 
Hellenica and the undoubtedly rhetorical Philipinca. This at least is 

s" Pii. 127-139. " Cf. <!.■ 9«iictiH. l.t. p. f. 


evidenced by the famous passage of Porphyry^- comparing him and 
Xenophon, which, long as it is, is worth quoting in full : Kay on, (firjalv 6 
Ni/fa7opa?, Tot9 'EX\.7]i^ikoi<; ivrvy^dvcov avrov (Theopompus) re koI tov 
S€vo(f>(t)VTo^, TToWa TOV Hez^o^wi^TO? avTov fieraTtdevTa KaTeiXrj(f)a, koX to 
Beipbv OTL eVt to y^eipov, tcl <yovv Trepl tyj^ ^apva^d^ov tt/jo? ^AyrjaiXaov 
(TVvoSov Bl' ' A7roWo(f)dvov<; tov K.v^tKr]vov kol Td<; d/x(f)olv -rrpo^ dWrjXov; 
ivcnr6vBov<i hLa\e^€L<i a<i iv ttj TeTdpTrj 'B,evo^6)v dveypayjre irdvv %a/9teVT&)9 
Kal 7rp€Tr6vT(0<; dficjjolv et? Tr]v evBeKUTrjv TOiv ' EXXtjvikcov fxcTadel<i 6 0eo- 
7ro/i7ro9 dpyd re Koi aKivrjTa TreTrocrjKe Kal dvpaKTa' \6yov yap Bvvafx,iv 
Kal Bid TTjv kXotttjv ^^epyaaiav e/jL/SdXXeiv Kal iirtBeiKWcrdat cnrovSd^oyv 
/3paBv'i Kal fieXXcov Kal dva^aXXofiivo) ioLKW'^ (^aiveTai Kal to efx-^vxov 
Kal ivepyov to B<evo(f>a)VTo<i Biac^Oelpwv. From this passage it seems to 
follow that Theopompus at any rate inserted speeches in his Hellenica 
whether rhetorical or not — whereas perhaps the most marked feature of 
P's style is the absence of sjjeeches in passages where they might well be 
expected, e.g. i. 14, ii. 1-35, xv. 7 (cf Xen. Hell. iii. 5. 7-16, where the causes of 
the alliance between Athens and the Boeotians in 395 are put into the mouth 
of the Theban orator). Moreover Theopompus, as a young man, gained the 
prize offered by Queen Artemisia for a funeral oration in honour of her 
husband Mausolus (c. 352 B.C.), a fact which shows — if the date of his birth 
be rightly placed about 376 — that he developed his rhetorical powers at an 
early age. The linguistic coincidences again are not so very remarkable : 
even the rare use of KaTapai can be paralleled from elsewhere, and Stephanus 
of Byzantium quotes KapTrao-el? and not Kapiraaea (xvi. 37) as used by 
Theopompus in his tenth ^^ book (alluding probably to the tenth book of the 
Philippica). The other arguments do not seem to call for comment here, 
they are so fully dealt with by the editors themselves. 

Now, however, let us summarize on the other side the negative evidence 
collected ^* by the editors, which, they admit, shows ' the existence of a 
number of weighty objections to the identification of P with Theopompus.' 

(1) The most important and the most insuperable is the chronological 
difficulty, xiv. 25-37 proves that P wrote his history before the end of the 
Sacred War in 346, which resulted in the destruction of the Phocians. 
Indeed Mr. Walker's inference is almost irresistible that P must have written 
before the beginning of the war in 356, arguing that a reference to the 
Sacred War would be expected in this passage if it had actually begun. 
Now if any reliance can be placed on the accepted chronology of Theo- 
pompus' life, his authorship of our fragment is, with the earlier date, out of 
the question, and with the later date very improbable. For 376 ^^ is accepted 
as the date of his birth, and we know that he lived in Egypt under Ptolemy 
Soter (323-285 B.C.) and may even have survived the year 300. But even 

^ ap. Euseb. Praep. Evany, x. 3, p. 465. to omit ^iKiiririKiov after the number of tlio 

^^ It is perhajts noticeable that Stephanus in book. 

Ills nine other citations from definite books of ^-i pj, 23^ gqq 

the Hclltnicu adds the word 'ZWtivikSiv, but ^^ Photius, Cod. 176. 
in quoting from the Philijtpiai seems fietpuntly 


if uc n-ston' tin- weights fVoiii tills iiiscri|)ti«iii us I luivr done alxtve, it will 
1)0 st'i'U tliiit tlit^v cxiictly till )i liiu- of 4*1 letters. Tin* words l)efon' 7r/j)a>T/;s' 
v8p\ia'i iiiiiv I"' siifely restored I'hpiui I'lpyupal : this gives us exactly 2.0 
letters to the right of tile letter A, which is exactly iinderrieath the j in oJv 
in I. 5, and lo letters missing from the left of on r fragment Comftarisun 
with the otlu'r inscriptions in this series shows that whereas in the c^italogne 
jtropci- the lints are almost always of e(|iial length, in the preamhle this is 
not the casi' : thus the r«'sti»ration of I. 2, which is considerahly shorter than 
II. (i !>, mav very well he correct. 

We mav, now that w.- have settled t^ie date of (Meisojdins and of the 
list ol treasnrers, jiroceed to restttre the preamble more fully thus, taking the 
names of the treasurers of the year W'l 1 from /.(J. ii. 2. 042 and ii. 5. (542 l>, 
and restoring the archoiis' names for the iwu years in (|nestion. 

['I\j8t" ol Tafxiat r(t)v iepo)i> ^prjiAdrcov Ttjf ' A6tji'aLa<i xai tcou aWroi' $eo)u 
nl tVi Mt«a»/'09 dp^ui'Toi; - - letOpucrios, - - k\i]^ Ai^fouevf, Vii'<i)i> \ llaiavevs, 
()l<i K]\ecro<f>()[<i \*jva)vvfi€v<i (ypa^^drfve, \ irapehuaav r\np.uiis To(t)[<f iirX 

^eimweTuv ap^nvro<i - - - -, IIo\v€vkt(di [--,----,----. '• " "] Orjdei', 

A<o5o[T<wt - -, , -. - - Ai\yi\i€C, oU \ (ypapf-uireve.] 

The exact division into lines is impossible, but there can be little or no 
doubt that the sense was as indicated above. 

It will be convenient to sum up brieHy the information given us by this 
inscription. It belongs to the end of the year ( )l. !l4. 'A (402 1), and is the 
record ot the handing over by the treasurers ot the sacred objects in the 
Hecatompcdon to the incoming treasurers for 401/0. It also definitely 
settles the vexed question as to the (late of C^leisophns' secretiiryship, and tells 
us without any possibility of doubt that his year was the last of the old 
regime under which there were only three tresisurers ; and that the year 
401/0 was the first year in which their number wjis increased to ten. 

'\. White marble, complete for a few cmm. on right. Height "itiS ; 
bn\\dth, average -29, originally about .50 : thickness 11.5. Letters, in 1. 1, 
(>0(i: in 11. 2 and W, Oll-'ori: in II. 4 !», 01. Now in Epigraphical 

Museum (Xo. 7.S of unpublished fiagiiu iits). 




APtsl£Y?AI OaaH AH$4> AYE Ys 
•£ t I AOK P ATH^ A*IA" - 
■^H 5! EP T'-- 


- - 10 - - 

- - o? Mei^ereXo? ^{p)ed(p)[iJi()<; 

['EttI KvdvKXeo<; dpXovT]o'i Tafiiat rS)v r/}? Oeo 
5 l^Vjirixdprj'i VjVO)vvp.ev<i\ 11 pft)To/cXe'//9 'I/capieu9, 

[K^/^tcro^wy riatai/tei;?], (K.)apLa<i Ur'jXy^, ^t]fjLOKXi'i<i 
[K€(f>a\ri0ev, AioyeLTCov 'Ax]<^pi'^u'i, Ato/ir/^T/f ^Xu€u{<;), 
['ApicrTOKXi]'i ' Apa^avT€iev]{<;), ^iXoKpdrr]*; ' A(f}i(8vai )[o<;], 
['Avdefiioip ' Ava(j)XvaTio<i, ol^^ (M.v)t]aUp{yo<;) ['AO/xoi'ev'i] 
10 [iypapfidTeve, irapehocrav - - k.t.X.] 

This fragment, of anotlier inscription belonging to the same series as 
No. 2, has also some features of interest. In the first place it is the only 
inscription in this class which is headed by the name of the ypa/ji/jiarev'i 
ySoi/X?}? '' of the year: there can be little doubt that Mei/ereXo? '^ is a genitive 
and that the name of his son, ending in -09, is to be restored before it : there 
was just room on the stone for <t>p€dp[pio^, as we may see from the length of 
1. 7, opposite which we have the right hand edge of the stone preserved for a 
few centimetres. Restoration of the names of the Ta/xtai, who occur also in 
I.G. ii. 2. 652, 653, gives us a line of about forty letters: the central vertical 
line of the stone would thus run almost exactly through the r in Mei/ere'Xov, 
which would leave us with the conclusion that there were as many letters 
before it as after it, namely thirteen : we may conclude then that the name 
of the ypap,fiaT€v<; ^ovXi]<; for this year consisted of about nine or ten 
letters, ending in -09. It is true that in the woid iypa/uLfidrevev in 1. 3 there 
are eleven letters to the right of this line, but as the arrangement is not 
aroLxv^ov we need not assume that there are so many in 1. 2. The name of 
this ypafip-aT€v<; unfortunately cannot be restored, but we know to which 
year he belonged, for in the second of the inscriptions alluded to above, which 
give us the names of these rap^iat {I.G. ii. 2. 653), we have preserved the 
words eVi EvOuKXeo<; apxovTo<;, and so I have restored them here. Before 
proceeding to enquire which of the three traditione^ is recorded here, it must 
be confessed that I have no explanation to give of the letters - - <o in 1. 1 : 
the surface of the stone is damaged, and there may have been another letter 
after the ; and before the I and separated from it by a letter entirely 
vanished I seem to see traces of A ur A. The usual heading of these 
records is OEOI, but that word certainly did not stand here, and it wouhl 
have been in larger, or at least not in smaller, letters than the second and 
third lines. 

To proceed to the question as to which of the three traditiones is 

^ He cannot be ypafiixaTtvs to the raixiai Attica, s.v. For 01 = ou$ in such gcnitive-s 

either of this year or of the years immediately cf. Meisterhans, Gramviatik dcr Attischen In- 

liefore or after, as their names are known to be schri/lev,^ p. 6, note 22, where it is pointed oul 

ilifferent. that it survives as the normal usagi- as late as 

^ For the name cf. Kirchner, Prosopograiih la 360. 

su^iK rNrri;i,isiii;i) a'I'Jic iNscKirrioN.s :?oi 

ri'cordcd lu-ri', it is ctiliim tlic otin r twn ncuid.s d tlu> vt-iir. ()|. !>."). :{ 
(■{!>H/7 ), /.(t. ii. 2. ii'i'I ImIoii^'x lu tin- Hrcati*iii|><-<l<iii-tn':tsiii(>.s, its in 
II. I') Itl It rt;i(U tV TMt i>t<ot T('iH '\'j\Kari>fJLtT^h\(t}i. ( )iii Irai^MiHiil tlnri cuiiM 
Hilly l)t'l<in^ to thf I'art li<'iii*ti or < )|iist litxloinos-t icimiics. KdIiIci .siit;^f.sttM| 
that I.d. li. i. ().')."J irc<ir(|«'(| tin- t raiiMiiissinii of llir Pari litintii-tna.sunr.s, IniL 
a lu-u tiaL;iMiiit ol tlic s.iiiir iiis(ri|)l luii tuiitiij siiI»n< (|ii«iitly tn the piihljc- 
utioii (»f Vol. ii. (it tin- (.'oi|Mis. and |»iil)li.s|u(l l)y Myluiias (/AC.//. .\ii. pp. I,')() 
foil.;. Lolliii^^ {Sitznnyslur. <lrr /:, rl. Ahul., I.SSH, ]>. -IW)), and l.C. n. .">. 
(j5.'{ /', Iravf.s no room lui iloiiht thai Kolilcf i.s, tor once, wron^'. Lilnirr 
{ujK lit., p. I.S) slutw.s, l>y an ingenious icsi oration of tiio first objects in th<-, that they aro thr same a.s those recorded in /.(/. ii. 2. (i4.') /-, atul 

thai therefore tJleV Were deposited III the ( )pis| lloi ji ijiios. ()iir frai,Mlie||t 

then can oidy relate to the I'artJu-non, and we may n<ile at on<'«' that in the 
picamhie tin- ra^tai are dcscrihed as TOfiuic tmi> r?f^ dt-uv^ instead of Ta^ia< 
T(iii> ttpo)i> ^ptifj,t'iT(oi> T/'/v ' AOiji'di'd'i Kill Tfov a\\(oi' 6(0)1'. Now no (it her 
r»'coi(l of the trea.siires in the PartJienon pre.servi-.s for ns the correct desij^- 
nation of the ra/iia/, and thoii^di the inscriptions /.^'. ii. 2. (i4/), (155, which 
undoiilitedly relate to these 1 nasiiics, preserve turns portions o| tliecata- 
loi(Me of the .sacreil ol)|ects, t hey lack almost entirel\" the opening formula. 
Whether all record.s of t ransmission.s of the I'art hen<»n-trea.snies were headed 
hy the name ot the ypa/jL/j.aTcu\- l3ovXi'i<; for the year is uncertain : if s.>, it 
Would .seem to imply that they were in some wav <listinct from the other two 
cIjussc'.s of records, but the matter at [)resent remain uncertain. 

4. KiaL;iiieiit oj LCrt'vish marble, com|tlete below and on ri^hl. JleiMrJii 
•2.S.') : l»re.idth •-1-2 : thickness Oil. Letters Ol hiv,di. Surface much dama'^ed 
I'specially at riL;hl-haiid side. In iiiaL,'ax.ine of Aciopulis .Miisciiin 

., > I ^TE I ON 
ATE ♦ANO Cxp v^^ 
.N ■'"OYTora^^^,,||^7fr4,/,,ji 

^KAEO^r^-^ ^^' )riONiA 

- - (v up)ia-Teiu(i') [ti'i\- 
6(0 - -](v) cTTeifjai'os' Xp(uau)\<i 

- - ara6p,\u)v touto PAA{AII)|I. o"tk^(«»'o)[v 

- - COS' 'OPjOtil' <)l'(€6)t)K€, <T{T)[a6fJ.- 

.") 6v TovTO ( -, - -] (a)raOfii>u tu(v)tu)i> HHHHPA(a) - -. 
- - ■)(]pvcr)'ii> a\v{(T)ii> t[)(^]ncra 'Ap(T)[t-p.i- 
Sov lipavpcoviwi »*)f ufeOiitce - -] (o)Ac\t'ov 7(i'/')['/]. <T{Ta6p.)oi' 
(T)a[uTJ/V I - - J. 

* I'oi tlic survival of u fur uk Meislciliau.s, /i*i. iiV. 


Anything like a complete restoration of this fragment is impossible: we 
may conclude, however, from the style of the writing that it belongs to a 
date early in the fourth century, and that it contains parts of a catalogue of 
the 'treasures of Athena and the other deities.' The letters 'Ap(t)- at the 
end of 1. 6 can hardly be the remains of any word but 'ApT6/Mi8o<i, and objects 
dedicated to Artemis Brauronia occur frequently in these lists. This 
fragment has no exact parallel in any of the existing inscriptions of the serit-s, 
but from the class of objects it refers to we can see beyond doubt that it 
contains a list of the treasure in the Hecatompedon. From Lehner's analysis 
of the inscriptions relating to the objects preserved in the Parthenon [oj). cit. 
pp. 26-28) we see that crowns occur very rarely there, whereas in this small 
fragment alone we have mention of two, and indications of a third, for the 
word api(TTeiov, which may be restored without difficulty in 1. 1, is always 
applied to a crown in these inscriptions. And further the treasures in the 
Parthenon are all sacred to Athena Polias, with the excej)tion of a single 
SaKTvXio^ Xpv(Tou<i (TTpeTrTo<i 'Apre/jLiSo'i Bpavpo)via<;, which is mentioned in 
I.Cr. ii. 2. 646 : the mention of the (nicjiavoi in 11. 2 and 3 makes it extremel}' 
improbable that the allusion to Artemis Brauronia in 1. (> should refer to this 
particular ring. It seems consequently to be a list of the treasures in t'ithiM* 
Hecatompedon or Opisthodomos. 

With regard to the Opisthodomos-treasiues we aro uiitortunately very 
ignorant, as inscriptions relating to them are rare and, when they do (jceur, 
very fragmentary. It is only after 885/4, the date, as Kiihler^ shows with 
all probability, of the change in the constitution of the college of rafiiat, 
that we get a list of the objects preserved in the Opisthodomos which can be 
called at all complete. The list compiled by Lehner (op. cit. pp. 75-77), 
many items in which he identifies with thosi; in lists under the old r^f/inic, 
does not, however, contain any dedications of crowns whatsoever. There can, 
then, be no alternative to the supposition that our fragment is part of a 
catalogue of the objects in the Hecatompedon. Unfortunately no single 
item here can be identified with any item in any other Hecatompedon record, 
particularly as the damaged surface of the stone leaves the readings of the 
weights in 11. H and 5 uncertain : conse<iuently we cannot restore the original 
length of any line. The stone is complete on the right, so that we have 
room for the ^ of aT€(f)ai'{o)[<i] in 1. 8. 

In 1. 1 we may safely restore [- - cne^avo'i ;^/9i'o-oi)](9 a)Yp^i(neloi> 
TTj? I Oeoi). This may ])e that described in 7.6/. ii. 2. 652 as (TT€(f)avu^ 
^pva-ov<i dpLcnela Trj(; Oeov, or another ibid. 667, 1. 28, described as apiareia 
rfl OeM, but it may easily refer to a different one altogether. 

L. 3. We may note touto (or tovtov, as also e[x]{o)(ra for exovau in 1. 6 
and the third declension genitive in -eo? instead of -e'oi"? in 1. 7 : the latter 
possibly occurs at the beginning of 1. 4, though we cannot be certain. 
The general use of o for ov shows that this inscription must be dated 
(juite early in the fourth century (see note 7 above). The reading of the 

" In u note on I.G. ii. 2. (j'iZ. See also Lt-hiR-r, up. cit. ji. 17. 

soMr: r\pri;i.isii i;i> \iric i nsckii'tions :\o:i 

numeral is not rcrtaiii ; tin- luiirtli fiLfiin' i-> apparmt Iv A. 'nnl |»i»ssil)lv 
tho next two were l)oth |- in which f;usf the total will In- HI <lr. 2 oWols : th<' 
seventh ami ci^'hth an- cirtainly 1 1, so we an- left cith^T with SO «lr. -I ohols, or 
H2 dr. 2 ohols, hut as I cannot find citlicr ot" thtsc sums atlacht'd lo ohjerts 
in the Hocatonipctlon lists, wc cannot restore what the <il)ject w;us, thon^di 
such a weight is a possible one lor a crown : it may refer to the crown 
mentione(| in I. 2, and if this is so the nanu' of the iledicator followed (its 
evidently the lines in the list were fairly lon^. nut j.^-, , // ili m !■(» I. m.i-i 
or a^'ain it may be the weight of some other crown 

IjI. '\, 4, /). We may restore aTe(f){ai>n (<? | ^fjuaous 'ui> u Otii'u - -\tus 
i)t)Oei> (w(€fi)i)K(€), a(T)[a6^\6v tovto - - . What, objects t('ou)t&)»' in I. ;"> 
refers to is (piite unknown; beyond the tact that their weight w us ovci- 
470 <lr. W(» can tell nothing for certain. 

L. (). The restoration [x\{p)vai)v d\v{<T)iv e[;(;]oau Wp(T)[t:^iiho>i Wpav- 
pdiviaf;^ may be regarded as certain : it setims to be the case here that 
the possessive genitive of the goddess' name is put after, instead of, a,s is 
usual, before the name of the object. Othi-rwise, it we suppuscd the won! 
^[x]"*'"'* ^'* ^''' ^'^*-' '■"*' "^ ''"' description of the item, we shoidd be 
surprised at the ab.scnce of any record of weight. What, the object which 
had a golden chain was is ipiiti' uncertain, though t In re is a po.ssibility that 
it may be identifiable with an object mentioned in /.^'. ii. 2. (iOO, 1. 42, 
yXP^'^^l ^JpfTT'/SecTTo? a\v(Tiv e)^o<Ta ^pvcrtji', t]i> avedrjKev KtiWioj' - - - : this 
same object occurs in II. 10-12 of Und. G61 d, where it is described ;is belong- 
ing to Artemis Brauronia. This latter piece of evidence strengthens tht^ 
possibility that it is the .same f)bject which we have to deal with in the 
present fragmi-nt, in which case KdWiov would be the name of the wife 
of - - 0KXt]<; in 1. 7. If we accepted the itJentity of the object in 
this inscription with the 'golden seal made to imitate worm-eaten 
wood,' which is the meaning of dpnnjSea-To^ (see L. and S. s.o.), we 
should restore as follows : ■)(^pv(ri) OpnrtjSea-To^ ;^](p)i'<T»'}j^ dXv{<T)cu €[-)(]o<Ta 
Ap(t)[€/j.i\8o^ ]ipavp(oiHa<; rfv lU'iOijKe K.aX\ioi> - - - ] (o)Af\t'o? 7(t'i')[»/], 
(T{Tadfi)6p (T)a[uT77? hhl]. But it does not claim to bt- at all a certain 
restoration, and least of all should it be usedjva definite evidence- for restoring 
the length of the lines in this in.scription. 

5. Slab of Pentelic marble, coinphte .m right, ami below : a cutting 
about '012 wide runs across the stone near the top and destroyed .some 
of the letters in 11.8 and 4. Height •.^2') ; breatlth 27.'); thickness 095. 
Lettere "005 high. In magazine of Acidpolis .Museum. 

H.s. — Vol. XXVIII. 


l.<l. ii. 1. SI). 
^1 o , 
I O Y€Ai£^l (COV/ 
YApv<A^O^I |> ol 


Ol IEYBoiEY^i nEpaine^a 

Id YiKAIErroN»Y?nPO=EN0Y^ 






lA <o I^TAA PAxaaA^E kA^T/vI a 

^ANTn.|AHAAAl E |NA| ^iETO I $ 

UN TriNAK I ^:i/\NK aoa e PArrEA 

- ' to{i) I (riot's" ahiKov{fi\^^vov'i | [■io\v\iiv((T)a{ad)ai 

•"> (a') . . . j) . 1)1 . . . . \ - - - (cT]\t |'o7r<ws- /J.)]Oei^ u)oiK?]raL . . | - - - /a /fat /; 
avr/.i(ty(i'(i to)i cdjixcoi | \io)i WHtji'nuor kch t |ots' l^^u/r^otef'o-n'' e7ra/j't'o"a| t] | 
I Ldof e Tfr»/ hijixwi '■ ■ ■ \ I'lpiTur Kdt ' \\i)(ik\€1()Ocojj()ii j [tous" Trperr/Sei^ '. uTi^ 
TTpoOvi-un i)a(ti' Trept tuv SP)/jl\<)I' rtir Wtlip'diror A-a]< eiroluvv on ehvvavTo 

10 nya \0{>i'' K(H ili'di (tuT(i\v<; Kdi lyyot'ov-i TTpa^trov^ \ \k(i} €i>€pj€T(i<; to] 
Fiij^io TO A(^>ji'ai(oi', €77(ui'^a(ii I Ot roi's Trpi^afStts r]fni' ' AOtjuat'cov 7o<i 
7TC/x(f)0ti'Tas- \ Ixai T()i'>i TTpcalStis TO I (';s I'/c TMi' fx I'/'/ua' T^f'"', A^af /caA.e|[<T«t 

!•) tTTt ottTT/'o/' i(s" T|f«> 7rtt'Ta;'t7o;' t(\- civpiov a [iruhovi'dL hi- Kai t(^u\hia Toi>; 
7rpii(r/'it;ai jor r(iit\tni> rou h>j/.i<)V t/.' Tf>>|/' Kara ■\fni(f)i'a/.iaTa uvaXiaKo- 
\fitii'0)i> TO)i htjfJidH Tp\inK(H'Ta hp(f\^fxa^ tKfiaTCoi- a \i'(('-/p(i-ylf(n Ot Kal t//)/' 
TTpo^ti'Lcir, tar k(U ro)t 8///u|fi); hoK^jt, rov ypa/.i/^i\(tT(sa tT/v ySofA/ys' fc'7' 

20 CTT//A,//f X [<^^u'»/( /cat (TTpjaai\ t/' uKpoTroXti 6i.K(i i']fiepo)v et|[<> Se t»;/' 
ni'n'^/pa^ijii t]//s' crT//\?;<? hnvvm to/' Tf(/xt[rt;^ toO h/jixov e'lKoa^i Spa'^/xfi'i 
tK ToJiJ KciTu yp^}j(f}i(T'\[fxaTa dvaXicrKo/xeluoyv tmi S/jfj-wr elvai 8e TOi«? | 

2.) [ A6i)vaioi^ '. I?;;' ■ro)v aKihwv Kn{0)a t7rayyeX^[XovTai t 

soMio rM'ri;i,i>iii:i> aiiic inscimi'TIons :?or. 

The ro])y used l»y Kolilti- iii llir ('ui|»iis (/««•. rif.) was inailc uliilc lli<- 
stuiic was still liiiilt iulu a late wall in tlic I'aitliriioii. <l<>sti(»viM| in |!l()4.; in 
liii-^ |ii.sili()ii til.' liist, toiii- iiiif^ wtfc in\ isildc. .umI (Ik- i-ups unly pivi-s 
M . . . ATT in I. 5. ami EYCI . EPA in I. (i, an<l onnts the fii-sl liv.- |.ll.-i-s 
in I. 7. Till' rullowint,' <lin'irtncrs u| ti'adini; shuiilil alsn he nod-d : I,. H : 
EAYNAN|OA~A, K. : tlic first liii.c is clraily I an. I lii.- ..tji.i-s aiv all 
pfilrcl. L. 10; iIhP in irpu^eruvs- i- i|nitf plain, lli<iMt,'li K<)lil(r piiiits ii 
as in\isil)lc. In I. I'i I sec t laccs <i|' t he Y Ixfur.' I jn' t at tlir lii'^'iiMnn^: 
K. iva<ls lYMMAXnN, j)nt tlic s| .iraiiv has CYNMAX::N. L. | I : 
OPPYTANEION. K. : ::PE Y T ANEI ON, A." M. \V. (.-Karlv hutli .iiv 
niistakfs nl' thr lapidarv). ],. I(i: the N Ixtun- KnT(i is clcarlv visible, as 
also ar(> Liu' I at tlu- bttrinniiiL; <•! I. 17, ami llir N hcf'.uc Trpo^einav in I. IS, 
all uniittcd by Kohh-r. I^. 20: the ti»|) stroke of the E is visible befoir N at 
tile be^rjiiiiinf,', and the line ends willi El not E. L. J I , tin- I of rnfiiav is 
quite cK'ar. 1j. "11. there are traees of a lettei- which seems to be I ])efoie 
the word ^/5a;)C/ias\ l)ut K. leaves a space; K.TAtH<t>l, K. ; KATAtH<J)l^, 
A M. W. T.. I'A: 1 see traces of th<' N before tli.' Cl at the be^dnnin^'. 
L. 24: ^HNTONAKIIAQN, K. | HNTC^N AK ' AON.A. M. \V.: Kohhr also onnts 
A at the en<I of the line, but it is ijuit.e ])lain on the stone. 

These differences in the text are all uniinpoitant , and nianv of the 
letters now visible at the edi^es of the stone were no doubt obscurcMJ by 
mortar. IJut by the unroveiinL,^ of the first five lines the iinportanee of thi- 
inscription is grt'atly enhanced, for we see that it records a treaty between 
Athens and Euboea In the restoration of II. (i 24 I follow Kohler's te.xt, 
Nvhich presents no dif^cnlties : tliough the read in|,' in the line will cull 
for a word oi- two of exj)lanation. 

In 11. l-.S, it is impossible to restore the sense in full : we may, howevei', 

recognize in 1. 2 - - tJoi'v dhiKov{ix)\ei>ovf; ], in 1. .'{, - (3o\v\iV(Ta(T6ai : 

the rest of the line is ipiite unceitain owing to the damage of the stone, and 
my s<jueeze showed nothing. 

L. 4. (<- • oTTft)? fiii?)€i<; uBiKi'iTac . . is j)lain : we may have the ending 
of some conjunctive such as [€7rtfj.€\i]d(o\{<T)(, but I have not ventured to 
restore it. It is surprising to have oVw^ and not otto)? «/', but this u.sage is 
found occasionally in fourth century insciiptions '" (/.(/. ii. 1. 115, ii. '>. 574, 
// and c). 

Tht' gap between nSiKpiTat and -la Kal i) av/j.fia^ia we might fill 
thus [/cajra tuvt^ earai i) (^i\\'ui k.t.X. which gives us the re<juisite lunnber of 
letters in the line, namely l\7 ; that this mnnber is correct can be seen from 
the exactness with which the restoration of th<' sub.sequcnt lines fits oui- 
requirements. The inscription is strictly crToi-^yjSuv, except for an occiisional 
letter added at Iht' end of tlu' line, as in 11. II, 12, 20. and 24. 

'" Mcistiilian.s, up. rH, p. 2.51, gircs statistics Attic in.scriptions in the first century n.o., aft«r 
of the relative rn'iiueii<y of tlic two ii.srs, wliich Ixcoming in<Tea*iiigly common in the intcrven- 
.show that 8iru$ i.s found oftcner than Swan iv in ing centuries. 

X 2 


L. 7. It is hanl to soo what the first namo is : "Hptro? is not a name 
that oooiHs clscwlici-c, nor doos it scciu to bo tho torniination of any known 
navno : it is possible lliat the lapidary has written H lor K, and that we have 
tlie ending of some such name as TtfioY K)piTo<;. But in any case we cannot 
restore with safety. 'llpaKXeioSoipo^; is not found elsewhere in Attie 
inscriptions, but three persons of the name 'HpaKXeoBoipo^ are known 
(Kn-chner, Prosop. At/..^iu)OG-H), none of whom, however, is earlier than the 
s(H-ond century P..C. But in ancient authors th(^ latter name occurs more 
than once:" Aristotle {]\>l. vii. 3, ^ 180.S o, 1. 18 alludes to 'Hpa/cXeoSwpo? 
iif Oi-eiis of Eid)oea, who revolted against the local oligarchy which favoured 
Spaita and set up a pro-Athenian democracy : this event took plac(» in 
'^77,^-* and one is tempted to wonder whether this is the actual occasion 
of the alliance I'eeorded in our inscription. Heracleodorus may quite well be 
spelt with or without an iota,^^ and thcu'e are not likely to have been two 
pi'diiiinent Euboeans of the same nam(^ living about the same time. But the 
date of our inscription is against the identification of these; historical 
circumstances. Kiihler on the evidence of the style of writing dates it to 
the KXith Olynqtiad (35(J 352), and this fact, coupled with the fact that tlie 
alliajice lecoided here is with the Eubo(\ans in general and not with Oreiis 
alone, makes th(i identification (^xtremely improbable. But there is no 
v.did i-eason why the same man sh(juld ncjt appeal- some twenty years later, if 
we can find an occasion for the appearance of an Euboean embassy at Athens 
treating lor an alliance. The occasion is easily found: it is the settlement of 
the Euboean cities after the successful Athenian (Expedition of 358/7 l?.C. 
Thei-e is nil iKH'd to cite here all the authorities, of whom Diodorus is the 
most detailed, as they are collected by Cirote (ch. 8(5): ' Athens,' he says, 

fully accomplished hei' object, I'escued the Euboeans from Th(;bes : the 

Euboean cities, while acknowledged as autonomous, continued at the same 
time; to be enrolled as members of the Athenian confederacy^ . . . .' But since 
(Jiote's day we have accpiired another piece of evidence bearing on these 
mcnts, namely the inscription^'' recording the honours voted to the Athenian 
envoys who went to Euboea to convey the terms on which the cities of 

Caiystus, (yhalcis, h]retria, and Histiaea were to re-enter the Athenian league. 

'I'his inscrijilion is dated by the UKsntion of Agathocles' Archonship, which 
fell in the yeai- 357 '(j. It would only be natural for a return embass}' to be 
sent to Athens fiom Euboea to say, as we know from history already, that 
they accepted the terms : it would be (vpially natural for one of the deputies 
to be that same Heracleodorus of Oreus (Histiaea) — if he were still alive — 

who had shown his loyalist fcmch'ncies to Athens twenty years before 
and foi' these fleputies to be feted in the usual way with a banquet at the 
TTpvTaveluv, and to 'be made nrpo^evoi, and for a stele to be set up on the 

" I'aiir-l'.eiisclcr, JrdrlrrhiicJi ihr <1 i-icrhisclien instaiici's of tlic inoiiiiscuoiis use (T f i for *, ami 

h'iifeii/ioiiKii, .i.v. virr versa, in fourtli century iDseiiptinns. 

'- Ni'wnian, Polilics of Aristotle, \'A. iv., '•* I.G. ii. 1. 64, rfpublislied in Ath. Mitth, 

1>|>. 307, S ; viilr references ibiil. 1877, i>ii. 209 foil., and Hicks'-, 128. 
Si-e Mcisterlians, op. eit. \\\i. 4.'j, 46, I'dv 

So.MM IMM i;i.l>||i;i> \IIIC INsciMl'TloNs ;{07 

AcT(i|)tilis to r.coid t lii'M' ( \ iiit>. Siitli ;i .stile would unlit ioii thr alli.iiici' 
bi'lwi'cii Atluiis ami KiiUota, willioiit iicicssaiily s|»('(il\ iiit,' tli«' naiiics o| tin- 
separate cities, .1111 1 woiiM lia\i- lieeii elected early in tlie JOtJth ()l\iii|»iad. 
Tlu'ie can now be little douhl it is this stele. I)iit unlortunately only a 
part of it, that we are diseiissinu here. A further ar^utneiit, if any won* 
needed, to snjn»i>it this attiilmtion is the consideration that there was 
no other occ.isioii within many years (d" this dale to which the inscription 
could ])ossil)ly allude. We can only re<rret that its iijtper part which 
contained the terms ol the alliance is not preserved. 

Fin.illv we mav imte in I. *22 that eiVoa]* just fills the rcfpiired space 
before S/j« Y^lf/s^ and in I. 2\ th.-it we h.ive some formula f<» deal with. 
There is no doubt about tin' re.idiiiL( of t In- word a/ci^ror, but it n.'fers to 
is ;in in.soluble pu//lo : it is apparently the genitive plural of uKi<i, meanin;^ 
a sjiike or the be.ik of a ship, and what connexion this with the terms of 
an .dliaiice is hanl tosee: tea fl)a ivayye\[\oi>Tai], if this restoration is correct, 
nu-ans that some arr.ini^n'meiit has been nndert.iken with regard to the 
matt.t-r, possibly mentioned on th<' missing ]iart of the stone. It is nioie 
than lil<el\-, howe\tr, that it is an error of the lapidary; if we find such an 
error as tJco irevrat'elov in I. liJ, we may well suspect the strange word ukiSq)i> 
to be a mistake: if it is a mistake, it is probal)ly the word ahiKwv spelt with 
8 and K transposed: abovi', in II. "i .iiid 4, we h.i\t' allusions to aStvt'a, and 
they no doubt contained provisi(jns against mutual injury. If this suggestion 
is right, the term of the treaty may well allude to jurisdiction (»ver 
offenders whether in ICubnea or Athens: which ])iobably t lie more powerful 
of the two p.arties in the .alliance would cl.iim. It might then be possible to 
restore \^ Kdy)vaioi<i ^ijfiLai' T]/;r rwr adiKcov, but, though this exactly fills the 
gap, I hesitate to restore it definitely, .as it no pai.illel. 

6. (Jrey marble, comjilete from I. S-l. 11 on left: broken on all other 
sid.s. Height -175: biea<ltli I 7 ; thickness 'OO. Lettei-s -05 high, (TTot;Y'7^°''- 
111 m.-igazine of Acn.pdlis .Museum. 

I H I 

A . ^ I A O 1 
I L I A N O I r P A 


KAl*IAOTlMlA?THt '"' 



- - - (rU") ? 

K^afl (f))iXo{T)[L/u.(o<; ! . . . . tr icol 

(ivTMi e'](Te)t dvdnnr^a )[a lai riKi'jaus ( e- 

aTe(f)[(u)va)aev ttjv ep 

.") . . .] Sta ravT avTo{v) [ot iiTTrtil^ eireive- 
cr]{d)v T€ Kot eaT€cfi(ivy<o)[^aai^ -^pvaoa are]- 

((l>)(iv(oi e7r€Lvea[a)u A'a}[ o/' <V]- 

ireif KOI iarecfxivoialav ■)^puao)i o"re(/)a]- 
I'COL Kill cIkui'I y^a\K[))i dpeT>^i<; e'z'e/ca] 
10 Kut ('; r)]<; [tt/so? avTovi' icai^ 
TTdXii' ;\;etpoTor7;^e[t9 (TTpaTi]yo<; '. eVi. 

To\v<i ^€l'OV<i tV/ Ap(^' '[lTTTTOV dp^Ol'TO^ 

Tou\ T € ^ei'iKou e7re[pLj[e\)'jOi) dpyvpiov '. 
/c«T«] (T;[aJ <7f /'Ti t)Ta7yu[fc"/'a twl I'upfoi kcu 

The ic'sttualioii '>f 11. S ;iii(l 10 wliich is told-ably rcitaiii shows that the 

lilies cdnsistcil of -in letters. l')Ut this does not ell.lhle lis to I'estol'e tlu! 
whole le\l, iior indeed to see exaetly wliat was the Construction, wliich, 
nartieiilaiK' in 11. 5 S, is very contused. We can at any rate conclude that 
it i> iiait of an honorary decree, in favour of someone unknown whoso iianie 
begins with Aa-, and :dso that it is jtart of the preamble of tlio decree 
coiisistiiiL;" of the s|ieeeh of its mo\er: for the string;' of a(ti-ist indicatives can 
oiilvhaxc been iutrodueed b\- eVe/. and the actual resolution was no doubt 
contained in tlh' jioiiioii niissiiiL^ iVom below. Kiuiher we sec from the 
be^inniiiL; of 1. S. which ma\- be sate!\' restored as [o/ (V] Tret? that one of 
(he j)re\ious hojioiiis coiiterre(| on the I'ecipieiit of t hi' present decree; came 
t'loiii the (VTreiv, •iiid tiom 1. 11 that he was more than once elected to jmsts 

ot llnpoltalice. 

L. I . Ile.'-torat ion is hopeless. 

L. '1. We >eiiil to lia\e helC Sohle t'omi of tile Wol'ds (fyiXoT I pO<i , 

iPtXnTipui. oi- (f)iXi)Ti/xeu' : J lia\e tentatively restored > (f)iXo{T [[pcos-], which 
ma\' Well allude to |e'crTe0] ('t)r(oa€i> in 1. 4. 

L. .'). We lia\i' llo (loul)L to deal with some reterellCe to tile avOlTTTTacTCa, 

all ( ijiH >t lian e\ent of some sort which fimired in the jiro^'ramnie of the 
( )l\in])ic and I'aiiat lienaie panics. Wehaxe ollur epieiaphical e\'idcnce for 
it in Dit t (libeller, z"^'////.- "200 and (isT. its precise iiat ure is unknown, but 
1 )it teiib(iL;(r (note on (iS7 ) points out that it was in existenct- at least befuic 
the end of the tir>t, <piarter of the tourth century, ami perhaps considerably 
i'arlier. The word i)elore it 1 woiiM restiac as |e'|(Te)/, perhaps [ei> to)l avro)i 
t] Tej7 : We may at any rate expect .--oiiie allu>i<in to the date of the victtiry 
in \\u(\vOnnr(iaia in this hue or the preceding'. The >u^^Mste(l I'cst.oi-ation 
dvOi-mrya [(juii /'(/c//CT«? ^ ari(^]( n)i'U)oei' is not eiil irel}' sat islactory, as it <^i\ I's 
us oiie I'tttr loo few. lait it i> hard to si !■ what elx' tile seiisi' can have 

SoMM INJ'T I'.LlslI i:ii AT'IIC I NSCItl P'l'H >Ns 309 

bri'U. The coiiiph'tion ol" I. 4 is iiiiiithfr pnibhiii : tin* Irttrr :it"t«'r p at the 
end <»!' the line is untirt-ly (Ictiicrd :iii<l wf \v,x\v mtthinj^ to help us to a 
rostoiatioM cxctpt th<' knowlrdgi* thai this word coiitiiiis the object of thf 
verb [eo-Te(/>](a li'Wflret' : imf'ortunatcly <»Mr iidormatioii jts to the j)roce<hire u\\ 
sneh occasions is very limited, but a possible restoration wotdd be Tr;j/ 
'E/3[eY^^/<'^rt (fiv\i]v\ ineaniiig that the victor rewarded tin- tribe with a 
crown. This, however, is fai- from convincing and leaves ns with a gap of 
five letters before hia Tavr\a\ in I. 5, 

1.1. .'), (). Further ditbcnlties appear here, for we have apparently the 
f(»rniula eTrj'jv€cr\dv re Kal eaTe(f)(ii'{(o)[(Tai/ repeated again in II. 7 and 8. 
There can be no doubt either that avToiv), — the v is practically cerUiin, — is 
the object of the aorist third person plural, of which wc have the last two 
letters at the beginning of 1. 0, or that the formula €a-Te<f>uu((i))[<Tav -y^pvat^ 
(TT€]{^)dv(p is contained in the missing space between II. (J and 7. If, a.s I 
have done, wo restore ol imrei^ after avTov, we (>xactly fill the space: but 
there seems no explanation, except complete mental confusion on the part of 
the engraver, for the repetition iireiveaav Aa[- - ol tVjTret?, k.t.X.: -iret? can 
hardly conceival)!}' be any word but tVjTreis^ in this context, and we know 
from f.G. ii. ()12 that the ImreU occasionally passed decrees honouring 
theii' benefactors. If we omitted the words avrov — <TTe(f)di>a) (in 1. 7) 
inclusive, the inscription would be simple and intelligible, or again, if we 
omitted the words iTrelvea-av — aTe<^uv(p (in 1. 0) ; but as it stands, with the 
adoption of the restorations suggested here, it cannot claim to be one or the 
other. 15ut e\cn if these restorations are wrong, I venture to s;iy that no 
alternative icstoration will produce order out of this chaos. The restoration 
of 11. 9 and 10 hardly calls for comment. But in 1. 11 restoration is not so 
easy: we evidently have an allusion to some other oflfice held (a second 
time by the recipient of the decree, and clearly connected with foreigners. 
The phrase we should expect would be (TTpaTTjyo<; eVt] tou? ^ivovt, but this 
involves a line of thirty letters. In I.G. ii. :VM >' we have the sj\me phrase, 
though there crTpaTijyo'i is understood from arpaTr)yo<; %ef/30Toi/>7^et9 — eVi 
Tr;i/ TrapaaKevtjv just before: we may here have to supply some (jther word, 
of oidy eight letters, — for the rest of the line seems umxssailable, — such as 
7rp6^€i'o<:, though the phrase irpo^epo^; iirl Tov<i ^evov<i is (piite unknown, 
or we may suppose that an extra letter (iot;i) was added at the end of the line. 
We S51W in the previous inscription (above, II. 11 and 20) that such a usage 
is not unknown in cnoiX'l^ov inscriptions of the fourth century (it is in fact 
quite common), and if this is granted, aTparyiyo^ would be highly probable. 
The precise dutijs attaching to this post are unknown, but it seems to 
be connected with the administration of ^eviKov dpyvpiov, as we see from 
the next line but one. 

'■' Till" \vli..le iiKscrii'tioii may l>c comiar.'.l (of whidi the lie^jinniiiR is niis-sinj,-) of the 

with the iMescut fragiiiciit wilii advaiit.^ge : it hoiiourahle oannr of tlio leciiiic nt. tx-forc the 

likcw isccoiitain.s a long preainblf loan honorary nniver arrives at the actual motion containing 

dccMP. ci>'nsislin'^ of a recital in sixty-six lines the vote of the crown. 


L. 12 no doubt gives us the dati' of his tenure of this ottiee, and AP/ 
cunlains the key to it. It is not the beginning of the word ap(x)[oi'TO'i, 
but of the Archon's name, for there is ajjparently no ease, prior to the 
Augustan age, of the ,wor(i cip^ovToq preceding the proper name in this 
fornuda. We may conclude then that the Archon in (piestion here had a 
name whose genitive case singular had eight letters : the phrase in question 
exactly filled this line, for the beginning of the next line cannot be restored 
as anything else but [rov] (r)e ^eviKov : our requirements are exactly suited 
by the word 'Apxc-mrov, which I have restored above. There were two men 
of this name, but by a coincidence they held office within a very few years of 
each other, in 321/0 and 818/7 respectively. To settle which of them is the 
man in question is of course impossible ; but we may date our present decree 
not before 320, and at the latest before 300. This date is roughly what one 
would expect from the chai'acter of the lettering. 

The w^ord after ^eviKov in 1. 13 begins €7re{fi): the fourth letter is 
indubitable, and a very natural restoration is e7re(yLt)[eX?;^?7] ; upyvpiov 
exactly fills the space before the end of the line, and [kutci] {r)[a] the si)aee 
before avvTeTajfjileva in the next line. The word ^eviKov is puzzling: to 
^evLKov is found more than once in ancient authors ^" as meaning the mer- 
cenary forces, and also, only in Aristotle's Politics, both the foreign population 
of Athens in general ^^ and as equivalent to to ^eviKov BLKacmjpioi' ^^ ; of 
these three usages, certainly the first is the most likely, particularly if we acee})t 
the conjecture crTparrjy6<i above, which would naturally mean commander of 
the mercenaries. But if this is the right sense we must make it an 
adjective agreeing with dpyupiov, and translate ' funds for pa3ing the 
mercenaries': ^eviKov dpyvptov might, however, mean 'imported coin,' as 
we find it in I.G. ii. 5. 834, b, 1. 89,^^ and the iTrifieXeia of imported c<iin 
is a quite conceivable post, though we have no other knowledge of its 
existence. However, the whole passage is still doubtful except for the 
general sense, and it would be rash to claim certainty for a restoration 
of either 1. 11 or 1. 13. In 1. 14 tw vofiw is not improbable. 

The question, who passed the decree in favour of Aa - - of which we 
have the introduction here is not solvable on the present evidence; it is just 
possible that, like the previous honorary decree he had received, wliich is 
recorded in 11. 7-10, it also was passed by the iTTTreU. But it is just as 
likely to have been })assed by the cKKX-qaca or any other of the bodies 
caj)able of passing such decrees: indeed, judging by the fact that we have 
only one decree of the 'nnrel<i as against the vast number of those of the 
^KKk-qcfCa and other bodies, the chance in favour of its being of the former 
class is practically infinitesimal. This question, like unfortunately so many 
others in connexion- with this inscription, must remain oi)en from lack of 

'" Time. viii. 2.' ; Deiii. 46, 1. 20, etc. '" iv. Ki, 4. 

'" iii. 5. :J. ''■' Ditt.- r.87, 1. 301. and '.ulhc. 

SOMI-: UNin r.i.isiii;i) attic iNscinpTioNs :ni 

7. Ciii y iiiailtir, coiuplctc only ImIow. Fr<»nt suifacr iinaMiii'S : 
height 28; hivadtli -21: thickness ()!>. l^etters OOo liigh. Surface much 
winii and damaged. In maga/ini- ol' Acr(i|MiH> Museum. 

J. u y f I TOr/TA 


rOY$r . YTANEitT,, PA 
r - .^sEK^'AHl. ^ili: atA 

- - - (or) - - - 
-^- - (o) - - - 
- - {So)v(u)[a]i t6(i/) Ta[fiiav eiKoai ? hpay^- 
fia<; €k] (tw)i' Kara ylrr)(fi[i]{(Tfij[aTa ava\i(TKOfiii>0}v 

5 TWf h')\^^)o)i T(iB' e7ravo[pj6ov[v '. 

Souj'at] hi TJ)i> ■\frP)(f>o(v) toji Bj)(fi)[(t)i irept 

] Tov^ (7rp)i;T(a'j/)et9 t(v)[^] Ua[i'Bioui8o<; ei? 

Ttji' 7rp]((OTi]v) eV(/c)Xj;o-(<ai') K{a)Ta [tw vop-ov]. 

From -the style of the writing this inscrii)ti()n would seem tn date fr«.m 
some period not much before the middle of the fourth century and not much 
later than the beginning of the third. Tliere is nothing to help us to a closer 
dating, and indeed there is nothing striking about it at all except the formula 
in 1. 5. 

LI. 1 and 2 are beyond hope of restoration : in 11. .S-4 it is easv to restore 
hovvai Tov rapLiav k.t.X., the usual j)hrase in Attic decrees for expressing the 
provision of a sum of money for defraying the cost of erecting the stele to 
record the decree. 

L. 4 may thus be regarded as sufficiently certain to enable us to restore 
the number of letters in each line, namc.'ly 8;i : in 1. 7 the aToi-)(rih6i> arrange- 
ment is broken by El taking the })lace of a single letter, and the last lim-. 
according to my restoration, contains only 80 letters, but this is, needless to 
say, unimportant. There is, howe\er, nothing to guide us ;is to what exact 
position on the stone our fragment occupied : I have a.ssunu'd in the restora- 
tion above that about five lettei-s are mi.ssing on ihv left and twilve on the 
right: this at an}' rate the advantage of not (lividing up the shortei- 
words such as f49, njv, k.t.X., which the stone ( utter would seem gi-nenilly to 
tiy to avoid, and it may very well be the correct division. 

In 1. 3, assuming that the formula is restored correctly in detail, eiKocrt 
is the most natural sum to till the space, and thus I restore it. 

L. 5, e7rai'o{p)dov[v] : the actual part of the verb represented here 
is d(»ubtful, but I incline tv the view that it was an infinitive, expressing the 
l)urpose for which the rafiia^ was to pay the 20 (?) drachmae, and that thi- 
rest of the line explains what \\v had te t\<> preci>«el\. Tlu- usi- of the 


infinitive in a final clause need not surprise one in an inscription : 
Meisterhans -"^ collects several instances of its use from inscriptions of the 
last thirty years of the fourth century. About its meaning there can be little 
doubt : it is used technically of making a correction in an inscription, and 
this exactly suits the context here. In Attic decrees a very common formula 
is that in which the Ta/j,i,a<i is ordered to pay a sum for the erection of a stele 
to record a decree, and no doubt it was equally his duty to provide the 
money e« tcoi^ kutA yfrr)(f)i(TfiaTa dvaXiaKOfievcov tm 8>;/i&), if any correction 
was ordered in an existing inscription. What was the correction ordered in 
this case it is impossible to say, but the letters missing after iiravopdovlv] 
contained the key to the puzzle. In the other instances of the use of this 
formula we -^ have nothing to guide us here : possibly some such expression 
as Trepl t?;? <TT)]\t]<i, which contains the required number of letters, was what 
the stone cutter wrote, or it might have quoted the actual letters that stood 
in need of correction. 

LI. 6-9 contain the usual formula about putting the question to the vote 
in the eKKXrjaia : the space of sixteen letters between Sr;(/i)[&)] and rov<i 
contained no doubt the subject of the vote, in fact of the decree. We may be 
fairly sure that it began with Trepl, but beyond that we are quite in the 
dark. It is far from improbable that the rest of the phrase was t?;? 
Trpo^euiaf, but t^? avwypa^rj';, referriang to the stele, is just as likely, nor do 
these exhaust the list of possible alternatives, but the question is not of the 
first importance. At the end of the line Ila is clear on the stone, and in 
this place we should expect the name of a tribe, so the restoration Tla\vZiovl,ho'i 
ei<? I Tr)v 7rp](d)Tr)v) eV(«)\?;o-(tai^) calls for no apology. 

Arthur M. Woodward. 

^' Op. cit. p. 249, note 1942. 54, 1. 26. fvavopOovv has other meanings as well 

-' Dittenb. SylL- 49, 1. 49 ; 615, 1. 4 ; 789, in Attic insciiptions, but this particular use is 
1. 84 : neraypa.\f/ai is used in the same sense, ibkl. not apparently fouml elsewhere. 

riiin:i-: m:\v vasks in riii-: asiimoi.iiax mtskkm 

|l'i.\Ti;s WX. XXXII.J 

Thp: At-hiiioKaii Musciiiii h;is rccciilly ai-iniiird tlui-i' Atti*' vases with 
subjects of uiicomnioii iutiTi-st. The first (I'l. XXX.) is a b.-f. ]Mlikr with 
frained pictures. Each picture is bounded by a baud of ordinary lotus-buil- 
])att»-rn above, at the sides by net-pattern, and below by a clay bne. A nd 
l)an<l runs ri<;ht round the vase innuc(batrly below the pietures,and a thiinnr 
ri'd line, as is usual in panel-aui])hoiae, surrounds the neck at thf 1<\(1 
ol the handli's. Kcd is also used for the beards and wrraths on sid<- J. and 
nil /; for the beards, the front hair of 1 and 2, and patcii on the ^'oat's ikcU, 
the biiui of .'Vs hat and the curved ]»arts of his Ixx^ts: white for the block and 
the joints of the foldincj-stool on ./, and on /*' for the lijies on the loek (whieh 
has also incised markin^^s), and the chiton of .'{ and the crown of his hat. 
The hei<rht of the vas(! is 400 cm., the width at the widest part 2!)-4 cm. 
and at the lim 1S4 em. 

The .scene on side -t is laid in a shoem.iker's shoj),aud the re])resentation 
has a |)aiallel on the wcill-known am])hoia published in Mnn. i/rll' In^f. \\. 2!>, 
and now in lioston.^ A third shoi'makei-\;ise is the Muall i-f. eup in the 
IJritisJi Must'um ( K. Sti).- The Oxfoid vase shows a small male tii^nne 
dressed in a himation standing on a table, one toot on the table itself, the 
othei' raised and placed on a piece of leather which is separated from 
the t«able by a thin white l)lock, no doubt a jtiece of hard wood. He seems 
to steady himself by jiuttint; his hand on tin; head of tin- w<»rkman, a 
be.utled man, who sits on a stool at the table, holdnii; the heather with his 
left hand and cuttini,'- it round the foot with a knife. His himation is rolled 
lound his waist and letrs. Beside the table is a shallow ves.sel to catch 
the leathei' sliaviiiLjs : a similar xessi'l apjtears on both the other shoemaker- 
vases. To the lii^dit of the table a Ixarded man leans on the stick, his l)aek 
turned, and looks on at tlu; work ; that he is the master of the shop we 
may ^Mther from the coirespon(bn_tf fi^MUc on the ]5oston vasi-. whose hand 
is stretched out as if in connuand. His himation is woiu in the s;ime way as 
the cnstomei's, ami he sei-nis to have boots on. A fohbjig-stool stands 

- SilireilitT, .Itlits, ]>. 71. An iiittiistiiij. 

EtIUbr.lll tclMcolla stilllUlll', 1r|iUMlitillf; . 

sli<H'inak< I n \ iii.i; a .slitx- mi a cubloiiier, i> li;.;>ir('^l 
ill /'. /«/. .//( 11-11 ./.a« I'.tOa, IlCtif l)iow(, \>. 63. 
Xo. 10. I'l. VII. No. 2. 

314 .r. D. IJEAZLEY 

bt'tween the master and the table. To right and left oi" him are the 
meaningless branches which are commonly found on late b.-f. vases. On the 
wall is a rack holding two awls, a knife and the cutting implement with semi- 
circular blade (ro/ieu?) which is used by the shoemakers on the Boston and 
London vases. The large wreaths worn b}^ the shoemakers are frequently 
given to workmen.^ 

It will readily be seen by comparing the Oxford and Boston vases that 
both pictures are derived from a ct)nnuon original. The Boston picture 
is the better work : the accessories are more numerous and more carefully 
executed, and the composition is superior. Except the neck, all the objects 
on the wall are wanting in the Oxford vase, and there is only one workman 
at the table instead of twt). The empty space is supplied by the meaningless 
floral filling and the second workman's seat, which without the workman has 
no real justification for being in the picture. IVIoreover, though in both 
representations the figure standing on the table, on the principle of isocephaly, 
is too small for the others, this disparity is less shocking in the Boston vase, 
where the figure is female, than in the Oxford, where it is male. Indeed, the 
Oxford painter seems to have realised this fjxult, for he began to give 
the customer a beard, but stopped after incising the upper line, so as to allow 
the figure to look like a boy's. The Boston amphora perhaps reproduces 
the original composition more closely. 

The picture on side B is by no means so easy to interpret. The central 
figure is a Silen sitting on a rock, and supporting on his knee an oblong 
object apparently furnished with short legs ; his left hand is raised with the 
fingers joined, his mouth open as if speaking; a goat lies half-hidden behind 
the rock. In front of the Silen is a bearded man leaning on a knotted stick 
in an attitude which repeats that of the corresponding figure on side A 
except that the legs are reversed, and looking down towards the Silen's hands ; 
he wears a short white chiton, mantle, petasos, and boots with handles 
to pull them on by ; and his long hair is gathered up behind. His features 
have nothing satyric ; he is a traveller, that is all we can say for the 
present. Behind the rock is a second Silen, dancing gently with his mouth 
open, his hands over his breast. What is the meaning of this unique 
reprcsentati(jn ? 

The object which the Silen holds on his knee is probably an abacus ; and the 
gesture of his right hand closely resembles that of the oil-merchant on another 
b.-f. pelike (Pernice, Jahrh. viii, 1893, p. 180) who sits among his pots 
bargaining with a customer.* The Silen then is bargaining with the 

Now the traveller is not necessarily Hermes, but he may be Hermes. But 
he has no kerykeion, and he has not come to deliver a message. This 
is some personal adventure of the god's. Nor would such unofficial activity 
bi- without precedent in Hermes; for as we know he began early by 

•* Eg. Ociliavd, J. J'. .316, 2 (cook.s). sii,Miilic:uit nt tlic coiu'lusiou of ,i liaigaiii. 

•* Tliis <^cstuic is .still, ainonj^ tlie Neapolitans, 


HMiiovinj^ Apollo's rattle, ami l.itir mi in liJi-, to niti' a single instaiifo. 
we fnid liiiii (Ircsscil in .i Jmii,' clDak anil l«a«lintf a do^ dis^uisi-d jus a pi^. 
on the wi'li-knowii i-.-t" cup in N'icnna.' A nunil)rr ot r<ijk-st«)iir.s must havf 
clustcrtMl K.iiiid tlic tii^nic <•!' tlu' watidi'fin^' Herrut'S, ;inil I ho 
niystorioiis NictniM cup shows that sonic ot these sti»ries havi- lel't little or no 
trace in the litciai-\' lexis. Can we find any hint in the written iradition 
thiit will help us to the iiit(r|»rct;ition of ihi' pifscnl scene ^ 

It is possible that such a hint tna\' he loiind in the ilonieric livnui 
to I'an,*' which tells how I'au aiwl the nymphs dance to<rcther at evenini,' and 
sin^ the story ef the hiith ol the t^oat-t'ootcd LC'd : 

vfivevatv Bt Oeoii's ^(txapa-i kui fxafCfjor 'OXv^nrof 

oloi' 6' '\'lp/J.€i't]i> tpiovnoi' t^(i](ui> iiWo)!' 

ei'verroi', f/»9 tcy airaci Oeois 6oo<i ayyiXu'i taT<, 

/cai I'i' or t"? ' \pKahli)ii TroXvirihaKa, p.i)Tepa fxtjXo)!', 

t^iKer', ti'Oa rt' oi repei'u^i Kv\\i]i>iov eaTir, 

eiO' (iye Kai ^tov mv ylracfxipurpiXd ^»)X' erufieuev, 

dvhpl TTupa 6i'y]rui- XiiOe yap Tro0o<i vypo-i iinXdiDV 

i>v/j,(f)i) ti'7TX()Kcifj.(i) Apvo7T()<; (fxXoTtjTi ptyPjuuc 

tK h' t"Tt\e<r(re" yttfiuv flaXepov, TtVt" B' t'/' fiey(ipoi(Tii> 

'KpfieiTj <f)i\ov vior, u(f>ap Teparwirbi' Ihtadai, k.t.X. 

Now we kiKtw that the worship of I'an onl\' spread beyond Arcadia at 
the boginnini,' of the fifth century,' and the story of Pheidippides in 
Herodotus illustrates its introduction into Athens just after Marathon. 
The new stories he brought with him would be welcomed by the Athenian 
dramatists, and we may well suppose that a salyric })lay was written on the 
Marriage of Hermes, in which the first .scene would show that deity bargaining 
with his future father-in-law about the ])rice he was to receive for his 
service. Dryops, the dweller in rude Arcadia, might well apjiear in th<' form 
of a Silenos, a form which moreover woidd be not unsuitable to the grind- 
father of so wild a creature as Pan, the TeparwTro? iB^aOai, and the favourit<' 
of Diouysos (//. H. J*(in, 46). The interest of the play wi>uld centre round 
the negotiations between the craftv Hermes and the shrewd Silenos-Diyojis : 
the love-interest would be small or wanting and Hermes' bride might nevt>r 
even a])pear; inflood this l^ichcl seems to have had little ])ei-sonality, 
for the Homeric Hymn gives her no name. Hcie then we ha\t' <mr 
explanation : the seated figuri' is Dryops as a Silenos, with a goat lieside 
him to suggest his flocks; tlu' standing Hermes iiaigaining with him: and 
the dancer one of the Irieixls of Dryops, of whom the chorus in the play 
would be composed. The would not be a direct transcript fiom 
the play, but the play would have much to do with putting the legend 
into sha})C and making it fit for artistic presentation. 

The date of VM) given us by the story of IMieidippides woidd not be too 

* Masiier, Fij?. 24: No. 241. " Allen mul Sikes, Homeric Hymnf, IiitroU. 

• H. II. I'an, 'J? 36. to Hymn to Pan. 

310 J. D. BEAZLEY 

late for our pclike. Tho pelikc form belongs essentially to the red-figure 
period ; the not very nnnienms b.-f examples^ are none of them earl}', but 
contemporary with the eaily r.-f style. I'lic HoiiuMie hymn is also assigned 
by authorities to the 5th century.'' 

The second vase (PI. X.XXi ) is an eaily r.-f. krater a colonncilc with a 
single unframe<l figure on each side 'J'he simplicity of the figure-decoration 
demands that the ornamentation should be simph^ also, and accordingly the 
sole ornament is the usual band of b.-f lotus-bud-pattern on the neck (and 
that only on side A), and the usual rays round the base. The height is 
38'7 cm., the width at the rim including the handles ST-i cm., and the 
diameter of the body -SI 7 cm. There is a reserved space between the rays 
and the black grooved foot ; red is used for the wreaths and the string of the 
sponge, and thinned glaze-paint for the musculature and the whi-^kers; the 
contour of the hair is reserved ; there is no relit'f-liue for the contour of the 
feet; the eye on A is closed in front, with the pupil tcnvards the inner edge 
of the eye, and o})cn at both ends on B. 

On side A a naked youth is preparing to throw the diskos, in a position 
not unlike the position of the Diskobolos of Naucydes, though a closer 
parallel is to be found in a figure on the Epictetos-cup in the Berlin 
Museum.^*' The diskos is held up in the left hand on a level with the neck, 
the body leans a little backwards and is half-turned towards the left side, 
the weight being on the left leg, and the right arm is raised w'ith the fingers 
loose. The athlete is feeling his feet. When he has reached the right 
position, he will swing round to the left, transferring the diskos to his right 
hand. On side B is another athlete in quick movement to the left, looking 
back and raising his left hand ; we must probably interpret this figure by 
taking it in connexion with the figure on side A : looking round, the athlete 
sees that his friend is about to throw, and starts out of the path of the 
diskos with a gesture meaning ' Wait a moment I ' In the left hand the 
athlete holds a long doubled thong ; he is a boxer, and it is the himas which 
he will presently wind round his hand. 

The owl which is painted in silhouette on the diskos is one of a number 
of charges often placed on diskoi in vases. Jiithner (Antike Tumgerdihe, 
]). 29) gives a list of these charges with instances. The owl, though not so 
common as the various funns of cross or svastika, is not infreciuent, and to 
Jiithner's examples we may add : two r.-f cup fragments in the Louvre ; a 
r.-f lekythos in the Cabinet des Mr-dailies (4.S7), and another in Bologna; 
and a Nolan amphora in Brussels (A 271). The charge on the diskos in 
B.M. E 58 may well be the .short-bodied Athene nncluo. This silhouette owl 
must be taken to represent not, for obvious reasons, an intaglio, but an 
incised outline owl on the real diskos, in the same technique, that is, as the 
majority of the engraved votive diskoi preserved in the museums, of which a 
list has been given by Mr. E. N. (Jardiner,^^ and of course as the svastikas 

« E.g. B.M. 190-2 ; I.ouvrc, F 376 ; Vatican, ■' Allen and Sikcs, ihid. 

Man. 2, 446 ; Vienna, Laborde, 2, 30-1 ; Cor- '" (Jriliard, A.l'. 272. 

neto, Jahrb. viii. 1893, p. 180. " J. U.S. 1907, p. 6. 

rilHKK Ni:\V VASKS IN TITK .\SII^r^T,l•:A \ MISKTM 317 

.iiid otlni" liiK'iir «trii;uin'iil.s on the ri'prr.sciiUilioiis ol di.skoi on viwcs. 
Tliosc iiifisc'd (Ifsi^n^ niiiy luivc sci-mmI tlu; practic.-il end <il ni;ikin^ tlicdiMkuK 
less sli|»))«'iv !•> llif liJiiid ; ami (In- nwl would of" cunrsc \u- luckv hi the citv 
of Atln'iia. 

An inlticst ini( ticlinical detail is Id lir oltsi rvcd on side 7/. 'I'lic dots 
which hniiidcd \\\r liaii- at tin- back «it' the Inad wrir <»ri^in!dly placed too 
low, and had in he jKuntcd uNcr; a similar cnnrciinn occnrifd in the liylna 
in thestyle of IMiintias ]iiililislird in l-'urtwaii^dtT Kciddiold. ^^•. V. l'l.7l.l>"' 

The pi'csellt scdicinc ntdccnral ion a sin^dc nnlranicd tii^iiic on each 
side — is much less (•<iinninii Im- kralcis n mhuDirflr than the Iranwd 
C'oin{)ositions of sevei-al tiLfnies; anoilhr early example is lieilin -l-O'iT,'- and 
a later ( I lansition to line style) N'lenna :540 : '•' on early r.-f amphoiai" il is not 
iid'nM|iienl and it became the rule in the so-called amphorae of Nola It is 
to the time oflhese earlier amplioiae that our krater heloni^s, hut the style 
it not individual, and it cannot, be assii^Mied to any particular artist. IndL'e«l 
the krater " ro/oniicffc does not seem to have attracted the painter, for the 
lepreseiilations seldttm reach a hi^di level ot'meril, and the usual oinamenla- 
I ion alwa\s reniains that which we associate with tin' b.-t peii..d. The rea^i>n 
lor this ne<;lect is juobably to be found in the rivalry of the nobler \obite- 
k rater ; wlu-u an artist wished to put forth his powers on a krater, he 
naturally turned to the more spleiidul shape. The oiil|iul thcrelore divided 
itself into two disliiicl ciasNcs. the \ nliitc-krater, luoic i-xpensive aii<l nioie 
beaut if'iilly ilei-oiated, and the nrdinai} and cheaper article, the krater with 
columnar handles. 

Tlu; third vase(l'l. X.WII.), a bell-kiater (.f som.wlial late r.-f. style, adds 
another to the representations we already J)os^e'^s olWoik in a pot t<'r's shop. 
The oiiiaiiuni consists of a laurel-wreath round llie rim; iimlerneafh the 
])ictui'es only, bands of slopped iinjoiiied maeander in paii'^ separated by 
salt ire-ci'oss-squares : and iuiukI the bases of I he handles e^i^-pat ti'rii. The 
heiiflit is .*{.')•;") em., and the width at tlu' iim ."{Tl-cm. The reverse /.' Invs 
three careless mant le-ti<.^ures. 

The spaci' on side ,/ is dixitled by a pillar. To the left of the pillar is 
the painter's room. A \ouii!^f inan dressed m an e\omi> ami --eal.d on a stool 
is paiiiliiiL,' the backs^ioiind ol a l.ii|;e bell-kratcr of the s.inie shape as oiir 
vase. His left arm is insiile the kiatir, the rim leslini; on his tlii^li, and he 
is aj>])l\ iiif,' a lar<,'e luush to the loW( r part. .\t lii> side is a low stand, 
sujipoil iiiL,^ the skyphos-shaped \ase which coniaiiis the lilack paint. In 
front of the painter a fellow -woikman mo\is to the riL,dil carryin^f a second 
krater b\- both hamlhs. lie li.i-- lifted il fiom the j^'ioiind besidr the painter 
and is carrying it out to put it down beside a third krati-r which stands on 
the ground at the e\lienie li^dit ol the pii-tuie. I'resently the batch will go 
to the furnace. 15eyond tin- pillar is another uoikman who mo\es to the 

"' Il may alsn lio jiutiiiil «>n <'iir «( [\u- lw«< 
iiiipul'lisli'il cints ill C'lniulo iiniili<'in<l liy 
Unitwig, Mrialcmrh. [>. 348. 

'-■ .Inini/i, 1S77, W. 
'• M.-wnur, Taf. «. 


ri^rht in the same attitude as the last. In his raised right- hand he holds a 
skyphos by the foot. Perha})s he is taking it to join a batch of vases of the 
same shape, but more probably he has been sent by the busy painter to fetch 
more paint. The sky{)h()s is the usual vessel for holding paint; it appears 
as a paint pot on the Caputi-hydria (Ann. d. I. I87(), 1)). A pleasant rhythm 
is thus imparted to the scene ; the first figure is occupied with both vase and 
paint ; the second with vase ; and the third with paint. 

In the field of the picture are a number of objects which must be 
conceived as hanging round the walls of the factory. They ai'e not show 
specimens to impress visitors, but utensils employed by the workmen 
themselves. They are roughly drawn, and the identification is in some cases 
uncertain. The first object has a less special function than the others ; it is 
probably a kylix for the workmen to drink from when thirsty. The second 
is a bowl to pound the .solid ingredients of the paint in : ^^ the next is 
])robably a brush-case : ^^ the fourth a dish for holding the cc^lour after the 
addition of licpiid and before it is passed through the strainer — for this is 
what the last object appears to be — into the skyphos ready for use. 

The hasty execution of this vase does not call for much comment ; but 
the picture is not without life, and the ])ainter has contrived to give it an air 
of animation and business which places vividly before our e3'es the conditions 
of the potter's art in the fifth century B.C. 

J. D. Beazlev. 


Of the early r.-f kraters the following are those which most resemble 
the Oxford vase in style. 

1. Rome, Villa di Papa Giulio 984. A. Nemran lion: B. athlete.s. 

2. Ibid. A. athletes : B. komos. 

•i. Once Catania, coll. Ricupero (Benndorf, Gi-. it. Sii: V((S(')iJ)., 41. 2. 
A. symposion : B. athletes (?). 

4. Florence 3980. A. athletes : B. Silen. 

5. Ibid. 3981. A. Heracles with tripod: B. athlete with akcmtion. 

0. Rome, Museo Kircheriano {Man. Line. 14. p. 299). Small fragment: 

These kraters all belong to the same period and exhibit the same 
artistic tendency, a tendency which finds higher expression in the cups and 
amphorae of the time The cup with athletes in the Cabinet des Medailles 
(Hartwig, McistcrscJi. Taf. Ki) is closely akin. 

'* DaieniluTg-Saj^lid, N.v. ' rictiira.' '^ Ibid. 

AKCIIAi:< >L()(;V 1\ (iliKl'X'K (I!i07 i!M)S). 

If (he taimius sites oil ilic iMaiiiiaml uf ( licccc lia\i' hfcii lar^tlv 
(•xhaiist«'(l— and tlu' only ^n-al classical cities now Ixin;^' L'xcavate<l 
ail- Sparta ami Corinth — the outlying parts ot" the Ciroek worM 
contijuic to yield a harvest of discoveries, increiv-singly interesting as they 
aie added to a constantly increasing body of archaeological knowledge. 
Thus C'ri'te, J)elos, Rhodes, and the great cities of Asia such as Miletus and 
I'ergauion continue to give up fresh treasures, and the neolithic ami l>ron/.e 
age remains of north (ireece an<l the island of Lcukas are adding a new 
chapter to thi- book of (Jicek ])i"ehistoric archaeology. 

The (»ne great mainland site nob yet fully excavateil is the most 
interesting of all, but owing to material difliculties Athens for the present 
reserves her secrets. The excavation of the Agora, the great task before the 
Greek Archaeological Society, has now indeed been begun by the clearing of 
an area east of the Theseum, and ancient walls have been found, l)Ut they 
cannot be identified with any known buildings, nor do the inscriptions 
discovered give any topographical indications. This is, however, only a 
beginning, and the area ultimately to be excavated is very much larger. It 
extends on the north to the railway-bridge, on the cast at least to the Stoa 
of the Giants, and on the south to the Areopagus. The land is now all 
built over, and the expenses of expropriation, jus the law n<jw stands, are 
]>rohibitive. Some such sj)ecial decree, as that by which the modern village 
i)n the site of Delphi was removed, will be nece.ssiiry, and when it has been 
obtained the most important residts may be looked for. 

Interesting work has been <lone in ])iecing together the pre-Pei-siaii 
.sculpture in the Acropolis Mustuni. This has been underUiken by 
Dr. Schrader and Dr. Hi'berdey, and their hjng study of the fragments has 
led to some very fine reconstructions. Dr. Schrader hivs worked upon the 
marbles, with the result that one entirely new JCore figure has been put 
together, and three others much improved by the addition . f their feet. 
Legs have also been fitted to the statues of horses. Dr. Heberdey has 
devoted himself to the coloured poros sculpture, and has reconstructed with 
great skill a group of a bull attacked by a lioness. 

A terracotta figure has recently been found in a tomb at Zjirax ne^ii" 

Monemvjisia which h;us directed attention to the problem of the restoration 

of the mi.ssing arms of the Venus of Milo. The terracotta is eighteen 

inches high, and represents Aphnniite in a similar attitufle semi-nude. Her 

H.s. — VOL. xxviii. Y 

320 R. M. DAWKINS 

right hand holds the drapery at her waist, and her left a mirror. Dr. Stais 
has published the figure, with the conclusion that, though similar in motive, 
the resemblance is not sufficient to make it a safe guide for a restoration of 
the statue.^ 

The UK^st remarkable di.scovery of the Greek Archaeological Society in 
the year 1907 was made on the site of Pagasae by Dr. Arvanitopoullos, 
Ephor of Antiquities for Thessaly. He excavated a small tower of the fifth 
century, round which a large tower had been hastily built in the Roman 
period, in order to add to its strength. The material for packing the 
foundations of this later work, and for filling the space between it and the 
older building, was taken from a necropolis, and consisted of hundreds of 
grave stelai. These were decorated not with reliefs but with paintings. 
Their shape has nothing unusual. They terminate above in a gable, below 
which are often two rosettes, and below these the inscription, all painted on 
the flat stone. Below this again is the funereal picture. The subjects 
are those usual on Greek grave stelai, and Dr. Arvanitopoullos considei-s 
that many of the motives are derived from the famous works of Greek 
painters mentioned by Pliny. The stelai themselves are plainly the excellent 
works of quite ordinary craftsmen. 

In all 1005 pieces have been found, some thirty stelai being complete. 
On twenty the colours are very well preserved. The outlines of the figures 
are firmly drawn in black, and a full range of colours is used. The tints are 
not flat but shaded. From the lettering of the inscriptions they may be 
dated to the period between the fourth and the second century B.C., and one 
of them was set up to a soldier killed at the capture of Phthiotic Thebes by 
Philip Y in 217. As specimens of Greek painting their value cannot be 
overstated, and their study will largely increase our knowledge of its 
processes, and of the skill of Greek artists in chiaroscuro and perspective. 
All care has been taken to preserve the paintings, and the seven best were 
at once copied by M. Gillidron, and will shortly be published by the Society. 
The stelai themselves remain in the museum at Volo. Adjacent towers are 
shortly to be excavated, so it is possible that more of these interesting works 
may soon be brought to light.^ 

Dr. Stais' discovery of colossal archaic statues at Sunium was noticed 
in this report a year ago.^ The excavation has now been continued south- 
east of the temple, and more fragments have been found, including the shins 
of the Apollo now in the National Museum. Many important pre-Persian 
votives are also reported, including scarabs and other small objects of 
Egyptian art. Remains of houses on each side of the road from the harbour 
to the temple have been uncovered. 

The Society has worked also at Tegea, in Arcadia, at Mycenae, where 
Dr. Tsountas has cleared and strengthened the Tomb of Clytaemnestra, at 
the Amphiareion at Oropos, continuing the excavation of the buildings that 

■E(/>. 'Apx- 1908, 1.. 135, Pis. VI., VII. 2 Published in ■£<?>. 'Apx- 1908, !>. 1, Pis. I.-IV. 

3 J.H.S. xxvii. p. 284. 

AK(IIAi:()L()(;V IN (JUHKCK 3J1 

))i(>l)ii])ly were used by tin- pil^Miiiis t<» the shrine, and in Kiibuia, where 
Mr. I'apiuasikiou n-ixtrts a toiuh of Mycmran constnietion and furniture 
with creinatt'd nniains. \lv also continuiMl rxwivating prehistoric 
tombs at C'hah'is. 

As a tribute to the nniiiory of Furtwaenghr, whose dtath in ()ct<»b«-r 
1!M)7 broke off thf excavation <»t' the site of the Throne of the Ainyclaeun 
ApoUo, the Socii'ty has p.iid the expenses of the romph'tion of the work. 
This hjus involved the removal of the ehun-h of Ha^diia Kvriaki, which 
occupied the toj) of the hilloc k. The residt will a|)pear in a publication in 
memory of Furtwaengler. 

Dr. Kavvadhias has a^'ain devoted iiimsi-lf ehietly to Kpidauros, where 
the study of the fra^nnents of the Tholos of Polykleitos has led to important 
results. 1 quote Dr. Kavvadhias' words: ' The scientific results of this work 
are such that we may .siiy without exag^'eration, that we now for the first 
time know this famous building as it really was. The biusement, the 
constituents of the wall and the Hoor, the base of the Corinthian columns, 
and the beautiful and richly adorned marble door have now been recovered 
with certainty.' 

In the same careful way the work on the Erechtheion hsus been con- 
tinued, and it has been found possible to replace the greater })art of the 
.South wall. In these operations the exhaustive study of the Erechtheion, 
stone by stone, by the American architect Mr. Stevens has been of great 
service. His drawings are to be published, but this has been delayed by the 
<leath of Dr. Heermance the director 'of the American School, who was to 
have supplied the text.^ 

The campaign of the British School at Sparta wivs almost entirely devoted 
to the excavation of the Sanctuary of Artemis Orthia, and a fourth season 
will be needed to finish the site. In 1!)07 the sixth century temple was 
cleared, and the arena of the Roman amphitheatre in front of it. In this 
arena a large altar was found which was covered up when the temple was 
built, and is probably as old as the ninth century. The task this year w<as 
to explore further the deposit of votive offerings that gathered rounil this 
old altar, and if possible to find the early temple contemporary with it. 
This plan made it necessary to remove a good deal of the foundations of the 
Roman am})hitheatre, and as in previous years many inscriptions were found 
used as building material. 

Underneath this Roman masonry to the east of the altar the remains of 
houses of the fifth and fourth centuries were found. These were outside the limit 
of the original tcmcnos. The removal of the masonry on the other side of the 
site immediately to the south of the temple was even more profitable. Here we 
first found a rich deposit of objects dating from immediately after the 
construction of the temjtie, and so to the last half of the sixth and first half 
of the fifth century. They were distinctly later in character than the 

♦ Tilt' work i>f tlif Greek Socu-ty is brirlly \oyii€fit 'Zreuptiat rov frovt 1R07, for h proof 
iTjMirtcd ill HfiaKTiKa rrjs iv ' KOr\vat% 'Apx"'"- "f wlii'li I ftiii iiidtbted to Dr. Kavva<lliia.«. 

Y 2 

322 U. M. DAWKINS 

votives associated with the archaic altar, and the deposit was very rich in 
the curious terracotta masks, of which a number were found in the first 
season. These may now be confidently assigned to this period. Eailier than 
this they are rare. Below this stratum, and underneath the layt-r of 
building-chips which marked the period of the construction of the sixth 
century temple were the remains of a building, which is no doubt the very 
early temple associated with the archaic altar. Only i)art of the west and 
south walls remains, as the rest of it was destroyed by the foundation of the 
later building. It stands at one edge of a large area roughly paved with 
cobble-stones, near the opposite edge of which is the altar. 

Of the walls of this temple only the foundation course is preserved, 
consisting of small unworked stones and vertical slabs. The mass of burned 
earth, which overlay these foundations, shews that the upper part of the 
wall was made of mud-brick. Down the centre of the temple is a row oi' 
fiat stones, and these correspond in position with fiat stones built into the 
side and end walls. It seems jjrobable that all these supported baulks of 
timber, of which those in the wall must have formed a framework, holding 
the building together, whilst those in the interior were columns supporting 
the roof, which was most likely a gable. This wood and mud tem])le must 
be contemporary with the archaic altar, and with it go back to the eighth or 
ninth century B.C. It is noticeable that at this early period the altar is on a 
larger scale than the temple, which only served as a house in which to keep 
the cult-statue. There are, in fact, traces at the west end of the temple of a 
small cella for this purpose. 

For the history of Greek architecture thi'.se remains are of great 
interest, and to judge from the simplicity of the plan we have here a 
building even more primitive than the wooden Heraion at Olympia or the 
old temple at Thermos.'" It is noteworthy that Doerpfeld had already 
deduced that the prototype of the Doiic style was a brick and timber 

The votive otferings found in this archaic sti'atum were again very 
numerous and important. The carved ivories in especial are even better than 
before. Two pieces are in a style not hitherto found of very deep and even 
undercut relief, recalling the treatment of metopes. Of these one re})resents 
a centaur stabbed by a Lapith, and the other Prometheus torn by the eagle. 
A certain development in style is now traceable, and it seems possible to 
distinguish between the Ionian style of some of the earlier examples, which 
[Mjiiits t'specially to influence from E})hesus, and the native style whicii grew 
up at Sparta itself. 

The pottery in these deposits ranges from (jeometric to fifth and fourth 
century. It was nol.iced last year that the Orientalising pottery at Sparta 
was of a j)cculiar kind akin to Cyrenaic, and a full series has now been 
obtained of this fabric. It follows the Geometric, develops through a pre- 

* Excavati'd lor tli-- <;ivik Arcli;ici.lun;io:iI Society liy Di-. S<itiri;iilliis, .iml imlilislntl in tin- 
'E(p-q^(ph '\oytKrt. 

Ai;(ll AlloI.dC V IN CKKKCK :i.>3 

('Nrcnaii- jilmst' itit<> tni"' ( vkii.ik, ainl finally rnds iu*^ a Mianitrst dcj^fiH'i- 
atioii lit till' stvli- ill tin- tiltli (•(•iitiHV. Orn' very fim- kylix lias ln>en 
rccoven (I piactica'lN :<iiii|tli'ir. So littlf oili.r puticry has h.-.n foiuiil that 
this ( 'Mt'iiair scries is uiuioiihtrdly local, ami wc an* led tn the iiiijMirtant 
eoiieliisioii ihat the aiithuiif ies who re^iirded ( 'yreiiaie ware jis Kaeotiiuri 
wiic iit(ht, alih()iiL,di their view, now so lully sii|i|>orted, has not Ween 
^n'Miialh ju'cepted. Next yeai' it is |iro|)ose(l to remove more ol" the Koiiiiin 
foiiiidatioiis, and explore thoroughly what remains of the earlier strata. It 
i> possible that the shrine of Kihitlnia, which was not far from that of 
()ithia, may he discovered.'' 

Another British excavation was cirried out in September. I ''07, and 
March, litO.S. I>v Professor Burrows and .Mr. Uro at llhits»'»na in Boeotiu, the 
prohahle site of Mycalessos. A row of toiiiiis was dug, mainly of the latter 
iiait of the sixth century. There were some very fine indivi<lual finds, hut 
the chief interest of the excav.itioii is that it gives .some idea of the 
<omparative date of early Boeotian pottery. The cemeteries of Boeotia have 
\ielded enormous jpiantities of objects, hut the excavations have nearly 
alwavs been illicit. This gives great valm- to even a small excavation with a 
]iid|)cr record of what objects were found together in the .saiiM' tomi>. 
Professor Burrows has now pitivcd that J5oeotian (Seometric vases are not 
coiiHned to the eighth and sexcnth centuries, but c(»ntinucd in use until the 
end of the sixth, as nearly every grave with this fabric coiitaitcfl also objects 
that can scarcely be earlier than .')()() !!.( ." 

A row of later tombs parallel to these was opened in March of this 
\-ear. ( )lltside the tombs, which were built of stone slabs, Wej-e ma.s.s»'S of 
black glaze ]»ottcry afid figurines of the Tanagra styh-. and inside a few plain 
vases, a strigil, bea<ls, or a single statuette. These objects resemble those in 
the National Museum at Athens from the graves of those who fell at 

Mr. Wace and Mr. Droop have again excavated in Thes.saly in the name 
of the British School, with the aid of a grant from the ('ambri«lge 
Univcrsitv Worts' Fund. The site chosen wjvs Zen'-lia near Almyro in 
I'hthioti- .Ml re<-eiit topographers have considered this to be the site of 
Itoiios. 'Hus has now been proved impossible by the scantiness of the 
(ireek remains, and the fact that none of them are earlier than the latter 
part of the fourth century. This, however, hardly touched thi' real interest of 
the site, for below these remains the .-xcavatfirs found a rich neolithic 
<leposit from six to eight metres thick. This has been exjilored, and consists 
•of the d.'bris of eight siiperposi'd settlements, the strata being clearly 
marked ofi" bv the layers of burnt mud brick of which the huts of the 
successive villages wi're built. The pottery is nearly all hand-made. In the 
earliest .settlements it either has ,i j.olished red surface or is paint, d with 

" Tlic iH'HultH of th«'M<- «x<:ivati<>iis me |.uli- ' TIich*- notps an- nininly from tin- n-jxirt of 

lislHcl .v.iy year in tlir Annual of the Dnlixh a \Ki\wr ira<l l>y PioIi-hsci HiiriowM< tlie 
S'hool at Aihcns. H.ll.-iiic S.H-i.-ty in NovinilM-r 1907. 

.S24 1^ ^I- 1>AWKINS 

decorative patterns in red on a wliite ground. In the later strata the ])ottery 
is either a fine black or a coarse red polished ware. Sunk into the top ot the 
eighth and last neolithic settlement were several cist-graves of the early 
bronze age. This last village, although neolithic, dates ])robably from about the 
twelfth century n.c, as several fiagments of late ]\Iycen(>an potteiy were 
found amongst its remains. The first settlemenL therefore must belong to a 
verv remote peri(td, and the excavators, to whom 1 am indebted for these 
n(»tes, suggest the first half of the third millennium !?.<'. The paint<'d ware 
from the earliei- strata closely re.send)les that found at ('haeroiica by 
Dr. Sotiriadhis. It is also contemporuy with th(> )>aint,ed pottery found by 
i'rofessoi- Tsouinas at Sesklo and Dhimini in 'I'hi^ssaly, some fragments of 
which were tnund with it, whilst this Zerelia pottery was also foun<l at Sesklo 
ami Dhimini. .Mr. W'ace and I\Ir. J)roi»p have also fntind this red-on-whitc 
waif of the ( 'liaeronea-Zerelia ty[)e on ])rehistoric sites iu>ar Lamia and 
IMiaisala, so thati it seems tt> have bi'<'U used (t\-er a lai-go area. The evidence 
of this cNcaxation points to the liron/.e Age in northern (Jrecvce having 
begun ver\ much later than in the southern Aegean region.^ 

The excavation at Chaeionea b}- Di". Sotiriadhis just nu'ntioiied as 
ha\iug yielded red-on-whitc pottery like that fiom Zerelia is of gi-eat. 
im|i(irtance in this connexion. The site is a neolithic tumulus neai- the 
( 'haeroMea railwa\ slat ion, and last summer great progress was ma<le in its 
(■xca\at ioM.'' I'he tinest. of the pottery is the red-on-whitc ware mentioni'd 
abo\c as lia\ iiig l)een tound at Zereli i. There is also a fabric with dark 
matt paint ieseud)liug l"'urt waengler's 'hand-made early .Mycenean ' from 
.Vegina, and a blaci- ware with linear ornameut in white, in which Dr. Soti- 
liadliis sci's a predeccssoi- of lhe('relan Kamares potter}'. He also traces a 
de\(lo|tmeiit irom llie other wares to the .Mycenean, and is led by this to 
suL^eest as a dale the end of the third millennium !'..<'. 

Till! liiere ma\ be some .\egean influence in these fabrics is not 
unlikeK but the fact that the neolithic age lasted so long in this region (at, 
Zerelia until the late .Mycenean period ), seems tome to be strongly against 
I lie \ie\\ that they played any part, in the development of Aegean and 
M \ ciiie;iii polterv. Their origin and relat ions are more likely to besought 
'or turther north in the I5alkan IV'ninsula. 

I"'resh discovi I'ies continue t,o be made in Caelc. In the eailier years ot 
I lie wnik the tiuds Were generally liate '>r Middle Minoan, and the I'^arly 
Minoan ])erio(l, chietly because it was not well repi'csentcd at Knosos and 
I'haistos, remained comparatively obscure. In later years our knowledge <if 
it has been Miu( h increased by the Italian and (Ireek discovcrit's in the 
Mes>-ai;i, and still moic by the work of the American excavatcis in the 
neighbouihood ( f ( !oin'niii. This year Mr. Seager's work on the island «)f 

" 'I'll.' .•x.avali.Mi will li. puMisli.-.l in iIh' I'.tOs, \>. »;.',. S,r a|s., .//A Mill/i. litO.'-, 19ot;. 

AiiiiiKil ,</ Ihf Jlrilish Siliniil III Atltciis. I'oi the [.icscut iiilnniiat inn I am iiidtlitiil t'> 

" Till' iM-.ivatinn lias lucn |iiil]lislii-il in |1||, t Im kiniinrss ul Dr. Sol iriailliis. 
ialist MUMilur 111 llir 'K<j>7),uf(jis 'AfJXO"''^"7"<''/j 

AI{("llAi:oL(:(;V IN (JKKKCK 3J0 

Mokltis lias ^'ivtii an tMtii<ly m-w idra of its cajjal